Chapter 96: The Unification of Top-down and Bottom-up and the Theory of Everything

by Darryl Penney
Abstract: unification is ‘the strong desire among theoretical physicists to find a single theory of everything – with an equation that can fit on their T – shirts’ (30 – second theories, Paul Parsons, p 50) and that equation is (1+(-1))=0. The use of this equation is illustrated top-down and bottom-up, as well as examples refining Einstein’s General Theory of Gravitation, the Big Bang and the future of the universe. In particular, the context of quantum gravity is a simple hyperbola that finally derives Newton’s Universal Law of Gravity and it really is universal from quarks to galaxies. The Big Bang is shown to be completely erroneous and the Big Whoosh answers all the questions in a straight-forward manner.
Part 1: Bottom-up/Top-down

I have always considered that the dimensions were the most fundamental attributes of our universe and yet they are undefined and, as I will show, unknown. Consider,‘in physics and mathematics, the dimension of a mathematical space (or object) is informally defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify any point within it.’ (Wikipedia, Dimension) Notice the phrase ‘informally defined’, and this inability to define a definition hides the problem within Newtonian physics and traditional mathematics that will be exposed by considering mathematical physics derived from the bottom-up and contrast it to Newtonian Physics and traditional mathematics that were ‘derived’ from top-down. I used ‘derived’ because Newtonian physics was a construction that was put together (somewhat) wrongly 350 years ago.

A valiant effort has produced modern science and technology, but with enigmas, and these enigmas show that the basic system that is being used is not correct, not complete, and both. Traditional mathematics likes to think that it is derived from first principles, and so it is, in a manner, but it is completely ‘off track’ in its conception and it is obvious, upon reflection that a number line is complicated and not basic. The basic mathematical unit is the concept of an ‘opposite’ to a number or indeed, the opposite to anything and this idea is orthogonality that everything is relative to something else and if we or the universe creates something, we/it must create the opposite. This is a theory of relativity, but in looking at our universe, we find that the dimensions of a probability/fractal space impose three absolutes that are not relative and these are conservation of total energy, the creation of space creates a fixed energy and the speed of transmission of energy (photon) is constant to every measurer.

‘We still think that there exists a single world substance out of which everything is made – matter/energy, strings, or whatever turns out to be the right way of looking at this.’ (Why The World Does Not Exist, Markus Gabriel, p 85) I believe that this substance is orthogonality and predates the creation of energy or anything else. Thus the opposite of 0 is obviously 0, the opposite of 1 is (–1) etc., so that the equation of everything is (1+(-1))=0 and so generates everything and the basic ‘unit’ defining the universe is orthogonality.
Orthogonality appears in a probability/measuring space because (a+b)=1 where a and b are measurement/records and whatever is in that probability space is summed to a constant value, and I believe that we can describe the energy, being in that space, in our universe as a constant of the form (1+(-1))=0. Orthogonality also appears in a fractal space as (1+(-1))=0 and we live in a fractal universe because the evidence is all around us in the form of stars, coastlines and subatomic particles. The properties of a fractal space is that it is ‘self similar’ and features can be expected to reoccur throughout the space.
‘Much of the early work on five dimensional space was in an attempt to develop a theory that unifies the four fundamental forces in nature: strong and weak nuclear forces, gravity and electromagnetism. German mathematician Theodor Kaluza and Swedish physicist Oskar Klein independently developed the Kaluza–Klein theory in 1921, which used the fifth dimension to unify gravity with electromagnetic force. Although their approaches were later found to be at least partially inaccurate, the concept provided a basis for further research over the past century. To explain why this dimension would not be directly observable, Klein suggested that the fifth dimension would be rolled up into a tiny, compact loop on the order of 10-33 centimeters.’ (Wikipedia, Five Dimensional Space)
This quotation shows that the need for more dimensions was recognized and sought, but, sought top-down, and the answer eluded the seekers because they used the same top-down and ‘armchair’ ponderings that started with the ancient Greeks and created problems for thousands of years. I am going to use the same ‘armchair’ ponderings, but, bottom-up and starting from (literally) nothing and using no postulates or assumptions. I will be using an indeterminate number of dimensions that are not ‘rolled up into a tiny, compact loop on the order of 10-33 centimeters’, but are visible and work hard to produce the universe and the parasite (Life) that has evolved within it.
I will foreshadow the following from chapter 94, to combine the basic with the final derivation for completeness. ‘I have always considered that the dimensions form the basic description of a space, but orthogonality derives the dimensions and the sequence appears to be:

orthogonality à choice à organizational physics à decision à dimensions.’
To simplify, the orthogonality [(1+(-1))=0] is only stable when its space [our universe] x, y, z is expanding over time passing, and that expansion creates the dimensions along with energy [(1+(-1))=0] that must be in two parts [1, (-1)] and these can be called energy and organization in our terms. This is bottom-up and everything can be derived by looking through a probability/fractal space because their structure is (1+(-1))=0 and this is necessary because energy is conserved by (1+(-1))=0. Also, the speed of energy [photons, x, y, z versus time passing] is constant to every measurer [measuring space] and energy [dark energy, positive] is created in each volume of space to balance the potential energy [organization/quantum-gravity, negative] of the necessary expansion [constant speed due to constant speed of the photon] of the universe. [Note that these are absolutes because the logic of Occam’s razor indicates that it is simpler that all dimensions change together by the Lorentz transformation.]
We have derived everything from the bottom-up, and for completeness, the time has come to review top-down traditional physics and it is not pretty. The greatest/best-known equations of traditional physics are ‘duds’, because they are not describing what we think they are describing. E=mc2 and E=hf [E energy, m mass, c speed of light, h Planck’s constant and f frequency] are trivialities relating two states/orthogonalities of the same thing. This might seem harsh, but, from above, (1+(-1))=0 says that everything is energy or organization (to use common ideas/words) and they are orthogonal and the two equations are describing orthogonalities of energy/mass and particle/wave-form [(E+(-mc2))=0 and (E+(-hf))=0]. Mass is the orthogonal form of energy that does not move at the speed of light as required by the dimensions and frequency is the orthogonal form of energy/mass that is required to build atoms. Both of these common orthogonalities are needed in the universe that we evolved in, for us to be in the form that we are.

The basic problem is using a mathematical equivalency (=) for things that are independent/orthogonal. They are not equal [E=mc2] but should be considered as orthogonal [(E+(-mc2))=0] and the purpose/use, by us, and the universe, of using them is because they are not equal, but are independent and are by necessity, different forms of the same thing. This use of the same thing in different guises is the ultimate simplicity that one would expect from the universe [Occam’s razor, steam/water/ice] Thinking/thought of these properties could be remedied by a simple change not in nomenclature, but in a change in comprehension because everything is orthogonal [if it is not the same thing]. This leads to the problem that quantum gravity has no definition because it cannot be described by traditional physics and that is because traditional physics is incomplete. Quantum gravity is the orthogonal of energy and is the organization (to use a common word) that allows energy to exist because (energy +organization)=nothing [(1+(-1))=0].

To put it simply, the elementary particles (electrons and protons) are orthogonal in electric charge and orthogonals of neutrons (and the product of an organizational solution involving quarks) that are elementary particles because they cannot be broken up (into quarks) by definition and by effect that they are orthogonal/independent to energy and thus are (effectively) organization and impervious to applications of energy. This absolute inability to use energy to break up elementary particles is tempered by the huge attraction within the nucleus between the protons and neutrons, but susceptible to applications of energy [binding energy, asymptotic] and the opposite end of the graph is gravity and asymptotic to zero at infinity (stars). This simplicity has a point, and that is, that energy and quantum gravity are orthogonal, independent and quantum gravity can be represented by a hyperbola y=1/x, where y is the attraction and x is the separation. This is the basic problem with traditional physics that it does not recognize orthogonality and puts gravity as being equivalent to energy and so loses information.

From above, ‘E=mc2 and E=hf are trivialities relating two states/orthogonalities of the same thing’ might seem to be a harsh judgement, especially considering the statue of the scientists responsible, so, can we derive orthogonality, that is the basis of (literally) everything, in a top-down manner to show that they could have used it. The answer is yes, when you know what you are doing, and further, I will also derive the mathematics of concept/context, of which traditional mathematics is a special case. This shows how working top-down can easily lead to the wrong solution unless we know what the bottom-up solution is, and the point that I am making is precisely that, that the answer is/was available top-down!

Let us start with a complicated scenario, but one that is supposed to be simple, from Euclidian geometry, that a triangle has three sides. I could say that a triangle has three sides [concepts 1, 2, 3] and the end of one is attached to the end of another [context 1 to 2, 2 to 3, 3 to 1] and this can be written as (a+b)=1, where a is the measurement and b is the record and this orthogonalizes to (a+b)=1 and (a and b)=1 that accounts for the physical and the logical aspects. Notice firstly, that everything can be written as (a+b)=1 [probability space], and secondly, that traditional mathematics ignores the logical (a and b)=1, so, this logic concept is new to traditional mathematics that circumvents this problem by bringing the mind of the mathematician into the problem. This is a serious problem that requires a ‘new’ mathematics.

To repeat, a measurement has to be made [1, 2, 3] and a record kept if the measurement is to exist [2 to 3, 3 to 1, 1 to 2] and this requires a mind/brain. (a+b)=1 is the simplified form of a probability space and the simplification (1+(-1))=0 is a fractal and both of them are statements of orthogonality. Thus orthogonality is the basis of everything in the universe. QED In other words, top-down and bottom-up are the same when you do not get lost, as has clearly happened to traditional mathematics and physics. However, traditional mathematics and physics have proved useful, but it can be seen that they are incomplete, littered with enigmas and are special cases of a ‘new’ mathematics and a ‘new’ physics.
The ‘attempt to develop a theory that unifies the four fundamental forces in nature: strong and weak nuclear forces, gravity and electromagnetism’ was put forward 100 years ago and did not succeed because the dimensions were not understood and I believe that the following is more appropriate. The organization of elementary subatomic particles, the strong nuclear force, diffraction and gravity are instances/parts of quantum gravity, a hyperbolic relation of the form y=1/x where the attraction y depends on the separation x of ALL energy. Electromagnetic radiation is only one form of energy and all forms of energy are orthogonal to quantum gravity and the weak nuclear force is not relevant. For completeness, magnetism will be shown to be a manifestation of quantum gravity, at a later date.
Part 2: Quantum Gravity

Consider that ‘Newton’s law of universal gravitation states that a particle attracts every other particle in the universe using a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. This is a general physical law derived from empirical observations by what Isaac Newton called inductive reasoning. It is a part of classical mechanics and was formulated in Newton’s work Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (“the Principia”), first published on 5 July 1687.’ (Wikipedia, Newton’s law of universal gravitation)

This is saying that one of Newton’s and physics’ ‘signature’ equations was ‘derived from empirical observations by what Isaac Newton called inductive reasoning’. I find that the acceptance of this by physicists, in general, is very hard to believe, but what could they do, without a better theory/solution? Notice that the quantum gravity that I am proposing provides the proof because when both ends of the hyperbola are recognised in the asymptotic nuclear binding energy [infinity] and gravity [to zero], the slope of 1/x, for separation x, becomes 1/x squared and the product of the masses of subatomic particles and galaxies becomes relevant at the asymptotes. QED. The often quoted spherical diminution from a point source to illustrate the inverse square rule I have never found convincing and in the light of the above, misleading. Unless the quantum gravity graph is extended to the two ends and assumed to be a simple 1/x [Occam’s razor], for separation x, Newton was guessing/’inductive reasoning’ at the relationship.

From above, Newtonian physics confuses gravity with energy and the answer is, I believe, to use a top/down orthogonality where the ‘new’ physics combines top-down Newtonian physics with bottom-up organizational physics and that also solves the problem of ‘everyday’ logic because that is the same as organizational physics and must accurately represent our universe even if that universe is a probability/fractal view.

Considering the Principle of Least Action, ‘quantum theory, which describes how things work on the subatomic scale, seems to be the one area where the principle of least action does not apply. Quantum objects can be in two states at once, and can take multiple paths when travelling from one place to another. Richard Feynman went so far as to suggest that a quantum particle will simultaneously take every possible path when making a journey!’ (30 – Second Theories, Paul Parsons, p 16) Firstly, this is the common/probabalistic view of quantum mechanics and is, I believe, the result of viewing the null space through a probability space because a probability space is a measuring space and describes the null space through a distortion that is required to supply an instantaneous speed of accounting of the conservation of energy. If we only have one pair of glasses and they distort things, how do we know the ‘true’ picture? The ‘true’ picture is unknown to us, unless we can de-orthogonize. Secondly, every path must be included in the calculation in a probability space otherwise certainty is not attained, and certainty was Feynman’s aim.

‘Quantum mechanics is probably the single most important theory in physics. Despite the difficulty we have in understanding what it all means, we have it to thank for almost all of modern technology…. However, despite its tremendous success, quantum mechanics remains shrouded in mystery because, uniquely among scientific theories, no one really knows how or why it works.’ (p 38) I believe that quantum mechanics is simple in that it has been known since ‘the 5th century BC by the Greek philosopher Democritus, who speculated that everything in the world is ultimately composed of small, hard and indivisible particles’ (p 36) and that allows/demands uncertainty. The problem is compounded because we have to look at that uncertainty through a probability space and all the problems that it puts in our way, such as constant/absolute speed of light to every observer, the expanding universe [expansion is a necessary requirement for (1+(-1))=0 to exist] that fooled us into postulating the Big Bang theory, the probabilistic paths of particles, not to mention the wave/particle duality that forms atoms and orthogonality and so forth. On top of all that, the Newtonian physics that we use only describes half the picture and muddies the scene and leaves enigmas along the way, and further, the mathematics that we use was derived from counting sheep and so on. It really is a wonder that we have got as far as we have, but then, we are ruining the planet in the process and so it really is time to get it right, and in particular, by using organization appropriately.

Part 3: Einstein’s theory of General Relativity

‘Incorporating gravity into his theory of special relativity, Albert Einstein’s theory of general relativity revolutionalized our view of space and time. Going beyond Newton’s laws, it opened up a universe of black holes, worm holes and gravitational lenses.’ (50 Ideas You Really Need To Know: Universe, Joanne Baker, p 92) Unfortunately, to build, one has to re-model the existing and to establish the ‘playing field’, let me say that Newton and Einstein were innovative but left enigmas. As far as I can see, and in spite of the above quotation, and given the low level of my view, Einstein’s general relativity is little different to Newton’s concept of gravity and the concept of general relativity is a requirement that cannot be met by Newtonian physics. I believe that within this context, Einstein made his biggest blunder and the blunder was not the cosmological constant, it was general relativity and was a product of his times.

Einstein’s special theory of relativity is based on a slow constant, to each measurer, speed of light that was the startling result of the Michelson-Morley experiment and the effects on distance, time and energy/mass [dimensions] reflect the problems of that singularity (and logic) because from the dimensions of a probability space, for all energy, space to time is a constant, and thus provides a maximum speed for energy. However, as in a lot of cases in the universe, orthogonality is used to ‘sidestep’ problems, as in the wave/particle duality to build atoms, and the orthogonality of energy is organization. Thus, we have the accounting of energy that is logically and instantly required throughout the universe as gravity/organization that is conceptually different to the slow speed of light. This orthogonality [(1+(-1))=0] provides the basic construction of the universe and we need instantaneous accounting for the conservation of energy as well as a slow speed of light that increases space at a pace that allows us time to evolve.

Now, if the (necessary) slow speed of light produces relativity [between moving frames], the non-infinitesimal measuring rods produces quantum mechanics and gravity is an accounting term, there is no way to amalgamate these, unless we de-orthogonalize to a lower level and that level is the null space that we can view only by using the equation of everything (1+(-1))=0. I have used the terms energy and organization for 1 and (-1) for convenience, but they are both energy and again, the two types of energy appear to have been taken by Newtonian physics to be one.

Consider, ‘Einstein recognized that this acceleration was the equivalent to the force of gravity. So, just as special relativity describes what happens in reference frames, or inertial frames, moving at some constant speed relative to another, gravity was a consequence of being in a reference frame that is accelerating. He called this the happiest thought of his life.’ (p 92) This introduces a simplicity [that gravity is a force] that is particularly welcomed by Newtonian physics, but, I believe that it is a ‘simplicity too far’ and is caused by the top-down consideration that has led physics into problems over recorded history and is due to using a lower/different fractal level of orthogonality.

If whatever you are standing on, is taken away, of course you accelerate toward the closest mass [a simplification] and you have to ask, ‘what has this to do with the accounting?’ [a different orthogonal/fractal level]. If Special Relativity is caused by the constant value of the measurement of the speed of light to all observers because the space is a probability space, gravity has nothing to do with the speed of light, so why is the theory called General Relativity and an extension of Special Relativity? The rubber sheet analogy is a picturesque way of explaining attraction, but is space-time ‘bent’? Space and time passing were generated from first principles, above, and are quite simple, so, what is happening here?

Why would Einstein confuse a force with an accounting unless there was a good reason, and I believe that that reason arose from the top-down view as well as the properties of a fractal. Both a probability space and a fractal space use the equation (1+(-1))=0 that defines the mathematics of concept/context and this shows the level of orthogonality. Also, whilst the mind/brain utilizes concepts [(a+b)=1], we have problems envisaging concepts outside of our experience, so, consider the example of the mind, that the first orthogonality is energy/organization that leads to thought/thinking in our mind/brain, and the second orthogonality is the physical level of nerves, action potentials etc. that we would find enigmatic without knowing/experiencing thinking (chapter 95).
‘Gram for gram, our brain consumes a disproportioately huge amount of energy. It represents 2.5 percent of our total body weight but consumes an incredible 22 percent of our body’s energy expenditure ar rest. The human brain expends about 350 percent more energy than the brain of other anthropoids like gorillas, orangutans, and chimpanzees.’ (Grain Brain, David Perlmutter, Kristin Loberg, p 181) Clearly, a higher orthogonality is to consider energy/organization and that explains the level of thought versus energy for humans versus the other anthropoids. The second orthogonality/fractal finds that all anthropoids have the same type of mind/brain and information is lost.
I will repeat this by coming at an opposite/orthogonal direction because it is so important to understanding the situation. We all know the scope of thought [energy/organization fractal level] derived from the consumption of energy in the brain, but to derive thought by looking at the nerves and tissues in the brain [lower fractal level] would be almost impossible, as we currently find. Using the same idea [top/down orthogonality] applied to traditional mathematics and physics versus the ‘new’ mathematics and physics, one could say that, ‘until the process is understood, it cannot be appreciated’.

A fractal is self replicating and the first orthogonality energy/organization self-replicates to energy being composed of energy/organization and organization is composed of energy/organization and so on ad infinitum. Thus, I believe that it is possible that Einstein used the second level of orthogonality and its energy component to derive/describe the General Theory, which it is not, whereas the Special Theory is based on an experiment and is confirmed bottom-up, above.

To repeat, relativity is a result of orthogonality and orthogonality is basic to everything [(1+(-1))=0], orthogonality produces independent concepts and relativity is context and this splitting must always produce concept and context except for the three absolutes defined by the probability space [conservation of energy, dark energy and the constant speed of light]. Special relativity is a product of the constant speed of light measurement to all observers, but the so-called General Relativity belongs to conservation of energy [gravity]. Relativity is a context and ‘everything is relative except for the three factors of the probability space’ and yet both the special and general theories are based on those non-relativistic examples.

In other words, relativity is a fact of creation [(1+(-1))=1, context], but the three absolutes of a probability space complicate relativity [constant speed of light to each measurer for each measurement etc.]. The concept is the type of energy [1, (-1)] and is orthogonal to the context [1+(-1)], and there lies the problem. Traditional physics ignores the difference between inertial and gravitational mass [same value, but orthogonal], and here it is again, so that ignoring the concept and context, Einstein has assigned the same energy to the two parts. The Special Theory of Relativity was based on ‘hard’ experimental data [Michelson-Morley] and shows the dimensions changing to avoid a logical singularity, but the General Theory is a complete misnomer.

I should point out that (literally) everything in the universe is orthogonal except for the three absolutes of the probability space, and for convenience I use (1+(-1))=1 as the first orthogonality, but, in the second orthogonality (1+(-1))=1 represents the physical and (1 and (-1))=1 represents the logical. The mind/brain is a product of the probability space that has the form (a+b)=1 where a is any measurement and b is any record, and in a second orthogonality, (a+b)=1 and (a and b)=1 cover the physical and logical. In a measuring space, a and b are quite general and we have added computers, cars, electric light etc. to our consciousness and record. Now we have to add one more to a and b, and that is orthogonality, that leads to the mathematics of concept/context and (presumably) solutions to the world’s problems.

Another example of (possibly) using a higher level orthogonality that is costing a lot of money and effort is ‘another aspect of general relativity is that waves can be set up in the space-time sheet, radiating especially from black holes and dense spinning compact stars like pulsars. Astronomers have seen pulsars’ spin decreasing, so they expect that this energy will have been lost to gravity waves, but the waves have not yet been detected. Physicists are building giant detectors on Earth and in space’. (p 95) If gravity is the accounting/organization of energy across the universe, we can only see it through a space that is a measuring space, and the simplest is a probability/fractal orthogonal space represented by the equation [(1+(-1))=0] that contains a measurement/entanglement orthogonality, with an infinite speed. The value of the gravitational energy is propagated at the speed of light because it is energy. We could go so far as to say that Newtonian/Einsteinian physics cannot measure gravity because it is independent/orthogonal to the energy based system that they use.

Part 4: The Big Bang That Wasn’t

‘The Big Bang theory includes an event called inflation. The entire universe was contained within a single point, before being inflated into an incredibly hot fireball that has since cooled into the galaxies and stars. Quantum uncertainty allows tiny packets of energy to appear out of nothing at all. Usually these ‘vacuum fluctuations’ disappear again in a tiny fraction of a second. However, if such a bubble contains a form of energy known as a scalar field, the scalar field can act like antigravity, making the bubble expand extremely rapidly up to a volume about 10 centimetres across.’ (30 – Second Theories, Paul Parsons, p 120)

The Big Bang theory is a typical creation myth that takes the observation that every star/galaxy is moving away from us, to form a simple premise that this observation was caused by a big explosion that created all of the energy/matter in the universe at one moment in time. As time and research passed, the theory became embellished with inflation. It should be noted that energy has a (relatively) slow speed as a photon, whereas quantum gravity is a product of the probability space and has infinite speed because it is an accounting. Consider the unfolding/generation of a fractal, such as the Mandelbrot series, is it restricted to the speed of light? No, because it is an accounting not an energy. The reference to ‘vacuum fluctuations’ is, I believe, better considered as ‘choice’ through orthogonal particles.

‘Inflation theory was developed in the early 1980s. It explains the origin of the large-scale structure of the cosmos. Quantum fluctuations in the microscopic inflationary region, magnified to cosmic size, become the seeds for the growth of structure in the Universe … Many physicists also believe that inflation explains why the Universe appears to be the same in all directions (isotropic), why the cosmic microwave background radiation is distributed evenly, why the Universe is flat, and why no magnetic monopoles have been observed.’ (Wikipedia)

I believe that the requirement by the dimensions that the speed of light is constant means that the universe must expand at a constant speed [Cosmic Microwave Background] and that dark energy [positive] be created as a necessary accounting [potential energy] for the expansion of energy/matter [negative]. Quantum gravity is an accounting of the space and is not limited to the speed of light and that negates the whole problem of inflation.

The fate of the universe seems to call for speculation – will it slow, continue expanding at a set rate, even accelerate! According to the above, the universe will continue to exist and grow, as long as it is expanding and if it were to grow smaller, it would slowly disappear because dark energy would be lost as the universe contracted in a balance of potential energy with energy. I see no reason that it should not expand forever with dark energy fuelling dust/stars/galaxies as a fractal must do. This is ‘steady state’ and everything is expanding, not from some initial Big Bang, but logically because the dimensions require photons to always travel at a set speed that creates space and that space creates dark energy to balance the potential energy increase of the universe and so on forever (in a null space).

The Big Bang is the accepted theory of the creation of the universe and yet it is a creation myth that is the antithesis of science, so, I will show its problems with reference to the above. (a) The sudden creation of all the energy in the universe is not something that the energy based Newtonian physics should consider because it should ask where did this energy come from and how does this fit with the conservation of energy? (b) ‘Three critical observations underpin the success of the Big Bang model. The first is Edwin Hubble’s observation in the 1920s that most galaxies are moving away from our own.’ (50 Ideas you really need to know: Universe, Joanne Baker, p 57) Firstly, above, everything is moving away to create the logical separation that is produced by the creation of space that increases the dark energy that expands the universe to balance the two energies.

Secondly, ‘In the first few seconds, the universe was so hot and dense that not even atoms were stable…. Within the first three minutes, cosmic chemistry mixed the protons and neutrons, according to their relative numbers into atomic nuclei…. Once the universe cooled below the fusion limit, no elements heavier than beryllium could be made.’ (p 57) The first question is how did the ‘relative numbers’ of protons and neutrons know the correct number to form? The above assumes choice and direction in the numbers and presenting the reactions that might form. I believe that considering that protons and electrons are orthogonal to neutrons and thus the sum of the electric charges is conserved, protons and electrons form at a rate that is necessarily the solution to this enigma.

In the 1940s, Ralph Alpher and George Gamow predicted the proportions of light elements produced in the Big Bang, and this basic picture has been confirmed’. (p 57) This aligns with my interpretation that the plasma is hot and dense because there is, as yet, no mechanism to create space quickly because the photons are absorbed by the plasma. In other words, for 400,000 years there was no mechanism to allow the universe to expand at the speed of light and so cool down.

Thirdly, ‘another pillar supporting the Big Bang theory is the discovery in 1965 of the faint echo of the Big Bang itself…. they had stumbled upon the cosmic microwave background … predicted in 1948 by George Gamow, Ralph Alpher and Robert Hermann. Although nuclei were synthesized within the first three minutes, atoms were not formed for 400,000 years. Eventually, negatively charged electrons paired with positively charged nuclei to make atoms of hydrogen and light elements. The removal of charged particles, which scatter and block the path of light, cleared the fog and made the universe transparent. From then onwards, light could travel freely across the universe, allowing us to see back that far.’ (p 58)

The sudden release of photons form the ‘burst’ of microwaves at the frequency that they are now, that we call the Cosmic Microwave Background. In expanding to create the space of the universe, their energy has presumably been reduced because they are out-running the mass of the universe that is expanding at a necessarily slower pace.

(c) ‘It is a major puzzle why the universe contains mostly matter and not antimatter.’ (p 70) This is, I believe, a problem associated with top-down theories that have no organization, just powered by energy, such as Newtonian physics because it is logical that both mass and anti-mass should form. The above, from first principles, offers choice to the reaction that is contemplated because there is an orthogonality between matter and antimatter and there has to be a reason to choose antimatter. Not finding antimatter suggests the Big Whoosh is more appropriate because organization is available.

(d) Flatness: cosmic inflation must represent the most bizarre theory because ‘we think that the answer is inflation – the idea that the baby universe swelled up so fast in a split second that its wrinkles smoothed out and its subsequent expansion balanced gravity exactly.’ (p 76) According to the above, the expansion of energy in the universe balances the gravity/organization exactly all of the time because of the relation (1+(-1))=0, where quantum gravity and energy are equal and orthogonal.

(e) Sameness: ‘the puzzle is that the universe is so big that its opposite edges should not be able to communicate even at the speed of light…. This is the ‘horizon problem’, where the ‘horizon’ is the furthest distance that light has travelled since the birth of the universe, making an illuminated sphere. There are regions of space that we cannot and will never see because light from there has not yet had time to travel to us.’ (p 77) From the above, we have to look, I believe at our universe [in null space], through a probability space because a probability space supports an infinite speed of accounting of measurement through entanglement across the universe. This ensures that gravity, that is an organization, is everywhere active in the universe and not an energy that is constrained to the speed of light.

(f) Smoothness: ‘galaxies are spread fairly uniformly across the sky’ (p 78) I believe that the Big Whoosh is perhaps a better description than Big Bang because it seems that, whether by God or by chance, a point source developed energy/heat with little increase in size over 400,000 years because it had no rapid means of expansion until electrons formed stable orbits and allowed the photons to create space at the speed of light. Thus, smoothness was generated along with the simple atoms simply by considering numbers and time for stabilizing. Also, the creation of dark energy to balance the expansion would have, I believe, created a ‘fractal infill’.

(g) ‘The flatness, horizon and smoothness problems of the universe can all be fixed with one idea: inflation. …. Inflation has not yet been proven and its ultimate cause is not well understood – there are as many models as theorists – but understanding it is a goal of the next generation of cosmology experiments.’ (p 78) The theory presented here suggests that the concept of inflation is superfluous and is not needed.

Conclusion: Notice that the Big Whoosh is similar to the Big Bang, but with a better, more believable means of initiation.

It appears that energy in its basic form [photons] is constrained to a speed, but there is no ‘graininess’ and the energy/organization works at any level of energy. This would be expected for two reasons, firstly, any restriction in the quantum of energy would throw up singularities [as we see in subatomic particles] and secondly, the creation could have started with the creation of a tiny amount of energy separation.

This begs the question of what is a photon and I believe that it is a wave/particle duality/orthogonalization as well as the orthogonal fields of electromagnetism where the electric field is the energy and the magnetic field is the organization that is the reference for the logic of the requirement that no charged particle can exceed the speed of light (see chapter 95) in a probability space. This also answers the question of magnetic monopoles, above, that positive and negative electric charges are orthogonal organization and exist, but magnetism is, I believe, organizational [quantum gravity] and north and south are (organizational) directions and a direction always has an anti-direction.

The overall conclusion is that the reasons for the Big Bang apply equally to the Big Whoosh and that theory presents a reason for the formation of energy and supplies the logic [organizational physics] that allows us to understand its workings. Further, a logical [steady state] increase in energy over time indicates and provides the underlying picture of a continually increasing universe that as a fractal, will remain similar to the present forever.

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

Chapter 94: Why Newtonian Physics Needs Choice

Subtitle: Defining Choice Within a ‘New’ Philosophy, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle Resolved, the Physics of Choice Creates Atoms Through the Wave/particle Duality/shimmer, Mind/thought is the Organizational Orthogonality of the Brain’s Energy Consumption, Orthogonality defines the dimensions, How the Voting System Effects Housing Affordability and How to Fix It Through Rational Choices

Chapter 95: The Organization and Software behind the Mind and Abstract Thought