What came first in spiral galaxy?

[David Levy]

Black hole or stars?

[MigL]

It is speculated that the post Big Bang universe, with its energy density, could have formed microscopic Black Holes, which due to their size and resultant temperature, would have evaporated already.

But no tell-tale gamma ray bursts have been detected ( so far ).

Or there may not have been any !

 

In which case, the only mechanism we know of producing Black Holes is collapsing stars.

But since a spiral galaxy is an 'evolved' galaxy, it is possible for Black Holes to have formed before the galaxy became a spiral.

As a matter of fact, all the extremely far, elliptic/irregular Quasars are forming galaxies where the central BH is still active.

[Strange]

What came first in spiral galaxy?

 

I don't think anyone knows.

[David Levy]

 

I don't think anyone knows.

 

How could it be?

Don't you think that it is a mandatory requirement for our understanding of the spiral galaxy mechanism?

Is there any verification which the science is doing in order to revile the mystery?

But since a spiral galaxy is an 'evolved' galaxy, it is possible for Black Holes to have formed before the galaxy became a spiral.

As a matter of fact, all the extremely far, elliptic/irregular Quasars are forming galaxies where the central BH is still active.

 

Thanks

If a black hole had been formed before the galaxy became a spiral, how could it affect our understanding of the evolvement of spiral galaxy?

Edited December 14, 2015 by David Levy

[Strange]

How could it be?

Don't you think that it is a mandatory requirement for our understanding of the spiral galaxy mechanism?

Is there any verification which the science is doing in order to revile the mystery?

 

I don't know the current state of the science related to this. I have heard suggestions that black holes might have "seeded" the formation of the galaxy (and then grown) or it might have been created after the galaxy formed.

 

So what is unknown is how black holes can grow to be so massive. But it doesn't seem to be very relevant to the formation of galaxies.

Edited December 14, 2015 by Strange

[swansont]

 

How could it be?

Don't you think that it is a mandatory requirement for our understanding of the spiral galaxy mechanism?

 

Being a black hole does not affect the gravitational pull of an object of the same mass, so it's rather easy to see, IMO, ways in which this would not matter at all.

[David Levy]

 

I don't know the current state of the science related to this. I have heard suggestions that black holes might have "seeded" the formation of the galaxy (and then grown) ...

Yes,

 

Please look at the following video.

 

http://www.sciencechannel.com/tv-shows/how-the-universe-works/videos/did-a-black-hole-create-the-milky-way

 

However, It is quite short video.

 

In the full T.V. program, they have offered an evidence that black hole should be a seed of any spiral galaxy including the Milky way galaxy. Lawrence M krauss have stated in this program, that it is a key element for our understanding of spiral galaxy. He also adds that we need to figure out how the Sun had been migrated to its current location.

Therefore, we can't ignore this key question. The science must take a decision. What came first in spiral galaxy? Stars or Black hole?

If it is black hole - then we must reset our current theory about how spiral galaxy had been formed.

Edited December 18, 2015 by David Levy

[Mordred]

Supermassive blackholes are normally found at the center of spiral galaxies and probably do assist in the spiral arm formation by assisting in inducing rotation of the galaxies density wave. However not all galaxies have supermassive blackholes. These tend to not be spiral galaxies.

[Sensei]

When we will look through Hubble at the furthest visible galaxies, we will see they are often "puffy spherical clouds".

 

When two or more such objects will collide at the right angle, they are starting spinning around the common center of mass.

 

Enter "formation of spiral galaxy" in YouTube, and there will be plentiful of computer simulations showing this process.

 

[Strange]

Therefore, we can't ignore this key question.

 

I'm sure it is not being ignored. Quite the reverse.

 

The science must take a decision.

 

I'm sure it will when there is sufficient evidence.

 

If it is black hole - then we must reset our current theory about how spiral galaxy had been formed.

 

Your comments about the video suggest that it is already part of (some) current theories about the formation of galaxies. So what needs to be "reset"?

[Mordred]

Here is a simple experiment. Fill a tub with water, add some semi buoyant particles. Then take a blender to the center of the water and allow the impeller to spin for a while. Eventually you will get spiral waves as the water and particulates swirl

The impeller represents the mass of the bulge including the BH.

The BH contribution isnt due to the spin of the BH, but rather nearby stars and dust orbitting the BH inducing drag radially outward.

Edited December 18, 2015 by Mordred

[David Levy]

In the following video:

http://www.sciencechannel.com/tv-shows/how-the-universe-works/videos/how-the-universe-works-milky-way

it is stated: "...Some people believe that black hole in the center helps to initiate star formation".

My question is as follow:

 

Is there any possibility to initiate star formation without black hole?

Edited December 18, 2015 by David Levy

[Strange]

According to this paper, active black holes can stop star formation: http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.1608

 

So the picture is certainly not simple and a lot more research is needed (and being done).

 

However, you won't get a good understanding by watching videos.

 

You might find more useful info here: http://search.arxiv.org:8081/?query=black+hole+%22star+formation%22&in=

[David Levy]

According to this paper, active black holes can stop star formation: http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.1608

Thanks

 

Let's start with the first sentence:

 

"Virtually all massive galaxies, including our own, host central black holes ranging in mass from millions to billions of solar masses."

 

Why it is stated: "all massive galaxies"?

Why not: "all disc shape spiral galaxies"?

 

Later on it is stated:

 

"Galaxies come in two basic types: ‗football-shaped‘ ellipticals and ‗disk-shaped‘ spirals (Fig. 1)."

 

How could it be that they don't see the main difference between those galaxies?

 

If I understand it correctly:

 

All disc shape Spiral galaxies host central black holes. All of them!

However, there is no valid proof for black holes in all other types of galaxies.

 

So, why they don't say it clearly?

 

Please see the following explanation about spiral galaxy:

 

"Each bulge contains a central black hole, whose mass is proportional to the bulge stellar mass 1–5 , MBH ≈ 0.001M bulge."

 

This is the most important information about spiral galaxy.

 

There is a very specific proportional between the bulge stellar and the black hole in all types and size of disc shape spiral glaxies.

 

What can we learn from this fix proportional?

How could it be that in all types of disc shape spiral galaxies we have the same proportional?

 

Don't you see that it could be a key element for our understanding of spiral galaxies?

Edited December 19, 2015 by David Levy

[Strange]

Thanks

 

Let's start with the first sentence:

 

"Virtually all massive galaxies, including our own, host central black holes ranging in mass from millions to billions of solar masses."

 

Why it is stated: "all massive galaxies"?

 

That isn't what it says. It says, virtually all galaxies. I assume they say that because we can't make a definitive statement about all galaxies without looking at every single one. I'm not sure if there are any galaxies that have definitely shown not to have a supermassive black hole at the centre.

 

But apparently there is some doubt about M85: http://www.universetoday.com/89952/is-m85-missing-a-black-hole/

 

 

Why not: "all disc shape spiral galaxies"?

 

Because it is all galaxies (as far as we know).

 

 

All disc shape Spiral galaxies host central black holes. All of them!

However, there is no valid proof for black holes in all other types of galaxies.

 

So, why they don't say it clearly?

 

Perhaps because you are wrong.

 

Elliptical galaxies are generally thought to be formed by the merger of spiral galaxies.

 

"A supermassive black hole is thought to lie at the center of these ancient galaxies."

http://www.space.com/22395-elliptical-galaxies.html

 

This is the most important information about spiral galaxy.

 

Well, I don't know if it us the most important. But it is certainly important.

 

 

Don't you see that it could be a key element for our understanding of spiral galaxies?

 

Yes. I think everyone knows that. That is why it is an area of intense research.

[David Levy]

 

Yes. I think everyone knows that. That is why it is an area of intense research.

 

Thanks

 

However, we don't have to make too much intensive research.

 

The answer might be in front of our eyes.

 

So what can we learn from the following statement about spiral galaxy?

 

"Each bulge contains a central black hole, whose mass is proportional to the bulge stellar mass 1–5 , MBH ≈ 0.001M bulge."

 

Let's add to that factor that the supper massive black hole had been created before the stars as was introduced by the T.V program.

 

---(We shouldn't underestimate a scientist as Lawrence M krauss, even if his message had been given in a science T.V. program).

 

So, based on that information do you agree with the following conclusions?

 

- There is a clear order in spiral galaxy.

 

- The first step for spiral galaxy is to create a black hole.

 

- This black hole should be massive enough and rotatable to have the power (including electrical/magnetic energy) to create all the stars and the unique formation of spiral galaxy.

 

- We have to figure out how the Sun had been migrated to its current location - as Lawrence M krauss had been stated in the T.V program. (I highly advice you to watch this special program).

Edited December 21, 2015 by David Levy

[Strange]

 

Let's add to that factor that the supper massive black hole had been created before the stars as was introduced by the T.V program.

 

That is not a "fact"; it is a hypothesis.

 

 

---(We shouldn't underestimate a scientist as Lawrence M krauss, even if his message had been given in a science T.V. program).

 

That is an appeal to authority. And I'm afraid I have watched enough TV documentaries to know that they are irrelevant to scientific discussion.

 

 

So, based on that information do you agree with the following conclusions?

 

No.

[Airbrush]

Black hole or stars?

 

Which came first the supermassive black hole or the stars?

 

The supermassive black hole had to come first through some kind of direct collapse where the matter is so massive that it is way too big to become a star. Matter is flowing in too rapidly for nuclear fussion to push back. So it collapses into a supermassive black hole in an instant. This must have happened not long after the big bang with the help of dark matter. How else can you get millions of solar masses so close together? This is what I recall from a TV science program, such as the Science Channel's "How the Universe Works" or History Channel's "The Universe".

 

It doesn't matter what kind of galaxy, spiral or eliptical.

 

http://www.universetoday.com/11734/never-a-star-did-supermassive-black-holes-form-directly/

Edited December 21, 2015 by Airbrush

[MigL]

What you just described is impossible airbrush.

A star cannot become massive enough to immediately form a black hole. Nuclear fusion would start way before that point, and 'blow away' all gases/dust needed to make up the additional mass.

All large scale black holes are the result of gravitational collapse of stars or 'merging' of neutron stars/black holes.

I,E. stars come before Black Holes.

Whether Black Holes come before spiral arm formation ( or not ) is open for discussion.

[imatfaal]

What you just described is impossible airbrush.

A star cannot become massive enough to immediately form a black hole. Nuclear fusion would start way before that point, and 'blow away' all gases/dust needed to make up the additional mass.

All large scale black holes are the result of gravitational collapse of stars or 'merging' of neutron stars/black holes.

I,E. stars come before Black Holes.

Whether Black Holes come before spiral arm formation ( or not ) is open for discussion.

 

 

Agree entirely - but just to nit pick for a toy universe model. If you collided many sub fusion masses - that would be not only massive enough together to initiate fusion through heat / pressure via self gravity (and per your above blow away the other stuff) but also massive enough to form a black hole - THEN the event horizon would propagate outwards at speed of light whereas the explosive nuclear detonation would propagate at speed of sound.

 

It would never happen in nature as the growth is incremental rather than sudden - it would look like the initiation sequence of the fat-man atomic weapon played out on cosmological scales

[MigL]

Consider that nit picked.

( or you could aggregate non-fusible material for another nit )

[Airbrush]

What you just described is impossible airbrush.

A star cannot become massive enough to immediately form a black hole. Nuclear fusion would start way before that point, and 'blow away' all gases/dust needed to make up the additional mass.

All large scale black holes are the result of gravitational collapse of stars or 'merging' of neutron stars/black holes.

I,E. stars come before Black Holes.

Whether Black Holes come before spiral arm formation ( or not ) is open for discussion.

 

So you both disagree with a direct collapse as the 2007 article from Universe Today described?

 

"...Unlike stellar mass black holes, the supermassive versions might have formed differently, going from a cloud of gas directly to a black hole – skipping the star stage entirely."

 

http://www.universetoday.com/11734/never-a-star-did-supermassive-black-holes-form-directly/

 

 

Edited December 22, 2015 by Airbrush

[Mordred]

The peer review paper supplied by that link is rather lacking in detail. It's a theory without direct evidence. I would be hesitant on the idea at this point.

[David Levy]

Please see the following statement:

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090202175320.htm

 

"Astronomers love tight correlations," Bender says. "They tell us what is connected with what. The new observations give us much stronger evidence that black holes control galaxy formation, at least at their centers."

So, if the black holes control galaxy formation, does it mean that B.H should come first? (or at least, there must be some order in the development of galaxies).

 

Actually, in the title It is stated:

"A pair of astronomers from Texas and Germany have used a telescope at The University of Texas at Austin's McDonald Observatory together with Hubble Space Telescope and many other telescopes around the world to uncover new evidence that the largest, most massive galaxies in the universe and the supermassive black holes at their hearts grew together over time."

 

So, the galaxies and supper massive black hole grew together over time.

 

This is a key message.

 

It is almost as a living body. – Grew together over time!

 

So, if we take for example the ratio between our hart to our weight, we should get a perfect proportional in average. Therefore, as all parts in a living body grew together over time, then also "most massive galaxies in the universe and the supermassive black holes at their hearts grew together over time."

 

It is like a child galaxy which is growing day by day to become a mature galaxy…

 

Do you agree?

Edited December 26, 2015 by David Levy

[Airbrush]

What you just described is impossible airbrush.

A star cannot become massive enough to immediately form a black hole. Nuclear fusion would start way before that point, and 'blow away' all gases/dust needed to make up the additional mass.

All large scale black holes are the result of gravitational collapse of stars or 'merging' of neutron stars/black holes.

I,E. stars come before Black Holes.

Whether Black Holes come before spiral arm formation ( or not ) is open for discussion.

 

We are speculating about conditions very soon after the big bang, like maybe only a few days after the bang, when matter is still so dense that huge quantities of hydrogen start to clump implode from extreme runaway gravity. The inflowing matter is so massive that nuclear fusion is not enough energy to withstand the torrent. Fusion is too little too late.

 

When the first generation of massive stars formed, it would take these blue giants to hypernova in millions of years. By that time matter is too spread out to come together as millions or even Billions of solar masses. Then when these first stellar black holes are formed, which are only dozens or maybe up to one hundred solar masses, every supernova pushes matter away so nearby matter cannot accumulate in giant stars. Every hypernova pushes matter away, spreading it out.

 

Simple merging of smaller stellar black holes does not add up to millions or Billions of solar masses.

 

Certainly large, centrally-located black holes will merge, and when galaxies merge their central large-mass black holes will also merge, but that does not add up to a million solar masses.

 

Galaxies do not continue to grow because they are limited to the amount of matter in their vicinity. A galaxy's mass is limited to local matter. There is not matter flowing into galaxies from the great voids between galaxies.

Edited December 28, 2015 by Airbrush