My belief is that all supermassive black holes are primordial. They were "seeds" of the galaxies from the start.
JWST spots giant black holes all over the early universe
181–186 of 186 posts
Re: JWST spots giant black holes all over the early universe
#182Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is the upper limit due to hawking radiation?
it isn't. hawking radiation slows as the black hole size increases. I believe it's more just that it's very unlikely for too much mass to pass by a black hole
wow, i've assumed that if bh increases, ther's more space for howking radiation to escape so bh will loose more mass... I guess physics and intuition aren't going that well together in some cases)
Re: JWST spots giant black holes all over the early universe
#183Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Infalling matter usually is "whirlpooling", see "accretion disk". That's a separate question from the structure of the black hole itself and whether there's anything inside the event horizon.
Re: JWST spots giant black holes all over the early universe
#184Re: JWST spots giant black holes all over the early universe
#185Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 m…
Well, you are still talking about models. The creation and annihilation operators are also mathematical structures. That does not mean, as you seem to imply, that "particle" physics cannot be conceptualized outside of QFT. QFT may be superseded someday and the physical systems we try to describe will still be exactly as they are. I'm not sure if you'll agree with me since I suspect you've got a reason not to.
Re: JWST spots giant black holes all over the early universe
#186Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Any digital or analog photo is a far cry from our biological signal processing.
Yes, their methodogy used lots of signal manipulation to produce the photo. Just like an RGB digital camera does. Just like analog film. Just like our rods, cones and visual cortex. Which one is the "correct" way to process the signal?
What you're claiming is that "photos" have privileged scientific status over other types of sensors/processing hardware. Someone else might claim that only biological sensors have privileged status. But neither claim is scientific since it cannot be verified.
In lieu of a testable hypothesis, we have to conclude that all frequencies of electromagnetic radiation and all mathematically-valid signal processing techniques are fair game for empirical observation.