A cosmic chicken-and-egg question has been solved by astronomers, who now say that black holes came before galaxies
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7815827.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7815827.stm
Black holes 'preceded galaxies'
- Thread starter minidog
- Start date
Makes sense, now they just might want to figure out what matter became dense enough to form the black holes. If I had to guess, I would imagine it would have been dark matter.
Makes sense, now they just might want to figure out what matter became dense enough to form the black holes. If I had to guess, I would imagine it would have been dark matter.
Awesome. Really cool. :thumbsup:
- from Wikipedia
maildude
Postal Paranoiac
And not only that, but read this!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/mysteryroarfromfarawayspacedetected
http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/mysteryroarfromfarawayspacedetected
I was all interrested, reading the article provided by MiniD, all serious, then i started reading the posts here... untill
Now, i just can't stop laughing! :rofl2:
A great (unexpected) joke in a great and very interresting thread. :hatsoff:
because 'Black' matter was considered racist.
Now, i just can't stop laughing! :rofl2:
A great (unexpected) joke in a great and very interresting thread. :hatsoff:
it does explain how galaxies were formed, but it creates some paradoxes with the notion that the early universe went from a state of superheated after the big bang to an ever increasing coolness. unless you have cold fusion, then you couldn't have black holes forming in such an environment. But that is the ideal condition for star formations, and even though they can form in the more recent cooler universe, they would not form as rapidly and, it would seem, in such numerous quantities to populate galaxies.
I suspect that this is simply a means of trying to use currently proven phenomenon (black holes) to explain the formation and gravity of galaxies and avoid theoretical explanations like dark energy. There really isn't any evidence to suggest that dark matter could form black holes because it appears to be energy neutral (so it's gravity field could never collapse).
All of this has very startling implications for the future of physics. As we are seeing more and more of the functions of quantum mechanics effecting the macrocosmic universe we are getting closer to shattering our old theories about the relationship between matter and energy and it seems ever likely that some day relativity will be overshadowed. Which means in the future we might be able to define such impossibilities as perpetual motion, cold fusion and faster than light speed.
I suspect that this is simply a means of trying to use currently proven phenomenon (black holes) to explain the formation and gravity of galaxies and avoid theoretical explanations like dark energy. There really isn't any evidence to suggest that dark matter could form black holes because it appears to be energy neutral (so it's gravity field could never collapse).
All of this has very startling implications for the future of physics. As we are seeing more and more of the functions of quantum mechanics effecting the macrocosmic universe we are getting closer to shattering our old theories about the relationship between matter and energy and it seems ever likely that some day relativity will be overshadowed. Which means in the future we might be able to define such impossibilities as perpetual motion, cold fusion and faster than light speed.
well the thing is at the beginning of the 20th century technology had advanced to invent things like the electron microscope and the space telescope, and x-ray detectors and all sorts of other such gadgets, so scientists were able to study things they had never been able to look at before. And the more they did they discovered that things didn't really work the way that they thought they did, so they came up with all these theories to try to explain how they could work.
one of those theories was the black hole. It was based on mathematics and not on any observable phenomenon- in other words it sounded good, it made sense, but they had no idea if it was true or not. and then after like 20 or 30 years they discovered evidence to prove that black holes actually did exist. So that was a really big deal for science and it gave some validation to all these other crazy ideas they had, so now scientists get a big hard on whenever they get to deal with anything involving black holes.
one of those theories was the black hole. It was based on mathematics and not on any observable phenomenon- in other words it sounded good, it made sense, but they had no idea if it was true or not. and then after like 20 or 30 years they discovered evidence to prove that black holes actually did exist. So that was a really big deal for science and it gave some validation to all these other crazy ideas they had, so now scientists get a big hard on whenever they get to deal with anything involving black holes.
You have to remember too, science has become a business. Without "findings", there is no funding. So scientists are put into a situation to validate results instead of being able to simply say, hey we found something...not sure what it is yet, but we'll keep looking.
Plus, there is the matter of ego. Some scientists are in it to be "somebody". To be a Newton or Einstein. To be an integral part of history.
Plus, there is the matter of ego. Some scientists are in it to be "somebody". To be a Newton or Einstein. To be an integral part of history.
Similar threads
