What role do supermassive black holes play when galaxies merge?

January 12, 2017 by Richard C. Lewis, University of Iowa
Three instances of merging galaxies located at least a billion light years from Earth. Each galaxy is as large as the Milky Way and contains about 100 billion stars. Violent gravitational interactions created the tidal tails shown and triggered massive black hole accretion at the galactic nuclei. These systems were first confirmed by Hai Fu in 2015 and published in Astrophysical Journal Letters. Credit: Hai Fu, University of Iowa

In roughly four billion years, the Milky Way will be no more.

Indeed, our home galaxy is on course to collide and unite with the Andromeda Galaxy, at present some two million light years away.

Of course, we don't notice that the two are drawing closer together.

"To the human perspective, our galaxy doesn't appear to be changing," says University of Iowa astrophysicist Hai Fu, "but in the history of the universe, it is changing all the time."

Galaxies have been merging for most of the universe's 13-billion-year history, and scientists have been observing these mergers for some time. What they don't fully understand is how mergers occur.

Fu, an assistant professor in physics and astronomy, aims to clarify the phenomenon by observing supermassive (with a mass of about one billion suns), which are at the center of most galaxies. Astrophysicists believe large galaxies grow by devouring smaller ones. In such cases, the black holes of both are expected to orbit each other and eventually merge. Fu and his team won a three-year, $405,011 grant from the National Science Foundation to find and characterize these celestial events.

"What we're trying to see is the late stages of merging galaxies, when two galaxies are so close together they unleash tidal forces of energy, kind of like the pulsing tidal forces caused when the sun and moon line up with the Earth but much, much more intense," he says.

Fu will scan a large chunk of the night sky—imagine the moon multiplied 1,200 across the sky and you'll have a sense of the size—to find evidence of black holes' accretion, or mass-gathering.

"Pairs of galaxies with accreting black holes are rare and difficult to find," Fu says, "and that's why we need such a large area to survey."

Black holes aren't always accreting. But those that are resemble someone on an eating binge. Accreting black holes hungrily absorb material around them. Slowly, as they munch on more and more cosmic food, they pull their closer together.

"They're no longer on a diet," Fu says.

All that eating unleashes a torrent of energy, intense bursts of light called quasars that are so bright they nearly obscure the galaxies themselves. Those quasars should be easy to observe, even at great distances, but most of the light they produce is actually extinguished by the dust brewed up in the merging activity.

Thankfully, also emit radio waves, and those emissions "come to the rescue because they don't get extinguished by the dust," Fu says.

Fu and his team will examine radio-emission maps captured by the Very Large Array, one of the world's premier astronomical radio observatories, located in New Mexico and operated by the National Radio Astronomy Observatory, an NSF facility. The group will confirm its findings through optical observations at the W.M. Keck Observatory, located on Mauna Kea, a dormant volcano in Hawaii.

The NSF grant also will fund the student-led building of an "augmented reality sandbox" to demonstrate gravity's influence in the universe, such as on the orbits of planets, the accretion disk around a black hole or neutron star, and the complex orbits of stars in elliptically shaped galaxies.

Nine undergraduates have so far been involved in the project; they divided into teams to write the software programming, build the sandbox (with actual sand), and create an app for Android tablets.

The sandbox will be used in astronomy classes, physics demonstrations for K-12 students in the greater Iowa City area, and exhibitions at the UI Museum of Natural History and the UI Mobile Museum.

The sandbox is expected to be complete by the end of the spring 2017 semester.

"It is quite impressive," Fu says. "The students may not necessarily like taking exams, but they work really well in teams."

Explore further: Galactic crashes fuel quasars, study finds

Related Stories

Image: Computer simulation of a supermassive black hole

April 7, 2016

This computer-simulated image shows a supermassive black hole at the core of a galaxy. The black region in the center represents the black hole's event horizon, where no light can escape the massive object's gravitational ...

Black holes and measuring gravitational waves

June 16, 2016

The supermassive black holes found at the centre of every galaxy, including our own Milky Way, may, on average, be smaller than we thought, according to work led by University of Southampton astronomer Dr Francesco Shankar.

Recommended for you

Magnetized inflow accreting to center of Milky Way galaxy

August 17, 2018

Are magnetic fields an important guiding force for gas accreting to a supermassive black hole (SMBH) like the one that our Milky Way galaxy hosts? The role of magnetic fields in gas accretion is little understood, and trying ...

First science with ALMA's highest-frequency capabilities

August 17, 2018

The ALMA telescope in Chile has transformed how we see the universe, showing us otherwise invisible parts of the cosmos. This array of incredibly precise antennas studies a comparatively high-frequency sliver of radio light: ...

Another way for stellar-mass black holes to grow larger

August 17, 2018

A trio of researchers with The University of Hong Kong, Academia Sinica Institute of Astronomy and Astrophysics in Taiwan and Northwestern University in the U.S., has come up with an alternative theory to explain how some ...

Six things about Opportunity's recovery efforts

August 17, 2018

NASA's Opportunity rover has been silent since June 10, when a planet-encircling dust storm cut off solar power for the nearly-15-year-old rover. Now that scientists think the global dust storm is "decaying"—meaning more ...

68 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (10) Jan 12, 2017
What role do supermassive black holes play when galaxies merge?

The same role that are employed by leprechauns when it comes time to disperse their pot o' gold. Also similar to how the unicorn's horn enable the unicorn to login to WiFi.
MadScientist72
4.3 / 5 (16) Jan 12, 2017
@cantdrive85: Are you insinuating that supermassive black holes don't exist? If so, there's strong evidence that you're wrong.
Benni
1.3 / 5 (13) Jan 12, 2017
If so, there's strong evidence that you're wrong.


Evidence is one of two things or both: TESTABLE or OBSERVABLE

-You got pictures of an OBSERVED BH? You know, an actual stellar body, not an artist's renderings, but actual BH pics. Links please.

- Nothing can be TESTED about the structure of something if it can't be observed.

So what's the EVIDENCE that you're right?

MarsBars
3.9 / 5 (15) Jan 13, 2017
@cantdrive85: Are you insinuating that supermassive black holes don't exist?

MadScientist - don't waste your breath. I see from your profile that you only joined PhysOrg a week and a half ago, so you probably wouldn't know that cantdrive85 and Benni are BH-deniers. You will find them commenting in this manner on every article that refers to black holes.
Chris_Reeve
Jan 13, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (13) Jan 13, 2017
so you probably wouldn't know that cantdrive85 and Benni are BH-deniers

They're pretty much science deniers (each subscribing to some private fantasy of what they think science is. Mutally exclusive, of course.)
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Jan 13, 2017
@chris/hannes eu cult idiot
Let's not forget that the idea became famous for the very reason that they cannot be seen -- so they could not be disproven
and again, this isn't the eu cult where nothing can be "disproven"...

it is also not a claim of your cult leadership - BH's are science

and in science and there are ways to falsify the BH because there are known laws of physics that we can see, observe and test

this means, by definition that we can model the situation and then make a prediction so that we can make an observation that will:
1- verify the claim
AND
2- falsify it

within the parameters of this, we can observe the signs that demonstrate the BH exists per the model of reality, and we've not seen the information to falsify it, regardless of the idiocy of benji

this is exactly the same tactic we used to prove the non-visible EM spectrum exists
you don't "see" it directly, but rather the effects of it, which allowed us to build tools to measure it
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Jan 13, 2017
@reeve/alfven the idiot eu cult cont'd
It seems that the black hole idea has benefited greatly from the popularity of Relativity
unfortunately for you, relativity isn't a matter of debate
it's validated and it continues to be validated today

this means, by definition, that your claims regarding the eu are even far more fanciful
why?
because there is nothing in the eu cult that can:
-out predict GR/SR
-replace GR/SR
-falsify GR/SR

lets not forget that your eu cult can't even make reliable predictions because it's not even a scientific theory - it can't get past the hypothesis stage simply because it can't make predictions nor can it be falsified

essentially it is useless to any science at all whatsoever

until you can even get to the point of a testable theory then you're promoting pseudoscience, and as such, you're no better than a street preacher seeking attention for the latest religion

evidence over claims
- and so far you have only claims
Tuxford
1.4 / 5 (11) Jan 13, 2017
@cantdrive85: Are you insinuating that supermassive black holes don't exist? If so, there's strong evidence that you're wrong.

They exist all right. It is just that they are not black, but rather grey, periodically ejecting new matter therefrom, which in turn grows the galaxy from within rather than from without.

Merger mania is rampant in this this field. Blind leading the blind further down the rabbit hole.
Chris_Reeve
Jan 13, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jan 13, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jan 13, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jan 13, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jan 13, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jan 13, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jan 13, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jan 13, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jan 13, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jan 13, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jan 13, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jan 13, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jan 13, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
691Boat
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 13, 2017
@Benni:
show me a picture of the photons you use to gather the spectrums you are always speaking about.
Chris_Reeve
Jan 13, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jan 13, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jan 13, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jan 13, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jan 13, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
MadScientist72
3.4 / 5 (10) Jan 13, 2017
so you probably wouldn't know that cantdrive85 and Benni are BH-deniers

@MarsBars - So, do they also deny Eintstein? Because black holes are an unavoidable consequence of general relativity.
Evidence is one of two things or both: TESTABLE or OBSERVABLE

@Benni - Then how do you explain the OBSERVED orbits of stars close to the galactic center? Their paths and speeds require something of millions of solar masses to orbit around. If it's not a supermassive black hole, what is it?
A thing doesn't have to be visible to be observable, if it has observable effects on the visible things around it.
eu cult idiot

@ Captain Stumpy - When you start you posts by spewing hate, it makes it impossible to take ANYTHING you say seriously.
Chris_Reeve
Jan 13, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jan 13, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
MadScientist72
4 / 5 (12) Jan 13, 2017
Why did I just go through that?

@Chris_Reeve - Good question. That was quite a lengthy diatribe with no clear point or relationship to the subject of the article.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Jan 13, 2017
@MadSci:
so you probably wouldn't know that cantdrive85 and Benni are BH-deniers

@MarsBars - So, do they also deny Eintstein? Because black holes are an unavoidable consequence of general relativity.
Actually they deny Schwarzchild from what I've seen but since none of them will actually present any math or any other support but links to conjectures that have been proven incorrect, it's difficult to be sure. I have presented math, reasoning, and reviews of their sites that show that they are incorrect myself and gotten no answers but insults.

Feel free to make your own judgment from that.
Benni
1 / 5 (5) Jan 13, 2017
@Benni -how do you explain the OBSERVED orbits of stars close to the galactic center? Their paths and speeds require something of millions of solar masses to orbit around.


Sure the center of a galaxy contain a massive concentrations of matter, but by what reason of known physics can it be concluded a single stellar body is the cause? Orbits of double, triple, quadruple stars have similar velocities.

It's up to purveyors of BH Theories to prove a FINITE stellar body can exist in a physical state as having inherent INFINITE GRAVITY and INFINITE DENSITY at it's center, the quintessential definition of a BH.

The Inverse Square Law for gravity has been TESTED & proves zero gravity exists at the center of any stellar body. There is no TESTABLE EVIDENCE by which this well known postulate can be dismissed for exclusion in the case of just one type of stellar body for which no OBSERVATIONS have ever been made, no such case for it can be found in General Relativity.

Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 13, 2017
Reminder for Lenni:

-m'' + m'n' - m'² - 2m'/r = 0
m'' + m'² - m'n' - 2m'/r = 0
e⁻²ⁿ (1 + m'r - n'r) - 1 = 0
R₂₂ sin² ϕ = 0

Source: http://www.etsu.e...esis.pdf

Plug in m and r anytime you like. You can get them from any of the papers you claim are incorrect. Good luck with that.
Benni
1 / 5 (9) Jan 13, 2017
Reminder for Lenni:

-m'' + m'n' - m'² - 2m'/r = 0
m'' + m'² - m'n' - 2m'/r = 0
e⁻²ⁿ (1 + m'r - n'r) - 1 = 0
R₂₂ sin² Ď� = 0

Plug in m and r anytime you like. You can get them from any of the papers you claim are incorrect. Good luck with that.
Hey there Schneibo, those pictures of Black Holes you claim you've seen, got them ready for upload yet?
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Jan 13, 2017
@reeve/alfven the idiot eu pseudoscience cult poster
Why did I just go through that?
because you can't actually provide empirical evidence that the eu is a legitimate scientific theory, as i noted
..and still didn't
it's called a typical gish gallop tactic

lets examine your 20 posts:
multiple claims
7? book links (likely misinterpreted to boot - definitely misunderstood due to ignorance of Science)
1 NASA link - definitely misrepresented
opinion

the one thing you *didn't prove* is that they "proceed to ignore the laboratory-observed behavior of plasmas in their analysis"
nor did you refute BH's

you didn't even post relevant topical content to the thread
OR
to your argument for eu and plasma physics
hell, you actually refute yourself with most of it

you can't have it both ways: supporting studies that you agree with but rejecting equally relevant studies because it directly refutes your eu bullsh*t claims
(confirmation bias)
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 13, 2017
@ Captain Stumpy - When you start you posts by spewing hate, it makes it impossible to take ANYTHING you say seriously
@MadScientist72
to be sure, you have a point... however

it's not spewing hate, but rather sharing a label that is clear, concise and allows literate people to recognize what they are dealing with in the poster i'm targeting

also - you haven't dealt with these people for years, repeatedly refuting and debunking the exact same argument multiple times watching them ignore the evidence for years and knowing they intentionally create multiple socks just to create the illusion of greater interest (the poster Hannes Alfven is Chris Reeve and a few other socks here, in case you didn't know it)

.

everything i post is for a specific reason
i can't get honesty, nor can i get them to answer a poll or evaluation, let alone private interviews

i must poke their beliefs to get them to respond and open up

it makes it easier to classify them for study
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 13, 2017
Lenni, I provided them a long time ago. The fact you don't admit they're black holes is your problem (and I mean that in the psychiatric sense).
MarsBars
3.6 / 5 (14) Jan 14, 2017
@ Captain Stumpy - When you start you posts by spewing hate, it makes it impossible to take ANYTHING you say seriously.

MadScientist – many new subscribers to phys.org (including me last August) expect commenting here will be something like discussions in the cafeteria at CERN. It isn't. Many of the regulars have been posting here for years and, despite the Comments Guidelines, things can become quite testy between subscribers who have been at loggerheads for a long time. Captain Stumpy doesn't suffer people whom he considers fools gladly and he certainly does go over the top at times. However, the science is strong in the Captain, so don't write him off on the basis of your initial impression.
MarsBars
3.5 / 5 (13) Jan 14, 2017
Why did I just go through that?

@Chris_Reeve - Good question. That was quite a lengthy diatribe with no clear point or relationship to the subject of the article.

A bit more info for you, MadScientist. Chris_Reeve and cantdrive85 are acolytes of the Electric Universe cult (aka Plasma cosmology). If you are unfamiliar with this pseudoscience, check it out on RationalWiki or Wikipedia.
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Jan 14, 2017
Lenni, I provided them a long time ago. The fact you don't admit they're black holes


Oh, I guess I missed that post for the pictures of the Black Holes. You wouldn't mind posting that link again would you?

Did those pics show an Event Horizon? Can't have a BH without the EVIDENCE that an EH is in prominent display. No EH no BH, that's what Hawking says & is the first feature of OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE such a stellar body exists..........Next up, your link Schneibo.
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Jan 14, 2017
A bit more info for you, MadScientist. Chris_Reeve and cantdrive85 are acolytes of the Electric Universe cult (aka Plasma cosmology). If you are unfamiliar with this pseudoscience, check it out on RationalWiki or Wikipedia.


.....and what you selectively exclude from the realms of "pseudoscience" is the untenable claim that a stellar mass can exist that is in 100% violation of the Inverse Square Law as applied to gravity by Einstein in General Relativity.

Do you even know what the Inverse Square Law is? Acknowledge it: YES or NO, do you know?

I'll give you a brief on it: The ISL postulates that the maximum gravitational attraction of a stellar mass occurs at it's surface. By calculation this computes to a specified intensity of a gravitational field that is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the maximum point of the force of the source. The maximum point of gravitational attraction by ANY stellar is it's surface, NEVER it's center.
Zzzzzzzz
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 14, 2017
Mad Scientist, like Stumpy I don't suffer fools gladly either. Unlike Stumpy, I don't spend time on them - I just put them on my ignore list. You will soon find that actual serious discussions regarding science are rare in these forums. Mostly the comment sections are filled with posts I have chosen not to see, and responses by those who choose to see them for some reason. The main result is that these comment sections aren't worth much to anyone not owned by their delusions, or not wanting to interface with psychotic delusional types. You may soon wonder why you joined.......
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Jan 14, 2017
The main result is that these comment sections aren't worth much to anyone not owned by their delusions, or not wanting to interface with psychotic delusional types. You may soon wonder why you joined


......so why did you join only to create a very long Ignore list? If you don't want to read about stuff you don't agree with, then do the obvious thing & stay off that site, that is unless you're one who is a glutton for punishment & you enjoy torturing yourself......go back to sleep.

RNP
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 14, 2017
@Benni
Do you even know what the Inverse Square Law is? Acknowledge it: YES or NO, do you know?

I'll give you a brief on it: The ISL postulates that the maximum gravitational attraction of a stellar mass occurs at it's surface. By calculation this computes to a specified intensity of a gravitational field that is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the maximum point of the force of the source. The maximum point of gravitational attraction by ANY stellar is it's surface, NEVER it's center.


What you have failed to realize is that, in a black hole, ALL the matter contracts to the center. So, the "surface" that you keep referring to in your posts is AT the center. If you do not believe me, watch the first 20 minutes or so of the video I link below and you will see an explanation of the formation of a black hole USING the inverse square law.

https://www.youtu...rujNXSw8
MadScientist72
3.9 / 5 (11) Jan 14, 2017
in 100% violation of the Inverse Square Law as applied to gravity by Einstein in General Relativity.

@Benni - Actually, the inverse square law is applicable to gravity under _Newtonian_ physics. A black hole is an unavoidable consequence of general relativity that even Einstein acknowledged (as much as he hated it).
The maximum point of gravitational attraction by ANY stellar is it's surface, NEVER it's center.

Not really applicable to a black hole, since it's mass is compressed to a _point_ (the singularity), not a sphere. The event horizon is _not_ the black hole's "surface", it's just the radius from the singularity at which escape velocity exceeds the speed of light.
zz5555
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 14, 2017
Not really applicable to a black hole, since it's mass is compressed to a _point_ (the singularity), not a sphere. The event horizon is _not_ the black hole's "surface", it's just the radius from the singularity at which escape velocity exceeds the speed of light.

I apologize for a question founded in ignorance (it's been decades since I had a course in relativity), but is it really compressed to a point (i.e., one dimensional)? I had thought that the singularity indicated that relativity broke down in that region and that another, as yet unknown, theory would govern there. So the "point" may actually have a finite radius. Or am I wrong in my understanding?

Of course, this is all moot to the discussion at hand, but I got curious.
zz5555
4 / 5 (8) Jan 14, 2017
RNP - thanks for that link. I've only watched ~18 minutes so far, but I love it.
RNP
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 14, 2017
@zz5555
Aaah! At 18 minutes you hit the singularity?
RNP
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 14, 2017
@zz5555
Sorry, that was meant to be a joke relating to the video, not an insult.
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Jan 14, 2017
[qActually, the inverse square law is applicable to gravity under _Newtonian_ physics

...then you'd better take up an actual study in GR because Einstein included it within his Field Equations, and if you think he didn't I challenge you to prove it.

Not really applicable to a black hole, since it's mass is compressed to a _point_ (the singularity), not a sphere.


How do you know this? You have a Law of Physics you can point to? If you want to say it's found in GR, then give the section it's found, then do a Copy & Paste lead-in within the section. You guys always cop out when I put up the challenge for you to quote the text of GR for claims you make that there is text in GR that is predictive of the existence of BHs.

ALL the matter contracts to the center. So, the "surface" that you keep referring to in your posts is AT the center
.....pure unadulterated psychobabble, but what else would one expect from a guy whose degree is in Journalism.

RNP
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 14, 2017
@Benni

ALL the matter contracts to the center. So, the "surface" that you keep referring to in your posts is AT the center


......pure unadulterated psychobabble, but what else would one expect from a guy whose degree is in Journalism.


You did not watch the video I linked above did you? You would not be making these silly statements if you had.
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Jan 14, 2017
RNP, your video is worthless, Einstein's 1939 paper noted below is evidence how Fake that video is.

On a Stationary System With Spherical Symmetry Consisting of Many Gravitating Masses
Author(s): Albert Einstein
Reviewed work(s):
Source: The Annals of Mathematics, Second Series, Vol. 40, No. 4 (Oct., 1939), pp. 922-936
Published by: Annals of Mathematics
Stable URL: http://www.jstor..../1968902

The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the
"Schwarzschild singularities" do not exist in physical reality. Although the
theory given here treats only clusters whose particles move along circular paths
it does not seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that mote general cases will
have analogous results. The "Schwarzschild singularity" does not appear for
the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to
the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of
light.

Benni
1 / 5 (6) Jan 14, 2017
You did not watch the video I linked above did you? You would not be making these silly statements if you had.
......the silliest statement of all is you as a journalist imagining that you're smarter than Einstein in light of a quote I Copied & Pasted directly from the 1939 paper of Einstein's directly above this post.

The video is as every bit a piece Fake Science as can be conjured up in the GIGO media. Dumb try, Journalists like you shoudn't be trying this on a Science Professional with over six years education in Nuclear/Electrical Engineering.

Benni
1 / 5 (6) Jan 14, 2017
For the benefit of all, so you don't need to sign into the URL, I have Copied a link below to the full pdf of Einstein's 1939 paper.

http://www.cscamm...hild.pdf

Read it & weep for any of you who imagine there is magical Black Hole Math whereby the Inverse Square Law is repealed because some wannabe creates a video not knowing the contents of Einstein's 1939 paper thoroughly discrediting Schwarzschild Radii calculations to create Infinite Density at a so-called point of singularity.
RNP
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 15, 2017
@Benni
I see you are employing your usual tactic of changing the subject when you have lost an argument. You claimed that the model of black holes violated the inverse square law. Dismiss it if you wish, but, clearly, the video I linked shows that your were just plain wrong.

So now you change the subject to whether black holes can actually form or not. I am sure you will again just dismiss anything I say, but just to make sure that the truth is out there somewhere, I will address the issue in my next post.
RNP
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 15, 2017
@Benni
It is well known that, while Einstein was extremely pleased that Schwarzchild had found exact solutions to his field equations, he did not like the implications for regions of high curvature, i.e. near what we now call black holes. The 1939 paper objected to the formation of the event horizon (although it was not called that at the time), based on his conviction that there must be a maximum density that collapsing matter can achieve. This has since been disproved using quantum mechanics. In fact, the full GR description of BHs, and indeed the term "black hole", did not appear until the mid 1960s, 10 years or so after Einstein's death. See Roger Penrose's seminal paper: http://quantum-gr...fff1.pdf

Einstein never saw the complete analysis. So it is impossible to say whether he would have continued to object or not. Invoking his ghost to support your own (mis)interpretation of BH theory is therefore pointless.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 15, 2017
I apologize for a question founded in ignorance (it's been decades since I had a course in relativity), but is it really compressed to a point (i.e., one dimensional)? I had thought that the singularity indicated that relativity broke down in that region and that another, as yet unknown, theory would govern there. So the "point" may actually have a finite radius. Or am I wrong in my understanding?

Of course, this is all moot to the discussion at hand, but I got curious.
The short answer is nobody really knows, but most physicists don't expect that there's an actual singularity. They expect that laws of quantum gravity (your other but unknown theory), which we haven't found so far, will resolve the mathematical singularity. So more or less, with some caveats, your understanding is correct.
Benni
1 / 5 (5) Jan 15, 2017
The 1939 paper objected to the formation of the event horizon based on his conviction that there must be a maximum density that collapsing matter can achieve. This has since been disproved using quantum mechanics
......no such thing has ever been disproved, you're living in a fantasyland of twisted math.

Ah yes, the tinfoil hat crowd here, presenting the usual Perpetual Motion arguments of those who view gravity as an unlimited source of energy to form black holes. You don't know how to argue the conclusions of Einstein that there is indeed a maximum density of matter, something with which even Schwarzschild agreed with Einstein.

You guys with your Fake Science videos & convoluted assumptions of QM just continue wandering around in the depths of your Tinfoil Hat Fake Science, never willing give up the quintessential premise of INFINITE GRAVITY created by the impossible concept of INFINITE DENSITY.
zz5555
5 / 5 (6) Jan 15, 2017
Thanks, Da Schneib. I would expect a great number of caveats in my understanding of relativity. It's been 35 years since my BA in physics and I switched to engineering for my graduate work. Articles like this one (and the discussions, since I ignore the worst offenders) remind me of how much fun physics was.

By the way, I accidentally gave you a 4 because of my fat fingers on this small iPad. Sorry about that.
Benni
1 / 5 (4) Jan 15, 2017
Schneibo says:
They expect that laws of quantum gravity (your other but unknown theory), which we haven't found so far


Versus

RNP says:
This has since been disproved using quantum mechanics


....all the while high 5ing one another.
RNP
5 / 5 (7) Jan 15, 2017
@Benni
Yet again you have misunderstood. There is nothing in our current understanding of QM to preclude a singularity, but to quote Da Schneib above:

"[Most physicists] expect that laws of quantum gravity (your other but unknown theory), which we haven't found so far, will resolve the mathematical singularity."

If you had paid attention to what we have actually been saying (over MANY threads) you would realize that there is nothing contradictory in our posts.
yep
1 / 5 (6) Jan 16, 2017
Black holes are nonsense, but that's what you get believing in Big Bang fantasies.
Here is some reading for Captain Stoopid and the rest of the consensus stooges so caught up in authority they have lost common sense.
http://www.sjcrot...rces.com
yep
1 / 5 (5) Jan 16, 2017
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 16, 2017
@yet another eu pseudoscience cult troll
http://www.sjcrot...rces.com

except crothers isn't a scientist, nor is he capable of comprehending basic physics since he was expelled for this very thing
http://www.mathem...008.html

http://www.mathem...ews.html

http://www.mathem...508.html

http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2009/06/some-preliminary-comments-on-crothers.html

more to the point: linking your pseudoscience page in rebuttal is like linking trump comments as intellectual discourse in maternity and OB/GYN topics - it's irrelevant, had no bearing on the topic, nor is there any evidence whatsoever for your argument

also note - you keep linking crothers as though it's valid science when it's been debunked for a long time (see above links)

you obviously can't use the MIT links- so use this link: http://www.readingbear.org/
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 16, 2017
@yep, you're still a pseudoscience troll cont'd
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1958IAUS....6...87B/0000092I033.html
Hmm....
i don't think you know what you're talking about
https://www.youtu...youtu.be

so, much like your cantthink conspiracist ideology, you have absolutely no evidence that can be considered reputable

linking to a pseudoscience site and known debunked idiot who is working for an agency that is attempting to piggyback on the renown of Princeton doesn't make your argument valid any more than standing in a church claiming you're "god" makes you omniscient or omnipotent

epic fail
yep
not rated yet Jan 29, 2017
Epic Fail is your belief in non-falsifiable space magic. The link to Harvard labs study shows more observational evidence then any physics defying nonsense your "real" scientists have come up with. Good luck with that Big Bang Fantasy as it is your god holding up the deck of cards.

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.