I received an e-mail from a man named Jean de Climont a few days ago. It…
What, how and why are questions constantly asked by enquiring minds. When we see things happen, we want to know the full scope of the events. This is the what part of our enquiry. Then, we want to know how one sub-event led to another sub-event. This is the how part. And finally, we want to know the mechanism behind the sub-events. In addition to knowing how sub-events are related, we want to know why they are related.
This is the essence of science. However, ever since Newton wrote his masterpiece on physics, the why part of our enquiry has often been skipped. Newton wrote his book without ever proposing an underlying mechanism for his equations. His equations describe in detail how things are related, but say nothing about why things are as they are. Newton made no secret of this. He was completely open about the fact that the why part was omitted from his book. This caused a stir at the time. Some went so far as to call his book unscientific. But it’s now considered highly scientific to present equations with little to no explanation as to why the equations work. Causation is sufficient. Mechanism is irrelevant.
This line of thinking has gone so far now that many confuse causation with mechanism. When asked why a steel ball starts moving in the direction that it has been hit, the standard explanation will refer to the direction of energy. Equations are then used to illustrate the relationship. However, this is not an explanation. It’s an additional causation that happens to correlate to the direction of motion. It says nothing about why the ball starts moving.
On closer analysis, hardly anything in physics is explained mechanically these days. There are all sorts of measurable quantities, including exact equations binding these quantities together. But there’s hardly a mechanical explanation to be found anywhere, and this is why I decided to come up with my own mechanics. I wanted to find a simple mechanical model to explain the why part of our enquiry, and what I discovered was that a strict particle model will do the trick. Everything, including time and space can be reduced to particles and motion.
Putting this model to the test, I found it capable of explaining every aspect of physics, from kinetics and optics to field forces and nuclear physics. Even quantum entanglement fitted into this model.
This doesn’t mean that I claim to have the one true answer to all questions related to physics. There may be other theories that fit the what and how of physics just as well as mine. But the fact remains that the theory contained in my book is a complete one, capable of explaining the entirety of the physical world we live in.