LaViolette 'Subquantum Kinetics' book review

icon-mk-telescope
As promised in an earlier post, I've read Dr Paul LaViolette's book 'Subquantum Kinetics'. As mentioned earlier, I was a little hesitant at buying and reading the book, as it looked to be a demanding read. Fortunately, I persevered and I found it to be an excellent read. There is some challenging physics, at least to someone who only studied it at sixth-form level (or high school level) but it is very readable, clear and extremely interesting.

subquantum-kinetics
LavIolette explains that the problems in quantum physics, relativity and cosmology can be solved by bringing back the idea of an ether, but rather than an inert ether, a simply 'medium' in which light and forces can propagate, Laviolette postulates an active ether. This ether produces fundamental particles through the flow and movement of smaller-scale particles that do not manifest themselves in physical reality, that he calls 'etherons'. The creation of fundamental particles then becomes a process more like chemistry, in the sense that a self-sustaining pattern of particle existence is created similar to the Brusselator process, and these particles' shape is governed by Turing Waves.

Since these fundamental particles are manifestations of the interactions of lower-scale 'etherons' as LaViolette describes them, they have different properties to current physics models. For example, modern quantum physics and cosmology is plagued with infinities, such as the charge at the centre of a field, the gravitational strength in a singularity and others. Subquantum kinetics does not have these infinities.

There are several fascinating consequences to the subquantum kinetics theory. Firstly, it concludes that there was no Big Bang and the universe isn't expanding. The red-shift of galaxies that is used to prove the Big Bang's existence is caused by a process similar to existing 'tired-light' theories. Secondly, there are no black holes, instead there are extremely energetic 'hyperon' stars at the centre of galaxies that are continually spewing out energy and material. Thirdly, the universe is an 'open' system where new energy is being continually created in areas of high mass and gravitational strength. Fourthly, gravity is related to charge and not to mass. Positive charge creates a gravity 'well' and negative charge creates a gravity 'hill'. The tiny net positive charge of 'neutral' matter creates a tiny gravitation well, the gravity we experience every day. This explains why gravity is such a strangely feeble force, because the gravity of neutral matter is the tiny discrepancy between two opposing, polar-gravitational forces. This polarity property of gravity makes it possible to create charged objects that possess anti-gravity properties.

Clearly, LaViolette's theories are groundbreaking. Personally, I've been aware for years of the gaping holes in physics and cosmology, holes that the civilian scientific establishment know about but constantly try to shove under the rug. Although I'd be surprised if Laviolette is exactly right with his theories, I think they should be studied, tested and extended upon as the highest priority. I also have a strong feeling that the military science community already knows and understands what Laviolette has developed and, unlike civilian science, has already put it to use with astonishing results. Sadly, none of us will probably get to see what they've made.