'First emergence of cold accretion and supermassive star formation in the early universe', Preprint 14 March 2023, "1 INTRODUCTION More than 200 quasars have been observed at 𝑧 ~> 6 (Mortlock et al. 2011; Bañados et al. 2018; Matsuoka et al. 2019; Wang et al. 2021), indicating that Supermassive Black Holes (SMBHs) with 𝑀BH = 10^8-10 Msun already exist in the early universe. The most distant quasar observed so far is located at 𝑧 = 7.54 (Bañados et al. 2018), which corresponds to the cosmic age of 0.7 Gyr. Theoretically, it is challenging to form SMBHs in such an early universe (Inayoshi et al. 2020). The BHs provided by Population (Pop) III stars are one of the possible candidates that will grow into the observed high-z SMBHs. Recent numerical simulations have shown that the Pop III stars appear with masses of 𝑀 = 10–10^3 Msun at 𝑧 ~ 20-30 (Hosokawa et al. 2012; Hirano et al. 2014, 2015; Susa et al. 2014; Hosokawa et al. 2016; Stacy et al. 2016; Sugimura et al. 2020), some of which finally collapse into BHs with negligible mass loss (Heger&Woosley 2002; Takahashi et al. 2018). To attain the observed mass of the SMBHs until 𝑧 = 7.5, the seed BH should maintain the Eddington accretion rate for the entire period of the corresponding cosmic age. However, the Eddington rate is hard to achieve due to the feedback associated with star formation and the mass accretion onto BHs (Johnson & Bromm 2007; Alvarez et al. 2009; Jeon et al. 2012)."
This is good stuff 
My guess is that the mass (not size) will drop closer to 1000. It’s been held that they had to be at least 200x more massive than the Sun, but 10,000x seems too extreme.So we have 10,000 solar mass stars, perhaps 100,000 solar mass stars in the early universe. Anyone here for a million solar mass stars or even a trillion
Big Bang nucleosynthesis - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Big Bang nucleosynthesis.
All that mental energy wasted on theories that are of no use to us could have been used for practical purposes. If this had happened as I wish, humanity might already be an interstellar race and even be able to verify on the spot whether the universe had a beginning.
All that mental energy wasted on theories that are of no use to us could have been used for practical purposes. If this had happened as I wish, humanity might already be an interstellar race and even be able to verify on the spot whether the universe had a beginning.
It may be interesting to note how quasars, if only now were discovered, would likely, IMO, be used by many to "disprove" BBT since their redshift is too great to allow us to see these star-like objects.
Helio, as I remember, the LGM turned out to be pulsars
Large redshifts found in astronomy starting about 1.4 and larger became a problem for BBT. Space must expand faster than c velocity to accept the cosmological redshift explanation and look back distances, and the comoving radial distances are generally not reported to the public. What I learned in this article, astronomy and cosmology is very flexible when it comes to defining the first stars Some early models had Population III the size of red dwarfs, now this space.com report perhaps 10^4 solar masses, phys.org reported 10^5 solar masses, and early answers to how quasars were powered used 10^8 solar mass stars It is always fun in science to create stars in model origin answers that so far, remain unobserved in nature
That's my point. Science often stumbles across something and, after enough research, get a strong handle of what it is. This is where we are for those very early stars and galaxies. I suspect, however, not the very first stars and galaxies.Helio, as I remember, the LGM turned out to be pulsars
Mainstream science doesn't have any problem whatsoever with space expanding faster than light. Wave propagations (light and gravity waves) that travel through space are what have that restriction. Inflation theory would have been shot down long ago if FTL for space itself was not viable.
I don't recall any early red dwarf scenarios for the first stars, though I trust your memory. The mystery of formation of the first stars is trying to get the collapse of the cloud without the use of metals that allow energy/heat to radiate away. Greater mass overcomes this problem, but the question remains, "how much mass?".What I learned in this article, astronomy and cosmology is very flexible when it comes to defining the first stars
Mainstream science has no problem here apparently but the methodology at work, especially creating processes not observed operating in nature today and *objects* not seen in nature today, in my thinking looks suspect and shows the paradigm has holes in that should be clearly documented to the public when science explains how the universe evolved and appeared.
The extraordinary lengths and convoluted contortions this paper goes through is remarkeable. Rather than fill me with confidence, the fantastical assumptions made for their model, using carefully cherry picked and numerous cited sources by the authors, looks absolutely ridiculous. Fact is that all known and accepted and observed star formation rates rule out any of the erroneous assumptions of rapid early universe mature galaxy formation. As KWST has confirmed. And it is only by constructing a ridiculously complex artifice of theory , done so by selectively cherry picking theoretical assumptions from various papers that are each speculative and without any supporting evidence. That the authors of this paper somehow manage to concoct a completely unbelievable model of physics. To try to validate, without any actual evidence, what is essentially a failure of the BBT: Which is that it is impossible using current known models of physics to explain why so many mature galaxies are observed in the latest JWST data. The use of so many selectively chosen imaginary unverified mechanisms from so many different purely speculative sources shows what extraordinary lengths theorists will go to to pretend that their assumptions are actually backed up by observations. When in fact it is obvious that almost the entire model they created is artifice , without any supporting data. A model using only unverified assumptions based on imaginary mechanisms, (dark matter) speculative but not yet confirmed observations and imaginary data.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram