Dave Lev and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Gravity by itself can't create mass - I agree with that.
The SMBH has the ability to generate new mass based on its pure gravity force.
It can't spontaneously spring into existence (that would violate the first law of thermodynamics).
Quote from: KryptidSince you agree that gravity can't create mass, then where does the accretion disk come from in the first place? Thanks, that is good question.If you accept the idea that a SMBH can create new matter,
Since you agree that gravity can't create mass, then where does the accretion disk come from in the first place?
So, I agree that there must be a moment that a compact BH gets its ability to set the accretion disc and start its new matter creation activity.
Once it starts its activity, it will be converted in the future into a SMBH that is hosting a spiral galaxy.
However, even if it sets in the disc real matter, it doesn't mean that it has already the ability to create new matter at the accretion disc. Without enough magnetic field it can't start this activity.
Therefore, I assume that at some point of time (after "eating" enough real matter) that BH should have enough mass to set ultra high orbital velocity of real matter at the accretion disc.
That orbital velocity generates the requested magnetic/electric field which is vital for the new matter creation activity at the accretion disc.
In the same token we could ask:How a star starts it first fusion activity? Are we sure that any new born star has the ability to set this activity?
How the first BH in the Universe had been created? How the first big bang had started?It is clear that any first step is critical.
However, as any child starts at some point of time its first step, most of the BH should start their first step in setting the new mass creation at accretion disc.
Technically-speaking mass can't be created. Matter can be created, but not mass. If what you are talking about is energy being converted into mass (which is somewhat redundant, since energy already has relativistic mass associated with it), then where does the energy come from that is required to create the new mass? You can't say it comes from the gravitational force, because force is not energy. They aren't even measured in the same units.A black hole plus its accretion disk have a finite amount of energy. Some of that energy is in the form of potential energy and some in the form of kinetic energy.
So the total energy content (and therefore the total mass) of the black hole/accretion disk system cannot increase over time unless it gets energy or matter from some outside source. To say otherwise would violate the first law of thermodynamics.
However, A SMBH with accretion disc converts its ultra high gravity force into energy in the accretion disc.
Therefore, as long as the total energy in the accretion disc is constant, there is no violation for that first law of thermodynamic.
All it does is convert the gravitational potential energy already in the disc into kinetic energy as it falls through the black hole's gravitational field. The total energy is unchanged
If the black hole gains mass, then the accretion disk must lose mass to compensate.
As "Some of that energy (in the accretion disc) is in the form of potential energy and some in the form of kinetic energy", than some of this energy must go down during that process.If I understand it correctly, the kinetic energy represents the orbital velocity. Therefore, during the creation process, this orbital velocity should go down. So, we can claim that the measured 0.3 c of the plasma orbital velocity at the accretion disc is direct outcome of that first law of thermodynamic. Without it, the plasma orbital velocity could be higher than that.
Actually, the black hole-accretion disk system as a whole must lose mass and energy over time since it is constantly radiating energy out into space. That is, if no more mass or energy is being brought in from outside.
Why this extra kinetic energy can't be used for the new matter creation at the disc?
Before I continue, I need to know something: do you claim that the total mass of the black hole-accretion disk system increases over time or not?
So I don't need to say anything else. Your idea violates conservation of mass. Therefore it cannot be correct.
you ignore the idea of energy transformation in that massive accelerator.
Just the evidence that 10 million stars within one parsec (about 3.26 Light years) of the Galactic Center proves that the SMBH doesn't eat even one single Atom from outside.
In the same token, you fully to accept the unrealistic idea that the Big Bang meets that first law of thermodynamics
although it is clear to you that there is no way to set new matter by any sort of bang.
The Big Bang did not create mass or energy. It represented an extreme expansion of space that mass and energy already existed in.
If "mass and energy already existed in" before the Big bang, than why do we need the Big bang theory?
How long before the Big Bang that mass and energy existed?
If the whole mass of the Universe was already existed before the Big bang why do we need the energy?
Why do we claim that the age of the Universe is only 13.8 Billion years if the mass of the whole universe was there before that time?
When did we get the first Atom in the Universe?
What is the real age of the Universe?