Can a Black Hole "star" commit fusion, would the photons collect inside the star, would the photons degrade into something else?

Page 7 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Apr 13, 2021
316
32
710
Astrophysics
[Submitted on 20 Jun 2006 (v1), last revised 25 Jun 2006 (this version, v3)]
Galactic Nuclei and Jets in Wave Gravity
Kris Krogh
"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 [13] 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)
Cite as:arXiv:astro-ph/0606489
(or arXiv:astro-ph/0606489v3 for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0606489
Focus to learn more

The idea that jets created by the core is not too far fetched,
It is not a recent idea.
There are many images of the dipolar affect from stars and galaxy centres.
 
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.
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?
 
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?
Here was the first site from a simple search.

From the interesting paper presented above by Harry, "Since galactic nuclei are thought to be black holes, the sources of matter, energy, and driving magnetic fields for these jets have been assumed to be accretion disks."

But one of their key references comes from a paper written for a magazine by the respected Bill Keel (Alabama), here (full version) and ~ 20 years ago.

He states that the physics points to disks around black holes as the source of the jets, but at the end of this one paragraph notes seeing them has been illusive.

"Gas close to such a monster would follow the same pattern as particles in a planetary ring, gas and dust around a young star, or gas in a forming galaxy, flattening into an accretion disk orbiting the black hole. Collisions among atoms in this disk would naturally heat them to very high temperatures, especially close to the black hole where orbital velocities rise toward the speed of light. As a bonus, several sets of calculations have shown that even small interstellar magnetic field could be amplified in such a disk, so that they would launch some of the matter in twin jets perpendicular to the disk, at nearly the speed of light. This general picture of active nuclei - hot accretion disks around supermassive black holes - is widely accepted, but we have some trouble connecting specific pieces of it to phenomena we can actually see. In a general way, we expect the X-rays to come from the hot inner parts of the disk, and ultraviolet and visible continuum radiation to come from farther out where the disk is cooler. The strong emission lines must come from clouds of gas lit up by the ultraviolet and X-ray emission from closer in. The radio jets have an obvious connection; in some cases, radio interferometry has traced them to within a light-year of the core, not much bigger than the scale of the accretion disk. As we will see, though, while dynamical signs of the massive black holes are abundant, direct evidence of the accretion disk remains elusive."

The length of the jets that maintain collimation suggests millions of years of stability, something indicative of accretion disks. The jets are essentially perpendicular to the jets as well. So it's not hard to assume the disks are responsible.

Whether they are or not, I can't imagine any peer-reviewed paper trying to argue that jets can have anything do with them coming from within the black hole and escaping. Nothing escapes once within the EH.

Here is another article that states...

"In the case of active galactic nuclei (AGN) the central SMBH is surrounded by an extended ring of interstellar dust and molecular gases. Within this ring we find an AD the innermost region of it, its corona, is a source of high energy radiation.

In some cases large jets of ultra relativistic particles are observed which beam through the whole visible extension of the galaxy.
"

Keep in mind that SMBH's are no where near us, so perhaps the super resolution needed to observe directly the inner accretion disk activity may be limited.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe
Actually, this seems to be a better link on that subject of accretion disks creating polar jets: https://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/S/stellar+jets .

What I am looking for is a little more technical discussion of how the "magnetic fields are amplified" to produce those jets in that polar direction.

The fact that weaker polar jets are seen around objects that have accretion disks but are not black holes seems to be the best empirical evidence that the accretion disks could be responsible for the gigantic polar jets we see coming from SMBHs.

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. That would not have to occur from a singularity at the center of the black hole; it might come from just slightly beneath the event horizon. We just don't know much about how things behave once inside the EH. So, I am trying to keep an open mind without getting into inventing more forms of matter and energy. 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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helio
Apr 13, 2021
316
32
710
strophysics > High Energy Astrophysical Phenomena
[Submitted on 25 Apr 2022]
Ergomagnetosphere, Ejection Disc, Magnetopause in M87. I Global Flow of Mass, Angular Momentum, Energy and Current
Roger Blandford, Noemie Globus
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)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2204.11995
Focus to learn more

Accretion disc may explain additional forces, but if you notice M87 has a jet that is driven in a straight line for 100,000 light years and it is estimated that the jet is observed over 10,000 light years from the core.
The position of the EH is where the jet can be seen.
Classical black holes with a singularity where nothing can’t escape in my opinion cannot exist.
But! Condensates with Quark, Partonic or Axion matter having a dipolar electromagnetic vector force fields, can mimic black hole properties and form an EH.
Please search for the answers, question every step, do not take my word for it.
 
Apr 13, 2021
316
32
710
Accretion disc is supported by many scientists as the force that creates the jets.
But! I differ in the logic in creating a dipolar jet.
That’s another days discussion
 
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.
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.]

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.
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe

Catastrophe

"There never was a good war, or a bad peace."
"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"

I heartily concur.

Cat :) :) :)
 

Catastrophe

"There never was a good war, or a bad peace."
And with that in mind, do we need a need thread, or would it be a duplication to put the so-called expansion under scrutiny? That has worried me for some time. Would you like to suggest a title?

Cat :) :) :)
 
Nov 19, 2021
483
220
560
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.
 
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.
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.

One article I read, not too long ago, claimed that in MHD (MagnetoHydroDynamics), magnetic field lines form radially. I envision these like fingers spread apart. The gaps are regions where accretion material can migrate inward, between these "fingers".

So, some charged material will shoot into the bi-polar flows and some will migrate. I have no idea how much is split between them but it's safe to say, as with almost all else, "it depends". :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: billslugg
Nov 19, 2021
483
220
560
Yes, there is a gigantic tug-o'-war going on between the gasses trying to fall into the star/black hole and the force of the light trying to push them away. A similar problem limits the rate at which dust clouds can collapse. The rate at which these things can collapse is partly a function of how fast they can shed energy. In the case of a dust cloud the dust acts as a warming blanket. In the case of a rotating disc it is magnetic fields act like the bars on a prison.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helio
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.]
The concept of "space expanding" itself requires the imagination that I was speaking of.

But, more specifically, how can we tell if the space actually expanded, or, instead, the whole universe that we see fell into a gigantic gravity well, so that it only looks to us like an expanding universe because of the warping of time and space as we continue to accelerate at relativistic speeds?

One of the things that strikes me about the BBT is that it needs 19 times more mass and energy that we can find to describe what the remaining 5% can be observed actually doing. We need that extra "stuff" to explain observations of accelerating motions that do-not-compute based on what we know (e.g., star orbital velocities in galaxies and the net motions of galaxies away from each other).

That leads me to question if these accelerations are correctly perceived and due to forces we (currently) cannot understand, or if we are making BBT "work" by assuming fictional forces, like "centrifugal force" and the "Coriolis force", that only explain an apparent acceleration when viewed from an accelerating frame of reference (rotational motion, in those 2 cases).
 
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.
Or, the observers (us) accelerating away from the sources of the light would do that.

I am still left wondering if what we would see if we are falling into an extremely large black hole, now inside the event horizon, would look like what we are actually observing.

If we are willing to believe that space can expand from the infinitesimal to whatever it is now, why are we not willing to believe that it can shrink to something infinitesimal. And, since matter somehow accommodates being in such drastically different amounts of space, in ways we (currently) cannot understand, why are we assuming it must be compressed into pure energy, instead of just being smaller, itself?

It seems to me that we really don't understand too much to be confident that there was ever a period when everything was a super-hot spec of energy. We all admit that extrapolation of an expanding universe backward in time leads to something we cannot explain, including where space and the stuff in it came from in the first place. But, because it looks like what we see when something explodes in space, that is how we first tend to try to explain it. But, Special and General Relativity are difficult concepts to envision, and general relativity in a system with an extremely large number of interacting masses is extremely difficult to solve mathematically, usually requiring a lot of simplifying assumptions. Are we fooling ourselves with our assumptions?

For example, are we showing confirmation bias to explain things like "lensed galaxies". We do expect the gravity of mass to bend the path of light passing by it, so I am not challenging that. What I am wondering about is how we ruled out refraction or at least corrected for it. We also know that matter slows the speed of light passing through it, so light shining through a ball of gas will also bend its path. In fact, we see that when we look at a sunset on earth - the actual direction to the sun is below the horizon as we see it just touching the horizon, because of refraction in earth's atmosphere. And, because less energetic light (e.g., red) is bent more than energetic light (e.g., blue), our sunsets tend to look more red than direct sunlight. So, why can't some of the lensing we see of distant galaxies be due to gas surrounding those galaxies? And, why can't the red shift of those distant galaxies be partly due to the refraction by the gas, rather than speed of recession of the galaxy behind the lensing galaxy? With questions like this, how do we know that we are computing the masses bending the light and the recession speed of the hidden galaxies with reasonable accuracy? Are we just making them fit the BBT by adjusting our assumptions to explain the measurements, and then not questioning any further? Or has somebody actually looked into these questions?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe
Nov 19, 2021
483
220
560
Yes, people have looked at these questions and the final conclusion is that the universe's spacetime is expanding and that gravity bends space which, in turn, bends light.

We cannot be moving away from a fixed perimeter in all directions at once. We would quickly shrink away to nothing.

Gas clouds cannot explain lensing as the gasses would show up as absorption lines.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helio
Good evidence-based answer about absorption lines ruling out gas clouds as galactic lenses.

However, the part about not moving away from a fixed perimeter in all directions at once without quickly shrinking to nothing isn't particularly convincing. If we can be moving away from an infinitesimal point at the speed we assume now in the BBT, why couldn't we physically be falling towards a fixed point at the same speed in the opposite direction? Both motions can be extrapolated to the limit of a singularity that we cannot explain.

And the really hard thing to explain is that we assume that every point in the universe would look the same, that all matter started at the location of the observer at universe time = 0. We postulate that any observer can't see the origin point, or the outer envelope of the universe from anywhere.

So, I don't think we have the logic to argue that we can't be misinterpreting what we are observing when we naturally tend to envision space in Newtonian terms and try to think about how "space" can change and what that looks like to an observer. Does our expanding universe actually expand within us along with the space around us? Or do we remain a fixed size while space between us increases? How would we actually know which is true?

And why do we believe that the laws of physics as we know them only get broken at time 0? If they must be broken at time 0, then why not at other times after 0? Just because we cannot observe it happening isn't a very good answer when you consider that our observations in space and time are extremely limited. And, when we do observe apparent breaking of laws of physics, such as barrier penetration in quantum mechanics, we just give it a name and describe it probabilistically, then accept it without really understanding it.

What if the "expansion of the universe" is a local fluctuation in space-time (over a huge piece of the universe, at least 14 billion light years from here to the "edge") driven by something other than a single BBT event at t=0? We are only postulating a big bang. Why not postulate something much more complex, maybe call it "galactic weather", which has analogies to weather highs and lows, driven by forces that we do not understand. We are only postulating that there is one "dark force" that created a big bang and is still accelerating the expansion of all space, so why not postulate one or more forces that cause parts of the universe to undergo "high pressure" and "low pressure" events at various times? Those postulated phenomena would not need to be extrapolated to singularities.

I am really getting hopeful that the Webb Telescope can tell us something about the BBT. We had thought the Hubble Telescope would do that, but the observations surprised us. Maybe this time . . .
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Joel
Nov 19, 2021
483
220
560
If I look at a galaxy in the east that is travelling at 100,000 km/sec away from me and I look at a galaxy in the west that is travelling 100,000 km/sec away from me, the only plausible explanation is that they are both moving away from me. For me to be shrinking at a high enough rate to accommodate them both being stationary would last but a picosecond or two.

We don't assume the universe looks the same in every direction, it does. We must account for localized motion and for quantum fluctuations at the time of the Big Bang however.

The expanding of space includes the space inside our bodies. Problem is the magnitude is too small to be measured. At 60 km/sec/megaparsec, the velocity that the Sun is receding from us due to space expansion is but .01 micron per second. Hardly measurable.

The Standard Model of Physics gives a good model of what is going on around us, that is why we know it works. We know it is unchanged over time as the processes we see going on billions of years ago at the far edges of the universe are the same as what we see here now. Our model only breaks down at 10^-45 second when each particle has so much energy that it is a tiny black hole. At that point there is no mechanism we know of that could explain how the particles could get any hotter since they cannot share information.

We know the Big Bang is not localized weather since the universe is known to be homogeneous except on small scales. "Small" being somewhat relative. Yes there are gigantic voids and large black holes but on larger scales it is isotropic (looks same in all directions) and homogeneous (same at all distances).
 
"We don't assume the universe looks the same in every direction, it does."

Sort of true from here, right now.

But, I said it is assumed to be true from everywhere, all the time. That is what is hard to envision and explain.

Same for "the universe is known to be homogeneous." Seeing from one perspective for an extremely limited amount of time is not actually knowing - it is assuming.

And, it actually is averaging. As you said, we do observe voids and clumps along "filaments" that we really don't understand. We just assume that those are the same everywhere, although we are only starting to resolve them closest to us.

And, the BBT assumes that what we see is expanding into nothing, rather than into some larger universe that may be getting other portions locally compressed by our local (but gigantic) expansion.

The BBT assumes that space is finite, and age is finite, but cannot explain how something never was until it is.

Seems to me we should be looking for some explanation that does not extrapolate to impossibility. And, I do not see any reason that it needs to be a cyclic process that takes the whole universe from a tiny spec to billions of light years in diameter and then back to a spec, again, before somehow repeating. Yes, we don't currently understand how that could work. But, then again, we don't understand what appears to be dark matter and dark energy, either. Unless we can find both, we really have not come close to validating the BBT model.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe
Nov 19, 2021
483
220
560
We know the universe is the same for all times since we can see all times. We can see all the way back to about 400,000 years after the Big Bang and every bit since then. It just depends how far away we look. At all distances and in all directions, the universe has the same density and velocity. (With some small differences we can account for). This is why we say the universe is isotropic and homogeneous.

The universe does not expand into something, it is everything. It is a four dimensional analog to the two dimensional surface of an expanding sphere. From all points on the sphere it expands away from the observer. There is no one center of expansion, all places are the center of expansion. If you travelled far enough in the universe you would end up where you started. It is closed upon itself with no edge. Actually, we can see an edge because at some large distance away from us the rate at which space is expanding exceeds the speed of light. So there is an edge to the observable universe.

That we cannot explain what happened before the Big Bang does not preclude the existence of a Big Bang. Our current physics cannot deal with the infinities that accompany a singularity. Maybe someday but not right now.
 
A sphere in 3 dimensional space is a curved 2 dimensional space, with a center that is off the 2 dimensional surface.

Last I read, no spatial curvature has been detected in the universe that we can observe.

So, are you saying that the observed universe is a 3 dimensional space curved in time?

And, we really are not seeing our universe in "all times" up to 400,000 years ago. We are seeing the universe in the "now" that is "here", but not any other time in any other place. We infer other times and other places based on the Special and General Theories of Relativity. Those theories explain how a finite speed of light that cannot be measured to change in any direction will distort our perceptions of time and distance when there is a differential in speed between the observer and what is observed that approaches the speed of light. The question in my mind is whether that mathematical inference process is properly done. As currently done, it requires assumptions that we have 20 times the matter/energy that we can find with our best observations, so far, on order to match our observations.

And, there really is no proof that there is nothing and there cannot be anything outside our calculated universe radius. I use the word "calculated" to avoid the circular logic that the definition of the word means there is nothing else. All we can say is that we do not expect to be able to observe anything beyond where we calculate that space is receding from us at the speed of light, carrying all light-emitting things with it so that their light will never reach us. With the BBT, we even calculate that there is more beyond that radius than we can find inside that radius.

If we were falling into a black hole, and already inside the event horizon, wouldn't we also see that the light from objects that fell in after us was being stretched away from us, to the point where things too far behind us would be emitting light that could no longer ever reach us? And, similarly, wouldn't things emitting light in front of us be accelerating even faster than us, such that, at some distance ahead, the light would seem to have infinite wave length to us, thus being undetectable by us?

Yes, I know you think that falling into a black hole must somehow reach an end point because things must be getting infinitely small. But, that is an expected perception of an outside viewer. If as you say, the BBT says we are getting bigger with expansion of our space, wouldn't we also get smaller if our space was getting smaller? Wouldn't that make it look like things not getting smaller as fast as us seem to be expanding?

For that matter, if we were falling into a black hole and inside the event horizon, would we even be able to measure distance in the direction we are falling? Doesn't Special Relativity shorten everything to zero depth that is traveling at speed c relative to us? So, what about an hypothesis that has another dimension that we cannot measure at all, along which we are traveling at the local speed of light? That would be the type of unrecognized acceleration that I mentioned suspecting, earlier. How would that affect our perceptions of the observed x,y,z dimensions and t?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts