JWST Discovers a Supermassive Black Hole is 'Far Larger Than Expected' (theguardian.com) 28
The Guardian reports that a supermassive black hole discovered at the center of an ancient galaxy "is five times larger than expected for the number of stars it contains, astronomers say."
Researchers spotted the immense black hole in a galaxy known as GS-9209 that lies 25bn light-years from Earth, making it one of the most distant to have been observed and recorded. The team at Edinburgh University used the James Webb space telescope (JWST) to observe the galaxy and reveal fresh details about its composition and history. Dr Adam Carnall, who led the effort, said the telescope — the most powerful ever built — showed how galaxies were growing "larger and earlier" than astronomers expected in the first billion years of the universe...
Carnall said the "very massive black hole" at the centre of GS-9209 was a "big surprise" that lent weight to the theory that such enormous black holes are responsible for shutting down star formation in early galaxies. "The evidence we see for the supermassive black hole was really unexpected," said Carnall. "This is the kind of detail we'd never have been able to see without JWST."
Carnall said the "very massive black hole" at the centre of GS-9209 was a "big surprise" that lent weight to the theory that such enormous black holes are responsible for shutting down star formation in early galaxies. "The evidence we see for the supermassive black hole was really unexpected," said Carnall. "This is the kind of detail we'd never have been able to see without JWST."
25 Billion Light Years? (Score:2)
Re:25 Billion Light Years? (Score:5, Interesting)
From https://astro.ucla.edu/~wright... [ucla.edu]
If the Universe is only 14 billion years old, why isn't the most distant object we can see 7 billion light years away?
This question makes some hidden assumptions about space and time which are not consistent with all definitions of distance and time. One assumes that all the galaxies left from a single point at the Big Bang, and the most distant one traveled away from us for half the age of the Universe at almost the speed of light, and then emitted light which came back to us at the speed of light. By assuming constant velocities, we must ignore gravity, so this would only happen in a nearly empty Universe. In the empty Universe, one of the many possible definitions of distance does agree with the assumptions in this question: the angular size distance, and it does reach a maximum value of the speed of light times one half the age of the Universe. See Part 2 of the cosmology tutorial for a discussion of the other kinds of distances which go to infinity in the empty Universe model since this gives an unbounded Universe.
See also the next question, which is
If the Universe is only 14 billion years old, how can we see objects that are now 47 billion light years away?
Re: (Score:3)
Wait... so the entire calculus equation boils down 3x the age of the universe? Well rounded that's 14billion... and 3x14 is ... fourty...tw... Holy crap Deep Thought was right!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The Universe is only 13.8 Billion years old.
Forgive my ignorance, but does 'Cosmological Inflation' account for that difference?
The diameter of the observable universe is calculated to about 93 billion light years
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: 25 Billion Light Years? (Score:4, Informative)
B/c in addition to everything moving further away, the space between is also expanding. Meaning that objects moving away from each other at a constant rate are universe sized scales are after enough time further from each other than would've expected based on the distance traveled. I'm not an astrophysicist but you can read about it from several sources such as
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/re... [harvard.edu].
Re: (Score:2)
Spacetime is not a rigid structure that always maintains a constant volume. It can be compressed (e.g. black holes), bent (e.g. gravitational lensing) and stretched. You know, wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Spacetime is not a rigid structure that always maintains a constant volume. It can be compressed (e.g. black holes), bent (e.g. gravitational lensing) and stretched. You know, wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey stuff.
So the Universe is nothing more than Silly Putty or Play Doh ?
Got It !
Re: (Score:2)
nonsense summary (Score:3)
How can "they" know how many stars a black hole contains? Summary is nonsense.
Re:nonsense summary (Score:4, Informative)
How can "they" know how many stars a black hole contains? Summary is nonsense.
Ambiguous language from the Guardian author, but try applying the 'number of stars' to the other noun in the preceding clause - galaxy.
Re:nonsense summary (Score:4, Informative)
The brightness of a galaxy is used to estimate the number of stars it contains.
Re:yeah right (Score:4, Informative)
What's the fairy tale? The black hole is bigger than they thought it would be because our models are estimations based on incomplete data and JWST provides more complete data.
Lucky for the rest of us we don't have to wait around for you to understand it.
Re: (Score:2)
> something which has never been proven to exist
I'm just going to stop you right there. Black holes are not theoretical and they are definitely not beholden to your narrow definition or understanding of them. You do not have to directly observe something to be able to prove it's existence.
No one is interested in your "pulled straight from your rump" assertions.
JWST is the gift that keeps giving. (Score:3)
We're in the boon times for blatantly misunderstanding scientific discoveries.
5 times bigger than what? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
from the summary: five times bigger than expected.
Please mod the parent down, someone. Thanks!
Re: (Score:2)
Than expected.
Fortunately, I expected nothing. So this was a pretty easy target to hit.
I knew even before I started reading (Score:3)
Even though that's like, the first question a reader would ask.
Can we like, not post this low-quality stuff here?