Matter in accretion disks VS higgs-boson at CERN

[David Levy]

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?

 

 

[MigL]

Considering that the accretion disk of a galactic center, active BH can produce enough energy to outshine its parent galaxy, I would assume collisions can produce Higgs and even much more massive particles.

 

What exactly would be accelerating the accretion disc 'outwards' ?

[Sensei]

What is the chance that the Accretion disk also should have the ability to create higgs-boson?

See its half-life/mean-life on wikipedia.

It's extremely unstable particle..

 

And if so, what is the chance that it could actually create some sort of matter?

Matter, and antimatter, is created all the time, from high energy photons, or in collisions of particles with high kinetic energy (double as much as mass of electron/positron >= 1.022 MeV)..

So, it's nothing special.

 

Why do we assume that the black hole "eats" this matter? Do we have any real prove for that?

Without sucking matter BH would not be growing, and increasing its mass and radius.

[Strange]

What is the chance that the Accretion disk also should have the ability to create higgs-boson?

 

 

Probably quite high. There are many interactions in the universe at much higher energies than CERN can produce. But, like most of the other particles that are formed, they will be very short-lived.

 

 

 

And if so, what is the chance that it could actually create some sort of matter?

 

I don't see any connection between creating a boson and creating matter, so not sure why you say "if so"?

 

Anyway, yes there will be some particles of matter and antimatter formed. But they will soon annihilate and turn into photons.

 

 

Why do we assume that the black hole "eats" this matter? Do we have any real prove for that?

 

It is not an "assumption". It is a result of current theory. It is the same theory that describes how objects fall to the ground or orbit stars. So far, we have no evidence it is wrong (which is the closest thing to "proof" you get in science).

 

 

 

Actually, do we have any prove that the matter in moving inwards? Could it be that it moves outwards?

 

Well, I know (from previous threads) that you have a bizarre obsession with things moving outwards. For utterly incomprehensible reasons. But...

 

In this case, it turns out you are partly right. (Shock! Stop the presses!) The intense amount of heat generated as matter accretes does cause a significant proportion of the matter to be pushed away. So there is a theoretical limit on how fast (and how large) black holes can grow.

http://www3.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de/staff/mmassi/lezione2WEdd.pdf

 

Also, there are complex electromagnetic interactions which cause matter to be sent out in jets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrophysical_jet

 

But feel free to twist and misrepresent all this information into something that supports your beliefs. Then we can try and correct you. Although we will be wasting our time...

Edited March 7, 2017 by Strange

[swansont]

One difference between the LHC and an accretion disc is that in the LHC you are sending the particles in opposite directions, so that the collision energy is very high. In matter that is in some decaying orbit, while the speeds and energies are quite high, the relative kinetic energies are not. (i.e. a 6.9 TeV proton colliding with a 7.1 TeV proton in the opposite direction gives you 14 TeV to convert to mass. A 6.9 TeV proton orbiting with a 7.1 TeV proton gives you at most 200 GeV of energy.

[David Levy]

"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?

[Strange]

I think you asked this before. The main difference in the case of a black hole is that all the matter is moving in the same direction in the accretion disk. However, it does seem that that there are very highly energetic interactions (e.g. generating the jets of material from the poles) so it may be that Higgs bosons are created. But they will, of course, like many other particles decay again immediately.

 

Why do you ask?

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/103720-matter-in-accretion-disks-vs-higgs-boson-at-cern/

[swansont]

I think you asked this before.

!

Moderator Note

Yes. Topics merged

[David Levy]

Sorry, I have missed your answers.

 

Matter, and antimatter, is created all the time, from high energy photons, or in collisions of particles with high kinetic energy (double as much as mass of electron/positron >= 1.022 MeV)..
So, it's nothing special.

 

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?

 

 

Without sucking matter BH would not be growing, and increasing its mass and radius.

 

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?

Edited March 17, 2017 by David Levy

[Strange]

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.

 

 

Well, not quite. But very close.

 

 

 

So, technically, could it be that by those huge forces at ultra high temp, a new hydrogen atom can be created?

 

Seems unlikely to me. At those temperatures, atoms would be ionised. And the strong electric and magnetic fields may keep oppositely charged particles apart. But this is an immensely complicated subject so I am just guessing.

 

Also, remember that both particles and anti-particles would be formed. So the antimatter will end up destroying an equal amount of matter that was formed.

 

 

 

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."

 

Can you provide a link. Wikipedia is quite large.

 

 

 

Why most of the molecular hydrogen in the galaxy is located at the 5-Kpc ring?

 

It sounds like this is not well understood at the moment; e.g. http://www.bu.edu/galacticring/new_summary.htm#objectives

 

 

 

 

Could it be that this large fraction of molecular is a direct outcome of the ability of the BH to create new mass?

 

It seems unlikely. The amount of mass around the black hole is a minute fraction of the mass of the galaxy. Any new atoms formed will be a small proportion of that. And, as noted, I don't see that there can be a net creation of matter.

 

 

 

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.

 

1. The size of the accretion disk varies. Sometimes it can disappear because all the mass has been absorbed by the black hole. (There is no significant accretion disk around the black hole at the centre of our galaxy currently).

 

And then if a large gas cloud or group of stars approaches, it can gain a large accretion disk.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_galactic_nucleus

 

2. I can't see the black hole having any effect on the bar or 5-kpc ring. It is too far away.

 

 

So, how can we explain that the BH is sucking mass, while there is so significant mass presence at this location?

 

The black hole only affects mass nearby.

 

 

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?

 

That seems to be because that is where most of the hydrogen is. Stars are formed from hydrogen.

 

 

Does it mean that the BH eats those new stars?

 

This is nowhere near the black hole. So, no.

But what does any of this have to do with the Higgs boson!?!?!?

[David Levy]

But what does any of this have to do with the Higgs boson!?!?!?

 

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.

 

 

Can you provide a link. Wikipedia is quite large.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way

 

With regards to the size of the AGN:

In one hand it is stated:

 

Without sucking matter BH would not be growing, and increasing its mass and radius.

 

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:

 

I can't see the black hole having any effect on the bar or 5-kpc ring. It is too far away.

The black hole only affects mass nearby.

 

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?

Edited March 18, 2017 by David Levy

[David Levy]

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?

Edited March 19, 2017 by David Levy

[imatfaal]

I think that at the important and interesting part of the accretion disk most matter would be in the form of plasma .

 

No mass ever ever travels at the speed of light - consistently stating this undermines confidence in your posts.

 

Plasma conducts - but not perfectly well - so not sure about the e-fields; I would expect very strong but very localized magnetic fields. The internal pressure would be mitigated by outwards radiation pressure which becomes a factor in such a luminous entity

 

Mass is radiated as energy in quite prodigious amounts - as much as a quarter of the mass

 

There will be no atoms at the sharp end of an accretion disc around a BH. And yes - all sorts of exotic and odd stuff will be created in ultra-high energy collisions.

[David Levy]

I think that at the important and interesting part of the accretion disk most matter would be in the form of plasma .

 

Plasma conducts - but not perfectly well - so not sure about the e-fields; I would expect very strong but very localized magnetic fields. The internal pressure would be mitigated by outwards radiation pressure which becomes a factor in such a luminous entity

 

Mass is radiated as energy in quite prodigious amounts - as much as a quarter of the mass

 

There will be no atoms at the sharp end of an accretion disc around a BH. And yes - all sorts of exotic and odd stuff will be created in ultra-high energy collisions.

 

Thanks

 

No mass ever ever travels at the speed of light - consistently stating this undermines confidence in your posts.

 

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. "

Edited March 19, 2017 by David Levy

[Strange]

"Nearly"

[David Levy]

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.

Edited March 20, 2017 by David Levy

[swansont]

What is AGN? You have not explained this.

[David Levy]

Considering that the accretion disk of a galactic center, active BH can produce enough energy to outshine its parent galaxy, I would assume collisions can produce Higgs and even much more massive particles.

 

What exactly would be accelerating the accretion disc 'outwards' ?

 

 

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?

What is AGN? You have not explained this.

 

An active galactic nucleus (AGN)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_galactic_nucleus

Edited March 20, 2017 by David Levy

[Strange]

What is the source for the Matter in the accretion disk?

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?

 

 

I have no idea. But apparently, the accretion disk can be HUGE.

In the Unified Model, AGN have a central supermassive black hole surrounded by a gaseous accretion disk of ~ a few light days across.

 

Moving outwards from the centre of the AGN fast moving gas clouds exist at a distance ~ 100 light days, known as the ‘broad line region’ which produce the broad emission lines seen in some AGN spectra.

 

Continuing outwards, at ~ 100 light years in diameter, a molecular doughnut or torus of colder gas exists.

http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/A/Active+Galactic+Nuclei

 

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.

 

I guess it varies depending on the size of the black hole, the amount of material in the accretion disk, etc.

 

And then they become quiet, until they encounter another gas cloud, or capture another nearby star.

Most of the time, these black holes are quiet and invisible, thus being impossible to observe directly. But during the times when material is falling into their massive maws, they blaze with radiation, putting out more light than the rest of the galaxy combined. These bright centers are what is known as Active Galactic Nuclei, and are the strongest proof for the existence of SMBHs.

 

...

 

In the case of the Milky Way, ongoing observation has revealed that the amount of material accreted onto Sagitarrius A is consistent with an inactive galactic nucleus. It has been theorized that it had an active nucleus in the past, but has since transitioned into a radio-quiet phase. However, it has also been theorized that it might become active again in a few million (or billion) years.

https://phys.org/news/2016-11-galactic-nuclei.html

Once it gain enough speed, (speed of light, not just nearly), than it has the power to escape from the AGN gravity.

Any comment?

 

 

There is a limit to how much matter can fall into a black hole. A certain amount is "blown away" by the heat and radiation produced by inflating matter. I think this is one of the challenges of explaining supermassive black holes: they cannot absorb enough material to grow as large as they do.

[swansont]

 

 

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?

 

 

 

Possible, but not supported by the quoted bit (which just says it moves further out in the disk) and not necessary. An object that moves to a larger radius increases its angular momentum at the same speed; there is no need for the speed to increase to accomplish this

[David Levy]

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:

 

I have no idea. But apparently, the accretion disk can be HUGE.

 

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:

 

And then they become quiet.

 

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:

 

 

And then they become quiet, until they encounter another gas cloud, or capture another nearby star.

 

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?

Edited March 21, 2017 by David Levy

[swansont]

 

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).

 

 

 

Citation needed.

 

I mean, if it's huge compared to a solar mass, that's what, 1000 solar masses? If the SMBH is a million solar masses, that's 0.1%

 

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?

 

 

Citation needed.

[Strange]

 

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.

 

 

If it has an accretion disk, it is not inactive.

 

 

 

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).

 

What is your source for that?

 

 

Is there even one spiral galaxy in the whole universe without plasma in the accretion disk?

 

The Milky Way is the obvious example.

 

 

 

If I understand it correctly, there is no way for the SMBH to capture a star or a gas cloud from the nearby Bar.

 

Then you need to update your understanding:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*#Discovery_of_G2_gas_cloud_on_an_accretion_course

 

Also, my understanding is that the stars in orbit around the black hole are not necessarily stable and, sooner or later, one may fall into the black hole. That would be pretty spectacular.

[David Levy]

Citation needed.

 

I mean, if it's huge compared to a solar mass, that's what, 1000 solar masses? If the SMBH is a million solar masses, that's 0.1%

 

Citation needed.

 

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."

[Strange]

 

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."

 

 

But we were talking of active black holes with large accretion disks.