binary Quasars - VINDICATES ARP

[John Kierein]

in my view, quasars are stars with a big cloud of electrons around them that cause them to have an intrinsic red shift from the compton effect. This is just like the sun which has a red shift that correlates to the number of electrons along the line of sight. Thus, the solar red shift is bigger at the edge and smaller at the center. Now we see that quasars can be in pairs just like binary stars.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...rs_020321.html

Once you guys agree that quasars can have intrinsic red shifts and that the Compton effect causes a red shift, then maybe you'll begin to see how the cosmological red shift is Compton and the big bang is wrong.

Arp's book "Seeing Red" disputes the idea that quasars are the products of gravitational lensing.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: John Kierein on 2002-03-22 07:52 ]</font>

[John Kierein]

This is another writeup of the same observation. It says there are more quasars pairs than you would expect. (UNLESS, they are just ordinary binary star systems.)
http://skyandtelescope.com/news/curr...icle_539_1.asp

I've always suspected that this pair is a binary star system instead of a quasar and a foreground star. I'd sure like Hubble ST to look at this pair again to see if they have proper motion from being in orbit around each other.
http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/pr/96/25.html

[DJ]

John, a lot of folks are slapping their heads going "duh" right now... you have to remember that they were LOOKING for gravitational lensing, so that's obviously what they found. Until they were forced to acknowledge something else. They = Academia who have access to the tools we funded to build.

I agree with some of your analysis, though I have not yet mastered the science to thoroughly understand all of it.

DJ

[GrapesOfWrath]

Until they found differences, they assumed that they were the same. Had they also found an intervening mass, they would have been more convinced. In this case, the difference was the x-ray spectrum found by Chandra, correct?

[SeanF]

I'm confused by this whole thread! (So, what else is new, eh?)

The linked articles are about a quasar pair that was initially thought to be a gravitational-lensing induced illusion of a single quasar. Thanks to Chandra's x-ray vision [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img] they now believe there are actually two quasars.

What does this have to do with whether the redshift is Compton Effect or not?

Also, John's original post mentions a book that "disputes the idea that quasars are the products of gravitational lensing." Gravitational lensing produces multiple images of distant objects - is there a theory that it actually produces objects?

[John Kierein]

Quasars have such a HUGE redshift that, in order for them to be as bright as they are AT THE DISTANCE that corresponds to this red shift, they would have to be intrinsically too bright to explain with ordinary physics. They also are very small, no larger than the size of a solar system and probably much smaller as we know from their short term variability. So there is no mechanism than can easily explain how such an object with spectra indicating a relatively low temperature can be so bright is such a small volume. One answer given was that quasars were gravitationally lensed so they appear brighter than they are. Now we see that this particular gravitational lens candidate is not gravitational lensed after all. So, it becomes a real physics problem! Arp & I beleive quasars are much closer than their red shift would indicate in order to solve this problem. We both believe they have an "intrinsic" red shift; i.e., one which is not related to its distance. I believe this red shift is due to the Compton effect and that quasars have a big cloud of electrons surrounding them to produce this.
See: http://www.angelfire.com/az/BIGBANGisWRONG/index.html

Arp and the Burbidges believe that quasars are associated with relaively nearby galaxies. See Arp's book "Seeing Red". I'm not totally convinced that this is the case, but I agree with Arp that they aren't at their red shift distances. In fact, I still am not absolutely convinced they aren't just stars; but they must be intrinsically very dim nearby stars since they don't seem to line up with the galactic plane. I keep hoping to get convincing evidence that they have some proper motion to prove they are nearby - and indeed there is some evidence for this. I link to it from my website.

Sorry to be confusing. Hope this helps.

[John Kierein]

Oh, part of the vindication for Arp is that he does not believe that many of the gravitaional lensed candidates are actually leensed, but rather that they are separate quasars that are attached to the galaxy that is usually accused of doing the lensing. The gravitational lens folks obviously don't like that! His book in particular examines the "Einstein cross" of 4 quasar objects which is often given as a best example of gravitational lensing and says they are 4 quasars, not 4 images of a single quasar.

I personally am not a fan of gravitational lensing, but perhaps a galaxy could actually do "real" lensing just because a galaxy is shaped like a lens and has material in it which should cause changes in the index of refraction for a far field object.

[Roy Batty]

On 2002-03-22 10:33, John Kierein wrote:
I personally am not a fan of gravitational lensing, but perhaps a galaxy could actually do "real" lensing just because a galaxy is shaped like a lens and has material in it which should cause changes in the index of refraction for a far field object.

Um, does that mean you refute that any gravitational lensing occurs? what about the relatively (no pun intended) weak lensing observed by our sun? or is that refraction by the solar atmosphere?

[John Kierein]

I suspect that it can be due to refraction in the solar atmosphere. The reason I am suspicious of gravitational lensing has to do with my "unorthodox" theory of gravity. In my "pushing" theory, I have everything pushed together by extremely long wavelength photons from redshifted near infinitely distant sources in a static universe. In order for the Einstein principle of equivalence to agree with that, then light should be pushed by light. (In Einstein's principle of equivalence he did a thought experiment where you were standing in an elevator between galaxies that was accelerating at 1 g. He said if you shine a light on the wall of the elevator it would drop an amount equal to the distance the floor had acelerated through in the time it takes for the light to travel from the source to the wall. He said you couldn't tell the difference between a 1g accelerating elevator and a staionary one in a 1g gravitational field. So, a gravitational field is equivalent to an accelerating inertial frame of reference.) In my case, I could discriminate between the two IF the pushing photons don't interact with the light beam. Lots of people have looked for photon-photon interactions, but so far as I know, they haven't been found. So IF there aren't any such interactions then I would say that the principle of equivalence doesn't agree with my theory. I remain open minded on this issue. It should be mentioned that there are cases of multiple photons combining to form a sufficient amount of energy to create electron-positron pair formation, so there is a case to be made for photons being able to bend light. It's not the same thing though.

Of course, if the principle of equivalence isn't true, then there couldn't be black holes. I don't have a problem with this, but the establishment sure has come to believe they are there. I don't have a problem with any other parts of special or general relativity.

[The Bad Astronomer]

On 2002-03-22 10:23, John Kierein wrote:
Quasars have such a HUGE redshift that, in order for them to be as bright as they are AT THE DISTANCE that corresponds to this red shift, they would have to be intrinsically too bright to explain with ordinary physics.

I strongly disagree with this statement. Quasars, and other active galaxies, almost certainly have very massive black holes in their centers. This provides a tremendous amount of energy in the form of gravity, which can power the huge emissions we see from quasars.

Mind you, the evidence for these supermassive black holes is extremely good. We have spectra of galactic nuclei showing huge Doppler shifts from the matter as it spins around the hole. I've worked on some of these spectra myself. STIS, the Hubble camera on which I worked, has observed quite a few galactic black holes. We know they are common in nearby galaxies (including our own), and by inference are common throughout the Universe.

Therefore, there is plenty of evidence that the energies necessary to power quasars does indeed exist. Their huge luminosities are not a detriment to their being far away.

[John Kierein]

Have you calculated their temperature in your black body model? Have you compared their temperature from your calculation to the allowed temperature range of the ions in the spectra before they ionize to a greater ionization? What is the allowed size of the quasar in your model? Does it agree with the limitation that the radiation source can be no bigger than a few light minutes in diameter since many quasars vary in brightness by as much as 10% in that period of time or shorter? How does your model allow this brightness in this small size at this small temperature of only 10,000K or so? How do you know that the spectral shift measurements you're getting are doppler? You just assume they are. Do you get the right pressure broadening in the spectra to agree with a black hole model?
I don't consider your black hole model to be ordinary physics; it's mighty extraordinary! No place else in the universe do we need this sort of physics.

In my model the quasars are just nearby to explain their brightness. No extraordinary physics is required. No superluminary jets.

[roidspop]

I can't give a source on this, but recently I read that there's an apparent quasar with a very definite proper motion across the sky. If this is so, and the object exhibits all the properties of a classic quasar, then there is obviously a real problem, because any proper motion at all would imply incredible, possibly superluminal velocities across the line of sight.

But since I can't remember the source, it may have been some crank's page, so I offer this only to muddy the waters.

[Chip]

On 2002-03-22 22:01, roidspop wrote:
"...recently I read that there's an apparent quasar with a very definite proper motion across the sky. If this is so, and the object exhibits all the properties of a classic quasar, then there is obviously a real problem, because any proper motion at all would imply incredible, possibly superluminal velocities across the line of sight..."

For someone scratching there head about the phrase "proper motion", here's a very clear cut webpage from Ohio State University that explains "proper motions" step by step. Just go here, http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state....1/motions.html and follow the explanation down the page.

All the stars in the Milky Way have some kind of proper motion. Some move faster than others. As for remote galaxies and distant quasars, would they not also have a tremendously tiny proper motion as viewed from Earth over time?

Chip

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Chip on 2002-03-23 01:01 ]</font>

[John Kierein]

Note that the website says that proper motions can usually only be measured for stars within 1000 parsecs of the sun. This is only a very small percentage of the size of our galaxy. The Hipparcos satellite measured the prallax of a great number of stars but could only go to magnitude 12.5 at best and quasars are generally dimmer. Parallax depends on looking at a star at two different times in the earth's orbit (From two locations to get a trigonometric baseline.) to see it's movement against the background and thus calculate a probable distance. Proper motion can also be due to motions of binary stars in their orbits as well as motions around local masses and around the galaxy. Extragalactic objects are too far away for us to be able see their proper motion.

[John Kierein]

There is a sort of irony in the quest to find a quasar with proper motion. Most astronomers ASSUME quasars are really far away, so in their quest for quasar candidates, they only look for starlike objects that seem to have no proper motion. Thus, quasars tend to come from a preselected batch which has no proper motion. They also use quasars as a standard to measure the proper motion of other stars. There IS an attempt to measure the proper motion of some extragalactic objects via VLBI or using the VLA by measuring motion wrt quasars, assuming the quasars are stationary. I have seen data of a quasar with a jet that had a second quasar in the FOV. The published data clearly showed that one quasar had moved wrt the other quasar, in addition to the proper motion of the "superluminal" jet, but this was denied by the author when I contacted him directly. I don't think he even understood the question, he was so convinced the quasars could not possibly show proper motion since he thought they were so far away. He said any motion had to be within experimental error even though it was greater than the error bars he showed.

[John Kierein]

Here's a link to a table of quasars with proper motion. Anybody have anything more recent?
http://home.achilles.net/~jtalbot/V1982/absolute.html

[khana_banana]

Have you calculated their temperature in your black body model? Have you compared their temperature from your calculation to the allowed temperature range of the ions in the spectra before they ionize to a greater ionization?

Quasars don't show a black-body spectrum, they are non-thermal objects. Their temperature is huge, millions of Kelvin, this follows from the observation of atoms in highly ionized states around the quasar. The model of accreting super-massive black holes can reproduce the high temperture very well. Just consider that the surrounding material is accelerated to relativistic velocities! (Which btw is independently verified by the observed spectral line widths).

What is the allowed size of the quasar in your model? Does it agree with the limitation that the radiation source can be no bigger than a few light minutes in diameter since many quasars vary in brightness by as much as 10% in that period of time or shorter?

No, variations of the order of light minutes are not observed. The shortest time-scales are a couple of hours to a day. However, these intra-day variabilities might be caused by scattering in the inter-stellar medium close to our solar system. The size of QSOs agrees with the size of the central mass concentration in our Milky Way, which has been proven to be a black hole with highest confidence and different independent observations.

Earlier in the forum, it has been argued that (supposed) gravitational lens systems can be explained with Arp's model of QSOs being ejected from Seyfert galaxies. This is not the case. In Arp's model, most of the Lyman-alpha forest seen in the QSOs is due to intrinsic redshift. But different lensed images of QSOs show exactly the same spectral features, and there are now dozens of such high-quality spectra. This can only be explained by the absorption which is common to all images at high redshift. Moreover, correlation of Lyman-alpha systems agree very well with the large-scale correlation of matter in the Big-Bang LCDM model, another fact which is not explained by Arp.

If nothing else, the increasing data on the now more than 100 gravitational lens systems (with galaxies and galaxy clusters as lenses) disproves Arp's theory beyond any reasonable doubt.

[antoniseb]

...the increasing data on the now more than 100 gravitational lens systems (with galaxies and galaxy clusters as lenses) disproves Arp's theory beyond any reasonable doubt.

Hi khana_banana,

This thread hadn't been touched for five years. Welcome to the forum. We have newer threads about Arp.

[Amber Robot]

in my view, quasars are stars with a big cloud of electrons around them that cause them to have an intrinsic red shift from the compton effect. This is just like the sun which has a red shift that correlates to the number of electrons along the line of sight. Thus, the solar red shift is bigger at the edge and smaller at the center. Now we see that quasars can be in pairs just like binary stars.

Then what are damped lyman alpha systems?

Why would you have clouds of hydrogen and metals in front of these stars that *also* exhibit intermediate red shifts? How far out do these big clouds of electrons extend?

[antoniseb]

I'm closing this thread. It got bumped somehow, and hadn't been previously closed by the automated 30 day process.