Finding the Ground Level in Science
We are observers composed of atoms as our largest building blocks. We find ourselves in an environment of many such building blocks, some larger than atoms--planets, stars, black holes--and some smaller than atoms--electrons, subatomic particles, photons, etc.
In our search for scientific understanding of how the universe functions, it is imperative that we start our search of understanding from "the ground level". This is akin to building a house; one starts at the foundation and builds upward. One does not build the top of the house and slowly fill in the space between down to the foundation.
So the question becomes: Where is the ground level?
On the surface, one could quickly conclude that the ground level is small. It is this smallness that builds into larger things, into larger still, to create all that we see, after all.
However, the flaw in this technique is non-trivial. This process begins with that which is understood least to attempt to explain that which is understood most. The reason quantum mechanics does not explain that which we see with our eyes is because it is not a ground-up approach, but rather a top-down approach. Just because the systems are smaller does not mean they are the ground level of building understanding.
Alternatively, several attempts to explain reality based off of the large-scale objects have been made. In these instances, we have arrived at models such as the "Big Bang". In much the same way, the models begin with a top-down approach of that which is furthest from what is most directly observable and observed.
The true ground-level of understanding is neither the small nor the large systems we observe. Rather, it is what we can see with our own eyes. We are ground-level. To understand the fundamental interactions of the small is a non-trivial task, and it does not begin by looking at the small, just as understanding the fundamental interactions of the large does not begin by looking at the large. In both instances, it begins by studying that which is most easily observable with our own senses.
This is not just because it is nearest to us and nothing more. Rather, this is because it is the least approximated of all pictures. When we look at the moon, we see its craters and spherical particulate structure, we observe its periodical orbit about the Earth. We see the most amount of detail when we look at systems that are directly observed around us.
In classical mechanics, these observations of what is directly observable are the foundation of reasoning that were used to develop the laws put forth by Isaac Newton. These are built on direct observations that are as far from being approximations as possible.
Inversely, in quantum mechanics, the observations are of what is most indirectly observable; we cannot look at the systems directly, we cannot freeze them in time or hold them in isolation and zoom indefinitely onto them to analyze how they are in a given moment. All we can do is see how they seem to interact as groups of systems; no longer are individual systems even analyzable in quantum mechanics because it requires so many systems in unison producing an indirect observation of how they interact. The interpretations do not take into account what we see with our eyes directly before us.
Quantum mechanics even goes so far as to admit to it being recognized as illogical.
"I am a Quantum Engineer, but on Sundays I Have Principles." - John S. Bell
Regularly, quantum physicists and believers therein will boast to its absurdity. This is because it is a top-down approach that has lost all touch with a careful ground-up development of understanding built upon what is observable the most: our direct environment. In order for it to be accepted, one must accept the hypothesis that smaller systems are more "elementary" than larger systems (which fails to appreciate that infinity knows no limits).
Much the same can be said of the Big Bang model, which also uses the other end of the "spectrum" of top-down approaches. Rather than focusing on that which is furthest from directly in front of our eyes in the direction of smaller objects, the Big Bang's origin is from a focus on that which is furthest from our direct observation in the large scale.
The same mistakes are made, and this can be explained through the models not building from what is most known. One does not suddenly have an epiphany and realize the mathematics of differential calculus when they do not know arithmetic. And yet, these interpretations of our universe attempt to describe the reality around us while ignoring arithmetic.
Quite literally, in fact, is arithmetic ignored. One of the most important aspects of arithmetic is order of operations. If we have a simple calculation involving groupings of numbers that are added, subtracted, multiplied, and divided, the only way for a proper answer to be arrived at is through following the order of operations. All other answers will be, simply put, incorrect.
Much the same, in uncovering the secrets of the cosmos, the order of operations is paramount. The order starts first with studying that which is directly in front of our faces, observable to the most exactness of details of all observations we can make. This is the foundation of developing understanding outward, of building our house of knowledge with a ground-up approach. Once we have enough understanding of that which is around us, we can slowly start to branch outward, towards the small and towards the large, to get a greater understanding of those systems based on what is best understood. Logic and reason are not things to be tossed aside in favor of force fitting equations. Equations, in their very nature, are approximations. No equation can be concocted that encompasses the interactions of all particles in an infinite universe, as all equations inherently limit what is infinite.
The true equation of the universe does not need written on a piece of paper or in a textbook; it is written in the universe itself, where infinity is manifest.
From a ground-up approach, the universe can be recognized to be the manifestation of infinity. All other approaches, starting by the study of systems of which we form the greatest approximations, are houses of cards. They may stand for a while, but the winds of change will topple them with ease. Truth, and only truth, will stand in the end.
For a ground-up approach, using classical mechanics in a model of infinity to explain the most critical observations in physics, you can check out my other writings here:
A theory for how gravity causes electromagnetic fields
Compilation of writings on the Infinite Universe
Thanks a lot for reading,
-Steve Scully
CascadingUniverse.Org
The Universal Principle of Natural Philosophy