0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
So can you please offer the calculation /estimation for the magnetic force?What kind of magnetic force can boost that kind of molecular jet stream?
The recent direct detection of a rather strong of a true disk field of strength 1 kG at 0.05 AU in FU Ori, provides new and strong support for the disk wind mechanism (Donati et al. 2005).
Why are you so sure that magnetism is coming from the disk?Do we really know how SMBH works?Do we know if the matter in the that SMBH rotates or not?
In order to set magnetism, we normally need a rotational core. For example, the Earth produce magnetism due to its core rotation. Therefore, I'm not sure that an orbital rotation disc by itself can create any significant magnetism or even any sort of magnetism. If you have an example that supports your claim - please offer it.
The 4 millions solar mass at the core of the SMBH sets the magnetic force.It rotates (as the core of the earth) and sets the ultra magnetic force around the SMBH.
The orbital velocity by itself can't generate that kind of temp.
Without the magnetic field of the SMBH, there will be no current in the accretion disc.
As I have stated, around the SMBH there is electromagnetic force. Therefore it is a combination of magnetic and electric fields.
We must evaluate them based on their speed in the first moment of creation under the electromagnetic fields and Lorentz force.
Are you still claiming that black holes create mass and energy? If your answer is still yes, then there is your contradiction.
So that gives us two options. Either:(1) You agree with the laws of physics and therefore agree that your own model (which posits a violation of the first law of thermodynamics) is wrong.(2) You agree with your model and therefore do not agree with the first law of thermodynamics.Which is it? You can't have it both ways.
The figures you are quoting are wrong. Yes, there was an article mentioning a figure of 10000 solar masses, but that wasn't a reference to said jet stream nor any current state of Sgr-A. A jet stream going at 0.8c isn't going to stop at 27k light years. The jet stream of our galaxy has instead been described as faint and pathetic with negligible matter.Said 10000 solar masses has never been measured.
From "Disk Winds, Jets, and Outflows: Theoretical and Computational Foundations", it's at least 1 kilogauss:
Quoteit seems to me that the accretion disc by itself can't produce the requested magnetism level.Computer modeling shows that it can.Evidently, the physicists' computer knows more about magnetic fields than you do.
it seems to me that the accretion disc by itself can't produce the requested magnetism level.
Although something similar to Earth's oscillating magnetic field has been recreated in the lab (using liquid sodium), the exact mechanism for the Earth is still under investigation.
There has been no verifiable detection of magnetic monopoles to date. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-hair_theorem
Do we really think that this magnetism can set that kind of molecular jet stream?
It is shown that the second model is preferable for estimating the magnetic field in NGC 4258. For estimations we used the standard accretion disk model assuming that the same power-law dependence of the magnetic field follows from the range of the optical emission down to the horizon. The observed optical polarization from NGC 4258 allowed us to find the values 103 − 10[/sup]4[/sup] Gauss at the horizon, depending on the particular choice of the model parameters.
So, you claim that the accretion disc can produce the magnetism which is needed to its function.This is really big enigma for me.Let me tell you a story from the time that I was teaching Electricity.One of my student came with a brilliant idea to invent a gen-motor that should work without any electricity source.The idea was that the rotor of the Motor will also be used to generate current which will be used for the motor.Based on his simulation, if we ignore the friction, it should work.I have told him that it won't work as the his Gen-motor will never be able to produce enough current that is requested to keep its rotation.In the same token, it is quite clear to me that the accretion disc can't produce the magnetism that is need for its requirement.
I really don't understand how a thin disc which orbits around a SMBH can produce any sort of magnetism.
In any case, even if it produces some magnetism, it seems to me that it surly can't be enough to boost the 10,000 solar mass at ultra high velocity into those molecular jet stream.
As the magnetism field that the accretion disc might generate is very weak (especially - for the jet stream) it is clear that the main source for the magnetism must come for the SMBH itself.
There is a possibility, that it also has layers that rotates around some core.That theoretically can generate Magnetic field as the Earth does but much more stronger.
BH isn't a SMBH. It is totally different.
Quote from: Halc on 17/08/2019 20:20:23The figures you are quoting are wrong. Yes, there was an article mentioning a figure of 10000 solar masses, but that wasn't a reference to said jet stream nor any current state of Sgr-A. A jet stream going at 0.8c isn't going to stop at 27k light years. The jet stream of our galaxy has instead been described as faint and pathetic with negligible matter.Said 10000 solar masses has never been measured.I have already introduce this article.However, let me do it again for you."Finkbeiner estimates that a molecular cloud weighing about 10,000 times as much as the Sun would be required"Do you still think that this 10,000 solar mass is negligible matter?
it seems to me that it surly can't be enough to boost the 10,000 solar mass at ultra high velocity into those molecular jet stream.
"Shoving 10,000 suns into the black hole at once would do the trick"
In our vision we see hot layers deep into the center of the Earth that orbits around a metal core.
In this article they discuss about a BH.BH isn't a SMBH. It is totally different.
This article estimates field strengths of up to 10,000 Gauss for NGC 4258 right at the event horizon: https://arxiv.org/pdf/0909.1207.pdf
Closer in, the magnetic field could be much stronger (the measurement was made in a part of the disk about 7.5 million kilometers from the center of the disk)
By the way, where did you get that number of 0.8c for the relativistic jet from a super-massive black hole?
There is a 10k sun-mass amount of material moving at 0.8c? How does it not exit the galaxy? That's well above escape velocity from 'high above the disc plane'.
Ghostly Gamma-ray Beams Blast from Milky Way's Centerhttps://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2012-16The two beams, or jets, were revealed by NASA's Fermi space telescope. They extend from the galactic center to a distance of 27,000 light-years above and below the galactic plane.The jets were produced when plasma squirted out from the galactic center, following a corkscrew-like magnetic field that kept it tightly focused. 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.
OK, that mentions a 10k solar mass cloud being required to get back into 'gulp' mode from its current 'sip' mode. No mention of anything moving at 0.8c mentioned. The detected bubble is faint (not massive), and is an effect from a 'gulp' perhaps a million years ago. The bubble extends to 27000 LY, so it's moving at best at 27 ly per 1000 years, hardly 0.8c.The jets, if fast moving material, are the produce of the current 'sip' mode. If they're a remnant of the big mass from a million years ago, the jets must be slow indeed to still be there.
Have you actually done some math that shows that measurement to be wrong?
You can calculate the force that a magnetic field has on a charged particle using the following equation:F = qvBsinθ, where“F” is the resulting force in newtons“q” is the charge in coulombs“v” is the velocity in meters per second“B” is the magnetic field strength in teslas (1 tesla = 10,000 gauss)“sinθ” is the angle between the direction of the particle’s motion and the direction of the magnetic field lines
That brings me to the following critical issue with regards to The Virial Theorem and Dark Matter:Our scientists claim that our Sun orbits around the center of the galaxy due to the impact of The Virial Theorem and Dark Matter.
It is also stated:https://web.stanford.edu/~ajlucas/The%20Virial%20Theorem%20and%20Dark%20Matter.pdf"Modern estimates put the percentage of the universe made up of dark matter at about 80-90%."
Based on the Virial Theorem, do you agree that same total mass that holds by gravity any star (including the Sun) in the spiral disc must also apply to that molecular Jet stream (for the same radius)?
The orbital velocity for any star in the spiral disc is:V^2 = G M /r
M total (due to viral + Dark matter) = V^2 r /G
As most of the stars in the spiral disc orbits at 220 K/sThan the total center mass that with regards to the radius is:M total = 220 K/s ^2 * r /GThis formula must work also for the jet stream due to the Virial theorem (based on the same radius).
So, do you agree that if a molecular gets to a distance of 20,000 Ly above the center, it should feel the impact of a total center mass of:M total = 220 K/s ^2 * 10,000LY /G
In order for the molecular jet stream to fly direct upwards (without any orbital movement) it is clear that the upwards force must be significantly stronger than the impact of the gravity force (due to the M total mass by Virial theorem).
So, the total gravity force on a molecular at radius r is:F = G M (total) m(molecular)/ r^2
After placing the value of M total in the formula:F = G V^2 * r m /G r^2 = m V^2 /rThe gravity force on any molecular in that molecular jet stream and at any radius from the center should be:F gravity = m (molecular) 220km/s ^2 /r
Hence, In order to set that kind of a direct flow of the molecular jet stream, F magnetism must be significantly higher than F gravity.
So, as we move closer to the center of the SMBH, the magnetic field is stronger. Therefore, if new pair of particles had been created at the event of horizon or very close it:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production"Pair production is the creation of a subatomic particle and its antiparticle from a neutral boson." "if one particle has electric charge of +1 the other must have electric charge of −1, or if one particle has strangeness of +1 then another one must have strangeness of −1"Do you agree that at the moment of creation, one particle has electric charge of +1 while the other must have electric charge of −1 and they are probably moving very close to each other at high orbital velocity.Do you agree that Lorentz force due to that magnetic power of 10,000 Gauss could affect their movement directions?
If one will be pushed inwards to the center of the SMBH, the other one will be pulled outwards from the event horizon (directly into the accretion disc) at the same moment of creation due to Lorentz force under opposite electric charges.Why not?
If you agree with that, than the accretion disc gets its matter from the event of horizon (or deeper) without any violation of any law of physics
Halc have asked the same question
Based on the Virial Theorem, do you agree that same total mass that holds by gravity any star (including the Sun) in the spiral disc must also apply to that molecular Jet stream (for the same radius)?If so, how could it be that in the spiral arms we see clearly that the all stars obey to that Virial Theorem and orbit around the center, while the molecular jet stream ignore it completely?
Hence, In order to set that kind of a direct flow of the molecular jet stream, F magnetism must be significantly higher than F gravity.Any idea about how much stronger it should be?
In any case, I still wonder why the molecular jet stream doesn't orbit around the center of the galaxy as any other star in the galaxy?Could it be that they are not effected by the Virial theorem and dark matter?If so, why is it?
So, as we move closer to the center of the SMBH, the magnetic field is stronger.
QuoteThe orbital velocity for any star in the spiral disc is:V^2 = G M /rThat formula is for a spherical distribution of mass. A disk is not a sphere. The calculation is more complicated than this simple case. Yes, you can compute Earth's orbital speed around the sun with that formula.
It does not work for the jet stream which is not in a stable orbit.
No. It isn't orbiting, so the calculation is meaningless
This would only be true for black holes that are small enough to create positron-electron pairs or heavier particles.
Super-massive black holes can only create neutral particle pairs such as photons or gravitons.
Magnetic fields neither attract nor repel electric charges. All they do is deflect their path (assuming they weren't traveling exactly parallel to the field lines, that is).
So it isn't a matter of one kind of charge being attracted towards the source of the magnetic field while the other is repelled.
Astrophysical jets travel far, far above the escape velocity of galaxies. Most stars do not.
Escape velocity.I'm still waiting for you to address this:
- The jet can be ejected from the accretion disk at up to 2x escape velocity- For locations near the event horizon, the escape velocity exceeds 0.5c, so relativistic speeds for the jet is understandable- But this mechanism also applies to jets from stellar-mass black holes, neutron stars, protoplanetary disks and even brown dwarf stars.
1. As you move closer to the event horizon of a black hole, the magnetic field is stronger.
2. As you move closer to the innermost edge of an accretion disk, the magnetic field is stronger.
(Reason: the magnetic field originates in the accretion disk.)
3. The jet does not originate from the black hole, it originates from matter already in the accretion disk,
fed from matter already outside the black hole.
3.1 The jet does not originate from within the photon sphere (1.5x event horizon radius), as only electromagnetism can easily escape from there
3.3 We need to look at the MHD (Magneto-Hydro Dynamic) simulations to see exactly where the matter and magnetic fields come from - but it's not from within the event horizon.
Quote from: HalcQuoteThe orbital velocity for any star in the spiral disc is:V^2 = G M /rThat formula is for a spherical distribution of mass. A disk is not a sphere. The calculation is more complicated than this simple case. Yes, you can compute Earth's orbital speed around the sun with that formula.So, let's look on Newton Shell theoremhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theorem"the shell theorem gives gravitational simplifications that can be applied to objects inside or outside a spherically symmetrical body. This theorem has particular application to astronomy.""A solid, spherically symmetric body can be modelled as an infinite number of concentric, infinitesimally thin spherical shells. If one of these shells can be treated as a point mass, then a system of shells (i.e. the sphere) can also be treated as a point mass"So, this gives a clear indication how we should use that Newton Shell theorem.
Dark matter -We have already discussed deeply the great impact of the dark matter.
Newton Shell theorem works the same for any direction.Therefore, if the Sun is on the spiral disc or high above the accretion disc
So, if we will place the Sun directly above the accretion disc at 27,000 Ly it will face exactly the same gravity force as it gets while it is on the spiral disc at that radius.
Quote from: HalcM total = 220 K/s ^2 * r /GThis formula must work also for the jet stream due to the Virial theorem
There is no requirement for any stable orbit in the Newton Shell TheoremSo, would you kindly explain why do you add that unexppected request?.
In Quote from: Halc on 19/08/2019 18:37:06No. It isn't orbiting, so the calculation is meaninglessIf there is no request for orbiting - then my calculations are correct.
In one hand you claim that a SMBH is the same as BH.On the other hand based on this answer, they are different.Is it just the size that set this impact?
Why at different radius of the SMBH we can't get different kind of new partials?
Do we really know if there are layers in the SMBH or not? If yes, how many? If no - Please prove it
We can't just claim that Newton Shell theorem is working according to our wishful list. It must work everywhere and anywhere exactly the same.
The shell theorem concerns spherical shells, not orbits. The Virial theorem on the other hand concerns stable systems.Matter exiting a system at escape velocity is not a stable system.Try actually reading about both and understanding them before using both incorrectly.
The Virial theorem on the other hand concerns stable systems.Matter exiting a system at escape velocity is not a stable system.
So that gives us two options. Either:(1) You agree with the laws of physics and therefore agree that your own model (which posits a violation of the first law of thermodynamics) is wrong.(2) You agree with your model and therefore do not agree with the first law of thermodynamics.
As you move closer to the event horizon of a black hole, the magnetic field is stronger.
1. New created particles - New pair of particles are created constantly around the SMBH (at the event of horizon or below).
If one particle carry a positive charge, the other one gets a negative charge.
2. Magnetics field - Around the SMBH there is magnetic field. This magnetic field is quite strong at the event of horizon (or deeper?...)
3. Lorentz force - Based on Lorentz force, the magnetic fields deflects differently the path of the orbital new born particles pair:Hence, if the positive charged particle will be deflected outwards, the negative charged particle will be deflected inwards.Therefore, while the negative is pushed inwards into the center of the SMBH, the positive is pulled outwards and get's eventually into the accretion disc.
Would you kindly explain where is the contradiction?
Quote from: Dave Lev on 22/08/2019 12:39:45Quote from: Dave LevWould you kindly explain where is the contradiction?The contradiction is your claim that this process causes the black hole to grow in mass.... If you are willing to accept this point, then I will agree that your model no longer violates the first law of thermodynamics.
Quote from: Dave LevWould you kindly explain where is the contradiction?The contradiction is your claim that this process causes the black hole to grow in mass.... If you are willing to accept this point, then I will agree that your model no longer violates the first law of thermodynamics.
The SMBH has the ability to generate new mass based on its pure gravity force.So, it doesn't consume any matter from its body to create that new matter.On the contrary, the creation of new matter increases its mass over time
The contradiction is your claim that this process causes the black hole to grow in mass. The mass of the black hole has to shrink, not grow, as the negative mass (not negative charge, an important difference) particle is invariably the one that passes into the hole (because the swapping of time and space coordinates inside of the event horizon is what makes that particular particle have a negative mass in the first place). That negative mass subtracts from the positive overall mass of the hole, causing it to become smaller. If you are willing to accept this point, then I will agree that your model no longer violates the first law of thermodynamics.
If you are willing to accept this point, then I will agree that your model no longer violates the first law of thermodynamics.
However, I claim that the matter in the SMBH isn't "Positive overall mass" but "Negative overall mass".