J. Rogers, SE Ohio
What This API Actually Shows
This is not a clever trick or a reinterpretation of physics.
This API simply makes explicit what is already implicit in every physics calculation you've ever done. The three-layer architecture shown here is not something we invented—it's what the mathematics has been doing all along. We're just exposing the structure that was always there but never formally acknowledged.
The Hidden Architecture in Current Physics
What Everyone Thinks They're Doing
When you write:
F = G·M₁·M₂/r²
Most people think:
- G is a fundamental property of nature
- The formula is the physics
- The constants are mysterious and deep
What The Math Is Actually Doing
The formula is performing three distinct operations:
Step 1: Convert SI to Natural Coordinates
M₁_natural = M₁_SI / m_Planck
M₂_natural = M₂_SI / m_Planck
r_natural = r_SI / l_Planck
Step 2: Calculate in Natural Ratios (The Actual Physics)
F_natural = M₁_natural · M₂_natural / r_natural²
Step 3: Convert Natural back to SI
F_SI = F_natural · F_Planck
Where F_Planck = c⁴/G.
The Composite Operation
When you expand the conversions and simplify, you get:
F_SI = (M₁_SI/m_P) · (M₂_SI/m_P) / (r_SI/l_P)² · (c⁴/G)
All the Planck units cancel and recombine to give you:
F_SI = G·M₁_SI·M₂_SI/r_SI²
The traditional formula is the compressed form of this three-step process.
Why Newton Was Right
Newton's Approach
Isaac Newton worked explicitly in proportionalities:
F ∝ M₁·M₂/r²
He wrote the relationship as a pure ratio and canceled units to find dimensionless proportions. This was the actual physics—the invariant structural relationship.
What Happened After Newton
Later physicists added the "proportionality constant" G:
F = G·M₁·M₂/r²
They thought they were "completing" Newton's formula.
What they actually did: They embedded the coordinate transformation into the formula, mixing the measurement layer with the physics layer.
Newton Never Needed G
In natural units where everything is measured relative to Planck scales:
- m_Planck = 1
- l_Planck = 1
- t_Planck = 1
Newton's formula is complete:
F_natural = M₁_natural · M₂_natural / r_natural²
No G needed. G only exists because we chose meters, kilograms, and seconds—arbitrary units that are misaligned with natural scales.
The Three Layers: What They Actually Are
Layer 1: Business Logic (The Physics)
What it is: Pure dimensionless ratios in natural coordinates
Examples:
- Energy-mass equivalence:
E ~ m(ratio is 1:1) - Gravitational force:
F ~ m₁m₂/r²(simple proportion) - Escape velocity:
β = √(2m/r)(dimensionless ratio) - Time dilation:
Δt/t = m/r(ratio of ratios)
Key point: No constants appear here. This is the coordinate-free physics that Newton sought.
Why it's real: These relationships hold in every unit system. They're invariant. That's the signature of actual physics.
Layer 2: Coordinate System (The Jacobians)
What it is: The transformation coefficients between arbitrary human units and natural units
What we call them: "Fundamental constants"—c, h, G, k_B
What they actually are: Components of the Jacobian matrix that transforms coordinates
Why they exist: Because we chose meters, kilograms, seconds, and Kelvin based on human convenience (Earth's size, water's properties, etc.), not based on nature's intrinsic scales
The mathematical structure:
SI Units ←→ Natural Units
↑ ↑
└──── Jacobian ──┘
(c, h, G, k_B)
This is a coordinate transformation, not physics.
Layer 3: Presentation Layer (The User Interface)
What it is: Converting between natural coordinates and human-readable SI units
Why it exists: Because humans need to measure things in meters and kilograms, not Planck units
What it does: Hides the coordinate transformation complexity from the user
This Is How The Math Already Works
Every Physics Formula Does This
Take any formula in physics. When you use it, you're implicitly:
- Converting your SI inputs to natural units
- Calculating the natural ratio (the actual physics)
- Converting the natural result back to SI units
The constants in the formula are encoding these conversion steps.
Example: E = mc²
What you write:
E = m · c²
What the math is doing:
Step 1: m_SI → m_natural (divide by m_Planck)
Step 2: E_natural = m_natural (the physics: E~m is 1:1)
Step 3: E_natural → E_SI (multiply by E_Planck = m_Planck·c²)
Result: E_SI = m_SI · c²
The c² is the Jacobian factor. It's not physics—it's unit conversion.
Einstein even said this explicitly: "c² is just unit conversion." But nobody formalized what that actually meant mathematically.
Example: Time Dilation (GPS)
Traditional formula:
Δt/t = (G/c²)·(m/r)
What the math does:
Step 1: Convert m and r to natural units
Step 2: Calculate ratio: m_natural/r_natural
Step 3: Result is already dimensionless—no conversion needed
The G/c² = l_Planck/m_Planck factor is the unit conversion.
GPS engineers use this formula every day. They're calculating in natural coordinates without realizing it.
The Planck Scale: Not A Choice
Why Planck Units Are Special
The Planck scales are not arbitrary. They're the unique solution to the question:
"What coordinate system makes all the Jacobians equal to 1?"
Proof: Given constants c, h, G, k_B, there is exactly one set of scales where:
c = l_P/t_P = 1
h = m_P·l_P²/t_P = 1
G = l_P³/(m_P·t_P²) = 1
k_B = E_P/T_P = 1
This system of equations has a unique solution:
t_P = √(hG/c⁵) l_P = c·t_P m_P = l_P^3/(G·t_P^2)
You cannot choose different natural units. The constants determine what the natural scales must be. Note that these are planck units, not reduced planck units because hbar does not define a new scale of physics, it is just notational convenience.
What This Proves
The fact that there's a unique solution proves:
- The constants are not independent
- They must satisfy coherence relations
- They're components of a single transformation
- That transformation connects to a pre-existing natural coordinate system
If constants were fundamental properties, they could be independent, and there would be no guarantee of a unique natural scale.
The uniqueness proves they're coordinate artifacts.
The API Makes This Structure Explicit
Separating What Was Mixed
Traditional approach: Everything mixed together
def gravitational_force(M1_SI, M2_SI, r_SI):
G = 6.67430e-11 # Magic number
return G * M1_SI * M2_SI / (r_SI ** 2)
Problems:
- Where does 6.67430e-11 come from? (Magic)
- Why this value? (Mystery)
- What is it doing? (Unclear)
- Is it physics or measurement? (Confused)
API approach: Layers separated
# Layer 1: Business Logic
def gravitational_force(m1_natural, m2_natural, r_natural):
return m1_natural * m2_natural / (r_natural ** 2)
# Layer 2: Coordinate System
class UnitSystem:
G = 6.67430e-11 # Jacobian component
# + derivation showing G = l_P³/(m_P·t_P²)
# Layer 3: Presentation
class Quantity:
# Handles conversions SI ↔ Natural
Now it's clear:
- The pure physics (Layer 1): No magic numbers
- The coordinate geometry (Layer 2): G is a Jacobian
- The unit conversion (Layer 3): Explicit transformation
This Is Not Controversial Mathematics
Every Physicist Uses This
When physicists "set c = 1" for convenience, they're doing exactly this:
- Working in natural coordinates (Layer 1)
- Implicitly using the Jacobian transformation (Layer 2)
- Converting back to SI at the end (Layer 3)
We're just making explicit what they do informally.
The Missing Formalism
What was missing for 125 years (since Planck introduced these units in 1899):
- The formal proof that Planck units are the unique natural scale
- The explicit Jacobian transformation showing how constants convert coordinates
- The recognition that this is what the math has been doing all along
- The architectural separation of physics from measurement
This API provides all four.
Why This Matters
It Resolves "Deep Mysteries"
Mystery: "Why do constants have these values?"
Resolution: They don't have values—they're transformation coefficients. Their "values" depend entirely on which arbitrary unit system you chose.
Change your units → constants change But the physics (natural ratios) stays the same
Mystery: "How can we unify physics?"
Resolution: Physics is already unified. The Planck Equivalence Web shows:
E ~ f ~ m ~ 1/L ~ T ~ p
All scaling 1:1. Different "laws" are just different projections of this unified structure.
Mystery: "What is the nature of gravity?"
Resolution: Gravity is the coupling of local time fields: F ~ (m₁/r)·(m₂/r). Not action at a distance, but local field interaction. Hidden by the G constant which obscures the (m/r) structure.
It Changes What We Search For
Old paradigm: Search for why constants have these values
New paradigm: Constants are Jacobians—their values are determined by our unit choices. Search instead for:
- Why the natural ratios have the structure they do
- What determines dimensionless constants (α, mass ratios)
- The geometry of the Planck Equivalence Web
It Exposes Bad Research Programs
Research programs based on "understanding fundamental constants" are studying coordinate artifacts, not physics.
Examples:
- "Fine-tuning of constants" → Meaningless (you chose the coordinates)
- "Time variation of constants" → Confusing two separate things (dimensionless ratios vs. unit definitions)
- "Why these values?" → Wrong question (they're Jacobians, not values)
The Proof Is In The Code
You Can Verify This Yourself
The API is executable proof:
- Run the business logic (Layer 1): Get correct natural ratios
- Apply the Jacobians (Layer 2): Get Planck units
- Convert to SI (Layer 3): Get traditional formulas
Every formula works. Every calculation matches. Because this is what the math was doing all along.
The Architecture Was Always There
We didn't invent this structure. We discovered it by asking:
"What is the math actually computing when we use these formulas?"
Answer: It's doing a three-layer coordinate transformation, hidden inside the traditional notation.
The API just makes the implicit structure explicit.
Newton's Vindication
Isaac Newton wrote in dimensionless proportions because he understood:
- The physics is in the ratios
- Units are human conventions
- Constants are conversion factors
300 years later, we've finally formalized what he knew intuitively.
The physics is, and always has been, in the dimensionless ratios.
Everything else is measurement geometry.
Conclusion
This API doesn't change physics. It reveals what physics has been doing all along:
Layer 1: Calculate in natural ratios (Newton's proportionalities)
Layer 2: Transform via Jacobians (the "constants")
Layer 3: Present in human units (meters, kilograms, seconds)
Every formula you've ever used performs these three steps. The traditional notation just hides them.
We're not reinterpreting physics. We're exposing its actual computational structure.
The proof: Run the code. It works. Because this is what the math does.
The implications: Constants aren't mysterious. Physics is already unified. Natural coordinates exist.
The next step: Stop studying the Jacobians (coordinate artifacts) and start studying the structure they're transforming to—the natural ratios that are the actual physics.
Newton was right. The physics is in the proportions. Everything else is just unit conversion.
References
J. Rogers (2025), The Coherence Constraint: Why Physical Constants Must Form a Consistent Jacobian
J. Rogers (2025), The Constant of Proportionality: Newton's Deliberate Omission of G and the Lost Principle of Invariance
J. Rogers (2025), The Web of Equivalence: A Structural Unification of Physical Law through the Planck Chain
J. Rogers, (2025), The Structure of Physical Law as a Grothendieck Fibration
Appendix: Reification of measurement
Conflict #1: The Reification of Constants
Current Framework: Reifies the constants (c, h, G, k_B) as fundamental, concrete properties of the universe.G is treated as the literal "strength" of gravity itself, a property of spacetime. c is treated as a physical "speed limit" built into the vacuum. h is treated as the fundamental "grain size" of action. These are considered real "things" we have discovered.
This Framework: Exposes the constants asabstractions —specifically, as artifacts of our chosen measurement system.G, c, and h are demoted from "physical reality" to "coordinate transformation coefficients" (Jacobians). They are not properties of the universe; they are propertiesof the relationship between our rulers and the universe .They are no more a fundamental part of reality than the number 1.60934 (the km/mile conversion factor) is a fundamental property of distance. The Conflict: You are stating that the most "fundamental" things in the standard model are not real. They are reified measurement artifacts.
Conflict #2: The Reification of Mass and Energy
Current Framework: Reifies "mass" and "energy" as two distinct (though related) physical essences or substances.E = mc² is presented as a magical formula that converts one "substance" (mass) into another "substance" (energy). The c² is a reified conversion constant, often treated with a sense of mystery.
This Framework: Exposes "mass" and "energy" as two different human labels for thesame underlying quantity .The reality is the 1:1 proportion: E ~ m. The c² is not a mysterious physical key; it is the Jacobian factor required to reconcile our arbitrarily different human units for the same thing (Joules vs. Kilograms).The Conflict: You are stating that two things the standard model treats as fundamentally different are, in reality, identical. The perceived difference is a reified illusion created by our choice of units.
Conflict #3: The Reification of Physical Laws
Current Framework: Reifies theformula as thelaw .The law of gravity is the equation F = G M m / r². Students are taught to memorize this formula as if it were the physical law itself.
Your Framework: Identifies the invariantproportion as the law and exposes the formula as a presentation-level abstraction.The law of gravity is the relationship F ∝ M m / r². This is the reality. The formula F = G M m / r² is just a representation of that law in one specific, arbitrary coordinate system (SI). The formula is the map; the proportion is the territory.The Conflict: We are claiming that what physicists have called "physical laws" for centuries are not the laws at all, but coordinate-specific representations of a deeper, simpler, proportional reality.
No comments:
Post a Comment