Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Some call it "scientific inference," while others call it speculation. We see this extremely bright, energetic, and distant object and we try to make sense of what we are seeing.
Radio galaxies/quasars/blazers produce an enormous amount of energy. Only something that is several million or even several billion times the mass of our sun could produce such energy. We only know of one object that massive - super-massive black holes.
We know very little about super-massive black holes, other than they are found at the center of an overwhelming number of galaxies. We do not know how they originally formed.
They could have formed from stellar black holes that collided over billions of years; or
They could have formed from super-massive Population III type stars which formed ~30 million years to ~500 million years after the Big Bang; or
They could have formed during the Hadron Epoch (from 0.000001 seconds after the Big Bang to 1 second after the Big Bang) when the temperature and pressure of the universe was still high enough for black holes to form (a.k.a. primordial black holes), but long before stars were formed.
Or it could be any combination of the three, we just do not know one way or the other.
"Recycling factories"? Destroy the old. Create the new? Wild imagination, I suppose but it's been in my mind for a long while. I have an article here by Corey S Powell, editor-at-large of Discover magazine, which started me thinking along the same lines. Interesting theories in there. I don't know how much is proven science and how much is speculation but it's the first explanation of black holes that I truly understood.
"Recycling factories"? Destroy the old. Create the new? Wild imagination, I suppose but it's been in my mind for a long while. I have an article here by Corey S Powell, editor-at-large of Discover magazine, which started me thinking along the same lines. Interesting theories in there. I don't know how much is proven science and how much is speculation but it's the first explanation of black holes that I truly understood.
Black holes are definitely a fascinating subject. They have the ability to destroy and recreate.
A quasar is an embryonic galaxy. They grow inside of their parent galaxies and then they get ejected growing into galaxies themselves. An oak tree has acorns that grow inside of it, eventually the acorns fall off and grow into trees themselves.
Here is a great picture of a baby quasar growing its galactic arms:
A quasar is an embryonic galaxy. They grow inside of their parent galaxies and then they get ejected growing into galaxies themselves. An oak tree has acorns that grow inside of it, eventually the acorns fall off and grow into trees themselves.
Here is a great picture of a baby quasar growing its galactic arms:
No. Quasars are embryonic galaxies in the sense that they are far away and thus we are seeing them as they were in their infancy. This acorn theory of quasars violates the conservation of energy. It is left as an exercise to the reader why an actual acorn doesn't violate the energy conservation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
