Basic Assumption in Physics by Nainan K. Varghese

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 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

Dear Sandhu,

Thank you very much for compliments.

I share your view about role played by FQXi towards better understanding of fundamental physics.

Relativistic ideas were formulated much later in the history of development of physics. They gave physics a mystical aura, reserving rights of contemplation to very few, with knowledge of advanced mathematics. Many lesser scientists were attracted to it due to its mysterious ideas and incredible possibilities for imagination. Academics stick to relativity theories only because it is their bread. Your arguments would certainly influence, at least a minority, who will read them.

It should not go unnoticed that irrational and baseless assumptions were used in physics even much earlier without much ado. 'Action at a distance through empty space' is an example. No person with little common sense will argue about its irrationality. Yet, physicists accept this assumption with occasional and mild protests. Many a time, their protests appear in the form of use of equally illogical and undefined fields, fluxes, imaginary particles, distortions of form-less structures, etc. On the other hand, anyone who tries to suggest an 'all-encompassing medium of action' is venomously opposed from every quarter. Repeated failures of such ideas, in the past, prompt serious scientists to beware of new ideas. They think it is better to snuff out such attempts early than hope for a logical idea of a universal medium of actions.

My argument is that a single basic assumption related to materialistic nature of its existence can provide logical explanations to all physical phenomena in universe, including a universal medium of actions. All illogical assumptions, you enumerated in your essay, and others currently used in physics can be replaced by a single and basic assumption that 'Substance is fundamental and matter alone provides substance to all real entities'.

With regards,

Nainan