Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Black hole 12bn times bigger than the sun


Still Waters

Recommended Posts

A monster black hole powering "the brightest lighthouse in the distant universe" has been discovered that is 12 billion times more massive than the sun, scientists have revealed.

The extraordinary object is at the centre of a quasar - an intensely powerful galactic radiation source - with a million billion times the sun's energy output.

http://www.telegraph...an-the-sun.html

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Considering that we are seeing it, or rather its effect, as it looked 13 billion years ago, just try to imagine how big it is now :-o , maybe it is eating up much of the universe.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good God!

I'm glad the quasar harboring this (if the quasar even exists anymore--- the back hole itself would of course) and the black hole is nowhere near our "neighborhood"

Seems a little too hungry for comfort.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One more of those object which should not exist where they are right now.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This could be where the mighty Megalodon spawns from!

This could be where the entire Universe spawns from.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes I feel like us trying to understand the nature of the universe is like a chimp trying to understand the nature of an internal combustion engine.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes I feel like us trying to understand the nature of the universe is like a chimp trying to understand the nature of an internal combustion engine.

Given enough time, anything is possible.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This could be where the entire Universe spawns from.

This could be how other Universes are created meaning a multiverse we have yet to discover. Hence helping explain the big bang,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes,, when that thing goes off it will be big bang 2 or 3 or 4 !!!.

I am surprised that there are still people in the program believing in this big bang thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This could be how other Universes are created meaning a multiverse we have yet to discover. Hence helping explain the big bang,

.... we already know how other multiverses are created. I don't think there's a way to create another universe in an already existing multiverse (or are you suggesting it would be quantum disconnected from other universes in the multiverse? or would its particles spontaneously entangle with particles in the source universe?...creating a multiverse is simple, you heat up a concentrated region of spacetime until the new multiverse bubbles off the quantum potential field on the "outside" of our multiverse bubble (something about heating the region of spacetime near the temperature of the early universe creates some quantum confusion that makes it happen, I don't really understand the details, ask Ichio Kaku, he can explain it) creating a universe within a multiverse? that would create all kinds of problems as the universes within a multiverse aren't entirely disconnected (for example, they share entangled particle pairs where one entangled particle is in a different universe from its counterpart).of course I have no academic credentials to wave around so you can promptly ignore me after heartily laughing at me!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

.... we already know how other multiverses are created.

No we dont. The multiverses theory is still what it is, a theory and even Hawking and Kaku talk about it as a theory so the process of the

self creation of multiverses, and I say self creation to exclude a creator, is a theory as well and so nothing "that we already know" about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No we dont. The multiverses theory is still what it is, a theory and even Hawking and Kaku talk about it as a theory so the process of the

self creation of multiverses, and I say self creation to exclude a creator, is a theory as well and so nothing "that we already know" about.

I really hope you know in science, there's nothing more certain than a scientific theory! that's as certain as it.gets! if you meant to say speculation... well, it's certainly more than that as the math holds up and the things make sense, but the thing about theoretical physics is it's always going to be theoretical :D anyway, the.single universe is also a theory and an outdated one at that! Occam's razor doesn't apply because a single universe isn't enough to explain some quantum phenomena like "spontaneous dis/appearance" that a multiverse can explain easily! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really hope you know in science, there's nothing more certain than a scientific theory! that's as certain as it.gets! if you meant to say speculation...

well, it's certainly more than that as the math holds up and the things make sense, but the thing about theoretical physics is it's always going to be

theoretical :D anyway, the.single universe is also a theory and an outdated one at that! Occam's razor doesn't apply because a single universe isn't

enough to explain some quantum phenomena like "spontaneous dis/appearance" that a multiverse can explain easily! :)

... I don't really understand the details, ask Ichio Kaku, he can explain it..

You said that you do not understand the details but on the other hand you are talking a lot (too much) about quantum mechanics and similar and I`m

really in the impression that yr approach is more of esoteric nature than based on real science.

But anyway and related to yr initial claim:

No we dont. The multiverses theory is still what it is, a theory and even Hawking and Kaku talk about it as a theory so the process of the

self creation of multiverses, and I say self creation to exclude a creator, is a theory as well and so nothing "that we already know" about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You said that you do not understand the details but on the other hand you are talking a lot (too much) about quantum mechanics and similar and I`m

really in the impression that yr approach is more of esoteric nature than based on real science.

But anyway and related to yr initial claim:

you've now made a personal attack and pointed out your debased opinion/impression of my "approach" without actually addressing a single scientific/theoretical point I made. you also seem to continue to misunderstand the meaning of the word "theory" in a scientific context. I guess that's your esoteric approach to a discussion!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you've now made a personal attack and pointed out your debased opinion/impression of my "approach" without actually addressing a single

scientific/theoretical point I made. you also seem to continue to misunderstand the meaning of the word "theory" in a scientific context. I guess

that's your esoteric approach to a discussion!

It wasnt a personal attack in any kind. I attacked your initial claim : ... we already know how other multiverses are created as to be wrong and

as to be of esoteric nature and due to that facts there is no need for me to adress any of your other "scientific/theoretical" points as the base

for a discussion on science can only be made if the base itself is of scientific nature. And as you claimed ... we already know how other

multiverses are created, and to repeat, we dont know yet and we even not know yet if these do exist but we do have theories about, I would

say that yr understanding of the word "theory" is different but not in compliance to its general meaning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wasnt a personal attack in any kind. I attacked your initial claim : ... we already know how other multiverses are created as to be wrong and

as to be of esoteric nature and due to that facts there is no need for me to adress any of your other "scientific/theoretical" points as the base

for a discussion on science can only be made if the base itself is of scientific nature. And as you claimed ... we already know how other

multiverses are created, and to repeat, we dont know yet and we even not know yet if these do exist but we do have theories about, I would

say that yr understanding of the word "theory" is different but not in compliance to its general meaning.

...sure :) except the other points weren't dependent on the initial claim (which I should have phrased "have a theoretical understanding of how they're likely created" ) I'll back out here as you seem bent on a semantics debate using dirty tactics! have a nice day :)

Edited by mayidieoneday
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...sure :) except the other points weren't dependent on the initial claim (which I should have phrased "have a theoretical understanding of how they're likely

created" ) I'll back out here as you seem bent on a semantics debate using dirty tactics! have a nice day :)

I disproved yr initial claim. If you call that dirty tactics, its on you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.