The search for seeds of black holes

Mar 27, 2014 by Whitney Clavin
The galaxy NGC 4395 is shown here in infrared light, captured by NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

(Phys.org) —How do you grow a supermassive black hole that is a million to a billion times the mass of our sun? Astronomers do not know the answer, but a new study using data from NASA's Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer, or WISE, has turned up what might be the cosmic seeds from which a black hole will sprout. The results are helping scientists piece together the evolution of supermassive black holes—powerful objects that dominate the hearts of all galaxies.

Growing a black hole is not as easy as planting a seed in soil and adding water. The massive objects are dense collections of matter that are literally bottomless pits; anything that falls in will never come out. They come in a range of sizes. The smallest, only a few times greater in mass than our sun, form from exploding stars. The biggest of these dark beasts, billions of times the mass of our sun, grow together with their host galaxies over time, deep in the interiors. But how this process works is an ongoing mystery.

Researchers using WISE addressed this question by looking for in smaller, "dwarf" galaxies. These galaxies have not undergone much change, so they are more pristine than their heavier counterparts. In some ways, they resemble the types of galaxies that might have existed when the universe was young, and thus they offer a glimpse into the nurseries of supermassive black holes.

In this new study, using data of the entire sky taken by WISE in infrared light, up to hundreds of have been discovered in which buried black holes may be lurking. Infrared light, the kind that WISE collects, can see through dust, unlike visible light, so it's better able to find the dusty, hidden black holes. The researchers found that the dwarf galaxies' black holes may be about 1,000 to 10,000 times the mass of our sun—larger than expected for these .

"Our findings suggest the original seeds of supermassive black holes are quite massive themselves," said Shobita Satyapal of George Mason University, Fairfax, Va. Satyapal is lead author of a paper published in the March issue of Astrophysical Journal.

Daniel Stern, an astronomer specializing in black holes at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., who was not a part of the new study, says the research demonstrates the power of an all-sky survey like WISE to find the rarest black holes. "Though it will take more research to confirm whether the dwarf galaxies are indeed dominated by actively feeding black holes, this is exactly what WISE was designed to do: find interesting objects that stand out from the pack."

The new observations argue against one popular theory of black hole growth, which holds that the objects bulk up in size through galaxy collisions. When our universe was young, galaxies were more likely to crash into others and merge. It is possible the galaxies' black holes merged too, accumulating more mass. In this scenario, supermassive black holes grow in size through a series of galaxy mergers.

The discovery of dwarf galaxy black holes that are bigger than expected suggests that galaxy mergers are not necessary to create big black holes. Dwarf galaxies don't have a history of galactic smash-ups, and yet their black holes are already relatively big.

Instead, supermassive black holes might form very early in the history of the universe. Or, they might grow harmoniously with their , feeding off surrounding gas.

"We still don't know how the monstrous black holes that reside in galaxy centers formed," said Satyapal. "But finding big black holes in tiny galaxies shows us that big black holes must somehow have been created in the early universe, before galaxies collided with other ."

Other authors of the study include: N.J. Secrest, W. McAlpine and J.L. Rosenberg of George Mason University; S.L. Ellison of the University of Victoria, Canada; and J. Fischer of the Naval Research Laboratory, Washington.

WISE was put into hibernation upon completing its primary mission in 2011. In September 2013, it was reactivated, renamed NEOWISE and assigned a new mission to assist NASA's efforts to identify the population of potentially hazardous near-Earth objects. NEOWISE will also characterize previously known asteroids and comets to better understand their sizes and compositions.

Explore further: Dwarf galaxies give clues to origin of supermassive black holes

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Massive black hole duo: Possible sighting by WISE

Dec 04, 2013

(Phys.org) —Astronomers have spotted what appear to be two supermassive black holes at the heart of a remote galaxy, circling each other like dance partners. The incredibly rare sighting was made with the ...

Image: Hubble peers at the heart of NGC 5793

Mar 24, 2014

(Phys.org) —This new Hubble image is centered on NGC 5793, a spiral galaxy over 150 million light-years away in the constellation of Libra. This galaxy has two particularly striking features: a beautiful ...

Spiral Galaxy NGC 3627

Jul 15, 2013

(Phys.org) —The spiral galaxy NGC 3627 is located about 30 million light years from Earth. This composite image includes X-ray data from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory (blue), infrared data from the Spitzer ...

Recommended for you

'Blockbuster' science images

Nov 21, 2014

At this point, the blockbuster movie Interstellar has created such a stir that one would almost have to be inside a black hole not to know about it. And while the science fiction thriller may have taken some ...

Estimating the magnetic field of an exoplanet

Nov 20, 2014

Scientists developed a new method which allows to estimate the magnetic field of a distant exoplanet, i.e., a planet, which is located outside the Solar system and orbits a different star. Moreover, they ...

It's filamentary: How galaxies evolve in the cosmic web

Nov 20, 2014

How do galaxies like our Milky Way form, and just how do they evolve? Are galaxies affected by their surrounding environment? An international team of researchers, led by astronomers at the University of ...

User comments : 41

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Returners
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 27, 2014
"But finding big black holes in tiny galaxies shows us that big black holes must somehow have been created in the early universe, before galaxies collided with other galaxies."


The simplest explanation is that "God did it", because it makes a relatively stable platform upon which to produce stable solar systems.

Anyway, it perplexes me that scientists find this so perplexing.

Imagine you have a cloud of quite large stars and dust and gas (nebula). A large, central star explodes, leaving behind a black hole. Some time later other stars in random directions explode, also leaving behind black holes and neutron stars. The expanding matter clouds from these supernova explosions converge on the first black hole, feeding matter into it. When the clouds collide, the matter loses much of it's velocity as it is compressed, causing even material which would have shot by the BH to be slowed down. Once it is slowed down to near-zero, the gravity takes over and sucks that in as well...
Returners
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 27, 2014
So mechanical collisions of dust clouds with opposing velocities produces a feeding mechanism which would be measured in stellar masses, by slowing those dust clouds to below escape velocity for their position relative to the Black Hole.

If there is one supernova per year on average over cosmic time (supposedly they were more often in the past) and if a supernova is at least 8 solar masses, then the black hole would only need to capture 4 thousandths of 1 percent of the ejected matter in order to grow to 4 million solar masses.

Obviously, there are conceivable chain reactions which could cause matter to be consumed more quickly than that, such as stars being tossed out of local orbits in a direction retrograde to the galaxy's spin. These stars would be ground to a halt if they moved through nebula, encounter mass, and then would fall into the core of the galaxy (eventually). So an entire star at a time could be eaten in this manner. 11 billion years (allegedly) is a long, long time.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (11) Mar 27, 2014
Wait, what's that there in the IR? It seems to be a unicorn, that which goes hand in hand with the mythical BH's.
http://vixra.org/abs/1103.0045
Returners
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 27, 2014
Wait, what's that there in the IR? It seems to be a unicorn, that which goes hand in hand with the mythical BH's.
http://vixra.org/abs/1103.0045


At first I thought the SaggitariusA star would be large enough to be a "Dark Star" even under Newtonian Dynamics, but I just did the math and it's actually only 3% massive enough to form a Dark Star under Newtonian Dynamics.

Sooo...it's conceivable that the matter might be something other than a Black Hole if it has insane amounts of angular momentum sufficient to prevent gravitational collapse.

An actual single object as big as this would need to be (without becoming a relativistic black hole) would clearly be visible as such in x-ray and other bands.

The Saggitarius A object has never been directly observed, but the resolution on the telescopes is such that individual stars can be tracked on their entire orbit around the object, assuming an actual object is what the stars are "orbiting"...
Returners
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 27, 2014
Anything greater than 125 million solar masses would be a Dark Star anyway, and we might not be able to tell the difference from galactic distances like Andromeda, or other galaxies with suspected black holes in the multi-hundred million mass range or greater...
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (9) Mar 27, 2014
The Saggitarius A object has never been directly observed,

Well, not really...
http://www.holosc...iral.jpg

An explanation.
http://www.holosc...tronomy/
Tuxford
1 / 5 (8) Mar 27, 2014
'...dwarf galaxy black holes that are bigger than expected suggests that galaxy mergers are not necessary to create big black holes.'

Yet, merger mania will continue unabated in the minds of fanciful astronomers.

'Growing a black hole is not as easy as planting a seed in soil and adding water.'

Oh how ironic! It is indeed much like growing a plant. The dwarf galaxies are a consequence of the 'too big' black hole, not the reverse. The black hole grows naturally, fed from unseen etheric nutrients, which spawn new matter, ejected therefrom to grow the galaxy. So simple, really. Just too simple for the intellectual minds of fanciful astronomers.
Jizby
Mar 27, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
vidyunmaya
1 / 5 (5) Mar 27, 2014
Ignorant astronomy blocks its Vision. How can you expect Science to progress ?
Few leesons they can learn through Cosmological Index ? are they open Minded ?
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (6) Mar 27, 2014
At first I thought the SaggitariusA star would be large enough to be a "Dark Star" even under Newtonian Dynamics, but I just did the math and it's actually only 3% massive enough to form a Dark Star under Newtonian Dynamics


You just did the math did you Returner-Skippy? All by your self eh? Now ol Ira is just a gaggle at that Cher. But let me ask you one question me. Did that have the N-bodies floating through it or was just normal every day stupid peoples math?

Podna I wish ol Ira could do the math like you do. You go to the special school to learn that? Maybe you could teach me to do that Neg because I am sure it would help me in my engineer working.
Returners
1 / 5 (4) Mar 27, 2014
Just wait, idiot.

One day it's going to be shown that there really is something drastically wrong with cosmology regarding galaxy formation, and you'll realize just how bad some of these people really are at their jobs.

I still haven't seen a retraction printed regarding the alleged "Sigma" relationship between black holes and galaxies, even though the prediction is off by a factor of 1000.

Thats a FACTOR of 1000, not a margin.
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (4) Mar 27, 2014
@ Returner-Skippy. You hold on to your mule there Skippy. There ain't no need to call me the idiot. And ol Ira don't have the first clue to what you are boohooing about with the Sigma galaxy being lost by 1000 something. That the 1000 miles, or the 1000 light years or what? Does this Sigma galaxy have the 1000 black holes? For someone who is not so much smart you sure do a lot of writing the foolishment, eh?
IMP-9
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 27, 2014
The expanding matter clouds from these supernova explosions converge on the first black hole, feeding matter into it.


Consider the capture cross section of a black hole for supernova ejecta and tell us it will capture a significant portion of that. It won't. This is a titanic region of space. 1 supernova per galaxy per century, across the entire galaxy. You need a mechanism to loose angular momentum to explain why such a huge amount of matter would be captured.

I just did the math and it's actually only 3% massive enough to form a Dark Star under Newtonian Dynamics.


A dark star is any object compressed within it's Schwarzschild radius, there is no minimum mass.

Saggitarius A object has never been directly observed

Wrong. It is detected in radio and submillimeter and x-ray, it can be observed flaring in the infrared.

even though the prediction is off by a factor of 1000.

Source?
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 27, 2014
...there is no minimum mass.
Incorrect. Gravity strength is CUMULATIVE effect.

The QUANTUM and ELECTRO-MAGNETIC etc forces are OVERWHELMINGLY stronger at lesser-cumulative-mass scales DIRECTLY, not 'cumulatively'.

Hence any mass feature without sufficient CUMULATIVE MASS gravity strength CONTAINMENT effect will be instantly overcome by internal forces/stresses at quantum/e-m etc level such that NO MICRO massed scale 'black hole' feature can even form let alone be stable and persist.

That is why the high energy LHC and Cosmic Ray collisions can't, and obviously haven't, produced any 'micro' black holes with any mass less than the minimum cumulative mass which produces the stellar-mass type BH 'features'.

Enjoy your discussions! Cheers. :)
Benni
1 / 5 (3) Mar 27, 2014
...there is no minimum mass.

Incorrect. Gravity strength is CUMULATIVE effect


Hence any mass feature without sufficient CUMULATIVE MASS gravity strength CONTAINMENT effect will be instantly overcome by internal forces/stresses at quantum/e-m etc level such that NO MICRO massed scale 'black hole' feature can even form let alone be stable and persist.


Absolutely correct, the force of gravity is what forms a BH in the first place.

That is why the high energy LHC and Cosmic Ray collisions can't, and obviously haven't, produced any 'micro' black holes with any mass less than the minimum cumulative mass which produces the stellar-mass type BH 'features'.


Absolutely correct again. There is no such thing as micro-BHs floating around in the universe. I've read in discussion groups that the Cern scientists are trying to create primordial BH's at the collider faciilty, they are not & know they can't because gravity cannot be created independent of mass.

IMP-9
4 / 5 (8) Mar 27, 2014
Hence any mass feature without sufficient CUMULATIVE MASS gravity strength CONTAINMENT effect will be instantly overcome by internal forces/stresses


Wrong, there are no outward paths in a Schwarzschild black hole. If it is compressed inside that radius it is staying there.

That is why the high energy LHC and Cosmic Ray collisions can't, and obviously haven't, produced any 'micro' black holes with any mass less than the minimum cumulative mass which produces the stellar-mass type BH


Wrong. Stellar black holes have a minimum mass because they need to collapse gravitational;y. Anything forced insider it's event horizon on the other hand will be a black hole. Cosmic ray strikes could produce them but they would decay.quickly.

they are not & know they can't/q]
Wrong. There is no minimum mass. Read some of the papers on microscopic black holes and see that it is not dismissed like that. You don't need extra gravity to do it, only high density.
Benni
1 / 5 (2) Mar 27, 2014
Anything forced insider it's event horizon on the other hand will be a black hole.


What's does this mean?

they are not & know they can't

Wrong. There is no minimum mass. Read some of the papers on microscopic black holes and see that it is not dismissed like that. You don't need extra gravity to do it, only high density.


So what then creates the " high density" if not gravity? You're suggesting an external pressure field channeled by electro-magnetism focusing high energy particles in a very tiny area? What contains the pressure field to get the "high density" you're talking about?

Benni
1 / 5 (2) Mar 27, 2014
"Scientist John Paul Chou, who serves as co-convener of the exotica physics group at the CMS experiment at the LHC. "But the LHC is the cleanest, most obvious way to create and find them."
When two particles hit dead-on at close to light speed, a small amount of energy greatly concentrates into a tiny space. If extra dimensions exist, the collision could reveal gravity's hidden strength; the energy and density could be high enough to fuse into a microscopic black hole.A micro black hole would be too small and short-lived to have much effect on its surroundings. Scientists' only clue would be a burst of extra particles."

@IMP9- Is the above what you're talking about? Well, good luck with it because even the LHC guy admits the shortcomings of the concept.

Returners
1 / 5 (3) Mar 27, 2014
Source?


I discovered the discrepancy myself based on their data.

So I don't really need a source.

Look it up if you don't know what I'm talking about.

see here:

http://en.wikiped...relation

The mean ratio of black hole mass to bulge mass is now believed to be approximately 1:1000


This figure is correct neither for the Milky Way nor Andromeda.
Returners
1 / 5 (3) Mar 27, 2014
Consider the capture cross section of a black hole for supernova ejecta and tell us it will capture a significant portion of that. It won't. This is a titanic region of space. 1 supernova per galaxy per century, across the entire galaxy. You need a mechanism to loose angular momentum to explain why such a huge amount of matter would be captured.


I described the mechanism for that.

I didn't say anything about the cross-sectional area for the black hole, which is totally irrelevant.

Two clouds moving in opposing directions stop, presumably, if they are moving at similar but opposite speeds.

Duh...

A dark star is any object compressed within it's Schwarzschild radius, there is no minimum mass.


A Dark Star does not have a Schwarzchild Radius, because the Dark Star theory predates Einstein's existence, and is not contingent upon any of Einstein's theories...

Just look i tup. I get sick of constantly having to defend myself on obvious facts...
yyz
5 / 5 (6) Mar 27, 2014
"The mean ratio of black hole mass to bulge mass is now believed to be approximately 1:1000"

and Returners responds:

"This figure is correct neither for the Milky Way nor Andromeda"

And this observation is correct only because the study you quote from examines the *average* m-sigma relation for a variety of galaxy types, from elliptical to spiral to dwarf galaxy, each type possessing different m-sigma relations: http://arxiv.org/...76v3.pdf

This 2012 study identifies three and possibly four different m-sigma relations for galaxies depending on galaxy type, which you repeatedly ignore in your postings: http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.1380

As you have been told on repeated occasions, there exist various m-sigma relations for different types of galaxies, a fact you choose to ignore. Are you trying to be intentionally obtuse?
IMP-9
5 / 5 (5) Mar 28, 2014
This figure is correct neither for the Milky Way nor Andromeda.


How can you quote wikipedia whilst not having read any of it. The M-sigma relation relates the mass of a black hole to the velocity dispersion of the bulge, it is not about the mass ratio of galaxy to black hole. The number quoted is just an average, there is no relationship there. You haven't disprove it, you didn't even know what it is.

I didn't say anything about the cross-sectional area for the black hole, which is totally irrelevant.


The capture cross section tells you how much matter it will capture. Again you display complete ignorance of the topic.

Two clouds moving in opposing directions stop, presumably, if they are moving at similar but opposite speeds.

Why would they have similar speeds? Why would the middle be the black hole of two randomly positioned supernovae?
IMP-9
5 / 5 (5) Mar 28, 2014
A Dark Star does not have a Schwarzchild Radius, because the Dark Star theory predates Einstein's existence, and is not contingent upon any of Einstein's theories.


I'm aware of what a dark star is but it does have a Schwarzchild Radius, it's the same defining radius for a dark star. Newtonian gravity is wrong, dark stars don't exist. They are based on the totally nonsense idea of light being slowed down like a projectile.

What's does this mean?

Any object forced within it's own Schwarzchild Radius will become a black hole. It can never expand again and must continue to collapse.

So what then creates the " high density" if not gravity?

Momentum, pressure anything really. Nothing needs to contain it it just needs to reach sufficient destinies and gravity will win.

Well, good luck with it because even the LHC guy admits the shortcomings of the concept.

Notice how he said it was possible, proving what you claimed wrong.
Benni
1.2 / 5 (6) Mar 28, 2014
This figure is correct neither for the Milky Way nor Andromeda.


How can you quote wikipedia whilst not having read any of it. The M-sigma relation relates the mass of a black hole to the velocity dispersion of the bulge, it is not about the mass ratio of galaxy to black hole. The number quoted is just an average, there is no relationship there. You haven't disprove it, you didn't even know what it is.


At least you've finally given up the concept of "micro-BHs" when confronted with the plain statements of one of the leading physicists at Cern.

Jizby
Mar 28, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 28, 2014
IMO micro-BHs don't exist

Opinions about their existence are unnecessary........

They're formed in LHC experiments routinely.

What is formed in LHC routinely?
IMP-9
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 28, 2014
At least you've finally given up the concept of "micro-BHs" when confronted with the plain statements of one of the leading physicists at Cern.


No, you haven't understood what he said. Micro black holes are perfectly possible, for them to be possible at LHC energies is different, that might require new physics. This does not mean the concept in general needs other dimensions.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 28, 2014
At least you've finally given up the concept of "micro-BHs" when confronted with the plain statements of one of the leading physicists at Cern.


Micro black holes are perfectly possible, for them to be possible at LHC energies is different, that might require new physics


You're spinning his words.......you're trying to make it seem like he said something he really didn't say. New Phyisics? Ok, you're on stage here, give this Nuclear/Electrical Engineer the jist of the course you will teach.........?

This does not mean the concept in general needs other dimensions.

That isn't the leading suggestion made by Chou.......
IMP-9
5 / 5 (4) Mar 29, 2014
You're spinning his words.......you're trying to make it seem like he said something he really didn't say.


No, I'm telling you what he actually said because you seem to struggle with words. He says nothing about the general concept of micro black holes. He makes a specific statement about the LHC, nowhere else. Nothing he said invalidates the idea of micro black holes. You're trying to turn a statement about black holes at the LHC to mean the inter universe, that is nonsense. Tell me what physical law forbids it? What would stop a micro black hole forming?
Jizby
Mar 29, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
1 / 5 (3) Mar 30, 2014
You're spinning his words.......you're trying to make it seem like he said something he really didn't say.


No, I'm telling you what he actually said

No you're not.

because you seem to struggle with words

Not with the words of my college textbooks I don't.

Tell me what physical law forbids it?

How about the absence of mass to create enough gravity to form a BH in the first place.

What would stop a micro black hole forming?

Absence of gravity precludes any size of black holes from forming.

@IMP9: I'm really serious about this IMP, you need to actually take a real live classroom course in nuclear physics like I have or you will continue to live in a fantasy world where you create BHs coming & going to suit your self absorbed alter ego. You imagine you know more about science than you actually do.

IMP, have you ever seen a "differential equation" you could solve? You probably don't even understand why I asked this question.
Jizby
Mar 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Jizby
Mar 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
IMP-9
5 / 5 (4) Mar 31, 2014
You've completely taken him out of context, he spoke only about black holes at the LHC.

How about the absence of mass to create enough gravity to form a BH in the first place.


Then you don't understand gravity. Gravity is what keeps a black hole a black hole but there is no reason that gravity has to be the force that creates it. Read a paper on micro black holes or primordial black holes and you might learn something. Anything inside it's own Schwarzschild radius is now a black hole if it's a mouse or galaxy. And now you try to flaunt high school maths like it makes your nonsense any more correct. Tell me this. What happens when some outside force squashes mass into into the Schwarzschild radius?
Benni
3 / 5 (2) Mar 31, 2014
You've completely taken him out of context, he spoke only about black holes at the LHC.


How about the absence of mass to create enough gravity to form a BH in the first place.


Then you don't understand gravity. ........... there is no reason that gravity has to be the force that creates it.


You're the one making the claim, so the onus on you is to prove it. I'll follow the differential equations anyplace you want to take me........but mind you, this must be your work, not something copy & pasted from WikiPedia or some science fiction site.

IMP- I voted you a 5 star because I want as many people as possible to read about your brevity in cluelessness.
IMP-9
5 / 5 (2) Mar 31, 2014
How am I supposed to prove a negative? Did they not teach you basic logic on this course of yours? I can't, it's impossible. I have asked you twice to give me a reason why it needs to be gravity and you just ovoid having to make an argument for yourself. You are making the positive claim here, it's you who needs to prove the evidence. I cannot debate you until you tell me why you think it has to be. I'll ask you for the last time: What happens when some outside force squashes mass into into the Schwarzschild radius?
osnova
Apr 01, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
1 / 5 (2) Apr 01, 2014
How am I supposed to prove a negative?


What? To prove something exists? You're the one claiming the existence of micro-BHs........I seriously doubt if you know what is meant by the term "prove a negative" much less anything about the existence of micro-BHs.

Did you even know differential equations exist until I brought it up? I suppose in your mind asking you to prove the existence of "differential equations" is also asking you to prove a negative?

I have asked you twice to give me a reason why it needs to be gravity


.......because you haven't proven it can be done any other way, there is no other substantiating evidence.

You are making the positive claim here, it's you who needs to prove the evidence.

Prove "evidence" of what? That micro-BHs don't exist?

I'll ask you for the last time: What happens when some outside force squashes mass into into the Schwarzschild radius?


OK, so what is the "outside force" you're referring to?
IMP-9
5 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2014
To prove something exists?

You cannot prove anything like that in science. You claim there is a reason micro black holes cannot from, Without physical evidence in order for me to prove they can exist I would have to prove there are no reasons why they cannot exist. I cannot do that.

Asking to prove differential equations exist is not proving a negative since their is bountiful physical evidence the concept exists is mathematics. This cannot be said for micro black holes which are currently speculative. Only theory can be debated.

Instead of flaunting your knowledge of basic undergraduate techniques maybe you could actually make an argument. If you deflect one more time I'm give up.

OK, so what is the "outside force" you're referring to?

It doesn't matter. It could be the energy of a particle collision, it isn't important. It could be the density of a shrinking universe, it doesn't matter. What happen in the question I asked?
Benni
1 / 5 (2) Apr 01, 2014
To prove something exists?


You cannot prove anything like that in science. You claim there is a reason micro black holes cannot from, Without physical evidence in order for me to prove they can exist I would have to prove there are no reasons why they cannot exist. I cannot do that.


You start by learning some nuclear physics, and before you can do that you need to know how to do calculus, and before you can do that you need to move to planet Earth. Scientific dialogue cannot be conducted until you disembark from your UFO, it's either that or you are schizophrenic.

I'm not interested in you anymore, shut up.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Apr 01, 2014
Hi, IMP-9. :)

Consider: The LHC produces an extremely dense quark-gluon superfluidic 'plasma' which is NOT 'contained' by any forces, including gravity, against the QM forces which immediately cause the quark-gluon plasma to explode and 'jet' etc to form ordinary matter/radiation. The q-g plasma is very dense, yet not sufficient CUMULATIVE gravity 'containment' involved, and it STILL explodes immediately. That should cause you to RE-think your 'beliefs' based on maths abstractions. No ABSTRACT maths equations ever 'compressed/contained' ANYTHING REAL.

Your maths illusions do not dictate the reality physics. It's the other-way-round, mate. Else you're in la-la-land from the get-go!

A word of caution from the real world: Beware 'math-turbatory fantasy' models/results masquerading as 'reality', ok? Think it through for yourself based on reality, not maths-only based assumptions. Cheers! :)
IMP-9
5 / 5 (2) Apr 01, 2014
What a surprise Benni, you actually didn't have a clue. You're quick to make claims but then you point at your foundation knowledge of physics in lieu of an actual argument. I suggest you actually read up on primordial black holes and you will see there is no mass limit when the collapse is not gravitational forces overcoming nuclear forces.

yet not sufficient CUMULATIVE gravity 'containment' involved, and it STILL explodes immediately


We're discussing the formation of black holes. All you have done is show an example of an object where quantum forces dominate because the density isn't high enough. This is also true in a neutron star however those forces break down, hence why stellar black holes occur at all. What you're telling me isn't new. We're talking about a theoretical topic, if you have a problem with theory then you should probably shut up.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Apr 01, 2014
yet not sufficient CUMULATIVE gravity 'containment' involved, and it STILL explodes immediately


We're discussing the formation of black holes. All you have done is show an example of an object where quantum forces dominate because the density isn't high enough. This is also true in a neutron star however those forces break down, hence why stellar black holes occur at all. What you're telling me isn't new. We're talking about a theoretical topic, if you have a problem with theory then you should probably shut up.

You have yet to postulate/identify WHAT force will form your needed density in the first instance, let alone WHAT force BESIDES CUMULATIVE gravity effect from SUFFICIENT CUMULATIVE MASS to CREATE such a CUMULATIVE gravity effect at the MICRO-MASSED scale 'density' of ONLY MICRO CUMULATIVE MASS in total.

Do you understand that strictly logical objective empirical observation? Get it? No 'mathematical density' of MICRO MASS in TOTAL can actually DO it. OK? :)
IMP-9
5 / 5 (2) Apr 02, 2014
You have yet to postulate/identify WHAT force

Already did. The density of the early universe. The collision in a particle collider.

Do you understand that strictly logical objective empirical observation? Get it?

No, that sentence makes no sense. I have no idea what you're trying to say.

No 'mathematical density' of MICRO MASS in TOTAL can actually DO it. OK?

Why? This is a positive claim, where is your argument?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Apr 02, 2014
Already did. The density of the early universe. The collision in a particle collider.
Do you realize that IF the BBang hypothesis is true, and everything energy-space was concentrated to th hypothesized density (even after the 'Inflation' stage), then the BB universal extent/content would have collapsed immediately into a universal BH 'singularity again? Collider did not produce any Micro Black Holes, haven't you heard? Even Ultra-high energetic cosmic ray collisions don't produce Micro BHs, else we wouldn't be here.

No, that sentence makes no sense. I have no idea what you're trying to say.
Yes, that is abundantly clear from your less than cogent 'logics', let alone knowledge of the subject matter while you claim to be 'correct' and others not.

No 'mathematical density' of MICRO MASS in TOTAL can actually DO it. OK?
Why? This is a positive claim, where is your argument?
You confuse 'maths world artifacts/objects with real-world. Weird!
IMP-9
5 / 5 (2) Apr 02, 2014
then the BB universal extent/content would have collapsed immediately into a universal BH 'singularity again? Collider did not produce any Micro Black Holes


No that's not true. The big bang was not an explosion in space. Gravity wouldn't form a universal black hole, it would try to recollapse the universe. Which it couldn't because obviously the expansion was sufficient. Current colliders haven't been confirmed to produce them but that does not mean a hypothetical collider could not.

Even Ultra-high energetic cosmic ray collisions don't produce Micro BHs, else we wouldn't be here.

Wrong, micro black holes would decay in a fraction of a second simply due to thermodynamics. You have no evidence cosmic rays do not produce them.

You confuse 'maths world artifacts/objects with real-world.

I'm not asking for formulae I'm asking for a psychical discussion beyond you just rattling off claim after claim. All I have done is ask you to explain your claims, you have not.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Apr 03, 2014
No that's not true. The big bang was not an explosion in space. Gravity wouldn't form a universal black hole, it would try to recollapse the universe. Which it couldn't because obviously the expansion was sufficient. Current colliders haven't been confirmed to produce them but that does not mean a hypothetical collider could not.
I didn't say it was "an explosion in space", you just did. Strawman? :)

I said BH universal 'singularity' (singular condition HYPOTHESIZED BY the BBang hypothesis). :)

What could overcome gravity effect of EVERYTHING contained in that starting singularity so that Inflation/Accelerated expansion COULD happen at all?

Your 'arguments' based on BBang/InflationHypotheses that don't make sense; speculations of what future colliders MIGHT create; speculation based on hypothesized micro black holes (which obviously cannot form/exist) hypothetically 'decaying'; and deny eons ocosmic ray collisions. And you say I don't explain based on real physics? Wow. :)

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.