Strange Black Hole Discovered

Toroid

Toroid

Founding Member
Astronomers have discovered the oldest and most distinct black hole that formed 690 million years after the big bang. The quasar and black hole was named ULAS J1342+0928 and is 13.1 billion light years away. It grew to 800 million times the mass of the sun when the universe was just 5% of its current age.
Oldest Monster Black Hole Ever Found Is 800 Million Times More Massive Than the Sun
Astronomers have discovered the oldest supermassive black hole ever found — a behemoth that grew to 800 million times the mass of the sun when the universe was just 5 percent of its current age, a new study finds.

This newfound giant black hole, which formed just 690 million years after the Big Bang, could one day help shed light on a number of cosmic mysteries, such as how black holes could have reached gargantuan sizes quickly after the Big Bang and how the universe got cleared of the murky fog that once filled the entire cosmos, the researchers said in the new study.

Supermassive black holes with masses millions to billions of times that of the sun are thought to lurk at the hearts of most, if not all, galaxies. Previous research suggested these giants release extraordinarily large amounts of light when they rip apart stars and devour matter, and likely are the driving force behind quasars, which are among the brightest objects in the universe. [The Strangest Black Holes in the Universe]

Astronomers can detect quasars from the farthest corners of the cosmos, making quasars among the most distant objects known. The farthest quasars are also the earliest known quasars — the more distant one is, the more time its light took to reach Earth.

The previous record for the earliest, most distant quasar was set by ULAS J1120+0641. That quasar is located 13.04 billion light-years from Earth and existed about 750 million years after the Big Bang. The newfound quasar (and its black hole), named ULAS J1342+0928, is 13.1 billion light-years away.
Click to expand...

www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-WnOKYu-gc
 
Last edited:
nivek

nivek

As Above So Below
Nice find, to me this is an indication that the universe is much older than is currently accepted...
 
D

Dundee

Fading day by day.
That would predate the Big Bang then, which I have never much liked anyway. So if not the big bang. whats your thoughts on the expanding universe?
 
CasualBystander

CasualBystander

Celestial
The universe is expanding at a constant rate (more or less).

The apparent acceleration is due to time dilation when the average density, and gravity, was higher.
 
CasualBystander

CasualBystander

Celestial
The mass of Sagittarius A* is only about 4 million times the sun.

This black hole is 200 times as large as our black hole.

It grew at a time 690 million years when the universe was 8000 times more dense.

Estimates of the width of the universe vary from 72 billion to 7 trillion light years. That isn't much better than saying we don't know.
 
Last edited:
3FEL9

3FEL9

Islander
CasualBystander said:
The universe is expanding at a constant rate
Click to expand...

Well, Then you must have some very interesting finds in your possession. Care to elaborate a bit on this,, the expansion rate,
Mr. Casual

Is it a constant expansion speed or a constant acceleration ? Or a constant rate of what ,, m^3/s ?
 
CasualBystander

CasualBystander

Celestial
3FEL9 said:
Well, Then you must have some very interesting finds in your possession. Care to elaborate a bit on this,, the expansion rate,
Mr. Casual

Is it a constant expansion speed or a constant acceleration ? Or a constant rate of what ,, m^3/s ?
Click to expand...
Dark energy explained by relativistic time dilation? – Astronomy Now

It is like this. The near supernovas (standard candles) and redshift lines up. Distant supernovas are too dim for their redshift.

The possible explanations are:
1. Something affects the intensity of supernovas in the early universe to make them dimmer.
2. Something affects the redshift in the early universe to make it higher.
3. Something makes current/nearby/high metallicity supernovas brighter.
4. Something makes current/nearby/high metallicty supernovas bluer.
5. Light could get tired (red shift with distance).
6. The expansion of the universe could be increasing.


Only one of the many explanations for the redshift issue require dark energy.

I sometimes toss in the "tired light" theory that the further light travels the more energy it loses. This would redshift the early universe. I like the tired light theory because it makes me feel like a scientist to just make shit up like scientists do.

Actually, my tired light theory could mean the universe isn't expanding, it is just getting tired.
 
3FEL9

3FEL9

Islander
CasualBystander said:
1. Something affects the intensity of supernovas in the early universe to make them dimmer.
Click to expand...

For being a CasualBystander you are doin a pretty good job. You could have fooled me to think you know more than you claim to do..

I wonder if density could have affected the light from the early universe.. Even if it was very hot and bright there was more mass "centered" possibly absorbing photons and re-emitting some at a longer more red wave lenghts.
That could partly explain the dimming,, or simply that during 13,8 B+ years travel through various dust clouds ,, filtered some out..
 
CasualBystander

CasualBystander

Celestial
3FEL9 said:
For being a CasualBystander you are doin a pretty good job. You could have fooled me to think you know more than you claim to do..

I wonder if density could have affected the light from the early universe.. Even if it was very hot and bright there was more mass "centered" possibly absorbing photons and re-emitting some at a longer more red wave lenghts.
That could partly explain the dimming,, or simply that during 13,8 B+ years travel through various dust clouds ,, filtered some out..
Click to expand...

Could be.

Size of universe after inflation?

The universe after inflation period ended (when the universe "exploded") was about size of a grain of sand.

The CMB was generated 379,000 years later when the universe was roughly the size of the Milky Way.

At that point the universe was basically solid matter. The universe was 10E18 or more denser than it is now.

So, early on there would be time dilation.

Time at a neutron star runs about 1/3 of normal. So even our sun should be burning measurably more slowly than without relativistic effects.
 
Last edited:
August

August

Metanoia
3FEL9 said:
Well, Then you must have some very interesting finds in your possession. Care to elaborate a bit on this,, the expansion rate,
Mr. Casual

Is it a constant expansion speed or a constant acceleration ? Or a constant rate of what ,, m^3/s ?
Click to expand...

And I want to know also when does the expansion stop and the implosion begin ? Is there are determinative time between expansion and implosion ?
 
D

Dundee

Fading day by day.
August said:
And I want to know also when does the expansion stop and the implosion begin ? Is there are determinative time between expansion and implosion ?
Click to expand...
I think the latest thinking on that is that it won't stop, eventually everything will be just horrendously far apart, and all the suns will eventually die. A very dark ending.
 
CasualBystander

CasualBystander

Celestial
3FEL9 said:
No worries.. its gonna bounce right back
See y'all in the next version

Big Bounce - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

What is more likely is the fabric of space breaks down (assuming the universe is actually expanding and not static).

Space will suddenly start unraveling at random points and everything will start disappearing.

It isn't clear that matter can even exist when the multiple layers of tensor fields that constitute subspace unravel.

Haven't seen any speculation on what it would look like but just free quarks electrons and neutrinos would be my guess. Just what would be leftover when all the binding fields disappear.

Without gravity black holes would detonate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top