@John K, we actually do get infinities out of Schwartzchild Radius.
See minute mark ~8:42
If you follow that far enough you'll see it's a matter of the coordinate system used. That was the easy argument. The more challenging argument has everything to do with all Relativity is, is a mix of 2 circumstances found in our universe that toys with perfect little idealized gravitational entities. It's cool and all, but we're made of much more than little idealized balls of gravity. I'm 10^36 TIMES more a ball of electromagnetism than I am of gravity. So is the rest of the universe. As awesome as Relativity is, it's scope is way the fuck narrow; it's not talking about my universe, in its entirety....it's something like 10^36 times off.
That's a big compliment, thank you
I had to take some time to remember a few things before posting. Extreme states of matter are tricky. So to refresh a theoretical neutron star, we've got degenerate neutron matter in the outer shell, then nuclear pasta as an intermediary layer and, mostly theorized, quark-gluon plasma at the core. The core could just be normal degenerate matter for all we know. Quark-gluon plasma is interesting and I'll mention it later.
Why the intuition about the smbc's then. Mostly because the volume of a black hole increases with the cube of its mass. So a black hole twice the mass will have a Schwarzschild radius eight times as large. Considering how all timelines, or all geodesics point towards a singularity, this suggests a concentration of matter-energy at that point, or ring in case of a rotating one. The mechanism for making matter-energy is definitely at the extremely curved singularity. What would be the mechanism by which it's happening close to the boundary? I still haven't visited the inside of an event horizon to verify what's going on there, they say it's not exactly a trip to a grocery store.
After my previous post I had a few ideas why the jets and disks are more energetic than they should. I'll put them here as an unordered list:
- Do we know what are the electromagnetic effects of extreme states of matter? An electromagnetic energy transfer could spin up a jet. So to the kinetic and angular energy we should also try to factor in the electromagnetic force. The effect should be the most extreme at the photon sphere or at some 1.5 > x >> 2 Schwarzschild radii away. I'm not so sure we understand how large guantities of matter spinning on metastable orbits like this behave. Photon sphere would be the limit here, because it is the last stable orbit as we approach the horizon, so we can expect a large ultrarelativistic matter dynamo before that point. Plasma is a charged state of matter and jets are rotational and polar so the magnetic field is definitely what gives them the direction, if not much of the energy.
- Quark-gluon plasma (qgp) is super interesting. We get to it after neutrons break into their constituents. First it's a near solid, then at higher temperatures and pressures it turns into a gas and finally at the highest known ranges it precipitates into a supercritical liquid. Supercritical liquids and super liquids and their properties are now studied even by mathematicians due to their many interesting properties. One of the supercritical properties now theorized to be possible in such fluid is the perfect transfer of momentum into a single point resulting in extreme jets. Interesting coincidence here. What if the decay into qgp releases energy, that could contribute too.
- Ultrarelativistic matter has some many unverified properties. Some of it is probably related to the fact that it may start behaving like a fluid. Relativistic hydrodynamics is a thing. Again another point of evidence suggesting that solids start behaving like fluids and lose viscosity. With zero viscosity the momentum transfers are extreme and we may be seeing some escaping matter with extraordinary energies and quantities. Could be an interseting read https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.18434
You're welcome. Compliment bears out; holding your own pretty good for astrophysics not being your strong suit.
So I think I have an issue with presuming an event horizon. Sure, under the circumstances you describe, the event horizon of something supermassive is a fairly calm place - particularly in comparison to little ones. It's a fair argument, if the event horizon actually forms. This is the point of contention between the theories: what happens when you break a neutron? They say it collapses. The "aint entirely my universe" Relativity implies it happens. But a more robust consideration of the universe and it's constitutes denies that interpretation -you break a neutron, it goes nova. The math bears this out, and observation supports it. Relativity aint wrong, but neither is Newtonian Mechanics in that regard... Add in more and more of what our real universe is and the picture changes a little is all.
1. I jumped ship from prevailing theory in favor of Plasma Cosmology [
https://www.plasma-universe.com/ ]. My intellectual lineage was founded by Nobel Laureate Hannes Alfven.
Electromagnetism rules our universe. Your appeal here is about as sophisticated as modern theory gets. There is no science. There is no math. There's just faith in the black hole, and that somehow, some way, it actually is reconcilable with observation. lol No it's not. Black hole is cute on the front end, and makes for great clips, but it fails to explain anything in the universe: supernova, quasars, Gamma Ray Bursts. And it fails to explain these structures precisely because it undermines the tools needed to do so. It's a song and dance, it's not a real theory; but it's about to face one.
PS Gravity can't build disks. All them flat things in this universe: spiral galaxies, planetary systems, accretion disks, ring systems...all a violation of modern theory when taken literally. -fact. If we tried to build a universe with the theories we have now: it wouldn't look like ours! No disks for one.
2. Both you and academia seem to have some affinity for building that house of cards ever higher. "now theorized to be possible" lol Please spare me.
3 Yea, that's why academia doesn't know what it's talking about. You can publish anything if you can make it fly. I believe in what I can't break. The truth is modern physics is scarcely more sophisticated than platomic spheres and their epicycles. It is patchy, sketchy, willfully ignorant, demonstrably wrong, and would never build a universe akin to our own operating within those parameters. I'm not having much problem breaking it.