Tiny bright objects discovered at dawn of universe baffle scientists
phys.org
phys.org
What's interesting there isn't that much the object themselves which are bog-standard as far as celestial objects go, but how red-shifted (and therefore how far away/long ago) they are, which is something the model doesn't quite exclude but does warrant some tweakings of the "initial parameters" of the universe to make it work this way compared to what we expect.
Well, we could see them, but we weren't able to distinguish a galaxy from a nebula until after investing multiple centuries into the development of powerful telescopes.
If these old galaxies are so dense, could that help explain why their black hole is disproportionately large? With so many stars so close together, maybe they’re gravitationally interacting with each other far more, causing a lot more instability. So you have a bunch of stars knocking each other around and as a byproduct more of them get flung close enough to the center to get captured by the black hole?
The pop-sci treatment of what you're describing is the "force-feeding" theory. Black holes exert an outward pressure as they consume material, naturally limiting the rate they're able to grow. There were some recent results lending credence to the growing body of evidence that force-feeding was, at the very least, not a common phenomenon. One such tidbit was discussed here at HN recently [0]. Nobody really knows for sure yet though.
What is it telling us? Our current ideas are certainly wrong. Looking forward to what it leads us to.
If the diameter of a galaxy is one-thousandth, then its volume is one-billionth. They can't both be one-thousandth.
Long thin cylindrical galaxies, where you could see a linear relationship between length and volume, aren't a thing.
Of course, it's possible that this galaxy is spherical, so your original numbers apply.
There's no reason a previous universe had to form, expand, or stay distributed evenly.
1. Introduction
Since the discovery of the anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation by COBE...
The current prevailing science is saying that the CMB anisotropies are telling us the universe is isotropic...
The linked paper does however talk about an apparent deviation from this standard picture...but that is not what the word "anisotropy" is about in that quote.
Gurzadyan is not the most representative researcher to cite. While doing a PhD in astrophysics I remember a paper coming out where Gurzadyan co-published with Penrose but the paper had obvious flaws due to basic lack of understanding of statistical simulation, and there were many other groups jumping on showing it wrong within a few days..
IIRC the problem was that it was assumed that independent random variables in one space would still be independent after a linear transform (Fourier transform/spherical harmonic transform). I.e. failure in basic statistical algebra stuff underpinning the statistical simulations. This was not nitpicking, the whole result vanished once other groups redid the experiment with corrected algebra.
The talk was all about how Penrose could possibly have been fooled into putting his name on the paper -- and why he would not retract it even after many pointed out the blatant entry level mistakes.
On large scales, the universe is incredibly isotropic.
I feel like the big bang is a white hole.
Come back I have more!
All world lines end in black holes. All world lines start at white holes.
Many Worlds theory is pretty popular. I buy into it. Every thing that can happen does happen, but also... There's this one that goes every black hole spawns a new universe, with slightly different laws of physics, based on the parent universe. So the multiverse starts favouring universes that can make new ones.
Does this mean the Spiderman universe is out there somewhere? Even hypothetically IDK. There's probably some constraint on consistent laws of physics.
Pretty crazy galaxies.
My god, it's full of stars