The Architectural Failure of Modern Physics: A Violation of Separation of Concerns

J. Rogers, SE Ohio

Abstract

Modern physics suffers from a fundamental architectural flaw: the conflation of invariant physical relationships (business logic) with unit conversion mechanisms (data translation layer). This paper demonstrates that physical theories require three distinct conceptual layers—measurement coordinates, invariant geometric relationships, and translation between them—but standard formulations systematically combine the latter two. This violation of separation of concerns has profound consequences: it obscures the true simplicity of physical law, creates the illusion that conversion constants are fundamental properties of nature, prevents systematic exploration of the combinatorial law space, and generates unnecessary conceptual complexity. We show that constants like h, c, k_B, and G belong entirely to the translation layer, while the actual physics consists of simple geometric ratios at the Planck scale. By properly separating these concerns, we reveal a clean architecture where physical laws emerge as inevitable projections of a single invariant structure, and the apparent diversity of physics reduces to coordinate choice artifacts.

1. Introduction: The Three-Layer Architecture

Any physics framework requires three distinct conceptual layers:

Layer 1: Measurement Coordinates (Presentation)

• Arbitrary human conventions for quantifying observations
• Examples: SI units (meters, kilograms, seconds), CGS, Imperial
• These are projection choices with no physical content

Layer 2: Invariant Physics (Business Logic)

• Coordinate-independent geometric relationships
• The actual structure of physical reality
• Must remain unchanged across all measurement systems

Layer 3: Translation (Adapter/Mapper)

• Conversion factors that map invariant relationships into specific coordinate systems
• Jacobian matrices of the coordinate transformation
• These factors change when measurement conventions change

In well-designed systems, these layers remain cleanly separated. Modern physics violates this principle catastrophically.

2. The Standard Framework's Architectural Flaw

2.1 How Physics Conflates Layers 2 and 3

Consider the canonical equation:

$$E=m{c}^2$$

Standard interpretation: This is treated as a law of nature (Layer 2), where c² is a "fundamental constant" representing deep physics about the relationship between mass and energy.

Actual architecture:

• Layer 2 (physics): E ∝ m (energy and mass are the same thing measured along different axes)
• Layer 3 (translation): c² = E_P/m_P (the Jacobian factor converting from mass units to energy units in SI)

The equation E = mc² is the conflated form combining both layers.

2.2 The Clean Separation

At the Planck scale (natural units), the physics appears in its pure form:

$$\frac{E}{E_P} = \frac{m}{m_P}$$

This is pure Layer 2: a dimensionless geometric statement that energy and mass ratios are equivalent.

Solving for E in SI units:

$$E = m \cdot \frac{E_P}{m_P}$$

The factor E_P/m_P = c² is entirely Layer 3—it exists solely because we chose to measure mass in kilograms and energy in joules instead of using their natural ratio.

2.3 The 30-Second Invariance Test

A clean architecture test: Change the measurement system. Did it change?

• c² changes: 9×10¹⁶ m²/s² (SI) → 9×10²⁰ cm²/s² (CGS) → 1 (natural)
  • Verdict: Layer 3 artifact
• E ∝ m stays unchanged across all unit systems
  • Verdict: Layer 2 physics

This simple test immediately reveals which elements belong to which layer. Constants fail the test; geometric ratios pass it.

3. Systematic Evidence of Layer Violation

3.1 All "Fundamental Constants" Are Layer 3

Equation
Standard View
Layer 2 (Physics)
Layer 3 (Translation)
E = hf
Planck's constant is fundamental
E ∝ f
h = E_P · t_P
E = mc²
Speed of light squared is fundamental
E ∝ m
c² = E_P / m_P
E = k_B T
Boltzmann's constant is fundamental
E ∝ T
k_B = E_P / T_P
G_μν = (8πG/c⁴)T_μν
Gravitational constant is fundamental
G_μν ∝ T_μν
8πG/c⁴ = 8π/F_P
p = h/λ
de Broglie relation is quantum
p ∝ 1/λ
h = p_P · l_P

In every case:

• The geometric ratio (Layer 2) is trivially simple
• The constant (Layer 3) carries all the apparent complexity
• Standard physics treats the constant as if it were the physics

3.2 The Planck Scale Reveals the Architecture

At Planck units, all constants become 1:

$$E = f \quad E = m \quad E = T \quad G_{\mu\nu} = 8\pi T_{\mu\nu}$$

Standard interpretation: "This is a convenient computational trick."

Architectural interpretation: This is Layer 2 exposed in its pure form. Constants becoming 1 means the translation layer has become identity mappings because measurement coordinates now align with natural ratios.

The question physics never asked: Why do constants become 1 at this scale?

Answer: Because this is where measurement axes are at their natural ratios to each other. There is no mismatch to correct, so no conversion factors are needed.

4. Consequences of the Architectural Failure

4.1 Misidentified Complexity

Problem: Physics treats constants as deep mysteries requiring explanation.

Reality: Constants are Jacobian factors. The "mystery" is asking why our arbitrary unit choices don't align with natural ratios—a question with no physical content.

Example: "Why does c have the value 299,792,458 m/s?"

This is architecturally equivalent to asking: "Why does the JSON serializer output 8 bytes instead of 4?" It's a question about the translation layer, not the business logic.

4.2 False Modularity

Problem: Quantum mechanics, relativity, thermodynamics, and classical mechanics are treated as separate domains with different fundamental principles.

Reality: They are the same geometric structure (Layer 2) projected onto different measurement axes (Layer 1) with different Jacobian factors (Layer 3).

The domains appear separate only because Layer 3 corrections are bundled into the equations, making them look fundamentally different.

Clean separation reveals:

• All domains share the same Layer 2 structure
• Differences are purely in which axes are being measured
• Domain boundaries are artifacts of measurement choice

4.3 Inability to Refactor

Problem: Physics cannot cleanly separate "what is being measured" from "how we measure it."

Reality: Every equation conflates both. There is no clean interface between layers.

This is like a database where SQL queries contain hardcoded screen pixel positions. You cannot change the display without rewriting the queries.

In physics: You cannot change unit systems without rewriting all equations, because the conversion factors are embedded in the "physics."

4.4 Combinatorial Blindness

Problem: Physical laws are discovered empirically, one at a time, over centuries.

Reality: With proper layer separation, laws can be generated combinatorially from the Layer 2 structure.

The Planck chain with 7 axes:

$$\frac{T}{T_P}=f\cdot t_P=\frac{m}{m_P}=\frac{l_P}{l}=\frac{E}{E_P}=\frac{p}{p_P}=\frac{F}{F_P}$$

produces $\binom{7}{2} = 21$ pairwise projections automatically. Each one, when scaled back to SI (Layer 3), produces a physical law.

Physics never systematically explored this space because the tangled architecture makes the generative structure invisible.

4.5 Accumulating Technical Debt

Problem: Each new discovery requires introducing more constants and more ad-hoc corrections.

Reality: Fine structure constant, cosmological constant, coupling constants—all are patches on top of an already-tangled foundation.

This is the classic legacy codebase trap: each fix makes the next fix harder, because the underlying architecture is wrong.

5. Case Study: Einstein's Field Equations

The Einstein field equations are often written:

$$G_{\mu \nu }=\frac{8\pi G}{c^4}{T}_{\mu \nu }$$

Standard view: This equation relates spacetime curvature to energy-momentum through the gravitational constant G.

5.1 Layer-by-Layer Analysis

Layer 2 (Pure physics):

$$G_{\mu\nu} = 8\pi \cdot T_{\mu\nu}$$

Geometric statement: Spacetime curvature is proportional to energy-momentum distribution. The factor 8π arises from geometric integration over the surface of a sphere—it is coordinate-free.

Layer 3 (Translation to SI):

$$\frac{8\pi G}{c^4}=\frac{8\pi }{F_P}$$

This is simply the inverse Planck force, converting from SI units of energy density to SI units of curvature. It is pure Jacobian.

Layer 1 (Measurement): The equation as written combines Layers 2 and 3, then is evaluated using meter sticks and atomic clocks.

5.2 The Architectural Insight

G/c⁴ is not "doing physics"—it is rotating measurement coordinates from the energy-momentum axis to the curvature axis.

At Planck scale, this rotation disappears because both axes are at their natural ratio. The constant reappears in SI because we chose kilograms and meters independently, creating a mismatch that must be corrected.

Physics treats the correction as if it were the mechanism.

6. Why Physics Developed This Way

6.1 Historical Path Dependence

Physics evolved through empirical discovery:

• Laws found experimentally, one at a time
• Each law written in the measurement conventions of its era
• Constants measured to increasing precision
• No systematic refactoring occurred

This is exactly how legacy codebases develop: incremental patches over centuries, with no major architectural revision.

6.2 The "Production System" Problem

Modern physics is a 300-year-old production system:

• Millions of papers depend on current formulations
• Textbooks, curricula, research programs built on existing abstractions
• Experimental apparatus designed around SI units
• Nobody dares refactor the core for fear of breaking downstream dependencies

This is the classic maintenance trap: the cost of refactoring appears greater than the cost of working around bad architecture.

6.3 Conceptual Inertia

Generations of physicists trained to think:

• Constants are fundamental
• Different domains have different principles
• Laws are empirical discoveries, not derivable structures

Questioning the architecture itself is not part of the training.

7. The Correct Architecture

7.1 Layer 2: The Planck Chain (Invariant Physics)

All physics reduces to a single equivalence chain at natural scale:

$$T=\frac{1}{M}=f=m=\frac{1}{l}=E=p=F$$

These are dimensionless geometric ratios between measurement axes. They are coordinate-free and unit-free.

This is the business logic of physics—the actual invariant structure.

7.2 Layer 3: Planck Unit Definitions (Translation)

To project into any measurement system, define:

$$t_P = \sqrt{\frac{Gh}{c^5}}, \quad m_P = \sqrt{\frac{ch}{G}}, \quad l_P = \sqrt{\frac{Gh}{c^3}}, \quad E_P = \sqrt{\frac{c^5h}{G}}$$

These are the coordinate transformation mappings. They convert dimensionless ratios into specific unit systems.

The constants h, c, G appear only here, in Layer 3.

7.3 Layer 1: Measurement Implementation

Apply the transformations to obtain equations in SI, CGS, or any chosen system:

• E = hf (using E_P and t_P)
• E = mc² (using E_P and m_P)
• E = k_B T (using E_P and T_P)

These are the projection equations—Layer 2 structure passed through Layer 3 transformations and rendered in Layer 1 coordinates.

7.4 Clean Interface

With proper separation:

• Change measurement system → Only Layer 3 changes
• Discover new physics → Only Layer 2 changes
• Improve measurement precision → Only Layer 1 changes

Layers do not interfere with each other.

8. Implications of Clean Architecture

8.1 Constants Are Not Fundamental

h, c, k_B, G are translation artifacts, not properties of nature.

Measuring them to 15 decimal places is measuring how far our unit choices deviate from natural ratios.

Question: "Why does c = 299,792,458 m/s?"

Answer: "Because we defined the meter and second independently instead of using their natural ratio."

This is not a deep question about physics.

8.2 Laws Are Projections, Not Discoveries

Physical laws are inevitable consequences of projecting Layer 2 through Layer 3.

With 7 axes, there are $\binom{7}{2} = 21$ pairwise projections. Each one is a "law."

We did not discover these laws empirically—we discovered which projections are easy to measure with available technology.

The full space of laws was always there, implicit in the geometric structure.

8.3 Unification Is Architectural

Conventional physics seeks to unify forces—gravity, electromagnetism, weak, strong.

This framework offers a different unification: unification of law itself across all domains.

Classical mechanics, quantum mechanics, relativity, and thermodynamics are not separate theories. They are the same Layer 2 structure viewed through different Layer 1 coordinates.

The appearance of separation is an artifact of conflating Layers 2 and 3.

8.4 Systematic Law Generation

With clean architecture, new physics can be generated combinatorially:

• Take 3 axes at a time: $\binom{7}{3} = 35$ three-way relationships
• Apply fractional powers: E ∝ m^(2/3) · f^(1/3)
• Explore "unphysical" combinations we dismissed

Most of this space is unexplored because standard physics discovered laws empirically rather than generating them systematically.

A "periodic table of physical law" becomes possible—mapping the full combinatorial space and identifying which cells are:

• Known laws (familiar projections)
• Unexplored physics (valid but unmeasured)
• Boundary conditions (geometric constraints)

9. Objections and Responses

9.1 "But we measured the constants!"

Response: You measured Layer 3 conversion factors. This is like measuring how many pixels per inch your monitor uses—it's real, it's measurable, but it's not fundamental to the image being displayed.

9.2 "Natural units are just a convenience"

Response: Natural units are not a computational trick—they are the exposure of Layer 2 in pure form. The question is not "why are natural units convenient?" but "why do constants vanish there?"

Answer: Because that's where measurement axes align with physical geometry.

9.3 "This doesn't predict anything new"

Response: It predicts the entire combinatorial law space that standard physics explores one law at a time. It also correctly identifies that:

• All "constant measurement" experiments are Layer 3 measurements
• Systematic exploration of fractional powers and n-tuples will reveal new physics
• Domain boundaries (classical/quantum, etc.) are artificial

9.4 "You can't change how physics is done"

Response: This is the "production system" objection. But clean architecture doesn't break anything—it reorganizes it. All existing predictions remain valid; they're just reinterpreted as projection artifacts rather than fundamental discoveries.

Refactoring is possible without breaking the API.

10. Conclusion

Modern physics suffers from a violation of separation of concerns that would be immediately recognized and rejected in any well-designed software system. By conflating invariant geometric relationships (Layer 2) with unit conversion mechanisms (Layer 3), standard formulations:

• Obscure the true simplicity of physical law
• Create the illusion that conversion factors are fundamental
• Prevent systematic exploration of the law space
• Generate unnecessary conceptual complexity
• Make refactoring impossible

The clean architecture is straightforward:

1. Layer 2: Dimensionless geometric ratios at Planck scale (the actual physics)
2. Layer 3: Planck unit definitions as Jacobian mappings (pure translation)
3. Layer 1: Measurements in arbitrary coordinate systems (presentation)

With proper separation, we see that:

• Constants are translation artifacts, not physics
• Laws are projection consequences, not independent discoveries
• All domains share the same geometric core
• The full law space can be generated combinatorially

This is not a new theory of physics. It is a refactoring of the existing codebase to expose its actual architectural structure.

The physics community has been debugging Layer 3 for a century, thinking it was Layer 2.

The correct response is not to defend the existing architecture—it is to recognize the violation, separate the concerns, and rebuild on a clean foundation.

---

Appendix: Code Review Analogy

If modern physics were submitted as a software pull request:

Review comments:

❌ CRITICAL: Business logic mixed with data serialization layer
   - Lines 1-1000: Constants embedded directly in physics equations
   - Recommendation: Extract to separate translation module

❌ MAJOR: No clear separation between domain model and presentation
   - Unable to change unit system without rewriting core logic
   - Recommendation: Implement adapter pattern

❌ MAJOR: Combinatorial generation not exploited
   - Laws added one at a time through empirical discovery
   - Recommendation: Systematic enumeration of possibility space

⚠️  Code smell: Multiple "fundamental constants" that change with config
   - If they change with unit system choice, they're not fundamental
   - Recommendation: Move to configuration layer

⚠️  Technical debt: 300 years of patches without refactoring
   - Increasing difficulty of adding new features
   - Recommendation: Major architectural revision

📋 Architecture proposal: Three-layer separation
   - Layer 1: Measurement coordinates (presentation)
   - Layer 2: Geometric invariants (business logic)  
   - Layer 3: Planck mappings (translation/adapter)

VERDICT: Requires significant refactoring before merge

This is the code review that physics never received.