0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
The direction of the force depends on the direction of the particle's path and the relative orientation of the magnetic field lines
So, how can you constantly claim that the magnetic field has no influence on the direction of a moving charged particle?
As one has a positive charge (+q) and the other had a negative charge (-q), one of them will be pulled inwards while the other will be pushed outwards.
Why is it so difficult for you to understand that simple activity of Lorentz force?
Did you even look at the animation? When the charged particle entered the field at a 90 degree angle to the field lines, it was not pushed away from the field nor drawn into it. Instead, it moved around in a circle. An oppositely-charged particle will move in a circle as well, just in the opposite rotational direction (clockwise vs. counter-clockwise).
S and N - represent the Poles of the magnetic fields (Below and above the accretion disc)B - represents the magnetic fields. "The latter (B) is oriented out of the page (directly in our point of view), as indicated by the dot in the circle.
V - represents the orbital velocity/direction of the new pair particles which have just been created.At the same moment of creation, they also cross the magnetic field.As one has a positive charge (+q) and the other had a negative charge (-q), one of them will be pulled inwards while the other will be pushed outwards.
Instead, it moved around in a circle. An oppositely-charged particle will move in a circle as well, just in the opposite rotational direction (clockwise vs. counter-clockwise).
Hence, the articales are pushed/pulled in "90 degree angle to the field lines". (Not to the direction of the B itself).The one which is pulled in should move in the direction of the BH, while the other must move in the direction of the accretion disc.
4. Impact of the BH gravity However, the BH has a also gravity force.As one particle starts to move inwards, the impact of the BH on this particle is increasing. therefore it might continue its "moved around in a circle" but on any given moment it will come closer and closer to the BH (and faster). Eventually it must fall in.The other one will face less gravity force and therefore it will ""moved around in a circle" while its gravity force gets weaker and weaker. Eventually it will get into the inwards side of the accretion disc.
They are indeed deflected 90 degrees, but not in the directions you think they are. If we are looking down on the accretion disk from above, we will see the charged particles deflected to the left or the right, not towards the black hole and away from the black hole.
If there are two particles at an equal distance from the black hole, one moving in a clockwise circle and the other moving in a counter-clockwise circle, each will still experience identical gravitational forces. Gravity doesn't care whether the circling motion is clockwise or counter-clockwise.
we are looking down on the accretion disk from above,
I only focus on the first moment due to the impact of Lorentz force. (before setting the whole loop cycle)
So what do you think happens when you do consider the whole loop?
Let's assume that the orbital velocity of the new particles should be at almost the speed of light (c) at the first moment of creation while the radius to the BH is r (Near the event horizon).
However, Lorentz force doesn't change the orbital velocity.
therefore, it will be pushed strongly outwards without any ability to come back.
Pushed strongly by what? And where are your calculations showing that this mysterious force is stronger than the black hole's gravity at that distance? How does the particle get out of the magnetic field so that the field doesn't change its trajectory back towards the hole? I just calculated the radius of curvature for an electron/positron traveling at 99% the speed of light through a 1 Tesla field at about 500 kilometers. The magnetic field, however, extends much, much further out than that.
There is also still the problem of the build up of electric charge in the hole.
The overall velocity is unchanged, but the orbital velocity (the speed at which it travels around the black hole) is indeed changed. If a third, neutral particle was traveling with them, it would see the two charged particles lagging behind as it kept going forward.
Since an orbit is just a form of "falling and missing", then this relative slow-down will draw both particles in closer to the black hole due to the hole's gravity.
How a BH with a gravitational singularity can generate any sort of electromagnetism?
Why the BH spin/rotates?
So, does it mean that the BH works according to similar concept?If so, it must have a core and several layers around it.Do we have any clue about it?
Do we know how to calculate the magnetic field magnitude around the black hole?
What Is A Black Hole Made Of?
It they don't know, do you really expect me to know?
In one of the articles that I have found it was stated that in the nature there are no charged BH.
So, somehow, the matter that falls in must lose its electric charge.
We can also claim that charged BH acts as a battery.
However, battery can't be function as a dynamo.
So, if the BH generates electromagnetic it can't be in the same time a charged BH.
As the accretion disc is still under direct impact of the BH magnetic field, all particles/Atoms are drifted outwards due to Lorentz force. They actually have no other alternative. Lorentz force pushes them all outwards.
So, even the mighty gravity force of the BH can't pull inwards even one particle from the accretion disc!
However, based on the orbital velocity pulse the drifting time, we might be able to extract the Lorentz force/magnetic field.
In any case, that shows that the drifting is quite minimal.
So, the new born particles are not drifting sharply inwards/outwards. They actually are drifted at a quite low magnitude.
Therefore, there is no possibility for the one that is drifted outwards to fall back into the BH.
and at the end it will be ejected outwards from the accretion disc (thanks to Lorentz force)
QuoteDo we know how to calculate the magnetic field magnitude around the black hole?It can be measured: https://scitechdaily.com/researchers-measure-magnetic-fields-in-the-vicinity-of-a-black-hole/ Although conventional models propose that the field is generated by the accretion disk and not the hole itself.
The Lorentz force can't eject neutral matter.
Although conventional models propose that the field is generated by the accretion disk and not the hole itself.
Even if you do have a valid way of getting a black hole to produce matter and eject it the way you want it to, that still ignores the fact that a black hole cannot generate unlimited mass-energy. The mechanisms are irrelevant.
The first law of thermodynamics simply won't let your model work.
No amount of figuring will allow you to get more mass-energy out of the black hole than was there to begin with. Doing so would violate the first law by definition.
In any case, that proves that the magnetic field has direct impact on any particle/atom/molecular.
Therefore, the following statement is totally incorrect:QuoteThe Lorentz force can't eject neutral matter.
The matter in the accretion disc might not be so neutral (but that is not the issue).If the magnetic field can collect the particles/molecular (after been ejected outside from the accretion disc) and boost them upwards/downward at almost the speed of light, it can also surly effect them while they are still in the accretion disc.One of the side effect of magnetic force is - Lorentz force.Therefore, as long as the particles/molecular are in the accretion disc they are fully affected by the magnetic force including Lorentz force.Our scientists are also fully aware about the great impact of the magnetic force on the accretion disc.
However, somehow you insist to believe that the source for the magnetic field in the accretion disc is - the accretion disc itself:QuoteAlthough conventional models propose that the field is generated by the accretion disk and not the hole itself.This is a fantasy.
In order to understand that, let's go back to the unrealistic story of in falling matter into the accretion disc.Let's monitor the temperature of an average atom outside in the galaxy.Normally, the temp of a rock or asteroid should be much less than 0 c.At the surface of the sun the temp is 5,000 cAt the core of the sun the temp is close to 10^6cSo, how could it be that suddenly at the accretion disc the temp is rising to 10^9c?Somehow, new energy should come in.We already know that gravity by itself can't create new energy.Therefore, if we take a particle at 20 c and set it in an orbital path of 0.3 speed of light, would it increase its temp to 10^9 c?They answer is quite clear - NO!Therefore, the energy that is needed to heat up the accretion disc must come from somewhere.The magnetic field is an excellent source for the new requested energy.So, we can claim that the extra energy is coming from the impact of the magnetic fields on every particle/atom/molecular in the accretion disc.It feeds them with the requested energy and therefore they all gain the super high temp of 10^9.However, we have already agreed that the magnetic field is just a transformation tool.So, the energy must come from a specific source of energy.How can we assume that the source of the magnetic is the accretion disc.The accretion disc can't use its own energy to heat itselfThis is a clear violation of the first thermodynamic law.Therefore, the source of the energy must come from an external source as the BH itself.Hence, the energy in the BH is transformed into accretion disc by the magnetic field and have a direct impact on every particle there. This energy is used to transform the new born particles into atom and molecular. The 10^9 c is the outcome product of that activity.
So, the energy must come from a specific source of energy.
The accretion disc can't use its own energy to heat itself
This is a clear violation of the first thermodynamic law.
Yes it can.The mechanisms is very important.
Tidal forces increases the heat/energy in the BH.
This law won't let your unrealistic model (that the accretion disc is the source of the magnetic field) to work!
Tidal is responsible to generate the extra requested energy in the BH.Therefore, my explanation fully meets the first law by definition.
my explanation fully meets the first law by definition.
The conservation of energy is a fundamental concept of physics along with the conservation of mass and the conservation of momentum. Within some problem domain, the amount of energy remains constant and energy is neither created nor destroyed. Energy can be converted from one form to another (potential energy can be converted to kinetic energy) but the total energy within the domain remains fixed.
Total energy is constant in any process. It may change in form or be transferred from one system to another, but the total remains the same.
conservation of energy Physics. a fundamental law of physics and chemistry stating that the total energy of an isolated system is constant despite internal changes. It is most commonly expressed as “energy can neither be created nor destroyed”, and is the basis of the first law of thermodynamics.
QuoteOur scientists are also fully aware about the great impact of the magnetic force on the accretion disc.Magnetic fields do affect neutral matter, but not in the same way that it affects charged particles. You can't take a piece of neutral matter and pretend that a magnetic field will do the exact same thing to it that it will to a charged particle. The Lorentz force equation doesn't work for neutral particles. If you don't believe me, do that math yourself. You'll get a force of zero as your answer every time.
Our scientists are also fully aware about the great impact of the magnetic force on the accretion disc.
The accretion disk is a rotating, electrically-conducting fluid. That makes it generate a magnetic field.
Tidal forces can't create energy.The first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created.You claim that your mechanism can create energy.How do you not see the blaring contradiction there? Both cannot be true simultaneously. Either energy can be created or it can't. If energy can be created, then the first law has been violated. If energy can't be created, then your model won't work. Which is it? You can't have it both ways.
Conventional models say that it comes from a transformation of gravitational potential energy into kinetic energy. No violation of the first law there. The total amount of energy doesn't change (unlike in your physics-defying model).
So, free gravity generates tidal forces that generate new internal heat/energy inside moons/planets/stars/BH/SMBH.
It does not contradict the first law of thermodynamics.As the energy doesn't come from nothing. it comes from Gravity.
I'm putting a hold on all of the other matters for the moment and focusing on conservation of energy because that is the crux of the problem right now. I'm not moving on until that issue is solved first.
If new energy could be created from a gravitational field, that would violate conservation of energy because the energy is no longer constant.
Tidal forces transform existing orbital or rotational energy into heat energy.
The formula is fixed under any tidal forces.
tidal energy is coming for free.
The formula you provided measures force for a fixed distance. Almost all natural orbits are eccentric. They change their distances over time. This change in force is part of what causes the generation of heat. If two orbiting objects are at a constant distance from each other and tidally-locked to each other, there is no change in force over time and as such there is no generation of heat.
Where is the formula that proves your understanding that tidal decreases the gravity force???
As long as the common barycenter of an object under Tidal force is fixed, than there is no negative impact on the gravity force.
So, please, if you think that tidal can change the gravity force or the common barycenter - than please show the formula for that!!!
Tidal force creates new energy
energy can neither be created nor destroyed
Quote from: Dave Lev on 06/10/2019 16:05:14As long as the common barycenter of an object under Tidal force is fixed, than there is no negative impact on the gravity force.Correct, but under those circumstances, we are no longer talking about an eccentric orbit.
If the planet is rotating, then there is a change in distance (and therefore a change in force) between different parts of the planet and the satellite
There is very much an impact on the gravity force as the radius changes periodically, and the tidal forces acting on the moon thus vary over time, and heat it, despite it being tide-locked.