|
From Action to Realness A Minimal Ontology of
Energy, Mass, and c² By Bodhangkur Finn’s Reduction of the Physical World to Propagation,
Confinement, and Collision Modern
physics rests upon a series of tacit assumptions. Some are empirical, many
historical, and a surprising number are conceptual placeholders—terms that
describe phenomena without explaining them. Einstein’s use of spacetime
and c² falls squarely into this last category: ingenious in
application, but conceptually empty. When one
re-examines the fundamental quantities of physics—energy, mass,
propagation—and removes the metaphysical scaffolding built into their
20th-century formulations, a startling fact emerges: the distinction
between energy and mass is not ontological but modal. Both reduce to action.
The difference lies not in what they are but in how action behaves:
directed or confined. This
insight allows a reconstruction of matter, ontology, and observability
grounded purely in minimal operational definitions. The path to Finn’s
Minimal Ontology Equation begins here. 1. The Logical Necessity of the Minimum Action Quantum Physics
assumes quantisation, but rarely asks what is
quantised except statistically. If one removes the inherited philosophical
fog, one arrives at a clean requirement: There
must be a smallest possible event of effective
change — a minimum quantum of action. This
minimum is indivisible, not because nature is granular in a metaphysical
sense, but because a smaller distinction could produce no effect, and
therefore could not appear in any ontology. A quantum
of energy is thus: ·
directed action, propagating at the
limiting rate c ·
an indivisible packet of effective difference By
symmetry, the smallest possible unit of mass must contain the same quantum
of action, or else the structure collapses. There cannot be two
different minimums. The only distinction is whether the action is free
or confined. 2. The Re-definition of Mass: Not Stopped Action but
Confined Action In
classical intuition mass is “substance.” In relativity it is “invariant
matter content.” In quantum field theory it is “self-energy,” or “coupling,”
or “Higgs interaction,” depending on the decade. None of these definitions
are minimal. The
clearest formulation is: Mass =
confined action. Not
extinguished, not transformed, not annihilated. Propagation
is prevented; direction is cancelled; effect remains. When
action cannot propagate, it does not vanish. It becomes persistent effect
— what we call “realness,” “object,” “hardware.” Thus: ·
Energy is action in motion ·
Mass is action in confinement The
distinction is modal, not ontological. 3. What c Actually Is: The Limit Rate of Directed
Action Einstein
took c as the speed of light. Light
merely exemplifies it. This
redefinition carries two consequences: 1. c is a
limiting property of action, not of light. 2. It
applies to all minimum quanta equally. Thus every free quantum of
action must propagate at c. The
question, therefore, is: 4. What c² Actually Does:
Removal of Direction and Emergence of Effect Mathematically,
squaring a vector magnitude removes its direction. Thus: ·
·
This
yields the crucial insight: c² does
not represent motion but the intensity of propagation once direction is
eliminated. This is
exactly the situation in confinement or in action–anti-action collision. This is
realness. 5. The Collision Mechanism: How Realness Emerges Take two
minimal energy quanta:
Each
propagates at c:
Upon
collision:
Momentum
cancels to zero. Define
realness
In
minimal units:
Thus: Realness
is the stable effect produced when two quanta of directed action collide at
the limiting rate c and their directions cancel. This is
the observational basis of ontology. Matter is
not “stuff.” 6. The
Observer: A Responder to Realness A system
that registers realness is an observer. The
observer emerges at the point where: ·
effect persists ·
interactions accumulate ·
distinctions become stable An
observer is thus: a system
that responds to the stable residue of confined action. Again: no
spacetime, no consciousness rhetoric, no metaphysical baggage. 7. Why Einstein Was Wrong
About c² Einstein
interpreted c² as a conversion factor between mass and energy. 1. Mass and
energy are different kinds of things. 2. c² is a
“rate squared” connecting unrelated domains. But if
mass and energy are different modes of the same minimum action, then
c² cannot be a conversion factor. Einstein
smuggled into physics a conceptual gap: ·
He defined neither space nor time. ·
He treated c² as the square of the speed of light
in “spacetime.” ·
He interpreted it as a conversion factor without
explaining what is being converted. In Finn’s minimal framework: ·
Nothing is converted. ·
Action remains action. ·
Only the mode of propagation changes. Thus: Einstein’s interpretation of c² is rejected because it
fails to identify the physical meaning of squaring c: the elimination of
direction. 8. Finn’s Minimal Ontology Equation (1 c² Is) The
entire derivation collapses cleanly to a single insight: 1 c² is
the collision of two units of minimal directed action at c, producing one
unit of realness. In formal
terms:
Or even
more compactly:
In
minimal units, this evaluates to 1. This is
Finn’s Minimal Ontology Equation: Conclusion What is
ordinarily framed as the mass–energy equivalence is, in Finn’s reading, the confinement
condition for action. From this
cancellation, realness emerges. Thus all physics reduces to: ·
action ·
propagation ·
confinement ·
collision ·
residue The
simplest possible ontology. A
universe built from the minimum action quantum and its modes of
freedom and constraint. This is
Finn’s achievement: to replace Einstein’s undefined primitives with a fully
defined minimal ontology grounded in physical effect rather than
metaphysical abstraction. Neutering
Einstein’s Holy Bull |
