Possibility of star formation around black holes

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by Beaconator, Jan 27, 2014.

  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    Astronomers, Cosmologists naturally have the equipment and knowledge to assign the proper value to each.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Originally Posted by www.physicsclassroom.com
    The Doppler effect is of intense interest to astronomers who use the information about the shift in frequency of electromagnetic waves produced by moving stars in our galaxy and beyond in order to derive information about those stars and galaxies.
    _________________________________________________________________________________________________________



    Not 100% sure here, but I don't believe any individual stars are discernable from Earth, that exist outside of our galaxy.....
    Maybe an exception would be the remnants of one that goes supernova as was discovered in the LMC and labelled SN 1987A ....But that is exceptionally rare event to be visible from Earth.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,559
    Yes, they are not yet resolvable as individual points, other than when they go nova they stick out.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,523
    I Posted this : http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...hts-up-M82-a-young-reddened-Type-Ia-Supernova , on the 22nd.

    The following appeared on APOD, couple a days later : http://129.164.179.22/apod/ap140124.html

    Link to Astronomers Telegram : http://www.astronomerstelegram.org/?read=5786

    Small pics (before/after) @ : http://d1jqu7g1y74ds1.cloudfront.net...do-580x234.jpg

    Kind of humbling to realize that the event took place around 12 million years ago!
     
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    First we do not know why the BB banged.

    On the first sentence, the BB was an evolution of space and time. At that epoch the tremendous temperatures and densities, meant that the four known forces of nature were one...we called it the Superforce.
    As temperatures and pressures dropped, the Superforce started to decouple, first gravity broke away.
    The decoupling of the Superforce created what we call a false vacuum and phase transitions.
    The excess energy between these phase transitions then went into creating our first fundamental particles, probably quarks and electrons.
    Further drops in temperatures and pressures, than saw the quarks combine to form the first protons and neutrons.
    All this occurred in the first three minutes [trusting a failing memory here] What in effect existed then from that time until 380,000 years later was a plasma of free electrons, basic atomic nucleii and photons.
    Finally conditions were ripe for electrons to couple with the atomic nuclei and we had our first atoms of mainly hydrogen with some helium and an Isotope of hydrogen.[from memory again.]

    From that point it was plain sailing...the giant clouds of hydrogen started to collapse under gravity, with protostars forming and then full nuclear fusion ignition.
    These behemoths were short lived...around 10,000,000 years or so, forging heavier and heavier elements until they went supernova, spewing their guts into the Universe.

    That to the best of our knowledge is the way it all happened and why we see what we see today.
    Do you doubt that scenario? Why?
    Seems to make sense to this little duck.
     
  9. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    Well, technically speaking, gamma and x-rays occasionally burst from a feeding black hole if memory serves.
     
  10. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,559
    no, technically speaking the x-rays come from matter spiraling in, that is heated to high temperature by friction, etc., which is emitted before the matter passes the EH. gamma rays are photons emitted from nuclear reactions, not electron-shell reactions (which are x-rays), so there should be little in the way of gamma rays. i'll check on that.

    edit: found this about x-rays, nothing about gammas: http://earthsky.org/science-wire/researchers-solve-mystery-of-x-ray-light-from-black-holes

    see this also: http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/11/black-hole-caught-blasting-heavy-metal-in-jets/

    i suspect references to 'gamma rays' by some astronomers is loose language, and they actually mean high-energy x-ray. still no references to actual gamma rays from the matter spiraling in, though I suppose with enough kinetic energy there could be some very limited nuclear fusion taking place 'at the last moment' before falling into the EH, releasing gamma rays.

    ok, here's one with a 'gamma ray' burst via a neutron star falling into a BH; the neutron star has a large gaseous envelope around it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAggJOfk_vs

    and here: http://www.space.com/24354-gravitational-lens-gamma-ray-blazar-burst.html

    but again, these appear to be loose language, and I believe the references to 'gamma-ray burst' actually means high-energy x-ray. someone else want to check?
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2014
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    No, nothing, except nothing escapes the BH's EH.
    X-rays and other EMR do appear to be given off, but are generally produced by matter/energy being heated up while spiraling into the BH.
    Even Hawking radiation is not in actual fact a case of matter/energy actually crossing back outwards.
    The curvature of space/time from the EH, is such that once inside it, all matter/energy, including light, can only ever proceed in one direction, and needs to go faster then "c" at the horizon itself to escape.
     
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543


    No, BH's with the familiar polar jets are thought to the best of our knowledge, to be BH's with a magnetic field and angular momentum.
    As the magnetic field lines are twisted around, they take some of the accreted matter/energy with it, accelerating it to near "c"speeds, and literally throwing it out again, in the form of the jets we have seen.
    That so far is the best explanation we have.
     
  13. Beaconator Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,486
    Sounds like what would happen if there were no space, time, gravity, or pressure to keep light or energy encircling a black hole. Or what would happen to a black hole with no mass containing those qualities within its reach today.

    Think about how the mass of the black hole grows respectively with its galaxy. We don't need to know how it happens, just that it does. From there we can ask ourselves what happens when there is no mass to grow when the hole takes in energy?

    And I believe the answer is simple and has been known for a while. The growth shared between a black hole and its galaxy demonstrates quantum entanglement on a massive scale. Where the mass used to grow a galaxy would go without a galaxy could possibly demonstrate uncertainty.

    Therefore the cause for a bang would almost humorously be an uncertain entanglement.
     
  14. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    All that takes place external to the event horizon. You'd be surprised what kind of physics is possible inside the black hole. I love this esoteric stuff.
    Is there life inside black holes?
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.6140
     
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Wow!!!
    A BH grows when it feeds on stellar debris and other stuff......Our own BH is rather dormant as it has already swept out an area largely devoid of stars etc.
    If a BH is not feeding, it is very slowly evaporating...very very slowly, due to Hawking Radiation. A SMBH comparable to the one at the center of the Milky Way would evaporate in a 100 trillion years or so, or around the time when no more stars, planets etc existed.
     
  16. Beaconator Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,486
    Your posts are all 2's. Make a wish!

    I am very excited to have this translation. Glad someone can keep up

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Keep up???
    I'm still not too sure what you are on about.
    I have given the simplest scenario as to how some BH's are active [QUASARS AGN] and some are more passive/dormant [The Milky Way]
    Other than BH mergers [which can happen] that in general [post 72] is how BH's grow in mass or are in a feeding frenzy [QUASARS]
    Just a simple illustration of BH/Galactic evolution.
    What part of it don't you understand?
     
  18. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    "And I believe the answer is simple and has been known for a while. The growth shared between a black hole and its galaxy demonstrates quantum entanglement on a massive scale."

    Really? Reference please. There is good work, physics, which says 'what you believe' is meaningless bullshit.
     
  19. Beaconator Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,486
    The part where stars gain mass as an effect or in step with a black holes gain in mass. The reason I made this thread. A reason which no one has answered but has been observed.
     
  20. Beaconator Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,486
    The part where stars gain mass as an effect or in step with a black holes gain in mass. The reason I made this thread. A reason which no one has answered but has been observed.
     
  21. Beaconator Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,486
    I don't believe I need a reference to apply known groundwork in physics to observed relationships.

    By the way, belief is not part of physics until after an experiment. Then I can believe in anything as long as it matches the data exposed in the experiment. Then there is a hypothesis which linguistically could be considered closer to belief than fact.

    Aside from that it sure would be a shame to be pedantic over results and conclusions while observations are overlooked...
     
  22. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    You mean star formation within a BH's vicinity?
    How close would you suggest?
    And yes, I have answered that......with a no, at least not within about 3 Schwarzchild radius from the BH, and probably much further out.
    But you say this has been observed? So why havn't you given a link as yet? Or are you attempting to illustrate something else?
    Anyway, I have did a quick serach myself and have found some references to stellar formation near SMBH's
    here...
    http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0810/0810.2723.pdf
    Unusual to say the least, but again it says about 0.1 of a parsec from the SMBH, which is about 0.3 of a L/year

    Another reference says.....
    the radio-emitting part of Sgr A* is a bit bigger, about the size of the Earth’s orbit around the Sun (93 million miles), and weighs much, much more – 4 billion Suns.

    Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/23152/the-milky-ways-black-hole/#ixzz2sO3uZDrR


    So if the report about stars forming near SMBH's is correct, that is around 0.1 parsecs, it is still a lot further out then 3 Schwarzchild radius which was a figure I did "guess at" earlier on in this thread.


    Again, you seem to be posting a heap of nonsense among some isolated thoughts and hedging your bets somewhat.

    Again, in simple language what are you trying to convey......
     
  23. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,559


    not exactly testable, is it.
     

Share This Page