List of Contents and the Latest Posting!

My daughter and son-in-law are closing the plant production at the farm and moving to separate residences in town, so, soon, I will have a six-bedroom house and a ‘mothballed’ farm in a tourist area on the South Coast of New South Wales (40 Pebbly Beach Road) and I am wondering what to do with it?

 

Why not reach back to Plato’s idea of a community of philosophers with free accommodation in a seaside tourist area between Batemans Bay and Ulladulla. Any topic may be discussed including the chapters on this website

darrylpenney.com

 

A donation would be welcomed, but no one would be restricted by lack of money, and the tourist sights, beach, fishing, kangaroos at Pebbly Beach etc.  are available, but you will need transport. Reading, discussion or TV/DVDs, Wood fire, A Telstra and Optus tower is on the property and reception/internet access is excellent.

 

All are welcome, but if I don’t know you, I’ll need references and stays are limited to one week, usually. I am trying to encourage companionship in the long term and then re-start plant production. I expect this idea to fund itself, and will depend on demand and income. The business is using three bedrooms, so I have two rooms with single beds for visitors until the end of 2016 when the others will become available.

 

Pre-reading of chapters 19 to 24, 39 to 43, 48, 50 to 54, 59 to 61 on lifestyle and eating would be helpful as they discuss the lowering of the chance of developing the modern diseases that are so prevalent today.

 

Regards, Darryl      email:  darryldarryl1@bigpond.com

Recently Published:

Chapter 77: Diffraction, Why Matter is Solid and Bounces, Unfolding the Two Types of Entanglement and an Upgrade to Newton’s Laws of Motion

Chapter 76: When Philosophy Meets Mathematical Physics

Chapter 75: The Nature of Life and Logic, Newton Laws of Motion, Reflection and Diffraction

Chapter 74: Extending the Unified Field Theory

Chapter 73: The Science of Organization/management, Why Science Got Lucky, Towards a Unified Field Theory, Plato’s Political System Appears Optimal and is a Pathway to Solving the World’s Problems

Chapter 72: The Why and the How of the Big Bang, Why the Universe is ‘Flat’, Inflation and Quanta are Explained, Why Feynman was Correct, Why Matter Predominates over Antimatter, Why the Speed of Light is Constant and an Absolute, Relativisation is the Work-horse of the Universe, the Fifth Dimension, Dark Energy Might be Necessary for Survival, the Super-world of the Mind, Gravity and the Law of Conservation of Energy Unfolded

Chapter 71: The Logic/Quantum/Gravity Description of the Universe Applied to the Why and the How of the Theory of Relativity Leads to the Realization that Relativisation is the Basic Mechanism of Our Universe and Showing Why Science is Successful and Politics is Not

Chapter 70: Unfolding Philosophy Using the Fifth Dimension and Adding Additional Context to the Concept of Philosophy

Chapter 69: The Logic of the Big Bang and an Explanation of Inflation, the Law of Conservation of Energy is Unfolded with Gravity Producing Feedback through the Mathematics of Concepts and Michelson-Morley Type Relativisation Producing a Logic/Quantum/Gravity Description of the Universe that Defines a Solution of Everything that Contains Plato’s Political System

Chapter 68:  The Sixth Dimension, Constant Speed of Light, Michelson-Morley Enigma Solved, Unfolding the Mathematics of Concepts and its Derivation from the Dimensions

Chapter 67: Unfolding Democracy, the Fifth Dimension and Waking Plato to Save our World

Chapter 66: The Theory of Everything, the Philosophers’ Stone and the Second Coming/Chance

Chapter 65: The Continuum of Physics/Consciousness, the Theory of Everything, Empathy and Compassion

Chapter 64: Unfolding Descartes’ ‘I Think, Therefore I Am’ and thus Answering Heidegger’s: “Why are There Things that Are Rather than Nothing?”, Fundamental Relativity, Why the Michelson-Morley Experiment and ‘Of Politicians and Philosophers’.

Chapter 63: The Philosophy of Life, Proof of Probability of Existence, Heidegger, Michelson-Morley, Einstein, Plato and the Fifth Dimension

chapter 62: Immigration’s Star Chamber Unveiled, the Philosophy of Leadership, More on Existence and the Search for Politicians to Implement a New World Order

Chapter 64: Unfolding Descartes’ ‘I Think, Therefore I Am’ and thus Answering Heidegger’s: “Why are There Things that Are Rather than Nothing?”, Fundamental Relativity, Why the Michelson-Morley Experiment and ‘Of Politicians and Philosophers’.

Chapter 61: Choosing a Diet that Works and ‘Suffer Little Children’

Chapter 60: Measurement of Time Dependent Concepts, Extrapolation, Variety in Food and the Nutrition Orgene

Chapter 59: Measurement of Concepts, the Relativity Paradox Explained and Why our Health has Not Improved Over the Last 165 Years

Chapter 58: An ‘Instant Cure’ for Depression, a ‘Do It Yourself’ Personality Change and the Armageddon Corner

Chapter 57: A New Treatment of Depression and the Antibest Syndrome

Chapter 56: A Possible Cure and Prevention of Deppression

Chapter 55: Compassion and Addiction, Synchronicity is a Proverb, the Placebo Effect and the Government’s Responsibility for Compassion

Chapter 54: The Determination Orgene, Selecting the ‘Best’ and a General Solution to ‘Struggle Street’ and the World’s Overpopulation

Chapter 53: The ‘Obesity Epidemic’ as Part of an Extinction Event and its Solution

Chapter 52: The Digestive System and the Palaeolithic Diet Test

Chapter 51: Why We Die, the ‘Death Gene’ and Measurement

Chapter 50: The ‘Death Gene’ and How to reset it, Alzheimer’s Disease and the ‘Placebo Connection’

Chapter 39: Milk, Mathematics and Magazines

Chapter 48: Depression, Fish-stocks, Fatty Acids and Anti Ageing

Chapter 49: Consciousness, Creativity, Decision-making, Artificial Consciousness and Conservation of Energy

Chapter 47: Getting ‘Preferential’ Politics to Work

Chapter 46: The Cambrian Explosion of Life-forms

Chapter 45: The Logic of Blogging

Chapter 44:The Blog and Blogging

Chapter 43: The Dinky Di Lifestyle Planner Diet

Chapter 42: The Second Law of Life with Stress and Placebo

Chapter 41: The Cell to the Placebo Effect

Chapter 40: The Placebo – Nocebo Continuum

Chapter 38: Stopping Terrorism – a General Solution

Chapter 37: ‘Hark, the Herald Angels Sing’

Chapter 36: Reality Defined

Chapter 35: The Matthew Principle

Chapter34: Religion from First Principles

Chapter 33: Reality and Religion

Chapter 32: Reality and the Mathematics of the Social Sciences

Chapter 12: Why the Brain has Two Hemispheres

Chapter 11: Changing your Mind – the Seventh Sense

Chapter 10: Creative Thinking – the Ninth Sense

Chapter 9: The Brain and Mind

Chapter 8: The Brain

Chapter 31: Gravity, Conservation Laws, Entanglement and Decision-making

Chapter 30: Quantum Computing and Schrodinger’s Cat Paradox

Chapter 29: ‘Spooky’ Action at a Distance and the Logic of Force Fields

Chapter 7: A Mathematics of the Mind

Chapter 16: Is It Time for a New religion?

Chapter 6: Dancing, Nutrition, Poker Machines, Philosophy and Quantum Mechanics

Chapter 2: The Philosophers’ Stone

Chapter 24: The Philosophy of Food and Health

Chapter 23: Anti Aging and Mind Health

Chapter 22: Magic, Proverbs, Politics and the Voting System

Chapter 21: Eating ‘Properly’

Chapter 20: The Overweight and Obese

Chapter 19: How to Live Longer

 Chapter 18: Finding God through One Religion

 Chapter 28: Existence, Reality and the Effect on Fundamental Physics

 Chapter 1: The Trinity and the Second Coming

 Disclaimer, Forward and Introduction

 Table of Contents

Why BLOG this Book?

List of Contents and the Latest Posting!

Chapter 77: Diffraction, Why Matter is Solid and Bounces, Unfolding the Two Types of Entanglement and an Upgrade to Newton’s Laws of Motion

Chapter 77: Diffraction, Why Matter is Solid and Bounces, Unfolding the Two Types of Entanglement and an Upgrade to Newton’s Laws of Motion

 

By Darryl Penney

 

Abstract: Life has taken the physics of our universe and used it for our own convenience to create a reality that can support us, as well as evolving a mind/brain that uses a sixth dimension that allows us to forward-plan. We take this for granted, and so find difficulty with relativity and quantum mechanics, even though they are in everyday use, but we don’t understand the context, whereas diffraction is an everyday occurrence that shows the physics of the universe intruding into the world that we have created and shows that Newton’s laws of motion are too simplistic and their outdatedness shows that science has broken its cardinal rule of continually re-building science, as it should in the light of the derivation presented here, and a modernized version of Newton’s laws is attempted. The probabilistic nature of the universe lies behind entanglement and produces diffraction, reflection and makes matter ‘solid’ so that it bounces and creates space and energy so that matter can form solar systems etc. and allow us a place to evolve and shows the difference between local (physical) and universe-wide (logical) entanglement. The solution to Huygens principle appears to be a simple local entanglement between photons and the aperture and indicates that the intensity of the diffraction decreases closest to the aperture.

 

 

‘Dutch physicist Christiaan Huygens devised a practical way for predicting the progression of waves … each point on the circular wave can be thought of as a new source of circular waves … by repeating the principle many times the evolution of the wave can be tracked’ [Huygens’ principle]. (50 physics ideas, Joanne Baker, p 60) ‘A linear wave remains straight as it propagates because the circular wavelets it produces along its length add together to form a new linear wave front ahead of the first. If you watch sets of parallel linear ocean waves as they pass through a small opening in a harbour wall, however, they distort into arcs once they pass through the gap … called diffraction. (p 61)

 

‘One unrealistic prediction of Huygens’ principle is that if all these new wavelets are sources of wave energy then they should generate a reverse wave as well as a forward wave. So why does a wave propagate only forwards? Huygens did not have an answer and simply assumed that wave energy propagates outwards and backwards motion is ignored. Therefore Huygens principle is really only a useful tool for predicting the evolution of waves rather than a fully explanatory law.’ (p 63)

 

The idea that the phenomonen of diffraction is not well understood is reinforced by the following quotation. ‘The Huygens–Fresnel principle provides a good basis for understanding and predicting the wave propagation of light. However, there are limitations to the principle and differing views as to whether it is an accurate representation of reality or whether “Huygens’ principle actually does give the right answer but for the wrong reasons”.’ (Huygens-Fresnel principle, History, Wikipedia)

The sentence: “Huygens’ principle actually does give the right answer but for the wrong reasons” suggests that Newtonian physics is not correct and it will be shown to be conceptually based and is deficient in context, where both concept and context are independent and form a duality. Additionly, Newtonian physics mixes our world O concepts/context without adequate regard to the physical world P measurement/entanglement and that leads to difficulties with relativity, quantum mechanics etc. as well as, as we shall see, diffraction. These difficulties have arisen, I believe, firstly, because top-down methods are being used instead of bottom-up methods derived from the dimensions and secondly, that Newtonian physics is being used.

 

‘Where Newton’s laws do not hold is for things moving close to the speed of light or with very small masses. It is in these extremes that Einstein’s relativity and the science of quantum mechanics takes over. (50 physics ideas, Joanne Baker, p 11) This is not quite true because diffraction is an enigma to physics and has remained so for over 300 years and needs a re-think, and secondly, everything is based on five dimensions that smoothly intertwine and I will show that relativity and quantum mechanics are all around us and do not suddenly ‘take over’.

 

In chapter 75, it was shown that Newton’s laws of motion are too simplistic and need to be amended to ‘a body remains at rest, or in uniform motion unless acted on by a measurement and/or entanglement’. This is still not the general case but it does contain the independence/duality of the fifth dimension [(a+b)=1 for measurement/observers a and b, as an illustration] and is expressed only in physical world P units. The present law is adequate in world (our) O units of force, velocity and time interval that are part of Life’s reality, but form only a simple picture, and the other laws will be considered below.

 

Secondly, relevance and questing underlie relativity and quantum mechanics and act throughout the universe and we use them all the time in relationships, business and everyday life. Physics has difficulty with relativity and quantum mechanics and they came to prominence due to (seemingly) bizarre happenings that can be simply explained when it is accepted that we live in a probability of existence universe. Literally everything is based on relevance [entanglement] and questing [continual measurement] because they are a requirement of a probability space.

 

I have used the following quotation before to try to justify a change in the ‘view’ of science to include the fifth dimension explicitly, as compared to the ‘dipping’ method usually used, in other words, I am using ‘bottom-up’ versus the traditional ‘top-down’ approach. ‘It is not always appreciated that, 60 years ago, the makers of modern quantum theory were totally steeped, immersed, educated, brainwashed, if you like – in the mathematical methods of Lagrange and Hamilton; these ideas had grown out of, and were the natural evolution of, Newton’s dynamical ideas.’ (Let Newton be!, edited by John Fauvel, p 244) Further, ‘as we now know, his faith in forces was justified to such an extent that it is widely regarded as Newton’s most important scientific innovation.’ (p 128) ‘A slightly naughty thought can come to one’s mind here. Is it due to the nature of physics that the mathematical tools started by Newton are so essential for many parts of physics through the centuries? Or is our selection of worked-on parts of physics still largely Newtonian? (p 244)

 

It might be easiest to foreshadow the derivation by repeating an example from chapter 75, ‘A prediction/example might clarify the overall picture because statistical mechanics takes a concept, such as photons leaving a point source and assumes that enough photons are leaving randomly, so that there is an even distribution. I am saying that an independent/orthogonal entanglement ensures that there is an even distribution (context) and further, in more complicated cases, such as diffraction, a specific simple sequence occurs that becomes an enigma and unexplainable according to our present grasp of the laws of physics.’

 

I have to say that I believe that our universe is a probability of existence space with the dimensions of space-time and a fifth dimension (a +/and b)=1, as an indication, where a and b are measurement/observers and it can be seen that ‘+’ describes a measurement/entanglement duality and that this duality is necessarily independent/orthogonal. Further, the ‘and’ describes a measurement/entanglement logical duality and that this duality is necessarily independent/orthogonal also. [these independent/orthogonalities are examples of the questing of (a+b)=1, and it is obvious that there must be independence/orthogonality if there is to be questing.] I mention this because science recognises the measurement, but not the entanglement and this is shown in statistical mechanics and Newton’s laws, above. These assumptions are unnecessary if logic/entanglement is recognised and produces much ‘richer’ results, as we will see. It is interesting that entanglement of particles is now recognised (top-down), but not the overall entanglement of a probability space.

 

Diffraction is an enigma, as are aspects of relativity and quantum mechanics only because the method of viewing them needs a better description, and that description is provided through the dimensions of a probability space [space-time and (a+b)=1]. ‘Light travels in straight lines; waves do not; they bend around corners, as has been observed for sound and water waves; therefore, light cannot consist in (ether) waves…. Obviously Newton reported only experiences of a general kind – just the kind of everyday experience which was typical of Aristotle’s style of science. In the debate on the nature of light, Newton used no controlled experiments, such as he had performed to support his colour theory.’ (p 96) ‘Interestingly enough, it was Newton himself who supplied the main line of argument against Huygens’ theory, when he claimed that it was unable to explain the rectilinear propagation of light.’ (p 98)

 

From chapter 75, ‘consider a beam of light passing through a small hole [comparable to the wavelength] and Newton’s laws of motion says that the beam passes through as it entered because no force acts on it, however, I am saying that entanglement provides a logical reason for the photon to change direction without a force. [Newton’s law is a simplification with little context as will become apparent]. The beam is diffracted and spreads out according to Huygens’ principle, where Huygen’s ‘wavelets’, generated at each instant are, I believe, probabilities and the photon changes direction in accordance with the logic/entanglement to make a new total semicircular wavefront.’

 

‘To simplify, a photon has a measurement/entanglement duality, a constant speed/energy (concept), but direction is a context, and in the same way that a vector has force and direction, the photon has energy/speed and a direction and obeys Newton’s law ‘unless acted upon by a force or entanglement’ [my addition]. Force is a world O concept and in world P we have to use energy/logic, or more accurately, energy-measurement/entanglement. Whilst my derivation is more complicated, it predicts and explains independent/orthogonal outcomes, and as an example, ‘one unrealistic prediction of Huygens’ principle is that if all these new wavelets are sources of wave energy then they should generate a reverse wave as well as a forward wave. So why does a wave propagate only forwards? Huygens did not have an answer’. (50 physics ideas, Joanne Baker, p63)’

 

‘If the wavelets are considered probability fronts, the probability of the photon reversing is zero given the simple thought experiment and that solves that problem. If we bring the real world into the picture by introducing a dust mote, the probability front increases behind because of the entanglement of photon and dust mote as they approach and at some point the probability becomes unity and reflection occurs as a logical effect. Notice that if the photon energy is sufficient, the probabilities

include the photoelectric effect or absorption and it can be seen that the iteration/questing inherent in the mathematics of concepts is becoming apparent. This interpretation makes more sense/logic than photons ‘bouncing off’, which is nonsensical as it is an entanglement, as shown below’

 

From chapter 73, ‘remember that a probability of existence space has an infinitely small chance of existing [at 1] and likewise, has an infinitely small chance of not existing [at 0], and forms a “twilight zone”’, and whatever we are, we are logic because logic only comes from iteration or a mind/brain.’ Further, the Theory of Everything suggests the evolution of consciousness starts at the Big Bang/Whoosh and proceeds through energy, particles, bacteria, multicelled organisms to us etc., but within that space, there exists measurement/entanglement [later with life evolving concepts/context]. Given that Newton was dipping into both worlds O and P [a mind/brain is required to measure a force], the three laws of motion are predominately concept/context and don’t consider world P sufficiently and that is why the laws break down when relativisation and quantum mechanics are involved, because logic is involved explicitly.’

 

This is the fundamental logic, I believe, that sits behind our probability space, that there is a higher probability that the simplest ‘path’ be taken than other ‘paths’ [Occam’s razor] and a higher formal recognition of this is relativisation [(a+b+c …)=1]. Relativisation is the mechanism behind the Law of Conservation of Energy and could allow particles to change direction through measurement/entanglement that is continually being adjusted (physically and logically) to prevent a physical or logical singularity that would, presumably, throw the universe into chaos.

 

Photons have a constant speed [ratio of the dimensions] but their energies are continually relatified [Pound-Rebka] and Newton’s first law, that a photon remains in a state of uniform motion is clearly correct, but its energy is continually changing at any time because relativisation is continuous across the universe to keep the conservation of energy at zero. Consequently, a particle’s kinetic energy and speed change continually. Secondly, any extra energy given to the photon does not change its speed. Thirdly, direction does have an entanglement component and Huygens’ principle is the workably correct means that has a ‘logical’ explanation as would be expected in a probability space.  Fourthly, a basic universe-wide factor should be used, and the conservation of energy is just that.

 

This leads to two implications, firstly, ‘from his study of the manner in which pulses and waves in material media spread out after passing through gaps, Newton argued that since light travels straight on through such gaps, its nature cannot be understood using wave theory alone.’ (Let Newton be!, edited by John Fauvel, p 57) Secondly, if I can repeat that ‘a slightly naughty thought can come to one’s mind here. Is it due to the nature of physics that the mathematical tools started by Newton are so essential for many parts of physics through the centuries? Or is our selection of worked-on parts of physics still largely Newtonian? (p 244) The previous paragraph is a good example of this quotation, and shows that using Newton’s forces has stifled basic physics for 300 years and I am confident that a bottom-up approach is the correct way to go because it is based on the dimensions.

 

A small digression that shows how ‘tenuous’/unscientific the top-down method can be, is shown by the three laws of motion put forward by Descartes. ‘In order to avoid such notions of occult powers of motion, much of Descartes’ Principles of philosophy was devoted to an explanation of how or why matter moves, and what keeps it in motion.’ (p 133) and the three laws given were very close to those of Newton, but, ‘Descartes insisted that the amount of motion in the universe is constant. (p 134) ‘Newton … did not deny the occult nature of his active principles’ (p 135) That these ideas have flowed through physics for 300 years shows, and I believe, that the ‘selection of worked-on parts of physics [is] still largely Newtonian’!

 

It might sound strange that Descartes should say that the speed or amount of motion is constant, but in the physical world, momentum is energy and Newton used energy as force times distance, but time is a dimension, as space is, and symmetry says that force times time is an energy (impulse), and conservation of energy is what Descartes was, in effect, saying. Thus, Newton seems to have ‘swept the board/decks’ and is still influencing science to this day, but, it must be remembered that it is only an approximation.

 

A point should be made, and I keep repeating it because it is so important, about top-down and bottom-up, that Descartes looked for a universal ‘base’ in that speed is conserved. This is the bottom-up approach and he made a valiant attempt to do this, but Newton looked in a ‘non-base’ description of motion and that was accepted. I am proposing a return to the ‘base’ idea of conservation of energy and that the total energy in the universe is zero at all times and that is a statement of relativisation. Remember that relativisation is a concept (two observers see the speed of light to be the same) and context ((a+b+c …)=1) and leads into relativity, quantum mechanics etc.

 

I am going to ‘treat’ myself to a little philosophy that ‘begs’ to be said, that I have always believed that science ‘re-built its house’ as theories ‘improved’ and I am dismayed at the use of Newton’s laws of motion being used without question for 300 years and have to point out that, I believe that the lack of context, of science, has led to the social problems that the world faces. I have said it before, that the mathematics of concepts must be used and this is a prime example.

 

Light emanating from a source is intimately connected to the photons and atoms around it, logically through entanglement (a and b), and not, as assumed by Newton’s laws of motion, free ‘spirits’ dependent on their momentum. The probability space is the over-arching space (chapter 74) that must maintain the conservation of energy and relativises all the dimensions to achieve this and photons are infinitely variable [energy-wise] and able to accomplish this [Pound-Rebka]. So, how do I explain the reason for diffraction?  The simplest reason is that a single photon has entanglement with the mass of matter that consists of the aperture and that affects the edges of the beam and ‘pulls’ it around.

 

Very simply, the body of the aperture is 0 degrees (the face can not move) plus the closest photon is 90 degrees at the first instant and the average from simple entanglement is 45 degrees. At the next instant, 0+45 averages to 22.5 degrees and in the limit is 0 degrees and a half-circle wavefront results. Similarly, for the next photon that is further away from the edge of the aperture (45+90)/2=67.5 degrees). I am only saying that there is local entanglement of the simplest kind and yet that produces the unusual effect that is inexplicable without acknowledging entanglement of photons and aperture.

 

The effect is unusual as the photons in the centre are progressively ‘peeled open’ like a flower as time passes. The wavefront is semicircular because the speed of light is constant, but the intensity of the light would diminish as the angle decreases, and this appears to be the case from photographs. We have to expect simplicity to be the reigning order in a probability space, and I am confident that simple entanglement is sufficient reason for the effect.

 

It is now apparent that the problem with Huygens principle, as mentioned above, is that it supplies no reason for light to bend in the bizarre way that it does and whilst entanglement supplies that reason, the probability wavelets show where the photon should be. I have to admit to being surprised in the degree of entanglement between light and aperture and the magnitude of the effect and further that nothing came of it with so much study, but again, it needs bottom-up to see it. Also, it is interesting that Newton made sense, to a certain degree, of gravity/entanglement [(a and b)=1] and its effect on the planets, but failed to recognise the effect of local entanglement [(a+b)=1] displayed in diffraction that he also studied.

 

A photon moves because it logically has to move [ratio of dimensions] and its energy level (concept) is determined logically by relativisation, but context is provided by entanglement and we know that Huygens principle ‘works’, so, ‘it seems that … knowledge cannot spring from experience alone but only from a comparison of the inventions of the intellect with the facts of observation’, wrote Einstein. (The Story of Measurement, Andrew Robinson, p 10) Science has progressed at a rapid rate over the last 300 years, but the thought that our universe is a probability space opens new vistas, and I have presented a few here.

 

On the question of water waves, do the effects of logic, bearing in mind that there are a number of ‘types’ of logic and I’m only using the mechanical world P logic, influence water to cause diffraction? We use logic, the common-sense logic, that we have built on measurement/entanglement continually throughout the day [World O contains world P] and as we are using these fundamental properties, so why shouldn’t water waves react with fundamental properties as well?

 

In other words, world P contains measurement/entanglement, but our mind/brain builds on this physics to create a space that is not everywhere entangled, but is indeterminate because our reality demands that our living space be continuous, otherwise magic or an un-sensed something will eat us. This could be a lion that we need to see or a bacterium that we need to fight. We live in a world that is a combination of world O and world P and there is no reason that a world P phenomenon should not be present macroscopically as well as microscopically.

 

Having set up the above explanation, it seems a pity not to extend these thoughts and Rutherford’s Gold Foil Experiment (physics.tutorvista.com) presents ‘on the basis of these observations Rutherford made the following conclusions:

  • Since most of the alpha particles passed straight through the gold foil without any deflection, most of the space within the atoms is empty.
  • Since some of the alpha particles (which are big in size) were deflected by large angles or bounced backwards, they must have approached some positively charged region responsible for the deflection. This positively charged region is now called the nucleus.
  • As very few alpha particles undergone the deflection, it was concluded that the volume occupied by the central region ( nucleus ) is very small.
  • Since alpha particles which are relatively denser, were deflected by the central volume of charge, it shows that almost the complete mass of the atom must be within the central volume.’

Rutherford’s experiment makes an enigma of reflection! If most of the huge (relatively) alpha particles pass through, why do we get an apparently perfect reflection from a mirror? The answer, from above, is, I believe, due to entanglement of the photons and/with the mirror, and we are told that an electrical conductor is a ‘sea’ of electrons, but that is a concept, and the context is that they are linked together and perhaps explains electric and magnetic fields that are the same, but orthogonal. Notice that I have ignored them, because I have not needed them.

 

As a wavefront of photons approaches a mirror at right angles, Huygens’ wavefronts at each instant form a plane parallel to the mirror and the entanglement would increase the reverse probability until, at some point, the wavefront reverses and all photons are affected and the image is returned. Notice that I am suggesting a combined effect, not an individual ‘bouncing’ that, according to Rutherford’s experiment does not happen. There must be a probability effect standing in front of the reflecting surface and this can be seen in the case of internal reflection.

 

If two pieces of glass with parallel edges are pushed together, a light ray will pass from one to another, and as the separation is increased a smaller proportion of the wave is transmitted (evanescent wave) and a larger proportion is internally reflected. This is usually considered to be a quantum mechanical effect, similar to the tunnel effect, but it seems more plausible, considering its macroscopic size, to consider it a contextual effect [I am introducing this because they are perhaps the same effect by different names]. The justification is that probabilities exist in a probability space, whereas a wave equation is an added complication with the same effect as context. It could be said that context/entanglement provides the ‘spring’ in the concept/measurement of a collision, especially as entanglement is the means of ensuring conservation of energy. Furthermore, conservation-of-energy/relativisation is instantaneously ‘calculated’ by the space and probabilities are constantly involved. Note that the two ‘types’ of entanglement are becoming apparent, one local (physical) and one universe-wide (logical).

 

This imposes ‘rigidity’ to collisions of matter, and that is necessary considering the ease with which an alpha particle passes through gold leaf. ‘What gives matter its rigidity? Atoms are mostly empty space, so why can’t you squeeze them like a sponge or push materials through each other like cheese through a grater? The question of why matter inhabits space is one of the most profound in physics. If it were not true we could fall into the centre of the earth or sink through floors, and buildings would squash under their own weight.’ (50 physics ideas, Joanne Baker, p 120)

 

This requires the multiverse [that we are able to survive in this universe] and the fact that we need a rigidity to give a collision, otherwise everything would stick together and prevent the universe expanding as it does. Gravitational attraction provides the negative energy to balance the positive energy/matter that the universe is composed of, and the magnitude of the ‘rigidity’ of matter has to ‘work’ for us to be here. In other words, this ‘bounciness’ of matter is necessary to enable space and energy [split] to be created so that there is enough volume for ‘stickiness’/gravity to form solar systems so that we can evolve.

 

I would like to restate the paragraph above to reinforce the question: ‘why matter inhabits space is one of the most profound in physics’, and the reason is that there has to be enough ‘bounce’ to form the negative energy and thus space, but there has to be enough gravity to form solar systems. Further, Newton’s third law that ‘action and reaction is equal and opposite’ is the measurement/entanglement of (a+b)=1, whereas universe-wide effects are logical measurement/entanglement from (a and b)=1. Both (a+b)=1 and (a and b)=1 are properties of a probability space and are continually quested, but the entanglement is different and one affects local relativity whilst the other is universe-wide.

 

Repeating the following quotation: ‘a slightly naughty thought can come to one’s mind here. Is it due to the nature of physics that the mathematical tools started by Newton are so essential for many parts of physics through the centuries? Or is our selection of worked-on parts of physics still largely Newtonian? ’ (Let Newton be!, edited by John Fauvel, p 244) The answer can now be given by restating Newton’s laws of motion in a modern form by using concepts from previous chapters.

 

But first, Newton’s ‘solution of the problem of motion in the solar system was so complete, so total, so precise, so stunning, that it was taken for generations as the model of what any decent theory should be like, not just in physics, but in all fields of human endeavour. It took a long time before one began to understand – and the understanding is not yet universal – that his genius selected an area where such perfection of solution was possible. This is a rarity in science. It is not universal. … I regard this as profoundly misleading. In my view, most of science is not like the Newtonian solar system, but much more like weather forecasting.’ (p 245)

 

The answer to the question: ‘is our selection of worked-on parts of physics still largely Newtonian?’ is, from the preceding paragraph must be a resounding ‘yes’ for two reasons, firstly, as above, that experiments could be described ‘exactly’, but secondly, that mathematics, used to describe the experiment is ‘exact’. In preceding chapters, an explanation of the general mathematics of concepts can be seen in the dimensions of a probability space, and shows that mathematics is a special case. In other words, the mathematics needed to describe the vast majority of weather-type problems is only now available in the mathematics of concepts.

 

Thirdly, in chapter 73, in the abstract, I mentioned ‘The quantum/evolution – logic/gravity description of the universe produces a range of conditions/understanding that can be applied to every organization/society, and science, as practiced today, struck it lucky in a top-down approach that “proves the rule” and its success shows how effective the application of the science of organization/management can be to solving the world’s problems and re-establishing a meaningful evolution through Plato’s politics.’ However, as mentioned above, Newton’s laws of motion have remained untouched for over 300 years and, in the light of the above, a re-thinking and re-writing might be in order, and the concept/attractor that science continually ‘re-builds’ its ‘house’ need to be reinstated and I suggest the following.

 

1 A particle remains at rest or in uniform motion unless acted upon by an energy gradient, except that it will be continually relativised, and in the case of a photon, the speed is always constant and an absolute, and only the energy is relativised.

 

It is a property of a probability space that ‘free’ energy must move at the speed of light, unless energetic enough to form a particle as is indicated by the space-time and fifth dimension/energy. The interval of time is a world (our) O invention that was needed for survival in a predator/prey situation, and that takes speed and acceleration out of world (physical/probability) P.

 

2 The modulus of energy, if greater than zero, can be transmitted to, or form, other types of energy without loss, at any distance via a change in the dimensions (space, time and energy/mass) equally through the Lorentz contraction acting between two frames of reference to prevent a singularity.

 

Gravitational potential/energy is negative, all other energies are positive and the sum is zero (conservation of energy), but energy contains an orthogonal measurement/entanglement and this entanglement/relativisation is instantaneous and universe wide (a and b)=1, whereas positive energies are restricted to at, or below, the speed of light (a+b)=1.  This is a logical requirement [Lorentz contraction] that affects the dimensions equally and if exceeded, produces chaos everywhere.

 

A Newtonian force is a combination of concept and measurement that down-plays entanglement and in Newton’s day ‘the only allowable notion of force, therefore, was force of impact; all other concepts of force, such as attraction and repulsion, were regarded by these natural philosophers as occult.’ (p 127) Also, Einstein used ‘spooky action at a distance’ for these same forces, yet a probability space contains the mechanism in relativisation to explain this.

 

3 Locally, momentum is conserved and local entanglement (a+b)=1 allows action and reaction to be equal and opposite and that is necessary to generate space so that matter can condense as solar systems etc., but energy is conserved (at zero) universe-wide (measurement) and adjusted continually and instantly (entanglement, (a and b)=1).

 

Decartes thought that momentum was conserved universally and that non-occult forces are the physical world of collisions and was incorrect in the first instance and correct in the second, but Newton combined world O and P in a local scenario that has taken 300 years to understand/unravel. The use of force subsumes context/entanglement and combines world O and P, which is acceptable when the separation is understood.

 

Conclusion: I think that is apparent that the difficulties with relativity, quantum mechanics, diffraction, mathematics, organizations, over-population etc. become solvable when the dimensions are used to generate measurement/entanglement, the mathematics of concepts, concepts/context, no absolutes except light speed [and the Golden ratio], Plato’s democracy etc. The use of general methods that always work make possible solutions that always work, and that is what the world needs, but we need to recognize that the mathematics of concepts is basic and that its use, especially the recording of context ‘shows up’/targets inconsistencies in the argument of two sides and leads to ‘agreement by derision’ as is used in politics today. The above is in bold because it is so important and I was going to leave it at that, but, I have weakened and have to say that there is no other way to effectively argue/compare concepts, and that is why the world is in a mess.

 

References: all quotations are fully referenced in the body and earlier chapters can be found on    darrylpenney.com    if required.

Chapter 77: Diffraction, Why Matter is Solid and Bounces, Unfolding the Two Types of Entanglement and an Upgrade to Newton’s Laws of Motion

Chapter 76: When Philosophy Meets Mathematical Physics

Chapter 76: When Philosophy Meets Mathematical Physics

 

by Darryl Penney

 

Abstract: much of philosophy today would be intelligible to the ancient Greeks and this lack of change lies, I believe, in the abandonment of the mathematics of concepts within the rise of mathematics. A return to the mathematics of concepts, the recognition of the fifth dimension and the properties of a probability space allow a bottom-up base of concept and context that allows philosophy to be unfolded and de-cluttered. Two other derivations are necessary, logic and organization, again as concept and context and examples are given of the necessity of re-writing Newton’s laws of motion and the classic problem of the Unity of the Virtues.

 

I have said before that the subject of Philosophy is a ‘closed book’ to me and I have often wondered why that is so, and one explanation could be that we are not supposed to find answers. ‘Bertrand Russell in The Problems of Philosophy: Thus, to sum up our discussion of the value of philosophy; Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definitive answers to its questions, since no definitive answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves; because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation’ (Is God a Mathematician?, Mario Livio, p 252)

 

On the other hand, it occurred to me that perhaps philosophy may not be as logical as it suggests/claims! After all, I found that what we call logic often exists as a ‘chimera’ where what appears to be logic is a mathematical entity and the following two paragraphs (from chapter 75) indicate that the universe is based on mathematics and not logic, and further, that we are the means of turning mathematics into logic.

 

‘An example of questing the fifth dimension [(a+b)=1] comes to mind because the total energy of the Big-Bang/Big-Whoosh is zero at all times, and yet, from chapter 72: “One requirement any law of nature must satisfy is that it dictates that the energy of an isolated body surrounded by empty space is positive, which means that one has to do work to assemble the body. That’s because if the energy of an isolated body were negative, it could be created in a state of motion so that its negative energy was exactly balanced by the positive energy due to its motion…. Empty space would therefore be unstable.” (The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, p 179). This is logical, but is it really logic or mathematics, which is a special case of the mathematics of concepts that is apparent from the dimensions?’ On the other hand, is it the context of a concept that requires a mind/brain?

 

‘In a simple planetary system, the total energy equation zero = (p+q) where p and q are kinetic energy and potential energy and mirrors the fifth dimension in context [measuring each other continuously and instantaneously] to the concept of “Newton’s inverse square law of gravity explained in one equation the orbits of all the planets as described in the three laws of Johannes Kepler.” (50 physics ideas, Joanne Baker, p 17) Notice that I mentioned concept and context, but Newton used world O thinking of the force of attraction between the planets and this invokes a determination and subsumes the logic/context.’

 

So, logic, from chapter 75, ‘in a ‘nutshell’:

 

(1) We are the selection out of the multiverse because we are here.

(2) The one ‘dimensional’ use of the properties of world P that are properties of the space and could be called logical [as a machine is logical], but most important is Occams’ razor because simplicity is paramount.

(3) The two ‘dimensional’ use of worlds O and P by Life, and concept/context can perhaps be replaced by concept/quest/relevance/entanglement, where the concept evolved through forward-planning by the mind/brain and measurement by the eyes etc.

(4) Formal logic.

(5) Proverbs are a ‘higher’ logic/thinking that uses the mathematics of concepts to provide quick responses.

(6) The solution of (a +/and b)=1 is an absolute [Michelson-Morley] that the speed of light is a constant and all other measurements must have an assigned absolute [Plato’s problem] except for (7).

(7) The solution of the interval (a +/and b) is an absolute [Golden ratio] that makes beauty/appreciation/enjoyment logical/repeatable/relatable.’

From (3) above (and chapter 78):

 concept/forward-planning/quest/relevance/beauty/context

for Life in world O, bearing in mind that Life lives in a deterministic reality that must be complete and continuous and the physical world P, that is totally entangled, becomes:

 

measurement/quest/relevance/entanglement

 

and for “something” to be “logical”, it must contain answers to all six conditions because it is a restatement of the dimensions, absolutes and the properties of the probability space. This is a concept because it is limited in scope and contains concept/forward-planning/beauty (bearing in mind that forward-planning is a construction by the mind/brain of Life) and context is quest/relevance/context. This context was discussed in chapter 73, ‘given that relativisation (A), the mathematics of concepts (B) and setting out the concepts/attractors and setting the context (C), the use of an absolute (D) [forward-planning] chosen by the universities (E) [the ‘best’ absolute] are derived above.’

‘Further, (F) is experimentation/trials/measurement etc., as suggested by Francis Bacon to bring about a ‘scientific method’ that has proved spectacularly successful in science/technology and this could be considered a ‘break-through’ because most ‘science’ was derived by ‘thought’ for thousands of years. However, the duality of concept/context and measurement/entanglement means that theorists (H) should be included and it is apparent that a mathematics of concepts has been set up [(A) to (H) in total] where more factors produce a better organization, but what is the purpose of an organization? An organization is set up [forward-planned] for a number of reasons, but basically it is to satisfy a need and/or to evolve (I), and I should stress that these eight points are (possibly) the most important of many more that may need to be considered.’

 

It should be noted from (6) and (7) that major solutions/absolutes exist from the entanglement simplification (a+b)=1 that show that the speed of light is constant and that a measure of beauty, in the form of a ratio is available to Life. In particular, I believe that Life uses the Golden ratio as part of its reality and the form of reality (completeness and continuity) requires/ensures that the criterion of beauty is a reality having completeness and continuity across the reality (chapter78).

 

The dimensions, when used bottom-up are a powerful tool that links the speed of light with our reality [Michelson-Morley] and shows the intertwining of the physical and our worlds. In fact, everything in the universe can be derived from five dimensions if we live in a probability universe, and I believe that I have proved that to my satisfaction, the key to tackling the problems of society and of the world become solvable and the key is in chapter 67 that describes a modern means of attaining Plato’s political aspirations and the basis to that is organization, above.

 

‘Plato hankered, in his search for real knowledge, after the kind of certainty which the truths of mathematics have, but because he was after things and not truths, the things had to be necessarily existing things. Looked at in this light, even the road to Larissa does not really qualify (it might be washed away, as roads in Greece sometimes are).’ (Greek Philosophers, R. M. Hare, p 142) Mathematics did not exist in Plato’s time and certainty does not exist except in constructs such as mathematics,  similarly, uncertainty always exists in the mathematics of concepts unless we change the field to a reality because Life is uncomfortable with uncertainty, but questing is basic to a probability space and requires uncertainty until a measurement is made.

 

This quotation should be sufficient to establish my points, but is Plato relevant today? ‘Philosophy, as it is studied in the West today, is an invention of the ancient Greeks. So too, to a great extent, are science and mathematics. But today’s science and mathematics so far transcend the achievement of the Greeks that no modern scientist is likely to study Euclid or Hippocrates or Archimedes for other than purely antiquarian reasons. Modern philosophers, by contrast, continue to discuss problems which were first raised some two thousand five hundred years ago, and they often do so in terms which their Greek predecessors would have found fully intelligible.’ (p v)

 

So, Plato needed mathematics, which did not exist in his day, and great strides have been made since, using mathematics/science/technology over the last 2,500 years, but not, it appears, in philosophy. Philosophy needs the mathematics of concepts, that contains mathematics as a special case, and this is immediately apparent from the fifth dimension (a+b)=1. Science has forged ahead using mathematics, but more importantly it used the organizational context above that provided the impetus. This fact of organizational context can be shown simply by looking at the simplicity/inapplicability of Newton’s laws of motion.

 

From chapter 73, ‘the comparison of the rules of organization, above, with the basis of science, below, shows that the success of science was organizationally lucky/fortuitous, because, from above, many of our organizations are inadequate, such as the process of law, the making of laws by public servants, the food offered by shops, the fishing industry [a commons] etc. are deficient, but science was a ‘stroke’ of luck because acceptance (A) of a theory is required by scientists in general and that theory requires the mathematics of concepts (B) [to compare theories] and invites additions and checking (C) of the result (D) by those with a long-time career (E) in the subject and this often requires experimentation (F) and theorists (G) to fit it all together, and finally, the overall idea of science is to ‘push’ the boundaries (H) of what we know. It is hard to resist a giggle that science has been using the fifth dimension, top-down without acknowledging its existence!’

 

However, a small digression that shows how ‘tenuous’/unscientific the top-down method can be, is shown by the three laws of motion put forward by Descartes. “In order to avoid such notions of occult powers of motion, much of Descartes’ Principles of philosophy was devoted to an explanation of how or why matter moves, and what keeps it in motion.” (Let Newton be!, p 133, edited by John Fauvel) and the three laws given were very close to those of Newton, but, “Descartes insisted that the amount of motion in the universe is constant.” (p 134) “Newton … did not deny the occult nature of his active principles” (p 135) “A slightly naughty thought can come to one’s mind here. Is it due to the nature of physics that the mathematical tools started by Newton are so essential for many parts of physics through the centuries? Or is our selection of worked-on parts of physics still largely Newtonian?” (p 244) That these ideas have flowed through physics for 300 years shows, I believe, that the ‘selection of worked-on parts of physics is still largely Newtonian’!

 

A point should be made, and I keep repeating it because it is so important, about top-down and bottom-up, that Descartes looked for a universal ‘base’ because he believed that speed was conserved. This is the bottom-up approach and he made a valiant attempt to do this, but Newton looked in a ‘non-base’ description of motion and that was accepted. I am proposing a return to the ‘base’ idea of conservation of energy and that the total energy in the universe is zero at all times and that is a statement of relativisation. Remember that relativisation is a concept (two observers measure the speed of light to be the same, and that is an enigma except in a probability space) and context ((a+b+c …)=1).

 

However, as I will have to foreshadow to some extent, Newton’s laws of motion have remained untouched for over 300 years and, in the light of the above, a re-thinking and re-writing might be in order, and the concept/attractor that science continually ‘re-builds’ its ‘house’ need to be reinstated and re-applied, and I suggest the following from chapter 77.

 

‘1 A particle remains at rest or in uniform motion unless acted upon by an energy gradient, except that it will be continually relativised, and in the case of a photon, the speed is always constant and an absolute, and only the energy is relativised.’

 

‘It is a property of a probability space that ‘free’ energy moves at the speed of light, unless energetic enough to form a particle as is indicated by the space-time and fifth dimension/energy. The interval of time is a world (our) O invention that was needed for survival in a predator/prey situation, and that takes speed and acceleration out of world (physical/probability) P.’

 

‘2 The modulus of energy, if greater than zero, can be transmitted to, or form, other types of energy without loss, at any distance via a change in the dimensions (space, time and energy/mass) equally through the Lorentz contraction acting between two frames of reference to prevent a singularity.’

 

‘Gravitational potential/energy is negative, all other energies are positive and the sum is zero (conservation of energy), but energy contains an orthogonal measurement/entanglement and this entanglement/relativisation is instantaneous and universe wide (a and b)=1, whereas positive energies are restricted to at, or below, the speed of light (a+b)=1.  This is a logical requirement [Lorentz contraction] that affects the dimensions equally and if exceeded, produces chaos everywhere.’

 

‘A Newtonian force is a combination of concept and measurement that down-plays entanglement and in Newton’s day ‘the only allowable notion of force, therefore, was force of impact; all other concepts of force, such as attraction and repulsion, were regarded by these natural philosophers as occult.’ (p 127) Also, Einstein used ‘spooky action at a distance’ for these same forces, yet a probability space contains the mechanism in relativisation to explain this.’

 

‘3 Locally, momentum is conserved and local entanglement (a+b)=1 allows action and reaction to be equal and opposite and that is necessary to generate space so that matter can condense as solar systems etc., but energy is conserved (at zero) universe-wide (measurement) and adjusted continually and instantly (entanglement, (a and b)=1).’

 

‘Decartes thought that momentum was conserved universally and that non-occult forces are the physical world of collisions and was incorrect in the first instance and correct in the second, but Newton combined world O and P in a local scenario that has taken 300 years to understand/unravel. The use of force subsumes context/entanglement and combines world O and P, which is acceptable when the separation is understood.’

 

First, it is useful to give a quick and easy description of the use of the mathematics of concepts from chapter 75.

 

‘If we take the Cartesian system of the X-Y plane, we can say that some point is composed of two independent variables (x, y), and the mathematics of concepts can be handled similarly, bearing in mind that an iteration or mind/brain initiates a measurement and we are dealing with world O and world P. A little foreshadowing will make it easier to understand, that world P is a probability space and only has iteration, whereas Life has made world O into a “determinate”/non-entanglement world because of the necessity of creating a reality as part of questing/Survival-of-the-Fittest.’

 

‘So, taking the easy case of world P, questing is: X-Y axes with the concepts to be examined spread equally spaced along the X axis, and a curve/^ is drawn between each concept and every other concept with a height ^ equal to its probability and the sum of all the ‘heights’ is 1. This comes straight from the entanglement/measurement of the probabilities in a probability space. To move it into world O in order to automate or use a mind/brain, move the concepts and the ^ to make a ‘normal’ curve and read off the best concepts and their context. If this looks simple, ask yourself ‘why should it be complicated?’, when the universe requires only 5 dimensions and life six dimensions.’

 

There is one further point, and that is that the decision that has been made is a concept and whilst the context has be taken into account, the context must be recorded and be re-evaluated periodically to maintain relevance. This is, of course, questing and relevance that are part of a probability space and we need measurement and entanglement as well, and for (our) world O [concept/forward-planning/quest/relevance/beauty/context] that is a combination of concept and context. Further, I believe that this is ‘elegant infinite’, which is the context to mathematics’ ‘elegant simple’, that is a concept.

 

I gave the example of Newton’s laws and another example [that illustrates relevance over time] might be ‘the doctrine that virtue is knowledge is the key to understanding the so called thesis of the Unity of the Virtues, maintained by Socrates in Protagoras. In that dialogue Protagorus assumes a broadly traditional picture of the virtues as a set of attributes distinct from one another, as, for example, the different bodily senses are distinct.’ (Greek Philosophers, R. M. Hare, p 64) ‘The theory that virtue is knowledge is, as we have seen, flawed, in that one of its central propositions, that virtue is always in the agent’s interest, is nowhere adequately supported in the Socratic dialogues. It also has a deeper flaw in that it is incoherent.’ (p 66)

 

All life obeys questing, which is another name for Survival of the Fittest and as part of this, relevance is required and relevance is reality. We have to sense predators and live among them, but keeping a forward-plan if the predator gets too close and we need continuity and completeness, otherwise, magic/predators sneak in without us sensing them. The larger animals protect their offspring by teaching them and helping them until they ‘know the ropes’.

 

The Greek philosophers advocated a mentor, but the Bible was more formal by using, I believe, the mathematics of concepts to divide God into three parts to, I believe, make understanding easier, and I believe that over the last 2000 years the Church ‘lost’ the Holy Spirit. I derived three Laws of Life and they ‘mirror’ the Trinity. God the Father is creation, the Holy Spirit is the wider environment and God, the Son is family and other close relationships, see Chapter 1.

 

From bottom-up, questing and relevance through the untold generations make up an iteration/computer and what we see is what is logical/has-evolved given the conditions on the planet, we have done the best that we can and teaching offspring works, because we do it. ‘Socrates suggests that, on the contrary, the names of individual virtues, courage, self-control, etc., are all “names of one and the same thing” (329c-d)’ (p 65) This is true if time is taken into account because as we go back in time, these successful traits lead to success in the tribe even without names, just observation and as time passes, these attributes are progressively named. ‘Socrates suggests that, on the contrary, the names of the individual virtues, courage, self-control, etc., are all “names of one and the same thing” (329c-d)’ (p 65) is top-down thinking, and translated into bottom-up becomes ‘names of one successful concept of survival (emulation/knowledge through teaching) that has the context of those names (virtue, courage, self-control, etc.) as a means of attaining breeding success’. [using forward-planning in reverse]

 

‘The incoherence emerges when we ask “what is virtue knowledge of?” The answer indicated by Meno and Protagoras is that virtue is knowledge of the agent’s good, in that, given the standing motivation to achieve one’s good, knowledge of what that good is will be necessary if one is to pursue it reliably, and sufficient to guarantee that the pursuit is successful.’ (p 66) This suggests that knowledge of virtue (concept) is necessary and to pursue it (context) with the motivation being Survival of the Fittest and especially the family etc.

 

The dimension of time-passing culturally ‘splits off’ the virtues and are similar to the accumulation of the senses (feeling, smell, sight etc.) because it is part of reality and questing has, through evolution, determined relevance otherwise they would not exist at this time. These virtues have been with us for 3,000 million years when bacteria swapped DNA. The answer to “what is virtue knowledge of?” is answered by the parents to the best of their ability to enhance their investment by ‘on the job’ teaching as well as family input, and over time the adult becomes the agent of a group and it appears that doing the best for each person, as decided by the person, is the best that we can hope for.

 

From chapter 78, ‘The Nobel laureate Eugene Wigner, gave a celebrated lecture with the title, “The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences”…. The enormous usefulness of mathematics in the natural sciences is something bordering on the mysterious and there is no rational explanation for it.’ (The Story of Measurement, Andrew Robinson, p 45) I need to say that there is a rational explanation that mathematics ‘works’ because mathematical/logical relationships are the fifth dimension and quests of a mathematical relationship (a+b)=1 are the basis of our universe and this will be explored later.’ (chapter 81)

 

Conclusion: the title: ‘When Philosophy Meets Mathematical Physics’ is, I believe, appropriate and is an opportunity to reorganize both philosophy and science from the bottom-up. As to why I cannot understand philosophy, I present the following quotation, again, but now I believe that it has been turned ‘on its head’.

 

‘Bertrand Russell in The Problems of Philosophy: Thus, to sum up our discussion of the value of philosophy; Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definitive answers to its questions, since no definitive answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves; because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation’ (Is God a Mathematician?, Mario Livio, p 252)

 

Thus, I do not know whether to apologise to philosophers that in my ignorance I have turned their mental exercise into a confrontation with the mathematical physicists, or giggle that they will have to work (or fight) together to straighten thing out. As an indication, Plato’s political system (chapter 67) needs to be implemented as soon as possible.

 

References: all quotations are fully referenced in the body and earlier chapters can be found on    darrylpenney.com    if required.

Chapter 76: When Philosophy Meets Mathematical Physics

Chapter 75: The Nature of Life and Logic, Newton Laws of Motion, Reflection and Diffraction

Abstract: our mind/brain uses logic continually, but it is a mixture, and I have derived it and place it in context so that we can understand it better and use it properly. Life has evolved a common-sense logic that is a product of its reality and necessary for its continuance and growth, but there are higher levels of logic such as the Golden ratio that is an absolute that we use to underpin an appreciation of beauty/balance/enjoyment etc. with which we can all relate, as is necessary in a reality. Examples are given of the logic of the ’physical’ universe arising out of the fifth dimension and the formation of Everything and its methods applied to relativity, quantum mechanics, inflation, diffraction and reflection of photons etc. as well as indicating a problem with Newton’s laws of motion, and a breakdown in the fundamental basis of science.

I have often wondered about the logic of common sense, why we have it and how frequently we use it. In fact we use it all the time and often without thinking about it, in a similar way to our use of our gamma nervous system that evolved to continually counter-balance our movements. I hasten to add that formal logic is not being considered because, like mathematics, it is constricting and I will rely on the following quotation:

 

‘If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts, but if he will be content to begin with doubts, he shall end in certainties.’ Francis Bacon, 1606 (Feral Future, Tim Low, p xiii)

 

By this, I believe that mathematics and formal logic are based (as much as possible) on a definitive simplicity that cannot lead to the larger picture [evidenced by the constraint of Newton on physics for 300 years], and indeed, that simplicity [concept] is part of the problem because there is, by necessity, another simplicity [context] and they are not related, and can be shown [(a+b)=1] to be independent/orthogonal. If we are content with doubts [mathematics of concepts], indeterminism [questing], relativity [relevance], logic [common-sense], entanglement, concepts/context etc., we find, I believe, a different type of elegance to the elegance of mathematics/logic and one that fills in the ‘difficulties’ of physics that we have all encountered, and these difficulties start at the very bottom, with existence.

 

Let’s start with the statement, ‘if mathematics corresponds to the mathematics of concepts, how does formal logic correspond to logic’? This suggests a symmetry and the first step is to quest for the answer and when we have an answer that satisfies us, it becomes determinate to us, and we can do this because that is how our probability space maintains itself and we are part of fields within that space. If that sounds familiar, it is because we live within ‘layers’ of a few basic fields that are based on concepts that have been difficult to understand, such as quantum mechanics, relativity and the fifth dimension (a+b)=1, and yet are simple. In other words, questing the equation (a+b)=1, along with space-time, derives the universe and everything in it, including Life and leads from defined simplicity to simplifying the infinite in the statement, above. [Notice that (a+b)=1 is actually (a+b+c …)=1 and is not simple and the quotation is, I believe, apt]

 

From chapter 73, ‘remember that a probability of existence space has an infinitely small chance of existing [at 1] and likewise, has an infinitely small chance of not existing [at 0], and forms a “twilight zone”’, and whatever we are, we are logic because logic only comes from iteration or a mind/brain. However, the Theory of Everything was used to ascribe consciousness to all things animate and inanimate and so consciousness is another word for logic, and it will be shown later that logic/consciousness is physical in the form of measurement/entanglement that grades through evolution, to the ‘metaphysical’ as concept/context.’

 

As Descartes said, ‘I think, therefore I am’ and that might be the first and simplest attractor in the mathematics of concepts that we are using to examine the statement, above. The mathematics of concepts is ‘natural’ and predates mathematics, and I believe, was responsible for the Trinity of the Bible, so, it is old, forgotten and unfortunately necessary to our civilization because it holds the ‘key’ to the working of everything, and it can be identified in the dimensions of a probability space [space-time and (a+b)=1 for measurement/observers a and b, as an illustration]. Another necessary/important piece of information is that our mind/brain took 3,000 million years to evolve and it evolved using the simplest and most logical principles and that is the mathematics of concepts. The proof of this sentence is simply that conceptually, efficiency is always sought and contextually, otherwise you will be eaten sooner.

 

To repeat, mathematics is a special case of the mathematics of concepts and mathematics is our invention [world (our) O] and the mathematics of concepts is immediately apparent in the dimensions of our probability of existence universe P and is the general basic mathematical relationship that underlies everything. Entanglement is immediately obvious and the ‘+/and’ signifies that the entanglement is both measurement and logic because questing is a necessary property of a probability space and every possibility will be quested/examined [as in quantum mechanics, Life].

 

A requirement of questing is that every possibility must be quested/examined and that statement logically requires that the result be indeterminate until a measurement is made. This determination by measurement makes quantum mechanics seem ‘strange’ but ‘balancing’ has to be done at an infinite speed [a function of the space and to prevent logical singularities] and the measurement [a, b] is accompanied by the entanglement that is both physical (a+b)=1 and logical (a and b)=1 and provides relativisation [(a+b+c …)=1, duality].

 

Relativisation needs to be defined and it is composed of two parts, firstly a concept where two observes moving relative to each other measure the speed of light to be the same, which is an enigma, and secondly, as a context that the sum of energy at every point in the universe is zero, which also strains belief. Relativisation comes about because there is one solution/absolute to the equation (a+b)=1, and that is, that the speed of every photon is constant for all free energy. A photon is an energy concept/measurement of potential [Pound-Rebka] and an energy context/kinetic-energy/logic that requires motion and this is the ‘static’ mode of ‘free’ energy. The ‘dynamic’ mode is the creation of energy [separation into negative potential and positive other energies] creates space and time through the dimensions and produces, in extreme cases, inflation [of the Big Bang].

 

An example of questing the fifth dimension [(a+b)=1] comes to mind because the total energy of the Big-Bang/Big-Whoosh is zero at all times, and yet, from chapter 72: ‘One requirement any law of nature must satisfy is that it dictates that the energy of an isolated body surrounded by empty space is positive, which means that one has to do work to assemble the body. That’s because if the energy of an isolated body were negative, it could be created in a state of motion so that its negative energy was exactly balanced by the positive energy due to its motion…. Empty space would therefore be unstable.’ (The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, p 179). This is logical, but is it really logic or mathematics, which is mathematics of concepts that is apparent from the dimensions?

 

In a simple planetary system, the total energy equation zero = (p+q) where p and q are kinetic energy and potential energy and mirrors the fifth dimension in context [measuring each other continuously and instantaneously] to the concept of ‘Newton’s inverse square law of gravity explained in one equation the orbits of all the planets as described in the three laws of Johannes Kepler’. (50 physics ideas, Joanne Baker, p 17) Notice that I mentioned concept and context, but Newton used world O thinking of the force of attraction between the planets and this invokes a determination and subsumes the logic/context.

 

Further, both positive and negative energy exits because, the equation (a+b)=1 must contain both [questing, simplicity] and from chapter 72:

 

‘Concept/measurement: 0 = kinetic (energy)+ gravity (energy) + mass + dark matter + dark energy + photon energy + chemical etc. acting at the speed of photons in vacuo as a maximum.

 

Context/logic: 0 = kinetic + gravity (logic) + mass + dark matter + dark energy + photon energy + chemical etc. acting at an infinite speed.

 

where gravity is always negative and all the other energies are positive. It is a commonly held idea that ‘all objects in the universe may exert a tiny gravitational pull that might subtly affect our movement’ (p 6) and they cannot do that unless gravity [logic] is propagated instantaneously.

 

Notice that different states of energy have different properties (as would be expected), and in particular, that the speed of logic/gravity is instantaneous as it must be in a probability space to prevent logical singularities and further, that the context/logic equation needs an infinite speed of gravity to keep track of the other contexts to satisfy (a+b)=1. In other words, the dimension (a+b+c…..)=1 cannot be simplified (logically) because any omission could cause a singularity as can be seen from the mathematics of concepts and Feynman’s formulations. In other words, the logic of gravity ‘flashes’ around keeping track of the logic components of all the states of energy and relativises them.’

 

The above example answered the question for me that positive and negative energies exist, from the dimensions, and not from supposition [Ockam’s razor, a simple solution of the mathematics of concepts] and further that logic is just as important as the mass/energy in the universe. Another example is that I mentioned a singularity field in chapter 74 and one has to acknowledge that our universe is logically capable of protecting itself against logical singularities, see below. I will foreshadow that the simple concept/word of logic will change below because logic is different in the physical world [P] and the mental world [O].

 

From chapter 72, ‘I believe that the Big Bang or perhaps more accurately, a Big Whoosh, was a runaway creation or splitting of nothing into a positive part and a negative part of (only) the energy concepts over a very small period of time and I will quote, and compare to ‘the universe begins to expand at an exponential rate. Indeed, the universe continued to expand exponentially as long as the inflation field was the dominant source of energy density. This phase of inflation began when the universe was about 10x-36 seconds old. This energy eventually decays away (by design) and inflation ends by about 10x-35 seconds. This enormous kinetic energy turns into heat, and we are now again in the conventional hot Big Bang phase, initially dominated by radiation and relativistic particles.’ (The Infinite Cosmos, Joseph Silk, p 116) This quotation, according to the above, is a little strange, as there is no ‘inflation field’, only creation of space/time in a perfectly natural way by the creation of energy (balanced by potential energy) and this depends on the rate of creation of energy and ‘exponential’ is not an apt term. Inflation could be thought of as a ‘normal curve’ and slowed when energy creation slowed, but it is a natural process whenever energy is created (not transferred).’

 

From chapter 72, ‘an interesting point is that it is commonly considered that the galaxies are moving outward due to the momentum imparted by the Big-Bang/Big-Whoosh, but an alternative explanation is more ‘definitive’, and by that I mean that the outward momentum tells us little and leads to questions, such as ‘is the universe speeding up, remaining constant or slowing down its rate of expansion?’. However, if we use the above, that the dimensions show that the speed of light is constant and that there are no restrictions placed on the energy of the photons, then as the original photons, from the Big-Bang/Big-Whoosh spread out, and are still doing so at considerably lower energy [cosmological red-shift], they are creating space at a constant rate/speed. This increase in space forces the galaxies to move outward to preserve the Law of Conservation of Energy, and is not the residual momentum imparted by the Big Bang, as it is commonly considered to be. In other words, space increases to hold energy and that forces the other dimensions (and energy) to increase by the same amount [Lorentz factor] and as the speed of electromagnetic waves is constant, the expansion of the galaxies should be constant.

 

To explain Newton’s view from chapter 74 ‘as we now know, his faith in forces was justified to such an extent that it is widely regarded as Newton’s most important scientific innovation.’ (Let Newton be!, edited by John Fauvel, p 128) ‘A slightly naughty thought can come to one’s mind here. Is it due to the nature of physics that the mathematical tools started by Newton are so essential for many parts of physics through the centuries? Or is our selection of worked-on parts of physics still largely Newtonian? (p 244) The question posed in the last two sentences was answered at the end of chapter 74, and again here, that ‘physics is still largely Newtonian’ because it does not use the fifth dimension in its entirety, but ‘dips’ into it when convenient/necessary.

 

Logic is just as important as the physical, and, as they are independent/orthogonal, both explanations/proofs should be given. Logic and measurement are independent and it is meaningless to say that either is more important or assign percentages (with any exactitude). If we take the Cartesian system of the X-Y plane, we can say that some point is composed of two independent variables (x, y), and the mathematics of concepts can be handled similarly, bearing in mind that an iteration or mind/brain initiates a measurement and we are dealing with world O and world P. A little foreshadowing will make it easier to understand, that world P is a probability space and only has iteration, whereas Life has made world O into a ‘determinate’/non-entanglement world because of the necessity of creating a reality as part of questing/Survival-of-the-Fittest.

 

So, taking the easy case of world P, questing is: X-Y axes with the concepts to be examined spread equally spaced along the X axis, and a curve/^ is drawn between each concept and every other concept with a height ^ equal to its probability and the sum of all the ‘heights’ is 1. This comes straight from the entanglement/measurement of the probabilities in a probability space. To move it into world O in order to automate or use a mind/brain, move the concepts and the ^ to make a ‘normal’ curve and read off the best concepts and their context. If this looks simple, ask yourself ‘why should it be complicated?’, when the universe requires only 5 dimensions and life six dimensions.

 

A small digression in that the two ‘toughest’ problems in physics are generally considered to be quantum mechanics [questing, entanglement,  measuring ‘sticks’] and relativity [relevance, entanglement, measuring ‘sticks’] and yet they are simple properties immediately apparent from the dimensions of a probability space, as can also be seen the general mathematics of concepts. Common-sense logic is much more complicated because we have taken the ‘logic’ that must exist for us to be here and used it along with the mathematics of concepts, questing and relevance to produce Life with a mind/brain that changes the field in which it lives and leaves us with the interaction of worlds O and P.

 

Bear in mind that the above [normal form, solution] is a ‘snapshot’ and must be recorded with the decision to give relevance/relativity so that as time passes, and circumstances change, it is easy to rearrange the attractors and context, add different attractors and update or challenge the decision. This is crucial and can be seen from chapter 73, ‘thus, given that relativisation (1), the mathematics of concepts (2) and setting out the concepts/attractors and setting the context (3), the use of an absolute (4) [forward-planning] chosen by the universities (5) [the ‘best’ absolute] are derived above’.

 

‘Further, (6) is experimentation/trials/measurement etc., as suggested by Francis Bacon to bring about a ‘scientific method’ that has proved spectacularly successful in science/technology and this could be considered a ‘break-through’ because most ‘science’ was derived by ‘thought’ for thousands of years. However, the duality of concept/context and measurement/logic means that theorists (7) should be included and it is apparent that a mathematics of concepts has been set up [(1) to (7) in total] where more factors produce a better organization, but what is the purpose of an organization? An organization is set up for a number of reasons, but basically it is to satisfy a need and/or to evolve (8), and I should stress that these eight points are (possibly) the most important of many more that may need to be considered.’

 

Again, in chapter 73, I point out that science fortuitously/luckily uses this organizational derivation, but most organizations do not use as many attractors and their performance is so inadequate as to have caused, I believe, an Extinction event. These themes keep appearing because they are attractors that are relevant and cannot be ignored as they (somewhat) have been ignored using the Newtonian system. As a specific example, Newton’s laws of motion have not been challenged in 300 years, and I believe that they need rewriting, as I have done, but will have to wait till a later date. To foreshadow, with a simple example, a photon keeps the same speed irrespective of the energy in contradiction of the first law.

 

World O is our world and not important in the universe [400 billion galaxies], but it is to us, although in 10,000 years we have brought it to its ‘knees’ and I doubt that many would deny that, but it can be turned around, I believe, when we have the correct tools [as shown above]. Mathematics is a special case of the mathematics of concepts and chapter 74 showed how a Unified Field Theory needed a new general mathematics to describe it, and as well as a new mathematics, we need a new logic because the logic that science uses is ‘catch as catch can’ instead of a legitimate theory, that is consistent  (50/50) with concepts/measurement. Two simple examples are unassailable. Firstly, in Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, an assumption/postulate is made of relativisation [constancy of the speed of light, Michelson-Morley] of the speed of light to two different observers, and secondly, Feynman’s History.

 

From chapter 72, another example is the Feynman method of the solution of the double/single slit experiment with light and a rational explanation based on the dimensions of our universe. ‘In the 1940s Richard Feynman had a startling insight regarding the difference between the quantum and Newtonian worlds…. The pattern we find when we fire molecules with both slits open is not the sum of the patterns we find when we run the experiment twice, once with just one slit open, and once with only the other open. Instead, when both slits are open we find a series of light and dark bands, the latter being regions in which no particle lands.’ (The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, p 74)

 

‘Feynman realized … that particles take every possible path connecting those points. This, Feynman asserted, is what makes quantum physics different from Newtonian physics. The situation at both slits matters because, rather than following a single definite path, particles take every path, and they take them all simultaneously…. Feynman formulated a mathematical expression – the Feynman sum over histories – that reflects this idea and reproduces all the laws of quantum physics. In Feyman’s theory the mathematics and physical picture are different from that of the original formulation of quantum physics, but the predictions are the same.’ (p 75)

 

“In the double slit experiment Feynman’s ideas mean the particles take paths that go through only one slit or only the other; paths that thread through the first slit, back out through the second slit, and then through the first again; paths that visit the restaurant that serves that great curried shrimp ….. It might sound nutty, but for the purposes of most fundamental physics done today … Feynman’s formulation has proved more useful than the original one.’  (p 75)

 

‘Looking at the fifth dimension CEM (mathematics of concepts/entanglement/measurement it is literally obvious that Feynman’s formulation was correct because entanglement (context) links every point, measurement (concept) is available for every point and provides the probability that is necessary in a probability space all instantaneously. Feynman’s formulation is a mathematics of concepts that links probabilities and entanglement of energy together and in doing so, was necessarily correct, even if he didn’t know why. The simplicity, above, of quantum mechanical probabilities is, to my mind a proof that our universe must be a probability space.’

 

The above, on the Feynman example quotes ‘Feynman asserted, is what makes quantum physics different from Newtonian physics’ and this is incorrect because Feynman is, inadvertently, using world P and Newton used world O thinking and the difference is that world O necessarily contains measurement/concepts measured/determined by a mind/brain because force has to be determined.

 

In other words, neither Feynman nor Newton mentions logic and logic is 50% of the scene and is independent/orthogonal and is hidden in the above, but definitely still there. Newton thought that the force was between the centres of the masses, and so it is, if thought of in the simple terms considered [world O thinking], but if we use the Feynman example, gravity must be calculated over every possibility and that is the logic of entanglement. Again, in other words, world P is a measurement/entanglement and in world O, it is concept/context. Bearing this in mind, a quotation from chapter 74 should make it clearer.

 

‘A Unified Field Theory, to unify everything cannot be simple [because it has to include everything], but it is simple when the mathematics of concepts is used, because the mathematics of concepts is immediately apparent from the fifth dimension and the dimensions embrace everything. The existing theory contains four fields ranging from sub-atomic to universe-wide, so this extension of the theory is simply filling in the ‘bits’ in between. The ability of the mathematics of concepts to include mathematics and physics is ‘complex elegant’ [but the ‘opposite/different to ‘simple elegant’ because the concept is simple, but the context is infinite] and allows the areas of interest to be prioritised in a way that mathematics cannot do [without a mind/brain selecting them with some context in mind, which is, of course, the mathematics of concepts].

 

Newton’s treatment of gravity was elegant in its simplicity [forces act through the centres, proportional to the masses and inversely proportional to the square of the separation] and it is small wonder that it was applauded, lauded and became the ‘hallmark’ of good science and science has used the same basic methods ever since. The conservation of energy/matter requires that the energy of gravity balance all of the other energies. Conservative fields, such as gravitation require inversely proportionality to the square of the separation. ‘In physics, an inverse-square law is any physical law stating that a specified physical quantity or intensity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source of that physical quantity. The fundamental cause for this can be understood as geometric dilution corresponding to point-source radiation into three-dimensional space.’ (Wikipedia, Inverse-square law) It will be shown at a later date that ‘geometric dilution’ is an entanglement phenomonen.

 

The force acting through the centres is a simplification that mirrors the difference between Newton’s simplified experiment and Feynman’s approach to quantum probabilities that is in line with a probability space where every possibility has to be considered. The logical part of gravity is a relativisation that is an integral part of a probability space and requires questing throughout the space at an infinite speed. Thus the conservation of energy requires questing the logical part of gravity at every point in the universe.

 

However, a thought experiment, simplifies the situation by deleting context, and that can be serious because a measurement is a snapshot in context and similar to a photograph album with no dates or explanations attached to the pictures, so as time passes they lose relevance unless annotated. Another problem is that Newton, Einstein and Feynman thought in world O terms, but their theories relied on postulates that are expressible only in world P. The latter two are direct ‘steals’, but Newton took the ‘action to completion’ [impulse equals change in momentum] and applied a measurement [by a mind/brain] to gain the concept of force [incomplete action] instead of energy.

 

Further, the existing [unified field] theory/thoughts uses logic that assumes that a ‘particle’ affects the ‘object of interest’, presumably because there has to be something (logically) to effect the change. We ‘know’ that there has to be something, so we use the logic of the fifth dimension intuitively, but there is another field, and it is measurement with a ‘particle of logic’ subsumed within the fifth dimension. In other words, this extension of context fills out the theory and gets rid of assumptions and replaces them with the dimensions, and unifies everything.

 

The one thing that the greatest minds through out history have done is to reach into the fifth dimension for ideas as can be seen in chapter 70. ‘On a personal note, philosophy is a ‘closed book’ to me, but I can still “unfold” it by treating philosophers as concepts and applying the mathematics of concepts to them and this is made possible by the excellent analyses in the book ‘The Great Philosophers: the lives and ideas of history’s greatest thinkers’ by Stephen Law. ‘Unfolding’ is the investigation of the context and concepts and fitting the concepts (philosophers) into an array and mapping their contexts onto a fixed/unchanging basis that no one can dispute, and that is the dimensions of our (probability of existence) universe.’

 

A ‘guess’ is a strong word to apply to the greatest thinkers, but they got away with delving into logic for a good reason, and that is that ‘logic’ is a world O concept/context that is heritable and derived from our success at survival over 3,000 million years and we all have the same common sense because that is the ‘herd mentality’/reality. We all have to have a reality to exist and we must see the same things and react to them in the same way otherwise something will ‘track us down’ [sixth dimension] and eat us.

 

A second type of logic lies within world P that produces an anti-singularity field that is complex and works well, such as relativisation to preserve the logic that no particle (with rest mass) can exceed the speed of light in a vacuum. It could be that our universe, out of the multiverse contains the appropriate values that make relativisation work.  In other words, the ‘twilight zone’ scenario, above, necessitates a questing within the probabilities that reflect, I believe, differing values of the physical constants, except the speed of light that must be an absolute [together with the Golden ratio because we have entered mathematics].

 

These two types of logic are not difficult to understand because the second is automatic (world P) and in the first, our mind/brain evolved to link into the probability space for measurement, as we do with all the senses. The Cambrian, I believe, evolved a change (via lensed eyes) to the mind/brain that allowed the mind/brain to quest a new way that requires different ‘machinery’ to extend a physical measurement (line) into both a logic measurement and/or a physical measurement (plane). Perhaps the questing of the logic side that became available through the evolution of eyes and mind/brain is the start of the consciousness that philosophers’ appear to be seeking, and that could be when our thinking went two-dimensional.

 

Thus, a definition of logic is a recipe and is a co-mingling of world P measurement/entanglement [duality] and world O concept/context [duality] using that part of the mathematics of concepts [(a+b)=1] that is chosen with the assigning/recognition of the attractors used [snapshot, to acknowledge relativity] to gain a solution [proverbs are simple solutions, forming a normal curve of attractor’s desirability] that fits the quest that has evolved/survived Life’s reality.

 

Plato’s problem is a lack of absolutes, and this is necessary and they must be assigned and has been dealt with before in chapter 67, however, there is another absolute from the solution of the interval (a+b) [Golden ratio] that has traditionally been associated with beauty/pleasure/contentment/ecstasy and provides an answer to why we have been able to use these properties and agree on them amongst ourselves. I have included this field for completeness, but its derivation will have to wait, but notice that it is an exception to Plato’s lack of absolutes.

 

A prediction/example might clarify the overall picture because statistical mechanics takes a concept, such as photons leaving a point source and assumes that enough photons are leaving so that there is an even distribution. I am saying that an independent/orthogonal entanglement ensures that there is an even distribution (context) and further, in more complicated cases, such as diffraction, a specific sequence occurs that becomes an enigma and unexplainable according to our present laws of physics.

 

. Consider abeam of light passing through a small hole [comparable to the wavelength] and Newton’s laws of motion says that the beam passes through as it entered because no force acts on it, however, I am saying that entanglement provides a logical reason for the photon to change direction without a force. [Newton’s law is a simplification with no context as will become apparent]. The beam is diffracted and spreads out according to Huygens’ principle, where Huygen’s ‘wavelets’, generated at each instant are, I believe, probabilities and the photon changes direction in accordance with the logic/entanglement to make a new total semicircular wavefront, and this derivation will have to be left for later.

 

To simplify, a photon has a measurement/entanglement duality, a constant speed/energy (concept), but direction is a context, and in the same way that a vector has force and direction, the photon has energy/speed and a direction and obeys Newton’s law ‘unless acted upon by a force or entanglement’ [my addition]. Force is a world O concept and in world P we have to use energy/logic, or more accurately, energy-measurement/entanglement. Whilst my derivation is more complicated, it predicts and explains independent/orthogonal outcomes, and as an example, ‘one unrealistic prediction of Huygens’ principle is that if all these new wavelets are sources of wave energy then they should generate a reverse wave as well as a forward wave. So why does a wave propagate only forwards? Huygens did not have an answer’. (50 physics ideas, Joanne Baker, p63)

 

If the wavelets are considered probability fronts, the probability of the photon reversing is zero given the simple thought experiment and that solves that problem. If we bring the real world into the picture by introducing a dust mote, the probability front increases behind because of the entanglement of photon and dust mote as they approach and at some point the probability becomes unity and reflection occurs as a logical effect. Notice that if the photon energy is sufficient, the probabilities include the photoelectric effect and it can be seen that the iteration inherent in the mathematics of concepts is becoming apparent. This interpretation makes more sense/logic than photons ‘bouncing off’, which is nonsensical as it is an entanglement, as will be shown at a later date.

 

The above answers, to my satisfaction the question of what is the ‘common-sense’ logic [two-dimensional] that we use daily and why it works [a product of our reality], the question of formal logic has been side-stepped and the logic of the physical world [one-dimensional] along with the associated dualities of measurement/entanglement and concept/context have been considered as part of the fifth dimension of a probability space.

 

We have taken the logic that must exist for us to be here [out of the multiverse] and used it along with the mathematics of concepts, questing/entanglement and relevance/entanglement to produce Life. We have done this because we could do it, and have demonstrated logical decisions, but these decisions are not based on logic, only possibilities that work because we live in a probability space and what we call logic exists as a complex ‘recipe’ that works. In other words, what we think of as measurement/logic [thinking], really is measurement/entanglement/multiverse/questing/relevance/mathematics of concepts, and the word ‘logic’ is only a convenient word for a complex interplay of physical/mental/sociological/environmental effects.

 

In a ‘nutshell’:

(1) We are the selection out of the multiverse because we are here.

(2) The one ‘dimensional’ use of the properties of world P that are properties of the space and could be called logical [as a machine is logical], but most important is Occams’ razor because simplicity is paramount.

(3) The two ‘dimensional’ use of worlds O and P by Life, and concept/context can perhaps be replaced by concept/quest/relevance/entanglement, where the concept evolved through forward-planning by the mind/brain and measurement by the eyes etc.

(4) Formal logic.

(5) Proverbs are a ‘higher’ logic/thinking that uses the mathematics of concepts to provide quick responses.

(6) The solution of (a +/and b)=1 is an absolute [Michelson-Morley] that the speed of light is a constant and all other measurements must have an assigned absolute [Plato’s problem] except for (7).

(7) The solution of the interval (a +/and b) is an absolute [Golden ratio] that makes beauty/appreciation/enjoyment logical/repeatable/relatable.

 

Conclusion: a photon is ‘pure’ energy that must move at a constant speed in vacuo and is whatever the measurer wants it to be [a quest] and is relativised continually and this motion, I believe, creates the expanding universe without which, we wouldn’t be here. The conservation of [no] energy means that ALL energy must be accounted for, even the infinitely infinitesimal that could occur in photons and there is no ‘machinery’/carrier in the motion. It is important to realize that the photon is energy transference AND has to move as a kinetic energy AND has to be relativised continuously AND has to create space, time and the splitting of energy.

 

Logic is a quest that ties everything together and is based on the factors above that can be derived from the dimensions, but the dimensions provide the tools, such as mathematics, mathematics of concepts, the computer of evolution, the proverbs, what we are taught etc. So, how do the great thinkers get away with enigmas, such as Huygens, Newton, Einstein, Feynman etc? I think that we have a great capacity to change ‘creation myths’ when we change tribes and can ignore inconsistencies when necessary, but it is interesting that, if a probability space is assumed, these enigmas, I believe, disappear.

 

As a justification of this statement, evolution [questing] is composed of Survival of the Fittest and sexual selection and the latter is obvious from our experience and bird’s plumage. But, is it [top down concept, Newtonian] obvious? I say that the absolute [Golden rule, interval (a+b), bottom up] evokes a concept of facial beauty or plumage and a context of all agreeing that that beauty/colour evokes a feeling/logic across the reality. [Aristotelian is a guess, Bacon supports experiments such as Newton did for some of his ideas (concept), whereas I advocate concept and context] I believe that the second [bottom up] explanation is not only superior, but is correct. Q.E.D.

 

References: (1) all quotations are fully referenced in the body and earlier chapters can be found on   http://darrylpenney.com  if required.

 

Chapter 75: The Nature of Life and Logic, Newton Laws of Motion, Reflection and Diffraction

Chapter 74: Extending the Unified Field Theory

Abstract: the name Unified Field Theory promises a theory that is wide-reaching and includes all fields including the local football field. This derivation does just that, because the theory uses the mathematics of concepts that allows all desired fields with any desired priority to be set for the speciality of fields to be considered.  In other words, the theory presented here ticks all the boxes and is infinitely adaptable to the users’ wants, answers the  ‘why?’ in a deeper way by widening the definitions of the ‘particles of action’, ‘show-cases’ the mathematics of concepts and truly becomes the Unified Field Theory that does away with all assumptions and rests only on the dimensions of a probability space and the associated measurement/entanglement/ecstasy of the physical universe and the concept/context/beauty of Life.

I believe that I have given sufficient proof that our universe is a probability space and literally everything (until now), apart from space-time, has been taken (top-down) from the fifth dimension and so, I will use a bottom-up approach from the dimensions to show how wide-sweeping the fifth dimension is and it will allow me to build on the Unified Field Theory that appears to have caused trouble over many years. Perhaps the problem is, as shown in the two paragraphs below, that Newton’s ideas have been slavishly followed and a new direction is needed, and especially a new type of mathematics.

 

‘Let me raise a few points which seem not to have been made the subject of scholarly investigation. I have always been puzzled by the strange wording of the definitions of mass, momentum, and force, at the beginning of the Principia. For example, Definition I states “the quantity of matter is the measure of the same, arising from its density and its bulk conjointly”. Why does Newton again and again identify a physical property or quantity with its measure? There is surely more to a physical quantity than a statement of how it is measured? The answer is possibly to be found in Newton’s early Scholium on absolute space and time. Since, according to Newton, we can only measure relative space and time, and not absolute space and time, all we can know about physical quantities are not the absolute quantities themselves but merely their relative substitutes – that is, their measures. This argument is not well worked out by Newton.’ (Let Newton be!, John Henry, p 59, edited by John Fauvel)

 

‘It is not always appreciated that, 60 years ago, the makers of modern quantum theory were totally steeped, immersed, educated, brainwashed, if you like – in the mathematical methods of Lagrange and Hamilton; these ideas had grown out of, and were the natural evolution of, Newton’s dynamical ideas.’ (p 244) Further, ‘as we now know, his faith in forces was justified to such an extent that it is widely regarded as Newton’s most important scientific innovation.’ (p 128) ‘A slightly naughty thought can come to one’s mind here. Is it due to the nature of physics that the mathematical tools started by Newton are so essential for many parts of physics through the centuries? Or is our selection of worked-on parts of physics still largely Newtonian? (p 244)

 

This last quotation is what I call a chaotic statement [both correct and not correct at the same time] and it will take the whole chapter to make it clear, and that will be done, but it is at the moment a prediction and as the sixth dimension shows, a forward-plan makes things easier/possible. Newton missed/assumed the logic half of physics and also used mathematics, which is a special case of the mathematics of concepts, and mathematicians and physicists etc. have built on his vision and, as a consequence, we face a world-catastrophe/Extinction-event. The basic-problem/error that science has pursued may well be ‘simplification’ that [perhaps] came about from the simple inverse square law relationship of gravity, in world O units, and that aim [of science in general] is at odds with the indeterminacy of quantum mechanics, Life, social sciences etc. Everything is related, so we can start anywhere and I have chosen the Unified Field Theory to illustrate the failings of ‘following the herd’.

‘According to the current understanding of physics, forces are not transmitted directly between interacting objects, but instead are described by intermediary entities called fields. All four of the known fundamental forces are mediated by fields, which in the Standard Model of particle physics result from exchange of gauge bosons. Specifically the four fundamental interactions to be unified are:

Modern unified field theory attempts to bring these four interactions together into a single framework.’ (Wikipedia, Unified field theory)

Firstly, I have to say that I know little about this subject, and wish to comment on existing theory even less and that is the problem for the generalist and (possibly) why most people are content with a speciality, but, there is a need for a new approach, and that, is written in the dimensions. The missing word is ‘context’ and that, I believe, underlies the Extinction event that we have caused, our modern diseases and even the approaching Armageddon of our planet.

‘As the only nonanimal source of vitamin D, mushrooms are undoubtly important for many animals, especially species that are nocturnal and/or burrowing. All fungi contain ergosterol in quantity; it’s transformed into vitamin D by irridation with sunlight, often to an astonishing degree.’ (Trees, Truffles, and Beasts: How Forests Function, Maser, Claridge and Trappe, p 96) This quotation is apt for a number of reasons but is a little misleading in one context, and that is that we and all animals evolved from fungi and still retain the ability to form vitamin D from sunlight.

So important are these contextual ramifications to modern living, ‘”the implications are that vitamin D could be regulated by the controlled exposure of dried mushrooms to sunlight.” Therefore, squirrels that hang mushrooms or truffles in trees to dry in the sun ….  are producing vitamin D supplements in their diets’ (p 96) that this suggests that neglecting context is (possibly) the reason that modern diseases are so prevalent. These quotations are illustrating where we have gone wrong and in simple terms: context is a duality/orthogonality that we have not realized is attached to each and every concept. Throughout the ages, people have ‘reached’ into the fifth dimension and used logic, concepts and context without realizing where they come from, or how to use them properly.

 

Secondly, I believe that the Big-Bang/Big-Whoosh created a probability of existence universe composed of matter/energy [always totalling zero] that are states of energy in various forms with varying lifetimes and the universe has the dimensions space-time and (a+b)=1 as an illustration of measurement/entanglement of a probability space (a+b+c…)=1 where a and b are measurement/observers. This is the universe/basic-space of what we call energy and encompasses everything that allows us to investigate and make [mathematical/logical] sense of the parts with a measurement/entanglement duality [concept/context duality] using the mathematics of concepts.

 

Thirdly, (a+b)=1 can, as the questing of quantum mechanics [being necessarily indeterminate until measured] be written as (a +/and b)=1 to show the logic of entanglement and this leads to the quantum/evolution-logic/gravity description of the universe and this logic [as part of all energy] relativises the dimensions [mass/energy, space and time passing] so that the conservation of energy remains zero (see chapter 72). Hence, I offer an alternative to the postulate of ’gravitons’ and believe that gravity is both a logic and an energy and believe that I can offer better understanding by using a bottom-up approach through the dimensions.

 

Fourthly, whilst not an objection, the relationship of radioactivity to the ‘weak interaction’ seems to be a probability/half-life function that suggests/aligns with the idea that our universe is a probability space. In other words, as it stands, it requires half-life/probability additional to existence whilst a probability space contains that probability [is less complicated logically and so, more likely].

 

Fifthly, the quotation about Newton’s lead/guidance as being the ‘guiding light’ of physicists ‘cries out’ for radically different ideas of space/fields and what I am proposing fits perfectly with his perception of force. If he had asked the additional question of why the apple kept repeating the same motion, he would have (perhaps) seen the logic side of the space/field, or perhaps not, because force is a world O creation and already contains the logic. A world O [our] measurement requires a mind/brain to apply the question [containing logic], whereas a world P [physical] does not. This concept of consciousness [of the apple] is continuous and seamless over evolution and thus forms a reality that is the Theory of Everything. In other words, the Unified Field Theory and the Theory of Everything are similar/linked.

 

I would like to offer a quotation from chapter 73, ‘there may be no a priori reason why the correct description of nature has to be a unified field theory. However, this goal has led to a great deal of progress in modern theoretical physics and continues to motivate research.’ (Wikipedia, Unified field theory) However, there is a description of the universe that I have called ‘quantum/evolution-logic/gravity’ and it is derived from the five dimensions, above, and they are the a priori and all that is needed to create the universe.

 

From chapter 72: ‘concept/measurement: 0 = kinetic (energy) + gravity (energy) + mass + dark matter + dark energy + photon energy + chemical etc. acting at the speed of photons in vacuo as a maximum.

 

Context/logic: 0 = kinetic + gravity (logic) + mass + dark matter + dark energy + photon energy + chemical etc. acting at an infinite speed where gravity is always negative and all the other energies are positive.’

 

This shows the separation of gravity (energy) and gravity (logic) and is the start of the logic side of the fields becoming apparent.

 

From chapter 73: deriving organization, ‘given that relativisation (1), the mathematics of concepts (2) and setting out the concepts/attractors and setting the context (3), the use of an [assigned] absolute (4) [forward-planning] chosen by the universities (5) [the ‘best’ absolute] are derived above. Further, (6) is experimentation/trials/measurement etc., as suggested by Francis Bacon to bring about a ‘scientific method’ that has proved spectacularly successful in science/technology and this could be considered a ‘break-through’ because most ‘science’ was derived by ‘thought’ for thousands of years. However, the duality of concept/context and measurement/logic means that theorists (7) should be included and it is apparent that a mathematics of concepts has been set up [(1) to (7) in total] where more factors produce a better organization, but what is the purpose of an organization? An organization is set up for a number of reasons, but basically it is to satisfy a need and/or to evolve (8), and I should stress that these eight points are (possibly) the most important of many more that may need to be considered.’

 

I should mention that (4) [forward-planning] is a sixth dimension and point (8) shows the gradation of evolution from iteration [Survival of the Fittest] to Survival of the Best when we decide what evolution should become and this concept drastically changes most life on earth and so we must be careful to use the correct tools for the job. Another crucial point is that relativisation is on-going and a decision/measurement must have the concepts and contexts (that were used) recorded so that they are seen to remain relevant over time.

 

Further, from chapter 73: ‘the comparison of the above with the below shows that the success of science was organizationally lucky/fortuitous, because, from above, many of our organizations are inadequate, such as the process of law, the making of laws by public servants, the food offered by shops, the fishing industry [a commons] etc. are deficient, but science was a ‘stroke’ of luck because acceptance (1) of a theory is required by scientists in general and that theory requires the mathematics of concepts (2) [to compare theories] and invites additions and checking (3) of the result (4) by those with a long-time career (5) in the subject and this often requires experimentation (6) and theorists (7) to fit it all together, and finally, the overall idea of science is to ‘push’ the boundaries (8) of what we know. It is hard to resist a giggle that science has been using the fifth dimension, top-down without acknowledging its existence.’

 

Keeping these thoughts in mind, from above, firstly, the splitting of gravity into a physical and logical duality, and secondly, a logical field of organization that embraces literally everything because everything is part of everything else [organization, entanglement, mathematics of concepts] have rendered the existence of ‘particles of action’ of the existing theory too restrictive. The application of the current use of the methods of science shows that science/universities are based/aligned with the theory, above, and the success of science/technology offers a ‘proof’ [by exception] of its power. Notice that as we moved down the list of the Unified Field Theory above, we moved from the physical to the physical/logic of gravity to the logic of organization.

 

The next step is to move to other fields, bearing in mind that I have relaxed the requirement that there must be a particle to transmit the ‘action’ because the instantaneous speed of logic is a property of the space, not the energy in the space. It is delving top-down into the fifth dimension to say that there must be a ‘something’ to cause ‘scary action at a distance’ and, of course there is, but it is a property of the probability space and relativisation was not recognised. Of course there must be something to ‘affect’ the ‘something’ at a distance, but it can take many forms, such as trust [monetary fields], logic [gravitation], measurement, relativisation, love etc. [The word ‘logic’ is used as a ‘rag’/mixed bag and will be considered/derived properly at a later date]

 

Another aspect, that emerges from the name Unified Field Theory, that was considered to be a theory of physics, becomes part of a much larger theory because it promises a theory that is wide-reaching and include all fields including the local football field. This comes about as part of the bottom-up requirement of the all-encompassing name and this derivation does just that, and more, because the theory uses the mathematics of concepts that allows all desired fields with any desired priority to be set for the speciality of fields to be considered.  In other words, the unified field theory presented here ticks all the boxes and is infinitely adaptable to the users’ wants as the area of interest can be prioritised by selection, whilst bringing other concepts into consideration as needed. To simplify further, a general mathematics of concepts must involve ALL concepts and contexts and that is why it has to be used, and why the ‘exact’ Newtonian thinking cannot adequately describe fields of all types.

 

The next to be considered is the ‘quantum’ field which could be defined as a ‘questing’ field because a probability field must consider all options [questing] and to do that it must be indeterminate at each point until measured, and it is the measurement, not a particle, that causes the wave/particle to become determinant. This, in the light of the above, could be resolved by saying that questing is a property of the space, but that might be ‘splitting hairs’ as the space is a field, so, we could say that a and b [as measurement/observers], as (a+b)=1, also shows that measurement and entanglement are a duality and comprise two independent fields.

 

Another field that must be considered is the singularity field and the associated relativity relativisation, because the dimensions require that the speed of all photons be a constant and this (logical) maximum allows the possibility of a singularity occurring. This possibility is handled in the simplest logical way [Occam’s razor] by relativisation of all the dimensions [energy/mass, space and time vary by the Lorentz transformation] as a frame of reference approaches the speed of light with respect to a [stationary] frame. This is a logical necessity because the measuring ‘stick’ is the speed of light and if it is exceeded, chaos occurs and cannot be eliminated/reversed because entropy cannot be simply returned/reversed. We are here because it has not happened in any of 400 billion galaxies over 14 billion years and nor is it likely to occur because relativisation works well, and that is why it is a field [‘it works’ field, multiverse selection logic].

 

Another field has been discovered by Life and is unique to Life and that is consciousness, and its major attribute is forward-planning that derives the sixth dimension [world O] and that has been formulated by organisms, including ourselves, as a necessary defence against predation by the mind/brain using distance and speed to judge a safe distance. Likewise, the predator has to judge speed and distance to control the level of success of an attack because each failed bid reduces the available resources [this is the source of world O versus world P]. The sixth dimension, I believe, is different to the other dimensions because it introduces future time and that requires a space/field of the mind/brain.

 

It is important to note that [world P] probability space is measurement/entanglement and a simple mathematical space, but the mind/brain has built on this [world O] with the sixth dimension [forward-planning] and reality has changed the space/field. Entanglement changes every point in the universe, but because of measurement, we are constrained by what we know and live in a world that is determinant because every organism must be able to live with every other for at least one breeding cycle. This is probably easier to understand if we consider that each of us has had an unbroken chain of ancestors that had offspring [for 3,000 million years], else we would not be here. In other words, the necessity of survival means that we can live with predators for a ‘reasonable’ time and recognise danger and avoid it, and if we cannot sense it, such as for bacteria, our immune system can, and does.

 

The space/field produced by the mind/brain is so important/overwhelming that it has instigated a mass extinction at the current time, every bit as ‘bad’ as the mass extinction caused by, I believe, the evolution of lensed eyes and the predator/prey forward-planned attack/avoidance evolved in the Cambrian. Now (a+b)=1 shows context for the concepts a and b, and I have said that concept/context [world O] is a duality [measurement/entanglement duality in world P] and the phrase ‘space/field produced by the mind/brain’ could be classed as a chaotic statement [both correct and incorrect at the same time], so I will explain with a digression.

 

Some time ago, I used the mathematics of concepts [or, as it was then, the Mathematics of the Mind] to derive three Laws of Life: (1) creation [iteration, componentization (like an atom, evolution etc.), time passing etc., (2) state of mind, nutrition and exercise etc. and (3) family life and teaching the young etc. These are expressed in the terms of the mathematics of concepts [hence the etc.] and, given that mathematics is a recent invention, it is not surprising that these Laws mirror the Trinity of the Bible and suggest that the Holy Spirit, that has been ‘lost’ for 2,000 years is the second Law (2) (see chapter 1). The first Law is the Creation [God the Father] and the third Law is God the Son. It is well known that the Church has always believed that the environment was for man’s use, but that idea must change in view of the current extinction event.

 

From above, every concept has an associated context, and the concept of the mind/brain has the second and third Laws as context because we must relate ourselves to the environment [Law (2)] and prepare offspring for the environment on their own [Law (3)]. Thus, the mind/brain field/space has two contexts whereby we keep ourselves healthy [considering that 60% of adults are overweight or obese] and prepare our children to enter the community. The mind is a ‘higher’ use of a brain that is composed of a multitude of cells and by coming together, produce an organization that has new properties that tie into the surrounding universe through improved measurement [lensed eyes leading to forward-planning etc.].

 

The above is, as in the mathematics of concepts, laying out the most pertinent concepts ready to apply the context to derive a version of the Unified Field Theory and it may pay to ‘lay to rest’ a couple of ‘urban myths’ considering quantum mechanics and relativity. They are simple concepts and will allow us to appreciate the concept and context of fields. Relativity is a logical requirement because the ratio of space to time dimensions demands a constant speed of light [for all/different energies] that becomes indeterminate and produces logical chaos if a particle exceeds the speed of our measuring rod. Quantum mechanics arises because we live in a probability universe and a probability space ‘quests’ over every alternative and the result must be indeterminate unless a measurement forces it to become determinate. That has disposed of those two problems easily because we used concept/logic in both cases and that is the fifth dimension (a+b)=1.

 

Now, we find that fields have to belong in a space that holds them [much like the zeroth law was appended to this oversight of the three laws of thermodynamics] and that is the probability space of existence that over-arches everything, supports the Big-Bang/Big-Whoosh and holds energy in different states that ‘meshes’ with the two [strong and weak force], above. However, electromagnetic quanta, I believe, are constrained [by the dimensions] to a relatively slow speed and, I also believe, they are ‘free’ energy, however, quanta are essential to Life-fields in transferring energy [and balancing energy].

 

The total energy in the universe appears to be zero [not least for logical reasons] and that means that literally everything is the result of ‘splitting’ into matter/anti-matter, positive/negative electric charges, positive and negative energies and north/south magnetic poles and I believe that their effects are linked by the basic properties of measurement/entanglement in our probability universe. Notice that a different effect occurs when energy is created, because creation of energy [splitting] increases time and space].

 

 

Finally, I believe that there is another secondary absolute from the fifth dimension (a+b)=1 that makes an over-arching description of our physical universe be measurement/entanglement/ecstasy and this is carried into world O through the evolution of Life. Ecstasy, or a feeling of resonance through measurement/entanglement is ‘available’/we-have-made-use-of the questing of the solution of (a+b), and that is the Golden ratio that has intrigued scholars for hundreds, perhaps thousands of years as a source of beauty/contentment, and that concept will/has been dealt with more fully in the future. This concept/field entwines/involves a huge proportion of our lives as in the search for personal beauty including jewellery, high heels etc., the enjoyment of music, drugs, food etc.

The fundamental interactions to be unified are:

  1. a probability of existence space over-arches the fields that are defined by the dimensions: space-time and (a+b)=1, for simplicity and for measurement/observers a and b and remembering that energy, as the sole occupier of the space is effectively a dimension.
  2. Strong interaction: the interaction responsible for holding quarks together to form hadrons, and holding neutrons and also protons together to form atomic nuclei. The exchange particle that mediates this force is the gluon.
  3. Electromagnetic interaction: the familiar interaction that acts on electrically charged particles. The photon is the exchange particle for this energy [I have changed energy for force because force requires a measurement].
  4. Weak interaction: a short-range interaction responsible for some forms of radioactivity, that acts on electrons, neutrinos, and quarks. It is mediated by the W and Z bosons [and invokes/requires probability].
  5. Gravitational interaction: a long-range attractive interaction that acts on all energies (having a energy component and a logic component) [measurement/entanglement/logic]. The logic component is instantaneous and the energy component has a constant speed of light because the dimensions change by the same amount [Lorentz factor].
  6. Measurement/entanglement duality from the equation/illustration (a+b)=1 that a and b have no absolute solution (except for the speed of light).
  7. Measurement/entanglement duality from the equation/illustration (a and b)=1. Notice that F and G produce Plato’s problem of no absolute [of justice etc.] because the equation has a solution/absolute [speed of light].
  8. Organization affects every relationship and through the fifth dimension (a +/and b)=1 can be derived concepts/attractors in the form of a mathematics of concepts that describes in a transparent way the concepts used in the prediction. This allows specialization  but still keeps the basic over-arching attractors.
  9. Questing field can be derived from a probability space and is the requirement that measurements remain indeterminant until a measurement is made by an iteration or mind/brain. This is the basis of quantum mechanics, evolution, business growth etc.
  10. Singularity field is the ability of a field to prevent a singularity occurring that would effect a logic or measurement chaotic effect universe-wide or within an attractor [necessitating a boundary]. Our universe relativises the dimensions of energy/mass, space and time-passing by the Lorentz factor as the relative speed of two frames of reference approach the speed of light in vacuo [logic limit]. Our universe has been successful in 400 billion galaxies over 14 billion years, otherwise we would not be here [logic of selection].
  11. Mind/brain field is the building/evolving of a new type of field on top of the measurement/entanglement field that is the probability space [world P] turning it into a concept/context/determinate field of the mind/brain complete with special units of distance and speed to guage predator/prey behavior. This is the world O of mathematics and physics [limited context] that (probably) is causing an Extinction event on the planet.
  12. Mathematics of the Mind is the correct/optimal [derivable from the dimensions] way of using the mind/brain and the bio-computer/evolution ‘proves’ that the Mathematics of the Mind and the mathematics of concepts are the same. In other words, the countless iterations of evolution have produced a mathematically optimal system (in the mind/brain).
  13. Environmental field (second Law of Life) is the reality that allows organisms to co-exist and reproduce and contains a mathematical/logic ‘machine’ [componentization, atom, evolution etc.] that is the basis of Survival of the Fittest, where the fittest produce more offspring. The individual relies on state of mind, exercise and nutrition within the environment to increase the number of viable offspring.
  14. Family field (third Law of Life) is the practice of protecting and teaching the young offspring to enhance their chances of survival on their own. Longer lived species tend to do this, presumably to increase the success rate per energy expended. This introduces sub-fields because continued breeding success requires that the old members should die before the younger inexperienced members [death orgene, illogical requirement that the more expeienced should die before the less experienced] and old long-lived females should stop breeding because birth defects increase with age.
  15. Money field is a social convenience that everyone accepts by donating their time and energy at work in exchange for promises of future purchasing power and trusting that it will remain ‘stable’.
  16. University field is a unique repository of knowledge and so forth through all the fields/orgainizations that are determinate to us. The Mathematics of concepts can hanle this multitude, but there are simple steps that must be followed as discussed in chapter 73.
  17. Beauty/contentment/enjoyment field that, I believe, we have evolved from the absolute of the solution of the fifth dimension that we call the Golden ratio. [Notice that this is conceptually different to Plato’s problem, that is a lack of an absolute]
  18. And so on.

It is readily apparent that these fields/organizations are concepts that are on-going and need the mathematics of concepts to use context to derive predictions by a mind/brain or iteration. At the same time it is apparent that the ‘array’ of concepts are a mathematics of concepts and can be ‘ranked’, or more fields that are of importance to a speciality/field-of-expertise can be added. Further, generalists are unwelcome within establishments, and I presume that the reason is that they know little of the field of endeavour and are thought to contribute little. However, if we equate specialists with concepts, we have to consider that generalists are context and given the above, that concept and context are independent but both are important/necessary [like orthogonalty], I believe, that this is why the world is in an Extinction event and perhaps Plato’s democracy is the place to start (chapter 67).

Conclusion: a Unified Field Theory, to unify everything cannot be simple [because it has to include everything], but it is simple when the mathematics of concepts is used, because the mathematics of concepts is immediately apparent from the fifth dimension and the dimensions embrace everything. The existing theory contains four fields ranging from sub-atomic to universe-wide, so this extension of the theory is simply filling in the ‘bits’ between. The ability of the mathematics of concepts to include mathematics, physics etc. is ‘complex/elegant’ [but the opposite to ‘simple/elegant’] and allows the areas of interest to be prioritised in a way that mathematics cannot do [without a mind/brain selecting them with some context in mind, which is, of course, the mathematics of concepts].

 

Further, the existing theory uses ‘common’ logic that assumes that a ‘particle’ affects the ‘object of interest’ but this ‘particle’ can be expanded into measurement, questing, trusting etc. In other words, this extension fills out the theory and gets rid of assumptions and relaces them with the dimensions, and unifies everything, so it could be called the Unifying Theory, or perhaps just ‘I’ve got it now’!

 

It is time that Newton’s work was updated and the mixture of measurement and logic in world O be sorted out. Newton has ‘carried’ science for far too long, and specialists rule the academic world, but it is time for generalists to expand context to its rightful 50/50 balance with concepts and ‘balance’ our civilization. Science has ‘mined’ the fifth dimension, to a limited extent, and done a lot better than the other organizations, as one would expect/hope, albeit, possibly by luck, but universities should be given their ‘due’ and are our best choice to give Plato a chance before fear/lack-of-change brings on Armageddon.

 

References: (1) all quotations are fully referenced in the body and earlier chapters can be found on   http://darrylpenney.com  if required.

 

Chapter 74: Extending the Unified Field Theory

Chapter 73: The Science of Organization/management, Why Science Got Lucky, Towards a Unified Field Theory, Plato’s Political System Appears Optimal and is a Pathway to Solving the World’s Problems

 

Abstract: the mind/brain appears to have created an Extinction Event in the Cambrian and it is doing so again, at the present time, and the problem is being caused by our lack of adequate tools of organization/management that we are trying to use top-down and which make more sense when viewed from a bottom-up prospective using the dimensions of a probability space [our universe]. The quantum/evolution – logic/gravity description of the universe produces a range of conditions/understanding that can be applied to every organization/society, and science, as practiced today, struck it lucky in a top-down approach that ‘proves the rule’ and its success shows how effective the application of the science of organization/management can be to solving the world’s problems and re-establishing a meaningful evolution through Plato’s politics. The mathematics of concepts requires relevance/relativity and assigned absolutes and indicates how a Unified Field Theory is derivable.

There have been many Ages: the Stone Age, Computer Age etc. and they all had a concept and context, where the concept is a product of the Age but the context was the fitting of that age into human history. The Mind is the greatest concept of all and occurred when single cells ‘contracted’ [in the placebo/nocebo effect] to join together to create a higher/more-useful mind/brain, and together with the lensed eyes in the Cambrian, I believe, caused a massive change to evolution through an extinction event that led to the formation of hard fossils that laid out the study of evolution.

 

The Cambrian could be called the Age of the Mind because of the swift change from soft bodied creatures that (literally) had to bump into each other for a predator/prey situation to occur, to teeth and other hard parts that came about as lensed eyes made forward-planning possible [the blossoming of the sixth dimension]. The Theory of Everything suggests that consciousness has always been with us, from the repetition of a falling apple through the consciousness of life to the mind/brain of humans. Unfortunately, the present Age of the Mind is creating another Extinction Event, similar to that of the Cambrian, but now we have the means to control it, and I believe that that means is the Selection of the Best (mathematics of concepts) [concept] and using Plato’s political system [context] to help effect it.

 

Our world is in a mess because we moved out of the reality of Survival of the Fittest [an iteration] to our own creation of farming, that I call Survival of the Best (mathematics) and mathematics is a special case of the mathematics of concepts and we used concepts without adequate context and consequently are heading towards Armageddon and that shows how problems can quickly occur [in only 10,000 years] when a special case is used instead of the general/workable case. An Extinction Event can be avoided using the mathematics of concepts and the provision of a goal [sixth dimension, absolute] because these are basic/fundamental requirements that need to be understood about an organization. A simple example is that science sets up an experiment [goal/concept/assigned absolute] and brings the results into a context/theory. Contrast this method to the promises of politicians, and their lack of suitable goals, and it is little wonder why the world is in a mess.

 

The mathematics of concepts is necessary to deal with the ‘soft’ sciences that can’t use the exactitude of mathematics and it took me years to develop this mathematics of concepts, only to find that it can be written elegantly as (a +/and b) =1 for concepts/measurements a and b, and the ‘+/and’ is shorthand for context/logic that forms a duality with concept/measurement. The problem with such simple relationships is that you have to realize what the concepts/contexts mean, and an example is that the basis/definition of quantum mechanics is to investigate every possibility. Another simple example, (a+b)=1 mathematically has no unique solution, and that solves Plato’s problem of no absolute of justice etc., and it will be shown, below, that there is one absolute, the speed of light in vacuo that is the same to all observers [Michelson-Morley].

 

It might seem unusual that justice etc. should be used in the same sentence as the speed of light, but the universe is composed of organizations of all different things [stars, businesses, tree growth etc.]  and the dimensions of our universe are the most fundamental part to use to build a bottom-up view of organizations. It is essential that a bottom-up view be taken because top-down does not answer the question ‘why?’, only ‘how?’ and this adds uncertainty to the answers. As an example, mathematics is a special case of the mathematics of concepts, and whilst I derived it in another way, when you know what it is, it is obvious from the dimension (a+b)=1.

 

Notice that there are two dualities, measurement/logic and concept/context, and [in chapter 72], measurement/logic applies to a mathematical (world P) probability space, such as our universe, but Life has evolved along a time-line as shown by the Theory of Everything and has evolved a mind/brain that uses a Mathematics-of-the-Mind/mathematics-of-concepts (world O). World O uses the same fifth dimension as world P, but with the addition of a new dimension six, that is forward-planning and concepts instead of probabilities.

 

In other words, cells took billions of years to evolve [the cell wall must remain small for strength] and so cells joined together to form multi-cellular organisms [an organization] and that resulted in the placebo/nocebo contract [two-way conversation] and allowed, I believe, the evolution of the much more efficient lensed eyes that led to predator/prey attacks and forward-planning [sixth dimension] evolving. The mind, I believe, is a mechanism that ‘quests’ concepts using the ‘principle’ of quantum mechanics, as quantum mechanics ‘quests’ the relation (a+b)=1 [fifth dimension] where every point in a probability space has a probability and the sum of all probabilities over all points remains 1, and this calculation is carried out instantly and continuously. Remember that a probability of existence space has an infinitely small chance of existing [at 1] and likewise, has an infinitely small chance of not existing [=0], and forms a ‘twilight zone’.

 

To digress, I have always had problems with why iteration and the mind/brain produced measurements and now realize that the questing of quantum mechanics is the answer and that is a basic property of a probability space and it is there for anything, such as a limit of an iteration or the questing of a mind/brain. In other words, why can an iteration or mind brain ‘force’/interact-with the universe to ‘register’ a ‘snap-shot’ of the universe going about its business and it must be that part of a probability space that quests, and that is a basic property shown by the fifth dimension (a +/and b)=1, that is ‘+/and’.

 

To repeat, the mind, I believe, is a mechanism that ‘quests’ concepts using a process that is the basis of quantum mechanics, but using the mathematics of concepts as a ‘plural’ [concepts/context duality] instead of the probability space’s ‘singular’ [measurement/entanglement duality] (see chapter 72) and produces a space that is not an entangled probability, but is a space restricted to our reality and as such, uses the mathematics of concepts with its intrinsic indeterminism.

 

Relativity only causes problems because of the way it is viewed and the Michelson-Morley experiment [(a+b)=1=(a+c) for the speed of light a and observers b and c, indicates b=c] shows that two observers are relativised by both seeing the speed of light [a] to be the same. Relativisation [(a +/and b)=1)] is a property of a probability space and is quite natural, and uses the Lorentz transformation on each of mass/energy, length and time, which are the five dimensions [space-time and (a +/and b) =1]. Notice that all of the dimensions are affected equally, as we would expect, as it is logically simpler to act on all dimensions equally [Occam’s razor, which is a simple solution to the mathematics of concepts] and the speed of light [a] is a ratio of distance [dimension] divided by time [dimension], so, the speed of light is constant and an absolute [the transformation cancels, the equation has a solution].

 

It is interesting that inflation in the Big Bang may have been caused by the same relativisation of dimensions being linked [energy increase/splitting produces space and time increases via the Lorentz transformation] and that, I believe, is the same simple process that is used by [constant] energy in the form of photons to maintain the internal ‘book-keeping’ of the conservation of energy [chapter 72] [and as a means of movement]. The dimensions determine everything and especially physics, above, but we can expand our view and produce/find a Unified Field Theory because there are a limited number of [distinct] possibilities that the fifth dimension can attain.

 

Unless we control our lives, we have problems such as obesity, overpopulation, crime, health problems etc. and these concepts have contexts attached [concept/context duality/orthogonality] and it is only when a measurement of a concept is made that it becomes determinant, as does the context. A simple example would be the obesity epidemic, (partially) caused by people ignoring the relationship of state of mind, exercise and nutrition [Second Law of Life] where our bodies evolved for the hunter/gatherer lifestyle of the Paleolithic and not the modern culture of laziness, poor nutrition [‘quality’ and lack of variety] and lack of exercise.

 

Another simple example, ‘we have found that a small truffle specialist, the California red-backed vole, usually has pieces of eight to twelve species of truffles in its stomach at any one time. Although a single, medium-sized truffle would fill its tiny stomach, it chooses instead to nip around on many species. The same holds true for a great number of other small mammals around the world, particularly the obligate and preferential mycophagists. Perhaps instinct or the varied attractive odors of the different species induce them to diversify their diet and thus minimize the risk of nutritional deficiencies. (Trees, Truffles, and Beasts: How Forests Function, Maser, Claridge and Trappe, p 100) I firmly believe that processed ‘foods’ and a severely restricted range of natural foods is helping cause the ‘obesity epidemic’ in the developed world, not to mention the ‘modern diseases’.

 

The fifth dimension [(a +/and b) =1] contains the logic operator ‘and’, and the proviso that an accounting and readjustment of (a+b+c+….)=1 [relativisation] is carried out instantaneously and given that the universe is [only] energy in various states, the Law of Conservation of Energy is nothing more than this relativisation of the logic component [of gravity] of the various forms of energy [gravity, kinetic, chemical, matter, dark energy, etc.] where gravity energy is negative and all the rest positive. The duality of measurement/entanglement leads to two equations of the form: 0=energy of all the terms (gravity + kinetic etc.) and logic of all the terms (gravity + kinetic etc.), the speed of gravity (logic) is infinite and the maximum speed of all other energies is the speed of light [an absolute]

 

An interesting point is that everything is indeterminate because a probability space must investigate every possibility and it can only do that if it is free to do it, and measurement by iteration or mind/brain makes a concept and context determinant, at that instant. Notice that this indeterminacy was one of the ‘oddities’ of quantum mechanics, but in this (logical) ‘light’/question is necessary. As an example, photons will be a wave or a particle depending on how we measure them. The key to a probability space is relativisation because every frame of reference is continually changing with respect to the conservation of energy and this is shown by the continual changing energy of electromagnetic quanta [Pound-Rebka].

 

‘Let me raise a few points which seem not to have been made the subject of scholarly investigation. I have always been puzzled by the strange wording of the definitions of mass, momentum, and force, at the beginning of the Principia. For example, Definition I states “the quantity of matter is the measure of the same, arising from its density and its bulk conjointly”. Why does Newton again and again identify a physical property or quantity with its measure? There is surely more to a physical quantity than a statement of how it is measured? The answer is possibly to be found in Newton’s early Scholium on absolute space and time. Since, according to Newton, we can only measure relative space and time, and not absolute space and time, all we can know about physical quantities are not the absolute quantities themselves but merely their relative substitutes – that is, their measures. This argument is not well worked out by Newton.’ (Let Newton be!, John Henry, p 59, edited by John Fauvel)

 

‘It is not always appreciated that, 60 years ago, the makers of modern quantum theory were totally steeped, immersed, educated, brainwashed, if you like – in the mathematical methods of Lagrange and Hamilton; these ideas had grown out of, and were the natural evolution of, Newton’s dynamical ideas.’ (p 244) Further, ‘as we now know, his faith in forces was justified to such an extent that it is widely regarded as Newton’s most important scientific innovation.’ (p 128) ‘A slightly naughty thought can come to one’s mind here. Is it due to the nature of physics that the mathematical tools started by Newton are so essential for many parts of physics through the centuries? Or is our selection of worked-on parts of physics still largely Newtonian? (p 244)

 

These quotations are included to show the effect that Newton had on physics and his ideas on forces/action-at-a-distance/gravity set physics on a path of concept without the context of the repetition of the falling apple and it is apparent that forces/action-at-a-distance/gravity are simply and easily explained though measurement/entanglement/logic [concept/context]. The second quotation suggests that science has been ‘running’ with only ‘half of the ball’ and perhaps the time has come to put context to concepts. Even Newton ‘recognized’ relativity and measurement, but the use of ‘forces’ [instead of the logic duality] was top-down, and that has been the problem.

 

In other words, these quotations link together what I am saying in this chapter with the historical development of the ‘hole’ that has developed in physics that Newton (effectively) postulated and Einstein explicitly stated as ‘spooky action at a distance’. There is a reason for action at a distance if we consider our universe to be a probability space and I have proved it, to my satisfaction, at least, time and time again.

 

The fifth dimension is similar to the workings ascribed to a God by some religions and Life has evolved because evolution is very similar to quantum mechanics in that both record probabilities/possibilities as humans (and all living creatures) investigate every niche by trying every permutation of life-form and continuing to exist, if possible [mathematical/logical testing]. The biocomputer of life is there for us to guide ourselves and ‘human beings and their social orders are intrinsically imperfectible and fortunately so. In a constantly changing world, we need the flexibility that only imperfection provides.’ (The Social Conquest of Earth, Edward O. Wilson, p 241) In other words, the concepts behind relativity and quantum mechanics are wide-spread as relevance/relativity and ‘questing’ and are common organizational terms [it can be seen that a Unified Field Theory is emerging].

 

The above can be viewed as a ‘quantum/evolution – logic/gravity description of the universe’ and that seems to include enough descriptive components with the advantage that ‘quantum/evolution’ are concepts and ‘logic/gravity’ are contexts. Also, it is apparent that mathematics gives way to the elegance of the use of the mathematics of concepts, as above, and this should promote confidence of its use in the softer sciences and in particular, bringing reality [a steady state] to our planet because it is impractical for us to move to another planet. ‘If global change caused by HIPPO (Habitat destruction, Invasive species, Pollution, Overpopulation and Overharvesting, in that order of importance) are not abated, half the species of plants and animals could be extinct or at least among the “living dead” – about to become extinct – by the end of the century.’ (p 294)

 

The dimensions are fundamental and contain the solution if we work together to effect a Survival of the Best (mathematics of concepts) through state of mind, exercise, nutrition and getting on with the neighbours [second and third Laws of Life, reality]. The iteration of Survival of the Fittest was superseded about 10,000 years ago by farmers doing what they thought was best, and as a consequence, the average height dropped [assuming a poorer diet] by about four inches, whilst the mid-Victorians [How the Mid-Victorians Worked, Ate and Died, Paul Clayton and Judith Rowbotham] lived as long as we do [those after the age of five years due to infant mortality], in spite of modern medical care. This indicates that when we took over control, our health suffered and it is suffering now with 60% of adults overweight or obese, and further, I maintain that our chances of averting an Armageddon will improve if we use the general case of organization/management, as shown below.

 

The dimensions are used in, and dictate every-day life, and as examples, consider that forward-planning [sixth dimension applicable to us] is crucial to projects and it is apparent why politics is not saving the world [it has little forward-planning and our idea of democracy is flawed, Plato’s democracy, chapter (67)]. Another example is the ‘tragedy of the commons’ that assigns concept [anyone can use it] but no context of how it should be used, and similar, judges decide that the floor-covering in units is to be the owner’s choice because they are not common property [concept], but the hard flooring, instead of carpet that used to be required, creates noise for other residents [context] and the problem is that the judges used concept without context. The solution is a costly tribunal to try to force the owners to put down carpet and hardly worth the effort, so discomfort is forced on residents because the judges’ lack of context.

 

Examples like this abound because it is not understood that concept and context are always a duality/independent and when forced to consider both in the mathematics of concepts it becomes clear that the judges, the renovators and the managing agents form a ‘cascade’ of people ‘not doing their jobs properly’, and I maintain that the use of mathematics [or management, at present] is a special case and that it needs the general case to make the correct decisions. The mathematics of concepts is transparent and shows the concepts that were considered [a history/measurement that is always available, relevance/relativity] and anyone can introduce a new concept [and if relevant, and that shows why the history/measurement must be available] that changes the context by general agreement. There is no unique solution, and that is its strength, and that strength could be called relativisation because, as above, it keeps the overall result ‘constant’ [relevant], and that is what we need for the planet [to enter a reality, constant population].

 

Our concept of democracy, that the majority wins/controls, is flawed because the majority are as ignorant/misinformed/uninformed as the minority and a more sensible way is to change the two-way [politicians-media-voters] into a three-way [politicians-media-universities-media-voters, Plato’s democracy, chapter 67]. So, by combining a mathematics of concepts [context], Plato’s democracy [concept], forward- planning [sixth dimension] and setting a goal [absolute, using universities], we would have a much better chance of bringing the human race ‘to heel’ before Armageddon throws us back to Survival of the Fittest [an iteration not involving a mind/brain].

 

To repeat and clarify, the same ‘forces’/inevitability/evolution from the dimensions affect and describe the universe, above, and our daily life, and we live in the shadow of Armageddon, that we brought about and is our most pressing concern. The mathematics of concepts is basic [and new] to all parties and allows the basic attributes behind each law to be continually scrutinized and changed [relativisation, (1) below] if needed, as time goes by. The ‘quality’ of those laws needs the universities [(5) below] to keep the politicians ‘honest/relevant’ and long-term goals must be set [absolute, forward-planning, (4) below] to aim for.

 

I have said that the pressing problem of the world is Armageddon and the solution below will solve it, and I believe that this claim is true because the method was derived from the dimensions and is the general solution of organization/management that creates a science from, what has been called, the ‘art of management’ because all of the factors have been derived. Thus, given that relativisation (1), the mathematics of concepts (2) and setting out the concepts/attractors and setting the context (3), the use of an absolute (4) [forward-planning] chosen by the universities (5) [the ‘best’ absolute] are derived above.

 

Further, (6) is experimentation/trials/measurement etc., as suggested by Francis Bacon to bring about a ‘scientific method’ that has proved spectacularly successful in science/technology and this could be considered a ‘break-through’ because most ‘science’ was derived by ‘thought’ for thousands of years. However, the duality of concept/context and measurement/logic means that theorists (7) should be included and it is apparent that a mathematics of concepts has been set up [(1) to (7) in total] where more factors produce a better organization, but what is the purpose of an organization? An organization is set up for a number of reasons, but basically it is to satisfy a need and/or to evolve (8), and I should stress that these eight points are (possibly) the most important of many more that may need to be considered.

 

The comparison of the rules of organization, above, with the basis of science, below, shows that the success of science was organizationally lucky/fortuitous, because, from above, many of our organizations are inadequate, such as the process of law, the making of laws by public servants, the food offered by shops, the fishing industry [a commons] etc. are deficient, but science was a ‘stroke’ of luck because acceptance (1) of a theory is required by scientists in general and that theory requires the mathematics of concepts (2) [to compare theories] and invites additions and checking (3) of the result (4) by those with a long-time career (5) in the subject and this often requires experimentation (6) and theorists (7) to fit it all together, and finally, the overall idea of science is to ‘push’ the boundaries (8) of what we know. It is hard to resist a giggle that science has been using the fifth dimension, top-down without acknowledging its existence!

 

The above assertion is bottom-up [derived from first principles] and expands, not just science, but into organizations in general, and forms a seamless transition across science/social-science/organizations to, perhaps solving the world’s problems by organizing every organization into the scientific form. The basic structure in the United Nations, World Bank etc. is in place, and each country contains a similar police/judiciary/political-system, so that it would not be a large step to ‘fix’ the system, especially as the police and judiciary form a reality, although the political system needs work [politics freely acknowledges that it is biased, self-seeking, greedy etc.], but, there is a way to bypass the political system, as below.

 

So, the time has come to put these simple concepts together, and I stress that these concepts are simple, but elusive because unless we use bottom-up, simplicity is difficult to see [unless we use the biocomputer of evolution with its multitude of iterations]. For example, the Rule of Life uses the concept of the vast number of ‘iterations’/questing/logical-decisions [in the way of quantum-mechanics/probability space] to bring the mind/body to such a complicated state that there is the question [by some groups] as to whether the body evolved or was it ‘designed’?

 

The above is the derivation [bottom/up] of seemingly simple concepts, such as the ‘relevance’ of the market in which a business/organization is operating, but this concept is often overlooked [or relegated to a marginal cost scenario] and yet relativity/relevance is such a large part of modern physics and further, is a large part of living through a mind/brain [less relevant, by way of usage, leads to the ‘sub-conscious’]. The same applies to quantum mechanics, where the ‘questing’ is the important principle and leads to growth/evolution. These basic ‘qualities’ of organization, relevance and questing that we have been discussing are ‘fields of endeavour’ particular to our universe and can be ‘handled’/linked with a mathematics of concepts into the existing Unified Field Theory. The very reason why relativity and quantum mechanics are ‘difficult’ to envisage/manage/understand is because we lack/not-using the tools/understanding that I am suggesting here. Five dimensions does not lead to a complicated world when we understand it.

 

Given that these fundamental concepts have been dealt with previously, I will restrict the discussion to the following simple example of trying to avert Armageddon by indicating a pathway. I have previously mentioned Plato’s three-way concept of democracy [voters-media-university-media-politicians] and would like to add the above to it by stating that, of all the organizations, the universities/science are (perhaps) unique in that they (fortuitously, because at other periods, science did not) follow the basic principles of organization, above. So, given that we desire a democracy [of some sort] where voters are, to a large extent ignorant and selfish, that universities/science is the best that humanity can do, and that politicians are a necessary ‘evil’ and are ‘controlled’/limited in the damage that they can do [through monitoring and losing control to science], we have an answer that can guide all organizations.

 

In other words, given that a ‘democracy’ is generally considered to be better than other forms of government [history, bio-computer, placebo/nocebo] where the voters can only be trusted to exhibit general tendencies/choices/wants and that politicians are ‘limelight seeking’ individuals of no particular mental strengths, the universities, with their ‘proper’/formal organizational strength (as above) can bring the accumulated knowledge to the subject that is to be voted on, is crucial to success. Surely this must be better than watching Malcolm Turnball floundering in indecision whilst getting ‘advice’ from everyone except the universities.

 

Conclusion/prediction: to transform the governing of the planet requires only a simple change in several regards, as above, to bring the organization/management into a science, based on the dimensions that are shown to describe the universe as ‘quantum/environment – logic/gravity’ that contains our world and our ecological/political/social etc. systems. The move to renewable energy is an obvious first step, but population is the problem and there are ways to bring this under control and resume our evolution. The science of organization/management gives a bottom-up solution of the problem that we have got ourselves into and the success of our present science/technology has, in hind-sight, been (literally) a ‘stroke’ of luck, but does show what can be done with a bottom-up recognition of the solution. This ‘stroke’ of luck [of science] forms part of the proposed Plato’s democracy and, from bottom-up, shows the logical path to follow to avert Armageddon and re-start evolution.

 

Prediction: just as the mathematics of concepts requires a history to provide relevance/relativity, it forces a prediction [or quest], and I now realize that that prediction is an assigned absolute leading to forward-planning (sixth dimension) and (perhaps) the above could fit into one of the ‘dreams’ of a New World Order or Unified Field Theory. ‘There may be no a priori reason why the correct description of nature has to be a unified field theory. However, this goal has led to a great deal of progress in modern theoretical physics and continues to motivate research.’ (Wikipedia, Unified field theory) There is an a priori description of the universe that I have called ‘quantum/evolution-logic/gravity’ and it is derived from the five dimensions, above.

 

References: (1) this chapter (73) follows and adds to chapter (72): The Why and the How of the Big Bang, Why the Universe is ‘Flat’, Inflation and Quanta are Explained, Why Feynman was Correct, Why Matter Predominates over Antimatter, Why the Speed of Light is Constant and an Absolute, Relativisation is the Work-horse of the Universe, the ‘Face’ of God, Dark Energy Might be Necessary for Survival and the Super-world of the Mind

(2) all quotations are fully referenced in the body and earlier chapters can be found on   http://darrylpenney.com  if required.

 

Chapter 73: The Science of Organization/management, Why Science Got Lucky, Towards a Unified Field Theory, Plato’s Political System Appears Optimal and is a Pathway to Solving the World’s Problems

Chapter 72: The Why and the How of the Big Bang, Why the Universe is ‘Flat’, Inflation and Quanta are Explained, Why Feynman was Correct, Why Matter Predominates over Antimatter, Why the Speed of Light is Constant and an Absolute, Relativisation is the Work-horse of the Universe, the Fifth Dimension, Dark Energy Might be Necessary for Survival, the Super-world of the Mind, Gravity and the Law of Conservation of Energy Unfolded

Abstract: I have inserted a bottom-up ‘floor’ under science to place the concepts in context by suggesting that our universe is a probability space and using the dimensions of that space to provide context. Examples are given as to why the universe is predominately matter, not anti-matter, the reason that the speed of light is a constant for all energies, why and how light moves in a vacuum and the logic/quantum/gravity description of our universe suggests that inflation occurred due to a simple relativisation of the dimensions that are related through the Lorentz transformation, provides an explanation of why the universe is expanding at a constant rate, how Feynman’s approach to quantum mechanics was right for the wrong reasons and the suggestion that (a+b)=1 is the fifth dimension and the ‘face of God’ and shows the relativisation that is the mechanics behind the working of the universe. The creation of Dark Energy is a natural process and a large quantity of it may be necessary for the continuance of life and the basic equations are given that determine the how and the why of the Law of Conservation of Energy. It is shown that the principle behind quantum mechanics leads to evolution, business, society etc. Our simple probability space universe has a measurement/entanglement duality and Life has created/evolved a concept/context duality super-world of the mind that uses the mathematics of concepts.

I believe that the Michelson-Morley experiment proves that our universe is a probability space and I have defined the multiverse and found that we are ‘abstractions’ that evolved because we could in this universe and that a probability of existence space always exists between 0 and 1 and from its dimensions (three space, time passing and (a +/and b)=1 for measurement/observers a, b, as an illustration) can be seen the mathematics of concepts. A probability space is the basis of quantum mechanics, that everything is possible, if it is possible, and measurement by an iterative process or mind/brain makes it determinant to the measurer. In other words, a probability space must try all combinations, which means that something must be indeterminate until an iteration or mind/brain forces it to be the thing that the measurer requires. That is the reason that a photon is a wave or particle when we measure it, because our mind/brain interprets the outcome of an experiment in one of those ways, and further (a +/and b)=1 has been used to show that the fifth dimension is both a measurement/entanglement or a concept/context duality depending on the measurer.

 

The fifth dimension (a +/and b)=1) shows that CEM (mathematics of concepts/entanglement/measurement) of measurement/observers a and b must have entanglement and no solution except for one absolute, which, from the Michelson-Morley experiment is the speed of light in vacuo because the space/universe relativises all observers to see it as a constant and a maximum speed for energy (logic is infinitely fast). The reason that all of the dimensions of a frame of reference change (length, time, mass etc.) as the frame approaches the speed of light with respect to the observer’s frame is because Occam’s razor (a simple solution of the mathematics of concepts) suggests that a ‘simple’ solution is more likely, and it is simpler (logically) to relativise all of the dimensions, and this appears to be the case, in that the Lorentz transformation is used in space, mass and time relativity. This simplification will be seen to be basic to the inflation process and the constancy of the speed of light. Notice that everything in the universe is energy in various forms/states and ‘over-arches’ the dimensions and is both part of, and not part of the dimensions.

 

In our probability universe, the creation/destruction of particle pairs is continuous (energy of a vacuum) and they have an infinitely small probability of being 1 (certainty), but being so many, occasionally form a certainty of formation of a new possibility of existence universe (Big Bang). Notice that a particle/anti-particle pair is produced that (should) be complementary/identical and lead to the creation of a matter universe and an anti-matter universe, that are separate, but logically linked, and this simplifies the fact of why we live in a matter universe (whilst the anti-matter universe is distinct), except for any ‘splitting’ forced on matter within this universe. This statement may answer the question, ‘the antimatter content is less than a hundredth of a per cent; otherwise one would see gamma rays resulting from matter-antimatter annihilations. The observed universe consists almost exclusively of matter.’ (the infinite cosmos: questions from the frontiers of cosmology, Joseph Silk, p 117)

 

No energy moves into the new universe, only the logic of certainty of the creation of a probability space and the total energy in all universes is zero, and remains so, as do angular momentum and electric charges, and the speed of propagation of logic/entanglement must be instantaneous in a probability space. ‘Inflationary cosmology justifies, and indeed predicts, that the universe has zero energy, but it also tells us something quite new: the universe began when both its gravitational energy and kinetic energy were arbitrarily close to zero.’ (p 136)

 

As a solid basis, the Michelson-Morley experiment’s relativisation indicates/proves that our universe is a probability space and the relativisation of the dimensions shows the reason why the bizarre effects of relativity are not bizarre at all (also see chapter 71). In other words, the effect of the Michelson-Morley experiment trivialises the reasons behind relativity, and we have reached a point, by using a bottom-up approach, where we can answer many of the ‘whys’ of science and life. When it is realized that our universe is a probability space, the fifth dimension (a +/and b)=1 places concept and context at our disposal and provides the ‘why’ because that is the context of the concept.

 

The sum of the values at every point in a mathematical probability space (always) sum to 1, but it could be 0 (to match the above), which is the sum of the energy, angular momentum, electric charge etc. in our (energy) universe. The universe forms at some temperature, that I will call ‘cold’ and when this space forms, logic/context (of entanglement (a+b)) is instantaneously present, because that is a property of a probability space, leaving the measurement/concepts behind because this energy component moves only at a maximum/absolute speed of light. Remember that everything is ‘cold’ and as the logic/context moves ‘out’ infinitely fast from the ‘point’ of creation another ‘effect’ is taking place.

 

I am putting a ‘floor’ to the Big Bang’ and have to move into the current theory, which is, ‘there are now three pieces of evidence for the Big Bang theory that attest to an origin remote in time and emanating from an incredibly dense and hot state’. (p 106) It is not my aim to challenge the theory, only to add to the understanding, and I will carry the above a little further, remembering that the logic is moving out at t=0. Notice that the Big Bang is a property of the space and, within the constraints of the multiverse is a natural occurrence and quantum mechanics starts ‘testing’/doing-its-job and creates energy (‘free’ energy moves away, by necessity, to form a balancing potential) within the ‘point’ of creation.

 

A digression is necessary because ‘for most practical purposes quantum theory does not hold much relevance for the study of the large-scale structure of the universe because quantum theory applies to the description of nature on microscopic scales.’ (The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, p 131) This would appear to be the general consensus of opinion, but the principle of relativisation appears to be applicable to all scales because it is a function of the field/space. A simple example will show the independence of scale: the Michelson-Morley experiment shows that relativisation of the (macroscopic) observers occurs when investigating the speed of photons and that it is a product of the dimensions/universe (a+b)=1=(a+c), b=c for observers.

 

Another example is the Feynman method of the solution of the double/single slit experiment with light and a rational explanation based on the dimensions of our universe. ‘In the 1940s Richard Feynman had a startling insight regarding the difference between the quantum and Newtonian worlds…. The pattern we find when we fire molecules with both slits open is not the sum of the patterns we find when we run the experiment twice, once with just one slit open, and once with only the other open. Instead, when both slits are open we find a series of light and dark bands, the latter being regions in which no particle lands.’ (p 74)

 

‘Feynman realized … that particles take every possible path connecting those points. This, Feynman asserted, is what makes quantum physics different from Newtonian physics. The situation at both slits matters because, rather than following a single definite path, particles take every path, and they take them all simultaneously…. Feynman formulated a mathematical expression – the Feynman sum over histories – that reflects this idea and reproduces all the laws of quantum physics. In Feyman’s theory the mathematics and physical picture are different from that of the original formulation of quantum physics, but the predictions are the same.’ (p 75)

 

“In the double slit experiment Feynman’s ideas mean the particles take paths that go through only one slit or only the other; paths that thread through the first slit, back out through the second slit, and then through the first again; paths that visit the restaurant that serves that great curried shrimp ….. It might sound nutty, but for the purposes of most fundamental physics done today … Feynman’s formulation has proved more useful than the original one.’  (p 75)

 

Looking at the fifth dimension CEM (mathematics of concepts/entanglement/measurement it is literally obvious that Feynman’s formulation was correct because entanglement (context) links every point, measurement (concept) is available for every point and provides the probability that is necessary in a probability space all instantaneously. Feynman’s formulation is a mathematics of concepts that links probabilities and entanglement of energy together and in doing so, was necessarily correct, even if he didn’t know why. The simplicity, above, of quantum mechanical probabilities is, to my mind a proof that our universe is a probability space.

 

The question of ‘why?’ needs to arise from the concepts and contexts of the fifth dimension (a+b)=1 and given measurement, entanglement, logic, absolute, lack of absolutes, mathematics of concepts, relativisation etc. it becomes a possibility that (a +/and b)=1 is the ‘face’ of God, as the Churches teach that God knows everything and controls everything and (a+b)=1 is a surprising source of knowledge, and, as mentioned before offers (literally) everything in the ‘theatre’ of space-time. In fact, in human history, all knowledge, that is not space-time, has come (top-down) from the fifth dimension and placing the fifth dimension bottom-up will help solve the social problems that we are facing on this planet, and the reason for this is that science, and I should say, our ‘particular’ brand of science, using mathematics is (fortuitously) aligned with the mathematics of concepts and organization.

 

This last sentence is an example of, what I call, chaos, both correct and not correct at the same time, from the Logic of the Half-truth, below, because it gives the impression that mathematics fortuitously gave us the ‘success’/scope of science/technology, but it is not the limitations of mathematics, it is the organizational ‘strength’ of science, derived from their (fortuitous) use of the organizational method that has led to its power and alludes/leads-into the prediction below. The sentence is both correct and not correct, as it stands and needs more attractors/concepts, and it will be seen that every ‘decision’ must present (and retain) the attractors/concepts used to make that decision so that its relevance can be relied upon, and perhaps improved. It will become apparent that the ‘principle’ of quantum mechanics (for example) leads to evolution, organization, society etc. and the context of that concept is relevance/relativity.

 

As an example of the ‘principle’ of quantum mechanics leading to evolution, organization, society etc., ‘’microbes, fungi, and invertebrates in the soil are constantly busy, either by preying on one another, or consuming organic matter.’ (Trees, Truffles, and Beasts: How Forests Function, Maser, Claridge and Trappe, p 43) This is an example of the concept, but what of the context? ‘Bettongs, potoroos, wallabies, and eucalypts; voles, squirrels, deer, and firs – the first groups is Australian, the second North American. Despite their striking differences and locations on opposites of the Earth, each group interacts with truffles and tree-truffle relationships in much the same way.’ (p 75) This is the context, and further, it is parallel evolution, and becomes a ‘proof’, as much as decisional logic can be a proof.

 

This leads in to our definition of democracy that the majority ‘wins’ (concept) is insufficient unless that group is more knowledgeable on the subject of the vote (context) and this leads to Plato’s ‘democracy’ (chapter 67) and we start to realize that Selection of the Best (mathematics) is flawed and is leading us into Armageddon. We must live in a probability space because questing (concept) within context requires an iteration or mind/brain to decide a decision and act on it and I can only make a prediction that this will result in a general theory of organization.

 

In other words, every concept/measurement must have a logic/context/relativity (duality) with every other concept and that relativity can only be expressed as a probability/possibility and is called quantum-mechanics/probability-space. The super-world, of our minds, builds on this and has made mistakes, just as it has done with the Survival of the Best, and uses a time interval and requires that a particular relativity extend over time, and that is a distortion, and secondly, a decision does not (usually) contain the deriving concept/context so that its relevance can be checked as time passes, except in the case of science, where people are continually trying to re-build science to new (assigned) absolutes (the exception ‘proves’ the rule).

 

Now, from before, a small space has been created and perhaps the creation of energy came as a result of probability-‘testing’ uncertainty by quantum mechanics and Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle that says that energy/time and momentum/position form part of inequalities and inequalities ‘shield’ chaos as mentioned in the Logic of the Half-truth, see later, and in this case, the illogic of measurement is shielded because of the finite measuring devices (photons, speed of light etc.) available to us. In world P, (literally) everything is energy from the Big Bang, so the Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle becomes, for simplicity, energy/time and energy/space, but these are the dimensions and there should be another relationship for symmetry and we find that the energy terms cancel and that space divided by time [speed] is a constant for all energies of a photon.

 

This indicates that for all free energies there is a constant (absolute) speed in vacuo, and the use of the dimensions simplifies and completes the uncertainty relationships into two uncertainties and one certainty/absolute. Furthermore, the concept of energy in world P is meaningless because everything is energy and changing all the time so we have had to use world O terms and that requires a mind/brain.

 

The Law of Conservation of Energy allows negative energy to be created as potential energy to balance any creation of positive energy and the two uncertainty principles were the cause of the start of the Big Bang, then relativisation joined in. ‘One requirement any law of nature must satisfy is that it dictates that the energy of an isolated body surrounded by empty space is positive, which means that one has to do work to assemble the body. That’s because if the energy of an isolated body were negative, it could be created in a state of motion so that its negative energy was exactly balanced by the positive energy due to its motion…. Empty space would therefore be unstable.’ (The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, p 179).

 

A conceptual difference of (negative) gravity and (positive) ‘other’ energies could be thought of as one and the same (a measurement/logic duality), but independent, as has been shown, so, if the five dimensions are linked together, by a common factor, as above, (the Lorentz transformations), the creation of energy by splitting, relativises space and time and that solves the inflation problem. In other words, the Big Whoosh of energy separation creates time and space through the dimensions of the probability space at a rate that depends on the amount of energy created and should not be restricted by the speed of light, which occurs for ‘constant’ energy transfers. This effect would be natural and in a similar manner, provides the means of travel, I believe, for photons/free-energy, and that means of travel is a logical means, and that answers the puzzle of how a photon moves!

 

I have read that inflation was an increase in space and not an increase in the speed of light, as some writers promote, but using the Lorentz transformation (equally) affecting energy, time and space, it is still a leap of faith (from top-down) and does answer ‘how it occurred’, whereas the above, using the dimensions, including the fifth dimension, tells ‘how and why it occurred’. I believe that this again supports my insistence that our universe is a probability space.

 

It seems strange that a speed should be an absolute in a probability space that has ‘time passing’ as the time dimension and we know that energy must relativise continually. Time interval is world (our) O unit and books have been written over millennia trying to measure it, so looking more closely at energy/distance/time-passing, all are linked by a common relationship of the Lorentz transformation, and it becomes apparent that the speed of electromagnetic radiation is a ratio of the dimensions, not distance travelled divided by a time interval, and I believe that that forms the basis of the absolute speed that is always independent of the energy of the photon and is the ‘why’.

 

‘The puzzle that baffled a previous generation of astronomers, of why the universe should be flat, exactly balanced on the knife-edge between runaway expansion and precipitate collapse. The resolution of that puzzle turned out to be a completely new idea, the idea of inflation.’ (The Universe a Biography, John Gribbin, p 124) The idea/theory of inflation was necessary to explain the data, but the basis and reason why inflation is natural is simply explained above, and results in the relativisation by a common factor (Lorentz, through the requirement of simplicity).

 

An interesting point is that it is commonly considered that the galaxies are moving outward due to the momentum imparted by the Big-Bang/Big-Whoosh, but an alternative explanation is more ‘definitive’, and by that I mean that the outward momentum tells us little and leads to questions, such as ‘is the universe speeding up, remaining constant or slowing down its rate of expansion?’. However, if we use the above, that the dimensions show that the speed of light is constant and that there is no reason that a lower restriction should be placed on the energy of the photons because their motion is a logic of the space and the spread of energy can be infinitesimally small.  In other words, logic produces the motion and there is no limit to how small the quantum can get.

 

This ‘no minimum’ is logically important because there can be no singularity that, as the original photons, from the Big-Bang/Big-Whoosh spread out, and are still doing so at considerably lower energy [cosmological red-shift], they are creating space at a constant rate. This increase in space forces the galaxies to move outward to preserve the Law of Conservation of Energy. In other words, space increases and that forces the other dimensions (and energy) to increase by the same amount [Lorentz factor] and as the speed of electromagnetic radiation is constant, the expansion of the massive galaxies should be constant. However, the other factor, energy has to increase as well, by the same proportion, and, as below, dark energy, as a component of space, might be necessary for balance within the system.

 

This derivation shows that there is more information available using the dimensions, but on the other hand, as we saw with Newton’s world O units, they provided simplicity at a ‘price’, and, as above, another form of simplicity can be seen from the dimensions that I have called the mathematics of concepts. The quotation continues ‘I expect that a resolution of the puzzle of the cosmological constant will also turn out to be something completely new, that nobody has yet imagined’ (p 124) The cosmological constant, for completeness, may turn out be too ‘simple’, as is shown for the gravity/kinetic energy relationships, as given below, and the expansion above, and concepts cannot be simplified without losing logic/context and, for example, dark energy is probably necessary for survival (for at least two reasons) [stability and balance]. In other words, simplicity/exactitude is ‘nice’ and is the ‘reason’ that we invented mathematics, but the ‘real’ world contains the indeterminacy of quantum-mechanics/probability-space and we have to accept that any simplification of logic invites a singularity. The logic of a probability space must be instantaneous, but we can approximate using the mathematics of concepts because the super-world of the mind is not a probability space, although it is based on a probability space, reality and evolution.

 

In a probability space P, the value at any point is indeterminate until measured, but when measured, that point becomes determinate [to the measurer at that time] because the possibility/probability is known (at that point), whilst the super-world O is different and it is different because it contains our reality, and our reality is that we, or more precisely, Life has survived with that reality. World O units are space-time, where time is an interval, and that interval is essential to work out speed because we need to keep a ‘buffer zone’ between ourselves and a predator. We use to have to (literally) run into something for a predator/prey situation to occur, but in the Cambrian, we evolved lensed eyes and an enlarged mind/brain developed/evolved the sixth dimension of forward-planning that is vital in these situations.

 

The basis of the sixth dimension (forward-planning) is the Mathematics-of-the-Mind/mathematics-of-concepts and we have limited entanglement (limited to our reality, what we know and what we have learned from other organisms) and not universal entanglement as in a probability space. For example, we have a common reality with everything around us that we can experience, and a separate reality in the immune system for bacteria etc. that we cannot see/feel.

 

To repeat, I believe that the Big Bang or perhaps more accurately, a Big Whoosh, was a runaway creation or splitting of nothing into a positive part and a negative part of (only) the energy concepts over a very small period of time and I will quote, and compare to ‘the universe begins to expand at an exponential rate. Indeed, the universe continued to expand exponentially as long as the inflation field was the dominant source of energy density. This phase of inflation began when the universe was about 10x-36 seconds old. This energy eventually decays away (by design) and inflation ends by about 10x-35 seconds. This enormous kinetic energy turns into heat, and we are now again in the conventional hot Big Bang phase, initially dominated by radiation and relativistic particles.’ (The Infinite Cosmos, Joseph Silk, p 116) This quotation, according to the above, is a little strange, as there is no ‘inflation field’, only creation of space/time in a perfectly natural way by the creation of energy (balanced by potential energy) and this depends on the rate of creation of energy and ‘exponential’ is not an apt term. Inflation could be thought of as a ‘normal curve’ and slowed when energy creation slowed, but it is a natural process whenever energy is created (not transferred). Also, the momentum of the galaxies is due to the creation of space.

 

This opens the thought (again) that quantum mechanics is thought of as a factor of the very small, but if we consider the measurement/logic of quantum mechanics, it is the same as the concept/context of evolution (or business, or society etc.), and it is the ‘questing’ that lies behind each that is the basic principle, and I have said before that it is simpler/more-probable to have one principle than two (Occam’s razor) and thus the same principle lies behind organizations of all types. The ‘inflation field’, above, is not something that applies between 10x-36 and 10x-35 seconds to explain the effects of the Big-Bang/Big-Whoosh, I believe that relativisation is also quantum mechanical, universe-wide, maintains the conservation of energy and allows/makes photons move because logically they have to move (kinetic energy) and conceptually/measurementally, energy creates space/time, and thus creates a constant speed, as above.

 

The Big-Bang/Big-Whoosh is a natural outcome of relativisation acting with the licence of quantum mechanics to explore possibilities, and this answers some of the question, ‘why and how the Big Bang occurred!’, but we again/always run into the multiverse question that if the Big Bang wasn’t big enough, there would not be a big enough universe and we wouldn’t be here. In fact, we are here because we can be here and make a living out of being here and the Life around us answers the question of whether this particular universe can support life. However, the simplicity of the ratio of the dimensions suggests that the speed of light might be a ‘true’ absolute in every universe.

 

This leads to another digression, ‘at the same time, in science we have to be particularly cautious about “why” questions. When we ask, ‘Why?’ we usually mean “How?” …. “Why” implicitly suggests purpose, and when we try to understand the solar system in scientific terms, we do not generally ascribe purpose to it. (a universe from nothing, Lawrence M. Krauss, p143) However, the above does ‘ascribe purpose’ because a probability of existence space does just that! It ‘ascribes purpose/probability’ and only ‘actors’ such as we, can answer the questions of logic, and logic is part of a probability space, and in particular, a super-world O. It would be a poor probability space that doesn’t examine every possible possibility and this leads to the ‘why’ of quantum mechanics because ‘as long as no one is watching, anything goes’ (a universe from nothing, Lawrence M. Krauss, p 153) This is the contextual ‘proof’ to the Michelson-Morley’s conceptual proof that we live in a probability of existence universe with the possibility of change and Life evolved through making changes (Theory of Everything).

 

A (simple mathematical) probability space answers the question ‘what is the probability of something (singular) happening at each point (measurement, a and b), and entanglement ((a+b)=1)?’. Our super-world O is not a simple mathematical probability space and I have wondered many times about measurement/entanglement, singular, as above, and concept/context as the ‘plural’/mathematics-of-concepts and this jibes/agrees with the description of the fifth dimension CEM (mathematics of concepts/entanglement/measurement) and that there is an ‘intermingling’ of two distinct ‘worlds’ (O and P).

 

In other words, I wondered whether the three parts of CEM were necessary, and I now realize that ‘yes’, they are necessary because the mathematics of concepts is a ‘plural’/more-complicated use of the probability space and requires not just a measurement at each point, but the measurement of concepts at each point, and requires a mind-brain to formulate/’hold’ those concepts in a new space that is far more than a simple mathematical probability space. Iteration is the measurement process in a simple probability space. It will be shown in the future that the terms ‘one-dimensional’ and ‘two-dimensional’ can be used.

 

Again, in other words, just as the cells of organisms are limited in size by the strength (and that evolution cannot ‘go back’ (Rule of Life)) of the cellular membrane, they entered into an agreement to become multi-cellular organisms (placebo/nocebo contract) to produce an iteration-producing mind/brain where the mind is a new ‘space’/concept where the context is the mathematics of concepts. This makes sense (to me) because for years I called the mathematics of concepts, the Mathematics of the Mind and derived it, not from the dimensions, but by using the Logic of the Half-truth (true, false, true some of the time and false the rest of the time and true and false at the same time) to isolate chaos. Once I examined the fifth dimension, I could ‘see’/recognise the mathematics of concepts within (a +/and b)=1.

 

When humans took control (Survival of the Best (mathematics (a special case of the mathematics of concepts)), 10,000 years ago, they lost reality [we are still moving to a new reality] and we now find that the world is heading for Armageddon and, I believe, requires Survival of the Best (mathematics of concepts) to be able to ‘(hopefully) fix it’. This sequence is the Theory of Everything and shows the progression of the logic-of-repetition/mind-brain/consciousness/ mathematics/mathematics-of-concepts and each stage becomes part of the evolution of the bio-computer/evolution. This answers the question ‘why are we here?’ and that answer is (1) that we can evolve out of the multiverse, and (2) that we evolved through iteration to the mind/brain because we could, and we have done just that, but (3) we (life and the predator/prey situation) set up our own sixth dimension of forward planning and evolved a super-world (O).

 

We can ‘slide’ the fifth dimension under science as a bottom-up context because science has been discovered and reported in a top-down manner, mainly because, I believe, we think that we exist. A simple example was the thought that the sun rotated around the earth, and was found to be wrong, and a current one is that we actually exist because it is ‘obvious’ that we exist (I think, therefore I am). In a universe that ‘exists’, or that we think exists, the Michelson-Morley experiment would create an enigma and yet that enigma is the principal postulate of the Special Theory of Relativity and people tolerate that postulate! Taking this to its logical conclusion, both the Special Theory of Relativity and Fynman’s view of quantum mechanics are regularly used, but are based on ‘crazy stuff’ unless our universe is viewed/acknowledged as a probability space containing a super-probability-world O.

 

The world has got itself into an Armageddon situation by using concepts without (sufficient) context being applied and not assigning absolutes in the ‘best’ way, and our world is starting to appear as a closed system that cannot absorb our excesses and we are being forced to find a better way. In other words, we evolved with Survival of the Fittest, used Survival of the Best (mathematics) to bring on Armageddon and we need to use the absolute (setting limits) of Survival of the Best (mathematics of concepts) to help get out of it. Note that an absolute (from dimension five) must be set (Plato’s problem) to give us a ‘target’ through forward-planning (sixth dimension) to try to avert Armageddon. Science does this, but politics does not. This abrupt change from cosmology to politics etc. is possible because, as above, I am using the dimensions and they, literally, define (and include) everything.

 

The above paragraph demands a prediction, and it is, that all of the above, based on the dimensions will allow us to define a general-form/science-of-organization, based on the mathematics of concepts, that we can apply, as suggested above, that will be able to solve the world’s problems, and if we so wish, stabilise population and put evolution ‘back on track’. That is the ‘how’/concept and the answer to the ‘how’/context is that all organizations/systems are based on the dimensions of the space that contains them, and we are using the most fundamental dimensions. The ‘why’ is, if we don’t set absolutes, and adhere to them, chaos will/is-coming in the form of global warming, over-population etc.

 

It has just been announced that two research establishments recorded the ‘gravity waves’ from the collision/coalescence of two black holes over a billion years ago and they concluded that transmission occurred at the speed of light. This ‘gravity wave’ is a change in the gravity energy, as recorded in the ‘concept/measurement’ equation (below) that is propagated at the speed of light and supports the above derivations. The much more interesting conjecture of the ‘context/logic’ equation (below) and its effect on the conservation of energy came and went (instantaneously) over a billion years ago. I will repeat that science is satisfied to discover the ‘gravity wave energy’, and being an energy, travels at the speed of light and have ignored the logic of gravity.

 

Dark energy is a property of ‘space’, and so, ‘our suggestion of a flat universe, 70 percent of the energy of which should be contained in empty space. Recall that such energy would produce a cosmological constant, leading to a repulsive force that would then exist throughout all space and that would dominate the expansion of the universe, causing its expansion to speed up, not slow down.’ (a universe from nothing, Lawrence M. Krauss, p 80) As above, this may be a little simplistic/strange because the ‘driver’ is not the dark energy, but is a product of space and needed for balancing energy.

 

‘Because the cosmological constant is a property of space itself, the amount of this kind of dark energy in every cubic centimetre of space stays the same as the universe expands, whereas the density of matter (light and dark) goes down as the universe expands.’ The Universe: a biography, John Gribbin, p 118) ‘It is mostly dark energy that holds the universe together today; but, seemingly paradoxically, if the acceleration of the expansion continues, it is also dark energy that will ultimately blow the universe apart.’ (p 123) Again, I cannot agree.

 

Bearing in mind that all (or a workable amount of) energy has a gravity/logic component and I am assuming that relativisation is controlled by the conservation of energy that must remain constant (at zero), it means that there has to be continual adjustments to the total energy and that can be done through changing the energy of the photons (Pound-Rebka). However, a much larger ‘sink’ of energy is available through the dark energy (70%) and that would serve as a more ‘secure’ organizational-choice/requirement because there could be abrupt changes to the energy of light that may lead to the extinction of life, especially when bacteria evolved in a reducing atmosphere and their ability to repair damage caused by high energy light/particles to DNA is still with us today. The multiverse and the size of this factor suggest that a much larger dark matter sink would be preferable/probable/necessary.

 

Conclusion: our universe is a natural progression of a particular (out of the multiverse) probability space defined by space-time and (a+b)=1 that defines/evolved the mathematics of concepts (when life evolved), shows the duality of measurement/logic and concept/context (in the universe and in the super-world O) and the lack of an absolute except for the speed of light that relativises the dimensions as a particle approaches that speed, and also for the conservation of energy etc. In other words, relativisation and inflation are the same thing and going on around us continually as energy creates time and space in order to prevent a logical and physical singularity. The Theory of Everything describes everything in the universe as context/concept of energy (from our point of view, relativity) that formed from space in the Big-Bang/Big-Whoosh and its context marries the concept of Conservation of Energy, which is:

 

Concept/measurement: 0 = kinetic (energy)+ gravity (energy) + mass + dark matter + dark energy + photon energy + chemical etc. acting at the speed of photons in vacuo as a maximum.

 

Context/logic: 0 = kinetic + gravity (logic) + mass + dark matter + dark energy + photon energy + chemical etc. acting at an infinite speed.

 

where gravity is always negative and all the other energies are positive.

 

The logic of gravity ‘flashes’ around keeping track of the logic components of all the states of energy and relativises them. However, in practice we simplify and we make mistakes by not taking enough terms into consideration (the opposite of the aim of mathematics/physics) and that is leading the world into Armageddon. I have addressed Plato’s problem of defining an absolute previously and, hopefully, the ideas above show how necessary is the mathematics of concepts to the social sciences.

 

References: (1) this chapter (72) follows and adds to chapter (71): The Logic/Quantum/Gravity Description of the Universe Applied to the Why and the How of the Theory of Relativity Leads to the Realization that Relativisation is the Basic Mechanism of Our Universe and Showing Why Science is Successful and Politics is Not

 

(2) all quotations are fully referenced in the body and earlier chapters can be found on   http://darrylpenney.com  if required.

 

Chapter 72: The Why and the How of the Big Bang, Why the Universe is ‘Flat’, Inflation and Quanta are Explained, Why Feynman was Correct, Why Matter Predominates over Antimatter, Why the Speed of Light is Constant and an Absolute, Relativisation is the Work-horse of the Universe, the Fifth Dimension, Dark Energy Might be Necessary for Survival, the Super-world of the Mind, Gravity and the Law of Conservation of Energy Unfolded

Chapter 71: The Logic/Quantum/Gravity Description of the Universe Applied to the Why and the How of the Theory of Relativity Leads to the Realization that Relativisation is the Basic Mechanism of Our Universe and Showing Why Science is Successful and Politics is Not

Chapter 71: The Logic/Quantum/Gravity Description of the Universe Applied to the Why and the How of the Theory of Relativity Leads to the Realization that Relativisation is the Basic Mechanism of Our Universe and Showing Why Science is Successful and Politics is Not

 

By Darryl Penney

 

Abstract: I have inserted a bottom-up ‘floor’ under science to place its concepts in context. Science uses mathematics and measurement to ‘build’, through experiments, layers of technology and has had monumental success, however, mathematics ‘breaks down’ in certain areas, and requires a mathematics of concepts, to consider the logic/quantum/gravity description of the universe, relativity, quantum mechanics, the social sciences etc. because logic has been, I believe, unappreciated. Reasons are given to why Francis Bacon’s scientific method is so successful and a simple logical explanation of the Special Theory of Relativity and how space-time is bent by energy and the dimensions of the universe are variable with only the speed of light absolute, thus combining the Special and General Theories of Relativity into one simple relativisation, which is a simple property of a probability universe (fifth dimension (a+b+c….)=1 and shows the mechanism behind relativity and conservation of energy and is another indicator that our universe is a probability space.

I believe that the Michelson-Morley experiment proves that our universe is a probability of existence universe and ‘British astronomer Sir Martin Rees defines the multiverse to be the ensemble of all possible universes…. Nevertheless, the many-universe postulate is intellectually challenging, and purports to explain a plethora of unlikely circumstances… Surely there must be some underlying theory, which provides a physical explanation.’ (The Infinite Cosmos: questions from the frontiers of cosmology, Joseph Silk, p 175)

 

There is an explanation and it is that we are ‘abstractions’ that evolved because we could evolve in this probability universe, and maybe in others, but we can never know of the others. Scientists have done a good job explaining ‘how’ things work, but ‘to understand the universe at the deepest level, we need to know not only how the universe behaves, but why….  This is the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe and Everything.’ (The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, p 9). Mankind is at last realizing its true importance, first the sun circled the earth, then we believe, and still do believe, that we live in a ‘real’ world and now we find that we may not even exist, and if we do, it is as mathematical/logical abstractions in probability space!

 

Its no use considering if we could exist in a ‘real’ world, because our universe is a probability space and that means a fifth dimension (a +/and b)=1 with a and b being measurements/measurers, as an illustration) that gives CEM (mathematics of concepts/entanglement/measurement) and they indicate the basis to the following quotations.  ‘If individual particles interfere with themselves, then the wave nature of light is the property not just of a beam or of a large collection of photons but of the individual particles.’ (p 70) Everything that we are, or surrounds us, is energy, of the Big Bang, in different states (like water, steam, ice) and states have similarities as well as differences, and the wave/particle duality is because we are using world O (our) world units/thinking and the underlying duality is concept/context (or measurement/logic).

 

‘Quantum physics might seem to undermine the idea that nature is governed by laws, but that is not the case. Instead it leads us to accept a new form of determinism: given the state of a system at some time, the laws of nature determine the probabilities of various futures and pasts rather than determining the future and past with certainty.’ (p 72) This quotation aligns with a probability universe, and further, the Law of Conservation of Energy (through entanglement (a+b)=1) is changing every point (of energy, which is everything) in the universe continually (relativisation), so nothing is static.

 

The same equation (a+b)=1 shows the mathematics of concepts where a result is determined ‘exactly’ only when every point in the universe is considered and then only at that instant. In other words, measurement/concepts are linked together by entanglement in a duality and a concept requires a measurement. Another interpretation of the same equation (a+b)=1 is that there is no absolute to a particle, but there is to the speed of a photon (Michelson-Morley experiment, in vaccuo), and that sentence expands into the (apparent) ‘weirdness’ of relativity, below. In a probability space, all probabilities must be considered and that simple equation (a+b)=1 has many ‘faces’ that must be considered, especially logic, because we can write it as (a +/and b)=1.

 

Further, I believe that we are necessary to define/make logical decisions, whether we exist or not and further, that we can use that logic and apply it to our world, so let’s look at the enigmatic relativity. Relativity is reputed to be a ‘difficult’ subject to understand, but applying the mathematics of concepts, that can be derived by observation from the dimensions of our probability space, we can trivialize its effects and form a general theory. In other words, we will combine the Special and General Theories of Relativity into a simple understandable/logical whole without disturbing the mathematics behind them. This can be done by inserting a bottom up context using the dimensions of a probability space that forms part of the logic/quantum/gravity description of the universe.

 

For a probability space, using the simple notation (a+b)=1=(a+c) shows the Michelson-Morley experiment that b=c when we compare the measurement of the speed of light for observers b and c and, and the relation (a+b)=1 shows the fifth dimension. Considering relativity, we find that mass, length and time do strange things. Why do these particular attributes all change? Ours is a simple probability space, so why do we get such horrors as the Lorentz contraction, which is 1/square root (1-v squared/ c squared) affecting time, length and mass? The reason is that there is one absolute (the speed of light) and everything else, being/including the dimensions, relativises to keep the speed of light an absolute/constant in terms of measurement and logic.

 

Relativisation forces two observers moving relative to each other to measure the speed of light (in vacuuo) to be the same and that is a property of a probability space (a +/and b)=1 with interdependence of concepts (a, b) and context (a +/and b) in measurement (concept) and logic (context/entanglement). The speed of light provides the only absolute/solution (unless we provide one) to (a+b)=1 and that is why we will find that the dimensions of the frame of reference and the energy (space-time and the fifth dimension (a+b)=1) of a non-rest-mass particle changes as the speed of light is approached, in order to prevent both a logical (context) and measurement (concept) singularity.

 

This Lorentz contraction is used by mathematics to model what is both a measurement of, and a logical solution to a singularity and I am going to show how this situation is logically sorted out by our universe so that is does not occur. This leads to foreshadowing a statement of relativity that is simple and straight-forward, that ‘as a frame of reference approaches the speed of light (in vaccuo) as viewed from our frame, the dimensions of that frame of reference relativise’. This statement is simple and requires no postulates and shows that the fifth dimension provides a simple answer.

 

It is difficult to believe how important is the fifth dimension, and that it have been neglected for so long, so as an aid to showing the duality of concept and context, let us look at the concept of the Lorentz contraction and its application to Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, which is the relativity between two observers. There is nothing wrong with the mathematics and the equations have been fully tested, but ‘why’ and ‘how’ do such weird happenings occur? There is a singularity/absolute at the speed of light, and it is both a logical (context) and a measurable (concept) singularity because the measuring stick (speed of light) becomes unavailable. This is a simple situation and can be dealt with simply by relativisation.

 

I believe that a logic component would be lost and chaos would apply if the particle’s frame of reference did not relativise. In other words, the logic that the speed of light exceeds the absolute between two frames of reference is forbidden logically as well, as above, by being physically unmeasurable because the speed of light would be slower. The mathematics of concepts (a +/and b)=1 shows that there are many attractors that contribute to an answer, but the ‘+/and’ shows the concept/measurement and context/logic are a duality and both must be considered independently. The above has for me, answered the fundamental reasons (logic and measurement) of why relativisation must occur without confusing the issue with space/time/energy doing strange things.

 

Relativisation is a fundamental part of the workings of the universe and acts on ‘muons in the cosmic rays because of the phenomenon of time dilation. Produced high in the atmosphere, the muon take milliseconds to reach the earth. They should have decayed: in its rest frame a muon only survives a microsecond before spontaneously decaying… This means that a single cosmic ray proton has the same energy as that of a rock weighing a kilogram dropped from the top of the Eiffel Tower…. These very energetic cosmic rays are rather rare. Only about one per hundred square kilometers per year at the very highest energies impacts the earth. Each impact at the top of the atmosphere produces a shower of energetic particles.’ (The Infinite Cosmos, Joseph Silk, p 54)

 

A reality is needed in an organization/evolution and I used a Logic of the Half-truth as a reality (true, false, true some of the time and false the rest, both true and false at the same time (chaos)) to separate out chaotic statements and limit them. A movement into chaos is non-reality, magic/non-organization happens and we move into non-logic because every point in a probability space is counted continually. In other words, chaos could be viewed as a logic singularity that is just as destroying as the concept/mathematical singularity.

 

First, I will repeat a quotation given before that shows how logic bypasses a singularity. ‘I am using five dimensions against spacetime’s four dimensions, and worrying facts like inside a black hole’s horizon “does spacetime come to an end”? (Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein’s Outrageous Legacy, Kip S. Thorne, p 465)’ Whether space-time exists is of no concern to me because the black hole is still doing its job of providing gravity (fifth dimension) around which stars rotate and being part of the universe’s house-keeping calculations (of energy). In other words, inside a black hole is irrelevant to the discussion.

 

I will start bringing us into the real world by citing Plato’s problem that there are no absolute solutions to (a +/and b) =1 unless we assign one, and this ‘overlaps’ with the (world O sixth dimension) forward-planning. This simple equation is the fifth dimension of our probability of existence universe and knowing that the speed of light is an absolute, that allows a unique solution, and forces the universe to relativise the observers b and c in the experiment (a+b)=(a+c)=1. This would be an enigma in a ‘real’ world, or in a world that thinks it is ‘real’ and it has been annoying me for decades and it is nice to lay it to rest because it is a contextual proof of a probability universe and shows that in our universe, space makes the speed of light an absolute, or perhaps, we should say that the properties of our universe, dictate the speed of light.

 

In other words, firstly, quantum mechanics in a probability space must continually test every possibility, and secondly, no determination/determinant is made until an iteration or mind/brain requests a determination by measuring something and making it determinant. This is a simple logical statement that something is only determined when it is measured, because (literally) everything (energy) is being relativised continually because entanglement (a+b) is necessary for conservation of energy and it must act instantly.

 

Of the five dimensions, three space produce length shortening in the direction of motion, time passing slows down, energy increases, mass increases, perhaps chemical bonds strengthen etc. The effect appears to be to increase the energy inputted and these changes to the dimensions are to ensure that an absolute is never breached and no particle (with rest-mass) can ever reach the speed of light. These results show that space-time relativise, but mass, which is a form of energy changes and this suggests that energy is a dimension, and is, in fact, the fifth dimension.

 

I believe that a breakdown in logic cannot be allowed to happen. This ‘begs the question’ of why logic/organization/repeatability is so important and goes back to the reality (logic of the Half-truth) where the only options are between true/false and chaos (lack of organization). There would be no going back if chaos occurred because ‘the second law of thermodynamics, which may be the most fundamental law in the universe. It applies to absolutely everything, no exceptions. Put simply, it says that in closed systems the total entropy (roughly speaking, disorder) can never decrease.’ (The Eerie Silence, Paul Davies, p 150)

 

All resources are being thrown at this possibility, because (logically) if one particle somewhere in 400 billion galaxies over 14 billion years, exceeded the absolute, its mass would become infinite, its energy infinite and make a mess, so, it is back to the multiverse/biocomputer and the fact that it has not happened nor likely to happen soon, because we are the proof that it has not happened.  So many changes in so many variables reflects that it is logically simpler (Occam’s razor) to change all of the dimensions in a frame of reference than to single out one, which requires extra rules. This last sentence looks simple, but it is profound because Occam’s razor is a simple solution to the general mathematics of concepts and also, that that mathematics is so basic to our universe that it is immediately apparent from (a +/and b)=1 (context and concept). Also, relativisation occurs, simply because (a+b+c…)=1 is a dimension of a probability space, but, also, the fifth dimension CEM (mathematics of concepts/entanglement/measurement) can be derived from it. Also, perhaps the singularity can be thought of as the merging of concept/context which is forbidden in a probability space where (a +/and b)=1 only has a solution with an absolute (or assigned absolute, Plato’s problem).

 

I believe that ‘as a frame of reference of a non-rest-mass particle approaches the speed of light (in vaccuo), the dimensions of that frame of reference are relativised to stop the speed of light being attained’ is a simple and complete explanation of the Special Theory of Relativity. This focuses the mind on the energy that is absorbed by the particle as shown by the Lorentz contraction. Further, it uses the dimensions and the absolute in the same way that is needed to solve Plato’s problem and shows why we must set absolutes and long-term planning for the world. The long-held view that logic/measurement is ‘outside’ consideration (that the observer is distinct from the experiment) must change when it is realized that everything is affected by the dimensions and the fifth and sixth dimensions must be included.

 

We can take this further, by building on the currently accepted space-time curvature that is caused by gravity near large suns etc., and I should stress that the mathematical framework can be used, but the current logic/theory is not correct, in my opinion. I mentioned five dimensions (three space, one time passing and one Consciousness/energy) and that these were relativised as the speed of light is approached by a frame of reference, and further, gravity is a big part of the General Theory of Relativity, but I believe, that gravity is both an energy and a logic.

 

In other words, the Special and General theories are really one simple relativisation of everything as mentioned in the Theory of Everything because everything is energy and every form of energy contains a logic component that is part of the ‘essence’ of a probability space (a +/and b)=1 and concept and context must be separate, and the concept of the Law of Conservation of Energy links with the context of the Theory of Everything.

 

Restating the above, ‘as a frame of reference of a non-rest-mass particle approaches the speed of light (in vaccuo) as viewed from our frame, the dimensions of that frame of reference are relativised to stop the speed of light being attained’ is similar to the Special Theory, but as the energy (concept, including gravity) and gravity (context), is relativised, I believe that the General Theory is contained in it as well. ‘Einstein completed his general theory of relativity in 1916. It is a theory that describes the interaction between matter, space and time, operating through gravity’ (The Universe A Biography, John Gribbin, p 112) In other words, in world O, the force of gravity is used, but gravity is both concept and context in world P units and they are a duality and can never be the same.

 

We now have to return to the concept of the multiverse, and that is the infinite set of probability spaces (universes) that contain all of the variations of the physical constants.  Gravity is an ‘attraction’ that is necessary for us to exist and to hold us on the surface of the planet and is a physical constant that probably changes throughout the multiverse. Notice that, in the simple case of kinetic energy and gravity, as in a star system, if we label the kinetic energy positive, the gravity potential is negative and the total is zero.

 

‘One requirement any law of nature must satisfy is that it dictates that the energy of an isolated body surrounded by empty space is positive, which means that one has to do work to assemble the body. That’s because if the energy of an isolated body were negative, it could be created in a state of motion so that its negative energy was exactly balanced by the positive energy due to its motion…. Empty space would therefore be unstable.’ (The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, p 179).

 

Thus it is apparent that gravity must have a physical value that allows everything to work, and it is probably true (or workably true) that all forms of energy have an ‘accountable’ proportion of gravity. Occam’s razor would say, as above, that it is simpler if all forms have the same proportion, or a workable proportion, as our universe is still functioning. Further, entanglement ensures that an ‘accounting’ leads to the conservation of energy and the variables (of energy) are relativised through (as one form) the energy of light quanta (Pound-Rebka).

 

In other words, ‘”theoretical physics” does not mean ”having conjectures about physics”. It means establishing an elaborate interlocking system of specific mathematical equations to capture aspects of physical reality that on casual inspection we would never guess are related, and then modeling those relationships quantitatively.’ (The Eerie Silence, Paul Davies, p 75) The book from which this quotation was taken makes the case that we are lucky to have theoretical physics because many other civilizations used ‘conjectures’ etc., and the basis of this method was outlined by Francis Bacon, but, why does the experimental method work so well? The scientific method sets an experiment (ascribes an absolute), experiments, and if successful, makes a theory, but the quotation does not mention logic, except implied in designing the experiment, but the duality of concept/context or measurement/logic is built in to the method. That is why science is so successful and we must do the same with politics if we wish to manage the planet sustainably.

 

In particular, this ‘theory’ provides a logic/quantum/gravity description of the universe that through the concept of conservation of energy and the contextual Theory of Everything as well as the sixth dimension that we derived, that we call forward planning is used to impart success to our day-to-day lives. This all started with the mathematics of concepts that provided the means of questioning our existence and that same mathematics is obvious from the dimensions, albeit, when you know what to look for (from (a+b)=1). I believe that these are the tools that we need to manage our social lives, limit population, decrease emotional damage through a better family-life etc. Even better is, by being bottom-up, it can be ‘slid’ under the current mathematics/technology/whatever without changing that which has gone before. I think that this is shown above, and especially in chapter 70, where the ‘greatest minds’, each, had to initiate a top-down concept instead of the far easier method of following a concept that is already ‘anchored’ in context.

 

The simplicity of the one sentence approach to understanding relativity makes it easier to contemplate and to use as a context for the confabulation that we need in day-to-day life. Relativisation is the ‘key’ and is provided out of the dimensions, and of course, everything must be available through the dimensions and provides another ‘proof’ that we live in a probability universe and we can take this further at a later date.

 

Prediction 1: mathematics is exact and says that the relative speed of two photons leaving opposite sides of the sun is 2 x the speed of light, but Einstein postulated the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment and that is a product of a probability universe, not a ‘real’ universe. Relativisation simplifies the concept of relativity (as above) because relativity is simply a result of the concept/context of a fixed speed of light, further, the mathematics (of concepts) that must be used is also contained in the fifth dimension. The prediction is simplification of so many concepts and the duality of concept/context leads to the use of the mathematics of concepts for the social sciences and better managing the planet. Society will have to adjust to this concept/context that can be ‘slid under’ and make everything so much clearer, just as the fact that the earth revolves around the sun was accepted, albeit, eventually.

 

Prediction 2: this is a good opportunity to consolidate, from the quotation, above, that theoretical physics forms an ‘elaborate interlocking system’, and bringing the above use of the dimensions into the real world, the Feynman diagrams are a good example. Looking at the fifth dimension CEM (mathematics of concepts/entanglement/measurement it is literally obvious that Feynman’s formulation was correct because entanglement (context) links every point, measurement (concept) is available for every point and provides the probability of quantum states in a probability space (a+b+c+d …)=1 and this indicates yet another ‘proof’ that our universe is a probability space.

 

The knowledge/measurement of every possibility, as shown by the Feynman formulation leads to relativisation of the dimensions to prevent concept/context singularities and this process is undoubtedly that which lies behind the Law of Conservation of Energy. When the duality of concept/context is extended to the summation of energy terms, bearing in mind that (literally) everything in the universe is energy, the ‘natural’ place of dark matter and especially dark energy becomes apparent.

 

Further, dark energy is a vital part of us being here (multiverse) and ‘vacuum/dark energy is there alright, with a density of a little less than a joule per cubic kilometer’ of space. (The Eerie Silence, Paul Davies, p 150) Relativisation is a basic property of a probability space (a+b+c..….)=1 and its use in energy conservation also, shows why dark energy is necessary and why it needs to be such a large quantity.

 

References: (1) this chapter (71) follows and adds to chapter 69: The Logic of the Big Bang and an Explanation of Inflation, the Law of Conservation of Energy is Unfolded with Gravity Producing Feedback through the Mathematics of Concepts and Michelson-Morley Type Relativisation Producing a Logic/Quantum/Gravity Description of the Universe that Defines a Solution of Everything that Contains Plato’s Political System

 

(2) all quotations are fully referenced in the body and earlier chapters can be found on   http://darrylpenney.com  if required.

 

 

 

 

Link