[Kryptid]

After banning trevorjohnson32 for trolling, I've had a rethink on how I deal with these kinds of threads. There are some of you who do tend to antagonize those with new theories, even if it isn't with a direct insult. If what you are saying is condescending or belittling, it could lead to tensions. So please, feel free to refute them when they are wrong, but don't make implications about them having some lack of intelligence.

[Origin]

So please, feel free to refute them when they are wrong, but don't make implications about them having some lack of intelligence.

You're right about antagonizing people, but I find bad faith arguments incredibly annoying.
I will just put people like that on ignore it's not like I am missing anything important (one last dig 😊).

[Dave Lev (OP)]

You are aware that this quasar isn't in the Milky Way galaxy, aren't you?

1. Ergosphere & Gravitoelectromagnetism
In the article that you have offered they discuss about quasar

It's something called the ergosphere. Anything falling into it must move with the black hole's rotation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergosphere

"This process is considered a possible explanation for a source of energy of such energetic phenomena as gamma-ray bursts.[9] Results from computer models show that the Penrose process is capable of producing the high-energy particles that are observed being emitted from quasars and other active galactic nuclei."

2. Jet steam & dark matter.
Based on the orbital motion of stars in the galaxy, we can extract the requested dark matter for that galaxy.
Unfortunately, we don't have visibility on stars orbital motion in any quasar' galaxy and therefore it is impossible to make any calculation between the jet steam to the dark matter.
In the Milky way galaxy we have excellent visibility on stars orbital motion, therefore it had been selected.
Please also be aware that "Astrophysics believe that our galaxy's central black hole might have been in a quasar phase of activity six million years ago".
https://earthsky.org/space/a-quasar-milky-way-six-million-years-ago/
As the MW SMBH might have been a quasar, can we discuss about it?

[Bored chemist]

There are some of you who do tend to antagonize those with new theories

We are not the ones starting the antagonism...

Why is it so difficult for you to accept the observation / facts as is?

Don't you thrust the measurements of those scientists?

We all must accept it as real fact!

Is it because I don't accept the dark matter imagination or is it because I claim that EM is the ultimate force of the Universe?

[Kryptid]

If you're going to talk about the Milky Way as having a quasar, then you're going to have to be careful about comparing it to the quasar that this thread is about. The Milky Way's black hole is much less massive, for one. The temperature of the Milky Way's possible quasar is unknown and so are the properties of any jets it may have produced. Not all galaxies have the same amount of dark matter either. So any comparison is dubious.

The galaxy that contains 3C 273 has a mass of about 2 x 10¹¹ solar masses. This is about 225.7 times the mass of the central black hole there. So I can redo the calculations taking this into account. I am going to assume that all of that mass is concentrated at the center of the galaxy (it is, which means that my calculations will actually be an overestimate for how difficult it is for the proton to escape). So we just multiply the original numbers by 225.7: -3.71 x 10^-16 joules x 225.7 = -8.37 x 10^-14 joules, and -7.52 x 10^-23 joules x 225.7 = -1.697 x 10^-20 joules. That's a difference of 8.3699983 x 10^-14 joules.

That would reduce a proton travelling at 99% the speed of light's kinetic energy to 9.086163 x 10^-10. That's equivalent to a speed of 98.9998% the speed of light. So even with the entire mass of the galaxy taken in the account, the jet still doesn't slow down hardly any at all.

We are not the ones starting the antagonism...

There's no need to escalate it.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Not all galaxies have the same amount of dark matter either. So any comparison is dubious.
The galaxy that contains 3C 273 has a mass of about 2 x 10^11 solar masses. This is about 225.7 times the mass of the central black hole there.

What do you mean by this explanation:
1. Do you mean that there is no dark matter in the 3C 273 galaxy and therefore we can ignore it?
2. Or the assumption is that all the normal matter + the dark matter is concentrated at the central black hole/quasar?

[Bored chemist]

Not all galaxies have the same amount of dark matter either. So any comparison is dubious.
The galaxy that contains 3C 273 has a mass of about 2 x 10^11 solar masses. This is about 225.7 times the mass of the central black hole there.

What do you mean by this explanation:
1. Do you mean that there is no dark matter in the 3C 273 galaxy and therefore we can ignore it?
2. Or the assumption is that all the normal matter + the dark matter is concentrated at the central black hole/quasar?

I guess he means that if you don't know how big the effect of dark matter is, then you should be careful saying the effect will be the same in the two different cases.

[Origin]

2. Or the assumption is that all the normal matter + the dark matter is concentrated at the central black hole/quasar?

Dark matter does not clump so it is not really concentrated at the black hole like normal matter.  Dark matter is diffuse and there is a higher density in the center of the galaxy but it's density gradually decreases as you move from the center of the galaxy.  The dark matter halo extends well beyond the visible edge of the galaxy.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

The galaxy that contains 3C 273 has a mass of about 2 x 1011 solar masses. This is about 225.7 times the mass of the central black hole there. So I can redo the calculations taking this into account. I am going to assume that all of that mass is concentrated at the center of the galaxy (it is, which means that my calculations will actually be an overestimate for how difficult it is for the proton to escape). So we just multiply the original numbers by 225.7: -3.71 x 10-16 joules x 225.7 = -8.37 x 10-14 joules, and -7.52 x 10-23 joules x 225.7 = -1.697 x 10-20 joules. That's a difference of 8.3699983 x 10-14 joules.

That would reduce a proton travelling at 99% the speed of light's kinetic energy to 9.086163 x 10-10. That's equivalent to a speed of 98.9998% the speed of light. So even with the entire mass of the galaxy taken in the account, the jet still doesn't slow down hardly any at all.

Ok
If I understand the answer correctly, the idea is that even if we set the whole galaxy mass in the center at the SMBH/Quasar at the best case, we can get a maximal proton' potential energy that equivalent to -8.37 x 10-14 Joules ( -3.71 x 10-16 joules x 225.7).
However, the energy of a proton at the speed of light is 9.086163 x 10-10.
Therefore, even if we assume that all of that mass is concentrated at the center of the galaxy, we need to increase the starting potential energy of a proton (which is -8.37 x 10-14 Joules) to  9.086163 x 10-10 joules.
Therefore, we need to increase the falling proton starting energy by 10,855 times.
 = 9.086163 x 10^-10 joules / 8.37 x 10^-14 = 10,855 times.
Don't you agree that in order to get so significant increase in the proton energy, the Quasar/SMBH must contribute most of this energy by the process that is called "ergosphere"?
"It's something called the ergosphere. Anything falling into it must move with the black hole's rotation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergosphere

However, this energy is due to the spin rotation of the Quasar/SMBH.
If that spin energy is consumed to increase the proton velocity at the accretion disc, then by definition after billion years and trillions over trillions ejected particles, the quasar spin must be reduced.

Surprisingly, we clearly see that there is no reduction of the particle's velocities in any accretion disc or in any jet stream.
Do you agree that this by itself proves that the quasar/SMBH must keep its spin velocity?
If that is correct, then somehow the Quasar/SMBH must get constantly new energy.
Any idea how the Quasar/SMBH gets this new energy in order to maintain is spin?

[Bored chemist]

However, the energy of a proton at the speed of light is 9.086163 x 10-10.

No it isn't.

[Bored chemist]

If that spin energy is consumed to increase the proton velocity at the accretion disc, then by definition after billion years and trillions over trillions ejected particles, the quasar spin must be reduced.

Yes.

Surprisingly, we clearly see that there is no reduction of the particle's velocities in any accretion disc or in any jet stream.

You are surprised. The rest of us are not.
A quasar is very big.
It can fling a (relatively) few particles around without affecting it's motion much.

If that is correct, then somehow the Quasar/SMBH must get constantly new energy.
Any idea how the Quasar/SMBH gets this new energy in order to maintain is spin?

Stuff falls into it.

[Origin]

Surprisingly, we clearly see that there is no reduction of the particle's velocities in any accretion disc or in any jet stream.

Why would you say that?  You keep talking about the accretion disk and jets (not jet stream) as if they are the same thing and they are completely different things.  The evidence shows that the speed of the jets do slow.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

However, the energy of a proton at the speed of light is 9.086163 x 10-10.

No it isn't.

Yes it is:

Now how much kinetic energy does a proton traveling at 99% the speed of light have? Using this calculator: https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/relativistic-ke The answer is approximately 9.087 x 10-10 joules.

If that spin energy is consumed to increase the proton velocity at the accretion disc, then by definition after billion years and trillions over trillions ejected particles, the quasar spin must be reduced.

Yes.

Thanks

Surprisingly, we clearly see that there is no reduction of the particle's velocities in any accretion disc or in any jet stream.

You are surprised. The rest of us are not.
A quasar is very big.
It can fling a (relatively) few particles around without affecting it's motion much.

Do you mean few particles per second or per Pico second?
Multiply it by billions years and try to verify the total Quasar spinning lost energy.

If that is correct, then somehow the Quasar/SMBH must get constantly new energy.
Any idea how the Quasar/SMBH gets this new energy in order to maintain is spinning energy?

Stuff falls into it.

Stuff falls into the quasar would increase its total mass, but don't you agree that it won't increase its spinning velocity?
We discuss about the quasar spin energy which had been transformed into proton kinetic energy.
So, please show how the quasar could increase its spin in order to compensate its lost spinning energy.

[Bored chemist]

Yes it is:

No, it's not
See if you can see why

However, the energy of a proton at the speed of light is 9.086163 x 10-10.

a proton travelling at 99% the speed of light's kinetic energy to 9.086163 x 10-10.

[Bored chemist]

Multiply it by billions years

We have not yet watched a quasar for a billion years.
So your point is irrelevant, isn't it?

[Bored chemist]

Stuff falls into the quasar would increase its total mass, but don't you agree that it won't increase its spinning velocity?

Depends which way it falls.

[Origin]

Stuff falls into the quasar would increase its total mass, but don't you agree that it won't increase its spinning velocity?

A quasar is the jet from an active super massive black hole that happens to be pointed in our direction.  The quasar is powered by the SMBH.  Matter does not fall into a quasar, matter falls into the black hole that powers the quasar. 

Yes it is:

It is not for the simple reason that it is not possible for a proton to travel at the speed of light.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Stuff falls into the quasar would increase its total mass, but don't you agree that it won't increase its spinning velocity?

Depends which way it falls.

From statistical point of view, on any particle that falls in the direction of the SMBH/Quasar spinning, there must be one that falls in the other direction.
Therefore, by average you don't get any extra spinning energy from those falling particles.

We have not yet watched a quasar for a billion years.
So your point is irrelevant, isn't it?

We see many quasars.
Some of them are located at the very far edge of the observable Universe and some are relatively closer.
From statistical point of view, some of them might be younger and some other might be older.
However, in all of them without exception we observe the jet stream while it moves at the speed of light.
Therefore, why it isn't clear to all of us that if those quasars won't get new spinning energy that is needed to compensate the loss of spinning energy due the ergosphere phenomenon at least some of them won't be able to sustain this speed of light jet stream.

[Kryptid]

From statistical point of view, on any particle that falls in the direction of the SMBH/Quasar spinning, there must be one that falls in the other direction.
Therefore, by average you don't get any extra spinning energy from those falling particles.

No, the accretion disk itself is spinning. Conservation of angular momentum means that the matter in the accretion disk that gets consumed by the black hole will transfer its angular momentum to the black hole and thus contribute to its spin.

Therefore, why it isn't clear to all of us that if those quasars won't get new spinning energy that is needed to compensate the loss of spinning energy due the ergosphere phenomenon at least some of them won't be able to sustain this speed of light jet stream.

First of all, the jets don't travel at the speed of light. They travel near the speed of light. Secondly, have you done the math to demonstrate that the needed energy isn't there? Something merely seeming intuitive to you isn't sufficient to count as evidence.

[Bored chemist]

From statistical point of view, on any particle that falls in the direction of the SMBH/Quasar spinning, there must be one that falls in the other direction.

If that was true, the planets would not orbit the sun etc.