Black holes and galaxies

  • Thread starter sanjith
  • Start date
  • #1
1
0

Main Question or Discussion Point

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.
 

Answers and Replies

  • #3
saltydog
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
1,582
2
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:
 
  • #4
saltydog said:
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:
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.
 
  • #5
374
0
Theoretician said:
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.
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.
 
  • #6
SpaceTiger
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,940
2
Spin_Network said:
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.
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.


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",
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.
 
  • #7
374
0
SpaceTiger said:
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
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:
  • #8
SpaceTiger
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,940
2
Spin_Network said:
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?
That's irrelevant here. Collapsed stars are not naked singularities.


Stellar Collapse, produces a LARGE AMOUNT of Stars that are in a certain limit, White Dwarfs..Neutron Stars in the re-combination era?
No such objects are produced during recombination. Stars don't start to form until much later.


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

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


a Star reaches its end, its collapse-mode, only after being around for a great length of time?
The stars that collapse to black holes generally don't live very long -- less than 10 million years.


..Stars Burn material..Stars of certain size's have precise energy burning functions, that produce materials, that alter the process of evolution.
This part is true, though I don't see your point.


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]
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.


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?
Later or sooner than what?


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?
Uh, no.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #9
Chronos
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,408
738
sanjith said:
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.
This heavily cited paper suggested the role of black holes in galactic formation:

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0006053
A Fundamental Relation Between Supermassive Black Holes and Their Host Galaxies
 

Related Threads for: Black holes and galaxies

  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
27
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
949
Replies
9
Views
5K
Top