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.