- #1
WIM_PHOTON
- 3
- 0
- TL;DR
- are early SMBH actually mostly supermassive dark black holes?
I'm really curious about this, but I want to know how wrong I am. I've seen in a lot of content recently about how observations of early supermassive blackholes are observed to be more massive than they should be.
If I understand it correctly it has to do with the maximum rate a super massive black hole can consume matter. Specifically, though not entirely, for black holes that would emerge due to the collapse of gas, rather than gorging on early stars. At a certain point the accretion disk creates enough radiation pressure that it pushes the surrounding gas out, preventing further collapse, thus setting a limit on how fast it can grow. The age of the black holes contradict their mass, exceeding the theory. I know that the outward consensus does not represent the lively debated theories within the field. My curiosity is also two-fold; of course I could go and get informed about the different types of growing theories myself, but I want to see exactly how flawed my independent reasoning is, based of off the basic principles.
Now, if we accept the current consensus that (as I understand, please correct me if otherwise):
a) dark matter is a form of real matter that gravitationally interacts with matter but does not meaningfully interact with the electromagnetic field,
b) the early universe was dense/soupy,
c) analysis of CMB observations indicates evidence of dark matter,
d) then a + b would mean that the early universe must have contained significant amounts of matter and dark matter in close proximity, contrasting the modern universe where dark matter seems to mostly reside in halos around galaxies and intergalactic filaments,
c) if these massive black holes formed from large quantities of matter then does it not stand to reason that the dark matter mixed within would also follow, or vice versa?
d) if the latter part in, a, is true would that not mean that these black holes could consume dark matter at a continuous rate not limited by radiation pressure?
e) thus you can end up with a monsters just over 1b solar masses, before the universe even turns 1b yo, where 85% of its mass was gained juicing supplements that would be unavailable for those looking to gain mass later in the evolution of the universe.
To consider somewhat separate from my main line of reasoning, my lazy shower thoughts about the implication of my line of reasoning is that:
If dark matter particles, in their fundamental form, i.e. something equivalent to H+, are more massive then does it stand to reason that if both types of matter at the outermost reaches started collapsing very slowly the normal matter would, due to inertia, outpace the former. As normal matter starts to be pushed out by the radiation pressure from the accretion disk any further incoming matter would get crammed in as a ring/disk in a radius balanced by the force of the collapsing matter. The dark matter far out enough to be considered intergalactic stays like a hollow shell/halo along with other matter, connected to other such structures with a filament/string.
thanks
If I understand it correctly it has to do with the maximum rate a super massive black hole can consume matter. Specifically, though not entirely, for black holes that would emerge due to the collapse of gas, rather than gorging on early stars. At a certain point the accretion disk creates enough radiation pressure that it pushes the surrounding gas out, preventing further collapse, thus setting a limit on how fast it can grow. The age of the black holes contradict their mass, exceeding the theory. I know that the outward consensus does not represent the lively debated theories within the field. My curiosity is also two-fold; of course I could go and get informed about the different types of growing theories myself, but I want to see exactly how flawed my independent reasoning is, based of off the basic principles.
Now, if we accept the current consensus that (as I understand, please correct me if otherwise):
a) dark matter is a form of real matter that gravitationally interacts with matter but does not meaningfully interact with the electromagnetic field,
b) the early universe was dense/soupy,
c) analysis of CMB observations indicates evidence of dark matter,
d) then a + b would mean that the early universe must have contained significant amounts of matter and dark matter in close proximity, contrasting the modern universe where dark matter seems to mostly reside in halos around galaxies and intergalactic filaments,
c) if these massive black holes formed from large quantities of matter then does it not stand to reason that the dark matter mixed within would also follow, or vice versa?
d) if the latter part in, a, is true would that not mean that these black holes could consume dark matter at a continuous rate not limited by radiation pressure?
e) thus you can end up with a monsters just over 1b solar masses, before the universe even turns 1b yo, where 85% of its mass was gained juicing supplements that would be unavailable for those looking to gain mass later in the evolution of the universe.
To consider somewhat separate from my main line of reasoning, my lazy shower thoughts about the implication of my line of reasoning is that:
If dark matter particles, in their fundamental form, i.e. something equivalent to H+, are more massive then does it stand to reason that if both types of matter at the outermost reaches started collapsing very slowly the normal matter would, due to inertia, outpace the former. As normal matter starts to be pushed out by the radiation pressure from the accretion disk any further incoming matter would get crammed in as a ring/disk in a radius balanced by the force of the collapsing matter. The dark matter far out enough to be considered intergalactic stays like a hollow shell/halo along with other matter, connected to other such structures with a filament/string.
thanks