0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
This article estimates field strengths of up to 10,000 Gauss for NGC 4258 right at the event horizon: https://arxiv.org/pdf/0909.1207.pdf
Closer in, the magnetic field could be much stronger (the measurement was made in a part of the disk about 7.5 million kilometers from the center of the disk)
By the way, where did you get that number of 0.8c for the relativistic jet from a super-massive black hole?
There is a 10k sun-mass amount of material moving at 0.8c? How does it not exit the galaxy? That's well above escape velocity from 'high above the disc plane'.
Ghostly Gamma-ray Beams Blast from Milky Way's Centerhttps://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2012-16The two beams, or jets, were revealed by NASA's Fermi space telescope. They extend from the galactic center to a distance of 27,000 light-years above and below the galactic plane.The jets were produced when plasma squirted out from the galactic center, following a corkscrew-like magnetic field that kept it tightly focused. It would take a tremendous influx of matter for the galactic core to fire up again. Finkbeiner estimates that a molecular cloud weighing about 10,000 times as much as the Sun would be required.
OK, that mentions a 10k solar mass cloud being required to get back into 'gulp' mode from its current 'sip' mode. No mention of anything moving at 0.8c mentioned. The detected bubble is faint (not massive), and is an effect from a 'gulp' perhaps a million years ago. The bubble extends to 27000 LY, so it's moving at best at 27 ly per 1000 years, hardly 0.8c.The jets, if fast moving material, are the produce of the current 'sip' mode. If they're a remnant of the big mass from a million years ago, the jets must be slow indeed to still be there.
Have you actually done some math that shows that measurement to be wrong?
You can calculate the force that a magnetic field has on a charged particle using the following equation:F = qvBsinθ, where“F” is the resulting force in newtons“q” is the charge in coulombs“v” is the velocity in meters per second“B” is the magnetic field strength in teslas (1 tesla = 10,000 gauss)“sinθ” is the angle between the direction of the particle’s motion and the direction of the magnetic field lines
That brings me to the following critical issue with regards to The Virial Theorem and Dark Matter:Our scientists claim that our Sun orbits around the center of the galaxy due to the impact of The Virial Theorem and Dark Matter.
It is also stated:https://web.stanford.edu/~ajlucas/The%20Virial%20Theorem%20and%20Dark%20Matter.pdf"Modern estimates put the percentage of the universe made up of dark matter at about 80-90%."
Based on the Virial Theorem, do you agree that same total mass that holds by gravity any star (including the Sun) in the spiral disc must also apply to that molecular Jet stream (for the same radius)?
The orbital velocity for any star in the spiral disc is:V^2 = G M /r
M total (due to viral + Dark matter) = V^2 r /G
As most of the stars in the spiral disc orbits at 220 K/sThan the total center mass that with regards to the radius is:M total = 220 K/s ^2 * r /GThis formula must work also for the jet stream due to the Virial theorem (based on the same radius).
So, do you agree that if a molecular gets to a distance of 20,000 Ly above the center, it should feel the impact of a total center mass of:M total = 220 K/s ^2 * 10,000LY /G
In order for the molecular jet stream to fly direct upwards (without any orbital movement) it is clear that the upwards force must be significantly stronger than the impact of the gravity force (due to the M total mass by Virial theorem).
So, the total gravity force on a molecular at radius r is:F = G M (total) m(molecular)/ r^2
After placing the value of M total in the formula:F = G V^2 * r m /G r^2 = m V^2 /rThe gravity force on any molecular in that molecular jet stream and at any radius from the center should be:F gravity = m (molecular) 220km/s ^2 /r
Hence, In order to set that kind of a direct flow of the molecular jet stream, F magnetism must be significantly higher than F gravity.
So, as we move closer to the center of the SMBH, the magnetic field is stronger. Therefore, if new pair of particles had been created at the event of horizon or very close it:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production"Pair production is the creation of a subatomic particle and its antiparticle from a neutral boson." "if one particle has electric charge of +1 the other must have electric charge of −1, or if one particle has strangeness of +1 then another one must have strangeness of −1"Do you agree that at the moment of creation, one particle has electric charge of +1 while the other must have electric charge of −1 and they are probably moving very close to each other at high orbital velocity.Do you agree that Lorentz force due to that magnetic power of 10,000 Gauss could affect their movement directions?
If one will be pushed inwards to the center of the SMBH, the other one will be pulled outwards from the event horizon (directly into the accretion disc) at the same moment of creation due to Lorentz force under opposite electric charges.Why not?
If you agree with that, than the accretion disc gets its matter from the event of horizon (or deeper) without any violation of any law of physics
Halc have asked the same question
Based on the Virial Theorem, do you agree that same total mass that holds by gravity any star (including the Sun) in the spiral disc must also apply to that molecular Jet stream (for the same radius)?If so, how could it be that in the spiral arms we see clearly that the all stars obey to that Virial Theorem and orbit around the center, while the molecular jet stream ignore it completely?
Hence, In order to set that kind of a direct flow of the molecular jet stream, F magnetism must be significantly higher than F gravity.Any idea about how much stronger it should be?
In any case, I still wonder why the molecular jet stream doesn't orbit around the center of the galaxy as any other star in the galaxy?Could it be that they are not effected by the Virial theorem and dark matter?If so, why is it?
So that gives us two options. Either:(1) You agree with the laws of physics and therefore agree that your own model (which posits a violation of the first law of thermodynamics) is wrong.(2) You agree with your model and therefore do not agree with the first law of thermodynamics.Which is it? You can't have it both ways.
So, as we move closer to the center of the SMBH, the magnetic field is stronger.
QuoteThe orbital velocity for any star in the spiral disc is:V^2 = G M /rThat formula is for a spherical distribution of mass. A disk is not a sphere. The calculation is more complicated than this simple case. Yes, you can compute Earth's orbital speed around the sun with that formula.
It does not work for the jet stream which is not in a stable orbit.
No. It isn't orbiting, so the calculation is meaningless
This would only be true for black holes that are small enough to create positron-electron pairs or heavier particles.
Super-massive black holes can only create neutral particle pairs such as photons or gravitons.
Magnetic fields neither attract nor repel electric charges. All they do is deflect their path (assuming they weren't traveling exactly parallel to the field lines, that is).
So it isn't a matter of one kind of charge being attracted towards the source of the magnetic field while the other is repelled.
Astrophysical jets travel far, far above the escape velocity of galaxies. Most stars do not.
Escape velocity.I'm still waiting for you to address this:
- The jet can be ejected from the accretion disk at up to 2x escape velocity- For locations near the event horizon, the escape velocity exceeds 0.5c, so relativistic speeds for the jet is understandable- But this mechanism also applies to jets from stellar-mass black holes, neutron stars, protoplanetary disks and even brown dwarf stars.
1. As you move closer to the event horizon of a black hole, the magnetic field is stronger.
2. As you move closer to the innermost edge of an accretion disk, the magnetic field is stronger.
(Reason: the magnetic field originates in the accretion disk.)
3. The jet does not originate from the black hole, it originates from matter already in the accretion disk,
fed from matter already outside the black hole.
3.1 The jet does not originate from within the photon sphere (1.5x event horizon radius), as only electromagnetism can easily escape from there
3.3 We need to look at the MHD (Magneto-Hydro Dynamic) simulations to see exactly where the matter and magnetic fields come from - but it's not from within the event horizon.
Quote from: HalcQuoteThe orbital velocity for any star in the spiral disc is:V^2 = G M /rThat formula is for a spherical distribution of mass. A disk is not a sphere. The calculation is more complicated than this simple case. Yes, you can compute Earth's orbital speed around the sun with that formula.So, let's look on Newton Shell theoremhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theorem"the shell theorem gives gravitational simplifications that can be applied to objects inside or outside a spherically symmetrical body. This theorem has particular application to astronomy.""A solid, spherically symmetric body can be modelled as an infinite number of concentric, infinitesimally thin spherical shells. If one of these shells can be treated as a point mass, then a system of shells (i.e. the sphere) can also be treated as a point mass"So, this gives a clear indication how we should use that Newton Shell theorem.
Dark matter -We have already discussed deeply the great impact of the dark matter.
Newton Shell theorem works the same for any direction.Therefore, if the Sun is on the spiral disc or high above the accretion disc
So, if we will place the Sun directly above the accretion disc at 27,000 Ly it will face exactly the same gravity force as it gets while it is on the spiral disc at that radius.
Quote from: HalcM total = 220 K/s ^2 * r /GThis formula must work also for the jet stream due to the Virial theorem
There is no requirement for any stable orbit in the Newton Shell TheoremSo, would you kindly explain why do you add that unexppected request?.
In Quote from: Halc on 19/08/2019 18:37:06No. It isn't orbiting, so the calculation is meaninglessIf there is no request for orbiting - then my calculations are correct.
In one hand you claim that a SMBH is the same as BH.On the other hand based on this answer, they are different.Is it just the size that set this impact?
Why at different radius of the SMBH we can't get different kind of new partials?
Do we really know if there are layers in the SMBH or not? If yes, how many? If no - Please prove it
We can't just claim that Newton Shell theorem is working according to our wishful list. It must work everywhere and anywhere exactly the same.
The shell theorem concerns spherical shells, not orbits. The Virial theorem on the other hand concerns stable systems.Matter exiting a system at escape velocity is not a stable system.Try actually reading about both and understanding them before using both incorrectly.
The Virial theorem on the other hand concerns stable systems.Matter exiting a system at escape velocity is not a stable system.
So that gives us two options. Either:(1) You agree with the laws of physics and therefore agree that your own model (which posits a violation of the first law of thermodynamics) is wrong.(2) You agree with your model and therefore do not agree with the first law of thermodynamics.
As you move closer to the event horizon of a black hole, the magnetic field is stronger.
1. New created particles - New pair of particles are created constantly around the SMBH (at the event of horizon or below).
If one particle carry a positive charge, the other one gets a negative charge.
2. Magnetics field - Around the SMBH there is magnetic field. This magnetic field is quite strong at the event of horizon (or deeper?...)
3. Lorentz force - Based on Lorentz force, the magnetic fields deflects differently the path of the orbital new born particles pair:Hence, if the positive charged particle will be deflected outwards, the negative charged particle will be deflected inwards.Therefore, while the negative is pushed inwards into the center of the SMBH, the positive is pulled outwards and get's eventually into the accretion disc.
Would you kindly explain where is the contradiction?
The contradiction is your claim that this process causes the black hole to grow in mass. The mass of the black hole has to shrink, not grow, as the negative mass (not negative charge, an important difference) particle is invariably the one that passes into the hole (because the swapping of time and space coordinates inside of the event horizon is what makes that particular particle have a negative mass in the first place). That negative mass subtracts from the positive overall mass of the hole, causing it to become smaller. If you are willing to accept this point, then I will agree that your model no longer violates the first law of thermodynamics.
If you are willing to accept this point, then I will agree that your model no longer violates the first law of thermodynamics.
However, I claim that the matter in the SMBH isn't "Positive overall mass" but "Negative overall mass".
Then a black hole would repel everything, since it would exert a negative gravitational force.F=GMm/r². So S2 would not orbit Sgr-A if the latter had negative mass.No real object has negative mass. The concept is strictly a mathematical one concerning non-real virtual particles, as discussed in prior posts.
You suggested a negative mass object, not antimatter.A negative mass black hole would very very much be distinct from a positive mass one due to the entirely empirical effect as described above. The object would repel the entire galaxy and effectively squirt out one side somewhere.
"The standard model also includes all anti-particles, which are identical to their partner-particles except for having opposite electric charge. Is it possible that the anti-particles also anti-gravitate?Theory clearly answer this question with a resounding, “No.” From the standard model, we can derive how antimatter gravitates – it gravitates exactly the same way as normal matter."
Antimatter still has positive mass.An antimatter black hole is not distinct from a regular matter black hole, per no-hair theorem.
As Kryptid had used the "Positive overall mass" for the positive electrical charged particles
So, it is not about negative or positive mass, it is all about positive or negative electric charged particles.
Therefore, as the positive electric charged particle represents the partner-particle, the Negative electric charged particle represents the Anti -Particle.
It would still be a black hole of sorts because it would attract itself. It wouldn't self-explode or anything.
Negative mass actually repels other negative mass. When you plug in the numbers for a pair of negative mass objects, you would initially expect the two to attract each other because two negative numbers multiplied by each other are positive. However, a negative inertial mass in addition to a negative gravitational mass means that it responds in the opposite way to a force acting on it. So an attraction is experienced as a repulsion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_mass#Runaway_motion
To sum things up, your idea doesn't work because:(1) Super-massive black holes have positive mass. We know this because things orbit them, and(2) Super-massive black holes cannot produce electrically-charged particles.
I disagree with both statement:"(1) Super-massive black holes have positive mass. We know this because things orbit them"There is no such thing as "Negative mass". This is a fiction. We only discuss on matter/Antimatter, or Positive/Negative electric charged particles.So, by now it is clear that the gravity force for matter/particle is identical to antimatter/antiparticle
I disagree with that statement, mainly because our knowledge about BH and SMBH is very poor.
We don't know how the BH/SMBH really works and from what kind of matter/antimatter they have made of.
We don't know if they have a core and how many layers covers this core.
You even don't believe that the SMBH can generate magnetic fields.Therefore, as long as our knowledge about the BH/SMBH is so poor, it's better to avoid from that kind of statement.
In any case, based on your theory a BH can produce electrically-charged particles.
So what is the difference between the BH to the SMBH?The main difference is Mass.That mass affects the gravity force.
So, do we know the requested gravity force that is needed to produce those electrically-charged particles in a BH?
The main difference is Mass.That mass affects the gravity force.So, do we know the requested gravity force that is needed to produce those electrically-charged particles in a BH?Let's assume that we can sent a probe into the BH and monitor exactly the radius that is needed for the production of those electrically-charged particles.Based on that radius, we can extract the gravity force.However, we can get the same gravity force also at the SMBH.We only need to get to the relevant radius.For example -F=GMm/r²Let's assume that:If BH mass = MSMBH mass = M * 10^6ThereforeIf r1 - represents the requested radius in a BH for the production of electrically-charged particles.Than:F (BH)=GMm/r1²r2 represents the requested radius in the SMBH which has the same gravity force as r1 in a BHso the gravity force for the SMBH is:F (SMBH) = GM* 10^6 m/r2² F (BH)= F (SMBH) GMm/r1² = GM* 10^6 m/r2² 1/r1² = 10^6 /r2²r2² = 10^6 * r1²r2 = 10^3 * r1So, if the mass of the SMBH is higher by 10^6 than the mass of a BH, at a radius which is bigger by 10^3 from the radius of the BH we will get the same gravity force.That shows that the total mass of the SMBH is not relevant for production of electrically-charged particles.It's all about gravity force which is a direct outcome of the radius.If the BH can create electrically-charged particles at radius r1 the SMBH can do the same at radius r2.
In any case:I have proved that whole your idea about the Virial theorem is totally wrong.
In that theory we must OBSERVED the orbital objects. As we can't observe the dark matter we can't know its orbital velocity (and if it has any sort of velocity)Therefore our understanding of how the galaxy works must also be updated.As we have based the gravity force that holds the Sun around the galaxy on the Virial theorem - than we must look for better theory.How are you going to address this key issue?