Theory Introduction Page
Website Homepage
Table of Contents
ã 2003
A fundamentally unified theory of physics
must have only one cause for the operation of the universe. What now appear to
be separate causes would be defined from the start as different aspects of the
same cause. It would be a single core cause for all effects. It would be the
basis upon which the fundamentals of physics and all further theory would be
derived. Theoretical physics is seeking a unified theory that can account for
all effects. If ‘all effects’ really means all effects, then this unified
theory must give the reasons why change of velocity occurs, why life occurs and
why intelligence occurs.
Theoretical physics cannot bridge the gap between mechanics, life and intelligence. One reason is because the tool of theoretical physics is math. Math cannot be used to define the nature of life and intelligence. Pure math is the manipulation of equalities, and the meaning of its equal sign is always equality. Physics also uses mathematics for the manipulation of equalities. However, theoretical physics additionally involves the mechanical interpretation of equalities. Mathematical equations form the orderly infrastructure to which the ideas of theorists become attached. This rigid dependence upon mathematical equations also imposes a limitation on theory. It keeps theoretical physics mechanical. In this respect, theoretical physics uses the equal sign without giving sufficient recognition of that sign’s mechanical function.
In physics the function of the equal sign is to represent any and all causes by which change occurs. All causes can only be symbolically represented in a general manner because we never isolate a cause. There have been many mechanical inventions of the mind credited with causing events to occur, but no scientific discoveries of any verifiable physical means by which the universe operates. Experimental physics measures initial conditions and resulting effects, both of which are values of changes of velocity. Experiment has always failed to discover the nature of a cause of change of velocity. If we then try to use theory to discover the nature of a cause by which change of velocity occurs, we must fail. We fail because theory relies upon mathematics. The mathematics is founded upon patterns in changes of velocity. It is capable only of extrapolating new possible changes of velocity.
Mathematics does not have powers beyond the manipulation of known quantities. If the universe is incomprehensible to us when we form our equations then it will remain incomprehensible to us no matter how we use those equations. If we leave out knowledge, even through ignorance, in originally defining the problem, then we cannot gain knowledge by completing the problem. This does not mean the equations will not give an impressive range of accurate predictions. They are always formed to imitate the patterns found in empirical evidence. As long as reality follows these patterns, our equations will successfully extrapolate correct answers. These answers are always about results and never about causes.
So we can only imagine the nature of a primary cause. Theorists imagine what may be the nature of the unknown and invent physical causes that are impossible to verify empirically. One common invention is field theory. Whether it is electric, magnetic, gravitational or space-time, it is empirically unverified. Failure to classify them as being only imagined to exist is a scientific mistake. It is true there is always an empirical basis for making these guesses, however, they are only the best guesses of theorists and not everyone should be required to believe in them. Blind faith is not the scientific method.
This does not mean that field theories are not useful. They are
useful as symbolism. Even the concoction of extra dimensions serves as useful symbolism.
As long as the mathematics of a theory fits the empirically determined patterns
of change of velocity then the theory can make good predictions. We receive all
of our empirical information via photons. Photons begin with change of velocity
and end with change of velocity.
As we learn more, we sometimes discover new variations in the
patterns. At this point the mathematics fails to make accurate predictions. The
theorists then re-imagine what may be the case and adopt a new invention of the
mind. The theorist must rely upon imagination because mathematics cannot yield
something not already made certain in the setting up of the original equations.
If an equation is set up to predict the effects of an undefined cause, it
cannot then be used to define that unknown cause. If it was unknown when the
equation was constructed then there is no amount of manipulation that can bring
to light the nature of the cause of the effect. Mathematics is not intelligent
and cannot invent ideas. It is never intuitive.
Equations are limited to mechanical use. However, this natural
limitation is made more severe for two reasons. One is their incompleteness
which, when discovered, is improved upon. Another is our own artificial
restraints which, due to prejudice, usually are steadfastly retained as being
immutable truth. An example of this kind of artificial restraint is the
assignment of new unique units for properties whose nature is unverified. These
artificial units are the one part of incorrect theory that becomes involved in
the manipulation of equalities. I call them artificial because they represent
the theorist’s attempt to quantify something whose physical nature or cause is
undetermined. The only two units that are natural are distance and time.
All of our knowledge about the mechanical operation of the
universe comes to us in the form of distance or time or combinations of the
two. These are the only two units now in use that can be trusted with
certainty. If the true nature of a theoretical concept is empirically
undiscoverable then any units invented to represent it should be treated as
temporary units. They are only names of convenience that hopefully will
eventually be replaced with the real units. In the interim, the temporary units
can be useful for symbolically representing the ideas behind the partial theory
for which they are a part. The names given to individual parts of the equations
may be artificial. The mechanical interpretation of the equations may be wrong.
However, these problems can be tolerated until we learn more. Until we learn
more they will probably go unrecognized. We can temporarily tolerate
theoretical shortcomings because our theories are coordinated with the
concurrent level of physical evidence.
Eventually the artificial constraints that result from theory
being added onto our equations will limit their range of correct predictions.
When this happens, we must review our old thoughts and formulate new thoughts
about what may be true. We must then adjust our equations to represent the new
thoughts. Mathematics is the symbolic restating of these thoughts. We think our
thoughts and then write them down in symbols. The rules of mathematics help us
to keep both our numbers and our thoughts straight. If we reach a point where
we can no longer give logical reasons for the meaning of our equations, then
our equations cannot make us understand. We still have the numbers for
predicting changes of velocity. We can still use the results for practical
purposes. However, we no longer understand why.
I recognize math as a crucial part of a serious discussion about
physics. It is the means by which the theorist can demonstrate consistency
between theory and experiment. It is what makes the theory mechanically useful.
I use as much math as is necessary to communicate my ideas. I think, though, if
physics ideas cannot be explained using logical statements, then the ideas are
probably not understood.
Mathematics is not the language of the universe. Mathematics is a tool for
the mechanical interpretation of the universe. Whatever meaning becomes
attached to our equations is in the thoughts of the theorist. If the theory is
wrong then the equations will mirror our wrong ideas and their complications
back to us. To overstate the importance of mathematics is to leave us
vulnerable to blindly following equations whose interpretations have acquired
unreasonable and even absurd meaning.
Our understanding of the universe, beyond the minimum of at least
one ‘given’ cause every theory has, must be based upon an understandable
physical nature. There can be only one primary cause for all effects. It should
not be necessary and is not enlightening to add extra ‘fundamental’ forces or
extra dimensions or extra universes. We do not have to theoretically smudge out
singularities, as in string theory, in order to be able to use math to help us
pretend to describe the nature of the universe. The answers about the universe
exist in the potential of human reason. Our interpretations of our mathematical
equations must be made compatible with reason.
The universe gave birth to us. We are formed from its constituents, the properties of which result in everything we have become. Our lives and intelligence are its ultimate achievement. Our intelligence came from it and must know something about it. The real language of the universe has to be contained in human intelligence. It is within our ability to be logical far beyond the simplistic logic of mathematics and to comprehend the universe far beyond patterns of change of velocity. The universe gave form to life and intelligence, and we know we are capable of understanding both of these. In order to rise to this level of understanding we already go well beyond the low level of understanding that is the study of mechanics.
Human reason, as it pertains to the operation of the universe, must be the master of the tool we call mathematics. We will always need mathematics to help us solve our mechanical problems. However, there is much more to understanding than knowing the mechanics. We must think beyond the mechanical limitations of mathematics. Our scientific quest of enlightenment must not be limited to mathematically expressed knowledge. The branch of mechanical science we call theoretical physics is not nearly enough to understand the nature of the universe. We require intuitive human intelligence to solve problems of universal understanding. It is the only source in the universe from which we may learn the answers. Our intellectual inquiry of our universe must produce answers that unite mechanics, life and intelligence.