by Eugene Savov, Author of the Theory of Interaction 
Copyright 2005 by Eugene Savov 
Reprinted with permission.

The interactions that build one's mind occur somewhere between what we see as macro and micro universe. The elucidation of this “special” place will essentially improve the understanding of nature. The theory of interaction shows that life is a cosmic interaction, which occurs at atomic scales. Therefore the understanding of the universe is the key for the long sought ultimate knowledge - the truth that will make us free.

The modern picture of the universe is based on two irreconcilable theories - relativity and quantum mechanics, each describing the workings of nature, respectively, at macro and micro scales. The interaction of about 10exp(26) atoms builds one's brain and synchronises the functions of the parts of one's body. It seems that we exist in a “special” domain - somewhere between the macro and micro worlds? We describe what see in laws of physics and what we observe appears to depend on the sizes of the coupling bodies. The behaviour of the latter is seen as continuous at macro scales, e.g. the motion of a planet around the sun. In the micro world discrete (quantum) behaviour is observed. So we develop a scale dependent picture of the universe and wonder why its pieces refuse to fit in one self-consistent whole.

The laws of modern physics tell only how the bodies interact. They never explain why the interaction occurs that way because the underlying structure of the coupling bodies is always missing. This all-building structure will tell why and how the world works. Hence “why” is not a philosophical question, as some people like to think, “why” is a path toward the all-explaining texture of reality.

The classical - deterministic and quantum - probabilistic theories used in the description of the universe [e.g., 1-3] show how it appears in the observer's mind. Maybe the classical and quantum realms branch from some unexplored underlying structure. In the string theory [e.g., 4] we are trying to unify branching worlds by adding extra dimensions to the picture of cosmos. One may rather take a greater effort to look for the root – the elusive underlying structure of nature that accounts why bodies couple as they do. The theory of interaction shows that in the terms of the building blocks of matter all meanings merge. Hence in these most initial (fundamental) terms why and how merge, i.e. the answer to why shows also how the all-building interaction, basic matter, evolves to create the universe and its observer.

We find ourselves at a “special” place, which is between what we see as space bodies and what comes from the interaction of as many as about 10exp(26) atoms building one's mind. It is very unlikely that the laws of nature are specially accustomed to our scales. It is simpler to assume that there are all building scale-independent interactions. The mind images they create are described in two, seen as basic, classical and quantum theories. The laws of interaction should not depend on the sizes of the coupling bodies unless we want to face tough questions like who chooses which laws where to hold and how scale dependent laws are created. So we will bog in marshes of complexity unless we discover a way out of the “special” place, between the seen as continuous macro and the seen as discrete micro worlds. We should somehow bridge the gap between the classical and quantum domains in one scale independent picture of the universe in which the phenomenon of consciousness comes naturally.

The history of science has shown that the advance of knowledge hurts man's narcissistic inclination for specialities. For example, the Earth was believed to be the centre of the universe only less than five centuries ago. Nowadays we know that we live on a small planet, which orbits an average star that moves around the nucleus of one of the many billions of galaxies belonging to the accessible universe. Our appreciation for divined origin was shattered by Darwin's theory of evolution, suggesting that we are evolved apes. There are findings that indicate that the DNA of apes and humans are very close, implying a common ancestor. History shows that the prevailing believes of each period are dispelled as science goes deeper into the origin of space bodies and life. We see are made from objects that can reflect or emit some light. The properties of what we see as empty space between two coupling bodies are described with gravitational and electromagnetic interactions, which are mathematically expressed as fields. The puzzling underlying structure that creates what looks like empty space and coupling bodies is absent. So fundamental gravitational and electromagnetic interactions are introduced.

The more we dig into the structure of nature the more beliefs and specialities we leave behind. Anyway there is another “special” place we stubbornly stick to – the realm between the classical and quantum worlds. The interactions that build one's brain occur in this poorly understood realm and somehow give rise to the enigmatic consciousness. If we accept the fundamental particularity of this domain, then difficulties will follow. This acceptance will make us indifferent of the well-established fact that simple rules can produce complex behaviors [5-7]. So we will overlook the principle of parsimony. Not to do with more, e.g. with more assumptions, what can be done with less! This principle, known also as Occam's razor, is one of the basic tenets of science. It suggests that the simpler theory should be given preference until proven wrong. For example, the big bang theory offered a simpler explanation of the cosmic microwave background as a relic radiation, left after the big bang. In this way it gained a crucial advantage and sent into oblivion the rival steady-state theory of the universe. A possible path toward simplification is to assume that what we see and describe as classical and quantum realities is created from one underlying structure. It self-reproduces, self-similarly evolves at scales of its own in a way that creates the finite, i.e. not arbitrary large or small, building blocks of reality [8]. Thus we will incorporate the phenomenon of life, defined by its self-reproduction at the scales of observation [8]. The idea that the underlying structure of nature has to be found in the logic of evolution [9] is in agreement with a “firework universe” made of one self-reproducing and hence self-similarly evolving, fractal like, interaction. The latter is reveal and discussed as all-building unifying interaction or basic matter [8]. Its patterns oscillate in a way that creates the finite sources of reality, its discovered building bricks [8]. The mathematical description of these multiscale bricks is similar to that rendered by the laws and principles of the classical and quantum theory [8].

The basic objects of the theory of interaction and nature allow similar mathematical descriptions. Then we can discern between them only by their sizes. This suggests that we are shells of one self-similarly-evolving structure in which the atomic nuclei are like atomic size stars. Life is much simpler to be made of atomic size stars rather than from stardust and the hard big bang problems, which are associated with it. The theory of interaction shows that consciousness arises from universal self-definiteness, created as the found unifying interaction increases inward into the discovered structure of the bodies [8].

The expression of the classical and quantum theories in terms of discovered underlying structure is a great challenge met by the theory of interaction [8]. The principle of parsimony hints that two theories are more than what is enough for one universe. Hence theories that scale-invariantly model the underlying structure of nature will offer a deeper understanding than constructions based on structureless fundamental particles, born from a mysterious matter – antimatter asymmetry, appearing in a singularity allowing big bang universe beginning.

The problem with modern science is that it is frequently applied beyond its scope. We build constructions that work at the scales of observations. Afterwards we expect them to work at far different scales. The result is a maze of mysteries. This requires a more general approach in which the observations must be explained as cases, seen at the scales of the interactions that build the observer and his equipment [8]. The motion of a body draws the shape of the interaction applied to it. Hence the trajectories of motions offer clues for one all-building unifying interaction or basic matter that creates the finite sources of reality. Bodies are seen to move in circular or elliptical orbits. Others follow spiral paths. Electrons appear as “clouds” around atomic nuclei. What kind of underlying interaction explains what we see? This is the question asked and answered in the terms of theory of interaction.

The long sought unifying interaction has to be scale-independent to account simply for the observed complexity of nature. This perplexing complexity is likely to originate in the process of observation. The universe and its confused by findings observer are born from scale-independent interactions, whose self-similarity suggests an underlying fractal like structure [8]. It seems that the 21st century will be a time to appreciate the ordinary place mankind in a discovered scale-independent description of the universe. We look for what creates what we see since the birth of civilisation. We always seek a better, simpler and more direct explanation. In this way we pass by some seemingly “special” places on the long path toward the all-explaining structure of reality.

Eugene Savov, physicist, author of the book Theory of Interaction the Simplest Explanation of Everything

Related Links:


1. Harrison, E. R. Cosmology, Cambridge University Press, (1981). 
2. Barrow, J. D., and Silk, J. The Left Hand of Creation, Oxford University Press, (1994). 
3. Barrow, J. D. The Constants of Nature, Pantheon Books, (2003). 
4. Green, B. The Elegant Universe, Vintage Books, (2000). 
5. May, R. M. Nature 261, 459-467, (1976). 
6. Strogatz, St. H., Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos, Perseus Publishing, (1994) 
7. Yorke, J. A., Alligood, K., and Sauer, T. Chaos, Springer Verlag, (1996) 
8. Savov, E. Theory of Interaction the Simplest Explanation of Everything, Geones Books, (2002). 
9. Smolin, L. The Life of the Cosmos, Oxford University Press, (1997). 

Copyright 2005 by Eugene Savov 
Reprinted with permission.




Copyright 2005 www.world-mysteries.com