Talk:Quasar/Archive for 2004

Quasars in the Milky Way Galaxy

Remove entry about quasar being in the Milky Way galactic way. The link cites an ancient paper that claims two quasars with right ascension is the same as the galactic center. Nothing about declination. In any case the galactic center is well resolved and there is no quasar there. Roadrunner 21:45, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It's not ancient, it's from the seventies, and it states only tiny deviation in right ascension and no observed deviation in declination. That means, in layman's terms, it's in the same place. - Plautus satire 21:56, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If you want I'll cite other papers showing how commonly quasars are determined to be in our galaxy. - Plautus satire 21:57, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

A paper written in 1979 is ancient. A paper on quasars in 1995 is old. Things move fast in this field.

Yes, things move fast when divorced from reality. - Plautus satire 02:14, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You can easily look up the coordinates of both 3C345 and NRAO 512 in the NASA Extragalactic Database.....

And what are the coordinates of the "galactic center"? - Plautus satire 02:16, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/cgi-bin/nph-objsearch?search_type=Obj_id&objid=337495&objname=1&img_stamp=YES

http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/cgi-bin/nph-objsearch?objname=nrao+512&extend=yes&out_csys=Galactic&out_equinox=J2000.0&obj_sort=RA+or+Longitude&of=pre_text&zv_breaker=30000.0&list_limit=5&img_stamp=YES

They are nowhere near the galactic center. I'm not sure what the web page is trying to say, but to say that quasars have been detected near the galactic center is false. Roadrunner 22:04, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The above discussion is based on error in the use of the term declination. It does not mean radial distance. It is an angular coordinate relative to the celestial equator. Right ascension and declination are 2-d sky coordinates. Two objects with the same such coordinates are along the same line of sight from earth. -- Decumanus 22:08, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yup. And 3C345 and NRAO 512 aren't even in the same direction as the Galactic center. They have the about the same RA, but the Dec is at least 10 degrees off. Roadrunner 22:15, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

FYI. This is the location of the galactic center.....

http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2003/0203long/

Interestingly, the quasar you say is not near the galactic center is in that picture. Thank you for finding this image. - Plautus satire 04:38, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Roadrunner 22:19, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Research sources

If that guy tries to revert this page again, its being protected. -_- WhisperToMe 21:54, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

About Plautus. He seems to be well meaning, but he seems to get all his information about astronomy from fringe websites which attempt to argue that mainstream astronomers are blind idiots, who are too stupid to recognize the truth of simple arguments. This gives him a very unbalanced view about what astronomers believe and why they believe it. Roadrunner 22:19, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Attempting to argue mainstream astronomers are blind fools? You mean like Galileo did? Relying on facts is balanced. Relying on fantastical, unprovable notions is not. - Plautus satire 02:12, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Plautus apparently thinks that if a website contains the words "laser star" then it supports his theory. Here's the kind of "laser star" that was being talked about: http://home.erin.utoronto.ca/~jbonham/adaptive_optics.pdf (has wrong date due to resaving.) silsor 22:27, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

I apologize for trying to protect this citation. I had posted it based on a summary I wrote of the page over the last year at some point. I've been bookmarking web sites as long as I've been using the internet, so it's impossible for me to be sure my index summaries are 100%, but it's interesting that site is talking about laser guide stars, like the laser guide stars they use at the Starfire beamed energy weapons range in New Mexico, the lab that destroyed the Columbia with their missile defense laser cannon. <- another hotly-contested issue to say the least, it's difficult to get facts into the Columbia entry, let alone "other theories". Apparently the CAIB is given the floor there. - Plautus satire 02:12, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If you want to list the papers that argue that quasars are galactic, be my guest. My prediction is that they are either ancient, or that they come from a rather small number of "usual" suspects, which can be listed.

Something to be aware of

1. There is a publication bias in favor of fringe papers. Any paper that suggests any possibility that quasars are not galactic that isn't totally nonsense will probably get published. Any paper that rebuts it will not. The former is at least original, whereas a paper that punches holes in the argument and reinforces the conventional wisdom has nothing new to offer. For example, you probably won't find a rebuttal to Arp's ideas published recently, because the rebuttals are so well known in the community, that there's no point writing a paper.

A publication bias in favor of fringe paper? Can you demonstrate this bias in some fashion or is that your personal prejudice? - Plautus satire 02:12, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

2. The reason I'm a stickler about "naming names" in fringe theories is that once you do, it becomes totally obvious that fringe theories contradict each other as much as they do to standard ideas. For example, Vashini's ideas and Arp's are totally incompatible, and finding quasars within the Milky Way would kill Arp's theories (he argues that quasars are galactic). Sure our current ideas about how the universe works has holes and inconsistencies, but something that you quickly figure out is that the holes and inconsistencies are smaller than alternate ideas. Roadrunner 22:31, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Roadrunner 22:19, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This is dead wrong. Arp said galaxies spawn galaxies. He studied galaxies and he predicted galaxies spawn other galaxies, not that all quasars are galaxies. He also said that galaxies spawn quasars. (sources for these claims: One Hundred Publications of Halton Arp) The other author you tried to mention (Varshni, but then why bother spelling his name correctly, I've been told there is no objective accurate spelling of any proper names in the WTC demolition talk page) states that quasars are stars that lase and presents overwhelming evidence that this is the case. He further identifies no fewer than thirty quasars whose positions have been calculated and which reside within our galaxy, ergo quasars are not all extremely distant. He also cites evidence that "classical" quasar hypotheses make the same predictions based on random noise as they do actual observations (85% identical predictions to those based on random nonsense data) (sources: Laser Star Astrophysics - support for each claim is one or two links from main page in most cases, read it all, you will learn from it- Plautus satire 02:12, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Proper motion of quasars

Shapiro et al. (1979) have used very-long-baseline interferometry to obtain some evidence on the relative proper motion of two quasars, 3C 345 and NRAO 512. These two quasars are separated by half a degree, and were observed repeatedly with very-long-baseline interferometers over a period of four years. These two sources have approximately the same right ascension as the galactic center. No relative proper motion in declination was detected with the upper bound being under 0.0002 arcsec/yr. this result is fully consistent with our expectations. We note that the measured value gives the relative value of only the declination component of the proper motion, which for one particular pair could even be zero. More such studies would be highly desirable.[1]

The use of the above abstract as a citation here is based on error in the use of the term declination. It does not mean radial distance. It is an angular coordinate relative to the celestial equator. Right ascension and declination are 2-d sky coordinates. Two objects with the same such coordinates are along the same line of sight from earth. -- Decumanus 22:08, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

And the quasars in question have approximately the same coordinates as the galactic center. What part of that is so hard to understand? - Plautus satire 04:50, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Read it again: "These two quasars are separated by half a degree, and were observed repeatedly with very-long-baseline interferometers over a period of four years. These two sources have approximately the same right ascension as the galactic center. No relative proper motion in declination was detected with the upper bound being under 0.0002 arcsec/yr. this result is fully consistent with our expectations. We note that the measured value gives the relative value of only the declination component of the proper motion, which for one particular pair could even be zero."

Proper motion in this sense is defined in the two-dimensional celestial plane. -- Decumanus 04:28, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You seem to be redefining proper motion so that it's sole definition is "Decumanus is right." - Plautus satire 04:31, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)That's right, it does not mean "Decumanus is right," it means the motion on a hypothetically flat plane (the sky). = Plautus satire 04:53, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This is the defintion of proper motion used by astronomers. -- Decumanus 04:33, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The definition of proper motion used by astronomers is "Decumanus is right?" I don't think this is what you meant, can you clarify what you do mean? - Plautus satire 04:42, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

As it turns out, we have an article on it. silsor 04:44, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

Varshni (1974) has shown that quasar redshift is merely an empty number without physical significance, quasars are stars within the galaxy. However, despite the overwhelming amount of contradictory data, the astronomical community still persists in assuming that the redshift is a valid distance indicator from which they incorrectly deduce that quasars are extra-galactic. The gross overestimation of quasar distance has led to spurious paradoxical properties such as superluminal motion, one of four paradoxes of Kellermann (1972), which we now discuss:[2]

What recent published articles have used Varshni's paper as a reference? -- Decumanus 02:37, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Here is a paper on supersymetry citing Varshni: Solving Schrödinger equation for two dimensional potentials using supersymmetry - This works was part of the communication presented at the VIII International Conference of Symmetry in Physics (1995), Duba/Russia.

Here is a paper on semiconductors citing Varshni The Rate of Radiative Recombination in the Nitride Semiconductors and Alloys - This article was received on Monday, June 3, 1996 and accepted on Monday, December 30, 1996.

Web document citing Varshni on gallium-arsenide, of all things. Is there nothing this man doesn't know? Tpyoed "V.P. Varshni" for "Y.P.", interestingly.

PDF - Design methods of low-voltage curvature-corrected bipolar bandgap ...

I assure you, this man is quite mainstream, and not considered a crank by any but the ignorant. - Plautus satire 03:52, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Varshni citing his own research in his own paper in 1982: PROPER MOTION AND DISTANCES OF QUASARS

Varshni again citing his own research in his own paper in 1983: The quasar PKS 0237-233 - Chance coincidences and the alleged CO redshift systems

Varshni again citing his own research in his own paper in 1988: THE QUASAR Q0051-279 AS A STAR

Varshni collaborating with J. Talbot in 1999: Proper Motion of the quasar Ton 202

You seem to think this man is dead or something. He's still researching and teaching in Ottowa. - Plautus satire 04:20, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What recent particles cite Varshni's paper on quasars as a reference? -- Decumanus 04:14, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Varshni citing his own research in his own paper in 1982: PROPER MOTION AND DISTANCES OF QUASARS

Varshni again citing his own research in his own paper in 1983: The quasar PKS 0237-233 - Chance coincidences and the alleged CO redshift systems

Varshni again citing his own research in his own paper in 1988: THE QUASAR Q0051-279 AS A STAR

Varshni collaborating with J. Talbot in 1999: Proper Motion of the quasar Ton 202

You seem to think this man is dead or something. He's still researching and teaching in Ottowa. - Plautus satire 04:20, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What recent published articles by authors other than Varshni and his students cite Varshni's paper on quasars as a reference? -- Decumanus 04:14, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Are you saying J. Talbot is a student of Varshni? Do you have some evidence to support this claim? - Plautus satire 18:40, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What is the name of the redshift scale?

What is the name of this scale on which redshift is measured? I haven't been able to find it, only numbers, does it even have a name or is it just "redshift scale"? - Plautus satire 20:16, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Assuming this is a genuine question, I believe the shift is the Doppler effect. It may have something to do with Edwin Hubble also, but as I recall it's primarily associated with Doppler. Jwrosenzweig 20:20, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

So it's the Doppler scale? Why isn't this scale named in the entry? If you aren't going to name the scale you have to delete that meaningless, dangling number. (Not you, but anyone, one, people in general.) - Plautus satire

The redshift is simply the difference of observed and rest wavelegth divided by rest wavelength. Thats' it. What causes it depends on the object, so in nearby objects is doppler, but it far away objects is usually cosmological, but some claim in some cases is actually general relativity. So putting "Doppler scale" or something similar would be just plain wrong. Redshift is a number, quasars have redshift between zero and six point something so far. Is a reader doesn't know what redshift is, that is what the links are for. --AstroNomer 04:04, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

This whole discussion about quasars is rather slanted for lack of common understanding of basics on part of the two main points of view.

The redshift-distance 'scale' is called Hubble's Law, which is seen most clearly in a 'Hubble Diagram' and is commonly expressed in units of km/s/Mpc (kilometers per second per megaparsec), implying that space is expanding.

The term 'redshift' was never used by Hubble, who actually measured 'radial velocity'. 'Radial velocity' is called a 'redshift' in Big Bang cosmology, because the theory relies on an exclusive Doppler interpretation of radial velocity as evidence of the Big Bang. However this is also a misuse of the term 'redshift', as it is referring specifically to the measure of the expansion of space (in km/s/Mpc) between us and the object, not a measure of actual velocity. Ironically, Hubble himself disagreed with this interpretation:

"Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, ... But the unwelcome supposition of a favored location must be avoided at all costs ... is intolerable ... moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the theory because the theory postulates homogeneity." ("The Observational Approach to Cosmology", Hubble 1937)

Stated objectively, a measure of 'redshift' means we observe that photons from distant objects in space lose energy as they travel the cosmos (causing a 'redshift' in the wavelength of the photon). Hubble thought that this energy was lost due to means other than the expansion of space as required by the Big Bang, but was never able to find such a mechanism. Today there are several known mechanisms which cause this effect, leaving the cosmological debate wide open. -- Akira-no-Baka (20 Oct 2005)

Varshni's credentials (regarding redshift papers)

Yatendra Varshni

EDUCATION: B.Sc. (University of Allahabad, India), M.Sc. (University of Allahabad, India), Ph.D. (University of Allahabad, India)

RESEARCH AREAS: Properties of various types of screened potentials which are used in different areas of physics. Applications of screened potentials in atomic physics. Properties of an expanding plasma with cooling. Population inversion and laser action in such plasmas. X-ray laser. Applications. Quasars.

Yatendra Varshni, Department of Physics, Macdonald Hall, 150 Louis Pasteur, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1N 6N5, PHONE NUMBER: 613-562-5800 ext. 6769, FAX: 613-562-5190 E-MAIL: ypvsj@physics.uottawa.ca [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plautus satire (talk • contribs) on 04:17, 23 February 2004 (UTC)