Another important piece of evidence linking the growth of supermassive black holes to the formation of galaxies was the discovery of a linear correlation between the masses of these black holes and the masses of the galactic bulges that harbour them. At average about 0.3 percent of the mass of the bulge is contained in the central black hole. This suggested that the formation of stars in bulges and the assembly of supermassive black holes at their centres are closely linked.

The main new ingredient was the hypothesis that supermassive black holes grew in mass during the same major merging events that produced galactic bulges. The MPA researchers demonstrated that the new unified models could not only explain many aspects of galaxy evolution, such as the evolution of the total star formation in galaxies as a function of cosmic epoch, but also the strong rise and fall in the space density of AGN. Perhaps most interestingly, the MPA models made a number of new and observationally testable predictions for the relation between the masses of supermassive black holes and the properties of their galactic hosts, as well as the relation between AGN luminosity and bulge luminosity at different cosmic epochs. Because massive galaxies assemble relatively late in hierarchical cosmogonies, quasars of fixed luminosity were predicted to reside in less massive host galaxies at higher redshifts. In addition, younger galaxies were predicted to contain lower mass black holes in their centres than older galaxies.
http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/HIGHL...ght0009_e.html

From an episode of Discovery Channel about supermassive black hole an astrophysisist DrSilkener or Silkner (i forget his precise name) presented a brand new theory about
SMBH,he said than they are formed from the collapse of gas cloud creating a vortex at the center leading to the formation of the central supermassive black hole.The stars are formed by the explosion in the gas cloud caused
by the over heating -of the gas cloud- caused by the activity produced by the supermassive black hole. So from that explanation the accretation disk theory of stars formation
is obsolete? Hmm
Does someone can confirm this? because I was occupy to the telephone at the same moment that the new theory was presented. Maybe I goofed totally the point presented by the astrophysicist.

What do you think about this Orion?

Sounds interesting for the intrinsic red shift and growing mass theory.

Quote from the article:
Edited for precision.
Does that means than the -EXTREME HEATING- (of the gas cloud surrounding the SMBH )caused by the forming of the newly growing supermassive black hole -AGN- = high red shift quasars?

http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/HIGHL...ght0009_e.html

dgruss23 what is your opinion about that .I know than you have more knowledge than me about the growing mass theory and intrinsic redshift from Narkilar and Arp.

Edited
I hope than my post above is more clear since i have re- edited it.
I still having difficulty with the English language.Maybe the reading of Mr Arriba`s (English) thread has not helping me. :wink:

What? My English is not so bad ....When I use the cut and paste.
Ingrate [-(

I'm not sure if you mean the same thing when you say "growing mass" as Narlikar&Arp. The article you've linked to is referring to the supermassive black holes accumulating mass and in that sense "growing". The Narlikar&Arp model is a "variable mass hypothesis". It is a more general solution to the normal field equations in which mass is allowed to vary over time. In their model electrons (for example) created in ejection events from active galaxies actually have less mass than electrons here on Earth. As the quasar ages and evolves into a normal galaxy the masses of all its particles grow and the intrinsic redshift decays.

This model is of course not accepted by the mainstream with the subtle irony that the mainstream believes that all matter - everything - was created in an instant in a singularity - yet they reject the possibility that matter creation in the universe is an ongoing process.

Figure 2 of that article was interesting Orion. Notice the four hot spots around the double nucleus. Arp would probably say that those are likely to be quasars, but you'd have to get their spectra to know for sure.

Thanks for the the clarification about the Narlikar&Arp model.
Can you find their spectra that could be interesting.They don`t give the name of that system we see on the image.
That is all the subtility in the choosing of the terminology used by the mainstream - "A spectacular multiple- merger- imaged by the NICMOS instrument on board the Hubble space telescope." -
Compare to Arp`s interpretation.
"Arp would probably say that those are likely to be quasars"...

I'll have to see if I can find out what object that is.

Yes. This type of object is automatically interpreted as a merger. Now if those objects did turn out to be quasars, then the mainstream response would be to try to model it as a result of gravitational lensing.

If their spectra have not been taken they should be. There can be little doubt that the objects are associated with the galaxy(ies). If they're higher redshift quasars then it would be as indisputable as the case of NGC 7603.





Notice that the second image is a deeper image and the high redshift companion galaxy appears even more embedded in the filament connecting to NGC 7603 than the first picture which identifies the high z objects in the filament.

Notice that you can see the high z objects in the second image as well. The mainstream view is that these sorts of associations are chance alignments. That's quite a remarkable sequence of accidental alignment. We have a Seyfert galaxy (NGC 7603 - redshift velocity = 8700 km s-1) which is a fairly uncommon type of galaxy (and just the type of galaxy that Arp says is ejecting quasars) physically connected by a luminous bridge to a companion galaxy with a higher redshift (redshift velocity = 17100 km s-1). Inside that filament two higher redshift objects are found with the higher redshift object closer to NGC 7603 as Arp would predict. This is a remarkable example that supports Arp's model.

The NGC 7603 example can be taken a step further. The high redshift companion galaxy has the morphology of a low luminosity dwarf companion and the arrangement is similar to M-51:



The H0=72 redshift distance of NGC 7603 is 116.4 Mpc and the H0=72 redshift distance of the companion is 230.6 Mpc. Using the data in LEDA we find that at the redshift distance the absolute magnitude of the companion would be -20.26 and the diameter would be 24.8 kpc if this galaxy is at its redshift distance. To put this in perspective, this dwarf galaxy would be nearly as large as the Milky Way at its redshift distance as the Milky way is about 26-27 kpc in diameter and as luminous as a typical mid sized spiral galaxy.

At the redshift distance of NGC 7603 the companion would have a diameter expected for its morphology - 12.5 kpc and an absolute magnitude of -18.78 which is typical for a smaller galaxy.

This compares well with the M-51 system. The companion in that system has a diameter of 13.7 kpc and an absolute magnitude of -19.41.

So the diameter and absolute magnitude of the companion also favor it being at the distance of NGC 7603.

[quote="dgruss23"]Other examples cited by Arp

Quote
If you read official explanations usually placed on images such as these, you will see a preoccupation with the DEATH of stars and descriptions of COLLIDING and MERGING and CANABALISING galaxies that are SMASHING together.  In actuality it is highly likely, in view of Arp's observations, that what we are actually seeing most often is the birth of galaxies and quasars not their deaths.  And, instead of collision, the separation of parent and offspring.  Anyone looking at these images in an unbiased way will see "fireworks!" - the birth and ejection of new galaxies.

 

Here is the reference to the class of galaxies the image above is showing.And the mainstream explanation.
Quote
"Hubble astronomers conducting research on a class of galaxies called ultra-luminous infrared galaxies (ULIRG) have discovered that over two dozen of these are found within "nests" of galaxies, apparently engaged in multiple collisions that lead to fiery pile-ups of three, four or even five galaxies smashing together."

It looks to be physically connected, but with all the billions of objects in our sky, I would be surprised if there weren't numerous alignments which appear connected but in fact are isolated phenomena. I think more hard support is needed to reach the conclusion that this "luminous bridge" actually connects these two objects. It seems this is currently based simply on "how it looks".

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

First, let me say welcome to the board cougar!

With regard to NGC 7603 and the luminous bridge. The argument is NOT simply based upon “how it looks”, but the arrangement is part of the argument. In fact the argument can be framed the other way. The ONLY reason to doubt that they are associated is the fact that the redshift of the companion is about twice the redshift of NGC 7603. That’s it. If the redshifts were the same, then nobody would question that the arrangement is another example similar to M-51. But the NGC 7603 case does not occur in a vacuum. It is an illustration of Arp’s model in which quasars are ejected from active galaxies such as Seyferts like NGC 7603. The quasars are expected to age and their redshifts decay until they have only a very slight excess redshift relative to the parent galaxy.

Here is a recent paper that outlines his model.

This paper outlines further evidence on the NGC 7603 case. You can download the paper by clicking on “pdf”. It will have to convert the file to pdf so it may take a minute. In the paper two high redshift objects are identified in the filament that connects NGC 7603 to the discordant redshift companion. The first picture I linked to above is taken from the paper and the quasars are labeled with their redshifts.



Above is yet another image of this object. So here are the chance alignments: We have a filament extending outward from the spiral galaxy. By chance a background galaxy appears at the end of this filament. Why by chance – only because the redshifts differ by ~ 8000 km s-1. Within that filament are two objects of z= 0.39 and z= 0.24 with the higher z object closer to NGC 7603 exactly as is predicted in Arp’s model.

Nor is this an isolated example. You can find additional papers on this type of phenomenon here and here.

But it’s worth taking a closer look at the NGC 7603 companion (PGC 71041). First, PGC 71041 falls exactly on the filament of all the possible places around the galaxy it could fall. If we think of NGC 7603 as a 360 degree circle then it has to be within +/-15 degrees of the filament in order to appear associated with the filament. So that gives you a 30 degree arc upon which it could be placed to give this sort of arrangement which works out to a generous 1 in 12 chance. But why so close to the end of the filament? After all it could have a larger angular separation from the galaxy which would create a gap between the companion and the filament. That reduces the odds of this being chance even further.

Then there are the high redshift objects. You’d have to get into the distribution of quasars to put the numbers on the odds, but the point is you have two high z objects in the very same filament that connects NGC 7603 to this high redshift companion – which dramatically reduces the odds that this is chance. If you randomly scatter two quasars near this galaxy, what are the odds that both fall in the filament connecting to another discordant redshift object?

But now let’s look at the other scenario – PGC 71041 really is a background object. So in that case we can pretend its not there and just look at NGC 7603. You have this filament coming out of the Seyfert. According to mainstream logic that sort of thing happens as a result of interaction. Without the high redshift companion there is no object to be pulling out this filament.

NGC 7589 is the closest galaxy of similar redshift to NGC 7603. But that galaxy is on the opposite side of NGC 7603 as the filament and has about 10 times larger angular separation from NGC 7603 as PGC 71041 and so PGC 71041 is the only galaxy that could have pulled out the filament.

Turning to PGC 71041 itself: its morphology is not that of a large spiral. Nor does it have the appearance of a large elliptical. In fact it is very similar in appearance to the M-51 companion. So morphologically it’s a dwarf galaxy. As I pointed out in an earlier post, its diameter at its redshift distance (230Mpc) is ~25 kpc (almost 80,000 light years) which is nearly the size of the Milky Way. So if it’s at its redshift distance then this dwarf galaxy has the dimensions of a moderate sized spiral. On the other hand at the redshift distance of NGC 7603 (116 Mpc), it would have a size in the range expected for its morphology.

Further - galaxies are found in groups. I did a search of the LEDA database for all galaxies within 30 arc min of NGC 7603. At the PGC 71041 redshift distance of 230 Mpc this would encompass all galaxies within 2 Mpc of the companion – a reasonable size for a small group. Now most groups have a large spiral or elliptical but PGC 71041 is neither. There are 20 galaxies within 30 arcmin without measured redshifts. Five including NGC 7603 and the high redshift companion have measured redshifts. These redshifts are 8676, 16962, 8739, 8915, 35376.

Now of the 20 galaxies without measured redshifts they DO have measured magnitudes. PGC 71041 has a magnitude of 16.55 and every one of these 20 galaxies is fainter. The three brightest after PGC 71041 have magnitudes of 16.67, 16.99, and 17.30. Most of the rest are around 18.00. If all of these galaxies were associated with PGC 71041, then PGC 71041 is the most luminous galaxy in the group. So that can be added to everything above – now you have a “background” galaxy that is the brightest in its group which happens to be on the end of the NGC 7603 filament which apparently is pulled out by nothing if PGC 71041 is really a background object.

To summarize: The only reason for thinking PGC 71041 is a background object is its redshift. PGC 71041 is the only object that could have pulled out the filament, the presence of the two high z objects in the filament and fact that the higher z object is closer to the parent galaxy, the morphology of PGC 71041, the diameter of PGC 71041, the lack of large background spirals or ellipticals to serve as associates for PGC 71041. All those points support the position that PGC 71041 is a companion of NGC 7603 and has been ejected from the active seyfert as expected in the model of Arp.

Edited to correct minor typos.

Hey, thanks.

Well, unless the redshift figures are wrong or poorly adjusted for gravitational redshift, proper motion redshift, etc., the difference in those redshift readings amounts to a large cosmological distance. Would you mind converting your units to billions of lightyears?

I don't know anything about that. You've provided a lot of reading, which is a luxury I haven't too much time for. Can you provide a short explanation that would be comprehensible to a barmaid? :-?

What's the mechanism for this redshift decay?

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

Sorry, I'm used to working with Mpc units. One Mpc is 1 million parsecs and 1 parsec equals 3.26 light years. For the example we're discussing the redshift distance (assuming a Hubble Constant of 72 km s-1 Mpc-1) is ~116 Mpc for NGC 7603 and ~230 Mpc for the companion. Multiply those numbers by 3.26 to get the distance in millions of light years. So the redshift distance of NGC 7603 is ~ 378 million LY while the companion's redshift distance is ~750 million LY. Those distances are only real IF redshift actually increases with redshift according to the Hubble Constant.

The expectation of the current models is that the measured redshift is predominately cosmological (due to expansion of the universe). If the Hubble Constant is 72, then a galaxy at 100 Mpc (326 million light years) should have a redshift velocity of 7200 km s-1. In reality almost all galaxies will deviate from the expected redshift velocity due to peculiar motions and large scale streaming motions which are superimposed upon the Hubble flow. These deviations should be no larger than ~ +/-1500 km s-1 at the most extreme.

Gravitational redshifts are small scale - typically 20-30 km s-1 in the center of a large galaxy and as large as ~ 300 km s-1 in the core of large clusters.

So you are correct, the difference in redshift between NGC 7603 and the companion amounts to a large difference in cosmological distance. That is the crux of the matter. Mainstream cosmology does not allow for the possibility that there can be large redshift deviations unrelated to motions. So the mainstream view must deny that NGC 7603 and the higher redshift companion are associated even though all the other lines of evidence suggest that they are in fact associated. The higher z companions in the filament serve to strain this denial further.

I should probably explain "z" for those that are unfamiliar. Redshifts are actually displacement of spectral lines to longer wavelengths relative to the wavelengths measured in the lab. The formula is:

z = wavelength observed - wavelength lab/ wavelength lab

The z value is the actual spectral displacement of the spectral lines. Assuming that the redshift results from motion the z value can be converted to a velocity by multiplying by the speed of light:

Velocity = z x c

So this is where the redshift velocities come from. In standard cosmology the expectation is that within +/- 1500 km s-1 redshift velocity will give you the distance to a galaxy or quasar if you divide by the Hubble Constant (H0):

Distance (redshift) = Velocity/H0

The question raised by NGC 7603, similar examples, and other lines of evidence for large redshift anomalies is how much of a galaxy's measured redshift is actually cosmological (due to expansion). If we assume that NGC 7603's redshift distance of 116 Mpc is accurate, and accept the evidence that the high redshift companion is at the same distance as NGC 7603, then that companion has an excess redshift of ~8000 km s-1. This is too large a discrepancy to be caused by peculiar motions or large scale flows.

In that case at least 8000 km s-1 of the 17000 km s-1 measured velocity for this small companion must have a cause other than expansion of the universe. Since that does not fit easily into standard models, almost all astronomers reject the notion that any of these redshift anomalies represent real associations. But the evidence continues to accumulate that the redshift anomalies are real.

I'll do my best to give an explanation that the barmaid can handle as long as she's not sneaking a few shots on the side.

When quasars were discovered in the 1960's, their high redshifts led to the interpretation that they were at very large cosmological distances. However, Halton Arp began to notice that many of the quasars seemed to be associated by proximity, filaments, and other assorted alignments with nearby lower redshift galaxies. If these associations are real than many quasars would not be at the large distances indicated by their redshifts and for those quasars the redshift is predominately non-cosmological (not due to expansion of the universe).

As Arp's studies have progressed his model has evolved. The 1998 paper I linked to above describes it in good detail. In sum, Arp interprets his observations to indicate that quasars are ejected from active galaxies such as Seyferts as high redshift objects when they are young. As the quasars age they move outward from the parent galaxy and evolve into lower redshift objects, eventually becoming companions in the group with a slight excess redshift.

If this in fact happens (which numerous accumulated examples indicate it does) then the cores of the galaxies that are ejecting quasars must be sources of matter creation. While that may sound bizarre, there are a couple of points to keep in mind. First, there is no doubt that Seyfert galaxies and other AGN are ejecting matter such as the jets and radio lobes that are observed. What is in dispute is whether or not quasars are one of the ejected products. Second, it has to be asked: why is it impossible that we could live in a universe that has ongoing matter creation? The Big Bang model itself seems to reject that idea. But if we deny the possibility on that grounds, then we are using theory to deny an empirical (observational) result. Its supposed to work the other way around - Observations are supposed to provide the foundation for the theories we attempt to build.

NGC 7603 illustrates this problem. The arguments favor the two galaxies being at the same distance. But because that doesn't fit in with favored theory the observations that support interaction are rejected and the alignment is said to be a "chance" alignment rather than a real alignment. But there are too many instances of this phenomenon to wave the possibility away that easily.

The only viable model I’ve seen that can explain the non-cosmological redshifts and their decay is the model of Narlikar&Arp proposed in 1993. This model is referred to as the “variable mass hypothesis” and it is Machian in nature. In their model the particles of a young recently ejected quasar have smaller masses than particles here on Earth. So less energy is involved in electron transition of these lighter particles and therefore the spectral lines are redshifted. Over time the particle masses grow and the redshift decays. The reason that the particle masses are thought to grow is that the particles “communication sphere” with the rest of the universe increases over time – which is where the theory connects to Mach’s Principle.

Again the NGC 7603 example is important. Notice that the high z objects in the filament connecting the two galaxies have different redshifts with the higher redshift object being closer to the parent galaxy. This is exactly what would be expected in the Narlikar&Arp model. Since the ejected quasars travel outward over time, they should have decreasing redshifts as their distance from the parent galaxy increases.

Arp makes an important point in Seeing Red. The Narlikar&Arp solution to the general relativity equations is more general:

In standard cosmology it is assumed that m (mass) = constant.
In the Narlikar & Arp model: m = at^2 where “a” is a constant and time is squared.

Arp’s point is that this is the mathematically correct way to solve an equation. You first solve the equation in general terms and THEN you can make approximations such as m = constant if the situation warrants it. Notice that for terrestrial physics with short time intervals m = constant works.

However, in cosmological examples such as the ejected quasars m = constant may be inappropriate and the more general m=at^2 may be the appropriate form the equation should take.

There is some potential middle ground here. For example, PGC 71041 could indeed be associated with NGC 7603, but with a very large proper motion as a result of their interaction, adding to its redshift. The quasars could still be coincidental background objects (note that even the quasar that's extremely close to PGC 71041 has a much higher redshift; by Arp's model I'd think it should be fairly close). Has anyone taken direct redshift measurements of the filament, rather than just of the discrete objects within it?

There is no precedent for such large proper motions in standard views. Even in the largest galaxy clusters peculiar motions are not expected to exceed 1500 km s-1. In standard models there is no way to accelerate this galaxy to a velocity of 8000 km s-1 as a result of interaction. Recall that the large velocity dispersions of clusters are one of the pieces of evidence for dark matter.

Ironically, there have been a number of recent studies that have found large scale outflows from quasars on the order of 0.1c which is in line with the ejection velocities Arp has predicted. So you could explain the velocity difference if the companion was ejected - but then you'd have to accept that galaxies do eject objects that can evolve into companions.


Yes, the quasars could be background objects, but of all the possible places around NGC 7603 the quasars could fall, they happen to fall in the very filament that is connecting the Seyfert to PGC 71041.

As to the spacing, that depends upon the ejection velocities and the interaction the quasar has with the companion as it moves outward. Here is a critical point to understand. According to Arp's examples ejections would occur in two different planes (1) along the minor axis of the galaxy or (2) in the disk of a spiral galaxy. All the examples I've seen indicate that that the quasars ejected along the minor axis travel farther from the parent galaxy than those ejected in the disk.

That makes sense because a quasar ejected along the minor axis will not have to interact with as much of the galaxy. In other words, less of its initial ejectional velocity is wasted interacting with the parent galaxy. In the case of NGC 7603 we have a case of ejection in the disk. Interaction with the disk should have slowed down the velocities. But its pretty difficult to put hard numbers on that. You have to know the initial ejectional velocities for starters and that could be different for the two quasars.

Yes, Lopez-Corredoira &Gutierrez measured the redshift of the filament and it is z = 0.030 while NGC 7603 is z = 0.029. So the filament has a 300 km s-1 difference from the parent galaxy. At first it might seem that that is a contradiction. After all shouldn’t the filament be much higher redshift too?

The answer lies in my previous point. The ejected bodies interact with the parent. The filament is likely material dragged out as part of that interaction – with the first ejection which would be the companion galaxy. The difference in redshift between the parent galaxy and the filament is probably due to this interaction.

I understand that these ideas sound ridiculous to most, but to be frank it is really the same thing as when someone comes on the board and says that the Big Bang sounds too ridiculous to be believed. Somebody always responds to that by pointing out that of course it sounds ridiculous when you do not understand it (the Big Bang).

So it is with Arp’s theory. From my interactions it seems that most dismiss what he is saying without really understanding his model. It took me a good 6 months of reading Arp’s journal articles and books before I felt I was beginning to understand the full scope (in detail) of what he is saying. Therein lies the problem – and its understandable. If a person is researching within the context of the Big Bang model, then he/she probably doesn’t have time to really study Arp’s seemingly crazy claims. But then that researcher doesn’t have sufficient knowledge of his model to offer a fair assessment of it either.

Of course you mean, "...IF redshift actually increases with distance." And I think that's been so well established that I needn't go through the evidence.

Under normal circumstances, and judging from survey information, the peculiar (or proper, or intrinsic) motion of galaxies (after subtracting the apparent velocity resulting from the Hubble flow) is likely to top out as you say, i.e., at ~1500 km/s. But I think you'll agree that the NGC7603 circumstance under discussion is not a typical galactic configuration.

So my more mainstream mind, one that has written computer programs to simulate various gravitational arrangements, considers that a very close encounter between two galaxies (or quasars?) could send the central nuclei of each galaxy speeding away from each other at velocities well in excess of "normal" peculiar motions (assuming the nuclei are dense enough to ultimately retain most of their masses).

Right.

Oh. I guess I'm not mainstream then. :wink:

I'm with Grey on this. Those (pretty much) have to be coincidental background objects.

Or each mass has an excess of ~4000 km/s

Thanks. An excellent explanation - only possible by someone who understands a theory quite well.

Highly implausible. But I'll grant you that these cores may very well be supermassive black holes. A close "slingshot" flyby of some dwarf galaxy (or whatever large object) past such a massive core could fling the dwarf into the next parsec and beyond pretty quickly!

Through totally different mechanisms.

Not really. The measured redshifts indicate the two objects are roughly 0.3 billion lightyears apart.

Of course, this is the weakest part of the argument, and I don't buy it at all. They're modifying one of the fundamental assumptions of physics (or science in general), i.e., the natural laws and fundamental constants are pretty much the same everywhere. (If they're not, the universe would always be incomprehensible.) Quasar neutrons are lighter than earth neutrons? Is this at all testable? This seems very much like an implausible force-fit.

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

The phrase “according to the Hubble Constant” was not superfluous on my part. Of course redshift increases with distance. This is expected in the Narlikar&Arp model too, but not because of expansion of the universe.

In the Narlikar&Arp model redshift is affected by the age of the galaxy/quasar. If you have two galaxies at the exact same distance but one is much younger than the other, then in the Narlikar&Arp model you would predict that the younger galaxy will have a higher redshift than the older galaxy. In the standard view these two galaxies should have the same redshift (excepting peculiar motions).

Further, in the Narlikar&Arp model it is expected that galaxies the same age will form a tight Hubble relation. What is being suggested here is that the affect of age superimposes an “intrinsic” component on the Hubble Relation. So the fact that redshift increases with distance does not invalidate the Narlikar&Arp model. The lack of such a general relation would invalidate the model just as it would invalidate the Big Bang.

So to make sure there is no confusion. The redshifts of the NGC 7603 system indicate that the companion is a background galaxy if distance increases “according to the Hubble Constant”. If the companion is at the distance of NGC 7603 then obviously its redshift has not increased according to the Hubble Constant. Narlikar&Arp say the 8000 km s-1 difference is a result of an age related intrinsic redshift component superimposed upon the Hubble relation.

Then someone needs to show that this is possible for this system. I’d be curious to see the parameters that could explain it. Mass of the galaxy, interaction pattern, arrangement of the filament and so on …

IF redshift is entirely cosmological then yes they have to be background objects, but that is the point of contention. Narlikar&Arp’s model allows for non-cosmological redshift components superimposed upon the cosmological component – and therefore objects of vastly different redshift can be interacting.

Interesting that this type of slingshotting should be so dynamically possible and yet we have no accepted cases of it, but only potential cases identified by Arp which are vigorously denied by the mainstream to be actual cases of interaction.

Totally different proposed mechanisms yes. In the mainstream view supermassive black holes are accelerating matter along the rotation axis and this is the proposed explanation for the radio lobes ect. However, in the Narlikar & Arp model matter creation is possible and in fact could be responsible directly or indirectly for all these phenomenon.

You originally said that the system “looked” like they were interacting, but that in so large a universe accidental alignments were bound to happen. You said more “hard” data was needed. In good faith I put in some time to demonstrate on other grounds which I explained in a post above reasons that favor the two galaxies interacting. The debate is whether or not redshifts can contain non-cosmological components. Pointing to the cosmological interpretation of those redshifts adds no evidence to your position. The points I made DO support interaction.

Yes - the key words here are fundamental assumption. As I said in my previous post, the Narlikar&Arp solutions are a more general form of the GR equations. The standard assumption has been that m=constant. What is the justification for that assumption? It’s a valid assumption in local physics. And the local physics is preserved in the Narlikar&Arp solution by a conformal transformation:

t = t^3/3t0^2

In other words on the time scale of the matter in our galaxy, all local physics is preserved and the standard equations where m=constant work. However, the m=constant assumption is not valid for younger galaxies in the Narlikar&Arp solutions. As Arp describes it: for the younger galaxies, their clocks appear to be running slow and their matter appears redshifted. This is hardly a dramatic violation of all known physics that would spiral us into the realm of say anything you want creationism.

Force fit? Exactly how has the assumption that m=constant been tested on those distant galaxies? The question can be asked both ways. Distinguishing which of the two models is closer to reality is not that hard either. IF the redshift anomalies are REAL, then the Narlikar&Arp solution is preferable to the m=constant everywhere solution. If the redshift anomalies are NOT real, then m=constant works throughout the universe and Arp’s model can be dismissed – because without the redshift anomalies there would be no apparent reason for the Narlikar&Arp solution. That is why it is important to try to verify or refute the existence of non-cosmological redshifts.

I think it likely that we will continue to disagree, but I welcome the debate!

Well, one problem is that the Narlikar&Arp model hypothesizes that the fundamental particles are less massive in these "newer" galaxies and quasars (and this (somehow) causes the higher redshift reading). Problem is, measurements of gravitational effects of distant galaxies indicate that practically all galactic clusters contain much more mass than we can reasonably infer from the observed luminous matter, gas, and dust. Narlikar&Arp are going the wrong way! #-o

More disagreement later!

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

There's two answers to this - neither or which you're going to like or agree with.

But first for anybody who's following this discussion - what Cougar is referring to here is the velocity dispersions of galaxy clusters. Let's take a cluster at a distance of 100 Mpc. If all the galaxies exactly followed the Hubble flow, then they would have redshift velocities predicted this way:

Velocity = distance x Hubble constant

Since the Hubble constant is 71-72 according to current assessments, then the galaxies in a cluster at a distance of 100 Mpc should have velocities of 7100 to 7200 km s-1. In reality those galaxies might actually have redshifts in the range of 5700 to 8700 km s-1.

The standard deviation of the spread around the mean redshift is called the "velocity dispersion" and the individual deviations each galaxy has from 7200 km s-1 (in this case) are interpreted as a peculiar motion. These peculiar motions are induced by gravity. The problem is that the visible mass of a cluster is insufficient to produce the observed velocity dispersions, so dark matter is interpreted to exist in amounts needed to account for the velocities. The greater the velocity dispersion the more dark matter should be present.

Now back to Narlikar&Arp:

Point 1

Galaxy X has a certain mass and Galaxy Y has let's say half the mass of Galaxy X. If I want to accelerate both galaxies to the same peculiar velocity via the same type of interaction, then I'm going to need more mass to accelerate Galaxy X.

Galaxy X itself can be more massive because its a bigger galaxy ... or Galaxy X can be more massive because its particle masses are heavier (via the Narlikar&Arp model). So the point is the observed velocity dispersions do not contradict the Narlikar&Arp model because the galaxies being accelerated and the matter doing the accelerating are all lighter. You’re not just reducing the accelerating mass – your’re reducing the accelerated mass too!

Point 2

Contamination from intrinsic redshifts will drive up cluster velocity dispersions. In other words if you have a few galaxies the same age as the Milky Way, those galaxies will indicate the true value of the Hubble Constant (Narlikar&Arp model). However, if a bunch of galaxies in the cluster are younger than the Milky Way (some could be older too), then they will have excess redshift components (or redshift deficits if they're older) that are non-cosmological. The non-cosmological component will drive up the velocity dispersion. So what this means is that the dark matter content is likely to be overestimated in galaxy clusters because the true velocity dispersions are smaller than the measured velocity dispersions (which are contaminated by intrinsic redshifts).

This second point is really not relevant to your point, but I add it since the continued build-up of evidence for intrinsic redshifts will eventually require that the point be recognized. JS Princeton once made the point for me without even realizing it. We were debating the velocity dispersions and intrinsic redshift components and he said that he had seen clusters in which the 1 sigma velocity dispersion exceeded 2000 km s-1. Now since everybody agrees that the maximum peculiar motion of individual galaxies within a cluster (under normal assumptions) does not exceed 1500 km s-1, how can you have a 1 sigma dispersion of 2000 km s-1 (which means that almost all the galaxies should fall within the 3 sigma limit of +/- 6000 km s-1). The answer is you can’t. Those large dispersions are further evidence that intrinsic redshifts contaminate the velocity dispersions of more distant clusters.

Well, I didn't think my "wrong way" argument was particularly robust. But I think Ned Wright's page Errors in the Steady State and Quasi-SS Models throws a number of rigorous wrenches into Narlikar&Arp's works.

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

The Narlikar&Arp model is NOT the same as the quasi-steady state model. In fact it is ironic that Narlikar has worked with Arp and with Hoyle on two differing models which cannot both be correct.

No, but how many of Ned Wright's arguments still pertain to Narlikar&Arp's new, improved quasi-steady state model? As I understand it, they are saying the universe is steady-state (more or less?), and that there is matter creation going on to keep the expanding universe's density roughly the same (more or less), but it just seems they're aiming their theories only toward salvaging the beloved steady-stateliness of their emotional beliefs. Of course, most scientists aim their theories toward their pet hypotheses; but when the resulting theory is tested and shown not to correspond well with how we understand nature to actually work, most scientists will adjust their aim. Narlikar&Arp have their sights fixed on only one target and have instead attempted to modify many of the scientific community's well-tested understandings of how nature actually works. When technical criticisms continue to mount, they tack on more "conceivably possible" explanations to counter the problematic accepted view. Methinks they doth theorize too much.

Of course that does not imply that either of them need be correct, and I would expect Wright to say they're both wrong.

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

Its not a steady state model!

Nope. The evidence for intrinsic redshifts is empirical. Since there is no theoretical basis for expecting intrinsic redshifts in the standard cosmology Narlikar&Arp have sought an alternate model that is consistent with the observational evidence for intrinsic redshifts.

:roll: And if they don't theorize then they are criticized for not being able to explain the mechanism for the intrinsic redshifts. And the Big Bang of course is theoretical purity without "tack on" hypotheses to resolve contradictions! :roll: (inflation, non-baryonic dark matter, dark energy, assumption that 1 extra particle of normal matter was created for every particle of antimatter .....)

Frankly, this is another point that most don't understand. The evidence for intrinsic redshifts is empirical not theoretical. You can trash Narlikar&Arp as much as you please and you have done absolutely nothing to weaken the evidence for the redshift anomalies because that is observational. If the Narlikar&Arp model is shown to fail, then another explanation for the intrinsic redshifts will have to be something else.

That's how science is supposed to work. Scientists are supposed to seek theoretical explanations for observed phenomenon. What is going on here is that because of theoretical considerations, the observational evidence for intrinsic redshifts is being rejected.

In fact the Narlikar&Arp solutions have no basis without the empirical evidence that ejection of quasars is happening and non-cosmological redshifts exist. So all our debate about the validity of Narlikar&Arp is really a step ahead of the game because right now astronomers do not accept that the redshift anomalies are real.

Not too long ago someone posted a question about the two point angular correlation as a way to dispute Arp's claims. Well, I did an ADS search and the only study I could find confirms that the quasars in the Virgo cluster region have a correlation with the Virgo cluster galaxies on scales of 5 to 40 arcmin but have no correlation with the background galaxies. Conclusion: The quasars in the Virgo region are associated with the Virgo cluster. The study was published in 1995 and no-one has refuted it.

Initially the mainstream rejected the association of quasars with galaxy clusters. Now the statistics of the phenomenon are demonstrated by both researchers that support Arp and those that dispute Arp. So instead gravitational lensing is claimed to explain it. Fine see if gravitational lensing in fact works but it was with quite a bit of humor that I read one research article which concluded that the association between quasars and galaxy clusters was statistically significant but that none of their lensing models could explain it. They concluded that perhaps the most comforting view was to hope that the result was a statistical fluke.

In the end its possible that the universe did begin with a Big Bang, but that these intrinsic redshifts are real and superimposed upon the expansion.

I'll acknowledge that there are some anomolous redshift measurements. It is of course possible that these could be explained by something simpler. For example, NGC 7603's companion could indeed have been ejected at a surprisingly high speed by some unknown mechanism. That's a bold claim on it's own, but less radical than proposing variable mass.

As you suggest, I should probably read the original sources, but in the interest of time, for now I'll rely on you to provide answers about their ideas? Do Narlikar and Arp actually have a proposed mechanism for the creation and ejection of mass at the center of galaxies? Are there any local predictions that might result from fundamental particles having variable mass? For example, if the Sun's mass changed over the last few billions of years, that should have had a noticeable effect on Earth's orbit.

Also, a big question is, if quasars are really small and close, rather than very bright and far away, why is there such a nice continuum of AGN from Seyfert galaxies to quasars? Using the HST, we've been able to get images of the host galaxies around quasars, and they look just like galaxies that are really far away, to faint to see. The observational data really seem to suggest that some galaxies have active nuclei (or maybe most galaxies once did, but it's part of the early part of galactic evolution, so we don't see them nearby because they have since quieted down), but as they get farther away, we can't make out the surrounding galaxy as well, until all we can see is the nucleus itself.

But is it really less radical? For the companion where the redshift excess you could probably make the case - but then if the quasars are ejected as well at z ~2 you'd seemed to have entered a realm certainly no more plausible than the variable mass solution. The Narlikar&Arp paper is not that long. The first 2-3 pages are the most important parts.

They refer to creation at zero-mass hypersurfaces. Arp actually states in Seeing Red that it would not be new matter since the universe by definition includes everything, but rather creation from a previously diffuse state. This could be a quantum phenomenon which would explain the controversial evidence for redshift quantization.

In my view, its not that any of this is proven beyond doubt, but that it is beyond doubt demonstrated to be a viable possibility. The evidence for non-cosmological redshifts comes in enough forms that it is intellectually dishonest (in general terms here - not an accusation directed at any individual) to dismiss it without offering valid answers to it. On this thread I've only gotten the standard arguments about redshift distances and chance alignments. But the existence of non-cosmological redshifts is the issue and so the standard interpretation of redshifts is not evidence against the claim. And the statistics repeatedly support Arp's contention that these alignments are unlikely to be just chance.

Not really - because the model involves clocks running at different rates on galactic scales. The Machian aspect of the model is important here. What is suggested is that the new matter is created at a zero mass hypersurface and thus its initial mass is zero. Conceptually Arp explains that since matter is "new" it has not yet had time to communicate with the inertial mass-energy state of the universe. As the objects exists in the universe for a longer time it "communicates" with a larger fraction of the mass state of the universe via an expanding light sphere and particle masses grow. The redshift decay is supposed to result directly from the growing particle masses.

[quote] Also, a big question is, if quasars are really small and close, rather than very bright and far away, why is there such a nice continuum of AGN from Seyfert galaxies to quasars? [/quote}

Two things here. First in Arp's model (the empirical model - regardless of the Narlikar&Arp mathematical solution) quasars evolve into BL Lac objects, and then companions. He's identified examples of quasars apparently ejecting additional quasars. So you would expect this continuum in his model as well.

Second, for me personally, I'm not convinced yet that all quasars are ejected phenomenon. This is one of the points where signals are crossed in these discussions. Arp has presented specific examples. Those need to be addressed. Its possible that active quasars are at large distances and then there are the local quasars. One would hope that there might be some easy way to distinguish the two types of quasars in that case - such as radio emissions. The objects Arp proposes are ejected tend to more active radio emitters.

And many of them may be far away. I've looked at the images. You've got ellipticals, spirals, irregulars in those images. Its a matter of scale. If they are nearby then they are small objects. If they are at their redshift distances they're pretty big. Again in Arp's model you expect these objects to start evolving into normal galaxies so it is not really that surprising to see that many quasars appear to have associated galaxy structure.

But you do have AGN nearby and it is around these AGN that Arp finds most of his examples of redshift anomalies and apparently ejected quasars. That's part of the model. You expect these alignments to be more common around Seyferts and other active types of galaxies. Its not an accident that the example we've debated on this thread is a Seyfert galaxy. Its exactly the kind of galaxy that Arp says is ejecting quasars. Notice that it was not Arp that found the high z objects in the filament. It was an unrelated pair of researchers that have never published a paper with Arp. Yet they came across something that confirms Arp's model.

Early on people said Arp needed to provide more examples. NGC 7603 is yet another example. How many is good enough - 100, 1000, 1000000? At what point will a few researchers shred their own biases enough to get a little bit curious about why these patterns keep popping up in the way proposed by Arp's empirical model?

Its the same thing with redshift quantization. It keeps popping up in so many different ways that its hard to keep track of it. There's a small amount of irony in the fact that astronomers deny the possibility that light from galaxies could show a quantized pattern.

That strikes me as sampling bias. Wouldn't these nearby objects cover a proportionately larger field of view than more distant objects? In which case, the chance that they partially obscure other objects behind them would be higher...?

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

Its not a sampling bias if you're using a distance limited sample. In other words if you ONLY look at Seyferts then you have what could be a relevant sampling bias. But if you look at a pretty complete sample of all types of galaxies within the local supercluster (hence distance limited) - you avoid that type of bias.

But the way it works is that most of the galaxies that show the alignments of quasars are AGN (mostly Seyferts: NGC 3516, NGC 2992, NGC 1365, NGC 4258, NGC 1068, NGC 1097, NGC 2639 ... and so on. But then you have peculiar and active ellipticals too: M-87 and NGC 5128 for example) within the local supercluster (< ~ 25 Mpc distance). But many of the other local non-AGN galaxies have been checked and you just don't see many of them showing these quasar alignments. So that suggests that the quasar alignments are not a result of the greater angular diameters of local AGN relative to more distant AGN.