I am often accused of being more of a philosopher than a physicist by colleagues who have read parts of this document in its pre-book stage. I am not really certain what it is that separates the true physicist from the true philosopher, but as far as I can tell, there cannot be very much difference. Perhaps it is in the spelling...

Both the philosopher and the physicist look around their world at what they see and ask the question, "Why?" While the philosopher tends to examine human and social systems, the physicist tends to examine physical and energy systems. In this, my accusers appear to be somewhat accurate. I am indeed, drawn to understand human and social systems-in terms of social and psychological aspects. I am also drawn to the understanding of physical and energy systems, which are the primary impetus of this book. In this, I find my accusers in error.

They may however, be accurate in accusing me of writing "philosophical physics" or "physical philosophy." Either of these terms tends to indicate a sort of "questioning" of "what is." I consider this to be a character trait of great value when it comes to doing physics (and, consequently, philosophy).

I think that if scientists want me to merely understand physics and write papers or even books about the subject, I cannot do so without questioning what I am reading or writing. In the history of science there have been many individuals who have questioned the basic tenets of the science of their time. Some have even had to challenge organized religion.

Those people looked at their science and found things wrong with what they saw. They found things that did not make sense. From what they saw, they were able to make simple statements about the universe and explain what those statements meant in terms of physical reality. In this, they may be called philosophical physicists or even physical philosophers. By that reckoning, I would be proud of joining such a fine group of individuals.

Since I have been accused (repeatedly) of philosophizing, I consider myself somewhat qualified to write the third part of this book, in which I will examine some of the philosophical aspects of this theory. The main reason for this is that as we view our world (universe) from this new perspective, in which our very perceptions are challenged, we find many new thoughts, some strange and some a little bit eerie, coming to mind. As such, it is important to examine those thoughts and bring them into full view, so as not to lose sight of reality.

It would be easier for me to simply write this book and then leave the human and social implications for others to consider; it would also be irresponsible. It is hard enough for people to live in a world that they can barely understand. It becomes even harder when you ruin their perceptions and ask them to start all over again with a new set of rules.

This particular dynamic of human psychology by itself, will probably cause more resistance to consideration of this theory as a basis of new physics than any other. There is always resistance to new theories, both in physical and in human terms, which makes it important to address the problems associated with them.

Go to Chapter 16

Home Begin Preface Acknowledgements Contents Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 6 Chapter 7 Chapter 8 Chapter 9 Chapter 10 Chapter 11 Chapter 12 Chapter 13 Chapter 14 Chapter 15 Chapter 16 Chapter 17 Chapter 18 Appendix A Appendix B1 Appendix B2 Appendix C1 Appendix C2 Appendix D Appendix E Appendix F Appendix G General References Future Books About the Front Cover About the Author Index