Physical Mechanism of Gravity - the Spatiotemporal Ground-State

[Little Bang]

And they are stable for a million years? BS

[coldcreation]

.

 

 

Let's now move on to to another important aspect of gravitating systems: the central engines driving stellar agglomerations: galactic nuclei.

 

 

If the above scheme is to be consistent, we should find Lagrangian dynamics to be operational not just is the low potential regime, but too, in the most active region of galaxies: the central core.

 

The distinction to be made here with respect to the standard model is that rather than harboring a supermassive black hole (SMBH), it is argued that galactic nuclei, as in other N-body systems, consists of two or more densely populated massive regions with a saddle point at the center. This saddle point (consistent with L1) will either be empty (devoid of matter) or it will be the sight of accreting material (namely stars). These stars, if you look back up at the Lagrange two-body illustration, are coming in from north and south relative to the M1, L1, M2 line. The L1 intersection is thus the scene of head-on collisions of all the undifferentiated matter that falls into the hyperbolic surface: resulting in active galactic nuclei (AGN). Obviously, those galaxies that do not possess an L1 point of this latter type are not AGN.

 

So, what should emerge is that there are two distinct interpretations: one where an object (SMBH) of virtually infinite density (and curvature) is ejecting material in the form of jets from the nucleus, or accretion onto a SMBH, and the other, where there is a point, or zone, with zero curvature (again, consistent with L1) where mass-energy density is null (except in the case of AGN where violent collisions and subsequent outburst of energy occur). So, in the latter scenario(s), there is a combination of both accretion (described above) and shock-excitation outflow (towards the two massive regions flanked around L1), forming an X shape. There should be visible a linear pattern similar to that of M1-L1-M2 in both of the latter models (AGN and non-active nuclei).

 

Some examples of galactic nuclei were already posted above.

 

Let's see what we find both analytically and empirically, and try to determine a method of differentiating between the two competing interpretations:

 

 

 

The following two images (and the full description) are from Joint Astronomy Center; Imaging Polarimetry of the Seyfert 2 Active Galactic Nucleus in NGC1068.

 

FIGURE 2 : A false colur image of the fainter regions of the H-band polarized intensity image of NGC 1068 (left) and a repeat of Figure 1 (right). The named regions are features of the polarized intensity related to physical structures of the active nucleus' date=' as discussed in the text. [...'] The contours represent the fainter features of the image and the false-colour image is of the brighter features.* Several new features are visible in this image (resolution 0.25 arcsec), the most striking of which is that the scattering cones have been resolved into a marked X-shaped pattern.

 

 

 

 

The next one is from: National Radio Astronomy Observatory, Curved Radio Jet in Center of Nearby Galaxy Complicates Picture of Active Galactic Nuclei

 

 

6-CM VLBA IMAGE: The above image is a false-color representation of the radio image of the center of the Seyfert galaxy NGC 4151' date=' made at a wavelength of 6 cm (5.0 GHz frequency), using the National Science Foundation's Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA). North is up and East is to the left in this image. The radio jet shown has a length of approximately 2.6 light years, and is seen at the center of a galaxy 43 million light years from Earth. The actual nucleus of the galaxy is most likely in the strongest (red) emitting region near the center of the image. The northeastern tip of the jet clearly shows the beginning of a curvature toward the east.

 

Active galactic nuclei are classified in a variety of types, according to different phenomena seen by observers. Over the past decade, astronomers have suggested that the different types of AGN may all be the same type of object, with the different properties noted by observers resulting from different viewing angles as seen from Earth. These models, called "unification" schemes, usually rely on a single symmetry axis for an AGN, determined by the spin axis of a central black hole and a surrounding torus, or "doughnut" of material. However, the new radio images indicate that there are two distinctly different symmetry axes on scales less than and greater than a few light-years. According to Ulvestad, "This curvature is quite significant, because it implies that the symmetry axis of NGC 4151 changes substantially in its inner few light-years, and that the commonly accepted unified schemes for AGN are far too simplistic." An answer to the puzzle of the two different symmetry axes in NGC 4151 could shed further light on other objects that do not easily fit into the simple unified scheme.[/quote']

 

 

 

The next two photos can be found here:

Gemini Near-Infrared Integral-Field Spectrograph (NIFS)

 

 

Figure 10: HST/WFPC2 image in [O*III] l5007 of the NLR clouds near the nucleus of the Seyfert 1 galaxy NGC 4151 (Hutchings et al. 1998).

 

 

Figure 11: HST/WFPC2 image of NGC 1068 in [O*III] l5007 light (grayscale) and 6 cm radio emission (contours) from Capetti, Macchetto, & Lattanzi (1997). Note how the radio jet penetrates between [O*III] clouds. The 3²´3² field-of-view is similar to that of NIFS.

 

...Understanding the nature of the central energy source' date=' its interaction with the host galaxy, and the global implications for the evolution of galaxies are continuing themes in the study of Active Galactic Nuclei...(AGN).[/quote']

 

 

 

 

This illustration (or simulation) is interesting in that it implies the center of the torus shape is a kind of saddle point. Source: MATISSE Scientific Goals

 

 

Active Galactic Nuclei

 

Is the torus just the inner' date=' AGN-heated part of the central molecular disk in the host galaxy or is it a decoupled feature, mainly governed by the (young) central star cluster?

 

To which extend is the torus structure regulated by out ow phenomena (supersonic winds, jets) which seem to be connected with any kind of AGN activity?

 

What fraction of the dust emission from within the inner few parsecs of an AGN is emitted by the torus and what by dust entrained in the outflows?

 

Can we find direct evidence that tori are clumpy? ?Image: Schartmann et al., 2005, A&A, 437, 861[/quote']

 

 

 

 

For details on the following image of NGC 6951 (Seyfert 2) see: Feeding black holes: gas dynamics in the cores of nearby galaxies

 

 

In most AGN the activity of the nucleus is powered by gas accretion onto a super-massive black hole. However' date=' angular momentum conservation should prevent gas in the inner kiloparsec of the galaxy to reach the innermost few parsecs from where the accretion disk has to be fed. In the framework of the "NUclei of GAlaxies" project (NUGA), we investigate the gas dynamics from the outskirts of the spiral galaxy to the very center in order to understand the inflow mechanisms.[/quote']

 

 

 

 

We move on to the nucleus in the giant radio galaxy 3C236: Activity in Galactic Nuclei.

 

See also Figure 1.14 of the same link.

 

 

The environments of central engines: the structure and kinematics of gas in the nucleus: Work done so far by Conway and collaborators and Peck and Taylor have shown that HIgas in nuclei can be found in circumnuclear tori' date=' amorphous clouds, and in distinct off-nucleus clouds. An example of the latter is shown in Fig*1.13 [above'] which displays a cloud apparently blocking the SE-going jet 1 kpc from the nucleus in the giant radio galaxy, 3C236 (Conway and Schilizzi, in preparation).

 

 

 

NGC 1068 is another example of compact radio components lined up along a very familiar axis. FIGURE 1.*[below] VLBI images of the radio component S1 of NGC1068.

 

 

Note that' date=' in projection, the extent of the HZ and the direction of the radio jet are at right angles to each other, suggesting a common symmetry axis. [/quote']

 

 

 

We move on to NGC 2903, digitally restored beyond its original brilliance by Coldcreation. See II. Science Issues and Opportunities; 4. Nuclei of Galaxies

A. Origins of Nuclear Starbursts

 

 

Infrared image of the dusty "hotspot" region surrounding the nucleus (bright central source) of the SBc spiral galaxy NGC 2903. This picture shows the colors in the JHK-bands from observations made with the Palomar Hale 5-m telescope with 0.6 arcsec FWHM seeing. Comparisons with images taken with WFPC2 on the Hubble Space Telescope with resolution comparable to that expected for Gemini in the JHK-bands demonstrate that many of the bright IR condensations around the nucleus are compact super star clusters. These types of clusters are common in starbursts and other areas of intense star formation' date=' and can be readily investigated with large aperture, high angular resolution telescopes operating in the optical through mid-infrared spectral regions. This image was obtained by Alan Watson, Keith Matthews, and John Trauger

 

A. Origins of Nuclear Starbursts

 

Bars in galaxies are among the major galactic structures that can induce bursts of star formations by causing a redistribution of interstellar gas. To understand this global process of inducing star formation, one must determine the spatial distribution of the starburst population itself and the spatial distribution of the older stellar population that dominates the gravitational potential and of which the massive bar or oval distortion is a part. In addition, the dynamics of the older stellar population must be ascertained in order to derive a gravitational potential that is consistent with the spatial distribution of stars throughout the central starburst regions of the galaxy.

 

The dynamics of the ionized gas throughout the starburst region gives us a way to examine the response of gas to the gravitational potential. To some degree, these gas motions will deviate from that expected for purely gravitational forces primarily because the starburst itself will energize the ISM by its radiation pressure and mass outflows from the stars and their supemova progeny. A completely self consistent picture might be constructed which demonstrates how the gravitational perturbation (stellar bar) causes redistribution of the ISM, its clumping, and the resultant star formation.[/quote']

 

 

 

Finally: Max-Planck-Institut für extraterrestrische Physik - Infrared/Submillimeter Astronomy - Recent Results of the MPE Infrared/Submillimeter Group

 

 

Line and continuum maps of the central 75 pc of NGC3227' date=' from SINFONI observations. Top left: the 2.1?m continuum is dominated by non-stellar light associated with the AGN, which is unresolved. Top centre: the stellar continuum is easily resolved. [b']Top right: the molecular gas exhibits a wealth of detail in its morphology[/b]. Bottom left: much of the ionised gas originates from the recent star formation. Bottom right: the fairly weak coronal lines excited by the AGN are only seen close around it.

My bold.

 

 

 

 

Certainly, dynamical evidence shows that the velocity of stars close to the center of the Galaxy travel fast enough to revolve around the galactic core in a human lifetime: compelling evidence without a doubt that something uncouth is occurring in the central parsec of the Galaxy. But the conclusion drawn that massive black holes exists within the central arcsecond is based on arguments that alternatives to BHs fail to explicate the apparent masses (inferred from velocities) and the high density of the galactic nucleus.

 

Unquestionably, in the absence of direct proof that SMBH's exist in active galactic nuclei, it is essential to examine alternatives (Kormendy, Ho, 2001). Surely the case for BHs and SMBHs is far from scrupulously proved. It is not out of the question that that reconciliation may be achieved without getting bogged-down with astrophysical constraints. Einstein always refused to accept the physical existence of a singular state, regarding it as the outcome of mathematical idealization. As far as experimental or observational verification is concerned, no approach is in sight. The next hurdle is to explain the stellar velocities connected with the central cusp of the Galaxy and to elucidate the apparent long-term stability (spanning tens of billions of years, possibly much longer) associated with galaxies in general, when the concept of SMBHs at the core is replaced with Lagrangian dynamics.

 

 

 

CC

*

[modest]

To try something new, I've drafted a video as a response to your thread. It might be a lively and interesting departure from forum norms or it might be annoying - I can't decide.

 

YouTube - Lagrange Points in Cosmic Oddities? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-KS27XiPAU

 

-modest

[coldcreation]

To try something new, I've drafted a video as a response to your thread. It might be a lively and interesting departure from forum norms or it might be annoying - I can't decide.

 

-modest

 

Bravo modest, you never cease to amaze me. Perhaps you will start a new trend here at Hypo with Video-responses.

 

About the Einstein Cross. Nice Graphics. What you have shown clearly is that the lensed images should be oval-shaped (or cressent-shaped). Yours are very elongated circularly, typical of a lensed object. The Einstein Cross, on the other hand are not oval along the circular path. Three of the images are in fact oval and pointing in the direction of the central object, the fourth is nearly spherical. The way it works is straight forward. The further the background object (say to the right) the less elongated (or distorted) its image. The closer it moves toward the center of the foreground object, the greater the distortion, until, in this case, the quasar is directly behind the foreground body: at which point distortion (flattening to cressent, ring or semi-ring shape) should be at its maximum.

 

Theoretical calculations of gravitationally lensed objects, when resolved in luminous isophotes, should be be elongated (extended in cressent-shape) by a factor of 4 or 5 to one along the circumference (Peter Schneider et al). Furthermore, the probability of such a lensing event, where the four quasars are within four arc sec of a galaxy nucleus, was calculated by Fred Hoyle to be less than two chances in a million

 

Too, there is a gaseous connection between at least one of the quasars (east) in the ultraviolet exposures, which includes the Lyman alpha line (the strongest emission line of the most abundant material of the quasars) that extends directly into the central galactic nucleus, passes through it, and connects to the adjacent quasar, i.e. the east-west quasars have a luminous bridge (an Alpha lyman filament of low density gas) between them.

 

Finally, the small dwarf galaxy (judging from its morphological appearance; Arp 1998) located in the center of the system possess no wear near the mass necessary to produce a lensing of this magnitude. (Arp, Seeing Red, 1998, p. 173-176)

 

Conclusion: clearly, gravitational lensing is not operational in the Einstein Cross. It is impossible to see how the observations mentioned above can be accounted for in the lensing scenario.

 

 

Moving on to Pleiades, M45. L1 is not occupied (that is where you confusion resides). The four largest masses form a trapezoid (from our line of sight) consistent with M1, M2 and stars at L4 and L5 (forming two equilateral triangles). The central objects, in effect have become a tightly bounded four-body system, each set with their own, new, L4 and L5 points occupied. So the entire N-body system is a complex one, compared to the standard two-body Lagrange schematic.

 

Our understanding of Lagrange points is limited to some extent since there exist no analytical solution for a system with more that three bodies. Fortunately, in the case of M45, there is a clear pattern distinguishable by observation.

 

As complexity (the number of bodies) increases, as in the next example, NGC 4151 and ESO 566?24, a barred spiral with quadruple arms, the Lagrange system is perhaps less evident. Certainly visible are the zones of maxima and minima potential. The following (see link previously posted for this illustration) shows a simple contour plot of effective potential of the Lagrangian type. NGC 4151 is a more complex version of this:

 

 

 

 

It looks as if there would be two (or four) times as many saddle points, minima and maxima involved in ESO 566?24. NGC 4151, a barred galaxy are easier to reconcile with the Lagrange scheme (as noted in several links provided above).

 

Here is another image or two of NGC 4151 where the Lagrange connection is blatant.

 

Contours of 'neutral' hydrogen regions superposed on an optical image of the galaxy NGC 4151. The Contours show two hydrogenic plasma density 'peaks' (left and right) situated about a void at the center of the galaxy.

 

Note the simulation (also linked above and present in this link): "a 'horse-shoe' shaped cusp' date=' opening towards a spiral arm surrounds a magnetic field field/HI minima core." Inside the horse-shoe shape there are two tadpole-shaped regions. Then look at the Lagrange two-body illustration (copyright Coldcreation) reproduced again, here, for convenience.

 

 

 

[center']

 

 

 

Something has only just begun

 

 

 

CC[/center]

[Moontanman]

And they are stable for a million years? BS

 

Refusal to belive the data has never changed reality:hihi:

[coldcreation]

Refusal to belive the data has never changed reality:hihi:

 

Lol. Yes, you are correct Moontanman. :lol:

 

Some of those Trojans have probably been in the L4 and L5 points since the formation of the solar system (of very shortly there after): especially, it is thought, those with very small motion (if any) inside the tadpole region (Source: see the link above). Hmm, that would meen these trojans have been stable for several billion years (let alone millions). :evil:

[Moontanman]

Lol. Yes, you are correct Moontanman. :lol:

 

Some of those Trojans have probably been in the L4 and L5 points since the formation of the solar system (of very shortly there after): especially, it is thought, those with very small motion (if any) inside the tadpole region (Source: see the link above). Hmm, that would meen these trojans have been stable for several billion years (let alone millions). :evil:

 

I know it's outside this thread but think of the possibilities this would mean for space colonization! A stable orbit filled wit all the raw materials needed to build almost anything!

[coldcreation]

I know it's outside this thread but think of the possibilities this would mean for space colonization! A stable orbit filled wit all the raw materials needed to build almost anything!

 

I don't know if you could build a log-cabin.

 

The "almost" in you sentence was key.

 

There is actually alot of literature about colonizing L4 and L5 points. But you're right, that would be another thread.

 

I think Little Bang's "BS" remark was based on the idea that pencils don't naturally stand on their points (so one doing so for a million years seemed absurd). One of the beautiful things about certain L-points is that objects actually do balance 'on their points' (for Gyrs), without finely tuning parameters (e.g., SMBH mass-densities, CDM and DE).

 

Shortly, I will elaborate on the fine-tuning problem inherent in the standard model (not just for gravitationally bounded systems, but in relation to cosmology) vs the natural fine-tuning associated with Lagrangian dynamics.

 

It should emerge, all together I hope, the connection between Lagrange points, the local minima of potentials relative to the local maxima, the cosmological constant (relative to global extrema) and the physical mechanism for the gravitational interaction.

 

 

 

 

 

CC

[modest]

Are there any examples or observations of something natural (not something human made) at a L1, L2, or L3 point? Has that ever been observed?

 

Fair question. I've already answer it above. The answer, at least with respect to the L1 point, is yes. I've also provided images of a large variety systems where the L1 point is occupied.

 

I don't see it - and it can't be occupied for long as it is unstable.

 

Lagrange predicts that L4 and 5 are stable while L1, 2, and 3 are not. This prediction got verified when the trojan asteroids were found at Jupiter's 4 and 5 points. It got verified again with human missions to L1 and 2.

 

Given that, what do these images show and how is Lagrangian mechanics key to the situation or question? Lagrange's method is equivalent to Newton's second law in any situation. Neither give a mechanism for gravity.

 

-modest

[coldcreation]

I don't see it - and it can't be occupied for long as it is unstable.

 

Lagrange predicts that L4 and 5 are stable while L1, 2, and 3 are not. This prediction got verified when the trojan asteroids were found at Jupiter's 4 and 5 points. It got verified again with human missions to L1 and 2.

 

Given that, what do these images show and how is Lagrangian mechanics key to the situation or question? Lagrange's method is equivalent to Newton's second law in any situation. Neither give a mechanism for gravity.

 

-modest

 

Very quickly, I have to catch a plane this morning. (My responses and posts will be spars for a couple of weeks).

 

In a system that contains many bodies (or particles), once two massive regions are condensed from the undifferentiated matter (let's call them M1 and M2), material begins to flow towards L1 (again from north and south relative to the 2-body system above). Much of that material will turn and head for either M1 or M2 (that creates an X-shaped flow of matter). Some material will linger (albeit in an unstable halo orbit around L1, if its incoming velocity was sufficient to prevent it from turning towards M1 or M2). Soon, depending on availability, enough mass will collect in that region, in a chaotic halo orbit (see this link again: Caranicolas, N. D., 2002, Connecting Global to Local Parameters in Barred Galaxy Models). Once enough mass has collect there (and here is the key) the potential well deepens around L1, i.e., it is no longer the original 'saddle' shape it once was. Because the mass in the unstable halo orbit gravitates, there is an indentation (or a protrusion) in the spacetime manifold that allows for mass to remain there, and even continue to agglomerate (accrete).

 

What we have is a three-body system along one line, where two new L1 points arise on either side of the active (and initially chaotic) central body. How stable this configuration is remains to be seen. However, the rotation of the system, coupled with the inclusion of mass at the original L4 and L5 points will increase the stability of the entire system.

 

Remember though, L1 is not always occupied. For that to happen conditions have to be met (the separation between M1 and M2 has to be large, there must be a quasi-steady flow of incoming material, rotation speed, M1 and M2 must be of similar mass etc.).

 

I will come back to your second paragraph shortly.

 

 

CC

[Little Bang]

CC, I don’t see anything wrong with your logic in the description of Lagrange points except that I can not see any way that a mass can be balanced at a Lagrange point forever. Your idea may and I repeat MAY in fact be of some significance at the atomic and nuclear level. I hope you will understand after I lead you through one of our thought experiments.

 

Inside of a building that has temperature, humidity, and pressure control we build a railroad track about 1000 feet long. On one end of the track we place one of those little work cars that is driven by an electric motor. We have it set up so that the car well slow to a stop at the other end and return to it’s starting point. On the car we bolt a school room chair. On the desk part of the chair we mount a digital stop watch that is started by a switch 100 feet up the track and stopped by a switch that is 600 feet from the first switch. I have you set in the chair and I hold a switch that starts the test run. I press the switch and you run through cycle. When you return I ask you what was your average velocity? You reply that it took 25 seconds for you to go the 600 feet and doing the calculations you say your average velocity was 24 feet/second. I say ok, just to be sure let’s run the test one more time. After the next run you get back and say something must be wrong because it only took 24 seconds making my average velocity 25 feet/second. Unbeknownst to you I had control of the oscillator that runs your stopwatch and had slowed your stopwatch down just by a little bit.

 

A particle or wave that is falling into a gravity well is exactly like our experiment. They gain energy, not because a force is pulling on them, but because their clock is slowing down. Everything in the universe is made of waves and the connection between wavelength and gravity is TIME. Gravity is simply a side effect of the original pulse that created the universe.

[coldcreation]

CC, I don’t see anything wrong with your logic in the description of Lagrange points except that I can not see any way that a mass can be balanced at a Lagrange point forever. Your idea may and I repeat MAY in fact be of some significance at the atomic and nuclear level...

 

...Everything in the universe is made of waves and the connection between wavelength and gravity is TIME. Gravity is simply a side effect of the original pulse that created the universe.

 

Little Bang,

 

No one is suggesting that mass is balance forever at any Lagrange point. However, it is suspected that, for example, Trojan objects have been in the Lagrange points of Jupiter for several billion years. That is fairly stable if you ask me. Saddle points are another story.

 

As far as the rest of your post, I don't see how time can be a solution to the problem of gravity (understanding the physical mechanism, its relation to QM or the other forces).

 

CC

[Little Bang]

If you can't see the relationship between time and gravity then I'm speechless. I leave you to your thread. Have fun.

[freeztar]

No one is suggesting that mass is balance forever at any Lagrange point.

 

Indeed. SOHO needs to make frequent adjustments to stay at the LaGrange point.

 

However, it is suspected that, for example, Trojan objects have been in the Lagrange points of Jupiter for several billion years. That is fairly stable if you ask me. Saddle points are another story.

I'm not aware of these "Trojan" objects, do you have a link.

 

As far as the rest of your post, I don't see how time can be a solution to the problem of gravity (understanding the physical mechanism, its relation to QM or the other forces).

 

CC

 

Time is not a *solution* to gravity, but there is undeniable interplay. Afterall, why else would gravity be measured in terms of meters per second squared?

[modest]

I'm not aware of these "Trojan" objects, do you have a link.

 

Lagrange points L5 and L4 were predicted to be stable which was confirmed when the Trojan Asteroids were discovered.

 

L1 and L2 were confirmed unstable by missions like soho and wmap - and also, I guess, the lack of any L1 and L2 asteroids with any planet.

 

So, a distinction has to be made between the stable and unstable.

 

Also, a distinction has to be made between the classic Lagrange points and the points in CC's link here:

http://www.iisc.ernet.in/academy/jaa/dec2002/pdf/Jaa283.pdf

 

Which are a bit different. And, yes, CC, I will respond to it - getting my ducks in a row first.

 

-modest

[Little Bang]

When I came on board as a member I was a standard model guy. I basically grew up while a lot of it was being put together. Because of the very good questions and answers posted by the members I began to change about a year and a half ago. One of the things I have done a complete about face on is time. Just three months ago I thought time was a man made standard used to keep track of events. Three or four weeks ago I asked myself what happens to a photon as it falls into a black hole and realized that the closer it gets to the center the shorter the wavelength and then it dawned on me that without time there could be no wave. This brings up a much tougher question. Why is it when we pack more and more waveforms into a small area time slows down. Answer that one and I'll be your friend for life.

[Little Bang]

CC I withdraw the question because it is a catch 22. Does the wavelength change because it's clock changes or does the clock change because the wavelength changes.