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

Massive Black Hole Stumps Researchers

  1. Jun 29, 2004 #1

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 29, 2004 #2
  4. Jun 29, 2004 #3
    Maybe we could ask what the schwarzchild radius was that created this universe? :smile:
  5. Jun 29, 2004 #4


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Since you brought up black holes...

    I had heard that we had no chance of seeing the black hole thought to be at the center of the Milky Way. (Yeah I know, that is not the one you are talking about.) Too small, too much dust in between it and us. But I am looking at the July, 2004 Astronomy magazine, and on page 30 it has what looks like a photograph of a dark, somewhat asymmetric disk, with some material glowing behind or around it. The text that goes with the picture claims it is "the supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way... They used the Very Long Baseline Array to view the galactic center at 1 millimeter wavelength [radio].. the event horizon of the black hole silhouetted as radiation from the inner galaxy passes around it--or falls in. The black hole has a diameter roughly 100 times the Moon's diameter and weighs [sic] about 3 million solar masses."

    Here's the caveat: the picture was said to have been published in Science Express April 1, 2004. Note that date, and be wary!

    April Fools???
  6. Jun 29, 2004 #5
    Are you stating that the article published with this guy :http://www.stanford.edu/dept/physics/people/faculty/romani_roger.html

    Is nothing but a joke?

    [\QUOTE]Here's the caveat: the picture was said to have been published in Science Express April 1, 2004. Note that date, and be wary!

    April Fools???[/QUOTE]

    The article linked by Ivan is dated from april 1st 2005 then?
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2004
  7. Jun 29, 2004 #6


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    I would not say "stump"

    the guy they quoted just said it was a "bit of a challenge" to understand how in only one billion years a BH with ten billion solar masses could accumulate

    but a galaxy has been observed at z = 10 therefore only about 400 or 500 million years (less than a billion) into the life of the universe

    that is hard to picture too, how could mass the size of a galaxy gather together in only 400 million years?

    If you can picture a galaxy forming in 400 million
    then tell me and I will imagine how several such galaxies might have collided and their central bulges might have coalesced to form a BH

    I dont think people are saying it is unlikely, they just havent learned how to picture all that stuff going on in the early universe---the first billion years

    for one thing, everything was a lot closer together, stars were closer, galaxies were closer, the gas and dust in the space between was thicker
    stands to reason that the clumping we see going on now, but slowly, could have happened faster in that Soup of the olden days
  8. Jun 29, 2004 #7
    Good news

    My model requires a cosmic Black Hole to preceed the BB after the big Crunch. One good reason to re-consider this possibility?

    Just my thoughts.
  9. Jun 29, 2004 #8
    How can it be as massive as all the stars in the milky way and be 10 billion times as massive as the sun? There are over 250 billion stars in the milky way?

    Anyways, just shows you how wrong the predicted age of the universe is (13.6 billion years).
  10. Jun 29, 2004 #9
    SBH Mass-Limit

    In my model, there is no theoretical mass-limit for a Supermassive Black Hole.

    Theoretical Mass-Limit of SBH = Theoretical Mass-Limit of Matter/Universe at "Eternal Return Limit"
  11. Jun 30, 2004 #10


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    My best guess is this implies the possibility that supermassive black holes began forming almost immediately in the early universe. This would be consistent with most explanations why QSO's are so distant. It would be interesting to compare the size of galactic core black holes as a function of distance. I suspect there is a correlation.
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2004
  12. Jun 30, 2004 #11
    Allong with points made by marcus, I think you are correct. The Universe expansion rate (close to Big-Bang) was far greater than than at later times(slow-roll) when it reached a certain epoch (radiation-era) this may have been instrumental in the dynamics we observe today?

    Think of the 'balloon analogy' used to describe expansion, the deflated balloon increases in volume/size at a faster rate because it is 'empty', as one inputs air it increase's rapidly, until the 'fabric' stretches no further, the density/volume-pressure, if we assume that it is the radius of a super-massive blackhole , then some of the fabric will 'tear', which will 'eject' out of the holes at an energy rate higher than is currently observed by a QSO.

    Now without going into some current recent papers dealing with Blackhole information/dynamics, the observation is of QSO at an early epoch, the collapse of a supermassive blackhole, according to a recent number of papers(this is one that will sufficient, posted by marcus:https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=33132 ) shows that the density of certain blackholes can be such that no 'MORE' matter can cross an event horizon, there is a cut-off point, and thus according to our 'backwards-glance' we see Matter Rebounding outwards from QSO's.

    Blackholes aint so Black!

    In a sense we are on the other side of the perfect clock, we are Timeframed in an expanding big-bang epoch, the event of the Crunch and all observations that would lead to declare the Universe in Contraction phase for instance, is the other side of the Event Horizon, with the density paramiters to match.
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2004
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook