Page 2 of 2
Re: Quasar
Posted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 5:24 pm
by The Code
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/timeline.html#bang
500 million years after the Big Bang, there should be nothing more to see back in time?
Re: Quasar
Posted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 5:51 pm
by Chris Peterson
mark swain wrote:500 million years after the Big Bang, there should be nothing more to see back in time?
It depends on what you mean by "see". The cosmic microwave background is made up of photons released during the era of recombination, only 377,000 years after the Big Bang. For about 400 million years after that, we ought to be able to detect the 21-cm hydrogen line. From about 400 million years after the BB, stars had formed and we can detect those with conventional telescopic methods.
Gravity waves propagated even before recombination, so we should be able to see them clear back to the moment of the BB.
Re: Quasar
Posted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 6:10 pm
by The Code
Chris Peterson wrote:
I don't understand why this is addressed to me.
Every time I ask a question, Its Mostly you who answers . Thanks
Re: Quasar
Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 4:29 am
by harry
G'day
Sometimes seeing images gives us an understanding of AGN so called quasars.
http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2002/0157/
Centaurus A Arcs:
Arcs Tell The Tale Of A Giant Eruption
A composite X-ray (blue), radio (pink and green), and optical (orange and yellow) image of the galaxy Centaurus A presents a stunning tableau of a galaxy in turmoil. A broad band of dust and cold gas is bisected at an angle by opposing jets of high-energy particles blasting away from the supermassive black hole in the nucleus. Two large arcs of X-ray emitting hot gas were discovered in the outskirts of the galaxy on a plane perpendicular to the jets.
Although I do not agree with the explanation by Chandra the image speaks for it self. The power of the jets in reforming the galaxy and star formation is omnipotent.
X-ray image
http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2002/0 ... ay_hrc.jpg
Look at the force lines, vector field lines and look at the position of the AGN and the jet origin from an Axion formed within the centre of the AGN.
In the previous posts I see people assuming that the theoretical theory of the BBT is correct then proceed to fit the points of discussion. Oh well it's Xmas and Santa is around.
Re: Quasar
Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 5:04 am
by Chris Peterson
harry wrote:Look at the force lines, vector field lines and look at the position of the AGN and the jet origin from an Axion formed within the centre of the AGN.
What "force lines" and "vector field lines"? There's nothing like that discernible in the images you reference. The lines in the x-ray image are isophotes- contour lines following areas of equal intensity in the image. They tell us little or nothing about fields or forces.
An axion is a hypothetical elementary particle that probably doesn't exist. I don't know what that has to do with an active galactic nucleus.
Again, "babble" is the only reasonable way to describe this mishmash of incorrect or misapplied terms.
Re: Quasar
Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 6:55 am
by harry
G'day From the land of ozzz
Chris mate you can fool a lot of people, but! you cannot fool me. You know so little about cosmology and yet you say you understand.
Merry Xmas
Re: Quasar
Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 8:03 am
by harry
G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz
This paper may give you some undertanding of Axions. Yes the subatomic particle and its impact when there is a lot them.
It is not limted to this paper.
You can aslo wiki for it.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.3511
White dwarf axions, PAMELA data, and flipped-SU(5)
Authors: Kyu Jung Bae, Ji-Haeng Huh, Jihn E. Kim, Bumseok Kyae, Raoul D. Viollier
(Submitted on 18 Dec 2008 (v1), last revised 7 Jan 2009 (this version, v2))
Abstract: Recently, there are two hints arising from physics beyond the standard model. One is a possible energy loss mechanism due to emission of very weakly interacting light particles from white dwarf stars, with a coupling strength ~ 0.7x10^{-13}, and another is the high energy positrons observed by the PAMELA satellite experiment. We construct a supersymmetric flipped-SU(5) model, SU(5)xU(1)_X with appropriate additional symmetries, [U(1)_H]_{gauge}x[U(1)_RxU(1)_\Gamma]_{global}xZ_2, such that these are explained by a very light electrophilic axion of mass 0.5 meV from the spontaneously broken U(1)_\Gamma and two component cold dark matters from Z_2 parity. We show that in the flipped-SU(5) there exists a basic mechanism for allowing excess positrons through the charged SU(2) singlet leptons, but not allowing anti-proton excess due to the absence of the SU(2) singlet quarks. We show the discovery potential of the charged SU(2) singlet E at the LHC experiments by observing the electron and positron spectrum. With these symmetries, we also comment on the mass hierarchy between the top and bottom quarks.
Re: Quasar
Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 8:07 am
by harry
G'day
Since I spoke of Axions I thought it may be of interest to post some links.
This is right on the topic in explaining Quasars and their ability to form dipole jets creating an AGN.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.0081
Towards a realistic axion star
Authors: J. Barranco, A. Bernal
(Submitted on 1 Aug 2008)
Abstract: In this work we estimate the radius and the mass of a self-gravitating system made of axions. The quantum axion field satisfies the Klein-Gordon equation in a curved space-time and the metric components of this space-time are solutions to the Einstein equations with a source term given by the vacuum expectation value of the energy-momentum operator constructed from the axion field. As a first step towards an axion star we consider the up to the sixth term in the axion potential expansion. We found that axion stars would have masses of the order of asteroids and radius of the order of few centimeters.
Re: Quasar
Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 3:26 pm
by Chris Peterson
harry wrote:This paper may give you some undertanding of Axions. Yes the subatomic particle and its impact when there is a lot them...
Not at all. I question your including a paper like this as a reference, when you clearly don't understand a single sentence in it. And I find it peculiar that you have spent so much time in the past arguing against dark matter and the lambda-CDM Big Bang model, and then you list this paper which fundamentally supports these concepts. A little consistency, please!
This paper provides no general information about axions, and is totally irrelevant to the current discussion of quasars.
Re: Quasar
Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 3:38 pm
by Chris Peterson
harry wrote:This is right on the topic in explaining Quasars and their ability to form dipole jets creating an AGN.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.0081, Towards a realistic axion star
This paper doesn't remotely address quasars, nor does it discuss AGN jets in any way. It is a theoretical construct describing the possible mass and size of boson stars (which are entirely hypothetical, with essentially no observational evidence arguing for their existence). The paper concludes that if such stars existed, they would have a size of a few centimeters and a mass around one-trillionth that of the Sun. Such an object has no relationship with an AGN, which has a mass of millions of suns or more.
Posting papers you haven't read and don't understand does nothing to advance your ideas.
Re: Quasar
Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 4:16 pm
by Orca
1. Although I do not agree with the explanation by Chandra the image speaks for it self.
2.The power of the jets in reforming the galaxy and star formation is omnipotent.
1. The image speaks for itself? Kinda like Aristotle observing the way all objects tend to stay at rest...didn't that "truth" speak for itself?
2. Omnipotent?
Omnipotent? Is that really a term you should use in a scientific debate (that is, if we are in fact having one now)?
Re: Quasar
Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 10:20 pm
by The Code
G Day { Harry }
How does a little tiny white dwarf, tell me how a 500 million s/m Quasar work and its history?
These things I could compare a Frog and a (organism) molganric triclog from the (planet) golig strinlig (both do not exist)
Harry, what i mean is. You are confusing me. please please tell me why, you think they are all wrong. In your own words.
After all the catching up, over the last 12 months i,m pretty sure there is not much more to it.
