Saturday, December 3, 2022
Contact    |    RSS icon Twitter icon Facebook icon  
You are viewing: Home > News > Space & Astronomy > News story
Welcome Guest ( Login or Register )  
Space & Astronomy

Scientists discover gigantic black hole

By T.K. Randall
February 28, 2015 · Comment icon 22 comments



The black hole is thought to have formed in the very early universe. Image Credit: NASA / Alain Riazuelo
Located at the center of a quasar, the object is more than two billion times more massive than our sun.
The black hole is not only remarkable for its size but also for its age having formed approximately 900 million years after the Big Bang. The mechanism through which such a massive black hole could have come in to being so early remains a complete mystery.

"Forming such a large black hole so quickly is hard to interpret with current theories," said Dr Fuyan Bian from the Australian National University. "This black hole at the centre of the quasar gained enormous mass in a short period of time."
Quasars are something that have themselves remained a matter of some debate ever since the first one was discovered in 1963. While scientists struggled for years to explain how these highly luminous objects could have come in to being, nowadays it is believed that they are heated up as they are dragged in towards the supermassive black hole located at the center of a galaxy.

"This quasar is very unique. We are so excited, when we found that there is such a luminous and massive quasar only 0.9bn years after the Big Bang," said Prof Xue-Bing Wu of Peking University.

"Just like the brightest lighthouse in the distant universe, its glowing light will help us to probe more about the early universe."

Source: The Guardian | Comments (22)


Recent comments on this story
Comment icon #13 Posted by coolguy 8 years ago
That's a great find, I hope it says out there
Comment icon #14 Posted by mayidieoneday 8 years ago
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... [More]
Comment icon #15 Posted by toast 8 years ago
.... 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.
Comment icon #16 Posted by mayidieoneday 8 years ago
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 an... [More]
Comment icon #17 Posted by toast 8 years ago
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 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 d... [More]
Comment icon #18 Posted by mayidieoneday 8 years ago
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 ... [More]
Comment icon #19 Posted by toast 8 years ago
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"... [More]
Comment icon #20 Posted by mayidieoneday 8 years ago
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... [More]
Comment icon #21 Posted by toast 8 years ago
...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.
Comment icon #22 Posted by moon tide 8 years ago
Jeez, that's a whopper. Jeez, that's a whopper.


Please Login or Register to post a comment.


Our new book is out now!

The Unexplained Mysteries
Book of Weird News

 AVAILABLE NOW 

Take a walk on the weird side with this compilation of some of the weirdest stories ever to grace the pages of a newspaper.

Click here to learn more

We need your help!

Support us on Patreon

 BONUS CONTENT 

For less than the cost of a cup of coffee, you can gain access to a wide range of exclusive perks including our popular 'Lost Ghost Stories' series.

Click here to learn more

 Total Posts: 7,366,926    Topics: 303,177    Members: 198,969

 Not a member yet ? Click here to join - registration is free and only takes a moment!
Recent news and articles