[guest46746]

Plasma at the inner edge of the black hole has an orbital velocity which is a significant fraction of the speed of light (like 30% of c).However, matter at slightly different distances from the black hole will have quite different orbital velocities, causing them to rapidly move apart.

If a galaxies arms rotate at the same speed as its center, what force would cause the discrepancy of orbital speeds around the BH you ascribe to above?   

So it's not correct to say that they can't move apart. In fact, it is these shear forces that contribute to heating of the accretion disk.If two particles are in slightly different (intersecting) orbits, they will smash together at a very high speed, which could produce several results: - They could bounce off each other (elastic collision)- They could fuse and stay fused- They could fuse and then break apart- They could shatter into other piecesMatter feeding into the black hole starts out in wildly different orbits when matter is far from the black hole, so by the time it has reached the inner part of the accretion disk, matter is pretty much in similar orbits.

That is alot of different conjectures based on a shearing force that is in conflict with how the galaxy rotation is thought to uniformly rotate.

But I agree that some fusion could occur.
.

With plasma is as high as 10 ^9 c ,  along with the assumption that gravity prevents any any escape from the BH's accretion disk, view the accretion disc in terms of a black body

"A blackbody is an object that absorbs all of the radiation that it receives (that is, it does not reflect any light, nor does it allow any light to pass through it and out the other side). The energy that the blackbody absorbs heats it up, and then it will emit its own radiation. The only parameter that determines how much light the blackbody gives off, and at what wavelengths, is its temperature.'

"The hotter the blackbody, the more light it gives off at all wavelengths"
 
lol

[guest46746]

why do you ask questions?

I do mostly for the fun of it! lol

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Plasma at the inner edge of the black hole has an orbital velocity which is a significant fraction of the speed of light (like 30% of c).
The polar jets are emitted at up to 80% of c, and it takes an enormous amount of energy to escape from the vicinity of a black hole.

As we know the orbital velocities at the Inner/outer edges of the accretion disc (or actually - accretion ring), what is the radius at those edges?

[evan_au]

The energy that the blackbody absorbs heats it up, and then it will emit its own radiation.

In the case of an accretion disk, the source of energy is not absorbed radiation, but friction, turbulence and electrical currents flowing through the plasma as it spirals down to its doom.

Inner/outer edges of the accretion disc (or actually - accretion ring), what is the radius at those edges?

The accretion disk extends all the way down to the event horizon of a black hole, or the surface of a neutron star.

Astronomers are studying X-Ray emissions from accretion disks on very short timescales in an attempt to understand how matter behaves within the accretion disk - discoseismology...
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accretion_disk

[Dave Lev (OP)]

The accretion disk extends all the way down to the event horizon of a black hole, or the surface of a neutron star.
Astronomers are studying X-Ray emissions from accretion disks on very short timescales in an attempt to understand how matter behaves within the accretion disk - discoseismology...
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accretion_disk

Thanks
It seems to me that the science does not distinguish between the accretion disc of SMBH at the center of spiral galaxy to the accretion disc around a star.
In the article it is stated:
"An accretion disk is a structure (often a circumstellar disk) formed by diffused material in orbital motion around a massive central body. The central body is typically a star".
Why is it?
They have totally different characteristics.
If I understand it correctly, the plasma at 10^9 c can only be found at the accretion disc of SMBH in spiral galaxy.
Also, those ultra high orbital velocities can only be found in that kind of accretion disc.
How could it be that we have measured those orbital velocities, but we don't know for sure orbital radius of the plasma at each edge?
I also don't understand how could it be that the velocity at the outer edge of the accretion disc is 80% of Light speed while at the inner edge it is only 30% of Light speed.
By measuring the orbital velocity of a particle and its radius, we can extract the total mass of the SMBH.
We don't need to know the mass of a particle for this calculation.
M = R V^2 / G
A particle at the inner edge has shorter radius (R) - for the same SMBH mass -M, hence its orbital velocity must be higher by definition.
How can we explain that contradiction in Newton law?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Based on the following formula:
M = R V^2 / G
We can easily extract the radius of the outer edge:
M = 4 * 10 ^6 sum mass
V = 80% of Speed of light
Hence
The outer edge radius is:
R(outer) = M * G / (0.8 Speed light) ^2
With regards to the inner edge:
It is quite clear to me that as we go inwards, the orbital velocity must increase. (Assuming that Newton law works also for SMBH)
However, as nothing can move faster than the speed of light, than we can assume that at the inner edge the maximal orbital velocity is the speed of light.
Hence:
R(inner) = M * G / (speed light) ^2
Now we can compare between the two edges:

M =  R V^2 / G =
M = R(outer) * (0.8 Speed light) ^2 / G = R(inner)* (Speed light)^2 / G
Hence
R(outer) * 0.8 ^2 = R(inner)
R(Inner) = 0.64 R(outer)

Hence, at this radius the plasma will orbit at its maximal velocity which is the speed of light.
Nothing can orbit at a radius shorter than that.
Do you agree with this calculation?

[chiralSPO]

I also don't understand how could it be that the velocity at the outer edge of the accretion disc is 80% of Light speed while at the inner edge it is only 30% of Light speed.

My reading of this thread is that it has been suggested that the 80% c figure was the speed of particles in the polar jet, not the outer edge of the accretion disk.

The polar jets are emitted at up to 80% of c,

[guest46746]

If the plasma near the core of the BH is traveling at 30% the SOL and the particle mass at the outer boundary of the accretion disk is moving at 80%the SOL. You would have to ascribe the decrease in velocity to density. According to SR, mass increases as it approaches the SOL. Therefore as it deaccelerates it loses masses. The loss of mass produces energy via contraction. The loss of mass, promotes an increase in the density which results in compression as the primary source of extreme temperature. AS the elongated particle mass contracts during deacceleration from .8c to .3c, its S/T environment  contracts as well. This results in EM light plasma with a high degree of energy produced during contraction via mass loss. This EM Light plasma would produce a black body effect. There would be little to no shearing effect in such a compressed density as the OP pointed out. The outer accretion disc would transform matter into condensed plasma via SR rules being inversed.

The above is just a logic scenario produced by the organization of accepted SR principles, it's all in how you wish to view it. What's the logical conclusion of this story based on the "facts" presented in this discussion? Don't ever drop out of Light Speed if you do not wish to become a plasma ghost! lol

[Dave Lev (OP)]

If the plasma near the core of the BH is traveling at 30% the SOL and the particle mass at the outer boundary of the accretion disk is moving at 80%the SOL. You would have to ascribe the decrease in velocity to density. According to SR, mass increases as it approaches the SOL. Therefore as it deaccelerates it loses masses. The loss of mass produces energy via contraction. The loss of mass, promotes an increase in the density which results in compression as the primary source of extreme temperature. AS the elongated particle mass contracts during deacceleration from .8c to .3c, its S/T environment  contracts as well. This results in EM light plasma with a high degree of energy produced during contraction via mass loss. This EM Light plasma would produce a black body effect. There would be little to no shearing effect in such a compressed density as the OP pointed out. The outer accretion disc would transform matter into condensed plasma via SR rules being inversed.

As was proved by Newton law, the mass of a particle is none relevant to its orbital velocity.
The only two relevant factors are SMBH mass and the radius.
M = R V^2 / G
Therefore, do you agree that even if "According to SR, the mass (of a particle) increases as it approaches the SOL", shouldn't have any impact on the particle' orbital velocity?

Could it be that we have an error in our measurements of the inner edge orbital velocity?
As we are located on the spiral disc, it is quite clear that our measurements of the outer edge should be OK.
However, from our current location it might be quite difficult task to cross the plasma ring and monitor the inner edge.

[guest46746]

Therefore, do you agree that even if "According to SR, the mass (of a particle) increases as it approaches the SOL", shouldn't have any impact on the particle' orbital velocity?

The rotational speed of a neutron star is measured by the rapidity of its polar light emissions, this rotational speed can approach 700 times a second. This can propel particle orbits to .3c - .5c . The force of its gravity escape velocity is 100,000 km/s to 150,000 km/s. nothing escapes it's gravity. This is comparable to the SMBH inner ring's SOL presented by au?. The reason for bringing this up, is that the orbital speed is impossible for it's mass and it should be close breaking apart. A light wave is thought to be perpendicular to a gravity wave, their intersection creates kinetic energy. So if light is orbiting a neutron star, its gravity is perpendicular to that, its kinetic energy is being twisted and intermingled indistinguishably from the latter's. If something similar is occurring at the BH's inner ring orbiting at .3c, core,  minus the BH's rotation, it's density must radiate EM light energy (black body energy) to the outer accretion disk ring or erupt.

The orbital velocity in your question eludes to a particle (plasma) velocity who's orbit is constrained in a by it's own density so that it intersection/interaction action with gravity is fixed at .3c or the appropriate percentage. The kinetic energy is released as EM light energy. This release differs from a neutron star as a result of the SMBH lack of or minimal rotation to that of a neutron star's.  The orbital .3c being fixed at an equilibrium within a confined S/T negates any further particle, plasma contractions, resulting in no further loss of conserved energy.

The reason for equilibrium is the release of kinetic energy. Keeping it simple! lol

[guest45734]

This link might be of interest to you ref particle creation https://phys.org/news/2013-12-creation-entanglement-simultaneously-wormhole.html this one also on wormholes https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21829224-200-wormhole-entanglement-solves-black-hole-paradox/ At the pre planck era and before any big bang the temperature of the universe would be 0k, this lends itself to weird entangled particles in the form of condensates of quarks coming out of nothing.

Some one mentioned micro black holes above, its was not discussed, but effectively its the same as two entangled quarks appearing out of nothing.

[evan_au]

It seems to me that the science does not distinguish between the accretion disc of SMBH at the center of spiral galaxy to the accretion disc around a star.

Both are accretion disks, but the accretion disk around a black hole is much more extreme - much higher velocities and much higher temperatures.

Accretion disks around newly forming stars mostly emit in the infra-red, while accretion disks around black holes emit a lot of energy in X-Rays. Unfortunately, both are often surrounded by dust clouds, and the only radiation that can get through is infra-red and radio waves.

News: It was announced this week that a team using an interferometer at the European Southern Observatory have managed to image infra-red flares at the innermost stable orbit of Saggitarius A* (ie just before going on a 1-way path into the black hole). The timing and motion of these flares is consistent with a speed at 30% of c, and the mass of around 4 million solar masses.

Another comment - it appears that the axis of the accretion disk is pointing in generally our direction, in the plane of the Milky Way, at 90° to the Milky Way axis.
- This might point to a black hole merger which changed the axis of the central black hole - in the past there was a polar jet aligned with the axis of the Milky Way (this is visible at radio wavelengths)
- The polar jet is now heading in roughly our direction, so we might be able to sample it, someday
- I wonder if this polar jet lying in the plane of the galaxy could be responsible for a "barred spiral" form of galaxy?

See:http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/interstellar-material-milky-ways-central-black-hole-06559.html

[guest46746]

I wonder if this polar jet lying in the plane of the galaxy could be responsible for a "barred spiral" form of galaxy?

The premise is acceptable but the Sagittaruis dwarf is much closer.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

News: It was announced this week that a team using an interferometer at the European Southern Observatory have managed to image infra-red flares at the innermost stable orbit of Saggitarius A* (ie just before going on a 1-way path into the black hole). The timing and motion of these flares is consistent with a speed at 30% of c, and the mass of around 4 million solar masses.

Thanks

I have found the following article:
https://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1835/
"New observations show clumps of gas swirling around at about 30% of the speed of light on a circular orbit just outside its event horizon — the first time material has been observed orbiting close to the point of no return, and the most detailed observations yet of material orbiting this close to a black hole."
"While some matter in the accretion disc — the belt of gas orbiting Sagittarius A* at relativistic speeds [2] — can orbit the black hole safely, anything that gets too close is doomed to be pulled beyond the event horizon.
The closest point to a black hole that material can orbit without being irresistibly drawn inwards by the immense mass is known as the innermost stable orbit, and it is from here that the observed flares originate. "

I'm quite confused.
What is the meaning of: "belt of gas"
Is it the accretion disc or a belt of gas outside the accretion?
If it is in the accretion disc, why they call it "belt of gas" instead of plasma?

It is also stated:
"It’s mind-boggling to actually witness material orbiting a massive black hole at 30% of the speed of light," marvelled Oliver Pfuhl, a scientist at the MPE. "GRAVITY’s tremendous sensitivity has allowed us to observe the accretion processes in real time in unprecedented detail."

What is the meaning of: "observe the accretion process"?
I would consider an accretion process as a mass from outside the accretion disc that is drifting inwards to that disc.
If so, how do they know that this belt of gas is going in 1-way path into the accretion disc of the black hole?
I couldn't find any evidence for that in the article.

[guest46746]

If I recall properly the cloud in orbit around the accretion disk as been observed since at least circa 2013 - 14.   It's lack of demise puzzled scientist at the time.  Saturation of the accretion disk?

The flares along the innermost accretion disk were first reported almost a year ago?  That fact that the three flares happened sequentially points to a larger process of instabilty. The hotspots abnormalities in a 10^9 envirinment.

Goldfinger
“Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action”

lol

[evan_au]

What is the meaning of: "belt of gas"

Black holes routinely feed off cool gas clouds that exist in the center of our galaxy.
As these clouds collide with the gas in the existing accretion disk, they are heated.
This heat can escape in the outer parts of the accretion disk, keeping it in atomic form.
But towards the center of the accretion disk, velocities are much higher, shear forces and turbulence is more intense, and temperatures climb high enough to rip off all the electrons and become a plasma.

If it is in the accretion disc, why they call it "belt of gas" instead of plasma?

Maybe I am overthinking this. This was a press release. People understand "gas", but the public will think that "plasma" has something to do with blood transfusions.

Is it the accretion disc or a belt of gas outside the accretion?

The outer parts of the accretion disk will be a gas, probably non-conducting.
But these flares were from the inner part of the accretion disk, which was a conductive plasma. The web page suggests that electrical conductivity and magnetic fields may have caused the flares.

What is the meaning of: "observe the accretion process"?

It is really hard to view events close to a black hole - because it is so small, so far away, and so black.
In these observations, they claim to have seen events on the scale of the inner part of an accretion disk, which is quite an achievement!

This is a bit of a race, because a team of radio astronomers are currently trying to assemble an image of the black hole at the center of our galaxy, at radio frequencies. This requires a radio telescope the width of the Earth.

There is a nice video here of another technique to study the accretion process using X-Rays emitted by a stellar disruption event around a supermassive black hole (a bit smaller than the one in our galaxy). As a stellar disruption event, this belt of gas was wider and more turbulent than the fairly thin and structured established accretion disk around an active black hole.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

..these flares were from the inner part of the accretion disk, which was a conductive plasma. The web page suggests that electrical conductivity and magnetic fields may have caused the flares.
It is really hard to view events close to a black hole - because it is so small, so far away, and so black.
In these observations, they claim to have seen events on the scale of the inner part of an accretion disk, which is quite an achievement!
There is a nice video here of another technique to study the accretion process using X-Rays emitted by a stellar disruption event around a supermassive black hole (a bit smaller than the one in our galaxy). As a stellar disruption event, this belt of gas was wider and more turbulent than the fairly thin and structured established accretion disk around an active black hole.

Thanks
So, the Flares which had been observed by X-ray is coming from the plasma in the accretion disc.
Hence, the meaning of "belt of gas" is the plasma in the accretion disc which orbits under electrical conductivity and magnetic fields.
In the video it was stated that the matter in the accretion disc is extremely Puffy and very turbulent. However, they don't say even one word if the matter/plasma is drifting inwards to the SMBH or outwards.
Therefore, we get clear indication about the activity in the accretion disc, but there is no indication about the accretion process.
There is no proof in this article/video that any sort of cool gas is drifting inwards to the accretion disc from outside.
So, why do we still claim that:

Black holes routinely feed off cool gas clouds that exist in the center of our galaxy.
As these clouds collide with the gas in the existing accretion disk, they are heated.

From the first day of observing the accretion disc, we couldn't find even one single proof that any sort matter (Cool gas cloud/star/asteroid..) is drifting inwards to the accretion disc.
Why do we still hold this unproved theory that the SMBH at the center of spiral galaxy routinely feed off cool gas clouds from outside?
If it was "routinely", how could it be that we have never ever seen even one atom drifting inwards?

How could it be that we have excellent view on the activity in the accretion disc, we also see clearly that matter from the accretion disc is ejected out, but we still can't find even one single evidence for the main idea of the accretion process (accretion mass from outside)?
Why we still hope to see it in the future? How long do we still have to wait before we believe in what we see?

If nothing is drifting inwards to the accretion disc, while it is full with plasma (very hot particles at about three sun mass) and we clearly see Matter/Molecular that is ejected out, then why can't we assume that somehow new mass must be created in the accretion disc?
So, could it be that those X-Ray radiations, flares, Electrical conductivity and magnetic fields indicates on new Atom creation process in the accretion disc of SMBH in the core of the galaxy?

Some of us do believe that this new Atom creation/fusion activity might be feasible:

Well, it can be done.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antihydrogen

We have observed pair production from multi-photon interactions, but thee energy required to make even a proton antiproton pair is quite high. You may be correct that the energy in an acretion disk might be workable...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_creation

If the accretion disk has a fusion wicking temperature of 10^9 and a star as a fusion wicking temperature of 10^6, common sense tells you density is already in play.

You even claim:

Matter feeding into the black hole starts out in wildly different orbits when matter is far from the black hole, so by the time it has reached the inner part of the accretion disk, matter is pretty much in similar orbits.
But I agree that some fusion could occur.

However, as no matter is feeding into the accretion disc, could it be that the new particles/atoms creation starts from the inner most ring of the accretion disc as follow:
At that inner most ring, the gravity of the SMBH is maximal. Therefore, the plasma orbits there at its maximal velocity.
Due to the huge forces/energy (gravity, magnetic, electric..) Some quarks might be pop up at that inner most ring.
Those new born quarks must orbit at a maximal velocity pick at pretty much similar orbits, collide with each other, gets gluons energy and set the first proton and neutron.
As fusion could occur, and due to the 10^9 c, Protons and Neutrons could set Hydrogen Atoms and also the heavier Atoms and molecular.
Those new atoms and molecular are drifting outwards and finally this new hot matter is ejected out as polar jet.

We won't know what actually happens unless we can sample some of the matter spat out in the polar jets,

So could it be that there is no need to sample the matter spat out as we already know the source for this matter?

[evan_au]

how could it be that we have never ever seen even one atom drifting inwards (towards a black hole)?

If you watch the video again, you will see that the X-Ray outburst from this normally quiet galaxy was due to tidal disruption of a star that orbited too close to a Supermassive Black Hole in a distant galaxy.

The atoms that were originally part of the star got torn apart from each other, and many of them put into orbit around the black hole, where they emitted X-Rays. These definitely drifted inwards towards the black hole, compared to the star's original orbit.

Undoubtedly, some of the atoms of the star continued on their original path, and some got flung into other orbits outside the accretion disk (that's what tidal disruption does - it disrupts).

Some quarks might be pop up at that inner most ring.

One thing about quarks is that they are very sociable animals, and suffer separation anxiety when they are taken away from their friends.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_confinement

In fact, the spectrum of Hawking radiation around supermassive black holes will emphasise extremely low-energy particles like photons in the very low frequency radio spectrum.

Modelling shows that the X-Rays emitted from accretion disks is powered by gravitational potential energy from infalling matter, and not from creation of new matter (modeling of the jets, and other magnetohydodynamic phenomena is still problematic, even on our largest computers).
 
It would take an (hypothetical) evaporating micro-black hole to release electrons and positrons, although in the last seconds, you would get protons and anti-protons.
At this time, we have good observational evidence for supermassive black holes, and that they do swallow matter, from time to time. However, at this point in time we have no confirmed evidence of micro black holes, or that they emit measurable amounts of radiation and particles.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_black_hole

[guest46746]

To clarify, the video posted portrays a newly forming accretion disc around a SMBH. The flashes observed were from outcast electrons interacting with plasma streams. The OP had previously reference the difference between an established galactic SMBH and a newly forming accretion disc around an orphaned BH. Would the newly forming accretion disc have the capacity to create atoms? Not if it internal temperatures fell below 10^6 degrees.  lol

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Let's make it clear.
I only focus on the accretion disc around SMBH in the core of a massive spiral galaxy (as the milky way galaxy).
In this kind of accretion disc the temp of the plasma is 10^9 c.
Only in this kind of accretion disc Atom creation/fusion could take place.
Therefore, any other accretion disc is not relevant for our discussion.
After watching again the video, it seems that this far end galaxy doesn't meet this criteria.
It is quite small galaxy and it is not clear if it has any spiral arms or the requested hot plasma.
Therefore, this small galaxy doesn't give any real indication about the accretion disc that we are focus on.
So let me ask again:
Do we have any evidence from the milky way galaxy in which cold gas/star/asteroid from outside is drifting inwards to the accretion disc?

We can clearly see our accretion disc, we also can measure the plasma temp and monitor its structure and velocity.
We also clearly see matter that is ejected from this accretion disc.
Therefore, if any sort of gas is drifting inwards, we have to see it.

Please - One real evidence is good enough. From our galaxy or from any similar spiral galaxy.