Time waits for no quasar – even though it should - Page 2

Jarvamundo (Alex) · #21 12-04-2010, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by renormalised

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.

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/fr...s/figure-2.jpg

Photo:
http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/re...figure_1_b.jpg
Close up with gas:
http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/re...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 (Ron) · #22 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 · #23 12-04-2010, 07:57 PM

Quote:

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.

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 · #24 12-04-2010, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

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.

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 (Alex) · #25 13-04-2010, 08:57 AM

Quote:

There is nothing natural about it at all.

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.

Quote:

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.

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".

Quote:

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.

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 (Carl) · #26 13-04-2010, 12:28 PM

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

Quasars and Active Galactic Nuclei $99.97, and,

QSO Hosts and Their Environments $133.01

Should be very good reading.

Jarvamundo (Alex) · #27 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//...00051.000.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/...cgi/?read=2061

Another one to throw in the mix of how these objects evolve... http://www.dfm.uninsubria.it/astro/q...36/q1536_K.jpg

renormalised (Carl) · #28 13-04-2010, 12:53 PM

Quote:

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

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 (Alex) · #29 13-04-2010, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by renormalised

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!!!

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 (Carl) · #30 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 (Alex) · #31 13-04-2010, 03:06 PM

Quote:

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.

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/image...simulation.gif

very very very different processes there.

renormalised (Carl) · #32 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 (Carl) · #33 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 (Alex) · #34 13-04-2010, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by renormalised

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.

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 · #35 13-04-2010, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

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.

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.

Quote:

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".

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 (Alex) · #36 13-04-2010, 09:41 PM

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

If the Universe doesn't expand it contradicts the observation that the Universe is isotropic.

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 which highlights his misunderstandings on this topic.

Quote:

How one ultimately interprets intrinsic redshift doesn't lead to a debate on whether the Universe expands or not.

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.

Quote:

In a recent paper EdwardL.Wright(1994) has criticized both a paper of ours and the Monthly
Notices which published it (Hoyle, etal. 1994) on the original grounds that neither we nor the
journal took adequate notice of his views!

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 · #37 14-04-2010, 03:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

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

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

Quote:

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

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.

Quote:

Dr Wright's critiques have been plaged by errors... here's a critique on one of his erroneous critiques which highlights his misunderstandings on this topic.

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

Quote:

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.

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 (Alex) · #38 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.

Quote:

The Standard Model cannot account for such large structures, so in the actual cosmology it is hypothesized that such structures as the Great Wall form along and follow web-like strings of dark matter.[2] It is thought that this dark matter dictates the structure of the Universe on the grandest of scales. Dark matter gravitationally attracts baryonic matter, and it is this normal matter that astronomers see forming long, thin walls of super-galactic clusters.

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 (Rob) · #39 14-04-2010, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sjastro

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.

Regards

Steven

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 (Alex) · #40 14-04-2010, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robh

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.

here here...

...and all that structure some how 'wwwwoooomphed' into existance, ie stars form 14B years ago... 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