Log in

View Full Version : No Direct Link Between Black Holes and Dark Matter, Scientists Find



The Vegan Marxist
24th January 2011, 06:44
No Direct Link Between Black Holes and Dark Matter, Scientists Find

ScienceDaily (Jan. 20, 2011) — Massive black holes have been found at the centres of almost all galaxies, where the largest galaxies -- who are also the ones embedded in the largest halos of dark matter -- harbour the most massive black holes. This led to the speculation that there is a direct link between dark matter and black holes, i.e. that exotic physics controls the growth of a black hole.

Scientists at the Max Planck Institute of Extraterrestrial Physics, the University Observatory Munich and the University of Texas in Austin have now conducted an extensive study of galaxies to prove that black hole mass is not directly related to the mass of the dark matter halo but rather seems to be determined by the formation of the galaxy bulge. Their findings are published Jan. 20, 2011 in journal Nature.

Galaxies, such as our own Milky Way, consist of billions of stars, as well as great amounts of gas and dust. Most of this can be observed at different wavelengths, from radio and infrared for cooler objects up to optical and X-rays for parts that have been heated to high temperatures. However, there are also two important components that do not emit any light and can only be inferred from their gravitational pull.

All galaxies are embedded in halos of so-called dark matter, which extends beyond the visible edge of the galaxy and dominates its total mass. This component cannot be observed directly, but can be measured through its effect on the motion of stars, gas and dust. The nature of this dark matter is still unknown, but scientists believe that it is made up of exotic particles unlike the normal (baryonic) matter, which we, the Earth, Sun and stars are made of.

The other invisible component in a galaxy is the supermassive black hole at its centre. Our own Milky Way harbours a black hole, which is some four million times heavier than our Sun. Such gravity monsters, or even larger ones, have been found in all luminous galaxies with central bulges where a direct search is feasible; most and possibly all bulgy galaxies are believed to contain a central black hole. However, also this component cannot be observed directly, the mass of the black hole can only be inferred from the motion of stars around it.

In 2002, it was speculated that there may exist a tight correlation between the mass of the Black Hole and the outer rotation velocities of galaxy disks, which is dominated by the dark matter halo, suggesting that the unknown physics of exotic dark matter somehow controls the growth of black holes. On the other hand, it had already been shown a few years earlier that black hole mass is well correlated with bulge mass or luminosity. Since larger galaxies in general also contain larger bulges, it remained unclear which of the correlations is the primary one driving the growth of black holes.

To test this idea, the astronomers John Kormendy from the University of Texas and Ralf Bender from the Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics, the University Observatory Munich carried out high-quality spectral observations of many disk, bulge and pseudobulge galaxies. The increased accuracy of the resulting galaxy dynamics parameters led them to the conclusion that there is almost no correlation between dark matter and black holes.

By studying galaxies embedded in massive dark halos with high rotation velocities but small or no bulges, Kormendy and Bender tried to answer this question. They indeed found that galaxies without a bulge -- even if they are embedded in massive dark matter halos -- can at best contain very low mass black holes. Thus, they could show that black hole growth is mostly connected to bulge formation and not to dark matter.

"It is hard to conceive how the low-density, widely distributed non-baryonic dark matter could influence the growth of a black hole in a very tiny volume deep inside a galaxy," says Bender. Kormendy adds: "It seems much more plausible that black holes grow from the gas in their vicinity, primarily when the galaxies were forming."

In the accepted scenario of structure formation, galaxy mergers occur frequently, which scramble disks, allow gas to fall into the centre and thus trigger starbursts and feed black holes. The observations carried out by Kormendy and Bender indicate that this must indeed be the dominant process of black hole formation and growth.

Journal Reference:

1. John Kormendy, R. Bender, M. E. Cornell. Supermassive black holes do not correlate with galaxy disks or pseudobulges. Nature, 2011; 469 (7330): 374 DOI: 10.1038/nature09694 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature09694)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110120073654.htm

Amphictyonis
24th January 2011, 06:59
You know how physicists say nothing is really solid. I think our universe is part of a thing that would look solid if we could somehow step back and view it from a different vantage point far far away. We could all be living within an atom inside some mans butt for all we know. I didn't much care for Steven Hawking claim that we almost have the universe 'figured out'. In many instances I think we still suffer from the world is flat mentality when it comes to the Universe. We're just not at the point where we can explain everything yet.

Luisrah
24th January 2011, 23:57
You know how physicists say nothing is really solid. I think our universe is part of a thing that would look solid if we could somehow step back and view it from a different vantage point far far away. We could all be living within an atom inside some mans butt for all we know. I didn't much care for Steven Hawking claim that we almost have the universe 'figured out'. In many instances I think we still suffer from the world is flat mentality when it comes to the Universe. We're just not at the point where we can explain everything yet.

Exactly. In our very brief existence, when compared to what ''universe time'' is, I think we are very far from knowing the ''meaning of the universe'' or whatever answer we are searching.

The thing is, just like you said, it may be something short of our expectations. Everyone seems to think we will find the meaning of life, of the universe, that all questions will be answered, and that it is a very complicated thing.
Before the portuguese discoveries started, men thought the world was flat and that you would fall if you kept sailing. Also, in the south of Africa there were monsters, people without heads, that walked on their hands, and that the cause of the ships that sank were giant squid and monsters.

Turns out down the only difference was that the people were black, spoke a different language, and some other stuff.

Things suggest we are extremely small (and there are further proof that we are nothing compared to the universe) so it seems we're quite far from getting all the answers. But who knows, maybe they are around the corner. But that's speculation, and instead of that, better is to investigate and know the truth. Less idealism, more materialism.

Clark
25th January 2011, 19:44
Exactly. In our very brief existence, when compared to what ''universe time'' is, I think we are very far from knowing the ''meaning of the universe'' or whatever answer we are searching.

The thing is, just like you said, it may be something short of our expectations. Everyone seems to think we will find the meaning of life, of the universe, that all questions will be answered, and that it is a very complicated thing.
Before the portuguese discoveries started, men thought the world was flat and that you would fall if you kept sailing. Also, in the south of Africa there were monsters, people without heads, that walked on their hands, and that the cause of the ships that sank were giant squid and monsters.

Turns out down the only difference was that the people were black, spoke a different language, and some other stuff.

Things suggest we are extremely small (and there are further proof that we are nothing compared to the universe) so it seems we're quite far from getting all the answers. But who knows, maybe they are around the corner. But that's speculation, and instead of that, better is to investigate and know the truth. Less idealism, more materialism.

Read some history books, please.


Before the portuguese discoveries started, men thought the world was flat and that you would fall if you kept sailing.

and less comic books.

Luisrah
28th January 2011, 17:22
Read some history books, please.



and less comic books.


So you're saying humanity always knew the Earth was round?

I'm not even going to ask about the rest of your accusations.

Clark
29th January 2011, 19:12
So you're saying humanity always knew the Earth was round?

I'm not even going to ask about the rest of your accusations.

You're saying humanity didn't know shit pre Columbus. That's wrong.

Wikipedia - Myth of the flat earth ( cant post links)

Consider yourself schooled. (And lol at the vegan guy thanking you, wasn't he the one stating that animals only behave like animals because they are treated as such? Haha.)

The Vegan Marxist
30th January 2011, 01:13
You're saying humanity didn't know shit pre Columbus. That's wrong.

Wikipedia - Myth of the flat earth ( cant post links)

Consider yourself schooled. (And lol at the vegan guy thanking you, wasn't he the one stating that animals only behave like animals because they are treated as such? Haha.)

I actually stated that animals act upon the conditions they live in. If an animal was tamed to where it was provided food and shelter, we'd see a huge difference between that animal and, say, an animal living in the wild.

As for the "flat earth" theory, I'll admit that you've astonished me with the link. I never really paid much attention to the origins of the "flat earth" theory. That's definitely interesting.