Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

JWST spots giant black holes all over the early universe

quantamagazine.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 186 posts

Re: JWST spots giant black holes all over the early universe

#171

Post by MaxikCZ »

netbioserror wrote: post #139
sinuhe69 wrote: post #98

Maybe I’m a bit naive here, but I thought finding of many supermassive back holes in the very early universe should be expected, and not a surprise. My chain of thoughts is following: - Blackholes are collapsed masses. In our phase of the universe, they are normally the results of supernovae but only because today stars are the only source of dense masses. - Because the total mass of the universe is constant and the…

This makes a lot of sense. In those first few seconds, that incredibly hot, dense soup of matter would've immediately "pitted" through with absolutely enormous black holes, and like rain, those black holes were probably the "seeding" nuclei for the remaining matter to clump around and form galaxies. Which suggests that galactic core supermassives are drifting leftovers from the formation of the universe. It might als…

I still dont get it. If during the first few second there was so much matter in so little space that enormous blackholes should form, then why did big bang even happen? In the first instance, there was all the matter in the tinies of space, everything should have immediatelly form a blackhole and bigbang should have not happen

Re: JWST spots giant black holes all over the early universe

#172

Post by blueprint »

consilient wrote: post #164
blueprint wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

good to know you're informed, but it doesn't mean we're communicating effectively. what i said is not backwards unless you use the inverse understanding of "exist". and how can photons exist without interaction? they don't. they're localizations by detectors. until then, they only "exist" as the probability wave. that's due to nothing localizing them. that's how i mean "exist". so it's not really meaningful to use th…

> btw "any other particle" doesn't fall out of EM fields. I very obviously meant that XYZ-particle states fall out of mode expansions of the XYZ-field, not that all particles are EM quanta. > what i said is not backwards unless you use the inverse understanding of "exist". and how can photons exist without interaction? Exactly the same way any other field configuration can? The state space of the free EM field simply…

I'm pleased to talk with you given that you're familiar with the topic.

> The state space of the free EM field simply is the photon Fock space.

but I'm not sure what your point in mentioning this is. When people hear things like "particles exist between their emission and measurement", they might get the idea that there could be said to be any reality to the existence of particles in transit. They simply aren't particles the way people think of them - they are probability waves. A great example we could discuss is the HBT experiment in which photon bunching was seen. If the bunched photons were really "particles" by any sense of the word, they wouldn't bunch in time of detection merely by the fact they are entangled with each other. That would be like saying entanglement affects the flight of a particle which is simply not able to be said.

Re: JWST spots giant black holes all over the early universe

#173

Post by _8j50 »

andrewflnr wrote: post #134
_8j50 wrote: post #71

I've wondered how blackholes have a similar 2d shape as with hurricanes and whirlpools where the center is empty. What if the inside of a blackhole is devoid of all things including spacetime, although that doesn't make good scifi.

I believe this actually is one of the hypotheses about black hole interiors, though I forget the name. Nothing to do with terrestrial storms or vortices, though; a black hole doesn't have to have any rotation at all.

Cool.

> a black hole doesn't have to have any rotation at all.

How about the gravity or hawking radiation it emanates. I am actually surprised that matter falling into a blackhole isn't whirlpooling around it.

Re: JWST spots giant black holes all over the early universe

#174

Post by dylan604 »

olddustytrail wrote: post #165
dylan604 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if you have 3.14Pi?

That's pretty much pi squared. Which, for weirdly good reason, is close to the value of G in meters per second squared.

only on this particular rock

Re: JWST spots giant black holes all over the early universe

#175

Post by marmakoide »

kridsdale3 wrote: post #162
marmakoide wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The STEM people will just need flashy robes, long grey hairs and market themselves as the magicians that can read the runes, command to the machine spirits of yore, and make the food grow. It's good fun to pester the nerds until the wifi is down.

Fantasy lit is full of stories about the good people rebelling against the evil wizards and their machinations. Luke fighting Emperor Palpatine? What does Luke or any of the Rebels know about managing an org of Peta-scale population? Or what myriad threats to the galaxy the Emperor was handling with his century of experience, network of millions of loyal agents, and vast magical ability? I'm sure that will all be fin…

Reminds me of the book "The Last Ringbearer". It tells the story of "The Lords of The Ring" from the perspective of Sauron, Saruman, and the Orks. Turns out, Mordor was a nation in its early industrial stage, of people putting science before magic. Fanatics against science genocide them while painting them as monsters.

Re: JWST spots giant black holes all over the early universe

#176

Post by AnimalMuppet »

andrewflnr wrote: post #167
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are rotating black holes ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotating_black_hole ).

Yes, obviously most real black holes are rotating. I didn't say otherwise.

Ah, I see. I misread your previous post.

Re: JWST spots giant black holes all over the early universe

#177

Post by claytongulick »

andrewflnr wrote: post #170
claytongulick wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but if you don't buy that, then you won't buy LISA's observations, either. Because science is about "buying" it?

Yes, in the real world. Even if it wasn't, you've made this conversation about you personally "buying" it, so yeah.

> you've made this conversation about you personally "buying" it, so yeah

When?

Re: JWST spots giant black holes all over the early universe

#178

Post by claytongulick »

perrygeo wrote: post #163
claytongulick wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See, this is my beef with the reporting on this stuff and the source of my question. The "photo" you're referring to was constructed by a super computer massaging enormous amounts of data to fit a model and constructing an image from weighted averages of thousands of data images across the spectrum from an enormously complex array of detectors in an unfathomably noisy environment [1]. It was presented by the media as…

> It was presented by the media as a "photo", but it seems to me like it's more similar to the "image" we get from reconstruction of wifi signals Are you suggesting that emitting or reflecting visible radiation is required before we can prove something exists in objective reality? Your own point about Wifi signals proves you wrong - we can detect wifi in other wavelengths and thus learn a great deal about it. Just li…

Did you read the methodology that was used to come up with the "photo"?

It's a far cry from just shifting the spectrum a bit to the visible range.

Re: JWST spots giant black holes all over the early universe

#179

Post by consilient »

blueprint wrote: post #172
consilient wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> btw "any other particle" doesn't fall out of EM fields. I very obviously meant that XYZ-particle states fall out of mode expansions of the XYZ-field, not that all particles are EM quanta. > what i said is not backwards unless you use the inverse understanding of "exist". and how can photons exist without interaction? Exactly the same way any other field configuration can? The state space of the free EM field simply…

I'm pleased to talk with you given that you're familiar with the topic. > The state space of the free EM field simply is the photon Fock space. but I'm not sure what your point in mentioning this is. When people hear things like "particles exist between their emission and measurement", they might get the idea that there could be said to be any reality to the existence of particles in transit. They simply aren't parti…

> They simply aren't particles the way people think of them

They're not anything the way laymen think of them. They're not classical particles, they're not classical waves, they're not classical anything. They're not really probability waves either, for that matter, or even field configurations - the real object is the algebra of observables. But laymen don't get to dictate the vocabulary of physics, and neither do mathematicians. Fields are the things that would be dual to the observable algebra, were it always equipped with a dual; particles are the things whose creation and annihilation operators would generate it, were there only always such things.

Re: JWST spots giant black holes all over the early universe

#180

Post by netbioserror »

MaxikCZ wrote: post #171
netbioserror wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This makes a lot of sense. In those first few seconds, that incredibly hot, dense soup of matter would've immediately "pitted" through with absolutely enormous black holes, and like rain, those black holes were probably the "seeding" nuclei for the remaining matter to clump around and form galaxies. Which suggests that galactic core supermassives are drifting leftovers from the formation of the universe. It might als…

I still dont get it. If during the first few second there was so much matter in so little space that enormous blackholes should form, then why did big bang even happen? In the first instance, there was all the matter in the tinies of space, everything should have immediatelly form a blackhole and bigbang should have not happen

Disclaimer: I am a lay man and a physics enthusiast, no more. My thought is that the initial inflationary event of the Big Bang was far more powerful than early gravity’s ability to counteract it, maybe even on the order of the nuclear forces. I’d speculate that the “pits” (“low pressure systems” if we analogize to storms) would have formed in this period. Once expansion slowed, maybe even just a few seconds in, the conditions might have been conducive for the pits to collapse into black holes.
Post reply on HN