Preface

This work represents the collection, or rather a curious concatenation, of a series of essays written about a central general theme of physical systems from about 2005 to 2007. The essays were written nightly during this period, at the end of fairly long work days. This was on top already of a back-log of half-finished chapters of unfinished manuscripts, about one or another aspect of systems theory. The essays were often untitled and represented the gradual accumulation of a fairly large body of thoughts on the foundational problems of cosmology. What had been missing during this gap, was a significant dose of editing and compilation, which this, and its sister works, now represents.

My interest in undertaking this work is to develop a more coherent field theory about what can be said to form the physical substrate of the universe. The central question has been "how does the total universe hold itself together in a self-consistent way?" How can it occur in an inferentially and hypothetically instantaneous and integrated system, especially if it must obey the space-time constraints set down in general relativity theory?

My answer to these basic questions has been that it doesn't necessarily obey the space-time constraints of general relativity, at least on its most basic levels of phenomenal process. This implies a whole level of physical patterning, far below that of the atom and its constituent elements, that we do not seem to be able to directly observe, and yet upon which we must rely so much for our accounting of gravitation and the constraints of space-time itself. Among many other possibilities, it suggests that some form of almost instantaneous transmission of basic elements may occur continuously and pervasively within the universe. This process constitutes the invisible background field from which all known physical particles, energies and their associated properties are configured and reconfigured in never-ending rounds of continuous creation and destruction.

The basic cosmological model represented herein is a rejection of the "Big Bang" model as fundamentally founded upon a finite model of the universe, and has been based on several interrelated theoretical frameworks: i.e., the substantive fundamental structure of space-time with its associated gravitational effects; a paradigm of universal energy dynamics that is an extension of thermodynamics to embrace problems of gravitation, space-time and a universal energy field; a non-finite model of the universe as a meta-state system; explanation of red-shift of light in terms of the cumulative Einstein effect of very deep and very powerful gravitational sources; a hypothetical explanation of the pristine production of protonic matter, as well as possible pathways of secondary production, in "white sources" upon which a cosmological model of a dynamic state universe can be based.

The reconciliation of cosmological theories rooted upon general relativity and quantum mechanical theory, particularly in resolving a unified field theory, has been an important development in theoretical physcis. I developed my spime-mechanical model of the dynamic-state universe independently of the knowledge of superstring theory, mainly to address the issue of gravitational unification in the large rather than in the small. I have subsequently encountered string theory and it is quite evident that Physics has been leaning heavily in the direction of unification for a couple of decades now.

I accept most aspects of string theory, and do not find it incompatible with the notion of a spime mechanical model. How we conceptualize constituent entities on the smallest imaginable scales in the universe perhaps makes little difference in our models. If we see fundamental particles as closed loop strings the properties of which are based upon the shape of vibrations, or if we see these particles as spinning composite entities that beget vibrations, it perhaps makes little ultimate difference.

I propose a "spring" theory, that is somewhere intermediate between a string and a spining thing. I propose a spinning helice as the appropriate structure for this level of reality, that I have called spime. In fact, I hypothesized a closed loop chain interlinkages for my 'nth-particulates, and it is at this level that strings and spime appear to converge as the same entities. I proposed a "spring" shape primarily because it provides a sense of vibration defined by oscillation about an axis, and it provides a sense of instantaneous direction that such an entity may take. Furthermore, it is a half-open type of structure, which entails that it can connect and interpenetrate other similar structures quite readily.

Thus, vibratory resonance patterning of strings would be and essentially are the equivalent of spin-resonance patterning of particulate entities. Springs are a good intermediate model.

I have gone one step beyond string theory. I do not see the Planck length as a necessary fundamental size limitation to the physical structure of the universe. I do not think a string or a spring, or whatever we would want to conceptualize and name this order of reality, is necessarily irreducible in some self-consistent and fundamental sense. What is found in the texture of physical reality is an inherent constituency of structure, or stratification of order, at all levels. Furthermore, postulating such a fundamental entity invites back the conundrums of a zero-state universe that I dealt with in the previous related work, Cosmology and Reality.

I have therefore accepted a model of the fabric of reality as constituting a well system of ever finer constituent entities, each of which is used to construct, and hence analytically explain, the complex combination of properties, particles and forces at the next higher level. At each level of analytical reduction in our explanation, we will encounter some kind of "entity-energy" that will need explaining in terms of some constituent structure. If we adopt a fundamental self consistent model somewhere along the way, we are closing the universe fundamentally, and failing to explain in a mechanical manner either the origins of the fundamental particles or ultimately of the universe itself.

In fact, at each level, we find not only increasing orders of stratification by size, but we find pattern variation at each level, much of which tends to be idiosyncratic and chaotically relative to that analytical order of reductionistic explanation. Variation of pattern at each level is a function of its constituency, such that eventually, with decreasing orders of scale, we should in theory get simpler and less variable patterns. The fact that we may hypothesize a number of sub-atomic particles can be taken as direct confirmatory evidence of the constituency of these entities. The fact that quarks themselves may be arranged in families suggests a string-like constituency of their structure as well.

At the bottom of the well of physical reality, I hypothesize a "Zeroth entity" that is homogeneous and unitary, with out any self-defining characteristics except perhaps for one or two intrinsic properties. But if we hypothesize even a Zeroth entity, the law of universal symmetry might entail an anti-zero particle as well, and we may eventually discover that the order at which we are defining our alleged zeroth particle actually comprises a whole spectrum of new variations on a zeroeth-theme. Thus, such a Zeroeth entity is a hypothetical construct that approaches what I would call cosmic singularity but never quite reaches that point.

The Zeroeth entity really chases the question of cosmic singularity and a zero-state universe on an infinitely receding horizon, or in a receding bottomless well system. It is really our short-hand way of accounting for all that remains unknown by lumping it all into a global or cosmic variable, that I will designate as x, or rather, for the residual of things that are needed before our scientific equations are really complete or really completely unified.

From our perspective, we impose limits of the very large and the very small to the structure and size of our universe and the reality it contains. But if we accept the possibility of an infinite universe, then it is likely that it is infinite in every way we can think of--extensively, eternally, intensively and dimensionally, at least. We can see that our well system never really diminishes, as size and scale themselves become relative to the level at which we are dealing.

If we look in the other way, out across the vast corridors of space-time to the edges of our known universe, it is likely that we are failing to comprehend physical properties and larger scale patterns of organization that constitutes what we see in some larger system or metasystem of relations. 

The basic model of the universe that is the outcome of these lines of theoretical development is that of a universe far, far larger, and probably far, far older, than we have been willingly so far to admit, and we are left with an apparently insoluble and seemingly insuperable paradox of concluding that the universe is probably infinitely large and eternally old, i.e., non-finite state, possibly in multiple or even an infinite number of dimensions, without being able to offer any direct proof or observational evidence to support our contention. Observation is founded upon measurement of the finite against a much larger background--we can not direct ascertain the entire structure of the background field in any direction or upon any scale we may seek to take our measurements.

The development of these lines of thought are based primarily upon logic and reasonable inference extended from available evidence. Direct observation of many phenomena suggested by these alternative cosmological frameworks will probably be beyond human capacities--they are certainly beyond our current technological capabilities. We are left therefore with a second paradox of building inference-based models of infinite cosmological structures without ultimately having an empirical ground or a substantive set of "facts" upon which to base such construction.

We luckily can invoke a revised model of the Cosmological Principle to our semi-rescue. Extension of the Cosmological Principle allows us to considerably extend our inference base to encompass a much larger Universe than might otherwise be possible, if we can safely extend the evidence and the theoretical models that are immediately at hand, ultimately to the furthest horizons of our resolving capabilities and even the infinite beyond. Thus, we can conclude that we would probably find the same Periodic Table of the Elements anywhere we travel in the universe, the same structure of matter, and dynamics of energy and gravitation. We would find stars not unlike our own sun and planets and moons not unlike the planets and moons of our own solar system.

We cannot have a reasonable model of the very largest scale of physical reality without a similarly reasonable model of the very smallest scale imaginable--and imaginable it must be because such a scale possibly is much smaller than the smallest observable. Any theory of physical systems, to be complete, must encompass the broadest possible scales of physical system phenomena. 

Systems theory really begins where conventional science leaves off, not because systems theory is marginal to science, but because most sciences are analytically defined and cannot deal well with systems properties and their non-analytic explanation. That even infinitesimal realities seem to follow systems principles and demonstrate systems principles that continue to defy precise mathematical description and explanation, reaches to the very heart and soul of the conventional analytical sciences.

All real systems are physical system, and as such they are subject to the laws and parameters of exact mathematical description in terms of the energy and informational dynamics that constitute and characterize these systems. But in being physical systems, any kind of natural system, whether that of a cell or that of a human mind, are no less their own systems, making purely physical, mathematical description insufficient to their understanding. We can apply the same principle to the study of physical systems themselves.

Systems theory is entirely complementary to the conventional sciences, upon every level and in every area of natural phenomena. A coherent paradigm of science must necessarily include a well developed systems-based theoretical framework of understanding, one that is both consistent with the evidence and rationally coherent in terms of logical argument.

Physical Systems

by Hugh M. Lewis