Physics as Correlation, Causation and Mechanism

Enquiring minds constantly ask what-, how– and why-questions about things that happen around us. However, in physics, we tend to skip the why part. We’re often satisfy by limiting ourselves to what happened, and how it happened.

We’re happy with formulas that describe how things hang together. Hardly anyone asks for a detailed mechanical model. If such a model is presented, it’s a diagram of what happened. Not why it happened.

To ask why is often considered childish. At best, it belongs to the realm of meta-physics.

But if we stop asking why things are as they are, we will never find a simple mechanical answer to this most fundamental of all questions.

What, how, and why

When we see things happen, we want to know the full scope of 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.

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 full scope of enquiry is what science should be all about.

Newton skipped the why part in his enquiry

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 they 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 in his 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.

Confusing causation with mechanism

This line of thinking has now gone so far 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 measured quantities, and exact equations binding these quantities together. But there’s hardly a mechanical explanation to be found anywhere.

A new physics

This is why I decided to come up with a new physics.

I wanted to find a simple mechanical model to explain the why part of our enquiry.

This is an endeavor in which I’ve been fairly successful.

I’ve discovered 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 mechanical models that fit the what and how of physics just as well as mine. But the fact remains that the theory presented in my book is a complete one. Capable of explaining all aspects of physics.