Quasar luminosities are due to graviton decay

[ExpErdMann]

In a 2002 paper by Elvis et al, they argue that the total luminosities of quasars (which they equate with the supermassive black holes (SMBHs) found at the centres of most galaxies) amounts to 7-15% of the total luminosity of the universe. They assume that these luminosities are due to accretion of infalling matter.

Recently I suggested in this 2007 paper that SMBHs have a possible alternative power source arising from my proposed graviton decay mechanism. On p. 226-227 of the article, I show that the luminosity of the SMBH in our galaxy should be about 10^43 erg/sec. The total luminosity of our galaxy (assuming about 10^11 stars radiating at about 10^33 erg/sec) is about 10^44 erg/sec. My graviton decay mechanism thus gives about 10% of the total galactic luminosity. There is thus good general agreement between what SMBHs (quasars) emit in my model and what they are observed to emit. Accretion is reduced to a lesser role.

The basic equation of my model is

L = - UH

where L is the luminosity, U is the internal gravitational potential energy and H is the Hubble constant.

I had earlier shown that this same heating mechanism can explain the heat emissions of the Earth and larger planets. In my 2007 paper I showed that it can also account for gravitation.

[antoniseb]

That was a very entertaining paper, and I think an excellent first post for a new ATM thread.

Can you elaborate on how the gravitons in your paper differ from the various models of gravitons in more mainstream work?

[ExpErdMann]

Thanks. My graviton of course departs from the standard spin-2 gauge boson. I basically equate the graviton energy content in a gravitating system to the magnitude of its gravitational potential energy (-U). What the gravitons are is another story. What I suggest in the paper (in section "Basic nature of gravitons and gravitation") is that they are a form of virtual photon. To me this seems the most likely possibility, since I assume also that photons and gravitons are everywhere being interconverted at fractional rates proportional to H. So for a SMBH, for instance, the energy emitted is just conversion of virtual photons to ordinary ones.

[antoniseb]

Hmmm. Is emission of your gravitons slowed by the relativistic gravity near (or inside) event horizons? I don't want to assume you believe in event horizons, but even if you don't you must believe in being able to get infinitesimally close to one. Does this slow the process of emitting and absorbing gravitons?

[Nereid]

Some questions, in no particular order:

1) What is the expected SED (spectral energy distribution) of the RWBR?

2) What Hubble relationship does this idea predict, in the non-linear (high-z) region?

3) To what extent does the large-scale structure of the universe leave an anisotropic footprint in the Hubble relationship (given that this is, in your idea, due to one form of 'tired light')?

4) To what extent are effects analogous to the Sachs-Wolfe effect to be expected, in this idea?

5) Which of the many tests of GR (vs Newtonian gravity) does this idea fail?

6) What role, if any, does CDM play in this idea?

7) To what extent will concentrations of mass, such as superclusters, leave imprints on the CMB, in this idea?

(to be continued)

[ExpErdMann]

Hmmm. Is emission of your gravitons slowed by the relativistic gravity near (or inside) event horizons? I don't want to assume you believe in event horizons, but even if you don't you must believe in being able to get infinitesimally close to one. Does this slow the process of emitting and absorbing gravitons?

There are several aspects to this. The idea of event horizon is based on the GR treatment of black holes. On the gravity side, my model as it stands now covers only the Newtonian expression. Ultimately it will need to be connected to GR. On the black hole side, I do not subscribe to the classical notion of black holes. My OP supposes that light comes right out from the BH, not just from the accretion disk. I did notice that even in the Wiki definition of event horizon there is considerable ambiguity now even in what the mainstream expects to see near the black hole surface. Given that my gravity model is incomplete and that the behaviour of black holes is just now starting to be understood, I think it would be premature to say what sort of things I personally would expect to see in light as it nears the event horizon.

[parejkoj]

I've got a very short, but rather important question (don't have time to read the article right now), regarding this:

On p. 226-227 of the article, I show that the luminosity of the SMBH in our galaxy should be about 10^43 erg/sec.

Do you know what the luminosity of the SMBH in our galaxy actually is? We have measured its luminosity. And it ain't that high. Do you have a mechanism to "turn off" the black hole emission?

Our galaxy is not a quasar, and probably never was!

[ExpErdMann]

Hi Nereid. Your questions are good and I'll try to get to them one by one. I was wondering what you thought about my general OP. Do you think what I'm saying there basically holds together? Rome wasn't built in a day and I'm trying to figure out if I have enough mortar here for another column.

Some questions, in no particular order:

1) What is the expected SED (spectral energy distribution) of the RWBR?

2) What Hubble relationship does this idea predict, in the non-linear (high-z) region?

3) To what extent does the large-scale structure of the universe leave an anisotropic footprint in the Hubble relationship (given that this is, in your idea, due to one form of 'tired light')?

4) To what extent are effects analogous to the Sachs-Wolfe effect to be expected, in this idea?

5) Which of the many tests of GR (vs Newtonian gravity) does this idea fail?

6) What role, if any, does CDM play in this idea?

7) To what extent will concentrations of mass, such as superclusters, leave imprints on the CMB, in this idea?

(to be continued)

On (1), the greatest amount of energy is in very long wavelengths, probably beyond our ability to measure. This is because most of the gravitational potential energy in the universe is in the interactions with masses at the extreme edge of the visible universe. Higher energy photons (eg, X-rays) would be emitted by neutron stars and BHs and these would be redshifted eventually to radiophotons too. So the background will also contain these components.

(2) No different than in the general tired light model.

(3) This question relates to what precisely is causing the tired light redshift. I was careful not to spell that out, as I don't yet know. But I would suppose that the presence of matter will enhance the redshift effect both ways (graviton to photon and vice versa). If so there would be an imprint due to conversion of light to gravitons near clusters of mattter.

(4) Will have to reply later.

(5) As I mentioned to Antoniseb, my model still needs to be connected to GR. That will be for later. At the moment I can't think of any places where it fails. Can you?

(6) I doubt if CDM exists.

(7) This would be similar to (3), but I don't have any numbers.

[Nereid]

Hi Nereid. Your questions are good and I'll try to get to them one by one. I was wondering what you thought about my general OP. Do you think what I'm saying there basically holds together? Rome wasn't built in a day and I'm trying to figure out if I have enough mortar here for another column.

[snip]

What I thought about the OP?

parejkoj said it well, if rather too briefly (my paraphrase): the SMBH of (many, nearby) galaxies (not necessarily Seyfert AGN, quasars, or anything else) is reasonably well known ... if, by 'SMBH', you mean something like the central, unresolved, point source (a.k.a. nucleus). My guess - and at this stage it's nothing more - is that when you take a decent sample of such, the OP can be shown to be (many sigma) inconsistent with very good observational results, across many EM wavebands. Further, such (good) data has been around for decades, possibly even as long as a century ...

The main fly in the ointment is the (observational) fact that the nuclei of (many, nearby) galaxies have a wide range of (estimated, intrinsic) luminosities, and per your idea, that range is far more than I expect you could accommodate within your ATM idea.

[Nereid]

[snip]

Some questions, in no particular order:

1) What is the expected SED (spectral energy distribution) of the RWBR?

2) What Hubble relationship does this idea predict, in the non-linear (high-z) region?

3) To what extent does the large-scale structure of the universe leave an anisotropic footprint in the Hubble relationship (given that this is, in your idea, due to one form of 'tired light')?

4) To what extent are effects analogous to the Sachs-Wolfe effect to be expected, in this idea?

5) Which of the many tests of GR (vs Newtonian gravity) does this idea fail?

6) What role, if any, does CDM play in this idea?

7) To what extent will concentrations of mass, such as superclusters, leave imprints on the CMB, in this idea?

(to be continued)

On (1), the greatest amount of energy is in very long wavelengths, probably beyond our ability to measure. This is because most of the gravitational potential energy in the universe is in the interactions with masses at the extreme edge of the visible universe. Higher energy photons (eg, X-rays) would be emitted by neutron stars and BHs and these would be redshifted eventually to radiophotons too. So the background will also contain these components.

So how do you reconcile this with the plasma frequency of the ISM/IGM/and even the medium in the least dense voids?

(2) No different than in the general tired light model.

And that prediction is ...?

(3) This question relates to what precisely is causing the tired light redshift. I was careful not to spell that out, as I don't yet know. But I would suppose that the presence of matter will enhance the redshift effect both ways (graviton to photon and vice versa). If so there would be an imprint due to conversion of light to gravitons near clusters of mattter.

Well, when you do, please be sure to let us know.

I expect that this will prove to be an easy test for your idea ... and one that is fatal to it.

(4) Will have to reply later.

(5) As I mentioned to Antoniseb, my model still needs to be connected to GR. That will be for later. At the moment I can't think of any places where it fails. Can you?

Based solely on what is in the PDF document that the OP provides a link to, I'd say your idea will fail - quantitatively - in every case where there is an unambiguous difference between GR and Newton - advance of the perihelion of Mercury, deflection of light by massive objects, Pound-Rebka/gravitational redshift, Shapiro time delay, Eöt-Wash, binary pulsars, orbit of the Moon, GPB, etc.

(6) I doubt if CDM exists.

Maybe somewhat OT, but here are a few downstream questions:

6a) In your idea, what is the (radial) mass distribution of the Milky Way galaxy?

6b) Quantitatively, please show how your idea accounts of the observed SZE.

6c) In your idea, what is the (radial) mass distribution of a rich cluster (you choose - general, or three specific examples)?

(to be continued)

(7) This would be similar to (3), but I don't have any numbers.

And in the same vein, I expect a robust quantitative test will prove fatal to your idea .... but that test is, as you say, some time in the future yet.

[ExpErdMann]

Do you know what the luminosity of the SMBH in our galaxy actually is? We have measured its luminosity. And it ain't that high. Do you have a mechanism to "turn off" the black hole emission?

Our galaxy is not a quasar, and probably never was!

Right, the luminosity of Sagittarius A* is only about 10^3 greater than the solar luminosity. Apparently, this is also much lower than what the accretion mechanism predicts (see here). But according to the Elvis et al. paper, other SMBHs are emitting at these high luminosities, at least on average. For some reason our SMBH is underperforming. I was just using its mass and radius to get my luminosity estimate. I should have said the average SMBH luminosity seems to agree with my model.

On the quasar point, I've noted sevaral threads in various forums of late discussing what exactly a quasar is. Perhaps to keep the discussion more focused, we could just use SMBH luminosities. My understanding is that SMBHs = quasars in at least some stages of the mainstream scenario. That seems to be what Elvis et al. are saying.

[parejkoj]

Right, the luminosity of Sagittarius A* is only about 10^3 greater than the solar luminosity. Apparently, this is also much lower than what the accretion mechanism predicts.

Which accretion mechanism? There are several possibilities, and they have quite different predictions about efficiency and thus about luminosity. We know there's a massive black hole at the center of our galaxy, we know its mass, and we know its luminosity (or at least, an upper limit), but we don't know a lot else about it. Funny too, considering it's our neighbor. You'd think it would have dropped by for a cup of sugar at some point...

But according to the Elvis et al. paper, other SMBHs are emitting at these high luminosities, at least on average. For some reason our SMBH is underperforming. ... I should have said the average SMBH luminosity seems to agree with my model.

Average of which SMBHs? They range in size from ~10^3 (M33) to ~10^10 solar masses. And they range in accretion efficiency from ~10x to ~10^-7 times the Eddington rate (which is a rather messy measure of accretion anyway!). Elvis, G. Risaliti and Zamorani did not compute the average luminosity, but rather the total integrated luminosity. As with stars in our galaxy, it is completely dominated by the strongest objects.

How would one compute the "average SMBH luminosity"? That's like asking what an average star is: are we averaging on luminosity, mass, lifetime, number or what? Be more specific.

On the quasar point, I've noted sevaral threads in various forums of late discussing what exactly a quasar is.

Heh... one of those is mine, and I should finish it... I got busy (and lazy), and it got harder to explain in a clear manner, and I want it to be clear. If I can't make it clear, it's hard to justify continuing, but I do intend to try. If you have questions about the observational features of quasars and AGN, feel free to ask them there, or start a new thread about your specific question.

Perhaps to keep the discussion more focused, we could just use SMBH luminosities. My understanding is that SMBHs = quasars in at least some stages of the mainstream scenario.

I'm not quite sure what you mean: not all massive black holes are quasars, and many of them never were (the one in our galaxy is probably an example). Quasars play a similar role to that of blue supergiant stars in our galaxy's light: there aren't very many of them, but they produce a lot of energy.

So what exactly do you mean by "SMBH luminosities"? And how does your model account for the fact that most supermassive black holes are quiescent?

[ExpErdMann]

parejkoj said it well, if rather too briefly (my paraphrase): the SMBH of (many, nearby) galaxies (not necessarily Seyfert AGN, quasars, or anything else) is reasonably well known ... if, by 'SMBH', you mean something like the central, unresolved, point source (a.k.a. nucleus). My guess - and at this stage it's nothing more - is that when you take a decent sample of such, the OP can be shown to be (many sigma) inconsistent with very good observational results, across many EM wavebands. Further, such (good) data has been around for decades, possibly even as long as a century ...

The main fly in the ointment is the (observational) fact that the nuclei of (many, nearby) galaxies have a wide range of (estimated, intrinsic) luminosities, and per your idea, that range is far more than I expect you could accommodate within your ATM idea.

I think it will be hard to make my case without constant referral to the static universe model. From that side, quasars, which we can all define as active galactic nuclei centred on a SMBH, are present at all redshifts and in roughly even number densities. This means intrinsic redshifts for quasars and I will return to that later.

So if I grant that many SMBHs do not appear to have the luminosity called for by my model, the paper by Elvis et al. still states that quasars (and by extension SMBHs) still have as a group the luminosity called for by my model. This is unles I'm missing something in the Elvis et al. paper (which I hope someone will point out).

The question then is why do many SMBHs not show the EEM model luminosity? There are several possibilities I can think of at the moment:

(1) The SMBHs could have varying luminosities over time, with the higher ones being representative of quasars.

(2) As noted above in my reply to parejkoj, the luminosities of SMBHs seem to be too low even by the accretion mechanism (see link in that post). There seems to be more than enough matter potentially falling onto the disk that could raise the luminosity almost to the Eddington luminosity. That gave me an idea. Suppose that it is the heating effect of the EEM mechanism which is preventing infall of material? It takes energy to push the matter outwards against gravity. So if we were to remove the SMBH from its galaxy, then you would see its full EEM luminosity. Perhaps that is what quasars are. I think this idea would also explain the heating effect in galaxy clusters, wherein you see huge superheated voids (bubbles) around the central active galaxy.

(3) Last possibility, energy is going into mass creation. That really involves conversion of heavier elements back to H. This is part of the recycling of matter in the static universe and has to enter the picture somewhere. I just mention it here for completeness.

I grant that we're already far away from the simple picture in my OP. But the numbers found by Elvis et al. still seem like they are consistent with my approach.

[ExpErdMann]

So how do you reconcile this with the plasma frequency of the ISM/IGM/and even the medium in the least dense voids?

Will have to file this for future rumination. It is obvious that just following the quasar/SMBH discussion will take all my time.

And that prediction is ...?

I don't think the tired light model differs from the BBT on the distance-z relationship, but I will review Jaakkola's papers. Of course, there is the well-known surface brightness distinction

Well, when you do, please be sure to let us know.

I will get into the tired light mechanism at some point, and you may indeed hear about it here first.

Based solely on what is in the PDF document that the OP provides a link to, I'd say your idea will fail - quantitatively - in every case where there is an unambiguous difference between GR and Newton - advance of the perihelion of Mercury, deflection of light by massive objects, Pound-Rebka/gravitational redshift, Shapiro time delay, Eöt-Wash, binary pulsars, orbit of the Moon, GPB, etc.

To repeat myself, I'm not setting my gravitational mechanism against GR. I'm sort of working from the bottom-up approach, rather than the usual top-down (GR to quantum gravity), which has produced nothing so far. Your tests don't worry me at this point.

Maybe somewhat OT, but here are a few downstream questions:

6a) In your idea, what is the (radial) mass distribution of the Milky Way galaxy?

6b) Quantitatively, please show how your idea accounts of the observed SZE.

6c) In your idea, what is the (radial) mass distribution of a rich cluster (you choose - general, or three specific examples)?

(to be continued)And in the same vein, I expect a robust quantitative test will prove fatal to your idea .... but that test is, as you say, some time in the future yet.

Will have to look at these points later.

[Nereid]

parejkoj said it well, if rather too briefly (my paraphrase): the SMBH of (many, nearby) galaxies (not necessarily Seyfert AGN, quasars, or anything else) is reasonably well known ... if, by 'SMBH', you mean something like the central, unresolved, point source (a.k.a. nucleus). My guess - and at this stage it's nothing more - is that when you take a decent sample of such, the OP can be shown to be (many sigma) inconsistent with very good observational results, across many EM wavebands. Further, such (good) data has been around for decades, possibly even as long as a century ...

The main fly in the ointment is the (observational) fact that the nuclei of (many, nearby) galaxies have a wide range of (estimated, intrinsic) luminosities, and per your idea, that range is far more than I expect you could accommodate within your ATM idea.

I think it will be hard to make my case without constant referral to the static universe model. From that side, quasars, which we can all define as active galactic nuclei centred on a SMBH, are present at all redshifts and in roughly even number densities. This means intrinsic redshifts for quasars and I will return to that later.

So if I grant that many SMBHs do not appear to have the luminosity called for by my model, the paper by Elvis et al. still states that quasars (and by extension SMBHs) still have as a group the luminosity called for by my model. This is unles I'm missing something in the Elvis et al. paper (which I hope someone will point out).

The question then is why do many SMBHs not show the EEM model luminosity? There are several possibilities I can think of at the moment:

(1) The SMBHs could have varying luminosities over time, with the higher ones being representative of quasars.

(2) As noted above in my reply to parejkoj, the luminosities of SMBHs seem to be too low even by the accretion mechanism (see link in that post). There seems to be more than enough matter potentially falling onto the disk that could raise the luminosity almost to the Eddington luminosity. That gave me an idea. Suppose that it is the heating effect of the EEM mechanism which is preventing infall of material? It takes energy to push the matter outwards against gravity. So if we were to remove the SMBH from its galaxy, then you would see its full EEM luminosity. Perhaps that is what quasars are. I think this idea would also explain the heating effect in galaxy clusters, wherein you see huge superheated voids (bubbles) around the central active galaxy.

(3) Last possibility, energy is going into mass creation. That really involves conversion of heavier elements back to H. This is part of the recycling of matter in the static universe and has to enter the picture somewhere. I just mention it here for completeness.

I grant that we're already far away from the simple picture in my OP. But the numbers found by Elvis et al. still seem like they are consistent with my approach.

If we combine this with the next post (#14), it seems there's little left to challenge or even question, concerning a specific ATM idea presented in this thread (there are, of course, many questions the answers to which, when you get around to posting them, may prove fertile ground for new, or re-newed, challenges and questions).

Perhaps the most important thing to do, at this point, would be for you to tighten your definitions ('quasar', 'SMBH', 'luminosity', ...), a sort of meta-question to parejkoj's earlier one ("So what exactly do you mean by "SMBH luminosities"?")

In the meantime, it seems that you have loosened your idea so much that it is now (observationally) untestable: on the one hand, there is no objective link between "SMBH luminosities" and your idea; on the other hand, the mechanisms you propose for any such link are either ruled out (e.g. the RWBR cannot propagate, even in the most tenuous of inter-cluster voids) or are speculative in the extreme (e.g. a theory of gravity that has not been shown to be consistent with 'the tests of GR'). All that you are left with is the logical equivalent of astrology ("the numbers found by Elvis et al. still seem like they are consistent with my approach").

But perhaps I missed something; what is left of the ATM idea, in your opinion, that can be questioned or challenged?

[ExpErdMann]

Which accretion mechanism? There are several possibilities, and they have quite different predictions about efficiency and thus about luminosity. We know there's a massive black hole at the center of our galaxy, we know its mass, and we know its luminosity (or at least, an upper limit), but we don't know a lot else about it. Funny too, considering it's our neighbor. You'd think it would have dropped by for a cup of sugar at some point...

In the link I gave (which BTW was not a paper) accretion was supposed to result from capture of material that was blown out of large stars orbiting the SMBH. They estimated the amount of gas and dust that should be available, the amount of energy that would be derived from infall onto the SMBH disk and concluded that the model predicts greater energy emission than observed.

Average of which SMBHs? They range in size from ~10^3 (M33) to ~10^10 solar masses. And they range in accretion efficiency from ~10x to ~10^-7 times the Eddington rate (which is a rather messy measure of accretion anyway!). Elvis, G. Risaliti and Zamorani did not compute the average luminosity, but rather the total integrated luminosity. As with stars in our galaxy, it is completely dominated by the strongest objects.

My simple reasoning is as follows. Elvis et al. found a value for the total luminosity of quasars relative to the universal luminosity. Supposing each quasar is associated with a SMBH, and given that the quasar luminosities are far greater than ordinary SMBHs, then we have a total luminosity for SMBHs as a group. My next step may be the problematic one. I then take the luminosity of our own SMBH (not as measured but according to my model equation) and compare it with the luminosity of our galaxy to get a rough, universal ratio for total SMBH luminosity (by my model) to total universal luminosity. My ratio comes out roughly the same as Elvis et al.'s.

How would one compute the "average SMBH luminosity"? That's like asking what an average star is: are we averaging on luminosity, mass, lifetime, number or what? Be more specific.

Did I clarify it enough above? Perhaps it would be better expressed as average luminosity per unit SMBH mass.

Heh... one of those is mine, and I should finish it... I got busy (and lazy), and it got harder to explain in a clear manner, and I want it to be clear. If I can't make it clear, it's hard to justify continuing, but I do intend to try. If you have questions about the observational features of quasars and AGN, feel free to ask them there, or start a new thread about your specific question.

I've started reading.

I'm not quite sure what you mean: not all massive black holes are quasars, and many of them never were (the one in our galaxy is probably an example). Quasars play a similar role to that of blue supergiant stars in our galaxy's light: there aren't very many of them, but they produce a lot of energy.

My idea of quasars is that they are not relics of the past but features of the current universe. I would say that SMBHs are sometimes in the quasar state and other times not.

So what exactly do you mean by "SMBH luminosities"? And how does your model account for the fact that most supermassive black holes are quiescent?

I can't account for it yet, but did list some possibilities in my reply to Nereid. And also, as mentioned in this post, the mainstream model also has some difficulty accounting for this quiescence.

[ExpErdMann]

In the meantime, it seems that you have loosened your idea so much that it is now (observationally) untestable: on the one hand, there is no objective link between "SMBH luminosities" and your idea; on the other hand, the mechanisms you propose for any such link are either ruled out (e.g. the RWBR cannot propagate, even in the most tenuous of inter-cluster voids) or are speculative in the extreme (e.g. a theory of gravity that has not been shown to be consistent with 'the tests of GR'). All that you are left with is the logical equivalent of astrology ("the numbers found by Elvis et al. still seem like they are consistent with my approach").


But perhaps I missed something; what is left of the ATM idea, in your opinion, that can be questioned or challenged?

Your points are similar to parejkoj's, which I've replied to above. Generally, though, I'm in agreement with you that my ATM idea here will not walk far without an explanation for the missing flux in our home galaxy. I'll work on it and see if I can come back with something.

BTW, I'm not following you on the RWBR-void business.

[Nereid]

Your points are similar to parejkoj's, which I've replied to above. Generally, though, I'm in agreement with you that my ATM idea here will not walk far without an explanation for the missing flux in our home galaxy. I'll work on it and see if I can come back with something.

I look forward to it.

BTW, I'm not following you on the RWBR-void business.

Let's take just this part of the PDF linked to in the OP:

[...] the product photons of the graviton decay must be radio waves of very long wavelength. We will designate these waves as radio wave background radiation, or RWBR. The great range of possible graviton energies implies that the RWBR, unlike the CMBR, would not possess a uniform, blackbody spectrum.

Please explain how such "radio waves of very long wavelength", with the energies they must have (according to what's in that PDF document), interact with the IPM, ISM, IGM, and inter-cluster (plasma) medium ... given that they have frequencies that are far, far smaller than the plasma frequencies of those media.

IOW, if I understand your idea correctly, you think this "RWBR" can propagate freely through space, just as the CMB can. I'm asking you to explain how that's possible, given that the frequencies are far smaller than the relevant plasma frequencies. Or, putting it differently, such long wavelength radio cannot be a "BR".

So, to close with a direct, pertinent question, based on the ATM idea, as presented: how can such long wavelength radio waves comprise a "BR"?

OK, two questions: please provide details of the (ATM) physical mechanism that allows such long wavelength radio waves to propagate through plasmas whose plasma frequencies are far, far higher (than the frequencies of the radio waves).

[parejkoj]

In the link I gave (which BTW was not a paper) accretion was supposed to result from capture of material that was blown out of large stars orbiting the SMBH. They estimated the amount of gas and dust that should be available, the amount of energy that would be derived from infall onto the SMBH disk and concluded that the model predicts greater energy emission than observed.

That's not all that goes into a model of accretion. Is it spherically symmetric, a torus, clumpy, smooth, twisted, plasma or uncharged? Is it fast moving, slow, dust, gas or some mixture? What is it's isotopic and molecular composition?

The Eddington limit is by no means a hard limit (do you know what it actually is?), it is just something that is easy to compute and compare between objects. We use it in AGN research a lot because of this simplicity. But one always must remember that it is probably not a good physical description for the accretion mechanisms onto supermassive black holes.

My simple reasoning is as follows. Elvis et al. found a value for the total luminosity of quasars relative to the universal luminosity. Supposing each quasar is associated with a SMBH, and given that the quasar luminosities are far greater than ordinary SMBHs, then we have a total luminosity for SMBHs as a group.

No, you have a total luminosity for bright AGN. If the quasar duty cycle is short (how long they are actually lit up as a quasar), then what Elvis et al. computed (not measured!) only represents the luminosity due to the black holes when they are active. In any give volume of space, there are many more non-active galaxies than active ones. And even fewer that would commonly be called quasars.

My next step may be the problematic one. I then take the luminosity of our own SMBH (not as measured but according to my model equation) and compare it with the luminosity of our galaxy to get a rough, universal ratio for total SMBH luminosity (by my model) to total universal luminosity. My ratio comes out roughly the same as Elvis et al.'s.

You are certainly correct that this is a problematic step. Why do you think the luminosity of stars in our galaxy has anything to do with the luminosity of our central black hole? Is that described in your paper?

How would one compute the "average SMBH luminosity"? That's like asking what an average star is: are we averaging on luminosity, mass, lifetime, number or what? Be more specific.

Did I clarify it enough above? Perhaps it would be better expressed as average luminosity per unit SMBH mass.

What is the standard deviation then? This is a very skew distribution! It's like measuring the "average brightness" of buildings in Philadelphia at 4am. Most of the light comes from the high-rises and businesses that leave their interior lights on. It tells you almost nothing about the luminosity of the houses and residences where people are asleep with their lights off.

My idea of quasars is that they are not relics of the past but features of the current universe. I would say that SMBHs are sometimes in the quasar state and other times not.

Supposed I should hit this sooner than later: what evidence do you have that the standard interpretation of quasar redshifts is invalid? And how do you account for Lyman-alpha absorption, interposing absorption systems at smaller redshifts and the recently found Gunn-Peterson troughs in the highest redshift quasars? Among many other things...

I can't account for it yet, but did list some possibilities in my reply to Nereid. And also, as mentioned in this post, the mainstream model also has some difficulty accounting for this quiescence.

The mainstream model doesn't have as much trouble there as you might think. There are perhaps a few details missing (e.g. what exactly is the relation between different types of emission systems and is there an evolutionary sequence?), but the quiescence is easy enough to explain; AGN turn on when enough material is driven into them at a high rate, and turn off when they run out of fuel. Galaxy interactions are a very good way to drive material into the black hole, and the material that gets sent there will only last so long (plus, the accretion disk can start blowing other material away in a wind).

I can't find the movie of a galaxy merger with AGN wind effects included... anyone else know where it is?

[ExpErdMann]

Please explain how such "radio waves of very long wavelength", with the energies they must have (according to what's in that PDF document), interact with the IPM, ISM, IGM, and inter-cluster (plasma) medium ... given that they have frequencies that are far, far smaller than the plasma frequencies of those media.

I don't discuss an interaction between the RWBR photons and these more energetic ones. Are you perhaps thinking of the interaction I suggest between the RWBR photons (and other photons) with gravitons?

IOW, if I understand your idea correctly, you think this "RWBR" can propagate freely through space, just as the CMB can. I'm asking you to explain how that's possible, given that the frequencies are far smaller than the relevant plasma frequencies. Or, putting it differently, such long wavelength radio cannot be a "BR".

Sorry, not following you again. Are you suggesting that the more energetic plasma photons can act as a screen against radiophotons? I don't see why that should be the case. I don't have any reason to suppose that the radiation fields would not pass freely through each other. (Vigier did suggest a photon-photon interaction as a possible cause of redshift.)

So, to close with a direct, pertinent question, based on the ATM idea, as presented: how can such long wavelength radio waves comprise a "BR"?

OK, two questions: please provide details of the (ATM) physical mechanism that allows such long wavelength radio waves to propagate through plasmas whose plasma frequencies are far, far higher (than the frequencies of the radio waves).

Again, I'm not seeing the problem.

[Nereid]

I don't discuss an interaction between the RWBR photons and these more energetic ones. Are you perhaps thinking of the interaction I suggest between the RWBR photons (and other photons) with gravitons?

Sorry, not following you again. Are you suggesting that the more energetic plasma photons can act as a screen against radiophotons? I don't see why that should be the case. I don't have any reason to suppose that the radiation fields would not pass freely through each other. (Vigier did suggest a photon-photon interaction as a possible cause of redshift.)



Again, I'm not seeing the problem.

ExpErdMann, the questions stand.

If you do not understand what plasma frequency is, or how the frequency of photons influences their propagation through a plasma, please ask appropriate questions in the Q&A section, or, in the words of Celestial Mechanic, "get thee to a library".

When do you expect to be ready to answer my direct, specific, pertinent questions, based directly on the ATM ideas you have presented in this thread?

[ExpErdMann]

That's not all that goes into a model of accretion. Is it spherically symmetric, a torus, clumpy, smooth, twisted, plasma or uncharged? Is it fast moving, slow, dust, gas or some mixture? What is it's isotopic and molecular composition?

I would say they all have a shortcoming, discussed below.

The Eddington limit is by no means a hard limit (do you know what it actually is?), it is just something that is easy to compute and compare between objects. We use it in AGN research a lot because of this simplicity. But one always must remember that it is probably not a good physical description for the accretion mechanisms onto supermassive black holes.

I did use the limit in the pages mentioned in the OP. I use it as just a rough guide also.

No, you have a total luminosity for bright AGN. If the quasar duty cycle is short (how long they are actually lit up as a quasar), then what Elvis et al. computed (not measured!) only represents the luminosity due to the black holes when they are active. In any give volume of space, there are many more non-active galaxies than active ones. And even fewer that would commonly be called quasars.

True, but it depends also on how we want to look at it. If we look at galaxies as semi-permanent entities, then we can envisage their cores as alternating between lower mass SMBHs and higher mass AGNs/quasars. Given the high luminosities of the quasars, and averaging that over the time a galaxy spends in the quasar state, then we can still use the quasar luminosities to arrive at an average core luminosity per unit mass.

You are certainly correct that this is a problematic step. Why do you think the luminosity of stars in our galaxy has anything to do with the luminosity of our central black hole? Is that described in your paper?

I'll come to this below.

What is the standard deviation then? This is a very skew distribution! It's like measuring the "average brightness" of buildings in Philadelphia at 4am. Most of the light comes from the high-rises and businesses that leave their interior lights on. It tells you almost nothing about the luminosity of the houses and residences where people are asleep with their lights off.

Yes, I think you mentioned SMBH luminosity range of 10^7. As stated above, however, if the houses are mostly dim, then we can ignore those and just use the few bright lights to derive the average.

Supposed I should hit this sooner than later: what evidence do you have that the standard interpretation of quasar redshifts is invalid? And how do you account for Lyman-alpha absorption, interposing absorption systems at smaller redshifts and the recently found Gunn-Peterson troughs in the highest redshift quasars? Among many other things...

First, there are Arp's quasar-galaxy connections. I realize most on this board have dismissed those, but I am not ready too. Secondly, if there are intrinsic quasar redshifts, then the z-distance relationship is thrown off for quasars. The intrinsic redshift of the quasars would need to be multiplied as (1 + z) with the cosmological component (not added), and this can lead to the apparent observation of very few quasars at higher z's. Given this, the finding of the quasar at z ~ 6 with the trough does not consist of conclusive evidence. (I think you would also agree that one quasar does not prove the point anyway.)

The mainstream model doesn't have as much trouble there as you might think. There are perhaps a few details missing (e.g. what exactly is the relation between different types of emission systems and is there an evolutionary sequence?), but the quiescence is easy enough to explain; AGN turn on when enough material is driven into them at a high rate, and turn off when they run out of fuel. Galaxy interactions are a very good way to drive material into the black hole, and the material that gets sent there will only last so long (plus, the accretion disk can start blowing other material away in a wind).

Here's the general problem I see with the accretion mechanisms. The gravitational energy derived from infall of matter onto the accretion disk is assumed to cause the observed high luminosities and heating of gas and dust, but it is also this energy which supposedly causes the mass outflows from the black hole. If you look at any one galaxy, then it must gradually be running down with all its mass eventually collapsing onto the SMBH. This is because the light that escapes the galaxy does not have a further part to play in generating new structures in the BBT. It just cools with the supposed expansion. The energy needed to cause mass outflows (against gravity) is just cancelled by the energy gained by the infall of that same matter. So there is a net loss of energy from the galaxy over time. This problem is not often discussed in the BBT, probably because they generally suppose things to die out over time. But when you look at galaxies at different z's, I don't think there is evidence for collapsing in of galaxies at lower z's.

Now on the point of why SMBH luminosities should have a connection to the galactic luminosities, it relates to the recycling of matter in a static universe. In ordinary stars, H and other elements are being fused to higher elements, releasing energy. There needs to be a return mechanism whereby H is regenerated and it seems most likely that that should be in the SMBHs. In the OP, I show that in our own SMBH there is about 10^43 erg/sec generated through my proposed mechanism, which is about 10% of the galaxy's luminosity. If we go to more massive SMBHs, the luminosity via my mechanism would be still greater and there would be more than enough energy to regenerate the H there. At the same time, light just doesn't go off into the voids in my model. It is recycled to gravitons, as part of the overall cycle.

[ExpErdMann]

ExpErdMann, the questions stand.

If you do not understand what plasma frequency is, or how the frequency of photons influences their propagation through a plasma, please ask appropriate questions in the Q&A section, or, in the words of Celestial Mechanic, "get thee to a library".

When do you expect to be ready to answer my direct, specific, pertinent questions, based directly on the ATM ideas you have presented in this thread?

I work in a science library, so I'm always here.

Sorry, I had misread plasma frequency, this being an unfamiliar term. I can look into this further, but I have a few general points.

On one hand, the frequencies of RWBR photons I'm discussing are very, very low. If you think of the gravitational potential energy between two H atoms, one here and one at the edge of the visible universe, and think that the RWBR photons arise from redshifting of that tiny energy, then we can get an idea of the ultra long wavelengths of the RWBR. I am doubtful that this radiation would be blocked by plasma, but if you can show me otherwise please do.

On the other hand, your point reminds me that I have not read up on the plasma component to cosmology in some time. I am hesitant to rule out that plasmas would have a role, say in generating large-scale structures. I need to account for that in my model also. I can only summarize this as an area where future work needs to be done.

[Nereid]

[snip]

First, there are Arp's quasar-galaxy connections. I realize most on this board have dismissed those, but I am not ready too. [snip]

What specific, quantitative "quasar-galaxy connections" are you prepared to answer questions on, and address challenges to?

What - quantitatively - are the bounds of such connections that are consistent with your ATM idea, as you have presented it here in this thread?

[Jerry]

Do you anticipate the detection of gravity waves; Or will decomposition prevent gravity waves from propagating through space?

[Nereid]

I work in a science library, so I'm always here.

Sorry, I had misread plasma frequency, this being an unfamiliar term. I can look into this further, but I have a few general points.

On one hand, the frequencies of RWBR photons I'm discussing are very, very low. If you think of the gravitational potential energy between two H atoms, one here and one at the edge of the visible universe, and think that the RWBR photons arise from redshifting of that tiny energy, then we can get an idea of the ultra long wavelengths of the RWBR. I am doubtful that this radiation would be blocked by plasma, but if you can show me otherwise please do.

On the other hand, your point reminds me that I have not read up on the plasma component to cosmology in some time. I am hesitant to rule out that plasmas would have a role, say in generating large-scale structures. I need to account for that in my model also. I can only summarize this as an area where future work needs to be done.

Here is an extract from post #10 in this thread:

On (1), the greatest amount of energy is in very long wavelengths, probably beyond our ability to measure. This is because most of the gravitational potential energy in the universe is in the interactions with masses at the extreme edge of the visible universe. Higher energy photons (eg, X-rays) would be emitted by neutron stars and BHs and these would be redshifted eventually to radiophotons too. So the background will also contain these components.

So how do you reconcile this with the plasma frequency of the ISM/IGM/and even the medium in the least dense voids?

Note that 'plasma frequency' is a link: http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...Frequency.html

Here it is, in plain English (I've added bold): "The maximum frequency of internal oscillation of a plasma. The plasma frequency is proportional to the square root of the electron density."

Here is a concise statement that suits my question well (my bold): "As it is evident from the introductory diagram, the ordinary wave propagates only at frequencies higher than the electron plasma frequency. At lower frequencies the plasma is opaque to light (electromagnetic radiation). This is because the electrons at lower frequencies get to perceive and follow the external stimuli, vibrate and absorb the energy of the electromagnetic wave. This phenomenon is very well known for the radio wave in our ionosphere. The higher frequency waves penetrate the ionosphere, for them it is “transparent”, whereas the lower frequency waves do not penetrate in any way."

So, back to my questions:

Please explain how such "radio waves of very long wavelength", with the energies they must have (according to what's in that PDF document), interact with the IPM, ISM, IGM, and inter-cluster (plasma) medium ... given that they have frequencies that are far, far smaller than the plasma frequencies of those media.

IOW, if I understand your idea correctly, you think this "RWBR" can propagate freely through space, just as the CMB can. I'm asking you to explain how that's possible, given that the frequencies are far smaller than the relevant plasma frequencies. Or, putting it differently, such long wavelength radio cannot be a "BR".

So, to close with a direct, pertinent question, based on the ATM idea, as presented: how can such long wavelength radio waves comprise a "BR"?

OK, two questions: please provide details of the (ATM) physical mechanism that allows such long wavelength radio waves to propagate through plasmas whose plasma frequencies are far, far higher (than the frequencies of the radio waves).

I look forward to your answers.

[ExpErdMann]

Do you anticipate the detection of gravity waves; Or will decomposition prevent gravity waves from propagating through space?

This gets into how my primitive model connects with GR. As I mentioned to Antoniseb, I haven't made that connection yet but suppose that it will be possible to do so. Roughly, I would say that the graviton lattice in my model corresponds to the spacetime of GR. So a gravitational wave would be propagated through the graviton lattice. Since that lattice is being continually recycled in my model, the disturbance would be effectively redshifted with distance.

[ExpErdMann]

What specific, quantitative "quasar-galaxy connections" are you prepared to answer questions on, and address challenges to?

What - quantitatively - are the bounds of such connections that are consistent with your ATM idea, as you have presented it here in this thread?

I don't think it should be necessary to discuss the quasar connection issue here. I would not in any case be able to add much to what others have said in other threads (eg., "More on Arp et al." I would prefer to restrict the discussion to the local universe, where as much as possible we can sidestep the debate on BBT vs. static universe. I realize that some of the issues can't be sidestepped.

The issue of quasar connections to other galaxies does not directly touch on my OP. I am concerned at this point in determining if my model adequately predicts the SMBH/quasar luminosities (in the same way as for the white dwarfs, neutron stars, etc.)

As already noted, the model does not in itself account for the luminosity of our Milky Way SMBH. As noted above, H regeneration in SMBHs could be a sink for energy and this could perhaps explain the deficit. Once all the heavy elements in a SMBH are converted to H, then all of the graviton decay energy would go into radiation and winds or (in Arp's model possibly) ejection of a new quasar.

[Nereid]

What specific, quantitative "quasar-galaxy connections" are you prepared to answer questions on, and address challenges to?

What - quantitatively - are the bounds of such connections that are consistent with your ATM idea, as you have presented it here in this thread?

I don't think it should be necessary to discuss the quasar connection issue here. I would not in any case be able to add much to what others have said in other threads (eg., "More on Arp et al." I would prefer to restrict the discussion to the local universe, where as much as possible we can sidestep the debate on BBT vs. static universe. I realize that some of the issues can't be sidestepped.

The issue of quasar connections to other galaxies does not directly touch on my OP. I am concerned at this point in determining if my model adequately predicts the SMBH/quasar luminosities (in the same way as for the white dwarfs, neutron stars, etc.)

As already noted, the model does not in itself account for the luminosity of our Milky Way SMBH. As noted above, H regeneration in SMBHs could be a sink for energy and this could perhaps explain the deficit. Once all the heavy elements in a SMBH are converted to H, then all of the graviton decay energy would go into radiation and winds or (in Arp's model possibly) ejection of a new quasar.

The OP says:

In a 2002 paper by Elvis et al, they argue that the total luminosities of quasars (which they equate with the supermassive black holes (SMBHs) found at the centres of most galaxies) amounts to 7-15% of the total luminosity of the universe. They assume that these luminosities are due to accretion of infalling matter.

The Ellis et al. paper also assumes that quasars are at the (cosmological) distances implied by their observed redshifts.

Yet, just a few posts ago you stated (extracts):

Supposed I should hit this sooner than later: what evidence do you have that the standard interpretation of quasar redshifts is invalid?

First, there are Arp's quasar-galaxy connections. I realize most on this board have dismissed those, but I am not ready too. Secondly, if there are intrinsic quasar redshifts, then the z-distance relationship is thrown off for quasars.

To what extent have you thus rendered irrelevant the key points of the ATM idea you are presenting?

How extensively have you modified the detailed calculations in Ellis et al. (2002) to account for "the z-distance relationship [being] thrown off for quasars"?

Assuming that you have done this re-working, what were the results, in terms of the proportion of the total luminosity of the universe being accounted for by quasars?

[ExpErdMann]

Here is a concise statement that suits my question well (my bold): "As it is evident from the introductory diagram, the ordinary wave propagates only at frequencies higher than the electron plasma frequency. At lower frequencies the plasma is opaque to light (electromagnetic radiation). This is because the electrons at lower frequencies get to perceive and follow the external stimuli, vibrate and absorb the energy of the electromagnetic wave. This phenomenon is very well known for the radio wave in our ionosphere. The higher frequency waves penetrate the ionosphere, for them it is “transparent”, whereas the lower frequency waves do not penetrate in any way."

So, back to my questions:

Please explain how such "radio waves of very long wavelength", with the energies they must have (according to what's in that PDF document), interact with the IPM, ISM, IGM, and inter-cluster (plasma) medium ... given that they have frequencies that are far, far smaller than the plasma frequencies of those media.

The RWBR photons in my model are not only of very long wavelength but they are also omnidirectional and of extremely uniform intensity. So from the green highlighted part of your quote, it would follow that the electrons are experiencing a uniform force from all directions due to the RWBR fields and so would not "get to perceive and follow the external stimuli, vibrate and absorb the energy of the electromagnetic wave". Since there is no absorption in this case, it follows that the plasma would be transparent to these photons.

IOW, if I understand your idea correctly, you think this "RWBR" can propagate freely through space, just as the CMB can. I'm asking you to explain how that's possible, given that the frequencies are far smaller than the relevant plasma frequencies. Or, putting it differently, such long wavelength radio cannot be a "BR".

I've answered above, but I would ask you what effect these plasmas have on CMBR wave propagation. I searched this but came up empty.