1. Does subquantum kinetics conflict with general relativity or quantum field theory? As I understand it, general relativity and quantum field theory are thought to be the low-energy limits of a more fundamental theory. Is subquantum kinetics this fundamental theory? In other words, can subquantum kinetics be reduced to general relativity and quantum field theory, under certain conditions?
2. Does subquantum kinetics explain all of the experimental data that we have accumulated over the years? In other words, are there any known situations in which the predictions of subquantum kinetics contradict experimental evidence?
3. If subquantum kinetics makes more accurate predictions (sometimes unforeseen) than the leading theories and does not contradict experimental evidence, then why hasn’t it seen mainstream acceptance in the scientific community? Is this because, as Max Plank said, “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it”?
I will try to answer your questions.
1) Subquantum kinetics (SQK) conflicts with the theory of general relativity, but not with the supporting evidence. Contrary to general relativity, space is Euclidean in SQK and masses have no effect in stretching its metric. All gravitational effects are mediated by reaction-diffusion effects involving the postulated G ether substrate. For more information see Sec. 5.7 of Ch. 5 in Subquantum Kinetics. We have demonstrated particle movement in a G ether gradient using computer simulation of Model G. More work needs to be done to show that SQK conforms quantitatively to observation. At this point we can say for sure that effects like gravitational clock retardation and gravitational redshift occur in the expected direction. Getting precise quantitative agreement to actual measurements will involve fine tuning of the Model G constants. Keep in mind that SQK takes a modeling approach so there is some flexibility in matching observation. Nevertheless, this does not diminish its ability to make predictions some of which are listed on this website.
SQK also takes a radically different approach from quantum field theory (QFT). In Feynman’s quantum electrodynamics, for example, the electrostatic force between two electrons is mediated by the hypothetical exchange of virtual photons which are themselves inherently undetectable. In SQK, on the other hand, force field effects are mediated by the ether. Gradients in the X, Y, and G ether substrates induce movement of subatomic particles (which themselves are dissipative etheric solitons). This is described in Ch. 5 of Subquantum Kinetics.
2) I know of no cases where SQK predictions contradict experimental evidence. On the other hand, I know of many cases in which experimental evidence contradicts conventional physics theories. But the allegiant sector of the physics community ignores these contradictions or simply doesn’t believe they exist.
3) If SQK has had such a good track record for predictions, why hasn’t it seen mainstream acceptance? Yes, the Max Plank quote is a good statement of the facts. Thomas Kuhn and others have come to the same conclusion as well. One realizes that an adopted physics paradigm that is sanctioned by the established physics community is not some physical machine standing before us that we can easily improve upon by changing fault parts or trash entirely for some improved model. Rather, it is a shared mental construct that has a deeply engrained psychological dimension making it strongly resemble a religious belief system. Physicists fall in love with this accepted model. Their allegiance gives them a feeling of security and assures that their paycheck from their university or government laboratory will continue to come in and allow them to support their family. It frees them from peer ridicule. It ensures that they can get their papers easily published in peer reviewed journals. What self respecting physicist would be willing to give up all of this and go against this cherished mutually accepted paradigm even if he could see it has serious flaws? Most will not, and most will not jump ship to an alternate theory or paradigm until that alternate paradim ship is afloat with many of their peers already aboard. The ones who do make the jump will be independent thinkers who see the current flaws in physics and who feel that the search for truth is more important than all of the above side benefits of allegiance to the old paradigm.
SQK is being developed by one person at present (me). Let us say that I have put in the equivalent of 15 man years of work (without salar) developing it over the past 40 years (since I have worked on other things as well). Add to that a man year of effort made by a few others who have helped along the way. Compare this to the many millions of well paid man hours that are put in each year in advancing the discipline of physics and astronomy. Also consider that I am now coming close to retirement age. So likely I will not myself be making the great strides in developing SQK that I did in the past. That will be left to my successors and unfortunately there is no university that I know of where I could lecture and generate these successors. So, there will be a very long wait before SQK achieves the stage of development and size that will make other physicist and astronomers wish to make the jump.
As Yoda would say, “Always in motion the future is.” Miracles or wild cards are always possible. Currently few people make contributions to the Starburst Foundation (starburstfound.org). But who knows there is always the possibility that suddenly there will be an enormous upsurge in contributions that would allow me to move forward with modeling projects that I have in mind to further explore Model G and also the consequences of genic energy production within planets and stars. Or, maybe a technological breakthrough will emerge which completely transforms the world economically and is explained only by reference to SQK giving SQK instant media notoriety. Meanwhile I can only suggest to recommend to all to read Subquantum Kinetics which is now available also in ebook format (https://etheric.com/subquantum-kinetics-4th-edition/).
July 16, 2013
Once again, thank you.
Despite being a layman albeit a science buff I have read Subquantum Kinetics and Genesis of the Cosmos with interest. I find it intriguing and it provides better answers to long standing questions I have had regarding the Big Bang Theory as well as black holes, etc. However I have recently heard of the final analysis of the results from NASA’s “Gravity Probe B”. Whereby it is seemingly confirmed the prediction by General Relativity that “Space Time” is warped by gravity. Insofar as SQK predicts a Euclidian Space – un-warped by gravity – does Dr. LaViolette have any comment?
The results of the Gravity Probe B experiment do not test per se the general relativity assumption that mass warps space. The experiment instead checks certain predictions that general relativity makes regarding the geodetic effect (a gravitational effect on orbital precession) and regarding frame dragging precession (another gravitational effect on precession). Subquantum kinetics can be shown to make predictions that match these observational results, although at this time I personally have not worked out the mathematics to show this. Others are welcome to do this, but it is best done by conducting an appropriate computer simulation of the Model G reaction-diffusion equations in 3-D space.
For those that have not read my book Subquantum Kinetics, the difference between how subquantum kinetics and general relativity induces gravitational effects is the following: Subquantum kinetics assumes a Euclidean invariant metric for space and represents gravity fields as real ether concentration gradients residing within this Euclidean space that are generated by material bodies and that extend outward to accelerate or affect the trajectory of neighboring bodies by altering the ether reactions in their vicinity. This gravitational effect is not ad hoc, but rather emerges as a corollary of the Model G reaction system that SQK postulates. Computer simulation of Model G has confirmed that material particles indeed generate gravity potential fields (G etheron concentration gradients) and that these gradients cause movement of neighboring subatomic particles or masses. These G etheron concentrations are also able to alter the mass of a neighboring body in accordance with their magnitude, an effect that leads also to an orbital precession effect. General relativity, on the other hand, makes an assumption that the mass causes the metric of space to warp. This is done without any explanation of how mass would alter the metric of space so you are asked to accept this on faith. Then a lot of mathematics is added to develop from this certain testable predictions. The true validity of general relativity will not necessarily be decided by experiments such as the Gravity Probe B, since those results subquantum kinetics should also be compatible with those results. Rather, general relativity falls because its preceding theory special relativity has repeatedly been experimentally disproven. References to this are presented in Ch. 1 of my book. Also general relativity is seriously weakened by the finding that galaxies are distributed through space in a Euclidean manner while the big bang theory predicts that space should be curved.
Thank you for that answer Dr. LaViolette. I thought it might have to do with etheron gradients affecting each other. Although I admit I speculated that the results may have been due to net differences in etheron flow between etheron rest frames at remote locations (such as the guide star used in the experiment).
I have another question if I may. In debating your theory on a physics blog regarding the solar neutrino deficit I was confronted with the argument that the previously unexplained deficit had been “resolved” a number of years ago, apparently by the discovery of three “new” types of neutrinos that have “mass”. These new types supposedly make up the solar neutrino deficit, though in checking this out, (to the best of my understanding), there seemed to be some question still involving total luminosity output matching the total photon output. Forgive me if I lack the training to express this precisely.
Do you have a comment on this? As it pertains to your “genic energy” postulate.
Subquantum kinetics models that only 16 ± 6% of the Sun’s luminosity is contributed by genic energy, the other 84% being assumed to come from nuclear fusion. So it assumes that there is only a solar neutrino deficit of ~16%. Current models of the Sun’s neutrino output are not sufficiently accurate to support the claim that 100% of the Sun’s radiation is of nuclear origin. Even with the discovery of new types of neutrinos, a 16% deficit is still allowable within the error range of current models.
Thanks again for answering my question Dr. LaViolette. I have your 1994 edition of Subquantum Kinetics (Expanded 2003). In it you surmised a higher percentage of solar genic energy. But no matter, I am fascinated by the concept of genic energy. If proven it changes the entire story of the life of stars and the fate of the universe. And I am a bit skeptical about the newly discovered types of “neutrinos” that have mass, and some of the physicists I talked to on the physics blog were too. I wish the mainstream astronomical and astrophysics communities, (particularly Dr. Andrea Ghez whom I admire), would be a bit more skeptical themselves about “black holes” at the center of galaxies. That meme and the “Big Bang” are, as you say in your book, such a dismal paradigm. I agree. I want to thank you again for your time and your magnificent work and I wish you the recognition you deserve. I don’t dare take up any more of your time though I have a lot more questions. Maybe I can sneak just one more in? What are your views on the Higgs Boson?
Subquantum kinetics doesn’t need the Higgs Boson.
Dear Dr. LaViolette,
I am reading your book on anti-gravity propulsion at present, it makes a strong case for the concept and at the rate technological change is occurring around us I hope to see it becoming a commercial reality within my lifetime (I am almost 60). However the reason for my contact is as follows.
On reading page 45 where it is stated that the occupants of a vehicle with an electrogravitic propulsion system would feel no stresses from changes in velocity or direction, I was reminded of something I witnessed many years ago which has perplexed me ever since. In 1968 I was a teenager attending a boarding school in Ireland. My dormitory window faced due south and for 6 or 7 nights in a row I saw what appeared to be a satellite moving through the stars in my field of vision as I lay in bed. However, unlike a satellite which would follow a straight path on its orbit, this object made a series of 90 degree turns as it proceeded in a generally westerly direction. It followed exactly the same path each night, stopping only momentarily before changing direction at 90 degrees. I have often wondered how something travelling at that velocity could suddenly stop and make a turn without destroying everything on board, now I think I know.
I am not a physicist but I have worked in the mechanical engineering field for about 35 years. I deduced from what I saw that a). the object must have been orbiting the earth; b). It was subject to intelligent control; c). the technology did not exist on earth at the time to execute those manoeuvres at those speeds (or so I thought) so d). it must have been extraterrestrial in origin. Now having read your book I am not so sure. It would be very sad to learn that this technology has been buried by vested interests for so long, if that is the case.
In any event, thank you for your great and thought-provoking work. Best regards, Patrick
Dear Dr. LaViolette:
Thank you very much for your kind and prompt reply on my questions. After pondering over it for a while, I think I still need some further elaborations on it: (Hope you don’t mind.)
1. In your reply to question 1: “I believe that in subquantum kinetics the intention to measure or the act of measuring the particle diffraction pattern should not influence the resulting pattern.” However, whether we use the notion/mechanism of wavefunction or not, the standard texts have all claimed that the intention to measure does influence the results of double-slit electron diffraction experiments. For example, if we place a camcorder to view what would really happen at one of the two slits, then the wave diffraction pattern would disappear. Scrutinizing both slits would do the same. Therefore, how would this intention of measurement thing emerge in Subquantum Kinetics? Or, do you think the mainstream teachings are in error on this topic? For example, it seems “free mind” is indeed an unwelcome entity in quantum computing?
2. “Time-variation of the photon’s electric component would produce magnetic effects as it passes a given location in space.” By Faraday’s law?
3. Thank you for the supplied information.
4. Thank you too.
Chungpin Hovering Liao
August 9, 2013
I don’t have a ready explanation for why the diffraction pattern would disappear when a camcorder was previously placed to observe it. I think neither does standard physics have an explanation.
Dear Dr. LaViolette:
I have bought your book: Subquantum Kinetics, and have read at least half of it. It was very well written, appealing and even enlightning. However, I have several related questions for you and hope that you can kindly offer answers or views at your leisurely time:
1. You have a punctilious elaboration on De Broglie waves in Sec. 4.9, and have attributed particle diffraction to interference effects generated at the grating by the moving particle’s periodic Turing wave pattern (p. 99). If this is so, how would the role of “intention of measurement”, which is required to collapse the complex wavefunction in quantum mechnics, come into the picture of electron double-slit interference experiment?
2. In General Relativity, light bending is postulated to be due to space-time warping rendered by the presence of a mass, or so-called black hole. Can Subquantum Kinetics explain this phenomenon already? Or, more fundamentally for novice like me, what is light, or EM wave, in terms of X and Y in the G model?
3. On the other hand, in your theory, can a light affect gravity? Even in a quantitatively correct way? (If it is not yet proceeded to that stage, can you kindly provide your views?)
4. Where and how electrons will come out in your theory?
5. Do you know Dr. Dewey Larson’s Reciprocal System of Theories which intended to provide a theoretical framework of everything in terms of merely space and time? If yes, what’s your viewpoint about it? Especially the 3D time?
Thank you in advance.
Chungpin Hovering Liao
at Taichung, Taiwan
August 3, 2013
To answer your questions:
1. I believe that in subquantum kinetics the intention to measure or the act of measuring the particle diffraction pattern should not influence the resulting pattern. Unlike quantum mechanics, SQK does not employ wave function representations of the diffracting particle. The particle is a dissipative soliton a localized periodic electric field that exists independently of the observer. It is not a wave function waiting to collapse at the moment of observation. The effect of the subatomic particle (dissipative soliton) on the grating as it approaches the grating is what generates the field interference pattern in the grating vicinity that affects its trajectory. So the act of observing a given particle trajectory does not play a role here.
2. Yes, SQK explains the gravitational bending of light. Photons travel slower in a region of lower G ether concentration (i.e., in regions of more negative G potential). This causes them to refract in a transverse G potential gradient as would be created by the gravity field of a star.
Ch. 6 of my book discusses photons as a longitudinal wave, a localized reaction-diffusion wave that has electric (X,Y) and gravitational (G) field components. Time-variation of the photon’s electric component would produce magnetic effects as it passes a given location in space.
3. I am not sure of your question. If you mean can a photon produce gravitational effects. Yes, I believe it can. Project Skyvault used this principle to levitate craft on microwave beams.
4. Electrons and protons are produced through the beta decay of nascent neutrons. The neutron precursors self-organize from the ether as a result of the emergence of a critical fluctuation of positive polarity.
5. No, I don’t know of his work.
would like to buy 4th edit book and get a DVD of “Is the universe really expanding.”
IS that possible.
Like your work and of course you are right about flat universe and BBT theory.
You may order copies of my books and DVD’s at this link: