The early universe was crammed with stars 10,000 times the mass of our sun, new study suggests

This article does not mention what happened to those huge stars at the "ends of their lives," other than to say that they presumably went supernova and scattered heavier elements into the cosmos.

But, wouldn't they have become back holes? How big (massive) are the black holes resulting from supernovas of stars with 10,000 times the mass of our Sun? Do we see evidence of that number of black holes in the early universe? Do we see evidence of that number of early black holes in obsevations of the current local universe - either individually or as merged supermassive black holes, now?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helio and rod
The reference paper link is a 17-page PDF report to read :) '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)."

My note. Some of the redshift numbers in the Introduction range 20-30 z when searching for Population III stars. "6 CONCLUSIONS We have studied the first emergence of the cold accretion, or the supersonic accretion flows directly coming into the halo centre, performing a suite of cosmological N-body + SPH simulations. Using the zoom-in technique, we have achieved sufficiently high spatial resolutions to study the detailed flow structure within halos with 𝑀halo ~ 10^7-8 Msun at the epochs of 𝑧 ~ 10-20."

Perhaps JWST will see Population III stars or even 10^4 Msun stars. So far, none observed and shown in nature like we can observe M42 in Orion as an example. What we see in M42 is very different than the early universe in the simulations for Population III stars forming or SMBH forming. Even the CMBR lacks confirmed H-alpha and H1 21-cm line. The primordial gas clouds created during BBN need to be shown in nature. Work continues in this area as the reference paper shows. I will leave the comoving radial distances and space expanding faster than c velocity alone for the large redshifts reported in the paper where perhaps 10^4 Msun stars evolved and Population III stars :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helio and billslugg
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 :) 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.

Perhaps, in time, we will see a Pop IV star class for these Adam & Eve stars.
 
This article does not mention what happened to those huge stars at the "ends of their lives," other than to say that they presumably went supernova and scattered heavier elements into the cosmos.

But, wouldn't they have become back holes? How big (massive) are the black holes resulting from supernovas of stars with 10,000 times the mass of our Sun? Do we see evidence of that number of black holes in the early universe? Do we see evidence of that number of early black holes in obsevations of the current local universe - either individually or as merged supermassive black holes, now?


It’s hard to know exactly… a common misconception is that the original matter that came from the big bang was hydrogen, or more specifically exactly how long it took what came from the Big Bang to become hydrogen… most likely as this matter became more and more dense and it became elements that were more and more complex… that yes this would lead to SMBHs at those density levels… but we also know, certain combinations of matter that don’t reach a high enough density level fast enough, can start to become cooler… it’s possible that this happens at larger star levels with earlier combinations; and it was more difficult to reach ”black hole“ density levels… then it is currently
 

Big Bang nucleosynthesis.

I hadn’t realized you wrote this, this is basically what I was explaining in my response to his original question… it’s also possible that a BH is just a star that reaches a certain density level with a certain combination of complex elements; and that we’re just seeing the effects of it as a “black hole”… Ex. When complex matter becomes so dense in a single area we observe it as a black hole, and nothing is actually different at all… except the entirely of the star has been pulled beyond the funnel of space time… If this is the case, it is possible we might one day see a star lose enough mass and pop into existence from a black hole condition, as the radiation no longer has enough mass to be entirely shielded by the funnel of the fabric of space time…
 
Last edited:
Jan 28, 2023
112
13
585
Visit site
The Big Bang is such a geocentric hypno-thesis that we should not be surprised how many crazy fantasies, of course supported by an appropriate mathematical apparatus, are thrown into the discussion space in an attempt to keep it from collapsing. Include whopping 10000 sun mass stars.
 
The Big Bang is such a geocentric hypno-thesis that we should not be surprised how many crazy fantasies, of course supported by an appropriate mathematical apparatus, are thrown into the discussion space in an attempt to keep it from collapsing. Include whopping 10000 sun mass stars.

many of these new theories are generated by AI… that intakes all of what’s known, and tries to come to ”conclusions” that we might have missed from our perceived past conclusions… The problem is, AI is no different then a human conciseness in a lot of ways(besides for the fact it can take in more facts to come to a conclusion), they are still capable of miss-understanding what’s going on, because they are either getting 1 small piece of incorrect information, or missing a piece of information for it to come to the correct (or better) conclusion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: George²
Jan 28, 2023
112
13
585
Visit site
many of these new theories are generated by AI… that intakes all of what’s known, and tries to come to ”conclusions” that we might have missed from our perceived past conclusions… The problem is, AI is no different then a human conciseness in a lot of ways(besides for the fact it can take in more facts to come to a conclusion), they are still capable of miss-understanding what’s going on, because they are either getting 1 small piece of incorrect information, or missing a piece of information for it to come to the correct (or better) conclusion.
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. :)

I’ve been an algorithm programmer almost my entire adult life, and I’m just not sure how we ever overcome our own faults without something else: giving us the answer(and AI isn’t the answer, because we programmed it, and it still has all our same faults)… becoming an interstellar species might be physically impossible, or at least impossible as you’re explaining it… Time for example: is most likely not a dimension, and just because we can on paper calculate for it, does not mean it is… as we have no way of ever reversing it… As we run algorithms again and again… they come to the same conclusion(as it is the only observed condition of the universe)… that All matter either speeds up and becomes less complex, or slows down and becomes more complex… If this is really the system of the universe… then the 3rd dimension expanding at an ever increasing rate, might just be matter’s condition on it, to either become less complex, or grouping together and spinning inward to become more more complex… but again the biggest problem is… we are in the thing, we’re trying to understand, and so are the AI programs we design… We are but a fish in water, trying to understand how earth works in space…
 
Mental energy used on the frontier universe (the infinity of frontier horizons of universe) will never be wasted energy. As Stephen Hawking hinted at in 'A Brief History of Time', there is no end to the 'frontier horizon' of early universe (of universe, period). Therefore it "is" the stereo-Horizon of creation / beginning / cycle (eternal). It never "was" created. Never! It "is" the Big Frontier of universe (eternal). It never "was" the Big Frontier of universe.
 
Last edited:
Naturally, the vast majority of early stars would be concentrated in the center of the fledging galaxy at a very high density. A bunch of them collided at some point, one or two at a time, producing a multi-solar mass black hole. Eventually this collected the rest of them at the galactic core, thus the beginnings of a SMBH. This may have been triggered by these cold fronts crashing into the core.
 
Repeating: As Stephen Hawking hinted at in 'A Brief History of Time', there is no end to the 'frontier horizon' of early universe (of universe, period). Therefore it "is" the stereo-Horizon of creation / beginning / cycle (eternal). It never "was" created. Never! It "is" the Big Frontier of universe (eternal). It never "was" the Big Frontier of universe.

String Theory, as I've read it, looks to there being many more dimensions -- many extra dimensions -- than three or four to the universe. I do believe I've found some of those "many more" dimensions than three or four existing in the horizons of the frontier universe of "is", rather than "was", above.
 
I went back and reviewed a text, Black Holes & Time Warps, Einstein's Outrageous Legacy by Kip S. Thorne, 1994. On page 340-341, a supermassive star of 10^8 solar masses that implodes could create quasars. This was an early model in the early 1960s. "[The correct idea, that the gigantic black hole produced by the implosion of such a supermassive star might itself be the engine that powers the quasar,.."]

There is a difference here in astronomy concerning massive star modeling. Quasars are clearly seen and identified, Population III stars and the pristine, primordial gas clouds filling the universe before stars and galaxies formed, are not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helio
I went back and reviewed a text, Black Holes & Time Warps, Einstein's Outrageous Legacy by Kip S. Thorne, 1994. On page 340-341, a supermassive star of 10^8 solar masses that implodes could create quasars. This was an early model in the early 1960s. "[The correct idea, that the gigantic black hole produced by the implosion of such a supermassive star might itself be the engine that powers the quasar,.."]

There is a difference here in astronomy concerning massive star modeling. Quasars are clearly seen and identified, Population III stars and the pristine, primordial gas clouds filling the universe before stars and galaxies formed, are not.
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.

First they were only found in radio surveys in the 1950s. But in the 60s, they were found in the hundreds. Bigger and better telescopes, and improved astrophysics finally explained nicely what they very likely are.

Primordial gas clouds aren't bright enough to help us that much. But they do help support BBT due to the discovery of the Lyman-alpha forest. The light from very distant sources passing through a number of clouds from there to here tell an important distance and expansion story.

Just like the early days of quasars, and don't forget LGMs (Little Green Men), new discoveries with the JWST will likely solve some anomalies and introduce new ones since we are only just now being able to get this level of resolution for those highly redshifted distant objects.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rod
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.

First they were only found in radio surveys in the 1950s. But in the 60s, they were found in the hundreds. Bigger and better telescopes, and improved astrophysics finally explained nicely what they very likely are.

Primordial gas clouds aren't bright enough to help us that much. But they do help support BBT due to the discovery of the Lyman-alpha forest. The light from very distant sources passing through a number of clouds from there to here tell an important distance and expansion story.

Just like the early days of quasars, and don't forget LGMs (Little Green Men), new discoveries with the JWST will likely solve some anomalies and introduce new ones since we are only just now being able to get this level of resolution for those highly redshifted distant 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 :)
 
Helio, as I remember, the LGM turned out to be pulsars :)
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.

Large redshifts found in astronomy starting about 1.4 and larger became a problem for BBT.
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.

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 :)
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?".

But what "remains unobserved" is because it has been unobservable; beyond telescopic limits. The JWST is "pushing the envelope," and it's a safe bet that what is found will be more supportive for BBT than detrimental to it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rod
Helio, my point is that a variety of unobserved objects and initial conditions are used routinely in the BB model to explain how the universe evolved all natural and randomly by a series of fortuitous accidents :) 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.

Concerning low mass Population III stars, this subject has been around for some time now in astronomy.

WHERE ARE THE LOW-MASS POPULATION III STARS?, https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/0004-637X/826/1/9, 14-July-2016.

"...Assuming a Kroupa initial mass function (IMF) from 0.15 to 1.0 M⊙ for low-mass Pop III stars, as a working hypothesis, we try to constrain the theoretical models in reverse by current and future observations."
 
It's a Three speed, speed of light ((c=+300,000kps to preferred frame velocity= 'o') (c=-300,000kps to preferred frame velocity='0') and (c=1 (unity))). Well actually four speed, including photo-stop action '0', the universe's seeming preferred frame, concurrent with '1' (unity), the Horizon of universe (all of the countless many (herein a bow to Catastrophe)) being a frozen multiverse (String Theory / Chaos Theory / Quantum universe / Complexity science, all but relative (Relativity))-Universe constant). Terrifically fast (positive (+) to 0-point real universe wide; equally slow negative (-) to 0-point real universe wide; unity (1), and photo-stop action (0).
 
With the trends in this conversation, I thought I'd bring this here as well as where it is elsewhere:

Never really thought about it until now, and no one bothered to inform me in their books, etc., if they knew, but the "uni-" in "universe" does not stand for one (as in quantity of one) but "unity" (a quality). It is short for "unity."

"Verse", on the other hand, still means "turn", "to turn," "a turn," "a turning," (as in, 'a turning unity' . . . 'universe').
 
Last edited:
May 3, 2020
59
11
4,535
Visit site
When the universe's first stars emerged from the cosmic dark ages, they ballooned to 10,000 times the mass of Earth's sun, new research suggests.

The early universe was crammed with stars 10,000 times the mass of our sun, new study suggests : Read more
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.