Skip to content

Resetting to the Cosmological Life-Ground via Subquantum Kinetics of the Transmuting Ether

“The time will inevitably come when mechanistic and atomic thinking will be put out of the minds of all people of wisdom, and instead dynamics and chemistry will come to be seen in all phenomena. When that happens, the divinity of living Nature will unfold before our eyes all the more clearly.”

Johann von Goethe, 1812

Reproduced from:

Subquantum Kinetics

(a nontechnical summary)

Subquantum kinetics is a novel microphysics paradigm that incorporates concepts developed in the fields of system theory and nonequilibrium thermodynamics. One of its distinctive features is that it begins at the subquantum level for its point of departure. By comparison, conventional physics and most alternative physics theories begin with mathematically quantified observations of physical phenomena at the quantum and macrophysical level and attempt to deduce physical theories based on those observations. Since the conventional approach must take into account numerous experimental observations, the end result is a fragmented and often contradictory set of theories which must later be sewn together with mathematical acrobatics. Such “unified field theories” more closely resemble a patchwork quilt than a contiguous fabric.

Instead of beginning with physical observations, subquantum kinetics begins by postulating a set of well-ordered reaction processes that are proposed to take place at the subquantum level. Collectively, these reaction processes compose what is termed the transmuting ether, an active substrate that is quite different from the passive mechanical ethers considered in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. It further proposes that the concentrations of the substrates composing this ether are the energy potential fields that form the basis of all matter and energy in our universe. The operation of these ether reactions causes wave-like field gradients (spatial concentration patterns) to emerge and form the observable quantum level structures and physical phenomena (e.g., subatomic particles with mass, charge, spin, and force field effects and electromagnetic waves).

So, subquantum kinetics: a) begins with a mathematical model of subquantum processes; b) it then computer simulates this model to generate quantum level phenomena; and c) it compares the model’s simulated results to actual observations. The model’s mathematical parameters are then “fine-tuned” so that its simulated results accurately reflect experimental observation, thereby making the model a realistic representation of the physical world. Because, it begins with a single reaction system model as its point of departure for describing essentially all observable physical phenomena, subquantum kinetics qualifies as a unified theory. By comparison, conventional physics begins with many theories conceived independently from one another and later attempts to “sew” these together. But the result is far from unified, being instead a self-contradictory aglomeration.

In choosing an adequate model to represent subquantum process, subquantum kinetics turns to the macroscopic natural world, to theories describing how certain reaction systems spontaneously evolve well-ordered wave patterns. This self-organization phenomenon, for example, is seen in the Belousov-Zhabotinskii reaction, a chemical reaction first discovered in 1958. Slowly moving concentration fronts called chemical waves, or “reaction-diffusion waves,” can be discerned when a dye indicator is added to this reacting solution.


The Belousov-Zhabotinskii reaction. A dye indicator elucidates wave-like zones of regularly alternating chemical ion concentration that spontaneously arise in the reacting solution. (Photo courtesy of Arthur Winfree)

A video showing the formation of chemical waves, both spiral and concentric in the Belousov-Zhabotinskii reaction.

Wave patterns and wave motion may also be produced mechanically, as is commonly experienced in the movement of water waves or in the vibrations of a violin string. Early physical theories, in fact, proposed mechanical ether models in an attempt to describe phenomena such as light wave propagation. However, such models lead to very different assumptions about primary creation. a mechanical universe could not arise spontaneously, instead requiring the miraculous injection of an initiating energy impulse inexplicably arising out of a state of non-existence. Such mechanical models are inadequate for the approach outlined here which postulates an orderly and explicable process of creation.

Subquantum kinetics was partly inspired from work done on a reaction kinetic model known as the Brusselator. This two-variable model holds the distinction in the field of reaction-kinetics of being an archetypal reaction-kinetic oscillator comparable in simplicity to the simple harmonic oscillator of wave mechanics. That is, it is the simplest reaction system known to produce wave patterns that have well-defined wavelength properties. To arrive at a model that produces a physically realistic simulation of quantum structures, the Brusselator must be modified into the three-variable reaction system known as Model G. Hence in proposing Model G as a descriptor of the subquantum processes that generate physical order, subquantum kinetics takes concepts that have been developed in the well-established field of nonlinear chemical kinetics and applies them to the domain of microphysics.

The subquantum kinetics paradigm avoids many of the pitfalls of conventional physics and astronomy theories and interprets physical phenomena in a distinctively different manner. A listing of the numerous problems of the conventional paradigm and how subquantum kinetics resolves them is presented in the following tables.

Reproduced from:
Comparison of Subquantum Kinetics
to Conventional Physics and Astronomy

Comparison to Quantum Theory and Field Theory

Conventional Physics Subquantum Kinetics
1 Special and general relativity are disproven by the Sagnac, Silvertooth, and Ampere force law experiments. The subquantum kinetics (SQK) ether concept is supported by the Sagnac, Silvertooth, and Ampere force law experiments.
2 Special relativity suffers from the twin clock paradox and the light-source-velocity paradox. SQK avoids this problem.
3 Classical field theory is plagued by the field-particle dualism. SQK avoids this problem.
4 Classical field theory suffers from the infinite energy absurdity. SQK avoids this problem.
5 The wave packet model used in quantum mechanics to model a subatomic particle has the problem of gradually spreading out. Also it cannot model a particle at rest. SQK avoids this problem. Field patterns composing a subatomic particle remain structurally coherent over time, even when the particle is stationary.
6 Is plagued by the nonintuitive wave-particle dualism concept. SQK avoids this problem. Subatomic particles naturally incorporate wave aspects in their structure.
7 Does not explain what charge and mass are, or how they generate electric and gravitational fields. SQK explains what they are and how they generate such fields.
8 Fails to account for experiments showing that gravitational fields may be electrostatically induced. Considers antigravity an impossibility. SQK explains such experiments. Allows the possibility of antigravity propulsion.
9 Maxwellian electrodynamics fails to explain the induction of Tesla waves, nonpolarized longitudinal energy waves. SQK explains the induction of both transversely polarized Hertzian waves and Tesla waves.
10 Advocates the nonintuitive notion that natural events are inherently indeterminate. Accepts the Copenhagen Interpretation of the Uncertainty Relation. Retains the commonsense notion of causality. Nonlocal superluminal interactions explain the EPR experiment results. Maintains that the Uncertainty Relation is merely a statement about the limitations inherent to quantum level observation.
11 Quantum electrodynamics and general relativity, two pillars of conventional field theory, contradict one another, a problem known as the cosmological constant conundrum. SQK avoids this problem. All fields (electrostatic, magnetic, gravitational, nuclear) are encompassed within a single internally consistent theory.
12 General relativity is fatally flawed in that it allows the formation of cosmologically disruptive naked singularities. SQK avoids this problem.

Comparison to Cosmology and Astrophysics

Conventional Cosmology & Astrophysics Subquantum Kinetics
1 The big bang theory proposes the counterintuitive notion that the universe emerged out of a state of nonexistence. Subquantum kinetics (SQK) avoids this problem. Proposes that physical form emerged from a preexisting ether substrate.
2 Fails to explain how subatomic particles originate. It merely postulates that they form out of the vacuum. SQK explains in detail how subatomic particles arise from subquantum fluctuations in the ether.
3 Fails to explain why our universe is made up of matter as opposed to antimatter. SQK predicts a matter/ antimatter bias to particle materialization.
4 Introduces the ad hoc assumption that the universe is expanding, in order to account for the cosmological redshift phenomenon. SQK naturally predicts a tired-light cosmological redshift effect without introducing any ad hoc assumptions.
5 The expanding universe model fails to make a good fit to astronomical data on four cosmology tests. The tired-light static universe cosmology makes a superior fit to astronomical data on all four cosmology tests.
6 Conventional cosmology fails to explain observations of galaxies with redshifts greater than 4.0. SQK accounts for the existence of galaxies having redshifts many times higher than 4.0.
7 Conventional physics fails to explain why the jovian planets and brown dwarfs fall along the M-L relation for low mass stars, attributes this to chance. SQK explains this conformance by predicting that planets, brown dwarfs, and low mass stars are similarly powered by genic energy.
8 Fails to explain the source of the excess heat coming from the Earth’s core. SQK attributes the excess heat from the Earth’s core to genic energy.
9 Fails to account for the inflection (at 0.45 solar masses) in the stellar luminosity function and for the accompanying upward bend in the stellar M-L relation. SQK explains this inflection and upward bend as arising from the onset of fusion energy production and the formation of a radiative core at the star’s center.
10 Fails to adequately explain stellar pulsation. The SQK genic energy prediction explains this phenomenon.
11 Fails to explain the source of energy powering supernova explosions and why supernovae arise from blue giants. The SQK genic energy prediction explains this phenomenon.
12 Fails to account for the energy source powering galactic core explosions. The SQK genic energy prediction explains this phenomenon.
13 General relativity predicts that massive, highly luminous galactic cores should exist as matter-consuming black holes. But this prediction fails to conform with observation. SQK predicts that black holes should not form, that galactic cores should instead consist of very dense stellar bodies that continually create matter and energy. This predictionis supported by observation.
Note: genic energy is the name given to the excess energy that is produced by the photon blue-shifting phenomenon predicted by subquantum kinetics.

Reproduced from:

The Transmuting Ether

Subquantum kinetics proposes the existence of a primordial transmuting ether composed of subtle “etheron” particles. These continually react with one another in prescribed manners and also diffuse through space.

Potentially, there may be many subquantum reactions taking place in the transmuting ether, but only a few of these may be important for describing the origin of the fields composing the matter and energy of our universe. This relevant subset of ether reactions (Model G) is described by just five kinetic equations. These describe the recursive conversion of X etherons into Y etherons and Y etherons back into X etherons.


Model G

Animation of the Model G ether reaction system. A and B are input ether reactants. Z and Ω are output ether reactants. G, X, and Y are variable ether reaction intermediates. Concentration patterns of these three variables form the particles and photons that compose our physical universe.

Under certain conditions, this continually operating cycle of X transforming into Y and Y transforming into X spontaneously forms wave patterns composed of reciprocally varying X and Y ether concentrations. The concentration of the third ether variable, G, varies in proportion with that of X. The X and Y ether concentration variations in space represent measurable electric potential fields and G ether concentration variations represent measurable gravitational potential fields. These waves comprise the subatomic particles and energy waves that form the basis of the physical world. Thus matter and energy waves are simply periodic variations in the concentrations of three reacting ether substrates (X, Y, and G), or from a physical standpoint, they consist of periodic electric and gravitational potential fields. Matter and energy may be viewed as forming out of the transmuting ether in much the same way that chemical wave concentration patterns form in the Belousov-Zhabotinskii reaction.

Stages in autogenesis of a subatomic particle from the vacuum state. These illustrate a zero-point energy electric potential fluctuation (X and Y ether concentration fluctuation) growing into an electric potential wave pattern that forms the core of a subatomic particle.

For actual simulations of Model G, visit our gallery.

Reproduced from:

Model G simulation showing the formation of a neutrally charged particle from a zero-point energy fluctuation. Note that this is created from a computer simulation of the Model G partial differential equations and is not an animation.

Click above to activate

The above simulation computer simulates the following system of differential equations that represents Model G:


The transmuting ether is the wellspring of Creation. If this continual activity were to diminish, your physical body, your house, the Earth, the Sun, the countless planets and stars filling the vast expanse of space, in fact, all the subatomic particles and energy waves composing our physical universe would gradually dissipate, disolving into a state of uniformity. What would remain would be the ever-present, vast, and unfathomable multi-dimensional consciousness, of which we are a part, and whose now featureless calm “surface” had once generated our beautiful physical universe.

To learn more about this process physics, its ancient origin, and astronomical and cosmological implications, read Genesis of the Cosmos by Paul LaViolette.

For a more technical presentation of this physics and its astronomical consequences read Subquantum Kinetics by Paul LaViolette.

Reproduced from:

Genesis of the Cosmos (Book)

by Dr. Paul A. LaViolette
Bear & Company, Rochester, VT, 2004 Softcover
ISBN 1-59143-034-8Update of the 1995 hardcover edition: Beyond the Big Bang: Ancient Myth and the Science of Continuous Creation
Park Street Press, 1995
ISBN: 0-89281-457-8

Genesis of the Cosmos:
The Ancient Science of Continuous Creation

  • Provides compelling evidence that creation myths from the dawn of civilization correspond to cutting edge astronomical discoveries.
  • Exposes the contradictions in the Big Bang theory and offers a scientific basis for the ancient myths and esoteric lore that encode a theory of continuous creation.

Recent developments in theoretical physics, including systems theory are challenging long-held mechanistic views of the universe. Many thinkers have speculated that the remnants of an ancient science survive today in mythology and esoteric lore, but until now the scientific basis for this belief has remained cloaked in mystery. Paul LaViolette reveals the astonishing parallels between the cutting edge of scientific thought and creation myths from the dawn of civilization. With a scientific sophistication rare among mythologists, LaViolette deciphers the forgotten cosmology of ancient lore in a groundbreaking scientific tour de force. In direct, nontechnical language, he shows how these myths encode a theory of cosmology in which matter is continually growing from seeds of order that emerge spontaneously from the surrounding subquantum chaos.

Exposing the contradictions that bedevil the Big Bang theory, LaViolette offers both the specialist and the general reader a controversial and highly stimulating critique of prevailing misconceptions about the seldom-questioned superiority of modern science over ancient cosmology.  Genesis of the Cosmos is engagingly written and spiced with more than 140 thought-provoking diagrams and illustrations. It demonstrates how ancient mythology describes a coherent science that encompasses and exceeds our present-day understanding. By restoring and reanimating this ancient scientific worldview, Genesis of the Cosmos leads us beyond the restrictive metaphors of modern science and into a new science for the 21st century.

Paul A. LaViolette, Ph.D., holds degrees in physics and systems science and has conducted original research in general systems theory, theoretical physics, astronomy, geology, climatology, and cosmology. He lectures internationally and his work has been published in numerous professional journals.

Acclaim for Genesis of the Cosmos
(formerly entitled Beyond the Big Bang)

One of the boldest and most exciting hypotheses of cosmology to be put forward in this century. Deserves to be read, reread, reviewed, and researched.

Ervin Laszlo
Editor of World Futures, science advisor to UNESCO, former director of UNITAR, and author of The Creative Cosmos, and Introduction to Systems Philosophy

A remarkably innovative and creative work, from one of our most brilliant and original thinkers, Genesis of the Cosmos reads on many levels at once to both delight, inform, and surely challenge us. I read the manuscript twice, am richer for it, and shall surely read it again.

Joseph Chilton Pearce
Author of The Crack in the Cosmic Egg and Evolution’s End
News and Events from the Seattle Metaphysical Library

This work is scholarly and thought-provoking. A powerful challenge to the traditional twentieth century model. He is quite convincing in showing evidence for his interpretations. The author presents fascinating reading.

Armando Canales
The Critical Review

By examining closely the creation myths of the ancient East and Mediterranean, the author sees many remarkable parallels with new physics discoveries. In fact, the ancient stories seem to be an almost coded language of science, and that a theory of cosmology emerges from these stories of order out of chaos.

Marie Jones
Curled up with a Good Book
Read more of this review at:

Excerpts taken from a nine page August 2007 review by Ray Lynch in DharmaCafé magazine:

In Part 1 of his book, LaViolette lays out his theory of subquantum kinetics. Using precisely the kinds of rhetorical devices -namely, imagery, metaphor, decree, and supposition-that are employed in almost all standard scientific models of “physical reality” (whatever that is), he offers us an open systems theory of continuous creation rooted in organic processes of self-organization…

All creation schemes, scientific or otherwise, are unavoidably metaphorical. LaViolette’s metaphors, however, have two virtues: (1) they are more-or-less coherent; and, (2) given the suggested correlations, they seem to conform well with some of our important ancient creation narratives…

The second part of “Genesis of the Cosmos” is, among other things, a fascinating and very specific mapping of various mythological characters onto LaViolette’s scientific “continuous creation” theory of microphysics. . . LaViolette’s basic creation context of “order emerging out of chaos” fits the mythological narratives which he examines quite well, as does his identification of Zeus/Marduk/Horus as the victorious hero of the new world order…

LaViolette, in fact, displays a capacity to think clearly in both a scientific sense and a metaphysical sense. While we would expect a scientist as competent as he to do the science with aplomb, it is uncommon to find this coupled with metaphysical sensibilities. His study of ancient mythology and cosmology has served him well. It is encouraging to see the coherence of ancient thought concerning origins taken seriously by a contemporary scientist, especially when these principles are then incorporated into a serious and full-blown theory…
In Part 3 LaViolette presents a comprehensive refutation of twentieth century cosmology, an enjoyable romp into deeply heretical territory. I was surprised by the scope of his criticisms, but his views cannot be casually dismissed, for he has obviously done his homework and knows the territory. LaViolette is a Ph.D. with degrees in physics and systems science, and is also a well known and respected researcher who began formulating his unique cosmological theories over 30 years ago. “Genesis of the Cosmos” throws out more sacred cows per page than any physics book that I’ve ever actually finished reading:…

LaViolette’s approach is fascinating because it involves a bias or context (the microcosm) which is unique and which I had never seen or considered before. The scientific/mythological correlations are impressive because, with few exceptions, they make sense…

Few of us are in a position to evaluate scientific theories or mythological interpretations, but all of us suffer the consequences of our most fundamental beliefs and assumptions-those deeply-rooted, core metaphors which are so familiar and broadly supported that they have become unquestioned, unexamined, and finally unconscious. Whether or not we agree with their conclusions, books that challenge these presuppositions are valuable assets because they force that which was covert to become overt. Aside from Hamlet’s Mill, several others come to mind in this regard: “Science and the Akashic Field” (by Ervin Laszlo) and “Cataclysm!” (by D.S. Allan and J.B. Delair). Any book which questions the unquestioned in an intelligent and comprehensive manner deserves an audience.
“Genesis of the Cosmos is one of those books.”

Ray Lynch
Renown musician and composer, Sky of Mind, Deep Breakfast

Table of Contents for Genesis of the Cosmos


Chapter 1 – A Lost Science Rediscovered

Chapter 2 – Process and Order

Chapter 3 – The New Alchemy

Chapter 4 – The Transmuting Ether

Chapter 5 – Cosmogenesis


Chapter 6 – The Egyptian Creation Myths

Chapter 7 – The Egyptian Mysteries

Chapter 8 – The Tarot: A Key to the Ancient Metaphysics

Chapter 9 – The Thermodynamics of Astrology

Chapter 10 – Subatomic Atlantis

Chapter 11 – Myths from the Ancient East and Mediterranean


Chapter 12 – Ether or Vacuum?

Chapter 13 – The Twentieth Century Creation Mythos

Chapter 14 – Smashing the Crystalline Sphere

Chapter 15 – Energy in the Universe

Chapter 16 – Back to the Future





Reproduced from:

Paper Archive


The expanding universe model fails the test: Towards a new cosmological paradigm(submitted, 2017)

The transmuting ether paradigm of subquantum kinetics: A physics for the Twenty-first century. (World Futures, 2015)

Stationary dissipative solitons of Model G (Intl. J. General Systems, 2013)

The cosmic ether: Introduction to subquantum kinetics (Physics Procedia, 2012)

Prediction of the nucleon charge distribution (Intl. J. General Systems, 2008)

A paradigm shift for a new energy awakening (2007)

Early prediction of the Pioneer effect (Physics Essays, 2005)

The matter of creation (Physics Essays, 1994)

Photon blueshifting/planetary-stellar mass-luminosity relation (Physics Essays, 1992)

Violation of the First Law (IECEC Conference Proceedings, 1991)

Is the universe really expanding? (Astrophysical Journal, 1986)

An introduction to subquantum kinetics: Part I (Intl. J. General Systems, 1985)

An introduction to subquantum kinetics: Part II (Intl. J. General Systems, 1985)

An introduction to subquantum kinetics: Part III (Intl. J. General Systems, 1985)

Early Precursors to Subquantum Kinetics: Unpublished Papers [of interest from a history of science perspective]

Cosmogenesis: The Alpha and the Omega (1974, unpublished)

Toward a Prehensive Model of Space (1976, unpublished)

Entropy and Negentropy (1976, unpublished)

The Alchemic Ether Model: An Organic Conception of Physical Space [excerpts] (1978, unpublished)

%d bloggers like this: