Super SMBH

[brent205]

10 Billion Solar Masses ...... or...... 10,000 times the mass of the SMBH in our Milky Way

“The most extreme object in the study is a super massive black hole called ULASJ1234+0907. This object, located in the direction of the constellation of Virgo, is so far away that the light from it has taken 11 billion light years to reach us, so we see it as it appeared in the early universe. The monster black hole has more than 10 billion times the mass of the Sun and 10,000 times the mass of the super massive black hole in our own Milky Way, making it one of the most massive black holes ever seen.”

http://www.scienceda...21008091546.htm

I always look forward to my Science Daily Tweets - especially on a Monday

[Capricorn]

Well one of the assortment of them out there has to be the biggest, why not that one.

It could be astronomer one up manship as in My black hole is bigger then your black hole.

Someone will come along and find one that is bigger.

Do they say the size of the galaxy it is in as there is a very close correlation to the galaxy mass and the central black hole.

[symesie04]

That is pretty massive. You would have to assume that at 11 billion years ago it would not of had a lot of time to munch its way massive either. So you have to make the deduction that the star that collapsed must of been a real biggy.

[Tiki]

There is a natural limit to the size of a star. Probably less than 200 solar masses and almost certainly less than 300.

As very well put by Acey:

When talking about how big a star is, we need to be careful whether we mean its mass or its diameter.

A star is governed by two things: gravity and heat. Gravity pulls everything towards the centre, so the star is effectively trying to collpase in on itself. But at the same time this produces heat which makes the interior expand against the gravity. If the two things balance ("hydrostatic equilibrium") then you've got a stable star. If they don't then you've either got a collapsing star or an exploding one. This puts theoretical limits on star sizes.

If a proto-star is of low mass then the core won't get hot enough for nuclear fusion to start. If it is of very high mass then the core temperature can get so great that the star is blown apart. The latter situation is called the Eddington limit, and it's believed to be around 150 solar masses. The radius limit also comes from the requirement of hydrostatic equilibrium and is called the Hayashi limit. It's believed to be about 1500 solar radii.

One of the largest known stars is Mu Cephei, Herschel's Garnet Star, visible with the naked eye and a very attractive binocular object because of its intense colour. If it were placed at the Sun's position it would extend beyond the orbit of Saturn.

Thank you Acey.

The whole thread is here http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/156222-stars/.

[symesie04]

Yes of course the Eddington limit, as usual i typed without thinking first But it does make it even more of puzzlw as to how such a super massive black hole developed so early on in the universes history. Perhaps a cluster of super giants that never had a chance to put distance between themselves before they went supernova?

[sologuitarist61]

Yes of course the Eddington limit, as usual i typed without thinking first But it does make it even more of puzzlw as to how such a super massive black hole developed so early on in the universes history. Perhaps a cluster of super giants that never had a chance to put distance between themselves before they went supernova?

Or our thoughts aboput the 'early' universe are wrong.

[Naemeth]

Yes of course the Eddington limit, as usual i typed without thinking first But it does make it even more of puzzlw as to how such a super massive black hole developed so early on in the universes history. Perhaps a cluster of super giants that never had a chance to put distance between themselves before they went supernova?

This is very likely. Maybe these stars ate each other to become huge?

Or, maybe there was a really massive star, that formed a Neutron Star, due to the neighbourhood it was forming in, and when it was fairly cool, it got ejected out of the system at a very high velocity, and kept consuming material until present day when it is this massive. Who knows?

[shinok]

think how big it would be now in relative time if it's had a further 11 billion years to feed

[Maye81]

Hey there! Do you use Twitter? I'd like to follow you if that would be ok. I'm absolutely enjoying your phorum and look forward to new posts. Wonderful!

[brent205]

The newly discovered black hole in the centre of the galaxy NGC 1277 has a mass 17 billion times the mass of the Sun. Its mass is much greater than current models predict. This is the best part for me:

“The big surprise is that the black hole mass for NGC 1277 amounts to 14% of the total galaxy mass, instead of usual values around 0.1%. This beats the old record by more than a factor 10. Astronomers would have expected a black hole of this size inside blob-like ("elliptical") galaxies ten times larger. Instead, this black hole sits inside a fairly small disk galaxy.”

http://www.scienceda...21128132116.htm

[JulianO]

Given we have no idea how SMBH's are made, it isn't much of a surprise - well it is in that's its odd, but not in that it violates accepted theory, because we don't have one!.

It probably does exceed the relationship that relates the SMBH size to the galaxy velocity dispersion (M-sigma relationship), but that's just an observation, and doesn't really have any theoretical backing, its just something that seems pretty fixed, a bit like Faber-Jackson or Tully-Fisher.

[Cath]

The mind boggling thing about it all for me is how on earth do you get so much mass into a point smaller than the smallest thing we know?

I suspect we have a lot to learn about the nature of space/time et all.

[symesie04]

But are they though? Surely we dont really have a clue on there physical dimensions. We know the physical dimensions of say Neutron stars but beyond that scince is a bit stumped. Yes Einsteins mathematics suggest an infinitely small object and if you apply quantum theory it equates to infinitely small re-occuring. However its my understanding that most physicists believe there is a hole (excuse the pun) in our current models as anything that ends with infinity is unacceptable. In reality all we can is measure the dimensions of its effect, i.e we can see the orbital paths of the stars at the centre of the milky way, this can lead to conclusions on the central objects mass but not its dimensions. It could be anything from city sized to atom sized. But I dont think many physicists would be happy saying that it could be infinitely small. However that said I await for correction from Julian0

[Cath]

Well yes their is that symesis, although I was careful not to say infinitely small. In which case how could we ever really for sure what the center of a black hole is like? .. We can come up with theories for what it might be like, but I can't see how we could ever get a answer that we can say 100% is absolute.

What a strange place it all is eh.

[symesie04]

Yes quite agree Cath. Not sure we can ever answer some of the questions posed by the strange realm that is our universe. How could we, how can we possibly answer what happened before the big bang unless we were there? How can you possibly answer if the universe is infinite unless it isnt and you reach the end of it? etc etc. One day humanity may learn to be humbled by its own limitations.

[JulianO]

First, get your black hole in lab, then ...