I'm looking for some ways to determine which quasar-galaxy associations are in the context of the Arp's model good and which are not. So here are some questions:

1. Is the initial redshift always the same for all newly created quasars?

This paper gives support to Arp's model. Here is a quote from that paper:

I'm just wondering that if 3C343.1 shows an object that is recently ejected (like that quote suggests), shouldn't the redshift of the ejected object according to Arp's model be much higher than z=0.75? I'm asking this because other Arp papers in many cases show higher redshifts for QSOs near galaxies. For example, fig. 3 of this paper shows three quasars with z > 2 near NGC 613.

So, in the Arp's model, does the redshift of the newly created quasar always start from some very high redshift value that is the same for all created quasars? Or is the initial redshift value somehow tied to the redshift value of the parent galaxy?


2. Is the ejection velocity always the same?

In the above example, quasars Q1 and Q2 have exactly the same redshift (=they are of same age according to Arp's model (?) ). Galaxy G is the galaxy from where Q1 and Q2 are supposed to be ejected.

Is it possible to determine that in case B, Q1, G and Q2 don't belong to the same system? (Because they are of same age and they are not at same apparent distance from G.)


3. If the alignment doesn't form an exact line, then is it an alignment at all?

From above example (where Q1 and Q2 have exactly the same redshift), is it possible to determine that in case B, Q1, G and Q2 don't belong to the same system?

__________________
"Stupidity gets denser in a crowd" - Old Finnish saying. [My website and My BLOG] [Nimblebrain forums]

AFAIK - the redshift of the ejected quasar has an 'intrinsic' component and an ejection component. Arp often talks about pairs of quasars ejected in opposite directions - one towards and one away from us - but the (positive) intrinsic component ensures we don't see a blueshift.

The intrinsic component seems to be able to have several different values so that the quasars are seen clustered around certain redshift values, relative to the emitting galaxy.

As for alignments - he looks close to the galaxy in question and examines the redshifts of all the quasars nearby. The alignments don't seem to have to be exact for him to get excited about it.

I can't say I subscribe to this model, but I think that is what it is.

Most of the quasars that are very close to the proposed parent galaxy or are the closest quasars in the alignment tend to be around a redshift of z ~= 2, but this is one of the areas where more observations would help.

This is an excellent question!!! Keep in mind that most of the other examples are very low redshift parent galaxies. In this case you have a relatively high redshift parent galaxy (z=0.34). Its very possible that this example is indicating Arp's variable mass theory is an incorrect explanation for intrinsic redshifts. Perhaps something involving temperature or plasma physics has more promise.

What really needs to happen is the full scope of the intrinsic redshift phenomenon needs to be studied to help set the parameters for a plausible theoretical explanation.

The pattern that Arp noted in many cases is that objects seemed aligned along the minor axis of galaxies. This actually was how it began. Early radio studies noted radio emitters aligned along the minor axis of local radio active galaxies. This suggested an association between the emitters and the galaxy. There was even a proposal before Arp that suggested the radio objects might be ejected from the parent galaxies.

Then Arp discovered that many of these radio objects were quasars - which have much higher redshifts than the local galaxies. Over time it has been discovered that in some cases the patterns are more complicated than alignments along the minor axis. one reason is that it appears ejections can occur in the disk of the galaxy. Throw in rotation of the minor axis of the parent galaxy and the fact that the multiple lines of sight are possible and there are associations that are statistically significant but which do not involve nice linear alignments.

So, regardless of observations, does the theory behind Arp's model address this question, does it allow initial redshifts to vary?

What if in this case the ejection velocity has been low, so that the ejected object stays close to the parent all the time? Is it possible for the radio bridge to stay intact long enough for the ejected object to evolve to lower redshift? Although, when I look at the fig. 1 of that 3C343.1 paper, it really looks like the z=0.75 object is going outwards of the z=0.34 object, and to me it indicates the supposed ejection has happened quite recently. So it doesn't look like low ejection velocity case.

If we put Arp's model aside, what would be the observations that distuingish between a true intrinsic redshift systems and random galaxy-quasar field?

These things come to my mind: galaxies with overdose of quasars nearby, all kind of bridges between high and low redshift objects, quasars in the foreground of galaxies. Well, these are not enough at such, but these in my opinion would indicate very good candidates for intrinsic redshift systems.

What I cannot decide is that without Arp's model, how much we should put weight to excellent quasar pairs across galaxies. And what about things that are almost bridges (for example high and low redshift objects near each other that both have elongations towards each other)?

So even simultaneous pair ejections can happen in non-linear fashion? Or, are there even such things as simultaneous pair ejections?

__________________
"Stupidity gets denser in a crowd" - Old Finnish saying. [My website and My BLOG] [Nimblebrain forums]

Narlikar&Arp's theory will allow initial redshifts to vary, but that being said, you raise an interesting question about 3C343.1. A lot depends upon the distance of 3C343.1. If it has a large intrinsic redshift component itself then it might be local - Its not that far from NGC 6223 (redshift velocity = 6000 km/sec). In the paper you cite on this one they noted that you must calculate the relative redshift of the companion to the parent galaxy. The calculation is done in section 5 and they come up with z=0.30 which is a predicted state.

Arp has hypothesized that interaction with the parent can slow down the velocity and result in a companion very close to the parent galaxy. For example, in spiral galaxies, quasars aligned with the minor axis can reach large distances from the parent while objects apparently ejected in the plane of the parent end up much closer.

One test that comes to mind in that situation is proper motions . Here is one proposed test.

There are examples of all these:

Bridge .
Another Bridge .
Overdose .
Another overdose .
Foreground high z object .

Individuals have to decide for themselves just how compelling the statistical probabilities are in those situations. Some of the pairs of quasars have odds of only ~ 2 in a billion of being accidental alignments.

There is evidence for non-linear associations and there is evidence that some quasar pairs may represent simultaneous ejections. Of course the critics will say that there is not enough constraint - that anything could be an association. But this is really in a cataloging stage. There are general patterns that have emerged consistently, but some associations with statistical significance deviate in certain ways from those patterns.

Another possibility is that quasars are intrinsically redshifted, and do often appear in pairs, but are not associated with a host galaxy. This could place them even closer...

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

That could happen if the quasars escaped the gravity of the parent galaxy or if the quasars are ejected by other quasars such as the Arp Hazard triplets . Outside of that it would have to be something Arp hasn't proposed.

Apologies, but passing through again.
I am a great fan of Arp's experimental work. There is another post on this site where the comments on Arp are so unfair, I am surprised that the BA hasn't locked the site.
Arp's experimental work is spot on.
But, these ejections ...., I find it hard to believe that one can look at two 'ejections' from a galaxy and from them determine the Hubble constant, and .. get it pretty close. If there is an intrinsic redshift then why do we get the same value for the Hubble constant (hr/m in each cubic metre of space - ashmore's paradox) that we get for cosmological redshifts?

Which thread is that?

The answer is that they are not the same. Intrinsic redshifts would contaminate the Hubble Constant making it too high. So the reported values actually should be lower. The currently preferred Hubble Constant value is ~72 km s-1 Mpc-1 was agreed upon by most after the completion of the Hubble Key Project final report in 2001. But there are arguments to be made that they should have gotten ~82-85 km s-1 Mpc-1. One method of accounting for intrinsic redshifts suggests H0=58 after subtracting the intrinsic component.

Yes I see, that would be quite sensible explanation. Now we just have to wait for distance measurements independent of redshift for 3C343.1. And finding similar object from the other side of NGC 6223 wouldn't hurt.

Earlier I said that it looks like the z=0.75 object is going outwards of the z=0.34 object, but after thinking more about it, it doesn't look that way to me anymore. Well, it could be so, but this could also be a case where the ejected object has staid close to the parent, and the bridge and the elongation would be due to gravity pulling material off from the z=0.75 object.

But this could also be a case where the initial redshift of the ejected object is low, but to me it feels that it would have to be explained some day, why the initial redshifts are not always the same. What I mean is that the theory should be able to predict the redshift values or have an explanation why it can't predict them.

If we would one day have good enough proper motion measurement, so that everybody would accept it as a real thing, and if I would be big bang proponent, then I might try this explanation: expansion of space is not entirely uniform and it is in some places stronger. Therefore it can cause apparent motions for objects also sideways. Is this explanation crazy enough?

Yes, I think I would accept the best pairs to my very good candidate list.

__________________
"Stupidity gets denser in a crowd" - Old Finnish saying. [My website and My BLOG] [Nimblebrain forums]

But what about those many cases where a galaxy just happens to lie nicely between them, would you then say that they are just a coincidence?

:-k That sounds familiar, where have I heard that one before... :P

__________________
"Stupidity gets denser in a crowd" - Old Finnish saying. [My website and My BLOG] [Nimblebrain forums]

My understanding is that that Arp says the ejections are 'separate' whilst Bb says thay are gravitationally lensed images of the same Quasar. On this basis one can find a value for H (just over 60) by considerations of the lensing system. (Try Biggs MNRAS 2000? - don't have full ref handy)this has nothing to do with intrinsic or cosmological redshifts. But the Value of H is on a par with cosmological ones found by other methods. Are you saying that this is pure chance? Otherwise you have to say that the two ejections are magically linked in some way to enable one to calculate the Hubble constant.

cyreks reply

Ari
I am not familiar with the one you use here as an example. His catalog has many and all are not that credible in supporting his anomalies.

But the two best examples are NGC 7603 and AM 2054-2210. The latter being in the southern hemisphere.

Another important piece of evidence to support his anomalies is the different temperatures of the objects redshifted. The quasars are much higher temperature objects to indicate that these redshifts are intrinsic in nature. No doubt, intrinsic to the light itself.

I do not agree with him about the quasars being ejected in some cases.
Those jet like objects are smaller galaxies or more probably globular clusters plunging through the larger galaxy. These have counter jets that are not that visible and are the points of entry while the more visible parts are the emerging parts.

__________________
aka Michael Cyrek

Only in a few cases where the QSO's are very close. In most cases it is simply argued by the mainstream that the quasars are background to the proposed parent galaxy.

Yes it is - anything from ~45 to ~80.

Well part of your answer may be found in this abstract . You can see that they adopt the standard cosmology with the value of H0 as the free parameter determined from the measured time delay and their chosen lensing model.

Now I don't know that much about the calculations and models they're using, but before we can draw some significance from this I think we ought to know exactly what the time delays would have to be to give a discrepant H0 value. Is it even possible to have measured a time delay that would give H0=25 or H0=200? They only studied the quasar pair for 3 years.

Another point of interest. They discuss in section 5.3 of the paper (also found here) that one quasar image is bluer than the other - which shouldn't be if they are the same quasar. Now they cite two plausible explanations: microlensing and differential absorption by the lensing galaxy. But the point is that they may not even be a true lense.

So its hard to know if it is pure chance or if they haven't measured what they think they have.

If you didn't notice, I gave a link to the paper in my first post, but here it is again:
The double radio source 3C343.1: A galaxy-QSO pair with very different redshifts - H. Arp, E.M. Burbidge, G. Burbidge (2004)

And yes it's true that there is plenty of examples of systems that seem to go against Arp's model, especially Arp's early papers contain many cases where for example the redshifts of the quasars near a galaxy don't follow the rule that more closer the quasar is to the galaxy more higher the redshift.

I don't think I have seen any paper about AM 2054-2210, is that published as a scientific paper or just in some book?

This I don't understand. Why higher temperature indicates that quasars must be closer than their redshift distance?

What do you mean by jet like objects? Maybe you could point me an example of this kind of system?

__________________
"Stupidity gets denser in a crowd" - Old Finnish saying. [My website and My BLOG] [Nimblebrain forums]

...No more or less than dark energy. This paper illustrates what a mess DE creates: No matter how many terms they add to whatever level of polynomial they try to use to model dark energy vrs evolution nothing fits.

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

Not exactly. There are (at least) two camps trying to explain dark energy: the quintessence camp and the cosmological constant camp. It appears to me that the paper you cite illustrates what a mess the quintessence camp is in. The WMAP team (and I think a majority of the community) was leaning toward the cosmological constant explanation anyway.

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

Firstly, thanks for the references.

But, the two 'ejections' are phased linked in that their light curves vary in the same way but one lags behind the other by 100 days or so. I don't see that if these two blobs are ejections how they can be ejected in such a way that they continue to vary together long after they have been ejected. AND by looking at the time delays you get a Hubble constant commensurate with that from redshift distance measurements
The brightest one is bluest which means that the light from the second image has passed through more dust and has been both dimmed and reddened.
The other problem with Arp's interpretation of his results is the absorption lines of quasars. Whilst they are mainly Hydrogen they also show heavy elements to be present. This cannot be the case if they are 'new matter being ejected'. Being 'new' means that they are first generation matter and should only contain light elements such as H and He. Since they contain heavy elements then this ejected matter is recycled from supernova. In a lensing system interpretation, they put the heavy elements down to junk between us and the quasar - so it is not a problem.

Damn good, Cougar. Then do you agree plugging in the cosmological constant marches the Einstein deSitter model out onto a very thin plank? Because if the CC cannot be varied, The Riess interpretation of supernova Ia data has to stand.

Today another paper was archived on yet another fairly local supernova Ia with a slow rise time and demonstrating yet another variation on light-curve patterns. As you know, I have been waving this red flag for more than two years: We have yet to see a distant, time dilated light curve that is definitely out-of-family from the growing local population.

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

From reading papers like this one I'd say there is all kinds of uncertainty that they are even measuring actual time delays. The amount of uncertainty is profound in these studies with so much dependent upon the assumptions of lensing models and trying to find the best fits in the time delays. They outline in this paper the things that don't seem to work like predicted. I leave it to you to decide how much confidence you would like to have in these lensing results.

As for their Hubble Constant determinations - until they clear up all the uncertainties and problems with the lensing models, I don't see how we can trust the values they're finding.

Perhaps, but that's not even the preferred explanation of the authors. One thing about this - whose to say this is not a case of lensing with all the galaxies being much closer than their redshift distances would indicate. Everybody assumes that if its lensing it means that there can't be any intrinsic redshift.

I'm confused here because you've said before your paradox proves the universe is not expanding, but here you're applying expanding universe criteria in your interpretation of this. There are several possible answers. First, even in the standard BBT scenario, the enrichment of metals has to occur very rapidly - because near solar metallicity is observed at very high z. Why can't the same rapid enrichment happen in local quasars? Second, how can you be sure that if quasars are ejected, that heavy metals are not created in that process. Depending upon the mechanism and physics involved with intrinsic redshifts, it could be possible. For example, Jerry thinks CREIL can explain this.

A related question - Do we see the Ly-alpha forest in anything besides quasars? What about all these high z galaxies that have been observed? Do they show Ly-alpha lines? Shouldn't the light from those galaxies be passing through the "forest" too?

[quote="dgruss23"][quote]
I don't like coincidences and to get a value anywhere close by accident is worrying. It looks like there is something in it to me.
I think they are much closer than their redshifts indicate but that the redshift is intrinsic to the lensing galaxy not the quasar.

It does, no doubt about that.
I am not a Big Banger, I believe that Arp's results are correct, I just don't believe his explanation that quasars are new matter, ejected.
But are they lensed?

If their H0 value is incorrect, its meaningless.

But that is a separate question. If Arp is right about the distances of the quasars, then the H0 values derived from lensing are incorrect and the coincidence is not even a coincidence.

Main argument here seems to be the presence of a dark halo around the compact object in NGC 1199.

In this paper there is an effort to explain this on the mainstream terms by Weber. From the paper:

Then in this paper Walker & Andersen say that the dark halo does not exist according to their observations.

And in this paper Capaccioli, Piotto & Rampazzo mention that their data agrees with Walker & Andersen, no dark halo.

Has Arp responded to these?

Another example of this kind of system is NGC 1232. There is a high redshift galaxy NGC 1232B in the disk of NGC 1232. Catch is that NGC 1232B doesn't appear to be dimmed or reddened, as it should be if it would be background galaxy shining through NGC 1232. For this I didn't find any mainstream explanation attempts, are there any?

__________________
"Stupidity gets denser in a crowd" - Old Finnish saying. [My website and My BLOG] [Nimblebrain forums]

Not that I can find. Here is an image of the galaxy. What would be interesting is to see if the high redshift compact object is reddened by NGC 1199. If it was, then that would indicate its is a background object.

Formally, not that I've seen. Informally, I was told that the mainstream response is simply that there must be a gap in the hydrogen gas of NGC 1232 at the position of NGC 1232B. This seems about as ad hoc as you can get.

Hoag's object is a good example of a genuine coincidence. You can see that the smaller galaxy inside the ring of the larger ring galaxy is reddened - so that supports it being a background object. There is no similar reddening for either NGC 1232A or NGC 1232B. I think it would be important to have the same information on NGC 1199.

I was wondering about this when I was browsing through Arp's NGC 1199 paper. There he mentions the reddening in that dark ring, but nothing about reddening of the compact object itself. Why is that?

I certainly wouldn't buy that explanation.

Is it possible that NGC 1232A and B would be abnormally blue objects, and when they would be reddened, they would appear non-reddened objects to us?

__________________
"Stupidity gets denser in a crowd" - Old Finnish saying. [My website and My BLOG] [Nimblebrain forums]

I'm not sure why he didn't mention it. Maybe he had not made the relevant observations.

I don't either and when you look at the VLT image its seems extremely unlikely.

In the case of NGC 1232A one key piece of evidence as that the features are resolved to the same degree as NGC 1232 (see the VLT image). If you're not sure what you're looking for, I tried to explain it in this post . If NGC 1232A was 4x further, the features should be about 4x smaller. NGC 1232A also is not the type of galaxy that should be extremely blue.

As for NGC 1232B, it does seem to be a "young" galaxy, but it has narrow spectral lines which indicate a small galaxy - something it would not be at its redshift distance. Arp also noted in his most recent book that there is a tidal tail pointing from NGC 1232B toward NGC 1232 and HII regions that would be extremely large at the redshift distance. If NGC 1232B was extremely blue, it still should be heavily reddened. The blue light should be scatter whether there is a little of it or a lot of it.

Could the rotation rates of newly formed quasars be involved? If quasars are much smaller than normal galaxies, but end up rotating with the observed rates of spirals, then the rotation rates of the embryonic galaxies must be a lot, lot higher, in order to conserve angular momentum. Angular momentum could be quantized in quasars, perhaps explaining the quantized redshifts.

Interesting thought...on first glance, no, an extremely high rate of rotation would only smear the spectra.

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

That is not an easy thing to see, but I'm pretty sure I see it. What I did was that I took the image of NGC 1232 to image manipulation software and reduced it's size 4x smaller. Then I put the reduced image of NGC 1232 and original sized image of NGC 1232A side by side. From this I could clearly see the difference. With that setting H II regions of NGC 1232 look much smaller than regions of NGC 1232A, but if NGC 1232A would be 4x further, regions should be of same size because I reduced the size of NGC 1232 by 4x.

Ah, I didn't realise that.

__________________
"Stupidity gets denser in a crowd" - Old Finnish saying. [My website and My BLOG] [Nimblebrain forums]

That's a great idea! I'd like to see your images!