Notices
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Super massive black holes and galaxy formation

  1. #1 Super massive black holes and galaxy formation 
    Forum Professor leohopkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dulwich, London, England
    Posts
    1,418
    Most large galaxy formations that we know of now appear to have (whether active or dormant) a super-massive black hole in its center.

    Now I've been running a thought experiment in my head and this question is aimed at those who are familiar with stellar black-holes, supernovae, accretion disks and star formation including those of second and third generation stars.

    What if after the E.o.S occurred, there existed super-massive proto-stars, which due to their sheer size became unstable, and threw matter outwards in a super-massive supernovae; the core collapsed into a super-massive black-hole, and the matter eventually coalescing into the first proto-stars, which again did not last long, went supernovae again, and so on, until the second and third generation stars and therefore "galaxy" we see today.

    In summary, entire galaxies including its super-massive black hole were created by very early super-massive stars.

    Does anyone have any thoughts on the plausibility of this?


    The hand of time rested on the half-hour mark, and all along that old front line of the English there came a whistling and a crying. The men of the first wave climbed up the parapets, in tumult, darkness, and the presence of death, and having done with all pleasant things, advanced across No Man's Land to begin the Battle of the Somme. - Poet John Masefield.

    www.leohopkins.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    319
    i think you are fairly correct and in agreement with current thinking. the only part i would have a problem with is the first stars wouldn't leave, what we today call, supermassive black holes behind. the SMBH are millions of solar masses and i don't think the early stars would have been that big. one reason is that when enough mass comes together for the star to ignite then it blows the remaining material away in what we see as planetary nebula. so long before these early stars became supermassive they would have ignited and no extra material would have been added to them apart form what they attracted during their life. and once again stellar evolution tells us that these large stars are short lived so only have a short time to gain extra mass.


    Sometimes it is better not knowing than having an answer that may be wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Professor leohopkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dulwich, London, England
    Posts
    1,418
    The universe is constantly expanding and decreasing in energy density. Isn't it possible that super-massive proto stars that would have contained all of the mass of a galaxy including the super massive black hole could have behaved differently to what we'd expect today due to this higher energy density? And therefore may have grown in size to billions of solar masses before becoming unstable, going super-massive supernovae, leaving in the center the SMBH and then galaxy formation ensuing?
    The hand of time rested on the half-hour mark, and all along that old front line of the English there came a whistling and a crying. The men of the first wave climbed up the parapets, in tumult, darkness, and the presence of death, and having done with all pleasant things, advanced across No Man's Land to begin the Battle of the Somme. - Poet John Masefield.

    www.leohopkins.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    319
    i think the physics of the early universe were the same as they are today. after all GR expains this universe all the way back to just a short while after T=0. so i can't see stars behaving differently then to now.
    Sometimes it is better not knowing than having an answer that may be wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Professor leohopkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dulwich, London, England
    Posts
    1,418
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrispen Evan View Post
    i think the physics of the early universe were the same as they are today. after all GR explains this universe all the way back to just a short while after T=0. so i can't see stars behaving differently then to now.
    As the universe is expanding, we see a red-shift in light. When light moves to the red-side of the spectrum it does so because it appears to have lost energy. (Red wave lengths of light being the least energetic.) If indeed the Grand Unified Theory marries up all of the forces, Would we not also detect gravity "red-shifting" as it were. (The problem here is no-one has even detected a gravitational wave yet of course.) However, when the universe was younger and smaller, to put it crudely, everything would have been closer together; and as entropy increases with time, it must mean that at one time the entropy of the distribution of matter in the universe was less.

    Perhaps a star would have been allowed to have behaved differently by nature of the effect of a much stronger (due to the shorter distances in an early universe) tug of gravity and in more equal directions than we see today (due to less entropy). Could this tug on the super-massive matter cloud, and in more equal directions, have been enough to slow the rate of the super-massive star's collapse and therefore ignition, and thus allowing a super-massive proto-star of gargantuan sizes that we just do not see today, to form?
    The hand of time rested on the half-hour mark, and all along that old front line of the English there came a whistling and a crying. The men of the first wave climbed up the parapets, in tumult, darkness, and the presence of death, and having done with all pleasant things, advanced across No Man's Land to begin the Battle of the Somme. - Poet John Masefield.

    www.leohopkins.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    319
    the universe is observed to be flat, infinite and unbounded. (i seem to be saying that quite a bit lately, not complaining though). if it is like that now then it was like that at the very beginning. we see redshift from our perspective of now. in the frame of reference of the early universe gravity, light etc would have appeared exactly as it does now. the laws of physics would have been exactly like they are now.

    well, this is my take on it. i'm not a pro in the sciences so maybe i have it all wrong.
    Sometimes it is better not knowing than having an answer that may be wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrispen Evan View Post
    the universe is observed to be flat, infinite and unbounded. (i seem to be saying that quite a bit lately, not complaining though). if it is like that now then it was like that at the very beginning. we see redshift from our perspective of now. in the frame of reference of the early universe gravity, light etc would have appeared exactly as it does now. the laws of physics would have been exactly like they are now.
    Minor nitpick:

    We see the redshift from our vantage point of now, although that's a product of light traveling across expanding space.
    However, in the very early Universe, the physics was not the same as now. Not exactly, not even close. This is why the Lambda CDM model stops just shy of very, very near the beginning or the beginning itself.
    For the application you're discussing; the first hundred thousand years of the Universe, then, yes, the physics was exactly the same as now.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    319
    Lambda CDM model stops just shy of very, very near the beginning or the beginning itself.
    yep, that is what i mean about the very beginning. 10-something ~35?
    Sometimes it is better not knowing than having an answer that may be wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrispen Evan View Post

    yep, that is what i mean about the very beginning. 10-something ~35?
    Yeah... I think it's 10-47 off the top of my head.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Super-Massive Black Atoms
    By 6nqpnw in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: December 1st, 2010, 11:28 AM
  2. Replies: 13
    Last Post: August 3rd, 2010, 05:20 PM
  3. Super massive black holes
    By leohopkins in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: April 2nd, 2010, 04:51 PM
  4. Problem with galaxy formation model.
    By Cyberia in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: April 5th, 2009, 03:31 AM
  5. Super Novas & Black Holes
    By Gablo51 in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: July 3rd, 2007, 08:32 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •