Discovery that quasars don't show time dilation mystifies astronomers

http://www.physorg.com/news190027752.html

quote:

---

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.

---

OMG, science sux, god rox. Haha, j/k, although I do see creationists taking advantage of this news.

Hawkins works alone, he's the sole author of his papers, and he's been pushing this for a couple decades without getting much attention, see these papers:

• Gravitational microlensing, quasar variability and missing matter
  ​
• Time Dilation and Quasar Variability
  

--Percy

These "pulses" emanate from a very dense region that is highly dynamic. You may well find that there is sufficient blue and red shifting going on from the accretion disc and/or vicinity that a great deal of averaging is going on. It's 20+ years since I studues quasar and AGN engines, and I'm in Thailand on vacation. I'll get back to this later - there's diving to be done

Can somebody put this is in idiot speak for me? I didn't read the Dawkins links yet though but I'm having a hard time understanding what that first post means for science/creation/evolution.

I'll try, don't know if it'll be any good though. First of, it's Hawkins, not Dawkins. A quasar is a very active galaxy (sends out a lot of radiation) they are the brightest objects in the known universe, they are also very far off. Because of the expanding universe, very distant galaxies normally are redshifted, because the wavelength of the light is "stretched" like the Doppler effect, but for light (look a bit further down the wiki page for the section about light). Another effect of the expanding universe is of course the farther away something is, the quicker it's also moving away from us. This would mean that every pulse the quasar sends out (it pulses kinda like a lighthoues) would have to have ever increasing intervals between the first and second, second and third, third and fourth and so on pulses.Now, this Hawkins fellow is saying that we don't observe this, which would mean that somehow, these quasars aren't effected by the expanding universe. Like Percy has pointed out, he is pretty much alone in this, so how much he is right remains to be seen.This could potentially be used by creationists to discredit the claim that the universe is very old, because if you can't trust the time dilation, then you can't measure the age by sources of light accurately, or so they will claim. I can't think of an immediate response here, but I'm pretty sure that's not the only way we measure the age of the universe. I suggest waiting till Cavediver gets back from his vacation, or maybe Son goku will drop in and explain some stuff.

Not to diverge to much, but are you visiting Phuket or Pattaya Beach? Phuket was a lovely resort town before the 2004 Tsunami. Not sure what is left. Anyways enjoy the beauty of Southwest Asia.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

awww, you got a answer already but now I have used time to compose this answer so now ya get itIf I understood it correct.
The theory of relativity implies that when events occur in the distant parts of the universe the event seems to occur slower: if you see me taking one step simultaneously with a guy standing 100 meter away — firstly, despite we do it simultaneously, it seems like he reacts slower than me (because reflection of light), furthermore the phenomenon of time dilation also says it seems like he walks slower. If my step took 1 second, his step seems to you to take more than 1 second.
The above explanation is incorrect since this occurs only in very very distant places; basically, the acceleration of the expanding universe causes the wavelength of light to become longer (redshift). Summed up; time dilation.
Mike Hawkins researches contradict the phenomenon of time dilation based on 900observations of quasars over 28 years. Some of them were 6 billion light years away, some 10 billion light years away. Those 10 billion light years away was more redshifted than those closer, but phenomenon of time dilation did not occur.And from here he tries to explain some of his idea of why dilation did not occur. Furthermore, this might damage the theory of big bang and how the universe expands. And now! If creationists cared to read such article, they would probably say aha, big bang is shit, god is shizzle and we could reply what is your point guyz? This is how science work, we are okay with that and they will feel victorious.Is this correct interpreted?

BumpCD you never came back to give your opinion on this

Just got in (30 mins ago) from Thailand, having been trapped there for an extra nine days owing to a certain volcano. The extra diving I had to endure to fill the time was hell, as you can imagine...I've now been up for 22 hours and need sleep - so let's call it a date for tomorrow.

Was in Khao Lak, about 1hr north of Phuket airport, on the west coast. It has all been rebuilt, and there are not many signs of the utter devastation - quite remarkable redevelopment. There were over 200 deaths in and around Phuket. There were over 4000 deaths around Khao Lak!!!Anyway, had a wonderful three weeks, thanks to a certain Icelandic volcano (was meant to be 12 nights.) And great diving around the Similan Isles. Lots of mantas

Thank you Huntard for the explanation. I actually forgot about this thread until I just read this Quasars Quash Big Bang Assumption | The Institute for Creation Research and thought I had heard the term "quasar" somewhere before and sure enough, it was here!This ICR article (as someone said, the creationists would jump all over this) doesn't really shed any new insight into the discussion. As you said, Hawkins, yes Hawkins, not Dawkins, HA!, is the only one so far theorizing this. I'm going to read the ICR article one more time to see if I can get a better understanding of the issue, but there's probably tons of room for more study on the subject.

Please, Flyer. You are a rational creationist (oxymoron, yes, but you are one). For all that is good and holy: stop getting information from creationist sources. They lie.

---

"Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Othersfor example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einsteinconsidered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws."-Carl Sagan"Show me where Christ said "Love thy fellow man, except for the gay ones." Gay people, too, are made in my God's image. I would never worship a homophobic God." -Desmond Tutu

well, the article starts out wrong:

quote:

---

According to the most prominent naturalistic theory of origins, the universe began over 13 billion years ago in a "Big Bang" that flung matter, energy, and space outward.

---

That's not what the big bang theory says, it says a13.7 (or thereabouts) billion years ago, spacetime started expanding. Nothing was flung outwards. This is the type of stuff I usually see from creationist websites, they get even the basic things wrong. It's a shame really.It continues on, talking about the quasars we saw in te OP, but fails to mention that Hawkins is the only one who holds this view, and that basically, unless there are more tests done, it's far too early to say anything definitively about this. Which is why it is weird that they have indeed "jumped on" this "discovery". It's what was predicted, because this is what they always do. They don't care about the truth, they care about discrediting the science that doesn't agree with their interpretation of scripture.Then they try to act as if scientists have already made up their mind and aren't interested in the truth with this quote:

quote:

---

For example, astronomer Hugh Ross recently stated, "Technological advance provides definitive data on the age of the universe and earth. There's simply no scientific basis for thinking that the universe and earth are not billions of years old."7 Investigating--not simply ignoring--observations like unexpected quasar light behavior and super-smooth cosmic temperatures shows that the data are only definitive in their defiance of mankind's overconfidence that science has solved the secrets of the universe--including its age.

---

There are more ways then one to determine the age of the universe, and saying this makes it look like scientists aren't investigating this alleged phenomenon, which I'm pretty sure is not true, there are probably other scientists out there checking Hawkins' claims. And until further data and research is known, it's just too early to throw everything else that points to an old universe overboard, just because one study seems to disagree with some findings. Think of it this way:There is a box, and in this box there is an item of a certain colour and dimensions. Several people have a look inside the box, and when asked what kind of colour and shape the item is, their responses are: red square, dark red square, red square, red square, dark red square, red square, red rectangle, red square, dark red rectangle, red square, red rectangle, dark red square and dark red rectangle. Now, another person comes along, has a look in the box and says the colour and shape is blue circle.Now, would you throw out all the observations that basically said it was red and rectangular (a square is a rectangle too) in shape, based on just one report of it being a blue circle? Or do you insist to either see it for yourself, or, at the very least, have more people look at it and tell you what colour and shape the object is?This is why it's far too early to come to any sort of conclusion about this report. The fact that ICR has jumped on top of it, is because they are not interested in what this study really means, they just see another opportunity to say "Ha! See! Science is wrong again! We should just stop looking for the fats and assume everything is as we interpret scripture!". I find such behaviour a bit dishonest.

Having looked around, it's exactly as I originally figured in my first post - there is just far too much variability in the quasar engines (SuperMassive Black Hole, accretion disc, broad-line region, narrow-line region), both between different quasars and over time, to be able to discern any time-dilation. You would need a consistent feature in the emission spectra that you would compare across different quasars, but there is no such feature that isn't broadened and red/blue shifted disguising any cosmological time-dilation factor.This is why his papers attract so few cites, and he is otherwise ignored. It's an obvious null result.

CD,You seem to be the resident "expert" on astronomy (based on the fact that others are waiting for your responses on this issue). I have a sincere question. Where do we stand scientifically with space exploration and our knowledge of space and it's origins (for those who don't believe creation)? I'm going to guess it's much less then we know or have study about our own planet.....Trust me, this isn't a gotcha question. I'm sincere on this. I think we've reached consensus on this short little thread that as far as quasars go, much more research must be done before either side jumps to conclusion.