Register to reply

Quasar Mass-Luminosity, High Mass Turnoff Evolution and a Synchronization Puzzle

Share this thread:
betzalel
#1
Nov15-12, 05:53 PM
P: 40
Quasar Mass-Luminosity High Mass Turnoff Evolution and a Synchronization Puzzle

It is unusual that a generation of researchers has the opportunity to completely rewrite, to replace major established scientific theories.

The observation that quasars are turning on and off, at a specific mass to limit luminosity and to limit mass, with redshift, is a paradox not a puzzle. The observations cannot be physically explained by the current quasar model. There are now sets of published papers that present independent observations that cannot be explained by a hierarchical cosmological model and it is specifically stated in the paper that the observations cannot be explained by a hierarchical model. (I will over the next few months present the papers in separate threads.)

This observational analysis is supportive of Hawkins’ three published papers that assert that quasars do not exhibit time dilation. All cosmologically distant time varying objects must exhibit dilation as the universe is expanding and a relative high velocity difference between observers must in accordance with special and general relativity cause time dilation. Quasars in addition to not exhibiting time dilation with redshift and do not exhibit evolution of metallicity with redshift. Quasar spectrum has solar or super solar metallicity which is consistent with the assertion that quasars are not distant objects. There is redshift evolution in metallicity in galaxies. As quasars most commonly have a host galaxy, quasar spectrum should exhibit evolution of metallicity, if quasars are distant objects, as the gas that feeds the quasar is host galaxy gas.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0911.3155v1

The Quasar Mass-Luminosity Plane II: High Mass Turnoff Evolution and a Synchronization Puzzle
3 - MASSIVE QUASARS ARE TURNING OFF
As shown in Table 1, both the maximum luminosity and the maximum mass of the quasar locus are monotonically decreasing towards lower redshift. Figure 1 hints the same might be true of the average luminosities and masses of the quasar populations in each bin. While it has been observed that individual quasars have variable luminosity (Mathews & Sandage 1963), we know of no mechanism by which the central black hole can substantially reduce its mass. Therefore, we must interpret Figure 1 as showing us that the most massive quasars in any cosmological epoch are in the midst of disappearing.

5 - A SYNCHRONIZATION PUZZLE
In § 3, it was shown that the number density of quasars of a given MBH declines with a mass-dependent e-folding time between 0.7 and 3 Gyr for quasars with an MBH of 10^9M solar mass to 10^10M solar mass (Table 2). The SDSS catalog includes much of the Northern hemisphere and so includes quasars almost diametrically opposed in the sky. At a redshift of 2, they lie in host galaxies that had not been causally connected since inflation, while even at much lower red-shift it is difficult to believe galaxies a few Gpc apart would strongly influence each others’ development. Yet, quasars with MBH 10^10M solar masses in such galaxies turn off synchronously to within 700 Myr.
Phys.Org News Partner Space news on Phys.org
Lunar explorers will walk at higher speeds than thought
Amazon founder's firm to build new rocket engines
Space: The final frontier... open to the public
Chalnoth
#2
Nov16-12, 07:18 AM
Sci Advisor
P: 4,840
All this means is that the denser regions of the universe form into galaxies and produce quasars first, and quasars are most luminous when they are first forming.
betzalel
#3
Nov16-12, 01:54 PM
P: 40
Quote Quote by Chalnoth View Post
All this means is that the denser regions of the universe form into galaxies and produce quasars first, and quasars are most luminous when they are first forming.
The evolution of quasar luminosity, the evolution of the number of emitting quasars, and the downsizing of the quasar's super massive black hole mass with redshift is not explained by the hierarchical formation of large galaxies and is not explained by a hierarchical cosmological model. The authors specifically state that in their paper. They used the word puzzle in the title of the paper as the observations cannot be explained by the current standard quasar model. Quasars are not the only “puzzles”/paradoxes. As I noted in the first comment there are multiple observations in published papers that cannot be explained by a hierarchical cosmological model (the authors in the papers stated cannot be explained by hierarchical model, use the word puzzle, and so on.)

A related quasar unexplained observation is Hawkins three published papers which assert quasars do not exhibit time dilation. Distant objects must exhibit time dilation. That is a paradox. The current explanation is that Hawkins’ analysis must somehow be incorrect.

As noted quasar spectrum does not exhibit evolution of metallicity. Quasar spectrum has solar or super solar metallicity. Metallicity does however evolve for redshift for galaxies. Quasars are assumed to be fed with the gas from their host galaxy. There is no explanation as to why quasar metallicity does not evolve with redshift.

The alternate explanation for the assertion that quasars do not exhibit time dilation and do exhibit evolution of metallicity is that quasars are not distant objects which appears to logically explain the following set of weird quasar observations.

There are observed clusters of quasars that cannot be explained as there is no known cosmic environmental factors that can simultaneous turn on a cluster of quasars. The clusters of quasars are the largest structures in the universe. Quasars turn on and off independent of mergers. Quasars occur preferentially at the edges of clusters and in voids.

Quasar Turn on and Turn off Puzzle
Think of the quasar as a light bulb that requires a physical explanation as to why it is turning on and off and why it does not turn on again at lower redshift. (i.e. A fraction of the first formed galaxies are in the local universe and at low redshift and have the 10^10 solar mass super massive BH that is waiting to be turn on). To explain the evolution of the number of quasars by redshift we need to restrict turning the quasar on at high redshift. The maximum number of quasars occurs between redshift 2 to 2.5 at which time 10% of the galaxies have a quasar that is turned on. The puzzle is why at higher redshifts there are not more quasars turned on as there is more available host gas and mergers are according to theory more common. In the local universe only 0.1% of the galaxies have a quasar that is turned on although 15% of the galaxies show evidence of merging and it is believed almost every galaxy has a super massive BH in it. As noted in the other thread for z less than 1, observations indicates the quasar turn on is not due to mergers. The set of super bright quasars disappears at z=0.5. The set of super bright quasars are 10 times brighter than any quasar observed for z less than 0.5. As noted in the paper quoted in the first comment of this thread and below, there is a gradual reduction in quasar luminosity which does not make sense as quasars are light bulbs that can be turned on and off. New mergers should turn on the 10^10 solar mass BH and shine brightly as they did at high redshift.

Super massive BH Formation Puzzle and Mass Downsizing of super massive black hole with Redshift puzzle
The second but related problem is how to explain how the 10^10 solar mass super massive black hole mass forms. There are no super massive BH larger than 10^10 solar masses at any redshift and the average mass of the super massive BH gradually gets less with redshift, up to 0.5 z at which time the 10^10 solar mass BH disappear. (i.e. To explain the observations there needs to be a mechanism that evolves with redshift to limit the maximum size of the super massive BH hole formed.) Quasars were originally assumed to emit during galactic mergers and the super black holes were assumed to grow due to mergers. As there continue to be galactic mergers at all redshifts some of the 10^10 super massive BH should continue to emit at all redshifts and should become larger. That is not observed. The highest redshift quasar had only 700 million years from the origin of the universe to form a 10^10 super massive BH. The super massive BH formation by accretion is limited by the Eddington limit. The radiation emitted by the SMBH stops the in fall of gas. There is not sufficient time to form a 10^10 super massive BH 700 million years after the formation of the universe. The assumption is there is some mechanism at high redshifts that can form a 10^10 solar mass super massive BH holes and that mechanism suddenly disappears.

The corollary of what mechanism enables the 10^10 solar mass, SMBH to form in the early universe is how to explain why there are not 10^10 super massive BH in every large galaxy. (i.e How to limit the number of 10^10 solar mass super massive black holes formed at super high redshift.)


http://arxiv.org/pdf/0911.3155v1.pdf


As shown in Table 1, both the maximum luminosity and the maximum mass of the quasar locus are monotonically decreasing towards lower redshift. Figure 1 hints the same might be true of the average luminosities and masses of the quasar populations in each bin. While it has been observed that individual quasars have variable luminosity (Mathews & Sandage 1963), we know of no mechanism by which the central black hole can substantially reduce its mass. Therefore, we must interpret Figure 1 as showing us that the most massive quasars in any cosmological epoch are in the midst of disappearing....

...Finally, high-mass, low-luminosity (HMLLB) quasars are sparse, suggesting the possible presence of an additional boundary (HMLLB) or added complexity in the nature of quasar turnoff.

...While the details of quasar turnoff do rely upon high-mass objects, there is a similar synchronization in the sub-Eddington boundary (Paper I). This boundary restricts quasars to a luminosity below LEdd at most masses and every redshift, with the restriction stronger with increasing mass. However, for every mass there is a redshift above which there is a substantial population accreting near LEdd. This again presents a synchronization problem; for example, a substantial population of quasars with MBH 10^8 are at Eddington at z ~ 0.6, but none are at Eddington at z ~ 0.4, less than 2 Gyr later. So it is not just turnoff that is synchronized for quasars at a given MBH but rather most of their luminous accretion. Because the location of the sub-Eddington boundary declines in luminosity over time at a given mass, its sharpness is further evidence of this universal synchronization of quasar accretion.


...Each quasar lies within a host galaxy, and it is widely assumed that the dynamics of quasar accretion are controlled by the dynamics of its host, since the host galaxy appears to be the only fuel source available. Turnoff, then, would occur when the galaxy no longer can sufficiently fuel its central black hole, a condition presumably related to the evolution of the host galaxy. Further evidence for co-evolution of the quasar and the host galaxy comes from the black hole mass - stellar velocity dispersion (MBH − σ ) relation (Ferrarese & Merritt 2000; Gebhardt et al. 2000) as well as because quasars of a given mass tend to also lie in host galaxies of a common mass (Ferrarese & Merritt 2000; Gebhardt et al. 2000)....


5 A SYNCHRONIZATION PUZZLE
In § 3, it was shown that the number density of quasars of a given MBH declines with a mass-dependent e-folding time between 0.7 and 3 Gyr for quasars with an MBH of 10^9 solar masses to 10^10 solar masses (Table 2). The SDSS catalog includes much of the Northern hemisphere and so includes quasars almost diametrically opposed in the sky. At a redshift of 2, they lie in host galaxies that had not been causally connected since inflation, while even at much lower redshift it is difficult to believe galaxies a few Gpc apart would strongly influence each others’ development. Yet, quasars with MBH ~ 10^10 m⊙ (solar mass) in such galaxies turn off synchronously to within 700 Myr.

Chalnoth
#4
Nov16-12, 03:07 PM
Sci Advisor
P: 4,840
Quasar Mass-Luminosity, High Mass Turnoff Evolution and a Synchronization Puzzle

Quote Quote by betzalel View Post
The evolution of quasar luminosity, the evolution of the number of emitting quasars, and the downsizing of the quasar's super massive black hole mass with redshift is not explained by the hierarchical formation of large galaxies and is not explained by a hierarchical cosmological model. The authors specifically state that in their paper.
You seem to be claiming that this means these objects aren't actually active galactic nuclei. This sort of work is telling us about the physics of how and when a quasar turns on and off, and is the expected result in a model in which more massive galactic nuclei form first, and tend to only become active while they are young.
Chronos
#5
Nov16-12, 08:52 PM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Chronos's Avatar
P: 9,488
Your conclusions appear rather speculative compared to those of the referenced paper, or similar papers - e.g., http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0605678.
betzalel
#6
Nov16-12, 10:52 PM
P: 40
Quote Quote by Chronos View Post
Your conclusions appear rather speculative compared to those of the referenced paper, or similar papers - e.g., http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0605678.
The paper 2011 paper I quoted outlines the puzzle of redshift synchronous turn on and turn off of the quasars and the disappearance of quasars with large SMBH. The authors of the 2006 paper create a function to change the quasar luminosity and do not understand the implications of that change from the standpoint of super massive BH evolution and quasar synchronization. The chaotic mergers must synchronized as to timing and to turn the quasar on and off and the amount of accretion must evolve to alter the luminosity and the super massive BH grow. That seems to me and some specialists to be physically impossible. It is possible to create a toy model that has no basis in reality.

I do not dispute skepticism. Communication of anomalies is however serial. The problem is holistic. (i.e. There are sets of anomalies and paradoxes that appear to support a different model.)

Quasar clustering for example (Quasar clusters are the largest structure in the universe if one assumes that quasars are distant objects). What could cause a group of quasars to suddenly all turn on. The paper that notes quasars in redshift less than 1 are not turning on and off due to mergers, is another example. The observation that quasar metallicity does not evolve with redshift (quasar excited spectrum exhibits solar or super solar metallicity at all redshifts, while metallicity in galaxy spectrum evolves with redshift) and that quasars do not exhibit time dilation with redshift while super nova do exhibit time dilation with redshift is not explained and is another example.

Let's park the quasar turn on and turn off issue, the lack of quasar metallicity evolution, and the assertion that quasars do not exhibit time dilation, and look at the so called down sizing observations and the peculiar galaxy equatorial and axial ejection observations.

I will start a separate thread next week to discuss the papers concerning those issues.
betzalel
#7
Nov16-12, 11:02 PM
P: 40
Quote Quote by Chalnoth View Post
You seem to be claiming that this means these objects aren't actually active galactic nuclei. This sort of work is telling us about the physics of how and when a quasar turns on and off, and is the expected result in a model in which more massive galactic nuclei form first, and tend to only become active while they are young.
I hear what you are saying. The observations do not however support that assertion.

Let's look at the downsizing observations and the galaxy equatorial and axial ejection observations and then return to quasars.
Chalnoth
#8
Nov17-12, 06:31 AM
Sci Advisor
P: 4,840
Quote Quote by betzalel View Post
I hear what you are saying. The observations do not however support that assertion.

Let's look at the downsizing observations and the galaxy equatorial and axial ejection observations and then return to quasars.
There are no downsizing observations. Why do you think there are?


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Mass of galaxy from luminosity Advanced Physics Homework 0
Small=high mass at quantum level, but big=high mass at classical level. Why? Quantum Physics 7
Mass-Luminosity relationship Astronomy & Astrophysics 17
Why they often consider zero mass limit when considering mass evolution(renormaliztn) Quantum Physics 2
Gravity = luminosity/mass General Physics 1