The 7-Layers approach in the epistemology of the theories in Physics.
Although the 7-layers approach is usually applied in Business and Computer Science (OSI, Open Systems Interconnection View), it has valuable implications in mathematics and physics , not so much as the number 7 is concerned, which here is used as memorization easiness, but as far as the layering of theories is concerned by modeling and interpretation, which is a much deeper concept.
As these are epistemological considerations and as far as the required experiments and their quantitative results are not published by the experimentalists , it would not be possible to do anything better. At least we get the right logical possibilities as a natural continuation of the history of physics in the last 4 centuries or more, and we get, I believe, the right direction for future developments.
As in business we pass from the age of selling what we can produce to the age of producing what we can sell, we should pass in physics from the age of applying what we can discover to the age of discovering what we can apply at least for the benefit of the human being and all societies in the planet.
Scientists should think first a lot together with other social groups about what would be the impact of possible discoveries , in relation of the usual practices of societies within possible laws, before they would proceed to discover anything in new directions. I think a characteristic example is the complications with the technology of cloning in biology.
Sometimes it is admired how some ancient Greek thinkers and philosophers like Democritus could anticipate the atomic nature of matter so many centuries before the 19th and 20th century that it is consider that proved it experimentally . The answer is simple. It is because of free spirit, pure and unbiased mind and many thought experiments and thought simulations.
This is the method that I used also from1995 till now. Many though experiments that would screen out the most probable cases and finally would result to a mathematical proof. I started my research with a leading premise. that the answer should be just there, already solved but not realised that it is so, in the network of the physical arguments from the time of Newton till now. It should be like a long distressing search for ones glasses till he realizes that he is wearing them. The result is that for the first time after the time of Newton, we are in a position to answer the question: What is gravitation ,and why the universal attraction is as the inverse square of the distance?
We may make the issue if it is necessary to formulate the new modeling of the classical fields , with new mathematics. In fact we should need new mathematics, that would be time and space resolution-sensitive. E.g. resolution-sensitive differential calculus. But I follow here the same method that Newton used to publish his new physics. He published his laws of nature within the classical Euclidean geometry, that were mathematics that everybody new, although he developed the new mathematics (the calculus) in separate work. In the same way it is given a formulation of this physics within classical differential calculus of fluid dynamics, while the really appropriate would be a new resolution sensitive differential calculus.
It seems that the more the cognitive limitations of the theory, the easier is the excuse to practice experiments where it would not be realized what really is happening. The objective therefore is to try to proceed in physics by repeating as little as possible the mistakes of the 20th century and refraining from falling in to new or worse. The most of the difficulty with this is that this may also depend significantly on social groups and directions totally different from the scientific community.
The concepts of layers or levels etc although today widespread in the social sciences , were for the first time indirectly introduced in mathematics during the beginning of the 20th century, in their Logical version by B. Russell and Hilbert with their higher order or multi-level formal logic, or we may say in the ontological version by Cantor with his nested sets.
As in the case of mathematical theories the successive relation of the theories of an epistemological layer to its previous is that the next layer has an interpretation and has a model in the previous layer. The epistemological layers of the theories of physics are not the layers of the material physical reality (like for instance that ,a group of stars and planets, a glass of water, or the electromagnetic field of a coil are of different material layer and scale).
The epistemological Layers of physics do not always correspond to the historical order of their development. Their historic order is rearranged to correspond rather to logical order of deductions.
The 7-Layers are:
1) E-Layer 1. A logically simplified deterministic dynamic system of particles, with laws of evolution simple and clear but with only initial concept that of action. Even the concept of inertial, momentum and energy are derivable , non-initial concepts.
2) E-Layer 2. The elementary Newtonian deterministic kinematics and dynamics of a finite system of particles with the momentum and energy conservation.
3) E-Layer 3. Classical Langrangian and Hamiltonian (canonical) deterministic mechanics stated for systems of particles.
4) E-Layer 4. Classical Statistical Mechanics. From this layer and the next the probability and indeterminism is inherent in the physical systems. In this layer the motion of a system of particles is deterministic with only mutual interaction the collisions (deterministic propagation stochastic process) and the only indeterminism is for the initial conditions. At each time step the momentum and energy of system is strictly conserved. (Although at the initial conditions we may have a probability distribution of momentum and energy). The deterministic propagation in such systems is describable with dynamics of layer 3.
5) E-Layer 5. Classical Fluid dynamic and thermodynamic systems. Their physical properties are described by quantities that can be derived also not only by experimental measurements but also by statistical and stochastic quantities of the previous non-observable (with simple laboratory instruments) layer.
6) E-Layer 6. 20th century Wave or Quantum (statistical) Mechanics. In such stochastic process (that are of non-deterministic propagation) the motion of each particle is not determined by the collisions or interactions with the other particles. There are spontaneous change of the direction and energy of the motion, beyond its interaction or collisions with the other particles. The momentum and energy are not strictly conserved but only in the average. If we insist to ignore the source of the causes of these changes and include as existing only the particles of the system, (as it was standard during the 20th century, in the Copenhagen Interpretation) then (as von Neumann remarked see  ) we must "abandon the principle of sufficient physical cause". In the average values the stochastic dynamics of such systems are describable with mechanics of layer 3. If the constant of action h which determines the variance of the non-deterministic evolution of the system, tends to zero, such systems converge to deterministic evolution systems like those of the system 3 (Bohr's principle of "correspondence" or convergence to classical (statistical) mechanics systems.) (Notice that the celebrated criticism in micro-physics of formulating laws only on observable, magnitudes, is a severe phenomenology, that history has shown, that must not be followed for ever, if we must make meaningful advancements. E.g. the paper of A. Einstein on Brownian motion, that is supposed that it proved the atomic structure of mater, and gave him the Nobel price, has a large part of arguments on quantities and physics on them that were not observable, as only Brownian motion was observable at that time. The same with large parts of statistical mechanics of gases. What is non-observable may become observable as technology evolves)
7) E-Layer 7. It includes the classical or non-classical theories of the universal attraction, gravitation fields , electromagnetic fields etc.
Comments and Interpretation.
1)The analysis of conceptual and logical interdependence of the various layers measures our advancement in the science of physics and our abilities to understand nature and the world.
2) Layer 1 has never really been developed, and I included it here for reasons of logical clarity and intention to describe it with full logical details in other pages. It is supposed in this layer that the concept of inertia and mass is not an initial concept, but rather derivable by the mutual action relations in pairs of all particles relative to a standard one. So it is a property depending on the environment system of particles or material layer, for each particle. Also the concepts of momentum and energy and their conservation are derivable from the concept of action (In the usual way: the momentum as rate of "spacialized" action, and the energy as rate of "temporalised" action. Inertia may be derived as a form of stability of uniform action in space and time).
3) Layer 3 for a system of particles with collisions is derivable from layer 2 . Equivalently, layer 3 has a model theoretic interpretation in the layer 2.
4) Layer 4 is also derivable from layer 3 , or layer 4 has a model in the layer 3 in the standard way. The new element is the probability on the initial conditions.
5) Layer 5 is derivable from layer 4, or layer 5 has a model in the layer 4. The details of this is mainly the work of the atomists of the 19th century that were rejected and discredited during almost all of the 19th century. This derivation is quite laborious and complicated, and for the first time we model logically and statistically how nature (or human experience of nature) derives the continuous (fluids like water air etc) from the discrete (particles interacting with collisions and following Newton's laws). It seems to me that mathematics has also to gain from this derivation for new logical models of the construction of the continuum from the discrete in such a way that only finite or countable and computable sets are used. This is the content of an other part of work on the mathematical infinite. Although the mathematical and statistical arguments of these derivations had been published during the 19th century, the physicist of that time did not adopt them. I assume that arguments like "Show me an atom or an experiments that shall force me to accept the existence of atoms" where prevailing. Of course no-one would be able to see or observe directly an atom at that century. The very quantities that statistical mechanics was deducing as probabilistic average magnitudes of particle dynamics , like pressure or temperature etc, were so directly experimentally measurable, that most of the physicists of that time would not understand why they would have to consider them so "abstractly" as layer 4 gave , instead of directly given by palpable human experience of natural phenomena in the laboratory. The main opponent of the atomists of the 19th century was the theory of "the phases of matter" that was put to explain all the experiments that the atomists would resort to support their theories. We may parallel their attitude with the ancient attitude in the Euclidean geometry where a line is assumed a initial concept-object , as contrasted to the line after the arithmetisation of Cartesius with coordinates in analytic geometry and the construction of the real numbers from the natural numbers by Cauchy , Dedekind etc.
Finally by the end of the 19th century and mainly at the beginning of the 20th century, some experiments were considered hard-facts for the proof of the existence of atoms. The irony in the history of the theories in physics ,is that these experiments were already available and well-known during almost all of the 19th century. For example the derivation of the Brownian Motion (or diffusion) by discrete systems of particles in 1905 (By Einstein ,which gave him his Nobel price!), referred to an experiment known since 1820! So the scientific community was familiar with the basic experiment that established the atomic theories in physics, for 85 years, without realizing that this was the proof of the theories of atomic structure of matter that it rejected. We can make similar remarks about the classical law of integer proportions of volumes of reacting gasses in chemistry.
6) Once the world of electrons, protons and neutrons is established in the consciousness of the physicists, at the beginning of the 20th century, it is observed a remarkable overemphasis in exactly what was rejected hitherto (the atoms, the protons, the electrons, the neutrons). At the same time a retreat of the beliefs about physical reality in to a reality that consists only from the previous permanent particles. For example while since the time of Newton, (and introduced by Newton) , it was accepted the existence of a material medium for the propagation of light and universal attraction [(that filled the space between the sun and the earth as Newton described) , namely aether, and later developed by Laplace, Euler, Thompson, Maxwell (who was calling what we call today electromagnetic field , Electromagnetised aether) etc], suddenly everybody insisted that it does not exist and the gravitation and electromagnetic fields are not of material existence but "mathematical conceptions in the empty space" (although they have momentum density and energy density , which has inertia, in the empty space!). If the atomists of the 19th century that were trying to convince everybody that quantities like mass, density , inertia of continuous entities in physics, are derivable from an aggregation of discrete atoms, would live during all of the 20th century they would certainly be amazed ecstatically, by how easily almost all of the physics during the 20th century would suddenly accept beyond doubt that indeed the material inertia of the fluids like water , air etc and practically of all conceivable continuous objects are the outcome of the aggregation of discrete system of particles , except of the inertia (energy ,momentum etc) of the gravitational and electromagnetic field , which is of "the mathematical abstract quantities" and exist out there in the "empty space" of a relativistic "space-time" or "quantum vacuum"! So the atomists of the 19th century had after all a half-win only. And it was the same person (Einstein) who is credited that gave them both the half-victory (the Brownian motion is because of the atomic structure of matter) and the half-defeat (that neutral aether or gravitational field and Electromagnetised aether or electromagnetic field do not have a discrete particle structure , in fact that they do not have material existence at all , they are "empty space" or "vacuum"). This retreat of the concept of physical reality during the 20th century, although it started with Einstein , had its culmination with quantum mechanics and the Copenhagen Interpretation. For one more century the community of the physics studies intensively an other type of diffusion, like the Brownian motion, the Shrondinger motion of a free particle. The difference is slight, in the latter the variance increases as the square of the time while in the former, linearly in time. For a second time and for a whole century, almost no one would accept that these experiments are a proof that, what was called aether in the 19th century and "space-time" , or "quantum vacuum" in the 20th century, is of course one more physical material layer with discrete permanent particles structure but inaccessible to our technology. The argument of course that this phenomenon proves the discrete particle structure of the classical fields, would be the same. Again arguments like "show me one such particle" would be prevailing. The situation certainly reminds of the tale of the cloths of the emperor, (or the glasses of the superman) that are honored by every one , and everyone sees that they do not exist. The cloths that everybody honored, during the 20th century , were the empty "space-time" and the "quantum vacuum". And if any little student-boy would dare to remark simply that their "emptiness" or "vacuum" does not exists, he would be interrupted as ignorant with no advanced in postgraduate studies. Was it the brainstorming of the World-Wars? Fear? An attempt to publish as little as possible during war times by the fear that it would be used by the enemies? Misconception of the leader researchers? Stupidity? A result of bizarre concepts in the chase of careers and reputation? Wisdom to avoid unpredictable applications that would create societies of greedy crimes? An subconscious irresistible impulse of the minds like a mind-trap, in spite of the realization of the opposite ? No matter the causes the result is there in all most all the books and the conferences for a whole century!
I am afraid that the evolution of sciences has more than once turned upside-down well established theories, and reversed our opinion about what is intelligent and what is not, what is true and what is not, what should be honored and what not. This shall be I am afraid with many ideas of physics that during the 20th century became famous and popular in the academic world. Only with the appropriate humor we can deal with such changes especially when they are fast and the old and new ideas in the scientific publications coexist.
As the age of Galileo remained in history the age in which, the established knowledge believed that the earth is not moving and is square, or the 19th century as the century that ( created and) rejected the atomic theories of matter, we might say that 20th century might remain in the history as the century that physicist believed that nothing can travel faster than 300.000 km/sec and was abandoned the principle of sufficient physical causes for all microphysical phenomena at the scale of electrons, protons, and neutrons. Although still at present (2002) a majority of academic scientists still believe so, we cannot but make some humor, and jokes about it. Sometimes the trees hide the forest, and the funny situation can be seen only from a long distance from the present physics, or even from some of the orientations of the present dominating societies. The tale of the Emperor's cloths is a good wise metaphor. Only that contrary to the interpretation that some hush to use in a converse way, and obscure the situation, (like R. Penrose) , the revealing interpretations is that the "relativistic space-time" and the "quantum vacuum" are the Emperor's celebrated cloths, that in reality, do not exist. And everybody admires these cloths (the "curved space-time" and the "quantum Vacuum" ) except one day , even a young new student that spends more time in the internet than reading, fat volumes about Gravitation, could make us wake-up. Let us hope that new wars, shall not postpone very far in the future that day.
That the stochastic processes of wave mechanics in layer 6 could be derived from a 2-physical layers approach of systems in the epistemological layers 4 and 5, was nevertheless something that was realised and proved by some researchers (see  , etc). That it is required both layer 4 and 5 and not only layer 5, explains also the difference of the Brownian motion diffusion from the Shrondinger motion diffusion. If in a system of classical statistical mechanics of a mixture of gasses A, B, we hide one of the partial gasses B , and describe the other A, we would get a Brownian motion diffusion for A. But if the gas A is immersed in a fluid B made from vastly smaller size particles , the perturbations of the particles of gas A by the fluid B would be due to pressure from waves or other complicated flows, of the fluid B, rather than particle-particle collisions, and a 2nd order would appear in the time evolution of the variance or square volatility. When we do know that the random behavior of particles e.g. an electron is due to the collisions with other electrons and due to pressures from the to field-gas (which gives the gravitational and the electromagnetic interactions) it is an artificial restriction to assume that the laws of the micro-world can be described, only through a non-deterministic propagation as in the stochastic processes of quantum mechanics
Thus the abandonment of the "principle of sufficient physical cause" in the microphysics is artificial, not a real property of nature , not even a real limitation of the technology at the scale of electrons, protons and neutrons. But surprisingly it may reflect a limitation of the social character of our the civilization as far as applications of physics in ecology and war-like social events is concerned.
With this I do not mean that I am in favor of a determinist version of all physical theories. From layer 4 and next, the physical layers have to be probabilistic. From a point of view, this is a rooted characteristic of human knowledge , and comes from the position of the human consciousness in the world. It is hardly possible to eliminate it, but only for very simple physical systems at one only layer. So I do not share the quote of Einstein "The god does not role the dice" if this means that we must accept only deterministic models. The reasons is that any human knowledge must be from the point of view of a human being's mind not from the point of view of the god's mind. But we should not accept too the abandoning of the principle of sufficient physical cause, especially when this is an artificial and ad hoc postulation as in the Quantum Mechanics of the 20th century.
A closer look at this derivation would give an other dimension where Quantum Mechanics is limited. It corresponds only to an influence of the underlying field-gas to a system of particles that is only of the class of potential flows. [Hardly appropriate states of flow, for the annihilation and creation of particles for which it has been used . We remark below about the discrepancy of the phenomenon "the more restricted the theory the more inappropriate experimental uses of it" or vice versa.]
The phenomenon of "retreat" of the physical reality in the physics of the 20th century had an corresponding and earlier phenomenon in the history of mathematics: While since the time of Newton , (17th century) the mathematicians were using the infinitesimals as not of different ontological status from the finite numbers but with a difference only on the accuracy level and significance, and somehow they used a double level continuum, after the construction of the real numbers (Cauchy-Weiersrasse-Dedekind etc during the 19th century) they retreated to single only layer continuum, the real numbers, while at the same time it was introduced the infinite (e.g. of the irrational number pi) as an object of different ontological status.. As usually developments in mathematics anticipate developments in physics. It seems that most of the researchers of the history of ideas ,would explain it by a principle like "The better is the enemy of the good". And that a simple system of numbers like that of Cauchy is just good for most proposes.
Nevertheless, some would say the same for the Cauchy-Weiersrasse-Dedekind real numbers too, because the concept of the infinite was also introduced that although it was considered "better" it might turn out to be the enemy of the modest finite that is just "good" for all practical proposes too.
There is one very characteristic phenomenon of the theories of layer 6 that it is not possible to fail to notice it and not to be impressed by it. The layer 6 has the most severely restricted theories in all of physics from the point of view of determinism , but also because of the abandoning of the principle of sufficient physical causes, due to the abandoning of the existence of the material reality of the classical fields. In the light of the previous analysis and the tale of "the cloths of the emperor", one would get the impression the it was as if the standard interpretation of Copenhagen was suggesting for some reason, to everyone using this theory " Do not try to study any phenomenon that would involve the annihilation or creation of particles like electron's, proton's , and neutrons as a result with an interplay with what the theory gives as "vacuum" The impressive with the history of physics of the 20th century is that the practice of experiments and the derived technology (nuclear, power, accelerators, particle reactions etc) was exactly the negation of this suggestion. It is highly impressive how they attempt to make practice, how particles like electron and proton are annihilated and created . Was it the pressure of the wars and the thirst to acquire power , by all means at all costs and at the same time keeping the conventional lie of a wise restricted theory of matter that would not possibly let them do it? Was it the controversy between the social groups that postulated the basic theoretical principles and the social groups of those hushing in to experiments and of the social groups using and funding the resulting technology? Was it because it was supposed that with such a theory like Quantum Mechanics of such restricted dimension of cognition, nothing of the applications derived during 20th century was supposed to happen? Was it a new obscure alienation between theoretising, thinking and practicing, that was leading to terms like "magic numbers" in atomic structures etc? Was it a powerful subconscious intervention? Was it a failure in knowledge reflected from wilder and soulless practice in other departments of society? No matter the reasons the result was that the more the theories of layer 6 were restricted in to what it was supposed you can describe and study , the more the orgy of the possible experiments with partial correspondence to the theoretical descriptions and in the directions that the theory was supposed not to cover theoretically and lead you.
It is not a surprise therefore that the result was a long lasting wound in the ecology of the natural environment, and the human societies, and a serious and disgraceful, drawback of the scientific world and to the planet's civilization in general, that would slow down and put obstructions to any future developments. Probably the full spectrum of reasons of all this situation , is beyond our efforts to understand, is relevant to sources far beyond the proxy directions that we may consider possibly relevant. And probably too, to civilization memories far lost behind in the depths of human history. Still there are dimensions, of this situation that may prove it the best it could happen, given that some types of problems already were there, before it.
7) a) Layer 7 contains the classical theories of the Newtonian gravitation in its field version , as well as Einstein's gravitation, classical electromagnetism etc. As far as the relation of this 7th-layer of theories with the other layers of theories we may say the next. It was attempted to reduce the layer 7 to the layer 6. In other words to describe the phenomena and interactions body->field (gravitational or electromagnetic as material fluid)->body , to a pattern of interaction that totally omits the field and its material existence and is like : body->body. Even for the classical electromagnetic field this is not easy mathematically. First tried by Gauss and discussed with Weber in 1845, was solved during the 20th century by Schwarzshild, Tetrode, Fokker etc (Fokker action function see  etc.) All the quantum -fields of weak, or strong particle interactions during the 20th century physics, were based on this pattern and description that completely avoids the layer of the classical fields-gas either in its neutral or Electromagnetised form, replacing it as we said with the "quantum vacuum". That is why the abandoning of the "principle of sufficient physical cause" in Quantum Mechanics of the 20th century is an artificial restriction. We believe that, this is also one of the reasons why this direction is a dead-end , in spite of the fact that most of the by career quantum-field physicist seem to not to have been convinced about it and still work on this dead-lock. But we should realize that an even worse dead-end behind it , is the use of scientific knowledge, for the worse of the human societies , of the human consciousness , and of nature and the planet in overall.
b) In the paper below and with a research that started in 1995 , and presented in 1998 in Lancaster, it is completed an important gap in the model theoretic interpretations of the epistemological layers. In other words we could try the a partial derivation of the classical field theories (of Newtonian gravitation and Maxwell's Electromagnetism) by layer 5 of classical fluid dynamic and thermodynamic systems by skipping layer 6.With this derivation all of the system of theories becomes a coherent logical system based of course on (multi-leveled) atomic material structure. The mathematical details of this , could be of course again stated for "an empty space" and "a mathematical field" but with new potentials and equations of them.
EL1---> EL2----> EL3----> EL5===> EL7
c) It is required of course the coexistence of two at least physical material layers. This is a converse of the usual approach for the fields in layer 6. If we would accept the reduction of layer 7 to layer 6, ( which is standard today with the quantum field theories as they say), and then we should require a crystal clear reduction of layer 6 to layer 5. Even then, that would still leave open if the source or of the interactions is the same or not with the source of the additional randomness of layer 6, and even if we identify the two sources, we would still need a derivation of the details of the interaction from the details of the source of additional randomness of layer 6. Thus the strait reduction of layer 7 to layer 5 is easier , more classical , closer to truth and without artificial redundant formalisms of irrelevant time and space scales.
d) For the gravitational field , the model of layer 7 to layer 5 is purely mechanical with the only interactions the collisions. For electromagnetism it is required a non-mechanical interaction too. The rest is taken care by the fluid dynamics, that derives the electromagnetic interaction with the speed of light. This was the initial concept of Shroendinger about the electron beam, two-slit experiment. We can speculate on the validity of a true "locality or contact principle" (contrary to what has been called like that, in the debates of Einstein with Bohr) according to which "Any physical interaction can be derived from that of collisions, if sufficient many physical layers are included" but would appear as "non-local action at a distance" or non-mechanical, if less than the necessary physical layers are included in its definition.
Most of the details were presented in the Lecture of Lancaster in September 1998. But since then I have made many simplifications, corrections and elaborations in the equations and the arguments.
e) The modeling of layer 7 in the layer 5 , avoided, on purpose, the involvement of relativistic physics or quantum mechanical formulations, or phenomena involving annihilation and creation of particles. The reasons are obvious.
1) We refrain from using relativistic formulations, as the developed approach, substitutes and rectifies the relativistic physics (and identifies space-time as the emperors cloths in the corresponding tale) .
2) We refrain from using quantum mechanical formulations as the indented scale of applications is cosmological, celestial mechanics and at most, macroscopic laboratory physics, definitely of a scale large compared to the scale of electrons ,protons and neutrons or atoms of material bodies and also because we want to avoid the "abandonment of the principle of sufficient physical causes" that quantum mechanics involves.
This modelling of layer 7 to layer 6 has of course left open the next two issues.
a) How the particles of the coarse layer (matter) would be derived from that of the fine layer (field). In spite of the fact that Einstein's formula of the change of inertia already, suggests wave properties of the particles, in the present approach we are not concerned at all with the micro-structure of any of the two layers. We are not even concerned with the models of atoms like Bohr's etc. In the contrary we could formulate everything in terms of coupling of states of flow of one layer (matter) with states of flow of the other layer (Field-gas). The reference to particles is only to suggest that such an approach should not be contradictory with statistical mechanics and reduction to systems of particles. In the present approach the particles of the two layers are assumed permanent ,indestructible and are treated as particles of independent nature: The protons ,electrons, neutrons and their corresponding also permanent particles, so to say, aetherons. As the aetherons could be 10-40 times smaller than protons ,electrons and neutrons, it is realized that for 20th century microphysics such particles are totally inaccessible. The present approach does not imply that in order to understand the nature of Newtonian gravitation and Maxwell's electromagnetism we should look at the microworld. In the contrary the present formulation holds only at a macroscopic scale , of laboratory electronics to a solar system or larger. There are still, there, much too many new events to discover.
b) If the fine layer (field) has a more diversified discrete structure (e.g. an analogue of a periodic system and corresponding field-chemistry, either inorganic or organic). As I mentioned the mathematical formulation adopted is appropriate only for macroscopic space and time scale-resolutions. Therefore the relevant experiments are of a different time and space scale.
In view of the difficulties that were created in physics, societies and nature during the 20th century and which we still inherit in the new millennium, I speculate that it shall take many centuries till such a knowledge could be settled.
8) We discriminated at the beginning of this page
the concept of epistemological layer and the concept of physical material layer.
It could be said that the former are the creation of the collective human
civilisation trying to understand the natural reality while the former are
closer to what we call nature and reality (the only common country as Camus was
putting it). To show an example of how the concept of physical material layers
can enhance our perception , let us count them using a human centered approach,
and try to conceive usual arguments in cosmology. We should remember the ancient
Greek quote "Παντων χρηματων μετρον ανθρωπος" which means
among other "The measure of any kind of money is the human
being" or "The measure of anything in the human world is the human
(most probably this was a reverse moral feeling to buying and selling other
human beings, as was the slavery practice at that time). Today too men are sacrificed
for advancing the scientific knowledge for war applications, while we should sacrifice
inappropriate directions of scientific knowledge and practice, for the sake of the human
beings and planet's life.
(most probably this was a reverse moral feeling to buying and selling other human beings, as was the slavery practice at that time). Today too men are sacrificed for advancing the scientific knowledge for war applications, while we should sacrifice inappropriate directions of scientific knowledge and practice, for the sake of the human beings and planet's life.
Let us call physical P-Layer 0,(or in a positive counting P-resolution or density 3) the usual matter of the every day life (that is consisting of protons, electrons, neutron, like water, a piece of wood, the ground of the planet etc).
Let us call P-Layer +1,(or in a positive counting P-resolution or density 2), the planets of a solar system, star constellations, including galaxies , and clusters of galaxies.
Let us call P-Layer -1,(or in a positive counting P-resolution or density 4) the material layer of the classical fields like the electromagnetic field (or older Electromagnetised aether, that in the present approach consists at least from the aetherons).
Let us stop there at the moment and investigate.
a) How many layers are involve in the attraction of two planets? Layer 0,(or in a positive counting P-resolution or density 3), for sure, as planets are made from human layer, matter. Layer 1, (or in a positive counting P-resolution or density 2) of course as the planets, as celestial bodies, are the elements of layer1,(or in a positive counting 2). But as the gravitation propagates through the neutral Field-gas, the layer -1,(or in a positive counting 4) is also involved. Thus 3-layers already are involved in a simple celestial interaction of two planets.
b) Let us think now about what has been called "black holes" in cosmology and has been studied so much by the famous Hawkins with the help of R. Penrose too. As has been described in detail in the papers below that links the epistemological layer 7 and 5 , the main source of gravitation is the heat of the Field-gas (the heat of layer -1,(or in a positive counting 4) ,not the heat of layer 0,(or in a positive counting 3)) . Such a strong gravitation that the "black holes" have is therefore the indication of vast temperature of layer -1,(or in a positive counting 4), in them. Since they are not usually radiating in layer 0 or layer -1,(or in a positive counting 4), it becomes plausible and we may speculate that they are very bright stars at a layer -2 or finer ,(or in a positive counting 5 or higher ) where they might radiate, but not in layer -1,(or in a positive counting 4) (field) , or layer 0,(or in a positive counting 3) (proton's electron's and neutron's matter). So we see that we change radically our conceptions of cosmological entities.
c) Let us speculate now about what cosmologists call "world" and represent with a differential manifold. What is a usual requirement for this entity? That it is as far as light could ever go! Very well, let us take it as the definition. As light is now understood as a charge wave in layer -1,(or in a positive counting 4) (and also a compression wave), then this "world" should be as far as layer -1,(or in a positive counting 4) exists. In other words a vast gaseous (in layer -1,(or in a positive counting 4)) ball that has inside it Galaxies stars etc. Could it be called a star , (or element) of layer +2,(or in a positive counting 1) ? Most plausibly yes. Could anything go outside it? But yes! As we define it as a connected area of the material layer -1,(or in a positive counting 4), if it also embedded in layer -2,(or in a positive counting 5) , that as layer -2,(or in a positive counting 5) it is finer, it extends further, beyond the usual boundaries of what we called initially "world". So you see that we already did change our view about what is traditionally called world in cosmology, by simply reasoning in terms of the physical material layers .
We may assume that the whole of the physical world as conceived from the human mind, has countable infinite many physical layers, but that every conceivable physical entity can consists of finite many only, physical layers. In this way any physical system must also have external influences , so that it can not be isolated, but these influences are also physical (and not from "emptiness") so that the principle of sufficient physical causes is not abandoned.
A few words about the introduction of the infinite in the physical world that is assumed to have only finite entities. At first the restriction that any physical system can consists only of finite many layers is in agreements with the classical thought. Second as the author explains in the pages about mathematics the ontology of the infinite is the phenomenology of changes, with missing information (abstractness), of the finite. The changes here correspond to that the physical reality should be considered as "becoming" and "evolving" or even "living" and "dying" rather that static. Thus there is an element of missing information at each time about the state of evolution of the physical reality. An other source for this abstractness of the infinite is that the limits of the physical reality and its boundaries with subjective experience as the human being thinks and experiences is variable shifting and not known as finite information. This is an other point of missing information at each time. Thus the standard way to deal with it is the abstraction of the infinite (as phenomenology of changes with missing information of the finite) , which as I remarked is used only for the physical reality as a whole and not for the physical systems.
9) In spite the criticism above of the inadequacies of the 20th century physics and the criticism as a science of war times, I should mention that there is also the theory that in spite the shortcomings and contradictions, the 20th century physics was more that appropriate and remarkable, considering the peculiar historical events of the 20th century. And from this point of view we should admire how the theoretical tricks no matter how wrong ,buzzard, or finally proved a misconception, played right the appropriate historical role for some (but not all) purposes in the societies.
The next paper are a re-writing of the Lancaster Lecture, with more explicit discussions. No new ideas.
The next paper restores classical conceptions over the same experiments that led Einstein to his conceptions non-classical relativity, space-time etc. Only with this paper, the road of new-millennium physics looses its traditional 20th century obstructions.
0) Classical Galilean relativistic hypotheses about inertia of bodies that derive the experimental results of Michelson-Morley, and light aberration. (1998-2002).
The next paper gives the equations and explains the physical reality of what is often called in Internet non-standard physics as "antigravity". It seems that it does not have some very practical applications. This interaction is created by any motion of any body, that is why it can be also called kinetic interaction. It is nothing much different than the usual aerodynamics of bodies, except that fluid here is not the air but the Field-gas. The boundary conditions of a body with the (neutral) field fluid is that of the simplest kind , in other words of simple proportionality of the momentum of a body and the momentum of the Field-gas. Of course the drag-force is over all the volume of the body , not only over its surface, and it depends also on the density of the body. The exact proportionality constants require more experiments to be determined, than the known in the Internet. This drag force is of course a momentum exchange between the body and the Field-gas, and the forces of the type of volume forces of fluids and solid state. The type flow created in the Field-gas by the motion of a body is important in this interaction, and the usual solutions in aerodynamics are much relevant.
1) A new macroscopic neutral interaction
of bodies, modeled in the heuristic context of 2-layered fluid dynamic systems
and formulated as equations on new potentials, that is, as classical
The next paper together with the previous give the necessary corrections to the Maxwell electromagnetism, that can lead to the discovery of new electromagnetic propulsion , powered by traditional energy. This new propulsion might give a new model of transportation inside or around the planet, that the rockets technology would seem, compared to it, like the steam engine trains to electric trains. The key idea to treat the electromagnetism as fluid is to make the assumption that in the neutral Field-gas there are three types of partial sub-fluids, a plus, a minus and a neutral that they balance. The Field-gas is electromagnetised when the balance of plus and minus Field-gas charge is disturbed. The classical electromagnetic potentials correspond to the dynamic variables of this mixture Field-gas. The scalar electromagnetic potential is proportional to the difference of pressures of the plus and minus sub fluids, and the vector electromagnetic potential is proportional to the difference of the momentum of the plus and minus sub fluids. The definition of the electric field intensity and the magnetic field intensity is the usual formulas from the scalar and vector electromagnetic potentials The boundary conditions with matter are again of the simplest type, in other words of simple proportionality of the velocity of a the material charge and the velocity of the corresponding positive or negative Field-gas charge. These simple assumptions give, after the momentum conservation of the plua, minus and neutral sub fluids of the Field-gas, as a consequence that after linearisation and approximations, the classical Maxwell's equations and Lorenz forces equations hold. Of course the exact new equations are non-linear (compared to the Maxwell's equations that are linear). This non-linear electromagnetism is no longer gauge invariant as the potentials have a real physical meaning of fluid dynamic variables. The possibility of new electromagnetic propulsion is obvious. This new electromagnetic propulsion is of the type of the standard aerodynamic propulsion (e.g. Magnus effect , propellers propulsion etc) except that the material bodies have to be not neutral but charged or magnetized and moving or alternatively appropriate configurations, of electric circuits. In this way by sufficient sophisticated engineering the usual air-propellers and air-turbines can be simulated but this time for the Electromagnetised Field-gas instead of the air. And the Field-gas extends far beyond a planet's atmosphere, in fact it extends as far as light can go.
2) A new, non-linear system of equations , on new potentials, of the classical field theory of electromagnetism, introduced through the heuristic context of 2-layered fluid dynamic systems.(1995-2000)
The next paper corrects the Newtonian and Einsteinian gravitation. It gives for the first time, after Newton's square law, an answer to the question "what is the nature and mechanism of gravitation?". The correction of Newtonian gravitation requires to include the neutral interaction of the paper 1) which simultaneously corrects the Einstein's gravitation. The main practical applications are corrections in the orbits of satellites, and better theoretical predictions of the orbits of the celestial bodies like planets etc.
3) A new system of equations and potentials, of the classical field theory of universal attraction, introduced in the heuristic context of 2-layered fluid dynamic and thermodynamic systems.(1995-2000).
The next paper makes the synthesis of the previous three (macroscopic) interactions, the neutral kinetic, the electromagnetic and the universal attraction in to the same system of equations which is in fact the equations of energy and momentum conservation of fluids. The main practical applications is the possibility of a new form of energy, which comes from the heat of the field (not of the classical matter) and is extracted in the form of electric energy. This would give to the transportation of the papers 1), 2) substantial new range of traveling that would no doubt leads much easier outside the solar system. There is of course the practical application of new technology electric generators of a new energy model inside the planet. But for this, there are inherent dangers as far as the societies do not have a global ecological sensitivity. The field- fluid heat of the planet is no more renewable that the ordinary heat of the magma is renewable. In other words, in total it is not renewable. As far as the energy extraction of this type, is only on the energy that would be lost anyway in the space, that is, below a limit of power per square area, then there are not direct local dangers. We project the effects to diminishing deviations in the interactions with other celestial bodies. But if the extraction is greedy , beyond this limit in large planetary scale and for centuries, then we force the planet to a non-natural cooling at the layer of the Field-gas and eventually at the layer of material magma. This would effect the planet in a even deeper way than the increase of the CO2 .As the planet's universal attraction depends on the Field-gas's heat flow, a global weakening of the earth's gravitational field would no doubt have effects on the cycle of water circulation and the falling of rain's , on the frequencies and probabilities of volcano's and earthquakes. Of course a regulated extraction of this form of energy under international laws ( about the balances of an ecology of the inorganic world resources of the planet.), would lead to an alternative energy model safer than the nuclear energy, of lower profile of engineering technology compared to nuclear power and without the disadvantage of CO2 emissions of classical energy models. Of course at this point it could be argued that the climate problem of the old energy model can be solved with strict and global control of the emissions of CO2 . As some industries in smaller or larger scale have proceeded in the production of electric generators of this new type of energy , it seems to me that it would not be wise not to know the nature , limitations, dangers and advantages of this new form of energy. I believe that even if the objectives are peaceful applications, we should try to avoid situations where we are doing something just because "it works" and "can bring money" without really understanding in (collectively) conscious way the nature and consequences of our technologies. Before a massive use of this form of energy is implemented, a thorough analysis and experimental study of its properties should be carried out , together with proposals for an ecologically mature and friendly regulation of it. The author is not in favor of fast applications of the possibilities that open with the new physics, before the wider groups of scientist have worked out and elaborated in sufficient quality and reliability the mathematical and physical details of the new physics. First we must know how to think and account with appropriate mathematics, about such newly discovered phenomena, with continuity of sufficient historical depth but also with innovation relative to the evolution of ideas in physics, before we are to know how to get useful results. By simulating first the phenomena with mathematics we can chose what to discover and what is useful for all. I am in favor of discovering only what we can apply for the good of all, versus applying what ever we can discover.
4) A new system of equations and potentials, of the classical field theories of universal attraction, macroscopic neutral interaction and electromagnetism, introduced through the heuristic the context of 2-layered fluid dynamic and thermodynamic systems.(1995-2000)
5) Speculations about the need of international laws about the balances of an ecology of the resources of the inorganic world of the planet.(2002)
The implications of above theoretical developments if worked both theoretically at first and experimentally too, it could give applications that could range from corrections of the predictions of the orbits of celestial bodies and satellites, to new methods of electromagnetic propulsion, improvements in the energy models for the societies, that may become more friendly to the ecology of the environment, and new insights in the cure of the cancer. My main interest, personally, is philosophical and epistemological.
Nevertheless as the modifications in the fundamental physics are radical (changes about Einstein's theories, Maxwell's equations etc) , it could be speculated that it may take many decades before the academic community, collectively can integrate and elaborate all the implications and, many decades, after this has happened, before the industries can device their inventions. So some of its crucial applications might wait so long as the beginnings of the next century. We should remember that Herz anticipated theoretically the existence of electromagnetic waves long before they were discovered experimentally and used for practical purposes.
It may also turn out that the human body, besides the known organic structure and functionality of material layer 0 (like a hardware from protons, neutrons and electrons) , might have also an organic structure and functionality within the Field-gas , material layer -1 (like a software, from links and knots of vorticity lines, that makes a 4th field-gas circulation system), which could give precious insights in the explanation of the alternative Chinese medicine methods, like the acupuncture, and new insights in the cure of the cancer.
It is of course obvious that, one man's work, is not enough to integrate and elaborate all the implications. What one man can do is to give to other people, new key-ideas that occur to him from the work of again of other people. The present ideas are not unique and the Internet is full from similar informal or formal ideas, not to mention the original manuscripts of the old masters in physics. The Internet is also full from many relevant new events and experiments. Some of them are unreliable and some are more reliable. As my main activities, by profession, is investments in the capital markets, it is the job of the University and by career physicists, to investigate further the theoretical implications of the above ideas ,and the job of the engineers to work out new devices. My main interest here is philosophical and epistemological.
The roads in the new millennium are there waiting for us, if only we are to walk them carefully.
 "Mathematical Foundations of quantum Mechanics" By John von Neumann Princeton 1995, Chapter iii.
 "Derivation of the Shrondinger equation from Newtonian mechanics" E. Nelson Phys.Rev. ,150 ,1966, 1079-1085.
[De la Pena-Auerbach ,L.]
A simple derivation of the Shroendinger equation from the theory of Markoff
Physics Letters 24A pp 603-604 (1967)
 "Action at a distance in Physics and Cosmology" F. Hoyle , J.V. Narlikar
 Dirac P.A.M "Is there an aether?"
Proc.Roy.Soc. A.209 ,291 ,(1951)
[H. A. Lorentz] "Electromagnetic phenomena in a system moving with any velocity less than that of light" Proceedings of the Academy of sciences if Amsterdam, 6, 1904
[Sir E. Whittaker] "A history of the theories of Aether and Electricity"
Philosophical Library NY Freeman and Company p 29