Why the discovery of a bevy of quasars will boost efforts to understand galaxies' origins

March 10, 2017
This is a long-exposure image from NASA's Hubble Space Telescope of massive galaxy cluster Abell 2744. It shows some of the faintest and youngest galaxies detected in space. Credit: NASA/ESA/STScI

Late last year, an international team including researchers from the Kavli Institute for Astronomy and Astrophysics (KIAA) at Peking University announced the discovery of more than 60 extremely distant quasars, nearly doubling the number known to science - and thus providing dozens of new opportunities to look deep into our universe's history.

Now, in a roundtable discussion hosted by The Kavli Foundation, three astrophysicists, including a member of the team that made the discovery, explain why this important finding will help unravel the secrets of our modern universe's origins, as well as the mysterious connection between and monstrous black holes.

Quasars are the stupendously bright regions in the cores of galaxies, powered by gargantuan black holes.

"You can think of as lighthouses in the dark of the early universe," said Roberto Maiolino, a professor of experimental astrophysics at the Cavendish Laboratory of the University of Cambridge and director of the Kavli Institute for Cosmology, Cambridge (KICC). "Just as a lighthouse's beam might shine on nearby land forms, making them visible from far away, quasars enable us to investigate the very distant universe and understand the physics of primordial galaxies."

Ultra- offer a unique window into how both galaxies and supermassive black holes developed and interacted. But they are rare, so finding them requires extensive observing surveys using powerful, large telescopes that take images across a large part of the sky.

"My colleagues and I used both the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and the Pan-STARRS survey to find the quasars that we recently reported. Before those surveys began, we really knew very little about distant quasars," said Linhua Jiang, the Youth Qianren Research Professor at the KIAA and an author on two studies published in November and December in The Astrophysical Journal about the newfound quasars.

Jiang also noted how the new haul of distant quasars will help show the regions where matter was densest in the early cosmos. Those over-dense regions are where the great clusters of galaxies we see today had their origins. "We'll learn more about the early history of galaxies and how the cosmos got its shape, so to speak," he said.

Studying these quasars will also deepen our understanding of why nearly all galaxies have at their cores, begging the chicken-or-the-egg question of which came first, the galaxies themselves or the black holes, or whether the two arose interrelatedly.

"Knowing more about the black holes powering quasars will allow us to know more about how galaxies develop," said Marta Volonteri, the research director at the Observatory of Paris and the principal investigator of the BLACK project, which investigates how supermassive influenced their , especially as quasars, in the early universe. "And knowing about the evolution of galaxies allows us to trace the universe's history overall. That's why finding more quasars to study is so fundamental."

Explore further: Galactic crashes fuel quasars, study finds

More information: Linhua Jiang et al, The Final SDSS High-Redshift Quasar Sample of 52 Quasars at> 5.7, The Astrophysical Journal (2016). DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/222

Related Stories

A new look at the nature of dark matter

March 6, 2017

The nature of the dark matter which apparently makes up 80% of the mass of the particles in the universe is still one of the great unsolved mysteries of present day sciences. The lack of experimental evidence, which could ...

Do extremely reddened quasars extinguish star formation?

November 15, 2016

Galaxies formed and grew billions of years ago by accumulating gas from their surroundings, or colliding and merging with other young galaxies. These early stages of galaxy assembly are believed to be accompanied by episodes ...

Spooky alignment of quasars across billions of light-years

November 19, 2014

Quasars are galaxies with very active supermassive black holes at their centres. These black holes are surrounded by spinning discs of extremely hot material that is often spewed out in long jets along their axes of rotation. ...

Recommended for you

Solar eruptions could electrify Martian moons

October 18, 2017

Powerful solar eruptions could electrically charge areas of the Martian moon Phobos to hundreds of volts, presenting a complex electrical environment that could possibly affect sensitive electronics carried by future robotic ...

Potential human habitat located on the moon

October 18, 2017

A study published in Geophysical Research Letters confirms the existence of a large open lava tube in the Marius Hills region of the moon, which could be used to protect astronauts from hazardous conditions on the surface.

57 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

HannesAlfven
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 10, 2017
Let's not forget that Edwin Hubble's assistant, Halton Arp, was denied observing time for his research into the idea that quasars might be connected to active galaxies -- the implication being that the quasars are not so far away, but rather just have an intrinsic redshift component which changes over time.

This turned out to be a pretty deep debate with papers on both sides making very technical points. The science journalists have consistently refused to report on his work, but if he turns out to be correct, there's little reason to believe in a Big Bang at all.

Halton Arp, the Modern Galileo
https://plus.goog...KHXnrdoH
SlartiBartfast
3.8 / 5 (16) Mar 10, 2017
Let's not forget that Edwin Hubble's assistant, Halton Arp, was denied observing time for his research into the idea that quasars might be connected to active galaxies -- the implication being that the quasars are not so far away, but rather just have an intrinsic redshift component which changes over time.

This turned out to be a pretty deep debate with papers on both sides making very technical points. The science journalists have consistently refused to report on his work, but if he turns out to be correct, there's little reason to believe in a Big Bang at all.

Halton Arp, the Modern Galileo
https://plus.goog...KHXnrdoH


Man, just give it a rest already
cantdrive85
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 10, 2017
Yeah, for sure. Why would one want to actually think?
SlartiBartfast
3.8 / 5 (16) Mar 10, 2017
Yeah, for sure. Why would one want to actually think?


Why would one want to have to deal with the same debunked garbage time and time again?

Why would one want to actually provide evidence instead of proclaiming, "conspiracehhhhh!"?

Why would one expect to see these same liars peddling their nonsense every...single...article...that has anything...remotely...to do...with cosmology?

We may never know.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 10, 2017
Repeating the lie that Arp's work has been debunked doesn't make it any more true.
SlartiBartfast
3.9 / 5 (15) Mar 11, 2017
Repeating the lie that Arp's work has been debunked doesn't make it any more true.


Repeating the lie that we don't have multiple independent lines of evidence linking galactic redshift to distance doesn't make it true.

Boy, that was easy.
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 11, 2017
Repeating the lie that we don't have multiple independent lines of evidence linking galactic redshift to distance doesn't make it true.

Lying is always the easy way out, just ask jonesdumb as he is compulsive. Having multiple independent lines of speculation based upon ignorance of the matter at hand does nothing to counter observational evidence. The single observation of NGC 4319 and Markarian 205 and their physical connection falsifies the entirety of the redshift/distance speculation.
SlartiBartfast
3.7 / 5 (12) Mar 11, 2017
Lying is always the easy way out, just ask jonesdumb as he is compulsive.


Deflect much?

Having multiple independent lines of speculation based upon ignorance of the matter at hand does nothing to counter observational evidence.


You're lying again. Calling something "speculation" doesn't automatically demote its standing. And, you're also kind of dense -- our observational evidence overwhelmingly supports an expanding universe that's ~13.8 billion years old.

The single observation of NGC 4319 and Markarian 205 and their physical connection falsifies the entirety of the redshift/distance speculation.


Again, calling it speculation doesn't magically change its status. No single observation falsifies anything (I'll leave it as an exercise to explain why). Bro, do you even science?

You're basically just acting like a creationist. Why don't you drop all the pretense and just come out and be one, already?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Mar 11, 2017
Calling something "speculation" doesn't automatically demote its standing.

You're right, but speculation cannot "debunk" anything whatsoever.
our observational evidence overwhelmingly supports an expanding universe

Your statement needs an adjustment;
***interpretation***of our observational evidence overwhelmingly supports an expanding universe...
No single observation falsifies anything

Unfortunately for the expanding Universe BB pseudoscientists, Arp found hundreds of examples which falsified this erroneous belief.
You're basically just acting like a creationist.

The irony is rich! Right after saying;
"our observational evidence overwhelmingly supports an expanding universe that's ~13.8 billion years old."
you call me a creationist. Thanks! I needed a laugh this morning. You do understand LeMaitre conjured up the BB to agree with his Catholic beliefs don't you? You are not "basically" like a creationist, you are one!
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Mar 11, 2017
"I was there when Abbe Georges Lemaître first proposed this [Big Bang] theory. It is only myth that attempts to say how the universe came to be, either four thousand or twenty billion years ago." Nobel Laureate Hannes Alfven
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (4) Mar 11, 2017
Re: "Repeating the lie that we don't have multiple independent lines of evidence linking galactic redshift to distance doesn't make it true."

This is extremely misleading, because none of these "lines of evidence" trace directly to fundamentals. They all follow from the scientific framework itself -- and the point of Arp's work was to show that if we care to, we can construct an alternative framework.
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 11, 2017
Hi SlartiBartFast, HannesAlfven, cantdrive. :)

@ Slarti: Careful, mate! As recent events have proved, even 'modern' cosmologists can fall prey to the incorrect 'explanations' of observed phenomena.

Recently, professor Paul Steinhardt gave his peers a serious 'wake-up-call' regarding their decades-long 'belief' in 'INFLATION' despite there being no tenable evidence for it to this day! It has been an UN-scientific 'belief' without substance, and yet was perpetuated as explanation/reconciliation for some of the serious physical/logical inconsistencies in the Big Bang Hypothesis. So don't attack when your own base is flawed....and may be leading you to attack something more 'correct' than what you are basing your attacks on. Careful, hey?

The CMB and REDSHIFT is ALSO affected by source's mass/emission location. Consider: Light emitted from NEAR INNUMERABLE black hole Event Horizons would be EXTREMELY 'gravitationally' redshifted to various wavelengths, hence CMB!

cont...
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 11, 2017
...cont

Moreover, 'distance' estimates of far distant sources (billions of lightyears away) are INFERRED FROM the redshifted light; then that same inferred distance is used to 'support' the argument for EXPANSION effect on that light! That is a circuitous rationale at best; and very misleading....and many have become 'believers' in Expansion redshift just as many had become 'believers' in Inflation! Consider: The CMB/Redshift may actually represent INTRINSIC states of light emitted from more massive and lower position of emitters in a gravitational 'well' like near innumerable EHs of innumerable Black Holes and near surface of Neutron/Dwarf stars. Then there is the innumerable plasmic processes radiating various wavelengths depending on direction/dynamics etc between 'here' and 'far away' sources/emissions.

So, just be careful to 'get' ALL the LATEST reviews/discoveries/corrections (by mainstream astronomers and cosmologists themselves) before again attacking them. :)
IMP-9
4.3 / 5 (12) Mar 11, 2017
Repeating the lie that Arp's work has been debunked doesn't make it any more true.


It's not a lie as you know fine and well. Many times you have mentioned Arp, many times the Tang & Zhang 2005 has been referenced and each and every time you ignore it. Don't accuse other people of failing to think when you openly ignore the data. The Arp's model was constructed to explain redshift periodicity, it was seen in early samples of thousands of objects. Now we have a redshift survey of millions of objects and periodic redshift has not been found. Without redshift perodicity the model is pointless.

https://arxiv.org...ght=100%

IMP-9
4.3 / 5 (12) Mar 11, 2017
The single observation of NGC 4319 and Markarian 205 and their physical connection


You can't tell there is a physical connection, don't lie. What you see is QSOs coincident with low redshfit galaxies, you cannot tell from the images if it is backgound or associated with the galaxy. The very fact we can see out through our galaxy shows they are not opaque. No, these cherry picked examples don't prove Arp's claims. There is a simple test however. If high-z QSOs are truly associated with low-z galaxies then they will strongly cluster together on the sky. Arp made this point himself where he claimed there were 3 high redshift QSOs associated with NGC 7603. What Tang & Zhang 2005 showed was that in fact high-z QSOs are no more common around low-z galaxies than random patches of sky. This used a sample 2600 QSOs from SDSS, far more robust than 5 objects and objective. They don't cluster, they cannot not be associated like Arp's model claims.
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2017
Tang & Zhang 2005 ...

Well you don't seem to be bothered by ignoring Arp's 2008 paper;
"Fulton & Arp have analyzed the positions, redshifts, and magnitudes of ~118, 000 galaxies and ~25,000 quasars in the 2dF deep field. The examination of individual samples revealed concentrations of high z galaxies and quasars near galaxies. A natural extension of the analysis was to determine the average densities of objects over the survey area as a whole" --Fulton and Arp (2008a).
A much, much larger sample than Tang's cherry picked "data" would indicate the opposite. Lest we not forget the "Fingers of God" results of the redshift data.
http://journalofc...e10.html
Observed luminous bridge
http://adsabs.har...65L..49S
Gonna lie some more gimp-0?
SlartiBartfast
3.2 / 5 (11) Mar 11, 2017
Tang & Zhang 2005 ...

Well you don't seem to be bothered by ignoring Arp's 2008 paper;
"Fulton & Arp have analyzed the positions, redshifts, and magnitudes of ~118, 000 galaxies and ~25,000 quasars in the 2dF deep field. The examination of individual samples revealed concentrations of high z galaxies and quasars near galaxies. A natural extension of the analysis was to determine the average densities of objects over the survey area as a whole" --Fulton and Arp (2008a).
Gonna lie some more gimp-0?


Speaking of lying, Fulton and Arp do not have a quote in their paper that begins, "Fulton & Arp have analyzed...". I mean, that's just basic.
IMP-9
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2017
A much, much larger sample than Tang's cherry picked "data"


Fulton & Arp doesn't indicate the opposite, they don't repeat the angular cross correlation of Tang & Zhang. Instead they use a convoluted algorithm which selected groups based on their model.

And Tang & Zhang started with more data. 2600 is the number of actual pairs used in their cross-correlation analysis, you're comparing apples to oranges. The data Tang & Zhang started with was 200,000 galaxies and 15,000 QSOs plus all the 2QZ QSOs used by Fulton & Arp but that isn't what makes it into the final plot nor is it with Fulton & Arp. Even if you apply the just the basic selection of Fulton & Arp for QSOs to the 2QZ data you already have fewer than the 25,000 that they claim. That's even before you apply their algorithm which establishes groups. Don't accuse people of cherrypicking when you haven't even read it. They describe all their cuts. The data Tang & Zhang used for the periodicity section was larger.

cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 11, 2017
Speaking of lying, Fulton and Arp do not have a quote in their paper that begins, "Fulton & Arp have analyzed...".


Another pathetic attempt to obfuscate. Did you by chance click the link following the comment? Here it is again for the hard of thinking;

http://journalofc...e10.html

BTW, in the same paper regarding NGC 4319 and Mrk 205;
In the early 1980s, Dr Jack Sulentic debunked (linked above) two much-cited papers that claimed the observed bridge simply did not exist, and in 2007, he wrote: "The papers H. Arp and I wrote have never been refuted in the literature.: In the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) image, Sulentic says, "You can see the narrow core in the connection, which HST is able to detect because of its excellent resolution. It is seen exactly where we found it in the earlier studies…Hubble Space Telescope has in fact, confirmed our earlier work."
Further proof gimp-0 and fartibart are lying.

IMP-9
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 11, 2017
Lest we not forget the "Fingers of God" results of the redshift data.


Redshift space distortions caused by the very high velocity dispersions in galaxy clusters. Not only is it reproduced in simulations but it's used as a test of cosmology now.

Observed luminous bridge


Which still doesn't prove association. What's to say that isn't a tidal tail with a background QSO? Nothing. Look at enough galaxies to great enough depth and you will find one. In fact standard cosmology made a prediction, that if that is so then there will be absorption lines in the QSO spectrum from the low-z galaxy and that was confirmed. This is why robust statistical tests are needed and not subjective ones.

IMP-9
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 11, 2017
Fulton and Arp make another interesting claim that the Lyman alpha forest in their model must be produced in the QSO and not along the line of sight as in standard cosmology. This has since been proven false. The lines cluster with galaxies in 3D space, impossible if they were just generated within the QSO far away from the high-z galaxies.

https://arxiv.org...10.09144
SlartiBartfast
4.1 / 5 (13) Mar 11, 2017
Further proof gimp-0 and fartibart are lying.


Fartibart? gimp-0? Further proof that you're a twelve year old.

SlartiBartfast
3.9 / 5 (11) Mar 12, 2017
And for the record, yes the link to the "paper" you provided in the "journal" of cosmology quotes Fulton & Arp's paper as containing the sentence, "Fulton & Arp have analyzed [...]". And again, it of course contains no such statement.
Benni
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 12, 2017
you call me a creationist. Thanks! I needed a laugh this morning. You do understand LeMaitre conjured up the BB to agree with his Catholic beliefs don't you? You are not "basically" like a creationist, you are one


Most avowed atheists do not realize how tightly they cling to CREATIONIST ideology, their most fundamental problem being that they understand almost nothing of the principles of Special & General Relativity. For example they believe in Schwarschild's Balck Hole Math, a concept in violation of the Einstein Field Equations & the application of the INVERSE SQUARE LAW.

In short, it is the scientifically & mathematically challenged who come to a science chatroom to make the case that GRAVITY IS NOT MASS DEPENDENT, that gravity can just show up out of nowhere by taking a GIVEN QUANTITY of MASS & shrinking it's displacement volume will somehow create increased gravitational attraction to that given mass.....IMP9 has been on here many times stating this.

SlartiBartfast
3.9 / 5 (11) Mar 12, 2017
Most avowed atheists do not realize how tightly they cling to CREATIONIST ideology, their most fundamental problem being that they understand almost nothing of the principles of Special & General Relativity. For example they believe in Schwarschild's Balck Hole Math, a concept in violation of the Einstein Field Equations & the application of the INVERSE SQUARE LAW.

In short, it is the scientifically & mathematically challenged who come to a science chatroom to make the case that GRAVITY IS NOT MASS DEPENDENT, that gravity can just show up out of nowhere by taking a GIVEN QUANTITY of MASS & shrinking it's displacement volume will somehow create increased gravitational attraction to that given mass.....IMP9 has been on here many times stating this.


Obvious troll is obvious (and off-topic) (and doesn't know the difference between "its" and "it's")
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Mar 12, 2017
Obvious troll is obvious (and off-topic) (and doesn't know the difference between "its" and "it's


Obvious troll, doesn't have the intellectual capacity to comment on anything beyond the spelling of a common word & while avoiding any comment on the scientific & mathematical accuracy of my post.
SlartiBartfast
4 / 5 (8) Mar 12, 2017
Obvious troll is obvious (and off-topic) (and doesn't know the difference between "its" and "it's


Obvious troll, doesn't have the intellectual capacity to comment on anything beyond the spelling of a common word & while avoiding any comment on the scientific & mathematical accuracy of my post.


What part of "off-topic" don't you understand?
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Mar 12, 2017
Obvious troll is obvious (and off-topic) (and doesn't know the difference between "its" and "it's


Obvious troll, doesn't have the intellectual capacity to comment on anything beyond the spelling of a common word & while avoiding any comment on the scientific & mathematical accuracy of my post.


What part of "off-topic" don't you understand?
........I explained it to you......learn the basic comprehension of plain English which be that as it may is probably indicative of how miserable your math skills must be as well. Think Differential Equations......ever hear of them? Hustle over to WkiiPedia & se what you've been missing all your life which is innate to my profession.
SlartiBartfast
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 12, 2017
What part of "off-topic" don't you understand?
........I explained it to you......learn the basic comprehension of plain English which be that as it may is probably indicative of how miserable your math skills must be as well. Think Differential Equations......ever hear of them? Hustle over to WkiiPedia & se what you've been missing all your life which is innate to my profession.


Obvious troll is still obvious and still off-topic (and still can't spell or put together a coherent sentence).

- inappropriate use of ellipses (with too many dots)
- "[...] which be that as it may is probably [...]" -- extremely awkward
- "how miserable your math skills must be" -- not an English issue, but I have a PhD in math. How about you?
- "differential equations" isn't capitalized
- "se" -> "see"
jandlwelding
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 12, 2017
Very interesting subject and conversation, however I want to point out that as a species, it is impossible for us to KNOW for certain just about ANYTHING to do with cosmology and or "origins" of the universe. It makes an equal amount of logical sense to think everything just poofed in to existence from nothingness as it does to think everything has always existed. Ulitimately its a philosophical and not a scientific discussion. Neither viewpoint makes any logical sense at all, kinda like the chicken and egg argument.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (5) Mar 12, 2017
Re: "The Arp's model was constructed to explain redshift periodicity, it was seen in early samples of thousands of objects. Now we have a redshift survey of millions of objects and periodic redshift has not been found. Without redshift perodicity the model is pointless."

Again, this does not even come close to providing a useful summary of Arp's work. He also of course studied apparent filamentary connections between active galaxies and quasars of differing redshifts, as well as quasars which appear to shine through active galaxies.

The quasar ejection model does not simply boil down to a game of statistics, although mainstreamers have sought to make it so since the very beginning. At one point, a paper was published claiming that there was no OBSERVED intrinsic redshift. Afterwards, it was pointed out to the authors and peer reviewers that the intrinsic is calculated from the raw -- NOT OBSERVED.

So so sloppy, and should ring alarm bells.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (5) Mar 12, 2017
In another embarrassing episode of the debate, an optical image was shown as a refutation of Arp's broad spectrum claim of a filament. This article is actually still online for all to witness. Apparently, the magazine does not understand that they should be embarrassed by this "argument" ...

Odd couple widely separated by time and space
http://www.spacef...4hubble/
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Mar 12, 2017
Obvious troll is still obvious and still off-topic (and still can't spell or put together a coherent sentence).

- inappropriate use of ellipses (with too many dots)
- "[...] which be that as it may is probably [...]" -- extremely awkward
- "how miserable your math skills must be" -- not an English issue, but I have a PhD in math. How about you?
- "differential equations" isn't capitalized
- "se" -> "see"


The reason you're posting so many remarks are about spelling & punctuation is because your comprehension of science & the tools of science is so miniscule. Why don't you set the example of being "on topic" if you're so concerned about off topic trolling.
fiski
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 12, 2017
The redshift periodicity part of Arp's work was basically debunked in 2005 when more data showed that it is a statistical fluke.
The quasar ejection model was a game of statistics. Arp had about 7 papers with 1 example each, assigned a low probability and said that the alignments were statistically improbable. If you know how that the examples were found then you would know about the assumptions that make his statistic dubious (e.g. that the brightest galaxy has to be the source of the quasars - why not a dwarf galaxy or even empty space?).

That quasars can shine through any galaxies is basic astronomy - galaxies are not solid objects! We observe millions of normal galaxies and quasars through a good portion of the Milky Way.

Arp's examples of quasars apparently embedded in filaments from lower redshift galaxies have most been debunked. I think that there is 1 example left.
fiski
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 12, 2017
Whoops I was wrong - Markarian 205 was found to be shining through the disk and halo of NGC 4319 in 1992.
SlartiBartfast
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 12, 2017
The reason you're posting so many remarks are about spelling & punctuation is because your comprehension of science & the tools of science is so miniscule. Why don't you set the example of being "on topic" if you're so concerned about off topic trolling.


"&" -> "and"
"are" -> "that are" (or just remove it)
"miniscule" -> "minuscule"

(I was on topic. You veered off.)
fiski
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 12, 2017
The Schwarzschild metric is a undergraduate derivation from Einstein's field equations. Been there - done that!
fiski
4 / 5 (8) Mar 12, 2017
Odd couple widely separated by time and space
http://www.spacef...4hubble/

If we actually read that 2002 article: "In reality, the two objects don't even live in the same city. They are separated by time and space
...
Then they measured how much the ultraviolet light from Mrk 205 dimmed as it passed through the interstellar gas of NGC 4319"
rex113a
1 / 5 (3) Mar 12, 2017
Gravity was evident but unrecognised and essentially unexplained until Newton

We have now detected gravitational waves.

Perhaps there is another force – Gravitex, a repelling force, subject laws of physics, but be many times weaker than gravity. Only material at massive scale, rendering it undetected on earth. It would be a candidate for the expansion of the universe and shed some light on the quasar mystery.

If the quasars "seen" at the centre of the universe at the beginning of time, were they the first fragments of the "big bang" which have exploded under the gravitex force, and since given rise to galaxies, the internal dynamics of which are then dominated by gravity.
Benni
1 / 5 (8) Mar 12, 2017
The Schwarzschild metric is a undergraduate derivation from Einstein's field equations. Been there - done that!


To make an audacious statement like this, you obviously never studied General Relativity. I would suggest you actually go there-do that. I'm a Nuclear/Electrical Engineer, I've been there-done that in college for over six years plus Continuing Education credits.

Your claim is totally fake pseudo-science when you try to bridge Einstein Field Equations to Schwarzschild Radii for the purpose of creating a finite stellar mass with the qualities of infinite density & gravity. Additionally, I'd suggest you read what Hawking had to say about APPARENT EVENT HORIZONS in his news conference last April 2016, Google it.
rex113a
1 / 5 (1) Mar 13, 2017
Hi Benn, Delighted to get a response from someone so well educated in the field and so knowledgable. I was just daydreaming in the wee small hours.
However, I would point out that existing knowledge is and never will be perfect, that is why we have always continued to pursue it - and hopefully always will.
Good luck with your education. I will continue to daydream.
SiaoX
1 / 5 (1) Mar 13, 2017
the discovery of a SDSS High-Redshift Quasar Sample of 52 Quasars at z > 5.7will boost efforts to understand galaxies' origins
This is diplomatically expressed fact, that such an observations aren't expected at all. Why? The quasars are already very compact objects, whereas the Big Bang model suggests, that the matter has been formed in form of lightweight elements (hydrogen) in finely divided state diluted with inflation. The observations of compact objects from the time, where the Universe was less than billion years old poses stress to Big Bang model and it favors the steady state infinite universe model.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 13, 2017
Very interesting subject and conversation, however I want to point out that as a species, it is impossible for us to KNOW for certain just about ANYTHING to do with cosmology and or "origins" of the universe.

Jumping from "100% certainty is not attainable" to "therefore everything is equally likely" is nonsense. That's not how logic works.
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Mar 13, 2017
Jumping from "100% certainty is not attainable" to "therefore everything is equally likely" is nonsense. That's not how logic works.


Sure, we know your kind of logic.. What we know is that in your world of make-believe pseudo-science is that is more logical to believe GRAVITY IS NOT MASS DEPENDENT than it is to believe GRAVITY IS MASS DEPENDENT. You're too much like SlartiBartfast, someone who imagines that the least logical leaps can result in the most logical conclusions, you know, like Scwarzschild's Black Hole Math Radii that are nowhere found in Einstein's GR.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 13, 2017
is that is more logical to believe GRAVITY IS NOT MASS DEPENDENT than it is to believe GRAVITY IS MASS DEPENDENT

Erm...where did I ever say such a thing?
(Small niggle: Strictly speaking gravity is energy dependent - not mass dependent. If you can concentrate enough energy in one place you can have a gravitational effect without having any kind of mass)
IMP-9
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 13, 2017
The observations of compact objects from the time, where the Universe was less than billion years old poses stress to Big Bang model and it favors the steady state infinite universe model.


As the paper shows the number density of luminous quasars is decreasing rapidly with redshift. This certainly doesn't point to a steady state universe.
SiaoX
1 / 5 (4) Mar 13, 2017
Benni
1 / 5 (5) Mar 13, 2017
is that is more logical to believe GRAVITY IS NOT MASS DEPENDENT than it is to believe GRAVITY IS MASS DEPENDENT

where did I ever say such a thing?(Small niggle:
Every niggle you make, such as the one immediately below:

Strictly speaking gravity is energy dependent - not mass dependent. If you can concentrate enough energy in one place you can have a gravitational effect without having any kind of mass)


Your continuing problem is that you have zero comprehension of the Mass/Energy Equivalence Principle of Special Relativity in which Einstein made no gravitational distinction between the two, and you don't know he didn't. This is due to the fact that MASS & ENERGY being transformed products of one another by necessity have no distinction in their components of gravity, they're the same.

The pseudo-science narrative you are concocting is that there is no gravitational equivalence when mass or energy are transformed.
rex113a
not rated yet Mar 13, 2017
Current physics and the characterization of the universe are brilliant but is still, and always will remain a "work in progress". Otherwise, why pursue physics?
I am still waiting to hear a definitive reason why another as yet undiscovered and unrecognised, fundamental force, acting in the universe such as GRAVITAS (see previous) or any other candidate, cannot exist just because it has so far eluded human kind's detection or postulation.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 13, 2017

Your continuing problem is that you have zero comprehension of the Mass/Energy Equivalence Principle of Special Relativity

Where did I ever deny this? Gravity is a result of the stress energy tensor. You can have mass, you can have energy or you can have a field - either of which gives you gravity (and you can interchange them freely). How is this news? What exactly are you getting riled up about here?

The pseudo-science narrative you are concocting is that there is no gravitational equivalence when mass or energy are transformed.

Erm..again: when did I ever say this? Can you provide a link? Either you've got me confused with someone else ot you're just being your generally confused self more so than usual.
RNP
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 13, 2017
@antialias_physorg


Your continuing problem is that you have zero comprehension of the Mass/Energy Equivalence Principle of Special Relativity

Where did I ever deny this? Gravity is a result of the stress energy tensor. You can have mass, you can have energy or you can have a field - either of which gives you gravity (and you can interchange them freely). How is this news? What exactly are you getting riled up about here?

The pseudo-science narrative you are concocting is that there is no gravitational equivalence when mass or energy are transformed.

Erm..again: when did I ever say this? Can you provide a link? Either you've got me confused with someone else ot you're just being your generally confused self more so than usual.


What makes this even funnier is that it was only a couple on months ago that Benni was insisting that mass is not a form of energy. See https://phys.org/...est.html
Benni
1 / 5 (5) Mar 13, 2017

Erm..again: when did I ever say this?
Not only is the language of SR & GR incomprehensible to you, so also is your own:

(Small niggle: Strictly speaking gravity is energy dependent - not mass dependent.


So, "not mass dependent", you keep repeating yourself & you don't even know it.

What you're trying to do is to create a narrative which ISOLATES gravity from MASS, "not mass dependent", your words, but not words found in GR or SR.

What makes this even funnier is that it was only a couple on months ago that Benni was insisting that mass is not a form of energy
.........which it isn't. Have you ever witnessed MASS traveling at the speed of light? Have you ever witnessed photons traveling less than the speed of light? Just one more journalist malpractice slipup by a journalist with zero concept of what Einstein meant by EQUIVALENCE as in the Mass/Energy Equivalence Principle.

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Mar 13, 2017

What makes this even funnier is that it was only a couple on months ago that Benni was insisting that mass is not a form of energy. See https://phys.org/...est.html
Yeah. I guess he's now so confused that he's confusing himself for other people. Effectively he's riling up against himself not understanding stuff. Pretty bizarre.
IMP-9
5 / 5 (4) Mar 14, 2017
Malmquist bias


They dealt with selection effects in the paper. Please read the paper before attempting to refute it.
rex113a
not rated yet Mar 15, 2017
How old are they?
There is no way of knowing this at present but depending on their proximity to any yet to be discovered primordial black hole, they could be some of the earliest object ever discovered.
How far away are they in time?
The newly discovered objects are assessed to be clustered so a working hypothesis could be that they are related to one another in age and origin - perhaps the oldest objects in the known universe.
Are they remnants of the big bang?
Are we still within its event horizon?

SiaoX
1 / 5 (1) Mar 15, 2017
rex113a
not rated yet Mar 16, 2017
The black hole must not have read the rules then....

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.