Talk:TON 618

Solar mass inconsistent

The solar masses seem inconsistent between the summary paragraph of 40.7 billion solar masses and later on it says 66 billion solar masses. Someone tried to edit the summary paragraph to 66 billion solar masses and it got reverted Youaremineandiamyours (talk) 06:08, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Looking further at the history it seems like there’s an edit war going on between 40.7 and 66 billion solar masses and it gets changed and reverted over and over again Youaremineandiamyours (talk) 06:11, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

I will say this: the mass estimates for TON-618 are incredibly controversial. The more conservative 2019 estimate by Xue Ge etc al. was derived using an alternative emission line(CIV). This indicates an overall lower gas velocity of 2,761 km/s(±423km/s), thus reducing the mass to 40.7 billion. Plugging in given numbers into the formula, assuming you're familiar with its mechanics(M_BH = f·((R_BLRΔV²)/G)), should yield that 40.7 billion figure. Now, that's not to discredit the original 2004 number, given its historical merit. Regardless, it's up to you to choose which estimate you align with more closely. In any case, I might also add in both calculations to compensate for the measurement discrepancy(s). You're welcome. Mr. Goatgeta(Official) (talk) 02:18, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Furthermore I can’t see anything in source 3 saying 40.7 solar masses? Unless I’m understanding something fundamentally wrong to their table, which states ~10.6 solar masses Dråfølin (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Never mind. Source 10 also states something in that region, I guess I might have not completely grasped the concept of log Mbh, whatever it is 😓 Dråfølin (talk) 16:35, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

i think the 66b number actually is more certain due to it being estimated using hydrogen beta which is a lot more certain than carbon iv, if im wrong then please correct me ~2026-29246-55 (talk) 19:24, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

You may have seen my spiel regarding the possible validity of the 40.7 billion solar mass estimate most recently attributed to Ton-618. However, I do actually find more reliability in the 66 billion estimate. Yes, I do find the CIV(Carbon 4) emission line method to elicit less confidence in its results than the Hβ method. I more or less just tried to explain the reasoning behind the 40 billion estimate from 2019 and the possible scientific merit, and how it could possibly compare to the 66 one we've all came to know and love. Mr. Goatgeta(Official) (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Fictional

Blackholes have to be stars first. This so called "blackhole" has been around since the first generation of stars and there's no way it can be a blackhole that early. So my theory is that it's not real, because if it has always been a blackhole, then in my case it's not possible. No way a blackhole that massive could have been a star. 66 billion times the mass of our Sun and brighter than 140 trillion stars combined (don't make me laugh). --DoveTheEditor (talk) 10:15, 2 June 2026 (UTC)