PDA

View Full Version : Discussion: Black Holes or Galaxies, Which ...



Fraser
2004-Nov-09, 06:21 PM
SUMMARY: Since supermassive black holes were first discovered, astronomers have been wondering if the hole was created first, and then the galaxy formed around it, or if these monsters tend to form at the heart of galaxies over time. Astronomers using the National Radio Astronomy Observatory's Very Large Array have discovered a distant galaxy that's less than a billion years old, but seems to have a supermassive black hole - but no massive bulge of stars. The black hole is 1 billion solar masses, so it should be surrounded by several trillion solar masses in stars. This provides evidence that it's the black hole that forms first, then the galaxy.

What do you think about this story? Post your comments below.

antoniseb
2004-Nov-09, 06:32 PM
There was a paper I linked to several months ago that described how globular clusters, and intermediate mass black holes could form. It was pretty easy to draw the comparison from that to this idea, i.e. that supermassive black holes form first, and the bulge part of the galaxy forms next from material that is shot out of the forming black hole. Some fraction of this material turns into stars, and has sufficient momentum, and low enough surface area that it will not be blown out a second time by the intense wind. Some of these stars add to the mass of the black hole [about one in a thousand], and most become first generation bulge stars.

If the observation in this story is validated, it should put a big hole in the old Arpian idea that quasars are ejected from galaxies.

VanderL
2004-Nov-09, 06:35 PM
It's getting curiouser and curiouser.


Cheers.

StarLab
2004-Nov-09, 06:58 PM
It realy takes nothing more than common sense to come to a conclusion, with the following givens:

a) in the early universe, stars formed and collapsed in a rapid cycle
B) it takes a long time for galaxies to form

So, it's only logical that the holes would come first.

But, this brings up a new question: how did so many mini-holes produce SMBH's?

antoniseb
2004-Nov-09, 07:41 PM
Originally posted by StarLab@Nov 9 2004, 06:58 PM
But, this brings up a new question: how did so many mini-holes produce SMBH's?
I think that the SMBH's started big, and mostly only grew by capturing material that tried to fall into it once or twice before, but was blown out again. Orbital dynamics make other kinds of capture a rare event.

VanderL
2004-Nov-09, 08:27 PM
If the observation in this story is validated, it should put a big hole in the old Arpian idea that quasars are ejected from galaxies.


How so?


a) in the early universe, stars formed and collapsed in a rapid cycle
B) it takes a long time for galaxies to form

So, it's only logical that the holes would come first.

Mature galaxies have supposedly been found only a mere 500 million years after the Big Bang (at z=10 if I remember correctly), how do they fit in?

Cheers.

Prime
2004-Nov-09, 09:39 PM
Perhaps these " astronomers " should change theories, as this is the future.


http://www.electric-cosmos.org/

Prime

antoniseb
2004-Nov-09, 09:39 PM
Originally posted by VanderL@Nov 9 2004, 08:27 PM
How so?
If the quasar predates the galaxy, then there was no galaxy to eject the quasar in the first place. Like I said, the observation will need some strengthening before you guys accept it.

VanderL
2004-Nov-09, 10:37 PM
If the quasar predates the galaxy, then there was no galaxy to eject the quasar in the first place. Like I said, the observation will need some strengthening before you guys accept it.

Arp tells us that ejected quasars evolve into galaxies, this finding would only confirm Arp's model, not contradict it. The only difference with Arp's model that really matters is how much intrinsic redshift is generated by the quasar. If we take the example of the quasar in the opaque part of NGC 7319 at least z=2 is possible as an intrinsic redshift. That would mean that this object is nowhere near the distance (or epoch) we think it is

"You guys" indeed, just imagine how large a Universe we would be living in when Arp is correct, I think Hubble would have liked such a Universe.

Cheers.

astromark
2004-Nov-10, 02:47 AM
:rolleyes: Ok I think I understand orbital dimanics :blink: So it might be a young SMBH or it could be a very old one that has vacumed its local area clean. How could you be sure ? as to which came first. Even the smallest black holes are formed from larger star colapse avents are they not? So wouldent a much larger one need a larger colapsing to start with. I'm going to think about this.. and its not something I'm good at. :D

Guest
2004-Nov-10, 03:59 PM
I watched Supermassive Blackholes on the Science channel last night. http://science.discovery.com/schedule/epis...d=0&channel=SCI (http://science.discovery.com/schedule/episode.jsp?episode=0&cpi=23567&gid=0&channel=SCI)
Some interesting stuff. They said that there was a correlation between the speed of the stars on the outside of a galaxy and the size of the black hole. Found by some lady at Rutgers.

Guest
2004-Nov-10, 10:53 PM
sounds like an Chicken or the Egg story

I don't really mind which were first as long as it helps us understand the formation of matter and the state of the universe soon after the big bang. Some think temperature played a real role, calling the universe a blackbody which cools as it expands from the Bigbang. It is thought the primordial gas and matter formed the first proto-Galaxies...so if I were to call it I'd say maybe galaxies came first
however others may state that all galaxies have blackholes inside and some astronomers think there is a supermassive black hole in Andromeda, so did the blackhole come before or after this ?

Ashlee Wilson
2004-Nov-11, 04:27 PM
Hi im Ashlee Wilson i was wonderin if you could make up a web site to answer a few of my questions i have a bout astronomy :)

antoniseb
2004-Nov-11, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by Ashlee Wilson@Nov 11 2004, 04:27 PM
i was wonderin if you could make up a web site to answer a few of my questions i have a bout astronomy
We don't need to, we already have one.

Duane
2004-Nov-11, 06:04 PM
Originally posted by Prime@Nov 9 2004, 09:39 PM
Perhaps these " astronomers " should change theories, as this is the future.


Prime
Oh? How so?

Duane
2004-Nov-11, 06:15 PM
There have been a few theories about SMBHs. In an early story here in UT (I can't locate it, sorry) there was some discussion about irregular galaxy-sized clouds of hydrogen that didn't seem to be forming stars. There is a possibility that such a galaxy will not evolve into a star-forming galaxy unless it has a black hole.

Mr. Smartypants gamer guy
2005-Mar-31, 03:33 AM
hi its me agin and i found this today... i was bored so i looked in the archive and i think maby the blk holes came scnd or maby first since a blk whole could be a worm hole to another universe on the same level of dimentions...

Mr. Smartypants gamer guy
2005-Apr-16, 07:04 PM
deosn't any one ever answer???!!!???