"We don't fully understand how this acceleration process occurs, but in active galaxies we see jets that have operated so long that they've produced trails of gas extending millions of light-years," said Sylvain Guiriec


And they never will until they consider the electric fields that must be present. Oh, and BH's are fairy tales conjured up in the minds of fanciful mathematicians.

And they never will until they consider the electric fields that must be present. Oh, and BH's are fairy tales conjured up in the minds of fanciful mathematicians.


Okay, now we need to hear from "water waves" and "Newton predicted black holes" and then we'll have the complete theory of everything.

I'll wait with bated breath.

Gas

"Astronomers examining the properties of black hole jets compared 54 gamma-ray bursts with 234 active galaxies classified as blazars and quasars. Surprisingly, the power and brightness of the jets share striking similarities despite a wide range of black hole mass, age and environment. Regardless of these differences, the jets produce light by tapping into similar percentages of the kinetic energy of particles moving along the jet, suggesting a common underlying physical cause."

This is one step ahead in cosmos science. Good luck.

The plot provided shows a linear relationship between log(power) and brightness.

This is not a constant fraction or "similar fraction" relationship.

"Regardless of these differences, the jets produce light by tapping into similar percentages of the kinetic energy of particles moving along the jet" - article

now we need to hear from "water waves"
AWT cannot replace the formal theories, but it complements them and it brings and intuitive insights into their understanding, like the
1) black holes exhibit the physical surface composed of quark and neutrinos, at the moment when this surface protrudes the even horizon black hole will change into radiative white hole
2) black hole can swallow only very limited amount of matter during their accretion most of matter is radiated back in form of energy
3) therefore most of black holes were formed with gravitational collapse rather than accretion
4) the jets of rotating black holes are formed with black hole jet own radiation, they don't require any accretion to work. Black holes may occasionally explode into neutrino bursts like large stars.
5) the BH jets may be asymmetric due the CP violation and they do represent the soughed magnetic monopoles after then
6) the event horizon is behaving like the mirror reflecting short wavelength light back

7)so called worm holes are actually formed with tunnels of dense vacuum between two nearby black holes
8)polar jets of black holes do represent a window, which are enabling to observe the glowing physical surface of black hole
9)large black holes are formed with gravitational collapse of dark matter rather the normal matter
10) black holes are surrounded with antimatter
11) the size of event horizon depends on distance from which we are observing it
12) the even horizon is the more fuzzy, the larger black hole is. The cloudy galaxies around large black holes are part of this fuzziness
13) the black holes would change into white holes and started to evaporate if they're stripped from galaxy, which was formed around them
14) the proximity of black holes changes the properties of many physical constants including the speed of light and gravitational constant
15) the BH rather bounce than coalesce when they met together
16) the BH have foamy interior similar to dark matter around them

If I remember rightly, in one of the episodes of The Universe, it was suggested that objects flowing from the jets of blazars at 99% of c could be as large as bowling balls. Could this be right?

If a magnetar was ripped apart in a Quasar, could the plamsa particles in a blazar jet be very small but still even have the mass of a bowling ball? Curious.

"Regardless of these differences, the jets produce light by tapping into similar percentages of the kinetic energy of particles moving along the jet" - article

looks like BH is key to understanding Universe. We have a lot of problems with BH:
1) monster BH`s existing in early Universe
2) central position in almost each galaxy
3) jets mechnism

According to BBT the Universe started from singularity. It means that there no gravitation - in other case it was impossible to expand. When we talk about singularity we usually think about BH first. It suggest that we started from One Big BH which was thorn apart into smaller BH`s (expension and Dark Age). After that each of BH started to emit radiation (jets) which is source of matter and galaxies (look at spiral galaxies)

Of course I can`t do the math.

Radek, the math is not all you cannot do.

Cool! Expected, but the universe got so much simpler.

@ cantdrive: Electric fields are already considered to be the jet mechanism:

"Relativistic jets emit most of their energy via synchrotron emission. In our simple model the sphere contains highly relativistic electrons and a steady magnetic field." [ http://en.wikiped..._beaming ]

@ Valeria: "Aether" was rejected by observation over a century ago. There is no such thing.

@ Battman: Not "large" as bowling balls, but massive as you say in the next paragraph. Well, maybe, I don't have time to check.

I can't understand your last paragraph (except the mass thing).

Its just cannot be a coincident, there is a well studied published anomalies around earth gravity [ called pioneer anomaly ] which can be caused by the same law of physic. With larger space bodies for example black holes can make change on a bigger scales with materials which has trajectories as "flyby" close to a black hole event horizon. If the incoming material get to close to an event horizon at high angle related to the black hole equator will cause bigger speed ups and as its repeating to fall back and back again will soon gain higher and higher speed until unite and forming a channel of vertical jet which eventually leave behind the black hole with tremendous speed forever.
As Robert Sanders at University of Groningen says: "It suggests that we may know less about gravity than we think we do," he says. "I think people should take it seriously."
Sanders says the anomaly may be a sign that our current theory of gravity, Einstein's general theory of relativity, needs to be altered

@ radek: In the current inflationary standard cosmology there is no need for a singularity. When inflation ends reheating occurs, and spacetime becomes filled with particles at a defined temperature. This is the overlap, the "big bang" event of earlier cosmologies.

Inflation is a process in spacetime driven by the inflation field. It doesn't need a singularity, and quite frankly it is simpler if it has no such. This leads to eternal inflation physics, which is the dominant physics of inflation fields anyway.

@ parsek: The Pioneer anomaly is on spacecraft leaving the system, not near Earth which is the flyby anomaly. The first is known to be real and a consequence of how IR radiation from the heat of RTGs leaves the crafts. The second anomaly is not known whether it exists or not. Some crafts don't display it, meaning it is probably a measurement problem. [Wikipedia]

The plot provided shows a linear relationship between log(power) and brightness.

This is not a constant fraction or "similar fraction" relationship.

"Regardless of these differences, the jets produce light by tapping into similar percentages of the kinetic energy of particles moving along the jet" - article


It's log(power) by log(luminosity).

"Aether" was rejected by observation over a century ago.
Aether was rejected by observation of negative result of Michelson-Morley experiment, which was based on fringe idea, that the light is mediated with longitudinal waves of aether and therefore it must be a subject of aether drag. But as we know, the light is transverse wave and such a waves exhibit a drag neither in material environments. In addition, the Lorentz invariance was derived with Lorentz a long time before Einstein just with using of aether model - the constant speed of light can be derived from Maxwell equations rather easily based on fluid model. So, how is it possible, the aether was disproved just with the same result, which this model predicts? The people like you, who are parroting the same sentence without reflecting any arguments just demonstrate, how religious and mentally rigid the contemporary physics actually is

Electric fields are already considered to be the jet mechanism
This is not true. Prove it with some citation.
Pioneer anomaly is on spacecraft leaving the system, not near Earth which is the flyby anomaly
You didn't understand the meaning of 1parsec29's post. Of course, 1parsec29 knows, these two effects manifest at different scale - his opinion was, they both share the similar physical mechanism.
first is known to be real and a consequence of how IR radiation
This is not true - it's one of many hypothesis and many physicists don't agree (1, 2) with it. We observe many similar fly-by anomalies of another space-probes (Rossetta), which cannot be explained with thermal effects and the time curve of anomaly doesn't fit the decay curve of plutonium, which is the heat source at Pioneer spaceprobes.

Some crafts don't display it, meaning it is probably a measurement problem.
LOL, this is typical dull approach of mainstream physics, driven with peer-review mechanisms. But it can just mean, this anomaly depends on many factors, which aren't understood yet. At first, flyby anomaly depends on the path of space-probe too, because it manifest mostly at the equatorial plane of massive objects. In addition, this anomaly depends on the surface/volume ratio of spaceprobe (large bulky planets don't exhibit it at all) and probably the type of its material too (if it's quantum fluctuation effect, then it's merely a Cassimir force mechanism at the large scale).
The tendency to refuse all phenomena, until they're not completely understood is typical for religious mainstream physics of the last century and it manifests itself in another areas (cold fusion, antigravity effects, etc). But the fact, some phenomena cannot be predicted reliably doesn't mean, that the phenomena doesn't exist.

Battman:

If I remember rightly, in one of the episodes of The Universe, it was suggested that objects flowing from the jets of blazars at 99% of c could be as large as bowling balls. Could this be right?


No. When you give something this much energy it cannot hold molecular bonds. Even subatomic forces should be overwhelmed by this amount of energy in the particles.

As for the mass of the particles, when you get this close to the speed of light, mass and energy start to be interchangeable in the equations. You start having to deal with all sorts of quantum effects in these jets too. The material in these jets is very different from anything you know of as matter. Under these conditions we have no idea what the bulk properties of the jet are like. Similar to the material in the interior of the Earth, we lack the laboratory equipment to reproduce it. We have little data about what the jet material might act like.

But as we know, the light is transverse wave and such a waves exhibit a drag neither in material environments.


So that is why my eye glasses, telescope and prisms quit working,,, could you suggest a fix for that? I sure would like to have them start working again.

why my eye glasses, telescope and prisms quit working,,, could you suggest a fix for that
I don't understand this comment. The validity of aether model doesn't doubt the existence of relativity and quantum mechanics - on the contrary, it explains, why we maintain just these two theories instead of three, four or single one.

I don't understand this comment.


I'm truly shocked at that.

If I had to Macgyver my own particle jet, these are the tools I would need...and maybe some gum....


Heaven forbid that men ever figure out how to re-create this kind of energy...

"I am become death, destroyer of worlds"

Litterally.

I don't understand this comment.

I'm truly shocked at that.


lol. He won't get that one either.

Perhaps there exists some sort of scale invariance, whereby more initially energetic electrons, take proportionately longer to decelerate (and radiate away said energy), so that their average emission power is quasi-constant? i offer the following:

http://www.scienc...elation/

According to "Galaxy Formation & Evolution" by Mo, van den Bosch, & White; only large luminous galaxies harbor central SMBH; smaller dwarfish galaxies harbor only central dense "Nuclear Star Clusters", resembling massive bright Globular Clusters (nestled in the middle of the dwarf galaxy). Now, if galaxies "grow", then large galaxies were once small proto-galaxies; which may have lacked central SMBH. If so, then at some "tipping point", central star clusters must have collapsed, into central SMBH. The implosion, of millions of solar masses of stars, would presumably be some sort of spectacular event. Are GRBs firmly observationally tied to SNe, or could distant GRBs be the births of galaxy-mass SMBH, from the implosion of precursor star clusters?? If so, then GRBs would derive from SMBH of vaguely similar mass, to those in Quasars & Blazars.

on second thought...

GRBs occur "commonly", tens of thousands per large galaxy per Hubble time. The hypothetical implosion, of dense nuclear star clusters, into SMBH, would have occurred once per large galaxy per Hubble time, i.e. tens of thousands of times less frequently. In decades of observations, humans have witnessed nearly a thousand GRBs. So, to witness one such implosion, would require centuries. Parsimoniously, the actual birth of SMBH (and AGN) have not yet been observed by humans. If so, then there are natural space phenomena, that humans have yet to observe -- the last word on Astronomy is far from written.

On third thought...

Phys.org has web-published many articles about "obscured Quasars", and how Quasars are born, during "wet" (gas rich) galaxy mergers, amidst dense shrouding cocoons of gas & dust, rendering their first ~100Myr non-visible. So, perhaps the best place to look, for the births of SMBH, and ensuing AGN, are gas-rich merging galaxies, preferably at higher redshifts, not yet showing signs of AGN activity?

Henize 2-10, located 30Mly away, is a blue star-bursting dwarf galaxy, harboring a seemingly-young SMBH, indicated by its x-ray emissions. Whatever such a galaxy would look like, before its star-burst and SMBH formation, would be a good candidate to surveil, for SMBH formation:

http://phys.org/n...mos.html