Time waits for no quasar – even though it should [Archive]

Jarvamundo

11-04-2010, 02:57 PM

It's not just the only pain quasars present to BBT

* Quasar redshifts are quantized into descrete bands (46,400 data set)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu//abs/2006ApJ...648..140B
Sorry, but if the universe is expanding you are not going to get distinct banding of redshift in every direction

* Quasars are observed to be distributed along minor axes of active Seyfert's
http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/500/2/596/fulltext?ejredirect=migration
Sorry the chances of these fluke alignments are statistically ridiculous

* Quasars are now being linked to ejection activity
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609514
Sorry, now you have high redshift objects and interconnecting gases interacting with low redshift objects. Markarian 205 anyone?

Quasars fit no where near the line of fit on a hubble diagram, granted hubble didn't know of them when he proposed it... but his assistant went on to observe these objects, in depth.... Halton Arp

One could begin to ask... how much more? Who needs it?

neither, as long as they are honest about how many they are dangerously invoking into their theories.

empirical perspective

renormalised

11-04-2010, 04:39 PM

You would expect not, however, the redshifts of quasars have been observed to be quantised into discreet bands, so you have to come up with a theory or theories as to why this is so. It's almost like the quasars are following some huge version of the Bohr Model, except instead of electron orbitals in an atom, it appears to be quasar distances with respect to redshifts. It's onion skinning writ large. The only way you could account for this that makes sense is if the quasars formed in groups....pulses of quasar formation at specific times in the past.

True...if it occurred in one or two examples. But if the alignments occurred in a large number of cases, then you would have to explain why. If quasars were evenly distributed across the cosmos, in all directions, then you might be able to explain the alignments as chance. However, whilst quasars can be found in all directions, their distribution is not homogeneous across the sky.

Yep...good old Markarian 205. Goes back to the same old problem. Is there a connection and are the redshifts the product of something other than cosmological expansion.

sjastro

11-04-2010, 07:08 PM

The most obvious explanation is that if quantizied Quasar redshifts exist without factoring in a Doppler (ejection) component, is that Quasar formation must have formed during specific periods in the Universes history.

Also if Quasars are ejected from Seyfert galaxies and the Doppler component is subtracted to reveal periodicity, why don't Seyfert galaxies exhibit the same effect?

But then people much more qualified than myself have asked the same questions and have concluded that redshift periodicity and quasers being ejected from galaxies is baloney.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2005ApJ...633...4 1T&db_key=AST&data_type=HTML&format=&high=42ca922c9c10466

Regards

Steven

sjastro

11-04-2010, 07:16 PM

An old but logical idea is that Quasar redshift maybe gravitational instead of cosmological in which case they can be much closer.

This has never found favour amongst cosmologists.

Regards

Steven

renormalised

11-04-2010, 07:43 PM

Yes, it's been around for at least 40 or more years, but as you have mentioned it has never found favour with cosmologists.

Zaps

11-04-2010, 11:31 PM

"Theory" doesn't mean what some of you appear to believe it does.

Also, I have to take issue with claims that scientists and researchers are "clutching at straws". They are using current knowledge in an attempt to explain an observed state. They know as well as anybody that they may be wrong, but what else can they do? Sit back and say "We give up"? Explore every possible avenue and eventually you'll find the one which leads you out of the woods.

Jarvamundo

12-04-2010, 11:11 AM

This has been well covered in the Narlikar model... i'll mention below, well worth a read.

hang on there... "people more qualified than me said"... i'm not happy with that... invoking hierarchy?... lets keep going on logic, we are smart lads here.

The above 2005 paper was criticised for selection effects, along the lines of... you need to relate the quantized redshift steps according to the ejecting seyfert.... (relative). Note: this is called the Arp/Burbidge "quasar ejection scenario"
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0603169

Then, the above 2006 paper was also criticised for selection effects... along the lines of... selection effects and filters relating to including the ejecting galaxy.

But, to me, if you think about it, that was the whole point! That is the model. It is the relative redshift to the ejecting galaxy that is absolutely critical, and the selection effects thereof. This is the only way statistics will ever make sense with a 'Bohr' style model...

It would be fair to say this is still be rigorously re-analyzed...

This does not explain the observed quantization, in all directions. Unless of course we are some how in the middle of the 'pulses' of formation, as if we are the stone tossed into the pond... Ptolemy would be proud.

The quantizations 'unusually' group into discrete steps at z = 0.061, 0.3, 0.6, 0.96, 1.41, 1.96, etc... such that (1+z2) = 1.23(1+z1)

Carl's Bohr style model comments obviously ring here... and one of India's most celebrated astrophysicists Jayant Narlikar (he is a national hero) has developed an intrinsic redshift model along the lines of this: http://www.springerlink.com/content/t1051925605842n8/

This model also requires ejection activity, interconnecting gases, quantisation along the bohr lines of thought, ejection along minor axes most likely around 'active' sefert style galaxies.

Further trouble, for expanding space, is the observations (photo graphs) of quasars 'infront' of active galaxies:
http://peregrinacultural.files.wordpress.c om/2009/04/quasarlabeled-ngc7319.jpg
closeup
http://bourabai.narod.ru/arp/img/NGC7319quasar2.jpg

Ofcourse, if they are meant to be located at their redshift=velocity distance, it is a ridiculously flukey chance that a giant active galaxy is going to have a pin-hole to let the quasar shine through a galaxy of dust, stars, matter, gas, plasma, even through in some of those lenses if you want.

cmon... I don't think they are using current knowledge, i think they are trying to add epicycles to a theory on life support.

How about being scientists and scientifically falsifying something.
Also take a good look at alternatives.

(bear in mind we are mainly commenting on a popular science magazine here, and the editors there of. Many scientists, including India's national hero, have been working on these better fitting models for decades.... collecting press, awards, honors along the way)

So the call might just be... hey.. lets give the other guys a 1/4 page in the mag... ?

Regards

renormalised

12-04-2010, 12:21 PM

Scientist clutch at straws quite a lot, especially when they have pet theories they want to hold onto and are trying to fit into their paradigms new evidence which is going against the grain, or appears to be doing so. They try to fit square pegs into round holes but quite often don't want to admit that they may actually need square holes to do the job. That's why they need to revise or replace their theories instead of fighting the evidence. It's not about sitting back and giving up, it's about being humble and gracious enough to admitting that you don't know and need to change your ideas, instead of arrogantly and pig headedly holding onto some outdated, cherished set of notions. Even if those notions explain everything else, they may still be incorrect.

sjastro

12-04-2010, 04:51 PM

If the SDDS survey indicates that linear redshifts are incorrect then why does galaxy data not exhibit the same quantizied redshifts?
The answer is simple. The data size is far greater than for quasers.
The gaps in the quaser survey can represent a lack of data rather than any physical significance.

The link that I pointed out was done on a different QSO survey involving a smaller number of quasers for a smaller Z range but the magnitude limit of detection is different to the SDSS survey. As a result there was redshift data that was otherwise seen as gaps in the corresponding Z range of the SDSS survey.

The other issue is that intrinsic redshift is not the same as cosmological redshift. It's only with cosmological redshift, where the redshift vs distance relationship is defined through Hubbles law.

The whole point of these quaser ejection theories is that the measured redshift of the quaser is not cosmological hence no inference can be made of it's distance.

The quaser involved with NGC7319 is a case in point.

Regards

Steven

Jarvamundo

12-04-2010, 05:12 PM

Or as per ejection model and Narlikar's model, quasars represent newly created matter, that step down in quantized redshift levels.

As the quasar is ejected, matter ages and steps down in redshift towards -->BLac objects --> towards the parent galaxy, an evolution so to speak. (along the bohr style suggestion)

This would explain why quasars (fresh matter) exhibit more distinct quantization, and galaxies (older objects) would tend to average out, as you have mentioned.

Consider the time spent in these steps: (aging from 1 --> 5)
1)New quasar (x units of time spent in this phase) <new matter just ejected along minor axes of seyfert
2)Medium quasar (x + y units '')
3)Old quasar (x+ y +z units '')
4)Blac (x + y + z + a units '')
5)Galaxies (x + y + z + a + b units) <old matter... close to base line level (along the bohr line of thinking)

You would naturally expect to see less quantization in a sky survey of objects in step 5.

A very different way of looking at galaxy evolution.

re NGC7319, hubble's law needs to stick it's head in the sand for this one. http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/620/1/88?ejredirect=migration

regards

Zaps

12-04-2010, 05:28 PM

You guys need to learn the talk before you try to talk it. Don't even think about trying to walk the walk before you even know how to talk the talk! It just makes you look silly. ;)

renormalised

12-04-2010, 06:24 PM

OK Zaps, show us how it's done :)

astroron

12-04-2010, 06:32 PM

You never know, we might just have Stephen Hawking lurking on iceinspace:P

renormalised

12-04-2010, 06:33 PM

Very good point. The only way to really resolve the question would be to have similar sized surveys of both quasars and galaxies done, to similar ranges for Z, similar detection limits and in all directions.

Jarvamundo

12-04-2010, 06:35 PM

yo Zap, gunna show us how you think the think before winking that wink ;)

renormalised

12-04-2010, 06:38 PM

I seriously doubt that, Ron :)

But, you never know....<listening for a synthesised voice>:):P

Jarvamundo

12-04-2010, 06:52 PM

Just bear in mind with intrinsic redshift Z means a different thing... Selection effects are also of particular importance. The relationship of these objects to their parents objects are key with these statistics, as SJ mentioned the differences between intrinsic Vs cosmological redshift.

This image might help with that picture: http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/from_high_redshift_galaxies_to_the_ blue_pacific/illustrations/figure-2.jpg

Photo:
http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/research_with_Fred/illustrations/figure_1_b.jpg
Close up with gas:
http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/research_with_Fred/illustrations/figure_1_a.jpg

This NZ bloke kind of explains the differences of the models well, along with the hubble relationship issue: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yr_CLZvXTIo

Intrinsic models also have to change nothing with regard to this new time dilation problem. It is in fact an expected feature.

astroron

12-04-2010, 07:13 PM

Go To Radio National ON ABC Radio Now they will be discussing this very matter Stephen Hawking is included in the program.

sjastro

12-04-2010, 07:57 PM

There is nothing natural about it at all.
First of all the position of the spectral lines represent quantization of the energy levels.
The displacement of the spectral lines (ie redshift) does not.
Whether redshift occurs through an external field (ie Lamb shift), the doppler effect, cosmological or gravitational effects the spectral lines are displaced by any given amount subject to the magnitude of the effect and is not quantized.
So as I previously stated the apparent gaps in the intrinsic redshift data is due to lack of data.

Now on the subject of quasars. Given that the empirical data indicates that quasars are hyperactive galaxies with black holes at their centres, I'd like to know how a black hole is converted to stellar matter(??) if quasars evolve into "normal" galaxies.

Regards

Steven

sjastro

12-04-2010, 08:12 PM

Intrinsic redshift is not a measurement of spacetime expansion.
Yet you use the so called quantization of intrinsic redshift as evidence that the Universe is not expanding.

Regards

Steven

Jarvamundo

13-04-2010, 08:57 AM

Comments (x+y+z+a+b) etc were of the time spent in the different modes. As far as energy levels etc, Narlikar proposes variable mass. So yeah not so much an exact bohr model, those comments were just "along those lines of thought" of a quantization process. I may have confused there, with these associations...

I'd be interested in your views on the model when/if you have time absorb.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/t1051925605842n8/ hmm i've got the full paper link somewhere i'll try hunt down.

Thats the dilemma with selection techniques, the point is... redshift might not only be a measure of an objects velocity/distance, as BBT employs.

If quasars objects, with high redshifts are sitting in front of low redshift galaxies, then we cannot rely on soley on redshift = velocity_distance for our models.

There might be a mix, there might not be any expansion at all. There seems to be an indication that high redshift objects that are actually closer to us, now backed up by this time dilation observation.

The quantization of redshifts and the ejection model, to me, seem tick the boxes for alot of these new observations, just worth a look. My point here is that redshift needs to be thought of differently when applying selection effects and techniques to data. It may not mean distance, so you can't say something like "ok lets look at Z = 1 --> 2 data... because you'd exclude interacting objects in the intrinsic model".

woo there... empirical black holes... easy now...

This thread discusses empirical data at odds with current model of quasars, lets not sweep it under the rug, or just pin it as a minor detail to be sorted out with a gravity lens later. To an impartial scientist, this is well on the way to a falsification of at least part of the model.

As for "if quasars evolve into "normal" galaxies".... yep i'm right with you there... i'd like see if, Arp's model and it's detailed predictions on this process regularly match further observations.

Regards,

renormalised

13-04-2010, 12:28 PM

Speaking of quasars, I've just found two good books on the matter...

Quasars and Active Galactic Nuclei (http://www.fishpond.com.au/Books/Science/Astronomy_Space/9780521479899/?cf=3&rid=837479859&i=1&keywords=Quasars+and+Active+Galacti c+Nuclei) $99.97, and,

QSO Hosts and Their Environments (http://www.bookdepository.com/book/9780306466625/QSO-Hosts-and-Their-Environments) $133.01

Should be very good reading.

Jarvamundo

13-04-2010, 12:43 PM

Interesting stuff.... The author of one of those is the mentioned Narlikar.... Narlikar is famous for solving the field equations in 1977 using variable mass. This is described here in is co-paper with Arp. http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1993ApJ...405...51N/0000051.000.html

From Arp:
"1977 when Jayant Narlikar solved the field equations for particle masses as a function of time, i.e. m = m(t). Friedmann in 1922 had made the approximation m = constant in the differential equations before he solved them. His expanding space-time solutions were then not general. Of course, after the more general solution the approximation m = constant can be made locally to obtain all the usual tests of relativity. But in the realm of the galaxies, the non physical invention of curved space was needed to accomodate the supposed observational data that the universe was expanding."

SJ (thats that full paper link...)

and before the 'crackpot' rants start, lets just bear in mind the author of Carls suggested books is Narlikar, and the above paper was published in the Astrophysical Journal...

I also recently found this...

Turns out this quasar is actually a binary pair of quasars...
http://www.ledas.ac.uk/cgi-bin/atel/index.cgi/?read=2061

Another one to throw in the mix of how these objects evolve... http://www.dfm.uninsubria.it/astro/qso_host/q1536/q1536_K.jpg

renormalised

13-04-2010, 12:53 PM

Sounds like the nuclei of two merging galaxies. But what a turn up if it actually turned out to be a binary black hole system in the nucleus of one galaxy!!! Two supermassive holes in the one nucleus doing the Einstein Tango...that would be one messed up system!!!

Jarvamundo

13-04-2010, 02:07 PM

Reminds me of this pair of quasars, imaged recently
http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2010/sdss/sdss_420.jpg

Question is...

a) do we evolve from 2 quasars close together (binary pair as mentioned prior post) --> to this spiral looking pair (link above)...

b) or... do we go from two quasars far apart approaching each other to form that spiral looking pair...

fascinating objects

renormalised

13-04-2010, 02:35 PM

What I would like to know, here, is what the motions are within those spiral streamers and their composition/components are. Whether they're mainly stars, or gas, or a combination of both....and in what direction they're flowing w.r.t. the central quasars. If it's a pair of radio loud quasars, then the underlying galaxies are ellipticals...radio loud quasars are all elliptical galaxies. That might point to the streamers as being mostly stars ejected from the two systems. If they're radio quite and most probably spirals, then we could have ejected material or material falling into the quasars/galaxies (or both). Right now, you'd only be guessing at what was going on...a lot more would have to be done with this and other quasar pairs to determine the mechanics of these systems.

Jarvamundo

13-04-2010, 03:06 PM

This would be predictions of models yeah? What are those predictions?

These are the two i know of:
Smithsonian/Chandra? Gravity: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tmsK5kAyNc (released along with their paper on the event)
NASA JPL Plasma: http://www.plasma-universe.com/images/1/16/Peratt-galaxy-simulation.gif

very very very different processes there.

renormalised

13-04-2010, 03:38 PM

Well, you could go with either or both of those models....test them both, I don't see why not. Or, you could go with something completely different, in which case you'd have to hypothesise what was going on and test that idea you came up with. Develop a model from that. I think to do it properly, you're going to have quite a few examples of interacting quasar pairs in your study, so I'd go through the SDSS and 3df surveys and find as many as I could.

renormalised

13-04-2010, 03:45 PM

Just had a look at the gravity model of the mergers for this particular quasar pair and it looks very convincing. The modeling seems to produce all the observed phenomena, but I'd still like more examples to test.

Jarvamundo

13-04-2010, 04:00 PM

The important part of this are the probabilities of observations, which could also be calculated to see which fits the best... ie... number of quasars, how often they would be expected to interact in this way...

to me... i'm feeling that if we find reasonable amount of these quasar style spirals, the gravity model has a very very flukey chance of it regularly happening.... i'd consider it on the way to falsified.... (the scientists need to calculate what is 'reasonable')

The plasma model, is a stable evolutionary model, so with it would come a different expectation of occurences... you'd expect to see more of this interaction... not just flukey fly by's.... (there is alot of space out there)

the statical probabilities, predictions of models and empirical data should decide this.... i'd be really interested if any of these statistical predictions are being made.

sjastro

13-04-2010, 07:32 PM

This is based on the Quasi Steady State theory.
Mathematically it borrows ideas that are similiar to BB cosmology such as a comoving or an expanding reference system.

Like every version of the Steady State theory however it is refuted by observation.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/stdystat.htm

Not to mention that there is absolutely no evidence that particle (rest) mass which is a physical constant changes with time.

The issue is your comment that the Universe is not expanding. All the models that you have presented are based on an expanding Universe.
If the Universe doesn't expand it contradicts the observation that the Universe is isotropic.
How one ultimately interprets intrinsic redshift doesn't lead to a debate on whether the Universe expands or not.

Regards

Steven

Jarvamundo

13-04-2010, 09:41 PM

cept quasars, we're arp points that this applies.

hmm not with ya there... Large scale structures have been discovered.... where it gets better, is it takes ALOT longer than the time available with BBT to form these structures.... and we haven't even mapped them all yet ;)

Dr Wright's critiques have been plaged by errors... here's a critique on one of his erroneous critiques (http://bigbangneverhappened.org/wrightreply.html) which highlights his misunderstandings on this topic.

Redshift = velocity/distance is the dominant method we use for BBT.

If intrinsic redshift does indeed exist, then we can no longer rely solely on this for our models... the quasar aint there, its here... It would also solve the surface brightness dilemma.

Thanks for the rebuttal doc from BBT's Hero Wright on Narlikar, will absorb... Narlikar has a response to earlier Wright here...
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9412045

They seem to be battling with selection effects of these sky surveys... Wright wants to include x data, Narlikar says it shouldn't be included.

Just need to be balanced here.... again selection effects are critical, Wright is wanting to include data that Narlikar was aware of but says does not apply for completness reasons.

I'd like to find an updated version of this, but i don't know if wright needs to actually send a letter, instead of publishing on his personal website?

(i'm not jumping up and down saying 'this disproves it'... just wanted to pass on both sides of the story here SJ ;) ) as DR Wright picks alot of loud fights with good scientists.... he even has a stab at Burbridge after his recent death... classy

Regards,

sjastro

14-04-2010, 03:12 AM

I was referring to Narlikar's ideas which is not quaser specific.

Isotropy is based on the entire visible Universe. The structures you refer to represent distances that are a small percentage of the size of the visible Universe. The smaller the distance the less the Universe appears to be isotropic.

You can't have it both ways. By slipping plasma cosmology into the discussion contradicts Narlikar. Narlikar uses a conformal gravity theory.

The cosmological redshift only applies in BBT where gravity is not dominant. For example in galaxy clusters there is a Doppler component (even in the transverse case) superimposed on the cosmological redshift.
A Doppler component can produce what appears to be discrepancies in the redshift data.

Regards

Steven

Jarvamundo

14-04-2010, 09:41 AM

Yes the CfA2 great wall: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CfA2_Great_Wall
and Sloan great wall: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sloan_Great_Wall

Are within a billion light years of here. Of course sky surveys are still taking place, and no doubt more will be discovered as the technology is deployed.

The point is... how long it takes to form these structures with gravity... The BBT explanation is a combination of hypothesized strings, dark matter, BB bubbles.

Plasma cosmology was not introduced per se', it was just highlighting how far off BBT's hero "Dr Wright" has been with his sprays in the past.

Plasma cosmology does however predict the above formations... but thats a story for another day. Yes Narlikar does not sign up to plasma cosmology in full... the point is... we are not stuck with BBT by default.

Narlikar's response also highlights where both Narlikar and the Journal that published him did not take notice of Wrights thoughts.

I'll want to see a balanced critique of Wright before taking his words onboard. Whilst being a distinguished scientist, he's made some fairly fundamental errors in his critiques before (above), and is of course on the payroll of BBT's excalibur, the cosmic microwave background radiation projects. That alone is still hotly contested, and not showing up what was expected.

I understand cosmological redshift only applies in BBT where gravity is not dominant. The reader should also be aware of the many other mechanisms for redshift, also if redshift is clearly at odds the way BBT predicted (this thread), we may have (more) evidence for non cosmological redshift.

Is it gravity, is it some other mechanism, intrinsic. It will be interesting to explore.

Robh

14-04-2010, 11:31 AM

The edge of the observable Universe is currently 46.5 billion light years away (or edge diameter 93 billion light years ). The Sloan Great Wall is measured as 1.37 billion light years in length.
This is roughly 1.5% of the edge diameter. I would consider this as a fairly significant percentage.

Regards, Rob.

Jarvamundo

14-04-2010, 12:44 PM

here here...

...and all that structure some how 'wwwwoooomphed' into existance, ie stars form 14B years ago (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci/tech/2381935.stm)... they take billions of years to organise into a galaxy... how many more to line emselves up into a 1.3B LY chain?

"Wright claims that large scale structures in the universe can be created in the time since the Big Bang given the existence of dark (non-baryonic) matter in the right amounts. There are two errors here. Even calculations by advocates of the Big Bang show that the structures we observe would take about 5 times as long as the Hubble time(the hypothetical time since the Big Bang) to form, even with dark matter. And, second, there is no evidence that dark matter exists."

1.5% is massive... MASSIVE!

These are only the structures we confidently identify now..... more large scale filamentary structures to come? i'd put my house on it... these are only what current sky surveys / technology are picking up... as Lerner puts it...
"Still larger structures exist, but are few in number for the simple reason that they are comparable in size with the scope of the surveys themselves."

makes sense... we may be starting to image only one end, or part of larger structures...

Strings, Dark Matter, Dark Energy etc are all born out these very dilemmas... and conforming with standard BBT timeframes... "whats going to make a filament that long so quickly? urrr a primordial bubble or hypothetical string?"

cmon

sjastro

14-04-2010, 01:36 PM

It has nothing to do with relative size of the object to the Universe.
More important is the age of the object or it's distance to the observer.

As we look further out towards our event horizon the Universe becomes more and more isotropic as galaxies spread out due to the Hubble flow.

Since the Universe is not expanding into existing space and there is no centre, an observer at any point in the Universe will see the Universe as isotropic for the same reasons.

Regards

Steven

Jarvamundo

14-04-2010, 02:06 PM

circles?

age?
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/hubble-telescope-finds-old-galaxies/story-e6frg6so-1225816739412

One would be begin to ask... how long does it take coalescing gas to form a star... then get a bunch of mates to make a galaxy... in BB+700M

theres that word again... surprise

Robh

14-04-2010, 02:58 PM

Homogeneity and isotropism are ideal theoretical assumptions. As we can't obtain observational evidence beyond the event horizon then we have to rely on evidence within it. The Universe is evolving and what we see locally at this time is not necessarily going to match what we see further away as we head back in time to the point of the Big Bang. So, scientists must allow for this by explaining evolutionary changes in star or galaxy formation in line with current assumptions. I would think, conceptually, that the Cosmological Principal is an ideal and appealing assumption and may be supported by evidence (e.g. distribution of galaxies, CMBR) but, in the end, it's still an assumption.

Regards, Rob.