4 ms·

> Mayhaps, the actual structure of the quasars is something that is not even on the their radar. Are there any candidates for an alternate energy source that c

> Mayhaps, the actual structure of the quasars is something that is not even on the their radar. Are there any candidates for an alternate energy source that could out-produce the entire milky way by a thousand-fold in a volume the size of a single solar system?

oldandtired 8y ago
This is the question - since the distances involved are well beyond the resolution of any telescope (of any type), how do we know that the objects are of a size on the order of a single solar system? Could these objects be light years across? Or somewhere in between? We have theory/models that assume certain basis ideas. Are these basis assumptions the only options? If the model is at odds with the data, one needs to take a long hard look at the model used and all of the underlying assumptions.
- jeremyjh 8y ago
  Have you looked at pictures of galaxies? They look different from a single point source. So yes, what we have is a point source that outshines galaxies. You need another theory that explains all the data as well as the current model before there is really anything to talk about here. And models do not emerge fully-formed in a single brilliant insight, they get refined and completed over time as new observations and new theories are tested to account for them. Most likely we won't have to reset all of astrophysics to explain this.
  - oldandtired 8y ago
    Quasars outshine the galaxies they are in so 'tis difficult to get a handle on the size of such entities - this is all I am saying. The general portrayal is that they are smaller than solar system sizes. But that is an assumption that may be completely wrong. Even if hundreds of light years across, at the distances they are seen and in comparison to the sizes of galaxies, this is still small - almost point source in effect. Our own galaxy is, what, 150,000 to 200,000 light years across. The problem is the basis assumption. It is correct? Is it even valid? A lot more effort is required to determine this. It is a worthy area to investigate, don't you think?
    - Cogito 8y ago
      > The general portrayal is that they are smaller than solar system sizes. But that is an assumption that may be completely wrong. What do you mean by this? People think they're that size because that's the size they've been measured at. There are different ways to measure a thing, and so far they all agree on the size, with no evidence to suggest otherwise. Are you suggesting they try and measure the size some other way?
      - oldandtired 8y ago
        What are the error bounds on measuring such an object at the distances they exist at? > What do you mean by this? We make assumptions all the time when we measure things and often we do not question whether what we are measuring is actually correct. We assume. In these cases, we have to use proxies to determine distances and sizes. if any of those proxies are even a little out, our errors can be huge. > Are you suggesting they try and measure the size some other way? Not necessarily, but I am suggesting that the basis assumptions be looked at to see what else may be more applicable. If you do this, valuable insights may be gained and a different approach suggested. This kind of activity is undertaken for simple system like computer models. Why not do this for other such areas as well? Going back to my original comment, as the model does not accord with the data, maybe we need to be looking at the basis assumption that are being used. However, it appears that there are many who believe that the assumptions are true (for all intents and purposes) and can see no point as to question them. I have taken a strong interest in looking at the mathematical basis for much of our engineering and science. It is very obvious that the universe around at all levels is vastly more complicated than any of the mathematics we use to build our theories and models. That is not a problem, but it does mean that we need to clearly keep in mind that our theories and models are, at best, just an approximation and that we should not get caught up in believing that they are true but simply consider them as useful. When they are no longer useful, we can discard them for something more useful. Our understanding of the universe around will always be flawed. However, the fun is trying to get a handle on the universe by the models and theories we use. Too many people take themselves too seriously in the belief they put into the models and theories they ascribe to. If you are basing your reputation on being right about your model or theory, then I think you are taking the wrong approach to science. Offer up ideas to be investigated, let them be investigated. If they don't pan out then move on to something else. There is so much to look at at every level, let's have fun doing this. Don't be afraid t revisit old ideas or look at new ideas. There may be gems that will open up completely new areas of investigation and discovery.

oldandtired 8y ago

This is the question - since the distances involved are well beyond the resolution of any telescope (of any type), how do we know that the objects are of a size on the order of a single solar system? Could these objects be light years across? Or somewhere in between? We have theory/models that assume certain basis ideas. Are these basis assumptions the only options? If the model is at odds with the data, one needs to take a long hard look at the model used and all of the underlying assumptions.

jeremyjh 8y ago
Have you looked at pictures of galaxies? They look different from a single point source. So yes, what we have is a point source that outshines galaxies. You need another theory that explains all the data as well as the current model before there is really anything to talk about here. And models do not emerge fully-formed in a single brilliant insight, they get refined and completed over time as new observations and new theories are tested to account for them. Most likely we won't have to reset all of astrophysics to explain this.
- oldandtired 8y ago
  Quasars outshine the galaxies they are in so 'tis difficult to get a handle on the size of such entities - this is all I am saying. The general portrayal is that they are smaller than solar system sizes. But that is an assumption that may be completely wrong. Even if hundreds of light years across, at the distances they are seen and in comparison to the sizes of galaxies, this is still small - almost point source in effect. Our own galaxy is, what, 150,000 to 200,000 light years across. The problem is the basis assumption. It is correct? Is it even valid? A lot more effort is required to determine this. It is a worthy area to investigate, don't you think?
  - Cogito 8y ago
    > The general portrayal is that they are smaller than solar system sizes. But that is an assumption that may be completely wrong. What do you mean by this? People think they're that size because that's the size they've been measured at. There are different ways to measure a thing, and so far they all agree on the size, with no evidence to suggest otherwise. Are you suggesting they try and measure the size some other way?
    - oldandtired 8y ago
      What are the error bounds on measuring such an object at the distances they exist at? > What do you mean by this? We make assumptions all the time when we measure things and often we do not question whether what we are measuring is actually correct. We assume. In these cases, we have to use proxies to determine distances and sizes. if any of those proxies are even a little out, our errors can be huge. > Are you suggesting they try and measure the size some other way? Not necessarily, but I am suggesting that the basis assumptions be looked at to see what else may be more applicable. If you do this, valuable insights may be gained and a different approach suggested. This kind of activity is undertaken for simple system like computer models. Why not do this for other such areas as well? Going back to my original comment, as the model does not accord with the data, maybe we need to be looking at the basis assumption that are being used. However, it appears that there are many who believe that the assumptions are true (for all intents and purposes) and can see no point as to question them. I have taken a strong interest in looking at the mathematical basis for much of our engineering and science. It is very obvious that the universe around at all levels is vastly more complicated than any of the mathematics we use to build our theories and models. That is not a problem, but it does mean that we need to clearly keep in mind that our theories and models are, at best, just an approximation and that we should not get caught up in believing that they are true but simply consider them as useful. When they are no longer useful, we can discard them for something more useful. Our understanding of the universe around will always be flawed. However, the fun is trying to get a handle on the universe by the models and theories we use. Too many people take themselves too seriously in the belief they put into the models and theories they ascribe to. If you are basing your reputation on being right about your model or theory, then I think you are taking the wrong approach to science. Offer up ideas to be investigated, let them be investigated. If they don't pan out then move on to something else. There is so much to look at at every level, let's have fun doing this. Don't be afraid t revisit old ideas or look at new ideas. There may be gems that will open up completely new areas of investigation and discovery.