Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

endlessupending t1_je70u3m wrote

Reply to comment by afrothunder1987 in Ultramassive black hole over 30 billion times mass of our sun has been spotted. The discovery had been made possible thanks to a phenomenon known as gravitational lensing — the first time a black hole has been spotted in such a way. by Wagamaga

So if you combine a few of these primordials in a merger you could get something like this one?

2

N8CCRG t1_je7gl29 wrote

The challenge is that in order to get 30 billion times more massive than the sun requires a whole lot more than "a few". It requires tens of thousands to millions of mergers of already supersized black holes. I doubt anyone would say impossible, but it's definitely worth considering other explanations as well.

3

endlessupending t1_je81374 wrote

I mean it’s like mass of 1/3 of stars in the Milky Way assuming each is 1 sol. When you got all these big bois in a small room it’s gonna be like a clash of the titans. It’s not inconceivable that the early universe could accommodate that mergerpalooza scenario.perhaps some shot off and became the galactic cores of most galaxies.

1

afrothunder1987 t1_je71qja wrote

Well this is all theory but possibly! Could be that two galaxies with overly large black holes merged and the black holes combined. Or maybe the star that force fed this particular black hole was just way larger than normal.

2

endlessupending t1_je72t2e wrote

Something tells me primordial mergers if a real thing were more common than supermassive mergers based on the relatively smaller size of the early universe. I have no data to back that up though.

1

iborobotosis23 t1_je7c6zm wrote

Please stop saying theory. I don't think you're using it the way it should be in a scientific context.

−9

honeybadger9 t1_je7kh2e wrote

Should stop gate keeping science. A theory is an idea based on a general understanding of something. If this and this happens at this scale, then it's possible for this to happen at a larger or smaller scale.

A theory is just an idea that could be possible but hasn't been proven yet.

5

iborobotosis23 t1_je7lqj8 wrote

You know what? You're right. I just read up the definition here (link). I think it states that theories a bit more defined than what you're saying but I was probably conflating theory and empirical law.

5

DarkStarStorm t1_je7dmme wrote

Give them a replacement word, then.

2

iborobotosis23 t1_je7kwk7 wrote

I'll give you a few (link).

"But", you'll say, "I see the word theory right there!" You're quite right it is in there. But that is not the context in which the word should be used when discussing scientific topics. When using theory in a scientific discussion it's meant to convey the most certain scientists can be on a statement. This is not true based of a little more reading on theories and laws. Oopsie, my bad!

0