From: clements@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: Standard model of QSOsex
Date: 27 Jul 92 10:29:09 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAXcluster

In article <Bs0L01.LpM@well.sf.ca.us>, metares@well.sf.ca.us (Tom Van Flandern) writes:
> 
> clements@vax.oxford.ac.uk (Dave Clements) writes:
> 
>> Sorry Tom, but there *does* exist a redshift-brightness relation for radio
>> galaxies all the way from essentially 0 redshift right up to the most
>> distant galaxies known at z = 3.8. This is the K magnitude z relation; K is
>> an infrared band at about 2.2 microns. You could see this in eg. Lilly 89
>> Ap. J and many other places.
> 
>      Most radio galaxies are among the objects whose redshift interpretation
> is disputed.  In other words, that redshift is not obviously cosmological. So
> in this discussion, invoking radio galaxies is a circular argument.  The
> cases which are clear, undisputed examples of cosmological redshifts are
> normal galaxies out to about z = 1.1.
> 

Tom, you asked for a redshift-magnitude relation to provide you with the
confidence to believe in the redshift-distance relationship. I provided you
with that r-m relation and you now say you are going to ignore it. Please be a
bit more consistant!

Meanwhile, there is abundant evidence for at least the nearer high redshift
radio galaxies that there are stars in them. Composite spectra, stellar
absorbtion features etc etc. In addition, *low* redshift radio galaxies are
indisputably galaxies (though I'd guess you'd dispute it :-) and there is a
continuity of properties from low to high z. This at least convinces *me* that
the high z objects are similar to the low z ones.


>> One would not necessarily expect QSOs to follow such a diagram if the
>> processes responsible for their emission change on a timescale smaller than
>> the look back time to the appropriate redshift. Indications from the
>> stamndard model are that QSO phenomena last a short time explaining the
>> scatter in all plots of QSO properties vs. redshift etc.
> 
>      And under the local hypothesis, these redshifts are also not expected to
> show strong correlations with most quasar properties for even more obvious
> reasons.
>

All you are saying here is that we both have reasons for QSOs not to have
strong redshift correlations with other properties. Thus this is not a way to
choose between local and distant models for QSOs.
 
>> Just as an aside, in the meta model, the 'qso's are powered by stars, and
>> the redshifts come from gavity. Thus, since a star's power output is
>> determined by its mass, and the redshift is determined by its mass, there
>> should be a good brightness-redshift relation for your meta QSOs. We don't,
>> as you rightly say, see such a relationship. But, this is a win for the
>> standard model, not the meta model, as explained above.
> 
>      In the meta model, as mass gets larger, so does redshift; but also, so
> does opacity.  Highly redshifted quasars would emit less light than less
> redshifted ones both because of this opacity, and because they are cooler. If
> you have by now acquired a sense of why quasars are predicted in the meta
> model, you will see that this result is required, not asserted ad hoc.

Does energy conservation work in the Meta model? If so, then the energy
absorbed in extinction in these stars has to come out somewhere! This would
probably be in the IR or far IR, I'd guess, which suggests that high z quasars
should be enormously bright in those wavebands accessed by the IRAS satellite.
I'm afraid that this is just not so. The way to select QSOs actually seems to
be at higher frequencies (X-rays) rather than at IR wavelenghts weher you get
star forming galaxies etc.

> 
>> [On another topic] I was specifically refering to the correlation of X-ray
>> cluster emission and the SZ effect shape in contrast to the optical light
>> distribution in A665. The X-ray emission (perfectly standard in a galaxy
>> cluster) is offset from the optical centre and the SZ profile is offset by
>> exactly the same amount, exactly as you'd expect if the microwave decrement
>> was from the SZ effect. ie. the CNBR is emitted behind the z = 0.3 cluster.
> 
>      I didn't catch the part about the spatial correlation of the SZ profile
> and the cluster X-ray emission.  Which reference was that again?  Of course
> this still fits well with Lerner's ideas about the CMR.  What it would set
> limits on is my assertion that we have no experimental evidence to show that
> the CMR is farther away than about 100 parsecs, perhaps generated by the last
> local supernova explosion.  -|Tom|-

I believe this is in the Birkinshaw paper. I'd be inetrested in your
explaination as to how this fits in with a local CBR as suggested by Learner.
And wouldn't a local SNR be more anisotropic than dT/T about 10^-5 on all
scales? And how come theres a clear dipole componant in the CBR as expected to
arise from our motion relative to it???


-- 
================================================================================
Dave Clements, Oxford University Astrophysics Department
================================================================================
clements @ uk.ac.ox.vax			|  Umberto Eco is the *real* Comte de
dlc      @ uk.ac.ox.astro		|           Saint Germain...
================================================================================
Newsgroups: sci.astro