Supermassive Black Hole 12 Billion Times Size of the Sun

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I understand where you are coming from but can you elaborate as to the issues, as to difference in mass and how in your opinion that is possible?

In relation to the OP what is offered is that the difference is significant enough to present an article to "Nature".

a reply to: ausername

What if there is a point where the consumption of matter and gravitational pull toward the black holes at the center of galaxies grows exponentially, until they consume all matter as we know it in the known universe, then the black holes consume each other until there is only one.... Then BANG! it all begins again.

I have often wondered the exact same thing although after a while it does my head in .

a reply to: hutch622

Another way of looking at it is that the Universe is a Virtual Strange Quark that effectively moves from one energy state to another.

a reply to: Ophiuchus 13

I considered this potential and as well as considered your point.

A quark star is a hypothetical type of compact exotic star composed of quark matter. These are ultra-dense phases of degenerate matter theorized to form inside particularly massive[citation needed] neutron stars.

The existence of quark stars has not been confirmed, either theoretically or astronomically. The equation of state of quark matter is uncertain, as is the transition point between neutron-degenerate matter and quark matter. Theoretical uncertainties have precluded making predictions from first principles. Experimentally, the behavior of quark matter is currently being actively studied with particle colliders, although this can only produce hot quark-gluon plasma blobs the size of an atomic nucleus, and they decay immediately after formation. There are no known artificial methods to produce or store cold quark matter as found in quark stars.

Source

It is not really strange when Wiki fails a spell check, " behavior".

originally posted by: Kashai
In relation to the OP what is offered is that the difference is significant enough to present an article to "Nature".

Other massive black holes have also been found in quasars and as the nature article says:

www.nature.com...

The existence of such black holes when the Universe was less than one billion years old presents substantial challenges to theories of the formation and growth of black holes and the coevolution of black holes and galaxies

So there are challenges, though it doesn't completely violate the Eddington growth limit for a black hole, though it's so close that's what bothers us:

We estimate (on the basis of a near-infrared spectrum) that the black hole has a mass of 12 billion solar masses, which is consistent with the 13 billion solar masses derived by assuming an Eddington-limited accretion rate.

So it doesn't completely break our theories, since 12 billion is less than 13 billion. However the reason this is a problem can be demonstrated with a somewhat inaccurate analogy. It's like saying you can drive from New York to Los Angeles in 12/13 of the amount of time it would take if you had the accelerator pedal to the floor the entire time and didn't slow down much.

In pure theory you could do it, but in reality, you couldn't maintain the maximum speed of your car for the entire trip. Likewise we don't think it's likely the black hole could stay so close to the Eddington limit of growth for the entire billion years, though it's not strictly impossible.

So there are some other ideas popping up to explain what we are seeing, though still speculative at this point. Here is one of them saying that there may be at least two types of dark matter, and one type interacts with itself which would account for the black hole growth rates we see. That could be completely wrong and we need other ideas to test to see if any of them explain what we see better, but here is the paper for that idea:

Supermassive Black Holes from Ultra-Strongly Self-Interacting Dark Matter

originally posted by: zazzafrazz
a reply to: Kashai

Are you saying that when mass falls on/into a black hole that the state of its existence can still be expressed externally as mass regardless of it's condition on the inside?

Size of a black hole always means its mass

a reply to: Arbitrageur

With all due sincerity Sir your impute is definitely appreciated.

"originally motivated considerations that the dark matter might have non-negligible self-interactions"

It is 1:55 AM on my end and time to sleep.

The above quote is fascinating and I will review you PDF file tomorrow and elaborate further.

Massive "black holes" deconstruct and obliterate matter as we know it. There is no limit on mass. 

What if there is a point where the consumption of matter and gravitational pull toward the black holes at the center of galaxies grows exponentially, until they consume all matter as we know it in the known universe, then the black holes consume each other until there is only one.... Then BANG! it all begins again. 

Maybe you have been here before... Millions of TIMES? 

This

I think that assumption is pretty much spot on........

My biggest, atleast based on the few knowns, problem is that I cant comprehend the universe without a container. Even when the whole thing gets sucked into that immensely large remaining black hole, what is it inside.... What is around it?!!?!

But it also makes me think....

Consider that the universe is billions of years old, so is Earth.
Consider that man has walked the Earth for roughly 100.000 years of those billions and modern man again only 10.000 years of those billions.

When does the next iPad come out? Because I think I need it for the important work that Im doing....

Mass does not equal size.

I learned in my Chemistry Class that Density = Mass / Volume which we can change to Volume = Mass / Density

The size of the Black Hole depends on both its mass and density. The size will increase as the mass increases but its size will decrease as its density increases.

The science article says 12 million times the mass of the Sun and the news article says 12 million times the size of the Sun. Which is wrong.

You need to know its density to know its size.

originally posted by: danielsil18
You need to know its density to know its size.

For a planet, yes.

For a black hole, the mass is enough to give you the size of the event horizon.

The average density inside the event horizon varies according to the math for the event horizon calculation, though within the event horizon we don't know the true size or density of a black hole. Relativity predicts a singularity, meaning infinite density, but this is probably wrong.

Here are some interesting density figures:
Water has a density of 1.0 (g/cc), Earth is about 5.5 (g/cc)
If Earth collapsed into a black hole of the same mass, it would have an event horizon the size of a marble, and have a density within the event horizon of two thousand trillion trillion g/cc. (2000000000000000000000000000 g/cc)
NGC1277 at 17 billion solar masses would have a density over 100,000 times less dense than water within the event horizon. While 17 billion solar masses is a lot of mass, the size of the event horizon is enormous with a diameter of 4 light days:

www.universetoday.com...

a reply to: Arbitrageur



Seed Black Holes

Conclusions
• It seems difficult to achieve sustained radiatively efficient
accretion onto a seed black hole.
• A theory describing the growth and merging of seed black
holes should be developed along with a theory for the
turbulence and gravitational fragmentation in the
protogalactic gas.
• Also needed is a theory of radiatively inefficient accretion
and its feedback on the protogalaxy.
• A further focus should be more trustworthy estimates of
Population III remnant masses, and in particular, of the
role of the angular momentum.
02/23/06

Source

The formation of the first massive objects in the infant Universe remains impossible to observe directly and yet it sets the stage for the subsequent evolution of galaxies1, 2, 3. Although some black holes with masses more than 109 times that of the Sun have been detected in luminous quasars less than one billion years after the Big Bang4, 5, these individual extreme objects have limited utility in constraining the channels of formation of the earliest black holes; this is because the initial conditions of black hole seed properties are quickly erased during the growth process6. Here we report a measurement of the amount of black hole growth in galaxies at redshift z = 6–8 (0.95–0.7 billion years after the Big Bang), based on optimally stacked, archival X-ray observations. Our results imply that black holes grow in tandem with their host galaxies throughout cosmic history, starting from the earliest times. We find that most copiously accreting black holes at these epochs are buried in significant amounts of gas and dust that absorb most radiation except for the highest-energy X-rays. This suggests that black holes grew significantly more during these early bursts than was previously thought, but because of the obscuration of their ultraviolet emission they did not contribute to the re-ionization of the Universe.

Source

Your PDF File pointed me in this direction.

Any thoughts?

How about a Music break.....

originally posted by: ausername

originally posted by: Asynchrony
12 billion times the size of the sun? How do they know that the universe wasn't big banged into existence and instead fell out of that black hole like a wet seal on a waterslide?

Mass not size. Though neither are easily quantifiable. By their estimation, they are assuming the black hole has a weight, or mass equal to 12 billion suns.

Okay, so either way, it's still a gaping hole in space (and space is, by the way, essentially already a gaping hole), so vast and huge that you could never fill it. So, whose to say this isn't the birthing canal of the universe?

a reply to: Asynchrony

In Chaos Theory, Random events perceived at our scale can be understood as Non-Random.

Ugh, off topic there hombre
a reply to: Kashai

a reply to: Nochzwei

This is not NASA Forum and you need get over yourself

Any thoughts?

And if you do not like that part, perhaps you should post at another Forum.

God forbid anyone should think you are a pompous...

Any thoughts?

a reply to: hutch622

I have often wondered the exact same thing although after a while it does my head in .

Big Bang, singularities, event horizon all do my head in. What new universes do I create everytime I fart.

TheConstruKctionofLight just created another trillion mini-earths all inhabited with little people who sit all day long in their short lifespans contemplating if TheConstruKctionofLight has a navel.

My head still hurts.

It's not likely that black holes eject mass out of an opposite side, like the white hole idea. They would lose mass and no longer be black holes.
The current idea is that during early star formation periods inside dust clouds, stars gravitated together and eventually formed supermassive holes that other stars began to orbit around forming galaxies. Dark matter also seemed to help with galaxy formation also.
So early galaxies still had stars falling into the hole and are seen as quasars because of the extreme energy output. Modern galaxies like our own have fallen into a quiet period where the remaining stars are locked into a stable orbit around the giant BH.

BH do radiate some energy away which causes them to eventually evaporate.