Giant Galaxy Hosts the Most Distant Supermassive Black Hole

Sep 02, 2009
False-color image of the QSO (CFHQSJ2329-0301), the most distant black hole currently known. In addition to the bright central black hole (white), the image shows the surrounding host galaxy (red). The white bar indicates an angle on the sky of 4 arcseconds or 1/900th of a degree. Image: Tomotsugu GOTO, University of Hawaii

(PhysOrg.com) -- University of Hawaii (UH) astronomer Dr. Tomotsugu Goto and colleagues have discovered a giant galaxy surrounding the most distant supermassive black hole ever found. The galaxy, so distant that it is seen as it was 12.8 billion years ago, is as large as the Milky Way galaxy and harbours a supermassive black hole that contains at least a billion times as much matter as our Sun. The scientists set out their results in a paper in the journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society later this month.

Dr. Goto stated, "It is surprising that such a giant galaxy existed when the Universe was only one-sixteenth of its present age, and that it hosted a black hole one billion times more massive than the Sun. The galaxy and black hole must have formed very rapidly in the ."

Knowledge of the host galaxies of supermassive black holes is important in order to understand the long-standing mystery of how galaxies and black holes have evolved together. Until now, studying
host galaxies in the distant Universe has been extremely difficult because the blinding bright light from the vicinity of the black hole makes it more difficult to see the already faint light from the .

Unlike smaller black holes, which form when a large star dies, the origin of the supermassive black holes remains an unsolved problem. A currently favoured model requires several intermediate black holes to merge. The host galaxy discovered in this work provides a reservoir of such intermediate black holes. After forming, supermassive black holes often continue to grow because their gravity draws in matter from surrounding objects. The energy released in this process accounts for the bright light emitted from the region around the .

To see the supermassive black hole, the team of scientists used new red-sensitive Charge Coupled Devices (CCDs) installed in the Suprime-Cam camera on the Subaru telescope on Mauna Kea. Prof. Satoshi Miyazaki of the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan (NAOJ) is a lead investigator for the creation of the new CCDs and a collaborator on this project. He said, "The improved sensitivity of the new CCDs has brought an exciting discovery as its very first result."

A careful analysis of the data revealed that 40 percent of the near-infrared light observed (at the wavelength of 9100 Angstroms) is from the host galaxy itself and 60 percent is from the surrounding clouds of material (nebulae) illuminated by the black hole.

Yousuke Utsumi (Graduate University for Advanced Studies /NAOJ), a member of the project team,
said, "We have witnessed a and its host galaxy forming together. This discovery has opened a new window for investigating galaxy-black hole co-evolution at the dawn of the Universe."

Dr. Goto is a fellow of the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS). He received his PhD from the University of Tokyo in 2003 and has also worked at Carnegie Mellon and Johns Hopkins universities, and at the Institute of Space and Astronautical Science, a part of JAXA, the Japanese equivalent of NASA. He came to UH Institute for Astronomy in 2008 to work with Dr. David Sanders on quasi-stellar objects (QSOs) and luminous infrared galaxies.

Other members of the research team are Dr. Hisanori Furusawa (NAOJ) and Dr. Yutaka Komiyama (NAOJ).

More information: "A QSO Host Galaxy and its Lyman alpha emission at z=6.43", Goto T., Utsumi Y., Furusawa H., Miyazaki S. and Komiyama Y., , in press.

Provided by Royal Astronomical Society (news : web)

Explore further: How baryon acoustic oscillation reveals the expansion of the universe

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Huge Black Holes Stifle Star Formation

Aug 23, 2006

Supermassive black holes in some giant galaxies create such a hostile environment, they shut down the formation of new stars, according to NASA Galaxy Evolution Explorer findings published in the August 24 ...

Star Cluster Holds Midweight Black Hole, VLA Indicates

May 28, 2007

Astronomers using the National Science Foundation's Very Large Array (VLA) radio telescope have greatly strengthened the case that supermassive black holes at the cores of galaxies may have formed through ...

Colossal black holes common in early universe

Oct 16, 2008

Astronomers think that many - perhaps all - galaxies in the universe contain massive black holes at their centers. New observations with the Submillimeter Array now suggest that such colossal black holes were ...

A new way to weigh giant black holes

Jul 16, 2008

How do you weigh the biggest black holes in the universe? One answer now comes from a completely new and independent technique that astronomers have developed using data from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory.

Spin of Supermassive Black Holes Measured for First Time

May 30, 2007

Astronomers at the University of Maryland have made the first quantitative measurements of the spin of several supermassive black holes, information that is essential to understanding how these giant black holes develop and ...

Recommended for you

The Great Cold Spot in the cosmic microwave background

Sep 19, 2014

The cosmic microwave background (CMB) is the thermal afterglow of the primordial fireball we call the big bang. One of the striking features of the CMB is how remarkably uniform it is. Still, there are some ...

Mystery of rare five-hour space explosion explained

Sep 17, 2014

Next week in St. Petersburg, Russia, scientists on an international team that includes Penn State University astronomers will present a paper that provides a simple explanation for mysterious ultra-long gamma-ray ...

User comments : 26

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

earls
3.3 / 5 (4) Sep 02, 2009
"harbours a supermassive black hole that contains at least a billion times as much matter as our Sun"

lol
vmircea
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 02, 2009
another prove that big bang never existed... universe is infinit and expansion that we see is only local in universe
frajo
2 / 5 (4) Sep 02, 2009
Very nice. Let's see how the high priests of standard cosmology fit this into their scheme of things.
Question
3 / 5 (2) Sep 02, 2009
Quote from article:
[Dr. Goto stated, "It is surprising that such a giant galaxy existed when the Universe was only one-sixteenth of its present age, and that it hosted a black hole one billion times more massive than the Sun. The galaxy and black hole must have formed very rapidly in the early Universe."]

It is getting more and more difficult to explain away what we observe in the distant (very young) universe.
brant
1 / 5 (1) Sep 02, 2009
The model is so broken that all they can say is "surprising" and "unpredicted behavior".
JukriS
Sep 03, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
omatumr
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 03, 2009
GREAT, EYE-CATCHING HEADLINES BUT . . .

There are no black holes and there probably was no Big Bang!

another prove that big bang never existed... universe is infinit and expansion that we see is only local in universe


If there was a "Big Bang" then it produced neutrons and compressed them into massive neutron stars -- the most compact, energetic form of nuclear matter -- rather than Hydrogen, the most dispersed form of nuclear matter.

To explain the surplus of matter over anti-matter, this scenario would probably require the neutron to be its own anti-particle.

If the universe is infinite, as seems to be the case, then it probably oscillates between:

a.) The expansion that is observed currently as interstellar space is filled with Hydrogen from neutron decay, and

b.) A subsequent contraction after the neutron stars have evaporated and gravitational forces become dominant.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com
Velanarris
5 / 5 (2) Sep 03, 2009
To explain the surplus of matter over anti-matter, this scenario would probably require the neutron to be its own anti-particle.

Or for there to have been a greater amount of antimatter in the early universe, which is the second postulate of BBT.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (5) Sep 03, 2009
There are no black holes and there probably was no Big Bang!

There is good evidence for both. The behavior of Cygnis X-1 still fits a black hole better than it does anything else and it is not even close to being the only stellar mass black hole candidate.

Supermassive black holes have even stronger evidence for existence than stellar mass black holes.

As far out as we can measure in space, all galaxies, except for the local group, are moving away from us. The farther out the faster. There is no evidence to the contrary and that includes the stuff from the Birgers who haven't found anything that shows what they claim it shows.
If there was a "Big Bang" then it produced neutrons and compressed them into massive neutron stars -- the most compact, energetic form of nuclear matter

Except that there is NO evidence that it is energetic. And no, that table you like to post does not show that bound neutrons spontaneously fission.
rather than Hydrogen, the most dispersed form of nuclear matter.

Which fits the density of the Sun unlike your claim of an iron core.
To explain the surplus of matter over anti-matter, this scenario would probably require the neutron to be its own anti-particle.

Yes that seems likely. Lots of people think it may be the case. Apparently no one has figured out a way to test for that. Hard enough to detect the little buggers in the first place.
If the universe is infinite, as seems to be the case, then it probably oscillates between:

Depends on what you call infinite. It looks open but we can only see so far out. All the evidence points to it being bounded in time in the past at least. The future is still open to question.
a.) The expansion that is observed currently as interstellar space is filled with Hydrogen from neutron decay, and

Or much likely from the big bang as that fits the evidence fairly well.
b.) A subsequent contraction after the neutron stars have evaporated and gravitational forces become dominant.

Can't happen in your scenario. You are claiming an infinite universe which requires that it be open in space and you also it has no beginning so you need to be open in time as well. Gravity must be dominant already for the Universe to be closed. If the Universe is not closed than there will be no contraction.

In other words you need Dark Matter and a lot of it. More than has been detected. Much more.

---------------------------

Now about the article.

Here is a link to the actual paper:

http://www.ifa.ha...t_v7.pdf

Looks like it has quite a bit of IF in it. The mass could be a lot less if the authors are wrong in pretty much any of their assumptions. The distance could be wrong as well because the redshift might be wrong for the same reasons.

It needs confirmation with better telescopes to have much meaning. Even the authors are aware it needs to be checked by better scopes. Probably, especially the authors.

Assuming their numbers are accurate and the assumptions are correct the conclusions can only be wrong if the theory has problems. It sure does come up hard against the best guess for the beginning of the Universe. The billion solar masses number seems more likely to be wrong at the moment to me.

Ethelred
omatumr
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 03, 2009
ARE OBSERVATIONS ARE A PROBLEM?

Quote from article:

[Dr. Goto stated, "It is surprising that such a giant galaxy existed when the Universe was only one-sixteenth of its present age, and that it hosted a black hole one billion times more massive than the Sun. The galaxy and black hole must have formed very rapidly in the early Universe."]

It is getting more and more difficult to explain away what we observe in the distant (very young) universe.



I think not!

Observations over the past 50 years have shown repeatedly that the Sun is not a ball of Hydrogen (H) and H is a waste product from - not fuel for - the solar furnace.

Experimental data showing severely mass fractionated isotopes in the solar wind and severely mass fractionated s-products in the solar photosphere are simply ignored, just like the evidence for supermassive compact objects 13 x 10^9 years (13 Gyr) ago.

Some of the data are in papers shown in my research profile.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://myprofile....anuelo09

Ethelred
5 / 5 (5) Sep 04, 2009
Observations over the past 50 years have shown repeatedly that the Sun is not a ball of Hydrogen (H) and H is a waste product from - not fuel for - the solar furnace.


I believe the standard rebuttal applies to that. Nonsense.

The next isn't actual nonsense.

Experimental data showing severely mass fractionated isotopes in the solar wind and severely mass fractionated s-products in the solar photosphere are simply ignored, just like the evidence for supermassive compact objects 13 x 10^9 years (13 Gyr) ago.


The key here is that you are dealing with the solar wind and not the solar photosphere. The solar wind is effected by magnetic storms. The Solar wind is inherently non-representative of the photosphere itself.

Now the photosphere is not the core either but you need the core to be considerably different than the surface of the Sun. It is just a tad difficult to actually observe the core of the Sun. However the solar density is too low for the core to be iron. Same for the outer planets. None of the gas giants could have high percentage of high density elements. Saturn is less dense than water for instance.

If you want to support your position you need to show the the Sun could have an iron core with its present density. If that makes the neutron content of the core too low then your theory doesn't work. It can ONLY work if:

1) You can produce some numbers for neutron beta decay rate in non free neutrons. Since there are no such numbers you have a major problem and posting the same papers won't make the problem go away since none of them address it.

2) Show that there can be enough neutrons in the Sun to produce the number of decays per second that is needed for the Sun to be at something near its present surface temperature.

3) Show that this neutron density does not require a Sun that is more dense than one we actually have.

The first is something I don't think you can manage even if you had financial backing because I don't think the neutron decay occurs. I am pretty sure that stack of iron in India should have produce something that supports you by now. Maybe their test setup is flawed. It is up to you to show it if it is. I haven't seen a sign that you have even looked into it.

The second should be fairly straight foreword. How many neutrons are needed an how can you pack them in without getting a Sun that is too dense. I don't think you can manage that either. Your claim of an rigid, and visibly so, iron core apparently close to the surface of the photosphere require a Sun that is vastly more dense than the one we have.

Ethelred
JukriS
Sep 05, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
omatumr
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 05, 2009
MASS FRACTIONATION IN THE SUN

One of the following papers may help communicate the experimental evidence for mass fractionation in the Sun.

1. "Solar abundance of elements from neutron-capture cross sections,"36th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, Houston, TX, 14-18 March 2005, paper #1033
http://arxiv.org/...412502v1

2. "Nuclear systematics: Part IV. Neutron-capture
cross sections and solar abundance", Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 266 (2005) 159-163.
http://tinyurl.com/2obbtd

3. "Abundances of trans-iron elements in solar energetic particle events, Astrophysical Journal 540 (2000) L111-L114.
http://tinyurl.com/yov2go

In other words, it is no coincidence that
a.) The photosphere is 91% H and 9% He,
b.) H is the most lightweight element, and
c.) He is the next lightest element.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com
vmircea
1 / 5 (1) Sep 06, 2009
It is impossible to develop so huge galaxy and black hole in a such a short time les than one bilion year from (so called big bang)i belive that this theory is fundamental wrong because it has many problems.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (5) Sep 06, 2009
In other words, it is no coincidence that

a.) The photosphere is 91% H and 9% He,




No it isn't a coincidence. The two make up almost all the mass in the Universe and they should make up most of the surface mass of the Sun.



http://en.wikiped...ynthesis



In this field it is customary to quote percentages by mass, so that 25% helium-4 means that helium-4 atoms account for 25% of the mass, but only about 8% of the atoms would be helium-4 atoms.




So how is evidence that supports the Big Bang somehow supporting you?



It is amazing how people point out that something can't be a coincidence and then pretend that it proves their point. Despite there being at least one other reason for the results. False dichotomies are seen all the time here.



I also note that you posted nothing that had anything with your density problems. You did exactly the same as always. You posted the same old stuff.



Ethelred
omatumr
1 / 5 (5) Sep 07, 2009
AVERAGE CALCULATED DENSITY OF ATOMS,
STARS, AND GALAXIES IS MEANINGLESS

Observations indicate indicate the presence of highly compact, nuclear matter at the cores of atoms, stars, and galaxies. The average calculated densities of atoms, stars, and galaxies contain no useful information on this matter

Densities vary by >100,000,000,000,000,000,000 depending on position inside each atom, star, and galaxy.

If we lived inside any of these objects - as we do inside the Milky Way - we would quickly see the ABSURDITY OF AVERAGE CALCULATED DENSITY.

This has been known since Niels Bohr discovered a compact nuclear core with a density of ~1,000,000,000,000,000 g/cc inside the H atom - with an average calculated density of only 0.07 g/cc. The AVERAGE DENSITY outside the core of the H atom is ~ 0.00004 g/cc and it must be much, much lower than that in the region between the electron and the nucleus.

Outside the core of the Sun, strong magnetic fields accelerate H ions upward. This is the carrier gas that sorts atoms by mass and covers the visible solar surface with lightweight.

So it is no mere coincidence that

a.) The photosphere is 91% H and 9% He.
b.) H is the most lightweight element.
c.) He is the second lightest element.
d.) Lightweight isotopes are enriched in the solar wind.
e.) Lightweight s-products are enriched in the photosphere.
f.) Heavy elements and heavy isotopes are ejected in solar flares.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com
Baseline
1 / 5 (1) Sep 07, 2009
I can't help but point out, because it always seems to be so conveniently looked past, that one of the main problems with BHT is also one of the main problems with BBT. No mathematical proof is yet forthcoming that can describe the main events.

We have a work in progress that may describe what has transpired since the bang, but what exactly banged or what led up to the bang we have nothing.

BHT has similar problems as we have another work in progress that once again fails to describe the most important part, the singularity.

If mathematical proof really is the end all, then I should think it is rather difficult to look past the notable absence of said proof.
Velanarris
3 / 5 (2) Sep 07, 2009
I can't help but point out, because it always seems to be so conveniently looked past, that one of the main problems with BHT is also one of the main problems with BBT. No mathematical proof is yet forthcoming that can describe the main events.



We have a work in progress that may describe what has transpired since the bang, but what exactly banged or what led up to the bang we have nothing.



BHT has similar problems as we have another work in progress that once again fails to describe the most important part, the singularity.



If mathematical proof really is the end all, then I should think it is rather difficult to look past the notable absence of said proof.

I agree, and I disagree. I agree because it's nauseating that we can't determine what the singularity is.

I disagree because the very nature of the singularity must be so wild as to almost be "God" so to speak. By the math we can do it's where everything is and isn't, where there is no invariant postulate set. The singularity defies our math, and we haven't come up with something to explain it, so now it's become the plaything of every theorist out there with a pet theory.

Cue AWT in 3.., 2.., 1..
jsa09
1 / 5 (1) Sep 07, 2009
As Jukris Said
There is no such force as pulling force!


Now, I do not claim to have any inside information, and, I tend to disagree with the rest of the statements made by Jukris. Perhaps I just do not understand what the hell he/she means.

But I do tend to think that a pulling force has to be the most magic of all forces and therefore must be explained by some other means.

The apparent expansion of the universe is not real and as it is purely based on red shift data and there have been numerous examples explaining that red shift occurs naturally over distance without the need for distant objects to be moving in opposite directions.

The potential errors in measurements of distance that can result from misinterpreting the red shift results are astronomical (pun intended). They are not that bad really, just not consistent. the distance estimates may be out by an order of magnitude or two and some objects may actually be light years closer than others with lesser red shift for a number of reasons, but overall more red shift generally means further away.

Just not necessarily closer to the mythical Big Bang. If you couple the red shift evidence with the derived expansion evidence and the extension backwards in time the the point source - you can see they are all related. Take away the red shift means expansion, and you kill off the big bang.

Since we know and have evidence of other causes of red shift including gravity we would have to conclude that all light would be red shifted towards it's source point.
Velanarris
5 / 5 (1) Sep 08, 2009
It is impossible to develop so huge galaxy and black hole in a such a short time les than one bilion year from (so called big bang)i belive that this theory is fundamental wrong because it has many problems.
Want to name one or are you jsut pontificating because it is surprizing and we haven't accounted for it?

Think of it this way, it would probably be easier to create supermassive black holes in the early universe due to the higher density of matter over all.

If anything I'm surprised we aren't seeing more of these now that we can look further backwards.
earls
not rated yet Sep 08, 2009
So what is the answer, Vel?
Velanarris
5 / 5 (1) Sep 08, 2009
So what is the answer, Vel?

The answer is I don't know.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (3) Sep 08, 2009
Observations indicate indicate the presence of highly compact, nuclear matter at the cores of atoms, stars, and galaxies.


That is quite a range of objects there. None with evidence supporting your claim except the atoms which obviously have nuclei.

Among stars only neutron stars and white dwarfs have highly compact matter. Stars on the Main Sequence do not or at least there is ZERO evidence to support your claims that they do.

Galaxies have no such things. They do seem to have Black Holes however. The objects that are at the center of most galaxies are far too massive to be anything except Black Holes.

Outside the core of the Sun, strong magnetic fields accelerate H ions upward. This is the carrier gas that sorts atoms by mass and covers the visible solar surface with lightweight.


And other atoms as well. Of course this tells us nothing about the core of the Sun. Nor even of the photosphere. It only tells us about the Solar Wind.


So it is no mere coincidence that

a.) The photosphere is 91% H and 9% He.


Yet again that is correct. It is not a coincidence that the Sun's surface composition is the same as the composition of the Universe as a whole and fits predictions based on the Big Bang.

c.) He is the second lightest element.
d.) Lightweight isotopes are enriched in the solar wind.
e.) Lightweight s-products are enriched in the photosphere.
f.) Heavy elements and heavy isotopes are ejected in solar flares.


So are the lightweight elements. This wonderful evidence in support of the Big Bang and has nothing to support your claim of an iron core in the Sun.

So your snow job about galaxies and stars and atoms doesn't patch the density problems you have.

Please address the actual problems instead of engaging in the usual pure irrelevancies.

The surface of the Sun fits the Big Bang so it cannot support a Big Bang denier. The density of the Sun is known. You claim a rigid iron core that is visible in Sunspots. Therefor the iron core must make up almost all of the Sun's mass. If this is wrong please address this instead pretending that I didn't bring it up as is your normal non-response just as you did this time.

You claim:

Iron core for the Sun
Neutrons fissioning in the Iron Core
A Rigid Iron Core so all consuming that is visible in Sunspots

Unfortunately for you:

Such a core would require that the Sun be more massive than it is by a very large amount.
There would be evidence that the neutrons in iron spontaneously fission, something that has never been seen.

Please address these two very large problems for the first time in your life. Reposting the same exact things is not a response since you have NEVER covered these questions yet except by quoting things of your that don't have any relevance at all.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 08, 2009
Earls said
So what is the answer, Vel?


There is no answer yet. However there is the strong possibility, which I already pointed out, that the size and distance of the Giant Galaxy are wrong. In which case it is not a problem for Big Bang theory.

Let us assume, for the sake argument, that the proposed numbers are accurate. If that were true it still wouldn't disprove the Big Bang. It would mean that a rethink would be in order for the early Universe. I can see more than one way for at least some parts of the early Universe to have higher than expected densities.

Light pressure on volumes that cooled to transparency first. Those volumes would be flooded by light from the still opaque volume surrounding them as well as the gas at the surface of each such volume. So far I have yet to see anyone taking light pressure into account. If it has been then I still have a second option.

Currents in the dense plasmas between volumes at slightly different temperatures could drive a dynamo effect that might compress the gas far more than expected.

Either of these two options might produce more massive than expected early concentrations of matter. At present the thinking on the early Universe is still near or just one step past the Spherical Chicken level of assumptions. There is plenty of room for more detail in the models.

Ethelred
frajo
3 / 5 (2) Sep 09, 2009
At present the thinking on the early Universe is still near or just one step past the Spherical Chicken level of assumptions.

At present the thinking of the cosmos is still near the Aristotelean perfect circular motions level of assumptions.
There is plenty of room for more detail in the models.

Thus spoke Ptolemy: There is plenty of room for deferents and epicycles to provide us with details for the next one and a half millennia.
Velanarris
5 / 5 (3) Sep 09, 2009
Stars on the Main Sequence do not or at least there is ZERO evidence to support your claims that they do.

Actually there's evidence telling him he's wrong. The SOHO experiments have been rather enlightening when it comes to solar consistency.
omatumr
1 / 5 (3) Sep 13, 2009
DESPITE ALL THE CLAMOR, BLACK HOLES AND HYDROGEN
BALLS (INCLUDING THE SUN) ARE ALL JUST IMAGINARY

Repulsive interactions between neutrons prevent the formation of Black Holes ["Attraction and repulsion of nucleons: Sources of stellar energy," Journal of Fusion Energy 19 (2001) 93-98; "Neutron repulsion confirmed as energy source", Journal of Fusion Energy 20 (2003) 197-201].

There are massive neutron stars at the centers of galaxies.

Less massive ones are at the centers of the Sun and other stars. These become visible as pulsars when stars explode.

Neutron stars decay by:

1. Neutron emission (evaporation) that releases Hydrogen to interstellar space as a neutron decay product, and by

2. Violent explosions (probably fission) at galactic centers that produces smaller neutron stars as seed nuclei of stars.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com
Ethelred
Sep 14, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Ethelred
Sep 14, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Velanarris
Sep 14, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Velanarris
Sep 14, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (4) Sep 15, 2009
You cannot confirm your own work. Your work has to be confirmed by someone else. Especially when you hare making extraordinary claims.
There are massive neutron stars at the centers of galaxies.
Our galaxy has an object at its center of 70 million solar masses in a volume of around 1 cubic light year. There is no way to keep that many neutron stars in that small a volume. They WILL coalesce into a Black Hole.
1. Neutron emission (evaporation) that releases Hydrogen to interstellar space as a neutron decay product, and by
There is no evidence for neutron decaying that way. The stack of iron in India would have shown it if you were right.

Hand waving does not constitute good science.

Ethelred
QubitTamer
Oct 06, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
QubitTamer
Oct 06, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.