Quasars : An alternative model

[john hunter]

This post is an alternative model of quasars/AGNs, which dosn't assume a black hole at the centre, instead a neutron star exists, at a very high temperature.

The model was motivated by the possibility that the value of G reduces for matter, where the mass/radius ratio, m/r, approaches c^2/G. As in www.gravity.uk.com/galactic_rotation_curves.html

According to the conjecture, if G reduces for matter of high m/r, then a state might exist in a quasar where m/r isconstant (at c^2/G for all different radii, up to the 'surface' R. This equilibrium state can exist because if m/r is higher at any radius, then G reduces allowing matter to leave this radius, lowering the m/r ratio.
----------------------

density rho: from m/r = c^2/G , rho = 3c^2/(4*pi*G*r^2)

pressure P = c^4/(4*pi*G)*(1/r^2)*ln(R/r)

This pressure formula was derived like this....

Integrating the weight of all matter above the a 1 square metre (fraction 1/(4*pi*x^2) at radius x, (integral r to R Gm(r)rho(r)*(4*pi*r^2)/r^2)dr, where m(r) is mass within radius r, (which in turn is found by integrating from 0 to R (4*pi*r^2)*rho(r)dr) and after integration putting x=r.)
--------------------------

The formula for pressure and density above give a temperature at radius r from the centre of approx.
3/2kT = mc^2(R/r)
m = proton mass, k = Boltzmanns constant.

The formula for P, T and rho, are presumed valid down to an r of 10km, where a neutron star forms. For lower r, T is constant due to conduction/superconduction. rho is constant at 10^18kg/m^3. P approximately constant.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The formula give:
i) P=0 at surface
ii) rho = 10^18kg/m^3 at 10km, (OK for neutron star density)
iii) T=10^20K at r=10km, R=10^13m
iv) total mass of quasar of approx 10^40kg for R = 10^13kg

from iii) if particles can ever escape the high density near the centre they would have an energy similar in magnitude to high energy cosmic rays.

Jets are proposed to occur, if, due to matter being attracted inwards, the m/r ratio exceeds c^2/G. The inward force would then reduce, but the high temperature and pressure would force matter out (by the easiest route).

John Hunter.

[Cougar]

Black hole, neutron star, what's the difference?

Just joking.

As far as I know, such variable g near galactic nuclei is not observed. That is, normal g is observed. And what about close binaries? No variable g observed there.

And the most difficult thing to explain about quasars is their incredibly large energy output. I didn't see much about that in your explanation. Or did I just not recognize it in the equations?

If you review the literature, I think you'll find that the view that quasars being powered by supermassive black holes has become pretty well supported and established -- without the need to tinker with the gravitational constant.

[czeslaw]

A space is dragging close to Black Hole like object . The gravity is much different than close to Earth.
May be G changes or a space become heavy (energetic) like a baryon matter.
It is a similar effect probably. Do we know what is the gravitational field ?
My proposition is that it is a kind of energy distributed in the space with "c" because of the energetic oscillation of the mass (energy). A weight of mass isn't limited to a baryon matter only but a gravitational field around belong to the heavy object as well as a rest mass.

[john hunter]

Dear Cougar,

Black hole, neutron star, what's the difference?

Just joking.

As far as I know, such variable g near galactic nuclei is not observed. That is, normal g is observed. And what about close binaries? No variable g observed there.

And the most difficult thing to explain about quasars is their incredibly large energy output

It is probably very hard to tell if G is varying near galactic nuclei, the variation need not be much and might be too slow for us to observe, say in 50years.

The binary pulsars show no unexpected variation of force. But as they fall towards each other their mass varies as mass/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), this increase in mass might disguise the decrease in G (of G(effective)=c^2/(c^2/G + m/r) ), so binary pulsars haven't ruled out the conjecture.
This may be a matter of interpretation, but as they fall towards each other the predicted force between them is about the same.

But in a situation where pressure adds to the total attractive gravitational mass, there may be a problem with General Relativity. There has never been an experimental test of the p/c^2 term in attractive gravitational mass = rho + p/c^2 , of general relativity (unless of course, the BAUT members know different).

The main reason that there may be a problem is that GR predicts singularities.

The enormous energy output of a quasar maybe due to a continous throughput of matter, moving towards the core, and then being ejected again.

John Hunter.

[Nereid]

[snip]

The enormous energy output of a quasar maybe due to a continous throughput of matter, moving towards the core, and then being ejected again.

John Hunter.Indeed it may.

And my dream, last night, that I travelled to the Moon may have been based on reality - I quantum tunnelled there, all bazillion of my baryons etc, and quantum tunnelled back.

Without some math, numbers, equations and stuff, how can we distinguish between your 'maybe' and my 'may'?

[eremon]

Without some math, numbers, equations and stuff, how can we distinguish between your 'maybe' and my 'may'?
Without some imagination, how can we distinguish directions for our math, numbers, equations and stuff?

[Nereid]

Without some imagination, how can we distinguish directions for our math, numbers, equations and stuff?Ideas are cheap, anyone can have one.

This ATM section has a clear purpose, clearly stated (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=32864):13. Alternative Concepts

If you have some idea which goes against commonly-held astronomical theory, then you are welcome to argue it here. Before you do, though READ THIS THREAD FIRST (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=16242). This is very important. Then, if you still want to post your idea, you will do so politely, you will not call people names, and you will defend your arguments. Direct questions must be answered in a timely manner.

People will attack your arguments with glee and fervor here; that's what science and scientists do. If you cannot handle that sort of attack, then maybe you need to rethink your theory, too. Remember: you came here. It's our job to attack new theories. Those that are strong will survive, and may become part of mainstream science.

Additionally, keep promotion of your theories and ideas to only those Against the Mainstream threads which discuss them. Hijacking other discussions to draw attention to your ideas will not be allowed.

If it appears that you are using circular reasoning, depending on long-debunked arguments, or breaking any of these other rules, you will receive one warning, and if that warning goes unheeded, you will be banned.While rampant speculation, unrestrained by any existing scientific theory (which has a domain of applicability relevant to BAUT's scope - astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, and space science), or good observational or experimental results may be fascinating, interesting, mind-blowing, or just plain daft, silly, nonsense, or anything in between, unless the BAUT member(s) presenting it have the intention of defending that speculation against challenges, then why post in this ATM section? There are hundreds, if not thousands, of internet discussion fora that would undoubtedly welcome such speculation. Indeed, even BAUT's Off-Topic Babbling (http://www.bautforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=9) might be appropriate!

Of course, you may feel that BAUT's rules regarding this ATM section are inappropriate, or wish that BAUT set up a section for stream of consciousness, fact-free, anything goes ideas ... if so, then please write an appropriate post in the rules discussion thread (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=32867) in the About BAUT section (http://www.bautforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=4) (or start a new thread there).

[eremon]

Ideas are cheap, anyone can have one.

This ATM section has a clear purpose, clearly stated (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=32864):While rampant speculation, unrestrained by any existing scientific theory (which has a domain of applicability relevant to BAUT's scope - astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, and space science), or good observational or experimental results may be fascinating, interesting, mind-blowing, or just plain daft, silly, nonsense, or anything in between, unless the BAUT member(s) presenting it have the intention of defending that speculation against challenges, then why post in this ATM section? There are hundreds, if not thousands, of internet discussion fora that would undoubtedly welcome such speculation. Indeed, even BAUT's Off-Topic Babbling (http://www.bautforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=9) might be appropriate!

Of course, you may feel that BAUT's rules regarding this ATM section are inappropriate, or wish that BAUT set up a section for stream of consciousness, fact-free, anything goes ideas ... if so, then please write an appropriate post in the rules discussion thread (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=32867) in the About BAUT section (http://www.bautforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=4) (or start a new thread there).
Whew! Must have touched a nerve.

[Thanatos]

You are welcome to write a post that conforms to the guidelines of this forum. Try to avoid using 'imaginative' math, numbers, equations, or fairies to make your point. It will be challenged.

[captain swoop]

The model was motivated by the possibility that the value of G reduces for matter,

Ha right, you mean its a story!

just as long as we know

[captain swoop]

Whew! Must have touched a nerve.

yup the one that says the board has rules!