0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 20:11:59How do we know if the BH is "hairy" or not? Can we backup our assumption by any real observation?Yes, general relativity. General relativity predicts that black holes are hairless. There is immense observational support for general relativity. As such, the current state of evidence points to hairless black holes.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 20:11:59How do we know if the BH is "hairy" or not? Can we backup our assumption by any real observation?
The science community has the privilege to claim any sort of statement and then change it completely without any punishment
However, they can't just hold the stick at both sides and play with science laws/understanding according to their temporary wish.
If General relativity predicts that black holes are hairless. then by definition no EM could be created by the BH.
If we find even one BH that creates EM, then the science community can't hold the understanding that black holes are hairless any more.
The current approach that the science community can claim that the black holes are hairless, but whenever they observe a contradiction, then they have the privilege to claim that the black holes are hairy - should be stopped.
Unfortunately, they have the privilege to highlight any idea as they wish and no one can tell them - "Three strikes and your idea would be locked".
Please - take a decision: The BH/SMBH is "hairy" or "hairless"?However, we should agree that once you take a decision - you can't change it any more!Based on your decision - we would continue the discussion.So please - The BH/SMBH is "hairy" or "hairless"?
Dave.Are you still ignoring infinities and pretending it is science?
Based on the current evidence, I'm going with "hairless". Do take note that if some breakthrough scientific discovery is made that demonstrates that black hole's are hairy while we are still talking, I can very much change my mind.
Based on the current evidence, I'm going with "hairless"
Let's consider two particles, as an example. If I take the kinetic energy out of one particle and put it into the other particle, then I can make the boosted particle travel faster than either of them were moving at the start without violating conservation of energy. All I've done is change the distribution of energy.In the end, I get one particle going faster at the cost of making the other one go slower. In the case of the jets of a black hole, the faster particle can now escape the gravity of the black hole and enter one of the jets while the slower particle gets consumed.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 16/10/2023 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 16/10/2023 16:54:36A thin accretion disc can't supply enough magnetic fields to do this kind of job.
In the following article it is stated:https://www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-identify-the-engine-powering-black-hole-energy-beams-20210520/"Some 3 trillion trillion trillion joules of energy flow up the jet each second 500 trillion times more energy than the entire human population burns in a decade. How could something so tiny be so powerful?"
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 16/10/2023 20:11:59The hot region is due to the matter in that space which is exposed to the SMBH' EM.Another claim, another source needed. Again, three chances to give us a reputable source that says the hot region is caused specifically by electromagnetism from the black hole itself. Three strikes and it's a thread lock.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 16/10/2023 20:11:59The hot region is due to the matter in that space which is exposed to the SMBH' EM.
Rotating black holes tells us that our math is wrong!
1. Rotating black holes tells us that our math is wrong!https://www.space.com/what-happens-black-hole-center"rotating black holes certainly exist in our universe, so that tells us that our math is wrong and something funky is going on.Hence, based on the current math, there is no room for rotating black holes.
2. Based on "scalar fields" breakthrough scientific discovery, it is very clear that the Black holes have hair, and can generate Electromagnetic fields.Please see the following article from September 06, 2023:https://www.space.com/twisty-theory-of-gravity-says-information-can-escape-black-holes"Einstein's theory of relativity say black holes are 'bald', but a new tweak to his research may give the mysterious objects their long-sought 'hair.'The two approaches, one based on curvature and the other based on twistiness, are mathematically equivalent. But because Einstein developed the curvature-based language first, it's much more widely used. The twistiness approach, known as "teleparallel" gravity for its mathematical use of parallel lines, offers a lot of room for intriguing theoretical insights that aren't obvious in the curvature approach.The team examined potential extensions of general relativity using what's called a scalar field ? a quantum object that inhabits all of space and time. A famous example of a scalar field is the Higgs boson, which is responsible for giving many particles their masses.The end result: The scalar fields added to general relativity, when explored through the teleparallel lens, gave black holes some hair.The "hair" in this case is the presence of a strong scalar field near the event horizon of a black hole."
Therefore:1. if you claim for spinning BH, then by definition this BH must have hair and should have the ability to generate electromagnetics and transform this energy outside to the accretion disc.Hence, rotating BHs must have hair and the ability to generate electromagnetics.
Sorry, you can't hold the stick at both sides.If you claim for hair-less BH - then this this BH can't transform any energy outside even if you hope that it rotates/spins.Hence, your choice for "hair-less" BH means no energy could escape from the BH and it can't contribute any energy to the particles that fall into the accretion disc.Hence, the BH might consume particles from outside, but it won't deliver back any energy.Therefore, once you have selected heir-less BH you missed the chance to ask the BH to add the missing energy to support your incorrect theory about falling partials without a need for EM energy.Therefore, you need to explain how the falling particles that clearly can't fall at the accretion disc at almost the speed of light (even if they fall from the infinity) get to the accretion disc at the speed of light without any energy support from the BH itself.
Please remember - there is no surface at the BH to bounce back the falling particles at 180% degree therefore, there is no way for them to increase the speed of each other.
Therefore, we must agree that the magnetic fields which is created (or not created) in by the accretion disc I can't contribute the missing energy for the jet stream.
https://www.snexplores.org/article/magnetic-fields-may-supercharge-suns-release-heat"Magnetic fields may supercharge the sun's release of heatThese fields appear to trigger tendrils of gas to form and superheat the sun's atmosphereThe sun's corona, or outer atmosphere, is a few hundred times as hot as the solar surface. Astronomers aren't sure why. But many suspected that spicules may play a role. These flame-like tendrils undulate across the sun's surface. What causes them had been a mystery, too ? until now. New data suggest those spicules develop as the sun's magnetic fields realign themselves."Therefore, while the estimated temp of the Sun surface is about 5,500 c, the sun's corona, is a few hundred times as hot as this solar surface.Hence, the Sun corona should be in the range of at least 550,000 c due to the magnetic fields.So, while you hope that the 5,500 c at the surface of the sun is due to fusion activity - we have now a solid proof that the coronal gets to 550,000 c is due to the mighty transformation energy power in the nature that is called magnetic or electromagnetic fieldsIn the article it is stated:https://www.snexplores.org/article/magnetic-fields-may-supercharge-suns-release-heat"The magnetic field energy is converted to kinetic and thermal energy", says study coauthor Hui TianThe images revealed a glow from charged iron atoms. These were directly over the spicules. That glow, Tian says, means the plasma reached roughly 1 million degrees Celsius.The team discovered that pockets of the local magnetic field often reversed course and pointed in the opposite direction from the prevailing field. Within minutes of this happening, thickets of spicules often emerged.Those plasma filaments lasted for just minutes.
Based on the above explanation, the SMBH' EM fields adds the missing kinetic energy to boost the particles at almost speed of light while they orbit around the SMBH. It is also increasing the plasma temp to 10^ 9 c.Those " pockets of the local magnetic field" is the source of the turbulence that we clearly observe in the accretion disc' plasma
Take note how it says the research "may" give black holes hair. So it isn't conclusive.
The team examined potential extensions of general relativity using what's called a scalar field a quantum object that inhabits all of space and time. A famous example of a scalar field is the Higgs boson, which is responsible for giving many particles their masses.The end result: The scalar fields added to general relativity, when explored through the teleparallel lens, gave black holes some hair.
Spin (angular momentum) is one of the few physical quantities that is allowed by the no-hair theorem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-hair_theorem#Changing_the_reference_frame
You're aware that the Sun isn't a black hole and does not have an accretion disk, right? If anything, this supports the notion that magnetic fields generated by plasma (which both the Sun and accretion disks are made of) can cause large amounts of heating. No magnetic fields from black holes needed.
At no point did I posit particles bouncing off of some imaginary surface around the black hole. The particles bounce off of each other. That's what happens in a dense plasma.
The particles bounce off of each other. That's what happens in a dense plasma.
No magnetic fields from black holes needed.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 20/10/2023 15:15:40Based on the above explanation, the SMBH' EM fields adds the missing kinetic energy to boost the particles at almost speed of light while they orbit around the SMBH. It is also increasing the plasma temp to 10^ 9 c.Those " pockets of the local magnetic field" is the source of the turbulence that we clearly observe in the accretion disc' plasmaNon-sequitur, as explained above.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 20/10/2023 15:15:40Based on the above explanation, the SMBH' EM fields adds the missing kinetic energy to boost the particles at almost speed of light while they orbit around the SMBH. It is also increasing the plasma temp to 10^ 9 c.Those " pockets of the local magnetic field" is the source of the turbulence that we clearly observe in the accretion disc' plasma
Anyway...Quote from: Bored chemist on 16/10/2023 22:03:03Dave.Are you still ignoring infinities and pretending it is science?
This updated mathematics is real and it shows that the BH can have hair.No "may" and no "might".
I hope that at least you agree that there is a possibility that the BH is hairy.
We all agree that the BH is spinning.The key question is - how the BH transfer that spinning energy from inside to outside (to the accretion disc)?The Magnetic fields is an excellent transformation system. We clearly know how it works and we can prove it mathematically.However, if you take hairless BH which can't generate magnetic fields, then how the spinning energy could go outside?Can you please show the math how a hairless spinning BH can transform its energy to the accretion disc without using magnetic fields?Please real math (not just words that it can)!
there should be no problem for the BH with its 10^11 solar mass to generate enough magnetic fields
Therefore, BH' magnetic fields is absolutely needed.
Instead of using the unlimited magnetic energy from the spinning SMBH
1. velocity at the accretion disc - We all agree that even if particle falls from the infinity, it can't gain a speed of light at the accretion disc.
Even if we assume that it gets there at the 0.01 the speed of light than somehow, we need to increase the velocity by 100 times and therefore, we need to increase its kinetic energy by 100^2 = 10,000 times.
The only power in the Universe that can add such high kinetic energy is - the BH' magnetic fields.
2. Why the accretion disc is located exactly at the BH' magnetic equator?
Therefore, this by itself proves by 100% that the existence of the accretion disc is due to the BH's magnetic force.
3. Kepler law - "The square of the period of any planet is proportional to the cube of the semimajor axis of its orbit." - Therefore, there is no possibility for any falling object (star or particle) to fall/move/orbit in the direction of the central body, miss it and stay there at its maximal velocity. Due to Kepler law once the object miss the central body, it should continue with its elliptical orbital shape and be ejected outwards
Therefore, the general heat loss formula for the accretion disc should be:T1 = 10^9cTspace = -273c = - 2.7 10^2
Q (accretion disc heat dispassion) =U*A*ΔT = U*A*(T1 - Tspace) = about U*A*10^11c
Dense plasma means collision and traffic jam. Due to the collision, some kinetic energy is transformed to heat.So, how can you claim for dense plasma while particles bounce off of each other which means significant kinetic energy lost and still claim for a velocity that is almost the speed of light?Sorry. you can't hold the stick at both sides.If you claim for dense plasma - then you can't claim at the same token for almost the speed of light velocity.
Sorry. you have a severe mistake.It is all about BH' magnetic fieldsI have proved that the BH' magnetic fields can overcome easily on all the obstacles.It can contribute heat energy and kinetic energy:In the article it is stated:https://www.snexplores.org/article/magnetic-fields-may-supercharge-suns-release-heat"The magnetic field energy is converted to kinetic and thermal energy".There is also one more key important understanding from the Sun coronaIt is called - Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs)https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/phenomena/coronal-mass-ejections"Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs) are large expulsions of plasma and magnetic field from the Sun?s corona. They can eject billions of tons of coronal material and carry an embedded magnetic field (frozen in flux) that is stronger than the background solar wind interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) strength. CMEs travel outward from the Sun at speeds ranging from slower than 250 kilometers per second (km/s) to as fast as near 3000 km/s."That is the ULTIMATE PROVE that due to the Sun' magnetic fields, billions of tons of coronal material could be ejected upwards against the SUN gravity and at almost 3000 km/s and It is not just a redirection of the matter.It works as a lift of "magnetic field (frozen in flux)" that grab the electrical charged particles and lift them upwards.This is identical to the Quasar jet stream that is ejected upwards by the Bh's magnetic field /lines as frozen in flux.Therefore, the Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs) is identical to the Quasar jet.Both of them are due to the main object magnetic fields.
I have proved my case.
However, as you insist to ignore its existence, then would you kindly set the math/calculation how the 3 trillion trillion trillion joules of energy is created for the jet stream without it?
Therefore, would you kindly offer real math and distinguish between the energy contribution of the spinning BH from the falling particles potential/kinetic energy.