[Kryptid]

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.

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. The calculations are a bit involved, so I'll post them up tomorrow.

We must have a real external force to set the separation.
They only real power is - Magnetic Field!!!

Naturally existing black holes either don't have magnetic fields or have extremely weak ones because they would be very close to electrically neutral.

therefore - if we see any activity of particle creation - it is clear that magnetic field must be there.

Or the tidal force of gravity, as Stephen Hawking and Kip S. Thorne agree.

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?

No, such will not necessarily occur.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

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.

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)?

Naturally existing black holes either don't have magnetic fields or have extremely weak ones because they would be very close to electrically neutral.

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?
Did we ever send a monitor into a BH/SMBH?
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?

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 are you so sure about it.
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 the hypothetical ideas/assumptions by real evidences?

[Kryptid]

Why do you select a BH with so tiny radius?

Because the strong tidal forces of small black holes are needed to separate electron-positron pairs. I just went with a very small radius because it was more likely to work with my calculations.

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.

Yes, the creation of photon pairs (and maybe neutrinos and gravitons) in particular. There was an analysis done in 1976 that showed that black holes with a mass much above 10¹⁷ grams don't radiate electron-positron pairs. The Sun, however, is far more massive than that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation#1976_Page_numerical_analysis

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?

Because the event horizon is a necessary component of the proces. Once one particle crosses the horizon, it is causally separated from the other because no signal can get out of the horizon.

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?

You can't create both of them outside of the horizon.

What is the chance that they will be created exactly at that radius?

100%, because the event horizon is necessary for the process to work.

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)?

No. The distance between the particles can be significantly larger than that (above a nanometer). My calculations showed that a separation that large is enough for them to be pulled apart by a small enough black hole. I'll post those calculations when I get back from work.

Do you also agree that there is no confidence if the positron will be located inwards or outwards in the moment of its creation?

That's correct. The positron could be the one going in or it could be the one going out.

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?

If the tidal forces are very strong, it can be done.

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)?

If they were both pulled in, then they would be able to annihilate each other and return to the vacuum. If they were both pushed out, then they would be able to annihilate each other and return to the vacuum. One going in and the other going out is the only way that both can become real particles.

Can you prove it?

It's the nature of matter. In its natural state, it strives to be electrically neutral because opposites attract.

Did we monitor BH/SMBH and verify that they don't have magnetic field?

We wouldn't be able to tell from this distance, but we know enough about physics to know that naturally-formed ones wouldn't have much of a field (for reasons that I have discussed ad nauseum by now).

Do we really know all the aspects about BH/SMBH?

Black holes are simple as per the "no hair" theorem. There isn't much to know about them.

Do we know for sure if a BH/SMBH rotates or not?

Yes: https://resonance.is/super-massive-black-holes-spin-near-the-speed-of-light/

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?

They aren't made of matter or antimatter. Both Halc and I have already said this.

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?

Because natural matter like gas clouds or stars don't have net electrical charge.

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?

That doesn't have anything to do with Hawking radiation.

[Kryptid]

Here are the calculations:

The first thing I want to calculate is the strength of electromagnetic attraction between the electron and positron. So I need two values: the magnitude of electric charge on each particle and their distance from each other. The electric charge on the electron is known to be -1.6021766208 x 10^-19 Coulombs, whereas that of the positron is of equal magnitude and opposite in sign.

The distance between the two particles will depend upon their wavelength, as stated by Kip S. Thorne:

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.

So now we need to find the wavelengths of the electron and positron.The DeBroglie wavelength of a particle can be determined using the following website: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/debrog2.html

When we input a rest mass of 0.511 electronvolts (that of an electron) and a kinetic energy of 100 electronvolts, we end up with a wavelength of 1.22637367 x 10^-10 meters. Remember, the kinetic energy chosen is arbitrary, as particles on pretty much all kinetic energy scales would be pulled from the vacuum.

Now that we know the charges and distance involved, we can calculate the magnitude of the electrical attraction between the particles using Coulomb’s law. The following online calculator allows us to calculate that attraction: https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/coulombs-law

Inputting the values gives us an electrical attractive force of 7.6691 x 10^-13 newtons.

Now we need to determine the tidal forces on these particles. We can use the following calculator to determine the radius of a black hole from its mass: https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/schwarzschild-radius I will go with a mass of 10¹⁶ kilograms, since the analysis by Page suggested that such a mass can produce electron-positron pairs. The resulting radius is 1.4852 x 10^-10 meters.

So we will place one of the particles right at the horizon (1.4852 x 10^-10 meters from the singularity) and the other particle one wavelength away from the event horizon (2.71157367 x 10^-10 meters from the singularity).

We can calculate the force of gravitational attraction using the following online calculator: https://www.ajdesigner.com/phpgravity/newtons_law_gravity_equation_force.php The mass of the electron is equal to the mass of the positron, which is 9.10938356 x 10^-31 kilograms.

For the particle right at the horizon, the resulting gravitational attractive force between the particle and the black hole is 2.7555874548284 x 10^-4 newtons. For the particle one wavelength away from the horizon, the resulting gravitational attractive force between the particle and the black hole is 8.2668729594675 x 10^-5 newtons.

Subtracting these two values gives us the tidal force, which is 1.9289001588165 x 10^-4 newtons.

This tidal force is about 2.5 x 10⁸ times greater than the electrical attractive force between the particles.

So yes, black holes can, under the right circumstances, pull electron-positron pairs apart with tidal force.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Here are the calculations:

Thanks for the great explanation.
You have calculated the magnitude of the electrical attraction between the particles using Coulomb’s law while the particles are at a distance of one wavelength away from each other.
Based on that calculation you have proved that the tidal can separate the particles.
That is very clear and I fully agree!

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.
So why Mr. Kip S. claims that:

The virtual photons can separate from each other easily....

The separation at the moment of birth It is not easy at all.
Therefore it was clear to me that we must use other force for the first separation.
I have stated several times that the only force that can do that job is magnetic/electric field.
Mr. Kip S. fully supports my understanding as he also claims:

... so long as they both remain in a region where the electromagnetic field has momentarily acquired positive energy.

So, based on Mr. Kip S, the electromagnetic field is vital for the first separation process.

If there is electromagnetic field, the separation is quite easy and I also fully agree that once we get to a distance of one wavelength, the tidal can continue with the separation process.

With regards to the electromagnetic field around our SMBH.
In one hand you claim that the SMBH can't generate that field, but on the other hand you have stated that the accretion disc can do it.
So, I really don't care what is the source for the electromagnetic field around our SMBH.
As long as it is there it can set the job of the first separation process as Mr. Kip S have stated.

There are also two more vital effects of the electromagnetic field around our SMBH.

1. The creation process for new particles can take at a wide range.
There is no need to be right at the horizon.
If the electromagnetic field can overcome a force of 6.6726E+29 Newton, it can easily separate particles deep into the horizon and pull one out.
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.
So, as long as the electromagnetic field is strong enough, it can easily separate between the new born particles - deep into the horizon, and pull them into the accretion disc.

2. That electromagnetic field also should sort between the Positive to Negative particles. It will push the positive to one side and pull the negative to the other side, regardless of their location at the moment of birth.
Hence, that electromagnetic field keeps all the antimatter in the SMBH while it brings the Universe new life with the matter that is ejected outwards from the accretion disc. Some of that matter will be converted into new formed stars.
And many thanks to Mr Kip S.

Do you agree with all of that?

[Kryptid]

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.

The particles are not "born" until they become real. Like I said before, you are taking the concept of a virtual particle too literally. They are a modeling tool. Virtual particles are not real and as such don't have defined locations. What is being described is the behavior of the local electromagnetic field (which is present everywhere in space). What the tidal forces are doing is adding energy to that field until it forms local excitations in the form of real particles.

EDIT: Actually, I don't know whether to say that virtual particles are real or not. I keep seeming to read contradictory responses from actual physicists. Some say they are real, others say they are just a model. 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). The vacuum state would represent a superposition of these different particles. Of course, only those particles that just so happen to be far enough apart to separate are the only ones that are important to the evaporation of a black hole.

Let's use a distance of 1x10^-51 and calculate the electrical attractive force:

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.

Sorry, the separation at the moment of birth It is not easy at all.

So you know theoretical physics better than a Nobel Prize-winning theoretical physicist does?

So, based on Mr. Kip S, the electromagnetic field is vital for the first separation process.

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. The local value of those fields at most regions of space is zero because that space is empty. This is where the virtual particle picture comes in. Virtual particles are mathematical tools to represent the behavior of those fields.

But the electromagnetic field is only necessary when speaking of the formation of photons by tidal forces. For other particles, you have to speak of their own, individual fields. For the formation of a pair of gravitons, for example, you would only speak of the gravitational field, not the electromagnetic field.

You have stated that the SMBH can't produce particles at its horizon

I never said that. Super-massive black holes do produce particles (long wavelength photons). What they don't produce is electron-positron pairs.

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.

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.

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.

Again, no. The black hole itself doesn't have an intrinsic electric field. Even if it did, it would be quickly neutralized by the preferential attraction and absorption of those particles that are attracted to it (and therefore opposite in charge). So if it has the negative charge needed to attract only positrons, then those positrons are going to cancel out the negative charge once they get eaten by the hole and the electric field goes away.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Thanks!

Would you kindly answer the following key question:

what is the expected distance between the particles on that specific moment of birth?

What do you mean by the following Planck length of 10^-35 meters?

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.

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?
You also claim that:

So you know theoretical physics better than a Nobel Prize-winning theoretical physicist does?

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?

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.

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.

Super-massive black holes do produce particles (long wavelength photons). What they don't produce is electron-positron pairs.

Thanks
That is perfect for me.
So you agree that the SMBH can produce particles!
With regards to the electromagnetic field around the SMBH:

Would you kindly advice if the accretion disc generates electromagnetic field around the SMBH?
Is it correct that our scientists have monitor an electromagnetic field around the SMBH?
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/758/2/103/pdf
MAGNETICALLY LEVITATING ACCRETION DISKS AROUND SUPERMASSIVE BLACK HOLES
"In this paper, we report on the formation of magnetically levitating accretion disks around suppermassive black
holes (SMBHs). The structure of these disks is calculated by numerically modeling tidal disruption of magnetized
interstellar gas clouds. We find that the resulting disks are entirely supported by the pressure of the magnetic
fields against the component of gravitational force directed perpendicular to the disks. The magnetic field shows
ordered large-scale geometry that remains stable for the duration of our numerical experiments extending over 10% of the disk lifetime. Strong magnetic pressure allows high accretion rate and inhibits disk fragmentation. This in combination with the repeated feeding of magnetized molecular clouds to an SMBH yields a possible solution to the long-standing puzzle of black hole growth in the centers of galaxies."
It is stated clearly that there is a magnetic field around the SMBH.
So why do you insist that there is no magnetic field?

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.

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?

[Kryptid]

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?

It's more a matter that we don't know how physics works on scales that small: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length#Theoretical_significance

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?

Because, as I said before:

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?

It's already been done on mathematical grounds by several people.

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?

Virtual particles are constantly forming and moving around in the vacuum. Some are too close together to be separated, but others are sufficiently far apart. As demonstrated by my calculations, those that are far enough apart can be separated by tidal forces. Recall that these are quantum objects that are represented by a probability distribution. There is a certain probability that the particles will be close together or far apart.

The hydrogen atom itself is a good example of this. From classical mechanics, you would expect the negatively-charged electron to move towards the positively-charged proton until the distance between them was zero. This, however, does not happen. Instead, the electron has a finite average distance from the proton (called the Bohr radius, which is about 5.3 x 10^-11 meters). Sometimes the electron moves closer, sometimes further away. This is the same thing that would happen with an electron-positron pair (also called positronium: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positronium) The Bohr radius of a positronium atom in its ground state is about twice that of a hydrogen atom. This is very close to the distance I used in my calculations.

How do you really work in science?

Hawking radiation is a theoretical prediction based on the known laws of physics.

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?

No, but it does mean that he is more likely to know what he is talking about than you are. You have a track record of misconceptions about black holes.

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.

The math has been done that shows it can happen.

Would you kindly advice if the accretion disc generates electromagnetic field around the SMBH?

Yes, because the disk is an electrically-conducting fluid (plasma) that is in motion. That generates a magnetic field.

It 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.

If you ignore the impact of the magnetic field, than yes this answer is correct.

No, the assertion is correct whether there is a magnetic field present or not.

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?

I absolutely do not agree. You can't get out of a black hole using force alone.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Magnetic Field

It 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.

Why is it important to understand the source of the magnetic field around the SMBH?
My main task in this discussion is to prove that there is Magnetic field around the SMBH (I really don't care about its source).
However, how can I prove that there is a strong magnetic field around the SMBH?
In the Article it is stated clearly:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/758/2/103/pdf
"MAGNETICALLY LEVITATING ACCRETION DISKS AROUND SUPERMASSIVE BLACK HOLES.
"The magnetic field shows ordered large-scale geometry..."
"Strong magnetic pressure allows high accretion rate and inhibits disk fragmentation."
So, there is a strong magnetic field in the accretion disc.
However, Magnetic field should also works around the whole SMBH.
If the body is SMBH, than that magnetic field must work around it and we should see its great impact in every aspect around that SMBH.
We should compare it to the magnetic field around the Earth.
Can we claim that the magnetic filed works only at a narrow disc around the Earth?
Can we claim that it works only at the poles?
The Answer is quite clear. Magnetics works around the whole body.
The magnetic field around the Earth pulls the solar wind to the poles and protects our life.
In the same token, the magnetic files abound the SMBH covers the whole SMBH.
We clearly see its impact in the following elements:
1. In the accretion disc - "Strong magnetic pressure allows high accretion rate and inhibits disk fragmentation"
2. Outwards from the accretion disc - It Push more than 99% of the Atom and molecular in the accretion disc outwards. Actually, few years ago, our scientists were very sure that all the matter in the accretion disc is falling into the SMBH. They have estimated that the gravity force of the SMBH at the accretion disc is so strong that it should grab all the matter inwards. They were sure that the matter in the accretion disc is the food of the SMBH. That assumption could be correct if we eliminate the impact of the magnetic field and we only count the mighty gravity force of the SMBH at the accretion disc.
However, now they clearly see that more than 99% of the matter in the accretion disc is ejected outwards. But they still hope that at least one present is falling in. Do they see any evidence for that? Do they see even one atom or one molecular from the accretion disc that is falling in? The answer is clear - NO NO NO.
But they still have a great wish/hope that somehow something from the accretion disc will fall into the SMBH. They refuse to accept the evidences as those evidences contradicts their wishing list. They don't want to understand that the mighty magnetic field around the SMBH will also prevent from any atom in the accretion disc to fall into the SMBH. The polarity of the magnetic field force 100% of the matter in the accretion disc to be ejected outwards. So, not even one Atom will fall into the SMBH. But of course - they will continue to hope...
3. Molecular jet Stream. We clearly see molecular jet stream above and below the accretion disc. What kind of force can set that kind of jet stream which is estimated to have about 10,000 solar mass? It is clear to me that the only power that can do it is - magnetic field. It actually grab all (over 99%) of the molecular that had been ejected from the accretion disc bring them all to the poles (as the earth with the solar wind) and then push them (from the poles of the magnetic fields) upwards/downwards at ultra velocity.
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 from outwards. Our scientists have never ever found any sort of evidence that confirms that wrong assumption. However, they still hope that one day something will fall in. They can't accept the simple understanding that the magnetic field/shield around the SMBH will prevent from any object to fall in. If something will dare to come closer, the magnetic field should boost it upwards/downwards into that molecular jet stream with all the other molecular that had been ejected from the accretion disc.
So, if you still believe that the magnetic field around the SMBH is neglected -
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?.
Science is not a wishful list.
If you think something - you have to prove it by solid evidence.
If you think that the SMBH eats the mass from outside - please prove it by solid verification.
How long do we still have to wait until our scientists will finally understand that NOTHING - NOTHING at all, is falling in?
How long do we still have to wait until our scientists will finally understand the great impact of the mighty Magnetic field around the SMBH?

[evan_au]

You quote as evidence:

Strong magnetic pressure allows high accretion rate

And then you deduce:

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

This clearly does not follow from the evidence that you cite.

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

However, the strong magnetic field does need to be generated from some source of energy, and that is the flow of matter through the accretion disk and into the black hole.
- What do you propose powers the magnetic field? (even though you don't care where it comes from?)

[Kryptid]

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. Mass from the accretion disk is constantly being thrust away from the poles of the black hole, so its mass is constantly decreasing. The emission of radiation by the hot plasma means that the energy is constantly decreasing in the disk over time as well. The disk becomes smaller, less massive and less energetic if mass/energy is not replenished from an outside source. The magnetic field must therefore become weaker and weaker until matter can indeed pass it and enter the black hole. Eventually, the accretion disk will disappear because you don't allow any mass/energy to be added to it.

By the way, the electromagnetic radiation, gravitational radiation and neutrinos emitted by the disk are not stopped by magnetic fields and would therefore easily enter the black hole.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

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

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 1981
In 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"?
Do you see any word about accretion disc?
How can they base this understanding on that unclear article from 1981?
Please be aware that at that time our scientists were positively sure that all the matter in our accretion disc is falling into the SMBH.
Therefore, this article doesn't give any updated evidence for in falling matter into the accretion disc or from the accretion disc into the SMBH.
Today our scientists have very advanced monitoring tools. Based on those tools they have found that more than 99% of the matter in the accretion disc of our SMBH is ejected outwards.
If something was falling in, why they didn't declare about it?
As they didn't say that even 0.0..1% is falling in, why our scientists are so sure that something is falling in?
I wonder why they have used the message "over than 99%" instead of 100%?
Could it be that it was a good willing for all those scientists who still hope that one day something might fall in?

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.

Why don't we focus on the evidences before offering the solution?
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?
This is a severe mistake.
I'm working in electronics/communications engineering.
If we have a problem - We always focus on the evidences.
We think that understanding the evidences is 50% of the solution.
Therefore, we always try to understand all the evidences and discoveries and just then we look for a solution.
This question shows that before understanding clearly the evidences, our scientists wish to find the solution.
Why is it?
It seems to me that our scientists try to fit the evidences into the theory instead of the other way
Our theories could be correct or incorrect.
However, the evidences and discoveries are solid.
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?

Therefore, the key question is as follow:
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?

[Kryptid]

In any new discovery - our scientists ALWAYS set the explanation with or in front of that discovery.

Nonsense. If that was true, then we would already have an explanation for everything, even (somehow) before we discovered it.

Why is it so important to offer a solution before deeply understanding the discovery?

You have done exactly that. You are trying to explain galaxy formation using black holes even though you have demonstrated a severe lack of understanding of how black holes work.

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?

Yes, which is why you should realize that your model won't work. If a system is constantly losing mass and energy (by spitting it out as galactic jets) without replenishing it, then it eventually winds down and stops working. That's the first law of thermodynamics at work (which is very strongly supported by the existing evidence).

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?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

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.

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?

With the regards to its name - accretion disc:
Normally, we have to call an object based on its major section.
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?

What happens when all of the mass and energy in the accretion disk are gone?

Once we know for sure that I'm right - everyone can easily understand the answer for that question.

[Kryptid]

I think differently – "Science is all about proof".

That's not true. You can't prove a scientific theory. You can only gain evidence for or against it. As new data comes about, a theory that was formerly supported by the data may fail to align with the new data. Newtonian mechanics is one such example of this. In the past, the existing data supported its accuracy. As new data came along, it was found to be inaccurate in some cases and was replaced by relativity and quantum mechanics.

However, why do we need to assume that I'm right?

It's to explore the consequences of that assumption being true.

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?

Yes. If you go look at the Wikipedia article that evan_au linked and go down to reference 72 (which is the one that evan_au was referencing), then you will see that it says in the opening of that article, "We measure the X-ray
gas temperature and density profiles and calculate the Bondi accretion rate, M_ Bondi  0:1 M yr^-11" https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/344504/pdf

Another quote of importance from the article:

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 actual data is, in fact, being used in models to estimate the rate of accreting matter. That is evidence.

So, do you agree that even if only 51% was ejected outwards - we had to call it - excretion?

No, because the only way that the disk could have formed in the first place is by matter coming in from outside. A supermassive black hole does not produce matter, it only produces extremely weak Hawking radiation. So that cannot be the source of the matter in the disk. If the black hole started off with no accretion disk, then gravity would have eventually gathered gas and other matter together into a disk around the hole. To start off with, the disk would have been cool and lacked a significant magnetic field. As the disk grew and became hotter over time, then the magnetic field would have increased in strength until it became powerful enough to produce jets.

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?

Because the mass in the disc must have originally come from the outside. That is true whether or not any more matter is being added to it now or not.

Once we know for sure that I'm right - everyone can easily understand the answer for that question.

And what do you propose that answer to be?

[evan_au]

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.

Have a look at this article:
http://www.mpia.de/homes/fendt/Lehre/Lecture_OUT/pudritz.pdf

Section 2.2 states that:
- the Mass of the wind (M_w, mass flowing into the jet) is about 10% of the Mass flowing into the accretion disk (M_a).   (10% is a lot lower than 99%!)
- The angular momentum carried away by the jet can be 60% to 100% of the angular momentum of the accretion disk (maybe this is where you got the 99%? But it's not 99% of the mass!)
- If you rob angular momentum from the accretion disk to feed the jet, matter in the accretion disk will slow down and fall into the black hole much faster.
- This is backed up by observations of DG Tau (and over 300 other jets)
- They also observe that jets can occur during the formation of new stars - these objects can even have much lower mass than the Sun. So it doesn't need to rely on any mysterious behavior of super-massive black holes; it also applies to accretion disks without a black hole.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

You keep repeating this 99% figure...
- Where do you get the 99% figure? It seems excessively high.

https://www.urban-astronomer.com/news-and-updates/milky-ways-black-hole-a-picky-eater/
"One such telescope is the Chandra Xray Telescope, which detects the Xrays emitted by superheated matter and other sources.  When astronomers used Chandra to study Sgr A*, in one of its longest ever observations, they found that more than 99% of the infalling material was ejected long before reaching the event horizon...
The main question is - do we have any evidence for in falling matter into the accretion?
How could it be that we see clearly that more than 99% of the matter in the accretion disc is ejected outwards, while there is no confirmation for any sort of matter that is falling into the accretion disc.
I have found a very interesting article:
https://phys.org/news/2018-09-falling-black-hole-percent.html
"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.
So, in all the articles that had been published till 2018 there is no evidence for in falling matter.
Not around our SMBH and not around M87 SMBH
Not in any galaxy in the whole Universe and especially not in the Milky way.
However, let's see what is stated in that article:
"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."
So, only at a galaxy which is located at a distance of one billion light year - our scientists have found for the first time ever that matter is falling in.
But, is it really falling in?
Let's see the explanation:
"The researchers found the spectra to be strongly red-shifted, showing the observed matter to be falling into the black hole at the enormous speed of 30 per cent of the speed of light, or around 100,000 kilometers per second. The gas has almost no rotation around the hole, and is detected extremely close to it in astronomical terms, at a distance of only 20 times the hole's size (its event horizon, the boundary of the region where escape is no longer possible)."
If I understand it correctly, they say that they see gas which is orbiting round the event of horizon of that SMBH. Therefore, they are sure that this matter can't escape. Hence, they have got the conclusion that this matter must fall in. So, they didn't really see that the gas is falling into the SMBH. They assume that based on its current location it must fall in.
They also admit that they trace this gas for only one day.
However, in the following message, they say clearly that the gas had been swallowed by the SMBH:
"He continues: "We were able to follow an Earth-sized clump of matter for about a day, as it was pulled towards the black hole, accelerating to a third of the velocity of light before being swallowed up by the hole."
I wonder what the correct information is:
Did they really see a matter that is falling into the SMBH and disappear for ever, or they just found that it is at the event of horizon and therefore they have assumed that it should be eaten by the SMBH?
In any case, my understanding from this article is as follow:
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 verifications?
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?
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:?
1. Our scientists have no evidence for in falling matter. Not to our SMBH and not to any SMBH at a distance of up to one billion light year away. So I was fully correct when I have stated that there is no proof for in falling matter.
2. How can we accept this understanding for earth size gas which is falling in at a distance of one billion light year away?

[Kryptid]

"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.

How is it that you quote a sentence from the article that contradicts your position and then somehow claim that it supports it? How much of that article did you even read?

Not around our SMBH and not around M87 SMBH

I already posted a link to observations that support matter entering the accretion disk of M87.

If I understand it correctly, they say that they see gas which is orbiting round the event of horizon of that SMBH.

You are not understanding it correctly. The very section you quote says that it has "almost no rotation", which means it isn't orbiting the event horizon.

So, they didn't really see that the gas is falling into the SMBH.

Yes they did. It says so right here: "We were able to follow an Earth-sized clump of matter for about a day, as it was pulled towards the black hole, accelerating to a third of the velocity of light before being swallowed up by the hole." If it fell into the black hole, then the radiation that it was emitting would disappear. The disappearance of that radiation would be detectable.

They also admit that they trace this gas for only one day.

Because it only took a day for it to reach the black hole and get eaten. Anyone with English as a first language could figure that out from what was said (although, admittedly, I'm not sure what your first language is. This may be why you misunderstood it).

1. Our scientists claim that till 2018 they have never ever found any evidence for in falling matter to the SMBH.

No, that is not what the article says. This is the first direct detection, not the first evidence.

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.

Again, this article is about a direct observation. Evidence of other types have been known before then.

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

Because you underestimate what information can be extracted from spectra with modern technology. Unless, of course, you want to posit some kind of bizarre conspiracy where they falsified their data.

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?

The methodology is important. I went out and found the article in question: https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/481/2/1832/5090165

When he says "Earth-sized", I'm guessing he meant "Earth-mass", as the following quote from the article details how the mass of the gas cloud was measured:

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.

It wasn't like taking a picture of something with a conventional camera. It was a combination of observing the characteristics of the spectra and the times scales over which it varied.

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?

If they can see the X-ray signature of the cloud, then they can also see it disappear. We know from conservation of energy that it didn't vanish into nothingness, so such a disappearance must necessarily mean that it was consumed by the black hole.

Do you agree with the following concussion:?

I disagree with both of your conclusions (as usual) because they are a blatant rejection and/or misunderstanding of the evidence.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

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.

Would you kindly explain the difference between Direct detection/observation to evidence?
You have stated that in order to detect this infilling matter they have used X-ray.

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.

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?

I already posted a link to observations that support matter entering the accretion disk of M87.

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.
Please see thread 568:

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 1981
In 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"?

.

So, do you mean that the meaning of "May" in English is "Yes" - 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?

"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."

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)?

[Kryptid]

Would you kindly explain the difference between Direct detection/observation to evidence?

Models and mathematical calculations are evidence when they are based on the known laws of physics. They allow us to make inferences about phenomenon that we have not yet directly observed.

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?

See my previous response.

Why do you call it "Observation" and not evidence?

Observations are evidence, but they are not the only form of evidence. Hawking radiation itself has never been observed, but it's based on sound math and the known laws of gravity and quantum physics. That supports it as a form of evidence.

Do you mean that they have used also X-ray in 1981?

X-ray telescopes have been used since at least 1963.

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?

Having not read that 1981 article, I cannot comment on it.

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?

These are different kinds of observations. Matter accreting onto the accretion disk is not the same as matter falling into a black hole.

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)?

Again, matter accreting onto the accretion disk is not the same as it falling into the black hole. Those are two different observations.

On another note, it's a shame that you quoted me when you did, as you didn't catch the edit that I was making to my post. I provided a link to the scientific paper that describes the matter falling into a super-massive black hole at 30% the speed of light. Go back and read it if you want clarification on particular matters, such as how they made their observations.