0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ThanksNow it is clear:
And we have already explained where the extra energy comes from: the other material that gets consumed by the black hole. The energy in the black hole's spin had to come from somewhere. It ultimately comes from a combination of the matter that originally collapsed to form the hole as well as whatever matter is consumed after its formation. Energy is being transferred, not popping up out of nowhere.
how could it be that the ejected protons keep their speed of light velocity as they get further away from the quasar SMBH?
The potential gravitational energy of the falling particles (from 2 day light) into the accretion disc can't explain the Jet stream that is ejected to hundred thousand light years away from the quasar BH poles. Therefore, extra energy is needed?
If the potential energy of falling proton from 2 light day is transformed to speed of light kinetic energy at the accretion disc, then why when the same proton is fired upwards at kinetic energy of speed of light it doesn't stop at the same 2 light day above the SMBH?
(4) The jets do slow down, but only by a very small amount because they are traveling well beyond escape velocity
What is needed in order for that to work is for more mass to be consumed than ejected.
3. Can you please specify what is the ratio?Is it 1 to 1, 1 to 100, or 100 to 1?
3) I have no idea.
2. The extra energy in coming from the hole's spin?
(2) Yes, but the energy in the black hole's spin comes from a combination of the matter that formed it and the matter it consumes.
The energy from the infalling matter may well be enough on its own.
Let's set the calculation for the Quasar SMBH escape-velocityhttps://letstalkscience.ca/educational-resources/stem-explained/escape-velocityScientists have determined that the escape velocity for any large object (such as a planet or star) can be calculated from the following equation:ve = √(2GM/r)On earth, the escape velocity is:ve = 11.2 km/sWith regards to BH:The escape velocity from the surface (i.e., the event horizon) of a Black Hole is exactly c, the speed of light. Actually the very prediction of the existence of black holes was based on the idea that there could be objects with escape velocity equal to c.The accretion disc is quite close to the event horizon.Therefore, we can assume that if a proton is ejected from the quasar SMBH' accretion disc, it should break the escape velocity.However, based on the following formula:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocityWhen given an initial speed V greater than the escape speed ve the object will asymptotically approach the hyperbolic excess speed v∞satisfying the equation:V∞^2 = V^2 - ve^2How could it be that at the quasar SMBH:ve = Almost the speed of light c.V = initial speed = Almost the speed of light c.and even the hyperbolic excess speed v∞ = almost the speed of light c.Why the hyperbolic excess speed v∞ should be almost zero?
Why the transformation between the potential energy to kinetic energy of a falling proton, is not identical to the transformation of kinetic energy to potential energy of upwards ejected proton?Based on the understanding that at the accretion disc the ve (escape velocity) = almost the speed of light, then how could it be that the potential gravitational energy of a proton at 2 light day from the quasar SMBH, could be transformed into almost the speed of light at the accretion disc?
Don't you agree that there must be severe mistake in the current understanding for the quasar activity?
If you still disagree, would you kindly set the relevant calculation?
However, the observation proves that the quasar SMBH' is picky eater.Is there any possibility for a picky eater to eat more mass than the ejected mass?If that is the case, why it is called "picky eater"?
We all should know that picky eater means that more mass is ejected than it is consumed.
Therefore, we bypass this critical observation by "We have no idea".
So please, would you kindly inform about the ratio between those energies?If the answer is still - "we don't know" then could it be that we just don't know how the quasar SMBH works?
It is our obligation to fit the theory to the observation or vice versa if you wish.
Why the transformation between the potential energy to kinetic energy of a falling proton, is not identical to the transformation of kinetic energy to potential energy of upwards ejected proton?
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 08/10/2023 02:54:14Therefore, we bypass this critical observation by "We have no idea".You are misquoting me. I didn't say "we have no idea". I said "I have no idea". Those two sentences have very different meanings. It's possible that there are scientists out there who know, but I just so happen not to be one of them.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 08/10/2023 02:54:14Therefore, we bypass this critical observation by "We have no idea".
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 27/09/2023 19:25:00Why Don't you accept the clear message from the astronomies that are specialized in quasar that there is a problem with the current mainstream theory for the quasar activity?Let's read it again:The quote you provided does not say there is a problem with the modern understanding of how quasars work. What it says is that we don't know for sure how they work. It's entirely possible to have a plausible mechanism for how a phenomenon occurs without yet having obtained direct observational evidence for it. Until you get that evidence, what you have is technically a mystery. That is not the same as saying the proposed explanation has a problem.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 27/09/2023 19:25:00Why Don't you accept the clear message from the astronomies that are specialized in quasar that there is a problem with the current mainstream theory for the quasar activity?Let's read it again:
That is not the same as saying the proposed explanation has a problem.
Because the energy isn't coming from just that one particle. This has been explained to you before. Take the energy of many particles and put them into one particle. That's a better analogy for what's happening here.
Quote from: Kryptid on 02/10/2023 22:32:08Quote from: Dave Lev on 02/10/2023 19:43:26Do you mean that the gravitational potential energy of a proton at two light-days from the MW' black hole should be:U = -3.71 x 10-16 joules * 10,000 = -3.71 x 10-12 joules?Yes, but as Bored Chemist says, that's not the same as the energy you'll get from having the proton fall into the black hole.ThanksNow it is clear:the gravitational potential energy of a proton at two light-days from the MW' black hole should be:U = -3.71 x 10-16 joules * 10,000 = -3.71 x 10-12 joulesBased on your following explanation, a proton at the 3C 273 quasar would have about 225.7 more potential energyQuote from: Kryptid on 17/09/2023 13:32:19The galaxy that contains 3C 273 has a mass of about 2 x 1011 solar masses. This is about 225.7 times the mass of the central black hole there. So I can redo the calculations taking this into account. I am going to assume that all of that mass is concentrated at the center of the galaxy (it is, which means that my calculations will actually be an overestimate for how difficult it is for the proton to escape). So we just multiply the original numbers by 225.7: -3.71 x 10-16 joules x 225.7 = -8.37 x 10-14 joules, and -7.52 x 10-23 joules x 225.7 = -1.697 x 10-20 joules. That's a difference of 8.3699983 x 10-14 joulesTherefore, the gravitational potential energy of a proton at two light-days from the 3C 273 black hole should be:U = -3.71 x 10-12 joules * 225.7 = 8.37 10^10 joules.That gravitational potential energy is almost identical to the kinetic energy of a proton that orbits at almost the speed of light at the quasar accretion disc (which is 9.087 x 10-10 joules).
Quote from: Dave Lev on 02/10/2023 19:43:26Do you mean that the gravitational potential energy of a proton at two light-days from the MW' black hole should be:U = -3.71 x 10-16 joules * 10,000 = -3.71 x 10-12 joules?Yes, but as Bored Chemist says, that's not the same as the energy you'll get from having the proton fall into the black hole.
Do you mean that the gravitational potential energy of a proton at two light-days from the MW' black hole should be:U = -3.71 x 10-16 joules * 10,000 = -3.71 x 10-12 joules?
The galaxy that contains 3C 273 has a mass of about 2 x 1011 solar masses. This is about 225.7 times the mass of the central black hole there. So I can redo the calculations taking this into account. I am going to assume that all of that mass is concentrated at the center of the galaxy (it is, which means that my calculations will actually be an overestimate for how difficult it is for the proton to escape). So we just multiply the original numbers by 225.7: -3.71 x 10-16 joules x 225.7 = -8.37 x 10-14 joules, and -7.52 x 10-23 joules x 225.7 = -1.697 x 10-20 joules. That's a difference of 8.3699983 x 10-14 joules
Quote from: Dave Lev on 08/10/2023 02:54:14Why the transformation between the potential energy to kinetic energy of a falling proton, is not identical to the transformation of kinetic energy to potential energy of upwards ejected proton?Why do you think it isn't the same?you have done a lot of typing to say "Things can, in principle, bounce as high as they fell from."
Provide a source that says the quasar ejects more mass than it eats (and make sure you give us the numbers for a quasar, not the Milky Way's black hole. "Picky eater" is semantics without a mathematical definition.
The protons aren't escaping from the point of the event horizon, so you're using the wrong escape velocity. Escape velocity decreases as your distance from a gravitating body increases.
The generation of a magnetic field, in itself, does not consume energy. If it did, permanent magnets could not exist.
And we have already explained where the extra energy comes from: the other material that gets consumed by the black hole. The energy in the black hole's spin had to come from somewhere.
It ultimately comes from a combination of the matter that originally collapsed to form the hole as well as whatever matter is consumed after its formation. Energy is being transferred, not popping up out of nowhere.
A classical black hole can only generate a magnetic field if it is both rotating and has a net electric charge (due to the no-hair theorem). However, it's also possible that black holes are not quite as they are described in relativity. One alternative model is called MECO (Magnetospheric Eternally Collapsing Object). MECOs can have magnetic fields, so I won't discount that possibility. However, I need to remind you, once again, of what I said earlier in this thread: magnetic fields do not speed up electrically-charged particles. They can only change their direction. That being said, a magnetic field generated by a black hole (or MECO) cannot be responsible for energizing the jets.
Mystery means that there is no fit between the OBSERVATION to the current theory.If there was a fit, then there was no mystery and they would know how the quasar really works.
As it is stated that the biggest mysteries is " How do the huge, overactive black holes, known as quasars, works" then, why it is so difficult to understand that they "have no idea" how the quasar really works.
The radius of the event horizon and also the accretion disc is virtually neglected to the 2.17 light days.
If you still refuse to accept this real science,
My intention was not about you specifically, but about the quasar' astrophysicists.They have no idea how the jet stream really works and they even call it the " universe's biggest mysteries"..https://www.wbur.org/npr/507594456/some-bizarre-black-holes-put-on-light-shows"They're actually pretty picky eaters," says Jedidah Isler, an astrophysicist at Vanderbilt University. She spends most days chipping away at one of the universe's biggest mysteries: How do the huge, overactive black holes, known as quasars, work?As it is stated that the biggest mysteries is " How do the huge, overactive black holes, known as quasars, works" then, why it is so difficult to understand that they "have no idea" how the quasar really works.
Mystery means that there is no fit between the OBSERVATION to the current theory.If there was a fit, then there was no mystery and they would know how the quasar really works.As they don't know how the quasar works, why are you so sure that you know how it works?
They have children at home and they must take care about their job.If they would dare to claim that there is a problem in the theory, they would lose immediately their job.
1. Chance for collision: If we drop one million protons into the direction of the BH from a distance of 2 light days they all will gain the same kinetic energy as they fall. As they are also so small, the chance for them to collide with each other is virtually zero.
As Things can, in principle, bounce as high as they fell from, then by definition, a proton that is ejected from the accretion disc at the speed of light can ONLY get to 2.17 light days above the SMBH and stop there.So, your hope that a proton that falls from a distance 2 or 3 light days from the SMBH can bounce back several hundred thousand LY away and still maintain its speed of light velocity is a pure imagination.
If you refuse to adopt that meaning also for the quasar, then it is your task to provide a source that would explain what is the meaning of quasar Picky eater?
Proton that falls from 2.17 Light days would already gain speed that is almost at the speed of light near the SMBH.Hence, there is no possibility or need to increase it above that speed of light.
At the maximum, a collision between two nearby protons would just eject them both out of the accretion disc. While one falls inwards and is consumed by the SMBH, the other one is ejected outwards.
The radius of the event horizon and also the accretion disc is virtually neglected to the 2.17 light days.If you think that this distance is critical, then, would you kindly set the calculation and show how it can work.
Therefore, the escape velocity from quasar accretion disc should be5,264,000,000 / 299,792,458 = 17.55 speed of light.
This is incorrect.How can we compare the rotation of particles in the accretion disc to a permanent magnets.The magnets is there due to the spin motion of particles. In this motion creates the magnetic dynamo.
Please also be aware that this magnet must set real force on the orbital particles. It should change their motion and boost them upwards.This activity of changing motion must come with some energy lost.Therefore, in order to create this magnet and force the particles to change their motion, some sort of energy must be consumed/lost by the magnet.
However, I just ask you to distinguish between the Potential/kinetic energy of a falling proton, to the energy that is contributed by the SMBH.Why do you insist to mix them up.
I have already proved that a proton that is ejected at the speed of light from the accretion disc, would get to maximal height of 2.17 light day and stop there.
Roger Blandford and Roman Znajek, young physicists at the University of Cambridge in 1977, argued that rotating supermassive black holes will twist ambient magnetic fields into a tight helix, and that this twisting will create a voltage that draws energy up and out of the hole and along the helix. This, they claimed, is the jet ? and a big asterisk on the naive notion that nothing escapes black holes."
Only a rotating SMBH can generate enough magnetic force that is needed to carry the electrically-charged particlesIn that tight magnetic' helix to break the escape velocity and maintain their speed of light up to hundred thousand LY away.
However, I fully understand why they are using the word "Biggest Mystery" and not "problem".They have children at home and they must take care about their job.
It's fundamentally the same phenomenon. The movement of electrically-charged particles creates the magnetic field in both scenarios. In the case of permanent magnets, it comes from the aligned motions of the electrons of the atoms of the magnet. In the case of the accretion disk, it comes from the motion of the ions and electrons of the plasma. The creation of a magnetic field itself does not drain energy. The magnetic field is a side effect of that motion. Energy is lost from the accretion disk due to other factors such as radiation, not due to the creation of a magnetic field.If you disagree, then provide a link from a reputable source which states that the mere creation of a magnetic field consumes energy.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 14/10/2023 17:19:27I have already proved that a proton that is ejected at the speed of light from the accretion disc, would get to maximal height of 2.17 light day and stop there.No, no you have not.
Based on your calculation/data, it was found that the gravitational potential energy of a falling from only two light days above the Quasar' SMBH is:U = - 225.7 = 8.37 10^10 joules.That energy is very close to the proton kinetic energy that is moving at the speed of light:9.087 x 10-10 joules.The formula for gravitational potential energy is:U=mghU1 = 8.37 10^10 joules.h1 = 2 light daysU2 = 9.087 x 10-10h2 = ?U2/U1 = h2/h1h2 = h1 * U2/U1 = 2 light days * 9.087 x 10-10 / 8.37 10^10 = 2.17 light daysTherefore, a falling proton from 2.17 light days at the direction of the Quasar SMBH' would gain exactly the speed of light at the SMBH without any need for extra energy.
1. Can Gravity by itself explain the jet stream?The answer is NO!!!
3. Is there a need for strong magnetic fieldsYES!
The accretion disc is magnetize because the space itself is magnetized.
A thin accretion disc can't supply enough magnetic fields to do this kind of job.
7. Can BH creates Electromagnetic fields?The answer is clearly - YES!
8. How the particles at the accretion disc could become electrical charged particles?If we assuming that the SMBH can't generate any EM, then all the falling particles (which have started their way as normal particles, won't be transformed/converted into electrical charged particles.
I have proved that a proton falling from 2.17 light days, would almost gain a speed of light near the quasar SMBH.Therefore, If you just fire it back (as a cannon ball) at the speed of light, then it should stop at 2.17 Light days.
Quote from: Kryptid on 15/10/2023 00:26:05It's fundamentally the same phenomenon. The movement of electrically-charged particles creates the magnetic field in both scenarios. In the case of permanent magnets, it comes from the aligned motions of the electrons of the atoms of the magnet. In the case of the accretion disk, it comes from the motion of the ions and electrons of the plasma. The creation of a magnetic field itself does not drain energy. The magnetic field is a side effect of that motion. Energy is lost from the accretion disk due to other factors such as radiation, not due to the creation of a magnetic field.If you disagree, then provide a link from a reputable source which states that the mere creation of a magnetic field consumes energy.It is more complicate than just to consume energy.1. Can Gravity by itself explain the jet stream?The answer is NO!!!There is a need for magnetic fields.https://blogs.nasa.gov/sofia/2022/11/10/magnetic-fields-help-black-holes-reach-deeper-into-galaxies/While astronomers typically consider gravity as the only force influencing supermassive black holes, this work shows that magnetic fields can aid in bridging the interface between black holes and matter in their host galaxy.2. How the black holes can impact the matter in the accretion disc and in the jet?"With the help of these magnetic fields, black holes can impact not only the matter immediately around them, but can also work at even larger distances within the galaxy."https://blogs.nasa.gov/sofia/2022/11/10/magnetic-fields-help-black-holes-reach-deeper-into-galaxies/"With the help of these magnetic fields, black holes can impact not only the matter immediately around them, but can also work at even larger distances within the galaxy".3. Is there a need for strong magnetic fieldsYES!Strong magnetic fields is needed to explain what is seen at the event horizon & how jets larger than the galaxy itself can be launched from its central region,https://theconversation.com/weve-imaged-a-black-holes-magnetic-field-for-the-first-time-heres-what-it-reveals-157918"Astronomers still do not know exactly how jets larger than the galaxy itself can be launched from its central region, nor how exactly matter falls into the black hole. We now find that only theoretical models featuring strongly magnetized matter can explain what is seen at the event horizon."5. How the magnetic fields affect the jet stream?https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/magnetic-field-around-a-black-hole-mapped-for-the-first-time/The astrophysicists have been able to measure magnetic fields within the jets, but this is the first time they?ve been able to peer directly at the field at the base of the jets."For me, this is the highlight of our discussion. The strong magnetic field / wave carry with it the charged electrical particle as it moves upwards in the direction of the poles at almost the speed of light.Therefore, the task of the magnetic fields isn't just to redirect upwards the charged particles.In other words, the magnetic fields boost the particles as they were placed in a rocket that moves at the speed of light against the mighty SMBH' gravity force. Therefore, the jet stream doesn't slow down by that gravity force.6. How the magnetic fields is created?The accretion disc is magnetize because the space itself is magnetized.https://www.mpg.de/16630569/magnetic-fields-black-hole-m87"Light becomes polarized when it goes through certain filters, like the lenses of polarized sunglasses, or when it is emitted in hot regions of space that are magnetized".That magnetized space has a severe impact on the matter in that space and therefore the accretion disc is created.Hence, the accretion disc is affected by that space of magnetized that is created by the SMBH and not vice versa.Please also be aware that in order for the magnetic fields to boost the charged particles to several hundred thousand of LY it must be very strong. A thin accretion disc can't supply enough magnetic fields to do this kind of job. Only the SMBH' Electromagnetic fields can do it.7. Can BH creates Electromagnetic fields?The answer is clearly - YES!https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.04737"In this paper, we have constrained a broad class of ?hairy? BH models capable of emitting a fraction of their mass as EM radiation. Since this radiation is sourced directly from the BH, it must tunnel out of the BH?s gravitational well in the same manner as Hawking radiation."8. How the particles at the accretion disc could become electrical charged particles?If we assuming that the SMBH can't generate any EM, then all the falling particles (which have started their way as normal particles, won't be transformed/converted into electrical charged particles.Therefore, the SMBH' Electromagnetic fields is needed to transform normal particles into electrical charged particles.Quote from: Kryptid on 15/10/2023 00:26:05Quote from: Dave Lev on 14/10/2023 17:19:27I have already proved that a proton that is ejected at the speed of light from the accretion disc, would get to maximal height of 2.17 light day and stop there.No, no you have not.Yes I didQuote from: Dave Lev on 14/10/2023 17:19:27Based on your calculation/data, it was found that the gravitational potential energy of a falling from only two light days above the Quasar' SMBH is:U = - 225.7 = 8.37 10^10 joules.That energy is very close to the proton kinetic energy that is moving at the speed of light:9.087 x 10-10 joules.The formula for gravitational potential energy is:U=mghU1 = 8.37 10^10 joules.h1 = 2 light daysU2 = 9.087 x 10-10h2 = ?U2/U1 = h2/h1h2 = h1 * U2/U1 = 2 light days * 9.087 x 10-10 / 8.37 10^10 = 2.17 light daysTherefore, a falling proton from 2.17 light days at the direction of the Quasar SMBH' would gain exactly the speed of light at the SMBH without any need for extra energy.I have proved that a proton falling from 2.17 light days, would almost gain a speed of light near the quasar SMBH.Therefore, If you just fire it back (as a cannon ball) at the speed of light, then it should stop at 2.17 Light days.Conclusions:If we shut down the SMBH' electromagnetic fields we would immediately shut down the unique polarized structure of the accretion disc and the jet stream activity.Hence, if we would try to fire the particle upwards as a cann ball at the speed of light it won't work!There is a need to use some sort of rocket that could carry the charged particles upwards - against the SMBH' mighty gravity force, at almost the speed of light.The SMBH' EM fields is the only natural force that can fulfil this rocket task activity while it moves upwards at almost the speed of light in the direction of the SMBH' poles and carry with it the charged particles and against the SMBH' gravity force.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 14/10/2023 17:19:27Mystery means that there is no fit between the OBSERVATION to the current theory.If there was a fit, then there was no mystery and they would know how the quasar really works.Do you use these bizarre absolutes in your day-to-day life?Or do you realise that there's such a thing as a partial fit between the model and the observation.Similarly, do you realise that we can have a partial understanding of quasars?Because, if you do you will see that thisQuote from: Dave Lev on 14/10/2023 17:19:27As it is stated that the biggest mysteries is " How do the huge, overactive black holes, known as quasars, works" then, why it is so difficult to understand that they "have no idea" how the quasar really works.is nonsense.Of course we have ideas.Quote from: Dave Lev on 14/10/2023 17:19:27The radius of the event horizon and also the accretion disc is virtually neglected to the 2.17 light days.If we were talking about something proportional to the radius you would have a point.But we are talking about something that varies as the reciprocal of the radius.One definition of the event horizon is that it's the distance where the escape velocity is the speed of light.In relativistic physics that would mean the energy at that point is infinite.You are trying to say that we can ignore infinite energy.You could avoid the embarrassment of saying things like that by learning some science.Why don't you?
Quote from: Dave Lev on 14/10/2023 17:19:27If you still refuse to accept this real science,Ignoring infinities is not real science, is it?So why did you say that?
Quote from: Dave Lev on 14/10/2023 17:19:27However, I fully understand why they are using the word "Biggest Mystery" and not "problem".They have children at home and they must take care about their job.You do know that scientists get paid to solve problems, don't you?
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 16:54:361. Can Gravity by itself explain the jet stream?The answer is NO!!!I never said that gravity alone could do it.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 16:54:361. Can Gravity by itself explain the jet stream?The answer is NO!!!
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 16:54:363. Is there a need for strong magnetic fieldsYES!I agree.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 16:54:363. Is there a need for strong magnetic fieldsYES!
Plasma is made of electrically-charged particles. They become that way due to the extreme temperatures there.
Magnetic fields are generated by the accretion disk.
You don't even understand what you've calculated. Do you really not understand that an object travelling above a body's escape velocity doesn't stop?
Did you notice how your source says "hairy" black hole models? The modern consensus is that black holes have no hair. We would need evidence to show that they do have hair.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 16:54:36A thin accretion disc can't supply enough magnetic fields to do this kind of job.Demonstrate that your claim is true. I'll give you three tries.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 16:54:36A thin accretion disc can't supply enough magnetic fields to do this kind of job.
Empty space can't be magnetized. Take note how your source says "hot regions of space", so it is talking about the accretion disk itself being the source of the magnetic field. The accretion disk is a circulating plasma, so it will generate a magnetic field.
How do you think the particles get their extreme temperature?Do you think that if you move particles at the speed of light in the open space, then they would get a temp of 10^9c and above?Sorry, the extreme temperature is due to the SMBH' EM.Shut down the SMBH' EM and the falling particles could still move at the speed of light, but they would be cold as ice.
Hence, the accretion disc doesn't create magnetic fields but it is affected by the SMBH' EM force.
You can't hold the stick at both sides.Please take a decision.1. Your calculation is correct:If your data/calculation is correct, then a particle which falls from 2.17 light days would get to the SMBH at almost the speed of light.Therefore, by definition, if that particle would bounce back it should stop at 2.17 day light.
2. The understanding that an object travelling above a body's escape velocity won't stop at any height above the SMBH.If that is correct
If that is correct, then at any height that we drop a particle, as it gets close the event horizon/ accretion disc it must be less than the speed of light.
therefore, your data/calculation which I have used in 1. is incorrect.
Therefore, a significant kinetic energy is missing to a particle that falls from 2 or 3 light days in order to move at almost the speed of light as it get to the accretion disc.
How do we know if the BH is "hairy" or not? Can we backup our assumption by any real observation?
Can we physically get under the event horizon of a BH/SMBH to verify the "hairy" issue?
I hope that the following one is enough:https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2021/08/aa38680-20/aa38680-20.htmlWhile the magnetic field grows, the turbulence becomes more intensive because of the magnetorotational instability, and it leads to saturation of the growth.
The SMBH' EM works also in empty space.
The hot region is due to the matter in that space which is exposed to the SMBH' EM.
You might think that due to the hot regions of space we get the magnetize, while I think that due to the SMBH' EM we get the hot region in space.So how do you know for sure that your understanding is correct while my understanding is incorrect?