Subquantum kinetics and its relation to current physical theories

I have a few questions about subquantum kinetics, and its relation to the current physical theories:
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”?
Thanks. Forrest


Hello Forrest,

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 ( 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 (

Paul LaViolette
July 16, 2013

14 Responses to Subquantum kinetics and its relation to current physical theories

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.