SMBH correlation to the galaxy where it exists

[David Levy]

It is stated:

 

http://www.cosmotography.com/images/supermassive_blackholes_drive_galaxy_evolution_2.html

 

"The size of a supermassive black hole appears to have a direct correlation to the galaxy where it exists. Almost a decade ago, researchers calculated that the mass of a supermassive black hole appeared to have a constant relation to the mass of the central part of its galaxy, known as its bulge (think of the yolk in a fried egg). This 1 to 700 relationship supports the notion that the evolution and structure of a galaxy is closely tied to the scale of its black hole".

 

Hence, the SMBH and its galaxy is similar to one body.

However, the rest of the word believes that the SMBH eats stars and mass from its galaxy.

This activity would increase the SMBH mass but simultaneously decrease the galaxy mass.

 

Therefore;

How could it be that the SMBH eats its galaxy mass, while the size of a suppermassive black hole appears to have a direct correlation to the galaxy where it exists?

Edited April 14, 2017 by David Levy

[swansont]

Mass doesn't just disappear. A galacy-center SMBH that "eats" some mass doesn't change the mass of the galaxy. It just changes the location of the mass.

[David Levy]

Mass doesn't just disappear. A galacy-center SMBH that "eats" some mass doesn't change the mass of the galaxy. It just changes the location of the mass.

 

It is stated that relationship is as follow:

"This 1 to 700 relationship supports the notion that the evolution and structure of a galaxy is closely tied to the scale of its black hole".

 

Hence, after one billion, 10 Billion or even 1000 Billion years even "some mass" would become 'significant mass".

That could change the requested relationship.

So, how could it be that a constant eating of "some mass" by the SMBH, won't set a severe effect in the relationship at very long run?

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Nah - we are not doing this here.

 

Moved to speculations where David Levy will either back up his assertions with actual facts rather than guesswork, arguments from ignorance, and false dichotomies or the thread will be locked.

 

Please read the rules and guidelines of the Speculations forum

 

[swansont]

 

So, how could it be that a constant eating of "some mass" by the SMBH, won't set a severe effect in the relationship at very long run?

 

 

Establish that SMBH's "eat mass" at a (roughly) constant rate.

[Strange]

 

It is stated that relationship is as follow:

"This 1 to 700 relationship supports the notion that the evolution and structure of a galaxy is closely tied to the scale of its black hole".

 

Hence, after one billion, 10 Billion or even 1000 Billion years even "some mass" would become 'significant mass".

That could change the requested relationship.

So, how could it be that a constant eating of "some mass" by the SMBH, won't set a severe effect in the relationship at very long run?

The amount of mass that falls into a black hole is minute, as a fraction of the mass of the galaxy.

 

How about some numbers instead of guesses?

[Argent]

However, the rest of the word believes that the SMBH eats stars and mass from its galaxy.

What sort of record does the "rest of the world" have in matters of this type?

[swansont]

Hence, the SMBH and its galaxy is similar to one body.

However, the rest of the word believes that the SMBH eats stars and mass from its galaxy.

 

The two statements are not actually in contradiction with each other. A black hole can absorb nearby mass and have its size be in proportion to that of the surrounding halo.

[Airbrush]

The real question is how do SBH become so massive so EARLY in the history of the universe? Not from just eating nearby stars. That is not how they grow to millions or billions of solar masses. They must get most of their mass before giant stars have time to form, explode, and form stellar sized black holes.

 

There must be some kind of direct collapse of giant gas clouds. That means from clouds that REMAIN giant and massive until the critical moment of direct collapse. A documentary I saw on "How the Universe Works" suggests that dark matter may create energy inside the giant, massive cloud that keeps the cloud from collapsing until the critical moment.

 

​"...Observations reveal that quasars were much more frequent when the Universe was younger, indicating that supermassive black holes formed and grew early."

 

"...primordial black holes may have been produced directly from external pressure in the first moments after the Big Bang."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermassive_black_hole#Formation

Edited April 14, 2017 by Airbrush

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Airbrush - please do not hijack threads (even if your question is actually more interesting than the OP).

 

This thread is about the correlation between Galaxy and BH size - not BH formation.

Thanks

 

[MigL]

I don't understand the conundrum...

The galactic centre ( yolk ? ) has a certain mass distribution.

A certain percentage of the mass is within the sphere of influence of the central BH while it is active, and gets ingested.

Mass outside the sphere of influence ( due to gravitational constraints ) does not, so eventually the BH goes dormant as it has very little mass to left to ingest.

Stable orbits, being what they are, means things don't change much for bills of yrs.

 

Which means most mature galaxies, with dormant BH cores, have the same distribution of mass between BH and surrounding center ( yolk ? )

 

Makes sense to me. Or are you going somewhere completely off-base with this ?

[swansont]

I don't understand the conundrum...

The galactic centre ( yolk ? ) has a certain mass distribution.

A certain percentage of the mass is within the sphere of influence of the central BH while it is active, and gets ingested.

Mass outside the sphere of influence ( due to gravitational constraints ) does not, so eventually the BH goes dormant as it has very little mass to left to ingest.

Stable orbits, being what they are, means things don't change much for bills of yrs.

 

Which means most mature galaxies, with dormant BH cores, have the same distribution of mass between BH and surrounding center ( yolk ? )

 

Makes sense to me. Or are you going somewhere completely off-base with this ?

Makes sense to me, too, hence my comments.

 

Going off-base is the prohibitive favorite in the betting.

[David Levy]

I don't understand the conundrum...

The galactic centre ( yolk ? ) has a certain mass distribution.

A certain percentage of the mass is within the sphere of influence of the central BH while it is active, and gets ingested.

Mass outside the sphere of influence ( due to gravitational constraints ) does not, so eventually the BH goes dormant as it has very little mass to left to ingest.

Stable orbits, being what they are, means things don't change much for bills of yrs.

 

Which means most mature galaxies, with dormant BH cores, have the same distribution of mass between BH and surrounding center ( yolk ? )

 

Makes sense to me. Or are you going somewhere completely off-base with this ?

 

 

What do you mean by dormant BH cores?

Do we have any evidence for a dormant BH core in spiral galaxy? (Please focus only on spiral galaxy).

Do you see any dormant BH core in the following galaxies?

M33, Triangulum Galaxy

M31, Andromeda

Milky Way

There is so big difference in their size but somehow there is a fix correlation between the Galaxies and their BH size.

How could it be?

If the BH will continue to eat some mass from those spiral galaxies, while they won't get new mass – than at some point there must be a significant change in that correlation.

How could it be that there are billions of spiral galaxies with a fix BH/Bulge Galaxy correlation, while none of them has a dormant BH???

If the BH increase its mass (even by "some mass"), the galaxy must also increase its mass in order to keep on with this magic correlation.

The correlation is one to 700 between the BH and the bulge:

"This 1 to 700 relationship supports the notion that the evolution and structure of a galaxy is closely tied to the scale of its black hole".

Therefore, if the BH eats one kilogram, than the galaxy bulge must increase its size by 701 kilograms in order to keep on with that correlation.

So how they do it?

How does the bulge increase its mass by 701 Kilo for every kilo which the BH eats from his mass?

It can't be based on a random process.

There must be a simple system which could keep that kind of correlation forever and ever.

Edited April 15, 2017 by David Levy

[Strange]

The black hole in our galaxy is dormant. You have a thread on its almost nonexistent accretion disk. Most black holes appear to be dormant (i.e. not growing)

[Argent]

 

 

What do you mean by dormant BH cores?

A quick review of some of the literature reveals that the ratio you speak of has two characteristics:

1. There is considerable scatter in the data defining the ratio.

2. The ratio is specifically applicable only to dormant black holes. The ratio does not apply to active black holes.

 

For example, this paper. If you have contrary information please post the link(s) now. Otherwise this thread would appear to have reached its sell by date.

[swansont]

 

 

What do you mean by dormant BH cores?

Do we have any evidence for a dormant BH core in spiral galaxy? (Please focus only on spiral galaxy).

Do you see any dormant BH core in the following galaxies?

M33, Triangulum Galaxy

M31, Andromeda

Milky Way

There is so big difference in their size but somehow there is a fix correlation between the Galaxies and their BH size.

How could it be?

If the BH will continue to eat some mass from those spiral galaxies, while they won't get new mass – than at some point there must be a significant change in that correlation.

How could it be that there are billions of spiral galaxies with a fix BH/Bulge Galaxy correlation, while none of them has a dormant BH???

If the BH increase its mass (even by "some mass"), the galaxy must also increase its mass in order to keep on with this magic correlation.

The correlation is one to 700 between the BH and the bulge:

"This 1 to 700 relationship supports the notion that the evolution and structure of a galaxy is closely tied to the scale of its black hole".

Therefore, if the BH eats one kilogram, than the galaxy bulge must increase its size by 701 kilograms in order to keep on with that correlation.

So how they do it?

How does the bulge increase its mass by 701 Kilo for every kilo which the BH eats from his mass?

It can't be based on a random process.

There must be a simple system which could keep that kind of correlation forever and ever.

 

 

!

Moderator Note

 

You were instructed by another moderator to back up your assertions. And, as you have done before, you have ignored questions asked of you and jumped directly into asking more questions and making more assertions.

 

You've had many chances to correct your behavior. I've had my fill of your tactic of asking questions with an agenda in mind, making baseless claims without developing any understanding of the science and ignoring what is asked of you. This stops now.

 

You are forbidden from opening new threads on this subject.