Abstract
The emergence of supermassive black holes (SMBHs) in the early universe remains a topic of profound interest and debate. In this paper, we investigate the formation and growth of the first SMBHs within the framework of Modified Gravity (MOG), where gravity exhibits increased strength. We explore how MOG, as an alternative to the standard model, may offer novel insights into the emergence of SMBHs and potentially reconcile the discrepancies observed in the accretion and growth processes. We examine the dynamics of gas and matter in this modified gravitational framework, shedding light on the unique interplay between gravity and the formation of SMBHs.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
The existence of supermassive black holes at the centers of galaxies is a well-established astrophysical phenomenon. However, the formation and growth of these enigmatic objects, particularly in the context of the early universe, remain subjects of intense scrutiny and debate. Traditional models, relying on the framework of General Relativity and the presence of dark matter, have provided some insights into the growth mechanisms of SMBHs over cosmic time. Nevertheless, discrepancies persist in our understanding of the accretion of black hole seeds and their rapid growth observed within approximately the first 800 million years after the Big Bang. Specifically, the detection of SMBHs with masses exceeding \(10^9\) \(M_{\odot }\) at redshifts z \(\ge 7\) [1, 2] has presented a significant challenge to the theories concerning the origin and enlargement of black holes. This observation, documented in studies by [1, 3,4,5,6,7], and current observations of the JWST telescope, which have detected a massive BH with \(M_{BH} \sim 10^7 {-} 10^8 M_{\odot }\) at \(z \sim 10.3\) [8], has raised profound questions in the field of astrophysics.
Traditionally, black holes are anticipated to originate as the ultimate outcome of massive star evolution [5, 9,10,11]. Researchers have explored various avenues to gain insights into the appearance of SMBHs when the Universe was just \(\sim 800~\text {Myr}.\) These scenarios have been mainly categorized into two groups of light seed scenarios and heavy seed scenarios [12]. Light seed scenarios encompass mechanisms where the initial mass of the black hole is relatively low, in which the initial mass is around 100 \(M_{\odot },\) but rapid growth happens. In the standard light seeding models, the SMBH starts growing from a Pop III stellar remnant [13], and it has been shown that this growth favors MHD accretion disks over standard thin disks [14]. Alternatively, there are scenarios where a heavy seed, with an initial mass greater than approximately 10,000 \(M_{\odot },\) but a smaller growth rate could come into existence. Within the cores of rapidly accreting atomic cooling haloes devoid of metals, it is expected that a supermassive star (SMS) may form. The final mass of the SMS is projected to greatly exceed 10,000 \(M_{\odot }.\) This collapse into a direct collapse black hole yields a black hole seed with a substantial initial mass. In addition to this, Bondi accretion, together with super-Eddington gas accretion for black holes can be an attractive way to solve the rapid growth problem of SMBHs [15].
A probable solution for the mentioned growth problem can be via enhancing the gravitational force. Some authors do it via using dark matter halos [16], but some prefer to solve the problem through the Modified Gravity (MOG) framework [17]. MOG is a theoretical framework proposing modifications to the laws of gravity in which gravity is posited to exhibit increased strength, departing from the predictions of General Relativity. MOG introduces a scalar field gravitational coupling strength G and a gravitational spin 1 vector field \(\phi _\mu .\) The G is written as \(G=G_N(1+\alpha )\) where \(G_N\) is Newton’s constant, and the gravitational source charge for the vector field is \(Q_g=\sqrt{\alpha G_N}M,\) where M is the mass of a body. MOG has been successful in fitting observations in different scales including dwarf galaxies [18], spiral galaxies [19], clusters of galaxies [20, 21], and cosmology [22, 23], without any need for including dark matter. We will discuss how MOG can provide an alternative solution for SMBH formation growth, raising the possibility of novel insights that may bridge the gaps in our understanding without the use of dark matter.
This paper aims to investigate the formation and growth of the first SMBHs within the MOG paradigm to see if MOG can offer a viable explanation for the existence of supermassive black holes at redshifts \(z\ge 7.\) We begin in Sect. 2 of this manuscript with a brief explanation of the MOG theory. In Sect. 3 we introduce MOG black holes. In Sect. 4 we explain supermassive black hole growth and evolution; adapt the calculation to the MOG theory, and show the results. We conclude by presenting our discussion and conclusion in Sect. 5.
2 Modified gravity (MOG)
We use the version of MOG action and field equations formulation proposed in [24], in which \(\chi = 1/G\) where \(\chi \) is a scalar field and G is the coupling strength of gravity. The MOG action is given by (we use the metric signature \((+,-,-,-)\) and units with \(c=1\)):
where
and
\(S_M\) is the matter action and \(J^\mu \) is the current matter source of the vector field \(\phi _\mu .\) Moreover, \(\nabla _\mu \) denotes the covariant derivative with respect to the metric \(g_{\mu \nu },\) \(B_{\mu \nu }=\partial _\mu \phi _\nu -\partial _\nu \phi _\mu \) and \(\omega _M\) is a constant. The Ricci tensor is
We expand G by \(G=G_N(1+\alpha ),\) \(\Lambda \) is the cosmological constant and \(\mu \) is the effective running mass of the spin 1 graviton vector field.
Variation of the matter action \(S_M\) yields
Varying the action with respect to \(g_{\mu \nu },\) \(\chi \) and \(\phi _\mu ,\) we obtain the field equations:
where \(G_{\mu \nu }=R_{\mu \nu }-\frac{1}{2}R,\) \(\Box =\nabla ^\mu \nabla _\mu ,\) \(J^\mu =\kappa \rho _M u^\mu ,\) \(\kappa =\sqrt{G_N\alpha },\) \(\rho _M\) is the density of matter and \(u^\mu =dx^\mu /ds.\) The energy-momentum tensor is
where
and \(T=g^{\mu \nu }T_{\mu \nu }.\) Equation (8) follows from the equation
by substituting for R from the contracted form of (6).
3 MOG black hole
For the matter-free \(\phi _\mu \) field-vacuum case with \(\Lambda =0,\) \(T^M_{\mu \nu }=0\) and \(J^\mu =0,\) the field equations are given by
where
As shown in [25] for the black hole solution, the vector field effective mass \(\mu \) can be set to zero.
The conformally invariant gravitational \(\phi \)-field energy-momentum tensor is
and we have \(T^\phi =g^{\mu \nu }T^\phi _{\mu \nu }=0\) giving the equation:
We now multiply (17) by \(\chi \) and integrate over the volume \({{\mathcal {V}}}.\) Integrating by parts, we derive the volume integral [26]:
Because the volume integral (18) must be zero and the gradient of \(\chi \) is either spacelike or zero, then the gradient of \(\chi \) must be zero everywhere and \(\chi \) must be constant. In the original papers on MOG black holes [24, 25], we assumed that the gradient of G is zero, so that \(G=G_N(1+\alpha )=1/\chi \) is constant. We can now demonstrate that for MOG black holes, it is justified to have G constant.
The metric for a static spherically symmetric black hole is given by [24, 25]:
where \(d\Omega ^2=d\theta ^2+\sin ^2\theta d\phi ^2.\) The metric reduces to the Schwarzschild solution when \(\alpha =0.\) The axisymmetric rotating black hole has the metric solution including the spin angular momentum \(J=G_NM^2 a/c\) where a is the dimensionless spin parameter:
where
Consider the timelike Killing vector \(\xi ^\mu \) in a stationary asymptotically flat solution of an uncollapsed body. The gravitational mass of the body measured at infinity is given by the 1/r and the \(1/r^2\) contributions to the MOG metric in \(\xi ^\mu \xi ^\nu g_{\mu \nu }.\) We have
where \(\Sigma _{\nu \beta }\) is the surface element of a spacelike 2-surface at infinity and \(x^2=\xi ^\mu \xi ^\nu g_{\mu \nu }.\) In the Einstein frame, M denotes the gravitational mass calculated in the Einstein frame. Because the source mass M in the gravitational charge of the vector field, \(Q_g=\sqrt{\alpha G_N}M,\) is positive, the vector (spin 1 graviton) field does not produce a dipole moment. A consequence is that for an isolated black hole, there will not be any dipole vector gravitational source, and because \(\chi =1/G\) is constant there will not be any scalar monopole gravitational source. It can be demonstrated that for merging black holes \(M_E\) will decrease by the amount of tensor (quadrupole) field energy radiated at infinity.
4 Supermassive black hole growth and evolution
The SMBH in active galactic nuclei and quasars span a mass range, extending up to nearly \(10^{11}M_{\odot }\) [27]. The heaviest black hole is associated with the quasar TON 618 with a mass \(\sim 7\times 10^{10}M_{\odot }\) [28], while the second heaviest in the galaxy IC 1101 has a mass \(\sim 4\times 10^{10}M_{\odot }\) [29]. This raises the question of whether there is enough time for these objects to be formed. For an SMBH to grow to a black hole with a mass \(10^9{-}10^{10}M_{\odot }\) in the short time after the Big Bang, and to account for the short lifetime of detected quasars, several scenarios have been proposed.
Some suggest a rapid accretion scenario or continuous accretion. The key to rapid SMBH growth is exceptionally high rates of accretion, where the black hole continuously gathers mass from its surrounding environment [30]. In the early universe, there were regions with abundant gas and dust that could provide the necessary fuel for accretion. The availability of dense gas and dust in its vicinity, coupled with its powerful gravitational pull, allows it to accumulate mass rapidly [31]. It is worth mentioning that the high-density gas required for continuous accretion may not be readily available in all regions of the early universe. Also, feedback mechanisms from the growing SMBH can disrupt accretion [32]. Moreover, this idea has been criticized for the difficulty in achieving the extremely high accretion rates required to grow a 100 \(M_{\odot }\) seed into a billion solar mass SMBH within the available time frame [33]. One alternative hypothesis is that the 100 \(M_{\odot }\) seed rapidly accretes gas and grows into a supermassive star, sometimes referred to as a supermassive star seed or direct collapse star. These stars can reach thousands of solar masses due to their rapid accretion rates [34]. While the concept of supermassive star formation leading to a black hole is theoretically possible, the formation and stability of such massive stars are subjects of debate. The main challenge is understanding how these stars can avoid fragmentation and continue to accrete mass [33]. Finally, there is a possibility to resolve the problem via feedback mechanisms. The intense radiation and energy emitted by the growing black hole can influence its surroundings. This can suppress the formation of new stars in the vicinity, preventing their radiation from disrupting the accretion process [32]. Nevertheless, some studies show that the feedback from active SMBHs, such as quasars, can impact the surrounding environment, potentially hindering the growth of the SMBH itself [35].
One possible alternative solution to tackle the problem could be through MOG. To investigate how MOG can solve the issue, first let us find the black hole mass as a function of time. For spherical infall of gas on a black hole, we have to account for the Eddington limit on luminosity. For accretion on a mass M, if the gravitational attractive force does not exceed the radiation gas pressure, the luminosity L cannot exceed \(L_{\textrm{Edd}}.\) So, the initial model for black hole accretion is described by the Eddington rate [36]. This rate can be derived by equating the gravitational force acting inward on each proton to the radiation pressure exerted outward on its neighboring electron, which is positioned at a distance r from the central point.
Here \(\sigma _T=\frac{8\pi /3}{(e^2/m_e c^2)^2}\) is the Thomson scattering cross section and \(m_p\) is the proton mass. When the black hole is undergoing accretion at a rate denoted as \(\dot{M},\) a portion of the gravitational potential energy can be emitted as radiation. If we represent this as a fraction of the rest-mass energy, the resulting radiated luminosity can be expressed as follows:
where \(\epsilon \) is radiative efficiency, whose value has been observationally constrained to be about 0.1 [37], and \(\dot{M}\) is mass accretion rate. \(\epsilon \) plays a very significant role in the mass accretion of SMBHs and small changes in its value can result in significant differences in mass amplification by accretion at the Eddington limit [14]. Using \(\dot{M} = (1-\epsilon )\dot{M}_{acc},\) Eddington fraction, \(f_{Edd} = \frac{L_{acc}}{L_{Edd}},\) and Eqs. (24) and (23), one can find the black hole mass as a function of time.
where \(\gamma _0 = (1-\epsilon )/(\epsilon t_E)\) and the Salpeter/Eddington time is, \(t_E = 2e^4/(3G_N m_p m_e^2c^3) = 450\) Myr. When it comes to MOG, Eq. (25) should be modified as the gravitational constant \(G_N\) needs to be replaced with \(G = (1+\alpha )G_N.\) As a result, we have:
MOG increases the gravitational force by a \((1+\alpha )\) factor, so particles experience stronger gravity. We note that the angular momentum of rotation or spin for a steady-state black hole accretion, determined by the spin parameter \(a=Jc/M^2G_N\) is related to the radiative efficiency \(\epsilon \) [38]. In fact, \(\epsilon \) is a function of spin and it increases as spin increases. When we account for the MOG enhancement of the gravitational constant, \(G=G_N(1+\alpha ),\) we decrease the range of the spin parameter, \(a_{MOG}=Jc/M^2G_N(1+\alpha ) < a\) for \(\alpha > 0.\) This will increase the infall of matter into the black hole and increase the rate of accretion of matter.
Therefore, an 800 Myr time period, which could be insufficient for standard black holes to turn into a SMBH, is more than enough time for MOG BHs to accumulate \(10^{9}M_{\odot }\) mass. In Fig. 1, we have plotted the BH mass as a function of time for \(f_{Edd} = 1,\) and \(M_0 = 100 M_{\odot }\) for standard BHs. As can be seen the smaller the value of \(\epsilon ,\) the faster the BH accretes mass. However, none of these epsilons is able to accrete \(10^{9}M_{\odot }\) in 800 Myr years. It is improbable for black holes to accrete continuously with \(f_{Edd}=1\) throughout all stages of their lifetime. However, this is not an issue for MOG as there is the \(\alpha \) parameter, which can strengthen the gravity and accrete the necessary mass within the required time frame. This can be seen from Fig. 2, which is plotted for \(\epsilon = 0.30,\) \(f_{Edd} = 1,\) \(M_0 = 100 M_{\odot },\) and various values of \(\alpha .\) For values bigger than \(\alpha =3,\) SMBHs with mass \(10^{9}M_{\odot }\) can be easily formed within 800 Myrs.
Moreover, it can be seen from Eq. (26), that \(\alpha ,\) \(\epsilon ,\) and \(f_{Edd}\) play roles in the determination of mass accretion. We have illustrated this in contour plots of Fig. 3, in which we have used \(f_{Edd} = 1\) in Fig. 3, and \(\epsilon = 0.1\) in Fig. 4. These contours show the required values of \(\alpha ,\) \(\epsilon ,\) and \(f_{Edd}\) to get SMBHs of mass \(10^{9}M_{\odot }\) at the different given times. These plots show that for having a SMBH in times between 500 million to 1 billion years, one has to either choose standard GR with small \(\epsilon \) or select a bigger \(\epsilon \) in the modified gravity (MOG) framework. It can be inferred from Figs. 3 and 4 that even if the future observations determine \(\epsilon > 0.1,\) or \(f_{Edd} < 1,\) MOG can provide an explanation for SMBH formation, taking advantage of the \(\alpha \) parameter. This can be considered as an observational test of MOG as well, and future observations of radiative efficiency will determine whether MOG is needed to explain the growth of SMBHs in the early universe.
In order to see whether the age of the universe for MOG could be different in various redshifts and also to have a comparison with the results of [14], we obtain the time parameter as a function of redshift and calculate the black hole accretion mass amplification \((M_f/M_i)\) in terms of z. The scale factor a(t) in MOG for the spatially flat universe (k = 0) is evolved according to the following equation [39]:
where H(t) is the Hubble constant and \( \Omega ^0_m=\Omega ^0_b+\Omega ^0_{DM}=(1+\alpha )~\Omega ^0_b .\) The subscript and superscript “0” denotes the value of a quantity at z = 0. Using the fact that \(\Omega ^0_m + \Omega ^0_\Lambda = 1\) with \(a/a_0 = 1+z\) and integrating Eq. (27), we have
We use Planck values for the cosmological parameters: \(\Omega ^0_m = 0.315\) and \(H_0 = 67.4~\text {km}~\text {s}^{-1}~\text {Mpc}^{-1}\) [40].
To study the black hole mass amplification factor \(M_f/M_i\) as a function of the redshift of the initial seed black hole, we replace the time parameter of Eqs. (26, 25) with Eq. (28) and plot them in Figs. 5 and 6 in which we consider \(z_f = 10.3\) to be the redshift of the highest known quasar detected by the JWST telescope [8]. To have a comparable result to [14], we plot the black hole mass amplification factors up to \(z_i = 40.\) In Fig. 5, we have plotted the mass amplification factor for \(f_{Edd} = 1.0\) and for different values of \(\epsilon .\) As can be seen, for none of the reported \(\epsilon ,\) a seed of \(100M_{\odot }\) mass cannot reach a final mass-threshold of \(10^{8}M_{\odot }\) at \(z=10.3.\) We have provided the mass amplification factor for \(\epsilon =0.3,\) \(f_{Edd} = 1.0,\) and different values of \(\alpha \) for MOG in Fig. 6. Clearly, the mass threshold of \(10^{8}M_{\odot }\) (which is equivalent to \(10^{6}\) mass amplification for a \(100M_{\odot }\) seed) can be achieved for various values of \(\alpha \) even though we have used \(\epsilon =0.3.\)
5 Conclusions
We have discussed the mass accumulation problem of SMBHs within 800 Myr after the Big Bang and considered some of the proposed solutions for this problem. Alternatively, we showed that MOG can be one of the possible solutions to explain how SHBHs can accumulate such a huge mass at redshifts \(z \ge 7.\) Considering that the \(\alpha \) parameter of the theory strengthens the gravitational force, we showed how SMBHs can gain a mass of order \(10^9\) \(M_{\odot }.\) In Figs. 3 and 4 we demonstrated that to have SMBHs with a mass of the order \(10^{9}M_{\odot },\) there is a degeneracy in choosing \(\alpha ,\) \(\epsilon \) and \(f_{\textrm{Edd}},\) which need to be constrained by future observations. Finally, we calculated the mass amplification factor and plotted it as a function of redshift in Figs. 5 and 6 for the concordance model and MOG SMBH. We demonstrated that although standard SMBHs are unable to have big enough mass amplification factors for reasonable values of \(\epsilon ,\) MOG SMBHs can provide such mass amplification factors that can explain observations.
Data Availability
This manuscript has no associated data or the data will not be deposited. [Authors’ comment: The nature of our study did not involve the generation or use of specific datasets. All relevant information and findings are presented within the manuscript.]
References
D.J. Mortlock, S.J. Warren, B.P. Venemans, M. Patel, P.C. Hewett, R.G. McMahon, C. Simpson, T. Theuns, E.A. Gonzáles-Solares, A. Adamson, S. Dye, N.C. Hambly, P. Hirst, M.J. Irwin, E. Kuiper, A. Lawrence, H.J.A. Röttgering, A luminous quasar at a redshift of z = 7.085. Nature 474(7353), 616–619 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10159
X. Fan, M.A. Strauss, G.T. Richards, J.F. Hennawi, R.H. Becker, R.L. White, A.M. Diamond-Stanic, J.L. Donley, L. Jiang, J.S. Kim, M. Vestergaard, J.E. Young, J.E. Gunn, R.H. Lupton, G.R. Knapp, D.P. Schneider, W.N. Brandt, N.A. Bahcall, J.C. Barentine, J. Brinkmann, H.J. Brewington, M. Fukugita, M. Harvanek, S.J. Kleinman, J. Krzesinski, D. Long, E.H. Neilsen Jr., A. Nitta, S.A. Snedden, W. Voges, A survey of z \(>\) 5.7 quasars in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. IV. Discovery of seven additional quasars. Astron. J. 131(3), 1203–1209 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1086/500296
C.J. Willott, P. Delorme, C. Reylé, L. Albert, J. Bergeron, D. Crampton, X. Delfosse, T. Forveille, J.B. Hutchings, R.J. McLure, A. Omont, D. Schade, The Canada–France high-z quasar survey: nine new quasars and the luminosity function at redshift 6. Astron. J. 139(3), 906–918 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-6256/139/3/906
E. Bañados, B.P. Venemans, C. Mazzucchelli, E.P. Farina, F. Walter, F. Wang, R. Decarli, D. Stern, X. Fan, F.B. Davies, J.F. Hennawi, R.A. Simcoe, M.L. Turner, H.-W. Rix, J. Yang, D.D. Kelson, G.C. Rudie, J.M. Winters, An 800-million-solar-mass black hole in a significantly neutral Universe at a redshift of 7.5. Nature 553(7689), 473–476 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature25180
X. Fan, V.K. Narayanan, R.H. Lupton, M.A. Strauss, G.R. Knapp, R.H. Becker, R.L. White, L. Pentericci, S.K. Leggett, Z. Haiman, J.E. Gunn, Ž. Ivezić, D.P. Schneider, S.F. Anderson, J. Brinkmann, N.A. Bahcall, A.J. Connolly, I. Csabai, M. Doi, M. Fukugita, T. Geballe, E.K. Grebel, D. Harbeck, G. Hennessy, D.Q. Lamb, G. Miknaitis, J.A. Munn, R. Nichol, S. Okamura, J.R. Pier, F. Prada, G.T. Richards, Szalay, D.G. York, A survey of z \(>\) 5.8 quasars in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. I. Discovery of three new quasars and the spatial density of luminous quasars at z \(\sim \) 6. Astron. J. 122(6), 2833–2849 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1086/324111
K. Inayoshi, E. Visbal, Z. Haiman, The assembly of the first massive black holes. ARAA 58, 27–97 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-astro-120419-014455
M. Latif, D. Schleicher, Formation of the first black holes (2019). https://doi.org/10.1142/10652
A. Bogdan, A. Goulding, P. Natarajan, O. Kovacs, G. Tremblay, U. Chadayammuri, M. Volonteri, R. Kraft, W. Forman, C. Jones, E. Churazov, I. Zhuravleva, Evidence for heavy seed origin of early supermassive black holes from a z \(\sim \) 10 X-ray quasar. Nat. Astron. (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-023-02111-9
R. Wang, J. Wagg, C.L. Carilli, F. Walter, X. Fan, F. Bertoldi, D.A. Riechers, A. Omont, K.M. Menten, P. Cox, M.A. Strauss, D. Narayanan, Star formation in quasar host galaxies at redshift 6: millimeter surveys and new insights from ALMA, in Molecular Gas, Dust, and Star Formation in Galaxies, vol. 292, ed. by T. Wong, J. Ott (2013), pp. 184–187. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743921313001002
J.-J. Tang, T. Goto, Y. Ohyama, C. Jin, C. Done, T.-Y. Lu, T. Hashimoto, E. Kilerci Eser, C.-Y. Chiang, S.J. Kim, Rapid black hole growth at the dawn of the Universe: a super-Eddington quasar at z = 6.6. MNRAS 484(2), 2575–2586 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stz134
S.E. Woosley, A. Heger, T.A. Weaver, The evolution and explosion of massive stars. Rev. Mod. Phys. 74(4), 1015–1071 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.74.1015
J.A. Regan, T.P. Downes, M. Volonteri, R. Beckmann, A. Lupi, M. Trebitsch, Y. Dubois, Super-Eddington accretion and feedback from the first massive seed black holes. MNRAS 486(3), 3892–3906 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stz1045
P. Madau, M.J. Rees, Massive black holes as population III remnants. APJ 551(1), 27–30 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1086/319848
S.L. Shapiro, Spin, accretion, and the cosmological growth of supermassive black holes. APJ 620(1), 59–68 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1086/427065
J.W. Moffat, Supermassive black hole accretion and growth (2020). arXiv e-prints. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2011.13440
R. Sharma, M. Sharma, The origin of supermassive black holes at cosmic dawn (2023). arXiv e-prints. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2310.06898
J.W. Moffat, Scalar tensor vector gravity theory. JCAP 2006(3), 004 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2006/03/004
M.H. Zhoolideh Haghighi, S. Rahvar, Testing MOG, non-local gravity and MOND with rotation curves of dwarf galaxies. MNRAS 468(4), 4048–4055 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stx692
J.W. Moffat, S. Rahvar, The MOG weak field approximation and observational test of galaxy rotation curves. MNRAS 436(2), 1439–1451 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stt1670
J.W. Moffat, M.H. Zhoolideh Haghighi, Modified gravity (MOG) and the cluster Abell 1689 acceleration data. Eur. Phys. J. Plus (2017). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjp/i2017-11684-4. arXiv:1611.05382
J.W. Moffat, S. Rahvar, The MOG weak field approximation—II. Observational test of Chandra X-ray clusters. MNRAS 441(4), 3724–3732 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stu855
Z. Davari, S. Rahvar, MOG cosmology without dark matter and the cosmological constant. MNRAS 507(3), 3387–3399 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stab2350
J.W. Moffat, V. Toth, Scalar–tensor–vector modified gravity in light of the Planck 2018 data. Universe 7(10), 358 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3390/universe7100358
J.W. Moffat, Gravitational theory of cosmology, galaxies and galaxy clusters. Eur. Phys. J. C 80(10), 906 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-08482-x
J.W. Moffat, Black holes in modified gravity (MOG). Eur. Phys. J. C 75, 175 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3405-x
S.W. Hawking, Black holes in the Brans–Dicke: theory of gravitation. Commun. Math. Phys. 25(2), 167–171 (1972). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01877518
N.J. McConnell, C.-P. Ma, K. Gebhardt, S.A. Wright, J.D. Murphy, T.R. Lauer, J.R. Graham, D.O. Richstone, Two ten-billion-solar-mass black holes at the centres of giant elliptical galaxies. Nature 480(7376), 215–218 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10636
O. Shemmer, H. Netzer, R. Maiolino, E. Oliva, S. Croom, E. Corbett, L. di Fabrizio, Near-infrared spectroscopy of high-redshift active galactic nuclei. I. A metallicity-accretion rate relationship. APJ 614(2), 547–557 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1086/423607
B.T. Dullo, A.W. Graham, J.H. Knapen, A remarkably large depleted core in the Abell 2029 BCG IC 1101. MNRAS 471(2), 2321–2333 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stx1635
M.C. Begelman, M. Volonteri, M.J. Rees, Formation of supermassive black holes by direct collapse in pre-galactic haloes. MNRAS 370(1), 289–298 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10467.x
M. Volonteri, Formation of massive black hole seeds in the first galaxies, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, vol. 215 (2010), pp. 115–01
T. Di Matteo, V. Springel, L. Hernquist, Energy input from quasars regulates the growth and activity of black holes and their host galaxies. Nature 433(7026), 604–607 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature03335
M. Volonteri, The formation and evolution of massive black holes. Science 337(6094), 544 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1220843
M.C. Begelman, M. Volonteri, M.J. Rees, Formation of supermassive black holes by direct collapse in pre-galactic haloes. MNRAS 370(1), 289–298 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10467.x
F. Shankar, D.H. Weinberg, J. Miralda-Escudé, Self-consistent models of the AGN and black hole populations: duty cycles, accretion rates, and the mean radiative efficiency. APJ 690(1), 20–41 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/690/1/20
J. Frank, A. King, D.J. Raine, Accretion Power in Astrophysics, 3rd edn (2002)
X. Zhang, Y. Lu, On the mean radiative efficiency of accreting massive black holes in AGNs and QSOs. Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 60(10), 109511 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11433-017-9062-1
C.S. Reynolds, Observational constraints on black hole spin. ARAA 59, 117–154 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-astro-112420-035022
J.W. Moffat, Cosmological evidence for modified gravity (MOG) (2015). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1510.07037. arXiv e-prints
Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi, M. Ballardini, A.J. Banday, R.B. Barreiro, N. Bartolo, S. Basak, R. Battye, K. Benabed, J.-P. Bernard, M. Bersanelli, P. Bielewicz, J.J. Bock, J.R. Bond, J. Borrill, F.R. Bouchet, F. Boulanger, M. Bucher, C. Burigana, R.C. Butler, E. Calabrese, J.-F. Cardoso, J. Carron, A. Challinor, H.C. Chiang, J. Chluba, L.P.L. Colombo, C. Combet, D. Contreras, B.P. Crill, F. Cuttaia, P. de Bernardis, G. de Zotti, J. Delabrouille, J.-M. Delouis, E. Di Valentino, J.M. Diego, O. Doré, M. Douspis, A. Ducout, X. Dupac, S. Dusini, G. Efstathiou, F. Elsner, T.A. Enßlin, H.K. Eriksen, Y. Fantaye, M. Farhang, J. Fergusson, R. Fernandez-Cobos, F. Finelli, F. Forastieri, M. Frailis, A.A. Fraisse, E. Franceschi, A. Frolov, S. Galeotta, S. Galli, K. Ganga, R.T. Génova-Santos, M. Gerbino, T. Ghosh, J. González-Nuevo, K.M. Górski, S. Gratton, A. Gruppuso, J.E. Gudmundsson, J. Hamann, W. Handley, F.K. Hansen, D. Herranz, S.R. Hildebrandt, E. Hivon, Z.Z. Huang, A.H. Jaffe, W.C. Jones, A. Karakci, E. Keihänen, R. Keskitalo, K. Kiiveri, J. Kim, T.S. Kisner, L. Knox, N. Krachmalnicoff, M. Kunz, H. Kurki-Suonio, G. Lagache, J.-M. Lamarre, A. Lasenby, M. Lattanzi, C.R. Lawrence, M. Le Jeune, P. Lemos, J. Lesgourgues, F. Levrier, A. Lewis, M. Liguori, P.B. Lilje, M. Lilley, V. Lindholm, M. López-Caniego, P.M. Lubin, Y.-Z. Ma, J.F. Macías-Pérez, G. Maggio, D. Maino, N. Mandolesi, A. Mangilli, A. Marcos-Caballero, M. Maris, P.G. Martin, M. Martinelli, E. Martínez-González, S. Matarrese, N. Mauri, J.D. McEwen, P.R. Meinhold, A. Melchiorri, A. Mennella, M. Migliaccio, M. Millea, S. Mitra, M.-A. Miville-Deschênes, D. Molinari, L. Montier, G. Morgante, A. Moss, P. Natoli, H.U. Nørgaard-Nielsen, L. Pagano, D. Paoletti, B. Partridge, G. Patanchon, H.V. Peiris, F. Perrotta, V. Pettorino, Piacentini, F., L. Polastri, G. Polenta, J.-L. Puget, J.P. Rachen, M. Reinecke, M. Remazeilles, A. Renzi, G. Rocha, C. Rosset, G. Roudier, J.A. Rubiño-Martín, B. Ruiz-Granados, L. Salvati, M. Sandri, M. Savelainen, D. Scott, E.P.S. Shellard, C. Sirignano, G. Sirri, L.D. Spencer, R. Sunyaev, A.-S. Suur-Uski, J.A. Tauber, D. Tavagnacco, M. Tenti, L. Toffolatti, M. Tomasi, T. Trombetti, L. Valenziano, J. Valiviita, B. Van Tent, L. Vibert, P. Vielva, F. Villa, N. Vittorio, B.D. Wandelt, I.K. Wehus, M. White, S.D.M. White, A. Zacchei, A. Zonca, Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters. A &A 641, 6 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201833910
Acknowledgements
We thank Niayesh Afshordi for his useful comments, discussions, and support. We also thank Martin Green and Viktor Toth for helpful discussions. This research was supported in part by Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics. Research at Perimeter Institute is supported by the Government of Canada through the Department of Innovation, Science, and Economic Development Canada and by the Province of Ontario through the Ministry of Research, Innovation and Science.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Code availability
My manuscript has no associated code/software. [Author’s comment: The analyses and results presented in the manuscript were generated using standard python packages.]
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Funded by SCOAP3.
About this article
Cite this article
Zhoolideh Haghighi , M.H., Moffat, J. Formation and growth of the first supermassive black holes in MOG. Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 238 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-12612-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-12612-0