[Dave Lev (OP)]

What is needed to create new Atom?
Could it be: High temp? High pressure? High velocity? High magnetic/electric power?
Where can we find all of those elements is our Universe?
Could it be that the accretion disc of the SMBH (in spiral galaxy) supports all of those requirements?.
Please do not confuse it with accretion disc of any kind of star/s.
With regards to the plasma at the accretion disc.
Do you agree that it is very unique?
The Temperature of that plasma is as high as 10 ^9 c - much higher than the core of the Sun which is only 10 ^6 c.
It orbits at almost the speed of light.
It face a huge pressure due to the SMBH gravity force.
The magnetic /electric power there is very high.
The structure of the plasma is changing as we go outwards.
In the most inwards side we only see particles which could be the building blocks for an Atom, while at the outer side we clearly see Atoms and even molecular.
So, could it be that the huge gravity force of the SMBH is transformed into a power which can create new quarks, new Protons & Neutrons, New Atoms and all the variety of molecular?
We see clearly that some of the mass in the accretion disc are ejected out.
However, there is no evidence for any sort of mass which is drifting inwards to the accretion disc.
Which means - that the accretion disc ejects mass without getting any mass from the outer side.
If that is correct, do you agree that the only explanation for that is - new mass creation in the accretion disc?
What kind of elements do we see in the big gas clouds around that Accretion disc?
Do we see there mainly Hydrogen Atoms and wide variety of Molecular?
Do we see new star forming activity in those gas clouds?
So, can we assume that those gas clouded which had been ejected from the accretion disc, start their activity to form new stars which will be part of our mighty spiral galaxy?

[chris]

New atoms are made all the time through the process of radioactive decay; when an unstable nucleus decays it disintegrates to form one or more daughter radionuclides that have a new nuclear configuration. If this includess a change in the number of protons then a new atom is born.

[Bored chemist]

Stars make new atoms all the time.

[chiralSPO]

I suspect that the OP is asking about the creation of atoms not included in our periodic table (novel atoms), rather than run-of-the-mill transmutation (fusion, fission, and decay).

I would point to impacts of neutron stars, which probably release thousands of very unstable "elements" which rapidly decay to the standard set of stable elements. Neutron stars are essentially big balls of neutrons, which have such strong gravity that the neutrons do not decay into protons and electrons (and neutrinos of some flavor, as I understand it). However, one a bit breaks off and flies away, these gravitational forces no longer hold the neutrons together, and they will rapidly revert to protons and electrons, forming all manner of unusual elements and isotopes (one could imagine a lump of 120 neutrons, that could initially decay to ¹²⁰H⁺!) It has long been suspected that neutron star collisions are the source of most naturally occurring elements heavier than silver--and just very recently we got some extremely compelling evidence that this is the case (gravitational wave detectors saw what appeared to be two neutron stars collide, and immediately thereafter the x-rays of thee collision were detected, and then as it cooled over the next few days, we were able to detect enormous amounts of gold!)

[chiralSPO]

I will add that my suspicion is that none of these "novel" elements and isotopes are at all long lived (millisecond-long half lives would be amazing!)

See this chart which shows the half lives of nearly all known isotopes to date: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_elements_by_stability_of_isotopes#/media/File:Isotopes_and_half-life.svg

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Thanks

I suspect that the OP is asking about the creation of atoms not included in our periodic table (novel atoms), rather than run-of-the-mill transmutation (fusion, fission, and decay).

I would point to impacts of neutron stars, which probably release thousands of very unstable "elements" which rapidly decay to the standard set of stable elements. Neutron stars are essentially big balls of neutrons, which have such strong gravity that the neutrons do not decay into protons and electrons (and neutrinos of some flavor, as I understand it). However, one a bit breaks off and flies away, these gravitational forces no longer hold the neutrons together, and they will rapidly revert to protons and electrons, forming all manner of unusual elements and isotopes (one could imagine a lump of 120 neutrons, that could initially decay to ¹²⁰H⁺!) It has long been suspected that neutron star collisions are the source of most naturally occurring elements heavier than silver--and just very recently we got some extremely compelling evidence that this is the case (gravitational wave detectors saw what appeared to be two neutron stars collide, and immediately thereafter the x-rays of thee collision were detected, and then as it cooled over the next few days, we were able to detect enormous amounts of gold!)

I'm asking about the creation of atoms out of a pure energy.
Not a reuse of any current atom or molecular.
Just to create new Atom from Energy.
Actually, Atom is by definition some sort of cell of energy.
If we look at a proton for example -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton
"A proton has a mass of approximately 938 MeV/c2, of which the rest mass of its three valence quarks contributes only about 9.4 MeV/c2; much of the remainder can be attributed to the gluons".
So, the gluons contribute about 99% to the Proton Mass.
However, the galun itself doesn't carry mass. "It is just a type of energy"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluon
"A gluon is an elementary particle that acts as the exchange particle (or gauge boson) for the strong force between quarks"
"Gluons are actually just bosons, since they are the equilibrium force between the two quarks, which together form a triumvirate, and thus the energy force of the boson is in the form of a gluon, and thus the quarks become stable. They cannot separate unless something greater is capable of separating the quarks from each other, and so the gluon appears to hold these forces together. In fact it is just a type of energy while the two smaller forces, the quarks (also forms of energy) can unite under a single force, and this is the gluon's job."

So, the Galun is a type of Energy while the Quarks are also forms of energy.
Therefore, the mass in the proton represents Energy.
So, could it be that the Ultra high Energy/Temp/Pressure/Velocity in the accretion disc around the SMBH, create new Protons and Neutrons?
Those new protons/Neutrons will be the basic elements for all atoms in our periodic table (novel atoms) and all the molecular.
Please be aware that Neutron star has a fraction of the SMBH mass.
Therefore, could it be that a Neutron star might reuse the atoms in that star to create energy or new form of Atoms, while the SMBH can create new Atoms out of pure Energy.?

[Bored chemist]

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

[chiralSPO]

Thanks for the clarification!

Hawking radiation is theorized to be the result of particle-antiparticle pair production using the gravitational energy of the black hole to create matter. (ie vacuum fluctuation virtual particles becoming real particles). However I do not believe that this has been experimentally or observationally confirmed yet (despite much effort).

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

[yor_on]

You also have the time relation ship in where 'virtual particles' spontaneously arrange themselves into a 'real' particle pair that then just as spontaneously annihilate each other. You should look into that, as a function of 'time'.

[guest46746]

a proton, and an electron plus the strong nuclear force! lol

[evan_au]

The final moments of a hypothetical micro black hole should produce protons and electrons, some of which would produce new atoms.

But there is no convincing evidence of micro black holes at this time.

These new atoms would be the mashed up and regurgitated matter which originally went formed the micro black hole.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_black_hole

[jeffreyH]

If the accretion disc of a black hole could create particles out of the vacuum, then this would increase the energy of the universe. This would become apparent with respect to the gravitational field of a smbh. If the new matter was expelled away from the accretion disk then it could form a halo within the galaxy. If the matter created was unlike normal matter then this could be the dark matter that has been so elusive.

[guest46746]

If the accretion disc temperature of the SMBH was 10 ^9 , and the temperature of a star's core is 10^6, you must look at what fusion is doing as far as element production. A star at 10^6 is fusing hydrogen into helium. At a higher temperature it would be fusing the heavier elements as the larger the nuclei the greater the temperature needed for fusion.

A SMBH at 10^9 is fusing some very heavy elements. lol

 

[evan_au]

the accretion disc temperature of the SMBH was 10 ^9 , and the temperature of a star's core is 10^6....
 A star at 10^6 is fusing hydrogen into helium. At a higher temperature (an accretion disk) would be fusing the heavier elements

I'm afraid not, because there is more to it than just temperature.

The Lawson Criterion describes three parameters that must be satisfied to get fusion going: density, confinement time, and plasma temperature.
- Density: The density at the center of the Sun is around 150 g/cm³, about 30 times denser than iron. An accretion disk is effectively in free fall, so it is not confined to such extreme densities
- Confinement Time: The Hydrogen from the Sun has been crushed in there for billions of years. Matter in the accretion disk around a black hole might reach maximum pressures for perhaps days or hours before being swallowed by the black hole or spat out in a polar jet.

The Lawson Criterion was applied originally to Hydrogen fusion, but the requirements for density, confinement time, and plasma temperature are even more extreme for fusion of heavier elements.
- There is an additional criterion: Raw materials. Since the universe has more hydrogen than anything else, accretion disks will probably also be dominated by hydrogen. There may not be enough of anything else to fuse much of it.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawson_criterion

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Thanks for the clarification!

Hawking radiation is theorized to be the result of particle-antiparticle pair production using the gravitational energy of the black hole to create matter. (ie vacuum fluctuation virtual particles becoming real particles). However I do not believe that this has been experimentally or observationally confirmed yet (despite much effort).

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

Thanks

[Dave Lev (OP)]

- Density: The density at the center of the Sun is around 150 g/cm³, about 30 times denser than iron. An accretion disk is effectively in free fall, so it is not confined to such extreme densities

Why do you claim that the density at the accretion disc is not so high?
Please remember that the plasma orbits at almost the speed of light.
So, in one hand we can claim that each particle is in a free fall.
But on the other hand it is far away from a free fall.
We actually have a balance between the ultra high gravity force of the SMBH and the ultra orbital velocity of a particle in the plasma around the SMBH.
However, those forces are so high that they hold each particle in a very specific orbital cycle. It can't move inwards or outwards as it wish.
Therefore, if the Ultra high velocity brings two practices together, there is no way for them to move apart.
So, even if we claim that each particle is under a free fall, as the velocity is so high, they can't move apart from each other.
Hence, the density works due to that inability of each particle to move way from the nearby particle.
Therefore, we actually get a sever force which holds the plasma in some sort of a very strong stream.
This stream forces the particles to be close to each other (or even colide with each other) with ultra high force. That forcing power generate the highest pressure (or density) between two free particles in the whole universe.

Do you agree with that?

[guest46746]

Confinement Time: The Hydrogen from the Sun has been crushed in there for billions of years.

A SMBH is a billion sun worth of density, give or take. It's lifetime is surely greater than a mere star. lol

Matter in the accretion disk around a black hole might reach maximum pressures for perhaps days or hours before being swallowed by the black hole or spat out in a polar jet.

A billion star's worth of mass in the accretion disk. Takes a galaxy's lifetime to accumulate. OK lol

The Lawson Criterion was applied originally to Hydrogen fusion, but the requirements for density, confinement time, and plasma temperature are even more extreme for fusion of heavier elements.-

The density issue as been addressed.

There is an additional criterion: Raw materials. Since the universe has more hydrogen than anything else, accretion disks will probably also be dominated by hydrogen. There may not be enough of anything else to fuse

!st hydrogen fuses to helium, helium fuses to heavier elements eg: our Sun.  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.
So slowly, hydrogen fuses at 10^6, the heavier the nuclei the greater the temperature needed to fuse heavier elements, ergo if the kiln's temperature is at 10^9, common sense tells you it's no longer fusing hydrogen but something much heavier! lol
the temperature alone points to an extreme density, I thought would be

[GrizzlyBoom]

Guys, what a thread. I read with pleasure

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Matter in the accretion disk around a black hole might reach maximum pressures for perhaps days or hours before being swallowed by the black hole or spat out in a polar jet.

How do we know if the SMBH ejects the matter/plasma in its accretion disc or swallows it?
We have several evidences that the matter is ejected from the accretion disc. That is clear.
However, there is not even single evidence of a gas cloud, star, moon, asteroid or even one single atom that drifts inwards to the accretion disc.
Actually, our scientists estimates that 99% of the matter ejects out while the SMBH swallow only 1%.
https://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/30/tech/innovation/black-hole-diet/index.html
"Less than 1% of matter will be actually sacrificed for the freedom of 99% of gas," Wang said. "So, 99% of gas can escape from the capture of the black hole."
"According to Wang and colleagues, the black hole needs to throw out more than 99% of the material in order to accomplish this. That ejected 99%, in turn, heats up the environment around it, which affects the evolution of the galaxy as a whole."
Even so, do they have any real evidence for swallowing 1% of the matter?
So, why do we choose to believe in something that we don't see instead of believe in what we really see?
If we see that 99% goes out, and we can't see even 1% goes in, than why don't we understand that 100% goes out?
If we assume that the SMBH eats 1%, how do we know that this 1% comes from outside?
We claim that the SMBH is a bad eater.
"Why our galaxy's black hole is a picky eater"
You might think of black holes as indiscriminate eaters, hungrily gobbling up everything in their vicinity.
But the black hole at the center of our Milky Way galaxy, Sagittarius A*, is not exactly like this, new research suggests. Instead, this black hole -- and likely other black holes in the centers of galaxies -- must spit out a lot in order to swallow a little."
So, let's look at our self.
If we want to eat - we eat. Actually, 99.99..9% of our life time our mouth is empty. - and we are very good eater!
However, 99.99....9% (or 100%) of the SMBH at the center of spiral galaxy has a mouth (accretion disc) full with food.
Why is it?
The total matter in the accretion disc (of the milky way) is estimated to be around three Sun mass.
At any similar spiral galaxy that we look we see more or less the same amount of mass. (at any given moment)
None of them has an empty mouth or significantly more mass than that.
How could it be?
Could it be that the accretion disc is the biggest accelerator in the Universe?
Could it be that it generate new matter constantly and spit it out?
Could it be that the accretion disc is actually Excretion disc?






 

[evan_au]

if the Ultra high velocity brings two particles together, there is no way for them to move apart

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. 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 pieces

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.

We won't know what actually happens unless we can sample some of the matter spat out in the polar jets, or obtain a spectrum of the matter in the accretion disk. Unfortunately, anything passing the event horizon is beyond study.

Less than 1% of matter will be actually sacrificed for the freedom of 99% of gas,

What percentage of matter in the accretion disk ends up in the polar jet? I have heard figures that are the reverse of the 99% quoted above. 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. I suggest that a lot of matter has to fall into the black hole to power a small amount of matter in the polar jet.

Perhaps the issue here is that most matter around the black hole does not even enter the accretion disk, and remains in orbit, like the stars around Saggitarius A* that have been observed for over 15 years. It is thought that the heat from matter in the accretion disk creates a feedback mechanism controlling the rate at which the black hole feeds.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagitarius_A*#Central_black_hole