0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
What energy, where did it come from.?
The influence of dark energy appears to be increasing the accelerating expansion of the universe. Are you perhaps referring to dark energy. ?
If Dark energy has its origins in the HUP/zero point energy of the vacuum/quantum vacuum, is it real energy or is it just a temporary violation, because the energy is only momentarily borrowed and payed back to the vacuum. ?
Did the energy really exist prior to the big bang, or was it just a temporary violation of the laws of thermodynamics?
That is not the most widely accepted model of today, it is still a model.
Yes I know, but the interesting point with Hawking radiation is that virtual particles are separated and become real, in a rapidly inflating universe due to dark energy could virtual particles not be separated in a similar way prior to the hot big bang and what follows.
The energy present in the Big Bang singularity.
I don't know. I've wondered about this myself. I presume that this would still not represent a violation of the first law, as the energy supplied by the expansion is being converted into particles.
Nobody knows what dark energy is.
QuoteMass/energy cannot be created or destroyedThat is the generally accepted idea.exceptBig Bang theory suggests otherwise. Inflation > Baryogenesis > nucleosynthesis etcHoyle theorised mass was constantly appearing in space, a cold slower form of particle creation.Hawking theorised virtual particles can be converted to real particles via black holes gravity (converting gravitational energy to particles, energy is conserved here)
Mass/energy cannot be created or destroyed
QuoteIf we can't, then the only possibility to see a constant ejected steam of hot molecular from the plasma disc is by the activity of new mass creation at the SMBH.As has been pointed out to you many times before, that would break the laws of physics. Mass/energy cannot be created or destroyed. So we know that's not what's going on. If it isn't coming from the black hole, then it's coming from an outside source. Magnetic fields are not like those force fields you see in science fiction. They aren't impassable barriers. Besides, the outer, cooler area of the accretion disk wouldn't be hot enough to be a plasma and as such wouldn't have an intrinsic magnetic field.
If we can't, then the only possibility to see a constant ejected steam of hot molecular from the plasma disc is by the activity of new mass creation at the SMBH.
I am not saying that particles cannot be created or destroyed. I'm talking about mass and energy.
How can we explain the molecular jet stream that is moving Upwards/downwards at ultra velocity of 0.8 speed of light?What kind of force can set that jet stream which is moving high above the accretion disc plane and includes about 10,000 Sun mass?Don't you agree that the only power that can set this molecular jet stream is the mighty magnetic filed?How can you de estimate this mighty power?I still don't understand why the magnetic field can trap any molecular that is ejected out from the accretion disc (more than 99% of the matter in the disc), but it can't trap any molecular that try to cross it?
So, do you agree that particles can be created or destroyed?
If so, that's all we need for Atom creation.
The ultra high energy/temp/ eclectic/magnetic field at the accretion disc, can add the requested energy for setting the gluons.
However, as all the plasma orbits at Ultra high velocity, Hydrogen Atoms collide with each other and sets Helium and the whole list of Atoms and molecular that we know including water, gold and even Uranium.As this mass ejected from the accretion disc, they are trapped by the mighty magnetic field around the accretion disc and boosted upwards/downwards at 0.8 speed of light.
On a small scale the dynamic Casimir effect produces particles.On a larger scale Fast spinning Neutron Stars/Pulsars have huge magnetic fields, that are also thought to be able to produce particles from the vacuum of space. The surfaces of some neutron stars are apparently moving at 0.25c, mind bogglingly fast. I guess that this form of particle production will take some energy from the neutron star and slow its spin.
Atoms can be created, yes.
Quote from: Dave LevHow can we explain the molecular jet stream that is moving Upwards/downwards at ultra velocity of 0.8 speed of light?What kind of force can set that jet stream which is moving high above the accretion disc plane and includes about 10,000 Sun mass?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'.
How can we explain the molecular jet stream that is moving Upwards/downwards at ultra velocity of 0.8 speed of light?What kind of force can set that jet stream which is moving high above the accretion disc plane and includes about 10,000 Sun mass?
You wouldn't expect the matter on the very innermost of the disk to be stopped by the magnetic field anyway since the magnetic field is generated by the disk itself and not by the black hole.
Therefore, if a gluons isn't a particle and before the BBT there were only particles
Do you agree that if "Neutron Stars/Pulsars have huge magnetic fields, that are also thought to be able to produce particles from the vacuum of space"
than the SMBH should also be able to produce articles (especially quarks) at the vacuum of space in the innermost of the accretion disc?
Quote from: HalcThere 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/2012-16
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'.
The 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.
Therefore, if a molecular from outside the magnetic field will dare to come closer it will also will boosted upwards/downwards with that jet stream.
Therefore, I totally disagree that the source for that mass is:"Shoving 10,000 suns into the black hole at once would do the trick. Black holes are messy eaters, so some of that material would spew out and power the jets,"
Why the SMBH can't generate magnetic field?Do we have prove for that?
Hence, if we break down the proton - what do we get?Do you agree that we should get Quarks and Gluons?
Quarks are very clear particles, but what about gluons?Is it a particle?Is there any gluons particles?
Have we ever found one gluons particle in the whole Universe?
Do you agree that gluons represents a pure energy?
If the gluons is an Energy, than do you agree that the Atom represents a cell of Energy?
Hence, if you wish to creat a new proton you must have the requested quarks + the requested energy to set the gluons.Please remember - the mass contribution of the gluons to the proton is more than 900 MeV/c^2. while all the quarks is a proton contribute about 9 MeV/c^2. (less than 1% from the proton).Therefore, if a gluons isn't a particle and before the BBT there were only particles, how can we dream that the BBT can create even one atom without the gluons?Is there any possibility for a bang (even if we call it big bang) to create gluons?If it can't create gluons, how it can create an Atom?
If the BBT doesn't add energy to the existed articles (that were there before the bang), how it could create Atoms?
Don't you agree that the accretion disc around the SMBH is the only place in the whole Universe where the energy of the magnetic/electric power + Temp (10^9) + Velocity (0.3c) + pressure is high enough to add the gluons to the quarks in order to form new proton?
Do you believe that the Big Bang can create those kinds of energy/power/conditions (especially the magnetic/electric power)?
Do you agree that if "Neutron Stars/Pulsars have huge magnetic fields, that are also thought to be able to produce particles from the vacuum of space" than the SMBH should also be able to produce articles (especially quarks) at the vacuum of space in the innermost of the accretion disc?
How the BBT can add that gluons without having those key requested elements?How the BBT can't set even one proton if the gluons is not a particle?
Therefore, we clearly see mainly particles at the innermost ring of the accretion disc, while at the outermost side of the accretion ring we clearly see molecular.That proves that the new born particles are drifted outwards as they orbit at ultra high velocity (of over than 0.3 c).
Do you agree that as they drift outwards they become part of the plasma in the accretion disc, and directly affected by the ultra magnetic/electric power?
So, do you agree that the power/temp (10^9)/density/peruse at the accretion disc is the only place in the whole universe that can add the gluons to the quarks and form new proton and new atom?
It is also not logical that while more than 99% of the mass in the plasma is ejected out from the accretion disc, a mass from outside will try to get in. The same power that ejects all of that mass (over than 99%) from the accretion disc should prevent from any molecular to get in!!!
Why the SMBH can't generate magnetic field?Do we have prove for that?Do we know the real process at the SMBH?
Protons can be created as a product of pair production in extreme gravitational environments like those at a black hole's event horizon. An antiproton has to be created at the same time due to conservation laws. By the way, gluons are automatically created by quarks as a part of their strong nuclear field. If you have quarks, you already have gluons.
In order for a black hole to have a magnetic field, it must be both electrically-charged and spinning. The black hole should indeed spin, but it should not be electrically-charged. The reason for this is two-fold. Firstly, the very nature of the electromagnetic force means that positive and negative charges seek each other out and form neutral bodies. So almost all of the matter around a black hole would already be neutral. Secondly, an electrically-charged black hole would preferentially attracted oppositely-charged matter that would neutralize it.
Based on your answer:"Protons can be created as a product of pair production in extreme gravitational environments like those at a black hole's event horizon"So, based on your reply, Proton and Antiproton could be created at the same moment at the SMBH's event horizon.I would like to compare those two new born particles to a twin star that orbit around a BH.We know that if one star is falling in, while the other one is ejected outwards.In the same token, if the Antiproton will fell into the SMBH, the Proton should be drifted outwards.The "falling in" activity of the Antiproton, have solved the problems.In one hand it increases the mass of the SMBH, while it the other hand it push the Proton outwards.Therefore, we clearly see that more than 99% of the mass in the plasma in the accretion disc is ejected outwards.Hence, there is no need for any matter from outside the disc to drift inwards.If that scenario is correct, it might also answer your following remark about the magnetic field:
At the same moment that the new born Antipositron & Proton is created the "NEGATIVLY electrically-charged SMBH" would preferentially attracted NEGATIVLY-charged matter that would neutralize it (which is the Antiproton), while the Proton will be ejected outwards.
It eats the Antiproton and therefore it increases its mass constantly during the mass creation activity.
Do you agree with that?
(1) Pair production at a black hole's even horizon causes the black hole to lose mass. This is Hawking radiation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
Protons can be created as a product of pair production in extreme gravitational environments like those at a black hole's event horizon.
Do you agree that it is stated that the gravitational power of the black hole is boosted virtual particles into real particles?
Therefore, the gravity power of the BH itself has the ability to create new real particles?
So, you agree that BH can generate new particles as Proton and Antiproton due to its simple gravity force.
However, why do you claim that the space-time curvature at the event horizon of the SMBH is much more gentle than the one at a BH?How could it be that Protons are too heavy to be created by a suppermassive black hole but they are not too heavy for the BH?Would you kindly prove it?Would you also kindly explain what is so unique in those special very small black holes that only them could create proton-antiproton pairs.
In any case, most of us consider that gravity comes for free.Therefore, if the gravity of a BH could create proton-antiproton pairs, than why it doesn't come for free?Based on Hawking radiation "the escape of one of the particles lowers the mass of the black hole."If that is correct, than as the BH decreases its mass due to the creation activity, it actually decreases also its gravity.Hence, please let me know if you agree with the following:1. BH gravity creates new particle. Therefore:2. BH mass is reduces. Therefore:3. Gravity is reduces.So, Hawking proved/assumed that gravity doesn't come for free.If it doesn't come for free for mass creation, than why it comes for free for Sun/Earth orbit system.Why the Sun doesn't need to lose mass (or gravity) due to this orbital activity?Why the gravity reduction is only applicable for BH during new particle creation activity?Please remember - Those new particles had been created directly from the gravity that boosted virtual particles.So, the BH doesn't take any mass from itself to create those new particles
Quote from: Dave Lev on 28/07/2019 21:40:53Therefore, the gravity power of the BH itself has the ability to create new real particles? It isn't just gravity that is doing it, it is specifically the tidal forces caused by gravity. To be more specific, it is the difference between the force of gravity at different distances from the event horizon that allow the process to work. The tidal forces "pull" the particle-antiparticle pairs apart. The stronger the tidal forces, the faster particle-antiparticle pairs can be separated and the faster the hole shrinks.
1. BH gravity creates new particle. Therefore:2. BH mass is reduces. Therefore:3. Gravity is reduces.
If it doesn't come for free for mass creation, than why it comes for free for Sun/Earth orbit system.Why the Sun doesn't need to lose mass (or gravity) due to this orbital activity?
The reason that the Sun and Earth don't emit Hawking radiation is because they don't have event horizons that can capture one member of the particle pair.
Halc has a better handle on relativity than I do, so perhaps he can chime in on how the reference frames can make one member of the particle pair look like it has negative energy.
It isn't just gravity that is doing it, it is specifically the tidal forces caused by gravity. To be more specific, it is the difference between the force of gravity at different distances from the event horizon that allow the process to work.
The reason that the black hole's mass decreases when Hawking radiation is a bit harder to understand. It is often said that the member of the particle pair that escapes into the universe has positive mass/energy, while the particle that is consumed by the black hole has negative mass/energy. When that negative mass is added to the positive mass of the hole, it causes the hole to lose total mass. It isn't quite that simple, though, as the following description of the process explains: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/30597/black-holes-and-positive-negative-energy-particles/30601#30601
The tidal forces "pull" the particle-antiparticle pairs apart. The stronger the tidal forces, the faster particle-antiparticle pairs can be separated and the faster the hole shrinks.
The tidal forces at the event horizon of a super-massive black hole are lower because the radius of that black hole is larger. Let's use two examples to illustrate this point. We start off with a very small black hole with an event horizon radius of 1 centimeter. How does the gravitational force right at the event horizon compare to the gravitational force 1 centimeter away from the event horizon? Right at the event horizon, the distance to the singularity is 1 centimeter, whereas 1 centimeter away from from the event horizon, the singularity is 2 centimeters away. Since gravity follows the inverse square law, we know that a doubling of distance causes the acceleration due to gravity to be divided by 4. So over that tiny distance of 1 centimeter, the gravitational force is different by a factor of 400%.
I imagine a black hole the mass of say an elephant might be able to produce a proton. I don't know. I'm guessing. I know it's small.
The more massive the subatomic particles, the more energy (and therefore tidal force) is needed to "boost" them into existence
"In celestial mechanics, the expression tidal force can refer to a situation in which a body or material (for example, tidal water) is mainly under the gravitational influence of a second body (for example, the Earth), but is also perturbed by the gravitational effects of a third body (for example, the Moon)."In our example there are no second & Third bodies. It is just the gravity impact of the BH on the virtual particles.So, why do you call it Tidal? Is there a third body?
In all the articles that I have found, it is specifically stated about the gravity that is needed to boost the virtual particle into real particle.I couldn't find even one word about the tidal with related to the creation on new particles around a BH or SMBH.So, why do you advice that it is tidal?Actually, it seems to me that you discuss about simple gravity forces at different distances: "it is the difference between the force of gravity at different distances from the event horizon".
Tidal gravity near the horizon is very strong; it pulls the virtual photons apart with a huge force, thereby feeding great energy into them, as seen by the infalling observer who is halfway between the photons. The increase in photon energy is sufficient, by the time the photons are a quarter of a horizon circumference apart, to convert them into real long-lived photons (right half of Figure 12.2), and have enough energy left over to give back to the neighboring, negative-energy regions of space. The photons, now real, are liberated from each other. One is inside the horizon and lost forever from the external Universe. The other escape from the hole, carrying away the energy (that is, the mass) that the hole's tidal gravity gave to it. The hole, with its mass reduced, shrinks a bit.
So we agree by now that due to the BH gravity force (you can call it tidal if you wish) two identical particles with negative polarities to each other (one negative and one positive) are popped up.As the negative particle is falling into the BH, the positive is ejected outwards.If the BH is made out of positive particles than the negative particles that fall in actually decrease the total mass of the BH. That is very clear.However, if the BH is made out of negative particle, than the negative particle that falls in must increase the BH mass.Do you agree with that?Therefore, it is a severe mistake to assume that under any condition the BH should disappear.We have to say that the BH might disappear just if the polarity of the falling particle is the opposite to the polarity of that BH.
Can you please explain how the Tidal can "pull" the particle-antiparticle pairs apart?
Why the gravity will have different effect on particle with different polarity.
Don't you agree that it should affect both partials at the same impact?
Do we know about gravity with negative polarity?We know what is the meaning of negative or positive voltage, while there is no meaning of negative or positive gravity.
Therefore, if we wish to pull apart two particles (one negative and one positive) don't you agree that we MUST set them under electric/magnetic field?
So, do you agree that Tidal (or any sort of gravity force) can convert the virtual particles into real particles, but it can't separate them.
Thanks for the explanation. However, I really don't understand how could it be that a SMBH with estimated mass of Million BH, has less power than a BH with a size of an elephant???Let me give you other example:If I will tell you that the thrust of the jet 747 is less than a bicycle- would you believe me?In order to prove it, I will place one person on the bicycle while other person will stay at a distance of 1 km from the 747.Which one will get higher trust?Is that a correct way to verify the trust?
Hence, we must boost the particles in order to create them.The meaning of boost is to give them a possibility to run at ultra high speed for a long enough distance. (I call that distance - Runway distance)If you try to set any object at a very small orbital cycle, and try to run it at ultra velocity, the force outwards should be stronger as the cycle is shorter.Therefore, the virtual particle will be ejected outwards from the event of horizon cycle before setting the whole Runway that is needed to form a real particle.
Why are we so sure that the new particle creation is taking care only at the event horizon?Why it couldn't be created even inwards to the event horizon and then imidiatly be separated by the electric/magnetic field.
If the field is strong enough - why it can't eject the new born particle even if the particle had been created deep into the event horizon radius?
Black holes are always made from matter with positive mass, like stars and clouds of gas.
QuoteWhy the gravity will have different effect on particle with different polarity.Don't you agree that it should affect both partials at the same impact?It doesn't. The difference is caused by the particles being different distances from the singularity.It affects them by different amounts because they are different distances from the horizon.
Why the gravity will have different effect on particle with different polarity.Don't you agree that it should affect both partials at the same impact?
Antimatter still constitutes positive mass/energy. A black hole is made of mass, period. It isn't matter or antimatter anymore.
The mathematics is pretty trivial. A=Gm/r², so the question is the same as asking what is the minimum change in r to get a different value for A: Anything nonzero. Keep in mind that r here is the distance to the event horizon, not including the Schwarzschild radius, which isn't a real distance.
Only small black holes create such things as particles with proper mass. I imagine in such cases they might create as much antimatter as matter.
I'm unaware of there being a conservation law that applies, especially given the obvious imbalance we see in the universe.
Why are you so sure about it?Is it just a wishful thinking or is it based on real verifications and evidences?
Let's assume that our SMBH is made out of Antimatter.Do you think that it would effect differently the galaxy with regards to a SMBH which is made out of matter?Please explain the differences in the effects?
How could it be that the Negative particle will have a different distance from the Horizon comparing the positive particle on their moment of birth?
Do you agree that at this moment of birth, the distance between the Negative particle to the positive is less than a Pico mm?
So, how that very short distance could set a different tidal forces?
What is the minimum requested distance between the two in order for the tidal to take its impact?
How the BH split them to that minimum distance request?
Why they don't eliminate each other at the moment of birth?
How do we know that always the negative particle is inwards to the Horizon, while the positive is outwards - on their birth moment?Do you agree that based on statistics, the positive particle could be sometimes inwards and sometimes outwards?If the positive particle is inwards (while the negative is outwards), do you estimate that the BH will be able to change their locations? How?
What might be the outcome if Antiproton is ejected outwards, while the proton is falling inwards?
Therefore, do you agree that we can't know if our SMBH is made out of Matter or Antimatter?
So, the gravity impact of a BH with only Antimatter is identical to a BH with only matter (as long as they have the same mass).Therefore, do you agree that we can't know if our SMBH is made out of Matter or Antimatter?
So, do do agree that the chance for in falling antimatter to the BH is identical for the chance of in falling matter?
Therefore, do you agree that there is a possibility that the BH could be made out of antimatter or matter?
Please let me know if you agree with the following scenario:If the BH is very small and is made out of antimatter, while the most in falling matter is antimatter, than -Do you agree that this BH should increase its mass over time?
If so, don't you agree that over time this small BH might become SMBH? If not - Why not?
Quote from: HalcI'm unaware of there being a conservation law that applies, especially given the obvious imbalance we see in the universe.Do you mean the imbalance that we see between the matter and Antimatter in our Universe, as we actually only see matter, but we don't see any antimatter?
Therefore, in any particle creation activity - the total antimatter in the Universe should be identical to the total matter.
I have an advice for this problem:Let's set all the antimatter in big unseen barrels, while all the matter will be free outwards.Don't you agree that there is a possibility that this is exactly the solution that our Universe had found?
QuoteI have an advice for this problem:Let's set all the antimatter in big unseen barrels, while all the matter will be free outwards.Don't you agree that there is a possibility that this is exactly the solution that our Universe had found?How did it get sorted like that? Sounds like antimatter behaves differently than matter, which contradicts the symmetry of it.