Hawkins: Quasars don't show time dilation

Analog

Lifer
Jan 7, 2002
12,755
3
0
Discovery that quasars don't show time dilation mystifies astronomers

quasar.jpg


This X-ray image shows the quasar PKS 1127-145, a highly luminous source of X-rays and visible light located about 10 billion light years from Earth. Its X-ray jet extends at least a million light years from the quasar. Credit: NASA.
(PhysOrg.com) -- 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.
 
Last edited:

Nox51

Senior member
Jul 4, 2009
376
20
81
Interesting read but just to point out the paper was written by Hawkins not Hawking.
 

Triumph

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
15,031
14
81
That would be something, if it turns out that the universe is not expanding.

Maybe it has something to do with light from quasars not moving at the speed of light? That would be ground breaking, as well. Who knows?
 

bignateyk

Lifer
Apr 22, 2002
11,288
7
0
Where you gonna run to, sinnerman?

No point in running, the universe comes to you.

I keep running and running but for some reason I keep ending up back at the same place. It's almost like we're stuck on some big sphere. WE'RE TRAPPED!!!11!!
 

GagHalfrunt

Lifer
Apr 19, 2001
25,284
1,998
126
If the universe tries contracting on us, we should kick it's ass.

No, I want to see what's out there and I'll get a great view as it comes hurtling towards us. That moment of clarity right before Alpha Centauri drops on my head will be worth it.
 

destrekor

Lifer
Nov 18, 2005
28,799
359
126
I've always liked the 'the universe is pulsing' theory :D

Indeed. As much as a one-hit-wonder universe is kind of neat, in that it just popped out of nowhere, is set to expand forever, and then just dissipate as it expands to its death (does the flat, forever-expanding universe theory at all suggest the death of the universe when it expands too far?)... I've always had a thing for the theory that the universe expands until its own expansion simply reaches a turning point and it retracts upon itself. It may or not reach the big-bang moment before it turns on itself once again and begins to expand.
I've got no scientific degree to support such theories regardless. So I pick and choose what I do and don't like unless the science is overwhelmingly supporting of one specific theory. So far, the expand-forever one seems to be winning. :(
:D
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
183
106
One theory that comes to mind is that right after thr Big Bang the universe expanded faster then the speed of light. Would a Quasar produce enough energy to mimic that condition?
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
17,690
15,938
146
Hmmm,

Would make a good beginning to a hard sci-fi novel:

Quasars are the aftermath of an alien civilizations attempt to get the frak out of here before the eventual heat death of the universe.
 

destrekor

Lifer
Nov 18, 2005
28,799
359
126
Hmmm,

Would make a good beginning to a hard sci-fi novel:

Quasars are the aftermath of an alien civilizations attempt to get the frak out of here before the eventual heat death of the universe.

I wonder if there is anywhere to go.

I hear, if it really exists, Universe B is one helluva party place!
Now how do we go about getting there?! :hmm:
 

JTsyo

Lifer
Nov 18, 2007
12,038
1,135
126
Indeed. As much as a one-hit-wonder universe is kind of neat, in that it just popped out of nowhere, is set to expand forever, and then just dissipate as it expands to its death (does the flat, forever-expanding universe theory at all suggest the death of the universe when it expands too far?)... I've always had a thing for the theory that the universe expands until its own expansion simply reaches a turning point and it retracts upon itself. It may or not reach the big-bang moment before it turns on itself once again and begins to expand.
I've got no scientific degree to support such theories regardless. So I pick and choose what I do and don't like unless the science is overwhelmingly supporting of one specific theory. So far, the expand-forever one seems to be winning. :(
:D

I wonder what the spring constant on the universe would be. Can't be very stiff it expanded of lightyears.
 

Matthiasa

Diamond Member
May 4, 2009
5,755
23
81
I wonder what the spring constant on the universe would be. Can't be very stiff it expanded of lightyears.

It would need at least one fixedish end to test. :(
Otherwise it would just move or spin or well other stuff.