6 ms·

Once you look at the math, you realize that no matter how hard they try, black holes can’t suck everything around them.

by ramraj07 2y ago

hparadiz 2y ago
It probably got kicked out of it's host galaxy during a merger.
- haccount 2y ago
  These are quasars in 13+ billion years old footage. Using the official age of the universe we need to then form the quasar in a dense matter region and then speedrun a galaxy merger that ejects the relevant quasar out into sparse space, all of that in a few hundred million years only. Using contemporary cosmology practices I suggest we add a Dark Age to everything observed. Yes the age of the quasar is 13 billion something years in the axis of regular time, but due to observations disagreeing with this timeline we can just keep adding years to any given observation in the Dark Age, complex time axis, until the problem is solved
  - api 2y ago
    Primordial black holes I believe are the answer to this, but I’m not a pro physicist. AFAIK we have seen indirect evidence of their existence with Webb. They could explain some of this early structure.
  - mr_mitm 2y ago
    Please respect the guidelines of this community. This is really unnecessary. > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. > Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. > Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
    - scotty79 2y ago
      Not sure how you read into any of those things in the parent comment. Dark Age he's suggesting already exists in cosmology in form of short period of rapid inflation that started and ended for no reason other than without it we can't fit inflationary cosmology to observation at all.
      - mr_mitm 2y ago
        The GP poster is clearly making fun of dark matter and dark energy, supporting the typical trope among dark matter skeptics that both are mere crutches because most cosmologists refuse to find modifications to gravity for whatever reason. This interpretation is in line with other comments made in this thread by the same account (the one about "dark suction" and others). Inflation has no influence on galaxy formation. Its duration was also a tiny fraction of a second, not years. It's also the first time I have heard it being associated with the term "dark age". The only actual "dark age" in cosmology in the common sense of the term is the period between reionization and first light by stars. Nothing to do with the quasars we are discussing here. It's really hard for me to read the comment in the way you suggest.
        scotty79 2y ago
        Dark Matter is a name for set of observations that aren't explainable with currently accepted cosmological theory. There are many possible ideas of how Dark Matter problem can be solved. Why do you think making fun of specific idea of what might be the cause of Dark Matter problem or even the Dark Matter problem itself is problematic? Did suddenly the deficiencies of current state of science became not funny? Modifications to gravity are one of the possible solutions to Dark Matter problem (just as Machos and Wimps are) but not especially good or plausible ones and deserve being joked about just as much. You can learn more about the problem from this physicist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qS34oV-jv_A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qS34oV-jv_A > Inflation has no influence on galaxy formation. That's completely not what I was talking about. I was saying that the era of rapid inflation that despite being postulated to be just a fraction of a second had immense impact on the shape of the universe can't be swept under the rug just because it's short and is already a kind of "Dark Time" when huge things were happening despite time barely passing. You could equally sensibly postulate that 500 million years since the Big Bang there was a fraction of a second when galaxy formation underwent accelerated progress that aged them few billion years and that explains early black holes and such. Hopefully it won't come to that and more sensible explanation of what JWST sees will prevail. It's true that "dark age" is not talked about in cosmology and is and invetion of the downvoted user. However when you think about it this naming analogy makes perfect sense when there seems to be missing mass it's called dark matter (which makes sense since it looks like the mass is there but it isn't shining), if there's missing energy it's called dark energy (despite the fact that we don't expect it to be shining in any way)... by extension when there's time missing we could call this problem dark time (witch is about as sensible name as dark energy) ... It's a case like scandal in Watergate hotel and then naming all scandals something-gate.
renegade-otter 2y ago
I was just watching this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1sZpSoMq5g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1sZpSoMq5g And, apparently, poor lonely black holes can evaporate over time?
- api 2y ago
  Not if their Hawking temperature is below the CMB, which is the case I think for any above asteroid mass. As the universe cools and the CMB drops that threshold drops. The big black holes will last n^n^n… ridiculous amounts of time.
  - speakeron 2y ago
    Just one ^n. Supermassive black holes are expected to have completely evaporated by 10^100 years.
    - kolanos 2y ago
      Evaporate into what? Nothingness?
      - api 2y ago
        Energy, over a very long period of time. Remember that mass and energy are equivalent. Hawking temperature is inversely proportional to black hole size, so the bigger the hole the "colder" it is. The largest black holes will start evaporating very slowly once the CMB drops below their temperature. A tiny micro black hole, if one were created, would evaporate almost instantly converting 100% of its mass into energy, basically a bomb. E.g. a 1kg micro black hole smaller than an electron would have a yield similar to a small hydrogen bomb, most of which would be released as ultra high energy gamma rays. Black holes are awesome. In some ways they are the most extreme things in the universe, the extreme-est of extreme physics. The mass-energy density required to create them is so far beyond anything humanly possible that trying to do so with, for example, hydrogen bombs would be not much better than trying to do it by squeezing really hard with your hand. It requires things like the first few milliseconds after the Big Bang (if primordial black holes exist) or collapsing massive stars. To give a sense of this density: a black hole with the mass of the Earth would be about the size of a marble (Schwartzchild radius). Inside of course there's either a true singularity or -- if certain theories of quantum gravity are correct -- a region of some kind of maximum-theoretical-density matter. (Some theories predict that true singularities don't exist.) If somehow someday it were possible to create or control them, it would be possible to access energies far beyond fusion or even antimatter-driven reactions... think perfect direct mass-energy conversion with near 100% efficiency.
haccount 2y ago
Maybe a theory of hard-to-observe Dark Suction will come to the rescue
api 2y ago
If they did they’d be invisible, which is why isolated primordial black holes with a variety of masses are a dark matter candidate. A quasar would be one with a giant accretion disk right?
smolder 2y ago
Is that necessarily true in the earliest moments of the universe? Probably there are good reasons for it to be so that I don't understand, but then most of what cosmologists understand about the period that JWST looks back to is from extrapolating backwards, and it seems like the new observations it has enabled keep disagreeing with previous assumptions. Anyway, I really look forward to finding out what improvements to theory can be made to better explain anomalies like these lonely quasars or the apparently overdeveloped young galaxies.

Once you look at the math, you realize that no matter how hard they try, black holes can’t suck everything around them.

hparadiz 2y ago

It probably got kicked out of it's host galaxy during a merger.

haccount 2y ago
These are quasars in 13+ billion years old footage. Using the official age of the universe we need to then form the quasar in a dense matter region and then speedrun a galaxy merger that ejects the relevant quasar out into sparse space, all of that in a few hundred million years only. Using contemporary cosmology practices I suggest we add a Dark Age to everything observed. Yes the age of the quasar is 13 billion something years in the axis of regular time, but due to observations disagreeing with this timeline we can just keep adding years to any given observation in the Dark Age, complex time axis, until the problem is solved
- api 2y ago
  Primordial black holes I believe are the answer to this, but I’m not a pro physicist. AFAIK we have seen indirect evidence of their existence with Webb. They could explain some of this early structure.
- mr_mitm 2y ago
  Please respect the guidelines of this community. This is really unnecessary. > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. > Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. > Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
  - scotty79 2y ago
    Not sure how you read into any of those things in the parent comment. Dark Age he's suggesting already exists in cosmology in form of short period of rapid inflation that started and ended for no reason other than without it we can't fit inflationary cosmology to observation at all.
    - mr_mitm 2y ago
      The GP poster is clearly making fun of dark matter and dark energy, supporting the typical trope among dark matter skeptics that both are mere crutches because most cosmologists refuse to find modifications to gravity for whatever reason. This interpretation is in line with other comments made in this thread by the same account (the one about "dark suction" and others). Inflation has no influence on galaxy formation. Its duration was also a tiny fraction of a second, not years. It's also the first time I have heard it being associated with the term "dark age". The only actual "dark age" in cosmology in the common sense of the term is the period between reionization and first light by stars. Nothing to do with the quasars we are discussing here. It's really hard for me to read the comment in the way you suggest.
      - scotty79 2y ago
        Dark Matter is a name for set of observations that aren't explainable with currently accepted cosmological theory. There are many possible ideas of how Dark Matter problem can be solved. Why do you think making fun of specific idea of what might be the cause of Dark Matter problem or even the Dark Matter problem itself is problematic? Did suddenly the deficiencies of current state of science became not funny? Modifications to gravity are one of the possible solutions to Dark Matter problem (just as Machos and Wimps are) but not especially good or plausible ones and deserve being joked about just as much. You can learn more about the problem from this physicist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qS34oV-jv_A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qS34oV-jv_A > Inflation has no influence on galaxy formation. That's completely not what I was talking about. I was saying that the era of rapid inflation that despite being postulated to be just a fraction of a second had immense impact on the shape of the universe can't be swept under the rug just because it's short and is already a kind of "Dark Time" when huge things were happening despite time barely passing. You could equally sensibly postulate that 500 million years since the Big Bang there was a fraction of a second when galaxy formation underwent accelerated progress that aged them few billion years and that explains early black holes and such. Hopefully it won't come to that and more sensible explanation of what JWST sees will prevail. It's true that "dark age" is not talked about in cosmology and is and invetion of the downvoted user. However when you think about it this naming analogy makes perfect sense when there seems to be missing mass it's called dark matter (which makes sense since it looks like the mass is there but it isn't shining), if there's missing energy it's called dark energy (despite the fact that we don't expect it to be shining in any way)... by extension when there's time missing we could call this problem dark time (witch is about as sensible name as dark energy) ... It's a case like scandal in Watergate hotel and then naming all scandals something-gate.

renegade-otter 2y ago

I was just watching this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1sZpSoMq5g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1sZpSoMq5g And, apparently, poor lonely black holes can evaporate over time?

api 2y ago
Not if their Hawking temperature is below the CMB, which is the case I think for any above asteroid mass. As the universe cools and the CMB drops that threshold drops. The big black holes will last n^n^n… ridiculous amounts of time.
- speakeron 2y ago
  Just one ^n. Supermassive black holes are expected to have completely evaporated by 10^100 years.
  - kolanos 2y ago
    Evaporate into what? Nothingness?
    - api 2y ago
      Energy, over a very long period of time. Remember that mass and energy are equivalent. Hawking temperature is inversely proportional to black hole size, so the bigger the hole the "colder" it is. The largest black holes will start evaporating very slowly once the CMB drops below their temperature. A tiny micro black hole, if one were created, would evaporate almost instantly converting 100% of its mass into energy, basically a bomb. E.g. a 1kg micro black hole smaller than an electron would have a yield similar to a small hydrogen bomb, most of which would be released as ultra high energy gamma rays. Black holes are awesome. In some ways they are the most extreme things in the universe, the extreme-est of extreme physics. The mass-energy density required to create them is so far beyond anything humanly possible that trying to do so with, for example, hydrogen bombs would be not much better than trying to do it by squeezing really hard with your hand. It requires things like the first few milliseconds after the Big Bang (if primordial black holes exist) or collapsing massive stars. To give a sense of this density: a black hole with the mass of the Earth would be about the size of a marble (Schwartzchild radius). Inside of course there's either a true singularity or -- if certain theories of quantum gravity are correct -- a region of some kind of maximum-theoretical-density matter. (Some theories predict that true singularities don't exist.) If somehow someday it were possible to create or control them, it would be possible to access energies far beyond fusion or even antimatter-driven reactions... think perfect direct mass-energy conversion with near 100% efficiency.

haccount 2y ago

Maybe a theory of hard-to-observe Dark Suction will come to the rescue

api 2y ago

If they did they’d be invisible, which is why isolated primordial black holes with a variety of masses are a dark matter candidate. A quasar would be one with a giant accretion disk right?

smolder 2y ago

Is that necessarily true in the earliest moments of the universe? Probably there are good reasons for it to be so that I don't understand, but then most of what cosmologists understand about the period that JWST looks back to is from extrapolating backwards, and it seems like the new observations it has enabled keep disagreeing with previous assumptions. Anyway, I really look forward to finding out what improvements to theory can be made to better explain anomalies like these lonely quasars or the apparently overdeveloped young galaxies.