Universe's biggest blackhole discovered inside a tiny dwarf galaxy!

What could be nearly the universe's biggest blackhole has been
discovered inside a galaxy that is just 1/4 the size of the Milky Way.
Until now it was assumed blackholes grew to this size only in really big
galaxies. In fact, it was thought that there was a standard defacto
blackhole-to-galaxy mass ratio rule. Looks like that was wrong! Big
Time!!! Typically they expected the galaxy's central blackhole to be
less than 1% the mass of the rest of the galaxy. In this case it's 14%
the mass of its host galaxy.

It raises questions about how exactly supermassive blackholes formed in
the universe in the first place. Do the blackholes grow to their sizes
through mergers and accretion, or do they form pretty much at their
current sizes? It's obviously a combination of the two, but which one is
the main forming process? I've personally always thought the blackholes
came first as localized density differences during the Big Bang, and
then later the stars & the galaxies formed around them like foam forming
around a drain.

Yousuf Khan

Links:
Black hole in NGC 1277 is 17 billion times the mass of the sun, may be
biggest ever found | News | National Post
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/11...st-ever-found/

Discovery of huge black hole raises doubts about how galaxies are formed
- thestar.com
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/ar...ies-are-formed

Dear Yousuf Khan:

On Friday, November 30, 2012 12:12:03 AM UTC-7, Yousuf Khan wrote:
....
It raises questions about how exactly supermassive
blackholes formed in the universe in the first
place. Do the blackholes grow to their sizes
through mergers and accretion,

This is contraindicated by your recent posting of the amount of Dark Matter vs Dark Energy over what was it, 3+ billion years?

or do they form pretty much at their current
sizes?

"current masses" might be a better choice of words.

It's obviously a combination of the two, but
which one is the main forming process? I've
personally always thought the blackholes
came first as localized density differences
during the Big Bang, and then later the stars
& the galaxies formed around them like foam
forming around a drain.

Sounds like that is close enough to me.

David A. Smith

On 30/11/2012 9:18 AM, dlzc wrote:
Dear Yousuf Khan:

On Friday, November 30, 2012 12:12:03 AM UTC-7, Yousuf Khan wrote:
...
It raises questions about how exactly supermassive
blackholes formed in the universe in the first
place. Do the blackholes grow to their sizes
through mergers and accretion,

This is contraindicated by your recent posting of the amount of Dark Matter vs Dark Energy over what was it, 3+ billion years?

How does one follow the other? Blackholes are definitively understood
objects, whereas dark matter and energy aren't yet, so they can't be of
the same origin.

It's obviously a combination of the two, but
which one is the main forming process? I've
personally always thought the blackholes
came first as localized density differences
during the Big Bang, and then later the stars
& the galaxies formed around them like foam
forming around a drain.

Sounds like that is close enough to me.

Great, then we're in violent agreement.

Yousuf Khan

On Nov 30, 2:12*am, Yousuf Khan wrote:
What could be nearly the universe's biggest blackhole has been
discovered inside a galaxy that is just 1/4 the size of the Milky Way.
Until now it was assumed blackholes grew to this size only in really big
galaxies. In fact, it was thought that there was a standard defacto
blackhole-to-galaxy mass ratio rule. Looks like that was wrong! Big
Time!!! Typically they expected the galaxy's central blackhole to be
less than 1% the mass of the rest of the galaxy. In this case it's 14%
the mass of its host galaxy.

It raises questions about how exactly supermassive blackholes formed in
the universe in the first place. Do the blackholes grow to their sizes
through mergers and accretion, or do they form pretty much at their
current sizes? It's obviously a combination of the two, but which one is
the main forming process? I've personally always thought the blackholes
came first as localized density differences during the Big Bang, and
then later the stars & the galaxies formed around them like foam forming
around a drain.

* * * * Yousuf Khan

Links:
Black hole in NGC 1277 is 17 billion times the mass of the sun, may be
biggest ever found | News | National Posthttp://news.nationalpost.com/2012/11/29/newly-discovered-black-hole-i...

Discovery of huge black hole raises doubts about how galaxies are formed
- thestar.comhttp://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/1294823--discovery-of-huge-...

So what came first the BH or the stars of the Galaxy? I have a theory
that answers that. TeBet

On Dec 1, 7:41*pm, "G=EMC^2" wrote:
On Nov 30, 2:12*am, Yousuf Khan wrote:









What could be nearly the universe's biggest blackhole has been
discovered inside a galaxy that is just 1/4 the size of the Milky Way.
Until now it was assumed blackholes grew to this size only in really big
galaxies. In fact, it was thought that there was a standard defacto
blackhole-to-galaxy mass ratio rule. Looks like that was wrong! Big
Time!!! Typically they expected the galaxy's central blackhole to be
less than 1% the mass of the rest of the galaxy. In this case it's 14%
the mass of its host galaxy.

It raises questions about how exactly supermassive blackholes formed in
the universe in the first place. Do the blackholes grow to their sizes
through mergers and accretion, or do they form pretty much at their
current sizes? It's obviously a combination of the two, but which one is
the main forming process? I've personally always thought the blackholes
came first as localized density differences during the Big Bang, and
then later the stars & the galaxies formed around them like foam forming
around a drain.

* * * * Yousuf Khan

Links:
Black hole in NGC 1277 is 17 billion times the mass of the sun, may be
biggest ever found | News | National Posthttp://news.nationalpost.com/2012/11/29/newly-discovered-black-hole-i...

Discovery of huge black hole raises doubts about how galaxies are formed
- thestar.comhttp://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/1294823--discovery-of-huge-...

So what came first the BH or the stars of the Galaxy? *I have a theory
that answers that. *TeBet

Its not like hen or egg. My theory on this like all my great theories
is based on good science. I just see the picture better than others
TreBet

On Nov 29, 11:12*pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
What could be nearly the universe's biggest blackhole has been
discovered inside a galaxy that is just 1/4 the size of the Milky Way.
Until now it was assumed blackholes grew to this size only in really big
galaxies. In fact, it was thought that there was a standard defacto
blackhole-to-galaxy mass ratio rule. Looks like that was wrong! Big
Time!!! Typically they expected the galaxy's central blackhole to be
less than 1% the mass of the rest of the galaxy. In this case it's 14%
the mass of its host galaxy.

It raises questions about how exactly supermassive blackholes formed in
the universe in the first place. Do the blackholes grow to their sizes
through mergers and accretion, or do they form pretty much at their
current sizes? It's obviously a combination of the two, but which one is
the main forming process? I've personally always thought the blackholes
came first as localized density differences during the Big Bang, and
then later the stars & the galaxies formed around them like foam forming
around a drain.

* * * * Yousuf Khan

Links:
Black hole in NGC 1277 is 17 billion times the mass of the sun, may be
biggest ever found | News | National Posthttp://news.nationalpost.com/2012/11/29/newly-discovered-black-hole-i...

Discovery of huge black hole raises doubts about how galaxies are formed
- thestar.comhttp://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/1294823--discovery-of-huge-...

This one is clearly breaking all the established rules, and perhaps
aether has a little something to do with its enormous mass.

Is this one the start of a new galaxy, or is it the demise of an old
galaxy?

On Dec 1, 5:27*pm, "G=EMC^2" wrote:
On Dec 1, 7:41*pm, "G=EMC^2" wrote:









On Nov 30, 2:12*am, Yousuf Khan wrote:

What could be nearly the universe's biggest blackhole has been
discovered inside a galaxy that is just 1/4 the size of the Milky Way..
Until now it was assumed blackholes grew to this size only in really big
galaxies. In fact, it was thought that there was a standard defacto
blackhole-to-galaxy mass ratio rule. Looks like that was wrong! Big
Time!!! Typically they expected the galaxy's central blackhole to be
less than 1% the mass of the rest of the galaxy. In this case it's 14%
the mass of its host galaxy.

It raises questions about how exactly supermassive blackholes formed in
the universe in the first place. Do the blackholes grow to their sizes
through mergers and accretion, or do they form pretty much at their
current sizes? It's obviously a combination of the two, but which one is
the main forming process? I've personally always thought the blackholes
came first as localized density differences during the Big Bang, and
then later the stars & the galaxies formed around them like foam forming
around a drain.

* * * * Yousuf Khan

Links:
Black hole in NGC 1277 is 17 billion times the mass of the sun, may be
biggest ever found | News | National Posthttp://news.nationalpost.com/2012/11/29/newly-discovered-black-hole-i...

Discovery of huge black hole raises doubts about how galaxies are formed
- thestar.comhttp://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/1294823--discovery-of-huge-...

So what came first the BH or the stars of the Galaxy? *I have a theory
that answers that. *TeBet

Its not like hen or egg. My theory on this like all my great theories
is based on good science. *I just see the picture better than others
TreBet

Go right ahead and spell the beans.

On 01/12/2012 7:41 PM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
So what came first the BH or the stars of the Galaxy? I have a theory
that answers that. TeBet

My own opinion is that the supermassive blackholes came first, probably
came within nanoseconds after the Big Bang, and as a result of the BB
too. Localized density fluctuations during the BB may have been the
start of these blackholes, and not stars imploding on themselves. These
blackholes may have existed long before the first stars or galaxies
started. They were created in the BB, and as the universe spread out
quickly due to Inflation, these blackholes got separated from each
other, thus providing the numerous anchor points around which the gas
eventually accumulated to form the stars & galaxies, after Inflation ended.

How massive these blackholes initially were was probably not too
important, just as long as they attained a certain minimal mass, that
could act as the anchor points of the galaxies that eventually formed
around them. After all it doesn't matter if you have a big boat anchor
or a small boat anchor, if the anchor is good enough to hold the boat in
place, that's all you needed. Thus we're living in a relatively large
galaxy, with a comparatively small blackhole, which was probably just
adequate to get our galaxy started. However, in the case of NGC-1277,
they got an over-endowed boat anchor for the size of galaxy they have.

Another possibility is that this blackhole was the anchor for a much
larger galaxy at one time. That original galaxy may have been involved
in a merger event with another galaxy. We often see that when a
three-way merger is involved with blackholes, the smallest blackhole
eventually gets kicked out of the newly merged galaxy. The kicked
blackhole usually leaves with a cadre of its closest stars, basically
forming a star cluster surrounding it. This blackhole is so large, its
attendant star cluster must've been about the size of a dwarf galaxy!
Also if this is the runt blackhole that got kicked out, can you imagine
how big the other two blackholes that eventually kicked it out were?!?

Yousuf Khan

On 01/12/2012 10:40 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
This one is clearly breaking all the established rules, and perhaps
aether has a little something to do with its enormous mass.

I'm not getting drawn in into that crank theory.

Is this one the start of a new galaxy, or is it the demise of an old
galaxy?

It could be both, see my discussion with Herb. I listed a hypothesis
that this blackhole may have anchored a far bigger galaxy at one time,
but then it got kicked out and is now just anchoring this left-over
remnant of stars.

Yousuf Khan

Dear Yousuf Khan:

On Saturday, December 1, 2012 3:38:31 PM UTC-7, Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 30/11/2012 9:18 AM, dlzc wrote:

On Friday, November 30, 2012 12:12:03 AM UTC-7, Yousuf Khan wrote:

...

It raises questions about how exactly supermassive
blackholes formed in the universe in the first
place. Do the blackholes grow to their sizes
through mergers and accretion,

This is contraindicated by your recent posting
of the amount of Dark Matter vs Dark Energy over
what was it, 3+ billion years?

How does one follow the other? Blackholes are
definitively understood objects,

well...

whereas dark matter and energy aren't yet, so
they can't be of the same origin.

Clearly not true for Dark Matter. Dark Matter will / does have a contribution from MACHOS (inclusive of black holes), WIMPS (however unlikely from many other recent observations), unexpectedly ionized normal matter, and whatever is left some exotic stuff.

The black holes cannot have consumed much normal matter, or Dark matter will have been seen to increase.

David A. Smith