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

 

By Darryl Penney

 

Abstract: gravity is a potential energy (concept) because it can do work, but conservation of energy contains gravity (context) and the energy summation must act instantaneously over the whole (possibility of existence) universe and that is not possible for any forms of energy except for the gravity (logic) component. If total energy is conserved, it must be an absolute, so it (probably) behaves in the same way as the speed of light (also an absolute) as shown by the Michelson-Morley experiment and the probability space relativises the gravity component of the total energy. The gravity component is used because only the logical gravity component acts instantaneously to preserve the contextual logic (a and b)=1. This obviously requires the different types of energy and mass to be states (concepts) and be derived from the Big Bang (context), and that all energy/mass has an (adequate) gravity ‘component’/’value’ that the universe can relativise. The Big Bang (concept) appears to be composed (initially) of logic and the time to ‘splitting’ of energy, angular momentum and electric charge could be classed as ‘inflation’ as the infinite speed of (the initial) logic is reduced to energy speed. This measurement/control is consistent with and parallels the Michelson-Morley experimental result and produces a general logic/quantum/gravity description of the universe that within the Theory of Everything (context) provides a Solution of Everything (concept) and this is used, as an example, to show the desirability of using Plato’s political system to reorganize control of our world.

The fifth dimension is CEM (mathematics of concepts/entanglement (a+b=1)/measurement (a, b) where a and b are measurements/observers in a simple probability space) and in chapter 68, we derived certain attributes of (a, b) and (a+b=1). Note that the equation (a+b)=1 is used for visual simplicity and I will use a bottom-up approach to unfold the fifth dimension (a+b)=1 to see where each part leads and some of these aspects were dealt with previously and will be repeated, below.

 

The fifth dimension is a complicated and widely encompassing dimension that contains within it, the definition of the mathematics of concepts because concepts (a, b) are measurement, and context is (a+b=1) and that shows the entanglement/context and measurement/concept must always be present, together. However, the mechanics of the mathematics of concepts is the aligning of the concepts and investigating the contexts, and this formalization is particularly important for agreement.

 

Further, the equation (a+b)=1 shows that there are no unique solutions (absolutes, except for the speed of light and conservation of energy/Consciousness) and we found that we had to assign an absolute to concepts for them to be measurable and useful. I used Plato’s problem of a lack of absolutes as an example of the necessity of assigning absolutes to improve the political situation, referred to again, below.

 

The equation (a+b)=1=(a+c) is obviously (mathematically) true for the measurement of the speed of light a, and observers b and c, or the same observer at different times, speeds etc., but this is the statement of the Michelson-Morley experiment and the obvious answer, that b=c, is the answer that the experiment found that resolves the apparent enigma that the speed of light is the same to observers moving relatively to each other. The realization is that the speed of light is an absolute and that forces our universe to relativise the observers b and c.

 

We have created a (world O) set of units that we use for our convenience, but they may not apply to the probability universe (P) and in particular, we acknowledge many types of energy, such as potential, kinetic, chemical etc., but to simplify, I will call the conservation of energy to be a context (Consciousness) and the concepts are the energy terms (potential, kinetic, chemical etc). In other words, there is only one conservation of energy (a+b=1), which is a context, 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, previously, and ‘spooky action at a distance’ and other ‘force fields’ can be thought of as logic/contexts of (a+b)=1 (chapter 29). This discussion will be continued below. Note that our universe is really a simple space and the velocity of propagation of the logic of (a+b)=1 must necessarily be infinite (otherwise local issues occur) and that defines the speed of gravity (light has a finite speed).

 

The above was derived in a top-down sense as described in chapter 68 and suggests that a bottom-up approach might pay dividends if we unfold (a simple space) (a+b)=1, that is one of the dimensions of the probability of existence universe that we live in, with the total dimensions being: x, y, z, time passing, (a+b+c+…..)=1 and future time. We have described a and b as observers/measurements linked together as (a+b)=1 which is the way that mathematicians write the relationship in a two-point probability space, but our universe is not a mathematical construction, but is real to us (because we evolved that way) and there may be differences that might become apparent as we unfold it. From above, we have noted that mathematics is a special case (and doesn’t ordinarily contain logic) of the mathematics of concepts which is a general mathematics and the sum of two values (a, b) could also be the sum of two logics (a, b) because as mentioned above, concepts and contexts are (intimately) related.

 

‘In mathematics and mathematical logic, Boolean algebra is the branch of algebra in which the values of the variables are the truth values true and false, usually denoted 1 and 0 respectively. Instead of elementary algebra where the values of the variables are numbers, and the main operations are addition and multiplication, the main operations of Boolean algebra are the conjunction and, denoted ∧, the disjunction or, denoted ∨, and the negation not, denoted ¬. It is thus a formalism for describing logical relations in the same way that ordinary algebra describes numeric relations.’ (Wikipedia, Boolean algebra)

 

The Michelson-Morley experiment shows that we live in a probability of existence world and we are presumably mathematical/logical ‘abstractions’ that ‘play out’ logical/mathematical decisions in order to devise a future and that future is evolution with untold generations testing every concept and context. We could consider that we are a part of a mathematical fractal where there are always ‘smaller’ universes and that an infinite logical speed must occur at each level. Our evolution could also be considered to be a biocomputer that produces the logic of the Rule of Life that describes the multitude of iterations/lives to define a mathematical iteration/Truth, with the proviso that we can’t ‘go back’ and rectify previous evolution. In other words, we can use ourselves to examine the situation of ourselves (the universe does the same thing as conservation of energy feed-back) and thus, as we create a future (sixth dimension), future planning becomes possible. Note that the sixth dimension is created by us to improve our reality (through forward planning) and could be considered as world O (our) units/dimension. So, we can consider mathematics to be both numerical and logical and use the equation (a +/and b)=1 to show that a and b are both measurements and measurers in a numerical and logical sense.

 

‘In physics, a conservation law states that a particular measurable property of an isolated physical system does not change as the system evolves over time. Exact conservation laws include conservation of energy, conservation of linear momentum, conservation of angular momentum, and conservation of electric charge. There are also many approximate conservation laws, which apply to such quantities as mass, parity, lepton number, baryon number, strangeness, hypercharge, etc.’ (Wikipedia, Conservation laws) Looking at the ‘exact’ conservation laws and converting to world P units, we have conservation of energy, conservation of angular momentum and conservation of electric charge.

 

Now (a +/and b)=1 is a dimension of our universe and I have referred to the Theory of Everything/Consciousness that is the overarching of a continuum of Consciousness that includes physics, chemistry, biology etc. and all these disciplines contain conservation of energy, angular momentum and electric charge. Now consider the quotation: ‘perhaps the greatest surprise to emerge from the Golden Age [of black hole research] was general relativity’s insistence that all the properties of a black hole are precisely predictable from just three numbers: the hole’s mass, its rate of spin, and its electric charge. From those three numbers, if one is sufficiently clever at mathematics, one should be able to compute, for example, the shape of the hole’s horizon, the strength of its gravitational pull, the details of the swirl of spacetime around it, and its frequencies of pulsation.’ (Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein’s Outrageous Legacy, Kip S. Thorne, p 259),

 

Looking at the two paragraphs above, it appears that the ‘exact’ conservation laws are all that are necessary to define our universe and converting to world P units, we have conservation of energy, angular momentum and electric charge and our equation becomes: (x+b)=1=(y+b)=(z+b) where x, y, and z are the three exact conservation laws and b is the measurer/observer. Further, I have mentioned that mathematics and logic are intimately related through context and concept, as in the mathematics of concepts, where mathematics and Boolean algebra are special cases that strip out the interdependence. The ‘=1’ could be replaced by ‘=1/true’ and so forth as the mathematics of concepts requires both.

 

The equation has yielded valuable insights, in particular, the proof of the existence of the mathematics of concepts, that context and concept are intimately related, that no absolutes exist (Plato’s problem), that an absolute must be set for the equation to have a particular solution (that (set-absoute +/and b)=1 has a solution) and that the equation needs an absolute (to be set) will be used time and time again. In fact, these requirements should be taken as a major part of the mathematics of concepts and leads into its inherant iterative nature. Its strength in science is to provide entanglement/context to technology and in the social sciences to link concepts and context together in a more formal way as discussed in chapter 2 and the example here. Included in this general mathematic is the realization that the speed of electromagnetic radiation is constant, in a vacuum, throught the two proofs (concept and context) given earlier based on uncertainty and the Michelson-Morley experiment. Likewise, the three exact conservations, energy, angular momentum and charge, would be absolutes and it would not surprise me if angular momentum and charge totalled zero across the universe, given that the Big Bang contained only energy (in fact, logic, as below). In other words, charges, angular momentum, mass, chemical energy etc. are states of energy in the Theory of Everything/Consciousness.

 

I have mentioned world O and world P units, and as above that future time is a world O dimension, but perhaps the time has come for a digression that may ‘clear the muddied waters’. ‘The curved spacetime paradigm is based on three sets  of mathematically formulated laws: Einstein’s field equation, which describes how matter generates the curvature of spacetime; the laws which tell us that perfect rulers and perfect clocks measure the lengths and the times of Einstein’s curved spacetime; and the laws which tell us how matter and fields move through curved spacetime, for example, that freely moving bodies travel along straight lines (geodesics)’. (p 401)

 

‘The flat spacetime paradigm is also based on three sets of laws: a law describing how matter, in flat spacetime, generates the gravitational field; laws describing how that field controls the shrinkage of perfect rulers and the dilation of the ticking rates of perfect clocks; and the laws describing how the gravitational fields also controls the motions of particles and fields through flat spacetime.’ (p 401)

 

The two paragraphs, above, describe curved and flat spacetime and I would like to say that I have no problem with whatever paradigm is used to measure the effects, but I do have a few words that may bring a better understanding. Curved spacetime describes the motion of a particle/photon through space as it is attracted to local potential wells (stars, planets etc.) also, there are no rulers or clocks because they are world O inventions that animals used to catch prey and to avoid capture. In space, there is no such thing as local conservation of momentum because in a probability space, every point is entangled with every other. There are no gravitons or gravity waves, as Einstein and others postulated to account for ‘spooky action at a distance’ because (a +/and b)=1/true) does that in a probability space using logic.

 

Note that nothing has changed in a mathematical/computational sense, but our perspective, by using the fifth dimension has been simplified. This is shown by the following quotation: ‘the flat spacetime paradigm’s laws of physics can be derived, mathematically, from the curved spacetime paradigm’s laws, and conversely. This means that the two sets of laws are different mathematical representations of the same physical phenomona’. (p 402) This quotation is not surprising because mathematics is a special case of the mathematics of concepts and as our example will show, below, the Survival of the Best (mathematics) is deeply flawed for this very reason. The mathematics of concepts, with context and concept, provides/forces a unique (but converging) answer/measurement when we assign an absolute, but if we wish to measure in world O units, complications will occur, especially if we ignore the logic, or attempt to stand outside of the experiment.

 

I had trouble developing the concept/context relationship, but it is immediately apparent from (a+b)=1 that energy/mass comes in many forms, each with a context part and a concept part, but this is not surprising when it is considered that a feedback is necessary for the conservation of energy to remain constant. In other words, there has to be something that is part of every type of energy (concept) AND be part of the summation (context). Notice that gravity must be instantaneously transmitted to preserve local logic, and that (probably) all energy forms contain gravity because it is necessary for life to exist.

 

Gravity waves MAY exist because ‘gravitational waves have already been proved to exist by astronomical observations for which Joseph Taylor and Russel Hulse of Princeton University won the 1993 Nobel Prize…. Nothing else, only tiny gravitational-wave kicks, can explain the stars’ inspiral.’ (p 392) The final sentence, should perhaps read ‘nothing else, that we know of at the moment’ might be more logical, but there is no reason that the waves should not exist, but only the logic (infinite speed) part is relevant to this discussion.

 

Now, I read in Kip Thorne’s book that ‘all energy contains gravity’ and Franklin Potter and Christopher Jargodski’s book (p 264) says that ‘the general theory of relativity (GTR) tells us that all forms of energy are affected by a gravitational field’ and it  is probably is true, but as the mathematics of concepts is iterative, we can never be certain, but in a logical sense it has to be (effectively) true. However, the uncertainty principle could be applied in the mathematics of concepts as well as the duality of concept and context that opens up a logical proof from the biocomputer of life that should allow us to do away with the postulate. The universe has existed/worked for 14 billion years with a gravity proportion adequate to regulate the conservation of energy, so do we really need to know whether every form of energy has the same proportion of gravity context? Surely it is enough to know that it works! In other words, it would be difficult to know/measure the proportions (concept), and logic tells us not to worry (context).

 

So, we can write the total sum of the gravity context G (effectively an absolute) of the forms of energy in the same way that we wrote the relationship of the speed of light being an absolute. Thus, (absolute G +/and b) =1/true, the probability space relativises b and this requires that (enough) energy and mass has a gravity ‘component’/’value’ that the universe can relativise. ‘Relativising’ gravity means that (like the Michelson-Morley experiment) that at any two points, in the universe, G will be the same to observers at those points, and that is the Law of Conservation of Energy.

 

Is the universe measuring/monitoring itself (context) or is the total energy truly constant or sufficiently constant (concept)? Both might be true at the same time as shown by the two proofs that the speed of light is constant and that (a+b)=1. Assuming that the universe can monitor itself, so can we, and the question of monitoring ourselves is used as an example. The question is whether conservation of energy is strictly true, or adequately true and that is the difference between mathematics and the mathematics of concepts. The question of exactitude and logic has caused problems for a long time. ‘Einstein simply postulates what we have deduced, with some difficulty and not altogether satisfactorily, from the fundamental equations of the electromagnetic field.’ (H. A. Lorentz, 1906, Quoted in Albrecht Folsing, Albert Einstein: a Biography, Mad about Modern Physics, Franklin Potter and Christopher Jargodzhi, p 45)

 

My aim has been to simplify our understanding/view of the world and as our mind/brain evolved to confabulate and present a decision/view of a partly hidden prey/predator, so I believe that simplicity of concepts with contexts aids our way through life. So, what of the effects of gravity in the past? I can only suggest that we evolved for 3,000 million years in water, and that ameliorates the effect of gravity on our evolution and that we evolved and are here now, to tell the story. This concept might be simplistic, but strange things may have occurred over time because, whilst total energy is constant, gravity is a potential energy as well and that is increasing as the Big Bang progresses and eventually, most energy will be potential and presumably chemical bonds will weaken, electromagnetic radiation will redshift etc.

 

It is interesting, that like angular momentum and electric charge, ‘the total energy in the observable universe can be shown to be zero by adding the total mass energy in matter and radiation to the total gravitational potential energy.’ (p 115) The Michelson-Morley relativisation proves that our universe is a probability (of existence) space and we know that that space contains one infinitely small possibility of certainty (of existence) at 1, and thus, I suspect, a big Bang in another universe is occasionally created, and as the total energy is zero, it seems that the Big Bang is a purely logical phenomenon and that fact might justify ‘inflation’ as logic starts off with infinite speed before energy, angular momentum and electric charge ‘split’.

 

I have not commented on existing books/theories because I am using six/five dimensions (plus logic contexts) 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) This is of no concern to me because the black hole is still doing its job of providing gravity around which stars rotate and being part of the universe’s house-keeping calculations.

 

‘Throughout this book, I shall adopt, without appology, the view that there does exist an ultimate set of physical laws (which we do not as yet know which might be quantum gravity), and that those laws truly do govern the Universe around us, everywhere. They force the Universe to behave the way it does.’ (p 86) Thus, the derivation above could be called a logic/quantum/gravity description of the universe, which is similar to the quantum gravity quoted, but with the logic of the mathematics of concepts included that is neglected (to some extent) in mathematics as well as also taking into account the effects of logic on the Big Bang and uncertainty on the constant speed of light, that locks into the logic through the absolute. Note the dualism that logic forces the universe to conserve energy and the universe forces us to accept it through relativisation.

 

These chapters necessarily build on each other and a more concise description of our universe might be as follows. An uncertainty event in another universe produced a Big Bang that created our universe (notice that it could only be a logic ‘condition’ as no energy, angular momentum or electric charge was created (absolute=zero), started expanding at infinite speed, the duality of logic/energy produced energy (creates time) and mass (creates space) slowing expansion that is overlain by the (measuring and logic) of the mathematics of concepts similar (but with logic included) to the summation (a+b)=1 of a mathematician’s probability space (bearing in mind that mathematics is traditionally (somewhat) separate to logic). Uncertainty requires a fixed (absolute) speed of light and the Michelson-Morley experiment proves that the universe is a probability space because constant/absolute speed of light relativises the (apparent) enigma that all observers see the speed of light as the same (including other proofs). This same requirement, I believe, acts on the (total) gravity proportion of energy (G) (light, mass, chemical, gravity etc.) and G becomes an absolute with gravity necessarily (because it acts instantly due to localized logic (a+b)=1)) forcing (G +/and b)=1 and the means of providing negative feedback (logically), relativising G, so that G=G-part-of-Energy at all times and places within the universe. Notice that the speed of light is relativised to us, but is too slow for the logic of the universe, and the universe apparently uses the same method on the gravity proportion of the total energy for its own house-keeping.

 

The mathematics of concepts has been used above, to show its power and place as an integral and intimate part of the workings of the universe ((a +/and b)=1), and I am saying this because I need to build confidence that this same mathematics can be used to manage ourselves. In certain ways, it is already being used by us for our own good, but unfortunately, the effect is mixed because it is not being applied with the knowledge to make it work properly, and the planet is heading towards Armageddon. We need to do something before it is too late from global warming, over-population, overuse of resources etc. and a (modernized) Plato’s solution would be a start in the correct direction.

 

In general, our universe does not have absolutes (except those mentioned above) and we have to assign an absolute that is simply a reference point, both numerically and logically as required. Unfolding the universe, above, and unfolding democracy uses the same method and in chapter 67, we ‘woke’ Plato and found that his ideas used the universities for overall knowledge and an absolute (virtue) as a concept and context that could help us , eventually, to gain the ultimate absolute of Survival of the Best (mathematics of concepts) in the future.

 

The most important question is how to repair the world’s political system, and we used the above, to derive a better political solution and I will use four factors (forward planning, personal interest in outcomes, knowledge and representational problems) to look at the present system, and to foreshadow the result, all four factors are (effectively) misused or neglected in today’s politics and (surprise!) they are catered for in Plato’s plan. Remember that the mathematics of concepts tends to give better answers as more concepts are included, as is sensible, but I have chosen (only) those four to make my point.

 

Firstly, forward planning was discussed in chapter 68, where we found that a sixth dimension (future time) was created by the evolution of life together with an absolute of planning and found that ‘future planning’ has been used for thousands of millions of years by organisms, also, universities are knowledge repositories and should be involved in future planning, simply because you need knowledge to plan. Politicians ‘promises’ are not future planning, and even worse, when an investigation/Royal-Commission is sought, it is a legal person that is chosen to lead it.

 

Secondly, politicians should be statesmen/stateswomen acting in everyone’s interest, not playing party politics and should act in the best interests of the country and population and an absolute/aim of virtue could do that, if virtue is expected/demanded by the voters. Thirdly, knowledge is necessary, whether biased or not, to be used by a mathematics of concepts that contains numerical as well as the all-important logic that shows up bias, as bias. Politicians, in general, cannot be compared to universities in the knowledge at their disposal. Fourthly, politicians are elected by voters that receive money from the government and neither seem to be worried by this abuse, yet it is (apart from politics) universally accepted that if you receive a benefit from a vote, you shouldn’t get a vote! In chapter 22, I put forward a proportional voting system where the value of a vote is reduced, as the dependence of the voter on wefare increases.

 

In all these cases, the present political (two factor) system is deficient when compared to a three factor system as put forward by Plato, 2,500 years ago, where the absolute is the aim/supported by the universities. Notice that Plato used a mathematics of concepts because mathematics (without the attending logic) had not been discovered, and if the universe is based on the mathematics of concept, so should our organization and further, the dimensions define the universe and everything in it (principally) by, (a+/and b)=1 that shows the mathematics of concepts and the need for concept, context and absolute, as derived above, and if this seems strange, it is because the derivatives are not obviously related until viewed through the Logic/Quantum/Gravity description of the universe, and from chapter 67: ‘the Theory of Everything/Consciousness could be considered the scenery/back-drop/players to the “play” in the theatre of space-time.’ This shows the interrelatedness of the dimensions and the necessity to consider them all, at all times, and in doing this, leads to the Solution to Everything to denote that (literally) everything is defined by the dimensions, including the solutions. I had to define the fifth (and to a lesser extent the sixth) dimension because there were things that we could do that were outside space-time and the solution to the example above is non-intuitive, but necessarily comes out of the dimensions and to define it needs a concept and context. The context is above, so looking at the concept.

 

The Solution to Everything (concept) arises out of the fact that the dimensions must allow for all solutions that we are capable of formulating, and using the mathematics of concepts acting on the knowledge/concepts that we bring to the problem, it is obvious that the more information considered, the better the result. The mathematics of concepts sets up the relationships between concepts for all to see and makes bias visible and discourages argument so that a decision/iteration/measurement can be made through the contexts. The aim is to set an absolute that can be worked towards and this concept is simple, but shows/proves why politics manages so poorly and why the universities MUST be used for their knowledge and also shows why our economic system of welfare/laissez-faire (to let go) ‘works’ (to a limited extent) because it is an iterational (Survival of the Fittest) solution arising out of Aristotle’s ‘nature has made all things specifically for the sake of man’ (The Great Philosophers, Stephan Law, p 44)

 

The Solution of Everything is important because we are faced with problems for which our present system does not have the answers, and I will restate the sequence: the fifth/sixth dimensions (1) include everything (except space-time) and the equation (a +/and b)=1 (2) derives the mathematics of concepts (3) that gives better answers as more (relevant) concepts (4) are included, which means that wide knowledge is necessary (5). The contexts (a and b)=1 (6) are examined for relevance and an absolute (7) is chosen (because the mathematics of concepts disallows arguments by exposing bias) and the absolute is a ‘forward plan’ (8) that everyone can work towards. The example given is simply that universities provide the widest knowledge bank and the absolute/aim is virtue (according to Plato) and not the current ‘greed is good’.

 

Conclusion: the Big Bang was the creation of energy, and everything in the universe is energy in different forms/concepts, but energy and logic are linked (a+/and b)=1 and the logic description is the Theory of Everything/Consciousness whilst the Law of Conservation of Energy is physical. Light has a speed defined by uncertainty and logic must be instantaneous and they are absolutes as shown by the Michelson-Morley experiment (for light) and the logic component of energy G relativises the universe (logically) to create the Law of Conservation of Energy which we bind (physically) constant by postulate.

 

In the organisation of ourselves, we are constrained by what we can do physically, by police and laws, but we need the logic side of living together and this has been done by Churches and governments, but we are on the verge of Armageddon because they are not organized sufficiently well, through lack of knowledge (concept), and using an inapprpriate  absolute (love). Plato’s organization (three-way, context) must be used (because the present two-way is not working) to try to eventually bring about the use of the absolute of Survival of the Best (mathematics of concepts). The Solution of Everything (concept) is contained within the dimensions of our probability space and in particular, within the Theory of Everything/Consciousness (context) by using the steps provided.

 

‘”In physics, the newest discoveries like relativity and the uncertainty relation, uncover new modes of thought. They really open new perspectives.” A sudden sad look passed over his face. “And I thought that, say, fifty years ago, that this would happen, that those revolutions and advances in science would have an effect on mankind – on morals, on sociology, whatever. It hasn’t happened. We’re still up to the same things, or, well, I think, regressed in values.”’ (from an interview with the American physicist Isidor Isaac Rabi, Robert P. Crease and Charles C. Mann, The Second Creation: makers of the revolution in 20^th-century physics, from Mad About Modern Physics, p 81) This Solution of Everything is the key to social change, but, who will effect that change?

 

References: (1) this chapter (69) follows and adds to chapter 68: The Sixth Dimension, Constant Speed of Light, Michelson-Morley Enigma Solved, Unfolding the Mathematics of Concepts and its Derivation from the Dimensions.

 

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