More from Arp et al.

[Ari Jokimaki]

It's good that this M51-type issue came up, it gave me a reason to browse through my list again, and I noticed that there were few cases that shouldn't be in my list:

- There were one more VV 085 item in the list. VV 085 a-b is not a clear case of bridged system and should be removed from the list.
- On closer look, VV 048 a-b seems that there is bigger galaxy at the end of spiral arm of smaller galaxy. This is inverse case of M51-type and should be removed.
- VV 061 a-b and VV 076 a-b are not clearly bridged cases and should be removed.
- VV 190 a-b there is no certain size difference and should be removed.

On M51-types in my sample, I'm perhaps overly critical on which cases to accept as M51-types as I found only 10 cases out of my 56 case list. Here's the list of 10 cases:

VV      B-S  v diff nom.   v diff max    v diff min    ARP
VV 263  a-b  -516.0864801  -492.0627915  -540.1120874  ARP 130
VV 212  a-b  -344.9595643  -263.9334426  -426.0075408  ARP 122
VV 114  a-b  -176.9297291  -83.9536401   -269.9346281  ARP 236
VV 005  a-b  -95.94893593  -83.9536401   -107.9447114  ARP 86
VV 027  a-b  -8.993908647  38.97048629   -56.96597827
VV 001  a-b  2.99790959    14.98924816   -8.993908647  ARP 85
VV 019  a-b  38.97048629   101.9121077   -23.98435598  ARP 239
VV 193  a-b  131.8796616   164.8405083   98.91518744   ARP 331
VV 010  a-b  221.7643358   266.6965549   176.8253714   ARP 102
VV 054  a-b  329.5903295   350.5519831   308.6272069

Too small sample to say much. Positive and negative velocity differentials seem to be quite even here.

In order to get bigger sample, here's the list of cases I wasn't sure about, if someone would like to go over it if they are M51-types or not:

VV 014 a-b
VV 020 a-b
VV 040 a-b
VV 061 a-b
VV 084 a-b
VV 105 a-c
VV 136 a-c
VV 141 a-b
VV 175 a-b
VV 208 a-b
VV 240 a-b
VV 272 a-b
VV 277 a-b
VV 279 a-b
VV 306 b-c
VV 315 a-c

[Ari Jokimaki]

I'd classify the following as M-51 types: ...

Couple of objections, if I may (to gain a common ground, not to argue):

67 - I would have classified this as not clear case of bridge (it seems that bridge doesn't clearly reach the companion)

72 - = VV 016, I have classified this as not clear case of bridge (it seems that bridge doesn't clearly reach the companion, and bridge doesn't even point to the companion)

73 - I perhaps would have classified this as not clear case of bridge, this is borderline case

77 - I would have classified this as not clear case of bridge (here I don't see a bridge at all)

82 - = VV 009, I have classified this as not clear case of bridge, a borderline case like ARP 73

85 - = VV 001, I agree with this, if M51 is not M51-type, then I don't know what is.

87 - = VV 300, I have classified this as not clear case of size difference because I think there might be a face on galaxy and an edge-on galaxy, so I don't feel comfortable saying that the smaller looking galaxy actually is smaller.

90 - Based on NED-images, I would have hesitated to classify this as M51-type.

94 - = VV 209, I have classified this as not clear case of bridge, but perhaps I should consider it again. At least in this case the arm making the bridge doesn't seem to be anomalous in any way.

turbo-1 and I are going through this by e-mail and since you, dgruss23, seem to be interested in the issue, let us know if you wish to join the ring. I'm just wondering how much of this preliminary planning stuff we should load to this thread.

[Ari Jokimaki]

Yes, I see it in that - but the bridge is to a star. Given the dense environment of that group - the interactor that formed the bridge (actually tail) must be one among the many candidates in the group.

I agree, but the reason why I'm not sure if VV 085 a-d should be removed or not is that it has large redshift differential, and one of the arguments related to bridged objects with large redshift differentials is that they are accidental superpositions. This case clearly (if we can be sure VV 085 indeed is a galactic star) is an example of accidental superposition. Of course this case should be removed from the list containing bridges due to (assumed) gravitational interaction, but I think this case might have some significance when we consider cases with large redshift differentials in the context of accidental superpositions or not.

VV 263/ARP 130 appears to be a thin spiral with a very condensed nucleus in apparent interaction with a much more massive elliptical - which doesn't fit the M51 model at all.

Well, NED says that VV 263a is "E?", and based on NED-images it is difficult to determine if it's elliptical or spiral. But sure, if we include only clear cases of spirals, this has to be removed from the list of M51-types.

VV 277 and VV 161 are apparently interacting groups with luminous bridges, although they do not fit the M51 model either.

I dropped VV 161 already, but I'm not sure about VV 277, how you can be sure it's not M51-type?

[dgruss23]

Couple of objections, if I may (to gain a common ground, not to argue):

I've PM'd Turbo-1 my e-mail addresses. I think the differences are simply going to amount to the criteria we used when we identify M-51 types.

I used a very broad category that there had to be a spiral galaxy with the companion near the end of a spiral arm. But the cases you highlighted I had some hesitation about.

At any rate, I think we should spell out on the thread the criteria we used and why we settled for or against each case we initially classified differently - when we resolved the question.

And I still am not going to check the redshifts until we've reached agreement from the optical images. So redshifts will have no impact on my decisions.

[antoniseb]

At any rate, I think we should spell out on the thread the criteria we used and why we settled for or against each case we initially classified differently - when we resolved the question.

Do we have deeply exposed images of all these sets of galaxies. I seem to recall that some of the bridge features didn't show up without some very long exposures. If we just go with short exposures showing the inner galaxies in any of these, we will certainly miss some of the luminous materials showing interaction.

If such long exposures don't exist, do we drop the candidate for now?

[turbo-1]

Since Ari and dgruss23 are having a discussion about whether certain systems meet the criteria to be included in the M51 category, I will not yet post the HcV differentials for the individual systems. Without looking a the NED images, I added in the list of M51-type candidates suggested by dgruss23 and here is the summary.

Reshifted host 7
Redshifted comp 21

Host ave -135.6 km/s
Comp ave 3388.6 km/s

So although the trends have moderated a bit with the increased sample size, we still have 3x as many redshifted companions as redshifted hosts, and the magnitude of the HcV differential is 25x larger in the redshifted companions than in the redshifted hosts. There seems to be something rather significant going on in the M51-type systems. Now, what is it?

[turbo-1]

Well, NED says that VV 263a is "E?", and based on NED-images it is difficult to determine if it's elliptical or spiral. But sure, if we include only clear cases of spirals, this has to be removed from the list of M51-types.

The listing in NED is correct - the VV object annotated with an "a" on their plate is the large elliptical. Here is a better plate, showing "b" to be a loosely-wound barred spiral with a tiny nucleus. There may be evidence for interaction (note the condensations in the spiral on the side nearer the elliptical), but the apparrent mass-ratio of the spiral to the elliptical is exactly opposite what I would characterize as an M-51 type.

http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/img6/...3a-D:a1966.jpg

[Cougar]

I have posted links to Michael Strauss' lectures many times throughout this thread. He is a lead researcher in the SDSS consortium and he makes the point that quasars as "distant" as z~6.5 show no signs of evolution in either the absolute or relative metallicities in Fe II or MgII, despite the fact that that these metals derive from different types of supernovae. You can Google on Strauss and Fan and find all kinds of papers in this vein.

Did you have something newer than this 2002 publication wherein Strauss and collaborators state agreement with Keel's point that....

Fe has a large delayed contribution from Type Ia supernovae, with a predicted time delay of about 1 Gyr after the initial starburst (Greggio & Renzini 1983; Matteucci & Greggio 1986), which does not depend on other parameters such as star formation rate.

The paper states they will follow up in this area, but I haven't seen the specific follow up paper with findings re the iron-magnesium ratios of early quasar environments. And I'm not going to sit through a one-hour streaming video of Strauss at some conference unless you tell me at what minute this topic is covered.

When the JWST and the LBT come on line, mainstreamers will be charging for the exit doors. The BB is dead.

Usually conclusions are reached after observations are made and evidence is found. What should we call it when a conclusion is reached before the observations? I guess there are lots of words that would fit there. Unscientific, just for starters.

[Ari Jokimaki]

The listing in NED is correct - the VV object annotated with an "a" on their plate is the large elliptical. Here is a better plate, showing "b" to be a loosely-wound barred spiral with a tiny nucleus. There may be evidence for interaction (note the condensations in the spiral on the side nearer the elliptical), but the apparrent mass-ratio of the spiral to the elliptical is exactly opposite what I would characterize as an M-51 type.

http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/img6/...3a-D:a1966.jpg

Yes, but I was thinking of the elliptical as the host and the spiral as the companion. I just thought that if it is not certain that VV 263a is an elliptical galaxy, then this might be M51-type. Reason for my thinking is concentrating too much to this NED image. What there looks like a bridge doesn't look like much of a bridge in the image you linked, and also VV 263a seems more clearly to be an elliptical galaxy. So, I agree that this system shouldn't be in the M51-types list.

[turbo-1]

Did you have something newer than this 2002 publication wherein Strauss and collaborators state agreement with Keel's point that....

Yes. I have tried several times to get you to comment on Strauss' November 2, 2005 lecture here:

http://www.stsci.edu/institute/cente...oquiaFall2005/

Here is a time-line of the lecture.

18:00 - spectra of 19 highest-redshift quasars. spectra look like those of low-redshift quasars.
19:10 - there is no evolution in metallicity of high-z quasars
21:22 - studied 161 quasars z>4 - not a single one is lensed, despite the presumed high column density
22:15 - luminosity information plus Eddington limit yield calculated masses of 1-5 G_Sol BH for quasars z>6. Theorists have not explained how these could have formed in a few hundred million years after the BB
23:00 - no evolution in quasars' X-ray slope with redshift
26:10 - high-z quasars are "normal" in all respects, out to redshift z~6.5 (highest redshift quasar found in SDSS data).

Usually conclusions are reached after observations are made and evidence is found. What should we call it when a conclusion is reached before the observations? I guess there are lots of words that would fit there. Unscientific, just for starters.

The point is that the observations already made are inconsistent with the assumptions of mainstream cosmology. Years ago, the assumption was made that we would observe evolution in the metallicity of quasars, based on the type (and amount) of supernova activity in the early universe. This has not been observed all the way out to redshift z~6.5. The metallicities of these quasars is solar or super-solar, and there is no evolution in either the absolute or relative abundances of MgII and FeII in their spectra. Years ago, it was assumed that structure formed from the bottom up, and the farther we look back (higher redshift) the smaller and younger the objects would be. This is clearly not the case, with 1-5 G_Sol mass BHs powering even the most highly redshifted quasars.

[Cougar]

18:00 - spectra of 19 highet-redshift quasars. spectra look like those of low-redshift quasars.
19:10 - there is no evolution in metallicity of high-z quasars.

No papers on this?

[turbo-1]

No papers on this?

Please watch the relevant portions of the video - his presentation is quite convincing. If you want a paper specifically from Fan and Strauss, you may have to wait another couple of years until they have completely extracted the quasar info from SDSS. Probably Fall of 2007. I'm certain that they will want to summarize their findings at that time.

Here is another group using SDSS data to look for evidence of the evolution of metallicity in high-redshift quasars.

http://www.citebase.org/cgi-bin/cita...tro-ph/0603261

Here is another that I cited earlier.

http://cosmos.as.arizona.edu/~thomps...s/barth03a.pdf

The concensus is that no evolution in quasar metallicity is detected all the way out to z~6.5

[turbo-1]

Did you have something newer than this 2002 publication wherein Strauss and collaborators state agreement with Keel's point that....

Did you read Fan, Strauss, et al's paper from 2002 - the one that you linked? I took the time to go through it, and interestingly they do not agree with Keel that evolution of metallicity in high-redshift quasars was observed. Quite the opposite. It says in the abstract:

We combine measurements of the C IV line and limits on the He II emission from the near-IR spectra with the N V line measurements from the optical spectra to derive the metal abundances of these early quasar environments. The results are indistinguishable from those of lower redshift quasars and indicate little or no evolution in the metal abundances from z ∼ 6 to 2. The line ratios suggest supersolar metallicities, implying that the first stars around the quasars must have formed at least a few hundreds of megayears prior to the observation, i.e., at redshifts higher than 8.

And then in the body of the paper:

From the models of Hamann & Ferland (1993) we see that the minimum time needed for a stellar population to achieve the observed metallicity in any of their models is about 300 Myr. In the assumed cosmology the implied redshift of star formation is z ∼ 8.7, an epoch when the universe was about ∼560 Myr old. Even if the quasar environments had only solar metallicity, the time required for any stellar population to reach such a metallicity would be on the order of 100 Myr or more, implying that the star formation must have begun well before the observed quasar activity. Again these results are affected by the uncertainties of the models outlined above: other elements, and in particular Fe, might provide better "clocks" for constraining the age of quasars and the epoch of first star formation. Fe has a large delayed contribution from Type Ia supernovae, with a predicted time delay of about 1 Gyr after the initial starburst (Greggio & Renzini 1983; Matteucci & Greggio 1986), which does not depend on other parameters such as star formation rate. Therefore, the ratio of Fe to α-elements such as Mg is an absolute clock for constraining the ages of star-forming regions. This will be pursued with follow-up observations in K band where there are interesting features such as the broad Fe II λ2960 and the Mg II λ2798 lines.

So lets's see - even assuming that the quasar BHs could accrete mass fast enough to have 1-5 G_Sol mass at the time of observation, the star-forming activity had to precede the observed quasar activity by ~300 My. And the z~6 quasars have supersolar levels of FeII in their spectra, despite the fact that they supposedly exist only about 800My after the BB, despite the fact that that the Fe contributions of SN1a are predicted to be delayed by ~1Gy after initial starburst. Roughly, that puts the SN1a activity at ~700My before the BB if you believe that quasars are at the redshifts implied by their distance. Clearly, if quasars are at the distances implied by their redshifts, parts of mainstream cosmology are already ruled out by observations.

This discussion can get much deeper, but it is side-tracking us from our focus on bridged galaxy associations, and I suggest we hold this for a future sub-topic, if antoniseb agrees. Certainly, the implication of intrinsic redshifts in quasars is central to the Arpian view, and these quandries we see in high-redshift quasars are valuable hints about where the mainstream view needs to be re-examined.

[dgruss23]

Do we have deeply exposed images of all these sets of galaxies. I seem to recall that some of the bridge features didn't show up without some very long exposures. If we just go with short exposures showing the inner galaxies in any of these, we will certainly miss some of the luminous materials showing interaction.

If such long exposures don't exist, do we drop the candidate for now?

That's a good point. From looking at the images today, I would have to say that the images in the Arp catalog are deeper than the images in HyperLeda. The NGC 7603 system has been imaged in the R-band as well. Similar efforts with other objects in the Arp catalog would be useful in establishing the absence or existence of the bridges.

[dgruss23]

So lets's see - even assuming that the quasar BHs could accrete mass fast enough to have 1-5 G_Sol mass at the time of observation, the star-forming activity had to precede the observed quasar activity by ~300 My. And the z~6 quasars have supersolar levels of FeII in their spectra, despite the fact that they supposedly exist only about 800My after the BB, despite the fact that that the Fe contributions of SN1a are predicted to be delayed by ~1Gy after initial starburst. Roughly, that puts the SN1a activity at ~700My before the BB if you believe that quasars are at the redshifts implied by their distance. Clearly, if quasars are at the distances implied by their redshifts, parts of mainstream cosmology are already ruled out by observations.

Sounds like another version of the Age Crisis. There are a number of ways intrinsic redshifts could alleviate some of these potential problems while retaining the overall BB picture.

[VanderL]

Since Ari and dgruss23 are having a discussion about whether certain systems meet the criteria to be included in the M51 category, I will not yet post the HcV differentials for the individual systems. Without looking a the NED images, I added in the list of M51-type candidates suggested by dgruss23 and here is the summary.

Reshifted host 7
Redshifted comp 21

Host ave -135.6 km/s
Comp ave 3388.6 km/s

So although the trends have moderated a bit with the increased sample size, we still have 3x as many redshifted companions as redshifted hosts, and the magnitude of the HcV differential is 25x larger in the redshifted companions than in the redshifted hosts. There seems to be something rather significant going on in the M51-type systems. Now, what is it?

I'm sorry if this has been brought up before, I might have missed it, but isn't it logical (assuming "redshift=distance" and "accidental superposition") that smaller galaxies have higher redshifts? Another point that I can't remember being addressed: besides the morphology of the host, is the morphology of the companion not equally important?

Cheers.

[dgruss23]

I'm sorry if this has been brought up before, I might have missed it, but isn't it logical (assuming "redshift=distance" and "accidental superposition") that smaller galaxies have higher redshifts?

Certainly. That's why the other forms of evidence for interaction we've discussed are so important (especially where NGC 7603 is concerned because we devoted a lot of detail to it.

Another point that I can't remember being addressed: besides the morphology of the host, is the morphology of the companion not equally important?
Cheers.

Yes. The host galaxy in the M-51 systems should be a spiral galaxy with a spiral arm or filament "bridging" to the companion. If the interaction is real despite the discordant redshifts, then the companion is a lower mass, lower luminosity galaxy. Therefore the morphology of the companion should be consistent with that of a dwarf or lower luminosity galaxy.

This is an issue that we should look at in a systematic way once we've settled the issue of which Arp examples are M-51 types.

[VanderL]

Certainly. That's why the other forms of evidence for interaction we've discussed are so important (especially where NGC 7603 is concerned because we devoted a lot of detail to it.



Yes. The host galaxy in the M-51 systems should be a spiral galaxy with a spiral arm or filament "bridging" to the companion. If the interaction is real despite the discordant redshifts, then the companion is a lower mass, lower luminosity galaxy. Therefore the morphology of the companion should be consistent with that of a dwarf or lower luminosity galaxy.

This is an issue that we should look at in a systematic way once we've settled the issue of which Arp examples are M-51 types.

Thanks, you guys are doing a terrific job of methodically describing the problem with bridged systems and discordant redshifts. But I have the feeling this discussion is being deliberately avoided by some knowledgeable people who are possibly afraid to acknowledge the points you made. I think the discussion so far lacks some "professional" mainstream input. I almost feel sorry for Cougar who seems to be the only person prepared to deny the possibility of discordant redshifts.

Dgruss, can you tell me what you think is needed to resolve the issue of bridges (I think even Cougar admitted they are evidence of interaction)? Isn't it time to ask everyone to give their opinion and start with the next issue on the list, while of course continuing to expand the list of examples?

Cheers.

[dgruss23]

Dgruss, can you tell me what you think is needed to resolve the issue of bridges (I think even Cougar admitted they are evidence of interaction)?

I'm really not sure what a resolution would look like. I've tried several times to provide a summary and a statement that both sides could choose to agree with or refute. I still think post #1369 provided a reasonable basis for moving forward.

What I'm not interested in doing is moving to a new topic and having people pretend that the bridges evidence supporting the possibility of discordant redshifts doesn't exist. I know Cougar has done a nice job probing the issue from the mainstream point of view - as has antoniseb.

Isn't it time to ask everyone to give their opinion and start with the next issue on the list, while of course continuing to expand the list of examples?

Perhaps we could go back to the statement in post #1369. I can even modify it if there are portions of it that certain people object to - but perhaps we can find a summary that everybody agrees upon.

It's been a month on the bridges topic - so while we hash out any resolution to that perhaps people can start thinking of what the next sub-topic should be.

[turbo-1]

What I'm not interested in doing is moving to a new topic and having people pretend that the bridges evidence supporting the possibility of discordant redshifts doesn't exist. I know Cougar has done a nice job probing the issue from the mainstream point of view - as has antoniseb.

I am not interested in doing this either. There are a number of mainstreamers that posted earlier that are noticeably absent now, despite public and private requests for them to engage. I do not want to move on to a new topic, only to have them jump in and ignore all the work that we have done and refuse to provide mainstream refutation of that work (if they can).

It is possible to starve a thread by boycotting it and refusing to discuss the concepts raised in the thread. I am not accusing any particular person of engaging in such behavior, but I encourage anyone following this thread to scroll back to February or so and follow the posts for a while, and click the "find all posts" option on their names to see when they dropped out of the thread.

Some of us have invested a lot of time and effort to make this thread a scientific resouce. We want engagement, we want the participation of mainstream astronomers/cosmologists, and we want the opportunity to put all assumptions on the table (ours and those of the mainstream!). Mainstreamers, come out and plaaaaay! (bad movie quote.)

[upriver]

turbo-1 and dgruss23, I wish to thank you for providing a great example of how to argue your case. I have been following this disscusion, and Cougar, you have been a champ.

There are clearly some issues to be resolved.

[Cougar]

Excuse me for going off the subtopic here, but I think this side topic is an important point that should not be misrepresented, mischaracterized, or misunderstood.

I have tried several times to get you to comment on Strauss' November 2, 2005 lecture here: http://www.stsci.edu/institute/cente...oquiaFall2005/

My comments on the evolution of quasar metallicities follow.

Here is a time-line of the lecture.

Thank you. That's just what I needed.

18:00 - spectra of 19 highest-redshift quasars. spectra look like those of low-redshift quasars.

For these 19 quasars all with z>5.7, when the universe was less than a billion years old, Strauss points out that the nitrogen and silicon emission lines already show abundances of these elements pretty much the same as quasars that reside in the universe at much later times. However, we should note that with respect to these very high redshift quasars Strauss does not mention any detection of magnesium or iron emission lines. If they were there, why would he not mention them? I suspect it is because they are not there. As both Keel AND Strauss have pointed out in citations previously provided, these heavier elements are only created in significant quantities in supernovae Ia, and the process required for these supernovae takes at least a billion years.

19:10 - there is no evolution in metallicity of high-z quasars

Ah, now Strauss talks about magnesium and iron, but please note, now he's shifted the population of quasars that he is talking about. Now we're talking about quasars in the range 4.7<z<5.8, and we're averaging the spectral properties. This gives the Supernovae Ia plenty of time to do their thing creating atomic nuclei near iron.

I don't see how it is at all difficult to imagine that the very early universe, with its much higher density of hydrogen and helium, would quickly yield myriads of very huge stars that would burn bright and quickly go supernova - supernova II, that is - spreading nitrogen and silicon, but little iron, throughout the interstellar medium. Of course, in the crowded conditions, many of these massive stars will be pulled together, resulting in black holes that have plenty to feed on and grow supermassive.

22:15 - luminosity information plus Eddington limit yield calculated masses of 1-5 G_Sol BH for quasars z>6. Theorists have not explained how these could have formed in a few hundred million years after the BB

It's all right here on the back of this envelope....

Years ago, the assumption was made that we would observe evolution in the metallicity of quasars...

I have no problem with this statement. It turns out the assumption was wrong. Most everyone assumed the expansion was slowing, too. This also turned out to be wrong. It happens. In this case, it just means that stellar activity started sooner and more frenetically than was thought.

...all the way out to redshift z~6.5. The metallicities of these quasars is solar or super-solar, and there is no evolution in either the absolute or relative abundances of MgII and FeII in their spectra.

That's not what Strauss said. The MgII and FeII abundances kick in between z=4.7 and 5.8, just when we would expect the Sne Ia to start playing a bigger role in spewing these elements into the universal environment.

Reports of big bang's death have been greatly exaggerated.

[TomT]

turbo-1 and dgruss23, I wish to thank you for providing a great example of how to argue your case. I have been following this disscusion, and Cougar, you have been a champ.

There are clearly some issues to be resolved.

I have been following this bridge discussion with much interest, and would like to second upriver's statement, and add that this has become a more focussed, higher level discussion, breaking new ground as it proceeds. I am glad to see that those who disagree with the Arp point of view have dropped the sarcastic stuff. This has raised the level of the discussion and indicates to me that they realize that the Arp claims for bridges are backed by much more than just "stamp collecting" as some have put it.
Good job of focussing the discussion Antoniseb, and I hope we can formulate some statement on the bridge question that all will agree to, before moving on.
TomT

[Fram]

I'm more a mainstreamer than an Arpian, but I don't have enough knowledge of it to be truly decided one way or the other. It is clear that Ari, Turbo, dgruss, ... (apologies to those I've forgotten) have invested a lot of serious work into this, and it would be indeed a pity if it didn't get more of a response.

Perhaps some portion (the bridges discussion, with the statistical work that is done) of the thread could be temporarily split of from here and put into a more frequented and less controversial forum (Q & A or Astronomy), where both sides would be asked (not obliged) to submit their opinions, additional information, ..., but with the caveat that redshift = distance cannot be used as an argument to dismiss the results (as that would be circular reasoning). If someone wants to defend that redshift = distance in all cases, then he or she has to give his best shot at explaining the anomalies found (more redshift than blueshift in M51 type bridges) in another way: vice versa, the defenders of the redshift <> distance in some cases have to (continue to) do their best to show that their are indeed anomalies, and that other explanations (like coincidence, bias, ...) are wrong or unlikely.
I would leave out other Arpian elements (physical and metaphysical) of that discussion, and truly constrict it to the bridges discussion, but with a hopefully larger audience and participation (certainly of mainstreamers) than is happening here, as I think this is a worthy, scientific discussion and a problem worth more effort from the boardmembers, many of whom probably never come into the ATM section.

I'll mostly stay on the sideline myself, as I don't know enough of it, but as far as I can see, this discussion (even if it turns out that the mainstream idea is right and Arp wrong) on its own gives enough reason for the ATM forum (with all its nonsense) to exist.

[turbo-1]

Excuse me for going off the subtopic here, but I think this side topic is an important point that should not be misrepresented, mischaracterized, or misunderstood.

Please read post 1603, where I point out that you misrepresented, mischaracterized and misunderstood the entire thrust (in both the abstract and the summary) of the Fan, Strauss, et al paper and claimed that they observed evolution in the metallicities of z>6 quasars when in fact they found NO evolution. They went to great pains to explain why this is so such an important finding, in light of present models of star formation, metal-enrichment rates of the IGM by SN1a's, etc.

Similarly, you are making rash assumptions on the Strauss lecture based on things that he didn't say:

However, we should note that with respect to these very high redshift quasars Strauss does not mention any detection of magnesium or iron emission lines.

He did not mention these metals specifically at this point in the lecture, but if you read the Fan, Strauss, et al 2002 paper you linked earlier, you will see that they discussed this very topic in great depth. The fact that Strauss did not recap this 3-year-old work in an SDSS overview lecture given at the Space Telescope Science Institute does not invalidate the previous work. You have also conveniently avoided his summation on the nature of high-redshift quasars that starts around 26:10 into his lecture:

...In basically every way that we've looked at, these high-redshift quasars are really very normal. As far as we can tell from the emission lines, metallicities are solar or above, just like moderate-redshift quasars. There's a variety of things that are suggested here, including things that I did not talk about - um, X-ray to optical ratios, more detail of the continuum and so on..in every way that we've looked at these quasars they really seem quite normal, and so quasars know about their immediate environment and really care very little about the redshift at which they formed.

"In every way" that the SDSS team has looked at these high-redshift quasars, they are indistinguishable from quasars of moderate redshift. That is a very solid statement of fact from the Scientific Spokesperson of the SDSS project, and it completely undercuts your interpretation of the lecture. Michael Strauss is not an ATM'er - he is a highly respected mainstream scientist, and if he observes things that don't seem to fit the current mainstream cosmology, we should pay attention. The lecture is right here, for anybody who would like to watch it and make up your own minds. Scroll down to November 2, 2005.

http://www.stsci.edu/institute/cente...oquiaFall2005/

[Cougar]

I think this side topic is an important point that should not be misrepresented, mischaracterized, or misunderstood.

I knew I should have left off those first two words and just gone with "misunderstood." Oh, well.

Please read post 1603, where I point out that you misrepresented, mischaracterized and misunderstood the entire thrust (in both the abstract and the summary) of the Fan, Strauss, et al paper and claimed that they observed evolution in the metallicities of z>6 quasars...

Here's what I said...

Did you have something newer than this 2002 publication wherein Strauss and collaborators state agreement with Keel's point that....
Quote:
Fe has a large delayed contribution from Type Ia supernovae, with a predicted time delay of about 1 Gyr after the initial starburst (Greggio & Renzini 1983; Matteucci & Greggio 1986), which does not depend on other parameters such as star formation rate.

In case you didn't notice, this quote is directly from the Fan, Strauss paper, so it's difficult to see how you can call this misrepresentation. Bottom line: Iron shows up later. This is an evolutionary development in quasar spectra around z=5.8.

This is not to take anything away from Fan, Strauss, or anybody finding "normal" metallicities (of most elements) in very high redshift objects. These are important findings. They constrain our theories of large structure formation in the early universe, which is an area that we've never really had a good theory about.

[turbo-1]

Here's what I said...
In case you didn't notice, this quote is directly from the Fan, Strauss paper, so it's difficult to see how you can call this misrepresentation. Bottom line: Iron shows up later. This is an evolutionary development in quasar spectra around z=5.8.

They are not saying that iron shows up later than z~5.8. That is at the heart of your misunderstanding of their paper. They are pointing out that the mainstream theory says that there will be a delay of 1Gy after the initial starburst before the IGM can be metal-enriched enough to allow the formation of highly metallized quasars (enriched in Fe). They point out in the paper that the highest-redshift quasars would require at least several hundred million years to form, and the additional 1Gy delay in iron enrichment from SN1a pushes the epoch of star formation back to a time hundreds of millions of years BEFORE the BB, which obviously cannot be true. They cannot reconcile these mainstream assumptions with the fact that z>6 quasars exhibit super-solar metallicities, and they included the statement you quoted to point out the problem, not to explain their observations. The SDSS team are observational astronomers - their observations need to be explained by theory and not the other way around.

This is not to take anything away from Fan, Strauss, or anybody finding "normal" metallicities (of most elements) in very high redshift objects. These are important findings. They constrain our theories of large structure formation in the early universe, which is an area that we've never really had a good theory about.

That's true. It is important to remember, though, that theories must explain the observations, and as Michael Strauss pointed out about 20 minutes into the lecture, theorists have made no progress in explaining the SDSS observations in this regard, except for some rough plausibility arguments. These observations strike at the fundamentals of early BB cosmology, and when you start tinkering with fundamentals in a cosmology that has so many adjustable parameters, there will be unforseen consequences. Something has got to give, and unless the SDSS team has been screwing up really badly, the BB theory is in for some serious revision, at the least.

If quasars can exhibit intrisic redshifts and are not at the distances implied by their redshifts, these anomalies (incredible BH masses, supersolar metallicities, lack of evolution from z~2-6.5 in every parameter the SDSS team has measured) do not pose a problem to the BB. If the mainstream denies intrinsic redshift and insists on maintaining the sanctity of the Hubble relationship no matter the cost, the cost promises to be very high.

[dgruss23]

If quasars can exhibit intrisic redshifts and are not at the distances implied by their redshifts, these anomalies (incredible BH masses, supersolar metallicities, lack of evolution from z~2-6.5 in every parameter the SDSS team has measured) do not pose a problem to the BB. If the mainstream denies intrinsic redshift and insists on maintaining the sanctity of the Hubble relationship no matter the cost, the cost promises to be very high.

And if galaxies exhibit intrinsic redshifts, then the actual value of the Hubble constant would probably be lower than the currently preferred 70 km s-1 Mpc-1. That certainly will affect the age of the universe and take some of the pressure off these objects that create an "age crisis" dilema.

[dgruss23]

I want to thank TomT, upriver, and Fram for sharing their thoughts on where this discussion is at with regard to bridges. The comments are very helpful!

[turbo-1]

I want to thank TomT, upriver, and Fram for sharing their thoughts on where this discussion is at with regard to bridges. The comments are very helpful!

I appreciate the comments, as well. It's nice to know that there are others finding value in in the discussion, whether or not they contribute substantively. It would be nice to have a spectrum of mainstream ideas in the thread - Cougar is pretty much carrying the whole load for the home team, and unless someone wants to relieve antoniseb of his mod duties, he will feel comfortable enough to jump in swinging.