Slow rotation of stars supports SQK

Astronomers employ complex models of magnetic interaction between a star and its accretion disk during a star’s early formation in order to explain why stars rotate so slowly.   Subquantum kinetics avoids this issue entirely since generally, most new matter is formed from within the core of the star, thereby not imparting any angular momentum to the star.

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-stars.html

————-

Yes, gmagee makes a good point here.  According to the continuous matter creation cosmology of subquantum kinetics, a main sequence star grows in size primarily through internal matter creation.  Consequently, it is able to ascend the main sequence without increasing its rate of rotation.  If they grew entirely by matter accretion, as conventional theory maintains, the large amount of acquired angular momentum that they acquired would cause them to spin so fast as to fly apart.  Thus, to counter this tendency, standard theory is forced to postulate magnetic braking effects arising from the interaction of the star’s magnetic field with its surrounding dust disk.  But a study of one open cluster has shown that 30% of the stars in the cluster have inner disc radii beyond the reach of their magnetic field, hence no means of braking their rotation.  The stellar evolution theory of  subquantum kinetics offers a much simpler explanation.

P. LaViolette

Elliptical galaxies found to resemble spirals in structure

This news item claims to overturn conventional galaxy formation models where spirals and ellipticals had previously been thought to form in different ways.  It shows instead that elliptical galaxies actually resemble spiral galaxies with the dust lanes removed.   This would also support the SQK model of galaxy evolution, which predicts that mature spirals grow into giant ellipticals.

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-elliptical-galaxies-spirals.html
—————————————

Response to this posting:
The study that gmagee refers to above finds that most elliptical galaxies have rotational properties similar to spiral galaxies.  It, in effect, acknowledges what subquantum kinetics had previously been claiming for many years.  Namely, SQK has proposed that dwarf ellipticals, grow into lenticular elipticals and then with further growth transform into spirals, this sequential evolution being due to matter being continuously created in their cores and subsequently ejected along their plane of rotation.  This galaxy evolution scenario is consistent with the findings of this study.  No galaxy mergers can be involved in such a morphological transformation.  If mergers had been involved, the collisions would have turned the earlier galaxy into an irregular galaxy, thus breaking the sequential evolution of its morphology.  So this close connection between ellipticals and spirals confirms that this does not happen.  This leaves core matter creation and ejection as the only feasible alternative.

The study also finds that giant ellipticals, which are characterized as being “slow rotators”, are a distinct class of elliptical galaxy.  This conforms with the SQK galaxy evolution scenario which proposes that giant ellipticals are formed as a late stage of spiral galaxy evolution and do not evolve directly from the “fast-rotator” elliptical galaxy stage.

P. LaViolette
August 2011

Supermassive cores present in host galaxies in early universe

Astronomers are surprised that somewhat massive cores seem to be present in perhaps many or most if not all galaxies of the early universe, less than one billion years after the big bang. The rate of growth of these cores is some hundred times higher than (condensation) models predict.   LaViolette points out that this is troubling for the big bang theory, as insufficient time would have elapsed for growth of the observed cores.   And there is also a statement that the cores (or “black holes” as conventional astronomy calls them) seem to be growing in tandem with their host galaxies.   This would seem consistent with the SQK model.

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-bblack-holes-surprisingly-common-early.html

———————————-

Response to your posting:
Commenting on the first of the above news items, the Chandra X-ray telescope has detected X-ray emitting galactic cores in 30% to 100% of the high-redshift galaxies it imaged.  This is indeed troubling for the big bang theory.  Based on their redshift, these galaxies existed just 800 to 950 million years after the supposed occurrence of the Big Bang.  The standard big bang theory claims that neutral matter did not begin to form until about 450 million years after the big bang when the formerly ionized plasma of the big bang fireball had cooled sufficiently.  This leaves just 350 to 500 million years for these primordial galaxies to form.  But the best galaxy formation model requires 750 million years for a galaxy to form.  So just seeing that such distant galaxies actually exist already places the big bang theory in jeapordy.

Working within the framework of conventional astronomy, this Chandra team has interpreted these X-ray sources as supermassive black holes.  But the question that then arises is how would supermassive black holes of the size observed have grown to their present size in such a short time when there is not enough time even for their host galaxies to form.  Many big bang theorists would have felt more comfortable if no such X-ray sources had been observed at this great distance, for this finding is very embarrassing to the standard theory.

One extreme example is the unexpectedly massive, 2 billion solar mass quasar core seen in galaxy ULAS J1120+0641 which is found at a redshift of 7.1.  If its redshift is entirely cosmological, this galaxy would be existing at just 400 million years after the presumed date for the big bang during the period when the fireball was still supposed to be in its plasma state and unable to form condensed matter.  The age problem is resolved when it is realized that the universe is not currently expanding, that there was no big bang creation 13.75 billion years ago, and that matter has been present in the universe for a much longer period of time, perhaps hundreds of billions of years.

Subquantum kinetics has predicted that such supermassive galactic cores would have existed in primordial times since matter creation occurring spontaneously within them would be responsible for the formation of the observed host galaxies.  Subquantum kinetics calls these cores mother stars, rather than supermassive black holes since subquantum kinetics precludes the formation of black holes.  It interprets these as dense celestial bodies whose collapse is prevented by the tremendous outpour of energy that is spontaneously created in their interiors.  It proposes that a galaxy forms through the continuous creation of matter within its supermassive mother star core and to a much lesser extent from matter created within its many stars.

The Chandra team’s observation that these primordial supermassive bodies are a thousand times less massive and that their X-ray output is a hundred times fainter than nearby quasar cores also fits the subquantum kinetics predictions in that SQK predicts that mother stars would gradually grow in size through continuous matter creation in their interiors.

To comment on your second point, this subquantum kinetics continuous creation prediction also accords with the Chandra team’s conclusion that these core sources had grown by a factor of 100 to a 1000 during the past 13 billion years, in tandem with the growth of the galaxies they are embedded in.  As mentioned in another post, astronomers are currently confused as to how a primordial black hole would have grown in size during this time through accretion since there is no sign that the host galaxies have been disturbed by galaxy mergers.

P. LaViolette
November 2011, updated February 2013

Intergalactic Gas Heating Over Time

Does the observation that intergalactic gas clouds are heating over time support the SQK prediction that more gas should nucleate over time from the underlying etheric matrix? Does an increasing density of gas over time in the intergalactic medium imply higher gas temperatures?

http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-astronomers-evidence-cosmic-climate.html

——————————————

Response from P. LaViolette:

I would answer the above question as follows:  Subquantum kinetics (SQK) is in agreement with the findings of this study.  The observed progressive increase temperature of the intergalactic gas can partly be attributed to neutrons continuously materializing in space which shortly after their appearance undergo beta decay into protons and relativistic electrons.  These materialization decay products in turn provide the energy source that heats the WHIM (warm hot intergalactic medium).  WHIM at high redshifts appears cooler to us than the WHIM temperature at more moderate redshifts due to the greater amount of tired-light energy loss that has affected photons coming to us from that earlier epoch.  The group that performed this study, Becker et al., suggest that the temperature rise is due to the heating effect of the radiation output from quasars and active galactic nuclei.  This is indeed a contributing factor, but one that supplements the ongoing energy being released from continuous matter creation.  We must also consider that subquantum kinetics predicts that galaxies are growing in size over time and developing increasingly massive and energetic active galactic cores in increasing numbers.  So this would be another factor contributing to the progressive rise in WHIM temperature.  In subquantum kinetics the rise in WHIM temperature may be attributed to the ongoing violation of energy conservation occurring throughout the universe and this is permissible since SQK maintains that the universe operates as an open system.

The study of Becker et al. found that between redshift era z = 4.4 and redshift era z = 2.05 the intergalactic gas temperature increased from about 8,200 to 13,900 degrees Kelvin, hence a 70% rise.  These quoted temperatures are averages of their two models (γ = 1.5 and γ = 1.3).  In the tired-light cosmology of subquantum kinetics, this temperature increase occurs between an epoch dating 22.8 billion years ago and an epoch dating 15 billion years ago, hence over a period of about 8 billion years.  According to the Stefan-Boltzmann law, energy density increases according to the fourth power of temperature (E = k T4).  Hence the energy density of intergalactic space increased 7.8 fold during this period.

These temperature observations, however, do raise serious doubts about the big bang theory and its expanding universe hypothesis, something not mentioned in this news release.  In the big bang theory the time elapsed between the z = 4.4 epoch and the z = 2.05 epoch amounts to just 1.8 billion years.  Moreover since the big bang theory predicts that comoving space expanded 15% in this interval, which means that the big bang theory requires a 9 fold increase in energy input to produce this 7.8 fold increase in energy density.  So, in the big bang cosmology this energy density increase would have to be occurring five times faster as compared with the subquantum kinetics cosmology.

Becker et al. suggest that galactic core explosions are the energy source causing this heating.  However, as I point out in the fourth edition of Subquantum Kinetics, applying the most liberal assumptions it would take at least 25 billion years for galactic core explosions to provide the required energy input, whereas the big bang allows less than 2 billion years for this to take place.  So the observation that the temperature of the intergalactic medium has risen as much as it has places the big bang theory and standard cosmology in a rather difficult position.

Original posting May 23, 2011, updated on February 22, 2013

Does antimatter fall up or down?

Scientists at CERN will be doing an experiment to see whether antimatter is attracted or repelled by the Earth’s gravitational field. They have succeeded in trapping 309 atoms of neutral entihydrogen for over 15 minutes and say this is long enough to test how antimatter responds to the Earth’s gravitational field. See May 2nd story at: http://dvice.com/archives/2011/05/does-antimatter.php.

I have received inquiries as to what subquantum kinetics would predict as an outcome of this experiment.   The answer can be found on pages 115 and 116 of Subquantum Kinetics (3rd edition).  That is, subquantum kinetics predicts that gravitational fields produced by normal matter should attract antimatter, just in the same way that they do normal matter. So the neutral hydrogen antimatter trapped in the CERN experiment should be observed to fall rather than to rise.  This is not much different from what most physicists believe would be the outcome expected for standard physics.
However, subquantum kinetics further predicts that antimatter should generate a gravitationally repulsive field that would repell bodies regardless of whether they are composed of matter or of antimatter.   This prediction cannot be tested by CERN since the gravitational repulsive force produced by a few hundred antimatter particles would be far too weak to determine whether they would disperse from one another.   Shortrange attractive molecular forces would likely dominate and keep them clumped together.

But, this gravitational repulsive effect could be another reason why we do not observe antimatter galaxies in the universe. That is, if an antimatter body were to survive long enough to grow in size, say by a slow vapor deposition process on the body’s surface, eventually it would fragment due to the build up of gravitational forces which would eventually dominate molecular cohesion.

Any speculation that the CERN experiment could throw light on the belief that the expansion of the universe is speeding up, is entirely off the mark, for the simple reason that the universe is not expanding to begin with.   Unfortunately, the mainstream media writers and many astronomers have not caught on to the fact that the expanding universe theory was disproven at least 25 years ago; see our cosmology link.

Galactic Clusters Growing from Matter/Energy Ejection

Galactic cluster with active elliptical NGC 6051 at its center. White indicates visible light, blue indicates X-ray emission, and red indicates radio synchrotron emission. Courtesy of NASA, Chandra, SDSS, and GMRT.

 

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-enriching-intracluster-medium.html

This Chandra X-ray study has concluded that many galactic clusters include a central giant elliptical galaxy that ejects huge quantities of both matter and energy into the intracluster region (see above image).  In fact, the estimate exceeds a million solar masses of iron atoms and energy output equivalent to the entire Milky Way galaxy luminosity over a million years.   The conclusion is that somehow the supermassive black holes at the center of these clusters commonly produce these effects.

Doesn’t this push the accretion mechanism as an explanation of these observations further out on the already shaky limb?   It seems that the combination of prodigious energy production over a sustained timeframe, together with considerable matter ejection over similar timeframes, constrains likely explanations to an evermore narrow range, with SQK cosmology near the center of that range.
—————————–

In regard to the above posting by gmagee, yes I agree, the findings regarding the giant elliptical galaxy NGC 6051 definitely contradict the notion that galactic cores are accreting matter from their surroundings.  This study shows just the opposite that active galactic cores energetically eject material in prodigious amounts.  The radio jets (pink areas in the above image) indicate that the core of this galaxy is active.  Iron atoms are easily detectable at x-ray wavelengths which is why no comment was made on the intercluster gas density of ejected hydrogen and helium.  In the solar system the hydrogen and helium mass abundance is 1,000 times greater than the iron mass abundance.  So if the same ratio applies to the ejections coming out of this galaxy, we could expect that this galaxy has ejected a total of a billion solar masses of matter, equal to the mass of a dwarf elliptical galaxy.

P. LaViolette

Smallest Particles not Objects?

In retrospect considering SQK theory, it seems self-evident that the smallest (least massive, least charged) detectable particle in our universe cannot be a solid object.  Is it not logical that such an object must be linked somehow to even smaller objects which provide means to project a field or force that interacts with larger, more influential particles of our universe?  And thus, such an object cannot be the smallest which interacts with our universe.  Obviously, etherons fit the model of the even smaller objects.

Do conventional theories account for this idea?  (Upon presenting this concept to a nuclear physicist friend, my question is quickly discounted with a simple gesture.)  Can SQK shed further light on this simplistic notion?

Primordial Lithium-7 Discrepancy for SQK?

According to an article in the February 2011 edition of Astronomy magazine, the relatively constant measure of lithium-7 in galactic halo stars has been interpreted as evidence for Big Bang Nucleosynthesis of this element, rather than from a stellar process. However, the measured Li-7, in both these halo stars and in stars of the globular cluster NGC 6397, is far less abundant that Big Bang Nucleosynthesis predicts. The conclusion is that some stellar process must destroy the primordial Li-7. Is this further evidence against Big Bang theory? And what insight from this observation can be gained from SQK?

————————

For many years, the big bang theory has been seriously challenged in regard to its prediction for the cosmic abundance of lithium.  Big bang nucleosynthesis predicts lithium-7 levels that are three times higher than are observed in the atmospheres of old stars.  To rescue their theory, some big bang theorists have attempted to hypothesize that lithium-7 is somehow transported from the surface of the star into its interior where it is hidden from view.  Others have speculated that post BB processes have depleted lithium-7 from its former primordial value.  Lithium-6 presents another problem.  In this case the big bang nucleosynthesis theory predicts negligible amounts of lithium-6 where observations have shown Li-6 to be present at detectable levels that are an order of magnitude less abundant than Li-7.  The simple answer is that there was no big bang.  This leaves lithium abundances to be explained entirely in terms of stellar nucleosynthesis or through parthenogenic elemental transmutation, which is consistent with the subquantum kinetics cosmology.

P. LaViolette

Observation of a high redshift quasar in the low redshift galaxy NGC 7319 could refute black hole theory

Spiral galaxy NGC 7319 showing position of high-redshift quasar. Credit: NASA

In 2005 a quasar with redshift z = 2.11 was discovered near the core of active galaxy NGC 7319 which is a low redshift galaxy (z = 0.0225) in Stephen’s Quintet that is located about 360 million light years away.  As noted in a UC San Diego news release, this presents a problem for standard theory which customarily places a quasar with such a large redshift at a distance of about 10 billion light years, or 30 times further away.  The finding that the NGC 7319 quasar is actually a member of a low redshift galaxy, indicates that the quasar’s redshift is neither due to cosmological expansion nor to tired-light redshifting, but to some other cause.  This validates Halton Arp’s theory that most of the redshift seen in quasars has a noncosmological origin.

There are two reasons to conclude that this quasar is associated with this particular galaxy.  First, the dust in this part of the galaxy is so dense that it is unlikely that light from a distant quasar would be able to be visible through it.  Second, a jet is seen to connect the active nucleus of NGC 7319 with this quasar suggesting that the quasar source was ejected from the core of NGC 7319.

One likely cause of the quasar’s nonvelocity redshifting is gravitational redshifting of its emitted light.  This mechanism rules out the possibility that the quasar is a black hole since to develop a redshift of 2.09 (2.11 – 0.02), the spectral lines would have had to be generated at a point that would lie within any hypothetical black hole event horizon.  Black hole theory, however, forbids any such radiation from escaping the black hole.  Consequently, we are left to conclude that the quasar is not a black hole but a “mother star” and that the observed redshifted emission consists of emission line photons that have redshifted as they have climbed out of the quasar’s deep gravity well.

How we arrive at the above conclusion may be explained as follows.  The gravity potential of a star varies as M/R, where M is stellar mass and R is stellar radius and redshift z varies in direct proportion to the change in the ambient gravity potential as the photon escapes the quasar’s gravity well.  For the white dwarf Sirius B, z = 3 X 10-4 and its M/R =  4.2 X 1024 g/cm.  This quasar has a redshift relative to that of NGC 7319 of z = 2.09, which is ~7000 larger than that of Sirius B.  Consequently, if the quasar’s redshift is entirely gravitational, its line emission comes from a region whose gravity potential is 7000 times more negative than Sirius B, hence from a region outside the core where M/R = 2.9 X 1028 g/cm.  If the quasar core, then, is assumed to have a mass of one million solar masses, this redshifted emission would have to originate at a radial distance of 2 X 1039/2.9 X 1028 = 6.8 X 105 km, or about one solar radius from the gravity well’s center.

If, on the other hand, the quasar is assumed to have a mass of ten million solar masses, the redshifted emission would have to originate at a radial distance of 6.8 X 106 km, or about 9.8 solar radii from the well’s center.

Now according to black hole theory, the Schwartzchild radius for a one million solar mass black hole would have a radius of 3.1 million km, equal to 4.5 solar radii.  But, due to gravitational lensing, its Schwarzschild event horizon should appear to us to have a radius of 16 million km (5.2 times larger than the Schwarzschild radius).  So, in this case, the quasar’s redshifted light would be coming from a radius almost 24 times smaller than its apparent Schwarzschild radius, an impossibility in black hole theory.

We get a similar result if the quasar core is assumed to have a larger mass.  For example, if it were to have a mass of ten million solar masses, its redshifted emission would have to originate at a radial distance of 6.8 X 106 km, or about 9.8 solar radii from the well’s center.  A ten million solar mass black hole, on the other hand, would have a Schwartzchild radius of 31 million km or 45 solar radii, and taking gravitational lensing into account, would appear to have a radius of 234 solar radii.  So, again, the redshift of this quasar indicates that the emission has come from a radius almost 24 times smaller than the event horizon radius.

In the case where the quasar were instead a supermassive stellar core, a mother star radiating prodigious quantities of genic energy, it would have to have a radius equal to or less than the above estimated emission radius.  If we assume for simplicity that the emission line radiation comes from the star’s surface, then in the case of a one million solar mass mother star, the star would have a density of 1.52 X 106 g/cm3.  In the case of a ten million solar mass mother star, the star would have a density of 1.52 X 104 g/cm3.  This is less than the density of a white dwarf such as Sirius B, which has a density of 4 X 106 g/cm3.   The mother star would not be electron degenerate since a star having a mass in the range of one to ten million solar masses would only reach electron degeneracy when its radius had decreased to 20 to 40 km, or about 500 to 50,000 times smaller than the estimated radius.  Such large radii are permissible since the mother star does not require electron degeneracy to support its mass; its immense outpouring of genic energy keeps it from contracting.  For a discussion of electron degeneracy in celestial masses see the Astrophysics Spectator.

The broadening of quasar emission lines, usually interpreted as being due to Doppler broadening of gas ejected from a quasar at high velocity, may also in part be due to the emission originating at differing depths in the quasar’s gravity well.  For example, emission generated 10% further out from the center of the quasar’s gravity well would produce a redshift about ten percent lower, resembling an outflow velocity of ~5000 km/s.

Another mechanism that could cause a nonDoppler redshift in quasar spectra is that suggested by Paul Marmet in which photons become redshifted as a result of scattering from clouds of electrons.  He suggested this as a mechanism to explain the solar limb redshift effect as well as the redshift excess observed in quasar emission lines as compared with quasar absorption lines (Marmet, Physics Essays, 1988).

Tesla’s Comments on Stellar Energy in Agreement with SQK

In 1934, on his 78th birthday, Nikola Tesla gave a press interview which the New York Herald Tribune reported on.  Besides disclosing for the first time about the force beam he planned to develop as a weapon for defense, the Tribune reported Tesla’s unconventional conclusion that all stars in the universe are growing both in mass and energy output and that they will ultimately end their life in explosion.  Below is an excerpt from this news story:

Dr. Tesla disclosed that he has lately perfected instruments which flatly disprove the present theory of the high physicists that the sun is destined to burn itself out until it is a cold cinder floating in space.  Dr. Tesla stated that he is able to show that all the suns in the universe are constantly growing in mass and heat, so that the ultimate fate of each is explosion…
He had, he said, detected “certain motions in the medium that fills space, and measured the effects of these motions.”  The results of the experiments had led him “inescapably” to the conclusion that such bodies as the sun are taking on mass much more rapidly than they are dissipating it by the dissipation of energy in heat and light.
He pointed out that his theory means a future for the earth as different from the general belief as the future of the sun.  It is generally held that life on the earth will cease when the sun grows so cold that the earth temperature drops to a point where life can no longer be supported.  Dr. Tesla prophesies that life on the earth will cease because the planet will grow too warm to support life, and he believes that life will then begin on outer planets now too cold.  He said that his discovery not only allowed him to predict a very different future for the heavenly bodies from that now generally expected for them, but also to calculate in a new way their age.

Joseph W. Alsop, New York Herald Tribune, July 11, 1934, pp. 1, 15.  reprint posted at: http://www.tesla-coil-builder.com/Articles/jul_11_1934b.htm

I entirely agree with what Tesla said.  Tesla’s conclusions are entirely vindicated by the predictions of subquantum kinetics.  Subquantum kinetics predicts that all stars, including the Sun, are creating matter in their interiors as well as genic energy (energy produced by photon blueshifting).  As a result they are growing.  Unlike conventional theory which predicts that stars will eventually burn out, SQK predicts that stars will continue to grow in mass and energy output, either ending in a supernova explosion or continuing their evolution in the form of a stellar core mass that is subject to occasional explosive outbursts.  Tesla’s conclusions were controversial because they flew in the face of the law of energy conservation which physicists staunchly adhere to even today.

There have been several observational confirmations of the matter/energy creation predictions of SQK.  But it is interesting that Tesla claimed to have made observations prior to 1934 which led him to the same conclusion.  From his quote, one is led to conclude that he was somehow making measurements related to the ether.  What the instruments were and what the data was was never disclosed.  It possibly was confiscated along with much of his apparatus at the time of his death 9 years later.

There are other similarities between Tesla’s physics and subquantum kinetics.

a) Tesla believed in the existence of an ether that filled all space.  But this was an incompressible solid ether such as that proposed in the nineteenth century.  His consisted of “independent carriers immersed in an insulating fluid.”  This analogy comes very close to that of the subquantum kinetics ether which postulates a chemical-like medium consisting of reacting units (or etherons) that may independently diffuse through the medium or react with other etherons in the medium.

b) Tesla envisioned that the ether is acted upon by the “life-giving creative force.”  This comes very close to the animated ether of subquantum kinetics which continually engages in reaction processes proceeding forward as if animated by some Prime Mover.

c) Tesla believed that when the ether was thrown into infinitesimal whirls it formed ponderable matter.  In a similar fashion, the dissipative solitons that emerge from the Model G ether reaction system, which SQK postulates to be the analogs of subatomic particles, are predicted to contain ether vortices in their cores.

d) Tesla believed that when the creative force subsides and this motion ceases, matter disappears leaving only the ether.  This too parallels with SQK which notes that if the etheric reactive flux were to subside or change, matter would dematerialize. 

e) Tesla envisioned wave transmission as being analogous to sound waves traveling through a gaseous medium; i.e., alternate longitudinal compressions and rarifactions of a gas-like ether, and not transverse stresses in an incompressible fluid medium.  This accurately describes the subquantum kinetics wave model which envisions waves as high and low etheron concentrations propagating longitudinally from the wave’s source.

f) Tesla was against the general relativistic idea that matter could curve space.  Similarly, SQK does not ascribe to this either, but postulates that space remains Euclidean throughout.

P. LaViolette