0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
it seems that you were invoking the magnetic field of the accretion disk itself as a way to help get those particles away from the black hole's magnetic field.
Did it occur to you that the disk might be the cause of the magnetic field?
As the accretion disc is affected by the magnetic field, it can't generate that field for itself.
Let me compare the accretion disc to the following two examples -
Don't you see that this is a pure fiction?
The idea that the accretion disc could generate magnetic field is totally wrong!!!
Therefore, it is quite clear that the accretion ring generate local magnetic field that is used for bonding between the particles in that ring.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 04/09/2020 06:34:23The idea that the accretion disc could generate magnetic field is totally wrong!!!Quote from: Dave Lev on 31/08/2020 19:49:24Therefore, it is quite clear that the accretion ring generate local magnetic field that is used for bonding between the particles in that ring.Congratulations on contradicting yourself.
That is exactly the situation with the Earth's magnetic field.
Why not compare it to something appropriate?https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/self-exciting-dynamo
What I see is that you do not understand enough science to comment on it.If you did then you wouldn't say things like "Sorry - if the accretion disc is affected by the magnetic field, than it can't be the cause for that field!!!"
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 21:03:34In this case, don't you agree that the jet stream must be fully aligned with the magnetic poles?Presumably.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 21:03:34In this case, don't you agree that the jet stream must be fully aligned with the magnetic poles?
Is that a photograph or artwork? The accretion disk is not at a 90 degree angle to the jets in that image anyway.
Arthttps://scitechdaily.com/gamma-ray-beams-suggest-milky-ways-central-black-hole-had-active-past/"This artist’s conception shows an edge-on view of the Milky Way galaxy. Newly discovered gamma-ray jets (pink) extend for 27,000 light-years above and below the galactic plane, and are tilted at an angle of 15 degrees. Previously known gamma-ray bubbles are shown in purple. The bubbles and jets suggest that our galactic center was much more active in the past than it is today. Credit: David A. Aguilar CfA ()"
You said that the position of the accretion disk at a 90 degree angle to the jets is due to magnetism, and I showed you an example of where that can happen without any magnetism involved.
So what are you saying then? That the star itself was formed from the accretion disk of the black hole?
Do larger black holes emit more radiation and have larger disks?
But what about before the accretion disk has even formed? Immediately after the black hole forms, it will not have produced an accretion disk yet. If there is no accretion disk magnetic field to help those particles get past the black hole's magnetic field, then the particles can't get out and must be forced into jets instead of forming an accretion disk.
The earth magnetic field doesn't blow its own mass away.
How can you compare it to self-exciting dynamo?
However, at some point, as the BH would be big enough, it would surely be able to set its own accretion disc.
So does the magnetic force. As a matter of fact, the force exerted by a magnetic field falls off faster than the force exerted by a gravitational field. Magnetic fields obey the inverse cube law, whereas gravity obeys the inverse square law. Doubling your distance from a magnetic field source will cause you to feel 23 = 8 times less force than before, whereas doubling your distance from a gravitational field source will cause you to feel 22 = 4 times less force than before.This means that you still have a problem. Both the magnetic field and the gravitational field will become stronger as you approach the black hole, but the magnetic field strength will increase at a faster rate than the gravitational field strength will. So if the magnetic field isn't strong enough to overwhelm the gravitational field right at the event horizon (where the particles are being formed), then it will be even less capable of overwhelming it at larger distances. This gives you two options:(1) The particles formed at the event horizon are immediately funneled into polar jets, thus preventing an accretion disk from forming (remember, the magnetic field of your hypothetical magnetized black hole is going to be at its maximum possible strength right at the event horizon), or(2) The magnetic field is weak enough even at the event horizon to allow particles to move through it without all of them being funneled into jets. If it's weak enough to allow particles out, then it is weak enough to allow particles in.
I claim that if the jet stream is tilted at an angle of 15 degrees than also the accretion disc should be tilted at the same angle of 15 degrees.
However, that local magnetic field has no impact on the activity outside the accretion disc.
SureOver time, a BH would gain enough mass to form its own stars and galaxy.
So, first - the accretion disc can't produce any sort of real magnetic field (comparing to the BH' magnetic field).
Thanks Kryptid for the excellent question.https://arxiv.org/abs/1904.09677"The most plausible theories for launching astrophysical jets rely on strong magnetic fields at the inner parts of the host accretion disks. An internal dynamo can in principle generate small scale magnetic fields in situ but generating a large scale field in a disk seems a difficult task in the dynamo theories."So, they have an idea that: "An internal dynamo can in principle generate small scale magnetic fields.Therefore, it is quite clear that the accretion ring generate local magnetic field that is used for bonding between the particles in that ring.Hence, there are two main sources of magnetic field: the SMBH and the accretion ring..The meaning of that is as follow:If we could eliminate the whole accretion disc and leave there only one particle orbiting at the same velocity as the plasma does. In this case, without the local magnetic bonding of the accretion ring, the gravity by itself would be too weak to hold that particle and it would be ejected outwards immediately.Therefore, the accretion disc holds the particles in the ring by its local magnetic field..If I understand it correctly, the total mass in the accretion ring is about three Sun mass.So, the gravity force that works at the accretion ring is not based on a particle vs SMBH but a 3 Sun mass Vs SMBH.I would compare this scenario to the 3KPC ring in the Milky Way galaxy.It is quite clear to me that if we would eliminate that 3KPC ring at leave there only one star (orbiting at the same velocity as the ring) this star would be ejected immediately outwards from the galaxy. (as there is no dark matter in our Universe)So, as long as there is a local bonding between the objects in the ring, that ring can hold and keep all the objects in the orbital cycle.Hence, in the 3KPC ring the bonding force between all the nearby stars is based on local gravity force, while the bonding force between the nearby particles in the accretion ring is local magnetic field/force.The outcome is the same.Actually, I'm quite sure that if we would try to find the requested SMBH mass that could hold a single particle in the accretion disc, we would find that it should be significant higher than the real mass of the SMBH.I wonder why our scientists don't even try to verify this important issue.With regards to the SMBH' magnetic field:In order to understand it, let's use the following example from our sun:"Sun's magnetic field is ten times stronger than thought"https://www.thehansindia.com/hans/young-hans/suns-magnetic-field-is-ten-times-stronger-than-thought-516981"The Sun's magnetic field is ten times stronger than previously believed, according to study which can potentially change our understanding of the..."So, if our scientists have made so severe mistake about the estimation of the Sun's magnetic field while we clearly can see that sun, how do we know that they don't have a sever mistake with the estimation of the SMBH magnetic field?In any case, as we focus on the solar corona, we see that the matter that had been ejected from the sun is immediately captured by the magnetic field and form the famous corona structure.In the same token, any particle that drifts away from the accretion ring is captured by the SMBH magnetic field.Therefore, in order to answer your question:The particles are drifting outwards in the accretion ring.As long as they stay there, the SMBH' magnetic field can't pull them away.However, as they get to the edge of the ring, the local magnetic bonding is quite weak. Therefore, they are easily disconnected from the ring and at that moment the SMBH' magnetic field grabs the ejected particles and boosts them at 0.8c in the direction of the poles.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 18:15:40I claim that if the jet stream is tilted at an angle of 15 degrees than also the accretion disc should be tilted at the same angle of 15 degrees.That's the claim, but where is the evidence?
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 18:15:40I claim that if the jet stream is tilted at an angle of 15 degrees than also the accretion disc should be tilted at the same angle of 15 degrees.
That ignores the inverse cube law that magnetism obeys. The magnetic field doesn't magically drop to zero just because you are outside of the accretion disk.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 18:15:40So, first - the accretion disc can't produce any sort of real magnetic field (comparing to the BH' magnetic field).Do you have the math to back that up?
I thought that I have already answered this issue:
The orbital velocity at the accretion disc is too high to hold a single particle without the accretion disc.
Therefore, they can still hold themselves at the ultra high orbital velocity of the accretion disc.So, if we eliminate the accretion disc, and leave there only a single particle orbiting at the same orbital velocity of the accretion disc, it would be ejected immediately.
If I recall it correctly, you have stated that we know something about the inner section of the accretion disc.
If the accretion disc was exactly at the same plane as the galactic disc, we surly won't be able to get any information from inside.So, In order to see something from inside, it must be tilted at the same angle of 15 degrees as the jet stream.
So, once the particle is outside that disc, it is not effected any more by the forces at the accretion disc including the local magnetic forces that works up to a very limited distances even at the accretion disc
Do we really need a math?
Don't you agree that as the mass of the Sun is much higher than the earth mass, it surly generates higher magnetic field?
As the SMBH' mass is 4,000,000 Sun mass while in the accretion disc there is just 3 sun mass, which one should generate higher magnetic field?
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 21:32:51Don't you agree that as the mass of the Sun is much higher than the earth mass, it surly generates higher magnetic field?That has absolutely nothing to do with the magnetic field strength. Magnetism is not caused by mass. We have machines on Earth that can generate magnetic fields many, many times stronger than the Earth's field, and yet they are obviously many, many times less massive than the Earth.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 21:32:51Don't you agree that as the mass of the Sun is much higher than the earth mass, it surly generates higher magnetic field?
So, why the Sun couldn't generate higher magnetic field than the Earth?
Why a BH with 10 Sun mass couldn't generate higher magnetic field than the Sun?
But why do we have current in the plasma of the accretion disc?
So, what is the source of the energy that gets into the accretion disc?You always raise the flag of energy conservation.So, how could it be that a falling star or cold gas cloud get to that ultra high temp and high current and be converted to hot plasma?
There is ONLY one solution for that.The energy that transformed the matter in the accretion disc to hot plasma Must come from outside.Magnetic field is the only valid way to transform the requested energy into the accretion disc.
I still can't understand how you even think that the accretion disc could generate any real amplitude of magnetic field?
So, why are you so sure that the accretion disc (with its 3 sun mass)
Magnetism is not caused by mass.
could generate the requested energy that can heat its matter to hot plasma at almost 10^9 K sets high current there and also create Ultra high magnetic field that could boosts 10,000 Sun mass from its disc to that molecular jet stream at 0.8c up to 27,000 LY?
Why don't you care about energy conservation when it comes to the accretion disc
On the other hand, as we already know that the core of the earth is a key element in the dynamo, why can't we assume that if the core would be bigger, then it should generate higher magnetic field?
In the same token - Why a BH with 10 Sun mass couldn't generate higher magnetic field than the Sun?Or, why SMBH couldn't generate higher magnetic field than a BH?
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 12:44:39So, what is the source of the energy that gets into the accretion disc?You always raise the flag of energy conservation.So, how could it be that a falling star or cold gas cloud get to that ultra high temp and high current and be converted to hot plasma?Gravitational potential energy is converted into heat.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 12:44:39So, what is the source of the energy that gets into the accretion disc?You always raise the flag of energy conservation.So, how could it be that a falling star or cold gas cloud get to that ultra high temp and high current and be converted to hot plasma?
Because it's a moving, electrically-conducting fluid. That generates a magnetic field. If it didn't, then the Tokamak fusion reactor wouldn't be able to use magnetic fields to hold the plasma inside. That plasma has the same ring shape as an accretion disk.
If I recall it correctly, so far we haven't find any falling in object into the milky way accretion disc.
Velocity - I hope that you agree that it is due to the radius, so it is not due to falling star.
I have already explained that in a falling matter, potential energy can't be converted to orbital kinetic energy.The direction of potential energy is always directly into the center of the main mass. Therefore, it works vertically.So, if we drop an object above high above the SMBH, that object could convert its potential energy into falling kinetic energy.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 06/09/2020 12:06:01If I recall it correctly, so far we haven't find any falling in object into the milky way accretion disc.If we ignore your impossible ideas then the only way that anything could be part of the accretion disk is that it's falling in.And, if we see that disk at all, then what we are seeing is objects that have fallen in.So to the extent that it's possible to see them; we can.
I haven't seen Australia, but I still believe it exists.
The lengths you go to in order to deny non-controversial science is amazing.
I have already explained why this is wrong.
If you insist to believe in the current impossible idea
However, in this case, any falling star should set its unique accretion disc.
How many accretion discs per SMBH do we see?
How could it be that so many stars and gas could fall in and all of them will fall directly on the same accretion disc at the galactic center
You also haven't seen the Big Foot Man, so do you still believe it exists?
and as we didn't find even one atom that falls in,
Do you really believe that the electrically conducting fluids (hot plasma) could set so strong magnetic field that is needed to boost 10000 Sun mass jet stream at a velocity of 0.8c to 27,000Ly?
How do you explain that this Jet stream is moving directly above/below the SMBH poles,
Why all the falling stars/gas fall only at the accretion disc plan?
orbital energy vectors
However, due Conservation of energy that magnetic force/field should come from some sort of energy source.
As we do not see for the last 10/20 years any falling stars,
due Conservation of energy
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:57:49You also haven't seen the Big Foot Man, so do you still believe it exists?No.But that's got nothing to do with the point.There is evidence for Australia- which is the point.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:57:49You also haven't seen the Big Foot Man, so do you still believe it exists?