Chapter 97: You Asked For A Simple Theory, Stephen Hawking, So, Enjoy It!

by Darryl Penney

Abstract: it requires a special heroism to discuss modern physics and wish that it were simple because you might just get what you wished, as in the proverb! Orthogonality is everything, and the universe is its manifestation, but orthogonality produces relativity except for three absolutes that are necessarily part of the probability/fractal space through which we must view our universe. We can use orthogonality and relativity to create an absolute/‘new’ mathematics and physics that describes traditional mathematics and physics in a uniquely useable form that retains the exactitude and calculations but allows the simplicity of the dimensions to show the true form/composition of the universe. Examples are made of the traditionally, supposedly difficult Theory of Relativity, subatomic particles and fields that can be simply understood at whatever academic level is chosen. Further, it is shown that we must use these ‘spanners of creation’ [three absolutes and orthogonality] to understand the fractal/probability universe, that we call home, that is created by the equation (1+(-1))=0.

This chapter is dedicated to Stephen Hawking because he asked for a simple complete science. Relativity and orthogonality have produced just that, neatly packaged in the form of a fractal that can give anyone exactly what they want, from the layman to scientist, as well as the traditionally forgotten/ignored organization that might just save our civilization.

‘Up to now, most scientists have been too occupied with the development of new theories that describe what the universe is to ask the question why. On the other hand, the people whose business it is to ask why, the philosophers, have not been able to keep up with the advance of scientific theories.’ (A Brief History of Time, Stephen W. Hawking, p 174) It appears that we both agree that both technicians and generalists are necessary to fully understand a subject [place it in context], but there are other considerations. ‘However, if we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists.’ (p 175) I also agree that if we fully understand a subject, it can be simply explained at any [fractal] level, and traditional mathematics and physics are not able to do this because their bottom-up base is not understood.

I am trying to outline derivations and place them in perspective in an endeavour to determine a simple Theory of Everything, much like Stephen Hawking would like. This, I believe, has now been done and is the equation (1+(-1))=0, but the problem is to reduce our existing plethora of theories into this equation and show people that this works better, and also, to allow philosophers, as generalists, to be able to organize the information and understand the principles involved. This wish is a fractal and ‘opens out’ as a person’s interest deepens in any area and I will show, below, that using a lower level of the fractal allows organization to ‘condense’ complex concepts into understandable concepts. An example of the difference in level of concept is that the energy consumed (in the brain) creates the production of thought (in the mind) [first orthogonality] that we only see as a physical brain composed of cells and dendritic connections [second orthogonality]. Alternately, the energy consumed (in the body) creates the production of movement (in the body) [first orthogonality] and that concept and the associated context explain more than does examining a muscle [second orthogonality].

The energy/thought relationship is a first level orthogonal that Life has used and it is very powerful and carries the most general concepts, and in the physical creation of the universe it appears as energy (1) and organization (-1), in our common terms. It will be shown that everything is relative to something else [(1) to (-1) and (1) and (-1) that represents the physical and logical] except for three terms that are absolutes [not relative]. We can use this same relativity to place traditional mathematics and physics ‘under the microscope’ and I will compare them to absolute/’new’ mathematics and physics. The two latter subjects have been derived from the dimensions of a probability/fractal space that are x, y, z, time passing and energy, where energy is the sum of energy [(1)] and organization [(-1)] that, if they come together again equal 0 [annihilate each other].

Traditional mathematics has its theorems/’seashells’ that once derived are derived forever, however, in the ‘new’ mathematics, the mathematics of concept/context is ‘flowing’/moving and requires a prediction. The ‘new’ mathematical physics has become the repository of theorems in the form of ‘universal truths’ [organizational physics] that are based on our view of the real universe and they are a little strange because of the probability/fractal space through which we must view the universe. Whatever the universe is [null space], we must expand it for us to comprehend it [and that needs a probability/fractal space] and that introduces more strangeness [such as a constant speed of light to any measurer] as well as the strangeness introduced by traditional mathematics and physics that have been based on the units of evolution [speed and distance from predators]. Further, top-down workings invite errors and guesswork and so, I believe that bottom-up provides a more sensible approach, however, professional careers require decades of work and no-one likes/wants their ‘apple-cart’ upset, so, where am I going with this? The history of science has shown that long periods of time can pass before acceptance is general, so, I will make my way slowly and show accepted theories in the light of the ‘new’ physics and wait for a new generation of students to question their teachers. Thank you for your interest Stephen Hawking!

In the previous (chapter 96), Newton’s Universal Theory of Gravitation became quantum gravity and Newton’s use of the inverse square depletion of (mutual) attraction was vindicated. Was this relationship a guess, because textbooks generally use the inverse square depletion of the intensity of light from a point source as an example? This might be a case of simplification, but, I believe, that the attraction of the quantum gravity [Chapter 91: Organizational Physics: ‘Why Things Happen?’, Quantum Gravity] hyperbola in the form y=1/x, where y is the attraction and x is the separation of all energy that describes the attraction from nuclear binding energy to the gravitational attraction of the stars. [the slope of 1/x is 1/x squared, the inverse square law]

There are always winners and losers, and I say that with conviction because the statement is an orthogonality and everything in the universe [except for the three absolutes] is built on orthogonality except our creations such as traditional mathematics and traditional physics. It will be seen that the ‘new’ physics and mathematics have been created by adding relativity/orthogonality to traditional mathematics and physics. In the limit, everything is either the same or independent because when the same parts are removed, only the independent parts remain and they are orthogonal, and orthogonals create the mathematics of concept/context

If Newton’s theory becomes the winner [quantum gravity (-1) is half of the organizational physics (1+(-1))=0], the loser is Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity and, I believe that that was his greatest mistake. This judgement seems a little harsh because the General Theory works, so, to reconcile the two we could use the belief/idea that everything is orthogonal, and Einstein’s work becomes orthogonal to quantum gravity. Orthogonality falls ‘through the cracks’ of traditional mathematics because orthogonality is the axes, but not the plane of the Cartesian coordinates and is a concept that seems to be too simple to be of much use in traditional physics. Orthogonality is independence and, I believe, is the means of building the universe by creating space because the organization/logic requires continual expansion. We have to go back to the equation (1+(-1))=0 that orthogonates to (1+(-1))=0 and (1 and (-1))=1 that shows a physical and logical presence is always ‘a step away’ [fractal].

As an example, ‘the means of building the universe by creating space’ is indicated by the equation (1+(-1))=0 being stable only in an expanding universe, which we have [and that is probably the reason for it], but within that expansion of space, there must occur stability, as in matter, and this could be achieved by orthogonality. As examples, the photon has a wave/particle duality [the Physics of Choice Creates Atoms Through the Wave/particle Duality/shimmer, chapter 94], the neutron orthogonates to the electron and proton and thus forms the atom and the neutron/proton binding using the logic of the quarks and the wave aspect of the electron creates the Bohr orbits. The bonds between atoms, leading to chemistry is due to the stability of the pair of electrons that have an organizational bond [the Covalent Chemical Bond, the Enigmatic Pauli Exclusion Principle, Superconductivity, chapter 92]. Thus, it could be said that everything in the universe, including the structure of the universe is due to orthogonality except for the three absolutes.

On a lighter note, ‘the discovery that the universe is expanding was one of the great intellectual revolutions of the twentieth century…. Newton, and others, should have realized that a static universe would soon start to contract under the influence of gravity…. Even Einstein, when he formulated the general theory of relativity in 1915, was so sure that the universe had to be static that he modified his theory to make this possible, introducing a so-called cosmological constant into his equations.’ (p 39) In addition, Einstein’s theory considers space-time to be the dimensions of our universe, but what of the energy of the Big Bang? My interpretation [Big Whoosh] assumes that total energy is zero, and that is definitely not so with the Big Bang that ignores organization and can not explain energy.

To foreshadow the aim, Newtonian physics uses the energy of the first orthogonality with informal organization added, but then calls the organization of quantum gravity [(-1)], that I believe are the first orthogonality, to be energy, a second orthogonality [of organization]! It is small wonder that Newtonian physics has had such trouble with deriving quantum gravity. To examine the theories of gravitation of Newton and Einstein, and put them on a common base for comparison, I will compare both through the absolutes based on the dimensions of a probability/fractal space. This will show how the difficulties of traditional modern physics [relativity, subatomic particles and fields] will simplify.

Clearly, the generalization of Newton’s Law of gravitation that has been expanded into quantum gravity contains more information than Einstein’s General Theory that is necessarily based on an energy-based Newtonian physics. This shows the ‘generalness’/free-will that the fifth dimension (a+b)=1 [probability space] grants to Life that evolved concept/context from a and b. Further, the (a+b)=1 orthogonates to (a+b)=1 and (a and b)=1 that is the basis of the mathematics of concept/context and leads to a simple solution to the ‘new’ physics and ‘new’ mathematics. The solution is to use both [(a+b)=1 and (a and b)=1] because they are orthogonal (concept) and yet linked (context) both ‘’sideways’ and through the ‘level’ of orthogonality and by using both, one provides concept/context in one and calculation in the other, as subsets of the absolute/‘new’ mathematical physics.

In other words, absolute/’new’ mathematics and physics contains three parts, firstly the search axioms that link the mind/brain to the physical universe (the Four Axioms of Measurement that Link the Mind/brain to Mathematics and the Dimensions of a Probability Space, chapter 81), secondly, traditional mathematics and physics [top-down] and thirdly, the organizational physics derived from bottom-up. The Principle of Relativity requires orthogonality to have relativity/entanglement associated with it, but the requirement of ‘absolutes’ [from (1+(-1))=0] require a probability space [conservation of total energy], and a fractal space [dark energy] as well as the constant speed of energy [photon]. Any ‘new’ or general mathematics and physics requires a probability/fractal space and that requires recognition of ‘absolutes’.

‘Einstein’s general theory of relativity seems to govern the large-scale structure of the universe. It is what is called a classical theory; that is, it does not take account of the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics, as it should for consistency with other theories.’ (p 60) Thus, it is not a ‘general’ theory and it is not really about relativity, but gravity (chapter 96). I believe that relativity is a synonym for context [and entanglement] with the restrictions that the three conditions derived from the fifth dimension are absolute and not relative and it is simpler to change all of the dimensions by a logical factor [Lorentz transformation] to guard against a singularity [constant speed of light/wave-energy] than to decide on one factor to change.

I propose that: in a probability/fractal space, the Principle of Relativity is that everything is relative to something else (1+(-1))=0, except for the conservation of total energy, the speed of electromagnetic waves in a vacuum and the increase in energy/organization per unit of newly created space [dark energy]. Secondly, this theory, being a lower level of orthogonality should contain more information, and this is already apparent, above, and I will use the fact that relativity, as defined above, creates two independent theories to contrast. This was done with the absolute/‘new’ mathematics and the absolute/‘new’ physics, but it can be seen that organizational physics, based on the dimensions is an ‘absolute’ in itself and its use, with top-down, allows a composite convenience and correctness.

As a result of the Michelson-Morley experiment, ‘all observers should measure the same speed of light, no matter how fast they are moving. This simple idea has some remarkable consequences. Perhaps the best known are the equivalence of mass and energy, summed up in Einstein’s famous equation E=mc2 (where E is energy, m is mass, and c is the speed of light), and the law that nothing may travel faster than the speed of light.’ (p 20)

Firstly, an equality (=) can only occur in an incomplete system where there is an equality of part to part of two objects in that space and if the mathematics of concepts/context is accepted, traditional mathematics and physics are incomplete. A complete system, as viewed through the dimensions of a probability/fractal space contains orthogonality that necessarily creates independence or sameness because the space must be logical and repeatable. Hence, E=mc2 is a famous equation in traditional physics, whereas I view it as a triviality because mass is a ‘state’ of energy, as in water, ice and steam. E and mc2 are/is the wave/particle duality that creates space in the atom through the orthogonality of electrons and protons [from neutrons] and creates space through the motion [as a wave] of the electrons in the atom (chapter 94).

Secondly, a measuring space is a probability space because the sum of the energy over all points as seen by any observer, or the space, must be constant [conservation of total energy] and that defines the type of space that we have to view the universe through, and thus that view explains the probabilistic view of quantum mechanics. Notice that Einstein’s postulate that every measurer sees the speed of light to be the same is an enigma unless each person has their own view of space and time [not absolutes] and presumably, space and time are absolutes in a null space [no space] and that explains that relative dilemma [no separation so space and time become absolutes].

Thirdly, ‘the law that nothing may travel faster than the speed of light’ is a ‘step too far’ and can be justified only for energy and not for the accounting of energy [conservation of (total) energy] and shows the incompleteness and dangers of using top-down traditional physics. I believe that the slow speed of light is necessary to provide time for the universe and life to evolve so that someone can measure/record the probability of ‘everything’ happening. This is perhaps the source of the ‘measurement/recorder as part of the experiment’ question that has ‘plagued’ quantum mechanics where a ‘reality’ is provided only by a probability space [continuous and complete] that necessarily contains entanglement [everything is entangled].

‘An equally remarkable consequence of relativity is the way it has revolutionized our ideas of space and time…. all observers must agree on how fast light travels.’ (p 21) If all observers must see the speed of light as an absolute fixed value, their clocks and distance must vary because the division sets the speed of light. In this theory, the same effect occurs because an expanding universe is required for the equation (1+(-1))=1 to exist and that generates space x, y, z and time passing. The energy (1+(-1))=0 divided by space and time, as well as space divided by time generate the absolutes in the Principle of Relativity, above, and the addition of logic suggests that all three will change by the same amount [Lorentz transformation] because it is simpler than deciding on a particular dimensional change to avert a singularity. This is the reason ‘why?’ the speed of light is a constant and not just the result of an experiment and provides much more information.

Another few simple, but far-reaching examples will suffice to show how current significant physics problems can be explained and simplified. There are (literally) hundreds of sub atomic particles used to transfer energy in high-energy physics experiments and I believe that they are just fractal states of energy and are of no importance except to the specialist because orthogonality can produce them as a fractal in energy, (somewhat) ad infinitum. I believe that the most important is the first orthogonality that is energy/organization, the second that energy becomes the photon and neutron [wave/particle], the third that the neutron becomes the proton and electron and these are elementary particles within an organizational solution of the quarks (chapter 90).

Another trend of traditional physics is to define particles that transfer or link ‘stuff’, such as gravitons, gluons, Higgs boson etc., and yet the answer is simple and two-fold in the entanglement that is the basis of a probability/fractal space (1+(-1))=0 and organization in the form of (-1). Traditional physics is described as energy-based with ‘things’ proceeding if it results in lower energy, but if the universe is composed only of energy, so matter must be energy, so why the fuss over E=mc2? Much like ancient cartographers indicating sea monsters at the unknown edges of their maps, I believe that physicists give ‘free rein’ to their imagination because traditional physics, I believe, does not recognise (literally) half of organizational physics and that half is, I believe, organization and organization is what these ‘particles’ are meant to do.

Gluons are supposed to be the organization that holds the quarks together (The Universe as an Orthogonality, the Quark/antiquark Bond, the Universe is Fractal as are the Subatomic Particles, chapter 89). Gravitons are supposed to ‘carry’ gravity, but I believe that quantum gravity is an accounting. The Higgs boson, I believe, is supposed to ‘confer mass’, but inertial mass and gravitational masses are orthogonal and seem to be sufficient, both in energy and organization (Why Inertial Mass is Different to Gravitational Mass, chapter 90). The initial orthogonalities into energy/organization accounts for many of these particles and especially as the desire/requirement of ‘action at a distance’ that these particle invoke is adequately catered for by entanglement that is the orthogonal of measurement in a physical sense [and leads to concept/context in the mind/brain].

‘It is an important property of the force-carrying particles that they do not obey the exclusion principle. This means that there is no limit to the number that can be exchanged, and so they can give rise to a strong force. However, if the force producing particles have a high mass, it will be difficult to produce and exchange them over a large distance. So the forces that they carry will have only a short range. On the other hand, if the force carrying particles have no mass of their own, the forces will be long range. The force-carrying particles exchanged between matter particles are said to be virtual particles because, unlike “real” particles, they cannot be directly detected by a particle detector. We know that they exist ……’ (p 69). The quotation appears as monstrous are the cartographer’s imaginings and indicates that a re-think using organization instead of some ‘pin-ball’ machination is necessary. Entanglement is a fundamental part of both a probability and fractal space and is really a simple alternative. The virtual particles referred to, are probably the fractal/orthogonal choices that must be presented to allow a decision to proceed (Why Newtonian Physics Needs Choice, chapter 94) because in traditional physics, physical availability of choice is ignored and is governed only by the ‘flow’ of energy.

Prediction: (a) it was once said that only a few people understood relativity and that is because the mathematics and physics that we have evolved are not ‘in tune’ with the universe, so, I am going to answer the questions posed above [relativity, subatomic particles and fields such as gravity, charge etc.], in a simple way. The Principle of Relativity [creating something must create its opposite] is the starting point and it is obvious that I have put energy and organization into creating this paper [1, (-1)] and so, (1+(-1))=0 because they are equal and opposite [energy in two forms] and this statement is only stable if everything is expanding [creates dimensions of space, time passing and energy (zero)] and that creates three absolutes [conservation of total energy (energy to time, all space), infill energy to compensate for the expansion (energy to space, all time) and constant speed of energy (space to time, all energy) for the photon] that are all the same [for simplicity, Lorentz transformation]. That is the Theory of Relativity, and accounts for the bizarre effects of changes in mass/energy, length and time passing as a particle approaches the speed of light because it must be stopped [logically] from doing so and there is no other solution, but to change the dimensions so that it cannot happen because there is nothing else that can be changed!

(b) Fields/organizations are basically of two types, firstly, physical, the measurement/entanglement of the second orthogonality (1 and (-1))=0 due to the organization of the probability and fractal spaces, and secondly, the concept/context (a and b)=1 used by the mind/brain to consider the measurement/entanglement of the physical that becomes concept/context. I believe that the two concepts of organization [(-1)] and entanglement [(1 and (-1))=0 and (a and b)=1] are sufficient to explain everything in the way of gravitons, gluons etc. Add this miscomprehension to our version of mathematics and physics that we evolved and it is small wonder that we have difficulty and have placed our world in jeopardy with our mismanagement.

(c) The stars and subatomic particles are numerous, to say the least, because they are fractals [organization] and ‘open up’ as we look into them and we will always see more as we look further because that is the function/structure of a fractal and we see concepts and context within our mind/brain through a probability space with general a and b. Thus, the further and closer that we wish to study, the more that there will be to study. This answers one of Stephen Hawking’s desires as a fractal, and the other is through the probability space that there must always be concept and context, that leads to the requirement that specialists and generalists work together all the time.

‘Any model that describes the whole universe in detail would be much too complicated mathematically for us to be able to calculate exact predictions. One therefore has to make simplifying assumptions and approximations – and even then, the problem of extracting predictions remains a formidable one.’ (p 137) Clearly, I cannot support this statement and believe that the universe is simple when viewed in the correct way [through the equation (1+(-1))=0] unless you want to make it complicated [fractal] and a fractal will oblige. The secret is to make sure that you use the lowest fractal because that has the highest concept.

(d) Life evolved a mind/brain that uses energy/organization [(1+(-1))=0, first orthogonal] in its functioning, that has evolved through the predator/prey interaction to view the universe through [a probability/fractal space that uses] the more general form (a+b)=1, where a and b are measurement/record and most importantly, a and b are general and can replace measurement/entanglement [physical world] with concept/context [mind/brain]. Concept and context are completely general and allow all thoughts, such as car/travel, letter/delivery, electricity/distribution, subatomic-particles/interactions, stars/distant-suns etc. We need to view the null space through a probability space because a probability space supports conservation of energy [(a+b)=1] and a fractal space to infill energy [to balance the expansion] and of course, a constant speed of light [verified by the Michelson-Morley experiment].

Now, if the first orthogonality is (a+b)=1, the second orthogonality (a+b)=1 and (a and b)=1 [representing the physical and logical] is not allowed in traditional mathematics and yet is descriptive for concepts a and b and the logic ‘and’ between them, then this describes a mathematics of concepts and context of which everything [in the universe] is a part and, in particular, traditional mathematics. Traditional mathematical physics is composed of traditional mathematics (concept) and traditional physics (context) and are obviously orthogonal, and this should not be surprising because everything [except for the three absolutes] is orthogonal.

The point that I am making is that we are not using the ‘spanners of creation’ [absolute mathematical physics], and until we do, we will have difficulty understanding and describing the universe. The final step, referring to the original quotation, that philosophers are the generalists [context] to the scientists [concept] shows that everything must be orthogonal and even the ‘tools’ that we must use are orthogonal and based on the three absolutes.

Conclusion: my aim has been to clear up the enigmas that litter traditional physics but my journey seems to have uncovered an underlying simplicity in the construction of the universe that requires few dimensions [4, 5 or 6, depending on nomenclature] and further, this simplicity indicates a mathematical physics of concept/context of which traditional mathematics and physics are special cases. The recognizance of organization allows us to better describe context, where context is the relationship between ourselves and our environment that is creating a major problem on our planet. The difficulty is acceptance and to get people to consider the fundamentals because unless we use the correct ‘tools’ we are complicating matters unnecessarily.

If the universe is built on orthogonality and the three absolutes [tools of creation], then a probability and a fractal space are independent/orthogonal based on the same equation [(1+(-1))=0], and a fractal space is very like traditional mathematics on being generated by a very small set of axioms and continually expanding thereafter. Traditional physics has also had trouble coming to terms with the three absolutes. Conservation of energy is too simple and not correct, a constant speed of light rocked physics to its foundations [the Michelson-Morley experiment showed that our universe is different to the one that we assumed it to be leading to the special theory of relativity] and dark energy is disguised by the Big Bang. However, traditional mathematical physics is still an orthogonality of traditional mathematics (concept) and traditional physics (context) and it can be seen that the ‘new’ absolute forms are a simple insertion from the bottom, and so, whether you wish to use them or not, they make the understanding easier.

Well Stephen Hawking, I believe that the above provides that which you desire and that all the (present) enigmas are hopefully explained, so, bring on the philosophers! Enjoy!

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

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

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 92: The ‘New Physics’: the Orthogonality of Organizational and Newtonian Physics, Quantum Gravity, the Covalent Chemical Bond, the Enigmatic Pauli Exclusion Principle, Superconductivity, Logic Defined and the Mathematics of Concept/context

Chapter 81: Parasites in Probability Space, General Mathematics, Logic, Measurement, Organization, the Four Axioms of Measurement that Link the Mind/brain to Mathematics and the Dimensions of a Probability Space, Life as a Possible Sixth Dimension, the Why of Godel’s Incompleteness Theorems and the Goal of Explaining Everything by a Single, Elegant, Unified Equation is Attained.

Chapter 91: Organizational Physics: ‘Why Things Happen?’, Quantum Gravity, ‘Everyday’ Logic and the Theory of Everything (1+(-1))=0 Derived from Nothing

Chapter 90: Organizational Physics Replaces Mathematical Physics with Fundamental Extensions in Mathematics and Physics.

Subtitle: the Equation of the Multiverse is (1+(-1))=0, the Big-Whoosh/Big-Bang is the Natural Orthogonality of a Null Space into a Fractal and Probability Universe, Proof that the Speed of Gravity is Instantaneous, How Conservation of Energy Works, Orthogonal/virtual Particles in a Vacuum, Mind-space, the Mathematics of Concepts, Doublet and Triplet Elementary Particles are Orthogonal, Why there is Little Antimatter in the Universe, Extending the Law of Gravitation to Include Nuclear Bonding, Proof of Newton’s Law of Gravity, Why Inertial Mass is Different to Gravitational Mass, Our Universe as Part of the Multiverse, Faith and Physics are Orthogonal/independent and the Need to Extend Mathematics, Physics etc.

Chapter 89: The Universe as an Orthogonality, the Quark/antiquark Bond, the Universe is Fractal as are the Subatomic Particles, Quantum ChromoDynamics and the Unified Field Theory Simplified, the Role of Quarks, the Three Fundamental Operators and Inside the Nucleus