Talk:Quasar/Archive for 2014

Toroidal black holes

Removed the following text from the article pending discussion.

The extremely energetic outflows of quasars remain difficult to understand. Although a consensus exists that the central engine is a supermassive black hole, the assumption of a spheroidal event horizon has been questioned. A toroidal black hole carrying a modest electrical charge would give rise to a magnetic dipole most intense within the central aperture where the flux would be axially aligned and thus favourably oriented for the launching of biaxial jets. As the flux lines would locally run parallel to the toroidal event horizon, the black hole's charge would be relatively immune to neutralisation by the surrounding plasma of the accretion disk. Through dissipation of angular momentum and subsiding accretion, the toroidal aperture would eventually seal, abruptly depriving the black hole of its jet-forming magnetosphere. This scenario can naturally explain the permanent extinction of activity suggested by the observation of quasars almost exclusively at significant redshifts.

Here are the issues I see with this text:

• It's wrongly placed; it doesn't belong in the overview of quasars. ('Emission generation' might be better.) It assumes various things that are not discussed until later in the article.
• It discusses what is basically a fringe theory, based on a couple of papers with no citations in mainstream journals, and does so in great detail. If we want a discussion of jet generation in quasars (and it's not clear that this is where it should go: see also under relativistic jet), then it should give far more weight to widely used standard models such as Blandford-Znajek and Blandford-Payne, both of which clearly can generate jets.
• It implies that quasars are seen only at 'significant redshifts' but this is not true, and in particular powerful jets are common to redshift zero (see Cen A, M87 et al) and it is powerful jets, not quasars, that the model purports to explain.

This seems to have been added out of a real desire to improve the article, but I think it needs significant modification before it should be included.

Mhardcastle (talk) 08:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• I agree - it would be better placed in emission generation.
• It is based on two papers published in mainstream journals whose conclusions have gone unchallenged for over a decade. Since the stability of toroidal black holes may well be due to quantum gravitational effects currently beyond our ken, the ideas do not readily lend themselves to further study just yet. Nevertheless, a toroidal black hole scenario has definite advantages over the more traditional alternative in its consistency with actual observational data. I note that the Blandford-Payne process gets no mention in polar jet, an article that states under "Unsolved problems in astrophysics: Why do the discs surrounding certain objects, such as the centers of active galaxies, emit radiation jets along their polar axes?". Let's not pretend that this is a solved problem. Simulations have found that although the B-Z process can indeed generate jets, but they are some 4 orders of magnitude weaker than some observations demand for the popping of corks.
• I have edited the snippet above in order to avoid giving the impression that it would have been impossible for quasars to persist until the present time, but I refer you to Schneider et al for a redshift histogram. Furthermore, the overview for this page actually begins with the words "Quasars show a very high redshift", which your editing has not touched.

Gofod (talk) 22:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, I think you're agreeing with my first and third points, so let's talk about my second. I am not trying to claim that this is a solved problem, and any article on this should make that very clear. What I am saying is that, since this is an encyclopedia, we should give more weight to models that are actually used than models that are not. Papers that are not cited in the literature are not 'going unchallenged', they are being ignored. Therefore, a section on jet generation should talk about the mainstream models first and in more detail. Note that I am not saying that alternative models should not be mentioned at all, just that they shouldn't have the relative prominence that your text would have given them.

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that B-Z can't generate the required power -- current simulations seem to suggest there's no problem -- see e.g. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.423.3083M . I don't work on jet generation, but nobody I know in the jet generation community is talking about this as a problem.

I am not trying to suggest that the discussion in polar jet is complete -- on the contrary, that article is probably the one where one should start trying to improve the discussion of jet generation models on Wikipedia, since relativistic jets are not unique to quasars, or even observed in the vast majority of quasars. (Personally I have a certain reluctance to work on an article whose very title appears to have been chosen by someone who doesn't know the literature, but that's what we have to work with...)

Mhardcastle (talk) 08:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Jets are arguably the most interesting features of quasars, especially since they can provide key clues to the central engines. I therefore think a section/subsection devoted to potential formation mechanisms of relativistic jets is warranted (not just "emissions"). As is clear from polar jet, not all jets are relativistic and bipolar jets are quite ubiquitous phenomena, some forming from stellar accretion for example. A discussion of toroidal black holes thus seems to me more apt here, though I accept that the emphasis should be more on more traditional efforts to explain the jets with references to the original B-Z paper and MNRAS 423 3083. After describing full 3-D simulations, the discussion of this latter paper states "A significant new result is that such models do show large-scale dipolar magnetic flux formation near the horizon. However, only weak transient highly magnetized relativistic jets emerge." It would seem that even Blandford and his colleagues recognise the difficulty pointed out by (i) Ghosh & Abramowicz and (ii) Livio, Ogilvie & Pringle. I would also remind you of the "unsolved problem" statement on polar jet.

A spinning, electrically charged toroidal black hole (TBH) holds is well-suited to the efficient generation of relativistic jets due to its ability to retain charge over the long-term and siphon plasma into the central aperture where axial jets can be launched along the magnetic flux lines leading away from the TBH. Furthermore, it offers a very compelling explanation for the finite lifetimes of quasars. This is difficult to explain otherwise as a good fraction of galaxies are found in galaxy clusters where most of the primordial hydrogen has yet to be reprocessed. TBH stability may demand some revision of existing theoretical assumptions but science is ultimately about marrying up theory and observation. In this respect the TBH scenario is superior to the SBH scenario both in terms of jet formation and quasar extinction. It represents an interesting and readily comprehensible alternative which, irrespective of current fashions in science, is notable on account of its improved consistency with empirical data. That is why this article ought to refer to it.

Gofod (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Jets are indeed a very interesting feature of quasars, but (a) most quasars don't have them and (b) the vast, vast majority of SMBH-generated relativistic jets are seen in objects that are not classed as quasars (see e.g. radio galaxy). So, I stand by my point that this whole discussion would be better in some other article.

You are misreading the McKinney et al paper -- the conclusion you quote is true for a particular field configuration, and in fact the whole point of this paper is to show that for poloidally dominated fields in the accretion disk an efficient, persistent jet can emerge.

I'm afraid what you (or I) personally think about the viability of the TBH model is not the point, though, as I've said before, any model that predicts an absence of jet-generating black holes at z=0 is completely inconsistent with observation. Wikipedia policies require us to present a scientific discussion of this sort representing what is in the literature in proportion to its notability, i.e. to the extent which it's used in the community -- if you want to call that fashion, you're welcome, but it doesn't change the rules. If you want to promote this model, you need to write papers (or should I say 'more papers'?) about it and get them cited, not edit Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Fringe theories, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

Mhardcastle (talk) 07:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The visibility of the jets depends very much on their relative orientation to us, the redshift of the quasar and whether there is much influx of matter from an accretion disc at any given time. The TBH model does not predict the complete absence of jet-generating black holes (toroidal or otherwise) at z=0, it merely explains why the revival of relativistic jets is highly unlikely in SMBHs still subject to significant accretion - and many low redshift galaxies within galaxy clusters are still rich in gas.

As for the rules, I followed the first of your links and discovered the following one: "all majority and significant-minority views published in reliable sources should be represented fairly and proportionately". I thought that you understood this point when you wrote "Note that I am not saying that alternative models should not be mentioned at all, just that they shouldn't have the relative prominence that your text would have given them". You also accepted that the formation of relativistic jets is not a solved problem. If in the last day or two you have changed your mind, why have you not removed the "unsolved problem" comments from polar jet. You have repeatedly ignored this point (and dismissed the papers which attest to its existence) so allow me to paste what it says here:

List of unsolved problems in physics: Why do the discs surrounding certain objects, such as the centers of active galaxies, emit radiation jets along their polar axes?

An article on quasars that mentions relativistic jets but fails to discuss possible jet generation mechanisms is a rather superficial one - and Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopaedic source of information. The TBH model may not be widely known but it has two distinct advantages over more traditional models: powerful jets and abrupt extinction. Since science concerns reconciling observations with theory rather than adhering to the first theory that comes along (or indeed counting citations) and the TBH possibility has not been directly challenged in the literature, it clearly merits inclusion here. To omit it would be to flout Wikipedia's neutrality rules, which I note you have also seen fit to bring up.

Gofod (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

We're going in circles here. I have not at any point said that your model should not be discussed, just that it should not be given the prominence that your original text would have given it. If you agree, then that's fine. Feel free to start writing some text that does what we apparently both agree should be done. My most recent response was directed at your comments that implied that the TBH model was superior, and was intended to explain why your beliefs are essentially irrelevant to writing a Wikipedia article. You still appear to believe that any model that is 'unchallenged' (i.e. that nobody has bothered to test) should be covered here, which is clearly incorrect.

I have not 'repeatedly ignored' the fact that this is an unsolved question: in fact I've explicitly acknowledged it in every comment I've made on this topic. I don't know why you feel the need to take this confrontational attitude or to attribute to me things I clearly haven't said.

Mhardcastle (talk) 07:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Mamas 2011 - any notability or non-fringe-ness?

An IP user keeps adding a reference to Mamas 2011, which looks to me to be WP:FRINGE, and uncited thus not notable. Are there any citations to this work, or any reliable third party references to it? I certainly couldn't find any in a quick google search.

In response to the IP editor's recent edit summary, "Mamas' article is 2011 which is why it is not yet cited in the literature.": here's an example of a paper on quasar emission modelling from 2011 with 30 citations. This was found after 20 seconds of ADS searching (even so, I see no need to include a reference to it in this article). If Mamas's work is notable, it should have received some citations somewhere in the last 3 years.

I wonder if the IP editor's repeated insertion of this citation into this, and the GRB article, is a example of self promotion? - Parejkoj (talk) 13:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

It is historical fact that in the early years of quasar discovery, the leading concept was that quasars were matter-antimatter phenomena. That this idea is still defendable can and should be noted. I suggest Parejkoj first read Mamas' article. The article is published in peer-reviewed journal and so was examined by independent astronomers before publication. 96.228.244.95 (talk) 15:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this looks rather like fringe material; the edit summaries ("Antimatter does not fit with big bang astronomy which is why Parejkoj is frighted by it.") are not the helping the case either. Rather than referring to the supposed correctness of the Mamas paper, the only relevant defense should be demonstrating that this is mainstream enough to warrant a mention here per WP:UNDUE, like references and citations, thus far not provided. siafu (talk) 15:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The phrasing admits it is a minority opinion: At this time, there were some suggestions that quasars were made of some hitherto unknown form of stable antimatter and that this might account for their brightness, an hypothesis still defended by some[24].

But as a minority opinion with historical precedent it should not be censored because it does not fit with the big bang theory. 96.228.244.95 (talk) 16:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

You have to demonstrate that this is a significant minority view, and not just a fringe view. It has nothing to do with the fact that it does or not fit with the current theory. siafu (talk) 17:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The view that matter-antimatter was the power of quasars was commonplace in the early years of the discovery of quasars, and therefore a significant hypothesis. The view is developed by Mamas giving solid observational evidence, using updated modern observational evidence. It is not to be censored by supporters of the big bang theory. 96.228.244.95 (talk) 18:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Again, this has nothing to do with censorship. Please provide references demonstrating that this is a significant minority view, and not just a single fringe individual. Otherwise, I don't see any reason for including mention of Mamas' work, end of discussion. siafu (talk) 18:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

It is admitted right in Wikipedia's own article that the antimatter-matter hypothesis was significant, significant enough to be included in Wikipedia's own article, where, quote, At this time, there were some suggestions that quasars were made of some hitherto unknown form of stable antimatter and that this might account for their brightness... 96.228.244.95 (talk) 18:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

So in that case we need a reference relevant to 'at the time', ideally with some citations. An uncited 2011 paper behind a paywall is not useful. Mhardcastle (talk) 06:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The at that time line has been in Wikipedia now for a long time, without references ever provided. Mamas' article fills that gap. Note also, all scientific journals have paywalls as you call it. 96.228.244.95 (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The Mamas paper is a very poor source for the "at that time" claim, since it's a physics paper and not a book on the history of astronomy, and that claim isn't what was being discussed here. We are still waiting for some evidence that the "an hypothesis still defended by some" statement above, which is what is actually being discussed, is a significant minority view and not fringe. You may be surprised to learn that there are a great many journals available freely, and google books has a large number of free sources available as well. The fact that this article is in Physics Essays doesn't say much either, since it's a relatively minor journal. siafu (talk) 03:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Mamas' paper is in a Physics journal, but so what ? The subject is astrophysics. Also, every astronomer in the world remembers quite well that the original dominant hypothesis regarding quasars was that it was a matter-antimatter phenomenon, and, to be sure, the hypothesis never completely went away. Mamas' paper presents convincing observational evidence for the matter-antimatter hypothesis using today's modern astronomical data. 96.228.244.95 (talk) 04:14, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

So far, all we have evidence of is the fact that this one person, who has published one paper, believes that quasars are a matter-antimatter phenomenon. That is certainly not worthy of mention in this article. siafu (talk) 04:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Physics Essays is not "relatively minor", it publishes fringe papers that are not accepted anywhere else. Try to find citations to Physics Essys papers from outside of the journal, that should be informative. Basically, the journal is a vanity publication. Paradoctor (talk) 04:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

And to come back to the point about the paywall: you will notice that most other references to the literature in the article have links to full text on ADS, the arXiv or the journals' sites themselves. Mamas's paper is not accessible in this way. It is not a useful reference to the casual or even the professional reader, even if it were the appropriate one to cite at this point, which it is not. If you want to improve the article, find a suitable, well-cited reference from a mainstream journal with full text available from the 1960s, when this idea was taken seriously in spite of its obvious problems. Mhardcastle (talk) 07:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

90% of scientific articles have paywalls, including articles in Astrophysical Journal. No scientific journals offer full text articles for free. Physics Essays operates in the same fashion as any other journal in that respect. And I am glad you admit that the matter-antimatter hypothesis was taken seriously in the 1960's, and note that the hypothesis is still with us and will not go away. Many people do not believe in black holes at all, let alone that black holes cause quasars. Stephen Hawking recently himself backed off on black holes, which leaves us with matter-antimatter. 96.228.244.95 (talk) 12:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

"No scientific journals offer full text articles for free." I know that to be false. Try to find a reliable source for this statement, and you shall be enlightened.

@Mhardcastle: Paywall is not an argument, especially when the source fails on much more important points. Paradoctor (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Paywall is not an argument for rejecting a source in itself. However, if the argument is that we should have a reference for the antimatter claim (and I agree that in principle we should) then sources behind a paywall are less good, all other things being equal, then sources that are not. In particular, in this case, nobody but Mamas and the mystery IP editor knows what this paper even says -- generously assuming them to be two different people -- and that makes it very difficult to argue that it is a useful source. Mhardcastle (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

That equivalent open access sources are preferred when they exist goes without saying. "what this paper even says": It was my impression that this discussion is about the reception of Mamas' paper, not its content. And even if it was about what's in it, paywall still carries no weight. That only the IP has read the paper is not the IP's fault, and certainly can't be used as an argument to reject claims about Mamas' ideas. I'm pretty sure that it has not been the paywall that has kept you from reading the paper. Paradoctor (talk) 21:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Your statements about "every astronomer in the world" and "90% of scientific articles" are interesting, in that they're both false. I surveyed two astronomers last night while I was working, and neither of us recall matter-antimatter as being a very prominent idea for quasar energy generation at any time. I'll have to check my textbooks for some written history, though, since I wasn't alive when quasars were discovered (and the other astronomer was young then).

On the other topic, ApJ and AJ release their articles free to the public after one year, while MNRAS is completely open access. So the inverse of your statement is true: 90% of astronomy articles are not behind a paywall, even ignoring how many people post their articles on arxiv.

Your comments about people not believing in black holes are just as false as your other statements.

At this point, since no reliable third or second party references have been provided, can we please close this discussion and remove the erroneous points from the article? I'm more and more thinking that the IP editor is trying to self promote here, which is WP:NOT what Wikipedia is for. - Parejkoj (talk) 16:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

In fact 99% of scientific journals have paywalls. And Physics Essays does indeed also release articles after one year, just as any other journal does. You are too young to remember that in the 1960's matter-antimatter was virtually the only explanation offered for quasars. Read Mhardcastle's comment above, he remembers this. 96.228.244.95 (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion is going nowhere. We have no evidence that the matter-antimatter hypothesis is notable now or ever was; it should be removed. siafu (talk) 20:07, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I do not remember matter-antimatter being virtually the only explanation, because it never was. I know (through reading the literature, not first-hand experience) that various explanations were current in the 60s, including that one. I see no evidence that it was anything other than a fringe explanation even in the 60s -- and if you disagree, produce a reference that competes with e.g. Lynden-Bell 1969. That would be a useful contribution to the article. Repeatedly trying to insert the Mamas paper is not. Mhardcastle (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The Matter-antimatter quasar energy generation hypothesis was certainly notable at one time, but it was never even remotely "virtually the only explanation," since there were at least a dozen viable possibilities in the late 60s and early 70s. Nice summary of some of them on page 285 of Bahcall 1971, from which I quote:

In addition, a number of currently less popular suggestions exist in the literature; they include, among others, matter-antimatter annihilation, the collapse of new or old galaxies, and the delayed expansion of gravitational singularities.

After a bit of ADS searching, I didn't find more than a handful of references promoting matter-antimatter from that era, none of which had many citations. Anyway, all of this is irrelevant to the question of using Mamas's paper, for which there is exactly 0 evidence of notability, and lots of evidence of fringeness. Independent of that, I think a bit of fleshing out of the history section with some of the more mainstream ideas of the early 70s would be good. Could use some references to the earlier papers suggesting energy generation via black holes, of which there were a handful in the 70s before AGN-quasar unification had solidified. - Parejkoj (talk) 03:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The first and foremost reaction to quasars was that only matter-antimatter annihilation had the power to explain quasars. Explanations for quasars later on shifted to black holes, the reason being the rise of the big bangers who could not fit antimatter into their big bang theory. Mamas' article defends the matter-antimatter explanation using today's modern data. 96.228.244.95 (talk) 05:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Then it's an irrelevant fringe paper with no evidence of notability. Wikipedia's guidelines on this are quite clear. If you have no interest in improving the article, you should go elsewhere. What you're doing at the moment -- putting back the same material without listening to the concerns of any other active editor -- is edit warring and will get you blocked. Mhardcastle (talk) 07:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

"The first and foremost reaction to quasars was that only matter-antimatter annihilation had the power to explain quasars." Paradoctor (talk) 11:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

"certainly notable at one time" That would make it encyclopedic in the history section, wouldn't it? Paradoctor (talk) 11:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it belongs there in the history section, and Mamas' 2011 article which continues and defends this historical precedent in light of modern data also belongs in the history section. 96.228.244.95 (talk) 12:49, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Please mail me a copy of the Mamas paper, maybe I can find something useful in it. Paradoctor (talk) 13:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

what is your email address ? 96.228.244.95 (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't realize that IPs can't see my mail address. Please send it to wolfram.schmied@gmx.net Paradoctor (talk) 14:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Read it. Just two pages, not a single formula or diagram and exactly one formula: "E=mc²", and introduction and conclusions make up slightly more than half of the text. That is lower crackpot niveau. I am doubtful this would make it into an encyclopedia of fringe science. Since the paper contains no further useful information, there needs to be solid new material if this discussion is to continue. On the basis of the evidence presented, the Mamas paper is not in any way encyclopedic, and does not belong in the article. Paradoctor (talk) 18:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you trained at all in hard sciences ? Mamas' paper gives solid logical reasoning. It was reviewed and accepted by PhD astrophysicists before being accepted for publication. The paper is a quantitative reinterpretation of modern observational data. 96.228.244.95 (talk) 02:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

"solid" Bullshit. Posting the full text for discussion would be fair use, but it would violate WP:NOTFORUM, so I'll just mail a copy to anyone wishing to see for themselves.

"quantitative" Bullshit. The entirety of numbers in the text: 1900, 1905, 1915, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 100 000. Three dates, eight numbered references, and two mentions of "100 000 quasars". That's not a quantitative paper.

"reviewed and accepted by PhD astrophysicist" Bullshit. If you wish anybody to believe that, provide contact information for the purported reviewers. No self-respecting astrophysicist would give this kind of incompetent drivel a passing grade.

The above aside, you are completely missing the point. I requested the paper on the off chance that it referred to existing material on the antimatter theory or maybe contained information supporting your claim that it is encyclopedic. It doesn't and it isn't. Paradoctor (talk) 10:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you answer the question instead of swearing like a drunken sailor? You have exactly no training whatsoever in the hard sciences and do not understand the even basics of the subject. The article refers to well known existing data and presents a straightforward reinterpretation of the data. I add that the reason professional astronomers fear any mention of antimatter is that significant antimatter is a contradiction of their sacred cow the big bang theory. 96.228.244.95 (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

It's called calling bullshit bullshit. You have your answer: The consensus here is that Mamas' paper doesn't belong in the article. Any further attempts at discussing this here without bringing up substantial new material, as in sources, will serve no other purpose than to WP:DISRUPT this talk page. I recommend that you drop the WP:STICK. The only other options you have are WP:RSN and WP:DR. Don't be too surprised when that backfires on you. Paradoctor (talk) 21:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

You call it Fringe Science ? Really ? Why don't you look at Michael Disney's four page article in Scientific American entitled Modern Cosmology: Science or Folktale? where Dr. Disney criticizes the foundations of the big bang theory. Like Mamas' article, Dr.Disney's article also contains no numbers, no equations, and no graphs, but presents a logical reinterpretation of well known existing data. That certainly does not make it fringe science. Mamas' article belongs in Wikipedia's Quasar article. 96.228.244.95 (talk) 11:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Since you haven't provided any second or third party sources to back up your claims about the importance of Mamas's article, there's nothing to discuss. Unless Disney cited Mamas, that article is irrelevant to this discussion. We've long passed the point of WP:NOTFORUM here... - Parejkoj (talk) 14:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

As you all know, there is historical precedent for Mamas' paper, there having been many suggestions that date back to the very first discovery of quasars, that antimatter powers quasars. Mamas shows that modern observational data is consistent with this view. The article should not be hidden by Wikipedia editors, just because it contradicts their big bang theory. 96.228.244.95 (talk) 17:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

If your interest is in the historical precedent, then provide the article with some appropriate well-cited references to go in the history section. Your, sorry, Mamas's paper is not relevant to the historical precedent since it apparently does not provide these references (and if it did it would be better to cite them directly). To provide these references, if they exist, would genuinely improve the article.

If you want to show that Mamas's paper should be cited in the article because of its own content, then you need to show that the paper is not fringe science by demonstrating its notability. You have not been able to do this.

Your opinion, or any other editor's, about the content of the paper is not relevant to this discussion (see WP:NOTFORUM). What matters is its demonstrable value, or lack thereof, as a source. These are the rules of Wikipedia and have nothing to do with other editors' beliefs. Mhardcastle (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Twin quasar confusion with double quasar

A later reference in the section about the Twin Quasar says that it is not a case of a gravitationally lensed quasar, but the first reference says that it is. I think the first one is now accepted as correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan A Scott (talk • contribs) 14:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Event Horizon vs. Schwarzschild Radius in lede

I'm not entirely opposed to the change, but that size in the primary literature is almost always referred to as Schwarzschild Radius, and it's the most appropriate value to use in computation since it is readily computable from the mass. I think it's a more relevant link in this context, since that article provides a derivation of the radius, so a person could compute the "size" of a quasar from that and the statement in the lede. Thoughts? - Parejkoj (talk) 17:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not particularly polarised either, on the one hand you seem to be right that Schwarzschild Radius (SR) is more common in this context in the literature. On the other hand I think Event Horizon is a bit more sensible as its equivalent to the SR for a black hole (2Gm/(c^2)) and is a more well know term. As far as I understand the SR is not really applicable to black holes as they have already collapsed past their SR. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezrado (talk • contribs) 00:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

We follow the literature. Also, while "size" can mean a lot, the size of a region is generally not interpreted as the area of its boundary. Paradoctor (talk) 20:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the revert. To my mind the EH is a location, not a size, so the proposed change just looks incorrect, and by the time you've introduced some circumlocution like 'distance of the event horizon from the BH' you might as well stick with what we've got. Mhardcastle (talk) 06:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

This article need some section/subsection structure

Look like? Sugestion: start to organize the "Properties" section. --Krauss (talk) 06:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Align in axes on cosmological scales

(to add at "Properties" section)

There are some alignment along of the galaxy filaments: the research presented on 19 November 2014 in “Alignment of quasar polarizations with large-scale structures“ (D. Hutsemékers et al.) shows an accpetable confirmation. ... And some popular hypothesis about the cause the alignment, as this "primordial magnetic fields seeded by electroweak strings" (please check, was google), can be also cited. --Krauss (talk) 06:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)