• Visit 'Mars' in Space.com's new 'Space Traveler' mini-documentary - Watch here! 🚀

How did supermassive black holes get so big and chonky? Scientists still don't know.

Mar 19, 2020
433
480
560
Like father, like son, or is it grandson?

Once again, did primordial black holes (PBHs) appear from the get?

As noted by more than a few cosmologists*, the formation and existence of PBHs is an active study of research and this new data adds more support for their existence. Yeah, I know, there will be a lot of "oh brother"s out there on this one, but this data indicates PBHs are more "in the running" then ever before.

The link below gives a good overview on how they are considered, but cannot include all PBH sources since this stuff is too wild to know what other sources might have existed way back when. Note that there is no limit to the size of a PBH.

As someone once noted, "All models (aka simulations) are wrong, but some are useful." And as rod has so famously pointed out, the Department of Cosmology doesn't like alternatives to their perceived "Laws of the BB."

Did they arise intact from the BB, or form shortly afterwards from ultra-dense clouds? Sadly, it is likely no one will ever know. But perhaps, if and when that blasted Webb Telescope** makes its appearance in the seemingly ever distant future, it might provide an answer, or two. Or at least more suggestions for the modelers.

Happily then, for those who believe they exist, they can never be disproven! So to any nay-sayers out there, the preemptive answer to their intransigence? Prove that they do not exist. Because all those models of SMBHs forming shortly after the BB might have just fallen into a SMPBH, never to return.

Au contraire?!


* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primordial_black_hole

** https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=webb+telescope
 
Last edited:
Although simulations suggest that black holes should grow quickly in the early universe, when astronomers look back in time they simply cannot find many such structures.
Something similar odd is seen in star formation rates, since to fit cosmological simulations the rate should be close to the natural for molecular clouds and we should see more large early galaxies overall. Several early galaxies that are large and fit the estimated rate has been found, but the general early population is more modest in szie and rate AFAIK.

But tensions have been naturally resolved before. E.g. when Milky Way seemed to have much fewer satellite galaxies than the average simulated galaxy, but now the discrepancy is just a factor of two. And the unseen population is estimated to be extremely small and hard to distinguish.
 
As noted by more than a few cosmologists*, the formation and existence of PBHs is an active study of research and this new data adds more support for their existence. Yeah, I know, there will be a lot of "oh brother"s out there on this one, ... "Laws of the BB."
Oh brother. 😎

The Wikipedia article is a long list of exclusion results. Most importantly, "tight limits on their abundance have been set up from various astrophysical and cosmological observations, so that it is now excluded that they contribute significantly to dark matter over most of the plausible mass range. " And the big bang expansion is what we live in - it's an observation, but there is no law saying it had to be so - so even if it had been a law, what would be the problem?

There is no good connection between the unseen primordial black holes and the ones in the center of galaxies. The one proposed paper in Wikipedia present a model based on other physics than LCDM (wrong type of inflation; supersymmetry).

What does "they can never be disproven" refer to? We can test and reject observations and so theory (but not everything predicted by an effective theory may be testable - c.f. Planck masses of quantum field theory). But I can't parse that part, does it suggest that we can't see black hole mergers? We can see some nearby already today, LISA will probe the SMBHs we discuss in a few decades, and the sky is the limit from there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dfjchem721
Mar 19, 2020
433
480
560
Re-reading my post T, I made no mention specifically referring to dark matter in any of this, only the early formation BHs in general.

Read all about the "tight limits on their abundance have been set up from various astrophysical and cosmological observations, so that it is now excluded that they contribute significantly to dark matter over most of the plausible mass range. " , and found reasonable alternatives which circumvent such limits. One is the micro-lensing studies. There are alternate explanations for the lack of any observational data. From wiki:

"However, these limits are model-dependent. It has been also argued that if primordial black holes are regrouped in dense halos, the micro-lensing constraints are then naturally evaded."

Indeed, was so surprised by the back and forth on these "tight limits" that they don't look so tight anymore. I am not a complete fool. It is the only reason I am posting such heresy!

It is PBHs that can never be disproven. If you read that Wiki link I posted, they have a considerable following with serious notions about them and how they formed etc. Whenever I see such a thing, I have to check it out. I trend contrarian if there is reasonable doubt about a subject, and there certainly is here.
 
Mar 19, 2020
433
480
560
By the way, T, I was truly impressed by your treatment of magnetic field involvement in the formation of the solar system Had never heard such a thing. If true, very remarkable.

But no one answered my question. I suppose it was a trivial and boring post to most of you guys, but where did the angular momentum come from? Is it how I guessed, by an asymmetric pressure wave on the gas/dust fragment that condensed, or by some other means.
 
Aug 12, 2020
7
3
15
  • I think that scientists are seeking for a mirage, because the solution of this problems did not need super massive star to be black holes , so I put very strong hypothesis to solve this question it is depends on these points:
  • The presence of black holes in the core of galaxies is inevitable.
  • mass does not depends on matter
  • mass depends on position of body in universe
  • mach's principle is correct.
  • inertia is measurement of mass
  • Einstein theory said that the mass generates gravity and gravity generates space curvature so the vice verse is correct.

  • let mass of spider man is equal 60 kg ,so spider man inertia can't stop any big pushes to move him in space, so let now spider man connect a trillions of his strong wires to all stars in the galaxy , now try to move him,so you need to move this stars also, so it's inertia and mass will be very very high, black holes appear have no any matter but have a huge masses which gain from stars around them . barycenter is point between planets act like a massive star which planets move around it . may be inertia come from that every body connect to other bodies in space by unseen strings like gravity strings .this wires make all body in space stay in his place and resistant motion(inertia) .and from Einstein theory, imagine the space texture and we put high massive bodies around point in the middle, this point suffer a big strains so the space around it will curvature so this curvature makes big gravity and big gravity makes big mass points.
It is small part of my hypothesis( space strings) but I can't found site to publish it ( I hope some one help me)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS