Hubble Space Telescope suggests our ancient universe was surprisingly crowded with supermassive black holes

[Admin]

A 14-year Hubble Space Telescope study suggests the universe was teeming with supermassive black holes. But how could that be?

Hubble Space Telescope suggests our ancient universe was surprisingly crowded with supermassive black holes : Read more

 

[Unclear Engineer]

So now the theory is that intermediate mass black holes essentially developed from the collapse of dense clouds of gas in the early universe, before there were stars and other black holes heating the gas. The article calls these collapsing areas the first stars, but I wonder if the collapses were slow enough for fusion to start and temporarily hold the collapsing gas back for a while, or if the gas just quickly developed an event horizon and the rest of he universe has no idea what goes on inside.

Or, perhaps we just have not properly calculated the age of he universe, and the areas we can now see (very faintly) are much older than the theory supposes, so that these black holes really had much more time to develop. A theory that just turns on and off an unknown and unconstrained "dark energy" with the power to do whatever a theory needs to work could probably be developed to do all sorts of things with the timing billions of years ago.

 

[Fire-Starter James]

V(r) = Hr
V(r) = c × tanh(Hr/c)
Infinity is real. So is Eternity.

Can we get somebody else to test this?
Or at least say what's wrong with it?

 

[Unclear Engineer]

So, you propose that the recession rate is limited to c, approaching it asymptotically as r goes to infinity. See graph in https://www.mathworks.com/help/matlab/ref/double.tanh.html .

What is your basis for that proposal?

How does it fit with the current measurements of recession rate vs distance?

 

[Fire-Starter James]

So, you propose that the recession rate is limited to c, approaching it asymptotically as r goes to infinity. See graph in https://www.mathworks.com/help/matlab/ref/double.tanh.html .

What is your basis for that proposal?

How does it fit with the current measurements of recession rate vs distance?

Yes. Using relativistic math, the expansion rate appears to diminish with distance, and relative masses increase.

 

[Atlan0001]

No one is thinking straight here regarding the 'metaphysics' of 'Infinite MULTIVERSE Universe' cosmology! Approach a black hole, most particularly such a supermassive black hole (as viewed from such a distance), and you approach an accelerating vector expansion of space and time universe (u) . . . until you are inside one from another (Chaos's self-similar strong-gravitational interactive fractal zooms structure of universes (u)).

The view (of a "spooky action at a distance") is loaded down with point -portal singularities that would accelerate in expansion of opening seeds.

 

[Fire-Starter James]

This relativistic infinite universe has an observed "red limit", an apparent distance within which the infinite universe is causally connected. This "limit" should look very much like an event horizon. Infinity projected to the inside of a sphere.

An infinite number of black hole's contents also might be infinite. Looks like an infinite multi-verse to me.

 

[Torbjorn Larsson]

our ancient universe was surprisingly crowded with supermassive black holes

The various results on this question has now been clarified by a work that agrees with this.

Observations confirm astronomers' expectation that early-Universe quasars formed in regions of space densely populated with companion galaxies. DECam's exceptionally wide field of view and special filters played a crucial role in reaching this conclusion, and the observations reveal why previous studies seeking to characterize the density of early-Universe quasar neighborhoods have yielded conflicting results.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/09/240923121346.htm

 

[Torbjorn Larsson]

So now the theory is that intermediate mass black holes essentially developed from the collapse of dense clouds of gas in the early universe, before there were stars and other black holes heating the gas.

No. This work suggests the supermassive black hole seeds arose from the collapse of the first generation extra massive stars.

Yes. Using relativistic math, the expansion rate appears to diminish with distance, and relative masses increase.

The light speed limit applies to particle velocities, not the expansion speed of space.

No one is thinking straight here regarding the 'metaphysics' of 'Infinite MULTIVERSE Universe' cosmology!

The work is not dependent on the cosmology but on star and galaxy formation.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

I guess that depends on what you call an "intermediate mass" black hole and how massive you think a "star" can be before it collapses without burning out its hydrogen, first.

At least in theory, a gas cloud can become a black hole without becoming a star, first. What happens inside such a black hole after the event horizon is formed would not be known outside of the event horizon.

But, the original article did say
"There are many hypotheses about how supermassive black holes came to be in the early universe. Were they born in the immediate aftermath of the Big Bang from microscopic primordial seed black holes that have been growing ever since? Or did they get a kickstart in their growth by forming through the direct collapse of an immense gas cloud thousands of times more massive than our sun?" [emphasis added]

and
"best fits simulations that depict supermassive black holes growing from the collapse of the very first, extremely massive stars."

with
"Rather than exploding as supernovas, however, these primordial stars quickly collapsed in on themselves from their own gravitational pulls, forming what are called intermediate mass black holes (more massive than the typical stellar mass black holes produced by supernova explosions today, yet less massive than the supermassive behemoths)."

The point was
"The next generation of stars that formed would have been unable to form black holes of such huge masses, because their birth zones were irradiated by ultraviolet light from other nearby stars and buffeted by the shockwaves of nearby supernovas, which would have altered the conditions for star formation. The next generation of stars were more "normal" stars with masses typical of what we find in our galaxy today."

So, basically what I originally said: It is postulated that there were not enough stars to prevent the first large gas cloud collapses that created intermediate mass black holes. Whether or not the postulated gigantic first stars actually emitted radiation that heated the gas to prevent future collapses before they disappeared into black holes seems to be an unaddressed issue in the article. The culprits in the article seem to be "other nearby stars and buffeted by the shockwaves of nearby supernovas", which would not be coming from those massive stars that did not supernova.

So, basically, it appears to mean that some of the first stars were big enough to collapse into intermediate mass black holes without going supernova, while other stars, also probably "first generation" but smaller, did last a while and change the star-forming environment with their emissions of UV light and shock waves.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

I think most scientists understand the meaning of "infinity".

But, you don't seem to understand the need for "evidence".

Some people prefer the idea that everything has a beginning and an end, and are uncomfortable with the concept of something being infinite in extent, time or space.

Other people prefer the idea that the universe does not have to have a "cause" with a beginning and an end, and are more comfortable with the idea that something is never ending and always existed. They will want to know what happened "before" the universe existed and what it is expanding into if, as the BBT theorizes, it is finite in time and space, because they prefer to believe that time and space don't stop anywhere, past or future.

Some people are more comfortable with a "closed" finite and static universe, which is not infinite in space, but is in time.

NOBODY KNOWS WHICH, IF ANY OF THOSE CONCEPTS IS THE PHYSICAL TRUTH!!!

Even the BBT proponents have stopped trying to say what happened before the universe reached "Planck size" and what might be "outside" the radius of the matter they believe has expanded by tens of billions of light years since it exceeded the Planck size. They are just saying their theory does not address those questions - not that they know the answers.

You are free to believe what you like. But, you will need to produce convincing evidence if you want to make others believe what you believe.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Seems like a non-sequitur response - unless you claim to use "metaphysics" to "know" things that others cannot know.

Still has a credibility problem.

Maybe you should come find some of my lost things. Please start with my youth!

 

[COLGeek]

Please stick to physical science vs anything metaphysical, please. This isn't the place for that.

Thank you.

 

[Atlan0001]

Please stick to physical science vs anything metaphysical, please. This isn't the place for that.

Thank you.

COLGeek, the metaphysical, as Stephen Hawking once said, is the mix of physics and the philosophy of physics, such as getting into "cosmology!" Like the Big Bang Theory, and "string theory", and so on and on including the chaos of "quantum chaos," that is "metaphysics" all the way!"

Anyone. Anyone! Define, exactly, a black hole absolutely beyond all dispute and win a Noble Prize in Physics.

 

[COLGeek]

COLGeek, the metaphysical, as Stephen Hawking once said, is the mix of physics and the philosophy of physics, such as getting into "cosmology!" Like the Big Bang Theory, and "string theory", and so on and on including the chaos of "quantum chaos," that is "metaphysics" all the way!"

Anyone. Anyone! Define, exactly, a black hole absolutely beyond all dispute and win a Noble Prize in Physics.

Noted. Psychics and such discussions belong elsewhere. End of discussion. Thanks.

 

[Atlan0001]

Noted. Psychics and such discussions belong elsewhere. End of discussion. Thanks.

Noted, back at you. You are, of course, right in so far as the magnifying resolutions of light into and from the Hubble scope!

 

[Atlan0001]

Edited it and moved the updated version!