Astronomy / Space Found: a black hole 12bn times the size of the sun

Not recently. There was a rather famous mistake in which, when Hubble was first trying to use red-shifting to back-calculate the age of the universe, it turned out to be less than what they thought (at the time) was the age of The Earth. That was a bit embarrassing but it was pretty obviously wrong. That was all fixed by, mmmm, about 1930-40.

There was a persistent issue with globular clusters exceeding the estimated age of the universe for quite a while, and it only really got settled around 1995 or so.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Einstein rather casually predicted a phenomenon called "gravitic lensing" in which a huge mass might bend light the same way a piece of glass does. And then he said "We'll probably never have instruments precise enough to detect it..." He said that in ... 1939 or something like that. And then, now, the Hubble space telescope brings back pictures:
Predicted around 1915, detected in 1919.
 
There is some wiggle room in determing the distance of objects like this in units like light years (or, more likely the original paper mentioned Megaparsecs). You measure the redshift. The conversion of redshift to lightyears depends on certain assumptions on makes about the underlying cosmological model of the universe, in particular the value of the cosmological constant. Off the top of my head - and don't quote me on this - the object could actually be 11 or 12 or 13 or 15 bly distant. Anyway you look at, its pretty far out there.

There's not an awful lot of wiggle room left in cosmology now when considering distances. You'd probably be allowed a wiggle from the low 12s to low 13 billion years light travel time. What is confusing is that we have four different kinds of distance in cosmology, and the light travel time is one of the least used, so you're more likely to hear an astronomer say this quasar is 28 billion light years away for example (that's its 'comoving distance'), but as you basically note, you're much much more likely to find we just say 'redshift 6.3' and leave it to whoever needs one of the other numbers to calculate it with the other cosmological parameters they want.
 
Believe the 1919 detection you refer to will have been Eddingtons, so simple and yet so effective. http://www.ras.org.uk/search/articl...g-the-20th-centurys-most-important-experiment

Yep. Actually what Surly_Badger said about Einstein thinking we wouldn't detect it is true, but for lenses that are not the Sun - that's obviously a fairly tiny lensing effect and only measurable because we can catch the same star when it's not by the Sun. Still, we'd detected lenses by 1979, and we don't need HST to find them. Although they're prettier pictures when we do do it that way :)
 
Why would they have to do that?
The background radiation is there, and it is one of the predictions of Big Bang theory. So if someone says big bang didn't happen, they better have an explanation for the microwave background if they want to have any credibility.
 
I wrote:
someone trying to say the big bang didn't happen, would have to have a theory that encompassed and explained the cosmic microwave background radiation
Why would they have to do that?

Because it has been observed to exist.
Any cosmology that doesn't explain it is obviously incomplete.
Any cosmology that says it's not there is obviously wrong.
 
I wrote:
someone trying to say the big bang didn't happen, would have to have a theory that encompassed and explained the cosmic microwave background radiation


Because it has been observed to exist.
Any cosmology that doesn't explain it is obviously incomplete.
Any cosmology that says it's not there is obviously wrong.

Absolutely agree, even if any theory didn't need the cmb one would have to give some reason for discounting it as it forms a major part of present day understanding. That reasoning would have to be based on empirical data as that is the basis under which it is included in big bang/inflation theory.
 
I wrote:
For someone to overturn the big bang all they have to do is present a theory that is not contradicted by any of the observable evidence, or to identify a flaw in the big bang theory that is supported by observable evidence. The problem with doing that is that there's a preponderance of evidence for the big bang-- including evidence confirming the theory with predictive power -- and other theories are not as well supported by or conforming with observation.

Where do you come up with this? :) I mean that seriously. Have you been working on this lately.

The essence of an infinite nothing to start all time of everything allows a theory to account for just about anything as long as enough variable can get invented (ie 'dark' stuff) to cover all the contradictions of the original theory. I'm mean really, come on, the very existence of a big bang contradicts itself. What if every Black Hole has a BB on the other side, then the Mutant race to seize the Infinity Gauntlet is on, and we're missing the boat because we dissed Odin.

And the only way they say the BB predicted the CMB is because duh, everything came from the BB. It was the 'primordial ooze' of everything, except all the other stuff from the new theories that the old theory needs to not contradict itself again.
 
My theory on the universe is that the big bang or expansion was not the beginning but a cycle. Maybe the universe is timeless but expands so far then shrinks back and begins again with a bang over and over.
 
Where do you come up with this? :) I mean that seriously. Have you been working on this lately.

The essence of an infinite nothing to start all time of everything allows a theory to account for just about anything as long as enough variable can get invented (ie 'dark' stuff) to cover all the contradictions of the original theory. I'm mean really, come on, the very existence of a big bang contradicts itself. What if every Black Hole has a BB on the other side, then the Mutant race to seize the Infinity Gauntlet is on, and we're missing the boat because we dissed Odin.

And the only way they say the BB predicted the CMB is because duh, everything came from the BB. It was the 'primordial ooze' of everything, except all the other stuff from the new theories that the old theory needs to not contradict itself again.

Did you use a google translator on this? If you did I not sure that it has been very successful. If not that I would say that your post has to get the award for the post most likely to confuse everyone. I have read it several times and really don't have a clue. If its serious attempt at comment, try using simpler phrases.
 
Not really, given the cosmic microwave background and the plasma/cooling barrier and other very solid evidence. It wasn't a "bang" it was a rapid rapid expansion of space/time and matter. Fred Hoyle, who coined the term "big bang" was being sarcastic - but it stuck. (Hoyle was a proponent of a steady-state, a theory that Hubble pretty conclusively demolished when he discovered incontrovertible evidence of expansion)

Edit: this is a good overview, including some of the amazing recent stuff about dark matter/energy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjaGktVQdNg

Thanks for posting that dude, such a good talk..
 
My theory on the universe is that the big bang or expansion was not the beginning but a cycle. Maybe the universe is timeless but expands so far then shrinks back and begins again with a bang over and over.

That was a popular notion when it was supposed that the universe would eventually reverse its expansion.

It was used to explain the numerous perfections in the universe, namely that this is simply one of many successive universes. A lame attempt at best. Now dismissed.
 
That was a popular notion when it was supposed that the universe would eventually reverse its expansion.

It was used to explain the numerous perfections in the universe, namely that this is simply one of many successive universes. A lame attempt at best. Now dismissed.

Elements of it are not completely dismissed. The contraction is pretty much, but eternal inflation allows continual new big bangs.
 
Dogma has that way of making people like that.

Its also the reason research and developement going into the extension of life expectancy is so scary. At 1st glance, from a purely scientific perspective, it appears to be a fantastic idea, the great minds of the world having more time to progress their work, surely the world would benefit greatly, or would it? Intellectual advancement and scientific progression needs young minds with new thinking and fresh ideas. It is still very much a matter of Peer review that allows the younger minds to advance and develope, and there are some pretty large ego's and bias in the scientific community as it stands, they guard their position and status well, can you imagine the effect of extending that? I knew a young chap some time ago, who spent nearly 3 years patiently waiting to be granted his Phd. The head of the review panel, at the time, was unable to understand his work or the mathmatical model he had produced to suppport it, oh, and did i mention that his work went some way to disproving the Proffessors? The original paper was written at 16, and his vulcan like mathmatical ability had already been tested and utilised in some pretty important areas. so what then, was the reason for the award not being granted at that time? He was awarded his Phd after the Panel members changed, and ironically, my young friend was 1 of the candidates to be on new panel lol.
 
"Oh, Isaac, I am sorry I am standing on your head." - Albert Einstein.

"It's OK, Albert, let me put this ladder on your back." - Richard Feynman

Meanwhile Stephen Hawking runs his electric wheelchair up Feynman's ladder.

... And so the great cycle continues.

I remember asking my eldest daughter, who was 12 at the time, "who is your favourite person in the world?" she didnt even look up from the book she was reading and replied "Albert Einstein". later she had me read something written by him http://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/ was an unexpected topic, but a nice insight into the man behind the maths.. my daughter.. smart cookie!
 
Back
Top Bottom