Did JWST SOLVE The Mystery of Supermassive Black Hole Origins?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 вер 2024
- Check Out Fascinating Fails: • How Pigeon Poop Helped...
Check Out the Space Time Merch Store
www.pbsspaceti...
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/Dona...
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/1a6...
Search the Entire Space Time Library Here: search.pbsspac...
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 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.
Scientists gets closer and closer to what my picture of existence as a whole is :) I spoke of the one of the scenarios that makes the galaxies existence possible by having a super massive black whole at the center "so early" even at todays point of view for example the milky way, wouldn't have time to form and grow from a gas cloud! There can be 2 ways to make galaxies to look like they are now: 1. We are wrong about time 2. The energy to mass "conversion" at the beginning of our universe created the heavy seed model at the beginning in some spots and spread them after that.
Why is there such a pronounced (even log large) gap @ 4:42?
Could detector limitations contribute here? I would imagine it would be easier to detect black holes if they are close by, most of which I would guess are stellar; or supermassive via quasars. Is it possible the latter dominate at large distances in data because of instrumental limits?
Thx!
Sadly no; w can detect supermassive and stellar mass black holes even at close range, and the masses don't scale with distance ,as we might expect if detection limits were the problem. The gap seems to be real and present even in our nearby universe.
Thought this was an Anton video when I clicked and was very confused at the lack of “hello wonderful person” 😂
at the 8 minute mark it daunted on me, going black hole is a like a new energy state in an atom.
@PBS Space Time - Could these first SMBs be parts of the big bang expansion that was dense enough to hold together?
A super cool Helium Fluid the size of solar systems could collapse into a blackhole. If their was a fridge large enough.
I always wondered if a Kugelblitz in the early universe with anti-matter and matter pair's annihilating each other could have caused them.
Black hole don’t care about what form them, matter, antimatter, exotic particule or light. It’s just a question of having too much of anything in a given volume.
Quasars are the OG marvel sky-beam
8:58 Do you have a source on that?
Come on, scientists.
Small seed vs Heavy seed, who named that?
This should’ve been either Small vs. Big
Or
Light vs. Heavy!
Does the Edington limit imply the formation of black holes from ordinary matter?
Have there been any attempts to generalize it to different dark matter models?
It seems that the limits of the BH growth rate can vary greatly in different DM models.
It is actually exceedingly difficult for dark matter particles to fall into black holes because they don't lose energy to friction effects. They'd have to fall straight "down" or they'd just miss and shoot past the black hole off to infinity.
Dr. Becky has a video on that ua-cam.com/video/9Qis5VDOd18/v-deo.html
@@narfwhals7843 Thank you, good video, although old. However, dark photon models allow dark matter to accrete from the disk. Surely more exotic options are possible.
But that's not what I meant. Dark matter particles flying past the black hole closer than several Schwarzschild radii will be captured directly, regardless of the black matter model.
It is clear that this effect is negligible for stellar-mass BHs, but as the BH grows, it will make an increasingly greater contribution - the BH density drops very quickly and its area increases. Perhaps you have come across numerical estimates of such amendments?
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 UA-cam comment section, worth the lost opportunity cost required to look it up?…. No. No it’s not.
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: ua-cam.com/video/4pSUtWBiuB4/v-deo.html
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.
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
I look forward to new Space Time more than anything else on UA-cam
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
@@Beanskiiii 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 UA-cam 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 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
The new intro explains the new profile pic
It is really good
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.
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?
Imagine if we made five of these and pointed them all in different directions at the same time how about 10 already sent that much money to Ukraine cancel few wars for the next few decades and we can build 100
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 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?
Great to have you back Matt, especially with such an exciting favorite topic! Thank you.
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.
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!
Mmmmmm primordial cotton candy
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 😅
Its Space time now 🌌
"In astronomy, where's there's one there's often many."
Except for life by the observed behavior of astronomers.
@@alicederyn Don't they have mirrors? 😯
I hope this whole conversation gets quoted in the show!
The new black hole orbit shirt design just doesn't hit the same without the hopelessly screwed astronaut... 😔
I love the change in music and video colouring.
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?
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.
I love pbs spacetime!!!!
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.
Thank you. You saved me from boredom again!
Is there any correlation between the microwave background and that quasar. If the location of the quasar is in colder region in the CMB, will that definitely mean the collapsing massive black holes as it is rather early on in the life of the universe?
Glad to see you back Matt
I appreciate this channel immensely
So wait....we detect xray even AFTER a 10x red shift? Wow... so initially it emitted a wavelength even 10x shorter than xray?!
No,t he x-ray band is from 0.01-10nm; you can stretch a high energy x-ray 100x and it would still be an x-ray. Only things like visible light are so narrow that redshifting changes their EM band.
Space time with a new intro 😮
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.
"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’.
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.
Haven't we found intermediate mass black holes (IMBH) with mass in the range of 10^2-10^5 solar masses? Can they explain the small seed model?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate-mass_black_hole
TIL that the early universe was filled with cotton candy. My theory is that the cotton candy was there to sweeten that bitter, bitter tea that Russel was brewing, AND NOBODY CAN PROVE OTHERWISE
Why should Uhz1 be a black hole if we see that Galaxy as whole? Why should there form a lone black hole if it needs other masses around it? A quasar is a Star in the visible light spectrum that has mass outbursts , so it shouldn't be a black hole.
If Uhz1 grown from a big star the amount of mass should be way higher
Small seed vs large seed.
How about the age of the universe is wrong, and it’s much older than 13.8B years.?
I forgot to like the video until you said "cotton candy", then.... :))
Well, I'm coming to this too late for anyone to see my question, but just in case: Does anything else create reshift? Like, does gravitational lensing ever induce redshift?
Sick I've wanted that black hole shirt for forever. Dibs.
I feel like I might be missing some fundamental understanding with the detection of x-rays that are as old as this. Are the x-rays emitted at such a high energy that even over billions of years of red shift, they are still just x-rays?
I just wondered if there could be hints of large primordial black holes in the CMB... 🤔
If we go 40 billion light years away.. is the cosmic background radiation the same??
I left a meeting because "something important came up" 🤫
is it possible that the disk of matter falling in can become dense enough for that to become a backhole? it seems reasonable, but then maybe that requires a non spinning disk of material or just more matter than is generally around.
Black holes are not holes at all they are flat dense space from converting from matter to anti matter it's like dense splashing out on that area of glide out like frequencies collision on its matter towards the flip over to anti matter and it's like a plate effect and outwards with energy rotating somehqt like blowing smoke rings but this is matter anti mater dense situation in space that super huge.
This guy’s parents must be very proud
Love the new intro animation and not just because it doesn’t have an earth rotating the wrong way 😜
I dig the new intro and Logo,amazing video as alwais also thanks
Anyone notice their new intro! Great update ST Team
Love the new intro. Looking forward to further discoveries by JWST, it seems to be one absolutely amazing tool :D
So when was dark matter proved to exist?
Did I miss something or was that an error?
What does this new information mean for the theory of a blackhole core star?
Not trying to make things more complicated: but wouldn't things happen a lot slower close to a black whole? Wouldn't they be a "younger image" than material further away from black wholes? So we see light from the past around an object that in our eyes she's everything in super slow motion. Isn't it even "older" then/ more behind in time? Sorry 😂
Yes,but this effect falls off very quickly; you'd only see it very VERY close to the black hole itself, not throught the entire galaxy. The problem remains.
Third possibility: The universe is not expanding.
8:35 I've thought the Earths Schwarzschildradius is around 1cm. Mount Eversts S-Radius is somewehre in the order of magnitude of nm.
Yeah, I think so too. What he said sounds false by many orders of magnitude.
WAIT, question wouldn't it be the large seed theory by default?... wasn't the first stars to form into existence made purely out of large pockets of gas in a hot dense early universe and resulted in massive (cant remember what they were called) primordial or gen 1 type stars that only 'lived' a few hundred thousand or million years before exhausting their fuel due to their size?
Would that not explain the scope and scale of these massive super massive blackholes?
As you say those supermassive black holes cannot be made by stellar sized black holes from 'modern day' supernova. But isn't that simply because early universe stars were absolute monsters of pure gas in the early universe? Not to also ask but wouldn't those early black holes more easily colide into larger super massive blackholes due to gravity in what was a much smaller early universe?
ah sorry, video goes on to literally explain this (jumped the gun) my bad
Does the Eddington limit constrain the rate an early black hole could grow by consuming dark matter? I wouldn't think the radiation pressure would slow the inflow of dark matter.
No,however the inability of dark matter to radiate energy sets up its own, actually lower limit on how much it can contribute. Dark matter shouldn't form accretion disks in the same way normal matter does. The same process that prevents it collapsing into the cores of galaxies keeps it away from black holes of any size.
Is the eddington limit calculated by looking at the disk around the black hole or does it take into account that matter may fall into a BH from all directions? I mean, we're talking about time where there may not even exist a disk because matter flows from all directions into the black hole, so maybe the eddington limit does not apply to the first SMBH.
As far as I know, the eddington limit, so the radiation that "pushes away" all matter from the BH, can only occur in "ordered" discs while matter spirals closer and closer to the BH. Maybe in the early days of the universe there was no disc because matter fell in from all directions and collided with other matter, losing momentum and falling into the SMBH eventually.
No,it applies to omnidirectional collapse too,though slightly differently. Radiation still pushes outwards; not, say, only at a hole's equator. This is why 'quasistars' are considered possible, large masses of gas with a black hole at their center that last millions of years. Put differently a black hole is very small for its mass,its 'mouth' is tiny and only so much matter can fall through it. It takes time to drink a lake through a straw.
Do massive STARS also have an eddington limit? Once fusion starts and its shine and wind back on infalling gas, how would a star keep growing to be humongous?
interesting question
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.
Is it still commonly believed that the universe's age is 13.7 billion years? There was discussion for a while that it might be twice this.
Great vid.
Someone wrote a paper asking how old the universe would have to be to produce certain odd galaxies IF our models were all otherwise completely correct. The answer is about twice the accepted age. But this causes problems with things like expansion, galactic evolution and star formation.Alternatively the same results can be explained if 5% more massive stars formed in the early universe,making galaxies brighter and seemingly older. Between 'tweak this one thing a bit' and 'completely alter all our cosmology' it's pretty clear what the conservative option is.
I don't understand how the Eddington limit would apply to dark matter, as I'd assume the outward radiative pressure that limits the feeding rate of a black hole would only apply to normal matter? Do we assume that dark matter cannot be a feed stock for black holes?
While dark matter won't be expelled by radiation, it cannot emit radiation itself and collapse. This means that it won't tend to form accretion disks and feed black holes, severely limiting how much dark matter a hole can consume. Even moreso than with regular matter.
With the Milky Way over 13 billion years old, would it be correct to say these galaxies developed around the same time as the Milky Way?
yes that sounds right
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?
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!
Damn why do you suddenly sound so Australian m8 ? 🦘
1:48 does gravitation lensing shift the red shift?
Because your theories are wrong simple.
As soon as I heard about the accidental discovery idea, my first thought was Penzias and Wilson. It's such a great story.
Just like a radio top 10, beaming out into the dark at the speed of light, I'm screaming my comment into the void.
Very nice new intro! Lovely work from the effects editor(s)
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.
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.)
The cotton candy example really puts into perspective how empty space is
Awesome new intro animation. And logo!
Being a while since I seen PBS Space Time but I am glad they are back.
Is there a theoretical explanation behind why the “direct collapse” cannot happen in the 10^2..10^5 mass range? I assume some funny inequality with the matter having to be too dense so it would have formed stars before SMBH?
I like the new intro!
Stupid question but : if quarks may deconfine in neutron star and if quarks/gluons interaction might produce a Higgs boson
Could it be that, beyond collapse, more and more Higgs pop into existence, converting some fermions to boson allowing the collapse to go further
And that, with all energy level full, the Higgs can't decay back and thus mater become energy trapped in the field excitation
And with the Higgs field so energetic, could that increase elementary particles mass a bit creating a positive feedback loop into complete collapse until only highly energetics boson are trapped by the faster-than-light space-time "compressing" it in place
boson can occupied the same quantum state at the same place so I was wondering ^^"
Some people would say that from a certain angle he looked like a smudge.
A moon-spiracy if you will
@@pbsspacetime The scale was originally designed in 1964 by the Russian astrophysicist Nikolai Kardashev (who was looking for signs of extraterrestrial life within cosmic signals). It has 3 base classes, each with an energy disposal level: Type I (10¹⁶W), Type II (10²⁶W), and Type III (10³⁶W). Other astronomers have extended the scale to Type IV (10⁴⁶W) and Type V (the energy available to this kind of civilization would equal that of all energy available in not just our universe, but in all universes and in all time-lines). These additions consider both energy access as well as the amount of knowledge the civilizations have access to.
2:35 . . . Yea for Chandra (AXAF) !! 🤩
"The Really Exciting Moment Came . . . "
X-rays @ Chandra = Gamma Rays @ Source !!!
Awesome intro. Can never live without Spacetime. Keep up the great work!!
OK... first comment, but... Small and heavy? Come on. Big and small? Heavy and light? What's going on here.