It
is the purpose and scope of this work to
establish a rational foundation for
understanding Nature from one single principle,
law, cause, or "logic" of operation. The method
employed here, never used before, is modeled
from Mathematics where we start with certain
primary propositions, called axioms, and then
using deductive rational thinking and only
rational thinking, we build up a coherent theory
out of it. Our modeled mathematical method of
discovering things in Nature, should not be
confused with the long standing method of using
Mathematics as a tool in deriving results. We,
in our theory of nature, called
The Rational Unified Theory Of
Nature, (TRUTON), will not use Mathematics
per se but instead we will use the method or the
model of Mathematics of how it obtains its
results and nothing else.
TRUTON
is par excellence a direct outgrow from
Classical Physics of Isaac Newton and its
followers.
On
July 5, 1686, Isaac Newton published his seminal
and revolutionary work entitled
Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia
Mathematica (Mathematical Principles of
Natural Philosophy) or in short
Principia. The object of Principia was to
establish in a rational fashion a "mechanical"
Universe where all motions studied to be able to
be derived from coherent mathematical-mechanical
principles. It was Newton who first coined the
term Rational Mechanics to distinguish it from
the study of Empiric Mechanics. Newton,
following into the steps of Copernicus, Kepler,
Galileo Galilei, and many others preceding them,
saw clearly the close and profound
interrelationship that existed between
Mathematics (in his case the Euclidean geometry)
and Mechanics and how one draws from another
their own existence. In his Preface to the First
Edition of Principia, Newton noted: (Principia,
vol. I, Univ. of California Press, 1966, pp.
xvii-xviii)
"The
ancients considered mechanics in a twofold
respect; as rational, which proceeds
accurately by demonstration, and practical.
To practical mechanics all the manual arts
belong, from which mechanics took its name.
... To describe right lines and circles are
problems, but not geometrical problems. The
solutions to these problems is required from
mechanics, and by geometry the use of them,
when so solved, is shown; and it is the glory
of geometry that from those few principles,
brought from without, it is able to produce
so many things. Therefore geometry
is founded in mechanical practice, and is
nothing but that part of universal mechanics
which accurately proposes and demonstrates
the art of measuring. But since
the manual arts are chiefly employed in the
moving bodies, it happens that geometry is
commonly referred to their magnitude, and
mechanics to their motion. In this sense
rational mechanics will be the science of
motions resulting from any force whatsoever,
and of the forces required to produce any
motions, accurately proposed and
demonstrated.
....
I consider philosophy rather than arts and
write not concerning manual but natural
powers, and consider chiefly those things
which relate to gravity, levity, elastic
force, the resistance of fluids, and the like
forces, whether attractive or impulsive; and
therefore I offer this work as the mechanical
principles of philosophy, for the whole
burden of philosophy seems to consist in this
--from the phenomena of motions to
investigate the forces of nature,
and then from these forces to demonstrate the
other phenomena; and to this end the general
propositions in the first and second Books
are directed. In the third Book I give an
example of this in the explanation of the
System of the World; for by the propositions
mathematically demonstrated in the former
Books, in the third I derive from celestial
phenomena the forces of gravity which bodies
tend to the sun and the several planets. Then
from these forces, by other propositions
which are also mathematical, I deduce the
motions of planets, the comets, the moon, and
the sea." [Underline and underscore
supplied.]
Then,
recognizing the limitation of his work, Newton
noted his disappointment in his Preface to
Principia (ibidem) with a glimpse at what
future theoretical work may be needed to unlock
the ultimate secrets of Nature (underscore
supplied):
"I
wish we could derive the rest of the
phenomena of Nature by the same kind of
reasoning from mechanical principles,
for I am induced by many reasons to
suspect that they may all depend upon certain
forces by which the particles of bodies, by
some cause hitherto unknown, are either
mutually impelled towards one another, and
cohere in regular figures, or are repelled
and recede from one another. These
forces being unknown, philosophers have
hitherto attempted the search of Nature in
vain; but I hope the principles here laid
down will afford some light either to this or
some truer method of philosophy."
And
at the end of his work Newton clearly was
disappointed of not being able to discover the
deepest interconnections that govern Nature
--from the origin of gravity to the origin of
other forces, (ibidem, vol. II,
pp.546-547), as he noted:
"Hitherto
we have explained the phenomena of the
heavens and of our sea by the power of
gravity, but we have not assigned
the cause of that power. This is
certain, that it must proceed from a cause
that penetrates to the very centers of the
sun and planets, without suffering the least
diminution of its force; that operates not
according to the quantity of the surfaces of
the particles upon which acts (as mechanical
causes used to do), but according to the
quantity of solid matter which they contain
and propagates its virtue on all sides to
immense distances, decreasing always as the
inverse square of the distance.
...
But
hitherto I have not been able to
discover the cause of those
properties, of gravity from
phenomena, and I frame no
hypotheses;" [Emphasis
supplied.]
Because
of this impasse that continuously was present
and which was never been able to be overpassed
by all generations that followed Newton, it was
in the end a path that was abandoned altogether
and replaced for the first time with a novel
path containing elements of the irrational with
countless speculations. Indeed, the foundation
of Newton's Mechanics (which is dubbed today as
Classical Mechanics) and which reigned supreme
until the beginning of the 20th century was
challenged first by Albert Einstein twice
--through a so-called Relativistic mechanics in
a novel fashion incorporating irrational
thinking and elements of the absurd :
1)
first time, in 1905 with the introduction of
his so-called Special Theory of Relativity
(where Newton's fundamental concepts of
space, time and simultaneity were being
challenged and together with Newton's
absolute system of reference that his
mathematics were employing), and
2)
the second time, 10-11 years later, with the
introduction of Einstein's so-called General
Theory of Relativity purporting to be the
theory of gravity where the space itself was
postulated to have a "curvature" and other
properties that where outside of the realm of
Euclidean geometry. Gravity was now being
"explained" through this nilly-willy
postulate of a so-called curvature of the
space where the Euclidean geometry was
replaced nilly-willy with the Riemannian
geometry as the true geometry of the physical
space.
Once
the gate towards irrational has been opened, was
not long before the implantation into the realm
of Physics of another irrational, non-Newtonian
mechanics --that of Quantum mechanics purporting
to be the mechanics of the atomic and subatomic
world. Since rational thinking was no longer a
prerequisite and was gaining acceptance trough
Einstein's Relativistic mechanics and since
mathematics had progressed and expanded
admirably in a number of fields outside the
boundaries of the Euclidean geometry from Tensor
Analysis to Differential Equations --it was a
perfect climate created where anybody could pick
at will a nilly-willy mathematics that was most
comfortable with and create a nilly-willy
pompous mathematical theory purporting to
represent a description of the atomic and
subatomic worlds.
As
the irrational method of "explaining" things has
gradually entered into the mainstream science,
it was not long before cosmologists began
entertaining the so-called Big-Bang theory on a
serious basis. That theory that is blatant
afront to the human inteligence postulates that
our Universe somehow was created out of an
[imaginary] point of infinite density
that somehow exploded. That speculation that is
an absurdity of truly cosmic proportions is
currently at the foundation of the current
"modern' Physics and Cosmology.
From
here the flood of speculations continued
unabated practically engulfing all Natural
Sciences. From the many examples that could be
given, we could mention the ludicrous
speculation for the mass extinction of the
dinosaur some 65 million years ago as a result
of some catastrophic cosmic event generated by
the collision of our planet with some imaginary
meteor. (As we shall see, the mass extinction of
the dinosaur with ease can be explained through
rational arguments derived from Evolutionary
Biology.)
This
new field of speculations over speculations has
created indeed an extremely fertile terrain for
writing "scientific" papers. Everybody appeared
to be happy of the new found bottomless
reservoir: the universities and other research
institutions were delighted of the new found
wealth of papers that their members were able to
produce as this wealth of papers was able to
justify to the society (which has been footing
the bill) of the necessity of continuing with
the ever increasing funding.
Coming
back to Physics --the mother of all Natural
Sciences, there is absolutely no evidence that
our understanding of Nature has been enhanced at
all with the advent of both Relativity and
Quantum mechanics and, it is the purpose of
TRUTON not only to eliminate them both but also
to restore and continue the path initiated by
Isaac Newton, a path that may be called the
Trutonian path.
Time
and again "orchestrated" events have been staged
all over the world to trumpet bogus claims of
"extraordinary" particle discoveries with the
need for more funding. Billions and billions of
dollars have been funneled from society to the
particle physics "research" --this being by far
the biggest orchestrated fraud in the entire
human history.
Because
of the irrational and speculative foundation
that both these new and unrelated mechanics (the
Relativistic and Quantum mechanics) had, they
undoubtedly will find their final resting place
into something that may be called Irrational
Mechanics and to be judged not only as an
aberration and embarrassment to the development
of science, but also and foremost as an
unprecedented fraud perpetrated not only upon
science but upon the society as a whole that
ultimately has been footing the bill.
What
was wrong, one may ask, with Newton's method of
discovering "things" in Nature and why
with his approach which was so adequate in many
respects, we could not "descend" and "see" the
cause of existence of various phenomena that
govern Nature such as gravity or "see" the cause
of all other interactions that govern our
particle world?
|
!
|
|
Well,
it is perhaps important to note right
here that the primary propositions or
axioms which Newton has chosen in
building up his Theory Of Nature (TON)
were much too "high up" in the
evolutionary ladder of the Universe and
thus, from there no one could "descend"
below the base platform of his axioms
and primary propsitions. Indeed,
Newton's Axioms for his TON, from where
his entire theory was build, were his
famous three (3) Laws of Motions
that were indeed far too high from the
"bottom"-level of Nature. And since
from a given set of Axioms one can go
only upwards in a meaningful way, the
"level" of those axioms were clearly
far above the atomic and subatomic
world and hence from that starting
point it was impossible to tackle the
world "blelow". This was the
fundamental limitation of Newton's TON
and this is why Newton's TON could not
be made applicable to the world
"below".
This
recognition is monumental for TRUTON.
Indeed, we in TRUTON shall begin our
journey from the absolute "bottom"-line
level of Nature from where there will
be no "below" or "underneath". Then,
from that absolute "bottom" line of
Nature we shall, exactly as in
Mathematics, build up the entire theory
of Nature, our TRUTON. Clearly, by
building TRUTON from the "bottom" up,
we shall expect that all Newton's
axioms or laws of motion to be derived
as straightforward consequences from
the foundation of TRUTON.
|
It
is also important to note that while Newton
clearly had indicated in Principia's
Preface (see the underlined text above) the
reason why he chose the Euclidean geometry
as the mathematics capable of
describing the forces and phenomena of Nature,
Einstein and their followers and those embracing
the Quantum mechanics, never ever were able to
provide a justification for their mathematics
employed except to say that with such departure
"it works!" [sic!] meaning that we can
write a lot of papers containing a lot of
beautiful mathematics.
Finally,
let us note one more time that throughout the
entire history of Physics and for that matter of
the rest of Natural Sciences, the direction of
theoretical work was done, if you will,
"inwards":
we
started with the result (provided by
observations or experiments) and
went "inwards" attempting to find an
explanation for the result
obtained.
|
|
In
Mathematics, as we have seen, the
method of obtaining theoretical results
has been exactly the opposite being, if
you will, in the "outwards" direction:
you start with certain primary
propositions called axioms beyond which
there is no more meaning for inquiries
and then, you work your way "up"
deriving results which are build up
from the previous results and so on. It
is this "outwards" direction from the
ground up that we shall attempt to
initiate as the new direction of
studying Nature.
|
To
travel with us in our contemplated journey, you
need not have any special mathematical training
because the principles of TRUTON can be
understood from physical considerations alone
and nothing else. In other words, the entire
"skeleton" of TRUTON is "pure" Physics. The
advanced Mathematics that can be applied to
TRUTON's skeleton can give rise to a
tremendously complex theoretical "body." But
before one can enter into that complex "body,"
we need to see this "skeleton" in its crudest
and simplest possible form of existence. And
this is exactly the object of this work and so,
if you are ready, let us begin.
.
