Arp objects, QSOs, Statistics

[DeiRenDopa]

Thanks So, I do feel that standard use of comparative samples could help to clatify the statitic being used however.

If a sample was made of 100 random galaxies at distances comparable to the Arp galaxies, if a sample was made of AGN galaxies and of random spots on the sky dome, it would provode reference for the staitistics that BAC presents. Given a standard deviation and comparative samples, then a determination could be made of the significance of the some of the staitistic that show an association between QSOs and particular objetcs.

At least in my limitd understanding of sampling that would provide control for the statistics BAC presents.

And I am sorry to everyone, i did not clean up the citation with the formulas, i have to do that!

.

Dancing David, as sol invictus has already said, there are rather a lot of issues you need to get a good handle on before you can even start to address this!

And perhaps the most tricky one is "what's a quasar?"

You want to have a stab at the sorts of things you need to get your head around in order to answer it?

More generally, there's the issue of experimental design ... we can't run the universe a million times over, to see what sorts of different outcomes there are, we have only one universe with only the objects we observe in it. Depending on how you choose the Arp et al papers, and how you choose to read them, there's also the challenge of distinguishing between "here's an interesting empirical relationship (a correlation) that I found " and "here's a hypothesis involving physical mechanisms/physics that I have formulated in order to test it (oh, and I wrote this up BEFORE I started testing)". There may be some Arp et al. papers of the latter kind, but if there are, they are few.

BeAChooser: do you understand what the issues involved here are? do you see why it's so hard to go from "here's an interesting correlation" to "the Big Bang is hereby shown to be wrong"?

 

[Wangler]

.Somewhere in the BAUT thread on Arp Dancing David cited in another, recent, JREF thread there's some discussion of a landmark paper - by Ryan Scranton (no doubt et al.) - on how the distribution of SDSS quasars around galaxies matches what is expected from LCDM models (a.k.a. 'big bang') with galaxies having dark matter halos as well as lots of ordinary mass and lensing distant quasars accordingly. This seems to be an SDSS page on that finding; from there it should be pretty easy to find the ApJ (or whatever) paper, or at least the arXiv preprint.

Said paper is here:http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0504/0504510v1.pdf

Looks very interesting. I see they excluded brighter galaxies from their analysis...

 

[Dancing David]

Um, I started this thread, got no response, and then moved a post of BAC's here, as it was about this subject.

So I thought that it would be better to respond to it here, although i derailed alot in the other thread.

 

[Dancing David]

Dancing David,

thanks for the welcome!

My statistics knowledge is less than I would like but your comments:




I have a hard time making sense of. It seems like you are stating that Arp has incorrectly assumed that QSOs and galaxies are evenly distributed; or he has incorrectly assumed that QSOs and galaxies are a "general" population.

If this is not the case, than how can we use statistical processes when discussing these populations at all? Does that mean we cannot make inferences about the galaxy population?

Or is it that Arp is making the wrong inferences. Aren't his claims similar to the following claim:

For stars of magnitudes 6-9, we find an approximately even distribution throughout the sky. However, we see a formation, Collinder 399, that looks curiously like a coathanger, a quite unnatural form. It would seem that the chances of this being a random occurrence is markedly low. Sure enough, there are few, if any other associations of this shape in the sky. And, as it turns out, this "random" arrangement is due to a close association of the brightest stars; i.e., they all formed at about the same time, in the same general region of space. Turns out they are a physically associated cluster.

To me, this line of reasoning is sound, but like I said my statistics are very rusty.

Hi, i am sorry. Arp made these statements based upon a very limited sample. he has basically said that QSOs are very rare and that the association of certain galaxies with QSOs is above what could be expected.

The problem is how you determine what is expected. So you can tale other samples of the population you can do density counts around various other objects
-AGN galaxies
-'regular galaxies'
-old galaxies
-young galaxies
-ARP galaxies
-random points on the sky

by this means you can then have different sample populations and even come up with distributions and standar deviations.

Then you can compare the Arp associations to the other groups, they are chosen for a reason if Arp is right then
-old galaxies should differentiate
-young galaxies should differentiate
-'regular' galaxies should not differentiate (because they would be the assumed norm)
-AGN galaxies would sort of be deinitive as they are the candidate of many for the QSOs, so if they show a high correlation or a low correlation it might help or hurt Arp's case
-Arp galaxies because they are the ones Arp has chosen
-random points to provide a second norm.

So when i say differentiate it means that if what Arps says is true young and old galaxies should fall above or below the mean, 'regular' galaxies provide a baseline for galaxies, AGN galaxies might be similar to Arp galaxies and random points provide a base line for non glactic association of a point with QSOs.

So the point being in population statistics you look for
-the norm or mean of a population for a parameter
-the norm or mean or random occurance
-the norm or mean of various sub populations

Then you compare them based upon the number of samples and the standard deviations. (And other tests)

So say we have the populations statistics for a hundred randomly chosen members of each group, except for the Arp objects, although a hundred random of them would be cool as well.

For each group we would then hopefully have a set of numbers
-the average association of QSOs with a certain radius
-the average QSO associations for differents radius circles (lioke a fall off or rise up rate as you move away)
-the standar deviations for the different associations based upon radius distance from the subject group.

The random points on the sky then would give you the 'noise' level of QSO association.
The 'regular' galaxies would give you the 'baseline rate'/noise for regular galaxies.

Then what Arp would hope for is that the association of QSOs with Arp objects would rise above the noise levels of the two baseline sets. (Hopefully by a factor above the standard deviation of distribution for the average radius of the objects in the group)

I could be way off base, i am often am.
Hopefullt the other ones would differentiate as well.

 

[Dancing David]

.

Dancing David, as sol invictus has already said, there are rather a lot of issues you need to get a good handle on before you can even start to address this!

And perhaps the most tricky one is "what's a quasar?"

You want to have a stab at the sorts of things you need to get your head around in order to answer it?

More generally, there's the issue of experimental design ... we can't run the universe a million times over, to see what sorts of different outcomes there are, we have only one universe with only the objects we observe in it. Depending on how you choose the Arp et al papers, and how you choose to read them, there's also the challenge of distinguishing between "here's an interesting empirical relationship (a correlation) that I found " and "here's a hypothesis involving physical mechanisms/physics that I have formulated in order to test it (oh, and I wrote this up BEFORE I started testing)". There may be some Arp et al. papers of the latter kind, but if there are, they are few.

BeAChooser: do you understand what the issues involved here are? do you see why it's so hard to go from "here's an interesting correlation" to "the Big Bang is hereby shown to be wrong"?

Um, I am thinking you could use the standard sort by demographic and apply population sets and statistics to the issue. I know that the issue of what is a QSO is big one, which is why I would think one of the control sets would be AGN galaxies.

thanks for you input, I hope I don't look like too much of a fool. I am not saying that you could get a handle on the issue of what is a QSO but if Arp is right then his set should show a very high correlation with QSOs above the norms, then I would think 'old galaxies' would as well a,nd that AGNs would as well.

I may be muddled as well.

 

[Dancing David]

.

Dancing David, as sol invictus has already said, there are rather a lot of issues you need to get a good handle on before you can even start to address this!

And perhaps the most tricky one is "what's a quasar?"

You want to have a stab at the sorts of things you need to get your head around in order to answer it?

More generally, there's the issue of experimental design ... we can't run the universe a million times over, to see what sorts of different outcomes there are, we have only one universe with only the objects we observe in it. Depending on how you choose the Arp et al papers, and how you choose to read them, there's also the challenge of distinguishing between "here's an interesting empirical relationship (a correlation) that I found " and "here's a hypothesis involving physical mechanisms/physics that I have formulated in order to test it (oh, and I wrote this up BEFORE I started testing)". There may be some Arp et al. papers of the latter kind, but if there are, they are few.

BeAChooser: do you understand what the issues involved here are? do you see why it's so hard to go from "here's an interesting correlation" to "the Big Bang is hereby shown to be wrong"?

Um, I am thinking you could use the standard sort by demographic and apply population sets and statistics to the issue. I know that the issue of what is a QSO is big one, which is why I would think one of the control sets would be AGN galaxies.

thanks for you input, I hope I don't look like too much of a fool. I am not saying that you could get a handle on the issue of what is a QSO but if Arp is right then his set should show a very high correlation with QSOs above the norms, then I would think 'old galaxies' would as well a,nd that AGNs would as well.

I may be muddled as well.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Oh dear, I hope I didn't come across as implying that you are a fool - far from it!

I am suggesting that the issues you have to wrestle with, for the kind of thing I think you're trying to do, are quite knotty, and many are unique to astronomy.
.

but if Arp is right then his set should show a very high correlation with QSOs above the norms, then I would think 'old galaxies' would as well a,nd that AGNs would as well.

.

There's a much easier way to test whether 'Arp is right' - take an early paper where he puts forward his ideas on QSOs and galaxies, take a much more recent one, and draw up a list of consistencies and inconsistencies between them. Pay particular attention to whether the inconsistencies are explicitly addressed.

Another thing that's easy to do is try to find a paper that describes his model, in terms of physical mechanisms, in detail (and not some vague schematic with undefined terms). With such a model it should be relatively easy to formulate hypotheses that could be tested, using a survey such as SDSS; if there is no such model, then what could you test?

 

[Dancing David]

Oh dear, I hope I didn't come across as implying that you are a fool - far from it!

I am suggesting that the issues you have to wrestle with, for the kind of thing I think you're trying to do, are quite knotty, and many are unique to astronomy.
..

There's a much easier way to test whether 'Arp is right' - take an early paper where he puts forward his ideas on QSOs and galaxies, take a much more recent one, and draw up a list of consistencies and inconsistencies between them. Pay particular attention to whether the inconsistencies are explicitly addressed.

Another thing that's easy to do is try to find a paper that describes his model, in terms of physical mechanisms, in detail (and not some vague schematic with undefined terms). With such a model it should be relatively easy to formulate hypotheses that could be tested, using a survey such as SDSS; if there is no such model, then what could you test?

i can't say i undersatnd enough of GR to judge the theory of mass ejection and accreation in the Arp QSO model. I am much more simple minded than that (I consider myself a fool, you did not say i was ), a particular poster has stated often that there is this demonstrated association between certain low red shift objects and high red shift objects and that this indicates that there is not a cosmological redshift for certain high red shift objects. But it is also based upon the idea that the highs and lows are associated in local psace. Which i am contesting that they are.

 

[Wangler]

How many samples in each group?

Therefore I contend that the significance of the correlation would only be meaningful when compared as a triple group study:

-QSOs/Arp objects
-QSOs/non Arp galaxies
-QSOs/random spot

to just say that there is significance from the single group of ‘QSO/Arp objects’ is not meaningful when the significance stands alone.

Dancing David,

What sample size for this triple group study would be enough for statistical significance? Surely more than 3/group. Maybe 10?

With the wealth of data available for mining, say from the SDSS, I wonder why Arp hasn't done this type of investigation?

I think that your criticisms may be valid, and I would think that similar criticisms have been presented to Arp in the past..so why not spend some time and investigate data sitting on the SDSS server?

Might be a good long term project for an amateur , but he/she would have to get a handle on atmospheric extinction, as well as effects of galactic dust, etc.

 

[Dancing David]

I would recomend the largest samples possible, one hundred at a minimum, a thousand or more would be better.

I think the real issue is that Arp know exactly what he is saying and why, but there are these other people and they take what he says and add significance to it. If you start asking BAC if only QSOs have abnormal redshifts, then he won't give a direct answer and then all the conflation of Arp, Perrat and the non-existance of dark matter and balck holes looses another of the supports.

I think that in fact Arps states that QSOs do have some consmological redshift, but that it is higher than the other objects in the set because of wierd GR interpretations.

I am not sure that i have actually seen a quote by Arp or Perrat on darm matter or black holes.

While I like the debate, i have a lot of other things to do, i cook and clean because of the shift time my wife puts in, i also have an eighty year old house that needs some TLC, i have to wall up a window this summer and work to get the bucks to put on a new roof next year (and finish the wiring i am replacing). So while searching data sets would be cool, it won't be me.

 

[BeAChooser]

If you start asking BAC if only QSOs have abnormal redshifts, then he won't give a direct answer

David, I suggest you reread the post of mine that you mangled when you reposted it as post #4 of this thread. You will find I clearly state that the redshift problem is larger than just an inconsistency in quasar data and cite several examples ... the first being the 4 GALAXIES in NGC 7603.

The fact that you repeatedly demonstrate that you don't actually read what I post, that you make no real attempt to understand what I post, and that you misrepresent what I post is why I do not respond to most of what you post any longer.

Lurkers on this forum can make up their own mind about this topic based on what I've posted already and the fact that I'm the only one who has been supporting my opinions with peer reviewed work. Here are some more articles for consideration:

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/338856 "QSOs in the Field of the Seyfert 1 Galaxy NGC 5548, E. M. Burbidge and G. Burbidge, 2002, New spectrophotometric observations are presented for three blue stellar objects pinpointed as candidate optical identifications of ROSAT X-ray point sources in the field around the Seyfert 1 galaxy NGC 5548. They are shown to be medium-redshift QSOs. In combination with cataloged data on QSOs in several square degrees around NGC 5548, the areal density of QSOs immediately around the galaxy may exceed the average values determined from various surveys. This result, together with the configuration, suggests that these QSOs may be physically associated with NGC 5548."

http://www.springerlink.com/content/v414842781437854/ " Quasars in Regions of Rich Clusters of Galaxies, H.*A.*Harutyunian and E.*H.*Nikogossian, 2000, Certain characteristics of quasars observed in the regions of three rich clusters of galaxies are investigated. ... snip ... It is suggested that the local quasars are formed in two ways: by ejection from galactic nuclei and in quasar associations without a parent galaxy, directly from protostellar matter."

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=596c8badf26d1a60f6786ae0bfcae1d6 "A new quasar identified in the vicinity of NGC1068, Zhu Xing-fen, Zhang Hao-tong and Chu Yao-quan, 2001, An X-ray source close to the classical Seyfert galaxy NGC 1068 is identified as a quasar with a redshift of 0.63. The very high surface density of quasars around NGC 1068 suggests that the quasars may be physically associated with this active galaxy.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0706.0143 "A concentration of quasars around the jet galaxy NGC 1097. H. Arp, 2007, A quasar search in the region of the active galaxy NGC 1097 yielded 31 quasars in 1984. After completion of the 2dF survey in 2004 the number of catalogued quasars just within 1 degree of the galaxy increased to 142. About 38±10 of these are in excess of average background values. ... snip ... The 2dF survey quotes 23,338 QSO’s in a total survey area of 721.6 sq. deg. for an average density of 32.34 QSO’s/sq.deg. Within a circle of radius 1 deg. that would predict 101.6 QSO’s as an average background. ... snip ... It was commented on the title page of this web posting that the paper had been rejected by the Astrophysical Journal Letters. Thus the editor spake: “Your paper has not been able to convince either of two independent referees. . . . “No suppression of your work has been done through my action since you are welcome to submit your paper to a different journal.” The information supplied here should enable the readers to decide for themselves the value of the data and its discussion. But perhaps more important it enables a judgment on the core structure of current science."

http://www.iac.es/folleto/research/preprints/files/PP06040.pdf "First tentative detection of anisotropy in the QSO distribution around nearby edge-on spiral galaxies, M. Lopez-Corredoira, C. M. Gutierrez, 2006, "Aims. To check whether the polar angle distribution of QSOs around nearby spiral galaxies is isotropic or not. Methods. A statistical analysis of the polar angle distribution of large samples of QSOs from the SDSS survey and Monte Carlo simulations to calculate their significance are carried out. Results. There is a clear excess of QSOs near the minor axis with respect to the major axis of nearby edge-on spiral galaxies, significant at a level 3.5? up to angular distances of ? 3? (or ? 1.7 Mpc) from the centre of each galaxy. The significance is increased to 3.9? with the z > 0.5 QSOs, and it reaches 4.8? if we include galaxies whose circles of radius 3 degrees are covered by the SDSS in more than 98% (instead of 100%) of the area. Conclusions. Gravitational lensing in the halo of nearby galaxies or extinction seem insufficient to explain the observed anisotropic distribution of QSOs. The anisotropic distribution agrees qualitatively with the predictions of Arp’s models, which claim that QSOs are ejected by galaxies along the rotation axis, although Arp’s prediction give a distance of the QSOs ? 3 times smaller than that found here. ... snip ... Could the detected anisotropy be a statistical fluctuation? It might be, but it is a very low probability one: for instance 3.5? means a probability 5 × 10^?4 (with no preselection of QSOs and galaxies except the angle ?max = 3?). Moreover, Fig. 5 shows a clear dependence on redshift which is not expected for a random sample of QSOs (there is a clear non-random trend of anisotropy depending on z), so the significance increases to 3.9? only by removing the QSOs with z < 0.5 (9% of the total). Is this possibly due to chance? We think that this is not very likely, but that is precisely the nub of the question. Here, we deliver this new challenge in the long-running puzzle of this old topic: the relationship between high redshift QSOs and nearby galaxies."

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0501090 " Periodicities of Quasar Redshifts in Large Area Surveys, H. Arp, C. Fulton, D. Roscoe, 2005, We test the periodicity of quasar redshifts in the 2dF and SDSS surveys. In the overall surveys redshift peaks are already apparent in the brighter quasars. But by analyzing sample areas in detail it is shown that the redshifts fit very closely the long standing Karlssson formula and strongly suggest the existence of preferred values in the distribution of quasar redshifts. "

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/522337 "Further Evidence That the Redshifts of AGN Galaxies May Contain Intrinsic Components, M. B. Bell, 2007 ... snip ... In the decreasing intrinsic redshift (DIR) model galaxies are assumed to be born as compact objects that have been ejected with large intrinsic redshift components, z_i, out of the nuclei of mature AGN galaxies. As young AGN galaxies (quasars) they are initially several magnitudes subluminous to mature galaxies but their luminosity gradually increases over 10⁸ yr, as z_i decreases and they evolve into mature AGN galaxies (BL Lac objects, Seyferts, and radio galaxies). Evidence presented here that on a log z-m_v plot the bright edge of the AGN galaxy distribution at z = 0.1 is unquestionably several magnitudes subluminous to the brightest radio galaxies is then strong support for this model and makes it likely that the high-redshift AGN galaxies (quasars) are also subluminous, having simply been pushed above the radio galaxies on a log z-m_v plot by the presence of a large intrinsic component in their redshifts. An increase in luminosity below z = 0.06 is also seen. It is associated in the DIR model with an increase in luminosity as the sources mature but, if real, is difficult to interpret in the cosmological redshift (CR) model since at this low redshift it is unlikely to be associated with a higher star formation rate or an increase in the material used to build galaxies."

And, finally, here's another very powerful argument (that I haven't mentioned previously) suggesting an association between quasars and galaxies:

http://ray.tomes.biz/bigbangbung.html "In 1990, the Astrophysical Journal supplement series published "Associations between Quasi-stellar Objects and Galaxies" by G Burbidge, A Hewitt, J V Narlikar and P Das Gupta. They did the same sort of thing as Stockton, but in the intervening 12 years the sky had been considerably better surveyed for quasars and galaxies. They found many more such close pairs. They also looked at another aspect of the data that had not been examined by Stockton. ... snip ... In close line of sight pairs which had very different redshifts, they looked for a way to detect that the two objects really were at the same distance. If quasars are actually ejected by galaxies as Halton Arp has argued, then there might be a typical distance apart that they tend to lie. That distance might be about the same as the distance of the Magellanic clouds from the Milky Way because Arp had identified many such arrangements in the sky. However, if the two objects are really together and not just sharing a line of sight, then if they are at a roughly constant distance, they will appear closer if the are far away and further apart if they are closer. This is simply a matter of perspective. So they looked at the non-matching redshifts, both for Stockton's sample and also for the much bigger sample that they collected from various sources. Here are the results: (BAC - see link). The results are quite clear. Both samples, Stockton's in 3a on the left and their own data in 3b on the right show that the further away the galaxy is, the less is the line of sight separation. Close galaxies have greater apparent distance of quasars, far away galaxies have nearer apparent distance of quasars. This is in perfect agreement with the results expected if these galaxies and these quasars are really physically associated and the quasar redshifts are therefore a very unreliable measure of distance. There is no other reasonable explanation. If the objects at different redshifts really are at vastly different distances, then there is absolutely no reason why there separations should vary over four orders of magnitude in step with the distance of only one of the objects, the galaxy."

 

[Dancing David]

David, I suggest you reread the post of mine that you mangled when you reposted it as post #4 of this thread. You will find I clearly state that the redshift problem is larger than just an inconsistency in quasar data and cite several examples ... the first being the 4 GALAXIES in NGC 7603.

The fact that you repeatedly demonstrate that you don't actually read what I post, that you make no real attempt to understand what I post, and that you misrepresent what I post is why I do not respond to most of what you post any longer.

Now that is very funny BAC, you have lied about what I have said, you have said things that you deny later and most notably you refuse to answer the issue of sampling bias in Arp's associations of high redshift objects and low redshift objects. So without the statistics to back the associations, which you refuse to discuss, all you have is optical alignment.

Oh look, my finger is touching the moon.

You just won't answer the glaring holes and gnomes in your theories BAC , that is why you sit in the corner with your fingers in your ears.

You are the one who won't answer direct questions BAC, the lurkers can see you are troll.I have read your material and will continue to do so.

Gnomes of BAC

-Arp's QSO association (and in some cases galaxies and filaments) are based upon sampling bias
-using Perrat's model of galaxy rotation to explain galaxy curves lacks something like a magnetic field strength. What is the field strength?
-What forces keep Lerner's plasmoid from collapsing, if it is 40,000solar masses in an area with 43 AU diameter.
You BAC have also made the following errors in your statements
-that somehow galaxies aquirred thier rotational curves while they were in the formative plasma phase and magically maintained those rotation rates after the fact
-you have even stated that the rotation curves of galaxies may not exist because they are determined from plasma velocities and therefore dark matter is not needed to explain rotation curves. Despite the fact that stars are also used to determine rotation curves.

So BAC how do you think star clusters aquire thier rotational speeds? They move faster than gravity minus dark matter.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

David, I suggest you reread the post of mine that you mangled when you reposted it as post #4 of this thread. You will find I clearly state that the redshift problem is larger than just an inconsistency in quasar data and cite several examples ... the first being the 4 GALAXIES in NGC 7603.

The fact that you repeatedly demonstrate that you don't actually read what I post, that you make no real attempt to understand what I post, and that you misrepresent what I post is why I do not respond to most of what you post any longer.

Lurkers on this forum can make up their own mind about this topic based on what I've posted already and the fact that I'm the only one who has been supporting my opinions with peer reviewed work. Here are some more articles for consideration:

.
If you don't mind BeAChooser, where are the original articles (that these are 'some more' to)?
.

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/338856 "QSOs in the Field of the Seyfert 1 Galaxy NGC 5548, E. M. Burbidge and G. Burbidge, 2002, New spectrophotometric observations are presented for three blue stellar objects pinpointed as candidate optical identifications of ROSAT X-ray point sources in the field around the Seyfert 1 galaxy NGC 5548. They are shown to be medium-redshift QSOs. In combination with cataloged data on QSOs in several square degrees around NGC 5548, the areal density of QSOs immediately around the galaxy may exceed the average values determined from various surveys. This result, together with the configuration, suggests that these QSOs may be physically associated with NGC 5548."

.

As you've chosen several articles to present, many with similar reasons for the conclusion ("the areal density of QSOs immediately around the galaxy may exceed the average values determined from various surveys", to take this one as an example), would you mind if ask you whether you've done some work to estimate the average areal density of QSOs? If so, would you please share with us your work, and conclusions?

If you haven't done such work, would you mind if I ask why the papers you cite, and the ones they, in turn, quote, have such different values for this key parameter?

Further, to what extent would you say the Burbidges included an estimate of various lensing effects, in the work they did to come at their conclusion?

Finally, how consistent would you say the various authors have been in the definitions of "QSO" that they have used?
.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/v414842781437854/ " Quasars in Regions of Rich Clusters of Galaxies, H.*A.*Harutyunian and E.*H.*Nikogossian, 2000, Certain characteristics of quasars observed in the regions of three rich clusters of galaxies are investigated. ... snip ... It is suggested that the local quasars are formed in two ways: by ejection from galactic nuclei and in quasar associations without a parent galaxy, directly from protostellar matter."

.
This paper is new to me, thank you for citing it.

You are, no doubt, aware that there are many 'lensed quasars' - objects which have been (strongly) lensed by foreground galaxies. You are also, no doubt, aware that these are readily explained by assuming they are at distances implied by their redshifts and Hubble relationship (as well as mass models of the lensing galaxies that are just like local galaxies that have been studied in great detail).

So, unless 'quasars' are heterogeneous, the lensed quasars show quasars are not local, and thus that Harutyunian and Nikogossian goofed somewhere in their work.

Comment?
.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=596c8badf26d1a60f6786ae0bfcae1d6 "A new quasar identified in the vicinity of NGC1068, Zhu Xing-fen, Zhang Hao-tong and Chu Yao-quan, 2001, An X-ray source close to the classical Seyfert galaxy NGC 1068 is identified as a quasar with a redshift of 0.63. The very high surface density of quasars around NGC 1068 suggests that the quasars may be physically associated with this active galaxy.

.
Same as the Burbidges paper - areal density and 'what's a quasar' (and, in this case, is it the same as a QSO)?
.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0706.0143 "A concentration of quasars around the jet galaxy NGC 1097. H. Arp, 2007, A quasar search in the region of the active galaxy NGC 1097 yielded 31 quasars in 1984. After completion of the 2dF survey in 2004 the number of catalogued quasars just within 1 degree of the galaxy increased to 142. About 38±10 of these are in excess of average background values. ... snip ... The 2dF survey quotes 23,338 QSO’s in a total survey area of 721.6 sq. deg. for an average density of 32.34 QSO’s/sq.deg. Within a circle of radius 1 deg. that would predict 101.6 QSO’s as an average background. ... snip ... It was commented on the title page of this web posting that the paper had been rejected by the Astrophysical Journal Letters. Thus the editor spake: “Your paper has not been able to convince either of two independent referees. . . . “No suppression of your work has been done through my action since you are welcome to submit your paper to a different journal.” The information supplied here should enable the readers to decide for themselves the value of the data and its discussion. But perhaps more important it enables a judgment on the core structure of current science."

.
Care to take a stab at why the two referees were not convinced?

HINT: it's pretty obvious.
.

http://www.iac.es/folleto/research/preprints/files/PP06040.pdf "First tentative detection of anisotropy in the QSO distribution around nearby edge-on spiral galaxies, M. Lopez-Corredoira, C. M. Gutierrez, 2006, "Aims. To check whether the polar angle distribution of QSOs around nearby spiral galaxies is isotropic or not. Methods. A statistical analysis of the polar angle distribution of large samples of QSOs from the SDSS survey and Monte Carlo simulations to calculate their significance are carried out. Results. There is a clear excess of QSOs near the minor axis with respect to the major axis of nearby edge-on spiral galaxies, significant at a level 3.5? up to angular distances of ? 3? (or ? 1.7 Mpc) from the centre of each galaxy. The significance is increased to 3.9? with the z > 0.5 QSOs, and it reaches 4.8? if we include galaxies whose circles of radius 3 degrees are covered by the SDSS in more than 98% (instead of 100%) of the area. Conclusions. Gravitational lensing in the halo of nearby galaxies or extinction seem insufficient to explain the observed anisotropic distribution of QSOs. The anisotropic distribution agrees qualitatively with the predictions of Arp’s models, which claim that QSOs are ejected by galaxies along the rotation axis, although Arp’s prediction give a distance of the QSOs ? 3 times smaller than that found here. ... snip ... Could the detected anisotropy be a statistical fluctuation? It might be, but it is a very low probability one: for instance 3.5? means a probability 5 × 10^?4 (with no preselection of QSOs and galaxies except the angle ?max = 3?). Moreover, Fig. 5 shows a clear dependence on redshift which is not expected for a random sample of QSOs (there is a clear non-random trend of anisotropy depending on z), so the significance increases to 3.9? only by removing the QSOs with z < 0.5 (9% of the total). Is this possibly due to chance? We think that this is not very likely, but that is precisely the nub of the question. Here, we deliver this new challenge in the long-running puzzle of this old topic: the relationship between high redshift QSOs and nearby galaxies."

.
Oh BAC! Did you really read this?!?

Seriously though, this paper is about as powerful and direct a refutation of Arp's original work as it is possible to imagine.

Homework for you: go dig up one of the first Arp papers on 'quasar overdensities around local galaxies', to coin a phrase; read it careful, and write down the details of what he says is 'more than expected number'. Then compare it - in detail - with what's in this paper. Your specific assignment, should you choose to take it up, is to show that the two are not mutually contradictory.

.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0501090 " Periodicities of Quasar Redshifts in Large Area Surveys, H. Arp, C. Fulton, D. Roscoe, 2005, We test the periodicity of quasar redshifts in the 2dF and SDSS surveys. In the overall surveys redshift peaks are already apparent in the brighter quasars. But by analyzing sample areas in detail it is shown that the redshifts fit very closely the long standing Karlssson formula and strongly suggest the existence of preferred values in the distribution of quasar redshifts. "

.
BAC, I don't mean to be too unkind, but how much do you know of observational astronomy? Of the huge difficulties associated with drawing conclusions from surveys? Of how important a detailed understanding of selection effects is?

Never mind; the key question here is the same as introduced for paper one: what is a 'quasar'?

For two gold stars, try correctly answering this question: in a volume-limited survey of quasars, how complete are the 2dF and SDSS surveys, by redshift?

.

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/522337 "Further Evidence That the Redshifts of AGN Galaxies May Contain Intrinsic Components, M. B. Bell, 2007 ... snip ... In the decreasing intrinsic redshift (DIR) model galaxies are assumed to be born as compact objects that have been ejected with large intrinsic redshift components, z_i, out of the nuclei of mature AGN galaxies. As young AGN galaxies (quasars) they are initially several magnitudes subluminous to mature galaxies but their luminosity gradually increases over 10⁸ yr, as z_i decreases and they evolve into mature AGN galaxies (BL Lac objects, Seyferts, and radio galaxies). Evidence presented here that on a log z-m_v plot the bright edge of the AGN galaxy distribution at z = 0.1 is unquestionably several magnitudes subluminous to the brightest radio galaxies is then strong support for this model and makes it likely that the high-redshift AGN galaxies (quasars) are also subluminous, having simply been pushed above the radio galaxies on a log z-m_v plot by the presence of a large intrinsic component in their redshifts. An increase in luminosity below z = 0.06 is also seen. It is associated in the DIR model with an increase in luminosity as the sources mature but, if real, is difficult to interpret in the cosmological redshift (CR) model since at this low redshift it is unlikely to be associated with a higher star formation rate or an increase in the material used to build galaxies."

.
BAC, this paper is garbage, it should never have been accepted by ApJ for publication ... and it's extremely easy to show why.

I'll give you two days to find the major goof-up; if you've not found it by then, I shall tell all.

HINT: what did Bell use as his input data?
.

And, finally, here's another very powerful argument (that I haven't mentioned previously) suggesting an association between quasars and galaxies:

http://ray.tomes.biz/bigbangbung.html "In 1990, the Astrophysical Journal supplement series published "Associations between Quasi-stellar Objects and Galaxies" by G Burbidge, A Hewitt, J V Narlikar and P Das Gupta. They did the same sort of thing as Stockton, but in the intervening 12 years the sky had been considerably better surveyed for quasars and galaxies. They found many more such close pairs. They also looked at another aspect of the data that had not been examined by Stockton. ... snip ... In close line of sight pairs which had very different redshifts, they looked for a way to detect that the two objects really were at the same distance. If quasars are actually ejected by galaxies as Halton Arp has argued, then there might be a typical distance apart that they tend to lie. That distance might be about the same as the distance of the Magellanic clouds from the Milky Way because Arp had identified many such arrangements in the sky. However, if the two objects are really together and not just sharing a line of sight, then if they are at a roughly constant distance, they will appear closer if the are far away and further apart if they are closer. This is simply a matter of perspective. So they looked at the non-matching redshifts, both for Stockton's sample and also for the much bigger sample that they collected from various sources. Here are the results: (BAC - see link). The results are quite clear. Both samples, Stockton's in 3a on the left and their own data in 3b on the right show that the further away the galaxy is, the less is the line of sight separation. Close galaxies have greater apparent distance of quasars, far away galaxies have nearer apparent distance of quasars. This is in perfect agreement with the results expected if these galaxies and these quasars are really physically associated and the quasar redshifts are therefore a very unreliable measure of distance. There is no other reasonable explanation. If the objects at different redshifts really are at vastly different distances, then there is absolutely no reason why there separations should vary over four orders of magnitude in step with the distance of only one of the objects, the galaxy."

.

Surely you jest BAC?!

I mean, Tomes' material isn't even published (so you have to check what he says yourself, to see that he hasn't goofed most spectacularly - did you check?), the test he uses obviously ignores lensing (which will tend to make quasars near galaxies on the sky more numerous), there's not even a hint of an attempt to address selection effects, etc, etc, etc ...

However, perhaps I guessed wrong; perhaps you have checked Tomes' work, found it sound, and can show us all the details he conveniently failed to mention ...

 

[Wangler]

Riddle me this!

Alright, BAC, DelRopa, and David,

Perhaps we can all reach a conclusion about this point.

The Scranton paper http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0504/0504510v1.pdf, which seems rock solid to me, says the following:

The results are presented in Table 4.1. As can be seen, the values of h−1i are greater than zero for the three brighter magnitude bins. Therefore, due to the magnification bias, we expect to find an excess of such quasars in the vicinity of foreground lenses. In a similar way, we expect a deficit of quasars with g > 20.

Now, Table 4.1 contains the following information:

17 < g < 19 0.95
19 < g < 19.5 0.41
19.5 < g < 20 0.07
20 < g < 20.5 −0.24
20.5 < g < 21 −0.50

So, for quasars of magnitude 20, or greater, we should see excess around a lensing source. For those quasars whose magnitude is <20, we should see a deficit.

Note that the statistical weight of these bins are similar around magnitude 20, which means to me that we would expect our excess of quasars between magnitudes 19 and 20 to be similar to our deficit of quasars between magnitudes 20 and 21.

Now, on to one of the Arp papers http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0706/0706.0143v1.pdf, where Arp states:

A quasar search in the region of the active galaxy NGC 1097 yielded 31 quasars in 1984. After completion of the 2dF survey in 2004 the number of catalogued quasars just within 1 degree of the galaxy increased to 142. About 38 ± 10 of these are in excess of average background values.

Further in the paper, Arp discusses the magnitudes of the quasars:

For QSOs with z  1.9 and mag. 19.6 mag., there are 24 which are found near NGC 1097 compared to 4 found in the more distant comparison ring. There were 142 QSOs around NGC 1097 and 147 in the ring.

Ahhh, this seems to correlate nicely with the Scranton paper, at these magnitudes, we would expect to find a excess!

It is not clear which magnitude range the overall 38 ± 10 excess are contained within, but Arp does say:

For QSOs with z  1.9 and mag. 19.6 mag., there are 24 which are found near NGC 1097

So, 24 of "28 to 48 excess" quasars may be of the bright, "lensing increases apparent density" kind, but there does NOT appear to be a deficit of the dimmer "lensing decreases apparent density" variety.

At least, not there does not appear to be a deficit of dimmer quasars, compared to background, from what I can see looking at the Arp paper. This seems to be contrary to the Scranton finding, at least in this single case.

It looks to me like the Scranton analysis showed a correlation on scales up to one degree, which is the scale around NGC 1097 that Arp sees his excess.

So, we are apparently right back where we started. (Based upon my analysis of these two papers, of which I am the first to qualify with the phrase: I may be wrong.)

What does everyone else think?

 

[Dancing David]

You are great, I will read them later.

Here is something vague related about possible distortions of dark matter, not really, but it is just so cool.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap080330.html

 

[DeiRenDopa]

It's good to see someone have a go at trying to true up some of this material; well done Wrangler!
.

Alright, BAC, DelRopa, and David,

Perhaps we can all reach a conclusion about this point.

The Scranton paper http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0504/0504510v1.pdf, which seems rock solid to me, says the following:

The results are presented in Table 4.1. As can be seen, the values of h−1i are greater than zero for the three brighter magnitude bins. Therefore, due to the magnification bias, we expect to find an excess of such quasars in the vicinity of foreground lenses. In a similar way, we expect a deficit of quasars with g > 20.

Now, Table 4.1 contains the following information:

17 < g < 19 0.95
19 < g < 19.5 0.41
19.5 < g < 20 0.07
20 < g < 20.5 −0.24
20.5 < g < 21 −0.50

So, for quasars of magnitude 20, or greater, we should see excess around a lensing source. For those quasars whose magnitude is <20, we should see a deficit.

.
Astronomers use 'magnitudes', which is a pretty crazy thing if you're a physicist; among other things, it goes 'backwards' - higher magnitudes are fainter!

So you should have written "for quasars of magnitude 20, or less, we should see excess around a lensing source. For those quasars whose magnitude is >20, we should see a deficit".

However, it's clear that this is what you meant, so the rest of your post is OK ...
.

Note that the statistical weight of these bins are similar around magnitude 20, which means to me that we would expect our excess of quasars between magnitudes 19 and 20 to be similar to our deficit of quasars between magnitudes 20 and 21.

Now, on to one of the Arp papers http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0706/0706.0143v1.pdf, where Arp states:

A quasar search in the region of the active galaxy NGC 1097 yielded 31 quasars in 1984. After completion of the 2dF survey in 2004 the number of catalogued quasars just within 1 degree of the galaxy increased to 142. About 38 ± 10 of these are in excess of average background values.

Further in the paper, Arp discusses the magnitudes of the quasars:

For QSOs with z  1.9 and mag. 19.6 mag., there are 24 which are found near NGC 1097 compared to 4 found in the more distant comparison ring. There were 142 QSOs around NGC 1097 and 147 in the ring.

Ahhh, this seems to correlate nicely with the Scranton paper, at these magnitudes, we would expect to find a excess!

It is not clear which magnitude range the overall 38 ± 10 excess are contained within, but Arp does say:

For QSOs with z  1.9 and mag. 19.6 mag., there are 24 which are found near NGC 1097

So, 24 of "28 to 48 excess" quasars may be of the bright, "lensing increases apparent density" kind, but there does NOT appear to be a deficit of the dimmer "lensing decreases apparent density" variety.

At least, not there does not appear to be a deficit of dimmer quasars, compared to background, from what I can see looking at the Arp paper. This seems to be contrary to the Scranton finding, at least in this single case.

It looks to me like the Scranton analysis showed a correlation on scales up to one degree, which is the scale around NGC 1097 that Arp sees his excess.

So, we are apparently right back where we started. (Based upon my analysis of these two papers, of which I am the first to qualify with the phrase: I may be wrong.)

What does everyone else think?

.
One reason why astronomy is so infuriatingly difficult, if you don't have a formal training in it, is that there are so many details for the devil to hide in.

In the two papers you are looking at, here are just a few details where the devil is up to mischief:

* Scranton et al. are using 'g' magnitudes; Arp uses 'b_J'; converting between the two is anything but straight-forward

* Scranton et al. used ~13.5 million galaxies, and ~225k quasars; Arp used one galaxy and ~150 quasars

* how each paper addresses (models, controls for, etc) galactic extinction is quite different; Scranton et al.'s use of g is likely more robust than Arp's b_J

* Scranton et al. directly and indirectly address completeness, Arp only hints at it; making a wild guess I'd say it's here that a leading cause of Arp's 'no faint quasar deficit' would be found.

There is at least one paper which looks at both the SDSS and 2dF surveys: "QSO lensing magnification: a comparison of 2QZ and Sloan Digital Sky Survey results" (arXiv link - note that there are two versions, dated Jan 2007 and Feb 2008).

What do you think of this Mountrichas and Shanks paper?

 

[Wangler]

Happy Monday!

It's good to see someone have a go at trying to true up some of this material; well done Wrangler!
..
Astronomers use 'magnitudes', which is a pretty crazy thing if you're a physicist; among other things, it goes 'backwards' - higher magnitudes are fainter!

So you should have written "for quasars of magnitude 20, or less, we should see excess around a lensing source. For those quasars whose magnitude is >20, we should see a deficit".

However, it's clear that this is what you meant, so the rest of your post is OK ...
What do you think of this Mountrichas and Shanks paper?

Sorry about the mixup! Magnitudes are certainly backwards, and always have been!

The paper you post is interesting, but I don't have time for an in-depth look right now (at work, doing more mundane things!). I will look more this evening.

One thing that I think is interesting, is that Mountrichas and Shanks show correlation function graphs that seem to decline to beta=0 for separations of about 1-2 arcminutes.

Am I correct in taking this to mean that the correlation effects (=apparent increase in QSOs) are limited to 1-2 arcminutes from the lensing source?

Aren't a lot of Arp's "associated objects" and his constant writing about "densities of QSOs above background levels" considering areas up to 60 arcminutes from AGNs?

 

[Wangler]

Cool for Sure!

but it is just so cool.

I saw that the other day, it is cool!

Do we really know exactly where all these far objects are located?

If everything we see at cosmological distances has been weak lensed, then we won't really know the true distribution of galaxies and other stuff, until we map all the lensing matter!

Maybe there is no acceleration to the expansion of the universe? Perhaps all the weak lensing enhances the perceived effects of a cosmological expansion. Maybe we don't need dark energy?

 

[Wangler]

Cool for Sure!

but it is just so cool.

I saw that the other day, it is cool!

Do we really know exactly where all these far objects are located?

If everything we see at cosmological distances has been weak lensed, then we won't really know the true distribution of galaxies and other stuff, until we map all the lensing matter!

Maybe there is no acceleration to the expansion of the universe? Perhaps all the weak lensing enhances the perceived effects of a cosmological expansion. Maybe we don't need dark energy?

 

[Dancing David]

There is at least one paper which looks at both the SDSS and 2dF surveys: "QSO lensing magnification: a comparison of 2QZ and Sloan Digital Sky Survey results" (arXiv link - note that there are two versions, dated Jan 2007 and Feb 2008).

What do you think of this Mountrichas and Shanks paper?

Very interesting but most likely it went way over my head.

i understand that it is about the halo mass distribution and the model seems to be confirmed rather well, however i am not sure what the b (weak lensing consmic shear) is that seems to be a possible source of new learning. If the figures fo b do not work out over time, it sure will be exciting.

They also seem to say that there would be an impact upon the acoustic peaks in the CMB.