Killer new evidence that supermassive black holes may indeed form first, before galaxies. (Yeah, as I predicted...) PLUS, some more predictions, while I'm hot.
Killer new evidence that supermassive black holes may indeed form first, before galaxies. (Yeah, as I predicted...) PLUS, some more predictions, while I'm hot.
TL;DR: They've found the earliest supermassive black hole yet – and it weighs as much as ALL THE STARS IN ITS GALAXY PUT TOGETHER. (Interesting New Paper #2)
Thanks Christian – I am working hard on not getting carried away! The evidence is becoming extremely persuasive, but science isn't quite as interested in evidence as it likes to think it is. As Rory Sutherland wisely said,
"...we see the same pattern in a series of significant innovations – science seems to fall short of its ideals whenever the theoretical elegance of the solution or the intellectual credentials of the solver are valued above the practicality of an idea. If a problem is solved using a discipline other than that practised by those who believe themselves the rightful guardians of the solution, you’ll face an uphill struggle no matter how much evidence you can amass."
So this is still just a theory, with very little mainstream support, and it needs careful nurturing if it's to gain acceptance. I don't want to alienate the mainstream through arrogance.
Though twenty-something me would have happily done so! My old band's second album was called Charm & Arrogance, and our first EP was called Smug. I would have been UNBEARABLE if this had happened then. Sigh... There is a lot to be said for the character-building effects of meditation, mushrooms, and having a couple of kids. Or, you know, ageing generally.
Yes! Great guy, very broad-minded. Didn't he give technical advice to Christopher Nolan, when Nolan was making Interstellar? And of course he worked out a lot of the physics of accretion discs... If you know of any specific papers of his I should read, please do direct them my way. I may easily have missed a good one.
Oh, that's a fascinating, but rather extensive menu! Can you recall offhand which of Kip's papers address these areas directly? (I know from bitter experience that the titles of papers are not always the best guides to their contents, especially in somewhat controversial areas like this, where the interesting stuff sometimes has to be slipped in via a mainstream-sounding paper title.)
Yeah, the last couple of months have been terrific. I must tell you all about the N2 Conference sometime, too. It was very encouraging. I met some fascinating people, had some splendid conversations, made some great connections. I feel this way of looking at the universe is beginning to gain a little traction, after spinning its wheels for years. And a lot of that comes down to the new data coming in from the James Webb Space Telescope and elsewhere. The picture we are now finally getting of the early universe is so congruent with an Evolved Universe theory, and so bad for the old, random-one-shot-with-arbitrary-parameters model.
Funny joke, but let's be nice. If we do what they do (but better) don't we become the exact thing we swear to destroy?
Note: Also, I believe that there is still good in people. Some of them (although I am no good in politics) are actually doing the right thing (probably in countries like Sweden and Iceland).
I wasn't going for genuine satire here, or even actual humour really, just silliness. I'm with you on there being a lot of overlooked good in people - by now I've looked at enough life situations 'from both sides now' that I know it's impossible for me to judge your average politician before I've tried my own hand at doing what they do (exhausting, unfathomably complicated, often thankless, filled with tradeoffs and unavoidable compromises).
I was going to step in here and defend the honour of our politicians, but you guys have done a great job of sorting this out on your own. A model for civilised debate on the internet, I congratulate both of you!
For what it is worth, I think we tend to project a great deal of our own psychological darkness onto our politicians, and scapegoat them for failings which are often in ourselves, or in the overall structure of our society. Or simply deep in human nature... Certainly there are some absolutely awful politicians, but they only exist because A) they run for office and, crucially, B) large numbers of people vote for them. So who is to blame here?
And I have met a reasonable number of politicians over the years, and found the majority of them to be pretty OK. A lot of them really DO want to make their country or town or whatever better. It's just that, when you actually make it into office, you can find there is no magic lever to pull that will make that happen.
Some countries are worse than others, of course, some parties are worse than others, some individual politicians MUCH worse than others. (I am always uncomfortably aware that at least 1% of the population meet the clinical criteria for psychopathy, and a disproportionate number of those end up as politicians – or CEOs.)
But my positive bias towards politicians may be due to the fact that one of my old sociology lecturers was Michael D. Higgins, former Mayor of Galway, later minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, leader of the Irish Labour Party, and now President of Ireland. He used to buy me coffee and cake in the university cafeteria after lectures, and tell me stories of his adventures, monitoring the elections in Nicaragua and so on. I got to know him quite well (he even launched my first novel, and so on), and he became my model for what a politician can be. I don't always agree with him (he has some of the usual blind spots common to most socialist politicians), but he is intelligent, principled, and does a lot of work to make the world a better place, as he sees it. And, over the years, I have met a few others like him. So I have hope!
This fits with my sense too Julian. I've never attempted a career in politics, but like many of us I spend half of every day thinking 'why won't so and so get back to me already, can't they see it's important, so inconsiderate, what poor communication skills' and the other half thinking 'aagh, so many people wanting me to get back to them, can't they ease up already, I can't get through all this today and don't know what to say to 'em yet anyway, I'll have to put all the non- urgent stuff off'. We're all of us the pesterer and the ignorer, fundamentally well-meaning, imagining others think about us more than they actually do, seeing intent where there isn't any, taking it too personally when someone doesn't do what we want and intending no harm at all when we don't do what they want, doing our best with limited information, making mistakes, muddling through. We imagine politicians are somehow different to this and everything they do is 100% directed and intentional (they're being evil on purpose and enjoying it!), when in reality the forces that shape their actions and inaction are even *more* complex and impersonal than the ones that shape ours. Like us, they're just muddling through.
Thanks for another fascinating episode and good luck with resisting smugness!
Plus a question ... why is the galaxy around the early supermassive black hole immature compared to the more recent galaxies? Would you not expact an older black hole to have produced a much larger galaxy than our current ones, given that's its had billions of year longer for start formation?
Wild guess ... could its shock waves be so massive they produce black holes rather than stars - could it have seeded the later black holes that form the later galaxies?
It's great to see your predictions gathering supporting evidence, month by month.
I feel like you should wear an "I told you so" badge permanently from now on. And a smug grin.
Thanks Christian – I am working hard on not getting carried away! The evidence is becoming extremely persuasive, but science isn't quite as interested in evidence as it likes to think it is. As Rory Sutherland wisely said,
"...we see the same pattern in a series of significant innovations – science seems to fall short of its ideals whenever the theoretical elegance of the solution or the intellectual credentials of the solver are valued above the practicality of an idea. If a problem is solved using a discipline other than that practised by those who believe themselves the rightful guardians of the solution, you’ll face an uphill struggle no matter how much evidence you can amass."
So this is still just a theory, with very little mainstream support, and it needs careful nurturing if it's to gain acceptance. I don't want to alienate the mainstream through arrogance.
Though twenty-something me would have happily done so! My old band's second album was called Charm & Arrogance, and our first EP was called Smug. I would have been UNBEARABLE if this had happened then. Sigh... There is a lot to be said for the character-building effects of meditation, mushrooms, and having a couple of kids. Or, you know, ageing generally.
WOAH!
INDEED! I COULDN'T HAVE PUT IT BETTER MYSELF!
Kip Thorne had some speculations on this.
Yes! Great guy, very broad-minded. Didn't he give technical advice to Christopher Nolan, when Nolan was making Interstellar? And of course he worked out a lot of the physics of accretion discs... If you know of any specific papers of his I should read, please do direct them my way. I may easily have missed a good one.
Yes.
https://www.its.caltech.edu/~kip/index.html/publications.html
Oh, that's a fascinating, but rather extensive menu! Can you recall offhand which of Kip's papers address these areas directly? (I know from bitter experience that the titles of papers are not always the best guides to their contents, especially in somewhat controversial areas like this, where the interesting stuff sometimes has to be slipped in via a mainstream-sounding paper title.)
I believe he did not publish on the issue.
Looks like Christmas is coming early for someone.
Yeah, the last couple of months have been terrific. I must tell you all about the N2 Conference sometime, too. It was very encouraging. I met some fascinating people, had some splendid conversations, made some great connections. I feel this way of looking at the universe is beginning to gain a little traction, after spinning its wheels for years. And a lot of that comes down to the new data coming in from the James Webb Space Telescope and elsewhere. The picture we are now finally getting of the early universe is so congruent with an Evolved Universe theory, and so bad for the old, random-one-shot-with-arbitrary-parameters model.
About people getting to hear about this theory: did you think to put it in a movie. I don't mean a 2h long movie, a short one of (let's say) 10min.
It was going to be longer and explain better but I did it once and drifted from the subject + I don't have time. A good day to you all!
'There are no animals at all with a prefrontal cortex but no heart.'
Aren't you...aren't you forgetting POLITICIANS, Julian? 🤪😛🤪😛 See what I did?!??
Anyway...please carry on with the science stuff. As fun for this layperson as ever.
Funny joke, but let's be nice. If we do what they do (but better) don't we become the exact thing we swear to destroy?
Note: Also, I believe that there is still good in people. Some of them (although I am no good in politics) are actually doing the right thing (probably in countries like Sweden and Iceland).
I wasn't going for genuine satire here, or even actual humour really, just silliness. I'm with you on there being a lot of overlooked good in people - by now I've looked at enough life situations 'from both sides now' that I know it's impossible for me to judge your average politician before I've tried my own hand at doing what they do (exhausting, unfathomably complicated, often thankless, filled with tradeoffs and unavoidable compromises).
I was going to step in here and defend the honour of our politicians, but you guys have done a great job of sorting this out on your own. A model for civilised debate on the internet, I congratulate both of you!
For what it is worth, I think we tend to project a great deal of our own psychological darkness onto our politicians, and scapegoat them for failings which are often in ourselves, or in the overall structure of our society. Or simply deep in human nature... Certainly there are some absolutely awful politicians, but they only exist because A) they run for office and, crucially, B) large numbers of people vote for them. So who is to blame here?
And I have met a reasonable number of politicians over the years, and found the majority of them to be pretty OK. A lot of them really DO want to make their country or town or whatever better. It's just that, when you actually make it into office, you can find there is no magic lever to pull that will make that happen.
Some countries are worse than others, of course, some parties are worse than others, some individual politicians MUCH worse than others. (I am always uncomfortably aware that at least 1% of the population meet the clinical criteria for psychopathy, and a disproportionate number of those end up as politicians – or CEOs.)
But my positive bias towards politicians may be due to the fact that one of my old sociology lecturers was Michael D. Higgins, former Mayor of Galway, later minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, leader of the Irish Labour Party, and now President of Ireland. He used to buy me coffee and cake in the university cafeteria after lectures, and tell me stories of his adventures, monitoring the elections in Nicaragua and so on. I got to know him quite well (he even launched my first novel, and so on), and he became my model for what a politician can be. I don't always agree with him (he has some of the usual blind spots common to most socialist politicians), but he is intelligent, principled, and does a lot of work to make the world a better place, as he sees it. And, over the years, I have met a few others like him. So I have hope!
This fits with my sense too Julian. I've never attempted a career in politics, but like many of us I spend half of every day thinking 'why won't so and so get back to me already, can't they see it's important, so inconsiderate, what poor communication skills' and the other half thinking 'aagh, so many people wanting me to get back to them, can't they ease up already, I can't get through all this today and don't know what to say to 'em yet anyway, I'll have to put all the non- urgent stuff off'. We're all of us the pesterer and the ignorer, fundamentally well-meaning, imagining others think about us more than they actually do, seeing intent where there isn't any, taking it too personally when someone doesn't do what we want and intending no harm at all when we don't do what they want, doing our best with limited information, making mistakes, muddling through. We imagine politicians are somehow different to this and everything they do is 100% directed and intentional (they're being evil on purpose and enjoying it!), when in reality the forces that shape their actions and inaction are even *more* complex and impersonal than the ones that shape ours. Like us, they're just muddling through.
On scapegoating and projecting onto leaders, you might enjoy this half- sympathetic read of Girard (I'm only just becoming aware of his ideas and their co-option by the right) by one of my favourite writers (very much not on the right): https://harpers.org/archive/2023/11/overwhelming-and-collective-murder-rene-girard/
I understand. (I hope this didn't sound cold)
Also I just want to get balance I hope I didn't offended you. (Looking back it wasn't the friendliest thing)
Oh not at all 🙂
Thanks for another fascinating episode and good luck with resisting smugness!
Plus a question ... why is the galaxy around the early supermassive black hole immature compared to the more recent galaxies? Would you not expact an older black hole to have produced a much larger galaxy than our current ones, given that's its had billions of year longer for start formation?
Wild guess ... could its shock waves be so massive they produce black holes rather than stars - could it have seeded the later black holes that form the later galaxies?
Just saw this article in the NY Times this morning.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/24/science/space/astronomy-black-holes.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare