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).

CMBR map aligned with ecliptic?

While researching the Copernican principle in Wikipedia, I noted the reference to the surprising finding that the cosmic microwave background radiation map from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe is aligned with the ecliptic.  Does SQK theory shed any light on this mystery?

Answer to your question: This ecliptic alignment found in analysis of the CMRB data is certainly embarrassing for the big bang theory.  The discussion found on the Gonzo Science website, I think about sums it up.   In my 1983 Ph.D. dissertation I had commented on the fact that the hot and cold poles of the CMBR are aligned near the ecliptic and almost exactly perpendicular to the Galactic center implying that there may be a contribution by cosmic ray electrons streaming from the Galactic core, becoming caught in the solar system’s magnetosphere and heating nearby magnetized plasma.  As I show in ch. 7 of  Subquantum Kinetics, the 2.73° K temperature of CMBR is easily explained by heating of nearby filaments of magnetized plasma by the incident cosmic ray background radiation flux.  This radiation would have to be present regardless of whether or not a primordial explosion also created it.  So a big bang cause is superfluous.  This favors subquantum kinetics which instead predicts that matter creation takes place through a process of continuous creation.
Paul LaViolette,  January 28, 2011

Quasars Short-term Events?

LaViolette predicted quasars as short-term phenomenon. He confirms this prediction published in his dissertation in 1983.   He remarks that it is related to galactic core outbursts, such as have occurred in our galaxy, the latest of which shut off around 10-11,000 years ago.  New evidence confirms this short period cycle:

More about this is discussed in the Starburst superwave forum.

Massive Galaxy Cluster Discovered in Early Universe

The cluster is predicted to be one of the largest in today’ terms, and must have formed very early, full of old galaxies. How likely is the rapid formation of such a large structure using popular condensation models?

Answer to your question: I don’t know, but I would not be surprised if big bang theorists have to push their galaxy formation models to their limits to get such a massive grouping of galaxies to form at this early period.  Such findings do not pose a problem for subquantum kinetics.
Paul LaViolette,  January 28, 2011

And now (March, 2011) a supercluster similar in mass to the Virgo Cluster has been discovered to have fully formed only 3 billion years after the Big Bang.  The surprising admission is that both the cluster structure and the galaxies therein do not appear young.

April 2011: Another massive cluster 7.5 billion light years distant and 1000 times larger than the Milky Way galaxy, is the most massive cluster known.

May 2011: An unexpectedly massive quasar now discovered only 770 million years after the big bang. Current models don’t explain how it could have grown so big so fast.

Early Galactic Centers with Less Metal Content

Observations of low concentrations of heavy elements in the centers of primordial galaxies are being interpreted as evidence of gas accretion from the galaxy’s surroundings and condensation in central region to explain galaxy formation and growth.   Could this instead be interpreted as evidence of new matter expulsion from central region as evidence of continuous matter creation in primordial galaxies?

Answer to your question: The astronomers reporting these SINFONI spectrometer findings have no direct evidence that these primordial galaxies are accreting hydrogen.  This interpretation is made because the standard theory must somehow explain why primordial galaxies are smaller than contemporary nearby galaxies.  The early finding by the Hubble Telescope for the presence of galaxy size evolution actually provides a confirmation of the subquantum kinetics (SQK) continuous creation cosmology over the big bang cosmology which predicts no such size evolution (see the posted list of subquantum kinetics prediction confirmations).  So astronomers have been trying to find ways of modifying standard cosmology to allow it to grow galaxies.  Their finding that primordial galaxies have low heavy metal abundances does not really prove that they are being flooded with hydrogen gas.  So this inference seems very weak.  On the other hand, the observation that heavy metal abundances in primordial galaxies are low provides strong support for the SQK continuous creation cosmology.  That is, primordial galaxies should not have had as much time to synthesize heavy metals, either through thermonuclear fusion processes or parthenogenic matter transmutation processes that would continuously take place within stars.
Paul LaViolette,  January 28, 2011

Distant galaxy too distant for big bang theory?

Is the most distant galaxy discovered to date too distant?  At 600 million years post big bang, this galaxy is supposed to be shrouded in hydrogen fog.  See the following news posting:

Galaxy formation timeline according to the big bang theory. Courtesy of NASA WMAP Science Team

Answer to your question:
Yes, this galaxy, UDFy-3813553, presents a problem for standard cosmology since the most successful galaxy formation theory that big bang theorists have been able to propose requires at least three quarters of a billion years for a galaxy to form.  This galaxy was found to have a redshift of 8.6, which gives it a big bang age of 600 million years.  The big bang theory is hard pressed to explain this finding.  The standard big bang theory maintains that neutral matter did not begin to form until about 450 million years after the big bang when the fireball had expanded and cooled sufficiently to allow the formerly ionized plasma to combine into neutral hydrogen and helium atoms.  A date of 600 million years would leave just 150 million years for this galaxy full of stars to have formed from sparsely dispersed neutral gas, far too short a time for any galaxy formation model.

In January 26, 2011, astronomers reported finding an even more distant galaxy with a redshift of ~10, which would give it a big bang age of 480 million years.  See posting at:  This would mean that it existed just 30 million years after the end of the Dark Age, giving it insufficient time to have formed.

In December 2012, things became even more grim for the big bang theory.  An even more distant galaxy was found, UDFj-39546284, which has a redshift of z = 11.9.  See posting at:

This galaxy would have a big bang age of just 380 million years, which would place it 80 million years prior to the end of the Dark Age, at a time when neutral matter had not yet formed.  This is a clear and blatant contradiction for the big bang theory.  It does not take a rocket scientist to see that things are looking pretty tough for standard cosmology.

In 1995, in my book Beyond the Big Bang (now entitled Genesis of the Cosmos), I had stated:

“If we live in a static, tired-light universe, as the ancient cosmology and subquantum kinetics predicts, then we could expect to see star-populated galaxies with redshifts perhaps as high as thirty, forcing the big bang theory into an even more tenuous position.”
Beyond the Big Bang, Rochester, VT, Park Street Press, 1995, p. 265.

At that time the most distant galaxy that had been discovered was a quasar with a redshift of z ~ 4.  We have come a long way since then and I predict that ultimately my prediction will be fulfilled.

Also of interest, in June 2011 a very bright quasar ULAS J1120+0641 was discovered at a redshift of z = 7.1, which gives it a big bang age of 770 million years.  Astronomer have no way to explain how a galaxy could have formed such a massive core so quickly, essentially just 200 million years after the hydrogen recombination era.

Paul LaViolette
January 28, 2011, updated February 2013


Giant planet formation: Core-accretion theory questioned

Luke Skywalker viewing twin sunset on his home planet

Giant planet formation is claimed to be unlikely via core-accretion in certain double star systems.   Does this support the gravitational collapse mechanism for planet formation, and therefore, support the SQK cosmogenic evolution theory of daughter planet formation?

Answer to your question: Subquantum kinetics predicts that giant planets should form both from gravitational collapse of surrounding gas, core accretion from a parent star, and internal matter creation.  The disrupting effect of double star systems does not become so much of a problem when it is realized that subquantum kinetics predicts that these stars were once much smaller and that formerly they consisted of a lower mass star and daughter planet pair that later grew in size through internal matter creation.  In this earlier single star environment, a third planet could easily have formed which over time would have grown into a giant planet.
Paul LaViolette, January 28, 2011

Genic energy powering pulsar?

News that magnetic fields do not explain flaring activity of pulsar. Could this support a genic energy explanation for flaring outbursts?

Answer to your question: Yes, this is strong evidence for genic energy production in evolved stellar cores.  The above link relates to the discovery of the slowly rotating neutron star SGR  0418.  Standard theory predicts that neutron stars are collapsed objects that are unable to generate energy through nuclear fusion due to lack of fuel.  Evidence of cosmic ray energy production in neutron stars presumes that their rotating magnetic fields accelerates particles consuming the energy stored in the rotation of their mass.  But this pulsar, which rotates about once every 9 seconds has a weak magnetic field and no sign of slowing down, hence no indication of rotary energy loss.  So the problem is what fuels its radiation output and in particular the X-ray flares that it gives off.  Subquantum kinetics, on the other hand, predicts that neutron stars should be producing genic energy in their interiors at a very high rate due to the phenomenon of spontaneous photon blueshifting.  So large energy fluxes are expected to be coming from neutron stars due to energy spontaneously created in their interiors.  Since standard theory has no reasonable explanation for what is happening in SGR 0418, this is a win for SQK.

Paul LaViolette,  January 28, 2011