[katieHaylor (OP)]

David asks:

Are black holes the oldest known part of the Universe?

If we are led to believe a black hole is created through the death of a star, how do we explain a super black hole that is believed to be at the centre of galaxies?
Would a super black hole be created by a black hole colliding with other black holes (creating gravitional waves) creating a larger black hole, thus pulling stars towards it, thus creating a galaxy?
However, there is the chicken and the egg scenario, for a black hole to be created there has to be a star first or were some black holes created in the big bang thus creating the galaxies?

What do you think?

[jeffreyH]

The universe has voids which are emptier than those regions containing galaxies. When looked at globally it can appear sponge-like. Filaments link together the galaxies. If you are looking for the oldest structures then it is this framework that may be older than anything else. Black holes are likely a later edition to the universe.

http://cosmicweb.uchicago.edu/filaments.html

[unstman]

If black holes are a later edition to the creation of the Universe, is this implying, if we are lead to believe black holes are at the centre of galaxies, black holes must have been created before galaxies were formed?

Is it possible some stars were created just after the Big Bang, thus forming into black holes, thus the creation of the galaxies?

Were stars created just after the Big Bang or were Black Holes (possibly part of dark matter/energy?) created before stars were formed and subsequently the gravitational attraction between stars and black holes forming to create galaxies?

One would have to presume Black Holes were created before the formation of galaxies in the early stages of the Universe's creation?

Is it possible Black Holes were created during the ' inflation period ' of the Universe as part, possibly, of the early creation of dark matter/energy?

[jeffreyH]

I don't have answers to those questions. I have studied galaxy formation but that was a few years ago. @evan_au  may have some answers.

[Janus]

If black holes are a later edition to the creation of the Universe, is this implying, if we are lead to believe black holes are at the centre of galaxies, black holes must have been created before galaxies were formed?

Whether the super-massive BH formed first and the galaxy later around it, or if was created by the formation of the galaxy is an open question.

Is it possible some stars were created just after the Big Bang, thus forming into black holes, thus the creation of the galaxies?

Were stars created just after the Big Bang or were Black Holes (possibly part of dark matter/energy?) created before stars were formed and subsequently the gravitational attraction between stars and black holes forming to create galaxies?

One would have to presume Black Holes were created before the formation of galaxies in the early stages of the Universe's creation?

Is it possible Black Holes were created during the ' inflation period ' of the Universe as part, possibly, of the early creation of dark matter/energy?

There are a few suggested models for the creation of the super-massive BHs we find at galaxy centers.
One is that they originally seeded by the Black holes created by earlier generations of stars.  Another is that they were formed by a large cloud of gasses that collapsed into a Quasi-star, that then collapsed into a BH without going through a supernova. Then there is the possibility that initially started as primordial black holes.  These are black hole that formed when the universe was still young and small just just from the pressures and energies prevalent at the time.
In any case, however they started out, they grew by collecting matter.

[Bill S]

In any case, however they started out, they grew by collecting matter.

It seems that stars can do that too.

https://www.laboratoryequipment.com/news/2017/12/winking-star-may-be-devouring-wrecked-planets?et_cid=6217419&et_rid=517749120&type=headline&et_cid=6217419&et_rid=517749120&linkid=https%3a%2f%2fwww.laboratoryequipment.com%2fnews%2f2017%2f12%2fwinking-star-may-be-devouring-wrecked-planets%3fet_cid%3d6217419%26et_rid%3d%%subscriberid%%%26type%3dheadline

[evan_au]

Are black holes the oldest known part of the Universe?

One cosmological viewpoint is that our universe formed within a black hole:
Initial small size + initial huge mass = black hole
We would still be within this black hole.

If true, this black hole would be the oldest thing in our universe.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-hole_cosmology

Failing this:
- The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation dates from about 300,000 years after Big Bang. This has been detected.
- There should be relic neutrinos which date from about 1 second after the Big Bang. But these have been red-shifted so severely that they have not been detected as yet.
- There should be relic gravitational waves which date even closer to the Big Bang. Scientists are looking for signs of this in the polarisation of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. As yet this has not been confirmed (there was a false alarm from the BICEP2 experiment at the South Pole, subsequently explained as galactic dust by more detailed results from the Fermi space telescope).

[unstman]

Is there any evidence to explain the creation of the galaxies just after the Big Bang, and would this evidence incorporate Black Holes?

If the structure of a galaxy is based on the matter/stars revolving around a massive BH, what was responsible for the creation of these BH in the first place?

How old was the Universe when galaxies were forming, and would this pre-date the creation of BH's? 

The theory in explaining the structure of galaxies does not explain the structure of the Universe and/or whether or not BH pre-existed before galaxies were formed?

If one explanation of gravitational waves is the collision of two BH's, why is there no further evidence of gravitational waves in the Universe being detected?

Could the colliding of BH's in the early stages of the creation of the Universe emit microwave radiation?

Why are there no other detectable forms of radiation, apart from microwave, in the creation of the Universe during the Big Bang?

[Bill S]

Why are there no other detectable forms of radiation, apart from microwave, in the creation of the Universe during the Big Bang?

Put simply; the CMB is the remnant radiation from the Big Bang.

We tend to think of this radiation as light, possibly because of the normal reference to “photons”, but, photons are the quanta of electromagnetic radiation (EMR).  Presumably, the original radiation included a range of EMR outside the visible spectrum, as well.  All these photons have been travelling for the same length of time .  There energy has decreased, and, correspondingly, their wavelength has increased, so that they now appear as microwaves, with a temperature of a little less than three degrees above absolute zero (about 2.7K).

Wow! That sounds as though I know what I'm talking about. 

[evan_au]

Is there any evidence to explain the creation of the galaxies just after the Big Bang, and would this evidence incorporate Black Holes?

One of the unsolved problems in cosmology is this:

How did the most distant quasars grow their supermassive black holes up to 10¹⁰ solar masses so early in the history of the universe?

We know that they do have black holes at the core of the most distant galaxies - in fact it is the jets of matter and radiation from these black holes that makes them visible at all.
- But whether the black hole or the galaxy came first is a mystery at this time.
- Micro black holes created in the Big Bang and cosmic strings are just two of the more speculative theories about this period.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics#Astronomy_and_astrophysics

If one explanation of gravitational waves is the collision of two BH's, why is there no further evidence of gravitational waves in the Universe being detected?

Because gravitational waves are an incredibly subtle effect, which required an incredibly expensive detector and decades of work. The gravitational waves detected to date have involved a compression of less than the width of a proton in the width of the Earth.

This particular generation of detectors are optimised to detect collision of black holes and neutron stars (50Hz - 1kHz). These are not particularly common events - I have seen an estimate that our galaxy will have a neutron star collision about every 80,000 years.

But now that they have been detected, a number of teams are working on new and innovative detectors, including some aimed at detecting very high frequency gravitational waves left over from the Big Bang, and very low frequency gravitational waves produced by objects orbiting supermassive black holes.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational-wave_observatory#High_frequency_detectors

Could the colliding of BH's in the early stages of the creation of the Universe emit microwave radiation?

Black holes by themselves won't emit measurable amounts of microwaves. But black holes are typically surrounded by an accretion disk which emits visible light and X-Rays. These accretion disks also emit matter jets, which are visible across the universe (if they happen to be lined up in our direction).
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrophysical_jet

Why are there no other detectable forms of radiation, apart from microwave, in the creation of the Universe during the Big Bang?

Because the early universe started off in a hot, dense state, which is opaque. You have to wait for it to cool down enough to become transparent before you can detect radiation emitted by it.
- Neutrinos pass through most matter, so the universe became transparent to neutrinos before it became transparent to light. This transparency also makes neutrinos very hard to detect - it was only in the 1960s that the first neutrinos were detected from the Sun, and in 1979 that the first neutrinos were detected from a nearby supernova.
- Gravitational waves pass through matter even easier than neutrinos - but that makes them even harder to detect. The first gravitational waves were only detected in 2015.

[evan_au]

Why are there no other detectable forms of radiation, apart from microwave, in the creation of the Universe during the Big Bang?

One of the products of the Big Bang was Dark Matter - it is about 5 times more common than the atomic and ionic matter that we can detect with electromagnetic radiation.

The most common theory is that Dark Matter is some form of subatomic particle that hardly interacts with matter at all. This means that it would have been emitted from the Big Bang even earlier than neutrinos. As you would expect, Dark Matter has proven even more difficult to detect than neutrinos - but the effects of Dark Matter can be seen in the rotation curves of galaxies.

It is likely that Dark Matter played a key role in the formation of galaxies and supermassive black holes, as simulations with different amounts of Dark Matter produce different results than we see in the universe around us.
.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Galaxy_rotation_curves

[puppypower]

If we look at the singularity of the big bang, before the big bang occurs, we have a situation where all the future mass/energy equivalent of the universe is contained within a singularity. In that respect, the primordial atom would appear to be a black hole, for all practical purposes.

If we could somehow cause, this original mother of all black holes, to expand by expanding space-time, what would happen? In my opinion, the primordial atom/mother of black holes would divide into two daughter mega black holes. The reason has to do with energy and entropy. The entropy change, going from one black hole into two daughter black holes, is much less than the original black hole atomizing into a huge number of sub-particles. Since entropy needs energy to increase, the net affect is it takes less energy to split, making it more likely to happen, sooner.

We do not have a consensus on how the primordial formed and where all the expansion energy comes from. I am assuming, the path that requires the least energy to alter its state will happen first. 

In this model, the primordial atom splits into two daughter cells, which themselves divide, as energy comes available for the entropy change. This continues spreading the smaller and smaller black hole daughter cells into space-time, to fill in the body of the universe; superstructures of the universe. This model grows the body of the universe. Since the black hole reference is the only reference in the universe, all  appears to be very close.

This process continues until galaxy level daughter black holes form, which undergo a mini big bang phase, similar to what is now assumed for the primordial atom. These mini galaxy level little bangs form the materials for galaxies. The explosion is moderate, allowing the materials to remain contained in local space, with some secondary gravitational reversal, returning matter back to the central blackholes. This scenario also allows the rapid formation of first generation stars as well as explains the CMBR.

Wth respect to early star formation, as the galaxy scale black holes condense into matter and antimatter, they release tremendous amounts of energy. This creates outside pressure for the other expanding galaxies, that helps to contain the matter of galaxies, as well as create the turbulence eddies needed for rapid formations of stars.  It also assures a uniform background of radiation.

[evan_au]

In my opinion, the primordial atom/mother of black holes would divide into two daughter mega black holes. The reason has to do with energy and entropy

We know of no way that a supermassive black hole could split into two really huge black holes.
- General relativity says that nothing can escape from a black hole, as it would require that thing to exceed the speed of light.
- We expect that supermassive black holes will radiate a tiny amount of Hawking radiation - the occasional photon that manages to escape due to quantum effects (relativity does not include quantum effects). But this radically different than what you describe.

In fact, if you look at the couple of black-hole mergers that we have detected to date, there is:
- An enormous amount of energy released in the merger; for black holes with a mass of 30x the Sun, the amount of mass turned into gravitational waves is somewhere around the mass of the Sun. So the black hole splitting up again is incredibly unlikely, from an energy perspective.
- The gravitational waves spread out in 3 dimensions across the universe, becoming more and more diffuse as they go. This "spread out" energy represents the preferred direction of entropy. That all this energy could come together again and split the black hole is incredibly unlikely, from an entropy viewpoint.

If you draw spacetime diagrams at positions closer and closer to the black hole, you see that the trend is towards interchanging the familiar axes of space and time.
- We don't know exactly what will happen inside the black hole, but physicists describe the path of objects as a one-way path towards the singularity
- If the spacetime trend continues, what seems to us outside the event horizon like an object of finite radius lasting for a very long time could appear to those inside to be a very large space with a finite start time.

You could learn more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose%E2%80%93Hawking_singularity_theorems

[unstman]

Is it possible, during the creation of the Universe, the extreme temperatures and pressures in the inflationary period may have been the conditions to create Black Holes, later stars being created, after the initial Big Bang and the subsequent cooling where conditions were right for the creation of galaxies?

Considering matter, as we perceive it, is only 4% of the known Universe, could the creation of matter be a bi-product of the creation of Dark Matter/Energy?

[evan_au]

Is it possible, during the creation of the Universe, the extreme temperatures and pressures in the inflationary period may have been the conditions to create Black Holes

Yes, that is possible, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primordial_black_hole

It is still a mystery how microscopic or stellar-mass black holes could combine to produce supermassive black holes in the early universe.

[unstman]

Would it be correct to say, possibly, Blacks Holes existed before galaxies were formed? If this was the case, would it also be possible the ending of visible matter, thus the ending of the Universe we know, will end up with an Universe filled with Black Holes, Dark Matter/Energy? This would also, over a very long time, end up with an Universe devoid of matter and Black Holes and leaving only Dark Matter/Energy?

We are lead to believe Dark Matter/Energy was created by the Big Bang, but if the Universe ends up with no matter, no Black Holes and just Dark Matter/Energy, is it possible Dark Matter/Energy has always existed, and conditions within this changing to create, again, another Universe with Matter???

Is the structure of a Galaxy influenced more by the Super Black Hole in the centre or Dark Matter/Energy around it and within it? What exactly gives a galaxy its shape and structure?

Is the age of the Universe purely based on ' visible matter/radiation ' and nothing else? Could the Universe be considerably larger and older than what we think because we do not know enough about Dark Energy/Matter? 

[evan_au]

thus the ending of the Universe we know, will end up with an Universe filled with Black Holes, Dark Matter/Energy?

Professional cosmologists argue about this - there are some real unknowns.
You could start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe#Theories_about_the_end_of_the_universe

[unstman]

I would like to know if the age of the Universe is only based on visible matter? In other words, the furthest visible matter we can optically observe?

If the age of the Universe is 13.82 Billion Years Old, How old would the Universe be to an observer at the edge of what we perceive to be the age of the Universe, say around 13 Billion Years from our point in the Universe (would, from their perspective, the age of the Universe be 27 Billion Years Old?) ?

[evan_au]

I would like to know if the age of the Universe is only based on visible matter?

Yes, mostly.
- Scientists are still trying to detect invisible (Dark) matter, without success (so far).
- The age of the universe is derived from the Hubble Constant, which is based on the Distance and Doppler shift (velocity) of distant galaxies,
- with the distances measured by a cosmic ruler consisting of Cepheid variable stars and supernovas, which are all visible phenomena
- But hints are also available from variations in the CMBR and gravitational waves from the 2017 neutron star merger, which are non-optical phenomena.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_distance_ladder#Standard_siren

In other words, the furthest visible matter we can optically observe?

The most accurate measures are taken from galaxies which are much closer (and hence appear brighter), and are able to provide a clear spectrum from which to derive the Doppler shift.

From reasonably close galaxies (but outside our local cluster of galaxies) we can extrapolate to a time when all these galaxies were all close together.

However, if you wish to measure the accelerating expansion of the universe, then this survey must include many  galaxies beyond 5 billion light-years, which is a challenging measurement.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_most_distant_astronomical_objects

If the age of the Universe is 13.82 Billion Years Old, How old would the Universe be to an observer at the edge of what we perceive to be the age of the Universe

We expect that an observer (say) 12 billion Light Years away might be able to see the precursors to our galaxy.
- She may well be able to see galaxies that we cannot see from Earth
- She will certainly see galaxies at a different stage in their life-cycle than we see from Earth
- But based on measurement of galaxies near herself, we expect that she would conclude that the universe was a similar age to us
- This is because all galaxies are expanding away from each other, at a rate which is (roughly) proportional to distance

[syhprum]

I notice many references to the edge of the universe is this not a misnomer is not every observer at the centre of the universe regardless of how far they are from us.