Arp objects, QSOs, Statistics

[Dancing David]

Hi Wangler,

that is Arp's contention, not that all redshifts are wrong, but that some redshifts have an added redshift. IE ejected QSOs are aquirring mass and therefore they have a redshift that is higher than just the cosmological redshift. The question is , what evidence is there for the anamalous redshifts? We have 'QSO/Arp galaxy' associations (the ones I have said are based on a possible sample bias) and the 'galaxies made from ejected QSOs lining up with the 'major galaxy' which ejected them', so it seems to me that both are based upon perhaps questionable statistics.

Now there is one 'embedded' QSO candidate that is claimed to be causing a higher rate of spectral emission for the 'host' galaxy.

But interactive data like that seem to be very rare. Which is why i wonder what the 'gravitationaly disrupted' galaxy/QSO association is.

 

[Dancing David]

"A new wide-field panorama reveals more than a thousand supermassive black holes in the centers of galaxies, some up to several billion times more massive than the sun." (ref).
"A large population of mid-infrared selected, obscured active galaxies in the Bootes field" (http://arxiv.org/abs/0708.3678):.
What's a 'quasar'? What's the areal density of 'quasars'?

WOWIE!

Now that is an association of AGNs they must be on a corporate retreat or something, wow!

 

[DeiRenDopa]

DDR, this is a good point, but I think that you are leaving out one primary assumption, that Arp and his adherents would note:

Assume that the Hubble relationship of cosmological redshift-vs.-distance is valid, and that therefore the redshift of galaxies and QSOs is a reasonably accurate means of determining distance.

If we make all of these assumptions, then I think that logical consistency demands that the high redshift objects you mention are not associated with the low redshift objects.

But, doesn't the scheme of Arp have as one of it's foundations the fact that the redshifts may not be cosmological?

.
It is, surely, a truism that you can challenge any part of any consensus view in modern science by challenging one particular link in the logic/evidentiary (is there such a word?) chain ... and each such challenge should be met on its own merits.

It is surely easier to do this (mount such challenges) in (extra-galactic) astronomy and cosmology than most other branches of science (geology may be a fellow traveller), if only because almost every conclusion comes ultimately from the detection of photons/electromagnetic radiation 'from the sky'.

There are at least three different ways to address your excellent point:

* immediately: find a method to estimate distances that is independent of the Hubble relationship

* inter-locking, mutually-reinforcing consistency: can we come at the distance aspect via a more general consistency, an underlying, rather simple model perhaps?

* 'Arpian models on their own merits': do the ideas advanced by Arp et al. hang together in some consistent fashion?

The last first: Dancing David provided a link to a thread, in another forum, on Arpian ideas, where, generally, fans put them up for consideration and the peanut gallery tried to knock them down. With the possible exception of a purely empirically-based 'some galaxies may have modest intrinsic redshifts', I doubt you could conclude that any Arpian idea proposed survived.

For the first: for galaxies, there are a dozen different ways to show that they are at, or near, the distances implied by the Hubble relationship ... so long as you fully appreciate the limitations and uncertainties of each method. The Living Reviews in Relativity paper that I provided a link to has a good set of material on many of these.

For quasars it's a lot more complicated, and requires diving very deeply into the question 'what is a quasar?' ... so I'll leave that until (much) later.

For the second: sol invictus oh so briefly summarised the conclusion, in a post on page 1 of this thread (I added some bolding):
.

In this case, the probability that the big bang model is wrong is ridiculously small. Nearly every object in the universe obeys a Hubble law, and anomalies are both expected and predicted from big bang theory. No object has precisely its Hubble velocity, and the differences are called peculiar velocities. A few of the billions of objects we see will have large peculiar velocities. So that's one possible explanation. Another is that they are wrong about how far away these things are. In astro measuring distance is extremely difficult, but without it you can't determine whether there's an anomaly (because Hubble relates distance to velocity, and hence redshift).

Furthermore the theory does a superb job explaining other observations too, such as the cosmic microwave background, it's consistent with particle physics, and it's predicted by general relativity (which we know independently is correct). There is no alternative theory that can explain those things.

.
In other words, if (the majority of) quasars are not at cosmological distances, rather a lot of 'unexplaining' needs to go on (see Sagan, I forget which book, on what this means) ... however, as the flood of astronomical data continues to grow, more and more mutually-butressing pieces fall into place.
.

Unless, by your comment here:

The assumption is that the distances have been determined by another means besides redshift.

I am sorry, but I need to learn more about quasar identification; while I am trying not to play favorites, it seems to me that we can have cosmological redshifts, and some peculiar objects that have redshifts from more exotic origins.

Again, this view may be pretty naive.

.
So, are you interested in learning more details of what quasars are, how distances may be independently estimated, etc?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Hi Wangler,

that is Arp's contention, not that all redshifts are wrong, but that some redshifts have an added redshift. IE ejected QSOs are aquirring mass and therefore they have a redshift that is higher than just the cosmological redshift. The question is , what evidence is there for the anamalous redshifts? We have 'QSO/Arp galaxy' associations (the ones I have said are based on a possible sample bias) and the 'galaxies made from ejected QSOs lining up with the 'major galaxy' which ejected them', so it seems to me that both are based upon perhaps questionable statistics.

Now there is one 'embedded' QSO candidate that is claimed to be causing a higher rate of spectral emission for the 'host' galaxy.

But interactive data like that seem to be very rare. Which is why i wonder what the 'gravitationaly disrupted' galaxy/QSO association is.

.
One other aspect: if Arp et al. were right, then the evidence (signal) should get stronger as more and more data comes to hand. This is particularly so over the last four decades or so in astronomy, with the mind-boggling advances, not only in the visual waveband, but across the whole spectrum.

And yet, as we can see with the L-C&G paper (for example), the opposite is happening: the more data, the harder it is to find the footprint of anything Arpian ...

 

[BeAChooser]

The paper states that the other 0.19xx object is either a QSO or a Seyfert.

Fine. Let's be precise.

I am saying that it is likely that the filament is a tidal tail, created by a purely gravitational interaction between the two 0.19xx objects.There are many examples of these tidal tails: The Antennae, The Mice, etc.

I suppose ...

 

[Dancing David]

This space for use by dark matter.

 

[Wangler]

Quasar, Quasar burning bright

* immediately: find a method to estimate distances that is independent of the Hubble relationship

Hasn't the recent supernovae surveys been a part of this relationship verification? Or was that more for investigating the rate of acceleration of the expansion of the universe?

In other words, if (the majority of) quasars are not at cosmological distances, rather a lot of 'unexplaining' needs to go on (see Sagan, I forget which book, on what this means) ... however, as the flood of astronomical data continues to grow, more and more mutually-butressing pieces fall into place.

I think that this is a good point, but I always root for underdogs! Also, by my understanding, some of the recent weak lensing surveys are throwing a smidgen of doubt into our current assumptions of the universes' structure overall. For example, the Montrichas and Shenks paper mentioned before http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0701870has this in the final paragraph:

It is important to reconcile the QSO magnification and weak shear
results for if it proves that our QSO magnification results are
more accurate then the consequences for cosmology would
be significant.

These comological structure probes might eventually turn up something unexpected.

So, are you interested in learning more details of what quasars are, how distances may be independently estimated, etc?

I would love to know more about quesars; they have always intrigued me, as they are among the more enigmatic phenomenon that we know of, astronomically.

However, my 98-pound weaking of a mental muscle is having a hard time with the heavy lifting going on around here.

I love astronomy...it's like an onion, with layer after layer behind the {apparently} simple skin!

And, there are so many referenced papers to look at. But, hey, if you have any good info, swing it on over.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Re Arp, Fulton, Roscoe, 2005 (also areal density).

2dF QSO Redshift Survey Observational Results: both graphs are interesting; look at how the number vs magnitude one changes once a different source was added ('UVX selection' vs 'R-band')

A slightly more detailed summary of completeness, for the 2QZ survey, is here.

Note that Arp et al. do not seem to have considered completeness for the first two fields they examined, nor how completeness may have played a part in the washing away of the peaks in the final 2QZ results. Completeness is a huge issue in astronomical surveys, especially ones on quasars, and getting a good handle on it is very difficult; that Arp et al. seem to all but ignore it speaks volumes about how sloppy their work is.

Note too that L-C&G provides a pretty strong rebuttal of the later part of Arp, Fulton, Roscoe, 2005 - no Karlsson (redshift) peaks in the SDSS quasars around the 70 or so active galaxies they examined.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Hasn't the recent supernovae surveys been a part of this relationship verification? Or was that more for investigating the rate of acceleration of the expansion of the universe?

.
These surveys - and their results - are one of the ways that distances to galaxies can be estimated, independently of the Hubble relationship.

No distant supernova has yet been detected in a quasar (or, more accurately, the host galaxy of a quasar), but that is likely to change quite significantly over the next ten years or so.
.

I think that this is a good point, but I always root for underdogs!

.
Better then to root for Milgrom, MOND, Bekenstein, TeVeS, and so on then ... all dogs must bark, if they are to retain or establish credibility; sadly, Arp et al. lost theirs in the late 1970s or 1980s.
.

Also, by my understanding, some of the recent weak lensing surveys are throwing a smidgen of doubt into our current assumptions of the universes' structure overall. For example, the Montrichas and Shenks paper mentioned before http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0701870has this in the final paragraph:

It is important to reconcile the QSO magnification and weak shear
results for if it proves that our QSO magnification results are
more accurate then the consequences for cosmology would
be significant.

These comological structure probes might eventually turn up something unexpected.

.
These probes will undoubtedly turn up something ... but what?

There's a huge amount of work that can be done, and with such vast amounts of data available to almost anyone with a broadband internet connection, I'm a little surprised we don't see more good work coming from non-professionals.

It's also true that almost every astronomer would love to be the one who makes some fantastic breakthrough observation or analysis, and some actually have (think of the two high-z supernovae teams, and the discovery of accelerated expansion, not even a generation ago yet!)
.

I would love to know more about quesars; they have always intrigued me, as they are among the more enigmatic phenomenon that we know of, astronomically.

However, my 98-pound weaking of a mental muscle is having a hard time with the heavy lifting going on around here.

I love astronomy...it's like an onion, with layer after layer behind the {apparently} simple skin!

And, there are so many referenced papers to look at. But, hey, if you have any good info, swing it on over.

.

Stay tuned!

 

[BeAChooser]

So BeAChooser, what's the probability that analysis of detailed observations of local quasars could produce an estimate of H₀ that is consistent with estimates of the same parameter derived from completely independent methods?

Thank you, DRD for taking the time to lay out some data and logic, backed up by actual peer reviewed citations, that directly confronts arguments made by Arp, et. al. That's all I've asked for all along here at JREF.

And I have to admit that the H0 study you cite is pretty convincing evidence, even if it involved only 16 quasars. The probability of that result is likely very low, assuming that there is nothing in the selection of those quasars that would make them different from the type of objects that Arp, et. al., maintain have intrinsic redshifts.

That doesn't mean I'm totally convinced there isn't an intrinsic component to redshift, perhaps more in some objects than others, but it certainly gives me more reason to believe that most redshifts are related to distance and even that some dark massive component might exist to cause the lensing being used.

Now I noticed upon further reading that there actually is quite a difference between various gravitational lensed timing delay estimates of H0. For example, http://relativity.livingreviews.org/ Articles/lrr-2007-4/articlese7.html indicates various best estimate H0 values for about 18-20 samples from 49 to 95. There also is some discussion about the problems in using this approach to find H0. So perhaps your conclusion isn't quite as definitive in all cases as you think. But still I admit you've moved my views a good distance in your direction by actually addressing the issue with specific data of a sort that I don't recall being mentioned in discussions so far at JREF.

A few other items:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0310214 "Observational Cosmology: caveats and open questions in the standard model, Mart?n Lopez-Corredoira, May 16, 2006 ... snip ... even if the time delay effect is present, as it seems to be the case, this does not mean necessarily that the expansion is the only explanation. Narlikar & Arp[63] claim that the variable mass hypothesis could also give a time dilation in supernovae light curves since the decay times of the elements formed in these run on the slower clock times of lower mass atoms, and they are dilated by exactly the (1 + z) factor. Segal[64] also explain the time dilation with his chronometric cosmology. Anyway, supernovae results are, in my opinion, the most impressive and solid test about the reality of the expansion, and it might only be rejected if some alternative theory can emulate the time dilation too."

http://books.google.com/books?id=fL...8I6qjtk&sig=asMnxCYTPrGyiAJWmff0D-aQwkM&hl=en "A Different Approach to Cosmology: From a Static Universe Through the Big Big Towards Reality, by Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Fred Hoyle, Jayant Vishnu Narlikar, 2000, ... snip ... Once the gravitational field due to the lensing mass(es) is well determined it is possible to measure the distance of the system from the delay in the light travel time between the different images. In 0957 +561A&B both components vary in time in both optical flux and in radio flux. Thus, by measuring the delay in the light curves between components A and B a distance can be obtained. ... snip ... Because this method of determining H0 does not depend on the usual step-ladder distance indicators, e.g., the Cepheid variables, it is viewed by many as being likely in the not so distant future to provide the most reliable determination of H0, provided that there is no intrinsic contribution to the redshift of the QSO. We are inclined to think that this is so. However, it would be possible with z_obs = 1.413 for 0957 + 561 to contain an intrinsic redshift component z_i, while still maintaining the gravitational lens interpretation, the effect being to bring the QSO closer to the lense, causing the calculated value of H0 to be too low. Thus we would not be surprised if the gravitational lensing arguments lead to the conclusion that some QSOs with small intrinsic redshift terms do lie at great distances. ... snip ... None of these arguments removes or detracts from the evidence we have presented earlier in this chapter, which shows that many QSOs, particularly radio-emitting objects, have large intrinsic redshift components."

So I guess the battle rages on but I may be exiting the valley of doubt. No harm in being a skeptic. Right?

 

[BeAChooser]

Areal density of quasars (shorthand refs to papers in BAC's post):

E. M. Burbidge and G. Burbidge, 2002: 8.83 per square degree and ~10 (two different sources)

Zhu Xing-fen et al., 2001: N/A (the source paper seems unavailable)

Arp, 2007: 32.34 per square degree

G. Burbidge at al., 1990 (cited by Tomes): 20 per square degree (though this is somewhat unclear).

First, notice that the density estimate depends on the magnitude down to which it is made. For example, notice that in http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/311832 "A Group of Quasi-stellar Objects Closely Associated with NGC 1068, E.*M.*Burbidge, 1999" that Burbidge states "The QSO distribution in this field is striking: five QSOs, including two ROSAT sources, lie in a field 25' x 10' in area, four west and one east of NGC 1068, an areal density corresponding to 70 QSOs deg^-2, while the average areal density of QSOs between 18 and 19 mag is only 3 deg^[-2". You'll see that was the case in most of the cases I cited. And those ranges of magnitude do not all agree so one would expect variations.

Second, understand that the estimates were done at different times so it isn't a surprise to see some variation in densities.

Third, intrinsic redshift proponents are not the only ones that have come up with different areal densities. This is not just their *problem*. For example, note the quite disparate estimates in the two citations from this source that Wrangler quoted earlier:

Burbidge, Burbidge, Arp and Zibetti, "QSOs Associated with M82 ... snip ... These correspond to densities of 30, 41 and 51 per square degree respectively. Such densities are to be compared with those obtained in QSO surveys by Kilkenny et al. (1997) and Boyle et al. (2000) which give respectively 10 per square degree to 20m, and 25 per square degree for 18.25 < bj < 20.85 from the 2dF survey with the Anglo Australian Telescope."

Let me quote additional material from the sources I cited and others:

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, ... snip ... adding their numbers from B = 17.5 to 19.5, we see that they find 8.83 QSOs deg^-2, while Boyle, Jones, & Shanks (1991) give a plot in their Figure 7 similarly showing ~10 deg^-2 down to B = 19.5."

From "A Different Approach to Cosmology: From a Static Universe Through the Big Big Towards Reality" cited earlier, "However, when the dust settled it was clear that there is a population of radio-quiet quasi-stellar objects (QSOs), that far outnumbers the radio-emitting QSOs (QSRSs). The estimates of the density on the sky made in the 1960s of about 10-20 per square degree down to mB ~ 20 is still correct."

http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0409215 "The Discovery of a High Redshift X-Ray Emitting QSO Very Close to the Nucleus of NGC 7319, Pasquale Galianni, E. M. Burbidge, H. Arp, V. Junkkarinen, G. Burbidge, Stefano Zibetti, 2004 ... The surface density of QSOs is well established to be about 5 - 20 per square degree down to 20 m and it begins to level off to about 50 per square degree at 21m."

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0706.0143 "A concentration of quasars around the jet galaxy NGC 1097, 2007, H. Arp ... snip ... A quasar search in the region of the active galaxy NGC 1097 yielded 31 quasars in 1984. ... snip ... Well determined redshifts of 31 quasars to slightly fainter than V=20.0 magnitude then became available and their distribution with respect to NGC 1097 was analyzed in Arp et al. (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 ... When the 2dF survey was completed (Croom et al. 2004; Smith et al. 2005) a homogeneous survey of quasars down to apparent magnitude b= 20.85 mag. ... 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."

So perhaps there was a reason for the *apparent* inconsistency.

By the way, I'm still curious as to your comments about this study: http://www.iac.es/folleto/research/p...es/PP06040.pdf "First tentative detection of anisotropy in the QSO distribution around nearby edge-on spiral galaxies, M. Lopez-Corredoira, C. M. Gutierrez, 2006". How do you dismiss their anisotropy concerns? Do you know of any papers specifically addressing this issue? You said it was a direct refutation of Arp's thesis. I guess you were referring to what they have to say about quasar densities. But what about the anisotropy they found in their study ... suggesting quasars are more likely than not aligned with the minor axes?

Likewise, how do you explain data suggesting quantization such as this: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0501090 . You dismissed this paper with a comment about how one defines "quasars". So why don't you now tell us exactly what you were trying to say with the comment. How exactly has Arp's, et. al., definition of quasars invalidated the conclusion that there is quantization of redshift?

And just because Bell used a source that said it wasn't a complete list of all objects doesn't necessarily invalidate the results. Perhaps the objects in that list were a somewhat fair sampling of the overall population of such objects. It's curious that author after author keeps arriving at the same or nearly the same quantization numbers. Do you completely rule out this possibility? And if so, based on what, exactly?

(And by the way, I'm not eliminating the possibility that there isn't some other reason than redshift can emitted by objects can only be near those values for explaining quantization. It could be that objects are predominantly at those redshift because there is an underlying structure to the universe that happens to put most objects at those redshift distances. Comment?)

 

[BeAChooser]

Quote:
Arp (1999b) finds that the probability of having six out of six QSOs aligned within ±15o of the minor axis of NGC 5985 to be only 10?8 to 10?9.
.
Arp's six "QSOs" range in (V) magnitude from 16.4 to 19.0, and are at distances from 12' to 90', with all but one within 1o.

... snip ...

Quote:
Examining Fig. 6, one should also realize that there are two structures in the counts: two overlapping peaks, one with a maximum at mg ? 19.2 and another at mg ? 20.2. Apparently, it is the second group of QSOs that is responsible for the anisotropy, and this is shown over mg > 19.4 because this is the range where the number of QSOs in the second group is relatively significant.
.
Nor is there any significant anisotropy at angular separations <~1o.

... snip ...

How to intrepret "the probability of having six out of six QSOs aligned within ±15o of the minor axis [... is] only 10?8 to 10?9" in light of the much larger study by L-C&G?

Care to comment, BeAChooser?

Sure. It would appear that NGC 5985 might be explained by lensing and the probability of finding 6 QSO's in a single galaxy all aligned along the minor axis is still very small. But the sample size to draw from is very large. And Arp just got lucky ... or unlucky ... in finding it. Satisfied?

 

[Wangler]

First, notice that the density estimate depends on the magnitude down to which it is made. For example, notice that in http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/311832 "A Group of Quasi-stellar Objects Closely Associated with NGC 1068, E.*M.*Burbidge, 1999" that Burbidge states "The QSO distribution in this field is striking: five QSOs, including two ROSAT sources, lie in a field 25' x 10' in area, four west and one east of NGC 1068, an areal density corresponding to 70 QSOs deg^-2, while the average areal density of QSOs between 18 and 19 mag is only 3 deg^[-2". You'll see that was the case in most of the cases I cited. And those ranges of magnitude do not all agree so one would expect variations.

BAC, don't forget that the weak lensing correlations discussed by the likes of Scranton show that the correlation is dependent upon quasar magnitudes: lower quasar magnitudes (brighter), the correlation means more quesars are visible; higher quasar magnitudes, the correlation is negative.

By the way, I'm still curious as to your comments about this study: http://www.iac.es/folleto/research/p...es/PP06040.pdf "First tentative detection of anisotropy in the QSO distribution around nearby edge-on spiral galaxies, M. Lopez-Corredoira, C. M. Gutierrez, 2006". How do you dismiss their anisotropy concerns? Do you know of any papers specifically addressing this issue? You said it was a direct refutation of Arp's thesis. I guess you were referring to what they have to say about quasar densities. But what about the anisotropy they found in their study ... suggesting quasars are more likely than not aligned with the minor axes?

I know the "shape" of the gravitational lens (is this the "shear"?) is directly attributable to the distribution of intravening mass: perhaps the minor axis alignments are simply due to the mass distribution around these galaxies?

If the minor axis relationship is Arpian, why don't we see lots of quasars superimposed on face on Seyferts or AGN galaxies?

I'll look at the quantization issue more, before I offer a comment on that.

This thread is getting very productive and interesting, in direct proportion to the participants civility! Thanks, guys!

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Thank you, DRD for taking the time to lay out some data and logic, backed up by actual peer reviewed citations, that directly confronts arguments made by Arp, et. al. That's all I've asked for all along here at JREF.

And I have to admit that the H0 study you cite is pretty convincing evidence, even if it involved only 16 quasars. The probability of that result is likely very low, assuming that there is nothing in the selection of those quasars that would make them different from the type of objects that Arp, et. al., maintain have intrinsic redshifts.

.
Three things:
1) unless I missed it, Arp has never retracted his claim that ALL quasars are local, and thus have (extremely large) 'intrinsic redshifts'
2) brings us right back to 'what's a quasar?' doesn't it?
3) consistency, consistency, consistency.
.

That doesn't mean I'm totally convinced there isn't an intrinsic component to redshift, perhaps more in some objects than others, but it certainly gives me more reason to believe that most redshifts are related to distance and even that some dark massive component might exist to cause the lensing being used.

Now I noticed upon further reading that there actually is quite a difference between various gravitational lensed timing delay estimates of H0. For example, http://relativity.livingreviews.org/ Articles/lrr-2007-4/articlese7.html indicates various best estimate H0 values for about 18-20 samples from 49 to 95. There also is some discussion about the problems in using this approach to find H0. So perhaps your conclusion isn't quite as definitive in all cases as you think. But still I admit you've moved my views a good distance in your direction by actually addressing the issue with specific data of a sort that I don't recall being mentioned in discussions so far at JREF.

.
There's a great deal in the various papers I cited, and the ones they cite, etc.

Of immediate importance to the claims you have made is the question of how - specifically, quantitatively, within the estimated uncertainties - an Arpian idea accounts for the full set of data for these 16 quasars (and the existence of ~100 strongly lensed quasars).

Certainly none of the material you cited seems to do so.
.

A few other items:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0310214 "Observational Cosmology: caveats and open questions in the standard model, Mart?n Lopez-Corredoira, May 16, 2006 ... snip ... even if the time delay effect is present, as it seems to be the case, this does not mean necessarily that the expansion is the only explanation. Narlikar & Arp[63] claim that the variable mass hypothesis could also give a time dilation in supernovae light curves since the decay times of the elements formed in these run on the slower clock times of lower mass atoms, and they are dilated by exactly the (1 + z) factor. Segal[64] also explain the time dilation with his chronometric cosmology. Anyway, supernovae results are, in my opinion, the most impressive and solid test about the reality of the expansion, and it might only be rejected if some alternative theory can emulate the time dilation too."

.
I have no idea how this is relevant to strongly lenses quasars and an independent (and direct) method of estimating H₀.

Perhaps you'd be kind enough to clarify?
.

http://books.google.com/books?id=fL...8I6qjtk&sig=asMnxCYTPrGyiAJWmff0D-aQwkM&hl=en "A Different Approach to Cosmology: From a Static Universe Through the Big Big Towards Reality, by Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Fred Hoyle, Jayant Vishnu Narlikar, 2000, ... snip ... Once the gravitational field due to the lensing mass(es) is well determined it is possible to measure the distance of the system from the delay in the light travel time between the different images. In 0957 +561A&B both components vary in time in both optical flux and in radio flux. Thus, by measuring the delay in the light curves between components A and B a distance can be obtained. ... snip ... Because this method of determining H0 does not depend on the usual step-ladder distance indicators, e.g., the Cepheid variables, it is viewed by many as being likely in the not so distant future to provide the most reliable determination of H0, provided that there is no intrinsic contribution to the redshift of the QSO. We are inclined to think that this is so. However, it would be possible with z_obs = 1.413 for 0957 + 561 to contain an intrinsic redshift component z_i, while still maintaining the gravitational lens interpretation, the effect being to bring the QSO closer to the lense, causing the calculated value of H0 to be too low. Thus we would not be surprised if the gravitational lensing arguments lead to the conclusion that some QSOs with small intrinsic redshift terms do lie at great distances. ... snip ... None of these arguments removes or detracts from the evidence we have presented earlier in this chapter, which shows that many QSOs, particularly radio-emitting objects, have large intrinsic redshift components."

So I guess the battle rages on but I may be exiting the valley of doubt. No harm in being a skeptic. Right?

.
That was published in 2000; since then both 2dF and SDSS (and GOODS, and the CFHT surveys, and COSMOS, and ...) have started (and 2dF finished), and a great deal of high quality data has become available.

A great many more (stong) lenses, and strongly lensed objects, have been observed.

Where is the 'alternative cosmology' account of these results?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Sure. It would appear that NGC 5985 might be explained by lensing and the probability of finding 6 QSO's in a single galaxy all aligned along the minor axis is still very small. But the sample size to draw from is very large. And Arp just got lucky ... or unlucky ... in finding it. Satisfied?

.
May I infer from this a method you use, in evaluating material such as the Arp paper and L-C&G?

Specifically that a study using many hundreds of times more data (and data obtained from a survey that paid far, far more attention to consistency than any of Arp's published work), designed explicitly to test an Arp idea, and (apparently) based solely on that idea ... and which fails to support the Arp idea ... can be dismissed with just some ~50 words? No need to do any analyses, crunch any numbers, painstakingly examine the logic chain, the experimental design, ...?

This is an area I'm particularly interested in - as you no doubt learned from reading my posts in the other two threads - what approaches do you use when you evaluate material such as that published by Arp et al.?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

First, notice that the density estimate depends on the magnitude down to which it is made. For example, notice that in http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/311832 "A Group of Quasi-stellar Objects Closely Associated with NGC 1068, E.*M.*Burbidge, 1999" that Burbidge states "The QSO distribution in this field is striking: five QSOs, including two ROSAT sources, lie in a field 25' x 10' in area, four west and one east of NGC 1068, an areal density corresponding to 70 QSOs deg^-2, while the average areal density of QSOs between 18 and 19 mag is only 3 deg^[-2". You'll see that was the case in most of the cases I cited. And those ranges of magnitude do not all agree so one would expect variations.

.
I think you'll find it depends on a great deal more than that ... 'what is a quasar?' is central.

Then there's the distribution of the areal density - if you take 100 random fields (say) and measure the numbers of quasars (consistently defined of course) in each, what would the range of areal densities be? the standard deviation? the shape of the distribution curve?

I think you'll find that none of sources you cite even mention this aspect, let alone include it in their calculations.

Further, there seems to be no attempt, in any of the papers you cite, to true up what the authors wrote in earlier papers - with respect to areal density - with what they wrote then (in the later papers).

Also, another difference between these papers and many of the ones you didn't cite (by astronomers who don't share Arp et al.'s views; there are hundreds and hundreds of these papers by the way) is discussion (and, often, quantitative estimation) of things like completeness, contamination, and extinction.

In other words, the papers you cited reflect some pretty sloppy work, compared to that of the authors' peers.
.

Second, understand that the estimates were done at different times so it isn't a surprise to see some variation in densities.

Third, intrinsic redshift proponents are not the only ones that have come up with different areal densities. This is not just their *problem*. For example, note the quite disparate estimates in the two citations from this source that Wrangler quoted earlier:

Burbidge, Burbidge, Arp and Zibetti, "QSOs Associated with M82 ... snip ... These correspond to densities of 30, 41 and 51 per square degree respectively. Such densities are to be compared with those obtained in QSO surveys by Kilkenny et al. (1997) and Boyle et al. (2000) which give respectively 10 per square degree to 20m, and 25 per square degree for 18.25 < bj < 20.85 from the 2dF survey with the Anglo Australian Telescope."

.
Indeed.

The parts you left out are the ones on the pages and pages of careful qualification and caveats about those densities.

There are also quite a few other papers on 'what is a quasar?' and how the answer to that question is important for the particular hypothesis being tested in the relevant paper.
.

Let me quote additional material from the sources I cited and others:

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, ... snip ... adding their numbers from B = 17.5 to 19.5, we see that they find 8.83 QSOs deg^-2, while Boyle, Jones, & Shanks (1991) give a plot in their Figure 7 similarly showing ~10 deg^-2 down to B = 19.5."

From "A Different Approach to Cosmology: From a Static Universe Through the Big Big Towards Reality" cited earlier, "However, when the dust settled it was clear that there is a population of radio-quiet quasi-stellar objects (QSOs), that far outnumbers the radio-emitting QSOs (QSRSs). The estimates of the density on the sky made in the 1960s of about 10-20 per square degree down to mB ~ 20 is still correct."

http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0409215 "The Discovery of a High Redshift X-Ray Emitting QSO Very Close to the Nucleus of NGC 7319, Pasquale Galianni, E. M. Burbidge, H. Arp, V. Junkkarinen, G. Burbidge, Stefano Zibetti, 2004 ... The surface density of QSOs is well established to be about 5 - 20 per square degree down to 20 m and it begins to level off to about 50 per square degree at 21m."

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0706.0143 "A concentration of quasars around the jet galaxy NGC 1097, 2007, H. Arp ... snip ... A quasar search in the region of the active galaxy NGC 1097 yielded 31 quasars in 1984. ... snip ... Well determined redshifts of 31 quasars to slightly fainter than V=20.0 magnitude then became available and their distribution with respect to NGC 1097 was analyzed in Arp et al. (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 ... When the 2dF survey was completed (Croom et al. 2004; Smith et al. 2005) a homogeneous survey of quasars down to apparent magnitude b= 20.85 mag. ... 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."

So perhaps there was a reason for the *apparent* inconsistency.

.
Indeed.

Which brings us back to a key question: 'what is a quasar?'
.

By the way, I'm still curious as to your comments about this study: http://www.iac.es/folleto/research/p...es/PP06040.pdf "First tentative detection of anisotropy in the QSO distribution around nearby edge-on spiral galaxies, M. Lopez-Corredoira, C. M. Gutierrez, 2006". How do you dismiss their anisotropy concerns? Do you know of any papers specifically addressing this issue? You said it was a direct refutation of Arp's thesis. I guess you were referring to what they have to say about quasar densities. But what about the anisotropy they found in their study ... suggesting quasars are more likely than not aligned with the minor axes?

.
It is a direct knock-out of what Arp wrote in the paper L-C&G cited (which I quoted in my earlier post) ... and indeed of almost all of what Arp et al. wrote prior to ~2000/3: L-C&G found no anisotropies consistent with the earlier Arp et al. work (the anisotropy they claim to have detected only occurs in much fainter quasars than Arp et al. ever reported, and only at an angular distance much greater than all but a very few Arp et al. published results) ... AND L-C&G used far, far more 'parent' galaxies than Arp et al. ever did, AND they used a good survey, AND ...

As to the specific claim in L-C&G, re anisotopies, my suggestion would be to look very carefully at the relevant SDSS publications, and make sure L-C&G have explicitly and correctly addressed all the completeness, contamination, etc issues the SDSS papers are at great pains to state, quantitatively.
.

Likewise, how do you explain data suggesting quantization such as this: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0501090 . You dismissed this paper with a comment about how one defines "quasars". So why don't you now tell us exactly what you were trying to say with the comment. How exactly has Arp's, et. al., definition of quasars invalidated the conclusion that there is quantization of redshift?

.
I'll come back to that one later.
.

And just because Bell used a source that said it wasn't a complete list of all objects doesn't necessarily invalidate the results.

.
May I also use this to infer something important about how you go about evaluating material by Arp et al.?

If you don't mind, I'd like to examine the logic of your sentence - and what it seems to imply - in more detail (later).
.

Perhaps the objects in that list were a somewhat fair sampling of the overall population of such objects.

.
Perhaps they were; perhaps they weren't ... how do you evaluate the extent to which they were?
.

It's curious that author after author keeps arriving at the same or nearly the same quantization numbers. Do you completely rule out this possibility? And if so, based on what, exactly?

.
That's news to me ... there are only a very small number of authors who reach such conclusions, and every one of those papers I've looked at has at least one pretty serious methodological flaw (though I must say Bell's really takes the prize!)
.

(And by the way, I'm not eliminating the possibility that there isn't some other reason than redshift can emitted by objects can only be near those values for explaining quantization. It could be that objects are predominantly at those redshift because there is an underlying structure to the universe that happens to put most objects at those redshift distances. Comment?)

.
Stay tuned!

 

[Dancing David]

Thanks DRD , Wangler and BAC, it seems the conversation has turned to data away from just politics. Thank You.

 

[BeAChooser]

I have no idea how this is relevant to strongly lenses quasars and an independent (and direct) method of estimating H0. Perhaps you'd be kind enough to clarify?

It's not but I must have been prescient because after I posted it I noticed you folks talking about using supernova to estimate H0.

Where is the 'alternative cosmology' account of these results?

No idea. Maybe Arp, et. al. will try to write one soon.

Can you clarify something? Are you entirely ruling out the possibility of intrinsic redshift (due to something other than motion)? Are you insisting that the entire value associated with any given z for every space object can only be interpreted as a measure of relative velocity and/or distance?

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Sure. It would appear that NGC 5985 might be explained by lensing and the probability of finding 6 QSO's in a single galaxy all aligned along the minor axis is still very small. But the sample size to draw from is very large. And Arp just got lucky ... or unlucky ... in finding it. Satisfied?

May I infer from this a method you use, in evaluating material such as the Arp paper and L-C&G? Specifically that a study using many hundreds of times more data (and data obtained from a survey that paid far, far more attention to consistency than any of Arp's published work), designed explicitly to test an Arp idea, and (apparently) based solely on that idea ... and which fails to support the Arp idea ... can be dismissed with just some ~50 words?

I'm puzzled by your response since I was actually agreeing with your conclusions.

I was admitting to being convinced by your argument that the quasar clustering around NGC 5985 is probably a result of lensing and that Arp was able to find one with a lot of quasars aligned along the minor axis (you must admit an improbable event) simply because there are lots of galaxies and quasars out there.

But now I think I'll take another look, because I just found another observation that involves 6 high redshift objects with a curious additional feature. But first, let's ask the question ... what are the specific redshifts of the 6 objects along the minor axis of NGC 5985?

This ... http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1999A&A...341L...5A/L000006.000.html ... indicates the central Seyfert is at z = .008 and the six objects are at z = 2.13, 1.97 and 0.59 on one side and z = 0.009 (this is said to be dwarf spiral), 0.81 and 0.35 on the other side. There is also one more object in the field (albeit not on the minor axis) at z = 1.90. Now do you notice anything about these numbers?

If not (but I'm sure you do ), the following will provide a clue. It's a similar case, but with even one more twist.

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/305779 "Quasars around the Seyfert Galaxy NGC 3516, Chu, Wei, Hu, Zhu, Arp, 1998"

And what I find it remarkable is that although there are certainly a lot of galaxies and quasars out there, a case like this could even exist within the number of cases that has likely been studied in any great detail. Here, the x-ray sources around a very active Seyfert, NGC 3516, at z = 0.009 are not only closely aligned along the minor axis but have redshifts that are at values (z = 0.33, 0.69, 0.93, 1.40, and 2.10) which just happen to be nearly the same as Karlsson's (1971, 1977) theoretically predicted values for quantized redshift (namely z = .3, 0.6, 0.96, 1.41, and 1.96). Here's the layout: http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/astronomy_by_press_release/illustrations/figure_1.jpg

Add to that the fact that in 2001, the XMM Newton x-ray telescope reportedly observed two high redshift regions appear on opposite sides of NGC 3516 following an extremely powerful flare (http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/041028redshift-rosetta.htm ) and you begin to wonder ... even if all the quasars do lie within a degree of the central galaxy.

And now do you notice that all the objects in the NGC 5985 are also close to the redshifts quantizations theorized by Karlsson? So maybe we were too quick to dismiss that case. Care to comment on the probability of all these observations taken together? Not only do we have the probability that both have 6 high redshift objects aligned along the minor axis, but almost all the objects are relatively close (within the margin of error) to Karlsonn's values and in one case all five are even in the same numerically increasing order as Karlsonn's values. Very, very curious and given all the values that redshift could take, improbable?

 

[BeAChooser]

I think you'll find it depends on a great deal more than that ... 'what is a quasar?' is central.

Still waiting to hear what it is ...

Then there's the distribution of the areal density - if you take 100 random fields (say) and measure the numbers of quasars (consistently defined of course) in each, what would the range of areal densities be? the standard deviation? the shape of the distribution curve?

I think you'll find that none of sources you cite even mention this aspect, let alone include it in their calculations.

Fair enough.

Out of curiousity, can you tell us whether these huge data bases have been looked at to see if there are concentrations of quasars similar to those around Arp et al's galaxy nuclei in cases where no galaxy is seen?

Has anyone tried to write software to look for linear arrangements of quasars? Any cases where 6 have lined up within a degree and what are the statistics of that? What are the z's in those cases, by the way?

As to the specific claim in L-C&G, re anisotopies, my suggestion would be to look very carefully at the relevant SDSS publications, and make sure L-C&G have explicitly and correctly addressed all the completeness, contamination, etc issues the SDSS papers are at great pains to state, quantitatively.

First, a better link to that paper is http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609514 . Second, I hope someone does just what you suggested ... and doesn't just ignore the possibility of anisotropy in the position of quasars.

Quote:
And just because Bell used a source that said it wasn't a complete list of all objects doesn't necessarily invalidate the results.
.
May I also use this to infer something important about how you go about evaluating material by Arp et al.?

Sure, as long as I get to observe that the way you went about evaluating that study was to immediately rule it out simply because it used a source where the author hedged their bets saying *don't use this because it's incomplete*.

Quote:
It's curious that author after author keeps arriving at the same or nearly the same quantization numbers. Do you completely rule out this possibility? And if so, based on what, exactly?
.
That's news to me ... there are only a very small number of authors who reach such conclusions, and every one of those papers I've looked at has at least one pretty serious methodological flaw

So do you think the z's reported for the two cases (NGC 5985 and NGC 3516) in my previous post are in error? Just curious ...

Stay tuned!

With baited breath.