[Dave Lev (OP)]

In the following article it is stated:
https://www.space.com/most-distant-quasar-discovery-giant-black-hole
"Astronomers led by researchers at the University of Arizona spotted the brilliant quasar about 13.03 billion light-years from Earth"
"This quasar, called J0313-1806, can be dated back to just 670 million years after the Big Bang (the universe at this time was a mere 5% of its current age), making it the most distant and earliest quasar ever found. This quasar also hosts a supermassive black hole that has a mass equal to 1.6 billion of our suns. "
So, we discuss about a SMBH that has a mass equal to 1.6 billion of our suns.
It had been dated back to just 670 million years after the Big Bang.
So how did this SMBH get so massive so quickly (as stated):
"Quasars like J0313-1806 that already accumulated such immensely massive black holes in such a short time in the early universe have puzzled scientists for years. While black holes can be created when stars explode in supernova and collapse and smaller black holes can merge, eventually building up mass, these ultra-massive early-universe quasars remain mysterious. How did they get so massive so quickly?"
They actually set a calculation:
"In fact, the team thinks that, even if the black hole formed as early as 100 million years after the Big Bang and grew as fast as possible, it would still only be 10,000 times as massive as our sun — and it's 1.6 billion times as massive. "
So what shall we understand from that data:
1. BH can't be created immediately after the big bang. At the best case it could start 100 M Y after the bang.
2. In 570 M years (670-100), at the best case it could get to 10K Sun mass.

Therefore, in order to get that 1.6 B (1,600,000K) Sun mass there is a need for
1,600,000K / 10K * 570 MY = 160,000 * 570MY = 91,200,000MY = 91,200 Billion years.

Hence, based on the data we can calculate that there is a need for 91,200 Billion years to set that kind of SMBH.

That observation PROVES that the idea that so massive SMBH could be created in just 670M after the bang is not realistic.
Therefore, the age of our real universe must be significantly bigger than just 13.8 B years.

However, as expected - those puzzled scientists don't accept any observation that contradicts the BBT.
Therefore, instead of accepting the data and agree that there is a fatal error in the Universe age based on the Big bang theory, now they look for some idea to close the gap.

"This tells you that no matter what you do, the seed of this black hole must have formed by a different mechanism," co-author Xiaohui Fan, a professor and associate head of the Department of Astronomy at the University of Arizona.

My message to this professor is as follow:

No, there is no different mechanism and there is no need to be puzzled.
You just have to open your eyes and accept the truth data AS IS.
Based on that you should understand that the age of the Universe must be significantly higher than 13.8 BY.
This should be the real meaning of truth!

Therefore, do you all agree that this message proves that the real age of the Universe should be very high or even infinity?
Or do you prefer to ignore the message and deal with the messenger?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

I have just found one more argument for my message:

https://www.space.com/universe-first-stars-older-than-thought.html
"Researchers probing the early universe found no sign of first-generation stars in galaxies that existed just 500 million to 1 billion years after the Big Bang."
"It has taken the light from these background galaxies 12.8 billion to 13.3 billion years to reach Earth — meaning that these objects are time capsules harboring lots of information about the early universe, including what types of stars were shining back then.
"We found no evidence of these first-generation Population III stars in this cosmic time interval," Bhatawdekar said. "

So, we didn't discover the first-generation stars in those distant galaxies that had been formed just 500 MY after the bang.
This is one more indication that the whole idea of first-generation Population III stars is just imagination.
However, as expected, puzzled scientists won't give up.
"Population III stars and the first galaxies must therefore be older still — so old that they're beyond Hubble's reach. But NASA's $9.8 billion James Webb Space Telescope, which is scheduled to launch next year, may be able to spot them, study team members said."
So let me tell to those puzzled scientists:
Even if you would have a 10^1000 Billion $ Space Telescope, that can observe the entire Universe up to the infinity - you won't find even one first-generation Population III star.
That is one more evidence that something must be wrong in the Big Bang Theory!.

[Origin]

That observation PROVES that the idea that so massive SMBH could be created in just 670M after the bang is not realistic.

Not it doesn't.  It proves that we don't know the exact process for the formation of SMBH.  There are however several hypotheses for their formation.

[Origin]

This is one more indication that the whole idea of first-generation Population III stars is just imagination.

No, this does not mean populations stars are imagination.

"Population III stars and the first galaxies must therefore be older still — so old that they're beyond Hubble's reach. But NASA's $9.8 billion James Webb Space Telescope, which is scheduled to launch next year, may be able to spot them, study team members said."

Well, I guess we will see before too long.

So let me tell to those puzzled scientists:
Even if you would have a 10^1000 Billion $ Space Telescope, that can observe the entire Universe up to the infinity - you won't find even one first-generation Population III star.
That is one more evidence that something must be wrong in the Big Bang Theory!.

Here we go again with Dave's overinflated ego....

[evan_au]

the whole idea of first-generation Population III stars is just imagination

We know that stars gradually turn Hydrogen into Helium, through nuclear fusion. Our Sun is doing it right now, with a composition around 73% H, 25% He, and a smattering of other elements totaling 2%.

If the star is bigger, it distributes elements like carbon when it goes red-giant. It if it is really big, it distributes elements like iron and nickel when it explodes as a supernova.

So the concentration of elements higher than Helium on the periodic table is increasing over time.
- The Sun has a tiny amount of Carbon, Iron and Nickel, but it didn't produce them itself - it isn't massive enough.
- The Sun must have collected them in its raw materials - which included stars that previously went supernova.

Now run the clock backwards in time. Further back in time (or look at red-dwarf stars, which live longer), you should see some stars with lower concentrations of elements like Carbon & Iron than the Sun (the prime Population I star). And astronomers do find examples of these Population II stars.

Look back far enough, and you might find stars that are 100% Hydrogen - only astronomers have not yet found any examples.
- And they don't expect to, either.
- Looking at the CMBR, cosmologists estimate that the early universe was hot enough to fuse some Hydrogen into Helium: It is thought that the primordial ratio of Hydrogen to Helium was around 75:25, with any higher elements (eg Lithium) being extremely rare.

So if James Webb finds some stars that are 100% Hydrogen, you will have made your point. Let's hope it takes some clear pictures with good spectra!

[Dave Lev (OP)]

That observation PROVES that the idea that so massive SMBH could be created in just 670M after the bang is not realistic.

Not it doesn't.  It proves that we don't know the exact process for the formation of SMBH.  There are however several hypotheses for their formation.

Thanks Origin
As you don't know the exact process for the formation of SMBH:
Could it be that you don't know exact process for how SMBH really works?
Or you don't know just because there is a severe contradiction between the current  theory to the observation?

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:47:04
"Population III stars and the first galaxies must therefore be older still — so old that they're beyond Hubble's reach. But NASA's $9.8 billion James Webb Space Telescope, which is scheduled to launch next year, may be able to spot them, study team members said."

Well, I guess we will see before too long.

What is the chance that your guess is incorrect?
Can you please specify the time frame for "before too long"?
In other words, how long do we have to wait before you would understand that your understanding is just incorrect?
1K Years? 1 MY or infinity?

We know that stars gradually turn Hydrogen into Helium, through nuclear fusion. Our Sun is doing it right now, with a composition around 73% H, 25% He, and a smattering of other elements totaling 2%.
If the star is bigger, it distributes elements like carbon when it goes red-giant.

Thanks Evan
The nuclear fusion activity in a star is very clear.
However it can't generate heavy elements/atoms

It if it is really big, it distributes elements like iron and nickel when it explodes as a supernova.

For elements like iron and nickel a supernova is needed.
However, that supernova is not good enough for heaver elements/atoms as gold and platinum:
https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/PT.3.3815
"In 2016 a tiny, faint galaxy, a satellite of the Milky Way called Reticulum II (Ret II), provided evidence that the supernova-explosion scenario that had long been favored could not be the main mechanism for the production of the heaviest elements. Instead, the chemical composition of the stars in Ret II strongly suggests that neutron-star mergers are the universe’s way to make elements such as gold and platinum."
Actually it is stated that:
"But even the recent LIGO–Virgo detection of two neutron stars coalescing has added only one piece to the puzzle of understanding the origin of the heaviest elements."
So do you agree that "we don't know the exact process" for the origin of the heaviest elements?

Therefore, do you confirm that even the outcome of supernova is not good enough for the Sun and the solar system?
What would you understand if you would discover that in any star in the entire universe there are gold, platinum and all the other heaviest elements? You have called it - "smattering of other elements totaling 2%"

Look back far enough, and you might find stars that are 100% Hydrogen - only astronomers have not yet found any examples.

You may hope to find stars that are 100% Hydrogen
However, if you won't find them - Never & ever, would you reconsider your theory?
Or the theory is above any observation?
Please remember that for any contradiction between theory to observation you can use the following argument:

we don't know the exact process...

However, I can always claim:
As you confirm that you don't know, how do you know that what you don't know is correct or incorrect?

[Kryptid]

No, there is no different mechanism

How do you know that?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

No, there is no different mechanism

How do you know that?

Real theory can set only one mechanism.
For example: gravity theory.
Based on the mechanism of this theory the sun completes one galactic circuit in about 220 million to 250 million years.
There is no other mechanism.
Therefore, if we observe a star (with the same size/radius as the sun) that completes one galactic circuit in just one earth year then we should understand that there is a severe mistake in our theory.
I didn't set the BBT theory and I didn't set the mechanism of this theory.
Our puzzled scientists claim that based on the mechanism of this theory then 670 My after the Big Bang, the maximal size of a SMBH could only be 10,000 solar mass:
https://www.space.com/most-distant-quasar-discovery-giant-black-hole
"In fact, the team thinks that, even if the black hole formed as early as 100 million years after the Big Bang and grew as fast as possible, it would still only be 10,000 times as massive as our sun — and it's 1.6 billion times as massive. "
Therefore, if we could discover that the maximal size of this distant-quasar is only 10,000 solar mass and there are many distant Population III stars, we could prove that the mechanism of the BBT theory is 100% correct.
However, the discovery of the real size of this quasar fully contradicts the current BBT mechanism.
Also the missing distant Population III star is a major problem for the BBT mechanism.

Don't you agree that our mission is to fit the theory to the observation and not vice versa?
If so, why those puzzled scientists always try to fit the observation to the BBT theory?
Why they don't even consider a possibility that there might be a problem with the BBT theory/mechanism?

Sorry, In real theory - there is no room for puzzled scientists or other imagination mechanism.
The observation is above any kind of theory.
One mechanism per theory even if it is called BBT.
If the observation meets the mechanism of the theory - then the theory is 100% correct.
If the doesn't, then please open your eyes and consider different theory with different mechanism.

[Origin]

Thanks Origin
As you don't know the exact process for the formation of SMBH:
Could it be that you don't know exact process for how SMBH really works?

What do by "how it works"?

Or you don't know just because there is a severe contradiction between the current  theory to the observation?

Possible, but it is more likely that SMBH will fit into the BBT since the BBT has so much evidence.

What is the chance that your guess is incorrect?

Very little chance.

Can you please specify the time frame for "before too long"?
In other words, how long do we have to wait before you would understand that your understanding is just incorrect?
1K Years? 1 MY or infinity?

It depends on when the researchers that are working on this will have time on the James Webb telescope.  I would think it would be a year or two.
 

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 03:25:25
Or you don't know just because there is a severe contradiction between the current  theory to the observation?

Possible, but it is more likely that SMBH will fit into the BBT since the BBT has so much evidence.

Sorry, there are only two options:
Fit or not fit.
If the theory fits into the new discovery/observations (based on its current mechanism) - then the theory is correct.
If it doesn't fit, and you must look for other mechanism - then your theory is wrong.
Once you offer different mechanism for your theory - then it is your obligation to offer updated name for your theory.
You can call it BBT Version i.
However, once you change/update the mechanism of your theory, then you can only use that updated mechanism.
In other words - you can't use one mechanism to confirm one observation and other mechanism to confirm other observation.
So, if those puzzled scientists understand that there is a severe problem in their BBT theory/mechanism and there is a need for new mechanism, then it is their obligation to abandon the old mechanism, change the name of the theory (for example,  BBTi) and show how the updated mechanism can work on all observations.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 03:25:25

Can you please specify the time frame for "before too long"?
In other words, how long do we have to wait before you would understand that your understanding is just incorrect?
1K Years? 1 MY or infinity?
.

It depends on when the researchers that are working on this will have time on the James Webb telescope.  I would think it would be a year or two.

I can promise you that even after 1K or 2M years we won't find any distant Population III star.
However, you want two years and I give you 10 years.
So, do you confirm that if we won't find even a single distant Population III star in the coming 10 years then there is a problem with the BBT?

[Bored chemist]

Once you offer different mechanism for your theory - then it is your obligation to offer updated name for your theory.
You can call it BBT Version i.

Bollocks.
People still talk about Darwinian evolution even though it has changed a lot since his day.
Why do you think the name of a theory is so important?

[Origin]

Sorry, there are only two options:
Fit or not fit.
If the theory fits into the new discovery/observations (based on its current mechanism) - then the theory is correct.
If it doesn't fit, and you must look for other mechanism - then your theory is wrong.

Obviously.

Once you offer different mechanism for your theory - then it is your obligation to offer updated name for your theory.
You can call it BBT Version i.

Not sure what mechanism is mentioned in the BBT, but as long as the bottom line says the universe expanded from a very compact area about 14 billion years ago then the BBT stands.

[Origin]

I can promise you that even after 1K or 2M years we won't find any distant Population III star.
However, you want two years and I give you 10 years.

Of course you can't promise that.
You can hope that happens (for what ever reason).

So, do you confirm that if we won't find even a single distant Population III star in the coming 10 years then there is a problem with the BBT?

No I can't confirm that.  It may be a problem or not.  I would say it depends on what discoveries are made in the next 10 years.  I would personally be surprised if there were no population III stars.  But if there aren't that would an unexpected and exciting discovery

[Kryptid]

Real theory can set only one mechanism.

Provably wrong. In chemistry, for example, there are many different mechanisms that can form water. You can create it by burning hydrocarbons, through the joining of two monosaccharide molecules into a disaccharide, through the fermentation of glucose, through the reaction of a base with an acid, and so on. So there are many different mechanisms that can get you the same result.

Nowhere does the Big Bang theory state that black holes can only form through one mechanism (like the collapse of a single star). If you disagree, then provide an authoritative source that backs up your claim that the Big Bang does only allow one such mechanism.

[evan_au]

Sorry, there are only two options:
Fit or not fit.

There is another (more common) option: Evolve.
- Tweak the theory to account for the new observations, making it an even more successful theory, but keeping the name the same.
- In Evolutionary terms, this makes the theory even more fit!

It's only when someone discovers a major new mechanism that the theory might be given a new name.
- CMBR was a major new source of data, but the theory retained the same name: BBT
- Cosmic Inflation was a major new mechanism, but the theory retained the same name: BBT

For example: gravity theory.
Based on the mechanism of this theory the sun completes one galactic circuit in about 220 million to 250 million years.
Therefore, if we observe a star (with the same size/radius as the sun) that completes one galactic circuit in just one earth year then we should understand that there is a severe mistake in our theory.

We already know of one star that completes a galactic orbit in 16 years.
- With the James Webb telescope, we should be able to see smaller stars making faster galactic circuits.
- But this doesn't imply that there is a problem with the current theory of gravity.
- It just tells us that there is a Super-Massive Black Hole at the center of our galaxy (and allows us to estimate its mass, even though we can't see it, as yet).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S2_(star)

So do you agree that "we don't know the exact process" for the origin of the heaviest elements?

Astrophysicists expect that a number of processes will contribute to each of the heavy elements. There is no single "exact process"
- This periodic table even gives the current best guess about the mix of processes by which different elements were formed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_nucleosynthesis#Key_reactions

[evan_au]

there is a Super-Massive Black Hole at the center of our galaxy (even though we can't see it, as yet)

I spoke too soon. Today, the Event Horizon Telescope collaboration released it's image of the "shadow" of Sgr A*, seen against the glow of its accretion disk.

See: https://astronomy.com/news/2022/05/black-hole-at-heart-of-milky-way-imaged-for-first-time

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote
For example: gravity theory.
Based on the mechanism of this theory the sun completes one galactic circuit in about 220 million to 250 million years.
Therefore, if we observe a star (with the same size/radius as the sun) that completes one galactic circuit in just one earth year then we should understand that there is a severe mistake in our theory.

We already know of one star that completes a galactic orbit in 16 years.

I assume that you discuss about S2.
However, S2 radius is totally different from the sun radius.

Quote from: Dave Lev
Sorry, there are only two options:
Fit or not fit.
There is another (more common) option: Evolve.

There is s clear reason for the "Evolve"
It is called - "No fit".
So whenever there is "no fit" between the observation to the mechanism of the theory, we are forced to make a change in the theory that is called: "Evolve".
Therefore, I fully agree with you that there must be "Evolve" in the theory; however it comes with changes in the theory itself.

- In Evolutionary terms, this makes the theory even more fit!

Sure.
Whenever our puzzled scientists discover observation with "no fit" they are forced to make the Evolutionary terms for better fit.

- Tweak the theory to account for the new observations, making it an even more successful theory, but keeping the name the same.

Sorry
Once you make a change in the theory - you must make a change in the name.
I compare a theory to a software.
A good theory sets the correct process/terms for the Universe.
A good software sets the correct process/terms for the electronic device.
Software must come with "version".
Each version makes it "even more fit".
So, as there is "Evolve" in the software, there also must be "Evolve" in the theory.
However, each "Evolve" must come with new version.
This version is mandatory.
It is requested to verify each new version from A to Z.
In the same token, each time that our puzzled scientists make a change in the  BBT theory they must give it a new version name and verify that it works perfectly from A to Z.

It's only when someone discovers a major new mechanism that the theory might be given a new name.
- CMBR was a major new source of data, but the theory retained the same name: BBT
- Cosmic Inflation was a major new mechanism, but the theory retained the same name: BBT

Thanks.
So the name should be as follow (let me use the year date as the name of the version):
BBT (v.1923) - first BBT version
BBT (v. 1967?) - adding the Inflation mechanism
BBT (V. ?) - adding the dark matter mechanism
BBT (V. ?) - adding the dark energy mechanism
BBT (V. 2022) - adding the Super massive SMBH mechanism.
It is perfectly Ok for our scientists to offer this V.2022 version for the BBT, however once they offer if they must verify if it works ok from A to Z.
As an example:
In the article it is stated:
"In order for the black hole to have grown to the size we see with J0313-1806, it would have to have started out with a seed black hole of at least 10,000 solar masses, and that would only be possible in the direct collapse scenario."
Hence - there is a need for significant change in BBT v.2022 it is called: "direct collapse scenario".
However, if the  "direct collapse scenario" is correct, then why can't we assume that all/most of the matter in the early universe "direct collapse" into just one infinite SMBH seed?
If you insist for just 10,000 solar mass per seed - then please tell us how you do it.
Do you give a call to that "scenario" asking them to set a massive SMBH seed but not too massive?
Even if you can do it, why only few seeds?
Why not unlimited no. of those kinds of 10,000 solar mass seeds?
Please try to verify how under those massive SMBH seeds the updated BBT theory version could work.
Please remember that for each BBT version it is needed to justify also the mathematics.
With those massive SMBH seeds, how can we still claim that the early universe is isotropic and homogenous?
Without it there is no mathematics to confirm the updated BBT theory.
Therefore, before those puzzled scientists tells us how the "direct collapse scenario" overcome the quasar observation, the must verify if that idea can overcome the mathematics.
So, they can't just take V.1927 and confirm it by mathematics and then use V.2022 just to confirm the Quasar new observation.

Please be aware that the "direct collapse scenario"  is based on dark matter idea.
However,do we know how the that dark matter & dark energy in the Universe had been created by the BBT so early?

Actually the BBT is all about a theory for the creation of ordinary matter.
However, the ordinary matter is less than 5% from all the matter/energy in the Universe.
So, how can we call a theory for just 5% of the matter in the universe as a theory for the Universe?
Sorry - if our puzzled scientists can't explain in the BBT the clear creation of the dark matter and dark energy and prove it by mathematics– then this BBT theory is useless

Therefore:
1. Would you kindly highlight the major changes per date in the BBT versions?
2. Would you kindly tell us how BBT v.2022 can fit in all the parameters of the Universe from A to Z (including mathematics, CMBR, inflation process, dark matter, dark energy...)

[Kryptid]

Once you make a change in the theory - you must make a change in the name.

Please provide an authoritative source that backs this claim up. I'm not aware of any organization of scientists that stated this.

[evan_au]

I compare a theory to a software.
Software must come with "version".

Software that is released a single organisation may have a single version number.
- But science is not a single organisation
- A theory is more like an open-source software project, where everyone who is interested gets their own copy, and make their own favorite tweaks, which others may or may not adopt, and which may or may not get merged into the "main line". Such software does not have a single version, but has many variants circulating independently (like a family tree of COVID-19, from https://nextstrain.org/ncov/gisaid/global/6m !)

COVID_Family_Tree_May-2022.jpg (183.71 kB . 949x928 - viewed 1893 times)
- So a theory cannot have a single version number (Although Einstein's Relativity comes close, with a Special and a General version)

Please be aware that the "direct collapse scenario"  is based on dark matter idea.

Dark Matter would have contributed considerably to the gravitational attraction in the early universe. But it's not central to the theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_collapse_black_hole

However, do we know how the that dark matter & dark energy in the Universe had been created by the BBT so early?
So, how can we call a theory for just 5% of the matter in the universe as a theory for the Universe?

Current computer models of the Big Bang have shown that Dark Matter and Dark Energy are required for the universe to form in the manner we observe. These models have informed deductions about what are the percentages of each.
- So actually, these computer simulations of the BBT account for all of the (known) mass-energy of the universe.

Description of the video: https://esahubble.org/videos/heic1005a/

[Origin]

"In order for the black hole to have grown to the size we see with J0313-1806, it would have to have started out with a seed black hole of at least 10,000 solar masses, and that would only be possible in the direct collapse scenario."
Hence - there is a need for significant change in BBT v.2022 it is called: "direct collapse scenario"

I'm pretty sure the astrophysics community doesn't care about your concerns about the name of the theory.

Sorry - if our puzzled scientists can't explain in the BBT the clear creation of the dark matter and dark energy and prove it by mathematics– then this BBT theory is useless

No, the BBT is a very good theory that has and continues to provide a lot of insight into the universe.

I know you don't "like" the BBT (for what ever reason) but that is beside the point.  Scientist don't "like" the BBT, they recognize that it does a good job describing the evolution of the universe and the will continue to use it until a better theory comes along.