[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 20:11:59
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.

Dear Kryptid
The science community has the privilege to claim any sort of statement and then change it completely without any punishment
However, they can't just hold the stick at both sides and play with science laws/understanding according to their temporary wish.
If General relativity predicts that black holes are hairless. then by definition no EM could be created by the BH.
If we find even one BH that creates EM, then the science community can't hold the understanding that black holes are hairless any more.
In the following article it is stated:
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-60708711
Scientists claim hairy black holes explain Hawking paradox"
New research claims to have resolved the paradox by showing that black holes have a property which they call "quantum hair".
At the heart of the paradox is a problem which has threatened to undermine two of physics most important theories. Einstein's general theory of relativity says information about what goes into a black hole cannot come out, but quantum mechanics says that is impossible.
Prof Calmet's "yes hair theorem", published in the journal Physical Review Letters is revolutionary. It claims to resolve the Hawking paradox which has deeply troubled physicists ever since Prof Hawking came up with it in the 1970s.

The paradox raised the possibility that either quantum mechanics or general relativity might be flawed, which is a terrifying prospect for theoretical physicists because they are the twin pillars on which most of our understanding of the Universe rests.
The "yes hair theorem" claims to resolve the paradox by bridging the gap between general relativity and quantum mechanics. The notion of quantum hair allows information about what goes into a black hole to come out again without violating any of the important principles of either theory. It is a simple and elegant solution.

"But it is going to take some time for people to accept it," says Prof Calmet.
That is because it is such a big deal in the world of theoretical physics".

The current approach that the science community can claim that the black holes are hairless, but whenever they observe a contradiction, then they have the privilege to claim that the black holes are hairy - should be stopped.
Unfortunately, they have the privilege to highlight any idea as they wish and no one can tell them - "Three strikes and your idea would be locked".

Please - take a decision: The BH/SMBH is "hairy" or "hairless"?
However, we should agree that once you take a decision - you can't change it any more!
Based on your decision - we would continue the discussion.

So please - The BH/SMBH is "hairy" or "hairless"?

[Kryptid]

The science community has the privilege to claim any sort of statement and then change it completely without any punishment

It wouldn't make sense to punish the scientific community when it changes its stance on an idea after finding compelling evidence for it. That's how science works.

However, they can't just hold the stick at both sides and play with science laws/understanding according to their temporary wish.

Science is based on what the current state of evidence is, not temporary wishes.

If General relativity predicts that black holes are hairless. then by definition no EM could be created by the BH.

If general relativity is correct, then this statement is also correct.

If we find even one BH that creates EM, then the science community can't hold the understanding that black holes are hairless any more.

This is also correct. We would then know that general relativity has a flaw and needs to either be modified or cast out.

The current approach that the science community can claim that the black holes are hairless, but whenever they observe a contradiction, then they have the privilege to claim that the black holes are hairy - should be stopped.

Why? It makes no sense to tell someone that they aren't allowed to change their mind if they discover that they are wrong.

Unfortunately, they have the privilege to highlight any idea as they wish and no one can tell them - "Three strikes and your idea would be locked".

I am a moderator of a science forum trying to cut down on spam. That is why I gave you the ultimatum to provide evidence for your claims or get the thread locked. Take note how I did actually give you a chance to support your claims with a reputable source instead of straight up locking this thread. You've already been given the opportunity to have four pages worth of discussion. Unfortunately, you have squandered it by pushing misunderstandings as usual. However, the scientific community on the whole also has a way of dealing with spam: the peer-review process. That's how they filter out the crank ideas that break the laws of physics.

That being said, I noticed that your most recent post did not attempt to provide the sources I asked for. You didn't quote the information I asked you to from the paper you linked. Nor did you provide a reputable source that backs up your claim that the accretion disk is heated by the black hole's electromagnetism. So consider that strike one.

Please - take a decision: The BH/SMBH is "hairy" or "hairless"?
However, we should agree that once you take a decision - you can't change it any more!
Based on your decision - we would continue the discussion.

So please - The BH/SMBH is "hairy" or "hairless"?

Based on the current evidence, I'm going with "hairless". Do take note that if some breakthrough scientific discovery is made that demonstrates that black hole's are hairy while we are still talking, I can very much change my mind. It would be ridiculous to tell someone who knows that they are wrong that they have to keep being wrong.

[Bored chemist]

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

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Based on the current evidence, I'm going with "hairless". Do take note that if some breakthrough scientific discovery is made that demonstrates that black hole's are hairy while we are still talking, I can very much change my mind.

Dear Kryptid
It's the time for you to change your mind.
1. Rotating black holes tells us that our math is wrong!
https://www.space.com/what-happens-black-hole-center
"rotating black holes certainly exist in our universe, so that tells us that our math is wrong and something funky is going on.
Hence, based on the current math, there is no room for rotating black holes.

2. Based on "scalar fields" breakthrough scientific discovery, it is very clear that the Black holes have hair, and can generate Electromagnetic fields.
Please see the following article from September 06, 2023:
https://www.space.com/twisty-theory-of-gravity-says-information-can-escape-black-holes

"Einstein's theory of relativity say black holes are 'bald', but a new tweak to his research may give the mysterious objects their long-sought 'hair.'
The two approaches, one based on curvature and the other based on twistiness, are mathematically equivalent. But because Einstein developed the curvature-based language first, it's much more widely used. The twistiness approach, known as "teleparallel" gravity for its mathematical use of parallel lines, offers a lot of room for intriguing theoretical insights that aren't obvious in the curvature approach.
The team examined potential extensions of general relativity using what's called a scalar field ? a quantum object that inhabits all of space and time. A famous example of a scalar field is the Higgs boson, which is responsible for giving many particles their masses.
The end result: The scalar fields added to general relativity, when explored through the teleparallel lens, gave black holes some hair.
The "hair" in this case is the presence of a strong scalar field near the event horizon of a black hole."

Therefore:
1. if you claim for spinning BH, then by definition this BH must have hair and should have the ability to generate electromagnetics and transform this energy outside to the accretion disc.
Hence, rotating BHs must have hair and the ability to generate electromagnetics.

Based on the current evidence, I'm going with "hairless"

Sorry, you can't hold the stick at both sides.
If you claim for hair-less BH - then this this BH can't transform any energy outside even if you hope that it rotates/spins.
Hence, your choice for "hair-less" BH means no energy could escape from the BH and it can't contribute any energy to the particles that fall into the accretion disc.
Hence, the BH might consume particles from outside, but it won't deliver back any energy.
Therefore, once you have selected heir-less BH you missed the chance to ask the BH to add the missing energy to support your incorrect theory about falling partials without a need for EM energy.
Therefore, you need to explain how the falling particles that clearly can't fall at the accretion disc at almost the speed of light (even if they fall from the infinity) get to the accretion disc at the speed of light without any energy support from the BH itself.
Please remember - there is no surface at the BH to bounce back the falling particles at 180% degree therefore, there is no way for them to increase the speed of each other.
Hence, your following idea about kinetic energy transformation between falling particles can't work:

Let's consider two particles, as an example. If I take the kinetic energy out of one particle and put it into the other particle, then I can make the boosted particle travel faster than either of them were moving at the start without violating conservation of energy. All I've done is change the distribution of energy.
In the end, I get one particle going faster at the cost of making the other one go slower. In the case of the jets of a black hole, the faster particle can now escape the gravity of the black hole and enter one of the jets while the slower particle gets consumed.

Quote from: Dave Lev on 16/10/2023 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 have already proved that there is a need for 3 trillion trillion trillion joules of energy flow up the jet each second:

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?"

As there is no surface at that BH to bounce back a falling particle at 180%, then there is no way to increase its speed by using the kinetic energy of a nearby particle that also falls at a similar speed.
Based on your selection that the BH is hairless, and the clear message that there is no way to extract energy from hairless' BH then you can't wish that the hairless BH would contribute the missing energy.
Therefore, you can't claim any more for energy that the BH is transformed back from the particles that it consumes.
So far, we have never ever observed such enormous energy of 3 trillion trillion trillion joules per second that are falling into the any quasar accretion disc in the entire universe.
Therefore, we must agree that the magnetic fields which is created (or not created) in by the accretion disc I can't contribute the missing energy for the jet stream.

Quote from: Dave Lev on 16/10/2023 20:11:59
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.

https://www.snexplores.org/article/magnetic-fields-may-supercharge-suns-release-heat
"Magnetic fields may supercharge the sun's release of heat
These fields appear to trigger tendrils of gas to form and superheat the sun's atmosphere
The sun's corona, or outer atmosphere, is a few hundred times as hot as the solar surface. Astronomers aren't sure why. But many suspected that spicules may play a role. These flame-like tendrils undulate across the sun's surface. What causes them had been a mystery, too ? until now. New data suggest those spicules develop as the sun's magnetic fields realign themselves."
Therefore, while the estimated temp of the Sun surface is about 5,500 c, the sun's corona, is a few hundred times as hot as this solar surface.
Hence, the Sun corona should be in the range of at least 550,000 c due to the magnetic fields.
So, while you hope that the 5,500 c at the surface of the sun is due to fusion activity - we have now a solid proof that the coronal gets to 550,000 c is due to the mighty transformation energy power in the nature that is called magnetic or electromagnetic fields
In the article it is stated:
https://www.snexplores.org/article/magnetic-fields-may-supercharge-suns-release-heat
"The magnetic field energy is converted to kinetic and thermal energy", says study coauthor Hui Tian
The images revealed a glow from charged iron atoms. These were directly over the spicules. That glow, Tian says, means the plasma reached roughly 1 million degrees Celsius.
The team discovered that pockets of the local magnetic field often reversed course and pointed in the opposite direction from the prevailing field. Within minutes of this happening, thickets of spicules often emerged.
Those plasma filaments lasted for just minutes.

Based on the above explanation, the SMBH' EM fields adds the missing kinetic energy to boost the particles at almost speed of light while they orbit around the SMBH. It is also increasing the plasma temp to 10^ 9 c.
Those " pockets of the local magnetic field" is the source of the turbulence that we clearly observe in the accretion disc' plasma
The SMBH' EM fields is the only power in the nature that can eject magnetic field lines/waves at almost the speed of light from its poles. Those magnetic field lines/waves trapes the electrical charged particles in their spiral motion and lift them (as a rocket) at almost the speed of light against the mighty gravity force of the BH.

Without this SMBH' EM fields, there is no way to extract even a single boson from the mouth of this mighty quasar SMBH.

If you still disagree, then I can't help any more.
Thanks for your great support!

[Bored chemist]

Rotating black holes tells us that our math is wrong!

No. They tell us that maybe it's wrong.

Here's what the article actually says
"(The research has yet to be peer-reviewed.)

The team examined potential extensions of general relativity using what's called a scalar field "

Again you are living in a bizarre world of absolutes when teh real world is more complex.

Anyway...

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

[Kryptid]

1. Rotating black holes tells us that our math is wrong!
https://www.space.com/what-happens-black-hole-center
"rotating black holes certainly exist in our universe, so that tells us that our math is wrong and something funky is going on.
Hence, based on the current math, there is no room for rotating black holes.

It might evidence that some of our math is wrong, but the no-hair theorem isn't one of them. Spin (angular momentum) is one of the few physical quantities that is allowed by the no-hair theorem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-hair_theorem#Changing_the_reference_frame

2. Based on "scalar fields" breakthrough scientific discovery, it is very clear that the Black holes have hair, and can generate Electromagnetic fields.
Please see the following article from September 06, 2023:
https://www.space.com/twisty-theory-of-gravity-says-information-can-escape-black-holes

"Einstein's theory of relativity say black holes are 'bald', but a new tweak to his research may give the mysterious objects their long-sought 'hair.'
The two approaches, one based on curvature and the other based on twistiness, are mathematically equivalent. But because Einstein developed the curvature-based language first, it's much more widely used. The twistiness approach, known as "teleparallel" gravity for its mathematical use of parallel lines, offers a lot of room for intriguing theoretical insights that aren't obvious in the curvature approach.
The team examined potential extensions of general relativity using what's called a scalar field ? a quantum object that inhabits all of space and time. A famous example of a scalar field is the Higgs boson, which is responsible for giving many particles their masses.
The end result: The scalar fields added to general relativity, when explored through the teleparallel lens, gave black holes some hair.
The "hair" in this case is the presence of a strong scalar field near the event horizon of a black hole."

Take note how it says the research "may" give black holes hair. So it isn't conclusive.

Therefore:
1. if you claim for spinning BH, then by definition this BH must have hair and should have the ability to generate electromagnetics and transform this energy outside to the accretion disc.
Hence, rotating BHs must have hair and the ability to generate electromagnetics.

The no-hair theorem allows black holes to spin, so this is simply incorrect.

Sorry, you can't hold the stick at both sides.
If you claim for hair-less BH - then this this BH can't transform any energy outside even if you hope that it rotates/spins.
Hence, your choice for "hair-less" BH means no energy could escape from the BH and it can't contribute any energy to the particles that fall into the accretion disc.
Hence, the BH might consume particles from outside, but it won't deliver back any energy.
Therefore, once you have selected heir-less BH you missed the chance to ask the BH to add the missing energy to support your incorrect theory about falling partials without a need for EM energy.
Therefore, you need to explain how the falling particles that clearly can't fall at the accretion disc at almost the speed of light (even if they fall from the infinity) get to the accretion disc at the speed of light without any energy support from the BH itself.

Again, the no-hair theorem allows for spinning black holes. So this is a non-sequitur.

Please remember - there is no surface at the BH to bounce back the falling particles at 180% degree therefore, there is no way for them to increase the speed of each other.

At no point did I posit particles bouncing off of some imaginary surface around the black hole. The particles bounce off of each other. That's what happens in a dense plasma.

Therefore, we must agree that the magnetic fields which is created (or not created) in by the accretion disc I can't contribute the missing energy for the jet stream.

I asked you to demonstrate that the accretion disk is unable to supply the needed magnetic field strength. You should have done this by calculating the strength of the magnetic fields needed to produce the jets and then doing another calculation to show that the maximum possible magnetic field strength generated by an accretion disk is below this value. Alternatively, you could have given a link to another study where someone else that had done that instead. You did not do either of those things. So consider that strike two.

https://www.snexplores.org/article/magnetic-fields-may-supercharge-suns-release-heat
"Magnetic fields may supercharge the sun's release of heat
These fields appear to trigger tendrils of gas to form and superheat the sun's atmosphere
The sun's corona, or outer atmosphere, is a few hundred times as hot as the solar surface. Astronomers aren't sure why. But many suspected that spicules may play a role. These flame-like tendrils undulate across the sun's surface. What causes them had been a mystery, too ? until now. New data suggest those spicules develop as the sun's magnetic fields realign themselves."
Therefore, while the estimated temp of the Sun surface is about 5,500 c, the sun's corona, is a few hundred times as hot as this solar surface.
Hence, the Sun corona should be in the range of at least 550,000 c due to the magnetic fields.
So, while you hope that the 5,500 c at the surface of the sun is due to fusion activity - we have now a solid proof that the coronal gets to 550,000 c is due to the mighty transformation energy power in the nature that is called magnetic or electromagnetic fields
In the article it is stated:
https://www.snexplores.org/article/magnetic-fields-may-supercharge-suns-release-heat
"The magnetic field energy is converted to kinetic and thermal energy", says study coauthor Hui Tian
The images revealed a glow from charged iron atoms. These were directly over the spicules. That glow, Tian says, means the plasma reached roughly 1 million degrees Celsius.
The team discovered that pockets of the local magnetic field often reversed course and pointed in the opposite direction from the prevailing field. Within minutes of this happening, thickets of spicules often emerged.
Those plasma filaments lasted for just minutes.

You're aware that the Sun isn't a black hole and does not have an accretion disk, right? If anything, this supports the notion that magnetic fields generated by plasma (which both the Sun and accretion disks are made of) can cause large amounts of heating. No magnetic fields from black holes needed.

Based on the above explanation, the SMBH' EM fields adds the missing kinetic energy to boost the particles at almost speed of light while they orbit around the SMBH. It is also increasing the plasma temp to 10^ 9 c.
Those " pockets of the local magnetic field" is the source of the turbulence that we clearly observe in the accretion disc' plasma

Non-sequitur, as explained above.

You've got one more shot to get it right.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Take note how it says the research "may" give black holes hair. So it isn't conclusive.

Sorry, you miss the key point in that article.
"'Twisty' new theory of gravity says information can escape black holes after all".
https://www.space.com/twisty-theory-of-gravity-says-information-can-escape-black-holes
Hence, it is all about mathematics.
When the scalar fields added to general relativity, black holes got some hair.

The team examined potential extensions of general relativity using what's called a scalar field a quantum object that inhabits all of space and time. A famous example of a scalar field is the Higgs boson, which is responsible for giving many particles their masses.
The end result: The scalar fields added to general relativity, when explored through the teleparallel lens, gave black holes some hair.

This updated mathematics is real and it shows that the BH can have hair.
No "may" and no "might".
Just real hair by different mathematical approach that is called 'Twisty' and is similar to the theory of relativity.
"The two approaches, one based on curvature and the other based on twistiness, are mathematically equivalent. But because Einstein developed the curvature-based language first, it's much more widely used. The twistiness approach, known as "teleparallel" gravity for its mathematical use of parallel lines, offers a lot of room for intriguing theoretical insights that aren't obvious in the curvature approach."
Based on this updated math, we all must agree that the BH should have hair and it can generate magnetic fields.
The "may" is used as follow:.
" a new tweak to his research may give the mysterious objects their long-sought 'hair.'
"Stephen Hawking's famous black hole paradox may finally have a solution"
"There may be additional scalar fields that inhabit the universe and subtly alter how gravity works, and physicists have long used these scalar fields in attempts to explain the nature of cosmic mysteries such as dark matter and dark energy."
I hope that at least you agree that there is a possibility that the BH is hairy.

Spin (angular momentum) is one of the few physical quantities that is allowed by the no-hair theorem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-hair_theorem#Changing_the_reference_frame

We all agree that the BH is spinning.
The key question is - how the BH transfer that spinning energy from inside to outside (to the accretion disc)?
The Magnetic fields is an excellent transformation system. We clearly know how it works and we can prove it mathematically.
However, if you take hairless BH which can't generate magnetic fields, then how the spinning energy could go outside?
Can you please show the math how a hairless spinning BH can transform its energy to the accretion disc without using magnetic fields?
Please real math (not just words that it can)!

You're aware that the Sun isn't a black hole and does not have an accretion disk, right? If anything, this supports the notion that magnetic fields generated by plasma (which both the Sun and accretion disks are made of) can cause large amounts of heating. No magnetic fields from black holes needed.

Sorry again. You miss the key message in this article.
It is not about the plasma at the surface of the sun, but it is about the corona high above the Sun' surface.
Let's me use an article from just 4 days ago:
"By Robert Lea published 4 days ago
https://www.space.com/sun-coronal-heating-mystery-snake-like-magnetic-fields
"An image of the sun next to a close-up of snake-like structures in our star's magnetic field
The so-called coronal heating problem has puzzled researchers for decades. The mystery is this: The diffuse cloud of charged atoms that makes up the corona can reach temperatures of over 1.8 million degrees Fahrenheit (1 million degrees Celsius), while the sun's surface, called the photosphere,  is a relatively balmy at 10,000 degrees F or so (6,000 degrees Celsius).

"An accurate insight into the magnetic field geometry is fundamental for the understanding of the various energetic phenomena that drive the dynamics of the plasma in the solar atmosphere," Erdelyi said. "That includes the much sought-after magnetic behavior that may ultimately be responsible for energizing the solar plasma to temperatures of millions of [degrees]"

The Sun' surface temp is only 6,000 c, while the Sun' corona temp is about one million c.
Therefore, the impact of the Sun' magnetic fields at the Sun' corona is significantly larger than its impact on the Sun' surface although the corona is located high above the Sun' surface.
The accretion disc is also located high above the BH' surface (which we can't observe.
Therefore, we must compare apple to apple.
The Sun' surface should be compared to the BH's surface while the Sun' corona should be compared to the BH's corona (which is the BH' accretion disc).
Unfortunately, we can't measure the BH surface temp, but we can measure the BH' accretion disc temp.
As the Sun' magnetic fields can increase the Sun' corona to 10^6 c, there should be no problem for the BH with its 10^11 solar mass to generate enough magnetic fields that can easily increase the Bh's accretion temp to 10^9 c.
Therefore, BH' magnetic fields is absolutely needed.

At no point did I posit particles bouncing off of some imaginary surface around the black hole. The particles bounce off of each other. That's what happens in a dense plasma.

Well, you hope that random collision would solve the mystery of the missing energy.
Instead of using the unlimited magnetic energy from the spinning SMBH, you hope that some random collisions or bouncing between the particles would help to deliver some extra energy.
This is just a pure imagination due to the following:

1. velocity at the accretion disc - We all agree that even if particle falls from the infinity, it can't gain a speed of light at the accretion disc. Actually, it must be significantly lower at the accretion disc.
Even if we assume that it gets there at the 0.01 the speed of light than somehow, we need to increase the velocity by 100 times and therefore, we need to increase its kinetic energy by 100^2 = 10,000 times.
The only power in the Universe that can add such high kinetic energy is - the BH' magnetic fields.
As you insist that this magnetic fields doesn't exist - then it is your obligation to prove that the Potential/ kinetic energy + some random collisions of the falling partial/star is good enough. Please real math!
Please, if you wish to add any energy from the BH (even if you call it spinning energy due to falling particles) then it is your obligation to set the calculation for the missing energy that the BH should contribute.
It is our obligation to distinguish between the potential/kinetic energies of the falling particles to the missing energy from the spinning BH even if you claim that it is all due to falling particles.

2. Why the accretion disc is located exactly at the BH' magnetic equator?
If you would agree for a hairy BH' then its magnetic fields can force any falling particle to join the accretion disc and at the correct orbital motion.
However, once you disagree that BH has magnetic fields, then you have to offer a solusion based on gravity laws.
We clearly see that around the BH there is bulge of stars. Each star has its own orbital plan and its orbital rotation. It is almost impossible to find even one star that orbits exactly at the accretion disc plan and at the same orbital rotation direction. Therefore, Based on Newton law, if one of those stars would fall inwards, it must maintain its current orbital plan/motion. As almost none of the falling stars has the same orbital plan/rotation as the accretion disc, then it is expected to see an accretion bulge and not accretion disc/ring. However, we clearly observe that the accretion discs in all the BHs are located exactly at the BHs magnetic equator. Therefore, this by itself proves by 100% that the existence of the accretion disc is due to the BH's magnetic force.

3. Kepler law - "The square of the period of any planet is proportional to the cube of the semimajor axis of its orbit."  - Therefore, there is no possibility for any falling object (star or particle) to fall/move/orbit in the direction of the central body, miss it and stay there at its maximal velocity. Due to Kepler law once the object miss the central body, it should continue with its elliptical orbital shape and be ejected outwards. Gravity by itself can't change the elliptical motion of the falling object to circular motion at the maximal velocity point (at the accretion disc).
If you hope that some random collision would help you - then you have a fatal mistake.
A falling star that would collide with the matter in the accretion disc should it would destroy it completely.
So, please if you still insist for random collision - it's better for you to buy a ticket for the lottery as the chance to win over there is higher than the imagination to fit a falling star in the accretion disc by collision.

4. Heat dissipation.
Somehow, our scientists have totally ignore the Heat dissipation from the accretion disc.
We know that the heat dissipation is used to transfer thermal energy to other places, and reduces the temperature so that the particles in the accretion disc can reach a balance with the temperature of the surrounding environment.
The temp of the open empty space is almost 0K (about -272 c)
The general heat loss formula is: Q=U*A*ΔT, or in plain words, the heat loss of an area of size A is determined by the U value of the materials and the difference in temperature between inside and out (that is the difference in temperature of the two surfaces, not the two air temperatures, which might not be quite the same.  Below is an adjustment for air temperatures.)
Therefore, the general heat loss formula for the accretion disc should be:
T1 = 10^9c
Tspace = -273c = - 2.7 10^2
Q (accretion disc heat dispassion) =U*A*ΔT = U*A*(T1 - Tspace) = about U*A*10^11c
So, far I couldn't find even one real article that set the real calculation about the energy that is requested to maintain the 10^9 c and a velocity of almost speed of light at the accretion disc.
5. The Dense plasma contradiction -

The particles bounce off of each other. That's what happens in a dense plasma.

Dense plasma means collision and traffic jam. Due to the collision, some kinetic energy is transformed to heat.
So, how can you claim for dense plasma while particles bounce off of each other which means significant kinetic energy lost and still claim for a velocity that is almost the speed of light?
Sorry. you can't hold the stick at both sides.
If you claim for dense plasma - then you can't claim at the same token for almost the speed of light velocity.

No magnetic fields from black holes needed.

Quote from: Dave Lev on 20/10/2023 15:15:40
Based on the above explanation, the SMBH' EM fields adds the missing kinetic energy to boost the particles at almost speed of light while they orbit around the SMBH. It is also increasing the plasma temp to 10^ 9 c.
Those " pockets of the local magnetic field" is the source of the turbulence that we clearly observe in the accretion disc' plasma

Non-sequitur, as explained above.

Sorry. you have a severe mistake.
It is all about BH' magnetic fields
I have proved that the BH' magnetic fields can overcome easily on all the obstacles.
It can contribute heat energy and kinetic energy:
In the article it is stated:
https://www.snexplores.org/article/magnetic-fields-may-supercharge-suns-release-heat
"The magnetic field energy is converted to kinetic and thermal energy".

There is also one more key important understanding from the Sun corona
It is called - Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs)
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/phenomena/coronal-mass-ejections
"Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs) are large expulsions of plasma and magnetic field from the Sun?s corona. They can eject billions of tons of coronal material and carry an embedded magnetic field (frozen in flux) that is stronger than the background solar wind interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) strength. CMEs travel outward from the Sun at speeds ranging from slower than 250 kilometers per second (km/s) to as fast as near 3000 km/s."
That is the ULTIMATE PROVE that due to the Sun' magnetic fields, billions of tons of coronal material could be ejected upwards against the SUN gravity and at almost 3000 km/s and It is not just a redirection of the matter.
It works as a lift of "magnetic field (frozen in flux)" that grab the electrical charged particles and lift them upwards.
This is identical to the Quasar jet stream that is ejected upwards by the Bh's magnetic field /lines as frozen in flux.
Therefore, the Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs) is identical to the Quasar jet.
Both of them are due to the main object magnetic fields.
I have proved my case.

However, as you insist to ignore its existence, then would you kindly set the math/calculation how the 3 trillion trillion trillion joules of energy is created for the jet stream without it?
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?"

Therefore, would you kindly offer real math and distinguish between the energy contribution of the spinning BH from the falling particles potential/kinetic energy.

[Bored chemist]

Anyway...
Quote from: Bored chemist on 16/10/2023 22:03:03
Dave.
Are you still  ignoring infinities and pretending it is science?

[Kryptid]

This updated mathematics is real and it shows that the BH can have hair.
No "may" and no "might".

I find it very ironic how you rejected mathematical evidence supplied to you in past threads, claiming that only real world observations would suffice. Now here you are claiming that mathematical evidence is good enough to prove something without real world observations to back it up. So which is it? Is math good enough to prove something or is it not?

I hope that at least you agree that there is a possibility that the BH is hairy.

Possibility? Yes. Proven? No.

We all agree that the BH is spinning.
The key question is - how the BH transfer that spinning energy from inside to outside (to the accretion disc)?
The Magnetic fields is an excellent transformation system. We clearly know how it works and we can prove it mathematically.
However, if you take hairless BH which can't generate magnetic fields, then how the spinning energy could go outside?
Can you please show the math how a hairless spinning BH can transform its energy to the accretion disc without using magnetic fields?
Please real math (not just words that it can)!

The ergosphere. We've already discussed that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergosphere

there should be no problem for the BH with its 10^11 solar mass to generate enough magnetic fields

Magnetic field strength is not dependent upon mass. This is something I've told you before. The Earth is many orders of magnitude more massive than any man-made magnet, yet our magnets can make fields many times stronger than the Earth's magnetic field. Also, if black holes really are hairless, then it's not going to be making a magnetic field at all, no matter how massive it is.

Therefore, BH' magnetic fields is absolutely needed.

Non-sequitur. Black holes behave differently from stars.

Instead of using the unlimited magnetic energy from the spinning SMBH

There is no such thing as "unlimited magnetic energy". The energy in the black hole is limited. To say otherwise would violate the first law of thermodynamics.

1. velocity at the accretion disc - We all agree that even if particle falls from the infinity, it can't gain a speed of light at the accretion disc.

Nothing can make the particle move at the speed of light, so I don't know why you even mention this.

Even if we assume that it gets there at the 0.01 the speed of light than somehow, we need to increase the velocity by 100 times and therefore, we need to increase its kinetic energy by 100^2 = 10,000 times.

And you messed up the math again. Newton's equations don't work at relativistic speeds. No amount of energy will ever get a particle up to the speed of light. But, once again, no one here argued that they were going at the speed of light anyway.

The only power in the Universe that can add such high kinetic energy is - the BH' magnetic fields.

An undemonstrated claim.

2. Why the accretion disc is located exactly at the BH' magnetic equator?

That's exactly what we would expect if the magnetic field was being generated by the accretion disk.

Therefore, this by itself proves by 100% that the existence of the accretion disc is due to the BH's magnetic force.

Non-sequitur, and I believe the issue of why the accretion disk orbits along one plane has been explained in previous threads.

3. Kepler law - "The square of the period of any planet is proportional to the cube of the semimajor axis of its orbit."  - Therefore, there is no possibility for any falling object (star or particle) to fall/move/orbit in the direction of the central body, miss it and stay there at its maximal velocity. Due to Kepler law once the object miss the central body, it should continue with its elliptical orbital shape and be ejected outwards

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_capture

Therefore, the general heat loss formula for the accretion disc should be:
T1 = 10^9c
Tspace = -273c = - 2.7 10^2

You need to use Kelvins, not Celsius.

Q (accretion disc heat dispassion) =U*A*ΔT = U*A*(T1 - Tspace) = about U*A*10^11c

You didn't finish your math. You need to put actual values in for the variables "U" and "A" to get an answer. So what you have done so far hasn't shown us anything.

Dense plasma means collision and traffic jam. Due to the collision, some kinetic energy is transformed to heat.
So, how can you claim for dense plasma while particles bounce off of each other which means significant kinetic energy lost and still claim for a velocity that is almost the speed of light?
Sorry. you can't hold the stick at both sides.
If you claim for dense plasma - then you can't claim at the same token for almost the speed of light velocity.

Do you know what heat is? It's defined as random particle motion in the gas. So your claim that collisions between particles release heat doesn't make sense. Protons colliding doesn't work that way that two rubber balls colliding does.

Sorry. you have a severe mistake.
It is all about BH' magnetic fields
I have proved that the BH' magnetic fields can overcome easily on all the obstacles.
It can contribute heat energy and kinetic energy:
In the article it is stated:
https://www.snexplores.org/article/magnetic-fields-may-supercharge-suns-release-heat
"The magnetic field energy is converted to kinetic and thermal energy".

There is also one more key important understanding from the Sun corona
It is called - Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs)
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/phenomena/coronal-mass-ejections
"Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs) are large expulsions of plasma and magnetic field from the Sun?s corona. They can eject billions of tons of coronal material and carry an embedded magnetic field (frozen in flux) that is stronger than the background solar wind interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) strength. CMEs travel outward from the Sun at speeds ranging from slower than 250 kilometers per second (km/s) to as fast as near 3000 km/s."
That is the ULTIMATE PROVE that due to the Sun' magnetic fields, billions of tons of coronal material could be ejected upwards against the SUN gravity and at almost 3000 km/s and It is not just a redirection of the matter.
It works as a lift of "magnetic field (frozen in flux)" that grab the electrical charged particles and lift them upwards.
This is identical to the Quasar jet stream that is ejected upwards by the Bh's magnetic field /lines as frozen in flux.
Therefore, the Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs) is identical to the Quasar jet.
Both of them are due to the main object magnetic fields.

The Sun isn't a black hole and doesn't behave like one. CMEs aren't identical to quasar jets.

I have proved my case.

Not at all. You haven't even proven that black holes have magnetic fields.

However, as you insist to ignore its existence, then would you kindly set the math/calculation how the 3 trillion trillion trillion joules of energy is created for the jet stream without it?

I already calculated the needed mass flow to sustain the quasar's total luminosity. It's in one of my previous posts. It's perfectly possible to do it within the realm of known physics.

Therefore, would you kindly offer real math and distinguish between the energy contribution of the spinning BH from the falling particles potential/kinetic energy.

I don't know how much comes from each source nor do I need to, but I already did post a source which states that the spin of a black hole is sufficient to power a quasar for billions of years.

Since you haven't backed up your claim that the magnetic field generated by the accretion disk is insufficient to power the jets using an authoritative source, that's strike three and this thread is getting locked. So don't make any more threads about quasars. In fact, don't make anymore threads that involve black holes at all. You have a very bad track record when it comes to black hole discussions, so it's better if we keep them off the table altogether.