Supermassive black holes in the early Universe
The recent discovery of the ultraluminous quasar SDSS J010013.02+280225.8 at redshift 6.3 has exacerbated the time compression problem implied by the appearance of supermassive black holes only $\sim 900$ Myr after the big bang, and only $\sim 500$ Myr beyond the formation of Pop II and III star...
Main Authors: | , |
---|---|
Other Authors: | |
Language: | en |
Published: |
The Royal Society
2015
|
Online Access: | http://hdl.handle.net/10150/614765 http://arizona.openrepository.com/arizona/handle/10150/614765 |
Summary: | The recent discovery of the ultraluminous quasar SDSS J010013.02+280225.8 at
redshift 6.3 has exacerbated the time compression problem implied by the appearance
of supermassive black holes only $\sim 900$ Myr after the big bang, and only $\sim
500$ Myr beyond the formation of Pop II and III stars. Aside from heralding the
onset of cosmic reionization, these first and second generation stars could have
reasonably produced the $\sim 5-20\;M_\odot$ seeds that eventually grew into $z\sim
6-7$ quasars. But this process would have taken $\sim 900$ Myr, a timeline that
appears to be at odds with the predictions of $\Lambda$CDM without an anomalously
high accretion rate, or some exotic creation of $\sim 10^5\;M_\odot$ seeds. There
is no evidence of either of these happening in the local universe. In this paper,
we show that a much simpler, more elegant solution to the supermassive
black hole anomaly is instead to view this process using the age-redshift relation
predicted by the $R_{\rm h}=ct$ Universe, an FRW cosmology with zero active mass.
In this context, cosmic reionization lasted from $t\sim 883$ Myr to $\sim 2$ Gyr
($6\lesssim z\lesssim 15$), so $\sim 5-20\;M_\odot$ black hole seeds formed
shortly after reionization had begun, would have evolved into $\sim 10^{10}\;
M_\odot$ quasars by $z\sim 6-7$ simply via the standard Eddington-limited
accretion rate. The consistency of these observations with the age-redshift
relationship predicted by $R_{\rm h}=ct$ supports the existence of dark
energy; but not in the form of a cosmological constant. |
---|