Theory of Evolution of substance and models

Theory of Evolution of substance and models

Already during the Middle Ages scientists began to understand that the world is complicated. And that it cannot be described through simple formulations of ancient philosophers. Natural philosophy - meditations on the topic of nature – were separated into different zones of study. Thus such spheres of knowledge were singled out as geography, botany, medical science, alchemy, mechanics. The world of science began to be subdivided into numerous directions and is still being subdivided until the present day.

"We all of us studied something" (a line from Pushkin), therefore we know that chemistry is not physics, while painting is not to be mixed up with geology.  Physical chemistry and chemical physics are entirely different sciences, which have very little in common. And still in the depth of the soul of each real researcher the following thought was generated and twinkling like a pulsar, never left him: nature is one and the same! It means that in all our theories of physics, geology and art there should be something in common.

This thought made the theologian Nicholas Cusanus go deeper into astronomy, the medical scholar Galileo - into mechanics, the physicist Faraday – into chemistry. This thought made the chemist Lavoisier think of the rules of workers' nutrition, while the physicist Niels Bohr due to the same thought started thinking about the principles of diplomacy.

And the most daring scientists found these common features. Of couse not everywhere. First these common features were found in the fields, which are close one to another. What common features could be found between utterly different plants and animals? Carl Linnaeus found these common features – hierarchical structure. And Charles Darwin found these common features in the logical evolution of live world. And what are the features which are common for animals and the Universe? However, it appeared that the Universe is also characterized by a hierarchical structure and also evolves! Hierarchical structure of science has been known for long and Thomas Kuhn made it clear that all sciences evolve  àccording to one and the same principle.

The most detailed descriptions of priciples of hierarchic structuring and the trends on evolution were given by G.S. Altshuller as applied to engineering systems. These ideas originated as an applied science called TRIZ (Theory of inventive problem-solving). Then it developed into TESE (Theory of engineering systems Evolution) – science of structure  and evolution of engineering.

The disciples and followers of Altshuller analyzed other systems, which are far from engineering: biological, social, art-related, scientific. The laws of structuring and evolution  were refined and additions were made to them, however, they remained the same for rather different systems – both for natural systems and for art systems; both for material and non-material, i.e., the ones, which were created by creative imagination of humanity.

Studying these regularities constitutes the main objective of this new science, which we decided to call Theory of Evolution of Matter and Models. (TEMM).

*     *     *

Our research still mor eand more intensely convince us that while studying the structure and evolution of systems it is practically impossible to draw a borderline between the material object and its mental model. At the analytical, creative stage the engineer, enterpriser, artist or scientist deal with a model of the object of their creation, not with the material object itself. Therefore, there are no essential differences between the structures and mechanisms of evolution of material and non-material objects (models). There are only differences in available resources for evolution and in the sources of evolution potential.

Compare three examples.

Example 1. The surface of trees is an excellent niche for the life of other plants. Solid support, "free supply" of water as well as mineral salts, profusion of light for photo-synthesis... However, what plants are going to occupy this niche?

Sea-weeds are capable of synthesizing organic substances. However, these are water-inhabiting plants, since they have no mechanisms enabling to get water and mineral salts from the soil.

Fungi are characterized by the opposite feature - they can easily get water and mineral salts even from the solid sources, however, they are unable to synthesize organic substances.

As a result of integration of water weeds and mushrooms a new type of plants appeared - the lichens, which almost completely occupied this comfortable niche.

 

Example 2. Ancient Egypt constantly conducted wars with their southern neighbors. These wars were of little success, because a pedestrian army with huge column of vehicles loaded with food could only move slowly and was not characterized by high maneuverability. And an army cannot lead a war without stores of food.

The pharaoh Amenchotepus IV integrated war actions with the preparation of food products. He conducted his wars in July and in August, when the crops were ripening in the fields of the "enemy".

 

Example 3. In the second half of the nineteenth century G.Nuttall remarked that the normal serum destroys bacteria. Studying this phenomenon, P.Ehrlich developed a "humoral theory of immunity". Its essence is that the bacteria are carried by white particles of blood (suppuration), what causes diseases. However, the blood serum also contains "antibodies", which absorb bacteria.

At the same time I. Mechnickov set forth the "cellular theory of immunity". According to it the bacteria are destroyed by white bodies and serum has nothing to do with it.

Both theories are equally supported by observations. And they were refuted by other observations. And at the beginning of the 20-th century À.Wright and C. Douglas united the theories of I.Mechnickov and P.Ehrlich. According to their models the bacteria are destroyed by white bodies, however in the presence of antibodies this process becomes more intensive.

As we see, one and the same process is observed both in the live nature and social sphere as well as in the sphere of scientific theories integration, transition to be-system. And this integration acquires a certain structure. And the resources, as we have already noted are different in each case. In the first case the resources are biological opportunities of the components, in the second case - the social opportunities, while in the third case we deal with explanatory opportunities.

*     *     *

It is already seen from the research, which have been conducted, how a set of notions, processes and structures is formed, which are common for any systems. There are such general notions and inventories of tools of systems evolution, which are in greater detail developed in TRIZ and in other theories. For example, evolution systems through overcoming contradictions, tools of transition to a supersystem, etc. A number of trends of evolution developed for one class of systems, appears to be applicable to all developing systems.

New generalizations appear gradually, which can be identified only as a result of studying numerous essentially different systems from one and the same standpoint. A good example of such generalization is offered, for example, by the principle "system-based seizure", which is observed in the evolution of rather different systems.

Two mutually connected strategies could be singled out in the evolution of TEMM. The first one consists in the generalization of experience of theories for evolution of one class of systems (engineering, biology, etc.) and to identify (based on the generalized theories) generalized regularities of evolution systems. The essence of the second strategy is to consider the evolution of different systems in such a way as to identify general regularities, which were difficult to identify before. Identified generalized regularities could be used for analysis of theories of individual classes of evolution systems.

*     *     *

TEMM, as a logical self-contained science does not yet exist. There are only separate fragments, which will only be converted into science in future. History of science knows only two ways of such conversion.

The first way is the way of Copernicus, Kepler, Linnaeus, Newton, Darwin. Ears or even dozens of years of working alone. Years of research work, of constant refinement the objective of which is to make the theory more logical at least in general. And only afterwards the developers found the courage to publish their theory.

The second way – the way of Lomonossov, Lavoisier, Faraday, Pasteur, Einstein, Bohr, Altshuller. Solving of the problem, an interesting idea, which is optimized to such an extent that it becomes absolutely clear – and it is immediately followed by a publication and is presented for discussion. New problems arise during the discussion and new solutions are found. New people join the discussion. The theory becomes more logical and becomes an actual tool of cognition and transformation of nature.

Let us pay attention to the following fact – the first way was spread in the past, while in the 19-th – beginning of the 20-th century it practically disappeared. The second way appeared in the 18-th century, however by the end of the 20-th century it already occupied leading positions. And it was not by chance. In the 18-th century society could afford to wait for 20 years, until Newton quieted down his conscience by optimizing his theory to perfection. In the 19-th century priority of Darwin was preserved only owing to exceptional honesty of Huxley, who published the main ideas concerning evolution due to natural selection, which were not optimized to Darwin-like logics, earlier than Darwin.

The discussion offers one more advantage. Here are three examples more.

Example 4. Lavoisier though that the oxidation of non-metal yields the obtainment of an acid. He combusted sulphur, phosphorus, coal – and really obtained appropriate acids. At the same time another non-metal was discovered – combustible air, as hydrogen was once called. However, any effort to combust it never led to the obtainment of an acid. Studying this phenomenon, Cavendish discovered that the product of hydrogen combustion was water.  It led to a rather serious modification and change of Lavoisier combustion theory. 

 

Example 5. Butlerov thought, that the carbon atoms can form "mechanic chains". His follower Marckovnickov showed that there are also electrical interactions between the atoms in organic chains.

 

Example 6. Maks Planck, the developer of quantum theory, after reading the works of his successors – Bohr, Heisenburg, Pauli, Bolzman and others – could not already recognize his creation and never completely agreed with many of the new ideas.

It is possible that Planck could pass a long way in the direction of new physical science during the long years of painstaking work. However, Albert Einstein, who was working on a different topic at that time read Planck's publication on quantification of radiation (it happened five years after the work was published). And he understood how this idea could be used for the explanation of photo-effect. À Niels Bohr continued developing this idea thinking about the structure of atom. Who knows, how many dozens of years they would be solving these problems, if Planck had not published his ideas of quantum theory, which was for from being fully developed.

Exactly such a discussion is the objective of our site. The web-site pages feature the results of sxientific research conducted by the authors. New results will appear with the continuation of studies. And everyone could join the discussion. There is only one requirement – the discussion should be constructive. You could enter your own thoughts, your own examples, results of your studies. It could be quite possible that your individual results will be contrary to ours. This is normal, all scientific models evolve in this way.

We hope that TEMM will also evolve like this - through our joint efforts. 

Yu.S.Murashkovsky,

M.S.Rubin.

September 12, 2006.