PREFACE: Argument for the “Classical” Approach of Dr. Ernest Sternglass

Argument for the “Classical” Approach of Dr. Ernest Sternglass

by  Mark “truth-lover” Creek-water Dorazio, ApE (amateur physics-enthusiast)

Nobody is an “expert” regarding all the many differing + challenging areas of “astro” + “terrestrial” + “atomic” + “nuclear” + “particle” -physics,  plus astronomy + cosmology + mathematics, et cetera, etc. … Many guys + gals who hold PhDs are very limited in their areas of expertise …

For example, did you know that so called “quarks” have NEVER BEEN OBSERVED IN A PHYSICS LAB [pp.322-324, Ref.#17] ??  It’s true:  even tho quark-theory gives very accurate results, to explain what’s happening inside tiny, sub-atomic, “particles”, the “quarks” themselves exist only in theory …

This series of essays, (which one might also call a “book”), is based on the work of three individuals, two PhD-holders [Sternglass + Simhony] and a talented amateur [myself].  In it, one can find details re explanations for phenomena which differ from the explanations given by the so-called “standard model”.  For example, there are alternative explanations regarding tiny objects such as “pi-mesins” and large objects such as “quasars” —– also called “gamma ray bursters”.

After earning a PhD at Cornell University in 1953, Sternglass spent many years developing these alternative explanations, and died several years ago (2015), at 91 years of age … He published several papers in reputable (“peer-reviewed”) science-journals, such as Physical Review and Journal of the American Physical Society, plus a little book titled Before the Big Bang (1997, 2001) [Ref.#1] … Likewise Simhony wrote three books [Ref.#2] to explain his model, which also offers alternatives to the standard model.

Sternglass uses a “classical” approach, which many younger researchers have all but abandoned … He studied physics under “classical” masters like George Gamow + Hans Bethe + Philip Morrison, who were still doing “particle physics” well into the 1940s, in the “classical” style, i.e., as it was done before quantum electrodynamics [QED] came to so dominate this complex + competitive field of study …

Consider this remark, by Richard Feynman, one of the heaviest of 20th century “heavy-hitters” in physics:  “Congratulations:  you have just discovered classical model for the neutral pi-meson” … That’s on page 134 in Sternglass’s book [Ref.#1] … Feynman made that remark in his own Caltech office, in 1960, after he and Sternglass successfully worked out a rough model of the neutral pi-meson, which had been discovered approximately 13 years earlier … To this day, this simple pi-meson model is not acceptable to the many physicists who have “bought into” the so called “standard model of particle physics” …

Sternglass published this result in the July 1, 1961 issue of the Physical Review, (one of the most respected physics journals in the entire known universe), under the title “Relativistic electron-pair systems and the structure of neutral mesons” [Ref.#1a] … At that time, quark-theory did not yet exist …

Using that pi-meson model as a starting point, Sternglass spent much of his free time, during the next 35 years, developing a model of the structure of the proton and the neutron, which he describes in his 1997-book … To do this, he needed to look into many different areas of both “astro-” and “particle-” physics, plus lots of other stuff … His model is, potentially, a unification of all of physics, as it details how the events which happened before the Big Bang might have led directly to the “creation” —(i.e., to the formation)— of all the protons + neutrons which now exist … Plus, he explains the source of the immense power of “quasars” as the “delayed mini-Bangs” [his words] which his model predicts to be happening during all the time since the Big Bang … He says that these “delayed mini-Bangs” are exactly the same as the Big Bang, except that they involve less energy + mass …

Quite often the initial response to a new scientific theory or model is disbelief:  Sternglass was well aware of this, and in his book mentions the ideas of several historians of science, such as Abraham Pais + Karl Joel + Thomas Kuhn,regarding how some folks will strongly grasp onto the dominating paradigm in physics, tho it might be seriously flawed, when such grasping might be (with hindsight) no more substantial than the proverbial “grasping at straws” !!

Of course, we all know about what happened to Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), in this context …

Sternglass did his homework, and knew his stuff:  whatever one does, one should not make the mistake of dismissing him as a “light-weight” or a “crack-pot” … If one wish to criticize his model, then one can do no better than to point to SPECIFIC DETAILs re how it differs from one’s own point of view, rather than try to “disprove” it … And, to learn more, one MIGHT want to obtain a copy of his book, Before the Big Bang … It’s available at And there’s a copy of it at the public library in Newark, Delaware, which I donated to them !!

Sincerely,  Mark Creek-water Dorazio,  12-January-2017,  Palo Alto, California, USA

Newark, Delaware,  8-April-2013;  Palo Alto, California, 20-January-2017 …..

   ########### << END OF PREFACE >> ###########





One comment on “PREFACE: Argument for the “Classical” Approach of Dr. Ernest Sternglass

  1. Pingback: book-title: VISUALIZE-ING “QUARKs” — sub-title: Essays re the Work of DR. ERNEST STERNGLASS + DR. MENAHEM SIMHONY | markcreekwater

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


This entry was posted on April 13, 2014 by and tagged , .


%d bloggers like this: