Black Hole`` Systems.` - Tata Institute of Fundamental Research

Exploring Magnetospheric
Origin of Jets For Both Neutron
Star and ``Black Hole'' Systems.
Abhas Mitra, akmitra@hbni.ac.in
Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai
https://barc-in.academia.edu/AbhasMitra
WORKSHOP ON ``JET TRIGGERING MECHANISM’’ in Black Hole
SOURCES (Jan. 20 -23, 2016)
TATA INSTITUTE OF FUNDAMENTAL RESEARCH, Mumbai, India
This Talk on Jan 20, 2016
http://www.tifr.res.in/~tifrjet/home.html
Ubiquity of Jets in Astrophysics: Protostars to Neutron Stars,
Microquasars to AGNs
Twisted Helical Magnetic Fields May Always Be Necessary
But though the importance of Magnetic Field for
harnessing Jet Power For BH Systems is always
emphasized,
the role Magnetic Field is not invoked with same
intensity for BH astrophysics: Such as for State
Transitions or Jet Formation, because BBH =0
Most of the jets from stars or even Neutron
Stars are usually Non-ultra-relativistic
And Relativistic Jets Are Often Found From
``Black Hole Systems’’, be it X-Ray Binaries
or AGNs.
This gave rise to the notion that somehow
EVENT HORIZON IS NECESSARY For The
ORIGIN of ULTRA-RELATIVISTIC JETS
In Contrast, Tangible SOLID Physics For Accretion onto
Magnetized Compact Objects: Disk Gets Arrested At The
Alfven Radius
Inner Edge of the Disk is at
ALFVEN RADIUS RA :
Magnetic Pressure = Ram Pressure
MAGNETICALLY ARRESTED DISK:
Mag Field DYNAMICALLY Important
CO-ROTATING RADIUS:
Kepler Vel of Accretion= Rotation
Speed of Magnetosphere Ω:
PROPELLER MECHANISM & EJECTION OF ACCRETING PLASMA:
NATURAL MECHANISM FOR STATE TRANSITIONs
• If RA < RCO : Plasma Is Forced into Co-rotation By Mag Field 
• Steady Accretion
• But If RA > RCO: Mag Field Cannot Properly Guide: No Steady Accretion 
PROPELLER REGIME
• Plasma Likely To Accumulate At Boundary Layer & Ejected Out by
Along OPEN FIELD LINES b Magneto-Centrifugal Repulsion:
Outflow Has 2 COMPONENTS:
Episodic Conical Wind (Low
Velocity)
+ High Velocity Magnetically
Dominated Axial Jet:
Lovelace, Romanova (Cornell)
Computational Astrophysics &
Cosmology, 1, 3 (2014)
In 2004, EVIDENCE Came THAT EVENT HORIZON NOT NECESSARY FOR
RELATIVISTIC JETS: Case For NS+BH Unified Jet Model?
•
``An ultra-relativistic outflow from a neutron star (Circinus X-1)
accreting gas from a companion’’: Fender… Nature 427, 222(2004)
Bulk Lorentz Factor Γ> 15!
•
``We
conclude that the generation of highly relativistic
outflows does not require properties that are unique to
black holes, such as an event horizon’’
•
Cir X-1 is the youngest XRB (4600 Yr!) & the NS May Be Spinning Very Fast
• May be, the Accretion Disk should be close by & Yet
Propeller Mechanism should operate due to fast spin of
the compact object.
•
•
•
•
EVIDENCES FOR UNEXPECTED STRONG MAGNETIC
FIELD AROUND BLACK HOLE CANDIDATES
Strong B~ 10**8 G near inner disk of Cyg X-1; astro-ph/0304158, Gnedin et al.
As if Cyg X-1 Compact Object has µ ~ 10**30 G cm^3; Karitskaya + Gnedin+ .. arXiv:0908.2719
(Submitted to Nature …):
BBH ~10**(8-9) G (STELLAR MASS): BBH ~ 10**4 G (Supermassive) Piotrovich et al;
arXiv:1002.4948
``A strong magnetic field around the supermassive black hole at the centre of the Galaxy’’ (Sgr
A*): Eatough et al. Nature 501, 391 (2013)
• ``Surprisingly Strong Magnetic Fields Challenge Black Holes’ Pull’’:
Zamaninasab et al., Nature 510, 126–128 (2014)
“Here we report that jet magnetic field and accretion disk luminosity are tightly correlated over
seven orders of magnitude for a sample of 76 radio-loud active galaxies..” DYNAMICALLY
IMPORTANT MAGNETIC FIELD
•
Resolved Magnetic Field Structure …Sgr A*: Science, 350 (2015): (Event Horz Teles)
``Alternatively, accumulation of sufficiently magnetic field near the event horizon
may have led to a stable, magnetically dominated inner region,
•
*** This is a DIRECT EVIDENCE OF ORDERED MAGNETIC FIELD Around Astrophysical BHs
But How Can There Be Strong Magnetic Field Close To A BH?
HYPOTHEIS: Magnetically Arrested Disk (Mad Idea for a BH!):
Narayan et al. PASJ 2003
•
•
``Figure 1a shows the basic idea. We assume that a
significant amount of poloidal magnetic flux has collected in
the vicinity of the BH as a result of the cumulative action of
the accretion flow, and that the magnetic field is
dynamically dominant. The field is prevented from escaping
by the continued inward pressure of accretion.
At the same time, the field lines do not fall into the BH
because the BH only “wants” the plasma but “does not
want” the field’’ (Wishful thinking without real
justification).
•
Because Embedded Magnetic Field Cannot Be Segregated
From The Plasma. There is just no such physical
mechanism.
•
Also Everything, whether Magnetic Field or Light Has
MASS-ENERGY and Gets Pulled by Gravity
Note, magnetic field embedded in the disk or accretion flow is expected to be chaotic,
Even if it would be assumed to be organized on relatively larger scale, large scale STEADY
Dipole Type Field is Impossible.
SO THE PICTURE THAT IS REQUIRED: SPINNING NSs & BHs MAY
HAVE A SOMEWHAT SIMILAR ORDERED MAGNETIC STRUCTURE
In fact, having inferred µ~10**30 cgs;
Karitskaya + Gnedin, arXiv:0908.2719 ,
Concluded that it looks as if the
``BH’’ in Cyg X-1 is a
``Magnetospheric Eternally Collapsing Object’’
MECO= An ultra-compact & ultra-magnetized
ball of Plasma held in quasi-static –state by
RADIATION PRESSURE + MAGNETIC STRESSES
Conceived by Mitra, Robertson (South
Okalohoma), Leiter (West Virginia,
deceased), Schild (Harvard)
MECO Paradigm is supported by 26 Peer Reviewed Papers, 2 Invited Book Chapters, 1
Essay in Gravity Foundation Context, Several Published Plenary Talks + Preprints
NEXT FEW SLIDES SHOW PAPERS WHICH HAVE PUT NS+BH SYSTEMS
IN An UNIFIED SELF CONSISTENT PLATFORM BY CONSIDERING:
BH Candidates = MECO
A rotating intrinsic magnetic field (shown in pale yellow) anchored to the MECO
generates a magnetic propeller, sweeping out a large region (shown in black) of the inner
accretion disk. The magnetic propeller also creates radial outflows of atomic nuclei
(shown in indigo blue) and relativistic jets of electrons (shown in red) along the rotation
axis. A bright blue-white ring forms where the MECO's rotating magnetic field sweeps
the inner edge of the accretion disk, creating a hot, thin boundary layer that pushes
matter outward against the intense inward pull of gravity. Outer gas clouds (shown in
grey-green) gather together and flow into the accretion disk, heading for the highly
redshifted, rotating MECO at the quasar's core.
Many Conceptual Problems With The Notion of ``Black
Holes’’ Even within General Relativity even after 100 Years
``The Schwarzschild solution: Some conceptual difficulties’’,
Narlikar & Padmanabhan (IUCAA): Foundations of Physics, 18, 659
(1988):
• ``It is shown that inconsistencies arise when we look upon
the Schwarzschild solution as the space-time arising from
a localized point singularity…the discussion of physical
behavior of black holes, classical or quantum, is only of
academic interest. It is suggested that problems related
to the source could be avoided if the event horizon did
not form and that the universe only contained quasiblack holes.’’
Most Natural & Generic Form of Such Quasi Black Holes = MECO
Masses of Galaxy, Star, Planet… Arise From an INTEGRATION
CONSTANT whose value Must Be Different In Different Cases
GalaxyStarPlanet
BlackHole
And I showed that Rs = 0 For the Point Mass
Which means MBH =0
So anything with finite mass cannot be True BH
Thus, observed BHs Must Be Quasi-BHs.
Ref: Mitra, J. Math. Phys., 50(4) 042502 (2009)
Bel, J. Math. Phys., 10, 1501 (1969):
Mitra, Ad. Sp. Res., 38, 2917 (2006)
.
Whenever A Star Contracts, It Radiates & Yet Becomes Hotter & Hotter!
And a stage is reached when immediately
before BH Formation:
OUTWARD RADIATION FORCE ↑
= INWARD PULL OF GRAVITY ↓
(Eddington Luminosity)
The Star Now Becomes Almost But Not Exact BH
Star Material Ultra-Hot Fire/Plasma.
It nonetheless keep on contracting Eternally
Towards
A TRUE BH State– A Point Having M=0
Eternally Collapsing Object (ECO)
ECOs Expected To Be UltraMagnetized (MECO)
SUN= MAGNETIZED BALL OF FIRE
Refs: Mitra, PRD (2006), MNRAS Lett. (2006)
MNRAS (2006), New Astron. (2006)
Mitra & Glendenning, MNRAS Lett. (2010)
Nov. 2015: NuStar Reported That A Flare Appears To Have Been Triggered
By Eruption of Corona From Very Close To A So-Called BH (Mrk335).
Could Be Something Like Eruption From Sun & Best Explained BY MECO Paradigm
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
— Arthur Schopenhauer
SEARCHING FOR MECO PARADIGM IN LITERATURE
1. A.P. Lobanov: (MPI Radioastronomie), Mem. A. It., 79, 1062 (2008)
``It still remains an open issue whether the central supermassive bodies in
AGN indeed harbour black holes or other more exotic objects such as boson
stars or Magnetospheric Eternally Collapsing Objects (MECO) (Robertson & Leiter
2003). The major difference between these alternatives is the absence of the event
horizon in BS and MECO.
2. Sera Markoff (Anton Pannekoek) in Jet Paradigm, ed. T. Belloni,
Springer (2010)
``One of the radical proposals comes from Robertson & Leiter (2002) who
suggested that any jet producing object, driven by magnetic field, could be
interpreted in terms of Magnetospheric Eternally Collapsing Objects (MECOs)…
The idea is a new application of propeller theory where the inner disk is coupled
to the Interior magnetosphere….
Hope, in future, Astrophysicists
Will Explore This Paradigm
to rule it out or confirm..
(David vs Goliath)
Physics Today October 2013
Individualism: The legacy of great physicists
Ricardo Heras
``New scientific ideas never spring from a communal body, however
organized, but rather from the head of an individually inspired researcher
who struggles with his problems in lonely thought and unites all his thought
on one single point which is his whole world for the moment’’.
PEER REVIEWED PAPERS IN SUPPORT OF THE MECO PARADIGM:
1. Non-occurrence of trapped surfaces and Black Holes in spherical gravitational collapse: An abridged version: A. Mitra,
Found. Phys. Lett., 13(6), 543 (2000).
2. On the Final State of Spherical Gravitational Collapse: A. Mitra, Found. Phys. Lett., 15(5), 439 (2002).
3. Evidence for Intrinsic Magnetic Moments in Black Hole Candidates: S.L. Robertson, D.J. Leiter, Astrophysical J. 565, 447
(2002).
4. Does the Principle of Equivalence Prohibit Trapped Surfaces from Forming in the General Relativistic Collapse
Process?: D.J. Leiter, S. Robertson, 16(2), 143 (2003)
5. On Intrinsic Magnetic Moments in Black Hole Candidates, S.L. Robertson, D.J. Leiter, Astrophysical J. 596, L203-L206
(2003)
6. On the origin of the universal radio-X-ray luminosity correlation in black hole candidates, S.L. Robertson, D.J. Leiter,
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 350, 1391 (2004).
7. Why Gravitational Collapse Must be Accompanied by Emission of Radiation Both in Newtonian and Einstein Gravity?:
A. Mitra, Physical Review D. 74(2), 024010 (2006)
8. A Generic Relationship Between Baryonic and Radiative Energy Densities of Stars:
A. Mitra, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (Lett.), 367, L66 (2006).
9. Radiation Pressure Supported Stars in Einstein Gravity : Eternally Collapsing Objects:
A. Mitra, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 369, 492, (2006).
10. Sources of Stellar Energy, Einstein -Eddington Timescale of Gravitational Contraction and Eternally Collapsing
Objects: A. Mitra, New Astronomy, 12(2), 146 (2006); (One of the Highlight Publications of Max Planck Society, Germany,
2006)
*11. Observations Supporting the Existence of an Intrinsic Magnetic Moment inside the Central Compact Object within
the Quasar Q0957+561: Astronomical Journal, 132, 420 (2006). (CFA PRESS RELEASE)
12. On the non-occurrence of Type I X-ray bursts from the black hole candidates: A. Mitra, Advances in Space Research,
38(12), 2917 (2006)
13. Direct Microlensing-Reverberation Observations of the Intrinsic Magnetic Structure of Active Galactic Nuclei in
Different Spectral States: A Tale of Two Quasars: R. Schild, D.J. Leiter, Darryl, S.L. Robertson: Astrophysical Journal, 135,
947 (2008).
14. Comments on ``The Euclidean gravitational action as black hole entropy, singularities, and space-time voids [J. Math.
Phys. 49, 042501 (2008)'': A. Mitra, J. Math. Phys., 50(4) 042502 (2009)
15. Quantum Information Paradox: Real or Fictitious? : A. Mitra, Pramana, 73(3), 615, (2009).
16. Black Hole or Meco: Decided by a thin Luminous Ring Structure Deep Within Quasar Q0957+561: Journal of
Cosmology, 6, 1400 (2010).
17. Does Sgr A* Have an Event Horizon or a Magnetic Moment?: S.L. Robertson, D.J. Leiter, Journal of Cosmology,
6, 1438 (2010).
18. Does Pressure Increase or Decrease Active Gravitational Mass? A. Mitra, Physics Letters B., 685(1), 8 (2010).
19. Likely formation of general relativistic radiation pressure supported stars or eternally collapsing objects'': A.
Mitra and N.K. Glendenning, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. Lett., 404, L50-L54 (2010).
20. Why No Energy Can Be Extracted From Rotating Kerr Black Holes: A. Mitra, K.D. Krori, Journal of Cosmology,
17, 7064 (2011).
21. General Relativistic Radiation Pressure Supported Stars as Quasar Central Engines in an Universe Which is
Recycling Matter: A. Mitra, Journal of Cosmology, 17, 7376 (2011).
22. The fallacy of Oppenheimer Snyder collapse: no general relativistic collapse at all, no black hole, no physical
singularity: A. Mitra, Astrophysics Space Science (Letter) , 332, 43, (2011).
23. Kruskal Dynamics for Radial Geodesics": A. Mitra, Int. J. Astron. & Astrophys, 2, 174, (2012)
24. Kruskal Coordinates and Mass of the Schwarzschild Black Hole: No Finite Mass Black Hole: A. Mitra, Int. J.
Astron. & Astrophys. 2, 236 (2012).
25. Farewell to Black Hole Horizons and Singularities: C. Corda, D. Leiter, H. Mosquera Cuesta, S. Robertson, R.
Schild, Journal of Cosmology, 17, 7412 (2011); (This was an essay in Gravity Foundation Competition, and may not
have been peer reviewed).
26. Discovery of universal outflow structures above and below the accretion disc plane in radio-quiet quasars: J.
Lovegrove, R.E. Schild, D. Leiter, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 412, 2631 (2011).
27. The Mass of the Oppenheimer Snyder Black Hole: Only Finite Mass Quasi-Black Holes:
A. Mitra, K.K. Singh, International J. Modern Physics (D) 22, 1350054 (2013).
28. Does Pressure Accentuate General Relativistic Gravitational Collapse Formation of Trapped Surfaces?: A. Mitra,
International Journal of Modern Physics (D), 22(5), 1350021, (2013).
29. Schwarzschild Singularity: Luis Bel, Journal of Mathematical Physics, 10, 1501 (1969).
The Abstract of this paper is just a one liner: ``A new point of view is presented for which the Schwarzschild
singularity becomes a real point singularity on which the sources of Schwarzschild's exterior solution are
localized.’’
Hans Alfven – Plasma Physics
JAMES MAXWELL: Electromagnetism Accepted 10 Years
After His Death, Lord Kelvin Opposed, Ignored For 25 Yr
Svante Arrhenius – Ion Chemistry
J. L. Baird – Television
Robert Bakker – Warm-blooded dinosaurs
Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar –
White Dwarf Upper Mass Limit
Ernst Chladni – meteorites in 1800
Doppler – optical Doppler effect
Galileo – Heliocentric view
Evariste Galois – Group Theory
Luigi Galvani – bioelectricity
Karl F. Gauss – non Euclidean geometry
Binning/Roher/Gimzewski – scanning-tunneling
microscope
Robert Goddard – rocket-powered space ships
Thomas Gold – deep non-biological petroleum deposits;
deep mine bacteria
William Harvey – circulation of blood, 1628
Nikola Tesla – Earth electrical resonance, “Schumann”
resonance
Although, existence of an extended HOT Corona around DISK may be understandable, there is
no explanation for Compact Corona Around a True BH which is vacuum & From Which Nothing
can Escape. But a MECO Can Have Compact Corona The Way Sun Has Its Corona.
Artist’s Impression Is Fine: But No Solid Explanation For StateTransitions & Jet
In BH Paradigm In The Absence of Any Intrinsic Magnetosphere
SCHWARZSCHILD SOLUTION: MASSES OF Galaxies, Stars & Black Holes
Arise From an INTEGRATION PARAMETER Which Can Be, +ve, -ve, 0
A BH Soln. is Obtained From a Single POINT MASS ( . ), & BH Paradigm is Based On The
Assumption That M0 >0.
Schwarzschild Singularity: Luis Bel, Journal of Mathematical Physics, 10, 1501 (1969):
``A new point of view is presented for which the Schwarzschild singularity
becomes a real point singularity on which the sources of Schwarzschild's
exterior solution are localized.’’;
IMPLICATIONS: Rg =0→ M(point mass) =0 → Anything having M>0 is NOT a TRUE BH!
• Mitra, Advances in Space Research, 38(12), 2917 (2006)
• Mitra, J. Math. Phys., 50(4) 042502 (2009): CONFIRMED: M( True BH) =0.
• So BH Candidates CANNOT BE TRUE BHS! Why This Result Is Inevitable?
• Ricci Scalar: R =R(pressure, density)
• So For a Point Singularity, One expects: R (physical)~ M0 δ(0)
(1)
• Ref: (i) Petrov & Narlikar, Foundations of Physics, 26, 1201 (1996)
• (ii) Tangherlini, Frank R., Physical Review Letters, 6 (3), 147 (1961)
By directly using the BH Metric, one May Also Obtain R (BH=Point Mass) to find
R (Math BH)=0
Now Equate (1) & (2) :
R (physical) =R(Math)
M0 δ(0) =0
which cannot be satisfied unless : M0 (True Math BH)=0
(2)
A TRUE M=0 BH FORMATION WOULD REQUIRE INFINITE (Comoving) Proper Time: τ=∞
Thus Grav. Collapse Should Result in Either Static Objects (WD, NS) or
Continue Indefinitely/Asymtotically (Eternally) Through Quasi-Static
Sts
As a star undergoes gravitational contraction, it must radiate and yet become
hotter Resulting in increase of radiation pressure.
Further, once it contracts below its PHOTON SPHERE, R= 1.5 Rg (3M),
trapped RADIATION PRESSURE INCREASES DRAMATICALLY:
As Gravitational Redshift, z>>>1, sooner or later, a stage is
reached when ECO IS FORMED:
OUTWARD FORCE OF TRAPPED RADIATION = INWARD PULL OF GRAVITY: EDDINGTON LUMIN
1. Why Gravitational Collapse Must be Accompanied by Emission of Radiation Both in
Newtonian and Einstein Gravity?: Mitra, Physical Review D. 74(2), 024010 (2006)
2. A Generic Relationship Between Baryonic and Radiative Energy Densities of Stars:
A. Mitra, MNRAS (Lett.), 367, L66 (2006).
3. Radiation Pressure Supported Stars in Einstein Gravity : Eternally Collapsing Objects:
A. Mitra, MNRAS 369, 492, (2006).
4. Sources of Stellar Energy, Einstein -Eddington Timescale of Gravitational Contraction and
Eternally Collapsing Objects: A. Mitra, New Astronomy, 12(2), 146 (2006)
5. Likely formation of general relativistic radiation pressure supported stars or Eternally
Collapsing Objects: Mitra & Glendenning, MNRAS Lett., 404, L50-L54 (2010).