Origin of the Universe,,,,Bang or no Bang

[Pluto]

Happy New Year from the land of ozzz

Modest said

Originally Posted by Pluto
I have read
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...808.2813v2.pdf...

...I thought I would add this to this post, may have more relevance to a cyclic universe process of the parts that make up the universe

...


Modest

I'm confused how the paper above has relevance to a cyclic universe. The paper says nothing about a cyclic universe or model. It explicitly assumes standard cosmology in the introduction:
Quote:
We adopt a cosmological model that is spatially flat with = 0.3; H0 = 70 km/s/Mpc.

Quote from the link

Given that star formation and black hole fueling appear
to be coupled (e.g. di Matteo et al. 2005 and references
therein; Silk & Rees 1998), it is likely that there is a selflimiting
growth cycle for BHs and therefore a physical upper
limit to their masses.

Also read the discussion part 7.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pluto
Its the mechanism that produces the jets that prevents the ultimate BH.

Modest

Yes. The intense wind created by the rapid expulsion of infalling matter drives away a supermassive black hole's feeding source

.

Rapid repulsion of infalling matter cannot generate a jet that is able to get close to the speed of light.

There are various forms of jets, some jets are formed around the envelope of the Black hole, the closer they get to the core the stronger is the jet. Two reasons for this. As matter gets closer to the core it breaks down to subatomic particles becoming ultra dense plasma matter and it is the magnetic intanglement that creates a jet that is able to form magnetic fields that is able to carry these subatomic particles close to the speed of light. Jets that form in lower densities expell jets into the halo and create and rejuvinate stars within the halo. The jets that are created near or within the core have enough speed and punch to go beyond the halo carrying with it matter to create stars, knots are a prime example of seeds. these jets can go form millions of light years and seem to be controlled in a straight line that has magnetic fields containing the shape.

If you need links on properties of jets and their formation, I will post them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pluto
Interesting points
1) The ability to seed

Modest

Star birth is closely linked to the black hole at the center of a galaxy.

Star birth is mainly linked to where ever jets are found, where we have a merger of star, a cluster of stars, Neutron star jets and the extreme black hole jets that affect star formation within the galaxy and other galaxies.

Quote:
"These galaxies lose material into their central black holes at the same time they make their stars," Barger said. "So whatever mechanism governs star formation in galaxies also governs black hole growth."

NASA Observatory Confirms Black Hole Limits
Hole power. - Free Online Library

Modest

As the black hole pushes away the gas, dust, and stars near it—it stops feeding and stops spitting out new material for seeding new stars. The paper in question describes the end of the black hole's ability to seed. The end of the cycle. A black hole that has reached its size limit no longer seeds new star formation.

Mate your statement is not in line with the many papers that I'm reading.
Matter that is in the flow towards a BH ususally stops star formation. Matter that is ejected is the seeds for future starfromation. In due time they will form around the galaxies and this is determined by the origin of the jet and its power.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pluto
2) A cyclic process.

Modest

You'll have to explain further. The end of a black hole's feeding is by nature not a cyclic thing. It's something that stops. If you're talking about a cyclic universe (big bang / big crunch) then I don't see how you're relating this paper (which doesn't describe anything like that) to such a universe.

Please help me understand: How would you define "cyclic universe" and "cyclic process" in your own words

Modest, I can expalin as much as you want,at the end of the day, you will need to read up on jet formation and star formation from jets.

A cyclic universe requires a cyclic process, that we can observe in nature, starformation, black hole evolution, jet formation and its impact on the surrounding and galaxy evolution and form that is dependant on the size, mass and activity of the central black hole or holes in many cases.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pluto
3) Rear to find an inactive black hole that suck matter in only.

Modest

It would not be easy to see a black hole that sucks in matter only. It wouldn't emit anything that we could see.

Black hole will show two activities. Infalling matter exploding and jet formation that creates jets near and far, you may need to study microquasars in jets.

Modest, another two years of reading and maybe I will get close to understanding.

Quote from the link

Observational detection
of UMBHs will provide key insights into the physics
of galaxy formation and black hole assembly in the Universe.

[modest]

Originally Posted by Pluto

Happy New Year from the land of ozzz

Thank you—and Happy New Year to you as well.

I'm still recovering from the festivities myself

Originally Posted by Pluto

Quote from the link

Also read the discussion part 7.

I’ve now read the paper in its entirety. It is apparent to me that the paper does not discuss a cyclic universe nor is it directly related to a cyclic model in any way. The only logical conclusion I can come to is that you mean something different by “cyclic universe” than is commonly understood in cosmology—as, for example, in the wikipedia page for cyclic model. I was hoping you would define the term “cyclic universe” in your own words. Doing so might put an end to this ongoing confusion.

In cosmology, a cyclic model refers to a universe which undergoes alternating periods of expansion and contraction. The universe starts out very small (perhaps as a singularity) and expands to a very large size. This process is known as a “big bang”. At some point the expansion stops and the universe begins shrinking until it again reaches a very small size. This process is known as a “big crunch”. A cyclic model introduces the idea of repeating these big bang / big crunch cycles eternally.

There are variations on this theme. For example, some cyclic models don’t allow the universe to shrink all the way to a singularity while others are structured around the collision of M-branes. But, the core theme of universal expansion / contraction in cycles is there in every cyclic model because that’s what “cyclic universe” means. Expansion and contraction in this case refer to the metric expansion of space. It does NOT merely refer to things in the universe getting bigger or smaller (like galaxy groups and clusters), but rather the whole universe (or observable universe).

The paper in question (Is there an upper limit to black hole masses?) discusses the limit to a supermassive black hole’s growth. The growth is limited because a feeding black hole creates galactic wind. As the black hole gets larger, it gets brighter when it feeds. This is known as a quasar (a feeding or active galactic nucleus). The intense radiation pressure from the quasar can push gas and dust away from the nucleus of the galaxy in what’s sometimes called AGN-outflow or QSO-outflow.

Once the black hole reaches a certain mass (approximately times the mass of our sun), it is so bright and creates so much galactic wind while feeding that it blows gas and dust out of the nucleus of the galaxy—and indeed, out of the galaxy itself. This effectively starves the black hole and imposes a limit to its growth and thus its size.

Originally Posted by Pluto

Rapid repulsion of infalling matter cannot generate a jet that is able to get close to the speed of light.

There are various forms of jets...

If you need links on properties of jets and their formation, I will post them.

The paper does *not* discuss jets! The paper gives these possible mechanisms for a black hole’s self-limiting growth:

Here we present several distinct arguments that can be used to estimate the final masses of BHs (Haehnelt, Natarajan & Rees 1998; Silk & Rees1998; Murray, Quataert & Thompson 2004 and King 2005). These involve self-limiting growth due to a momentum driven wind, self-limiting growth due to the radiation pressure of a momentum-driven wind, and from an energy-driven superwind model.

-Is there an upper limit to black hole masses?

As the paper says, it is galactic wind generated by the AGN (active galactic nuclei) that blows away a black hole’s potential ‘meal’ and not a jet. Obviously, relativistic jets do their part in ejecting mass from a galaxy, but less than 10% of AGN have jets and they are not the subject of the paper at hand.

Looking at the first paper referenced above:

When the AGN [Active Galactic Nuclei] luminosity (and BH mass) exceeds a critical value, the AGN clears gas out of the galactic nucleus, shutting off its own fuel supply. This can account for the observed relation. [M - sigma relation]

-On The Maximum Luminosity Of Galaxies And Their Central Black Holes: Feedback From Momentum-Driven Winds

When matter falls near a supermassive black hole and forms an accretion disc it heats up. The energy is extreme and massive amounts of electromagnetic energy gets emitted from the galactic nucleus in all directions. The most massive black holes make the most energetic quasars which shine as much as 100 times brighter than the entire Milky Way. Those photons run into dust which runs into gas molecules and a galactic wind is created clearing out the galactic nucleus and starving the black hole of further mass.

Originally Posted by Pluto

Mate your statement is not in line with the many papers that I'm reading.

I quote the relevant paper:

The growing BH itself clears out this nuclear region with its accretion luminosity approaches LM. At this point the fuel supply to the BH is shut-off and this may shut off the star formation as well. The final BH mass is then given by...

-Is there an upper limit to black hole masses?

And its source:

We argue that a BH clears gas out of its galactic nucleus when the luminosity of the BH itself reaches . This shuts off the fuel supply to the BH and may also terminate star formation in the surrounding galaxy. As a result, the BH mass is fixed to be , where is the electron scattering opacity. This limit is in accord with the observed relation.

-On The Maximum Luminosity Of Galaxies And Their Central Black Holes: Feedback From Momentum-Driven Winds

Originally Posted by Pluto

Matter that is in the flow towards a BH ususally stops star formation. Matter that is ejected is the seeds for future starfromation. In due time they will form around the galaxies and this is determined by the origin of the jet and its power.

The escape velocity of a very, very large galaxy is about 1500 km/s. M87 is a good example because it is huge and it has a jet. M87’s escape velocity is 1448 km/s. Its jet expels mass at relativistic speeds (near the speed of light) away from the galaxy. The expelled mass cannot return to the galaxy because it is traveling far faster than the galaxy’s escape velocity.

A galaxy cluster usually has an escape velocity around 2000 km/s. Anything expelled from a host galaxy in such a cluster at a speed greater than 2000 km/s (relative to the cluster) will not remain in the cluster (unless, perchance, it bumps into something like another galaxy before it completely escapes the cluster). The velocity of AGN-outflow or galactic nuclear wind (as opposed to jets) is difficult to measure, but has been estimated in PDS 456 at 50,000 km/s. Less extreme examples are Mrk 766 and IC 4329a with estimated outflow velocities of 27,000 and 30,000 km/s. This is significantly less than a relativistic jet, but significantly more than necessary to eject the gas and dust from the host galaxy and galaxy cluster.

Therefore, the gas and dust that is ejected from the galaxy by the quasar’s wind (or plasma ejected by a SMBH’s relativistic jet) may not hang around the host and form stars as you say.

Also, the mechanics of a Jet itself are theorized to inhibit star formation (I'm not sure I would subscribe to this, but it's worth pointing out):

Relativistic jets originating from supermassive black holes can have a considerable impact on the interstellar/intergalactic medium within which they propagate. Here, we study the interaction that a relativistic jet, and the cocoon associated with its penetration into the ISM, has on the evolution of a dense cloud, placed very near the cocoon's path...

We study the evolution of the star formation rate within the cloud, assuming this is determined by a Schmidt-Kennicutt law, and we analyse the different physical factors which have an impact on the star formation rate. We show that, although the star formation rate can occasionally increase, on time-scales of the order of yr, the star formation rate will be inhibited and the cloud fragments. The cooling time of the environment within which the cloud is embedded is, however, very long: thus, star formation from the fragmented cloud remains strongly inhibited.

Active galactic nuclei jet-induced feedback in galaxies—Suppression of star formation

Also, when a black hole reaches its mass limit (if it ever does) then it will no longer make jets because it's no longer feeding or forming an accretion disc.

Also, the paper we're talking about does not discuss jets!

~modest

[Pluto]

G'day Modest

Mate when I read statements like

Also, when a black hole reaches its mass limit (if it ever does) then it will no longer make jets because it's no longer feeding or forming an accretion disc.

This is not logical.

Jets are formed from the magnetic entanglements.

Our star forms jets of various types and sizes and has no accretion disc.

I have read your above post. Rather tha me picking at each point, I would ask you to read up on jet formation and properties.

I think I will do the same. I want to learn how the Jet is formed and the physics behid it.

As for a cyclic process yes you are right there are various definitions and relate to various models.

Rather than working with models, I'm trying to actually understand the processes that recyle matter and energy with stars, black holes and galaxies.

I will come back to this,,,,,,The kids want to go out.

[REASON]

Originally Posted by Pluto

As for a cyclic process yes you are right there are various definitions and relate to various models.

Yes, but which one do you tend to subscribe to?

Originally Posted by Pluto

Rather than working with models, I'm trying to actually understand the processes that recyle matter and energy with stars, black holes and galaxies.

Such is worthy to understand, but understanding as much will not address the apparent evidence of an expanding universe which forms the basis of the Big Bang Theory. To me, this is where the focus of this discussion should be.

[Pluto]

G'day Reason

You said

Such is worthy to understand, but understanding as much will not address the apparent evidence of an expanding universe which forms the basis of the Big Bang Theory. To me, this is where the focus of this discussion should be.

I have so much information on the BBT that it can sink a battle ship.

Understanding the processes that occur in starformtion and the various phase changes and the cyclic process that aids in such phase changes is critical to understanding how the bolts and nuts fit together.

The way normal matter is sucked into black holes and transformed into ultra dense degenerate plasma matter and than ejected and than changed back to normal matter is a cyclic process that is studied by many scientists.

Trying to understand the BBT is like going around in circles trying to block holes in a sinking ship.

[FRIPRO]

NASA observers have reported, a giant black hole has been caught red-handed dipping into a cosmic cookie jar of stars by NASA's Galaxy Evolution Explorer.

This is the first time astronomers have seen the whole process of a black hole eating a star, from its first to nearly final bites."

The have also stated the AGN have been observed in deep space that emitt powerful energy beams

Of course, I have hypothesised that the black holes in the center of many galaxy observed are really a central vortex of the galaxy.

It then emitts a powerfull energy beam (Jet as you called it) that spawns more galaxies along the route of the AGN energy beam in the Universe's atmospheric ether.

What about the ether? With out it there would be no creation of vortexs that form more galaxies and stars etc. along the route of the AGN's (ENERGY BEAMS)

In fact a star that got too close to the eye (black hole ) of the Milky Way was detected falling into its eye (Black Hole).

No AGN was generated as the center of our galaxy is relatively lower rotating speed of light.

If the central core velocity of any Galaxy is approaching the velocity of light an AGN energy beam is formed which even can approach a lighouse transmitting beam of radio waves along it route in the ether of space whih it traverses.


Do not discount the ether theory, as Mikelson and Morley said did not exist --it does!
.

[Pluto]

G'day fripro

Sometimes looking at how some research the topic gives a better understanding than using our opinions.

My opinions are formed from limited information and for this reason I keep on reading.

Such links as:

arXiv.org Search
and
arXiv.org Search



You said

Do not discount the ether theory, as Mikelson and Morley said did not exist --it does!

Mikelson and morley experiments I conducted in 1970.

Can you explain to me the relevance of the ether in this topic.

[modest]

Originally Posted by Pluto

Mate when I read statements like

This is not logical.

Jets are formed from the magnetic entanglements.

Our star forms jets of various types and sizes and has no accretion disc.

I have read your above post. Rather tha me picking at each point, I would ask you to read up on jet formation and properties.

Pluto, It seems you're responding to a lot of in depth and comprehensive posts lately by saying the poster needs to read up on the subject. You don't answer questions and you never explain your position.

I'm not sure why you disagree with what I said—perhaps you think inactive galactic nuclei have jets and they are somehow hidden from our observation. Or, you might think inactive galaxies don't have black holes at all... Or, maybe you think the mass of a jet originates from inside the black hole.

You're not going to explain so there's not going to be any way for me to know.

All I can do is explain and support what I said so that you can tell me something like:

Originally Posted by Pluto

Mate this to me is not very scientific.

The mass that makes up a relativistic jet comes from the accretion disc surrounding a black hole (not from inside the hole).

It is believed that the twisting of magnetic fields in the accretion disk collimates the outflow along the rotation axis of the central object, so that when conditions are suitable, a jet will emerge from each face of the accretion disk.

Relativistic jet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For a supermassive black hole to have the characteristics of an active galactic nucleus, it must be active (meaning it's feeding)

Thus AGN-like characteristics are expected whenever a supply of material for accretion comes within the sphere of influence of the central black hole.

Active galactic nucleus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This includes jets.

In the standard model of AGN, cold material close to the central black hole forms an accretion disc. Dissipative processes in the accretion disc transport matter inwards and angular momentum outwards, while causing the accretion disc to heat up.

At least some accretion discs produce jets, twin highly collimated and fast outflows that emerge from close to the disc (the direction of the jet ejection must be determined either by the angular momentum axis of the disc or the spin axis of the black hole).

Active galactic nucleus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Most supermassive black holes at the center of mature galaxies today are not active (though they were in the past). Their black hoes are not feeding and they don't produce quasars or jets or other characteristics of AGNs. There isn't enough gas and dust in the nucleus to feed on. Read all about it here:

Galaxies

So, a black hole that isn't feeding isn't going to make a jet... how could it? Where would the plasma that makes up the jet come from?

~modest

[modest]

Originally Posted by Pluto

The way normal matter is sucked into black holes and transformed into ultra dense degenerate plasma matter and than ejected and than changed back to normal matter is a cyclic process that is studied by many scientists.

Can you please provide a scientific source saying matter is "sucked into a black hole" then ejected in a jet. My understanding is that nothing (not even light) can escape a black hole except via Hawking radiation.

~modest

[Pluto]

G'day Modest

I just dropped in for sec:

You said

I'm not sure why you disagree with what I said—perhaps you think inactive galactic nuclei have jets and they are somehow hidden from our observation. Or, you might think inactive galaxies don't have black holes at all... Or, maybe you think the mass of a jet originates from inside the black hole.

After reading hundreds of papers on the subject, you get this feeling If you know what I mean.

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.

As for the origin of the main jet. This comes from the centre of any compact object. Can anybody prove that, not yet. Accretion is the main part, that most papers say creates the main jet. The infall flow has not got the capacity to create jets that are able to reach speeds close to the speed of light, not only that to give it magnetic properties that keep their straight direction for millions of years.
Modest do not get me wrong, I do not have the full picture yet. My mentor has given me another 200 papers to read on plasma double layer formation and its influence on the production of jets. So! am I confused, yes and know.

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.

This will take a bit of time!!!!!!

You said

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.

So! the rule that nothing can escape from a black is in my opinion wrong.

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.

For supermassive black holes to be active they do not need to be fed. In actual fact in many cases the ejected matter is greater than the infalling matter.

You can google for the info on self discovery.

Sorry I came in for a sec and my wife is calling to go out.

I will come back to this soon.