|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Arp and Quasar-Galaxy alignments proposed statistical study
For a very long time Halton Arp has reported finding physical
associations between large nearby spiral galaxies and quasars at much higher redshifts. If Arp's observations are accepted as valid then it cannot be disputed that the cosmological origin of redshift and therefore the big bang theory are wrong. It seems therefore that the majority of cosmologists who still accept the big bang theory do not accept Arp's observations as valid interpretations. This is a request for astronomers who hold to the cosmological interpretation of redshift to explain how they deal with Arp's observations, and what evidence (if any) would make them change their minds? Some of these observations are listed: 1. The apparent physical connection in the form of bridges between objects of very different red shift observed in visible and x-ray. In some cases multiple additional redshifts are found for small objects clearly withing the bridges. A good example of this is found in http://www.haltonarp.com/Articles/PDF/Research With Fred.pdf where NGC7603 at z=0.029 is connected by a bridge to an object at z=0.057 and two additional objects at z=0.243 and z=0.391 are found in symmetrical positions within the bridge. If the cosmologogical red shift is accepted then one is forced to conclude that this is a chance alignment (or that the objects are travelling at relativistic velocities), but Arp has found far too many of these for such a conclusion. 2. The alignment of quasars and other similar objects with the rotation axis and with matched pairs in terms of red shifts of quasars at symmetrical positions on opposite sides of the axis. In addition there is a pattern of redshifts with high values nearer the galaxy and dropping to values nearer the galaxy redshift at greater distance. Arp interprets this as the quasars having been ejected from the spiral galaxy along the axis in the matched pairs at various time intervals. For many examples of these properties see http://www.haltonarp.com/Articles/PDF/moriond.pdf 3. The consistency of peaks in quasar redshifts to specific values, namely z=.06, .30, .60, .96, 1.41, 1.96, 2.64, 3.48 which are found with minor variations in many examples of quasars associated with galaxies. There is a common ratio of close to 1.23 in the (1+z) values, that is in the actual wavelengths. Again see the paper listed in 2 above and other papers listed at http://www.haltonarp.com/?Page=Abstracts It is acknowledged that Arp made an early statistical mistake in his probability calculations in one paper, so he went to study statistics so that his later papers would be faultless in this regard. Perhaps it is the case that astronomers/cosmologists suspect that he has taken so many pictures and studied so many galaxies that he is able to find any pattern that he seeks. Is that what people think? If a statistical study of the above claims was made with comprehensive samples of galaxies and quasars by computer analysis and it yielded extremely low probabilities (like say 10^-10) would cosmologists abandon the big bang and cosmological red shift assumptions? If not, why not? If someone wanted to do such a study, which galaxy and quasar surveys (please give links to where the data can be downloaded) would you recommend be used that have been built without any selection criterion (except brightness, z limits or region of sky) built into them? The galaxy surveys do not need to be to very high magnitude as the associations are generally with very nearbt galaxies. The quasar survey is perhaps more difficult and advise on this is sought. It is proposed that the above associations, particularly number 2, be tested. The samples should be of as much of the sky as possible but need not be the whole sky, but should be to some magnitude within the region studied. To act as a control and prove that the statistical calculations are correct, it is proposed to do the analysis a number of extra times with the galaxy sample rotated at an arbitrary angle in space to the quasar sample. If the associations show up strongly in the real sample but not in the rotated sample then Arp must surely be accepted as right. If the results are similar then Arp can comfortably be dismissed. Is this a fair test? Ray Tomes |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Arp and Quasar-Galaxy alignments proposed statistical study
A minor correction. In my recent post I mentioned a link:
http://www.haltonarp.com/Articles/PDF/Research With Fred.pdf which I cut and pasted into my post. It has some blanks in it (very weird) and probably won't work for many people. You can get to this link by using the following one and and then clicking the appropriate one in the list the http://www.haltonarp.com/?Page=Abstracts Ray Tomes |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Arp and Quasar-Galaxy alignments proposed statistical study
A minor correction. In my recent post I mentioned a link:
http://www.haltonarp.com/Articles/PDF/Research With Fred.pdf which I cut and pasted into my post. It has some blanks in it (very weird) and probably won't work for many people. You can get to this link by using the following one and and then clicking the appropriate one in the list the http://www.haltonarp.com/?Page=Abstracts Ray Tomes |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Arp and Quasar-Galaxy alignments proposed statistical study
In article , Ray Tomes
writes: dropping to values nearer the galaxy redshift at greater distance. Arp interprets this as the quasars having been ejected from the spiral galaxy along the axis in the matched pairs at various time intervals. I once did a back-of-the-envelope calculation that if QSOs were really ejected from M33 as Arp claims, then one should be able to DETECT THEIR PROPER MOTION WITH VLBI. To my knowledge, no-one has tried this. This would falsify his theory of ejection. If a statistical study of the above claims was made with comprehensive samples of galaxies and quasars by computer analysis and it yielded extremely low probabilities (like say 10^-10) would cosmologists abandon the big bang and cosmological red shift assumptions? If not, why not? Not immediately. IF this transpired, it would be one argument against the standard model, compared to several more in favour of it. If one thus rejected the standard model, one would have a lot of explaining to do as to why all the other arguments seem to work. So, IF this transpired, one would probably first---following Occam's razor---look for things one might have overlooked in this analysis. To be fair, it is difficult to get observing time for Arp objects. On the other hand, I think Arp would have been better off sticking to the data rather than associating himself with very off-the-wall theoretical explanations for his stuff. Also, he tends to play the "I've been mistreated and misunderstood" angle too much, so perhaps one can't blame those who steer clear of looking into his claims. (In one book, he goes on and on about the opposition he has come up against, but the dust jacket says he is "on the staff" of the Max Planck Institute for astrophysics. If that's discrimination, then I'd like people to discriminate against my astronomical work!) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Arp and Quasar-Galaxy alignments proposed statistical study
In article , Ray Tomes
writes: dropping to values nearer the galaxy redshift at greater distance. Arp interprets this as the quasars having been ejected from the spiral galaxy along the axis in the matched pairs at various time intervals. I once did a back-of-the-envelope calculation that if QSOs were really ejected from M33 as Arp claims, then one should be able to DETECT THEIR PROPER MOTION WITH VLBI. To my knowledge, no-one has tried this. This would falsify his theory of ejection. If a statistical study of the above claims was made with comprehensive samples of galaxies and quasars by computer analysis and it yielded extremely low probabilities (like say 10^-10) would cosmologists abandon the big bang and cosmological red shift assumptions? If not, why not? Not immediately. IF this transpired, it would be one argument against the standard model, compared to several more in favour of it. If one thus rejected the standard model, one would have a lot of explaining to do as to why all the other arguments seem to work. So, IF this transpired, one would probably first---following Occam's razor---look for things one might have overlooked in this analysis. To be fair, it is difficult to get observing time for Arp objects. On the other hand, I think Arp would have been better off sticking to the data rather than associating himself with very off-the-wall theoretical explanations for his stuff. Also, he tends to play the "I've been mistreated and misunderstood" angle too much, so perhaps one can't blame those who steer clear of looking into his claims. (In one book, he goes on and on about the opposition he has come up against, but the dust jacket says he is "on the staff" of the Max Planck Institute for astrophysics. If that's discrimination, then I'd like people to discriminate against my astronomical work!) |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Arp and Quasar-Galaxy alignments proposed statistical study
Ray Tomes wrote:
1. The apparent physical connection in the form of bridges between objects of very different red shift observed in visible and x-ray. If the cosmologogical red shift is accepted then one is forced to conclude that this is a chance alignment (or that the objects are travelling at relativistic velocities), but Arp has found far too many of these for such a conclusion. Martin Hardcastle wrote: How do you assess whether there are `far too many of these'?. In the standard model, there are bound to be *some*. The question `how many do you expect?' is extremely hard to answer, and to my knowledge Arp has not attempted to do so. Sorry for the slow reply. Yes, of course there will be some. This can be calculated statistically how many will fall within what distance. However I suggested the Monte Carlo approach which is to compare to random datasets or moire simply the same dataset rotated in space. If for 100 random rotations the average associations within some range were say 40 with a maximum of 90 and the actual data had 250 associations then it would be very convincing but if it were 85 then it would not. However the really fascinating thing in Arp's data are the matched pairs of quasars at similar redshifts (not identical and too far apart - both proving it is not gravitational lensing) along opposite sides of the axis of large nearby spirals. The Arp proposal does explain the very wide scatter in redshift versus brightness of quasars compared to galaxies - because only part of the redshift is considered to be cosmological. I don't think big bang cosmology can explain this wide scatter. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Arp and Quasar-Galaxy alignments proposed statistical study
Ray Tomes wrote:
1. The apparent physical connection in the form of bridges between objects of very different red shift observed in visible and x-ray. If the cosmologogical red shift is accepted then one is forced to conclude that this is a chance alignment (or that the objects are travelling at relativistic velocities), but Arp has found far too many of these for such a conclusion. Martin Hardcastle wrote: How do you assess whether there are `far too many of these'?. In the standard model, there are bound to be *some*. The question `how many do you expect?' is extremely hard to answer, and to my knowledge Arp has not attempted to do so. Sorry for the slow reply. Yes, of course there will be some. This can be calculated statistically how many will fall within what distance. However I suggested the Monte Carlo approach which is to compare to random datasets or moire simply the same dataset rotated in space. If for 100 random rotations the average associations within some range were say 40 with a maximum of 90 and the actual data had 250 associations then it would be very convincing but if it were 85 then it would not. However the really fascinating thing in Arp's data are the matched pairs of quasars at similar redshifts (not identical and too far apart - both proving it is not gravitational lensing) along opposite sides of the axis of large nearby spirals. The Arp proposal does explain the very wide scatter in redshift versus brightness of quasars compared to galaxies - because only part of the redshift is considered to be cosmological. I don't think big bang cosmology can explain this wide scatter. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Arp and Quasar-Galaxy alignments proposed statistical study
Phillip Helbig wrote:
I once did a back-of-the-envelope calculation that if QSOs were really ejected from M33 as Arp claims, then one should be able to DETECT THEIR PROPER MOTION WITH VLBI. To my knowledge, no-one has tried this. This would falsify his theory of ejection. At M33 distance a velocity of 0.01c gives 0.001" or arc movement per year which would be detectable in a reasonable period of time. I assume that the velocity would need to be of the order of 0.003c to 0.01c to ensure escape from the galaxy. R Tomes wrote: {about quasar associations with low redshift galaxies} If a statistical study of the above claims was made with comprehensive samples of galaxies and quasars by computer analysis and it yielded extremely low probabilities (like say 10^-10) would cosmologists abandon the big bang and cosmological red shift assumptions? If not, why not? Not immediately. IF this transpired, it would be one argument against the standard model, compared to several more in favour of it. If one thus rejected the standard model, one would have a lot of explaining to do as to why all the other arguments seem to work. So, IF this transpired, one would probably first---following Occam's razor---look for things one might have overlooked in this analysis. Fair enough to look, but if a very substantial part of quasar redshifts was shown to be non-cosmological then standard cosmology would be in tatters. Of course a high standard of proof will be needed. To be fair, it is difficult to get observing time for Arp objects. On the other hand, I think Arp would have been better off sticking to the data rather than associating himself with very off-the-wall theoretical explanations for his stuff. Well I suspect that he felt he had gathered so much data that falsified the big bang that it was time to start looking for an alternative. I am not sure what you are referring to as "off-the-wall", as the theoretical grounds are quite consistent with standard physics, just not with standard cosmology. Also, he tends to play the "I've been mistreated and misunderstood" angle too much, so perhaps one can't blame those who steer clear of looking into his claims. (In one book, he goes on and on about the opposition he has come up against, but the dust jacket says he is "on the staff" of the Max Planck Institute for astrophysics. If that's discrimination, then I'd like people to discriminate against my astronomical work!) LOL! Well I am not on the staff of anything, so I have nothing to lose by doing analysis of this type. I have the statistical capability to do this but would like guidance from a professional astronomer as to the data sets to use and their limitations. If people are worried about associations with "off-the-wall" stuff, then I am happy to accept that advice privately and they can decide later whether to associate themselves with the outcome. Ray Tomes |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Arp and Quasar-Galaxy alignments proposed statistical study
Phillip Helbig wrote:
I once did a back-of-the-envelope calculation that if QSOs were really ejected from M33 as Arp claims, then one should be able to DETECT THEIR PROPER MOTION WITH VLBI. To my knowledge, no-one has tried this. This would falsify his theory of ejection. At M33 distance a velocity of 0.01c gives 0.001" or arc movement per year which would be detectable in a reasonable period of time. I assume that the velocity would need to be of the order of 0.003c to 0.01c to ensure escape from the galaxy. R Tomes wrote: {about quasar associations with low redshift galaxies} If a statistical study of the above claims was made with comprehensive samples of galaxies and quasars by computer analysis and it yielded extremely low probabilities (like say 10^-10) would cosmologists abandon the big bang and cosmological red shift assumptions? If not, why not? Not immediately. IF this transpired, it would be one argument against the standard model, compared to several more in favour of it. If one thus rejected the standard model, one would have a lot of explaining to do as to why all the other arguments seem to work. So, IF this transpired, one would probably first---following Occam's razor---look for things one might have overlooked in this analysis. Fair enough to look, but if a very substantial part of quasar redshifts was shown to be non-cosmological then standard cosmology would be in tatters. Of course a high standard of proof will be needed. To be fair, it is difficult to get observing time for Arp objects. On the other hand, I think Arp would have been better off sticking to the data rather than associating himself with very off-the-wall theoretical explanations for his stuff. Well I suspect that he felt he had gathered so much data that falsified the big bang that it was time to start looking for an alternative. I am not sure what you are referring to as "off-the-wall", as the theoretical grounds are quite consistent with standard physics, just not with standard cosmology. Also, he tends to play the "I've been mistreated and misunderstood" angle too much, so perhaps one can't blame those who steer clear of looking into his claims. (In one book, he goes on and on about the opposition he has come up against, but the dust jacket says he is "on the staff" of the Max Planck Institute for astrophysics. If that's discrimination, then I'd like people to discriminate against my astronomical work!) LOL! Well I am not on the staff of anything, so I have nothing to lose by doing analysis of this type. I have the statistical capability to do this but would like guidance from a professional astronomer as to the data sets to use and their limitations. If people are worried about associations with "off-the-wall" stuff, then I am happy to accept that advice privately and they can decide later whether to associate themselves with the outcome. Ray Tomes |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Arp and Quasar-Galaxy alignments proposed statistical study
In article ,
Ray Tomes wrote: Yes, of course there will be some. This can be calculated statistically how many will fall within what distance. However I suggested the Monte Carlo approach which is to compare to random datasets or moire simply the same dataset rotated in space. If for 100 random rotations the average associations within some range were say 40 with a maximum of 90 and the actual data had 250 associations then it would be very convincing but if it were 85 then it would not. Some test along these lines would certainly be one way to proceed. However the really fascinating thing in Arp's data are the matched pairs of quasars at similar redshifts (not identical and too far apart - both proving it is not gravitational lensing) along opposite sides of the axis of large nearby spirals. Bear in mind that you expect to see (comparatively) widely separated structures with similar redshifts in the standard model of big bang structure formation. The question, again, is whether there's a statistically significant excess of these associated with nearby galaxies. The Arp proposal does explain the very wide scatter in redshift versus brightness of quasars compared to galaxies - because only part of the redshift is considered to be cosmological. I don't think big bang cosmology can explain this wide scatter. Big bang cosmology doesn't need to -- this is just AGN physics. There is a large scatter in the luminosities of AGN such as Seyferts and low-luminosity radio galaxies at zero redshift, where presumably even Arp doesn't think any new physics is happening. In the standard picture, AGN luminosity is controlled by the black hole mass and accretion rate, and it's entirely plausible that these differ widely for different quasars at similar redshifts (in particular the accretion rate depends on the very small scale environment of the central black hole). Martin -- Martin Hardcastle Department of Physics, University of Bristol A little learning is a dangerous thing; / Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring; / There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain ... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|