First black holes may have incubated in giant, starlike cocoons
November 24, 2009
This is an artist's illustration of the view into a black hole. Credit: April Hobart, NASA, Chandra X-Ray Observatory
(PhysOrg.com) -- The first large black holes in the universe likely formed and grew deep inside gigantic, starlike cocoons that smothered their powerful x-ray radiation and prevented surrounding gases from being blown away, says a new study led by the University of Colorado at Boulder.
The formation process involved two stages, said Mitchell Begelman, a professor and the chair of CU-Boulder's astrophysical and planetary sciences department. The predecessors to black hole formation, objects called supermassive stars, probably started forming within the first few hundred million years after the Big Bang some 14 billion years ago. A supermassive star eventually would have grown to a huge size -- as much as tens of millions of times the mass of our sun -- and would have been short-lived, with its core collapsing in just in few million years, he said.
In the new study to be published in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society in London, Begelman calculated how supermassive stars might have formed, as well as the masses of their cores. These calculations allowed him to estimate their subsequent size and evolution, including how they ultimately left behind "seed" black holes.
Begelman said the hydrogen-burning supermassive stars would had to have been stabilized by their own rotation or some other form of energy like magnetic fields or turbulence in order to facilitate the speedy growth of black holes at their centers. "What's new here is we think we have found a new mechanism to form these giant supermassive stars, which gives us a new way of understanding how big black holes may have formed relatively fast," said Begelman.
The main requirement for the formation of supermassive stars is the accumulation of matter at a rate of about one solar mass per year, said Begelman. Because of the tremendous amount of matter consumed by supermassive stars, subsequent seed black holes that formed in their centers may have started out much bigger than ordinary black holes -- which are the mass of only a few Earth suns -- and subsequently grew much faster.
After the seed black holes formed, the process entered its second stage, which Begelman has dubbed the "quasistar" stage. In this phase, black holes grew rapidly by swallowing matter from the bloated envelope of gas surrounding them, which eventually inflated to a size as large as Earth's solar system and cooled at the same time, he said.
Once quasistars cooled past a certain point, radiation began escaping at such a high rate that it caused the gas envelope to disperse and left behind black holes up to 10,000 times or more the mass of Earth's sun, Begelman said. With such a big head start over ordinary black holes, they could have grown into supermassive black holes millions or billions of times the mass of the sun either by gobbling up gas from surrounding galaxies or merging with other black holes in extremely violent galactic collisions.
The quasistar phase was analyzed in a 2008 paper published by Begelman in collaboration with CU Professor Phil Armitage and Research Associate Elena Rossi.
"Until recently, the thinking by many has been that supermassive black holes got their start from the merging of numerous, small black holes in the universe," he said. "This new model of black hole development indicates a possible alternate route to their formation."
Black holes are extremely dense celestial objects believed to be formed by the collapse of stars and which have such a strong gravitational field that nothing, not even light, can escape. While black holes are not directly detectable by astronomers, the movement of stellar matter swirling around them and powerful jets of gas blasting outward provides evidence for their existence. Ordinary black holes are thought to be remnants of stars slightly larger than our sun that used up their fuel and died, he said.
The supermassive black holes created early in the history of the universe may have gone on to produce the phenomenon of quasars -- the very bright, energetic centers of distant galaxies that can be a trillion times brighter than our sun. There also is evidence that a supermassive black hole inhabits the center of every massive galaxy today, including our own Milky Way, said Begelman.
"Big black holes formed via these supermassive stars could have had a huge impact on the evolution of the universe, including galaxy formation," he said. Begelman is collaborating with University of Michigan astrophysicist Marta Volonteri, comparing the possible formation of supermassive black holes from supermassive stars and quasistars versus their creation by the merging of ordinary black holes left behind by the collapse of the universe's earliest stars.
Scientists may be able to use NASA's James Webb Space Telescope, slated for launch in 2013, to look back in time and hunt for the cocoon-like supermassive stars near the edges of the early universe, which would shine brightly in the near infrared portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, said Begelman.
16 hours ago
I love how these fantasies are expounded upon with such vigor as if we categorically knew they were real. We should stop pretending that theroetical physics is science. Black hole theory is largely based on big bang theory (something else we assume) which is entirely based on the preconception (long disproven) of what red shift "must" mean.
We can tell where black holes are because A LOT OF MASS is circulating some of them, they're constantly consuming matter. As matter is condense enough and torn apart it releases energy from heating up. We can see these clumps of mass being consumed, and detect the expected* energies emitting from those bodies.
Also, since black holes are not invisible, they just don't reflect light, it is possible to see the effects of lensing around such an object.
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, leaves duck prints is it a mongoose? no, it's probably a duck.
http://news.softp...59.shtml
http://davidpratt...bang.htm
http://www.sjcrot...ces.com/
http://www.holosc...tyybhrr8
"The idea of a body so massive that even light could not escape was put forward by geologist John Michell in a letter written to Henry Cavendish in 1783 to the Royal Society. In 1796, mathematician Pierre-Simon Laplace promoted the same idea...
The linked text erroneously states that Martin Tajmar is a scientist "from the European Space Agancy". Have a look instead at http://en.wikiped...n_Tajmar : "In June 2008, Tajmar retracted his first explanation of the phenomenon and instead suggested that this is due to a new property of rotating low-temperature helium." No mentioning of a "BigBang Theory".
Now the links are much better than just repeating yourself. However you need links that aren't worthless.
Link one
http://en.wikiped...n_Tajmar
Which linked to this:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.2271
Link two.
Exploring Theosophy
Did you know that Theosophists are so silly that they think that stage magicians can do REAL magic? This stuff was obvious crap in the 1800s.
I had a room mate that was into this crap. Crap it is. Anything that assumes that at least some stage magic is real is not something to place faith in.
Especially when one of the magicians was Houdini.
Continued
Ethelred
The proposals of Stephen J. Crothers are quite interesting. Unfortunately wrapped in just too much name-calling. This guy should find a solution for his emotional problems before tackling solutions for GR.
Double rats. Flood control got me.
Link threeYes this is a sound mind there. I suspect that there is foam on his keyboard and spittle stains on his papers. Such rage,at people he does not even know, is not the product of a sound mind.
I looked at some more after that. I am not a physicist and I suspect that you are not either but his behavior toward people that were CLEARLY trying to help him was not the action of a sound mind.
Continued
Ethelred
Now that is utter crap. I have looked at the site many times and it is STILL crap. The Electric Universe stuff is invariably full of it. They link to each other's nonsense in a totally incestuous way rarely seen outside of a Dead Teenager movie or Early Egyptian dynasties. Quoting untested nonsense to support untested nonsense it not science.
Link three is the only one that has a chance to support you. However he shows obvious signs of mental instability. Maybe he is right but he isn't going to prove it by spewing vitriol.
Ethelred
Another page devoted to the "Electric Universe" model. One of several alternative cosmological models. Executing my right to choose I don't favour it.
As for nobody ever having directly observed a black hole, well, nobody's ever seen the wind either, but only a fool would look out his window to see the leaves swirling and conclude there must be poltergeists at work.
I'd say the matter of the existence of black holes is pretty much settled these days.
See the discussion group that Kirt Griffin recently formed and now moderates, "Neutron Repulsion: An Alternative Energy," neutron_repulsion@yahoogroups.com
To subscribe, http://tinyurl.com/y8gr422
Or e-mail:
neutron_repulsion-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Pauli Exclusion Principle
http://en.wikiped...rinciple
Pauli Exclusion Principle
http://en.wikiped...rinciple
Electron Degeneracy Pressure
http://en.wikiped...pressure
Degenerate Matter
http://en.wikiped...e_matter
Associated limits
http://en.wikiped...ff_limit
http://en.wikiped...d_radius
(edit: physorg, you're edit button screws up messages.)