Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Black holes and galaxies

  1. Sep 25, 2005 #1
    Black holes and galaxies!!!!

    Blackholes and galaxies

    Recent studies show that blackholes or rather supermassive blackholes are found at the centre of most galaxies.Is there a connection between that blackhole and the formation of the galaxy itself? Could it be that there was a neutron star that attracted dust and gas and eventually became more massive and finally turned into a blackhole and due ti its large gravitational force attracted nearby stars and formed galaxies. This also explains the spiral and elliptical shapes of most galaxies.
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 25, 2005 #2
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  4. Sep 26, 2005 #3


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Thanks Ben. I have a hunch this is converging to the possibility that there may be an intimate relationship between Black Holes and the Big Bang which is not yet apparent from our limited perspective. I wonder if we are near a cross-road like our forefathers during times of revolutionary change where one stands out and proclaims, "black holes ARE the Big Bang"? :smile:
  5. Sep 26, 2005 #4
    I once had the thought that black holes are self contained universes where three new spatial dimensions (and presumably a new time dimension too) were created from bending the existing dimensions through an unseeable right angle. In a sense, these would be new universes. I seriously doubt the plausibility but your post made me remember that idea.
  6. Sep 26, 2005 #5
    You can take a Galaxy such as the Milky Way, reverse its evolution, with the Blackhole Core, the Stars all converge "from" the Blackhole Area. The Blackhole cannot dissapear, the finite Remnant BH Singularity, is thus contained within the Univeral Singularity.

    Blackholes and their Singularities are in this sense Big-Bangs, what we have percieved as the "Universal Big-bang", is derived from Einstein's Field Equations, but the fact remains,any convergence back at Time Zero involving a back-engineered galactic blackhole , does not line up with the Universe "big-bang", the Universe may be eternal, but a Blackhole 'big-bang' has a precise moment emerging from the Universe's singularity.
  7. Sep 26, 2005 #6


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    It's very unlikely that the black holes have been around since the initial singularity. They're expect to have formed after recombination, probably from collapsing stars.

    I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. Theoretician is not saying that our universe came from one of the black holes contained within it, just that black holes may themselves me separate universes with their own timeline.
  8. Sep 26, 2005 #7
    The problem is that "They're expect to have formed after recombination, probably from collapsing stars" does not take into consideration the Penrose Cosmic censorship hypotheses?

    Stellar Collapse, produces a LARGE AMOUNT of Stars that are in a certain limit, White Dwarfs..Neutron Stars in the re-combination era?

    For Stella evolution to be correct, there has to be a large number of Large Mass Stars, then as opposed to now ?

    For every Star that has collapsed in a finite past-time, and reached Blackhole status, the Stars that have produced these Blackholes, have themselves been part of a long-term time-evolution, a Star reaches its end, its collapse-mode, only after being around for a great length of time?..Stars Burn material..Stars of certain size's have precise energy burning functions, that produce materials, that alter the process of evolution.

    Explain how a Star at re-combination can have the presice amount of material that can only exist after a vast amount of "reactive-time" has allready past in Stars :http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/t/tr/triple-alpha_process.htm [Broken]

    The appearence of the very first Blackhole, created by the very first Stella Collapsed "Star", would occur in a timeframe that is Later rather than sooner?

    It may be that Stella 'Collapse' and Big-Bang 'condensation' cannot evolve in sequence unless "Old-Stars" appear in the very first instance of Time?
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  9. Sep 26, 2005 #8


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    That's irrelevant here. Collapsed stars are not naked singularities.

    No such objects are produced during recombination. Stars don't start to form until much later.

    The theory of stellar evolution is not dependent upon the star formation history of the universe. It is expected that there would be a large number of high-mass stars both then and now.

    You start this sentence creating a black hole with a single star then quickly transition to the plural (stars). Care to explain?

    The stars that collapse to black holes generally don't live very long -- less than 10 million years.

    This part is true, though I don't see your point.

    Again, stars don't exist at recombination, but their chemical composition isn't all that relevant for the lifetime. The triple-alpha process uses the products of hydrogen burning, not the small initial amounts of heavy elements.

    Later or sooner than what?

    Uh, no.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  10. Sep 27, 2005 #9


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    This heavily cited paper suggested the role of black holes in galactic formation:

    A Fundamental Relation Between Supermassive Black Holes and Their Host Galaxies
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook