The riddle of the cosmic chicken and the egg may be solved by astronomers who saw that black holes came before the galaxies and these formed around them * The findings were presented at the meeting of the American Astronomical Union in California
Most if not all galaxies, incl The Milky Way, include a massive black hole at their center. However, it was not clear whether the black holes were there first and helped create a galaxy by attracting matter to them, or whether they grew in galaxies that already existed. This is according to a study presented at the American Astronomical Union conference currently taking place in Long Beach, California.
"It looks like the black holes have moved forward," said Dr. Chris Carrilli of the National Radio Observatory in Socorro, New Mexico, who participated in the study. "The evidence is starting to pile up." said. Previous studies of nearby galaxies revealed an intriguing relationship between the masses of the black holes and between the stars and the gas in the central "bulge" in the galaxies. In general, the mass of the black hole is about a thousandth of the mass of the galactic bulge surrounding it.
This constant ratio indicates "interactive connections" between the black hole and the bulge, but it is not clear which of these two factors grew before the other, or whether they grew together.
In the new study, the researchers used radio telescopes to dig back almost to the beginning of the universe, about 13.7 billion years ago, when the first galaxies formed.
"We have finally been able to measure the masses of black holes and bulges in some galaxies as they appeared in the first billion years after the Big Bang," said Fabian Walter of the Max Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy in Bonn, Germany, and co-author of the study. "The evidence shows that the constant ratio observed in nearby galaxies may not have existed in the early universe." According to him "the implication is that the black hole grew first."
The astronomers say that the next challenge will be to find out how the black holes and the bulges affect each other's growth and vice versa." According to Dr. Karili, powerful radio telescopes being built these days will be able to reveal the mystery. Among other things, he mentions the expansion of the Very Large Array (EVLA) in New Mexico, and the Millimeter and Submillimeter Telescope Array (ALMA) in Chile.
For the news in Universe Today
More on the Science website from the 213th American Astronomical Society Conference, January 2008, Long Beach California:
45 תגובות
emir,
You have completely missed the meaning of Einstein's words about mathematics - or worse - you are trying to mislead the less knowledgeable readers.
The theory of relativity was established only after the mathematicians added their complicated equations to Einstein's wonderful insights.
Einstein with all his genius, needed help with the higher mathematics required to establish his theory of relativity!
Eran,
You have a simple challenge:
He showed us deep insights in the Gemara, the Kabbalah, the Zohar and the Torah ** that were interpreted and said explicitly before they were discovered by science **
The emphasis, if I wasn't clear enough, is on insights and discoveries ** before ** that were published and discovered by science!
Don't rush, take your time…
Very true regarding mathematics, until recently it was not possible to predict waves with a height of 30 m except once every 10,000 years, according to mathematical calculations, but today we know that all the formulas are worthless, and there are such waves almost on a daily basis.
Response to 6 the mathematician, Einstein himself said that after the mathematicians took his theory of relativity, and turned it into mathematical equations, he no longer understood anything.
So, Dhilak, stop with the math,
After all, even the economists already understand that mathematics and life have nothing.
At most you can build a bridge, and that too with a limited guarantee.
Gentlemen, scholars, kudos to you, but all this was already written thousands of years ago in the Gemara, the Kabbalah, the Zohar and the Torah.
So, before you try to learn Gentile Torah, learn your Torah and know everything about the universe.
Can someone explain, that when talking about a universe with a big bang, are there other universes, or just one universe?
The cool commenter:
There is no particular problem here.
As for the body that falls into the black hole - it will fall in.
From the point of view of the distant observer - the gravitational force of the body that fell into the black hole will continue to act on it from the direction of the black hole.
The radiation emanating from the falling body is gradually shifted to "red" - that is - its wavelength lengthens (its energy decreases) and at a certain point it can no longer be seen at all.
incidentally:
Does anyone understand what this "fundamental approach" wants?
On the determination of human reason:
Since the dawn of history, man has developed different abilities and skills. A special type of skills develops especially in those who are satisfied with their uncontrollable need for dominance, to the point of almost complete inhibition in understanding the need to adapt to the changes that characterize everything that is contained in our beings.
Here are a few examples, and for this matter they are quite important:
* Darwin's Origin of Species; or:
* Fortunately for us, a part of the people of Israel, began to understand after about two thousand years of exile, characterized by persecution and suffering, and the worst of everything that took place in Europe, in order to understand democracy, which although ranked as evil in the minority, but there were never great successes for the people of Israel, as happened during its attempts to adapt to democracy, which also When someone tried to paralyze her, by such as: heinous murder of a prime minister; This democracy allowed him to marry a woman, and also to give birth to a child, which was unthinkable in non-democratic countries.
As a result of the characteristic of history to change, and sometimes at accelerated speeds, it would be right to dedicate the power and abilities that this democracy allows us, in order to integrate as much as possible into the inevitable changes, and for this purpose, it is very right, first of all, to put aside the expectations on a personal level, and sometimes it actually helps those come true
In summary: instead of spreading almost endless articles in comments, it is advisable, for example, to focus on a substantive response to an article published on January 8, 2009, entitled: The Milky Way is more massive, spins faster and will most likely collide with Andromeda, in which it was reported, among other things, that extremely accurate measurements of the Milky Way They discovered that our galaxy rotates about 150 km/h faster than previously thought.
And here there is reason to wonder, in relation to why our galaxy rotates more (it is not a vehicle that moves at a constant speed relative to a given point), here we are talking about masses of the order of magnitude of galaxies, whose attraction (or repulsion) is determined by one of the basic forces in physics - gravity, which characterizes (Graph) Its operation is logarithmic (as opposed to linear).
Or it is desirable, for example, to try to give an explanation linking the expansion of the galaxies (the Big Bang) to the collisions that occur between them from time to time (in terms of the time of the speed of light).
An interesting question about black holes:
How can a black hole grow if the time a body falls into it is infinite relative to the observer?
"the distant observer will see an object falling into a black hole slowly down as it approaches the event horizon, taking an infinite time to reach it."
and Goa
On spectacular photographs that replaced impressive drawings:
The beautiful drawings of the maps of Ptolemy (who was also a scientist in his time), which convinced the shapers of the human rational opinion of the time (the church), that the earth is the center of the universe, and it is interesting that there was someone who claimed that this was not true and they laughed at him, but what to do, the shapers of the rational opinion The human beings who were fascinated by Ptolemy's drawings stuck humanity in ignorance that lasted for about one thousand six hundred years; It is interesting that a priest rescued humanity from the fires.
point:
Indeed - beach pampering is on the rise 🙂
Is this new way of thinking leading us to India?
To Michael R. (formerly Michael):
The eternal dynamics of everything we know in the context of the mass phenomena in the universe has a cycle, the frequency of which is one of the coordinates of the space-time function; in a large space, it is possible to have cycles of larger orders of magnitude (time), than the spaces contained within it.
If this important topic does not become a debate, but a sharp attempt to understand what is "beyond our comprehension abilities", we will have a chance to develop a direction for thinking, that despite the existing difficulties, we will advance to more improved explanations; If not, we remain stuck with the question: which came first, the egg or the chicken, or maybe the rooster?
The possibility of the existence of primordial black holes that are the products of the Big Bang occurred to my fevered mind many years ago. The idea came to me during my military service, when we practiced throwing a spray grenade. As some of you may remember, the shell of the grenade is scored with grooves. The grooves are lines of weakness on the surface of the shell of the grenade, along which the breaking of the shell of the grenade takes place during the explosion.
So also in the big bang, or rather, right after the big bang, the energy density in the universe was uneven, bands of weakness were formed (more correctly, surfaces of weakness) that were (relatively) sparse in their energy density. Volumes with a higher energy density were trapped between the weakness surfaces. Immediately after the explosion (the big bang) the universe cracked along the surfaces of weakness. This sorting caused tremendous contractions of all the "cosmic fragments" which in one moment separated from the neighboring "cosmic fragments".
Until that moment, each "cosmic shard" pulled its neighboring shards, outwards, thereby balancing the self-gravitational force of the "cosmic shard" inwards. It is the gravitational collapse of the "Cosmic Shard" towards its center of mass that caused the formation of the giant black holes at the heart of each "Cosmic Shard". According to this description (note, a description and not a theory), the primordial black holes were created from a tremendous accumulation of energy into an (almost) singular point, even before the formation of matter!!! It is a state of phase transition from energy to a black hole, without the matter phase. This transition was only possible in the very hot conditions that existed immediately after the big bang. After the inflationary expansion and cooling of the universe, such a phase transition is no longer possible except through the intermediate state - matter.
(energy-matter-black hole).
From this description it is quite clear that every black hole was a nucleus
for the formation of a galaxy around it.
Dear Yehuda,
I join you in hoping for an end to the fighting and rocket launches.
Let's stop seeing the pictures of the dead babies already and let it be
We and our neighbors only have (verbal) arguments about science and fiction.
what should I bless?,
דני
To my little brother!
I am humbled by the honor and glory you place on my shoulders.
but…
You know I'm not a passionate follower of black holes that everyone "knows" exist just like the "king's new clothes" in Hans Christian Andersen's well-remembered story.
So since Michael sees them as the best creation, there is no chance that he will be the baby who cries out: "The king is naked".
I'm sure that the dear Hans would have added a number of black holes to the king's clothes and it wouldn't have mattered at all, because after all, you can't see them either
So continue arguing about the sewing of the black holes and ask if they preceded the garment or the garment preceded the holes, (I'm proud of the philosophical question I just invented!)
And also, importantly,
Don't forget in the process he added some dark mass, to give some gravity to the clothes, and don't forget to wave with the dark energy, for the glory of the State of Israel, the galaxy and the cosmos!
Strengthened and embraced
The main thing is that there should already be a ceasefire.
good evening
And hopefully I won't be censored.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
For the little brother:
I guess I won't tell you anything if I say that you didn't answer any of the questions that were asked following your words and you didn't justify any of your claims towards the article or towards me.
You should also know that the problem for which you offer a solution that may or may not be true (in my opinion no and in my opinion the analogy is not relevant either) is a problem that was solved in the past in a more satisfactory way when one of the solutions is the formation of black holes during the big bang.
I already brought the link to this and here it is again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primordial_black_hole
I will start with the description of the problem and then I will share the possibility that it may or may not be true - I have no proof.
The first stars were formed about 400 million years after the big bang, the galaxies about 400 million years after them. Galaxies seem to have formed around black holes, but 400 million years is not enough time for the black holes to form from the first stars (according to the trajectory we know). So where did the black holes come from to form the galaxies?
I see a certain similarity to the formation of our solar system. Why is the planet Mercury metallic, Venus/Mars rocky, Saturn and Jupiter gaseous followed by icy stars? The theory is that it is a solidification temp. Near the sun metal solidified and formed heat, moving away from the sun the temperature dropped and the rocky stars solidified and so on.
Perhaps this was the case in the super hot cosmic soup, perhaps besides molecular hydrogen other heavier elements were formed, perhaps these formed first or at the same time as the first stars and formed the 'seeds' for the first black holes.
post Scriptum. - Michael, maybe you should sit with Yehuda for a while. He will explain things to you better than me 🙂
For the little brother:
The fix for fix for fix doesn't fix anything. You are only quoting what is written in the article (including the section I quoted).
I will not argue with you about reading comprehension.
Regarding response 17 - this is not innovation - unfortunately.
Of course there are people for whom this is new, but those who know the material know that it is not new.
By the way - let's hear your explanation for the question of how the universe escaped from the state of a black hole and how you never thought about the question.
I hope you don't see my corrections to your words as censorship.
To Michael,
Correction to the correction: "In the new study, the researchers used radio telescopes to dig back almost to the beginning of the universe, about 13.7 billion years ago, when the first galaxies formed."
As for your response 17: "...certain areas were so densely packed that black holes managed to form despite the swelling but the swelling separated these holes in a flash and prevented them from merging." Go with this innovation… you might get a Nobel Prize 🙂
post Scriptum. - I hope you don't see my corrections as "insults and blasphemies" that require censorship.
The little brother - correction for correction:
The article does not say anything of the kind that your correction is trying to correct.
It says that they looked "almost to the beginning of the universe" and this is true and it is also quoted from the researcher that "we finally managed to measure the masses of the black holes and the bulges in some galaxies as they looked in the first billion years after the big bang"
For the little brother:
You ask how I deduced that black holes were created in the big bang so let me ask you how you deduced that I did.
In other words - what brought you to the wrong conclusion that is my conclusion.
In relation to your "answer" to the one trying to understand - it does not refer to his question at all.
What misery, to intervene in the conversation like that!!!
Why don't you leave it to the readers who to believe?
Trying to understand:
As you said - if it happened once - who is going to stop it from happening again?
As far as I know we don't know enough about dark energy and the bulge to answer that for sure.
On the other hand - apparently it hasn't happened in a long time, so it probably doesn't happen every Monday and the fifth.
One of the scenarios that people talk about in the context of the "end of the universe" is such an accelerated inflation that even the existing stars and even the atoms and elementary particles will be torn apart/destroyed in the explosion.
As mentioned, this is only one of the scenarios because really - as I have already said - we don't know.
Fountain:
There is indeed a problem in translating terms from English.
The word "inflation" appears in the article as a translation of "galactic bulge" - that is - the "static" bloated-looking structure in the center of the galaxy, while I used the same word to translate the English term Inflation, which means (in the world of cosmologists - not in the world of economics) the expansion of space itself.
Can someone please explain the concept that appears in the article as "bloating"?
Michael, in response 17 you also referred to this concept, I think I understand from you that the "swelling" is, as you wrote, the enlargement of the space itself.
But in this article the term "bloat" is mentioned in the context of a phenomenon that occurs in the centers of galaxies and hence a large number of times.
I would be happy to explain,
Thanks in advance
And another correction to the article,
The observed 'ancient' galaxy was 870 million years old (after the big bang) and not 13.7 billion years old - because then there were no galaxies!
Michael,
Where did you get this theory?, how did you come to the conclusion that blacks were created in the big bang?, that they did not start with ordinary matter?
to 'trying to understand',
What the current paper says in simple terms is: A spiral galaxy is made up of a disk and a bulge at its center (the bulge contains stars, dust and gas of normal matter). Inside the bulge there is usually a supermassive black hole (the 'usually' represents modesty). When they examined a great many galaxies, they found that the mass of the black hole is about a thousandth of the bulge - a ratio that repeated itself. The question arose, what preceded what, the black hole or the bulge? They looked at the galaxies as they were about a billion years after the big bang and found that the name of the black hole was more than a thousandth of the bulge. From this they concluded that the black hole preceded the bulge and the bulge grew around the black hole. Sound a little weak? Wait for the new ELVA and ALMA arrays and then the measurements will improve.
According to the currently accepted theory, the first stars (including 'black holes') began to form about 400 million years after the big bang. Before that, the temperatures were so high that the possibility of forming a structure was prevented.
Michael
Thanks for your response.
If the initial expansion was at a speed higher than the speed of light - is such an event possible in later stages as well. For example on a smaller scale but in the heart of a galaxy cluster - or the explosion of a black hole?
To try to understand:
A more difficult question to think about is the following question:
After all, a lot of matter concentrated in a small volume (in a sphere with a Schwarzschild radius derived from the mass) turns, according to the known, into a black hole.
At the beginning of the big bang, all the matter in the universe - and this includes all the matter of all the black holes in it - was concentrated in a single point whose radius is certainly smaller than the Schwarzschild radius of all this mass (the Schwarzschild radius of the sun alone is about 3 km).
How - if so - did the universe develop and not immediately collapse into a black hole.
The reason for this - as well as the answer to your question - is - as far as I know - the inflation that increased space itself at a speed that far exceeded the speed of light. In some areas the density of matter was so great black holes managed to form despite the swelling but the swelling separated these holes in a flash and prevented them from merging.
You should also read another article on the science website in the same context:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/dark-energy-found-stifling-growth-in-universe-2012081/
This article also presents the constant struggle between gravity and the dark energy that leads to the expansion of the universe.
There is no way to know what the nature of the mass from which the primordial black holes were formed (and perhaps the question is meaningless because it is possible that the collapse happened even before the energy crystallized into matter) but the mass that has been absorbed into them since then is mostly normal mass (it is more difficult for a black hole to absorb dark mass because it is not subject to forces friction and therefore is not captured in its adsorption disk).
The mass we see around the black holes is the normal mass, but - according to the prevailing theory today - there is a dark mass in the galaxies whose average amount is 9 times that of the normal mass, only because of its "darkness" we do not see it.
This mass was also created during the big bang and was probably dispersed in the universe in varying densities.
The gravitational force of the black holes succeeded - according to the theory proposed here - to gather around it enough mass from around the universe - to create the galaxies.
Michael
From what I understood from the article above - the black holes were formed - probably before the galaxies - and their gravity caused the formation of the galaxies around them. If this is true - what caused the black holes not to merge - not actually move away in my understanding - from each other while absorbing mass.
What is the origin of this mass? Is this dark matter? Is this a mass that was created in the big bang and because of a lack of symmetry it became smooth into black holes etc.?
amber:
Hoping you don't see this as an attack, I'm just saying that nothing in your response is true.
The above message to the former Michael
Science is not built on faith but it starts from faith. Without beliefs (sorry for a moment not to attack - hypotheses) scientific knowledge would not develop into what it is today and without them it would not develop into what it is tomorrow. And a little modesty in general won't hurt because with all the good will it is impossible to scientifically test many of the really big questions (and in the worst case we don't even know how to ask them) until then all we have left in this white area are beliefs.
to a noble chest
A. What value does your theory have if it is not supported by any confirmed findings?
B. At the end of the article it is noted that there are new high power radio telescopes, which are supposed to start their work
In the near future, they will be able to provide additional and more accurate information on the "egg" issue
And the hen." What will you say then if, researcher, the findings of the new telescopes are not supported
In which theory do you so believe?
"may be resolved" in the opening sentence, isn't it?
Basic approaches:
What is the basis for your question?
What contradiction do you see between the things?
One of the conclusions of the big bang theory has always been that primordial black holes may exist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primordial_black_hole
If the black holes preceded, how does this fit into the big bang theory?
Luke:
See discussions with Hazy here
https://www.hayadan.org.il/how-the-galaxy-formed-1412084/
And here
https://www.hayadan.org.il/two-of-the-milky-ways-spiral-arms-go-missing-210808/
Sounds interesting Hazy, do you have a mathematical backing for your theory.
interesting
Chest:
Nobody believes you even today.
You also refuse to deal with questions that are presented to you on the subject - questions that in fact present a complete refutation of the idea but you are on your own.
In general, you should understand that science is not built on faith.
Over five years ago I published my original theory,
which claimed that the black hole creates the galaxies.
No one believed…
Another important proof of the correctness of my original theory of galaxy formation
Who believed me five years ago?
It's interesting... the first thing that popped into my head is the possibility that the matter, the galaxy and its components originate from a black hole. Meaning that the black holes ejected matter at least in their early stages.