Presented by
Hilton Ratcliffe
at the National Symposium of the
Astronomical Society of Southern Africa,
Durban, South Africa, 2008,
and at the 2nd Crisis in
Cosmology Conference, Port Angeles, WA,
USA, 2008
Abstract
One of the greatest challenges facing
astrophysics is derivation of remoteness in
cosmological objects. At large scales, it is
almost entirely dependent upon the supposed
Hubble relationship in spectral redshift.
The comparison of galactic redshifts with
distances arrived at by other means has
yielded a useable curve to an acceptable
confidence level, and the assumption of
scale invariance allows the adoption of
redshift as a standard calibration of
cosmological distance. However, there have
been several fields of study in
observational astronomy that consistently
give apparently anomalous results from
ever-larger statistical samples, and would
thus seem to require further careful
investigation. This paper presents a summary
of recent independent work, primarily (for
galaxies and proto-galaxies) by teams led
by, respectively, D. G. Russell, M.
Lopez-Corredoira, and H. C. Arp, and for
galaxy clusters and large-scale structures,
those of N. A. Bahcall, J.C. Jackson, and N.
Kaiser. Included also are several other
important contributions that will be fully
cited in the text. The observational
evidence is presented here per se
without attempting theoretical conclusions
or extrapolating the data to cosmology.
PACS:
95.10 –a; 95.30 –k; 97.10.Ri; 98.
Key words:
redshift, quasars, galaxies, expansion,
cosmology, anomalous, peculiar.
1. Introduction
It is not my intention in this summary to
present all the evidence, or to include the
detail. There is simply too much of it. It
is a broad review using selected examples,
and I would be happy if it were to do no
more than provide some pointers to those of
you who may be inspired to investigate
further.
The first question that needs to be answered
in a review of anomalous redshift data is,
“What is the statistical significance of
the samples being cited?” Put another
way; are anomalous redshift associations not
in fact just extremely rare events that can
be written off to chance alignments and
optical illusion? This was for decades the
criticism levelled particularly at the
observational work of Halton Arp, so I will
let him answer it (from his paper with Chris
Fulton,
2008):
“Fulton & Arp have analyzed the positions,
redshifts, and magnitudes of ~118, 000
galaxies and ~25, 000 quasars in
the 2dF deep field. The examination of
individual samples revealed concentrations
of high z galaxies and quasars near
galaxies. A natural extension of the
analysis was to determine the average
densities of objects over the survey area as
a whole.”
[1]
Redshift is an extremely important quantity
in astrophysics, and supports a large body
of theory. In cosmology, it gives us the
radial calibration along line-of-sight that
determines almost exclusively the depth in
3-D representation of structure. In 1929,
Edwin Hubble discovered that for galaxies in
his field of view, that is, fairly local,
the fainter they are, the higher the
redshift. From the outset, data patterns
were indistinct and tenuous. Hubble’s
original redshift data were described by
Weinberg
[2] as leaving him “perplexed how he
(Hubble) could reach such a
conclusion—galactic velocities seem almost
uncorrelated with their distance, with only
a mild tendency for velocity to increase
with distance.” Hubble himself remained
unconvinced that the Doppler effect
correctly explained his observations. Hoyle,
Burbidge, and Narlikar, in A Different
Approach to Cosmology [3], recount
Hubble’s uncertainty:
“In his last
discussion of the observations, Hubble in
the George Darwin lecture at the Royal
Astronomical Society in 1953, a few months
before he died, gave the first results
obtained using the 200-inch
telescope…Sandage
has pointed out that using the ‘no recession
factor’ (meaning no correction for the
number effect), Hubble was still doubtful if
the expansion was real.”
In the same book (pages 32—33), we learn
that, “In the case of the redshifts it
had been accepted that they must be
corrected for solar motion with respect to
the centroid of the Local Group, since it
had been realised since 1936 that the
systematic redshift does not operate within
the Local Group.” The crucial
implication of this was that it was
impossible to test redshift-expansion
against parallax distance measures, the most
reliable method for quantifying celestial
remoteness, albeit within the limits of
achievable baseline scale. Given that
uncertainty increases dramatically with
remoteness on all axes, it would appear that
the Hubble relationship fits best
where it is tested least.
Historically, galaxy counts compiled by
Abell (Catalogue of Rich Clusters,
1958), Zwicky et al (Catalogue of
Galaxies and Clusters of Galaxies,
1961—1968), and Arp (Atlas of peculiar
Galaxies, 1966) made no attempt to
reconcile redshift values with other
properties in space, but the data were
invaluable to later analysts constructing
3-D interpretations. The
Sloan Digital
Sky Survey
(SDSS) and the Centre for Astrophysics
(CfA) survey, as two examples of modern
works, have given us 3 dimensional
interpretations of pie slices of the
universe that rest, or fall, with redshift
distance. All these mentioned surveys
produced peculiar patterns when arranged
spatially according to redshift, and even
more obvious anomalies where resolution
permitted detection of material connections
between bright objects.
Morley Bell, of Herzberg Institute of
Astrophysics in Canada, sums it up,
“Because the belief that the redshift of
quasars is cosmological has become so
entrenched, and the consequences now of it
being wrong are so enormous, astronomers are
very reluctant to consider other
possibilities. However, there is increasing
evidence that some galaxies may form around
compact, seed objects ejected with a large
intrinsic redshift component from the nuclei
of mature active galaxies.” [4]
2. Phenomenology
Anomalous redshifts, defined as quantities
significantly at variance with the Hubble
Law, present in two ways: Either the
redshift value itself is inconsistent with
other known properties of the object, or the
redshift is taken as the benchmark and doubt
is cast on the verity of other measured
properties of the object. To assess whether
the arrangement in an apparent system is or
is not anomalous, we would look for
“properties of nearness, alignment,
disturbances, connections” (Arp,
Burbidge, Burbidge [5]).
Thus, we may assume that there is something
anomalous about the redshift of an
astrophysical object if:
1.1.
There is a prevalence of high
redshift objects near the nucleus of nearby
galaxies, or high redshift galaxy-like
systems associated with low redshift
clusters;
1.2.
Physical connections are seen between
objects with significantly varying
redshifts;
1.3.
Apparent proximity of high redshift
objects is given by non-redshift distance
indicators;
1.4.
Radial alignment suggests ejection
and common origin of objects with
excessively varying redshifts;
1.5.
Absorption lines (or lack thereof) of
higher redshift objects places them in the
foreground of lower redshift background
systems;
1.6.
Morphological associations, for
example asymmetries in rotation curves or
overall shapes, in contradiction of redshift
distance. This evidence, although documented
in the literature, is not included in this
review.
1.7.
The redshift is systematically
quantised in discrete values along preferred
peaks (the Karlsson Effect).
3. Overview
3.1 Galaxies. Our descriptive
knowledge of galaxies increased
exponentially from the time of Hubble’s
first foray into extra-galactic astronomy in
the late 1920s. However, our definitive
understanding of these systems seems to
have simultaneously gone backwards. Edwin
Hubble designed his Tuning Fork
classification system around his belief that
galaxies were stable and symmetrical,
reducible to a linear hierarchy of just a
handful of distinct species. By the 1950s,
it was obvious that Hubble’s galaxy classes
were woefully inadequate, and that galaxies
were indeed behaving mysteriously. A decade
earlier (in 1941), Erik Holmberg had
modelled tidal disturbances apparent in
“stellar systems which pass one another at
small distances” [6]. In 1956, Fritz
Zwicky was the first astronomer to describe
large-scale tidal effects characterising
galaxies, in the form of “clouds,
filaments, and jets of stars” [7]. He
attributed these phenomena to ejection,
caused by galaxy collisions. Viktor
Ambartsumian tendered a very important
alternative view, theorising the
fissioning of celestial objects. This
raised the possibility that galaxy-galaxy
interactions and consequent tidal
disturbances described by Zwicky, could well
be caused primarily by the ejection of one
object by another without their prior
merging necessarily. Either way, they
were definitely peculiar.
In the paper Large Scale Structure in
the Universe Indicated by Galaxy Clusters
[8], Neta Bahcall, widow of the late John
Bahcall and professor of astronomy at
Princeton, summarises it thus, “Still,
despite the great effort and many ingenious
ideas, no single theory for the formation of
galaxies and large-scale structure can yet
satisfactorily match all observations”.
Thus, it would appear, at super-galactic
scales at least, redshift-distance
correlations are always in some or other
respect anomalous when tested against the
body of theory.
3.2. Quasars. Alan Sandage
and Thomas Matthews, in a landmark fusion of
optical and radio astronomy, identified
Quasi-Stellar Objects (QSOs, hereafter
quasars) in 1963. They were properly
described in terms of their spectral
signature, and presented an unusual defining
characteristic: Redshifts significantly
higher than other objects seen on the sky.
This created difficulties for physical
theory because at their redshift-implied
remoteness, they would by known physics be
impossibly bright. Quasars are very compact
objects, typically only ~1 LY across. If
they really are at their redshift distance,
they would be so energetic that their
luminosity enters the realm of metaphysics.
If one plots quasars’ redshift against
apparent brightness, as Hubble did for
galaxies, one gets a wide scatter, as
compared with a smooth curve for the same
plot done for galaxies. This seems to
indicate that quasars do not follow the
Hubble law, and there is no direct
indication that they are at their proposed
redshift distance. In fact, it is argued if
Hubble had been given the plot for quasars
first, he and other astronomers would not
have concluded the Universe was expanding.
Furthermore, the calculated charge density
of quasars is in some cases so high that it
would appear that photons could not likely
escape the interior, meaning that quasars
should be radio- and X-ray-quiet. They
obviously were not. Even more onerous was
the precision measurement of radial
expansion rate by very long baseline radio
interferometry. Quasars appeared to be
expanding at up to ten times the speed of
light, with obviously serious implications
for underlying theory and Einsteinian
physics. All of these quandaries about
quasars were real only at their
redshift-implied remoteness, and would tend
to disappear if the objects were in fact
closer to our point of observation. It was
clear that quasars were peculiar enough to
warrant further investigation to establish
observationally what they actually
were in the scheme of things, and where
they might be located in space.
3.3. Observations and Catalogues. It
would be fair to say that the controversy
surrounding quasars and the implied
phenomenon of intrinsic redshift may be
attributed mainly to the early observational
work of Dr Halton C. Arp, then a
professional astronomer working at the major
West Coast observatories of the USA. His
interest in the astronomical distance
ladder, stemming from his doctoral work with
Edwin Hubble and subsequent 2-year stint
observing Cepheids in South Africa, brought
redshift into focus. In 1965, two oddities
caught his interest: Galaxies appeared to be
in turmoil, showing signs of great internal
stress and presenting themselves in ways
that could not neatly be accommodated on
Hubble’s Tuning Fork; and an unusual
prevalence of quasars, in pairs or more,
aligned closely across active (Seyfert-like)
galaxies. Sandage
collaborated with de Vaucouleurs in 1958 to
try to accommodate the wildly varying
structural types of galaxies, and in 1966,
Arp published a collection of these images
in his classic Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies.
The furore that followed split the
astrophysical community, with most
astronomers declaring that close alignment
of quasars with AGN was just chance,
line-of-sight coincidence with no
statistical or physical significance. A
small minority took an alternative view,
however, amongst them (besides Arp) Margaret
and Geoff Burbidge, Fred Hoyle, Jayant
Narlikar, and Jack Sulentic. After his
banning from the West Coast observatories in
the early 1980s, Dr Arp took up employment
at the Max Planck Institut für
Extraterrestrische Physik (MPE) in
Germany, where he was able to continue
acquiring images in X-ray of objects he had
previously observed optically. Ironically,
the enforced migration from optical to X-ray
dealt Arp an unexpected trump—previously
unseen linking structures were thereby
revealed, and the great value of composite
images in various wavebands was obvious. The
MPE’s cutting-edge X-ray telescope, says
Arp, “picked out the most energetic
objects with ease, and the telescope was
still small enough so that it had
sufficiently large field to include the
crucial objects which were related to the
central progenitor galaxies”[9]. Those
seeking to suppress his research had shot
themselves squarely in the foot.
The first volume, The Atlas of
Peculiar Galaxies, originally a
supplement to ApJ, is currently out of
print, so I reference here Kanipe and Webb’s
version [10], which contains all the images.
It lists 338 disturbed galaxies. They are
known as the Arp galaxies, and have
Arp numbers from 1 to 338 in the
order presented in the atlas. Arp’s
subsequent publications continued to display
observational evidence of these
associations, now improved by advanced
instrumentation to include more detail than
just tight angular spread, and led
ultimately to his Catalogue of
Discordant Redshift Associations,
[11] published in 2003.
Up to then, the samples available to Dr Arp
had been limited in scope, but contemporary
large-scale cosmic surveys, prominently the
Sloan Digital Sky Survey
(SDSS), immediately introduced millions of
objects to the field of study. Amongst them
were more than 40 000 positively identified
quasars. The two deep field surveys are also
invaluable sources of redshift data. The 2dF
Galaxy Redshift Survey (2dFGRS) lists ~250
000 galaxies, and the 2dF Quasar Redshift
Survey (2QZ) examines ~25 000 quasars.
In the words of Arp and Fulton,
“The
resulting collection of objects can be
analysed to obtain the average numbers of
galaxies and quasars per square degree as
shown in Table 1. The subject count records
the occurrence of galaxies and quasars
inside a circle of radius 30′
around each galaxy and the background count
records the occurrence of galaxies and
quasars in a concentric annulus of equal
area enclosing the subject circle.”
[1]
In Analysis of possible anomalies in
the QSO distribution of the Flesch &
Hardcastle catalogue [12], Martin
Lopez-Corredoira
and colleagues give the scope of that
collection: “Flesch & Hardcastle present
an all-sky catalogue with 86 009 optical
counterparts of radio/X-ray sources as QSO
candidates…”
Again, in
A Catalogue of M51 type Galaxy Associations
[13], David G Russell and his colleagues
discuss the need for further investigation:
“A catalog of 232 apparently interacting
galaxy pairs of the M51 class is presented.
Catalog members were identified from visual
inspection of multi-band images in the IRSA
archive…[]… It was found that only 18% of
the M51 type companions have redshift
measurements in the literature. There is a
significant need for spectroscopic study of
the companions in order to improve the value
of the catalog as a sample for studying the
effects of M51 type interaction on galaxy
dynamics, morphology, and star formation.
Further spectroscopy will also help
constrain the statistics of possible chance
projections between foreground and
background galaxies in the catalog. The
catalog also contains over 430 additional
systems which are classified as ‘possible
M51’ systems.”
4. Fields of study
4.1. Statistical distribution. Halton
Arp and colleagues found that three aspects
of quasar
distribution were anomalous: Their
distribution amongst other objects, that is,
the 2-D density of quasars on the sky,
showed an inordinate prevalence of quasars
paired in close (angular) proximity across
Active Galactic Nuclei; objects apparently
physically associated in space had
significantly varying redshifts; and the
asymmetrical concentrations of isophotes on
AGN/quasar maps indicated that the quasars
were moving away from the AGN, suggesting
ejection. Dr Arp has to date published 4
volumes besides his many papers and
articles, 3 in book form [9, 11, 14, 15].
All are in effect catalogues of his
observations, and they contain hundreds of
examples. It is not practicable to present
here an analysis of each case, so I have
selectively chosen three examples to
illustrate the principles being put forward.
It is interesting to note Arp’s use of the
collective noun “family” in his recent work;
it emphasises the important increase in
power and resolution of modern surveys. From
the first tentative observed alignments of
pairs of quasars in the 1960s, we are now
introduced to groups of ten or more closely
gathered around active galaxies.
4.1.1. NGC 3516: The Rosetta Stone.
In 1997, Halton Arp, together with a team of
Chinese astronomers, published a landmark
paper: Quasars around the Seyfert
Galaxy NGC3516 [16] Arp has
described this system as the “Rosetta Stone”
of Intrinsic Redshift. He says,
“We
report redshift measurements of 5 X-ray
emitting blue stellar objects (BSOs) located
less than 12 arc min from the X-ray Seyfert
galaxy, NGC 3516. We find these quasars to
be distributed along the minor axis of the
galaxy and to show a very good correlation
between their redshift and their angular
distance from NGC 3516. All of the
properties of the high redshift X-ray
objects in the NGC 3516 field confirm the
body of earlier results on quasars
associated with active galaxies. We conclude
that because of the number of objects in
this one group, the evidence has been
greatly strengthened that quasars are
ejected from nearby active galaxies and
exhibit intrinsic redshifts.”
4.1.2.
AM 2230-284 large quasar family.
This striking example of a family of 14
quasars (reduced to 7 by magnitude
constraints) gathered around the central
galaxy AM 2230-284 is examined in one of
Arp’s most recent studies (Arp and Fulton
2008)
[1].
Arp: “In
order to work with a manageable number of
cases…I was asked to excerpt from the most
constrained test a list of the families with
the largest number of detected companions.
The list supplied 44 galaxies with 7 − 9
such companions. Glancing through these
associations revealed the surprising
appearance of families in which many of the
quasar companions were strikingly similar in
redshift. In one case the redshifts of all 7
quasars within a radius of d = 30 were
closely the same…The fact that there are so
many quasars all of nearly the same redshift
around this galaxy marks them as being
associated with a high degree of
probability.(…)
“There are specific properties of this
association that are predicted from the
ejection model for quasars by Narlikar & Arp
(1993). Briefly summarized they are:
-
QSOs are ejected in opposite directions
conserving linear momentum. Figure 2
shows 7 QSOs with positive (presumably
Doppler) velocity shifts and 7 with
negative shifts.
-
The mean approaching and receding
ejection velocities are very much the
same. Extension along the lines of
ejection can be slowed or deviated by
moving individual QSOs around but the
average usually stays closely balanced.
-
The parent galaxy is an Arp/Madore
peculiar galaxy. It is moderately bright
at B = 17.33 mag. Its peculiarity is its
compactness (high surface brightness)
usually an indicator of active physical
processes.
-
(Karlsson Periodicity).”
The peculiarity of this system typically
extends also to the rate at which it expands
intrinsically. Radial expansion at 3600 km s-1
is measured, which includes a significant
ejection component. Conservatively, we may
say that Vexp << 3600 km s-1.
We may then check to see if it matches the
expansion rate expected if it really were at
its redshift-supposed distance. Arp says,
“It is interesting to calculate what the
rate of expansion would be if the cluster
were at its conventional redshift distance.
First of all, how far away would it be? If
the velocity of light is taken to be 300,
000 km/s, then the redshift z = 2.149 is v/c
= .817 v = 245, 100 km/s
Using the Hubble constant H0 = 55 km/s/Mpc r
= 4, 456 Mpc = the distance to the cluster.
D = 181 Mpc = the diameter of the cluster.
Hence the cluster should be expanding with
9, 955 km/s. But only 3, 600 km/s is
measured and most, if not all, of that is
deemed ejection velocity. At the
conventional redshift distance, however,
just the expansion of space should imprint
nearly 3 times as much front to back
expansion velocity than actually measured
for this quasar
cluster.”
4.1.3. The Quasars around NGC5985.
Halton Arp Redshifts of New Galaxies
[17]“(It)
shows one of the most exact alignments of
quasars and galaxies known. Attention was
drawn to this region when it was discovered
that a very blue galaxy in the second
Byurakan Survey had a quasar
of redshift z = 0.81 only 2.4 arcsecs from
its nucleus. Even multiplying by 3 x 104
galaxies of this apparent magnitude or
brighter in their survey they estimated only
a chance proximity of 10−3.
(Nevertheless they took this as proof
that it was a chance projection! Also it was
not referenced that G. Burbidge, in 1996 in
the same Journal, had published extensive
list of other quasars improbably close to
low redshift galaxies). A combined
numerical probability of the configuration
gives a chance of around 10−9
to 10−10
of being accidental. Nevertheless several
peer reviewers recommended against
publication on the grounds that the
accidental probability was ‘greater’ than
this. But, of course, several dozens of
cases of anomalous associations had been
reported since 1966 with chance
probabilities running from 10−4
to 10−5.
What is the combined probability of all
these previous cases? And what is the
motivation to claim each new case is ‘a
posteriori’?”
4.2. Physical association in specific
systems. Meanwhile, the original
observations catalogued by Dr Arp had
prompted open enquiry by a number of
astronomers in various fields of study. At
the Instituto de Astrofisica de Canarias,
Martin Lopez-Corredoira
and Carlos Gutierrez (hereafter L-C & G),
both professional astronomers at the
Instituto, studied individual systems to
try to establish the presence of evidence
supporting or refuting physical associations
and material connections between objects in
apparent proximity incompatible with their
respective redshifts.
In their classic 2005 paper, Research
on Candidates for Non-Cosmological Redshifts,
[18], L-C & G hint at their uphill battle
for telescope time: “A surprising fact
regarding our observations is that we have
observed only about a dozen systems. The
reason is mainly because we obtained only a
few nights of observation time on 2 to 4
metre telescopes. In subsequent
applications, no time was obtained despite
our having published several papers in major
astronomical journals on the topic.” It
is worth adding that of the 12 they were
permitted to observe, fully half were found
to contain definite anomalies, clearly
justifying their research.
L-C & G had set themselves the target of
trying to investigate, by close observation,
the discordant redshift associations listed
in Arp’s Atlas—a daunting task given the
sheer numbers involved. They say,
“The
sample of discordant redshift associations
given in Arp’s atlas is indeed quite large,
and most of the objects remain to be
analysed thoroughly. For about 5 years, we
have been running a project to observe some
of these cases in detail, and some new
anomalies have been added to those already
known; For instance, in some exotic
configurations such as NGC 7603 or NEQ3,
which can even show bridges connecting four
objects with very different redshifts, and
the probability for this to be a projection
of background sources is very low.”
4.2.1. Markarian 205. The classic
case, featured on the covers of all Arp’s
books, is the famous “invisible” bridge
linking NGC 4319 and the quasar Mrk 205. Arp
published the original images in 1972. In
the early 1980s, Dr Jack Sulentic soundly
debunked two much-cited papers that claimed
the observed bridge simply did not exist,
and in 2007, he reacted again to similar
claims, this time in a press release from
Hubble Heritage. “The papers H. Arp and I
wrote have never been refuted in the
literature. Did we make a mistake no one
told us about?” In the HST image,
Sulentic says, “You can see the narrow
core in the connection, which HST is able to
detect because of its excellent resolution.
It is seen exactly where we found it in the
earlier studies…Hubble Space Telescope
has in fact, confirmed our earlier work.”
The case of Mrk 205 has been discussed ad
nauseum, and in my opinion, we can be as
certain as we are of anything in cosmology
that the bridge is a real physical
connection between these two objects. Anyone
not yet convinced is unlikely to change his
mind now. Markarian 205 rests.
4.2.2. NGC 7603. In 2002, these two
astronomers applied for telescope time to
study the field surrounding NGC 7603 [19].
It is particularly interesting because it is
one of the cases where filamentary
connections appear between objects of
different redshift. In 2004, they revisited
the study, and published a comprehensive
summary paper in Astronomy & Astrophysics,
entitled The Field Surrounding NGC
7603: Cosmological or non-cosmological
redshifts? [20]. The authors
presented in this review new evidence from
this specific set of observations,
particularly concerning two knots in the
filament connecting NGC 7603 (z = 0.029) and
the QSO NGC 7603B (z = 0.057).
“The angular proximity of both galaxies and
the apparently luminous connection between
them makes the system an important example
of a possible anomalous redshift
association. Arp has claimed that the
compact member, NGC 7603B, was somehow
ejected from the bigger object. Moreover,
there are also two objects overimposed on
the filament apparently connecting both
galaxies. We identified several emission
lines in the spectra of the two knots,
and…we determined their redshifts to be
0.394±0.002
and 0.245±0.002
for the objects closest to and farthest from
NGC 7603 respectively…According to the line
ratios, these objects are HII-galaxies but
are quite peculiar…However, if we consider
an anomalous intrinsic redshift case…they
would be on the faint tail of the HII-galaxies;
they would be dwarf galaxies, ‘tidal
dwarfs’, and this would explain the observed
strong star formation ratio...Of course,
this would imply that we have
non-cosmological redshifts.”
L-C & G conclude in [18]:
“Therefore, some facts, although not
conclusive, seem to suggest that there is an
interaction between the four galaxies of
different redshift: the existence of the
filament itself, the strong Ha
emission apparently observed in the HII
galaxies typical of dwarf galaxies, and the
low probability of having three background
sources projected on to the filament. As a
speculative hypothesis, we might think that
the three galaxies were ejected by NGC
7603…it seems extremely unlikely that
objects 1–4 at different distances can, by
chance, give a projection in the way these
figures show up.”
4.2.3. MGC 7-25-46, NGC 7319, and
Stephan’s Quintet. In 2004, Margaret
Burbidge
presented to the annual meeting of the
American Astronomical Society a paper that
created alarm in the world of cosmology. It
was called The Discovery of a High
Redshift X-Ray Emitting QSO Very Close to
the Nucleus of NGC 7319 [21]. In it,
the authors presented observational evidence
that a strong X-ray source (an
Ultraluminous X-ray Source or ULX) with
relatively high redshift (z = 2.114) lay in
the foreground of NGC 7319, an active
galaxy with relatively low redshift (z =
0.022). Several tests were conducted to
determine whether or not it lay in the
foreground, for if it were, beyond
reasonable doubt, the case would be
conclusive.
Is the QSO behind the galaxy?
“It is not
surprising that interstellar sodium D1
and D2 absorption are seen in the spectrum
of the QSO. If the ejected gas and the QSO
lie near the plane of the disk, however
disrupted that may be, we would still expect
about half the possible optical depth of gas
between the QSO and the observer. But we
have no way of knowing whether the amount of
gas observed here represents the total
column of gas through the system, half, or
even less. One obvious question suggests
itself, namely: Does the color of the QSO
indicate that it is inordinately reddened
and therefore obscured as if it were a
background object? Of course that would
require smooth conditions in the galaxy and
a precise value for the unreddened color.
But we can make an empirical test by
selecting 32 QSOs in a large sample region
of the Hewitt-Burbidge Catalog (Hewitt &
Burbidge 1993) which have redshifts 2.0
≤
z
≤
2.2. The average redshift is z = 2.09 and
the average (B-V)ave = 0.26±.18
(mean deviation). So we see the measured B-V
= 0.43 for the QSO is somewhat reddened but
within the average
deviation. But if we compare the B-V of
this ULX with fainter apparent magnitude
QSOs from the Hewitt-Burbidge Catalogue we
find that it is about 0.1 to 0.2 mag. bluer
than average.”
It seemed at the time that the case was so
strongly made that urgent revision of the
redshift distance ladder would follow. It
did not, and publication in the
Astrophysical Journal (ApJ) was made
conditional upon the inclusion of a
contrived argument suggesting that it was in
fact a background object. The authors had no
option but to accede.
Notwithstanding the issue of foreground or
not, Burbidge et al insist that the close
alignment of so many ULXs with host galaxies
cannot be written off to chance. “In
the last few years observations from Chandra
and XMM-Newton have shown that there are
many discrete, powerful X-ray-emitting
sources which lie close to the nuclei of
spiral galaxies, often, apparently inside
the main body of the galaxy (Foschini et al.
2002a, 2002b; Pakull and Mirioni 2002;
Roberts et al. 2001; Goad et al. 2002).
Typical separations are from
∼
1′
to 5′.
Since they are emitting at power levels
above about 1038.5 erg sec−1,
they cannot be normal X-ray binaries. They
have been called ULX (Ultraluminous X-ray
sources) or IXO, intermediate luminosity
X-ray sources (Colbert and Ptak 2002). It
has been concluded that they are either
binary systems with black hole masses in the
range 102
−
104 M⊙,
or they are X-ray emitting QSOs. Last year
Burbidge et al. (2003) suggested that they
were likely to be QSOs with a wide range of
redshifts. If this is the case, the fact
that they are all very close to the centres
of the galaxies suggests strongly that they
are physically associated with these
galaxies and are in the process of being
ejected from them. This is a natural
conclusion following from the earlier
studies by Radecke (1997) and Arp (1997),
who showed that there is a strong tendency
for QSOs to cluster about active spiral
galaxies. Many cases of this kind have been
found (eg. near the AGN galaxies NGC 1068,
2639, 3516, 3628). The typical separations
between these QSOs and the galaxies in these
cases are
∼
15′
- 20′.
It is clear that if the separations are
smaller than this, as is the case in general
for the ULXs, there will be an even greater
likelihood that the QSOs and galaxies are
physically associated.”
They conclude, “We have clearly
demonstrated that the ULX lying 8 arc sec
from the nucleus of NGC 7319 is a high
redshift QSO. This is to be added to the
list of more than 20 ULX candidates which
have all turned out to be genuine QSOs.
Since all of these objects lie within a few
arc minutes or less of the centres of these
galaxies, the probability that any of them
are QSOs at cosmological distance, observed
through the disk of the galaxy, is
negligibly small.”[21]
In Research on candidates for
non-cosmological redshifts [18], L-C
& G point out the connections linking
elements in the system:
“MCG 7-25-46 (or UGC 7175) was also analysed
by Arp: a system with two galaxies connected
by a bridge and with different redshift: z =
0.003 for the main galaxy and z = 0.098 for
the small one. From our analysis, it is
relevant that the bridge has the same
redshift as the main galaxy…and we could
produce a 2D map of the Ha
emission…also observed perturbation, due
possibly to interaction, in the higher
redshift object. As in NGC 7603, one could
ask why MCG 7-25-46 ejects a filament/bridge
in the direction of the discordant redshift
companion and not in other directions. There
is the further interesting observation that
the Ha
emission at z = 0.003 finishes exactly where
the Ha
emission of the galaxy with z = 0.098 begins
(which is supposed to be in the background),
there is no overlap in the two emissions. Is
it not a strange coincidence? This
coincidence reminds us of the case in
Stephan’s Quintet, and the Ha
bridge connecting NGC 7320 to the other
galaxies that we have analysed with the same
technique: it also happens in this case that
the Ha
with discordant redshift begins exactly
where the major component redshift finishes
in the bridge connecting NGC 7320 to the
rest of the group; in such a case, there was
no overlapping of both Ha
emissions with different velocities. A
coincidence? Perhaps. There are also other
coincidences in Stephan’s Quintet, such as
radio emission isophotes with 6600–6700 km/s
tracing quite exactly the shape of NGC 7320
(≈
800 km/s) and connecting it with the rest of
the Quintet.”
4.2.4 Double radio source 3C343.1. Dr
Arp and the Doctors Burbidge published the
results of their study in 2004: The
Double Radio Source 3C343.1: A galaxy-QSO
pair with very different redshifts.
[5] They summarise the case as follows:
“The strong radio source 3C343.1 consists of
a galaxy and a QSO separated by no more than
about 0.25’’. The chance of this being an
accidental superposition is conservatively
~1 × 10−8.
The z = 0.344 galaxy is connected to the z =
0.750 QSO by a radio bridge. The numerical
relation between the two redshifts is that
predicted from previous associations. This
pair is an extreme example of many similar
physical associations of QSOs and galaxies
with very different redshifts...
We have discussed this pair of objects from
the standpoint of whether there could be any
‘a posteriori quality’ to their
extraordinarily small probability of being
an accidental configuration. In fact we have
found that this pair has properties very
similar, but more extreme than most of the
other associations of QSOs and galaxies
which have been discovered earlier —
properties of nearness, alignment,
disturbances, connections. Since there are
very few cases that have been examined this
closely, the possibility is raised that
there are more such associations to be
discovered.”
4.2.5. NEQ 3. This is a system of 3
compact objects with angular spread < 6
arcsecs, aligned with the minor axis of a
lenticular galaxy at ~17 arcsecs. Although
it is an intriguing astronomical system, the
only prior study of NEQ3 had been by Arp,
some 27 years previously. He had noted a
filament connecting the galaxy and the 3
outriggers, and L-C & G studied the system
in some detail. L-C & G:
“A
filament is situated along the optical line
connecting the main galaxy and the three
compact objects. We have obtained a better
image of the filament (previously noted by
Arp) along the line of the minor axis of
object 4…again, as in NGC 7603, we have seen
that the system is even more anomalous than
previously thought: we now have three
different redshifts instead of two. Also as
in NGC 7603, the origin of the filament is a
mystery; it is supposed to be due to the
interaction of the pair 1,2 with some other
galaxy to the south-west. Where is this
object? It seems that object 4 is the galaxy
concerned, and this would imply anomalous
redshift.”[22]
4.3. Redshift survey of local galaxies.
David G Russell (as distinct from David M
Russell of the University of Southampton,
who publishes also in astrophysics) is
engaged in an ongoing, novel study of spiral
galaxies in the Virgo Cluster, using the
Tully-Fisher Relationship (TFR) to identify
those galaxies that were physically bound in
the cluster, and then comparing their mean
redshift values. TFR describes an
empirically derived correlation between the
spin rate and luminosity of certain classes
of spiral galaxy. It is an extremely robust
ratio, remaining tight over at least 7
magnitudes, which represents a factor of 600
in luminosity. It follows the simple theorem
that spin rates are proportional to mass;
mass in galaxies translates into stellar
population; and stars are what give a galaxy
its shine. If the intrinsic luminosity of
the galaxy is known, comparison with
apparent luminosity will give distance from
point of observation via the inverse square
law
for light dissipation. Doppler shifts
measured at the approaching and departing
limbs of sufficiently oblique galaxy disks
deliver a reliable value for rotation rate,
and then intrinsic surface brightness can be
estimated via the TFR.
In 60 years of use, the TFR principle has
entrenched itself as a major component in
the extragalactic distance scale, and is
widely regarded as the second most reliable
measure of remoteness at that scale, or, to
put it another way, it the most important
secondary measure of cosmological distance.
A detailed exposition of the Tully-Fisher
Relationship may be obtained in reference
[23]. Dr Russell’s initial publication in
this field was 2003, Intrinsic
Redshifts in Normal Spiral Galaxies
[24]. It formed the launch pad for a series
of papers on TFR calibrations of both B-band
and I-band in spiral galaxies in the Virgo
cluster. Assuming a (then) commonly agreed
upon Hubble Constant of 72 km sec-1
Mpc-1, Russell identified excess
redshifts in normal ScI galaxies that were
clearly non-cosmological and consistent with
Arp’s intrinsic redshift hypothesis. In
addition, he found that giant Sab/Sb
galaxies in the same cluster showed evidence
of intrinsic redshift expressed as extreme
negative motion. This was consistent with
Arp’s 1988 observation that Sbs commonly
show redshift deficits relative to other
species in a cluster [25]. Russell followed
with two more papers expanding the same
theme [26,27].
In his 2003 paper Intrinsic Redshifts
in Normal Spiral Galaxies [24],
Russell states, “The
Tully-Fisher (TF) relation calibrated in
both the B-band and the I-band indicates
that
(1)
“The redshift distribution of Virgo
Cluster spirals has a morphological
dependence that is inconsistent with a
peculiar velocity interpretation.
(2)
“Galaxies of morphology similar to ScI
galaxies have a systematic excess redshift
component relative to the redshift expected
from a Hubble Constant of 72 km s-1
Mpc
-1.
(3)
“Pairs and groups of galaxies exist for
which the TF relation provides excellent
agreement among individual members, but for
which the group redshift deviates strongly
from the predictions of the Hubble Relation.
“It is again found that morphology plays a
role as these galaxies are all of Hubble
types Sbc and Sc. The overall results of
this study indicate that normal Sbc and Sc
galaxies have a systematic excess redshift
component relative to the predictions of the
standard Hubble relation assuming a Hubble
Constant of 72 km s-1
Mpc-1.
The excess redshifts identified in this
analysis are consistent with the
expectations of previous claims for
non-cosmological (intrinsic) redshifts.
“The most dramatic result in Table IV is the
extreme excess redshifts of the ScI/Seyfert
group. Since three of these galaxies (NGC
4321, NGC 4535, NGC 4536) have Cepheid
distances it is unlikely that this
phenomenon results from inaccurate distances
(see also Arp 2002). The result cannot be
attributed to the morphological density
relation (Dressler 1980) because the
redshift excess is systematically positive
and the galaxies in question are on both the
front and backside of the mean cluster
distance. Adopting a strict velocity
interpretation of galaxy redshifts requires
that as a group the giant Sb galaxies are
approaching the Milky Way with a mean
velocity of -898 km s-1
while the giant ScI galaxies are receding
from the Milky Way with a mean velocity of
+824 km s-1.”
The implication of Russell’s last sentence
is crucial—the standard redshift
interpretation of velocity would have us
believe that galaxies migrate peculiarly by
type! The notion of species-dependent
universal expansion is an exceptionally
strong argument against the Hubble Law.
In Intrinsic Redshifts and the
Tully-Fisher Distance Scale [24], Dr
Russell summarises thus,
“The
Tully-Fisher relationship (TFR) has been
shown to have a relatively small observed
scatter of ~ +/-0.35 mag implying an
intrinsic scatter < +/-0.30 mag. However,
when the TFR is calibrated from distances
derived from the Hubble relation for field
galaxies scatter is consistently found to be
+/-0.64 to +/-0.84 mag. This significantly
larger scatter requires that intrinsic TFR
scatter is actually much larger than +/-0.30
mag, that field galaxies have an intrinsic
TFR scatter much larger than cluster
spirals, or that field galaxies have a
velocity dispersion relative to the Hubble
flow in excess of 1000 km
s-1.
Each of these potential explanations is
contradicted by available data and the
results of previous studies. An alternative
explanation is that the measured redshifts
of galaxies are composed of a cosmological
redshift component predicted from the value
of the Hubble Constant and a superimposed
intrinsic redshift component previously
identified in other studies. This intrinsic
redshift component may exceed 5000 km s-1
in individual galaxies.”
More recently (2008), Russell switched to
K-band analysis, and found that distances
changed. In private correspondence with this
author, Dr Russell stated, “The basic
results haven’t changed, are improved
actually…the tests that indicate that
deviation is real are much more compelling.”[28]
4.4. Large-scale structure: The “Finger
of God” and Kaiser Effect anomalies in
galaxy clusters. J. C. Jackson [29] in
1972 found an observational effect in galaxy
distribution data that caused clusters of
galaxies to appear elongated when expressed
in redshift space, taking on the appearance
of “fingers” pointing towards Earth. The
virial association of high velocities in
clusters with their gravitation distorts the
Hubble redshift relationship, and
consequently, distance measurements are
inaccurate, that is, anomalous according to
the model.
N. Kaiser [30] in 1987 revealed a related
but smaller effect occurring in even larger
structures. These “Pancakes of God”
are attributed to line-of-sight distortion
unrelated to distributions predicted by the
virial theorem. They are thought to arise
instead from infall motions of galaxies as
the cluster forms, based on the assumption
that high-redshift objects are nascent.
Notwithstanding the evolutionary explanation
and the somewhat arbitrary scalar cut-off of
virial distribution, the redshift/structure
relationship is anomalous.
Furthermore, redshift-mapped large
structures give anomalous results in terms
of the Cosmological Principle, a fundamental
requirement of the Standard Model of
Cosmology, and the mathematical bedrock of
universal expansion theory. In the paper
Large Scale Structure in the Universe
Indicated by Galaxy Clusters, [8],
Neta Bahcall states “The results imply
the existence of very large-scale structures
with scales of ~100—150h-1
Mpc…[]…The cosmological principle states
that the Universe is homogeneous and
isotropic. Observations of galaxies and
clusters, however, show inhomogeneities and
structure on all scales studied so far…When
does the Universe become homogeneous? How
does the clumpy distribution of luminous
matter fit with the highly isotropic
distribution of the microwave background
radiation on the largest scales? The answers
are not known yet.” Either the redshift
data are anomalous, or the implied spatial
properties do not fit, or both.
They are anomalous also for the
l-CDM
model. Bahcall: “The large scale
structure results discussed in this review,
however, constitute a difficulty for CDM.
Considerable evidence for structure on
scales
³
30h-1 Mpc has now been
accumulated by a number of investigators;
this large-scale structure (and velocity)
cannot be matched by unadorned CDM models…If
these largest scale results are confirmed by
new and deeper observations, it will be
damaging to the simplest CDM models.”
[8].
8. Acknowledgements:
None of those mentioned here necessarily
agrees or disagrees with any argument or
inference made in this paper. I do not wish
to imply that those who graciously offered
me help are thereby indelibly stamped with
the same philosophical and scientific
persuasion as I am.
As always, Martin Lopez-Corredoira
has taken time to share his experience with
me, and review my work with a friendly,
critical eye. Dave Russell is ever
courteous, never too busy to swap data and
ideas. Halton Arp has been magnanimous as
usual, giving me free rein with his
published work. Geoffrey Burbidge
offered some incisive advice of a more
general nature, which was gratefully
received.
I received help also from Tom Van Flandern,
Eric Lerner, Paul Jackson, Oliver Manuel,
Tony Bray, and Sir Patrick Moore. I am
sincerely grateful for their unstinting
efforts to propagate real science. This
paper is dedicated to my late mentor and
teacher, South African solar astronomer
Robert Bennett Blore, to whom my debt is
incalculable.
9. References
[1] H. Arp and C. Fulton 2008 A
Cluster of High Redshift Quasars with
Apparent Diameter 2.3 Degrees
(arXiv: astro-ph/0802.1587).
[2] Steven
Weinberg 1977
The First Three Minutes (Basic
Books, New York, 1977) page 26.
[3] Fred
Hoyle, Geoffrey Burbidge, and Jayant V.
Narlikar A Different Approach to
Cosmology (Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, 2000).
[4] M. B.
Bell 2006
Further Evidence that the Redshifts of AGN
Galaxies May
Contain Intrinsic Components
(arXiv: astro-ph/0603169).
[5] H. Arp,
E. M. Burbidge, and G. Burbidge 2004
The double radio source 3C343.1: A
galaxy-QSO pair with very different
redshifts (submitted A&A;
arXiv: astro-ph/0401007).
[6] Erik
Holmberg, 1941 On the Clustering
Tendencies Among the Nebulae II. (…)
(ApJ, 94, 385—394).
[7] Fritz
Zwicky, 1956 (Ergeb. Exakten Naturwiss. 29,
344)
[8] Neta
Bahcall 1988 Large Scale Structure in
the Universe Indicated by Galaxy Clusters
(Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 1988 26:
631-686).
[9] Halton
Arp, Redshifts, Cosmology, and
Academic Science (Apeiron,
Montreal. 1998).
[10] Jeff
Kanipe and Dennis Webb The Arp Atlas
of Peculiar Galaxies – A Chronicle and
Observer’s Guide (Willmann-Bell,
Richmond, VA, 2006)
[11] Halton
Arp 2003 Catalogue of Discordant
Redshift Associations
(Apeiron, C. Roy Keys Inc, Montreal, 2003).
[12]
M. Lopez-Corredoira, C. M. Gutierrez, V.
Mohan, G. I. Gunthardt, and M. S. Alonso
2008 Analysis of possible anomalies in
the QSO distribution of the Flesch &
Hardcastle catalogue,
(astro-ph/0801.0423).
[13] Ari Jokimäki, Harley “Skip” Orr, and
David G. Russell 2008
A Catalogue of M51 type Galaxy Associations
(arXiv: astro-ph/0805.1492)
[14] Halton
Arp 1966 Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies
(The Astrophysical Journal
Supplement, 14, 1A, 1966).
[15] Halton
Arp 1987 Quasars, Redshifts, and
Controversies (Interstellar Media,
Berkeley, 1987).
[16] Yaoquan
Chu, Jianyan Wei, Jingyao Hu, Xingfen Zhu,
H. Arp Quasars around the Seyfert
Galaxy NGC3516 (arXiv:
astro-ph/9712021).
[17]
Halton Arp 1998 Redshifts of New
Galaxies (arXiv: astro-ph/9812144)
[18] M.
Lopez-Corredoira and C. M. Gutierrez 2006
Research on candidates to
non-cosmological redshifts (in E. J.
Lerner and J. B. Almeida, Eds., 1st
Crisis in Cosmology Conference, CCC-1, AIP
Conference Proceedings, Vol 822, 2006).
[19] M.
Lopez-Corredoira and C. M. Gutierrez 2002
Two emission line objects with z > 0.2 in
the optical filament apparently connecting
the Seyfert galaxy NGC 7603 to its companion
(astro-ph/0203466).
[20] M.
Lopez-Corredoira and C. M.
Gutierrez 2004 The Field surrounding
NGC 7603: Cosmological or non-cosmological
redshifts? (astro-ph/0401147).
[21]
Pasquale Galianni, E. M. Burbidge, H. Arp,
V. Junkkarinen, G. Burbidge, Stefano Zibetti
2004 The Discovery of a High Redshift
X-Ray Emitting QSO Very Close to the Nucleus
of NGC 7319 (arXiv:
astro-ph/0409215).
[22] C. M.
Gutierrez and M. Lopez-Corredoira 2004
QSO + Galaxy association & discrepant
redshifts in NEQ3
(astro-ph/0401596).
[23] http://www.ucolick.org/~simard/phd/root/node48.html
[24] David
G. Russell 2003 Intrinsic Redshifts in
Normal Spiral Galaxies (Submitted
to Ap&SS, arXiv: astro-ph/0310284)
[25] H. Arp
1988 Astron. Astrophys. 202, 70.
[26] David
G. Russell 2004 Evidence for Intrinsic
Redshifts in Normal Spiral Galaxies
(Ap&SS, 298, 2005, 577-602)
[27] David
G. Russell 2005 Further Evidence for
Intrinsic Redshifts in Normal Spiral
Galaxies (Ap&SS, 299, 2005, 387-403)
[28] David
G. Russell 2008 The Ks-band
Tully-Fisher Relation…
(astro-ph/0812.1288)
[29] J. C.
Jackson, 1972 A critique of Rees’s
theory of primordial gravitational radiation
(MNRAS, 156, 1P-6P).
[30] N.
Kaiser, 1987 Clustering in real space
and in redshift space (MNRAS, 227,
1-27).
[31] M. B.
Bell, S. P. Comeau, and D. G. Russell 2004
Discrete Components in the Radial
Velocities of ScI galaxies (arXiv:
astro-ph/0407591).
[32] G.
Burbidge and W. M. Napier 2000 The
Distribution of Redshifts in New Samples of
Quasi-Stellar Objects (arXiv:
astro-ph/0008026).
[33] M. B.
Bell and D. McDiarmid Six Visible
Peaks in Redshift Distribution of 46,400
SDSS Quasars… (arXiv:
astro-ph/0603169)
[34] H. Arp
and C. Fulton 2008 The 2dF Redshift
Survey II: UGC 8584 – Redshift Periodicity
and Rings (arXiv:
astro-ph/0803.2591).
[35]
Pasquale Galianni, E. M. Burbidge, H. Arp,
V. Junkkarinen, G. Burbidge, Stefano Zibetti
2004 The Discovery of a High Redshift
X-Ray Emitting QSO Very Close to the Nucleus
of NGC 7319 (arXiv:
astro-ph/0409215, subsequently accepted
after amendments by ApJ).
[36] Hilton
Ratcliffe, 2008
The Virtue of Heresy –
Confessions of a Dissident Astronomer
2nd edition, (BookSurge, North
Carolina, 2008).
[37] Randall
Meyers (Producer) Universe – the
Cosmology Quest (Floating World
Films, 2000,
www.universefilm.com)
A science documentary film on DVD, featuring
interviews with Fred Hoyle, Chip Arp,
Margaret and Geoff Burbidge, Jayant
Narlikar, Eric Lerner, and Jack Sulentic,
and others.
[38] David
G. Russell 2005 Intrinsic Redshifts
and the Tully-Fisher Distance Scale
(Ap&SS 299 405-418 2005).
[39] H. Arp
2007 How certain is the distance to
the most luminous supernova?
(arXiv: astro-ph/0709.4100).
[40] Peter
M. Hansen 2006 Redshift Components of
Apparent Quasar-Galaxy Associations: A
Parametric Model (Apeiron Vol 13, No
1, January 2006).
[41] H. Arp
Quasars and the Hubble Relation
2007 (arXiv:astro-ph/0711.2607).
[42] H. Arp
and D. Carosati 2008 A Concentration
of Quasars around the Jet Galaxy NGC 1097(arXiv:
astro-ph/0802.1587).
[43] H. Arp
and D. Carosati 2007 M31 and Local
Group QSOs (arXiv:
astro-ph/0706.3154).
[44] G.
Burbidge, E. M. Burbidge, H. C. Arp, & W. M.
Napier 2006 Ultra-luminous x-ray
sources, high redshift QSOs, and active
galaxies (arXiv: astro-ph/0605140).
[45] G.
Burbidge & W. M. Napier 2000 The
Distributions of Redshifts in New Samples of
Quasi-stellar Objects (arXiv:
astro-ph/0008026).
[46] Halton
Arp 1998 The Origin of Companion
Galaxies (ApJ, 496:661 – 669, 1998
April 1)
[47] Halton
Arp 2006 Quasars, gamma Ray Bursters,
and BL Lacertids (arXiv:
astro-ph/0610773)
[48] David F
Crawford 1994 The Quasar Distribution
in a Static Universe (arXiv:
astro-ph/9407028).
[49] H. Arp,
E. M. Burbidge, and D. Carosati 2006
Quasars and Galaxy Clusters Paired across
NGC 4410 (A&A man. No.
NGC4410aa; arXiv: astro-ph/0605453).
[50] E.
Margaret Burbidge, Geoffrey Burbidge, Halton
C. Arp, and Stefano Zibetti 2003 QSOs
Associated with Messier 82 (arXiv:
astro-ph/0303625).
[51] C. M.
Gutierrez, M. Lopez-Corredoira, F. Prada,
and M. C. Eliche 2002 New light and
shadows on Stephan’s Quintet
(astro-ph/0202521).
[52]
M. Lopez-Corredoira and C. M. Gutierrez 2006
First tentative detection of
anisotropy in the QSO distribution around
nearby edge-on spiral galaxies
(astro-ph/0609514).
[53] M.
Lopez-Corredoira and C. M. Gutierrez 2006
Toward a Clean sample of Ultra Luminous
X-ray Sources (astro-ph/0602537).
[54] M.
Lopez-Corredoira and C. M. Gutierrez 2005
The Nature of Ultra Luminous X-ray
Sources (astro-ph/0502290).
[55] David
G. Russell 2004 Morphological Type
Dependence in the Tully-Fisher Relationship
(astro-ph/0402001).
[56] Jack W.
Sulentic, Sebastian Zamfir, Paola Marziani,
and Deborah Dultzin 2007 Our Search
for an H-R Diagram of Quasars
(astro-ph/0709.2499).
[57] Paola
Marziani, Jack W. Sulentic, and Deborah
Dultzin 2007 The Broad Line Region of
Quasars (astro-ph/0709.2800).
[58] H. Arp
Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies
(online and PDF)
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Arp/frames.html
[59] E. J.
Lerner and J. B. Almeida, Eds. 2006 1st
Crisis in Cosmology Conference, CCC-1
(AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 822,
2006)
10. Diagrams and Tables
All diagrams by kind permission of H. C.
Arp.
•Large
quasar family AM 2230-284 (diagram courtesy
of D. Carosati)
