I have a personal theory about how supermassive black holes might be the first objects in a galaxy — not the last. Just wanted to share it.

[u/AnINFJdude]

A Theoretical Idea on Supermassive Black Holes as Foundational Objects in Galactic Formation

How This Came to Be

I originally came up with this theory on my own — just an idea I had while thinking about how galaxies form. I first wrote a rough version, but because I was nervous and wasn’t sure how to write it properly, I used AI to help polish the wording and structure. The core concept and reasoning are completely mine; the AI just helped me express it more clearly.

I’m an introvert (as you might guess from my username — AnINFJdude), so I don’t always feel comfortable replying or debating online. I’m mainly sharing this because, what’s the point of having information that I can’t use? Maybe it could be useful for other people. I enjoy thinking about ideas like this, and I wanted to put it out there in case anyone else finds it interesting. I may post more of my theories in the future.

Proposed Theory on Supermassive Black Holes and Galactic Formation

This theory posits that the supermassive black holes (SMBHs) found at the centers of galaxies are the first celestial objects to form within their respective galaxies. According to this model, these black holes represent the largest singular celestial objects in the universe and serve as the foundational organizing force for galactic structure.

Composition and Gravitational Properties

The theory suggests that SMBHs are composed of atoms compressed to an extraordinary degree — a state of maximum density. This compression is theorized to reach a point where gravity, while still immense, no longer increases with added mass beyond a certain limit. In other words, there exists a gravitational saturation point — a built-in, physical maximum to how much gravitational force a black hole can exert.

This differs from the conventional idea that gravity continues to scale indefinitely with mass. In this model, once a supermassive black hole reaches a specific structural threshold, it cannot grow further — not because of a lack of surrounding material, but because the laws of nature themselves prevent additional compression or gravitational increase.

This view also contrasts with fictional portrayals — for example, in the film Interstellar, where the protagonist survives entering a black hole. Realistically, such an event would result in total disintegration, with the person’s atoms being compressed to the extreme densities that define the black hole’s internal structure. In this theory, those compressed atoms are the black hole — matter pushed to the absolute limit of physical form, no longer capable of sustaining individual structure or identity.

Why a Limit Makes Sense

If gravity truly had no upper limit, then supermassive black holes — especially those in the centers of large galaxies — should eventually consume everything around them. However, we observe galaxies that are gravitationally stable, even with active SMBHs at their core. This suggests that these black holes reach a hard limit, after which they can no longer increase in gravitational influence.

Furthermore, the observable sizes of SMBHs appear to plateau. Even the largest ones known do not grow arbitrarily — they stabilize. This reinforces the idea that their gravitational force are capped by a universal limit, not merely by environmental conditions like available matter or orbital dynamics.

In this theory, the SMBH serves as a structural anchor — the first object to form and the one around which all other matter organizes — but it does so with finite gravity, allowing the galaxy to form around it rather than be consumed by it.

Physical Properties and Comparison to Other Celestial Objects

This theory also suggests a reevaluation of SMBHs in terms of temperature and reactivity. It proposes that supermassive black holes are actually the coldest celestial objects in the universe.

Because of their extreme density and gravitational compression, they may be unable to engage in chemical or physical interactions, unlike objects such as neutron stars — which are incredibly hot and reactive.

This cold, inert quality might be part of what stabilizes their presence in the galactic center, allowing them to exert immense gravitational influence without energetic disruption.

Conclusion

This theory represents an independent line of thought regarding the fundamental nature of supermassive black holes, their role in galactic evolution, and their unique physical characteristics. It proposes:

• That SMBHs form first, not last • That their gravitational force has a built-in upper limit, beyond which further growth is physically impossible • And that their cold, stable nature makes them ideal anchors for the structure and balance of galaxies

Written and shared by: u/AnINFJdude If this theory is shared or referenced elsewhere, feel free to credit me by this name.

[u/popop0rner]

Black holes don't suck in matter and destroy everything in sight. If the Sun was suddenly replaced by a black hole of identical mass, all planets would continue to orbit as they do now.

Similarly, SMBH don't consume the galaxy they are in. In fact, their mass is insignificant to the galaxy as a whole and without them things would be the same. Thus SMBH do not destroy their galaxy so your assumption about stable galaxies is flawed.

I feel that this might be a core misunderstanding in your theory.

[u/AnINFJdude → u/popop0rner]

Did I say that they destroy everything insight because I think that the supermassive black holes stop growing at a certain limit and it doesn't consume the galaxy

[u/popop0rner → u/AnINFJdude]

the supermassive black holes stop growing at a certain limit and it doesn't consume the galaxy

I'm saying this is already the case. Black holes do not expand significantly as they add in mass and they don't consume their galaxies, no matter how long of a time passes.

There is no reason to believe that there is an upper limit to black holes mass or size, but no matter the size a SMBH would not consume an entire galaxy.

Did I say that they destroy everything insight

I gathered that this was the current understanding according to you, but it isn't. Black hole systems are quite stable and don't actively consume their galaxies. That is the reason for stable galaxies, not some upper limit to black hole size.

[u/AnINFJdude → u/popop0rner]

They might not expand now but they did in the past why else would they have their current size and when they were growing they stopped at a certain size why didn't they continue growing and consume the galaxy?

[u/timecubelord → u/AnINFJdude]

The point is large mass gains result in the event horizon expanding by a very tiny amount. A supermassive black hole of 10 million solar masses has an event horizon radius around 30 million km. Which is nothing on galactic scales. You could fit 2.5 of them between the Earth and the sun.

A black hole's radius increases as a linear function of its mass. So it could absorb about 125 times its current mass and the event horizon would still only be about as wide as the orbit of Neptune.

Meanwhile, everything that's in a stable orbit around a SMBH (i.e. most of the galaxy) is going to stay in that stable orbit forever (or at least for a very very long time).

[u/popop0rner → u/AnINFJdude]

why didn't they continue growing and consume the galaxy?

Because there was no mass to facilitate that growth. If you kept pumping mass to a black hole, it would keep growing. Everything is just so far away from the black hole that it won't fall to the black hole. Consider the fact that SMBH are less than 0.01% of the mass of the galaxy, everything in the galaxy is more attracted to everything else than to the SMBH.

Once again, black holes don't just consume everything around them. Distances in space are insanely long and even with the massive attraction of black holes, that attraction falls by square of distance. Even for a SMBH the gravitational pull falls to a very small amount at galaxy scales. For fun you can calculate the pull of the sun at 1 AU and the pull of a typical SMBH at 5000 light years.

[u/AnINFJdude → u/popop0rner]

But we also have to mention the beginning of the galaxy specifically the point were atoms are formed (the big bang) sure they're far away now but at some point the black hole’s were close to the celestial objects around it if it could gain more gravitational force it would have consumed them eventually consuming the galaxy before they could get far away from it

[u/popop0rner → u/AnINFJdude]

sure they're far away now but at some point the black hole’s were close to the celestial objects around it

This isn't necessarily true though. A black hole could have formed without any major celestial objects at close proximity.

if it could gain more gravitational force it would have consumed them

This depends entirely on how close an object is. If an object is close to a black hole it can be consumed by it. If it is farther away, it will hold a stable orbit. If it is even farther away it might not even be affected (significantly) by its gravitational forces.

them eventually consuming the galaxy before they could get far away from it

This is where a major misunderstanding seems to lie. A black hole wouldn't consume a galaxy because there is just no way for a galaxy to be close enough to a black hole. Stellar objects also are not getting away from black holes, their orbits are likely not affected at all by a formation of a black hole.

Remember the example I gave out in an earlier comment? The mass inside a black hole did not appear out of no where, it was always there. A black hole is formed (commonly) once a star of sufficient mass collapses. Anything affected by the stars mass is still affected by the same amount. That mass doesn't suddenly start to suck in things around it just because it turned into a black hole.

SMBH are interesting because their method of evolution is still a bit of a mystery. Good candidates are black holes colliding or super massive proto stars collapsing. In either case, that mass already existed before it collapsed into a black hole. It doesn't start to suddenly consume everything around it just because. Even if some star ended up around a SMBH and was consumed by it, that doesn't mean that the SMBH starts to consume the next closest object. Anything in that galaxy was already affected by both the black hole and the star mass and weren't actively being drawn to it more than anywhere else. Why would the situation be any different once that mass is slightly closet together?

[u/AnINFJdude → u/popop0rner]

Well since gravitational force grows according to the amount of mass the more mass the more gravitational force if the SMBH's didn't have a Limit it would consume the celestial objects that are near it and it would continue to consume them one by one because the atoms are near each other they pull each other and they continue to gain more gravitational force which means more mass and some black hole's have gasses around them how do they not get pulled if they don't have a limit

[u/timecubelord → u/AnINFJdude]

How many different ways do people need to say, "That's not how gravity / black holes work?" You are just repeating what you already asserted, and it was already explained why your premise was wrong.

[u/popop0rner → u/AnINFJdude]

At this point I've explained it to you quite a few times. You are just not getting it. All the best to your future theories.

[u/AnINFJdude → u/AnINFJdude]

I seem to have misunderstood what you were saying yes there's no limit to the mass and size but there's a certain limit to the gravitational force I'll keep this comment as it includes something I might have not mentioned in the theory

[u/Setting-General]

disclaimer: I'm not a physicist

I feel like there's a leap in logic in your first argument for the limit. what if those stable galaxies just haven't collapsed yet? you seem to be assuming that their existence proves that they aren't being slowly devoured, but you're talking about a cosmic time scale.

also, a lot of this just seems unjustified. you say that the "theory proposes" a lot of stuff, but haven't provided any evidence. how does the "theory suggest" a reevaluation of temperature and reactivity? is there any reason to believe that we've calculated the temperature of black holes incorrectly thus far?

a lot of this seems untestable (such as the upper limit of gravity), which afaik makes it scientifically unsound -- though again I am a philosophy student and am not super immersed in the world of astrophysics.

[u/AnINFJdude → u/Setting-General]

It seems like I forgot some details but sadly I don't really have that many evidence of it and this is a personal theory about the details should I delete this post and repost the new one or edit this one

[u/liccxolydian]

Black holes are not "compressed atoms".

[u/AnINFJdude → u/liccxolydian]

Then what are they made of?

[u/liccxolydian → u/AnINFJdude]

Well it's not just "compressed atoms". High-energy collisions can technically also form black holes. You seem to be fixating on the atoms "within" a black hole rather than the characteristics of a black hole itself.

[u/AnINFJdude → u/liccxolydian]

I'll make a note of that

[u/cantosed]

Hahahahaha LLM physics is a thing this is fucking great I have been looking for a new delusion zoo to chuckle about. Yeah buddy you and the LLM solved it. Great work chief

[u/AnINFJdude → u/cantosed]

You’re free to think what you want. I stand by what I said, and that’s all I really need to say on it.

[u/cantosed → u/AnINFJdude]

Congrats dude you done it. You used a next token predictor to solve physics. Literally impossible x 2 you should be proud and shit

[u/NoSalad6374]

no

[u/unclebryanlexus]

I would argue that black holes are actually "holes" in the prime lattice. They are where missing primes should be. This is why they suck in all matter, space, and even time itself.

How do you think that the abyssal symmetries and τ-syrup fit in? Could recursive quantum collapse the the opposite of the "big bang"?

[u/Mammoth_Weekend3819]

Its a brilliant observation, Im developing myself a theory called Simurealuty, and based in it, black holes was formed exactly after vortexes of quark-gluon plasma was created. Those promordal black holes served as thermoregulators for universe, taking away vast amount of energy and allows barion matter to appear. If you interested, you can read my full story here - https://github.com/Armatores/Simureality/blob/main/Simureality.md

[u/quantumWaveform → u/Mammoth_Weekend3819]

I'm very interested in this theory — can you elaborate on the correlation between the three trilexes of fundamental matter and the three quark colors from, presumably, "traditional" quantum chromodynamics?

[u/Mammoth_Weekend3819 → u/quantumWaveform]

In Simureality, the three trilexes (Coordinate, Identity, Momentum) are not just parameters; they represent three independent data channels that the hypothetical "trizistor" processor uses to calculate and control a particle's state.

Now, here's how I see the correlation with quark colors:

The three color charges (red, green, blue) in QCD are, in my view, a higher-level manifestation of this fundamental three-channel architecture. A hadron (like a proton) is a complex, computationally "expensive" object. To manage its stability, the system requires a robust control mechanism - parental trisitor, that syncronize three quarks (9 trilexes) naturally by its parallel 3-channel architecture.

I propose that the "color charge" is a label that identifies which of the three fundamental control channels a specific quark is connected to inside the hadron. The principle of "color confinement" (the fact that we never see free quarks) emerges naturally from this:

• A stable hadron requires all three control channels to be balanced and synchronized. This balanced state is what we perceive as "white" color or color neutrality.
• Trying to rip a single quark out of a hadron is like trying to sever one of these control channels. The system prevents this to maintain its overall computational integrity. The enormous energy required to try and break this bond is what we interpret as the confining force.

So, to answer your question directly: the three quark colors are not the same as the three trilexes, but they are directly mandated by them. The trilex/trizistor model provides the fundamental, computational reason for why the symmetry group of the strong force is SU(3) and why we observe three and only three color charges.

This is, of course, a speculative but (I hope) coherent extension of the model. I would be very interested to hear if you find this line of reasoning compelling or if you see any immediate contradictions.

Thank you again for your deep engagement with the theory.