Customer Reviews

Comprehending and Decoding the Cosmos: Discovering Solutions to Over a Dozen Cosmic Mysteries by Utilizing Dark Matter Relationism, Cosmology, and Astrophysics

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

There are many reasons why Jerome Drexler's theory of dark matter is not widely accepted amongst astronomers. I am a professional astronomer working at a research establishment in California. The idea that relativisic protons can be responssible for the dark matter of the Universe seems ridiculous to me and this is why:

1. If dark matter consisted of relativistic particles (such as relativistic protons) then this is what astronomers would refer to as Hot Dark Matter. Hot Dark Matter has been ruled out as a form of dark matter because it does not allow the structures we see in the Universe. The reason because the particles are at such high velocities that they can never become gravitationally bound to each other, and all structure is wiped out. Galaxies cannot form, stars cannot form, planets cannot form. This would be a huge problem. This is why astronomers have come to believe in Cold Dark Matter (slow moving massive particles).

2. Protons are charged particles (they have positive charge). Any moving charged particle has both an electric and a magnetic field associated with it. Relativistic charged particles would create a huge electric and magnetic field. This would be easily observed. However, it has never been observed.

3. The Cold Dark Matter Particle (the WIMP) has never been observed for a reason. It's predicted mass lies just beyond the energies we can probe with our current particle accelerators. The next generation of particle accelerators will be able to probe these energies. These new particle accelerators will be coming online in the next 2 to 5 years, so watch this space. Admittedly, if we don't find the predicted WIMP (or neutralino as it is strictly called), then we do have to go back to the drawing boad.

I don't understand how this book has come to be published. The people deciding it should be published are obviously not professional astronomers. However, Jerome Drexler has never had his theory published in an astronomical journal. The reason is because it has never made it past the peer review stage... because his theory is simply WRONG. It does not stand up to experimental tests or what we know about the Universe.

I am a professional astronomer, and my research is in theoretical astrophysics, so naturally I try to keep an open mind, since there is much we do not know (keeps life interesting)! There are numerous issues in cosmology and physics in general which we do not understand, but we are working on those problems. Science works by small increments. Someone comes up with a theory or two, we test it and see what works and what does not. Jerome Drexler is advocating a theory THAT HAS BEEN DISPROVED! We know that dark matter is NOT relativistic protons. However, using science-like arguments that have NO REAL SCIENTIFIC BACKING, Drexler purports to solve a bunch of cosmological problems all at once! This is nothing more than pseudoscience. As a scientist, it's upsetting that people might actually believe him. Real scientists spend all their lives to try to understand and explain how the Universe really works, and then someone such as Drexler comes along, publishes his own book (yes, it was self-published), and tried to push a view that NO SINGLE SCIENTIST would agree with! The only reason I even reviewed this book was at the request of the librarian at my institution. The head librarian told me that Drexler had sent all 4 books to the library as a gift. The librarian was rather skeptical about these, and asked me to look and see if they have any scientific merit. They do not!

There are numerous reasons why Drexler's work is simply wrong. "Dr Marc" (first review) touches upon a few of them. By the way, the Sun is well known to be approximately 4.5 billion years old. Drexler claims it's over 13 billion years old! If I came up to you and would argue non-stop that you're 3 times older than you really are, what would you think? You would think "what's wrong with this guy!" Well, Drexler is basically arguing about the same thing. We know the age of the Sun, but Drexler thinks we got it wrong. Basically everyone since Newton through Einstein and beyond got it wrong, but he got it right... so, are alarm bells ringing in your head? They should! Please, do not spend money on this book. There are lots of good books and articles written by professional astronomers/physicists that I would highly recommend, but as for this book, AVOID IT!

Drexler's book was sent to me unsolicited inviting my feedback and comments. I cannot call myself even an amateur cosmologist therefore I cannot assess how plausible the explanations in this book are. Furthermore, I have not actually read it cover to cover. Nevertheless, I award it 4 stars for the following reasons:
1. The topic is well laid out and is made very accessible via extremely short chapters listed in a detailed table of contents. It is well indexed. A glossary is also included.
2. Throughout the book, use is made of lists, both bulleted and numbered, e.g. pp 110-114, making it easy to follow his arguments.
3. More importantly, it lists 58 references (7 to his own work) as well as a further 30 suggested sources. Readers are cautioned not to assume agreement in these sources with Drexler's views.
4. The book is intended to be provocative and to generate further thought and discussion. The Preface states: "This book, "Comprehending and Decoding the Cosmos," deviates significantly from mainstream cosmological and astrophysical theories."
I would not, of course, recommend a book just because of its layout and style. I see this book as a thought-provoking re-examination of existing observations and theories in addition to offering solutions and new ideas. I leave it to others to comment on the plausibility of these.

Since the discovery of DM, which many believe constitutes most of the mass of the universe, there has been a debate regarding the baryonic or non-baryonic nature of DM. Current scientific research favors non-baryonic particles with huge new detectors being built today that actually exclude baryons. At its heart, Drexler's book is philosophical in its approach, taking a contrarian view in the debate. Citing Ockham's razor and top-down vision, the author sorts recent astrophysics data of others to analyze and resolve the DM issue, asserting that DM consists of relativistic protons, i.e. baryons. A large amount of data is reviewed and the considerations seem persuasive. Not mentioned as a baryonic argument in favor of DM is another philosophical consideration relating to the significance of man in the Universe. If man is significant and perhaps even central in the universe, as Primack suggests in his new book, it would be a shame if the baryons of which we are made turn out to be cosmologically weird stuff. Drexler's book is worth a read.

I have read this book and it is another fine book by the Scientist, Mr. Drexler. I have followed Drexler's career since his days at Bell Labs-his founding of the Drexler Technology (Lasercard), his numerous patents -- He would not publish a book with research that is false. Did the other reviewer really read the book? I HAVE READ IT FROM COVER TO COVER AND IT OPENED MY MIND TO NEW IDEAS ABOUT THE COSMOS,ETC. EVERYONE WHO IS INTERESTED IN GOOD , LOGICAL RESEARCH SHOULD READ THIS BOOK.

This is another fantastic book by Dr. Drexler. Dr. Drexler identifies dark matter as a viable candidate and explicates his theory cogently by describing in detail the astronomical evidence he found that justifies his theory and conclusion. His most recent book, "Comprehending and Decoding the Cosmos," published this year (2006), delineates and expounds his theory to an even greater extent. I queried him regarding the use of the term relationism vis-a-vis reductionistic practices. Dr. Drexler thoroughly explicated this complex theory that he has posited in significant detail.

Dark Matter, is deemed by many to be the most elusive mystery of the universe, which is probably attributable to its massive, extensive, and hard-to-detect characteristic. Dr. Drexler, in his 2006 sequel, astutely delineates 14 mysterious phenomena, along with his new analytical decoding concept of dark matter relationism, to discover and identify a very promising dark matter candidate compatible with these 14 cosmic elements. In the process, he has quite possibly brought the decades old quest to identify dark matter to a successful conclusion. He adroitly then locates and analyzes an additional 11 unexplained cosmic phenomena, which were discovered and reported by various astronomers mostly during 2005. Drexler again, utilizing his same promising dark matter candidate, plausibly explicates all 11 of these recently discovered cosmic mysteries in his May, 2006 sequel.

I have personally purchased multiple copies of Dr. Drexler's 2003 and 2006 books for family members and friends at the University of Maine. I read with chagrin Dr. Marc "DM"s negative reviews on these books, which interestingly were both written and posted on May 31, 2006. I vehemently disagree with Dr. Marc's and JMK's reviews and evaluations, both of which bring to mind the saying attributable to Herbert Spencer: "Contempt prior to investigation..." Although Dr. Marc characterizes himself as a professional astronomer, I am constrained to believe that he is a grant-seeking, self-promoter, who perhaps has not even read Dr. Drexler's two books. As a professional man, with graduate degrees myself, I eschew hasty judgments when pondering the theories of colleagues and others. I have therefore indicated that neither of Dr. Marc's reviews were helpful to me, and in closing, I strongly urge every professional cosmologist, astronomer, astrophysicist, or interested novice, to read Dr. Drexler's books with an inquisitive and open mind. Do not be influenced by the pejorative and negative views espoused by Dr. Marc.