[Origin]

Do you agree that there is a possibility that the accuracy of the measurements is perfectly OK?

That is a stupidly worded question.  I could just as easily say there is a 'possibility' that you are a mutant chimp who stole a computer and decided to annoy this forum.  I would say even though it is possible that it is unlikely.
I would say it is unlikely that that the paper was correct on the super high temperatures.  Since it has been 7 years since the paper was written and astrophysicist have found no further evidence to support that paper, I would say it is very unlikely that the paper in question is correct.

Unfortunately, currently our scientists can't explain that quasar' ultra-high temperature.

I assume by ultra-high you mean the temperature in the trillions of degrees.
How or why would you try to explain something that is wrong? 

Therefore, instead of looking for better theory for this observation, they push this fact under the table by claiming that it seems that there are questions as to the accuracy of the measurement.  Is this the correct science' approach to the fact that contradicts their theory?

Gee, what a shock this is turning into some sort of anti-science conspiracy theory.  You start out asking is it possible?  Now all the sudden it's a fact that all the scientists are hiding.
Do you realize how absurd you sound?

Why they can't assume that what they see is what we have?

Luckily that is not how science works.  A scientific paper is never assumed to be correct, that would be a hideous idea.  Follow up studies are always done when a new idea or observation is made.  If the data supports the idea it begins to be accepted, if the support is not there then the paper just fades away, like in this case.

Why they don't even think that there is a possibility that the observation is correct and they have an obligation to explain it?

There is no logical reason to try and explain something that is wrong.  The current observations (which are more accurate after 7 years of technology advancement) indicate temperatures of the brightest quasars are in the range 350 million degrees, which is an incredibly high temperature anyway.

[Kryptid]

Why they don't even think that there is a possibility that the observation is correct and they have an obligation to explain it?

It's certainly possible that the observation is correct, yes. However, when a group of scientists claims to have discovered something extraordinary, the normal plan of action is for other groups to try to replicate the observations in order to confirm them. I'm not currently aware of any successful attempts by other groups to confirm these extreme temperatures. I'm not saying that it hasn't happened, but it seems like we would have heard something more about it if it had been. A single news story from 2016 without follow up suggests to me that the observations were not confirmed.

If it did turn out that the quasar really is this hot, then it is better to start off tweaking our existing theories than throwing them completely out and starting over with something new. Take it one step at a time.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

It's certainly possible that the observation is correct, yes.

Thanks

However, when a group of scientists claims to have discovered something extraordinary, the normal plan of action is for other groups to try to replicate the observations in order to confirm them. I'm not currently aware of any successful attempts by other groups to confirm these extreme temperatures. I'm not saying that it hasn't happened, but it seems like we would have heard something more about it if it had been.

Let's try to understand what this international team did in order to obtain these new results from the quasar:
https://earthsky.org/space/the-extremely-hot-heart-of-quasar-3c273/
"To obtain these new results, the international team used the space mission RadioAstron ? an Earth-orbiting satellite, launched in 2011 ? which employs a 10-meter radio telescope aboard a Russian satellite. RadioAstron is what astronomers call an Earth-to-space interferometer. In other words, multiple radio telescopes on Earth are linked to RadioAstron to obtain results not possible from any single instrument. In this case, the Earth-based telescopes included the 100-meter Effelsberg Telescope, the 110-meter Green Bank Telescope, the 300-meter Arecibo Observatory, and the Very Large Array. These astronomers? statement said: Operating together, these observatories provide the highest direct resolution ever achieved in astronomy, thousands of times finer than the Hubble Space Telescope."
So it was a very massive operation at the highest resolution achieved in astronomy, thousands of times finer than the Hubble Space Telescope.
Why this highest resolution measurement isn't good enough?

A single news story from 2016 without follow up suggests to me that the observations were not confirmed.

Could it be that from 2016 the science couldn't get better resolutions and therefore, there was no need to measure it again?
Hence, that measurement by the international team is fully correct.

If it did turn out that the quasar really is this hot, then it is better to start off tweaking our existing theories than throwing them completely out and starting over with something new. Take it one step at a time.

As you might know, I'm electronic Eng.
I have designed several hundred (or even more) projects in my life.
There was a simple "law" for success
If the project didn't meet the expectations - then it is needed to started it from ZERO!
This is not just my personal approach.
This is the approach of any designer that is willing for success.
Therefore, the electronics engineers have achieved significant breakthrough in the last 70 years, while the astronomy scientists due to the request for one step at a time, stuck with the same wrong theory for the last 70 years.
For almost 15 years I learn step by step (with your help) all the facts of the universe.
I have clearly distinguished between real science laws to hypothetical ideas that some of them are called "theory".
Therefore, I have solved the universe enigma.
However, this isn't the subject of the discussion.
 I also don't think that the science community would change their approach even if they know for sure that there is a problem in their theory.

Therefore, let's refocus on the quasar.
 I hope that by now you agree that there might be a problem in the current theory.

[Origin]

For almost 15 years I learn step by step (with your help) all the facts of the universe.

Is that what you think has been happening?

I have clearly distinguished between real science laws to hypothetical ideas that some of them are called "theory".
Therefore, I have solved the universe enigma

What?!  Is that seriously how you view yourself?

Therefore, let's refocus on the quasar.
 I hope that by now you agree that there might be a problem in the current theory.

I doubt anyone thinks that.  I guess you do or more likely you pretend to think there is a problem just to argue.

[paul cotter]

Electronic eng?? I think you mean anti-science keyboard warrior.

[Kryptid]

If the project didn't meet the expectations - then it is needed to started it from ZERO!

That might be how you do things on your job, but that's not how science works. We didn't throw out all of Newton's ideas just because his theory of gravity couldn't explain the anomalous orbital precession of Mercury. We added onto it with general relativity. That fixed the problem.

I also don't think that the science community would change their approach even if they know for sure that there is a problem in their theory.

They would. That's why the science of today isn't the same as it was during Newton's time. We've significantly updated our theories since then.

I hope that by now you agree that there might be a problem in the current theory.

"Might" being the operative word.

Why this highest resolution measurement isn't good enough?

Even big science teams make mistakes. The faster-than-light neutrino measurement comes to mind.

As you might know, I'm electronic Eng.

There is something I've been meaning to ask you in relation to that. What is your education? Do you have a degree? If so, in what subject?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

What is your education? Do you have a degree? If so, in what subject?

I have electronic engineering diploma from Tel- Aviv university and master in business management.
For several years I worked as Application Eng. at leading companies as Intel and AMD (not at the same time..)
I have got rewards from intel for my activity

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 18:31:54
If the project didn't meet the expectations - then it is needed to started it from ZERO!

That might be how you do things on your job, but that's not how science works. We didn't throw out all of Newton's ideas just because his theory of gravity couldn't explain the anomalous orbital precession of Mercury. We added onto it with general relativity. That fixed the problem.

Thanks for this excellent example
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0960077907001294
"The problem of the anomalous precession of Mercury?s perihelion appeared in 1859 when the French astronomer Le Verrier observed that the perihelion of the planet Mercury precesses at a slightly faster rate than the one that can be accounted by Newtonian mechanics with the distribution of masses of the solar system well known until then. This discovery began different lines of investigation to explain the new phenomenon. "
So, they have observed the problem of the anomalous.
They didn't ignore it.
They didn't claim that there is an error in the observation.
They really tried to find a solution.
That by itself shows that the science community at that time didn't escape from problem in the observation!
They see the problem and they tried to solve it.

So, what they did:
"This discovery began different lines of investigation to explain the new phenomenon"
Different lines means that they really try to find a solution even if they need to start from zero.
Anyone could offer new ideas.
So, Einstein was there:
"Einstein [10], [11] found that the extra precession unavoidably arises from the fundamental principles of General Relativity. "
I'm not sure if at that time Einstein was so famous as he is today.
The science community at that time, verified the new ideas and confirmed them.
This shows that they were willing to accept the observation and look for a solution.
However today the approach of the science community is totally different.
They observe the quasar hot problem.
They could "begin different lines of investigation to explain the new phenomenon" but they didn't.
Instead, they push this observation under the table and forget the problem.
How can we accept this current science community approach?
Why they keep the observation under the table?
Why they don't try to find a solution?
why they block themselves from new ideas?
Why they didn't begin different lines of investigation to explain the new phenomenon?
Are they afraid to find that there is a problem in their current theories??
Could it be that they know that the solution could kill some of their current wrong "theories"?

That's why the science of today isn't the same as it was during Newton's time. We've significantly updated our theories since then.

The science today is stucked at the same spot for the last 70 years.
The Big Bang idea was really great idea when it came out.
At that time, we though that our universe is relatively small and compact
But now we do understand that the universe is infinite.
So, instead of "begin different lines of investigation to explain the new infinite universe phenomenon", we close the discussion by claiming that the big bang took place at the same moment at the infinite early universe.
Is it real?
Why the science community insist to stay at the same spot for the last 70 years while new information is coming constantly and they have no real solution.

Let's take the dark matter as an example:
At the best day this dark matter idea which we have never observed could explain the orbital velocity of stars in the spiral disc. - That's all!!!
It can't explain why the spiral structure looks so stable (remember - 70% of the observable galaxies are spirals)
It can't explain the symmetrical shape of the Bar.
It can't explain why the star density around us is exactly 64 G stars per 50LY.
It can't explain why the spiral arm thickness at the base is 3,000Ly and at the edge it is only 400 Ly.
So, they see many problems in the spiral galaxy but they are happy with the unproved idea that can solve only one problem.

I do not raise this example of the spiral galaxy to open new discussion about it.
For me, that discussion is closed.
I just want to show you that the current science community isn't so open for new ideas as they were 100 years ago.
At this phase I only want to focus on the quasar temp.

Therefore, I have just one question:
Do we have to accept the observation that made in 2016 or not?

[Bored chemist]

OK, on one side we have someone redoing the maths on thousands of observations of the position of Mercury, taken by dozens of people distributed across the world and across many years. The data was gained using telescopes - a technology we had been using for centuries.
.
And on the other hand we have a new and relatively untested bit of equipment which is measuring something related to- but not actually- temperature and coming up with an implausibly high result.

Did you think those were really the same scenario?
Or do you realise that only one of them is going to rewrite the textbooks.
The other is going to get tested, repeated and considered.
And there's a serious motivation for people to do that.
If it's true then it will make them rich + famous.

But if, as we might expect, 5 years later they haven't found any confirmation of it, they say "it might have been a mistake".

What you seem to be saying is that when they launched Hubble + got blurred images, they should have considered the idea that the real universe only contained fuzzy blobs.

[Origin]

The science today is stucked at the same spot for the last 70 years.

You do realize that saying stupid untrue things just makes you look dishonest, right?
.

[Bored chemist]

Therefore, I have just one question:
Do we have to accept the observation that made in 2016 or not?

Yes we accept that an observation was made.
But we don't really know what it means.

[Bored chemist]

The science today is stucked at the same spot for the last 70 years.

Are you using a 1950s computer to post your messages, or are you obviously laughably wrong?

[Origin]

Let's take the dark matter as an example:
At the best day this dark matter idea which we have never observed could explain the orbital velocity of stars in the spiral disc. - That's all!!!
It can't explain why the spiral structure looks so stable (remember - 70% of the observable galaxies are spirals)
It can't explain the symmetrical shape of the Bar.
It can't explain why the star density around us is exactly 64 G stars per 50LY.
It can't explain why the spiral arm thickness at the base is 3,000Ly and at the edge it is only 400 Ly.
So, they see many problems in the spiral galaxy but they are happy with the unproved idea that can solve only one problem.

At what point do disruptive anti-science trolls get banned.  If every once in a while he would listen to input and learn something he would be tolerable, but he just keeps saying the same wrong crap over and over.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Therefore, I have just one question:
Do we have to accept the observation that made in 2016 or not?

Yes we accept that an observation was made.
But we don't really know what it means.

Thanks for accepting the observation.
It means that a very strong power heats up the quasar to its ultra -high temp.
If you wish, I can tell you what it is.

[Bored chemist]

It means that a very strong power heats up the quasar to its ultra -high temp.

There is no reason to suppose that it means that.

[Origin]

If you wish, I can tell you what it is.

Boy that is a tempting way to get you banned, you know for strike 3 and all that.  But I would lean towards please no, don't tell us what you think.

[Kryptid]

They could "begin different lines of investigation to explain the new phenomenon" but they didn't.

How do you know?

Instead, they push this observation under the table and forget the problem.

Says who?

Are they afraid to find that there is a problem in their current theories??

No.

I just want to show you that the current science community isn't so open for new ideas as they were 100 years ago.

They are, actually. You just have such profound misunderstandings of science that you think they have made mistakes that they really haven't made.

Do we have to accept the observation that made in 2016 or not?

We can accept that an observation was made. We have not yet accepted that it was accurate.

Thanks for accepting the observation.
It means that a very strong power heats up the quasar to its ultra -high temp.

We don't know that and won't know until we get confirmation that the observation is accurate.

If you wish, I can tell you what it is.

You had better not say anything that has to do with threads of yours that have been locked.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:46:25
Do we have to accept the observation that made in 2016 or not?

We can accept that an observation was made. We have not yet accepted that it was accurate.

Sorry, if you accept the observation then you must find a solution for that observation!
If there is an issue with the accuracy - then lets understand the accuracy.
In the article it is stated that the measured temp is 10^13K.
This observation was based on the most "highest direct resolution ever achieved in astronomy":

These astronomers' statement said: Operating together, these observatories provide the highest direct resolution ever achieved in astronomy, thousands of times finer than the Hubble Space Telescope."

So, why do you insist that there is a problem with the accuracy?
If there is an issue with the accuracy, then what is it? Why they can't tell us about the margin of the measurements.
Is it +/- of 1% or 100%
Please remember that the error works in both directions.
Therefore, if they would claim that the error margin is +/- 10^3K, then technically the temp could be 10^10 but also 10^16.
They can't just push the idea of the accuracy/error in the direction that meets their current theories.
Hence, it is expected that the science community would tell us what is the margin of that measurements and offer solutions for the minimal temp (but also to the maximal temp).
Let's assume that the minimal temp is just 10^10K instead of the measured 10^13K.
Then why at least they don't try to offer a solution for that minimal temp?

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:46:25
Are they afraid to find that there is a problem in their current theories??

No.

Yes, they are afraid.
If they were not afraid, then it is expected from them to offer real solution for that observation as the science did in 1859.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:46:25
I just want to show you that the current science community isn't so open for new ideas as they were 100 years ago.

They are, actually. You just have such profound misunderstandings of science that you think they have made mistakes that they really haven't made.

With your permission, let me use the dark matter idea.
Do you really think that the dark matter should be considered as real science?
If it is there, then why we can't find it?
How anyone that believe in real science can accept such imagination?
in 1859 the science community could also claim that the problem of the anomalous precession of Mercury's perihelion is due to some kind of dark matter close to the sun that they just can't see - and close the discussion.
But they didn't.
They knew that there must be real answer based on real matter and not any kind of dark matter.
They were willing to find a solution and they open their mind to the ideas from any person including the one that is called -  Einstein.
Please remember - what we see is what we have.
Therefore, it is very clear that as long as we can't find the dark matter, then we can't base any theory on that imagination.

You had better not say anything that has to do with threads of yours that have been locked.

Ok
At least we should be happy that in 1859 the science community didn't lock the ideas from this unknown person that is called Einstein.

If one day the science community would have the ability to go back to zero point, clear the table from all the imaginations, verify all the current observations based ONLY on real science laws - they would find the real answer for our universe!
I would advise them to start with this quasar.
If they would accept the 10^13K measurements and find how it really works - they would understand the base for our universe.

[Kryptid]

Sorry, if you accept the observation then you must find a solution for that observation!

Accepting that an observation was made is not the same as accepting that the observation was reliable.

So, why do you insist that there is a problem with the accuracy?

When I said accuracy, the word I should have used was reliability. The most precise experiment in the world can be unreliable if a mistake was made. That's why peer review and experimental replication efforts are so important in science. They help ensure the reliability of measurements by reducing the likelihood of mistakes and interference.

Yes, they are afraid.
If they were not afraid, then it is expected from them to offer real solution for that observation as the science did in 1859.

Who said they haven't looked for one?

With your permission, let me use the dark matter idea.
Do you really think that the dark matter should be considered as real science?
If it is there, then why we can't find it?
How anyone that believe in real science can accept such imagination?
in 1859 the science community could also claim that the problem of the anomalous precession of Mercury's perihelion is due to some kind of dark matter close to the sun that they just can't see - and close the discussion.
But they didn't.
They knew that there must be real answer based on real matter and not any kind of dark matter.
They were willing to find a solution and they open their mind to the ideas from any person including the one that is called -  Einstein.
Please remember - what we see is what we have.
Therefore, it is very clear that as long as we can't find the dark matter, then we can't base any theory on that imagination.

Let's not get into a discussion about dark matter. Your rantings about it have been in locked threads.

Ok
At least we should be happy that in 1859 the science community didn't lock the ideas from this unknown person that is called Einstein.

Please don't compare yourself to Einstein. He understood science and had evidence.

If one day the science community would have the ability to go back to zero point, clear the table from all the imaginations, verify all the current observations based ONLY on real science laws - they would find the real answer for our universe!
I would advise them to start with this quasar.
If they would accept the 10^13K measurements and find how it really works - they would understand the base for our universe.

Science doesn't (and shouldn't) work that way. You don't throw away all of your models because of a single point of data you might not be able to explain. It wouldn't make any sense to do that.

[Bored chemist]

Sorry, if you accept the observation then you must find a solution for that observation!

Nope.

This observation was based on the most "highest direct resolution ever achieved in astronomy":

That's a measure of how small the quasar is, not of its temperature.
Did you understand that?

Maybe we should start at the beginning.
They built a group of radio telescopes and put them in orbit.
By combining the signals from them they can make it act as if it's a single really big telescope.

And a big telescope "mirror" lets you resolve much smaller things- like a man on the moon, rather than a crater on the moon or even (in principle) a penny on the moon.

They pointed it at the quasar and found that the quasar is  even smaller than this telescope can measure (at that huge distance).
They can also measure how "bright" the radio waves from the quasar are.

And, from the fact that it's small, and very bright they can estimate the surface brightness.
And from that they can estimate the temperature.
(we now have three estimates piled on top of each other).

To do that, they assume that the quasar is a blackbody radiator.

But one of the few things we know about quasars is that they are not BBR. They act like lighthouses sending rotating "beams" into space; Black body radiators do not do that.

So all that the observation has done is confirm what we already knew- quasars are weird.

Why are you suggesting we need to stop what we are doing and focus on quasars not being black body radiators- which we already knew?

Is it because you simply did not understand what the story meant?

Why didn't you realise you should leave that sort of decision to people who did know what it meant?
Why did you think your viewpoint was somehow important?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

That's a measure of how small the quasar is, not of its temperature.
Did you understand that?
Maybe we should start at the beginning.
They built a group of radio telescopes and put them in orbit.
By combining the signals from them they can make it act as if it's a single really big telescope.

And a big telescope "mirror" lets you resolve much smaller things- like a man on the moon, rather than a crater on the moon or even (in principle) a penny on the moon.

They pointed it at the quasar and found that the quasar is even smaller than this telescope can measure (at that huge distance).
They can also measure how "bright" the radio waves from the quasar are.

And, from the fact that it's small, and very bright they can estimate the surface brightness.
And from that they can estimate the temperature.
(we now have three estimates piled on top of each other).

Sorry, I was not responsible for that specific temp measurements project.
Not now, maybe in the future.
In the following article it is stated:
https://newsroom.usra.edu/arecibo-observatory-radio-data-crucial-to-understanding-why-quasars-are-so-bright/
" The smaller the angular diameter of the object producing the radio signals, the higher its source temperature must be to produce the observed signal. The 3C 273 data reveal that its brightness temperature must be about 4 x 10^13 K, that is, a 4 followed by 13 zeroes, or 40 trillion degrees."
Please also read the following explanation:
https://www.livescience.com/space/what-is-the-hottest-place-in-the-universe
"We let the light from ? very distant objects come to our telescopes," Richard Kelley, a senior scientist of solar studies at NASA, told Live Science. "That light goes down and goes into a sensor that can measure the energy or the wavelength of the radiation, we build up a spectrum, and then by analyzing the spectrum we can infer temperature."

Do you think that your explanation was not fully clear to those scientists that measured the temp of this quasar?

To do that, they assume that the quasar is a blackbody radiator.

Are you sure that they don't know if the quasar should be or not be a blackbody radiator.

When I said accuracy, the word I should have used was reliability. The most precise experiment in the world can be unreliable if a mistake was made. That's why peer review and experimental replication efforts are so important in science. They help ensure the reliability of measurements by reducing the likelihood of mistakes and interference.

Please be aware that it is stated that they may find areas that are even hotter than quasar 3C273:
"A future X-ray observatory called the X-ray Imaging and Spectroscopy Mission (XRISM) will help scientists more accurately measure high-temperature gases in space, Kelley said. As more advanced tools continue to be developed, scientists may find areas that are even hotter than quasar 3C273."

So, if we discuss about accuracy or reliability it might be lower temp but also higher temp.
Therefore, as it is stated very clearly that the measured temp is 10^13K and they even expect that scientists may find areas that are even hotter than quasar 3C273 why can't we just start with this measured 10^13k and try to explain it?

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:46:25
Are they afraid to find that there is a problem in their current theories??

No.

As we don't afraid, why do we insist to reject this observation?
What could happen if we would try to understand how the quasar got its 10^13K?

Science doesn't (and shouldn't) work that way. You don't throw away all of your models because of a single point of data you might not be able to explain. It wouldn't make any sense to do that.

Well, in electronics if your model stuck at a single point, and you can't find a bypass, then you have to start your model from zero.