Natural Proportions as the Reality

  "Natural Proportions as the Reality: The underlying physical reality is not a set of isolated quantities measured in arbitrary units but rather a network of relationships and proportions between those quantities."

Let's break down how this differs from the current framework:

Current (Traditional) Framework:

1. What is Fundamental? Isolated Quantities & Constants.

   • Physics starts with a set of seemingly distinct fundamental quantities: mass (kg), length (m), time (s), charge (C), temperature (K), etc. These are perceived as independent "things" that need to be measured and described.

   • Physical constants (

     $c,h,G,k_B$

     ) are seen as fundamental, irreducible numbers that represent "nature's parameters." They are either given their values by measurement, or their values are what a "Theory of Everything" needs to derive.

   • The laws of physics are equations that relate these distinct quantities, often including these constants as essential, unexplainable numerical factors.

2. The Role of Units:

   • Units (like SI) are practical, arbitrary conventions for measuring these distinct quantities.

   • The numerical values of the constants are determined by these unit choices, but the constants themselves are often presented as existing independently of the unit system.

3. The Quest for Unity (The Traditional TOE):

   • The "unity" sought in a traditional Theory of Everything is often about unifying forces (e.g., electromagnetism with the strong, weak, and gravitational forces).

   • It also involves explaining why the fundamental constants have the specific numerical values they do, or finding a single underlying symmetry from which these values naturally emerge. This implies a "complex unity" – a unity built from distinct, potentially arbitrary numbers.

The (PUCS) Framework: Natural Proportions as Reality

1. What is Fundamental? The Universal State (

   $S_u$

   ) and Inherent Proportions.

   • The deepest reality is a single, dimensionless, conserved "Universal State" (

     $S_u$

     ).

   • What we call "quantities" (mass, energy, frequency, length, time, temperature, momentum) are not distinct fundamental entities, but merely different manifestations, projections, or perspectives of this single 

     $S_u$

      onto different conceptual axes.

   • The core of reality is a network of inherent, simple proportional relationships between these manifestations (e.g., energy is proportional to mass, energy is proportional to frequency, length is proportional to time). These proportionalities exist regardless of how we measure them.

2. The Role of Physical Constants: Scaling Factors for Arbitrary Units.

   • Constants like 

     $c,h,G,k_B$

      are not fundamental numbers of nature.

   • They are precisely the numerical scaling factors (or "Jacobian coordinates") required to convert between these underlying natural proportions and our arbitrarily chosen human unit systems (like SI).

   • In a unit system that aligns with the universe's natural proportions (like the Planck units, where Planck mass is Planck frequency is Planck energy), these constants become dimensionless 1s. This is because they are the ratios of the natural proportions, which are numerically 1 when the units are harmonized.

3. The Role of Units:

   • Units are arbitrary human constructs. Their arbitrariness is precisely why constants have their specific, complex numerical values. Changing the unit changes the numerical value of the constant, but not the underlying physical proportionality.

4. The Nature of Physical Laws:

   • Physical laws are ultimately statements about the conservation of 

     $S_u$

      and the inherent proportional relationships between its various manifestations. They are dimensionless laws of simple ratios at their core.

5. The "Quest for Unity" (Redefined by PUCS):

   • The "unity" is already assumed and found at the axiomatic level of 

     $S_u$

     .

   • The "mystery" of the constants' values is dissolved, as they are merely unit conversions, the ratios between axis of measurement of S_u.

   • The deeper quest becomes understanding the intrinsic nature of 

     $S_u$

      and why these specific fundamental equivalences (e.g., why is there a space-time equivalence, a mass-frequency equivalence, etc.) exist as properties of 

     $S_u$

     . This is easy to answer, equivalence means that two things are the same things at the core.

The Key Difference:

The standard framework sees the universe as a collection of separate "things" governed by fundamental "numbers." This framework sees the universe as a unified, dimensionless "stuff" that expresses itself in various proportional forms, and our "numbers" are just the arbitrary translation dictionary.

This is a profound and elegant shift from complexity to inherent simplicity, from arbitrary parameters to fundamental, self-consistent relationships.