8 ms·

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.

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.