**INTRODUCTION:** (Last updated

**The present crisis in fundamental
science.**

In his 1998 book, *What Remains to be Discovered*, [1]
Sir John Maddox, past editor of Nature for 23 years, calls attention to “the
present crisis in fundamental science" which stems from two major
challenges in fundamental science:

·
The 65 year old incompatibility of the general
relativistic description of gravity with quantum field theory.

·
The absence of a mathematical physics and theory
for the largely empirical discipline of *big bang cosmology* (BBC), which
is now 40 years old.

According to Maddox, this crisis has been calling, with
increasing clarity and anxiety, for “a new physics, regulated by principles not
yet imagined”, [1, p. 21] that will introduce itself in one or more of the
following three ways: [1, pp. 98-120]

1)
By the readily quantizable description of gravity which
it provides.

2)
By the deeper understanding of space, time, and matter,
which it provides in doing so, the need for which is “now self evident.”

3)
By its intrinsic suitability for modeling all aspects
of big bang cosmology.

But this raises an important practical concern: How can
fundamental theorists expect to discover such a new physics? Speaking on “The
Final Laws of Physics” in his 1986 Dirac Memorial Lecture [2], physics Nobelist
Steven Weinberg, addressed this very concern by stating *the theoretical
quest* that should now challenge fundamental theorists, namely:

4) “To
look for a simple set of physical principles, which have about them the
greatest sense of inevitability, and from which everything we know about
physics can, in principle, be derived.” [2]

In this regard, Weinberg felt that the following prediction
of his colleague, John Wheeler, was worth recalling:

5) “When
we eventually know the final laws of physics, it will surprise us that they
weren't obvious from the beginning.” [2]

**How my candidate for
the new physics addresses this crisis, in principle.**

Items 1-5 are plausible characteristics of a candidate for the new physics, and
the candidate for the new physics described herein contains all of them;
starting with a *simple set of physical principles which have about them the
greatest sense of inevitability*, and which are subsequently employed to
derive the general substance and the general mathematics of *a new physics*
that introduces itself by displaying all of the other plausible characteristics
of *the new physics*, (1-3, 5). This *driving set of physical principles*
consists of two physical assumptions, (i, ii), and one postulate, (iii), which
are described as follows:

i.
**A classical physical reality:** Concordant with
the well known forecasts of Albert Einstein and James Clerk Maxwell, I assume
that physical reality is rooted in *a continuum of some elementary quantity,
X,* the qualitative identification of which is the object of the next
assumption.

ii.
**X = Elementary Substantive Energy (ESE):**
Concordant with Maxwell's qualitative unification of *all energy* as *mechanical
energy* [3], and Einstein's quantitative, E = mc^{2}, unification of
energy and mass [4], *particle energy* of every conceivable type exhibits
the same substantive quality of *mass* that before 1905 had been thought
to describe only the '*matter content*' or *massiveness* of a particle,
as distinct from the various types of energy (kinetic and
potential/interaction) that may be attributed to a particle. This revealed that
a particle's *substantive mass* is, more accurately, a particle's *substantive
mass-energy* (SME). The data of high energy particle physics has then shown
that SME is not only more fundamental than mass, but far more continuous,
deformable, transformable, and transmutable.

I then assume that the conservation law of energy holds and
that X is simply a more elementary form of substantive energy than SME. Hence,
concordant with (i), I assume that physical reality is rooted in a continuum of
*Elementary Substantive Energy* (ESE).

iii.
**The postulate of substantive space-energy (SSE).**

In addition to providing a
system of inherently fluidic, Lorentz invariant, equations unifying classical
electricity, magnetism, and light, James Clerk Maxwell also provided (in the
same paper) a qualitatively consistent *substantive-energy theory* of
gravity and the physical space of the universe, which is referred to herein as
Maxwell's *qualitative space-energy-gravity* (QSEG) theory. Maxwell's QSEG
theory asserts that:

The physical space of this universe is characterized
and delimited by “*an enormous intrinsic energy density*" (denoted
herein by *e _{o}*) which is diminished in
the region between electrically neutral bodies to account naturally for their
perceived 'attraction'. [5]

Referring to the cosmological distribution of *e _{o}* as Maxwell's

The physical space of this universe is characterized
and delimited by a substantive energy, called *space-energy*, whose
3-volume density, *e _{o}*, compared to an equal 3-volume of any
substantive mass-energy, is relatively enormous.

Maxwell left the challenge of explaining the mass-induced
distribution of {*e* < *e _{o}*}
to future fundamental theorists, saying:

“As I am unable to understand in what way a medium
can possess such properties, I cannot go any further in this direction in
searching for the cause of gravitation." [5]

The paper then shows that, given today's knowledge, (iii)
links SME to the ESE-continuum via Maxwell's SSE-continuum in a way that naturally
exhibits the characteristics (1-3, 5) of the new physics; thereby revealing, in
a logically tight manner, *the general* physical and geometric features of
the ESE continuum, and *the general* system of classical equations that
are, by today's standards, intuitively appropriate for describing how the
ESE-continuum can, in principle, account for the explosive creation of
Maxwell's SSE-continuum, and thence, all *classical and quantum* features
of the SME system of embedded ESE-field-particles.

In this way I assert that the paper which is available here
definitely explains how *quantum-field theorists*, *classical theorists*,
and *pure mathematicians* can now realistically pursue *the final laws
of physics* concordant with the most far-reaching aspirations of James Clerk
Maxwell and Albert Einstein, due in large measure to their respective landmark
contributions to science.

**A coarse summary of the natural
consequences of (i-iii).**

I.
**Some natural Lorentz invariant attributes of
the e_{o}-continuum. **

Given the relative enormity of *e _{o}*
we are justified in assuming that:

iv.
All mass-energy carrying fields and particles represent
miniscule perturbations of the *e _{o}*-continuum.

Compliance with

v.
All *mass-energy*
(ME) carrying fields and particles get from one point to another within the *e _{o}*-continuum
via a common

But *propagation* of a disturbance *within* a medium, and *convective flow* *of the medium, *are intrinsically
complementary dynamic processes in continuum mechanics that are richly
exploited in theoretical fluid-dynamics. Accordingly we have good reason to
assume that:

-------------------------

[1] Sir John Maddox, *What Remains to be Discovered*, (The Free Press,
1998), pp. 98-120.

[2] Steven Weinberg, “Towards the final laws of
physics," in *Elementary Particles and the Laws of Physics*, The 1986
Dirac Memorial Lectures, (Cambridge University Press, 1987,8,9), pp. 63,4.

[3] James Clerk Maxwell, “A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field," Phil. Trans. 155, 1865, pp. 459-512, p. 487.

[4] A. Einstein, “Does the inertia of a body depend upon its
energy-content?", translation from *Annalen der
Physik*, 17, 1905, in *The Principle of Relativity*, (Dover, NY, 1951,
pp. 67-71). [5] James Clerk Maxwell, op. cit., p. 492-3.

[5] James Clerk Maxwell, op. cit., p. 493.

--------------------------

[]
Cyril Domb, “James Clerk Maxwell---100 years later," Nature, Vol. 282,
November 1979. p. 239

[] R. E. Var, “On a New Mathematical Framework for Fundamental Theoretical
Physics," Vol. 5, No. 3,
Sept. 1975, pp. 407-431.

=================================================

** **