Possibility of star formation around black holes

A specific type of momentum holds the shape of gravity on the quantum scale. It is proven on the quantum scale through the word ubiquitous. There are places we can say gravity is negligible is observed space, but no observed space near gravity where angular momentum is not an important consideration.
 
Beaconator said:
In*quantum mechanics, the procedure of constructing*eigenstates*of total angular momentum out of eigenstates of separate angular momenta is called*angular momentum coupling. For instance, the orbit and spin of a single particle can interact through*spin-orbit interaction, in which case the complete physical picture must include spin-orbit coupling. Or two charged particles, each with a well-defined angular momentum, may interact by*Coulomb forces, in which case coupling of the two one-particle angular momenta to a total angular momentum is a useful step in the solution of the two-particle*Schrödinger equation. In both cases the separate angular momenta are no longer*constants of motion, but the sum of the two angular momenta usually still is. Angular momentum coupling in atoms is of importance in atomic*spectroscopy. Angular momentum coupling of*electron spins*is of importance inquantum chemistry. Also in the*nuclear shell model*angular momentum coupling is ubiquitous.[1][2]

In*astronomy,*spin-orbit coupling*reflects the general law ofconservation of angular momentum, which holds for celestial systems as well. In simple cases, the direction of the*angular momentum*vector*is neglected, and the spin-orbit coupling is the ratio between the frequency with which a*planet*or other*celestial body*spins about its own axis to that with which it orbits another body. This is more commonly known as orbital resonance. Often, the underlying physical effects are*tidal forces."http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum_coupling

Hey! What does ubiquitous mean? Is it different than omnipresent?

Frequency gets a mention too... nuclear shell model... spectroscopy, I believe we covered that...
Click to expand...

I am not really sure how this applies to my post. Was that just some info you wanted to share?
 
I believe you or someone else dictated frequency had nothing to do with angular momentum. Now we recognize angular momentum and orbital resonance as the same. The same principal allows hawking radiation to emanate as it is not calculated as additional mass, but as additional energy.

Quasars emanate energy only in the form of angular momentum. If this force were to encounter a nebula it is certainly possible a star could form. It is less likely but certainly possible matter could form just out of the energy supplied by angular momentum in a group of photons.
 
Beaconator said:
Quasars emanate energy only in the form of angular momentum. If this force were to encounter a nebula it is certainly possible a star could form. It is less likely but certainly possible matter could form just out of the energy supplied by angular momentum in a group of photons.
Click to expand...
So you think energy, angular momentum, force and matter are the same thing? That's so cute!
 
Beaconator said:
I believe you or someone else dictated frequency had nothing to do with angular momentum.
Click to expand...

What I said was the angular momentum (spin) of a PHOTON had nothing to do with the FREQUENCY of the photon. Which is true.
 
How do you figure?

Look up gauge symmetry. Find a single term that has nothing to do with an angle, phase, degrees of freedom, or vector field.

The only way you could be half right is if a photon has encountered two or less forces as explained by the pool table scenario. In which case it would have a frequency without spin, which is akin to having acceleration without velocity.
 
Beaconator said:
How do you figure?

Look up gauge symmetry. Find a single term that has nothing to do with an angle, phase, degrees of freedom, or vector field.

The only way you could be half right is if a photon has encountered two or less forces as explained by the pool table scenario. In which case it would have a frequency without spin, which is akin to having acceleration without velocity.
Click to expand...

Frequency of a photon refers to the rate of the variation of it's electric and magnetic fields strength.

My understanding is tha the spin refers to the polarization of the photon (sort of it's 'orientation').

The spin of the photon is not like a little top spinning. It seems that you think the frequency of a photon is the rate at which it is spinning. Is that what you think?
 
No. I do not think frequency is the rate of spin. I think they are related. Frequency applies to acceleration, spin applies to velocity. Higher frequency yields a higher acceleration. Higher spin yields a higher velocity. Therefore the rate of acceleration includes frequency and the rate of spin is velocity or angular momentum.

Therefore when anything approaches a black hole its speed is transferred into frequency and its frequency is then transformed into angular momentum. Angular momentum is conserved by the black hole and dispersed as angular momentum in order to grow its galaxy.
 
Beaconator said:
No. I do not think frequency is the rate of spin. I think they are related. Frequency applies to acceleration, spin applies to velocity. Higher frequency yields a higher acceleration. Higher spin yields a higher velocity. Therefore the rate of acceleration includes frequency and the rate of spin is velocity or angular momentum.

Therefore when anything approaches a black hole its speed is transferred into frequency and its frequency is then transformed into angular momentum. Angular momentum is conserved by the black hole and dispersed as angular momentum in order to grow its galaxy.
Click to expand...

I give up. Enjoy your fantasy.
 
There have been many individuals who enjoy fantasy. I am not among them. These small trifles here yield but some small anticlimactic victory. I have never been a fan of fiction novels, and lost my yearn for knowledge under angst of philosophy. It is sad, yet true to be angered now by unscrupulous contradictory instigation doing little more than circumscribing the faults of language among the ill teaching of precise mathematics. Not to say teaching precise mathematics is an ill teaching, but that teaching mathematics while ill is an ill thought. That is all I have accomplished here; the simplification of interpretations. I have ascribed no new depth to my own persona, no new teaching to follow. Yet if I were to quell my anger for these small trifles and face them inward the fantasy appears reality. Fact a more controversial subject than fantasy. It seems delightful to have given interpretation reach the ears of a lonesome beast. How long before individuals mindlessly place these hidden insights into their own thoughts I wonder. Hopefully a long time as there is far too much work in moral to be understood. I have successfully begun to unleash my dreams upon the world and found most of them with more than a hint of truth.

Now then! Point to the fantasy and make your claim toward alternative theory known.
 
dumbest man on earth said:
North, South, East and West are not applicable off of the planet Earth, and certainly have no relation to any "theoretical Black Holes".
Click to expand...
I would have thought it would have been obvious that the directions used were irrelevant to the point being made. The choice of North/East/South/West was arbitrary, I could have just as easily used bearings "Travelling along a bearing of 000, then turning 90° to travel along a bearing of 270" in which case the directions are relative to that of the initial motion. Alternatively I could have used a galactic reference frame and used "core-ward, spin-ward, rim-ward and anti spin-ward".

However, as I believe I have endeavoured to indicate to you elsewhere, when I post I often try to post as an educator, and in this instance, I made the conscious and deliberate choice to choose a reference frame to describe directions that was accessable to the greatest number of people and framed the description accordingly.

Your objection to the reference frame, however, is duly noted.
 
Trippy said:
dumbest man on earth said:
North, South, East and West are not applicable off of the planet Earth, and certainly have no relation to any "theoretical Black Holes".
Click to expand...
I would have thought it would have been obvious that the directions used were irrelevant to the point being made. The choice of North/East/South/West was arbitrary, I could have just as easily used bearings "Travelling along a bearing of 000, then turning 90° to travel along a bearing of 270" in which case the directions are relative to that of the initial motion. Alternatively I could have used a galactic reference frame and used "core-ward, spin-ward, rim-ward and anti spin-ward".

However, as I believe I have endeavoured to indicate to you elsewhere, when I post I often try to post as an educator, and in this instance, I made the conscious and deliberate choice to choose a reference frame to describe directions that was accessable to the greatest number of people and framed the description accordingly.

Your objection to the reference frame, however, is duly noted.
Click to expand...

Trippy, I never "Posted" what you quoted as me Posting in your Post #313!

I have reported your Post #313 as Trolling -Baiting and requested that it stop, Poste Haste!
 
Russ_Watters said:
No it wouldn't.
Click to expand...

Why not? In fact... star production may in fact be expected around large enough structures captured in orbit round black holes. As the OP mentioned, Quasars are like giant gas clouds of electrically charged particles and radiation. These conditions might be appropriate for any one of these gas clouds to collapse under the weight of gravity and form star like systems.
 
Nightshift said:
Why not? In fact... star production may in fact be expected around large enough structures captured in orbit round black holes. As the OP mentioned, Quasars are like giant gas clouds of electrically charged particles and radiation. These conditions might be appropriate for any one of these gas clouds to collapse under the weight of gravity and form star like systems.
Click to expand...



I would surmise that if stars were to form near a BH, it could be no closer then 3 Schwarzchild radius from the BH,
This is where the inner most part of any accretion disk is able to form.
That would be the closest any clumping could occur to the EH.
In any case, even if that happened due to gravitational clumping within the accretion disk, that clump [star] would have a very short life span, until it was again torn asunder as it spiralled into the BH's EH.

The rest of Beaconators posts are partly nonsense, and partly indecipherable banter, sprinkled with unfamiliar terms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top