Discovery that quasars don't show time dilation mystifies astronomers

The phenomenon of time dilation is a strange yet experimentally confirmed effect of relativity theory. One of its implications is that events occurring in distant parts of the universe should appear to occur more slowly than events located closer to us. For example, when observing supernovae, scientists have found that distant explosions seem to fade more slowly than the quickly-fading nearby supernovae.

The effect can be explained because (1) the speed of light is a constant (independent of how fast a light source is moving toward or away from an observer) and (2) the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, which causes light from distant objects to redshift (i.e. the wavelengths to become longer) in relation to how far away the objects are from observers on Earth. In other words, as space expands, the interval between light pulses also lengthens. Since expansion occurs throughout the universe, it seems that time dilation should be a property of the universe that holds true everywhere, regardless of the specific object or event being observed. However, a new study has found that this doesn’t seem to be the case - quasars, it seems, give off light pulses at the same rate no matter their distance from the Earth, without a hint of time dilation.

Astronomer Mike Hawkins from the Royal Observatory in Edinburgh came to this conclusion after looking at nearly 900 quasars over periods of up to 28 years. When comparing the light patterns of quasars located about 6 billion light years from us and those located 10 billion light years away, he was surprised to find that the light signatures of the two samples were exactly the same. If these quasars were like the previously observed supernovae, an observer would expect to see longer, “stretched” timescales for the distant, “stretched” high-redshift quasars. But even though the distant quasars were more strongly redshifted than the closer quasars, there was no difference in the time it took the light to reach Earth.

This quasar conundrum doesn’t seem to have an obvious explanation, although Hawkins has a few ideas. For some background, quasars are extreme objects in many ways: they are the most luminous and energetic objects known in the universe, and also one of the most distant (and thus, oldest) known objects. Officially called “quasi-stellar radio sources,” quasars are dense regions surrounding the central supermassive black holes in the centers of massive galaxies. They feed off an accretion disc that surrounds each black hole, which powers the quasars’ extreme luminosity and makes them visible to Earth.

One of Hawkins’ possible explanations for quasars’ lack of time dilation is that light from the quasars is being bent by black holes scattered throughout the universe. These black holes, which may have formed shortly after the big bang, would have a gravitational distortion that affects the time dilation of distant quasars. However, this idea of “gravitational microlensing” is a controversial suggestion, as it requires that there be enough black holes to account for all of the universe’s dark matter. As Hawkins explains, most physicists predict that dark matter consists of undiscovered subatomic particles rather than primordial black holes.

There’s also a possibility that the explanation could be even more far-reaching, such as that the universe is not expanding and that the big bang theory is wrong. Or, quasars may not be located at the distances indicated by their redshifts, although this suggestion has previously been discredited. Although these explanations are controversial, Hawkins plans to continue investigating the quasar mystery, and maybe solve a few other problems along the way.

Hawkins’ paper will be published in an upcoming issue of the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

More info: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/123345710/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

Classically, whole galaxy clusters obey a Hubble diagram relation between redshift and brightness with a dispersion of just a few tenths of a magnitude. But 14 clusters north of Cen A have a much larger dispersion with a maximum range of 4 magnitudes. Such clusters have no relationship of the type claimed for ordinary galaxies, and call into question that the classical Hubble relationship can have the meaning usually attributed to it — that redshift indicates distance — for anything. We may simply have been fooled by both luminosity and redshift being functions of mass, which would lead to an apparent Hubble relationship despite no true distance dependence.

What a fascinating article at the link in your last, SunkenCiv!

I appreciated Arp's remarks later in the piece, which appear to shed light on the bold conclusion in the above italics:

• "When presented with two possibilities, scientists tend to choose the wrong one."
• The stronger the evidence, the more attitudes harden.
• "The game here is to lump all the previous observations into one 'hypothesis' and then claim there is no second, confirming observation."
• "No matter how many times something has been observed, it cannot be believed until it has been observed again."
• "If you take a highly intelligent person and give them the best possible, elite education, then you will most likely wind up with an academic who is completely impervious to reality.
• "When looking at this picture no amount of advanced academic education can substitute for good judgment; in fact it would undoubtedly be an impediment."
• Local organizing committees give in to imperialistic pressures to keep rival research off programs
• "It is the primary responsibility of a scientist to face, and resolve, discrepant observations."
• Science is failing to self-correct. We must understand why in order to fix it.

In short, scientists must remain skeptical to some degree even about their most valuable presuppositions and tools — such as Hubble diagrams — especially in light of the accumulation of discrepant evidence.

In short, "the observer problem" is alive and well.... Implicit in the Hubble diagram is the presupposition [based on "accepted" science] that redshift is a reliable indicator of distance. If this is incorrect, then conclusions drawn from it would of course be incorrect, too.

But if this is to be admitted, then it seems to me we need to start looking at the universe in a different way.... In this article, Halton Arp definitely helps us to do that!

Thank you so much, SunkenCiv, for this fascinating article — I'll be "meditating it" further!

Arp’s is the only explanation based on the facts (and it’s the simplest).

To ask for the reason that could account for the hostility and antipathy towards Arp in "elite" scientific circles, dear SunkenCiv, is likely to step on many elite (and well-funded at taxpayer expense) toes, with vested interests at stake, in many cases reaching into the political sphere....

Look at who "elite science" is "beating with sticks" nowadays. Then listen to what these "victims" have to say. [That would definitely include Professor Arp IMHO.]

If we are willing to do that, THEN science could get really interesting!!!

As an aside, it seems to me FWIW that "elite science" was a heck of a lot more honest a hundred years ago than it is today.

Thank you ever so much, SunkenCiv, for writing!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.