Talk:Quasar/Archive for 2007

First paragraph cleanup?

The first paragraph is pretty clunky. Would someone with more background than me like to clean it up a bit? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.110.5.110 (talk) 00:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

I agree. As a non-astonomer, I am perplexed by the opening; is a Quasar a type of star? Is it a galaxy? Some other type of object? The stuff about the red shift is doubtless critical, but without a bit more context it's just gibberish. Anchoress 09:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I've taken a stab at fixing it. I've split the old, long introduction into a very short introduction that attempts to answer the reader's first question ("what is a quasar?") in layman's terms, and into a longer "overview" section that provides the background that was in the old introduction.

If this looks ok to enough of the lurkers here, we can remove the "introduction needs to be fixed" tag. Thoughts? --Christopher Thomas 05:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that satisfies me, and thank you. My main question about quasars has now been answered! If the tag is still there I'll go remove it. Anchoress 16:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to reopen the discussion about the first paragraph. I am reading it now again after a long while and I think that it is trivial: "A quasar (contraction of QUASi-stellAR radio source) is an astronomical source of electromagnetic energy, including radio waves and visible light." Well, isn't every star and galaxy just that? Basically, every radiating astronomical object is a source of electromagnetic energy, so this introduction says nothing about quasars. We must be more specific. The characterizing property of quasars is their high redshift, therefore I think that this should be mentioned here as a kind of definition. I propose the following: "A quasar (contraction of QUASi-stellAR radio source) is an astronomical source of electromagnetic energy, including radio waves and visible light, whose spectrum shows an unusually high redshift". I think everyone would agree that this is a rather precise and neutral definition. Any comments? Dukeofalba 20:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

In the field, currently, Quasars are the superluminous cores of distant AGN. We should be up-front about this. --ScienceApologist 22:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem with this interpretation, but we must also be clear about existing controversies. Whether we like it or not, there is an intense debate about quasars (this very discussion is proof of it) which has to be somehow reflected in the article. Writing that "the scientific consensus has been all but settled" sounds dogmatic and is simply not true. You are tacitly admitting it when you say that "In the field, currently, Quasars are...". I agree with you: currently that is the interpretation of the majority, but everyone will agree that the evidence is still not strong enough to settle the case definitively. Further, even if the AGN interpretation is right and even if a consensus has been reached, from a historical perspective a quasar cannot be defined as an AGN (otherwise we would simply call it AGN, and not quasar). A quasar was an unidentified object with certain characteristics which later was identified as an AGN. I will give an example to try and make this point more clear: until the 1920's there was a hot debate about whether nebulae were extragalactic or intragalactic. The case was closed when Hubble proved that many of the nebulae were other galaxies, but it would be wrong to define a nebula as "a galaxy", because in fact *some* nebulae are intragalactic gas clouds. The correct thing is to say that nebulae are "astronomical objects looking like a cloud, which were later identified in most cases as galaxies". The same thing applies to quasars. A quasar is an object with a very high redshift which most scientists think is an AGN. But if we are certain about an object being an AGN we call it AGN; on the other hand, if we use the term quasar we are assuming there is uncertainty.

About the mentioning of the black hole theory, there has been a long discussion in this page about it, which you have simply ignored. Before changing the article, please read first all the discussions to avoid repeating mistakes. Dukeofalba 05:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

"will agree that the evidence is still not strong enough to settle the case definitively." --> No, that's truly not the case. Everyone agrees that the issue has been settled definitively especially with the discovery of host galaxies. There has never been a quasar discovered that didn't have a host galaxy. Your historical example also obfuscates. The debate wasn't over nebula in general, but specifically spiral nebulae which indeed are all external galaxies. This is similar to quasars.

The discussion on the page regarding "black hole theory" doesn't address the fact that today that is the only model considered. We have a duty as a mainstream source to report this.

Claiming, as you do, that there are continued controversies is not supported in the literature or by any [{WP:RS|reliable sources]]. Unless you can point us to some that indicate otherwise, I'm going to revert this weasling as POV pushing. --ScienceApologist 11:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You are completely missing the point about the nebula example. Just read my post again. About the lack of debate in the literature: a quick search on Google Scholar for "quasar controversy" returns 189 papers since 2005 alone. I haven't checked all of these papers, because I certainly have more interesting things to do. For this same reason, I am not wasting any more time with you. If you think that the controversy will be over simply by gagging and censoring any discrepant views, that's fine with me. I see the main value of Wikipedia not as a scientific reference tool, but as something that keeps some people busy, who might otherwise go out and maybe harm others who disagree with them. So please, carry on with your Inquisitorial work at Wikipedia, but please never leave your computer. -- Dukeofalba

So you're using Google Scholar to count how many papers happen to have to words "quasar" and "controversy", not bothering to look at them, and on that basis concluding that the AGN nature of quasars is still disputed? If I can get you to go from reading zero papers to reading one paper, why not look at Virginia Trimble's annual update on the state of astronomy? Look at section 10.3 and let me know if it sounds like the quasar-AGN connection is still an open question. I mean, we've found SMBHs in nearly all galaxies, including our own; we see host galaxies of AGN; we can associate the Lya forest of quasar spectra with halos of nearby galaxies... continuing to dispute the AGN nature of quasars is quackery at this point. It's straight out of 1980. -- Coneslayer 19:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Is the 'introduction context' tag still necessary?

As the editor who placed it, I was satisfied with its removal after improvement of the article. Whoever replaced the tag did not indicate why it was still necessary; could s/he do so? Or was the tag replaced inadvertently? Anchoress 20:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to remove it because the article seems to provide sufficient context for neophytes now. Thank you for the imprimatur. Antelan ^talk 20:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I place the tag up there, because there is no tag for "too techinal" for the article page, but it did lack context a little, but yeah, I agree with Antelan, i think the tag should be removed as the intro is decent enough that it's not as big of a priority. (Not trying to imply that there is a secret to do list, just saying there are more important things to do in the article. Not sure what they are though. :) --Andrew Hampe ^Talk 21:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks all, and Andrew Hampe, forgive me if I'm wrong, but if you think the whole article still lacks context or is too technical, I think there actually is a tag that specific. I can look for it if you like. In fact, I think I actually used it recently. Anchoress 03:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Check the templates in this section. The first is the one you used, but would either of the bottom two be accurate? Anchoress 04:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you thinking of something along the lines of {{technical}}? Antelan ^talk 04:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion, but if Andrew thinks the article is still lacking in context, perhaps he will find it suitable? Anchoress 05:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been keeping up with the edit history of the article, was the 'technical' template ever placed? Has there been improvement? Andrew, are you still monitoring this issue? Anchoress 17:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

"sex shit"

Hello. If you find this article by simple search for "quasar" you will see that in the first paragraph instead of "They may readily release energy in levels equal to the output of hundreds of average galaxies combined." => "They may readily release equal levels of sex shit equal to the output of hundreds of average galaxies combined. " This two words "sex shit" need to be removed. I don't know how to do it because in the version to be edited the correct sentence appears! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.255.119.66 (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

I've seen this happen a couple of times. I think it's caused by someone else fixing the vandalism after I've seen it, but before I've tried to correct it. Sometimes the vandalism appears to remain in the page regardless - I guess this is due to some sort of cacheing going on. --Random wikipedia user.

To fix it you should probably just purge the page next time it happens to you. You can change the address to have the action set to purge, or you could just make a null edit by editing and saving the page without making changes, which purges the page. (It doesn't come up in the edit history by the way.) --Andrew Hampe ^Talk 20:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Quotes

I don't know how to make them, but couldn't there be one of those quote things around Hong-Yee Chiu's quote? Leon math 23:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

- Looks like someone fixed it with a quote box. 203.129.142.1 12:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)GraL

Basic definition (measurementally not interpretationally)

Is there not an agreed upon definition of a quasar such as "a stellar like object with a redshift and an apparent magnitude in the standard Hubble redshift interpretation resulting in an absolute magnitude below some treshold value of minus X". The article as it is now speaks of "high redshifts" or "very high redshifts" but how high is "high" and when does "ordinary redshift" turn into "high redshift"? I guess any star at large distances is a high redshift star but can be differentiated from quasars because of differences in absolute magnitude? After making such a definition one could perhaps make the claim that there is scientific consensus that any object fitting into the definition must be a (as the article says now) "compact halo of matter surrounding the central supermassive black hole of a young galaxy". I guess that people working professionally in the field must have at least a "working definition" of what a quasar is just from the measured redshift and apparent magnitude? Or does the chemical composition differ so much from ordinary stars that a distinction somehow can be made that way? Agge1000 23:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Agge1000

QSOs are simply ultraluminous compact objects (and by ultraluminous we mean brighter than most galaxies) that are the cores of young AGN. What makes something a quasar as opposed to an AGN is really just a matter of semantics; for a long time host galaxies couldn't be seen around QSOs. "High redshift" has evolved over the years as well. There was a time when a z=0.5 was considered "high redshift". Today, high redshift is determined in the various contexts. Some people consider z>1 to be high redshift. Others consider z>4. And so on. ScienceApologist 17:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but how do I know that what I'm looking at in my telescope is a Quasar? At first glance it looks like a star but then one or both of the following holds: 1. When checking the redshift it seems too luminous to be a star. 2.The spectral composition is such as it cannot really be a star. I guess that at large distances you would only be able to identify very luminous galactive nuclei but at short distances a "not so active galactic nuclei" would still appear starlike and have strange spectral characteristics although not be obviously more luminous than a true star. When drawing the conclusion that "More than 100,000 quasars are known", as the article says, there must have been drawn a line somewhere as to what can be identified as a quasar and what can not.Agge1000 20:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You take a spectrum to determine whether it is a star or a quasar. Quasars have incredible emission features and are power-law spectra. In color-color space, there is a selection criterion which preferentially picks out quasars photometrically, but to confirm it you have to get a spectrum. ScienceApologist 21:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

As ScienceApologist says, you tell an optical quasar by its spectrum, for example, its strong, broad, high-ionization emission lines (including for example Ly a, C IV, N V). So there's not much point in talking about an absolute magnitude cutoff for distinguishing quasars from stars—if you have a redshift, you have seen the object's spectrum, and they're not at all similar. But sometimes a luminosity cutoff is imposed to separate the optical quasar population from the Seyfert 1 population; often the line is drawn at M_B=−23. This criterion isn't universal, though, is not always available (rest-frame B might be outside your spectrum), and it's essentially artificial. -- Coneslayer 13:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Theories getting mixed up with the Known Facts

I've been doing a bit of research on quasars, and found on the NASA website that one unproven theory is that quasars are nuclei of young galaxies. Therefore the first sentence of this article does not have any proof behind it. Also, there are many more facts on the page that are only theories. I think this page needs serious cleaning up. If anyone disagrees, check out the NASA pages for "Quasars". user:Divya da Animal Lvr

You didn't provide the link you are talking about. Please note that the NASA website is a portal for various subsites, some are not updated anynore since 1996 [1]! Research has been evolved a lot since then. --Patrick1982 07:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

APM 8279+5255:

Has anyone any answers as to why this very early quasar already has a lot of iron? It seems to be older than the universe itself! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.21.83.247 (talk • contribs) on 08:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

Galaxy Clock Theory

If one wre to look at the 'Galaxy Clock Theory" They would notice a straight line from what would represent the event horizon to the outer most 'ring' of the universe. (If we layed concentric rings over one another it would reach to the outer most ring) notice that a quasar represents the constant of light. On a 2-D plane, the Galaxy Clock would look like concentric rings on paper with only one hand pointed at 12 o'clock. REMEMBER.. see 2-D, think 3-D!! One could measure the distance the visible light would reach out from a quasar by measuring the distance on a 2-D plane from the event horizon to the outer ring of the galaxy. That should equal the radius of the Galaxy. Lets take a look on a sub-atomic level.. One photon of light ocsilating in an orbit once in 1 sec is called 1(Hz). When the photon reaches the starting point again in its orbit, a 'quasar' is emitted from center of the orbit that extends to the outer ring of the atom. We call this quasar on a sub-atomic level a Pulse, or vibration. or Frequency. If it occurs on a micro scale, then it occurs on a macro scale. The milky way Galaxy rotates once about every 225 million years. Consider that ONE OSCILATION. We know on a sub-atomic level a 'quasar' is formed, would it happen on a Macro level as well then? if so, would it negatively impact life in the Galaxy? and would it polorize the entire atmosphere of Earth for the remainder of the Quasar resulting in Aurora Borealis? Could this happen on Dec. 21, 2012? Are our planets going to be in perfect alignment that day? and did anyone else notice that a Quasar's emission would be exactly 90 Degrees to Earths tilt of 23.5 Degrees? ----A non amus. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.4.238.4 (talk • contribs) on 05:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC).