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

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

  1. Nov 15, 2012 #1
    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

     
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2012
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 16, 2012 #2

    Chalnoth

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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.
     
  4. Nov 16, 2012 #3
    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


     
  5. Nov 16, 2012 #4

    Chalnoth

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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.
     
  6. Nov 16, 2012 #5

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Your conclusions appear rather speculative compared to those of the referenced paper, or similar papers - e.g., http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0605678.
     
  7. Nov 16, 2012 #6
    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.
     
  8. Nov 16, 2012 #7
    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.
     
  9. Nov 17, 2012 #8

    Chalnoth

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    There are no downsizing observations. Why do you think there are?
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Quasar Mass-Luminosity, High Mass Turnoff Evolution and a Synchronization Puzzle
  1. Mass of universe (Replies: 1)

Loading...