41
New Theories / Re: Why Quasars are So Hot?
« on: 24/10/2023 01:22:25 »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.
Quote
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.