With the basic unitary concepts summarily defined, we can now consider the unitary field theory itself.
Fundamentally, the unitary field is thought to be made up of infinitesimally small three-dimensional particles or structures that are polarized and polarizable: that is, they possess a polar asymmetry. The field is always in process, the field structures spontaneously changing from asymmetry toward symmetry and, by the action of the field itself, back again to their initial asymmetry. But when a given structure manages to separate itself (not isolate) from the field, it loses some of its asymmetry. Stating this thought more generally: “Under isolable conditions, there is an inherent tendency in microstructure toward symmetry.” Yet total symmetry is never reached, because no structure is completely isolated from the field or isolated for too long in all respects.
Only when a structure is changing from a certain degree of asymmetry to lesser asymmetry, or more symmetry, does energy become manifested. Free energy in classical physics is structural asymmetry in unitary physics.
This single and irreversible, or one-way, process—the tendency to symmetry—is expanded from the physical field to all the four realms: preorganic, organic, psychological, and social. This universal process of change is believed to be the law of nature, which the new theory calls “unitary principle.”
The natural process of changing structure could not be simpler, but its strange and pervasive simplicity is not easily grasped by the human mind accustomed to concepts of permanence. It took over a millennium of philosophical and several centuries of scientific thought to get some insight into its operation. The problem is: how can a ceaseless transformative process be understood? How can the continuity of the universe be sustained in an apparent steady-state when everything in it is constantly changing? Surely, no arbitrariness can be allowed to exist within process. Instead, there must be some invariant within that change, some kind of inherent order. It was this evasive, almost inconceivable, natural order that was interpreted in unitary theory as a “tendency.” Tendency to symmetry corresponds to tendency to order and regularity. The universal order therefore ultimately comes from the field process.
The natural hierarchy
In structure, it is the pattern of arrangement of the individual particles—the form—that counts for most purposes. The individual particles are indistinguishable and their only function appears to be the buildup of patterns. In unitary terms, wholes matter more than parts.
A distinguishing characteristic of the unitary process is its formative nature, the way spatial forms—from atoms to organisms to galaxies—are generated. Within process, physical or organic structure is constantly changing, or transforming, into a more symmetrical pattern—a new form—that becomes evident only when process stops.
With processes involving aggregates of two different components, the pattern of the final form becomes more complex, its degree of symmetry lying somewhere between that of the components. Since a more symmetrical structure has lesser tendency to symmetry than a more asymmetrical one—it is more stable—the degree of symmetry of the resultant form more closely resembles that of its more symmetrical component. In other words, more symmetrical structural patterns are dominant over less symmetrical ones.
In each isolable process, the transformation of the structural pattern occurs between a threshold and a terminus, in the nanospace separating these events. The transformation is successive, not instantaneous—it involves development. It is the temporal relation of succession between thresholds and termini that is unique to unitary theory. The unitary concept of incessant orderly change contrasts with the static concept of “change,” an unintuitive type of “changeless change” that has permeated and paralyzed modern physical thought and its mathematical expressions.
In the linear development of patterns, from simpler to more complex forms, there comes a point where order becomes threatened. It is a fact of nature that structural order cannot be sustained during monotonic expansion. When complexity reaches a critical point—a threshold— structure suddenly jumps to a higher level of organization and the development process starts all over again, building up ever increasing complex structure. This type of spatial organization is called hierarchic.
At each level, the three-dimensional structures or processes function as a unit or system, their component parts being constrained in a characteristic way so that the properties of the unit are not the same as the summation of the properties of their parts when not so constrained. And the discrete and separate hierarchical levels are themselves connected by the asymmetrical dominant to subordinate relation.
A salient aspect of the ordered hierarchical arrangement is that it yields heterogeneity, whereas the classical, uniform close-packing in linear arrays generates homogeneity and is therefore applicable only to homogeneous systems. As Whyte rightly stressed, “This is a heterogeneous universe; it is only homogeneous and isotropic to the zeroth order.” The hierarchy of electron states in the different atoms, the arrangement of atoms in the Periodic Table, and the hierarchy of formative processes (sensorial, perceptual, and cognitive) in the human nervous system are outstanding examples of heterogeneity. It is compelling to admit that the geometrical arrangement we call hierarchy is the one preferred by nature. It is nature’s tool for organizing complexity.
No wonder that the human mind has recognized the power of hierarchical classification. It has been used in numbers, scales, times, groups of variables, concepts, and all kinds of symbolic abstractions.
If unitary concepts describe reality with sufficient accuracy, it appears that full exploration of the concept of hierarchical structure in physics and biology would be rewarded with great benefits to humanity. As suggested by Whyte, “A science of hierarchy should be created to undertake a comprehensive study of all the hierarchies linking the microcosmos to the macrocosmos.”
One-way development
The solar system is virtually frictionless and for this reason it is a reversible system—it can follow trajectories, forward and backward. Newton’s laws of motion are thus reversible. They assert that time has no direction.
Although reversible systems are seldom found in nature—they belong to the rare class of stable systems—Newton’s laws were accepted by physics as expressing the ideal of objective knowledge. And from the beginning of the eighteenth century onwards, time in physics became reversible.
Accordingly, the mathematical expressions of relativity theory and the basic equation of quantum mechanics, the wave function, are both reversible. Reversibility implies no distinction between past and future.
Classical science emphasizes stability and equilibrium but in the real world, we see instabilities and evolutionary trends in a variety of areas, from atomic and molecular physics to chemistry, biology, and sociology. Irreversible systems exist everywhere in nature. They have an arrow of time which is incompatible with Newtonian and quantum dynamics.
A time direction was first introduced to physics in the mid nineteenth century, by the second law of thermodynamics, through the concepts of temperature and entropy, the latter being a measure of the unavailability of a system’s energy to do work. Both of these parameters determine the direction in which an irreversible process can go: the temperature of a body or system determines whether heat will flow into it or out of it; the entropy of a closed system increases with time and is accompanied by a decrease in energy availability.
Thermodynamics was instrumental in revealing the existence of some irreversible processes in nature but, being a partial theory of limited applicability, it could not resolve the reversibility and irreversibility of time—the “time paradox”—in a definitive way.
In the second half of the nineteenth century, encouraged by the success of Charles Darwin (1809–1882) in biology, the Austrian physicist Ludwig Boltzmann (1844–1906) proposed an evolutionary approach to physics: available energy was the quantitative