Customer Reviews

The Gyroverse: The Hidden Structure of the Universe

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

 

 

I recommend this book to anyone who is curious enough to consider an alternate understanding of physics. The book suggests that current physics is fraught with inconsistencies. Relativity, Quantum, and Cosmology theories have their own unique structure and are barely compatible. The author single handily reworks much of physics, starting from his unique construct of the universe, and then explaining how everything fits together and actually works. Interestingly, I even learned a lot more of traditional physics, since he showed everything from both vantage points. Most traditional approaches don't point out any of its weaknesses.

The author starts by presenting a list of over two-dozen features of current accepted physics theory that is problematic. He argues that because these problems are resolved in his theory, they become the supporting evidence for his theory. It is not likely that Fermilab is going to run test to either prove or disprove his theory anytime soon. I didn't appreciate some of the problematic characteristics until I later came to his discussions. For example, Newton didn't understand why the mass of gravity was identical to the mass of inertia. No one ever mentions that one of physics first questions is still not answered. Relativity's solution was just to proclaim it as being true. The Gyroverse gives a logical explanation.

I have some college physics, but this was no cakewalk. However, I think there is something in it for everyone. As he claimed, I could skip much of the math and found that I still understood most everything, because the major points are skillfully explained in words...and occasionally with some humor. In addition, the important information is typically repeated and rephrased so the reader is sure to understand before moving on. This was the case for showing that the gravity's bending of light formula can be obtained using strictly classical arguments, not invoking relativity.

Central to this theory is the idea that a four-dimensional very tiny space box could contain all the atoms that are in the universe. This is very counter-intuitive so it seemed important enough to try to follow his logic. While working in more than three space dimensions can be challenging, the author employed a novel approach to present the information. He used a series of four illustrations that were not too difficult to follow, to make his point. According to his theory, as you later learn, the "Big Bang," started out this way, and doesn't need "Inflation Theory" to make it work.

He argues that it is not the current physics equation that are wrong, but mostly the interpretation of them and the physical structure of the universe that are different. The Lorentz Transformation, first done by Lorentz that assumes the presence of ether looks identical to Relativity's derivation done a year later by Einstein, but nevertheless is applied somewhat differently. The Gyroverse calls for the same transformation, but its interpretation is likewise different from the other two. His point was that knowing an equation alone is not adequate for understanding the physics.

He came up with this theory in an attempt to structure the universe in such a way that the physics anomalies, most notably entanglement, would make sense. Each time that he was able to explain other mysteries his confidence increased, necessitating republication of the book three times. I believe that Newton and Einstein did very similar things. They each observed as much of nature known at the time, and deduced equations that would explain them. Then, many subsequent observations confirmed their assertions.

There are several other alternate theories floating around that I have devoured. Each one added a new dimension to my understanding. However this one is not just one more rearrangements of the furniture, but challenges some core belief. I'm not convinced of the validity of this one either, but I think its worth a look. Nevertheless, with such a vast overhaul of physics, you have to expect that some blunders crept in, like his Planck's constant derivation.

Considering the plethora of new ideas, I endorse the book. It was well worth the time.

It not only shoots holes in so much of accepted physics, but, more importantly,fills them in with more plausible explanations. The author outlines over two dozen problems with the current theory right up front. By the time I finished the book, each of these problems was resolved within the context of his theory. It's hard to accept that so much of what I believed may not be correct.

One claim that dumbfounded me was that the most famous matter-energy equivalence is wrong. E=MC2 is correct, but it is due to an entirely different reason. According to the Gyroverse, the universe is on the surface of a four dimensional ball expanding at the speed of light, so that the energy attributed to matter is actually kinetic energy of the expansion velocity. This determination has many far-reaching consequences. For example, the universe's expansion is not accelerating, but only seems so because light from distant stars reach us on a curved path, appearing dimmer.

The Gyroverse was published three times, in 2002, 2005, and just recently in 2010; each time greatly expanding it as more material was added. Part 1 and 3, constituting about 80% of the book, pertain to the new Gyroverse Theory. Part 2 is a refresher on the current thinking, for those wanting it. Some aspects of physics are discussed in both places, but from an entirely different perspective. For brevity, the few derivations are limited to theory that departs from current thinking, not available from other innumerable sources. Not needing a review, I just skimmed Part 2, but nevertheless found it helpful, because it put the Gyroverse theory in perspective.

While I am not sure of the validity of the theory, I would like to hear some serious discussion of it. The book makes some bold claims, like the one above, with supporting analysis to back them up.

This theory is very different from any other theory I've seen. The author applies this theory to just about every well known physics experiment in the literature. The major tenet is the the universe has two views, the inside view, where the universe has one additional space dimension, and the outside view, where the universe is twelve dimensions.

In the inside view the universe is on the surface of a four-dimensional ball expanding at the speed of light. A trip around the universe would bring you back to where you started. Much of the differences with current theory can be understood from this vantage point. The starkest difference is that matter is not condensed energy, but is due to the kinetic energy of the universe's expansion.

In the outside view, the author shows that this ball that has a 14 billion light-years radius can fit into a tiny twelve-dimensional form. The most intriguing aspect is that it appeared to me mathematically possible. I would like to have this point discussed by some good mathematicians. In this view he explains some other notable physics phenomena, like entanglement.

The difficulty of the book stems from the fact that it is so different. One has to set aside their belief system while reading the book. Even if is wrong, it is an interesting concept, and was well worth my time.