Authors: J.A.J. van Leunen
This paper starts from the idea that physical reality implements a network of a small number of mathematical structures. Only in that way can be explained that observations of physical reality fit so well with mathematical methods. The mathematical structures do not contain mechanisms that ensure coherence. Thus apart from the network of mathematical structures a model of physical reality must contain mechanisms that manage coherence such that dynamical chaos is prevented. Reducing complexity appears to be the general strategy. The structures appear in chains that start with a foundation. The strategy asks that especially in the lower levels, the subsequent members of the chain emerge with inescapable self-evidence from the previous member. The chains are interrelated and in this way they enforce mutual restrictions. As a consequence the lowest levels of a corresponding mathematical model of physical reality are rather simple and can easily be comprehended by skilled mathematicians. In order to explain the claimed setup of physical reality, this paper investigates the foundation of the major chain. That foundation is a skeleton relational structure and it was already discovered and introduced in 1936. The paper does not touch more than the first development levels. The base model that is reached in this way puts already very strong restrictions to more extensive models. The paper uses a special version of the generalized Stokes theorem in order to establish a dynamic model of the whole universe. As part of the investigation the paper compares two sets of differential equations that both give a description of the behavior of physical fields. These sets represent two different space-progression models. Both sets of equations and both models appear to be equally valid. Some of the features of the base model are investigated and compared with results of contemporary physics.
Comments: 116 Pages.
Unique-IP document downloads: 117 times
Add your own feedback and questions here:
You are equally welcome to be positive or negative about any paper but please be polite. If you are being critical you must mention at least one specific error, otherwise your comment will be deleted as unhelpful.