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]]

Le 17/12/2017 eM- 21:18, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) a ecrit:
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.

Not necessarily, those mysterious processes created "out of some random
fluctuation" made those seeds and that quasar comes into being just a
few hundred million years later.

OK.

Note that quasars come in huge galaxies. A survey based on on the SDSS,
was done by Matsuoka et al (https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.2417). He looked
at stripe 82 and all quasars inside it were in galaxies more than 10E10
sun masses.

[[Mod. note -- I think there's an observational selection effect he
The very first paragraph of that abstract refers to "optically luminous"
quasars. We believe that fainter quasars exist, but if (as we expect)
these are hosted in smaller/fainter galaxies, they will be hard(er) to
observe.
-- jt]]

All that in about 450 My.

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.


Yes, let's do that.

Primordial black holes were a speculation within big bang theory that
was never observed. I would like to remember your own words in this
discussion group when discussing with Mr Oldershaw when you argued
against the black holes he proposed.

Observations rule out the existence of many small black holes because
they would bend light and that wasn't observed. That is what you said.

Now you propose that big black holes were created somehow from the
"start". They would become the nucleous of future galaxies.

Of course "some random fluctuation" could create anything, including a
very convenient "seed" to grow up a huge galaxy in no time.

I just find that unlikely.

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.


Yes, they could form by accretion. So just 40 million black holes of 20
solar masses each in average would create that monster one in around 500
My. And those weren't created out of stars any more, (there is no time
nor conditions to do that) but they just existed somehow. It makes one
of those (20 solar masses each!) accretting to the black hole each month
for 500 million years.

Black hole mergers release an incredibly amount of energy, so how
anything could survive in an environment where those events happen every
month is a mystery. A consequence of that is that there isn't any host
galaxy, blown away by those explosions each month...

[[Mod. note --
1. The standard scenario is that the first generation of stars to form
("population III" is the somewhat-confusing standard term) tended to
be fairly massive, so their lives were perhaps 1-3 million years
before producing supernovae and ~10 solar-mass black holes. These
are the "seeds black holes" under discussion (which could then grow
by accretion and/or mergers).
2. BH mergers do indeed release a lot of energy... but they release it
as gravitational waves, which propagate outwards and have only a minute
effect on the host galaxy.
-- jt]]

To me, all that sounds very unlikely.

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".


Yes, it is instructive. A literature search confirms that quasars live
in big galaxies.

and requiring explanations that look less and
less probable.

By which measure?


Look at this discussion. You add hypothesis after hypothesis. These
black holes, the acceleration of black hole condensation, the
acceleration of galaxy formation...

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.


True, this was clear to me several years ago. And now those ideas are
being confirmed. The more time passes, the more unlikely the whole bb
theory becomes.

Now, if we follow bare observations. We have a galaxy, at least 1E10
solar masses and ours is 1E12 solar masses, a factor of 100. Our galaxy
is around 14 billion years old (the age of its oldest star, just around
the corner, a few dozen light years away), so 14E9 / 100 -- that galaxy
could by around 1400 Mys old. So, the universe must be *AT LEAST* 15Gy old.

Host galaxies of quasars are very difficult to see. The survey mentioned
above has around 1000 points, somehow a good sample, but still not very
precise. Also, there is no reason to suppose a linear relationship
between time and size... Old galaxies could be small also, but if they
host a quasar, I suppose they should be big. And to build big things you
need time.

A test of your hypothesis would be to observe that galaxy for a month to
see if it emits a GRB...