From the book The Trouble with Physics1:
The one thing everyone who cares about fundamental physics seems to agree on is that new ideas are needed. From the most skeptical critics to the most strenuous advocates of string theory, you hear the same thing: We are missing something big. … How do we find that missing idea? Clearly someone has to either recognize a wrong assumption we have all been making or ask a new question, so that’s the sort of person we need in order to ensure the future of fundamental physics. The organizational issue is then clear: Do we have a system that allows someone capable of ferreting out that wrong assumption or asking that right question into the community of people we support and (equally important) listen to?
The answer is no, of course. The system summarily rejects such ideas, at least from those without sufficient authority.2 No real consideration is given to them. There is a good reason for this: the odds of the idea being worthy are deemed too small to invest the review time.
This blog shows solutions to five major outstanding problems in physics, or so I claim. They remove some current assumptions and add no new ones. I suggest trying the dark energy solution for yourself, using the simple equations from the Usenet Physics FAQ referenced therein. In a short time playing with those generally accepted equations in a spreadsheet, using the instructions given to duplicate the charts, you can start to get an idea that maybe not everything here is bunk. A summary:
|No Black Holes||black hole information loss paradox||General relativity is shown to internally conflict with its own postulate, the equivalence principle. Black holes (which by definition can’t be definitively observed, hence they haven’t been definitively discovered) are shown to be a mistake of the theory.|
|Expanding Space Obviated||flatness problem||It’s shown that space itself need not expand to explain what we observe, after considering a prediction of general relativity that is currently ignored by cosmologists. Removing the expanding space paradigm makes the flatness problem vanish.|
|Dark Energy Obviated||mystery of dark energy and horizon problem||It’s shown that (having discarded the expanding space paradigm) general relativity already predicts the observation leading to the idea of dark energy, no cosmological constant required. The horizon problem also vanishes with this prediction.|
|Toward a New Theory of Gravity||incompatibility between general relativity and quantum mechanics3||A new metric for Schwarzschild geometry is given, one that agrees with all relevant experiments to date, but doesn’t predict black holes or their singularities, thus is compatible with quantum mechanics.|
To scientifically discuss the ideas herein, email me at firstname.lastname@example.org. I’ve made this blog available under this Creative Commons license, which means you’re welcome to copy anything here and repurpose it for your own use.
Update (September 2016)
The Relativistic Rocket site has been updated with equations showing that a free object, launched upward from the ground at close to the speed of light, initially accelerates away in the frame of the launcher. This behavior is predicted in the post Dark Energy Obviated.
Dark matter is obviated, using the new metric in the post Toward a New Theory of Gravity. There’s no need to invent dark matter to explain observations when significant gravitational time dilation is assumed, which it can be when there are no black holes. As a hypothetical example, 10% slower clocks (than ours) at the midpoint between a galaxy’s center and its rim aren’t expected when black holes exist, or else the galaxy would look like a doughnut, where the doughnut hole is a much larger black hole than we suppose exists at the center of that galaxy today. But no such limitation exists with the new metric, which doesn’t predict black holes. This solution to a problem of physics is another indication of validity for the new metric. I plan to explain this better later.
References and Notes
1. Smolin, L., The Trouble with Physics, pp. 308-309.
2. This can be verified by experiment.
3. Specifically, from that link:
… certain physical phenomena, such as singularities, are “very small” spatially yet are “very large” from a mass or energy perspective; such objects cannot be understood with current theories of quantum mechanics or general relativity, thus motivating the search for a quantum theory of gravity.