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

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

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

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!)

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!)

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.

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.

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

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

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 ...