I am not trying to be ATM or anything, I always get these question after I was Supermassive Blackholes. In trying to get a progressive visual of the universe I start with a star the size of our sun. After it is finished it collapses into a white dwarf about the size of the Earth.


In stars with more than 4 times the mass of our sun, become a supernova then collapse into Neutron stars which are drastically smaller, and far more dense then a white dwarf.

Stars more than ten times the mass of our sun become a supernova then collapse into black holes.

Both stars more than 4 times the mass of our sun and stars more than 10 times the mass of our sun produce next generation stars. Wouldn't the logical path to study be that supermassive black holes are the remnants of stars more massive than we can imagine? In the program it discusses the relationship between each galaxy and it's core supermassive black whole. The evidence, as presented in the show, at least, suggests that the Supermassive Blackhole triggered the collapse of gas into stars thus creating the galaxies we know today. Am I correct in remembering assuming that the more massive the star, the older it is? If so, why is it impossible to conclude that galaxies, like stellar nurseries are not the result of some emmense star, that collapsed into a supermassive black hole and leaving plenty more nebula to form it's surrounding stars?

This is where it sounds like I am really trying to be ATM but in all seriousness, I am asking why it is wrong. Assuming that far more intellectual minds have probably explored this idea, I feel safe to say that there are reasons why my idea doesn't fit and I am asking for those reasons. Why is the possibility not mentioned that all the galaxies in the universe are not products of bigger collapses?

Much information has been gained and a understanding of what drives a galaxy has been well tested. Star forming nebular and exploding stars have all been well documented and much study of these objects has been under taken. Your giant nova does not fit the information we see for the formation of galaxies and or the planetary disks within them. Not all stars are born out of Nova events or the resultant shock waves. The super massive black hole at the core of most galaxies is not what started the galaxy. It is a buy product of all that gravity and mass. Just as the planetary disk may give birth to all the planets and the central star of any solar system. One does not rule out the other. Gravity mass and density all play there roll in this creation of the systems. Stability came later.

No this is not correct. Massive stars live short lives, and all stars lose mass throughout their lives.

One possible (hand-waving) explanation for SMBHs is that huge amounts of matter collapsed to try and form a hypermassive star early in the history of the universe, and that the material blown out of that star itself turned into massive stars, many of which were in orbits that brought them back into the original giant star, but now gravitationally bound to tightly to be blown away by Eddington pressure. The original star was probably a large stellar mass black hole by this time, and over a few tens of millions of years grew by the consumption of inbound stars, neutron stars and stellar mass black holes (no time for white dwarfs to form).

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

"Am I correct in remembering assuming that the more massive the star, the older it is?"

I actually worded that incorrectly. I was trying to find a quick way to express my understanding that the less massive, longer-lasting stars, are secondary generational to the more massive stars.


"Not all stars are born out of Nova events or the resultant shock waves"

Of course not, that would be impossible since there would have to be a star before there was a supernova.

"Your giant nova does not fit the information we see for the formation of galaxies and or the planetary disks within them.
The super massive black hole at the core of most galaxies is not what started the galaxy. It is a buy product of all that gravity and mass. "

In most of the reading I have done on SMBH's it seems that the relationship is more direct than this, though. Stars were still forming when it is in it's quasar stage. The SMBH at the center seems to play a prominent roll in the total evolution of the galaxy. In everything I have read, there are two contrasting theories. One that says that the galaxies were born with the SMBH and one that says that the galaxies were born of the SMBH.
In the OP I did state that I am not attempting to come up with some new theory or anything, it is just the logical path my visual takes. The fact that this is not written in any book or taught in any class suggests that there is a reason why it doesn't fit. I was just wondering if someone can explain why.

Thank you for taking time with me!

"Am I correct in remembering assuming that the more massive the star, the older it is?"

I actually worded that incorrectly. I was trying to find a quick way to express my understanding that the less massive, longer-lasting stars, are secondary generational to the more massive stars.


"Not all stars are born out of Nova events or the resultant shock waves"

Of course not, that would be impossible since there would have to be a star before there was a supernova.

"Your giant nova does not fit the information we see for the formation of galaxies and or the planetary disks within them.
The super massive black hole at the core of most galaxies is not what started the galaxy. It is a buy product of all that gravity and mass. "

In most of the reading I have done on SMBH's it seems that the relationship is more direct than this, though. Stars were still forming when it is in it's quasar stage. The SMBH at the center seems to play a prominent roll in the total evolution of the galaxy. In everything I have read, there are two contrasting theories. One that says that the galaxies were born with the SMBH and one that says that the galaxies were born of the SMBH.
In the OP I did state that I am not attempting to come up with some new theory or anything, it is just the logical path my visual takes. The fact that this is not written in any book or taught in any class suggests that there is a reason why it doesn't fit. I was just wondering if someone can explain why.

Thank you for taking time with me!

There may be technical physical reasons for a maximum size star. There are also observational constraints. But it seems there were some very big stars very early in the universe's history. Still, some supermassive black holes are hundreds of millions of solar masses. It is extremely unlikely these formed out of a single star. More likely they are due to mergers.

After all is said and speculated, this large question of early structure formation in the universe is an ongoing unsolved problem in astrophysics. If you figure it out and receive a Nobel prize, I hope you'll mention that you used the BAUT Forum as a sounding board for your early ideas.

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

I believe it is called the Eddington Limit. Basically the luminosity of a star gets so bright that the photon pressure is enough to overcome the gravity holding the star together.

I believe I've seen the show(s) you are referring to, they were titled "Supermassive Black Holes". There are actually two versions of the show with basically the same infomation but different narrations and slightly different interviews and graphics.

It seems that the shows have been dated somewhat by newer research, things can change fast in this field. I don't think there's strong consensus about the details of early galaxy formation yet. It does seem that large black holes may have been instrumental in the formation of some, but not all, galaxies. Basically an early supermassive star could have gone supernova and produced the original BH. The black hole would have been large, but not yet a SMBH. The original supernova could have helped trigger star formation in the early galaxy. That's not saying that the galaxy would not have formed without the trigger, just that it helped it along. Those galaxies would have been small compared to the Milky Way, but those galaxies could have combined, resulting in the central BH getting larger and larger along with the surrounding galaxy.

That scenario may, or may not, help explain the close relation between the size of the central SMBH and the surrounding galaxy. The show implied a more direct relationship, that the orignal SN directly produced a larger galaxy right from the start.

I think the jury is still out on early galaxy formation.

One side note is that a star which collapses to a white dwarf,
neutron star, or black hole always or almost always loses a large
fraction of its mass (often well over half its mass) before and/or
during the collapse. The material may form a planetary nebula
or other supernova remnant (SNR). This material of course is
what eventually is incorporated into later generations of stars.
Please look up the details elsewhere.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

__________________
http://www.FreeMars.org/jeff/

"I find astronomy very interesting, but I wouldn't if I thought we
were just going to sit here and look." -- "Van Rijn"

"The other planets? Well, they just happen to be there, but the
point of rockets is to explore them!" -- Kai Yeves