5 ms·

Newly Discovered Quasar Defies Age of Universe

57 points by jjp9999 15y ago

j2d2j2d2 15y ago
Why does this defy the age of the universe?
- SoftwareMaven 15y ago
  There wasn't enough time for the black hole to grow as large as this one is (was). If X is how much material it would consume per billion years, it is sitting 4X when you universe is only two billion years old and should have only been 2X (note: I don't know the actual magnitude of the numbers, but am basing my numbers off the six-foot kindergartner comment).
  - hugh3 15y ago
    In this case I'd wager that our model of how quickly quasars can form is probably what needs revising, rather than the age of the universe. But, y'know, standard-issue overly-dramatic science-journalism headline.
    - splat 15y ago
      Yeah. The age of the universe is known pretty solidly. Galaxy formation theories on the other hand are still pretty shaky.
      - gnaritas 15y ago
        I'm not sure that's at all true. The amount of time since the big bang is certainly well known, but who's to say that actually was the beginning.
        dedward 15y ago
        Who's to say? It's by definition - the "Big Bang" was the moment when the universe,time and space, came into existence. Neither existed before that. To talk about "before" the Big Bang isn't even correct - there is no "Before".
        gnaritas 15y ago
        No, the big bang was an event that we know happened, but we don't know that it's when time, space, or the universe came into existence nor is it defined as such. Big bangs could happen over and over. Don't confused the known event, for the theory that it was the beginning, they are different things.
- cynest 15y ago
  It doesn't necessarily. It is an object that due to current models of quasar formation should not exist at that point in time. This means that there is something wrong with those or current estimations of the age of the universe. The latter is less likely.
  - VladRussian 15y ago
    yes, we are trying to estimate the behavior, mass, luminocity, etc... of the objects in the Universe that was several times smaller than it is now, ie. the space itself was much more "dense" (for lack of a better word) and the matter "warmer" - was the Universe behaving like it does today? We know that the fundamental forces behave differently ( at least quantitatively-wise ) when the matter is "hot". So our estimations may be several orders of magnitude wrong, and finds such as this help to adjust our theories and estimates.
  - r00fus 15y ago
    Are we sure that these large objects aren't being "lensed" into looking further than they are? Isn't the third possibility that these quasars are illusory?
    - hartror 15y ago
      IIRC lensing won't produce the red shift observed.
      - nitrogen 15y ago
        If lensing (through one or more lenses) resulted in a significantly longer path for the light, would it not make sense for an object to seem older than it is (i.e. have greater redshift)?
        splat 15y ago
        Lensing will make light travel through only a very slightly longer path. At most the difference will only be a few light-weeks. (This is seen in objects which have multiple images. Occasionally you will see one of the images flare up for some reason, and a few days later the other image will flare up.) It won't be anywhere near long enough for cosmological effects like redshift to be important. The main effect of gravitational lensing is just to increase the apparent luminosity of the lensed object.
VladRussian 15y ago
"The quasar was found after five years of searching through databases containing images of millions of objects." sounds intriguing... How available is the survey data? Last time i checked for example - the GRB observatory in South America - that one publishes only small percent of the data.
- colkassad 15y ago
  while not the same project, Google 'sdss casjobs', register, and start doing some cosmic sql queries!
- splat 15y ago
  It's mostly public. The data used for this discovery was taken from UKIDSS, an IR sky survey (you can get data here: http://surveys.roe.ac.uk:8080/wsa/SQL_form.jsp http://surveys.roe.ac.uk:8080/wsa/SQL_form.jsp) and SDSS, an optical survey (you can get data here: http://www.sdss3.org/dr8/data_access.php http://www.sdss3.org/dr8/data_access.php). All SDSS data is available to the public. UKIDSS data can only be accessed by ESO member countries for the first year, but after that becomes public. (I worked on a similar project to discover a high-z quasar as a summer research project in college, though unfortunately with less success.)
scotty79 15y ago
http://www.szot.eu/ http://www.szot.eu/ tl;dr Big bangs are fueled by annihilation. Matter-antimatter asymmetry is local. Most of the matter always existed as blackholes. Existence, space and time didn't start at Big Bang. Observable universe is extremely small part of whole space. Awaiting to have a crackpot index assigned. ;-)
- sigzero 15y ago
  Nah, you are no crackpot. That is as good as any other theory I have heard. :)
  - scotty79 15y ago
    Thanks. Now to the hard part: Design an experiment. :-)
- adobriyan 15y ago
  > Observable universe is extremely small part of whole space. Inflation theories actually make this very statement and have good reasons behind it.
- StrawberryFrog 15y ago
  I am not a physicist, but... Does the matter/antimatter distinction have any relevance to black holes? I though that they erased all features of the mass that they swallowed. What does it mean for an object to be composed "mainly of antimatter" as opposed to "completely of antimatter"? Surely an object that is "mainly antimatter" will rapidly turn into an object that is entirely antimatter plus some photons.

57 points by jjp9999 15y ago

j2d2j2d2 15y ago

Why does this defy the age of the universe?

SoftwareMaven 15y ago
There wasn't enough time for the black hole to grow as large as this one is (was). If X is how much material it would consume per billion years, it is sitting 4X when you universe is only two billion years old and should have only been 2X (note: I don't know the actual magnitude of the numbers, but am basing my numbers off the six-foot kindergartner comment).
- hugh3 15y ago
  In this case I'd wager that our model of how quickly quasars can form is probably what needs revising, rather than the age of the universe. But, y'know, standard-issue overly-dramatic science-journalism headline.
  - splat 15y ago
    Yeah. The age of the universe is known pretty solidly. Galaxy formation theories on the other hand are still pretty shaky.
    - gnaritas 15y ago
      I'm not sure that's at all true. The amount of time since the big bang is certainly well known, but who's to say that actually was the beginning.
      - dedward 15y ago
        Who's to say? It's by definition - the "Big Bang" was the moment when the universe,time and space, came into existence. Neither existed before that. To talk about "before" the Big Bang isn't even correct - there is no "Before".
        gnaritas 15y ago
        No, the big bang was an event that we know happened, but we don't know that it's when time, space, or the universe came into existence nor is it defined as such. Big bangs could happen over and over. Don't confused the known event, for the theory that it was the beginning, they are different things.
cynest 15y ago
It doesn't necessarily. It is an object that due to current models of quasar formation should not exist at that point in time. This means that there is something wrong with those or current estimations of the age of the universe. The latter is less likely.
- VladRussian 15y ago
  yes, we are trying to estimate the behavior, mass, luminocity, etc... of the objects in the Universe that was several times smaller than it is now, ie. the space itself was much more "dense" (for lack of a better word) and the matter "warmer" - was the Universe behaving like it does today? We know that the fundamental forces behave differently ( at least quantitatively-wise ) when the matter is "hot". So our estimations may be several orders of magnitude wrong, and finds such as this help to adjust our theories and estimates.
- r00fus 15y ago
  Are we sure that these large objects aren't being "lensed" into looking further than they are? Isn't the third possibility that these quasars are illusory?
  - hartror 15y ago
    IIRC lensing won't produce the red shift observed.
    - nitrogen 15y ago
      If lensing (through one or more lenses) resulted in a significantly longer path for the light, would it not make sense for an object to seem older than it is (i.e. have greater redshift)?
      - splat 15y ago
        Lensing will make light travel through only a very slightly longer path. At most the difference will only be a few light-weeks. (This is seen in objects which have multiple images. Occasionally you will see one of the images flare up for some reason, and a few days later the other image will flare up.) It won't be anywhere near long enough for cosmological effects like redshift to be important. The main effect of gravitational lensing is just to increase the apparent luminosity of the lensed object.

VladRussian 15y ago

"The quasar was found after five years of searching through databases containing images of millions of objects." sounds intriguing... How available is the survey data? Last time i checked for example - the GRB observatory in South America - that one publishes only small percent of the data.

colkassad 15y ago
while not the same project, Google 'sdss casjobs', register, and start doing some cosmic sql queries!
splat 15y ago
It's mostly public. The data used for this discovery was taken from UKIDSS, an IR sky survey (you can get data here: http://surveys.roe.ac.uk:8080/wsa/SQL_form.jsp http://surveys.roe.ac.uk:8080/wsa/SQL_form.jsp) and SDSS, an optical survey (you can get data here: http://www.sdss3.org/dr8/data_access.php http://www.sdss3.org/dr8/data_access.php). All SDSS data is available to the public. UKIDSS data can only be accessed by ESO member countries for the first year, but after that becomes public. (I worked on a similar project to discover a high-z quasar as a summer research project in college, though unfortunately with less success.)

scotty79 15y ago

http://www.szot.eu/ http://www.szot.eu/ tl;dr Big bangs are fueled by annihilation. Matter-antimatter asymmetry is local. Most of the matter always existed as blackholes. Existence, space and time didn't start at Big Bang. Observable universe is extremely small part of whole space. Awaiting to have a crackpot index assigned. ;-)

sigzero 15y ago
Nah, you are no crackpot. That is as good as any other theory I have heard. :)
- scotty79 15y ago
  Thanks. Now to the hard part: Design an experiment. :-)
adobriyan 15y ago
> Observable universe is extremely small part of whole space. Inflation theories actually make this very statement and have good reasons behind it.
StrawberryFrog 15y ago
I am not a physicist, but... Does the matter/antimatter distinction have any relevance to black holes? I though that they erased all features of the mass that they swallowed. What does it mean for an object to be composed "mainly of antimatter" as opposed to "completely of antimatter"? Surely an object that is "mainly antimatter" will rapidly turn into an object that is entirely antimatter plus some photons.