||Situated in the constellation of the Cancer,
which is in the plan of the ecliptic, OJ 287 is, as we
will see it, very atypical by
some of its characteristics.
Under our latitudes this quasar is visible from January till the
beginning of the spring.
|OJ 287 Source : VLT
of OJ 287
|Right ascension :
||08h 54m 48,9s
||+20° 06' 01''
||3,5 x 109
|Apparent magnitude :
OJ 287 contains in its centre a Black
Hole the mass of which is of the order of 18
billion solar masses, that makes of it the most massive
black hole of the known universe.
|Two Black Holes
in OJ 287 ?
|We observed a periodic variation about
11,8 years of the luminosity (Optics and/or Radio)
of OJ 287. The summits of certain
periods are splited.
The figure opposite, in which intervene a second Black
Hole of 100 million of solar masses could give a simple
explanation to these phenomenon (Jets).
The variation of the perihelie of the orbit of this second
object would explain the variations of the distance observed
between the peaks. (Relativistic effect).
|We can already note this first
coincidence with the periodicity of the Sun which is on
average of 11.7 years, as we see in the
Wolf-Schwabe solar cycle.
|But now the things take a turn
for the worse.
|On September 15th, 2010, an intuition makes us to
curve of luminosity of OJ 287 and the curve
solar cycle. We have then several
These two curves, except dates, are almost
identical! (Click both images opposite to
enlarge and print them what will allow you to compare
the curves more easily)
We find there:
- The same variations of amplitudes (located
in red from A to G by our care).
- The same double peaks on the summits of amplitude.
- The Maunder minimum.
- The Dalton minimum.
- And now the most extraordinary abnormality:
the Solar cycle is ahead about 200
years with regard to the cycle of OJ 287.
Everything takes place as if the Sun was the conductor.
We communicated at once this discovery to Dr. Jean-Claude Pecker
(CDF), to Dr. Christian Bizouard (Paris
Observatory), to Dr Valery Kotov ( KrAO) and a little later to Dr. Guy Artzner (IAS and SAF).
- It's just chance that played us this joke..
The response (Fig.
Below) were brought to us by Dr. Valery Kotov.
It is the cross-correlation function r (d) of
the maximum amplitudes of the peaks in the Wolf
cycle of the sun and the brightness in the
Blazar OJ 287. On the horizontal axis, the time
change is expressed as numbers of cycles of 11
years . The examination of the two curves (and
Fig.0 Fig.1) shows very strong similarities.
Between the peaks of the two curves, the
correlation is r = 0.88. With probability p = 1
- 3%. Note that such probability is quite
exceptional in Astronomy. One can, in these
circumstances, talk of near certainty.
We reject, at
least, for the time being, this objection.
The cycle of OJ 287 is almost stable, that is not the
case of the solar cycle. Thus there is no link between both.
To compare a cycle based on
electromagnetic waves (OJ 287) and that
stemming from a counting of sunspots is difficult, not to
say incongruous. We admit generally that the solar cycle is
of the order of 11,7 years. It is based on
the regular counting of sunspots reached the surface
of the sun. In these conditions very sly who can
say when a cycle began and when it finished. As far as we do
not see what takes place at the level of the "floor", even
underneath that is below the convective zone. What time is
it necessary for a spot to go up to the surface? Because of
the convection, the turbulences, the Coriolis effect and the
variations of the field magnetism, this time is very
changeable. Furthermore we can have some hysteresis
phenomenon. You should not forget it to understand this
variation and these delays between the
real solar cycle which
is invisible for us and what shows the solar cycle. On
the other hand the duration of every cycle is an average
which was certainly established, with so rigour as it is
possible, but only on 24 historically observed cycles. So, we will admit it, is a little bit just for having a correct
measure of the real solar cycle.
Now every period of the solar cycle is contained between 8
and 14 years. It gives us only the lower and superior limits
of the real solar cycle.
We will take
as real value. We will see farther the reasons of this
choice which can seem arbitrary a priori.
For all these reasons, we can
only reject this objection.
- It isn't possible that the Sun which by definition is credited with only one solar mass, can act at a
distance of 3,5 billion lightyears on a black hole having 18 billion solar masses.
It's true, it is not physically possible! But
this tends to prove that this quasar
is not at the distance which gives us its red shift.
And thus that the mass of the black hole is much lower than
it was estimated. This quasar would really be at a distance
roughly of 200 / 2 = 100 ly
Let us note here that
this distance measurement is based on the temporal gap
between a signal emit from OJ 287 on one hand, and that one
emit from the Sun.
But if OJ 287 is for this distance then why
Hipparcos did not discover movements concerning
this object and why its distance was not measured? The answer is simple: the quasars which, "by
nature are cosmological objects", were excluded from the
observations or eliminated from the published data. It is
probably the reason for which we lost two decades for the
discovery of the nature of OJ 287!
Let us hope that with
GAIA, we will not
make the same kind of errors.
Published in November, 2013, a document
"CNES - GAIA - Dossier d'information - Arpenteur de la
confirms us that in the experiment Hipparcos, the
observations were targeted from a catalog of known objects
and thus that quasars were excluded from the observations. (See
in page 17)
This object, which
we can suppose that it would be a microquasar, situated in
our galaxy at a distance equal or lower than 100 ly.
GAIA thus should give us a measure
better than 0,1 %.
As to say what's the physical phenomenon
allowing the sun to act on this object, it is necessary to
admit that we know nothing about it for the moment.
us note that we have several hypotheses which would explain
all the observations.
- One or several astronomers who drew the curve of
luminosity of OJ 287 would be quacks. They
would have used some datas extracted from the sun
It is impossible. If sometimes there
are quacks in the sciences in general, this does not exist
in astronomy. Everybody knows that.
Thus we reject, with the
biggest firmness, this hypothesis.
- An astrophysicist, who we subjected this observation,
made us the following remark, we quote her:
underline effectively a possible visible effect of the sun
variability on the recording of the luminosity of the
As any observation datum, this recording must be
corrected by side effects before deducting from it some
physical sizes. It is the correction made beforehand that
would allow to deduct the distance from it which it would be
necessary to analyze".
not at the source of the data concerning OJ 287. On a
duration greater than 200 years it would be totally
impossible for us. Thus we are in the obligation to have
confidence on the authors of these statements. Especially
they are professional astronomers who certainly took all the
Let us imagine all the same a moment
when the sun activity would echo on the transparency, or the
opacity of one clouds of gas and\or dusts in the sun
environment (Zodiacal light for example). It effectively could give the illusion of an
activity of the quasar according to the cycle of 11 years.
Without we should observe then also
this phenomenon on many of the other objects near the quasar
(along the ecliptic in this case)
and also somewhere else. But rightly no one observed this.
But still serious, the temporal abnormality (200
years) would always be there. Thus we can abandon this hypothesis.
We conclude, from this, that the authors
of OJ 287 statements activity made correctly their work.
For information, before speaking about
OJ 287, to whoever it is, we made search so exhaustive as
possible of the objects having a cycle similar to that of
the sun. Result: there is little, for example:
61 Cygni B [10,2 years (Chromospheric
SO 102 [11,5 years (Period of revolution around Sag A)]
change, the sun is not even considered as a variable star.
In catalogs, it does not appear there, regrettably.
objection can only be rejected.
Source : Christian Marchal
- A third object X would be the real conductor
acting at the same moment on the Sun
and on OJ 287.
It's a likely hypothesis which
we have to examine.
Where is X?
If it is in the galaxy, then is needed a rather
massive object to emit enough intense
gravitational or electromagnetic waves to act on the sun
and on OJ 287.
These waves also have to have a period of 11.8 years.
We know no object which has these criteria. We could think to
Saggitarius A, Because this black hole is
approximately 4 million of solar masses. But
this object, as much as we know, does not emit the expected
Thus, until otherwise, Saggitarius A is not compatible with
X. If it was, then OJ 287
would be at a distance about 116 ly of the Sun.
(See picture opposite).
A very massive star, a neutron star, a pulsar or a magnetar? The problem remains the same, it is necessary to find the cycle of
We can also say that if X was in the galaxy, we
would observe a big number of stars which would have, as the sun,
a cycle of 11.8 years. But it is not the case. We can only
reject this hypothesis.
Is there a position for X which would be compatible with
the red shift of OJ 287?
Yes, we can demonstrate that there is one, but
only one (See plan opposite).
X would be at a greater distance than that one
of OJ 287, It would act in parallel on
this last one and on the Sun. As there would be an angular gap (very
small) in their relative positions, Then we would have an
optical path difference in the observed signals.
The temporal difference which would result from would be about
But there also we should observe numerous stars which would have
cycle of 11.8 years.
That is not the case.
Should this assumption be
rejected? No because it is the only one that is
compatible with the red shift of OJ 287, and
with the expected observations of GAÏA, which would possibly
demonstrate either the distance of 3.5 x 109 al or a distance of
the order of 100 al.
In all cases, it will be necessary to
search, around the sun, for stars having a magnetic cycle of the
order of 11.8 years.
|X = Jupiter ?
||We were then, in full confusion which means
without ideas, when Dr. Mario Cosentino got in
touch with us.
We discussed about a subject which interested him (Solar
Seismology). Then, we spoke to him about our problem. Then he
reminded us that there is an object, literally under our nose,
this object is Jupiter of which
the orbital period is precisely
You will admit with us that it makes a very beautiful
coincidence. (We have now three of them).
But we were sceptic all the more as we did not see how the
couple Jupiter Sun could act on OJ 287.
But, already if the orbital period
of Jupiter is 11,8 years and if this giant planet indeed is the
searched object X, then obviously the solar cycles and those of
OJ 287 can only be aligned over the orbital period of Jupiter.
We will examine this hypothesis in the
red shift" of OJ 287 became a crucial cosmological
Test of the periodicity in the quasar OJ 287 -
R.B. Stothersi and A.Sillanpaa
- The Astrophysical Journal, 475 :L13–L15, 1997/01/20