A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Research
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

A quasar, too heavy to be true



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 10th 17, 10:29 PM posted to sci.astro.research
jacobnavia
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 100
Default A quasar, too heavy to be true

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25180

[[Mod. note -- Open-access preprint at
https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.01860
-- jt]]

Here we report observations of the quasar ULAS J134208.10+092838.61
(hereafter J1342+0928) at a redshift of z=7.54. This quasar has a
bolometric luminosity of 4e13 Lsun and a black hole mass of 8e8 Msun.

Wow!

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...1206131946.htm
"This is the only object we have observed from this era," says Robert
Simcoe, the Francis L. Friedman Professor of Physics in MIT's Kavli
Institute for Astrophysics and Space Research. "It has an extremely high
mass, and yet the universe is so young that this thing shouldn't exist.
The universe was just not old enough to make a black hole that big. It's
very puzzling."

Exactly. It is at 690 My after the supposed "bang".

Of course there is an explanation. The authors of the nature paper say
that the big bang created black holes and the problem is solved: The big
pre-existing black holes of the universe (with 10E4 solar masses) would
have seeded this thing of course.

How can gravity influence things in the searing hot universe coming from
a big bang???

Before a certain point, not even light can travel isn't it?

Before the decoupling?

How can gravity influence anything at those temperatures?

Mystery. Well anyway, the universe can do anything so let's suppose that.

Why not see otherwise that there wasn't any bang at all and that we are
seeing a very old quasar?

The spectra correspond to a quasar. The simplest explanation is that
this IS a quasar, a very old one.

This implies that the universe must be at least 20-30 Gy old.

What can be salvaged?

Apparently, the red shift exists and it is an indicator of distance
calibrated by other methods using Hubble by NASA. As far as I remember,
in their "Origins" program.

Many theories could explain that red shift, I just do not know which one
will be accepted.

And the CMB?

Obviously it is there, but what it is, nobody knows. Yes, you can find
harmonics, since foreground objects could generate those signatures. Or
other explanations, depending on what you think you are seeing.

From the outside I just see that the more we look, the more galaxies we
find. 72 new ones were discovered in the HUDF just looking with a better
instrument. And it goes on and on, and nobody knows if there is any limit.

BB theory was adopted because it fitted observations. The cosmic
background was thought as the relic radiation Gamow proposed. The
explaining power of that theory was reinforced by a huge theoretical
work figuring out how that bang would have happened. A book that
impressed me more than 3 minutes told us the story...

Since there wasn't any telescopes able to see as far as the modern ones,
this agreement with observations lasted time enough to establish the
theory as the only explanation.

Today, we are seeing that the bang couldn't have happened at that date.
We see old objects everywhere, that make the fatidic birth date of the
universe appear as an error interpretation.

Well, we will figure out a new explanation. But maybe it would be better
if we recognize that we can only speak scientifically for observations.
Astronomy is concerned with observations. Cosmology with the Universe as
a whole, something that astronomy can't answer, it can only answer about
the observed universe, a surely small portion of the Unknown.
Ads
  #2  
Old December 11th 17, 08:12 AM posted to sci.astro.research
Eric Flesch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 297
Default A quasar, too heavy to be true

On Sun, 10 Dec 2017, jacobnavia wrote:
The authors of the nature paper say
that the big bang created black holes and the problem is solved


I am reminded of the creationists' thesis that fossils were part of
the 6 days of creation. Not a pleasant similarity.

[[Mod. note --
1. The authors of the nature paper do NOT say that the big bang
created black holes. Rather, they discuss "seed" black holes formed
soon after the big bang (e.g., by the collapse of the first generation
of super-massive stars).

2. The key difference between creationism and the present discussion
is that creationists have no solid data & no scientific theory with
which to study their claims or make unambiguous predictions.

In contrast, there are
* a lot of observations of high-redshift objects;
* a scientific theory (the hot big bang model) which provides a framework
for studying and reasoning about high-redshift objects, and which makes
various unambiguous predictions (e.g., the CMB) which have proven to
be correct; and
* a prediction based on the hot big bang model + well-understood
stellar-evolution theory that the first generation of stars in the
universe were relatively massive and thus would have relatively short
lifetimes before producing supernovae and black holes

It may well be that there are difficulties constructing a quantitative
theory for the formation of "black holes seeds of at least 1000 M_sun ...
by z=40" (as the authors of the Nature paper put it). But these are
*scientific* difficulties, and can be addressed by the normal methods
of science (e.g., we can see if alternative scientific explanations
work better). This is profoundly different from creationism.
-- jt]]
  #3  
Old December 12th 17, 10:00 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 241
Default A quasar, too heavy to be true

In article , jacobnavia
writes:

"This is the only object we have observed from this era," says Robert
Simcoe, the Francis L. Friedman Professor of Physics in MIT's Kavli
Institute for Astrophysics and Space Research. "It has an extremely high
mass, and yet the universe is so young that this thing shouldn't exist.
The universe was just not old enough to make a black hole that big. It's
very puzzling."


I just returned from the Texas Symposium on relativistic astrophysics.
For a while now, there has been renewed interest in primordial black
holes. These could a) be dark matter (see Carr et al arXiv:1607.06077
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016PhRvD..94h3504C
) and b) perhaps seed larger black holes.

Exactly. It is at 690 My after the supposed "bang".


You need to come up with more evidence than "supposed" and scare quotes
to make your case.

How can gravity influence things in the searing hot universe coming from
a big bang???


Do the maths.

How can gravity influence anything at those temperatures?


Stuff is much more dense back then.

Why not see otherwise that there wasn't any bang at all and that we are
seeing a very old quasar?


Because of a huge amount of evidence that points to the more standard
scenario.

The spectra correspond to a quasar. The simplest explanation is that
this IS a quasar, a very old one.

This implies that the universe must be at least 20-30 Gy old.


Calculation, please.

Many theories could explain that red shift, I just do not know which one
will be accepted.


There is no other viable explanation than the cosmological redshift.

Obviously it is there, but what it is, nobody knows. Yes, you can find
harmonics, since foreground objects could generate those signatures. Or
other explanations, depending on what you think you are seeing.


Give me ONE other theory which PREDICTS the CMB power spectrum.

From the outside I just see that the more we look, the more galaxies we
find. 72 new ones were discovered in the HUDF just looking with a better
instrument. And it goes on and on, and nobody knows if there is any limit.


Even in the big-bang scenario, the universe can be infinite.
  #4  
Old December 12th 17, 10:01 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Martin Brown[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 160
Default A quasar, too heavy to be true

On 10/12/2017 21:29, jacobnavia wrote:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25180

[[Mod. note -- Open-access preprint at
https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.01860
-- jt]]

Here we report observations of the quasar ULAS J134208.10+092838.61
(hereafter J1342+0928) at a redshift of z=7.54. This quasar has a
bolometric luminosity of 4e13 Lsun and a black hole mass of 8e8 Msun.

Wow!

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...1206131946.htm
"This is the only object we have observed from this era," says Robert
Simcoe, the Francis L. Friedman Professor of Physics in MIT's Kavli
Institute for Astrophysics and Space Research. "It has an extremely high
mass, and yet the universe is so young that this thing shouldn't exist.
The universe was just not old enough to make a black hole that big. It's
very puzzling."

Exactly. It is at 690 My after the supposed "bang".

Of course there is an explanation. The authors of the nature paper say
that the big bang created black holes and the problem is solved: The big
pre-existing black holes of the universe (with 10E4 solar masses) would
have seeded this thing of course.


You wouldn't need very many such seeds to meet the observational
constraints. Only one other quasar is known at that sort of redshift.
There may be others but we will only be able to see the very brightest
ones or those that by sheer luck are gravitationally lensed.

How can gravity influence things in the searing hot universe coming from
a big bang???


Gravity influences things right from the very start. It doesn't really
have much of a bite until things cool to below 4000K and Z~1000 in the
recombination era and there is a decent proportion of transparent
neutral hydrogen gas with photons able to travel freely some distance.

There is a very large gap between Z=7.5 (this quasar) and Z=1000.

Before a certain point, not even light can travel isn't it?


The universe is opaque until the universe cools to allow neutral
hydrogen when it becomes transparent. Later during the star formation
era it is partially re-ionised by the UV from the first stars. It looks
like this quasar is far enough away that its light has to pass through
some of this newly reionised material which makes it an interesting
probe into the early universe. Absorption spectra will show one heck of
a Lyman forest and other interesting features.

Before the decoupling?

How can gravity influence anything at those temperatures?


It is always an attractive force.

Mystery. Well anyway, the universe can do anything so let's suppose that.

Why not see otherwise that there wasn't any bang at all and that we are
seeing a very old quasar?


Quasars and radio galaxies are intrinsically quite young. The huge
numbers of them at moderate redshifts and shortage of them nearby was
one of the things that killed the Steady State theories stone dead.

The spectra correspond to a quasar. The simplest explanation is that
this IS a quasar, a very old one.


It was very young when the light left it. Very young indeed. It is
possible that it is Kerr metric feeding at its optimum rate and we are
looking at it from the most favourable possible angle to see it at all.
This implies that the universe must be at least 20-30 Gy old.


It implies nothing of the sort.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown
  #5  
Old December 15th 17, 05:33 AM posted to sci.astro.research
Steve Willner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,142
Default A quasar, too heavy to be true

In article ,
jacobnavia writes:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25180
[[Mod. note -- Open-access preprint at
https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.01860


The Nature article is still preliminary and has some typos in it.
The preprint doesn't have those, and the figures are better.

Here we report observations of the quasar ULAS J134208.10+092838.61
(hereafter J1342+0928) at a redshift of z=7.54. This quasar has a
bolometric luminosity of 4e13 Lsun and a black hole mass of 8e8 Msun.


It is at 690 My after the supposed "bang".


The big pre-existing black holes of the universe (with 10E4 solar
masses) would have seeded this thing of course.


Fig 2 of the paper shows that seeds need to be 1000 Msun at z=40 or
1E4 Msun (not 10E4) at z=22 or so if the subsequent accretion is at
Eddington rate. Temperature at z=40 is about 112 K (hardly "searing
hot"). I invite you to calculate the Jeans mass at these redshifts.

I don't think anyone knows how the initial seed black holes formed or
what their mass distribution was, but why should it be impossible to
form the seeds as suggested above? At least on current knowledge,
there don't have to be very many of them.

There's also the alternative of super-Eddington accretion. While
there's some evidence for that at lower redshifts, it seems less
likely than high-mass seeds.

--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
  #6  
Old December 15th 17, 05:38 AM posted to sci.astro.research
Steve Willner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,142
Default A quasar, too heavy to be true

In article ,
Martin Brown writes:
The universe is opaque until the universe cools to allow neutral
hydrogen when it becomes transparent.


I'm afraid that's backwards. The universe starts out with opacity
dominated by scattering. After recombination (a slight misnomer --
that epoch is the first appearance of atoms), the universe was opaque
to ultraviolet light. Only after reionization did the universe
become transparent to UV. That corresponds to redshifts of something
like 6 to 9 or so, but the details are not yet known. Reionization
was almost certainly patchy so occurred at different times in
different locations.

--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA

[[Mod. note -- Maybe there's a confusion here about wavelengths.
Is this chart correct?

visible/IR hard UV
before recombination opaque opaque
(roughly z 1100)

between recombination & reionization transparent opaque
(roughly 8 z 1100)

after reionization transparent transparent
(roughly z 8)

Here "hard UV" means UV with a photon energy high enough that H atoms
can be photoionized.
-- jt]]
  #7  
Old December 17th 17, 12:27 PM posted to sci.astro.research
jacob navia
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 332
Default A quasar, too heavy to be true

Le 15/12/2017 √* 05:33, Steve Willner a √©crit¬*:
Fig 2 of the paper shows that seeds need to be 1000 Msun at z=40 or
1E4 Msun (not 10E4) at z=22 or so if the subsequent accretion is at
Eddington rate. Temperature at z=40 is about 112 K (hardly "searing
hot").


1) At z = 1000 we have a temperature of 2,728 degrees... Completely new
and unknown processes must have been at work to form structures like a
black hole at those temperatures. And nothing less than a black hole of
1E4 solar masses. It seems (to me) impossible that gravity can condense
something at those temperatures.

2) At z = 40 we have a temperature of 112 K. Star formation happens in
clouds with temperatures between 10 to 20 K. Yes, 112 K is not "searing
hot", but hot enough to make star formation impossible.

3) If we assume that star formation could happen at 50 K, i.e. at z =
17, approx 228 My after the bang, that leaves 690 - 228 --462 My to
form a black hole that has an 800 Msun mass...

I am not saying that BB theory is impossible. I am just saying that
explaining observations within that framework becomes more and more
difficult, requiring more and more "ad hoc" hypothesis (now we have
primordial black holes) and requiring explanations that look less and
less probable. And observations that contradict the bang start coming
almost daily now. ALMA has seen a galactic collision at 780 My and the
two galaxies are very dusty and huge... I will post another article
about that.

  #8  
Old December 17th 17, 09:18 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 241
Default A quasar, too heavy to be true

In article , jacob navia
writes:

1) At z = 1000 we have a temperature of 2,728 degrees... Completely new
and unknown processes must have been at work to form structures like a
black hole at those temperatures.


Perhaps different than for stellar-mass black holes, but not necessarily
completely new and unknown.

And nothing less than a black hole of
1E4 solar masses. It seems (to me) impossible that gravity can condense
something at those temperatures.


Then read up on your physics.

2) At z = 40 we have a temperature of 112 K. Star formation happens in
clouds with temperatures between 10 to 20 K. Yes, 112 K is not "searing
hot", but hot enough to make star formation impossible.


Not all black holes must form from stars.

3) If we assume that star formation could happen at 50 K, i.e. at z =
17, approx 228 My after the bang, that leaves 690 - 228 --462 My to
form a black hole that has an 800 Msun mass...


Not all black holes must form from stars.

I am not saying that BB theory is impossible. I am just saying that
explaining observations within that framework becomes more and more
difficult, requiring more and more "ad hoc" hypothesis (now we have
primordial black holes)


Primordial black holes are neither an ad-hoc hypothesis nor were they
thought of first to explain this observation. Do a literature search
for "primordial black holes".

and requiring explanations that look less and
less probable.


By which measure?

And observations that contradict the bang start coming
almost daily now. ALMA has seen a galactic collision at 780 My and the
two galaxies are very dusty and huge... I will post another article
about that.


You have been claiming this for years, but have never come up with
anything which convincingly contradicts the big bang.
  #9  
Old December 21st 17, 10:54 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 241
Default A quasar, too heavy to be true

[[Mod. note -- I apologise for the delay in processing this article.
It arrived in my moderation queue on 2017-12-18, just before an
extended power/internet outage at my location.
-- jt]]

In article , jacob navia
writes:

1) At z = 1000 we have a temperature of 2,728 degrees... Completely new
and unknown processes must have been at work to form structures like a
black hole at those temperatures. And nothing less than a black hole of
1E4 solar masses. It seems (to me) impossible that gravity can condense
something at those temperatures.


A star can have a central temperature of tens of millions of degrees,
yet gravity manages to condense the star into a black hole as soon as
fusion can't generate enough radiation pressure to balance gravity.
  #10  
Old December 21st 17, 10:57 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Gary Harnagel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 646
Default A quasar, too heavy to be true

[[Mod. note -- I apologise for the delay in processing this article.
It arrived in my moderation queue on 2017-12-18, just before an
extended power/internet outage at my location.
-- jt]]

On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 1:18:58 PM UTC-7, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:

In article , jacob navia
writes:

1) At z = 1000 we have a temperature of 2,728 degrees... Completely new
and unknown processes must have been at work to form structures like a
black hole at those temperatures.


Perhaps different than for stellar-mass black holes, but not necessarily
completely new and unknown.

And nothing less than a black hole of
1E4 solar masses. It seems (to me) impossible that gravity can condense
something at those temperatures.


Then read up on your physics.

2) At z = 40 we have a temperature of 112 K. Star formation happens in
clouds with temperatures between 10 to 20 K. Yes, 112 K is not "searing
hot", but hot enough to make star formation impossible.


Not all black holes must form from stars.

3) If we assume that star formation could happen at 50 K, i.e. at z =
17, approx 228 My after the bang, that leaves 690 - 228 --462 My to
form a black hole that has an 800 Msun mass...


Not all black holes must form from stars.

I am not saying that BB theory is impossible. I am just saying that
explaining observations within that framework becomes more and more
difficult, requiring more and more "ad hoc" hypothesis (now we have
primordial black holes)


Primordial black holes are neither an ad-hoc hypothesis nor were they
thought of first to explain this observation. Do a literature search
for "primordial black holes".

and requiring explanations that look less and
less probable.


By which measure?

And observations that contradict the bang start coming
almost daily now. ALMA has seen a galactic collision at 780 My and the
two galaxies are very dusty and huge... I will post another article
about that.


You have been claiming this for years, but have never come up with
anything which convincingly contradicts the big bang.


Well, maybe no outright contradicting the BB, but it doesn't agree with the
experimental evidence without inflation:

"Inflation isn't falsifiable, it's falsified -- BICEP did a wonderful
service by bringing all the Inflationists out of their shell, and
giving them a black eye." - Roger Penrose

"Even from the beginning, inflation looked like a kluge to me-- I rapidly
formed the opinion that these guys were just making it up as they went
along" -- Neil Turok

And a "singularity" is certainly unphysical. It means the physics
has broken down. It would seem that alternatives might exist:

https://www.edge.org/conversation/pa...aul-steinhardt

http://clearlyexplained.com/answers/membranetheory.html
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Could Delta IV Heavy use the same technique as Falcon Heavy Alan Erskine[_3_] Space Shuttle 1 May 20th 11 07:56 AM
Whoa, it can't be true, it can't be true, William Shatner knows,he'll protect us LIBERATOR[_3_] History 2 March 24th 09 06:28 PM
Heavy H = Lots of Heavy Compounds G=EMC^2 Glazier Misc 3 November 12th 05 07:12 PM
Since Boeing and LM are partnering 50/50 and Boeing already has Delta IV Heavy does that mean we'll never see the Atlas V Heavy? D. Scott Ferrin History 5 May 6th 05 05:34 PM
Delta IV Heavy: Heavy Enough for Mars Damon Hill Policy 1 December 22nd 04 08:39 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2018 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.