0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
So please, feel free to refute them when they are wrong, but don't make implications about them having some lack of intelligence.
You are aware that this quasar isn't in the Milky Way galaxy, aren't you?
It's something called the ergosphere. Anything falling into it must move with the black hole's rotation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergosphere
There are some of you who do tend to antagonize those with new theories
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?
We are not the ones starting the antagonism...
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.
Quote from: Kryptid on 17/09/2023 13:32:19 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?
2. Or the assumption is that all the normal matter + the dark matter is concentrated at the central black hole/quasar?
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.
However, the energy of a proton at the speed of light is 9.086163 x 10-10.
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.
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?
Quote from: Dave Lev on 18/09/2023 14:48:12However, the energy of a proton at the speed of light is 9.086163 x 10-10.No it isn't.
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.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 18/09/2023 14:48:12If 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.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 18/09/2023 14:48:12Surprisingly, 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.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 18/09/2023 14:48:12If 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.
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?
Yes it is:
a proton travelling at 99% the speed of light's kinetic energy to 9.086163 x 10-10.
Multiply it by billions years
Stuff falls into the quasar would increase its total mass, but don't you agree that it won't increase its spinning velocity?
Quote from: Dave Lev on 18/09/2023 17:12:16Stuff 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.
We have not yet watched a quasar for a billion years.So your point is irrelevant, isn't it?
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.
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.
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.