Possibility of star formation around black holes

[Nightshift]

Last stable orbit, that's a good candidate.

There's two points that need to be conisdered:

The first is the question "At what point do the tidal forces across a stellar body exceed the ability of the stellar body to hold itself together gravitationally" - given the size of protostellar objects that we see, it seems unlikely that a new star will form if an already existing star can not hold itself together.

The second point is that the closest we have evidence for stars forming to a SMBH is within two light years of Sag A*.

I'd agree that ''the most stable orbit'' is required but sounds very vague because no one yet has defined the stable orbit. Though... it seems we can clear this up quite quickly.


I know of some experiments in which we have been able to ''see'' stars and other objects violently circling a supermassive black hole. I would wager, the stable orbits permit anything outside the immediate danger zone. The gravity is too strong to cause irregularities to form proper stars. Just outside this danger zone, similar perhaps to how we envision the Goldy Locks zone, is where all the cold activity is and where gas clouds might be altered by the surrounding gravitational field but not too much for it not to settle to some state in which the center of its gravity takes over.

 

[Nightshift]

And that would be well outside the 3 Schwarzchild radius parameter I think...Good point.

So again, unsound speculative assumptions about stars forming at or near the EH, and with no valid observational evidence to support such claims.

yes.

 

[Beaconator]

Well... most of the universe can be sliced up in it's constituents. We actually... make something as small as 4% of all the mass in the universe... it could be smaller than this. The largest chunks of this matter is in the hypothetical form of dark matter and energy.

So... most spectrum we should investigate will hold most of the known elements.

Wow. I've been doing this a long time and never seen that question scramble a mind soo well. Your response even has mine scrambled. I'm impressed. Usually it is either accepted or rejected instantly. Your IQ has to be off the chart to travel from one end of the Universe to the other so quickly.

But your answer has reversed the question. Would I be correct to say you are willing to believe if most elements were able to be encased in close proximity they would emit most of the spectrum?

 

[Trippy]

And that would be well outside the 3 Schwarzchild radius parameter I think...Good point.

So again, unsound speculative assumptions about stars forming at or near the EH, and with no valid observational evidence to support such claims.

The schwarzschild radius of Sag A* is, I believe, predicted to be 4 million km (17 times bigged than the sun), observationally we have narrowed its size down to less than 6.25 light hours.

It occurs to me that there are stars in orbit around Sag A* with semi major axes between 980 and 3300 AU, one of which has a pericenter of 17 light hours, but whether they formed insitu or migrated there is, last time I checked anyway, an open question.

 

[Trippy]

I'd agree that ''the most stable orbit'' is required but sounds very vague because no one yet has defined the stable orbit. Though... it seems we can clear this up quite quickly.

I didn't say "Most stable orbit" I said LAST stable orbit, and it is well defined.

Here's some notes from a first year Physics paper that covers the maths: Physics 161: Black Holes: Lecture 12: 1 Feb 2010

 

[Nightshift]

I didn't say "Most stable orbit" I said LAST stable orbit, and it is well defined.

Here's some notes from a first year Physics paper that covers the maths: Physics 161: Black Holes: Lecture 12: 1 Feb 2010

I'll take a read of it, thanks.

 

[Nightshift]

Though it doesn't look first year to me, it touches on subjects you'd expect far into the semester.

 

[Beaconator]

Mr Hawking??? Hey it's you that is trying to rewrite cosmology, not me. Rather hypocritical to say the least.
And of course you are able to show me where I said the photon sphere forms inside the EH?
I mean, you did not even know what the photon sphere was for crying out loud!
I informed you, in no uncertain terms, that the photon sphere may form at 1.5 Schwarzchild radius.
Do you know what the schwarzchild radius is?

I know what an event horizon is. You never heard of a proton sphere before me...

is there anything else you can think of that doesn't allow a photon to impart energy into an electron, then for that electron to impart energy into a neutron, then for that neutron to decay and become a proton, which combines with similar forces of energy to create the beginnings of a star somewhere between the EH and the outermost points of a galaxy?

And of course your pseudoscientific statement about energy transforming into matter is just that...pseudoscience.

Is that statement grounds to dismiss photon absorption by an electron?

 

[Trippy]

Though it doesn't look first year to me, it touches on subjects you'd expect far into the semester.

:Shrugs: It says Physics 161 which suggests first year to me. I didn't say which semester the paper was in, however, if you look at the link it does suggest it's a winter course, which in turn suggests a second semester paper.

 

[Beaconator]

The schwarzschild radius of Sag A* is, I believe, predicted to be 4 million km (17 times bigged than the sun), observationally we have narrowed its size down to less than 6.25 light hours.

It occurs to me that there are stars in orbit around Sag A* with semi major axes between 980 and 3300 AU, one of which has a pericenter of 17 light hours, but whether they formed insitu or migrated there is, last time I checked anyway, an open question.

I believe the largest debate is whether black holes or stars formed first. Data suggests the mass of both to have a correlation. Because of this correlation I would suggest they formed simultaneously both migrating to their respective positions from this intermediate area.

 

[Beaconator]

All tangible elements in close proximity do not reflect any principals we have previously unveiled.

 

[Russ_Watters]

All tangible elements in close proximity do not reflect any principals we have previously unveiled.

The phase angle of the substrata radicals sublimate.

 

[origin]

Sorry beaconator but I think Russ won that round.

 

[Beaconator]

Decay of heavy elements in isolation is hardly a reason to discount a wholistic approach to an unknown outcome. If anything it ties a correlation to Quasars increasing luminosity increasing the sublimation of dust.http://books.google.com/books?id=jryBnGdsKjIC&pg=PA342&lpg=PA342&dq=black+hole+sublimation&source=bl&ots=3_RXlCFItV&sig=kfsYSuVWYTJ7H7StLhUDlRQwJrg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1KQrU6aVLcnHkAfc-IHgBA&ved=0CBIQ6AEwAw

Which therefore draws further conclusions to clusters of galaxies creating more stars around a quasar. And if we apply universal principals of similitude into comparison between these galaxies and the effects heavy elements in close proximity to the regular elements to have transformational abilities we have not empirically observed. Abilities I believe are closely tied to creation as well as experimentally verifiable.

 

[Russ_Watters]

Decay of heavy elements in isolation is hardly a reason to discount a wholistic approach to an unknown outcome. If anything it ties a correlation to Quasars increasing luminosity increasing the sublimation of dust.

Some sublimating substances produce piezoelectric particles underneath unilateral undulations.

 

[Beaconator]

So do biological materials. Only they don't sublimate rapidly.

 

[Ahriman]

This has probably been posted a hundred times, but light is an after effect of the fusion furnace we call suns. Light by itself will not coalesce into a sun, as it does not have heat in the kinetic sense it is typically thought of as having. Now, we might see some really fascinating light wave effects around black holes, which is all the more reason to build better telescopes and ships to see it all.

 

[Russ_Watters]

So do biological materials. Only they don't sublimate rapidly.

Yes, but there has been a weak singularity within the delta region which catches critical ripples inside the special charge.

 

[Beaconator]

Yes, but there has been a weak singularity within the delta region which catches critical ripples inside the special charge.

I am not sure I follow completely. I had to google most of that just to make sure I sorta followed. Some terms I couldn't find. Your saying by our piezoelectric material being bound in an outer region of change it manages to stay subcritical?

In the proposed experiment I discussed binding the elements within iron. Hopefully the effect should be a certain amount of expansion as pressure would develop in an outward direction. Thus increasing the degrees of freedom within and keep it from going supercritical. The amount of pressure needed to fuse iron is well... astronomical. Its magnet properties should deter critical ripples from reaching critical levels inside.

 

[Russ_Watters]

I am not sure I follow completely.

You shouldn't be following at all - my posts 352 and 355 were just some random gibberish - word salad - I tossed together. For that one, I was getting lazy (and I'm not really creative enough to think of such things quickly) and used an online technobabble generator instead.