Black holes one billion times the sun’s mass or more lie at the heart of many galaxies, driving their spin and development. Common today, some 14 billion years after the big bang, such supermassive black holes were rare in the early universe—or at least they were supposed to be. Evidence of supermassive black holes existing when the universe was less than one billion years old has stumped scientists, because current theories of stellar evolution suggest that such giants should take much longer to grow. Now it seems this enigma could be solved by a mystery substance—dark matter.
The puzzle of early supermassive holes took shape in 2003, when the Sloan Digital Sky Survey detected roughly half a dozen of them. According to conventional thinking, the first regular stars were born when the universe was about 200 million years old, but given the state of the universe at the time, they could have formed black holes at most only about 100 times the sun’s mass. It would simply take too long to merge and make the billion-year-old, billion-solar-mass monsters seen by the Sloan survey.
Dark matter could solve the conundrum, say theoretical physicist Katherine Freese of the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor and her colleagues. Unseen but demonstrating its existence via gravity, the substance makes up at least 80 percent of the universe’s matter (and about one quarter of the entire universe). But scientists are unsure exactly what dark matter is made of. Among the leading hypothetical candidates are weakly interacting massive particles called neutralinos. They can annihilate one another when they meet, generating heat, gamma rays, neutrinos, and antimatter particles such as positrons and antiprotons.
Freese and her co-workers calculate that when the universe was just 80 million to 100 million years old, as protostellar clouds of gas tried to cool and shrink, their gravity would have drawn in neutralinos that annihilated one another, unleashing energy that would have created the first stars. They dub these objects “dark stars,” fueled by dark matter rather than nuclear energy as in normal stars.
Their initial findings hinted that dark stars would have dwarfed regular stars. Because dark stars do not need the high densities seen in regular stars, which depend on atomic nuclei getting forced together for fusion, they would be much fluffier, with the largest ones reaching up to approximately 200,000 times the sun’s width. Scientists have also estimated that the cooler surface temperatures of dark stars would have allowed them to grow up to 1,000 times the mass of the sun, as compared with the roughly 150-solar-mass size limit of current stars.
Freese and her colleagues, who plan to submit their analysis to the Astrophysical Journal, figure that dark stars could have reached as much as 100,000 solar masses or more before they burned out their fuel and collapsed. They analyzed how frequently neutralinos would flow into dark stars and get captured by atoms, concluding that dark matter particles could have fueled the growth of dark stars for much longer than first thought.
After supermassive dark stars ran out of dark matter, they would have contracted, triggering nuclear fusion and continuing on as regular stars for roughly a million years. These stars would not have gone supernovae—“they are too big,” Freese says—instead they collapsed into black holes of the same mass. Several of them could have then merged into giants within a billion years of the big bang.
Supermassive dark stars would have been up to one billion times as bright as the sun and yet able to shine at our sun’s temperature with a yellow light. Freese hopes the James Webb Space Telescope, currently scheduled for launch in 2014, will see far enough to detect such fluffy giants. But no dark stars are likely to be forming today, because the density of dark matter now averages 1/8,000th of its dark star past, when the universe was far more compact.
See what we're tweeting about
16 Comments
Add CommentActually, why not simply answer all difficult problems with Dark Matter? It seems to work for astronomers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease refer to my comment/essay "Dark Matter as Gravitational Estimation Error" in response to the article:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=dark-matter-cdms
Proverb: To those whose favorite tool is a hammer, all problems appear to be nails.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy did you make your sense the same as the things that you want to measure? Is The Quantum say so? May be MEDITATION is only way to tune your SENSE. NIRVANA.....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease read my ether-gravity theory of gravitoethertons published in ASTRONOMY.NET in year 2002 which explains dark or vacuum energy and balloon inside balloon theory and theory of the universe etc etc which was submitted to NASA, SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN A AND ALL SCIENTISTS IN YEAR 2003.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou want us to read a paper written by you? I can't even read your one-sentence post. Also, caps overload.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBack to the topic, I'm starting to feel anxious about how scientists are attempting to solve every problem with dark matter. We haven't even proved it exists yet.
Nothing unreal exists. -- Spock
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour turn.
For the good order: neutralinos are the predicted decay products of the superpartners by the superstringtheory. Superpartners are for example fotinos, winoss ,zino, guininos, higgsinos, sleptons and squarks. The last 30 years superstringheory remained without any clear evidence. The real dark matter particles, also predicted by stringtheory, could be the dilaton or the axion. So this article is mixingup things in dark matter. in fact tpoeple are wrong informed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn the contrary: neutralinos will never been found in Cern's experiments with the LHC. There is a new cosmological model upcoming, which will present mathematical evidence for more "anti-particles with charge" instead of superpartners. Moreover many new predictions will be made by this new model, which is called the "Twin-Tori cosmological Model". Contact information is available at dan.visser@planet.nl after reading www.darkfieldnavigator.com
Quanta of something other than what we think and know. that's what is holding our interest.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPreamble
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRichard Feynman wasnt the first nor the last to say that the Reality is simple, therefore the simplest hypothesis are the most likely to be true.
Thus
Antony Garret Lisi proposed An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything
An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything"[1] is a physics paper submitted to the arXiv library on Nov. 6, 2007 by Antony Garrett Lisi. His theory claims to unify all fields of the standard model with gravity using a 248-point lattice of E8 geometry Lisi notes that the theory is incomplete.
A visual representation of E8 polytope, a manifestation of the structure of E8.
But
Sabine Hossenfelder of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, stresses the limitations of the work: Given today's status,
1. Garrett's model does not naturally lead to a unification of the Standard Model interactions with gravity (he has to choose the action by hand that contains both; in his paper only one of possible ways of doing it is described, this being explained by Lisi himself),
2. it does not allow us to understand quantum gravity (since there's nothing said about quantization);
3. it does not explain the parameters in the SM (since there isn't yet a mechanism for symmetry breaking);
4. it does not explain the cosmological constant or its value (as said above, to claim there has to be one, it would be necessary to show there's no way to do it without one);
5. it does not explain the hierarchy problem (and I see no way to do so); it does not explain why we live in a spacetime with 3 spatial and 1 time-like dimensions.[6]
So
This means that there is place for even a simpler hypothesis, trying to explain at least the lasts two items.
A very simple hypothesis
Key words: existence, energy, phase-transition, determinant field, "white" force, "monochromatic" forces, space-time gradient, cosmic system.
Premises (definitions for keywords)
1. There are about 25 centuries since some Greeks Parmenides, Plato (disciple), and Aristotle (grand-disciple) demonstrated that the notion 3non-existence3 is a logical impossibility, the word itself meaning something that does not exist. So, if the Existence cannot have intervals of non-existence, it must be a continuum infinite.
There are 400 years since, after changing its name to "void", the non-existence reappeared: not in philosophy but in physics and astronomy.
There are 150 years, pushed by the need to explain the propagation of electromagnetic waves, the scientists filled the void with "aether" but before longtime this was proved to be a fiction.
About 100 years ago, Wilhelm Ostwald demonstrated that the Energy is the ultimate and unitary substrate of the Existence. By this the words Existence and Energy become quasi-synonyms: an existence without substrate is as inconceivable as the substrate of a non-existence. So, the Energy too must be an infinite continuum; or, an infinite cannot exist into "something else". This means that it is not the Energy that exists in Space and Time, but these two exist into Energy as attributes of its fields.
It can be deduced that, if the existential principle of Energy is the infinity, its particular structures are also infinite: not only by their number but also by the infinite hierarchy of their orders of size (magnitude). Really, from quarks to galaxies and even beyond, every particular structure results from some underlying structures and become part of some hierarchically superior structure.
It can be also deduced that, if the Energy is unique by its infinity, its structural principle must be also unique; the diversity of its structures results only from the variable correlations between its forces, fields and particles.
At the beginning of the last century, Max Plank divided the continuum of Energy in his quanta and along a half-century pretty all the mathematical elaborations and the practical experiences confirmed their reality; in-between these quanta, the void (the non-existence) did find again a place of & existence. However, after a half-century of peaceful coexistence, this void began to be discordant to some experimental facts and their theoretical interpretations. So the scientists tried to fill the non-existence with something: either the obsolete aether, or the subquantic medium of Louis de Broglie (1952), or the scalar fields of Peter Higgs (1964) and Geoff Jones (1995). [To be perceived as scalar, a field must have its source all around the observer.] Till now, the source of this field remained unknown.
The great particle accelerators allowed the observation that into a sufficiently strong field any infusion of energy condenses as particles and raised the supposition that even the photons may be packages of energy infused into an electromagnetic field that fills all the cosmos.
Gradually, as consequence of more experimental results and theoretical deductions, the void (the non-existence) was filled with so much energy that some scientists supposed that the old "cosmological constant" was nothing else but the "energy of the void" or some "dark energy". The first attempts to calculate the total amount (density) of energy that fills the void reported such a gigantic value (1092 g/cm�!) that our cosmos should collapse into itself immediately after its birth; only some smart re-calculations lowered it to a level compatible to the inflationary model. Till now the source of this energy remained unknown.
2. It was observed that Energys 3mode of existence3 is the permanent transition: of phase (state), of structure, of location: all the phenomena result from the diversity of these transitions, of their correlations and of their results. The phase transition was described as a quasi-symmetrical process: the transition of phase A to phase B and backward, is symmetrical as input/output of energy and succession of intermediate states, exception done for the 3arrow of Time3. It is still unknown why this insider of the Energy does not comply with the law of symmetry and towards what its "arrow" is so stubbornly pointed.
The advancement of mathematical and astronomical tools allowed a credible description of gravitational collapse and its intermediate stages neutronic state, black hole, and undimensional singularity. Initially, Gravity is the driving force of this process but gradually it prevails on the other forces and binds them in a unified, complex force; although to our sight it is absolutely black, by analogy to light, this complex force may be designated as 3white3 because it contains all the spectrum of 3monochromatic3 forces electromagnetic, strong, weak, and gravity.
This process may be also described as the full transition of a phase 3matter3 into a phase 3field3; obviously, as result of all the forces, this field is dipolar. Because this transition is implosive it was supposed that the transition of a phase 3field3 (undimensional singularity) into a phase 3matter3 must be explosive a "big bang"; however, no means even mathematical artifacts or some 3amendments3 to main physical laws didnt allow a coherent description of either the determinant, or the events, or the products, of the explosion of a singularity constraint in itself by the force of the mass of a whole cosmos like our, its so called "absent mass" too. So, it must be supposed that this transition occurs otherwise.
3. A fundamental principle of logic asserts that if a whole is true (real), than all its details are bound to be true. Beyond any reasonable doubt since Hiroshima, the whole 3E = m
marcel....nice write up...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOur present problem should not have anything to do with politics, of the past or the past falsifications, (or with your encumbering attitudinal)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAt this point of time and space (age) we do not really understand, black holes, dark energy, or have a positive knowledge to consider and debate.
We do not even understand “Gravity” however base on few facts, we same to partially know something of “the speed of light” thoughtfully disobeying the law of Nature.
1. Theory
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2. Observational Inconsistency
3. Dark Matter
4. Profit
Dark matter may be due to supraluminal or extra light speed material inside a black hole.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDue to conservation of angular momentum, angular velocity would increase and approach infinity as the mass inside a black hole approaches a point.
Angular velocity could conceivably exceed C since a black hole is noted to be a singularity, in some way isolated from the rest of the known universe.
As angular velocity approaches C, mass would increase due to Einsteinein relativity, E=MC (squared).
As mass increases due to conservation of angular momentum causing angular velocity to approach and possibly exceed C, mass may appear as dark matter to the outside observer, the observer outside the black hole.
If angular velocity should exceed C, then the mass may appear as dark mass or dark matter, and the effects on surrounding space could be inflationary, as is observed on cosmological observations.
Interactions with supraluminal angular velocity mass inside blackholes with surrounding space and matter could result in production of superenergetic particles, which are rarely observed, but seem to be a real phenomena.
Please review the more complete essay/article,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Mass Distribution Characteristics Invalidate the Galaxy Rotation Problem"
posted at:
http://www.sciencewithoutfiction.com/uploads/Mass_Distribution-_Galaxy_Rotation_Problem.pdf
Simple and brief: our Milky Way is senile.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMiles Mathis has an astute understanding of physics and much informative deductions. He says the ESA photo of the Milky Way 'blowing bubbles' is the Milky Way drawing in universal charge photons which it accelerates at the AGN to produce electrons and protons: matter.
I suggest in its youth the MW produced the exquisite globular clusters, in its middle age the loose clusters and now, drawing in gases depleted of charge, the senile MW is only able to breath out this mass to the edge of the galactic rim, directly through the equatorial mass. As this matter-to-be would take the path of least resistance, one should ask: are we in the path of least resistance?
Since science tells us our sun was acquired from a passing cluster, perhaps M67, one might as well ask if the path of least resistance is actually a well-trodden road? And if 2012 finds us directly in the line of the galactic center should we worry?
Simple and brief: our Milky Way is senile.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMiles Mathis has an astute understanding of physics and much informative deductions. He says the ESA photo of the Milky Way 'blowing bubbles' is the Milky Way drawing in universal charge photons which it accelerates at the AGN to produce electrons and protons: matter.
I suggest in its youth the MW produced the exquisite globular clusters, in its middle age the loose clusters and now, drawing in gases depleted of charge, the senile MW is only able to breath out this mass to the edge of the galactic rim, directly through the equatorial mass. As this matter-to-be would take the path of least resistance, one should ask: are we in the path of least resistance?
Since science tells us our sun was acquired from a passing cluster, perhaps M67, one might as well ask if the path of least resistance is actually a well-trodden road? And if 2012 finds us directly in the line of the galactic center should we worry?
My idea of the age of black holes is this: they use charge to make matter, if they run out of local charge such things as neutrinos drawn off a neutron star and even meterorites (!) are acceptable. Lacking that, the 'ring of bright water' expands radially and uses its own star formations. When ever it passes the density required to continue, it collapses, the area of starless dark that baffles science can then be called by its true name, a dead hole.