Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Dave Lev on 05/09/2023 12:33:04
-
In the following article it is stated that:
https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/deep-space/a20351/quasar-temperature/
"the latest measurements made possible by Spektr-R show that some mysterious mechanism brings the effective temperature at the core of the quasar to a seemingly impossible range from 20 to 40 trillion degrees?at least 10 times above the theoretical ceiling. And this particular quasar may not even be the most intense."
It is also stated:
"Astronomers Can't Explain How These Trillion-Degree Quasars Got So Hot."
"To put it simply, all four explanations have problems," Kovalev says.
This article is from 2016.
Do we know by now why Quasars are So Hot?
-
The temperature was estimated from the brightness.
That's unreliable unless you have a black body radiator.
Quasars are not BB.
So, mainly, you just have bad journalism.
-
The thermostat broke!
-
Tell us what your new theory is, Dave.
-
The temperature was estimated from the brightness.
That's unreliable unless you have a black body radiator.
Quasars are not BB.
So, mainly, you just have bad journalism.
What about the following article?
https://arxiv.org/abs/1601.05806
"We present observations of the quasar 3C273, made with the space VLBI mission RadioAstron on baselines up to 171,000 km, which directly reveal the presence of angular structure as small as 26 μas (2.7 light months) and brightness temperature in excess of 10^13 K. These measurements challenge our understanding of the non-thermal continuum emission in the vicinity of supermassive black holes and require a much higher Doppler factor than what is determined from jet apparent kinematics."
Do you consider arxiv as one more bad journalism?
Why is it so difficult for you to accept the observation / facts as is?
Could it be that that as the observation / facts don't fit the theory, then you prefer to ignore / change the facts.?
Source: https://quotepark.com/quotes/1786579-albert-einstein-if-the-facts-dont-fit-the-theory-change-the-fact/
The quote "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." is famous quote attributed to Albert Einstein (1879?1955), German-born physicist and founder of the theory of relativity.
Source: https://quotepark.com/quotes/1786579-albert-einstein-if-the-facts-dont-fit-the-theory-change-the-fact/
-
Tell us what your new theory is, Dave.
Sorry
I have no authorization from you to tell my personal theory.
Therefore, I would like to understand the current theory for this observation /fact
-
I have no authorization from you to tell my personal theory.
Then why did you start a thread in the board called "New Theories"?
-
I have no authorization from you to tell my personal theory.
Then why did you start a thread in the board called "New Theories"?
Well, please set it at any category as you wish.
-
What about the following article?
brightness temperature in excess of
The temperature was estimated from the brightness.
That's unreliable unless you have a black body radiator.
Quasars are not BB.
-
Do we know by now why Quasars are So Hot?
I would say there are many things that are not known about quasars. Do you want to discuss quasars in general or specifically how hot they may be? Or is this just a starting point for you to go on some sort of anti-science rant claiming, "we don't know anything about quasars"?
-
The temperature was estimated from the brightness.
What's wrong with that?
Don't you thrust the measurements of those scientists?
Sorry, as they claim that "brightness temperature in excess of 10^13 K" then this is the observed temp.
We all must accept it as real fact!
Do you want to discuss quasars in general or specifically how hot they may be?
Only on the hot issue.
I do believe that this quasar' ultra-high temp issue is critical for our understanding.
As for the measurements taken, it seems they are unexpected, so they don't match that of any particular mathematical model. This is how science progresses.
That is perfectly OK.
However, first we must accept the facts that the quasar temp is over 10^13K.
It would help to first understand why they thought there was a theoretical limit, and exactly how they concluded that this limit was exceeded.
It would help to first realize that this fact contradicts our current theory.
Therefore, we have the following options:
1. Neglect the observation/fact and claim that: "The temperature was estimated from the brightness"
2. Hope that the current theory is still ok, although those scientists clearly claim that the current theories don't work.
3. Looking for better theory for that ultra-high temp.
What would you prefer?
-
Therefore, I would like to understand the current theory for this observation /fact
You say that, but I very strongly suspect (based on your past behavior) that your goal here isn't really to learn. Rather, it is more likely that you are looking to find fault in modern science.
The quote "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." is famous quote attributed to Albert Einstein (1879?1955), German-born physicist and founder of the theory of relativity.
Did you actually read your own link?
The earliest published attribution of this quote to Einstein found on Google Books is the 1991 book The Art of Computer Systems Performance Analysis by Raj Jain (p. 507), but no source to Einstein's original writings is given and the quote itself is older
-
Rather, it is more likely that you are looking to find fault in modern science.
Well, don't you agree that based on the observed quasar temp there is a fault in the current theory for that specific issue?
-
Well, don't you agree that based on the observed quasar temp there is a fault in the current theory for that specific issue?
If, (1) the temperatures are accurately recorded, and (2) modern theories truly cannot account for them, then yes, we need a new theory. I'm researching this matter right this moment.
-
I noticed all the trillion degree numbers come from articles written in 2016, none later than 2017. Current articles discuss the largest quasars with temperatures in the range of 350 million degrees.
-
Rather, it is more likely that you are looking to find fault in modern science.
To be fair, that's what scientists should do.
The problem is that the OP does not understand science.
-
However, first we must accept the facts that the quasar temp is over 10^13K.
Don't be silly, one paper making a proposal does not mean the proposal is a fact.
It has been 7 years since that paper was written and it doesn't seem to have gotten much traction.
-
To be fair, that's what scientists should do.
True. In Dave's case, however, it's not a question asked in good faith. He has ulterior motives based on the fact that... well...
OP does not understand science.
But we already knew that.
Don't be silly, one paper making a proposal does not mean the proposal is a fact.
It has been 7 years since that paper was written and it doesn't seem to have gotten much traction.
That's raised my eyebrows as well. I also came across this quote: https://www.livescience.com/space/what-is-the-hottest-place-in-the-universe
So far, the hottest place in the universe on record is the quasar 3C273, a brightly-shining region around a supermassive black hole roughly 2.4 billion light-years from Earth, Palumbo said. This region has a core temperature of about 10 trillion kelvin (more than 10 trillion degrees Fahrenheit and Celsius), according to the Greenbank Observatory in West Virginia. However, there is still uncertainty surrounding this temperature estimation, Palumbo added.
So it seems there are questions as to the accuracy of the measurement.
-
Rather, it is more likely that you are looking to find fault in modern science.
To be fair, that's what scientists should do.
Thanks
The problem is that the OP does not understand science.
Why?
Is it because I don't accept the dark matter imagination or is it because I claim that EM is the ultimate force of the Universe?
So far, the hottest place in the universe on record is the quasar 3C273, a brightly-shining region around a supermassive black hole roughly 2.4 billion light-years from Earth, Palumbo said. This region has a core temperature of about 10 trillion kelvin (more than 10 trillion degrees Fahrenheit and Celsius), according to the Greenbank Observatory in West Virginia. However, there is still uncertainty surrounding this temperature estimation, Palumbo added.
So it seems there are questions as to the accuracy of the measurement.
Do you agree that there is a possibility that the accuracy of the measurements is perfectly OK?
Unfortunately, currently our scientists can't explain that quasar' ultra-high temperature.
Therefore, instead of looking for better theory for this observation, they push this fact under the table by claiming that it seems that there are questions as to the accuracy of the measurement.
Is this the correct science' approach to the fact that contradicts their theory?
Why they can't assume that what they see is what we have?
Why they don't even think that there is a possibility that the observation is correct and they have an obligation to explain it?
-
Before we get to "Why Quasars are So Hot?"
We need to check
"are Quasars So Hot?"Why?
I have no idea why you persistently fail to understand science.
Do you?
But the evidence shows that this claim
I claim that EM is the ultimate force of the Universe?
is wrong.
Gravity beats the EM force.
That's why light doesn't get out of black holes.
That's obvious, but you refuse to accept it.
-
Do you agree that there is a possibility that the accuracy of the measurements is perfectly OK?
That is a stupidly worded question. I could just as easily say there is a 'possibility' that you are a mutant chimp who stole a computer and decided to annoy this forum. I would say even though it is possible that it is unlikely.
I would say it is unlikely that that the paper was correct on the super high temperatures. Since it has been 7 years since the paper was written and astrophysicist have found no further evidence to support that paper, I would say it is very unlikely that the paper in question is correct.
Unfortunately, currently our scientists can't explain that quasar' ultra-high temperature.
I assume by ultra-high you mean the temperature in the trillions of degrees.
How or why would you try to explain something that is wrong?
Therefore, instead of looking for better theory for this observation, they push this fact under the table by claiming that it seems that there are questions as to the accuracy of the measurement. Is this the correct science' approach to the fact that contradicts their theory?
Gee, what a shock this is turning into some sort of anti-science conspiracy theory. You start out asking is it possible? Now all the sudden it's a fact that all the scientists are hiding.
Do you realize how absurd you sound?
Why they can't assume that what they see is what we have?
Luckily that is not how science works. A scientific paper is never assumed to be correct, that would be a hideous idea. Follow up studies are always done when a new idea or observation is made. If the data supports the idea it begins to be accepted, if the support is not there then the paper just fades away, like in this case.
Why they don't even think that there is a possibility that the observation is correct and they have an obligation to explain it?
There is no logical reason to try and explain something that is wrong. The current observations (which are more accurate after 7 years of technology advancement) indicate temperatures of the brightest quasars are in the range 350 million degrees, which is an incredibly high temperature anyway.
-
Why they don't even think that there is a possibility that the observation is correct and they have an obligation to explain it?
It's certainly possible that the observation is correct, yes. However, when a group of scientists claims to have discovered something extraordinary, the normal plan of action is for other groups to try to replicate the observations in order to confirm them. I'm not currently aware of any successful attempts by other groups to confirm these extreme temperatures. I'm not saying that it hasn't happened, but it seems like we would have heard something more about it if it had been. A single news story from 2016 without follow up suggests to me that the observations were not confirmed.
If it did turn out that the quasar really is this hot, then it is better to start off tweaking our existing theories than throwing them completely out and starting over with something new. Take it one step at a time.
-
It's certainly possible that the observation is correct, yes.
Thanks
However, when a group of scientists claims to have discovered something extraordinary, the normal plan of action is for other groups to try to replicate the observations in order to confirm them. I'm not currently aware of any successful attempts by other groups to confirm these extreme temperatures. I'm not saying that it hasn't happened, but it seems like we would have heard something more about it if it had been.
Let's try to understand what this international team did in order to obtain these new results from the quasar:
https://earthsky.org/space/the-extremely-hot-heart-of-quasar-3c273/
"To obtain these new results, the international team used the space mission RadioAstron ? an Earth-orbiting satellite, launched in 2011 ? which employs a 10-meter radio telescope aboard a Russian satellite. RadioAstron is what astronomers call an Earth-to-space interferometer. In other words, multiple radio telescopes on Earth are linked to RadioAstron to obtain results not possible from any single instrument. In this case, the Earth-based telescopes included the 100-meter Effelsberg Telescope, the 110-meter Green Bank Telescope, the 300-meter Arecibo Observatory, and the Very Large Array. These astronomers? statement said: Operating together, these observatories provide the highest direct resolution ever achieved in astronomy, thousands of times finer than the Hubble Space Telescope."
So it was a very massive operation at the highest resolution achieved in astronomy, thousands of times finer than the Hubble Space Telescope.
Why this highest resolution measurement isn't good enough?
A single news story from 2016 without follow up suggests to me that the observations were not confirmed.
Could it be that from 2016 the science couldn't get better resolutions and therefore, there was no need to measure it again?
Hence, that measurement by the international team is fully correct.
If it did turn out that the quasar really is this hot, then it is better to start off tweaking our existing theories than throwing them completely out and starting over with something new. Take it one step at a time.
As you might know, I'm electronic Eng.
I have designed several hundred (or even more) projects in my life.
There was a simple "law" for success
If the project didn't meet the expectations - then it is needed to started it from ZERO!
This is not just my personal approach.
This is the approach of any designer that is willing for success.
Therefore, the electronics engineers have achieved significant breakthrough in the last 70 years, while the astronomy scientists due to the request for one step at a time, stuck with the same wrong theory for the last 70 years.
For almost 15 years I learn step by step (with your help) all the facts of the universe.
I have clearly distinguished between real science laws to hypothetical ideas that some of them are called "theory".
Therefore, I have solved the universe enigma.
However, this isn't the subject of the discussion.
I also don't think that the science community would change their approach even if they know for sure that there is a problem in their theory.
Therefore, let's refocus on the quasar.
I hope that by now you agree that there might be a problem in the current theory.
-
For almost 15 years I learn step by step (with your help) all the facts of the universe.
Is that what you think has been happening?
I have clearly distinguished between real science laws to hypothetical ideas that some of them are called "theory".
Therefore, I have solved the universe enigma
What?! Is that seriously how you view yourself?
Therefore, let's refocus on the quasar.
I hope that by now you agree that there might be a problem in the current theory.
I doubt anyone thinks that. I guess you do or more likely you pretend to think there is a problem just to argue.
-
Electronic eng?? I think you mean anti-science keyboard warrior.
-
If the project didn't meet the expectations - then it is needed to started it from ZERO!
That might be how you do things on your job, but that's not how science works. We didn't throw out all of Newton's ideas just because his theory of gravity couldn't explain the anomalous orbital precession of Mercury. We added onto it with general relativity. That fixed the problem.
I also don't think that the science community would change their approach even if they know for sure that there is a problem in their theory.
They would. That's why the science of today isn't the same as it was during Newton's time. We've significantly updated our theories since then.
I hope that by now you agree that there might be a problem in the current theory.
"Might" being the operative word.
Why this highest resolution measurement isn't good enough?
Even big science teams make mistakes. The faster-than-light neutrino measurement comes to mind.
As you might know, I'm electronic Eng.
There is something I've been meaning to ask you in relation to that. What is your education? Do you have a degree? If so, in what subject?
-
What is your education? Do you have a degree? If so, in what subject?
I have electronic engineering diploma from Tel- Aviv university and master in business management.
For several years I worked as Application Eng. at leading companies as Intel and AMD (not at the same time..)
I have got rewards from intel for my activity
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 18:31:54
If the project didn't meet the expectations - then it is needed to started it from ZERO!
That might be how you do things on your job, but that's not how science works. We didn't throw out all of Newton's ideas just because his theory of gravity couldn't explain the anomalous orbital precession of Mercury. We added onto it with general relativity. That fixed the problem.
Thanks for this excellent example
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0960077907001294
"The problem of the anomalous precession of Mercury?s perihelion appeared in 1859 when the French astronomer Le Verrier observed that the perihelion of the planet Mercury precesses at a slightly faster rate than the one that can be accounted by Newtonian mechanics with the distribution of masses of the solar system well known until then. This discovery began different lines of investigation to explain the new phenomenon. "
So, they have observed the problem of the anomalous.
They didn't ignore it.
They didn't claim that there is an error in the observation.
They really tried to find a solution.
That by itself shows that the science community at that time didn't escape from problem in the observation!
They see the problem and they tried to solve it.
So, what they did:
"This discovery began different lines of investigation to explain the new phenomenon"
Different lines means that they really try to find a solution even if they need to start from zero.
Anyone could offer new ideas.
So, Einstein was there:
"Einstein [10], [11] found that the extra precession unavoidably arises from the fundamental principles of General Relativity. "
I'm not sure if at that time Einstein was so famous as he is today.
The science community at that time, verified the new ideas and confirmed them.
This shows that they were willing to accept the observation and look for a solution.
However today the approach of the science community is totally different.
They observe the quasar hot problem.
They could "begin different lines of investigation to explain the new phenomenon" but they didn't.
Instead, they push this observation under the table and forget the problem.
How can we accept this current science community approach?
Why they keep the observation under the table?
Why they don't try to find a solution?
why they block themselves from new ideas?
Why they didn't begin different lines of investigation to explain the new phenomenon?
Are they afraid to find that there is a problem in their current theories??
Could it be that they know that the solution could kill some of their current wrong "theories"?That's why the science of today isn't the same as it was during Newton's time. We've significantly updated our theories since then.
The science today is stucked at the same spot for the last 70 years.
The Big Bang idea was really great idea when it came out.
At that time, we though that our universe is relatively small and compact
But now we do understand that the universe is infinite.
So, instead of "begin different lines of investigation to explain the new infinite universe phenomenon", we close the discussion by claiming that the big bang took place at the same moment at the infinite early universe.
Is it real?
Why the science community insist to stay at the same spot for the last 70 years while new information is coming constantly and they have no real solution.
Let's take the dark matter as an example:
At the best day this dark matter idea which we have never observed could explain the orbital velocity of stars in the spiral disc. - That's all!!!
It can't explain why the spiral structure looks so stable (remember - 70% of the observable galaxies are spirals)
It can't explain the symmetrical shape of the Bar.
It can't explain why the star density around us is exactly 64 G stars per 50LY.
It can't explain why the spiral arm thickness at the base is 3,000Ly and at the edge it is only 400 Ly.
So, they see many problems in the spiral galaxy but they are happy with the unproved idea that can solve only one problem.
I do not raise this example of the spiral galaxy to open new discussion about it.
For me, that discussion is closed.
I just want to show you that the current science community isn't so open for new ideas as they were 100 years ago.
At this phase I only want to focus on the quasar temp.
Therefore, I have just one question:
Do we have to accept the observation that made in 2016 or not?
-
OK, on one side we have someone redoing the maths on thousands of observations of the position of Mercury, taken by dozens of people distributed across the world and across many years. The data was gained using telescopes - a technology we had been using for centuries.
.
And on the other hand we have a new and relatively untested bit of equipment which is measuring something related to- but not actually- temperature and coming up with an implausibly high result.
Did you think those were really the same scenario?
Or do you realise that only one of them is going to rewrite the textbooks.
The other is going to get tested, repeated and considered.
And there's a serious motivation for people to do that.
If it's true then it will make them rich + famous.
But if, as we might expect, 5 years later they haven't found any confirmation of it, they say "it might have been a mistake".
What you seem to be saying is that when they launched Hubble + got blurred images, they should have considered the idea that the real universe only contained fuzzy blobs.
-
The science today is stucked at the same spot for the last 70 years.
You do realize that saying stupid untrue things just makes you look dishonest, right?
.
-
Therefore, I have just one question:
Do we have to accept the observation that made in 2016 or not?
Yes we accept that an observation was made.
But we don't really know what it means.
-
The science today is stucked at the same spot for the last 70 years.
Are you using a 1950s computer to post your messages, or are you obviously laughably wrong?
-
Let's take the dark matter as an example:
At the best day this dark matter idea which we have never observed could explain the orbital velocity of stars in the spiral disc. - That's all!!!
It can't explain why the spiral structure looks so stable (remember - 70% of the observable galaxies are spirals)
It can't explain the symmetrical shape of the Bar.
It can't explain why the star density around us is exactly 64 G stars per 50LY.
It can't explain why the spiral arm thickness at the base is 3,000Ly and at the edge it is only 400 Ly.
So, they see many problems in the spiral galaxy but they are happy with the unproved idea that can solve only one problem.
At what point do disruptive anti-science trolls get banned. If every once in a while he would listen to input and learn something he would be tolerable, but he just keeps saying the same wrong crap over and over.
-
Therefore, I have just one question:
Do we have to accept the observation that made in 2016 or not?
Yes we accept that an observation was made.
But we don't really know what it means.
Thanks for accepting the observation.
It means that a very strong power heats up the quasar to its ultra -high temp.
If you wish, I can tell you what it is.
-
It means that a very strong power heats up the quasar to its ultra -high temp.
There is no reason to suppose that it means that.
-
If you wish, I can tell you what it is.
Boy that is a tempting way to get you banned, you know for strike 3 and all that. But I would lean towards please no, don't tell us what you think.
-
They could "begin different lines of investigation to explain the new phenomenon" but they didn't.
How do you know?
Instead, they push this observation under the table and forget the problem.
Says who?
Are they afraid to find that there is a problem in their current theories??
No.
I just want to show you that the current science community isn't so open for new ideas as they were 100 years ago.
They are, actually. You just have such profound misunderstandings of science that you think they have made mistakes that they really haven't made.
Do we have to accept the observation that made in 2016 or not?
We can accept that an observation was made. We have not yet accepted that it was accurate.
Thanks for accepting the observation.
It means that a very strong power heats up the quasar to its ultra -high temp.
We don't know that and won't know until we get confirmation that the observation is accurate.
If you wish, I can tell you what it is.
You had better not say anything that has to do with threads of yours that have been locked.
-
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:46:25
Do we have to accept the observation that made in 2016 or not?
We can accept that an observation was made. We have not yet accepted that it was accurate.
Sorry, if you accept the observation then you must find a solution for that observation!
If there is an issue with the accuracy - then lets understand the accuracy.
In the article it is stated that the measured temp is 10^13K.
This observation was based on the most "highest direct resolution ever achieved in astronomy":
These astronomers' statement said: Operating together, these observatories provide the highest direct resolution ever achieved in astronomy, thousands of times finer than the Hubble Space Telescope."
So, why do you insist that there is a problem with the accuracy?
If there is an issue with the accuracy, then what is it? Why they can't tell us about the margin of the measurements.
Is it +/- of 1% or 100%
Please remember that the error works in both directions.
Therefore, if they would claim that the error margin is +/- 10^3K, then technically the temp could be 10^10 but also 10^16.
They can't just push the idea of the accuracy/error in the direction that meets their current theories.
Hence, it is expected that the science community would tell us what is the margin of that measurements and offer solutions for the minimal temp (but also to the maximal temp).
Let's assume that the minimal temp is just 10^10K instead of the measured 10^13K.
Then why at least they don't try to offer a solution for that minimal temp?
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:46:25
Are they afraid to find that there is a problem in their current theories??
No.
Yes, they are afraid.
If they were not afraid, then it is expected from them to offer real solution for that observation as the science did in 1859.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:46:25
I just want to show you that the current science community isn't so open for new ideas as they were 100 years ago.
They are, actually. You just have such profound misunderstandings of science that you think they have made mistakes that they really haven't made.
With your permission, let me use the dark matter idea.
Do you really think that the dark matter should be considered as real science?
If it is there, then why we can't find it?
How anyone that believe in real science can accept such imagination?
in 1859 the science community could also claim that the problem of the anomalous precession of Mercury's perihelion is due to some kind of dark matter close to the sun that they just can't see - and close the discussion.
But they didn't.
They knew that there must be real answer based on real matter and not any kind of dark matter.
They were willing to find a solution and they open their mind to the ideas from any person including the one that is called - Einstein.
Please remember - what we see is what we have.
Therefore, it is very clear that as long as we can't find the dark matter, then we can't base any theory on that imagination.
You had better not say anything that has to do with threads of yours that have been locked.
Ok
At least we should be happy that in 1859 the science community didn't lock the ideas from this unknown person that is called Einstein.
If one day the science community would have the ability to go back to zero point, clear the table from all the imaginations, verify all the current observations based ONLY on real science laws - they would find the real answer for our universe!
I would advise them to start with this quasar.
If they would accept the 10^13K measurements and find how it really works - they would understand the base for our universe.
-
Sorry, if you accept the observation then you must find a solution for that observation!
Accepting that an observation was made is not the same as accepting that the observation was reliable.
So, why do you insist that there is a problem with the accuracy?
When I said accuracy, the word I should have used was reliability. The most precise experiment in the world can be unreliable if a mistake was made. That's why peer review and experimental replication efforts are so important in science. They help ensure the reliability of measurements by reducing the likelihood of mistakes and interference.
Yes, they are afraid.
If they were not afraid, then it is expected from them to offer real solution for that observation as the science did in 1859.
Who said they haven't looked for one?
With your permission, let me use the dark matter idea.
Do you really think that the dark matter should be considered as real science?
If it is there, then why we can't find it?
How anyone that believe in real science can accept such imagination?
in 1859 the science community could also claim that the problem of the anomalous precession of Mercury's perihelion is due to some kind of dark matter close to the sun that they just can't see - and close the discussion.
But they didn't.
They knew that there must be real answer based on real matter and not any kind of dark matter.
They were willing to find a solution and they open their mind to the ideas from any person including the one that is called - Einstein.
Please remember - what we see is what we have.
Therefore, it is very clear that as long as we can't find the dark matter, then we can't base any theory on that imagination.
Let's not get into a discussion about dark matter. Your rantings about it have been in locked threads.
Ok
At least we should be happy that in 1859 the science community didn't lock the ideas from this unknown person that is called Einstein.
Please don't compare yourself to Einstein. He understood science and had evidence.
If one day the science community would have the ability to go back to zero point, clear the table from all the imaginations, verify all the current observations based ONLY on real science laws - they would find the real answer for our universe!
I would advise them to start with this quasar.
If they would accept the 10^13K measurements and find how it really works - they would understand the base for our universe.
Science doesn't (and shouldn't) work that way. You don't throw away all of your models because of a single point of data you might not be able to explain. It wouldn't make any sense to do that.
-
Sorry, if you accept the observation then you must find a solution for that observation!
Nope.
This observation was based on the most "highest direct resolution ever achieved in astronomy":
That's a measure of how small the quasar is, not of its temperature.
Did you understand that?
Maybe we should start at the beginning.
They built a group of radio telescopes and put them in orbit.
By combining the signals from them they can make it act as if it's a single really big telescope.
And a big telescope "mirror" lets you resolve much smaller things- like a man on the moon, rather than a crater on the moon or even (in principle) a penny on the moon.
They pointed it at the quasar and found that the quasar is even smaller than this telescope can measure (at that huge distance).
They can also measure how "bright" the radio waves from the quasar are.
And, from the fact that it's small, and very bright they can estimate the surface brightness.
And from that they can estimate the temperature.
(we now have three estimates piled on top of each other).
To do that, they assume that the quasar is a blackbody radiator.
But one of the few things we know about quasars is that they are not BBR. They act like lighthouses sending rotating "beams" into space; Black body radiators do not do that.
So all that the observation has done is confirm what we already knew- quasars are weird.
Why are you suggesting we need to stop what we are doing and focus on quasars not being black body radiators- which we already knew?
Is it because you simply did not understand what the story meant?
Why didn't you realise you should leave that sort of decision to people who did know what it meant?
Why did you think your viewpoint was somehow important?
-
That's a measure of how small the quasar is, not of its temperature.
Did you understand that?
Maybe we should start at the beginning.
They built a group of radio telescopes and put them in orbit.
By combining the signals from them they can make it act as if it's a single really big telescope.
And a big telescope "mirror" lets you resolve much smaller things- like a man on the moon, rather than a crater on the moon or even (in principle) a penny on the moon.
They pointed it at the quasar and found that the quasar is even smaller than this telescope can measure (at that huge distance).
They can also measure how "bright" the radio waves from the quasar are.
And, from the fact that it's small, and very bright they can estimate the surface brightness.
And from that they can estimate the temperature.
(we now have three estimates piled on top of each other).
Sorry, I was not responsible for that specific temp measurements project.
Not now, maybe in the future.
In the following article it is stated:
https://newsroom.usra.edu/arecibo-observatory-radio-data-crucial-to-understanding-why-quasars-are-so-bright/
" The smaller the angular diameter of the object producing the radio signals, the higher its source temperature must be to produce the observed signal. The 3C 273 data reveal that its brightness temperature must be about 4 x 10^13 K, that is, a 4 followed by 13 zeroes, or 40 trillion degrees."
Please also read the following explanation:
https://www.livescience.com/space/what-is-the-hottest-place-in-the-universe
"We let the light from ? very distant objects come to our telescopes," Richard Kelley, a senior scientist of solar studies at NASA, told Live Science. "That light goes down and goes into a sensor that can measure the energy or the wavelength of the radiation, we build up a spectrum, and then by analyzing the spectrum we can infer temperature."
Do you think that your explanation was not fully clear to those scientists that measured the temp of this quasar?
To do that, they assume that the quasar is a blackbody radiator.
Are you sure that they don't know if the quasar should be or not be a blackbody radiator.
When I said accuracy, the word I should have used was reliability. The most precise experiment in the world can be unreliable if a mistake was made. That's why peer review and experimental replication efforts are so important in science. They help ensure the reliability of measurements by reducing the likelihood of mistakes and interference.
Please be aware that it is stated that they may find areas that are even hotter than quasar 3C273:
"A future X-ray observatory called the X-ray Imaging and Spectroscopy Mission (XRISM) will help scientists more accurately measure high-temperature gases in space, Kelley said. As more advanced tools continue to be developed, scientists may find areas that are even hotter than quasar 3C273."
So, if we discuss about accuracy or reliability it might be lower temp but also higher temp.
Therefore, as it is stated very clearly that the measured temp is 10^13K and they even expect that scientists may find areas that are even hotter than quasar 3C273 why can't we just start with this measured 10^13k and try to explain it?
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:46:25
Are they afraid to find that there is a problem in their current theories??
No.
As we don't afraid, why do we insist to reject this observation?
What could happen if we would try to understand how the quasar got its 10^13K?
Science doesn't (and shouldn't) work that way. You don't throw away all of your models because of a single point of data you might not be able to explain. It wouldn't make any sense to do that.
Well, in electronics if your model stuck at a single point, and you can't find a bypass, then you have to start your model from zero.
-
Well, in electronics if your model stuck at a single point, and you can't find a bypass, then you have to start your model from zero.
(1) We are talking about the methodology of science, not designing electronics,
(2) We don't know if the quasar really is that hot or not, and
(3) Even if it is that hot, we may be able to find a bypass with some tweaks to the model. Only time will tell.
As we don't afraid, why do we insist to reject this observation?
We aren't. We just aren't certain of it yet. In science, when you get extraordinary results, you need to confirm them. That's why people weren't automatically accepting the claim that LK99 was a room temperature superconductor. They went and tried to replicate the findings. That's how science is supposed to work.
Please be aware that it is stated that they may find areas that are even hotter than quasar 3C273:
So, if we discuss about accuracy or reliability it might be lower temp but also higher temp.
I underlined the important words in those sentences.
It also appears that the matter can be better investigated in the near future: https://www.world-today-news.com/the-hottest-place-in-the-universe-quasar-3c273-and-its-extreme-temperature/
In the future, scientists will have a future X-ray observatory. This is called the X-ray Imaging and Spectroscopy Mission (XRISM).
Both will help scientists measure high-temperature gases in space more accurately. When this tool is developed, the exact temperature of quasar 3C273 will probably be known.
?I think it?s fair to say that right now, the tools we have for understanding the temperature of the material around supermassive black holes are limited but will also be expanding rapidly,? Palumbo concluded.
Since XRISM launched literally a few days ago, it seems that we will just have to watch and wait to see if the initial high temperature measurements are confirmed or not.
-
its brightness temperature
Not a real temperature.
-
(1) We are talking about the methodology of science, not designing electronics,
(2) We don't know if the quasar really is that hot or not, and
(3) Even if it is that hot, we may be able to find a bypass with some tweaks to the model. Only time will tell.
...
Since XRISM launched literally a few days ago, it seems that we will just have to watch and wait to see if the initial high temperature measurements are confirmed or not.
Thanks for the support.
Your message is clear.
In science, when you get extraordinary results, you need to confirm them. That's why people weren't automatically accepting the claim that LK99 was a room temperature superconductor. They went and tried to replicate the findings. That's how science is supposed to work.
What do we really see?
I have just found an update article about that specific quasar dated November 22, 2022
https://news.mit.edu/2022/international-team-observes-innermost-structure-quasar-jet-1122
"Three views of the 3C 273 jet from the deepest to farthest ends. At left is the deepest look yet into the plasma jet of the quasar. The jet extends hundreds of thousands of light-years beyond the host galaxy.
Active supermassive black holes emit narrow, incredibly powerful jets of plasma that escape at nearly the speed of light.
This narrowing part of the jet continues incredibly far, well beyond the area where the black hole's gravity rules."
Let's summarize:
1. Based on 2016 observation - The temp of the quasar is 10^13K. However, we need further investigation to confirm that observation.
2. Based on 2022 observation - incredibly powerful jets of plasma escapes at nearly the speed of light and extends hundreds of thousands of light-years beyond the host galaxy.
I hope that at least we all accept this updated observation from 2022.
What kind of energy can set that incredibly powerful jets of plasma (that might be very hot)?
Can we agree that it is not gravity?
-
2. Based on 2022 observation - incredibly powerful jets of plasma escapes at nearly the speed of light and extends hundreds of thousands of light-years beyond the host galaxy.
I hope that at least we all accept this updated observation from 2022.
Yes, we've known that for quite a while.
What kind of energy can set that incredibly powerful jets of plasma (that might be very hot)?
Can we agree that it is not gravity?
No. It is probably due to the gravity and the magnetic field of the black hole.
-
We are well aware that quasars have powerful beams and that they are very hot.
-
1. Based on 2016 observation - The temp of the quasar is 10^13K.
No
Based on 2016 observation - The brightness temperature of the quasar is 10^13K
Do you know that an LED lamp with a colour temperature of 5000K is not actually at 5000K?
Well why on earth do you think that a quasar with a brightness temperature of 10^13K must be at 10^13K?
-
1. Based on 2016 observation - The temp of the quasar is 10^13K.
No
Based on 2016 observation - The brightness temperature of the quasar is 10^13K
Do you know that an LED lamp with a colour temperature of 5000K is not actually at 5000K?
Well why on earth do you think that a quasar with a brightness temperature of 10^13K must be at 10^13K?
Is it?
In the following article it is stated that:
https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/deep-space/a20351/quasar-temperature/
"the latest measurements made possible by Spektr-R show that some mysterious mechanism brings the effective temperature at the core of the quasar to a seemingly impossible range from 20 to 40 trillion degrees?at least 10 times above the theoretical ceiling. And this particular quasar may not even be the most intense."
What is the meaning of effective temperature?
Is it the brightness temperature or the actually temperature?
Do you confirm that 20 trillion degrees means 2 * 10^13K?
In any case, I fully accept the message from Kryptid that further verification must be done in order to finely confirm that effective temperature.
We are well aware that quasars have powerful beams and that they are very hot.
If we are well aware, why it has been a long-standing mystery?
https://www.nao.ac.jp/en/news/science/2022/20221122-mizusawa.html
"Quasars emit narrow, collimated jets of material at nearly the speed of light. But how and where quasar jets are collimated has been a long-standing mystery."
Why they need clue for unravelling the inner workings of jets?
"The results show that the structure of the jet is similar to jets launched from nearby galaxies with a low luminosity active nucleus. This would indicate that the collimation of the jet is independent of the activity level in the host galaxy, providing an important clue to unravelling the inner workings of jets."
So, do you confirm that they just don't know how it really works?
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 20:26:59
What kind of energy can set that incredibly powerful jets of plasma (that might be very hot)?
Can we agree that it is not gravity?
No. It is probably due to the gravity and the magnetic field of the black hole.
Why do you insist on gravity while the jet continues well beyond the area where the black hole's gravity dominates?
"The team found that the jet flowing from the quasar narrows down over a very long distance. This narrowing part of the jet continues incredibly far, well beyond the area where the black hole's gravity dominates. "
What do you mean by:
and the magnetic field of the black hole.
Do you think that the quasar generates its own magnetic fields?
Any Idea how that quasar' magnetic fields is created?
Could it be that your message about the quasar' magnetic field would help to solve the long-standing mystery and for unravelling the inner workings of jets?
-
What is the meaning of effective temperature?
Is it the brightness temperature or the actually temperature?
The scientists did not send their paper to Popular mechanics for publication.
Pop Sci does not have access to any information apart from what they read in the scientific paper and it only talks about a brightness temperature- because that's the only thing they measured.
So the "temperature" cited in PopSci must be the brightness temperature.
Why did you not realise that?
-
If we are well aware, why it has been a long-standing mystery?
Because knowing that something happens is not the same as knowing why it happens.
That's not an issue of science; it's a problem with your reading comprehension.
-
Is it?
You need to add some sort of context to that .
As it stands, it is meaningless.
-
@OP
Why go far off till Quasars...
Have you Not thought about the
' Temp Differences ' in the Core vs Outer areas of our Closest Star.
We already have those Measurements,
So Any Thoughts?
-
Why do you insist on gravity while the jet continues well beyond the area where the black hole's gravity dominates?
Because jets are associated with a massive object and in general the largest jets come from most massive objects.
Do you think that the quasar generates its own magnetic fields?
Any Idea how that quasar' magnetic fields is created?
Could it be that your message about the quasar' magnetic field would help to solve the long-standing mystery and for unravelling the inner workings of jets?
The magnetic field comes from the blackhole and the associate accretion disk.
-
If we are well aware, why it has been a long-standing mystery?
Because knowing that something happens is not the same as knowing why it happens.
Do you confirm that the science community clearly know the full activity of the quasar, but unfortunately they just don't know why it happens?
If so, why those scientists are not seeking for help as the science did in 1859?
Why do you insist on gravity while the jet continues well beyond the area where the black hole's gravity dominates?
Because jets are associated with a massive object and in general the largest jets come from most massive objects.
Why the jet is always ejected in the direction of the quasar' poles?
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Estructura-de-un-AGN-Fuente-CM-Urry-and-P-Padovani_fig52_305228473
Do you agree that gravity by itself should work equally in any direction?
So, why it is always in the direction of the quasar magnetic poles and up to several hundred thousand of LY away?
Why we can't agree that the main force that can direct this narrow jet symmetrically into the quasar poles at almost the speed of light (and also well beyond the area where the black hole's gravity dominates) is magnetic force (and only magnetic force)?
Do you think that the quasar generates its own magnetic fields?
Any Idea how quasar' magnetic fields is created?
The magnetic field comes from the blackhole and the associate accretion disk.
Do you agree that the mass of the Quasar/SMBH is millions or even trillions times bigger than the total mass in the accretion disc?
As you claim that the magnetic field comes from the blackhole and the associate accretion disk, then which one should generate much more effective Magnetic fields?
Is the SMBH itself or is it the associate accretion disk?
-
We have entered supermassive black hole and magnetic field territory. I fear that we may stray dangerously close to locked thread material...
-
We have entered supermassive black hole and magnetic field territory. I fear that we may stray dangerously close to locked thread material...
Did I say something that contradicts any science law?
You have stated that the science is not afraid to find that there is a problem in the current theories
Quote from: Dave Lev on 07/09/2023 17:46:25
Are they afraid to find that there is a problem in their current theories??
No.
So, why do you insist to stop the discussion on real science while I didn't say anything that contradicts the science law?
-
Did I say something that contradicts any science law?
Not yet, but I'm concerned that you will. I shall watch and wait.
-
Do you confirm that the science community clearly know the full activity of the quasar,
Obviously not; they are still doing experiments.
Why do you keep asking questions like that?
If so, why those scientists are not seeking for help
They do.
How do you think their work gets funded.
Again, why do you keep asking questions that have obvious answers?
-
So, why do you insist to stop the discussion on real science
You are not in a position to discuss real science.
You don't understand it.
You proved that here
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=86504.msg712511#msg712511
-
Did I say something that contradicts any science law?
Not yet, but I'm concerned that you will. I shall watch and wait.
Please don't be concerned.
I really do not want to waste my time or your time.
After significant investment in astronomy, I do believe that it is possible to explain this quasar activity by two main forces - EM & Gravity without any violation to any science law.
I even do not ask you to give me the same chance that you give to several other hypothetical theories that had been offered by the science community
I only ask to verify my explanation based on real science laws and not based on any current hypothetical ideas/theories.
If you see any contradiction - please give me a chance to explain it.
I would mostly appreciate to get answers for my following questions:
Why the jet is always ejected from the direction of the quasar' poles?
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Estructura-de-un-AGN-Fuente-CM-Urry-and-P-Padovani_fig52_305228473
Do you agree that gravity by itself should work equally in any direction?
So, why it is always in the direction of the quasar magnetic poles and up to several hundred thousand of LY away?
Why we can't agree that the main force that can direct this narrow jet symmetrically into the quasar poles at almost the speed of light (and also well beyond the area where the black hole's gravity dominates) is magnetic force (and only magnetic force)?
Do you agree that the mass of the Quasar/SMBH is millions or even trillions times bigger than the total mass in the accretion disc?
As you claim that the magnetic field comes from the blackhole and the associate accretion disk, then which one should generate much more effective Magnetic fields?
Is the SMBH itself or is it the associate accretion disk?
-
Do you agree that the mass of the Quasar/SMBH is millions or even trillions times bigger than the total mass in the accretion disc?
Of course the mass of the black hole is larger than the mass of the accretion disk.
As you claim that the magnetic field comes from the blackhole and the associate accretion disk, then which one should generate much more effective Magnetic fields?
The accretion disk is the source of the magnetic field.
Is the SMBH itself or is it the associate accretion disk?
Since this is exactly the same question as the previous question it will have the same answer - the accretion disk.
-
Of course the mass of the black hole is larger than the mass of the accretion disk.
Thanks
Would you kindly also answer the following:
Why the jet is always ejected In the direction of the quasar' poles?
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Estructura-de-un-AGN-Fuente-CM-Urry-and-P-Padovani_fig52_305228473
Do you agree that gravity by itself should work equally in any direction?
So, why it is always in the direction of the quasar magnetic poles and up to several hundred thousand of LY away?
Why we can't agree that the main force that can direct this narrow jet symmetrically into the quasar poles at almost the speed of light (and also well beyond the area where the black hole's gravity dominates) is magnetic force (and only magnetic force)?
-
Why the jet is always ejected from the direction of the quasar' poles?
If a spinning thing chooses to emit stuff as a jet, it has to be from the pole or it's not a jet, but a lawn sprinkler.
-
Why the jet is always ejected In the direction of the quasar' poles?
Because they are the magnetic poles.
Do you agree that gravity by itself should work equally in any direction?
Sure.So, why it is always in the direction of the quasar magnetic poles and up to several hundred thousand of LY away?
Because the jets are composed of charged particles.
Why we can't agree that the main force that can direct this narrow jet symmetrically into the quasar poles at almost the speed of light (and also well beyond the area where the black hole's gravity dominates) is magnetic force (and only magnetic force)?
Because the situation is not as simplistic as you think. IOW a giant magnet as powerful as the black hole just sitting in space would have no jets.
-
In the following article there is a clear linkage between the magnetic fields and the jet stream:
https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2021/04/aa39493-20/aa39493-20.html
"Supermassive black holes in the centres of radio-loud active galactic nuclei (AGN) can produce collimated relativistic outflows (jets). Magnetic fields are thought to play a key role in the formation and collimation of these jets, but the details are much debated.
Except for the core, the electric vector position angles follow the local jet direction, suggesting a magnetic field perpendicular to the jet. This indicates the presence of plane perpendicular shocks in these regions.
Two promising jet launching mechanisms assume that either the jet is launched from the accretion disc (Blandford & Payne 1982) or from the rotating magnetosphere of the supermassive black hole itself
The Event Horizon Telescope (EHT) observations of M87 (Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration 2019) suggest that the jet is powered by magnetic fields anchored in the black hole, as postulated by the Blandford-Znajek mechanism.
a dynamically important magnetic field is thought to play a crucial role in jet formation (Meier et al. 2001; Zamaninasab et al. 2014).
"The strength and morphology of the magnetic field within the innermost 104 to 105rG can therefore give crucial insight on how jets form and how they collimate and accelerate on parsec scales.
The motion of a shock on a helical path along the jet can explain the observed bright polarised features with the EVPAs aligned with the jet direction, where the magnetic field is quenched perpendicular to the jet direction
We identify several linearly polarised components, with an almost completely depolarised core, a high polarisation peak coincident with the total intensity peak with ∼6% degree of linear polarisation, as well as more distinct components downstream of the jet. The EVPAs in those components align well with the jet direction, indicating a magnetic field perpendicular to the jet flow. The nature of these components is likely to be related to shocks propagating along a helical path of the jet. Another possibility includes a large-scale helical magnetic field with a dominant toroidal component."
Not even one word about gravity.
The accretion disk is the source of the magnetic field.
Is it realistic to believe that the accretion disc by itself can generate so powerful magnetic fields that can boost the jet at almost the speed of light to several hundred LY away from the quasar?
-
Is it realistic to believe that the accretion disc by itself can generate so powerful magnetic fields that can boost the jet at almost the speed of light to several hundred LY away from the quasar?:
Yes.
-
Is it realistic to believe that the accretion disc by itself can generate so powerful magnetic fields that can boost the jet at almost the speed of light to several hundred LY away from the quasar?:
Yes.
It is stated:
"Two promising jet launching mechanisms assume that either the jet is launched from the accretion disc (Blandford & Payne 1982) or from the rotating magnetosphere of the supermassive black hole itself"
Hence, there is a possibility that the ejected matter is coming from the accretion disc.
If that is correct, then it is a clear indication that the matter in the accretion disc is affected by the quasar' magnetic fields and not vice versa.
In any case, how could it be that the same matter in the accretion disc that generates the Magnetic fields would also be affected by the magnetic field that they have generated and boost themselves outwards at the speed of light into that jet?
Is it a realistic scenario?
Any idea how strong should be the magnetic fields in order to achieve that kind of jet stream at that distance and at the speed of light?
The total mass in the Milky way accretion disc is estimated to be about one to three sun mass.
Can you please offer the mechanism how the limited mass in that thin accretion disc can generate so powerful magnetic fields that actually also force that matter in the accretion disc to be ejected into the jet stream?
-
Not even one word about gravity.
The accretion disk and the subsequent magnetic field are due to the gravity of the black hole. You cannot produce any jets without a strong gravitational source.
Is it realistic to believe that the accretion disc by itself can generate so powerful magnetic fields that can boost the jet at almost the speed of light to several hundred LY away from the quasar?
Yes.
-
Hence, there is a possibility that the ejected matter is coming from the accretion disc.
If that is correct, then it is a clear indication that the matter in the accretion disc is affected by the quasar' magnetic fields and not vice versa.
Come on Dave think about it for a second. The accretion disk can be the source of the magnetic field and also be the source of the material in the jet.
In any case, how could it be that the same matter in the accretion disc that generates the Magnetic fields would also be affected by the magnetic field that they have generated and boost themselves outwards at the speed of light into that jet?
Because the matter is charged.
Is it a realistic scenario?
Yes.
Any idea how strong should be the magnetic fields in order to achieve that kind of jet stream at that distance and at the speed of light?
No.
The total mass in the Milky way accretion disc is estimated to be about one to three sun mass.
Can you please offer the mechanism how the limited mass in that thin accretion disc can generate so powerful magnetic fields that actually also force that matter in the accretion disc to be ejected into the jet stream?
The milky way's SMBH is not a quasar. It is estimated that quasars consume about 1000 to 2000 solar masses a year, so we are talking apples and oranges.
-
Is it a realistic scenario?
Still yes.
-
I would like to point out that a magnetic field will not increase the speed of a charged particle. All they can do is change the direction of the particle's motion: https://openstax.org/books/college-physics-2e/pages/22-5-force-on-a-moving-charge-in-a-magnetic-field-examples-and-applications
Magnetic force is always perpendicular to velocity, so that it does no work on the charged particle. The particle's kinetic energy and speed thus remain constant. The direction of motion is affected, but not the speed.
The speed of the jet comes from its temperature. The hotter a material is, the faster the average speed of its component particles. The magnetic field is just changing the direction of those particles so that it forms jets.
-
Not even one word about gravity.
The accretion disk and the subsequent magnetic field are due to the gravity of the black hole. You cannot produce any jets without a strong gravitational source.
Is it realistic to believe that the accretion disc by itself can generate so powerful magnetic fields that can boost the jet at almost the speed of light to several hundred LY away from the quasar?
Yes.
If it is so easy and clear, why the scientists claim for Mystery?
Where is their problem?
Could it be that energy conservation is one factor in this mystery?
Let's verify that issue from energy point of view.
I would like to point out that a magnetic field will not increase the speed of a charged particle. All they can do is change the direction of the particle's motion: https://openstax.org/books/college-physics-2e/pages/22-5-force-on-a-moving-charge-in-a-magnetic-field-examples-and-applications
1. We start with a cold hydrogen atom that is located close to the quasar (H1) with potential energy = EP1
2. As it falls inwards, this energy is transformed into kinetic energy and its velocity is increasing.
3. At the accretion disc its kinetic energy is maximal (EK2) Its temp is Maximal (ET2 - if not trillion lets agree on billions degrees) and it even generates strong magnetic fields (EM2)
Therefore, from energy point of view we should claim that:
EP1 = EK2 + ET2 + EM2
Based on the following message EM2 would change the direction of that particle's motion.
I would like to point out that a magnetic field will not increase the speed of a charged particle. All they can do is change the direction of the particle's motion
Therefore, now the particle would be ejected outwards.
Surprisingly, it wount stop at H1. At that distance it would still move at almost the speed of light
Therefore, we can claim that
EK2 = EP1 (Same starting point energy) + New EK1 (at the speed of light)
So, the energy formula should be as follow:
EP1 = EK2 + ET2 + EM2
EP1 = EP1 (Same starting point potential energy) + EK1 (new kinetic energy - at the speed of light) + ET2 + EM2
Hence, there is new energy
Enew = EK1 (new kinetic energy - at the speed of light) + ET2 + EM2
Is it a realistic scenario?
Still yes.
Would you kindly explain the source of that new energy?
-
If it is so easy and clear, why the scientists claim for Mystery?
Where is their problem?
You seem to be failing to understand, as usual.
Yes, it's realistic to believe that the accretion disc by itself can generate a powerful magnetic field.
It's got an enormous energy supply from stuff falling into it. It's rotating and there's charged particles involved.
That's not the same as saying they know how it happens.
It's just saying three's nothing to rule it out, and it fits the data.
Did you not understand that?
Once again, the problem here isn't a lack of understanding of physics.
It's just that you lack the reading comprehension skills needed.
Would you kindly explain the source of that new energy?
You pointed out that they didn't gravity.
That's because in a discussion of events near a neutron star, gravity is so obvious that you may not need to mention it explicitly.
Have you worked out where the energy is coming from yet?
-
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:27:04
Would you kindly explain the source of that new energy?
You pointed out that they didn't gravity.
That's because in a discussion of events near a neutron star, gravity is so obvious that you may not need to mention it explicitly.
Have you worked out where the energy is coming from yet?
Sorry.
Your answer isn't clear to me.
How do you solve the energy conservation problem?
I have proved that new energy is needed in order to set this jet at almost the speed of light to that hundreds of thousands LY above & below the accretion disc.
Hence, there is new energy
Enew = EK1 (new kinetic energy - at the speed of light) + ET2 + EM2
What is the source for that new energy?
Do you claim that new energy could be created at the accretion disc out of nothing?
-
. We start with a cold hydrogen atom that is located close to the quasar (H1) with potential energy = EP1
2. As it falls inwards, this energy is transformed into kinetic energy and its velocity is increasing.
I think it would make the most sense to discuss a proton as opposed to a Hydrogen atom since the atom would quickly ionize when it gets near the black hole. The general idea of the PE being converted to KE is correct.
3. At the accretion disc its kinetic energy is maximal (EK2) Its temp is Maximal (ET2 - if not trillion lets agree on billions degrees) and it even generates strong magnetic fields (EM2)
Therefore, from energy point of view we should claim that:
EP1 = EK2 + ET2 + EM2
There are a couple of errors to unpack here.
The first obvious error is not realizing that your terms EK2 and ET2 are the same thing. The temperature of a gas (or plasma in this case) is just a way to measure the kinetic energy of the gas/plasma.
The other problem you have is that you are trying to say is the magnetic field 'takes energy' from the proton which is not true. For example if there is a proton at rest relative to observer A there will be no magnetic field around the proton. If observer B flies past that same proton at some speed then observer B will detect a magnetic field around the proton. At no point was there any energy extracted from the proton to produce the magnetic field.
So we have just; PE is converted to KE.
If you spent more time studying physics instead of going on anti-science rants, you might learn something.
Why are you such an anti-science guy any way. Is just your way of trying to annoy people on this site? Do you have some sort of inferiority complex? Did a gang of scientist beat you up?
-
I have proved that new energy is needed in order to set this jet at almost the speed of light to that hundreds of thousands LY above & below the accretion disc.
No, you haven't. Not all of the material that falls into the accretion disk is blasted out again as jets. Much of it also falls into the black hole.
-
The general idea of the PE being converted to KE is correct.
Thanks
We start at H1 with Potential energy PE1.
The Potential energy changes into kinetic energy when an object moves.
As the particle falls inwards into the direction of the quasar, its velocity is increasing.
Therefore, in an ideal word (without any friction or energy loss) we could agree that
PE1(potential energy at H1) = EK2' (Kinetic energy at the accretion disc - without energy loss)
However, we know that at the accretion disc, the particle temp is increasing to several billions or trillions of degrees.
That heat isn't coming for free.
It is due to the friction. That friction MUST reduce the velocity of the particle and therefore it is taken from its kinetic energy.
Therefore, we must reduce that ET2 from EK2'
The other problem you have is that you are trying to say is the magnetic field 'takes energy' from the proton which is not true. For example if there is a proton at rest relative to observer A there will be no magnetic field around the proton. If observer B flies past that same proton at some speed then observer B will detect a magnetic field around the proton. At no point was there any energy extracted from the proton to produce the magnetic field.
You have one more mistake.
There is no free lunch in the nature.
If you want to gain magnetic energy, you need to pay in kinetic energy.
https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2021/08/aa38680-20/aa38680-20.html
The basic principles of the dynamo mechanism are connected to the transition of kinetic energy of turbulent motions to the energy of the magnetic field.
In this work we consider a quite qualitative model that uses the given parameters of turbulence in the disk.
Therefore, your understanding of free magnetics isn't realistic.
Please be aware that the magnetic field is needed to change the motion of the particles.
This means - Work.
If you use the magnetic field to make work, you must invest energy.
Therefore, the magnetic energy isn't for free and it also must be taken from the EK2'
Therefore, the correct formula should be
EP1 = EK2' = EK2 + ET2 + EM2
Now let's assume that we can get the heat energy and the magnetic energy free of charge.
PE is converted to KE
Hence:
PE1(potential energy at H1) = EK2' (Kinetic energy at the accretion disc - without energy loss)
In other words - we start with particle at almost 0K and get back a particle at billion or trillion K free of energy charge.
I have proved that new energy is needed in order to set this jet at almost the speed of light to that hundreds of thousands LY above & below the accretion disc.
No, you haven't. Not all of the material that falls into the accretion disk is blasted out again as jets. Much of it also falls into the black hole.
Even if many particles falls in, we still need extra energy for those that are ejected backwards.
If we ignore the heat of the particle and its magnetic fields, why it doesn't stop at the same starting point (H1) with the same potential energy?
Think about ball that falls downwards:
(https://www.sciencefacts.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Potential-Energy.jpg)
As it hit the surface and move upwards, at the ideal case it should get to the same starting point (H1).
Is there any possibility for that ball to get to the moon?
Remember
If EP1 (at H1) = EK 2 (at the accretion)
Then
EK 2 (at the accretion) = EP1 (at H1)
Therefore, it is expected that as the particle ejected outwards it should stop at H1.
Why the particle doesn't stop there and still continue from there at the speed of light?
What is the source for that extra Kinetic energy?
-
However, we know that at the accretion disc, the particle temp is increasing to several billions or trillions of degrees.
That heat isn't coming for free.
It is due to the friction. That friction MUST reduce the velocity of the particle and therefore it is taken from its kinetic energy.
Therefore, we must reduce that ET2 from EK2'
That's not how heat works. The very fact that the accretion disk is heating up means that the particles are moving faster. You are aware of that, aren't you? The particles in a hot object are moving faster than the particles in a cold object. The heat isn't just coming from friction, it's also coming from compression (recall the gas laws).
You have one more mistake.
There is no free lunch in the nature.
He never proposed that.
Therefore, it is expected that as the particle ejected outwards it should stop at H1.
Why the particle doesn't stop there and still continue from there at the speed of light?
What is the source for that extra Kinetic energy?
The problem is that you are dealing with a system of many such particles. 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.
I would also expect nuclear fusion to contribute some degree of additional energy to the accretion disk. It's much more than hot enough there for fusion to occur (even if fusion isn't the main source of power).
-
The heat isn't just coming from friction, it's also coming from compression (recall the gas laws).
Agree
However, don't you agree that if you compress the matter in the accretion disc, you actually increase the chance for the particles to though/collide with each other and therefore by definition you increase the friction?
The particles in a hot object are moving faster than the particles in a cold object.
Sure, but somehow you need to heat that object
The very fact that the accretion disk is heating up means that the particles are moving faster.
Sorry, just by increasing the velocity, you don't change the temp.
Technically, we could cross the space at the speed of light without increasing our temp.
Only if we increase the friction with something, we can increase the temp.
For example, when the space shuttle returns back to Earth while crossing the atmosphere it increases dramatically its temp.
Similar scenario is taking place in the accretion disc.
As the particles move faster in the accretion disc, the friction is increasing (due to compression and even turbulence) and therefore the temp is increasing.
However, friction, compression and turbulence can't increase the particles temp to billions or trillions of degrees.
You need something else.
I would also expect nuclear fusion to contribute some degree of additional energy to the accretion disk. It's much more than hot enough there for fusion to occur (even if fusion isn't the main source of power).
Yes, fusion could increase the temp to a level of millions degrees. But is it good enough for Billions and trillions?
Don't you think that an extra heat power is needed?
The problem is that you are dealing with a system of many such particles. 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.
Based on this scenario you can increase the velocity of some particles, but is it enough?
Let's focus on our SMBH (as we have good visibility on that object)
The closest object to that SMBH is S2 (about two-day light).
So, let's assume that at this distance there are a group of cold Hydrogen atoms and they just started to fall inwards.
As they fall in they increase their velocity.
However, as long as they don't touch each other, they won't increase their temp.
As they come closer to the accretion disc, they would probably increase their temp due to the heat reflected from this accretion disc.
At the accretion disc they would increase dramatically their temp due to the process which we have discussed.
We know that the orbital velocity at the Milky way accretion disc is 0.3c.
So, by falling inwards from a distance of only 2-day light, the particles must increase their velocity to 0.3c (once they get to the accretion disc).
Now, let's assume that due to the idea that you have introduced, some of the particles increase their orbital velocity to the speed of light and ejected outwards. (I hope that we all agree that those ejected particles can't move faster than the speed of light.
Due to gravity, by definition the ejected particles must slow down as they move away from the SMBH.
We must also add the impact of the dark matter gravity force.
Please remember, at 2 Day light their velocity was almost zero (or at least very low comparing to that speed of light).
As due to potential energy at that 2 day light the particles get a velocity of 0.3c at the accretion disc, then when those particles are ejected outwards, they should lose most of their velocity at the same distance of 2 day light.
Even if we assume an ejected velocity of four times faster (higher than the speed of light) they still must slow down dramatically and maybe get to a distance of 10 or 100 day lights.
However, surprisingly we clearly see that the jet stream from the Milky way SMBH is moving at a constant speed of 0.3c up to 27,000 LY
So, it seems that the jet totally ignore the impact of the SMBH and the dark matter gravity force..
(https://insider.si.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/hires1.jpg)
This is amazing phenomenon.
Why the jet stream doesn't slow down due to the SMBH & dark matter gravity forces?
Why it keeps its velocity and gets to that distance of almost 27,000 LY?
In the following message, we might find the answer for that question:
https://insider.si.edu/2012/05/ghostly-gamma-ray-beams-blast-from-milky-ways-center/
"The jets were produced when plasma squirted out from the galactic center, following a corkscrew-like magnetic field that kept it tightly focused."
Could it be that the magnetic fields keeps its impact as the jet is moving away and overcome the SMBH & dark matter gravity forces?
-
...yada yada yada...
What is the source for that extra Kinetic energy?
Do you realise that posting high-school physics to a bunch of scientists is both a waste of your time and also patronising?
Do you do it as a deliberate act of trolling?
Is it the thrill of wasting bandwidth or what?
Anyway, the answer to your question is obviously "from the other stuff that fell in".
I remember telling you this before in another of your threads where you failed to realise that science is actually based in reality, but your ideas were not..
It would have been better for everyone if you had listened.
I pointed out that the slingshot effect is perfectly within the laws of physics.
It's also worth pointing out specifically why you are wrong here
However, we know that at the accretion disc, the particle temp is increasing to several billions or trillions of degrees.
That heat isn't coming for free.
It is due to the friction. That friction MUST reduce the velocity of the particle and therefore it is taken from its kinetic energy.
Therefore, we must reduce that ET2 from EK2'
Almost all matter in the accretion disk- like almost all matter in the universe- is hydrogen.
It's also very hot.
So it's a mixture of gas and plasma with a bit of dust in it.
You only get friction with solids.
But what you get i essentially viscosity.
So, yes, that stops the collision of a particle with the accretion disc being elastic- it will mot simply bounce off as high as it fell from.
But if you drop a whole lot of particles in their, the energy gets shared among them as heat.
And that means there's a distribution of velocities.
A small fraction of those velocities will be much higher than average.
Friction can actually increase the speed of a particle.
Effectively, you are saying water in a puddle can not evaporate because it is not at the boiling point.
And you shouldn't say things like that.
-
Anyway, the answer to your question is obviously "from the other stuff that fell in".
I remember telling you this before in another of your threads where you failed to realise that science is actually based in reality, but your ideas were not..
It would have been better for everyone if you had listened.
Let's verify the issue from energy conservation point of view:
Cold Hydrogens particles at a distance of 2 day lights with a low orbital kinetic energy fall inwards.
As they get to the accretion disc, their starting potential energy is transformed to maximal kinetic energy.
At that location, they increase their temperature to billions or even trillions K and they orbit at 0.3c.
They also generate magnetic field.
This magnetic fields would help to redirect the same particles to the SMBH poles.
However, although they used a potential energy of only 2 day light, as they are ejected outwards somehow they would gain a potential energy of 27,000 Ly.
The formula for potential energy is:
EP = M G H
EP1 (at 2 day light) = M G (2 Day light)
EP2 (at 27000 Light years) = M G (27000 Light years) = MG ( 27000 * 365 Light days) = MG (9,855,000 day light)
Therefore, the potential energy had been increased by:
EP2 / EP1 = 9,855,000 / 2 = 4,927,500
In other words, we have increased the potential energy by 4,927,500.
This is just due to the potential energy.
Wow
I pointed out that the slingshot effect is perfectly within the laws of physics.
So based on the idea of slingshot effect we could increase the energy by 4,927,500 without investing any sort of external energy.
Adding to that the idea that we increase the heat of the particles to billions or trillions of degrees and also gain magnetic field - all of that is free of charge.
If that activity is perfectly within the laws of physics, why can't we use this slingshot effect for our benefit.
We would invest very low energy and multiply it by 4,927,500 or more.
Is it real?
Are you sure that we can increase the energy by 4,927,500 times without investing external energy and without breaking the energy conservation law?
I'm quite sure that if I would dare to claim that I know how to multiply the energy by only two without extremal energy - my thread would be locked immediately.
You are lucky as you represent the good scientists.
In any case, would you kindly reconsider your reply.
-
Sorry, just by increasing the velocity, you don't change the temp.
Technically, we could cross the space at the speed of light without increasing our temp.
You are comparing apples and oranges. Temperature is a measure of the average velocity of the particles that make up an object (the atoms in the spaceship, for example), not the average velocity of the object itself (the spaceship as a whole).
Only if we increase the friction with something, we can increase the temp.
For example, when the space shuttle returns back to Earth while crossing the atmosphere it increases dramatically its temp.
That's due to adiabatic compression, not friction.
Yes, fusion could increase the temp to a level of millions degrees. But is it good enough for Billions and trillions?
Don't you think that an extra heat power is needed?
My invoking of fusion wasn't meant to explain the trillions of degrees. It was specifically to show that there is indeed an energy source available to help explain your potential energy-kinetic energy argument.
Based on this scenario you can increase the velocity of some particles, but is it enough?
As long as they are moving faster than the escape velocity, yes.
Even if we assume an ejected velocity of four times faster (higher than the speed of light) they still must slow down dramatically and maybe get to a distance of 10 or 100 day lights.
Have you ever heard of the concept of an escape velocity? What you are saying is simply not true.
The formula for potential energy is:
EP = M G H
EP1 (at 2 day light) = M G (2 Day light)
EP2 (at 27000 Light years) = M G (27000 Light years) = MG ( 27000 * 365 Light days) = MG (9,855,000 day light)
Therefore, the potential energy had been increased by:
EP2 / EP1 = 9,855,000 / 2 = 4,927,500
In other words, we have increased the potential energy by 4,927,500.
You are misusing that equation. The equation is specifically for circumstances where the gravitational pull of the main body does not vary much (the value of "G" changes with altitude). So you can use it quite well for measuring the potential energy change of an object lifted, say, one meter above the Earth's surface. But when you are talking about astronomical distances, it's no longer sufficient. So your answer is very wrong.
-
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 16:12:34
The formula for potential energy is:
EP = M G H
EP1 (at 2 day light) = M G (2 Day light)
EP2 (at 27000 Light years) = M G (27000 Light years) = MG ( 27000 * 365 Light days) = MG (9,855,000 day light)
Therefore, the potential energy had been increased by:
EP2 / EP1 = 9,855,000 / 2 = 4,927,500
In other words, we have increased the potential energy by 4,927,500.
You are misusing that equation. The equation is specifically for circumstances where the gravitational pull of the main body does not vary much (the value of "G" changes with altitude). So you can use it quite well for measuring the potential energy change of an object lifted, say, one meter above the Earth's surface. But when you are talking about astronomical distances, it's no longer sufficient. So your answer is very wrong.
How wrong it could be?
What is the correct calculation?
Let's verify:
1. Do you agree that based on the current hypothetical theory/idea of the modern science, it is feasible for a particle to fall from 2-day light into the MW SMBH' accretion disc and then be ejected to 27,000 Ly without adding any real external energy?
2. If We lift an object/Atom/Particle from 2-day LY to 10-day light, do you confirm that its potential energy had been increased by 5?
3. If we lift it from 2-day light, to 2 Light year (2 * 365 days) do you confirm that its potential energy had been increased by 365?
4. If we lift it from 2-day light, to 200 Light year do you confirm that its potential energy had been increased by 36,500?
So please, based on your understanding, if we lift the particle from 2-day light to 27,000- light years, what is the correct increased in the potential energy?
Do you agree that it should be at least more than 10,000 times?
If so, don't you agree that this hypothetical idea by itself breaks the fundamental law of science that is called: "conservation energy"
Why the science community can beak this important science law in their hypothetical theory without getting any penalty?
-
OK, let's see if we can explain why you are doing the wrong maths.
If I take a rock and throw it straight up from the surface of the earth at 20,000 meters per second, how high does it go?
-
OK, let's see if we can explain why you are doing the wrong maths.
If I take a rock and throw it straight up from the surface of the earth at 20,000 meters per second, how high does it go?
Would you kindly answer directly my question:
if we lift the particle from 2-day light to 27,000- light years, what is the correct increased in the potential energy?
-
If we lift it from 2-day light
Light days are the distance light travels in a day, day lights are something that can get scared out of you.
If so, don't you agree that this hypothetical idea by itself breaks the fundamental law of science that is called: "conservation energy"
No. There will be conversion of KE to PE. In other words the particles slow down as the PE increases.
-
if we lift the particle from 2-day light to 27,000- light years, what is the correct increased in the potential energy?
It's the definite integral of the product of the gravitational force and the distance moved between r= 2 light days and r= 27000 light years.
That force is a function of r which we can probably approximate as k/r^2
Where k is a constant which you have not told us, and without which we can not answer your question.
But, if you answer this
If I take a rock and throw it straight up from the surface of the earth at 20,000 meters per second, how high does it go?
you will, at least, learn what integral you are meant to be doing.
so, rather than insisting that I answer your impossible question, perhaps you could try answering my question- to which the answer is interesting and also calculable.
-
How wrong it could be?
What is the correct calculation?
I'll try to get to that later when I have more time. In the meantime, you can look at the proper equation here: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/gpot.html
Take note how the webpage explains that U = mgh is the equation used in limited circumstances where "g" can be assumed as constant (such as when you are close to the Earth's surface). The more accurate equation is U = (-GMm)/r. It works over large distances where "g" is variable (which is definitely the case over light-years).
1. Do you agree that based on the current hypothetical theory/idea of the modern science, it is feasible for a particle to fall from 2-day light into the MW SMBH' accretion disc and then be ejected to 27,000 Ly without adding any real external energy?
Yes, because the energy from the quasar is more than sufficient.
2. If We lift an object/Atom/Particle from 2-day LY to 10-day light, do you confirm that its potential energy had been increased by 5?
3. If we lift it from 2-day light, to 2 Light year (2 * 365 days) do you confirm that its potential energy had been increased by 365?
4. If we lift it from 2-day light, to 200 Light year do you confirm that its potential energy had been increased by 36,500?
No, none of those things are correct. The relationship is not linear.
So please, based on your understanding, if we lift the particle from 2-day light to 27,000- light years, what is the correct increased in the potential energy?
I intend to calculate that.
Do you agree that it should be at least more than 10,000 times?
No.
-
I intend to calculate that.
That will be helpful for others reading the thread but of course Dave will ignore it just like he has ignored the hundreds of other corrections to his pseudoscience.
-
However, we know that at the accretion disc, the particle temp is increasing to several billions or trillions of degrees.
You do now know that is incorrect, right? No one thinks accretion disks are trillions of degrees. As far as quasars go the brightness temperature can be absurdly high but the actual temperature is not.
Do you fully accept this?
-
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:32:04
How wrong it could be?
What is the correct calculation?
I'll try to get to that later when I have more time. In the meantime, you can look at the proper equation here: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/gpot.html
Take note how the webpage explains that U = mgh is the equation used in limited circumstances where "g" can be assumed as constant (such as when you are close to the Earth's surface).
That is very clear
The more accurate equation is U = (-GMm)/r. It works over large distances where "g" is variable (which is definitely the case over light-years).
In the article it is stated:
"the force approaches zero for large distances, and it makes sense to choose the zero of gravitational potential energy at an infinite distance away. "
This could be correct as long as you ignore the existence of the dark matter.
From the sun gravity point of view, it is located near the surface of the big sphere which includes the SMBH + the dark matter.
Take out the idea of the dark matter, and you can't explain how the sun holds itself in the galaxy.
You can't just claim that the dark matter is there to hold the Sun in its orbit around the galaxy, but it isn't there when it comes to the jet stream.
Surprisingly, the sun is located exactly 27,000 Ly from the SMBH.
Therefore, as you claim for dark matter in our galaxy that is needed to hold the sun in its orbital motion - then the same dark matter must work identically on every object at the same distance.
Hence, the 27,000 LY dark matter spheres must work identically on the sun as it works at hydrogen atom that is located at the edge of the jet stream.
So, now it should be very simple to extract the potential energy at 27,000 LY.
Base on the orbital motion of the Sun, we can extract the effective dark matter mass at that 27,000 LY spheres.
Let's call it = M dark 27000 Ly = the effective dark matter mass at 27000 LY.
With this effective mass we can easily extract the potential energy for the hydrogen atom at 27000 LY.
Do you agree with this explanation?
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:32:04
So please, based on your understanding, if we lift the particle from 2-day light to 27,000- light years, what is the correct increased in the potential energy?
I intend to calculate that.
Thanks
Please don't forget to add the dark matter impact.
-
The mass of the black hole is 886 million times that of the Sun. The Sun's mass is 1.9885 x 1026 kilograms. That makes the black hole's mass 1.722 x 1035 kilograms. This means that the gravitational potential energy of a proton at two light-days from the black hole would be:
U = (-GMm)/r
U = (-(-6.674 x 10-11)(1.722 x 1035)(1.673 x 10-27))/(5.18 x 1013)
U = (-(1.149 x 1025)(1.673 x 10-27))/(5.18 x 1013)
U = (-(1.9227 x 10-2)/(5.18 x 1013)
U = -3.71 x 10-16 joules
At 27,000 light-years, the gravitational potential energy is:
U = (-GMm)/r
U = (-(-6.674 x 10-11)(1.722 x 1035)(1.673 x 10-27))/(2.554 x 1020)
U = (-(1.149 x 1025)(1.673 x 10-27))/(2.554 x 1020)
U = (-(1.9227 x 10-2)/(2.554 x 1020)
U = -7.52 x 10-23 joules
What this means is that a proton falling from 27,000 light-years down to 2 light-days would gain (-3.71 x 10-16) - (-7.52 x 10-23) = -3.09999248 x 10-16 joules of kinetic energy. In turn, this means it would take 3.09999248 x 10-16 joules to lift that proton from 2 light-days to 27,000 light-years.
Now how much kinetic energy does a proton traveling at 99% the speed of light have? Using this calculator: https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/relativistic-ke The answer is approximately 9.087 x 10-10 joules. That is over 2.9 million times the energy needed to lift the proton from 2 light-days to 27,000 light-years. This would reduce the proton's kinetic energy to 9.0869969 x 10-10 joules. The decreases the speed of the proton by such a tiny amount that the calculator can't even tell the difference between 99% the speed of light and that new speed. So your claim that the jet has to slow down significantly is just plain wrong.
Do you agree with this explanation?
You would need to know how much dark matter is present and in what distribution in order to account for it.
-
The mass of the black hole is 886 million times that of the Sun. The Sun's mass is 1.9885 x 1026 kilograms. That makes the black hole's mass 1.722 x 1035 kilograms. This means that the gravitational potential energy of a proton at two light-days from the black hole would be:
U = (-GMm)/r
U = (-(-6.674 x 10-11)(1.722 x 1035)(1.673 x 10-27))/(5.18 x 1013)
U = (-(1.149 x 1025)(1.673 x 10-27))/(5.18 x 1013)
U = (-(1.9227 x 10-2)/(5.18 x 1013)
U = -3.71 x 10-16 joules
At 27,000 light-years, the gravitational potential energy is:
U = (-GMm)/r
U = (-(-6.674 x 10-11)(1.722 x 1035)(1.673 x 10-27))/(2.554 x 1020)
U = (-(1.149 x 1025)(1.673 x 10-27))/(2.554 x 1020)
U = (-(1.9227 x 10-2)/(2.554 x 1020)
U = -7.52 x 10-23 joules
Thanks for the calculations.
Do appreciate your efforts.
However, Why do you ignore the impact of the dark matter at 27,000 LY ?
If a proton is located near the Sun, do you think that the gravitational potential energy of -7.52 x 10^-23 joules would be good enough to hold it in its orbital motion around the galaxy?
Why the dark matter works on the Sun motion, but it has no impact on the jet stream?
In any case, once we ignore the dark matter, then I fully agree with your calculation
What this means is that a proton falling from 27,000 light-years down to 2 light-days would gain (-3.71 x 10^-16) - (-7.52 x 10^-23) = -3.09999248 x 10^-16 joules of kinetic energy. In turn, this means it would take 3.09999248 x 10-16 joules to lift that proton from 2 light-days to 27,000 light-years.
I also agree with the following understanding:
Now how much kinetic energy does a proton traveling at 99% the speed of light have? Using this calculator: https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/relativistic-ke The answer is approximately 9.087 x 10-10 joules.
However, there is a key problem.
The Gravitational potential energy of a proton at two light-days from the black hole is: U = -3.71 x 10^-16 joules
So, how this starting Gravitational potential energy of a proton at 2 day light 3.71 x 10^-16 joules, could be transformed into a kinetic energy of 9.087 x 10^-10 joules at the accretion disc.
Therefore, the starting Gravitational potential energy of a proton had been increased by 2.45 Million times at the accretion disc:
= 9.087 x 10^-10 / 3.71 x 10^-16 = 2.45 * 10^6
Is it realistic?
Don't you see that external real energy is needed?
What is the source of this extra energy?
-
Thanks for the calculations.
Do appreciate your efforts.
However, Why do you ignore the impact of the dark matter at 27,000 LY ?
If a proton is located near the Sun, do you think that the gravitational potential energy of -7.52 x 10^-23 joules would be good enough to hold it in its orbital motion around the galaxy?
Why the dark matter works on the Sun motion, but it has no impact on the jet stream?
In any case, once we ignore the dark matter, then I fully agree with your calculation
I didn't include dark matter in that calculation because I don't know how much there is or how it is distributed.
So, how this starting Gravitational potential energy of a proton at 2 day light 3.71 x 10^-16 joules, could be transformed into a kinetic energy of 9.087 x 10^-10 joules at the accretion disc.
I've already addressed that: redistribution of energy. That particle isn't by itself. It's interacting with other particles (and the black hole's spin) while it's in the accretion disk. Some of those particles will gain a lot of energy from the black hole's spin as well as from the heat in the accretion disk. Other particles lose energy in the process and enter the black hole. So the total energy of the system is the same.
-
Don't you see that external real energy is needed?
What is the source of this extra energy?
Yes, we see it.
And we already explained it. It comes from other particles
But you don't seem able to understand that.
I've already addressed that: redistribution of energy. That particle isn't by itself. It's interacting with other particles (and the black hole's spin) while it's in the accretion disk.
But if you drop a whole lot of particles in there, the energy gets shared among them as heat.
And that means there's a distribution of velocities.
A small fraction of those velocities will be much higher than average.
Friction can actually increase the speed of a particle.
Effectively, you are saying water in a puddle can not evaporate because it is not at the boiling point.
-
But, if you answer this
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:13:53
If I take a rock and throw it straight up from the surface of the earth at 20,000 meters per second, how high does it go?
you will, at least, learn what integral you are meant to be doing.
so, rather than insisting that I answer your impossible question, perhaps you could try answering my question- to which the answer is interesting and also calculable.
-
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:58:05
So, how this starting Gravitational potential energy of a proton at 2 day light 3.71 x 10^-16 joules, could be transformed into a kinetic energy of 9.087 x 10^-10 joules at the accretion disc.
I've already addressed that: redistribution of energy. That particle isn't by itself. It's interacting with other particles (and the black hole's spin) while it's in the accretion disk.
How an interaction with other particles could increase the energy of a single particle by 2.45 Million times?
Technically, 2.45 million particles must lose completely their energy in order to get just one particle with 9.087 x 10^-10 joules.
Hence, in order to get just one particle at the correct energy at the accretion disc, 2.45 million particles should lose their entire energies.
It means that for any particle in the accretion disc, 2.45 million of falling particles lose their life.
Please also be aware that all particles in the accretion disc without exception orbits at almost the speed of light.
Therefore, it is expected that any falling particle would gain that velocity even before it enters the accretion disc.
Is it feasible that out of 2.45 million falling particles only one will get enough energy to enter the accretion disc?
However, your following answer is much more realistic scenario:
and the black hole's spin
If I understand you correctly, some of the SMBH's spin & heat energies are transformed to those falling particles.
The transformation of heat energy from the SMBH to the falling particles is acceptable.
However, how the SMBH's spin energy could be transformed into those falling particles?
Actually, in the nature, if the object spins then technically it could create dynamo.
If it has a dynamo then is can generate magnetic fields.
This magnetic fields could easily increase dramatically the velocity of the falling particles and also their heat.
So, this could be an excellent solution for the missing energy of the falling particles.
The SMBH could easily increase the particle energy by to 9.087 x 10^-10 joules.
However, the only question is - why the SMBH spins.
I didn't include dark matter in that calculation because I don't know how much there is or how it is distributed.
Well, I fully agree with you that we should totally ignore the dak matter idea.
You have proved in your calculation that the proton energy at the accretion disc is good enough for each particle to get at the 27000 Ly without any difficulties while it keeps its speed of light velocity.
However, if there is dark matter, then it could decrease dramatically the motion of this jet stream.
We don't observe any decrease in the stream motion.
Therefore, the jet stream is an ultimate observation that there is no dark matter.
Never the less, it isn't feasible that there is dark matter for the sun and there is no dark matter for the jet stream.
If we claim that there is a dark matter for the sun, then we have to accept the idea that there must be also dark matter for the jet stream.
We can't just hold the stick from both sides at the same time.
Please take a decision if there is a dark matter or not.
Assuming that there is a dark matter:
I don't know how much there is or how it is distributed.
I can help to overcome this issue.
As I have already explained, the sun is also located at 27,000 LY from the SMBH.
By simple calculation based on its orbital motion we can extract the effective mass of the dark matter.
Base on the orbital motion of the Sun, we can extract the effective dark matter mass at that 27,000 LY spheres.
Let's call it = M dark 27000 Ly = the effective dark matter mass at 27000 LY.
.
With this effective mass we can easily extract the potential energy for the proton at 27000 LY.
Then we can verify if the kinetic energy of 9.087 x 10^-10 joules at the accretion disc is good enough for that potential energy.
-
How an interaction with other particles could increase the energy of a single particle by 2.45 Million times?
Technically, 2.45 million particles must lose completely their energy in order to get just one particle with 9.087 x 10^-10 joules.
Hence, in order to get just one particle at the correct energy at the accretion disc, 2.45 million particles should lose their entire energies.
It means that for any particle in the accretion disc, 2.45 million of falling particles lose their life.
Please also be aware that all particles in the accretion disc without exception orbits at almost the speed of light.
Therefore, it is expected that any falling particle would gain that velocity even before it enters the accretion disc.
Is it feasible that out of 2.45 million falling particles only one will get enough energy to enter the accretion disc?
Not all of the energy need come directly from the particles interacting with each other. I don't know what proportion of it comes from that versus being accelerated by the black hole's spin.
If I understand you correctly, some of the SMBH's spin & heat energies are transformed to those falling particles.
It's transferred to the falling particles.
However, how the SMBH's spin energy could be transformed into those falling particles?
It's something called the ergosphere. Anything falling into it must move with the black hole's rotation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergosphere
This magnetic fields could easily increase dramatically the velocity of the falling particles and also their heat.
No. I've already pointed out that magnetic fields do not increase the speed of charged particles. They only change their direction.
However, the only question is - why the SMBH spins.
It's acquiring angular momentum from the accretion disk. The mass of much of the accretion disk is falling into the black hole, never to be seen again (except in the form of extremely weak Hawking radiation). However, the rotational kinetic energy of the consumed matter is still accessible through the ergosphere. That energy can then be used to boost some of the matter from the accretion disk that hasn't fallen in yet into the jets.
As far as dark matter goes, we can make some assumptions to get some numbers. Current modelling puts the Universe as being composed of 5% matter and 26.8% dark matter (by mass). That would make dark matter 5.36 times more abundant than matter. So we can add the black hole's mass to 5.36 times its mass (6.36) and get an approximation for how much gravity the proton is having to move against. Since gravitational potential energy increases linearly with mass, then we just multiple the numbers calculated before by 6.36. In that case, we get a potential energy at 2 light-days of -2.35956 x 10-15 joules and a potential energy of -4.78272 x 10-22 joules at 27,000 light-years. That's an energy change of 2.359559521728 x 10-15 joules by moving out to 27,000 light-years.
That would decrease the kinetic energy of the proton to 9.0869764044 x 10-10 joules. The resulting velocity is still above 98.9% the speed of light. So the speed barely changes at all and thus the jet would not be expected to slow down significantly even if with dark matter present.
-
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 16:12:41
However, how the SMBH's spin energy could be transformed into those falling particles?
It's something called the ergosphere. Anything falling into it must move with the black hole's rotation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergosphere
Thanks for this important article:
It is stated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergosphere
"As a black hole rotates, it twists spacetime in the direction of the rotation at a speed that decreases with distance from the event horizon.[3] This process is known as the Lense?Thirring effect or frame-dragging."
What is the meaning of "Lense?Thirring effect"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lense%E2%80%93Thirring_precession
"In general relativity, Lense?Thirring precession is a relativistic correction to the precession of a gyroscope near a large rotating mass such as the Earth. It is a gravitomagnetic frame-dragging effect.
What is gravitomagnetic frame-dragging effect?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitoelectromagnetism
Gravitoelectromagnetism, abbreviated GEM, refers to a set of formal analogies between the equations for electromagnetism and relativistic gravitation;
In the following explanation we get a direct answer to the formation and structure of the Jet stream:
"Indirect validations of gravitomagnetic effects have been derived from analyses of relativistic jets. Roger Penrose had proposed a mechanism that relies on frame-dragging-related effects for extracting energy and momentum from rotating black holes.[3] Reva Kay Williams, University of Florida, developed a rigorous proof that validated Penrose's mechanism.[4] Her model showed how the Lense?Thirring effect could account for the observed high energies and luminosities of quasars and active galactic nuclei; the collimated jets about their polar axis; and the asymmetrical jets (relative to the orbital plane).[5][6] All of those observed properties could be explained in terms of gravitomagnetic effects.[7] Williams' application of Penrose's mechanism can be applied to black holes of any size.[8] Relativistic jets can serve as the largest and brightest form of validations for gravitomagnetism.
So, the gravitomagnetism represents analogies between electromagnetism and relativistic gravitation.
Based on this understanding we have a mechanism that relies on frame-dragging-related that effects for extracting energy and momentum from rotating black holes.
In other words, based on this concept of the gravitomagnetism the rotating BH energy is used for the Jet stream energy.
Hence, the gravitomagnetism energy of the rotation SMBH is good enough for the jet stream creation including its collimated structure.
We don't need more than that.
The SMBH rotation energy can easily increase the energy of any falling particle by its gravitomagnetism energy. There is no need to use 2.45 Million falling particles for to gain the requested energy for just one particle.
With This SMBH' gravitomagnetism energy any falling particle would get the energy that is needed for it to move at almost the speed of light in the accretion disc.
Dark matter
As far as dark matter goes, we can make some assumptions to get some numbers. Current modelling puts the Universe as being composed of 5% matter and 26.8% dark matter (by mass). That would make dark matter 5.36 times more abundant than matter. So we can add the black hole's mass to 5.36 times its mass (6.36) and get an approximation for how much gravity the proton is having to move against. Since gravitational potential energy increases linearly with mass, then we just multiple the numbers calculated before by 6.36. In that case, we get a potential energy at 2 light-days of -2.35956 x 10-15 joules and a potential energy of -4.78272 x 10-22 joules at 27,000 light-years. That's an energy change of 2.359559521728 x 10-15 joules by moving out to 27,000 light-years.
Sorry, your calculation isn't fully correct.
The mass inside of the Sun's orbit is Mgalaxy = 10^11 MSun
https://sites.ualberta.ca/~pogosyan/teaching/ASTRO_122/lect24/lecture24.html
Dark Matter
"We can estimate the mass of the Milky Way by using Kepler's laws of motion.
Kepler's laws are valid anytime two massive objects move around a common center of mass.
In a system like a galaxy, the Sun only feels the gravitational attraction from the parts of the galaxy which are closer to the center than the Sun is.
The gravitational attraction between the Sun and the rest of the galaxy is as though the inner part of the galaxy were compressed to a point at the center of the galaxy.
Kepler's law gives us the sum of the mass of the galaxy and the Sun once we know the orbital period and distance
Mgalaxy + MSun = (4 &pi2/G)R3/P2
But the mass of a star is tiny compared to the mass of the galaxy, so we can drop the mass of the Sun.
Kepler's law for motion in the galaxy:
Putting in the numbers for the Sun's motion, we find that the mass inside of the Sun's orbit is Mgalaxy = 10^11 MSun"
Hence:
Mgalaxy at 27,000 Ly = 10^11 MSun
Therefore, by reusing your calculation:
The mass of the black hole is 886 million times that of the Sun. The Sun's mass is 1.9885 x 1026 kilograms. That makes the black hole's mass 1.722 x 1035 kilograms. This means that the gravitational potential energy of a proton at two light-days from the black hole would be:
At 27,000 light-years, the gravitational potential energy is:
U = (-GMm)/r
U = (-(-6.674 x 10-11)(1.722 x 1035)(1.673 x 10-27))/(2.554 x 1020)
U = (-(1.149 x 1025)(1.673 x 10-27))/(2.554 x 1020)
U = (-(1.9227 x 10-2)/(2.554 x 1020)
U = -7.52 x 10-23 joules
What this means is that a proton falling from 27,000 light-years down to 2 light-days would gain (-3.71 x 10-16) - (-7.52 x 10-23) = -3.09999248 x 10-16 joules of kinetic energy. In turn, this means it would take 3.09999248 x 10-16 joules to lift that proton from 2 light-days to 27,000 light-years.
By using Mgalaxy at 27,000 Ly = 10^11 MSun instead of M sun we get:
U (with dark matter at 27000 LY) = -7.52 x 10^-23 * 10^11 joules = -7.52 x 10^-12 joules.
With regards to the kinetic energy of a proton:
Now how much kinetic energy does a proton traveling at 99% the speed of light have? Using this calculator: https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/relativistic-ke The answer is approximately 9.087 x 10^-10 joules. That is over 2.9 million times the energy needed to lift the proton from 2 light-days to 27,000 light-years.
Please remember that in the Milky Way accretion disc, the particles move at 0.3c
KE = 0.5 * m * v^2
As v = 0.3c
KE (for v= 0.3c) = KE (for v=c) * 0.3^2
Therefore, the kinetic energy of a proton at the MW' accretion disc is:
9.087 x 10^-10 joules * 0.3^2 = 8.17 x 10^-11 joules.
The ratio between the proton energy at the accretion disc to the potential energy at 27,000 Ly is as follow:
With dark matter it is: 8.17 x 10^-11 joules / 7.52 x 10^-12 joules = 10.8
Without dark matter it was over than 2.9 million.
If we add to our calculation the energy lose as the magnetic fields bands the motion of the proton in the direction of the SMBH magnetic poles, as the proton tries to escape from the SMBH gravitational force and other energy dissipation as friction, compression, turbulence, we may find that this 10.8 is clearly not good enough.
Please remember, the estimated mass of the SMBH is just 4 million solar mass while the dark matter Mgalaxy at 27,000 Ly is 10^11 (100 Billions) solar mass.
Therefore, there is high possibility that based on the dark matter concept, the Jet stream woun't get to that 27,000 LY without decreasing significantly its starting velocity as it cross more and more dark mass.
-
You are aware that this quasar isn't in the Milky Way galaxy, aren't you?
-
You are aware that this quasar isn't in the Milky Way galaxy, aren't you?
Who knows what he thinks he knows. He doesn't even seem to know that the jet stream is a weather phenomenon found on Earth.
I don't think he even actually knows what a quasar is!
-
After banning trevorjohnson32 for trolling, I've had a rethink on how I deal with these kinds of threads. There are some of you who do tend to antagonize those with new theories, even if it isn't with a direct insult. If what you are saying is condescending or belittling, it could lead to tensions. So please, feel free to refute them when they are wrong, but don't make implications about them having some lack of intelligence.
-
So please, feel free to refute them when they are wrong, but don't make implications about them having some lack of intelligence.
You're right about antagonizing people, but I find bad faith arguments incredibly annoying.
I will just put people like that on ignore it's not like I am missing anything important (one last dig 😊).
-
You are aware that this quasar isn't in the Milky Way galaxy, aren't you?
1. Ergosphere & Gravitoelectromagnetism
In the article that you have offered they discuss about quasar
It's something called the ergosphere. Anything falling into it must move with the black hole's rotation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergosphere
"This process is considered a possible explanation for a source of energy of such energetic phenomena as gamma-ray bursts.[9] Results from computer models show that the Penrose process is capable of producing the high-energy particles that are observed being emitted from quasars and other active galactic nuclei."
2. Jet steam & dark matter.
Based on the orbital motion of stars in the galaxy, we can extract the requested dark matter for that galaxy.
Unfortunately, we don't have visibility on stars orbital motion in any quasar' galaxy and therefore it is impossible to make any calculation between the jet steam to the dark matter.
In the Milky way galaxy we have excellent visibility on stars orbital motion, therefore it had been selected.
Please also be aware that "Astrophysics believe that our galaxy's central black hole might have been in a quasar phase of activity six million years ago".
https://earthsky.org/space/a-quasar-milky-way-six-million-years-ago/
As the MW SMBH might have been a quasar, can we discuss about it?
-
There are some of you who do tend to antagonize those with new theories
We are not the ones starting the antagonism...
Why is it so difficult for you to accept the observation / facts as is?
Don't you thrust the measurements of those scientists?
We all must accept it as real fact!
Is it because I don't accept the dark matter imagination or is it because I claim that EM is the ultimate force of the Universe?
-
If you're going to talk about the Milky Way as having a quasar, then you're going to have to be careful about comparing it to the quasar that this thread is about. The Milky Way's black hole is much less massive, for one. The temperature of the Milky Way's possible quasar is unknown and so are the properties of any jets it may have produced. Not all galaxies have the same amount of dark matter either. So any comparison is dubious.
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.
That would reduce a proton travelling at 99% the speed of light's kinetic energy to 9.086163 x 10-10. That's equivalent to a speed of 98.9998% the speed of light. So even with the entire mass of the galaxy taken in the account, the jet still doesn't slow down hardly any at all.
We are not the ones starting the antagonism...
There's no need to escalate it.
-
Not all galaxies have the same amount of dark matter either. So any comparison is dubious.
The galaxy that contains 3C 273 has a mass of about 2 x 10^11 solar masses. This is about 225.7 times the mass of the central black hole there.
What do you mean by this explanation:
1. Do you mean that there is no dark matter in the 3C 273 galaxy and therefore we can ignore it?
2. Or the assumption is that all the normal matter + the dark matter is concentrated at the central black hole/quasar?
-
Not all galaxies have the same amount of dark matter either. So any comparison is dubious.
The galaxy that contains 3C 273 has a mass of about 2 x 10^11 solar masses. This is about 225.7 times the mass of the central black hole there.
What do you mean by this explanation:
1. Do you mean that there is no dark matter in the 3C 273 galaxy and therefore we can ignore it?
2. Or the assumption is that all the normal matter + the dark matter is concentrated at the central black hole/quasar?
I guess he means that if you don't know how big the effect of dark matter is, then you should be careful saying the effect will be the same in the two different cases.
-
2. Or the assumption is that all the normal matter + the dark matter is concentrated at the central black hole/quasar?
Dark matter does not clump so it is not really concentrated at the black hole like normal matter. Dark matter is diffuse and there is a higher density in the center of the galaxy but it's density gradually decreases as you move from the center of the galaxy. The dark matter halo extends well beyond the visible edge of the galaxy.
-
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.
That would reduce a proton travelling at 99% the speed of light's kinetic energy to 9.086163 x 10-10. That's equivalent to a speed of 98.9998% the speed of light. So even with the entire mass of the galaxy taken in the account, the jet still doesn't slow down hardly any at all.
Ok
If I understand the answer correctly, the idea is that even if we set the whole galaxy mass in the center at the SMBH/Quasar at the best case, we can get a maximal proton' potential energy that equivalent to -8.37 x 10-14 Joules ( -3.71 x 10-16 joules x 225.7).
However, the energy of a proton at the speed of light is 9.086163 x 10-10.
Therefore, even if we assume that all of that mass is concentrated at the center of the galaxy, we need to increase the starting potential energy of a proton (which is -8.37 x 10-14 Joules) to 9.086163 x 10-10 joules.
Therefore, we need to increase the falling proton starting energy by 10,855 times.
= 9.086163 x 10^-10 joules / 8.37 x 10^-14 = 10,855 times.
Don't you agree that in order to get so significant increase in the proton energy, the Quasar/SMBH must contribute most of this energy by the process that is called "ergosphere"?
"It's something called the ergosphere. Anything falling into it must move with the black hole's rotation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergosphere
However, this energy is due to the spin rotation of the Quasar/SMBH.
If that spin energy is consumed to increase the proton velocity at the accretion disc, then by definition after billion years and trillions over trillions ejected particles, the quasar spin must be reduced.
Surprisingly, we clearly see that there is no reduction of the particle's velocities in any accretion disc or in any jet stream.
Do you agree that this by itself proves that the quasar/SMBH must keep its spin velocity?
If that is correct, then somehow the Quasar/SMBH must get constantly new energy.
Any idea how the Quasar/SMBH gets this new energy in order to maintain is spin?
-
However, the energy of a proton at the speed of light is 9.086163 x 10-10.
No it isn't.
-
If that spin energy is consumed to increase the proton velocity at the accretion disc, then by definition after billion years and trillions over trillions ejected particles, the quasar spin must be reduced.
Yes.
Surprisingly, we clearly see that there is no reduction of the particle's velocities in any accretion disc or in any jet stream.
You are surprised. The rest of us are not.
A quasar is very big.
It can fling a (relatively) few particles around without affecting it's motion much.
If that is correct, then somehow the Quasar/SMBH must get constantly new energy.
Any idea how the Quasar/SMBH gets this new energy in order to maintain is spin?
Stuff falls into it.
-
Surprisingly, we clearly see that there is no reduction of the particle's velocities in any accretion disc or in any jet stream.
Why would you say that? You keep talking about the accretion disk and jets (not jet stream) as if they are the same thing and they are completely different things. The evidence shows that the speed of the jets do slow.
-
However, the energy of a proton at the speed of light is 9.086163 x 10-10.
No it isn't.
Yes it is:
Now how much kinetic energy does a proton traveling at 99% the speed of light have? Using this calculator: https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/relativistic-ke The answer is approximately 9.087 x 10-10 joules.
If that spin energy is consumed to increase the proton velocity at the accretion disc, then by definition after billion years and trillions over trillions ejected particles, the quasar spin must be reduced.
Yes.
Thanks
Surprisingly, we clearly see that there is no reduction of the particle's velocities in any accretion disc or in any jet stream.
You are surprised. The rest of us are not.
A quasar is very big.
It can fling a (relatively) few particles around without affecting it's motion much.
Do you mean few particles per second or per Pico second?
Multiply it by billions years and try to verify the total Quasar spinning lost energy.
If that is correct, then somehow the Quasar/SMBH must get constantly new energy.
Any idea how the Quasar/SMBH gets this new energy in order to maintain is spinning energy?
Stuff falls into it.
Stuff falls into the quasar would increase its total mass, but don't you agree that it won't increase its spinning velocity?
We discuss about the quasar spin energy which had been transformed into proton kinetic energy.
So, please show how the quasar could increase its spin in order to compensate its lost spinning energy.
-
Yes it is:
No, it's not
See if you can see why
However, the energy of a proton at the speed of light is 9.086163 x 10-10.
a proton travelling at 99% the speed of light's kinetic energy to 9.086163 x 10-10.
-
Multiply it by billions years
We have not yet watched a quasar for a billion years.
So your point is irrelevant, isn't it?
-
Stuff falls into the quasar would increase its total mass, but don't you agree that it won't increase its spinning velocity?
Depends which way it falls.
-
Stuff falls into the quasar would increase its total mass, but don't you agree that it won't increase its spinning velocity?
A quasar is the jet from an active super massive black hole that happens to be pointed in our direction. The quasar is powered by the SMBH. Matter does not fall into a quasar, matter falls into the black hole that powers the quasar.
Yes it is:
It is not for the simple reason that it is not possible for a proton to travel at the speed of light.
-
Stuff falls into the quasar would increase its total mass, but don't you agree that it won't increase its spinning velocity?
Depends which way it falls.
From statistical point of view, on any particle that falls in the direction of the SMBH/Quasar spinning, there must be one that falls in the other direction.
Therefore, by average you don't get any extra spinning energy from those falling particles.
We have not yet watched a quasar for a billion years.
So your point is irrelevant, isn't it?
We see many quasars.
Some of them are located at the very far edge of the observable Universe and some are relatively closer.
From statistical point of view, some of them might be younger and some other might be older.
However, in all of them without exception we observe the jet stream while it moves at the speed of light.
Therefore, why it isn't clear to all of us that if those quasars won't get new spinning energy that is needed to compensate the loss of spinning energy due the ergosphere phenomenon at least some of them won't be able to sustain this speed of light jet stream.
-
From statistical point of view, on any particle that falls in the direction of the SMBH/Quasar spinning, there must be one that falls in the other direction.
Therefore, by average you don't get any extra spinning energy from those falling particles.
No, the accretion disk itself is spinning. Conservation of angular momentum means that the matter in the accretion disk that gets consumed by the black hole will transfer its angular momentum to the black hole and thus contribute to its spin.
Therefore, why it isn't clear to all of us that if those quasars won't get new spinning energy that is needed to compensate the loss of spinning energy due the ergosphere phenomenon at least some of them won't be able to sustain this speed of light jet stream.
First of all, the jets don't travel at the speed of light. They travel near the speed of light. Secondly, have you done the math to demonstrate that the needed energy isn't there? Something merely seeming intuitive to you isn't sufficient to count as evidence.
-
From statistical point of view, on any particle that falls in the direction of the SMBH/Quasar spinning, there must be one that falls in the other direction.
If that was true, the planets would not orbit the sun etc.
-
Conservation of angular momentum means that the matter in the accretion disk that gets consumed by the black hole will transfer its angular momentum to the black hole and thus contribute to its spin.
Sorry, I don't understand the benefit of this process.
We try to verify how a falling proton with very low potential energy (-3.71 x 10-16 joules at the MW SMBH, or -8.37 x 10-14 Joules at the ideal quasar) can be converted to 99% the speed of light's kinetic energy (9.086163 x 10-10) at the quasar accretion disc (or 0.3c at the SMBH accretion disc).
The answer was - "ergosphere" due to the black hole's spin/rotation.
So, what is the benefit (from SMBH spinning energy) to force a proton that already gain its maximal kinetic energy at the accretion disc (from the SMBH spinning energy) to fall back into the SMBH, in order to help the SMBH to regain its spinning energy?
Actually, in this process (assuming that there is no energy lost at all) the net income for the SMBH' spinning energy is just the starting potential energy of the proton (which is -3.71 x 10-16 joules at the MW SMBH, or -8.37 x 10-14 Joules at the ideal quasar).
Would you kindly reconsider your answer.
Therefore, why it isn't clear to all of us that if those quasars won't get new spinning energy that is needed to compensate the loss of spinning energy due the ergosphere phenomenon at least some of them won't be able to sustain this speed of light jet stream.
First of all, the jets don't travel at the speed of light. They travel near the speed of light. Secondly, have you done the math to demonstrate that the needed energy isn't there? Something merely seeming intuitive to you isn't sufficient to count as evidence.
Well, our scientists have done the calculation:
https://www.sci.news/astronomy/article00353.html
"It would take a tremendous influx of matter for the galactic core to fire up again. Finkbeiner estimates that a molecular cloud weighing about 10,000 times as much as the Sun would be required."
If I remember it correctly, that molecular cloud had been created in 6 Million years.
Therefore, based on this rate, in 6 billion years 10 million sun mass had been ejected in the jet stream.
This is more than the total mass of the SMBH.
Based on this data, how can we claim that as we don't know than we don't care.
Please, do you still insist to ignore the request for new SMBH/Quasar spinning energy in order to recover the lost energy?
-
So, what is the benefit (from SMBH spinning energy) to force a proton that already gain its maximal kinetic energy at the accretion disc (from the SMBH spinning energy) to fall back into the SMBH, in order to help the SMBH to regain its spinning energy?
I never said that was how it worked. The proton that flies out in the jet doesn't come back. It's the matter that doesn't end up in the jet that increases the black hole's spin.
Well, our scientists have done the calculation:
https://www.sci.news/astronomy/article00353.html
"It would take a tremendous influx of matter for the galactic core to fire up again. Finkbeiner estimates that a molecular cloud weighing about 10,000 times as much as the Sun would be required."
If I remember it correctly, that molecular cloud had been created in 6 Million years.
Therefore, based on this rate, in 6 billion years 10 million sun mass had been ejected in the jet stream.
This is more than the total mass of the SMBH.
Based on this data, how can we claim that as we don't know than we don't care.
Please, do you still insist to ignore the request for new SMBH/Quasar spinning energy in order to recover the lost energy?
That is about the Milky Way galaxy, not the quasar that this thread is about. The calculations for one are not applicable to the other.
-
That is about the Milky Way galaxy, not the quasar that this thread is about. The calculations for one are not applicable to the other.
Please, can you offer the data for any relevant quasar?
In the following article it is stated:
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2016/08/milky-way-had-blowout-bash-6-million-years-ago/
Milky Way had blowout bash 6 million years ago
This artist's impression shows the Milky Way as it may have appeared 6 million years ago during a quasar' phase of activity.
Why it is not relevant to verify our SMBH during its quasar' phase of activity?
I never said that was how it worked. The proton that flies out in the jet doesn't come back. It's the matter that doesn't end up in the jet that increases the black hole's spin.
Yes, that is correct.
However, the potential energy of the falling proton is just -3.71 x 10-16 joules at the MW SMBH, or -8.37 x 10-14 Joules at the ideal quasar.
Therefore, while one falling proton can increase the SMBH' spinning energy by this potential energy, a spinning energy of almost 2.45 Million times higher at the SMBH (or 10,000 at the quasar) is needed to accelerate one other falling proton at almost the speed of light at the accretion disc.
Please where the new SMBH' spinning energy is coming from or prove that there is no need for extra energy.
-
We don't know all the properties of the Milky Way's quasar, so trying to figure things out about it would be a combination of speculation and inferences based on other quasars.
There would be many infalling protons for every proton that gets sent into the polar jets. It's not a 1-to-1 ratio. That's why the black hole can keep its spin up.
-
There would be many infalling protons for every proton that gets sent into the polar jets. It's not a 1-to-1 ratio. That's why the black hole can keep its spin up.
Energy conservation law is one of the most important laws in science.
If we wish to protect this law, then it is our obligation to find the data/proves/observation that can show that out of 2.45 Million falling particles, only one gets enough SMBH' spinning energy that its needed to set it at almost the speed of light in the accretion disc.
Can you please offer the data/observation for this activity?
In any case, in the following article it is stated:
https://www.urban-astronomer.com/news-and-updates/milky-ways-black-hole-a-picky-eater/
astronomers studying Sgr A* (the supermassive black hole at the centre of the Milky Way Galaxy) were surprised to notice that less than 1% of the gas and dust drawn into its gravitational field ever get consumed almost everything else gets ejected.
How can we explain this real observation of less than 1% of the gas and dust drawn into its gravitational field ever get consumed by the SMBH, while we try to assume that the correct ratio should be 245 Million % in order to protect the Energy conservation law for the SMBH spinning energy?
-
Dave, just to let you know; these things are not "over-unity" devices and do not break the laws of physics.
But they let you use the power of falling water to pump water to a greater height than it fell from.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_ram
-
Dave, just to let you know; these things are not "over-unity" devices and do not break the laws of physics.
But they let you use the power of falling water to pump water to a greater height than it fell from.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_ram
Nice
Can it multiply the power of the falling water by 2.45 Million times?
How can you break the conservation law so dramatically when it comes to your theory?
Is it correct that the modern science can break the law of conservation energy without any limitation, while no one else is allowed to do so?
Why do you refuse to give the possibility for other theories to break the conservation energy law even by 0.00...1%?
If you confirm that it is perfectly OK to multiply the falling particles energy by 2.45 Million times in your theory (while you don't band yourself), then at least would you be fair enough to give other people the possibility to multiply the same falling particles energy only by three in their theory?
Why can't we agree on one law for all theories?
-
Can it multiply the power of the falling water by 2.45 Million times?
How did you come to the conclusion that it increases power?
In the medium to long run, power is a conserved quantity- just like energy.
How can you break the conservation law so dramatically when it comes to your theory?
Nobody is breaking the laws of physics.
We don't break them because we know better, and you don't break them because we got so tired of listening to you doing so that we threatened you with a ban if you didn't stop.
Why do you refuse to give the possibility for other theories to break the law conservation energy?
Because that would be stupid.
You can't break them.
Any idea that did wouldn't be a theory.
Scientific theories have to be mathematically consistent.
Noether's theorem says that the conservation laws hold true.
So any idea that breaks the conservation laws is mathematically impossible and thus not part of science.
By all means write fantasy novels about them.
But don't expect them to be taken seriously in science.
Why can't we agree on one law for all theories?
We did.
It's just that you don't understand it.
You think a hydraulic ram "multiplies power" even though, as I pointed out...
these things are not "over-unity" devices and do not break the laws of physics.
How did you come to the conclusion that they multiply power?
-
Energy conservation law is one of the most important laws in science.
Yes.
If we wish to protect this law, then it is our obligation to find the data/proves/observation that can show that out of 2.45 Million falling particles, only one gets enough SMBH' spinning energy that its needed to set it at almost the speed of light in the accretion disc.
You don't have to protect the law. It's already guaranteed by Noether's theorem. So it's quite safe to say that the black hole obeys it.
How can we explain this real observation of less than 1% of the gas and dust drawn into its gravitational field ever get consumed by the SMBH, while we try to assume that the correct ratio should be 245 Million % in order to protect the Energy conservation law for the SMBH spinning energy?
That's the Milky Way's black hole, not the quasar. The black holes have different masses and different amounts of matter in their accretion disks. So the math isn't going to be the same.
How can you break the conservation law so dramatically when it comes to your theory?
We don't.
-
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 08:00:35
Energy conservation law is one of the most important laws in science.
Yes.
Dear Kryptid
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?"
Based on your calculation about a quasar, the initial potential energy of a falling proton is -8.37 x 10^-14 Joules.
Therefore, the quasar must "eat" 1.194 x10^13 falling protons in order to achieve spinning energy of just one joules.
As there is a need for 3 trillion trillion trillion joules of energy flow up jet each second, then do you confirm that the quasar must "eat" 35 billion trillion trillion trillion falling proton per second.
1.194 x10^13 * 3 trillion trillion trillion = 35 billion trillion trillion trillion = 35 * 10^57 falling proton per second.
Do still believe that all of those 35 * 10^57 falling proton per second in order to maintain the Energy conservation law for the quasar is realistic?
-
Conservation laws are not up for debate.
-
Based on your calculation about a quasar, the initial potential energy of a falling proton is -8.37 x 10^-14 Joules.
There's an error here. That's the gravitational potential energy at a distance of 2 light-days from the black hole, not the gravitational potential energy of the proton right at the black hole's event horizon (which will be much higher).
-
Based on your calculation about a quasar, the initial potential energy of a falling proton is -8.37 x 10^-14 Joules.
There's an error here. That's the gravitational potential energy at a distance of 2 light-days from the black hole, not the gravitational potential energy of the proton right at the black hole's event horizon (which will be much higher).
You have set the following calculation:
The mass of the black hole is 886 million times that of the Sun. The Sun's mass is 1.9885 x 1026 kilograms. That makes the black hole's mass 1.722 x 1035 kilograms. This means that the gravitational potential energy of a proton at two light-days from the black hole would be:
U = (-GMm)/r
U = (-(-6.674 x 10-11)(1.722 x 1035)(1.673 x 10-27))/(5.18 x 1013)
U = (-(1.149 x 1025)(1.673 x 10-27))/(5.18 x 1013)
U = (-(1.9227 x 10-2)/(5.18 x 1013)
U = -3.71 x 10-16 joules
If I understand it correctly, the distance of 2 light-days represents the distance to the deep center of the black hole (as it has an infinite zero radius).
In your calculation you didn't deduct the radius of the accretion disc / event horizon.
Therefore, this distance represents the maximal distance and therefore the maximal gravitational potential energy.
Based on this calculation for the gravitational potential energy at 2 day light, we have discovered that 35 * 10^57 falling proton per second are requested.
However, if you still think that there is an error in your calculation, would you kindly fix it?
If you do so, how much gravitational potential energy we could add to the proton?
Even if you would increase this proton gravitational potential energy by two, by 1000, by one million or even by one trillion, would it really help to keep on with the wrong assumption that all of the energy at the accretion disc + Jet stream is coming from the potential energy of falling particles?
When you clearly see so severe contradiction between the observation to the current main stream theory, why there is no room to reconsider this theory?
In the article it is stated:
https://www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-identify-the-engine-powering-black-hole-energy-beams-20210520/
"The stripes of polarized light around M87's black hole reveal the strong magnetic fields at work."
"A simulation of the jet coming out of the supermassive black hole in the galaxy M87. A highly magnetic process called MAD is thought to be at work."
"Experts say the spiral pattern of the stripes results from a strong, orderly magnetic field around the M87 black hole,"
How can you keep on with the wrong assumption that this strong magnetic fields which creates stripes of polarized light in the accretion disc is due to the matter in the accretion disc?
Is there any possibility to convert the falling potential energy particles into so strong magnetic fields with energy level of 3 trillion trillion trillion joules?
In the article there is a confirmation for the impact of the SMBH spinning on energy:
"The mathematician Roy Kerr had solved the equations for a spinning black hole in 1963, showing that the hole, as it invisibly turns, drags the fabric of space-time around with it. Then Roger Penrose proved that spinning black holes can slow down, and that in doing so they transform their rotational energy into something else."
Now, lets think what could be that else energy?
The answer is as follow:
"Both of us understood the Penrose process,? Blandford said, which proved that black holes are not one-way membranes, as it were; you can extract the spin energy. We showed a way of doing that with electromagnetic fields.?
When the Earth spines, don't you agree that it also generates magnetic fields?
So, why is it forbidden for the science community to reconsider the possibility that when the SMBH is spinning it generates its own magnetic fields?
The mass of the SMBH is estimated to be 4 *10^6 sun mass.
As the SMBH clearly spins, why we refuse to understand that this must be the ONLY ultimate source for the magnetic fields that can easily generate energy of 3 trillion trillion trillion joules (and above) due to the spinning motion?
It is also stated:
the new observations confirm the Blandford-Znajek idea. ?What we see in our image is ordered polarization in a spiral shape, said Issaoun, who was involved in analyzing the polarization measurements. and the shape of the magnetic field is also spiral which means it's able to launch a jet.
Therefore, why do we refuse to consider the possibility that the SMBH' magnetic fields which is the source for the 3 trillion trillion trillion joules of energy, can easily launch a spiral shape jet due to its strong magnetic fields at the velocity of almost the speed of light directly through its magnetic poles to a distance of hundreds of thousands LY?
-
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.
I do plan on doing some more math. If no one has replied after this comment, I'll come back and edit it. If so, then I'll just make another post.
As the SMBH clearly spins, why we refuse to understand that this must be the ONLY ultimate source for the magnetic fields that can easily generate energy of 3 trillion trillion trillion joules (and above) due to the spinning motion?
Rotating, electrically-conducting fluids generate magnetic fields. Therefore, the accretion disk generates a magnetic field (even if, perhaps, the black hole does as well).
-
Rotating, electrically-conducting fluids generate magnetic fields. Therefore, the accretion disk generates a magnetic field (even if, perhaps, the black hole does as well).
Thanks
So, you agree that there is a possibility for the SMBH to generate magnetic fields, however, it seems that you have some hesitation.
Please be aware that the mass of the SMBH could be millions or even billions sun mass, while in the accretion disc the total mass could be just few sun mass.
Therefore, even if you insist that the accretion disc generates magnetic fields, then by far the SMBH should generate millions or billions of times stronger magnetic fields.
The observation of the 3 trillion trillion trillion joules of energy flow up jet each second fully confirms that it is mainly due to the SMBH's magnetic fields (as the accretion disc by itself would never generate so strong magnetic fields).
For me, the comparison between the SMBH magneto to that in the accretion disc is similar to the comparison between mighty atomic electric power station to an electrical generator by few solar panels at the roof.
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.
I read your above explanation and I wonder if it is valid to any spinning object.
Let's focus on Pulsar:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsar
A pulsar (from pulsating radio source)[1][2] is a highly magnetized rotating neutron star that emits beams of electromagnetic radiation out of its magnetic poles.
This pulsar clearly generates magnetic fields and it even emits beams of electromagnetic radiation out of its magnetic poles.
If you think about it, the pulsar is a mini size quasar.
Hence, as the pulsar can generate magnetic fields with relative low mass, then the quasar can generate much stronger magnetic fields with its Supper massive spinning mass.
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.
Why are you so sure about it?
Please read the following:
"the new observations confirm the Blandford-Znajek idea. What we see in our image is ordered polarization in a spiral shape, said Issaoun, who was involved in analyzing the polarization measurements. and the shape of the magnetic field is also spiral which means it's able to launch a jet."
https://www.facebook.com/QuantaNews/photos/a.247347725462827/1937625143101735/?type=3
"The motion generates twisted magnetic fields...."
Hence, we clearly observe the polarization the twisted magnetic fields and the magnetic spiral structure.
Don't you agree that this quasar jet steam is very similar to the Pulsar "beams of electromagnetic radiation out of its magnetic pole".
The pulsar has no accretion disc.
Even so the pulsar ejects beams of electromagnetic radiation out of its magnetic poles.
In the same token, why can't we agree that the quasar ejects beams of electromagnetic radiation out of its magnetic poles. However, it also grabs the matter from the accretion disc in its beam and jets it at the speed of light out of its magnetic poles.
-
Please be aware that the mass of the SMBH could be millions or even billions sun mass, while in the accretion disc the total mass could be just few sun mass.
Therefore, even if you insist that the accretion disc generates magnetic fields, then by far the SMBH should generate millions or billions of times stronger magnetic fields.
The strength of a magnetic field is not contingent upon mass. We can produce magnetic fields many, many times stronger than the Earth's magnetic field despite the Earth being many orders of magnitude more massive than our machines.
The observation of the 3 trillion trillion trillion joules of energy flow up jet each second fully confirms that it is mainly due to the SMBH's magnetic fields
No, it does not. Magnetic fields do not do work on charged particles. I provided a reference for that earlier in the thread.
Why are you so sure about it?
Because it's true: magnetic fields do not do work on charged particles. Go back and read my reference earlier in the thread. The magnetic fields do create the jets in the sense that they direct them. They do not contribute the jets' energy, though.
EDIT: Actually, let me amend that. It's true that a magnetic field won't do work on a single charged particle, but it can do work on an object that possesses its own magnetic field (two magnets can obviously accelerate towards each other if their opposite poles are facing each other). Since a plasma has its own magnetic field, then perhaps your idea isn't entirely without merit.
-
magnetic fields do not do work on charged particles. Go back and read my reference earlier in the thread.
Can you please redirect me to the relevant article about it.
The magnetic fields do create the jets in the sense that they direct them. They do not contribute the jets' energy, though.
What do you think about the Pulsar Beam?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsar
A pulsar (from pulsating radio source)[1][2] is a highly magnetized rotating neutron star that emits beams of electromagnetic radiation out of its magnetic poles.
Don't you agree that it is electromagnetic radiation beam that is emitted out of its magnetic poles?
If so, why the quasar can't emit similar beam of electromagnetic radiation out of its magnetic Poles?
The strength of a magnetic field is not contingent upon mass.
Do you really consider that the potential energy of the falling particles could create energy that is equivalent to 3 trillion trillion trillion joules each second?
Lets assume that we could stop the spinning motion of the SMBH, but we would keep its total mass.
You had already confirmed that the SMBH contributes significant energy to the falling particles by its spinning motion.
Therefore, can we agree that without the SMBH' spinning motion, the total energy in the accretion disc + in the jet stream would be significantly low?
So, its not just about the mass, but it is also about its features - which means its spinning motion.
Do you agree that a SMBH that doesn't spin would not contribute the energy that is needed to speed up the particles at the accretion disc to their speed of light?
At the maximum, their kinetic energy would be equivalent to their starting potential energy.
In other words - the energy in the accretion disc would be so low that we might not see it at all.
Therefore, do you agree that a SMBH without spinning motion is just useless.
We can produce magnetic fields many, many times stronger than the Earth's magnetic field despite the Earth being many orders of magnitude more massive than our machines.
Can we generate enough magnetic fields that is needed to protect the earth from the solar winds?
Let's assume that the Earth has lost its magnetosphere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetosphere
"a magnetosphere is a region of space surrounding an astronomical object in which charged particles are affected by that object's magnetic field.[1][2] It is created by a celestial body with an active interior dynamo."
Is it feasible for us to build strong enough magnetic generator that can replace the natural magnetospher around the earth?
What is the estimated energy that is needed for this generator in order to protect us from the solar wind?
-
Can you please redirect me to the relevant article about it.
https://openstax.org/books/college-physics-2e/pages/22-5-force-on-a-moving-charge-in-a-magnetic-field-examples-and-applications#:~:text=Magnetic%20force%20is%20always%20perpendicular,affected%2C%20but%20not%20the%20speed.
What do you think about the Pulsar Beam?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsar
A pulsar (from pulsating radio source)[1][2] is a highly magnetized rotating neutron star that emits beams of electromagnetic radiation out of its magnetic poles.
Don't you agree that it is electromagnetic radiation beam that is emitted out of its magnetic poles?
If so, why the quasar can't emit similar beam of electromagnetic radiation out of its magnetic Poles?
The quasar beams contain more than just electromagnetic radiation. They also contain charged particles.
Do you really consider that the potential energy of the falling particles could create energy that is equivalent to 3 trillion trillion trillion joules each second?
Lets assume that we could stop the spinning motion of the SMBH, but we would keep its total mass.
You had already confirmed that the SMBH contributes significant energy to the falling particles by its spinning motion.
Therefore, can we agree that without the SMBH' spinning motion, the total energy in the accretion disc + in the jet stream would be significantly low?
So, its not just about the mass, but it is also about its features - which means its spinning motion.
Do you agree that a SMBH that doesn't spin would not contribute the energy that is needed to speed up the particles at the accretion disc to their speed of light?
At the maximum, their kinetic energy would be equivalent to their starting potential energy.
In other words - the energy in the accretion disc would be so low that we might not see it at all.
Therefore, do you agree that a SMBH without spinning motion is just useless.
Ultimately, your model is going to depend on the energy coming from the accretion disk as well. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the black hole does indeed have its own magnetic field generated by its spin. Let's also say that it can interact with the magnetic field generated by the accretion disk, pull particles out of the disk, and launch them into beams. Okay, that's all fine and good. Now, when your magnetic black hole accelerates the material from the accretion disk into beams, it's going to have to transfer energy to the beams. That energy has to come from somewhere. That energy comes from the black hole's spin. This means that your model also predicts that the jets slowly drain energy away from the black hole's spin. That energy has to be replenished. The only thing around to replenish that energy is the accretion disk.
I want you to be very careful about how you reply to this. If you start making claims that "magnetic energy is free" or that the black hole can somehow magically add kinetic energy to the jets without losing kinetic energy in some way, then that would mean that you are arguing that black holes are a form of perpetual motion machine. Since that is material you have discussed in a previously locked thread, then I would be locking this thread as well if you did that. Not only that, but I'd also suspend you for a month because, as many years as you've been on this forum, you really should know better by now than to try to bypass thread locks.
-
Not only that, but I'd also suspend you for a month
Why only a month?
He's made it clear that he doesn't want to change his ways.
-
Why only a month?
He's made it clear that he doesn't want to change his ways.
It was a recommendation by Halc (if I recall correctly).
-
This also does not break the laws of physics.
https://www.facebook.com/reel/324860803322438
-
Ultimately, your model is going to depend on the energy coming from the accretion disk as well.
Dear kryptid
It seems that I was not clear enough.
In this thread I would like to understand the current modeling for the quasar energy
My model is absolutely irrelevant to this discussion. I do not wish to discuss about my personal modeling. If you insist to do so, then please reopen the locked thread and I would be more than happy to answer any relevant question.
I really want to thank you all for you excellent support.
After all the long discussion, please let me know if I understand correctly the current modeling theory for the quasar energy:
The basic Idea in this modeling is that the gravitational potential energy of the falling particles is transformed into kinetic energy while they fall in the direction of the quasar SMBH. This kinetic energy should give the particles which falls into the accretion disc most of their energy.
If some energy is missing in this process, then there are some options to add the missing the kinetic energy.
We will discuss it later on.
Let's first discover the basic energies:
The gravitational potential energy of a proton at two light-days from the MW black hole is: U = -3.71 x 10-16 joules.
The mass of the black hole is 886 million times that of the Sun. The Sun's mass is 1.9885 x 1026 kilograms. That makes the black hole's mass 1.722 x 1035 kilograms. This means that the gravitational potential energy of a proton at two light-days from the black hole would be:
U = (-GMm)/r
U = (-(-6.674 x 10-11)(1.722 x 1035)(1.673 x 10-27))/(5.18 x 1013)
U = (-(1.149 x 1025)(1.673 x 10-27))/(5.18 x 1013)
U = (-(1.9227 x 10-2)/(5.18 x 1013)
U = -3.71 x 10-16 joules
The estimated gravitational potential energy for a falling proton from a distance of 2-light days at the 3C 273 quasar is -8.37 x 10^-14 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 we just multiply the original numbers by 225.7: -3.71 x 10-16 joules x 225.7 = -8.37 x 10-14 joules....
The kinetic energy of a proton that orbits at almost the speed of light at the quasar accretion disc is approximately 9.087 x 10-10 joules.
Now how much kinetic energy does a proton traveling at 99% the speed of light have? Using this calculator: https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/relativistic-ke The answer is approximately 9.087 x 10-10 joules.
Therefore, each falling proton from 2-light days with gravitational energy of -8.37 x 10-14 joules must increase its total energy by about 10,000 in order to achieve the orbital kinetic energy of 9.087 x 10-10 joules in the accretion disc?
9.087 x 10-10 / 8.37 x 10-14 = 1.08 * 10^4 = about 10,000
How the kinetic energy of falling proton could be increased by 10,000 without external energy source:
There are three options:
A. Transfer kinetic energy from one particle into the other particle:
The problem is that you are dealing with a system of many such particles. 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.
This also does not break the laws of physics.
https://www.facebook.com/reel/324860803322438
This is acceptable mechanism which could increase dramatically the kinetic energy of a falling proton.
Technically, we could claim that based on this mechanism, if 10,000 falling protons would transfer all their kinetic energy to one, then one proton can get the requested kinetic energy at the accretion disc.
Hence, out of 10,000 falling protons, 9,999 should be "eaten" by the SMBH and only one would be saved at the accretion disc.
However, the observation contradicts this assumption as only 1% of all the falling protons really drawn into the SMBH gravitational field and get consumed:
https://www.urban-astronomer.com/news-and-updates/milky-ways-black-hole-a-picky-eater/
astronomers studying Sgr A* (the supermassive black hole at the centre of the Milky Way Galaxy) were surprised to notice that less than 1% of the gas and dust drawn into its gravitational field ever get consumed almost everything else gets ejected.
Therefore, the observation proves that out of 100 falling protons, only one would be drawn into the SMBH gravitational field and get consumed.
This by itself should kill the idea of Transferring kinetic energy.
Never the less, let's assume that out of 100 falling protons, 90 would be consumed by the SMBH and the other 10 would be survive.
Hence, out of 100 falling protons, 10 would increase its kinetic energy by 10. (Let's call them "Lucky Protons").
Therefore, each lucky proton can increase its kinetic energy by 10, from - 8.37 x 10-14 joules to - 8.37 x 10-13 joules, while all the other 90 would be consumed by the SMBH.
B. Fusion:
Fusion can contribute some degree of additional energy to the accretion disk:
I would also expect nuclear fusion to contribute some degree of additional energy to the accretion disk. It's much more than hot enough there for fusion to occur (even if fusion isn't the main source of power).
However, Fusion isn't the main source of power. therefore, let's assume that it can increase the kinetic energy by 100%.
Therefore, this process would increase the kinetic energy of the falling lucky proton from - 8.37 x 10-13 joules to - 1.677 x 10-12 joules.
C. Increasing the kinetic energy of the falling lucky protons by the spinning process of the SMBH that is called "Ergosphere".
Quote from: Dave Lev on 15/09/2023 16:12:41
However, how the SMBH's spin energy could be transformed into those falling particles?
It's something called the ergosphere. Anything falling into it must move with the black hole's rotation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergosphere
Hence, in order for the lucky proton to orbit at almost the speed of light at the accretion disc, it must increase its kinetic energy by about 500, from 1.677 x 10-12 joules to 9.087 x 10-10 joules.
9.087 x 10-10 joules / 1.677 x 10-12 = 5.42 x 10^2 = about 500
After all of that, please answer the following:
1. Drain energy away from the black hole's spin?
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the black hole does indeed have its own magnetic field generated by its spin. Let's also say that it can interact with the magnetic field generated by the accretion disk, pull particles out of the disk, and launch them into beams. Okay, that's all fine and good. Now, when your magnetic black hole accelerates the material from the accretion disk into beams, it's going to have to transfer energy to the beams. That energy has to come from somewhere. That energy comes from the black hole's spin. This means that your model also predicts that the jets slowly drain energy away from the black hole's spin. That energy has to be replenished. The only thing around to replenish that energy is the accretion disk.
Sorry, I'm not fully sure that I understand correctly the above explanation.
Do you mean that if the lucky protons increase their kinetic energy by 500 times to the speed of light by using the SMBH' spinning motion, then this energy is for free, while if the magnetic fields is created by the same SMBH spin, then this magnetic fields drains energy away from the black hole's spin?
If so, why increasing the proton kinetic energy from the SMBH' spin doesn't drain energy away from the black hole's spin?
2. Do you agree to accept the following observation?
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?"
If you do, please think about the difficult process of increasing the proton potential starting gravitational energy of -8.37 x 10-14 joules to orbital kinetic energy of 9.087 x 10-10 joules (about 10,000 times).
One falling lucky proton in the accretion disc, adds only 9.087 x 10-10 joules to the disc.
Therefore, in order to add just one joule per second to the disc, one billion lucky protons must join the disc per second.
Based on the request for 3 trillion trillion trillion joules of energy flow up the jet each second, then technically 3 Billion trillion trillion trillion of just lucky particles are need to join the accretion disc per second.
As we already assume that for any lucky proton in the accretion disc, total of 10 particles should fall.
Then, is it realistic to hope that 3 tillion trillion trillion trillion of protons should fall from 2-light days per second in the direction of the quasar SMBH?
-
If that is correct, then it is a clear indication that the matter in the accretion disc is affected by the quasar' magnetic fields and not vice versa.
If it's affected then that's because a force acts on it.
And Newton pointed out that any force has a reaction force.
So it's impossible for the matter to affect the field without the field affecting the matter, and vice versa.
It can't possibly be a "one or the other" situation.
-
However, the observation contradicts this assumption as only 1% of all the falling protons really drawn into the SMBH gravitational field and get consumed:
That statistic is from the Milky Way's black hole, not a quasar. Quasars have far more material in their accretion disk and consume far more of it.
Do you mean that if the lucky protons increase their kinetic energy by 500 times to the speed of light by using the SMBH' spinning motion, then this energy is for free, while if the magnetic fields is created by the same SMBH spin, then this magnetic fields drains energy away from the black hole's spin?
No, it isn't free in either scenario. Both of those processes cause the black hole to spin down over time if the rotational kinetic energy isn't replenished from an outside source.
If you do, please think about the difficult process of increasing the proton potential starting gravitational energy of -8.37 x 10-14 joules to orbital kinetic energy of 9.087 x 10-10 joules (about 10,000 times).
One falling lucky proton in the accretion disc, adds only 9.087 x 10-10 joules to the disc.
Therefore, in order to add just one joule per second to the disc, one billion lucky protons must join the disc per second.
Based on the request for 3 trillion trillion trillion joules of energy flow up the jet each second, then technically 3 Billion trillion trillion trillion of just lucky particles are need to join the accretion disc per second.
As we already assume that for any lucky proton in the accretion disc, total of 10 particles should fall.
Then, is it realistic to hope that 3 tillion trillion trillion trillion of protons should fall from 2-light days per second in the direction of the quasar SMBH?
I'm going to do some math.
The quasar 3C273 has a luminosity on the order of 2.5 x 1040 watts: https://www.mssl.ucl.ac.uk/~gbr/Project%20Website/styled-5/index.html#:~:text=The%20fact%20that%20quasars%20are,is%203.9%20X%201026%20watts).
I'll explore possible energy sources now. If all of the mass being consumed by the black hole was converted completely into energy, then we can use E=mc2 to calculate the needed mass flow: https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/physics/emc2.php
The result is about 2.783 x 1023 kilograms per second. That's about 0.05 Earth masses per second.
Another alternative would be that the energy all comes from gravitational potential energy. I'll calculate how much potential energy 1 kilogram has at the event horizon of the black hole (as a note, I think I miscalculated the mass of the black hole in past equations. I have hopefully corrected that here).
U = (-GMm)/r
U = (-(-6.674 x 10-11)(1.722 x 1039)(1))/(2.617 x 1012)
U = (-(1.149 x 1029)(1))/(2.617 x 1012)
U = (-(1.149 x 1029))/(2.617 x 1012)
U = -4.39 x 1016 joules
2.5 x 1040 divided by 4.39 x 1016 equals 5.695 x 1023 kilograms per second. That's about 0.07 Earth masses per second.
Now for nuclear fusion. Fusion of hydrogen produces about 0.7% of the energy that direct mass-energy conversion does. As such, this means about 143 times as much mass per second than that if fusion provided all the power (which would be 3.98 x 1025 kilograms per second, about 6.675 Earth masses per second).
So the mass flow rate required to explain the power output of 3C273 is somewhere between 0.05 and 6.675 Earth masses per second, depending on the power source. Of course, inefficiencies could make the values higher than that.
-
Quote from: Dave Lev on 23/09/2023 14:18:29
However, the observation contradicts this assumption as only 1% of all the falling protons really drawn into the SMBH gravitational field and get consumed:
That statistic is from the Milky Way's black hole, not a quasar. Quasars have far more material in their accretion disk and consume far more of it.
It is very clear that Quasars have far more material in their accretion disk
However, why are you so sure that they aren't picky eater?
In the following article they discuss about quasars that happen to have their jet streams of material pointed toward Earth that are called "blazing quasars."
https://www.wbur.org/npr/507594456/some-bizarre-black-holes-put-on-light-shows
"Isler specializes in the subset of quasars that happen to have their jet streams of material pointed toward Earth. These are called blazars, or "blazing quasars."
"They are billions of times the mass of our own sun," she says. "I like to call them 'hyperactive,' in the sense that they are just taking on a lot more than an average black hole."
"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?"
Therefore, quasars are picky eaters!
I would like to remind you that also the MW' SMBH is called Picky eater:
https://www.urban-astronomer.com/news-and-updates/milky-ways-black-hole-a-picky-eater/
"astronomers studying Sgr A* (the supermassive black hole at the centre of the Milky Way Galaxy) were surprised to notice that less than 1% of the gas and dust drawn into its gravitational field ever get consumed ? almost everything else gets ejected. Who knew that a black hole could be such a picky eater!"
Picky eater means - less than 1% of the gas and dust drawn into its gravitational field ever get consumed.
Hence, although those Quasars have far more material in their accretion disk, they are still picky eater and therefore less than 1% of the gas and dust drawn into their gravitational field ever get consumed
In the article it is also stated that those astronomers don't really understand how this huge quasar really works"
"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?"
"They are able to accelerate particles to 99.99 percent of the speed of light," Isler says. "How does that happen? So, I'm interested in where along that jet do we get this acceleration, and what is the physical mechanism that is responsible for the acceleration of particles that we see?"
Therefore, it is very clear that those astronomers don't know the physical mechanism that is responsible for the acceleration of particles o 99.99 percent of the speed of light that we see.
So, how can you claim that you know the quasar' physical mechanism and how it really works, while those astronomers (which specifically focus on quasars) don't know?
I'll explore possible energy sources now. If all of the mass being consumed by the black hole was converted completely into energy, then we can use E=mc2 to calculate the needed mass flow: https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/physics/emc2.php
The result is about 2.783 x 1023 kilograms per second. That's about 0.05 Earth masses per second.
Please, try to take in your calculation the clear understanding that quasars are picky eater.
From any 100 falling protons in the direction of the Quasar SMBH, only one proton would be consumed, while all the other 99 would fall into the accretion disc and be considered as Lucky protons.
Therefore, somehow, this single proton that was consumed by the quasar SMBH, must explain the activity of all the 99 other lucky protons at the accretion disc.
Do you think that the energy in a single proton can achieve this goal?
Let's set the calculation based on the formula E = m c^2:
https://www.knowledgedoor.com/2/units_and_constants_handbook/proton-mass-energy-equivalent.html
1.503277616?10-10 joules
Are you sure that this single proton energy is good enough to accelerate all the other 99 Lucky protons to 99.99 percent of the speed of light at the accretion disc?
So the mass flow rate required to explain the power output of 3C273 is somewhere between 0.05 and 6.675 Earth masses per second, depending on the power source. Of course, inefficiencies could make the values higher than that.
Would you kindly reconsider your calculation?
If you still think that quasars aren't picky eater, then please prove it by real data/observation
-
If you still think that quasars aren't picky eater, then please prove it by real data/observation
There is another alternative: that these giant black holes start their lives with immense amounts of rotational kinetic energy and slowly lose it to the jets over billions of years. Once it's gone, then it's gone. I did find a source related to that: https://medium.com/amazing-science/rotating-black-holes-the-most-powerful-energy-generators-in-the-universe-832439add442#:~:text=This%20enormous%20amount%20of%20energy,%C3%97%2010%C2%B3%C2%B3%20erg%20per%20second.
Frustratingly, that source requires an account to be made in order to view it. But the Google search that led me there did have the relevant piece of information I was looking for. It says, and I quote:
This enormous amount of energy trapped in the black hole rotation implies a rotational energy of about 1064 erg, comparable to the energy emitted by the brightest quasars over billion of years time-scales. Just for comparison, the Sun radiates about 3.8 ? 1033 erg per second.
So it seems that the black hole may actually have enough energy in its spin to produce the jets for a very long time without needing to be "refueled".
-
So it seems that the black hole may actually have enough energy in its spin to produce the jets for a very long time without needing to be "refueled".
Thanks for this important reply.
At last, you offer an idea of using the energy that is stored in the SMBH as the missing energy.
Therefore, I hope that you fully understand that the energy in the falling particles can't cover the total energy in the accretion disc + Jet stream and the missing energy is coming from the SMBH.
If the missing energy is coming from the energy that is stored in the SMBH at is first day (as some sort of one time charged battery) or if it is due to refueled' SMBH (as rechargeable battery) is less important at this phase.
Can we at last agree on the following highlight of our long discussion:
The energy in the falling particles can't cover the total energy in the accretion disc + Jet stream and therefore the SMBH must contribute the missing energy!
-
All the energy in the whole quasar system(bh, disc and jets) ultimately comes from what falls in.
-
The energy in the falling particles can't cover the total energy in the accretion disc + Jet stream and therefore the SMBH must contribute the missing energy!
The energy of the smbh IS the energy of the particles that fell into it.
-
At last, you offer an idea of using the energy that is stored in the SMBH as the missing energy.
Therefore, I hope that you fully understand that the energy in the falling particles can't cover the total energy in the accretion disc + Jet stream and the missing energy is coming from the SMBH.
If the missing energy is coming from the energy that is stored in the SMBH at is first day (as some sort of one time charged battery) or if it is due to refueled' SMBH (as rechargeable battery) is less important at this phase.
Can we at last agree on the following highlight of our long discussion:
The energy in the falling particles can't cover the total energy in the accretion disc + Jet stream and therefore the SMBH must contribute the missing energy!
You seem to have convinced yourself that there is 'missing energy', I doubt anyone here agrees with that.
The exact mechanism of a jet is not known. Jets are not that uncommon with a large mass that has an accretion disc, even star formation often have associated jets. We can have fun speculating how the jets form, but if the physicist that study these jets haven't got the exact mechanism down, I certainly don't think we are going to figure it out.
-
Hence, although those Quasars have far more material in their accretion disk, they are still picky eater and therefore less than 1% of the gas and dust drawn into their gravitational field ever get consumed
That does not follow. Just because that's the number for the Milky Way's black hole doesn't mean it is automatically the same for quasars.
The energy in the falling particles can't cover the total energy in the accretion disc + Jet stream and therefore the SMBH must contribute the missing energy!
It could actually cover it just fine if the right ratio of material falling in to material being blown out into the jets is there. But let's say, for the sake of argument, that you are right and the energy all comes from the spin of the black hole. The spin is a finite source of energy. Once the spin stops, then the ergosphere and magnetic field produced by the black hole disappear as well. Without the ergosphere or magnetic field to flick particles away, material from the accretion disk is now free to fall right into the black hole. That infalling material then "recharges" the black hole by increasing its spin once more due to conservation of angular momentum. So in the end, the black hole gets its spin both from the material that formed it in the first place and material that eventually falls in later.
-
Hence, although those Quasars have far more material in their accretion disk, they are still picky eater and therefore less than 1% of the gas and dust drawn into their gravitational field ever get consumed
That does not follow. Just because that's the number for the Milky Way's black hole doesn't mean it is automatically the same for quasars.
Dear Kryptid
The meaning of "picky eater" at the MW' SMBH is that - "less than 1% of the gas and dust drawn into their gravitational field ever get consumed"
For the sake of argument let's agree that you are right and the real meaning of picky eater is that 99% of the gas and dust drawn into the quasar' SMBH gravitational field and are consumed by the SMBH, while only 1% from all the gas and dust is actually falling in the accretion disc. (I hope that this kind of picky eater is ok for you).
Let's look again at the following data:
The estimated gravitational potential energy for a falling proton from a distance of 2-light days at the 3C 273 quasar is -8.37 x 10^-14 joules
The kinetic energy of a proton that orbits at almost the speed of light at the quasar accretion disc is approximately 9.087 x 10-10 joules.
Based on our maximal wish for picky eater meaning, and by the assumption that all the potential gravitational energy of 100 particles is transformed to only one of them, then its maximal kinetic energy could be:
-8.37 x 10^-14 joules * 100 = -8.37 x 10^-12 joules
Therefore, even in this most optimistic case, we still need to increase its kinetic energy by 100 times in order to get the observed kinetic energy of 9.087 x 10-10 joules at the accretion disc
9.087 x 10-10 / 8.37 x 10^-12 = 100
I hope that you agree that the SMBH is the only one that can increase that energy of the falling particles by 100 times.
It could actually cover it just fine if the right ratio of material falling in to material being blown out into the jets is there.
Why 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:
In the article it is also stated that those astronomers don't really understand how this huge quasar really works"
https://www.wbur.org/npr/507594456/some-bizarre-black-holes-put-on-light-shows
"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?"
"They are able to accelerate particles to 99.99 percent of the speed of light," Isler says. "How does that happen? So, I'm interested in where along that jet do we get this acceleration, and what is the physical mechanism that is responsible for the acceleration of particles that we see?"
Are you ready to accept the idea that they don't know the physical mechanism that is responsible for the acceleration of particles that we see?
Please, yes or no?
If it is still no, then at least, do you agree that based on the most optimistic assumptions for the meaning of the picky eater" quasar SMBH, it must increase the energy of the falling gravitational potential particle energy by about 99%?
In other words, about 99% of lucky particle kinetic energies at the accretion disc must come from the spin of the quasar' SMBH & its magnetic energy.
But let's say, for the sake of argument, that you are right and the energy all comes from the spin of the black hole.
Well, I hope that you are ready to understand that based on the most optimistic assumptions for the meaning of that the picky eater" quasar SMBH, at least 99% from the lucky particles kinetic energy at the accretion disc MUST come from the spin of the Black hole.
The spin is a finite source of energy. Once the spin stops, then the ergosphere and magnetic field produced by the black hole disappear as well. Without the ergosphere or magnetic field to flick particles away, material from the accretion disk is now free to fall right into the black hole.
Yes, I fully agree with this explanation.
That infalling material then "recharges" the black hole by increasing its spin once more due to conservation of angular momentum. So in the end, the black hole gets its spin both from the material that formed it in the first place and material that eventually falls in later.
This mechanism might be correct or incorrect. However, let's assume that it is correct.
So in the end, the black hole gets its spin both from the material that formed it in the first place and material that eventually falls in later.
How the black hole is "recharged" isn't relevant at this phase.
Once we agree that 99% from the kinetic particles energy at the accretion disc must come from the SMBH spinning motion we can find the real answer for the quasar' SMBH activity.
All the energy in the whole quasar system(bh, disc and jets) ultimately comes from what falls in.
The energy in the falling particles can't cover the total energy in the accretion disc + Jet stream and therefore the SMBH must contribute the missing energy!
The energy of the smbh IS the energy of the particles that fell into it.
We must distinguish between the gravitational potential energy of the falling particles to the SMBH spinning energy.
It is OK to believe that all of the SMBH spinning motion is due to the falling particles (Although it might be incorrect).
However, Do you agree by now that at the most optimistic scenario the lucky falling particles at the accretion disc can get maximal 1% of their energy from the falling particles due to the gravitational potential energy)?
Are you willing to accept the idea that 99% of all the energies in the accretion disc must come from the spinning
SMBH?
If So, why do we insist that the magnetic field is due to the kinetic energy of the falling lucky particles at the disc?
Why can't we understand that the real source of almost all the energies in the accretion disc + jet stream is the mighty rechargeable spinning quasar' SMBH (Please feel free to charge it by any idea as you wish)?
-
I hope that you agree that the SMBH is the only one that can increase that energy of the falling particles by 100 times.
That's one possibility, but not the only one.
Why 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.
Are you ready to accept the idea that they don't know the physical mechanism that is responsible for the acceleration of particles that we see?
Please, yes or no?
You're right, we don't know for sure. But we have some pretty good ideas.
If it is still no, then at least, do you agree that based on the most optimistic assumptions for the meaning of the picky eater" quasar SMBH, it must increase the energy of the falling gravitational potential particle energy by about 99%?
In other words, about 99% of lucky particle kinetic energies at the accretion disc must come from the spin of the quasar' SMBH & its magnetic energy.
It could come from those things, but it doesn't have to.
However, Do you agree by now that at the most optimistic scenario the lucky falling particles at the accretion disc can get maximal 1% of their energy from the falling particles due to the gravitational potential energy)?
No, because, again, you are using numbers from the Milky Way's black hole (which is not a quasar).
Why can't we understand that the real source of almost all the energies in the accretion disc + jet stream is the mighty rechargeable spinning quasar' SMBH (Please feel free to charge it by any idea as you wish)?
Because we don't have proof of that. We don't know that black holes even have magnetic fields.
-
Quote from: Dave Lev on 27/09/2023 19:25:00
However, do you agree by now that at the most optimistic scenario the lucky falling particles at the accretion disc can get maximal 1% of their energy from the falling particles due to the gravitational potential energy)?
No, because, again, you are using numbers from the Milky Way's black hole (which is not a quasar).
I have used your calculation:
The mass of the black hole is 886 million times that of the Sun. The Sun's mass is 1.9885 x 1026 kilograms. That makes the black hole's mass 1.722 x 1035 kilograms. This means that the gravitational potential energy of a proton at two light-days from the black hole would be:
U = (-GMm)/r
U = (-(-6.674 x 10-11)(1.722 x 1035)(1.673 x 10-27))/(5.18 x 1013)
U = (-(1.149 x 1025)(1.673 x 10-27))/(5.18 x 1013)
U = (-(1.9227 x 10-2)/(5.18 x 1013)
U = -3.71 x 10-16 joules
Hence, the gravitational potential energy of a proton at two light-days from the MW' black hole is -3.71 x 10-16 joules
Based on your following calculation about the 3C 273 quasar galaxy:
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.
Hence, do you confirm that the gravitational potential energy of a proton at two light-days from the 3C 273 quasar black hole is - -8.37 x 10-14 joules?
If no, please advise the correct value.
-
U = (-GMm)/r
So the magnitude of that energy that gets smaller if we look at a larger radius.
If I drop a rock on my foot, it does more harm if I drop it from further up (i.e. with a larger radius)
So, apparently more damage results from less energy.
It's clear that U doesn't mean what Dave thinks it does.
In order to find out how hard something hits the ground you need to know where the ground is as well as from how far up you dropped it.
And as far as I can see (I may have missed it) Dave has not estimated the radius of the accretion disk (or whatever it is that get's "hit".
So he can't have worked out how much energy is available to do anything interesting like heat stuff or make magnetic fields.
Pity he didn't do the right calculation...
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=86495.msg712733#msg712733
Essentially, what you need is not a potential (which is undefined when something actually hits the BH and r= 0) but a potential difference.
.
-
I made a mistake with my original calculations. The Sun's mass is on the order of 1030 kilograms, not 1026 kilograms. So multiply the proton's energy by 10,000.
-
I made a mistake with my original calculations. The Sun's mass is on the order of 1030 kilograms, not 1026 kilograms. So multiply the proton's energy by 10,000.
the gravitational potential energy of a proton at two light-days from the MW' black hole is -3.71 x 10-16 joules
Thanks
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?
While the kinetic energy of a proton that orbits at almost the speed of light at the quasar accretion disc is approximately 9.087 x 10-10 joules (without any change)?
-
Hence, do you confirm that the gravitational potential energy of a proton at two light-days from the 3C 273 quasar black hole is - -8.37 x 10-14 joules?
Never mind the actual numerical value.
It's the energy required to remove a proton from 2 light days to infinity.
It has virtually nothing to do with the energy released when it falls in.
-
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?
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.
While the kinetic energy of a proton that orbits at almost the speed of light at the quasar accretion disc is approximately 9.087 x 10-10 joules (without any change)?
That's the kinetic energy of a proton travelling at 99% the speed of light. Whether it is orbiting or not is irrelevant.
-
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?
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.
Thanks
Now 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 joules
Based on your following explanation, a proton at the 3C 273 quasar would have about 225.7 more potential energy
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
Therefore, 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).
While the kinetic energy of a proton that orbits at almost the speed of light at the quasar accretion disc is approximately 9.087 x 10-10 joules (without any change)?
That's the kinetic energy of a proton travelling at 99% the speed of light. Whether it is orbiting or not is irrelevant.
So, now the following process is very clear.
Proton at two light-days from the 3C 273 black hole with gravitational potential energy of -8.37 10^10 joules falls in the direction of the SMBH. As it falls inwards, its gravitational potential energy is transformed into kinetic energy. At the accretion disc, most of its potential energy had been transformed into kinetic energy, and therefore, it orbits there at almost the speed of light.
So far so good.
However, there are still two main problems:
1. Magnetic fields
We believe that the magnetic field is generated by motion of the protons at the accretion disc.
I hope that you agree that as the magnetic fields is created, it consumes energy from the motion of the protons.
Therefore, by definition it should slow down the velocity of the protons at the accretion disc.
However, we don't observe any slowdown in the velocity of the Protons at the accretion disc.
So, how a proton that orbits at almost a speed of light can generate magnetic field without losing its kinetic energy?
2. Potential / kinetic energy transformation & vice versa
We all agree that when the proton falls inwards into the quasar SMBH, its potential energy had been transformed to kinetic energy. therefore, by definition when the proton is ejected outwards, its kinetic energy should be transformed back to potential energy.
So, how could it be that the ejected protons keep their speed of light velocity as they get further away from the quasar SMBH?
Do you agree that a proton at 10-light days from the SMBH should have higher gravitational potential energy from a proton at two light-days from the SMBH?
If so, how could it be that the protons get more energy from the starting falling point, when they are ejected outwards?
Why the transformation of potential energy to kinetic energy is working perfectly when a proton is falling inwards, but a similar transformation of kinetic energy to potential energy isn't working when the proton is ejected outwards?
Why they don't just stop at the starting point of 2 light days?
Where the extra energy is coming from?
-
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.
-
Thanks
Now it is clear:
It may well be clear, but I don't think you have understood it.
-
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.
Thanks
Please advice if at this phase of our discussion we all agree with the following:
1. 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?
2. The extra energy in coming from the hole's spin?
Two more questions:
3. Can you please specify what is the ratio between the Black hole's spin energy contribution to the potential falling energy?
Is it 1 to 1, 1 to 100, or 100 to 1?
4. would you kindly answer my following question?
how could it be that the ejected protons keep their speed of light velocity as they get further away from the quasar SMBH?
Again - Why the ejected proton keeps its speed of light while it moves further away from the SMBH? Why it isn't slowing down its velocity?
How could it be that it behaves as a rocket with some internal energy and not like a cannon ball that is fired upwards?
You have stated that the magnetic fields just change the direction of the protons in the accretion disc.
If so, do you agree that it should behave like a cannon ball that is fired upwards at the speed of light.
Cannon ball has no extra internal energy. So why it isn't slowing down and stop at the maximal high of its first ejected energy?
I have found the following calculation about cannon ball:
"The cannon ball will rise until its vertical velocity changes from initial value u = +190 km/hr = +52.8 m/s to instantaneous value v = 0, due to constant acceleration a, in the applicable kinematics equation?
v^2 = u^2 +2as ?????????? [1]
s = (v^2 - u^2) / (2a) ???????- [2]
In this case, a = -9.81 m/s^2 due to the downward acceleration of gravity, so equation 2 becomes?
s = (0 - 52.8^2) / (2*(-9.81))
s = -2785.5 / -19.62 = 141.97 m
The cannon ball rises 142 m above launch height."
So, assuming that the proton is ejected at the speed of light from the quasar accretion disc, what is the maximal height that it can get before losing its total energy?
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?
How the astronomers claim that they know how the jet stream works without setting the above simple calculation?
-
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?
No, for two reasons. The important one is that you have not yet calculated the energy released when a proton falls from 2 light days away.
(The other is that the "additional energy needed" may also be gravitational. The reason BH have lots of energy to do weird stuff is because things have been falling into them for a long time and depositing energy there).
If I want to calculate how much energy is released by an object falling in a gravitational field I need to know two things.
I need to know the gravitational potential energy it has when it starts. (And that's what you have calculated- repeatedly but pointlessly)
The other thing I need to know is the gravitational potential energy of the object when it stops.
And to calculate that, I need to know how far from the centre of mass the thing is when it stops.
If I drop a rock from the top of Everest I don't know how much energy will be released.
Will it fall a metre to the ground then stop, and dissipate about 10 joules, or will it roll all the way to sea level and dissipate 8800 times as much?
It's the same if you drop a proton into a black hole.
You need to know how far it falls.
Without that, you simply can not calculate the energy released.
And you have never considered it.
So your numbers are all meaningless.
What you have actually calculated is not the energy that you would get from falling 2 light days into a black hole.
You have calculated the energy released by dropping a proton from infinitely far away, but stopping when it is 2 light days away from the BH.
It's almost completely irrelevant.
There are two possible reasons I can see for you ignoring this fact.
The first is that you are simply not clever enough to understand it
The second is that you know it would ruin your hypothesis.
Which is it?
-
(1) I never said that. The energy from the infalling matter may well be enough on its own. What is needed in order for that to work is for more mass to be consumed than ejected.
(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.
(3) I have no idea.
(4) The jets do slow down, but only by a very small amount because they are traveling well beyond escape velocity.
-
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
Let's set the calculation for the Quasar SMBH escape-velocity
https://letstalkscience.ca/educational-resources/stem-explained/escape-velocity
Scientists 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/s
With 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_velocity
When 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^2
How 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?
What is needed in order for that to work is for more mass to be consumed than ejected.
If you consider that in order for the current theory to work, the SMBH must consume more mass than the ejected mass, then we must prove it by real observation.
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"?
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.
Sorry.
We all should know that picky eater means that more mass is ejected than it is consumed.
But this understanding contradicts the theory.
Therefore, we bypass this critical observation by "We have no idea".
If we don't have an idea, then how do we know that what we don't know is correct or incorrect?
How can we protect in this science forum something that is fully contradicted by the observation?
Sorry, we all know the meaning of the MW' SMBH picky eater (out of 100 falling particles - only one is consumed).
Therefore, even 1 to one can't be considered as picky eater.
However, if you insist that it is 100 to one, then we should prove it by real observation and set the relevant calculation.
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.
Sorry, it is a severe mistake to mix up between the energies.
Even if we believe that all the energies are due to falling particles, it is our obligation to distinguish between the potential gravitational energy of the falling proton as it is converted to its maximal kinetic energy at the accretion disc to the energy that must be contributed by the Quasar SMBH (in order to close the gap of the missing kinetic energy).
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?
The energy from the infalling matter may well be enough on its own.
Sorry, "may" isn't good enough to support the current mainstream theory as the best available theory for the quasar.
It is our obligation to fit the theory to the observation or vice versa if you wish.
Technically, anyone can come with a new idea and claim that its idea "may" be good enough.
Don't you agree that we should evaluate the current theory for the quasar as we evaluate any other idea that pop up from time to time.
-
Let's set the calculation for the Quasar SMBH escape-velocity
https://letstalkscience.ca/educational-resources/stem-explained/escape-velocity
Scientists 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/s
With 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_velocity
When 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^2
How 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?
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.
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?
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.
Don't you agree that there must be severe mistake in the current understanding for the quasar activity?
No, you are just misunderstanding our explanations.
If you still disagree, would you kindly set the relevant calculation?
I already have. Go back and look. I'm tired of answering questions that have already been answered.
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"?
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.
We all should know that picky eater means that more mass is ejected than it is consumed.
Provide a citation to back this up.
Therefore, 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.
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?
Stop misquoting me. Me not knowing isn't the same as nobody knowing.
It is our obligation to fit the theory to the observation or vice versa if you wish.
Yes, and the observation is that quasars beam relativistic jets out of their poles. So the whole quasar system clearly has enough energy to do that. And we know that quasars don't break the laws of physics (they don't make more energy than they consume). So we know that there isn't any "missing energy". It's clearly getting enough power to do what it does and it's doing so within the confines of the matter and energy available to it.
-
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?
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."
-
Quote from: Dave Lev on 08/10/2023 02:54:14
Therefore, 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.
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.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 27/09/2023 19:25:00
Why 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.
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?
That is not the same as saying the proposed explanation has a problem.
As I have explained, the real meaning of "Biggest Mystery" (and we don't know: " How do the huge, overactive black holes, known as quasars, work) is that there is no fit between the observation to the theory. In other works, there is a problem in the current theory
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.
If they would dare to claim that there is a problem in the theory, they would lose immediately their job.
Therefore, they prefer to claim for biggest mystery and let you understand what ever you wish.
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.
The missing energy can't come from other falling particles due to the following:
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.
2. Face to tail collision: Even if some of them would be slower/faster (or at the same velocity) and collide with each other, than the chance for "face to tail" collisions is also zero. Any collision that isn't directly face to tail, would just eject the collided protons to different directions.
3. No Solid surface: The falling protons do not collide with any solid surface (as earth surface). They have only two possibilities - fall into the BH and stay there forever or fall into the accretion disc and orbit there. Therefore, without solid surface to bounce back, there is no way for them to deliver kinetic energy to each other.
Therefore, I hope that you agree by now that idea of increasing falling protons velocity due to face tail collision energy transformation is not realistic.
However, there is no need to increase the velocity of the falling particles as they all would get to the accretion disc at almost the speed of light.
Please see the following calculation which is based on your data:
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?
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.
Thanks
Now 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 joules
Based on your following explanation, a proton at the 3C 273 quasar would have about 225.7 more potential energy
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
Therefore, 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).
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=mgh
U1 = 8.37 10^10 joules.
h1 = 2 light days
U2 = 9.087 x 10-10
h2 = ?
U2/U1 = h2/h1
h2 = h1 * U2/U1 = 2 light days * 9.087 x 10-10 / 8.37 10^10 = 2.17 light days
Therefore, 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.
No need for extra energy from the nearby falling protons, and no need for extra energy from the spinning SMBH!
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?
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."
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.
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 meaning of the Milky way Picky eater is very clear.
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?
Please feel free to set any sort of picky eater as you wish.
Unfortunately, you would find that it is useless to support the current theory due to the following:
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.
I also have proved that as there is no solid surface at the SMBH (or near it), and as the chance to 100% face-tail collision is virtually zero, then nothing can bounce back and there is no way to increase the velocity of Sigle proton by using the kinetic energy of nearby protons.
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 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 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.
Please add to this calculation the statistical chance for falling protons to collide exactly face to tail as is almost zero.
Therefore, let's use different approach by calculating the requested scape velocity from a quasar accretion disc.
https://byjus.com/escape-velocity-formula/
The formula for escape velocity is:
Vesc^2 = 2 G M(earth) / r
On earth, the velocity is:
Vesc earth = 11,200 m/s.
The expected mass of a quasar is about 10^10 solar mass.
The mass of the Sun is about 333,000 times the earth mass.
the radius of a typical accretion disc is 10^10 cm = 10^8 m.
https://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/ryden.1/ast825/ch9.pdf
Some more-or-less typical values for accretion disks, at a radius R ∼ 10^10 cm.
the radius of the earth surface is 6,731 Km = 6.731 10^6 m..
therefore,
Vesc(quasar) ^ 2 = 2 G M(quasar) / R(quasar)
Vesc(earth)^2 = 2 G M(earth) / R(earth)
Vesc(quasar) ^ 2 / Vesc(earth) ^ 2 = M(quasar) / (M(earth) * R(earth) / R(quasar)
Vesc(quasar) ^ 2 = Vesc(earth) ^ 2 * M(quasar) /M(earth) * R(earth) / R(quasar)
Vesc(quasar) ^ 2 = Vesc(earth) ^2 * 10^10 * 330 * 6.731 * 10^6 / 10^8 = Vesc(earth) ^2 * 2,221 10^8 = Vesc(earth) ^2 * (47 10^4)^2
Vesc(quasar) = 11,200 m/s * 47 10^4 = 526,400 * 10^4 m/s = 5,264,000,000 m/s
However, the speed of light is only = 299,792,458 m/s
Therefore, the escape velocity from quasar accretion disc should be
5,264,000,000 / 299,792,458 = 17.55 speed of light.
Therefore, if a proton is ejected from the quasar accretion disc at the speed of light, it clearly can't break the escape velocity and should fall back inwards.
The generation of a magnetic field, in itself, does not consume energy. If it did, permanent magnets could not exist.
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.
Once we stop the motion of the particles / dynamo then by definition we stop the magnet
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.
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.
I fully agree with you that the extra/missing energy must come from the BH and therefore, it must "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.
I also fully agree that this energy isn't "not popping up out of nowhere".
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.
Why we can't focus on each kind of energy (Potential gravitational energy of a falling particle V.S SMBH spinning/magnetic energy/force) and evaluate the impact of each energy on the motion of the particles in the accretion disc and in the jet stream?.
Just after this understanding, we can move on and verify how the SMBH really gets its spinning force.
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.
In the following article it is stated 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":
https://www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-identify-the-engine-powering-black-hole-energy-beams-20210520/
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."
Therefore, we should understand that the magnetic fields speed up electrically-charged particles into that tight helix. Hence, it isn't just one single activity as changing the particle direction at the accretion disc.
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.
The tight magnetic' helix would keep the speed of light velocity for the electrically-charged particles as they move upwards from the SMBH and against its mighty gravitational force.
Therefore, those particles won't slow down. Due to the tight magnetic' helix, the protons would be ejected from the SMBH magnetic poles at almost the speed of light and keep their velocity up to hundred thousands LY away.
In the article they clearly discuss about the magnetic force of the rotating SMBH - "that rotating supermassive black holes will twist ambient magnetic fields into a tight helix", and they are absolutely correct.
This kind of tight magnetic' helix can't be created just by the thin accretion disc.
Only a rotating SMBH can generate enough magnetic force that is needed to carry the electrically-charged particles
In that tight magnetic' helix to break the escape velocity and maintain their speed of light up to hundred thousand LY away.
If you still refuse to accept this real science, and prefer to keep yourself in the mystery of the current theory, then it is your choice.
-
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.
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 this
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.
is nonsense.
Of course we have ideas.
The 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?
-
If you still refuse to accept this real science,
Ignoring infinities is not real science, is it?
So why did you say that?
-
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.
Because, as Bored Chemist said, it's possible to have a partial understanding of a phenomenon. Alternatively, it's also possible to have a fully plausible explanation for a phenomenon without having tested it yet. In neither of those scenarios is it sensible to say that they "have no idea" how it 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?
That's not at all what that means. It's possible to have a mystery while at the same time having a plausible explanation for it. If an airplane disappears over the ocean, we can plausibly propose that it crashed and was lost at sea. However, we won't know that for sure until we find the remains of the airplane. Therefore, we have both a mystery and a plausible explanation for it.
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.
Please don't inject a conspiracy theory into this discussion unless you've got some good evidence to back it up with.
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.
You are aware that the number of protons in an accretion disk is many, many, many orders of magnitude above 1 million, aren't you?
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.
First of all, the proton isn't moving at the speed of light, it is moving near the speed of light. If it was moving at the speed of light, it would have infinite kinetic energy. Secondly, just because the accretion disk is at 2 light-days from the black hole doesn't mean that a proton in the accretion disk started there. It would have fallen into the accretion disk from outside of it. As such, assuming that the proton starts at zero energy at the outer edge of the accretion disk and only gains energy once it starts falling from that point is inaccurate.
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?
"Picky eater" simply means that it doesn't eat everything.
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.
Since no proton can reach the speed of light, there is always room to go faster.
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.
That's sort of like the Penrose process, which is one method by which energy can be extracted from a spinning black hole: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_process
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.
The difference is important. The escape velocity right at the event horizon is the speed of light, thus requiring infinite energy to escape. Any distance outside of the horizon has an escape velocity below the speed of the light and thus only requires finite energy.
Therefore, the escape velocity from quasar accretion disc should be
5,264,000,000 / 299,792,458 = 17.55 speed of light.
You've got a big problem here: you're measuring the escape velocity from inside the black hole. A black hole with a mass of 1010 solar masses has a Schwarzschild radius of about 2.95 x 1013 meters: https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/schwarzschild-radius So you can't have an accretion disk at 108 meters from that particular black hole.
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.
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.
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.
No, magnets do not do work on charged particles. Changing the direction of the particles requires force, not energy. The speed of the particles is not changed by the magnetic field and therefore their kinetic energy is not changed either.
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.
Because they both contribute to the total energy of the system. The fact that the black hole consumes some of the falling matter means that the energy possessed by the black hole comes in part from that same matter.
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.
No, no you have not.
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."
Take note how they say "ambient" magnetic fields (i.e. the magnetic fields in the black hole's environment.) That would include the magnetic field created by the accretion disk.
Only a rotating SMBH can generate enough magnetic force that is needed to carry the electrically-charged particles
In that tight magnetic' helix to break the escape velocity and maintain their speed of light up to hundred thousand LY away.
Except not. Your link does not say any such thing. The baseline assumption in modern physics is that black holes do not have magnetic fields, so this article you have linked to must be referring to the black hole twisting the magnetic field generated by the accretion disk.
-
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.
You do know that scientists get paid to solve problems, don't you?
-
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.
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 fields
YES!
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: Dave Lev on 14/10/2023 17:19:27
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.
No, no you have not.
Yes I did
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=mgh
U1 = 8.37 10^10 joules.
h1 = 2 light days
U2 = 9.087 x 10-10
h2 = ?
U2/U1 = h2/h1
h2 = h1 * U2/U1 = 2 light days * 9.087 x 10-10 / 8.37 10^10 = 2.17 light days
Therefore, 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.
-
1. Can Gravity by itself explain the jet stream?
The answer is NO!!!
I never said that gravity alone could do it.
3. Is there a need for strong magnetic fields
YES!
I agree. Magnetic fields are generated by the accretion disk.
The accretion disc is magnetize because the space itself is magnetized.
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.
A 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.
7. Can BH creates Electromagnetic fields?
The answer is clearly - YES!
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.
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.
Are you serious? Plasma is made of electrically-charged particles. They become that way due to the extreme temperatures there.
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.
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?
-
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.
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 fields
YES!
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: Dave Lev on 14/10/2023 17:19:27
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.
No, no you have not.
Yes I did
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=mgh
U1 = 8.37 10^10 joules.
h1 = 2 light days
U2 = 9.087 x 10-10
h2 = ?
U2/U1 = h2/h1
h2 = h1 * U2/U1 = 2 light days * 9.087 x 10-10 / 8.37 10^10 = 2.17 light days
Therefore, 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.
You seem to have missed a bit.
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.
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 this
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.
is nonsense.
Of course we have ideas.
The 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?
-
If you still refuse to accept this real science,
Ignoring infinities is not real science, is it?
So why did you say that?
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.
You do know that scientists get paid to solve problems, don't you?
-
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 16:54:36
1. 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 16:54:36
3. Is there a need for strong magnetic fields
YES!
I agree.
Thanks for your confirmation.
Plasma is made of electrically-charged particles. They become that way due to the extreme temperatures there.
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.
Magnetic fields are generated by the accretion disk.
No.
It is almost impossible to get strong magnetic fields from the accretion disc modeling:
https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2021/08/aa38680-20/aa38680-20.html
While the magnetic field grows, the turbulence becomes more intensive because of the magnetorotational instability, and it leads to saturation of the growth.
It is necessary to obtain the field, which is expected to be less than the equipartition value, and without destroying the disk.
Therefore, all the activities at the accretion disc which includes polarization, charged particles, extreme temperature and high pressure is due to that strong SMBH' EM force.
Hence, the accretion disc doesn't create magnetic fields but it is affected by the SMBH' EM force.
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?
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, 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.
So, which one is correct/incorrect?
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.
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?
So, could it be that our hypothetical theory about the "hairy" or not "hairy" BH is just incorrect?
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 16:54:36
A 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.
I hope that the following one is enough:
https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2021/08/aa38680-20/aa38680-20.html
While the magnetic field grows, the turbulence becomes more intensive because of the magnetorotational instability, and it leads to saturation of the growth.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.
The SMBH' EM works also in empty space.
It is stated: "hot regions of space that are magnetized".
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?
-
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.
You're joking, right? The Sun is made out of plasma despite there not being a supermassive black hole at its center. Gases get hotter when they are compressed. Get them hot enough and they become plasma. No electromagnetic fields needed.
However, I am going to ask you to supply a reputable source to back up your claim that if you "shut down the SMBH' EM and the falling particles could still move at the speed of light, but they would be cold as ice." Again, I'll give you three chances. After three strikes, the thread is locked.
Hence, the accretion disc doesn't create magnetic fields but it is affected by the SMBH' EM force.
Did you even read one of very first sentences in that paper you linked? It says, "The magnetic fields of accretion disks play an important role in studying their evolution." That directly contradicts your claim that accretion disks don't have magnetic fields. How closely are you paying attention to your own posts?
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.
I didn't do that particular calculation: you did. And you did it wrong. You made the mistake of assuming there being a linear relationship between a particle's energy and how far it can move away from the black hole. That isn't true. A proton with a kinetic energy of 9.087 x 10-10 joules has 1.086 times as much energy as a proton with a kinetic energy of 8.37 x 10-10 joules. That much is correct. But that does not mean that it will travel 1.086 times further from the black hole before stopping (2.17 light-days). That is where you made your error.
You know, I'm pretty sure that an electrical engineer would need to take math classes before they can graduate. Algebra is one of the most fundamental and easiest forms of math. So surely you had to understand algebra in order to get your degree? I'm therefore hoping my explanation is ringing a bell.
There's also another problem with your understanding of the equation's results. The value of gravitational potential energy calculated by the equation isn't how much energy the proton gets when it falls from two light-days into the black hole. Rather, it's the energy the particle would get from falling from an infinite distance away from the black hole down to 2 light-days away from the hole. The inverse scenario is that is energy required to raise the particle up against the black hole's gravitational pull from two light-days out to infinity. This is also equal to the kinetic energy a proton would need to have in order to attain escape velocity if it started at 2 light-days from the hole.
Since infinite distances aren't encountered practically, the real life meaning of this is that a proton with that level of kinetic energy (8.37 x 10-10 joules) which starts at 2 light-days from the black hole can continue to move away from the hole indefinitely without ever slowing its speed to zero. Any proton that has less than that amount of energy would eventually stop, whereas any proton with more than that amount of energy will also continue forever.
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
It is correct. There's no debating that. That is the very definition of what escape velocity is.
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.
Exactly. You can't accelerate a proton to the speed of light. I never said that you could. I have said the opposite, actually.
therefore, your data/calculation which I have used in 1. is incorrect.
My calculations do not involve protons moving at the speed of light.
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.
Please be consistent. Are we talking about the speed of light or almost the speed of light? The distinction is very important. A proton moving at light speed requires infinite energy, whereas moving at almost the speed of light require limited energy. And I've already told you that the energy either comes from the black hole's spin, other particles in the accretion disk or (more likely) some combination of the two).
How 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.
Can we physically get under the event horizon of a BH/SMBH to verify the "hairy" issue?
We don't have to. In principle, you could measure the "hair" from the exterior of a black hole. Maybe some day we will do that. So far, however, we have no evidence for hair and as such there is no reason to assume that it is there.
I hope that the following one is enough:
https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2021/08/aa38680-20/aa38680-20.html
While the magnetic field grows, the turbulence becomes more intensive because of the magnetorotational instability, and it leads to saturation of the growth.
Please quote the exact line from the article which states that accretion disk magnetic fields are incapable of explaining the jets. I'm not hunting through all of that text for something which may not even be there.
The SMBH' EM works also in empty space.
If, and only if, the black hole has a magnetic field to begin with.
The 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.
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?
We know from basic physics that the accretion disk will generate a magnetic field because it is a circulating, electrically-conducting fluid. Whether or not a black hole has a magnetic field is debatable but the current evidence says no. That means the former is more likely than the latter.
-
Dave.
Are you still ignoring infinities and pretending it is science?
-
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 20:11:59
How 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.
Dear Kryptid
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.
In the following article it is stated:
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-60708711
Scientists claim hairy black holes explain Hawking paradox"
New research claims to have resolved the paradox by showing that black holes have a property which they call "quantum hair".
At the heart of the paradox is a problem which has threatened to undermine two of physics most important theories. Einstein's general theory of relativity says information about what goes into a black hole cannot come out, but quantum mechanics says that is impossible.
Prof Calmet's "yes hair theorem", published in the journal Physical Review Letters is revolutionary. It claims to resolve the Hawking paradox which has deeply troubled physicists ever since Prof Hawking came up with it in the 1970s.
The paradox raised the possibility that either quantum mechanics or general relativity might be flawed, which is a terrifying prospect for theoretical physicists because they are the twin pillars on which most of our understanding of the Universe rests.
The "yes hair theorem" claims to resolve the paradox by bridging the gap between general relativity and quantum mechanics. The notion of quantum hair allows information about what goes into a black hole to come out again without violating any of the important principles of either theory. It is a simple and elegant solution.
"But it is going to take some time for people to accept it," says Prof Calmet.
That is because it is such a big deal in the world of theoretical physics".
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"?
-
The science community has the privilege to claim any sort of statement and then change it completely without any punishment
It wouldn't make sense to punish the scientific community when it changes its stance on an idea after finding compelling evidence for it. That's how science works.
However, they can't just hold the stick at both sides and play with science laws/understanding according to their temporary wish.
Science is based on what the current state of evidence is, not temporary wishes.
If General relativity predicts that black holes are hairless. then by definition no EM could be created by the BH.
If general relativity is correct, then this statement is also correct.
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.
This is also correct. We would then know that general relativity has a flaw and needs to either be modified or cast out.
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.
Why? It makes no sense to tell someone that they aren't allowed to change their mind if they discover that they are wrong.
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".
I am a moderator of a science forum trying to cut down on spam. That is why I gave you the ultimatum to provide evidence for your claims or get the thread locked. Take note how I did actually give you a chance to support your claims with a reputable source instead of straight up locking this thread. You've already been given the opportunity to have four pages worth of discussion. Unfortunately, you have squandered it by pushing misunderstandings as usual. However, the scientific community on the whole also has a way of dealing with spam: the peer-review process. That's how they filter out the crank ideas that break the laws of physics.
That being said, I noticed that your most recent post did not attempt to provide the sources I asked for. You didn't quote the information I asked you to from the paper you linked. Nor did you provide a reputable source that backs up your claim that the accretion disk is heated by the black hole's electromagnetism. So consider that strike one.
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"?
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. It would be ridiculous to tell someone who knows that they are wrong that they have to keep being wrong.
-
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.
Dear Kryptid
It's the time for you to change your mind.
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.
Based on the current evidence, I'm going with "hairless"
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.
Hence, your following idea about kinetic energy transformation between falling particles can't work:
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.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 16/10/2023 16:54:36
A 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.
I have already proved that there is a need for 3 trillion trillion trillion joules of energy flow up the jet each second:
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?"
As there is no surface at that BH to bounce back a falling particle at 180%, then there is no way to increase its speed by using the kinetic energy of a nearby particle that also falls at a similar speed.
Based on your selection that the BH is hairless, and the clear message that there is no way to extract energy from hairless' BH then you can't wish that the hairless BH would contribute the missing energy.
Therefore, you can't claim any more for energy that the BH is transformed back from the particles that it consumes.
So far, we have never ever observed such enormous energy of 3 trillion trillion trillion joules per second that are falling into the any quasar accretion disc in the entire universe.
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.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 16/10/2023 20:11:59
The 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.
https://www.snexplores.org/article/magnetic-fields-may-supercharge-suns-release-heat
"Magnetic fields may supercharge the sun's release of heat
These fields appear to trigger tendrils of gas to form and superheat the sun's atmosphere
The 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 fields
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", says study coauthor Hui Tian
The 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
The SMBH' EM fields is the only power in the nature that can eject magnetic field lines/waves at almost the speed of light from its poles. Those magnetic field lines/waves trapes the electrical charged particles in their spiral motion and lift them (as a rocket) at almost the speed of light against the mighty gravity force of the BH.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/Black_hole_jet_diagram.jpg)
Without this SMBH' EM fields, there is no way to extract even a single boson from the mouth of this mighty quasar SMBH.
If you still disagree, then I can't help any more.
Thanks for your great support!
-
Rotating black holes tells us that our math is wrong!
No. They tell us that maybe it's wrong.
Here's what the article actually says
"(The research has yet to be peer-reviewed.)
The team examined potential extensions of general relativity using what's called a scalar field "
Again you are living in a bizarre world of absolutes when teh real world is more complex.
Anyway...
Dave.
Are you still ignoring infinities and pretending it is science?
-
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.
It might evidence that some of our math is wrong, but the no-hair theorem isn't one of them. 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
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."
Take note how it says the research "may" give black holes hair. So it isn't conclusive.
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.
The no-hair theorem allows black holes to spin, so this is simply incorrect.
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.
Again, the no-hair theorem allows for spinning black holes. So this is a non-sequitur.
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.
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.
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.
I asked you to demonstrate that the accretion disk is unable to supply the needed magnetic field strength. You should have done this by calculating the strength of the magnetic fields needed to produce the jets and then doing another calculation to show that the maximum possible magnetic field strength generated by an accretion disk is below this value. Alternatively, you could have given a link to another study where someone else that had done that instead. You did not do either of those things. So consider that strike two.
https://www.snexplores.org/article/magnetic-fields-may-supercharge-suns-release-heat
"Magnetic fields may supercharge the sun's release of heat
These fields appear to trigger tendrils of gas to form and superheat the sun's atmosphere
The 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 fields
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", says study coauthor Hui Tian
The 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.
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.
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
Non-sequitur, as explained above.
You've got one more shot to get it right.
-
Take note how it says the research "may" give black holes hair. So it isn't conclusive.
Sorry, you miss the key point in that article.
"'Twisty' new theory of gravity says information can escape black holes after all".
https://www.space.com/twisty-theory-of-gravity-says-information-can-escape-black-holes
Hence, it is all about mathematics.
When the scalar fields added to general relativity, black holes got some hair.
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.
This updated mathematics is real and it shows that the BH can have hair.
No "may" and no "might".
Just real hair by different mathematical approach that is called 'Twisty' and is similar to the theory of relativity.
"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."
Based on this updated math, we all must agree that the BH should have hair and it can generate magnetic fields.
The "may" is used as follow:.
" a new tweak to his research may give the mysterious objects their long-sought 'hair.'
"Stephen Hawking's famous black hole paradox may finally have a solution"
"There may be additional scalar fields that inhabit the universe and subtly alter how gravity works, and physicists have long used these scalar fields in attempts to explain the nature of cosmic mysteries such as dark matter and dark energy."
I hope that at least you agree that there is a possibility that the BH is hairy.
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
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)!
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.
Sorry again. You miss the key message in this article.
It is not about the plasma at the surface of the sun, but it is about the corona high above the Sun' surface.
Let's me use an article from just 4 days ago:
"By Robert Lea published 4 days ago
https://www.space.com/sun-coronal-heating-mystery-snake-like-magnetic-fields
"An image of the sun next to a close-up of snake-like structures in our star's magnetic field
The so-called coronal heating problem has puzzled researchers for decades. The mystery is this: The diffuse cloud of charged atoms that makes up the corona can reach temperatures of over 1.8 million degrees Fahrenheit (1 million degrees Celsius), while the sun's surface, called the photosphere, is a relatively balmy at 10,000 degrees F or so (6,000 degrees Celsius).
"An accurate insight into the magnetic field geometry is fundamental for the understanding of the various energetic phenomena that drive the dynamics of the plasma in the solar atmosphere," Erdelyi said. "That includes the much sought-after magnetic behavior that may ultimately be responsible for energizing the solar plasma to temperatures of millions of [degrees]"
The Sun' surface temp is only 6,000 c, while the Sun' corona temp is about one million c.
Therefore, the impact of the Sun' magnetic fields at the Sun' corona is significantly larger than its impact on the Sun' surface although the corona is located high above the Sun' surface.
The accretion disc is also located high above the BH' surface (which we can't observe.
Therefore, we must compare apple to apple.
The Sun' surface should be compared to the BH's surface while the Sun' corona should be compared to the BH's corona (which is the BH' accretion disc).
Unfortunately, we can't measure the BH surface temp, but we can measure the BH' accretion disc temp.
As the Sun' magnetic fields can increase the Sun' corona to 10^6 c, there should be no problem for the BH with its 10^11 solar mass to generate enough magnetic fields that can easily increase the Bh's accretion temp to 10^9 c.
Therefore, BH' magnetic fields is absolutely 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.
Well, you hope that random collision would solve the mystery of the missing energy.
Instead of using the unlimited magnetic energy from the spinning SMBH, you hope that some random collisions or bouncing between the particles would help to deliver some extra energy.
This is just a pure imagination due to the following:
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. Actually, it must be significantly lower 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.
As you insist that this magnetic fields doesn't exist - then it is your obligation to prove that the Potential/ kinetic energy + some random collisions of the falling partial/star is good enough. Please real math!
Please, if you wish to add any energy from the BH (even if you call it spinning energy due to falling particles) then it is your obligation to set the calculation for the missing energy that the BH should contribute.
It is our obligation to distinguish between the potential/kinetic energies of the falling particles to the missing energy from the spinning BH even if you claim that it is all due to falling particles.
2. Why the accretion disc is located exactly at the BH' magnetic equator?
If you would agree for a hairy BH' then its magnetic fields can force any falling particle to join the accretion disc and at the correct orbital motion.
However, once you disagree that BH has magnetic fields, then you have to offer a solusion based on gravity laws.
We clearly see that around the BH there is bulge of stars. Each star has its own orbital plan and its orbital rotation. It is almost impossible to find even one star that orbits exactly at the accretion disc plan and at the same orbital rotation direction. Therefore, Based on Newton law, if one of those stars would fall inwards, it must maintain its current orbital plan/motion. As almost none of the falling stars has the same orbital plan/rotation as the accretion disc, then it is expected to see an accretion bulge and not accretion disc/ring. However, we clearly observe that the accretion discs in all the BHs are located exactly at the BHs 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. Gravity by itself can't change the elliptical motion of the falling object to circular motion at the maximal velocity point (at the accretion disc).
If you hope that some random collision would help you - then you have a fatal mistake.
A falling star that would collide with the matter in the accretion disc should it would destroy it completely.
So, please if you still insist for random collision - it's better for you to buy a ticket for the lottery as the chance to win over there is higher than the imagination to fit a falling star in the accretion disc by collision.
4. Heat dissipation.
Somehow, our scientists have totally ignore the Heat dissipation from the accretion disc.
We know that the heat dissipation is used to transfer thermal energy to other places, and reduces the temperature so that the particles in the accretion disc can reach a balance with the temperature of the surrounding environment.
The temp of the open empty space is almost 0K (about -272 c)
The general heat loss formula is: Q=U*A*ΔT, or in plain words, the heat loss of an area of size A is determined by the U value of the materials and the difference in temperature between inside and out (that is the difference in temperature of the two surfaces, not the two air temperatures, which might not be quite the same. Below is an adjustment for air temperatures.)
Therefore, the general heat loss formula for the accretion disc should be:
T1 = 10^9c
Tspace = -273c = - 2.7 10^2
Q (accretion disc heat dispassion) =U*A*ΔT = U*A*(T1 - Tspace) = about U*A*10^11c
So, far I couldn't find even one real article that set the real calculation about the energy that is requested to maintain the 10^9 c and a velocity of almost speed of light at the accretion disc.
5. The Dense plasma contradiction -
The particles bounce off of each other. That's what happens in a dense plasma.
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.
No magnetic fields from black holes needed.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 20/10/2023 15:15:40
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
Non-sequitur, as explained above.
Sorry. you have a severe mistake.
It is all about BH' magnetic fields
I 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 corona
It 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?
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?"
Therefore, would you kindly offer real math and distinguish between the energy contribution of the spinning BH from the falling particles potential/kinetic energy.
-
Anyway...
Quote from: Bored chemist on 16/10/2023 22:03:03
Dave.
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 find it very ironic how you rejected mathematical evidence supplied to you in past threads, claiming that only real world observations would suffice. Now here you are claiming that mathematical evidence is good enough to prove something without real world observations to back it up. So which is it? Is math good enough to prove something or is it not?
I hope that at least you agree that there is a possibility that the BH is hairy.
Possibility? Yes. Proven? No.
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)!
The ergosphere. We've already discussed that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergosphere
there should be no problem for the BH with its 10^11 solar mass to generate enough magnetic fields
Magnetic field strength is not dependent upon mass. This is something I've told you before. The Earth is many orders of magnitude more massive than any man-made magnet, yet our magnets can make fields many times stronger than the Earth's magnetic field. Also, if black holes really are hairless, then it's not going to be making a magnetic field at all, no matter how massive it is.
Therefore, BH' magnetic fields is absolutely needed.
Non-sequitur. Black holes behave differently from stars.
Instead of using the unlimited magnetic energy from the spinning SMBH
There is no such thing as "unlimited magnetic energy". The energy in the black hole is limited. To say otherwise would violate the first law of thermodynamics.
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.
Nothing can make the particle move at the speed of light, so I don't know why you even mention this.
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.
And you messed up the math again. Newton's equations don't work at relativistic speeds. No amount of energy will ever get a particle up to the speed of light. But, once again, no one here argued that they were going at the speed of light anyway.
The only power in the Universe that can add such high kinetic energy is - the BH' magnetic fields.
An undemonstrated claim.
2. Why the accretion disc is located exactly at the BH' magnetic equator?
That's exactly what we would expect if the magnetic field was being generated by the accretion disk.
Therefore, this by itself proves by 100% that the existence of the accretion disc is due to the BH's magnetic force.
Non-sequitur, and I believe the issue of why the accretion disk orbits along one plane has been explained in previous threads.
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
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_capture
Therefore, the general heat loss formula for the accretion disc should be:
T1 = 10^9c
Tspace = -273c = - 2.7 10^2
You need to use Kelvins, not Celsius.
Q (accretion disc heat dispassion) =U*A*ΔT = U*A*(T1 - Tspace) = about U*A*10^11c
You didn't finish your math. You need to put actual values in for the variables "U" and "A" to get an answer. So what you have done so far hasn't shown us anything.
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.
Do you know what heat is? It's defined as random particle motion in the gas. So your claim that collisions between particles release heat doesn't make sense. Protons colliding doesn't work that way that two rubber balls colliding does.
Sorry. you have a severe mistake.
It is all about BH' magnetic fields
I 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 corona
It 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.
The Sun isn't a black hole and doesn't behave like one. CMEs aren't identical to quasar jets.
I have proved my case.
Not at all. You haven't even proven that black holes have magnetic fields.
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?
I already calculated the needed mass flow to sustain the quasar's total luminosity. It's in one of my previous posts. It's perfectly possible to do it within the realm of known physics.
Therefore, would you kindly offer real math and distinguish between the energy contribution of the spinning BH from the falling particles potential/kinetic energy.
I don't know how much comes from each source nor do I need to, but I already did post a source which states that the spin of a black hole is sufficient to power a quasar for billions of years.
Since you haven't backed up your claim that the magnetic field generated by the accretion disk is insufficient to power the jets using an authoritative source, that's strike three and this thread is getting locked. So don't make any more threads about quasars. In fact, don't make anymore threads that involve black holes at all. You have a very bad track record when it comes to black hole discussions, so it's better if we keep them off the table altogether.