How are suppermassive black holes created?

Discussion in 'Science' started by NYCmitch25, Feb 8, 2013.

  1. NYCmitch25

    NYCmitch25 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2013
    Messages:
    406
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Anybody have a thought about how they are created?
     
  2. RedRepublic

    RedRepublic Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2012
    Messages:
    2,109
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    From Wikipedia: "The origin of supermassive black holes (SMBH) remains an open field of research. Astrophysicists agree that once a black hole is in place in the center of a galaxy, it can grow by accretion of matter and by merging with other black holes. There are, however, several hypotheses for the formation mechanisms and initial masses of the progenitors, or "seeds", of supermassive black holes. The most obvious hypothesis is that the seeds are black holes of tens or perhaps hundreds of solar masses that are left behind by the explosions of massive stars and grow by accretion of matter. Another model involves a large gas cloud in the period before the first stars formed collapsing into a “quasi-star” and then a black hole of initially only around ~20 solar masses, and then rapidly accreting to become relatively quickly an intermediate-mass black hole, and possibly a SMBH if the accretion-rate is not quenched at higher masses.[7] The initial “quasi-star” would become unstable to radial perturbations because of electron-positron pair production in its core, and may collapse directly into a black hole without a supernova explosion, which would eject most of its mass and prevent it from leaving a black hole as a remnant. Yet another model[8] involves a dense stellar cluster undergoing core-collapse as the negative heat capacity of the system drives the velocity dispersion in the core to relativistic speeds. Finally, primordial black holes may have been produced directly from external pressure in the first moments after the Big Bang. Formation of black holes from the deaths of the first stars has been extensively studied and corroborated by observations. The other models for black hole formation listed above are theoretical."

    It appears that how supermassive black holes are formed is still controversial ground within the scientific community. If course it's likely that supermassive black holes have formed in a variety of different ways within our universe so it might not be a straight up "either this way or that way" issue.
     
  3. NYCmitch25

    NYCmitch25 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2013
    Messages:
    406
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Interestingly it would not be possible for normal BH's to careate SMBH because the outward pressure would push matter away from them. Somehow a lot of hygrogen must have come together really quickly...
     
  4. Steady Pie

    Steady Pie Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    24,506
    Likes Received:
    7,247
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Must be God.

    Praise the Lord and his miracles!
     
  5. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,180
    Likes Received:
    62,818
    Trophy Points:
    113
    or the smaller black hole would be eaten by the larger one
     
  6. Bishadi

    Bishadi Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2010
    Messages:
    12,292
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    0
    let's just smash this whole thread.

    IF (big f'cking word), them black holes are from collapsing stars then:


    as all them galaxies are of stars rotating around a center, then more than one, within the galaxy must colapse and become a black hole, within the encircling body of stars.

    find 'them' and it is possible

    no black holes throughout the embodiment of galaxies and the model is wrong


    The whole issue over!
     
  7. Dark Star

    Dark Star Senior Admin Staff Member Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2012
    Messages:
    3,617
    Likes Received:
    133
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Supermassive black holes are some of the most fascinating, and possibly the most important, objects in the entire universe. It's increasingly evident that there is a direct relationship between SMBHs and the formation of galaxies, but the exact nature of that relationship is not yet understood. Does an SMBH form because it's at the center of a galaxy, or does a galaxy form because there is an SMBH at the center of it? Or is it something in between?

    Every galaxy appears to have an SMBH at the center of it, and the rule of thumb is that the total mass of the SMBH is almost always about 0.1 % of the total mass of the galaxy - in other words, one-thousandth of the entire galactic mass is contained in that one object, smaller than the size of our solar system. When you consider the total mass of a galaxy, that's an absolutely incredible amount of mass to be concentrated in one locality. The SMBH at the center of the Milky Way is about 4.1 million solar masses - in other words, 4.1 million suns condensed into a single object that may be as small as the orbit of Uranus. That's about a standard sized SMBH for a galaxy the size of the Milky way, but for reasons that are not yet understood, some galaxies are significant outliers. For example, NGC 1277, in the constellation Perseus, has an SMBH that is 17 billion solar masses - 17 billion suns, all in one object; an absolutely astonishing 14% of the entire mass of that galaxy.

    As for how they form? Nobody knows for sure, but as i mentioned, it's increasingly clear that there is a direct relationship between the size of most SMBHs and both the size and rotational speed of their galaxy. The second of those two relationships is the strongest evidence of a relationship between the SMBH and the formation of the galaxy, because the stars on the outer edge of a galaxy are too far from the center of the galaxy for their rotational velocity to be directly affected by the SMBH - in other words, whatever connection there is between the size of the SMBH and the rotational velocity has to have occurred before the matter that formed the SMBH condensed into the SMBH, while the gas at the outer portions and the interior portions of what was to someday become the galaxy were still part of the same rotating gas cloud. This suggests that at some point, the gas in the central portion of the rotating gas cloud began to collapse in upon itself, at speeds that were literally relativistic - in other words, the gas fell inwards at speeds that would cause measurable time dilation. Speeds that were at a significant percentage of the speed of light. The matter in the outer portions of the cloud continued to rotate at the same velocity as it did when it was gravitationally influenced by the mass in the interior portion, but much of the matter in the interior regions of the cloud had now collapsed into a point so small it was too far away from the outer portion to affect it. Simply put, the collapse of the gas in the interior essentially caused a gravitational decoupling of the different portions of the cloud, but the velocity at which the outer edge is moving still demonstrates that they were once part of the same structure.

    The most current theory that I'm aware of is that the gravitational disturbances caused by the formation of the SMBH, and the effects of the extreme radiation that's associated with the collapse, cause changes in the density of the gas cloud that inspires some slightly denser regions to coalesce into star systems. If this is true, then the formation of the SMBH would be the agent that causes the formation of the galaxy, but this is still a relatively new theory, and as far as I know a lot of observational data still needs to be collected and analyzed.
     
  8. NYCmitch25

    NYCmitch25 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2013
    Messages:
    406
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Would take too long for that to happen. ... it has to be quicker.

    - - - Updated - - -


    Well that's ONE answer ... lol
     
  9. PropagandaMachine

    PropagandaMachine New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2012
    Messages:
    1,574
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    merging with other black holes.
     
  10. mikezila

    mikezila New Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009
    Messages:
    23,299
    Likes Received:
    250
    Trophy Points:
    0
    they are way smaller than our solar system. despite their mass, they still occupy the same area as any other singularity (a singular point) ...but their event horizon is larger.
     
  11. Dark Star

    Dark Star Senior Admin Staff Member Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2012
    Messages:
    3,617
    Likes Received:
    133
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Oh, sure, the singularity itself is the same size as any singularity, but the black hole is the entire area surrounded by the schwarzschild radius. That's the area that is "black" because nothing can escape from it. Off the top of my head, the SMBH at the center of the Milky Way is thought to have an event horizon of around 12 light-hours in diameter, which is approximately the diameter of our planetary system.

    Interestingly, the larger the SMBH, the lower the average density - so the really large ones have an average density so low, it would actually float in water if you could find a swimming pool twice as wide as the diameter of the solar system. The physics of these things are just mind-bogglingly counterintuitive.
     
  12. mikezila

    mikezila New Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009
    Messages:
    23,299
    Likes Received:
    250
    Trophy Points:
    0
    are you confining the solar system to Neptune's orbit, the Oort cloud , or the hill sphere? i'm too tired to do the math.
     
  13. Dark Star

    Dark Star Senior Admin Staff Member Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2012
    Messages:
    3,617
    Likes Received:
    133
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Sorry... yeah, I used the term "planetary system" in one sentence, but not specifically enough that it would be clear that was what I was working with for the sake of illustration. And even at that, I was cheating and using the orbit of Pluto.

    But I still think I was wrong. I had it stuck in my head that the aphelion of Pluto's orbit was about 12 light-hours, but that didn't sound right. So I looked it up, and it's less than 7 hours. Even when I cherrypick the figures for my example, I still fail!
     
  14. Steady Pie

    Steady Pie Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    24,506
    Likes Received:
    7,247
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That was a joke :p I really can't be bothered arguing the existence of black holes because while I have done university level physics I have no knowledge on that specific topic.

    This is my problem with "science is wrong" threads - nobody here is a scientist and thus cannot defend it adequately. I couldn't prove to you that anything other than Australia and South East Asia exist, yet I am fairly certain I am not talking to government overlords trying to convince me that there's more than just my country.

    Same with black holes. People cannot be experts in every field - we have to defer to others on some things.
     
  15. satchmo

    satchmo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2013
    Messages:
    147
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The discovery of black holes...fascinating!.....an abberation in the very fabric of space-time.

    Time is relative......what fascinating thought!................High five to to science.

    "He blinded me with science".....excerpts from a song during the fabulous 80s
     
  16. Bishadi

    Bishadi Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2010
    Messages:
    12,292
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    0
    no such thing as black holes

    no evidence

    nothing to see

    no such thing as colapsing mass to create a black hole. ie..... zero evidence!

    And no conspiracy to sustain either way.

    Honesty is easier and you showed us all, how it works!
     
  17. NYCmitch25

    NYCmitch25 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2013
    Messages:
    406
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If you take your weight, and run it through this equation:

    (2 x 6.675e-11 x <weight>kg )/(299792458^2),

    you come up with the properly "condensed" size needed to turn something or yourself into a black hole. Sooooooo, any volunteers ? lol
     
  18. NYCmitch25

    NYCmitch25 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2013
    Messages:
    406
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yeah, good points. The funny thing is that they still believe it. I think the Einstein deniers are the best. Not only do they ignore the math, they won't explain away the proven 3 special rel predictions, 5 gen rep predictions. My gosh, Einstein was amazing, they are still confirming his predictions in recent times ..
     

Share This Page