From India's reversal on destroying a 2.3 billion-year-old mountain range to Venezuela and Greenland, these cases highlight a core issue: modern science, expected to drive sustainable progress, has not provided the breakthroughs needed to balance development with environmental preservation.
Every convenience we aspire to — whether it's a house, clothes, a car, a phone, or household gadgets — requires two essential ingredients. One of them is the materials needed to make a machine or structure, such as aluminium or steel, and the other is a source of energy that provides motive power or a means to generate heat and electricity, like petroleum or coal. The name of the game is to acquire and exploit natural resources as they become more and more scarce.
Modern science hasn't delivered on its promise to make unnecessary the extraction of vast earth resources, or to develop abundant, high-density, clean energy sources. The progress and lifestyles we pursue come at a high environmental cost. Clean air and water are sacrificed for advancement. Science remains confined by outdated frameworks and an inertia against change, while the community resists questioning foundational assumptions. Persistent reliance on unproven theories has led to stagnation and unchecked speculation.
With the growth of Artificial Intelligence, robotics, self-driving cars, and automation, we face a situation where we will need to increase our electrical energy output by several multiples in the years ahead. This raises questions about the possible sources of power and the sustainability of such methods. Can we do it without relying on fossil fuels and nuclear reactors, which pollute the air, water, and land of the only planet we inhabit?
The Question Modern Science Refuses to Ask
The recent controversy surrounding the green-lighting of the destruction of the 2.3 billion-year-old Aravalli range in India has brought into sharp focus the sustainability and environmental concerns related to large-scale mining for resources. The global demand for commodities such as steel, aluminium, lithium, and copper is expected to rise substantially. How do we reduce the environmental damage this would cause?
How do countries like India, with aspirations of becoming developed nations, do so when they do not possess huge reserves of oil or minerals? Do we conclude that such countries have no possibility of success? These are some of the larger questions we have to ask of ourselves.
I strongly believe that scientific progress is deeply linked with our societal progress. Science has made it possible for more of us to lead decent lives and has been fundamental to overcoming disease. It has revolutionised food production and eliminated crippling famines. Our ability to create machines that can generate strengths not possible for humans or animals has enabled us to build the great structures of modern society. And therefore, it is essential that we continue to ask questions, probe deeper, and at times question ourselves if we are standing up to the highest ideals of truth-seeking.
It is time to be circumspect of the fact that a purely mathematical and mechanical view of the Universe can only take us so far.
It is now essential to create a physical model of the Universe. Let us examine two foundational principles of modern science: the concepts of force and energy. We use these concepts today as if they represent real physical phenomena. However, neither force nor energy is a physical entity. They are mathematical calculations of an effect. They are not the cause of anything — but a creation of pen and paper, and one might add an ingenious mind.
Force — A Calculation, Not a Cause
The easiest way to understand force is to imagine the effort required to lift a weight. The heavier the weight, the more the effort. The faster you lift the weight, the greater the effort. Force is defined as the effort needed to overcome inertia. In simple words, if an object changes its velocity or its direction of motion, we say there is a net force acting on the object.
The current structure of science doesn't care about the physical process by which the effort is applied, and hence, if an object slows down in a fluid, we say the viscous force acts on the object. We don't ask why certain fluids are more viscous than others without resorting to the abstraction of intermolecular forces of attraction. If the same object skids to a halt, we say it is acted upon by a frictional force. If an object moves around the Sun, we say it is acted upon by the force of gravitation.
Having determined that the planets revolve around the Sun, it would be pertinent to ask how the Sun applies the effort. What mechanism is at play that could move an entire planet? However, we are merely satisfied that we have been able to predict the motion of these heavenly bodies using mathematical frameworks. Modern science does not explain by what physical process a ball of matter — namely our Sun — composed of atoms so small that we have yet to see one under the most powerful microscopes, exerts an influence on another ball of matter called a planet that is at a distance of several million kilometres.
I asked one scientist why gravity seems to be the only "force" we can't shield against, and I received no response — just a studied silence. Even after 350 years since Newton gave the world its modern definition of force, scientists continue having conferences on what gravity is. That is a very telling scenario.
To summarise: if an object moves, changes its velocity, or changes its direction, that change is quantified using a concept like force without the need to explore the physical causes. However, it is not the calculated force that actually moves objects. It is the physical process — some known and some unknown — that provides the effort. Force is our way of quantifying and drawing equivalences for causes like gravity, electromagnetism, and hot expanding gases.
Energy — The Most Misunderstood Abstraction in Science
When force moves an object through a distance, the product of the force and the distance is called work — another calculated quantity. The maximum useful work that is possible is called energy. Therefore, energy is again a calculation that can be crudely described as the quantity of useful work that is possible to be extracted. We use this to answer questions like: how much energy can we obtain from coal, petroleum, and natural gas? How much can be obtained from flowing water or air? How much is contained in solar radiation?
The concept of energy, like force, can now be used to draw equivalences between various phenomena. We can compare the ability of a chemical reaction to produce work to that of a nuclear reaction, or to the effects of gravity, and in the same vein, the effects of solar radiation. However, giving more meaning to a calculated value than it deserves has led to a situation where we have started treating energy as being a real thing, which it clearly isn't. Statements like 'energy can only be converted from one form to another' are not only disingenuous but also draw hugely inaccurate equivalences.
Einstein's famous equation states that energy equals the mass of an object multiplied by the square of the speed of light — which means that when mass is completely destroyed, it has the capacity to provide that quantity of energy. Questions like Where did the mass go? Where did it vanish to? Did it physically convert to radiation, heat, charge, or Space? remain unanswered. If we were to supply that quantity of energy using a hydro or wind project, would we be able to create matter? One is a fictional calculation, and the other is a physical entity; therefore, it will never happen. This confusion between what is real and what is not is at the heart of modern science.
The Cost of Stopping at the Equation
The scientific world we have built today consists of hundreds of equations for each limit and for narrow bands of parameters and conditions. Several of the conjectures and extrapolations today are nothing more than illusions. In the past, several important discoveries have been made by extrapolating and extending the equations — these have been revolutionary. However, today, this scientific methodology has exhausted its utility. Nothing new is to be discovered through this method alone. The processes and mathematics thus created will prove very useful for the next leap in our understanding. Nothing has gone to waste.
It should be noted that the role of the experimentalist has been greatly diminished in today's world when it comes to public discourse. It is the experimentalist who discovered electricity and radiation. It was mavericks like the Wright Brothers who created the first aeroplane. Even the first steam engines were created by several unknown people to pump water from mines. Theorists would later identify parameters and dig deeper when it was time to increase power, speed, and efficiency. We seem to have lost this zeal to experiment and question the status quo when it comes to fundamental sciences.
Every combustion vehicle sold today is mandated to provide a catalytic converter. Scientists still don't know the exact mechanism by which catalysts work. What becomes possible if we truly understand catalysis?
Now, imagine if we could understand the true cause and nature of gravity and the gravitational field. If we could understand how atoms come together to create the gravitational field. What do you think is possible? Would it get us closer to creating our own star — a second Sun on Earth? It takes 200 hydrogen atoms to create a single gold atom. What prevents us from creating gold from hydrogen?
Only a physical description of the Universe can solve the problems of today and tomorrow. The problems we face are infinite energy (or rather abundant), exotic materials, room temperature superconductivity, a cure for cancer, and extending lifespans beyond 100 years. These cannot be solved with just mathematics. Today, we are better equipped — and have the most evolved and educated society in the last 2,000 years — to find proofs and logically conclude if a physical theory of the Universe is true.
However, a physical understanding of the Universe is not easy or straightforward. Several attempts have been made to provide a physical explanation for things. Detection and acquiring the proof has eluded us — and in some cases, the convenience of arriving at results without having to rely on what could be years of perfecting a physical model has prevented us from taking the next logical step. Yet another section truly believes that a physical description of the Universe is impossible.
I read a profound statement that the Gods place obstacles in our path to understand the ultimate truth of the Universe and its structure. For example: the more sunlight incident, the hotter it is. As a result, we should expect the temperature to rise as we go higher in the atmosphere, since there is more sunlight available. However, it gets colder as we go up in altitude. One could be daunted by the enormity of the challenge as well as the lack of a starting point to unravel this.
Our current understanding of nature is built over 400–500 years — and the concept of force in its crudest form was proposed by Aristotle nearly two thousand years ago. It's neither too early nor too late to get started. If the reward is nearly infinite energy, atoms we can create in labs, and extending lifespans beyond 100 years, it will make a lot of sense to embark on such a venture.
Over the next few days, weeks, and months, I will lay out what I am confident is the definite physical view of the Universe. I am calling it The Physical Universe. I would urge everyone to engage, critique, and ponder my claims — and let us further our collective understanding of the Universe.