Tracing the Origins of Subquantum Kinetics
After many years of work and putting up with one journal rejection after another, the theory was finally published in the prestigious International Journal of General Systems. In fact, the editor devoted an entire journal issue to the theory's exposition, entitling it Special Issue on Systems Thinking in Physics. Since that time I published other papers on subquantum kinetics, several in a cutting edge physics journal, and one in the prestigious Astrophysical Journal, the milestone paper which created quite a stir in the astrophysics community since it posed a deadly challenge to the big bang theory. In 1994 the theory was also published as a book entitled Subquantum Kinetics which in 2003 came out as a second expanded edition. Also my book Beyond the Big Bang (1995) and its second edition Genesis of the Cosmos (2003) presents a summary of subquantum kinetics in a form that is accessible to the general reader.
My father was accustomed to thinking in terms of conventional physics concepts, and since the theory I was developing warranted a major departure from those concepts, in the beginning he was a bit hesitant to accept what I was saying. When I would visit from time to time, he would ask test-like questions about my theory. Each and every time I came back with a satisfactory answer or with evidence showing that my theory offered a superior, more plausible explanation. With his background in nuclear engineering and chemistry, he readily grasped the concepts, probably more quickly than most physicists whose early training taught them to think mainly in mechanical terms. As I gradually honed the theory and more clearly expressed its concepts, he, Dad came to realize that I indeed was onto something that was very important, and he came to be an enthusiastic supporter of subquantum kinetics. It became his favorite subject for discussion. He served as my sounding board.
In the course of my development of subquantum kinetics I discovered that physicist and Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman came very close to the subquantum kinetics ether conception. Feynman began his career in nuclear energy through his work on the Manhattan Project. Although, he was stationed at the Los Alamos, New Mexico and Oak Ridge, Tennessee sites, rather than at the Richland, Washington site. While at Los Alamos, he was assigned to develop the neutron equations for a small water nuclear reactor called the "Los Alamos Water Boiler." It was probably at this time that he noticed that the equations describing the concentration of neutrons around the core of a nuclear reactor were exactly the same as those representing the electric field potential around a charged subatomic particle. In volume II of his book The Feynman Lectures on Physics, which he published in 1964 together with Drs. Leighton and Sands, he advanced the notion that the equations representing the radial dependence of the electron's electric field might be a macroscopic description of the collective behavior of a hidden microscopic realm containing what he called "little X-ons." He proposed that these were created in the electron's core and diffused outward towards its environment much like neutrons leaving the core of a nuclear reactor. So he was proposing a reaction-diffusion ether of sorts and suggesting that this might serve as the substrate for physically observable fields. Like my father and myself, Feynman was accustomed to thinking in terms of nuclear reaction-diffusion processes, so it is not surprising that he came to develop the beginnings of a similar theoretical approach. But he took it no further than to draw an analogy for the electron. Nevertheless, I did like the X-on terminology he used, which lead me to adopt similar terms, such as X-ons, Y-ons, G-ons, to designate various species of etherons.
There is no better way to judge the success of a theory than to see if it predicts something that was not known at the time the prediction was made. This is especially true if the predicted phenomenon is not easily inferred from the competing standard view. Supporting evidence of this kind mounted with the passing of each year. Since the time of the theory's inception up to this date, subquantum kinetics has had 12 of its published predictions subsequently verified either through observation or through experiment. This certainly is a far better track record than any other theory I know of. These twelve predictions are summarized in a paper on subquantum kinetics that recently appeared in the International Journal of General Systems and are also enumerated on various webpages.
In a lecture I presented earlier this year, a physicist asked me whether there were any predictions that the theory made that were later disproved? I had to think a long time to answer this question. Going back over the years of the theory's development, I could not recall any such cases. There were instances where I had felt quite uncertain about some of the predictions that the theory was making since they were predicting something entirely different from what was conventionally believed at the time. I remember worrying that I might be exposing the theory to easy attack by publishing them. But these predictions later proved to be correct.
My approach in developing a theory has always been to maintain some degree of detachment. I believed that not only should one be able to detach oneself from the conventionally taught theories and be able to reject or criticize them if one has good cause, but one should also detach oneself from one's own theory and subject it to the same critical standards. Scientists or dilettantes developing alternative scientific theories often succomb to the pitfall of becoming emotionally attached to the theory. Their theory becomes their "child" to be cared for and protected against any criticism, even sheltering it from their own criticism, hence the expression "pet theory". Indeed, the aha experience can be very exhilarating and pleasureful for one who experiences it and so it is easy for a person to bond to the conceptual result born out of this experience. This, however, is a mistake. Just because you have a terrific insight or inventive idea, does not necessarily mean that it is ultimately workable or practical. One must test the idea and, if it is not realistic, either discard it or modify it. Criticizing one's own work or creation is, of course, a painful process. It is as if one directs one's own criticism at the most tender part of one's own heart. Few wish to endure this pain and so they leave their theory unrefined and vulnerable to attack. At the other extreme is the typical mainstream scientist who vows unwavering allegiance to the existing conceptual paradigm, banishes any thought critical of it, and suppresses any thoughts that might be directed toward alternative thinking.
Some fathers play sports with their sons, some play video games with them. With my father and I, it was subquantum kinetics. We would together enter the realm of subquantum kinetics and explore its implications. It was a shared reality. When you enter the conceptual paradigm of subquantum kinetics and its overall cosmology, you enter an entirely new way of viewing the physical world. It is like stepping through a door into another world. Of course, we also had long discussions about my other theoretical developments such as the galactic superwave theory I developed in astronomy, my polar ice core cosmic dust discoveries, my feeling tone theory of thought formation, my work in ancient mythology symbolism, and my SETI discoveries about pulsars. But subquantum kinetics was his favorite topic. His eyes would light up when we talked about that. I don't know of anyone else who had as deep an understanding of subquantum kinetics as he did.
I can say now that, as of this 35th anniversary of subquantum kinetics, it is likely that some tens of thousands of people also share this alternate reality, or at least have an understanding of the theory's physical concepts and of this new way of perceiving the world. Besides my books and papers, the internet has been invaluable for communicating subquantum kinetics to the public. I am convinced that subquantum kinetics will eventually be adopted in the future as the accepted physics and astrophysics paradigm. At such a time, I hope that my father, Fred, too will be remembered for the support he gave throughout the theory's development. And, I hope that many others will experience the same starry eyed thrill and wonderment that he did in seeing the world through the subquantum kinetics perspective.
For an essay by Fred LaViolette on the early development of subquantum kinetics click here: Forword to Subquantum Kinetics
