Model shows ejection of gasses around black holes due to magnetism

March 7, 2017 by Bob Yirka report
A black hole devouring a star. Credit: NASA

An international team of researchers has created a model to explain the force that causes gases to be blown away from a black hole and have found the force to be magnetism. In their paper published in the journal Nature Astronomy, the team describes the factors that went into their model and the degree of confidence they have in it.

Scientists have suspected that magnetic fields were responsible for pushing gases away from a black hole since the 1970s, but there was not a consensus—others suggested it might have been due to the heat of the gas. In this new effort, the researchers built on a prior model that had found magnetism to be the force pushing gas away from a giant black hole—this time, they based their model on small black holes and found the same result. This, the team suggests, means that it is likely the case for all .

The gases in question come from a companion star—the black hole strips the star's gas and as it does so, creates a spiral with an accretion disk. As the spiral turns, an is generated in the , which forms a vortex pulling in more and more matter. But, the model showed, some of the magnetism serves to push gas from the outer edges of the spiral out into space, where it escapes and can be observed by X-ray telescopes on Earth.

The model also ruled out heat from the gas as the cause for its expulsion—if it were heat, the model showed, the gas would have been blown much farther than readings have shown. The researchers suggest the magnetic fields likely arc from pole to pole, though there is still no way to prove it. They note also that the expulsion of gas from around the black hole could be powerful enough in some situations to actually push out all of the gas, leaving the galaxy it inhabits empty and unable to form new stars. Such galaxies have been observed as simple blank red areas in space.

Explore further: Hubble gazes into a black hole of puzzling lightness

More information: Keigo Fukumura et al. Magnetic origin of black hole winds across the mass scale, Nature Astronomy (2017). DOI: 10.1038/s41550-017-0062 (arxiv.org/abs/1702.02197)

Related Stories

Hubble gazes into a black hole of puzzling lightness

January 13, 2017

The beautiful spiral galaxy visible in the center of the image is known as RX J1140.1+0307, a galaxy in the Virgo constellation imaged by the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, and it presents an interesting puzzle. At first ...

Recommended for you

Mars rover Opportunity on walkabout near rim

June 23, 2017

NASA's senior Mars rover, Opportunity, is examining rocks at the edge of Endeavour Crater for signs that they may have been either transported by a flood or eroded in place by wind.

CHESS mission will check out the space between stars

June 23, 2017

Deep in space between distant stars, space is not empty. Instead, there drifts vast clouds of neutral atoms and molecules, as well as charged plasma particles called the interstellar medium—that may, over millions of years, ...

Dutch astronomers discover recipe to make cosmic glycerol

June 23, 2017

A team of laboratory astrophysicists from Leiden University (the Netherlands) managed to make glycerol under conditions comparable to those in dark interstellar clouds. They allowed carbon monoxide ice to react with hydrogen ...

Scientists uncover origins of the Sun's swirling spicules

June 22, 2017

At any given moment, as many as 10 million wild jets of solar material burst from the sun's surface. They erupt as fast as 60 miles per second, and can reach lengths of 6,000 miles before collapsing. These are spicules, and ...

36 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 07, 2017
The researchers suggest the magnetic fields likely arc from pole to pole, though there is still no way to prove it.

LOL! The plasma ignoramuses strike again...
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 07, 2017
Hi cantdrive. :)
The researchers suggest the magnetic fields likely arc from pole to pole, though there is still no way to prove it

LOL! The plasma ignoramuses strike again.
Don't be so hasty, mate. Read again and note where they say:
The gases in question come from a companion star—the black hole strips the star's gas and as it does so, creates a spiral with an accretion disk. As the spiral turns, an electric current is generated in the accretion disk, which forms a vortex pulling in more and more matter.
They admit Electric Currents as 'given'...which create magnetic fields, which in turn further affect the plasmic processes/morphology....including 'edge' instabilities along the outer regions of the accretion disc, which also expels plasmic material in winds due to magnetic field pressures/instabilities etc which 'explode' at those regions and emit local (minor) 'jets'/'winds' from outer region (distinct from MAIN polar jets/winds).

An improvement, hey? :)
Tuxford
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 07, 2017
Where is the origin of all that ejected gas? That infalling gas is the sole source of outflowing gas jets approaching the speed of light in some extreme cases, would imply that the infalling gas must be falling inward from the surrounding space at a significant fraction of the light speed. Just does not add up. Hence, the straight-jacket that the common merger maniac must escape has him tightly bound to lunacy explanations. Sustains a lot of careers though.
Mimath224
3 / 5 (2) Mar 07, 2017
@Tuxford, tend to agree but then, as a layman, I'm not left with much to explain the jets. Assuming that the BH is spinning and assuming that there is an electric force of considerable velocity (due to perhaps the gravitational attraction & spin) would this possibly enhance any magnetic properties carried by the influx of material? I understand that it is thought that plasma forming would tend to degenerate magnetic fields though I admit I've forgotten why, Typically layman, Ha! Is there room in the disk-seismology theories for perhaps two accretion disk that might tend create magnetic fields?
swordsman
1 / 5 (1) Mar 07, 2017
Magnetic fields can eject gasses? Haven't seen that one before, here on earth. Might be a good way to create a vacuum - - - if it can be done in our world. Magnetic fields, if strong enough, would have some sort of effect on a gas, but a gas is not "coherent", so the effect would be expected to be quite uncoordinated. The picture they show indicates a very slow and large rotational movement with ejection of the gases. The spiral is quite large, as are the dimensions. This implies some very slow movements, long wavelengths and low frequencies, which would not seem to correlate to the high frequencies and short wavelengths of atoms and molecules. This would appear to be more like an ejection of high energy matter and the correlating radiation resulting from it.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Mar 07, 2017
An improvement, hey? :)

They start the whole process with a figment of their imaginations, still an abomination of science.
Galaxy morphologies have been reproduced in experiments and simulations without the need for BH's or DM. They are only treading further down a dead end trail.
Chris_Reeve
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 07, 2017
Let's not forget that it only takes 1% ionization for a gas to behave as a plasma. That's testament to the orders-of-magnitude difference in strength between electromagnetism and gravity.

It seems that ideology might be blinding people to an apparent contradiction here: When we see situations where electromagnetic fields are strong, we should be asking the question of whether or not gravity can accomplish much in these regions.
Whydening Gyre
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 07, 2017
Don't be so hasty, mate. Read again and note where they say:
The gases in question come from a companion star—the black hole strips the star's gas and as it does so, creates a spiral with an accretion disk. As the spiral turns, an electric current is generated in the accretion disk, which forms a vortex pulling in more and more matter.
They admit Electric Currents as 'given'...which create magnetic fields, which in turn affect the plasmic processes/morphology; including 'edge' instabilities along the outer regions of the accretion disc, which also expels plasmic material in winds due to magnetic field pressures/instabilities etc which 'explode' at those regions and emit local (minor) 'jets'/'winds' from outer region (distinct from MAIN polar jets/winds).


Not too bad, RC. maybe need a couple refinements here or there, but not bad...
Chris, EM and gravity switch degrees of effect at different quantitative values.
Relativity applies quantitatively, too.
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 08, 2017
They start the whole process with a figment of their imaginations,

A process of which you seem to have limited grasp of...
Galaxy morphologies have been reproduced in experiments and simulations without the need for BH's or DM. They are only treading further down a dead end trail.

And, again... We're back to proper understanding(or,in your case, MIS-understanding) of relative ratio of scale...
SiaoX
1 / 5 (1) Mar 08, 2017
The magnetic field is considered being involved in black holes jets for long time. The question rather is, if its presence cannot weaken the even horizon and to enable evaporation of matter from interior of black hole. In such a case the black hole wouldn't differ from common pulsars conceptually.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 08, 2017
Galaxy morphologies have been reproduced in experiments and simulations without the need for BH's or DM.


No. They haven't. Please tell us where this has been done. DO NOT refer to the FAILED model of Peratt. It FAILED. Which is why nobody takes it seriously, and have failed to build on it in 30 years since its first publication.

jonesdave
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 08, 2017
Furthermore, as I keep asking all the EU geniuses to explain - take a look at the centre of our own galaxy. Around Sgr A*. Please come up with a model that explains the orbits of the stars around an invisible object that does not involve gravity. Nobel Prize for the first to accomplish this.
http://www.galact...ons.html

I have yet to see anybody from EU or PC even attempt this. Mainly because they are insufficiently qualified to even attempt it.
When your chief "theorists" believe that comets are rocks, or that a planetary nebula is a z-pinch, then this is hardly surprising. But, hey, surprise us all, and give it a go. Don't forget to include the relevant maths and equations.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 08, 2017
The researchers suggest the magnetic fields likely arc from pole to pole, though there is still no way to prove it.

LOL! The plasma ignoramuses strike again...


You want some serious lols? Try this:
http://www.maveri...turn.htm

Now, that is bloody hilarious!
SiaoX
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 08, 2017
Please come up with a model that explains the orbits of the stars around an invisible object that does not involve gravity.
There are at least two observational problems involved with Sgr A* object: 1) the stars revolving around it should exhibit some gravitational lensing and changes of seeming brightness, which hasn't been observed yet. 2) the Sgr A* already penetrated clouds of interstellar gas - but these events didn't lead to apparent changes of Sgr A* activity. Whole the activity of Sgr A* object appears surprisingly low and inert if we consider the activity of Milky Way core around it, not to say the activity of black holes in another galaxies. Maybe the fly-by conditions weren't sufficient for observation of relativistic effects, but for me the Sgr A* looks more intriguing than it appears at the first sight.
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Mar 08, 2017
come up with a model that explains the orbits of the stars
OK jonesy, here you go, stars that orbit one another at even a greater rate than those at the cores of galaxies.

"..... astronomers have now shown that a pair of white dwarf stars spin around each other in just 5.4 minutes, making them the fastest-orbiting and tightest binary star system ever found, the researchers claim.

The record-setting stellar duo, known as HM Cancri or RX J0806.3+1527, offer challenges in explaining how such a system might form. The super-quick stars may also present a great future test-bed for detecting gravitational waves, which are elusive ripples in space-time."

http://www.space....tes.html

around an invisible object that does not involve gravity.
Huh? No gravity? Grade school kids studying the basic rudiments of science could have fun coughing & gagging over that statement, no surprise you'd be the one to make it.
jonesdave
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 08, 2017
^^^^No, idiot, I mean come up with a solution that DOES NOT involve gravity. I've yet to hear one. By conventional analysis it involves a ~4 million solar mass object. All you need to do is explain what that object is. Simple. And white dwarves are visible stars with nothing like the mass required. Fail.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 08, 2017
^^^^No, idiot, I mean come up with a solution that DOES NOT involve gravity.

Only a moron would demand such a "solution". Only your misunderstanding of the claims leads to such ridiculous demands.
Let's see how electric gravity might work in an Electric Universe;
http://www.holosc...niverse/
Well what do you know, a description of gravity where an actual physical mechanism is described unlike the pseudoscientific balls on a bedsheet dent in spacetime nonsense.
Tuxford
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 08, 2017
Please come up with a model that explains the orbits of the stars around an invisible object that does not involve gravity.
There are at least two observational problems involved with Sgr A* object: 1) the stars revolving around it should exhibit some gravitational lensing and changes of seeming brightness, which hasn't been observed yet. 2) the Sgr A* already penetrated clouds of interstellar gas - but these events didn't lead to apparent changes of Sgr A* activity. Whole the activity of Sgr A* object appears surprisingly low and inert if we consider the activity of Milky Way core around it, not to say the activity of black holes in another galaxies. Maybe the fly-by conditions weren't sufficient for observation of relativistic effects, but for me the Sgr A* looks more intriguing than it appears at the first sight.

Interesting. Just more support that the instabilities of the core arise internally, rather than externally.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 08, 2017
^^^^No, idiot, I mean come up with a solution that DOES NOT involve gravity.

Only a moron would demand such a "solution". Only your misunderstanding of the claims leads to such ridiculous demands.
Let's see how electric gravity might work in an Electric Universe;
http://www.holosc...niverse/
Well what do you know, a description of gravity where an actual physical mechanism is described unlike the pseudoscientific balls on a bedsheet dent in spacetime nonsense.


Lol. Electric gravity! Whatever next? Tell us, what happens when the charge on one of the orbiting bodies changes? Let's say a spacecraft and a comet or a planet, yes? Should we expect to see a perturbation in the orbital parameters? Has this ever been seen? The charge on the spacecraft is changing all the time.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Mar 08, 2017
And, again... We're back to proper understanding(or,in your case, MIS-understanding) of relative ratio of scale...

No, we are not. It is up to you to show where and why known plasma processes supposedly cease to exist and your mathematical constructs take over. And make sure valid plasma physics are employed ILO the pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo models used by astrophysicists.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Mar 08, 2017
Lol. Electric gravity! Whatever next? Tell us, what happens when the charge on one of the orbiting bodies changes? Let's say a spacecraft and a comet or a planet, yes? Should we expect to see a perturbation in the orbital parameters? Has this ever been seen? The charge on the spacecraft is changing all the time.

Try reading rather than knee jerk shots from the hip of ignorance.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 08, 2017
Lol. Electric gravity! Whatever next? Tell us, what happens when the charge on one of the orbiting bodies changes? Let's say a spacecraft and a comet or a planet, yes? Should we expect to see a perturbation in the orbital parameters? Has this ever been seen? The charge on the spacecraft is changing all the time.

Try reading rather than knee jerk shots from the hip of ignorance.


I've read the crap before. It's nonsense. Hell, he couldn't even get much support for it on Dunderdolts, where a lot of people thought it was a dumb idea. The is an idiot who thinks comets are rocks, that solar wind H+ is going to combine with non-existent O- at 400 km/s to form OH, and that Velikovsky was a genius! He has a bachelors degree, and has never done a scientific days work in his life.
What on Earth makes you think that this nutjob is going to be the one to explain gravity? Laughable.
And you didn't answer the question: what happens when the charge on one body changes?
cortezz
3 / 5 (4) Mar 08, 2017

Only a moron would demand such a "solution". Only your misunderstanding of the claims leads to such ridiculous demands.
Let's see how electric gravity might work in an Electric Universe;
http://www.holosc...niverse/
Well what do you know, a description of gravity where an actual physical mechanism is described unlike the pseudoscientific balls on a bedsheet dent in spacetime nonsense.

Even if gravity is based on electricity how do you explain the huge amounts of matter required for the orbitals around the suposed black hole?
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 08, 2017
Thornhill's rubbish has been discussed before, here:
http://www.intern...hornhill
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 08, 2017
More ad hominem attacks and lies from jonesdumb, as expected. And a link to a discussion because he himself can't argue the actual science himself.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 08, 2017
More ad hominem attacks and lies from jonesdumb, as expected. And a link to a discussion because he himself can't argue the actual science himself.


Nope, I'll ask again (as some people on dunderdolts did): what happens when the charge on one object changes? Very simple, scientific question. What is the answer?
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 08, 2017
Even if gravity is based on electricity how do you explain the huge amounts of matter required for the orbitals around the suposed black hole?

Read the article, he explains the confusion between mass and matter as it concerns astrophysicists.
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Mar 08, 2017
No, idiot, I mean come up with a solution that DOES NOT involve gravity. I've yet to hear one. By conventional analysis it involves a ~4 million solar mass object. All you need to do is explain what that object is. Simple. And white dwarves are visible stars with nothing like the mass required. Fail.


Yes, idiot, just the point I was making.......that it isn't necessary to have an invisible mass to create exactly the orbital conditions you were falsely leading readers into believing that could only be created by the conditions of a massive BH or a Galactic Core.

white dwarves are visible stars with nothing like the mass required.
.....and in spite of your denial white dwarfs are doing just the opposite of what you first contention was that:
come up with a model that explains the orbits of the stars


Jonsey, you're stuck in a contradictory rut of your own personal fantasies of Fake & Inferred Science.
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Mar 08, 2017
Even if gravity is based on electricity how do you explain the huge amounts of matter required for the orbitals around the suposed black hole?


Why don't you & Jonesy try explaining the velocities of stars orbiting one another as I supplied the link to:

http://www.space....tes.html

So here it is again. Here we have companion stars nowhere near the mass size of BHs whose velocities exceed anything you want to put into orbit around your BH Fantasy. I guess you just sort of forgot about them, is that it? Or never before heard of them?
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 08, 2017
Jeez, this place is full of idiots. Why can't they point us toward the f***wit stuff that they believe in? Why oh why does it take so long? Possibly because they are f***wits? Yep.
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 08, 2017
P.S. Benni, you are are a f***wit. You have no idea about science. Never have, never will. I am still waiting for your mathematical explanation of why BHs can't happen. You are yet to give it. Dickhead. How long do we have to wait? Not very good at latching on to various nutjobs, are you? Please, do explain, which particular nutjob do you follow?
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 08, 2017
So here it is again. Here we have companion stars nowhere near the mass size of BHs whose velocities exceed anything you want to put into orbit around your BH Fantasy. I guess you just sort of forgot about them, is that it? Or never before heard of them?


Ahh, jeez, sh*t for brains, guess nobody ever thought of that, eh? Mate, what can I say? You are too thick to even be allowed into the conversation. Yes? Ever stepped back and thought why nobody is taking you seriously? Might be because you are too dumb. Yes?

jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 08, 2017
Shall i post this question again? Okay, dickhead EU types, please explain the orbital parameters of the stars around Sgr A*. Shouldn't be difficult. Can we please have an answer? Anybody prepared to take that on? No, of course not. Wankers.
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 08, 2017
Even if gravity is based on electricity how do you explain the huge amounts of matter required for the orbitals around the suposed black hole?

Read the article, he explains the confusion between mass and matter as it concerns astrophysicists.


Lol. No it doesnt. Burke.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Mar 09, 2017
Nice, a barage of lies and vulgarities. You are a pathetic waste of space jonesdumb. BTW, ever hear back from Falthammar? Doubt it as you are hardly worth a response.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Mar 09, 2017
Nice, a barage of lies and vulgarities
@nazi sympathizing pseudoscience cult troll
1- that is all you've provided since you started posting on PO
2- if your eu cult has a working TOE that is viable and effectively replaces MS theories, be it even just with limited plasma physics, then why is there no published theory to be validated by secondary sources?
why is there no validation at all?
why is there no predictability of your cult?
why does your cult delete all prediction fails? (MS doesn't delete their fails, they build upon them)
why does your cult not have the ability to provide any working science at all to validate your claims?

simple questions, and all of them you've answered with conspiracy BS in the past

IOW - you promote pseudoscience, therefore you must denigrate anything that proves you wrong

just like any other cult

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.