David Levy

Thanks I have no interset in massive accretion disk. Please let me remind you that I'm only focus on inactive nuclei in spiral galaxy. It has a very unique feature - it is a Rotation SMBH. Based on this power, the plasma at the accretion disk is moving almost at the speed of light. However, there is another important force which had been neglected by the science. It is the magnetic field in the plasma matter. http://www.einstein-...ights/accretion "The most efficient mechanism to re-distribute angular momentum involves plasma matter, in which the different particles influence each other via weak magnetic fields. The net result is a redistribution of angular momentum from the inner into the outer regions of the disk. During this process, the matter in the innermost regions manages to shed enough angular momentum to be able to fall onto (or into) the central object itself. In this way, more and more matter accretes onto the central object. Without angular momentum transfer, this growth by accretion would be impossible." So, all the particles in the accretion disk influence each other with weak magnetic field. This magnetic force set a bonding force between each particle with all the others next to it. Therefore, could it be that due to this weak magnetic field, all the particles must move together as a pack? If so, then all of them must accomplish one cycle exactly at the same time. However, the path at the innermost side of the accretion disk is shortest while the path at the outermost side is the longest. Therefore, could it be that the particle at the innermost side moves at the slowest speed, while the one at the outermost moves at the highest speed? We know that all of them are moving almost at the speed of light. However, if the innermost will move inwards, then its speed should decrease and he might fall into the SMBH. However, if the outermost will move further outwards, its speed should increase. This is very critical, as if it gains enough speed, (speed of light?), it might be ejected outwards from the accretion disk. On the other hand, if any particle outside the accretion disk wants to join the pack, it must accomplish one cycle with all the others at the same time. However, as it is further away from the disk its cycle path is much longer than average path on the disk. Hence, in order to achieve it, it must move much faster than a speed of light. This sounds as impossible mission. Therefore, could it be that no particle can join the accretion disk from outside? Could it be that the only option to join the disc is from inside, as we do with our car race track? Mathematics is fantastic if we use it correctly. In that mathematic calculation - Did we take care on the rotation force of the Rotatable SMBH in spiral galaxy? Did we take care on the ultra high speed of the particles in the disk? Did we take care on "the different particles influence each other via weak magnetic fields"?

Thanks Strange Do appriciate your support and patience. With regards to star migration: In that article dated Jan 2001 there is no evidence for star migration. However, based on mathematical calculation it is believed that stars could migrate inwards. Nice idea - but not solid evidence. Don't forget that some scientists were expecting to see fireworks as G2 approached the SMBH, but this expectation didn't materialized. Do we have any real evidence that S0 stars are drifting inwards? As we trace S2 for quite long time - do we have any idea about its rotation cycle with regards to SMBH location? Is it drifting inwards or outwards? With regards to new star creation: Yes, there must be a benefit. There must be some logic in this new star creation. I can't see any option that the galaxy creates new stars just to eat them when they are still young. Even crocodile mother doesn't eat her young. The total mass in the accretion disk is in the size of an asteroid. That is based on very accurate measurements from many accretion disks at spiral galaxies. I would consider it as the size of the SMBH mouth. So, yes, the SMBH is huge, but somehow its mouth is quite narrow. All it can eat at any given moment is as big as asteroid mass. The sun is bigger by at least 1025 than an asteroid. How could we even consider pushing a star in the size of our sun or even 20 times bigger to this narrow mouth? Can anyone expect the outcome of that? As the SMBH mouth is so narrow, I would consider that it should disassemble any nearby star before he eats it. That actually was the expectation by our scientists as they discussed on a giant star which is been eaten by the SMBH. http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/accretion That's also what we do with our food. If we want to eat a stake we cut it to pieces before we push it to our mouth. We normally don't assemble a new cow with our food before we eat it. Therefore, I still wonder why the galaxy generates new stars just to be eaten by the SMBH. I assume that also our scientists understand that it is not feasible for the SMBH to eat the whole star at once. Therefore they offer the idea of "particles wind from nearby stars". Hence, let's focus on this particles wind: Look at our Sun: Do we have any idea what might be the total weight that the sun is losing every year due to this particles wind? I have no data, but I assume that it must be very small portion of the total sun mass. Can we assume that it is no more than 10-25 of the total sun mass? (If you know this data - please correct me). Let's look at the most nearby star - S2. It complete one rotation cycle in more than 15 years. However, it passes close to the SMBH for very short time. Therefore, I assume that as it is close enough, the wind can carry most of those particles to the mouth of the SMBH. However, when it is far away, the wind goes in all directions. How many S0 stars there are in total? Did we try to verify what could be the total particles wind mass from all the nearby stars which the SMBH could get? I can't see any option to gain the total requested mass of 10-3 M which is needed for the SMBH per year just by that particles wind from nearby stars. I would consider a particles wind as a smell. By smelling 1000 apples, would we feel that we eat enough?

Thanks, Great news! So, the accretion rate is correct and stable. so why it was stated that we can't trust that rate? If it is stable, why we can't multiply it by the no. of years? If one million it too long, what might be consider as an acceptable time frame? What do you mean by migration of star clusters to the region of the black hole? Please advice which star clusters? With regards to new star formation nearby the SMBH: If the SMBH wants to eat a mass, why he should set any effort in the formation of new stars before he eats them? What is the benefit for the galaxy or the SMBH in this activity?

Yes, I agree however, when our scientists tried to estimate the age of the universe they have mesured the current rate and set an extrapulation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe "In physical cosmology, the age of the universe is the time elapsed since the Big Bang. Measurements of the cosmic background radiation give the cooling time of the universe since the Big Bang,[3] and measurements of the expansion rate of the universe can be used to calculate its approximate age by extrapolating backwards in time." So, when our scientists are doing excetly the same process in order to verify the whole universe age - that is perfectly OK. No one is asking about the stability of CRM rate over time. However, when I'm using an extrapolation on just a friction of a glaxy life time - it is forbidden. Why? Why if our scientists can extrapolate the whole age of the universe from the current rate, while I can't do a similar process on a friction of a relative time? The age of our galaxy is estimated to be over 12 Billion years. One million years is 1/(12 million) than this age. Therefore, we can easily consider that one million years is just a friction of a moment in our galaxy life time. The accretion rate had been set by the radio source, as it is stated clearly: http://iopscience.io...12035/fulltext/ "The radio source Sagittarius A* at the center of our Galaxy is believed to be a 2.6×10 Mblack hole that accretes gas from the winds of nearby stars. " So, if the amplitude of that radio source will decrease than we can estimate a change in the accretion rate. Therefore, we set the rate based on radio source rather than availability of star mass. Our scientists also honestly claim: "is believed" with regards to the idea that the SMBH gets this requested mass from the wind of nearby stars. Hence, I would consider it as an assumption. There is no direct evidence for that. It is one option. In any case, if there is a change in that radio source, we could verify it by monitor other spiral galaxies similar to ours. There are billions of galaxies. We can monitor the radio source at those equivalent galaxies, and get the average accretion rate. This could give us more solid information about the accretion rate. Did we try to do it?

Sorry, it isn't a joke and I really want to know why do you ignore it? It is stated clearly: http://iopscience.io...12035/fulltext/ "If we naively increase this by a (Bondi capture) factor of 2.62 to account for the actual mass of the central object, the theoretically predicted accretion rate becomes 10-3 M yr-1." So, based on my understanding the theoretically predicted accretion rate becomes 10-3 M yr-1." What is wrong with that? I don't see any limit for time duration. Do you claim that it is incorrect? Do you claim that our scientists believe that in the past the theoretically predicted accretion rate was lower? Can you please direct me to a relevant article? Our SMBH isn't a baby. It is quite mature man. His age is over 12 billion years and I hope that it can live few more billion years. So one million years in SMBH life time is equivalent to less than one second in our life time. Actually, even if we assume that the SMBH life time is only 12 Billion years and our life time is at least 120 years, than 100 million SMBH life time is equivalent to one year of man life. Therefore: If a man consumes 1500 calories per day (in average), can we assume that it consumes 1500 x 356 calories per year? If our SMBH consumes 10-3 M per year, why can't we assume that it consumes 10-3 M x 1 Million, after one Million years???

I have already did:

The accretion rate per year is as follow: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/312035/fulltext/ "If we naively increase this by a (Bondi capture) factor of 2.62 to account for the actual mass of the central object, the theoretically predicted accretion rate becomes 10-3 M yr-1 (but see § 3)." How could it be that all of this huge mass would be achived only by a "wind" from S0 stars? Did we really try to calculate how this total requested mass can be accumulated by a stream of charged particles from S0 outer atmosphere? Please be aware that this stream of charges is moving in all directions from S0 stars. Hence, technically, the total accumulated wind in the direction of the SMBH could be almost neglected. Therefore, we must prove that this wind can carry 10-3 M yr-1 directly to the SMBH before we take it for granted. After only one million year – the SMBH should accrete a total mass of: 10+3 M. Hence, all the mass in S0 stars can't help to achieve that total mass. If the SMBH eats S0 stars mass, then by definition all of them should be eaten long time ago.

Sorry. I had the impression that we are speaking about new stars near the SMBH. Now I understand that we discuss on S0... stars: "The Galactic Center Group members have been measuring the positions of thousands of stars in the vicinity of the Galactic Center for more than 20 years. This unique data set allowed us to measure directly short-period orbits of stars. In particular, a full phase coverage has been measured for two stars: S0-2 with an orbital period of 15.56 years, and S0-102 with 11.5 years. At the closest approach, S0-2 is only 17 light hours away from the center of the Galaxy, about four times the distance of Neptune from the Sun. From these orbital data, we can determine the mass of the central black hole in our own Galaxy." So, do you mean that those stars contribute some of their mass to the SMBH? Out of those stars, S2 is the closest one. Do we see any indication on S2 which can confirm that it is losing its mass to the SMBH? Our scientists were expecting for fireworks as G2 cloud came closers to the accretion disk. Do we see any sort of fireworks as the SMBH eat some portion of S2 mass (especially at their closest spot)?

Thanks Can you please advice what is the meaning of "is believed to be"? "The radio source Sagittarius A* at the center of our Galaxy is believed to be a 2.6×10(6) M0 black hole that accretes gas from the winds of nearby stars." So, do we need to believe that the size of the SMBH is 2.6×10(6) M0, or do we need to believe that there are nearby stars? Based on my understanding, the total mass of the SMBH had been set by the S2 orbit. So, technically I assume that the radio source has no effect on that mass. Hence, does it mean that based on the radio source we have to believe that accretion disk gets the requested mass from the nearby stars? However, why we have to believe? Do we really see those stars? What does it mean? " 2.If the stars in the Galactic center are not randomly distributed around Sgr A* but instead have a large z-coordinate offset, the predicted accretion rate will be reduced. " If we see those stars, than we should easily know their distributed around Sgr A*. If we don't see those stars, than what is the difference between speculation and believe in...?

Thanks 1. When did we start to monitor the Milky Way SMBH aria including its accretion disk? 2. Did we ever notice in any sort of matter which is moving into the SMBH accretion disk? (In other words - do we have any evidence that the SMBH is really eating mass from outside)? 3. The total mass in the accretion disk is as asteroid. That is clear. As we call it accretion - we mean that the mass in this aria must move inwards to SMBH (Eaten by the SMBH). So, based on our theories, how long it might take the SMBH to eat all of that Asteroid mass in the accrtion disk, assuming that no matter is coming in from outside (and no new matter is creating by the accretion itself)?

Lets start by the expectation about G2: In the following simulation we can see that G2 is moving towards the SMBH. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*#Discovery_of_G2_gas_cloud_on_an_accretion_course In the following simulation we can see scientist's expectation from this activity: "Simulations of the passage were made before it happened by groups at ESO[41] and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL).[42]" It was stated: "As the cloud approached the black hole, Dr. Daryl Haggard said "It's exciting to have something that feels more like an experiment", and hoped that the interaction would produce effects that would provide new information and insights.[43]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*#/media/File:G2Cloud_eso1151a.jpeg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*#Discovery_of_G2_gas_cloud_on_an_accretion_course And the outcome was: "Nothing was observed during and after the closest approach of the cloud to the black hole, which was described as a lack of "fireworks" and a "flop".[44] Astronomers from the UCLA Galactic Center Group published observations obtained on March 19 and 20, 2014, concluding that G2 was still intact (in contrast to predictions for a simple gas cloud hypothesis) and that the cloud was likely to have a central star.[45]" It is stated clearly - "(in contrast to predictions for a simple gas cloud hypothesis)", while they were expecting to see fireworks... So, they were expecting for fireworks, but got nothing. However, instead of admit that there is a problem with this hypothesis, they came with an idea about a breeze which shouldn't have any effect on the accretion disk. Please don't forget that the plasma in the accretion disk is moving almost at the speed of light. So even a small amount of mass might have an effect - as in CERN. (Unless the breeze is so neglected that we can forget it.) In any case - do they claim that this breeze can contribute any real mass to the SMBH? Do they have any idea about the total mass in this breeze? Just to say breeze wouldn't be considered as a real scientific answer. In other words, so far I couldn't find any real evidence of mass which goes directly to the SMBH accretion disk. Not G1, Not G2. In the following article it is stated: http://earthsky.org/space/how-g2-survived-the-black-hole-at-our-milky-ways-heart "G2 was completely unaffected by the black hole. There were no fireworks." So, If G2 was completely unaffected - than we can forget the idea of mass contribution by breeze...

Thanks In order to explain why the SMBH didn't eat G2 it is stated: "Professor Andrea Ghez et al. suggested in 2014 that G2 is not a gas cloud but rather a pair of binary stars that had been orbiting the black hole in tandem and merged into an extremely large star.[36][46]". However, in the explanation of the accretion disk it is stated clearly that it gets new matter from a giant star: http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/accretion "Another example of a near-miss orbit, this one somewhat more complicated, can be seen in the image below - a binary star system consisting of a giant star, shown on the left, and a compact companion star, on the right:" So, why now we suddenly claim that those pair of binary stars that had been orbiting the black hole in tandem and merged into an extremely large star couldn't share their mass with the SMBH accretion disk? It is also stated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*#Discovery_of_G2_gas_cloud_on_an_accretion_course "An analysis published on 21 July 2014 based on observations by the ESO’s Very Large Telescope in Chile concluded alternatively that the cloud, rather than being isolated, might be a dense clump within a continuous but thinner stream of matter, and would act as a constant breeze on the disk of matter orbiting the black hole, rather than sudden gusts that would have caused fireworks as they hit, as originally expected. Supporting this hypothesis, G1, a cloud that passed near the black hole 13 years ago, had an orbit almost identical to G2, consistent with both clouds, and a gas tail thought to be trailing G2, all being denser clumps within a large single gas stream.[44]" As the total mass of the SMBH accretion disk about an asteroid, it is expected see the impact of that breeze on accretion disk. Did we see it? So, after almost 32 Month, do we have any further info about G2 and G1 cloud? Do they still rotate nearby the SMBH? In what kind of rotation shape? At what speed? How long it takes them to set one cycle around the SMBH? Are they drifting inwards or outwards from the SMBH? What is their composition? Do we see that extremely large star in G2 cloud? Actually, as we monitor this aria for the last 13 years (or longer), did we ever see any sort of mass which had been eaten by the SMBH? Did we see any impact on the accretion disk? If no, how can we explain it?

With regards to G2 clouds. Please see the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A* "The average rate of accretion onto Sgr A* is unusually small for a black hole of its mass[39] and is only detectable because it is so close to Earth. It was thought that the passage of G2 in 2013 might offer astronomers the chance to learn much more about how material accretes onto supermassive black holes. Several astronomical facilities observed this closest approach, with observations confirmed with Chandra, XMM, EVLA, INTEGRAL, Swift, Fermi and requested at VLT and Keck.[40] Simulations of the passage were made before it happened by groups at ESO[41] and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL).[42] As the cloud approached the black hole, Dr. Daryl Haggard said "It's exciting to have something that feels more like an experiment", and hoped that the interaction would produce effects that would provide new information and insights.[43] Nothing was observed during and after the closest approach of the G2 cloud the black hole, which was described as a lack of "fireworks" and a "flop".[44] Astronomers from the UCLA Galactic Center Group published observations obtained on March 19 and 20, 2014, concluding that G2 was still intact (in contrast to predictions for a simple gas cloud hypothesis) and that the cloud was likely to have a central star.[45]" If I understand it correctly: The science estimates that the SMBH must eat a nearby mass/cloud. However, somehow, our SMBH is not so cooperative with the theories. He just refuses to eat that cloud. If I remember correctly, there was also the same issue with another cloud (G1?). So, why our SMBH refuse to eat its food although it is so close to his mouth?

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I only focus on accretion disk in spiral galaxy!!!

http://blackholes.stardate.org/research/black-hole-binge.php.html "Yet the Milky Way's black hole is an inactive galactic nucleus. It does have a small accretion disk, which produces a faint glow in visible, infrared, and other wavelengths. But the total amount of material in the disk probably equals the mass of a pulverized asteroid or two, not a star."

Thanks Strange In this thread I focus only on accretion disk in spiral galaxy. The super massive black hole in this galaxy is inactive Galactic Nucleus. In an Active Galactic Nucleus there is a jet stream (Quasar for example) - and this is not part of our discussion. However, In order to prevent any further confusion, let's call the Nucleus in spiral galaxies (for example: Milky way, Andromeda...) - SMBH. With regards to the total mass in the accretion disc: Huge - is very relative word. If we compare it to the solar mass, than yes I assume that it is Huge. However, if we compare it to the total mass in the SMBH it is just a friction (less than 0.000...1% of the SMBH mass). With regards to the time that the accretion disk holds its matter: Is it real? Is there even one spiral galaxy in the whole universe without plasma in the accretion disk? With regards to the source of mass to the accretion disc: If I understand it correctly, there is no way for the SMBH to capture a star or a gas cloud from the nearby Bar. Therefore, there is no real source of matter for the accretion disk in spiral galaxy. Any comments?

I think that I have found an answer for your question: It is called: Angular momentum redistribution http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/accretion "The most efficient mechanism to re-distribute angular momentum involves plasma matter, in which the different particles influence each other via weak magnetic fields. The net result is a redistribution of angular momentum from the inner into the outer regions of the disk. During this process, the matter in the innermost regions manages to shed enough angular momentum to be able to fall onto (or into) the central object itself. In this way, more and more matter accretes onto the central object. Without angular momentum transfer, this growth by accretion would be impossible." So, there is a redistribution of angular momentum from the inner into the outer regions of the disk. In other words: The plasma in the disk in moving nearly at the speed of light. So, could it be that some of the plasma in the Inner side of the disk is losing momentum and fall onto (or into) the AGN mouth. However, due to the redistribution of the angular momentum, some other plasma in the outer side of the disk is increasing their speed. Once it gain enough speed, (speed of light, not just nearly), than it has the power to escape from the AGN gravity. Any comment? An active galactic nucleus (AGN) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_galactic_nucleus

What is the source for the Matter in the accretion disk? If the central object is a Star than it is clear: In the following article we can find the following answer: http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/accretion "The giant star is so large that for some of the matter in its outer envelope, the gravitational pull of the compact companion is greater than that of the giant star itself. Matter is pulled towards the companion. However, that matter does not plunge directly onto the companion star because it has sufficient sideways motion to build up a so-called accretion disk. This disk made of stellar material orbits the companion star." So, matter from a giant star is pulled towards a companion star. However, In an active galaxy, there is no companion galaxy which pulls matter from a nearby giant galaxy. Actually, the AGN can't even pull mass from its own nearby Bar. So, from where that matter in the accretion disk is coming from? How long this matter should rotate at the accretion disk before it will be eaten by the AGN? Is it one day? One year? One thousand years? One Million years? One Billion years? Sooner or later, the AGN must eat it all. But even after over 12 Billion years, the accretion disk is full of matter and we have no clue where it comes from. This is a real enigma.

Thanks It is stated that: http://www.einstein-...ights/accretion "systematic Doppler shifts record how matter moves at nearly the speed of light in the surrounding disk. "

What kind of matter should exist at the accretion disk? Let's assume that we will set there some piece of metal or even a diamond. This piece of mass should move at the speed of light, at a pressure of over billion PSI, Temp also over Billion degrees and Huge Magnetic/Electronic field. So, what might be the impact on this piece of mass under those conditions? Could it be that even Atoms might break up to basic particles in some sort of plasma? Electrons, Neutrons, Photons....or even Higgs Bosons?

Higgs boson had been generated by a man made accelerator - CERN. The natural accelerator - AGN is at least million over billion times stronger than the CERN. We agree that it has the capability to generate higgs boson and some other sort of particles including matter and antimatter. This is the base for this discussion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way With regards to the size of the AGN: In one hand it is stated: However, the AGN can only eat the nearby mass in the accretion disk. If it does, 1. Why in most (or even in all) active galaxies we still see that this zone is full with mass? 2. However, this mass is quite neglected comparing to the size of the AGN. So even if the AGN eats it all, how could it gain its suppermassive size? We know that it can't eat any mass from the bar: So, how could the AGN increase its size based on some limited crumbs? Could it be that even if it eats some mass from the accretion disc, new mass is generated by the acceleration power and therefore this zone is always covered with new mass?

Sorry, I have missed your answers. Thanks So, matter and antimatter is created at the accretion disk due to the high kinetic energy. This energy is generated by the Supper massive rotatable black hole. We know that the velocity of the mass at the accretion disc is as high as the speed of light. I assume that the temperature at this aria is over millions Celsius. The Magnetic/Electric fields are huge, and also the pressure. So, technically, could it be that by those huge forces at ultra high temp, a new hydrogen atom can be created? It is stated: Based on wiki " The bar may be surrounded by a ring called the 5-kpc ring that contains a large fraction of the molecular hydrogen present in the galaxy, as well as most of the Milky Way's star formation activity." Why most of the molecular hydrogen in the galaxy is located at the 5-Kpc ring? Could it be that this large fraction of molecular is a direct outcome of the ability of the BH to create new molecular hydrogen? So, the theory is that the BH is sucking mass. If so - what should be the outcome? 1. Less mass at the accretion disc. 2. Less mass at the Bar. However, what we see contradicts this theory. We see significant mass presence at the Bar and at the accretion disc. So, how can we explain that the BH is sucking mass, while there is so significant mass presence at this location? Where is comes from? How can we explain the following statement: "as well as most of the Milky Way's star formation activity." Why most of the Milky Ways star forming activity is taking care just at that spot? If the BH is sucking matter, why there is star forming activity? From where the new stars mass is comming?

"At CERN... "Accelerators boost beams of particles to high energies before the beams are made to collide with each other or with stationary targets. Detectors observe and record the results of these collisions." The particles are made to collide together at close to the speed of light. The process gives the physicists clues about how the particles interact, and provides insights into the fundamental laws of nature." So, if a Higgs boson had been generated at the CERN accelerator, could it be that the rotatable supper massive black hole - (which is by definition one of the biggest accelerators in the universe that has the capability to rotate a nearby mass at the speed of light) also has the capability to generate Higgs Boson?

Accretion disk: http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/accretion It is stated that: "systematic Doppler shifts record how matter moves at nearly the speed of light in the surrounding disk. " So, we know for sure that the accretion disk has the power to move matters at almost the speed of light. However - that is similar to the activity at CERN CERN https://home.cern/about "At CERN.... The particles are made to collide together at close to the speed of light. The process gives the physicists clues about how the particles interact, and provides insights into the fundamental laws of nature." So, also at CERN the particles move at close to the speed og light. However, if at CERN they have succeeded to generate the Higgs-boson: Higgs -boson ttps://home.cern/topics/higgs-boson On 4 July 2012, the ATLAS and CMS experiments at CERN's Large Hadron Collider announced they had each observed a new particle in the mass region around 126 GeV. his particle is consistent with the Higgs boson predicted by the Standard Model. Then: What is the chance that the Accretion disk also should have the ability to create higgs-boson? And if so, what is the chance that it could actually create some sort of matter? More questions: Why do we assume that the black hole "eats" this matter? Do we have any real prove for that? Actually, do we have any prove that the matter in moving inwards? Could it be that it moves outwards?

It isn't stated that this star is red giants!