# Extremely large Black Hole discovered 900M years after BB

1. Feb 25, 2015

### Tanelorn

Last edited: Feb 25, 2015
2. Feb 25, 2015

### phinds

Not clear why that would have anything to do with the standard model (which is about fundamental particles, not black hole formation) but it does apparently break one of the models of black hole formation which says you just can't get one that big that early according to both the article I read about it (which was different that the one you linked to) and the one you linked to.

3. Feb 25, 2015

### martinbn

I think by the standard model he means the standard cosmological model.

4. Feb 25, 2015

### Garth

Yet another example of well developed objects being found in the early universe An Age Problem (again)?

That thread was prompted by the discovery of a 1.1x1010M BH at z=5.18, and now this BH is ~1.2 × 1010M seen at z=6.30

From the Nature letter http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v518/n7540/full/nature14241.html#close
(emphasis mine)

Is it time yet to question our understanding of the expansion history of the early universe I wonder?

Garth

Last edited by a moderator: May 7, 2017
5. Feb 25, 2015

### Chronos

The existence of supermassive black holes in high z quasars has been known for quite some time and it is not easy to explain them in a bottom up hierarchical model. I think this favors the direct collapse model. In the early universe primordial metallicity was virtually non existent, hence, the usual Jeans mass constraints are not an issue. Just like pop III stars are believed capable of achieving enormous masses, it is not unreasonable to speculate massive primordial gas clouds may have jumped the evolutionary track and collapsed directly into intermediate or supermassive black holes. It appears this would permit sufficient time for the whales known to exist at z=6+ to form. For discussion see http://www.physics.ucsb.edu/news/event/993

6. Feb 26, 2015

### Garth

Other authors are studying the 'Age Problem' and seeking ways of alleviating it: Stars older than the universe and possible mechanism of their creation
The 'time breaks down' suggestion can be re-phrased - as I asked in #4, "Is it time yet to question our understanding of the expansion history of the early universe?"

In other words, as we can only observe z and not 't' the latter can not be considered on its own, but only as a factor in the expansion rate of the universe, therefore it is a(t) that is relevant.

If a(t) is modified, say by the existence of another form of DE operating in the early universe, then the age of the universe at a set z can be increased, thus relieving the 'age problem' in the early universe.

One paper that looks at this is Power-law cosmology, SN Ia, and BAO.

Garth

Last edited: Feb 26, 2015
7. Feb 26, 2015

### Tanelorn

8. Feb 26, 2015

### Garth

Last edited by a moderator: May 7, 2017
9. Feb 26, 2015

### Tanelorn

I am starting to favour the argument that supermassive BHs have been created during the BB.

10. Feb 27, 2015

### Garth

11. Feb 27, 2015

### Garth

Yes - but the problem is that if these SMBHs form by the "direct collapse model" (thank you Chronos) in the early stages of the 'BB' then that would be an ultra-bright very quick process at very high z followed by a relatively dark era.

These SMBH's are very bright objects ("ultra-luminous quasar"s) at almost the Eddington limit. Their brightness indicates some form of continuous accretion, and whether you can reconcile that with the age-at-z under the standard $\Lambda$CDM model is the problem.

Garth

12. Feb 27, 2015

### Tanelorn

Last edited: Feb 27, 2015
13. Feb 27, 2015

### Chronos

In a sufficiently matter rich environment a black hole can feast to godzilla size in a relatively short amount of time. Quasars are believed to be examples of this behavior. AGN galaxies are believed to result when a black hole has consumed most of the matter available to them. That would seem to suggest the most massive SMBH's should be found in such galaxies. I'm not sure if the observational evidence supports this possibility.

14. Feb 27, 2015

### Orien Rigney

A simple question. Why, almost immediately as the universe was transitioning from a gaseous state to a solid platform of matter would such a huge black hole be formed?

15. Feb 28, 2015

### Garth

There are three ways of creating early BHs.

Micro-BHs might form in the pre-BBN phase when fluctuations increase local densities creating local Schwarzschild radii entrapping the matter and energy within; these are called 'Primordial Black Holes'.

New cosmological constraints on primordial black holes B. J. Carr, Kazunori Kohri, Yuuiti Sendouda, and Jun’ichi Yokoyama
Primordial Black Holes : Tunnelling vs. No Boundary Proposal Raphael Bousso, R & Stephen Hawking,
These micro-PBHs should be exploding via Hawking radiation about now - although it is generally thought that these have not yet been observed, however these PBMs might be the source of some GRBs and maybe the source of the observed very high energy cosmic rays.

Such PBHs have been suggested as a component of Dark Matter, but because of the 'constraints' discussed in the papers above (and others) they cannot be a major component of DM.

But in answer to your question, "Why, almost immediately as the universe was transitioning from a gaseous state to a solid platform of matter would such a huge black hole be formed?"

Later on after the time of CMB emission and at the beginning of large scale structure formation, DM could form into a dense halo that might attract sufficient baryonic matter to collapse within that total mass's (DM + m) Schwarzschild radius and form a SMBH directly. This so far has been my 'hand waving', but you can work out the details yourself!

Or there might be a population of IMBMs formed as the demise of PopIII stars which might then spiral together into a SMBH (via gravitational wave radiation).

The problem with these last two scenarios is after the initial formation period the mass would be within its Schwarzschild radius and so be dark, but the one observed is 'ultra-luminous' - after all that is why it was found!

There might indeed be dark SMBHs formed by the two processes above that we know nothing about, but the one observed would seem to have had to have been formed by a process of continuous accretion to give it the luminosity.

The problem is that to give such a luminosity the accretion rate is limited by photon pressure - giving the Eddington limit. Our quasar at z=6.30 is right up against this limit as it has a mass of ~1.2x1010M whereas the Eddington Limit at that redshift is 1.3x1010M and so raises the question, "Has there realistically been enough time at z=6.30 for this body to form?"

Garth

Last edited: Mar 1, 2015
16. Feb 28, 2015

### Orien Rigney

Thanks Garth. That information will keep me busy for some time. But another question if I may, is this. What productive good, if any, do BHs perform?

17. Feb 28, 2015

### Garth

That could be a much bigger question, depending on which speculative theories you are prepared to follow!

As Tanelorn has posted #12 BHs seem to be related in some way to the size and structure of some galaxies. http://phys.org/news/2015-01-relationship-involving-black-holes-galaxies.html#nRlv

They
might even be involved in the formation of most galaxies.

In Smolin's Cosmological Natural Selection Theory each BH spawns a new universe through the 'singularity' at its centre. These new universes reflect the physical characteristics (laws, physical constants etc) of their parent universe but with some differences. The process continues with an infinite number of such universes evolving to maximize the number of BH's within them. It so happens that the physical constants necessary for life are also those that maximize the number of BHs within any such universe. So here we are - in this universe together with a lot of BHs!!

So a productive good of BH's might be even your own existence, if you believe the theory that is. You can't actually see these other universes of course, and we have no idea what happens inside a BH's 'singularity' (Interstellar not withstanding) so it all depends on what you are prepared to believe in....

BTW Orien, going back to you original question "Why, almost immediately as the universe was transitioning from a gaseous state to a solid platform of matter would such a huge black hole be formed?" - the first half of the question is badly formed. I didn't correct it at the time as my answer was long anyway.

What you are referring to is the process of combination at the time the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) was last emitted.

Before then the matter in the universe, mostly hydrogen, was in plasma form. It was ionized into protons and electrons. Light was continuously scattered by this plasma and the universe was therefore opaque.

As the universe expanded its temperature dropped to around 3,000oK. At this temperature the hydrogen ions and electrons combined into atomic hydrogen. The universe now became transparent and the hydrogen was gaseous.

As we look back the furthest possible distance, we can see this epoch (in the microwave part of the spectrum) as the 'Surface of Last Scattering' about 300,000 years 'after BB' (at z=1100).

The CMB has very slight fluctuations in it, to one part to ~100,000. The fluctuations of over dense matter went onto to form the galactic clusters, and the under dense regions formed the vast voids, that we see in the universe today.

But how this gaseous hydrogen and helium went onto form galactic clusters, galaxies and stars - the Large Scale Structure - is the next part of the story.

DM must have played a major part in getting ordinary matter (baryonic hydrogen and helium) to condense down so quickly into the high-z objects observed in the early universe.

But as your original question went onto ask, and the subject of this thread, - how did such a bright quasar with such a massive BH form so early???

Garth

Last edited: Mar 12, 2015
18. Feb 28, 2015

### Tanelorn

I always thought that SMBHs play a very important part in galaxy development, structure and order. Also SMBHs certainly continue to grow over Billions of years, but perhaps they needed to be there first in order for a large galaxy to form instead of structures something like a globular cluster? i.e. What came first the chicken or the egg?

Last edited: Feb 28, 2015
19. Feb 28, 2015

### Orien Rigney

I spent a couple of days musing a period following the Big Bang Theory when stars supposedly started forming. I’m not saying the time line is wrong following the “Dark Ages”, only that the sequence of what came first could possibly be skewed. The link below is NASAs own version of the periods of development. http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/144789main_CMB_Timeline75_lg.jpg
Perhaps when things had cooled to where quarks, gluons and other sub particles began forming into atoms, is it possible this vast universal sea of highly magnetized matter was transformed almost immediately into massive and “condensed galaxies”? Think of one of your first k-12 experiments using iron filings, a bar magnet and a sheet of paper.” Zip”! All of the filings tried to pile up on the one pole when it was extended upward beneath the paper. No mono-poles back then either. Just head to tail, head to tail. Could it be this coalescence created giant orbs that eventually spun themselves into centrifugal dervishes before flying apart to form gaseous galaxies, and then into stars?

Last edited: Feb 28, 2015
20. Feb 28, 2015

### Garth

Er no, now you are guessing - if you cannot refer to published articles try not to extend yourself beyond asking questions.

The "quarks, gluons and other sub particles" you referred to began forming nuclei, not atoms (atoms were still in the far future 300,000 years later), at the beginning of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis from ~10-1 to 103 seconds, although the process was essentially over after 3 minutes from the 'BB'.

At the Surface of Last Scattering, 300,000 years, later (the origin of the CMB) baryonic matter had to be very smooth and homogeneous to one part in 100,000. Any condensation or accretion of baryonic matter had to happen after this.

Garth

Last edited: Feb 28, 2015