Conjecture on Baez's 'Quasar without a host galaxy'


by stargene@sbcglobal.net
Tags: baez, conjecture, galaxy, host, quasar
stargene@sbcglobal.net
#1
Oct12-06, 05:09 AM
P: n/a
In a recent John Baez post he mentions discovery of probably
the first known quasar found without a host galaxy. He says:

"Quasars are thought to be super massive black holes; they're
usually found in the centers of galaxies, where they devour
stars and shoot out enormously powerful jets of radiation.
However, the quasar HE0450-2958 is surrounded only by a blob
of ionized gas. Nearby, a wildly disturbed spiral galaxy can
be seen. (See the NASA website above for a picture.)

Did this quasar begin life in this galaxy and then get kicked
out when the galaxy collided with something containing a super-
massive black hole?"

I suggest that a fairly ordinary explanation may be that the
nearby "wildly disturbed" galaxy may have contained several
supermassive black holes which interacted via a gravitational
slingshot scenario. This would be like a larger version of
the effect where smaller mass stars can be flung out of glob-
ulare clusters when encountering larger mass stars near the
cluster center.

Whether the quasar has a velocity vector consistent with
being 'flung' out of the nearby galaxy I don't know. One
can imagine it leaving the core of that galaxy with a cargo
of entrained gas and stars, engulfing them at its leisure.

Phys.Org News Partner Physics news on Phys.org
Information storage for the next generation of plastic computers
Scientists capture ultrafast snapshots of light-driven superconductivity
Progress in the fight against quantum dissipation
robert bristow-johnson
#2
Oct12-06, 05:10 AM
P: n/a
in article 1129665258.986969.18710@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com,
stargene@sbcglobal.net at stargene@sbcglobal.net wrote on 10/19/2005 06:36:

> In a recent John Baez post he mentions discovery of probably
> the first known quasar found without a host galaxy. He says:
>
> "Quasars are thought to be super massive black holes; they're
> usually found in the centers of galaxies, where they devour
> stars and shoot out enormously powerful jets of radiation.
> However, the quasar HE0450-2958 is surrounded only by a blob
> of ionized gas. Nearby, a wildly disturbed spiral galaxy can
> be seen. (See the NASA website above for a picture.)
>
> Did this quasar begin life in this galaxy and then get kicked
> out when the galaxy collided with something containing a super-
> massive black hole?"
>
> I suggest that a fairly ordinary explanation may be that the
> nearby "wildly disturbed" galaxy may have contained several
> supermassive black holes which interacted via a gravitational
> slingshot scenario. This would be like a larger version of
> the effect where smaller mass stars can be flung out of glob-
> ulare clusters when encountering larger mass stars near the
> cluster center.
>
> Whether the quasar has a velocity vector consistent with
> being 'flung' out of the nearby galaxy I don't know. One
> can imagine it leaving the core of that galaxy with a cargo
> of entrained gas and stars, engulfing them at its leisure.


isn't it possible that the super-massive black hole that became this quasar
ATE the host galaxy? why not? wouldn't that explain why it's not
surrounded by it?

i thought (my amateur understanding) the other thing about quasars is that
they are moving away from us real fast, putting them near the edge of our
observable universe (and putting them back in time quite a bit). anyway,
wouldn't it take a lot of time for a black hole to get that big, to eat
everything else in reach, etc.? i thought that black holes represented
something more "mature" in the universe than what distant (and young)
quasars would be.

--

r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."


robert bristow-johnson
#3
Oct12-06, 05:10 AM
P: n/a
in article 1129665258.986969.18710@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com,
stargene@sbcglobal.net at stargene@sbcglobal.net wrote on 10/19/2005 06:36:

> In a recent John Baez post he mentions discovery of probably
> the first known quasar found without a host galaxy. He says:
>
> "Quasars are thought to be super massive black holes; they're
> usually found in the centers of galaxies, where they devour
> stars and shoot out enormously powerful jets of radiation.
> However, the quasar HE0450-2958 is surrounded only by a blob
> of ionized gas. Nearby, a wildly disturbed spiral galaxy can
> be seen. (See the NASA website above for a picture.)
>
> Did this quasar begin life in this galaxy and then get kicked
> out when the galaxy collided with something containing a super-
> massive black hole?"
>
> I suggest that a fairly ordinary explanation may be that the
> nearby "wildly disturbed" galaxy may have contained several
> supermassive black holes which interacted via a gravitational
> slingshot scenario. This would be like a larger version of
> the effect where smaller mass stars can be flung out of glob-
> ulare clusters when encountering larger mass stars near the
> cluster center.
>
> Whether the quasar has a velocity vector consistent with
> being 'flung' out of the nearby galaxy I don't know. One
> can imagine it leaving the core of that galaxy with a cargo
> of entrained gas and stars, engulfing them at its leisure.


isn't it possible that the super-massive black hole that became this quasar
ATE the host galaxy? why not? wouldn't that explain why it's not
surrounded by it?

i thought (my amateur understanding) the other thing about quasars is that
they are moving away from us real fast, putting them near the edge of our
observable universe (and putting them back in time quite a bit). anyway,
wouldn't it take a lot of time for a black hole to get that big, to eat
everything else in reach, etc.? i thought that black holes represented
something more "mature" in the universe than what distant (and young)
quasars would be.

--

r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."



robert bristow-johnson
#4
Oct12-06, 05:10 AM
P: n/a

Conjecture on Baez's 'Quasar without a host galaxy'


in article 1129665258.986969.18710@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com,
stargene@sbcglobal.net at stargene@sbcglobal.net wrote on 10/19/2005 06:36:

> In a recent John Baez post he mentions discovery of probably
> the first known quasar found without a host galaxy. He says:
>
> "Quasars are thought to be super massive black holes; they're
> usually found in the centers of galaxies, where they devour
> stars and shoot out enormously powerful jets of radiation.
> However, the quasar HE0450-2958 is surrounded only by a blob
> of ionized gas. Nearby, a wildly disturbed spiral galaxy can
> be seen. (See the NASA website above for a picture.)
>
> Did this quasar begin life in this galaxy and then get kicked
> out when the galaxy collided with something containing a super-
> massive black hole?"
>
> I suggest that a fairly ordinary explanation may be that the
> nearby "wildly disturbed" galaxy may have contained several
> supermassive black holes which interacted via a gravitational
> slingshot scenario. This would be like a larger version of
> the effect where smaller mass stars can be flung out of glob-
> ulare clusters when encountering larger mass stars near the
> cluster center.
>
> Whether the quasar has a velocity vector consistent with
> being 'flung' out of the nearby galaxy I don't know. One
> can imagine it leaving the core of that galaxy with a cargo
> of entrained gas and stars, engulfing them at its leisure.


isn't it possible that the super-massive black hole that became this quasar
ATE the host galaxy? why not? wouldn't that explain why it's not
surrounded by it?

i thought (my amateur understanding) the other thing about quasars is that
they are moving away from us real fast, putting them near the edge of our
observable universe (and putting them back in time quite a bit). anyway,
wouldn't it take a lot of time for a black hole to get that big, to eat
everything else in reach, etc.? i thought that black holes represented
something more "mature" in the universe than what distant (and young)
quasars would be.

--

r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."


robert bristow-johnson
#5
Oct12-06, 05:10 AM
P: n/a
in article 1129665258.986969.18710@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com,
stargene@sbcglobal.net at stargene@sbcglobal.net wrote on 10/19/2005 06:36:

> In a recent John Baez post he mentions discovery of probably
> the first known quasar found without a host galaxy. He says:
>
> "Quasars are thought to be super massive black holes; they're
> usually found in the centers of galaxies, where they devour
> stars and shoot out enormously powerful jets of radiation.
> However, the quasar HE0450-2958 is surrounded only by a blob
> of ionized gas. Nearby, a wildly disturbed spiral galaxy can
> be seen. (See the NASA website above for a picture.)
>
> Did this quasar begin life in this galaxy and then get kicked
> out when the galaxy collided with something containing a super-
> massive black hole?"
>
> I suggest that a fairly ordinary explanation may be that the
> nearby "wildly disturbed" galaxy may have contained several
> supermassive black holes which interacted via a gravitational
> slingshot scenario. This would be like a larger version of
> the effect where smaller mass stars can be flung out of glob-
> ulare clusters when encountering larger mass stars near the
> cluster center.
>
> Whether the quasar has a velocity vector consistent with
> being 'flung' out of the nearby galaxy I don't know. One
> can imagine it leaving the core of that galaxy with a cargo
> of entrained gas and stars, engulfing them at its leisure.


isn't it possible that the super-massive black hole that became this quasar
ATE the host galaxy? why not? wouldn't that explain why it's not
surrounded by it?

i thought (my amateur understanding) the other thing about quasars is that
they are moving away from us real fast, putting them near the edge of our
observable universe (and putting them back in time quite a bit). anyway,
wouldn't it take a lot of time for a black hole to get that big, to eat
everything else in reach, etc.? i thought that black holes represented
something more "mature" in the universe than what distant (and young)
quasars would be.

--

r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."


robert bristow-johnson
#6
Oct12-06, 05:10 AM
P: n/a
in article 1129665258.986969.18710@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com,
stargene@sbcglobal.net at stargene@sbcglobal.net wrote on 10/19/2005 06:36:

> In a recent John Baez post he mentions discovery of probably
> the first known quasar found without a host galaxy. He says:
>
> "Quasars are thought to be super massive black holes; they're
> usually found in the centers of galaxies, where they devour
> stars and shoot out enormously powerful jets of radiation.
> However, the quasar HE0450-2958 is surrounded only by a blob
> of ionized gas. Nearby, a wildly disturbed spiral galaxy can
> be seen. (See the NASA website above for a picture.)
>
> Did this quasar begin life in this galaxy and then get kicked
> out when the galaxy collided with something containing a super-
> massive black hole?"
>
> I suggest that a fairly ordinary explanation may be that the
> nearby "wildly disturbed" galaxy may have contained several
> supermassive black holes which interacted via a gravitational
> slingshot scenario. This would be like a larger version of
> the effect where smaller mass stars can be flung out of glob-
> ulare clusters when encountering larger mass stars near the
> cluster center.
>
> Whether the quasar has a velocity vector consistent with
> being 'flung' out of the nearby galaxy I don't know. One
> can imagine it leaving the core of that galaxy with a cargo
> of entrained gas and stars, engulfing them at its leisure.


isn't it possible that the super-massive black hole that became this quasar
ATE the host galaxy? why not? wouldn't that explain why it's not
surrounded by it?

i thought (my amateur understanding) the other thing about quasars is that
they are moving away from us real fast, putting them near the edge of our
observable universe (and putting them back in time quite a bit). anyway,
wouldn't it take a lot of time for a black hole to get that big, to eat
everything else in reach, etc.? i thought that black holes represented
something more "mature" in the universe than what distant (and young)
quasars would be.

--

r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."


robert bristow-johnson
#7
Oct12-06, 05:10 AM
P: n/a
in article 1129665258.986969.18710@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com,
stargene@sbcglobal.net at stargene@sbcglobal.net wrote on 10/19/2005 06:36:

> In a recent John Baez post he mentions discovery of probably
> the first known quasar found without a host galaxy. He says:
>
> "Quasars are thought to be super massive black holes; they're
> usually found in the centers of galaxies, where they devour
> stars and shoot out enormously powerful jets of radiation.
> However, the quasar HE0450-2958 is surrounded only by a blob
> of ionized gas. Nearby, a wildly disturbed spiral galaxy can
> be seen. (See the NASA website above for a picture.)
>
> Did this quasar begin life in this galaxy and then get kicked
> out when the galaxy collided with something containing a super-
> massive black hole?"
>
> I suggest that a fairly ordinary explanation may be that the
> nearby "wildly disturbed" galaxy may have contained several
> supermassive black holes which interacted via a gravitational
> slingshot scenario. This would be like a larger version of
> the effect where smaller mass stars can be flung out of glob-
> ulare clusters when encountering larger mass stars near the
> cluster center.
>
> Whether the quasar has a velocity vector consistent with
> being 'flung' out of the nearby galaxy I don't know. One
> can imagine it leaving the core of that galaxy with a cargo
> of entrained gas and stars, engulfing them at its leisure.


isn't it possible that the super-massive black hole that became this quasar
ATE the host galaxy? why not? wouldn't that explain why it's not
surrounded by it?

i thought (my amateur understanding) the other thing about quasars is that
they are moving away from us real fast, putting them near the edge of our
observable universe (and putting them back in time quite a bit). anyway,
wouldn't it take a lot of time for a black hole to get that big, to eat
everything else in reach, etc.? i thought that black holes represented
something more "mature" in the universe than what distant (and young)
quasars would be.

--

r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."


robert bristow-johnson
#8
Oct12-06, 05:10 AM
P: n/a
in article 1129665258.986969.18710@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com,
stargene@sbcglobal.net at stargene@sbcglobal.net wrote on 10/19/2005 06:36:

> In a recent John Baez post he mentions discovery of probably
> the first known quasar found without a host galaxy. He says:
>
> "Quasars are thought to be super massive black holes; they're
> usually found in the centers of galaxies, where they devour
> stars and shoot out enormously powerful jets of radiation.
> However, the quasar HE0450-2958 is surrounded only by a blob
> of ionized gas. Nearby, a wildly disturbed spiral galaxy can
> be seen. (See the NASA website above for a picture.)
>
> Did this quasar begin life in this galaxy and then get kicked
> out when the galaxy collided with something containing a super-
> massive black hole?"
>
> I suggest that a fairly ordinary explanation may be that the
> nearby "wildly disturbed" galaxy may have contained several
> supermassive black holes which interacted via a gravitational
> slingshot scenario. This would be like a larger version of
> the effect where smaller mass stars can be flung out of glob-
> ulare clusters when encountering larger mass stars near the
> cluster center.
>
> Whether the quasar has a velocity vector consistent with
> being 'flung' out of the nearby galaxy I don't know. One
> can imagine it leaving the core of that galaxy with a cargo
> of entrained gas and stars, engulfing them at its leisure.


isn't it possible that the super-massive black hole that became this quasar
ATE the host galaxy? why not? wouldn't that explain why it's not
surrounded by it?

i thought (my amateur understanding) the other thing about quasars is that
they are moving away from us real fast, putting them near the edge of our
observable universe (and putting them back in time quite a bit). anyway,
wouldn't it take a lot of time for a black hole to get that big, to eat
everything else in reach, etc.? i thought that black holes represented
something more "mature" in the universe than what distant (and young)
quasars would be.

--

r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."


robert bristow-johnson
#9
Oct12-06, 05:10 AM
P: n/a
in article 1129665258.986969.18710@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com,
stargene@sbcglobal.net at stargene@sbcglobal.net wrote on 10/19/2005 06:36:

> In a recent John Baez post he mentions discovery of probably
> the first known quasar found without a host galaxy. He says:
>
> "Quasars are thought to be super massive black holes; they're
> usually found in the centers of galaxies, where they devour
> stars and shoot out enormously powerful jets of radiation.
> However, the quasar HE0450-2958 is surrounded only by a blob
> of ionized gas. Nearby, a wildly disturbed spiral galaxy can
> be seen. (See the NASA website above for a picture.)
>
> Did this quasar begin life in this galaxy and then get kicked
> out when the galaxy collided with something containing a super-
> massive black hole?"
>
> I suggest that a fairly ordinary explanation may be that the
> nearby "wildly disturbed" galaxy may have contained several
> supermassive black holes which interacted via a gravitational
> slingshot scenario. This would be like a larger version of
> the effect where smaller mass stars can be flung out of glob-
> ulare clusters when encountering larger mass stars near the
> cluster center.
>
> Whether the quasar has a velocity vector consistent with
> being 'flung' out of the nearby galaxy I don't know. One
> can imagine it leaving the core of that galaxy with a cargo
> of entrained gas and stars, engulfing them at its leisure.


isn't it possible that the super-massive black hole that became this quasar
ATE the host galaxy? why not? wouldn't that explain why it's not
surrounded by it?

i thought (my amateur understanding) the other thing about quasars is that
they are moving away from us real fast, putting them near the edge of our
observable universe (and putting them back in time quite a bit). anyway,
wouldn't it take a lot of time for a black hole to get that big, to eat
everything else in reach, etc.? i thought that black holes represented
something more "mature" in the universe than what distant (and young)
quasars would be.

--

r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."


robert bristow-johnson
#10
Oct12-06, 05:10 AM
P: n/a
in article 1129665258.986969.18710@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com,
stargene@sbcglobal.net at stargene@sbcglobal.net wrote on 10/19/2005 06:36:

> In a recent John Baez post he mentions discovery of probably
> the first known quasar found without a host galaxy. He says:
>
> "Quasars are thought to be super massive black holes; they're
> usually found in the centers of galaxies, where they devour
> stars and shoot out enormously powerful jets of radiation.
> However, the quasar HE0450-2958 is surrounded only by a blob
> of ionized gas. Nearby, a wildly disturbed spiral galaxy can
> be seen. (See the NASA website above for a picture.)
>
> Did this quasar begin life in this galaxy and then get kicked
> out when the galaxy collided with something containing a super-
> massive black hole?"
>
> I suggest that a fairly ordinary explanation may be that the
> nearby "wildly disturbed" galaxy may have contained several
> supermassive black holes which interacted via a gravitational
> slingshot scenario. This would be like a larger version of
> the effect where smaller mass stars can be flung out of glob-
> ulare clusters when encountering larger mass stars near the
> cluster center.
>
> Whether the quasar has a velocity vector consistent with
> being 'flung' out of the nearby galaxy I don't know. One
> can imagine it leaving the core of that galaxy with a cargo
> of entrained gas and stars, engulfing them at its leisure.


isn't it possible that the super-massive black hole that became this quasar
ATE the host galaxy? why not? wouldn't that explain why it's not
surrounded by it?

i thought (my amateur understanding) the other thing about quasars is that
they are moving away from us real fast, putting them near the edge of our
observable universe (and putting them back in time quite a bit). anyway,
wouldn't it take a lot of time for a black hole to get that big, to eat
everything else in reach, etc.? i thought that black holes represented
something more "mature" in the universe than what distant (and young)
quasars would be.

--

r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."


Ray Tomes
#11
Oct12-06, 05:10 AM
P: n/a
robert bristow-johnson wrote:
> isn't it possible that the super-massive black hole that became this quasar
> ATE the host galaxy? why not? wouldn't that explain why it's not
> surrounded by it?


A quasar cannot swallow a complete host galaxy because there is the
problem of what happens to the angular momentum.

--
Ray Tomes
http://ray.tomes.biz/
http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/


Ray Tomes
#12
Oct12-06, 05:10 AM
P: n/a
robert bristow-johnson wrote:
> isn't it possible that the super-massive black hole that became this quasar
> ATE the host galaxy? why not? wouldn't that explain why it's not
> surrounded by it?


A quasar cannot swallow a complete host galaxy because there is the
problem of what happens to the angular momentum.

--
Ray Tomes
http://ray.tomes.biz/
http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/

Ray Tomes
#13
Oct12-06, 05:10 AM
P: n/a
robert bristow-johnson wrote:
> isn't it possible that the super-massive black hole that became this quasar
> ATE the host galaxy? why not? wouldn't that explain why it's not
> surrounded by it?


A quasar cannot swallow a complete host galaxy because there is the
problem of what happens to the angular momentum.

--
Ray Tomes
http://ray.tomes.biz/
http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/

Ray Tomes
#14
Oct12-06, 05:10 AM
P: n/a
robert bristow-johnson wrote:
> isn't it possible that the super-massive black hole that became this quasar
> ATE the host galaxy? why not? wouldn't that explain why it's not
> surrounded by it?


A quasar cannot swallow a complete host galaxy because there is the
problem of what happens to the angular momentum.

--
Ray Tomes
http://ray.tomes.biz/
http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/

Ray Tomes
#15
Oct12-06, 05:10 AM
P: n/a
robert bristow-johnson wrote:
> isn't it possible that the super-massive black hole that became this quasar
> ATE the host galaxy? why not? wouldn't that explain why it's not
> surrounded by it?


A quasar cannot swallow a complete host galaxy because there is the
problem of what happens to the angular momentum.

--
Ray Tomes
http://ray.tomes.biz/
http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/

Ray Tomes
#16
Oct12-06, 05:10 AM
P: n/a
robert bristow-johnson wrote:
> isn't it possible that the super-massive black hole that became this quasar
> ATE the host galaxy? why not? wouldn't that explain why it's not
> surrounded by it?


A quasar cannot swallow a complete host galaxy because there is the
problem of what happens to the angular momentum.

--
Ray Tomes
http://ray.tomes.biz/
http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/

Ray Tomes
#17
Oct12-06, 05:10 AM
P: n/a
robert bristow-johnson wrote:
> isn't it possible that the super-massive black hole that became this quasar
> ATE the host galaxy? why not? wouldn't that explain why it's not
> surrounded by it?


A quasar cannot swallow a complete host galaxy because there is the
problem of what happens to the angular momentum.

--
Ray Tomes
http://ray.tomes.biz/
http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/

Ray Tomes
#18
Oct12-06, 05:10 AM
P: n/a
robert bristow-johnson wrote:
> isn't it possible that the super-massive black hole that became this quasar
> ATE the host galaxy? why not? wouldn't that explain why it's not
> surrounded by it?


A quasar cannot swallow a complete host galaxy because there is the
problem of what happens to the angular momentum.

--
Ray Tomes
http://ray.tomes.biz/
http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Conjecture on Baez's 'Quasar without a host galaxy' General Physics 0
quasar without a host galaxy General Astronomy 4
Baez's new paper. High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics 7
Proof of Golbach's conjecture and the twin prime conjecture Linear & Abstract Algebra 9
Dark Age: Galaxy & Quasar Formation ? General Astronomy 2