Closing

Thus I find curious the great effort that goes into breaking the
universe into teeny-tiny bits; while ignoring a coexisting
physical continuum by which the bits are allowed to
communicate. This seems to be the quantum approach.
Gluons are surmised to dictate the behavior of quarks, for
example; but now one must ask, "Who tells gluons what to
do?" (...Gluinos?)

I would be inclined to share Einstein's (above) sentiments:
Yes...at some point the Standard Model, as accurate as it
proves-out to be, begins to look pretty silly.

If, by some impossible chance, I were forced to locate a
'starting point' for describing the fundamentals of nature, I
might off-handedly suggest that the universe begins with our
awareness of it. This, of course, represents a view that is far
closer to 'vane philosophy' than 'physics'.

Though, I would also consider a set of three premises that, to
me, seem particularly fundamental to the study of the physical
world; but are nowhere (that I see) specified within the
written laws of physics. The first of these, I would claim, is an
"axiom" from which the others logically descend. I would
argue that this axiom is so dependable that any attempt to
disprove it, proves it. So, without expounding on the
implications of these premises, I present them here as a final
thought to ponder or not ponder. Listed here in order of their
hierarchy:

1) Co-existence precedes existence;

2) Our perceptions are limited;

3) Everything moves.

Although I am not a physicist, some young people have
asked me, "What is physics?". For them, I offer one of two
unqualified answers:

1) Physics is the study of fields.

2) Physics is the study of stuff.

But then someone of them might ask: "What do you mean
by "stuff"...exactly?" And, for the life of me, that is one
question I couldn't answer. I wouldn't even attempt it.

I recognize, as an essential component of the universe, the
necessity for The Unknown. The Unknown, I figure, is as
much a part of physical universe as gravity or stone...since
we, ourselves, are part of the physical universe. There will
always be The Unknown...no matter how much we know
(or think we know.) So, I shrug my shoulders when asked
the, "What is the stuff?" question; and deposit it in the
'Unknown file'-- permanently. (...right next to the "How did
the universe begin?" question.) The Unknown is
invaluable in that it necessarily coexists and gives rise to
knowledge. The Unknown File, then, becomes a revered
corner of the universe. In it, lies The Truth.

At some point, the reasonable philosopher throws his hands
in the air and says, "God did it." And what God does eludes
my mortal brain. "The Stuff", for all I know, could be the
very tissue of God's omnipotent body.

Our powers of perception, by our good fortune, are so
limited--(perhaps to facilitate our earthly survival)--that we
are totally unaware of just how much we are unaware.
(Much like the 2-dimensional creatures in Abbott's Flatland,
we slide along in our 3-D frames guessing at reality as best
as we can.) I take comfort, though, in believing that God
and The Unknown and The Truth somehow go together.

The description of a universe as a field of fields upon
fields...all of the same "stuff", has no locatable starting
point; since it implies a smooth interconnectedness of all
points everywhere. If you subscribe to the Big Bang, then I
suppose you could call that original primal singularity a
starting point.

But, whatever one's approach, one must eventually
succumb to a consistent, unifying continuum underlying the
nature of nature. For example, even as the Big Bang's
primal singularity was once, by definition, "a unit", so is it
still--in its expanded form--"a unit"...only bigger; (as
evidenced by universal gravity.) So, there is really no
escape from an underlying, real-field continuum that
attaches all things to all things.

Closing Ramblings: Fields of Stuff

I'm finished. I mean...upon completing the "Matter Section"
(my final entry) I am compelled to surrender this website to
the mercy of the worldwideweb and move on. I think I've
expressed most of the ideas regarding the basic workings
of nature that I am inclined to express...however feeble.

I have published these ideas because I thought they were
"different enough" to share--especially with young people
destined to become tomorrow's scientists and philosophers.

Producing the Matter Section, however, has been a stark
reminder of my vast ignorance. It has shown me that I am
'in way over my head'...a common layman; and that I should
best leave physics to physicists. It has even diminished my
confidence in my basic ideas about gravity; or, at best,
extended those ideas to a (nuclear) realm beyond my
powers of conception. So now, having done my share of
cluttering the Internet...I'm finished.

I owe a huge debt of gratitude to the many 'real physicists'
who have taken the time to translate physics into a
conceptual format that a layman can understand. Without
their inspirational work, I would be infinitely clueless; and
there would be no 'Gravity and Space' website. (So blame
them.) They have sketched--at least in my mind--an
aesthetically appealing...almost soothing portrait of the
universe:

A field of fields upon fields...all made of different geometries
of the same "stuff".