Chapter 68: The Sixth Dimension, Constant Speed of Light, Michelson-Morley Enigma Solved, Unfolding the Mathematics of Concepts and its Derivation from the Dimensions
Abstract: the fifth dimension is explored, but when life appeared, a new sixth dimension is created, two ‘proofs’ are given that the speed of light is a constant and is an absolute, the Michelson-Morley experiment presents an apparent enigma that is explained and the distinction between Consciousness, consciousness and thinking in concepts/context is discussed and shows why a new dimension is necessary. The entanglement/context term a+b=1 (in a probability of existence universe) shows that measurement/concept (a, b) and entanglement are related and that is the proof of existence of the mathematics of concepts, also the equation a+b=1 shows that only one absolute is possible and a concept is only useful if we assign an absolute to it. When the six dimensions are considered together, a ‘mathematics’ appears that (conceptually (a, b) and contextually (a+b=1)) produces the Theory of Everything.
I have said several times previously that matter and energy are (at least) two states of something that (in chapter 66) I defined as Consciousness which is, at its simplest, a repeatable state and gave the example that the gravity equations of Isaac Newton (F=mg, force equals mass times the acceleration due to gravity) led us into the use of world O (our) units, and I suggested that it makes more sense to use world P (universe) units that gravity is a potential energy. In other words, it may make more sense to use world O units to measure (concept), but world P to understand the logic (context), also I suggested that the repeatability of the dropping apple leads into the fifth dimension, and this repeatability is a logic (context) not a measurement (concept).
We found in the previous chapter (67) that the use of concepts and context could be thought of as a sixth dimension. This is applying a ‘quality’ to consciousness, because everything ‘thinks’, but only Man (presumably) thinks in (advanced) concepts. Now, I have (previously) defined the fifth dimension as CEM (mathematics of concepts/entanglement (a+b=1)/measurement (a,b)) where I have included a and b, that are measurements/observers in a simple probability space. This shows that a and b ALWAYS show a duality of measurement (concept) and logic (entanglement/context) simply because a and b occur in two different ‘settings’, and that supports the idea that a concept and context are inseparable because a concept is really a measurement and context is an entanglement. Relationships become clearer as we move our thinking from world O to world P.
I believe that the time has come to accept the idea that the experiment/observation must involve the experimenter/measurer. This is usually hidden but will become clear when the Michelson-Morley experiment is considered, below. What appears to be an (apparent) enigma often lead to insights of a fundamental nature that we ‘gloss over’ in everyday life and dimensions are just such an example because if we can do something, in the biocomputer sense, there must be a dimension that allows it because evolution should have (without certainty) provided opportunity for its use.
I thought that something was (possibly) wrong with the fifth dimension through a quotation that I will reproduce from chapter 67. ‘Virtue’, I believe, demands care of the planet, and with this derivation, do we finally understand how everything works? The Theory of Everything/Consciousness could be considered the scenery/back-drop/players to the ‘play’ in the theatre of space-time and Plato’s (modernized) works could be interpreted as the interpersonal interaction/concepts between the players. The answer may be no! The interaction/dialogue ‘between the players’ may form a sixth dimension!’
It becomes more apparent when the CEM is written as: mathematics-of-concepts(dimension6(possibly))/entanglement(dimension5)(a+b=1)(context)/measurement(dimension5)(a, b)(concept) because the last two terms (of three) describe the probability space and the first term clearly describes doing something with the concepts and contexts that is the mathematics of concepts. Further, these concepts and contexts clearly lie in the continuum of Consciousness and the ‘classical’ question of what ‘level’ of evolution determines consciousness is thus not available.
Why are absolutes so important? It will be seen below that absolutes are only a problem when concepts (measurement) are used (the universe can look after itself), and in the vein of the above, the absolute sets a ‘level’ of mind/brain that cannot be got from the continuum of Consciousness, and if we use the biocomputer model, Survival of the Fittest ‘works’, but Survival of the Best (mathematics) does not because we and our planet are in a movement towards Armageddon. I have said it before that we need an absolute goal to measure where we are going, and the poor state of the world proves that mathematics is not good enough and that we must use the Survival of the Best (mathematics of concepts). The assigning of an absolute is part of the fifth dimension and is a necessary condition for success, from above, and whilst the universe provides for absolutes (speed of light, measurement), the pre-setting of an absolute/goal is usually outside the ability of a probability space.
The concept of planning, such as engineers’ drawings, is a crucial part of technology and has (necessarily) been used as the basis of technology for thousands of years and it is not a surprise that planning/absolute is so important, but its not the concepts of planning, but the ‘future’ aspect that is causing the problem because a (mathematical) probability space is defined with time passing (world P) and that was adequate until life evolved. At that point, consciousness appeared as part of the continuum of Consciousness and, I believe that consciousness surged in the Cambrian as increased size of organisms led to lensed eyes, a larger brain, an increase in consciousness to plan and execute prey/predator interactions made possible by the more efficient eyes, and efficient eyes allowed measurement (concept), which brought in world O units of time interval (for velocity etc.) and forward-planning (concept/context) of attacks of predators and evasion of prey.
However, in other words, something new has been added to our universe at this instant when the (mathematical) ‘time passing’, which is present tense, requires forward-planning, which entails the future, but there is no future in a (mathematical) probability space until it arrives. Life has evolved a new dimension that is very important and it is a distinct dimension that can only be called the sixth dimension and it is ‘future time’. Previously we said that we evolved a reality out of the possibility of existence, and ‘future time’ evolved as part of our reality in order to improve our chances of survival.
So, reconsidering Plato’s dialogues, above, whenever a future tense is quoted or referred to, the sixth dimension is used, but all of the rest of his work falls into the fifth dimension. The fifth dimension is a complicated and widely encompassing dimension that contains within it the definition of the mathematics of concepts because concept (a, b) is measurement, and context is a+b=1 that shows the entanglement, and that same equation a+b=1 also shows measurement (a, b). In other words the entanglement/context term a+b=1 shows measurement (a, b) and entanglement a+b=1, and that is the mathematics of concepts! So, the fifth dimension remains as CEM (mathematics of concepts/entanglement (a+b=1)/measurement (a, b) where a and b are measurements/observers in a simple probability space.
Further, from a later paragraph ‘the equation a+b=1 shows that there are no unique solutions (absolutes) and this observation was heavily used in chapter 67 to unfold democracy’. So much from such a small equation when applied to logic! We can go further, the equation (a+b)=1=(a+c) is obviously true for the measurement of the speed of light a, and observers b and c (assuming that b and c are the same observer at different times, speeds etc. for simplicity), but this is the statement of the Michelson-Morley experiment and the obvious answer that b=c is the answer that the experiment found! To repeat the answer, the absolute speed of light has forced our universe to relativise the observers b and c to measure the speed of light as the same, irrespective of their motion at each measuring.
However, the biocomputer, that is the Rule of Life (enough iterations and evolution can’t go backwards) uses/tests every opportunity available to life. Many times I wondered if the Mathematics of the Mind really existed, and the answer is contained so simply that it does exist and the proof is simple. I have said elsewhere that simple equations often indicate ‘states’, not relationships, and this equation is stating that everything is related as stated in the mathematics of concepts and Theory of Everything/Consciousness.
Further, the equation a+b=1 shows that there are no unique solutions (absolutes), however, I had a suspicion that there is one absolute, and that is the speed of electromagnetic waves in a vacuum, but, in the light of the above, how can that be? The answer, I believe, is quite simple and lies in our thinking and comprehension that we are the instigators/measurers of experiments in a probability universe, but first let’s look at the speed of light.
In chapter 66, a speculative theory for the Big Bang and the speed of light was put forward simply to show that the Theory of Everything/Consciousness could contain that theory. It suggested that the Big Bang and the motion of a photon could be considered to be similar (in being the result of uncertainty) and suggested that the logic was supplied by the uncertainty inequalities. ‘In physics, complementarity is both a theoretical and an experimental result of quantum mechanics, also referred as principle of complementarity, closely associated with the Copenhagen interpretation. It holds that objects have complementary properties which cannot be measured accurately at the same time. The more accurately one property is measured, the less accurately the complementary property is measured, according to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Further, a full description of a particular type of phenomenon can only be achieved through measurements made in each of the various possible bases — which are thus complementary. The complementarity principle was formulated by Niels Bohr, a leading founder of quantum mechanics. Examples of complementary properties:
- Position and momentum
- Energy and duration’ (Wikipedia, Complementarity (physics))
In particular, the uncertainty between position and momentum (delta x times delta p is greater than or equal to h bar/2) and Heisenberg’s time uncertainty principle (delta E times delta t is greater than or equal to h bar). Where x is position, p is momentum, h is Plank’s constant, h bar is Plank’s constant divided by 2pi, E is energy and t is time interval. These are world O units and I’m going to ‘adjust’ things a little.
We have created a world O set of units that we use for our convenience, but they don’t apply to the probability universe and that will allow us to simplify our thinking. We acknowledge many types of energy, such as potential, kinetic, chemical etc., but to simplify, can we call the Conservation of Consciousness/Energy to be a context (Consciousness) and concepts (potential, kinetic, chemical etc)? In other words, there is only one Conservation of Consciousness/Energy (a+b=1), but it contains concepts that we see as different forms (potential, kinetic, chemical etc.), so we should work in world P units to simplify things. Note that gravity has been discussed in this way, above, and ‘spooky action at a distance’ and other ‘force fields’ can be thought of as contexts of (a+b)=1 (Conservation of Consciousness/Energy) (chapter 29). Our universe is really a simple space (a+b)=1 and the velocity of propagation of the logic of (a+b)=1 is infinite (otherwise local issues occur).
The first relationship could be written as: delta x is inversely proportional to delta E over some period by changing world P (energy) for world O (momentum) and from the second, delta E is inversely proportional to delta t, and putting them together, delta x divided by delta t is a constant, which could mean that the velocity of electromagnetic radiation is constant (in a vacuum). In other words, we could say that the velocity is constant (concept), but the energy (proportional to the frequency) is the context that changes with respect to the Conservation of Consciousness/Energy.
It should be noted that as we have ‘described’ the Big Bang and its subsequent expansion, why should the physics differ in different parts of the universe when (a+b)=1 applies at all points, and so, Einstein’s assumptions can be relaxed:
- ‘The Principle of Relativity – The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of two systems in uniform translatory motion relative to each other.
- The Principle of Invariant Light Speed – “… light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity [speed] c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body” (from the preface). That is, light in vacuum propagates with the speed c (a fixed constant, independent of direction) in at least one system of inertial coordinates (the “stationary system”), regardless of the state of motion of the light source.
The derivation of special relativity depends not only on these two explicit postulates, but also on several tacit assumptions (made in almost all theories of physics), including the isotropy and homogeneity of space and the independence of measuring rods and clocks from their past history.’ (Wikipedia, Special relativity, Postulates) Notice that clocks and measuring rods are not used in world P, and are only part of world O, and again, given the Theory of Everything/Consciousness, why should anything different happen anywhere?
A digression appears necessary here because the speed of light is only assumed to be constant and, in fact is defined to be constant and is used to define the metre. ‘The speed of light in vacuum, commonly denoted c, is a universal physical constant important in many areas of physics. Its value is exactly 7008299792458000000♠299792458 metres per second (≈7008300000000000000♠3.00×108 m/s), as the length of the metre is defined from this constant and the international standard for time.’ (Wikipedia, Speed of light) Now, the above derivation of the speed of light is possibly a little ‘rough and ready’, but the universe is simple when looked at in the correct (world P) way and there has to be a reason for the Big Bang and the speed of light and there must be a logical context to them because it is a logical space. If that ‘conceptual proof’ is not good enough, then the fact that the speed of light is constant/absolute forces the observers to be relative, as we find below and constitutes an experimental proof from the Michelson-Morley experiment. In other words, conceptual and contextual proofs are given.
The question that I now ask myself is ‘is there anything wrong with these proofs?’. Light quanta are fundamental/quantum-mechanical and so is ‘uncertainty’ and likewise, so is existence (or probability of existence) leading to light being an absolute and throwing the observers into relativity. That sounds logical, but in the macroscopic the interesting/startling part is that technology, that we have devised, has been both so successful and so unsuccessful (causing Armageddon) at the same time. I have said before that our only hope of correcting this is the mathematics of concepts, but there is an extra dimension, and that is the simple necessity of requiring the assigning of an absolute in the future and that has been known for a long time as ‘forward planning’. Forward planning fits everything together like a jigsaw puzzle when the ‘forward’ draws ‘planning’ into the sixth dimension and makes the absolute useful. In simple term, there is no one ‘forward planning’ our planet!
The equation E = hf, where E is energy, h is Plank’s constant and f is frequency is simple and I suspect ‘hides’ an identity that the energy of a photon is contained in its frequency and has no rest mass, in the same way that E = mc2 ‘hides’ the context that E and m are states of Consciousness. In the same way, E=hf is a concept/measure and E and f are contexts of Consciousness in world P that are under the ‘umbrella’ of entanglement, and that simplifies the context. This has been mentioned before as an experiment by Pound-Rebka that the colour/frequency/energy of light changes as it moves towards the earth’s centre (potential well). ‘But if the emitting atom moves with just the right speed relative to the receiving atom the resulting doppler shift cancels out the gravitational shift and the receiving atom can now absorb the photon. The “right” relative speed of the atoms is therefore a measure of the gravitational shift. The frequency of a photon “falling” towards the earth is blueshifted.’ (Wikipedia, Pound-Rebka experiment)
We found that the speed of light was a natural outcome of uncertainty and, from above, that simple relationships ‘hide’ identities, so it appears to be a fundamental fact/requirement that matter/energy requires an inherent speed/velocity so it must be true for particles as well, so, as we cool something, the Brownian’ movement decreases but must have a motion/temperature at Absolute Zero. In other words (contextually), (a+b)=1 cannot have one of its terms at zero, because that would make a certainty/absolute. It is interesting to note that uncertainty (concept) means that we can’t measure if something is at zero energy because we have to use a photon, but the logic (context) of the certainty/absolute in the last sentence says the same, and that is the mathematics of concepts, that there is a (necessary) relation between concept and context.
If the speed of light in a vacuum is constant then it is an absolute, but the Michelson-Morley experiment says that the speed of light is the same to two observers moving with respect to each other, and this presents a problem that we can now solve. We are use to being the measurers that set up an absolute when we measure something and we force the universe to accommodate us. We can have one absolute in probability space, but not two and we define an absolute when we measure. A ‘real’ space could have two, but we only have one because we live in a probability space/universe and when we measure the speed of light (an absolute) we, the measurers become the relatives. In other words, the speed of light is an absolute, but the measurers are not and the conundrum is solved by the logic that allows the enigma that two different observers moving with respect to each other record the same speed of light. To repeat, as experimenters/measurers, we are use to defining the absolute and letting logic look after itself and it is a shock when the observer, us, becomes the relative.
Concepts depend on measuring/knowing and the mathematics of concepts is arranging the concepts in order to study the resulting contexts (between the concepts) and everything is about measuring/knowing, so there are no unique/absolute answers/things (except, presumably, the speed of light) unless we set the absolute. This concept is carried into the mathematics of concepts because we can never know an answer perfectly because that would be an absolute, but can only iterate (a measurement) towards it. There is room for a God of Truth, but not an all-knowing God!
I have tried to formalize CEM, and the fifth dimensions shows how it fits into the Theory of Everything/Consciousness, so, as above Consciousness is the measurement/repeatability of atoms, molecules, life, consciousness (of animals) and the use of the mathematics of concepts from the Big Bang to the Big Blink (when our universe disappears). The formation of the brain in organisms produces consciousness and then in us, the mathematics of concepts. The sixth dimension of planning/setting-an-absolute has been used by organisms as part of consciousness (for 3,000 million years) for planning prey/predator interactions, but it contains time/future and so must be a separate dimension that we have defined, and this is another reason why world O units are different to world P because they contain the future, which is a necessary part of planning.
But, linked in, is evolution, and that brings another set of attractors into the mathematics of concepts, when iteration produces Survival of the Fittest, when we start to control the environment (Survival of the Best, mathematics) that has led us to Armageddon, and our hope for the future (Survival of the Best, mathematics of concepts). I have to stop somewhere because everything is linked, but particularly interesting is a new style of government (chapter 67) for the world using Plato’s ideas (of future-planning) and especially how to avoid the modern diseases (chapter 59) by recognising our body’s dependence on evolution.
Concepts have been used for hundreds of thousands of years (throw mud into a stream to bring fish to the surface, clubs, stone axes, cave painting etc.), entanglement has always been with us (tribes, families, relationships etc.) as has measurement (groceries, petrol etc.), but we can’t escape the fact that the world is not being managed properly and there has to be a reason and that reason is a lack of ‘forward planning’ that is forward (dimension 6), planning (dimension 5) using knowledge (mathematics of concepts and Plato’s ideas).
If forward planning is so important, why is our world not using it? Are politicians’ promises a degree of forward planning? I think not! Plato’s idea was to establish an absolute using the best available information from the universities and I showed how it could be done using a three-
way relationship instead of the two-way currently used. This forces the present-day laissez-faire/social-security political system that has no forward planning into virtue/laissez-faire/social-security political system with forward-planning by the universities, and notice that the latter system has an over-arching virtue with the laissez-faire/social-security political system remaining the same. In other words, it can be simply implemented/augmented into the current system.
Conclusion/prediction. This chapter seems to be a bit of a ‘dog’s breakfast’, but that is inevitable in a top-down approach, however, so much has ‘opened up’ that the next chapter will build on (a+b)=1 with (hopefully) surprising results. Also, there are more observations that should be made.
I think that academic specialists will have to have a greater appreciation of the ‘over-arching’ AND to the opposite, which is the ‘under-arching’ as the basis of their work, and described by the dimensions: x, y, z, time passing, (a+b)=1 and future time. The ‘riches’ that come from unfolding (a+b)=1 lead into literally everything (mathematics, physics, language, concepts etc.) and the dangers of not doing so are indicated in the following. ‘Einstein relied on his own innate intuition as to how things ought to behave. After much reflection, it became intuitively obvious to him that the speed of light must be a universal constant’ (Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein’s Outrageous Legacy, Kip S. Thorne, p 79), Intuition is dangerous because ‘at first sight, black holes seemed to be permitted; then Einstein, Eddington, and others gave (incorrect) arguments that they are forbidden.’ (p 138). These quotations point out the problems/opportunities of intuition and further that ‘”the explanation must be that Laplacian dark stars [black holes] posed no threat to our cherished faith in the permanence and stability of matter. By contrast, twentieth-century black holes are a great threat to that faith”’ (p 138) Hence, there is an argument for a Theory of Everything/Consciousness built up from first principles to consider every possibility and not rely on the politics of science.
darrylpenney 