modest Posted January 3, 2009 Report Posted January 3, 2009 After reading hundreds of papers on the subject, you get this feeling If you know what I mean. Feelings are what they are, but if you're making claims and refuting the claims of others then you need to throw some support and back up behind it. That inactive black holes can create jets without feeding or that mass can escape from inside a black hole... for example, seem like pretty strange claims to me. I'd be very curious to read any scientific literature making those same claims. Galaxies go through an evolution of form. The mass and density of the centre Nucleon determines the form of the galaxy. Inactivity does not mean inactivity with respect with either the Nucleon or the galaxy. “Inactivity” or “inactive galaxy” simply refers to galaxies which do not have AGN (active galactic nuclei). They are sometimes tersely called “normal galaxies” (as 99% of all observed galaxies have dormant nuclei), but are more properly called “quiescent galaxies”. The main characteristic that distinguishes active galaxies from quiescent galaxies is that the former has a source of intense luminosity in its nucleus and the latter does not. The scientific community is in good agreement that the majority of all (both active and quiescent) galaxies have supermassive black holes at their core. As for the origin of the main jet. This comes from the centre of any compact object. Can anybody prove that, not yet. Indeed, the source of an AGN is compact. A black hole (even a supermassive black hole) is easily considered compact. Its radius is given by,[math]r_s = \frac{2GM}{c^2}[/math]or, in solar masses and astronomical distance units, [math]r_s = 2 \left( \frac{M_{\bullet}}{10^8 M_{\odot}} \right) \ A.U.[/math]This makes the black hole at the center of the Milky Way just under a tenth of an A.U. in radius or a tenth of the distance from the sun to the earth. Nevertheless, it appears Pluto is referring to a “compact object” such as Hoyle and Fowler proposed was responsible for the energy of AGN in 1963 (On the nature of strong radio sources). They took a step in the right direction claiming there was a single, compact, gravitational source causing quasars. It was, however, not a black hole they considered, but a star of about one billion solar masses (one billion times the mass of our sun). They remark in the paper “The concept of stellar-type objects with masses up to approximately 10^8 solar masses is of course strange...”, and indeed it is. But they correctly focus on one important characteristic of AGN—that the source of energy of an AGN is very small (as compared to something like a globular cluster). And also consider the possibility of accreting matter gravitationally as a source of energy. As far as proving the source is compact (or small in size): When x-ray satellites were put in orbit in the 70’s it was found that quasars emitted strongly in x-ray wavelengths and the energy output varied in this wavelength by as much as a factor of two in as quickly as hours, minutes, or even seconds. This sets an upper limit to the size of the engine generating the quasar because it can only be altered as a whole on the timescale that light can travel from one side of the quasar to the other. This flux variability timescale does indeed demonstrate that AGN are generated in a very compact space. Accretion is the main part, that most papers say creates the main jet. Yes—where accretion means attracting and gaining mass gravitationally. The massive amounts of energy required of an AGN (including its jets and EMR output) needs an engine capable of delivering serious amounts of energy. The gravitational potential of a supermassive black hole is an hypothesis put forward in the mid 1960's. Observations have agreed with this hypothesis and helped explain the taxonomy of many different astronomical objects (Quasars, radio galaxies, Seyfert nuclei, Blazars, etc.) under one model (supermassive black holes). It really has explained a lot, but there's still a lot to learn about the exact mechanics involved. The infall flow has not got the capacity to create jets that are able to reach speeds close to the speed of light, Do you have a source for this? A supermassive black hole is more efficient at converting mass into energy than more traditional stellar processes: Since the early 1960s there was much speculation about how the observed luminosities could be produced within such a small region. Thermonuclear reactions, which have efficiencies of 0.7% at best (in the case of fusion of H into He), were quickly eliminated... ...Epsilon is the efficiency of conversion of mass into energy, and depends on the spin of the black hole, varying between 6% if the black hole is not spinning, and 42% if the black hole is maximally spinning. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0411/0411247v1.pdf In 1963, the specific calculations were originally done by Edwin Salpeter (who by the way, just died about a month ago)Accretion of Interstellar Matter by Massive Objects - E SalpeterThis work (and a lot of subsequent work) shows that the extreme gravitational potential of a SMBH provides an energy source capable of driving AGN characteristics including relativistic jets. The specific models of jets based on accretion have been verified (or at least supported) by recent observations,The inner jet of an active galactic nucleus as revealed by a radio-to-big gamma-ray outburstIf you don’t have a subscription to Nature, you can read about the study in this Space.com article:SPACE.com -- Powerful Black Hole Jet ExplainedOr, you can request a PDF of the study from the head author, Alan Marscher, at his University web page (it’s the 4th one down):Alan Marscher: Publications in Scientific Journals not only that to give it magnetic properties that keep their straight direction for millions of years. While the characteristics are more complicated than being straight (as Fripro's link above gets into), I understand what you mean, that the jet is always pointed in the same general direction. If the black hole is rotating though, I don't see why the jets would be pointed anywhere but perpendicular to the accretion disc. As for matter been sucked in to black holes. I will give you information of the growth of compact bodies from Neutrons, to quarks composites and Nutrino ultra dense matter. Matter being pulled into black holes isn’t the problem. The problem is claiming that matter that’s pulled into (inside) the black hole, is “then ejected” from it. Such a claim requires that matter be ejected from inside the black hole’s event horizon. This is impossible by the very definition of a black hole and all theory describing it. A black hole is a region of space in which the gravitational field is so powerful that nothing, including electromagnetic radiation (e.g. visible light), can escape its pull after having fallen past its event horizon. Black hole - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Theorizing about compact, degenerate matter doesn’t change this. A body made of electron degenerate matter that is over the Chandrasekhar limit (~1.4 solar masses) will collapse. A body made of neutron degenerate matter over the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit (~2.5 solar masses) will collapse. We can then suppose some new degenerate matter, such as quark degenerate matter, preon degenerate matter, and string degenerate matter. We can suppose limits for each saying quark stars collapse at 30 solar masses and preon stars collapse at 60 solar masses. But, this line of thinking does not help matter escape a supermassive black hole. The black hole at the center of the Milky Way has 3.7 *million* solar masses. Even if it has some strange and exotic unknown degenerate matter inside it, its escape velocity will still be larger than the speed of light. In order for anything to escape it, it would need to go much, much faster than the speed of light which is not possible. Jets therefore cannot originate from inside the black hole unless it is breaking some of the best known laws of physics. And, there’s no need to propose new laws of physics or breaking the laws of physics. The best theory of AGNs suggest that jets originate from the accretion discs collimated by magnetic field lines and ejected without ever crossing the event horizon and observations are tending to agree. The mass that makes up a relativistic jet comes from the accretion disc surrounding a black hole (not from inside the hole).In actual fact they dance together, the driver is the ultra dense plasma (BH), the disc surrounding is probably a Neutron matrix and amongst other degenerate matter surrounding. WE will never know because we will never be able to see within. We’ll never be able to see in the event horizon of the black hole, but we can make observations of the accretion disc. X-ray spectroscopy (of iron, for example) has provided very good evidence of the accretion disc’s structure and relativistic nature not far (a few Schwarzschild radii) from the black hole. So! the rule that nothing can escape from a black is in my opinion wrong. If you agree that we cannot see in a black hole then you’ve come to a troublesome conclusion that light cannot escape a black hole but massive particles can (unless I've somehow misunderstood you). Such is not part of any recognizable physics of which I’m aware. The ultra dense degenerate matter that forms the so called black hole is able to form the most powerful magnetic vortex to eject matter through it at close to the speed of light and because of the magnetic fields, the matter not to be affected by the extreme gravity of the so called black hole. "Through it"? "not affected by gravity"? :confused: Is this a theory that you're aware of in the scientific community, or is this your idea? ~modest Quote
Pluto Posted January 3, 2009 Report Posted January 3, 2009 G'day from the land of ozzzz Hello Modest, thanks for the reading, "I'll be back" Quote
Pluto Posted January 4, 2009 Report Posted January 4, 2009 G'day from the land of ozzzz Hello Modest. My main computer crashed and will not be fixed for a few days. Until than th back up is working. You may need to read further the ABS and maybe open some of the links. [0812.2483] Statistical Properties of Gamma-Ray Burst PolarizationStatistical Properties of Gamma-Ray Burst Polarization(Submitted on 12 Dec 2008) The emission mechanism and the origin and structure of magnetic fields in gamma-ray burst (GRB) jets are among the most important open questions concerning the nature of the central engine of GRBs. In spite of extensive observational efforts, these questions remain to be answered and are difficult or even impossible to infer with the spectral and lightcurve information currently collected. Polarization measurements will lead to unambiguous answers to several of these questions. [0811.0158] Transient jets in the symbiotic prototype Z AndromedaeTransient jets in the symbiotic prototype Z Andromedae(Submitted on 2 Nov 2008) Simultaneously, high-velocity satellite components appeared on both sides of the H-alpha and H-beta emission line profiles. They were launched asymmetrically with the red/blue velocity ratio of 1.2 - 1.3. From about mid-August they became symmetric. Their spectral properties indicated ejection of bipolar jets collimated within an average opening angle of 6.1 degrees. [0810.5470] INTEGRAL and XMM-Newton Spectroscopy of GX 339-4 During Hard/Soft Intermediate and High/Soft States in the 2007 OutburstINTEGRAL and XMM-Newton Spectroscopy of GX 339-4 During Hard/Soft Intermediate and High/Soft States in the 2007 Outburst(Submitted on 30 Oct 2008) Our results imply evolution in the coronal properties, the most important one being the transition from a compact corona in the first observation to the disappearance of coronal material in the second and re-appearance in the third. This fact, accompanied by the plasma ejection events detected in radio on February 4 to 18, suggest that the ejected medium is the coronal material responsible for the hard X-ray emission. [0810.5311] Super-Orbital Variability in Hard X-raysSuper-Orbital Variability in Hard X-rays(Submitted on 29 Oct 2008) This phase shift, when taken together with the near-coincident onset of the $sim$46 d modulation and the low/hard X-ray state, leads us to speculate that the modulation could herald transient jet formation. http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.3185Jets and environment of microquasars(Submitted on 19 Jun 2008) A generic scenario for microquasar jets is proposed, classifying the observed jets into three main categories, with different jet morphologies (and sizes) corresponding to different scales of vacuous environments surrounding them. Interesting readinghttp://arxiv.org/abs/0806.3045Evidence for polar jets as precursors of polar plume formation Authors: N.-E. Raouafi, G. J. D. Petrie, A. A. Norton, C. J. Henney, S. K. Solanki(Submitted on 18 Jun 2008) And http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.1700On the X-ray/TeV connection in Galactic jet sources Authors: V. Bosch-Ramon, D. Khangulyan, F. A. Aharonian(Submitted on 12 May 2008 (v1), last revised 13 May 2008 (this version, v2)) Abstract: There are three Galactic jet sources, from which TeV emission has been detected: LS 5039, LS I +61 303 and Cygnus X-1. These three sources show power-law tails at X-rays and soft gamma-rays that could indicate a non-thermal origin for this radiation. In addition, all three sources apparently show correlated and complex behavior at X-ray and TeV energies. In some cases, this complex behavior is related to the orbital motion (e.g. LS 5039, LS I +61 303), and in some others it is related to some transient event occurring in the system (e.g. Cygnus X-1, and likely also LS I +61 303 and LS 5039). Based on modeling or energetic grounds, it seems difficult to explain the emission in the X-/soft gamma-ray and the TeV bands as coming from the same region (i.e. one-zone). We also point out the importance of the pair creation phenomena in these systems, which harbor a massive and hot star, for the radio and the X-ray emission, since a secondary pair radiation component may be significant in these energy ranges. Finally, we discuss that in fact the presence of the star can indeed have strong impact on, beside the non-thermal radiation production, the jet dynamics. It seems that if the Ultra compact objects are treated as compact objects without the constraints of Black hole restrictions research untaps further information about compact bodies and the resultant jet formation. Modest, by far I have not even read 1% of the papers given to me. This link is quite interestinghttp://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1337Coupled radio and X-ray emission and evidence for discrete ejecta in the jets of SS 433(Submitted on 8 Apr 2008) and this one http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.0322Advection-Dominated Accretion and the Black Hole Event Horizon Authors: Ramesh Narayan, Jeffrey E. McClintock(Submitted on 3 Mar 2008) Abstract: As the luminosity of an accreting black hole drops to a few percent of Eddington, the spectrum switches from the familiar soft state to a hard state that is well-described by a distended and tenuous advection-dominated accretion flow (ADAF). An ADAF is a poor radiator, and the ion temperature can approach 10^{12} K near the center, although the electrons are cooler, with their temperature typically capped at ~10^{9-11} K. The foundational papers predicted that the large thermal energy in an ADAF would drive strong winds and jets, as later observed and also confirmed in computer simulations. Of chief interest, however, is the accreting gas that races inward. It carries the bulk of the accretion energy as stored thermal energy, which vanishes without a trace as the gas passes through the hole's event horizon. One thus expects black holes in the ADAF regime to be unusually faint. Indeed, this is confirmed by a comparison of accreting stellar-mass black holes and neutron stars, which reside in very similar transient X-ray binary systems. The black holes are on average observed to be fainter by a factor of ~100-1000. The natural explanation is that a neutron star must radiate the advected thermal energy from its surface, whereas a black hole can hide the energy behind its event horizon. The case for an event horizon in Sagittarius A*, which is immune to caveats on jet outflows and is furthermore independent of the ADAF model, is especially compelling. These two lines of evidence for event horizons are impervious to counterarguments that invoke strong gravity or exotic stars. Quote
modest Posted January 5, 2009 Report Posted January 5, 2009 Well, those are all nice links, Pluto. But, after spending all evening reading them—I don't see any of them supporting your conclusions at all. It's almost like you've just ignored all my questions, discussion, and concerns, and decided to post a bunch of random obfuscating links. :doh: Notice the site rule:Do not post links to other sites as proof of your claims without commenting what the relevant sites say and why they are important to the current discussion. You may need to read further the ABS and maybe open some of the links. It certainly is more than a little irritating to be told I have to review 161 pages of scientific literature to understand your position, only to spend 3 hours doing so finding nothing that illuminates your claims at all. The one comment you made regarding the literature you linked shows a basic misunderstanding of the paper. [0805.1700] On the X-ray/TeV connection in Galactic jet sourcesOn the X-ray/TeV connection in Galactic jet sources Authors: V. Bosch-Ramon, D. Khangulyan, F. A. Aharonian(Submitted on 12 May 2008 (v1), last revised 13 May 2008 (this version, v2)) Abstract: There are three Galactic jet sources, from which TeV emission has been detected: LS 5039, LS I +61 303 and Cygnus X-1. These three sources show power-law tails at X-rays and soft gamma-rays that could indicate a non-thermal origin for this radiation. In addition, all three sources apparently show correlated and complex behavior at X-ray and TeV energies. In some cases, this complex behavior is related to the orbital motion (e.g. LS 5039, LS I +61 303), and in some others it is related to some transient event occurring in the system (e.g. Cygnus X-1, and likely also LS I +61 303 and LS 5039). Based on modeling or energetic grounds, it seems difficult to explain the emission in the X-/soft gamma-ray and the TeV bands as coming from the same region (i.e. one-zone). We also point out the importance of the pair creation phenomena in these systems, which harbor a massive and hot star, for the radio and the X-ray emission, since a secondary pair radiation component may be significant in these energy ranges. Finally, we discuss that in fact the presence of the star can indeed have strong impact on, beside the non-thermal radiation production, the jet dynamics. It seems that if the Ultra compact objects are treated as compact objects without the constraints of Black hole restrictions research untaps further information about compact bodies and the resultant jet formation. Where the abstract says "massive and hot star" you seem to be thinking that is an alternative to a black hole. That is not the case. The paper isn't proposing a "compact object" as a substitute for an "ultra compact object". That is not at all what the paper is saying. The paper discusses x-ray emissions and jets in X-ray Binary Star Systems. These are sometimes called 'microquasars' as they have quasar-like characteristics, but are much smaller and closer to earth (they're in our galaxy). X-ray binaries are binary systems. This means there are two gravitational sources (two objects) orbiting one another—a star and a black hole (or neutron star depending on the mass of the particular system in discussion). The black hole/neutron star is stripping the normal star of its mass and accreting it. The BH/NS makes an accretion disc, forms jets, and emits x-rays. These are all quasar-like characteristics. It's reference to "the star" is then understood to mean the normal star that's orbiting with the BH/NS. It's not a substitute for the black hole, it's orbiting with the black hole. To think otherwise is a fundamental misunderstanding of the paper's intent. Section 2.2, for example, titled "the role of the star" describes how the companion to the black hole/neutron star influences the microquasar characteristics. Another example of the strong disconnect between your sources and your conclusions: [0803.0322] Advection-Dominated Accretion and the Black Hole Event Horizon... Abstract: As the luminosity of an accreting black hole drops to a few percent of Eddington, the spectrum switches from the familiar soft state to a hard state that is well-described by a distended and tenuous advection-dominated accretion flow (ADAF). An ADAF is a poor radiator, and the ion temperature can approach 10^{12} K near the center, although the electrons are cooler, with their temperature typically capped at ~10^{9-11} K. The foundational papers predicted that the large thermal energy in an ADAF would drive strong winds and jets, as later observed and also confirmed in computer simulations. Of chief interest, however, is the accreting gas that races inward. It carries the bulk of the accretion energy as stored thermal energy, which vanishes without a trace as the gas passes through the hole's event horizon. One thus expects black holes in the ADAF regime to be unusually faint. Indeed, this is confirmed by a comparison of accreting stellar-mass black holes and neutron stars, which reside in very similar transient X-ray binary systems. The black holes are on average observed to be fainter by a factor of ~100-1000. The natural explanation is that a neutron star must radiate the advected thermal energy from its surface, whereas a black hole can hide the energy behind its event horizon. The case for an event horizon in Sagittarius A*, which is immune to caveats on jet outflows and is furthermore independent of the ADAF model, is especially compelling. These two lines of evidence for event horizons are impervious to counterarguments that invoke strong gravity or exotic stars. Why would you underline and bold the sentence above? It is evidence for the presence of an event horizon associated with a black hole. It observationally distinguishes between a stellar-sized black hole and a neutron star. That seems to be at complete odds with your stated claims. :lol: Notice the last sentence of the abstract: "These two lines of evidence for event horizons are impervious to counterarguments that invoke strong gravity or exotic stars." The paper argues against compact, exotic stars as sources for AGN and other black hole-related phenomenon. The case for event horizons in both Sgr A and in the stellar-mass BHs is robust against appeals to strong gravity or the leading models of exotic stars... many indicators show that the event horizon is an inescapable reality. It supports the case for general relativistic black holes and remarks that no form of degenerate matter can be viable in cases such as massive x-ray binaries or galactic nuclei. Honestly, to support the case for a degenerate-compact-matter-like, exotic galactic core—you cite a paper arguing against any such degenerate-compact-matter-like, exotic galactic core. The paper strongly supports what I've been saying... and you ironically tell me that I need to actually *open the links*! :cheer: I should tell you, Pluto. If you want to continue criticizing other people's positions (which are well-backed by evidence and theory) with your own strange claims then you need to do better than "you get this feeling If you know what I mean". ~modest Quote
Pluto Posted January 5, 2009 Report Posted January 5, 2009 G'day Modest You said: I should tell you, Pluto. If you want to continue criticizing other people's positions (which are well-backed by evidence and theory) with your own strange claims then you need to do better than "you get this feeling If you know what I mean". You are miss understanding my position. I do not have a position. I keep on telling you that it will take me at least two more years of reading to undertsand the workings of the parts. I have read your links and I find limited in information. My aim is to understand the actual trigger that starts the jets. So far all the papers that I have read talk around the subject. They are getting closer, but! they are limited by the tools that they are using. In the last 12 mths, the papers have become better. If you do not want me to share the links that I'm reading, thats fine. It has been Xmas break and time has been limted so please do not expect answers that most scientists do not even know about. Do you actually read the links? If you have read the links than you have read them out of context when they write about compact matter. What do you think is the main body that plays the main part? The transition phase is the key. This is not a new topic, Wheeler in 1996 wrote this paper. [astro-ph/9606119] Black Hole X-ray TransientsBlack Hole X-ray Transients Authors: J. Craig Wheeler (Dept. of Astronomy, U. of Texas)(Submitted on 19 Jun 1996) Abstract: The observations and theory of the exciting new class of galactic black hole X-ray transients is reviewed. Seven of these systems have measured mass functions or mass estimates in excess of stable neutron stars, making them excellent black hole candidates. Two of them have revealed ``superluminal" radio jets. Study of the hard and soft radiation from these sources has given tight constraints on the physics of the viscosity of the accretion disk and promises firm proof that these systems contain black holes. This will allow us to search for black holes of more moderate mass and apply the knowledge of these systems to suspected supermassive black holes in AGN's. The most plausible mechanism for triggering the outburst of black hole candidate X-ray transients is the ionization thermal instability. The disk instability models can give the deduced mass flow in quiescence, but not the X-ray spectrum. Advection models that can account for the quiescent X-ray spectrum are difficult to match with the non-steady state, quiescent Keplerian disks. Self-irradiation of the disk in outburst may not lead to X-ray reprocessing as the dominant source of optical light, but may play a role in the ``reflare." The hard power-law spectrum and radio bursts may be non-thermal processes driven by the flow of pair--rich plasma from the disk at early times and due to the formation of a pair--rich plasma corona at late times. The repeated outbursts in systems like GRO J0422+32 suggest some sort of clock, but it is unlikely that it has anything to do with a simple X-ray heating of the companion star. These systems typically have low mass secondaries and their evolutionary origin is still mysterious. Research into these area is moss important. and yet the key issue in the formation of the jet has not been resolved. There are a number of theories and experiments on Z-pinch explaining the formation of jets and the resultant formation of Neutrons and their ultra compaction. I stll have a month or more of reading on this subject. I'm not interested in feeling right, I just want to know and understand. So I thank you for your time. Quote
REASON Posted January 6, 2009 Report Posted January 6, 2009 You are miss understanding my position. I do not have a position. Your position throughout the entirety of this thread has been that the Big Bang Theory is WRONG, and you have been attempting to refute it in every way you can conceive. You have established this anti-Big Bang position for reasons you have yet to reveal, in my opinion. You have expressed utter contemp for the theory to a point beyond objectivity and seem to imply that those who currently subscribe to it are foolhardy suckers. It is obvious that you are not going to allow yourself to be placed in that category. Personnaly, I don't think there is anything wrong with deciding that a scientific theory is lacking and choosing to research or develop alternative hypotheses, but you are now refusing to accept conclusions, even from your own sources, that are contrary to your concept. A good scientist is able to acknowledge when they make mistakes and accept facts for what they are, not just when they support their desired outcome. So, let us be clear. There is NO evidence in any of the years worth of reading you have to support the notion that matter or electromagnetic radiation can escape the Event Horizon of a Black Hole. Therefore, the Relativistic Jets produced from active Black Holes, which you attribute as the primary cyclical process of matter in the Universe, do not and cannot originate from within the black hole. Thus, there can be no recycling of matter in this manner. I suggest you look elsewhere for a cyclic explanation and refutation of the Big Bang Theory. I also suggest you look inside and consider what it is that makes you so resistent to what is a fairly well supported theory. Whatever it is may prove to be a hiderance to your ability to objectively come up with an alternative theory, because it may require that you accept some or much of the observable evidence currently in support of the Big Bang. Quote
Pluto Posted January 6, 2009 Report Posted January 6, 2009 G'dya reason You said So, let us be clear. There is NO evidence in any of the years worth of reading you have to support the notion that matter or electromagnetic energy can escape the Event Horizon of a Black Hole. Therefore, the Reletivistic Jets produced from active Black Holes, which you attribute as the primary cyclical process of matter in the Universe, do not and cannot originate from within the black hole. Thus, there can be no recycling of matter in this mannor. In reality no body knows. What a black hole is made from and how it functions. We can express opinions and at the end of the day try to support such opinions. You have not read the links that I have posted, by the expression of your writing. If the BBT is correct than the biggest problem that it cannot explain is the formation of the super cluster of cluster of local galaxies where in the centre lives a monster so called black hole that has jets ejecting matter far greater than the matter accreting to the black hole. Where does this matter come from? There is no magic in this. as for event horizons. Maybe you can read some science papers. Trapping HorizonsarXiv.org Search Just because i share interesting links that I think are great reading does not mean that I agree with them. Some even support the BBT. But! Please do not expect me to agree with the BBT just because some person becomes emotional. Quote
Pluto Posted January 6, 2009 Report Posted January 6, 2009 G'day from the land of ozzzzz This maybe of interst to some [0804.4435] Spherically symmetric trapping horizons, the Misner-Sharp mass and black hole evaporationSpherically symmetric trapping horizons, the Misner-Sharp mass and black hole evaporation Authors: Alex B. Nielsen, Dong-han Yeom(Submitted on 28 Apr 2008) Abstract: Understood in terms of pure states evolving into mixed states, the possibility of information loss in black holes is closely related to the global causal structure of spacetime, as is the existence of event horizons. However, black holes need not be defined by event horizons, and in fact we argue that in order to have a fully unitary evolution for black holes, they should be defined in terms of something else, such as a trapping horizon. The Misner-Sharp mass in spherical symmetry shows very simply how trapping horizons can give rise to black hole thermodynamics, Hawking radiation and singularities. We show how the Misner-Sharp mass can also be used to give insights into the process of collapse and evaporation of locally defined black holes. Imagine if we did not question? Does this mean we enter into another dark age? What fun would it be if we all agreed? This would end up as a chat room. Quote
Buffy Posted January 6, 2009 Report Posted January 6, 2009 Imagine if we did not question? Does this mean we enter into another dark age? What fun would it be if we all agreed? This would end up as a chat room.Mr. Pluto, The complaints you're getting are not about "not questioning" they're about the fact that you seem to use this place as some sort of personal notepad of things that are of interest to you, when this thread and others like it are for discussion and actual debate of the points. This unfortunately comes across as quite rude. It's kind of like me coming over to your house and spraypainting random phone numbers that I want to remember on your front door. If you want to avoid getting these complaints, it would behoove you to limit your posts to references that you've actually thought about and not only post the reference but state what you think it means and why it is important. It's certainly fine to have no opinion, but if you think something might be interpreted as supporting a particular position, then even if you don't agree with it, you still need to defend the interpretation for it to be worthwhile to impose on everyone else. You're obviously curious and enjoy absorbing these documents, but as I say, it's quite rude to assume that everyone else does too. Not caring what other people think is easily interpreted as expressing disdain and dislike of other people. A vision without action is called a daydream; but then again, action without a vision is called a nightmare, :doh:Buffy Quote
Pluto Posted January 6, 2009 Report Posted January 6, 2009 G'day Miss Buffy Mate, I do not want to be rude, thats the last thing I want to do. My task at the moment is to get through this reading and hope by 2 years time I will have a little bit more to add. Modest has given me many links to read, I'm in the middle of those papers. I'm trying to find where the darn jets form, thats if we have the tools to show us. Just reading these links, I feel I'm getting closer to the explanation and yet I feel I'm a million miles away. As for using this as a personal Note pad. That is a far cry. My comp has about 20,000 papers not that I have read them all yet. I'm also looking for that person who is in the field that is able to help me with the discussion. How Compact are the Cores of AGN? Sub-Parsec Scale Imaging with VLBI at Millimeter WavelengthsAuthors: T.P. Krichbaum, S.S. Lee, A.P. Lobanov, A.P. Marscher, M.A. Gurwell (Submitted on 29 Aug 2007) Abstract: We study the most central regions of AGN jets with an angular resolution of tens of micro-arcseconds using VLBI at millimeter wavelengths (mm-VLBI). We present and discuss a new 86 GHz VLBI survey of compact radio sources. We show new high dynamic range images of two nearby radio galaxies (3C 120 and M87). In M87 the size of the compact VLBI core (the jet base) is < 15 Schwarzschild radii. Future mm-VLBI observations at 1 mm and shorter wavelengths should lead to images of galactic and extragalactic radio sources with a spatial resolution down to a few Schwarzschild radii of the central super massive black holes. To achieve this, the participation of large and sensitive millimeter and sub-millimeter telescopes in VLBI is essential. Owing to their high sensitivity existing and planned phased interferometers like the IRAM Plateau de Bure interferometer, CARMA, the SMA and ALMA could play an important role. Part 5 The jet of M87 We may identify the size of thebrightest and most compact VLBI component with the jet diameter at or near itsorigin. In this case it is remarkable that the jet base is so small and bright (TB ≥2 · 1010 K), contrary to expectations from magnetic-slingshot type accelerationmodels (e.g. Blandford & Payne 1982). Here, magnetic fields are anchored in therotating accretion disk, expand and form a light-cylinder. Its diameter definesthe minimum jet width of > 50Rs (Camenzind 1990; Fendt & Memola 2001).The observed small size therefore points more towards models in which the jetis attached more directly to the rotating black hole (Blandford & Znajek 1977),gaining its energy viaMHD interaction with the inner disk (e.g. Mc Kinney 2006)or the Penrose process (Gariel et al. 2007, and references therein). So I'm searching the papers that can somehow explain further the location and formation of jets. So I keep on reading. Everytime I come across an interesting link I want to share it. I hope there is no harm in that. If this is rude I will make this my last post in linksand just chat. [astro-ph/0406235] Synchrotron Self-Compton Model for Rapid Nonthermal Flares in Blazars with Frequency-Dependent Time LagsSynchrotron Self-Compton Model for Rapid Nonthermal Flares in Blazars with Frequency-Dependent Time Lags Authors: Andrei Sokolov, Alan P. Marscher, Ian M. McHardy(Submitted on 9 Jun 2004) Abstract: We model rapid variability of multifrequency emission from blazars occurring across the electromagnetic spectrum (from radio to gamma-rays). Lower energy emission is produced by the synchrotron mechanism, whereas higher energy emission is due to inverse Compton scattering of the synchrotron emission. We take into account energy stratification established by particle acceleration at shock fronts and energy losses due to synchrotron emission. We also consider the effect of light travel delays for the synchrotron emission that supplies the seed photons for inverse Compton scattering. The production of a flare is caused by the collision between a relativistic shock wave and a stationary feature in the jet (e.g., a Mach disk). The collision leads to the formation of forward and reverse shocks, which confine two contiguous emission regions resulting in complex profiles of simulated flares. Simulations of multifrequency flares indicate that relative delays between the inverse Compton flares and their synchrotron counterparts are dominated by energy stratification and geometry of the emitting regions, resulting in both negative and positive time delays depending on the frequency of observation. Light travel effects of the seed photons may lead to a noticeable delay of the inverse Compton emission with respect to synchrotron variability if the line of sight is almost perfectly aligned with the jet. We apply the model to a flare in 3C 273 and derive the properties of shocked plasma responsible for the flare. We show that the pronounced negative time delay between the X-ray and IR light curves (X-rays peak after the maximum in the synchrotron emission) can be accounted for if both forward and reverse shocks are considered. Quote
TIC Posted January 7, 2009 Report Posted January 7, 2009 Hello All With the recent information given to us by the scientific community world wide. Without me influencing? What do you think? Was there a Big Bang? Was there a M- theory ? Was there a String Theory? Was there a steady state theory? Was there a wave theory? Was there a Plasma Theory? Was there a Recycle theory? Was there a GOD theory? Did I miss any out? If I did,,,,,,,,,,just list them Or is there a combination theory? Can someone be right and yet be wrong? "One Never Knows, Do One?" But we are VERY curious creatures, to be sure. What universe did the "big bang" start in? That's an interesting place to contemplate; Infinity? And it where did "it" begin? . . . and so it goes. Enjoy the pure speculation. Just a notch over 500 years ago . . . the world was flat. Before that we were the center of the universe, to be sure!. In the scope of what we do know, we are neither sperm nor ovam. We are cluless cosmic dust floating about in a medium we do not unterstand. But aint't it a great to have the conscience to ponder the impossible and try the improbable. TIC Quote
Pluto Posted January 7, 2009 Report Posted January 7, 2009 G'day TIC AS per the BBT, there were bangs throughout the infinite universe at the same time and not from one point. Quote
modest Posted January 7, 2009 Report Posted January 7, 2009 You are miss understanding my position. I do not have a position. You have, in this very thread, accused supporters of BBT of “raping science” and said they “need to be shot”. More than a position, you may-well have an agenda. Do you actually read the links? Did you read my last post? It was irritating to review 9 scientific papers that you insisted that I needed to read in order to understand your position when none of them had any agreement with what you've been saying. If you have read the links than you have read them out of context when they write about compact matter. None of your links have the phrase “compact matter”. In fact, a google search for “compact matter” turns up very few results and many (if not most) of them are not related to astronomy. Interestingly, 3 of google’s first page search results for “compact matter” were written by you, Pluto. So, it’s a very safe bet that you’re one of the very few people using this term to mean what I think it is you mean: “Degenerate matter” Most of your links (but not all) discuss "compact objects". This is important: "Compact object" is not the same as "compact matter" (i.e. degenerate matter). Black holes and Neutron stars are both compact objects, but only the neutron star has degenerate matter. It seems very likely, given your past few posts that you are confusing "compact object" with "compact (degenerate) matter". Only one of your 9 links from post 598 discusses the possibility of compact (degenerate) matter sources as a substitute for traditional black holes. The relevant section says: The first BH, Cygnus X-1, was identified and established in 1972 via a measurement of its mass, which was shown to be too large for a neutron star (NS). The surest evidence for the existence of BHs continues to be through dynamical mass measurements. We now know of 20 additional compact binary X-ray sources (McClintock & Remillard 2006; Orosz et al. 2007) with primaries that are too massive to be a NS or any stable assembly of cold degenerate matter, assuming that GR is valid. Similarly, dynamical data have established the existence of supermassive BHs, most notably in the nucleus of our Milky Way Galacy (Schodel et al. 2002; Ghez et al. 2005a) and in NGC 4258 (Miyoshi et al. 1995). Are these compact objects genuine BHs – pockets of fully collapsed matter that are walled off from sight by self gravity and that, like a shadow, reveal no detail — or are they exotic objects that have no event horizons but manage to masquerade as BHs? Most astrophysicists believe that they are genuine BHs. There are several reasons for this confidence... Advection-Dominated Accretion and the Black Hole Event Horizon. Section 4: The Black Hole Event HorizonThe paper then goes on to describe the reasons that astrophysicists have concluded against strange stars or other compact sources of gravity and sided with black holes as they are described by general relativity. This contradicts your statements on the subject. For whatever reason, you are consistently saying one thing and posting links that say the exact opposite. For example, you say:It seems that if the Ultra compact objects are treated as compact objects without the constraints of Black hole restrictions research untaps further information about compact bodies and the resultant jet formation.talking directly about this paper:On the X-ray/TeV connection in Galactic jet sourceswhich does not discuss anything like that! The paper that you point out doesn't make any statements regarding the substitution of "compact objects" (i.e. some sort of star) over "ultra-compact objects" (i.e. black holes). It reports nothing of the sort. But, there's no way to resolve this apparent disconnect between your claims and your sources because you refuse to discuss the papers you post. At most we get "this is interesting" or "I don't agree with this, but it's interesting". It's very reminiscent of 13763 You've said I'm misunderstanding your link's references to "compact matter". Show me where. Show me how. ~modest Quote
maddog Posted January 7, 2009 Report Posted January 7, 2009 Your position throughout the entirety of this thread has been that the Big Bang Theory is WRONG, and you have been attempting to refute it in every way you can conceive. You have established this anti-Big Bang position for reasons you have yet to reveal, in my opinion. You have expressed utter contemp for the theory to a point beyond objectivity and seem to imply that those who currently subscribe to it are foolhearty suckers. It is obvious that you are not going to allow yourself to be placed in that category.I have got to say Reason that you have "hit the nail on the head". This whole post of yours Completely expresses what "discussion" that I have had with Pluto and my continual frustration thereof. Some things I might add though are the following: 1. I have noticed that Pluto would not answer a direct question yet would providea link that not only didn't answer (it may have went off in a completely differentdirection!). 2. A common response from Pluto to me was often to say I might not evenunderstand the question/topic (like the time he did a few posts ago to Modest). 3. Another method I notice Pluto would was the typical deflection method ofasking another different question than answer the one being asked. I have read more half of the papers that Pluto flung my direction in response toon my question. None of them were ever directly related to my question to him.His often response was something like "I post these links because they say itbetter than I can...". I was not aware that Pluto is now hung on Jets from Black Holes. We are not ableto be near the vicinity of one of these objects. Though models have been doneon them. Every paper I read on the subject were jets to form would be outsidethe Event Horizon so no problem of coming "out" as Modest was concernedabout. Now if Pluto can not get his head around that, I am Not sympathetic. :hyper: maddog Quote
maddog Posted January 7, 2009 Report Posted January 7, 2009 If the BBT is correct than the biggest problem that it cannot explain is the formation of the super cluster of cluster of local galaxies where in the centre lives a monster so called black hole that has jets ejecting matter far greater than the matter accreting to the black hole.Unsupported -- not true - unfounded -- Just conjecture on your part. Where does this matter come from? There is no magic in this.Basically has been said before in the last couple of posts, including mine.Best method I can think of would be Hawking Radiation around a fast rotatingBlack Hole.But! Please do not expect me to agree with the BBT just because some person becomes emotional.That would be my last consideration. I do not even expect you to "agree' with BBT.I would also like to be afforded the same consideration and "not" to be forced feed the bilge you provide. As you have not provided a method to your "cycling" in your thinking. I prettymuch reject it "out of hand". I am "open" minded, though I do use logic and can follow details. None of whichyou have provided. Every time I say BBT is the prevailing Theory -- you say,"How mainstream", or something. I think the only place where we might agree is I think some Cosmologists are taking how early they can get to near the beginning by using theories themselves (such as String Theory and SuperGravity, etc) which have all not been corroborated. I think we have a good description of what happens to beforeCMBR. You can conjecture before that to a point -- as far as QCD can take you. Before that is a bit like Alice in Wonderland or Fairyland. So I set my limit ofknowledge at about 1 microsecond after beginning. I make no presumption before that. Now this is what I think. You Pluto are free to think what you will. :hyper: maddog Quote
maddog Posted January 7, 2009 Report Posted January 7, 2009 A vision without action is called a daydream; but then again, action without a vision is called a nightmare, :smart:BuffyYour response was just SOOO Good! I have to bow to your eloquence at how youpresented. I could not have said near as good let alone any better. I beg your indulgence on to quote the last sentence above. I have got to use thatit was so lovely. :hyper: maddog Quote
Buffy Posted January 8, 2009 Report Posted January 8, 2009 I beg your indulgence on to quote the last sentence above. I have got to use that it was so lovely.I can't take credit for it: it has Buffy's Asterisk (:thumbs_up) on it, so you need to look it up! Hanging is too good for a man who makes puns; he should be drawn and quoted, :DBuffy Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.