Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Four Quasars Found Clustered Together Defy Current Cosmological Expectations

Posted by samzenpus on from the standing-out-in-a-crowd dept.

StartsWithABang writes: Get a supermassive black hole feeding on matter, particularly on large amounts of cool, dense gas, and you're likely to get a quasar: a luminous, active galaxy emitting radiation from the radio all the way up through the X-ray. Our best understanding and observations indicate that these objects should be rare, transient, and isolated; no more than two have ever been found close together before. Until this discovery, that is, where we just found four within a million light years of one another, posing a problem for our current theories of structure formation in the Universe.

33 of 62 comments (clear)

  1. Not to worry by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is just he exception that proves the rule.

    It's when you find TWO exceptions, that you should start to worry about the rule itself...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Not to worry by ArcadeMan · · Score: 2

      They found FOUR, what does that tell you?

      --
      Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
    2. Re:Not to worry by msauve · · Score: 1

      They rolled snake eyes twice in a row.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    3. Re:Not to worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You say "four", referring to quasars - when the subject was 'exceptions' - that is, more than two quasars. They didn't find four exceptions, they found one exception consisting of twice the currently recorded number in any given observation of a given size.

    4. Re:Not to worry by SuperKendall · · Score: 1, Funny

      Thank you for the response with the exact level of pedanticness I would have gone for personally. You saved me some time.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    5. Re:Not to worry by nfras · · Score: 5, Funny

      Thank you for the response with the exact level of pedanticness I would have gone for personally. You saved me some time.

      I think you mean pedantry :)

      --
      You call me a pedant? I prefer the term "correct"
    6. Re:Not to worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ah you see, English, it's a bitch. Since in this case, 'prove' means 'tests'. The term is also used in 'proving grounds' for cars or other machinery. If the exception really is an exception, then it is proven that the rule ain't no rule at all.

    7. Re:Not to worry by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 4, Funny

      They rolled snake eyes twice in a row.

      God not only plays dice, he's workin' on a YAHTZEE!

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    8. Re:Not to worry by Chas · · Score: 1

      That the universe is large and diverse enough that statistically improbable happenstances like this can (and do) still happen.
      And we've been lucky enough to live during a time when we can actually observe such a phenomenon.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    9. Re:Not to worry by paradigmsareconstruc · · Score: 2

      It tells me that people who follow science today -- professional scientists included -- try so hard to ignore scientific controversies that they basically undermine the entire scientific endeavor. What stands out with this "surprise" is that it has been less than two years since Halton Arp's death -- the man whose American telescope time was revoked because he claimed to see quasars ejecting in both directions from active galaxies. I have to imagine that this is not even a malicious omission. It's sincerely naive -- which is 100x worse, because what it suggests is that modern science is spinning its wheels with its refusal to teach the newer graduate students (and public) about the former scientific controversies.

    10. Re:Not to worry by Talderas · · Score: 2

      That's a step above the level of pedantry he would have gone for.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    11. Re:Not to worry by Godwin+O'Hitler · · Score: 1

      Here's how an exception proving (testing) the rule works:

      A swimming pool has a notice on the diving board that reads "Not for use by children under 8."
      Anyone can therefore use the diving board with the exception of under-8s.

      Along comes one such exception in the form of a 7 year-old kid. Lifeguard sees him and says "stay off the board, son!"

      Rule proven.

      Now just extend that to quasars and you're on a winner.

      --
      No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
    12. Re:Not to worry by g0bshiTe · · Score: 2

      Given we haven't seen 1% of what's out there, what we are seeing with the 4 could be the norm. It's entirely possible everything we know so far is the exception.

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
  2. Hey don't be biased by Virtucon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They're just in a new intergalactic living arrangement is all.

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  3. Lensing? by laughingskeptic · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The original paper http://arxiv.org/pdf/1505.0378... mentions the red-shift and spectral similarities of 3 of the observed quasars without mentioning the possibility that they may be the result of gravitational lensing by the fourth object and could possibly be millions of light years behind the 4th object.

    1. Re:Lensing? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      The universe is a hall of mirrors.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    2. Re:Lensing? by forand · · Score: 3, Informative

      I haven't read the whole paper but in short: no they looked at each object with sufficient sensitivity to rule that out.

  4. Gravitational lensing, maybe by ITRambo · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Maybe multiple gravitational lensing is somehow confusing things. That or the universe took fertility pills and had quadruplets.

  5. Quick! Fire Up the EM Drive! by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 2

    We've got Physics to break!

  6. So when did it become Ethan day on slashdot? by burtosis · · Score: 1

    This is the second article today. Typically authors of blogs and news stories get one exposure on slashdot per million years. It's quite rare for even two exposures. Imagine how the Slashdotter community would be rocked if four Ethan articles were posted within a single day!

  7. Floated there over billions of years? by sanosuke001 · · Score: 1

    Why couldn't they have formed further apart and floated or were pulled in closer? Also, a million light years seems pretty far to me...

    --
    -SaNo
  8. I'm not saying it's aliens... by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

    but fuck yeah its aliens!!!

  9. Rimmer ~ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "My answer in answering the question: "What does the red spectrum tell us about quasars? There are various words that need to be defined: what is a spectrum, what is a red one, why is it red, and why is it so frequently linked with quasars?......

    ....Holly.....What the hell is a quasar?"

  10. Re:Dark Energy, Dark Matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's just a 4th-dimensional time swap through extra-dimensional space along the super-string line of wave interference that collapsed upon being found. Really, nothing special here.

  11. Re:God is getting lazy by Whiteox · · Score: 1

    I prefer Aten (Egyptian monotheistic God) instead.

    --
    Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
  12. Quite the opposite by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    100% of galaxies have supermassive black holes near them. Quasars form based on mass and age. Galaxies near each other should be around the same age. I don't see the problem here. So four galaxies around the same age had nearly the same mass by sheer random probability and they all turned into quasars at the same time because they're all the same age formation-wise.
    "We looked at 1% of the universe and didn't see something like this so it must be impossible" is not valid science. That's right up there with "the Earth looks flat so it must be flat."

    1. Re:Quite the opposite by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 3, Informative

      100% of galaxies have supermassive black holes near them.

      Not quite.

      http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_...

      So four galaxies around the same age had nearly the same mass by sheer random probability

      That's one possibility. Funny thing about science, though, is that it isn't just going to shrug and say "Eh. Probability." and ignore something interesting.

      "We looked at 1% of the universe and didn't see something like this so it must be impossible" is not valid science.

      No, it's not. But then no-one's saying that.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  13. Re:It so just happens once in a while... by sabbede · · Score: 1

    Hah!

  14. Asimov disagrees by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    The relativity of wrong.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  15. Stop Feeding SMBHs by dimeglio · · Score: 1

    Someone obviously didn't read the sign.

    --
    Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
  16. Re: physics out of whack. by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    not proven fact

    All theories are rubbish until tested. There is no such thing as "proof" in Science, never has been, never will be. That's actually why Science is by far the best method we have found to describe and predict the behaviour of the universe.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  17. Re: physics out of whack. by dimeglio · · Score: 1

    Isn't science simply reverse engineering the universe?

    --
    Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
  18. Re:God is getting lazy by cellocgw · · Score: 1

    I prefer Aten (Egyptian monotheistic God) instead.

    Oh yeah? If he's a monotheism how come there's ten of him? :-)

    --
    https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw