[Dave Lev (OP)]

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.

Sorry, I don't understand the benefit of this process.
We try to verify how a falling proton with very low potential energy (-3.71 x 10-16 joules at the MW SMBH, or -8.37 x 10-14 Joules at the ideal quasar) can be converted to 99% the speed of light's kinetic energy (9.086163 x 10-10) at the quasar accretion disc (or 0.3c at the SMBH accretion disc).
The answer was - "ergosphere" due to the black hole's spin/rotation.
So, what is the benefit (from SMBH spinning energy) to force a proton that already gain its maximal kinetic energy at the accretion disc (from the SMBH spinning energy) to fall back into the SMBH, in order to help the SMBH to regain its spinning energy?
Actually, in this process (assuming that there is no energy lost at all) the net income for the SMBH' spinning energy is just the starting potential energy of the proton (which is -3.71 x 10-16 joules at the MW SMBH, or -8.37 x 10-14 Joules at the ideal quasar).
Would you kindly reconsider your answer.

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.

Well, our scientists have done the calculation:
https://www.sci.news/astronomy/article00353.html
"It would take a tremendous influx of matter for the galactic core to fire up again. Finkbeiner estimates that a molecular cloud weighing about 10,000 times as much as the Sun would be required."
If I remember it correctly, that molecular cloud had been created in 6 Million years.
Therefore, based on this rate, in 6 billion years 10 million sun mass had been ejected in the jet stream.
This is more than the total mass of the SMBH.
Based on this data, how can we claim that as we don't know than we don't care.
Please, do you still insist to ignore the request for new SMBH/Quasar spinning energy in order to recover the lost energy?

[Kryptid]

So, what is the benefit (from SMBH spinning energy) to force a proton that already gain its maximal kinetic energy at the accretion disc (from the SMBH spinning energy) to fall back into the SMBH, in order to help the SMBH to regain its spinning energy?

I never said that was how it worked. The proton that flies out in the jet doesn't come back. It's the matter that doesn't end up in the jet that increases the black hole's spin.

Well, our scientists have done the calculation:
https://www.sci.news/astronomy/article00353.html
"It would take a tremendous influx of matter for the galactic core to fire up again. Finkbeiner estimates that a molecular cloud weighing about 10,000 times as much as the Sun would be required."
If I remember it correctly, that molecular cloud had been created in 6 Million years.
Therefore, based on this rate, in 6 billion years 10 million sun mass had been ejected in the jet stream.
This is more than the total mass of the SMBH.
Based on this data, how can we claim that as we don't know than we don't care.
Please, do you still insist to ignore the request for new SMBH/Quasar spinning energy in order to recover the lost energy?

That is about the Milky Way galaxy, not the quasar that this thread is about. The calculations for one are not applicable to the other.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

That is about the Milky Way galaxy, not the quasar that this thread is about. The calculations for one are not applicable to the other.

Please, can you offer the data for any relevant quasar?
In the following article it is stated:
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2016/08/milky-way-had-blowout-bash-6-million-years-ago/
Milky Way had blowout bash 6 million years ago
This artist's impression shows the Milky Way as it may have appeared 6 million years ago during a quasar' phase of activity.
Why it is not relevant to verify our SMBH during its quasar' phase of activity?

I never said that was how it worked. The proton that flies out in the jet doesn't come back. It's the matter that doesn't end up in the jet that increases the black hole's spin.

Yes, that is correct.
However, the potential energy of the falling proton is just -3.71 x 10-16 joules at the MW SMBH, or -8.37 x 10-14 Joules at the ideal quasar.
Therefore, while one falling proton can increase the SMBH' spinning energy by this potential energy, a spinning energy of almost 2.45 Million times higher at the SMBH (or 10,000 at the quasar) is needed to accelerate one other falling proton at almost the speed of light at the accretion disc.
Please where the new SMBH' spinning energy is coming from or prove that there is no need for extra energy.

[Kryptid]

We don't know all the properties of the Milky Way's quasar, so trying to figure things out about it would be a combination of speculation and inferences based on other quasars.

There would be many infalling protons for every proton that gets sent into the polar jets. It's not a 1-to-1 ratio. That's why the black hole can keep its spin up.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

There would be many infalling protons for every proton that gets sent into the polar jets. It's not a 1-to-1 ratio. That's why the black hole can keep its spin up.

Energy conservation law is one of the most important laws in science.
If we wish to protect this law, then it is our obligation to find the data/proves/observation that can show that out of 2.45 Million falling particles, only one gets enough SMBH' spinning energy that its needed to set it at almost the speed of light in the accretion disc.
Can you please offer the data/observation for this activity?

In any case, in the following article it is stated:
https://www.urban-astronomer.com/news-and-updates/milky-ways-black-hole-a-picky-eater/
astronomers studying Sgr A* (the supermassive black hole at the centre of the Milky Way Galaxy) were surprised to notice that less than 1% of the gas and dust drawn into its gravitational field ever get consumed almost everything else gets ejected.
How can we explain this real observation of less than 1% of the gas and dust drawn into its gravitational field ever get consumed by the SMBH, while we try to assume that the correct ratio should be 245 Million % in order to protect the Energy conservation law for the SMBH spinning energy?

[Bored chemist]

Dave, just to let you know; these things are not "over-unity" devices and do not break the laws of physics.
But they let you use the power of falling water to pump water to a greater height than it fell from.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_ram

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Dave, just to let you know; these things are not "over-unity" devices and do not break the laws of physics.
But they let you use the power of falling water to pump water to a greater height than it fell from.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_ram

Nice
Can it multiply the power of the falling water by 2.45 Million times?

How can you break the conservation law so dramatically when it comes to your theory?
Is it correct that the modern science can break the law of conservation energy without any limitation, while no one else is allowed to do so?

Why do you refuse to give the possibility for other theories to break the conservation energy law even by 0.00...1%?
If you confirm that it is perfectly OK to multiply the falling particles energy by 2.45 Million times in your theory (while you don't band yourself), then at least would you be fair enough to give other people the possibility to multiply the same falling particles energy only by three in their theory?

Why can't we agree on one law for all theories?

[Bored chemist]

Can it multiply the power of the falling water by 2.45 Million times?

How did you come to the conclusion that it increases power?
In the medium to long run, power is a conserved quantity- just like energy.

How can you break the conservation law so dramatically when it comes to your theory?

Nobody is breaking the laws of physics.
We don't break them because we know better, and you don't break them because we got so tired of listening to you doing so that we threatened you with a ban if you didn't stop.

Why do you refuse to give the possibility for other theories to break the law conservation energy?

Because that would be stupid.
You can't break them.
Any idea that did wouldn't be a theory.
Scientific theories have to be mathematically consistent.
Noether's theorem says that the conservation laws hold true.
So any idea that breaks the conservation laws is mathematically impossible and thus not part of science.

By all means write fantasy novels about them.
But don't expect them to be taken seriously in science.

Why can't we agree on one law for all theories?

We did.
It's just that you don't understand it.
You think a hydraulic ram "multiplies power" even though, as I pointed out...

these things are not "over-unity" devices and do not break the laws of physics.

How did you  come to the conclusion that they multiply power?

[Kryptid]

Energy conservation law is one of the most important laws in science.

Yes.

If we wish to protect this law, then it is our obligation to find the data/proves/observation that can show that out of 2.45 Million falling particles, only one gets enough SMBH' spinning energy that its needed to set it at almost the speed of light in the accretion disc.

You don't have to protect the law. It's already guaranteed by Noether's theorem. So it's quite safe to say that the black hole obeys it.

How can we explain this real observation of less than 1% of the gas and dust drawn into its gravitational field ever get consumed by the SMBH, while we try to assume that the correct ratio should be 245 Million % in order to protect the Energy conservation law for the SMBH spinning energy?

That's the Milky Way's black hole, not the quasar. The black holes have different masses and different amounts of matter in their accretion disks. So the math isn't going to be the same.

How can you break the conservation law so dramatically when it comes to your theory?

We don't.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 08:00:35
Energy conservation law is one of the most important laws in science.

Yes.

Dear Kryptid
In the following article it is stated:
https://www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-identify-the-engine-powering-black-hole-energy-beams-20210520/
"Some 3 trillion trillion trillion joules of energy flow up the jet each second 500 trillion times more energy than the entire human population burns in a decade. How could something so tiny be so powerful?"
Based on your calculation about a quasar, the initial potential energy of a falling proton is -8.37 x 10^-14 Joules.
Therefore, the quasar must "eat" 1.194 x10^13 falling protons in order to achieve spinning energy of just one joules.
As there is a need for 3 trillion trillion trillion joules of energy flow up jet each second, then do you confirm that the quasar must "eat" 35 billion trillion trillion trillion falling proton per second.
1.194 x10^13 * 3 trillion trillion trillion  = 35 billion trillion trillion trillion = 35 * 10^57 falling proton per second.

Do still believe that all of those 35 * 10^57 falling proton per second in order to maintain the Energy conservation law for the quasar is realistic?

[paul cotter]

Conservation laws are not up for debate.

[Kryptid]

Based on your calculation about a quasar, the initial potential energy of a falling proton is -8.37 x 10^-14 Joules.

There's an error here. That's the gravitational potential energy at a distance of 2 light-days from the black hole, not the gravitational potential energy of the proton right at the black hole's event horizon (which will be much higher).

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Based on your calculation about a quasar, the initial potential energy of a falling proton is -8.37 x 10^-14 Joules.

There's an error here. That's the gravitational potential energy at a distance of 2 light-days from the black hole, not the gravitational potential energy of the proton right at the black hole's event horizon (which will be much higher).

You have set the following calculation:

The mass of the black hole is 886 million times that of the Sun. The Sun's mass is 1.9885 x 1026 kilograms. That makes the black hole's mass 1.722 x 1035 kilograms. This means that the gravitational potential energy of a proton at two light-days from the black hole would be:

U = (-GMm)/r
U = (-(-6.674 x 10-11)(1.722 x 1035)(1.673 x 10-27))/(5.18 x 1013)
U = (-(1.149 x 1025)(1.673 x 10-27))/(5.18 x 1013)
U = (-(1.9227 x 10-2)/(5.18 x 1013)
U = -3.71 x 10-16 joules

If I understand it correctly, the distance of 2 light-days represents the distance to the deep center of the black hole (as it has an infinite zero radius).
In your calculation you didn't deduct the radius of the accretion disc / event horizon.
Therefore, this distance represents the maximal distance and therefore the maximal gravitational potential energy.

Based on this calculation for the gravitational potential energy at 2 day light, we have discovered that  35 * 10^57 falling proton per second are requested.

However, if you still think that there is an error in your calculation, would you kindly fix it?
If you do so, how much gravitational potential energy we could add to the proton?
Even if you would increase this proton gravitational potential energy by two, by 1000, by one million or even by one trillion, would it really help to keep on with the wrong assumption that all of the energy at the accretion disc + Jet stream is coming from the potential energy of falling particles?
When you clearly see so severe contradiction between the observation to the current main stream theory, why there is no room to reconsider this theory?

In the article it is stated:
https://www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-identify-the-engine-powering-black-hole-energy-beams-20210520/
"The stripes of polarized light around M87's black hole reveal the strong magnetic fields at work."
"A simulation of the jet coming out of the supermassive black hole in the galaxy M87. A highly magnetic process called MAD is thought to be at work."
"Experts say the spiral pattern of the stripes results from a strong, orderly magnetic field around the M87 black hole,"

How can you keep on with the wrong assumption that this strong magnetic fields which creates stripes of polarized light in the accretion disc is due to the matter in the accretion disc?
Is there any possibility to convert the falling potential energy particles into so strong magnetic fields with energy level of 3 trillion trillion trillion joules?

In the article there is a confirmation for the impact of the SMBH spinning on energy:

"The mathematician Roy Kerr had solved the equations for a spinning black hole in 1963, showing that the hole, as it invisibly turns, drags the fabric of space-time around with it. Then Roger Penrose proved that spinning black holes can slow down, and that in doing so they transform their rotational energy into something else."

Now, lets think what could be that else energy?

The answer is as follow:
"Both of us understood the Penrose process,? Blandford said, which proved that black holes are not one-way membranes, as it were; you can extract the spin energy. We showed a way of doing that with electromagnetic fields.?

When the Earth spines, don't you agree that it also generates magnetic fields?
So, why is it forbidden for the science community to reconsider the possibility that when the SMBH is spinning it generates its own magnetic fields?
The mass of the SMBH is estimated to be 4 *10^6 sun mass.
As the SMBH clearly spins, why we refuse to understand that this must be the ONLY ultimate source for the magnetic fields that can easily generate energy of 3 trillion trillion trillion joules (and above) due to the spinning motion?

It is also stated:
the new observations confirm the Blandford-Znajek idea. ?What we see in our image is ordered polarization in a spiral shape, said Issaoun, who was involved in analyzing the polarization measurements. and the shape of the magnetic field is also spiral which means it's able to launch a jet.
Therefore, why do we refuse to consider the possibility that the SMBH' magnetic fields which is the source for the 3 trillion trillion trillion joules of energy, can easily launch a spiral shape jet due to its strong magnetic fields at the velocity of almost the speed of light directly through its magnetic poles to a distance of hundreds of thousands LY?

[Kryptid]

A classical black hole can only generate a magnetic field if it is both rotating and has a net electric charge (due to the no-hair theorem). However, it's also possible that black holes are not quite as they are described in relativity. One alternative model is called MECO (Magnetospheric Eternally Collapsing Object). MECOs can have magnetic fields, so I won't discount that possibility. However, I need to remind you, once again, of what I said earlier in this thread: magnetic fields do not speed up electrically-charged particles. They can only change their direction. That being said, a magnetic field generated by a black hole (or MECO) cannot be responsible for energizing the jets.

I do plan on doing some more math. If no one has replied after this comment, I'll come back and edit it. If so, then I'll just make another post.

As the SMBH clearly spins, why we refuse to understand that this must be the ONLY ultimate source for the magnetic fields that can easily generate energy of 3 trillion trillion trillion joules (and above) due to the spinning motion?

Rotating, electrically-conducting fluids generate magnetic fields. Therefore, the accretion disk generates a magnetic field (even if, perhaps, the black hole does as well).

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Rotating, electrically-conducting fluids generate magnetic fields. Therefore, the accretion disk generates a magnetic field (even if, perhaps, the black hole does as well).

Thanks
So, you agree that there is a possibility for the SMBH to generate magnetic fields, however, it seems that you have some hesitation.
Please be aware that the mass of the SMBH could be millions or even billions sun mass, while in the accretion disc the total mass could be just few sun mass.
Therefore, even if you insist that the accretion disc generates magnetic fields, then by far the SMBH should generate millions or billions of times stronger magnetic fields.
The observation of the 3 trillion trillion trillion joules of energy flow up jet each second fully confirms that it is mainly due to the SMBH's magnetic fields (as the accretion disc by itself would never generate so strong magnetic fields).
For me, the comparison between the SMBH magneto to that in the accretion disc is similar to  the comparison between mighty atomic electric power station to an electrical generator by few solar panels at the roof.
 

A classical black hole can only generate a magnetic field if it is both rotating and has a net electric charge (due to the no-hair theorem). However, it's also possible that black holes are not quite as they are described in relativity. One alternative model is called MECO (Magnetospheric Eternally Collapsing Object). MECOs can have magnetic fields, so I won't discount that possibility.

I read your above explanation and I wonder if it is valid to any spinning object.
Let's focus on Pulsar:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsar
A pulsar (from pulsating radio source)[1][2] is a highly magnetized rotating neutron star that emits beams of electromagnetic radiation out of its magnetic poles.
This pulsar clearly generates magnetic fields and it even emits beams of electromagnetic radiation out of its magnetic poles.
If you think about it, the pulsar is a mini size quasar.
Hence, as the pulsar can generate magnetic fields with relative low mass, then the quasar can generate much stronger magnetic fields with its Supper massive spinning mass.

However, I need to remind you, once again, of what I said earlier in this thread: magnetic fields do not speed up electrically-charged particles. They can only change their direction. That being said, a magnetic field generated by a black hole (or MECO) cannot be responsible for energizing the jets.

Why are you so sure about it?
Please read the following:
"the new observations confirm the Blandford-Znajek idea. What we see in our image is ordered polarization in a spiral shape, said Issaoun, who was involved in analyzing the polarization measurements. and the shape of the magnetic field is also spiral which means it's able to launch a jet."
https://www.facebook.com/QuantaNews/photos/a.247347725462827/1937625143101735/?type=3
"The motion generates twisted magnetic fields...."
Hence, we clearly observe the polarization the twisted magnetic fields and the magnetic spiral structure.
Don't you agree that this quasar jet steam is very similar to the Pulsar "beams of electromagnetic radiation out of its magnetic pole".

The pulsar has no accretion disc.
Even so the pulsar ejects beams of electromagnetic radiation out of its magnetic poles.
In the same token, why can't we agree that the quasar ejects beams of electromagnetic radiation out of its magnetic poles. However, it also grabs the matter from the accretion disc in its beam and jets it at the speed of light out of its magnetic poles.

[Kryptid]

Please be aware that the mass of the SMBH could be millions or even billions sun mass, while in the accretion disc the total mass could be just few sun mass.
Therefore, even if you insist that the accretion disc generates magnetic fields, then by far the SMBH should generate millions or billions of times stronger magnetic fields.

The strength of a magnetic field is not contingent upon mass. We can produce magnetic fields many, many times stronger than the Earth's magnetic field despite the Earth being many orders of magnitude more massive than our machines.

The observation of the 3 trillion trillion trillion joules of energy flow up jet each second fully confirms that it is mainly due to the SMBH's magnetic fields

No, it does not. Magnetic fields do not do work on charged particles. I provided a reference for that earlier in the thread.

Why are you so sure about it?

Because it's true: magnetic fields do not do work on charged particles. Go back and read my reference earlier in the thread. The magnetic fields do create the jets in the sense that they direct them. They do not contribute the jets' energy, though.

EDIT: Actually, let me amend that. It's true that a magnetic field won't do work on a single charged particle, but it can do work on an object that possesses its own magnetic field (two magnets can obviously accelerate towards each other if their opposite poles are facing each other). Since a plasma has its own magnetic field, then perhaps your idea isn't entirely without merit.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

magnetic fields do not do work on charged particles. Go back and read my reference earlier in the thread.

Can you please redirect me to the relevant article about it.

The magnetic fields do create the jets in the sense that they direct them. They do not contribute the jets' energy, though.

What do you think about the Pulsar Beam?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsar
A pulsar (from pulsating radio source)[1][2] is a highly magnetized rotating neutron star that emits beams of electromagnetic radiation out of its magnetic poles.
Don't you agree that it is electromagnetic radiation beam that is emitted out of its magnetic poles?
If so, why the quasar can't emit similar beam of electromagnetic radiation out of its magnetic Poles?

The strength of a magnetic field is not contingent upon mass.

Do you really consider that the potential energy of the falling particles could create energy that is equivalent to 3 trillion trillion trillion joules each second?
Lets assume that we could stop the spinning motion of the SMBH, but we would keep its total mass.
You had already confirmed that the SMBH contributes significant energy to the falling particles by its spinning motion.
Therefore, can we agree that without the SMBH' spinning motion, the total energy in the accretion disc + in the jet stream would be significantly low?
So, its not just about the mass, but it is also about its features - which means its spinning motion.
Do you agree that a SMBH that doesn't spin would not contribute the energy that is needed to speed up the particles at the accretion disc to their speed of light?
At the maximum, their kinetic energy would be equivalent to their starting potential energy.
In other words - the energy in the accretion disc would be so low that we might not see it at all.
Therefore, do you agree that a SMBH without spinning motion is just useless.

We can produce magnetic fields many, many times stronger than the Earth's magnetic field despite the Earth being many orders of magnitude more massive than our machines.

Can we generate enough magnetic fields that is needed to protect the earth from the solar winds?
Let's assume that the Earth has lost its magnetosphere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetosphere
"a magnetosphere is a region of space surrounding an astronomical object in which charged particles are affected by that object's magnetic field.[1][2] It is created by a celestial body with an active interior dynamo."
Is it feasible for us to build strong enough magnetic generator that can replace the natural magnetospher around the earth?
What is the estimated energy that is needed for this generator in order to protect us from the solar wind?

[Kryptid]

Can you please redirect me to the relevant article about it.

https://openstax.org/books/college-physics-2e/pages/22-5-force-on-a-moving-charge-in-a-magnetic-field-examples-and-applications#:~:text=Magnetic%20force%20is%20always%20perpendicular,affected%2C%20but%20not%20the%20speed.

What do you think about the Pulsar Beam?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsar
A pulsar (from pulsating radio source)[1][2] is a highly magnetized rotating neutron star that emits beams of electromagnetic radiation out of its magnetic poles.
Don't you agree that it is electromagnetic radiation beam that is emitted out of its magnetic poles?
If so, why the quasar can't emit similar beam of electromagnetic radiation out of its magnetic Poles?

The quasar beams contain more than just electromagnetic radiation. They also contain charged particles.

Do you really consider that the potential energy of the falling particles could create energy that is equivalent to 3 trillion trillion trillion joules each second?
Lets assume that we could stop the spinning motion of the SMBH, but we would keep its total mass.
You had already confirmed that the SMBH contributes significant energy to the falling particles by its spinning motion.
Therefore, can we agree that without the SMBH' spinning motion, the total energy in the accretion disc + in the jet stream would be significantly low?
So, its not just about the mass, but it is also about its features - which means its spinning motion.
Do you agree that a SMBH that doesn't spin would not contribute the energy that is needed to speed up the particles at the accretion disc to their speed of light?
At the maximum, their kinetic energy would be equivalent to their starting potential energy.
In other words - the energy in the accretion disc would be so low that we might not see it at all.
Therefore, do you agree that a SMBH without spinning motion is just useless.

Ultimately, your model is going to depend on the energy coming from the accretion disk as well. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the black hole does indeed have its own magnetic field generated by its spin. Let's also say that it can interact with the magnetic field generated by the accretion disk, pull particles out of the disk, and launch them into beams. Okay, that's all fine and good. Now, when your magnetic black hole accelerates the material from the accretion disk into beams, it's going to have to transfer energy to the beams. That energy has to come from somewhere. That energy comes from the black hole's spin. This means that your model also predicts that the jets slowly drain energy away from the black hole's spin. That energy has to be replenished. The only thing around to replenish that energy is the accretion disk.

I want you to be very careful about how you reply to this. If you start making claims that "magnetic energy is free" or that the black hole can somehow magically add kinetic energy to the jets without losing kinetic energy in some way, then that would mean that you are arguing that black holes are a form of perpetual motion machine. Since that is material you have discussed in a previously locked thread, then I would be locking this thread as well if you did that. Not only that, but I'd also suspend you for a month because, as many years as you've been on this forum, you really should know better by now than to try to bypass thread locks.

[Bored chemist]

Not only that, but I'd also suspend you for a month

Why only a month?
He's made it clear that he doesn't want to change his ways.

[Kryptid]

Why only a month?
He's made it clear that he doesn't want to change his ways.

It was a recommendation by Halc (if I recall correctly).