Fundamental Motion

This article announces the discovery of Dewey B. Larson, an American Engineer, that motion is the sole constituent of the physical universe, that it is the basis of all physical entities, including all forms of matter and energy, from the smallest entity of the subatomic realm, to the largest of the giant galaxies in the heavens. Clearly, such a claim needs to be thoroughly investigated and substantiated, but once it is conclusively demonstrated, it definitely constitutes one of the greatest advances in physical theory, in the history of mankind. Much of the text is from Larson's own writings (see especially The Neglected Facts of Science).

Larson's demonstration of the efficacy of his discovery, entitled The Structure of the Physical Universe, is the initial development of the consequences of the assumption. His demonstration includes the derivation, solely from the properties of universal motion, of the observed subatomic and atomic particles of matter, and the observed forces of particle interaction including gravitational, electrical, and magnetic forces, as well as the universal force of expansion responsible for the observed recession of the galaxies of stars, which, in the universe of matter, is attributed to the so-called big bang theory.

The implications of the discovery are immense and the scientific community of the world must now recognize that any physical theory, which assumes that matter, or energy, or equivalent expressions of fields, are somehow fundamental in the nature of physical reality, is necessarily flawed and, in the final analysis, cannot lead to consistent results, as so evident in the unfruitful efforts to construct a so-called theory of everything on the basis of a universe of matter/energy.

The discovery of motion as the sole constituent of the universe was preceded by Larson's realization that time is not one-dimensional, but three-dimensional, and that its scalar progression corresponds to an equal scalar progression of space; that is, time is the reciprocal of space, and together they constitute scalar motion, existing in three dimensions, with discrete, absolute magnitudes, forming the universe of motion.

Basic Principles

While these ideas are no doubt startling and unfamiliar, modern science has sacrificed so many basic principles for the sake of new physical theories of its own devising that it is now in a rather poor position to object to any new idea or concept as a matter of principle. A profession that can give up the concept of absolute magnitudes for the benefit of relativity, that can give up the idea of causality for the benefit of quantum theory, that can give up the idea of the objective reality of atoms and particles for the benefit of modern atomic theory, and that can seriously consider giving up the principle of conservation of matter (or matter-energy) for the benefit of cosmology, can hardly be taken seriously, if it attempts to stand firm on basic principles at this late date.

Ironically, however, the truth is that no basic principles are involved in this case. The new development simply shows that the prevailing assumption that time is one-dimensional is erroneous, and that it is actually three-dimensional. Everything else then follows as a matter of course. It should be remembered in this connection that when there are difficult problems to be solved some change in existing ideas is imperative, and if the problems are of long standing, the necessary change is likely to be a major one.

The findings herein proclaimed give the scientist an opportunity to escape from an awkward dilemma; they enable him to maintain strict scientific conformity with the facts of observation while remaining wholly within the bounds of logic and rationality. From a scientific standpoint, the most significant thing about the new discovery is that it is in agreement with all positively known facts or, at least, is not inconsistent with any of them. From a philosophical standpoint, its most significant feature is that it is in harmony with nature; it does not picture nature as "absurd," or "meaningless," or "paradoxical." It defines a universe that is logical, orderly, and rational, and that is readily understandable in all of its details, if a reasonable effort is made to look at natural processes as they actually exist, not in some artificial context imposed by human preferences and prejudices.

Invitation to the Scientific Community

We invite all scientists of all nations to examine these findings and to discover for themselves that a fully integrated theoretical structure, derived in its entirety from the assumption that motion is the fundamental constituent of the universe, is a true and accurate representation of the physical facts in the areas to which it has thus far been applied and, hence, presumably to all physical areas. In contrast, all existing physical theory, which is based on the assumption that the universe in which we live is a universe of matter, one in which the fundamental entities are "elementary units" of matter existing in a framework provided by space and time, is no longer tenable, because many ways are now known in which matter can be transformed into non-matter, and obviously that which can be changed into something else is not basic. There clearly must be some common denominator underlying both of these interconvertible entities.

This is not the kind of an issue on which there can be a legitimate difference of opinion. If matter/energy is the basic constituent of the universe, as current theory assumes, then it cannot be changed into anything but some other form of matter. Conversely, if matter can be transformed into non-matter, as we now know that it can, then it is not the basic constituent of the universe, and conventional physical theory is founded on a false assumption. There is no escape from these cold, hard facts. We declare that the "matter" concept must, therefore, be replaced, and that the alternative now available is the concept of a universe in which the fundamental entities are units of motion rather than units of matter. However, as Larson writes in the preliminary edition of his work:

There are, no doubt, those who will feel that the development of new information indicating that many of the accepted scientific theories are erroneous shatters their belief in the permanence of scientific truth in general. Obviously if we are to discard today what we accepted as established facts yesterday, science will have lost its unique standing as a permanent and ever-growing systematic arrangement of knowledge. But this is not the true situation; the new information brought out in this work has not in any way disturbed the standing of any established facts or principles of science; it has merely demonstrated that some of the interpretations of and inferences based upon these established facts are in error.

There has been an unfortunate tendency in recent years to confuse fact and speculation and to elevate mere theories (relativity, for example) to a standing coordinate with or even superior to established facts. All too often we find statements of pure theory introduced by "It is now known that...", "It is certain that...", "Modern science has proved that...", etc., when the introduction should be "We think...," or some equivalent. One of the major tasks involved in carrying out this present program of investigation has been to separate fact from assumption and inference. But this is no reflection on science; it merely means that some scientists, by no means all, have succumbed to a characteristically human but definitely unscientific tendency to accept presumably authoritative pronouncements without adequate analysis and critical appraisal. One of the particularly subtle arguments that has helped to confuse the issues and to blur the line between factual and non-factual material is the contention so often raised that the theory under consideration is able "in principle" to explain all details and to reproduce all experimental values, and that inability to achieve this result in actual practice is merely due to mathematical complexity beyond the capabilities of existing facilities. In reality, of course, this "in principle" argument is a means of evading the issue, not of meeting it. Unless and until a hypothesis can be tested against facts it remains a hypothesis, no matter what it can do in principle.

This does not mean that all existing physical theories are wrong. Most of these so-called "theories" are actually generalizations of empirical relations between observed phenomena (one of the reasons why present-day theory is a "multitude of different parts and pieces" as Richard Feynman pointed out). Many others are simply mathematical relations that are independent of the theoretical significance that is currently ascribed to them. Still others are essentially nothing more than definitions. "Theories" that fall in these classes, perhaps 90 percent of the present-day total, are not affected by changes in the basic theoretical outlook. But the conclusions that are today drawn from theoretical premises are, of necessity, wrong, because the basic premises are wrong. Inasmuch as there is no longer any question as to whether or not there should be a change in fundamental ideas, when we face the issue squarely, it is clear that sooner or later there must be a change. Therefore, we conclude, a change to the concept of a universe of motion cannot be avoided; at the most, it can only be delayed.

See also: The Reciprocal System of Physical Theory -- Scalar Motion -- Radiation -- Matter -- Dewey B. Larson -- Nothing But Motion -- Basic Properties of Matter -- The Universe of Motion