From: metares@well.sf.ca.us (Tom Van Flandern)
Subject: Re: Quasar "proper motions" (was: Standard model of QSOsex)
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 14:59:59 GMT


Earlier, I wrote:

>> Most of the two dozen quasars used as anchors for the VLBI reference frame
>> were themselves found to be moving (not just blobs in jets).  ...  At the
>> sub-millisecond level, there may well be systematic effects we have yet to
>> discover.  But as the time base grows and more quasars are added, it will
>> soon be obvious whether the quasars really do move or not.

and yaron@astro.as.utexas.edu (Yaron Sheffer) replied:

> Since I find this a very credible assessment of the current situation
> (read: no proper motions have been established yet), I wonder why does Tom
> mention this at all (read: there's no proof here that the sources are
> 'local').

     If we only mentioned things which constitute 'proof', this whole big
bang discussion could have been skipped.

     The reason I mentioned it was because I was responding to Phil Diamond,
who said "there is no, I repeat no, measurements indicating the proper motion
of a quasar with respect to other extragalactic objects."

>> The reason you haven't heard more about this is that no one (including me)
>> believes them yet.

> But then it's as if you contradict yourself, since you say...
>
>> "Personally, I think anyone who would bet heavily that no quasar moves at
>> that rate has been living a shielded existence, and ought to read a
>> greater variety of journals and talk to more astronomers."

     Obviously, I think there are quasar proper motions, and that the data
will eventually show that.  At the moment, real proper motions are still the
best explanation we have for the Ma & Shaffer results.  But the possibility
of unknown phenomena affecting the results at that level is quite high.  So I
agree that believable quasar proper motions are not yet here.  My comment
about anyone who would bet heavily against them still stands.  I am equating
"bet heavily" with being virtually certain that such a thing is impossible.
One would have to dismiss the possibility of valid alternative cosmologies to
conclude that with any certainty.  And any astronomer who would do *that*
needs to read more and talk to astronomers outside his own circle.

> BTW, could you tell us what is the velocity of quasar ejection from
> galaxies according to the Meta model? Then we can calculate predicted
> proper motions and see if perhaps they have ALREADY been ruled out...!
> In fact, let me try doing it now... I'll assume 30,000 km/s as the ejection
> velocity, somewhere between jets and supernova ejecta. ... The inferred
> distance, then, is 100 Mpc(!), well beyond the local super cluster of
> galaxies, and certainly not associated with any nearby galaxies!!

     In the Meta Model, I would have picked a number smaller than 30,000 km/s
as the mean ejection velocity because supermassive stars are not so easy to
accelerate.  Nonetheless, it appears your calculation has derived a figure
close to the actual mean distance of the galaxies with which quasars appear
to be associated.  When I speak of "nearby" galaxies, I mean those in the
quasar-galaxy associations, which are mostly at z < 0.1, or within about 300
Mpc.

     Your test points out that we should be able to look at the proper motion
of 3C273 now and get a distance indicator.  The alternative models place
3C273 in or near the Virgo cluster, just 15 Mpc away.  Even at a more modest
3000 km/s its proper motion should be above the observation error limit.  In
the standard model, it should be 40 times farther away and hardly moving
through intergalactic space.  A measured proper motion would allow us to
choose clearly between these two possibilities.

     If data is being collected now, we should know within 10 years or so
which model is correct.  Please join me in rejecting any claim that quasars
are "relativistically beamed" or other such nonsense if it turns out that
quasars do have significant proper motions.  -|Tom|-

-- 
Tom Van Flandern / Washington, DC / metares@well.sf.ca.us
Meta Research was founded to foster research into ideas not otherwise
supported because they conflict with mainstream theories in Astronomy.
Newsgroups: sci.astro