Ancient black hole defied rules of galaxy formation

July 9, 2015
Astronomers find a massive black hole that outgrew its galaxy
A black hole that grew faster than its host galaxy. Credit: Michael S. Helfenbein/Yale University

Black holes can be found at the centres of most galaxies. Most have little mass compared with their host galaxy. ETH researchers, however, have discovered a particularly massive black hole, which clearly grew so quickly that the host galaxy was not able to keep pace. This calls into question previous thinking on the co-evolution of galaxies and their central black holes.

Benny Trakhtenbrot, a researcher at ETH Zurich's Institute for Astronomy, together with an international team of astrophysicists, was hunting for ancient massive using the 10 meter Keck telescope in Hawaii. Although this kind of observations are routine for them, Trakhtenbrot and the team were surprised by the first black hole they looked at. The data, collected with a new instrument, revealed a giant black hole in an otherwise normal, , called CID-947. Because its light had to travel a very long distance, the scientists were observing it at a period when the universe was less than two billion years old, just 14 percent of its current age (almost 14 billion years have passed since the Big Bang).

An analysis of the data collected in Hawaii revealed that the black hole in CID-947, with nearly 7 billion solar masses, is among the most massive black holes discovered up to now. What surprised researchers in particular was not the black hole's record mass, but rather the galaxy's mass. "The measurements correspond to the mass of a typical galaxy," says Trakhtenbrot, a postdoctoral fellow working within the Extragalactic Astrophysics research group of Professor Macella Carollo. "We therefore have a gigantic black hole within a normal size galaxy." The result was so surprising, that two of the astronomers had to verify the galaxy mass independently. Both came to the same conclusion. The team reports its findings in the current issue of the scientific journal Science.

Was anything different in the early Universe?

Most , including our Milky Way, have a black hole at their centre that holds millions to billions of . "Black holes are objects that possess such a strong gravitational force that nothing - not even light - can escape. Einstein's theory of relativity describes how they bend space-time itself," explains ETH professor Kevin Schawinski, co-author of the new study. The existence of black holes can be proven because matter is greatly accelerated by the gravitational force and thus emits particularly high-energy radiation.

Until now, observations have indicated that the greater the number of stars present in the , the bigger the black hole. "This is true for the local universe, which merely reflects the situation in the Universe's recent past," says Trakhtenbrot. This link, along with other evidence, led the scientists to assume that the growth of black holes and the formation of stars go hand-in-hand. This is quite reasonable, if a common reservoir of cold gas was responsible for the formation of the stars and the 'feeding' of the black hole at the galaxy's centre, says Trakhtenbrot. Furthermore, previous studies suggested that the radiation emitted during the growth of the black hole controlled, or even stopped the creation of stars, as the released energy heated up the gas. The latest results, however, suggest that these processes work differently, at least in the early universe.

Star formation continues

The distant young black hole observed by Trakhtenbrot and his colleagues had roughly 10 times less mass than its galaxy. In today's local universe, black holes typically reach a mass of 0.2 to 0.5 percent of their host galaxy's mass. "That means this black hole grew much more efficiently than its galaxy - contradicting the models that predicted a hand-in-hand development," explains the ETH researcher. The researchers also concluded from their observations that although the black hole had reached the end of its growth, stars were still forming. Contrary to previous assumptions, the energy and gas flow, propelled by the black hole, did not stop the creation of stars.

The galaxy could continue to grow in the future, but the relationship between the of the black hole and that of the stars would remain unusually large. The researchers believe that CID-947 could thus be a precursor of the most extreme, massive systems that we observe in today's local universe, such as the galaxy NGC 1277 in the constellation of Perseus, some 220 million light years away from our Milky Way. They hope to gain further insight into the links between the black hole and the host galaxy, through observations with the Alma radio telescope in Chile.

Explore further: Researchers find new relationship involving black holes in galaxies with small bulges

More information: "An over-massive black hole in a typical star-forming galaxy, 2 billion years after the Big Bang," www.sciencemag.org/lookup/doi/10.1126/science.aaa4506

Related Stories

Dark matter guides growth of supermassive black holes

February 18, 2015

Every massive galaxy has a black hole at its center, and the heftier the galaxy, the bigger its black hole. But why are the two related? After all, the black hole is millions of times smaller and less massive than its home ...

VLA reveals 'bashful' black hole in neighboring galaxy

June 17, 2015

Thanks to the extraordinary sensitivity of the Karl G. Jansky Very Large Array (VLA), astronomers have detected what they believe is the long-sought radio emission coming from a supermassive black hole at the center of one ...

How much of the universe is black holes?

June 17, 2014

We all fear black holes, but how many of them are there out there, really? Between the stellar mass black holes and the supermassive ones, just how much of our Universe is black holes?

Recommended for you

A catalog of habitable zone exoplanets

January 18, 2017

The last two decades have seen an explosion of detections of exoplanets, as the sensitivity to smaller planets has dramatically improved thanks especially to the Kepler mission. These discoveries have found that the frequency ...

74 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Tuxford
1.4 / 5 (11) Jul 09, 2015
"That means this black hole grew much more efficiently than its galaxy - contradicting the models that predicted a hand-in-hand development," explains the ETH researcher. The researchers also concluded from their observations that although the black hole had reached the end of its growth, stars were still forming. Contrary to previous assumptions, the energy and gas flow, propelled by the black hole, did not stop the creation of stars.


Go ahead punk...mark me down. But I have been right. LaViolette's model is largely correct. Black holes lead galactic growth, because they produce much of the matter forming stars within the galaxy. This one happens to be particularly accelerated in it's growth rate from within, leading the formation of stars far more rapidly than merger maniacs have assumed. Go ahead...
IMP-9
5 / 5 (9) Jul 09, 2015
Except there are plenty of galaxies which show the other trend, e.g. M33 which has no supermassivd black hole. To claim one example proves that nonsense while ignore the other contractions is more than a stretch.
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (15) Jul 09, 2015
Ancient black hole defied rules of galaxy formation


That's funny, all BH's defy all physics and reality anyway, why should this one be any different...
Benni
1.3 / 5 (12) Jul 09, 2015
Ancient black hole defied rules of galaxy formation


That's funny, all BH's defy all physics and reality anyway, why should this one be any different...
...................but JT is "beyond GR" & "all physics" dealing with anything else, he should be along shortly with a satchel full of Differential Equations giving us math lessons "beyond GR". There must be a "rounding error" somewhere in here that only his innate "beyond GR" science can unravel.
gkam
3 / 5 (6) Jul 09, 2015
"Ancient black hole defied rules of galaxy formation "
. . . . and must be punished!

- Republican science platform
big_hairy_jimbo
1.5 / 5 (4) Jul 09, 2015
And here's my pet theory (idea) yet again that black holes are the seeds of galaxies. Black holes decrease in size as the galaxy is formed. Look a singularity started the universe (so we are lead to believe), singularities form galaxies too. What happened to the singularity that started the universe? Where is it now?? Did it evaporate once it created the universe? Well perhaps black holes start off massive and evaporate as they create their Host Galaxy.
Protoplasmix
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 09, 2015
@Benni - couple questions,
1) Why do you always capitalize differential equations?
2) Your _what_ hurts?
wduckss
1 / 5 (3) Jul 10, 2015
There are two ways of creating galaxies with their recognizable rotating center. The first is that a star with a higher speed of rotation survives all the challenges of the dynamic universe and sufficiently increases its mass so that the number of objects in its orbit can be considered a further growing galaxy.
The other is to create a cyclone out of gas or invisible matter inside the irregular galaxy and with the assistance of rotation. That cyclone turns the irregular galaxy into a regular one.
The similarity of these ways is obvious, because even the fast-rotating stars, just as all the rest, have a cyclone in the center, from one pole to the other.
(Quote: http://www.svemir...ykloni).
docile
Jul 10, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Ultron
not rated yet Jul 10, 2015
Full text in Arxiv:
http://arxiv.org/...07.02290
Tuxford
2.1 / 5 (7) Jul 10, 2015
Highly embarrassing for the merger maniacs. Do they dare report it???

The result was so surprising, that two of the astronomers had to verify the galaxy mass independently. Both came to the same conclusion.


So they stated the results back-asswards...so as not to offend so many.

The distant young black hole observed by Trakhtenbrot and his colleagues had roughly 10 times less mass than its galaxy.


Let's reword this news....

'The black hole measured a staggering 10 percent of the total galaxy mass, in a normal sized galaxy already existing too early in the universe. This is roughly 20 to 50 times the mass ratio normally measured, and well beyond what was thought possible. Galactic formation models must all be wrong.'
JustAnotherGuy
not rated yet Jul 10, 2015
"Go ahead punk...mark me down."

Yeah! "Dirty Harry goes university" style!
It "Makes my day". Loved it, 5/5!
JeanTate
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 12, 2015
@Tuxford:
But I have been right. LaViolette's model is largely correct
How can something which is not published be "largely correct"? Do you have some magic insight which no one else in the world has?

I think it's long since past time that you should 'put up or shut up'; endlessly repeating "LaViolette's model is largely correct" has got to be just about the worst way to demonstrate its veracity (or not).

Why, may I ask, are you wasting time writing PO comments - which no scientist reading them believes - when you could be working on a paper which shows just what you claim?
JeanTate
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 12, 2015
@wduckss:
There are two ways of creating galaxies with their recognizable rotating center ...
Why don't you take some time out from writing PO comments, and turn your ideas into a paper? Then you could submit it to a relevant, peer-reviewed journal (or upload it to arXiv), and the world could judge whether you have produced an objective (and quantitative), independently verifiable model/theory/whatever.

If all you have produced is a webpage/website, and a few PO comments, your idea will die with you ...
Tuxford
1 / 5 (4) Jul 12, 2015
Ah, this reporter must have read my comment, since today he has now figured out what the real headline is in this story, that the study's author's tried to hide from the press.

But in this case, the black hole makes up a whopping 10 percent of the host galaxy.


http://www.mornin...-theory/

How embarrassing for the merger maniacs. Say it ain't so!
Returners
1 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2015
Ancient black hole defied rules of galaxy formation


That's funny, all BH's defy all physics and reality anyway, why should this one be any different...
...................but JT is "beyond GR" & "all physics" dealing with anything else, he should be along shortly with a satchel full of Differential Equations giving us math lessons "beyond GR". There must be a "rounding error" somewhere in here that only his innate "beyond GR" science can unravel.


When modeling galaxies and the universe, the physicists often totally disregard certain forms of matter and energy. For example, neutrinos are not even modeled in galaxy or cosmos models, because the mass is assumed to be negligible.

I think this is a mistake, because even though it is a tiny amount of mass-energy, over the time scales being modeled that adds up to a very large effect.
docile
Jul 13, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
4.8 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2015
"The measurements correspond to the mass of a typical galaxy," says Trakhtenbrot, a postdoctoral fellow working within the Extragalactic Astrophysics research group of Professor Macella Carollo. "We therefore have a gigantic black hole within a normal size galaxy."

Would be interesting to look at neighboring galaxies and their motion vectors. Maybe a lot of the galaxy was stripped by an even more massive one nearby?

This is quite reasonable, if a common reservoir of cold gas was responsible for the formation of the stars

Or could, in this particular case, the two have fromed from different reservoirs? An ejected black hole that later acquired a host galaxy by passing through a nebula and carrying along enough mast to start one 'late' in its development?
Returners
1 / 5 (3) Jul 13, 2015
Gradual accretion is not a good model for the formation of super-massive black holes. I am of the opinion that some of them may be regions of space-time which were always above critical density, and never "expanded" with the rest of the universe. Similarly, there may be sextillions of "microscopic black holes" which are likewise primordial, in that they may be microscopic regions of space-time which were always above critical density, and never expanded like everything else. This hypothesis may explain Dark Matter, but in addition, as some of these microscopic black holes evaporate, the space-time-fluid flattens out, producing an expansion effect, explaining some of the Dark Energy phenomenon.

The cosmic microwave background could be emanating from the evaporation of primordial microscopic black holes. Why don't we see them locally? Because the local ones evaporated so long ago that all of their photons have long ago left our region of space-time.
docile
Jul 13, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Returners
1 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2015
While this idea of "Dark Matter" being microscopic black holes is more hypothesis than theory, it has an advantage over mainstream Dark Matter theories:

It can explain why there is no apparent Dark Matter in the local universe, but only in distant galaxies (farther back in time).

If correct, then it means in the future as these primordial microscopic black holes evaporate, their host galaxies and host galaxy clusters will experience less internal gravitation and will be subject to outward orbital decay, emulating some of the Dark Energy effect....not to mention radiation pressure from the Hawking Radiation. In this hypothesis, most of these microscopic black holes have already evaporated hundreds of millions to billions of years ago, but the "information" has not yet reached us for most of the observable universe, as different sized micro-black holes would have different life spans, it would not all be instantaneous. This may be another reason why the CMB continues to be observe
Returners
1 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2015
That is to say, if some of the CMB originates from the evaporation of micro-black holes, then the CMB is constantly being replenished as these black holes evaporate, even relatively recently in cosmic time, like 100million to a few billion years ago, and not just at the beginning of the universe.

This can help explain why the CMB has not completely passed us in every direction....why it is still observable even as the "observable universe" has theoretically already expanded to some 45.5billion light years radius.

You would expect some consequences, as the CMB "out there" which happens to be flying in our own direction should be heavily red-shifted, yes, but after some distance "out there" the background media of space-time would be expanding so quickly that CMB moving "locally" in our direction would never reach us anyway. Thus there SHOULD eventually be a discontinuity in the observable CMB at some point in the future of the observable universe.
Returners
1 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2015
At that discontinuity there is a point where all of the CMB radiation which will ever reach us will already have reached us, here I speak of the classical CMB in the text and encyclopedias.

If the CMB is being replenished by the evaporation of microscopic black holes, then the story is different. Why would the evaporation of distant micro-black holes look like the CMB? Because their evaporation is in many respects the same process as the Big Bang, it's just caused by a different "trigger" if you will. We don't know what the "trigger" to the Big Bang is in terms of physical or mathematical models, for that we need the super-set of logic, including metaphysics: I believe in metaphysical model I can say it is the Creator.

The "trigger" for the evaporation of micro-black holes is believed to be virtual particle pair annihilation in the background media of space-time.

Thus from a large enough distance and time, Hawking Radiation looks like the CMB.
docile
Jul 13, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Returners
1 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2015
Of course, that last statement is true under the assumption that primordial microscopic black holes are spread out approximately evenly throughout space. They don't need to be perfectly even, as we would expect them to "clump" near other forms of mass (galaxies and galaxy clusters), but they do need to be evenly distributed on a cosmic scale.

These black holes might have masses ranging from less than that of a single proton, perhaps the mass-energy of a mere Quark, to perhaps the mass of a planet.
docile
Jul 13, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Returners
1 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2015
Why might the expansion of the universe be accelerating? I mean, let's try a hypothesis which does not use new forces or new forms of matter.

Let's try to explain everything in terms of matter distribution and radiation pressure.

If there are primordial micro-black holes we can say some things about them:

We know that micro-black holes should evaporate faster and faster as their mass decreases.

In such a scenario the hawking radiation would be accelerating, and this would provide accelerating radiation pressure. Not to mention, the density of the space-time-fluid (whatever) background material should decrease in the region where any given micro-blackhole is evaporating, producing a gravitational "rebound". Thus the evaporation of micro-black holes provides not one, but two physical mechanisms which can contribute to some of the Dark Energy phenomenon: 1, Radiation Pressure, and 2, Space-time(fluid) "rebound".
docile
Jul 13, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Jul 13, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Returners
1 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2015
Now if you imagine two micro-black holes are moving away from one another initially at a velocity slightly above, but comfortably above their relative escape velocities; gravity is slowing them down, but they will never come to a stop.

1, Next, assume each micro-black hole is emitting hawking radiation and losing mass.

2, As they lose mass and radiate energy, on average, spherically into space, the space-time-(whatever it is) background "rebounds" because there is less gravity between the two objects.

3, Because there is less gravity, the rate of slowing between the two objects is always decreasing even faster than the newtonian escape velocity curve predicts.

4, Viewed from ignorance of Hawking Radiation, it would appear as though some "unknown force" were acting on the two objects to offset some of their gravitational acceleration. However, this observation is a "fictitious force," because in reality the gravity is decreasing as mass is carried away by the radiation.
Returners
1 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2015
You are assuming there was any anti-matter to miss.

This is a problem with modern cosmology. They call the belief in an unseen Creator a conjecture, yet they conjecture the unobservable anti-matter "must have existed" due to some symmetry equations.

The missing anti-matter is not a problem to explain. There are two basic possibilities:

Either 1, It never existed and the standard model needs to be adjusted to explain this (most likely).

or

2, It exists, but during the early universe most of the anti-matter was propelled in the opposite direction from us in space-time, so that most of it is already outside the observable universe. Of course the problem with this is it can't be confirmed by observation. All you can do is test it continually to see that it is never proven false.
Returners
1 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2015
You would not detect primordial micro-black holes locally, because they would all be so old that they should have evaporated completely by now. Except of course in rare occasions where they collided with something and somehow gained enough mass to become "macro" black holes.

Absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence.

Yes, I realize that is a problem for the scientific method, nevertheless the statement holds true.
docile
Jul 13, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Jul 13, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 13, 2015
@ Returnering-Skippy. How you are Cher? Oh yeah, I am fine and dandy me, thanks for asking.

You are assuming there was any anti-matter to miss.


Non Cher, what I am assuming is it is you missing some grey matters, or maybe you got too much anti-grey-matters.

Now why you don't just sit over there and pipe down so some of the other couyons can have a chance to play pretend scientist with their crankpot ideas? Hooyeei you are on the roll this morning, you got 10 postums out of 33 on just this one article. Don't you think you are being a little greedy with the physorg-Skippy's time?
Returners
1 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2015
At any rate, I have managed to explain a possible reason why "Dark Matter" is not observed locally.

The simplest answer is that Dark Matter, if it exists and however it exists, may decay over cosmic time, like other sub-atomic particles such as the free neutron.

If Dark Matter is a particle, like the known particles, and if it decays through some process, then the result is much the same as the primordial black hole hypothesis. All the local Dark Matter would be so old that it has already decayed, while the more distant (but younger since we're looking at the past) Dark Matter has not yet decayed.

The decay of Dark Matter, in whatever form it exists, would still release some form of radiation pressure, whether or not we could observe it directly, and it would still cause a space-time(whatever) "rebound" as outlined above. The only difference is the mechanism. It is the same effect, just produced by a different mechanism which is already possible in known physics.
Returners
1 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2015
I prefer to keep things simple, so trying to explain as much as possible Dark Matter and Dark Energy as different aspects of the same thing is appealing to me, just as trying to explain both of them as errors in already existing theories is also appealing to me.

"Keep it simple..."

What I posted above explains why Dark Matter is not detected via any means in the local universe, but is detected indirectly (gravitational anomalies) a bit farther away.

From this perspective, Dark Matter detectors are doomed to fail, because all of the Dark Matter which would have been moving through this region of the universe would be so old that it has decayed by now, and hence will never hit the detector.

Moreover, we cannot send a probe out to the other galaxies, even in some distant future, to detect Dark Matter directly, because it will have decayed before any probe moving less than the speed of light would be able to reach it to detect it directly.
Returners
1 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2015
As an example, in Wikipedia it is claimed that the mass of the Milky Way is some trillion Suns, because they assume (based on observations of other galaxies) that the Milky Way must have about 4 or 5 times as much Dark Matter as ordinary matter; Even though no observational evidence has been found to support the notion of Dark Matter existing in the Milky Way.

In fact, another article on Physorg recently outlined how a team of scientists had used the orbital trajectory of a globular cluster on the outer fringes of the Milky Way to measure the entire mass of the Milky Way and found its ENTIRE mass to be within the same limits as the number of stars estimated to be in the Milky Way. That is to say, the orbit of the out-lying globular Clusters is exactly what you would expect it to be if there was absolutely no Dark Matter in the Milky Way, and the mass of the Milky Way is the same as the mass of the Stars and nebulae in the Milky Way.
Returners
1 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2015
This article was posted on here a few weeks ago, and I shall have to find it again, as I am sure Ghost of Otto will call me a liar just for making a reference to the article without finding the link. Nevertheless, it is on here somewhere and I'll search for it if possible.

they were able to infer the mass of the Milky Way within a radius of 60,000 light years to be 210 billion times the mass of the Sun with an uncertainty of only 20 percent


Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

If there are some 100 billion to 200 billion estimated Stars in the Galaxy, and the Galaxy's mass is measured to be 210 billion Suns, then there is no Dark Matter, since most known stars have masses similar to the Sun, and there are enough "giant" stars to easily make up for the ones which have masses less than the Sun.

Therefore, there is NO DARK MATTER IN THE MILKY WAY GALAXY.

SOMEONE NEEDS TO EXPLAIN THAT TO THEORETICAL PHYSICISTS.
Returners
1 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2015
Quote from wikipedia, re. Milky Way galaxy mass:

Mass 0.8–1.5×1012 M☉[10][11][12]


Where did this fictitious number come from?

I'll tell you where. It was FABRICATED because the scientists observed the number of stars in the Milky Way, then then assumed that the alleged "Dark Matter" phenomenon in other galaxies was caused by "hidden mass" of some sort, and finally they assumed that most of the Milky Way's mass must also be this "hidden mass" so they ADJUSTED AND FAKED the estimate of the Milky Way mass to be 0.8 trillion to 1.5 trillion Suns...

In reality, the Milky Way's mass is exactly what it appears to be: The same mass as the amount of ordinary stars and nebulae it contains.

The "mass" calculated and cited on the wikipedia page is a FRAUDULENT value based on absolutely no empirical evidence, and it cites at least 3 sources....all FRAUDULENT....
JeanTate
5 / 5 (3) Jul 13, 2015
@ap:
Or could, in this particular case, the two have fromed from different reservoirs? An ejected black hole that later acquired a host galaxy by passing through a nebula and carrying along enough mast to start one 'late' in its development?
An interesting idea, but I suspect that even the densest ISM (interstellar medium) - other than GMCs (giant molecular clouds) is far too 'thin' for this to happen in a mere 10^10 years. Maybe at a much earlier time? Or perhaps in a very particular circumstance?
Returners
1 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2015
Do I need to keep going, "Cher"? Ghost?

I have PROVEN using their own data that Dark Matter does not exist in the Milky Way, and it PROBABLY does nto exist "out there" either. Whatever they are observing is the result of some flaw in physics, not "mysterious hidden mass".

The local measurements using the orbits of our own star systems within our own galaxy proves this beyond all reasonable doubt to a certainty of 20% (according to the physicists calculation of the galaxy mass), whereas the Dark Matter hypothesis claims the galaxy should be 4 to 6 times more massive than this amount.

Dark Matter does not exist. There needs to be a new explanation of the stellar orbital velocity anomaly, and a new explaination of galactic super-cluster "mass" anomalies, because whatever causes these anomalies, local evidence shows it is NOT some un-seen, non-interacting particle.

Also, someone needs to update the wiki article before this scientific heresy continues to spread unchecked.
JeanTate
4 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2015
@Ren82:
For honest independent researchers it is clear that the Big Bang theory is not scientific and its supporters
And who are these "independent researchers", may I ask? Can you point to some of their publications?

Are you including yourself among their number, perchance?
Returners
1 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2015
they were able to infer the mass of the Milky Way within a radius of 60,000 light years to be 210 billion times the mass of the Sun with an uncertainty of only 20 percent


Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

This team should get a Nobel, because they have unknowingly dis-proven Dark Matter theory to a certainty of 20%.
JeanTate
4 / 5 (5) Jul 13, 2015
@Returners:
When modeling galaxies and the universe, the physicists often totally disregard certain forms of matter and energy. For example, neutrinos are not even modeled in galaxy or cosmos models, because the mass is assumed to be negligible.
Not true ... neutrinos are very much part of cosmological models, and they are only "not modeled" in "galaxy models" because those who developed the models took great pains to ensure that leaving them out would not affect the models in any significant way.

May I suggest you read more carefully before you write such ignorant comments? Perhaps read less popsci and more actual papers?
Uncle Ira
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 13, 2015
Do I need to keep going, "Cher"?


Truthfully? Well don't take this the wrong way again and try to blame another visit to Mandeville on me like you did the last. But I think you do have a need you can't control to keep going. It's part of your mental conditions.
JeanTate
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 13, 2015
@docile:
The dense aether model handles the galaxies like the giant fluctuations of merely steady state Universe, which gradually evaporate into photons, neutrinos and dark matter and which condense somewhere else from these components again with top-down mechanism
Interesting.

Do you anything objective, and independently verifiable, to back this up? Such as published papers?

Or are you continuing your theme involving a wordy 'looks like a duck' approach?

Why not take a break from spamming PO, sit down, assemble the relevant literature, develop a *quantitative* model, work on it, write up at least some of the results, and get them published? Doing that will lead to you making a bigger impact on science than the (zero) one you are having so far ...
Returners
1 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2015
We can further prove, given those mass calculations from the globular cluster observations, that the Milky Way NEVER had any significant amount of Dark Matter in it (addressing my own decaying Dark Matter hypothesis as an alternative,) because had it formed around the alleged ~80% ratio of Dark Matter and had this Dark Matter somehow decayed or been "stripped" from the galaxy, then the stability of stellar orbits would have been compromised, and they should have decayed OUTWARD, as the inertia of individual stars would have carried them away from a galaxy who's mass was shrinking over time. This obviously has not happened, therefore I can say that not only does the Milky Way not have Dark Matter in it presently, but it never had Dark Matter in it at all.

Decaying Dark Matter would cause Galaxies to fly apart as they lose mass. Therefore we can prove that local galaxies did not form from decaying Dark Matter, and they don't have any other type of dark matter presently.
JeanTate
5 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2015
@Returners:
The cosmic microwave background could be emanating from the evaporation of primordial microscopic black holes
Interesting idea!

Why not take some time out from spamming PO, assemble the relevant literature, develop a *quantitative* model, work on it, write up some of the results, and get them published?
JeanTate
5 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2015
@Returners:
While this idea of "Dark Matter" being microscopic black holes is more hypothesis than theory, it has an advantage over mainstream Dark Matter theories:

It can explain why there is no apparent Dark Matter in the local universe, but only in distant galaxies (farther back in time)
At the cost of "unexplaining" galaxy rotation curves, the estimated mass of rich clusters of galaxies, lots of 'gravitational lensing' observations, observations re BAO, the apparent M/L ratio of our own galaxy's satellite (dwarf) galaxies, ...
Returners
1 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2015
Do I need to keep going, "Cher"?


Truthfully? Well don't take this the wrong way again and try to blame another visit to Mandeville on me like you did the last. But I think you do have a need you can't control to keep going. It's part of your mental conditions.


No you fool. I just cited the ten years works of an entire team of physicists to measure the true mass of the Milky Way based on the observable orbits of local objects of known characteristics.

The true mass of the Milky Way differs from the prediction of the Dark Matter model by a factor fo some 4 to 8.

I have proven using their data that Dark Matter theory is a FRAUD and that the standard accepted mass of the Milky Way as cited in texts and encyclopedias r.e. dark matter, is a FRAUD.

Deal with it.

Their data, "Cher" not mine.

210 billion Suns mass for approximately 100 to 200 billion Suns...

There is no Dark Matter.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (2) Jul 13, 2015
And who are these "independent researchers", may I ask? Can you point to some of their publications?
- chatterTard

You could, of course, do some research yourself. You're a lazy mind, right?

JeanTate
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 13, 2015
@docile:
Actually most of Big Bang based deductions apply to the intermediate distance scale (3 > z < 6), where highest concentration of quasars is currently observed
Except, of course, for the CMB ... which is at z ~1100.

I cannot accept that you do/did not know of the central importance of the CMB to LCDM cosmological models; did you not have your coffee today? Or are you deliberately lying (honest question)?
JeanTate
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 13, 2015
@Returners:
Even though no observational evidence has been found to support the notion of Dark Matter existing in the Milky Way.
More wilful ignorance? Have you heard of Vera Rubin and Kent Ford? Of their landmark 1970 paper, "Rotation of the Andromeda Nebula from a Spectroscopic Survey of Emission Regions" (http://adsabs.har...59..379R )?

I guess not. Wilful ignorance is sooo nice, isn't it? No pesky science (astronomy) to have to deal with ...
JeanTate
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 13, 2015
@Returners:
If there are some 100 billion to 200 billion estimated Stars in the Galaxy, and the Galaxy's mass is measured to be 210 billion Suns, then there is no Dark Matter, since most known stars have masses similar to the Sun, and there are enough "giant" stars to easily make up for the ones which have masses less than the Sun
More wilful ignorance, eh?

Dude, the vast majority of stars - in our own galaxy and every other that has been studied in sufficient detail - are less massive than the Sun!

This is easy to 'see', in at least the region near us ... look at the results from RECONS (http://www.recons.org/ ) for example: what's the observed mass distribution of stars, discovered so far within 25 pc? Whatever it is, it most certainly is not dominated by stars of solar mass or greater!
JeanTate
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 13, 2015
@Returners:
I have PROVEN using their own data that Dark Matter does not exist in the Milky Way
Actually, you proven nothing, bar your own wilful ignorance!

First, you did not rely on primary sources for "their data".

Second, you made an assumption re the observed mass distribution of stars (in our own galaxy), without bothering to check any primary sources.

Third, you failed to even consider what holes there might be in you (flawed) logic.

Heaven help us if you ever get to have a say in science policy decisions ...
JeanTate
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 13, 2015
@Returners
We can further prove, given those mass calculations from the globular cluster observations, that the Milky Way NEVER had any significant amount of Dark Matter in it (addressing my own decaying Dark Matter hypothesis as an alternative,) because had it formed around the alleged ~80% ratio of Dark Matter and had this Dark Matter somehow [...] then the stability of stellar orbits would have been compromised, and they should have decayed OUTWARD, as the inertia of individual stars would have carried them away from a galaxy who's mass was shrinking over time. This obviously has not happened, therefore I can say that not only does the Milky Way not have Dark Matter in it presently, but it never had Dark Matter in it at all. [...]
Do you, in all honesty, think that your hand-waving logic is sound?

That you can do cosmology, scientifically, with this sort of woolly nonsense?

Thank the FSM that you have no say in how new cancer drugs are developed!
JeanTate
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 13, 2015
@Returners:
No you fool. I just cited the ten years works of an entire team of physicists to measure the true mass of the Milky Way based on the observable orbits of local objects of known characteristics
No, you didn't
The true mass of the Milky Way differs from the prediction of the Dark Matter model by a factor fo some 4 to 8
No, it doesn't
I have proven using their data that Dark Matter theory is a FRAUD and that the standard accepted mass of the Milky Way as cited in texts and encyclopedias r.e. dark matter, is a FRAUD
The only thing you "proved" is your own ignorance
Their data, "Cher" not mine
Nope, al lyou have is your wilfully ignorant extrapolations and woefully inadequate logic
210 billion Suns mass for approximately 100 to 200 billion Suns...
Nope. Not true. No matter how many times you say it
docile
Jul 13, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Jul 13, 2015
An interesting idea, but I suspect that even the densest ISM (interstellar medium) - other than GMCs (giant molecular clouds) is far too 'thin' for this to happen in a mere 10^10 years. Maybe at a much earlier time? Or perhaps in a very particular circumstance?

Might even be testable, as the gas that has hung around the "original" black hole (before acquisition of the galaxy) should be more pristine than one that has undergone an extra generation of star formations. So if the merger isn't yet fully complete there might be a gradient in metallicity
(However, I suspect the resolution needed for such an analysis isn't available)
docile
Jul 13, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
JeanTate
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 13, 2015
@docile:
But the LCDM model also assumes, that the CMB has been formed with red shifting of the Big bang radiation
Nope. It's the 'radiation' of recombination (of protons and electrons, to form neutral H atoms).

But you knew that too, right? So why the falsehood?
that the CMB has a long wavelength because of Universe expansion and in their very next breath they do calculate this expansion with using of CMB wavelength
Nope. Go check out a good, recent grad-level textbook (your ignorance is showing)
The CMB at z ~1100 already violates the alleged homogeneity of Big Bang up to level, that whole the inflationary model is about to be replaced
Really? You got anything other than a handful of words to back that up?
we observe parallel universes
Really? Evidence?
the axis of evil, the CMBR anisotropy, etc
None of which are inconsistent with, say, the LCDM model based on Planck-derived parameters ... but you also knew that, right?
docile
Jul 13, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
JeanTate
3.9 / 5 (7) Jul 13, 2015
@docile:
We can now ask as well: "How the Universe would appear at the CMBR wavelength, if it would be a much older?" The light wavelength dilatation would wipe out all its older details anyway
Really? Pretend I'm from Missouri, the "show me" state, show me how this could be, QUANTITATIVELY
How the Universe would appear, if we would consider the scattering of light with vacuum instead of metric expansion of space-time as the cause of the red shift?
Good question. How would it appear? Why not take some time off from writing PO comments and work it out, in some QUANTITATIVE detail? Then write it up, and get it published
Would we really note some difference?
Who knows? Unless and until you (or someone else) does the hard work on the details, all there is is some wishy-washy hand-waving, right?
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 13, 2015
Do you, in all honesty, think that your hand-waving logic is sound?

That you can do cosmology, scientifically, with this sort of woolly nonsense?
@JeanTate
actually, if you observe the posters like returners, docile (who is just ANOTHER Zephir sock-puppet), cantdrive, jvk, benni, hannes alfven and those many, many, many more pseudoscience posters... this is EXACTLY how they think science is done.

their own words and posts attest to this with their lack of ANYTHING quantifiable, or (when they do think they have something) their complete ignorance of the physics involved (see returners above)
Tuxford
1 / 5 (2) Jul 13, 2015
"We now know that each ten-fold increase of a galaxy's stellar mass is associated with a much larger 100-fold increase in its black hole mass," Professor Graham said. "This has widespread implications for our understanding of galaxy and black hole coevolution."

"The smaller the galaxy, the greater the fraction of stars in these dense, compact clusters," Swinburne researcher Dr Nicholas Scott said. "In the lower mass galaxies the star clusters, which can contain up to millions of stars, really dominate over the black holes."

Previously it was thought that the star clusters contained a constant 0.2 per cent of the galaxy mass.
... 'Intermediate mass' black holes with masses between that of a single star and one million stars have been remarkably elusive.


http://phys.org/n...ter.html

In SQK, the bigger the core star, the faster it grows internally. Thus, monsters can evolve.
JeanTate
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 13, 2015
@Tuxford:
In SQK, the bigger the core star, the faster it grows internally. Thus, monsters can evolve.
I don't believe you; I think you're spinning nonsense from your vivid imagination.

But it's an easy matter to settle ... simply provide primary source(s) which show - objectively, in an independently verifiable manner - that "In SQK, the bigger the core star, the faster it grows internally. Thus, monsters can evolve".

And perchance that you can't, why are you posting such nonsense here?
Returners
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 13, 2015
Hey Jean Tate moron.

Why the fraud claiming The milky way is 4 to 8 times more massive than the actual measurements?

THEY MADE IT UP YOU IDIOT.

THE SCIENTISTS CITED IN TEXT BOOKS AND ENCYCLOPEDIAS FAKED THEIR DATA.

HOW STUPID ARE YOU THAT YOU CANNOT SEE AND ADMIT THAT?

ALSO THE WIKI ARTICLE, AND A FEW TEXTS THAT I KNOW OF, CITE THE NUMBER OF STARS IN THE MILKY WAY AS BEING SOME 200 TO 400 BILLION.

THE 400 BILLION NUMBER IS ALREADY AN OVER-ESTIMATE OF THE ENTIRE MASS OF THE GALAXY, AND THEN THEY FABRICATED LIES CLAIMING THERE WAS UP TO 1.5 TRILLION SUNS MASS IN THE GALAXY, WITHOUT EVER ACTUALLY MEASURING IT.

Returners
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 13, 2015
The dark matter crowd faked, FAKED, their daaaaaaataaaa.

The issue is mass.

Dark Matter crowd claims the Milky Way is 0.8 to 1.5 trillion solar masses.

An actual set of measurements of the mass based on orbital characteristics of the stars says it's 210 billion solar masses.

Dark Matter crowd are liars. They faked their data. They faked their data.

Let's say it again:

THEY FAKED THEIR DATA!

JeanTate
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 13, 2015
@Returners:
The dark matter crowd faked, FAKED, their daaaaaaataaaa
Then, since you are so sure, it will be a very simple - and straight-forward - matter for you to write a good, short paper, pointing this out (with the requisite details), right? Given your certainty, that paper will be accepted for publication - in, say Nature, or Science - very quickly, right? Then you can demand that the universities (etc) which currently employ "them" fire them, right?

Also, there are several entities which are keen to track down and publicly reveal the sort of fraud you say you have uncovered. Why not contact them, and inform them of the fraud you say you have uncovered? AFAIK, they are keen to find such frauds.

When you're done, would you please post links (etc)? Then we can celebrate you as an astrophysical whistleblower extraordinaire ... ;-)
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 13, 2015
Hey Jean Tate moron.

Why the fraud claiming The milky way is 4 to 8 times more massive than the actual measurements?

THEY MADE IT UP YOU IDIOT.

THE SCIENTISTS CITED IN TEXT BOOKS AND ENCYCLOPEDIAS FAKED THEIR DATA.

HOW STUPID ARE YOU THAT YOU CANNOT SEE AND ADMIT THAT?

ALSO THE WIKI ARTICLE, AND A FEW TEXTS THAT I KNOW OF, CITE THE NUMBER OF STARS IN THE MILKY WAY AS BEING SOME 200 TO 400 BILLION.

THE 400 BILLION NUMBER IS ALREADY AN OVER-ESTIMATE OF THE ENTIRE MASS OF THE GALAXY, AND THEN THEY FABRICATED LIES CLAIMING THERE WAS UP TO 1.5 TRILLION SUNS MASS IN THE GALAXY, WITHOUT EVER ACTUALLY MEASURING IT.



Skippy, that is no way to talk to a lady. No wonder you never could get a girlfriend, and all that bragging you did about how nice you are to women. You are the liar Cher.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (3) Jul 14, 2015
Stumpy dressed in drag on a soap box ain't no lady. Bend over river boat clown you're a ripe black hole.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (2) Jul 14, 2015
Buzz Lightyear:
Terrain seems a bit unstable. No readout yet if the air is breathable. And there seems to be no sign of intelligent life anywhere ..

Buzz Lightyear:
I've set my laser from stun to kill.

Woody:
Oh, great. If anyone attacks we can blink em' to death.

wduckss
1 / 5 (1) Jul 14, 2015
@wduckss:
There are two ways of creating galaxies with their recognizable rotating center ...
Why don't you take some time out from writing PO comments, and turn your ideas into a paper? Then you could submit it to a relevant, peer-reviewed journal (or upload it to arXiv), and the world could judge whether you have produced an objective (and quantitative), independently verifiable model/theory/whatever.

If all you have produced is a webpage/website, and a few PO comments, your idea will die with you ...


Seekers a recommendation from a person who is already a member. Recommend someone, please.

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.