This impossibly massive black hole wasn't very hungry during the dawn of time

"scientists may know even less about the early evolution of the cosmos than they realized. "
"No matter in which wavelengths we observe them, quasars are nearly identical at all epochs of the universe."

And so, the BBT fans have more 'spainin' to do. But, don't worry, they have proven to be capable of explaining everything - until somebody finds a way to test it. They are very agile with a very flexible theory.

Meanwhile, I do have a question. My memory of what I have read about quasars is that they are not uniformly distributed in the observable universe - most appear to be "distant" and thus "earlier" in the evolution of the universe. Is that correct?
 
Jun 25, 2024
1
0
10
Visit site
The relationship of the origin of the universe and why we are finding supermassive black holes (smb) so close to the origin, which is contrary to previous consensus reality (there shouldn't be enough matter to fuel a smb at this point of time) is related to the nature of existence itself and the observer. Science cannot unravel the origin of the universe nor explain the nature of the observer. It will be an eternal mystery. No permanent answer will be forthcoming even if the observer has an infinite amount of time to "solve" this problem.
 
Galaxy starlight flux is much different than any other flux. In all the flux of earth that we study, all of the components of the flux is present locally. And make the flux.

But starlight flux has a huge time and location band within it. I am not referring to the flux from one star. Even though the light from one star is apparent also. I am referring to a flux of stars. Star are the components of the flux. A star field. Thus the flux of starlight is only apparent. What you see is NOT there. It only was there. A multi-exposure image. It's like taking a snapshot of a baseball game every five minutes and then putting all the images together into one image.

Only starlight time stamps are not from selections of time.....they are from selections of distance. Giving the illusion of time.

One "apparent" upon another. What star light we see is only due to our position and the past emitters distance. Our position determines WHAT we see. Our velocity determines HOW we see it. One apparent measurement on top another.

The reason man will always be curious is because there are questions that can not be answered.
 
Teaser overstates the article: "When time began" is not at the same time as "cosmic dawn".
A SMBH is not a "cosmic void".
When I see things like this, I trash the rest of the article. Someone, or some thing, does not know what they are talking about.
 
So, back to my question in post #2:

I do have a question. My memory of what I have read about quasars is that they are not uniformly distributed in the observable universe - most appear to be "distant" and thus "earlier" in the evolution of the universe. Is that correct?
 
The ref paper cited and abstract provides some interesting info to geek out on :)

"...We present JWST/MRS (rest-frame infrared) spectroscopic observations of the quasar J1120+0641 at z=7.0848 (well within the epoch of reionization). The hot torus dust was clearly detected at λrest~1.3 µm, with a black-body temperature of Tdust=1,413.5+5.7−7.4K, slightly elevated compared to similarly luminous quasars at lower redshifts. Importantly, the supermassive black hole mass of J1120+0641 based on the Hα line (accessible only with JWST), MBH=1.52±0.17×10^9M⊙, is in good agreement with previous ground-based rest-frame ultraviolet Mg II measurements."

A SMBH of 1.52E+9 solar masses, diameter about 39.48 au across, compare this size to our solar system from Sun to Pluto. Redshift 7.0848 using cosmology calculators provides distance (look back time distance) about 13 Gly, https://www.kempner.net/cosmic.php

Resolving this black hole diameter at about 3.99E+9 pc, close to 9.9E-6 mas angular size. The comoving radial distance in GR expanding space places the object well beyond the 13 Gly distance used for most reporting.

Edit correction. 1.52E+9 solar mass BH about 60 au across and angular size about 1.5E-5 mas, I used 1 billion solar mass BH initially. The abstract reported 1.5E+9 solar mass BH.