U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology > Space
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
Old 06-25-2012, 06:30 AM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,564 posts, read 11,179,227 times
Reputation: 6196
Question Which came first - Supermassive Black Holes or Galaxies?

The NIR camera on the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), scheduled to launch in 2018, can detect objects brighter than a magnitude of +29.0. Which means that stars with less than 100 solar masses would be too faint to detect beyond redshift z > 6, which corresponds to about 900 million years after the Big Bang (about 12.8 light years away). However, a star with 150 solar masses could be detected at around z~25, which puts it about 150 million years after the Big Bang (13.55 billion light years away).



150 million years after the Big Bang is when it is theorized that reionization began, started by the supernova of super massive Population III stars. Before reionization the universe would be an opaque plasma soup of particles. This means that stars with a mass greater than 150 solar masses should be detectable as far back as reionization.

The very first stars are thought to have formed approximately 30 million years after the Big Bang (z~50), and galaxy formation is estimated to have begun roughly 300 million years after the Big Bang (z~15). This also means that the NIR camera on the JWST should be able to detect the formation of the very first galaxies.

Since super massive stars measure their lifespans in millions of years or less, that would mean there would be roughly 270 million years for Population III stars to supernova and form stellar black holes. Some of these Population III stars are thought to have been as large as 1,000 solar masses or larger. Still a far cry from super massive black holes which are measured in millions and billions of solar masses. The Milky Way Galaxy is estimated to have a super massive black hole of four million solar masses, and it is considered a "runt" among super massive black holes.

My question is:

Could galaxies begin to form around one of these 1,000+ solar mass Population III stars that expoded in a supernova and left behind a 1,000+ solar mass black hole, and then bulked up over time to millions or billions of solar masses?

Or did galaxies begin to form around super massive black holes that were already in existence? These types of black holes are called "primordial" black holes because they are theorized to have formed within the first 10 seconds after the Big Bang, when the universe was still hot enough and dense enough to form black holes, long before the first star was formed, some 30 million years later.

It is like the "chicken or the egg" question. Which came first, galaxies or super massive black holes?

We should have a much better understanding of this question by 2019, but I did not want to wait, so I am putting this question out there for speculation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-26-2012, 08:22 PM
 
4,094 posts, read 4,527,789 times
Reputation: 1771
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
My question is:

Could galaxies begin to form around one of these 1,000+ solar mass Population III stars that expoded in a supernova and left behind a 1,000+ solar mass black hole, and then bulked up over time to millions or billions of solar masses?

Or did galaxies begin to form around super massive black holes that were already in existence? These types of black holes are called "primordial" black holes because they are theorized to have formed within the first 10 seconds after the Big Bang, when the universe was still hot enough and dense enough to form black holes, long before the first star was formed, some 30 million years later.

It is like the "chicken or the egg" question. Which came first, galaxies or super massive black holes?

We should have a much better understanding of this question by 2019, but I did not want to wait, so I am putting this question out there for speculation.
You're right. It may have to wait for a better understanding.

Just for the sake of speculation, the thought is that most galaxies have a supermassive black hole. Those are primarily galaxies with a bulge like spiral and globular clusters. Irregulars and ellipticals don't seem to. M82 was thought to have one between 200-800 solar mass. Something odd is going on, but it isn''t certain what. If it does contain a black hole, then it's likely to be an intermediate between stellar and supermassive.
NASA - Starburst Galaxy M82
The Unidentified Object of Galaxy M82 (Today's Most Popular)

During the first 10 seconds after the Big Bang, things would have been pretty crowded. Assuming that primordial black holes formed at thaat time, and considering space was rapidly inflating, there could have been enough to for such black holes to feed on. As space continued expanding, black holes, etc., would have spread out farther apart. The WMAP view seems pretty clear about variations in temperature and density in the CMB. In the first 10 seconds, those variations were likely present but tightly crammed and spreading out as the expansion continued, which is exactly what we see in the CMB. Primordial black holes could've bulked up from the gasses present, with slower consumption as space expanded. I don't see any reason as to why these black holes couldn't have formed an accretion disk of the gasses as temperatures cooled, in effect a small protogalaxy. The cooler gasses would heat up again getting closer to the black hole, and perhaps compressed enough to begin forming the first stars.

The heart of the Milky Way galaxy appears to be filled with young, massive stars, many of which eventually explode. The same thing could've happened in the young universe with the first generation of stars creating new elements to form the next generation of stars, etc. While the blast of a supernovae can produce a black hole, supermassive black holes at the center of galaxies are generally thought to bulk up from both surrounding material, but also from absorbing other black holes from colliding galaxies. They wouldn't have always been supermassive. Exactly how supermassive black holes originated is unknown. It'd be interesting to haave a better idea of how populated the universe was with primordial black holes during or shortly after the period of inflation. It's hard to describe, but I'd be inclined to think it may just be a part of the gradual evolution of the universe following the Big Bang. I suppose in this case it could mean having both the chicken and the egg at the same time, but in much different conditions than the present universe we're more familiar with. I would think it really depends on what defines a galaxy, especially in the very early universe. I would also think that gasses that become gravitationally attracted to a common point that it would create an accretion disk could be the primative beginning of a galaxy.

That's my wild guess of the day.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-26-2012, 10:02 PM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,564 posts, read 11,179,227 times
Reputation: 6196
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightBazaar View Post
You're right. It may have to wait for a better understanding.

Just for the sake of speculation, the thought is that most galaxies have a supermassive black hole. Those are primarily galaxies with a bulge like spiral and globular clusters. Irregulars and ellipticals don't seem to. M82 was thought to have one between 200-800 solar mass. Something odd is going on, but it isn''t certain what. If it does contain a black hole, then it's likely to be an intermediate between stellar and supermassive.
NASA - Starburst Galaxy M82
The Unidentified Object of Galaxy M82 (Today's Most Popular)
M87 is an elliptical galaxy, with a super massive black hole (SMBH) of around 6.6 billion solar masses. Which would seem to indicate that elliptical galaxies are formed by the collision of two or more other galaxies, before becoming either a spiral or barred spiral galaxy. M82 is also considered a dwarf irregular galaxy, at about one quarter the size of the Milky Way. However, that should also mean that M82 should have roughly one quarter the size of the SMBH in the Milky Way, or around a million solar masses. A far cry from the 200-800 solar masses they believe is in the center of that galaxy. A black hole that "small" (200-800 solar masses) would certainly seem to imply it began its existence as a stellar black hole.

The biggest black hole in the universe could swallow our entire solar system

Something is very odd indeed. No pun intended, but if we could shed some light on the dark matter surrounding M82 or other galaxies, it might give us some insight on why SMBHs are a certain size. If they can confirm that the SMBH in M82 is indeed between 200-800 solar masses, I think that would give credence to the argument that SMBHs began as stellar mass black holes and were formed by galaxies and bulked up over time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NightBazaar View Post
During the first 10 seconds after the Big Bang, things would have been pretty crowded. Assuming that primordial black holes formed at thaat time, and considering space was rapidly inflating, there could have been enough to for such black holes to feed on. As space continued expanding, black holes, etc., would have spread out farther apart. The WMAP view seems pretty clear about variations in temperature and density in the CMB. In the first 10 seconds, those variations were likely present but tightly crammed and spreading out as the expansion continued, which is exactly what we see in the CMB. Primordial black holes could've bulked up from the gasses present, with slower consumption as space expanded. I don't see any reason as to why these black holes couldn't have formed an accretion disk of the gasses as temperatures cooled, in effect a small protogalaxy. The cooler gasses would heat up again getting closer to the black hole, and perhaps compressed enough to begin forming the first stars.
Damn, I screwed up. I meant to say within the first second of the Big Bang, not within the first 10 seconds. My mistake.

The Hadron Epoch began 0.000001 seconds after the Big Bang and goes to 1 second after the Big Bang. By the end of the Hadron Epoch the universe had "cooled down" to a balmy 100 billion degrees Kelvin. Which is still hot enough to form black holes, assuming there is sufficient density (which there should be). By the end of the Lepton Epoch (from 1 second to 10 seconds after the Big Bang) the universe had "cooled down" to a mere one billion degrees Kelvin, which is not hot enough to form black holes.

During the Photon Epoch the universe cools down to a point where nulceosynthesis could began, about 3 minutes after the Big Bang. It was during the nulceosynthesis stage that all the hydrogen and helium in the universe was created, taking about 17 minutes. This would indicate that primordial black holes, if they exist, must be very strange indeed to be able to form before hydrogen and helium, or before any atom even existed.

When the quarks grouped together to form Hadrons, the Hadron epoch began. Anti-matter still existed at that time. Hadrons are put into two categories; as either baryons (made from three quarks), or mesons (made from one quark and one anti-quark). Therefore, primordial black holes could only have occurred before there were any atoms, or Leptons, or even Photons, when anti-matter still existed in abundance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NightBazaar View Post
The heart of the Milky Way galaxy appears to be filled with young, massive stars, many of which eventually explode. The same thing could've happened in the young universe with the first generation of stars creating new elements to form the next generation of stars, etc. While the blast of a supernovae can produce a black hole, supermassive black holes at the center of galaxies are generally thought to bulk up from both surrounding material, but also from absorbing other black holes from colliding galaxies. They wouldn't have always been supermassive. Exactly how supermassive black holes originated is unknown. It'd be interesting to haave a better idea of how populated the universe was with primordial black holes during or shortly after the period of inflation. It's hard to describe, but I'd be inclined to think it may just be a part of the gradual evolution of the universe following the Big Bang. I suppose in this case it could mean having both the chicken and the egg at the same time, but in much different conditions than the present universe we're more familiar with. I would think it really depends on what defines a galaxy, especially in the very early universe. I would also think that gasses that become gravitationally attracted to a common point that it would create an accretion disk could be the primative beginning of a galaxy.

That's my wild guess of the day.
It sounds like a pretty good guess to me. We could be witnessing the creation of SMBHs in active quasars that are redshifted z>5. Also, everything I have read about Population III stars suggest they were 1,000 solar masses or larger. So it is very possible that SMBHs could have begun as stellar black holes and then bulked up.

Granted, they are saying that stars with 130+ solar masses die in a pair-instability supernova, leaving nothing behind, not even a black hole. However, upon further reading on how big a star can get, I found that they are suggesting that stars above 250 solar masses overcome pair-instability and DO form black holes.

Inflation would seem to discourage the formation of primordial black holes, or at the very least spread them so thinly throughout the universe to make them relatively rare and very dispersed. However, the possibility still exists that primordial black holes could have formed and be every size, from micro to super massive.

So that would give us both the chicken and the egg, like you said. The more I think about it the more I am leaning toward the stellar black hole bulking up to a SMBH. Not that super massive primordial holes could not exist and form galaxies, but they would be far fewer in number than the number of galaxies we see in the universe.

Thank you for the thoughtful response. It demonstrates just how much more I have to learn.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2012, 01:02 AM
 
4,094 posts, read 4,527,789 times
Reputation: 1771
As far as I know, M87 is exceptional in that it's the only one known to have a black hole. Even that doesn't seem to be 100% certain, but something does seem to be going on. It may be that other such galaxies may also contain black holes, but at the moment, it's unknown, and thought most probably don't, until proven otherwise. The collision of the Milky Way and the Andromeda galaxy is predicted to produce an elliptical galaxy once it settles down, if I remember right. What will be interesting is what will become of both black holes. Will they merge? Will they co-exist? Or will one get booted out? I suppose it would depend on exactly how the galaxies collide.

The problem with the question of which came first, galaxies or SMBHs, is that we don't really know exactly what transpired, or why, at the instant the Big Bang banged. But once it began, that beginning would have been incredibly small, hot and dense. Even at that stage, fluctuations must have existed, enough to create slight variations in both temperature and density, albeit incredibly difficult to measure in such a crammed state. And in those variations, events can begin to happen, which could include the formation of primordial black holes. But what would they have to feed on? They may well have fed on what was there at the time, thermal energy? I dunno. The whole thing is a very curious puzzle. One of the things the LHC is looking for is to create a micro black hole. That wouldn't necessarily be quite the same as a primordial black hole, but it would sure give a better understanding about them.

The Big Bang and the universe always seem to be more than we can imagine. It surpasses all the laws of physics. If the inflation of space was faster than the speed of light, then it can probably do whatever it will, regardless of what we think. I'm always thunderstruck by the things we discover. We seem to agree that the Big Bang could've been both the chicken and the egg. The best I can say is that it has to do with conditions that are still beyond our understanding. It might be that some things will always remain beyond our grasp, but we learn more as keep we pressing on. I'm reminded of the saying, "The more we learn, the less we know."

I saw an interesting view of just how small it would take to create a universe. It's really small.




The Universe - Created Out Of Nothing? - YouTube
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2012, 10:27 PM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,564 posts, read 11,179,227 times
Reputation: 6196
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightBazaar View Post
As far as I know, M87 is exceptional in that it's the only one known to have a black hole. Even that doesn't seem to be 100% certain, but something does seem to be going on. It may be that other such galaxies may also contain black holes, but at the moment, it's unknown, and thought most probably don't, until proven otherwise. The collision of the Milky Way and the Andromeda galaxy is predicted to produce an elliptical galaxy once it settles down, if I remember right. What will be interesting is what will become of both black holes. Will they merge? Will they co-exist? Or will one get booted out? I suppose it would depend on exactly how the galaxies collide.

The problem with the question of which came first, galaxies or SMBHs, is that we don't really know exactly what transpired, or why, at the instant the Big Bang banged. But once it began, that beginning would have been incredibly small, hot and dense. Even at that stage, fluctuations must have existed, enough to create slight variations in both temperature and density, albeit incredibly difficult to measure in such a crammed state. And in those variations, events can begin to happen, which could include the formation of primordial black holes. But what would they have to feed on? They may well have fed on what was there at the time, thermal energy? I dunno. The whole thing is a very curious puzzle. One of the things the LHC is looking for is to create a micro black hole. That wouldn't necessarily be quite the same as a primordial black hole, but it would sure give a better understanding about them.

The Big Bang and the universe always seem to be more than we can imagine. It surpasses all the laws of physics. If the inflation of space was faster than the speed of light, then it can probably do whatever it will, regardless of what we think. I'm always thunderstruck by the things we discover. We seem to agree that the Big Bang could've been both the chicken and the egg. The best I can say is that it has to do with conditions that are still beyond our understanding. It might be that some things will always remain beyond our grasp, but we learn more as keep we pressing on. I'm reminded of the saying, "The more we learn, the less we know."

I saw an interesting view of just how small it would take to create a universe. It's really small.




The Universe - Created Out Of Nothing? - YouTube
I can now see why everything I have read suggested that primordial black holes (PBH), if they existed, would have been very small. As you say, the universe would have been very hot, very dense, AND very small within the very first second after the Big Bang. You are not going to get super massive PBH because the universe was not big enough to accommodate them within the first second of the Big Bang.

Which also means that if PBH existed, and were very small (under 4.23 x 10^23 kg in mass), they would have evaporated through Hawking Radiation by this time. It is also extremely unlikely that any galaxies would have, or could have, formed around a PBH.

The only thing that existed within the first second of the Big Bang, when PBH could have formed, were quarks, anti-quarks, baryons, and mesons. Not even protons or electrons, or even Leptons existed yet. Hadrons were just being formed.

With all the matter and anti-matter collisions occurring during the Quark and Hadron Epochs, there was certainly lots of thermal energy. Well over 100 billion degrees Kelvin. I agree, it would be impossible for the LHC to reenact the environment of the Big Bang, or shortly thereafter. Too many particles are already in existence to be able to recreate something like the Hadron Epoch.

I will have to disagree with you there, I do not believe that the Big Bang or the universe "surpasses all the laws of physics." It is merely our comprehension of the laws of physics that is lacking. So far, based upon our limited understanding, the laws we have figured out work pretty well and match our observations. Newton understood the physical law of gravity, but he had no idea what gravity was until Einstein came along. Newton gave us calculus, which is just algebra in motion. Einstein gave us quantum mechanics and particle physics. We just need a few more milestones like Newton and Einstein.

Nice video, but it does require some understanding of physics in order to comprehend what is being discussed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2012, 04:07 PM
 
4,094 posts, read 4,527,789 times
Reputation: 1771
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
I can now see why everything I have read suggested that primordial black holes (PBH), if they existed, would have been very small. As you say, the universe would have been very hot, very dense, AND very small within the very first second after the Big Bang. You are not going to get super massive PBH because the universe was not big enough to accommodate them within the first second of the Big Bang.

Which also means that if PBH existed, and were very small (under 4.23 x 10^23 kg in mass), they would have evaporated through Hawking Radiation by this time. It is also extremely unlikely that any galaxies would have, or could have, formed around a PBH.

The only thing that existed within the first second of the Big Bang, when PBH could have formed, were quarks, anti-quarks, baryons, and mesons. Not even protons or electrons, or even Leptons existed yet. Hadrons were just being formed.
Just to throw this out as a point of view, while most PBHs probably did evaporate out of existence, some might have managed to survive from the turbulence, sort of stirring the soup, long enough to become seeds to grow by gobbling particles ultimately to become some of the SMBHs within the universe that we see today. That's not to say SMBHs in all galaxies began like that though. There's some thought that SMBHs may have formed as a result of the mass of galaxies. That suggests there can be a number of ways black holes can form since we know a stellar mass black hole can be created from supernovae. In any case, it still seems to be another question we don't have a firm answer to. We don't know if black holes have a compressed core or not. I suspect they probably do since it's thought that supernovae can also produce neutron stars.


Quote:
With all the matter and anti-matter collisions occurring during the Quark and Hadron Epochs, there was certainly lots of thermal energy. Well over 100 billion degrees Kelvin. I agree, it would be impossible for the LHC to reenact the environment of the Big Bang, or shortly thereafter. Too many particles are already in existence to be able to recreate something like the Hadron Epoch.
I agree. The amount of energy required to recreate such an event would probably be almost equal to what the entire universe itself has produced.


Quote:
I will have to disagree with you there, I do not believe that the Big Bang or the universe "surpasses all the laws of physics." It is merely our comprehension of the laws of physics that is lacking. So far, based upon our limited understanding, the laws we have figured out work pretty well and match our observations. Newton understood the physical law of gravity, but he had no idea what gravity was until Einstein came along. Newton gave us calculus, which is just algebra in motion. Einstein gave us quantum mechanics and particle physics. We just need a few more milestones like Newton and Einstein.
I apologize. Sometimes I don't always clarify things very well. I agree with what you're saying, but it generally relates to the structure and contents confined within the universe. I also agree that our knowledge is based on our own limited understanding. A large part of that is because our knowledge is also confined to what's in the universe.

As far as is known there are limits within the universe. Singularities of black holes are one example. So is anything lower than Planck scale. At such scales, all physics is thought to completely break down and equal zero. We don't know what goes on there. Einstein pointed the way to quantum mechanics with the inclusion of Special Relativity, but he didn't go to much in detail about it. His main works deal with General Relativity. Instead, he pretty much left quantum mechanics up for future physicists to build on and work out. That rascal! He did show that space is not empty and that it has properties. I agree, we need more milestones, and I think we're getting them. The problem is that there's such a wide variety of theories and hypotheses that it's a challenge just to sort through them to determine what's right and what's not primarily because they challenge established standards, which are often painfully slow to change, but also because they tend to remain rather incomplete as theories and hypotheses.

To complicate things even more, we now see the expansion of space in the universe as exceeding the speed of light. Some objects from billions of years ago were so red-shifted that they would billions of years later (now) be long past the observable of the universe. And, thanks to the accelerated expansion of space, who knows how much is out there that we'll never see because the light from them is too far to reach us, and getting more distant all the time.

It's reasonable to say Gravity has an important role in shaping the structure of matter in the universe. Black holes are extreme examples of gravity gone wild. Just when Gravity as a fundamental force in the universe emerged is uncertain, but I'd guess it emerged very early, possibly during inflation. The thinking is that Gravity was the dominate force early on. Dark Energy was also present It's further thought that around 7 billion years ago, the expansion universe began to slow down. It would seem than the universe should have continued slowing down, possibly to a point that it would eventually pull everything back together again in a Big Crunch. Evidently, as Gravity became weaker, what's termed "Dark Energy" which was also present did not weaken, and overwhelmed gravity by continuing to create more and more space, unchecked by Gravity. That turn of events when the expansion began to accelerate is estimated to have occurred about 5 billion years ago. As more space was created and the universe kept expanding, Gravity lost its hold allowing the space of the universe continue to expand unchecked. It's still possible that for some unknown reason Gravity could again regain strength pulling the universe back in on itself, but it doesn't seem likely.

Sounds like I'm going way off track with the subject of the thread, but I'll try to tie it in. As we look at the CMB, we can see there were variations in the temperature and density of the universe often described as a baby picture or fingerprint of the Big Bang. If there were such miniscule fluctuations present, even in the first brief fraction of a second after the Big Bang, and if the force of Gravity was present, not only could tiny PBHs emerge, but fluctuations could have started swirling around or attracted to some of the PBHs. I don't know if that's possible or not. It is possible though that at least some PBHs could have survived before matter was formed, sort of like embryonic protogalaxies, although clearly not galaxies as we think of them. Still, in some of the oldest images from the Hubble Ultra Deep field views, some of the oldest stellar galaxies are strangely shaped, some shaped like tadpoles. Those galaxies include stars. Admittedly, there are other factors involved in the CMB, but it does show clumping, like a speckled egg, suggesting that Gravity may have played a key role early on. The universe is not perfectly smooth. It's rather lumpy.


Quote:
Nice video, but it does require some understanding of physics in order to comprehend what is being discussed.
Agreed, the video doesn't go into details, but it provides enough of a visualized idea about the concept that most anyone can understand the point, or at least understand there are different ways of looking at the origin of the universe. It did state that it makes the assumption of a quantum foam prior to the Big Bang. There's currently no way to know if that's true, or if there were other unknown conditions. I personally don't think we'll ever really know what consitions, if any, preexisted and led up to the Big Bang.

Here's an interesting article by NASA that covers a few views about Dark Energy and the expansion of space. And another article of Hubble's look at a protocluster of galaxies located 13.1 billion light years away (The 2nd Hubble link is an enlarged photo of the view).
Dark Energy, Dark Matter - NASA Science

HubbleSite - NewsCenter - Hubble Pinpoints Farthest Protocluster of Galaxies Ever Seen (01/10/2012) - Release Images
HubbleSite - NewsCenter - Hubble Pinpoints Farthest Protocluster of Galaxies Ever Seen (01/10/2012) - Release Images
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology > Space

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top