Early supermassive black holes

Ref: http://chandra.harvard.edu/

New evidence from Chandra suggests that supermassive black holes were formed
within one billion years after the big bang, challenging some models of
black hole/quasar formation. One theory emerging from these discoveries is
that a series of smaller black holes created by the collapse of massive
early stars merged into the supermassive hole.
My question is naive: is there any evidence that these black holes, or any
others, could have formed directly from a sufficiently huge proplyd, without
the formation of massive stars?

Bob

Bob Schmall wrote:
Ref: http://chandra.harvard.edu/

New evidence from Chandra suggests that supermassive black holes were formed
within one billion years after the big bang, challenging some models of
black hole/quasar formation. One theory emerging from these discoveries is
that a series of smaller black holes created by the collapse of massive
early stars merged into the supermassive hole.
My question is naive: is there any evidence that these black holes, or any
others, could have formed directly from a sufficiently huge proplyd, without
the formation of massive stars?

Bob



The idea that the very fist generation of stars (at about BB + 200 million
years) were many hundreds of solar masses (on the main sequence) lends
credibility to the idea that there would have been many stellar black hole
remnants in the early universe.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22first+stars%22

Sam Wormley wrote:
Bob Schmall wrote:
Ref: http://chandra.harvard.edu/

New evidence from Chandra suggests that supermassive black holes were formed
within one billion years after the big bang, challenging some models of
black hole/quasar formation. One theory emerging from these discoveries is
that a series of smaller black holes created by the collapse of massive
early stars merged into the supermassive hole.
My question is naive: is there any evidence that these black holes, or any
others, could have formed directly from a sufficiently huge proplyd, without
the formation of massive stars?

Bob



The idea that the very fist generation of stars (at about BB + 200 million
years) were many hundreds of solar masses (on the main sequence) lends
credibility to the idea that there would have been many stellar black hole
remnants in the early universe.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22first+stars%22

On the other hand, some people have looked at models for collapsing
primordial gas. For the same reasons that it would only make really
massive stars (inefficient cooling due to lack of heavy-element atoms
and especially dust grains), certain mass/rotation ranges of gas
just might be able to go mostly into a very massive black hole.
Hardly confirmed, but still in the running. One such calculation
is described by Oleg Gnedin (not to be confused with Nick Gnedin,
who also does theory relevant to galaxy formation) at
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0108070

All these results relevant to quick appearance of very massive black holes
seems easier to accomodate if some non-stellar process jumpstarted the
growth of these beasts...

Bill Keel

Bob Schmall wrote:

Ref: http://chandra.harvard.edu/


question is naive: is there any evidence that these black holes, or any
others, could have formed directly from a sufficiently huge proplyd, without
the formation of massive stars?

No.





Bob

"webco" wrote in message
...


Bob Schmall wrote:

Ref: http://chandra.harvard.edu/


question is naive: is there any evidence that these black holes, or any
others, could have formed directly from a sufficiently huge proplyd,
without
the formation of massive stars?

No.

Another proof that brevity is not always the soul of wit. Please refer to
William Keel's post earlier in this thread.