Astronomers Find Black Holes Do Not Absorb Dark Matter

by Nancy Atkinson on March 22, 2010

Artist’s schematic impression of the distortion of spacetime by a supermassive black hole at the centre of a galaxy. The black hole will swallow dark matter at a rate which depends on its mass and on the amount of dark matter around it. Image: Felipe Esquivel Reed.

There’s the common notion that black holes suck in everything in the nearby vicinity by exerting a strong gravitational influence on the matter, energy, and space surrounding them. But astronomers have found that the dark matter around black holes might be a different story. Somehow dark matter resists ‘assimilation’ into a black hole.

About 23% of the Universe is made up of mysterious dark matter, invisible material only detected through its gravitational influence on its surroundings. In the early Universe clumps of dark matter are thought to have attracted gas, which then coalesced into stars that eventually assembled the galaxies we see today. In their efforts to understand galaxy formation and evolution, astronomers have spent a good deal of time attempting to simulate the build up of dark matter in these objects.

Dr. Xavier Hernandez and Dr. William Lee from the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) calculated the way in which the black holes found at the center of galaxies absorb dark matter. These black holes have anything between millions and billions of times the mass of the Sun and draw in material at a high rate.

The researchers modeled the way in which the dark matter is absorbed by black holes and found that the rate at which this happens is very sensitive to the amount of dark matter found in the black holes’ vicinity. If this concentration were larger than a critical density of 7 Suns of matter spread over each cubic light year of space, the black hole mass would increase so rapidly, hence engulfing such large amounts of dark matter, that soon the entire galaxy would be altered beyond recognition.

“Over the billions of years since galaxies formed, such runaway absorption of dark matter in black holes would have altered the population of galaxies away from what we actually observe,” said Hernandez

Their work therefore suggests that the density of dark matter in the centers of galaxies tends to be a constant value. By comparing their observations to what current models of the evolution of the Universe predict, Hernandez and Lee conclude that it is probably necessary to change some of the assumptions that underpin these models – dark matter may not behave in the way scientists thought it did.

There work appears in the journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

The team’s paper can be found here.


  • GrahamC

    This sounds like circumstantial evidence for MOND to me.

  • Uncle Fred

    Jesus. Matter that doesn’t get eaten up like regular matter when it encounters a Black hole? This is throwing my mind into a logic loop.

    Perhaps LC can weigh in with some physics. I wouldn’t mind hearing from some guys in the string theory department as well.

    Dark matter, Dark flow, dark energy, negative energy, the multiverse… whatever happened to the innocent days of just trying to understand antimatter? (=

  • Torbjorn Larsson OM

    @ Nancy, Kawarthajon, HSBC, Greg, SteveZodiac, DrFlimmer, LID, GrahamC, Uncle Fred:

    Folks, the very first sentence in the abstract:

    “We study the growth rates of massive black holes in the centres of galaxies from accretion of dark matter from their surrounding haloes.”

    The article doesn’t claim that DM isn’t absorbed by black holes, it claims it does!

    Furthermore, the second sentence:

    “By considering only the accretion due to dark matter particles on orbits unbound to the central black hole, we obtain a firm lower limit to the resulting accretion rate.”

    So the article puts a lower bound on the accretion rate. In no way does it claim that DM isn’t absorbed by black holes, nor that it differs in principle from baryonic matter doing so.

    The only thing that doesn’t quite jam with current models is that: “These limits suggest dark halo density structures are characterised by constant density central regions, rather than divergent cuspy profiles.”

    But OTOH there is not yet conflict with observation: “Comparing the upper limiting central dark matter density of 250M pc?3 with the dynamically inferred structure of galactic dark haloes, it is reassuring that when a constant density core is used to model observations, the inferred central dark matter densities always lie below this limit, typically at ~= 1M pc?3, or below.”

    Now, I haven’t had time to read the paper and I certainly don’t know much about black hole and DM physics. But the crucial assumption of the paper is that the surrounding matter behaves constant density isothermal:

    “In Hernandez & Lee (2008) we showed through direct comparison with high resolution N-body simulations, that the analytic expression in eq. (1) accurately describes the response of a constant density isothermal region to the presence of a point mass.”

    I dunno, but does that sound like any baryonic visible galactic core you know of? Or like the result the _cuspy_ DM models give?

    Between a conflict with a cuspy DM model and an isothermal isodense core, I would bet money that the later would have to give.

  • Torbjorn Larsson OM

    Also, if I may:

    It is very easy to take a model that directly contradicts the current ones, and derive a conflict.

    But that doesn’t mean anything in itself. As I said in my previous comment, if the current model is likely to adhere to observations, the conflicting model is more unlikely to be correct anyway.

  • Aodhhan

    @Olaf..
    Yes sir. However, the affect of gravity becomes weaker as distance increases. There is no “single” black hole I am aware of, which can greatly influence an object one light year away from it.

  • Aodhhan

    @Torbjorn…
    You’re on the right track I believe, and there are quite a few assumptions about dark matter which would have to be used in the simulation. The worst being its density; which affects its effect on space time.

    Good job saying something… it is apparent, many people didn’t read the article.

  • Hon. Salacious B. Crumb

    @Torbjorn and Aodhhan

    Probably dumb questions.

    Is Dark Matter like ordinary matter (baryons) and crunches together or is it like neutrinos and ignores matter altogether? Or does it interact in a completely different way?

    Do you think it more likely that just dark matter and matter interact (gravitationally), that dark matter might ignores other dark matter, or dark matter is highly ‘transparent’ to matter?

    Does dark matter contribute at all to the Earth’s ‘apparent” mass (gravitation field) or is only due solely to baryonic mass?

    Just interested in your opinion?

    Note: I’m not setting you up here to attack you here. I’m just wondering how you see this problem.

  • Hon. Salacious B. Crumb

    Open question.

    What happens to dark energy when it is near a black hole?

  • sciencebase

    A naive question re dark matter.

    If the known mass of black holes is based on observations of the orbital rates of stars and galaxies around them, but galaxies look like they’re moving too fast, doesn’t that imply that supermassive black holes may simply be a whole lot more massive than we assume? If so, couldn’t that account for the missing mass in the universe that we currently label dark matter?

  • DrFlimmer

    @ sciencebase:

    No, sadly not. Even though an SMBH has a strong influence on its nearer environment, it has literally no effect on things further away. The SMBH in the center of the Milky Way has no effect on us. Of course, if the SMBH is active, then it has an effect, but that’s not due to gravity and thus another story ;) .
    The star S2 in the galactic center orbits the center in an orbit larger than Pluto around the sun, but in just 13 years. This implies a mass of at least 6 million solar masses.
    The stars in the disk far away from the SMBH are moving faster than they should be, if the luminous matter (stars, gas, etc) would be responsible for the gravity of a galaxy alone. Since the SMBH has no effect on the outer parts, we need other mass, additional mass — dark matter.

  • Lawrence B. Crowell

    Aodhhan does have this right. Dark matter interacts via gravitation, for it is detected by Einstein lensing. A dark matter particle which crosses the event horizon at r = 2GM/rc^2 is frame dragged into the center with no causal escape. Yet dark matter is very weakly interacting cold and extremely diffuse. So a black hole can pass through a region with dark matter and gain only a very tiny amount of mass.

    LC

  • Hon. Salacious B. Crumb

    “Dark matter interacts via gravitation.”
    Q: With what?

    Does dark matter “move” like neutrinos and ordinary matter?

    Is distributed like ordinary matter?

  • Jon Hanford

    @ DrFlimmer,

    As you correctly pointed out in your response to sciencebase, the activity of a SMBH can lead to effects on the development of the host galaxy over time. The arXiv site describing how this interactive ‘feedback’ mechanism may work in active galaxies. “The Formation of Supermassive Black Holes” can be found here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.4404

    From the abstract:
    “Evidence shows that massive black holes reside in most local galaxies. Studies have also established a number of relations between the MBH mass and properties of the host galaxy such as bulge mass and velocity dispersion. These results suggest that central MBHs, while much less massive than the host (~ 0.1%), are linked to the evolution of galactic structure.”

    I noticed many facets of MBH growth explored, including studies and discussion of the role of DM in the growth of SMBHs (and some simulations). I should also mention that certain relationships have been found between SMBH mass and particular charcteristics of galaxy clusters!, indicating some sort of relationship over a vast range of scales. This work was first published in the last 5-10 years and seems quite astonishing.

  • Jon Hanford

    Oooops,

    That should read “The arXiv site has a paper posted describing how this interactive ‘feedback’ mechanism may work in active galaxies.”

  • Lawrence B. Crowell

    @ Hon. Salacious B. Crumb: Anything with energy and mass interacts gravitationally. Dark matter particles might be neutralinos (the most likely candidate) which are mixed eigenstates of the supersymmetric pairs of the photon, Z^0 and the Higgs. This particle only interacts with the world according to gravitation and the weak interactions. So Dark matter particles move around, have wave functions (quantum field amplitudes etc) just like ordinary matter. They are just very hard to find.

    Dark matter is cold and diffuse, and may only populate the local universe with one particle per cubic meter or so. They probably move around at a few 100 m/sec in a cool or cold Boltzmann distribution for a gas. The weak interactions are as we say weak, and tend to only renormalize in strength with greater energy. So these would be very hard to find.

    Now a SMBH would present an area of

    A = 6pi GM/rc^2

    for slow moving matter to fall in. So for every meter the 10^8M_{sol} BH moves through a DM cloud the BH would absorb only about 10^{20} DM particles. The neutralino is about 1TeV in mass and so only about a milligram of DM would be absorbed. By various arguments the 6pi above should be replaced by 32pi, to account for gravity more effectively, but this really does not change much! So for a relative motion of 100km/sec between the DM cloud and the black hole there would only be a few grams of DM picked up by the black hole each second. For a 10^{8}M_{sol} SMBH that is insignificant. Over a year period this only amounts to ~ one ton and so forth. Almost zero!

    LC

  • Greg

    The posts here have been helpful explaining the basis of the article as it applies to the current steady state. The SMBH cannot be pulling in more than a ton of dark matter particles per year given what we know. Had the initial concentration of dark matter been higher and it had been pulling in more then the structure of the galaxy we see to day would not have been possible.
    The remaining questions I have are indirectly related to this topic.
    In the very early universe dark matter concentrations were supposedly much higher. Does this result imply that they were not since if it was the shape of most galaxies should be different now?
    If dark matter self anihilates on contact and interacts gravitationally then why is any of it still around 13 billion years later?
    Black holes should be a great way of bringing dark matter together (concentrating) as it swirls in towards the central singularity. A ton of particles per year would should pack quite a punch. What happens to the energy of dark matter collisions within the event horizon? How much of the active energy output from an active smbh is a result of these collisions outside the event horizon?

  • Jason Kurant

    To me this offers support to m theory. Specifically the notion that what we call our universe is a 4-dimensional space-time that itself is just a surface in a higher dimensional space, called a brane, a 4-brane in this case. Let’s say for simplicity’s sake that the bigger space is 5-dimensional and that our spacetime continuum is a flat plane in that space. Its probably more like a finite hypersphere (4-dimensional sphere-like-thing). But here’s the cool thing: let’s say that gravitons are not bound to this sphere but the other 3 forces are. Brian Greene explained this very well. So, perhaps dark matter is just matter that is nearby but not directly in contact with our brane’s surface. Those objects would still interact with stuff in our universe gravitationally but would appear to be places in space where there is a source of gravity but nothing else. We could have stuff in our universe orbiting stars that not visible in our universe, except for their gravitational interactions. In all the reading I have done about actual observations I don’t believe this has been contradicted.

  • Nedim Ardoga

    The topic was very interesting. But after reading the article am rather disappointed. The article does not say that the black holes don’t consume dark matter. Assuming the dark matter distribution is under the critical density, nothing is exciting..

  • GrahamC

    If black holes do absorb dark matter, is this mass available to be evaporated away through Hawking radiation? I’m presuming the answer is that mass is mass; so yes. Any thoughts? It just seems slightly odd that mass that doesn’t interact with photons will, in time, be converted into them.

  • Hon. Salacious B. Crumb

    @ Lawrence

    Much thanks for you lovely reply. My own questions here were more rhetorical, as i was really hoping to get a feel of the consensus on what people actually thought about dark matter. I was interest to see you favour the cold neutrino “family” explanation than the other rival dark matter / dark energy tensor conjecture.

    What surprises me more in the paper discussed here, is that no one has cottoned on that this paper is mostly a way to prove the nature of dark matter. (The general interaction is merely speculation, and to gain observational proof.)

    As to the “100 m/sec” value, frank;y I had not considered it. I still like the general idea that dark matter might be just “tired neutrinos” – not moving near the speed of light but more pedestrian speeds – and having small mass but no interest in baryonic matter at all!

    As for the suggestion of the supersymmetry neutralino</B. – well, perhaps. My worry is the assumption that it is :"cold" or even as "small". Neutralino dark matter was formulated because "it might be observable" through gamma ray emissions. (Time may show it is a dead end.)

    My own unsubstantiated suspicion is that dark matter is somehow tangled with neutrinos and dark energy, perhaps in a alternative dimensional mode or manifestation.

    (Please understand me here. I'm not being cynical here of your proposition. I am guiding questions via an indirect suggestion by UT writer Jean Tate (who a gained for more respect from me more than she actually knows!)

    Note; I am disappointed that Torbjorn or Aodhhan responded to my pen question. I would like to hear what they think (without the taint or fear of my own (usual or) possible criticism.

    As for saying "Aodhhan does have this right." Good on you for saying so. If Aodhhan was to be a bit more positive, this little forum might shine a little brighter! :)

Previous post:

Next post: