Introduction

Fieldstructure Theory

Field Structure Theory takes a structural approach to understand how physical reality is constructed. All sciences regard their work as “structural”, so the ostensibly the first sentence is not original. The meaning FST gives to structure is that the kind of structure FST talks about is not expressed quantitatively, but qualitatively in the experience of it as it appears in a three-dimensional form. Quality is not definable mathematic (that I know of), although conceivable may be once quantitative parameters are known. Field Structures were not discovered mathematically, but by working with the qualitative aspects of form and structure, in the same way geodesic domes, by Buckminster Fuller and tensegrities by Kenneth Snelson were discovered. In the structural approach, structure defines the theory and not the other way around. A theory can be wrong, but a structure is self-evident.

Attempts to model the spectrum of form small to large that is our universe have from the beginning attempted to employ geometry. The paper will introduce yet another geometry, Skew Geometry. Geometry made a huge contributions when it proved capable of modeling at the astrophysical scale. Newton gave us the geometry of motion (calculus) and Einsteinian enhanced it by introducing curved space geometry to better describe gravity. While these descriptions for how marco objects move in space, may be accurate, they do not offer an adequate explanation. The geometry of gravity does not integrate with the physics of the very small and the very fast. With the era of Quantum Mechanics the use of geometry at the quantum micro level was essentially discarded as the result of inescapable consequences of using a descriptive language that lead via probability to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Uncertainty insists that knowing position and momentum were not possible deterministically, only statistically. Without knowing force and position concurrently, deterministic three-dimensional models had to be abandoned at the Quantum reality. It became reasonable to assert in the context of Quantum physics that nothing could be said deterministically if an object is moving in a space smaller than visible at speeds too fast to track. Only statistics and probabilities survive as useful tools in such a world. As Dr. Kenneth Ford, of the University of California, Irvine stated in his 1963 mainstream view book on physics, “The fundamental laws of nature are laws of probability, not laws of certainty”. He goes to state in referring to Quantum mechanics that, “It is indefinite and uncertain in that one can calculate only the chance that something will happen, never what will, in fact, happen for a particular atom or system.” This assertion while it may be true for Quantum mechanical descriptions does not appear to be true for Field Structure mechanics. In fact, Field Structure Theory puts the ‘mechanics’ back into physics. To call Quantum mechanics “mechanical” is a misnomer. No machine could ever be constructed if it could not be deterministically engineered. Uncertainty, in my opinion, has functioned as blinders do on a racehorse. Uncertainty is an inescapable conclusion that results from the tools used. FST, along with others, including Einstein in his later years, could not help but feel the Quantum mechanical description was not the last word, in spite of it never being defeated on its own terms. FST is believed to offer a way to achieving a deeper insight into reality and does so without violating what we know from Quantum mechanics (QM). FST is deterministic at heart, while QM remains statistical. After stating the QM point of view, Dr. Kenneth Ford in his book further suggested that geometry may lead physics out of the doldrums when he stated, “Among the more speculative new ideas is what is sometimes called the “geometrization of physics”, the idea that space and time are all, that the actors, the action and the stage of nature, all three, are manifestations of an underlying four-dimensional geometry of space-time.”

In recent years it seems geometry is reasserting itself. In Field Structure Theory it is the sole concern. Structuralist have an unshakable belief that, if there is structure, there must be geometry. Many have questioned the wisdom of abandoning geometry in the modern era have yet to meet, championed the ‘structuralist approach’. Though discussions as to what structure may mean rage on, the usefulness of the structural approach is unquestioned. Field Structures has introduce a new starting place for the discussion, at the place action arises. Action is the simplest notion we have about anything. With it, FST shows how it builds a universe.

While Field Structures are a form of skew geometry, it has another attribute that distinguishes it from other geometries. FS have the decency to disintegrate if they are not structural reverting back to a stable form at a simpler level of organization. A Field Structure carries through the notion of structure from the smallest to the biggest event without introducing artificial contrivances (such as fasteners). It builds with action and uses nothing else but action. It converts action into energy and energy into mass and then builds the familiar forms of each structural platform from waves to particle to atom to molecule to organism and so on up the structural scale. Field Structures eliminate what doesn’t work and keeps what does. This “intelligence’ is innate to the system and manifest at each structural platform6.

Field Structures accomplish the linkage between energy field and mass field, a long-standing problem. Dr. Kenneth Ford states, “It seems certain that each of the known particles cannot be the quantum manifestation of a distinct underlying field, but that, in some way not yet understood, all of the particles must arise form one or very few basic fields.” His book was published in 1963, two years before Field Structures were discovered.

We can construct mathematically any number of dimensions, but we can only build materially a three-dimensional universe. Skew Geometry embodies structure as a real time inherent property. There may be other dimensions, but we cannot build in them. We are empirically bound to three-dimensions. This is a science that has a reality. Three-dimensional structures provide their own proof. They eliminate them selves if they are not structural. They build with action and only with action. They convert action into energy and energy into mass and then build the familiar forms of each structural platform from waves to particle to atom to molecule to organism and beyond, all with action and interactions. The system eliminates what doesn’t work and keeps what does. This "intelligence" is innate and manifest its intelligence at each structural platform.

Undoubtedly this is why we have ended up with an intelligent universe and we are the proof of its inherent intelligence. Our universe has selected only that which works. If an unintelligent, (i.e. unstructural system) appears for whatever reason, the universe will destroy the system by reducing it back to a simpler structural form. There is a well-known law of physics and chemistry that applies universally that states action will make a new relationship if it can lower the total energy requirements. Particles lower their total energy requirements by making atoms. Atoms do likewise when they form molecules. Right on up the structural spectrum this law of association operates. The bonding energies within particles (Strong Force) are measured in Bev (billion electron-volts). For particles bonding to make atoms, they are measured in Mev (million electron-volts), for atoms bonding to make molecules they are down the Kev (thousand electron-volts) and so on; the higher the organization, the lower the bonding energy. The bonding energies at each level of organization get smaller and smaller as the universe does more and more with less and less. Field Structures show us why.

The precisely tuned, fully integrated, optimally organized world we live in seems not accidental. It is the product of Field Structures, which are the product of a simple thing, i.e., ACTION. The universe began simply, but in that simple event a great deal of energy is stored. This energy gets diffused as this action is shared to create organizations of action as if each unit, be it particle, atom, molecule or organism contributes some of there energy to the Totality of the field with which they are joining. Fields build with the energy a form has to share.

The original source of power in this world is action. It is so simple a concept it almost defies definition. Structuralists, as well as physicists, have endlessly debated the meaning of action. In its original sate, it seems to be a concept where physics and metaphysics meet. A discussion of structure has to deal with the meaning of action.

Structure is a construct of nature and as our understanding of structure increases, our ability to understand nature likewise is enhanced. With Field Structures, it appears our interest in structure can extend further our descriptive powers and become a predictive tool at scales of structure too small or large for human engineering. Furthermore, if Field Structures prove capable of extending our understanding of human scale engineering and architecture, as I believe it will, then it may provide an opportunity to look into structures beyond the “visual” limits imposed by Uncertainty. Field Structures, built by structuralist, are in actuality a part of the wider spectrum of structural experience that extends from our familiar mencro scale of structure to include the micro and macro scales as well. Believing this to be the case, Field Structure Theory is being presented as a new exploratory tool with predictive potential that may benefit the natural sciences.

Home | Contacts | News & Events | Publications | Projects