Did 'primordial' black holes born right after the Big Bang help our universe's 1st stars form?
New research suggests that primordial black holes created during the Big Bang could have played a major role in forming the universe's first stars. The findings could help to assess how suitable primordial black holes are as candidates for dark matter, the universe's most mysterious "stuff."
But the study team isn't sure yet whether these black holes helped star formation, acting as "cosmic midwives" by ferrying matter to sites of stellar birth, or if they acted to suppress starbirth!
The role primordial black holes played in the formation of so-called "Population III (POP III) stars" ( a confusing name for the first generation of stars) all depends on what masses these hypothetical original black holes have.
"We investigated how primordial black holes — ancient black holes that may have formed in the very early universe — could have influenced the birth of the first stars," team member Stefano Profumo of the University of California at Santa Cruz (UCSC) told Space.com. "Using advanced computer simulations, we found that, depending on their mass and abundance, these black holes could either speed up or delay the formation of the first stars."
Profumo added that, in some cases, primordial black holes likely acted like "cosmic seeds," helping matter clump together earlier than expected. However, in other scenarios, Profumo and colleagues found that these black holes could have disrupted gas clouds, actually preventing stars from forming promptly.
Primordial black holes: Friend or foe to star formation?
Primordial black holes are thought to have formed as a result of density fluctuations in matter in the early universe. This is quite different from the origin of so-called stellar-mass black holes, which are created when massive stars collapse and erupt in supernovas at the end of their lives.
This means that primordial black holes didn't have to wait for the first generation of stars to live and die before they could be created. Also, it doesn't place the same kinds of mass limits on primordial black holes that exist for stellar-mass black holes, as the former are created directly from early cosmic material rather than from collapsing stars, which can only be so massive.
However, because primordial black holes are yet to be discovered, there isn't much else scientists can firmly say about them.
Profumo explained how primordial black holes could play a role in star formation.
"Massive primordial black holes can serve as powerful gravitational centers. In the early universe, they could have pulled in gas and dark matter more quickly, jump-starting the formation of small galaxies and stars," he said. "This could explain how some of the earliest galaxies we now see — thanks to the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) — managed to form so surprisingly fast after the Big Bang."
However, primordial black holes must have a certain mass to play a positive role in star birth, according to the team's simulations, which were performed using a software package called GIZMO, running the hydrodynamics of the universe's initial gas and dust.
"To boost early star formation in the way we observed, the black holes would need to be quite massive — about a thousand to ten thousand times the mass of our sun," Profumo said. "At those sizes, and in the right numbers, they'd have a noticeable effect on how quickly the first stars formed."
More massive primordial black holes would do this by causing density fluctuations in matter to increase. This would create more so-called dark matter haloes, vast clusters of this mysterious form of matter within which the building blocks of stars and galaxies could gather en masse.
If there are too many of these massive primordial black holes, however, then stars and galaxies would form too fast, thus not reflecting our picture of the early universe.
But the team found that primordial black holes with masses smaller than around 100 times that of the sun wouldn't increase density fluctuations.
Instead, the team's simulations indicated that, if there were enough of these less massive primordial black holes, the influence of their gravity would generate tidal forces within vast clouds of gas and heat them.
This is problematic for star formation, because stellar bodies are born when cold and over-dense clumps of gas and dust collapse under the influence of their own gravity. The more low-mass primordial black holes in the early universe, the more gas is heated and the more star formation is stunted.
Thus, this is a really Goldilocks situation. To assist in star formation, the masses and population sizes of primordial black holes need to be "just right."
Further investigation of these competing scenarios could tell scientists more about dark matter.
Primordial black holes and dark matter
Dark matter is so problematic to scientists because, despite accounting for about 85% of the matter in the universe, it remains effectively invisible. That means everything we see — stars, planets, moons, asteroids, comets, each other, and so forth — accounts for just 15% of the stuff in the universe.
Scientists can gather that dark matter isn't made up of particles like electrons, protons, and neutrons, which compose the atoms of "normal" matter, because those particles interact with light, and whatever dark matter is doesn't.
This has spurred a search for particles beyond the standard model of particle physics. The fact that this hunt has turned up empty has kept primordial black holes in the frame as dark matter suspects.
"This research tells us that if primordial black holes do make up some or all of the dark matter, they can't just have any mass or be present in any amount," Profumo said. "If there are too many, or if they're too massive, they would cause the first stars to form much too early — before we see any signs of them.
"On the other hand, if they're too small and too abundant, they can get in the way of star formation. This gives us a new way to rule out certain black hole scenarios for dark matter."
Of course, primordial black holes remain hypothetical. Barring the detection of these Big Bang-generated black holes, there are other ways that astronomers could find evidence supporting the team's theory about their role in early star formation.
"The effects we studied would show up during what's called the cosmic dawn — roughly 100 to 200 million years after the Big Bang. In some of our most extreme scenarios, star formation could start as early as 15 million years after the Big Bang — much earlier than traditional models suggest," Profumo said. "If telescopes like JWST or future instruments can find galaxies or stars forming very, very early in the universe, that would support the idea that something like primordial black holes helped cosmic structures form faster than usual."
Related Stories:
— A 'primordial' black hole may zoom through our solar system every decade
— Primordial black holes may flood the universe. Could one hit Earth?
— Tiny black holes left over from the Big Bang may be prime dark matter suspects
The next step for the team is to move beyond the assumption that all primordial black holes would have the same masses.
"Most theories suggest a mix of masses, and we want to model that more realistically," Profumo said. "We're also planning to improve the physical modeling of star formation, and to simulate larger patches of the early universe to understand how primordial black holes might have influenced not just the first stars but also the formation of early galaxies."
The team's research is available as a preprint on the paper repository arXiv.
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
3 hours ago
- New York Times
The Third Rock From Another Sun Shows No Signs of Life So Far
In the search for signs of life on what seemed like a promising little exoplanet, astronomers' hopes have dimmed. Living things, as we understand them, seem to flourish best in an atmosphere like the one on Earth. But scientists who have been using the James Webb Space Telescope to examine the planet known as Trappist-1 d have found no sign of an earthlike atmosphere, according to a study published on Wednesday in The Astrophysical Journal. Exoplanets revolve around stars other than our sun. And the exoplanet in question is the third of seven that orbit Trappist-1, a star some 40 light-years from our place in the Milky Way. It is a red dwarf, so named because this type of star emits reddish light and tends to be small. In the search for life elsewhere in the galaxy, the discovery of the Trappist-1 planetary system was a big deal. Researchers announced in 2017 that the seven planets around Trappist-1 seemed to have excellent potential as hosts for living things. But in the years since, astronomers have not detected habitable atmospheres on the two innermost planets. They are still examining the outer ones. The star Trappist-1, which was named for a telescope in the Atacama Desert of Chile, is just a little bigger than Jupiter. Red dwarves are the most common stars in our galaxy, but this particular star and its planets are a bit easier to study than other known planetary systems. The system is fairly close to Earth, and the seven planets follow a tight, fast orbit. That makes them good candidates for a method of observation called transmission spectroscopy. When light from a star shines through a planet's atmosphere on its way to the Webb telescope, scientists can find clues about the chemical makeup of that atmosphere by determining which wavelengths of light it absorbed. The third world from the Trappist-1 star, a rocky planet, had appeared promising, according to Caroline Piaulet-Ghorayeb, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Chicago and the study's lead author. But the starlight that passed the exoplanet before reaching the Webb telescope did not appear to have been filtered through the kinds of atmospheric molecules that are essential to life on Earth, like water or carbon dioxide. The research of Dr. Piaulet-Ghorayeb and her team did not completely rule out the possibility of an atmosphere there, she said. But it did suggest that cool red dwarves — or, at least, this cool red dwarf — might be too volatile to support life. 'Maybe that tells us that it's going to be harder than we thought to find atmospheres on these rocky planets,' she added. Astronomers may need to turn their attention to planets that circle brighter stars, like our sun. Those planets are more difficult to observe and will probably require another telescope, said Jacob Bean, an astronomer at the University of Chicago who advises Dr. Piaulet-Ghorayeb but was not involved in the study. 'We still have this burning question: Can life develop elsewhere?' he said. Dr. Piaulet-Ghorayeb agreed that other planets might be better candidates for life than Trappist-1 d, but she was not ready to give up on the exoplanet just yet. 'There are different ways of figuring out whether these planets have atmospheres,' she said. 'Transmission spectroscopy is just one of them.' Based on the results of her study, she said, 'our job is going to be a little bit harder.' 'But it definitely doesn't kill our prospects,' she added. Dr. Bean called the Trappist-1 system 'a fantastic laboratory for studying terrestrial planets around other stars,' and said that the research so far had yielded plenty of interesting data despite the largely negative result of the latest study. 'If we go look, sometimes we come up disappointed,' Dr. Bean said. 'But if we hadn't looked, we wouldn't know. And it's always better to know.'
Forbes
8 hours ago
- Forbes
Legendary Hacker & Investor Pablos Holman's 1000x Deep Tech Future
Pablos Holman is a hacker, writ large. The first time he spoke for one of my events, in 2010, he captured an audience member's credit card information during a break and started making a purchase on stage. He didn't complete the purchase (or share the number), but he did make his point. When I'm puzzling over a truly far-out concept or epochal challenge, Holman is one of my go-to experts. He's spent his career hacking humanity's biggest challenges with organizations like Blue Origin and Intellectual Ventures. His new book, Deep Future, is a field guide to transformative technology and paradigm-shattering thinking. Fellow Technologists: 'Aim Higher!' Holman calls himself a 'Possibilist'—the future can be better, if we decide to build it. That ethos threads the book and echoes a theme I've written about for years: technology as the art of the possible. To do this well requires reframing problems, escaping established paradigms, and doing the hard work of real invention. Deep Future draws a sharp line between 'shallow tech' and 'deep tech.' Shallow tech enhances convenience. He bluntly proposes, 'If somebody makes an iPhone app to have weed delivered to their dorm room using drones, do we really have to call that tech?' Deep tech expands human capability by orders of magnitude. Holman challenges us: stop chasing 1% gains. 'Deep Tech is about finding the breakthroughs that make it possible to do things 10x, 100x, 1,000x faster, cheaper or better.' Mosquitoes Meet Lasers If you know Pablos, you know about the mosquito-zapping laser invented at Nathan Myhrvold's Intellectual Ventures. The team took apart the malaria problem and tried something new: detect the wingbeat frequency—to distinguish it from other insects—of a female Anopheles in flight and shoot it down. 'We can, and will, eradicate malaria once and for all in our lifetimes. But not by reading the directions,' he the problem, prototype shamelessly and let physics do the heavy lifting. When the approach works—even once—you've expanded what's possible. The mosquito laser array wasn't intended to go to market. Many deep tech visions are. Read the book for dozens of compelling cases. Here are three. Deep Future relates the story of Holman's fund investing in Ladon Robotics, a company reenvisioning ocean-going shipping around autonomy and wind. Consider the economics: 'About five out of six dollars spent on a ship during its life is burned as fuel. This industry literally burns most of its operational expenditures.' Ladon's idea is deceptively simple: autonomous ships powered by wind, with sun-powered battery auxiliary propulsion for navigating harbors and periods with low winds. In other words, remove fuel from the costs. It's classic deep tech. It doesn't 'improve' shipping, it transforms it. Renewables stumble on intermittency and storage. Holman proposes to ensure the sun never sets on your solar farm. 'Put those solar panels on a rocket ship, blast them into space.' Orbital solar farms could intercept sunlight 24/7, receiving eight times as much energy as they would on the Earth's surface. The system could deliver electricity via radio waves to receiving antennas on the ground, 'even in the middle of the night or during a snowstorm.' A decade ago, this would have read like a comic book. Falling launch costs and mature RF beam-forming technologies make this increasingly feasible. Holman argues, 'All the technology to do this exists already. No breakthroughs necessary.' It's a plausible path to low-cost power—precisely the kind of paradigm flip deep tech is meant to deliver. While others have proposed such a solution, Holman's venture firm Deep Future has invested in Virtus Solis, a team endeavoring to make it happen. Some of the best solutions have been around for centuries. Consider concrete, civilization's foundation and one of our dirtiest materials. Holman highlights the work of MIT's Admir Masic, which helps explain why Ancient Rome's Pantheon still stands: lime clasts throughout Roman concrete act as self-healing reservoirs. 'When water seeps in, it activates the lime and fills the cracks. It is self-healing concrete that gets stronger with time.' Longer-lasting infrastructure with 10% - 50% lower lifecycle carbon emissions. With cement accounting for approximately 8% – 13% of global CO₂ emissions, this matters. Unlike most deep tech solutions, this one has thousands of years of proof behind it. Massive Thinking, Brutal Simplicity Holman's examples—mosquito lasers, autonomous shipping, space-based solar, self-healing concrete--exhibit how to see differently: select huge problems that matter, don't let current reality get in the way, discover opportunities the incumbents ignore. While Deep Future is about audacious thinking and enormously challenging technology, much of Holman's thinking illustrates a skill I call 'brutal simplicity.' It's an approach we can all use. Here are three questions to help you do so: The first question seeks clarity before seeking solutions. Do we really understand the problem? The second tests whether we have the right problem in mind. The third question challenges us to seek as simple--though not necessarily easy--a solution as possible. Consider one of Deep Future's examples. Problem: How can we generate clean, reliable electricity at scale? Blast solar panels into space and beam the power back to Earth. Eh, voila: Virtus Solis. Ignore The Boogeymen: Build Anyway Big ideas attract bigger anxieties. Holman devotes a chapter to our habit of telling 'boogeyman' stories about new tools—nuclear, psychedelics, AI, you name it. His advice? Research, experiment, invent—then regulate the real risks we discover. The future won't be built by the skeptics. It belongs to pragmatic optimists who make better stories true. While I wouldn't expect mosquito lasers at your next BBQ, you'll likely discover a lot of you-heard-it-here-firsts in Holman's book. Thanks to the Possibilists amongst us, some of these monstrously hard, brutally simple visions will one day become reality.
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
This real 'Eye of Sauron' spits out ghost particles in space. Here's what it looks like
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. For about 15 years, a powerful radio telescope on planet Earth dutifully recorded data about a location in the cosmos billions of light-years away from us — and, at last, astronomers managed to stitch together those extensive observations to reveal a full picture of what this telescope has been looking at. It's … the Eye of Sauron! Well, sort of. Though the image you're seeing bears a striking resemblance to the jarring symbol associated with the main villain in the Lord of the Rings trilogy of novels by J.R.R. Tolkien, it's actually something far more fear-inducing. At face value, at least. What you're looking at is actually a blazar, which requires a couple of layers to explain. Out in the universe, there are these things called quasars, which refer to the extremely luminous centers of active galaxies (meaning they emit a lot of electromagnetic radiation) that are powered by supermassive black holes. These galactic cores are called active galactic nuclei, or AGNs; and in fact, the monster black holes powering these phenomena can also funnel matter outward in the form of highly energetic jets of particles moving at nearly the speed of light. It's all very intense. Quasars can be so bright that they outshine the collective light of every single star in the galaxy surrounding them. Blazars, on the other hand, are pretty much quasars — except with those supermassive-black-hole-rooted jets pointing within 10 degrees of our planet. That doesn't exactly mean we're about to be obliterated by a jet, though. Remember how I said the fear remains at face value? The only reason we're seeing the jet pointing straight toward us is because of our vantage point, and this doesn't necessarily increase its danger. Still, blazars, because of this serendipitous orientation, tend to appear even brighter than the already ridiculously bright quasars. Not that it matters, but Sauron would sure love them. "When we reconstructed the image, it looked absolutely stunning," Yuri Kovalev, lead author of the study and principal investigator of the Multi-messenger Studies of Extragalactic Super-colliders project at the Max Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy (MPIfR), said in a statement. "We have never seen anything quite like it — a near-perfect toroidal magnetic field with a jet, pointing straight at us." "This alignment causes a boost in brightness by a factor of 30 or more," explains Jack Livingston, a study co-author at MPIfR. "At the same time, the jet appears to move slowly due to projection effects — a classic optical illusion." And this particular blazar could be the one blazar to rule them all. Scientists have formed a clear image of it using observations from the Very Long Baseline Array (named PKS 1424+240), and it may very well be one of the brightest sources of high-energy gamma rays and cosmic neutrinos ever observed. Neutrinos are mind-blowing items themselves, while we're at it. They're nicknamed "ghost particles" because they're invisible, zippy bits that penetrate the entirety of our cosmos yet remain tremendously difficult to detect. Trillions of these particles are flowing through your body as you read this, but you can't tell because they don't interact with any of the particles that make up your body. They slide right through. The IceCube Neutrino Observatory near the South Pole, specifically built to pin down neutrinos, is actually the institution that discovered PKS 1424+240 in the first place because of its super high neutrino emission levels. Solving this puzzle confirms that active galactic nuclei with supermassive black holes are not only powerful accelerators of electrons, but also of protons — the origin of the observed high-energy neutrinos," concludes Kovalev. Reconstructing the spectacular blazar, according to the discovery team, also allows astronomers to peer directly into the "heart" of this jet — and that could be great news for scientists trying to understand the dynamics of these awesome objects. Kovalev explains that it confirms AGNs with supermassive black holes don't only accelerate electrons (negatively charged particles that make up atoms) but also protons. This is a big find, the researcher explains, because that explains the origin of the high-energy neutrinos PKS 1424+240 appears to be spitting out. A study about these results was published on Tuesday (Aug. 12) in the journal Astronomy & Astrophysics Letters. Solve the daily Crossword
