Never a Star: Did Supermassive Black Holes Form Directly?

[Fraser]

Astronomers now believe there's a supermassive black hole at the centre of almost every galaxy in the Universe. These black holes can have millions, or even hundreds of millions of times the mass of the Sun. ...

Read the full blog entry

[GOURDHEAD]

Maybe that's where all the anti-matter went thus solving the charge parity problem.

[John Mendenhall]

Maybe that's where all the anti-matter went thus solving the charge parity problem.

I can't think of a mechanism that would prefer anti-matter in the black holes. But it's a neat idea.

[GOURDHEAD]

What the laws of physics do not prohibit happens.

[antoniseb]

Maybe that's where all the anti-matter went thus solving the charge parity problem.

That seems unlikely, but even if true, less than one hundredth of one percent of the mass of the universe is made up of super-massive black holes. That would not account for a sizable fraction of the anti-matter if you are assuming that originally matter and anti-matter were formed in equal portions.

[Jerry]

Reality check: If event horizons existed before the development of structure, how did so much matter manage not to fall into these primal black holes? Why are the most massive black holes always found in the largest galaxies? By now shouldn't there be galaxies that are mostly consumed - small remaining galactic mass around a big black hole?

[antoniseb]

By now shouldn't there be galaxies that are mostly consumed - small remaining galactic mass around a big black hole?

By the same logic, shouldn't Mercury have fallen into the Sun by now. 4.6 billion years so close to that giant gravitational sink...

[dgavin]

Reality check: If event horizons existed before the development of structure, how did so much matter manage not to fall into these primal black holes? Why are the most massive black holes always found in the largest galaxies? By now shouldn't there be galaxies that are mostly consumed - small remaining galactic mass around a big black hole?

I think what you missed in that article is that the gass was so dense, that star's couldn't form. Basically there was such a density of matter that the core of these collapsing stars just kept right on collapsing, nuclear fusion was never initiated.

However these failed star's should of had a brief time as a T-Tauri star, where they shined just from the gravitational energy, before the core went black hole.

[RUF]

I understood the article to say that nuclear fusion did start, but it was not enough to counter-act the pressure created by material flowing in.

"...the stellar core would be so tightly bound that the energy release of nuclear fusion wouldn't be enough to stop the core from continuing to contract."

[GOURDHEAD]

That seems unlikely, but even if true, less than one hundredth of one percent of the mass of the universe is made up of super-massive black holes. That would not account for a sizable fraction of the anti-matter if you are assuming that originally matter and anti-matter were formed in equal portions.

I agree it seems unlikely. I am just frantically trying to rid myself of an annoying burr under my collar. It's nice to read that such a small amount of mass is locked up in black holes. How is this estimated?

Is it valid to asssume that prior to BB +10^-43 seconds no mass (and no gravity) existed and that after this time photon energy (dominated by hyper hypergammas) commensurate with the initiation temperature of that environment produced mass particles by decaying into pair formation thus producing equal amounts of matter and anti-matter particles and commensurate gravitational fields. There must have been rapid oscillation between photon and particle energy states over some short interval lasting until at least after the inflation period had ended. Due to the high energy of most of these photons, heavier particles (quarks) would have been produced in larger quantities than lighter ones (electrons and positrons) thus producing enormous ion currents. Can there be a property of an anti-matter particle that would cause it to be pushed in or out (travel inward or outward) in the newly created space at rates different from its ordinary matter particle counterpart? Are matter/anti-matter treated differently inside a black hole?

Or is there a limit to the rate of mass production such that density is held below some finite threshold and mass is only created as space expands sufficiently to tend to allow density to drop below this threshold?

[antoniseb]

[quote=GOURDHEAD;1068426]Can there be a property of an anti-matter particle that would cause it to be pushed in or out (travel inward or outward) in the newly created space at rates different from its ordinary matter particle counterpart?quote]

First, the ratio of matter in black holes to out is based on observations. In the Milky way for example, the mass of our SMBH is about 3 million times the mass of the Sun. The whole galaxy is about 100,000 times that massive.

Concerning the creation of Antimatter, it is probable that the earliest matter where much more massive higher order supersymmetric particles, and as they decayed, more familiar matter and antimatter was produced. I think the current guess is that there was a bias in this process that favored matter over antimatter. Some evidence of this seems to be seen in Muons, though to be honest, I'm not sure I understand it well enough to explain.

[John Mendenhall]

Can we have black holes without having matter first?

And if not, then what's going on inside a supermassive black hole filled with hydrogen and a little helium? Thank goodness it's inside and can't get out.

Sheer speculation: Does each supermassive black hole spawn another universe someplace/sometime else? If so, think how many spiral galaxies there are in our universe with supermassive black holes.

[m1omg]

Reality check: If event horizons existed before the development of structure, how did so much matter manage not to fall into these primal black holes? Why are the most massive black holes always found in the largest galaxies? By now shouldn't there be galaxies that are mostly consumed - small remaining galactic mass around a big black hole?

Why is everyone thinking that BHs devour everything?You'll need to be very close, inside the Roche limit which in the case of supermassive BHs is about as big as our Solar system excluding Oort cloud.Only these thousands of solar masses around in the object fall in.

[NyX-Free]

It comes to mind that perhapse the origin of some of these supermassive black holes could themselves be reminants of the bigbang. That would explain quite a few things.
If you tihnk about it, I think that these items in question are simply left overs from when our univers began. Think of shattering a rock with a hammer - You get pieces of varing sizes and shapes. The big pieces could be the suppermassive black holes themselves.
And if this is the case, a strong argument can be made that these supermassive black holes themselves are the begining of "another" universe. (Quasaer and the like). Hence the universe is eternaly old and new at the same time. (from our perspective that is.) I am constantly thinking about this and the idea that "our" universe has a begining and a supposably end (The Big Rip) only renforces my thoughts that the ENTIRE existance of matter is contantly being recycled over time through our percived universe.

Thoughts Comments?

[Svemir]

it's very convinient hypothesis as there was no time from the transparent era for SMBH to form.
Well, I could guess it by myself.
Since ther was no time for SMBH to form by accretion of matter , they must have been formed on spot.
Earlier, we had some papers on how SMBH's prevented star formation (in a small volume, I guess, as they don't do that now), so everything is fine , again. (in BB framework)
Or...?

[Jerry]

it's very convinient hypothesis as there was no time from the transparent era for SMBH to form.
Well, I could guess it by myself.
Since ther was no time for SMBH to form by accretion of matter , they must have been formed on spot.
Earlier, we had some papers on how SMBH's prevented star formation (in a small volume, I guess, as they don't do that now), so everything is fine , again. (in BB framework)
Or...?

Fine, except that black holes were at one time the end of the evolutionary trail; and therefore growing in mass as the 'free' baryonic content is consumed. The highly positive correlation between black hole masses and galaxy size once again makes this look like a special place and time: all galaxies being consumed by black holes, but the process is hasn't evolved to where we see large black holes with little remaining galactic matter to consume.

[transreality]

It does seem pat doesn't it. That if the big supanova 2006GY does not form a black hole relic then either the SMBH forms by accretion from smaller progenitors, or it forms directly without a progenitor star... that is it forms either considerably before, or considerably after the initial starburst of the host galaxy.

I am wondering about ways to distinguish betwen these two possibilities, given recent work on galactic evolution, where the formation of the black hole starts a new epoch by driving out the acreting gas, wouldn't this have already happened in the case of the former scenario; that is, a previously formed blackhole would prevent the starburst of the surrounding galaxy.

[Svemir]

Given the initial conditions just after the Recombination, volume and gas density:
how large part of the Universe has to colaps in order to form an SMBH?
If we adopt the definition from Wiki that a SMBH is 10^5 - 10^10 MSun,
what reason would be for creation of the "low mass" one, instead of the "really big one"? (and vice versa)
If only SMBH's were formed just after the Recombination, why should they continue to grow? I assume their formation will leave the gap between them and surrounding gas, which in turn is going further away due to an expanding Universe.Even if they continue to accreate the gas from further away, slowly roatting gas will began to obtain ang. momentum, forming accretion disc , not stars. OK?
If we leave them for the moment and concentrate us on the remaining gas that hasn't collapsede yet, we are left with the solution that the remaining gas began to collaps in small amounts in order to form the first stars (again: why? why not SMBH? if we choose to believe that hypothetical POP III stars were formed, then again: why? why not something bigger or smaller?).
But as the formation of the stars is supressed in the vicinity of the SMBH they have to form for them selves further away. And then the assembly of the first galaxies could begin.
You can't get galaxies assembled so quickly (as observed) after the recombination, in this scenario.
In the pure accretion scenario, things are even worse IMO.
Our Sun has been around for 5 by, and despite all the other mass between us and SMBH in Milky Way, we are not spiraling into it. (well, not that fast)
Well, I'm aware that this simplified logic is just that, but I expect the answers
to be more "flashy", containing neutrino heating, primordial magnetic fields, CMBR and even Dark Matter (did Dark Energy exist at that time?:-)) etc.
I could play with these things by myself, but my little daughter gives me no time for that :-).
(That's why I mentioned grav and Jerry in the subject.)
Moderators are wellcome to COPY this post to either Q&A or ATM, where Bing Bang would be the alternative theory, e.g. answering the unpleasent questions, ;-). Have we tried that before?

[transreality]

Stars do form in clusters; if a particularly large and dense cluster forms it will result in a mix of hypernova stars, and smaller black hole progenitors, that are unable to escape, perhaps drag from the gas and dust also contributes to the collapse - in the accretion scenario to form SMBH.

SMBH have a unique location, and singular presence in a galaxy, there are no galaxies with a second SMBH far off-centre, so some dynamic process supplying gas to centre of the galaxy must be at work driving their growth.