What Data is Needed to Understand the Formation of Black Hole Jets?

[LewMcCoy]

Dear Internet-

As part of an introductory Astronomy course, it is time to compile a mock research proposal, specifically to give us an idea of what real scientists do. The purpose of it is to focus on a particular not-yet-understood phenomenon of astronomy, and describe the process we would use to gather such data.

I find the jets of black holes to be fascinating, and have come here for some expert advise. As I understand so far, we know what these jets are made of (photons & electrons), but the true mystery still lies in how they are formed. Exactly how are black holes, notorious for their unyielding gravity, able to propel matter at nearly the speed of light?

This is the foundation of my research so far. The question remaining yet is the type of data and observations we plan to gather and make to try and decipher this mystery. This is where I'm a bit confused: what exactly would benefit and clarify our understanding of these jets? Knowing more about the magnetic fields of black holes? Their composition? More about their masses? Temperature? The difficulty lies in connecting the phenomenon with data. Any guidance or advice is greatly appreciated.

Thank you!

 

[twofish-quant]

Exactly how are black holes, notorious for their unyielding gravity, able to propel matter at nearly the speed of light?

That's not quite the mystery. It's not the black hole that is causing the jets to form, but rather the magnetic field around the black hole. You see jets form around neutron stars, and it turns out we think it's the same process.

The really big mystery is how magnetic fields work for form jets. What you'd like to do is to come up with a model in which you put in the magnetic fields, lots of ionized gas, and then run a supercomputer simulation or calculate things on paper and pencil, and boom, you get a jet. We aren't at that level of understanding.

Part of the problem is that plasmas and magnetic fields are hard. Gravity is pretty easy. Things fall down. With plasmas and magnetic fields all sorts of complex things happen.

what exactly would benefit and clarify our understanding of these jets? Knowing more about the magnetic fields of black holes? Their composition? More about their masses? Temperature?

Yes. What we'd like to do that we can't is to look at a jet and say "based on my looking at this jet, I can tell that the temperature of the gas is X, the magnetic field strength is Y, etc. etc." We aren't anywhere close to there yet.

For example, one thing that would be useful is to be able to tell that the thing is producing a jet really is a black hole. It would be nice to say black hole jets look like X, and neutron star jets look like Y.

 

[LewMcCoy]

So bottom line, it would be very valuable to know if the process that creates jets from neutron stars/quasars is the same as that/those of black holes.

Question now is, how exactly do we begin study the magnetic fields of these jets from black holes?

And thanks for your help.

 

[Misericorde]

Could these kinds of jets be achieved on a small scale, in a fictional context only (I'm writing) as a kind of weapon? Does it take an engine as massive as a hunk of degenerate matter to produce the needed ejecta and magnetic fields?

 

[Imax]

Jet formation seems to be an outcome of rotating mass. Protostars, pulsars, and black holes all seem to have a common phenomenon, jet formation about an axis of rotation. A rotating mass can cause electron flow, causing a magnetic field, causing charged particles to flow along magnetic field lines. The problem with black holes is that the cause of jet formation has to occur outside the event horizon.

 

[Imax]

If the cause of jet formation has to occur outside the event horizon, then classical theory can’t explain jet formation around a black hole. Any electric field or magnetic filed generated from a central mass within the event horizon can’t influence events outside the event horizon, and can’t be the cause jet formation. Frame dragging about a black hole could explain jet formation.

 

[Misericorde]

If the cause of jet formation has to occur outside the event horizon, then classical theory can’t explain jet formation around a black hole. Any electric field or magnetic filed generated from a central mass within the event horizon can’t influence events outside the event horizon, and can’t be the cause jet formation. Frame dragging about a black hole could explain jet formation.

I don't see how this is correct. The mass of a black hole obviously has influence beyond the event horizon, so why not in this case?

 

[Polyrhythmic]

Any electric field or magnetic filed generated from a central mass within the event horizon can’t influence events outside the event horizon, [...]

This is not true. Electromagnetic fields of sources inside the horizon actually influence anything outside the horizon just as if the black hole wasn't there. This is due to the nature of the field, the interaction is transmitted by virtual photons which are not affected by the black hole's gravitational field. The same explanation is also valid for hypothetical gravitons. See this thread for more information: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=490924 .

 

[Imax]

In quantum mechanics, light is made up of photons, massless particles with an associated wavefunction. In classical mechanics, light is made up of electromagnetic radiation. The defining property of a back hole is that its escape velocity is greater than the speed of light. Classically, if electromagnetic radiation can’t escape a black hole, then how can electric or magnetic fields reach beyond the event horizon?

 

[Polyrhythmic]

Read again what I wrote. In Quantum Field Theory, fundamental interactions are transmitted by so called virtual particles. Virtual photons are not the same photons which light consists of, that are trapped inside a black hole. They do not feel the gravitational field.

 

[Imax]

In Quantum Field Theory, fundamental interactions are transmitted by so called virtual particles.

That's what I'm trying to say. Classical mechanics has a hard time explaining jet formation around a black hole. Without a comprehensive quantum field theory, explaining black hole jet formation is problematic. In the framework of general raltivity, electric or magnetic fileds generated from a central mass within the event horizon can’t influence events outside the event horizon.

 

[Imax]

This is probably too late for LewMcCoy’s term paper, but if electric or magnetic fields generated from a central mass within an event horizon can’t influence events outside the event horizon, an option at explaining jet formation around a black hole, within GR, is to consider frame dragging. There are stable orbits about a black hole within the Kerr metric. Stable orbit = mass accumulation = accretion disk. Jet formation about a black hole can be attributed to friction within the accretion disk, but I can’t see this process forming an intense jet stream about an axis of rotation.

 

[Discord7]

http://dalescosmos.blogspot.com/
I believe that electrostatic influence explains the electron beams. Negative charge developed within stars envelops galaxies. Negative charged particles are repelled to galactic rims, therefore positive charged particles converge to an inner region of positive charge. While this region holds shape of an open disk, electrons descend to rotational axis. They ignore the electron-sated black hole and launch by mutual repulsion along rotational axis guided by electron gun quite similar to many of our little ones in TV sets. Electrons maintain that axis by guidance to locus of equidistance to the positive rim of black hole's accretion disk. Intense heat developed with the converging of matter falling toward singularity might result in positron production to account for neutrinos coming out of the mix.

 

[Imax]

See http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0404/0404135v3.pdf

 

[twofish-quant]

If the cause of jet formation has to occur outside the event horizon, then classical theory can’t explain jet formation around a black hole.

There's something called the membrane paradigm that translates GR's so that mere mortals can figure out what is going on. You can show that a black hole acts like a classical conducting sphere.

Any electric field or magnetic filed generated from a central mass within the event horizon can’t influence events outside the event horizon, and can’t be the cause jet formation.

So it's not generated from the central mass. :-) :-) :-)

 

[twofish-quant]

This is not true. Electromagnetic fields of sources inside the horizon actually influence anything outside the horizon just as if the black hole wasn't there.

Well... You could have the black hole develop a charge, but it's believed that this isn't what causes the magnetic field of the black hole. Like lots of things with black holes, the important stuff is caused by matter that is just about to fall into the black hole.

 

[Misericorde]

Do black hole's emit polar jets, or relativistic polar jets, or is there some factor of its mass or angular momentum of the accretion disc which determines that?

 

[Discord7]

Well... - - but it's believed that this isn't what causes the magnetic field of the black hole.

Wouldn't a rotating accretion disk or bulge, surrounding a black hole and bearing an electric charge produce a magnetic field that would be difficult to to discern from a magnetic field attributed to a black hole?

 

[Misericorde]

Wouldn't a rotating accretion disk or bulge, surrounding a black hole and bearing an electric charge produce a magnetic field that would be difficult to to discern from a magnetic field attributed to a black hole?

You can't discern that a black hole is charged from observation, but in the mathematics of them, a charge is allowed if infalling matter carries a charge. This charge is not the same thing as the powerful magnetic field caused by the action of the accretion disk; they are two separate concepts really.

 

[Imax]

Like lots of things with black holes, the important stuff is caused by matter that is just about to fall into the black hole.

I’m thinking that maybe not everything in the accretion disk that falls inwards towards the black hole singularity adds to black hole mass. Most of it may form a nice jet about an axis of rotation.

 

[twofish-quant]

Wouldn't a rotating accretion disk or bulge, surrounding a black hole and bearing an electric charge produce a magnetic field that would be difficult to to discern from a magnetic field attributed to a black hole?

The curious thing about astronomical objects is that it's hard for them to keep a charge going for long periods of time. If you have something that is positive charge it will attract negative charges, and then end up neutral.

The basic mechanism that we think powers most astronomical bodies is the dynamo effect, in which you have a conducting fluid that interacts with a magnetic field to sustain a magentic field, and yes the accretion disk does interact with the field in complicated ways.

 

[Imax]

Black holes are like bubbles in 4D space and time.

 

[Misericorde]

The curious thing about astronomical objects is that it's hard for them to keep a charge going for long periods of time. If you have something that is positive charge it will attract negative charges, and then end up neutral.

The basic mechanism that we think powers most astronomical bodies is the dynamo effect, in which you have a conducting fluid that interacts with a magnetic field to sustain a magentic field, and yes the accretion disk does interact with the field in complicated ways.

Isn't that supposed to be the same mechanism that generates our geomagnetic field? (our core as a dynamo)

 

[Discord7]

The curious thing about astronomical objects is that it's hard for them to keep a charge going for long periods of time. If you have something that is positive charge it will attract negative charges, and then end up neutral.

For an electrically isolated astronomical object in possession of a greater number of electrons than it does of protons, then we might tend to think of its concentration of electrons about its exterior as though it were a charge. However, that concentration of electrons would have gathered, propelled by exothermic migration, whereas a the process of charging something pertains more readily to results of an endothermic process. Those electrons can find no neutralizing protons to cancel their influence; they can rest only when spaced as far from each other as they can get.

Additions to such concentrations of electrons can occur by exothermic migration whenever an ionizing event displaces the charged portions of a molecule into sufficient mutual departure from each other so that the global outward repulsion for electrons exceeds the remaining mutual attraction of the molecular fractions for each other. Nothing new is suggested here about electrical particles. Simple reverse engineering should depict astronomical objects as bearing stable configurations of proton cores and outer coatings of electrons.

 

[twofish-quant]

Isn't that supposed to be the same mechanism that generates our geomagnetic field? (our core as a dynamo)

Exactly.

 

[Discord7]

You can't discern that a black hole is charged from observation, but in the mathematics of them, a charge is allowed if infalling matter carries a charge. This charge is not the same thing as the powerful magnetic field caused by the action of the accretion disk; they are two separate concepts really.

To clarify my question: Others have been referring to a magnetic field coming from a super-massive black hole. I deem the black hole a nonparticipant in the beam forming process and agree that the spinning accretion disk produces magnetism. The electron beams produced as polar jets are fed electro-statically to the rotational axis and held so, collimated in their outward trajectory by the positive polarization at the rim of the disk which serves in the identical fashion of a focusing anode within a common CRT's electron gun. Magnetic effects neither contribute to nor disrupt the electron beams that constitutes the only paths for electron departure from the incidental location of the black hole.

It stacks up that electrons are certainly available to the black hole, but preciously few of them are taken in. The black hole would have swallowed enough electrons so that its gravitational pull upon an electron would become equaled by its electrostatic repulsion for the same particle. Fancy a close-in electron straggling either way along the rotational axis, indifferent even to the infamous event horizon.

 

[Imax]

You could look at a black hole in GR like a closed 4-D space-time manifold. That could easily explain why light, or electromagnetic radiation, can’t escape.

Mass can bend light (i.e. microlensing) and space-time. Maybe space-time around a black hole singularity is so badly bent that it forms a closed manifold. That could easily explain why anything occurring within the event horizon can’t influence anything outside the event horizon. But, big problem. If space-time around a black hole singularity forms a closed 4-D space-time manifold, then anything occurring outside the event horizon can’t influence anything within the event horizon.

Maybe black holes rarely feed.

 

[twofish-quant]

To clarify my question: Others have been referring to a magnetic field coming from a super-massive black hole. I deem the black hole a nonparticipant in the beam forming process and agree that the spinning accretion disk produces magnetism.

Except that this doesn't work. Black holes do have strong magnetic fields. What happens is that if you have an electrically charges pellet, it "appears" to freeze as it falls into the black hole. If you start moving that pellet, then you get a magnetic field.

Google for "membrane paradigm thorne" for the details.

 

[Discord7]

Except that this doesn't work. Black holes do have strong magnetic fields. What happens is that if you have an electrically charges pellet, it "appears" to freeze as it falls into the black hole. If you start moving that pellet, then you get a magnetic field.

Google for "membrane paradigm thorne" for the details.

What is it that doesn't work? Although I doubt that many charged pellets would be falling into a black hole, it would nevertheless be beside any point I was making.

 

[cph]

Some more recent artistic depicts seem to emphasize more of a polarity to jet depiction (and formation)?

 

[Discord7]

Some more recent artistic depicts seem to emphasize more of a polarity to jet depiction (and formation)?

If by "polarity" you mean magnetic, there sure is plenty right there exactly where the black hole would put it if it could. A heck of a big rotating accretion disk with an awful big positive charge accounts for it. The resulting field is in the same place and of the same shape as the one fancied for the black hole. The only charged particles available to the black hole are negative. But whatever, the few that enter a black hole from the "north" would present magnetic field that is canceled out very nicely by equivalent electron count coming from the "south".

If by, "polarity" you mean electrical polarity, only the positive and negative electrical polarities have been mentioned here. There is plenty of that. A rotating, growing, gigantic disk of mostly protons functions to align electrons into a fine string on either side of the black hole to present just the architecture required for one horrendous electron gun.

The kernel of this solution is to see that a charged particle contained by a sphere or disk will greedily seek out the greater attraction from beyond the center (until it gets to the center). Tendencies to incorrectly factor in range as a determining factor might account for erroneous supposition to the contrary: Increased scope of particle count mounts up faster with distance than the associated particle field attenuation within such enclosures. On the other hand, experience with electricity leads to valid expectations.

 

[twofish-quant]

If by "polarity" you mean magnetic, there sure is plenty right there exactly where the black hole would put it if it could. A heck of a big rotating accretion disk with an awful big positive charge accounts for it. The resulting field is in the same place and of the same shape as the one fancied for the black hole. The only charged particles available to the black hole are negative. But whatever, the few that enter a black hole from the "north" would present magnetic field that is canceled out very nicely by equivalent electron count coming from the "south".

If by, "polarity" you mean electrical polarity, only the positive and negative electrical polarities have been mentioned here. There is plenty of that. A rotating, growing, gigantic disk of mostly protons functions to align electrons into a fine string on either side of the black hole to present just the architecture required for one horrendous electron gun.

The kernel of this solution is to see that a charged particle contained by a sphere or disk will greedily seek out the greater attraction from beyond the center (until it gets to the center). Tendencies to incorrectly factor in range as a determining factor might account for erroneous supposition to the contrary: Increased scope of particle count mounts up faster with distance than the associated particle field attenuation within such enclosures. On the other hand, experience with electricity leads to valid expectations.

I'm sorry. This is gibberish. If you are interested in knowing why this is gibberish, we can continue the discussion further. If not, then I'll leave this as a warning for anyone else that is joining the thread, and I'll spend my time in more interesting threads.

 

[Discord7]

I'm sorry. This is gibberish. If you are interested in knowing why this is gibberish, we can continue the discussion further. If not, then I'll leave this as a warning for anyone else that is joining the thread, and I'll spend my time in more interesting threads.

I am most interested in learning why you consider it gibberish. It does sorrow me that you express your reply as though you might not accept any clarification I might find to improve on my failure to communicate.

 

[twofish-quant]

I am most interested in learning why you consider it gibberish.

It is very hard for an astrophysical fluid to maintain a charge. If you have a positively charged fluid, it vary quickly attracts negative charges, and so the charge goes to zero.

Astrophysical fluids don't separate into protons and electrons, because the coloumb force is just too large.

It does sorrow me that you express your reply as though you might not accept any clarification I might find to improve on my failure to communicate.

I'm trying to figure out if there is anything here to communicate.

What are you trying to do?

If you are trying to explain to someone about current models of how black holes and accretion disks work, then you've just got it wrong.

If you have your own model for black hole jets, and there is nothing that I can realistically say to convince you that you are wrong, then I really don't see anything to communicate here.

 

[Discord7]

It is very hard for an astrophysical fluid to maintain a charge. If you have a positively charged fluid, it vary quickly attracts negative charges, and so the charge goes to zero.

Astrophysical fluids don't separate into protons and electrons, because the coloumb force is just too large.

What you say applies to microscopic neutralization of electrical charge. It represents an exothermic process that results then in a deenergizing phenomenon, hence a return to a stable condition.

To the extent that an astronomical body is an isolated parcel of matter, then a plurality of electrical particles of one polarity over the other should present a stable situation whereby the body would possesses an electrical charge distributed upon its outer surface. (There would simply be no available particles of the opposite to accomplish an overall neutralizing effect.)

Granting a fluid spherical body so possessed of a negative charge, introduction of an additional electron within it should find a repulsive force that would move it outward toward the outer surface. If an ionizing event were to separate an electron from a hydrogen atom by great enough distance, the force of attraction toward the resulting positive ion could become less than the global force of repulsion upon that electron. In such case, the electron would rise toward the surface and the proton would descend toward the global center. Those migrations would qualify as exothermic events thus representing what we might call a macroscopic discharge for the ion. As a result, a positive central core would develop and the negative shell of electrons would be augmented accordingly.

Please specify where I might be technically incorrect or where I should improve my attempt to explain macroscopic discharge as an alternative achievement of stable formations.

 

[twofish-quant]

What you say applies to microscopic neutralization of electrical charge. It represents an exothermic process that results then in a deenergizing phenomenon, hence a return to a stable condition.

You are inventing your own physics. If you are interested, I can explain why your physics doesn't work, but I don't think you are interested so I don't quite see the point of this discussion.

Please specify where I might be technically incorrect or where I should improve my attempt to explain macroscopic discharge as an alternative achievement of stable formations.

As far as we can tell, the total charge balance of the universe is zero. If you have an electrically charged body, then electromagnetism is strong enough (i.e. 10^40 time stronger than gravity) so that the moment you have a charged object in space it is going to attract things of the opposite charge to cancel out.

This isn't going to work...

To the extent that an astronomical body is an isolated parcel of matter...

It's not. But ignoring that...

Granting a fluid spherical body so possessed of a negative charge, introduction of an additional electron within it should find a repulsive force that would move it outward toward the outer surface.

Wrong direction. If there is negative charge in the surface, then the repulsive force should keep it away from the surface. But even if that worked...

If an ionizing event were to separate an electron from a hydrogen atom by great enough distance, the force of attraction toward the resulting positive ion could become less than the global force of repulsion upon that electron.

If things are random then you would end up with the positive charges being closer and the negative charges being further, and so that won't work...

In such case, the electron would rise toward the surface and the proton would descend toward the global center. Those migrations would qualify as exothermic events thus representing what we might call a macroscopic discharge for the ion.

Exothemic doesn't apply...

As a result, a positive central core would develop and the negative shell of electrons would be augmented accordingly.

And even if all of that worked, you are still no where near a jet...

There are so many things wrong with this idea, that I don't think it's viable. If you want to spend your time working on ideas that just won't work, then that's fine, but I don't see why you'd want to talk to me about this...

 

[Discord7]

Wrong direction. If there is negative charge in the surface, then the repulsive force should keep it away from the surface. But even if that worked...

That is a comment detailed enough for me to understand. I am grateful for that. If you agree that your comment states that an electron inserted into the space of a negatively charged fluid sphere will be repelled toward the center of that sphere, then we have nothing to argue about because one of us is dead wrong on that point. I do not believe that there is any way to comprehend polar jets, lightning, or SMBHs without the fundamental phenomena that I am attempting to share. If you can show me how I am wrong, then you will be liberating me from a folly that has been consuming what little time I have remaining now in my advance years. Please, if you can, give an old goat the break of a fair chance!

My presumption that an additional electron will propagate outward in such a case is due to my interpretation of the work of Michael Faraday.

http://www.magnet.fsu.edu/education/tutorials/java/faradaypail/index.html

My reasoning was that such an electron at any location except dead center or upon the outer surface of such a sphere would receive more repulsion from the greater half of the sphere. That direction would be outward would it not. A proton thrust into such a sphere, barring the dynamics of any other disturbance, would see greater attraction from across the sphere's center, and would try to reach such bounty until, at the center, it would find equivalent attraction from behind. Counter-intuitively, the greater distance to the far side, with its square law attenuation, would by the corresponding increase in electron count within any solid angle you might choose. Range doesn't make a white wall dimmer unless it factors in intervening optical obstructions.

From another point of view, if our sphere were so negatively charged simply because of how many more electrons exist there, why couldn't that last visiting electron in our premise get the same chance to join the crowd instead of sulking down in the center until some proton corners it? If we rephrased the premise to speak of the very last electron to fall into place on the surface, why wasn't it rejected too? What is the difference.

I have used the term "exothermic process" to express the certainty that if a boulder rolls down a mountain, it remain down below for an awfully long time. Where no endothermic process has invested energy into a formation, it seems natural that a structure does not court collapse. Macroscopic neutralization of electrical forces compares with the microscopic neutralization encountered with de ionization.

Since you prefer to attend other issues than this, then wouldn't it be fair enough for you to tolerate my existence here long enough to be considered by folks of a different muse without imposing denigration? Your elegant stature here coupled with perhaps premature condemnation compels me to heed your demand to explain but with no welcome for me to do so.

 

[Imax]

I don’t understand how an accretion disk can produce highly collimated beams. For a spiral galaxy of about 100,000 light years across, the beam can go about 150,000 light years about an axis of rotation.

 

[Discord7]

I don’t understand how an accretion disk can produce highly collimated beams. For a spiral galaxy of about 100,000 light years across, the beam can go about 150,000 light years about an axis of rotation.

Such a beam goes along the axis of rotation. AFAIK our galaxy doesn't currently produce the polar jets. I think that is because our disk has fattened up into a galactic bulge instead to function more like a sphere than as a disk. Theoretically, were the accretion disk or bulge without electrical charge, then it would be of matter contained in continuing orbit around the black hole.

Evidence that material is converging through such a disk toward a black hole and that electrons are propelled down to its rotational axis suggests that the disk contains a congestion of free protons. Due to positive charge of the disk, positive particles rise outward, negative particles descend. The rim of such a disk would serve as a positive hoop similar in function to the focusing anode in some CRT electron guns. Each electron centers itself to a position of equidistance from all points around the hoop. This action centers all of them somewhere along the rotational axis, and mutual repulsion sends them on their way, guided to maintain that axis all the way out.

The second manifestation of the the electrical nature of an accretion disk is the delivery of matter into a black hole. A negative domain above the disk would feed our positive disk or bulge with its scraps of positive particles from an entire galaxy. As the disk or bulge grows, it captures stellar systems and withdraws the electrons for consequential descent as mentioned. Remaining matter so victimized that is ballasted with neutrons orbit lower for a given speed. Such orbits are thus encumbered by resistance against the permanent proton population, causing descent of the heavier matter. Stars don't fall to the black holes: the bulge reaches out for them. It won't get here for a long time.

 

[twofish-quant]

I do not believe that there is any way to comprehend polar jets, lightning, or SMBHs without the fundamental phenomena that I am attempting to share.

There isn't, but there really isn't any substitute toward running the numbers.

My presumption that an additional electron will propagate outward in such a case is due to my interpretation of the work of Michael Faraday.

Note that in that situation the sphere is hollow. If you have a solid conductor then all bets are off.

My reasoning was that such an electron at any location except dead center or upon the outer surface of such a sphere would receive more repulsion from the greater half of the sphere.

And if you add together the charges, you'll find that this isn't true. It's a first year physics problem.

I have used the term "exothermic process" to express the certainty that if a boulder rolls down a mountain, it remain down below for an awfully long time. Where no endothermic process has invested energy into a formation, it seems natural that a structure does not court collapse. Macroscopic neutralization of electrical forces compares with the microscopic neutralization encountered with de ionization.

Exothermic means releases energy.

Since you prefer to attend other issues than this, then wouldn't it be fair enough for you to tolerate my existence here long enough to be considered by folks of a different muse without imposing denigration?

Wrong is wrong. If you think that you are right, you can put together some arguments arguing your point.

 

[Lost in Space]

Why can't we see all the objects that have fell or are falling into the black holes? Shouldn't they all be visilble and static on the EH due to relativistic time differences between us the observers and them? Another problem is the jets. If light can't escape from the influence of a black hole is the gravitational field at the poles much weaker to enable these jets to form? I can appreciate that a powerful magnetic field might propagate such jets but then, wouldn't it have to be far greater than the gravitational field that was pulling things in?

 

[Discord7]

Another problem is the jets. If light can't escape from the influence of a black hole is the gravitational field at the poles much weaker to enable these jets to form?

No it isn't.

Trust me, not my denigrater. High class scholars have so much on their plate that they are trained not to sweat the small stuff. So they turn their backs on electrons (very small stuff) which are so quickly wed to protons that they never get to town; or so it seems to the scholars who close their books on electricity due to a universal first-glance myopia. The way I hear it, even Einstein got faked out like that when he wondered why stuff didn't stay in orbit around black holes. (But he knew it does come down.)

We depart from general consensus that is formed not from scientific evidence but merely from the cookie-cutter impact of consensus itself upon the halls of learning. It takes a slob to understand this. (We have not been so infected.) No electrons escape from a black hole. They drop down from a positively charged domain to be found above in an accretion disk. Just as a positive sphere sends electrons to its central core, a positive disk sends them down to align upon its rotational axis. (If the disk were not spinning it would not be a disk.) Mutual repulsion of the consequential strand of electrons launches them, and by the time they ever get almost out of the disk's influence, inertia has taken over for an indefinite trip down a straight track. Remember, I can support all of this if given a chance, but it took a few years for this slowpoke to noodle it out. Better you take this on borrowed indulgence, if you would, than to believe for a minute that an electron will get boosted out of a singularity. (An event horizon is a slightly different story.)

It is the disk, not the black hole that sets up a big magnetic field. But don't bother about it because magnetism plays little or no part in production of polar jets.

 

[Misericorde]

Trust twofish-quant.