Quasar Gas Clouds Found Disappearing Explainable by Arp

[quantauniverse]

Quasar gas clouds have been found to disappear in just a day or in years! Scientists state that gas clouds are outflowing away from the center of the phony black hole quasar center. They believe the rotation of the solar system sized disk causes winds that blow away the clouds. Halton Arp's quasar ejection phenomena fully explains the truthful cosmology of the Electric Universe. High speed ejection of quasars from a nearby parent galaxy would leave behind TRAILS OF GASES, that would soon vanish like the trails left by moving airplanes in earth's atmosphere. The very end of the ejection TAIL is most likely where the BAL's called broad absorption lines have been observed to vanish in just one day. The vanishing BAL's also cause other BAL's to weaken over vast galactic scale distances, which they say have INTERCONNECTIONS that they cannot explain, requiring further study. These strongest known winds of the universe are explainable by Halton Arp's high speed quasar ejection theory, and the disappearing clouds are the vanishing tails of clouds left behind. The unexplainable interconnections of BAL's over vast distances are very likely the interconnecting filaments between the quasar and its larger nearby parent galaxy, observed and described by Halton Arp. Please see my story with photos and provide your insights about this finding. Thank you.

The free full paper version: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Z9YDc17ZCJUJ:arxiv.org/pdf/1208.0836+&hl

The story: http://sdss3.org/press/thewind.php

http://holographicgalaxy.blogspot.com/2012/10/halton-arps-ejected-quasar-winds-just.html

[celeste]

quantauniverse,
Do we know the absorption lines really vanished? Do we know for sure the absorption lines have not radically changed their redshift, and are being missed by the observers?
Here's why I am asking. In the mainstream view, the quasar's lines are redshifted due to the great distance and recessive velocity of the quasar. If this is the case, then they are correct in reasoning that the quasar did not just change it's distance or radial velocity radically in a few years. Then yes, the cloud just dissipated.
If, on the other hand, plasma causes redshift, then a change in plasma density around the quasar could have radically changed the redshift on the absorption lines. The lines are still there, but not even close to where we expect to see them.
I'm not ready to make a prediction, but let's just say I won't be shocked if someone discovers that the lines are still there, just radically shifted in redshift.

[celeste]

OMG! My last post was very wrong. Check this out: http://astronomy.nmsu.edu/nicole/teachi ... ide01.html
Do you see what is happening?

quantauniverse, you are absolutely right that this is evidence for quasars being ejected at a high speed from galaxies, but it has nothing to do with gas clouds dissipating in their wake. Stars of some spectral types show clear absorption at 4000Angstrom, other spectral types do not. But did'nt Thornhill say spectral type was not due to the age of a star, but simply a function of current input, which could change in a flash? So could'nt a sudden change in current input to a quasar also change it's 4000A absorption? And remember how I said galaxies have that halo of plasma, with electrons gravitationally sorted to the outer halo? So a quasar being ejected rapidly into this halo should show signs of rapid changes in current density, including that break in absorption right where we see it at 4000A

[quantauniverse]

The vanishing clouds as ejection trails hypothesis, I no longer believe is correct. Your explanations seem highly plausable, and will be further investigated. This unusual cloud disappearance only occurs in quasars, and 19 were found. Some unmapped quasars had disappearing clouds in one observation, meaning they literally vanished right before the astronomer's eyes. The relativistic ejection speeds of Arp's quasars could cause the extremely fast spinning accretion disks, and strong turbulence in gas clouds (not trails which are undetectably too thin). The wrong purported galaxy models of current cosmology do not make any distinction that the vanishing clouds are only found in quasars. BAL's identify the absorption of light passing through a foreground gas cloud and the background quasar. Most of the quasar BAL's are carbon and silicon ions in foreground clouds absorbing light from the background quasar. Thanks for your evidence, and better theory

[celeste]

Yes, it's easier to see that if the electric field hit a critical value, a wave of ionization could spread rapidly through the surrounding cloud, eliminating all the potential absorbers. This obviously could happen much faster than the cloud of gas could be "blown out of the way". And it's easier to believe a wave of ionization spreadind at the speed of light, compared to their "the disk around the central black hole is rotating at speeds that approach the speed of light".

[nick c]

Could this be an example of a plasma moving between glow and dark mode, or arc/glow/dark modes?

Like the flickering of a flourescent light.

[celeste]

I think maybe we should reference Stephen Smith's post "Saturn's Translucent Rings", at this point. I'm not sure exactly what is going on, but it seems likely it is related. In both the cases of quasars, and Saturn's rings, we have sudden changes in absorption. It seems likely that whatever the mechanism is, it may be the same for both objects, just different scales. Not sure at all, just thought it is worth contemplating.

[Solar]

Yes, it's easier to see that if the electric field hit a critical value, a wave of ionization could spread rapidly through the surrounding cloud, eliminating all the potential absorbers. This obviously could happen much faster than the cloud of gas could be "blown out of the way". And it's easier to believe a wave of ionization spreadind at the speed of light, compared to their "the disk around the central black hole is rotating at speeds that approach the speed of light".

Right.

There is suggestive evidence for the ionization imho but it occurs within the Milky Way.

I usually presume ‘continuous currents’ interacting with the “molecular clouds” which this article refers to as “giant clouds of gas” that “seemed to disappear in just a few years”. These “molecular clouds” and their double-layers are a known facet of Birkeland Current interactions as revealed by a study of Sag A* in this doc:

A Trip to the Galactic Center

You want to pay attention to how the electric current interacts with the double-layer ‘surface’ of the ”molecular cloud”. The dual vortex ‘tube’ is being looked at almost ‘down the barrel’ as its ‘tubular sheath’ creates the 'oval'-like “Circumnuclear Disk” and inner “Mini-Spiral” at the center of the plasmoid known as Sgr A*. Throughout that doc the supposed ‘inflow’ or “infalling” of “dense molecular gas” is along the (EU) line of the electrical “scavenging” of plasma as it electromagnetically coalesces to simultaneously produce, what I consider to be, the ‘reverse flow’ of the dual ‘counter-rotating vortex’ nature of electricity.The beauty of this is that we also know exactly where the actual interacting electric current is:

The Double Helix Nebula: a magnetic torsional wave propagating out of the Galactic centre

The plasmoid forming Sag A* is the ’touchdown point’ for one of the Milky Way’s own supposed 300 light-year long Birkeland Current Filaments as it intersects a “molecular cloud”. ‘They’ve’ even named the specific “molecular cloud” (there are actually two) this particular Galactic Birkeland Current is interacting with i.e. "M-0.02-0.07" or simply the "50 km s-1cloud". I removed the references below:

Two giant molecular clouds (GMCs), M-0.13-0.08 (+20 km s-1 cloud) and M-0.02-0.07 (+km s-1 cloud) are known to be physically located at the Galactic center and interacting with the nuclear region (e.g. Gusten et al. 1981; Genzel et al. 1990) … Some authors have suggested that M-0.13-0.08 is feeding the CND. M-0.13-0.08 is clearly apparent in absorption against the 2 um radiation of the central stellar cluster; it must therefore be in front of the center. The nonthermal shell of Sgr A*East is directly adjacent to and interacts with M-0.02-0.07. The surface of M-0.02-0.07 that faces Sgr A* is very bright int eh [CII] line emission, suggesting that this part of the cloud is directly photodissociated by UV radiation from the central stellar cluster. – A NEW LOOK AT THE GALACTIC CIRCUMNUCLEAR DISK: Tomoharu Oka et al

The above is free just click on the "Full text .pdf" link.

All of that tech talk is simply informing that rather large “molecular clouds” are being ionized by the infusion of electrical energy via Birkeland Currents. The “circumnuclear disk” is the ‘torus’ of the Birkeland Current interface and is known to have an ionizing 'surface'. So I don’t understand why the paper cited by the OP isn’t taking these things into consideration when they are known dynamics that have already been verified. Instead, the kinematics of “winds” and disappearing clouds? Well of course they are “disappearing”, they are being ionized ("scavenging"). Even though these plama-electrodynamical factors are highlighted they are smothered over with the paradigm of “black holes”.

But what does this have to do with the point made by Celeste? There are two types of photons:

1 – So called “Blackbody” photons. These are photons that are emitted and ‘shared’ between electrons within the framework of electrons ‘shedding’ and/or ‘absorbing’ kinematical energy.

2 – Ionizing photons (UV). These are photons of high energy level that actually “cleave” matter. They ‘disassociate’ matter into more primal ‘state(s)’. Quasars are known to produce ionization “fronts” in the IGM

Considering the above known dynamics we move now to “quasars” i.e. proto galaxies. The question is ‘Does a quasar present filaments intersecting with molecular clouds in order to ionize them, or is there some other way that the ionization is occurring? If there are no filaments then I’m going with a rather powerful electric field as the quasar possibly would not have ‘matured’ enough to go into ‘arc mode’ with Birkeland Currents.

These kind of news articles act as if the “molecular clouds” are like soap “bubbles” that simply popped due to 'gravitational infalling' towards a "black hole" and that is not what is occurring. It doesn’t seem to me that one can have such a thing when an intense plasmoid is involved. What is occurring is what they've already covered (ionization via the “scavenging” from the surrounding environment just as exemplified with Sag A*:

The similarity of the kinematics of the ionized and molecular gases suggests that the mini- cavity is the ionized component of a molecular cloud, the orbit of which comes close to the Galactic center. - Kinematics of the Ionized Gas in Sagittarius A West: Mass Estimates of the Inner 0.13 Parsecs of the Galaxy

Ionization.

So, how does this occur with a Quasar since we already are seeing (the misrepresentation of) "molecular clouds" interacting with them:

In the Electric Universe, a quasar is highly charged matter under great electrical stress. One characteristic of a quasar is that its spectrum shows a blue continuum and very few emission lines. This is attributed to the Stark effect, which causes emission lines in a strong electric field to spread out in proportion to the field strength. Lines of lighter elements are spread more than lines of heavier ones, so a strong electrical field, such as would exist in a quasar, could easily smear the blue Hydrogen lines into a continuum. - Falling Stars and X-rays: TPOD

Electric field

[Solar]

Thought people would also find the following example of ionization (“fronts”) via electric field interesting:

The process starts when a few stray electrons–accelerated by the electric field–knock into atoms and liberate more electrons, which continue the process. In carefully designed lab experiments the region between a pair of electrodes fills with plasma smoothly, starting at the positive end, with a wave front that sweeps quickly across to the negative end.

At the leading edge of this so-called ionization front is a narrow band of enhanced electric field, according to theory and indirect experiments, but theorists only vaguely understand what determines the field’s profile. Nor have experimenters been able to map the field profile directly, because inserting metal probes distorts the discharge. Researchers have tried to infer field strengths from the glow following the breakdown, but that light is feeble and only appears once the ionization is well under way. - “Focus: Xenon on the Verge of an Electric Breakdown”

Other methods of ionization:

“Ionization Methods in Organic Mass Spectrometry”

Hence, ionization via cosmic electric currents directly as in the case of the toroidal “Circumnuclear Disk”and its “Mini Spiral” as is known to occur with Sgr A* - and ionization via electric field as may be occurring with Quasars. Both cases involve the ionization of “molecular clouds”; not “gas gravitationally infalling”. It is the “molecular” nature; the molecules themselves composing the “clouds” that are being ionized i.e. electrically/'photon-ically ‘converted’ (disassociated) into plasma.

Come to think of it, and corrections appreciated: Cosmically, one can ‘see’ the disconnect that causes astrophysics to focus on and utilize the nomenclature of gravitationally driven “gas” dynamics as the conceptual mindset itself is ‘disassociated’ from the electrodynamically driven process of ionization. The “gravity only” approach had to mathematically create something (“black holes”) to accomplish this whereas the EU/PC has no need to resort to such things because electricity can naturally induce ionization.

Any thoughts out there?

[celeste]

Thought people would also find the following example of ionization (“fronts”) via electric field interesting:

The process starts when a few stray electrons–accelerated by the electric field–knock into atoms and liberate more electrons, which continue the process. In carefully designed lab experiments the region between a pair of electrodes fills with plasma smoothly, starting at the positive end, with a wave front that sweeps quickly across to the negative end.

At the leading edge of this so-called ionization front is a narrow band of enhanced electric field, according to theory and indirect experiments, but theorists only vaguely understand what determines the field’s profile. Nor have experimenters been able to map the field profile directly, because inserting metal probes distorts the discharge. Researchers have tried to infer field strengths from the glow following the breakdown, but that light is feeble and only appears once the ionization is well under way. - “Focus: Xenon on the Verge of an Electric Breakdown”

Other methods of ionization:

“Ionization Methods in Organic Mass Spectrometry”

Hence, ionization via cosmic electric currents directly as in the case of the toroidal “Circumnuclear Disk”and its “Mini Spiral” as is known to occur with Sgr A* - and ionization via electric field as may be occurring with Quasars. Both cases involve the ionization of “molecular clouds”; not “gas gravitationally infalling”. It is the “molecular” nature; the molecules themselves composing the “clouds” that are being ionized i.e. electrically/'photon-ically ‘converted’ (disassociated) into plasma.

Come to think of it, and corrections appreciated: Cosmically, one can ‘see’ the disconnect that causes astrophysics to focus on and utilize the nomenclature of gravitationally driven “gas” dynamics as the conceptual mindset itself is ‘disassociated’ from the electrodynamically driven process of ionization. The “gravity only” approach had to mathematically create something (“black holes”) to accomplish this whereas the EU/PC has no need to resort to such things because electricity can naturally induce ionization.

Any thoughts out there?

Solar,
"At the leading edge of this so-called ionization front is a narrow band of enhanced electric field". THAT should be our definition of a quasar. I've been thinking of a quasar as some massive object WITH an electric field, and an ionization front spreading from it. That is not right at all. A quasar IS the ionization front.
If a galaxy is surrounded by plasma, gravitational segregation should leave the outer halo more negative than the inner galaxy. Of course, there is weakly/non ionized matter out there too. As you show above, an ionization front should spread rapidly from positive to negative, meaning from core to outer halo. That front IS the quasar.
The mainstream's measure of compact size (about a solar system in size)for a quasar make sense now. The mainstream says a quasar must be small based on how fast it can change in brightness across it's surface. Really, a change in brightness is just a measure of how long that ionization front takes to pass through a cloud. The trails that Arp shows extending from quasars back to galaxies, are just the recombined,excited gas formed behind the wave. In other words, it's not a trail of new material streaming behind the quasar, it's matter that was already there but now in visible form after the ionization front passed. The wave of ionization is the quasar, the recombination is the trail.
And yes, that "narrow band of enhanced electric field" does explain the Starck effect. The rapidly vanishing BAL's mentioned in quantauniverse's first post can be explained by the narrow band of electric field (the lead edge of the quasar), passing through the cloud.
Oh, and all that energy given off by the quasar, is going to let us explain why we have all that "new matter" after the front passes, while we had mostly plasma before.
Does that sound right?

[celeste]

Now look at this: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.385.1561K
or here: http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/672/1/48

The mainstream totally gets that quasars spread ionization fronts into the IGM, and that there is a correlation between a quasar's redshift and the degree of ionization in the "gas" surrounding the quasar.
Now here is where they have made two wrong assumptions, and yet managed to get to (almost) the right conclusion: The mainstream thinks that the big bang happens, there is a cooling down where hydrogen forms, and a period of reionization. They are wrong. They also think high redshift quasars are at vast distances, and therefore we are seeing them way back in time. They are also wrong about this. Yet from these assumptions, they reason that higher redshift quasars mean they are seeing farther back in the universe's reionization history, and they should therefore see a correlation between quasar redshift and the ionization in the surrounding gas. The DO see such a correlation. Correct result, totally wrong reasoning.

So how do we really explain the correlation between quasar redshift, and degree of ionization? A quasar is a wave of ionization traveling outward from a galaxy . The degree of ionization is, of course, a measure of how many free electrons there are. Increased electron density causes increased plasma redshift. Redshift is'nt just related to ionization, it is CAUSED by it.

[celeste]

Sorry to run on, but I want to make absolutely clear what we are actually seeing versus what the mainstream thinks they are seeing.
If a front of ionization spreads through a region of higher density, this means both more ionized matter after the front, and more non/weakly ionized matter ahead of the front. Which means more free electrons and redshift at the front, and more neutral gas around the front to absorb light from it. So a higher redshift wavefront, should have more absorption from neutral gas. This we see.
The mainstream thinks the high redshift means the quasar is far away, hence they are seeing it back in time, before the universe was reionized. They expect the high redshift quasar to have more of it's light absorbed by all the neutral gas that was around back in the era before reionization. That is what they see.

[Solar]

Wanted to add something to the point Quantaverse had shared earlier for his further investigation(s):

The vanishing clouds as ejection trails hypothesis, I no longer believe is correct. Your explanations seem highly plausable, and will be further investigated. This unusual cloud disappearance only occurs in quasars, and 19 were found. Some unmapped quasars had disappearing clouds in one observation, meaning they literally vanished right before the astronomer's eyes.

(...)

BAL's identify the absorption of light passing through a foreground gas cloud and the background quasar. Most of the quasar BAL's are carbon and silicon ions in foreground clouds absorbing light from the background quasar. Thanks for your evidence, and better theory

The paper that goes along with this i.e. “Broad Absorption Line Dissappearance on Multi-Year timescales in a Large Quasar Sample” says in the first two pages that:

Quasars that present BAL troughs in their spectra are often classified into three subtypes depending on the presence of absorption lines in specified transition: (1) High-ionization transition including Si iV, and C IV. (2) Low ionization BAL quasars possess MgII and/or Al III absorption lines, in addition to the high-ionization transitions. (3)Iron low-ionization BAL quasars show additional absorption from excited states of Fe II and Fe III (e.g. , Hall et al. 2002…).

Then:

Recent statistical studies of BAL variability have shown that the fractional EW change increases with rest-frame timescale over the range 0.05-5yr. Such variations could, in principle be driven by changes in covering factor, velocity signature, or ionization level. Of these possibilities, the generally favored driver for most BAL variations is changes in the covering factor of outflow stream lines that partially bloc the continuum emission.

So, the absorption is influenced by the “outflow” from the quasar as a “covering factor”. Even though they list ionization level as a possibility; they then say that ionization is not the favored “driver” because the “observed continuum is not the ionizing continuum for the BAL gas (i.e. it is possible that the two may vary differently)”.

That is a problem in my book. You’re not looking at the ionization continuum (yet consider it a possible contributing factor) but are saying that the out flowing “gas” (emissions) are ‘blown away’ and are not sure why so it’s attributed to kinematical “winds”? It doesn’t seem to me that one could even have the presence of these “out flowing clouds” as a "covering factor" if it weren’t for the ionization. So, how could this not play a significant factor??

Changes in ionization level are generally disfavored as a primary driver, since BAL troughs are often highly saturated and thus should be only weakly responsive to ionization-level changes.

Then later (pg 7):

None of the quasars with disappearing BAL troughs shows the presence of BALs in the Mg II or Al III regions in their SDSS or BOSS spectra. Thus, certainly 17 and likely all 19 of these quasars are high-ionization BAL quasars.

Well, there you have it; "17 and likely all 19 likely of these quasars are high-ionization BAL quasars" with that likelihood being dismissed early on as the "driver". This is an ongoing debate/study. I think I prefer a different paper (below) on this topic since these guys seem to take a side in a situation that actually has two sides:

Coordinated variabilities between absorption regions at different velocities in individual quasars seems to favor changing ionization of the outflowing gas as the cause of the observed BAL variability. However, variability in limited portions of broad troughs fits naturally in a scenario where movements of individual clouds, or substructures in the flow, across our lines-of-sight cause the absorption to vary. The actual situation may be a complex mixture of changing ionization and cloud movements. - “Variability in Quasar Broad absorption line Outflows II. Multi-epoch monitoring of SilV and CIV BAL Variability”

You can center in on sections 5.1 and 5.2 to get the gist of the BAL debate. Are changes in ionization responsible for BAL variability or is the “covering factor” (drifting clouds from quasar “outflow”) responsible? The previous paper from the article only has 19 samples and just isn’t enough to categorically assert that these “clouds” are always ‘blown with the wind’. SOMETIMES that *may* be the case but those occasions do not provide enough evidence to dismiss global changes in Quasar ionization as a prominent aspect as the first paper does imho.

Unfortunately, the SDSS article doesn’t read in a cautionary way with regard to its pronouncment. That seems to be the core of what is being presented. The second paper above provides a more balanced approach imho because it doesn't take sides on the issue.

[Solar]

So how do we really explain the correlation between quasar redshift, and degree of ionization? A quasar is a wave of ionization traveling outward from a galaxy . The degree of ionization is, of course, a measure of how many free electrons there are. Increased electron density causes increased plasma redshift. Redshift is'nt just related to ionization, it is CAUSED by it.

As we center in on these Electric Field Ionization Fronts you’ve found the same two papers that I was going to reference. The whole “reionization epoch” and associated concepts seriously muddies the waters of a search for correlations that might exist between redshift and ionization. I think that they’ve basically created quite the mess with the incorporation all of that. " Correct result, totally wrong reasoning" is correct reasoning on your part.

I really enjoyed this:

The trails that Arp shows extending from quasars back to galaxies, are just the recombined,excited gas formed behind the wave. In other words, it's not a trail of new material streaming behind the quasar, it's matter that was already there but now in visible form after the ionization front passed. The wave of ionization is the quasar, the recombination is the trail.

… and particularly your take here:

At the leading edge of this so-called ionization front is a narrow band of enhanced electric field". THAT should be our definition of a quasar. I've been thinking of a quasar as some massive object WITH an electric field, and an ionization front spreading from it. That is not right at all. A quasar IS the ionization front.

To hone in on that approach I want to bring your attention to the “cartoon” graphic and caption on page labeled “Figure 2” of “Mapping the Neutral Hydrogen during Reionization with the Lya Emission from Quasar Ionization Fronts”. The graphic depiction is also the first image available here as well and it showcases a basic principle of the I-Front Ionizing molecular clouds.

This apparently demonstrates that the ‘quasar action’ involves the Ionization Front as that "narrow band of enhanced electric field" also exemplified with “Focus: Xenon on the Verge of an Electric Breakdown” as that I-Front ‘progresses” through relatively “neutral regions”; the IGM and “molecular clouds” etc. It also generally seems to demonstrate that one is not looking at any sort of gravitational “infalling” but probably the outward ‘progression’ of the narrow band of enhanced ionizing electric field (“I-Front”), especially so during an increase in current density (‘pulse’). This pulse would increase the distance traversed of the overall electric field and its critical “leading edge” imho and thus your “wave of ionization” beyond that “leading edge” could envelop and ionize the “clouds” that they describe as “disappearing”.

A brief rehash of course but I think quite a lot of your assessments are spot on.

Also, *if* redshift is caused by Ionization then there is going to have to be a rethink of the nature of "photons" and the unquestioned acceptance of the ballistic approach left by Newton. Via the process of Ionization we are seeing ‘scattered’ electromagnetic energy as matter is ‘separated’ into its more primal constituents. Obviously one cannot look through a telescope and not understand that one is looking through plasma along with electric and magnetic fields in the space between. There is no way, imho, for a ballistic "photon" to make the journeys that are attributed to them across all of that space unimpeded. The "tired light" argument also avails itself of the Newton's ballistic theory for "photons" as well.

In short, I think you are correct regarding redshift and Ionization but only the "leading edge" (like the I-Front) - the supraluminal "pilot", or "guiding wave" can be 'transmitted' and 're-transmitted' across such a distance and the notion is more so commensurate with the theory of member Webolife. This in no way detracts from plasma redshift.

But, we're ever so slowly getting there:

Conversion of Electrostatic to Electromagnetic Waves by Superluminous Ionization Fronts

[celeste]

So, is a quasar some wave front that ionizes material in its path, with an enhanced electric field at its leading edge?(see Solar's Oct 13 post for details) Or does a quasar blow off the surrounding gas clouds under some intense pressure? It does both. If a quasar is a fast moving ionization front with an enhanced electric field, it MUST blow off the surrounding gas cloud. When I was working on the thread "thunder is easily explained", the answer hit me.
The fact that the quasar does have an intense electric field at it's front, causes the dethermalization that blows off the gas. See the "thunder is easily explained thread" for the mechanics.