"Wave gravity" refers to a quantum-mechanical gravity theory introduced in two previous papers [1,2]. Although based on the optics of de Broglie waves instead of curved space-time, it agrees with the standard tests of general relativity. As in that theory, galactic nuclei are dark objects where gravity prevents the escape of most radiation. In this case, collapse is counteracted by rising internal pressure and black hole singularities don't occur. Unlike black holes, these nuclei can have internal magnetic fields, and high-energy plasma can escape along magnetic field lines closely aligned with the gravitational field direction. This allows a different model of jets from active galactic nuclei, where jets can arise without direct fueling by accretion disks. It also offers a new basis for the tight correlation observed  between the masses of galactic nuclei and their hosts.
|Comments:||14 pages, LaTeX2e, no figures; minor text revisions, added acknowledgements|
|Subjects:||Astrophysics (astro-ph); General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc)|
|(or arXiv:astro-ph/0606489v3 for this version)|
Focus to learn more
Bi-polar jets come from accretion disks. The jets from an AGN's nuclei are also from the disks orbiting the nuclei. Nothing gets out of a BH, AFAIK.Harry, do you have a reference to a description of the process by which real black holes eject matter from their cores?
Helio, do you have a reference to a description of the process by which the accretion disks around real black holes can form the bi-polar jets we observe apparently coming from the super massive black holes in the centers of galaxies?Bi-polar jets come from accretion disks. The jets from an AGN's nuclei are also from the disks orbiting the nuclei. Nothing gets out of a BH, AFAIK.
Here was the first site from a simple search.Helio, do you have a reference to a description of the process by which the accretion disks around real black holes can form the bi-polar jets we observe apparently coming from the super massive black holes in the centers of galaxies?
We interpret the 1.3mm VLBI observations made by the Event Horizon Telescope of the black hole in M87. It is proposed that, instead of being a torus of accreting gas, the ring is a rotating, magnetically-dominated ergomagnetosphere that can transmit electromagnetic angular momentum and energy outward to the disc through a combination of large scale magnetic torque and small scale instabilities. It is further proposed that energy can be extracted by magnetic flux threading the ergosphere through the efficient emission of long wavelength electromagnetic disturbances onto negative energy orbits, when the invariant B2−E2 becomes negative. In this way, the spinning black hole and its ergosphere not only power the jets but also the ejection disc so as to drive away most of the gas supplied near the Bondi radius. This outflow takes the form of a MHD wind, extending over many decades of radius, with a unidirectional magnetic field, that is collimated by the infalling gas across a magnetopause. This wind, in turn, collimates the relativistic jets and the emission observed from the jet sheath may be associated with a return current. A model for the global flow of mass, angular momentum, energy and current, on scales from the horizon to the Bondi radius, is presented and discussed.
|Comments:||20 pages, 3 figures, submitted to MNRAS|
|Subjects:||High Energy Astrophysical Phenomena (astro-ph.HE)|
|Cite as:||arXiv:2204.11995 [astro-ph.HE]|
|(or arXiv:2204.11995v1 [astro-ph.HE] for this version)|
Focus to learn more
There is a difference worth considering. It's said that nothing can go from the space within a blackhole to space outside a blackhole. But in the earliest moments of the Big Bang, space itself expanded so nothing did go outside of it. That seems to be the difference. [It's also why it never was a "Bang" (pejorative from Hoyle - anti-BBT), and why it was never an explosion.]As for assuming that nothing can escape from a black hole, that assumption may be correct. But, if we can postulate that somehow all the mass we see in the universe, plus several times that much "dark matter", somehow escaped from a tiny spec that was certainly a black hole before "inflation" occurred due to "dark energy", it seems like it would not be too difficult to imagine that "dark energy" or some other unknown force could overcome gravitational force sufficiently to expel matter through the poles of an event horizon.
Perhaps the more ideas the better. The important issue for me is to note which are pure supposition and which are hypotheses, which must be objective-based and present objective tests.But, I am amused that there are folks who are willing to imagine solutions to observed conundrums by assuming the existence of undetectable forces and masses, while strongly objecting to similar imaginative assumptions being offered by others for different conundrums.
Nicely put! The challenge seems to be how the heck accretion into the BH, or star for that matter, can even take place for the reason you stated.A black hole has a very strong gravity well, pulling in material from far away. Conservation of angular momentum causes the material to spin up very fast. A disc forms because no object in any other orbital plane can survive, it will crash into the disc and join it. Since areas closer to the black hole spin faster there is a very high degree of shear. Shear causes collisions which results in it all getting very hot. Hot material ionizes. Electrons being 1000th the mass of protons, can escape more easily thus the disc becomes positively charged. Moving charged particles create a very large current rotating with the disc. By the right hand rule, a bipolar magnetic field is created. Charged particles have a hard time crossing magnetic field lines thus are trapped in the disc. A very high pressure develops. The only two outlets are north pole and south pole where field lines extend outward. These are the only two places a charged particle can escape the high pressure environment by travelling parallel to magnetic field lines. Thus we get dipolar jets.
The concept of "space expanding" itself requires the imagination that I was speaking of.There is a difference worth considering. It's said that nothing can go from the space within a blackhole to space outside a blackhole. But in the earliest moments of the Big Bang, space itself expanded so nothing did go outside of it. That seems to be the difference. [It's also why it never was a "Bang" (pejorative from Hoyle - anti-BBT), and why it was never an explosion.]
Or, the observers (us) accelerating away from the sources of the light would do that.Here is a good summary from Forbes:
Ask Ethan: How Do We Know Space Is Expanding? (forbes.com)
To summarize: Redshift can't be tired light [because photons are quantized]. The expansion of the universe can't be from an initial explosion because large portions would have collapsed on themselves. Only "expansion of spacetime" can explain the observed isotropy, homogeneity and increase in velocity with distance.