[Dave Lev (OP)]

That leads to an average density of:

Density = (2.0282 x 1030 kilograms)/(8.386 x 1020 cubic meters)
Density = 2.41855 x 109 kilograms/cubic meter

That makes Sirius B about 17,400 times more dense than a carbon atom and about 8,500 times more dense than an oxygen atom, despite being composed primarily of carbon and oxygen.

Wow
That calculation shows that even at Ultra high pressure, while the carbon atom is about 8,500 times more dense than oxygen Atom it is still stay as carbon Atom.
It doesn't collapse as our scientists wish to believe.
This by itself proves my understanding that any particle keeps its properties and will never ever collapse even under ultra extreme pressure.
Therefore, in the same token, a proton will stay a proton under any sort of extreme pressure.
Any particle in a core of NS would probably be squeezed and inhabit less space than expected, but it won't be collapsed and it will continue to keep its properties.
Our scientists estimate that the density of NS is as follow:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star
Neutron stars have overall densities of 3.7×1017 to 5.9×1017 kg/m3 (2.6×1014 to 4.1×1014 times the density of the Sun),[c] which is comparable to the approximate density of an atomic nucleus of 3×1017 kg/m3."
So, it is almost in the rage of atomic nucleus.
As Atom didn't collapse at ultra high pressure, its atomic nucleus won't collapse at any finite extreme pressure (assuming that it is not infinite).
"A neutron star is so dense that one teaspoon (5 milliliters) of its material would have a mass over 5.5×1012 kg, about 900 times the mass of the Great Pyramid of Giza."
They also estimate that at higher mass it might have lower radius:
"A 1.5 M☉ neutron star could have a radius of 10.7, 11.1, 12.1 or 15.1 kilometers.
A 2 M☉ neutron star would not be more compact than 10,970 meters radius."
This proves that under any sort of NS mass, any particle would keep some minimal size/radius. By doing so, there would never ever face an infinite pressure.
I hope that you agree that without a finite pressure we can't force the particles to collapse.
Hence, it is like a chicken and the egg story.
Without a chicken there is no egg. Without an egg there is no chicken.
As the carbon atom can sustain under ultra high pressure, it should be easy for Atomic nucleus to sustain under any sort of finite pressure. By doing so, they keep some minimal size. Therefore, the idea that the distance is zero is unrealistic. Hence, there is no possibility for infinite pressure. Without infinite pressure they would never ever collapse and keep their properties.
Conclusion:
I fully agree with you that any kind of Atom, Atomic nucleus or particle might inhabit less space under Ultra high pressure.
However, none of those objects would never ever collapse under any sort of a finite pressure.
Therefore, the hope that particles should Collapse due to infinite pressure (while there is no infinite pressure) is unrealistic.
If you still think differently, then please show the math at which pressure the Atom or atomic nucleus should collapse.


Let me ask you the following questions:
1. What are the differences between NS to BH at simmilar mass that we can OBSERVE?
Please - not unproved theory. ONLY real observation.
2. Singularity - You keep using the idea of singularity for a BH.

A singularity is a single particle.

Is it real?

wavelength = 3.70507 x 10-73 meters

Can we really observe a singularity of 3.70507 x 10-73 meters from a distance of 100 LY or more?
3. Ratio - In the following article it is stated that there are 1.1883315 × 10^57 atoms is the sun.
https://www.quora.com/How-many-atoms-fit-in-the-sun
"That means there are 1.973317 X 10^33 moles of hydrogen in the sun or ~1.1883315 × 10^57 atoms."
The ratio between the size of a BH to the size of proton is:
Proton size = 1.32 * 10^-15 / BH size = 3.70507 x 10^-73 = 4.7 * 10^57
Hence the size of a single proton is bigger than a BH as the Sun is bigger than a single atom.
So, the size of one single proton is like a Sun for a BH, while the BH mass is like a sun to a proton.
How anyone with basic common sense can accept that idea?

[Bored chemist]

It doesn't collapse as our scientists wish to believe.

Nonsense.
We say that Sirius B is a carbon/ oxygen star because the carbon and oxygen nuclei, though squashed, are still intact.

So the question is, are you ignorant or dishonest?

This by itself proves my understanding that any particle keeps its properties and will never ever collapse even under ultra extreme pressure.

No, it's only the pressure in a white dwarf, it's not extreme.
The density of a white dwarf is about 10^9 Kg/m3

The density of an atomic nucleus is about 10^17  Kg/m3

So you need to compress an atom a million times smaller than the white dwarf does before the nuclei are "feeling the pressure"

When you do that, you get a neutron star.

And, if you keep on increasing the compression, eventually, you get something different- a black hole.

Quote from: Bored chemist on 25/09/2020 16:29:45
OK Dave...
You seem to have missed this one again.


Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:55:08
Now try answering  these questions. You have been ignoring one of them since the start of this thread.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:58:59
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:41:05
Quote from: Bored chemist on 23/09/2020 08:54:25
If the observable universe was a big (say 100 billion light years)  box with solid black walls cooled to 2.7K, what would the CMBR look like from here on Earth

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Singularity -
I have just watched in a very interesting program about Singularity.
This program is called "How the Universe really works" 7 chapter 6. (Actually the title of the program was about the Big Bang)
The scientists have stated that the singularity is a theoretical outcome from the formulas of Einstein general relativity. However, those formulas of general relativity are aimed for large scale as moons stars and galaxies.
When it comes to very small scale as particles and Atoms, QM must be used.
They also add that QM fully rejects the idea of singularity. Based on QM there is no possibility to get infinite pressure at any single point.
Therefore, as general relativity isn't applicable for very small scale as particles, while QM rejects the idea of singularity, then it should be very clear that a BH can't be considered as a singularity point.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

If the observable universe was a big (say 100 billion light years)  box with solid black walls cooled to 2.7K, what would the CMBR look like from here on Earth

Actually, that program also gives good answer for you.
It was stated that they have found a big aria in our universe that is very cold.
That aria contradicts the concept of the CMBR as was estimated by the BBT.
So, their answer was that it is due to other nearby Universe. Hence, they estimate that it is an indication for the theory of the Multiverse.
I claim that this discovery should be used as one more evidence why the BBT is just incorrect.
Based on theory D the Universe is Infinite in its age and in its size.
Only this theory can clearly explain any observation that we see in our universe including the BH.
In the following article they give excellent explanation about white dwarf as Sirius B which had been offered by Kryptid:
https://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/W/white+dwarf
"Sirius B was the first white dwarf discovered in 1862."
However, they also claim:
"Eventually, after hundreds of billions of years, the white dwarf will cool to temperatures at which it is no longer visible and it will become a black dwarf. With such long timescales for cooling (due mostly to the small surface area through which the star radiates), and with the age of the Universe currently estimated at 13.7 billion years, even the oldest white dwarfs still radiate at temperatures of a few thousand Kelvin, and black dwarfs remain hypothetical entities."
So, a white dwarf could become a black dwarf but it needs much more time than 13.7BY.
However, based on theory D, the age of the Universe is infinite.
So, a white dwarf could be transformed to black dwarf without that time limitation.
Therefore, if there are while dwarf, there must be Black dwarf.
Hence, many of the black objects that we see (or only observe the outcome of their existence due to the impact of their high gravity field on nearby objects) aren't BH but actually Black dwarf.
However, as our scientists are locked at that limited time scale of 13.7BY, they can't even imagine that what they see is a Black Dwarf, therefore they consider that it is a BH (while in reality it is a Black Dwarf).

[Bored chemist]

They also add that QM fully rejects the idea of singularity.

You say that as if it is news to me.
were you not paying attention when I explained it weeks ago?

Maybe they are as big as the planck length, but they certainly are not bigger.

It was stated that they have found a big aria in our universe that is very cold.

An aria is a song.
What are you talking about?
Actually, never mind what you are talking about- it seems like the tv show was wrong anyway.

Just answer my question.

Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:24:55
Quote from: Bored chemist on 25/09/2020 16:29:45
OK Dave...
You seem to have missed this one again.


Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:55:08
Now try answering  these questions. You have been ignoring one of them since the start of this thread.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:58:59
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:41:05
Quote from: Bored chemist on 23/09/2020 08:54:25
If the observable universe was a big (say 100 billion light years)  box with solid black walls cooled to 2.7K, what would the CMBR look like from here on Earth

[Bored chemist]

However, based on theory D

It's not a theory.

[Kryptid]

the carbon atom is about 8,500 times more dense than oxygen Atom

Where in the world did you get that? What I posted doesn't say that at all.

It doesn't collapse as our scientists wish to believe.

No scientist claims that matter "collapses" in a white dwarf in the first place. It is just highly compressed.

This by itself proves my understanding that any particle keeps its properties and will never ever collapse even under ultra extreme pressure.

That's not what this shows at all. White dwarf stars have an upper mass limit (1.4 solar masses). Beyond that, they collapse into neutron stars because electron degeneracy pressure is insufficient to support normal matter against that collapse.

Therefore, in the same token, a proton will stay a proton under any sort of extreme pressure.

Non-sequitur. Protons have a finite degeneracy pressure.

As Atom didn't collapse at ultra high pressure, its atomic nucleus won't collapse at any finite extreme pressure (assuming that it is not infinite).

Again, that's a non-sequitur because degeneracy pressure is limited.

I hope that you agree that without a finite pressure we can't force the particles to collapse.

No, because that ignores finite degeneracy pressure.

If you still think differently, then please show the math at which pressure the Atom or atomic nucleus should collapse.

Physicists have calculated that atoms collapse into neutrons when a white dwarf is 1.4 times the mass of the Sun. I don't know what the math is, but it wouldn't make any sense for that number (also called the Chandrasekhar limit) to be so widely accepted among astrophysicists if the math behind it wasn't solid. Again, are you assuming that physicists are stupid? No white dwarf above that mass limit has ever been observed, which adds support to the idea that they got the math right. A similar limit exists for neutron stars at a little more than 2 times the Sun's mass.

1. What are the differences between NS to BH at simmilar mass that we can OBSERVE?
Please - not unproved theory. ONLY real observation.

We don't know of any neutron stars and black holes of the same mass. The heaviest neutron star that we've detected is 2.14 times the mass of the Sun, whereas the lightest black hole we've seen so far has a mass of 3.8 times the mass of the Sun.

Is it real?

That's what the math indicates.

Can we really observe a singularity of 3.70507 x 10-73 meters from a distance of 100 LY or more?

Nothing inside of a black hole can be observed at all.

How anyone with basic common sense can accept that idea?

"Common sense" is very often wrong, so that's a poor argument.

Hence, many of the black objects that we see (or only observe the outcome of their existence due to the impact of their high gravity field on nearby objects) aren't BH but actually Black dwarf.

That hasn't happened because black dwarfs would have an upper mass limit of 1.4 solar masses. That's far too light for them to be stellar black holes, so we would know the difference.

Some day, I'm going to learn to stop responding to this thread. So here goes yet another attempt of mine to do exactly that. Hopefully, this will be my last post in here.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 10:40:03
Can we really observe a singularity of 3.70507 x 10-73 meters from a distance of 100 LY or more?

Nothing inside of a black hole can be observed at all.

Well, QM contradicts the idea of Singularity.
We all know that and even Einstein Knew it:
https://phys.org/news/2018-12-black-hole-singularity.html
"For example, general relativity predicts that there are places in the universe where gravity becomes infinite and space-time simply ends. We refer to these places as 'singularities.' But even Einstein agreed that this limitation of general relativity results from the fact that it ignores quantum mechanics."
So, based on QM there is no possibility for Singularity.
It is also stated:
"This leads to the celebrated 'information paradox' that theoretical physicists have been grappling with for over 40 years. However, the quantum corrections of loop quantum gravity allow for a repulsive force that can overwhelm even the strongest pull of classical gravity and therefore physics can continue to exist. This opens an avenue to show in detail that there is no loss of information at the center of a blackhole, which the researchers are now pursuing."

The idea is that "the quantum corrections of loop quantum gravity allow for a repulsive force that can overwhelm even the strongest pull of classical gravity and therefore physics can continue to exist."
Hence, that overwhelm repulsive due to QM or Loop Quantum Gravity prevents a singularity in the core of a BH.
The last message is the most important one: "therefore physics can continue to exist"
So, it is clear that in singularity physics can't exist.

Conclusion:
Based on all the articles including the TV program of "How the universe really works" it is very clear that QM doesn't permit a singularity in a BH.
As there is no singularity, there must be some minimal volume or Bulge for all the matter in that BH.
If I recall it correctly, in the Kerr BH there is no singularity at the center but some sort of a Bulge.
That Bulge is the key element that gives the BH the ability to generate Magnetic filed around it.
The production of that magnetic field is a direct outcome of its activity.
If it is rotatable BH as Kerr BH and/Hot enough it should have the ability to generate magnetic filed.

I would like to remind you that the key message in this discussion was the ability of BH to generate magnetic field.
At the moment that we take out from the table the possibility that a BH is a pure singularity at zero point, we should agree that a BH has the ability to generate Magnetic field.

Therefore, we can continue our discussion from that point.
BHs have no singularity point and therefore, they have the ability to generate Magnetic filed.
That is correct for a Massive BH, SMBH as the one in the core of our galaxy and even for quasar.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasar
A quasar (/ˈkweɪzɑːr/) (also known as a quasi-stellar object abbreviated QSO) is an extremely luminous active galactic nucleus (AGN), in which a supermassive black hole with mass ranging from millions to billions of times the mass of the Sun is surrounded by a gaseous accretion disk
That quasar is clearly a SMBH. It has no stars around it to be eaten.
All the matter that we see around it and all the matter that it ejects had been created by this object.
Our scientists don't have a basic clue how quasar really works.
They think that:
As gas in the disk falls towards the black hole, energy is released in the form of electromagnetic radiation, which can be observed across the electromagnetic spectrum.
This is clearly incorrect.
A quasar has no stars around it, so what is the source for all of that gas in the accretion disc?
That gas is a direct outcome from the particle creation which takes place ONLY by transformation of the quasar' magnetic field.
Hence, all the gas/particles in that disc come from the new created partials by the quasar Magnetic field.
Please look at the following image:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasar#/media/File:PKS_1127-145_X-rays.jpg
"An enormous X-ray jet extends at least a million light-years from the quasar."
In this image we clearly see the jet stream that is so typical to any SMBH that has strong enough magnetic filed.
As expected, you might claim that it is due to the disc magnetic field. But sorry that is clearly incorrect. Only a supper ultra high magnetic field (that could only be generated by the SMBH/quasar itself) can set such jet stream that extends at least a million light-years from the quasar.

[Bored chemist]

Based on all the articles including the TV program of "How the universe really works"

You really can't expect to cite a TV show as "evidence" and be taken seriously.

I would like to remind you that the key message in this discussion was the ability of BH to generate magnetic field.

It still can't (or, at best, can't for long)

Therefore, we can continue our discussion from that point.

No
It would be silly to continue from something that's wrong.

That quasar is clearly a SMBH. It has no stars around it to be eaten.

It is in the process of chewing them.
that's what the accretion disk is made of.

That quasar is clearly a SMBH. It has no stars around it to be eaten.

For the BH at the centre of the milky way, the most obvious counter-example is the Sun.

There are also about 100,000,000,000 others.

Also, you keep forgetting to answer this:

Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 11:39:22
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:24:55
Quote from: Bored chemist on 25/09/2020 16:29:45
OK Dave...
You seem to have missed this one again.


Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:55:08
Now try answering  these questions. You have been ignoring one of them since the start of this thread.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:58:59
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:41:05
Quote from: Bored chemist on 23/09/2020 08:54:25
If the observable universe was a big (say 100 billion light years)  box with solid black walls cooled to 2.7K, what would the CMBR look like from here on Earth

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 09:51:29
I would like to remind you that the key message in this discussion was the ability of BH to generate magnetic field.

It still can't (or, at best, can't for long)

As you still insist that a SMBH or Quasar can't generate Magnetic filed, please advice what could be the source of power for the following Ultra jet stream from the Quasar:

Please look at the following image:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasar#/media/File:PKS_1127-145_X-rays.jpg
"An enormous X-ray jet extends at least a million light-years from the quasar."

This time it is not just 27,000LY as we have found with our SMBH. it is in the range of Million LY.
So, what kind of force could set that jet that extends at least million of LY from the quasar?

You really can't expect to cite a TV show as "evidence" and be taken seriously.

As the TV is not good enough for you, why it is stated that Einstein had agreed that the singularity limitation of general relativity results from the fact that it ignores quantum mechanics?

https://phys.org/news/2018-12-black-hole-singularity.html
"For example, general relativity predicts that there are places in the universe where gravity becomes infinite and space-time simply ends. We refer to these places as 'singularities.' But even Einstein agreed that this limitation of general relativity results from the fact that it ignores quantum mechanics."

Don't you agree that QM contradicts the idea of singularity?
Why it is stated that:

"the quantum corrections of loop quantum gravity allow for a repulsive force that can overwhelm even the strongest pull of classical gravity and therefore physics can continue to exist."

Don't you agree that the Physics beaks down at the singularity due to QM?

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 09:51:29
That quasar is clearly a SMBH. It has no stars around it to be eaten.

It is in the process of chewing them.
that's what the accretion disk is made of.

How many quasars do we see in the whole Universe?
How could it be that we couldn't observe even one star around them while they all are fully loaded with gas/matter in their accretion disc and while their jet streams are boosted away to ultra distance at ultra velocity?
So, do you claim that all of them have just finished chewing the entire stars that were there?
Do you mean that just now all the quasars in the Universe knew that we are going to observe them and therefore all of them have decided as one to chew all the stars around them so we won't be able to see even one star there while all of them are still fully loaded with stars' gas?

Do you agree that you don't let the Observations/evidences to confuse you?

[Bored chemist]

please advice what could be the source of power for the following Ultra jet stream from the Quasar:

Why should I bother?
I have explained it a few times but you don't understand it or don't listen.The accretion disk could generate a magnetic field.

Speaking of you not listening, it seems you have still not noticed me asking this

Quote from: Bored chemist on 27/09/2020 19:34:08
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 11:39:22
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:24:55
Quote from: Bored chemist on 25/09/2020 16:29:45
OK Dave...
You seem to have missed this one again.


Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:55:08
Now try answering  these questions. You have been ignoring one of them since the start of this thread.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:58:59
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:41:05
Quote from: Bored chemist on 23/09/2020 08:54:25
If the observable universe was a big (say 100 billion light years)  box with solid black walls cooled to 2.7K, what would the CMBR look like from here on Earth

How could it be that we couldn't observe even one star around them while they all are fully loaded with gas/matter in their accretion disc and while their jet streams are boosted away to ultra distance at ultra velocity?

We did.

so, what did you think you were talking about?

Do you agree that you don't let the Observations/evidences to confuse you?

Get a mirror.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

We did.
so, what did you think you were talking about?

You didn't!
In this article they do not discuss about quasar but about SMBH.
Therefore, you didn't offer an observation for star around quasar as was requested.

However, even with regards to a SMBH, in the article itself they do not claim that they really saw any star or falling star.
All they claim is about a light close to the black hole:
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2019/nasa-s-tess-mission-spots-its-1st-star-shredding-black-hole
"The early TESS data allow us to see light very close to the black hole"
The light is quite unique as it has more UV emission and so few X-rays:
"More typical for these kinds of events was the low level of X-ray emission seen by both Swift and XMM-Newton. Scientists don’t fully understand why tidal disruptions produce so much UV emission and so few X-rays."
So, they don't fully understand that kind of light.
They even confirm that they have missed the beginning of that activity.
"If it had occurred outside this zone, TESS might have missed the beginning of the outburst."

So they don't really understand this kind of light/tidal disruption and they didn't see any star as they might have missed the beginning of the outburst.
Why they also call this light as outburst? Does it mean that they saw a burst of energy/light that flows outwards from the BH?
They even have some other theories for this observation:
“People have suggested multiple theories — perhaps the light bounces through the newly created debris and loses energy, or maybe the disk forms further from the black hole than we originally thought and the light isn’t so affected by the object’s extreme gravity,”

After all of this I have a message to NASA:
Dear NASA Scientists.
You clearly didn't see any Star or falling star. You only saw a light which you have called it "outburst".
So actually you have found a light or UV emission that outburst (from the BH?)
If so, how could you claim in the title of this article that "NASA’s TESS Mission Spots Its 1st Star-shredding Black Hole?"
Why don't you offer in the title what do you really see?
For example, why couldn't you say the real observation as follow:
NASA’s TESS Mission Spots Its 1st "outburst" of light that produce so much UV emission and so few X-rays near/from Black Hole?
As you didn't see any falling star, don't you think that this one is more realistic based on your observation?
Hence, as your title is not connected to the real observation, you have to agree that this title is clearly incorrect and mislead.
So, why do you lie to all of us?

I have explained it a few times but you don't understand it or don't listen.The accretion disk could generate a magnetic field.

So do you believe that the magnetic field of the accertion disc could really boost that jet stream which is more than Million LY away from the quasar?
You or Kryptid have stated that the magnetic field falls in the ratio of 1/R^3.
So, did we try to estimate the requested magnetic field that is needed from the accretion disc for that job?
How accretion disc with estimated mass of just few suns mass can set so ultra high magnetic field?

In any case, we focus on BH magnetic field/singularity for the last few weeks.
Please let's finish this issue before jumping to any other idea/question.
So would you kindly answer the other questions that I have asked with regards to QM?

[Bored chemist]

You or Kryptid have stated that the magnetic field falls in the ratio of 1/R^3.

Yes, which means that near the thing the field is quite strong.

One the particles are launched they travel ballistically. They don't need to be pushed any more.

In this article they do not discuss about quasar but about SMBH.

Here's what Wiki would tell you, if you thought to look
"A quasar (/ˈkweɪzɑːr/) (also known as a quasi-stellar object abbreviated QSO) is an extremely luminous active galactic nucleus (AGN), in which a supermassive black hole with mass ranging from millions to billions of times the mass of the Sun is surrounded by a gaseous accretion disk. As gas in the disk falls towards the black hole, energy is released in the form of electromagnetic radiation, which can be observed across the electromagnetic spectrum."

So, a SMBH caught in the act of getting an accretion disk IS a quasar.
What makes you think it isn't?

Please let's finish this issue before jumping to any other idea/question.

OK, let's finish things you already started.
Answer this question

Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 11:26:07
Quote from: Bored chemist on 27/09/2020 19:34:08
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 11:39:22
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:24:55
Quote from: Bored chemist on 25/09/2020 16:29:45
OK Dave...
You seem to have missed this one again.


Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:55:08
Now try answering  these questions. You have been ignoring one of them since the start of this thread.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:58:59
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:41:05
Quote from: Bored chemist on 23/09/2020 08:54:25
If the observable universe was a big (say 100 billion light years)  box with solid black walls cooled to 2.7K, what would the CMBR look like from here on Earth

It's the idea you raised in the first few lines of the first post in this thread.
And you still haven't answered my question about it.

[Bored chemist]

They even confirm that they have missed the beginning of that activity.
"If it had occurred outside this zone, TESS might have missed the beginning of the outburst."

What you said is the exact opposite of what they said.
Learn to read.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 15:42:21
You or Kryptid have stated that the magnetic field falls in the ratio of 1/R^3.

Yes, which means that near the thing the field is quite strong.
One the particles are launched they travel ballistically. They don't need to be pushed any more.

No, there is no way for the jet to get to more than one million LY only by ballistic force
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasar
"As of 2017, the most distant known quasar is ULAS J1342+0928 at redshift z = 7.54; light observed from this quasar was emitted when the universe was only 690 million years old. The supermassive black hole in this quasar, estimated at 800 million solar masses, is the most distant black hole identified to date.[7][8][9] Recently, another quasar was detected from a time only 700 million years after the Big Bang, and with an estimated mass of 1.5 billion times the mass of our Sun".
So, we see those quasars when the Universe age was about 700 MY to 800MY after the Big bang.
Just to remind you that the particles/atoms had been formed at Universe age of about 380MY.
Therefore, it is expected that we see those quasar when the Universe was  very compact and dense.
I would like to remind you that by this time, our galaxy had not been formed yet.
Therefore, as the Universe was so compact and dense how could you claim that "One the particles are launched they travel ballistically" to a distance of more than million LY.
How could it be that this jet stream which had been ejected from the quasar could travels through dense matter of the early Universe for more than one million LY and keeps its structure, velocity and direction without any gravitational interruption from nearby matter?
Actually, Today, while the Universe is much less dense, the jet stream from the Milky way' SMBH could get to maximal distance of 27,000LY. So, It is absolutely not realistic to assume that the distance is due to ballistic travel.
It could get to that distance while it is so focused ONLY if the magnetic energy takes it there.
There is one more key issue.
The total estimated mass in the jet stream from the Milky way is about 10,000 Sun mass while it gets only to 27,000Ly,
So, in each Ly there is by average 10/27 = 0.37 Sun mass.
If we use the same density in the quasar jet stream, than the total mass in one million Ly should be 
370,000 sun mass.
So, let's assume that this jet stream is due to 370,000 stars that had been accreted into the accretion disc.
However, each star might have different orbital plane. So, each star should set a different accretion disc plane.
Therefore, if the magnetic field is due to the accretion disc' magnetic field, then for each falling star we should get different direction of jet stream.
However, this is not the case.
In all the jet stream in the Universe we clearly see that they move in one smooth and fixed direction.
That is possible ONLY if the leading magnetic field is coming from the main object itself and not from its accretion disc!

[Bored chemist]

No, there is no way for the jet to get to more than one million LY only by ballistic force

Show your working.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

No, there is no way for the jet to get to more than one million LY only by ballistic force

Show your working.

Well, there is no need for that
I have already proved that quasar' jet stream can't be formed from a falling stars.

The total estimated mass in the jet stream from the Milky way is about 10,000 Sun mass while it gets only to 27,000Ly,
So, in each Ly there is by average 10/27 = 0.37 Sun mass.
If we use the same density in the quasar jet stream, than the total mass in one million Ly should be
370,000 sun mass.
So, let's assume that this jet stream is due to 370,000 stars that had been accreted into the accretion disc.
However, each star might have different orbital plane. So, each star should set a different accretion disc plane.
Therefore, if the magnetic field is due to the accretion disc' magnetic field, then for each falling star we should get different direction of jet stream.
However, this is not the case.
In all the jet stream in the Universe we clearly see that they move in one smooth and fixed direction.

Actually, we are located only 27,000 LY from the SMBH and it was quite difficult for us to observe this jet.
Some of the quasars are located at a distance of 27 BYL away (If you wish - 13 BLY Based on BBT), and we clearly see their jet stream from our location.
That proves that the density of the quasar' jet stream is MUCH higher.
Hence, in that quasar jet stream (of at least one Million LY) there must be Millions over Millions Sun Mass.
If stars fall in, It is not expected that they would always keep the accretion disc full with matter at any given moment. At some point of time there could be a sever gap between the falling stars and therefore the accretion disc might be totally disappear. So, it is expected to see gaps in that Jet stream.
As I have already explained, each falling star should set its own accretion disc plane which is relative to its orbital plane. Therefore, for each falling star there must be a different accretion disc plane which means - different magnetic pole direction due to the change in the disc plane. So, the chance that millions over millions falling stars with different accretion disc plane at different time could set so smooth and direct jet stream is Absolutely Zero!!!

There're is also one more key point:
There are no stars around those Quasars. So, the chance that just now all the quasars (at any distance, at any age) in the entire Universe have just finished to eat all the stars around them (Just at this moment of time) while they all are fully loaded with plasma/hot gas in their accretion disc is also absolutely Zero.

That proves that the Quasar produces all the matter around it without any need to eat any star from outside and each quasar generates its magnetic field without any need for help from any star falling' accretion disc.

[Bored chemist]

Show your working.

Well, there is no need for that

There is if you want to be taken seriously on a science page.

I have already proved that quasar' jet stream can't be formed from a falling stars.

No, you didn't
You just pointed out that you don't understand that the accretion disk would form around the "average" axis of rotation of the stuff that was falling in.
It also overlooks the obvious fact that the stars that fell in were previously part of the milky way.
Those stars are in orbit round the galaxy. So they are alreadylined up pretty nearly into one plane of rotation.

There are no stars around those Quasars.

Yes there are. You can sometimes see them
Squashed and stretched into an accretion disk.

So, ratherthan keeping on producing more stuff that's wrong, why not answer this?
It only takes a one line answer.

Answer this question
Quote from: Bored chemist on 29/09/2020 08:47:08
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 11:26:07
Quote from: Bored chemist on 27/09/2020 19:34:08
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 11:39:22
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:24:55
Quote from: Bored chemist on 25/09/2020 16:29:45
OK Dave...
You seem to have missed this one again.


Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:55:08
Now try answering  these questions. You have been ignoring one of them since the start of this thread.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:58:59
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:41:05
Quote from: Bored chemist on 23/09/2020 08:54:25
If the observable universe was a big (say 100 billion light years)  box with solid black walls cooled to 2.7K, what would the CMBR look like from here on Earth

It's the idea you raised in the first few lines of the first post in this thread.
And you still haven't answered my question about it.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:27:40
I have already proved that quasar' jet stream can't be formed from a falling stars.

No, you didn't
You just pointed out that you don't understand that the accretion disk would form around the "average" axis of rotation of the stuff that was falling in.
It also overlooks the obvious fact that the stars that fell in were previously part of the milky way.
Those stars are in orbit round the galaxy. So they are alreadylined up pretty nearly into one plane of rotatio

Sorry, you have a severe mistake.
The Plane of the Milky Way spiral arm disc starts only 3KPC from the SMBH.
As you come closer to the SMBH (from almost zero to 1KPC) there is a bulge.
In this bulge each star orbits at different orbital plane.
Please look at the following image of the S stars:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/left-Orbits-of-individual-stars-near-the-Galactic-center-right-Orbit-of-star-S2_fig1_236456058
Do you see any sort of possibility for "average" axis of rotation of the stuff that was falling in?
So do you confirm that there is no average axis of rotation as Any star should form a unique accretion disc once it falls in (if it falls it)?.
Therefore, you have to agree that your theory of falling star with "average accretion disc" should be set immediately in the garbage of the science history.

However, as you claim again and again: No No No.
Can we at least agree on something?

Let's look on Pulsar/magnetar:
https://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/objects/neutron_stars1.html
"This diagram of a pulsar shows the neutron star with a strong magnetic field (field lines shown in blue) and a beam of light along the magnetic axis. As the neutron star spins, the magnetic field spins with it, sweeping that beam through space."
So, can we agree that the magnetic field of a Pulsar is created by the main mass of this object (Neutron star) and not due to the accretion disc?
However, when it comes to BH, you believe that as it must be at a singularity point (or zero space) there is no way for it to rotate and set any sort of magnetic field. Therefore, you are absolutely sure that a BH has no possibility to set any magnetic field. You wish to believe that if we monitor magnetic field, it must be due to the its accretion disc and not due to its main rotatable mass.

Hence, do you agree that based on your understanding BH can't generate Magnetic field ONLY because you assume that they must have zero space/singularity?
So, based on this understanding, "singularity" is the only gate that prevents you to believe that BH can't generate magnetic filed.

However, with regards to KERR BH.
Do you confirm that its magnetic field is due to the rotation of the BH main mass and not due to its accretion disc?
So, how could it be that a Kerr BH couldn't considered as a BH with singularity, while all the other BHs must considered as singularity?
As Kerr BH can't be considered as "singularity" or zero point mass, then do you agree that it must have some minimal space for its mass like Neutron star?
If so, why do we insist to call them "BH" instead of Kerr Neutron star/Pulsar or magnetar?
If one day our scientists will claim that any BH (even if we call it SMBH) has some minimal size for its mass, would you agree that by rotating its core, a BH can generate magnetic field?

[Bored chemist]

So, ratherthan keeping on producing more stuff that's wrong, why not answer this?
It only takes a one line answer.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 29/09/2020 18:10:31
Answer this question
Quote from: Bored chemist on 29/09/2020 08:47:08
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 11:26:07
Quote from: Bored chemist on 27/09/2020 19:34:08
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 11:39:22
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:24:55
Quote from: Bored chemist on 25/09/2020 16:29:45
OK Dave...
You seem to have missed this one again.


Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:55:08
Now try answering  these questions. You have been ignoring one of them since the start of this thread.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:58:59
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:41:05
Quote from: Bored chemist on 23/09/2020 08:54:25
If the observable universe was a big (say 100 billion light years)  box with solid black walls cooled to 2.7K, what would the CMBR look like from here on Earth

It's the idea you raised in the first few lines of the first post in this thread.
And you still haven't answered my question about it.

Don't bother coming back until you have answered that.