Expert: James Gort - 6/18/2005

Question

GALACTIC SEEDS
  
  The rapid formation of galaxies has been problematical to cosmologists. The mechanism of self-gravitation of a homogeneous mixture of hydrogen/helium gas is still unclear. It has been suggested  that some external disturbance, like a shock-wave is necessary for the incipience of this process.
  The observations of astronomers, guided by the theoretical work of Martin Reis on the formation of galaxies, have shown that Sigma (average star velocity ) is correlated to the mass of the super-massive black-hole residing at the center of normal galaxies like the Milky Way and Andromeda. As a consequence of this discovery, a chicken and egg question has been raised as to which came first, the black-hole or the stars surrounding it.
  Using a garden-seed metaphor, I propose that the Big Bang 'scattered' primordial black-holes (theorized by Stephen Hawking) some of which found fertile soil in the gas which eventually formed. These 'seeds' were the mechanism which caused the gas to gravitate, resulting in their rapid growth until they were super-massive. This initiated the early quasar phase of galactic development. The galactic 'flowers' bloomed creating the elements.
  Primordial black-holes are ideal candidates for this process because they are the only objects that could have withstood  the high temperatures present before symmetry breaking occurred, which made subatomic particles followed by the formation of the gas, possible.
  This idea seems to be self-consistent and, even symmetrical because, in this way, everything started with black-holes just as everything ends with black-holes.
  Not to long ago these objects were thought to be the stuff of fiction. Even the father of the theory that predicted their existence, Albert Einstein, could not accept the possibility of their existence. I believe they are more important than we yet realize especially when you consider the fact that they represent the end of space and time and, perhaps, are essential for the beginning.

P.S. To your knowledge, will you please let me know if this idea has already been addressed and by whom.

Answer
Hello Reginald,

First, let me preface my remarks by saying that my expertise is not in cosmology, but I am an astrophysicist, so can at least give you an informed opinion.  And I can give you some references for further study (I know you've already done some initial reading on this, but I don't know what your background is - mainly in quantum mechanics and relativity).  Some of my references may therefore be fairly basic, or some may be a little advanced.  But most are available in a good library or amazon.com.

First, my opinion.  I like your idea!  And I can find no reference (in my first look) which presents the case you do.  That said, you might want to take your basic idea and apply some principles of quantum fluctuations and black hole dynamics to see whether or not the theory can withstand closer scrutiny.  Ideally, after you do the research by consulting some of these references, you'll be equipped to discuss it intelligently with a cosmologist at a university near you.

The first reference - see "The Universe at Large", edited by Munch et al.  Chapter 10 by Herbert Reeves deals with "clues to the early development of galaxies" and asks your question about "seeds".  Very good description of the problem, including the role of quantum fluctuations to start condensations.

The second reference - "Black Holes and Time Warps" by Kip Thorne.  Highly recommended book.  On pages 51 and 447, Thorne (a leading authorithy on black holes, along with Wheeler, Hawking, and Penrose) argues that primordial black holes were fairly isolated from other matter and slowly evaporate (by Hawking radiation) to reach a critical lower mass, where quantum fluctuations cause the remaining material to explode.  There's an active search on for exploding primordial black holes.  On page 354, he argues that galactic black holes form because matter eventually accumulates in galactic centres, forming a B-H.  That doesn't mean Thorne is right, but it does mean that your theory will meet some opposition.

Another (fairly technical) reference:  "Gravitation and Cosmology" by Steven Weinberg.  See Chapter 15 (The Standard Model), Section 8 (The Formation of Galaxies) through Section 11.  Goes through many of the classical and quantum arguments.  Excellent mathematical foundation of the problem.  Mathematics is a little scary, though!

Another not quite so mathematical description of the problem is "Inner Space, Outer Space" by Kolb et al.  Starting on page 228, the chapter "The Evolution of Large Scale Structure" by White presents many of the arguments.

Finally, maybe the best general reference on Cosmology is "Principles of Physical Cosmology" by Peebles.   Everything you ever wanted to know!

So what are the conclusions?  Most people think quantum fluctuations resulted in the initial collapse into galactic-sized masses.  Then, clouds condensed if they exceeded the Jeans criteria, and galaxies were formed.  Finally, random motions of stars and gas resulted in mass collecting near the galactic center of mass, forming a B-H.

But that doesn't mean most people are right!  I still like your idea and urge you to pursue it.  If it's right, congratulations!  If it turns out to be wrong, you will have learned much.   

Prof. James Gort