Biggest supermassive blackholes found yet!

On 12/7/11 6:05 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 07/12/2011 1:14 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 12/7/11 12:05 AM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 06/12/2011 1:01 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 12/6/11 8:13 AM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
One was found to be 9.7 billion solar masses, while the other one was
found to be a mind-blowing 21 billion solar masses! The previous
record-holder was *only* 6.3 billion solar masses. I think there were
some theories that suggested that they couldn't get past 10 billion
solar masses, so I guess those theories are blown out of the water.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/06/sc...holes-yet.html






There is no theory that puts a limit on black hole size, Yousuf.

Sam, you should know by now that I don't say anything randomly!

http://www.physorg.com/news140370694.html

"Once considered rare and exotic objects, black holes are now known to
exist throughout the universe, with the largest and most massive found
at the centers of the largest galaxies. These "ultra-massive" black
holes have been shown to have masses upwards of one billion times that
of our own Sun. Now, Priyamvada Natarajan, an associate professor of
astronomy and physics at Yale University and a fellow at the Radcliffe
Institute for Advanced Study, has shown that even the biggest of these
gravitational monsters can't keep growing forever. Instead, they appear
to curb their own growth – once they accumulate about 10 billion times
the mass of the Sun."

Yousuf Khan

My statement remains: There is no theory that puts a limit on black
hole size.

Your "statement" remains because you're a stubborn ass who can't admit
that you're in way over your head intellectually. At the very least you
have a reading comprehension problem. I just showed you the previous
theory that stated point-blank that scientists once thought blackholes
couldn't get much over 10 billion solar masses.

Yousuf Khan


It has been my observation that you tend to draw conclusions, Yousuf,
that are not particularly supported by the observations. Sort of like
many popular science writers who run with a story without really
understanding the science.

On 12/7/11 6:08 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 07/12/2011 1:15 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 12/7/11 12:08 AM, Yousuf Khan wrote:


Supermassive blackholes aren't formed from stellar blackhole mergers.
They are born supermassive right from the start and collapsing stars
weren't involved. Most likely they were already born as blackholes
during the Big Bang.

Yousuf Khan

Is that so!

You got a better idea? Heh-heh, sorry that was a rhetorical question,
you have no original thoughts, right Sam?

What is the scientific evidence, Yousuf?

On 07/12/2011 8:51 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
On Dec 6, 10:08 pm, Yousuf wrote:
Supermassive blackholes aren't formed from stellar blackhole mergers.
They are born supermassive right from the start and collapsing stars
weren't involved. Most likely they were already born as blackholes
during the Big Bang.

Yousuf Khan

Don't be so absolute about that. A big enough BH or cluster of BHs
can consume a whole galaxy that'll likely merge or implode down into
one monstrous BH. It's highly unlikely that any singular star created
that enormous BH.

No blackholes can consume a whole galaxy. The central blackholes, no
matter how massive they are, are little fleas compared to their
surrounding galaxy. For comparison, the Milky Way central blackhole is 4
million solar masses, but there are between 200 billion to 400 billion
solar masses of stars in this galaxy. So the ratio works out to between
0.1 and 0.2% of the mass of the galaxy.

If the central blackholes started out life as blackholes right after the
Big Bang, they would've served as the anchor points or the nucleus for
the surrounding galaxy to grow around later. Sure they would've likely
kept growing after the Big Bang as quasars. But they were likely already
supermassive from the start.

If there's a surrounding galaxy (NGC 4889) associated with this 21e9
Ms BH, it has got to be worth at the very least another trillion
stars, though perhaps ten trillion isn't improbable unless some of
those stars or pocket clusters got eaten alive by that enormous BH.

That should be about right, using a 0.2% ratio as mentioned above.

Yousuf Khan

On Dec 7, 4:22*pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 07/12/2011 8:51 AM,BradGuthwrote:

On Dec 6, 10:08 pm, Yousuf *wrote:
Supermassive blackholes aren't formed from stellar blackhole mergers.
They are born supermassive right from the start and collapsing stars
weren't involved. Most likely they were already born as blackholes
during the Big Bang.

* * * * *Yousuf Khan

Don't be so absolute about that. *A big enough BH or cluster of BHs
can consume a whole galaxy that'll likely merge or implode down into
one monstrous BH. *It's highly unlikely that any singular star created
that enormous BH.

No blackholes can consume a whole galaxy. The central blackholes, no
matter how massive they are, are little fleas compared to their
surrounding galaxy. For comparison, the Milky Way central blackhole is 4
million solar masses, but there are between 200 billion to 400 billion
solar masses of stars in this galaxy. So the ratio works out to between
0.1 and 0.2% of the mass of the galaxy.

If the central blackholes started out life as blackholes right after the
Big Bang, they would've served as the anchor points or the nucleus for
the surrounding galaxy to grow around later. Sure they would've likely
kept growing after the Big Bang as quasars. But they were likely already
supermassive from the start.

If there's a surrounding galaxy (NGC 4889) associated with this 21e9
Ms BH, it has got to be worth at the very least another trillion
stars, though perhaps ten trillion isn't improbable unless some of
those stars or pocket clusters got eaten alive by that enormous BH.

That should be about right, using a 0.2% ratio as mentioned above.

* * * * Yousuf Khan

Really big stars can lose or blow-off a great deal of their mass
before turning into a BH. Their mass reduction can be 16:1, although
perhaps as little as a 10:1 reduction might also work.