Active Galactic Nuclei requires a rethink

i have been looking at Active Galaxy Nuclei and the centeral "buldge" as a lense,

"A significantly stronger reflection in a certain class of AGN indicates that the environment of these objects is different," comments co-author Roland Walter, who is the Principal Investigator of the INTEGRAL team at the ISDC. "The discrepancy in the high-energy emission properties of different AGN types is unaccounted for in the leading theoretical framework and calls for a rethinking of some of its details," he adds.

In the light of the new data, the unified model's basic assumption that the same central engine powers all AGN is safe. However, the presumed existence, in all of them, of an anisotropic, toroidal structure needs revision. "We argue that various classes of AGN are characterised by a substantially different distribution of absorbing material around the black hole," notes Walter.

source

this new article brings into question the current active galaxy neclius development and the xray emissions they exibit.
it would seem like there is more going on than just neutrel hydrogen density "reflecting" some energy ranges and surpressing others.
i wounder out loud if lensing dynamics can explain the difference in observed levels of emmitions,
considering the "denser" hydrogen described in the article

xploder

here is the bit i find interesting..

"A significantly stronger reflection in a certain class of AGN indicates that the environment of these objects is different," comments co-author Roland Walter, who is the Principal Investigator of the INTEGRAL team at the ISDC. "The discrepancy in the high-energy emission properties of different AGN types is unaccounted for in the leading theoretical framework and calls for a rethinking of some of its details," he adds.

source

a significantly stronger reflection in certain classes of AGN
does this indicate a lens effect is effecting the emitions from these classes of galaxies?

or just that the reflective properties are different?

very interesting resurch

xploder

The team advocate a patchy but overall isotropic morphology for the absorber. In this scenario, the density of clouds around the central source would determine the amount of reflected X-rays, with denser environments resulting in stronger reflection. The astronomers speculate about whether such morphological variations could characterise objects at different evolutionary stages, although the issue is still unclear and the subject of further investigation.

sounds interesting..with different angles of incidence different emitions are seen in the obsorbtion and emition charictoristics of AGN galaxies.
the "missing" xray backround source may be due to the effect created by the "denser" reigion around the central black hole.

optically a denser medium has a higher refractive index, and light is effected by refractivity of a medium,
so is optical density/gravity lensing having an effect on the observed wavelengths and amounts?
could density/gravitational lensing play a part in explaining the data?

is there a corrolation between optical density and emition of xrays?
xploder

Now, the study by Ricci and his colleagues proposes a fresh solution to the puzzle: when the reflected X-rays are added to the total budget of radiation sources in the CXB, invoking sources that have never been observed may no longer be necessary.

same source as above

so the answer to where are the missing emittors of the cosmic xray backround has posibly been solved,
this is very interesting for the optical implications

xploder

Right, so basicaly the punchline here, is that rather than all active galactic nuclei operating in the exact same fashion , we have a revalation which points to the possibility of certain idiosyncratic elements comming out in the observable data we recieve from researchers and thier telescopes?

From the article , it seems to me that they are suggesting that the various different reflections and levels of reflections they are observing, are leading them to the conclusion that there are differences in the way certain classes of AGN behave. But the reflectivity of the stuff around these centres of activity is , I would have thought, bound to vary slightly , as not all regions of space contain the exact same proportion of elemental ingredients. Surely if one sort of galaxy is reflecting different levels (of light?) that might mean that slightly different matter, as well as more or less matter, is being collected around the core?

Or have I completely missed the point?

Originally posted by TrueBrit
Right, so basicaly the punchline here, is that rather than all active galactic nuclei operating in the exact same fashion , we have a revalation which points to the possibility of certain idiosyncratic elements comming out in the observable data we recieve from researchers and thier telescopes?

i would contend that if the correct elements were observed,
angle of incidence
size and shape of central area
density of "buldge"

would provide for a different "amount" of xrays depending on these factors

From the article , it seems to me that they are suggesting that the various different reflections and levels of reflections they are observing, are leading them to the conclusion that there are differences in the way certain classes of AGN behave. But the reflectivity of the stuff around these centres of activity is , I would have thought, bound to vary slightly , as not all regions of space contain the exact same proportion of elemental ingredients. Surely if one sort of galaxy is reflecting different levels (of light?) that might mean that slightly different matter, as well as more or less matter, is being collected around the core?

Or have I completely missed the point?

i would agree with your conclusions
but would like to point out that depending on angle of incedence to the galaxies would depend on the emitions and the ranges they are expressed.

in short if different angles of incidence give different results in the xray bands then i suspect a gravitational lensing event can be used to explain why the difference baised on angle of incidence is occouring

xploder

I cannot believe that this thread hasnt had more action. This article, and the potential it has for ultimate strangeness in terms of our understanding of the universe ought to have whetted the appitite of all the science and tech buffs on the site!

reply to post by TrueBrit


i give you a star

i am surprised this has not had more comments
mabey the hard xray backround mysteries solved would have been a better tittle

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER


I know why theres been little interest in this thread. In the realm of space science,the focus of the membership is focused much closer to home while the CME bursts and resultant auroral displays are discussed, at considerable and utterly understandable length.

However, I do not think that it will be long before this is bumped quite hard, once the commotion dies down around the subject of the effects of solar flares , coronal holes, and so on.

A thought occurs to me at this time. If , as the article suggests, galaxies are in fact more different than one another than we first thought, what exactly does that mean for us? My limited understanding leads me to think that there are several factors that may be affected by any potential change in our awareness of the wider universe, and what may be within it.

1) Our current thinking on the likelihood of finding life in the wider universe is based on the idea that there are enormous numbers of galaxies, with ridiculous numbers of suns in them. Many of these stars have orbiting planets around them. Of those a certain number will be in stable orbits, and fewer will be in OUR habitable range. But, we do not know the habitable range of other potential species , only a rough guide based on our own human experience, lights the murk of truth for us at this time.
However, if there are galaxies which behave in ways we do not currently understand too well, what can that mean for our probability of finding life in the universe? Will there be more or less chance according to the revised probabilities arising from the new information (which there will surely be).

2) On this planet, our capacity to deduce things about the universe around us, is based on what we can actualy observe , to a large degree. The fact is, that without seeing something, or extrapolating the existance of something, from observing another, we are blind. We rely on our ability to observe, to inform our ability to discern, to digest information , and crap out the nugget of reality. Because of this reliance, in order to correctly discern , we have to adjust our figures to accomodate newly observed results, lest our future prognostications be nothing more than the babbling of idiots because we have ignored what we have seen.
Changing the way we look at the results we get from our observations of the universe, to allow new information to get into the machinery of understanding, on this issue certainly, will be the work of a considerable time, and I wonder how long it will be before this new information is assimilated by the scientific community.

3) For all we know there may, nay almost certainly are, things in the universe, and about the universe, that will astound and terrify , that we have yet to even speculate about. Every new story that challenges science to update its accepted theories, has the potential to bring us closer to a more unified idea of what is out there, like building a stairway , one step at a time.

I think that it will be very interesting to see how things change , should the rethinking of the theories surrounding this issue come to fruit. Of course, things have to be thought about deeply, so time must be taken to ensure good new thinking. But the outcomes of those meditations will be a pleasure to read!

reply to post by TrueBrit


i would like to speculate....
in an increasing gravity environment at some point the diffuse gasses are optimally spaced to provide for enhanced photon to atom interaction and a "sympathetic" wave front propogation in the atoms.
there would be a point at which the effects of gravity and the energy in the atom and the distence between the atoms, combine to be an effeicent collector/emitter of photons. the difference in light propogation creates a "light wave" of sorts followed by the photons in a cumulitive manner. when we observe a microscoping gravitational lense we are seeing what "comes out" of the lens.
if there was a increasingly less dense gravity and medium density as the light travelled outwards through the lens, following conservation of energy laws the energy created in such a manner would have to "change form" to conform to the new speed in the new medium (ie less gravity and less medium density).
this has the effect of changing the wavelength of the light propotionally to the change in optical density
the center object has the highest gravity density and light travels Efficiently in the medium (like an optical super conductor) and as the light changes from one density to another, it is forced to propogate at a new "speed" in the new medium, and conservation of energy laws are required to explain the change in wave length and the change in amplitude to compliy with the new terminal velocity in the new medium density.

so energy in one form that is created or refracted through the denser center reigion is progresivly "altered" as it leaves the denser medium and an encounters less optically and gravitationally dense material,




link to pic source

i expect the center 1/3 to 2/5 of the image to be magnified, and the outter 2/3 to 4/5 to be lensing backround galaxies.

the theory of gravitational microscoping
ATS gravitational microscoping theory

everything in this post ^^^^^^^^is pure speculation by me

xploder