Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Anomalous Quasar Observations 200k Light Year Jet? And So On.

  1. Jun 12, 2010 #1
    If Astronomers stated that they had using the Hubble telescope found a remote island on the earth with 1000 meter tall Homo sapiens we would based on scientific knowledge and logic concerning the biological limits of animal structure (any land based animal that moves on the surface of the earth) and human genetics, state that is not possible. The observations, the assumptions for those observations, or the associated calculations themselves must be incorrect.

    Is there analogous to the physical impossibility of 1000 meter tall Homo sapiens, a similar impossibility of a 200,000 light year quasar jet?

    Our Milky Way galaxy is 100,000 light years in diameter.

    Now when one looks at the observations of the 200,000 light year jet the objects in question are in a straight line.

    Obviously the quasar has intrinsic movement so during the ejection process it will have moved. If it is 200,000 light years long it has at least 200,000 years of movement as the ejection process is occurring to have moved. What one would expect is a curved jet not a straight jet.

    It should be noted that there are a whole set of peculiar quasar observations.

    For example the massive object in the center of the Milky Way and the largest galaxy in our Cluster Andromeda are baby quasars. Based on the lowest possible estimate of gas in the center of both galaxies the emissions associated with these baby massive objects should based on the quasar unified model (unified is the name used for a classical black hole and an accretion disk) be 10 to 100,000 times greater than what is observed.

    An obvious question is why in the local universe are there baby massive objects? Is that just a peculiar statically oddity such as people winning the lottery three times in the same year?

    Another puzzle is the paradox of youth stars and high velocity blue stars. (I will add a couple of comments to explain the observations and paradox concerning these stars.)

    Another approach rather than starting with a toy model theory that was developed at the turn of the century independent of observations and the associated mechanisms, is to look at the modern observations and then develop mechanisms that are in agreement with what is observed.

    As noted in the MECO thread, the Classical Black Hole model is based on observations an incorrect toy model. Observations indicate there is a massive magnetic field that is produced when massive objects collapse. That is not surprising based on observations of neutron stars and magtars.

    What is interesting is it appears these super massive objects change, evolve based on observations over time.

    Before stating one's position concerning this subject or the position of other people, look at and think about the observations. It seems reasonable that an analysis of the observations will lead to the solution. It seems less likely that if one starts with a theory and mechanisms and then modifies or ignore observations that that process or methodology will solve the problem.

    An irrational and ineffective methodology (the methodology of starting with a theory rather than looking at the anomalous observations as a set and then constructing theories and mechanisms.) makes it difficult if not impossible to solve the problem. (i.e. The mechanisms and theories must have a physical connection with the observation as opposed to toy models which have their own logic but have no connection with reality. John Hogan called in his book the "End of Science" the practice of that type of science (construction of toy models) as ironic science as it seems science like but will never solve the problem and in fact blocks or inhibits the solution of the problem.)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3C_273
    Contents

    This observation seems to support the existence of a massive magnetic field attached to the object.

    http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.4231v1



    http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0605530v1

     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 12, 2010 #2

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Good luck, Saul. Observational astronomy fares poorly on this forum whenever observations challenge theory and pedagoguary. Tread lightly.
     
  4. Jun 12, 2010 #3
    I think in the case of this problem, the wind is starting to change. The observational data has improved. The anomalies remain.

    There appears to be groups of connected anomalies. The spiral galaxy rotational anomaly. The Holmberg effect. Disney's discovery that the properties of spiral galaxies are patterned following a single unknown parameter (including for example the peculiarly tight Tully-Fisher relationship). Peculiar patterns in galaxy clusters. The fact that specific fundamental galaxy structures and patterns of galaxy morphology cannot be explained by the dark matter hypothesis and its mechanisms.

    The fact that dark matter has not been discovered after 20 years of experimental searching. A negative finding for dark matter is significant as all agree there must be a physical reason for the rotational anomaly. It seem reasonable that these groups of anomalies have a common cause.

    This field seems to be similar to geophysics when they had their tectonic plate breakthrough. (There was in geophysics a group of anomalies that were connected. Such as for example rare geological mineral formations that occurred at the edges of opposing continents and the fact the continents fit together.)
     
  5. Jun 12, 2010 #4
    Honestly I stopped reading after you started going on about some island nonsense. If you're going to post a book at least stay on topic...

    Anyway, whats hard to believe? Black holes can eject matter at speeds very near the speed of light, and if one were to do so for 200,000 years - a blink of an eye in cosmological terms - then you'd get a jet 200,000 light years long. Why do you think it has to be curved? The particles will be moving in the same direction as the galaxy, what is hard to understand about that?
     
  6. Jun 12, 2010 #5
    Something is ejecting matter at the speed of light. As the massive object has a strong magnetic field attached to it, based on observational data, it seems it is not a classical BH.

    The force that ejects the particles from the quasar is different than the force that moves the quasar.

    The quasar is moved by other objects in its vicinity. The two motions are independent.

    There are also dust clouds which appear to be ejected by the quasars. It is difficult to explain how dust forms as opposed to stars forming.

     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2010
  7. Jun 12, 2010 #6
    There other anomalies associated with quasars.

    They show almost no change in metallicity with redshift. The high redshift quasars have super solar or solar metallicity which is counter to how the intergalactic gas is believe to evolve. (i.e. Super nova ejection enriches the gas with more metals over time.)

    The quasars do not show time diluation with redshift which is counter to what is observed for other astronomical objects.

    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0311/0311454v1.pdf



    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2006MmSAI..77..635F

     
  8. Jun 12, 2010 #7
    Milky Way’s Galactic Core, Stellar “Paradox of Youth”


    This comment is what is known as the “paradox of youth” problem which is how to explain the recent discover of very young stars, massive, short lived stars that are located very, very, close to the galactic core. The “paradox of youth” problem is that the stars in question have a lifetime that is at most 100 MM years and it is very difficult to create a gas cloud with sufficient density to enable that number of very young stars to form so close to the galactic core. Half of stars in questions are located in three tight clusters of stars that are estimated to be 0.5 MM years old. There is no evidence of current star formation in the locations where the young stars in question are found which is puzzling, but perhaps not expected as the simulations indicate that it is very difficult to get gas clouds to form that close to the Milky Way’s core massive compact object.

    http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0508106v1

    The following are excerpts from the above review paper “Stellar Processes Near the Massive Black Hole in the Galactic Center” by Tal Alexander which summarizes the observations and different hypotheses that have been developed to try to explain this paradox.


     
  9. Jun 12, 2010 #8
    The following is a paper that discusses the discovery of two discs of stars that encircle the galaxy’s massive compact object. The stars in the two discs all formed roughly 6 million years ago and were estimated to have all formed within a million years of each other. The two discs are roughly at right angles to each other.

    The authors of the paper rule out migration of stars from outer regions to that location and propose the stars in question formed from two gas clouds. That explanation has some problem explaining where the gas cloud is now (proposed to have dissipated) in addition to an explanation as to why the stars in question are disproportional large. There is also the unanswered question as to why there was a near simultaneous creation of two discs of stars and why there is a geometric relationship between the two star discs. (Roughly 90 degrees from one discs plane, to another.) The authors note they do not have an explanation for the simultaneous formation of the star discs.


    The Two Young Star Disks in the Central Parsec of the Galaxy: Properties, Dynamics and Formation by T. Paumard , R. Genzel, F. Martins, et al.

    http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0601268v2


    Comment:
    The two discs of stars are slightly farther from the galactic core than the large paradox of youth stars. The authors note the problem of the black hole ripping apart the gas cloud with tidal forces but hypothesis a collision of a gas cloud to create the necessary density.

    There are multiple problems with the gas cloud origin hypothesis to explain the galactic centre star clusters and rings of stars. The star clusters and the two rings of stars appear to have formed at the same time, for the group of stars in question. There is no explanation as to why a large group of stars would suddenly all form at the same time. The authors note they do have an explanation for the sudden formation of groups of stars.

    There is a second problem of how to create a cluster of large stars in the same close area (30 stars in less than light year distance). The highly luminous stars will heat the gas cloud, stopping it from collapsing.

    These problems are in addition to the problem of how to get a dense enough gas cloud in this area that not be torn apart by the massive compact object.
     
  10. Jun 12, 2010 #9

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

  11. Jun 13, 2010 #10
    Fan's paper is interesting. It curious that observationally there is a lack of quasar metallicity or spectral evolution with redshift. The quasar space density evolution is also interesting.

    Bell's papers examine other quasar properties and finds there is a set of anomalies that appear to challenge the assumed distance of the quasar.

    The finding that quasars do not exhibit time dilation with redshift is also interesting. If that observation is correct it is possible quasars are significantly closer than assumed.

    From observational analysis it appears one can attempt to form an explanation for what is causing the redshift anomalies. i.e. The quasar process is altering the redshift of its spectrum and the spectrum of galaxies in the cluster. The affect depending on the size of the quasar (differentiating between the parent and the smaller ejection products) and where the quasar is in its life cycle.

    I must admit however that I cannot explain the Lyman Alpha absorption in the spectrum of high redshift quasars. I have looked at the analysis and theory of the lyman alpha absorption. It seems sound. The Lyman Alpha absorption observation and interpretation seems to me to indicate that quasars are distance objects. I am now looking for any anomalies concerning the Lyman alpha absorption observations which might be a clue to explain the dichotomy.

    From the observational data there appears to be sets of unresolved paradoxes. Many people have an opinion concerning this subject but have not read the papers or thought of the issues from either side of the problem.

    Evolution of high-redshift quasars

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2006MmSAI..77..635F


    http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0603169

    Six Peaks Visible in the Redshift Distribution of 46,400 SDSS Quasars Agree with the Preferred Redshifts Predicted by the Decreasing Intrinsic Redshift Model

    http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0807/0807.2641.pdf

    Evidence against non-cosmological redshifts of QSOs in SDSS data


    http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.4531v2

     
  12. Jun 13, 2010 #11
    The following is a link to Hawkins' paper that shows quasars appear to not exhibit time dilation. There is currently no physical explanation for that observation.

    In addition there is a link to the papers that discuss whether is or is not evidence of preferred redshifts in the quasar data.

    http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.3130v1



    http://arxiv.org/abs/0911.5700v1




    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1004/1004.1824v1.pdf

     
  13. Jun 13, 2010 #12

    cristo

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Locked pending moderation.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Anomalous Quasar Observations 200k Light Year Jet? And So On.
  1. Light years (Replies: 26)

  2. Quasar jet length (Replies: 1)

Loading...