Physicists propose new theories of black holes from the very early universe

September 1, 2017 by Katherine Kornei
The theory that primordial black holes collide with neutron stars to create heavy elements explains the lack of neutron stars in the center of the Milky Way galaxy, a long-standing mystery. Credit: University of California, Los Angeles

UCLA physicists have proposed new theories for how the universe's first black holes might have formed and the role they might play in the production of heavy elements such as gold, platinum and uranium.

Two papers on their work were published in the journal Physical Review Letters.

A long-standing question in astrophysics is whether the universe's very first black holes came into existence less than a second after the Big Bang or whether they formed only millions of years later during the deaths of the earliest .

Alexander Kusenko, a UCLA professor of physics, and Eric Cotner, a UCLA graduate student, developed a compellingly simple new theory suggesting that black holes could have formed very shortly after the Big Bang, long before stars began to shine. Astronomers have previously suggested that these so-called primordial black holes could account for all or some of the universe's mysterious dark matter and that they might have seeded the formation of that exist at the centers of galaxies. The new theory proposes that primordial black holes might help create many of the heavier elements found in nature.

The researchers began by considering that a uniform field of energy pervaded the universe shortly after the Big Bang. Scientists expect that such fields existed in the distant past. After the universe rapidly expanded, this energy field would have separated into clumps. Gravity would cause these clumps to attract one another and merge together. The UCLA researchers proposed that some small fraction of these growing clumps became dense enough to become black holes.

Their hypothesis is fairly generic, Kusenko said, and it doesn't rely on what he called the "unlikely coincidences" that underpin other theories explaining primordial black holes.

The paper suggests that it's possible to search for these primordial black holes using astronomical observations. One method involves measuring the very tiny changes in a star's brightness that result from the gravitational effects of a primordial black hole passing between Earth and that star. Earlier this year, U.S. and Japanese astronomers published a paper on their discovery of one star in a nearby galaxy that brightened and dimmed precisely as if a primordial black hole was passing in front of it.

A black hole captured by a neutron star. Credit: Alexander Kusenko/UCLA

In a separate study, Kusenko, Volodymyr Takhistov, a UCLA postdoctoral researcher, and George Fuller, a professor at UC San Diego, proposed that primordial black holes might play an important role in the formation of heavy elements such as gold, silver, platinum and uranium, which could be ongoing in our galaxy and others.

The origin of those heavy elements has long been a mystery to researchers.

"Scientists know that these heavy elements exist, but they're not sure where these elements are being formed," Kusenko said. "This has been really embarrassing."

The UCLA research suggests that a primordial black hole occasionally collides with a star—the city-sized, spinning remnant of a star that remains after some supernova explosions—and sinks into its depths.

When that happens, Kusenko said, the primordial black hole consumes the neutron star from the inside, a process that takes about 10,000 years. As the neutron star shrinks, it spins even faster, eventually causing small fragments to detach and fly off. Those fragments of neutron-rich material may be the sites in which neutrons fuse into heavier and , Kusenko said.

However, the probability of a neutron star capturing a black hole is rather low, said Kusenko, which is consistent with observations of only some galaxies being enriched in heavy elements. The theory that primordial black holes collide with neutron stars to create heavy elements also explains the observed lack of in the center of the Milky Way galaxy, a long-standing mystery in astrophysics.

This winter, Kusenko and his colleagues will collaborate with scientists at Princeton University on computer simulations of the heavy elements produced by a neutron star-black hole interaction. By comparing the results of those simulations with observations of in nearby galaxies, the researchers hope to determine whether are indeed responsible for Earth's gold, platinum and uranium.

Explore further: Primordial black holes may have helped to forge heavy elements

Related Stories

Recommended for you

Using optical chaos to control the momentum of light

October 19, 2017

Integrated photonic circuits, which rely on light rather than electrons to move information, promise to revolutionize communications, sensing and data processing. But controlling and moving light poses serious challenges. ...

Black butterfly wings offer a model for better solar cells

October 19, 2017

(Phys.org)—A team of researchers with California Institute of Technology and the Karlsruh Institute of Technology has improved the efficiency of thin film solar cells by mimicking the architecture of rose butterfly wings. ...

Terahertz spectroscopy goes nano

October 19, 2017

Brown University researchers have demonstrated a way to bring a powerful form of spectroscopy—a technique used to study a wide variety of materials—into the nano-world.

43 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Hyperfuzzy
1.4 / 5 (10) Sep 01, 2017
Big Bang? Illogical! There exist the field due to a charge; that exist from it's center to infinity, conserved, i.e. never created or destroyed!

What is, is. You may try to make it fit you simple concept, i.e. an impossibility; or start with I exist, ...
Dingbone
Sep 01, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) Sep 01, 2017
This is a pretty compelling follow-on to the article at https://phys.org/...avy.html from early this month. It gives an answer to the question I asked in that article's comments, where the primordial black holes came from and how come we don't see them in the Milky Way. Research seems to be proceeding quickly in this area. It will be very interesting if these primordial black holes explain some of dark matter. It will also be very interesting if this explanation covers the relative dearth of black holes in our galaxy to explain the lack of lensing events we have observed.
Dingbone
Sep 01, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
richk
1 / 5 (2) Sep 01, 2017
" After the universe rapidly expanded, this energy field would have separated into clumps"
why/aren't/these/clumps/traced/in/the/CMB.
What's/the/mass/of/these/black/holes?
How/does/a/black/hole/penetrate/a/ball/of/neutrons?
malapropism
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 02, 2017
@richk
Ever heard of an invention called the space key? It's this amazing idea on keyboards for putting spaces between words to, you know, make sentences easier to read by separating the words. You should try it out sometime.
omatwankr
5 / 5 (1) Sep 02, 2017
"The researchers began by considering that a uniform field of energy pervaded the universe shortly after the Big Bang"

is this the "inflaton field" or a new epicycle needed to fit things together?
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) Sep 02, 2017
Here is the open access paper from Kusenko and Cotner: https://arxiv.org...06.09003

They seem to be saying that primordial black holes could have formed from a number of different fields, including the inflaton and various scalar charged fields that could have formed (and are already theorized to have) before and during vacuum decay of the inflaton. Such scalar fields are common in supersymmetric theories, and common enough in other formulations of SM physics as well. The mechanism, they say, is robust across various field types, and they present evidence of this. I suggest reading through the paper.
Dingbone
Sep 02, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ShotmanMaslo
4.3 / 5 (11) Sep 02, 2017
The primordial black holes have been excluded, the inflaton field is pure theory never confirmed, the supersymmetry has been disproved. I suggest you to read a bit about actual research, not formal math fantasies.


You have no idea what you are talking about. Primordial black holes have only been excluded in numbers sufficient to explain dark matter (meaning huge numbers), inflation is pure theory but a solid theory, and supersymmetry was not disproved at all, only a lower bound on masses of superpartners was established.

Actual researchers consider steady state theories disproven for almost 60 years.
davidsantamaria
1 / 5 (1) Sep 02, 2017
They gathered all the photons around. You are one, tell NASA. My tweeter is broken.
Dingbone
Sep 02, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ShotmanMaslo
5 / 5 (14) Sep 02, 2017
LOL, this is like to say, that the existence of pink unicorns at Moon was never disproved - only a lower bound of their density has been established to be less than one pink unicorn per Moon. Even worse, your evasion implies that the SUSY has NO ACTUAL LOWER BOUND LIMIT for superpartner masses, which could be falsified by experiments. It's untestable theory in similar way like the string theory and as such neverending salary and grant generator in this way.


Pink unicorns on the Moon are very unlikely to exist, however there are good reasons to believe primordial black holes and SUSY exists. So it is not the same at all.

There is certainly no lower limit for superpartner masses. It is more likely that SUSY exists even with superpartners at scales approaching planck scale than no SUSY at all.

Testability in practice is extremely hard. Theory has outpaced experiment by decades. This may be news for you but it is not news for anyone with any idea about the topic.
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (12) Sep 02, 2017
@Da Schneib, ShotmanMaslo.

Please catch up with the reality now acknowledged by HONEST professional cosmologists Penrose and Steinhardt, re BB/INFLATION.

They NOW ADMIT Big Bang/Inflation NEVER HAD ANY TENABLE scientific support in fact; only CONJECTURES like these having NO SCIENTIFIC VALUE; which have DERAILED PROPER scientific thinking on universal reality phenomena!

Please update your own "thinking', guys; and NOTE WELL the following FYIs:

- NO SUCH THING as Big Bang (only constant recycling via disc/jet systems at all scales within infinite universal space);

- "IFLATON FIELD" is INVENTION/CONJECTURE, NOT supportable by ANY logical/physical MECHANISM to manifest it;

- NO REAL PHYSICAL/LOGICALLY consistent mechanism for "Primordial Black Holes" (since there was NO Big Bang 'beginning' to universal process and hence NO "primordial" feature/phenomena of any kind; and NO INFLATION/INFLATON FIELD to "perturbate").

So please stop regurgitating TIRED OLD CRAP. Ta. :)
ShotmanMaslo
4.5 / 5 (16) Sep 02, 2017
Penrose certainly does not say there is no such things as big bang, his cyclic theory in fact argues that there are many successive big bangs and we live in one of them. It is also a very speculative idea without any empirical support. The rest of your post is complete nonsense as well.
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (13) Sep 02, 2017
@ShotmanMaslo.
Penrose certainly does not say there is no such things as big bang, his cyclic theory in fact argues that there are many successive big bangs and we live in one of them. It is also a very speculative idea without any empirical support. The rest of your post is complete nonsense as well.
The point is that there was no THE big bang, only recycling prhnomena up/down the scales/dynamical systems of which the universe is manifest unceasingly with NO 'beginning' from which to 'Inflate/Expand etc etc.

Hence, ALL the decades-long hypothesizing/conjecturing/claims based on BB/Inflation/Expansion that posit "primordial" Black holes; "primordial" CMB and/or "primordial" starting point/phase etc etc, and purporting to have any REALITY or logical connection with THE WHOLE INFINITE UNIVERSAL phenomena-set, is AUTOMATICALLY self-identified as BUNKUM.

Mate, you should be more objective; then you can DIFFERENTIATE between real things and mere maths conjectures. OK? :)
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (16) Sep 02, 2017
Good for you, @Maslo, not giving up because the cranks and the PLA try to bully you.
HeloMenelo
4.7 / 5 (12) Sep 03, 2017
Well well..what do you know Dungbone and his riot of socks (that is an antigoracle, sockpuppet) trying his hand at physics, the beating he gets in the environmental sections just aint enough LOL we l moonkeynuts you've come to the right place, we know you're addicted to the circle jerk, (and we're having a lot of fun seeing you go round and round) :D
Benni
1.3 / 5 (14) Sep 03, 2017
Good for you, @Maslo, not giving up because the cranks and the PLA try to bully you.


Words of wisdom......coming from someone who believes INFINITE GRAVITY & INFINITE DENSITY can exist inside a FINITE STELLAR MASS.............Perpetual Motion machines on parade here, alias BHs.
damsill12
Sep 03, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
HeloMenelo
4.3 / 5 (12) Sep 03, 2017
Antigoracle's goon puppet Benni, just can't sem to get out of that perpetual circle jerk :D
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 03, 2017
On Stationary Systems with Spherical Symmetry consisting of many Gravitating Masses

Albert Einstein- Oct 1939

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 most 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.

The problem quite naturally leads to the question, answered by this paper in the negative, as to whether physical models are capable of exhibiting such a singularity.

http://www.jstor..../1968902

.....for all you overage Trekkies who imagine you're so much smarter than Einstein who denies your fantasy.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 03, 2017
Albert Einstein- Oct 1939

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.cscamm...hild.pdf

Here's a more complete pdf with no links explaining why Einstein trashed Schwarzschild's Black Hole Math.
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Sep 03, 2017
Antigoracle's goon puppet Benni, just can't sem to get out of that perpetual circle jerk :D


The perfect example of someone unable to do the math, so what the trolls do in this case is go on name calling rampages.

OK, write your paper & tell us why Einstein was wrong in trashing Schwarzschild's Black Hole Math? You'd better be able to do the Differential Equations that Schneibo doesn't know how to do.
Hyperfuzzy
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 03, 2017
Antigoracle's goon puppet Benni, just can't sem to get out of that perpetual circle jerk :D


The perfect example of someone unable to do the math, so what the trolls do in this case is go on name calling rampages.

OK, write your paper & tell us why Einstein was wrong in trashing Schwarzschild's Black Hole Math? You'd better be able to do the Differential Equations that Schneibo doesn't know how to do.

You don't have to do the math. You can see it in your head. Eienstein is nonsense, the universe is not expanding, charge does not occupy space, a field does not affect the field, only another charge.
nikola_milovic_378
1.8 / 5 (4) Sep 03, 2017
This shows that science and almost all of its participants have no idea about the structure of the universe. They still do not know anything about how and from what the matter arises and how the subatomic particles form and from them the celestial bodies, which are made up of chemical elements in various aggregate states.
Learn All Together: No form of matter is formed in black holes, but it is where the matter is transformed into AETHER from which it was formed.
I am sorry for all these frustrated scientists who spend their entire life following the illogical, unnatural theories that contaminate our awareness that leads us to the true causes of the phenomenon. When the AETHER quark gluon plasma is formed, through a series of thermodynamic processes, all chemical elements are formed and all forms of celestial bodies are formed, and the black hole is responsible for "returning" them back to AETHER.
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (9) Sep 03, 2017
@Da Schneib.
Good for you, @Maslo, not giving up because the cranks and the PLA try to bully you.
Why keep doing this, mate? You evade the science/point and instead persist again with 'personal cheerleading' and other irrelevant 'tactics'. Just concentrate on the science/point, not the persons, DS. That's the only way for you/others to update yourselves on the evolving reality in science; instead of wasting time/intellect on your kneejerking personality troll agenda of cheerleading/regurgitating tired old BB/Inflation etc crap which never should have been 'passed by peer review' into the scientific 'narrative' and literature at all (as Penrose/Steinhardt have finally honestly admitted). Please stop your personality-feuds 'tactics' and just stick to actual science discussion. Thanks. :)
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Sep 03, 2017
Good for you, @Maslo, not giving up because the cranks and the PLA try to bully you.


Words of wisdom......coming from someone who believes INFINITE GRAVITY & INFINITE DENSITY can exist inside a FINITE STELLAR MASS.............Perpetual Motion machines on parade here, alias BHs.


Brilliant. Coming from a cretin who doesn't even understand the visual spectrum! What have you got this week at school, Benni boy? Alphabet? Lol. Dickhead. Grow up, dear. Get an education, yes? When you've got it love, come back. However, not here; try Cosmoquest, or ISF. See how long you last. Not many 11 year olds have done well there; let's see how you do, lovey. Lol.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Sep 03, 2017
You don't have to do the math. You can see it in your head. Eienstein is nonsense, the universe is not expanding, charge does not occupy space, a field does not affect the field, only another charge.


You what, dickhead? Sorry, you are just wasting people's time here, dear. Prove your crap, or eff off. Yes? Sad bugger.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 03, 2017
@ The loon Benni,

Antigoracle's goon puppet Benni, just can't sem to get out of that perpetual circle jerk :D


The perfect example of someone unable to do the math, so what the trolls do in this case is go on name calling rampages.

OK, write your paper & tell us why Einstein was wrong in trashing Schwarzschild's Black Hole Math? You'd better be able to do the Differential Equations that Schneibo doesn't know how to do.


No, dickhead, SHOW US WHY HE WAS WRONG. Yes? Where is your working? Where is your proof? You are talking sh*t. As per bleeding usual. Prawn. Where is this proof? DO NOT POINT US TO THE F*CKW*T CROTHERS. Or I shall frigging laugh. Come on, mouth almighty, where is your proof? Let's see it. NOW.
Dingbone
Sep 03, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
1 / 5 (4) Sep 03, 2017
Benni boy? Alphabet? Lol. Dickhead. Grow up,


You what, dickhead? Sorry, you are just wasting people's time here, dear. Prove your crap, or eff off. Yes? Sad bugger


No, dickhead, SHOW US WHY HE WAS WRONG. Yes? Where is your working? Where is your proof? You are talking sh*t. As per bleeding usual. Prawn. Where is this proof? DO NOT POINT US TO THE F*CKW*T CROTHERS. Or I shall frigging laugh


Jonesy.....did you use any Differential Equations to come up with any of the above? Maybe you could show us the math so we can better understand how you came to your conclusions? Or maybe you have a peer reviewed paper you could link us to?
Spaced out Engineer
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 03, 2017
@dingbone
Even DeSitter space is symmetric for loopers, it's just not a feature of the attempt at independence, which in some formulations fails, but in a cool way where the Hamiltonian may have an ontology or explains our limits to explain priorless indeterminacy.

Super symmetry places constraints on conformal field theory, that should still be commensurated as a highly unprobable configuration space of LQG. Why would a constraint of space not be considered as a part of the TOE, even with time depedancies and indepedencies seen as illusory?

Me thinks there is overlap in the lattice of loops and continuous structures like E8 or spin-7. The problem being that such a structure is so large and beautiful, it's use maybe limited. What is there to say of these things but spin left as a crossing?

Tot the article, maybe they can explain the lithium problem with these primordials.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Sep 03, 2017
sorry, but we're in a 13.7by bubble of acuity. It's a MUCH bigger Universe than we imagine....
AmritSorli
Sep 04, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dingbone
Sep 04, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (1) Sep 05, 2017
Poor dingbone/alizee/nikola/zephyr. Surely someone so brilliant as to singlehandedly discern the true nature of the universe could find a site where people would appreciate his dense aether gibberish before he got himself banned a record 40-50 times.

Because thats certainly not THIS site.

In the land of the blind nobody gives a shit what the one-eyed guy has to say about sunsets. And nobody will buy his paintings either.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Sep 05, 2017
This sight is proof that Earthlings are stupid! Not one provable, sane, supportable theory. Charge defines everthing. Charge has no mass. Charge does not occupy space. All that is, is repulsion and attraction. Anyway, great tech!
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Sep 05, 2017
This sight is proof that Earthlings are stupid! Not one provable, sane, supportable theory. Charge defines everthing. Charge has no mass. Charge does not occupy space. All that is, is repulsion and attraction. Anyway, great tech!

Charge DOES occupy space - and surrounding space (following inverse square)
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Sep 06, 2017
This sight is proof that Earthlings are stupid! Not one provable, sane, supportable theory. Charge defines everthing. Charge has no mass. Charge does not occupy space. All that is, is repulsion and attraction. Anyway, great tech!

Charge DOES occupy space - and surrounding space (following inverse square)

Charge is the field. More than one charge may occupy the same point! Only the center of the field responds to other fields; if not, you couldn't see $hit!
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Sep 06, 2017
By the way, all matter is a bulk of charge, the visual is typically the wrinkle in the field, temperature is just how fast everything is moving relative (think there exist an infinite number of states; OK, we limit, so Bolltzmann, meh), double slit, come on kids, what did you see? Anti-matter, are you sure? Maybe we got those bi-polar components wrong. They're just charge.

Standard Model? Einstein? Seriously? Today, 21st century, with knowledge that has existed for over a 100 years, axiomatically unstated. I don't mind having an assumed axiom, but ignorance?
Da Schneib
not rated yet Sep 06, 2017
@Whyde, I wouldn't say so much that a field occupies spacetime. It's a characteristic or property of spacetime. Remember that every particle is the instantiation of a field; we call the place where the particle has the highest probability of existing its "position." It's no wonder we have trouble saying exactly where that is.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Sep 09, 2017
@Whyde, I wouldn't say so much that a field occupies spacetime. It's a characteristic or property of spacetime. Remember that every particle is the instantiation of a field; we call the place where the particle has the highest probability of existing its "position." It's no wonder we have trouble saying exactly where that is.

WTF? Oh I get it, QM. Not my only scientific method! Try logic and Maxwell!

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.