Discovery in the early universe poses black hole growth puzzle

May 11, 2017
Basic set-up of the quasar observations: Light from a quasar (right) is absorbed by gas. Absorption is much less in the quasar's proximity zone, which is shown in green for an older quasar, in yellow for a younger quasar. The extent of the proximity zone can be read off the spectrum (bottom). The quasar itself is a central black hole, surrounded by a disk of swirling matter, and possibly sending out particles in two tightly focussed jets (inset, top right). Credit: A. C. Eilers & J. Neidel, MPIA

Quasars are luminous objects with supermassive black holes at their centers, visible over vast cosmic distances. Infalling matter increases the black hole mass and is also responsible for a quasar's brightness. Now, using the W.M. Keck observatory in Hawaii, astronomers led by Christina Eilers have discovered extremely young quasars with a puzzling property: these quasars have the mass of about a billion suns, yet have been collecting matter for less than 100,000 years. Conventional wisdom says quasars of that mass should have needed to pull in matter a thousand times longer than that – a cosmic conundrum. The results have been published in the May 2 edition of the Astrophysical Journal.

Within the heart of every massive galaxy lurks a . How these black holes formed, and how they have grown to be as massive as millions or even billions of suns, is an open question. At least some phases of vigorous growth are highly visible to astronomical observers: Whenever there are substantial amounts of gas swirling into the black hole, matter in the direct vicinity of the black hole emits copious amount of light. The black hole has intermittently turned into a quasar, one of the most luminous objects in the universe.

Now, researchers from the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy (MPIA) have discovered three that challenge conventional wisdom on black hole growth. These quasars are extremely massive, but should not have had sufficient time to collect all that mass. The discovery, which is based on observations at the W.M. Keck observatory in Hawaii, glimpses into ancient cosmic history: Because of their extreme brightness, quasars can be observed out to large distances. The astronomers observed quasars whose light took nearly 13 billion years to reach Earth. In consequence, the observations show these quasars not as they are today, but as they were almost 13 billion years ago, less than a billion years after the big bang.

Artists' impression of a quasar: black hole (center) surrounded by a hot accretion disk, with two jets consisting of extremely fast particles perpendicularly to the disk. Credit: J. Neidel / MPIA

The quasars in question have about a billion times the mass of the sun. All current theories of black hole growth postulate that, in order to grow that massive, the black holes would have needed to collect infalling matter, and shine brightly as quasars, for at least a hundred million years. But these three quasars proved to be have been active for a much shorter time, less than 100,000 years. "This is a surprising result," explains Christina Eilers, a doctoral student at MPIA and lead author of the present study. "We don't understand how these young quasars could have grown the supermassive black holes that power them in such a short time."

To determine how long these quasars had been active, the astronomers examined how the quasars had influenced their environment – in particular, they examined heated, mostly transparent "proximity zones" around each quasar. "By simulating how the light from quasars ionizes and heats gas around them, we can predict how large the proximity zone of each quasar should be," explains Frederick Davies, a postdoctoral researcher at MPIA who is an expert in the interaction between quasar light and intergalactic gas. Once the quasar has been "switched on" by infalling matter, these proximity zones grow very quickly. "Within a lifetime of 100,000 years, quasars should already have large proximity zones."

Surprisingly, three of the quasars had very small proximity zones – indicating that the active quasar phase cannot have set in more than 100,000 years earlier. "No current theoretical models can explain the existence of these objects," says Professor Joseph Hennawi, who leads the research group at MPIA that made the discovery. "The discovery of these young objects challenges the existing theories of black hole formation and will require new models to better understand how black holes and galaxies formed."

The astronomers have already planned their next steps. "We would like to find more of these young quasars," says Christina Eilers, "While finding these three unusual quasars might have been a fluke, finding additional examples would imply that a significant fraction of the known quasar population is much younger than expected." The scientists have already applied for telescope time to observe several additional candidates. The results, they hope, will constrain new theoretical models about the formation of the first supermassive black holes in the universe – and, by implication, help astronomers understand the history of the giant supermassive at the center of present-day galaxies like our own Milky Way.

Explore further: Why the discovery of a bevy of quasars will boost efforts to understand galaxies' origins

More information: Anna-Christina Eilers et al. Implications of∼ 6 Quasar Proximity Zones for the Epoch of Reionization and Quasar Lifetimes, The Astrophysical Journal (2017). DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6c60

Related Stories

Quasar light variability linked to black hole mass

January 8, 2007

Quasars are some of the most luminous and distant objects in the universe – and appear to have something in common with ordinary light bulbs, say researchers at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and at the ...

Do extremely reddened quasars extinguish star formation?

November 15, 2016

Galaxies formed and grew billions of years ago by accumulating gas from their surroundings, or colliding and merging with other young galaxies. These early stages of galaxy assembly are believed to be accompanied by episodes ...

High-redshift quasar discovered by Pan-STARRS

December 21, 2016

(Phys.org)—A new luminous high-redshift quasar has been detected by one of the telescopes of the Panoramic Survey Telescope and Rapid Response System (Pan-STARRS). The newly discovered quasi-stellar object received designation ...

Recommended for you

Hubble discovers a unique type of object in the Solar System

September 20, 2017

With the help of the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, a German-led group of astronomers have observed the intriguing characteristics of an unusual type of object in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter: two asteroids ...

Ageing star blows off smoky bubble

September 20, 2017

Astronomers have used ALMA to capture a strikingly beautiful view of a delicate bubble of expelled material around the exotic red star U Antliae. These observations will help astronomers to better understand how stars evolve ...

New quasar discovered by astronomers

September 19, 2017

(Phys.org)—A team of astronomers led by Jacob M. Robertson of the Austin Peay State University in Clarksville, Tennessee has detected a new quasi-stellar object (QSO). They found the new quasar, designated SDSS J022155.26-064916.6, ...

75 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (10) May 11, 2017
The ghost of Halton Arp will haunt astronomy, astrophysics and cosmology until the scientific community decides to take the time to meaningfully learn the debate. Please don't hate on the person who HAS studied the debate; he's just the messenger, and he's trying to help the public to understand that we MUST start systematically tracking every unexpected quasar observation to see if Arp's worldview can make sense of it.

If an astrophysical object appears to have metaphysical properties which leave us with an inconsistent framework, then it is only logical to consider that the values of those properties have been misinterpreted.

It's only controversial because so much is at stake here -- but that should just as much excite people as it bothers them.
Dingbone
May 11, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dingbone
May 11, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (9) May 11, 2017
Yes, but if I've learned anything about how cosmology and even Internet dialogue tend to work, the problems will be dismissed and explained away with ad hoc explanations for as long as the public is not able to see for themselves the true patterns of behavior here.

So, although the situation presents an amazing opportunity for change in the sciences, the "problem" is not really solved until somebody creates a system for crowdsourcing all of Halton Arp's successes.

We must take the investigation out of the debate. To give you a feel for what I mean by this, consider that it took me a full 9 days of personal investigation to document all of the key points of this debate to my own personal satisfaction. And I have had a LOT of help in doing that from former conversations with theorists and astronomers. The average run-of-the-mill layperson doesn't stand a chance of having the time to track that info down.

We MUST centralize and crowdsource this debate.
dusty55art
1 / 5 (13) May 11, 2017
You need to read the Hebrew text of the Bible in Genesis 1:1-31, Proverbs 8:22-31' and John 1:1-5. I have been deep into this since 1987 and what the writers said fits perfectly with your finds. I have it illustrated on my Website so if you are really interested, you will go there and seewhat the writers ofthe Bible said 3500-2000 years ago. They were God inspired.
infinitestructure.com
Chris_Reeve
1.4 / 5 (9) May 11, 2017
Lemaitre was of course a priest. And I suspect that expansion will eventually be considered an incursion of religion into science that should have never been. The fact that the public has since lost touch with expansion's origins is testament to the lack of oversight we are getting from our science journalism today.

The chain of "discoveries" all the way through the Higgs-Boson read a bit like Biblical "begats", insofar as each "discovery" was in fact a necessary offspring of the former set of ideas.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (9) May 11, 2017
Minor problem with the methodology here: use of the proximity zone to determine the age of the SMBHs depends upon matter infalling into the SMBH. There is no evidence that these black holes were formed from infalling matter; they may be formed from mergers, or they may be primordial. The problem is one of timing; if stars were falling in fast enough to make a billion-SM BH, you'd require an average of one star per year; and this would create the proximity zone, but it would be a billion years deep, and they're not a tenth of that.

But even that's not the end of the story. If mergers were that common, especially of SMBHs, we should have seen a lot more activity at LIGO; and if the SMBHs were primordial, it would indicate mass concentrations that are incompatible with the known features of the CMBH.

So this is actually quite the conundrum.
Dingbone
May 11, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (9) May 11, 2017
@Dingbat, sorry, you missed the other article that says that the proximity zones of quasars may depend not on their original formation but upon the last time they were not merging. https://phys.org/...les.html

The solution to the conundrum appears clear: this is because of mergers.
Dingbone
May 11, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
1.4 / 5 (9) May 11, 2017
There is always an escape hatch with the Big Bang, and any speculation which can save it is regarded as likely for the sake of saving it. It's not at all a solid foundation from which to try so hard to debunk alternative ideas. The fact of the matter is that many other cosmologies would do just as well with such an approach.
Tuxford
1.4 / 5 (11) May 11, 2017
"No current theoretical models can explain the existence of these objects,"

Hey maniacs. Say it ain't so!

I have been de-rided for years here while predicting just such a result. The Huge Bang Fantasy will live on, however, I predict. Merger maniacs can never admit otherwise. They are science-minded Trump's! Crazy.
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (9) May 11, 2017
@Dingbat

According to inflationary theory the matter was formed in diluted state within Universe.
So? This somehow magically means it can't have mass concentrations? How did you make this fantasy up?

Oh, you mean you think inflation means everything is exactly the same everywhere? Sorry, sport, it doesn't claim that. This is another strawman you made up that no one ever claimed.

Duhhh ummm.
brodix
1 / 5 (7) May 11, 2017
The initial patch to BBT was when they discovered redshift is proportional to distance, creating the effect of our POV being the center of the expansion, so the idea became that space expands, because spacetime! Which overlooks the central premise, the speed of light remains Constant to the distance. Since redshift requires light to take longer to cross. Meaning the basic yardstick of light speed is not expanding. More lightyears, not expanding LY.
So the issue is finding an optical explanation for redshift, as we are at the center of our POV.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) May 11, 2017
Cute to see someone I've had on ignore for over a year call strong evidence a "patch."

Do you lie about evidence often, @brodix?

Just askin'.
brodix
1 / 5 (8) May 11, 2017
2 papers to consider; The loading theory of light;
http://fqxi.org/d...nge2.pdf
+ multispectrum photons do redshift due to distance;
http://fqxi.org/d...kets.pdf
Considering the light has traveled billions of years, if photons traveled as individual units, they would carry little information, but as sampling of a wave, much more is conveyed.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) May 11, 2017
Available answers are "yes" and "no." Either way you lie about evidence, @brodix. The only question is whether you do so often or not.

Choose one.
brodix
1.4 / 5 (9) May 11, 2017
Schnub,

I've been wondering when the James Webb goes up and they discover an even deeper and richer universe, what the next patch will be?

"Cosmologists discover edge of universe is mirrored, creating illusion of infinity."
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) May 11, 2017
@brodix is a sock puppet of @Lenni. Just so everyone is aware.

@brodix, if the only thing you've got to argue with is undiscovered data, we're done here and you are admitting you lied.

Got something probitive, or is this it?
brodix
May 11, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) May 11, 2017
I'm going with this is it and you admit you're lying, @brodicks.

We done here?
brodix
1 / 5 (6) May 11, 2017
Having come to the conclusion in 89, based on the prediction the universe would be flat, that the BBT didn't make sense, I think I can wait a few more years. (A Brief History of Time)
Given the controversies currently arising around inflation, it will be interesting how deep the questions will be by the time the next generation of telescopes are up and running.
As for your superciliousness, I'm pretty used to it from the true believers.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) May 11, 2017
What "controversies" would those be, @brodicks?

Just askln', having seen lots of trolls like you I don't expect you have any better answers than they do.

There is a reason it's called the "Standard Model of Cosmology."
brodix
1 / 5 (4) May 11, 2017
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (6) May 11, 2017
@DaSchneib

Thought I should put you in the picture regarding advancedLigo.

Observation run 2 started end of November 2016 and should conclude at the end of May ( it was planned to last 6 months ).

From observation run 1:
1st detection September 2015, announced in February 2016 ( 5 months later... under a lot of pressure. The rumors were out about the event from the start).
2nd detection December 2015, announced in June 2016 ( 6 months later ).

The pattern is around 6 months between detection and announcement. My guess is we should get something from the Ligo Scientific Colab in the next few weeks. Meanwhile, read the May 2017 update at the following link. http://www.ligo.o...17update
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) May 11, 2017
Thanks, @Techno. I haven't been following the details, just waiting for the announcement.
IronhorseA
not rated yet May 11, 2017
I may be possible that the super massive black holes at the heart of galaxies formed the moment the universe became large enough for the energy of the big bang to change into matter, but at densities that met the requirement for a black hole.
Dingbone
May 12, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
katesisco
1 / 5 (3) May 12, 2017
Extreme Cosmos by Brian Gaensler notes black holes in the early universe are almost the same as now. So they don't grow. I suspect they are pressurized and losing pressure is denoted by the gas we think they are 'eating.' They are not eating. They are degassing.
Dingbone
May 12, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (5) May 12, 2017
This is what an empirical approach to black holes / quasars / AGN's looks like. It's important that people are at least exposed to the approach ...

The Big Bang Never Happened
Eric Lerner

"My conflict with conventional physics started when I was an undergraduate at Columbia in the mid-sixties. Physics itself interested me, learning why things happen as they do -- mathematics was merely a tool to understand and test the underlying physical concepts. That was not the way physics was taught; instead, mathematical techniques were emphasized. This is almost exclusively what students are still tested on, and obviously what they study the most.

I went on to graduate work in physics at the University of Maryland, intending to get a doctorate. But after a year, I left. I couldn't reconcile myself with the mathematical approach, which seemed sterile and abstract -- especially in particle physics, in which I had considered specializing ..."

(cont'd)
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (5) May 12, 2017
(cont'd)

"... After leaving school in 1970 I began to work as a science writer -- first for Collier's Encyclopedia and then freelance, writing technical reports and magazine articles. This kept me in touch with the latest developments in astrophysics, controlled fusion, and particle physics, among other things; my work was an opportunity to complete my education in physics. I especially learned about plasma physics, which had not been touched on at Columbia or Maryland.

The seventies were the heyday of the Big Bang cosmology, but I was skeptical of it and the associated developments in high-energy physics. I knew from my Columbia days that there were fundamental contradictions in particle theory which had been swept under the rug (see Chapter Eight). The Big Bang's universe, wound up in the beginning and steadily running down, seemed wildly unscientific ..."

(cont'd)
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (5) May 12, 2017
(cont'd)

"... and I knew that its theorists had never resolved the fundamental problem of the initial source of energy. It seemed far more likely to me that the universe had always existed, its evolution accelerating over the aeons.

I thought a great deal about problems that interested me in physics and cosmology, but I was busy earning a living. So it was not until 1981 that I actually began serious scientific research. The origin of that first project dated back to 1974, when I met Winston Bostick while we worked with a group advocating greater funds for controlled-fusion research.

Bostick's research centered on a fusion device called the plasma focus. It was the inspiration for my first astrophysical theories ..."

(cont'd)
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (5) May 12, 2017
(cont'd)

"... The focus -- invented independently in the early sixties by a Soviet, N. V. Filippov, and an American, Joseph Mather -- is extremely simple, in contrast to the huge and complex tokamak, a large magnetic device that has long dominated fusion research. The focus consisted of two conducting copper cylinders, several centimeters across, nested inside each other (Fig. 6.12). When a large current is discharged across the cylinder, a remarkable sequence of events ensues.

The current rapidly ionizes the plasma and forms into eight or ten pairs of force-free filaments, each a millimeter in diameter, which roll down the cylinder, propelled by the interaction of their currents with the background magnetic field. When they reach the end of the cylinder, they fountain inward (Fig. 6.13a). Each pair, consisting of two vortices rotating in opposite directions, annihilate each other, leaving only one survivor to carry the entire current ..."

(cont'd)
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (5) May 12, 2017
(cont'd)

"... This survivor pinches itself off into a doughnut-shaped filamentary knot -- a plasmoid (Fig. 6.13b).

The plasmoid, only a half-millimeter across, now contains all the energy stored in the magnetic field of the entire device -- a million or more times bigger in volume. For a fraction of a micro-second, as the plasmoid continues to pinch itself, it remains stable. But as its magnetic field increases, the electrons orbit in smaller circles, giving off radiation of a higher frequency. Because plasma tends to be opaque to low-frequency radiation and transparent to high-frequency, the radiation suddenly begins to escape.

This sets in motion a second series of events. As the electrons radiate their energy away, the current drops and the magnetic field weakens. Since the electrons are traveling along magnetic-field lines, the weakening field tangles the electrons' path up as its shape changes -- causing the current to drop still further ..."

(cont'd)
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (5) May 12, 2017
(cont'd)

"... The result is like turning off a switch, as in the double layers Alfven had observed. The falling magnetic field generates a huge electrical field, which shoots two high-energy beams out of the plasmoid -- the electrons in one direction, the ions in the other. The beams consist of extremely dense, helical filaments, each a micron (one ten-thousandth of a centimeter) across (Fig. 6.13c). In the course of this process some ions are heated to such high temperatures that they fuse.

I was fascinated by the plasma focus for several reasons. For one thing, it was a promising approach to very economical fusion -- it doesn't need the huge magnets of the tokamak. But it also dramatically demonstrated plasma filaments' capacity to compress matter and energy. While at the time I wasn't aware of Alfven's extensive work, Bostick introduced me to his own ideas of how such filaments must have been relevant to galactic formation ..."

(cont'd)
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (5) May 12, 2017
(cont'd)

"... A few years later, I began to think that the plasma focus provides a model for another cosmic phenomenon -- quasars. Over hundreds of thousands of years quasars radiate ten thousand times more energy than an average galaxy of a hundred billion stars, yet appear to be no more than a light-year or so across, compared with a galaxy's hundred thousand light-years. Their power density (power per cubic light-year) is a million trillion times larger than that of a galaxy.

How can such a small object generate so much energy? Conventional wisdom claims that a black hole is at work, but, among other objections, there are cogent reasons to think that any object massive enough to power a quasar will break apart before it collapses into a black hole. In any case, new observations had raised another mystery ..."

(cont'd)
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (5) May 12, 2017
(cont'd)

"... Beginning in 1978 high-resolution radio maps revealed that a radio galaxy's nucleus emits narrow beams of energy which connect them to outlying radio lobes. Then in 1980 a huge new radio telescope -- the Very Large Array (VLA), consisting of twenty-seven dish antennae spread over miles of New Mexico desert -- revealed to observers that the same jets emanate from the hearts of quasars.

It occurred to me that a plasma focus and a quasar are two processes, wildly different in scale, but identical in form and dynamics. Both consist of an extremely dense source of energy that emits diametrically opposed jets giving off high-frequency radiation. A plasma focus can increase the power density of its emissions by a factor of ten thousand trillion over that of the incoming energy -- comparable to the ratio of a quasar to a galaxy ..."

(cont'd)
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (5) May 12, 2017
(cont'd)

"... But how can a galaxy generate an electrical current? I knew about disk generators and calculated that a galaxy rotating in a magnetic field will generate a current flowing toward its center sufficient to power vast plasmoids -- a process Alfven had proposed four years earlier, I later found out. Since the currents must flow out along the axis, they will arc around, as in the plasma focus -- a similar geometry leads to plasmoid formation in both cases.

While these ideas were crystallizing I was also studying the evidence, accumulating since 1978, for the existence of filament-like superclusters of galaxies ... Why couldn't these filaments of galaxies be larger versions of the filaments in the plasma focus and the filaments that I hypothesized to form in galaxies? They would produce magnetic fields in which galaxies, as they rotate, would produce the plasmoids that make up quasars or active galactic nuclei."
Hat1208
4.1 / 5 (9) May 12, 2017
@HannesAlfven

A legend in his own mind.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (4) May 12, 2017
Village Venus Syndrome
Dr. Edward de Bono

"'Dr. Edward de Bono's book on practical thinking ... makes interesting reading for ... those concerned with the problems of interpretation in the historical sciences, with the aid of an ingenious experiment, he analyzes the way the human mind works and identified 'five ways to be wrong,' 'four ways to be right,' and 'five ways to understand.' Among the ways to be right -- which means ways in which one can convince oneself one is right -- is what he calls the 'village Venus,' or 'unique rightness' method, a mental process which he believes to be particularly common among scientists and academics ..."

(cont'd)
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (4) May 12, 2017
(cont'd)

"... If one has lived one's whole life in a remote village, cut off from contact with other people, the village Venus must be the most beautiful girl in the world because one cannot imagine anyone more beautiful. In the same way a scientist or scholar who cannot imagine, or who has not heard of any explanation which will fit a given body of evidence, as well as the one he has thought of (or, one might add, has been taught), is capable of being fully convinced of its unique rightness. Consciously he tells himself, and believes, that it is right because it fits all the facts; but actually its rightness derives solely from the lack of rival explanations.'"
Dingbone
May 12, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (4) May 12, 2017
The question people need to ask themselves is ...

Do you believe the things you do because you've seen all of the various competing ideas, and -- without judging them through the lens of the first ideas you learned -- confirmed that they could never possibly explain the observations ... even after -- like the Big Bang -- given the opportunity to tirelessly pile on ad hoc adjustments?

Or, do you believe the things you do because you settled on the first believable set of ideas you encountered?

Every person today who does NOT believe in black holes must have necessarily started from the opposite position in light of the overwhelming coverage. But, something(s) changed their minds.

If we were being smart about the situation, we'd be intensely curious about WHY those people changed their minds.

The many themes in Eric Lerner's story are fairly representative of modern black hole skeptics.
billpress11
3 / 5 (4) May 12, 2017
Here is an interesting read:
http://www.msn.co...artandhp

Is there a split coming?
Dingbone
May 12, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) May 12, 2017
Well, @brodix, that's a better answer than a lot of them. So maybe you're not a troll after all, though I'll have some comments at the end.

Woit does make a couple of mistakes; one of them is, just because we don't know enough math *right now* to check if string physics does indeed have a solution that corresponds to our universe doesn't mean we *won't ever* and in fact, it's fairly likely that we'll have something before long (I'm thinking in decades at most). The problem of identifying the correct Calabi-Yau space in string physics to describe our universe's physics is difficult, but not intractable as so-called "hard problems" are, and even if it does turn out to be a hard problem, we are still finding new tricks to do with our supercomputers. This means that eventually, we might prove out the "cosmic landscape" that Susskind proposed in his book just after the turn of the century, and if that happens then IS&L will be a footnote in history.
[contd]
Dingbone
May 12, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) May 12, 2017
[contd]
Another Woit mistake is failing to understand that the inflaton is generally accepted to be cosmological constant, which is the Λ in the cosmological term in the Einstein Field Equations as well as in ΛCDM, the current dominant cosmological theory, strong enough it's called the "Standard Model of Cosmology." The EFE are the core of GRT, and various different results come from various values, zero, positive, and negative, according to the value-- results which correspond to the well-known spacetime geometries of the FLRW cosmologies. What the Planck data do first and foremost is allow us to select among these cosmologies. And that means they select Λ. Woit seems to have missed the connection between the EFE, Λ, ΛCDM, and FLRW cosmologies.

So while I agree that you've found something that indicates a controversy, I certainly don't agree that it rules out either inflation or the Big Bang.
[contd]
Dingbone
May 12, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) May 12, 2017
[contd]
And I think IS&L, not to mention Woit, would be surprised and maybe even horrified to think that you accepted this as evidence ruling out BBT, or even inflation. I don't even really see evidence ruling out the multiverse, and I think GLN et alii make a pretty good case it doesn't. Like Lee Smolin and his advocacy of LQG, I think IS&L have considerably jumped the gun. Nobody's really made any serious progress with LQG, and Smolin while not discredited certainly hasn't made the splash he expected, nor is there any real dismissal of string physics despite his rather grandiose claims. He needed to come up with something as an alternative, but instead he's bogged down in the same pit of mire that string physics has.

So please don't misrepresent this as some sort of "proof against BBT" or even "proof against inflation," because it's not, and never was.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) May 12, 2017
@dingbat, sorry man, I ain't even reading your spam. You have some sort of hidden agenda, and I really don't care what it is. You should have been reasonable when you had the chance and if you're dismissed now as a troll, you brought it on yourself.
Dingbone
May 12, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
brodix
1 / 5 (1) May 12, 2017
Scheib,

My original issue was as it was originally explained, a flat universe means the expansion of space between galaxies is inversely proportional to the gravitational collapse of space into galaxies, thus balancing each out and no additional expansion for the entire universe.
Essentially it would mean that Hubble found evidence for Einstein's original cosmological constant. Which was proposed to balance gravity and maintain a stable universe.
Now the interoperation applied to a flat universe is that it expands at a constant rate, neither curving back in, crunching, or going completely parabolic. Yet that seemed to overlook what Einstein said about gravity, that it is a contraction of space. So if it is counteracting the expansion between galaxies, it would seem to be more of a cosmic convention cycle. While the Big Bang seemed to be mostly a way to explain Redshift.
brodix
3 / 5 (2) May 12, 2017
Yes, there is the background radiation, but if redshift is an optical effect, this would be the light of ever more distant sources, shifted entirely into the radiological spectrum. Basically the solution to Olber's paradox.
When"dark energy," or the need to propose it, was first discovered by Peremutter, et al, it was found the rate of redshift dropped off quickly from the distant horizon, but then flattened out. If you look at it from the other direction, though, out from our point of view, the redshift starts slowly and then goes parabolic, which would be explained by an optical effect compounding on itself.
Obviously I'm not expecting you to agree to any of this, just saying there are other ways to consider the evidence.
An interesting article from some years ago;
http://www.americ...folktale
brodix
1 / 5 (1) May 12, 2017
Gravitational lensing, as the curvature of space, is an optical effect, in that it is the light in transmission, that is affected.
One way to model the point I'm making would be to use the rubber sheet and bowling ball analogy of gravity curving space; Place the sheet over water, so that when the ball pushes down, the pressure pushes the sheet back up equally. Thus the inward curvature is matched by an outward curvature.
Otherwise to assume the bowling ball affects the sheet, without any counter-action would seem to assume gravity as a form of monopole.
billpress11
1 / 5 (2) May 12, 2017
Quote brodix: "Yes, there is the background radiation, but if redshift is an optical effect, this would be the light of ever more distant sources, shifted entirely into the radiological spectrum. Basically the solution to Olber's paradox."

Very well stated, kind of makes an inflationary period unnecessary doesn't it?

Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) May 12, 2017
The big problem with your first idea, @brodix, is that there is a very great deal more empty space than galaxy-filled space. There simply isn't enough matter to make enough difference to stop accelerating expansion.

The CMB is too uniform to be the solution to Olbers' Paradox.

Gravitational lensing is caused by gravity; if matter is present, it too will follow a curved geodesic.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) May 13, 2017
@Da Schneib.
The big problem with your first idea, @brodix, is that there is a very great deal more empty space than galaxy-filled space. There simply isn't enough matter to make enough difference to stop accelerating expansion.

The CMB is too uniform to be the solution to Olbers' Paradox.

Gravitational lensing is caused by gravity; if matter is present, it too will follow a curved geodesic.
Isn't it about time you updated yourself re the humongous amounts of (previously 'unseen') stuff now being found in all that (previously assumed to be) 'empty space', DS? And stop using the CMB argument, for goodness sake! Planck and other discoveries/reviews confirm that all sorts of high energy processes over eons (and even locally and even as we speak) produce a 'background' CMB; so claims about BB-exclusive CMB are now invalidated. And stop with your Cold DM based arguments! Prof Carlos Frenk admits that WARM DM simulation produces SAME 'results'. It was all 'myths', Ok?
Dingbone
May 13, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
brodix
1 / 5 (2) May 13, 2017
Consider what the acceleration associated with dark energy is. The assumption was that after the initial "bang," the rate of redshift would slow at a stable rate, because the galaxies on the periphery appear to be moving at close to the speed of light away from us. Yet what they found was that this expansion dropped off rapidly, but then slowed to a more steady rate. To use a ballistics analogy, it would be as if the universe were shot out of a cannon, but then after it slowed, a rocket motor kicked in and kept it going at a more constant rate.
Now consider what is actually being observed from our point of view; This rate of expansion starts off slowly, but then increases and after while, starts going parabolic, until the galaxies appear to be flying away from us at the speed of light.
If this were an optical effect, this curve would be explained as the effect feeding on itself, until it appears to reach the speed of light, effectively creating a horizon line for visible light.
brodix
1 / 5 (2) May 13, 2017
Though lower frequencies would still travel from beyond that range.
Dingbone
May 13, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (5) May 13, 2017
I am very excited to forward news of a new effort to bring some common sense back into astrophysics and cosmology by the world's best critic of the CMB -- Dr. Robitaille.

Word on the street is that this small set of 4 or 5 videos will soon be a full course of 40 critiques of conventional astrophysics & cosmology on the limited topic of the condensed matter nature of the Sun and stars ...

Sky Scholar
https://www.youtu...Ol8i0e-g

I do believe that this will prove to be a very exciting development, because -- for those who are not familiar with Dr. Robitaille -- he has already laid out all of the mathematics and arguments for why the CMB is just not what it seems to be. But, due to the complexities of these arguments, very few have to date been able to follow along.

All of that may now be about to suddenly change, for one has to imagine that he will be working his way to the subject of the CMB with this collection, no?!
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (4) May 13, 2017
I've by now watched my first Robitaille video. This one ...

History of the Gaseous Sun with Dr. Robitaille
https://www.youtu...okSd-o5o

If that is an indication of what is to come, I do not think there will be anything at all left of modern cosmology and astrophysics by the end of these 40 videos. I'm going to have to produce transcripts of all of these videos. Just amazing. Game-changer.

This is a very special opportunity where we will learn the true character of modern science by observing the reactions of the scientific community to these thoughtful critiques.
mikpolock
not rated yet May 13, 2017
The mass of a black hole is the first thing determined in the life of a rotating galaxy. That where the confusion comes from. As the initial mass of plasma flattens, the black hole separates and leaves the rest of the disk to create the stars. Black holes hardly accrete anything after the separation.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (6) May 13, 2017
Stating the obvious again: This escape hatch you've created ... Are you suggesting it merely as a possible way out of the problem, or are you actually suggesting that this is true? ... because it seems with these sorts of things that people seem to conflate the truth of it with its suggestion. For it to be more than just a conjecture, there has to be some reasons to actually believe it, but there is no way to actually validate these conjectures. So, what is really going on here? At what point do we start to question these elaborate stories which we propose to save the theory? Realize that we can literally go on forever like this, just making stuff up whenever the need arises. But, it's not really all that different from the first stories that mankind told -- mythology. The difference is that these stories come with equations which most people do not understand -- but the essence of the practice is much the same.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) May 13, 2017
@Dingbone.

My point there was for DS's benefit; so that he stops using the now-invalidated 'argument' that ColdDM as somehow 'supporting' his/others' parroted claims re BB-exclusive CMB; since WarmDM also produces a similar Spiral Galaxy 'and environs' in Frenk's Simulations using the same assumptions otherwise. The other point is that 'exotic' DM is NOT 'needed'; especially since we are now finding humongous amounts of ORDINARY (previously dark) stuff everywhere we look. The further point is that the universal energy-space at all scales is full of entities/processes of all sorts/phases, producing all sorts of 'recycled' stable/transient-state(intermediate) products as 'constant average' 'background' which interacts/attenuates all sorts of EM radiation wavelengths/energies. Not to mention, BH EH, POLAR JET systems of all sorts, also emit extremely gravitationally/motionally redshifted/blueshifted radiation, adding to the wider Cosmic/Local Microwave/Gamma/Xray Background. :)
Dingbone
May 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
fiski
3.4 / 5 (5) May 15, 2017

The ghost of Halton Ar's really bad science will be ignored by astronomy, e.g. the debunked idea of galaxies erupting fro other galaxies! The valid science from Arp will always be part of astronomy.
fiski
3.4 / 5 (5) May 15, 2017
Exotic DM is still needed. The observation in colliding galaxy clusters of plasma that interacts electromagnetically and "plasma" that does not interact electromagnetically is conclusive evidence that DM exists. The CMB data tells us that only ~4% of the universe is baryonic matter.
The situation though is that we have only detected abut half of that ~4% baryonic matter.
We are fining more of the other half of baryonic matter.

The CMB has a perfect black body spectrum - it is not produced by vague processes and certainty not by polar jets (even in CAPTAL letters!) . The spectrum tells us that all of the photons from one side of the sky were in thermal equilibrium with all of the photons from the other side of the sky.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) May 15, 2017
@fiski.
Exotic DM is still needed. The observation in colliding galaxy clusters of plasma that interacts electromagnetically and "plasma" that does not interact electromagnetically is conclusive evidence that DM exists. The CMB data tells us that only ~4% of the universe is baryonic matter.
The situation though is that we have only detected abut half of that ~4% baryonic matter.
We are fining more of the other half of baryonic matter.

The CMB has a perfect black body spectrum - it is not produced by vague processes and certainty not by polar jets (even in CAPTAL letters!).
You have just parroted old, increasingly falsified, BB/Inflation etc hypotheses-tainted biased/naive "interpretations" of observational data, not actual factual reality. The so-called EM-unreactive plasma was a mis-interpretation of observed material that was ALREADY THERE between the galaxies/clusters, and NOT stuff that somehow 'separated' from same during collisions.

continued
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) May 15, 2017
continued ...@ fiski.

The rest of your OLD naive/biased BB-tainted 'interpretations' of CMB etc are just that, old/falsified. Did you even bother to TRY and objectively understand the implications of the ubiquitous, many-scaled entities/processes I mentioned? Which same are NOW being increasingly recognized via recent mainstream astro/cosmo discoveries and reviews that are finding humongous ORDINARY stuff/processes (CAPITALS are sometimes necessary, especially when trying to get through the 'myths' of naive/biased BB/Inflation and 'exotic' DM-proponent 'interpretations' which they don't realize are NOW increasingly being proved no longer valid). All observations can be explained by eternal/infinite recycling-energy-space Universe. I have been trying to get through to you/others previously 'enamoured' and 'enthralled' by the myths built up by the BB etc literature that is now unraveling due to mainstteam itself SELF-CORRECTING at last. Get up to date...and objective, fiski! :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) May 15, 2017
@brodix, things that are moving in space don't slow down by themselves. There is no acceleration in the absence of a force.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) May 15, 2017
@fiski, depends what you call "exotic." There's something there, for sure, but we don't yet know what it is. The current best candidate is axions.

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.