Sorry, but you are asking questions that have no answer at the moment.

Except one topic, the direct relation between the accretion disk and the jets.

See: https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2023-03-02-major-collaboration-reveals-new-insights-binary-star-systems (there is a paper too).

With kind regards, Sydney

Hi Sydney Ernest Grimm ,

Nice to hear from you - appreciate your reply. I read the article and the referenced paper. There's a significant amount of research being done on Jet Formation and the consensus seems to be shifting from the older paradigm of all incoming contents directed toward a singularity to helical propulsion forming columnar jets of varying intensities. Though there may be no concrete answers at the moment, theories abound and I have my own amorphous geometric conceptions on this topic. I was curious about the thoughts of others, albeit theoretical, on this exciting topic.

Dear Charles Wohl

I do research on the topic (Black holes) and the paper confirmed my opinion about the relation between the increase of the material of the accretion disk and the resulting jets. But the model I use isn't similar to the consensus that a black hole is a singularity. The event horizon is its boundary so the black hole has a axial rotation too.

The accretion disk and the jets are visible because of the presence of radiating matter in the accretion disk. Withoutt matter both are invisible but still excist. That means that the accretion disk and the jets are properties of vacuum space - the electromagnetic field around - under influence of the huge gravitational force (vectors).

Maybe you can use the description.

With kind regards, Sydney

Sydney Ernest Grimm

Upon reflection, several questions have arisen in my mind regarding the process by which the helical rotation of the accretion disk is channeled into the formation of jets. Specifically, I am interested in whether there is a complete conversion of energy from the accretion disk to the jets, or if only a fraction is transferred.

Moreover, I am curious about the factors that determine the intensity and character of the jets, and why some black holes do not appear to produce them. Is it possible that columnar discharges always occur, yet we're unable to observe them with current measurement techniques?

Additionally, some sources have suggested that jets can exceed the speed of light by significant margins, which raises questions regarding the underlying physical mechanisms and implications of such occurrences.

While the above questions are by no means exhaustive, they represent (in part) the foundation of my current inquiry.

Dear Charles Wohl

Let we start with the energy. There are 2 types of energy. The first one is “free” energy everywhere in the universe because it is generated by the structure of the electromagnetic field (and the electromagnetic field is a rest frame). The structure has a metric in between 0,5 x 10-15 m and 0,25 x 10-15 m. That means that if you count all the units of the structure within the volume of 1 km3 you get the constant energy capacity (n x h) of this volume during the time to “transfer” 1 quantum (h) from one side of a unit of the structure to the opposite side. No matter if the volume (1 km3) exists in vacuum space, inside our planet or in a black hole. The consequence is that for 1 unit during 1 second there are in between 6 x 1023 and 12 x 1023 energy fluctuations (n x h) because the speed of light (c) is a universal constant.

The second type of energy is concentrated energy. In general the concentrations are known as Dark Matter and normal matter (E = m c2). Suppose 1 km3 matter in vacuum space has a linear motion. Now the density of the concentrated energy determines the linear velocity of the 1 km3 matter in relation to the density of energy of the structure of the electromagnetic field around the matter. Because the constant energy capacity of the structure of the electromagnetic field determines that every unit of the structure can only transfer 1 quantum every 6 (or 12) x 10-23 second. Be aware that everything is about the changes within the electric field, the corresponding magnetic field doesn’t transfer energy (vector field).

The existence of matter is a dynamical existence. Thus if we change the conditions around the matter the properties of the matter change too. And the conditions around the matter are determined by the motion of “free” energy. Actually the dynamical property of the structure of the electromagnetic field.

Now the black hole. The underlying mechanism that creates the accretion disk and the jets is the transfer of “free” energy around the black hole. In principle every generated quantum of energy has freedom of direction. But if there is a vector influence (gravity) the direction of the transfer of quanta in vacuum space is forced towards the black hole.

Now you have to make a switch in your head. Because the amount of quanta transfer during 1 second shows that if physicists talk about energy transfer we are talking about the resultant velocity of all the quanta transfer. Like the real velocity of the electrons of an alternating current is enormous in relation to the velocity (= resultant velocity) of the current itself.

Because every “free” quantum has the speed of light, a quantum near the surface of the black hole in line with the accretion disk has only one rotation while a quantum near the rotational axis of the black hole has multiple rotations within the same period of time (see schematic image). Because the velocity of every quantum is c and the motion of the quanta is forced towards the surface of the black hole (Keppler's diagram about the mean distance and mean velocity of the planets of the solar system).

In other words, without the existence of gas and dust there is the same accretion disk and there are the same 2 jets. But we cannot observe the motion of “free” energy if there is no radiating matter within this “swirl” of quanta transfer in vacuum space.

With kind regards, Sydney

Sydney Ernest Grimm,

Regarding black holes, I concur with your line of reasoning that energy is directed towards a region identified as a black hole and that the energy at the axis of the black hole rotates at a higher speed than at its surface. Additionally, I concur with your assertion that energy is drawn toward the surface of the black hole.

However, these inferences do not provide an answer to my questions concerning the helicity and rotational properties of the accretion disk, the mechanism for energy transfer to the jets, the proportion of energy directed to the jets, and the reason why several sources have reported that the velocity of the jets surpasses the speed of light by several orders of magnitude. Your response also fails to explain, or even speculate, why only a portion of black holes produce jets, despite the fact that the underlying dynamics seem comparable.

Dear Charles Wohl

Yesterday I had a surgery at one of my eyes. So I cannot see very well at the moment. Anyway you are right that my comment was limited but the topic is too extensive to describe in one or two comments. My comment was only an "introduction". I will post more comments at the moment I can see a bit better.

After every post I delete that I am following your question. The profit is that RG doesn't "upvote" the question so there is no (or hardly) interference of persons who are promoting their papers. ;-))

With kind regards, Sydney

Sydney Ernest Grimm,

Appreciate your update.

Heal quickly!

Dear Charles Wohl

I can see a bit more clear after a couple of hours.

The size of a stable accretion disk is sometimes troublesome (challenging the Roche limit).

See: https://nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05629-6or https://webbtelescope.org/contents/early-highlights/webb-spies-chariklo-ring-system-with-high-precision-technique

The “birth” of an enormous dynamical accretion disk of a protostar is observed by the JWST. See: https://webbtelescope.org/contents/news-releases/2022/news-2022-055

Note that the overall picture shows a remarkable similarity with a rotating black hole with an accretion disk and 2 axial rotating jets.

The enormous accretion disk of a protostar will transform in planets, actually the concentration of the matter of the rings around the new born star.

Even the earth has 2 axial vortexes in the stratosphere at the 2 Poles (see image).

There is an anomaly in vacuum space around a planet (https://arxiv.org/pdf/0907.2469). It confirms the existence of the resultant motion of quanta in vacuum space because the distribution of the resultant motion of quanta is hyperbolic towards the planet under influence of the force of gravitation (Keppler's mean velocity and mean distance of the planets in the solar system).

Think about it. Maybe you will agree that the known explanations lack some credibility. Because all these "facts" show a high degree of similarity, sugggesting that there is one underlying mechanism. No matter it is about a planet, a star or a black hole.

With kind regards, Sydney

Sydney Ernest Grimm,

After reviewing the events you cited, I am unable to identify a clear connection between them. Specifically, none of the incidents you have mentioned display the level of gravitational collapse that would be characteristic of a black hole, nor do they exhibit the same types of elements that a black hole would manifest.

My primary focus lies in investigating the dynamics of the accretion disk with regard to helicity and rotation, in addition to developing hypotheses about how the disk's rotational properties generate jets. Furthermore, I am interested in studying why only a certain percentage of black holes produce these jets.

Dear Charles Wohl

If your opinion about gravitation is similar to the present ideas that are described with the help of the theory of General relativity I am afraid that I cannot help you in understanding the mechanism behind the accretion disks and axial jets of black holes.

Because it is obvious that in the sequence of matter objects – planets, red dwarfs, stars, neutron stars and black holes – the density of the concentrated matter increases till the boundaries of the particles are vanished in a black hole. That means that a black hole has the properties of an enormous elementary particle. And don’t think that I am the first one who has this opinion.

The consequence is that a black hole cannot emit electromagnetic radiation as we know it because there is no magnetic field (vector field) within the volume of a black hole (all the scalars of the Higs field are decreased). The consequence is that the gravitational force stops at the boundary of the black hole and doesn’t exist inside the black hole. The only topological field in QFT is the universal electric field and all the efforts to transform Einstein’s theory of General relativity into a quantum theory is because most quantum theorists don’t believe that space itself can curve. They believe that quantum gravity will show a geometrical configuration like the proposed curvature of space.

In your point of view the universal electric field is deformed by the curvature of space itself. But these geometrical properties are equal to the properties of the universal electric field. So how do you think that the circular motion of an accretion disk is possible at all? All the matter must fall in a straight line to the surface of a black hole. And axial jets are impossible because these jets cannot defy the curvature of space itself.

Of course you can try to create some kind of a model with the help of the existing theoretical framework. I don’t say you have to stop. But there is so much evidence that our present grand theories are really bad approximations of physical reality that it is hard to imagine that you will be successful.

With kind regards, Sydney

Sydney Ernest Grimm,

I am uncertain as to your reason for including quantum theory, quantum field theory, and general relativity in your response. Furthermore, you suggest that a black hole may be comparable to an elementary particle, which may be a stretch, although there may be some plausibility at a certain scale. However, your elaboration on these ideas and theories appears to be unrelated to my original questions.

My primary interest is to investigate the dynamics of the accretion disk in terms of helicity and rotation, as well as to develop hypotheses regarding how the disk's rotational properties generate jets. Additionally, I am intrigued by the question of why only a specific percentage of black holes produce these jets.

You state that most quantum theorists do not believe that space can curve. However, in the following sentence, you suggest that quantum gravity may display a geometrical structure similar to the proposed curvature of space. These two statements appear to be in conflict with one another. Nevertheless, the underlying mechanics of divergence are present in both statements, regardless of whether the phenomenon is described as spatial curvature, gravity, or a feature of quantum gravity.

You appear to question the validity of the circular motion of an accretion disk and contend that all matter must fall in a straight line toward the surface of a black hole. These statements are evidently incorrect. Matter does not move in a straight line toward the surface of a black hole. Black holes, as well as all stars, spin, with the spin of a black hole potentially reaching relativistic velocities. The space around a massive rotating object, such as a black hole, is dragged at the velocity of the black hole's surface and decreases in speed as the distance from the hole increases. As a result, your statement that "All matter must fall in a straight line to the surface of a black hole" is obviously false. As light and incoming matter are attracted in the direction of a black hole, they follow a curved trajectory toward the outer edge of the accretion disk. The accretion disk potentially twirls incoming material helically around it, with the inner edges of the flow channeled into jets in some black holes.

This theory has garnered substantial support from cosmologists.

My original query aimed to spark a discussion on the following topics:

Dear Charles Wohl

We better stop this discussion, sorry. There is too much misunderstanding of each other ideas and I cannot explain what is going on with the help of the theory of general relativity and relations between masses (classic physics). There is no evidence that a black hole is a singularity (only a sloppy theory) and imaginary singularities have no “tangible” geometry that can force space to rotate around the singularity. In modern physics there are only fields and fields have a volume.

Anyway you have 3 questions…

What I have tried to explain to you in the previous comments is that there is always an accretion disc and 2 axial jets (configurations of the electromagnetic field around the black hole). But you cannot see these phenomena if there is no emission of electromagnetic waves because of the lack of accelerated matter.

Because the “source” of both phenomena is the electromagnetic field it is obvious that only low mass particles like electrons can be transferred towards the jets. We don’t know exactly what kind of matter is part of the accretion disk and how it is affected by the rotation around the black hole because the force of gravitation is not part of QFT. We can measure the wave length of the emitted electromagnetic waves so maybe this will give an indication about the constituents and the percentage of the matter that is transferred to the jets. But I haven’t read any paper about this kind of measurements yet.

There is a difference between a black hole in the centre of a galaxy and a black hole “somewhere” within the volume of a galaxy. Only black holes in the centre of galaxies produce enormous jets, even elliptical galaxies do. Besides that, the transfer of matter towards the accretion disk and the rotational velocity of the accretion disk determines the visibility of the jets. There is also a relation between the mass of the black hole and the size of the jets. And disturbed galaxies (collisions with dwarf galaxies) will affect the size of the jets too. So there is not one cause that can affect the visibility of the jets.

With kind regards, Sydney

Sydney Ernest Grimm

I concur with your statement that "There is no evidence that a black hole is a singularity," and in my last posting, I characterized the concept as hypothetical. I only referenced this idea because until recently, the elusive core of a black hole has been described as a singularity.

While we are unable to observe beyond the event horizon of a black hole, it is plausible that the gravitational collapse may continue beyond the limit of our observation, potentially exceeding the speed of light from the perspective of a distant observer.

From one perspective, the only existent phenomena are voluminous fields, and divergence or spatial curvature describes variation in these fields.

You asserted that every black hole has an accretion disc and two axial jets, but also that these phenomena are not observable if there is no emission of electromagnetic waves due to the absence of accelerated matter. These two statements are contradictory. On one hand, you state the existence of an accretion disc, while on the other, you suggest a lack of accreted matter.

Indeed, both the accretion disc and jets are generated by electromagnetic energy. Some supermassive black holes have observable, powerful jets that extend thousands of light-years, while others do not appear to have any visible jets. However, some black holes may produce weaker or intermittent jets that are more challenging to detect, so their absence does not necessarily indicate their non-existence.

It is challenging to determine the exact percentage of supermassive black holes that produce observable jets because this depends on several factors, such as the black hole's mass, the rate at which matter falls onto the black hole, and the orientation of the black hole's spin axis relative to its accretion disk. However, estimates suggest that around 10% to 20% of supermassive black holes produce observable jets, as based on observations of active galactic nuclei (AGNs), which are believed to be powered by accretion onto supermassive black holes.

The relationship is electromagnetic. The jets consist primarily of charged particles such as electrons and positrons and, clearly, the central engine is also electrically charged. Since it rotates rapidly it generates a poloidal magnetic field - one that is particularly intense within the aperture of the central engine. Active galactic nuclei become inactive once the central aperture closes, resulting in the rapid neutralisation of the central engine's charge and the cessation of energetic jets, following which the percentage of matter captured via accretion increases. This has been known for over 20 years.

Robin Spivey,

I'm unclear on what you mean by the central aperture closing. How could the aperture close in a dynamic where you have a gravitationally induced vortex potentially billions of times the strength of our sun? You have a gravitational depression that isn't going to vanish.

Most observed Active Galactic Nuclei (AGNs) display prominent emission from their accretion disks, though the characteristics of these disks can differ greatly among AGNs. While some AGNs have small and stable accretion disks, others exhibit larger and more turbulent disks that can generate powerful bursts of radiation.

So, we have very powerful accretion disks twirling at relativistic speeds emitting high-energy radiation at varying intervals and intensities in the form of jets. Once the event horizons are formed, which I think you are labeling apertures, the gravitational pull that creates them does not simply disappear.

Charles Wohl,

As pointed out in a shamefully ignored paper Einstein published in 1939, general relativity does not predict that gravitational collapse results in the formation of event horizons. Gravitational time dilation reliably arrests the collapse in such a way that the universe remains paradox-free.

A collapsing cloud of gas tends to form an axisymmetric structure. An oblate spheroid is one possibility but given that the gas clouds of interest have some initial angular momentum, resisting their collapse, a likelier outcome is a toroidal structure. Whereas protons and electrons have identical but opposite charges their charge/mass ratios differ greatly. This leads to an accumulation of charge on the torus, forming a circular current with a poloidal magnetic field - well suited to the acceleration of charged particles within the central aperture where the magnetic field is most intense - and the production of bidirectional jets along the rotation axis.

The same magnetic field also defends the charged torus against neutralisation by free charged particles which spiral along the lines of magnetic flux (which never lead to the spinning torus which generates them). Once the central aperture seals, due to gradual loss of angular momentum, the torus transforms to a spheroid, the magnetic field lines no longer offer any defence and the central engine is quickly neutralised. This marks the transition from an active galactic nucleus to a quiescent or dormant galactic nucleus. Were this not so it would be impossible to account for the abrupt extinction of quasars in low-redshift galaxies, the centres of which still have a copious supply of accreting gas.

Robin Spivey, I appreciate the time and energy you've put into your response. I think there are some similarities in our ideas.

Back in 1939, Einstein said that when things get sucked into a black hole, they don't just disappear; time slows down, and they get stuck on the edge of the black hole, forming what's called an event horizon. I think this is partially true, though I see the mechanics somewhat differently.

In my understanding, the incoming contents are tiled against the outer edge of a rotating accretion disk that is also spinning radially along the axis of rotation. Incoming content does not progress directly toward the central point of the accretion disk, but over time arches toward the outer edge that it will ultimately become integrated with.

The rotational speed is faster at the inner surface of the elongated oval-shaped ring, decreasing as frame dragging reduces as it moves towards the outer edge. The inner contents of the compressed swirling torus create a bidirectional stream at the center, which has been referred to as columnar jets. In this scenario, there is not really a black hole with a singularity per se that has been referred to in the past. And where there is nothing, there is nothing to spin. The spheroid at the center of the accretion disk is simply a void, akin to the eye of a hurricane. There is no mass or gravitational field, similar to the situation at the center of the earth where the gravitational field from all directions cancels.

Essentially, we have a bidirectional oval-shaped torus extended longitudinally. At the center, there is a void with zero mass, zero spin, with the ultimate core devoid of a gravitational field.

With a few rare exceptions, such as Dirac and Landau, many people have misunderstood what Einstein was saying - general relativity does not permit the formation of objects with event horizons. 76 years then went by during which the academic community decided to ignore Einstein's considered conclusion, which is backed up by his theory, siding instead with the mistaken conclusions of an atomic weapon designer. You may have noticed some changes since then.

Robin Spivey,

Einstein's ideas frequently underwent significant revisions, including his conception of the ether, the cosmological constant, certain aspects of his special relativity theory, and his position on the existence of Schwarzschild singularities in physical reality, as evidenced in his 1939 paper. However, the lack of attention that this paper received was likely due to a failure to resonate with the scientific community, rather than any deliberate or unjustified dismissal.

Your claim that "General relativity does not permit the formation of objects with event horizons" is incorrect. In fact, one of the central predictions of general relativity is the existence of black holes, which are characterized by the presence of an event horizon. According to GR, massive objects can curve spacetime, resulting in a gravitational well that can trap both light and particles within the boundary known as the event horizon.

It appears that you are attempting to shift the focus of the discussion away from the mechanics of accretion disks and jet formation to one about berating the scientific community.