The heading for this fourm says that it's for questions about science and physics. I'm probably wrong for posting this question here because it has nothing to do with gravity (at least, not directly) but I really would like to understand this.
A team of astronomers at UCSD have discovered a quasar whose red-shift (2.11) indicates that it is several billions of light years away and yet it appears "closely associated" with a galaxy that's only 300 million light years away. The article is HERE

What does this mean?
Does it mean that perhaps quasars aren't the distant objects with incredibly high energies that we thought they were?
Does it mean that their apparent red-shift may be due to something else and isn't attributable to Doppler effect?
Does it mean that they really aren't "closely associated" and that's only an illusion?



____________
There are two secrets to life: 1) Don't tell everything you know...

It's interesting. Looking at the photos, there doesn't seem to be any reason why the object in question shouldn't be far beyond the galaxy, and we are seeing it through one of the spiral arms.

There have been instances before of quasars apparently "associated" with foreground galaxies, but which were just a chance optical alignment. I wonder if this is the same in this case.
____________

> It's interesting. Looking at the photos, there doesn't seem to be any reason
> why the object in question shouldn't be far beyond the galaxy, and we are
> seeing it through one of the spiral arms.
>
> There have been instances before of quasars apparently "associated" with
> foreground galaxies, but which were just a chance optical alignment. I wonder
> if this is the same in this case.

I wondered the same thing. The article (well, press release really) didn't shed any light on what "closely associated" meant and why these guys think the object was "closely associated" with the galaxy.

I would think that the PhDs at UCSD wouldn't fall for associating an object with a galaxy just because it happens to fall in the line of sight. I'm still trying to find out more about the project. UCSD has a fairly decent astronomy section, don't they?

Thanks for your input.



____________
There are two secrets to life: 1) Don't tell everything you know...

There are still some scientists who believe in the Steady State model of the universe but I can't see any way to explain a red shift other than cosmic expansion.
____________
------------------------------------
There's a thin line between Genius and Insanity. That's where I live, baby!

THE SPACEPORT - The Other Side of Space

After doing a considerable amount of research about this, I've decided that I *may* have stumbled into psuedo-science. This research was headed by Dr. Geoffrey Burbidge, who, along with his wife Margaret, are opponents of the The Big Bang and are seeking proof that the solid-state model is the only one that holds up. They gave their presentation at January meeting of the American Astronomical Society in San Diego (the SD in UCSD). No information on whether anyone laughed.

They have been examining a group called Stephan's Quintet for some time. They decided on this study because of a guy named Dr. Harlton Arp, a one-time assistant to Edwin Hubble and a professional astronomer.

Dr. Harlton Arp published a book in 1998 named "Seeing Red" in which he explained away red-shifts and argued that quasars aren't distant objects. A website about Dr. Arp and his beliefs appears HERE . After reading it (and a bunch of other stuff on red-shifts, quasars , and "closely associated" galaxies with low shifts), I am unconvinced. I'll admit that some of the postulations about quasars seem farfetched. The energy of a trillion suns? Eating a 100 stars a year to stay on? Sounds odd to me.

Harlton Arp's website is HERE .

I assume Dr. Geoffrey Burbidge and his wife have tenure at UCSD. Perhaps California has lots of folks who are ready to beleive that The Big Bang didn't happen.


____________
There are two secrets to life: 1) Don't tell everything you know...

Wow that is interesting...

I dunno I have been an amateur astronomer a long time and quasars and now blazars have always seemed a bit of an enigma. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if our current theories were over turned but I don't think that's going to happen even if the facts say otherwise.

I'll ask my Astro Prof at U.T. what he thinks
____________

starcharter,
If you want to have fun, look up - Dirac's Large Numbers Hypothesis (one of my old FSU profs ) Basically it could be that the gravitational constant is not constant but can vary with age of the universe or mass density. It could be that some of the red shifts are not just all from Hubble changes from expansion but we are just looking back far enough in time to see very large gravitational red shifts.
see for example:
http://www.fdavidpeat.com/interviews/dirac.htm
(about 1/2 down the page, and notice in his own words he allows for expansion also- critics often miss that point)

That theory never "took off" but it has a lot of interesting features. My guess is a lot of new folks haven't even really looked at that old theory. Some of Dirac's old ideas like antimatter and things like that have a tendency to go out of fashion then supprise people latter.

Notice also that Robert Dicke thought the large number hypothesis had to be right for us to have carbon based life

Have fun,

Dennis

Dennis,
I just wanted to thank you for turning me on to Paul Dirac. I'm still studying his work so I don't yet have an opinion other than a first take that he seems brilliant. You actually had classes with this man?


____________
There are two secrets to life: 1) Don't tell everything you know...

> Dennis,
> I just wanted to thank you for turning me on to Paul Dirac. I'm still studying
> his work so I don't yet have an opinion other than a first take that he seems
> brilliant. You actually had classes with this man?
>
>
Yes, he was a FSU (His GR book was an outgrowth of one of the classes). I wanted like crazy to be his grad student, but he said he "didn't do that anymore". I am not a real physics person, - biophysics instead. He lived right up the hill from me and that "old guy" loved to walk/hike, so I made sure I "walked home" with him most days. (he loved/missed black current jelly - It took an order to England, but I got him some one Christmas- instant friendship). He never said much though- he was known for not saying much - after all if you ever compare his General Relativity book of 70 pages with Thorne/Wheeler's of 1300 pages, you would get the idea.

The classic example is when he asked the class after a lengthy proof if there were any questions. One students says I don't see how you got equation #4. And he said, Yes, but are there any questions?

I must admit I didn't understand much GR then, it was not until I spent a summer in the middle of the desert (Boron, Ca) with Eddington's Math.Theory of Rel, that it started get a little clearer. I can't follow all the string stuff and have to work to get the old traditional style.

I am now semi-retired, and wish that I went after GR. To understand it and get through the math, I have to totally focus for months and months and forget family, friends, TV, news, .... these old brain cells are a little slow now.
-Every wonder "WHAT IF I HAD...."-

Dennis

> I just wanted to thank you for turning me on to Paul Dirac. >

Oh, yes, the only equation in Westminister Abbey is the Dirac equation on a plaque to him and is next to Newton's grave. And I guess you notice that Dirac had Newton's office at Cambridge that Hawkins has now.
He was a great man. I think that if he talked more to the public he would be known like Feynman. Not many left around like him. ..... perhaps Wheeler.

> I am now semi-retired, and wish that I went after GR. To understand it and
> get through the math, I have to totally focus for months and months and forget
> family, friends, TV, news, .... these old brain cells are a little slow
> now.
> -Every wonder "WHAT IF I HAD...."-

Sigh..More often than I want to admit. Probably more often than is healthy. What if I hadn't been drafted to go to Vietnam? What if I had gone back into Physics at UGA after service rather than getting a job and going for bucks?

It makes me so sad to see young folks who are in school and don't know how lucky they are. They skip lectures I'd kill to get to go to. They ignore studies, cut class, get drunk instead of ...well, sort of like we were. We didn't listen and there's an excellent chance they won't either.

For those who don't know about Paul Dirac (I didn't), his biography from the Nobel comittee (1933) is HERE . From reading Dirac, I got sidetracked into reading Robert Dicke. A couple of more days of this and I'll be forced to retackle Quantum Mechanics.

I'm at least as old as you are and very likely older. I've noticed that brain cells have a tendency to speed back up when they're used heavily. I restarted college a few months ago (IT) and am quite able to stay ahead of the 20 year olds. I'd suggest there isn't an age where you're too old to go after any educational pursuit that interests you.

John Wheeler?



____________
There are two secrets to life: 1) Don't tell everything you know...

>
> It makes me so sad to see young folks who are in school and don't know how
> lucky they are. They skip lectures I'd kill to get to go to. ............
> I'm at least as old as you are and very likely older. I've noticed that brain
> cells have a tendency to speed back up when they're used heavily. I restarted
> college a few months ago (IT) and am quite able to stay ahead of the 20 year
> olds. I'd suggest there isn't an age where you're too old to go after any
> educational pursuit that interests you.
>
> John Wheeler?

I was lucky and "lost the lottery" (#363 on birthdays pulled out of a hat in the vet days to see who was going to war - so we are about the same age).
I think an advantage of age is being able to stay focused, see the importance of things, and concern. I happen to teach some On-line classes and find that our "older" (our school ave is 35) are the ones that do the best. You are right the young ones just don't know what they have. I hope some day someone will set up a on-line relativity class.
I have a 20 year mission to learn this GR stuff - > 1 hour a day before excercise and breakfast.

- John Archibald Wheeler
for my money the smartest physics guy still alive today (@93).
Kip Thorne's prof -he would help his students whenever they asked for it. He has worked with such famous physicists as: Einstein, Thorne, Oppenheimer, Bohr, etc. In fact, Wheeler would take his students to the meet Albert Einstein. He was Feynman's prof as well.

> I was lucky and "lost the lottery" (#363 on birthdays pulled out of a hat in
> the vet days to see who was going to war - so we are about the same age).
> I think an advantage of age is being able to stay focused, see the importance
> of things, and concern. I happen to teach some On-line classes and find that
> our "older" (our school ave is 35) are the ones that do the best. You are
> right the young ones just don't know what they have. I hope some day someone
> will set up a on-line relativity class.

You are younger than me. I had gone to SouthEast Asia and returned to lick my wounds by the time the lottery was put it in. Whippersnapper...

BTW, did you see this article? It's about the possibility that Strangelets have passed through the earth. I asked about this in another thread and didn't get an answer. This doesn't seem to be psuedo-science but what do I know. I'm intrigued by the possiblty that Strangelets may indeed exist outside of quark stars and may indeed wander around the cosmos. If they exist in some quantity, they may account for a sizeable amount of universal mass. I'm also wondering if a collision between a Strangelet and another massive object (Black hole, neutron star, another stangelet, etc) wouldn't release one hell of a gravitational wave. Not periodic, of course.

I'm awfully fond of Stephen Hawking. A lot of this fell into place when I read "A Brief History of Time" and "The Universe in a Nutshel". If only he'd do "String Theory in a Peapod"...



____________
There are two secrets to life: 1) Don't tell everything you know...

> href="http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.02/matter.html"> this article[/url]?
> It's about the possibility that Strangelets have passed through the earth. I
> asked about this in another thread and didn't get an answer. This doesn't seem
> to be psuedo-science but what do I know.

I don't know what to think about those (strangelets) either.

I am still wondering why they worry about "missing matter" or
"Dark matter". I have not figured out if they just are thinking that there HAS to be more mass somewhere to account for the gravitational forces. I have not yet seen why it could not just be that the gravitational constant was not just larger (at the time they are looking at). How can they separate the equations to know if what they see is a result of more mass or greater gravity or a little of both? From my warped point of view, the effects they claim for "proof" of dark matter is due to the non- constant gravitational forces via the large number hypothesis.

- The one who has the most fun - WINS.

Dennis

Hey you guys! Why not take a gander at physicsforums.com? You'll find lots and lots of discussion there, on these topics and much more (and they welcome good questions from really old farts like us!).

> The heading for this fourm says that it's for questions about science and
> physics. I'm probably wrong for posting this question here because it has
> nothing to do with gravity (at least, not directly) but I really would like to
> understand this.
> A team of astronomers at UCSD have discovered a quasar whose red-shift (2.11)
> indicates that it is several billions of light years away and yet it appears
> "closely associated" with a galaxy that's only 300 million light years away.
> The article is <a> href="http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/mcquasar.asp"> HERE [/url]
>
> What does this mean?
> Does it mean that perhaps quasars aren't the distant objects with incredibly
> high energies that we thought they were?
> Does it mean that their apparent red-shift may be due to something else and
> isn't attributable to Doppler effect?
> Does it mean that they really aren't "closely associated" and that's only an
> illusion?
>
>
>
>Well, even if the object was closely associated with a nearby galaxy, it could still have a large redshift due to the fact that it could be orbiting around that galasxy in question rapidly. If it was moving away from us in the orbit, it would have a large redshift. The redshift of the orbiting object would also be increased by the galaxy that the possible quasar is a satellite of. Even though black holes which form quasars are usually in the centers of galaxies, depending on the galaxy that the "quasar" is "closely associated" with, it could be possible that the quasar is from the remnant core of a smaller galaxy which was absorbed by a larger galaxy, which the quasar is now associated with.

____________
My cat eats people

> Wow that is interesting...
>
> I dunno I have been an amateur astronomer a long time and quasars and now
> blazars have always seemed a bit of an enigma. It wouldn't surprise me in the
> least if our current theories were over turned but I don't think that's going
> to happen even if the facts say otherwise.
>
> I'll ask my Astro Prof at U.T. what he thinks
>



Question
What exactly is a blazar?
I think it is a type of very high energy quasar, but I am not sure
____________
My cat eats people

over turned -> overturned
excercise -> exercise
____________

"My other computer is a virus farm."

Halton Arp produced a catalog of peculiar galaxies. That's a lot of work and commitment. He is no doubt intelligent. Doesn't mean he isn't crazier than an outhouse rat. Apparently he has company in the Burbidge clan. No doubt they sat around together and decided they all wanted to attain some level of notariety within the profession they had each dedicated so much to. Gotta' hand it to each of them though ... takes guts to get up there and explain to the entire community that BB cosmology is bunk. These guys are out there. Big Bang has withstood many fundamental tests for a long time now. But it's good for all fields to have their wacko's .... If nothing else, it keeps debate lively.
____________

BTW, did you see this article? It's about the possibility that Strangelets have passed through the earth. I asked about this in another thread and didn't get an answer. This doesn't seem to be psuedo-science but what do I know. I'm intrigued by the possiblty that Strangelets may indeed exist outside of quark stars and may indeed wander around the cosmos. If they exist in some quantity, they may account for a sizeable amount of universal mass. I'm also wondering if a collision between a Strangelet and another massive object (Black hole, neutron star, another stangelet, etc) wouldn't release one hell of a gravitational wave. Not periodic, of course.

Halton Arp produced a catalog of peculiar galaxies. That's a lot of work and commitment. He is no doubt intelligent. Doesn't mean he isn't crazier than an outhouse rat. Apparently he has company in the Burbidge clan. No doubt they sat around together and decided they all wanted to attain some level of notariety within the profession they had each dedicated so much to. Gotta' hand it to each of them though ... takes guts to get up there and explain to the entire community that BB cosmology is bunk. These guys are out there. Big Bang has withstood many fundamental tests for a long time now. But it's good for all fields to have their wacko's .... If nothing else, it keeps debate lively.