Talk:Laser star model of quasars

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Physics Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ]
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics.
Help with this template Comments: edit – history – watch – refresh This article should have an importance ratting of TOP: In an ideal world this would be a required article in all print encyclopedias. The article reports an alternative theory of quasars that is based on sound principles of plasma and laser physics, written by a highly respected and highly cited physicist and university professor, Y.P. Varshni, and published in top peer-reviewed scientific journals. The laser star model of quasars is plausible and does not contradict any accepted principles of physics. The standard model of quasars also does not contradict physics principles, if you are willing to accept without evidence other than infered spectral redshifts that clusters of galaxies at the edge of the known universe irradiate with enough intensity to be seen on Earth and travel at near the speed of light. So we have at least two models of quasars that do not contradict physics principles, one based on laboratory demontrated plasma and laser physics and the other based on an interpretation of telescope-observed spectra that relies on the expanding universe hypothesis - for which the main "observational" evidence is quasars and distant qualaxies that probably contain lasing stars, all too distant for their distances to be measured by any other method than spectral redshifts... As a theoretical and experimental physicist and university professor myself, I have been very impressed by Professor Varshni's work, ever since I first discussed it with him when I was a junior faculty member at the University of Ottawa. At that time, Professor Varshni was already the most cited physicist at both of Ottawa's major universities and his laser star model of quasars had already been featured as an invited article in the Canadian Association of Physics journal Physics in Canada. As an outsider to astrophysics but as someone knowledgible in the relevant nuclear, statistical, spectroscopic, and laser physics, I studied Vashni's papers and reviewed the scientific literature on quasars. I was impressed by Varshni's ideas and by his persitence in the face on the dominant paradigm. Why were the stella spectral data not being re-examined in the light of the new model? Why where astronomers not collecting better spectroscopic data and making it available so that all could test out all interpretations? I tried to get raw spectral data and could not, it was well guarded or not readily available (museum vault photographic plates with no dispersion calibrations, etc.). I talked to an astronomy friend and he explained that he would not be allowed telescope time to just obtain improved spectral data on "known" quasars... I believe that the laser star model of quasars is more plausible than the standard model. But that is not relevant to the fact that this Wikipedia article is well written, is based on published science in top journals, and is of great importance to anyone interested in astronomy or the history and development of science. Denis.g.rancourt 16:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Previous deletion debate

Contents 1 NPOV 2 References 3 Hubble Spy Satellite 4 FTL Quasars 4.1 Some thoughts 5 Google test 6 AfD 7 Importance

[edit] NPOV

Why is the neutrality of this entry in dispute? Where is there anything in the entry so far that is disputable or displays any sort of non-neutrality? - Plautus satire

The whole first paragraph. Evercat 16:41, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This NPOV dispute. I am glad to see the dispute was removed. If this article gets one, then so should all articles which concern astrophysics in any manner.-Ionized 05:38, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)

I have no comment on the spy satellite thread (which I just noticed,) as it has nothing to do with this article. -Ionized 05:48, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)

shjsjksdfkjhsdkjhsdfkjhsdkljhsdljkhsadkljshdkljsdfkljsdhfkljshdf

[edit] References

Did either of you bother to check the "external links" section? I'm sure some studious research will yield the answers you seek. I merely created this entry because I linked to it from elsewhere and it did not exist yet. Feel free to add to or modify the entry, but be prepared for challenges if you make unwarranted changes. - Plautus satire 18:21, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

http://home.achilles.net/~jtalbot/index.html seems to be pretty much the only real source for this. "Laser star hypothesis" gets zero Google hits. "Laser star theory" gets 57. "Laser star" gets 3,400: hard to tell how many of them relevant, since many are corporate logos, etc. Evercat 22:30, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Actually it's impossible to tell how many of them are relevant if you don't examine them.

Strange as this may seem to you, I don't have time to examine 3,400 webpages. Evercat

Then perhaps fact-checking and moralizing about encyclopedia entries are activities to which you are not suited. I suggest either giving up your hobby of editing encyclopedia entries or give up your hobby of challenging neutrality or get a new hobby: research. I hope this advice has been as helpful to you as it was enjoyable for me. I live to serve. - Plautus satire 23:10, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Why do you choose to use number of Google hits as a benchmark for credibility? Are there no other entries that reference "original research" that you seem to be so afraid of? The one source I cited that covers specifically this theory contains copious amounts of argument and cited evidence in support of it. Have you examined the site yet? Perhaps you could review the information there instead of trusting that Google knows best. - Plautus satire 22:46, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If there's only one source then it's just someone's personal theory, regardless of its alleged merits. Please see what Wikipedia articles are not, especially items 9 and 10. Scientific theories have to reach a certain critical mass before they're worthy of encyclopedia article. Evercat 23:04, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

And you think there is only one source that references laser stars? I beg to differ with you. I've already cited two sources that talk about laser stars. They have been observed systematically since at least 1973 and are well-known and basically unchallenged by anyone. The only people who don't agree with it yet are those who remain ignorant of it. - Plautus satire 23:10, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I had originally listed many literature references on this topic here in the talk page, and in the article. They seem to be all missing now. A few years have passed though, not sure what happened to them. Here they are again, for the interested. Some of them are indirectly related, others are directly related to Varshni's models: -Ionized 18:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

"Plasma laser star model of QSOs" Banerji, S. and Bhar, G.C. Astrophys. Space Sci., vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 443-451, 1978.

Abstract- Examines the conditions conducive to laser action in a stellar atmosphere and compares all the emission lines of 633 QSOs discovered till August 1976 (as listed by Burbidge et al.) with the laser transitions found in the laboratory till April 1976 (as listed by Willett and Beck et al.). It is found that 88% of the QSO lines agree to within 10 AA with the laser lines and 94% agree to within 20 AA. The main reason Greenstein and Schmidt failed to fit the spectral lines of 3C 48 and 3C 273 with known emission lines is that laser transitions in hydrogen do not occur in stellar atmospheres. The spectra are explained on the basis of the new theory and the broadening of lines explained.

"Experimental evidence of plasma-induced incoherence of an intense laser beam propagating in an underdense plasma" Fuchs, J. and Labaune, C. and Depierreux, S. and Baldis, H.A. and Michard, A. and James, G. Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 86, no. 3, pp. 432-5, 2001.

Abstract- Time dependent large angular spreading and spectral broadening of an intense randomized laser beam propagating in an underdense, well-characterized plasma is measured. The two features are correlated and increase with laser intensity or plasma density. This spatial and temporal incoherence imposed upon the beam via the coupling with the plasma is interpreted, in agreement with recent numerical simulations, as due to the interplay between dynamical filamentation and strongly driven stimulated Brillouin forward scattering.

Time-dependent filamentation and stimulated Brillouin forward scattering in inertial confinement fusion plasmas" Schmitt, A.J. and Afeyan, B.B. Phys. Plasmas, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 503-17, 1998.

Abstract- Numerical simulations of the temporal evolution of laser light filamentation and stimulated Brillouin forward scattering (SBFS) in plasmas, under conditions that are relevant to laser fusion, are presented and analyzed. Long term unsteady behavior of filaments is observed to be the norm. Temporal and spatial incoherence due to filamentation and SBFS are impressed upon time-independent incident laser beams. The bandwidth and angular divergence imposed upon the beam increase with the strength of the interaction. In addition, the spectrum of the transmitted light is redshifted by an amount that increases with the interaction strength. Spectral analysis of the transmitted light reveals that SBFS plays a role in the generation of the observed temporal incoherence. Incident beams with some spatial incoherence but no temporal smoothing are compared to those with ab initio temporal beam smoothing (TBS). Under typical conditions, TBS beams will undergo far less angular and spectral spreading and far less SBFS than unsmoothed beams.

"Nonlinear propagation of a randomized laser beam through an expanding plasma" Myatt, J. and Pesme, D. and Huller, S. and Maximov, A. and Rozmus, W. and Capjack, C.E. Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 87, no. 25, pp. 255003/1-4, 2001.

Abstract- We present simulations of the interaction of a random phase plate laser beam with an underdense, expanding plasma for conditions typical of recent LULI experiments. We use a new code that describes the paraxial propagation of the laser, accounting for the nonlinear evolution of the plasma in an isothermal fluid description with weakly collisional electrons. The transmitted light, in excellent agreement with experiment, is shown to be strongly redshifted as a result of self-phase modulation due to self-focusing.

"Lasers without inversion (LWI) in space: a possible explanation for intense, narrow-band, emissions that dominate the visible and/or far-UV (FUV) spectra of certain astronomical objects" Sorokin, P.P. and Glownia, J.H. Astron. Astrophys., vol. 384, no. 1, pp. 350-63, 2002.

Abstract- The optical or far-UV (FUV) spectra of certain objects in space are completely dominated by one or two spectrally narrow emission lines, strongly suggesting that laser action of some kind occurs in these objects. However, the electronic level structures of the atoms/ions producing these emissions preclude the possibility of maintaining population inversions on the electronic transitions involved. In lasers, gain is normally produced on an optical transition that is inverted, i.e. one that has more atoms maintained in the upper than in the lower state, so that stimulated emission can exceed stimulated absorption. However, as a result of discoveries made in quantum electronics over the past 30 years or so, one now knows that there are several ways to make stimulated emission occur on a transition that is not inverted, i.e. to realize a "laser without inversion" (LWI). This requires first making the atoms non-absorbing at the lasing frequency, i.e. setting up a condition of "electromagnetically induced transparency" (EIT). Some EIT techniques for three-level atoms are first reviewed. A simple model for a space LWI based upon a gas of two-level atoms is then proposed. In this model, transparency results from a form of EIT induced by the presence of an intense, monochromatic, continuous-wave, laser beam tuned to the frequency ω 0 of the two-level-atom transition. Amplification of light at this same frequency occurs via resonant stimulated hyper-Raman scattering (SHRS) and four-wave mixing (FWM), with pumping energy provided by continuum starlight spectrally overlapping the two outer absorption sidebands ("Mollow bands") induced by the presence of the beam at ω 0. Two specific examples of superintense line emission from space are considered. These are (a) the H( α ) emission line appearing as a dominant singularity in certain reddened, early-type stars, and (b) the powerful O VI (1032 AA, 1038 AA) emission doublet that dominates the FUV emission spectra of symbiotic stars such as RR Tel.

"Laser action in stellar envelopes" Varshni, Y.P. and Lam, C.S. Astrophys. Space Sci., vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 87-97, 1976.

Abstract- It is shown that in high-temperature stars in which high speed mass loss is occurring, the rapidly recombining plasma in the stellar envelope can act as an amplifying medium. Model calculations for laser action in He II λ 4686, using the collisional-radiative model, are presented. Menzel's hypothesis of laser action in distended stellar atmospheres is shown to be fully substantiated. The relevance of these results in resolving the problem of intensity anomalies in the spectra of Wolf-Rayet stars is pointed out.

"O VI and He II emission lines in the spectra of quasars" Varshni, Y.P. Astrophys. Space Sci., vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 443-464, 1977.

Abstract- The plasma-laser star model for quasars, which is based on the hypotheses that there is no red shift in the spectra of quasars and that the strength of the emission lines is due to laser action, is further developed. Continuity is shown to exist between the spectra of O VI sequence planetary nuclei, Sanduleak stars, and 10 quasars. The O VI λ lambda 3811, 3834 and He II λ 4686 emission lines in the spectra of these 10 quasars are identified. Candidate identifications for other quasar lines are also suggested. Making use of the similarity between the spectra of O VI sequence planetary nuclei and those of 10 quasars, absolute magnitudes, temperatures, and masses of these quasars are estimated. The distribution of quasars in galactic coordinates is also discussed. Three predictions are made.

"Alternative explanation for the spectral lines observed in quasars" Varshni, Y.P. Astrophys. Space Sci., vol. 37, no. 1, pp. L1-L6, 1975.

Abstract- It is shown that the emission lines observed in quasars can be satisfactorily explained as being due to laser action in certain atomic species in the expanding envelope of a star. There is no need to assume a redshift.

"The red shift hypothesis for quasars: is the Earth the center of the universe? Part I" Varshni, Y.P. Astrophys. Space Sci., vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 3-8, 1976.

Abstract- It is shown that the cosmological interpretation of the red shift in the spectra of quasars leads to yet another paradoxical result: namely, that the Earth is the center of the Universe. Consequences of this result are examined.

"The red-shift hypothesis for quasars: is the Earth the center of the Universe? Part II" Varshni, Y.P. Astrophys. Space Sci., vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 121-124, 1977.

Abstract- For pt.I see ibid., vol.43, no.1, p.3 (1977). It is pointed out that Stephenson (1977) has used incorrect Δ z, and has also made an arithmetical error, which invalidate his claims. Tests for randomness of quasar red-shifts clusters, using correct Δ z, have been carried out and it is shown that at least for clusters having three red shifts or more, the distribution is highly non-random. The model of the Universe proposed by Stephenson does not in any way explain these red-shift clusters; it merely substitutes one paradox by another.

"Redshifts in quasi-stellar objects" Varshni, Y.P. Phys. Can., vol. 29, no. 24, pp. 23-24, 1973.

Abstract- It is proposed that emission and/or absorption of light from QSOs is due to atoms which are in a plasma. Because of the charged environment, the potential experienced by the valence electrons in an atom is the Debye potential: V(r)=-Ze2e- backslashalpha$ r/r, where α is a screening parameter. The properties of the energy levels of such a screened hydrogenic atom are discussed. The emitted radiation shows a redshift; the magnitude of the redshift depends on the value of α and on the two levels involved.

[edit] Hubble Spy Satellite

The Hubble Space Telescope is not a spy satellite, it's a space telescope, hence the name Hubble Space Telescope. Calling it a spy satellite is pure conspiracy theory fantasy and doesn't belong in the Wikipedia. --SheikYerBooty 15:12, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)

A telescope in space that was in space for three years before it produced any good pictures of space. Why is that? - Plautus satire 15:25, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Why couldn't the Hubble get good images of space for three years? You haven't answered the question, merely stated that it does not prove the Hubble was used for spying. Now can you answer my question? Why couldn't the Hubble get good images from space? Why did it take three years to get the first good image from space? Why were multiple Hubble clones launched one after another in secret, as studied and reported by the American Federation of Scientists? - Plautus satire 15:48, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Because it wasn't working right? Just because it wasn't working right does not make a it a spy satellite. You can't just make this claim and then fail to provide evidence, until you do that, it's a space telescope. For Pete's sake, the link you included with the latest absurdity names it the SPACE TELESCOPE. --SheikYerBooty 15:41, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)

Wasn't working the way you expected. That does not imply it wasn't working the way it was intended. Where is your proof it was not used for spying? A typical Mars mission provided several terrabytes of data, most of that is crappy images. The Hubble has been in operation for how long? How much publically-available data have we gotten so far? Why is the Hubble being abandoned and not sold into private hands? - Plautus satire 15:54, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You still have not provided any proof that the Hubble is a spy satellite. You've danced around and made other accusations but you need to provide proof of your claims. --SheikYerBooty 16:06, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)

But I have provided compelling evidence that supports the notion that Hubble could be used as a spy satellite and was not producing any images of space until it had been in space for three years. And you have not provided one shred of evidence suggesting it could not have been a spy satellite as are all the Hubble clones (Keyhole) that are indeed exclusively spy satellites. - Plautus satire 22:54, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Because it was broken and had to be fixed. You want to put up a spy satellite (of which there are plenty), you just do it, and you don't need to tell anyone about it. -- Anon.

Ah, right, of course, just a little error in the telescope. Whoops. I find this story to lack credibility, especially given what I stated above about the numerous Hubble clones that were launched without fanfare. The Hubble was the prototype, the rest were not excused as "science" missions but simply ignored. The Hubble was the prototype spy satellite just as the space shuttle is the prototype for robotic hypersonic military vehicles on the drawing board right now (Common Aero Vehicle, now Bush's Crew Exploration Vehicle et al). - Plautus satire 15:54, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

On the contrary, the spy satellites came first. Look up the terms IMINT, KH-4, KH-7, KH-9, KH-11. Why suppose a conspiracy when none is needed? -- The Anome 23:05, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

First of all, others have proposed a conspiracy, I have outlined precisely why I think launching a spy satellite is not a conspiracy. Second of all, are you saying that the Hubble's design was based on the previous designs of spy satellites? Interesting... - Plautus satire 23:08, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No, I am not saying the Hubble was based on spy satellites. I'm just saying that the spooks did not need Hubble as a prototype. Note that if you were to point Hubble at the Earth, you'd probably burn its imaging sensors out. -- The Anome 23:10, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That's strange. It looks an awful lot like that's what you said. - Plautus satire 23:15, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Any sign of that proof yet? You're still arguing so I figure you must just forgotten to list your evidence. You do have it, right? Before you offer it you should know that NASA claims the fastest camera on the HST can only go down to .10 of second exposure time. You can do the math and figure out what those pictures would like. --SheikYerBooty 00:39, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

Any sign of that evidence yet? If you don't recall the evidence I presented that it could be used as an effective spy satellite, scroll up. - Plautus satire 00:49, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Plautus, did you do the math? Do you think those photos might be a little blurry? No, wait, you're right, we are using the HST as a spy telescope! We're spying on black holes and quasars! Good job, secret agent Satire! --SheikYerBooty 03:25, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

And here are some pictures taken by the Hubble of Mars, including the best image of Mars ever taken from Earth.

Here is a picture taken by the Hubble of Venus.

Also the Hubble has taken images of Jupiter and Io during a visible plasma discharge event, Jupiter, moons and ring in infrared, more of Jupiter's moons, light-polarization in Saturn's rings, Uranus and the two moons discovered in Hubble images, accurate temperature readings of Triton, plasma discharge scars on Earth's moon and many, many other observations inside the solar system. What makes you think it can not be pointed at Earth? - Plautus satire 03:45, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Let's see, what's the difference between taking a picture of Mars (34,648,840 miles away) or your backyard (approx 353 miles away)? Gee, Plautus, I don't know for sure but I have a feeling it has something to do with the fact that the HST is circling the Earth at around 17,500 miles per hour and the camera on the HST can only go down to 1/10 of a second exposure time. Is it making sense yet? You also asked, in a previous rant, about how much data we get from the HST, the answer is about 120 gigabytes a week. You start providing your proof that the HST is a spy satellite now. Stop waving your hands and start providing evidence. --SheikYerBooty 04:11, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

As you are well-aware, the Hubble spy satellite's attitude can be adjusted just as any other spy satellite can be attitude-adjusted. Speaking of attitude adjustment, I'll thank you to change your tone with me. If satellites in orbit can not image the Earth, how is it possible to create any spy satellites that are not in geostationary orbit? The Hubble orbits the Earth about once every hundred minutes or so. That means that once every hundred minutes it can image the same spot on the Earth. How many images can the Hubble snap in one hundred minutes using a 1/10 second exposure? (100*60*10=60000) - Plautus satire 04:22, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Plautus, you're still not listening. You made the claim that the Hubble Space Telescope was a "spy satellite" and I'm still waiting for your evidence. "Attitude adjustment" does not a spy satellite make. A 1972 Ford Pinto is capable of attitude adjustments, that doesn't make it a likely candidate for a spy satellite. If you used the Hubble Space Telescope to take pictures of your house then by the time the 1/10th of a second passed the telescope would have moved 2296 feet. I guess if we could put men on the moon then we should be able to make the Hubble Space Telescope act like a spy satellite, right? As for my attitude, I'll put your advice regarding that in the circular file, where it belongs. --SheikYerBooty 05:42, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

You're right, SheikYerBooty. I'm not listening to you and I have no intention of listening to you. You are counterproductive to my intention to contribute in a useful fashion to wikipedia. It has been a learning experience dealing with you, I wish you nothing but the best in your future endeavors, adieu. - Plautus satire 07:21, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Can we delete this section yet? Something like this can serve only to act as a smear on the credibility of Wikipedia. Kurt 19:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FTL Quasars

Just to explain, there are two options when you review the evidence. One option is that classical theory is wrong and there are quasars in our galaxy. Another option is that classical theory is right and some quasars are moving a thousand times the speed of light. In order to ward off possible criticism that I was violating NPOV, I included the "alternative" (mainstream) view. I actually prefer that it stays out. Thanks for confirming what I already believed, that will help in case somebody cries foul about NPOV later. - Plautus satire 07:21, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, those that wanted 'faster than light' claims to be referenced, should be paying attention to the standard cosmology articles, since the idea initially comes from standard cosmology. "Super-luminal jets" is often used as an excuse by the standard community to explain quasar phenomena. The laser star model makes no such claims. -Ionized 05:38, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Some thoughts

Some thoughts: The thing with this article is that the PlS tried to set up a dichtomy between standard quasar theory and the laser star hypothesis. Certainly the standard theory is not complete, and is worthy of many criticisms, but the fact that it leaves open questions is of course not a door to automatically validate a hypothesis that has been the project of basically a single investigator, with some follow-ups. We do not know the "holes" that the laser-star hypothesis has because it has simply slipped under the radar, like so many such alternate hypotheses, and not subjected to the rigorous scrutiny of standard theory. If it were, it could well fall apart easily.

PlS's mistake was believing the claims of the author's abstracts in this case, which are, in a way, like press releases for computer software. The hypotheses seems like it may solve everything. It's one thing to claim that, it's another thing to get put through the ringer of attacks by tens of thousands of investigators. That's the strength of standard theory: it's got open questions, unresolved problems, but it's been beaten with lots of sticks and not caven in completely. I certainly couldn't say the same thing about the laser star hypothesis.

Does the laser star hypothesis deserve an article page? In my opinion, yes, if one is being broadminded. But it is certainly a weakness, not a strength, to have all the articles bear the name of a single investigator. Does it deserve to be mentioned alonside standard theory prominently in the article about quasars? Certainly not. Perhaps at the end, under alternative hypotheses, but only if one includes all the possible ones. PlS's mistake was in getting latched onto this particular one. -- Decumanus 05:55, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate these comments and agree with some of your points. It must be noted, however, that if indeed the laser star model was investigated from the standard theory, it would be rejected (at least the idea that the quasars are laser stars.) It has been found by other investigators that lasing mechanisms in space may be a possible explanation of some phenomena ("Lasers without inversion (LWI) in space: a possible explanation for intense, narrow-band, emissions that dominate the visible and/or far-UV (FUV) spectra of certain astronomical objects", Sorokin, P.P. and Glownia, J.H., Astron. Astrophys., vol. 384, no. 1, pp. 350-63, 2002.) and in fact Varshni's model, which is based on inversion, was looked at by some others in the late 1970s ("Plasma laser star model of QSOs", Banerji, S. and Bhar, G.C., Astrophys. Space Sci., vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 443-451, 1978, as one example) and the predictions of the model where indeed verified.

So we see that allthough the proponents are few, lasers in space is not simply a Varshni claim. The rejection of the "quasars are laser stars" hypothesis would not be due entirely to faults in the laser star model, rather a large part of rejection is due to the differences in initial viewpoint (or paradigms, to use the word we all know) from which the standard and non-standard models are conceived.

I can not say I have fully investigated the model in its entire scope, however what I have seen of it (which is reading more than the abstracts,) coupled with the principles governing lasing mechanisms in general, gives the idea strong support. Note: it gives the idea of lasing mechanisms in space strong support. Whether or not these are the quasars, is a related issue but not at the base of the physics behind the model. However predictions of the model are verified when analyzing QSO spectra.

One more note about standard theory. It may be beaten with lots of sticks, but you see it doesn't fall in because the proponents simply won't let it. The structures of the standard models are usually quite amorphous, so you can hit them with sticks all you want and it won't hurt their form. -Ionized 16:24, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)

---

As a side note: I just noticed that one of the external links in this article was attempting to go to a page that I produced 2 years ago. It is a page of paper abstracts which are relevant in some manner to plasma cosmology. The link was going to just the whole page, so I added a bookmark link in it so that when you now click on the external link in this article, it goes to the abstract for the paper being referenced. -Ionized 17:05, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Google test

The term "laser star hypothesis" appears to be really rare on the Web, except for copies of this page. [1] Is this really encyclopedic? Should this page be called something else, or integrated into another article, or deleted? -- The Anome 15:20, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

OK, I've been told now that this was created by User:Plautus satire. I'm going to put this forward for VfD, unless someone can come up with good evidence that this is notable. -- The Anome 00:23, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

VFD added 132.205.95.64 04:34, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This article survived Wikipedia:Votes for deletion with no consenses, but a plurality to keep including suggestion to move from "Laser star hypothesis" to "Laser star model". See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Laser star hypothesis. — Cool Hand Luke 18:04, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] AfD

YOU PEOPLE ARE CRAZY!! HAve you not actually looked in those journals to see that indeed Varshni is a real physicist who has written real journal articles? VFD THIS !!! you people can do some research other than'google' cant you??? wow, this is lame... --Ionized

Above comment by user talk:24.236.180.234 19 March 2005

• It survived VfD. If you'd like, why don't you VfD it again? Zzzzzzzzzzz 02:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't remember even writing the above comment. But it is reminiscent of my attitude towards Wiki at that time, so it could have been me. Perhaps I was being sarcastic when I said 'VFD this', what I meant is that I thought it was absurd that a VFD was even attempted. After looking through the talk page, it appears that some of my posts may have been deleted by someone. Not that it matters really, I just find that curious. -Ionized 01:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Importance

This article should have an importance ratting of TOP: In an ideal world this would be a required article in all print encyclopedias. The article reports an alternative theory of quasars that is based on sound principles of plasma and laser physics, written by a highly respected and highly cited physicist and university professor, Y.P. Varshni, and published in top peer-reviewed scientific journals. The laser star model of quasars is plausible and does not contradict any accepted principles of physics. The standard model of quasars also does not contradict physics principles, if you are willing to accept without evidence other than infered spectral redshifts that clusters of galaxies at the edge of the known universe irradiate with enough intensity to be seen on Earth and travel at near the speed of light. So we have at least two models of quasars that do not contradict physics principles, one based on laboratory demontrated plasma and laser physics and the other based on an interpretation of telescope-observed spectra that relies on the expanding universe hypothesis - for which the main "observational" evidence is quasars and distant qualaxies that probably contain lasing stars, all too distant for their distances to be measured by any other method than spectral redshifts...

As a theoretical and experimental physicist and university professor myself, I have been very impressed by Professor Varshni's work, ever since I first discussed it with him when I was a junior faculty member at the University of Ottawa. At that time, Professor Varshni was already the most cited physicist at both of Ottawa's major universities and his laser star model of quasars had already been featured as an invited article in the Canadian Association of Physics journal Physics in Canada. As an outsider to astrophysics but as someone knowledgible in the relevant nuclear, statistical, spectroscopic, and laser physics, I studied Varshni's papers and reviewed the scientific literature on quasars. I was impressed by Varshni's ideas and by his persitence in the face on the dominant paradigm. Why were the stella spectral data not being re-examined in the light of the new model? Why where astronomers not collecting better spectroscopic data and making it available so that all could test out all interpretations? I tried to get raw spectral data and could not, it was well guarded or not readily available (museum vault photographic plates with no dispersion calibrations, etc.). I talked to an astronomy friend and he explained that he would not be allowed telescope time to just obtain improved spectral data on "known" quasars...

I believe that the laser star model of quasars is more plausible than the standard model. But that is not relevant to the fact that this Wikipedia article is well written, is based on published science in top journals, and is of great importance to anyone interested in astronomy or the history and development of science. Denis.g.rancourt 16:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Well said, and I agree with your sentiments and intent. When studying this a few years ago I too was amazed at it's reception, especially considering Varshni first put forth the idea less than 10 years after the first QSO where identified. Back when Varshni first proposed these ideas there was yet no real standard interpretation of QSO, but because the Varshni model contradicted the basis of redshift as being a doppler-like phenomena only, it was ignored and suppressed. -Ionized 00:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)