The origins of Supermassive Black Holes are Supermassive Stars?

Now, my opinion is that supermassive black holes were born directly as
supermassive black holes right from the start of the universe, during
the Big Bang and Inflation periods. I think that's the only thing that
would explain their appearance so soon after the BB. However, others
still cling to the merging stellar black hole model.

This one is an interesting variant on that model. This one suggests that
at the early universe, there were supermassive stars, that were so
massive that they spawned two black holes inside their cores which
orbited each other for a period, and then merged. There's no mention in
the article of what exactly they consider a supermassive star, these
days we would consider a star of several hundred solar masses to be
supermassive, but perhaps during that time period they were talking
about stars that are upwards of thousands of solar masses? I can't see
how such a huge star could keep itself inflated, even with nuclear
fusion, but anyways that's what these guys have modelled, and it seems
to work in their model.

Still even with a star that's thousands of solar masses, I would think
it would still take at least a billion years for all of those black
holes to find each other and merge. At most each of those supermassive
stars is going to produce an intermediate mass black hole, rather than a
supermassive black hole.

From one collapsing star, two black holes form and fuse | Astronomy.com
http://www.astronomy.com/news/2013/1...-form-and-fuse

On 11/8/13, 3:42 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Now, my opinion is that supermassive black holes were born directly as
supermassive black holes right from the start of the universe, during
the Big Bang and Inflation periods. I think that's the only thing that
would explain their appearance so soon after the BB. However, others
still cling to the merging stellar black hole model.

This one is an interesting variant on that model. This one suggests that
at the early universe, there were supermassive stars, that were so
massive that they spawned two black holes inside their cores which
orbited each other for a period, and then merged. There's no mention in
the article of what exactly they consider a supermassive star, these
days we would consider a star of several hundred solar masses to be
supermassive, but perhaps during that time period they were talking
about stars that are upwards of thousands of solar masses? I can't see
how such a huge star could keep itself inflated, even with nuclear
fusion, but anyways that's what these guys have modelled, and it seems
to work in their model.

Still even with a star that's thousands of solar masses, I would think
it would still take at least a billion years for all of those black
holes to find each other and merge. At most each of those supermassive
stars is going to produce an intermediate mass black hole, rather than a
supermassive black hole.

From one collapsing star, two black holes form and fuse | Astronomy.com
http://www.astronomy.com/news/2013/1...-form-and-fuse


In a few short years, we will know whether you are right, as the Webb
Space Telescope will be able to look back to the first stars.

The Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT) also!

On 08/11/2013 9:43 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
In a few short years, we will know whether you are right, as the Webb
Space Telescope will be able to look back to the first stars.

The Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT) also!

I doubt either is going to look that far back. They said the same thing
about Hubble when it first went into orbit.

Yousuf Khan

On a sunny day (Fri, 08 Nov 2013 16:42:59 -0500) it happened Yousuf Khan
wrote in :

Now, my opinion is that supermassive black holes were born directly as
supermassive black holes right from the start of the universe, during
the Big Bang and Inflation periods.

Yes I agree that makes the most sense.

I imagine a big 'something' exploding [the big bang],
something made of extremely dense matter,
and the black holes were just parts of it flying away,
later spitting out mass and creating galaxies.

I have no scientific proof other then having watched many fireworks...
Some processes must happen within those black holes to 'spray out'
stars like a garden sprinkler (or star forming matter).
We see many of those galaxy centers have a form like bars, where the galaxy
arms seem to emanate from the end of those bars.
Likely the center is rotating too., forming the arms structure.

Hey, I am not mainstream.
Just logic and observation.
And it needs no dark matter and dark energy either.

On 09/11/2013 2:50 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 08 Nov 2013 16:42:59 -0500) it happened Yousuf Khan
wrote in :

Now, my opinion is that supermassive black holes were born directly as
supermassive black holes right from the start of the universe, during
the Big Bang and Inflation periods.

Yes I agree that makes the most sense.

I imagine a big 'something' exploding [the big bang],
something made of extremely dense matter,
and the black holes were just parts of it flying away,
later spitting out mass and creating galaxies.

I'd say it was all energy for a few nanoseconds (or less) before mass
ever appeared after the Big Bang. The mass is a specialized, highly
organized form of energy, after all.

I have no scientific proof other then having watched many fireworks...
Some processes must happen within those black holes to 'spray out'
stars like a garden sprinkler (or star forming matter).
We see many of those galaxy centers have a form like bars, where the galaxy
arms seem to emanate from the end of those bars.
Likely the center is rotating too., forming the arms structure.

Well, I don't think the black holes are "spitting out" stars either.
They are likely creating an environment outside of them which could be
favourable to create stars, but they aren't creating the stars themselves.

Hey, I am not mainstream.
Just logic and observation.
And it needs no dark matter and dark energy either.

It never did require either before, no matter what.

Yousuf Khan

On a sunny day (Sat, 09 Nov 2013 03:41:52 -0500) it happened Yousuf Khan
wrote in :

On 09/11/2013 2:50 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 08 Nov 2013 16:42:59 -0500) it happened Yousuf Khan
wrote in :

Now, my opinion is that supermassive black holes were born directly as
supermassive black holes right from the start of the universe, during
the Big Bang and Inflation periods.

Yes I agree that makes the most sense.

I imagine a big 'something' exploding [the big bang],
something made of extremely dense matter,
and the black holes were just parts of it flying away,
later spitting out mass and creating galaxies.

I'd say it was all energy for a few nanoseconds (or less) before mass
ever appeared after the Big Bang. The mass is a specialized, highly
organized form of energy, after all.

That is one way to look at it, in a way at least in Einstein's view,
the two are equivalent (e=m.c^2)
If you ask me what exactly is mass? then in CERN they are happy with Higgs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson
or what exactly is energy...
that takes one really fast into philosophy.
Not that I do not know how to calculate with energy, I design electronics.

So maybe a 'state of something', after all we can, as bunch of carbon units (so to speak)
only think of things in terms of our own physical world.
Like an ant cannot comprehend the structure of the wall it climbs on, neither the ideas of the architect,
nor why it was build, nor its molecular structure etc etc, but likely can smell where an other ant was.

So was it mass, was it energy, whatever model you like most, just do not make me fight for it :-)



I have no scientific proof other then having watched many fireworks...
Some processes must happen within those black holes to 'spray out'
stars like a garden sprinkler (or star forming matter).
We see many of those galaxy centers have a form like bars, where the galaxy
arms seem to emanate from the end of those bars.
Likely the center is rotating too., forming the arms structure.

Well, I don't think the black holes are "spitting out" stars either.

Some form of something that then changes into stars, you could say star forming substance.
Far more likely than clouds of 'smoke' (gases) falling into those blobs we call black holes,
and on the way-in forming stars.
Is that not the current consensus? Gravitational clumping together,
why then only near black holes? It should fall in then.

In some models of gravity (Le Sage) there is by nature a maximum on gravity (all particles intercepted),
And so on the attraction possible by a black hole, and that also facilitates them flying apart in an original bang.
Hey few HUNDRED years ago people thought sun was burning coal, as that is all they know.
Now we think it must be nuclear. and then what?


They are likely creating an environment outside of them which could be
favourable to create stars, but they aren't creating the stars themselves.

Hey, I am not mainstream.
Just logic and observation.
And it needs no dark matter and dark energy either.

It never did require either before, no matter what.

The word 'matter' in this sentence sticks out :-)

Hey Saturday morning philosophy, cool.

On 11/8/13, 10:09 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 08/11/2013 9:43 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
In a few short years, we will know whether you are right, as the Webb
Space Telescope will be able to look back to the first stars.

The Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT) also!

I doubt either is going to look that far back. They said the same thing
about Hubble when it first went into orbit.

Yousuf Khan



TMT will be a fundamental tool for investigating a very wide range
of topics, including:

Spectroscopic exploration of the “dark ages” when the first sources
of light and the first heavy elements in the universe formed and when
the universe, which had recombined at redshift (z) ~1000, became
re-ionized by these sources of light. The nature of “first-light”
objects and their effects on the young universe are among the
outstanding open questions in astrophysics. Here TMT and the James
Webb Space Telescope (JWST) will work hand-in-hand, with JWST
providing the targets for detailed study with TMT’s spectrometers.

On 09/11/2013 4:23 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Sat, 09 Nov 2013 03:41:52 -0500) it happened Yousuf Khan
wrote in :
Well, I don't think the black holes are "spitting out" stars either.

Some form of something that then changes into stars, you could say star forming substance.
Far more likely than clouds of 'smoke' (gases) falling into those blobs we call black holes,
and on the way-in forming stars.
Is that not the current consensus? Gravitational clumping together,
why then only near black holes? It should fall in then.

Well, first of all, it's not only near black holes that stars form from
the gas clouds, these days they form near exploding supernovas too. But
in the very early days of the universe, they hadn't yet had enough time
to form supernovas, so it was likely only blackholes that were available
to create the compressive forces necessary in those gas clouds. Those
first-generation black hole formed stars then became the first
generation of supernovas that created the next generation of stars
further away from the blackholes. Newer and newer stars then start
forming further out from the central black holes because they are being
formed from supernovas compressing their gas clouds, instead of the
black holes doing it.

As for why they don't fall in, because often they only enter into orbit
around the black hole, rather than falling in. Also let's not forget
that a lot of these in-falling matter are producing prodigious amounts
of photons which will push matter further out, away from the black hole
region rather than towards it. Basically all forms of friction,
electrical charges, and magnetic charges are being carried by these
photons -- thus they are electromagnetic forces. And EM forces are what
are opposing matter from only falling into black holes.

In some models of gravity (Le Sage) there is by nature a maximum on gravity (all particles intercepted),
And so on the attraction possible by a black hole, and that also facilitates them flying apart in an original bang.
Hey few HUNDRED years ago people thought sun was burning coal, as that is all they know.
Now we think it must be nuclear. and then what?

Oh yes, I had forgotten you're a proponent of Le Sage's model of
gravity. However, Le Sage gravity model fails as a model for gravity
itself, but it does seem to be a precursor to the Casimir Effect, which
is not gravitational, but is a quantum effect that is gravity-like at
tiny scales.

The Casimir Effect is one of the leading candidate possibilities for
creating wormholes in space, sometime in the future. So the Casimir
Effect and gravity may be related in some way.

Yousuf Khan

On a sunny day (Sat, 09 Nov 2013 10:07:55 -0500) it happened Yousuf Khan
wrote in :

In some models of gravity (Le Sage) there is by nature a maximum on gravity (all particles intercepted),
And so on the attraction possible by a black hole, and that also facilitates them flying apart in an original bang.
Hey few HUNDRED years ago people thought sun was burning coal, as that is all they know.
Now we think it must be nuclear. and then what?

Oh yes, I had forgotten you're a proponent of Le Sage's model of
gravity.

I am not a proponent, but more very sceptical of the current models.
Do not forget that Einstein's 'gravity waves', his explanation why orbits decay in a way,
have not been directly observed, even with experiments that are many time more sensitive than what
was originally thought needed to confirm his theory.

Also Feynman, who looked into Le Sage, stated that his main objection to Le Sage was that there must be some form
of friction.
Well a simple form of friction ALSO cause orbits to decay.
I am not questioning that the math by Einstein gives (at least in some cases) the right answer,
but I like to refer to that joke , .. well I have posted that several times,
anyways the correct answer does NOT imply the correct theory! In fact it can be gambled in the worst case.

However, Le Sage gravity model fails as a model for gravity
itself,

Well maybe maybe not, maybe it is slightly different.


but it does seem to be a precursor to the Casimir Effect,

I was under the impression that Casimir was about wave length, when things come very close together
wave [length] no longer fits, and there is a resulting force from EM outside that is bigger then between the test plates.

I know physicists like to talk about virtual particles popping in and out of existence,
and many years a wave picture of matter was the status quo, where it was thought that all matter was made up of waves..
A lot of the play at CERN still is based on philosophy like that, people have even proposed an electron is a black hole.
I dunno, I think if you look for a wave explanation you will find it.
But I am not saying that is the end of things.

If black holes were to radiate some sort of something (to be really vague),
then the universe would push itself apart, and you HAVE your Le Sage particle.
That paints a totally different picture for matter: far out there (edge of 'universe', it would not exist as we know it, it would fall apart.
Because 'out there' (and I am sure there could be or likely are more than one big bangs), would see a unidirectional force
causing asymmetry in any structure, atom, elementary particle, whatever.
So in this area of _all_, we are in a special condition I'd say, and it is by no means a constant,
but very likely changes over time,
That includes light speed, gravity, direction and speed of gravity, everything we know.



which
is not gravitational, but is a quantum effect that is gravity-like at
tiny scales.

There was a little joke a while back, that any posting or scientific announcement with 'quantum' in it,
from computers to encryption to particles to whatever, can be safely ignored.
From my POV Plank was misunderstood, and he had the same idea.


The Casimir Effect is one of the leading candidate possibilities for
creating wormholes in space, sometime in the future. So the Casimir
Effect and gravity may be related in some way.


Too many mathematicians have too much free time, from holographic universes to strings,
hey how about a theory where the universe is made of sausages, mmmm, very small, and thin like strings,
life time job security looking for those.
:-)

Dear Jan Panteltje:

On Saturday, November 9, 2013 9:21:17 AM UTC-7, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Sat, 09 Nov 2013 10:07:55 -0500) it happened Yousuf Khan

wrote in :
....
Oh yes, I had forgotten you're a proponent of
Le Sage's model of gravity.



I am not a proponent, but more very sceptical of
the current models. Do not forget that Einstein's
'gravity waves', his explanation why orbits decay
in a way, have not been directly observed, even
with experiments that are many time more sensitive
than what was originally thought needed to confirm
his theory.

The key here is "originally thought", and also I have never heard them say they could detect the pulsars they know about... the Earth is not big enough and stable enough for such a detector.

Be easy enough to have an infinite speed of gravity, and have no detections too.

David A. Smith