Lonely Quasars …

[BeAChooser]

https://phys.org/news/2024-10-astronome ... murky.html

Quasars have been observed as early as a few hundred million years after the Big Bang, and it's been a mystery as to how these objects could have grown so bright and massive in such a short amount of cosmic time.

Scientists have proposed that the earliest quasars sprang from overly dense regions of primordial matter, which would also have produced many smaller galaxies in the quasars' environment. But in a new MIT-led study, astronomers observed some ancient quasars that appear to be surprisingly alone in the early universe.

The astronomers used NASA's James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) to peer back in time, more than 13 billion years, to study the cosmic surroundings of five known ancient quasars. They found a surprising variety in their neighborhoods, or "quasar fields." While some quasars reside in very crowded fields with more than 50 neighboring galaxies, as all models predict, the remaining quasars appear to drift in voids, with only a few stray galaxies in their vicinity.
These lonely quasars are challenging physicists' understanding of how such luminous objects could have formed so early on in the universe, without a significant source of surrounding matter to fuel their black hole growth.

"Contrary to previous belief, we find on average, these quasars are not necessarily in those highest-density regions of the early universe. Some of them seem to be sitting in the middle of nowhere," says Anna-Christina Eilers, assistant professor of physics at MIT. "It's difficult to explain how these quasars could have grown so big if they appear to have nothing to feed from."

… snip …

"We found that the only difference between these five quasars is that their environments look so different," Eilers says. "For instance, one quasar has almost 50 galaxies around it, while another has just two. And both quasars are within the same size, volume, brightness, and time of the universe. That was really surprising to see."

… snip …

The team's findings may raise more questions than answers. The "lonely" quasars appear to live in relatively empty regions of space. If physicists' cosmological models are correct, these barren regions signify very little dark matter, or starting material for brewing up stars and galaxies. How, then, did extremely bright and massive quasars come to be?

Yet another problem for mainstream thinking?

[BeAChooser]

Another article on this …

https://scitechdaily.com/james-webb-tel ... dnt-exist/

James Webb Telescope Discovers Quasars Where They Shouldn’t Exist

… snip …

Quasars have been detected from as early as a few hundred million years after the Big Bang, raising the question of how they could have become so massive and bright in such a short amount of cosmic time.

Scientists have suggested that the first quasars formed in areas of overly dense primordial matter, which likely also gave rise to smaller galaxies nearby. However, a recent MIT-led study has revealed that some of these ancient quasars seem to exist in isolation, without the dense galactic environments expected in the early universe.

… snip …

“Contrary to previous belief, we find on average, these quasars are not necessarily in those highest-density regions of the early universe. Some of them seem to be sitting in the middle of nowhere,” says Anna-Christina Eilers, assistant professor of physics at MIT. “It’s difficult to explain how these quasars could have grown so big if they appear to have nothing to feed from.”

… snip …

The five newly observed quasars are among the oldest quasars observed to date. More than 13 billion years old, the objects are thought to have formed between 600 to 700 million years after the Big Bang. The supermassive black holes powering the quasars are a billion times more massive than the sun, and more than a trillion times brighter.

… snip …

The telescope also took measurements of light in multiple wavelengths across each quasar’s field, which the team then processed to determine whether a given object in the field was light from a neighboring galaxy, and how far a galaxy is from the much more luminous central quasar.

“We found that the only difference between these five quasars is that their environments look so different,” Eilers says. “For instance, one quasar has almost 50 galaxies around it, while another has just two. And both quasars are within the same size, volume, brightness, and time of the universe. That was really surprising to see.”

… snip …

Scientists estimate that quasars would have had to grow continuously with very high accretion rates in order to reach the extreme mass and luminosities at the times that astronomers have observed them, fewer than 1 billion years after the Big Bang.

… snip …

The team’s findings may raise more questions than answers. The “lonely” quasars appear to live in relatively empty regions of space. If physicists’ cosmological models are correct, these barren regions signify very little dark matter, or starting material for brewing up stars and galaxies. How, then, did extremely bright and massive quasars come to be?

“Our results show that there’s still a significant piece of the puzzle missing of how these supermassive black holes grow,” Eilers says. “If there’s not enough material around for some quasars to be able to grow continuously, that means there must be some other way that they can grow, that we have yet to figure out.”

Or, dare I suggest, they aren’t what you think?

[Maol]

I reckon this will be a silly question, but, if there are proton stars, and there are neutron stars, why can't there be electron stars?

[nick c]

I reckon this will be a silly question, but, if there are proton stars, and there are neutron stars, why can't there be electron stars?

In the Electric Universe there is no such thing as a neutron star. It is a fact that a neutron is unstable outside of the atomic nucleus and decays into a proton. an electron. and an antineutrino in a matter minutes. Stars are almost all plasma, composed of electrons and protons. If there are more protons than electrons than the star would be positively charged.

https://www.space.com/neutrons-facts-di ... harge-mass

Neutrons don't like to exist on their own outside the nucleus. The binding energy of the Strong Force between them and protons in the nucleus keeps them stable, but when out on their own they undergo beta decay after about 15 minutes, transforming into a proton, an electron and an antineutrino.