Why is this relevant?
Amazing technological advances suggest robust scientific understanding. But this impression is not entirely accurate. Applied science has accrued through empirical observations distilled into “laws of nature” on which separate theories have been built.
In my view, current science theory is like a pontoon bridge, not connected to the bedrock of basic physics. Empirical laws, vaguely supported by axioms related to entropy, serve as pontoons to float a path for analysis in a scientific field. Not understanding clearly why natural laws exist impedes progress on all fronts.
Predicting weather and making materials both require detailed knowledge of reaction rates and particle flow. Using materials requires knowledge of stress properties. Developing Green technology requires knowledge of energy flow. Drug R&D relies more and more on proteins and DNA, molecules so large that they begin to exhibit some features of macroscopic thermodynamic systems. Rigorous understanding of their function is crucial for selecting candidates, designing experiments and interpreting data. The burgeoning field of nano-machines raises the same issues. Assuming that the Second Law is valid obstructs clearer understanding of all this behavior.
The new theory presented here establishes concrete foundation directly from physical bedrock so that analysis can bridge interdisciplinary and mesoscopic, moderate complexity fields in detail and with consistency, regardless the direction of approach.
As important, perhaps, the new theory alters how to think of change. Current theory of entropy assumes complete disorder is inevitable. This belief biases how people conduct research and interpret data. Solutions then can be at most stopgap measures slowing decay.
In the new theory, all systems, large and small, evolve toward balance. Aiming for conditions supporting a desired balance is more likely to achieve intended results in science and social policy. This approach also helps explain fundamental questions, such as how life evolves.