0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Of course the mass of the black hole is larger than the mass of the accretion disk.
Why the jet is always ejected In the direction of the quasar' poles?https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Estructura-de-un-AGN-Fuente-CM-Urry-and-P-Padovani_fig52_305228473Do you agree that gravity by itself should work equally in any direction?So, why it is always in the direction of the quasar magnetic poles and up to several hundred thousand of LY away?Why we can't agree that the main force that can direct this narrow jet symmetrically into the quasar poles at almost the speed of light (and also well beyond the area where the black hole's gravity dominates) is magnetic force (and only magnetic force)?
Why the jet is always ejected from the direction of the quasar' poles?
Why the jet is always ejected In the direction of the quasar' poles?
Do you agree that gravity by itself should work equally in any direction?
So, why it is always in the direction of the quasar magnetic poles and up to several hundred thousand of LY away?
Why we can't agree that the main force that can direct this narrow jet symmetrically into the quasar poles at almost the speed of light (and also well beyond the area where the black hole's gravity dominates) is magnetic force (and only magnetic force)?
The accretion disk is the source of the magnetic field.
Is it realistic to believe that the accretion disc by itself can generate so powerful magnetic fields that can boost the jet at almost the speed of light to several hundred LY away from the quasar?:
Quote from: Dave Lev on 11/09/2023 16:47:34Is it realistic to believe that the accretion disc by itself can generate so powerful magnetic fields that can boost the jet at almost the speed of light to several hundred LY away from the quasar?:Yes.
Not even one word about gravity.
Is it realistic to believe that the accretion disc by itself can generate so powerful magnetic fields that can boost the jet at almost the speed of light to several hundred LY away from the quasar?
Hence, there is a possibility that the ejected matter is coming from the accretion disc.If that is correct, then it is a clear indication that the matter in the accretion disc is affected by the quasar' magnetic fields and not vice versa.
In any case, how could it be that the same matter in the accretion disc that generates the Magnetic fields would also be affected by the magnetic field that they have generated and boost themselves outwards at the speed of light into that jet?
Is it a realistic scenario?
Any idea how strong should be the magnetic fields in order to achieve that kind of jet stream at that distance and at the speed of light?
The total mass in the Milky way accretion disc is estimated to be about one to three sun mass.Can you please offer the mechanism how the limited mass in that thin accretion disc can generate so powerful magnetic fields that actually also force that matter in the accretion disc to be ejected into the jet stream?
Magnetic force is always perpendicular to velocity, so that it does no work on the charged particle. The particle's kinetic energy and speed thus remain constant. The direction of motion is affected, but not the speed.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 11/09/2023 16:47:34Not even one word about gravity.The accretion disk and the subsequent magnetic field are due to the gravity of the black hole. You cannot produce any jets without a strong gravitational source.Quote from: Dave Lev on 11/09/2023 16:47:34Is it realistic to believe that the accretion disc by itself can generate so powerful magnetic fields that can boost the jet at almost the speed of light to several hundred LY away from the quasar?Yes.
I would like to point out that a magnetic field will not increase the speed of a charged particle. All they can do is change the direction of the particle's motion: https://openstax.org/books/college-physics-2e/pages/22-5-force-on-a-moving-charge-in-a-magnetic-field-examples-and-applications
I would like to point out that a magnetic field will not increase the speed of a charged particle. All they can do is change the direction of the particle's motion
Quote from: Dave Lev on 11/09/2023 17:13:40Is it a realistic scenario?Still yes.
If it is so easy and clear, why the scientists claim for Mystery?Where is their problem?
Would you kindly explain the source of that new energy?
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:27:04Would you kindly explain the source of that new energy?You pointed out that they didn't gravity.That's because in a discussion of events near a neutron star, gravity is so obvious that you may not need to mention it explicitly.Have you worked out where the energy is coming from yet?
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:27:04Would you kindly explain the source of that new energy?
Hence, there is new energyEnew = EK1 (new kinetic energy - at the speed of light) + ET2 + EM2
. We start with a cold hydrogen atom that is located close to the quasar (H1) with potential energy = EP12. As it falls inwards, this energy is transformed into kinetic energy and its velocity is increasing.
3. At the accretion disc its kinetic energy is maximal (EK2) Its temp is Maximal (ET2 - if not trillion lets agree on billions degrees) and it even generates strong magnetic fields (EM2)Therefore, from energy point of view we should claim that:EP1 = EK2 + ET2 + EM2
I have proved that new energy is needed in order to set this jet at almost the speed of light to that hundreds of thousands LY above & below the accretion disc.
The general idea of the PE being converted to KE is correct.
The other problem you have is that you are trying to say is the magnetic field 'takes energy' from the proton which is not true. For example if there is a proton at rest relative to observer A there will be no magnetic field around the proton. If observer B flies past that same proton at some speed then observer B will detect a magnetic field around the proton. At no point was there any energy extracted from the proton to produce the magnetic field.
PE is converted to KE
Quote from: Dave Lev on 12/09/2023 11:55:23I have proved that new energy is needed in order to set this jet at almost the speed of light to that hundreds of thousands LY above & below the accretion disc.No, you haven't. Not all of the material that falls into the accretion disk is blasted out again as jets. Much of it also falls into the black hole.
However, we know that at the accretion disc, the particle temp is increasing to several billions or trillions of degrees.That heat isn't coming for free.It is due to the friction. That friction MUST reduce the velocity of the particle and therefore it is taken from its kinetic energy.Therefore, we must reduce that ET2 from EK2'
You have one more mistake.There is no free lunch in the nature.
Therefore, it is expected that as the particle ejected outwards it should stop at H1.Why the particle doesn't stop there and still continue from there at the speed of light?What is the source for that extra Kinetic energy?
The heat isn't just coming from friction, it's also coming from compression (recall the gas laws).
The particles in a hot object are moving faster than the particles in a cold object.
The very fact that the accretion disk is heating up means that the particles are moving faster.
I would also expect nuclear fusion to contribute some degree of additional energy to the accretion disk. It's much more than hot enough there for fusion to occur (even if fusion isn't the main source of power).
The problem is that you are dealing with a system of many such particles. Let's consider two particles, as an example. If I take the kinetic energy out of one particle and put it into the other particle, then I can make the boosted particle travel faster than either of them were moving at the start without violating conservation of energy. All I've done is change the distribution of energy.In the end, I get one particle going faster at the cost of making the other one go slower. In the case of the jets of a black hole, the faster particle can now escape the gravity of the black hole and enter one of the jets while the slower particle gets consumed.
...yada yada yada...What is the source for that extra Kinetic energy?
Anyway, the answer to your question is obviously "from the other stuff that fell in".I remember telling you this before in another of your threads where you failed to realise that science is actually based in reality, but your ideas were not..It would have been better for everyone if you had listened.
I pointed out that the slingshot effect is perfectly within the laws of physics.