Life is in Everything

Now and again we are told that physics is close to understanding everything, but then it becomes clear that is just not so. Take gravity for example. For near 2000 years the Aristotle view of heavier objects falling to earth faster than lighter ones prevailed. Galileo showed that wasn’t so before Newton enabled the calculation of its accelerating force. Then Einstein told us there was no force and gave us the mathematics of curved space-time. But he, like Newton, wrongly believed, and we continue to wrongly believe that the earth exerts a pull on us and that the sun pulls on the earth.

Physics cannot explain gravity because it has failed to recognise the living reality of the atomic world. Its answer to most “why” questions, including those about gravity, is to refer to some mathematical law that describes what happens. This is particularly so with the quantum mechanical model that is almost entirely mathematical and which excludes gravity.

History led to a misunderstanding of reality

Galileo may have upset the church with his sun centred solar system but he, like the many philosophers that followed him, believed the work of God to be responsible for everything; he and they sought metaphysical explanations for it. 

In 1644, a French philosopher, Rene Descartes, best known for his “I think therefore I am”, argued a product of mass and speed he called “quantity of motion” was conserved. His Cartesian followers later replaced speed with velocity as direction was clearly significant. This mv product of mass and velocity came to be known as momentum and in 1687, Newton’s second law of motion described its rate of change as both proportional to the force impressed on it and in its direction.   

Come 1676, and a German philosopher, Gottfried Leibniz argued that his “motive force”, a product of mass and velocity squared (mv2), that he later called “vis viva” or living force, was the true conserved quantity. Its apparent loss in inelastic collisions he argued was it contributing to minute unseen parts in the whole. The conflict with Cartesian ideas later known as the “vis viva” controversy lasted near 50 years.

Newton (1642 -1726) viewed forces as impressed. He saw matter and light as hard, indivisible, corpuscular balls and saw “gross bodies and light convertible into one another”.

Newton’s status meant his ideas were much accepted though his “force at a distance” gravity attraction had its critics. However, subsequent work by Coulomb, Faraday, Ampere and Maxwell involved similar forces at a distance and so the concept of force fields came to be accepted.

Émilie du Châtelet (1706 –1749) a French noblewoman and philosopher corresponded with and invited many philosophers to her chateau where she had a huge library and much scientific apparatus. She supported “vis viva” but also endorsed Newton’s work and translated his Principia into French.

Emilie did not agree with Newton’s ideas of force and matter. She viewed forces as either active or passive and as playing an equal part in matter. She regarded matter as highly divisible, internally active and striving for change, yet also constrained in activity.

Early 1800’s and “vis viva” came to be known as energy and calculated using 1/2 mv2, becoming kinetic energy as steam energy delivered work done and heat energy output in the boring of canons. Shortly thereafter the idea of “conservation of energy” and the concept of potential energy were introduced.

Our concepts of momentum, of energy, of work done, of external forces and of force fields causing distant actions were all in place before :-
1. The 1897 discovery of the first atomic particle, the electron.
2. Planck’s black body experiments had linked radiated energy to its frequency.
3. Einstein had linked energy radiated to mass loss in his E = mc2.
4. Charge had become a property of electrons and protons.
5. Einstein had told us no external force exists in a downward fall.
6. Photon – matter interactions were discovered.
7. Nuclear decays had been observed.

Our increasing knowledge of the micro world didn’t cause us to question our concepts of the macro world. Instead we put such established ideas on the shelf and called it classical physics and introduced a new and rapidly fragmenting quantum physics in which many false concepts and ideas remain and in which mathematics is everything.

The living, proactive stuff of our universe

Could Emilie du Chatelet’s view of force as an integral part of matter be right? The mathematics associated with matter and forces may work but the concepts behind them are wrong and we are building a “house of cards”.

The standard model sees boson particles, like photons, as force carriers, which they aren’t and struggles to explain how they attract. We are told gravity is not part of the standard model because it is not a force and instead the result of curved space-time. Yet Einstein never claimed curved space time explained gravity and described it as “remarkably imparting the same acceleration to all bodies”. We also see bodies in steady speed motion as having both momentum and kinetic energy, yet neither is so.

Living structures like ours are fundamentally of the same interacting atomic particles as in supposedly non living structures. We are of particles and the decisions we make and the actions we take are particle decisions and actions. The particles in supposedly non living structures likewise make decisions and take actions. Abandon the idea that externally impressed forces deliver motions. Instead regard particles and their structures as internally deciding how they react to surround changes. Do this and you will realise that photons in space are not force carriers, that all actions are locally decided by particles and that attractive motions like gravity are simply proactive particle moves to more desirable locations.

A cricket bat and ball part, not because the one exerts an external force on the other, but because internal particles decide on their response to the changing external photon environment. No atomic particle contacts are made. The energy linked particles of a structure act so as to minimise distortions and return to the stable arrangement they had before the external environmental changes commenced.

A structure seen by an observer at relative rest is in no way different when that observer moves at a steady speed relative to it. Yet, despite the lack of change, physics says the observer now sees the structure as having momentum and kinetic energy stores that will change in some future interaction. I say that only when structures begin to engage do real and observable changes start to happen. Not because forces are externally impressed but because living desires are, as per Du Chatelet, an equal and essential part of matter.

We have failed to realise that desires reside in the particles of all structures. We, humans are just more advanced structures evolved to better satisfy particle desires.

We are wrong in thinking that the earth provides the attraction for things above it and that the sun provides the attraction that influences earth’s motion. In reality, particles in objects above the earth are aware of and desire earth’s radiated energies. They will move toward them if free to do so. Similarly the earth’s particles are aware of, desire and move toward the sun’s emitted photons. Objects above the earth accelerate at the same rate toward it because the desire for earth energies is a per particle desire. The same objects above the moon accelerate at a lesser rate because the per particle desire in that case is for a lesser moon radiation.

Leibniz and Du Chatelet both saw such matter activities as constrained. Indeed, particle structures do not want an energy overload; but instead want energy stability. It is why structures of particles in a gravity fall proactively find rest close to the earth and why the earth settles into an orbit around the sun.

Photons and other bosons are not force carriers and the much sought after graviton is the photon. Gravity is weaker than charge because the desire of a structure’s particles to move to a more stable location is less than the desire that particles exhibit in unstable structures.

Force is not carried in space by force fields; desires for energies of the environment reside in atomic particles and may be attractive or repulsive. Particles cooperate as structures because they better and more stably satisfy their desires. Vibrating motions of particles are how they self regulate their energy desires. Photons don’t knock electrons between locations; electrons encountering photon energy excesses proactively move toward resisting protons that cause them to bounce to another suitable energy gathering and distributing location.

Existing mathematics may align with experimental results but it fails to explain the why of change. Living particle desires explain the why of change and invite us to re-think, correct and better explain the realities of what we observe.