PDA

View Full Version : Quasar-based Peculiar Motion 0.2c



Extrasolar
2011-Dec-22, 03:05 PM
From 22 December 2011

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.5045 Something huge if it doesn't get overturned... written by a single author, so don't bet your head. This paper looks at all quasars in the Sloan DSS with redshifts 2.2>z>0.2 (75,000 of them spread across the whole sky). He slices the sky into bins of right asscension and declination, and discovers that there is a correlation between RA&D and quasar brightness for a given redshift, suggesting that if we see the quasars as isotropic, we must be headed in one direction at 0.2 c (a hundred times faster than our peculiar velocity relative to the CMB). He also says that our direction lines up with the axis of evil.


Fascinating! 0.2 c ?! I wonder if given that speed and expansion rate, would the Universe measure as flat now because it is so big? Is there another side to the Universe going 0.2 c in the opposite direction, implying a Universe center?

antoniseb
2011-Dec-22, 04:36 PM
Fascinating! 0.2 c ?! I wonder if given that speed and expansion rate, would the Universe measure as flat now because it is so big? Is there another side to the Universe going 0.2 c in the opposite direction, implying a Universe center?
The paper is worth a read. It is not very math-heavy and is quite accessible as these things go. I suspect that the answer will be that the efforts to unify the magnitudes recorded by Southern telescopes and Northern ones are off by a bit for things dimmer than 18th magnitude, but I'm open-minded to any other answer. Note this test only goes out to z=2.2, so we aren't dealing with edge of the universe issues in a big way.

parejkoj
2011-Dec-28, 03:52 PM
Fair warning: Longo has posted a number of preprints claiming handedness in spiral galaxy rotation, even well after the Galaxy Zoo results conclusively showed both no handedness and a human tendency to preferentially see spirals in one direction over another. And he didn't even cite any of the Galaxy Zoo papers. I don't put too much stock in his preprints, most of which are not submitted anywhere.

There are several possibilities to explain the difference in u-band magnitudes between the NGC and SGC. Keep in mind that u (not capital 'U', as Longo uses, that's a completely different filter) is the worst SDSS filter, and the NGC and SGC are very poorly cross-calibrated because there are only a few SEGUE stripes that connect them.

Jerry
2011-Dec-28, 05:53 PM
Lots of reasons to question, but the basic question, is there relative proper motion, is unexpected but not star shaking; although with a shift of 0.2; it should have been obvious before now, and more pronounced in the background spectrums...I guess that is the real eye opener: If confirmed, the argument that the background does not include the same information could be interpreted as evidence that either the quasars or the background are not cosmic: Pick your demon.

Good illustration of the Jerry rule, by the way - a study that runs contrary to expectations is more closely scrutinized for possible assumptive errors than a paper confirming the status quo.

parejkoj
2011-Dec-28, 08:32 PM
"...a study that is not submitted to any journal, does not use standard notation and symbols, ignores known systematics, and is written by someone known to write papers with very questionable results is more closely scrutinized for possible assumptive errors than a paper confirming the status quo."

Fixed that for you.