Time waits for no quasar – even though it should

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...it-should.html

riiiiight... now we have mini primordial black hole lenses popping into existance shortly after BBzero... and they somehow manage to land in between us and 900 quasars, which (if according to redshift distance) are amongst the intensely bright objects ever to exist....

[duncan]

interesting article. Makes you stop and think for a moment.
Thanks for posting.
Duncan

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...it-should.html

riiiiight... now we have mini primordial black hole lenses popping into existance shortly after BBzero... and they somehow manage to land in between us and 900 quasars, which (if according to redshift distance) are amongst the intensely bright objects ever to exist....

They're starting to clutch at straws for explanations as to why their observations don't quite mesh with what they expect from their theories. What it needs is a complete revision of their present theories, not another "answer" devised to try and take into account the observations they make. Sounds like nothing more than another addition to all the other types of "dark matter" they believe are out there.

Who knows, they maybe right, but I wouldn't bet on it.

[Robh (Rob)]

Most interesting!
The apparent lack of time dilation in distant quasars is a major problem for the Big Bang and the expanding Universe.
I have no problem with scientists proposing hypothetical solutions to problems. However, the "solutions" seem to be increasingly more fantastic and, perhaps, indicate we are theoretically off-track. We need more observations and more concrete evidence as, obviously, too many pieces are still missing from the jigsaw puzzle.
Apart from the Universe not expanding, it is going to be hard to explain the lack of time dilation.

Regards, Rob.

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

The apparent lack of time dilation in distant quasars is a major problem for the Big Bang and the expanding Universe.

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/...rect=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

We need more observations and more concrete evidence

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

I have no problem with scientists proposing hypothetical solutions to problems.

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

empirical perspective

[renormalised (Carl)]

* 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

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.

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

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.

* 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?

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]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

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/...rect=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

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/np...2ca922c9c10466

Regards

Steven

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by renormalised

They're starting to clutch at straws for explanations as to why their observations don't quite mesh with what they expect from their theories. What it needs is a complete revision of their present theories, not another "answer" devised to try and take into account the observations they make. Sounds like nothing more than another addition to all the other types of "dark matter" they believe are out there.

Who knows, they maybe right, but I wouldn't bet on it.

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 (Carl)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

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

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]

"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 (Alex)]

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?

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

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/np...2ca922c9c10466

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...

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

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.wordp...ed-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.

What else can they do?

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 (Carl)]

Originally Posted by Zaps

"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.

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]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

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.... not just back to Earth... (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... "you are wishful thinking by matching the data to the Arp/Burbridge model.... also suggesting the 'ejection' in the same swoop"





But, to me, if you think about it, that was the whole point! That is the model. The position of us/earth is not 'special'. It is the relative redshift to the ejecting galaxy. This is the only way statistics will ever make sense with a 'Bohr' style model...





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.wordp...ed-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

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 (Alex)]

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.

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/...rect=migration

regards

[Zaps]

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 (Carl)]

Originally Posted by Zaps

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.

OK Zaps, show us how it's done

[astroron (Ron)]

Originally Posted by Zaps

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.

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

[renormalised (Carl)]

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.

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 (Alex)]

Originally Posted by Zaps

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.

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

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by astroron

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

I seriously doubt that, Ron

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