Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: Dave Lev on 04/11/2018 07:37:11
-
What is needed to create new Atom?
Could it be: High temp? High pressure? High velocity? High magnetic/electric power?
Where can we find all of those elements is our Universe?
Could it be that the accretion disc of the SMBH (in spiral galaxy) supports all of those requirements?.
Please do not confuse it with accretion disc of any kind of star/s.
With regards to the plasma at the accretion disc.
Do you agree that it is very unique?
The Temperature of that plasma is as high as 10 ^9 c - much higher than the core of the Sun which is only 10 ^6 c.
It orbits at almost the speed of light.
It face a huge pressure due to the SMBH gravity force.
The magnetic /electric power there is very high.
The structure of the plasma is changing as we go outwards.
In the most inwards side we only see particles which could be the building blocks for an Atom, while at the outer side we clearly see Atoms and even molecular.
So, could it be that the huge gravity force of the SMBH is transformed into a power which can create new quarks, new Protons & Neutrons, New Atoms and all the variety of molecular?
We see clearly that some of the mass in the accretion disc are ejected out.
However, there is no evidence for any sort of mass which is drifting inwards to the accretion disc.
Which means - that the accretion disc ejects mass without getting any mass from the outer side.
If that is correct, do you agree that the only explanation for that is - new mass creation in the accretion disc?
What kind of elements do we see in the big gas clouds around that Accretion disc?
Do we see there mainly Hydrogen Atoms and wide variety of Molecular?
Do we see new star forming activity in those gas clouds?
So, can we assume that those gas clouded which had been ejected from the accretion disc, start their activity to form new stars which will be part of our mighty spiral galaxy?
-
New atoms are made all the time through the process of radioactive decay; when an unstable nucleus decays it disintegrates to form one or more daughter radionuclides that have a new nuclear configuration. If this includess a change in the number of protons then a new atom is born.
-
Stars make new atoms all the time.
-
I suspect that the OP is asking about the creation of atoms not included in our periodic table (novel atoms), rather than run-of-the-mill transmutation (fusion, fission, and decay).
I would point to impacts of neutron stars, which probably release thousands of very unstable "elements" which rapidly decay to the standard set of stable elements. Neutron stars are essentially big balls of neutrons, which have such strong gravity that the neutrons do not decay into protons and electrons (and neutrinos of some flavor, as I understand it). However, one a bit breaks off and flies away, these gravitational forces no longer hold the neutrons together, and they will rapidly revert to protons and electrons, forming all manner of unusual elements and isotopes (one could imagine a lump of 120 neutrons, that could initially decay to 120H+!) It has long been suspected that neutron star collisions are the source of most naturally occurring elements heavier than silver--and just very recently we got some extremely compelling evidence that this is the case (gravitational wave detectors saw what appeared to be two neutron stars collide, and immediately thereafter the x-rays of thee collision were detected, and then as it cooled over the next few days, we were able to detect enormous amounts of gold!)
-
I will add that my suspicion is that none of these "novel" elements and isotopes are at all long lived (millisecond-long half lives would be amazing!)
See this chart which shows the half lives of nearly all known isotopes to date: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_elements_by_stability_of_isotopes#/media/File:Isotopes_and_half-life.svg
-
Thanks
I suspect that the OP is asking about the creation of atoms not included in our periodic table (novel atoms), rather than run-of-the-mill transmutation (fusion, fission, and decay).
I would point to impacts of neutron stars, which probably release thousands of very unstable "elements" which rapidly decay to the standard set of stable elements. Neutron stars are essentially big balls of neutrons, which have such strong gravity that the neutrons do not decay into protons and electrons (and neutrinos of some flavor, as I understand it). However, one a bit breaks off and flies away, these gravitational forces no longer hold the neutrons together, and they will rapidly revert to protons and electrons, forming all manner of unusual elements and isotopes (one could imagine a lump of 120 neutrons, that could initially decay to 120H+!) It has long been suspected that neutron star collisions are the source of most naturally occurring elements heavier than silver--and just very recently we got some extremely compelling evidence that this is the case (gravitational wave detectors saw what appeared to be two neutron stars collide, and immediately thereafter the x-rays of thee collision were detected, and then as it cooled over the next few days, we were able to detect enormous amounts of gold!)
I'm asking about the creation of atoms out of a pure energy.
Not a reuse of any current atom or molecular.
Just to create new Atom from Energy.
Actually, Atom is by definition some sort of cell of energy.
If we look at a proton for example -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton
"A proton has a mass of approximately 938 MeV/c2, of which the rest mass of its three valence quarks contributes only about 9.4 MeV/c2; much of the remainder can be attributed to the gluons".
So, the gluons contribute about 99% to the Proton Mass.
However, the galun itself doesn't carry mass. "It is just a type of energy"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluon
"A gluon is an elementary particle that acts as the exchange particle (or gauge boson) for the strong force between quarks"
"Gluons are actually just bosons, since they are the equilibrium force between the two quarks, which together form a triumvirate, and thus the energy force of the boson is in the form of a gluon, and thus the quarks become stable. They cannot separate unless something greater is capable of separating the quarks from each other, and so the gluon appears to hold these forces together. In fact it is just a type of energy while the two smaller forces, the quarks (also forms of energy) can unite under a single force, and this is the gluon's job."
So, the Galun is a type of Energy while the Quarks are also forms of energy.
Therefore, the mass in the proton represents Energy.
So, could it be that the Ultra high Energy/Temp/Pressure/Velocity in the accretion disc around the SMBH, create new Protons and Neutrons?
Those new protons/Neutrons will be the basic elements for all atoms in our periodic table (novel atoms) and all the molecular.
Please be aware that Neutron star has a fraction of the SMBH mass.
Therefore, could it be that a Neutron star might reuse the atoms in that star to create energy or new form of Atoms, while the SMBH can create new Atoms out of pure Energy.?
-
Well, it can be done.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antihydrogen
-
Thanks for the clarification!
Hawking radiation is theorized to be the result of particle-antiparticle pair production using the gravitational energy of the black hole to create matter. (ie vacuum fluctuation virtual particles becoming real particles). However I do not believe that this has been experimentally or observationally confirmed yet (despite much effort).
We have observed pair production from multi-photon interactions, but thee energy required to make even a proton antiproton pair is quite high. You may be correct that the energy in an acretion disk might be workable...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_creation
-
You also have the time relation ship in where 'virtual particles' spontaneously arrange themselves into a 'real' particle pair that then just as spontaneously annihilate each other. You should look into that, as a function of 'time'.
-
a proton, and an electron plus the strong nuclear force! lol
-
The final moments of a hypothetical micro black hole should produce protons and electrons, some of which would produce new atoms.
But there is no convincing evidence of micro black holes at this time.
These new atoms would be the mashed up and regurgitated matter which originally went formed the micro black hole.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_black_hole
-
If the accretion disc of a black hole could create particles out of the vacuum, then this would increase the energy of the universe. This would become apparent with respect to the gravitational field of a smbh. If the new matter was expelled away from the accretion disk then it could form a halo within the galaxy. If the matter created was unlike normal matter then this could be the dark matter that has been so elusive.
-
If the accretion disc temperature of the SMBH was 10 ^9 , and the temperature of a star's core is 10^6, you must look at what fusion is doing as far as element production. A star at 10^6 is fusing hydrogen into helium. At a higher temperature it would be fusing the heavier elements as the larger the nuclei the greater the temperature needed for fusion.
A SMBH at 10^9 is fusing some very heavy elements. lol
-
the accretion disc temperature of the SMBH was 10 ^9 , and the temperature of a star's core is 10^6....
A star at 10^6 is fusing hydrogen into helium. At a higher temperature (an accretion disk) would be fusing the heavier elements
I'm afraid not, because there is more to it than just temperature.
The Lawson Criterion describes three parameters that must be satisfied to get fusion going: density, confinement time, and plasma temperature.
- Density: The density at the center of the Sun is around 150 g/cm3, about 30 times denser than iron. An accretion disk is effectively in free fall, so it is not confined to such extreme densities
- Confinement Time: The Hydrogen from the Sun has been crushed in there for billions of years. Matter in the accretion disk around a black hole might reach maximum pressures for perhaps days or hours before being swallowed by the black hole or spat out in a polar jet.
The Lawson Criterion was applied originally to Hydrogen fusion, but the requirements for density, confinement time, and plasma temperature are even more extreme for fusion of heavier elements.
- There is an additional criterion: Raw materials. Since the universe has more hydrogen than anything else, accretion disks will probably also be dominated by hydrogen. There may not be enough of anything else to fuse much of it.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawson_criterion
-
Thanks for the clarification!
Hawking radiation is theorized to be the result of particle-antiparticle pair production using the gravitational energy of the black hole to create matter. (ie vacuum fluctuation virtual particles becoming real particles). However I do not believe that this has been experimentally or observationally confirmed yet (despite much effort).
We have observed pair production from multi-photon interactions, but thee energy required to make even a proton antiproton pair is quite high. You may be correct that the energy in an acretion disk might be workable...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_creation
Thanks
-
- Density: The density at the center of the Sun is around 150 g/cm3, about 30 times denser than iron. An accretion disk is effectively in free fall, so it is not confined to such extreme densities
Why do you claim that the density at the accretion disc is not so high?
Please remember that the plasma orbits at almost the speed of light.
So, in one hand we can claim that each particle is in a free fall.
But on the other hand it is far away from a free fall.
We actually have a balance between the ultra high gravity force of the SMBH and the ultra orbital velocity of a particle in the plasma around the SMBH.
However, those forces are so high that they hold each particle in a very specific orbital cycle. It can't move inwards or outwards as it wish.
Therefore, if the Ultra high velocity brings two practices together, there is no way for them to move apart.
So, even if we claim that each particle is under a free fall, as the velocity is so high, they can't move apart from each other.
Hence, the density works due to that inability of each particle to move way from the nearby particle.
Therefore, we actually get a sever force which holds the plasma in some sort of a very strong stream.
This stream forces the particles to be close to each other (or even colide with each other) with ultra high force. That forcing power generate the highest pressure (or density) between two free particles in the whole universe.
Do you agree with that?
-
Confinement Time: The Hydrogen from the Sun has been crushed in there for billions of years.
A SMBH is a billion sun worth of density, give or take. It's lifetime is surely greater than a mere star. lol
Matter in the accretion disk around a black hole might reach maximum pressures for perhaps days or hours before being swallowed by the black hole or spat out in a polar jet.
A billion star's worth of mass in the accretion disk. Takes a galaxy's lifetime to accumulate. OK lol
The Lawson Criterion was applied originally to Hydrogen fusion, but the requirements for density, confinement time, and plasma temperature are even more extreme for fusion of heavier elements.-
The density issue as been addressed.
There is an additional criterion: Raw materials. Since the universe has more hydrogen than anything else, accretion disks will probably also be dominated by hydrogen. There may not be enough of anything else to fuse
!st hydrogen fuses to helium, helium fuses to heavier elements eg: our Sun. If the accretion disk has a fusion wicking temperature of 10^9 and a star as a fusion wicking temperature of 10^6, common sense tells you density is already in play.
So slowly, hydrogen fuses at 10^6, the heavier the nuclei the greater the temperature needed to fuse heavier elements, ergo if the kiln's temperature is at 10^9, common sense tells you it's no longer fusing hydrogen but something much heavier! lol
the temperature alone points to an extreme density, I thought would be
-
Guys, what a thread. I read with pleasure
-
Matter in the accretion disk around a black hole might reach maximum pressures for perhaps days or hours before being swallowed by the black hole or spat out in a polar jet.
How do we know if the SMBH ejects the matter/plasma in its accretion disc or swallows it?
We have several evidences that the matter is ejected from the accretion disc. That is clear.
However, there is not even single evidence of a gas cloud, star, moon, asteroid or even one single atom that drifts inwards to the accretion disc.
Actually, our scientists estimates that 99% of the matter ejects out while the SMBH swallow only 1%.
https://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/30/tech/innovation/black-hole-diet/index.html
"Less than 1% of matter will be actually sacrificed for the freedom of 99% of gas," Wang said. "So, 99% of gas can escape from the capture of the black hole."
"According to Wang and colleagues, the black hole needs to throw out more than 99% of the material in order to accomplish this. That ejected 99%, in turn, heats up the environment around it, which affects the evolution of the galaxy as a whole."
Even so, do they have any real evidence for swallowing 1% of the matter?
So, why do we choose to believe in something that we don't see instead of believe in what we really see?
If we see that 99% goes out, and we can't see even 1% goes in, than why don't we understand that 100% goes out?
If we assume that the SMBH eats 1%, how do we know that this 1% comes from outside?
We claim that the SMBH is a bad eater.
"Why our galaxy's black hole is a picky eater"
You might think of black holes as indiscriminate eaters, hungrily gobbling up everything in their vicinity.
But the black hole at the center of our Milky Way galaxy, Sagittarius A*, is not exactly like this, new research suggests. Instead, this black hole -- and likely other black holes in the centers of galaxies -- must spit out a lot in order to swallow a little."
So, let's look at our self.
If we want to eat - we eat. Actually, 99.99..9% of our life time our mouth is empty. - and we are very good eater!
However, 99.99....9% (or 100%) of the SMBH at the center of spiral galaxy has a mouth (accretion disc) full with food.
Why is it?
The total matter in the accretion disc (of the milky way) is estimated to be around three Sun mass.
At any similar spiral galaxy that we look we see more or less the same amount of mass. (at any given moment)
None of them has an empty mouth or significantly more mass than that.
How could it be?
Could it be that the accretion disc is the biggest accelerator in the Universe?
Could it be that it generate new matter constantly and spit it out?
Could it be that the accretion disc is actually Excretion disc?
-
if the Ultra high velocity brings two particles together, there is no way for them to move apart
Plasma at the inner edge of the black hole has an orbital velocity which is a significant fraction of the speed of light (like 30% of c).
However, matter at slightly different distances from the black hole will have quite different orbital velocities, causing them to rapidly move apart. So it's not correct to say that they can't move apart. In fact, it is these shear forces that contribute to heating of the accretion disk.
If two particles are in slightly different (intersecting) orbits, they will smash together at a very high speed, which could produce several results:
- They could bounce off each other (elastic collision)
- They could fuse and stay fused
- They could fuse and then break apart
- They could shatter into other pieces
Matter feeding into the black hole starts out in wildly different orbits when matter is far from the black hole, so by the time it has reached the inner part of the accretion disk, matter is pretty much in similar orbits.
But I agree that some fusion could occur.
We won't know what actually happens unless we can sample some of the matter spat out in the polar jets, or obtain a spectrum of the matter in the accretion disk. Unfortunately, anything passing the event horizon is beyond study.
Less than 1% of matter will be actually sacrificed for the freedom of 99% of gas,
What percentage of matter in the accretion disk ends up in the polar jet? I have heard figures that are the reverse of the 99% quoted above. The polar jets are emitted at up to 80% of c, and it takes an enormous amount of energy to escape from the vicinity of a black hole. I suggest that a lot of matter has to fall into the black hole to power a small amount of matter in the polar jet.
Perhaps the issue here is that most matter around the black hole does not even enter the accretion disk, and remains in orbit, like the stars around Saggitarius A* that have been observed for over 15 years. It is thought that the heat from matter in the accretion disk creates a feedback mechanism controlling the rate at which the black hole feeds.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagitarius_A*#Central_black_hole
-
Plasma at the inner edge of the black hole has an orbital velocity which is a significant fraction of the speed of light (like 30% of c).However, matter at slightly different distances from the black hole will have quite different orbital velocities, causing them to rapidly move apart.
If a galaxies arms rotate at the same speed as its center, what force would cause the discrepancy of orbital speeds around the BH you ascribe to above?
So it's not correct to say that they can't move apart. In fact, it is these shear forces that contribute to heating of the accretion disk.If two particles are in slightly different (intersecting) orbits, they will smash together at a very high speed, which could produce several results: - They could bounce off each other (elastic collision)- They could fuse and stay fused- They could fuse and then break apart- They could shatter into other piecesMatter feeding into the black hole starts out in wildly different orbits when matter is far from the black hole, so by the time it has reached the inner part of the accretion disk, matter is pretty much in similar orbits.
That is alot of different conjectures based on a shearing force that is in conflict with how the galaxy rotation is thought to uniformly rotate.
But I agree that some fusion could occur.
.
With plasma is as high as 10 ^9 c , along with the assumption that gravity prevents any any escape from the BH's accretion disk, view the accretion disc in terms of a black body
"A blackbody is an object that absorbs all of the radiation that it receives (that is, it does not reflect any light, nor does it allow any light to pass through it and out the other side). The energy that the blackbody absorbs heats it up, and then it will emit its own radiation. The only parameter that determines how much light the blackbody gives off, and at what wavelengths, is its temperature.'
"The hotter the blackbody, the more light it gives off at all wavelengths"
lol
-
why do you ask questions?
I do mostly for the fun of it! lol
-
Plasma at the inner edge of the black hole has an orbital velocity which is a significant fraction of the speed of light (like 30% of c).
The polar jets are emitted at up to 80% of c, and it takes an enormous amount of energy to escape from the vicinity of a black hole.
As we know the orbital velocities at the Inner/outer edges of the accretion disc (or actually - accretion ring), what is the radius at those edges?
-
The energy that the blackbody absorbs heats it up, and then it will emit its own radiation.
In the case of an accretion disk, the source of energy is not absorbed radiation, but friction, turbulence and electrical currents flowing through the plasma as it spirals down to its doom.
Inner/outer edges of the accretion disc (or actually - accretion ring), what is the radius at those edges?
The accretion disk extends all the way down to the event horizon of a black hole, or the surface of a neutron star.
Astronomers are studying X-Ray emissions from accretion disks on very short timescales in an attempt to understand how matter behaves within the accretion disk - discoseismology...
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accretion_disk
-
The accretion disk extends all the way down to the event horizon of a black hole, or the surface of a neutron star.
Astronomers are studying X-Ray emissions from accretion disks on very short timescales in an attempt to understand how matter behaves within the accretion disk - discoseismology...
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accretion_disk
Thanks
It seems to me that the science does not distinguish between the accretion disc of SMBH at the center of spiral galaxy to the accretion disc around a star.
In the article it is stated:
"An accretion disk is a structure (often a circumstellar disk) formed by diffused material in orbital motion around a massive central body. The central body is typically a star".
Why is it?
They have totally different characteristics.
If I understand it correctly, the plasma at 10^9 c can only be found at the accretion disc of SMBH in spiral galaxy.
Also, those ultra high orbital velocities can only be found in that kind of accretion disc.
How could it be that we have measured those orbital velocities, but we don't know for sure orbital radius of the plasma at each edge?
I also don't understand how could it be that the velocity at the outer edge of the accretion disc is 80% of Light speed while at the inner edge it is only 30% of Light speed.
By measuring the orbital velocity of a particle and its radius, we can extract the total mass of the SMBH.
We don't need to know the mass of a particle for this calculation.
M = R V^2 / G
A particle at the inner edge has shorter radius (R) - for the same SMBH mass -M, hence its orbital velocity must be higher by definition.
How can we explain that contradiction in Newton law?
-
Based on the following formula:
M = R V^2 / G
We can easily extract the radius of the outer edge:
M = 4 * 10 ^6 sum mass
V = 80% of Speed of light
Hence
The outer edge radius is:
R(outer) = M * G / (0.8 Speed light) ^2
With regards to the inner edge:
It is quite clear to me that as we go inwards, the orbital velocity must increase. (Assuming that Newton law works also for SMBH)
However, as nothing can move faster than the speed of light, than we can assume that at the inner edge the maximal orbital velocity is the speed of light.
Hence:
R(inner) = M * G / (speed light) ^2
Now we can compare between the two edges:
M = R V^2 / G =
M = R(outer) * (0.8 Speed light) ^2 / G = R(inner)* (Speed light)^2 / G
Hence
R(outer) * 0.8 ^2 = R(inner)
R(Inner) = 0.64 R(outer)
Hence, at this radius the plasma will orbit at its maximal velocity which is the speed of light.
Nothing can orbit at a radius shorter than that.
Do you agree with this calculation?
-
I also don't understand how could it be that the velocity at the outer edge of the accretion disc is 80% of Light speed while at the inner edge it is only 30% of Light speed.
My reading of this thread is that it has been suggested that the 80% c figure was the speed of particles in the polar jet, not the outer edge of the accretion disk.
The polar jets are emitted at up to 80% of c,
-
If the plasma near the core of the BH is traveling at 30% the SOL and the particle mass at the outer boundary of the accretion disk is moving at 80%the SOL. You would have to ascribe the decrease in velocity to density. According to SR, mass increases as it approaches the SOL. Therefore as it deaccelerates it loses masses. The loss of mass produces energy via contraction. The loss of mass, promotes an increase in the density which results in compression as the primary source of extreme temperature. AS the elongated particle mass contracts during deacceleration from .8c to .3c, its S/T environment contracts as well. This results in EM light plasma with a high degree of energy produced during contraction via mass loss. This EM Light plasma would produce a black body effect. There would be little to no shearing effect in such a compressed density as the OP pointed out. The outer accretion disc would transform matter into condensed plasma via SR rules being inversed.
The above is just a logic scenario produced by the organization of accepted SR principles, it's all in how you wish to view it. What's the logical conclusion of this story based on the "facts" presented in this discussion? Don't ever drop out of Light Speed if you do not wish to become a plasma ghost! lol
-
If the plasma near the core of the BH is traveling at 30% the SOL and the particle mass at the outer boundary of the accretion disk is moving at 80%the SOL. You would have to ascribe the decrease in velocity to density. According to SR, mass increases as it approaches the SOL. Therefore as it deaccelerates it loses masses. The loss of mass produces energy via contraction. The loss of mass, promotes an increase in the density which results in compression as the primary source of extreme temperature. AS the elongated particle mass contracts during deacceleration from .8c to .3c, its S/T environment contracts as well. This results in EM light plasma with a high degree of energy produced during contraction via mass loss. This EM Light plasma would produce a black body effect. There would be little to no shearing effect in such a compressed density as the OP pointed out. The outer accretion disc would transform matter into condensed plasma via SR rules being inversed.
As was proved by Newton law, the mass of a particle is none relevant to its orbital velocity.
The only two relevant factors are SMBH mass and the radius.
M = R V^2 / G
Therefore, do you agree that even if "According to SR, the mass (of a particle) increases as it approaches the SOL", shouldn't have any impact on the particle' orbital velocity?
Could it be that we have an error in our measurements of the inner edge orbital velocity?
As we are located on the spiral disc, it is quite clear that our measurements of the outer edge should be OK.
However, from our current location it might be quite difficult task to cross the plasma ring and monitor the inner edge.
-
Therefore, do you agree that even if "According to SR, the mass (of a particle) increases as it approaches the SOL", shouldn't have any impact on the particle' orbital velocity?
The rotational speed of a neutron star is measured by the rapidity of its polar light emissions, this rotational speed can approach 700 times a second. This can propel particle orbits to .3c - .5c . The force of its gravity escape velocity is 100,000 km/s to 150,000 km/s. nothing escapes it's gravity. This is comparable to the SMBH inner ring's SOL presented by au?. The reason for bringing this up, is that the orbital speed is impossible for it's mass and it should be close breaking apart. A light wave is thought to be perpendicular to a gravity wave, their intersection creates kinetic energy. So if light is orbiting a neutron star, its gravity is perpendicular to that, its kinetic energy is being twisted and intermingled indistinguishably from the latter's. If something similar is occurring at the BH's inner ring orbiting at .3c, core, minus the BH's rotation, it's density must radiate EM light energy (black body energy) to the outer accretion disk ring or erupt.
The orbital velocity in your question eludes to a particle (plasma) velocity who's orbit is constrained in a by it's own density so that it intersection/interaction action with gravity is fixed at .3c or the appropriate percentage. The kinetic energy is released as EM light energy. This release differs from a neutron star as a result of the SMBH lack of or minimal rotation to that of a neutron star's. The orbital .3c being fixed at an equilibrium within a confined S/T negates any further particle, plasma contractions, resulting in no further loss of conserved energy.
The reason for equilibrium is the release of kinetic energy. Keeping it simple! lol
-
This link might be of interest to you ref particle creation https://phys.org/news/2013-12-creation-entanglement-simultaneously-wormhole.html this one also on wormholes https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21829224-200-wormhole-entanglement-solves-black-hole-paradox/ At the pre planck era and before any big bang the temperature of the universe would be 0k, this lends itself to weird entangled particles in the form of condensates of quarks coming out of nothing.
Some one mentioned micro black holes above, its was not discussed, but effectively its the same as two entangled quarks appearing out of nothing.
-
It seems to me that the science does not distinguish between the accretion disc of SMBH at the center of spiral galaxy to the accretion disc around a star.
Both are accretion disks, but the accretion disk around a black hole is much more extreme - much higher velocities and much higher temperatures.
Accretion disks around newly forming stars mostly emit in the infra-red, while accretion disks around black holes emit a lot of energy in X-Rays. Unfortunately, both are often surrounded by dust clouds, and the only radiation that can get through is infra-red and radio waves.
News: It was announced this week that a team using an interferometer at the European Southern Observatory have managed to image infra-red flares at the innermost stable orbit of Saggitarius A* (ie just before going on a 1-way path into the black hole). The timing and motion of these flares is consistent with a speed at 30% of c, and the mass of around 4 million solar masses.
Another comment - it appears that the axis of the accretion disk is pointing in generally our direction, in the plane of the Milky Way, at 90° to the Milky Way axis.
- This might point to a black hole merger which changed the axis of the central black hole - in the past there was a polar jet aligned with the axis of the Milky Way (this is visible at radio wavelengths)
- The polar jet is now heading in roughly our direction, so we might be able to sample it, someday
- I wonder if this polar jet lying in the plane of the galaxy could be responsible for a "barred spiral" form of galaxy?
See:http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/interstellar-material-milky-ways-central-black-hole-06559.html
-
I wonder if this polar jet lying in the plane of the galaxy could be responsible for a "barred spiral" form of galaxy?
The premise is acceptable but the Sagittaruis dwarf is much closer.
-
News: It was announced this week that a team using an interferometer at the European Southern Observatory have managed to image infra-red flares at the innermost stable orbit of Saggitarius A* (ie just before going on a 1-way path into the black hole). The timing and motion of these flares is consistent with a speed at 30% of c, and the mass of around 4 million solar masses.
Thanks
I have found the following article:
https://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1835/
"New observations show clumps of gas swirling around at about 30% of the speed of light on a circular orbit just outside its event horizon — the first time material has been observed orbiting close to the point of no return, and the most detailed observations yet of material orbiting this close to a black hole."
"While some matter in the accretion disc — the belt of gas orbiting Sagittarius A* at relativistic speeds [2] — can orbit the black hole safely, anything that gets too close is doomed to be pulled beyond the event horizon.
The closest point to a black hole that material can orbit without being irresistibly drawn inwards by the immense mass is known as the innermost stable orbit, and it is from here that the observed flares originate. "
I'm quite confused.
What is the meaning of: "belt of gas"
Is it the accretion disc or a belt of gas outside the accretion?
If it is in the accretion disc, why they call it "belt of gas" instead of plasma?
It is also stated:
"It’s mind-boggling to actually witness material orbiting a massive black hole at 30% of the speed of light," marvelled Oliver Pfuhl, a scientist at the MPE. "GRAVITY’s tremendous sensitivity has allowed us to observe the accretion processes in real time in unprecedented detail."
What is the meaning of: "observe the accretion process"?
I would consider an accretion process as a mass from outside the accretion disc that is drifting inwards to that disc.
If so, how do they know that this belt of gas is going in 1-way path into the accretion disc of the black hole?
I couldn't find any evidence for that in the article.
-
If I recall properly the cloud in orbit around the accretion disk as been observed since at least circa 2013 - 14. It's lack of demise puzzled scientist at the time. Saturation of the accretion disk?
The flares along the innermost accretion disk were first reported almost a year ago? That fact that the three flares happened sequentially points to a larger process of instabilty. The hotspots abnormalities in a 10^9 envirinment.
Goldfinger
“Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action”
lol
-
What is the meaning of: "belt of gas"
Black holes routinely feed off cool gas clouds that exist in the center of our galaxy.
As these clouds collide with the gas in the existing accretion disk, they are heated.
This heat can escape in the outer parts of the accretion disk, keeping it in atomic form.
But towards the center of the accretion disk, velocities are much higher, shear forces and turbulence is more intense, and temperatures climb high enough to rip off all the electrons and become a plasma.
If it is in the accretion disc, why they call it "belt of gas" instead of plasma?
Maybe I am overthinking this. This was a press release. People understand "gas", but the public will think that "plasma" has something to do with blood transfusions.
Is it the accretion disc or a belt of gas outside the accretion?
The outer parts of the accretion disk will be a gas, probably non-conducting.
But these flares were from the inner part of the accretion disk, which was a conductive plasma. The web page suggests that electrical conductivity and magnetic fields may have caused the flares.
What is the meaning of: "observe the accretion process"?
It is really hard to view events close to a black hole - because it is so small, so far away, and so black.
In these observations, they claim to have seen events on the scale of the inner part of an accretion disk, which is quite an achievement!
This is a bit of a race, because a team of radio astronomers are currently trying to assemble an image of the black hole at the center of our galaxy, at radio frequencies. This requires a radio telescope the width of the Earth.
There is a nice video here of another technique to study the accretion process using X-Rays emitted by a stellar disruption event around a supermassive black hole (a bit smaller than the one in our galaxy). As a stellar disruption event, this belt of gas was wider and more turbulent than the fairly thin and structured established accretion disk around an active black hole.
-
..these flares were from the inner part of the accretion disk, which was a conductive plasma. The web page suggests that electrical conductivity and magnetic fields may have caused the flares.
It is really hard to view events close to a black hole - because it is so small, so far away, and so black.
In these observations, they claim to have seen events on the scale of the inner part of an accretion disk, which is quite an achievement!
There is a nice video here of another technique to study the accretion process using X-Rays emitted by a stellar disruption event around a supermassive black hole (a bit smaller than the one in our galaxy). As a stellar disruption event, this belt of gas was wider and more turbulent than the fairly thin and structured established accretion disk around an active black hole.
Thanks
So, the Flares which had been observed by X-ray is coming from the plasma in the accretion disc.
Hence, the meaning of "belt of gas" is the plasma in the accretion disc which orbits under electrical conductivity and magnetic fields.
In the video it was stated that the matter in the accretion disc is extremely Puffy and very turbulent. However, they don't say even one word if the matter/plasma is drifting inwards to the SMBH or outwards.
Therefore, we get clear indication about the activity in the accretion disc, but there is no indication about the accretion process.
There is no proof in this article/video that any sort of cool gas is drifting inwards to the accretion disc from outside.
So, why do we still claim that:
Black holes routinely feed off cool gas clouds that exist in the center of our galaxy.
As these clouds collide with the gas in the existing accretion disk, they are heated.
From the first day of observing the accretion disc, we couldn't find even one single proof that any sort matter (Cool gas cloud/star/asteroid..) is drifting inwards to the accretion disc.
Why do we still hold this unproved theory that the SMBH at the center of spiral galaxy routinely feed off cool gas clouds from outside?
If it was "routinely", how could it be that we have never ever seen even one atom drifting inwards?
How could it be that we have excellent view on the activity in the accretion disc, we also see clearly that matter from the accretion disc is ejected out, but we still can't find even one single evidence for the main idea of the accretion process (accretion mass from outside)?
Why we still hope to see it in the future? How long do we still have to wait before we believe in what we see?
If nothing is drifting inwards to the accretion disc, while it is full with plasma (very hot particles at about three sun mass) and we clearly see Matter/Molecular that is ejected out, then why can't we assume that somehow new mass must be created in the accretion disc?
So, could it be that those X-Ray radiations, flares, Electrical conductivity and magnetic fields indicates on new Atom creation process in the accretion disc of SMBH in the core of the galaxy?
Some of us do believe that this new Atom creation/fusion activity might be feasible:
Well, it can be done.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antihydrogen
We have observed pair production from multi-photon interactions, but thee energy required to make even a proton antiproton pair is quite high. You may be correct that the energy in an acretion disk might be workable...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_creation
If the accretion disk has a fusion wicking temperature of 10^9 and a star as a fusion wicking temperature of 10^6, common sense tells you density is already in play.
You even claim:
Matter feeding into the black hole starts out in wildly different orbits when matter is far from the black hole, so by the time it has reached the inner part of the accretion disk, matter is pretty much in similar orbits.
But I agree that some fusion could occur.
However, as no matter is feeding into the accretion disc, could it be that the new particles/atoms creation starts from the inner most ring of the accretion disc as follow:
At that inner most ring, the gravity of the SMBH is maximal. Therefore, the plasma orbits there at its maximal velocity.
Due to the huge forces/energy (gravity, magnetic, electric..) Some quarks might be pop up at that inner most ring.
Those new born quarks must orbit at a maximal velocity pick at pretty much similar orbits, collide with each other, gets gluons energy and set the first proton and neutron.
As fusion could occur, and due to the 10^9 c, Protons and Neutrons could set Hydrogen Atoms and also the heavier Atoms and molecular.
Those new atoms and molecular are drifting outwards and finally this new hot matter is ejected out as polar jet.
We won't know what actually happens unless we can sample some of the matter spat out in the polar jets,
So could it be that there is no need to sample the matter spat out as we already know the source for this matter?
-
how could it be that we have never ever seen even one atom drifting inwards (towards a black hole)?
If you watch the video again, you will see that the X-Ray outburst from this normally quiet galaxy was due to tidal disruption of a star that orbited too close to a Supermassive Black Hole in a distant galaxy.
The atoms that were originally part of the star got torn apart from each other, and many of them put into orbit around the black hole, where they emitted X-Rays. These definitely drifted inwards towards the black hole, compared to the star's original orbit.
Undoubtedly, some of the atoms of the star continued on their original path, and some got flung into other orbits outside the accretion disk (that's what tidal disruption does - it disrupts).
Some quarks might be pop up at that inner most ring.
One thing about quarks is that they are very sociable animals, and suffer separation anxiety when they are taken away from their friends.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_confinement
In fact, the spectrum of Hawking radiation around supermassive black holes will emphasise extremely low-energy particles like photons in the very low frequency radio spectrum.
Modelling shows that the X-Rays emitted from accretion disks is powered by gravitational potential energy from infalling matter, and not from creation of new matter (modeling of the jets, and other magnetohydodynamic phenomena is still problematic, even on our largest computers).
It would take an (hypothetical) evaporating micro-black hole to release electrons and positrons, although in the last seconds, you would get protons and anti-protons.
At this time, we have good observational evidence for supermassive black holes, and that they do swallow matter, from time to time. However, at this point in time we have no confirmed evidence of micro black holes, or that they emit measurable amounts of radiation and particles.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_black_hole
-
To clarify, the video posted portrays a newly forming accretion disc around a SMBH. The flashes observed were from outcast electrons interacting with plasma streams. The OP had previously reference the difference between an established galactic SMBH and a newly forming accretion disc around an orphaned BH. Would the newly forming accretion disc have the capacity to create atoms? Not if it internal temperatures fell below 10^6 degrees. lol
-
Let's make it clear.
I only focus on the accretion disc around SMBH in the core of a massive spiral galaxy (as the milky way galaxy).
In this kind of accretion disc the temp of the plasma is 10^9 c.
Only in this kind of accretion disc Atom creation/fusion could take place.
Therefore, any other accretion disc is not relevant for our discussion.
After watching again the video, it seems that this far end galaxy doesn't meet this criteria.
It is quite small galaxy and it is not clear if it has any spiral arms or the requested hot plasma.
Therefore, this small galaxy doesn't give any real indication about the accretion disc that we are focus on.
So let me ask again:
Do we have any evidence from the milky way galaxy in which cold gas/star/asteroid from outside is drifting inwards to the accretion disc?
We can clearly see our accretion disc, we also can measure the plasma temp and monitor its structure and velocity.
We also clearly see matter that is ejected from this accretion disc.
Therefore, if any sort of gas is drifting inwards, we have to see it.
Please - One real evidence is good enough. From our galaxy or from any similar spiral galaxy.
-
We can clearly see our accretion disc, we also can measure the plasma temp and monitor its structure and velocity.
We also clearly see matter that is ejected from this accretion disc.
Therefore, if any sort of gas is drifting inwards, we have to see it.
I'm afraid that you are starting from some false assumptions.
- Despite our galactic SMBH being "only" 28,000 light-years away, we can't actually see it.
- This is because it is shrouded by all the dust and gas that fills the plane of our galaxy.
- This dims visible light by a factor of a trillion, and higher frequencies by an even bigger factor.
- So the accretion disk at the center of the galaxy is only visible at radio frequencies. Until the Event Horizon telescope announces some results, we won't be able to see any gas swirling inwards.
- In infra-red wavelengths, astronomers can see some very bright stars orbiting the SMBH. But these are not part of the accretion disk (at least, not yet...)
- So I'm afraid that we can see the center of other galaxies better than we can see our own.
See: https://courses.lumenlearning.com/astronomy/chapter/the-center-of-the-galaxy/
I only focus on the accretion disc around SMBH in the core of a massive spiral galaxy (as the milky way galaxy).
...(The galaxy in the video) is quite small galaxy and it is not clear if it has any spiral arms or the requested hot plasma.
The galaxy in the video is a very distant galaxy, so it might look small in the sky.
But it hosts a SMBH about 25-30% the size of our own.
Like most SMBH, this one was quiet, until a star wandered too close and was disrupted, producing a temporary accretion disk of plasma. So it meets your criteria.
...But I don't see what the spiral arms of the galaxy have to do with the accretion disk of the SMBH in the center?
-
...But I don't see what the spiral arms of the galaxy have to do with the accretion disk of the SMBH in the center?
Spiral galaxy is a leading force in our Universe.
There are billions of spiral galaxies in our Universe.
All of them have hot plasma in their accretion disc.
With regards to the Milky Way;
Few years ago, our scientists were expecting to see a nice fireworks as one of the Gas came closer to the SMBH in our galaxy. Somehow, The SMBH had refused to eat that gas cloud.
However, the Milky Way is just one spiral galaxy. We monitor many others.
Did we ever see any sort of fireworks while they eat some sort of gas cloud or star?
- So I'm afraid that we can see the center of other galaxies better than we can see our own.
If we can see the center of other spiral galaxy, did we ever found a gas cloud/star that drifts inwards to the accertion disc?
If no, could it be that the accretion disc of spiral galaxy is different from all the others?
Let's focus on Hydrogen and molecular ejection from spiral galaxies:
The Milky way ejects molecular stream - If I recall correctly the estimated mass in this stream is about 10,000 sun mass, while the total mass in the accretion disc is only three Sun mass.
So, how could it be that an aria which has only 3 Sun mass can supply a constant stream of 10,000 suns mass?
Our scientists want to believe that the mass in the accretion disc of spiral galaxy is coming from a nearby gas cloud.
However, as you have already advised, we didn't find YET any evidence for that.
Let's look at Andromeda:
http://holographicgalaxy.blogspot.com/2012/06/streaming-hydrogen-gas-bridge-connects.html
"Streaming Hydrogen Gas Bridge Connects Andromeda and M33 Galaxies Together".
Could it be that this stream of gas had been generated in the accretion disc of the galaxies - especially by Andromeda as it is a very massive spiral galaxy?
M51 spiral galaxy:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180516144619.htm
"What it was turned out to be a massive cloud of ionized hydrogen gas spewed from a nearby galaxy and then essentially "cooked" by radiation from the galaxy's central black hole."
"The discovery of the giant gas cloud, first observed by Watkins in 2015 and announced by Mihos on Twitter in April, potentially provides astronomers around the world with an unexpected "front row seat" to view the behavior of a black hole and associated galaxy as it consumes and "recycles" hydrogen gas."
In this case our scientists have an excellent view - "front row seat". They see clearly the gas cloud that had been ejected from the galaxy. They speak about "consumes and "recycles" hydrogen gas".
Therefore, it is also expected to see where this recycle gas is coming from. They should see the gas cloud as it drifts to the accretion disc.
If they don't see it, could it be that this "recycles matter" is actually a new matter which had been generated in the core of those spiral galaxies?
The space is full with mass. Actually the number of stars in the open space is higher than the total number in the whole galaxies together (or at least equal).
Our galaxy crosses the space at ultra high velocity. Never the less, not even a single star can penetrate the galaxy due to its incredible gravity force. The gravity of the galaxy clears its path in space.
Therefore, all the stars in the galaxy and around the galaxy are moving with the galaxy.
Hence, could it be that this is one more indication that all the matter in our galaxy had been created by the galaxy?
The galaxy in the video is a very distant galaxy, so it might look small in the sky.
If that galaxy is located so far away, how can we see a star that is drifting inwards to the accretion disc?
-
If I recall correctly the estimated mass in this stream is about 10,000 sun mass, while the total mass in the accretion disc is only three Sun mass.
According to this 2013 article, astronomers are debating the size and orientation of any jet emanating from our galactic black hole:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/milky-way-black-hole-jet/
Ignoring our galaxy, I don't think that there is a conflict between 3 solar masses in the accretion disk and 10,000 solar masses in a jet. On my wall calendar I have an image of Hercules A, which shows radio jets extending maybe 30 times the width of the visible galaxy. This represents the operation of a jet over billions of years, which could easily have spat out the mass of 10,000 stars.
However, the matter in an accretion disk today is transient, and will mostly be swallowed by the black hole (it migrates inwards), with a small percentage spat out in a jet. So it is possible that an accretion disk which contains only 3 solar masses today could have fed a jet containing 10,000 solar masses - it depends on the residence time in the accretion disk.
From this distance, we can't tell if a jet is continuous (this requires a regular source of matter to feed it) or "bursty" (just becomes active when a star gets too close and is disrupted).
Astronomers think that a supermassive black hole could grow at an average rate of around 1 solar mass per year - but again, it could be very bursty.
See NASA student tutorial: https://spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov/Modules/8Mod9Prob3.pdf
Our galaxy crosses the space at ultra high velocity. Never the less, not even a single star can penetrate the galaxy due to its incredible gravity force.
Have a look at Stellar streams.
These are groups of stars (some streams equivalent to 200 million suns) which are in orbit around the center of the Milky Way, in highly inclined orbits. They routinely penetrate the galactic disk, and come out the other side.
They are thought to be remnants of smaller galaxies that have ventured too close to our galaxy and been torn apart, much like a meteor shower spreads out along the path of a comet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stellar_streams
-
One simple question:
Do you agree that so far we couldn't find even one real evidence that the accretion disc at ANY spiral galaxy in the Universe accretes mass from outside?
-
Do you agree that so far we couldn't find even one real evidence that the accretion disc at ANY spiral galaxy in the Universe accretes mass from outside?
I don't agree.
We live in a spiral galaxy, the "Milky Way galaxy". Where we live can be considered as the outer parts of the accretion disk around the supermassive black hole at the heart of our galaxy.
The Milky Way is in the process of accreting the Large and Small Magellanic clouds (dwarf galaxies).
The Milky Way has already accreted several dwarf galaxies, and these are slowly having their velocities randomised by gravitational interactions with stars in the main disk of the galaxy.
This is the same process that happens with atoms in the accretion disk immediately surrounding a black hole, except that one occurs by gravitational interactions on a scale of hundreds of millions of years (ie the timescale of one orbit around the galaxy), while atomic interactions close to the black hole occur on timescales of days or weeks (ie the timescale of one orbit around the black hole).
Have a look at Stellar streams.
I heard today that the Gaia spacecraft has revealed the presence of numerous new stellar streams close to Earth.
Gaia precisely measures the position of stars near the Earth, using the parallax technique.
- The first data release gave the precise position of nearby stars
- The second data release (a year later) allowed the motion of these stars to be calculated
- Software picked up a number of known stellar streams, plus some new ones passing near the Sun
- For more distant stars, Gaia only detects motion across the sky. A companion project measures the radial velocity of these stars using doppler shift from ground-based telescopes. This will allow detection of more distant stellar streams.
- I expect that extra data releases over the next 3 years will reveal even more stellar streams.
See: https://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/gaia/iow_20180930
-
I don't agree.
We live in a spiral galaxy, the "Milky Way galaxy". Where we live can be considered as the outer parts of the accretion disk around the supermassive black hole at the heart of our galaxy.
The Milky Way is in the process of accreting the Large and Small Magellanic clouds (dwarf galaxies).
The Milky Way has already accreted several dwarf galaxies, and these are slowly having their velocities randomised by gravitational interactions with stars in the main disk of the galaxy.
This is the same process that happens with atoms in the accretion disk immediately surrounding a black hole, except that one occurs by gravitational interactions on a scale of hundreds of millions of years (ie the timescale of one orbit around the galaxy), while atomic interactions close to the black hole occur on timescales of days or weeks (ie the timescale of one orbit around the black hole).
Thanks
So, if I understand you correctly, there are several indirect evidences for the accretion process in the Milky Way.
Stellar streams and Dwarf galaxies are few examples for those indirect evidences of the accretion process.
We assume that in a similar process, Atoms accretes into the accretion disc, but there is no direct evidence for that.
Therefore, so far there is not even a single direct evidence for any sort of Gas cloud/star.../Atom that accretes directly into the accretion disc of the Milky Way or of any other spiral galaxy in the whole Universe.
Do you agree with that?
-
We don't have direct evidence for any sort of matter that falls into the accretion disc. However, there are several direct evidences for particles stream that are ejected from the heart of our galaxy and other spiral galaxies:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/milky-way-black-hole-jet/
"X-ray and radio observations offer the best evidence yet that, as long suspected, high-energy particles stream from the heart of our galaxy"
"Such jets are common throughout the universe, and most suppermassive black holes are thought to produce them."
"..scientists have detected a weak jet emanating from the black hole at the center of the nearby galaxy M81.."
So, we see clearly that the accretion disc of spiral galaxy ejects high-energy particles stream.
We see it at the Milky Way and at many other spiral galaxies.
Now let's assume that the current hypothesis that the accretion disc get's its matter from outside.
Our scientists estimate that the SMBH increase its mass by one sun mass every year.
So, in the last 10,000 Years due to this activity, our SMBH in the Milky Way should have to eat those 10,000 sun mass from the aria next to the accretion disc. After 1 Million years it should eat 1 Million sun mass from the galaxy. After 1 Billion years it should eat 1 Billion sun mass from the galaxy.
This is just the mass which the SMBH must consume for itself.
Hence, after so long time of eating the matter from the galaxy, it is expected to find that there is no matter near the accretion disc.
However, in only day light from the black hole, there is an estimated matter of 10,000 sum mass.
There is another issue - New star production.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_Boom_Galaxy
"The Baby Boom Galaxy has been nicknamed "the extreme stellar machine" because it is seen producing stars at a rate of up to 4,000 per year (one star every 2.2 hours). The Milky Way galaxy in which Earth resides turns out an average of just 10 stars per year.[4]"
So, how could it be that our SMBH eats one sun mass per year, produces 10 stars per year, ejects that kind of high-energy particles stream, and - we see that the galaxy center is still full with mass?
Could it be that the only solution for that is - new mass creation?
-
The Milky Way galaxy in which Earth resides turns out an average of just 10 stars per year...
So, how could it be that our SMBH ... produces 10 stars per year?
The new stars tend to be produced in cold molecular dust clouds.
However, the center of the Milky Way galaxy has a very high density of stars, and the energy of the central accretion disk will tend to disperse any cold gas clouds.
So most of the new stars will tend to be outside the central bulge of the galaxy.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_formation
And, by the way, new stars form by a process of accretion.
So, how could it be that our SMBH eats one sun mass per year... and - we see that the galaxy center is still full with mass?
As a general rule, the central SMBH of a galaxy has a mass of around 0.1% of the mass of the central bulge of the galaxy.
So the SMBH could keep eating for billions more years, and still the center of the galaxy would still be full of mass.
-
So most of the new stars will tend to be outside the central bulge of the galaxy.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_formation
And, by the way, new stars form by a process of accretion.
In the following article it is stated that most of the Milky Way's star formation activity is taking place at the 5-kpc center ring. We also see at this center large fraction of the molecular hydrogen present in the Milky Way:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way
"The bar may be surrounded by a ring called the "5-kpc ring" that contains a large fraction of the molecular hydrogen present in the Milky Way, as well as most of the Milky Way's star formation activity. Viewed from the Andromeda Galaxy, it would be the brightest feature of the Milky Way.[106] X-ray emission from the core is aligned with the massive stars surrounding the central bar[99] and the Galactic ridge."
As a general rule, the central SMBH of a galaxy has a mass of around 0.1% of the mass of the central bulge of the galaxy.
So the SMBH could keep eating for billions more years, and still the center of the galaxy would still be full of mass.
Let's make a simple calculation:
In 12 Billion years (the Min. age of the Milky Way) it is estimated that based on one sun mass per year, the SMBH should eat about 12 Billion star mass from its nearby aria.
Out of the estimated 400 billion stars in the galaxy, 12 Billion stars means 3%.
There are only 0.1% of the total star mass in the bulge. Therefore, the SMBH has to eat 30 times the total mass in the bulge during its life time while still keeps it full with mass.
So, I still wonder how could it be that after eating all of this matter just for self consuming, plus all the requested matter for the jet stream, there are still so much matter in that 5KPC ring and especially in the one light ring of the bulge (10,000 Sun mass).
I know that we shouldn't think in a logic way when we look at our Universe.
However I wonder what is the benefit for the Milky Way to set most of its star formation activity in the center just to eat them all.
Don't you think that something must be wrong in our hypothesis?
Do you agree that so far there is no direct evidence for any sort of mass that accretes directly into the accretion disc of spiral galaxy?
How long do we still have to wait until our scientists will understand that there is a possibility that the SMBH doesn't eat any mass from its spiral galaxy or disqualify that idea by direct evidence?
-
I have proved that Atom is a cell of Energy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluon
"A gluon is an elementary particle that acts as the exchange particle (or gauge boson) for the strong force between quarks"
"Gluons are actually just bosons, since they are the equilibrium force between the two quarks, which together form a triumvirate, and thus the energy force of the boson is in the form of a gluon, and thus the quarks become stable. They cannot separate unless something greater is capable of separating the quarks from each other, and so the gluon appears to hold these forces together. In fact it is just a type of energy while the two smaller forces, the quarks (also forms of energy) can unite under a single force, and this is the gluon's job."
the Gluons is a type of Energy while the Quarks are also forms of energy.
Therefore, the mass in the proton represents Energy.
We know that in Atomic bomb we actually convert some mass in the Atom into Energy.
Let's assume that the SMBH eats stars.
However, in the accretion disc we don't see any star. We actually see some sort of particles..
So, the accretion disc breaks the Stars into Atoms and then breaks the Atoms into particles. During this process, it increases its temp to 10^9 c. Therefore, we actually see a transform of mass into energy. Some sort of Atomic bomb in full activity.
Actually, if we break the protons we get the Gluons & Quarks. Those Gluons are by definition Energy and they can't exist without the proton Envelope.
Therefore, once we break the proton to particle, 99% of the proton must be converted into energy by definition.
Somehow it seems to me that at this temp it must break down also the remaining quarks.
So, if the accretion disc accretes mass from outside, it should convert 100% (or at least 99%) of the mass into energy.
Hence, do you agree that after the accretion process and converting mass into Energy, nothing (or almost nothing) would be left to be ejected out from the accretion disc and in the same token nothing would get into the SMBH itself?
Therefore, do you agree that the only feasible process in the accretion disc that can set that hot Molecular jet stream must be based on converting the energy in the Mighty SMBH gravity force into Atoms and Molecular instead of converting Atoms into energy?
I personally don't see any logic in the following accretion process:
The Milky Way sets most of the star formation activity in the center of the galaxy.
Then it accretes those new born stars to the accretion disc, breaks them down to Atoms and breaks their atoms into particles and energy.
After this long process it starts the opposite process:
It creates back the protons/ neutrons from the particles that had been survived, and then creates new Atoms and molecular. Then it blows them away in some sort of hot molecular stream.
This molecular stream should set a molecular gas cloud. In this gas cloud new stars will be born just to be eaten again by the accretion disc.
Is it real???
-
I hope that by now we agree that new Atom creation in the Accretion disc of Spiral galaxy is feasible.
Based on the SMBH mighty gravity force, Magnetic/electric power, Ultra velocity of the plasma (0.3 Speed of light) and High temp (10^9 c), new particles might pop up in the innermost side of the accretion disc. Those particles will be transformed into new Atoms and Molecular as they drift outwards and eventually be ejected as a hot jet stream from the accretion disc.
That ejection process is very critical.
I wonder why this hot jet stream is ejected from the accretion disc.
We know that the moon is drifting outwards from Earth and the Earth is drifting outwards from the Sun.
Actually, all the planets and most of the moons (except of one or two) in the solar system are drifting outwards.
Some might claim - tidal.
But, could it be that it is more than just "tidal"?
Could it be that something is missing in Newton and kepler formula?
Could it be that Time is missing?
The Moon is drifting away from the Earth by only few centimeters per cycle. However, each cycle takes one Month. Therefore, during our life time it might be very difficult to notice any real change.
Hence, Newton law works Ok for this orbital cycle.
Never the less, any particle which orbits around the SMBH at almost the speed of light sets several cycles per day.
So, could it be that even if it drifts only few millimeter per cycle, during our life time it might complete the full cycle from new born particle at the inner most side of the accretion disc, to Atom/molecular in the outer most that is ejected from the accretion disc in a hot jet stream?
So, could it be that in most of the orbital cycles - drifting outwards is dominant?
If so, this outwards drifting phenomenon is critical for our understanding how spiral galaxy really works.
We have to find the time effect on Newton law.
As the Milky Way must generate 12 new stars per year, could it be that this represents the minimum mass production of the accretion disc in the galaxy?
However, there is only three sun mass in the plasma.
So how could it be that so low mass quantity can generate so high mass?
The answer is: "gluon"
We know that 99% of the proton/Neutron mass is gluon while only 1% represents the quarks.
Therefore, any particle during the transformation process to Atom gets the gluon energy and increases significantly its mass?
So, do you agree that with only three sun mass of quarks it is feasible to generate new molecular stream with almost 300 Sum mass?
-
Could it be that something is missing in Newton and kepler formula?
Could it be that Time is missing?
Newton's and Kepler's formulas both explicitly include time in determining the motion of point masses.
However, distributed masses like the Earth, Moon or an accretion disk follow more complex laws that depend on factors like density and viscosity.
So, could it be that in most of the orbital cycles - drifting outwards is dominant?
Ignoring galactic collisions (and their subsequent black hole mergers), which muddy the picture considerably....
A spiral galaxy will feed matter into its central black hole, which will take on the dominant angular momentum of the galaxy.
The spin axis of the black hole will align with the spin axis of the galaxy.
The accretion disk will also have the same axis, and will form a pancake shape parallel to the galaxy itself.
However, the matter ejected from the black hole does not lie in the plane of the accretion disk, but at 90 degrees to it, along the poles of the black hole.
While "drift outwards" could occur temporarily in accretion disk after a bright flare, that is possible only because the accretion disk is in orbit around the equator of the black hole.
"Drift Outwards" cannot occur to matter at the poles, as this is not in orbit around the black hole. It must be blasted outwards, at speeds far faster than the 0.3c of the inner accretion disk. The mechanisms which cause this are a bit mysterious, but are thought to relate to magnetic fields trapped in the plasma of the accretion disk, much like a Coronal Mass Ejection occurs on the Sun.
As the Milky Way must generate 12 new stars per year, could it be that this represents the minimum mass production of the accretion disc in the galaxy?
Astronomers see clouds of cold hydrogen gas falling down onto the lane of the galaxy from the intergalactic medium.
Some of this could have originated in polar jets from our own SMBH. or from another galaxy. This supply of fresh gas is the raw material of new stars.
-
"Drift Outwards" cannot occur to matter at the poles, as this is not in orbit around the black hole. It must be blasted outwards, at speeds far faster than the 0.3c of the inner accretion disk. The mechanisms which cause this are a bit mysterious, but are thought to relate to magnetic fields trapped in the plasma of the accretion disk, much like a Coronal Mass Ejection occurs on the Sun.
Astronomers see clouds of cold hydrogen gas falling down onto the lane of the galaxy from the intergalactic medium.
Some of this could have originated in polar jets from our own SMBH. or from another galaxy. This supply of fresh gas is the raw material of new stars.
Wow!!!
Thanks for the great answer.
That answer proves that the magnetic force around the SMBH is absolutely HUGE!!!
It actually gives higher confidence for the idea that new matter is created at the accretion disc.
Please let me know if the following meets the evidences that we have:
The Magnetic force around the accretion disc traps the Atom which had been drifted out from the accretion disc and boosts it upwards at 0.8 c. (Faster than the orbital velocity, which is 0.3 c)
However, why this magnetic force traps only the Atom/Molecular at the outer side of the disc? Why not from inside of the accretion disc?
I assume that gravity force is the ultimate answer for that as follow:
F = G * M * m / R^2
M = The mass of the SMBH
m = The mass of the particle/Atom/Molecular.
The meaning is that when the particle is located at the inwards side of the accretion disc, the gravity force on that particle is higher than the magnetic force. However, as the particle drifts outwards, its gravity force decreases. Only at the most outwards side of the accretion disc, the magnetic force becomes higher than the gravity force. At that radius, the particle had already been transformed into Atom or Molecular. Therefore, the magnetic force traps that new born Aton/Molecular and lifts it up at 0.8 c.
It also proves that nothing can get into the accretion disc.
Any atom from outside would be lifted up into that hot jet stream.
The magnetic force can't distinguish between Atom which is just drifting outwards from the accretion disc to the one that is coming from outside the disc.
Both of them will be lifted at 0.8 speed of light.
Therefore, the Huge magnetic force around the accretion disc is used as a shield which prevents any sort of mass accretion from outside.
That proves that the accretion disc doesn't accrete any mass from outside.
From now on we must call it excretion disc.
Do you agree with that?
-
Astronomers see clouds of cold hydrogen gas falling down onto the lane of the galaxy from the intergalactic medium.
Some of this could have originated in polar jets from our own SMBH. or from another galaxy. This supply of fresh gas is the raw material of new stars.
Let's try to understand that important activity;
The magnetic force blows up at almost the speed of light all the matter which had been ejected from the excretion disc of spiral galaxy.
At that point the matter is very contaminated. It includes all the variety of Atoms (Hydrogen...Gold..) and molecular (water...) but also all the particles which had not been fully transformed into Atoms. Those particles could contaminate any new formed star.
However, as the hot stream goes upwards, the magnetic power is decreasing. Therefore, at some point, the gravity force of the Galaxy pulls the atoms and molecular back to the lane of the galaxy
Never the less, all the other particles which didn't complete the transformation cycle continue to go upwards due to their tinny size comparing to Hydrogen Atom.
So, the magnetic force which blows the matter upwards, set some sort of cleaning activity to the matter which had just been created at the excretion disc.
This reminds me the way how do we clean wheat.
There is another benefit for this process - Temperature decrease
The Plasma temp is 10^9. It is too hot to be used as a raw material for new star.
However, this upwards magnetic blow up process decreases the temp to a relatively lower temp.
It also stops at once any fusion activity in the hot matter which had been ejected from the excretion disc.
So, do you agree that as the matter is falling down onto the lane of the galaxy we can claim that this activity "supply of fresh gas (Clean and at lower temp.) which is used as raw material of new stars"?
-
Astronomers see clouds of cold hydrogen gas falling down onto the lane of the galaxy
Few year ago (2014), our scientists thought that the source for the gas cloud is a massive disc stars:
https://www.mpg.de/8777573/gas-cloud-galactic-centre
"A likely source for both G1 and G2 could then be clumps in the wind of one of the massive disk stars, which could have been ejected some 100 years ago close to the apocentre of the G2 orbit. Another possible explanation that has been suggested recently would be a large star, enveloped by an extended gas cloud. Based on the current VLT data, however, this model is highly unlikely.
Astronomers are nevertheless puzzled why they have not yet detected increased Xray emission from the gas cloud near the black hole."
I hope that by now they already know that the new matter is coming from the excretion disc of the galaxy.
Therefore, our scientists shouldn't be so "puzzled".
The black hole has no intention to eat any new matter which it just drifts out from its excretion disc.
Do you agree that the mighty magnetic shield around the excretion disc protects the core from any accretion activity?