Monthly Archives: June 2011

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

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

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

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

http://www.physorg.com/news151838307.html

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.

http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-spitzer-shrouded-stars.html

——————————

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

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.

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-02-giant-galaxies-akin-snowflakes-space.html

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.

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-10-galaxy-mergers-trigger-black-hole.html

—————————–

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

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

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

———————————-

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

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

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

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

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

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

P. LaViolette
November 2011, updated February 2013