Develop and teach courses in "third-generation physics"
By my reckoning, the first generation was classical physics, and the second was Quantum Mechanics and Special/General Relativity. We know there will be a third generation, and that it will be revolutionary, have a conceptually simple foundation, and an elegance and power unapproached by today's science. The current state of physics and astronomy has a lot of new phenomena that it can't explain, except by convoluted theories that have clearly gone off into the weeds.
Development could start as a series of non-credit lectures that introduce the new concepts and eventually be developed into full credit classes.
Here is a glimpse of some ideas for people with the “right stuff”:
http://scripturalphysics.org/qm/qmconcpt.htm
http://scripturalphysics.org/qm/inverseness.html
http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Fraser_NatureOfTime.pdf (paper)
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/294 (discussion)
There is plenty more, and it is absolutely fascinating. Just do it!
To Josh J:
I made no attempt to explain the derivation of 1/c being a unit of energy. In the CosmicLog article I simply stated it.
In fact I still do not know how to explain it to a general audience. You may, however, find that this link will give you some insights:
http://scripturalphysics.org/qm/qmconcpt.htm#UnitEnergy
There, I worked backwards from an already existing and widely known and accepted relationship. But my point is that IF courses in third-generation physics were taught, the 1/c relation would be one that would practically fall out into your lap.
From: "Could X particle solve two puzzles?"
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/12/03/5575877-could-x-particle...
*****
This is yet another tome that shows physicists and astronomers are too smart for their own good, but know how to waste the taxpayer's money.
The existence of dark matter is inferred mostly from the characteristics of galactic rotation: "most stars in spiral galaxies orbit at roughly the same speed. . . . These results suggest that either Newtonian gravity does not apply universally or that, conservatively, upwards of 50% of the mass of galaxies was contained in the relatively dark galactic halo. (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Galactic_rotation_curves )
No dark matter is needed, just an alternative conclusion: Stars in a galaxy do not "orbit" the central bulge. Their motion is NOT comparable to planetary orbits in a solar systems. This is a much different situation.
Picture two small galaxies approaching each other. The chances are good that the approach will be off-center (not co-linear). Two effects will become apparent immediately. The differential effects of gravitation will cause the galactic blobs to "string out" into a line of stars. The off-center approach will cause the system to rotate around its barycenter (forming a spiral). The barycenter core is intially formed from the stars on the leading edge of each galaxy which experience a stronger gravitational pull and form a central nucleus of stars, usually accompanied by a visible "bar" of stars connecting the leading edges of the strung-out stars. Graviation changes the DIRECTION of the stellar motion far more than the speed. The result is that, as quoted above, "most stars in spiral galaxies orbit at roughly the same speed". And they do so because their original SPEED of approach remains mostly unchanged.
There is nothing hard about this! A highschool student could figure this out!
Now, why don't we have equal amounts of matter and antimatter? My answer is that we do. Matter is localized in three-dimensional space, and antimatter is localized in three-dimensional time. Matter gravitates in space and forms spatially localized stars and planets. Antimatter gravitates in time and forms temporally localized stars and planets. We cannot see temporal structures in a spatial reference system because they are "non-local" as physicists would say. They are structures located in a "when" that we are trying to view from a "where" reference system. The two concepts are orthogonal. The only thing we will be able to see is a uniform background of diffuse particles that are homogeneous and isotropic, and moving at the seed of light. Cosmic rays and the cosmic background radiation have these very characteristics.
Both mysteries are solved. What we need is COMMON SENSE in physics and astronomy, not more new particles!
:Brian F
From: Scrunched-up dimensions untangled
(http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/10/01/5215017-scrunched-up-dim...)
*****
Instead of 11 dimensions and all this complexity, why not see what can be done with only three dimensions of time and three dimensions of space? More specifically, try using three "motional dimensions" wherein space and time are related. Try using the units and quantities that the Universe naturally presents.
Example: mass is simply energy in three dimensions. In order to prove this assertion, the natural quantities have to be identified. Speed would be the speed of light, denoted as c. Energy, it turns out, is its inverse, 1/c. Hence we write:
E = m
Then we have to get the math correct in a natural form. That means equating natural quanties to natural quantities. The natural amount of energy would be E/ (1/c) and the natural amount of mass would be m/((1/c)^3) . Hence:
E/(1/c) = m/((1/c)^3)
which works out to: Ec = mc^3 or:
E = mc^2 (look familiar?)
See how simple that was? Eleven dimensions were not needed! Nor were hordes of PhDs! A high school kid could do this!
If universities taught classes in hyperspace navigation, this point would be simple and incidental to the course. But Academia has abandoned the values of simplicity, creativity, and innovation. You will never see this in a peer reviewed journal. You will never see this in status quo preserving publications like Scientific American. Anybody who comments about this on a physicsforum will be warned that this is not what mainstream physics teaches and his comment will be deleted.
America, you love the Dark Ages of Physics! The rest of the world is moving ahead of you!
*****
:Brian F
Comment below to provide feedback on this solution. If you’re inspired by it and would like to take it in a new direction, you can build on this solution.