To the Vice-chancellor

at the University of Adelaide, the Australian National University and the University of Canberra that I attended over the years.

I am sending this to you because, I believe, it indicates a number of issues that should be addressed and the universities have the expertise to review this enclosure from a number of angles.

Regards, Darryl Penney 27/6/2018

Preamble: all of us are worried about global warming, nuclear arms, overpopulation etc. and we expect that the universities, as repositories of knowledge, will show us the way, but the universities have been conspicuously silent on how to approach these problems and are, I believe, actually incapable of providing a solution [as evidenced by a hundred years of modern physics] and the answer is simply to very slightly change the form in which the universities are functioning.

Academics are lamenting that ‘theoretical physics has been stuck for the past forty years’ (Know This, Edited by John Brockman, p 133) or ‘the hope is that in the end we will have new physics analogous to Einstein’s new physics in the two theories of relativity’ (p 136). This paper dissects Einstein’s theories to show what is wrong with current thinking and also questions whether academics and science in general have lost the ability to change?

The universe is not logical, as we understand logic, and requires a new type of logic [organisational physics] based on the form of the creation to solve the problem of technology. This new approach is simple in the extreme and yet rigorous and contains the organisation behind the communication that is lacking in this world. I believe that the universe sprang from one equation (1+(-1))=0 and so, everyone can believe that the answer must lie within that same equation and that belief will unite (literally) everything and the application of the same orthogonality will enable the universities to provide the solutions through a new organisational structure.

‘Quantum Entanglement is Independent of Space and Time’ (p 134) shows that no one appears to have questioned the type of universe that we live in, and that is the key because we created/evolved a mind/brain/thought/free-will through a probability space. Thus the possibility exists to use the understanding of organisation that is inherent in the structure of the universe to create a symbiosis with the environment using the entanglement contained in orthogonality and an example is given of how the present organisation can be changed to pursue this aim.

Abstract: this paper accuses the scientific community, including the universities of a conspiracy and collusion, albeit somewhat unintentional, that possibly has the effect of withholding the solution to the world’s organisational and social problems that are so sorely needed in this modern age. I present a general mathematical physics, derived from first principles, that contains the mathematics of concept/context and organisational physics that are contained in thirty papers that were rejected, without peer review by an international journal of theoretical physics. As an example of the possibilities of the work, I have restated Einstein’s ideas and aims [equation of everything] into a simple unified format that could have been used in the creation of the universe. In addition to describing the physical universe, the same equation of everything (1+(-1))=0 contains the ability to describe our view [of the null space] through a fractal/probability space and describes (literally) everything but with the necessary limitations of the spaces. Of particular interest is the reason behind the creation of thought in the mind/brain from the orthogonal energy input of glucose, the reason why every person sees the speed of light as a constant [Michelson-Morley experiment] that laid the groundwork for relativity, bringing organisation formally into a general mathematical physics with top-down and sideways orthogonalities, the three absolutes/invariants that are derived from the dimensions of space-time that occur from the necessary expansion of the universe, the reason why the universe has to expand, the structure of quantum gravity, the role of magnetism etc. All of these aspects are apparent when organisation is included in its rightful place as being orthogonal/independent to energy, and yet still entangled and this entanglement is a necessary part of a probability space. The inclusion of organisation in the general mathematical physics, and in particular the quantitative measurement of organisation enhances Thom’s catastrophe theory and suggests how humanity can better weather the transition from survival of the fittest to the survival of the best and secure symbiosis with the environment with the minimum likelihood of a catastrophe. Other examples using choice and free-will explains Descartes’ ‘I think, therefore I am’ and indicates our position as generators of the future and finally, the effects of gravity are derived from the equation of everything (1+(-1))=0 showing that gravity is an orthogonality, principally an accounting and potential energy that is intimately tied into the working of the universe. A surprise is that orthogonality is the basis of governance and especially the modern fusion of the courts of law and equity.

As is well known, science and religion formally started several thousand years ago, and several hundred years ago progress produced Newtonian physics and that state of affairs has even survived a hundred years of modern physics, albeit with enigmas. You may have wondered why mathematics and physics are so resistant to change and it appears that this is so, not because they are all-encompassing, which they are not, but I believe, for a number of much more subtle reasons.

The problem is ‘in plain sight’ and far-reaching, and is outlined below, but if it stops progress in science and affects the state of the planet, it needs fixing, and quickly. Firstly, there have been three ‘towering’ figures in the history of physics [the ancient Greeks, Newton and Einstein] and they succeeded for a number of reasons [armchair musings, dominant personality and luck] but they all had one thing in common and that was that they informally introduced organisation into a physics that is built on energy with scant regard for organisation Secondly, the practice of adding organisation to an energy-based physics has been achieved by basing physics on a voting system because accepting a modicum of organisation is the only way that physics can progress in a top-down way.

Thirdly, there are fundamental reasons [lack of context] why the teaching of physics in universities is failing physics and the students, and this is not apparent until bottom-up methods are used. Simply, what we call ‘independent things’ are, in a physical sense, entangled and this presents an (apparent) enigma similar to the wave/particle duality. This (apparent) enigma is a product of our probability/fractal space and it should be taken into consideration if we are to use the simplicity and completeness of bottom-up thinking. A simple example of independence/entanglement is the conservation of (total) energy that sums every (so-called independent) energy in the universe and entangles/adjusts them to a set figure. Notice that the law of conservation of energy is not true locally because energy is continually being created.

Fourthly, successful organisations have a momentum and any change in direction is strenuously resisted, and this state of affairs should be contrasted to business that pay large salaries to leaders that can forward-plan change prior to it being needed. Science, as an organisation has had to rely on ‘lone wolves’ for fundamental breakthroughs because the inefficiencies of top-down thinking and the denial of the basic laws of organisation have created a dilemma/enigma that science does not recognise, and will not recognise without considering orthogonality, that is the basis of everything.

To return to the specific case of the universities, ‘these academics also observed that they faced increased pressure to trawl for industry-based funding and external consultancies which, in effect, “channelled research effort into safe, well defined areas, rather than speculative or curiosity driven ones”’ (Whackademia, Richard Hill, p 83) and lecturer/researchers ‘despite their listless demeanours they weren’t so much depressed as crushed under heavy workloads and excessive managerial scrutiny.’ (p 160) This state of affairs has a simple solution that leads into the ‘enhanced team’ approach, below, that utilises the generalist approach and offers a much better bottom-up outcome. The following derives the theory that is costs little, except acceptance, to embrace the ‘lone wolves’ whose work can reinvigorate research and add to the prestige of the university. This realisation/recognisance initiates an orthogonality that shows that the universities are presently lacking insight and forward-thinking and this will be revisited later.

Further to the above that creativity is suppressed by the need for funding and by excessive administration, it is possible that universities are actively selecting against the most creative by seeking the most intelligent. ‘Subjects in these studies were subjected to a variety of IQ tests and on average were found to have IQ’s in the 120 –130 range…. The general conclusion is that most creative people are smart, but they do not have to be extremely smart. An IQ around 120 is good enough.’ (The Creating Brain, Nancy C. Andreasen, p 30) Similarly, the ‘creative personality’ (p 30) is not one that is sought by universities and recognising this means that ‘lone wolves’ need to be fostered and their work considered.

The universe grew [fractal] from a simple happening at a point source [somewhat like the Big Bang] and consequently must be a simple place, and it is simple when viewed in the correct way and that perspective covers everything, literally, because a fractal is repetitive. Another (apparent) enigma that burdens science is organisational and is the top-down/bottom-up viewpoint that aligns with Occam’s razor and yet organisation is actively discouraged in physics. As an example, let me come at the problem from another angle that simplifies the current ‘mess’ that has been ‘relativity’ over the last hundred years. ‘History seems to be repeating itself, since physicists today find themselves in nearly the same situation as their predecessors in 1905: facing the need to reconcile two apparently incompatible theories. Physics awaits a new Einstein who, inspired by a simple insight, will resolve this contradiction.’ (Einstein: Decoding the Universe, Francoise Balibar, p 111) The 1905 theory was the wave/particle duality that is still not understood, in spite of the quotation and the current problem is quantum gravity and they both share a common solution/understanding in orthogonality.

Einstein, Newton etc. were not geniuses, but were not products of a system [of science] that is fundamentally stultifying and in need of change. The change is not difficult nor is it expensive, but represents an organisational change [to the mind/brain] firstly, top-down/bottom-up and secondly, accepting mathematical physics as concept/context. The study of organisation has produced as many textbooks as physics and, like physics, is also misunderstood until we accept that everything is built on the equation of creation and the resulting fractal expansion. The problem is that we do not recognise how the universe formed and what drives its expansion and so we cannot understand its mechanism. Further, it will be shown that [energy based] science and organisation are independent, but entangled in the same way that the universe is constructed [organisational physics], and that entanglement is enigmatic to us because we define independence as non-entangled.

Albert Einstein (1879 – 1955) was so radical a thinker that his brilliance is difficult to grasp. He was not an outstanding student, yet in 1905, at the age of 26, he published groundbreaking studies …’. (back cover) I believe that geniuses are made not born, and Einstein was not a genius, but a ‘lone wolf’ that functioned outside of the regulated system. Newton also produced his best work while the university was closed due to plague. What is happening? Simply, I need your help because it appears that I may have derived an answer to a problem that is/was not suspected and possibly it is due to the complexity composed of two parts, top-down/bottom-up organisation and the orthogonality that contains independence with entanglement. Organisation is a subject that science and mathematics have shied away from, presumably because it cannot be measured, but there is a way, and that is through a probability space.

To put the above in perspective, if the universe is considered to be a fractal, and it is obvious that it is, derived from a creation then the form of the university’s teaching should be in accordance with the equation of the creation. However, the university’s teaching is not, currently in that form, and, even worse, traditional mathematics and Newtonian physics are not in that form and there are good reasons why this state of affairs cannot be rectified without appreciating the organisation of agreement/context, and that requires the knowledge that I am trying to impart. I studied mathematical physics and organisation and believe that I have a different viewpoint that needs to be considered, but am having trouble having it considered. This is not surprising because inertia [mass inertia and gravitational inertia] is basic to physics and is defined as resistance to change and resistance to change is a basic problem in organisations such as science and society.

Apart from resistance to change, there are very good reasons why traditional mathematics and Newtonian physics are unable to easily change their fundamental structure and that is because their formulation and foundations are incomplete and based on special cases. I believe that the time has come to develop a new basis to science that may/will allow a solution to the world’s problems. This could be called the Second Coming, the attaining of Symbiosis between the parasite (Life) and its environment or just simple logic/progress because it derives everything from the bottom up from one simple unstable equation that describes the creation and requisite expansion of the universe. These are large claims and have taken much work to derive them, but they could be the key to creating a new age [of understanding].

Specifically, a general mathematical physics is described/derived (chapter 101) because it must contain orthogonality [top/bottom and mathematics/physics] as well as proof that technical scientists, of which universities are principally composed, are literally unable to appreciate context and this has, I believe, contributed to the inability of mathematics and physics to change with the times. In other words, traditional mathematics and Newtonian physics have developed on a somewhat inappropriate foundation that needs the application of context and orthogonality to bring them into a general form. There is the possibility that a counter-argument would be that both disciplines are forging ahead, so there cannot be too much wrong, but, in a fractal, every point generates new possibilities, but where is the starting point?

The concept that specialists and generalists do not see the same things is so simple, but so important and yet it is a recent problem as the amount of knowledge has increased. Clearly, the more knowledge, the more a specialist has to know and the less the grasp of the bigger picture is available and in the limit, the specialist knows everything about nothing and the generalist knows nothing about everything and an orthogonality has developed. This is a very recent change in organisation

The above requires a change in thinking and that is very difficult to accomplish for the established scientist because it threatens their position and success, so, I’ll quote the work of Einstein and rework it into, what I think is a more understandable form using the new format. In other words, I am taking what is reputed to be difficult to understand, rework it and show that it is logical and even simple when looked at bottom-up [organisationally]. ‘He demonstrated that the perceived opposition between continuity and discontinuity does not exist, for both light and matter are composed of particles’ (p 40) This pronouncement stifled the heated controversy, but it is in the form of the ‘energy base’ of physics and the wave/particle enigma is true because wave and particle are orthogonal and both are necessary to the mechanics of the atom [it takes two to tango]. Further, the photon, I believe, is physically constructed on the wave/particle duality (chapter 99).

‘He presented a theory of light, called the special theory of relativity, that dispensed with the idea that light must travel through a medium such as an ether … and he presented his great discovery that (under certain circumstances) the speed of light is constant for all observers in differing contexts’ (p 40). This postulate, contained in the theory was found by experiment [Michelson-Morley] and was not discovered by Einstein and is true for all motion and further the constant speed of light is a logical/organisational requirement of the dimensions and this can be seen within the principle of relativity.

From chapter 97, ‘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/organisation per unit of newly created space [dark energy]. The requirement of the separation of “(1)” and “(-1)” requires the production/definition of the dimensions of space and time passing as well as the creation of two types of energies and a simple ratio of the dimensions leads to the “absolute” restrictions above. However, as an example of the importance of the requirement of expansion to the dimensions, the logical requirement of simplicity [Occam’s razor] applied to the Special Theory of Relativity accounts for the (apparent) enigma that all of time, length and mass [energy] being distorted by the same amount [Lorentz contraction] to satisfy the absolute conditions, above.’ Notice that this implies that all of time, length and mass [energy] are dimensions [4,5 or 6].

The quotation that ‘he demonstrated the most famous equation in all of physics: E=Mc2, describing a relationship between energy and mass.’ (p 50) is a simple orthogonality that describes the two forms/states of energy E and a solid component M. These are composed of the same energy in two forms because you cannot build a universe unless you create something to build it out of, and the simplest way is to create the building blocks out of nothing [(1+(-1))=0] by orthogonality. The quarks are an organisational solution and do not appear alone whilst the neutron is the resultant particle that orthogonates into the electron and proton that builds the atom and the universe. The organisation of the functioning of the atom is orthogonality [(1)/(-1), wave/particle duality]

Some points of interest, firstly, (1+(-1))=0 is unstable unless there is continual expansion [the Big Bang], secondly, the energy (1) and energy (-1) are, in common terms, what we call energy and organisation, thirdly, (1) and (-1) are independent but obviously entangled [in an equation], fourthly, (1+(-1))=0 [in physics] is not the same as 1=1 [as they are in traditional mathematics]. The last point is that traditional mathematics is based on equality and is severely restricted and can be extended to the mathematics of concept/context simply by using (1+(-1))=0.

As an example, ‘written like this (1-1)+(1-1)+(1-1)+… the sum is clearly 0. On the other hand 1-(1-1)–(1-1)- … is clearly 1. So 0=1, and the whole of mathematics collapses in a contradiction.’ (The Problems of Mathematics, Ian Stewart, p 56). Clearly the two methods/ways of calculation are orthogonalities and acceptable in my view/theory, but inexplicable in traditional mathematics. Fifthly, (1+(-1))=0 is also the generator of a fractal and a probability space, and this latter space was used in the special theory of relativity as a postulate [above, that the speed of light is the same to all observers irrespective of their motion]. Notice that my derivation is completely general and derived.

‘Einstein’s objections, which he repeated for twenty years, focused on an aspect of quantum theory called probability…. “God”, he remarked, “does not roll the dice”.’ (p 95) Using/postulating a measuring space, which is a probability space, the act of opening up the null space necessarily changes time from absolute to relative because the speed of light is a constant and we have to view everything as probabilities [because of the type of space]. ‘In part he was distracted by another direction of enquiry, which occupied him for the rest of his life. Having completed the special and general theories of relativity, he began to look for a grand overarching theory – called the unified field theory – that would describe in a single system of equations the properties of light, matter and gravitation’ (p 96). The equation that he was looking for is (1+(-1))=0.

To return to relativity, ‘to tell the truth, the theory of relativity is a theory of invariables; it seeks out whatever in nature does not vary, regardless of the observer’s vantage point. The constant c, the speed of light, is a good example of an invariable – something that is not relative.’ (p 46) Notice the three absolutes that are invariable above in the principle of relativity because of the necessary expansion and it is obvious, given two types of energy, that the conservation of (total) energy requires the continual generation of both energies to balance the expansion required by the equation. Further, whilst the speed of transmission of energy (1), as a wave is constant, the speed of its orthogonal [a particle] is not, and the speed of (-1) [quantum gravity] is a property of the space and is instantaneous. Thus, the concept of gravity waves, gravitons etc. are not needed.

Galileo stated that ‘”all bodies fall with the same movement, whatever their mass”’ (p 57) and ‘Newton, working a generation later, had been unable to give a satisfactory explanation of this fact.’ (p 56) ‘In other words, the general theory of relativity is linked to the law of gravity, and mass and inertia are the same thing.’ (p 57) I believe that mass is energy and inertia is organisational energy and that they are independent/orthogonal [but entangled] and are not the same thing. The equation (1+(-1))=0 shows that anything/everything must be the same or orthogonal and in one direction [dropping weights] are the same, but in two dimensions [planetary system] they are necessarily numerically the same, but orthogonal [centripetal/tangential].

‘Thus not only space but also time disappears if the world is emptied of matter. Difficult though it is to comprehend, matter creates at once both space and time’ (p 65). Considering the equation (1+(-1))=0, no creation of energy means no expansion means no dimensions and nothing results and this explanation is effectively the same, but simpler and more logical. It is the creation of two types of energy that dictates the requirement of separation and thus the dimensions and the creation of space and time. This is the reason that the effect of expansion occurs and is not just a bald statement and thus we can say that there will be no Big Crunch and that the expansion will last forever, and that the Big Bang is not the precursor of momentum running down.

This statement is supposed to lead to ‘put simply, matter tells space how to curve; space tells matter how to move.’ (p 60). This last quotation might be simple, but it is misleading and the equation (1+(-1))=0 states a lot of things, as above, but it only [logically/simply] exists if it is expanding linearly and there is no ‘curve’ to space, and energy, not space, tells matter how to move. What the last quotation is trying to say, I believe, is that the attraction (1) of energy must be balanced by the attraction of organisational energy (-1) to satisfy the equation (1+(-1))=0. In other words, the constant speed of light [Cosmic Background Radiation] creates volume/space simply.

‘Einstein realised that space and time are stitched together into a fabric, which is warped by the presence of matter, and that gravity is the consequence of this warping of spacetime.’ (History’s Greatest Discoveries, Joel Levy, p 202) On the contrary, the equation (1+(-1))=0 suggests a simple Newtonian attraction for both energy (1) and organisation (-1) with a simple probability space providing the conservation of (total) energy [zero] and gravity is the necessary accounting/organisation of the energy in the measuring space [more below]. A small but important digression that reinforces my case is that a probability space (a+b)=1 for all a and b allows the evolution of a mind/brain based on the mathematics of concept/context [all a, b] and that is immediately apparent from (1+(-1))=0, and I find that it is even more applicable that the burning of glucose [pure energy] produces thought [organisation].

Considering the total eclipse of 1919, ‘Newtonian theory also predicts that gravity will act on the particles in a beam of light. A similar value had been published in 1804 by the German astronomer Johann Georg von Soldner … Einstein had written to leading astronomers as early as 1913, trying to interest them in such a test, but it was not until 1917 that anyone took up his offer (perhaps serendipitously, given that it was only in 1916 that he made the correct calculation).’ (p 201) ‘Before this Einstein had been a complete unknown outside of scientific circles’ (p 204)

The above paragraph shows an element of luck, and I am not trying to demean his work, but consider the following. ‘We should pay tribute to the German physics establishment of the time, particularly the publishers of the leading physics journal Annalen der Physik (Annals of Physics), who took the risk – one that few journals today would dare – of publishing two revolutionary articles written by an unknown employee of the Swiss patent office.’ (Einstein: Decoding the Universe, Francoise Balibar, p 41) I have had nearly thirty papers (chapters 71 to 99) rejected ‘out of hand’ without peer review by a leading international journal of theoretical physics and I believe that there is a conspiracy [albeit somewhat unintentional] and I think that I have proved this, in that the specialists employed by the universities etc., and the journals that pander to them [that are supported by specialists], are literally incapable of appreciating a generalist’s contribution, or worse, do not wish to.

Further, ‘apparently the German university, an institution otherwise all too rigid and hierarchical, was not above allowing a marginal figure to speak his mind. And we should not overlook the young Einstein’s remarkable mental balance. It’s easy to imagine how destabilising it might have been for a young man of 26, working alone, to come up with the solution to problems that had foiled people with twice his experience for generations’ (p 41). Einstein was lucky! He was also fortunate in recognising in time that the deviation was twice that of the Newtonian system and that both types of energy must have equal effect on the photon passing the sun because (1+(-1))=0 requires twice [exactly] that of energy alone [and the photon is composed, equally, of both energy and organisation].

‘The problem was that the more carefully theoretical physicists looked at Einstein’s general theory of relativity and Maxwell’s theory of light, the more they were convinced there must be a way of joining them together – of creating a unified theory’ (E=mc2 The Great Ideas That Shaped Our World, Pete Moore, p 39)]. ‘This holy grail of theoretical physics is still proving elusive at the opening of the 21st…. you could draw the two theories together so long as you introduced a fifth dimension.’ (p 39) It seems obvious that there must be more than the four dimensions of spacetime for something to happen and above, an expanding universe generates spacetime and two energy dimensions [sum is zero], so the total dimensions are four, five or six [your choice]. ‘Einstein rejected the idea when it was first presented to him, before embracing the concept … Klein suggested that a particle moving a short distance along this fifth axis would return to where it began…. All electromagnetic waves can be thought of as vibrations of this fifth dimension…. For many years the Kaluza-Klein was more or less a curiosity … It has however found a new dawn in the light of string theory…. The search continues for ways of making sense of all the mathematics and observations that are coming from the enormous particle accelerators’ (p 39)

This seems to indicate that the fifth dimension is energy, in the form of electric and magnetic fields that are vibrating in the electromagnetic wave that travels at a constant speed with respect to the measurer. This is a typical top-down explanation of an electromagnetic wave. However, I believe that a photon oscillates/orthogonates between a wave and particle [wave/particle duality/orthogonality] every half wavelength to provide ‘action at a distance’ in the wave mode for atomic absorption of quanta. The magnetic field is part of the organisation [quantum gravity] that balances the energy and sets the relativity between the measurer and the photon, which must be constant (see chapter 99). Further, the photon only exists because the organisation of the photon balances the energy of the photon and is held orthogonally/independently to allow construction of the photon and its operation.

Traditional physics appears to be having problems understanding the multiplicity of subatomic particles by top-down methods, but from a bottom-up perspective of a fractal, the more energy thrown at the particles in the accelerator, the more particles are generated to handle the extra energy as would be expected [in a fractal] (see chapter 90). I believe that organisation is a type of energy that is equal to our concept of energy and this is suggested by Einstein’s doubling of the attraction of the photon to a star’s gravity and further, that the sharing/creation of energy and organisation is the means of creating the universe and is shown by the equation of everything (1+(-1))=0. Traditional physics concentrates on measuring the ‘how?’ things happen without the ‘why?’ things happen and the first bottom-up question is ‘what is the universe made of?’, and the answer is an orthogonality/independence of two things [energy/organisation].

I will repeat that the specialist and generalist are necessarily independent/orthogonal and whilst entangled, the formation of a probability space [(a+b)=1] shows this to be literally true and that is the reason that any generalised mathematical physics must stand/be-used as a mathematical physics and not subdivided as general mathematics [concept, based on the mathematics of concept/context] and general physics [context, based on the organisational physics/logic]. This does not say that specialists need change their methods, but it does say that there is a completely new and just as an important field for generalists [and this example indicates this]. I know how difficult it is to ‘winkle’ the above from the status quo of the technical world and over ten years work and one hundred chapters testify to this and so I can appreciate the work of scientists, but in the light of the above and in hindsight everything is simple [orthogonal], as is the equation of everything (1+(-1))=0.

Finally, what is gravity? Notice that traditional physics views gravity as a constant attraction between energy/matter, and so it could be as an overall simple local view, but according to the principle of relativity, there are two independent (yet entangled) effects, in general, and in this case the attraction is a hyperbolic relationship [chapter 89] that is asymptotic [maximum] in the nucleus and at infinity [minimal] [Newton’s law of gravity], but there is an entanglement that is the law of conservation of (total) energy and that is the ‘other side’/orthogonality of gravity. Thus, if gravity is potential energy it is not constant, anywhere, anytime, and further, this orthogonality is saying that gravity has two parts [as does everything], an instantaneous part that is quantum gravity that controls/entangles the universe and the energy part that potters along at the speed of light [because it is an energy and together they are energy/organisation orthogonality]. It is this latter part that the so-called ‘gravity experiments’ is measuring and as it is moving at the speed of light, it is change in energy [not organisation]. But, where does this energy come from? As the equation says, at each fractal step new energy/organisation is created and whilst quantum gravity is organisational, the fractal generates energy/organisation of potential.

Thus gravity, like everything else, has two parts and presumably this causes the confusion because it is energy [potential energy] and an organisation [quantum gravity]. Traditional physics is based [mainly] on energy and ignores organisation, when it can, but the fundamental that has been missed is orthogonality and how can I describe a dual- based system of the universe with a one-base system of physics? Simply put, each energy and its associated organisation generates [as a fractal] their own energy/organisation and leave it at that. Perhaps the next ‘age’ of civilization is the Age of Orthogonality because it answers all the problems so that for each concept [technology, population, food etc.] there is a context [who uses the concept] that must be applied to groups of people and an overarching entanglement with the environment. This is the answer to all problems and is similar to the law of conservation of (total) energy, as would be expected in a fractal.

It could be said that physics has walked into a trap, of its own making, and that allows us to poke a stick at it and examine it in the ‘scientific method’ and I believe that it is ‘wanting’. As above, the supposedly difficult subject of the effects of gravity appear simple, but complicated by the relativity/duality and gravity is both a potential well and part of the organisation of the universe. It simply answers the question of ‘does a heavier weight fall faster than a light weight?’ because each atom/particle is affected equally by the potential [at that point]. However, traditional physics must change because of the structure of the universe and the equation of everything expands to general mathematical physics and the physics component is needed in a complete form if we are to solve Humanity’s problems. Thus, I find myself, inadvertently, as a prophet and worse, an ignored prophet of a story that no one seems to know how to fix [population control, resource allocation etc.]. The Greens, with their top-down interference are merely nuisances, but like gravity, above, have the potential to work properly when the bottom-up case is realised, or perhaps the politicians might provide the context, as above, if the universities are incapable of organising themselves. This is a distinct possibility because ‘we persist in organising ourselves in academic silos and risk looking like those blind men groping an elephant … “The world has problems, universities have departments.”’ (Know This, Edited by John Brockman, p 369)

Conclusion: chapter 100 uses as an example the reasons for the formation of (biological) species and finds that these reasons are the same as those behind quantum gravity. This is not surprising as the universe is a fractal and thus not complicated as it arose from a simple equation (1+(-1))=0.

Chapter 101 is the precursor to this application and gives a ‘tried and true’ organisational method of gaining acceptance that has been used before that created a religion and overthrew the existing regimes. Adding organisation to science/technology is long overdue and is needed to provide a planned alternative to the problems that technology has let loose and the acceptance of this theory will come, as there is no other alternative, but our civilization cannot wait until physics admits that it is blind to fundamental change and somehow blunders into the above.

To summarise the main points: firstly, I believe that Einstein’s explanation of the wave/particle duality is not correct as the duality/orthogonality is ‘real’ and is necessary to build a universe that we can view through a fractal/probability space. Secondly, quantum gravity is orthogonal to energy and that allows organisation to be measured, thirdly, everything is necessarily entangled and nothing is completely independent [conservation of (total) energy, the orthogonal axes of the Cartesian system are independent but entangled at zero] due to the probability space, fourthly, these effects create an enigma that no person can be (totally) both a specialist and a generalist, at the same time, which is (somewhat) obvious, and forces every decision to be made by a mathematics of concept/context and the mathematics of concept/context is obvious from (a+b)=1 and its usefulness/power is in its transparency of application.

The writing of this chapter (102) has shown just how dangerous the situation has become in that the universities, as a repository of the world’s knowledge, are (presently) incapable of solving the world’s organisational [as opposed to technological] problems. I believe that the universities should be at the forefront of change, but to do that, they have firstly, to consider the ‘lone wolves’ and welcome their unique contribution [context] and secondly, that context is equally important [(1+(-1))=0] as the specialist’s contribution [concept] and yet, outside of their ability to consider. This is an enigma that would probably be emphatically denied by the specialists, but it is written in the equation of everything and in my experience, above, and is an example of why a bottom-up organisational physics is crucial. Thirdly, our universe is not ‘real’, not logical and not changeable (by us) and the organisational physics (bottom-up) must be our logic.

What is the relativity implied in the above paragraph? ‘The universities, as a repository of the world’s knowledge, are (presently) incapable of solving the world’s organisational [as opposed to technological] problems’ and if they cannot ‘run’ with the suggestions that I have made [to internally generate orthogonality], it is necessarily the government’s duty, as representing society, to impose the organisation to create the necessary orthogonality by creating a separate entity [of context] overseeing the universities [that presently (largely) consists of technical concepts].

Any new theory should explain the status quo and then predict something, and this is, of course, the use of organisation, but can we simply explain the principle of least action and Occam’s razor that have sat on the sidelines for centuries. We can explain these easily with the application of organisation, because they are orthogonal [no surprise] and the principle of least action is energy based [through being discussed in Newtonian physics] but a [physics] probability space requires ‘least action’ in an energy sense because there must be a unique value in computing the total energy [this is assumed in a mathematical probability space].

Likewise, Occam’s razor states that the simplest form is usually the best, but a physics probability space requires the simplest form be used because it must equal the minimum energy. I have read that attempts to formalise Occam’s razor have been made, but it requires measuring organisation, as above, to do that, so, Occam’s razor is true in a physical sense, true in the limit for stable states [survival of the fittest and survival of the best], but not in the intervening periods when catastrophes can occur [Rene Thom, catastrophe theory]. Our planet is obviously in a transition between these two states and a catastrophe is possible.

“‘Although Thom became disenchanted by the theory toward the end of his working life, it presented a new way of analysing natural events in fields as varied as engineering and the social sciences’. (E=mc2 The Great Ideas That Shaped Our World, Pete Moore, p 105) Thom appeared to acknowledge that organisation determined the result between the stable states that could lead to a catastrophe, but ‘”as soon as it became clear that the theory did not permit quantitative prediction, all good minds …. decided it was of no value.”’ (p 105) This state of affairs may have changed because, I believe that we now have the ‘proper’ tools [firstly, general mathematical physics] to keep the catastrophe, that our civilization seems to be heading towards, at bay and we know that secondly, the more energy that we apply, the more organisation that we apply [compare the mind/brain’s use of sugar] and the thirdly, the more energy/organisation that we apply, the better/simpler/more accurate the outcome [Occam’s razor], above.

In other words, civilisation’s most pressing problem is the organisation of humanity and yet science is apparently incapable of guiding us to a new steady state [survival of the best] from the survival of the fittest that we have left behind. The above paragraph says that we now have the tools, and the more energy/work that we apply [in the limit], the better will be the result and the greater the expectation of a non-catastrophic outcome and the more likely that we obtain symbiosis with the environment. The key is, I believe, the greatly expanded general mathematical physics that incorporates organisation/orthogonality, the mathematics of concept/context and organisational physics.

In a fractal universe, there is no ending, and we have found the beginning [(1+(-1))=0], so the following is another example of why the above is useful. Why are the universities so wrong/misguided [specialists only], physics [energy mainly] and mathematics [equality almost exclusively]? The solution is orthogonality, that everything is constructed of independent, yet related things and this is putting into words the equation of everything and therein lies choice/decision. The reason, I believe, that everyone seems to have missed it is because they do not realise the orthogonality inherent in the last sentence – universities must include context, physics must include organisation and mathematics is a case in point and contains the enigma that the constants can all be expressed in infinite series [e, pi etc. and all these are related by Euler’s equation (chapter 98)]. Clearly, this is an orthogonality of exact versus infinite series and this equates to the basic/first orthogonality [energy/organisation] in that energy is exact and organisation is an infinite series that is efficient ‘in the limit’ [evolution].

We find it easier to use the ‘exact’ [mathematics], than the infinite series [mathematics of concept/context] but we now recognise this series as computing science and thus can understand the basis of evolution, or choice (chapter 94). So, what are we? I think that we are the manifestation of choice because there is no other way to arrive at a conclusion than to ‘act it out’ and this explains the theory that at every instant, possibilities are generated because they are possibilities. ‘Free will’ is a ‘God given’ possibility that we can use, for our own benefit when we understand orthogonality and general mathematical physics and can, if we want, find survival of the best. Notice that the last sentence sums up Descartes’ ‘I think, therefore I am’ and also gives the reason why it works [choice] and how it works [free will].

This paper is trying to describe everything [(1+(-1))=0], which is a fractal and also its context to specialists that are (literally) trying to understand the (contextual) fundamentals of the universe and I am trying to do that in spite of the orthogonality that separates specialist and generalist. ‘The possibility that the vacuum may have energy was discussed almost a century ago by Einstein, but then he discarded the idea…. Why do we live exactly at the time when the energy of empty space is comparable to the energy of normal matter?’ (Know This, Edited by John Brockman, p 90) This energy of space [dark energy, vacuum energy 10-29 grams per cubic centimetre] must balance the [organisational, potential] energy that matter possesses because the universe is in equilibrium through its necessary expansion.

Finally, just as we, as parasites, created mind/brain/thought/free-will from the generalness [a, b of (a+b)=1] of the probability space, by understanding orthogonality/independence we can perhaps use the entanglement of the independence/equation [(1+(-1))=0] to create a [somewhat] amalgamation of technician/specialist and generalist/philosopher that can appreciate the solution to humanity’s organisation problems and forge a symbiosis with the environment. Firstly, this is not difficult to accomplish, but it needs a ‘team’, and a ‘team that recognises orthogonality and includes enough generalists’, secondly, there are career possibilities for students becoming ‘lone wolf’/generalists and thirdly, as universities seem to be doing, becoming part of the wider community, but in a form that enhances the community.

Fourthly, ‘in the United States, universities have moved rapidly left since 1990, when the left/right ratio of professors across all departments was less than 2:1. By 2004, the left/right ratio was roughly 5:1, and it is still climbing. In the social sciences and humanities, it’s far higher. Because this political purification is happening at a time of rising cross-partisan hostility, we can expect increasing hostility from Republican legislators toward universities and the things that they desire, including research funding and freedom from federal and state control.’ (p 360) This is saying that the political party or ideology has greater effect than race, gender or religion, and may prompt government to orthogonalize universities.

Prediction; the above is a means of a solution to the world’s problems using general mathematical physics and the solutions given are that the universities change their thinking and take a proactive role, and if they do not, the government/politicians could create a new type of university and if these fail, the public could force the politicians to act. These are not unique solutions and change as the ranking changes, but the above shows that a solution to the world’s problems is possible and how to approach it using a unique means that uses the equation of everything.

I am going to expand this last paragraph because it is so important and requires a different outlook/logic [organisational physics] to the human-based/egocentric logic that we use. I repeat that any or all of the three solutions can be used, and they all contain the orthogonality and context that is at the heart of general mathematical physics. The universities need to create an orthogonality in the form of lone wolves by recognising them and helping publish their ideas that will stimulate their staff and add prestige [context]. The politician becomes a statesman/woman by using general mathematical physics to help solve the world’s problems, knowing that he/she has the best [bottom-up] solution and can influence everyone irrespective of political parties and ideologies [context].

Every concerned citizen knows that there are problems that involve everyone [context] and knowing that there is one solution [general mathematical physics], a new [ultimate] religion could start, as did the Christian Church. Helping your neighbour is commendable, but in a modern world we are seeing the results of that creed [overpopulation] and it is plain that it needs modifying and general mathematical physics contains the knowledge, organisation and transparency to have it accepted [context].

The ultimate conclusion is that the Age of the Greeks lasted over two thousand years [and is still with us in science and especially democracy today], the Age of Reason from Newton over the last several hundred years using top-down methods dominates science and mathematics today and now this must be replaced with what must be called the Age of Understanding using bottom-up organisation

Postscript: it is with great surprise and pleasure that I find the essence of the above ‘alive and well’, though unrecognised, in governance [government, police and law are orthogonal/independent] and again in the court of law [fusion of law and equity]. It is also a surprise that the law, with a pedigree as old as mathematics and science and a reputation of being old-fashion/staid is based on the same system that I believe mathematical physics should be using in being in the forefront of technology.

‘Real-life’ court cases/appearances are given in chapter 103 and 104 that shows how an understanding of orthogonality simplifies the understanding of governance that adds a fourth possibility to the above, that class action decisions in courts based on equity could provide the authority/impetus to governance to change the way that they act.

References: all quotations are fully referenced in the body and earlier chapters can be found on darrylpenney.com or from the author on darryldarryl1@bigpond.com if required.

Chapter 99: The Principle of Relativity, the Role and Importance of Magnetism, the Amplitude of Electromagnetic Waves and Unfolding the Photon

Chapter 100: The Equation of Everything, a General Mathematical Physics Developed and Used to Resolve ‘How Species Form?’

Chapter 101: The Spanners of Creation – Concept and Context, Orthogonality and General Mathematical Physics

Chapter 90: Organisational 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 98: The Principle of Relativity, the Creation and Euler’s Equation Explained

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

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 Organisational 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 103: Understanding Governance Through Orthogonality

Chapter 104: The Family Court and Parental Responsibility