[neilep (OP)]

Dearest Peeps of Blackholeology,


As a sheepy I am an expert on one black hole, my own !!...


Take a look at TON 618



TON618 just moments ago (Bonafide photo to scale 1-1)


If its light took 10.37 billion years to reach us then......


How could It be so big so early on in the Universe age ?

ewe see, I just don't know...do ewe ?




hugs et les shmishes mwah mwah mwah




Neil
xxxxxxxxxx


Executive Officer Sheep in Charge of Asking This Kweschun !!




Oh TON 618
Thou Art Great
What is it that ewe've ate
To make ewe so significate !!

[pensador]

Perhaps the big bang model is not 100% correct,  and is perhaps more of a rough approximation to what happened in the early observable universe . Other models exist that point out little anomalies like this one and attempt to answer the questions.

[yor_on]

https://www.simonsfoundation.org/2017/03/17/how-supermassive-black-holes-can-form-without-collapsing-stars/

[yor_on]

There is supposed to exist observable evidence for this https://arxiv.org/pdf/1611.09266

Then we have the question why every galaxy is presumed to have such a super massive black hole in it.
https://www.universetoday.com/13732/why-are-there-black-holes-in-the-middle-of-galaxies/

Maybe one can connect them?

[evan_au]

For mor on TON 618, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TON_618

There is a hypothesis that the supermassive black hole in the center of a modern galaxy would not grow much beyond 10 billion solar masses.
- This was based on the idea that the gravitational gradient around such a monster is so gentle that gas in the accretion disk would collapse to form stars, which could remain in orbit for a long time, without falling into the black hole.
- Unlike a SMBH with an accretion disk, where the gas is always suffering turbulence, frictional heating and radiating heat, causing the gas to spiral into the SMBH and allowing the SMBH to grow further.

This size limiting mechanism (if it exists) would not prevent SMBH growing bigger:
- Due to galaxy collisions, where large SMBH merge together
- Or events like the direct-collapse mechanism mentioned in the arXiv paper (which doesn't depend on an accretion disk for SMBH growth).

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermassive_black_hole#Formation

[pensador]

Maybe one can connect them?

and maybe not!.

It is all just guess work, some models are supported by evidence, others like these ref super massive black holes appear to be pure speculation. Scientists will never know exactly what happened 40billion years ago at the beginning of this epoch. The big bang model is a work in progress, and subject to many tweaks to explain anomalies. No doubt it will continue being tweaked for the foreseeable future.  Perhaps in the future stars will die and space will reach inflationary growth rates and we will witness another big bang, somewhere in the existing universe.

Black holes forming in the early universe or already existing from a previous universe do influence the formation of galaxies and stars https://phys.org/news/2018-01-black-hole-aid-small-galaxies.html   

[yor_on]

Created differently depending on type of particles/mass existing at that particular place and time you mean Evan?  As in the beginning we had 'light' and with it presumably a 'temperature', and then we get to quarks etc. Sounds pretty plausible to me. Then again :) It seems to me that a temperature is a result of interacting, which if there only is 'light' at a BB origin, also needs an explanation.

[pensador]

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermassive_black_hole#Formation

If black holes evaporate via Hawking radiation, a supermassive black hole with a mass of 1011 (100 billion) M☉ will evaporate in around 2×10^100 years . Would galaxies drift apart without their blackholes??

[Janus]

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermassive_black_hole#Formation

If black holes evaporate via Hawking radiation, a supermassive black hole with a mass of 1011 (100 billion) M☉ will evaporate in around 2×10^100 years . Would galaxies drift apart without their blackholes??

Estimated mass of SMBH at center of our galaxy: 4 million solar masses.
Total estimated mass of our galaxy 700 billion solar masses.
So the SMBH only makes up 0.0006% of the mass of the galaxy.  It's loss would have an insignificant effect on the dynamics of the galaxy.
For comparison the Sun converts about the same percentage of its mass to light in just under 1,000,000 years.  Ergo, A galaxy would loose mass via radiation loss at a faster rate than it would by SMBH evaporation, even if the SMBH were free to evaporate. 
Secondly, For a BH to even lose net mass via evaporation, It would need to lose energy/mass at a faster rate than it takes in.  Matter, starlight, and even the Cosmic background radiation all all sources which will feed the BH. 
The basic rule is that the Hawking temp of the BH has to higher than the average ambient temp of its surroundings.  Even if we remove all other sources, the CMBR still remains.  Hawking Temp goes down with size, and beyond a certain size, a BH will be below the CMBR temp.    This mass is approximately equal to that of our moon.

Ergo, before any SMBH at the center of any galaxy can even start to experience a net loss of mass via Hawking radiation, the universe will have to have expanded and cooled by a great deal, the galaxies would have had to used up their source of hydrogen for forming new stars, and remaining husks of old stars will have to have cooled significantly.( considering the fact that small red dwarfs can burn for trillions of years, and It can take a quadrillion years (or longer) for the white dwarf formed at the end of solar mass range stars to cool to black dwarf stage, you are going to be for a long wait.   If the "Big Rip" hypothesis is correct, run away expansion of the universe would have torn galaxies, star systems and even stars themselves apart before then, so it would be a bit of a moot point.