Slashdot Mirror
Recent Quasar Observations Support Lots of Mini-Bangs Instead of One Big Bang (wired.com)
Chris Reeve writes: Wired Magazine is reporting that astronomers have since 2014 witnessed up to 100 possible instances of quasars transforming into galaxies over very short timespans, but the article leaves no hint of the trouble this spells for the Big Bang cosmology. The article begins, "Stephanie Lamassa did a double take. She was staring at two images on her computer screen, both of the same object — except they looked nothing alike... The quasar seemed to have vanished, leaving just another galaxy. That had to be impossible, she thought. Although quasars turn off, transitioning into mere galaxies, the process should take 10,000 years or more. This quasar appeared to have shut down in less than 10 years — a cosmic eyeblink."
What the Wired article fails to mention is that the short timespans vindicate the quasar ejection model proposed by Edwin Hubble's assistant, Halton Arp, who insisted that these objects must be considerably closer than the extreme distances inferred by their redshifts:
"The conclusion was very, very strong just from looking at this picture that these objects had been ejected from the central galaxy, and that they were initially at high redshift, and the redshift decayed as time went on. And therefore, we were looking at a physics that was operating in the universe in which matter was born with low mass and very high redshift, and it matured and evolved into our present form, that we were seeing the birth and evolution of galaxies in the universe."
Arp's attempts to publish his quasar ejection model famously led to his removal from the world's largest optical telescope at that time — the 200-inch Palomar. He decided to resign from his permanent position at the Carnegie Institute of Washington on the principle of "whether scientists could follow new lines of investigation, and follow up... on evidence which apparently contradicted the current theorems and the current paradigms." The fact that these quasar changes appear to occur over just months in some cases should raise questions about whether or not the objects are truly at the vast distances and scales implied by their redshift-inferred distances.
The original submission also included a comment with a carefully-documented "list of vindications for Halton Arp" -- and complains again that Wired failed to include any mention of Arp's theory, and it's "dire" implications for the Big Bang theory's assumptions about redshift.
What the Wired article fails to mention is that the short timespans vindicate the quasar ejection model proposed by Edwin Hubble's assistant, Halton Arp, who insisted that these objects must be considerably closer than the extreme distances inferred by their redshifts:
"The conclusion was very, very strong just from looking at this picture that these objects had been ejected from the central galaxy, and that they were initially at high redshift, and the redshift decayed as time went on. And therefore, we were looking at a physics that was operating in the universe in which matter was born with low mass and very high redshift, and it matured and evolved into our present form, that we were seeing the birth and evolution of galaxies in the universe."
Arp's attempts to publish his quasar ejection model famously led to his removal from the world's largest optical telescope at that time — the 200-inch Palomar. He decided to resign from his permanent position at the Carnegie Institute of Washington on the principle of "whether scientists could follow new lines of investigation, and follow up... on evidence which apparently contradicted the current theorems and the current paradigms." The fact that these quasar changes appear to occur over just months in some cases should raise questions about whether or not the objects are truly at the vast distances and scales implied by their redshift-inferred distances.
The original submission also included a comment with a carefully-documented "list of vindications for Halton Arp" -- and complains again that Wired failed to include any mention of Arp's theory, and it's "dire" implications for the Big Bang theory's assumptions about redshift.
that knows more about astronomy than astronomers?
Cherry-picking scientific opinions favorable to your own is what science denialism *is*. The denialism in science denialism isn't a denial of truth; it's a denial of burden of proof. Science isn't about truth, it's about evidence. It doesn't care what you believe, it cares how you back up your claims.
A fundamentalist biologists who don't believe in evolution, or Earth Scientists who believe in a Young Earth aren't automatically bad scientists, as long as they don't make unsubstantiated claims. In fact more conventional scientists aren't in much of a different position; every scientist has *some* heterodox positions, otherwise there'd be no point. Every scientist wants to be the one that shakes things up, but they know other scientists are watching them. That's why scientists sound so equivocal; a good scientist knows others are watching, eager to pounce on any overstep.
Arp continued to publish papers supporting his views long after they'd become wildly heterodox. His last refereed paper was the year before he died, and his last invited chapter contribution was the same year he died. You're welcome to agree with him, if you like; that doesn't make you a science denier. Treating that view as equally well established does.
Same goes for anthropogenic climate change. Believing in global cooling, steady state climate (even through divine intervention), or warming mostly driven through natural climate cycles doesn't make you a science denier. Demanding that those views be treated as equally well-established as AGW does.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
The post has a ton of misleading information within it, quasars (short of Quasi-stellar object) is a bit of a misnomer. Quasars are associated with Galaxies and the reason some galaxies appear as quasars depends on the activity of their supermassive black hole at the center. When it's very active and eating a lot of mass the galaxy will appear as a quasar, when the feeding of the supermassive black hole shuts down the signature of quasar activity disappears. Quasars are associated with galaxies and do not exist without a galaxy.
The actual article in Wired talks about the new investigations into the physics of matter being accreted by the black hole to explain the rapid shutdown, but the poster erroroneously suggests that this in some way has to do with 'many mini-big bangs,' the article discusses nothing of the sort. In addition, the post mentions that this means that quasars are 'ejected' and not as distant as they appear from their redshift. The redshift of a quasar comes from the galaxy redshift, so even if the supermassive black hole had been ejected, it would still be as distant as the galaxy is. Being ejected from a galaxy will not instantaneously make the black hole substantially closer.
Slashdot should do better to not allow posters to insert their crackpot ideas into the submission of what is actually a really interesting article.