Table of Contents
Chapter 1 - Introduction
A. Postulates
B. Synopsis
Discovery Number One
Discovery Number Two
Discovery Number Three
Discovery Number Four
C. Outline
Chapter 2 - Language and the Foundations of Classical Mechanics
A. Introduction
B. Signs
C. Symbols
D. Basic Physical Names
E. Number
F. Definitions
G. Sets
H. Statements
I. Propositions
J. Combining Propositions
K. Arguments
L. Simplifying Arguments
M. The Universal Quantifier
N. The Existential Quantifier
O. Grammar
P. Tailoring Language for Rationally Describing the Universe
Q. The Basic Statements of Mechanics
R. Language Summary
Chapter 3 - Classical Mechanics of Particles, Gases, and Fluids
A. Background
B. The First Great Law - Mass is Conserved
C. Frames of Reference - Fixed and Translating
D. Displacement, Time, and Velocity
E. The Second Great Law - Linear Momentum is Conserved
F. The Third Great Law - Angular Momentum is Conserved
G. The Fourth Great Law - Kinetic Energy is Conserved
H. Newton's Three Laws of Motion
I. The Homogeneous Gas
J. Closed Processes with the Homogeneous Gas
K. Flow in a Straight Channel
L. Flow in a Curved Channel
M. Gas Dynamics, Hydrodynamics, and Acoustics
Chapter 4 - Kinetic Theory of Physics
A. The Neutrino
B. The Proton
C. The Electron
D. The Electrostatic Force (e)
E. The Hydrogen Atom and Photons
F. Relativity, Real and Unreal - Or, the Einstein Sting
G. The Neutron
H. Gravitation and Deflation of the Expanding Universe Spoof
I. The Cycle of the Universe
Chapter 5 - Biology and Aging
A. Introduction
B. Current Knowledge of the Cell
C. Forces in Cells
D. Cell Model
E. Conclusions and Recommendations
Chapter 6 - The Mechanism of Thought and the Origin of the Social Groups
A.
Introduction
B. I Think, Therefore I Am (an Organism)
C. Consciousness and Awareness
D. Decision Making
E. Intelligence, Knowledge, and Wisdom
F. Social Groups
G. Closure
Chapter 7 - The Future
A. Questions on the Foundations
B. Problems
C. Physics Applications
D. A Structured Encyclopedia of Science
E. Future Research
Foreword
The universe appears very complex to the casual observer. Scientists look at the universe and try to organize what they see. they assign "properties" to the things they see. The simplest property is the "manyness" of objects. A scientist says there are ten of these objects, four of these, and so on. Possibly the next simplest type of organization consists of assigning sizes and geometric properties to physical items. The geometry of Euclid completed the methodology of assigning sizes - except that geometry was derived from the language (with its logic) which already existed. Similarly colors, sounds, and many other things were described by the time of Euclid (c. 300 BC) - but these things were not interconnected as was geometry.
The next major accomplishment, after Euclid's geometry, was the establishment of the three simple laws of motion known as Newton's laws of motion.
These laws presented a simple unified way of describing the motion of objects in the universe. Thus any type of motion which is observed could be described by applying Newton's laws of motion. Newton also derived the law describing gravitational forces.
The experiments of Faraday, Coloumb, and Newton on magnetism, electricity, and optics gave rise to the unified description known as electromagnetism which was produced by Maxwell.
Chemists, such as Dalton, began probing matter to determine its basic constituents. This effort culminated at the atomic level with the establishment of Mendelev's periodic table of elements. Shortly after the completion of this table scientists such as Curie, J.J. Thompson, and E. Rutherford began to find that atoms consisted of more basic parts. This work culminated with Cadwick's discovery of the neutron. Thus essentially all of the matter in the universe was known to consist only of electrons, protons, and neutrons.
Along with this effort two new forces (in addition to gravitation and electromagnetism) were identified. These forces are the strong nuclear force which binds protons and neutrons to each other and the weak nuclear force which holds the neutron together. These forces were identified but their characteristics were not established with any appreciable accuracy.
Fermi postulated the existence of a neutrino in 1932 and its existence was proven experimentally in 1956 by Cowan and Reines, see the article by P. Morrison.1 The particle -like properties of the photon were established by Planck and Einstein. The wave-like properties of matter were postulated by de Broglie in 1924 and were obtained experimentally by Davisson and Germer in 19272.
While physical scientists were progressing form Euclid's time until 1900, mathematical scientists evolved the mathematics required to describe the ever more fundamental understandings of the physical world.
In fact one (if not) the very best physical scientist was Newton and he invented calculus to describe infinite limit processes which are required to describe the motion of bodies. however, it was not until around 1900 that mathematicians and logicians began searching for the fundamentals of mathematics and language itself. The first major milestone in this direction was Cantor's theory of sets and this effort somewhat culminated with Whitehead and Russell's work on logic and mathematics.
We now ask the question - can the four forces be derived from more fundamental hypotheses. Einstein spent a major portion of his life in vain trying to connect gravitation and electromagnetism - i.e., to derive a "unified field theory". We ask can the three basic particles be derived from one, or more, basic particles. What makes up a neutrino and what is a photon? The author, along with D.B. Harmon, Jr., L.A. Steinert, R.M. Wood and many other scientists spent effort over the past twenty-five years answering just these questions. There is an ultimate particle - the brutino - from which all matter, radiation, and neutrinos are made and which produces all four known forces. Chapter IV of this book presents this theory.
Once the physical theory was completed it became obvious that the language for describing such a theory must be simple. Describing the theory, in effect, amounts to describing the universe. Thus, obtaining the fundamentals of such a language must be of the utmost importance. It is shown in Chapter II that language is simple - language can be derived from approximately twenty words. Thus, everything which is written in this book, in principle, can be derived from these twenty words. The chapter on Language traces language from these root (basic) words up through set theory.
We next ask the question - can biological systems be derived from the existing basic laws of physics and chemistry. In particular, is aging of multi-celled organisms a chemical process or is it due to undiscovered laws of physics or other more subtle laws.
The foundations of biology and aging are presented in Chapter V.
Finally, we ask about thinking, remembering, and decision making as to whether these phenomena also are derivable from known chemical/physical processes. These questions are explored in Chapter VI.
This book basically addresses the unknown questions about the major framework of science. It starts with the most basic fundamentals of language and constructs the foundations of logic and set theory.
The discovery of the basic language words along with the outline of the structure of language is new. These results have been sought by linguists and logicians for many years - but without avail. The reason it was found here is because of the simplicity of the postulates of the theory of physics presented here which almost certainly required that language be simple. The sections of the framework from the language chapter on to the physics chapter is known to many people. It is presented here to show, particularly to non-specialists, how classical mechanics evolves from language. Also, the results can be useful to specialists since they are collected in one place and can be used to derive the kinetic particle theory of physics results.
The kinetic particle theory of physics chapter shows the key role of neutrinos - all matter consists only of neutrinos. but most important, the theory shows the extreme significance of simply considering the role played by the finite size of the gas particles making up the kinetic theory of gases. Basically the effect of kinetic particles having a finite size has essentially been ignored in past research. Another significant aspect of the kinetic particle theory of physics is that it asks and answers such questions as:
1.Why mass, energy, and momentum are conserved.
2. Why does light have the speed it has
3. What is the mechanism which causes Planck's constant to have the value it has
4. How are forces of attraction developed, especially when the theory begins with particles which only repel each other (i.e., in their collisions)
5. Why does the proton have precisely one value of mass and one value of electrostatic charge
6. Why does the electron have precisely one value of mass and the same value of charge as the proton
7. Why are there three, and only three, stable elementary matter particles
Biological systems are investigated briefly basically to answer the question: are biological processes derivable from the known laws of chemistry or is there some more subtle underlying mechanism affecting biological processes - such as aging. The answer is, biological processes are derivable from chemical laws. At least one instance of a sociological process - i.e., the mechanism of free will - may require some phenomena other than chemical ones.
This book thus presents a unified framework of science. As such, the results should be useful for learning science. It is certain, though, that the author enjoyed the quarter century of learning what was known about the framework, identifying the missing elements, discovering the mechanisms of the missing elements, and then documenting the results. I hope many of you appreciate the beauty of this structure.
Joseph M. Brown
Starkville, Mississippi
United States of America
February 1991
1P. Morrison, "The Neutrino", Scientific American, 194:58, 1956.
2C.J. Davisson and L.H. Germer, "Diffraction of Electrons by a Crystal of Nickel", Physical Review 30, 705-740 (1927).