Table of Contents
– The Unified Field Theory.
My dear enlightened one, in this article, I want to discuss with you how the single greatest philosophical problem confronting the unification of science led to the non-existence of the unified field theory and the current crisis in physics and to also show you the way out. So, give me your rapt attention, as I guide you on the noblest path of scientific truth.
The Problem of Science
Today, it is generally purported that the major conceptual problem of physics is the problem of quantum gravity, and it is generally envisioned to be the theory that will unify general relativity and quantum mechanics.
This assertion is preceded by an underlying assumption that the unified philosophies of verificationism and positivism upon which both theories were established are eternally tenable.
But is quantum gravity the major problem or simply the manifestation of a deeper problem? While this question will be resolved in this article, however, I ask this question because the problem of the unification of science is really centered on the question:
Are space and time physical or metaphysical?
There you have it, this is the greatest philosophical question of all time and it lies at the heart of the crisis in modern physics. Our answer to this question guides how we approach the scientific problems of the 21st century, and it would determine if we will ever arrive at the unified field theory.
So, now more than ever, philosophy has become a major concern for science, and it is very ironic that it is at this juncture that some part of the scientific community express a disgraceful disregard for philosophy.
If you look at this question, you will realize that science, especially since the 20th century, has followed solely the philosophy of the physicality of space and time, and the current crisis in physics is inseparable, and I repeat, inseparable from this tradition. Let’s quickly look at how physics arrived at this present crisis.
In the early 20th century, scientists were confronted with the irreconcilable nature of Newtonian mechanics and Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory. The constancy of the speed of light could not satisfy Newtonian mechanics, and to resolve this problem the principle of relativity was born by the pioneering work of Poincare, Lorentz and most notably Einstein.
The drastic and yet regrettable consequence of the principle of relativity was the abolishment of absolute space and time with their objective existence, and consequently and most importantly a preferred reference frame.
Also, centered on the unexplainable behaviour of light with respect to the atom and the black body radiation according to Newtonian mechanics, quantum mechanics was born to resolve this problem by the pioneering works of Max Planck, Niels Bohr, and Albert Einstein.
Max Planck and Niels Bohr
Today these two great theories of the scientific revolution of the 20th century, relativity and quantum mechanics, are irreconcilable and a curious scientific mind wonders what the problem really is. Well, I have come to gladly inform you what the problem really is.
The problem is that both theories are founded on the physicality of space and time and the non-existence of a preferred frame of reference. The unified field theory cannot be found on this philosophical basis.
Listen: every deep conceptual problem of science like the one we are facing today is as a result of our incomplete understanding of metaphysical, absolute space and time.
And just as Newton had to introduce absolute space and time and define a preferred frame of reference for motion in order to satisfactorily unify celestial and terrestrial mechanics, so must we today introduce a redefinition of absolute space and time and a new preferred frame of reference to unify macro and micro physics, and achieve the so-called theory of everything.
History has come to repeat itself!
However, this time we must get the metaphysical descriptions of space and time right, and go further to empirically validate the existence of the preferred reference frame in order to really resolve satisfactorily the unification problem of today.
This is why Echa and Science has come and why I am glad you have come to this website, where we approach and resolve the fundamental problems of science from the appropriate and holistic angle.
I want to let you know that the unity of the universe exists in metaphysical space and time and not in physical space and time. So, having established the currently accepted notion or premise of the physicality of space and time as a major stumbling block preventing us from arriving at the unified field, let’s now proceed to describe what the unified field theory should look like.
What the Unified Field Theory Should Look like
Today there are different versions of the unified field theory and no one really knows what the theory of everything should look like. Amidst all these, the scientific community wrongly expects the theory of everything to be a theory that unifies general relativity and quantum mechanics, the highly purported theory of quantum gravity. This is a wrong expectation.
Both general relativity and quantum mechanics are flawed theories founded on the physicality of space and time and lack any true description of the preferred reference frame.
However, there is hope. This is because the unified field theory should look like special relativity. Special relativity is the only theoretical framework from which the theory of everything can emerge.
Special relativity is special not just because it describes only inertial reference frames, but also because it contains the exact mathematical framework upon which the universe was designed.
All that is needed to correct the inherent flaws in the theory and make it even describe non-inertial reference frames, is to alter the philosophical basis of the theory, which is relationism.
General relativity which is the current extension of special relativity altered the mathematical framework of the theory by moving from Euclidean geometry to Riemann geometry while preserving the philosophical basis of relationism. This is a wrong extension of special relativity.
Gravity is not due to the curvature of spacetime by matter as general relativity contends. I have talked about what gravity really is in this my article
Now, contrary to general relativity, and theoretically, what such a theory of everything must achieve is the founding of the mathematical framework of special relativity on the philosophical basis of absolute-relationism.
General relativity and quantum mechanics no matter how useful or predictive they are, are not fundamental theories of motion or of space and time, but the mathematical framework of special relativity is in hindsight the core scientific language of the unified field.
I want you to realize that the unified field theory can only be found by the resolution of the philosophical discrepancy between Newtonian mechanics and special relativity, and not by unifying the conceptual frameworks of general relativity and quantum mechanics, which would be a false unification without any profound philosophical consequence.
The true unified field theory will lead to the grand and profound philosophical unification of the standalone absolutism of Newtonian mechanics and relationism of special relativity as absolute-relationism, simultaneously resolving the common problems that bedevil both Newtonian mechanics and special relativity.
One of which is that both theories fail to accurately describe the atomic world.
So, from the above paragraph, I hope you can see the big picture, and how general relativity and quantum mechanics have been displaced as fundamental theories by the more intuitive theory of everything.
Absolute-relationism is the right philosophical approach to making science inerrant from its very foundation, for it reveals scientific truths formerly hidden in the cosmos. This new theory that emerges from the proposed correction of the flaws in special relativity is what I call absolute relativity.
Absolute relativity founded on the philosophy of absolute-relationism is the true theory of everything and not quantum gravity. Understand this. Now, absolute relativity in its purest form is rooted in metaphysical space and time, and not in physical space and time, however, because of the ingredient of relationism in the theory its results and realizations are linkable to physical space and time.
This possibility is what enables us to transverse the metaphysical universe and physical universe. Absolute relationism is the overarching philosophy of science.
I am aware of Dirac’s unification of special relativity and quantum mechanics which laid the foundation of QED (quantum electrodynamics), but, as you can testify, Dirac’s unification did not lead to a rational and intuitive comprehension of the atomic world.
I want you to know today that the theory of everything which reconciles the mathematical framework of relativity with metaphysical space and time would elucidate clearly the motion of electrical bodies within the atom without the need of quantum mechanics. It will stand alone as the best theoretical model of all things.
And even if we proceed with this current path to unify general relativity and quantum mechanics, the resulting theory will be false and will even precipitate a deeper crisis in physics in the nearest future, as even the Dirac’s unification is irrelevant to the theory of everything and in the fundamental understanding of the cosmos.
This is because the theories of the 20th century are founded on the physicality of space and time, and lack any preferred frame for motion, and are now the evident failures of relationism as a standalone scientific philosophy. We have not yet exhausted the possible resulting physical interpretations from special relativity.
You will soon find out that both uniform and accelerated motions can be described consistently by the Euclidean geometrical framework of special relativity without the need to proceed to general relativity and Riemann geometry to investigate accelerated motion.
So, in simple terms, the problem of science is centered on special relativity, in that it has not been properly interpreted and thus extended; and the theory of everything must redefine the theoretical basis of special relativity while preserving its mathematical framework.
Therefore, the mathematical framework of the unified field theory must look like special relativity, but it must have a different philosophical foundation. Understand this.
Let’s now look at the two kinds of unification in science and how the unification approach of the 20th century has imposed great limits on special relativity.
The Two Kinds of Unification Method
Now, at the foundation of Newtonian mechanics is the exposition of metaphysical absolute space and time independent of the means by which we measure them and from which a preferred reference frame is attached.
But in Einsteinian relativity, physical, relative space and time are wholly defined and dependent on the means by which we measure them and to which no preferred frame is attached.
In current relativity, time and space are assigned only operational essences as dictated by clocks and meter sticks and they have no independent existence beyond the means by which we measure them.
So, historically, there are two approaches to the unification in physics. The first one, which has solved the crisis confronting physics today, is what I call the classical, absolute unification approach, which is founded on the metaphysicality of space and time and is outlined in these two steps:
- Redefine absolute space and time.
- Re-introduce a new preferred reference frame
Einstein’s relativity and every unification scheme since the 1900s till today follow the second approach which is the modern, relative unification approach which is founded on the physicality of space and time and is outlined in these two steps:
- Redefine relative space and time.
- Preserve the absence of a preferred reference frame
Relativity did not really invalidate the existence of absolute space and time; it only proved Newton’s concepts of absolute space and time wrong. Einsteinian relativity as it stands lacks a preferred frame of reference and this bedevils the theory, resulting inter alia in the absurd twin paradox inexplicable by relative science.
The entire edifice of special relativity as a scientific truth falls without a preferred frame of reference, as even the length contraction and time dilation is obviously meaningless and even impossible without a preferred frame to judge true motion.
The current crisis in physics informs us that special relativity can no longer stand as a true theory of motion and should be replaced by a better theory. For emphasis, we just don’t need a theory that unifies relativity and quantum mechanics, rather we need a theory that is directly better than special relativity.
Now, I am aware of the verificationist and positivist doctrines that guided Einstein to found and interpret relativity as a theory of clocks and meter sticks which are empirically testable.
But today, more than 100 years later, we are still bedeviled by the unification problem, and one cannot help but reflect if the classical, absolute unification approach is the way out, and I insist that it is — for it is the metaphysical, substantival approach from which physical relational outcomes become derivable.
Every method and attempt to unify physics by redefining relative space and time and still preserve the absence of a preferred frame has miserably failed and today science is confronted by pressing mysteries which reveal that every component of relative science and the observable universe which are founded on the verificationist doctrine are simply apparent manifestations of the deeper subtleties of metaphysical reality.
Mysteries such as the nature of dark energy, dark matter, the central mystery of quantum mechanics etc. are examples that explicitly hint at the metaphysical nature of reality. How to discern using the mind’s eyes the true nature of reality is why the absolute unification approach is once again needed.
The application of the relative unification approach has caused the regrettable descent of scientific investigation from the noble search for scientific truths as they apply in the higher ethereal realms to only observable and assignable physical quantities as they apply in the lower gross realm.
This is the abysmal condition of today’s science, where we now make a mockery of the true nature of reality and chase after shadows and complex mathematical abstractions without any relation to reality.
We must once again seek the science of the higher metaphysical plane, and deduce how our findings underlie relative science and all our operational applications of space and time. Surprisingly, these confronting mysteries are explainable and even verifiable when we embrace the metaphysical approach of resolving the conceptual problems of science.
A new ontological concept of absolute space and time reconcilable with the mathematical framework of special relativity is all that is needed to take us away from the current crisis in physics, and let me illuminate you on what’s wrong with Newton’s concept of absolute space and time.
The wrong premise of Newton’s concept of absolute space is that it is “immovable”. Newton used this particular assertion to elucidate the origin of inertia and the existence of a preferred reference frame in the infamous bucket experiment, so it was not really blind thinking within the Newtonian framework.
However, I propose that absolute space is movable and truly inextricable from motion. This implies that inertia and a preferred reference frame must proceed from another cause which I have elucidated in absolute relativity and would be of major concern in this blog.
Consequently, if absolute space moves, then absolute time cannot “flow equably” as Newton asserted, all the more preserving their objective existence and making them further inextricable from motion.
These re-definitions extend the principle of relativity to the domain of absolute science, reconciling the philosophies of relationism and substantivalism. This is the grand synthesis and the long lasting solution to the current crisis of physics, and even the current philosophical struggles of string theory.
Surprisingly, there are three empirical proofs of a preferred frame of motion. One of these proofs refounds quantum mechanics by illuminating the true behaviour of light relative to the atom, introducing a true causal description of the atomic world.
So, the absolute unification approach is the right ontology for space and time and not the relative unification approach, and should even be the yardstick to judge rival theories of principle.
So, the former absence of a unified field theory was not because of our innate inability to unify physics, but because of our wrong philosophical approach, and to reiterate what I have said, every deep conceptual problem of science like the one we are facing today is as a result of our incomplete understanding of metaphysical absolute space and time.
Motion is a metaphysical phenomenon, and the mathematical framework of special relativity lies at the heart of motion and reality, and it is reconcilable with movable absolute space and unevenly flowing absolute time.
So, though the absolute unification approach is irreconcilable with the relative unification approach which is the current philosophical foundation of special relativity, it can, however, become the new philosophical foundation of special relativity.
This possibility rebirths relativity, and it leads to the grand synthesis of absoluty and relativity, the only way to the holy grail of science. This philosophical synthesis of absolute-relationism is the true philosophical foundation of the unified field theory.
This new philosophy informs us that absolutism of Newtonian mechanics and relationism of Einsteinian relativity are at a fundamental level two harmonious philosophical components of the cosmos, and are not two separate and disconnected philosophies.
So, my dear enlightened one, before you today stand two open doors of which you must have to choose one.
If you choose the first door, you will continue to do relativity founded on the physicality of space and time and which has so far not yielded the unified field theory and cannot, but if you choose the second door, you will proceed to do relativity founded on the metaphysicality of space and time and which has yielded the unified field theory and understanding.
If you have chosen the first door, you can go to other journals of science and learn; but if you have chosen the second door, welcome to Echa and Science, the adytum of scientific knowledge.
– M. V. Echa
The article below is very related to this article which you have just read. It further exposes to you aspects of Newton’s methods and scientific disposition that are very relevant for post-modern physics.