Quasars and Cosmology

Nereid

Hi JS,

I don't know how you formed this impression!

Perhaps you could explain how, in some detail?

FWIW, your description bears only a coincidental resemblance to what contemporary standard procedure is. And as an example, let's see what Juarez et al. say, in the preprint cited in several posts in this thread, about how they measured the redshifts (etc); here is section 2 (Observations) in its entirety (some formatting and characters may be lost):
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the term "BLR"? It stands for "broad line region" and is not resolved in images of any quasar (that I know of), nor in the UV/optical/nearIR waveband images of any AGN either* (and, for completeness, if you can't resolve/separate something in an image, you certainly can't take a separate spectrum of it!).

Maybe a read of Maiolino et al. (2004) would help you?

* IIRC; if anyone knows of any reported observations of an AGN's resolved BLR ...

Suede

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

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.




Probably just another freak coincidence though.

like this, NGC 7319:




or this, NGC 4319:



or this, NGC 7603:

Nereid

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.

Yep, that's a well-known, and much discussed paper.

As with many (most?) of these Arp (et al.) papers, the 'very likely interacting' interpretation rests almost entirely on perceived alignments of features in images ... and where it doesn't, it requires a) an 'intrinsic redshift' that has no counterpart in standard physics**, and b) the 'interacting' material to have no intermediate redshift (which is inconsistent with the Arp idea you posted earlier). Further, with the widespread and easy availability of codes to model the interaction between a compact high-mass object and a galaxy, it's curious that no Arp et al. paper has been published showing the plausibility of the purported 'interaction' via simulation (with or without variable mass, etc).

Applying Occam's razor, and keeping in mind the huge amount of solid research showing that AGNs are a homogeneous class of object, we can conclude that this quasar is being viewed through NGC 7319.

* these are all core aspects of Arp's idea
** no one has published a paper showing that the Wolf effect, to take just one example, is consistent with all well-established features in the relevant spectra, for example

Suede

I'm not going to argue Arp's theory with you because doing so will result in me getting banned from these boards, which I'm sure would please you greatly.

Its enough to say I believe him and the theories that support his claim are scientifically credible, rely on known plasma physics, and don't postulate any hypothetical matters and energies.

btw,

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


Which part is absurd?

Nereid

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?

Suede

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?

Suede

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.

matt.o

Indeed:
The near-ultraviolet spectrum of Markarian 205
Bahcall, John N.; Jannuzi, Buell T.; Schneider, Donald P.; Hartig, George F.; Jenkins, Edward B.

Nereid

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:
Further, another of PF's rules states, in part (bold added):
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.

Chalnoth

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.

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.

turbo

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.

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.

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.

Chalnoth

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.

turbo

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.