And I thought that a magnetic field is detached from the motion of its source, including rotational motion, as first noticed and published by Faraday nearly 200 years ago, and as verified by peer reviewed and published science experiments even more recently.
Why do Blackholes have Magnetic poles ?
- Thread starter Singularity
- Start date
And I thought that a magnetic field is detached from the motion of its source, including rotational motion, as first noticed and published by Faraday nearly 200 years ago, and as verified by peer reviewed and published science experiments even more recently.
will someone stitch all the different points and come to an stable comment.
one says magnets are everything.
other says electricity is the cause of magnetism
third says space distortion creates the black hole in to a magnet
fourth says matter spinning around is the cause (without the reference of any plasma jets)
and lastly Magnetic fields are independent phenomenon
Should we call all this , science ?
one says magnets are everything.
other says electricity is the cause of magnetism
third says space distortion creates the black hole in to a magnet
fourth says matter spinning around is the cause (without the reference of any plasma jets)
and lastly Magnetic fields are independent phenomenon
Should we call all this , science ?
You may need to force yourself to confront the possibility that there actually is a rich field of untied ends in what is currently called "science".
There is the rather hard core science fact of the relationship between intrinsic electric field and induced magnetic field, as explored and published by Faraday roughly 2 centuries ago.
There is the rather hard core science fact that the magnetic field of any magnet is free and independent from any motion of the magnet. The magnet field is always "left behind" as the magnet moves. Faraday also explored and published this roughly 2 centuries ago.
It is inescapable logic that, if a magnetic field is induced by the electric field, and the magnetic field is left behind as the magnet moves, then it is really the electric field, or, as many say, the electric lines of force that are left behind as the magnet moves. This means that the electric lines of force are free and independent of the reference frame of the moving magnet. An observer sitting still on the moving magnet would NOT observe the magnetic field or their cause, the electric lines of force, being "frame dragged" along with him/her ( or it, in the case of a robotic observation device ). And a distant observer, such as Michael Faraday, sitting still in his laboratory, would NOT observe the magnetic field, or their cause, electric lines of force, being "frame dragged" along with the moving magnet.
Faraday's report of the magnet field being free and independent of the movement of the magnet has been verified in peer reviewed science experiments since Faraday's day, one being Cramp/Norgrove some decades ago.
If Faraday et al could not get electromagnetic lines of force to get "frame dragged" in their neat and perfectly controlled laboratories, it is a bit too much to swallow to presume that a spinning star or whatever can get those same beligerent little lines of force to be "frame dragged".
Lorentz Relativity and Einstein Relativity are THEORIES. It is true that both Relativities are fabulous works of self consistent logic and are very beautiful in their mathematics and other aspects which are admired by aficianados of theory beauty. But the real criteria is whether they correspond to reality.
The Relativity theories have been extrapolated to examine such mythological things as "black holes", and to predict their characteristics and activities. And the foundational logic of the Relativities is that everything, light, the universe and everything, is "frame dragged". The derivation of GAMMA, perhaps the most crucial cornerstone of the Relativities, demands that light is "frame dragged". and yet the author himself, throughout his career, repeatedly publicly stated that the speed of light is always the same. If there is a fatal flaw in the internal logic of Einstein Relativity, it may be the dichotomy between the need to "frame drag" light to get GAMMA versus the need to make light speed independent of the frame and therefore NOT "frame dragged".
Summation: in my opinion, black holes are the imaginary product of theories which have controversial engagement with reality. True, there are claims of observations of very distant galactic objects which fulfil some of the predictions for such things, but it has always been true in science that YOU WILL ALWAYS BE ABLE TO HAMMER SOME FACTS INTO THE SCHEME OF WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING FOR. The jets of plasma that we see in photos are there. The heart of the matter is to explain them. Their reality is as real as anything in a genuine photograph and cannot be seriously questioned. However the need to contradict the results of many serious scientists in their experimental results in order to prop up the fanciful imaginings of theories is just too much to believe.
Black holes cannot have magnetic fields based upon the spinning of electric lines of force because the electric lines of force are not "frame dragged" in the real world. If we see a marvelous object in a photograph that seems to have a strong magnetic field, then there must necessarily be some reason other than "black holes" are "frame dragging" lines of force.
Perhaps there are no black holes. Perhaps there is no frame dragging. Perhaps neither of those things really exist.
Pheew, thanks CANGAS.
Now another blunder,
The Neutron start is said to have no electrons (correct me if wrong) , since BH have electrons, what about the Neutron star and who was that smarty telling us all this fake stuff ?
Is it true that fusion of Electrons and Protons produce Neutrons ? or just another theory.
Seems like to me that any theory should never be considered a part of Science until verified.
Now another blunder,
The Neutron start is said to have no electrons (correct me if wrong) , since BH have electrons, what about the Neutron star and who was that smarty telling us all this fake stuff ?
Is it true that fusion of Electrons and Protons produce Neutrons ? or just another theory.
Seems like to me that any theory should never be considered a part of Science until verified.
The established theory is that an electron and a proton can be fused by great pressure into a neutron. And it is generally agreed that a neutron can disintegrate into an electron and a proton. Many nuclear reactions, such as thermonuclear detonations, spew out neutrons which then disintegrate with a half life of a few minutes.
Although electrically neutral, neutrons have a magnetic field, properly called its magnetic moment.
I think it would be unlikely that the original star had an exactly equal number of electrons and protons before gravity crushed it into a giant neutron. I think it is highly probable that a neutron star would have a net charge because of either spare electrons or spare protons, though possibly of small value.
My point in my prior post was that it is my opinion that any spinning body cannot induce a magnetic field by "frame dragging" of field lines because field lines are independent of the motion of their source. Obviously, there are ways to induce magnetic force by devising the right kind of relative motion between electric fields and conductors, and there are ways to induce electric current by the right kind of relative motion between conductors and magnetic fields. However, in my opinion, it cannot be based on "frame dragging" of field lines.
There have been peer reviewed science experiments to find an induced magnetic field by spinning an electrically neutral object, and there have been no positive results.
Although electrically neutral, neutrons have a magnetic field, properly called its magnetic moment.
I think it would be unlikely that the original star had an exactly equal number of electrons and protons before gravity crushed it into a giant neutron. I think it is highly probable that a neutron star would have a net charge because of either spare electrons or spare protons, though possibly of small value.
My point in my prior post was that it is my opinion that any spinning body cannot induce a magnetic field by "frame dragging" of field lines because field lines are independent of the motion of their source. Obviously, there are ways to induce magnetic force by devising the right kind of relative motion between electric fields and conductors, and there are ways to induce electric current by the right kind of relative motion between conductors and magnetic fields. However, in my opinion, it cannot be based on "frame dragging" of field lines.
There have been peer reviewed science experiments to find an induced magnetic field by spinning an electrically neutral object, and there have been no positive results.
I will not waste time in discusion with Cangas, but want to note for the benefit of others that any continuously varying vector field can have 'field lines" constructed for it, but this does not make the field lines real. For example, water molecules flowing in a river or over a water fall are at any instant a velocity vector field, but "water lines" like magnetic field lines are just math constructs, not real things, unless you are a plumber speaking of water pipes, which are not even made of water.
Even Faraday, who invented the concept of "magnetic field lines," understood well that they do not exist. Field lines "cutting thru" a copper coil is not what makes a current in the copper wire - how could it since field lines do not exist, but that is a very convenient way to understand how transformers work, in most cases.
You can make a transformer work just fine even if the magnetic field is ALWAYS essentially absent at all points where the secondary coil is located. - Wind many turn primary turns tightly on high permability toroid with minor radius, a, small compared to major radius, A. As the 'secondary" use a single shorted turn toroid idential to the primary toriod, but made of copper and position it with its plane perpendicular to the primary's plane such that all points of it are (A-2a) from the primary toroid in which almost all of the magnetic field is confined. (Geometry is like two non-touching circular links of a chain, each as far from the other as possible, if that helps.)
Even Faraday, who invented the concept of "magnetic field lines," understood well that they do not exist. Field lines "cutting thru" a copper coil is not what makes a current in the copper wire - how could it since field lines do not exist, but that is a very convenient way to understand how transformers work, in most cases.
You can make a transformer work just fine even if the magnetic field is ALWAYS essentially absent at all points where the secondary coil is located. - Wind many turn primary turns tightly on high permability toroid with minor radius, a, small compared to major radius, A. As the 'secondary" use a single shorted turn toroid idential to the primary toriod, but made of copper and position it with its plane perpendicular to the primary's plane such that all points of it are (A-2a) from the primary toroid in which almost all of the magnetic field is confined. (Geometry is like two non-touching circular links of a chain, each as far from the other as possible, if that helps.)
Last edited by a moderator:
Trilairian
Registered Senior Member
I agree with Billy T. For example, consider the magnetic field around a beam of electrons. In the electron frame there is no magnetic field at all. In the lab frame where the beam is moving, there is a magnetic field whose field lines are loops around the beam. One can't have closed lines that actually exist in one frame, that don't in another. What one really has is more like an electromagnetic field tensor. The field lines are merely a short cut method of physics just like potential energy.
CANGAS did not introduce field lines into this thread, but rather another party did so. As if accurately reading a post before responding to it is what BillyT's modus operandi is. Hell will be frozen over to its core first.
BillyT's usual modus operandi is to introduce as many Red Herrings as possible, as soon as possible, so that a foolish reader will gullibly forget what the real topic is.
The real topic is ( was ) black holes having a magnetic field by "frame dragging" electromagnetic lines of force, as phrased by the thread starter. My point, not even faintly addressed by BillyT, is that electromagnetic lines of force have, through nearly two hundred years, been proven by peer reviewed results of science experiments, to be independent of any observer's reference frame, and therefore, not available for "frame dragging".
For those such as BillyT, who are trying to entertain us by pretending to be intentionally ( extremely ) dense, my point is ( was ) that black holes are not really proven to exist, but, if they do exist, they CANNOT have a magnetic field by "frame dragging" of magnetic lines of force, or components of an electromagnetic field, or any other semantic quibbling referring to electromagnetic force, that BillyT, or a semantically obsessed nut job, would utter.
That's right.
My thought was that in the case of a rotating black hole, all the rotation energy is stored in the space outside the event-horizon (frame dragging).
I also have the impression that the electrostatic field of a charged black hole doesn't emanate from inside the event horizon - it's a "fossil" field, a relic of charged matter that entered the hole, and held in place by spacetime curvature. Much like the hole's gravitational field.
So, putting these together, my conclusion is that the magnetic field of a charged, spinning black hole is generated outside the event horizon.
Thinking about it, that still makes the field an intrinsic part of the black hole. I though that Trilairian was implying that the field was generated from inside the event horizon, but the black hole doesn't really stop at the EH, does it... a black hole is really the whole region of significantly curved space surrounding the singularity.
Some people just don't ever get the message.
According to numerous peer reviewed science experiments, beginning with Faraday, electromagnetic field lines are not embedded in 4 space.
Electromagnetic field lines do not move in step with the "frame dragged" movement of 4 space immediately adjacent to a spinning body, regardless of whether it is a baseball or a ( legendary ) black hole.
Anybody who has performed a science experiment that has obtained a different result than Michael Faraday in 1832 or Cramp/Norgrove in 1932, please raise one finger.
Trilairian
Registered Senior Member
Utter nonsense. They have never been frame independend. I already proved that. The magnetic field lines looping around a beam of electrons only exist in frames for with the beam is in motion. As you boost toward the beam frame the loops dart off to infinity, because in that frame there isn't any magnetic field at all. They are artificial constructs!
Look at the image, its clear that they have magnetic poles, if they do have magnetic poles, then it says that Electrons are alive and very well inside the black hole. And there is no Singularity inside it but rather its just densely compacted matter, a kinda super neutron star.
http://www.wolaver.org/Space/twinjets.htm
If they dont have magnetic poles then we should find atleast one Black Hole image that shows two jet pairs, ie. one in action and another one as a remnant of old jets near the new ones.
As the neutron star is collapsing its gravitational effect, according to Einstein Relativity, is "compressing", or, contracting, space in its vicinity. The same contraction of space( time ) which is claimed to bend light rays, cause Mercury to travel further ( and therefore precess ) than a distant observer naively thinks it should, and make light emanate at lower frequency ( thereby creating the illusion of time dilation ), causes something much more sinister to naive science buffs.
The contraction of space at the event horizon means that an observer inside the event horizon has an infinite distance to travel before it can traverse the horizon and do business outside. If that was not bad enough news, the dilemna does not suddenly abate at the instant ( infinitely far in the future ) that the horizon is crossed. Since gravity force falls off at an inverse square, not suddenly down to zero, immediately past the horizon there is still a vast tract of nearly infinitely contracted space to cross before the observer can begin to get into a patch of space that is anywhere near "normal".
So, any observer, whether it be a fast particle, a photon, or even a virtual photon ( which, according to Quantum Physics is the active agent in electromagnetic force ), initially inside a black hole, has first an infinite distance to travel before getting to the outside of the event horizon, then, a very, very, long distance to still travel prior to normally engaging in physics laws business with particles still outside the horizon.
A virtual photon, intending to convey electric field force, or a virtual photon, intending to convey magnetic field force, starting inside the event horizon, has to travel an infinite distance and then some, before it can ever get around to behaving like a magnetic line of force and herd plasma jets.
If Einstein Relativity is true, a virtual photon, otherwise known as a magnetic field line, has to travel an unlimited distance through infinitely contracted space at an infinitely slow velocity through infinitely dilated time before it can get out of a black hole and hassle a plasma jet.
Yes, Virgina, Santa Claus is real, just like the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, Groucho Marx's sanity clause, and the magnet lines of force posessed by black holes.
Like I said before, the electric (not magnetic) field of a charged black hole is trapped there by the curvature of space around a black hole, much like the gravitational field.
The rotation of a black hole is also embedded inthe space outside the event horizon.
Neither the gravity, nor the charge, nor the rotation, nor the magnetic field of a black hole are affected in any way by anything inside the event horizon.
The magnetic field of a black hole is produced by the rotating electric field (not magnetic field, CANGAS), outside the event horizon.
The rotation of a black hole is also embedded inthe space outside the event horizon.
Neither the gravity, nor the charge, nor the rotation, nor the magnetic field of a black hole are affected in any way by anything inside the event horizon.
The magnetic field of a black hole is produced by the rotating electric field (not magnetic field, CANGAS), outside the event horizon.
Who knows, you could be right, but you are really presenting your case in such a way to make it hard to figure out what you are trying to say.
In Pete's understanding of these things, WHAT CAUSES THE ROTATING ELECTRIC FIELD OUTSIDE THE EVENT HORIZON?
geistkiesel
Valued Senior Member
Look at the image, its clear that they have magnetic poles, if they do have magnetic poles, then it says that Electrons are alive and very well inside the black hole. And there is no Singularity inside it but rather its just densely compacted matter, a kinda super neutron star.
http://www.wolaver.org/Space/twinjets.htm
If they dont have magnetic poles then we should find atleast one Black Hole image that shows two jet pairs, ie. one in action and another one as a remnant of old jets near the new ones.
Singularity,
Black holes are like HIV of AIDS fame. Neither have been isolated to the exlusion of all physical and organic substances in the universe.
Here is recent AIDS paper from a group that has been tracking AIDS since the get go in the the early 80s.
Interesting is that the first AIDS oportunistic disease observed was kaposis sarcoma a cancer found on the lungs, nostrils and breathing organs. This was caused by gays sniffing amyl nitrite (now classified as a room freshener) which heightens sex climaxes, and is an insidious oxidant. Originally, KS was thought to be caused by HIV infection, now everyone agrees KS is a separate condition unexplained by the HIV = AIDS theory. KS is seen in a benign form in northernm Italian senior men as a red blotchy growth on the skin. Happy AIDS day.!
But what the heck, black holes is a nice theory and it gives many members of the physics industry jobs!.
Black holes was more fictional excursions of that Englishman, what's his name? Me thinks he has been curiously examining the details of Alices hookah to an interesting degree. It seems he in fact inhaled. Woe be to the physics world.
Geistkiesel
geistkiesel
Valued Senior Member
they exhibit characteristics of spin
No need to shout, a simple request for explanation is sufficient.
Start with a plain vanilla swarzchild black hole. No charge, no rotation. You're hovering nearby, continuously measuring the electric and gravitational field strengths at your location. Right now, you're measuring zero electric field, and a large gravitational field.
Now add a charged, massive object that falls from a great distance past you into the the hole.
As it falls past you, you detect the object's electric field. First increasing as it approaches, then diminishing as expected as it falls away. Similarly, the local gravitational field decreases a little as the object approaches from behind you (it's gravity field opposing from the hole's), increases as it passes, (it's gravity field now added to the hole's) then decreases again as it falls away toward the hole.
So far, so good, right?
Now consider how the changes to those fields reach you. Every change is a piece of information, propogated through the local space at c. Once the object crosses the event horizon, those changes are no longer able to reach you. The electric and gravitational field outside the hole can no longer change in response to the object's movement. They can and do still change, but only to distribute themselves evenly around the hole.
In terms of field lines, the field lines repel each other into a symmetric distribution, but are unable to release their ends from the event horizon. From the outside, the event horizon acts exactly like a conducting metal sphere as far as electric fields go. (See Membrane paradigm).
OK? The electric field of a black hole is a remnant of the electric fields of all changed particles that have fallen through the event horizon. As far as anyone can tell, the field lines should extend all the way to the singularity, but the point is moot: nothing that happens inside the event horizon can change the field lines on the outside.
The rotation part is (hand-wavingly) easier.
For a rotating black hole, spacetime around the hole inside the ergosphere is dragged at greater than c. Just like nothing can escape from inside the event horizon, nothing can avoid rotating inside the ergosphere. Including electric fields.
So, the electric field (outside the event horizon) is trapped by the event horizon, and forced to rotate inside the ergosphere. A rotating electric field produces a magnetic field, as per Maxwell's equations.
I'M SORRY IF MY SHOUTING DISTURBED YOU. OK?
You are too slick and quick when you say that " the fields outside the hole can no longer change". What I want to know is, what makes you think that the fields are still there. The incoming mass is gone. The incoming charges are gone. I do not want to argue about the permanence or dissipation of gravitational fields because such has not been the subject of science experiments. However, electric and magnetic fields have been the subject of such experiments, both on an amateur basis and a professional basis. When the charge or the magnet is removed from a certain location, we quickly discover that the field is gone too. In this respect, reminding you of the Quantum Physics explanation of electric and magnetic force as the exchange of virtual photons, the flight of a virtual photon at c, even though c might be slower than expected for some specific observer, would take it eventually away from the vicinity of the black hole. Granted, if there is a steady supply of new charges incoming, then there could be a steady reservoir of sluggish virtual photons just outside the event horizon, however, unless there would be some mechanism to fence off either electrons or protons, the positive and negative charges should cancel and leave the hole neutral. And if you presume that the virtual photons have lifetimes longer than the normal Gillianth of a second, you acquire a number of theoretical problems. You may start discovering them and explaining them if you wish.
If you presume that virtual photons are trapped in the spacetime which is rotating, then they are not available outside that space to execute electromagnetic force upon anything outside that space. The virtual photons are the field lines, and there is only one brand of virtual photons; there are not specialty electric force virtual photons and specialty magnetic force virtual photons. There are simply virtual photons which flit between charges and execute the electromagnetic force ( according to Quantum Physics).
Maxwell's equations do not tell us anything about a rotating field. The equations tell us that a time-varying electric field induces a magnetic field, and that a time-varying magnetic field induces an electric field. As I may have said before, when you were not listening, the science experiments of Faraday, Cramp/Norgrove, and others have proved that a magnetic field cannot be made to rotate or take on take on linear motion of its source. This means that the virtual photons comprising the field do not take on the motion of their source, which I hope is not a surprise. If "magnetic" virtual photons do not take on the motion of their source, it is perfectly reasonable that "electric" virtual photons don't either, although I have not researched experiments focused upon that specific point.
The peer reviewed science experiments referenced here prove that the field lines of a moving source are immediately left behind and immediately dissipate. If you can explain how virtual photons can live longer than the statistically very short lifetime theorized for them, I will be eager to read it. If you say that time dilation in the intense gravity slows their demise, I will counter that it also slows the rotation equally.
Hi Pete
I am not sure that electric or magnetic fields can be defined as static/frozen/remnants. To do so would mean that the fields no longer move through space along with the black hole. Is the black hole now an absolute reference frame with respect to the universe?
I could just as easily say that a black hole acts just like an electron with respect to the electric and magnetic fields. Both are point sources. Both have magnetic and electric fields. Both are not entirely explained.
I am not sure that electric or magnetic fields can be defined as static/frozen/remnants. To do so would mean that the fields no longer move through space along with the black hole. Is the black hole now an absolute reference frame with respect to the universe?
I could just as easily say that a black hole acts just like an electron with respect to the electric and magnetic fields. Both are point sources. Both have magnetic and electric fields. Both are not entirely explained.