0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
By now we already know that tidal can't do the job of separation as on the moment of creation they are located close to each other.
We must have a real external force to set the separation.They only real power is - Magnetic Field!!!
therefore - if we see any activity of particle creation - it is clear that magnetic field must be there.
Without it - the new born pair will "annihilate each other in a process called electron-positron annihilation" on the same moment of the creation!Do you agree with that?
It can if the tidal forces are strong enough. I just did calculations showing that a small enough black hole (one about 10 nanometers in radius, in my particular calculations) produce tidal forces many orders of magnitude above what is needed to separate at least some positron-electron pairs.
Naturally existing black holes either don't have magnetic fields or have extremely weak ones because they would be very close to electrically neutral.
Close is still nonzero, which might mean a lot of tidal difference if the gravitational gradient is steep, which it isn't near a SMBH. Electrons and positrons are not created by such massive objects.
Why do you select a BH with so tiny radius?
Actually, if I understand it correctly, based on Hawking radiation we must focus on the event of horizon when we discuss about new particle creation.I have found the event of horizon for a BH with a Sun mass is 3 Km.So, at that radius, we expect to get the creation of a particle pair.
Let's assume that you can calculate the exact radius where tidal takes care.Why do you think that all the new born particle pair will be created exactly at that radius?
Do you agree that if the pair is created inwards - both of them will be pulled inwards, while if both are created outwards - both of them will be pushed outwards?
What is the chance that they will be created exactly at that radius?
Even if they have been created there, how the tidal can distinguish between less than one Pico meter?Don't you agree that at the moment of creation that is the distance between the pair (positron to electron)?
Do you also agree that there is no confidence if the positron will be located inwards or outwards in the moment of its creation?
How any sort of BH tidal will be able to split between the pair while their distance between each other in the first moment is less so small?
How could it be that the tidal will be able to pull ALWAYS inwards one of the pair (Positron?) while the other one will be pushed ALWAYS outwards (or vice versa)?
Can you prove it?
Did we monitor BH/SMBH and verify that they don't have magnetic field?
Do we really know all the aspects about BH/SMBH?
Do we know for sure if a BH/SMBH rotates or not?
If I understand it correctly we even don't know for sure if they made out of matter or Antimatter as the gravity impact of antimatter is actually identical to matter. So why are you so sure that the BH is made out of matter and not antimatter?
How can you claim that the matter in the BH is close to electrically neutral while we don't have deep understanding/verification about a BH/SMBH and we even don't know for sure that it isn't antimatter?
So far our scientists couldn't find any evidence for even one Atom that is falling inwards to the accretion disc of our SMBH.So, please - would you kindly backup your theory by real evidence?
The virtual photons can separate from each other easily, so long as they both remain in a region where the electromagnetic field has momentarily acquired positive energy. That region can have any size from tiny to huge, since vacuum fluctuations occur on all length scales; however, the region’s size will always be about the same as the wavelength of its fluctuating electromagnetic wave, so the virtual photons can move apart by only about one wavelength.
Here are the calculations:
The virtual photons can separate from each other easily....
... so long as they both remain in a region where the electromagnetic field has momentarily acquired positive energy.
However, why you didn't try to calculate that magnitude of the electrical attraction between the particles at the moment of their birth?Actually, what is the expected distance between the particles on that specific moment of birth?Do you agree that it should be much less than one wavelength? If one wavelength is 1.22637367 x 10-10 meters, Could it be that the distance at the moment of birth is less than 1x10^-20m, 1x10^-50m or even less than 1x10^-1000 m.? Let's use a distance of 1x10^-51 and calculate the electrical attractive force:Inputting the values gives us an electrical attractive force of 6.6726E+29 Newton instead of 7.6691 x 10-13 Newton for one wavelength.Don't you agree that this electrical attractive force of 6.6726E+29 Newton is very strong?Even if we assume that the distance is longer than 1x10^-51m, as long as it is still significantly shorter than one wavelength, it is clear that the electrical attractive force is quite strong.Sorry, but tidal is not good enough for that.
Let's use a distance of 1x10^-51 and calculate the electrical attractive force:
Sorry, the separation at the moment of birth It is not easy at all.
So, based on Mr. Kip S, the electromagnetic field is vital for the first separation process.
You have stated that the SMBH can't produce particles at its horizon
but I assume that you have no obligation that it can create new particles deep into the Horizon.I hope that you agree that the SMBH can create new particle deep into the horizon.So, as long as the electromagnetic field is strong enough, it can easily separate between the new born particles - deep into the horizon, and push them into the accretion disc.
That electromagnetic field also will take care on that the all the Positive particle will move to one side while all the negative will pushed to the other side.So, that electromagnetic field keeps all the antimatter in the SMBH while it brings us only the matter.
what is the expected distance between the particles on that specific moment of birth?
That's less than the Planck length (~10-35 meters), where our understanding of physics breaks down. Our equations don't give meaningful answers at that level.
So you know theoretical physics better than a Nobel Prize-winning theoretical physicist does?
He's talking about the electromagnetic field that exists literally everywhere in space, not some electromagnetic field possessed by the black hole. There is a field for every single particle. There is an electron field, a proton field, a neutron field, and so on.
Super-massive black holes do produce particles (long wavelength photons). What they don't produce is electron-positron pairs.
No they can't. I already told you this before: particles cannot get out of a black hole's event horizon. That would require them to travel faster than the speed of light.
Do you mean that the distance can't be closer than that?Do you mean that if our scientists have set that Planck length of 10^-35 meters, than the distance in the moment of Birth can't be shorter than that?So please - would you kindly answer this important question?
My knowledge is neglected to this Nobel Prize-winning theoretical physicist, but how he can set any sort of theory without calculate the real magnitude of the electrical attractive force at the moment of birth?
In the case of a "real" quantum vacuum, you could say that it has the ability to form any and all possible virtual particle pairs. This would include those particle pairs that are too close together to separate (like the ones you mention) as well as those that are far enough apart to be separated (and those become real particles).
If he assume that the electromagnetic field that exists literally everywhere in space, can do the job, then don't you agree that he must also prove that assumption?
Don't you agree that he must first evaluate the distance between the particles in the moment of Birth, extract the magnitude of the electrical attractive force between the particles and than prove that the "electromagnetic field that exists literally everywhere in space" can overcome on that force?
How do you really work in science?
Do you mean that just because he is a Nobel Prize-winning theoretical physicist than whatever he says is 100% correct while whatever I say is 100% incorrect?
Please prove the assumption that the "electromagnetic field that exists literally everywhere in space" can separate the two particles from their location at the moment of birth.
Would you kindly advice if the accretion disc generates electromagnetic field around the SMBH?
It is stated clearly that there is a magnetic field around the SMBH.So why do you insist that there is no magnetic field?
If you ignore the impact of the magnetic field, than yes this answer is correct.
However, if you add the trust of the magnetic field to the particle, then don't you agree that it can easily get out of a black hole's event horizon without a need to break the speed of light?
QuoteIt is stated clearly that there is a magnetic field around the SMBH.So why do you insist that there is no magnetic field?Because the magnetic field is generated by the disk, not the black hole. Again, for reasons that I have repeated over and over already.
Strong magnetic pressure allows high accretion rate
4. No matter is falling into the accretion disc - It is clear that no star, no planet, no moon, no rock not even atom is falling into the accretion disc
Would you kindly show one solid evidence for even one atom that is falling inwards from the accretion disc into the SMBH and/or from outside into the accretion disc?
Only this year has a blurry image been released of the M87 accretion disk, which is much wider than our solar system.- On this scale, monitoring the movement of individual atoms is not possible, so don't demand it.- However, astronomers estimate that on average, about 90 Earth masses per day is falling into this accretion disk.See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messier_87#Supermassive_black_hole
If you claim that matter cannot enter the accretion disk from the outside, then your model invariably predicts that the magnetic field becomes weaker over time.
In any new discovery - our scientists ALWAYS set the explanation with or in front of that discovery.
Why is it so important to offer a solution before deeply understanding the discovery?
Don't you agree that first we must focus on those evidences/discoveries and just after having/agree on all the evidences/discoveries, we can look for a solution?
Do you agree that so far our scientists found solid evidences that over than 99% of the matter in the accertion disc are ejected outwards, while we have no real prove that something is falling in?
Firstly, science isn't about proof. Secondly, let's assume that you are right and all of the matter is thrown off by the jets.
What happens when all of the mass and energy in the accretion disk are gone?
I think differently – "Science is all about proof".
However, why do we need to assume that I'm right?
Would you kindly advice if we have ever found any real evidence for in falling matter to the accretion from outside or from the accretion into the SMBH?
Thanks to its high spatial resolution and sensitivity, the Chandra X-Ray Observatory is able to provide some of the most stringent constraints on the properties of low-luminosity black holes. In particular, at the distance of M87 (18 Mpc), the spatial resolution of Chandra corresponds to a radius of less than 100 pc or, equivalently, a few 105 Schwarzschild radii. For M87, this allows us to measure, for the first time, fundamental properties of the ISM at the accretion radius of the black hole and thereby estimate the mass supply into the accretion flow.
So, do you agree that even if only 51% was ejected outwards - we had to call it - excretion?
However, now that we know that over than 99% is ejected outwards and there is no proof for any in falling matter, why do we still insist to call it accretion disc instead of excretion disc?
Once we know for sure that I'm right - everyone can easily understand the answer for that question.
we know that over than 99% is ejected outwards
You keep repeating this 99% figure...- Where do you get the 99% figure? It seems excessively high.
"First detection of matter falling into a black hole at 30 percent of the speed of light"That article proof my statement that so far our scientists didn't find any evidence for in falling matter.
Not around our SMBH and not around M87 SMBH
If I understand it correctly, they say that they see gas which is orbiting round the event of horizon of that SMBH.
So, they didn't really see that the gas is falling into the SMBH.
They also admit that they trace this gas for only one day.
1. Our scientists claim that till 2018 they have never ever found any evidence for in falling matter to the SMBH.
2. The idea that they have found it for the first time in a galaxy at a distance of one billion light years from us proves that they have not find any evidence for in falling matter - not in the milky way and not in any other galaxy up to a distance of one billion year.
3. How can they get real measurements from a galaxy that is located at a distance of one billion light years away?How could they calculate and monitor the exact location of the event of horizon for a galaxy which is so far away?Could it be that they have an error in their
4. How they can see a gas cloud with a size of an earth at a distance of one billion light year away? Our scientists struggle to see an earth size which is located just 300 Light years away. So, how can they see an earth gas cloud at one billion light year away? is there any possibility to see an earth size at one billion light year away from us?
We use the higher resolution flow data of rev2659 (Table 2) to estimate the peak mass flow rate, where – as a stream of matter plunges towards the black hole – its increasing compactness ensures the third segment represents a maximum fraction passing through the line of sight. We assume a cylindrical inflow element at a radial distance 20Rg, with length 5Rg constrained by the well-defined velocity, and diameter 2Rg to allow a reasonable chance of detection along a line of sight to the hard X-ray source. The mean particle density is then NH/5Rg, and the observed mass element min=(volume×density×protonmass)∼15R3g×(3.6×1023/Rg)×1.7×10−24 g. For a black hole mass of 4 × 107 M⊙, Rg ∼ 6 × 1012 cm and min ∼ 3.3 × 1026 g. Since the observed element will cross the line of sight in ∼3000 s, the instantaneous observed inflow mass rate is ∼1023gs−1.
5. Do they really see that it swallowed by the SMBH or they assume that it should be swallowed due to its location - event of horizon?
Do you agree with the following concussion:?
This is the first direct detection, not the first evidence.Again, this article is about a direct observation. Evidence of other types have been known before then.
The methodology is important. They are detecting X-rays, which have a much, much smaller wavelength than visible light and therefore allow (1) much greater resolution and (2) are much more energetic than visible light and therefore are much easier to detect.
I already posted a link to observations that support matter entering the accretion disk of M87.
In that Article it is stated:"The galaxy experiences an infall of gas at the rate of two to three solar masses per year, most of which may be accreted onto the core region.[52] "However, if you go to 52 you get an article from Aug 1981In that article it is stated:"Resent X-ray spectroscopic results suggest that 2-3 M0 yr^-1 of cooling gas may be falling …M87 ...in reach cluster).What do they mean by word "may"?Is it "may yes" or "may no"?
"A UK team of astronomers report the first detection of matter falling into a black hole at 30 percent of the speed of light, located in the centre of the billion-light year distant galaxy PG1211+143."
Would you kindly explain the difference between Direct detection/observation to evidence?
So, if X-ray is considered as direct observation, than what kind of verification/tools they have used for "evidence"?How can we distinguish between direct observation which is based on X-ray, to evidence which is based on other tool?
Why do you call it "Observation" and not evidence?
Do you mean that they have used also X-ray in 1981?
I have already replied to this observation which is based on the assumption that took place in Aug 1981.In that article, it is clearly stated that the matter "may" fall in.So, do you mean that the meaning of "May" in English is 100% confirmation?
If that is correct, than do you mean that this "solid observation" which took place in Aug 1981 to confirm the in falling matter into the M87 was the second one, while this observation in 2018 is the first one?If so, why that observation in 2018 is considered as the" first" while we have already "observed" the M87 in aug 1981?
So do you mean that in English we count backwards?In any case, if you still believe that there was a solid observation or evidence for in falling matter (before 2018) into our SMBH or to any SMBH at any nearby galaxy (which is less than 1 billion light year away) would you kindly offer that observation/evidence (Please add a link)?