[Kryptid]

The generation of a magnetic field, in itself, does not consume energy. If it did, permanent magnets could not exist.

And we have already explained where the extra energy comes from: the other material that gets consumed by the black hole. The energy in the black hole's spin had to come from somewhere. It ultimately comes from a combination of the matter that originally collapsed to form the hole as well as whatever matter is consumed after its formation. Energy is being transferred, not popping up out of nowhere.

[Bored chemist]

Thanks
Now it is clear:

It may well be clear, but I don't think you have understood it.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

And we have already explained where the extra energy comes from: the other material that gets consumed by the black hole. The energy in the black hole's spin had to come from somewhere. It ultimately comes from a combination of the matter that originally collapsed to form the hole as well as whatever matter is consumed after its formation. Energy is being transferred, not popping up out of nowhere.

Thanks
Please advice if at this phase of our discussion we all agree with the following:
1. The potential gravitational energy of the falling particles (from 2 day light) into the accretion disc can't explain the Jet stream that is ejected to hundred thousand light years  away from the quasar BH poles. Therefore, extra energy is needed?
2. The extra energy in coming from the hole's spin?

Two more questions:
3. Can you please specify what is the ratio between the Black hole's spin energy contribution to the potential falling energy?
Is it 1 to 1, 1 to 100, or 100 to 1?

4. would you kindly answer my following question?

how could it be that the ejected protons keep their speed of light velocity as they get further away from the quasar SMBH?

Again - Why the ejected proton keeps its speed of light while it moves further away from the SMBH? Why it isn't slowing down its velocity?
How could it be that it behaves as a rocket with some internal energy and not like a cannon ball that is fired upwards?
You have stated that the magnetic fields just change the direction of the protons in the accretion disc.
If so, do you agree that it should behave like a cannon ball that is fired upwards at the speed of light.
Cannon ball has no extra internal energy. So why it isn't slowing down and stop at the maximal high of its first ejected energy?
I have found the following calculation about cannon ball:
"The cannon ball will rise until its vertical velocity changes from initial value u = +190 km/hr = +52.8 m/s to instantaneous value v = 0, due to constant acceleration a, in the applicable kinematics equation?
v^2 = u^2 +2as ? [1]
s = (v^2 - u^2) / (2a) ?- [2]
In this case, a = -9.81 m/s^2 due to the downward acceleration of gravity, so equation 2 becomes?
s = (0 - 52.8^2) / (2*(-9.81))
s = -2785.5 / -19.62 = 141.97 m
The cannon ball rises 142 m above launch height."
So, assuming that the proton is ejected at the speed of light from the quasar accretion disc, what is the maximal height that it can get before losing its total energy?

If the potential energy of falling proton from 2 light day is transformed to speed of light kinetic energy at the accretion disc, then why when the same proton is fired upwards at  kinetic energy of speed of light it doesn't stop at the same 2 light day above the SMBH?
How the astronomers claim that they know how the jet stream works without setting the above simple calculation?

[Bored chemist]

The potential gravitational energy of the falling particles (from 2 day light) into the accretion disc can't explain the Jet stream that is ejected to hundred thousand light years  away from the quasar BH poles. Therefore, extra energy is needed?

No, for two reasons. The important one is that you have not yet calculated the energy released when a proton falls from 2 light days away.

(The other is that the "additional energy needed" may also be gravitational. The reason BH have lots of energy to do weird stuff is because things have been falling into them for a long time and depositing energy there).

If I want to calculate how much energy is released by an object falling in a gravitational field I need to know two things.
I need to know the gravitational potential energy it has when it starts. (And that's what you  have calculated- repeatedly but pointlessly)

The other thing I need to know is the gravitational potential energy of the object when it stops.

And to calculate that, I need to know how far from the centre of mass the thing is when it stops.

If I drop a rock from the top of Everest I don't know how much energy will be released.
Will it fall a metre to the ground then stop, and dissipate about 10 joules, or will it roll all the way to sea level and dissipate 8800 times as much?

It's the same if you drop a proton into a black hole.
You need to know how far it falls.
Without that, you simply can not calculate the energy released.
And you have never considered it.

So your numbers are all meaningless.
What you have actually calculated is not the energy that you would get from falling 2 light days into a black hole.
You have calculated the energy released by dropping a proton from infinitely far away, but stopping when it is 2 light days away from the BH.

It's almost completely irrelevant.


There are two possible reasons I can see for you ignoring this fact.
The first is that you are simply not clever enough to understand it
The second is that you know it would ruin your hypothesis.

Which is it?

[Kryptid]

(1) I never said that. The energy from the infalling matter may well be enough on its own. What is needed in order for that to work is for more mass to be consumed than ejected.

(2) Yes, but the energy in the black hole's spin comes from a combination of the matter that formed it and the matter it consumes.

(3) I have no idea.

(4) The jets do slow down, but only by a very small amount because they are traveling well beyond escape velocity.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

If the potential energy of falling proton from 2 light day is transformed to speed of light kinetic energy at the accretion disc, then why when the same proton is fired upwards at  kinetic energy of speed of light it doesn't stop at the same 2 light day above the SMBH?

(4) The jets do slow down, but only by a very small amount because they are traveling well beyond escape velocity

Let's set the calculation for the Quasar SMBH escape-velocity

https://letstalkscience.ca/educational-resources/stem-explained/escape-velocity
Scientists have determined that the escape velocity for any large object (such as a planet or star) can be calculated from the following equation:
ve = √(2GM/r)

On earth, the escape velocity is:
ve = 11.2 km/s

With regards to BH:

The escape velocity from the surface (i.e., the event horizon) of a Black Hole is exactly c, the speed of light. Actually the very prediction of the existence of black holes was based on the idea that there could be objects with escape velocity equal to c.
The accretion disc is quite close to the event horizon.
Therefore, we can assume that if a proton is ejected from the quasar SMBH' accretion disc, it should break the escape velocity.
However, based on the following formula:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity
When given an initial speed V greater than the escape speed ve the object will asymptotically approach the hyperbolic excess speed v∞
satisfying the equation:
V∞^2 = V^2 - ve^2

How could it be that at the quasar SMBH:
ve = Almost the speed of light c.
V  = initial speed = Almost the speed of light c.
and even the hyperbolic excess speed v∞ = almost the speed of light c.
Why the hyperbolic excess speed v∞ should be almost zero?

Why the transformation between the potential energy to kinetic energy of a falling proton, is not identical to the transformation of kinetic energy to potential energy of upwards ejected proton?
Based on the understanding that at the accretion disc the ve (escape velocity) = almost the speed of light, then how could it be that the potential gravitational energy of a proton at 2 light day from the quasar SMBH, could be transformed into almost the speed of light at the accretion disc?
Don't you agree that there must be severe mistake in the current understanding for the quasar activity?


If you still disagree, would you kindly set the relevant calculation?

What is needed in order for that to work is for more mass to be consumed than ejected.

If you consider that in order for the current theory to work, the SMBH must consume more mass than the ejected mass, then we must prove it by real observation.
However, the observation proves that the quasar SMBH' is picky eater.
Is there any possibility for a picky eater to eat more mass than the ejected mass?
If that is the case, why it is called "picky eater"?

3. Can you please specify what is the ratio?
Is it 1 to 1, 1 to 100, or 100 to 1?

3) I have no idea.

Sorry.
We all should know that picky eater means that more mass is ejected than it is consumed.
But this understanding contradicts the theory.
Therefore, we bypass this critical observation by "We have no idea".
If we don't have an idea, then how do we know that what we don't know is correct or incorrect?
How can we protect in this science forum something that is fully contradicted by the observation?
Sorry, we all know the meaning of the MW' SMBH picky eater (out of 100 falling particles - only one is consumed).
Therefore, even 1 to one can't be considered as picky eater.
However, if you insist that it is 100 to one, then we should prove it by real observation and set the relevant calculation.

2. The extra energy in coming from the hole's spin?

(2) Yes, but the energy in the black hole's spin comes from a combination of the matter that formed it and the matter it consumes.

Sorry, it is a severe mistake to mix up between the energies.
Even if we believe that all the energies are due to falling particles, it is our obligation to distinguish between the potential gravitational energy of the falling proton as it is converted to its maximal kinetic energy at the accretion disc to the energy that must be contributed by the Quasar SMBH (in order to close the gap of the missing kinetic energy).
So please, would you kindly inform about the ratio between those energies?
If the answer is still - "we don't know" then could it be that we just don't know how the quasar SMBH works?

The energy from the infalling matter may well be enough on its own.

Sorry, "may" isn't good enough to support the current mainstream theory as the best available theory for the quasar.
It is our obligation to fit the theory to the observation or vice versa if you wish.
Technically, anyone can come with a new idea and claim that its idea "may" be good enough.
Don't you agree that we should evaluate the current theory for the quasar as we evaluate any other idea that pop up from time to time.

[Kryptid]

Let's set the calculation for the Quasar SMBH escape-velocity

https://letstalkscience.ca/educational-resources/stem-explained/escape-velocity
Scientists have determined that the escape velocity for any large object (such as a planet or star) can be calculated from the following equation:
ve = √(2GM/r)

On earth, the escape velocity is:
ve = 11.2 km/s

With regards to BH:

The escape velocity from the surface (i.e., the event horizon) of a Black Hole is exactly c, the speed of light. Actually the very prediction of the existence of black holes was based on the idea that there could be objects with escape velocity equal to c.
The accretion disc is quite close to the event horizon.
Therefore, we can assume that if a proton is ejected from the quasar SMBH' accretion disc, it should break the escape velocity.
However, based on the following formula:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity
When given an initial speed V greater than the escape speed ve the object will asymptotically approach the hyperbolic excess speed v∞
satisfying the equation:
V∞^2 = V^2 - ve^2

How could it be that at the quasar SMBH:
ve = Almost the speed of light c.
V  = initial speed = Almost the speed of light c.
and even the hyperbolic excess speed v∞ = almost the speed of light c.
Why the hyperbolic excess speed v∞ should be almost zero?

The protons aren't escaping from the point of the event horizon, so you're using the wrong escape velocity. Escape velocity decreases as your distance from a gravitating body increases.

Why the transformation between the potential energy to kinetic energy of a falling proton, is not identical to the transformation of kinetic energy to potential energy of upwards ejected proton?
Based on the understanding that at the accretion disc the ve (escape velocity) = almost the speed of light, then how could it be that the potential gravitational energy of a proton at 2 light day from the quasar SMBH, could be transformed into almost the speed of light at the accretion disc?

Because the energy isn't coming from just that one particle. This has been explained to you before. Take the energy of many particles and put them into one particle. That's a better analogy for what's happening here.

Don't you agree that there must be severe mistake in the current understanding for the quasar activity?

No, you are just misunderstanding our explanations.

If you still disagree, would you kindly set the relevant calculation?

I already have. Go back and look. I'm tired of answering questions that have already been answered.

However, the observation proves that the quasar SMBH' is picky eater.
Is there any possibility for a picky eater to eat more mass than the ejected mass?
If that is the case, why it is called "picky eater"?

Provide a source that says the quasar ejects more mass than it eats (and make sure you give us the numbers for a quasar, not the Milky Way's black hole. "Picky eater" is semantics without a mathematical definition.

We all should know that picky eater means that more mass is ejected than it is consumed.

Provide a citation to back this up.

Therefore, we bypass this critical observation by "We have no idea".

You are misquoting me. I didn't say "we have no idea". I said "I have no idea". Those two sentences have very different meanings. It's possible that there are scientists out there who know, but I just so happen not to be one of them.

So please, would you kindly inform about the ratio between those energies?
If the answer is still - "we don't know" then could it be that we just don't know how the quasar SMBH works?

Stop misquoting me. Me not knowing isn't the same as nobody knowing.

It is our obligation to fit the theory to the observation or vice versa if you wish.

Yes, and the observation is that quasars beam relativistic jets out of their poles. So the whole quasar system clearly has enough energy to do that. And we know that quasars don't break the laws of physics (they don't make more energy than they consume). So we know that there isn't any "missing energy". It's clearly getting enough power to do what it does and it's doing so within the confines of the matter and energy available to it.

[Bored chemist]

Why the transformation between the potential energy to kinetic energy of a falling proton, is not identical to the transformation of kinetic energy to potential energy of upwards ejected proton?

Why do you think it isn't the same?
you  have done a lot of typing to say "Things can, in principle, bounce as high as they fell from."

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on 08/10/2023 02:54:14
Therefore, we bypass this critical observation by "We have no idea".

You are misquoting me. I didn't say "we have no idea". I said "I have no idea". Those two sentences have very different meanings. It's possible that there are scientists out there who know, but I just so happen not to be one of them.

My intention was not about you specifically, but about the quasar' astrophysicists.
They have no idea how the jet stream really works and they even call it the " universe's biggest mysteries"..
https://www.wbur.org/npr/507594456/some-bizarre-black-holes-put-on-light-shows
"They're actually pretty picky eaters," says Jedidah Isler, an astrophysicist at Vanderbilt University. She spends most days chipping away at one of the universe's biggest mysteries: How do the huge, overactive black holes, known as quasars, work?
As it is stated that the biggest mysteries is " How do the huge, overactive black holes, known as quasars, works" then, why it is so difficult to understand that they "have no idea" how the quasar really works.

Quote from: Dave Lev on 27/09/2023 19:25:00
Why Don't you accept the clear message from the astronomies that are specialized in quasar that there is a problem with the current mainstream theory for the quasar activity?
Let's read it again:

The quote you provided does not say there is a problem with the modern understanding of how quasars work. What it says is that we don't know for sure how they work. It's entirely possible to have a plausible mechanism for how a phenomenon occurs without yet having obtained direct observational evidence for it. Until you get that evidence, what you have is technically a mystery. That is not the same as saying the proposed explanation has a problem.

Mystery means that there is no fit between the OBSERVATION to the current theory.
If there was a fit, then there was no mystery and they would know how the quasar really works.
As they don't know how the quasar works, why are you so sure that you know how it works?

That is not the same as saying the proposed explanation has a problem.

As I have explained, the real meaning of "Biggest Mystery" (and we don't know: " How do the huge, overactive black holes, known as quasars, work) is that there is no fit between the observation to the theory. In other works, there is a problem in the current theory
However, I fully understand why they are using the word "Biggest Mystery" and not "problem".
They have children at home and they must take care about their job.
If they would dare to claim that there is a problem in the theory, they would lose immediately their job.
Therefore, they prefer to claim for biggest mystery and let you understand what ever you wish.

Because the energy isn't coming from just that one particle. This has been explained to you before. Take the energy of many particles and put them into one particle. That's a better analogy for what's happening here.

The missing energy can't come from other falling particles due to the following:
1. Chance for collision: If we drop one million protons into the direction of the BH from a distance of 2 light days they all will gain the same kinetic energy as they fall. As they are also so small, the chance for them to collide with each other is virtually zero.
2. Face to tail collision: Even if some of them would be slower/faster (or at the same velocity) and collide with each other, than the chance for "face to tail" collisions is also zero. Any collision that isn't directly face to tail, would just eject the collided protons to different directions.
3. No Solid surface: The falling protons do not collide with any solid surface (as earth surface). They have only two possibilities - fall into the BH and stay there forever or fall into the accretion disc and orbit there. Therefore, without solid surface to bounce back, there is no way for them to deliver kinetic energy to each other.
Therefore, I hope that you agree by now that idea of increasing falling protons velocity due to face tail collision energy transformation is not realistic.
However, there is no need to increase the velocity of the falling particles as they all would get to the accretion disc at almost the speed of light.
Please see the following calculation which is based on your data:

Do you mean that the gravitational potential energy of a proton at two light-days from the MW' black hole should be:
U = -3.71 x 10-16 joules * 10,000 = -3.71 x 10-12 joules?

Yes, but as Bored Chemist says, that's not the same as the energy you'll get from having the proton fall into the black hole.

Thanks
Now it is clear:
the gravitational potential energy of a proton at two light-days from the MW' black hole should be:
U = -3.71 x 10-16 joules * 10,000 = -3.71 x 10-12 joules
Based on your following explanation, a proton at the 3C 273 quasar would have about 225.7 more potential energy

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

Therefore, the gravitational potential energy of a proton at two light-days from the 3C 273  black hole should be:
U =  -3.71 x 10-12 joules * 225.7 = 8.37 10^10  joules.
That gravitational potential energy is almost identical to the kinetic energy of a proton that orbits at almost the speed of light at the quasar accretion disc (which is 9.087 x 10-10 joules).

Based on your calculation/data, it was found that the gravitational potential energy of a falling from only two light days above the Quasar' SMBH is:
U =  - 225.7 = 8.37 10^10  joules.
That energy is very close to the proton kinetic energy that is moving at the speed of light:
9.087 x 10-10 joules.
The formula for gravitational potential energy is:
U=mgh
U1 =  8.37 10^10  joules.
h1 = 2 light days
U2 = 9.087 x 10-10
h2 = ?
U2/U1 = h2/h1
h2 = h1 * U2/U1 = 2 light days * 9.087 x 10-10 / 8.37 10^10  = 2.17 light days
Therefore, a falling proton from 2.17 light days at the direction of the Quasar SMBH' would gain exactly the speed of light at the SMBH without any need for extra energy.
No need for extra energy from the nearby falling protons, and no need for extra energy from the spinning SMBH!

Why the transformation between the potential energy to kinetic energy of a falling proton, is not identical to the transformation of kinetic energy to potential energy of upwards ejected proton?

Why do you think it isn't the same?
you have done a lot of typing to say "Things can, in principle, bounce as high as they fell from."

As Things can, in principle, bounce as high as they fell from, then by definition, a proton that is ejected from the accretion disc at the speed of light can ONLY get to 2.17 light days above the SMBH and stop there.
So, your hope that a proton that falls from a distance 2 or 3 light days from the SMBH can bounce back several hundred thousand LY away and still maintain its speed of light velocity is a pure imagination.

Provide a source that says the quasar ejects more mass than it eats (and make sure you give us the numbers for a quasar, not the Milky Way's black hole. "Picky eater" is semantics without a mathematical definition.

The meaning of the Milky way Picky eater is very clear.
If you refuse to adopt that meaning also for the quasar, then it is your task to provide a source that would explain what is the meaning of quasar Picky eater?
Please feel free to set any sort of picky eater as you wish.
Unfortunately, you would find that it is useless to support the current theory due to the following:
Proton that falls from 2.17 Light days would already gain speed that is almost at the speed of light near the SMBH.
Hence, there is no possibility or need to increase it above that speed of light.
I also have proved that as there is no solid surface at the SMBH (or near it), and as the chance to 100% face-tail collision is virtually zero, then nothing can bounce back and  there is no way to increase the velocity of Sigle proton by using the kinetic energy of nearby protons.
At the maximum, a collision between two nearby protons would just eject them both out of the accretion disc. While one falls inwards and is consumed by the SMBH, the other one is ejected outwards.

The protons aren't escaping from the point of the event horizon, so you're using the wrong escape velocity. Escape velocity decreases as your distance from a gravitating body increases.

The radius of the event horizon and also the accretion disc is virtually neglected to the 2.17 light days.
If you think that this distance is critical, then, would you kindly set the calculation and show how it can work.
Please add to this calculation the statistical chance for falling protons to collide exactly face to tail as is almost zero.

Therefore, let's use different approach by calculating the requested scape velocity from a quasar accretion disc.
https://byjus.com/escape-velocity-formula/
The formula for escape velocity is:
Vesc^2 = 2 G M(earth) / r
On earth, the velocity is:
Vesc earth =  11,200 m/s.
The expected mass of a quasar is about 10^10 solar mass.
The mass of the Sun is about 333,000 times the earth mass.
the radius of a typical accretion disc is 10^10 cm = 10^8 m.
https://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/ryden.1/ast825/ch9.pdf
Some more-or-less typical values for accretion disks, at a radius R ∼ 10^10 cm.
the radius of the earth surface is 6,731 Km = 6.731 10^6 m..

therefore,
Vesc(quasar) ^ 2 = 2 G M(quasar) / R(quasar)
Vesc(earth)^2 = 2 G M(earth) / R(earth)
Vesc(quasar) ^ 2 / Vesc(earth) ^ 2 = M(quasar) / (M(earth) * R(earth) / R(quasar)
Vesc(quasar) ^ 2  = Vesc(earth) ^ 2 * M(quasar) /M(earth) * R(earth) / R(quasar)
Vesc(quasar) ^ 2 =  Vesc(earth) ^2 * 10^10 * 330 * 6.731 * 10^6 / 10^8 = Vesc(earth) ^2 * 2,221 10^8 = Vesc(earth) ^2 * (47 10^4)^2
Vesc(quasar) = 11,200 m/s * 47 10^4 = 526,400 * 10^4 m/s = 5,264,000,000 m/s
However, the speed of light is only = 299,792,458 m/s
Therefore, the escape velocity from quasar accretion disc should be
5,264,000,000 / 299,792,458 = 17.55 speed of light.
Therefore, if a proton is ejected from the quasar accretion disc at the speed of light, it clearly can't break the escape velocity and should fall back inwards.

The generation of a magnetic field, in itself, does not consume energy. If it did, permanent magnets could not exist.

This is incorrect.
How can we compare the rotation of particles in the accretion disc to a permanent magnets.
The magnets is there due to the spin motion of particles. In this motion creates the magnetic dynamo.
Once we stop the motion of the particles / dynamo then by definition we stop the magnet
Please also be aware that this magnet must set real force on the orbital particles. It should change their motion and boost them upwards.
This activity of changing motion must come with some energy lost.
Therefore, in order to create this magnet and force the particles to change their motion, some sort of energy must be consumed/lost by the magnet.


 

And we have already explained where the extra energy comes from: the other material that gets consumed by the black hole. The energy in the black hole's spin had to come from somewhere.

I fully agree with you that the extra/missing energy must come from the BH and therefore, it must "come from somewhere".

It ultimately comes from a combination of the matter that originally collapsed to form the hole as well as whatever matter is consumed after its formation. Energy is being transferred, not popping up out of nowhere.

I also fully agree that this energy isn't "not popping up out of nowhere".
However, I just ask you to distinguish between the Potential/kinetic energy of a falling proton, to the energy that is contributed by the SMBH.
Why do you insist to mix them up.
Why we can't focus on each kind of energy (Potential gravitational energy of a falling particle V.S SMBH spinning/magnetic energy/force) and evaluate the impact of each energy on the motion of the particles in the accretion disc and in the jet stream?.
Just after this understanding, we can move on and verify how the SMBH really gets its spinning force.

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.

In the following article it is stated that " rotating supermassive black holes will twist ambient magnetic fields into a tight helix, and that this twisting will create a voltage that draws energy up and out of the hole and along the helix":
https://www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-identify-the-engine-powering-black-hole-energy-beams-20210520/
Roger Blandford and Roman Znajek, young physicists at the University of Cambridge in 1977, argued that rotating supermassive black holes will twist ambient magnetic fields into a tight helix, and that this twisting will create a voltage that draws energy up and out of the hole and along the helix. This, they claimed, is the jet ? and a big asterisk on the naive notion that nothing escapes black holes."
Therefore, we should understand that the magnetic fields speed up electrically-charged particles into that tight helix. Hence, it isn't just one single activity as changing the particle direction at the accretion disc.
I have already proved that a proton that is ejected at the speed of light from the accretion disc, would get to maximal height of 2.17 light day and stop there.
The tight magnetic' helix would keep the speed of light velocity for the electrically-charged particles as they move upwards from the SMBH and against its mighty gravitational force.
Therefore, those particles won't slow down. Due to the tight magnetic' helix, the protons would be ejected from the SMBH magnetic poles at almost the speed of light and keep their velocity up to hundred thousands LY away.
In the article they clearly discuss about the magnetic force of the rotating SMBH - "that rotating supermassive black holes will twist ambient magnetic fields into a tight helix", and they are absolutely correct.
This kind of tight magnetic' helix can't be created just by the thin accretion disc.

Only a rotating SMBH can generate enough magnetic force that is needed to carry the electrically-charged particles
In that tight magnetic' helix to break the escape velocity and maintain their speed of light up to hundred thousand LY away.

If you still refuse to accept this real science, and prefer to keep yourself in the mystery of the current theory, then it is your choice.

[Bored chemist]

Mystery means that there is no fit between the OBSERVATION to the current theory.
If there was a fit, then there was no mystery and they would know how the quasar really works.

Do you use these bizarre absolutes in your day-to-day life?

Or do you realise that there's such a thing as a partial fit between the model and the observation.
Similarly, do you realise that we can have a partial understanding of quasars?
Because, if you do you will see that this

As it is stated that the biggest mysteries is " How do the huge, overactive black holes, known as quasars, works" then, why it is so difficult to understand that they "have no idea" how the quasar really works.

is nonsense.
Of course we have ideas.

The radius of the event horizon and also the accretion disc is virtually neglected to the 2.17 light days.

If we were talking about something proportional to the radius you would have a point.
But we are talking about something that varies as the reciprocal of the radius.

One definition of the event horizon is that it's the distance where the escape velocity is the speed of light.
In relativistic physics that would mean the energy at that point is infinite.

You are trying to say that we can ignore infinite energy.

You could avoid the embarrassment of saying things like that by learning some science.

Why don't you?

[Bored chemist]

If you still refuse to accept this real science,

Ignoring infinities is not real science, is it?
So why did you say that?

[Kryptid]

My intention was not about you specifically, but about the quasar' astrophysicists.
They have no idea how the jet stream really works and they even call it the " universe's biggest mysteries"..
https://www.wbur.org/npr/507594456/some-bizarre-black-holes-put-on-light-shows
"They're actually pretty picky eaters," says Jedidah Isler, an astrophysicist at Vanderbilt University. She spends most days chipping away at one of the universe's biggest mysteries: How do the huge, overactive black holes, known as quasars, work?
As it is stated that the biggest mysteries is " How do the huge, overactive black holes, known as quasars, works" then, why it is so difficult to understand that they "have no idea" how the quasar really works.

Because, as Bored Chemist said, it's possible to have a partial understanding of a phenomenon. Alternatively, it's also possible to have a fully plausible explanation for a phenomenon without having tested it yet. In neither of those scenarios is it sensible to say that they "have no idea" how it works.

Mystery means that there is no fit between the OBSERVATION to the current theory.
If there was a fit, then there was no mystery and they would know how the quasar really works.
As they don't know how the quasar works, why are you so sure that you know how it works?

That's not at all what that means. It's possible to have a mystery while at the same time having a plausible explanation for it. If an airplane disappears over the ocean, we can plausibly propose that it crashed and was lost at sea. However, we won't know that for sure until we find the remains of the airplane. Therefore, we have both a mystery and a plausible explanation for it.

They have children at home and they must take care about their job.
If they would dare to claim that there is a problem in the theory, they would lose immediately their job.

Please don't inject a conspiracy theory into this discussion unless you've got some good evidence to back it up with.

1. Chance for collision: If we drop one million protons into the direction of the BH from a distance of 2 light days they all will gain the same kinetic energy as they fall. As they are also so small, the chance for them to collide with each other is virtually zero.

You are aware that the number of protons in an accretion disk is many, many, many orders of magnitude above 1 million, aren't you?

As Things can, in principle, bounce as high as they fell from, then by definition, a proton that is ejected from the accretion disc at the speed of light can ONLY get to 2.17 light days above the SMBH and stop there.
So, your hope that a proton that falls from a distance 2 or 3 light days from the SMBH can bounce back several hundred thousand LY away and still maintain its speed of light velocity is a pure imagination.

First of all, the proton isn't moving at the speed of light, it is moving near the speed of light. If it was moving at the speed of light, it would have infinite kinetic energy. Secondly, just because the accretion disk is at 2 light-days from the black hole doesn't mean that a proton in the accretion disk started there. It would have fallen into the accretion disk from outside of it. As such, assuming that the proton starts at zero energy at the outer edge of the accretion disk and only gains energy once it starts falling from that point is inaccurate.

If you refuse to adopt that meaning also for the quasar, then it is your task to provide a source that would explain what is the meaning of quasar Picky eater?

"Picky eater" simply means that it doesn't eat everything.

Proton that falls from 2.17 Light days would already gain speed that is almost at the speed of light near the SMBH.
Hence, there is no possibility or need to increase it above that speed of light.

Since no proton can reach the speed of light, there is always room to go faster.

At the maximum, a collision between two nearby protons would just eject them both out of the accretion disc. While one falls inwards and is consumed by the SMBH, the other one is ejected outwards.

That's sort of like the Penrose process, which is one method by which energy can be extracted from a spinning black hole: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_process

The radius of the event horizon and also the accretion disc is virtually neglected to the 2.17 light days.
If you think that this distance is critical, then, would you kindly set the calculation and show how it can work.

The difference is important. The escape velocity right at the event horizon is the speed of light, thus requiring infinite energy to escape. Any distance outside of the horizon has an escape velocity below the speed of the light and thus only requires finite energy.

Therefore, the escape velocity from quasar accretion disc should be
5,264,000,000 / 299,792,458 = 17.55 speed of light.

You've got a big problem here: you're measuring the escape velocity from inside the black hole. A black hole with a mass of 10¹⁰ solar masses has a Schwarzschild radius of about 2.95 x 10¹³ meters: https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/schwarzschild-radius So you can't have an accretion disk at 10⁸ meters from that particular black hole.

This is incorrect.
How can we compare the rotation of particles in the accretion disc to a permanent magnets.
The magnets is there due to the spin motion of particles. In this motion creates the magnetic dynamo.

It's fundamentally the same phenomenon. The movement of electrically-charged particles creates the magnetic field in both scenarios. In the case of permanent magnets, it comes from the aligned motions of the electrons of the atoms of the magnet. In the case of the accretion disk, it comes from the motion of the ions and electrons of the plasma. The creation of a magnetic field itself does not drain energy. The magnetic field is a side effect of that motion. Energy is lost from the accretion disk due to other factors such as radiation, not due to the creation of a magnetic field.

If you disagree, then provide a link from a reputable source which states that the mere creation of a magnetic field consumes energy.

Please also be aware that this magnet must set real force on the orbital particles. It should change their motion and boost them upwards.
This activity of changing motion must come with some energy lost.
Therefore, in order to create this magnet and force the particles to change their motion, some sort of energy must be consumed/lost by the magnet.

No, magnets do not do work on charged particles. Changing the direction of the particles requires force, not energy. The speed of the particles is not changed by the magnetic field and therefore their kinetic energy is not changed either.

However, I just ask you to distinguish between the Potential/kinetic energy of a falling proton, to the energy that is contributed by the SMBH.
Why do you insist to mix them up.

Because they both contribute to the total energy of the system. The fact that the black hole consumes some of the falling matter means that the energy possessed by the black hole comes in part from that same matter.

I have already proved that a proton that is ejected at the speed of light from the accretion disc, would get to maximal height of 2.17 light day and stop there.

No, no you have not.

Roger Blandford and Roman Znajek, young physicists at the University of Cambridge in 1977, argued that rotating supermassive black holes will twist ambient magnetic fields into a tight helix, and that this twisting will create a voltage that draws energy up and out of the hole and along the helix. This, they claimed, is the jet ? and a big asterisk on the naive notion that nothing escapes black holes."

Take note how they say "ambient" magnetic fields (i.e. the magnetic fields in the black hole's environment.) That would include the magnetic field created by the accretion disk.

Only a rotating SMBH can generate enough magnetic force that is needed to carry the electrically-charged particles
In that tight magnetic' helix to break the escape velocity and maintain their speed of light up to hundred thousand LY away.

Except not. Your link does not say any such thing. The baseline assumption in modern physics is that black holes do not have magnetic fields, so this article you have linked to must be referring to the black hole twisting the magnetic field generated by the accretion disk.

[Bored chemist]

However, I fully understand why they are using the word "Biggest Mystery" and not "problem".
They have children at home and they must take care about their job.

You do know that scientists get paid to solve problems, don't you?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

It's fundamentally the same phenomenon. The movement of electrically-charged particles creates the magnetic field in both scenarios. In the case of permanent magnets, it comes from the aligned motions of the electrons of the atoms of the magnet. In the case of the accretion disk, it comes from the motion of the ions and electrons of the plasma. The creation of a magnetic field itself does not drain energy. The magnetic field is a side effect of that motion. Energy is lost from the accretion disk due to other factors such as radiation, not due to the creation of a magnetic field.
If you disagree, then provide a link from a reputable source which states that the mere creation of a magnetic field consumes energy.

It is more complicate than just to consume energy.

1. Can Gravity by itself explain the jet stream?
The answer is NO!!!
There is a need for magnetic fields.
https://blogs.nasa.gov/sofia/2022/11/10/magnetic-fields-help-black-holes-reach-deeper-into-galaxies/
While astronomers typically consider gravity as the only force influencing supermassive black holes, this work shows that magnetic fields can aid in bridging the interface between black holes and matter in their host galaxy.

2. How the black holes can impact the matter in the accretion disc and in the jet?
"With the help of these magnetic fields, black holes can impact not only the matter immediately around them, but can also work at even larger distances within the galaxy."
https://blogs.nasa.gov/sofia/2022/11/10/magnetic-fields-help-black-holes-reach-deeper-into-galaxies/
"With the help of these magnetic fields, black holes can impact not only the matter immediately around them, but can also work at even larger distances within the galaxy".
3. Is there a need for strong magnetic fields
YES!
Strong magnetic fields is needed to explain what is seen at the event horizon & how jets larger than the galaxy itself can be launched from its central region,
https://theconversation.com/weve-imaged-a-black-holes-magnetic-field-for-the-first-time-heres-what-it-reveals-157918
"Astronomers still do not know exactly how jets larger than the galaxy itself can be launched from its central region, nor how exactly matter falls into the black hole. We now find that only theoretical models featuring strongly magnetized matter can explain what is seen at the event horizon."
5. How the magnetic fields affect the jet stream?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/magnetic-field-around-a-black-hole-mapped-for-the-first-time/
The astrophysicists have been able to measure magnetic fields within the jets, but this is the first time they?ve been able to peer directly at the field at the base of the jets."
For me, this is the highlight of our discussion.
The strong magnetic field / wave carry with it the charged electrical particle as it moves upwards in the direction of the poles at almost the speed of light.
Therefore, the task of the magnetic fields isn't just to redirect upwards the charged particles.
In other words, the magnetic fields boost the particles as they were placed in a rocket that moves at the speed of light against the mighty SMBH' gravity force. Therefore, the jet stream doesn't slow down by that gravity force.
6. How the magnetic fields is created?
The accretion disc is magnetize because the space itself is magnetized.
https://www.mpg.de/16630569/magnetic-fields-black-hole-m87
"Light becomes polarized when it goes through certain filters, like the lenses of polarized sunglasses, or when it is emitted in hot regions of space that are magnetized".
That magnetized space has a severe impact on the matter in that space and therefore the accretion disc is created.
Hence, the accretion disc is affected by that space of magnetized that is created by the SMBH and not vice versa.
Please also be aware that in order for the magnetic fields to boost the charged particles to several hundred thousand of LY it must be very strong. A thin accretion disc can't supply enough magnetic fields to do this kind of job. Only the SMBH' Electromagnetic fields can do it.
7. Can BH creates Electromagnetic fields?
The answer is clearly - YES!
https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.04737
"In this paper, we have constrained a broad class of ?hairy? BH models capable of emitting a fraction of their mass as EM radiation. Since this radiation is sourced directly from the BH, it must tunnel out of the BH?s gravitational well in the same manner as Hawking radiation."
8. How the particles at the accretion disc could become electrical charged particles?
If we assuming that the SMBH can't generate any EM, then all the falling particles (which have started their way as normal particles, won't be transformed/converted into electrical charged particles.
Therefore, the SMBH' Electromagnetic fields is needed to transform normal particles into electrical charged particles.

Quote from: Dave Lev on 14/10/2023 17:19:27
I have already proved that a proton that is ejected at the speed of light from the accretion disc, would get to maximal height of 2.17 light day and stop there.

No, no you have not.

Yes I did

Based on your calculation/data, it was found that the gravitational potential energy of a falling from only two light days above the Quasar' SMBH is:
U =  - 225.7 = 8.37 10^10  joules.
That energy is very close to the proton kinetic energy that is moving at the speed of light:
9.087 x 10-10 joules.
The formula for gravitational potential energy is:
U=mgh
U1 =  8.37 10^10  joules.
h1 = 2 light days
U2 = 9.087 x 10-10
h2 = ?
U2/U1 = h2/h1
h2 = h1 * U2/U1 = 2 light days * 9.087 x 10-10 / 8.37 10^10  = 2.17 light days
Therefore, a falling proton from 2.17 light days at the direction of the Quasar SMBH' would gain exactly the speed of light at the SMBH without any need for extra energy.

I have proved that a proton falling from 2.17 light days, would almost gain a speed of light near the quasar SMBH.
Therefore, If you just fire it back (as a cannon ball) at the speed of light, then it should stop at 2.17 Light days.

Conclusions:
If we shut down the SMBH' electromagnetic fields we would immediately shut down the unique polarized structure of the accretion disc and the jet stream activity.
Hence, if we would try to fire the particle upwards as a cann ball at the speed of light it won't work!
There is a need to use some sort of rocket that could carry the charged particles upwards - against the SMBH' mighty gravity force, at almost the speed of light.
The SMBH' EM fields is the only natural force that can fulfil this rocket task activity while it moves upwards at almost the speed of light in the direction of the SMBH' poles and carry with it the charged particles and against the SMBH' gravity force.

[Kryptid]

1. Can Gravity by itself explain the jet stream?
The answer is NO!!!

I never said that gravity alone could do it.

3. Is there a need for strong magnetic fields
YES!

I agree. Magnetic fields are generated by the accretion disk.

The accretion disc is magnetize because the space itself is magnetized.

Empty space can't be magnetized. Take note how your source says "hot regions of space", so it is talking about the accretion disk itself being the source of the magnetic field. The accretion disk is a circulating plasma, so it will generate a magnetic field.

A thin accretion disc can't supply enough magnetic fields to do this kind of job.

Demonstrate that your claim is true. I'll give you three tries.

7. Can BH creates Electromagnetic fields?
The answer is clearly - YES!

Did you notice how your source says "hairy" black hole models? The modern consensus is that black holes have no hair. We would need evidence to show that they do have hair.

8. How the particles at the accretion disc could become electrical charged particles?
If we assuming that the SMBH can't generate any EM, then all the falling particles (which have started their way as normal particles, won't be transformed/converted into electrical charged particles.

Are you serious? Plasma is made of electrically-charged particles. They become that way due to the extreme temperatures there.

I have proved that a proton falling from 2.17 light days, would almost gain a speed of light near the quasar SMBH.
Therefore, If you just fire it back (as a cannon ball) at the speed of light, then it should stop at 2.17 Light days.

You don't even understand what you've calculated. Do you really not understand that an object travelling above a body's escape velocity doesn't stop?

[Bored chemist]

It's fundamentally the same phenomenon. The movement of electrically-charged particles creates the magnetic field in both scenarios. In the case of permanent magnets, it comes from the aligned motions of the electrons of the atoms of the magnet. In the case of the accretion disk, it comes from the motion of the ions and electrons of the plasma. The creation of a magnetic field itself does not drain energy. The magnetic field is a side effect of that motion. Energy is lost from the accretion disk due to other factors such as radiation, not due to the creation of a magnetic field.
If you disagree, then provide a link from a reputable source which states that the mere creation of a magnetic field consumes energy.

It is more complicate than just to consume energy.

1. Can Gravity by itself explain the jet stream?
The answer is NO!!!
There is a need for magnetic fields.
https://blogs.nasa.gov/sofia/2022/11/10/magnetic-fields-help-black-holes-reach-deeper-into-galaxies/
While astronomers typically consider gravity as the only force influencing supermassive black holes, this work shows that magnetic fields can aid in bridging the interface between black holes and matter in their host galaxy.

2. How the black holes can impact the matter in the accretion disc and in the jet?
"With the help of these magnetic fields, black holes can impact not only the matter immediately around them, but can also work at even larger distances within the galaxy."
https://blogs.nasa.gov/sofia/2022/11/10/magnetic-fields-help-black-holes-reach-deeper-into-galaxies/
"With the help of these magnetic fields, black holes can impact not only the matter immediately around them, but can also work at even larger distances within the galaxy".
3. Is there a need for strong magnetic fields
YES!
Strong magnetic fields is needed to explain what is seen at the event horizon & how jets larger than the galaxy itself can be launched from its central region,
https://theconversation.com/weve-imaged-a-black-holes-magnetic-field-for-the-first-time-heres-what-it-reveals-157918
"Astronomers still do not know exactly how jets larger than the galaxy itself can be launched from its central region, nor how exactly matter falls into the black hole. We now find that only theoretical models featuring strongly magnetized matter can explain what is seen at the event horizon."
5. How the magnetic fields affect the jet stream?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/magnetic-field-around-a-black-hole-mapped-for-the-first-time/
The astrophysicists have been able to measure magnetic fields within the jets, but this is the first time they?ve been able to peer directly at the field at the base of the jets."
For me, this is the highlight of our discussion.
The strong magnetic field / wave carry with it the charged electrical particle as it moves upwards in the direction of the poles at almost the speed of light.
Therefore, the task of the magnetic fields isn't just to redirect upwards the charged particles.
In other words, the magnetic fields boost the particles as they were placed in a rocket that moves at the speed of light against the mighty SMBH' gravity force. Therefore, the jet stream doesn't slow down by that gravity force.
6. How the magnetic fields is created?
The accretion disc is magnetize because the space itself is magnetized.
https://www.mpg.de/16630569/magnetic-fields-black-hole-m87
"Light becomes polarized when it goes through certain filters, like the lenses of polarized sunglasses, or when it is emitted in hot regions of space that are magnetized".
That magnetized space has a severe impact on the matter in that space and therefore the accretion disc is created.
Hence, the accretion disc is affected by that space of magnetized that is created by the SMBH and not vice versa.
Please also be aware that in order for the magnetic fields to boost the charged particles to several hundred thousand of LY it must be very strong. A thin accretion disc can't supply enough magnetic fields to do this kind of job. Only the SMBH' Electromagnetic fields can do it.
7. Can BH creates Electromagnetic fields?
The answer is clearly - YES!
https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.04737
"In this paper, we have constrained a broad class of ?hairy? BH models capable of emitting a fraction of their mass as EM radiation. Since this radiation is sourced directly from the BH, it must tunnel out of the BH?s gravitational well in the same manner as Hawking radiation."
8. How the particles at the accretion disc could become electrical charged particles?
If we assuming that the SMBH can't generate any EM, then all the falling particles (which have started their way as normal particles, won't be transformed/converted into electrical charged particles.
Therefore, the SMBH' Electromagnetic fields is needed to transform normal particles into electrical charged particles.

Quote from: Dave Lev on 14/10/2023 17:19:27
I have already proved that a proton that is ejected at the speed of light from the accretion disc, would get to maximal height of 2.17 light day and stop there.

No, no you have not.

Yes I did

Based on your calculation/data, it was found that the gravitational potential energy of a falling from only two light days above the Quasar' SMBH is:
U =  - 225.7 = 8.37 10^10  joules.
That energy is very close to the proton kinetic energy that is moving at the speed of light:
9.087 x 10-10 joules.
The formula for gravitational potential energy is:
U=mgh
U1 =  8.37 10^10  joules.
h1 = 2 light days
U2 = 9.087 x 10-10
h2 = ?
U2/U1 = h2/h1
h2 = h1 * U2/U1 = 2 light days * 9.087 x 10-10 / 8.37 10^10  = 2.17 light days
Therefore, a falling proton from 2.17 light days at the direction of the Quasar SMBH' would gain exactly the speed of light at the SMBH without any need for extra energy.

I have proved that a proton falling from 2.17 light days, would almost gain a speed of light near the quasar SMBH.
Therefore, If you just fire it back (as a cannon ball) at the speed of light, then it should stop at 2.17 Light days.

Conclusions:
If we shut down the SMBH' electromagnetic fields we would immediately shut down the unique polarized structure of the accretion disc and the jet stream activity.
Hence, if we would try to fire the particle upwards as a cann ball at the speed of light it won't work!
There is a need to use some sort of rocket that could carry the charged particles upwards - against the SMBH' mighty gravity force, at almost the speed of light.
The SMBH' EM fields is the only natural force that can fulfil this rocket task activity while it moves upwards at almost the speed of light in the direction of the SMBH' poles and carry with it the charged particles and against the SMBH' gravity force.

You seem to have missed a bit.

Mystery means that there is no fit between the OBSERVATION to the current theory.
If there was a fit, then there was no mystery and they would know how the quasar really works.

Do you use these bizarre absolutes in your day-to-day life?

Or do you realise that there's such a thing as a partial fit between the model and the observation.
Similarly, do you realise that we can have a partial understanding of quasars?
Because, if you do you will see that this

As it is stated that the biggest mysteries is " How do the huge, overactive black holes, known as quasars, works" then, why it is so difficult to understand that they "have no idea" how the quasar really works.

is nonsense.
Of course we have ideas.

The radius of the event horizon and also the accretion disc is virtually neglected to the 2.17 light days.

If we were talking about something proportional to the radius you would have a point.
But we are talking about something that varies as the reciprocal of the radius.

One definition of the event horizon is that it's the distance where the escape velocity is the speed of light.
In relativistic physics that would mean the energy at that point is infinite.

You are trying to say that we can ignore infinite energy.

You could avoid the embarrassment of saying things like that by learning some science.

Why don't you?

[Bored chemist]

If you still refuse to accept this real science,

Ignoring infinities is not real science, is it?
So why did you say that?

However, I fully understand why they are using the word "Biggest Mystery" and not "problem".
They have children at home and they must take care about their job.

You do know that scientists get paid to solve problems, don't you?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 16:54:36
1. Can Gravity by itself explain the jet stream?
The answer is NO!!!

I never said that gravity alone could do it.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 16:54:36
3. Is there a need for strong magnetic fields
YES!

I agree.

Thanks for your confirmation.

Plasma is made of electrically-charged particles. They become that way due to the extreme temperatures there.

How do you think the particles get their extreme temperature?
Do you think that if you move particles at the speed of light in the open space, then they would get a temp of 10^9c and above?
Sorry, the extreme temperature is due to the SMBH' EM.
Shut down the SMBH' EM and the falling particles could still move at the speed of light, but they would be cold as ice.

Magnetic fields are generated by the accretion disk.

No.
It is almost impossible to get strong magnetic fields from the accretion disc modeling:
https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2021/08/aa38680-20/aa38680-20.html
While the magnetic field grows, the turbulence becomes more intensive because of the magnetorotational instability, and it leads to saturation of the growth.
It is necessary to obtain the field, which is expected to be less than the equipartition value, and without destroying the disk.
Therefore, all the activities at the accretion disc which includes polarization, charged particles, extreme temperature and high pressure is due to that strong SMBH' EM force.
Hence, the accretion disc doesn't create magnetic fields but it is affected by the SMBH' EM force.

You don't even understand what you've calculated. Do you really not understand that an object travelling above a body's escape velocity doesn't stop?

You can't hold the stick at both sides.
Please take a decision.
1. Your calculation is correct:
If your data/calculation is correct, then a particle which falls from 2.17 light days would get to the SMBH at almost the speed of light.
Therefore, by definition, if that particle would bounce back it should stop at 2.17 day light.
2. The understanding that an object travelling above a body's escape velocity won't stop at any height above the SMBH.
If that is correct, then at any height that we drop a particle, as it gets close the event horizon/ accretion disc it must be less than the speed of light. therefore, your data/calculation which I have used in 1. is incorrect.
Therefore, a significant kinetic energy is missing to a particle that falls from 2 or 3 light days in order to move at almost the speed of light as it get to the accretion disc.
So, which one is correct/incorrect?

Did you notice how your source says "hairy" black hole models? The modern consensus is that black holes have no hair. We would need evidence to show that they do have hair.

How do we know if the BH is "hairy" or not? Can we backup our assumption by any real observation? Can we physically get under the event horizon of a BH/SMBH to verify the "hairy" issue?
So, could it be that our hypothetical theory about the "hairy" or not "hairy" BH is just incorrect?

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 16:54:36
A thin accretion disc can't supply enough magnetic fields to do this kind of job.

Demonstrate that your claim is true. I'll give you three tries.

I hope that the following one is enough:
https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2021/08/aa38680-20/aa38680-20.html
While the magnetic field grows, the turbulence becomes more intensive because of the magnetorotational instability, and it leads to saturation of the growth.

Empty space can't be magnetized. Take note how your source says "hot regions of space", so it is talking about the accretion disk itself being the source of the magnetic field. The accretion disk is a circulating plasma, so it will generate a magnetic field.

The SMBH' EM works also in empty space.
It is stated: "hot regions of space that are magnetized".
The hot region is due to the matter in that space which is exposed to the SMBH' EM.
You might think that due to the hot regions of space we get the magnetize, while I think that due to the SMBH' EM we get the hot region in space.
So how do you know for sure that your understanding is correct while my understanding is incorrect?

[Kryptid]

How do you think the particles get their extreme temperature?
Do you think that if you move particles at the speed of light in the open space, then they would get a temp of 10^9c and above?
Sorry, the extreme temperature is due to the SMBH' EM.
Shut down the SMBH' EM and the falling particles could still move at the speed of light, but they would be cold as ice.

You're joking, right? The Sun is made out of plasma despite there not being a supermassive black hole at its center. Gases get hotter when they are compressed. Get them hot enough and they become plasma. No electromagnetic fields needed.

However, I am going to ask you to supply a reputable source to back up your claim that if you "shut down the SMBH' EM and the falling particles could still move at the speed of light, but they would be cold as ice." Again, I'll give you three chances. After three strikes, the thread is locked.

Hence, the accretion disc doesn't create magnetic fields but it is affected by the SMBH' EM force.

Did you even read one of very first sentences in that paper you linked? It says, "The magnetic fields of accretion disks play an important role in studying their evolution." That directly contradicts your claim that accretion disks don't have magnetic fields. How closely are you paying attention to your own posts?

You can't hold the stick at both sides.
Please take a decision.
1. Your calculation is correct:
If your data/calculation is correct, then a particle which falls from 2.17 light days would get to the SMBH at almost the speed of light.
Therefore, by definition, if that particle would bounce back it should stop at 2.17 day light.

I didn't do that particular calculation: you did. And you did it wrong. You made the mistake of assuming there being a linear relationship between a particle's energy and how far it can move away from the black hole. That isn't true. A proton with a kinetic energy of 9.087 x 10^-10 joules has 1.086 times as much energy as a proton with a kinetic energy of 8.37 x 10^-10 joules. That much is correct. But that does not mean that it will travel 1.086 times further from the black hole before stopping (2.17 light-days). That is where you made your error.

You know, I'm pretty sure that an electrical engineer would need to take math classes before they can graduate. Algebra is one of the most fundamental and easiest forms of math. So surely you had to understand algebra in order to get your degree? I'm therefore hoping my explanation is ringing a bell.

There's also another problem with your understanding of the equation's results. The value of gravitational potential energy calculated by the equation isn't how much energy the proton gets when it falls from two light-days into the black hole. Rather, it's the energy the particle would get from falling from an infinite distance away from the black hole down to 2 light-days away from the hole. The inverse scenario is that is energy required to raise the particle up against the black hole's gravitational pull from two light-days out to infinity. This is also equal to the kinetic energy a proton would need to have in order to attain escape velocity if it started at 2 light-days from the hole.

Since infinite distances aren't encountered practically, the real life meaning of this is that a proton with that level of kinetic energy (8.37 x 10^-10 joules) which starts at 2 light-days from the black hole can continue to move away from the hole indefinitely without ever slowing its speed to zero. Any proton that has less than that amount of energy would eventually stop, whereas any proton with more than that amount of energy will also continue forever.

2. The understanding that an object travelling above a body's escape velocity won't stop at any height above the SMBH.
If that is correct

It is correct. There's no debating that. That is the very definition of what escape velocity is.

If that is correct, then at any height that we drop a particle, as it gets close the event horizon/ accretion disc it must be less than the speed of light.

Exactly. You can't accelerate a proton to the speed of light. I never said that you could. I have said the opposite, actually.

therefore, your data/calculation which I have used in 1. is incorrect.

My calculations do not involve protons moving at the speed of light.

Therefore, a significant kinetic energy is missing to a particle that falls from 2 or 3 light days in order to move at almost the speed of light as it get to the accretion disc.

Please be consistent. Are we talking about the speed of light or almost the speed of light? The distinction is very important. A proton moving at light speed requires infinite energy, whereas moving at almost the speed of light require limited energy. And I've already told you that the energy either comes from the black hole's spin, other particles in the accretion disk or (more likely) some combination of the two).

How do we know if the BH is "hairy" or not? Can we backup our assumption by any real observation?

Yes, general relativity. General relativity predicts that black holes are hairless. There is immense observational support for general relativity. As such, the current state of evidence points to hairless black holes.

Can we physically get under the event horizon of a BH/SMBH to verify the "hairy" issue?

We don't have to. In principle, you could measure the "hair" from the exterior of a black hole. Maybe some day we will do that. So far, however, we have no evidence for hair and as such there is no reason to assume that it is there.

I hope that the following one is enough:
https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2021/08/aa38680-20/aa38680-20.html
While the magnetic field grows, the turbulence becomes more intensive because of the magnetorotational instability, and it leads to saturation of the growth.

Please quote the exact line from the article which states that accretion disk magnetic fields are incapable of explaining the jets. I'm not hunting through all of that text for something which may not even be there.

The SMBH' EM works also in empty space.

If, and only if, the black hole has a magnetic field to begin with.

The hot region is due to the matter in that space which is exposed to the SMBH' EM.

Another claim, another source needed. Again, three chances to give us a reputable source that says the hot region is caused specifically by electromagnetism from the black hole itself. Three strikes and it's a thread lock.

You might think that due to the hot regions of space we get the magnetize, while I think that due to the SMBH' EM we get the hot region in space.
So how do you know for sure that your understanding is correct while my understanding is incorrect?

We know from basic physics that the accretion disk will generate a magnetic field because it is a circulating, electrically-conducting fluid. Whether or not a black hole has a magnetic field is debatable but the current evidence says no. That means the former is more likely than the latter.

[Bored chemist]

Dave.
Are you still  ignoring infinities and pretending it is science?