# Quasars and Cosmology

by turbo
Tags: cosmology, quasars
 Share this thread:
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 4,014
Quote by Sundance
Arp has contributed great works in many fields.

Which part has been proven wrong?

It is not very scientific just saying that he has been proven wrong.

Neried quote
 Suede, this is beyond absurd. btw, The Discovery of a High Redshift X-ray Emitting QSO Very Close to the Nucleus of NGC 7319 Pasquale Galianni, E.M. Burbidge, H. Arp, V. Junkkarinen, G. Burbidge, Stefano Zibetti Astrophys.J. 620 (2005) 88-94 http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409215 A strong X-ray source only 8" from the nucleus of the Sy2 galaxy NGC 7319 in Stephan's Quintet has been discovered by Chandra. We have identified the optical counterpart and show it is a QSO with $z_e = 2.114$. It is also a ULX with $L_x = 1.5 x 10^{40} erg sec^{-1}$. From the optical spectra of the QSO and interstellar gas in the galaxy (z = .022) we show that it is very likely that the QSO and the gas are interacting.
Which part is absurd?
First of all Sundance, I'd appreciate it if you quote me correctly.

Let's follow the sequence, leaving out the [ QUOTE ] tags.

In post#80, Suede wrote (this is the entire post, minus the link in the first line):
= = = = = = = = = = Suede, post #80 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Arp's theory:

Quasars are proto-galaxies ejected from parent galaxies.

Redshift of quasars is a function of galactic aging.

Younger quasars have high redshifts, as they mature after ejection, they become lower redshift.

hmmm.... seems to fit with the data at a lot of levels no?

I'm sure we could poke holes in it, but its certainly interesting to note the problems in the data such a theory would solve.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

My post #84 followed, and quoted Suede's (#80) in full (I have left it out here):
= = = = = = = = = = Nereid, post #84 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
[Suede's post#80]

Arp's ideas on quasars can be left to enjoy their well-deserved, and well-earned, retirement, in the pages of the book Ideas In Astronomy That Didn't Pan Out.

In its simplest, highly summarised, form: quasars are AGNs, just as Seyfert 1s, blazars, type 2 quasars, etc, etc, etc are. They are a homogeneous class of astronomical object. Their observed redshifts are reliable indicators of their distance (in time and space), not least because dozens of (strongly) lensed quasars have been found.

Of the order of half the Strauss video, and accompanying powerpoint slides, that turbo-1 introduces in this thread, is taken up with presentation of (then) recent observational results that strengthen "The canonical modern picture of active galaxy structure" (to quote the title of slide 70). In addition, in the video Strauss talks about the Gunn-Peterson trough and how the signature of the end of the Dark Ages can be seen in the spectra of high-z quasars (just as predicted over 35 years ago, from standard cosmological models).

Oh, and as a side note, Arp's ideas on quasars must surely count as spectacular failures when subject to the Suede 'laboratory proof' test!
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Suede replied, in post#87, and quoted just one line of my post #84. He edited this at least once, and my reply (post#88, see below) - which quoted his #87 post - did not include the parts he added subsequently. Here is post #87, up to the phrase "btw,":
= = = = = = = = = = Suede, post #87 (part only) = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
[from Nereid's post#84: Oh, and as a side note, Arp's ideas on quasars must surely count as spectacular failures when subject to the Suede 'laboratory proof' test! ]

Plasmoid ejection from current pinches is a well known laboratory proven phenomina.

btw,

[rest of Suede's post #87 omitted]
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

My post#88 followed. It contains two parts, and quotes Suede's post#87 in full. I shall reproduce only the first part, since it is the only part germane to my reconstruction. The embedded quote is reconstructed sequentially; the relevant footnote is moved up.
= = = = = = = = = = Nereid, post #88 (part only) = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
[from Nereid's post#84: Oh, and as a side note, Arp's ideas on quasars must surely count as spectacular failures when subject to the Suede 'laboratory proof' test! ]
[from Suede's post#87: Plasmoid ejection from current pinches is a well known laboratory proven phenomina.]

In which the following have been 'proven'*:
- the creation of mass?
- atoms, nuclei, and electrons whose mass decreases with time?
- violation of conservation of momentum, energy, and angular momentum?
- violation of at least two of the laws of thermodynamics?

Not to mention that no lab has ever performed a controlled experiment on an object of mass 10^6 (or more) sols, in a volume of 1 kpc^3 (or more).

Suede, this is beyond absurd.

* these are all core aspects of Arp's idea
[rest of Nereid's post #88 omitted]
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

I think it's pretty clear that what I meant by 'beyond absurd' is that Suede's presentation of Arp's ideas in post#80 is beyond absurd when tested using Suede's own 'laboratory proof' criteria.

At no point did I say that the 2005 Galianni et al. paper was absurd. If you have somehow read that into what I wrote, then I trust that this post corrects your misunderstanding; if it does not, please do me the courtesy of saying so, and asking for further clarification.

I do not wish to have this thread derailed by a discussion of the Arp-Narlikar variable mass hypothesis, nor by a discussion of papers reporting apparent relationships between high-z objects and low-z galaxies, etc. If a PF mentor considers either discussion to be within PF's guidelines, let's have a separate thread on each.

In any case, I shall not post any further, in this thread, on papers that present non-mainstream theories or ideas, and/or which are not part of current professional mainstream scientific discussion.

Finally, it would seem that you, Sundance, may not be aware of just how enormous and compelling the published papers on quasars are, and the vast quantity of high quality observations on which the contemporary 'unified AGN model' is built (I gave a short para summary in post#84). If you'd like to explore that more, I'd be happy to help you ... why not start a new thread on it?
 P: 71 All of your points have been accounted for in the theories that support Arps work. Of course, I can't discuss them here because that will get me banned. So it seems underhanded to attack those theories when I can't post any proof in defense of them. You saying they lack laboratory proof does not make it so. I got a professional engineering organization with 365,000 members that says otherwise. So what do you think about this?
 P: 71 Sometimes we need papers to state the obvious. Evidence for Activity in the Spiral Galaxy NGC4319 Sulentic, J. W. Observational Evidence of Activity in Galaxies: Proceedings of the 121st Symposium of the International Astronomical Union, held in Byurakan, Armenia, U.S.S.R., June 3-7, 1986. http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/f...AUS..121..483S Radio and optical evidence for activity in the spiral galaxy NGC 4319 is presented. NGC 4319 appears to be one of the first spirals to exhibit double lobe radio structure outside of the nuclear regions. The optical data show that (1) the quasar M205 is connected to the nucleus of NGC 4319 and (2) that a similarly connected region on the opposite side of the nucleus is expanding towards us with V ≡ 103km s-1. It is suggested that the unusual Hα/[N II] λ6583 ratio (≤0.3) indicates that the entire central (7 kpc diameter) disk of NGC 4319 has been shock excited by this activity.
P: 391
 Quote by Suede Sometimes we need papers to state the obvious.
Indeed:
The near-ultraviolet spectrum of Markarian 205
Bahcall, John N.; Jannuzi, Buell T.; Schneider, Donald P.; Hartig, George F.; Jenkins, Edward B.
 We report measurements of the absorption and of the emission lines between 1600 and 3200 A in the spectrum of the nearby AGN Markarian 205 (z = 0.071), which lies at a projected distance of 3 kpc (H0 = 100 km/s) from the nucleus of the nearby barred spiral galaxy, NGC 4319 (z = 0.0047). The results were obtained using high-resolution (R = 1300) observations with the Faint Object Spectrograph of the HST. A total of 15 absorption lines, 13 of which are produced by Galactic gas, and four AGN emission lines are detected. Two of the absorption lines, the Mg II resonant doublet, are produced by gas in the intervening galaxy NGC 4319. This is the first detection of absorption due to intervening gas in this famous quasar-galaxy pair.
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 4,014
 Quote by Suede [snip] So what do you think about this?
My first thought was "what is the source?"

My next thought was "without knowing the source, I can't be sure, but there's a high likelihood that the source has a clearly stated policy on use and (public) reproduction, if not an actual copyright."

That was followed by "hmm, PF has a clearly stated policy on this, doesn't it?"

And so I went to check.

And it is so:
 Copyright Guidelines: Copyright infringement is illegal. Physics Forums will enforce the law. Never post an article in its entirety. When posting copyrighted material, please use small sections or link to the article. When posting copyrighted material please give credit to the author in your post.
Further, another of PF's rules states, in part (bold added):
 It is against our Posting Guidelines to discuss, in most of the PF forums, new or non-mainstream theories or ideas that have not been published in professional peer-reviewed journals or are not part of current professional mainstream scientific discussion.
So my next thought was "Suede surely knows about this rule by now, so there's a very good chance that this image is taken from such a publication. In my experience, all such publications have clear guidelines on use, including, at minimum, an acknowledgment of the source. So, it's likely that Suede has goofed in not following PF's rules, or is posting material from a source other than a peer-reviewed publication."

And that lead me to my next action: to click on the REPORT button, to report the post for violation of PF's rules.
Sci Advisor
P: 4,782
 Quote by Jonathan Scott From what I've been reading in the last few days, I've been getting the impression that the arguments often work as follows - I do hope this isn't really the case! If a quasar appears to be in the middle of a galaxy, fuzzy blob or whatever, compare the redshift of the quasar and the galaxy: 1. If the quasar's redshift is higher, it must be behind the galaxy, "proving" that it is further away and hence that its redshift is cosmological. 2. If the quasar's redshift is close to that of the galaxy, it is obviously within the galaxy, "proving" that quasar redshifts are not intrinsic. In reality, I'd hope that there would be lots of other factors taken into account, like details of spectral lines, whether the quasar appeared to be at the centre of the galaxy and so on. However, I can't help being a little suspicious.
The way that you'd actually test whether it's within or behind the galaxy would be to look for absorption spectra. If it's behind the galaxy, it will show absorption lines in its spectrum that are of the same redshift as the galaxy. If, on the other hand, it's within the galaxy, and there is dust in the galaxy between us and the quasar, then it should show absorption of the same redshift.

Typically very high-redshift quasars are so far away that their light passes through a large number of intervening gas clouds. Thus they have absorption spectra that are all over the place. Of particular interest is what is known as the Lyman-alpha forest: since most of the intervening matter is in the form of neutral hydrogen, the primary absorption is from the biggest hydrogen line: the Lyman alpha line (this is the line from the transition between the ground state and the first excited state). With these far-away quasars, the large number of intervening gas clouds at a wide range of redshifts basically kills a large portion of the spectrum of the quasar. It's basically impossible to account for the existence of the Lyman-alpha forest in Arp's model.
Sci Advisor
P: 4,782
 Quote by Suede So what do you think about this?
That so-called "luminous bridge" is an artifact of the way the data is gathered. Basically, if a telescope takes a picture of a point source, the optics of the telescope spread that image out into a blob. The size of the blob is called the "beam size" of the telescope, and it determines the resolution available.

The apparent connection between those two objects is clearly an effect of this beam. Obviously no competent astronomer had a hand in annotating that image.
 PF Gold P: 7,363 Would you like another opinion, published in a peer-reviewed journal? A couple of "competent astronomers" wrote this one. http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/f...pJ...319..687S Nay-saying and shouting down unpopular ideas are not mature behaviors, nor should they be countenanced in "scientific" circles.
P: 391
 Quote by Chalnoth That so-called "luminous bridge" is an artifact of the way the data is gathered. Basically, if a telescope takes a picture of a point source, the optics of the telescope spread that image out into a blob. The size of the blob is called the "beam size" of the telescope, and it determines the resolution available. The apparent connection between those two objects is clearly an effect of this beam. Obviously no competent astronomer had a hand in annotating that image.
Actually, the bridge is present in the Hubble images, too (see here). To some extent, you are right about the PSF issue and seeing (especially given that image was taken by an amateur astronomer) enhancing this "bridge". However, I don't think the conclusions jumped to by Arp et al. hold any ground given the paper I linked above (Bahcall et al.) and the fact that if you click on the .gif movie in the link above you can see Markarian 205's host galaxy (amongst other things like the overwhelming amount of evidence in support of redshift \propto distance). You can also see the host galaxy in the second image in the link, along with a compact companion galaxy which is not resolved in the image Suede posted, therefore adding to the "bridge" luminosity.
Sci Advisor
P: 4,782
 Quote by turbo-1 Would you like another opinion, published in a peer-reviewed journal? A couple of "competent astronomers" wrote this one. http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/f...pJ...319..687S Nay-saying and shouting down unpopular ideas are not mature behaviors, nor should they be countenanced in "scientific" circles.
This is why higher-resolution images are so nice:

[click for source]

So clearly the answer is no, they weren't. Now, Halton Arp was, at one time, a competent astronomer. At some point he fell off the deep end. This is something that appears to happen to a disturbingly large number of scientists as they get older, and I have no idea why.
Sci Advisor
P: 4,782
 Quote by matt.o Actually, the bridge is present in the Hubble images, too (see here). To some extent, you are right about the PSF issue and seeing (especially given that image was taken by an amateur astronomer) enhancing this "bridge". However, I don't think the conclusions jumped to by Arp et al. hold any ground given the paper I linked above (Bahcall et al.) and the fact that if you click on the .gif movie in the link above you can see Markarian 205's host galaxy (amongst other things like the overwhelming amount of evidence in support of redshift \propto distance). You can also see the host galaxy in the second image in the link, along with a compact companion galaxy which is not resolved in the image Suede posted, therefore adding to the "bridge" luminosity.
Heh. Posted just as you were posting. Well, clearly even the original image shows that there is something there. But the point is that it isn't a bridge: it only appears to be because of the beam of the telescope. As can be much more clearly seen in the Hubble image, it's more of a diffuse structure, as we see elsewhere around the galaxy.
 PF Gold P: 7,363 What is this mysterious "beam" of a telescope that allows you to selectively ignore artifacts that you do not wish to see? As an optician, I am unfamiliar with this "oh-so-cooperative" feature that you invoke so frequently.
Admin
P: 21,808
 Quote by Suede All of your points have been accounted for in the theories that support Arps work. . . . . You saying they lack laboratory proof does not make it so. I got a professional engineering organization with 365,000 members that says otherwise.
I would say that this is misrepresenting a professional engineering organization.

 So what do you think about this?
So what?

====================================================================

Other references state that NGC4319 is 80 million ly from earth while Mrk 205 is roughly 1 billion ly away. Higher resolution images apparently show no bridge, which could be an optical effects. Apparently there is another galaxy, nearby that may have interacted with NGC4319.
 NGC 4319 is 80 million light-years from Earth. Markarian 205 (Mrk 205) is more than 14 times farther away, residing 1 billion light-years from Earth. The apparent close alignment of Mrk 205 and NGC 4319 is simply a matter of chance. Astronomers used two methods to determine the distances to these objects. First, they measured how their light has been stretched in space due to the universe's expansion. Then they measured how much the ultraviolet light from Mrk 205 dimmed as it passed through the interstellar gas of NGC 4319.
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/arc...02/23/image/a/

 Markarian 205 was reported by Weedman as a Seyfert nucleus appearing within the arms of the lower-redshift spiral galaxy NGC 4319. Most of the argument here has centered on whether or not there is a visible connection between the two. Pictures were published with and without a bridge (Arp once said that he had pictures that showed no bridge as well, and didn't want to be thought lacking in observational skill). There was some early discussion of photographic proximity effects creating false bridges between bright objects, but it doesn't go away with linear detectors. Various reports were given by Arp 1971 (ApLett 9,1), Lynds and Millikan 1972 (ApJLett 176, L5), Stockton et al 1979 (ApJ 231, 673), and Sulentic 1983 (ApJLett 265, L49). Cecil and Stockton (1985 ApJ 288, 201) used CCD data from Mauna Kea to show that there is definitely some kind of luminous object between Mkn 205 and NGC 4319, stating that "Arp was correct in his insistence that his broad-band plates showed luminous intervening material. The opposite conclusions of his critics were - depending on their degree of qualification - either wrong, misleading, or irrelevant." They go on to say that Mkn 205 itself has a companion 3.3 arcseconds away, and that a tidal feature attributable to this interaction probably accounts for much of the luminous connection. More problematic is the evidence that this connection winds its way all the way into the nucleus of NGC 4319 (Sulentic 1983). Furthermore, it belongs to the very select set of galaxies with peculiar, nonstellar ionization of gas throughout the disk (Sulentic and Arp 1987 ApJ 319, 693). I must point out that NGC 4319 has a bright elliptical companion which is usually outside the area of published pictures and might be responsible for some of its morphological woes. This system is well shown (though nothing much new shows up relevant to the redshift issue) in the Hubble Heritage image, shown below as is and with a brightness stretch to bring out the intervening material. . . . .
http://www.astr.ua.edu/keel/galaxies/arp.html

 What's the issue about the redshifts? NGC 4319 has a redshift (the fractional amount that observed wavelengths of spectral lines in a galaxy are shifted relative to the wavelengths at rest, (lobs - l rest) / lrest ) of 0.00468, while Mrk 205 has a redshift of 0.071. If redshifts imply distance, as almost all astronomers believe, then Mrk 205 is almost 15 times farther away than NGC 4319. Mrk 205 is projected in the sky within the spiral arms of NGC 4319. In 1971 Halton Arp, who compiled an important catalog of peculiar galaxies called the Arp Catalog, wondered if this is not just a chance superposition, but rather evidence that the quasar-like galaxy really lies within NGC 4319. He found support for this view in the filamentary structure between the two objects. If this were so, then redshifts would not be distance indicators in all cases. Needless to say it was a radical suggestion that, if true, would have upset some of the fundamental tenets of cosmology. It stirred up a lot of controversy about the meaning of redshifts and whether they were "cosmological," that is, due to the universal expansion, in all cases. Arp found numerous other examples of quasars near galaxies, although few as dramatic as this one. In the view of most astronomers, the juxtapositions are just due to chance. The filamentary connection became less convincing as better images became available. John Bahcall and collaborators made a noteworthy contribution when they showed that NGC 4319 absorbs some of the light from Mrk 205, just as expected if NGC 4319 is projected in front of Mrk 205 (Astrophysical Journal 1992). In time, many quasars were found to lie in galaxies with exactly the same redshift, providing powerful evidence that quasars are an event that occurs in the nucleus of galaxies. Today the redshift controversy has almost faded from view. Only a few astronomers still think there is reasonable evidence for noncosmological redshifts; a recent summary making their case was published by Geoffrey Burbidge (Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific 2001). The vast majority of astronomers think that the evidence is overwhelming that redshifts show distances to objects in the expanding universe.
http://heritage.stsci.edu/2002/23/supplemental.html

NGC 4319 and MK 205 - Galaxies in Draco
An Example of the possible Quasar Red Shift Controversy.
http://www.kopernik.org/images/archive/n4319.htm
 . . . . Arp contends that there is a light bridge connecting these two galaxies, so they must be at the same distance. Recent Hubble Space Telescope spectra show an absorption feature in the spectra of MK 205 that is in fact at the same red shift as NGC 4319. This would seem to show that MK 205 is in deed a much more distant object with some of it's light being absorbed as it passes through NGC 4319. This controversy is sure to be the subject or research in the future.
P: 71
 Quote by Chalnoth This is why higher-resolution images are so nice: [click for source] So clearly the answer is no, they weren't. Now, Halton Arp was, at one time, a competent astronomer. At some point he fell off the deep end. This is something that appears to happen to a disturbingly large number of scientists as they get older, and I have no idea why.

Actually, they are.

reprocessed images of the HST photo show a clear bridge.

 Mentor P: 8,305 Please ensure that this thread stays on topic. Further discussion of Arp's theories here will result in a prompt locking.
Sci Advisor
P: 4,782
 Quote by turbo-1 What is this mysterious "beam" of a telescope that allows you to selectively ignore artifacts that you do not wish to see? As an optician, I am unfamiliar with this "oh-so-cooperative" feature that you invoke so frequently.
Did you not notice how the "filament" almost entirely disappeared once we had higher resolution images available? That's how we can be certain it was (mostly) just an image artifact.

Edit: Sorry, the above was not posted when I clicked "reply". I will refrain from further discussion of this.
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 4,014
(bold added)
Quote by Nereid
 Quote by Suede Arp's theory: Quasars are proto-galaxies ejected from parent galaxies. Redshift of quasars is a function of galactic aging. Younger quasars have high redshifts, as they mature after ejection, they become lower redshift. hmmm.... seems to fit with the data at a lot of levels no? I'm sure we could poke holes in it, but its certainly interesting to note the problems in the data such a theory would solve.
Arp's ideas on quasars can be left to enjoy their well-deserved, and well-earned, retirement, in the pages of the book Ideas In Astronomy That Didn't Pan Out.

In its simplest, highly summarised, form: quasars are AGNs, just as Seyfert 1s, blazars, type 2 quasars, etc, etc, etc are. They are a homogeneous class of astronomical object. Their observed redshifts are reliable indicators of their distance (in time and space), not least because dozens of (strongly) lensed quasars have been found.

Of the order of half the Strauss video, and accompanying powerpoint slides, that turbo-1 introduces in this thread, is taken up with presentation of (then) recent observational results that strengthen "The canonical modern picture of active galaxy structure" (to quote the title of slide 70). In addition, in the video Strauss talks about the Gunn-Peterson trough and how the signature of the end of the Dark Ages can be seen in the spectra of high-z quasars (just as predicted over 35 years ago, from standard cosmological models).

Oh, and as a side note, Arp's ideas on quasars must surely count as spectacular failures when subject to the Suede 'laboratory proof' test!
 Quote by Nereid (extract from post#91) I do not wish to have this thread derailed by a discussion of the Arp-Narlikar variable mass hypothesis, nor by a discussion of papers reporting apparent relationships between high-z objects and low-z galaxies, etc. If a PF mentor considers either discussion to be within PF's guidelines, let's have a separate thread on each. In any case, I shall not post any further, in this thread, on papers that present non-mainstream theories or ideas, and/or which are not part of current professional mainstream scientific discussion. Finally, it would seem that you, Sundance, may not be aware of just how enormous and compelling the published papers on quasars are, and the vast quantity of high quality observations on which the contemporary 'unified AGN model' is built (I gave a short para summary in post#84). If you'd like to explore that more, I'd be happy to help you ... why not start a new thread on it?
Looks like the thread's now well and truly hijacked, eh?

Re NGC 4319 and Markarian 205: turbo-1, is there enough data, in the source (FITS) files, of the images presented or referenced in this thread so far for you to be able to do an analysis, to show consistency between them (and where they seem to be inconsistent)?

As I count, there are two reproduced in the 1987 Arp & Sulentic ApJ paper, two in the 1987 Sulentic IAU document, several from the HST (and an unknown number from the unknown source).

Are there any other readers who have expertise in (digital, astronomical) image analysis?
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 4,014
 Quote by cristo Please ensure that this thread stays on topic. Further discussion of Arp's theories here will result in a prompt locking.
Oops; I was writing my post as you posted yours cristo. Apologies.

 Related Discussions Astronomy & Astrophysics 27 Special & General Relativity 3 Astronomy & Astrophysics 9 Astronomy & Astrophysics 14 Astronomy & Astrophysics 4