[Dave Lev (OP)]

Of course the mass of the black hole is larger than the mass of the accretion disk.

Thanks

Would you kindly also answer the following:

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_305228473
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)?

[Bored chemist]

Why the jet is always ejected from the direction of the quasar' poles?

If a spinning thing chooses to emit stuff as a jet, it has to be from the pole or it's not a jet, but a lawn sprinkler.

[Origin]

Why the jet is always ejected In the direction of the quasar' poles?

Because they are the magnetic poles.

Do you agree that gravity by itself should work equally in any direction?

Sure.

So, why it is always in the direction of the quasar magnetic poles and up to several hundred thousand of LY away?

Because the jets are composed of charged particles.

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)?

Because the situation is not as simplistic as you think.  IOW a giant magnet as powerful as the black hole just sitting in space would have no jets.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

In the following article there is a clear linkage between the magnetic fields and the jet stream:

https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2021/04/aa39493-20/aa39493-20.html

"Supermassive black holes in the centres of radio-loud active galactic nuclei (AGN) can produce collimated relativistic outflows (jets). Magnetic fields are thought to play a key role in the formation and collimation of these jets, but the details are much debated.

Except for the core, the electric vector position angles follow the local jet direction, suggesting a magnetic field perpendicular to the jet. This indicates the presence of plane perpendicular shocks in these regions.

Two promising jet launching mechanisms assume that either the jet is launched from the accretion disc (Blandford & Payne 1982) or from the rotating magnetosphere of the supermassive black hole itself

The Event Horizon Telescope (EHT) observations of M87 (Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration 2019) suggest that the jet is powered by magnetic fields anchored in the black hole, as postulated by the Blandford-Znajek mechanism.

a dynamically important magnetic field is thought to play a crucial role in jet formation (Meier et al. 2001; Zamaninasab et al. 2014).

"The strength and morphology of the magnetic field within the innermost 104 to 105rG can therefore give crucial insight on how jets form and how they collimate and accelerate on parsec scales.

The motion of a shock on a helical path along the jet can explain the observed bright polarised features with the EVPAs aligned with the jet direction, where the magnetic field is quenched perpendicular to the jet direction

We identify several linearly polarised components, with an almost completely depolarised core, a high polarisation peak coincident with the total intensity peak with ∼6% degree of linear polarisation, as well as more distinct components downstream of the jet. The EVPAs in those components align well with the jet direction, indicating a magnetic field perpendicular to the jet flow. The nature of these components is likely to be related to shocks propagating along a helical path of the jet. Another possibility includes a large-scale helical magnetic field with a dominant toroidal component."

Not even one word about gravity.

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?

[Bored chemist]

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?:

Yes.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

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?:

Yes.

It is stated:
"Two promising jet launching mechanisms assume that either the jet is launched from the accretion disc (Blandford & Payne 1982) or from the rotating magnetosphere of the supermassive black hole itself"
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?

[Origin]

Not 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.

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?

Yes.

[Origin]

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.

Come on Dave think about it for a second.  The accretion disk can be the source of the magnetic field and also be the source of the material in the jet.

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?

Because the matter is charged.

Is it a realistic scenario?

Yes.

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?

No.

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?

The milky way's SMBH is not a quasar.  It is estimated that quasars consume about 1000 to 2000 solar masses a year, so we are talking apples and oranges.

[Bored chemist]

Is it a realistic scenario?

Still yes.

[Kryptid]

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

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.

The speed of the jet comes from its temperature. The hotter a material is, the faster the average speed of its component particles. The magnetic field is just changing the direction of those particles so that it forms jets.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Not 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.

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?

Yes.

If it is so easy and clear, why the scientists claim for Mystery?
Where is their problem?
Could it be that energy conservation is one factor in this mystery?

Let's verify that issue from energy point of view.

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

1. We start with a cold hydrogen atom that is located close to the quasar (H1) with potential energy = EP1
2. 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
Based on the following message EM2 would change the direction of that particle's motion.

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

Therefore, now the particle would be ejected outwards.
Surprisingly, it wount stop at H1. At that distance it would still move at almost the speed of light
Therefore, we can claim that
EK2 = EP1 (Same starting point energy) + New EK1 (at the speed of light)
So, the energy formula should be as follow:

EP1 = EK2 + ET2 + EM2

EP1 = EP1 (Same starting point potential energy) + EK1 (new kinetic energy - at the speed of light) + ET2 + EM2

Hence, there is new energy
Enew = EK1 (new kinetic energy - at the speed of light) + ET2 + EM2

Is it a realistic scenario?

Still yes.

Would you kindly explain the source of that new energy?

[Bored chemist]

If it is so easy and clear, why the scientists claim for Mystery?
Where is their problem?

You seem to be failing to understand, as usual.
Yes, it's realistic to believe that  the accretion disc by itself can generate a powerful magnetic field.
It's got an enormous energy supply from stuff falling into it. It's rotating and there's charged particles involved.

That's not the same as saying they know how it happens.
It's just saying three's nothing to rule it out, and it fits the data.

Did you not understand that?
Once again, the problem here isn't a lack of understanding of physics.
It's just that you lack the reading comprehension skills needed.

Would 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?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:27:04
Would 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?

Sorry.
Your answer isn't clear to me.
How do you solve the energy conservation problem?
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.

Hence, there is new energy
Enew = EK1 (new kinetic energy - at the speed of light) + ET2 + EM2

What is the source for that new energy?
Do you claim that new energy could be created at the accretion disc out of nothing?

[Origin]

. We start with a cold hydrogen atom that is located close to the quasar (H1) with potential energy = EP1
2. As it falls inwards, this energy is transformed into kinetic energy and its velocity is increasing.

I think it would make the most sense to discuss a proton as opposed to a Hydrogen atom since the atom would quickly ionize when it gets near the black hole.  The general idea of the PE being converted to KE is correct.

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

There are a couple of errors to unpack here.
The first obvious error is not realizing that your terms EK2 and ET2 are the same thing.  The temperature of a gas (or plasma in this case) is just a way to measure the kinetic energy of the gas/plasma.
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.

So we have just; PE is converted to KE.

If you spent more time studying physics instead of going on anti-science rants, you might learn something.
Why are you such an anti-science guy any way.  Is just your way of trying to annoy people on this site?  Do you have some sort of inferiority complex?  Did a gang of scientist beat you up?

[Kryptid]

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.

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.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

The general idea of the PE being converted to KE is correct.

Thanks
We start at H1 with Potential energy PE1.
The Potential energy changes into kinetic energy when an object moves.
As the particle falls inwards into the direction of the quasar, its velocity is increasing.
Therefore, in an ideal word (without any friction or energy loss) we could agree that
PE1(potential energy at H1) = EK2' (Kinetic energy at the accretion disc - without energy loss)

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'

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.

You have one more mistake.
There is no free lunch in the nature.
If you want to gain magnetic energy, you need to pay in kinetic energy.
https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2021/08/aa38680-20/aa38680-20.html
The basic principles of the dynamo mechanism are connected to the transition of kinetic energy of turbulent motions to the energy of the magnetic field.
In this work we consider a quite qualitative model that uses the given parameters of turbulence in the disk.
Therefore, your understanding of free magnetics isn't realistic.
Please be aware that the magnetic field is needed to change the motion of the particles.
This means - Work.
If you use the magnetic field to make work, you must invest energy.
Therefore, the magnetic energy isn't for free and it also must be taken from the EK2'
Therefore, the correct formula should be
EP1 = EK2' = EK2 + ET2 + EM2

Now let's assume that we can get the heat energy and the magnetic energy free of charge.

PE is converted to KE

Hence:
PE1(potential energy at H1) = EK2' (Kinetic energy at the accretion disc - without energy loss)
In other words - we start with particle at almost 0K and get back a particle at billion or trillion K free of energy charge.

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.

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.

Even if many particles falls in, we still need extra energy for those that are ejected backwards.
If we ignore the heat of the particle and its magnetic fields, why it doesn't stop at the same starting point (H1) with the same potential energy?
Think about ball that falls downwards:

As it hit the surface and move upwards, at the ideal case it should get to the same starting point (H1).
Is there any possibility for that ball to get to the moon?
Remember
If EP1 (at H1) = EK 2 (at the accretion)
Then
EK 2 (at the accretion) = EP1 (at H1)
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?

[Kryptid]

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'

That's not how heat works. The very fact that the accretion disk is heating up means that the particles are moving faster. You are aware of that, aren't you? The particles in a hot object are moving faster than the particles in a cold object. The heat isn't just coming from friction, it's also coming from compression (recall the gas laws).

You have one more mistake.
There is no free lunch in the nature.

He never proposed that.

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 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.

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).

[Dave Lev (OP)]

The heat isn't just coming from friction, it's also coming from compression (recall the gas laws).

Agree
However, don't you agree that if you compress the matter in the accretion disc, you actually increase the chance for the particles to though/collide with each other and therefore by definition you increase the friction?

The particles in a hot object are moving faster than the particles in a cold object.

Sure, but somehow you need to heat that object

The very fact that the accretion disk is heating up means that the particles are moving faster.

Sorry, just by increasing the velocity, you don't change the temp.
Technically, we could cross the space at the speed of light without increasing our temp.
Only if we increase the friction with something, we can increase the temp.
For example, when the space shuttle returns back to Earth while crossing the atmosphere it increases dramatically its temp.
Similar scenario is taking place in the accretion disc.
As the particles move faster in the accretion disc, the friction is increasing (due to compression and even turbulence) and therefore the temp is increasing.
However, friction, compression and turbulence can't increase the particles temp to billions or trillions of degrees.
You need something else.

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).

Yes, fusion could increase the temp to a level of millions degrees. But is it good enough for Billions and trillions?
Don't you think that an extra heat power is needed?

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.

Based on this scenario you can increase the velocity of some particles, but is it enough?

Let's focus on our SMBH (as we have good visibility on that object)
The closest object to that SMBH is S2 (about two-day light).
So, let's assume that at this distance there are a group of cold Hydrogen atoms and they just started to fall inwards.
As they fall in they increase their velocity.
However, as long as they don't touch each other, they won't increase their temp.
As they come closer to the accretion disc, they would probably increase their temp due to the heat reflected from this accretion disc.
At the accretion disc they would increase dramatically their temp due to the process which we have discussed.
We know that the orbital velocity at the Milky way accretion disc is 0.3c.
So, by falling inwards from a distance of only 2-day light, the particles must increase their velocity to 0.3c (once they get to the accretion disc).
Now, let's assume that due to the idea that you have introduced, some of the particles increase their orbital velocity to the speed of light and ejected outwards. (I hope that we all agree that those ejected particles can't move faster than the speed of light.
Due to gravity, by definition the ejected particles must slow down as they move away from the SMBH.
We must also add the impact of the dark matter gravity force.
Please remember, at 2 Day light their velocity was almost zero (or at least very low comparing to that speed of light).
As due to potential energy at that 2 day light the particles get a velocity of 0.3c at the accretion disc, then when those particles are ejected outwards, they should lose most of their velocity at the same distance of 2 day light.
Even if we assume an ejected velocity of four times faster (higher than the speed of light) they still must slow down dramatically and maybe get to a distance of 10 or 100 day lights.
However, surprisingly we clearly see that the jet stream from the Milky way SMBH is moving at a constant speed of 0.3c up to 27,000 LY
So, it seems that the jet totally ignore the impact of the SMBH and the dark matter gravity force..

This is amazing phenomenon.
Why the jet stream doesn't slow down due to the SMBH & dark matter gravity forces?
Why it keeps its velocity and gets to that distance of almost 27,000 LY?
In the following message, we might find the answer for that question:
https://insider.si.edu/2012/05/ghostly-gamma-ray-beams-blast-from-milky-ways-center/
"The jets were produced when plasma squirted out from the galactic center, following a corkscrew-like magnetic field that kept it tightly focused."
Could it be that the magnetic fields keeps its impact as the jet is moving away and overcome the SMBH & dark matter gravity forces?

[Bored chemist]

...yada yada yada...
What is the source for that extra Kinetic energy?

Do you realise that posting high-school physics to a bunch of scientists is both a waste of your time and also patronising?

Do you do it as a deliberate act of trolling?
Is it the thrill of wasting bandwidth or what?

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.


It's also worth pointing out specifically why you are wrong here

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'

Almost all matter in the accretion disk- like almost all matter in the universe- is hydrogen.
It's also very hot.
So it's a mixture of gas and plasma with a bit of dust in it.
You only get friction with solids.
But what you get i essentially viscosity.
So, yes, that stops the collision of a particle with the accretion disc being elastic- it will mot simply bounce off as high as it fell from.
But if you drop a whole lot of particles in their, the energy gets shared among them as heat.
And that means there's a distribution of velocities.
A small fraction of those velocities will be much higher than average.
Friction can actually increase the speed of a particle.

Effectively, you are saying water in a puddle can not evaporate because it is not at the boiling point.

And you shouldn't say things like that.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

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.

Let's verify the issue from energy conservation point of view:

Cold Hydrogens particles at a distance of 2 day lights with a low orbital kinetic energy fall inwards.
As they get to the accretion disc, their starting potential energy is transformed to maximal kinetic energy.
At that location, they increase their temperature to billions or even trillions K and they orbit at 0.3c.
They also generate magnetic field.
This magnetic fields would help to redirect the same particles to the SMBH poles.
However, although they used a potential energy of only 2 day light, as they are ejected outwards somehow they would gain a potential energy of 27,000 Ly.
The formula for potential energy is:
EP = M G H
EP1 (at 2 day light) = M G (2 Day light)
EP2 (at 27000 Light years) = M G (27000 Light years) = MG ( 27000 * 365 Light days) = MG (9,855,000 day light)
Therefore, the potential energy had been increased by:
EP2 / EP1 = 9,855,000 / 2 = 4,927,500
In other words, we have increased the potential energy by 4,927,500.
This is just due to the potential energy.
Wow

I pointed out that the slingshot effect is perfectly within the laws of physics.

So based on the idea of slingshot effect we could increase the energy by 4,927,500 without investing any sort of external energy.
Adding to that the idea that we increase the heat of the particles to billions or trillions of degrees and also gain magnetic field - all of that is free of charge.

If that activity is perfectly within the laws of physics, why can't we use this slingshot effect for our benefit.
We would invest very low energy and multiply it by 4,927,500 or more.

Is it real?
Are you sure that we can increase the energy by 4,927,500 times without investing external energy and without breaking the energy conservation law?

I'm quite sure that if I would dare to claim that I know how to multiply the energy by only two without extremal energy - my thread would be locked immediately.
You are lucky as you represent the good scientists.

In any case, would you kindly reconsider your reply.