Theory Introduction Page
Website Homepage
Table of Contents
ã 2003
This new general theory achieves unity at the fundamental level. There is only one primary cause for all effects. The division between this theory and current theoretical physics is almost total. My approach is to expose the weakness of theory at the fundamental level. Higher-level theory can be no more correct than is the foundation upon which it rests. If the fundamentals are not representative of the nature of the universe, then all of physics theory is vulnerable to revolutionary change.
The range of ideas discussed here includes physics, life and intelligence. It is my intent to bring these properties of the universe together in a way that presents a unified nature of the universe. Our nature and the nature of the universe must be one. The correcting of physics theory will bring about a broad opportunity to renew our understanding. It may allow us to gain an understanding of the fundamental basis for the development of life and intelligence. Perhaps we can discover the laws of the universe that pertain to ourselves. The true natural laws of the operation of the universe would demonstrate fundamental unity of mechanics, life and intelligence. I write from the perspective of living within the universe. This natural and proper restriction does not indicate that I am a pantheist. I am not.
It is common for each generation of scientists and philosophers to believe they have progressed significantly beyond the achievements of their predecessors. For many in each generation, it is easy to believe that truth is now known. This is the current popular belief for a great deal of theoretical physics. It may be asked: Why try to change that which is clearly working so well? The answer is: It is not working so well. There are chasms of disunity in current theoretical physics. I show the errors of theoretical physics are many. They start right at the beginning with the fundamentals.
One error is the ideas of current theoretical physics are based upon unproven inventions of the mind. That is why there are fundamental givens. These givens are self-imposed artificial theoretical stopping points. The acceptance of givens causes the search for answers to end when nothing has been found. All of the empirical evidence gathered over all of time cannot make up for this lack of knowing why events occur. Our body of empirical evidence is always about effects. It is always a measurement of change of velocity and the patterns found in changes of velocity. We have never observed a physical nature for causes of events.
I do not believe my answers for theoretical physics are the final answers. In fact, I know they are not final; because, they are only parts of another mechanical interpretation of the operation of the universe. All mechanical interpretations are devoid of life and intelligence. What I do say is they are more revealing of useful mechanical meaning than are those they replace. I will reach to go beyond the philosophy of a mechanical nature for the universe. I will offer ideas about how life and intelligence have come about. The goal is to achieve a clear connection between the nature of the universe from its inception to the production of life and intelligence. This connection cannot be found in the theory of electric charge or any place else in mechanical physics.
There are no pictures or diagrams. This has been done on purpose. It is not what I prefer. When I began writing my ideas for the public I thought visual aids would be necessary to present a new theory. I learned this may not be true. I tried using visual representations to help communicate my ideas. The problem faced by anyone using visual aids for physics theory is that fundamental causes are invisible. They are not directly observable by us. We can only hypothesize about what they may be. Our human visual interpretations of the macroscopic world are found to not be applicable to the microscopic world of matter. Solidity, as we visualize it, is not supported by atomic theory.
It is not possible to draw a picture of an electron. Yet the electron is often represented as a ball shaped object. While this practice is sometimes useful, it is not an accurate representation of what empirical evidence teaches us about the nature of an electron. It really is not possible to rigorously represent physics theory pictorially. I found this limitation could become a significant problem when presenting a new theory. Those who would wish to find quick fault with a theory they believe, on first impression, must be wrong can use the weaknesses of visual aids as a means to superficially attack the theory.
In theoretical physics, it is the usefulness of the mathematical equations and consistency with empirical evidence that are the means by which a new theory gains credibility. New pictorial aids for new physics ideas can be an impediment. I leave it to those who are comfortable with math to decide whether or not this new theory advances scientific learning. It is left for these readers to imagine their own visual representations for the proposed properties of the universe.
For everyone who cannot believe the solid science of theoretical
physics could be wrong and for those of us who challenge it, I offer this
quote:
“Scientific learning is composed of two opposites which
nonetheless meet each other. The first is the natural ignorance that is man’s
lot at birth. The second is represented by those great minds that have
investigated all knowledge accumulated by man only to discover at the end that
in fact they know nothing. Thus they return to the same fundamental ignorance
they had thought to leave. Yet this ignorance they have now discovered is an
intellectual achievement. It is those who have departed from their original
condition of ignorance but have been incapable of completing the full cycle of
learning who offer us a smattering of scientific knowledge and pass sweeping
judgments. These are the mischief makers, the false prophets.” ___Pascal
Scientific learning in its pure form consists of
the observation of the operation of life, intelligence and the rest of the
universe. However, in practice it moves beyond the natural protection of pure
knowledge about nature and includes the impermanent ideas of philosophical
interpretation. In theoretical physics the nature of the universe is presented
as being mechanical. It knows nothing about life and intelligence. It offers
us no means by which particles of matter can assemble together into life and
intelligence. A mechanical interpretation is unjustified speculation. It
doesn’t fit with reality. The real universe presents to us its most important
properties as life and intelligence. No one knows, by our own means, why or
how the real universe exists. Really knowing something would be
evidenced by meaningful answers as to the why and how of our existence.
This work is a continuing effort still in progress. Anything in any part of my writings repetitive of and owing to the ideas of others is offered as being due to their credit. I have no need of their just reward. Those people who know enough to point out my transgressions are invited to do so. For example, in the essay 'Human Intelligence' I give a definition of instinct. The phrasing 'Instinct means we have both the intelligence and knowledge necessary to perform some act without previously having become aware of it.' is mostly, or perhaps even all, someone else's that I liked and remembered. Too much time has passed and the source is lost from my memory. I haven't yet found where it came from. The rest of my work seems to read in my own style of phrasing. However, we learn most of what we know from others. They deserve the credit for teaching it to us.
I am an American. I do not offer
information about my qualifications. This work must stand on its own merits. I
intend that the reader judge it by what it says.
I do offer many new ideas for consideration by
others. They are intended for the purpose of furthering scientific
understanding. I believe many of our theories need to be re-defined
and re-evaluated for new understanding. It is my opinion that great changes
are likely in the near future. The nature of the universe will be
fundamentally re-interpreted in ways very different from our view today. The
result will be scientific progress. Scientific progress is a means to an end.
The desired end is understanding. We do not yet understand the
operation of the universe. Our
scientific understanding of the nature of the universe is in its infancy.
Thank you for visiting my website.
James A. Putnam