a-cosmology-group/acg#210

Does anyone have a guess as to why quasars of absolute magnitude -22 don’t exist in the early universe?

Mike, your graphs and tools are not clearly enough explained, at least for me. An intro might have helped. There are questions throughout.

The x-axis are redshifts (z) and y-axis is quasar counts.

So in this graph for example:

There are about 12,000 quasars between z=0 and z=0.2.

You mentioned that you are assuming non-expansion, but how are the quasar magnitudes in these charts estimated? Do they use the Big Bang assumption that surface brightness is weakened by (1 + z)^-4 ? I don’t see how you can have a good analysis on this until you use a static model recalibration of these magnitudes.

For SDSS DR16Q, there is an absolute I band magnitude in the dataset:

M_I Absolute i-band magnitude, H0 = 67.6 km s-1 Mpc-1, ΩM = 0.31, ΩL = 0.69, ΩR = 9.11x10-5. K-corrections taken from Table 4 of Richards et al. (2006). Z_PCA used for redshifts

https://data.sdss.org/datamodel/files/BOSS_QSO/DR16Q/DR16Q_v4.html

You can see specifically how it’s done at the link in my first reply:

https://github.com/bradlyke/dr16q/blob/master/abs_mag.py

#Find the absolute magnitude given the previously calculated values and data
#taken from the fits file.
def abs_Mag(imag,ext,dm,kc):
    #imag is the apparent i-band magnitude, ext is i-band galactic extinction
    #dm is distance modulus from dist_mod(), and kc is k correction from kcorr_find().
    return imag - ext - dm - kc #unitless

My tool also has a select box, which allows you to use the data given, or for $H_0 = 73$, which I produced with cosmolopy, and z to find a luminosity distance, or for my non-expanding model $H = 70.5$ (no subscript zero in this model), also using luminosity distance, but this time from my model (not LCDM).

As I note, I think it might be these estimations (along with K-corrections) that give the magnitudes that show the moving peaks.

If you have any more questions, or if I did not address those well enough, let me know. Thanks.

With Intrinsic Redshift as explained by the Variable Mass Theory the energy $E$ of spectral lines is directly proportional to variable mass $m$:

$$ \frac{E}{E_0} = \frac{m}{m_0} $$

Conclusions of my writings in the section Length Contraction consist of (1) a sentence and (2) a formula. (1) Length Contraction [of matter] is observationally equivalent with the Expansion of Empty Space, (2) Length $L$ (e.g. Bohr radius of an atom / wavelength of light $\lambda$) is inversely proportional to variable mass $m$:

$$ \frac{L}{L_0} = \frac{m_0}{m} = \frac{\lambda}{\lambda_0} = 1+z $$

If the quasar is a compact object then we have that the net brightness is the product of the energy $E$ emitted and an area $L^2$. The latter is proportional to the size squared of its atoms. The end-result would be the following proportionality, with intrinsic redshift according to the VMT only.

$$ \mbox{bright} \sim \frac{E}{E_0}\left(\frac{L}{L_0}\right)^2 = \frac{m_0}{m} = 1+z $$

Inspiration comes from the ideas of @ExpEarth as uttered above. I have no clue if this result is indeed applicable to the features as described by @mikehelland .

Hi Matt,

So I think you are saying the redshifts are over-estimated? Which means the magnitudes must be over-estimated as well?

But they are still brighter than, say M87 at M = -22, just not all the way up to M = -28 or something like that?

Yes, the magnitudes must also be over-estimated, since the actual distances of the sources are not as great as their redshift distances suggest. If the correction could be made, perhaps the spread of intrinsic luminosities of quasars would then not be so great. It’s also important to know what assumptions are going into estimating the luminosities. The estimates would be different in static versus expanding models.

6. Quasars are not at the distance indicated by their redshift, see Bell https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0602242 Also this paper https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=108536 shows the same thing you discovered with your tool.

Years ago, Arp noticed that quasars are associated with galaxies. For decades this was dismissed by astronomers, but more recent work confirmed this to high significance ($>20\sigma$). http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10509-018-3355-5 This measurement is so good nobody has been able to find a problem with the work. I have personally interrogated Chris Fulton about this paper (and reference within), trying to find an error in his analysis (like you, I went through part of the code he used for the analysis of the data). This work is solid: quasars are associated in the sky with galaxies. However, there is no evidence that quasars are physically associated with galaxies.

7. On the speculative side, Arp, Narlikar et al. sugested that quasars are ejected from AGNs with a time-varying mass, which produces the intrinsic redshift. This is the source of all the work involving Machian dynamics, varying mass theories, time-varying speed-of-light or other constants, intrinsic redshifts of quasars (c.f. above), etc. While these suggestions explain the problematic quasar redshifts, other effects should also be measurable if quasars had an intrinsic redshift (or if mass or $c$ varied with time). None of these effects are observed despite high accuracy experiments performed in the lab.

These models were suggested as an attempt to explain a possible “physical association” between galaxies and quasars (both objects would be close to each other in space). However, there is actually no indication that quasars are “near” galaxies and the models do not agree with observations.

This forces us to conclude that the associations seen by Arp and Fulton are only an optical quasi-alignment between quasars and galaxies which has an effect on the redshift.

Why does the peak of quasar distribution move from near to far with increasing magnitude?

It’s because the assumption of “large redshift implies large distance” is wrong. Something else other than ‘distance’ produces a redshift, and it’s related to the presence of galaxies near the path taken by the light we observe (hence the ‘association’ with galaxies).

Thank you kindly, Louis. :-)

Good points. I would like to focus on point 4. regarding the K-corrections.

First, I must point out the stated purpose of the DR16Q dataset:

Two distinct redshift ranges for quasars were identified as critical to the goals of eBOSS (Dawson et al. 2016). Over a sky area of 7500 sq. deg., the eBOSS mission planned to observe more than 500,000 confirmed quasars in the range 0.8 < z < 2.2 and observe ~120,000 quasars for Lyα forest measurements in the range z > 2.1 (Myers et al. 2015).

https://www.sdss4.org/dr17/algorithms/qso_catalog/

So they have two missions, one focusing on $0.8 < z < 2.2$ and another on $z > 2.1$. There is a small overlap between 2.1 and 2.2 between them. I think it’s reasonable to conclude, that in the effort to get the most data they can, the higher redshift range includes more quasar candidates that aren’t as thoroughly scrutinized as the rest. Which would explain why there’s that big bump at $z = 2.1$. With that said, here is the graph for M = -25 ± 0.5:

Ignoring that mentioned bump at $z = 2.1$… this looks very artificial to me. Doesn’t it look a bit too smooth and predictable for real-world data?

This is why I’m suspicious of the K-corrections. Not the emission line part, but the continuum part:

The emission line and continuum are combined in the table of values included with the 2006 paper:

0.00  0.596
0.01  0.587
0.02  0.569
0.03  0.531
0.04  0.462
0.05  0.372
...

https://cdsarc.cds.unistra.fr/ftp/J/AJ/131/2766/table4.dat

Together with the “bug” in DR12Q that is reported in the DR16Q paper, I see no way that only the continuum and not the emission line values could be applied by using this table, which is what the bug report claims had happened.

Isn’t that extremely suspicious?

For reference, here is the same graph for DR12Q:

According to @RedshiftDrift : >By sheer coincidence, the evolution (according to the BB model) of a complex system such as a quasar happens to follow a simple function of the redshift.

Not exactly. The statistics of the “evolution” shows a linear trend that is like bright $\sim (1+z)$. It should not come as a surprise that such a crude observation gives rise to a crude mathematical model that might serve as an explanation of this linear trend.

this looks very artificial to me. Doesn’t it look a bit too smooth and predictable for real-world data?

It did to me as well until I realized there are thousands of counts in each bin. The statistical noise is usually $\sqrt n$ so only 2% near the peak of the curve. 2% roughness would look very smooth. You can add to your tool an estimate of the error bars: show $\sqrt n$ on each column.

This is why I’m suspicious of the K-corrections.

Do you mean by that that the K-corrections would produce the extra smoothing? if they double-dip the continuum in the DR16Q release, this could produce an extra convolution and some smoothing.

However, even in that case would the K-correction of 2 magnitudes (at most) offset the redshift by an amount that is large enough to “explain why low-z get assign dimmer magnitudes and high-z are calculated to be brighter”? The K-correction doesn’t seem large enough to do that… but I don’t know these numbers.

But there really is no way they would have only applied the continuum and not the emission lines.

Why not? You see something I don’t see, I don’t have enough information. Perhaps the table is just a combined total, but in reality they didn’t use that table but separate emission and continuum K-correction (and made the mistake in DR12Q)…

It did to me as well until I realized there are thousands of counts in each bin.

Good point.

Do you mean by that that the K-corrections would produce the extra smoothing?

Not exactly. It would be a factor in why near quasars are dim and farther quasars are bright. A non-expanding universe shouldn’t show signs of quasar evolution with z, and should have equal numbers of quasars in equal volumes of space. The DESI survey does show that. But when you take into account the absolute magnitude, it isn’t so flat.

If a quasar is given a magnitude of -27, taking into account the several small factors, from the K corrections to the cosmological parameters used, that might actually be an M = -25 quasar.

Even if the cosmological parameters have a really small impact, it just chips away at the hump. Check out the luminosity distance for the LCDM parameters used vs my model.

Green is LCDM. The discrepancy between them is largest at about z = 2.7, by about 5 to 10 billion light years. It’s not very much when you convert to distance modulus. But again it’s something that slightly exaggerates absolute magnitude specifically at the z range where the bump is for brighter magnitudes.

Perhaps the table is just a combined total, but in reality they didn’t use that table but separate emission and continuum K-correction (and made the mistake in DR12Q)…

Yup, emission line and continuum are added together as one value in that table. And the most logical thing for DR12Q is they simply forgot to use it all. But they claim the continuum is applied. I’m just wondering if it’s applied earlier in the data pipeline. And maybe is still there. It’s a bit of grasping at straws really, I have to admit.

According to @RedshiftDrift : >However, there is no evidence that quasars are physically associated with galaxies.

Denied !! Example given from the CATALOGUE OF DISCORDANT REDSHIFT ASSOCIATIONS by Halton Arp on page 227 : >However, there is actually no indication that quasars are “near” galaxies and the models do not agree with observations. [ .. ] it’s related to the presence of galaxies near the path taken by the light we observe (hence the ‘association’ with galaxies).

However, there is actually indication that quasars are “near” galaxies and models do agree with observations. Louis, do you hint on Gravitational lensing instead of physically nearby?

Here is a more modern image of that same galaxy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NGC_4319#/media/File:NGC_4319_I_HST2002.jpg

That luminous bridge doesn’t seem to exist.

That luminous bridge doesn’t seem to exist.

Hmm, you may be right. That’s one reason why I hesitated to publish another example from the book SEEING RED, written by the same author: the famous Einstein Cross. Maybe it’s all Gravitational lensing indeed, as advocated by the mainstream.

An example of a modern rendition is at ESO’s Very Large Telescope Spots Rare Einstein Cross.

Re the ‘modern’ image of NGC 4319: It is more accurately described as a modern manipulated image. There is plenty of supporting evidence for the quasar-AGN proximity relationship while the evidence against it seems to consist of an empirically baseless assertion that the quasar redshift is entirely cosmological backed up by this obviously doctored image.

In an earlier comment @RedshiftDrift says:

However, there is no evidence that quasars are physically associated with galaxies.

However, there is no citation to support that claim and it is directly contradicted by this paper by Bell that is cited in the same comment to support the the idea that quasars are not at their redshift distances. According to Bell:

These results then represent a third independent set of evidence supporting the claims that QSOs are born out of the nuclei of active galaxies, and that they initially have large non-Doppler redshift components that decrease with age.

It should also be noted that this Wiki article claims that the proximity of MRK 205 to NGC 4319 has been disproven because it has been shown:

that the light from Markarian 205 was passing through the disk and halo of NGC 4319 to reach the observer, placing Markarian 205 behind this galaxy and thus further away.

There are two obvious problems with that claim. The first is that it contradicts the (albeit doctored) image which does not show the quasar light passing through the disk or halo as is the case in all previous (unmanipulated) images, so the fake image does not support the argument. The argument is also circular - if the quasar is embedded in the disk then it should also exhibit absorption lines from the disk gas and halo, the same as a more distant object would. Therefore, the empirical evidence does not support the claim that the quasar has been shown to be at its assumed cosmological redshift distance - that is now and always has been an assumption without any real evidence beyond the burning desire to maintain the standard model at all costs.

There is far more evidence, consisting of empirical observations, supporting the AGN-quasar galaxy formation model than there is for the accretion model of standard Big Bang cosmology.

More than a million quasars have been identified. If there was a connection to galaxies it would be obvious. You’d have more than one image from the 1990’s to support the claim.

In the book SEEING RED by Halton Arp on page 54 we read: Wikipedia says that A quasar is an extremely luminous active galactic nucleus (AGN). In SEEING RED on the same page 54 is a section about Terminology. There we read somehing completely different: >“Oh Chip”, he enthused, “I have just decided the new terminology for all these objects: we’ll call them AGN’s.” He was using his theoretical knowledge that quasars were enormously bright nuclei of enormously distant galaxies. “Absolutely terrible”, I replied, “If you do that you will wreck the empirical classification.”

So what is a quasar !?

I don’t have the answer on what a quasar is, but I’d like to point out a few things. From personal experience I know how Wikipedia can bend the picture to suit mainstream views. It can be an exhausting battle of wills to counter this and in the end it’s not worth it. It’s hardly the right way to do science!

The article on ‘Quasar’ is a case in point. It’s a very long and detailed article. Astonishingly, there is no mention of Arp at all! Nor of his idea that quasars are associated to lower redshift galaxies and ejected by those galaxies. You can however see some of this history in the article on ‘Halton Arp’ in Wikipedia. In that article they conclude that the case is not entirely settled as to whether quasars are at their redshift distances or at the redshifts of the host galaxies. So to read both of these articles would give you very different interpretations.

Here is an article by Arp (posthumously), Fulton and Hartnett where they try to use the quasar surveys to answer the question. They conclude that there is at least some evidence to support the quasar ejection hypothesis. It’s a very complicated paper though: Arp2018.pdf There’s much mention of the Karlsson periodicities.

In a post above I noted as one possibility that the apparent scaling of quasar magnitude with redshift could be due to a composite redshift effect induced by an Arp-style intrinsic quasar redshift.

To me the general explanation given in the ‘Quasar’ article is still somewhat convincing, however. In one sense this picture of quasars as AGNs (supermassive black holes) which are producing these huge jets is not incompatible with Arp’s hypothesis of quasar ejection. The question is: at what real distances are the jets/quasars/daughter galaxies?

If quasars were “ejected” from a galaxy… why are they all moving away? Why no blueshifted, or unshifted (transverse motion) examples?

It’s time to let Arp’s ideas go. We see galaxies out to z=13 now. Back when only quasars had high redshift it seemed plausible they were unique. But they’re just AGN. A quasar looks like this:

This is M87, which is really close by.

The extra redshift seen in the ejected quasar would not be due to a Doppler shift and so there would be no blueshifted quasars. The extra redshift would be due to some other factor. Arp thought it reflected the age of the ejected matter.

M87 is an interesting example. It does have a large jet and with that quasar-like properties. The hypothesis that jets are traceable to supermassive black hole/AGNs seems correct. But note that M87 has many satellite galaxies. Where do you suppose they came from? Don’t you think they could have arisen from just such jets, as Arp theorized? It’s too soon to let Arp’s ideas go, even if Wikipedia has chosen to erase them from history.

Don’t you think they could have arisen from just such jets, as Arp theorized?

I’m currently pursuing the idea that the jets break down elements into quark-gluon plasma, which “freshens” up the universe with new hydrogen.

Is that one of Arp’s ideas? Do you have a reference?

If so, that would be much different than quasars being ejected from a galaxy.

A quasar can be thought of as the end product of a gravitational collapse. The collapse stabilizes prior to the formation of a theoretical black hole and begins emitting copious amounts of electromagnetic radiation because the speed of light diminishes in an increasing gravitational field (an observed fact) and $\frac {E}{m}=c^2$. In other words because of two known facts of standard physics, gravitational collapse is self-limiting.

A quasar then is a highly compact gravitating body and consequently exhibits a GR gravitational (intrinsic) redshift as well a distance related cosmological redshift. Quasars evolve over an extended time period as viewed by an external observer (GR time dilation). As that evolution proceeds, the total mass-energy of the quasar increases (via gravitational attraction/infall) in proportion to the surface area which is growing as $r^2$ while the mass-energy density decreases because the volume is increasing as $r^3$, which results in a diminishing intrinsic redshift. Quasars evolve over cosmological time scales into active galaxies which in turn produce new quasars. Quasars are nascent galaxies.

The foregoing qualitative model is based on and consistent with Arp’s observations and standard physics. Those observations are not consistent with the standard model of cosmology. @mikehelland wants to ignore Arp’s observations but that is what modern cosmology has done for the past 50 years, much to its detriment. If you want a better cosmology you have to dig out the root-ball of lazy assumptions of mathematical convenience like FLRW and the inane fixation on undetectable entities and events (essentially the entirety of the Big Bang fairy tale.) At that point you can start paying attention to the things that are there, among which are the quasar-AGN associations observed by Arp.

There should be hundreds of thousands of these associations. And they should be seen at all stages of the ejection.

@mikehelland Sorry, I don’t think Arp expressed it that way. I think he had it as ejection of the proto-galaxies, whose redshifts we then see. To me it does not make a huge amount of difference, whether the ejection is of the proto-galaxy or the raw material giving rise to it, but I suppose observationally they are different.

There is evidence that the jets from AGNs have a hydrogen component and so I’m not sure why you would want to invoke quarks/gluons in the jet. We don’t have to go that far! The hydrogen alone is enough to regenerate new galaxies. The role of the AGNs/quasars/supermassive black holes is partly to regenerate the light elements, so that the stellar cycle can begin again.

The logic is this, at 1.6 trillion K, the Hagedorn temperature, regular matter turns into quark-gluon plasma. It’s essentially the boiling point of hadrons. We’ve achieved this in labs (LHC and RHIC).

Quasar jets are measured to be hotter than that:

https://www.labroots.com/trending/space/2825/quasar-stumps-scientists-10-trillion-degree-brightness-temperature https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3515338/The-quasar-jets-break-laws-physics-Streams-100-times-hotter-thought-possible-10-TRILLION-degrees.html

So it seems quasars are acting as natural super-colliders, breaking elements down to quarks, and possibly leaving fresh clouds of hydrogen around.

@mikehelland Given the historical record, your comments are fatuous at best. Since Arp was originally denied telescope time for research findings that contradicted the standard model there has been no telescope time allocated for studying the quasar-AGN associations.

Nonetheless, such associations have been and continue to be found by individuals simply searching existing large scale surveys. There has been no direct funding of any significance, for extensively searching for new or studying existing, associations. If half the research funding (not to mention telescope time) that has been wasted on the search for dark matter over the last 40 years had been allocated to quasar-AGN research modern cosmology wouldn’t be wallowing in its current state of bloated ignorance.

@mikehelland

Interesting! Well, maybe this one quasar is overachieving!

It’s one of the closest, and the first ever identified quasar, according to wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3C_273

So it may be very typical.

Well, since the quark mass is only a tiny part of the hadron mass, most of the latter being in gluons, then perhaps it would be easier to accelerate the particles to relativistic speeds if in quark/gluon combos or as separate quarks and gluons.

In view of a previous reply: here is a numerical / graphical simulation of an (idealized) Einstein cross. It is assumed that observation by a telescope is imperfect, as modelled mathematically by a webpage called Fuzzy Optics. The first picture displays the quasars “in reality”. The second picture displays the quasars as “observed”, the third picture is a contouring of the second one. It is clearly seen that artificial “luminous bridges” appear. So it seems to me too that these are questionable.

Hi Han,

It seems to me that this argument offers no basis for deciding the issue; the conclusion that the luminous bridges are artificial is entirely dependent on the assumption that the quasars are at their redshift distances. If you assume that the quasars are co-located with the central galaxy then the bridges are not artificial.

Hi Bud,

With (our version of) the VMT it is not assumed that the quasars are at their redshift distances.

The luminous bridge between NGC 4319 and Markarian 205 is a filament coming out of NGC 4319. It can even be seen on the more modern image of the galaxy if the contrast is increased dramatically (below is shown the wiki photo I rotated and contrast-enhanced). There are many such filaments around galaxies.

If another galaxy happens to be behind and lined-up with a filament, its redshift is enhanced by a tired-light effect caused by the gas in the filament. That’s why “quasars” are always redshifted relative to their “putative parent” galaxy and appear to be “connected” with the galaxy.

It’s an illusion, they are not physically connected to the filament, they are just behind it from our point of view. Moreover, quasars do not have an “extremely high intrinsic luminosity”. The quasar is bright because it is a lot closer than the distance incorrectly inferred (using Hubble law) from their redshift.

I don’t see any conclusive evidence for either the near or far interpretation. The argument that there is a non-velocity component of redshift is more supportive of the close-by position but it is also inconclusive since the actual distance to the quasar would have to be known independent of redshift or there would need be a way of directly differentiating intrinsic from cosmological redshift.

That said, Arp’s evidence is far more robust than that one image. The repeated pattern of quasars aligned across a central galaxy and other associations can’t all be waived off as chance alignment. Not all the associations in the catalogue are equally compelling but in the aggregate they comprise robust observational evidence for the proposition that quasars are not at their redshift-implied distance and represent an evolutionary stage of galaxy formation.

It is certainly fair to say this interpretation of observed associations and their galaxy formation implications are arguable but it is scientific malfeasance to ignore or dismiss a such significant body of empirical observations simply because they are disruptive to the presently favored consensus model.

In particular the fact that these observations of Arp and others can be assembled into a coherent qualitative picture of galaxy formation is a direct challenge to the standard account of galaxy formation by accretion. The accretion model has no comparable body of empirical observations to support it. A cosmology that studiously avoids empirical observations in favor of searching for hypothetical, invisible-by-definition, dark matter particles has no valid claim to being a science. The standard model of cosmology is simply a self-deluded nerd fantasy. It is a scientific disgrace.

@Francois-Zinserling , @budrap00 : >just before a star or even a galaxy collapses to produce a black hole.

Black Holes don’t exist - the pictures of Sgr A* and M87*? >the total mass-energy of the quasar increases (via gravitational attraction/infall) >- yes

• no. It increases because matter becomes more aged (: VMT ) . >which results in a diminishing intrinsic redshift. >- still no

• yes

@HanDeBruijn @Francois-Zinserling, The mechanism that prevents gravitational collapse is provided by the confluence of two known facts regarding the nature of physical reality:

1. The speed of light varies with position in a gravitational field; the stronger the field the slower the SOL. This is an empirically verified prediction of General Relativity.
2. $\frac {E}{m}=c^2$

It is an unavoidable consequence of those two facts that, in an increasing gravitational field strength, a unit of matter such as a proton will have to shed energy in accord with relationship 2. That in turn means that the proton is losing rest mass; in the aggregate this means that the gravitating body is losing rest mass and therefore the gravitational field cannot increase without limit because of this countervailing loss of mass. This precludes a one-way gravitational collapse to a “black hole”. Gravitational collapse is self-limiting under basic GR physics. Since both 1 & 2 derive from GR, GR is a variable mass theory.

As a gravitationally collapsing body stabilizes through loss of mass it emits copious amounts of electromagnetic radiation. On a galactic scale such a stabilized body would resemble a quasar.

A quasar is a compact, luminous, gravitating body. As such its matter-energy content will increase through infall/gravitational attraction. Assuming the quasar to be approximately spherical and an average density IGM in its immediate vicinity, there will be a constant infall of new matter onto the sphere, increasing its radius and therefore its surface area as $r^2$ and its volume as $r^3$.

Because the quasar is gravitationally stable (not collapsing) the new matter is acquired at the surface which in turn increases the surface area. The total amount of matter arriving at the surface area is proportional to the surface area - the larger the surface area the greater the amount of matter collected there (assuming a constant IGM source). Since matter-density = matter/volume and the matter is increasing as $r^2$ with the surface area while the volume is increasing as $r^3$ there is a consequent reduction in matter density.

This reduction in matter density further contributes to the reduction of the gravitational field already reduced by the initial mass loss which had achieved a stable quasar. So the original collapse process, first stabilized by the required mass loss, is then reversed by the infall of new matter. The gravitational gradient is no longer increasing, it is decreasing and therefore the SOL is no longer decreasing but increasing back toward the theoretical inertial field maximum. This would also result in a decreasing gravitational (intrinsic) redshift.

Also consequent on the decreasing gradient, as per item 2, the original matter that had shed mass to stabilize the system begins to increase its mass by absorbing the infalling energy from the ambient electromagnetic radiation that permeates the Cosmos. This overall scenario fits with Arp’s observations and the general picture that galaxies are self-replicating phenomena. This model contains no metaphysical or mathematical assumptions that lie outside the bounds of known physics.

Hi Han, I received this message in the email thread for this topic but it is not on the GitHub thread. Did you delete it or???

@budrap00

It is an unavoidable consequence of those two facts that, in an increasing gravitational field strength, a unit of matter such as a proton will have to shed energy in accord with relationship 2. That in turn means that the proton is losing rest mass; in the aggregate this means that the gravitating body is losing rest mass and therefore the gravitational field cannot increase without limit because of this countervailing loss of mass. This precludes a one-way gravitational collapse to a "black hole".

I think there is an easier way, Bud. Just because the speed of light changes in a particular region of space does not automatically mean that the internal speed of light changes for that mass. We can say instead that the gravitational energy that is released as photon energy during the collapse of the object is sufficient to prevent the object from collapsing into a black hole, provided that radiation is completely trapped within the Schwarzschild radius of the collapsing object. Thus, it is the fact of ‘becoming a black hole’ which leads to prevention of a black hole. I explain this more fully in my eggshell model (#204)

@ExpEarth I don’t see any reason to think “the internal speed of light” for a mass, or “… the fact of ‘becoming a black hole’ which leads to prevention of a black hole” are empirically verifiable accounts of physical reality. Why do you find those metaphysical speculations “easier” to deal with than a simple combination of two scientifically established facts which refute the BH concept while also fitting with Arp’s quasar observations?

I don’t think it has been experimentally proven that the rest mass of a particle varies with the speed of light in the space outside a particle. If it did, the Moon would have to radiate light as it approached its nearest position to Earth in its orbit and conversely absorb energy (from somewhere) when it reaches its higher orbital position. As a ball falls to the ground, its kinetic energy increases but most would say that its rest energy stays the same. I have seen a variant model which posits that the kinetic energy comes at the expense of reduced rest energy, but this is still speculative. I don’t think you can build your case on this foundation.

@ExpEarth

I don’t think it has been experimentally proven that the rest mass of a particle varies with the speed of light in the space outside a particle. If it did, the Moon would have to radiate light as it approached its nearest position to Earth in its orbit and conversely absorb energy (from somewhere) when it reaches its higher orbital position.

So the deal is, you want to change the subject. Suddenly you don’t want to talk about your “easier” model, apparently because you have no answer for the charge that it rests on metaphysical assumptions. You also want to get out of the strong gravitational-collapse regime - so here we are. OK.

Let’s talk about the GR-VM-Arp model in a weak gravity regime. It might require just what you suggest, that the Moon have a varying EMR output as it swings from apogee to perigee and back. GR effects are slight in the vicinity of the Sun and the Moon is a much smaller mass in a much weaker field. The effect might be too small to measure - but it also might not be. It seems worth investigating the possibility, wouldn’t you think? Thanks for the suggestion.

No, I’m always happy to discuss my model. The proper place to do that would be in the thread #204. The assumptions there are all physical I assure you.

I was merely pointing out to you that one of your main arguments is without experimental evidence. If such evidence can be found, or even stronger theoretical support, that would surely help your case. Some of what you are saying I like. It’s just when you take an unproven hypothesis and assert it as proven fact that I take issue.

Which argument in particular? Photons should lose energy climbing out of a gravitational well. Gravitational redshift has been measured for stars near our galaxy’s center:

https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/abs/2018/07/aa33718-18/aa33718-18.html

Technical correction - photons in a gravity well are released with longer wavelengths, (or lower frequency) due to atoms in the well having slower clock speeds. (GR effect)

Coming out the gravity well, the photon does not lose energy, but depends on where you are measuring:

• if you measue at the source, frequency appears unaffected because your own clock is also slow
• if you measure ‘out in space’ your clock is faster (GR effect) and the measured clock appears to be slow.

It doesn’t change your point though, but the photon has lower energy from the moment it is released in the well.

It’s from Bud’s argument higher up. I transcribed his math symbols, which don’t come through in quotes:

A quasar can be thought of as the end product of a gravitational collapse. The collapse stabilizes prior to the formation of a theoretical black hole and begins emitting copious amounts of electromagnetic radiation because the speed of light diminishes in an increasing gravitational field (an observed fact) and E = m/c^2. In other words because of two known facts of standard physics, gravitational collapse is self-limiting.

A quasar then is a highly compact gravitating body and consequently exhibits a GR gravitational (intrinsic) redshift as well a distance related cosmological redshift. Quasars evolve over an extended time period as viewed by an external observer (GR time dilation). As that evolution proceeds, the total mass-energy of the quasar increases (via gravitational attraction/infall) in proportion to the surface area which is growing as r^2 , while the mass-energy density decreases because the volume is increasing as r^3, which results in a diminishing intrinsic redshift. Quasars evolve over cosmological time scales into active galaxies which in turn produce new quasars. Quasars are nascent galaxies.

I don’t see where it has been proved that masses shed rest mass as radiation when they enter a gravitational field. I also notice that Bud has the quasar rest mass decreasing due to this effect and then somehow increasing again. I don’t get that part.

Photons should lose energy climbing out of a gravitational well. Gravitational redshift has been measured for stars near our galaxy’s center

We had a long discussion in the old ACG with Doug Marrett about whether a photon actually loses energy climbing out of the well, or whether it is just a frame effect. I was the only one who actually thought it was losing energy. I wish we could get that thread transferred over to the new ACG.

P.S. Where’s Doug?

The integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect says photons gain a bit of energy entering a gravitational well, and losing a bit leaving the well.

Although, if I’m reading it right, on Page 27 of @budrap00 ’s reference:

https://archive.org/details/halton-arp-catalogue-of-discordant-redshift-associations/page/27/mode/2up

Arp seems to be ruling out gravitational redshift and tired light as the intrinsic galaxy redshift.

@ExpEarth

I don’t see where it has been proved that masses shed rest mass as radiation when they enter a gravitational field.

I said nothing about “proof” which is a mathematical or logical concept. My argument is simply that since the varying SOL and $\frac {E}{m}=c^2$ are established scientific facts a loss of rest mass is necessitated under conditions where both facts are in play, or at least that is the most logical and obvious way of reconciling the two. It is entirely possible that the effect is observable under the right circumstances. To the best of my knowledge no effort has been made to test this idea and therefore the lack of “experimental evidence” cannot fairly be counted as evidence against the proposition.

@Francois-Zinserling I agree with you that GR (not SR) time dilation accounts for gravitational redshift.

@mikehelland Arp’s argument doesn’t seem convincing to me. If a galaxy with intrinsic redshift is undergoing an evolutionary process from quasar to “normal” AGN galaxy, the gravitational gradient of the galaxy should also be evolving from the quasar state toward the normal. Arp seems to assume that since the galaxy (intrinsically redshifted) has evolved some structure it should have the same gravitational gradient as a fully evolved galaxy.

luminosity – the actual brightness of an object such as a star. absolute magnitude – a measure of how bright a star would be if it were seen from a standard distance. apparent magnitude – the brightness of a star as seen from Earth. https://www.perkins.org/resource/apparent-vs-absolute-magnitude-stars-interactive-model/

But the peak I’m referring to is of number counts at specified redshift bins. To do a more “apples to apples” comparison, it is typical to use a filter on the absolute magnitudes. So you’re seeing how many quasars of a certain magnitude exist at some redshift, as opposed to any and all quasars at that redshift.

Thanks for the explanation!

No problem. Just to explain a little of what they’re used for:

The apparent magnitude (m) is the empirical measurement we actually make. If the object happens to be a standard candle (such as a type Ia supernova) we have a good idea of what it’s absolute magnitude (M) is.

Distance modulus = m - M.

This (distance modulus) is the value used in catalogs such as Pantheon+SH0ES. In lieu of using the traditional Hubble diagram you’re more likely to see a chart of distance modulus over z these days. eg:

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Hubble-diagram-for-the-Pantheon-compilation-with-1048-SNIa-data-The-red-line-represents_fig2_282222439

If you look at the red graph in this comment, and then the red graph a couple posts below, they show two different distributions, but it’s the same data in both. The first one is my bespoke bins based on equal volumes using my redshift-distance relationship. The second one is a “more normal” way, of just plotting over z of some standard size (in this case 0.2, so 0.0-0.2 is the first bin, 0.2-0.4 second, then 0.4-0.6, etc.)