The Formation of the First Massive Black Holes

Supermassive black holes (SMBHs) are common in local galactic nuclei, and SMBHs as massive as several billion solar masses already exist at redshift z=6. These earliest SMBHs may grow by the combination of radiation-pressure-limited accretion and mergers of stellar-mass seed BHs, left behind by the first generation of metal-free stars, or may be formed by more rapid direct collapse of gas in rare special environments where dense gas can accumulate without first fragmenting into stars. This chapter offers a review of these two competing scenarios, as well as some more exotic alternative ideas. It also briefly discusses how the different models may be distinguished in the future by observations with JWST, (e)LISA and other instruments.Comment: 47 pages with 306 references; this review is a chapter in "The First Galaxies - Theoretical Predictions and Observational Clues", Springer Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Eds. T. Wiklind, V. Bromm & B. Mobasher, in pres

Conceiving “personality”: Psychologist’s challenges and basic fundamentals of the Transdisciplinary Philosophy-of-Science Paradigm for Research on Individuals

Scientists exploring individuals, as such scientists are individuals themselves and thus not independent from their objects of research, encounter profound challenges; in particular, high risks for anthropo-, ethno- and ego-centric biases and various fallacies in reasoning. The Transdisciplinary Philosophy-of-Science Paradigm for Research on Individuals (TPS-Paradigm) aims to tackle these challenges by exploring and making explicit the philosophical presuppositions that are being made and the metatheories and methodologies that are used in the field. This article introduces basic fundamentals of the TPS-Paradigm including the epistemological principle of complementarity and metatheoretical concepts for exploring individuals as living organisms. Centrally, the TPS-Paradigm considers three metatheoretical properties (spatial location in relation to individuals’ bodies, temporal extension, and physicality versus “non-physicality”) that can be conceived in different forms for various kinds of phenomena explored in individuals (morphology, physiology, behaviour, the psyche, semiotic representations, artificially modified outer appearances and contexts). These properties, as they determine the phenomena’s accessibility in everyday life and research, are used to elaborate philosophy-of-science foundations and to derive general methodological implications for the elementary problem of phenomenon-methodology matching and for scientific quantification of the various kinds of phenomena studied. On the basis of these foundations, the article explores the metatheories and methodologies that are used or needed to empirically study each given kind of phenomenon in individuals in general. Building on these general implications, the article derives special implications for exploring individuals’ “personality”, which the TPS-Paradigm conceives of as individual-specificity in all of the various kinds of phenomena studied in individuals

Developing "personality" taxonomies: Metatheoretical and methodological rationales underlying selection approaches, methods of data generation and reduction principles

Taxonomic "personality" models are widely used in research and applied fields. This article applies the Transdisciplinary Philosophy-of-Science Paradigm for Research on Individuals (TPS-Paradigm) to scrutinise the three methodological steps that are required for developing comprehensive “personality” taxonomies: 1) the approaches used to select the phenomena and events to be studied, 2) the methods used to generate data about the selected phenomena and events and 3) the reduction principles used to extract the “most important” individual-specific variations for constructing “personality” taxonomies. Analyses of some currently popular taxonomies reveal frequent mismatches between the researchers’ explicit and implicit metatheories about “personality” and the abilities of previous methodologies to capture the particular kinds of phenomena toward which they are targeted. Serious deficiencies that preclude scientific quantifications are identified in standardised questionnaires, psychology’s established standard method of investigation. These mismatches and deficiencies derive from the lack of an explicit formulation and critical reflection on the philosophical and metatheoretical assumptions being made by scientists and from the established practice of radically matching the methodological tools to researchers’ preconceived ideas and to pre-existing statistical theories rather than to the particular phenomena and individuals under study. These findings raise serious doubts about the ability of previous taxonomies to appropriately and comprehensively reflect the phenomena towards which they are targeted and the structures of individual-specificity occurring in them. The article elaborates and illustrates with empirical examples methodological principles that allow researchers to appropriately meet the metatheoretical requirements and that are suitable for comprehensively exploring individuals’ “personality”

Gravitational-wave research as an emerging field in the Max Planck Society. The long roots of GEO600 and of the Albert Einstein Institute

On the occasion of the 50th anniversary since the beginning of the search for gravitational waves at the Max Planck Society, and in coincidence with the 25th anniversary of the foundation of the Albert Einstein Institute, we explore the interplay between the renaissance of general relativity and the advent of relativistic astrophysics following the German early involvement in gravitational-wave research, to the point when gravitational-wave detection became established by the appearance of full-scale detectors and international collaborations. On the background of the spectacular astrophysical discoveries of the 1960s and the growing role of relativistic astrophysics, Ludwig Biermann and his collaborators at the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics in Munich became deeply involved in research related to such new horizons. At the end of the 1960s, Joseph Weber's announcements claiming detection of gravitational waves sparked the decisive entry of this group into the field, in parallel with the appointment of the renowned relativist Juergen Ehlers. The Munich area group of Max Planck institutes provided the fertile ground for acquiring a leading position in the 1970s, facilitating the experimental transition from resonant bars towards laser interferometry and its innovation at increasingly large scales, eventually moving to a dedicated site in Hannover in the early 1990s. The Hannover group emphasized perfecting experimental systems at pilot scales, and never developed a full-sized detector, rather joining the LIGO Scientific Collaboration at the end of the century. In parallel, the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics (Albert Einstein Institute) had been founded in Potsdam, and both sites, in Hannover and Potsdam, became a unified entity in the early 2000s and were central contributors to the first detection of gravitational waves in 2015.Comment: 94 pages. Enlarged version including new results from further archival research. A previous version appears as a chapter in the volume The Renaissance of General Relativity in Context, edited by A. Blum, R. Lalli and J. Renn (Boston: Birkhauser, 2020

Measurement of the Ratio of b Quark Production Cross Sections in Antiproton-Proton Collisions at 630 GeV and 1800 GeV

We report a measurement of the ratio of the bottom quark production cross section in antiproton-proton collisions at 630 GeV to 1800 GeV using bottom quarks with transverse momenta greater than 10.75 GeV identified through their semileptonic decays and long lifetimes. The measured ratio sigma(630)/sigma(1800) = 0.171 +/- .024 +/- .012 is in good agreement with next-to-leading order (NLO) quantum chromodynamics (QCD)

Personality psychology: Lexical approaches, assessment methods, and trait concepts reveal only half of the story—Why it is time for a paradigm shift

This article develops a comprehensive philosophy-of-science for personality psychology that goes far beyond the scope of the lexical approaches, assessment methods, and trait concepts that currently prevail. One of the field’s most important guiding scientific assumptions, the lexical hypothesis, is analysed from meta-theoretical viewpoints to reveal that it explicitly describes two sets of phenomena that must be clearly differentiated: 1) lexical repertoires and the representations that they encode and 2) the kinds of phenomena that are represented. Thus far, personality psychologists largely explored only the former, but have seriously neglected studying the latter. Meta-theoretical analyses of these different kinds of phenomena and their distinct natures, commonalities, differences, and interrelations reveal that personality psychology’s focus on lexical approaches, assessment methods, and trait concepts entails a) erroneous meta-theoretical assumptions about what the phenomena being studied actually are, and thus how they can be analysed and interpreted, b) that contemporary personality psychology is largely based on everyday psychological knowledge, and c) a fundamental circularity in the scientific explanations used in trait psychology. These findings seriously challenge the widespread assumptions about the causal and universal status of the phenomena described by prominent personality models. The current state of knowledge about the lexical hypothesis is reviewed, and implications for personality psychology are discussed. Ten desiderata for future research are outlined to overcome the current paradigmatic fixations that are substantially hampering intellectual innovation and progress in the field