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

[Helio]

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.

But my point is that they aren't established holes. If you grab a slice of cheese in the dark, it may have holes (ie Swiss) or it may not. If one says the cheese has holes, then the claim is that it is, indeed, Swiss cheese, but it's simply a currently untestable prediction.

Essentially, all theories start with varying degrees of darkness since all theories must make predictions. Predictions require this area of darkness, though it must start with enough light on it to make it a new theory since all theories are objective-based. Like hope, it's something that doesn't become fact (or failure) until some future time, when events bring the answer forward.

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

Yes, but I suspect there is no highly respectable answer as to their mass yet since you can't put H and He in a lab and make a star. Computer modeling is limited, IMO, due to the complexity and areas of, well, darkness such as in MHD (Magneto Hydro Dynamics). It was advanced MHD that finally restored the nebular theory as mainstream. I think we should a few grains of salt on a 10k-mass first stars as well.

 

[rod]

Helio, in your post #26 you said, "But my point is that they aren't established holes." My simple answer, this is someone's opinion Take the space.com article and the paper cited for these 10^4 solar mass stars in the early universe. The paper, 'First emergence of cold accretion and supermassive star formation in the early universe" Preprint 14 March 2023 is 17 pages and 255 references to "halo" is found in the paper. As the abstract states, "We study the structure of the accretion flow and its evolution within small halos with <~ 10^8 Msun with sufficiently high spatial resolutions down to ~ 1 pc scale..."The resulting post-shock gas becomes dense and hot enough with its mass comparable to the Jeans mass 𝑀J ~ 10^4-5 Msun, a sufficient amount to induce the gravitational collapse, leading to the SMS formation."

Okay, we now have halos of matter in the early universe that can form early stars that are supermassive When I look at M42 in Orion using my telescopes, I can see 5 stars in the Trapezium, class O B stars. I do not see these halos forming stars today

 

[Atlan0001]

When the premise is wrong, the towering edifices built over it are edifices built on quicksand.

 

[Helio]

Okay, we now have halos of matter in the early universe that can form early stars that are supermassive When I look at M42 in Orion using my telescopes, I can see 5 stars in the Trapezium, class O B stars. I do not see these halos forming stars today

Right. But do you see how this fits with BBT? The key is in the role metals play in limiting mass sizes.

Stars are self-regulating based mainly on their luminosity. Mass, of course, determines luminosity, but it can help to focus on its luminosity, I think.

Metals allow greater radiation (luminosity), so BBT predicts no metals were around for the very first stars, so they must be of a size that can form without them. If no stars could ever form from metal-free h & he, then BBT could fail. But, there would need to be very substantial evidence demonstrating this.

This is not unlike the Nebular Theory, beginning with Kant. LaPlace supported this theory and showed how disks would naturally form as the nebula collapsed. But he soon determined the angular momentum would prevent the star from forming. This hurt the theory until modern physics demonstrated what likely happens to get gas from the disk onto the star (ie MHD).

I wonder if the JWST is big enough to see the very first stars to help improve Pop III (or IV ) modeling.

 

[rod]

Right. But do you see how this fits with BBT? The key is in the role metals play in limiting mass sizes.

Stars are self-regulating based mainly on their luminosity. Mass, of course, determines luminosity, but it can help to focus on its luminosity, I think.

Metals allow greater radiation (luminosity), so BBT predicts no metals were around for the very first stars, so they must be of a size that can form without them. If no stars could ever form from metal-free h & he, then BBT could fail. But, there would need to be very substantial evidence demonstrating this.

This is not unlike the Nebular Theory, beginning with Kant. LaPlace supported this theory and showed how disks would naturally form as the nebula collapsed. But he soon determined the angular momentum would prevent the star from forming. This hurt the theory until modern physics demonstrated what likely happens to get gas from the disk onto the star (ie MHD).

I wonder if the JWST is big enough to see the very first stars to help improve Pop III (or IV ) modeling.

Helio, no I do not see how these halos fit with BBT Why? Because no one sees them creating stars today and we do not see the halos either like in M42 I could easily interpret this as another hole in BBT Necessary demonstration from nature is required. The CMBR has no H-alpha line, no H1 21-cm line confirmed for the postulated pristine gas clouds or these halos in the simulation. In my thinking, this article and halos looks like more hand waving efforts to show BBT is not falling apart as the universe expands Others will have a different view

 

[Helio]

Helio, no I do not see how these halos fit with BBT Why? Because no one sees them creating stars today and we do not see the halos either like in M42

I'm unclear what you're saying. We do see stars forming today. We also see galaxies collide and form a host of features, including halos, I suspect. There are still many things not well understood including globular clusters, but there is nothing in BBT that would prevent them.

I could easily interpret this as another hole in BBT Necessary demonstration from nature is required.

Yes, but what is necessary is based on sound reasoning. "Necessary demonstration" were the very words used by Bellarmine to warn Galileo to not get too cocky with claiming he could prove the Copernican model. Galileo failed to heed his advice, but Galileo did provide necessary demonstration that falsified the age-old, mainstream, Aristotle/Ptolemy/Thomist model.

The CMBR has no H-alpha line, ...

If it did, it would do more harm to BBT than good. Recombination took place over more than just a few milliseconds across the universe. It took some time for the cooling to take place all over the universe. Also, the density was great and the scattering was also great. Both smear the signal. As a result of these circumstances, the CMBR is perhaps the best blackbody spectrum known.

In my thinking, this article and halos looks like more hand waving efforts to show BBT is not falling apart as the universe expands Others will have a different view

We all tend to believe what we want to believe, including me. But with science, we can look closer and closer and see who is more likely right. I don't of anything, so far, that comes close to falsifying BBT, but I do see a ton of evidence, per its predictions, that support it. It may get tweaked as we look into places we've never gone before. If it gets falsified, then that would be wonderful since it would allow an entirely new vista for an even greater universe, no doubt. But falsification requires, as you say, necessary demonstration.

 

[rod]

Helio in post #30 said, "I'm unclear what you're saying. We do see stars forming today." What we observe in M42 for example is nothing like the halos in the simulation or gas clouds with zero metals forming super massive stars because that star formation process is very different than what is observed operating in nature today. The CMBR with no H-alpha measured in it, the answer explains away why it is not observed in the CMBR but assumes it was there vs. show that H gas was actually there filling the universe. Necessary demonstration in nature is avoided here by BBT disciples to continue the model or perhaps sidestepped and avoided generally. The clear demonstration of Population III stars is not shown, whether low mass Population III stars or the super massive Population III stars as currently modeled. The pristine, primordial gas clouds that created the halos used in the simulation is not shown in nature today or observed in the past. I find the BBT has numerous examples now of exotic processes not seen operating today in nature (example inflaton and halos), using many unobserved objects created in various simulations to hold the paradigm together and explain how the universe evolved over long periods of time. A complete list of such unobserved objects and exotic processes not seen in nature today should be fully disclosed to the public I feel.

 

[rod]

Helio, what I said in post #31 does not necessarily falsify the BBT model. It does show there are indeed real holes (holes that mainstream may not acknowledge) in the paradigm that are plugged, again, and again using exotic processes not seen operating in nature today and unobserved objects appearing in various simulations for the early universe used as glue to hold things together and explain how the universe evolved.

 

[murgatroyd]

Interesting discussion @rod and @Helio. I've been wondering about some of the same things myself. JWST, as great as it is, may not be able to look back far enough to answer these questions. Perhaps one of the proposed space telescopes (NASA's Origins Space Telescope?) will be capable enough.

 

[rod]

Supermassive black hole's relativistic jets are blowing bubbles in the Teacup Galaxy

New research investigates how relativistic jets from a supermassive black hole has been shaping the Teacup Galaxy, giving it its iconic handle. Supermassive black hole's relativistic jets are blowing bubbles in the Teacup Galaxy : Read more

forums.space.com

This article above fits well with the topic here in the discussions about the origin of supermassive stars some 10^4 solar masses or more in the early universe. The reference paper cited, 'First emergence of cold accretion and supermassive star formation in the early universe' Preprint 14 March 2023, shows such stars are likely needed to explain the origin of supermassive black holes or SMBH documented in galaxies today in astronomy.

“1 INTRODUCTION More than 200 quasars have been observed at 𝑧 ~> 6 (Mortlock et al. 2011; Banados 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.” … One of the most promising scenarios to form SMBHs is the “Direct Collapse (DC)” scenario, in which the heavy seed BHs are provided by supermassive stars (SMSs) with masses of 𝑀 = 10^4-6 Msun (Bromm & Loeb 2003). They potentially form in atomic cooling halos (ACHs) with 𝑀halo = 10^7-8 Msun,…”

 

[Helio]

What we observe in M42 for example is nothing like the halos in the simulation or gas clouds with zero metals forming super massive stars because that star formation process is very different than what is observed operating in nature today.

The first stars and galaxies would be associated with the anisotropy, where the 1 part per 100,000 (as seen in the CMBR) that was more dense finally condenses enough to collapse into stars. Nobody really knows just what that will look like since it is too far to see for even the JWST. But there is at least some hints coming our way, especially for the time several hundred million years later. But that's a lot of time when we consider that massive stars form and die very rapidly, perhaps in only one or a few million years. Their explosions would help trigger more star formations. [This assumes the massive star model presented here in the OP.] This has the potential of producing a lot of populations that increment the metal composition every, say 10 or 20 million years. So in 200 million years, there could have been as many as 20 iterations. This is just me speculating but I won't be shocked to see some support for it if indeed the super massive progenitor modeling gains traction.

The BBT predicted that the earliest galaxies must appear immature. That is supported by observations since the 1930s. or so. The more recent evidence seems to show they matured a little faster than many thought they would. We will need to see farther into the past to get a better idea of what happened. More "necessary demonstration" is likely needed, and may require scopes bigger than the JWST, IMO.

I don't see any reason to think halos had to form early. I suspect these are a result of billions of years of galaxies colliding. The evidences of growing maturity with millions of galaxy images over different distances, thus at different times, supports this view, IMO. Indeed, we will engage the Andromeda in under 3 billion years, IIRC.

The CMBR with no H-alpha measured in it, the answer explains away why it is not observed in the CMBR but assumes it was there vs. show that H gas was actually there filling the universe. Necessary demonstration in nature is avoided here by BBT disciples to continue the model or perhaps sidestepped and avoided generally.

The physics of the propagation at recombination is not a big mystery full of lacking demonstration. Scattering has been well-understood since Lord Rayleigh produced his scattering formula for wavelengths smaller than the scattering particles. He even used this to estimate, surprisingly, what became known as Avogadro's number. He also demonstrated how our atmosphere is just right to give us a beautiful blue color. A thicker atmosphere produces more scattering and would wash away the blue. Curious huh?

The clear demonstration of Population III stars is not shown, whether low mass Population III stars or the super massive Population III stars as currently modeled.

Agreed. The OP article is one from a computer, not objective evidence.

I find the BBT has numerous examples now of exotic processes not seen operating today in nature (example inflaton and halos), using many unobserved objects created in various simulations to hold the paradigm together and explain how the universe evolved over long periods of time. A complete list of such unobserved objects and exotic processes not seen in nature today should be fully disclosed to the public I feel.

That would be a worthy presentation. The BBT, however, necessarily demands a change over time. From energy to gas to stars (and nucleosynthesis) to galaxies, etc. The many predictions from BBT have fallen into place over the last several decades, though the first decade hardly anyone would accept it.

 

[rod]

Helio, as you noted in post #35 about the CMBR and hydrogen gas filling the universe.

"The physics of the propagation at recombination is not a big mystery full of lacking demonstration. Scattering has been well-understood since Lord Rayleigh produced his scattering formula for wavelengths smaller than the scattering particles. He even used this to estimate, surprisingly, what became known as Avogadro's number. He also demonstrated how our atmosphere is just right to give us a beautiful blue color. A thicker atmosphere produces more scattering and would wash away the blue. Curious huh? "

Nothing you mention shows H gas present during this time. Others are making efforts to show this as factual in nature for BBT as you describe the model.

Hydrogen absorption lines in the cosmic microwave background spectrum, https://www.researchgate.net/public...s_in_the_cosmic_microwave_background_spectrum, August 2004. Redshift is some 800 to 1600 z.

Lines in the cosmic microwave background spectrum from the epoch of cosmological hydrogen recombination, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.371.1939R/abstract, October 2006. Redshift range 500 to 3500 z.

I will say H gas filling the universe when the CMBR appears is not something seen yet in the CMBR spectrum. Others look for H1 21-cm gas too and early universe, so far nothing.

Impact of inhomogeneous CMB heating of gas on the HI 21-cm signal during dark ages, https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.05908, https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.05908, 09-Nov-2018. My observation. There is no H1 21-cm line in the CMBR and apparently the redshift will be in the range 30-300 according to this 6-page report.

The public should be clearly informed of small issues like this in the BBT paradigm