Monster black hole discovered at cosmic dawn

February 25, 2015
This is an artist's impression of a quasar with a supermassive black hole in the distant universe. Credit: Zhaoyu Li/NASA/JPL-Caltech/Misti Mountain Observatory

Scientists have discovered the brightest quasar in the early universe, powered by the most massive black hole yet known at that time. The international team led by astronomers from Peking University in China and from the University of Arizona announce their findings in the scientific journal Nature on Feb. 26.

The discovery of this quasar, named SDSS J0100+2802, marks an important step in understanding how quasars, the most powerful objects in the universe, have evolved from the earliest epoch, only 900 million years after the Big Bang, which is thought to have happened 13.7 billion years ago. The quasar, with its central black hole mass of 12 billion solar masses and the luminosity of 420 trillion suns, is at a distance of 12.8 billion light-years from Earth.

The discovery of this ultraluminous quasar also presents a major puzzle to the theory of black hole growth at early universe, according to Xiaohui Fan, Regents' Professor of Astronomy at the UA's Steward Observatory, who co-authored the study.

"How can a quasar so luminous, and a black hole so massive, form so early in the history of the universe, at an era soon after the earliest stars and galaxies have just emerged?" Fan said. "And what is the relationship between this monster black hole and its surrounding environment, including its host galaxy?

"This ultraluminous quasar with its supermassive black hole provides a unique laboratory to the study of the mass assembly and galaxy formation around the most massive in the early universe."

The quasar dates from a time close to the end of an important cosmic event that astronomers referred to as the "epoch of reionization": the cosmic dawn when light from the earliest generations of galaxies and quasars is thought to have ended the "cosmic dark ages" and transformed the universe into how we see it today.

Discovered in 1963, quasars are the most powerful objects beyond our Milky Way galaxy, beaming vast amounts of energy across space as the in their center sucks in matter from its surroundings. Thanks to the new generation of digital sky surveys, astronomers have discovered more than 200,000 quasars, with ages ranging from 0.7 billion years after the Big Bang to today.

The newly discovered quasar SDSS J0100+2802 is the one with the most massive black hole and the highest luminosity among all known distant quasars. The background photo, provided by Yunnan Observatory, shows the dome of the 2.4meter telescope and the sky above it. Credit: Zhaoyu Li/Shanghai Observatory

Shining with the equivalent of 420 trillion suns, the new quasar is seven times brighter than the most distant quasar known (which is 13 billion years away). It harbors a black hole with mass of 12 billion solar masses, proving it to be the most luminous quasar with the most among all the known high redshift (very distant) quasars.

"By comparison, our own Milky Way galaxy has a black hole with a mass of only 4 million at its center; the black hole that powers this new quasar is 3,000 time heavier," Fan said.

Feige Wang, a doctoral student from Peking University who is supervised jointly by Fan and Prof. Xue-Bing Wu at Peking University, the study's lead author, initially spotted this quasar for further study.

"This quasar was first discovered by our 2.4-meter Lijiang Telescope in Yunnan, China, making it the only quasar ever discovered by a 2-meter telescope at such distance, and we're very proud of it," Wang said. "The ultraluminous nature of this quasar will allow us to make unprecedented measurements of the temperature, ionization state and metal content of the intergalactic medium at the epoch of reionization."

Following the initial discovery, two telescopes in southern Arizona did the heavy lifting in determining the distance and mass of the black hole: the 8.4-meter Large Binocular Telescope, or LBT, on Mount Graham and the 6.5-meter Multiple Mirror Telescope, or MMT, on Mount Hopkins. Additional observations with the 6.5-meter Magellan Telescope in Las Campanas Observatory, Chile, and the 8.2-meter Gemini North Telescope in Mauna Kea, Hawaii, confirmed the results.

"This quasar is very unique," said Xue-Bing Wu, a professor of the Department of Astronomy, School of Physics at Peking University and the associate director of the Kavli Institute of Astronomy and Astrophysics. "Just like the brightest lighthouse in the distant universe, its glowing light will help us to probe more about the early universe."

Wu leads a team that has developed a method to effectively select quasars in the distant universe based on optical and near-infrared photometric data, in particular using data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and NASA's Wide-Field Infrared Explorer, or WISE, satellite.

"This is a great accomplishment for the LBT," said Fan, who chairs the LBT Scientific Advisory Committee and also discovered the previous record holders for the most massive black hole in the , about a fourth of the size of the newly discovered object. "The especially sensitive optical and infrared spectrographs of the LBT provided the early assessment of both the distance of the quasars and the mass of the black hole at the quasar's center."

For Christian Veillet, director of the Large Binocular Telescope Observatory, or LBTO, this discovery demonstrates both the power of international collaborations and the benefit of using a variety of facilities spread throughout the world.

"This result is particularly gratifying for LBTO, which is well on its way to full nighttime operations," Veillet said. "While in this case the authors used two different instruments in series, one for visible light spectroscopy and one for near-infrared imaging, LBTO will soon offer a pair of instruments that can be used simultaneously, effectively doubling the number of observations possible in clear skies and ultimately creating even more exciting science."

To further unveil the nature of this remarkable quasar, and to shed light on the physical processes that led to the formation of the earliest supermassive black holes, the research team will carry out further investigations on this quasar with more international telescopes, including the Hubble Space Telescope and the Chandra X-ray Telescope.

Explore further: Astronomers find universe's most distant quasar (w/ video)

More information: Nature DOI: 10.1038/nature14241

Related Stories

Astronomers find universe's most distant quasar (w/ video)

June 29, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- A team of European astronomers has used ESO’s Very Large Telescope and a host of other telescopes to discover and study the most distant quasar found to date. This brilliant beacon, powered by a black ...

Mysterious quasar sequence explained

September 10, 2014

Quasars are supermassive black holes that live at the center of distant massive galaxies. They shine as the most luminous beacons in the sky across the entire electromagnetic spectrum by rapidly accreting matter into their ...

Galactic 'hailstorm' in the early universe

January 16, 2015

Two teams of astronomers led by researchers at the University of Cambridge have looked back nearly 13 billion years, when the Universe was less than 10 percent its present age, to determine how quasars - extremely luminous ...

Telescopes give shape to furious black hole winds

February 19, 2015

NASA's Nuclear Spectroscopic Telescope Array (NuSTAR) and ESA's (European Space Agency) XMM-Newton telescope are showing that fierce winds from a supermassive black hole blow outward in all directions—a phenomenon that ...

Recommended for you

Clandestine black hole may represent new population

June 28, 2016

Astronomers have combined data from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory, the Hubble Space Telescope and the National Science Foundation's Karl G. Jansky Very Large Array (VLA) to conclude that a peculiar source of radio waves ...

Minor mergers are major drivers of star formation

June 28, 2016

Around half of the star formation in the local Universe arises from minor mergers between galaxies, according to data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. The patch of sky called Stripe 82 is observed repeatedly to produce ...

Opal discovered in Antarctic meteorite

June 28, 2016

Planetary scientists have discovered pieces of opal in a meteorite found in Antarctica, a result that demonstrates that meteorites delivered water ice to asteroids early in the history of the solar system. Led by Professor ...

60 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Tuxford
1.3 / 5 (23) Feb 25, 2015
"How can a quasar so luminous, and a black hole so massive, form so early in the history of the universe, at an era soon after the earliest stars and galaxies have just emerged?" Fan said.

...quasar dates from a time close to the end of an important cosmic event that astronomers referred to as the "epoch of reionization": the cosmic dawn when light from the earliest generations of galaxies and quasars is thought to have ended the "cosmic dark ages" and transformed the universe into how we see it today.


'is though to have ended...' Merger maniacs beginning to hedge their bets on the Huge Bang Fantasy they have so doggedly insisted is correct.
katesisco
1 / 5 (5) Feb 25, 2015
Loop time?
Ouroboros : we have seen past the tail to the head of the snake?
danieljknight
Feb 25, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Uncle Ira
4.1 / 5 (27) Feb 25, 2015
Why do these atheists keep talking about the big bang as if it is fact when repeated studies show that it could not have happened and any search for evidence has only shown evidence against it? Atheists you are really annoying, shut up with your magic bomb creator theory already.


It's a science interweb place, bangs is one of the things they talk about on on science sites. If they are annoying you that much Cher I am sure they wouldn't mind if you went away so you would be annoying with their bangs and stuffs.

Oh yeah, I almost forget. When you leave to quit being annoyed, don't forget to leave the silly looking pointy cap at the door so the next couyon can wear him.
big_hairy_jimbo
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 25, 2015
I'm really getting confused with the age of the universe and distances in the universe now.

I read an article on here about looking for quasars with a home telescope (http://phys.org/n...es.html) and they were talking about a Quasar 29 Billions light years away, and stated that even though the universe is 13.7 Billion years old, that the universe has expanded, hence an object can be further away than 13.7 Billion light years.
Now when you read THIS article it states a black hole that is 12.8 billion light-years from Earth formed only 900 million years after the Big Bang.
So when would a Quasar at 29 Billion light years away have formed??? It's obviously not a linear extrapolation, but I am really confused that this article states 12.8 Billion light years, and must have subtracted that from 13.7billion to arrive at the 900 million years birth date.

I'd guess one of these two articles is WRONG.
big_hairy_jimbo
2.4 / 5 (9) Feb 25, 2015
Just a bit of wild thinking here, but it seems these far away Quasars have very high luminosity. Yet they are BLACK HOLES!!!! Now I'm just using my imagination here so I'm prepared for 1 votes, but what if primordial black holes had nothing around them what so ever, then they start SPEWING matter out into our universe. The matter coming from another universe. ie it's a WHITE HOLE. This would be the Birth of a Galaxy, and explain all the gas that is present around these distant Quasars, and their luminosity. Eventually the gas coalesces to form stars, and the white hole radiates away the last of the gas. Then the white hole shuts down and behaves like a black hole. Perhaps the polarity of these objects just oscillates between universes, as white hole to black hole etc. I also believe that there is a galaxy at both ends of this object, the white and black sides. Gravity leaks like a shadow between the two giving the illusion of dark matter. Maybe several universes are linked. Vote 1 now
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.9 / 5 (20) Feb 25, 2015
Why do these atheists keep talking about the big bang as if it is fact when repeated studies show that it could not have happened and any search for evidence has only shown evidence against it?
Why do godders find it necessary to lie about studies in order to promote their god of truth? Why do godders think that the god who wrote a book describing things we know never happened, and people we know never existed, nevertheless be a valid source of info on how the universe was created?

Of course you could be right - the scientists could very well have it all wrong, and many of them will freely admit this. And yes, there could very well be a creator god out there somewhere who is responsible for the existence of everything, whether science ever discovers him or not.

But we can be certain that it is not the god who writes books which fail so thoroughly to describe the universe he claims to have created. THAT god has proven himself to be a fairy tale.
Steve 200mph Cruiz
4.5 / 5 (19) Feb 25, 2015
Why do these atheists keep talking about the big bang as if it is fact when repeated studies show that it could not have happened and any search for evidence has only shown evidence against it? Atheists you are really annoying, shut up with your magic bomb creator theory already.


You're right in that it's probably not 100% right, but that's not the point. The point is that the big bang is closer to what actually happened than anything you pull out of your bum.

Observational evidence points to the big bang, this article does not disprove it, it only implies that massive black holes existed during a period of the universe where it was too hot for atoms to exist. There are actually some big bang theories that say when the universe was super dense, small quantum fluctuations where enough to create massive black holes, this study isn't a problem at all.
dtxx
4.4 / 5 (21) Feb 25, 2015
I, for one, never once called the big bang a fact. I use that word so rarely in a scientific context I almost forgot how to pronounce it. I don't recall ever seeing one of you evangelicals understand what position atheists might hold nor what is actually being said when we say we see evidence of cosmic inflation. We used to get along so well. Your comic book full of god tales began with a big shiny explosion, and hey, Big Bang sure sounds like something a godman could do. But then you guys started saying all this stuff happened only a (biblical) week ago, and we were more like no it's probably been billions of weeks and now everyone is all in a fluster.

One claim I will make is "all this stuff around us in the universe appears to be here." It got here somehow. Who do we think might be closer to figuring out how - the guy out measuring stuff in space, doing lab experiments, math, colliding matter - or the guy who parrots a 2000 year old comic book because he wants to go to heaven?
malapropism
4.2 / 5 (21) Feb 25, 2015
@danieljknight

Atheists you are really annoying, shut up with your magic bomb creator theory already.

Religious fundamentalists you are really annoying, shut up with your magic creator theory already.
JoeBlue
2.1 / 5 (11) Feb 25, 2015
I personally get rather miffed when some random astrophysicist starts promoting his pet cosmological theory as if it were proven already.

Steve 200mph Cruiz
4.6 / 5 (18) Feb 25, 2015
Yeah Joe,
I personally get miffed when some random guy starts promoting his ideas on physics are better than the best professors in the world.

I can't tell if your arrogant or stupid, but they usually go in hand anyways.
cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (17) Feb 25, 2015
Why do these atheists keep talking about the big bang as if it is fact...shown evidence against it? ...shut up with your magic bomb creator theory already.

The real irony is the big bang fairy tale is a theologically based creation story, with the same types of believers as the religionists.

"I was there when Abbe Georges Lemaître first proposed this [Big Bang] theory. ... There is no rational reason to doubt that the universe has existed indefinitely, for an infinite time. .... It is only myth that attempts to say how the universe came to be, either four thousand or twenty billion years ago."
[Expressing his belief that the Big Bang is a myth devised to explain creation. He said he heard Lemaître (who was, at the time both a member of the Catholic hierarchy and an accomplished scientist) say in private that this theory was a way to reconcile science with St. Thomas Aquinas' theological dictum of creatio ex nihilo—creation out of nothing.]
Hannes Alfven
snoosebaum
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 25, 2015
@ cant , hey something i can agree with !! The 'big bang' makes no spacial sense [ what were the boundary conditions? , The 'conformal universe' of Roger Penrose does make sense.
And we humans do seem to be hard wired to produce singlular creation myths, ???
McSteel
4.6 / 5 (11) Feb 25, 2015
big_hairy_jimbo:
So when would a Quasar at 29 Billion light years away have formed??? It's obviously not a linear extrapolation, but I am really confused that this article states 12.8 Billion light years, and must have subtracted that from 13.7billion to arrive at the 900 million years birth date


That is a very good question. This article is wrong if that is how they arrived at the quasar's age. The observable universe is about 93 Gly across, and the total size of the universe isn't known, it might be infinite, but not necessarily. The earliest we can see is 377,000 post-BigBang, since that is when the universe became transparent to visible light. Up until then it was opaque, so we can't deduce anything based on standard photons. We could, in theory, observe a picture painted by neutrinos or perhaps gravitational waves, but detecting those with any kind of usable resolution is far more tricky.
McSteel
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 25, 2015
@big_hairy_jimbo:

RE: White Holes and how Black Holes are luminous - it has to do with the accretion disk that forms around a BH. As matter falls in, it usually doesn't do so in a straight line, what with all the spacetime warping BHs do. And since BHs are spinning themselves, they drag the matter with them. The same way the planets orbit the Sun, basically. Now since matter is accelerating into the BH, and takes a while to fall in, it accumulates heat. This adds kinetic energy to the electrons and ionizes the matter. Accelerated charge emits photons, and there's your light source. The other mechanism is the Jet, which forms on the poles of the BH. It's simply matter traveling at 99.999% C flying off due to momentum shifts and gravitational shear. It too is ionized and so it glows. The glow actually consists of X- and gamma-rays too, of course, as well as pretty much all other wavelengths.

As for White Holes, those are still more in the sci-fi realm than anything else, really...
Dethe
1.5 / 5 (10) Feb 25, 2015
The discovery of this ultraluminous quasar also presents a major puzzle to the theory of black hole growth at early universe. How can a quasar so luminous, and a black hole so massive, form so early in the history of the universe, at an era soon after the earliest stars and galaxies have just emerged?
Well, it's no problem for Steady state universe models. The history of physics is full of failed models, which followed the formal math well, despite they were all wrong (epicycle model, hollow Earth theory).

The existence of such giant black holes also poses a problem for the existing theories of their formation by accretion, as it's explained here...
eric96
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 25, 2015
Why do these atheists keep talking about the big bang as if it is fact when repeated studies show that it could not have happened and any search for evidence has only shown evidence against it? Atheists you are really annoying, shut up with your magic bomb creator theory already.


Because the Atheists and media, and general public are unaware of this fact.
Just to name a few examples.
Point, singularity, center and explosions are all words cosmologists forbid you to use in context of big bang. I just wish there was this massive book with all the latest cosmological observations cataloged in plain English. People want to share their opinion, but in cosmology, the general public doesn't have the tools to do so. I myself am trying to reconcile a theory of everything but its impossible even by chance for everything to fit current observations if i don't have access to them.
https://www.physi....798714/
eric96
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 26, 2015
@big_hairy_jimbo

I'm not sure there is even a correct perception of time.
The reason is according to cosmologists the universe has no center.
Well if it has no center how can you be sure of the time?
If you can't see the edges of the universe, how can you be sure of the time?
The official age of the universe is 13.7 billion years.
It's possible that this is wrong and it's closer to 30, but if this is the case it will take scientists about a decade before they make it official the problem is the further you go back the less evidence you have which means it would take a decade a minimum in this case before anything changed.

As for you blackhole / whitehole see the buttom of this post
https://www.physi....798714/

big_hairy_jimbo
5 / 5 (4) Feb 26, 2015
So how is the age of the Universe determined??? I thought I had all this under control, until the expansion bit threw a spanner in the works, let alone an accelerating/decelerating expansion. How do they know the SIZE of the universe?? I can sort of guess that if we knew the starting temp of the universe and then look at the CMB (which I think is around 2.4K) then you could guestimate volume, if you knew the age I assume the CMB is still cooling??? If the Universe is expanding beyond light speed now, shouldn't the CMB STILL be evolving and fairly rapidly??? This stuff does my head in hahahahaha.
PhotonX
4.5 / 5 (15) Feb 26, 2015
OFF TOPIC
danieljknob says:
Why do these atheists keep talking about the big bang as if it is fact when repeated studies show that it could not have happened and any search for evidence has only shown evidence against it? Atheists you are really annoying, shut up with your magic bomb creator theory already.
Atheism: the lack of belief in gods. Period. A large group of atheists will find disagreement on virtually any subject you care to name. Why do you think the writers are atheists, anyway, because they think the Earth is more than 6000 years old? Those sillies.
.
As malapropism already said: "Religious fundamentalists you are really annoying, shut up with your magic creator theory already." If you don't want to read scientific articles, then don't come to science sites. Stick to your Creationist sites where humans ride dinosaurs and bananas are a gift from God.
.
.
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (13) Feb 26, 2015
I'd guess one of these two articles is WRONG.

Not really. Just depends on which distance do you take:
The amount of light years the photon has travelled (which is 13.7) or the amount of light years the a photon would take if we were to start now (which is quite a bit longer)

The other mechanism is the Jet, which forms on the poles of the BH. It's simply matter traveling at 99.999% C flying off due to momentum shifts and gravitational shear.

...and when this stuff runs into slower moving stuff you get quite a light show.

Point, singularity, center and explosions are all words cosmologists forbid

They are not forbidden. they are just wrong (because they do not match observation. And no matter how beautiful your theory is: if it doesn't match observation it's wrong)
TheOrphan
5 / 5 (2) Feb 26, 2015
The implication is the matter of this Black Hole was much younger than the matter of the expansion field, and it was simply left behind after the initial expansion event.
verkle
Feb 26, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (15) Feb 26, 2015
Atheists commenting on anything religious is like a monkey talking about the details of the bottom of the ocean. i.e. they don't have a clue.

Just beliving in something doesn't make you an expert on it, either.
Taking the 'pro' side of a made up subject is as pointless as taking the 'con' side. It just wastes everyone's time.
reset
1 / 5 (13) Feb 26, 2015
Atheists commenting on anything religious is like a monkey talking about the details of the bottom of the ocean. i.e. they don't have a clue.

Just beliving in something doesn't make you an expert on it, either.
Taking the 'pro' side of a made up subject is as pointless as taking the 'con' side. It just wastes everyone's time.


But we have ourselves a forum full of experts here on all of the religious entities of cosmology. Posters who don't believe in God berate the ones that choose to, while they themselves choose to believe in notions such as the Big Bang, singularities, and a universe structured around a purely attractive force balanced by velocity and temperature.

Funny.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (11) Feb 26, 2015
But we have ourselves a forum full of experts here on all of the religious entities of cosmology.

Is there one? You are imagining things.

More precisely: you are confused between people defending the "as yet best explanation"
and people who "defend a theory because it must not be questioned. When it comes to the scientific/educated posters there are plenty of the former. But I have yet to meet one of the latter.

Posters who don't believe in God berate the ones that choose to,

And with good cause. Making a choice without a basis is just...stupid (not just in terms of chosing a religion).

The other issues (big bang, etc.) DO have a basis in a sensible basis - until and unless someone comes up with one that is better. So it's the best choice to currently make.
nswanberg
1 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2015
Might this be the black hole from which our universe came?
As a point on the equator of a spinning black hole approaches the speed of light an inward crushing force is developed that cause the black hole to rotate even faster in order to conserve angular momentum. As the crushing force increases the black hole changes shape from a sphere to a cylinder and part of the black hole will extend beyond its own event horizon allowing space, time, energy and matter to escape at the poles. Sort of looks like Laniakea.
theon
1 / 5 (1) Feb 26, 2015
"How can a quasar so luminous, and a black hole so massive, form so early in the history of the universe, at an era soon after the earliest stars and galaxies have just emerged?" Fan said.

This question has been answered years ago, in a paper the authors did not bother to look up. arXiv:1108.1697 "Model for common growth of supermassive black holes, bulges and globular star clusters: ripping off Jeans clusters"
alextheaboveaverage
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 26, 2015
Articles like this seem to attract all the religious nuts. I literally will scroll to the comments to seem them get offended and scold "atheists" for [insert something about Biblical knowledge here].
So to all of them, I extend a thank you, for making my lunch break more entertaining.
davray700
1.1 / 5 (7) Feb 26, 2015


But we can be certain that it is not the god who writes books which fail so thoroughly to describe the universe he claims to have created. THAT god has proven himself to be a fairy tale.

This is why so many atheists are arrogant and one-sided. When trying to explain something to a child thousands of years ago, do you start with 21st century Physics?

davray700
1.7 / 5 (11) Feb 26, 2015
This is a great science site and I have learned lot. I especially enjoy the comments from some very smart people. But I expected a lot more from these "smart people" who resort to 3rd grade name calling. "If you don't see it my way, you're and idiot".
On religion: Atheists have no more proof than religious people about creation. From what I've read, the only difference I see is the atheists seem to be more hateful and rude.
Keep studying and sharing knowledge and little by little, humans will find the secrets of the universe.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (12) Feb 26, 2015
From what I've read
Obviously, you havent been reading the right stuff.
atheists seem to be more hateful and rude
Rude has nothing to do with being right. But as far as rude goes, how rude is the religionist who insists you cant be good unless you believe in his particular god? And they will say this with that insipid half-smile on their face, designed to infuriate.

After all they KNOW that the god of infinite love and mercy will nevertheless consign them to eternal torture just because they choose to accept the overwhelming evidence that he aint there.

Retribution is an intrinsic part of their faith, whether they can wait for the afterlife to exact it or not. Experience has taught us that they usually cant. They shun, they ignore, they refuse to patronize, they persecute, they incarcerate, they torture, and they murder.

Apparently their god cant wait either and so left a book full of explicit instructions on how to abuse unbelievers in his name.
Drjsa_oba
5 / 5 (1) Feb 26, 2015
I was going to point out my disappointment with the references to time in this article but I see it has been covered already. I was under the impression that no one who knew any science would do what this article has done in respect of their references to time instead of light years.

I begin to wonder if there is a hidden agenda to make people confused on purpose?
Drjsa_oba
5 / 5 (7) Feb 26, 2015
I used to get annoyed at theists for pushing stories as fact and brainwashing little kids that don't know any better. Now ... I still get annoyed but admit that there is little I can do to save those kids from a possible lifetime of abuse at the hands of various religious organisations.
adave
3.3 / 5 (3) Feb 26, 2015
Wouldn't it be interesting if this primal black hole had multiple entangled singularities? Take a thousand orbiting black holes that can't penetrate their event horizons. They will be stuck together in time where they touch but not in space. They can rebound but have L. Susskind's wormhole entanglement. They will have a dual QM non local existence. During some phase of inflation with Heisenberg localities, instant singularities might come into existence. There is a probability that inflation was not perfectly directed. Could the sum of some inflation vectors be negative even if gravity had a plus sign?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (11) Feb 27, 2015
On religion: Atheists have no more proof than religious people about creation

Creation is a 'theist' issue. So what atheists think (from an antehist point of view) isn't relevant.
We're on a science site here - and any kind of definite statement about creation (and anything else) had better be scientific.
Just saying "the other side has no proof" is not an argument for anything - and certainly not an argument that bolsters one's own position in any way.

And on top of that: theists first claimed they know something: "god exists and he did stuff (like creation)". So if anyone has to prove anything at all it's them. You can't just make a statement and then say "prove me wrong". That's idiotic (in the medical sense of the word).
jsdarkdestruction
5 / 5 (11) Feb 27, 2015
Atheists commenting on anything religious is like a monkey talking about the details of the bottom of the ocean. i.e. they don't have a clue.

Very evident from some of the comments above.


You mean kind of like creationists and biology and geology and cosmology and physics and archeology? Most of the atheist you speak of were born into organized religion and became disillusioned when the contradictions and the lies and how organized
Religion tries to bully people to do as they think they should under threat of pain a and torment for all eternity and the promise of a magic perfect afterlife for all eternity if they do what the religion wants them too.
emaalouf
5 / 5 (3) Feb 27, 2015
One theory being kicked around is that stars formed, lived and died much faster in the early universe due to temperature and pressure extremes. Typically, first generation stars fuse Hydrogen into Helium. This process along with skipping 2nd and 3rd generation states (yellow and red giants) can be expedited straight into a Black Hole or more accurately, a black sphere.

Such theory is just that. An experiment may ultimately be devised in the LHC to validate or debunk it.
reset
1 / 5 (6) Feb 27, 2015
all of the religious entities of cosmology.
Is there one?


Many, but 2 glaring examples. These would be the one that physics as we know it doesn't exist inside and the one where physics as we know it wouldn't allow it to happen. The claim that known physics has to break down in order for something to happen is analgous to saying "God did it"...sorry. All you have is "belief" that these things are possible.

You are imagining things.

The other issues (big bang, etc.) DO have a basis in a sensible basis - until and unless someone comes up with one that is better. So it's the best choice to currently make.


You are deceiving yourself. Belief in that which cannot be proven constitutes religion, regardless of the object of worship.

We're on a science site here - and any kind of definite statement about creation (and anything else) had better be scientific.


It is scientific when physics must 'break down' for a theory to work?
reset
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 27, 2015
Atheists commenting on anything religious is like a monkey talking about the details of the bottom of the ocean. i.e. they don't have a clue.

Very evident from some of the comments above.


You mean kind of like creationists and biology and geology and cosmology and physics and archeology? Most of the atheist you speak of were born into organized religion and became disillusioned when the contradictions and the lies and how organized
Religion tries to bully people to do as they think they should under threat of pain a and torment for all eternity and the promise of a magic perfect afterlife for all eternity if they do what the religion wants them too.


Gotta agree with this one. But one can beleive in God without the need for anyone else to validate it, this makes it more of a spirituality thing than religion.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (10) Feb 27, 2015
I used to get annoyed at theists for pushing stories as fact and brainwashing little kids that don't know any better. Now ... I still get annoyed but admit that there is little I can do to save those kids from a possible lifetime of abuse at the hands of various religious organisations.

Spread the word.
https://www.youtu...TVUulGwc
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (9) Feb 27, 2015
Gotta agree with this one. But one can beleive in God without the need for anyone else to validate it, this makes it more of a spirituality thing than religion
Only because you still want the things that religion promises - life after death, wishes granted, absolution of guilt, preferred status. Dont be a dupe. These things arent real and cant be granted by gods which dont exist.
Shabs42
5 / 5 (5) Feb 27, 2015
You are deceiving yourself. Belief in that which cannot be proven constitutes religion, regardless of the object of worship.


Theists seem to have a problem conflating belief with worship. I believe the Big Bang happened, but I don't worship it, and am completely open to another theory supplanting it given that is has better evidence than current models. I would really rather it did, the Big Bang is hard to understand for a layman and not very intuitive. Of course, nothing says the Universe will be easy to understand for everyone, would be sort of shocking if it were.
adave
1 / 5 (7) Feb 27, 2015
The order of events and the knowledge contained in Genesis one is very unusual. What are the chances that nomads could have the knowledge and events of the universe in the right order? How many numbers in the big lottery? The order of creation is correct. (Don't equate this with creationism.) You see the first light, Cambrian explosion of life. The size of the creatures in the ocean. The kind of life that came from the ocean to dry land, insects, seeds, pro and eukaryotic life. Early in Genesis there is a mention of creating on the surface of the waters. Something happening on the surface of a fluid is the description of the information contained on the surface of a black hole. Leonard Susskind talks about the very new idea (2008) of the Holographic universe. Stone age man could not know what we know by advanced Scientific study. By Occam's razor there had to be an observer that was 14.5 billion years old to tell them. No one was to have proof until the age of knowledge. Brrr Ky draft!
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (11) Feb 27, 2015
By Occam's razor there had to be an observer that was 14.5 billion years old to tell them.


Skippy, that old observer should have taken better notes. Because he got most of the things he passed on mixed up. Now if you want god to be the observer, then you have not made a very good choice. Why is that you ask me? Okayyeei, I will tell.

Something as smart as a god would be better at telling peoples what he wanted.

Something as smart as a god would double check to see if the peoples he was passing on the godly truth to were writing it down right.

And something as smart as a god would make sure the bible writers got the boot from their bible writing jobs for putting all the silly stuffs like floods and angels and virgins having babies and talking burning bushes and slaves quitting their work in Egypt to take over all of Israel.

If they had a really good god, he would have given them Egypt and made the Egyptians move out.
Uncle Ira
4.1 / 5 (9) Feb 27, 2015
P.S. for you adave-Skippy because I ran short on letter spaces.

I am glad you saved the silliest part of your argument for the end. He deserves special attentions.

This part is what I don't understand. It is true that,,,,,,,

No one was to have proof until the age of knowledge. Brrr Ky draft!


,,,, because until the age of knowledges peoples bought on with the silly foolishment about the nonsense that the prophetical types were trying to pass on as the words from the gods.

Didn't see that one coming, Cher? If you didn't then you would not be a very choice for god to use to pass on whatever it is he wants us to know. Or if he was a really smart god, he could just tell us all himself, that way there would be no confusions.
Nova-Solaris
5 / 5 (7) Feb 28, 2015
@adave, you mean in Genesis where god created plants before the sun? Have you ever read your own holy book? Seriously, placing your own spin and performing mental gymnastics to validate what you already agree with is intellectual dishonesty to the extreme.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (5) Feb 28, 2015
In our strictly defined universe there is no place for singularities hiden bihind invibible border of no return for matter and energy, that creat information paradox, which are only mathematical artifacts of untenable theory. There is such only in theoretical physics, which is far from reality and near the gambling spirit. Nor there was a big bang, nor there is elastic cosmic vacuum, nor there is black holes. There is too many lies in this world. The cause of gravity is not phisical but spiritual. Something like love or intelligent behavior of "elementary" which in fact are complex bilding blocks of our reality, which support the structure of the universe and the inertial movement of objects in it.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (5) Feb 28, 2015
It is disturbing that modern cosmology and theoretical physics is trying to explain the world we live with invisible and intangible phenomena as black holes, dark energy, dark matter, hidden dimensions elastic vacuum of space space, virtual particles and others. To seek such invisible and intangible phenomena is required a lot of time - infinite amount of time which provides a comfortable satisfaction career, without a real contribution to science. Such popular theories sounds to me like a modern mythology and shamanism.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (5) Feb 28, 2015
@Nova-Solaris

What is the problem God to create plants before the sun? In God's kingdom there will be no sun because God himself illuminates the reality with his glory.

When you claim that you read the scripture should read it to the end. As usual critics of Scripture have no rest day. Nothing new under the sun.
z_darius
5 / 5 (7) Feb 28, 2015
Why do these atheists keep talking about the big bang as if it is fact when repeated studies show that it could not have happened and any search for evidence has only shown evidence against it? Atheists you are really annoying, shut up with your magic bomb creator theory already.


Is this a trick question?
Or are you suggesting that Monseigneur Georges Lemaître, a Belgian Catholic Priest who was the originator of what would become known as the "Big Bang Theory", was an atheist?
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Feb 28, 2015
What is the problem God to create plants before the sun?
@viko_mx
ever hear of this little thing called photosynthesis? no sun, no plants. dead stuff. no reproduction. no life. like the creationist movement
When you claim that you read the scripture should read it to the end. As usual critics of Scripture have no rest day
the critics of the bible likely know more about it than the supporters who claim to read it regularly

case in point: there is NO validation of your claims in the bible
there is also no reason to have plants in the afterlife, moron

you are also the type of reader who makes assumptions based upon your interpretations of the text, which are usually false
if you have pictures, knicknacks of animals, plants, or even paintings of anything natural you are violating your own tenets, just like you are also violating them for "working" on the sabbath

but you will find an excuse for all that...
https://www.youtu...jWkVKyRo
viko_mx
1 / 5 (5) Mar 01, 2015
"ever hear of this little thing called photosynthesis? no sun, no plants. dead stuff. no reproduction. no life. like the creationist movement"

It hapened to me but you do not read carefully my previous post. I said that God iluminates the reality by his glory and the sun existance in this day of creation is not necessary. Into his hands God has everything needed for living organisms created by him. Hi is the legislator in this universe and if you accept this fact or not is only important for you. God created us with free will and right to choose. Notice that dictators are trying to take away the right of the people that God has given to them. Because they are unhappy people incapable of love and guided by destructive feelings such as fear, ego and pride. Only a free person can love unselfishly others people and sincerely wishes to their well being.

viko_mx
1 / 5 (5) Mar 01, 2015
For what afterlife you talking about? We discuss God's work but not egyptian mythology. On the day of the return of the Son of God these who are not found light, which are God's people will be caught up in the air and taken to the kingdom of God. It is as real as the present reality.
casualjoe
5 / 5 (1) Mar 01, 2015
People are great at making stuff up, we all love a good story every now and then.

Good cosmologists will happily admit their story is wrong and that it needs more evidence.
Could theists say something similar? Obviously no, because they are so ingorged in their 'belief', this also causes theists assume that everyone must therefore have 'a belief'. That is simply not the case, scientists have a lot more 'maybe' in their lives.

Nobody knows what the real story is, all I know is, I've seen Andromeda, I've seen fossilised dinosaurs, I've seen DNA, I've witnessed the reasoning skills of believers, who by the way are mostly lovely people that I guess just aren't as obsessed with the ultimate truth as the science types.

viko_mx
1 / 5 (4) Mar 01, 2015
As far as I understand you preclude talented scientist with a great contribution to science to believe in the Creation and God? I think that you unnecessarily restrict your worldview and become a typical victim of the mass cliches.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 01, 2015
you do not read carefully my previous post
@viko
actually, i did
it is you who has no scientific basis for your claims, nor are they logical or follow a sequence of logic other than in your delusional belief and mind: http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

the ONLY thing you have to go on demonstrating your conclusions is your belief that you are right and a book that has been proven to be fallacious already

if i sent you a comic book (say: Garfield) and told you that it was the Bible, and you learned that the book i sent was not only NOT a bible, but just a comic about a cat... you would know to be skeptical of more comics and it teaches you that just because it is in print doesn't mean it is true

that applies to the "bible" of the x-tian beliefs
debunked through science (especially the flood, etc)
proven to have been a false "eyewitness" testimony
but you consider it truth?
why?
Caliban
5 / 5 (5) Mar 01, 2015
From my understanding, the existence of this ultra-massive black hole from early in the universe's history should be expected.

More to the point, we should expect to find them in relatively large numbers.

If we accept the premise that the universe, at the beginning, was much smaller than today, while still containing all of the matter and energy that it presently contains, then it seems to me that just as soon as matter "condensed" from the initial, inconceivably ferocious event from which the universe subsequently grew, then gravity would have been a much more significant force than now, since it would have been exerted over much smaller distances.

So, it seems to me --at least-- that, during this relatively brief epoch, it would have been furiously crushing vast amounts of matter together from the centers of localized density fluctuations in all of that matter and energy.

Thus, the presence of this ultramassive black hole(s) from the beginning of time.
Caliban
5 / 5 (4) Mar 01, 2015
Having said that, I will also acknowlege that there may be flaws in my understanding that need correction.

And, since I've been set straight here, in the past --and more than once-- well, now is your best chance!

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.