Basic Assumption in Physics by Nainan K. Varghese

Essay Abstract

Lack of fundamental set of assumptions in physics encourages or often compels physicists to conceive different sets of assumptions (often unrelated) for different phenomena. When taken together they often contradict each other. Because of numerous contemporary assumptions, physics is no more an exact science. This affair can be remedied only by sorting existing assumptions out and tabulating one basic set of fundamental assumptions, on which explanations to every physical phenomenon should depend. If any assumption in physics is ripe for re-thinking, I will suggest 'actions at a distance through empty space' as the first candidate. All real entities are made of matter. Existence of matter is the solitary phenomenon without prior cause. Therefore, original set of assumptions should be only with respect to matter. Further development of physics, in all spheres, should be based on these original set of assumptions. To add to or modify original assumptions, whenever certain phenomenon is not readily explainable, is incorrect practise. Multitude of assumptions, currently used in physics, may be substituted by a single and basic assumption that 'Substance is fundamental and matter alone provides substance to all physical entities'. Although conclusions may diverge from current beliefs, reasoning based on this single fundamental assumption can logically explain all physical phenomena.

Author Bio

Nainan K Varghese is a retired Electrical Engineer. Result of his independent research in fundamental questions in Physics is self-published in a book, 'Hypothesis on MATTER'. It is a revolutionary concept that logically explains all physical phenomena, based on just one type of postulated matter particles - the quanta of matter. This alternative concept explains all complex physical phenomena with simple cause and effect relationships and without actions at a distance.

Download Essay PDF File

I understand that topic of essay competition is 'assumptions in physics' rather than any particular physical phenomenon.

Alan Lowey,

Thanks for compliments.

All concepts have to be based on certain definite preconceived ideas, which we call assumptions. These may be results of our past experience or axioms which are widely believed to be true. In physics, an assumption is a statement that is accepted as truth without logical reasoning. It will not attract questions about rational behind it. However, all further reasoning should be based on it.

If we analyze contemporary physical theories, we shall notice that presence of physical bodies is common and necessary for all physical phenomena and related theories. Presence of physical bodies is the reason for all other physical phenomena and without physical bodies, nothing would exist. Absence of physical bodies would ensure absence of all physical phenomena (including our existence) and consequently, there will not be any need for physical theories.

Once, we accept presence of physical bodies, next step would be to answer basic questions like; what? where? when? how? etc. about physical bodies. A physical body, to be real, has to have objective reality in space. Space is an imaginary region, presupposed by rational beings, whenever they envisage real entities. Substance (stuff) gives a physical body, its objective reality in space. By definition, matter provides a body with its objective reality in space. Therefore, matter is the substance that makes physical bodies with objective reality. Thus, presence (or existence) of matter is a basic truth or concept in physics.

In my view, going beyond this concept is meaningless. Because, by definition, matter is the stuff that makes all physical objects. There is no other entity that can provide substance to a physical body. Matter, being real and ultimate substance, cannot be made out of something else. Hence, existence of matter (in universe) is the ultimate truth. This fact should be accepted as the fundamental assumption. Once it is accepted as such, no other questions about existence of matter will arise. No explanation will be required about its cause, creation or origin. Diverse physical bodies in nature would be structured in logical steps from matter alone. There will not be any prior steps to create matter. Hence, existence of matter is the solitary phenomenon without prior cause. All other phenomena are results of existence of matter.

Implication of your query arises from widely accepted belief that matter (or mass) is converted from energy. Energy is defined as 'ability to do work'. Ability is a qualification of some real entity (in this case, ability of a matter body to do work). A qualification is a functional entity without objective reality. It is not a physical entity. A non-physical entity cannot be converted to physical entity. Hence, it is illogical to believe that energy can be converted into matter or vice versa.

Once we accept existence of matter as the basic assumption, explanation on every physical phenomenon in nature should be logical extension of this assumption. Reasoning used for any physical theory should start from this basic assumption. All other secondary assumptions (if any) and explanations will be derived from this single basic assumption. Adding illogical assumptions (whenever certain phenomenon cannot be explained on the basis of basic assumption) to suit observation is not a correct practice.

Roger Schlafly,

No, Sir. I would emphasize the point that 'everything real is made of matter and nothing else'. Electrons and protons are superior physical bodies (fundamental particles) made of matter.

Thanks for your interest,

Nainan

Alan Lowey,

Of course, I have one simple concept. But, this is not a forum to discuss it. You may kindly visit my website or contact me directly.

Thanks,

Nainan

Dear James,

If assumption of 'existence of matter' alone can explain all physical phenomena, why do we need undefined 'dark matter' and 'dark energy'.

Nainan

Dear Dirk,

Thank you very much. You have indeed summarized essential points in my essay, very beautifully.

Subject of contest is 'Questioning the Foundations: Which of our Basic Physical assumptions are Wrong'. Rules of contest specifically forbid pet theories by authors. Hence, I omitted mentioning anything about my concept and concentrated on general state of assumptions (currently used in physics) with 'actions at a distance' as most illogical assumption. Only one acceptable basic assumption, required in physics according to my concept, is mentioned in last paragraph, to replace all other contemporary assumptions.

What I would like to propose is that in a materialistic universe, existence of matter is an undeniable fact. Presuming this to be true, 'existence of matter' has to be part of the basic assumption in physics, which I stated as 'Substance is fundamental and matter alone provides substance to all real entities'. All other explanations have to be based on it and derived from it. For details on how this is done may be gathered from my website/book.

Thank you again, for link to your essay. I think it is quite scholarly. Unfortunately, it is slightly above my standard of understanding. As I understand, you identified zero-dimensional particles in QM as a wrong physical assumption. To rectify this mistake you have proposed a special type of particle as a new assumption, while retaining almost all of current assumptions used in physics. As QM itself is based on many other assumptions in physics, assumptions used solely in QM may not qualify to be basic assumption in physics.

Thanking you and with regards,

Nainan

Dear Gupta,

Thanks for comments.

Your essay is quite thought provoking on many points. However, I shall limit my opinion only on dimensions.

You define dimension as: "Dimension is an observable parent of a reality. The object is said to have as many dimensions as number of such realities composing the object." And space as "Contemporary space is a residual concept of Cartesian Space on removal of matter (Ether). It is an infinite 3-Dimension continuum which can be measured and fixed (it is neither created nor destroyed)".

In physics; space is understood as the boundless extent of universe, where all material objects and organisms (including rational beings like ourselves) exist and in which objects and events occur. All material objects in the universe have their relative as well as absolute positions and motions in the space. Space, itself, has no material existence. It cannot provide sensory experience to rational beings, like real entities do. It has no form or structure and it is not tangible. It is a functional entity (pre-supposed by rational beings, whenever they envisage material bodies) that serves the purpose of locating various material bodies in it and where rational beings relate themselves with each other. In this sense, the extent outside three-dimensional material bodies becomes the space.

In order to locate various material bodies, at any instant, we need to have certain references in space. Therefore space is divided into coordinate sections about a reference point, determined by observer. Generally, we use Cartesian coordinate system to measure spatial dimensions. In this system, space is divided by mutually perpendicular planes through a point of origin and distances to location of a body is measured from all coordinate planes to define exact location of body in space in relation to point of origin. Although, there is a theoretical possibility to divide space by 'n' number of mutually perpendicular planes to define as many spatial dimensions, I do not consider it a real possibility in practice. At the most we may have are three mutually perpendicular planes to divide space into eight parts. This system is known as three-dimensional spatial system.

I wonder how can there be more than three mutually perpendicular planes, in a system of 360 degree (2pi radians) system of space. Other than in imaginary theoretical concepts, I believe, it is impossible to produce spatial dimensions beyond third order. I do not know much about 'PicoPhysics' (from your essay, I understand that it supports many of contemporary irrational assumptions), to comment on 5D space, you profess.

I should add that while using spatial dimensions, we are actually measuring departure between two points/bodies rather than space, in between them.

With regards,

Nainan

Dear Jose,

You are welcome to contact me directly, if you wish.

An assumption is a statement, which is believed to be true. Hence, you cannot question its correctness unless further developments of theories on various physical phenomena do not contradict the assumption. At any stage of development of these theories, an inconsistency is noticed; assumption is proved incorrect. More than one basic assumption is likely to lead towards contradictions. Having numerous sets of assumptions (used in different theories) can only lead towards chaos in theoretical physics.

As long as we believe in material world, existence of matter cannot be denied. Hence, having 'existence of matter' as the basic and only assumption is not likely to go wrong. Challenge is to develop theories on various phenomena on this basis, instead of subscribing numerous assumptions, whenever theorists are struck on their way.

Thanks and with regards,

Nainan.

Dear Jose,

If existence of matter can be considered as a fact, rather than an assumption, I would say that no assumptions are required in physics. All physical phenomena can be logically explained on the basis of this 'fact' (of existence of matter) alone.

However, a fact (I believe) is nothing but a statement that is believed to be true. An assumption is also defined in same terms. Once you know matter for a fact, why assume its properties. Properties will be self-evident in definition of matter.

[Mass is a measure of inertia or it is a mathematical relation between matter-content and change of state of motion of a matter-body. Matter, being a single type of entity, a matter-body cannot have different natures for its most-fundamental particles. There is no unambiguous definition for 'energy'. Whatever energy means, it has to be distinct from matter and hence, they cannot be converted/reverted into each other.]

I think you presented a brilliant analysis, in your essay, of current affairs in physics and your suggestions on ways out of present dilemmas are very practical. Nevertheless, who will bell the cat?

With regards,

Nainan