“I don’t know what the fuss is all about — Dirac did it all before me”  —–Richard Feynman

Dr. Milo Wolff wrote a book titled Schroedinger’s Universe and the Origin of the Natural Laws (2008) [Ref.#8].  I found a copy of it and read through it:  though I love some of it, I was slightly disappointed, because he used some maths which I don’t understand, and also because he repeated some of the (in my opinion) errors of folks who challenge the standard model.  As already mentioned, some folks who understand that the standard model is not correct are now offering models which are also not correct.  In my opinion, the most serious of these errors in Dr.Wolff’s book is his denial that a “big bang” ever happened.  Like many writers, he ridicules the idea that there might have been a “big bang”.  And yet, as already mentioned, Dr. Sternglass gives some powerful evidence for the idea that there really WAS a “big bang”.  So, to try to “set the record straight” regarding what I DO and DO NOT believe in Dr.Wolff’s book, I wrote the following book review:


BOOK REVIEW:  Schroedinger’s Universe (2008), by Milo Wolff

Firstly I want to say that Dr. Wolff wrote another book, titled Exploring the Physics of the Unknown Universe (1990),  and worked for NASA [National Aeronautics and Space Administration] during the time when they were preparing to put a man on the moon.  As he describes near the end of a Youtube-video, there was some concern that there might be “30-foot-deep layers of dust” on the moon, and he worked out why this is not so, based on analyzing how light reflects from the moon’s surface.

To view this video, go to and input “Milo Wolff — Wave Structure of Matter  (standing waves)” into the search-box.  The video is 21 minutes long.

Regarding Schroedinger’s Universe:  I love his description [page ix] of “space” as “a quantum wave medium of spherical quantum waves”.  If one regards the “epola-elements” in Dr. Simhony’s model as consisting of [not “particles”, but] zillions of standing waves, each formed by an IN and an OUT wave, then Dr.Wolff’s description of “space” is very similar to Simhony’s description of the “epo-lattice” [i.e., “space”] in his model.

However, I question Dr. Wolff’s following Ernst Mach in saying that “The energy-density of space is due to the sum of waves from all matter in the Universe”.  By contrast, Simhony says that the epo-lattice in his model [i.e., “space”] consists of uncountable trillions of actual electrons + positrons, and says nothing re the so called “Mach’s principle” — the idea that the measured masses of the ordinary objects in our universe are due to the existence of distant stars and galaxies.

{ In fact, it seems like Dr.Wolff himself might feel a bit of doubt and/or confusion re Mach’s famous “principle”, as he says on p.43 that “You should not try to imagine that the [accelerating] object is interacting with the distant stars.  Instead, the density of the surrounding space is already created by the waves from the distant stars” }

In Simhony’s model, it’s the presence of the epo-lattice [“epola”], throughout our universe, which creates “the energy-density of space” —(and makes the measured masses of ordinary objects what they are)— not the presence of distant stars + galaxies.  If Simhony is right, then there is much more epola-stuff in our universe than anything else.  More details in  APPENDIX9.

I like how Dr.Wolff describes the electron as “the fundamental particle … made solely of waves, whose appearance mimics a point particle.”  Sternglass, too, says that the electron (and the positron, its equal-but-opposite twin) are the only “fundamental” “particles” in our universe.  I presume that, like Sternglass, when Wolff says “the electron” he means both electrons + positrons, which differ only in that they carry opposite electric charges.  Evidently, Schroedinger, too, believed that there are no so called “particles”, as he said that  “what we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space” [p.20, Ref.#8].  In other words, there are no “particles”, only energy-waves.

On page 31 is an error:  the formula should read “r = c x T”.

Chapter 3 is good:  the “minimum amplitude principle” [p.51, Chapter 4] seems remarkably similar to the well known “principle of least action” of classical physics.

In Chapter 5 Wolff presents some maths which I don’t understand;  but his words seem very reasonable, assuming that the maths are correct, which I’ve no reason to doubt.  For example, on p.59, to explain the attractions + repulsions between electrons + positrons, he says that  “The wave-centers will move together or apart in order to minimize total amplitude … Polarity depends on whether there is a (PLUS) or (MINUS) amplitude of the in-wave at the center.  If two electrons are near one another, their identical waves add together , producing maximum amplitude, causing them to move apart seeking a minimum.  If one is a positron, their waves will cancel each other, producing a minimum amplitude that will be decreased as they move together.  These changing amplitudes appear as forces dependent on total wave amplitude that changes with distance … as 1/(distance)^2, thus matching the usual empirical Coulomb law”.

Chapter 6 presents some interesting historical details.  I like the description on p.79:  “The pioneers [Clifford, Dirac, Mach, Schroedinger, and Einstein] arrived at their valid conclusions by painstaking analysis and careful adherence to the rules of logic, and the philosophy of truth.  But their thinking was ignored for sixty years.”

On page 106:  a possible “typo” ??  i.e., the “m” in the expression e^2 / mc^2 represents the mass of an electron, I think:  so, for greater clarity, one might want to add a little “e” as a sub-script to this “m”, as elsewhere in the book.

Near the bottom of page 133, the explanation for the red-shift phenomenon {google “redshift” if you need to} sounds very much like Fritz Zwicky’s “tired light hypothesis” {google it, if you need to}.  As already mentioned, (in the FORE-WORDs #2 section), I feel that Zwicky’s idea might be one of several valid explanations for redshifts, each of which might contribute to a portion of the observed red-shifts of distant objects.

On page 134 there might be a typo in the short math-formula re this:  as Dr.Wolff admits, he and his co-authors are only “mediocre” mathematicians, as am I;  but that formula doesn’t look right to me.

For me, the very best part of Dr. Wolff’s book is the illustration and explanation on p.154.  The illustration shows a little cork ball, with six [6] rubber bands attached to it, and the other ends of the rubber bands attached to 6 of the 12 edges of a little “wooden stick frame” built in the shape of a cube.  The words explain that “the rotating ball represents a property of the space at the center of a charged particle composed of converging and diverging quantum waves”.  He says that “The ball can be turned about any given axis starting from any initial position. If the ball is rotated … it will … after every two rotations … return … to its original configuration”.  In other words, unexpectedly, the rubber bands do not become entangled !!

Not only does this help explain the electron’s famously mysterious double spin [720 degrees per rotation cycle], it also helps support the very speculative visualization which I present in APPENDIX5 re the possibility that there might be “alternating magnetic currents” in the epo-lattice.



Wolff mentions what he calls “the final unanswered question of science” several times:  on p.100, on p.108, and again at the very end of the book:  e.g., on p.100: “But what is the space medium ?  This is the final unanswered question of science”.

I suggest that Dr. Simhony [Refs. #2, #2a] might have found a very good answer to this important question:  I suggest that the epo-lattice [“epola”] in Smhony’s model is in fact this “space medium”.  As Dr.Wolff says and/or impies, several places in his book:  the “answer” to a tough question in physics might, in fact, be much more simple than one expects, if one just simply has a correct way to visualize what’s happening.  Simhony’s model has this wonderful advantage:  it’s very easy to visualize.

As I see it, one of the major problems with the standard model is that, since the 1930s, some of the smartest and most respected PhD-holders in science have taught graduate students in universities, world-wide, that there is not any kind of “aether” or “ether” or ether-like substance in our universe.  By affirming the existence of an “epola” [i.e., an “electron-positron lattice”], which permeates our universe, inter-penetrating all the ordinary matter in it, Simhony has come a long way toward answering this fundamental question re “what is the space medium ??”.

Not only does Simhony say that this “epo-lattice” enables photons to travel from here to there to wherever in our universe, but he also says that it enables gravity to happen !!  This is much more than Maxwell or Faraday said re the “aether” in their visualizations.  { HINT: gravity doesn’t PULL — it PUSHES !! }

Bottom line:  if one agrees that Dr. Wolff’s “final unanswered question of science” is important,  then one might want to look at Dr. Simhony’s model.  It’s available on the internet, at  and

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ << END OF CHAPTER 9 >> $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$




One comment on “CHAPTER 9: A BOOK REVIEW


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 February 22, 2015 by .
%d bloggers like this: