Galactic core activity not triggered by galaxy mergers

The following was originally posted by gmagee in November 2011:

Astronomers are now surprised that galaxy mergers are not necessary to trigger the active state of galactic cores.   They conclude that another “secular” process must be responsible. They were also surprised that the early galaxies look so similar to nearby galaxies.

Response to the above posting:
The point that gmagee makes above concerns what induces a galaxy’s supermassive core to turn on and enter its active state.  Astronomers had originally thought that galaxy collisions triggered this activity.  If so, the discs of such galaxies should be seen to be severely disturbed.  But observations now show that this is not the case.  Kocevski et al. studied galaxies as far away as 11 billion light years and found that those with active cores looked no different than disc galaxies with nonactive cores.  They conclude that whatever turns on a supermassive galactic core must occur internal to the galaxy.  One suggestion has been that a galactic core might turn itself on by randomly accreting a passing star.  But, this too is problematic.  For a single star is unable to provide enough matter to fuel the energy output of an active galactic nucleus.  Moreover it is difficult to imagine how matter could become accreted by a galactic core since even in its off state a core radiates a substantial cosmic ray radiation blast.

The physics of subquantum kinetics, however, provides an easy solution.  An external stellar accretion event could serve as a trigger, but the energy released by its accretion would not be the main power source for a newly activated core.  Genic energy arising within the core is the main source powering a core outburst.  A quiescent galactic core eventually becomes unstable because its internal matter creation has caused its continuous growth, deepened its gravity well, and pushed its genic energy production past a certain critical threshold.  The energy released by a stellar infall event can then trigger the unstable core to enter a runaway mode of excessive genic energy production, boosting its genic energy output by a factor of a hundred thousand to a million.  This active period lasts until the core has explosively ejected enough mass to once again return to its quiescent, low genic energy production state.

P. LaViolette
2011, updated February 2013

Ultra-luminous galaxy with two galactic cores: Arp 220

Arp 220, an elliptical galaxy with a supermassive core that may have divided in two

[left image Hubble Telescope photo of Arp 220, right deep optical false color image of Arp 220 taken with the Subaru Telescope operated by the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan.]

According to recent research by Christine D. Wilson of McMaster University, Arp 220 is an ultra-luminous galaxy with a very compact nucleus, surrounded by a star-forming region only 3,000 light years across, and having two supermassive black holes separated by only 1,000 light years.  The conventional explanation is that it has formed through the merger of two pre-existing galaxies.

Concentrated in this small region, the star formation rate is 200 times that of the Milky Way whose core region is much broader, spanning some 60,000 light years.   Furthermore, this central region is riddled with a large population of what is thought to be relatively young globular star clusters, which would cause this galaxy to appear 50 times brighter than the Milky Way if the core region were not heavily obstructed with gas and dust.  Wilson has noted that globular clusters seem to form mostly in dense gas-rich regions, and others have noted that massive clusters form most efficiently in the most active star-forming systems.  So it does not seem unexpected to find that Arp 220 contains so many young massive globular clusters, molecular gas within just 2500 light years of this galaxy’s cores being concentrated to a surface density similar to that found inside a giant molecular cloud.

Response to the first part of your posting:

I disagree with the interpretation that the two cores in Arp 220 are an example of two galaxies colliding with one another.  Christine Wilson is giving the standard interpretation, which I feel is as far from the truth as one can get.  In reality, we are seeing just the opposite.  We are seeing an example of two cores that are in the act of separating from one another.  Such a core separation phenomenon is predicted by the continuous matter creation cosmology of subquantum kinetics.  I propose that this galaxy initially had a single supermassive galactic core, and that not long ago when the core was in an active quasar-like state it explosively fragmented to form the two cores we see today.  Halton Arp, the discoverer of this galaxy, would most likely agree with this view as he has previously discussed evidence that Arp 220 has been ejecting supermassive quasar bodies from its core; see

Observations with the Chandra X-ray telescope show giant lobes of hot gas extending out 75,000 light years from this galaxy and believed to have been ejected by past activity in its nucleus.  See:  The explosive AGN activity ejecting this gas could have been the same that resulted in the fissioning of Arp 220’s core.  If we figure that this gas was part of an ultra fast outflow that moved outward at an average speed of 0.2 c, this ejection would have begun around 380,000 years ago.  In this period the fissioning cores could have journeyed to their current 1000 light year separation if they have a velocity relative to one another of ~800 km/s projected in the plane of the sky.

I believe we are witnessing a case where a single supermassive core has recently divided into two, somewhat like cell division, but with a lot of energy thrown into the mix.  There aren’t two galaxies here, just one irregular elliptical galaxy, and it is not a very large one.  Its long dimension is about 9,000 light years and it is estimated to have a mass of about 10 billion solar masses.  So basically its size is small enough to fit inside the Milky Way’s galactic bulge.  We might regard it as a medium sized elliptical galaxy (larger than a dwarf elliptical) that is in the process of expelling gas that will one day form its spiral arms.  Hence it is in the process of evolving into a spiral galaxy in the far future.

Each core is surrounded by its own disc of closely bound stars orbiting within a few hundred light years of each core and these are seen to be embedded in a single common disc having a diameter of ~7,000 light years.  If these were two colliding galaxies, as most astronomers claim, we should instead expect to see these cores embedded in two outer discs, not one.  Since we don’t, we are left to conclude that at an earlier date there was just one galaxy and one galactic core, which now has divided into two.  The picture below shows how this disc is laid out.

Discs in Arp 220 observed at millimeter wavelengths

From the paper of Sakamoto, et al. 1999

One thing we note here is that the two nuclear discs are seen to be counter rotating with their axes approximately in a parallel-antiparallel alignment.  Now, if these were colliding galaxies, we would have to interpret this as a pure coincidence (if you figure the odds for this particular alignment, they are fairly small).  On the other hand, a single nuclear disc separating into two, due to a central core division, would by necessity have to have this kind of counter rotating alignment for reasons of  conservation of momentum.  That is, the stars orbiting each core on the side nearest to the partner core in each case will necessarily have to be traveling in roughly the same direction; the stars that were initially orbiting the progenitor primary core are not going to pull a U-turn huey in interstellar space to go around the new born twin core in the opposite direction!  Rather, they would take the path of least resistance and simply deflect to go counterclockwise around the partner core instead of clockwise around the primary core.  If the cores were closer in the past, as the ejection scenario suggests, this consideration of the orientation of the velocity vectors in each nuclear disc would have been even more important.  So, seeing the discs with this particular rotational configuration relative to one another is pretty much smoking gun evidence that we are observing core fragments that are separating and not merging galaxies.  Given that our knowledge is limited by the fact that we were not around half a million years ago to see if the cores were closer together or further apart, we are forced to settle for the evidence at hand, and looking at it in an objective fashion leads to the conclusion of separation, not merger.

Also I believe it is wrong to refer to these cores as black holes.  As I have discussed in previous postings, these are better thought of as supermassive mother stars, highly dense, noncollapsed bodies that create matter and energy in their interiors and explosively eject this created matter and energy to their environment.

As you mention, astronomers have found a large number of massive globular star clusters in the immediate vicinity of these cores which contain many massive “young stars” e.g., blue giants, supergiants, Wolf-Rayets, etc.  As I have said before, blue giants and blue supergiants can be old stars if they have formed by growing in mass from formerly less massive stars on the main sequence.  However, they could also be young, in accordance with the conventional assumption, if they have formed recently from gas and dust accretion, which is likely in this case since this region is well stocked with dust and gas.  It is my opinion that the large quantity of gas in Arp 220, which has resulted in the recent formation of these globular clusters, has all been created in these active cores and ejected from them in the past and that none of this was brought into the system by some hypothetical “colliding galaxy”.

Paul LaViolette, March 2, 2012


(gmagee continued)
A massive outflow of warm hydrogen gas from the core region has been detected. Wilson concludes that the energy source heating this gas must be non-ionizing, and is likely mechanical energy from stellar winds and supernovae. However, she offers no explanation for the source of this mechanical energy.   And recent observations suggest that a hidden AGN is likely present, being necessarily present in order to power the observed luminosity.

Particularly noteworthy, the massive outflow from the core is observed to have a relatively low velocity, and to be unable to escape the central nuclear region of the galaxy.

Given these observations, it seems likely that this is an example of a galaxy whose growing core has developed conditions that greatly accelerate it’s growth over that of a more typical galaxy.  Can this be due to a prior galactic collision which has brought the two cores into close proximity, enhancing the etheric conditions in the central core needed to nucleate new matter?   In any case, it seems that the compact core has ejected so much gas and dust into the immediate core region, which has served as a positive feedback mechanism, to create the conditions for massive outflows and the formation of nearby young star clusters.

Response to this second part of your posting:

The energy powering the molecular hydrogen gas outflow that Wilson has observed can easily be explained by interstellar gas winds driven outward by cosmic ray volleys (galactic superwaves) emitted in the past by the active core of Arp 220.   Such gas outflows are commonly seen in Seyferts and other active galaxies.  So instead of supposing that these winds originate from stars or supernova explosions, I think a more logical candidate is emission from the active cores in Arp 220.

Again, in my opinion, it is doubtful that we are seeing any kind of galaxy collision here.  This is more likely a core ejection.  Such ejections presuppose the existence of extremely energetic conditions in the parent core for fragmentation to occur.  The energy source is simply the core itself which continually produces genic energy (see subquantum kinetics for an explanation).

Because conventional astrophysicists do not allow themselves to violate the First Law, they invoke accretion onto a black hole as the preferred energy releasing mechanism to explain these outflows and the energetic core activity.  This biases them to interpret this galaxy system as a system in mutual collision.  In fact, there is no evidence to prove that galaxies are colliding.  Astronomers are making this assumption based on convenience.  When the facts are considered more objectively, they favor ejection, not collision.  Consider the observed gas outflow which currently has reached out 75,000 light years which we suggested was expelled by core activity that began about 400,000 years ago.  If we surmised that these galaxies are colliding and that they approach one another at say 800 km/s, then 400,000 years ago when this outburst took place they would have been twice as far apart with far less likelihood of any strong interaction.  Why then would that gas have been emitted if that was the case?  This is an example of some of the loose ends that the collision theory suffers from.

Paul LaViolette, March 2, 2012

(gmagee continued)

Given the recent observations of massive fast moving outflows from stellar-mass core stars, is it reasonable to assume that the next stage for Arp 220 will be that the outflows will grow in magnitude until one or both cores are laid bare, shutting off star formation in the central region, and leaving the outer portions of each galaxy to locally disperse themselves?   And would this subsequent condition be one type of active galactic nucleus, an isolated galactic core forming the basis for spawning new galaxies nearby, and thereby eventually forming a small cluster of galaxies, such as is seen in the immediate vicinity of  II Zw 096 discussed in this link?


Response to gmagee’s last questions:

The cores do not currently appear to be in their active state since we see a massive molecular hydrogen outflow in this region.  The strong cosmic ray flux emitted from an active galactic nucleus would instead have ionized this gas.  Such activity was likely present hundreds of thousands of years ago when the progenitor supermassive core was in the process of dividing.  However, it is possible that, as these two cores grow in mass, they will eventually enter an active state and produce an intense cosmic ray wind such as is seen in active galactic nuclei.  This could produce a far more powerful outflow that could clear out much of the gas and dust from this inner region to form an outer gas ring similar to that seen in ring galaxies or similar to the molecular ring seen in the Milky Way.  The expulsion of gas from the inner portion of the galaxy would likely shut off star formation there.  But star formation would likely continue in the vicinity of the ring that would form.

According to subquantum kinetics, the core, or cores, could continue their activity for a considerable period of time even with no gas being present in their vicinity since the energy they would be generating would not be due to black hole accretion.  Rather it would be genic, spontaneously generated, due to the supercritical conditions prevailing within them.

As for your last question, yes this type of core fragmentation could result in the formation of a group of satellite galaxies, if the process of core separation and ejection were to be repeated in the future.  Such explosive expulsions could also help generate spiral arms around this parent elliptical, transforming it into a spiral galaxy, or into a larger galaxy having a peculiar shape if its violent outbursts were to continue.

Paul LaViolette  March 2, 2012

Black hole ejecting massive wind?

Chandra has observed a stellar-mass object, which the Chandra team interprets to be a black hole, that mysteriously is ejecting more matter in a massive wind than can be explained by accretion. Moreover, this wind is ejected in a broad orientation at nearly three percent the speed of light, rather than concentrated in jets oriented solely along the poles – which is typically explained via a magnetic acceleration mechanism. Finally, astronomers note that this condition apparently is short-lived, as only two months earlier no such wind was observed from this object.

Is there any other possible explanation for the source of this ejected material, other than from within the black hole itself?   If not, would this not kill the notion of the possible existence of black hole singularities? Would not the cyclic nature of this widespread ejection surrounding a black hole preclude any explanation of an accumulator effect, whereby accreted material could somehow be temporarily stored before being ejected in short-term bursts? And must not the observation that up to 95 percent of the ejected material does not originate from the accreted gas, pose a severe problem for astronomers to postulate a mechanism for this ejection?

How is this observation related to superwave theory, where cosmic ray ejections propagate throughout the galaxy? Is this instead not a separate phenomenon that can explain the growth of galaxies from within? Recent observations already noted suggest that star clusters harbor a variety of star types, including ‘young’ hot stars. Is this not further evidence in support of this growth model?

And does Subquantum Kinectics offer any explanation of how this fast-moving gas might be eventually slowed, allowing it to condense into new stars? Numerous tails have been observed from moving stars and galaxies. Is there any friction mechanism over long distances that would explain this phenomenon? Could this not be an explanation of how these tails are formed?

Responses to your many questions:

Is there any other possible explanation for the source of this ejected material, other than from within the black hole itself?   If not, would this not kill the notion of the possible existence of black hole singularities?

First, this object IGR J17091-3624 is not a black hole, as Chandra astronomers are surmising, and it is very doubtful that this relativistic wind is being powered by any kind of matter infall to this X-ray source.  As explained in the previous posting, it is impossible for black holes to form in nature.  They only form in the minds of physicists and astronomers, a point noted by MIT physics professor Phillip Morrison in his essay “Black Holes of the Mind.”  Perhaps the black hole problem could be solved if the unfortunate victims of this idea were to volunteer themselves to sessions of deep psychotherapy.  I know of one physics professor at Portland State University who had confessed to me during a lecture coffee hour that he suffered from recurring nightmares of a mini black hole passing through his bedroom while he slept and swallowing him up.  (True story.)  Indeed, physicists would sleep easier if they revised their thinking on this subject and read Subquantum Kinetics.

The matter that forms the relativistic wind that is blowing from this source most likely comes from the source itself, not from any hypothetical accretion disc theorized to surround this source.  First, understand that astronomers have not seen any accretion disc around this source; they just assume that it must be there to save themselves the embarrassment of admitting that standard theory cannot explain the immense outpouring of matter and energy from this source.  That is, they know of no other way (within the confines of standard physics) that this source could be powering itself other than through matter infall from an accretion disc.

Given that this source expels gas in all directions at a velocity of ~ 3 percent of the speed of light with a mass loss rate of ~5 X 10-8 Msolar/year, we may conclude that any accretion disc, if it were there, would be quickly swept away, and certainly this wind would prevent any matter from falling inward.  So this leaves astronomers with the embarrassing question of explaining how this source powers its impressive mass outflow.  In terms of wind kinetic energy, this source expels gas with a kinetic energy force similar to that of a Wolf-Rayet star producing a planetary nebula.  Although the mass loss rate is theorized to be less than that of a Wolf-Rayet star (which is ~ 10-6 to 10-5 Msolar/year), its gas velocity is ~10 to 20 times greater.  Hence figuring the v2 difference, we conclude that the wind kinetic energy is of comparable magnitude.  Also in terms of its luminosity, IGR J17091-3624 has an X-ray luminosity comparable to the X-ray luminosity of a Wolf-Rayet star.  Considering that a Wolf-Rayet star does a fairly good job of clearing gas and dust out from its immediate vicinity, we may presume the same for this source.  So, in my opinion things look fairly dismal for interpretating IGR J17091-3624 to be a black hole singularity.

Would not the cyclic nature of this widespread ejection surrounding a black hole preclude any explanation of an accumulator effect, whereby accreted material could somehow be temporarily stored before being ejected in short-term bursts?

Yes, if this is one of a series of outbursts we are witnessing, it is unlikely that the quiescent period would last sufficiently long to allow such a source to accumulate a sufficient quantity of gas and dust to initiate a subsequent outburst.

Must not the observation that up to 95 percent of the ejected material does not originate from the accreted gas, pose a severe problem for astronomers to postulate a mechanism for this ejection?

No, you’re misunderstanding their 95% estimate.  The Chandra team, which surmises that an accretion disc must be present around the source, estimates that 95% of the disc’s matter is being expelled, with the implied assumption that the other 5% is being accreted.  To be realistic, if the wind is strong enough the expel 95% of a disc’s matter (assuming that it were there), it is most likely going to expel 100% of the matter of the presumed disc, leaving pitifully little for accretion.  So, we are forced to conclude that this matter is not coming from an accretion disc, but from the source itself.  This immediately requires us to trash the black hole theory because matter cannot come out of a black hole; it can only fall in.  A more likely explanation for IGR J17091-3624 is that it’s a mother star and that the matter being expelled and energy being radiated from this source is due to matter and energy being continually created in its interior.

How is this observation related to superwave theory, where cosmic ray ejections propagate throughout the galaxy?

Radio synchrotron emission has been detected from the vicinity of IGR J17091-3624, which suggests that this source is emitting high energy cosmic ray electrons.  So in this regard it would be engaging in cosmic ray activity similar to that seen in active galactic nuclei, but on a smaller scale.  Just as active galactic nuclei go through an active phase, followed by a quiescent phase, so too, this source is believed to engage in recurrent outbursts.  Also the supermassive nuclei of active galaxies such as Seyfert galaxies are observed to expel gas at similarly high velocities.  It is unlikely that this source would produce anything close to a superwave since its cosmic ray power output would be far smaller.  Hopefully, with further future observation, astronomers will be able to come up with an estimate of the cosmic ray flux coming from this source.

Is this instead not a separate phenomenon that can explain the growth of galaxies from within?  Recent observations already noted suggest that star clusters harbor a variety of star types, including ‘young’ hot stars.  Is this not further evidence in support of this growth model?

Yes, if we interpret the gas being expelled from this source as evidence that matter has been newly created, this would support the suggestion of subquantum kinetics that stellar core mother stars such as this continually create matter and energy in their interiors.  Much of this matter would be expelled, but the remainder heavier nuclei would be retained by the source leading to a gradual mass growth.

And does Subquantum Kinectics offer any explanation of how this fast-moving gas might be eventually slowed, allowing it to condense into new stars? Numerous tails have been observed from moving stars and galaxies.  Is there any friction mechanism over long distances that would explain this phenomenon?  Could this not be an explanation of how these tails are formed?

As the gas leaves the source it should slow down and attain cooler temperatures, eventually coming to a stop due to interaction with the interstellar medium and magnetic fields.  Perhaps future observations will reveal that gas has accumulated in the immediate vicinity of this source.

Paul LaViolette,  February 23, 2012

First observation of daughter galaxy forming

Using the XMM-Newton X-ray space telescope, astronomers have detected a globular star cluster that lies above the plane of an edge-on spiral galaxy and contains an X-ray source which they believe to be an intermediate-sized black hole (see small circle in above image).  They believe it must have come from a dwarf galaxy that has somehow had all of it’s stars stripped away in the process of being accreted by the spiral galaxy.  They infer from cluster’s colors that a population of hot blue stars must encircle the X-ray source along with a population of cooler redder stars.

Is this not an example of a massive core star being ejected from the parent galaxy, which is growing a surrounding cluster of stars as it begins the process of growing into a daughter satellite galaxy?  The presence of the ‘young’ hot stars is consistent with recent observations of ‘blue stragglers’ within ancient star clusters.

And could not the redder colors observed be due in part to the gravitational influence of the 20,000 solar mass core star?

Response to the questions of gmagee:  The conclusion that this source originated from an incoming dwarf galaxy that has had its stars tidally stripped away is largely incorrect for no stream of stripped away stars is evident in this photo.  As gmagee suggests, this source most likely originated from the core of this galaxy ( ESO 243-49 ) through a matter ejection event.  Such matter creation and ejection is predicted by subquantum kinetics, and the existence of the phenomenon was earlier proposed by astronomers such as Ambartsumian and Arp to explain observations of active galactic nuclei.  So this star cluster may be regarded as a galactic core ejection that will one day grow into a dwarf elliptical daughter galaxy orbiting this spiral.  Evidence that galactic cores eject globular star clusters has been discussed in a previous posting (

Also the conclusion that this 20,000 solar mass X-ray source is a black hole is incorrect.  As discussed in a previous posting (, and in the book Subquantum Kinetics, black holes should be unable to form.  Particle scattering experiments have shown that the electric field at the center of the nucleon is bell-shaped, not spiked to an infinite point value.  And, due to electrogravitic coupling, we may assume that its gravity field is similarly bell-shaped.  Hence gravitational singularities are unable to form if there were any collapse.  Anyway the outpouring of genic energy from a massive star prevents any core collapse.  So, this above-plane globular cluster X-ray emitting source is more likely a supermassive mother star of finite diameter, not a black hole singularity.  It would have a very high mass density similar to that of a white dwarf.

The redish color seen in the cluster is not due to gravitational redshifting, but most likely comes from low mass stars in the cluster whose color is typically red.  Such stars continually form and grow in the cluster from gas that is being expelled by the mother star core.  The blue color that is observed comes from more massive and hotter stars such as blue giants, blue supergiants, and Wolf-Rayet stars.  Yes, such “blue stragglers” are seen in other globular clusters such as the nearby cluster NGC 6752 discussed in the link above.  The presence of such blue stars is a mystery for many astronomers because standard theory places their age at only millions of years whereas the red star population is typically believed to have an age of 10 billion years or so as in the case of NGC 6752.  So they wonder why young stars would form in an old cluster.  There is no such problem in the cosmology of subquantum kinetics.  SQK predicts that low mass reddish stars continually grow in size through matter creation and accretion and eventually transform into the more massive blue stars.  So these blue stars are not young, but actually the oldest and most evolved in the cluster.  Such mature bluish stars are also found to surround our own Galaxy’s core.

Paul LaViolette, 2-22-12

Globular clusters co-planar with satellite galaxies

A study notes that the population of younger globular clusters within the Milky Way tend to lie in a plane tilted somewhat with respect to the Galaxy’s polar axis.   Furthermore, also contained in this plane tend to be most of the known satellite galaxies.  A similar structure is noted for M31, the Andromeda galaxy.

Rather than the conclusion that this must hint at a past galactic merger, should not this observation lend support for the SQK model’s notion that the young globulars are progenitors of the satellite galaxies; that the globulars have been ejected from the Milky Way core and eventually grow into the dwarf satellite galaxies?

Can SQK shed any light on why there is a preferred plane in which these globulars and satellites are found?


In response to your comment, yes, I agree that this recent discovery of there being a preferred plane for both Milky Way satellite galaxies and massive-star globular clusters does point to the subquantum kinetics continuous creation scenario.  It indicates that both likely originated through explosive ejection from our galaxy’s core and did not accrete to this plane from outside our galaxy.

Plane of halo globular star clusters and dwarf satellite galaxies. Courtesy of Jon Lomberg.

Think about it for a minute.  If these galaxies and globular clusters had entered our galaxy’s environs from outside as a result of gravitational attraction, they should have entered in random directions and hence should not be aligned in any kind of plane.  To explain a planar alignment with the outside origin theory, astronomers are left to hypothesize the existence of a large concentration of dark matter being embedded in this plane as a ring of dark matter filaments to preferentially draw these masses into this planar alignment and maintain them there.  In fact, this is just what Keller et al. suggest in their paper to explain this planar alignment phenomenon which they have discovered.  But there is no independent evidence for such dark matter.  In actual fact it is a fudge factor that astronomers arbitrarily introduce to explain the unexpected existence of the planar alignment they have found.

A much simpler explanation, one that does not need any ad hoc dark matter assumption, is that these globular clusters and dwarf galaxies were ejected from the center of the Galaxy during periods when the core engages in Seyfert-like activity.  The smoking gun is the discovery that hypervelocity stars and high velocity gas clouds are receding from the galactic center at high angles to the galactic plane.  In fact, the plane of the high-mass globulars and dwarf galaxies is found to be oriented almost perpendicular to the galactic plane, being inclined just 8 ± 5 degrees from the Milky Way’s pole axis direction.   Take as an example the hypervelocity star HE_0437-5439, which is found to be receding from the Galactic center at 700 km/s and currently is seen at galactic coordinate position (l = 263.0°, b = -40.9°).  Its coordinate location happens to deviate by just 10° from this globular cluster plane.  Is this just a coincidence?  I think not.  This leads us to believe that there is a preferred direction in which our galactic core ejects stars and globular clusters with enough force to take them to these high latitude positions.

In the subquantum kinetics cosmology, dwarf spheroidal and dwarf elliptical galaxies evolve from massive globular clusters through continuous matter creation.  So it is not surprising that dwarf galaxies are also be found to lie along this preferred plane.  Either they evolved from the more massive globular clusters that were ejected along this plane, or they themselves were ejected full size from our galaxies core.  The latter would imply that dwarf galaxies constitute the upper end of the mass range of core ejections.

It should also be pointed out, that what conventional astronomy refers to as “young globular clusters”, are in fact clusters that contain large numbers of blue supergiant stars and which according to conventional theory are believed to have young ages due to the supposed rapidity with which they exhaust their supply of hydrogen and helium.  However, the continuous creation cosmology predicted by SQK requires that blue supergiants are actually very old stars, stars that have continually grown through matter creation and evolved up the stellar main sequence mass range.  Or, if these globulars were ejected from the galactic core, it is quite possible that they were massive stars even at the time of their ejection.

The hypervelocity star data supports the subquantum kinetics stellar evolution scenario because the time taken for these stars to journey from the galactic core is much greater than the lifetime that conventional astronomy ascribes for stars of this age.  So, according to conventional theory, they should have long ago exploded as supernova or evolved into a white dwarf, neutron star, or black hole.  But this is not the case.  Take for example, the hypervelocity B-type star HE 0437-5439.  This star at its current velocity would have taken at least 86 million years to journey from the Galactic center to its current position.  Yet, standard theory claims that it should have a lifetime of only 33 million years, thus leading to a paradox.

P. LaViolette

Do neutrinos break the speed of light limit? Is Physics in Crisis?

Posted by P. LaViolette
(updated October 12, 2011)

On September 22nd scientists at CERN announced that they had clocked the speed of neutrinos over a 732 kilometer distance and found that surprisingly they travel at 0.0025% faster than the speed of light.  So whereas light and electromagnetic waves of all frequencies are measured to travel about 300,000 kilometers per second, these neutrinos were found to travel at 300,006 kilometers per second, arriving at their destination about 60 nanoseconds sooner than expected.

See the following news sources:

These results call in question the validity of the special theory of relativity which holds that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.  Since relativity is a mainstay in the standard physics paradigm, a pillar on which the framework of contemporary physics theory has been constructed, these results threaten its collapse and with it the construct of relativistic cosmology.

However, Carlo Contaldi questions the conclusions of the CERN-OPERA experiment in his preprint:  He suggests that the researchers did not take into account various relativistic factors which could alter the timing of the GPS synchronized atomic clocks at each site and of the atomic clock that was moved from CERN to the Italian destination 732 km away to check their timing.  He notes that effects such as the Sagnac effect due to the Earth’s rotation, unaccounted for variations in gravity potential along the route taken by the calibration clock, relativistic effects to the calibration clock during acceleration and subsequent deceleration in the course of its transport, in total could have accounted for the 60 nanosecond time discrepancy that was observed.  We will have to wait and see what response their paper receives.

Regardless of whether or not neutrinos really do break the speed of light barrier, past experiments have shown that high voltage electric field shocks, variously termed Coulomb waves, Tesla waves, or scalar waves, do break the speed of light barrier.  These experiments support the subquantum kinetics physics methodology (SQK) which teaches that certain types of waves can travel faster than the speed of light.  Namely, it predicts that such longitudinal waves should travel at superluminal speeds since the shock that forms the wave’s leading edge propels the wave’s ether substrate forward in the direction of travel.  So now the wave velocity becomes v’ = c + vether , where vether = the forward velocity of the wave’s local ether matrix.  In particular, Nikola Tesla in the early part of the twentieth century Tesla had measured superluminal speeds of c × π/2 (or 1.57 c for the longitudinal waves he radiated around the world from his magnifying transmitter monopolar antenna towers.

In the past some have theorized that neutrinos may be longitudinal waves similar to Tesla’s waves.  In particular, like Tesla waves, they can pass freely through matter with little attenuation.  Nevertheless, there is one important difference. Unlike Tesla waves, neutrinos are particles with spin and mass, although their mass is extremely small.  But this makes the challenge for Einstein’s theory even more upsetting.  For, according to Einstein’s theory and laboratory observation, as a particle approaches increasingly close to the speed of light, its mass increases exponentially, an effect termed relativistic mass dilation.  Also in accordance with the law E = mc2, a particle’s energy should also increase exponentially.  Consequently, according to this formula not only should each neutrino have attained infinite mass and energy long ago in its acceleration history, but at superluminal velocities it should no longer exist in the physical world.

There are two ways out of this mess.  Either the CERN-OPERA experiment reached the wrong conclusion because factors affecting the timing of its atomic clocks were not taken account of, or if the conclusions are found to be correct, the neutrinos could have attained their superluminal speeds by surfing on an ether wind produced by the CERN accelerator beam.  This is further discussed below, but first let us review the history of superluminal measurements.  As mentioned above, this is not the first time that the c speed barrier has been broken.  There have been many demonstrations of energy waves traveling faster than the speed of light, although superluminal energy wave propagation is not nearly as shocking and destructive to physics as is superluminal particle propagation.  Below is a list of researchers who have shown definite evidence of superluminal wave propagation, but whose work unfortunately has received little or no media coverage.

A Brief History of Superluminal Wave Experiments

1) In 1988 researcher Alexi Guy Obolensky, working together with Prof. Panos Pappas, transmitted electric pulse shock waves at superluminal speed.  They published the results of their experiment in Electricity and Wireless World, December 1988, pp. 1162 – 1165.

page 1162,  page 1163,  page 1164,  page 1165

The above page links are provided on Dr. Pappas’ website.  Some of the images are marked with corrections that Dr. Pappas has made to correct mistakes made in the original published manuscript which was mistakenly not sent to A. G. Obolensky for his final review.

2) Also in 1988, Eric Dollard demonstrated an experiment in which he sent longitudinal waves through a coaxial cable at 1.26 c.  He discusses this in the following video:  See especially the part 14 minutes into the video.

3) In 2005 – 2006 Alexi Guy Obolensky and myself transmitted high voltage Coulomb shock wave pulses across his laboratory at a speed averaging 1.26 c.  At 3.07 meters distance the pulse arrived 1.7 nanoseconds faster than luminal speed.  Our threshold resolution for distinguishing time delays was 125 picoseconds.  The rise time of our shock front was about 0.8 nanoseconds.  The speed declined inversely with increasing distance from the emitting electrode in accordance with the predictions of subquantum kinetics.  At a distance of 83 cm from the electrode the speed was clocked as high as 2.1 c with speeds as high as 8 c being projected at 65 cm distance!  Graphs of the data are published in my book Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion, p. 177 -185.  Other than this reporting, Obolensky and myself have not yet taken the time to write up the results for publication in a technical journal due to current demands on our time.  Nevertheless, as described in Verification Number 11, our experiment confirmed a key a priori prediction of subquantum kinetics.

4) Also around this time, Eugene Podkletnov and Modanese performed experiments with the Podkletnov gravity impulse beam generator in which they succeeded in sending gravity shock impulses over a distance of 1211 meters at a speed of 64 c.  They report their findings in a paper entitled “Study of Light Interaction with Gravity Impulses and Measurements of the Speed of Gravity Impulses” which is appearing this year (2011) in an edited book of papers.  E. Podkletnov has disclosed to me in personal communication that they have succeeded in measuring speeds of several thousand c in a higher power impulse beam generator.

5) Dr. Panos Pappas has recently continued experiments on superluminal pulse propagation in his own laboratory in Athens, Greece.  He reports the results of his work on his website.

In addition to the above there are various reports of superluminal signal propagation over very short distances such as the papers by Ishii and Giakos (1991) and Enders and Nimtz (1993).

Surfing the Beam

In subquantum kinetics, a superluminal wave gets its superluminal speed because it rides on an ether wind; recall v’ = c + vether .  So, the same may apply to neutrino particle propagation.  In the process of producing its neutrino beam, the CERN accelerator may also be producing a columnated ether wind traveling in the same direction as the neutrinos and, as a result, the neutrino velocity might become boosted by the added ether velocity, vether.  This calls to mind the columnated ether wind beam produced by Eugene Podkletnov’s beam generator.


A Celestial Explosion Warning Signal?

The question that arises is whether natural neutrino outbursts produced by stellar explosions and galactic core explosions would similarly have superluminal velocities.  Or would their velocities fall off as 1/r due to the natural outward dissipation of the ether wind.  If neutrinos do preserve an undiminished superluminal velocity even in natural explosions, this could be a valuable warning for the arrival of a harmful gamma ray burst or galactic superwave.  For example, if a neutrino burst were to arrive from the Galactic center approximately 23,000 light years away and were to have a velocity 0.0025% higher than c, as in the CERN experiment, then it would be arriving 7 months ahead of the initial gamma ray pulse and could give us some time to prepare.

Distant universe contributes more infared radiation to total background, supports tired-light models?

This article implies that the distant universe contributes more infared radiation to the total cosmic background radiation than does the local universe.

Is this not support for the SQK prediction of red-shifting over these intergalactic distances?   Seems a bit contrived to have to explain it as changes in dust content within galaxies over time.

In answer to the above posting by gmagee, I would say, no, this is not related to the subquantum kinetics redshift prediction.  The cosmological redshift would affect infrared wavelengths by the same amount as visible wavelengths.  So it should not be a factor.  What this study reports is that infrared radiation was observed to compose about half of the background light at redshift z = 3, whereas today it is seen to compose about one third of the background light.  So the ratio of infrared background light to total background light has decreased over the last 3 billion years which has led the researchers to conclude that galaxies were producing more infrared radiation 3 billion years ago through increased star formation.

However, I believe that they are looking at the wrong side of the coin.  The other way to look at this is that the visible background light has proportionately increased.  At z = 3, visible radiation composed about half of the background light, whereas today it makes up around two-thirds of the background light, hence a 30% increase, or a 10% increase in visible light every billion years.

This could instead be interpreted as evidence that the number of stars emitting visible light has increased, and be cited as evidence supporting the subquantum kinetics continuous creation scenario.   Our galaxy is estimated to have a mass of ~1012 M and its core Sgr A* is estimated to expel matter at the average rate of 10 M per year (based on Jan Oort’s estimate of gas outflow from the galactic center).  So over 1 billion years our galaxy’s stellar mass should increase by at least 1%.  Consequently, star proliferation falls short by a factor of 10 to explain the visible light increase. There is also evidence that our core in the past has ejected stars and globular star clusters as well.  But this probably does not increase this matter creation estimate appreciably.

But there is another effect arising from the SQK continuous creation hypothesis that could explain this visible light increase.  That is, existing stars will be growing in size through internal matter creation and since stellar luminosity varies as M4 for stars on the upper main sequence, this should result in a proportionately greater increase in visible light.  Let us first consider a star like our Sun.  In past writings I have estimated that the rate at which the Sun’s mass increases through internal matter creation should be no faster than about 2 X 10-12 M per year.(1)  Hence the Sun’s mass should increase no faster than about 0.2% per billion years.  Since stars on the upper main sequence M-L relation increase in luminosity according to L ~ M4, this amounts to a luminosity increase of only 0.8% per billion years or about an order of magnitude too small.

However, most of the visible light in a galaxy is produced by its more massive stars,  the O and B giants and blue supergiants, which have masses M > 3 M.  A type-B3 blue giant having a mass of 3 M normally has a luminosity of ~ 100 L and a mass loss rate of ~10-11 solar mass per year.  Subquantum kinetics proposes that a main sequence star progressively increases its mass, which implies that its internal matter creation rate always exceeds its mass loss rate.  So if this hypothetical B3 blue giant star were to increase its mass at the rate of 3 X 10-11 M per year (1% increase of its mass per billion years), it would increase its luminosity at the rate of 4% per billion years which accounts for almost half of the observed rate of increase in visible light.  A 4 M star having a luminosity of ~300 L and an estimated internal matter creation rate of 10-9 M per year, would increase its mass at the rate of 25% per billion years and hence more than double its luminosity every billion years.  This overshoots the observed increase.  But, remember, their are many fewer 4 solar mass stars than 3 solar mass stars.  So such stars would make a much smaller contribution to the total increase.

P. LaViolette

Do AGN’s destroy their host galaxies?

Astronomers conclude that star formation in galaxies ceases during a less luminous period of active galactic nucleus (AGN) activity.

Can we conclude that the most luminous phase of AGN activity is in fact destroying the host galaxy, dissipating the surrounding stars and leaving behind only the active core?

I believe that the strong IR emission seen coming from this interacting galaxy II Zw 096 may be an example where the original host galaxy located in the center of this cluster, the bright red region, has been dissipated, and only the core remains.


Response to your post:
No, I very much doubt that an AGN would destroy its host galaxy.  The above article about star formation and AGN’s is misleading.  It assumes that stars form only through accretion of dust from their surroundings and that this accretion process results in excess infrared emission.  In subquantum kinetics, on the other hand, the main mechanism for star formation is through continuous matter creation in the star’s interior, especially so in the more massive stars.

When astronomers refer to star forming regions they are referring to regions of excessive infrared radiation emission coming from dusty regions near stars.  I believe that this infrared emission is instead being produced by the superwave cosmic rays that were emitted by a formerly active core.  As this superwave cosmic ray shell travels away from the core, it vaporizes frozen ice and cometary material orbiting in the vicinity of a star and blows the resulting nebular material in close to the star where it aggravates the star into a flaring T Tauri state.  This usually happens when the superwave has advanced outward from the core’s immediate vicinity and encounters dusty regions in the galaxy’s spiral arms.  By that time, the AGN will have completed its active phase and entered its quiescent phase.  So galactic core emission will no longer be visible, when excessive infrared emission is visible.  This assumes that the core of a typical spiral galaxy spends about 15% of its time in its active phase, a period lasting several hundred to several thousand years.

Regarding the point you made about the interacting galaxy II Zw 096, sometimes called the “galactic train-wreck”, I doubt that we can conclude that this infrared emission comes from a bare galactic core.  Astronomers find that 80% of the emission from this galaxy comes from this region which spans about 700 light years.  We need more information before we may conclude that this IR region might harbor an ejected active core fragment.

P. LaViolette
November 2011, updated February 2013

Elliptical galaxies actively forming new stars

Astronomers are confused that giant elliptical galaxies containing old stars have been found to have regions actively forming new stars in a continuous process. These galaxies were thought to be old ‘dead’ structures, containing little cold gas to condense into new stars.

In response to the above posting of gmagee, astronomers were wrong to think that such elliptical galaxies would be dead; i.e., not forming stars.  There is no such thing as a “dead galaxy” in subquantum kinetics.  According to SQK, all galaxies are gradually growing in size and generating increasing amounts of matter.  The research team, whose findings are reported in the above news article, studied stars in the elliptical galaxy M105, seen below.  Conventional astronomy refers to elliptical galaxies as “dead galaxies” because they are not seen to contain massive blue stars which conventional astronomy considers to be indicative of recent star formation.

Elliptical galaxy M105. (Ford, Bregman, NASA HST, WFC3 + ACS)

However, Alyson Ford and Joel Bregman found that M105 does contain bluegiant stars, which in conventional astronomy are indicative of recent star formation; see circles in image blowup.  They estimated that stars must be forming in this galaxy at the rate of 10-4 M per year.  According to SQK, this galaxy would have a far higher matter creation rate through parthenogenesis taking place within each star and within its massive mother star core.

M105 is estimated to have a diameter of about 55,000 light years and a mass of about 100 billion solar masses.  Hence it is about half the diameter of the Milky Way and about one tenth as massive.  If its stars had a matter creation rate comparable to that of the Sun, its total stellar mass would be increasing at the rate of ~0.1 M per year.  Also M105 is known to have a core mass equaling around 50 million M, hence about 12 times more massive than the Milky Way’s core.  If this were to have a matter creation rate per unit solar mass comparable with what I have estimated occurs in the core of the Milky Way, then the core of M105 would be generating matter at the rate of 100 M per year, 1000 fold larger than the SQK estimate for matter creation within this galaxy’s stars, and a million fold larger than the star formation rate estimated by Ford and Bregman.  This would imply that M105 is in fact growing at least 10 times faster than the Milky Way and that within the next 10 billion years it will have caught up with us, developing into a mature spiral galaxy.

Evidence that the core of M105 has been active in the past is seen in this magnified view of the inner 15,000 light year region of M105 taken with the Hubble Space Telescope; see below.

Central 15,000 light year portion of elliptical galaxy M105 viewed with HST. Courtesy of NASA/ESA.

The dust ring seen here has a diameter of about 10,000 light years (3 kpc) and and may be compared to the 5 kpc diameter molecular cloud ring that encircles the core of our own Galaxy at a radial distance of about 2.5 kpc from the center. The Milky Ways molecular ring engages in radial motion suggestive of past core activity.  Similarly, the presence of this ring in M105 suggests that there has been past explosive activity of its core as well, radial ejection of both gas and cosmic rays.  So in this sense M105 is by no means a dead galaxy.

P. LaViolette


Galaxies grow from a ‘seed’ core

1) Astronomers have recognized that galaxies grow from an initial core, or ‘seed’, much the way snowflakes grow.   They conclude that the core seed attracts new stars via accretion from smaller galaxies during collisions.   However, if this were the case, would we not see a more even distribution of galaxies with more ongoing galactic collisions in the universe? Of coarse, SQK explains this from a different perspective with massive ejections of new matter emerging from these cores to seed the galaxy’s growth from within.

2) Astronomers are now surprised that galaxy mergers are not necessary to trigger the active state of galactic cores.   They conclude that another “secular” process must be responsible. They were also surprised that the early galaxies look so similar to nearby galaxies.


Response to the above postings:
Regarding the first posting, I agree that this theory that a galaxy grows from an initial seed core progressing from its center outward is in agreement with the continuous creation cosmology of subquantum kinetics.  In SQK, this seed core is the galaxy’s supermassive mother star, the oldest “celestial mass” in the galaxy that has gradually grown in size due to continuous matter creation in its interior.  Due to the dependence of the matter creation rate on gravity potential (the Model G bifurcation parameter), this growth rate proceeds most rapidly within supermassive cores.  Again, in agreement with gmagee, SQK predicts that a galaxy grows from its core not by gravitationally drawing inward nearby galaxies, but by explosively expelling matter from it core.

The finding by Strader et al. that globular clusters near the center of giant elliptical galaxy NGC 1407 have a higher metal content than more outlying globular clusters would corroborate this model.  That is, this leads us to believe that the older globular clusters circulate in the central part of the galaxy near their supermassive mother star and that globular clusters created and ejected more recently from the mother star core are thrown further away from the core due to more violent expulsion by a core that has grown in size and energy output and can produce more violent ejections.

It is worth noting that the Milky Way also is found to have a higher metal content towards its center.  Globular clusters populating the spiral arm disc are found to have a higher metal content than globular clusters populating the Galaxy’s halo.  Also the disc globular clusters are found to exhibit a radial gradient with older, metal-rich globular clusters residing closer to the center.  This parallels the findings of NGC 1407 in that the younger globular clusters appear to be those forcefully ejected to greater distances from the core.

The second point that gmagee makes above concerns what induces a galaxy’s supermassive core to turn on and enter its active state.  Astronomers had originally thought that galaxy collisions triggered this activity.  If so, the discs of such galaxies should be severely disturbed.  But observations now show that there is no evidence for this.  Kocevski et al. studied galaxies as far away as 11 billion light years and found that galaxies with active cores looked no different than disc galaxies with nonactive cores.  They conclude that whatever turns on a supermassive galactic core must occur internal to the galaxy.  One suggestion is that a galactic core might randomly accrete a passing star.  But, this too is problematic.  For a single star is unable to provide enough matter to fuel the energy output of an active galactic nucleus.  Moreover it is difficult to imagine how matter could become accreted by a galactic core since even in its off state a core radiates a substantial cosmic ray radiation blast.

The physics of subquantum kinetics, however, provides an easy solution.  No, external accretion events are necessary.  A galactic core enters its on state because its continuous growth through internal matter creation has deepened its gravity well and pushed its genic energy production past the critical threshold.  It then enters a runaway mode of excessive energy creation which lasts until it has ejected enough mass to once again return to its inactive state.

P. LaViolette
November 2011, updated February 2013