The Foufas Postulate in support of a Unifying Theory

Draft 3, January 16, 2006

By Ioannis (John) Panteleimonos Foufas

Preface:
Contemporary physics is suffering from a crisis of sorts. This is predominantly a crisis of
identity, in that in popular representation in media it seems that modern physicists have
lost their path of resolute a posteriori analysis to definitive results. We have heard many
recent predictions about the nature and origins of the universe, from string theory to
infinite space time dimensionality to a non-beginning and non-ending universe; all
unsubstantiated by corroborated mathematical proofs and testable evidence.
The simple truth in this is that our science has gotten away from us. Mankind has moved
in a technological direction with the advent of macroscopic and microscopic tools to a
place where the product of the tools has become deterministic in our understanding of the
universe. It is a form of myopia borne of best intentions. Physicists have scrutinized
with their best Baconian methods and demanded that what we see fit neatly into the solid
formulaic foundations borne of a century of critical physics scrutiny that has been
married to our technological gains. From my perspective we are now unfortunately
reaching a horizon in our understanding of physics and this horizon is sort of akin to
reverse of Moores Law, in that our physics advances come in smaller and smaller
increments as our technological advances bring us closer and closer to the terminal plain
of our viewable and measurable universe.
Introduction:
This postulate, which might one day evolve to a theory with more rigorous and
collaborative scrutiny, at the outset presupposes that the universe is a finite entity.
A beginning to understanding the nature and origin of the universe is to decide on
whether the universe is finite or infinite, as that decision determines the next intellectual
footsteps and subsequent paths of thinking that the theorist may follow. The simplest
undeniable, though frequently disregarded, fact in physics is that if the universe is infinite
there will always be a space and time beyond our grasp that may operate outside of our
realm and boundaries of physics understanding. Subsequently, in an infinite universe we
can never apply physics laws with absolute certainty.
I considered that the universe was finite based on non mathematical considerations
everything in our observable world follows a path from a beginning to an end; we can
measure almost every balance and counterbalance in the universe in frames of time and
distance, and to presuppose that something bigger than we can currently comprehend and
calculate has no beginning and end by virtue of our ignorance of those points is just as
ludicrous as stating that there is indeed a beginning and an end. Conventional wisdom
today by virtue of celestial references is that the universe began somewhere (the so called
big bang theory), so I will stick with that for the moment. I consider as well, that to
engage in the exercise I am about to engage in, strong reference points are required: an
1

infinite universe ultimately means that the observer will always be diagnosing the
components of it by virtue of somewhat fluid reference points, which, to a degree, makes
an exercise like the following useless.
Postulate:
Scholars, mathematicians, and inspired laymen (of which I am a subset) have sought for
thousands of years to understand the nature and origins of the universe, and the efforts of
a few colossal thinkers have resulted in a tempering of how we view basic physical
building blocks of it such as light, matter, energy, time and space. By conducting this
exercise I am in no way making an effort to dismiss or undervalue the work of those great
thinkers (it is very foolish to think that I could do that, in any case). On the contrary, it is
due to their efforts that I have engaged in this little pursuit, and I owe a great deal them
for giving me the inspiration to make such bold proclamations:

1) If the universe is finite, it follows that the universe is a closed system and, as
such, contains a finite amount of energy. If we have a limited amount of energy
in the universe, then it stands to reason that we should principally assess the
universe by measures of that limited quality. Due to the level of complexity and
frequency of energy transmissions in the universe, it is currently is impossible to
arrive at a formula or a limited series of formulas to express all behavior of
energy. In theory, as I will explain through some basic re-definition of founding
physics principles (..and support through re-calculation of some basic relational
physics formulas), it IS possible to arrive at static and universal coefficients that
represent mechanisms by which we can understand variance at the extreme ends
of our testable physics horizons, both at the quantum level and also at the
relativistic macro level. These coefficients can serve as energy relational
constants and variance we see in testing relative to the coefficients can be
confirmed through vector analysis against the traditional measures borne of the
classic physics formulas. The output of the analysis would essentially be a
derivative of two constants that may not in fact act like constants at the horizons
of our understanding. These energy relational constants can be proven through
realistic TESTABLE calculations associated with phenomena we currently cannot
effectively explain. In turn, we can utilize these energy relational constants to
replace some important foundational constants in traditional Physics formulas,
and eventually come to a new buttress by which to view those grand qualities in
the universe that we cannot readily observe and comprehend today.
2) Key to this postulate is the debunking of three of the foundational building blocks
of modern physics:
A) Firstly, we must consider that although we observe light as a constant, in
reality, light may not be a constant. Light is only defined as a constant to
us because we do not have the ability to observe it as anything other than
that outside of our limited frames of reference. In our observable

universe we see light as a constant. I will endeavor to explain this more

thoroughly below through analogy.
B)

Energy, as per Einsteins revolutionary formula E=MC2, is correctly

comprised of Kinetic energy and Potential energy, but Potential Energy
to be fully understood relative to our unobservable universe, must be redefined for the formula. Kinetic energy, for the purpose of this theory,
retains its traditional existing definition of being an expression of energy
utilized when work is done. Potential energy, on the other hand, should
NOT be viewed only as the potential for work to be done vis a vis
movement, build up of pressure or strain. Potential energy, for the
purpose of this theory, will be considered as all the possible extractable
energy existing within an object or system that has not been liberated, up
to and including the deconstruction and of all chemical and physical
relationships, down to the atomic and subatomic level. The result, as I
will endeavor to explain, will be that we will view total energy to be
defined as both that which we do know and see, and also that which we
do not know and do not see represented within our traditional relativity
formulations (and in extension, within our quantum formulations).

C)

I believe that the relationship that Einstein established represents a

balance we can apply in the universe as a whole, and we have simply
misconstrued the inputs (perhaps Einstein even misconstrued them
himself) because we have applied these relativity relationships only to
our observable universe. We can look at other basic formulas we have
developed and tested that also represent relationships between matter,
energy and distance(space-time). We may, in turn, establish the
relational, or perhaps more accurately tangential, approach to express
more accurate energy relational constants to use in defining both our
observable and unobservable universe.

Framing the Current Problem through analogy:

When we view an energy reaction, such as a campfire, for example, from lets
say20 feet away we first see the chemical reaction through the transmission
of light energy to our eyes. We secondly may hear the physical crackling of
the logs as the chemical reaction proceeds, and thirdly, if the fire is hot
enough, we may feel the heat touch our skin. These are three ways energy is
transmitted through space that we can observe and process. They are,
however, not the only ways that the reaction is transmitting energy. If we had
different receptors, we would see infrared light given off, potentially
photovoltaic energy, and possibly further chemical process energy due to the
release of new chemical products of the reaction to the surroundings. It may
be with a bit of hubris that I considered that is possible, if not highly likely,
that many more forms of energy are being transmitted by virtue of that

reaction than we, with our limited receptors and imagination, are capable of
measuring or detecting.
The pitfall of modern physics is that we have developed a set of relational
formulas and established constants in them to understand only our
OBSERVABLE and MEASURABLE universe. Since the beginning of
materialist science, foundations that our physical sciences have been built on
were ideas tempered with strict observation of Baconian scientific method to
prove we were correct. This was necessary to sift the wheat from the chaff
as science became more popularized through the advent of formalized
education, up to the morphing of the Quadrivium into modern general
scientific approaches. By institutionalizing the observable proof as a precept
for graduating physical laws to the standard, we have inadvertently limited our
understanding to only those things we can currently see and measure.
This may seem like a useless point as we can not measure what we can not
measure, and we can not observe what we cannot observe, correct?
But, consider this point for a moment:
Lets say we have the opportunity to observe a sea on a distant planet with a
telescope, and that sea shines a brilliant blue light that fluxes from baby to
light aquamarine. We would be suitably impressed with the finding, and we
seek to understand what could possibly create such a beautiful light. We
would observe how the light moves, we would measure the periodicity of the
changes, and perhaps we would compare our findings to our blue seas on
earth, and consider what effects known to us could create the dramatic blue
colors we observe. We may come to a sensible conclusion as to what is
chemically or physically occurring to create the dramatic light. This is the
nature of our scientific approach today, and this approach is reflected in our
physical formulas.
However, what if we do not consider as part of our rigorous analysis that we
are looking through a telescope that only observes blue light? The sea could,
in fact be an infinite kaleidoscope of color, and by virtue of our limited ability
to observe it, we only ever understand its fluxes and changes by what we can
directly observe, or by the unseen influences the rest of the colors have on the
blue light. We never fully understand the true beauty of the alien sea, and we
dismiss much of what we have seen by virtue of our presuppositions.
I originally garnished this viewpoint from watching starfish behavior when
filmed with time-lapse photography. When you see this it is fun to watch and
very interesting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVg01c0Iku4

The starfish seem to operate in ultra slow motion, but nonetheless engage each
other and have social relationships imperceptible by conventional human time
references. My first thought upon viewing this behavior was that starfish must
not use light as their frame of reference when it comes to movement. They
must use some other input that informs their senses and subsequently
determines their movement. I then turned to think that we may suffer from
the same constraints with respect to our inputs vis--vis using light as our
primary meter. That frame of reference ultimately limits our understanding
and potentially ill informs us of our surroundings, including with respect to
space and time.
As physics evolved through the agestaxonomy developed to help future
physicists understand and measure discoveries. Photons are, in fact, a product
of this a photon of light is simply a mechanically defined unit established as
a metric for us to be able to measure what we otherwise see as a continuous
quality. I believe that it is time to develop a new taxonomy in physics; one
that establishes a set of standards and practices that will allow physicists to
reach beyond what they can ever hope to experience directly with their senses
and current or near future technology. Physicists nonetheless may be able to
analyze the shadows of those unknown and unknowable properties through
interrelationships with and impact on what we do know, and the vectors
created from this type of analysis will help us to arrive at a greater general
understanding of the physical properties of the universe.

Physics formula reconstruction using a simple example:

If we consider that total energy = mc2 we can consider that the formulas ke=1/2mv2 and
e=mc2 are relationally the same. The other component of the total would be comprised
of potential energy.
We currently do not see this through experiment. The reason for this incongruity rests
with our flawed definition of potential energy. I believe that we should view potential
energy in the equation as a combination of easily liberated potential energy (through
relational forces such as gravity, elasticity, tension, etc.) and potential energy that is not
easily liberated - such as chemical/molecular bonds as well as potentially unknown
additional forces we can not yet measure. This would fundamentally be a refutation of
the elastic potential energy component of Hookes law, for example, if we were to extend
Hookes law past the strict observation of elastic energies (As we often do when we
utilize these laws within engineering activities).
Example of the integration of the new potential energy component into a relativity
formula:
The relationship would be captured in the following way:
5

1/2mv2 + (1/2mv2 mgh) = e total

If we work backwards for a second:
Lets say we want to establish a relationship between gravity and energy to set as a
constant. We would first set energy in Einsteins equation e=mc2 as equal to 1.
1=mc2
This postulate speculates that light is not actually a constant; However it is a darn good
observable constant - meaning that relative to other energy transmission, light is the
most effective and efficient we know, and currently comes closest to being a fraction in a
relational constant, if we are looking for a stable benchmark.
So, considering this lets apply it to our formula as a plug.
1=m(2.99792 x 108)2
We can then come up with a number for mass when energy is 1 (Einstein assessed this
one to be a related to a single joule of energy. I will demonstrate that in fact, it should be
considered to be related to 1x joules of energy to have the e=mc2 formula work
absolutely.)
m=1/(2.99792 x 108)2
We can go back to our formula:
Pe=1/2mv2-mgh
And apply mass:
Pe=1/2(1/((2.99792 x 108)2)v2 - (1/((2.99792 x 108)2)gh
But we still do not know v, g or h
We do, however, have the equivalent representative formula Ke=1/2mv2
And we know that Ke would equal because we have stated that Ke=1/2mv2 and e=mc2
are relative formulas.
So: = 1/2(1/((2.99792 x 108)2)v2
v= the square root of (1/((2.99792 x 108)2)

So Pe Chemical/molecular/subatomic = ((1/((2.99792 x 108)2)x (square root of

(1/((2.99792 x 108)2)- ((1/((2.99792 x 108)2)gh

Gravitation:
We consider height to be pertinent to earth bound calculations using gravity as a constant.
However, gravity in the grand scheme of things is not a constant per se; we know that
behavior of gravity in relation to bodies with larger or smaller mass would be different
than on earth, as per our observed tests. Nonetheless, the existing relational formulae
hold true. We simply call height distance to properly conceptualize the relationship. A
gravitation relational constant comprised of two observed constants can be established
through the amalgamation of two existing physics formulas in which the constants are
currently applied. In this instance we will utilize the Impact Parameter formula, which is
a derivation of the Gravity Formula:
Gangle=4GM/c2b
And also utilize the Born Approximation, which is also used in the analysis of wave
distortions for incident waves, particularly in respect to traditional quantum mechanics
theories.
2
2 1
a(=4GM/c d

dzp(z) b/| b|2

Where z is the line of sight coordinate, b is the vector impact parameter of the ray
path from infinitesimal mass d21dzp(z), located at the coordinates (z).
By using the Impact Parameter formula and segregating and solving for the impact
parameter b at mass 1:
(c2b) /4 =G
(b) x 8.987551787368x1016=(4) x0.0000000000667384
(b)=0.0000000002669536/8.9875517873681760x1016
b=2.970259379971055 x10-26
Then b is applied against the original Gravity Formula to arrive at a relational
constant:
.1=4G(1)/(

c2(2.9702x10-26))

(c2/4) x(1/4)x((.1)( c2) x (2.9702x10-26)= (G/ c2)/4

7

(G/ c2) = 7.42564844992763851510-28

This relational constant may then be used to determine if light is in fact constant when
we see it lens around objects with large mass, or if there is the effect of an otherwise
immeasurable force acting on the light transmission that is altering the speed of the light.
This would be done by adjusting the above Born Approximation formula to assess input
variables against this new relational constant, and then consider the factors in the Born
Approximation, such as impact parameter, path, and line of sight coordinates to solve for
the incident wave component (p value) of that version of the Born Approximation
formulation.
That so called approximation or scattering behavior of what is asserted to be a
distorted wave should more correctly be viewed as a change in speed of the wave. This
assertion can be tested by comparing the output of this new formula against the
equivalent output of traditional Gravitational Lensing formula (also known as the
Einstein Ring formulation).
Of course the differential identified would be an exceptionally small value, but that
would be consistent with the assertion made at the beginning of this postulate that we are
reaching smaller and smaller increments in our advances with respect to horizons of
learning.
As a layman of physics and someone who appreciates cultivated and lively discussions I
welcome any contribution to this position either for criticism or support. I certainly
welcome collaboration as well from anyone knowledgeable and interested in further
developing this line of thinking.