Black Hole Is A Requirement For Life ?

[maddog]

I think I said before that without BH's there wouldn't be any life in this universe. BH's are essential to the formation of galaxies and without galaxies there would no conditions where life could develop.

Yes, this is what the SciAm article said. What I find interesting is how the Galactic Structure around the SMBH supports this life generation in principle.

 

Another question is, do the various different galaxies out have a type that is better than the others. For example are spirals better than ellipticals (or the reverse) ?

 

Is being a barred spiral inhibited producing life ?

 

Do dwarf galaxies have what it takes if no BH is at the center to produce life ?

 

It is often the case that a question like this doesn't actually get answered directly. Instead, just more questions to ponder. :D

 

maddog

[maddog]

What you have read is an abundant vanilla science model simplified for public consumption.

Are you sure it is isn't strawberry ?

 

Personally, I would go along with arKane's rendition in general. Older galaxies would be dimmer and more Black Holes throughout. There are a lot prestigious papers on galactic structure. Go read 'em before making such a comment. <_<

 

maddog

[Ti@NiS]

Hi maddog,

Ancient Galaxies are not stars because the structure had not reached the critical density to radiate.

[Lancewen]

Yes, this is what the SciAm article said. What I find interesting is how the Galactic Structure around the SMBH supports this life generation in principle.

 

As I said in post 59, the galaxy initially has to have enough stars that go supernova to create and disperse all the heavy elements that will be needed by 3rd and 4th generation star formation that will allow conditions for life.

 

Another question is, do the various different galaxies out have a type that is better than the others. For example are spirals better than ellipticals (or the reverse) ?

 

Initial size (number of stars) probably matters most. Ellipticals usually form from galaxy collisions and if the colliding galaxies have the gas and dust clouds with all the elements present to create 3rd & 4th generation stars I don't see much of a problem.

 

Is being a barred spiral inhibited producing life ?

 

I saw an article that said out own Milky Way galaxy is a barred spiral. Who knew they were showing us the wrong picture all these years?

 

Do dwarf galaxies have what it takes if no BH is at the center to produce life ?

 

That would most likely be a no, and I stand by my definition of a galaxy. If it doesn't have a BH it is not a galaxy, but only a star cluster.

 

It is often the case that a question like this doesn't actually get answered directly. Instead, just more questions to ponder.

 

maddog

 

Sorry I'm not more qualified, but this subject is very high on my personal interest list and I've put in a lot of years studying and thinking about it.

[Ti@NiS]

There are galaxies that have no black holes, but they are likely from our point of view of 14 billion years.

[Ti@NiS]

You make qualitative model for compressed matter and take it to trash if you don't add new Lagrangian term. Simple, no?

[maddog]

As I said in post 59, the galaxy initially has to have enough stars that go supernova to create and disperse all the heavy elements that will be needed by 3rd and 4th generation star formation that will allow conditions for life.

This is been a strong part of theory of galactic formation for many years. A strong requirement for life. :D

 

Initial size (number of stars) probably matters most. Ellipticals usually form from galaxy collisions and if the colliding galaxies have the gas and dust clouds with all the elements present to create 3rd & 4th generation stars I don't see much of a problem.

I question the part in bold, though I don't mean to refute it. I am just not at the moment sold either way. I am not sure that there are many Ellipticals say closer than Coma Bercenae Cluster in Virgo (I spelled that right) (about 60 MPc away). Let's call anything closer our local 'hood. So Ellipticals are often thought to be much older. I have seen a lot of collision of galaxies in pictures. I don't remember seeing any with Ellipticals, not to say it doesn't happen. It has been calculated that our galaxy in about 60 million years from now will collide with Andromedae.

 

I saw an article that said out own Milky Way galaxy is a barred spiral. Who knew they were showing us the wrong picture all these years?

I didn't know that. If you could tell me where that article was, I would like to read it. If not, I can Google it.

 

That would most likely be a no, and I stand by my definition of a galaxy. If it doesn't have a BH it is not a galaxy, but only a star cluster.

I don't know if most Astronomers would agree with you. This may have changed since I have last checked, the International Astronomical Union (IAU) had a definition of galaxy based on scale or number of stars. Especially with spiral structure. In our local Neighborhood or Cluster of galaxies, all the Dwarf Galaxies, I have seen are spirals. Now it may have changed with added new info that galaxies have Black Holes at their center (SMBH) to add it as a requirement to the definition. If this has occurred, I am not aware.

 

I found a definition from the Free Dictionary.com (not necessarily definitive source) that mentions an aggregate of stars on the order of 10^11 below.

 

Free Dictionary: Galaxy definition

 

Sorry I'm not more qualified, but this subject is very high on my personal interest list and I've put in a lot of years studying and thinking about it.

The subject of Black Holes was what got me enthused to study Physics in High School and College (Astrophysics). It was in my Astrophysics class were I speculated that maybe quasars are galaxies which have a Black Hole at the center energizing particles out of the center. He said there is no such theoretical process that produce 10^66 Erg/sec of energy in a localized span of a couple of "light-days". [i took that class in 1976. At that time, no one would have believed that Black Holes could be bigger than say 100 solar masses]

 

maddog

[maddog]

You make qualitative model for compressed matter and take it to trash if you don't add new Lagrangian term. Simple, no?

Incomprehensible!

 

What "qualitative model"? When was compressed matter compared to "trash".

 

No, not simple at all. Please clarify.

 

maddog

[maddog]

There are galaxies that have no black holes, but they are likely from our point of view of 14 billion years.

I at the moment don't know whether this has been verified or not. It may be that Dwarf Galaxies do not. If as in the definition found above (I would think) that arKane maybe correct as most Dwarf Galaxies have less than 10^11 stars.

 

maddog

[Lancewen]

I question the part in bold, though I don't mean to refute it. I am just not at the moment sold either way. I am not sure that there are many Ellipticals say closer than Coma Bercenae Cluster in Virgo (I spelled that right) (about 60 MPc away). Let's call anything closer our local 'hood. So Ellipticals are often thought to be much older. I have seen a lot of collision of galaxies in pictures. I don't remember seeing any with Ellipticals, not to say it doesn't happen. It has been calculated that our galaxy in about 60 million years from now will collide with Andromeda.

 

The only thing I can say for sure about ellipticals is they tend to be the largest galaxies in the universe. Generally speaking galaxies don't get that large unless they've merged a few times. They also support the largest BH's all the billion plus BH's are sporting very large elliptical galaxies. It's possible that given enough time these ellipticals might flatten out into a spiral.

 

I didn't know that. If you could tell me where that article was, I would like to read it. If not, I can Google it.

 

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap050825.html

 

This is not the article I first saw, but I like the picture and credibility of it

 

I don't know if most Astronomers would agree with you. This may have changed since I have last checked, the International Astronomical Union (IAU) had a definition of galaxy based on scale or number of stars. Especially with spiral structure. In our local Neighborhood or Cluster of galaxies, all the Dwarf Galaxies, I have seen are spirals. Now it may have changed with added new info that galaxies have Black Holes at their center (SMBH) to add it as a requirement to the definition. If this has occurred, I am not aware.

 

I found a definition from the Free Dictionary.com (not necessarily definitive source) that mentions an aggregate of stars on the order of 10^11 below.

 

Free Dictionary: Galaxy definition

 

The problem is that galaxies were defined before anyone knew about the central supermassive BH's at the center of galaxies. Scientists are slow about updating their definitions in the text books. But in the science program the Universe, they verbally said that most scientists believe all galaxies have a BH core. I personally believe galaxies were BH's before they were galaxies and what we think of as the big bang was a celestial mass recycling event that infused the BH's with enough hydrogen to start star formation. I don't expect many others to agree with that theory, but it doesn't take that much work to modify the current BB theory to make it work.

 

The subject of Black Holes was what got me enthused to study Physics in High School and College (Astrophysics). It was in my Astrophysics class were I speculated that maybe quasars are galaxies which have a Black Hole at the center energizing particles out of the center. He said there is no such theoretical process that produce 10^66 Erg/sec of energy in a localized span of a couple of "light-days". [i took that class in 1976. At that time, no one would have believed that Black Holes could be bigger than say 100 solar masses]

 

maddog

 

Yes there's still much we don't know about BH's. The biggest ones we've discovered, I think the record is 16 billion solar masses (very impressive). But no one knows how big a BH can become and there could very well be some real monsters out beyond what we can see now that make a 16 billion solar mass BH look like a baby. I'm sure you've heard of the, "Dark Flow" Discovered at Edge of the Universe: Hundreds of Millions of Stars Racing Towards a Cosmic Hotspot. I don't think anything like that could happen without a very large gravity source and just because we can't see it doesn't mean it's not there.

 

 

 

 

S

 

 

[Ti@NiS]

Incomprehensible!

 

What "qualitative model"? When was compressed matter compared to "trash".

 

No, not simple at all. Please clarify.

 

maddog

 

 

 

 

Note: I was to take day off from physics, but my fans compel me...

 

 

 

 

A qualitative model to answer your question, Maddog, as an example, is that the metric

of spacetime fastened as a point mass is what we call a black hole. One can

calculate with the power of logical reason and empirical observations the model

above. This is a well known result that a one point mass cannot be analized logically

as this thread tries to do. Futhermore, it can not even be written in simple form.

This I relate to probably probability distributions in various normal, but can not

be written in basic terms like polynomials and hyperbolic trigo's. And some other

maths, too. In general, we are talking about the famous ERF function [1]. Ever

heard of it?

 

This is reason why many compact compress matter models go to trash function in general.

They go to waste so to speak, as postulated in my previous answer to query from

other poster [2]. This model that I propose you use, describes the spacetime

models in general relativity theory [3], and it is a true expression that is always true.

In order for you to make use of it, you have to find the length and volume of paths

and intergrate them somehow to find the desired, and obviously hard to find

Lagrange and Euler equations of motion [4]. On very rare occasions you will find that

in order to achieve this, it is obligatory to use a method of numeral approximation.

But still you can, and will not, find an exact solution because they simply do not

exist. We see in this forum a lot of these problems, and also in quantum field theories.

We try to solve it, but it is almost impossible to solve the equations of black hole

particles interacting in the dark. And yes, we try perturbation series [5] to see if they

help, but no, yes? This is why quantum dynamics [6] in electrical form is understood

very much. Because the expansions of its perturbations are very nice indeed.

And why we hate Quantum. C.D. [7] and don't understand it. No perturbative expansion

for low energy? How come?

 

 

 

 

References

 

[1] Famous ERF Function

 

[2] Query from other poster

 

[3] General relativity theory

 

[4] Lagrange/Euler Equation

 

[5] Pertubation Series

 

[6] Quantum E. D

 

[7] Quantum C.D

 

 

 

.

[Lancewen]

 

Ti@NiS

Of course there is a lot that we don't know about BH's and may never know. But we can make observations of how BH's interact with our universe and from those observations we can infer a lot. From what I know about BH's I know they are an indispensable part of every galaxy. I know that without BH's there would not be any galaxies and without galaxies there would be no conditions for life.

 

 

 

 

The comments I made about highly compressed matter, should not have been made in this topic.

 

 

 

[maddog]

A qualitative model to answer your question, Maddog, as an example, is that the metric

of spacetime fastened as a point mass is what we call a black hole. One can

calculate with the power of logical reason and empirical observations the model

above. This is a well known result that a one point mass cannot be analized logically

as this thread tries to do. Futhermore, it can not even be written in simple form.

This I relate to probably probability distributions in various normal, but can not

be written in basic terms like polynomials and hyperbolic trigo's. And some other

maths, too. In general, we are talking about the famous ERF function [1]. Ever

heard of it?

You really like pomposity over clarity. It is amazing you haven't been warned on it before.

 

In all the models of Black Holes from papers I've read with the exception of Micro-miniture or quantum Black Holes, I have Never heard or read these models treated as point masses. There a few reasons why, the simplest is at the singularity, most of physics breaks down near this region. Though you can use the same reasoning as in Calculus for finding the derivative of a function of a small neighborhood about that point not considering the physics inside that limit. All of classical physics is fine with that. General Relativity (GR) can work as well too. Quantum Mechanics (QM) only breaks down when this limit is near the Planck Scale (roughly 10^-33 cm) which is smaller than anything we can measure by more than 10^17 orders of magnitude.

This is reason why many compact compress matter models go to trash function in general.

They go to waste so to speak, as postulated in my previous answer to query from

other poster [2]. This model that I propose you use, describes the spacetime

models in general relativity theory [3], and it is a true expression that is always true.

In order for you to make use of it, you have to find the length and volume of paths

and intergrate them somehow to find the desired, and obviously hard to find

Lagrange and Euler equations of motion [4]. On very rare occasions you will find that

in order to achieve this, it is obligatory to use a method of numeral approximation.

But still you can, and will not, find an exact solution because they simply do not

exist. We see in this forum a lot of these problems, and also in quantum field theories.

We try to solve it, but it is almost impossible to solve the equations of black hole

particles interacting in the dark. And yes, we try perturbation series [5] to see if they

help, but no, yes? This is why quantum dynamics [6] in electrical form is understood

very much. Because the expansions of its perturbations are very nice indeed.

And why we hate Quantum. C.D. [7] and don't understand it. No perturbative expansion

for low energy? How come?

Hmm, ... saying "go to waste" might have been a bit clearer than "waste function"???

Also, maybe a post number on the "other poster" would help put your comment in context.

You can find this number in the upper right corner at the beginning of a post followed by

a '#' symbol. Please make use of it in the future so that people may understand better of

what you say. It beats being ignored. :D

 

The equations you speak of in reference [4] are only used in a classical fashion. It is the

Hamiltonian variant of the same expression of the total energy of system that can both work

classically and with QM. I provide you wiki reference for the definition:

 

Hamiltonian

 

which references symplectic spaces, so I added a wiki on this as well:

 

Symplectic Manifold

 

which mentions manifold (and if you haven't heard of it) I add a wiki on this:

 

Manifold

 

Now what I think you may be referring to is how near this Planck Scale, General Relativity (GR) does not behave well with Quantum Mechanics or combine to make a Quantum Gravity theory. Yes, Renormalization method of Feynman does not work in this case without producing and infinite series of asymptotic terms for a solution. In even some cases, the result is even indeterminate which makes no sense at all.

 

Since we are not actually discussing the Black Hole physics per se here, other than having such a big (SMBH) object at the center of galaxies promote the condition for life in such a galaxy. That is the gist of this thread. Please stay on topic.... <_<

 

maddog

Edited August 24, 2012 by maddog

[Village Idiot]

Ti@NiS

I know that without BH's there would not be any galaxies . . .

 

 

How in the universe could you ever find that out?

[Lancewen]

How in the universe could you ever find that out?

 

I read a lot and keep up with all the latest thoughts on the subject. Most of the articles say what they really think, but then add verbiage to give it a very conservative look and feel. While I don't agree with everything said in the wikipedia link below, it's very clear to me that most scientists think SMBH's and galaxies formed together. But then, their beliefs about the formation of SMBH's are constrained by the current BB theory and I tend to think outside the local universe. So while I can see the same observations as everyone else, my thoughts and conclusions are not constrained by the current BB theory. Also, nothing I think about is cast in stone, I can change my ideas based on new information. I'm not totally opposed to a BB theory, but I think it could use a make over.

 

For instance I recently read that we will be launching instruments with a purpose of determining if dark energy is expanding the universe equally in all directions. If dark energy is accelerating different parts of the universe at different rates, how will that change how we think about dark energy? I already have thought about it a great deal. The impression I get about how others think about dark energy is that it is something being generated from within our universe, but if our universe is a small natural part of a larger structure, then the source for dark energy could be coming from outside our universe.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermassive_blackhole

[Village Idiot]

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermassive_blackhole

 

Your statement, " I know that without BH's there would not be any galaxies."

does not seem to be supported by your reference.

 

My reason for doubt is from conviction that SMBHs are created within a galaxy. I do much too little reading because of finding so little credibility for rationale devoid of a fundamental concept: Macroscopic formations of arrayed particles of electrical charge take a strong bearing upon the cosmic infrastructure. Common ignorance of that information disqualifies the large herd of scientists who think to take it up for a vote.

[Deepwater6]

You guys may be interested in the results from this new NASA black hole observer. I believe it said the news conference would be on the 29th.

 

 

http://www.space.com/17276-nasa-black-holes-announcement.html