PDA

View Full Version : Large Scale Anomalies/Paradoxes



William
2014-Oct-08, 03:50 PM
Large Scale Anomalies/Paradoxes
There are piles of observational anomalies/paradoxes that are appearing due to multi spectrum and large scale survey observations. This thread is a summary of a few of the key large scale anomalies, explaining why the observation/analysis is a paradox/anomaly and providing a little background into the subject.

Large Scale Quasar Clusters
20 years ago there were claims that there were anomalous unexplained clusters of quasars. Subsequent to the claim of quasar clusters, there were multiple papers published that asserted that quasars are evenly distributed in the universe and there is no quasar clustering. There is now unequivocal observational evidence that there are clusters of quasars,

There are multiple paradoxes associated with clusters of quasars:

1. The size of the quasar structure is larger than the maximum structure that can occur with the current cosmological model, invalidating the cosmological principal.
2. The standard model for quasars assumes there must be in falling gas to turn on a quasar. The quasars in question are 1000s of light years apart. There is no mechanism to simultaneously turn on 73 quasars in an immense region of space. Connect with the lack of a mechanism to simultaneously turn on 73 disconnected quasars is the necessity to inhibit turning on quasars in other locations in the universe to explain why there are not more observed quasars in the universe. (i.e. What is special in the region of space where there are 73 turned on quasars.) The problem is more acute as there are quasar turning on and turning off constraints to explain the very, very peculiar change of number of quasar per unit volume with redshift and the change of quasar luminosity with redshift.

Comment: Quasars are an interesting topic. A separate thread will be started to summarize the new observations concerning quasars after the thread to discuss the new observations concerning galaxy formation and evolution anomalies. One of the key anomalies that might be related to explaining the quasar clustering paradox is the fact that quasars do not exhibit time dilation. Other distant time varying objects such a super nova exhibit time dilation. I will start a separate thread to discuss quasars after the thread on disc galaxies.


http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.6256v1

Large Scale Quasar Groups
...A Large Quasar Group (LQG) of particularly large size and high membership has been identified in the DR7QSO catalogue of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. It has characteristic size (volume1/3) ~ 500 Mpc (proper size, present epoch), longest dimension ~ 1240 Mpc, membership of 73 quasars, and mean redshift z = 1.27.

...This new, huge LQG appears to be the largest structure currently known in the early universe. Its size suggests incompatibility with the Yadav et al. scale of homogeneity for the concordance cosmology, and thus challenges the assumption of the cosmological principle. ...

...We can estimate the masses of these main and branch sets from their CHMS volumes by assuming that ... ... We find that the mass contained within the main set is~ 4.8 × 10^18M⊙ and within the branch set is ~ 1.3 × 10^18M⊙. Compared with the expectations for their volumes these values correspond to mass excesses of ~2.6 × 10^18M⊙ and ~ 0.8 × 10^18M⊙ respectively. The total mass excess is then ~3.4 × 10^18M⊙, equivalent to ~ 1300 Coma clusters (Kubo et al. 2007), ~50 Shapley superclusters (Proust et al. 2006), or ~ 20 Sloan Great Walls (Sheth & Diaferio 2011).


This is a link to the preprint of the published 2010 paper.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.1824
This the link to the published 2010 paper.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16581.x/abstract


On time dilation in quasar light curves
In this paper we set out to measure time dilation in quasar light curves. In order to detect the effects of time dilation, sets of light curves from two monitoring programmes are used to construct Fourier power spectra covering time-scales from 50d to 28yr. Data from high- and low-redshift samples are compared to look for the changes expected from time dilation. The main result of the paper is that quasar light curves do not show the effects of time dilation. Several explanations are discussed, including the possibility that time dilation effects are exactly offset by an increase in time-scale of variation associated with black hole growth, or that the variations are caused by microlensing in which case time dilation would not be expected.

1 INTRODUCTION
Time dilation (the stretching of time by a factor of (1 + z)) is a fundamental property of an expanding universe. Given the success of the the currently accepted cosmological model, which certainly implies expansion, it is perhaps surprising that more attention has not been paid to making direct measures of time dilation. This must surely be due in part to the fact that measures of time dilation can tell little or nothing about cosmological parameters within the framework of a Big Bang universe, but only whether or not the Universe is expanding. Also, it turns out to be surprisingly hard to formulate a conclusive test for time dilation. What is needed is an event or fluctuation of known rest frame duration which can be observed at sufficiently high redshift with an accuracy which enables the predicted stretching by a factor of (1 + z) to be observed.

5 INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS
The results of Section 4 provide strong evidence that the effects of time dilation are not seen in quasar light curves. This clearly runs against expectations based on a conventional cosmological viewpoint, and so in this section we examine ways in which the results may be understood.

William
2014-Oct-08, 03:52 PM
The Photon Underproduction Crisis

The following is a paper that notes there are insufficient sources of ionizing UV radiation to explain the amount ionized gas in intergalactic space in the local universe.

The primary source of intergalactic ionizing radiation are quasars. If it is fact that quasars do not exhibit time dilation then logically there is a paradox as the quasar redshift indicates the quasars are distant objects while the lack of time dilation indicates the quasar is in the local universe. If there were more quasars in the local universe there would be no photon underproduction crisis.

This paper proposes a solution to the photon underproduction crisis is that dark matter might be creating UV radiation in the local universe, however if that were true earth experiments would have detected the dark matter.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.2933


THE PHOTON UNDERPRODUCTION CRISIS
We examine the statistics of the low-redshift Lyman-alpha forest from smoothed particle hydrodynamic simulations in light of recent improvements in the estimated evolution of the cosmic ultraviolet back-ground (UVB) and recent observations from the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph (COS). We find that the value of the metagalactic photoionization rate (HI) required by our simulations to match the observed properties of the low-redshift Lyman-alpha- forest is a factor of 5 larger than the value predicted by state-of-the art models for the evolution of this quantity. This mismatch in HI results in the mean ux decrement of the Lyman-alpha forest being underpredicted by at least a factor of 2 (a 10 sigma discrepancy with observations) and a column density distribution of Lyman- alpha forest absorbers systematically and significantly elevated compared to observations over nearly two decades in column density. We examine potential resolutions to this mismatch and that either conventional sources of ionizing photons (galaxies and quasars) must be significantly elevated relative to current observational estimates or our theoretical understanding of the low-redshift universe is in need of substantial revision.

William
2014-Oct-08, 04:03 PM
This paper summarizes an attempt to measure the amount of light from the early universe using blazars, found a lack of interaction of the blazar gamma radiation with infrared radiation as the gamma radiation travels from the blazar to the earth which creates a paradox. The blazar gamma radiation change can be explained by gamma radiation interaction with foreground galaxy infrared radiation without the early universe infrared radiation.

That anomaly paradox could be explained if the blazars with in the local universe rather than cosmologically distant objects.

The excess of infrared radiation estimate appears to be a separate anomaly. I need to pounder on it and/or wait for another paper.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0604448v1.pdf
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7087/full/4401002a.html

Astronomy: Trouble at first light
Nevertheless, several groups have claimed to have found the footprints of baby galaxies at near-infrared wavelengths, using data from NASA’s Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE)3 , 4, 5 and Spitzer Space Telescope6, and Japan’s Infrared Telescope in Space (IRTS)7. Their evidence comes in two forms. First, there is an excess signal above the combined emission of normal foreground galaxies that would require energetic events to have occurred in the early Universe. Second, the very uneven distribution of the radiation could arise from the spatial clustering properties of primordial stellar systems.

But rather than helping to decipher the epoch of cosmic first light, such observations have in fact created another puzzle. Simply stated, the dawn of galaxies seems to be too brilliant: the excess signal outshines the cumulative emission from all galaxies between Earth and the extremely distant first stars. If primordial sources are to account for all of this infrared radiation, current models of star formation in the young Universe look distinctly shaky. Too many massive stars ending their brief lives in a giant thermonuclear explosion would, for instance, eject large amounts of heavy elements such as carbon and oxygen into space, polluting the cosmos very early on and altering forever the composition of the raw material available for second-generation stars. But if the first-generation stars were to collapse to massive black holes instead, gas accretion onto such black holes would produce large amounts of X-rays. Both variants seem to be in conflict with current observations8, 9 , 10.
Enter Aharonian and colleagues1, and their measurements of teraelectronvolt (TeV)-ray photons from blazars. These photons, which carry 10^12 times more energy than visible light, interact with near-infrared photons through the quantum-mechanical process of electronpositron pair creation. Through this process, most of the TeV photons are absorbed long before they reach Earth. The observed level of -ray attenuation can, therefore, be used to estimate indirectly the energy density of infrared starlight present in intergalactic space.

So, if such gamma -rays were propagating through a dense sea of infrared photons, as implied by previous measurements3,4,5,6 7, the spectra of the two blazars recorded by HESS would reveal evidence of strong, energy-dependent attenuation. But Aharonian et al.1 show that intergalactic space is more transparent to gamma-rays than would be expected if an infrared background excess existed. Remarkably, the attenuation in the HESS images seems consistent merely with the integrated infrared output from resolved foreground galaxies, together with the total extragalactic light produced by second-generation stars according to recent theoretical calculations11.

Reality Check
2014-Oct-08, 11:38 PM
Large Scale Quasar Clusters
...
Large Quasar Groups (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_quasar_group) are no problem for the cosmological principle.
There is one observation of a possible Huge-LQG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huge-LQG) that could be a problem for the cosmological principle. This is not a paradox/anomaly.

Reality Check
2014-Oct-08, 11:41 PM
The Photon Underproduction Crisis. http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.2933
You have the Photon Underproduction Crisis that describes the situation and proposes solutions - not an anomaly or a paradox.
Lying about the paper though is bad, William, they propose decaying dark matter but say nothing about whether that dark matter would be detected here on Earth.

Reality Check
2014-Oct-09, 12:07 AM
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0604448v1.pdf
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7087/full/4401002a.html...
Astronomy: Trouble at first light (Nature (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7087/full/4401002a.html), arxiv (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0604448)) is a 2006 review.
The pre-2006 observations of light from early galaxies do not match the models of star formation in the early universe. There is too much light.
But Aharonian et al. (A low level of extragalactic background light as revealed by gamma-rays from blazars (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0508073)) found that there was much less light than previously measured. One observation does not make a paradox when it is counter to many observations - it makes an outlier observation. It means that either the previous observations were wrong or that this one observation is wrong. There are resolutions to this:
* the models of blazars may be wrong.
* The foreground subtraction (of sunlight reflected from local interplanetary dust clouds) may be wrong.

You are wrong, William: Nothing in the paper states that the blazars could be "local" rather than distant. We know that they are distant - they are "at redshifts z=0.165 and z=0.186, respectively" :eek:!

William
2014-Oct-09, 01:37 AM
Large Quasar Groups (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_quasar_group) are no problem for the cosmological principle.
There is one observation of a possible Huge-LQG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huge-LQG) that could be a problem for the cosmological principle. This is not a paradox/anomaly.

How does one turn on 73 quasars at the same time in a vast region of space? We need an overview of the quasar observations to explain why that is a paradox. You are unaware of the quasar observations and hence do not understand what is and what is not a paradox. An example is how does one explain that quasars do not exhibit time dilation?

William
2014-Oct-09, 01:55 AM
Astronomy: Trouble at first light (Nature (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7087/full/4401002a.html), arxiv (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0604448)) is a 2006 review.
The pre-2006 observations of light from early galaxies do not match the models of star formation in the early universe. There is too much light.
But Aharonian et al. (A low level of extragalactic background light as revealed by gamma-rays from blazars (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0508073)) found that there was much less light than previously measured. One observation does not make a paradox when it is counter to many observations - it makes an outlier observation. It means that either the previous observations were wrong or that this one observation is wrong. There are resolutions to this:
* the models of blazars may be wrong.
* The foreground subtraction (of sunlight reflected from local interplanetary dust clouds) may be wrong.

You are wrong, William: Nothing in the paper states that the blazars could be "local" rather than distant. We know that they are distant - they are "at redshifts z=0.165 and z=0.186, respectively" :eek:!

I do not understand the logic that supports your comment. You have not quoted any papers or provided any observations to support your statements.

It is a fact that there are two unexplained observations, that concern fundamental issues.

There are two anomalies stated in the peer reviewed papers. The two anomalies are:

1) The infrared analysis finds 24 times more light than can be explained by ΛCDM modeling. (Attached in this comment is the paper by the same authors discussing their findings.)

2) The Blazar analysis analysis is a paradox as the blazar gamma ray absorption can be explained if there is no early universe infrared (i.e. local only galaxies as the paper states). As I stated, if hypothetically the blazar was not distant but rather local that would also explain the blazar analysis/observation. That is a logical fact. I am aware what the blazar is at high redshift. It does not make sense that one analysis finds 24 times more infrared radiation than can be explained and the other analysis find no early universe radiation. The two observations are contradictory however there could be two separate explanations.

I am not saying the blazar is local, we are all aware of that. Note the observation and analysis was published in Nature.


http://mnrasl.oxfordjournals.org/content/367/1/L11.full.pdf


Where are the sources of the near infrared background?
The observed near infrared background excess over light from known galaxies is commonly ascribed to redshifted radiation from early, very massive, Pop III stars. We show here that this interpretation must be discarded as it largely over predicts the number of J-dropouts and Ly emitters in ultra deep field searches. Independently of the detailed physics of Ly line emission, J-dropouts limit the background excess fraction due to Pop III sources to be (at best) approx. 1/24. As alternative explanations can either be rejected (e.g. miniquasars, decaying neutrinos) or appear unlikely (zodiacal light), whereas the reality of the excess is supported by the interpretation of the angular fluctuations, the origin of this component remains very puzzling. We briefly discuss possible hints to solve the problem.

Our main result is that any model reproducing the minimum value of the excess with emission from PopIII clusters, inevitably predicts that a large fraction (in some case all) of IRAC (3.5 μm and 4.5 μm) counts at the faintest fluxes is due to galaxies at z > 8. Even more seriously, the same models overpredict the number of J-dropouts and Lyα emitters identified in deep field searches by a factor of thousands. In particular, the interpretation of the background light Jband peak as due to redshifted Lyα emission from sources at z ≈ 9 would imply a large number (394/683 depending on the main gas cooling agent) of identifications in narrow J-band surveys. Instead, no such sources have been detected by the ZEN search.

As we are facing such a severe problem, it is wise to consider possible NIRB data contaminations from spurious components. The largest experimental uncertainty is represented by zodiacal light subtraction. Although it is in principle possible to explain the excess in the NIRB with zodiacal light, this might imply a revision of the properties of dust grains canonically assumed (Dwek, Arendt & Krennich 2005). On the other hand, the existence of the NIR excess above the contribution of deep field galaxies at z < 5 seems to be suggested by the analysis of the TeV spectral features of distant blazars revealed by Cherenkov experiments (although different interpretations cannot be excluded, see Aharonian et al. 2005). Finally, zodiacal light has been excluded as a possible source of the observed NIRB angular fluctuations (Kashlinsky et al. 2002, 2005). The interpretation of the NIRB excess must then be different. Are there viable alternatives ? Cooray & Yoshida (2004) have speculated that a fraction of the unresolved NIRB can be due to high-z miniquasars. However, this hypothesis can be readily discarded by noting that emission from a population of early miniquasars significantly contributing to the NIRB, largely exceeds the unresolved fraction of the Soft X-ray Background (Salvaterra, Haardt & Ferrara 2005; Madau & Silk 2005). In particular, Salvaterra et al. (2005) have shown that the SXRB constrains the contribution of these sources to be ≤ 10−3 nW m−2 sr−1. High redshift supernovae have also be examined by Cooray & Yoshida (2004), who exclude any significant NIRB contribution from such objects. Finally, more exotic sources as sterile neutrinos have been firmly excluded as viable explanations for the excess by Mapelli & Ferrara (2005).

What are the remaining possibilities ? Local, low surface brightness galaxies undetected by available instruments might reduce the gap between NIRB data and the integrated light of deep field galaxies; similarly the light from the outer regions of moderate redshift galaxies could be missed (Bernstein, Freedman & Madore 2002). Although the nature and properties of such unidentified objects are unknown (note that these sources must have J > 29), these local galaxies would not explain the excess in the small angular scale fluctuation observed in the NIRB in the J band (Kashlinsky et al. 2002). A more promising alternative would be to locate these faint sources at z ≈ 2 − 3, for example if the Lyman Break Galaxies luminosity function is extremely steep.

William
2014-Oct-09, 02:26 AM
You have the Photon Underproduction Crisis that describes the situation and proposes solutions - not an anomaly or a paradox.
Lying about the paper though is bad, William, they propose decaying dark matter but say nothing about whether that dark matter would be detected here on Earth.

The authors of the paper do not support your comments. There is no theoretical or observational evidence to support extra photons from decaying dark matter or a drastic change in the physical structure of the intergalactic medium.

As I noted, quasars are the primary source of ionize radiation so the primary method to explain the photon underproduction crisis in the local universe is hypothetically that there are more local quasars than observed. As the authors of the paper note the hypothetical suggestion that there are more quasars in the local universe not agree with the current interpretation of how many quasars there are in the local universe.


THE PHOTON UNDERPRODUCTION CRISIS
We examine the statistics of the low-redshift Lyman-forest from smoothed particle hydrodynamic simulations in light of recent improvements in the estimated evolution of the cosmic ultraviolet back-ground (UVB) and recent observations from the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph (COS). We find that the value of the metagalactic photoionization rate (HI) required by our simulations to match the observed properties of the low-redshift Lyman- forest is a factor of 5 larger than the value predicted by state-of-the art models for the evolution of this quantity. This mismatch in HI results in the mean ux decrement of the Lyman- forest being underpredicted by at least a factor of 2 (a 10 discrepancy with observations) and a column density distribution of Lyman- forest absorbers systematically and significantly elevated compared to observations over nearly two decades in column density. We examine potential resolutions to this mismatch and find that either conventional sources of ionizing photons
(galaxies and quasars) must be significantly elevated relative to current observational estimates or our theoretical understanding of the low-redshift universe is in need of substantial revision.

5. conclusions
The factor of 5 discrepancy between the value of The factor of 5 discrepancy between the value of ��HI required to match cosmological models of the z = 0 IGM to the observed mean decrement and CDD and that predicted by state-of-the art models for the evolution of the extragalactic UVB (HM12) highlights a significant gap in our current understanding of the sources of the UV background or the structure of the IGM, or both. We have discussed a number of possible resolutions, no one of which appears satisfactory. The least radical solution is to increase the mean fesc at low-redshift such that galaxies dominate the emissivity and simultaneously boost the quasar emissivity, though both of these changes oppose our current understanding of these sources. For the undaunted, extra photons from decaying dark matter or a drastic change to the physical structure of the IGM as predicted by LCDM may also be the resolution to the photon underproduction crisis.

Reality Check
2014-Oct-09, 03:11 AM
How does one turn on 73 quasars at the same time in a vast region of space? We need an overview of the quasar observations to explain why that is a paradox. You are unaware of the quasar observations and hence do not understand what is and what is not a paradox. An example is how does one explain that quasars do not exhibit time dilation?
None of the quasars were observed to turn on, William :eek:.
Read about Huge-LQG to see that it is a possible observation that could be a problem for the cosmological principle and so is not a paradox/anomaly.
Ignorance about the quasar observations is becoming obvious with that ignorant "turn on" question, William?.
What is this assertion that quasars do not exhibit time dilation, William?

FYI: The Clowes et al. Huge-LQG observation starts with that there is a group of quasars that are statistically closer together than the surrounding quasars. But
* the definition of a group also includes that they galaxies be gravitationally bound. This has not be determined yet.
* Seshadri Nadathur has thrown doubts on the statistical significance of the grouping.

Reality Check
2014-Oct-09, 03:22 AM
You have not quoted any papers or provided any observations to support your statements.

The paper you cited and quoted support my statements, William!

There are two observations and one model of star formation:
* The pre-2006 observations of light from early galaxies do not match the models of star formation in the early universe. There is too much light. This is not from ΛCDM modeling. This is from the modeling of stars in the early universe, William.
* Aharonian et al. (A low level of extragalactic background light as revealed by gamma-rays from blazars) found that there was much less light than previously measured.

The observed near infrared background excess was a severe problem for the models of the early, very massive, Pop III stars in November 2005 Where are the sources of the near-infrared background? (PDF) (Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 367, L11–L15 (2006) (http://mnrasl.oxfordjournals.org/content/367/1/L11.full.pdf). This also lists possible resolutions to the problem which includes just discarding the contribution from those early, very massive, Pop III stars!

The observed near infrared background excess over light from known galaxies is commonly ascribed to redshifted radiation from early, very massive, Pop III stars. We show here that this interpretation must be discarded as it largely over predicts the number of J-dropouts and Ly emitters in ultra deep field searches. Independently of the detailed physics of Ly line emission, J-dropouts limit the background excess fraction due to Pop III sources to be (at best) approx. 1/24. As alternative explanations can either be rejected (e.g. miniquasars, decaying neutrinos) or appear unlikely (zodiacal light), whereas the reality of the excess is supported by the interpretation of the angular fluctuations, the origin of this component remains very puzzling. We briefly discuss possible hints to solve the problem.

Our main result is that any model reproducing the minimum value of the excess with emission from PopIII clusters, inevitably predicts that a large fraction (in some case all) of IRAC (3.5 μm and 4.5 μm) counts at the faintest fluxes is due to galaxies at z > 8. Even more seriously, the same models overpredict the number of J-dropouts and Lyα emitters identified in deep field searches by a factor of thousands. In particular, the interpretation of the background light Jband peak as due to redshifted Lyα emission from sources at z ≈ 9 would imply a large number (394/683 depending on the main gas cooling agent) of identifications in narrow J-band surveys. Instead, no such sources have been detected by the ZEN search.

As we are facing such a severe problem, it is wise to consider possible NIRB data contaminations from spurious components. The largest experimental uncertainty is represented by zodiacal light subtraction. Although it is in principle possible to explain the excess in the NIRB with zodiacal light, this might imply a revision of the properties of dust grains canonically assumed (Dwek, Arendt & Krennich 2005). On the other hand, the existence of the NIR excess above the contribution of deep field galaxies at z < 5 seems to be suggested by the analysis of the TeV spectral features of distant blazars revealed by Cherenkov experiments (although different interpretations cannot be excluded, see Aharonian et al. 2005). Finally, zodiacal light has been excluded as a possible source of the observed NIRB angular fluctuations (Kashlinsky et al. 2002, 2005). The interpretation of the NIRB excess must then be different. Are there viable alternatives ? Cooray & Yoshida (2004) have speculated that a fraction of the unresolved NIRB can be due to high-z miniquasars. However, this hypothesis can be readily discarded by noting that emission from a population of early miniquasars significantly contributing to the NIRB, largely exceeds the unresolved fraction of the Soft X-ray Background (Salvaterra, Haardt & Ferrara 2005; Madau & Silk 2005). In particular, Salvaterra et al. (2005) have shown that the SXRB constrains the contribution of these sources to be ≤ 10−3 nW m−2 sr−1. High redshift supernovae have also be examined by Cooray & Yoshida (2004), who exclude any significant NIRB contribution from such objects. Finally, more exotic sources as sterile neutrinos have been firmly excluded as viable explanations for the excess by Mapelli & Ferrara (2005).

What are the remaining possibilities ? Local, low surface brightness galaxies undetected by available instruments might reduce the gap between NIRB data and the integrated light of deep field galaxies; similarly the light from the outer regions of moderate redshift galaxies could be missed (Bernstein, Freedman & Madore 2002). Although the nature and properties of such unidentified objects are unknown (note that these sources must have J > 29), these local galaxies would not explain the excess in the small angular scale fluctuation observed in the NIRB in the J band (Kashlinsky et al. 2002). A more promising alternative would be to locate these faint sources at z ≈ 2 − 3, for example if the Lyman Break Galaxies luminosity function is extremely steep.

Reality Check
2014-Oct-09, 03:53 AM
The authors of the paper do not support your comments.

Wrong, William:

Lying about the paper though is bad, William, they propose decaying dark matter but say nothing about whether that dark matter would be detected here on Earth.
is supported by the simple fact that authors of the paper say nothing about whether that dark matter would be detected here on Earth.

More wrong things, William:
* There is lots of theoretical evidence to support extra photons from decaying dark matter. It is evidence of detection of these photons that is lacking.
* There is theoretical evidence to support "a drastic change in the physical structure of the intergalactic medium", but the authors of The Photon Underproduction Crisis (http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.2933) are skeptical about it

It is possible that our cosmological simulations are predicting the wrong density structure of the diffuse IGM owing to either cosmological or numerical inaccuracies. We think both of these are extremely unlikely. At our simulation resolution, the properties of the forest are well converged and largely insensitive to e.g. wind model, feedback prescriptions, spectral resolution and noise characteristics (Dave et al. 2010; Peeples et al. 2010). A cosmological solution would require making the low redshift IGM much smoother than LCDM simulations predict { shifting absorption systems systematically to lower columns or erasing them entirely. It is possible that cosmological models including warm dark matter or a small scale cutoff in the primordial power spectrum would go in this direction, but we are skeptical that any such change could resolve the PUC while maintaining a good match to the observed Lyman forest. With our preferred UVB intensity, on the other hand, LCDM simulations match observed Lyman forest and metal-line absorption statistics over a wide
range of redshifts.
* the "primary method to explain the photon underproduction crisis" is not about the "local" universe. The local universe is local, e.g. the Local Group. Quasars are distant!
* The "low redshift universe" in the paper is not "local" - it is z up to 4.
* the authors of the paper suggest that there more quasars in the low redshift universe that have been hidden so from observations (not interpretation, William) so far because of low luminosity.

What is your evidence that quasars are the primary source of ionizing radiation, William?
I suspect that they are since AGN galaxies (which includes quasars which are the most energetic sub-class) seem to be mostly quasars, e.g. VERONCAT - Veron Catalog of Quasars & AGN, 13th Edition (https://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/W3Browse/all/veroncat.html) has "133336 quasars, 1374 BL Lac objects and 34231 active galaxies (including 15627 Seyfert 1 galaxies)".
Even so there are lots of other galaxies also producing ionizing radiation.

William
2014-Oct-09, 08:03 AM
None of the quasars were observed to turn on, William :eek:.
Read about Huge-LQG to see that it is a possible observation that could be a problem for the cosmological principle and so is not a paradox/anomaly.
Ignorance about the quasar observations is becoming obvious with that ignorant "turn on" question, William?.
What is this assertion that quasars do not exhibit time dilation, William?

FYI: The Clowes et al. Huge-LQG observation starts with that there is a group of quasars that are statistically closer together than the surrounding quasars. But
* the definition of a group also includes that they galaxies be gravitationally bound. This has not be determined yet.
* Seshadri Nadathur has thrown doubts on the statistical significance of the grouping.


Time dilation is a consequence of the fact that the universe is expanding.
http://phys.org/news190027752.html


Discovery that quasars don't show time dilation mystifies astronomers

Quasar emission is caused by synchron emission (ions moving in a very, very, strong magnetic field), the synchron radiation follows a distinct power curve which would unequivocally change due to 'time dilation'.

As the universe is expanding astronomical objects that are farther away from us are moving faster. As per Einstein's special relativity theory time slows down in the frame of the object that is moving away.

Distant super novae's light curve for example exhibit time dilation with redshift. As this paper notes distant quasars do not exhibit time dilation with redshift. There is absolutely no change in the spectral energy distribution of quasars with redshift. That is an unexplained paradox.

I will provide additional information concerning quasars and how they do and do not change with redshift in a thread on quasars, if someone is interested in the science.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.1824v1

On time dilation in quasar light curves
In this paper we set out to measure time dilation in quasar light curves. In order to detect the effects of time dilation, sets of light curves from two monitoring programmes are used to construct Fourier power spectra covering timescales from 50 days to 28 years. Data from high and low redshift samples are compared to look for the changes expected from time dilation. The main result of the paper is that quasar light curves do not show the effects of time dilation. Several explanations are discussed, including the possibility that time dilation effects are exactly offset by an increase in timescale of variation associated with black hole growth, or that the variations are caused by microlensing in which case time dilation would not be expected.
7 CONCLUSIONS
In this paper we have used Fourier power spectrum analysis of over 800 quasar light curves to measure timescales of variation at different redshifts. The expected effects of time dilation are absent, the SEDs at high and low redshift being essentially identical. There seems to be no explanation for this within the conventional cosmological framework, and so various other possibilities are considered. These include the idea that the effects of time dilation are exactly offset by an increase in timescale of variation associated with black hole growth. Alternatively, the observed variations could be caused by microlensing, in which case time dilation would not be expected.

William
2014-Oct-09, 08:28 AM
The paper you cited and quoted support my statements, William!

There are two observations and one model of star formation:
* The pre-2006 observations of light from early galaxies do not match the models of star formation in the early universe. There is too much light. This is not from ΛCDM modeling. This is from the modeling of stars in the early universe, William.
* Aharonian et al. (A low level of extragalactic background light as revealed by gamma-rays from blazars) found that there was much less light than previously measured.

The observed near infrared background excess was a severe problem for the models of the early, very massive, Pop III stars in November 2005 Where are the sources of the near-infrared background? (PDF) (Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 367, L11–L15 (2006) (http://mnrasl.oxfordjournals.org/content/367/1/L11.full.pdf). This also lists possible resolutions to the problem which includes just discarding the contribution from those early, very massive, Pop III stars!

Try this paper. There are two problems.

Problem 1: The observation of infrared radiation shows an excess of 24 times in infrared radiation. There hence needs to be sources of infrared radiation to explain this excess. The source of infrared radiation cannot be in the distant universe as that would change the amount of heavy metals that would be produce by the first stars in the universe.

Problem 2): Gamma radiation interacts with infrared radiation which changes the spectral profile of the gamma radiation. The Blazar gamma radiation from two high redshift quasars shows minimal interaction of infrared radiation. That is a paradox. A second paradox and likely related paradox is quasars do no exhibit time dilation. There is a dust cloud created by quasars. The dust cloud heats up and emits infrared radiation.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0604448v1.pdf


Astronomy: Trouble at first light
Nevertheless, several groups have claimed to have found the footprints of baby galaxies at near-infrared wavelengths, using data from NASA’s Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE)3 , 4, 5 and Spitzer Space Telescope6, and Japan’s Infrared Telescope in Space (IRTS)7. Their evidence comes in two forms. First, there is an excess signal above the combined emission of normal foreground galaxies that would require energetic events to have occurred in the early Universe. Second, the very uneven distribution of the radiation could arise from the spatial clustering properties of primordial stellar systems.

But rather than helping to decipher the epoch of cosmic first light, such observations have in fact created another puzzle. Simply stated, the dawn of galaxies seems to be too brilliant: the excess signal outshines the cumulative emission from all galaxies between Earth and the extremely distant first stars. If primordial sources are to account for all of this infrared radiation, current models of star formation in the young Universe look distinctly shaky. Too many massive stars ending their brief lives in a giant thermonuclear explosion would, for instance, eject large amounts of heavy elements such as carbon and oxygen into space, polluting the cosmos very early on and altering forever the composition of the raw material available for second-generation stars. But if the first-generation stars were to collapse to massive black holes instead, gas accretion onto such black holes would produce large amounts of X-rays. Both variants seem to be in conflict with current observations8, 9 , 10.
Enter Aharonian and colleagues1, and their measurements of teraelectronvolt (TeV)-ray photons from blazars. These photons, which carry 10^12 times more energy than visible light, interact with near-infrared photons through the quantum-mechanical process of electronpositron pair creation. Through this process, most of the TeV photons are absorbed long before they reach Earth. The observed level of -ray attenuation can, therefore, be used to estimate indirectly the energy density of infrared starlight present in intergalactic space.

So, if such gamma -rays were propagating through a dense sea of infrared photons, as implied by previous measurements3,4,5,6 7, the spectra of the two blazars recorded by HESS would reveal evidence of strong, energy-dependent attenuation. But Aharonian et al.1 show that intergalactic space is more transparent to gamma-rays than would be expected if an infrared background excess existed. Remarkably, the attenuation in the HESS images seems consistent merely with the integrated infrared output from resolved foreground galaxies, together with the total extragalactic light produced by second-generation stars according to recent theoretical calculations11.

William
2014-Oct-09, 05:20 PM
Wrong, William:


What is your evidence that quasars are the primary source of ionizing radiation, William?
I suspect that they are since AGN galaxies (which includes quasars which are the most energetic sub-class) seem to be mostly quasars, e.g. VERONCAT - Veron Catalog of Quasars & AGN, 13th Edition (https://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/W3Browse/all/veroncat.html) has "133336 quasars, 1374 BL Lac objects and 34231 active galaxies (including 15627 Seyfert 1 galaxies)".
Even so there are lots of other galaxies also producing ionizing radiation.

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/mystery-missing-light-071620142/

The Mystery of the Missing Light
We appear to be missing something from our local universe, and a whole lot of it too: ultraviolet photons. A recent study of the local universe’s ultraviolet background finds a “photon underproduction crisis” that indicates a serious miscounting of nearby ultraviolet sources, a failure to understand the intergalactic medium, or possibly both.

The ultraviolet background pervading the universe comes from two main sources: quasars and young, hot stars. Their UV photons interact with the sparse gas that permeates intergalactic space, converting neutral hydrogen atoms into electrically charged ions. Quasars probably account for most of the extragalactic UV background because stars’ ultraviolet light is usually absorbed by gas in their host galaxies before it can interact with intergalactic hydrogen.

As I stated, the primary source of intergalactic ionizing radiation is from quasars.
The possible hypotheses to explain the photon underproduction crisis are:
1. Dark matter and/or some unknown particle is decaying in the local universe to create UV photons. Note there is no experimental evidence that UV photons are appearing in the dark matter earth based tests.
2. There are more quasars in the local universe. Note it is an observational fact that quasars do not exhibit time dilation. The fact that quasars do not exhibit time dilation is a paradox.

Comment:
Let's agree there are two possible solutions (there is certainly room for a third or fourth possible solution) to the Photon Underproduction crisis. Scientific discussion is different than a debate. The different hypotheses are like the choice at a fork in the road.

Exploration of all scientifically and logically valid hypotheses is how breakthroughs occur.

In private industry the standard approach to solving problems is the listing and investigation of all scientifically and logically valid hypotheses. There is no logical reason to eliminate hypotheses. In private industry different teams of specialists are formally assigned to work on and investigate competing hypothesis. That approach has and does led to breakthroughs.

There is further key observational data to review.

In private industrial, alternatives are weighted using pro/cons by unbiased groups. In private industry a specialist would be reprimanded (and would never be promoted to a senior specialist) for ignoring and not exploring alternatives. Note I am senior specialist. I have led and worked with dozens of teams of specialists teams to successfully solve complex problems. There are effective and ineffective approaches to solving complex, holistic problems. I find it astonishing that modern formal problem solving techniques have not been used to investigate and solve the cosmological problem.

Reality Check
2014-Oct-09, 08:31 PM
Time dilation is a consequence of the fact that the universe is expanding.
http://phys.org/news190027752.html

Discovery that quasars don't show time dilation mystifies astronomers (http://phys.org/news190027752.html) posted Apr 09, 2010.
Whoops, William: a single paper from 2010! This is technically known as cherry picking.
A competent researcher would have noted that this paper has a single author and has only been cited 8 times in the 4 years since it was published. They would have looked at those citations and found:
Using Quasars as Standard Clocks for Measuring Cosmological Redshift (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012PhRvL.108w1302D) (Publication Date: 06/2012)

We report hitherto unnoticed patterns in quasar light curves. We characterize segments of the quasar's light curves with the slopes of the straight lines fit through them. These slopes appear to be directly related to the quasars' redshifts. Alternatively, using only global shifts in time and flux, we are able to find significant overlaps between the light curves of different pairs of quasars by fitting the ratio of their redshifts. We are then able to reliably determine the redshift of one quasar from another. This implies that one can use quasars as standard clocks, as we explicitly demonstrate by constructing two independent methods of finding the redshift of a quasar from its light curve.

Quasar light curves are related to their redshifts!

Reality Check
2014-Oct-09, 09:06 PM
Try this paper.

Try to understand that I have read that paper: Astronomy: Trouble at first light (http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0604448v1.pdf), William :eek:!

There are two problems.
Problem 1: The pre-2006 observations of light from early galaxies do not match the models of star formation in the early universe. There is too much light. This is not from ΛCDM modeling. This is from the modeling of stars in the early universe, William.
This is your Problem 1.

Problem 2: Aharonian et al. (A low level of extragalactic background light as revealed by gamma-rays from blazars) found that there was much less light than previously measured.
This is your Problem 2.

There is a second unrelated observation from one fairly obscure paper by a single author that quasar light curves are not time dilated but Quasar light curves are related to their redshifts! (http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?153751-Large-Scale-Anomalies-Paradoxes&p=2247763#post2247763)

Reality Check
2014-Oct-09, 09:20 PM
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/mystery-missing-light-071620142/
..snipped irrelevant "private industry" stuff...

I can read, William and know what you stated. I can even quote it:

This paper proposes a solution to the photon underproduction crisis is that dark matter might be creating UV radiation in the local universe, however if that were true earth experiments would have detected the dark matter.

That is wrong because the paper does not say the "if that were true earth experiments would have detected the dark matter" bit. If this is your own assertion then you need to supply the evidence that this UV radiation should be and has not been detected here on Earth.

Comment: I find it astonishing that you do not know that the applicable parts of "modern formal problem solving techniques" are used in science!
In fact it is almost the other way round - aspects of the scientific method have become part of the "modern formal problem solving techniques", e.g.
* alternatives are weighted using pro/cons by unbiased groups.
* scientists are reprimanded for ignoring and not exploring viable alternatives.
* using logical reasons to eliminate hypotheses, e.g. they do not apply to the situation or are just wrong.
* "assigning" experts in fields to explore those fields.
* actually assigning experts in fields to evaluate papers about that field (peer review).

William
2014-Oct-09, 09:58 PM
Discovery that quasars don't show time dilation mystifies astronomers (http://phys.org/news190027752.html) posted Apr 09, 2010.
Whoops, William: a single paper from 2010! This is technically known as cherry picking.
A competent researcher would have noted that this paper has a single author and has only been cited 8 times in the 4 years since it was published. They would have looked at those citations and found:
Using Quasars as Standard Clocks for Measuring Cosmological Redshift (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012PhRvL.108w1302D) (Publication Date: 06/2012)


Quasar light curves are related to their redshifts!

You have found an additional paradox. There are piles and piles of paradoxes. The paradoxes go away when the correct solution is found.

Time dilation modifies the quasar spectrum in a specific manner. Quasars do not exhibit time dilation. The paper you quote does not assert they have found an error in Hawkins' analysis or Hawkins' (Hawkin is a world famous quasar expert who has studied quasar spectrum for more than 20 years. His analysis is bullet proof. He is renowned for being cautious and meticulous) that shows quasars do not exhibit time dilation.

The paper you quoted and that is link to in this comment, does not use the word time dilation. The authors of that paper do not assert they have found that quasars exhibit time dilation. The paper you quote notes the authors have found the spectrum of quasar changes for some unknown reason with redshift which is another paradox.

Quote from the paper:
"We would not want to speculate much on the possible explanation since the physics of these objects is so poorly understood" which is a silly cop out, there is a standard quasar model, the problem is the spectrum change they observe cannot be explained by the 'standard' quasar model. There is a physical reason why there is a change to spectrum of the quasar which is not redshift change and is not a time dilation change.

It is expected that the physical cause of the quasar's spectrum should be the same at different redshifts. There is therefore no reason why the quasar's spectrum should change with different redshift, except for the very specific time dilation overall change in the quasar's spectrum which is not observed.

A weird unexplained change to the quasar's spectrum provides further support that some besides a change in velocity is causing the redshift change to the quasar.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.5191v2

Using quasars as standard clocks for measuring cosmological redshift
We report hitherto unnoticed patterns in quasar light curves. We characterize segments of quasars’ light curves with the slopes of the straight lines fit through them. These slopes appear to be directly related to the quasars’ redshifts. Alternatively, using only global shifts in time and flux, we are able to find significant overlaps between the light curves of different pairs of quasars by fitting the ratio of their redshifts. We are then able to reliably determine the redshift of one quasar from another. This implies that one can use quasars as standard clocks, as we explicitly demonstrate by constructing two independent methods of finding the redshift of a quasar from its light curve ....

.... We performed our analysis for V-band light curves, though a similar procedure could be carried out for other wavelengths. We currently do not have a theoretical explanation of this effect. We would not want to speculate much on the possible explanation since the physics of these objects is poorly understood. Heuristically, if the frequency, f, and the corresponding amplitude, A, of the oscillation mode satisfy fA =constant, and one looks at the sine-wave oscillations, then a constant slope Asin(ft) Aft would appear for small ft. Alternatively, it could happen that particular quasi-periodic quasar oscillations described in [7] (see also [8] where similar objects are studied) are behind this effect. For related studies see also [9–11]. To identify the physics of the pattern we discovered clearly requires further investigation.

Regardless of its theoretical explanation, this observed effect suggests that one might be able to use quasars as distance standards.

Reality Check
2014-Oct-10, 12:47 AM
You have found an additional paradox.

Wrong, William - I found a paper that refuted your single cherry picked paper!
Quasar light curves are related to their redshifts :eek:! (http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?153751-Large-Scale-Anomalies-Paradoxes&p=2247763#post2247763)
The observed time dilations of light curves and redshift have the same cause - an expanding universe. The authors assert that Quasar light curves are related to their redshifts! (http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?153751-Large-Scale-Anomalies-Paradoxes&p=2247763#post2247763)

Of course the paper notes that the physics of quasars is poorly understood for the simple fact that they are poorly understood :doh:.

Reality Check
2014-Oct-10, 01:14 AM
I had another look at the author of this single cherry picked paper you are interested in, William. Hawkins, M. R. S. has a 2009 paper called Time Dilation in Quasar Light Curves (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ASPC..413...24H). This paper is essentially the same as the 2010 paper. It was presented at the 2nd Crisis in Cosmology Conference. The problem is that this conference is basically for anti-Big Bang cranks. Have a look at the proceedings (PDF) (http://www.gbv.de/dms/tib-ub-hannover/621218847.pdf).
For example
* Ashmore, L (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ASPC..413....3A). who has the delusion that "Despite the idea of an expanding universe having been around for nearly one hundred years there is still no conclusive, direct evidence for expansion".
Ashmore is a tired light (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light) crank
* E. J. Lerner, a plasma physics the author of "The Big Bang Never Happened".
* Hawkins, M. R. S., with his debunked paper.
* B. R. Blight who is ignorant enough to think that the CMB is the only evidence for the Big Bang.
* Arp touting his debunked redshift periodicity idea.
* A. Brynjolfsson who is a true crank with his Plasma-Redshift Cosmology (7 unpublished preprints by him (http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Brynjolfsson_A/0/1/0/all/0/1)) - basically another tired light (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light) crank.
etc.

ETA: He was quite happy using time dilation in 2007 against what looks like the same set of data!
Timescale of variation and the size of the accretion disc in active galactic nuclei (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A%26A...462..581H), Hawkins, M. R. S., 02/2007

This paper sets out to measure the timescale of quasar variability with a view to new understanding of the size of accretion discs in active galactic nuclei. Previous attempts to measure such timescales have been based on sparsely sampled data covering small ranges of time. Here we combine data from two large scale monitoring programmes to obtain Fourier power spectra of light curves covering nearly three orders of magnitude in frequency in blue and red passbands. If the variations are interpreted as due to gravitational microlensing, then timescale measurements in the observer's frame imply a minimum mass for the microlensing bodies of around 0.4~M&sun;. On the assumption that the variations are intrinsic to the quasars, a correction must be made for time dilation. In this case the power spectrum shows a break corresponding to a timescale of about 11 years. This timescale is used to measure the size of the accretion disc, which is found to be about 10-2 pc or 10 light days, in agreement with limits set by self-gravitation and coincident with the broad line region of the active galactic nucleus. It is suggested that the broad line region may be associated with the break up of the outer part of the accretion disc.
(my emphasis added)

Jerry
2014-Nov-14, 03:26 PM
Discovery that quasars don't show time dilation mystifies astronomers (http://phys.org/news190027752.html) posted Apr 09, 2010.
Whoops, William: a single paper from 2010! This is technically known as cherry picking.
A competent researcher would have noted that this paper has a single author and has only been cited 8 times in the 4 years since it was published. They would have looked at those citations and found:
Using Quasars as Standard Clocks for Measuring Cosmological Redshift (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012PhRvL.108w1302D) (Publication Date: 06/2012)


Quasar light curves are related to their redshifts!

This is an interesting cherry in and of itself. The most obvious and straightforward timing feature of a quasar is a Fourier reduction of quasar periodicity. This is what Hawkins did. No one has even taken the time to refute Hawkins twenty-six year research project; but when a group was able to identify an obscure feature within quasar spectra that correlates with the redshift signature; everyone grabbed the cherry and declared victory.

Of course there are features within a quasar spectra that correlated with the redshift determination - but in order to be meaningful expressions of time dilation, the feature must be periodic in nature, and an increase in that periodic function in redshift time is needed to be definitive. A spreading bandwidth or a slope over time does not cut it - we expect that with any distance-related light curve and could have many different causalities. Here is the archived paper:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.5191

The authors are not even looking at periodic functions! They have looked at the slope of the flux over time and found a very weak trend that has nothing to do with periodicity. The small number of quasars that they identified this trend in are behind the Magellanic Clouds! This is exactly they type of slope information one would expect if the quasars have proper motion with respect to the clouds that is proportional to the measured redshift; but only if the redshift distance to the quasars is not exceedingly greater than the redshift of the Magellanic clouds.

The authors state:
We currently do not have a theoretical explanation for this effect.
Essentially admitting that they went looking for a cherry that was consistent with time dilation; and they do not even care that it is not a periodic trend, just 'a trend' and and very noisy one at that.

This is an excellent example of poor research targeted to prove an existing theory that badly fails the Jerry stink test: If I tried to us the type of data these scientists used (to support time dilation in quasars) to support an ATM theory; my grant would be pulled and I would be laughed off of the astro-physical map.

Jerry
2014-Nov-14, 03:40 PM
I had another look at the author of this single cherry picked paper you are interested in, William. Hawkins, M. R. S. has a 2009 paper called Time Dilation in Quasar Light Curves (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ASPC..413...24H). This paper is essentially the same as the 2010 paper. It was presented at the 2nd Crisis in Cosmology Conference. The problem is that this conference is basically for anti-Big Bang cranks. Have a look at the proceedings (PDF) (http://www.gbv.de/dms/tib-ub-hannover/621218847.pdf).
For example
* Ashmore, L (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ASPC..413....3A). who has the delusion that "Despite the idea of an expanding universe having been around for nearly one hundred years there is still no conclusive, direct evidence for expansion".
Ashmore is a tired light (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light) crank
* E. J. Lerner, a plasma physics the author of "The Big Bang Never Happened".
* Hawkins, M. R. S., with his debunked paper.
* B. R. Blight who is ignorant enough to think that the CMB is the only evidence for the Big Bang.
* Arp touting his debunked redshift periodicity idea.
* A. Brynjolfsson who is a true crank with his Plasma-Redshift Cosmology (7 unpublished preprints by him (http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Brynjolfsson_A/0/1/0/all/0/1)) - basically another tired light (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light) crank.
etc.

This is really beneath you, RC - this is guilt by association. Many of these presenters also present at mainstream events and this does not increase their credibility (though maybe it should). It takes a special kind of courage to present results at a quirky convention. Hawkins presented because he was a courteously invited paid presenter.



ETA: He was quite happy using time dilation in 2007 against what looks like the same set of data!
Timescale of variation and the size of the accretion disc in active galactic nuclei (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A%26A...462..581H), Hawkins, M. R. S., 02/2007

(my emphasis added) I have discussed both of Hawkins papers with him. Like most MS researchers; he made the mistake of looking for cherries within his own data, rather than sporting the most obvious and counter-intuitive trend in his very large data set. He fixed this in his second paper. He was a single author, not because others were not involved in the research, but because everyone knows that when you publish data that is non-conformational, it is very career limiting. To my best knowledge No one has refuted his data; or come up with a credible explanation for why both quaser periodicity and gamma ray burst trends run counter to the conclusions drawn from the supernova light curve results; not to mention the observed proper-motion of quasar sources that cause astrometricists fits.

Swift
2014-Nov-14, 04:00 PM
This is really beneath you, RC - this is guilt by association.
I frankly don't care very much what any of you say about people who are not members of CQ, as long as you keep it relatively respectful and family-friendly. But you will not be rude about people who are members here, such as making statements like "this is really beneath you". You are free to disagree about methods and conclusions, but you will be polite about it or I'll start infracting people.

Reality Check
2014-Nov-16, 11:57 PM
This is really beneath you, RC - this is guilt by association.
No - it is possible "crankiness" shown by attending a conference that had some dubious, anti-Big Bang cranks. Those cranks ranged from

Internet physics cranks (Brynjolfsson and Ashmore),
the ignorant Haynes, R. (Re-evaluation of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ASPC..413...47H): "By definition, a perfect black-body is matter at zero kelvin, and cold matter better approaches this perfection" :eek: )
an "out of field" science crank Bernard Bligh - a low temperature physicist (see his web site (http://altcosmology.com/Home.php))
a scientifically wrong crank (Arp).
etc.


On time dilation in quasar light curves (2010) (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.405.1940H) by M. R. S. Hawkins has 8 refereed citations.
One is Using Quasars as Standard Clocks for Measuring Cosmological Redshift (2012) (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012PhRvL.108w1302D) which does find patterns in quasar light curves:

We report hitherto unnoticed patterns in quasar light curves. We characterize segments of the quasar's light curves with the slopes of the straight lines fit through them. These slopes appear to be directly related to the quasars' redshifts. Alternatively, using only global shifts in time and flux, we are able to find significant overlaps between the light curves of different pairs of quasars by fitting the ratio of their redshifts. We are then able to reliably determine the redshift of one quasar from another. This implies that one can use quasars as standard clocks, as we explicitly demonstrate by constructing two independent methods of finding the redshift of a quasar from its light curve.

This is not the time dilation expected just from SR. But then quasars are not type 1A supernova! Type 1A supernova (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_Ia_supernova)

This category of supernovae produces consistent peak luminosity because of the uniform mass of white dwarfs that explode via the accretion mechanism. The stability of this value allows these explosions to be used as standard candles to measure the distance to their host galaxies because the visual magnitude of the supernovae depends primarily on the distance.

The problem that I can see with quasars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasar) is that there is not this uniformity. The supermassive black hole that is the consensus as a source can have varying masses. The in falling matter that is the source of the light and its variation can have varying masses. The supermassive black hole grow during the lifetime of the quasar - this growth is one of Hawkins explanations for his non-detection of time dilation. Hawkins wants his observed variations to be caused by microlensing during the photon travel - but why could they not be caused out by the complex interactions in the accretion disk?

Put it another way, ask yourself the question: If the main stars (not the white dwarfs) in type 1A supernova increased in mass as the universe got older would you expect their light curves to be consistent and so their time dilation to be purely relativistic?