Forbidden black holes and ancient stars hide in these 'tiny red dots' (image)

Three digitized glowing red dots against dark backgrounds
Mysterious objects or "little red dots" seen in the early universe by the JWST. (Image credit: JWST/NIRSpec.)

Forget "little green men"  — it is "little red dots" in the infant universe that caught the eye of the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). 

The odd red bodies, scientists say, hide stars that models suggest are "too old" to have lived during early cosmic times and black holes that measure up to thousands of times larger than the supermassive black hole at the heart of the Milky Way. Scientists believe these objects must have been born in a way unique to the early universe — by a method that seems to have ceased in the cosmos after around 1 billion years of its existence.

The three little red dots are seen as they were when the universe was between 600 million and 800 million years old. Though that may seem like a tremendously long time after the Big Bang, the fact that the universe is 13.8 billion years old means it was no more than 5% of its current age when these objects existed.

By confirming the existence of these dots in the early universe, these JWST findings could challenge what we know about the evolution of galaxies and the supermassive black holes that sit at their hearts.

Related: James Webb Space Telescope spies never-before-seen star behavior in distant nebula (video, photo)

The team, led by scientists from Penn State University, saw these mysterious crimson cosmic oddities when investigating the early universe with the JWST's Near Infrared Spectrograph (NIRSpec) instrument as part of the RUBIES survey.

"It's very confusing," team member Joel Leja, an assistant professor of astronomy and astrophysics at Penn State, said in a statement. "You can make this uncomfortably fit in our current model of the universe, but only if we evoke some exotic, insanely rapid formation at the beginning of time.

"This is, without a doubt, the most peculiar and interesting set of objects I've seen in my career."

What's behind the dots?

The researchers studied the intensity of different wavelengths of light coming from the little red dots. This revealed signs that the stars are hundreds of millions of years old — far older than is expected for stars at this early stage of the cosmos.

The researchers also saw traces of supermassive black holes within the little red dots' regions with masses equivalent to millions, sometimes even billions, of suns. These black holes are between 100 and 1,000 times as massive as Sagittarius A* (Sgr A*), the supermassive black hole at the heart of the Milky Way that sits just 26,000 light-years from Earth.

Both of these discoveries are not expected under current models of cosmic evolution, galaxy growth, or supermassive black hole formation. All of these theories suggest galaxies and supermassive black holes grow in lockstep — but this growth takes billions of years.

"We have confirmed that these appear to be packed with ancient stars — hundreds of millions of years old — in a universe that is only [600 million to 800 million years] old. Remarkably, these objects hold the record for the earliest signatures of old starlight," research leader Bingjie Wang, a postdoctoral scholar at Penn State, said in the statement. "It was totally unexpected to find old stars in a very young universe. The standard models of cosmology and galaxy formation have been incredibly successful, yet these luminous objects do not quite fit comfortably into those theories."

An illustration of an early supermassive black hole like the objects found lurking in little red dots seen by the JWST (Image credit: Roberto Molar Candanosa/Johns Hopkins University)

The team first spotted the little red dots while using the JWST back in July. At the time, the researchers immediately suspected the objects were actually galaxies that existed roughly 13.5 billion years ago.

Deeper investigation of these objects' light spectra confirmed these as galaxies that lived during the very dawn of time and also revealed that "overgrown" supermassive black holes and impossibly "old" stars were powering the red dots' impressive light output.

The team isn't yet certain how much of the light from the little red dots comes from each of these sources. That means these galaxies are either unexpectedly old and more massive than the Milky Way, having formed far earlier than models predict, or have normal amounts of mass yet overly massive black holes somehow — voids that are vastly more massive than a similar galaxy would have during the current epoch of the cosmos.

"Distinguishing between light from material falling into a black hole and light emitted from stars in these tiny, distant objects is challenging," Wang said. "That inability to tell the difference in the current dataset leaves ample room for interpretation of these intriguing objects."

That's no ordinary supermassive black hole!

Of course, all black holes have light-trapping boundaries called "event horizons," meaning that, however much light they contribute to the little red dots, it must come from the material that surrounds them rather than from within.

The tremendous gravitational influence of the black holes generates turbulent conditions in this material, which also feeds the black hole over time, heating it and causing it to glow brightly. Regions powered by supermassive black holes in this way are called "quasars," and the regions of their galaxies they sit in are known as "active galactic nuclei (AGNs)."

These newly found, "red dot" black hole regions could be different from other quasars, even those the JWST has already seen in the early universe. For instance, the red dot black holes seem to produce far more ultraviolet light than expected. Still, the most shocking thing about these supermassive black holes remains just how massive they seem.

"Normally, supermassive black holes are paired with galaxies," Leja said. "They grow up together and go through all their major life experiences together. But here, we have a fully formed adult black hole living inside of what should be a baby galaxy. 

"That doesn't really make sense because these things should grow together, or at least that’s what we thought."

This illustration depicts two quasars in the process of merging in the period of the universe known as cosmic dawn. (Image credit: International Gemini Observatory/NOIRLab/NSF/AURA/M. Garlick)

The red dot galaxies themselves are also surprising. They seem to be much smaller than other galaxies despite having almost as many stars. That means the red dot galaxies seem to consist of between 10 billion and 1 trillion stars crammed into a galaxy a few hundred light-years across with a volume 1,000 times smaller than the Milky Way.

To put that into context, if the Milky Way were reduced to the size of one of these red dot galaxies, then the closest star to the sun (Proxima Centauri, which is 4.2 light-years away) would be within the solar system. Additionally, the distance between the Earth and the Milky Way's supermassive black hole, Sgr A*, would be reduced from 26,000 light-years to just 26 light-years. That would see it and its surroundings appearing in the night sky over Earth.

"These early galaxies would be so dense with stars — stars that must have formed in a way we've never seen, under conditions we would never expect during a period in which we’d never expect to see them," Leja said. "And for whatever reason, the universe stopped making objects like these after just a couple of billion years. They are unique to the early universe."

The team intends to follow up on its findings with more observations of these confusing little red dots to understand the dots' mysteries better. This will include obtaining deeper spectra by pointing the JWST at the red objects for prolonged periods of time to obtain emission spectra of light associated with various elements. This could help unravel the contributions of ancient stars and supermassive black holes in the galaxies.

"There's another way that we could have a breakthrough, and that's just [having] the right idea," Leja concluded. "We have all these puzzle pieces, and they only fit if we ignore the fact that some of them are breaking. This problem is amenable to a stroke of genius that has so far eluded us, all of our collaborators, and the entire scientific community.

"Honestly, it's thrilling to have so much of this mystery left to figure out."

The team's research was published on June 26 in the journal Astrophysical Journal Letters.

Join our Space Forums to keep talking space on the latest missions, night sky and more! And if you have a news tip, correction or comment, let us know at: community@space.com.

Robert Lea
Senior Writer

Robert Lea is a science journalist in the U.K. whose articles have been published in Physics World, New Scientist, Astronomy Magazine, All About Space, Newsweek and ZME Science. He also writes about science communication for Elsevier and the European Journal of Physics. Rob holds a bachelor of science degree in physics and astronomy from the U.K.’s Open University. Follow him on Twitter @sciencef1rst.

  • skynr13
    In this perspective of the early universe, having another Sun within our Solar System is highly plausible even now. Since the early Universe had incredible amounts of hydrogen, then imagine if Jupiter (a failed star) had such an enormous amount of Hydrogen while it was being birthed. That would make possible another Sun in our Solar System easily. As for having a BH near to Earth as 26 LY's, I will leave that up to the comments, because I think in not too much time our entire Solar System would be sucked into infinitum!!
    Reply
  • Unclear Engineer
    For Jupiter to become a second sun in our solar system, it would need to have at least 75 times the mass it really has - and then it would only be a red dwarf star, nowhere near as bright as the Sun. But, the additional mass in the orbit of Jupiter would probably make substantial changes to the orbits of the inner planets, including the Earth. It is not clear what that would do to Earth's climate and thus its habitability. There are planets that circle pairs of stars, and there are planets that circle only one star of binary star systems. But, we have not determined if any of those have life on them.

    Regarding the black hole that is "26 light years away from Earth", do you mean the supermassive black hole at the center of our galaxy? That is 26 thousand light years away. The closest known black hole to Earth is Gaia-BH1, located 1,560 light-years away. But, even at 26 light years away, Gaia-BH1 would not "suck Earth in" because we would still not be even in bound orbits with each other.
    Reply
  • skynr13
    According to 'ask a mathematician', Jupiter needs to be a hundred times more massive and 20% bigger to become like a regular Sun, and my remark was only conjecture anyway, regardless of there being planets in between. But with hydrogen so available in the early Universe, it still seems possible to pack on that extra mass and size. Now I guess something you missed in the article was the distance to the central BH in this condensed galaxy was comparable to our central BH being 26 light years away from Earth. And although the accretion disk of Sag A* only spans a region a few times the diameter of our solar system, which is about one LY, I think it would still be possible for it to really mess things up for the Earthlings that live here.
    Reply
  • Unclear Engineer
    In other circumstances, it is certainly possible for 2 stars to form close enough together to be similar to what our solar system would be like if Jupiter had become as massive as the Sun. Sometimes that happens, sometimes it doesn't happen. In our solar system, it didn't happen.

    Regarding the "26 light years to a black hole": now I understand what you were alluding to, but it is only a scale comparison. The black holes in those distant galaxies are even bigger than the one in our galaxy, and they are active, while ours is not so active. So, much more effect from being close to one of them than being close to our galactic center. And, the density of stars around those black holes is much higher than in our galaxy, so, as the article states, "Proxima Centauri, which is 4.2 light-years away) would be within the solar system" if the Milky Way was shrunk by a factor of 1000. And that would put Earth only 93 thousand miles from our Sun, inside Mercury's real orbit. The climate on Earth would be nothing like it really is, now. So, yes, all of those factors would mess up the chances for life here on Earth.

    But, all of that happened 13.4 billion years ago. Who knows what those galaxies are like today, other than it seems unlikely that their black holes could have become smaller over time, and they were already huge.
    Reply
  • Torbjorn Larsson
    The other way to state the early large supermassive black holes is to describe their subsequent growth as “shockingly normal”. And early star clusters were more packed than the modern, relaxed versions we are surrounded by.

    Luckily the problematic direct collapse “heavy seed” supermassive black hole formation route – which doesn’t fit the cosmic background radiation homogeneity – is now found to be much less likely than conventional star mergers in globular clusters. “The formation of these seeds is 100,000 times more likely than heavy seeds produced via direct collapse and are therefore more likely to explain the overall MBH population.” .

    The seeds of globular clusters have now themselves been seen with the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) in the galaxy Cosmic Gems arc .

    As for early star formation rates, one shouldn’t forget that up to 2017 the problem was that galaxy simulations predicted a natural hundred times faster star formation than was observed. Maybe early galaxy conditions allowed for that rate.
    Reply
  • Unclear Engineer
    I am hoping that Webb can reach even further back in time to actually see some of these things that we are having a hard time predicting in advance.

    If it is correct that the stars and black holes did not form until after the hydrogen atoms formed and released the CMBR, then we should be able to see the formation process, although it might require some different sensors for the longer wavelengths of electromagnetic waves.

    That is the real test of the BBT backstory as it is now conceptualized. If out telescopes can keep finding stars and black holes back to the time of the CMBR, then that would raise the question about what the CMBR really is. Yes, it is not inconceivable that stars could form out of plasma, or that black hole "seeds" could have been present while the universe's baryonic matter was still in a plasma state. But, it would then become hard to explain how the CMBR is not more non-uniform than we observe.
    Reply
  • skynr13
    Unclear Engineer said:
    In other circumstances, it is certainly possible for 2 stars to form close enough together to be similar to what our solar system would be like if Jupiter had become as massive as the Sun. Sometimes that happens, sometimes it doesn't happen. In our solar system, it didn't happen.

    Regarding the "26 light years to a black hole": now I understand what you were alluding to, but it is only a scale comparison. The black holes in those distant galaxies are even bigger than the one in our galaxy, and they are active, while ours is not so active. So, much more effect from being close to one of them than being close to our galactic center. And, the density of stars around those black holes is much higher than in our galaxy, so, as the article states, "Proxima Centauri, which is 4.2 light-years away) would be within the solar system" if the Milky Way was shrunk by a factor of 1000. And that would put Earth only 93 thousand miles from our Sun, inside Mercury's real orbit. The climate on Earth would be nothing like it really is, now. So, yes, all of those factors would mess up the chances for life here on Earth.

    But, all of that happened 13.4 billion years ago. Who knows what those galaxies are like today, other than it seems unlikely that their black holes could have become smaller over time, and they were already huge.
    So, what I derive from this is that the first stars were mostly Blue Giants with sizes 5-10 times our Sun, almost pure hydrogen and so closely packed together it would seem 2 or 3 would fit inside our Solar System. I think this would mean they would be almost touching and accretion from one to another would've been insane, - let alone that forced upon them by the BH at there center. Blue Giants usually always become Nova and reduce themselves to a BH. So, it seems this would eventually become the entire Galaxies fate. With activity like this occurring in the early Universe, it seems funny that Scientists don't understand how early BH's got so big, so quick!
    I am for sure glad this didn't happen everywhere in the early Universe and my hopes are that this is mostly isolated to fewer areas, otherwise I suppose we would all have met our fate long ago in some BH. But there is always the chance that one or more BH's grew so large that it might become as big as our whole Galaxy. Then one day what will we do when it comes moseying our way?
    Reply