Time waits for no quasar – even though it should

www.newscientist.com...

Quote from source:
WHY do distant galaxies seem to age at the same rate as those closer to us when big bang theory predicts that time should appear to slow down at greater distances from Earth? No one can yet answer this new question, but one controversial idea is that the galaxies' light is being bent by intervening black holes that formed shortly after the big bang.

Space has been expanding since the big bang, stretching light from distant objects to longer, redder wavelengths - a process called "red shift". The expansion means that distant events appear to occur more slowly than those nearby. For example, the interval between light pulses leaving a faraway object once per second should have lengthened by the time they reach Earth because space has expanded during their trip.

Supernovae show this "time dilation" in the speed at which they fade - far-off explosions seem to dim more slowly than those nearby. But when Mike Hawkins of the Royal Observatory in Edinburgh, UK, looked at light from quasars he found no time dilation (Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, in press).

Quasars are galaxies so bright they can be seen across most of the universe. Using observations of nearly 900 quasars made over periods of up to 28 years, Hawkins compared patterns in the light between quasars about 6 billion light years from us with those at 10 billion light years away.

Is it just me or does there seem to be more and more evidence against the big bang?

Seems like it about getting time to re-write history as we need a more concrete theory. When we a finding anomalies in a theory it means that we don't understand it.

I cannot wait to see what all this information does to the big bang theory.

Any thoughts?

Pred...

Hmm this is a really interesting issue, thank you for bringing it up.

I am not quite sure what to make of this right now.

I will certainly have to think about it for awhile, it is a very deep issue and I've never considered it before.

Essentially what they are saying is "Time appears to go slower, further away".

I guess? Seems like that is what they are saying.

Correct me if I interpreted their findings wrong. Thanks.

I'll be anticipating some really good posts from members to help clear things up for us.

[edit on 7-4-2010 by muzzleflash]

Maybe light has a property we have never considered before, but with this finding we may have a tad of evidence to support.

Maybe this property of light is called "Lingering" , and as light travels vast distances it doesn't "lose it's energy" , but in a bizarre twist of physics, it gains energy as it travels further.

Thus causing the light to last longer from supernovae at further distances.

The light lingers as it travels further.

Maybe my terminology works ? I don't know.

Just trying to get a grip on this.

this made me lol, scientists wasting time to try and suss out why a man made concept , and when the concept is proven wrong (ie time appearing to slow down) the just rewrite the rules, throw in a black hole and bobs your uncle.

i believe light can be bent, and in all fairness we have no real way of testing if its true or not wether light can speed up or slow down over a distance.

time is just the passing of existance! which is uniform wherever in the universe you most likely could ever go ... i know im being contridictary (as we have no way to proove this) but im yet to see any solid proof otherwise!

i also hate that the scientists take that the speed of light a constant speed measurement over light years when we have never even travelled a light year to test it!

Well we all know that light slows when travelling through dense matter, so to me it's not out of the question that light travelling near a black hole could be bent and therefore slowed, giving the perception that time is slower and slower the further away the object in question is - basically what the article says.

However i'm struggling to make sense of this, like the above poster. If a closer galaxy appears to be ageing at the same rate as one further away, then what's to say that galaxy wasn't born at a different moment in time? It seems like the article is missing some basics in logic.

But i'm no expert and I could well be missing something here.

reply to post by TheNextOne


i dont (know that light slows down when traveling through a dence matter), can you show me some scientific proof please?

Originally posted by boaby_phet
i believe light can be bent

No need for belief. You can see it for yourself by putting a straw in a glass of water. See how it looks bent? Well, you know the straw isn't really bent (you can feel its straightness with your fingers) so it has to be the light that's bending.

in all fairness we have no real way of testing if its true or not wether light can speed up or slow down over a distance.

Oh, but we do. We can measure the speed of light reaching us from distant stars.

Another method is to use the aberration of light, discovered and explained by James Bradley in the 18th century. This effect results from the vector addition of the velocity of light arriving from a distant source (such as a star) and the velocity of its observer. A moving observer thus sees the light coming from a slightly different direction and consequently sees the source at a position shifted from its original position. Since the direction of the Earth's velocity changes continuously as the Earth orbits the Sun, this effect causes the apparent position of stars to move around. From the angular difference in the position of stars, it is possible to express the speed of light in terms of the Earth's velocity around the Sun, which with the known length of a year can be easily converted in the time needed to travel from the Sun to Earth. In 1729, Bradley used this method to derive that light travelled 10,210 times faster than the Earth in its orbit (the modern figure is 10,066 times faster) or, equivalently, that it would take light 8 minutes 12 seconds to travel from the Sun to the Earth. Source

The speed of light in a vacuum can be measured in many different ways, and no matter what the distance is over which the light has travelled, its speed is always found to be the same (within the bounds of experimental error, of course).

time is just the passing of existance! which is uniform wherever in the universe you most likely could ever go ... i know im being contridictary (as we have no way to proove this) but im yet to see any solid proof otherwise!

Again, there is plenty of proof. You prove it every time you use the GPS on your mobile phone, since time by the satellite clock moves more slowly (because of the satellite's orbital speed relative to you) than the clock on your phone.

The truth is that time is nowhere the same. It varies with both speed and gravity. As Einstein noted, it makes no sense to speak of one event happening before, after or at the same time as another except from the point of view of some observer. Depending on the location and speed of the observer, event A could happen before, after, or at the same time as B.

i also hate that the scientists take that the speed of light a constant speed measurement over light years when we have never even travelled a light year to test it!

There are plenty of other ways of testing it, as the link above shows. They all give the same answer. What more do you want?

i dont (know that light slows down when traveling through a dence matter), can you show me some scientific proof please?

It is the slowing down of light by the water in the glass that makes the straw look bent in the example given above. This is the main proof that the velocity of light changes in different media, but there are other proofs too. See earlier link, and also here.

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

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 expandingand 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.

www.physorg.com...

As if quasars werent already weired enough. I hope Hawkins has the courage to push on regardless of the contraversy his theories create.

Time dilation is a result of either high accelerations or gravitational fields. The gravitational effects on the surface of the Earth dilates time (slows it down) and so does the acceleration of GPS satellites. These satellites are far enough away to show a difference in measured time between their location and here on Earth (GPS satellite clocks run faster). Their acceleration reduces this difference but is not enough and so these GPS satellite clocks needed to be adjusted for this time discrepancy. This is physical evidence that time is relative to both accelerations and gravity.

In my opinion Dr. Halton Arp explains Quasars very well. A summary from what I have read, and what I can recall, is that Quasars are a part of what appears to be their local 'parent' galaxies and their measured redshifts are not accurate in showing their distance.

Some of the redshifts are so large that it would put them billions of light years away (some estimates up to 40-50 billion) and thus make them the largest and most luminous objects in the Universe. So large and so bright that this contradicts the laws of physics and relativity, big time, not to mention that these distances are further away than the Universe is old. Light from these objects would have to travel faster than the speed of light to get here in time, makes no sense to me and I have read about the so called "lookback time".

Quasars appear to be objects of energy that have been ejected out of their parent galaxies, sometimes four can be observed around one galaxy. It would be my guess that these observed high redshift values in quasars has to do with low mass high energy objects that would have almost no time dilation. Time dilation is due to gravity and low mass (low gravity) objects would have almost no time dilation. In other words in this environment time would appear to move extremely fast as observed here on Earth in our own 'time bubble'. This could explain why these redshift values are so high.

I would predict that young quasars would have very high redshifts, almost no time dilation, slow or no rotational speed and almost no mass/gravity. This is because I believe these things are all related. As these quasars get older they would gain lower redshifts, start to rotate and gain mass with an increasing gravitational force. This rotational acceleration would increase time dilation and inertial mass or gravity and the result would be an expelling of mass due to centrifugal forces. Thus spiral arms are formed and we have ourselves proto galaxies.

not the same source but this is already being discussed -www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Frakkerface


I agree buddy the only thing is that he posted that a week after me. All good though intelligent conversation is the only thing that matters.

Pred...

reply to post by predator0187


oops sorry, didn't spot that!