How did the Universe get its first supermassive black holes? (Synopsis)

"For something to collapse, not all systems have to shut down. In most cases, just one system is enough." -Robert Kiyosaki

Do supermassive black holes form from the merger and growth of many smaller black holes, falling towards a cluster/galactic center where they find one another and grow into a behemoth? Or is there a direct-collapse mechanism at play, where a black hole thousands, tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of times the mass of our Sun forms spontaneously?

The X-ray and optical images of a small galaxy containing a black hole many tens of thousands of times the mass of our Sun. These black holes may have arisen first in the Universe by the direct collapse of matter. Image credit: X-ray: NASA/CXC/Univ of Michigan/V.F.Baldassare, et al; Optical: SDSS; Illustration: NASA/CXC/M.Weiss. The X-ray and optical images of a small galaxy containing a black hole many tens of thousands of times the mass of our Sun. These black holes may have arisen first in the Universe by the direct collapse of matter. Image credit: X-ray: NASA/CXC/Univ of Michigan/V.F.Baldassare, et al; Optical: SDSS; Illustration: NASA/CXC/M.Weiss.

Until recently, this direct-collapse black hole scenario was thought to leave no observational signatures, but a pristine population of stars, discovered last year, shows a fast-moving offset between hydrogen and helium emissions and an ionization front over 50,000 light years across.

The starburst galaxy Henize 2-10, located 30 million light years away. Image credit: X-ray (NASA/CXC/Virginia/A.Reines et al); Radio (NRAO/AUI/NSF); Optical (NASA/STScI). The starburst galaxy Henize 2-10, located 30 million light years away. Image credit: X-ray (NASA/CXC/Virginia/A.Reines et al); Radio (NRAO/AUI/NSF); Optical (NASA/STScI).

If high-resolution radio observations see a particular signal, we just might have evidence for the first direct-collapse black hole ever seen.

More like this

"Our first priority was making sure we weren’t fooling ourselves." -Keith Riles, LIGO team member When LIGO announced their first discovery of a black hole-black hole merger, it came as a surprise to almost everyone. The shocking part wasn’t that LIGO had seen merging black holes, but that they…
 “Failure I can live with. Not trying is what I can’t handle!” -Sanya Richards-Ross It’s been another big week here at Starts With A Bang, with stories covering the Universe near and far. I myself was on vacation, but thanks to our generous Patreon supporters, I was able to put in the resources to…
“All sins have their origin in a sense of inferiority otherwise called ambition.” -Cesare Pavese After another Universe-investigating week here at Starts With A Bang, I'm pleased to make two simple but very satisfying announcements: The latest Starts With A Bang podcast, on Interstellar Travel,…
"Speculating and predicting what lies beyond the boundary is fascinating. Finding out is even more fascinating." -Wallace H. Tucker When two galaxy clusters collide, there are a slew of cosmic certainties you can bet on: all the galaxies will miss one another, the intracluster gases will collide…

“… there are ultra-massive black holes that have been around as far back as we can see.”

That does seem to be a problem.
...................
“The way we’ll be able to determine whether there truly is a massive black hole will be observational, and it will involve looking for the characteristic radio emissions from black holes.”

Radio emissions from black holes?
I thought nothing escaped from black holes.

By See Noevo (not verified) on 16 Aug 2016 #permalink

@Deceiver #1: "I thought". That word doesn't mean what you think it means. Repeating the same stupidity over and over doesn't make it true. It just demonstrates your deliberately cultivated ignorance and desire to propagate lies.

By Michael Kelsey (not verified) on 16 Aug 2016 #permalink

Well done Michael!

This is starting to look like the ending of each Benny Hill episode, were they're always chasing him because he's trolling …

I can't wait for Dean, Narad and Eric to join the chase …

https://youtu.be/D9I4nZx8UCs

… and I can't wait for the next post to see it happen all over again and again.

By Paul Dekous (not verified) on 16 Aug 2016 #permalink

“Troll” report through #4:

Posts by See Noevo = 1.
Posts *about* See Noevo = 3.

Answers to See Noevo’s question = 0.

By See Noevo (not verified) on 16 Aug 2016 #permalink

Answers to See Noevo’s question

*splorf*

@Ethan wrote

...there are ultra-massive black holes that have been around as far back as we can see. They don’t predate stars, but they are found in the earliest massive galaxies we know how to measure.

How do we know ultra-massive black holes don't predate stars? I had thought the theory behind direct collapse black holes is they formed at a time when the universe was so hot the cloud fragmentation necessary for star formation wasn't possible.

It was that concept that held up Direct Collapse Black Holes as the solution the Quasar Seed Problem. Star formation wasn't possible, so it collapsed straight to a black hole leaving a bunch of material in the neighborhood that would have otherwise been blown away by if stars had formed.

If that is how it worked the black hole would predate stars. You seem very certain about which came first. Do I have the theory wrong?

@Denier #7: Your understanding is the same as mine, so I hope that Ethan will follow up (either here, or probably in COTW).

It's possible to read his text as meaning the SMBH's we've _observed_ don't predate the first stars (basically, because we aren't looking back far enough to see the first stars, let alone anything before them :-/). But that isn't the most obvious interpretation.

By Michael Kelsey (not verified) on 16 Aug 2016 #permalink

"How do we know ultra-massive black holes don’t predate stars? "

BEcause they would have to collapse to form a black hole and, at some time during that collapse, would start nuclear fusion in the atmosphere.

Moreover, why would there be only enough matter dense enough to collapse ONLY to ultra-massive BHs but none small enough to collapse to incandescent stars???

You're making an argument for the mere sake of arguing.

Could dark matter have contributed to direct collapse?

By Michael Hutaon (not verified) on 23 Aug 2016 #permalink

Not much, since it won't coalesce, therefore it can't increase its effect. Original variation is mostly what you have, and that can, but there's no real reason for it to be more clumped than baryonic matter.