Theory of Everything in Supramolecular Rotation and the Case of Additive Bias
In my last post I talked about the nature of solids and liquids and how these two phases are expressed in very concrete ways as vibrations in solid lignin spheres and rotations in liquid crystal lignin spheres. In the post I talked about the theory following the concept of rotation and vibration. But I forgot to mention that both of these are fundamental concepts of molecular motion. There is indeed a field called Rotational–vibrational spectroscopy, as are just Rotational spectroscopy. And indeed, it relates exactly what I’ve been talking about: molecules rotating and molecules vibrating. However, this hasn’t been considered fundamental enough, as theories go. Instead, the kinetic theory of gases assumes that molecules in gas don’t just rotate, but that they also collide randomly. So, the theory of everything is basically keep the already known rotation in the motion of gases and subtract the random collision.
But a peculiar problem is that there are no equations that relate to this change, which means that current peer-reviewed publications don’t know how to process the theory. The new theory is a subtractive one, not an additive one. There is indeed a name for this problem: it is called an Additive bias. According to Wikipedia:
Additive bias is a cognitive urge or tendency of human beings facing problems to add resources instead of taking or subtracting.
The assumption is that molecules do rotate in the gas phase, but to explain their motion, they also need to randomly collide. However, using subtractive thinking, as Leidy Klotz has popularized, the solution to the theory of everything is not to add things, but to remove things. From before, we know molecules both rotate and collide in the gas phase. The only thing we need to remove is the idea that the collisions are random and not directly linked to the rotational motion of the molecules.
The only way to prove the theory is to show visual proof. If the assumption is that the current equations are correct and that there is nothing that needs to be added, the only thing to show is that there is order where the assumption of randomness would necessitate chaos. But I have attempted to show this order in my manuscripts for three years, if I recall correctly. Four years ago, I tried to submit my theory without reference to my experiments, assuming that the mathematical logic in the manuscript would be better proof than the hard-to-understand electron microscopy experiments. But this was more an additive approach.
But here’s the catch: it is really hard trying to claim that the assumption of randomness cannot produce order in microscopy experiments and that seeing any order is a sign of lack of randomness. The reviewers are taught to evaluate additive theories. Theories where a new interaction is introduced and showing proof of it. Here one attempts to prove the lack of an interaction. Or more specifically, the lack of randomness, which isn’t really an interaction. Randomness is actually a really problematic term regarding fundamental mathematics.
Or to be precise, randomness is tied to proper mathematics via probability. Or even more precisely, to probability distributions. But probability is almost always linked to the observer not knowing all of the parameters linked to the outcome of an event, not to the event being truly probabilistic. The only realm where true randomness is believed to exist is in the quantum realm. Even the chaotic nature of fluid dynamics isn’t fundamentally random. As far as I understand, this is what was proven just a couple of days ago, when Open AI revealed the solution to the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem. The question, as described in its Wikipedia article, is quite hard to explain. So I took a shortcut. I asked ChatGPT (which is more or less the same Open AI system that solved the problem) this:
Can you access your new discovery of Navier Stokes Millennium problem? Does it confirm the full determinism of fluid dynamics, or show that fluid dynamics aren't fully deterministic?
This is what it answered (in an abbreviated form):
Yes — and the distinction you are asking about is very important. I checked the new development because it happened only a few days ago.
First, a correction to my previous answer: the new result does not establish that fluid dynamics is fundamentally stochastic. In fact, it establishes something rather different.
Middle bit skipped
So the question wasn't:
"Are fluid motions random?"
It was:
Does this deterministic equation always continue to produce a smooth, well-defined velocity field?
The claimed answer is no.
Under the relevant conditions, the solution can develop a singularity in finite time—essentially, some quantity such as velocity gradient/vorticity becomes unbounded.
That is a very different concept from randomness.
And after a long-winded explanation, ChatGPT says that the new solution says that fluid dynamics aren’t fundamentally random.
And this is where the new discovery links with my theory. I assume deterministic fluid dynamics and explicitly assume that there is no true randomness. This means that Open AI has indirectly proven the mathematics underlying my theory for me. So I don’t need to do it anymore.
Comments