JWST finds most distant supermassive black hole known (and it's WAY BIGGER than should be possible)
Vložit
- čas přidán 17. 05. 2024
- Go to ground.news/drbecky to get access to reliable information all in one place. Subscribe through my link to get 40% off unlimited access during their biggest sale of the year. Sale ends November 30.
One of the biggest mysteries in astrophysics is how supermassive black holes form in the early Universe and grow to be SO supermassive. There's a limit to how fast they can grow in mass, so they shouldn't exist so early in the Universe's history. Yet the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) and the Chandra X-ray observatory have together just found the most distant supermassive black hole known (at a redshift of z=10.3, meaning the Universe was just 450 million years old when the light left that galaxy). The best estimate we have of the black hole's mass puts it at about the same mass as it's galaxy! Suggesting that perhaps the black hole formed FIRST as direct collapse black hole and then the galaxy of stars formed around it... essentially solving the astrophysics equivalent of: "what came first the chicken or the egg? "
Bogdán et al. (2023; discovery of growing SMBH in UHZ1) - arxiv.org/pdf/2305.15458.pdf
Castellano et al. (2023; initial discovery of UHZ1 with JWST) - arxiv.org/pdf/2212.06666.pdf
Wang et al. (2023; previous most distant SMBH known) - arxiv.org/pdf/2101.03179.pdf
Madau & Rees (2001; light seeds of SMBH formation) - arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/010122...
Lodato & Natarajan (2006; heavy seed direct collapse black hole SMBH formation) - arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/060615...
Arrabal-Haro et al. (2023; JWST spectra reveals galaxy at closer distance than first thought from images) - arxiv.org/pdf/2303.15431.pdf
JWST proposal 3073 (follow up of Castellano et al. (2023)) - www.stsci.edu/jwst/phase2-pub...
My previous video on direct collapse black holes (warning, this is an old video from the early days of my channel and its horrendously out of focus) - • Unsolved Mystery in Ph...
My previous video on JWST's over-massive galaxies - • JWST has found MASSIVE...
My previous video on a suggested fix to JWST's over-massive galaxies - • JWST has found MASSIVE...
00:00 - Introduction
02:51 - Ground News
04:23 - The different formation theories for SMBHs (including direct collapse)
08:14 - How Bogdán et al. found UHZ1, the most distant SMBH known
12:26 - How Bogdán et al. calculated the black hole mass of UHZ1
14:33 - Why the black hole to stellar mass ratio gives evidence for direct collapse black holes
17:25 - Some caveats and what’s next
22:02 - Bloopers
Video filmed on a Sony ⍺7 IV
---
📚 My new book, "A Brief History of Black Holes", out NOW in hardback, paperback, e-book and audiobook (which I narrated myself!): lnk.to/DrBecky
---
👕 My new merch, including JWST designs, are available here (with worldwide shipping!): dr-becky.teemill.com/
---
🎧 Royal Astronomical Society Podcast that I co-host: podfollow.com/supermassive
---
🔔 Don't forget to subscribe and click the little bell icon to be notified when I post a new video!
---
👩🏽💻 I'm Dr. Becky Smethurst, an astrophysicist at the University of Oxford (Christ Church). I love making videos about science with an unnatural level of enthusiasm. I like to focus on how we know things, not just what we know. And especially, the things we still don't know. If you've ever wondered about something in space and couldn't find an answer online - you can ask me! My day job is to do research into how supermassive black holes can affect the galaxies that they live in. In particular, I look at whether the energy output from the disk of material orbiting around a growing supermassive black hole can stop a galaxy from forming stars.
drbecky.uk.com
rebeccasmethurst.co.uk - Věda a technologie
![tattoo printer tutorial[제품단순선물]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/g40_GwEJak0/mqdefault.jpg)
Go to ground.news/drbecky to get access to reliable information all in one place. Subscribe through my link to get 40% off unlimited access during their biggest sale of the year. Sale ends November 30.
sometimes I wonder how people call themselves doctors when they can not even see partial truth. How many goal posts must they move for you to see they just want you chasing a lie. GL Becky
What she is saying is the acceptance of Einsteinian cosmological constant based on a big bang 13.8 billion years ago. Prof. Penrose now disputes this theory, does light lose energy the farther it has to travel? The JWST has sent images of six or seven galaxies 92 million light-years away, the point being, how can this be if the universe is 13.8 billion years old? Just like the make-do and mend patch of dark energy and dark matter are unproven, so too is the Big Bang not being the first.
@@FaqueGoogle-wo6ipThe goalposts are always changing, you can only go on the available data, and when the data changes so do the goalposts, sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse, everything is best guess at these levels to an extent, sometimes even the most fundamental guesses turn out to be wrong.
But that's half the fun.
Dr Becky are these theories DEBUNKED?
1 our entire visible universe is inside the jet of a really big really old Black Hole
2 our entire visible universe is inside a really big, really old Black Hole.
I ask because we keep seeing:-
Circular structures
Really old objects
The Great attractor
And the expansion of the visible universe looks regular until that moment where we seem to have "made-up" that short period of "inflation" needed to get to a Singularity.
But with the two Really Big Black Hole Theories the starting point would be at the Event Horizon one of the two Poles, a disc of finite size not a singularity.
Also, our Observable Universe has mostly Matter with very little Antimatter.
Would the migration in North / South due to magnetic fields in any way perform any kind of "sorting" process.
Just a thought, anyway hopefully both of these have been completely debunked.
It would be great if you could do some "Great Theories ... but Totally Debunked" videos 😉
I saw the news for this, and said, "I'll check it out later." Cut to today and I just remember, so I start looking like it everywhere, cause I don't know what to call it except an "extra super massive black hole." I love your channel, and I'm so glad I found a video you made on it! So thank you! 💗
"This should not exist!"
Is my favorite phrase in astronomy, or science in general.
🎯
Reality have tendency to break our best constructs again and again.
I prefer "previously thought impossible" for the same concept. We don't decide the laws of nature, we just explore them.
❌NO!❌ Early supermassive black holes didn’t have to grow faster than u think if time was passing much slower than now. Spacetime should have been extremely warped in early extremely dense universe. Therefore, time should have been almost standstill🤏 The true age of the universe could indeed be MUCH MUCH older than anyone thinks🔥
There is no mystery here, just lack of scientific imagination. To advise Dr Becky that Direct collapse to a black hole (BH) is not possible but it is possible to get through the stages of forming many BH quite fast if there is enough concentration of mass in some region of the Universe. The process is very simple and it resembles a drop of condensing water forming on a window.
1) High concentration of gas over vast space leads to a dense concentration of a globular planet -like objects which are almost at a critical mass to collapse into stars.
2) One of those objects becomes a star which triggers a cascade process of many other objects to start conversion to stars.
3) Because they are so close to each other they release a lot of energy towards the neighbouring formations but they also get a lot of energy from neighboring formations.
4) As the cascade conversion to stats continues to propagate, a lot of energy returns to the place where it started resulting in a transition from a star to a black hole.
5) The released energy and stuff from the formation of the BH is sufficient to trigger another cascade but this time transforming the newly formed stars into BHs.
6) Because the BHs and Stars are so close to each other ,as they form, they release a lot of energy towards the neighbouring newly-formed stars and BHs but they also get a lot of energy from neighboring formations.
7) Some of the released energy from the cascade of BHs formation goes back to the first BH making it grow extremely fast.
8) We now have a vast area of densely populated BHs, stars and a central BH that absorbs them all at a rapid pace.
It is like condensing a drop of water on the window, where the drop is the super massive BH. We do not see it happening today because such levels of concentration of dust over vast area is no longer present in the Universe due to its expansion.
As soon as someone who has a clue says something like "This should *not* exist!" I get excited because it often kind of implies either new physics, or new theories, or both.
Love your work, Dr. Becky!
I find such a statement to be elitist.
We humans think we know more than the reality of the universe. When we find something that our brilliance never envisioned, then we have the conceit to imply that something is wrong with the universe.
The truth is that "This should exist", because it does exist. The fact that it exists is proof positive that it should exist. No one (especially authority figures) should teach learning minds that it should not exist.
Perhaps such statements are for effect, to tug at emotions -- to get likes and subscriptions. To do that, at the expense of making viewers believe that we found something wrong with the universe is inappropriate.
A proper statement would be: "We discovered something that we never imagined could exist."
But no. Such brilliant people will rarely say something that shows that they actually did not know something. They have to be right, and the universe has to be wrong.
black holes do not exist. these are plasma formations.
if they "shouldnt exist" than they dont exist, theyre looking for the most outlandish answers for things when we already know what causes the formations we are observing in deep space, electric currents and the electromagnetic fields they produce.
You forget that accepted theories might not entirely be correct.
These black holes that shouldn't exist share the same distance and timing as the galaxies that shouldn't exist.
Or a statistical error, but I guess statistical analysis is still pretty exciting.
Bloopers: "astrophysics chicken" ..... Dr Becky just created a new cartoon character to explain science to kids!! Love you work Dr. Becky.... look forward to your videos every week! (thank you for leaving the bloopers, makes me feel better when I trip on my words).... "Science is hard, words are harder!"
This is a gem of a video. Having grown up with TV programs, having something of the scientific depth and up-to-date as this would have been unthinkable some decades ago. I hope the new generations will appreciate it! (I had Carl Sagan though! But you have him here too if you look for him).
We had Open University for the night owls 😅
black holes do not exist. if they "shouldnt exist" than they dont exist, theyre looking for the most outlandish answers for things when we already know what causes the formations we are observing in deep space, electric currents and the electromagnetic fields they produce.
You’re certainly not British it would seem! The BBC has always included weighty scientific programs, like “Horizon” that began in 1964 and ran for over 50 years, with its wonderful Brian Eno theme tune, and “The Sky At Night” for astronomy and cosmology that started in 1957 and is STILL going (I think it’s the longest running science show ever!) and many, many more….and classic pop science shows like “Tomorrow’s World”, a must see show that was on right next to Top Of The Pops every Thursday back in the 70’s.
AND let’s not forget The Open University that ran at night, once all the normal programming had ended. Those were hardcore STEM University classes!
Yup, the BBC kept Britain well aware of scientific progress during the 60’s, 70’s, 80’s and 90’s pre-internet era!
It’s always enlightening when you bring us up to speed in your field. 👍🏻🙂
So many unknowns and variables yet to discover..
light. speed?
It is official, Dr Becky is a corrupt, fake Educator because her choices are to contaminate our minds with a verbal Diarrhoea called Advertising. Advertising for the mind is what smoking is for the lungs. Shame on you Dr Becky.
How do u not have a million subs already? Smart,fun, and u make it interesting where people like me can understand.
Growth relies on people sharing videos beyond CZcams not just the algorithm :) if you'd like to help a gal out
@@DrBecky It is official, Dr Becky is a corrupt, fake Educator because her choices are to contaminate our minds with a verbal Diarrhoea called Advertising. Advertising for the mind is what smoking is for the lungs.
@@DrBecky The Eddington limit joke was *right there*! lol
Very much appreciate your clarity and simpicity of presentation without simplifying (or worse, sensationalizing) the content.
0:00: 🌌 A recent research paper claims to have solved the mystery of how supermassive black holes form and grow.
3:27: 📰 The video discusses the benefits of using Ground News to stay informed about media coverage and biases.
6:32: 🌌 Black holes emit energy that pushes outwards, limiting the amount of material they can absorb and grow.
9:51: 🔬 The video discusses the detection of X-ray emissions from hot gas between galaxies in clusters using the Chandra telescope and JWST.
13:18: 🌌 Scientists use X-ray brightness and infrared light to estimate the mass of a black hole in a distant galaxy.
16:39: 🔬 Evidence for direct collapse black holes in the early universe suggests a solution to the astrophysics chicken or the egg question.
20:13: 🔬 The spectroscopic analysis of a galaxy initially believed to be very distant revealed it is actually much closer in age and distance than previously thought.
Recapped using Tammy AI
seeing as how black holes do not exist this research paper means nothing in actual reality.
You explain this so well. I keep up with physics as an amateur. Many people dumb down thier information to a point that it looses all subtleties. Thanks for finding the sweet spot on your presentation.
This is such a small thing I noticed, but you always say "and collaborators." Which is such a good idea! et al. is nice for writing since it takes up less space, but when you're doing science communication, it's better to remove barriers and spend that extra second to make sure people understand.
Yeah, that’s indeed great. Also she always mentions the lead scientist by name and show their photo, which is a good way to remind us viewers that there’s real people behind science being made. I am not aware of other science communicators doing that so consistently and methodically. Traditional media never credit researchers by name.
Thanks both for recognising these little efforts - it means a lot!
@Dr, Becky: I pre-ordered your book back in June. It finally arrived last week. I am thoroughly enjoying it. It takes me back to the sixties when I became interest in Astronomy and Astrophysics while reading all of Dr. Isaac Asmiov's Seventeen Essays book series. Your writing style in your Black Holes book is very reminiscent of Asimov's in his books. At the tender age of seventy, I find myself scouring around to obtain all of the books in his 17 essay series (I have most of his Science Fiction books already). Thanks for all you do to entertain and pique our curiosity in the field of Astrophysics and Astronomy.
I think this is one of your most well put together videos yet!
I always find it amazing how a few blobs of light/radiation combined with clever maths and theories can yield so much information.
It is official, Dr Becky is a corrupt, fake Educator because her choices are to contaminate our minds with a verbal Diarrhoea called Advertising. Advertising for the mind is what smoking is for the lungs. Shame on you Dr Becky.
That's because most of it is guess work and aimed at keeping these people employed.
@@lyellclare9365
No, it's aimed at accruing as much data as possible. Pursuing science isn't for the sake of employing people.
@@skateboardingjesus4006I mean, it can be both. 😂
You are absolutely fantastic to explain these complicated things! I understand everything you say. When i read the scientific reports i understand zero, so your channel is verry appreciated. Thanks!❤
!
Wow! What a great video about a very complex subject. You continue to make some of the clearest science communication videos on the internet without stifling your enthusiasm. thank you so much 👍
Great out-takes...and great astro news! Many thanks.
I’ve finished reading your book professor & it was wonderful…very insightful 😁
Downloaded that paper a week ago and it has been sat here staring at me from the desktop. Not sure my Genetics qualifications were going to help me digest it, so: Thank you Dr Becky!
Spoiler alert - they won't...
You are superb at explaining and making contextual sense of all the research!
I just want to say thank you for the content that you create!!! It is always interesting and I just love watching your videos!!! 💕
Dr Becky, always a pleasure to watch and listen to, not just your enthusiasm, but your ability to explain things in 'simple' terms. On this one it seems like there is some form of cascading gravitational pull affect going on. Could conditions exist where pull and spin begin in an area full of small matter that began a spin and pulled in at an ever increasing rate until it crossed a 'barrier' that flipped it into a black hole. Origination could be tiny in an area full of mass with exponentially increasing consumption. Dunno, thinking of a fine grain sand experiment, seems at least plausible or worth pondering some. Still haven't bought your book, but intend to- mjb
The 'spin' that gets my jaw dropping is the one they did on the ISS in micro gravity where they have a 'T' shaped object, which flips itself. Something about the balance of the laws of physics. It just looks improbable.
Did the 'birth' of the 'Big Bang Theory' start with a Black Hole that reached a critical mass and was spinning so fast, it started a 'snowball' effect at the core, that did the opposite of your small matter to black hole and went from black hole to lots of small matter?
Love your channel and I learn something with each watch. I have a question. Over time(however long it would take), will all the blackholes consume everything in the universe and consolidate? If so, would do you think would happen after that? Another big bang ? Thanks
No, they will not. They will become farther and farther apart due to the accelerating expansion of the universe. After billions of years, they will evaporate through Hawking radiation and cease to exist. The universe will be so stretched at that point, that nothing will be able to consolidate with anything else. I am not a physicist but this is what they all say :)
I'm not as qualified as Dr Becky but I think dark energy will spread black holes out too fast.
Then black holes will evaporate(extremely slowly) through Hawking radiation. That's current theories at least I think.
Nope. Most galaxies are moving away from each other, with space itself expanding between them. Even with their enormous gravity, black holes cannot overcome the increasing expansion of the universe to consolidate into one.
I love the AD timing bar; it's brilliant!
I really enjoyed this video. You're a great communicator
Amazing info. I'm sure glad there are people like you in the world.
I'm quite old, and I can assure you I don't remember anything from supermassive black holes when the universe was 700,000,000 years old. But my memory might fail me.
Love these videos, Thank you Dr Becky xx
Oh, GOSH, Dr Becky: Your enthusiasm is infectious.
so just watched a previous video of yours, about dark stars.
if dark stars are possible, could they be a reason for early super massive black holes?
or would that process be too slow too?
Since black holes are your area of research, especially the super massive ones in the early universe, I would love to know your thoughts on the Kurzgesagt video on this very thing titled Black Hole Stars. That video blew my mind and of all their videos that is the one I've rewatched the most
I just love your shows. I wish the profs I had when I was in the game had the ability to explain things so clearly. My sincerest thanks. Now, if I could only build a time machine and go back to my second year.
That was great! I look forward to your report when they Finally get a spectrum.
12:55 If a black hole is surrounded by dust and some of that dust reflects x-rays towards you and it will therefore appear brighter, wouldn't the opposite be true as well (assuming that the dust around the black hole is somewhat even). So the dust that sits in between you and the black whole reflects x-rays from the black hole away from you and makes the black hole thereby appear fainter.
I had the same thought.
well no, X-rays are not usually reflected, and when they are the angles are usually very close to 180 degrees. Also x-rays are only reflected by very high density/high atomic mass metals like Tungsten etc.
There is no mystery here, just lack of scientific imagination. To advise Dr Becky that Direct collapse to a black hole (BH) is not possible but it is possible to get through the stages of forming many BH quite fast if there is enough concentration of mass in some region of the Universe. The process is very simple and it resembles a drop of condensing water forming on a window.
1) High concentration of gas over vast space leads to a dense concentration of a globular planet-like objects which are almost at a critical mass to collapse into stars.
2) One of those objects becomes a star which triggers a cascade process of many other objects to start conversion to stars.
3) Because they are so close to each other they release a lot of energy towards the neighbouring formations but they also get a lot of energy from neighboring formations.
4) As the cascade conversion to stats continues to propagate, a lot of energy returns to the place where it started resulting in a transition from a star to a black hole.
5) The released energy and stuff from the formation of the BH is sufficient to trigger another cascade but this time transforming the newly formed stars into BHs.
6) Because the BHs and Stars are so close to each other ,as they form, they release a lot of energy towards the neighbouring newly-formed stars and BHs but they also get a lot of energy from neighboring formations.
7) Some of the released energy from the cascade of BHs formation goes back to the first BH making it grow extremely fast.
8) We now have a vast area of densely populated BHs, stars and a central BH that absorbs them all at a rapid pace.
It is like condensing a drop of water on the window, where the drop is the super massive BH. We do not see it happening today because such levels of concentration of dust over vast area is no longer present in the Universe due to its expansion.
You see it because of visible light that reflects from the dust, X ray is just part of the electromagnetic spectrum of light which is part of the matter that black hole is spitting out .In fact it more starts to act like a white hole vs black holes. X ray isn’t part of visible light spectrum
@@992rasСвязано ли это с теми 👨💻🦹♂️ цифровыми террористами, которые 💉 заразили ``лексикон`` тем нелепым представлением о том, что 🚫🚫⛔⛔👎👎терраформирование👎👎⛔⛔🚫🚫 - это реальная вещь, а не какое-то неэтичное Безумная, проблемная, дьявольская смесь слабых, дурацких слов «вуду»?
Very intresting, I am facinated by early black holes and I could see this being a hint of some new physics!
Also, just pointing out the editing mistake around 17:55 with image opacity I presume.
What the bludy hell happened there? Didn't spot that one oops!
@@DrBecky Similar issue around @21:00
@@ChrisLindsley Somehow I didn't notice either of these lol
Becky, thanks for sharing, educating, informing and entertaining! Great video as ever! 😎🤓❤
Outstanding video!!... a real deep-dive in astrophysics!…A++video…Every astronomy major (or for that matter, every physical science major) should watch it!
Look at how much bigger the Incredible Hulk is than Dr. Banner. Gamma rays did that. Aren't there gamma rays or some equivalent in space? Sheesh. Astrophysicists have no common sense. Give me my Nobel Prize.
😢
🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂
LOL!!!
It’s currently in the mail. Due to the holiday season it may be a little late. 😢. Peace 🎉🎉🎉
@@johnnypeterbilt9556😅😅😂😂😂
I've wondered how solving time-problems in respect to things like black hole development in the early universe is even realistic given what must have been very contorted/ dissimilar time frames and relativistic distortions at work in the early universe, when matter was packed together and extreme forces were at work.
I am minded of the term "stacking" the Chinese tower and the sublimation of phases, whether there really is "..a limit" with phenomena.
Likeweise, how can you know how much of the redshift is due to pure distance (making them appear very young) and how much is because of the black hole time dilation itself?
You ever cup a fart and smell your hand? Think about it young grasshopper
Afaik issues with relativistic time dilation only come into play when you're dealing with black holes themselves; the universe around them is pretty nonrelativistic and evolves classically.
❌NO!❌ Early supermassive black holes didn’t have to grow faster than u think if time was passing much slower than now. Spacetime should have been extremely warped in early extremely dense universe. Therefore, time should have been almost standstill🤏 The true age of the universe could indeed be MUCH MUCH older than anyone thinks🔥
Nice summary and the animation work is exceptional.
I really appreciate how Dr. Becky expresses scientific findings as a level of confidence or accuracy within a range of values. Way better then content providers that just state the numbers in a list of “facts.”
Maybe Supernassive Blackholes are what happens after the Matter/Anti-Matter explosion during the forming of the Universe...
It does seem the further back in time you're going the bigger black holes that are being found...
Dr. Becky, I wonder if there is simply an upper limit on the size of black holes before they themselves become the singularity of a new universe, blending with the existing “local” fabric. Could this create what we call “bubbles” of the multiverse while being consistent with the idea of a static larger and truly unbounded universe that can appear to have the properties of expansion when observed from sufficient distances?
love the "the history of black holes" copy in ur background! i have that book on audible and am greatly enjoying it :D definitely will write a good review on there once im done with it!
I love these smbh videos. There's so much that I have trouble wrapping my head around because of the lack of maths understanding, but the information is still fascinating.
Merch idea? Lenticular pin of JWST art combined with AstroFicken when you turn it side to side.
Considering what "ficken" means in German, I would advise strongly against this.
Becky, are we looking to have a higher resolution replacement for Chandra in the coming 20-30 years? Would this help with tighter detail of x-ray sources etc, and thus help with determining black hole formation methods, etc?
Yes, the Athena telescope will be much more sensitive and have a higher resolution than Chandra. Unfortunately, one will have to wait for a decade of so before it gets launched.
@@davidb2380 a decade is better than nothing. Science will wait. Many thanks for the update.
Is the mass of the black hole seed, and any further growth afterwards, affected by the kinetic energy of what’s being absorbed (with the orbiting mass going at relativistic speeds prior to being obsorbed)? Just wondering if the added mass to the black hole is equivalent to just the stationary mass of the absorbed material, or if relativistic properties of the material will affect it. (Keep in mind I have a pretty limited understanding of special relativity and none of general so I don’t even know what’s relevant lol)
I think whatever part of the energy is there regardless of reference frame, should count?
Like, if you take the minimum of the energy over all possible reference frames, then, that should be included?
Which like, if the total momentum is zero in some frame, then I think the kinetic energy in that frame should contribute to the mass?
I’m not certain though
This needs to be said Becky does a great job explaining things. I learn a lot from her videos
That being said, I soooo have the hots for her. ❤
Love the out takes!
Thanks for explaining it in understandable language.
I have a question though: can’t (Cold) Dark Matter be the solution for the heavy seeds? It shouldn’t feel the outwards pressure when collapsing, as by definition it only feels the gravitation, but not the Electromagnetic interactions. Maybe you already answered it in another video.
What's your proposed mechanism for that collapse, given that it's not colliding with the other particles? Wouldn't it just stay in orbit indefinitely because it can't lose energy?
So cold dark matter is what's known as collisionless, so it stays quite diffuse as it's very unlikely to interact with other particles and loose enough energy to give a dense enough collapse into something resembling a star density nevermind a black hole.
If the universe is rapidly expanding in all directions, then it makes sense that early black holes were able to grow faster due to 'a smaller universe'
They don't grow faster as there is a limit to their growth, so they must start bigger. And as we don't have an early Universe at hand to see it happen now, we must observe the one that was to understand how.
Agree with Phillippe, but you are right in that the gas density is higher in the early Universe. It's just that this doesn't help. This is why in the current Universe, most BHs are accreting at *way* below the Eddington limit.
thanks for such a great video! it's always a pleasure watching your channel and your insights about new discoveries
PD: I loved the Muse reference, I was singing that song in my mind during the entire video 😂
I love the clarity and details of your explanations for such recent pappers, and to explain the implications of theirs findings. So here, that there this a very interesting evidence for direct gas collapse directlyi forming a black hole, and the precautions to take with such an affirmation, and the further verifications we need. Thanks for your work and to bring us all these informations.
Thank you for again another super interesting video! It's great to have someone explain at least some the actual results from JWST to non scientists. I really enjoy your explainations and generally feel I understand a lot of them. I do have some trouble though trying to wrap my head around the 3d dimensional geometry involved in all of the JWST observations. Assuming the Universe expands as a sphere from a center point, where the big bang happened. Is that true? And if so, do we know where our solar system or the milky way is releative to that center and into what direction we're moving? Further assuming we're not at the center of the universe (although some people might behave like they are) there should be a direction with shortest distence/time to the boundary of the universe's sphere and every other direction would be longer. Now in what direction is JWST looking to see these far away galaxies? Maybe you explained all of that in earlier videos or my assumptions are completely wrong but if not, I would really appreciate a video on that 🙂
Not really re: spherical geometry. There is no centre to the expansion - at least, not in 3D.
Is it possible that the rate of expansion after the big bang could have caused gas clouds to collapse so fast and so vigorously that it formed a direct black hole?
The expansion stretches the clouds; they do collapse more easily in the early universe though because the gas was much more transparent back then; almost no heavy elements to absorb light.
❌NO!❌ Early supermassive black holes didn’t have to grow faster than u think if time was passing much slower than now. Spacetime should have been extremely warped in early extremely dense universe. Therefore, time should have been almost standstill🤏 The true age of the universe could indeed be MUCH MUCH older than anyone thinks🔥
@@duran9664 Spacetime was not warped by much, it is after all 'flat'. Gravitational attraction of matter didn't really cause much warping for many millions of years after the big bang since the density was so uniform. Spacetime is only warped on galactic scales.
@@duran9664 Time is a human construct. Also, if space was Warped back then and now space is flat, how would you explain the change?
There is no mystery here, just lack of scientific imagination. To advise Dr Becky that Direct collapse to a black hole (BH) is not possible but it is possible to get through the stages of forming many BH quite fast if there is enough concentration of mass in some region of the Universe. The process is very simple and it resembles a drop of condensing water forming on a window.
1) High concentration of gas over vast space leads to a dense concentration of a globular planet-like objects which are almost at a critical mass to collapse into stars.
2) One of those objects becomes a star which triggers a cascade process of many other objects to start conversion to stars.
3) Because they are so close to each other they release a lot of energy towards the neighbouring formations but they also get a lot of energy from neighboring formations.
4) As the cascade conversion to stats continues to propagate, a lot of energy returns to the place where it started resulting in a transition from a star to a black hole.
5) The released energy and stuff from the formation of the BH is sufficient to trigger another cascade but this time transforming the newly formed stars into BHs.
6) Because the BHs and Stars are so close to each other ,as they form, they release a lot of energy towards the neighbouring newly-formed stars and BHs but they also get a lot of energy from neighboring formations.
7) Some of the released energy from the cascade of BHs formation goes back to the first BH making it grow extremely fast.
8) We now have a vast area of densely populated BHs, stars and a central BH that absorbs them all at a rapid pace.
It is like condensing a drop of water on the window, where the drop is the super massive BH. We do not see it happening today because such levels of concentration of dust over vast area is no longer present in the Universe due to its expansion.
Excellent as usual 👏
This is really exciting to discover the secrets of black holes. There is so much room for innovation and unique ingenuity!
If black holes form at the very beginning of the universe, and they exist in almost all galaxies, it seems like black holes are probably how galaxies formed in the first place. The black holes were the original seeds of galaxies, and galaxies grew around them as they accumulated more material.
Or the combined gravity of a Galaxy can create a Black Hole witch does fit the fact the size of the Black Holes are in proportion to size of Galaxy.
@@milferdjones2573"which."
Not, "witch "
When you get to 3rd grade, you'll learn very simple words.
It's more about dark matter haloes from before even the cosmic microwave background. Though they might somehow collect primordial black holes (if they exist; they're still very speculative) so maybe?
@@user-dh6bj2me5p Who are you, master of the obvious? I noticed the mistake in spelling but didn't have the urge to insult or belittle the commentor in an attempt to prove myself superior as you apparently have. A failed attempt btw, it actually had the opposite effect.
Can you build big black-holes avoiding the Eddington Limit by having many acretuing blackholes followed by mergers in a kind of tree? Maybe the Eddington Limit maths doesn't allow that, or the blackholes would merge too soon or there isn't enough time in these very old galaxies?
Go to your room! lol
There's also an issue with black holes on a merging orbital path, the accretion discs would surely interact, the pressures pushing gases outwards would push into each other and mess with the Eddington limit maths.
The Eddington Limit says the mass accretion rate is proportional to the black hole mass, so splitting it across multiple black holes doesn't help (unless there's some mechanism that makes super-Eddington accretion easier for small black holes?)
It is possible to beat the Eddington limit if you break its assumptions (basically, if you get energy out of the system more efficiently) but idk how much of a gain those processes grant.
@@Hailfire08 I mean, if you have 5 black holes accreting at the maximum rate, which then all merge, don't you now have a single black hole that's 5x more massive than the Eddington limit would allow?
@@lydianlights I think you have a black hole that's at the maximum for a seed five times the mass of the seeds for the five smaller black holes. So to get the equivalent of a seed 1000 times the mass, you would need to merge 1000 black holes. (Actually, more than that, since a large portion of the mass of merging black holes is lost in gravitational waves.)
Imagine taking a course from Dr. Becky. I love her enthusiasm. 👍
You are Great Dr B
What if the mass was so dense in the early universe that a large number of black holes formed all VERY close to each other?
Or, the beginning of the universe was the grand daddy of all SMBH and it didnt fully expand but some of it stayed clustered.
Or, if Black holes are so dense not even light can escape and the beginning of the universe had everything all in one infinitesimally dense point, how did it all escape?
Or…. is the reason we can’t escape out of the universe not so much that it’s too big, but more because we’re inside a Black Hole?
And if we were inside a Black Hole, would that mean the Black Holes inside our Universe are other Universes and there are little people on little planets in there wondering what’s beyond the ’edge’ that, for some reason, they cannot see or even really define all that well?
@@K1lostream Above a certain high temperature there is no mass because no particle that would carry it can be formed. But without mass there is no gravity.
@@akostarkanyi825 The whole universe being ‘above a certain high temperature’ (as you so precisely put it) means there must be a pretty mind-boggling amount of energy fizzing around though, right?
Remind me, what is E equivalent to?
This is absolutely a plausible explanation for black hole growth - mergers of small BH. Not sure what the current thinking on this possibility is - I suspect this obs helps reject that hypothesis, because the dynamical merger timescale is longer than 700 kyr
If we're measuring distance by redshift, isn't it just possible that its closer but just moving extra fast away from us for some reason beyond the expansion of the universe?
Look up peculiar motion in cosmology. This is a well-known feature that is accounted for in measurements/errors.
If that were true it would mean this object is moving at near light speed, not likely.
You forget the speed of light barrier, it’s only that far because of universel expansion after big bang(if it’s still valid)?!
@@tonywells6990 Isn't that already happening though? Aren't bits of the universe perceived to be moving away from each other at faster than the speed of light because of the expansion of the universe?
@@kennyhudson9201 Yes, distant objects are receding from us faster than light, but not through their local region of space. The OP was referring to close-by supermassive black holes that could be moving at relativistic speeds, but that is not possible.
Very impressed with this video. I have always been interested in astronomy and physics. It was things like this that drove me to enter those professions. Thank you for feeding my insatiable curiosity about the universe and the wonders that we discove
SCIENCE!!!
Dr Becky has the information I want. I will press subscribe.
So, wouldn’t it be possible that during the early universe mass is more abundant close together (due to a lack of the expansion since), and would allow for faster star formation, and subsequent black hole production. Could this not potentially also allow for more frequent black hole mergers, thus causing jumps in mass accrual that would outpace the Eddington limit, without actually violating it? Not necessarily a common occurrence, but a possibility perhaps.
Good thought, I wonder what the math looks like on that. Black hole mergers don't really have to obey the Eddington limit, do they?
That's what 'direct collapse' implies.
The Eddington limit doesn't apply to black holes as they radiate only minimally, but they would have an accretion disk...
That's one idea. There are others, though. There's a Kurzgesagt video on black hole stars (Wikipedia calls them quasi-stars), which are a theoretical class of Population III stars that could have been the origin of DCBHs. Basically they are 'stars' that are so huge they have a black hole as a core, which produced heat through friction (like in the accretion disc of regular black holes) rather than fusion (hence 'quasi' - they're not stars in the usual sense). They would only have existed in the early universe because that's the only time the universe was dense enough for them to form and they would have been extremely short-lived.
I was thinking the same thing... what about clumping of black holes in an early universe that hadn't reached peak expansion? Easier to bump around when you're close together and start a chain of collapse with black holes falling faster & faster into each other.
perjaps the easiest explanation is that not all matter was created at the moment of the big bang. Maybe there was more matter in space before that and we just cant see it.
Just there at the end. I would sell a kidney to hear you sing. Completely convinced you have an amazing voice for that!
Space Park in Redondo Beach did the final assembly of both Chandra and JWST. I was working at at Space Park when Chandra was being developed and got to see it during the EMI EMC testing.
They shouldn't exist.
One of those things that scientist say just before something really exciting is learned.
Could be ! Nonintelligence didn't create the Universe!
"and it's WAY BIGGER than should be possible"
"The Universe is under no obligation to make sense to you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson
I learned a lot. It was worth watching.
You are totally awesome. I love the videos you produce. We love you very much. Thank you for your explanations. I have two books of yours. LLAP 🖖
"Way bigger than it should be" that's kinda arrogant, it's nature who dictates the rules, if something in the real world doesn't fit our theories and predictions then we should review them immediately
It’s a youtube video title, it’s there to get you to watch the video, not to serve up the most accurate freshest theories in science..
Bruh, that is what that statement means when spoken by a scientist. It means something is missing in our understanding. Findings like these are the impetuous for us to review our theories and simulations. It is already happening. Is that imidiate [sic] enough for you?
Wait.. This IS the latest science!
What's arrogant is taking that figure of speech literally when it obviously means "we found an unexpected result."
A bunch of channels I follow have gotten sponsored by Ground News recently and it's kind of fascinating to see how all the different adverts emphasise different elements of the service.
Can’t wait to see the follow up observations and hopefully new UHZ quazars to further illuminate the BH seed mystery.
I guess that was a pun.
Great video!
I have to change the oil, replace the belts and bearings and rebalance the drive shaft in my brain after trying to keep up with you after every video, but don't change Dr. Becky. Love your content!
Dr. Becky will this kill the dark energy vacuum coupling theory (currently watching and remembered this one) that you destroyed so nicely already? or is this just some new extreme? Fascinating stuff as always!
Direct black hole formation in the early universe that was denser than now makes a lot more sense, and explains why quasars are common then and not now. ❤
Lovely summary. Thank you.
The X-rays Chandra imaged from UHZ1, what wavelength would they have had before the red shift?
How does one compensate for the effects of gravitational lensing when measuring galaxy brightness?
I hear of things like electron degeneracy pressure and Pauli exclusion principle and even the radiation pressure of nuclear fusion in the stories of stellar remnants. How would a direct collapse circumvent these barriers?
And the artistic impression of a supernova, doesn't it look more like a white dwarf collapse and planetary nebula?
Thanks for reading.
Thanks so much!
Very interesting lecture/episode.
This is actually exciting that there seems to be something wromg with our understanding of the expansion/evolution of the universe (big bang).
This should inspire many scientists to find a possible solution and thus we should expect many new discories soon!
I'm excited!
Supermassive black holes are always exciting! They are basically "air-conditioners" of space, it can be so hot out there!
love your videos Becky, but i always get a headache after watching them 😊😊
Got ground news through you now, this should be interesting.
We're finding so many interesting things so close to the beginning of the universe. We should really consider building a far larger telescope to get a better view of even earlier, perhaps a solar gravitational scope to see higher-energy things that don't red shift all the way to infrared.
It seems like we're so close to seeing the moments after the big bang; perhaps a video explaining the challenges with actually looking back that far would be worth making?
Thank you soo much for this video! It was great, like always!
Just one question: how realistic is it to assume that BHs are constantly accreting at the Eddington limit? I heard once that AGNs are a rather short lived phenomenon of "normal" SMBHs in the centre of galaxies...
It would be more realistic in early universe as then space would be absolutely filled with the stuff, especially in galactic centers, instead of being mostly empty like today...
@@KuK137 ok, I guess that makes sense. Thank you!
It is crazy how easily we say something is a billion times the mass of the sun in passing. That is an incomprehensible amount of mass.
In the early universe galaxies were a lot closer to each other SO it stands to reason that everything would happen at a MUCH FASTER RATE. Also there were almost no heavy elements. The first black holes had much more time to grow into Monsters from conjoining with each other because their was much less space to travel through. Mostly common sense
I’ve seen that book, I didn’t realize you wrote it! I didn’t put 2 and 2 together till now 😅
i heard that blooper as 'astro frigging' :D I do like this DCBH hypothesis, it mkes a lot of sense and can rule out the last parsec problem for mergers as well.
Looking very simplistic, in the early universe its mass was closer together making it easier to make massive stars, black hole collisions and direct collapse.
Dr. Becky, I would consider buying your book but you seem to be much more comfortable with math than I am with my BA/History. I think that half of your book would be lost to me. I'll just continue to watch your CZcamss. Thank you!
I think we can all agree that Astrofrickinchicken would be a great name for a rock band.
A great video as always, many thanks!
Regarding the hair scratching over the microphone: Maybe you could have a sound meter or better a sound spectrograph on your screen and when something peaks high and it's not what you typically see when you are speaking, you can stop and try to find the source of it, maybe a not so tight cable connection - or clothing or hair rubbing over the microhone.
But I hardly did recognize it, only because you mentioned it ;-)
But well, maybe my idea helps.
I can imagine that you might miss some of these spikes, but then you might notice it and find a solution.
In fact, there could be an AI tool (or an easier solution) maybe in the future that detects this in realtime and flashes an alarm on the screen ;-) But I don't think that such a software is available yet ;-)
It didn't bother me, but maybe it can help you and some viewers / listeners in the future ;-)
The more intuitive and easy to use it is, the better ;-)
Or you just check that the microphone is free before every recording. As long as your recording sessions are not too long, it might be enough, easy and it's done ;-)
Some people do an hour long recording in one go -- that would be unsettling to find out maybe that the microphone or the camera completely lost power and so on ;-)
But just have fun with your videos, have fun and success!
Black Hole Sun, you’re the one. It makes some poetic sense that a galactic system should form in a manner analogous to a solar system.
Hi Dr. Becky, how does Bogdan et al account for the red-shift of the chandra X-ray data? Would the x-ray observations not be shifted high energy gamma rays, and if so, would the proportion of gamma vs x-rays emitted differ in a candidate SMBH signficantly enough to affect the interpreatation?
Wow that's exciting!