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

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

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.

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.


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

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.

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