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

Request permission to discuss Schild's papers

  1. May 5, 2010 #1
    Request permission to discuss Schild’s paper. It is fundamental to the understanding of Quasars. Schild is a specialist in the area of quasar observation and theory.

    Quasars, Quasar evolution with redshift (change in the number of quasars, change in the quasar luminosity), Quasar's relationship galaxy development and morphology, is one of the most interesting current topics in astrophysics.


    Rudolph Schild is an astrophysicist at Harvard University, the director of the 1.5 meter telescope program at the Harvard-Smithsonian Cambridge observatories and has has authored or contributed to over two hundred and fifty papers.
  2. jcsd
  3. May 6, 2010 #2
    I heard Schild in one conference, but could not appreciate how his team really concluded that some quasars have intrinsic magnetic moment. May be he can explain it here.

  4. May 6, 2010 #3

    Jonathan Scott

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    His experimental results imply that the quasar central body appears to have an intrinsic magnetic field. According to mainstream theory, this means that the central body cannot be a classical black hole. In that case, I'd be interested to know what mainstream theory can offer as an explanation of the result.

    Schild calls the object a "MECO". I consider this somewhat misleading, as "MECO" is associated with one particular theoretical idea for avoiding gravitational collapse, and there may be other reasons why gravitational collapse might not occur, any of which would allow the central object to have an intrinsic magnetic field. The observation does not in any way prove the "MECO" theory, and as far as I can see it does not support it any more than any other theory which avoids gravitational collapse.
  5. May 6, 2010 #4
    Abhas Mitra supports your position. Mitra calls the object an "ECO" an eternally collapsing object. What Schild alleges to have shown is a subset of ECOs' which he has observed (quasars where due to gravitational lensing it is possible to make out details of the quasar emitting components) have a very strong magnetic field attached to the massive object. (Schild and another set of authors allege they have observed the affects of an intense magnetic field in a region of the quasar where an accretion disk can not exist due to the extreme gravitational field.

    Mitra states that previous analysis of the collapse (at the turn of this century) skipped the transition from matter at very, very, high temperatures to the theoretical black hole state. Mitra alleges that no papers have been written to address the collapse from a physical standpoint where it is necessary to explain the entire collapse. If I understand Mitra and Schild's explanation at very high temperatures during the collapsing matter creates an extremely strong magnetic field that in turn creates electrons and positron pairs from space. Electron positron pairs in turn create gamma radiation that arrests the collapse.

    Astrophysics is the explanation of extreme conditions that cannot be studied in the laboratory. It seems incredulous that someone at the turn of the century could without observation evidence determine what the massive object is at the center of quasars. Schild and other authors allege that a set of quasar observational evidence appears to not support the turn of the century hypothesis that was developed without physical data. The very massive objects in the center of galaxy's is a physical object whose properties are not known.

    There are a host of other new quasar observations which currently appear to have no explanation or where the attempts to explain what is observed using a classical BH and accretion disk appear to be implausible. Schild includes these observations in his paper.

    For example Naked Quasars. The Naked Quasars' spectrum does not include the broad line spectrum which was thought to be caused by the rapid movement of gas in the quasar's accretion disk. Naked quasars do however emit. The question is what powers the emission if there is no accretion disk. A classic massive BH requires an accretion disc to emit.

    A very strong magnetic field can via synchronous radiation energize very low levels of gas. (i.e. A very strong magnetic field attached to a massive object that is rotating will Schild alleges can cause what is observed.)

    One possible explanation of Naked Quasars proposed staying with the classic BH hole and accretion disk mechanism is that the naked quasars are in wind down. The accretion disk was there but is no longer there or is so weak that it cannot be observed. How long is the wind down period? 10% of the observed quasars do not have the broad lines. What is powering the emitting quasar if the object in question no longer has an accretion disk?

    Another puzzle. Quasars include radiation from forbidden quantum states of ionized gas. That type of radiation can only occur in an extremely ratified vacuum (not possible to create on earth) and something to excite the rarefied gas. The problem for the accretion disk hypothesis is that there is no region in the vicinity of the disc where there is a very strong magnetic field or something else to excite the gas and a rarefied vacuum. There is too much gas in the region of the accretion disk.


    Last edited: May 6, 2010
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook