- #1
wolram
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
- 4,446
- 558
Good one. Indeed he says "Halpen Arp", but is ridiculous anyway. The fact that he don't know the true name of Arp talks very badly about his knowledge of astronomy, and in particular about the CREIL effect that he postulates having importance in redshiftsreference to 'Halden Arp'
CREIL is a hypothetical offshoot of the Raman effect that has not been experimentally tested. Per Jerry Jensen:ohwilleke said:There is no sin in agreeing that Arp has identified problems in the current approach. This is as far as the praise of Arp goes. Indeed, the authors deliberately distinguish themselves from questionable Arp conclusions (such as jets) in the paper.
The article is not the best written, but the agenda of the article -- describing a laboratory scale experiment that produces results that can be confused for red-shift, and using those conclusions to match quasar data and using that data to show why CREIL is a better explanation of the data than true redshift, is eminently respectable and reasonable, although, e.g. short on illustrations that would compare red shift v. CREIL predictions v. data.
Put it this way. If CREIL operates as advertised, then the conclusions follow. They are hardly great leaps of logic. And CREIL has the virtue of being a testable phenomena. So simply dismissing the authors based on reputation or association proves too much. Anyone who disagrees with existing cosmology is necessarily going to have some sympathy with others with question the existing cosmology to some degree because all are going to be concerned about data, like quasars and non-baryonic matter, which seem most extraordinary. To dismiss studies simply because of such shared views, is simply to say that standard model cosmology is right because it is right.
Indeed, but there are other reasons too.ohwilleke said:The filp side, of course, and the reason that so much attention is focused on quasars is that quasars are outliers.
Why?They are distributed overwhelmingly at very high redshift (z>2 on average and in some instances z>5). If that redshift entirely implies distance, then quasars must be extremely massive (on the order of 100s galaxies)
To be pedantic, 'small' would be a better term than 'have excedingly narrow radii'and yet must have excedingly narrow radii to account for the rapid variations in luminosity (assumed to be due to rotation).
If you count gravitational lensing as 'optical illusions', then yes; if you're thinking of Arp's lists, then I'm not aware of any for which the apparent association with a 'local' object remains strong.Seeming interactions of quasars and more local objects must all be optical illusions.
Indeed; like AGN, or BL Lac objects, or Seyferts, or ...In contrast, if some of the redshift is due to something other than distance, than quasars could be much smaller in size (perhaps on the order of magnitude of a typical star), would have radii typical to stars, and would have luminosity on the order of magnitude of stars and can be in systems with stars and galaxies.
Well, no; all manner of good observations would then need a different model ... such as the quasars which appear to be just where galactic nuclei would be ... of the galaxies they seem to be in (IIRC, very soon after the first quasars were observed, some astonomers - Sandage? - noted that several appeared to have 'fuzz' around them, and others appeared to be not quite point sources; the latest in this line is, of course, the HST observations ... pity that the coronograph won't fly ), the lensed quasars, ALL aspects of the Lyman forest (not just the existence of sets of absorption lines), the lack of anything even remotely like quasars 'locally', the well-observed 'pure luminosity evolution' of quasars, quasars whose underlying galaxy has the same redshift as the quasar, Lyman forest lines that correspond to the redshift of galaxy (clusters) through which they seem to pass, ...Suddenly, tens of thousands of extreme outliers become one more class of star like objects that just happens to exhibit spectra which can be confused for highly redshifted spectra.
So what are AGNs? What's the correspondence between SMBH in galaxy nuclei (well observed) and quasars? (can you provide a link to models which demand that quasars have masses >10^11 sol?)Yet, if the early universe is dominated by huge objects with masses of 100 galaxies+ why does the modern universe lack such huge objects?
It's fairly easy to list observations that could fill this gap ... I expect JWST, SNAP, perhaps even some of the AO and optical interferometric instruments+scopes being planned at '8m class' observatories (e.g. Keck, VLT) will shed some light on this.Also, while in the case of Cepheid standard candles we can observe such stars close up and use them to calibrate our redshift yardstick, we don't have the same luxury with quasars. We don't have any close quasars to use as a reference that could be used to compare distant quasars, and in the standard theory we also lack any non-quasar objects closely associated with quasars that we can used to say, e.g. a quasar at this known distance (through means other than redshift) looks like x. We can certainly say that one quasar is shifted relative to another quasar, but the original spectrum is theory dependent.
Er, no; it's the same as that for AGNs, Seyferts, BL Lac objects, ...Also, quasar theory lacks the seasoning of many other parts of modern cosmology. General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are ideas that have been kicking around since before 1920. The first quasar was observed in 1963, and large data sets (now in the mid to high thousands), have been around for a much shorter time period.
Because the phenomena posited to be behind quasars is more extraordinary than that behind other phenomena in astronomy,
Taste is a rather personal thing ... and 'proof' surely not to be found anywhere in any science ... but for some, the mountain of good observations consistent with quasars' redshifts being cosmological goes down well.it requires more extraordinary proof and alternatives are more paletable.
I guess that depends on what the 'previously unconsidered by plausible means' is (or are)!Also, while quasars are meaningful details in theories of early cosmology, some form of intrinsic redshift in quasars by some previously unconsidered by plausible means would not shake up any other realm of physics unduly.
No need for exotic explanations ... the 2dF data on quasar luminosity vs redshift accounts of this paucity quite nicely ... quasars exhibit 'pure luminosity evolution'turbo-1 said:There are some huge benefits that accrue if quasars are found to have intrinsic redshifts, not the least of which are:
1. The paucity of "local" quasars is explained as a misinterpretation of redshift as cosmological distance. Then maybe the universe can be isotropic and homogeneous, as it is presumed to be.
wolram said:
jjayne said:Of course, my conclusion is based on the assumption of a positively curved universe, which is not proved beyond all reasonable doubt. So it's not gospel truth, but it's something to think about.
A quasar is a highly luminous and energetic object found in the center of some galaxies. They are powered by supermassive black holes and emit large amounts of radiation across the electromagnetic spectrum.
Quasars are distinct from other celestial objects due to their high luminosity and variability. They also have unique emission spectra, with strong and broad emission lines, and exhibit high redshifts due to their extreme distance from Earth.
Quasars are typically found at extreme distances from Earth, making them some of the most distant objects in the universe. They are often found in the early stages of the universe, billions of light-years away.
Quasars have some of the largest known masses in the universe. They are powered by supermassive black holes that can range from millions to billions of times the mass of the Sun.
Quasars can vary in brightness due to changes in the amount of matter being accreted onto the supermassive black hole. Some quasars may also appear less bright due to our viewing angle and the orientation of the quasar's accretion disk.