Astronomers just discovered some of the most primordial quasars in the universe 32%

By Adam Kovac0%

7/7/2026, 5:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Availability Heuristic, and Halo Effect, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 31.1% saturation with 178 hits. Analysis detected 1,190 faulty-reasoning hits from 573 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 41.1% and a BS Rank of 32% (14,876 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 68.00% of the article peer group.

At the heart of many galaxies lie supermassive blackholes. 
These engines power quasars—active galactic nuclei that emit some of the brightest light astronomers can possibly see in the sky. 
How these extreme objects formed in the earliest years of the universe—when the cosmos was less than a billion years old—has long been something of a mystery. 
But now, the European Space Agency's Euclid Space Telescope has identified a clutch of primordial quasars, dating to some 13 billion years ago—putting them among the oldest of these objects ever found in the universe. 
Ancient quasars offer glimpses into the universe in its chaotic infancy; but actually finding these primordial objects can be very difficult. 
Because they formed so long ago, they are extremely far away from Earth, which can cause their bright light to be mistaken for a signal of a more run-of-the-mill celestial object. 
Quasars from the earliest era of the cosmos are among the rarest known objects in the universe, and they emit light at a specific energy band that tends to elude ground-based telescopes. 
From its vantage point in space, just shy of a million miles from Earth, the Euclid telescope has a unique view, said Eduardo Bañados, an astronomer at Max Planck Institute for Astronomy and co-lead of the Euclid Quasar Work Package from 2022 to 2025. 
He is also a co-author on a new study detailing the findings. 
“Seeing Euclid deliver on its potential is immensely satisfying,” said Bañados in a statement. 
“But more than that, it marks a genuine shift: For the first time, we can study the typical early-universe quasar, not just exceptional outliers. 
We now have a real window onto how the bulk of the first black holes grew  and how they shaped the galaxies around them.” 
Euclid is equipped with cameras that can see both visible light and light in the near-infrared range. 
Beginning in February 2024, the team began a six-year project called the Euclid Wide Survey, with the aim of mapping a swath of extragalactic space. 
When it is complete, it will have mapped about a third of the sky. 
Just two years in, the survey has now revealed 31 ancient quasars from the dawn of the universe. 
The findings were published on Monday in Astronomy & Astrophysics. 
Incredibly, 12 of the quasars Euclid has found date to the first 770 million years of the universe, while another two appear to have formed when the universe was just 670 million years old. 
That makes them almost as ancient as the oldest known galaxies. 
There could be even older quasars still out there. 
In the new study, the team observe that both the Hubble and James Webb Space Telescope have equipment that’s sensitive enough to possibly detect even fainter emissions than Euclid. 
“These objects provide the best clues for understanding how supermassive black holes form,” said study co-author Joseph Hennawi, a physics professor with joint appointments at the University of California, Santa Barbara and Leiden University in Germany, in a statement. 
Future research—and looking further into the universe's past—could offer more clues, he added. 
“Every step further back in time makes the puzzle more perplexing: How did the Universe produce supermassive black holes so quickly?” 
Hennawi said. 
“We're finding black holes with hundreds of millions of times the mass of our sun at a time when the universe was barely getting started.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 10.3%Adam Kovac: 1.3%Scientific American: 3.0%Confirmation Bias10.3%This article: 14.5%Adam Kovac: 1.4%Scientific American: 0.9%Anchoring Bias14.5%This article: 18.0%Adam Kovac: 5.7%Scientific American: 2.6%Availability Heuristic18.0%This article: 1.6%Adam Kovac: 0.9%Scientific American: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic1.6%This article: 0.0%Adam Kovac: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 11.7%Adam Kovac: 6.4%Scientific American: 2.5%Overconfidence Bias11.7%This article: 0.0%Adam Kovac: 2.3%Scientific American: 4.2%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Kovac: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Kovac: 0.9%Scientific American: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Kovac: 0.6%Scientific American: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 13.8%Adam Kovac: 3.3%Scientific American: 3.0%Optimism Bias13.8%This article: 8.4%Adam Kovac: 1.2%Scientific American: 1.1%Pessimism Bias8.4%This article: 13.3%Adam Kovac: 2.3%Scientific American: 3.3%Negativity Bias13.3%This article: 0.0%Adam Kovac: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Kovac: 1.5%Scientific American: 0.3%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Kovac: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Kovac: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Kovac: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 18.0%Adam Kovac: 1.7%Scientific American: 0.9%Halo Effect18.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Kovac: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Kovac: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.6%Adam Kovac: 1.4%Scientific American: 0.8%Recency Bias5.6%This article: 0.0%Adam Kovac: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Kovac: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Kovac: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Kovac: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 24.4%Adam Kovac: 7.9%Scientific American: 4.3%Appeal to Authority24.4%This article: 4.2%Adam Kovac: 1.7%Scientific American: 1.8%False Dilemma4.2%This article: 0.0%Adam Kovac: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Kovac: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 8.7%Adam Kovac: 4.2%Scientific American: 4.1%Hasty Generalization8.7%This article: 0.0%Adam Kovac: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Kovac: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 31.1%Adam Kovac: 5.4%Scientific American: 4.2%Appeal to Emotion31.1%This article: 8.0%Adam Kovac: 1.1%Scientific American: 0.6%Begging the Question8.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Kovac: 1.2%Scientific American: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Kovac: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 5.1%Adam Kovac: 0.7%Scientific American: 0.6%Burden of Proof5.1%This article: 0.0%Adam Kovac: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.4%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Kovac: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Kovac: 0.7%Scientific American: 1.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Kovac: 0.5%Scientific American: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 8.7%Adam Kovac: 0.8%Scientific American: 2.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)8.7%This article: 0.0%Adam Kovac: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Kovac: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.3%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Kovac: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Kovac: 0.5%Scientific American: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Kovac: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Kovac: 0.3%Scientific American: 0.7%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 2.4%Adam Kovac: 1.5%Scientific American: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection2.4%This article: 0.0%Adam Kovac: 1.2%Scientific American: 4.3%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Kovac: 0.0%Scientific American: 1.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Kovac: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Kovac: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Kovac: 0.0%Scientific American: 1.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

573 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers32%attributed speech389writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageEduardo Bañados • 44 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageEduardo Bañados • 14 words • 100.0% coverageEduardo Bañados • 24 words • 0.0% coverageEduardo Bañados • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageJoseph Hennawi • 39 words • 0.0% coverageJoseph Hennawi • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageJoseph Hennawi • 25 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Joseph Hennawi

100%flagged-word coverage
77 attributed words42% of attributed speech81% writer coverage

No manipulation-pattern hits were found in this speaker's attributed words or the writer's voice.

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.