Did JWST SOLVE The Mystery of Supermassive Black Hole Origins?
Vložit
- čas přidán 13. 02. 2024
- Check Out Fascinating Fails: • How Pigeon Poop Helped...
Check Out the Space Time Merch Store
www.pbsspacetime.com/shop
This is what we astronomers call a blob, or a smudge, if you want to get really technical. It may not look like much from here, but what do you expect for something near the literal edge of the observable universe. If you were there when this light was emitted, you’d A. be at the beginning of time, and B. be looking at an entire galaxy containing an enormous black hole at its heart. It’s the most distant black hole we’ve semi-directly detected. That’s cool enough on its own, but as an added bonus this one smudge may have solved the mystery of the origin of the supermassive black holes in our universe.
PBS Member Stations rely on viewers like you. To support your local station, go to:to.pbs.org/DonateSPACE
Sign Up on Patreon to get access to the Space Time Discord!
/ pbsspacetime
Sign up for the mailing list to get episode notifications and hear special announcements!
mailchi.mp/1a6eb8f2717d/space...
Search the Entire Space Time Library Here: search.pbsspacetime.com/
Hosted by Matt O'Dowd
Written by Matt Caplan, Hayley West & Matt O'Dowd
Post Production by Leonardo Scholzer, Yago Ballarini & Stephanie Faria
Directed by Andrew Kornhaber
Associate Producer: Bahar Gholipour
Executive Producers: Eric Brown & Andrew Kornhaber
Executive in Charge for PBS: Maribel Lopez
Director of Programming for PBS: Gabrielle Ewing
Assistant Director of Programming for PBS: John Campbell
Spacetime is a production of Kornhaber Brown for PBS Digital Studios.
This program is produced by Kornhaber Brown, which is solely responsible for its content.
© 2024 PBS. All rights reserved.
End Credits Music by J.R.S. Schattenberg: / multidroideka
Space Time Was Made Possible In Part By:
Big Bang Sponsors
John Sronce
Bryce Fort
Peter Barrett
David Neumann
Alexander Tamas
Morgan Hough
Juan Benet
Vinnie Falco
Mark Rosenthal
Quasar Sponsors
Glenn Sugden
Alex Kern
Ethan Cohen
Stephen Wilcox
Mark Heising
Hypernova Sponsors
Stephen Spidle
Chris Webb
David Giltinan
Ivari Tölp
Kenneth See
Gregory Forfa
Bradley Voorhees
Scott Gorlick
Paul Stehr-Green
Ben Delo
Scott Gray
Антон Кочков
Robert Ilardi
John R. Slavik
Donal Botkin
Edmund Fokschaner
Chuck Zegar
Jordan Young
Daniel Muzquiz
Gamma Ray Burst
Grace Seraph
Parliament
Frank Plessers
Max Paladino
Robert DeChellis
Tomaz Lovsin
Anthony Leon
Leonardo Schulthais Senna
Lori Ferris
Dennis Van Hoof
Koen Wilde
Nicolas Katsantonis
gmmiddleton
Joe Pavlovic
Justin Lloyd
Chuck Lukaszewski
Cole B Combs
Andrea Galvagni
Jerry Thomas
Nikhil Sharma
John Anderson
Bradley Ulis
Craig Falls
Kane Holbrook
Ross Story
teng guo
Harsh Khandhadia
Matt Quinn
Michael Lev
Terje Vold
James Trimmier
Jeremy Soller
Paul Wood
Joe Moreira
Kent Durham
Jim Bartosh
Ramon Nogueira
John H. Austin, Jr.
Faraz Khan
Almog Cohen
Daniel Jennings
Russ Creech
Jeremy Reed
David Johnston
Michael Barton
Isaac Suttell
Oliver Flanagan
Bleys Goodson
Mark Delagasse
Mark Daniel Cohen
Shane Calimlim
Tybie Fitzhugh
Eric Kiebler
Craig Stonaha
Frederic Simon
John Robinson
Jim Hudson
David Barnholdt
John Funai
Adrien Molyneux
Bradley Jenkins
Amy Hickman
Vlad Shipulin
Thomas Dougherty
King Zeckendorff
Dan Warren
Joseph Salomone
Patrick Sutton
Julien Dubois
I remember the times when JWST was a program that was always being delayed and was taking more and more money and it wasn't clear when will it be finally launched. Nowadays we regularly hear about new discoveries made by JWST, which just shows how worth this program actually is
Science rocks
The thing that makes me angriest about Hubble and JWST is that they only built one. Why spend $10B on ONE JWST when you could have TEN JWSTs for maybe $20B?
I don't think that's the right way to think about it. The discoveries made by the JWST are going to feel more visceral than the lack of discoveries that would have been made by JWST's alternatives, even if the former is far less significant than the latter.
I think that Daniel Kahneman has a good term for the difficulty of accounting for opportunity costs, but I don't remember what it is.
A lot of the issue as per normal with America and science is delays an due to congress canceling and interfering with stuff they have no idea about as they say "what return does this have to America" or "how can this beat the Russian's or China?" They are fine with spending untold trillions on military that often never works, is over budget in the billions or is just for their contractors to have work but want to enhance humanity as a whole? pfft
Translation: The explanation for why you are wrong exists… but is informing you, a random person in a CZcams comment section, worth the lost opportunity cost required to look it up?…. No. No it’s not.
I find the lack of cotton candy in the early universe vaguely disappointing.
Same.
You'd think they could budget for at least a little bit; but no, literally zero cotton candy.
I'm planning a social media campaign to cancel the early universe as it was. It didn't do anything for us as far as I'm concerned. The new early universe has to be cotton candy friendly! And the contemporary universe should grant me more luck in general. 😂👍
If we're in a multiverse, who's to say there isn't a universe full of cotton candy? 🤣
It has not been ruled out.
I never considered that black holes do not need to be dense, but when you think about how the mass of a black hole scales with its surface area instead of the volume, it makes perfect sense.
Another way to think about it is that if all mass is assumed to be at the central, gravitational attraction goes down with the square of the distance to the center, while density goes down with the volume. So to get the same attraction, mass has to go up with the square of the distance, making density go down with the distance
Mass is proportional to radius, not surface area
@thedeemon added context for others - this is only true for black holes
@@thedeemonunless you are a black hole. Singularity has no radius, but still has a finite mass. The surface area of the event horizon, however, is in direct 1:1 correlation to the mass. As mass goes up the surface area increases. The event horizon doesn't have mass.
@@thedeemonthe mass of a black hole scales with the surface area of the black hole, not its radius or volume
Space time rules, a big thank you to the whole team ❤😊
*hole team.
(Sorry, I couldn't resist the joke. 😬)
Dear whoever edits/does music for these,
PLEASE make the outro quieter! I love listening to these before bed and the last 15 seconds are so much louder than the entire episode. THANK YOU!
Sincerely,
An overworked mom who just wants to peacefully learn and fall asleep to science
My sentiments, exactly, both the intro and outro are way too loud. I am constantly looking for videos that are interesting and boring at the same time to listen to while I'm asleep. There are some good ones if you like the subject matter, but this subject is ASMR gold.
@@jvcyt298 They said they would adjust it on my other comment on their most recent video! I liked the channel called “Astrum” for fall asleep space videos. He even has a “sleep space “ playlist on Spotify.
It seems louder, but I checked the audio in Audacity and the main part of the video is about 7.5 dB louder than the outro. In other words, the outro is less than half as loud. Tom Scott made a video a while back explaining how some sounds are perceived as being louder even when the actual amplitude is lower.
But I agree it should be made a bit quieter, or perhaps the music could be changed to something more subtle.
@@nameismetatoo4591 exactly. It might technically be half as loud, but the brash intense music makes it seem way louder.
I think it's the music itself that's off-putting.
It sounds like the connection between heavy elements and gas cloud fragmentation needs its own episode.
They did a video on Population III stars (the very first stars in the universe) that shows just how big those stars got because heavier elements weren't there to interfere: czcams.com/video/4pSUtWBiuB4/video.html
I look forward to new Space Time more than anything else on CZcams
Likewise. It has been my favorite youtube subscription for years. I have watched every episode at least once, and all of it has been time well spent. I surprise my calc-based physics prof every week with the comprehensive trivia I've picked up from this series. The pauli exclusion principle was the most recent example. I love it when my professors are caught offgaurd like "hey, you aren't supposed to know about that yet" haha
The background music is the best I’ve heard ever
@@NPCSpotter 2 types of space time viewers:
1) wow this is really cool, i learned so much from this, im definitely going to show this to my professor
2) i like the background music
Really? That's lame. The only reason that I come to CZcams is to get recommendations for financial advisors from the comments.
@@mvmlego1212 ha hahahaha
Honestly, JWST already paid for itself multiple times. What a heck of an investment!
Yes. it is one of the greatest discovered tools in the early 21st century.
We must thank NASA and Dream America!
100% i just wish we'd put more support into replacing the kepler space telescope because when vera rubin observatory goes online it would have been our best way to find earth sized planets in the habitable zone of potential candidates. right now its virtually impossible given our tools. rubin would look at huge swaths of space to find potential candidate stars to look at, and kepler2 would have the ability to get a good look. its sad that failures tend to shelf projects for EONS regardless of the potential science it can bring. the only reason we soldiered on with jwst was because of the fact that it was the spiritual successor to the amazing hubble telescope.
Yup
What profit can you make out of an OBG - none!
@@davejones542 it's a discovery. Something might come out of it.
The new intro explains the new profile pic
It is really good
The merch segment for the hoodie should have gone something like this: "Now you can be warm as you fall into a super massive black hole if you don't like cold spaghetti"
I used to eat cold spaghetti for breakfast.
Cold spaghetti is really good though but this was clever nonetheless
@AnimeMeetsReality thanks. I wasn't aware cold spaghetti was a thing lol I edited it to be more representative
I thought he said "wormed".. As is spaghettified
JWST already proving its worth!
I read it as SJW Solve the Mystery 🤣
@@w415800like that would ever happen.
@@w415800like that would ever happen.
Such as disproving the Big Bang theory?
So, if I understand it right, the Volume of the sphere delimited by the Schwarzchild Radius is proportional to the cube of the Mass. And that relationship implies a crazy different density range, since as the Mass grows, that Volume grows much, much quicker. That means that the physical process able to form a black hole doesn't necessarily need to be always the same, and that some volume range may not have a physical process that can make them (like in the current gap from 100 sun masses to 100.000 sun masses), or if it has existed, it needed different conditions from the ones in the current universe (I'm looking at you, Primordial Black Holes). Maybe the future universe will have conditions that will lead to the formation of black holes in completely different range from the current ones. Anyway, IMO, the current gap of observed black holes in that mass range is quite a neat indicator of a different physical process to form SMBH. I mean, not a single blackhole seen in that mass range in an entire visibile universe (until today) seems to me quite "suggestive".
No black holes in that range cause there's no process to form them in that range it's either smbs or stellar most likely
@@NboOfficialAus
Except there is, or really _was,_ a process to form them. The hypothetical but very well-supported Quasi-star, also known as a "Black Hole Star", is a supermassive star ranging from 1000 to 10000 solar masses, with a black hole for a core. These kinds of stars require highly dense molecular clouds and extremely low metalicities to form, conditions only found very early in the universe, and would only last for a few million years before they collapse inward on themselves and shed their outer layers, resulting in the formation of intermediate-mass black holes. The reason why they're either super-rare or non-existent _now_ is because most of them likely merged into the supermassive black holes that sit at the centers of most galaxies.
Remember all discussed is theoretical. From the theoretical Schwarzschild radius to black holes we know nothing and barely can test anything.
@@dragoscoco2173 yes, Schwarzchild solution is an ideal one, but that was interesting none the less.
@@KrudlerTheHorse
Existing theories being invalidated by new data doesn't just let you replace those theories with unfalsifiable bullshit. Alder's Razor (also humorously referred to as Newton's Flaming Laser Sword) comes into effect at that point - any scientific proposition made must have observable consequences and a formal demonstration that they are indeed the consequences of the proposition claimed. Or in simpler terms, the "vacuum" left behind by refuted theories can only be filled with another theory backed by direct observations. Saying "A Wizard Did It" is invalid unless you can somehow prove that, yes, a wizard did actually do it.
New Space Time episode, drop everything!
Love getting my PBS fix. Always good to see Matt dropping knowledge that I mostly don't understand but still explained in an excellent way and some stuff does stick. Very enjoyable!
Welcome back! It's always exciting to see a new episode of Space Time.
This series is absolutely wonderful. Thanks for the whole Space Time team for the great work and for keeping this going. Space Time is one of the bright spots in the universe of online media.
Great to have you back Matt, especially with such an exciting favorite topic! Thank you.
Glad to see you back Matt
I appreciate this channel immensely
Thank you. You saved me from boredom again!
Great episode as always. I didn't see many references on the graphics so I'm presuming their being done specifically for Space Time now, in which case huge kudos to the folks doing that as they're top-level quality. The only thing missing is the comment responses - are they coming back?
Been wondering what had happened to you guys. Delighted you're back.
Recovering from the hollidays parties?
@@franck3279 From his voice it sounds like he's on the tail end of or just recovered from a cold or the flu. Maybe if the team took a break over the holiday period and Matt got sick just after it could've delayed recording new episodes for a bit.
I love the change in music and video colouring.
I can't get enough of this channel, and black holes are definitely my favorite subject!
Oh boy, does the internet have treat for you...
Go check out Dr. Becky. Her Oxford Doctorate is in SMBH research and she does weekly shows on a range of 'Space' and other Astrophysics topics, including SMBHs. (she gets shout-outs from Matt on this channel pretty often, as well.)
Awesome intro. Can never live without Spacetime. Keep up the great work!!
Its Space time now 🌌
I love pbs spacetime!!!!
Thanks for all you do, PBS Space Time. 🥰
Being a while since I seen PBS Space Time but I am glad they are back.
Excellent Video. Dr becky as a couples of video about those problems about black hole. PBS-ST fans should watch them too. Also, I want my black hole cotton candy now!
Space time with a new intro 😮
I remember when I watched this show years ago and I had no clue what you were talking about lol. Now I love learned a new language and it makes so much more sense.
Thank you.
so good, thanks for the update!
The Schwarzschild density is really tricky to wrap your head around. I figured out the equation to calculate it when I was in high school. The higher the mass, the lower the Schwarzschild density. For something like a trillion solar masses, it only needs to be as dense as air and it'd automatically collapse into a black hole. Hey that gives me an idea. How much mass would correspond to a Schwarzschild density equal to the average density of matter in the universe?
Huh. Doesn't this prove that the universe cannot have infinite mass and thus must be finite in size? Because if it were infinite, the Schwarzschild density would be zero and it'd just collapse into a black hole? Hmm 🤔
How would we even know we aren't inside a collapsed black hole? We can't look inside a black hole, that's why we're calling it black. The outside of the observable universe is also black, also by definition. This doesn't prove much though, there's many reasons we can't look at something. But infinite mass isn't even required for us to be in a black hole, just a higher mass than what would correspond to a Schwarzschild density equal to the average density of matter in the universe. Yet my understanding is that the Standard Model isn't compatible with this. Regardless, with our current understanding of black holes, it's not really scientific to theorize we are inside a black hole, since it implies that it cannot be proven, so you just have to believe it, if you wish. So, according to the standard model we aren't in a black hole, but we are also aware that the standard model isn't perfect, so we also can't rule it out. So the universe may be infinite in mass and we're in a black hole, or it may be finite and still be in a black hole, or the standard model is not wrong about this and we aren't in a black hole and indeed the mass is finite in size.
@@nydydn And if we are in a black hole wouldn't it be possible that other black holes merged with it producing these too massive SMBs?
The density assumes that only gravity is acting however. If you factor something like expanding space then you can have a higher density. It also assumes that there's an 'outside' and center for the volume to collapse into; in an infinite universe of infinite mass there is no center and so no preferred point for all matter to collapse to.
@@garethdean6382 Ah hidden assumptions. They always get you 😅
They must have been some pretty high energy gamma rays when emitted if they're still x-rays when Chandra detected them.
X-ray is a huge range from 10^-11 up to 10^-8 meters. That's 3 orders of magnitude and the redshift is 10, meaning you expect only 1 order of magnitude shift. The universe isn't nearly old enough for most X-rays to shift into UV.
@@Merennulli True enough.. I stand corrected.
Great video; I was hoping you would do one for this topic!
Magnifique new PBS Space Time opening!
Could energies have been high enough in the pre-CMB era to produce supermassive kugelblitzes? That would provide earlier seeds for SMBHs despite energies in that era being too high to allow accretion.
"In astronomy, where's there's one there's often many."
Except for life by the observed behavior of astronomers.
Astronomers have observed zero life though, not one! And there's lots of astronomers, so it works there too 😂
@@alicederyn Don't they have mirrors? 😯
@@MCsCreations they do but they are always putting them into telescopes
I hope this whole conversation gets quoted in the show!
Click these videos as soon as i see them in my sub box. I was wondering if comment responses will return at some point in the future? I always found it interesting to see what people ask about certain topics and having such a great and knowledgeable presenter as matt answer them.
Just want to say that I love this show and everyone involved with making it!!!
I think the fact that the early universe did not have significant quantities of cotton candy (for all we know) may now be my favorite astrophysics fact of all time.
"No" - any headline that's a question can be answered with "no".
Studies on Betteridge's law have actually shown that "yes" is a more common answer. Both two studies on such headlines in scientific journals, and another that checked 26000 articles on news websites.
And in any headline starting with ’a study shows,,,’, the key word is ’a’.
Thank you guys! You are one of THE best science shows out there!
Great video, very well explained as ever! Thanks for sharing! 🙂😎🤓
Congrats to 3M subscribers, keep up your outstanding work!
Another wonderful video
Thank you so much 🫶🏻
Cool video!! Blackholes are my favorite topic
Oh nice, thanks for showing the cool data!
Thanks you for another space time video.
Glad to see you back Matt and I hope you are feeling better now? You really have been pushing yourself a lot the last year or so, what with your professor work, your film, PBS Space Time, your own research and much, much travelling around the world. Please remember you are "made of meat" and overworking is not good for the health, believe me I found out the hard way and it made me seriously unwell. You are still a young man, take a break occasionally.
Oh and congratulations on 3 MILLION SUBS! I remember when it was 1 then 2. Take that Malta and Pakistan!
Very nice new intro! Lovely work from the effects editor(s)
Outstanding episode, Matt and team!
Life is incredible to be able to "experience" this.
Love these black hole videos
thanks thanks thanks, really well broken down. really inspiring to stay appraised of the latest in space time ..
Fantastic video, as always!
i'd never realised the cotton candy analogy before, interesting, I actually learned something today! :D
Love the new intro animation and not just because it doesn’t have an earth rotating the wrong way 😜
Love the new intro. Looking forward to further discoveries by JWST, it seems to be one absolutely amazing tool :D
Whoa, new intro! Love it.
❤another beautiful and helpful lecture
Yaaay a new video!! It's *about Time*.
Sick I've wanted that black hole shirt for forever. Dibs.
Fabulous video
As soon as I heard about the accidental discovery idea, my first thought was Penzias and Wilson. It's such a great story.
Fascinating!
an other Great video Dr.Matt, tks a lot! a video about GRB association with SuperNovae would also be amazing!
The direct collapse proposal for SMBH's is the best suggestion yet on how those BH's grew so large so fast in the early universe. Most certainly not all of them were formed that way. The early universe was so chaotic and spatially not very large it is not hard to expect that in some densely packed areas mergers happened growing the BH's. There's one thing to remember though. Even if a BH has the density of Cotton Candy it is still a BH. Meaning that at some distance from the BH the gravity becomes so strong that it prevents light from escaping meaning if you get caught in that gravity there will be no soft landing waiting for you.
At 0:53 and ai is going to help so much in advancing in physics, it wont just help in therotical physics, but will also help in analyzing interstellar data and noticing all important stuff in it.
Good episode, I'm hoping for one of those deep theoretical topics soon.
I dig the new intro and Logo,amazing video as alwais also thanks
Awesome new intro animation. And logo!
Thanks to Matt and the team for another great episode! By the way, no background music on this one
I LIKE WHAT YOU'VE DONE WITH THE PLACE.
This makes me happy!
Anyone notice their new intro! Great update ST Team
New intro is rad!
Firstly, I absolutely love the channel and your content! Two scientific questions related to the visuals.
1. Why did you show high energy (gamma rays) on the left side and low energy (infra red) on the right?
2. @3:15 - @3:25 is this a scientifically accurate representation of a black hole from the observer's perspective?
Keep on doing what you do, it's a breath of fresh air. ❤
1.) Left-right is used to signify progress or increase. Usually this is from low to high, so high frequencies are on the right.However in this case it is intended to show the progress of redshift, so the reverse is true.The most progressed, redshifted wavelengths are shown on the right.
2.) The rendering at 3:15 is artistic, but based on models and meant to show the temperature of the accretion disk (Red vs blue color) as well as waves in the disk as matter orbits. It is an artistic rendering of what is considered a good scientific model.
Salute from Toronto
Very nice, thank you!
I happen to know of the co-authors of the paper by Bogdan+23, and learned from him that in fact x-ray observations with Chandra were performed before even the launch of jwst! If I recall correctly you can find such interesting details in the data section of the paper.
Impressive work on the paper and yours explanations, Matt.
Edit: x-ray observations were performed before the launch exactly because they though they will find something interesting in the JWST data which had already already scheduled
It’s been a while, yay!
It’s both. The conditions or rules of the Universe were different during its young energetic phase.
Making Direct Collapse was possible what we may call Ultra Massive Black Holes. (Not saying that this next phase couldn’t have overlapped the previous phase, but,..). As time moved along, the first stars (Population 3 stars) formed at greater masses than is possible in the later era. They began collapsing as things calmed down, forming the seeds that we see in most galaxies with large SMBH. And as they collapsed, it triggered the birth of some of the oldest known stars in the universe, the population 2 metal poor stars. By this time the energy / activity level of the universe has calmed down enough to resemble what we know. As time went on, enough time has elapsed for SMBHs and galaxies to have formed by way of the most prevalent theory, where stellar mass black holes just accumulated into SMBHs and the galaxies grew up with them.
The sight of one of those Heavy Seed supermassive black hole formations must have been something to behold!
Didn't expect to hear about the early universe's OB/Gs today but here we are.
I've generally long favored the direct collapse model though since I have learned more about anisotropic and inhomogeneous models in particular discovered Matthew Kleban and Leonardo Senatore's 2016 proof for the no big crunch theorem and the implications for gravity in such a sufficiently large inhomogeneous and anisotropic universe I can't help but suspect that behavior of gravity particularly the irreducibly nonzero asymmetric(and probably more specifically antisymmetric) behavior as there will always be more underdensities than over densities and the rate of expansion in such a universe becomes directionally dependent due to the time slices for any given frame or reference now being constrained by the local time coordinate, i.e. time passes considerably faster in voids relative to more densely packed regions of spacetime meaning voids expand much faster while massive bodies get funneled into deeper gravity wells in bulk flows.
It all matches remarkably well with what astronomers have observed without assuming the cosmological principal is valid and if mass is flowing into dense regions in the form of more compact gravitationally bound bodies in free fall that might let you get massive objects to form very quickly as its the net angular momentum which restricts growth.
The biggest benefit however is we get rid of the need for dark energy, recover a natural reason for why we observe a unidirectional arrow of time, why we observe the Hubble tension with consistent measurement groups and can explain the growing number of odd structures apparently too large for lambda CDM can exist. It all comes down to the Einstein field equations needing to obey the laws of calculus!
Also if true it suggests any quantization of spacetime itself and thus gravity must be Fermionic in nature, (like neutrinos) one observable consequence of that would be that black holes are only approximately real in the large scale limit i.e. that the escape velocity would only asymptotically approach the speed of light. For SMBH's this probably is indistinguishable from what we can observe because any black body light would be gravitationally redshifted towards the hawking limit but for smaller stellar mass BH's you might be able to see electromagnetic radiation albeit extremely redshifted from these objects. Perhaps some FRB's were emitted by such "black holes" as initially high energy gamma ray outbursts like seen from magnetars?
It was stated if the solar system had the density of cotton candy it could be black hole. What about if we scale up to the observable universe? What would the density need to be for it to be a black hole and how does that compare to the estimated density (with and without dark matter)? With the expansion of the universe, what did these calculations look like in the past and into the future?
Can you make an episode on how astronomers locate known objects? More so how do they calculate depth of field/magnification. I mean how they report were they found an object for other scientist to observe
Or you could Google for 2 seconds and answer your own questions
Yayyyyyyy spacetime is back
This one was a long wait. Finally here 😂
I love PBS space time
Excellent science communication
Thank you 🌱💪🏾💚!
I like the new branding. That logo is snazzy
I've had people get really angry at me for suggesting direct collapse as they struggle to understand how a big ball of gas can just suddenly form an event horizon.
The new black hole orbit shirt design just doesn't hit the same without the hopelessly screwed astronaut... 😔
I've never heard a good explanation of direct collapse black holes until now
My gut, along with everything I've learned up until now, tells me the combined evidence of UHZ1 and similar ancient SMBHs, along with the missing middle-sized black holes between stellar and SMBH size, point to early universe formation of SMBHs.
Great vid
I just picture the density of the universe after the Big Bang, and then picture exponential growth with that density, I’m sure they started small, but with that much matter so tightly packed together I’m sure they grew larger than we could possibly imagine, faster than we can imagine, maybe causing black holes to collapse into each other causing crazy gravitational waves pulling matter back and forth like the waves on the sand. While launching matter on the rebound out into space, or a heart pulsing blood/mattwr across the universe
Pre-recombination formed SMBHs interacting with a huge energy density gravitational radiation background are needed in order to reproduce CMB observations w/o CDM particles. I was confident early massive galaxies would be observed since SMBHs seeded the early universe.