Frank Wilczek and the Universal Substrate

Coming May and June - two new Special Issues of SHAPE Journal
a definitive guide to Jim Schofield's Substrate Theory of Physics

In an Origins Project lecture, at Arizona State University, Frank Wilczek gave a contribution upon the Materiality of Space (see below for video).

What was remarkable was that much of what he had to say resonated, very markedly indeed, with my own ideas based upon the concept of an undetectable Universal Substrate (the hidden materiality of the vacuum) but, nevertheless, coming from a very different place; namely the more usually accepted consensus positions of today's Sub Atomic Physics.

Indeed, the last paper I wrote was also concerning Wilczek's work, and his supportive ambitions for the Large Hadron Collider in 2010, which I'm afraid I dismissed as a total myth.

However, this lecture has dramatically altered my assessment of him, as both a scientist and indeed, a philosopher. By alternate, indeed diametrically different means, he has arrived at very similar conclusions, to those I postulate, and this delivers a very different slant upon valid pathways towards the Truth that we, as physicists, always seek!

Indeed, the situation delivered far more than that: for he was introduced-by, and afterwards disagreed-with Lawrence Krause, who seemingly from the same theoretical stance as Wilczek, also demonstrated how that seemingly identical basis, was indeed diametrically opposite in various extremely important premises.

For Wilczek is a physicist: while Krause is, at heart, a mathematician!

And, as it became clear, Wilczek and myself, though arriving at very similar positions on Empty Space (he even mentions the word "substrate"), were nevertheless getting there, on the one hand, due to conforming to the same basic premises, still managed to do it, in spite of using very different means and sources for our theories. And, the subsequent presence and disagreements of Krause, also confirmed that his differences, in spite of working in the very same areas as Wilczek, put him in a very different position indeed.

Krauss is an idealist, whereas Wilczek is actually a materialist.

Now, by far the more important revelation for me was the possibility of arriving at similar conclusions from very different experimental evidence and theoretical bases. It clearly confirmed both for myself, and for him, that we, as scientists, did not either seek or expect to find Absolute Truth, but, on the contrary, what I term Objective Content - that is aspects or parts of that never-to-be-reached Absolute Truth, but which supply the best view of Reality we currently have: and which would always be open to improvement by new Objective Content, if it proved to be closer to that unobtainable objective.

In addition, Wilczek made absolutely clear what were legitimate theories in such Objective Content, citing, as I often do, James Clerk Maxwell's Aether - a fictional Analogistic Model composed of Vortices and Electrical Particles, from which he directly derived his Electromagnetic Equations - forms with enough Object Content that we still successfully use them today.

And, this also says something quite profound, and generally not understood, about how equations are derived.

For, most equations are what I term Pluralistic Equations, derived initially from intensely pluralistically-farmed experiments, and thereafter wedded to Pure Equations from Mathematics by adjusting the Equation's constants to make them fit. And, that is very different indeed from Maxwell's Holistic derivation of an equation direct from a Physical Explanatory Theory.

Indeed, elsewhere, and at another time, working with the mathematician Jagan Gomatam, I was able to use equations he had developed directly from theory to do with the beating of the Human Heart, which in contrast to equations as a consequence of experimental data, actually were able to demonstrate both Fibrillations and Heart Attacks.

But, how many modern day physicists do things that way round, and thereby actually knowing why it gets closer to the Truth?

Now, Wilczek certainly doesn't define Empty Space as I do - filled with an undetectable Universal Substrate of Leptons. But, he does insist that Empty Space is filled with something material.

His current model uses Quantum Fluctuations, but both theories are identical functionally in how they explain both Pair Productions and Pair Annihilations: and crucially Wilczek clearly admits to having the same stance upon the necessity of such currently-valid Analogistic Models!

Now, as to where Wilczek and this theorist differ, it is certainly in exactly what materiality, which actually fills the vacuum, and is both affected-by what is happening to it, and consequently what those effects upon it do to things contained within it. With literally only directly undetectable Quantum Fluctuations, we can commend any attempt for The Theory to directly determine any subsequently arrived at formulae, but at the same time, it is almost impossible to theorise as to what that form is likely to be.

While, in contrast, with this theorist's known Universal Substrate Units, both aspects can be adequately and correctly carried through to completion - that is for the full-detail, Analogistic Model (á la Maxwell) from which to generate the necessary Equations, as Maxwell did from his Model of the Aether.

There is much more in Wilczek's lecture than I have dealt with here. Some of his philosophical points are particularly powerful...

Clearly, the replacement of Quantum Fluctuations, and, of course, my Analogistic Model of the Universal Substrate, has yet to be achieved.

But the stance is right!

The Diversity of Space

How the Universal Substrate and its contents vary

Plurality, Mathematics & Reality:

The concept of a Universal Substrate involves many different features, which bothered nobody when the alternative of Totally-Empty-Space was taken instead. For then, you would not need to worry about a boundary of Space, when it is Empty - for in-or-out, what's the difference?

In addition, neither would such a background ever be distorted by the presence of large concentrations of matter. For, there would be absolutely nothing to distort (leaving aside idealistic abstractions such as spacetime, for the moment)!  

And also, any projectiles, fired into such a void, would encounter nothing to slow them down: they would simply carry on forever as they are! 

So, why are we so adamant that this Total Emptiness is the case? 

It is the oldest trick that Man ever learned:- 

"Make everything as simple as possible, and you will be able to begin to understand it!"

EXCEPT, of course, that, in this case, it does leave many known phenomena totally unexplained.

So, what do you do?

You conceive of "influences" which can reach across Empty Space - Gravity being the first! But, how can they possibly do that? That question also appears to be unanswerable too.

So, to add to Simplification, Mankind devised Idealism, where non-physical influences are brought in to do the job.

And finally, we resorted to Form (Mathematics), where Empty Space itself has a "Form", and this could be curved, so what appears to be a caused-deflection ISN'T - it is merely an entity inexorably following that curvature.

Do you think I am kidding? I am not!

Mankind was faced with many inexplicable things, until they were able to hold-things-still, when certain features seemed to persist. We imagined that many simultaneous things were happening together, and that his holding-it-still removed many of those, and also exposed an "actual natural property". And though, at that early stage, it was only vaguely realised, Man had already begun to subscribe to a new principle - that of Plurality, which the scientific majority generally continues to believe-in to this very day.

It took a while to mature, but by the time of the Greek Intellectual Revolution, of 2,500 years ago, it certainly enabled a whole applicable-and-extendable discipline to be constructed, via producible and manipulate-able Theorems and Proofs.

This was Geometry, and it quickly led to what we know today as Mathematics. In this System of eminately-relatable ideas, all elements were reduced to their most minimal definitions -

Dots - of zero extension, but precise position.

Lines - of zero thickness but connecting precise positions.

Planes - of zero curvature and infinite extent, upon which Dots and Lines could be placed.

Particular aspects of the world were severely simplified to allow the study of those also-idealised-forms for further investigation. And, the idealisation of forms was taken further with Squares, Triangles and even Circles, and, in no time at all, these were extended into three dimensions with Cubes, Tetrahedra, Spheres and even such things as Dodecahedra.

Simplification was intimately-wedded to Perfect Forms, and Reality-itself was mapped-onto that artificially defined set. Yet, the biggest leap of all was also about to be introduced.

Symbolic, measureable-forms could be represented by alphabetic letters as placeholders for the full range of values of real things, and relations between them were delivered via carefully-tailored, but nonetheless perfect Equations. But, these were NEVER accurate versions of Reality-as-is!

They were only acquired in carefully arranged-for, "held down" situations: they were simplified-and-idealised versions, only available when taken from artificially-tailored contexts. Remarkably, they were from arranged-for-situations that DID indeed conform to Plurality, while the supposedly represented concrete Reality most certainly did NOT.

Now, there also developed two alternative ways of dealing with any studied part of Reality.

The first was an attempt to explain it in terms of its components and their known properties.

The second, involved the conducting of experiments in carefully arranged-for situations, allowing a series of measurements over a given range to be taken, and the results having a Perfect General Equation of the "right form", taken from the studies of mathematicians, and pragmatically fitted-up to that data.

And these were NOT the same!

The Explanation could only use what was known and its value was delivered by how much Objective Content - parts or aspects of the Truth - it contained.

The Equation would be necessarily-distorted both by its specially arranged-for context and its simplifications and idealisations which would make it both totally pluralistic, and specific to a particular context only.

Space and the Universal Substrate:

Now, having a non-empty Space also removes all those simplifying assumptions which made our conceptions of what happens there so easy to arrive at.

And, of course, instead of a uniform Emptiness absolutely everywhere (including beyond any limits to our Universe), we will have instead, maybe, a non-uniform content, actually affected by what is contained within it, while itself possibly affecting those interlopers, or even their movements through it. And, crucially, it will matter exactly what the Universal Substrate is composed of, and whether its units can relate to one another in a variety of structure modes. Finally, whether that Substrate is composed of a hierarchy of levels, providing very different components and consequent properties throughout.

Now, very clearly, as this theoretical physicist opposes the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory, he has, within his researches, with regard to that stance, developed The Theory of a Universal Substrate, which, in contrast to Copenhagen, has managed to supply actual-physical-explanations for most of the anomalous phenomena consequent upon that interpretation.

His objectives, apart from ensuring complete undetectability, whenever such a Substrate was not active, was to address every one of the many anomalies currently totally unexplained by that consensus stance, in The Double Slit Experiments.

His objective, in the light of zero dependable evidence, was to theoretically define and construct a Substrate that could answer each and every one.

Now, before such an objective elicits the usual condemnations, by those of the consensus position, may I insist upon an important principle for such research.

It may well be a speculative leap into the unknown, but not only will the researcher be well aware of that but he will guarantee that the theories will be holist and physical, as distinct from the Copenhagen alternatives, which are always pluralist and idealist.

Propagating Space

How can a void have a structure? Maybe it isn't empty...

How can space be totally empty?

The inclusion of a Universal Substrate filling all-of-space immediately removes the obvious advantages of such being totally empty, but, it also does this simultaneously with the provision of a concrete means for propagations across "the supposed void" - causally explained, at long last.

Such contradictions occur regularly in Science, and, indeed, necessarily so in a sincere quest to understand Reality. And, they occur crucially, and most obviously, for the reasons that Hegel revealed some 200 years ago. Such Dichotomous Pairs of Contradictory Ideas occur because our initial definitions are always unavoidably inadequate in some way - the most likely being due to the omission of some essential premise, or alternatively some error in an included premise. [And, for this reason, the usual general assumptions of Plurality have been jettisoned here in favour of the more accurate stance of Holism]

But also, it is becoming clear, that the assumption of an Empty Universe greatly simplified our conceptions of what could possibly happen there.

For, as soon as there is NO Empty Space, disruptions or replacements locally of that now essential underlying Substrate, can, and apparently will, disrupt, deflect or even prohibit "straight-line" propagations.

And yet, all such contradictions are explained by Hegel's discrediting of Formal Reasoning, due to its pluralist stance, which explains everything in terms of fixed properties and Laws - so the possibility of something possessing alternative and even contradictory modes is totally prohibited by that stance.

But, as we have seen in the Theory of the Universal Substrate, subsets of its producing Units can exist in various alternative arrangements with very different properties: our flawed, initial conceptions may contain sufficient Objective Content to be eminently useful in given circumstances, but will always, in the end, prove to be insufficient!

The initial problem is therefore,

"How can conceived-to-be straight-line propagation occur, with something in the way?"

Now, answering this problem in terms of point sources and a necessary straight line route to a point recipient is impossible! But, that is a formally simplified version of a real occurrence.

The likelihood is that a host of propagations will be initiated from many different positions, so some will avoid the obstructions and the effect upon the odd diversions, by the rest, will not be considered to affect it thereafter.

But, remember, these Substrate Pavings can be temporarily dissociated into showers of individuals units, which form, temporarily-at-least, directed flows, which, as soon as they can, will be absorbed back into paving-based propagations thereafter.

Perhaps this is similar to turbulence in a gas? https://gdtl.osu.edu

It would seem necessary to have a propagated signal briefly transforming itself into a mode which collectively maintains a direction through such disturbances. You can see why Photons are possible, BUT are only one of several modes!

ASIDE: Watching a lecture by Erik Verlinde, the complexities of his purely Formal means of dealing with all the phenomena at the Sub Atomic Level was evidently unavoidable due to the pluralist and idealist stance involved.

Every mode change in my way of dealing with things, unavoidably involved yet another formal method, in his way of thinking. But, what he was doing was NOT Physics, it was Mathematics, and they are NOT the same thing at all!

To promote purely formal descriptions into causes is Idealism: it makes simplified abstractions, fitted-up-to by purely formal relations, as the causes of Reality. Such theorists are seduced by the almost limitless extent of Pure Forms in Ideality, so they easily forget that Forms are never causes, always consequences.

And, of course, the original power of such forms, enabling the construction of a consistent and developable discipline, Mathematics, only works within Stabilities: any situation involving developmental changes cannot be encapsulated by such methods.

Indeed, rather than a pluralist conception, which can only ever deliver complication, there is the holist alternative, which can, and indeed must, deliver the intrinsic developments that quite evidently have led time-after-time to the entirely new emerging! Can Lego-like plurality deliver Life and Human Consciousness? Of course it can't!

Out of Hegel's insistence that true qualitative change simply must be included in all reasoning, arose the possibility of it also including the natural development of Reality. And, with the wholesale transfer of his Dialectics to a materialist basis by Marx, the possibility of Science extending its reach beyond the sole study of Stabilities, finally became possible. Indeed, Darwin's revolutionary revelation of Evolution in Living Things naturally meant that there must have been major developments in what had given rise to Life - the material World itself evolves. Can Mathematics deal with that?

No.

What Happens in Interstellar Space?

Certain questions just have to be asked, in response to the current total absence of any physical means of communication in so-called Empty Space.

Of course, Einstein's Space-Time continuum provided a non-physical, yet somehow effectible, Reference-System, as a means of formally fitting patterns to what occurs there, but only by taking that basis completely out of physical explanation and endowing the "stage" itself with the necessary formal wherewithal, entirely independent of any physical causes.

So, for gravitational forces elicited directly by Matter, we have the contradictory explanation of a non-material context both being affected-by, while itself affecting, what happens within its aegis.

We, in the past, used to term such inferred intermediaries to be physical Substrates, but as none were ever detected, the substitution of that non-material-framework, justified the purely formal definitions that were already-and-everywhere else erected as parallel alternatives, to the previously always-required physical Explanations.

It fitted-in, directly, if not perfectly, with the positivist stance of Poincaré and Mach, and what soon after became the dominant position of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory.

Purely formal pattern-fitting was rapidly ousting all Physical Theories, as the true bases of Science, and of the Concrete Reality, which it previously purported to explain in purely physical terms. Truly, a purely idealist-and-pluralist mathematical form of "Theory", along with various, frigged-up "philosophical" justifications, cheek-by-jowl with isolated physical tokens, has totally replaced Science as it used to be considered.

And, the fact that there were many things wrong with the old conceptions, doesn't make this transformation anything other than a major, and ultimately debilitating Retreat! At least, the old contradictory amalgam of stances did enable alternative routes to be taken, with difficult problems, while maintaining Physical Explanations as paramount.

But now, that absolutely crucial banker-component had been jettisoned, and replaced by a totally idealist-and-pluralist discipline, not only as a means of describing Reality, but also as the means of driving it too!

And, this purely form-based approach was highly attractive for several reasons.

First and foremost was the fact that increasing knowledge allowed to-be-investigated situations to be farmed and controlled to such an extent, that formal relations could be fairly easily extracted, and then matched to fitted-up general forms from Mathematics. And these, in turn, allowed achievable predictions to be made, and then successfully implemented - as long as the conditions used in extraction were replicated exactly for use in productions.

In addition, these equations were legitimately pluralist (while the Reality-as-is that they were supposed to represent, most certainly wasn't). And, this allowed the pluralistic rules of Pure Form to be used in developing further, more extensive "formal theories". as if they were Real World generalities.

But, of course, the clearest gains were achieved by the Technologists, whose main motto was still, "If it works, It is right!". and whose extensive Knowledge and pragmatic skills enabled them to always construct the appropriate contexts for effective use!

And, finally, "Space", itself, never ever available under such farmed and controlled conditions, was not only seemingly much closer to the ideal pluralist conditions, but also was beyond our experimental investigation: it could only be passively observed, so the earth-based means of confirmations were unavailable.

The situation was tailor-made for formal equation-fitting PLUS speculation!

Now, an early assumption, attempting to explain phenomena that evidently occurred in "Space", was that it was filled with some invisible Substrate, usually termed The Ether (or luminiferous aether), which both allowed the Propagation of Electromagnetic Radiation, and communicated evident Actions-at-a-Distance, such as Gravitation.

But when it was discounted by the Michelson-Morley Experiment, it was replaced by absolutely Nothing - the ubiquitous Natural Vacuum of Space.

The phenomena still occurred, and have mathematical formulae. which they obey, but as to why they were possible - that was left unaddressed.

Now, it very soon became an untenable stance, so while maintaining the total absence of anything resembling a substrate, there was one kind of interloper that it was considered could be relied upon to deliver everything! It was energetic particles fired into the emptiness of Space, and capable of carrying on as such until they hit something.

Even Electromagnetic Radiation was conceived as coming in quanta - individual gobbets of energy, so they too would also fit the bill: no longer would a propagating substrate be deemed necessary.

But, how do you expand Nothingness?

With the deemed-to-be-essential, faster than the Speed of Light, Inflation, early in the Universe, what exactly was expanded, and how? Forgive me, but this isn't Physics: it is crystal-clear, as a purely mathematical process applied to a Form! It is a purely formal, non-physical solution to problems, which the Universe, as we conceive it, sets for us.

And, how about the Red Shift in light from distant objects?

We infer a Doppler Shift as occurs in sound on Earth, but that effect assumes a physical spatial-or-time dilation or contraction, so how would that occur in Light Quanta? What indeed is the physical form of a Quantum?

How can you stretch a wave without a medium!?

It is conceivable when an electron orbit in an atom is promoted to a higher level by a descrete amount of energy, embodied in an electron going around the atom at a particular radius and speed: that embodies the future quantum = produced when the orbit is demoted again releasing a precise quantum of Energy.

But as what?

I can conceive of a transfer to another receptacle, similar in form to an atom, with and internal orbit. But neither of these seem susceptible to Doppler Shift modifications! And data recorded from observations by the astronomer Halton Arp seem to directly confound the usual interpretation.

And, yet another problem is in the transit of Birkeland Plasma Currents between, say, the Sun and the Earth actually find their targets through supposedly entirely Empty Space? For these have two strands, in close intrinsic proximity to each other going in opposite directions to one another.

How do these actually occur?

Now space rockets and powerful space located Telescopes have revealed Boundaries of the Solar System in supposedly Empty Space causing the Kuiper Belt and the Ort Cloud to take very different forms. And, the Voyager Spacecraft has actually measured these boundaries - begging the question - boundaries in what?

What is the Interstellar "Medium"?
It sounds suspiciously like a Substrate!

This is not by any means a fully worked up answer to the problems posed above: but this theorist has elsewhere developed a definition of an undetectable Universal Substrate - existing in so-called Empty Space which not only addresses the above problems but also all those appearing in the famed Double Slit Experiments credited with delivering the Foundation for the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory - the current consensus in Modern Sub Atomic Physics!

The latest developments in this new Substrate Theory of Physics can be found in the latest issue of Shape, which looks at the possibility of a medium of Neutrino-based Gravitons, pervading all space.

Issue 59 of the SHAPE Journal

Meta Forces

Issue 58: The Solar Wind II

This strange new auroral phenomenon is called 'Steve'

Steve is still a mystery

There's been quite a bit of odd space weather lately. 'Steve' above has been spotted in the skies before, but only in the last couple of months has this bizarre aurora really started to cause a stir.

Also, a recent crack in the Earth's magnetic field unleashed a magnificient auroral display over Norway earlier this month. There seems to be increasing evidence that the Solar Wind does periodically enter our planet's Magnetosphere, and may, somewhat paradoxically, even be responsible for it.

“We’ve discovered that our magnetic shield is drafty, like a house with a window stuck open during a storm,” says Harald Frey of the University of California, Berkeley

Since this issue was written, and while we were “going to press” as it were, some interesting evidence came to our attention which may support the notion that the Earth’s magnetic field was originally ‘seeded’, and continues to be supported by the Solar Wind.

A paper entitled Solar wind induced magnetic field around the unmagnetized Earth (2004) by G. T. Birk1, H. Lesch1 and C. Konz2, looks particularly relevant in this regard, as does this excerpt from Natural Resources Canada website, an article entitled Generation of the Earth’s magnetic field:

“Even before the Earth’s magnetic field was first formed magnetic fields were present in the form of the sun’s magnetic field. Once the process is going, the existing field acts as the seed field.”

There’s some really intriguing, and seemingly holistic science going on in this area of physics - but further research is required to work out its veracity and its significance to our own theories regarding magnetism and the Universal Substrate. Watch this space: The Solar Wind III is already in preparation.

Read The Solar Wind II on SHAPE

The Substrate

A material explanation for Einstein's space-time?

Properties Outwith and Within

A Matter of Context?

One of the arguments in Einstein's Theory of General Relativity concerns situations in which some system is wholly and uniformly contained within a higher and vastly larger system - like Jupiter and its Moons existing within the Sun-dominated Solar System. For, such a sub-system, as that of Jupiter, then behaves, to some extent, as if no overall super-system were present.

Einstein addressed such situations by talking of elevators and the effects, upon what may be contained within such, by the external contexts. He even considers the situation where the elevator is falling, compared with one with no context at all. His arguments turned me to thinking about my proposed undetectable, yet-definitely-material universal Substrate, for this might be considered in a similar way?

But, as distinct from Einstein's elevators - and their "contexts", my considered case would actually be full of its own composing Substrate Units, so any such local sub-system would be acting within them too. Clearly, this might well not be analogous to Einstein's Thought Experiment!

For, though my suggested Substrate could contain, within all the adjacent units of any contained sub-system, an overall "Gravity Field" - literally equal for all the elements of that sub system, it too would, presumably, also continue to act internally as if NO external field were present.

But, Einstein's Gravity Field was quite definitely continuous!

NOTE: So, in doing the above, am I perhaps just repeating that ancient error revealed by Zeno of Elea in his famous Paradoxes? For, that revealed the possible impasses produced by the two different assumptions of Continuity and Descreteness. So, are we here assuming that same Continuity, as of a "Space-Time Continuum" with its associated infinities, as in the Achilles and the Tortoise Paradox?And, even assuming the presence of the basic function of Propagation in a Substrate, which is entirely without either moving-carrying-units OR elastic interconnections between such units. And, explaining which turned out to be the most difficult problem to solve for that proposed Substrate...

So, returning to my original considerations, from that important diversion, the question seemed to be, "Is that because the very same forces act upon all local elements equally and hence, internally, at least, have no differentiating effects?"

For, the problem is complicated by whether energy is used from real, affected substrate units, OR whether the Substrate is more like Einstein's Space-Time continuum, with its distortion just directing movements in accordance with the "continuum slopes" - in other words involving NO distributed, stored-and-then-driving gravitational energy at all?

As the reader will no doubt have guessed, this theorist is not enamoured of idealist abstractions to explain concrete effects in Reality!

What seems much more likely is that a Universal Substrate of undetectable, but definitely material elements, itself performs the physical effects that Einstein abstractly attributes to his abstract Space-Time Continuum!

BUT, at the same time, such a stance, as I am proposing, does not throw away the clarity often achieved by formal representations of physically existing entities and phenomena, as we use them across, mostly effectively, ALL phenomena. However, it clearly also does not equate them as being identical!

For, such things are merely formal reflections of the real concrete World, but contain only pure mathematical, and hence unchanging, forms, and in order to work, the conditions pertaining MUST be appropriately unchanging. In both experiments and production, such necessary conditions are ensured by the scientists or producers involved, but on a cosmological scale such stability is quite naturally almost exactly delivered!

So, as with all Science and Technology over the last millennia, such formal relations will hold as long as the assumed, and usually such man-made, contexts are maintained.

Now, the Theory of the Universal Substrate, as suggested by this theorist, has already discounted the Copenhagen Interpretations of the confusing phenomena produced by the Double Slit Experiments, and has also even purely physically explained Quantized electron orbits in atoms too - both achieved by the assumption of this particular Universal Substrate. So, clearly, the next major task, looming large, must be the tackling of Einstein's General Relativity, physically, as has already been recently completed for Quantum Theory, and the mapping of the purely formal equations in both areas onto truly physical explanations!

Issue 55: The Solar Wind

Read issue

This edition comprises of a loose collection of related papers marking the start of a nascent research area - how magentic fields extend across vast distances of supposedly ‘empty’ space and affect each other - the Sun affecting the Earth for example. 

I’m trying to find research papers which explain what I think might be happening with the charged particles originating in the upper atmosphere of the sun. I assume that although taken as a whole the solar wind would be electrically neutral. However, there are both positive and negatively charged plasmas. I believe that the positive particles may be of varying mass (that is nuclei with different numbers of protons and neutrons). If this is so then I would guess that the proportion of heavier elements decreases with increasing mass.

Obviously higher energy (plasma-based) charged particles would penetrate deeper through the earth’s magnetic field. Moving charged particles will create an associated magnetic field. Such magnetic fields would interfere with the earth’s magnetic field. Therefore, are we looking at a topology problem? That is, it’s the shape of the resulting magnetic field that would describe what is happening at the poles.

Meta-Gravity?

Directed Meta-Level Gravity 

The construction of a directed gravitational field within the Universal Substrate

Clearly, if we drop the frankly-magical varying-active- and-directed gravitational “field-happening-in-totally-nothing” - somehow subtended across vast volumes of completely Empty Space, we not only have to consider the presence of a Universal Substrate as its necessary means of a propagation, but also such a field’s own self- erection within such a Substrate, and delivered solely by the Substrate’s own special Units, as responding-and- active parts of that only possible intermediary.

And, it is also clear that such a field is merely only initiated, rather than caused, by the presence and properties of both-of-the-Masses involved. For they are certainly not intrinsically altered in any way by the fields they apparently subtend!

So that, instead, we must have a self-built Substrate-Field, actively constructed by the implicit properties of that Substrate, but located outwards from each initiating Mass, by each-and-every Substrate Unit that is involved in both moving-to the initiator, and equipping- itself both with an appropriate(?) energy deposit, plus a crucial directional-indicator pointing back directly towards that initiator.

How else could that field cause movements of the right size and direction to any affected bodies?

We can only assume that particular gravity-field-versions of the Universal Substrate set of Units, or Gravitons, were, in the prior absence of any massive initiator, both just randomly-moving-about (like a gas), and, because of this, also cancelling-out any of their resident properties, so as to be totally-undetectable.

NOTE: the parallel problem of Electromagnetic Fields has also been solved in a very similar way, by involving two exact mirror image units in equal quantities, the Magnetons, which also required detectable properties in order to actively function as they certainly must, but also needed to be undetectable when inactive. Clearly, a similar solution will be necessary for Gravitons also.

But then, with the arrival of a massive object, into such a Substrate, it would seemingly effectively “capture” those previously randomly-moving Units into a series of static concentric shells surrounding that material object, with all their directional features pointing exclusively towards (and directly-away from it, in a dipole manner), and filled with enough energy (dredged from elsewhere in the substrate) to be available, in an inverse-square- law manner, to deliver a gravitational impulse, when encountering a another material intruder coming into its aegis.

NOTE: the directional element within each Unit must be “dipolar” in a different way to the similar directional elements in electromagnetic Substrate Units (the magnetons). For, it does not have dissimilar opposite directions - such as the magneton’s North & South, but here presenting the same effect in both directions.

The reason for this is that the aligning of gravitational substrate units around the initiator, will on the one hand to balance the gravitational mass of the initiator, but also to transmit that same effect outwards via the dipoles of the units of the field.

Clearly, such “gravitational field Units” of the Substrate could, at this stage, only be influenced by the size of the initiating Mass, as no other interacting Mass is yet on the scene, as currently that aspect of any possible future interaction is yet to be addressed.

Clearly, nothing will then happen, until another material entity’s own gravitational field, building-out-from-it, as initiator, encounters the prior gravitational field of the first-considered Mass.

Clearly, when the two material objects are still very far apart, a reasonable “simplification” might be to consider the fields as wholly independent of one another - established around each, but not yet acting upon anything else.

But, the situation, which must be addressed, is when that is no longer the case, and two such bodies, both depending upon their own individual total Masses, will apparently begin to mutually affect each other.

The major question must be, “Will both initiators then produce joint field units, combining effects from both Masses, or will the fields continue to exist, separate-but- interleaved with one another?”

Once again, the reasonable initial simplification must be to assume the latter, because of the implications of the former, for the then clearly much more complicated Gravitational field Substrate Units will be too much to deal with just yet!

Now, with these assumptions, each Mass is affected by the other in proportion to that other Mass’s size, and, via the involved, connecting line of field units, is forcibly- directed towards that other - all the time suffering changing effects as the distances between decline. It is concerning the amount of this movement, where each body’s own mass also becomes involved.

NOTICE, how the Equations, derived for these processes, hide the actual contributions-and-dynamics, as well as their reasons, in a purely quantitative, simplified and idealised pure mathematical form!

In contrast, what is being attempted here is primarily a Physical Understanding and Explanation!

Also, it is important that because of any prior in-process movements of the two bodies, they may well only be merely re-directed by this gravitational interaction, and will, having passed one another, carry on upon new paths, taking their separate fields with them!

Apart from possible collisions and even merging, the only other possibility, will undoubtedly be the capture of one body by the other, resulting in an orbit of the lesser around the greater, and, a complex interaction of the two fields in some stable situation.

These fields may well, in fact, actually merge, but be then transformed into a two-ways-facing joint-field-unit, transmitting attractive influences back to both masses and causing them to move towards one another.

But, is much-too-soon to address such complexities: we will stay with our simplification as long as it suffices in delivering increased understanding of what is going on. The two “interleaved” fields will change in contained energy to always reflect their varying, current distances apart. Only when these changes are instituted will any consequent field actions occur.

Then, both the masses involved will use the gathered-in energy in its adjacent field units to be pulled towards the other! The changes in both fields will, themselves be modified by the changing positions of the initiating Masses, so propagations of field energies will be changing due to two simultaneous effects:-

1. the using up of field energy to move the affected Masses

2. the moving-in of energy from elsewhere in the Substrate to replenish depleted Units back to the appropriate, currently-required levels

NOTE: In the actual, here-unaddressed situation of merged fields, there would also be a third constant adjustment to even the un-used field energies, to reflect the changing distances away of the initiating Masses.

Of course, such descriptions do not say either “how” or “why” these things happen, for instead of simple “cause-and-result” situation, we have, instead, each seen as both cause-and-result of each other, while the whole thing is actually entirely due to an affected-and-effecting Substrate, actually delivering everything involved.

We can, and indeed do, simplify, by usually taking a relative-to-one-mass standpoint (as most of our experiences are of vastly-differently-sized entities), but the real situation is usually more complicated than that.

The problem, as it was with Electromagnetic Fields, also within the same Universal substrate, is surely Movement. For, it was the Movement of charged, orbiting particles that activated Magnetic Dipole Effects, and, in so doing, also delivered the necessary capabilities of built-in Direction.

So, it looks highly likely that such Movements could also be responsible for similar effects in Gravity: indeed something like a dipole-direction-effect, related to ordinary Gravity - in the same way that Magnetism is related to moving electrical charge effects.

Just as magnetons, when moving, also deliver a Magnetic effect, and when in orbits define an orbital plane with a directed magnetic effect perpendicular to that plane, so, it is here postulated that when gravitons move they too deliver a Meta-Gravity Effect, when in orbits, also defining an orbital plane, with the directed Meta-Gravity Effect perpendicular to that, in the same way!


This paper can be found in our new Special Issue (51)

Holist Cosmology

Wilczek's Supersymmetry

The Ultimate Abstraction of Abstractions

Having been somewhat misled by Frank Wilczek's Origins Lecture at ASU a couple of months ago - entitled "The Materiality of the Vacuum", into thinking that I had found a like-minded critic of Quantum Physics, as I too stress the reality of some kind of Universal Substrate, I soon found that I couldn't have been more wrong!

For, in his Lecture at The Royal Institution in London, Wilczek's actual stance could not have been made more clear - he sees Pure Mathematical Form alone, as being the sole determinator of Reality. And, in this Lecture, he reveals, very clearly indeed, what he occupies himself with to the exclusion of all else.

Indeed, in spite of his admissions elsewhere that Natural Law may once have been very different, he doesn't hide his total subscription to the Principle of Plurality (which, most certainly, contradicts that belief), and, nevertheless, makes it the absolute centre of his work! And, he puts it all in a way that any mathematician would immediately recognise and agree with.

He calls it Symmetry, but defines it in a very special way that legitimises, not only the established Standard Experimental Method in Science, involving its rigorous "farming-and-control" of conditions, so that only a single component cause is purposely sought and displayed as clearly as possible - thus enabling its easy extraction, AND, consequently, the also-unavoidable processes of transformation and simplification, as well as those involved in idealisation, which he excuses on the ground that they do NOT transform the underlying eternal Natural Law.

Now, such a position can only be true, if and only if, the World is pluralistic, for only then will any extracted Laws be totally eternal and fixed.

But, if, on the contrary, the World is actually holistic, then "Everything affects everything else", and all the inflicted transformations upon a situation DO indeed change things significantly!

So, what is Wilczek really working upon if it isn't Reality-as-is? It can only be the parallel, reflected World of Pure Forms alone, which we call Ideality - the formal, purely-descriptive realm of Mathematics.

Indeed, in his very clear exposition, at the Royal Institution, he even uses the very processes which I criticise, namely Simplification and Idealisation as his approach's primary virtues. For, within his chosen realm, Ideality, they are indeed true: but, of course, it isn't Reality, for it contains not only absolutely NO concrete entities - it is Pattern alone, but also a vast extension of formally legitimate patterns and dimensions - impossible in concrete Reality.

What is involved here is the re-institution of the seeking of so-called Absolute Essences, which alone determine Everything. It is out-and-out Idealism.

But, it isn't always immediately evident what he is doing, for he describes it somewhat differently. He emphasises Beauty and Symmetry as Reality's deepest "forming" principles. "If it is beautiful, it must be true!"

And, his legitimisation of what he reveals is based upon the concept of "Transformation without Intrinsic Change", and this is crucial!

For, in mathematical transformations within Ideality, there are indeed such things, and Wilczek promotes them to the very highest levels of profundity: they become (for him) the causal engines of Reality. His simplified, abstracted and idealised forms are what makes Reality what it is... He has abandoned Materialist Science for a totally idealistic stance.

It is no wonder that the kit he depends upon for process-able data is the gigantic Large Hadron Collider, regularly powered-ever-higher to colossal energies, as the only source of potentially new events to take his theories further into the highest possible level of Idealisation - namely Super Symmetry!

I was mislead by his concept of the Materiality of the Vacuum, in which he scarcely mentioned his idea of the composition of his Substrate, for that, mentioned only very briefly elsewhere, turned out to be the Gluons for which he received his Nobel Prize in 2004.

His audience at the Royal Institution, were dead silent (apart from laughing at his jokes) for the whole lecture! It wasn't just abstract: it was multiple abstractions of prior abstractions - he had lost the majority of his audience in Ideality in the Infinity of its formal relations.

New Special Issue: Entangled Universe

Read the issue

The Entangled Universe article by Anil Anathaswamy in New Scientist (3046) tackles a range of supposedly connected ideas in current Sub Atomic Theory. But, as with that overall stance itself, he joined the increasingly accelerated rush into the mixture of facts, “Laws” and speculation that has become the norm in this confusing area.

Every suggested solution begets yet another “rule of thumb” - designed to enable some sort of regular paths through a limited area, and the overall description is of a plethora of such meta rules which alone defines what can and cannot be done.

Clearly, we are being guided through an alien land, and without the necessary signposts of Physical Ground, to resolve anomalies; we are forced to travel with a dependence upon local maps. You have no single theoretical stance, so you have to keep them all, and decide when and how to jump from one islet to the next!

It is an almighty mess – very like the proliferation of epicycles in the Ptolemaic version of the Solar System, It can give you useable answers but no coherent, consistent and overall Theory.

The Gordian Knot of invention must be severed with a goodly dose of Reality – but how? 

Clearly this is easier said than done, and after a couple of re-reads and copious notes, I realised that attempting to follow Anathaswamy’s stepping stones between the various positions, would not clarify, but only confuse! I decided instead to write a series of separate papers- each one tackling a different bit of this messy article.

But it soon became a large response. I have written 13 short coherent papers each on a different topic, with a total length of some 6,000 words. But I still think it is the best way to deal with the New Scientist article as a helpful review.

The Origins and Development of the Solar System

If there was a substrate...

On watching a Horizon programme on BBC 2 recently (03/03/15), the imponderables about this “assumed-to-be-solved” area of Cosmology were increased considerably.

Instead of a “nice” Newton’s Laws explanation of the system (well within our observational range, and even with some voyages of discovery), that presumably commenced with a Cosmic Cloud of a range of particles produced by a preceding Supernova. Nevertheless, various problems seemed to be as yet unsolved literally everywhere.

Indeed, the pluralist stance, which assumes absolutely everything can be explained by an increasingly complex mix of fixed Natural Laws, has been under threat for centuries, and never seems to ever deliver the fruits of an assumed Reductionism, as it is supposed to do, but instead we are to take it on trust that such will be delivered, somehow “in the future”. But, the sort of things revealed in this programme, and from a stance situated at the very heart of the established scientific approach, should, therefore, have been fairly straightforward, but was clearly nothing of the kind.

Though the programme writers and makers didn’t highlight it at all, the resounding question had to be about that pluralist stance. And, it was incapable of delivering answers in the very area, in which Newton and his colleagues originally established the initial bases of Science, as we now know it, then it would be absolutely nowhere, when it came to considering the multiple Levels of Reality above this basic case – Life and Consciousness are way beyond such a stance.

So, if by some chance, you are not a pluralist – indeed, the very opposite – namely a holist, then you would not be surprised by these difficulties. You may not be able to explain an alternative Origin and Development, but you would know that such is definitely required.

Before we go any further, let us just make these alternative positions a little clearer.

The pluralist conception puts eternal Natural Laws as the active, producing factors, initially organising the Cosmic Cloud into an inevitable system.

But, of course, such a stance is idealism – for where do such laws come from? These Laws in their universally accepted way of encapsulating them – as formal Equations, cannot possibly be the primary sources of any process of development: they can only be the results of the interactions of physical entities with certain properties.

How can Laws possibly be primary?

Also as the organisation of the original pieces that went to make up ever bigger aggregates, and relations between them, the laws not only then came into existence, but would most surely change as things developed?

So this is the alternative holist position¬

Now, a basic scenario has been devised (by such holists) for such developments – knitted together from a study of many diverse developments occurring at many different Levels of Reality. And these ideas, paradoxically, occurred very late in Mankind’s own development, and came, originally, out of serious studies entitled “Thinking about Thought” by its initiator Frederick Hegel around 200 years ago, and thereafter by a study of the significant changes in History, first by Michelet and then by Marx.

And, what came out of those investigations was a trajectory, which seemed to be universal in all developments of every possible kind.

Perhaps surprisingly, this was never a matter of incessant, incremental changes – ultimately adding up to new forms, but, on the contrary, the seemingly strongly enforced maintenance of current forms over long periods of a seemingly permanent Stability, in which the overall structure did not change significantly. Yet these long and dominating periods were, nevertheless, interleaved with short interludes of major qualitative changes termed Revolutions, and then when considered in all possible contexts, as Emergences.

Clearly, once such a trajectory was looked at, for developments like that of the Solar System, it became clear that no simple, formal Law of Gravity would be sufficient.

For, such dramatic changes can only be as a result of competing factors – balanced in Stability, and finally overcoming their constraints and causing a collapse in the old set up, and the subsequent building of a new balance with in a new, different and higher Stability. 

Now, the pluralist Laws that would be the only factors, that, so far, Man had been able to call upon, were always, and inevitably, in the form of Abstractions - which were arrived at from data taken from Reality, but both simplified and idealised, so as to be representable into formal relations (Equations), and brought together according to Formal Logic, into merely consistent complexities.

Instead of being the assumed “primary drivers” of Reality in development, these were clean, man-modified versions taken from particular and conducively-designed contexts.

In addition, the ground for the usual cosmological considerations was originally totally Empty Space (which is, of course, also a mad-made construct).

Yet, to have totally Empty Space, as a universal ground required an origin too. And, when literally everything else is matter obeying its own Laws, then we have another series of Problems.

Where does the matter come from?

What initial form did it take?

Also, it becomes obvious that the concept of Empty Space itself is another of Mankind’s simplifications and idealisations. By making space devoid of all matter, it just became a stage upon which absolutely everything could happen – a static, inactive reference system, against which everything else could be measured.

But, the alternative, of a Space full of stuff, is just as likely – at least it gives us something to watch changing and developing in itself!

And, indeed, Man, when he began to study Reality, he soon filled Space with what he called a medium – a continuous, elastic and invisible substrate, which could effectively explain many things – such as the propagation of light and heat across the seeming void, which most definitely occurred.

Clearly, we cannot readily disentangle real, physical Reality from our always-inadequate conceptions of it.

For, Man didn’t arrive both ready-made and adequately equipped, to merely by thinking, arrive at the truth of any aspects of Reality. On the contrary, he too emerged from lesser beings. So all, yes ALL, of his conceptions about reality would be limited by his own current state of development. The Laws he found would, at the same time, as reflecting Reality-as-is, would also be limited by the current state of development of Man himself. How could it possibly be otherwise? 

Even our assumptions about the past will never be totally objective. Indeed, Man will always both simplify and idealise whatever he studies, to have any chance of even beginning to understand it.

And turning these abstractions into Natural Laws, entirely independent of Man, has to be erroneous.

Yet, at the same time, we cannot merely dismiss Man’s abstractions as simply wrong, for that also isn’t true. Clearly, there is Objective Content – aspects or parts of the truth, in his conceptions, and that is why they can be used both effectively and reliably in certain defined situations.

So, how do we characterise such conceptions, and plot a path in which these are brought, ever closer, to the Truth? The original answer to this question, by the ancient Greeks, was an example of the tail wagging the dog. For, Man established “Truth” by the consistency of his abstractions overall.

He was able to do it by assigning NO significant changes to things generally, and this allowed the formulation of the system termed Formal Logic to become established as the means of testing and even of developing conceptions.

Now, because of the ever-present Stability of Reality, the basic assumptions were approximately true, so the foundation stone of Formal Logic – A = A, the Identity Relation, could be assumed as the banker premise within the normal situations. Everyone now knows, and even knew then, that some things definitely changed, but they were seen as insignificant, at worst, and merely significant incrementally at best, and so, in most cases of productive use were basically a nuisance. So, a methodology was designed of “keeping things still” while studying them, so that the eternal Natural Laws would emerge, un-blurred by unimportant variabilities, to reveal what really mattered.

This approach became known as Science, and its use in carefully controlled Domains, by Man, became what we now think of as Technology.

Now, I must ask the reader to forgive this extremely cursory glimpse at Thought and Truth, but it had to be included here to begin to disentangle our unavoidable abstractions from our actual objective – Reality-as-is. And, hopefully, it would be the case too in the context that we would be in by attempting to work out the actual Origin and Development of the Solar System.

Let me indulge in one more essential diversion to reveal the dangers inherent in our lauded methods.

In Physics, with its original assumption of a medium filling Space (Aether theory), no trace of that medium could ever be found, so the concept of it, after much discussion, was finally, and supposedly irrevocably, dumped!

Space was back to being totally empty once again.

But, it didn’t help!

The problems began to proliferate, especially after the Discovery of the Quantum. For, this encapsulation of electromagnetic energy into disembodied gobbets, was clearly incompatible with a continuous medium of any kind.

But, it left a gaping hole in the required physical explanations of a whole raft of phenomena.

And, in addition, the, soon to become infamous, Double Slit Experiments also pushed the crisis to the limit! For, the results from these experiments seemed to simultaneously allot two totally contradictory properties to the key entities involved.

Sometimes, they acted as particles, while at other times like waves! Wave/Particle Duality was born, and surprisingly accepted as “The Truth”!

Yet, when this theorist included a certain kind of substrate, occupying all the spaces in this set up, ALL the anomalies just vanished!

Now, if the principle of an increase in Objective Content, is true, and a real measure of the closeness to Truth (as mentioned earlier), this meant that the new ideas must replace those of Wave/Particle Duality – the so-called Copenhagen conception, because it delivers more objective Content!

Now it was this researcher, who came up with the new theory for the Double Slit Experiments, and clearly, presented with the many imponderables in current ideas of the Solar System, it seemed worthwhile to reassess that conception, by bringing in the same universal substrate as had proved so effective in the Double Slit problem.

Now, all the advantages of a totally empty void would be gone, and a wholly new set of problems and solutions would be unavoidable.

The gulf between a totally Empty Void, and that filled completely with an active substrate is, of course, enormous.

For example, aggregations would have to occur within such a substrate, and any movement of the resultant bodies would also have to plough through this substrate like a ship through water. The effects of such disturbances upon propagation would have to be determined, and, thereafter, some means of the re-establishment of the normal conditions would also need to be explained.

The analogy with oceans may well be relevant, for they too propagate waves in spite of being seemingly messed up by the passage ships and whales.

The complex state of any substrate, and, in particular, the forces of re-establishment following disturbing passages through it, would have to be established and the involved phenomena explained.

It, as an assumed initial state, would certainly play some sort of role in aggregation – not least in propagating whatever causes such, for without a substrate, even Gravity becomes yet another case of the fabled Action-at-a-Distance once more.

To set up the required mindset for addressing all the usual problems of a universal substrate, we must commence by considering all the indisputable properties which will have to be delivered by such a filling of Space, in absolutely everything that we know occurs within it.

The analogy with ships in a sea gives us a starting point, but, certainly, cannot be taken too far, for though single entity transits may be similar, whole avalanches of particles would certainly not be the same.

For, as was assumed in the approach to the Double Slit phenomena, a single, moving particle (like an electron for example) would continually be disturbing the substrate – causing propagations of such continuously. So, with a veritable torrent of such particles, it would be both being repeatedly initiated, and also a roaring well ahead of its causes in a resulting stream of the disturbances within the substrate.

This would be caused by all disturbances moving forward of its cause (being at the Speed of light), while the causing particle would definitely be moving much more slowly.

Thus each and every particle, on interacting with the substrate, will project ahead of itself, a strong beam of disturbances, well ahead of what actually caused them.

And, perhaps, even more significant, absolutely all previously considered Actions-at-a-Distance, from Gravity to electrical and magnetic propagations and fields will also have to be fully explained in terms of this substrate too.

NOTE: At this point I must relate that several other independent researchers into the possibility of a substrate, but coming to the problem from very different specialist areas, have naturally each concentrated upon features that arise in their discipline, and have each come up with very different candidates as the units comprising such a substrate.

An electrical engineer was concerned with the subtending of magnetic fields within such a substrate, and defined his suggested unit accordingly. While another perplexed by quantization used a liquid as his model of the substrate, and concentrated in all his investigations on both Resonances of oscillations and Recursive effects to produce quantized orbits (which, by the way, he succeeded in doing). And, also an American scientist who is preoccupied with Gravity, caused his units to be defined in such a way as to deliver exactly that gravitational effect.

And, of course, lastly we have the writer of this paper, who in tackling the Double slit Experiments, ended up with a joint particle as the basic unit, with its internal sub-particles mutually orbiting one another. His objectives were to produce units of what he calls “a Paving”, which would be undetectable due to the opposite properties of its component parts, and to produce such a structure as to be able to hold and pass on quanta of electromagnetic energy, via the promotion and demotion of those internal orbits.

Now, such diversity is unavoidable.

For, the problems each individual researcher is addressing are all undisputedly real. So all these lines of study are revealing Objective Content. The problem is how can they be integrated into a comprehensive, explaining-all theory?

The current conclusion of this researcher is that is that the substrate must be heterogeneous – that is it contains several different units.

After all, criterion-number-one is that they are all undetectable, and that means not only to the usual means of detection, but also to each other – they could indeed co-exist.

And, what inter-reactions they do have are considered to only occur in very close proximity to one another – being very local indeed.

Now, the original suggestion, of this theorist, was that it was composed of a single kind of entity, but evidence from other researchers and theorists makes that assertion unsustainable.

And this relative independence of one another will cause them to act as if they alone inhabit Space. Each type may well inter-react with others of the same kind via different overall structures. 

It would be a mistake to assume that all of these different units act in an identical way like different elements in a gas. Just as in Maxwell’s remarkable model of the ether, it seems likely that different structures will be involved.

Remember, it was his model that enabled Maxwell to develop his, still used equations of Electromagnetism, so something of his model must certainly have been a reasonable assumption.

I have included his diagram from Margaret Morrison’s paper on the subject.

Various features of this model are relevant to today’s concerns. Crucially, he has reciprocal effects between his two involved entities. Dropping Maxwell’s model entirely along with the concept of the Ether was a major error, and it stems from the pluralist conception of Reality driven by Natural Laws. The alternative holist view does not see the gains of Science as Absolute Truths, but as analogistic models with a measure of Objective Content, so that all gains are partial and temporary. The best we can do is to strive to increase the amount of Objective Content in our constructions.

So, in our current problem, concerning the Origin and Development of the Solar System, we will have to solve, on a cosmic scale, what is also currently being addressed upon a Sub Atomic scale.

And, though very far apart in scale, they will still be related, as the substrate involved is common to both realms, but with different priorities to be solved.

On the Cosmic scale, Gravity and the general problem of Actions-at-a-Distance will be the dominant considerations. While at the Sub Atomic scale, it has to be the problem of quantization.

But, in an important way, the universality of forms such as orbiting, occurring at both levels, though with very different causes, again proves that Forms are secondary, and can never be causes in themselves.

The dominance of equations has to be a failed diversion from the real causes of phenomena, whatever the level.