Saturday, June 13, 2026

NASA Webb Finds Strongest Evidence Yet for ‘Black Hole Stars’ - UNIVERSE

The complex puzzle known as little red dots has become more complete since their initial discovery by NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope in 2022. Now a particular little red dot’s spectrum is helping connect many of the pieces.

A team of astronomers led by Vasily Kokorev at the University of Texas at Austin identified the lucky dot in question: GLIMPSE-17775. By carefully analyzing the dot’s spectrum captured by Webb — the deepest spectrum to date of a little red dot — the research team has identified multiple lines of evidence, all of which support the interpretation that GLIMPSE-17775 is a supermassive black hole enveloped in a dense cocoon of partially ionized gas, a model referred to as the BH* (black hole star) scenario. A paper describing the results was published today in The Astrophysical Journal.

“I think part of the scientific community is converging on a singular picture — that little red dots can be explained by black hole star models. But none of the previous little red dots have all of the pieces of evidence in the same place,” said Kokorev, lead author of the study. “With GLIMPSE-17775 we can test these models because of how deep and amazing this source’s spectrum is.”

Image: Abell S1063 with Pullout of GLIMPSE-17775 (NIRCam Image)

While the primary purpose of NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope’s observations of galaxy cluster Abell S1063 was to look for a certain population of stars, scientists obtained a detailed spectrum of GLIMPSE-17775 from the dataset. This little red dot is located behind Abell S1063.

Image: NASA, ESA, CSA, Vasily Kokorev (UT Austin); Image Processing: Alyssa Pagan (STScI)

Connecting puzzle pieces

Soon after Webb first began science operations, it discovered a new, mysterious type of object in the very early universe – abundant red objects that emerged about 600 million years after the big bang. Scientists have explored multiple explanations for these little red dots, including the black hole star scenario.

A set of fortunate circumstances brought about this new, elaborate spectrum of a little red dot. The little red dot that would come to be known as GLIMPSE-17775 was fortunately included in Webb’s imaging and spectroscopy efforts for a project that sought to look for Population III stars and faint galaxies in galaxy cluster Abell S1063. This little red dot is more distant than the galaxy cluster and magnified by gravitational lensing. (GLIMPSE-17775 has a cosmological redshift of 3.5, meaning it existed about 1.8 billion years after the big bang.)

While Webb provided a 30-hour spectrum of the little red dot, the effect of gravitational lensing made it equivalent to 80 hours of telescope time. This combination of Webb’s infrared sensitivity and nature’s own “magnifying glass” amplified the amount of detail that could be gleaned from GLIMPSE-17775. The result was more than 40 spectral lines from this small, red source, which is the most detailed little red dot spectrum to date.

“When we saw the spectrum for the first time, it was like having all the pieces of a puzzle scattered on the floor,” said Kokorev. “We picked up each piece of the puzzle, measured the lines, and started combining the different pieces into a mosaic. Maybe a few pieces looked like nothing at first, but then a couple of them came together, and we realized that there was something there.”

The spectroscopic data collected by Webb contains multiple lines of evidence that support the interpretation that little red dot GLIMPSE-17775 is a black hole star: a rapidly accreting, or growing, black hole enveloped in a dense gas cocoon, which is reprocessing the light emitted from near the black hole and producing the features seen in the spectrum.

Image: Evidence of a 'Black Hole Star'

NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope captured the deepest spectrum to date of a little red dot. More than 40 spectral lines have been discerned from the data, many of which independently support the theory that GLIMPSE-17775 is a black hole enshrouded by a hot, dense gas cocoon.

Illustration: NASA, ESA, CSA, Vasily Kokorev (UT Austin); Designer: Leah Hustak (STScI)

Lines of evidence

Among the 40-plus lines that the team detected in GLIMPSE-17775’s spectrum were various independent indicators that all align with the BH* scenario. For example, the team found that many of the spectral lines, such as hydrogen, oxygen, and helium, do not fit a simple model of a rotating gas cloud. Instead, the best fit model includes a broadening effect known as electron scattering, a telltale sign that a dense, layered gas cocoon is enshrouding this source. 

The strength and ratios of certain lines to each other, most notably the 16 iron lines that compose what the team has dubbed an “iron forest” and certain oxygen lines, require a high-energy source to produce them, like a rapidly accreting black hole. Additionally, astronomers noted the fluorescence and absorption of helium in the spectrum, both of which individually suggest that there is a dense medium enveloping a powerful source.

The BH* scenario not only fits GLIMPSE-17775; it also accounts for why most little red dots are faint in X-rays, since any such emission is likely absorbed by the dense gas cocoon.

One missing element of the GLIMPSE-17775 puzzle piece is the part of the spectrum that would reveal what’s known as a Balmer break, or a strong dip in the emitted light that’s a signature characteristic of little red dots. To build a more comprehensive understanding of this little red dot, the team incorporated ancillary data from two observing programs that used NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope: the Frontier Fields and BUFFALO (Beyond Ultra-deep Frontier Fields And Legacy Observations) programs.

The Webb and Hubble data together help explain why the Balmer break is weaker than what typically is found in other little red dots: A giant host galaxy is surrounding GLIMPSE-17775. Although a little red dot’s host galaxy is not something that has been usually seen at such scale before, it isn’t inconsistent with the dense gas cocoon model. The black hole star model of little red dots attributes excess blue light to stars in the host galaxy.

When Webb first discovered little red dots, some researchers thought these objects had “broken cosmology,” unsure how galaxies could have grown so big so quickly in the early universe to account for all this light coming from their stars. However, the team believes the GLIMPSE-17775 puzzle piece fits nicely in the existing framework of the universe’s evolutionary history, because black hole masses don’t need to be as high in order to explain the broad emission lines.

“Everything fits, nothing is broken, and I think that makes the puzzle that is our universe even better,” said Kokorev. “Looking ahead, I’m eager to dive deeper and learn about what is powering the central engines of little red dots. While we think it’s a black hole, there are some other interesting theories being proposed, which is exciting. Maybe in a year or two, we’ll have the final answer to what powers these sources.” 

The James Webb Space Telescope is the world’s premier space science observatory. Webb is solving mysteries in our solar system, looking beyond to distant worlds around other stars, and probing the mysterious structures and origins of our universe and our place in it. Webb is an international program led by NASA with its partners, ESA (European Space Agency) and CSA (Canadian Space Agency).

To learn more about Webb, visit: https://science.nasa.gov/webb 

Source: NASA Webb Finds Strongest Evidence Yet for ‘Black Hole Stars’ - NASA Science

How Much Weight Training Does It Take to Live Longer? A 30-Year Study Has Answers

Lifting weights a couple of times a week may do more for your long-term survival than most people realize, and a sweeping new study published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine finally puts numbers to exactly how much is enough.

The Study at a Glance

Researchers at Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health tracked 147,374 adults across three large prospective cohorts, the Health Professionals Follow-up Study, the Nurses’ Health Study, and the Nurses’ Health Study II, for up to 30 years. Over that period, 35,798 deaths occurred, giving the team unusually robust data to work with. Every two years, participants reported how much time they spent on resistance training and aerobic exercise, allowing the study to capture real, evolving habits rather than a single baseline snapshot.

The Sweet Spot: Around 90–120 Minutes Per Week

Here is where the findings get precise. Compared to people who did no resistance training at all, those who lifted weights for 90 to 119 minutes per week showed:

·         13% lower risk of death from any cause

·         19% lower risk of cardiovascular mortality

·         27% lower risk of death from neurological diseases

Critically, these associations held even after accounting for aerobic activity, meaning the benefit from resistance training appears to be independent of whether participants also jogged, cycled, or swam.

Beyond 120 minutes per week, however, the data showed no additional survival benefit. More is not more, at least not when it comes to longevity.

Cancer Is a Different Story

The relationship between resistance training and cancer mortality followed a distinct pattern. Reduced cancer-related death risk appeared only at lower durations, between 1 and 59 minutes per week, with hazard ratios of 0.91 and 0.88 respectively. At higher weekly volumes, the association with cancer mortality faded. Researchers suggest this may reflect different biological mechanisms at play for cancer versus cardiovascular or neurological disease, though the observational design of the study cannot establish direct causation.

When You Combine Both Types of Exercise

The most striking numbers emerge from the joint analysis. Participants who combined substantial aerobic activity (30 to less than 45 MET-hours per week) with moderate resistance training (60–119 min/week) had a mortality hazard ratio of just 0.55, in other words, roughly 45% lower mortality risk compared to sedentary individuals with no resistance training. For context, 30–45 MET-hours per week of aerobic activity corresponds to something like 5–7 hours of brisk walking or 3–4 hours of jogging weekly.

Interestingly, participants who reached very high aerobic activity levels (≥45 MET-hours/week) showed similarly low mortality risk regardless of how much resistance training they added on top, suggesting that at a certain aerobic threshold, the marginal benefit of lifting begins to plateau.

Why This Matters, and What It Can’t Tell Us

This is among the longest and largest studies to specifically examine resistance training and mortality with repeated exposure measurements, a major methodological strength over studies that assess exercise habits only once. Most previous research in this space focused primarily on aerobic activity, leaving weight training as something of an afterthought in public health guidelines.

That said, limitations apply. The cohorts were composed largely of healthcare professionals, a relatively educated, health-conscious population, which may limit generalizability. Self-reported exercise data always carries some measurement error. And as with all observational studies, residual confounding cannot be ruled out: people who lift weights regularly may differ from those who don’t in ways the researchers could not fully account for.

The Takeaway

If you are looking for a practical threshold, the data point toward about two hours of resistance training per week as a meaningful longevity target — one that pairs particularly well with regular aerobic exercise. You do not need to be spending your evenings at the gym. What the evidence suggests is consistent, moderate effort over time — decade after decade.

As with most things in exercise science, the best routine is probably the one you will actually stick to.

Original paper: Zhang Y, Lee DH, Rezende LFM, Ma Y, Giovannucci E. Long-term resistance training with all-cause and cause-specific mortality: assessing dose-response and joint associations with aerobic physical activity. British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2026;60(12):874–883. DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2025-110503 

Source: How Much Weight Training Does It Take to Live Longer? A 30-Year Study Has Answers – Scents of Science