Chapter 110: Modern Physics, Snow White and Choice

By Darryl Penney

Abstract: the fundamental theory of modern physics has not progressed significantly for a hundred years [Snow White’s sleeping] because, I believe, that Einstein introduced organisation [in the form of gravity] into a physics based on energy and forces [including gravity] and no one since has been able to reconcile this [top-down guess], presumably because, if Einstein could not define gravity, who could? The concept of gravity requires a restatement of Newtonian physics derived from a bottom-up derivation and not from the organisationally poor top-down traditional method. By using a simple theoretical construction of the universe, using orthogonality, a simple solution of all forces of attraction [quantum gravity] becomes available as a consequence of the absolutes. The three absolutes, derived from the dimensions, form the basis of the universe. The time has come to dislodge the poisoned apple of Newton’s and Einstein’s physics that has frustrated fundamental physics for a hundred years and embrace a reality that is based on the creation equation [leading to organisational physics] and not armchair musings.

Forward: ‘As the ingenious twentieth-century inventor Buckminster Fuller once said, “You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” (Doughnut Economics, Kate Raworth, p 4) This statement is not always correct and the basics of the construction of the universe [logic of the half-truth and orthogonality] allow us to construct a general mathematical physics that incorporates the pre-existing Newtonian physics as it stands. This is crucial because the scientific community is the bulwark of modern society and reluctant/resistant to change. However, orthogonality leads into the (new) principle of relativity that requires a specialist and generalist approach. ‘It draws on diverse schools of thought, such as complexity, ecological, feminist, institutional and behavioural economics. They are all rich with insight but there is still a risk that they will remain separate in silos, each school of thought nestled in its own journals, conferences, blogs, textbooks and teaching posts, cultivating its niche critique of last century’s thinking. The real breakthrough lies, of course, in combining what each has to offer’. (p 11) The previous sentence is only part of the solution [sideways context] because there must be the concepts that are orthogonal top-down [existing theories] and the theory of reality [bottom-up] that defines the mathematics of concept/context that is needed to make decisions by assigning values to choices.

Preamble: this might be better understood at a second reading: the first orthogonality is the creation of energy (1) and organisation (-1) from nothing (0) [doublet/triplet], the second orthogonality is firstly, the organisation (1+(-1)=0 that is unstable, unless expanding, as our universe is, and this expansion creates the dimensions of space and time [4 dimensions] and secondly, the total energy is both (1) and (-1) with a dimension of 0 [total], 1 [energy] or 2 [energy and organisation]. The creation equation (1+(-1))=0 is similar to a probability/fractal space and the principle of relativity is that everything is relative to something else, except that the ratios of relatives are absolutes that are simply the conservation of total energy [law of conservation of (total) energy, energy/time], the speed of electromagnetic waves in a vacuum [constant speed of light, length/time] and the increase in energy/organisation per unit of newly created space [dark energy, energy/space].

The creation equation describes the structure of the universe and its orthogonal describes the universe’s operation derived from the logic of the half-truth which orthogonates to true/false/shimmer and chaos. Shimmer is the choice driving the logic of the physical world and presents opportunities for either, and both, energy related and organisational reactions. For example, a photon, I believe, (chapter 94) is nothing more than a shimmer between energy [as a wave] and organisation [as a particle] and the wave allows action at a ‘close’ distance. Action at a ‘long’ distance is the property of a probability/measuring space [a+b=1] that has instantaneous accounting and the generality of a and b allows ‘free-thinking’ that is a product of our mind/brain because both are based on the mathematics of concept/context that is immediately apparent from the equation. Thus, the creation equation [(1+(-1))=0] and the logic of the half-truth are the orthogonals that define the general mathematical physics in a sideways sense and top/down in an organisational sense [Occam’s razor].

The above at least satisfies Einstein’s requirement that ‘all physical theories… ought to lend themselves to so simple a description that even a child could understand them’. (Einstein In His Own Words, Anne Rooney, p 32)

The problem with modern physics reminds me of the fairy tale Snow White, where Einstein, with his huge reputation, is the wicked witch that places physics into a hundred year sleep by presenting theories to physicists that are outstanding, but misleading in context. Einstein (somewhat) anticipated general mathematical physics (chapter 100) by introducing organisation into a physics that is (supposedly) based on energy but doing it from top-down, which has led to odd statements. There are two ways to approach organisation, top-down and bottom-up and in science top-down is little more than guessing. For example, ‘Difficult though it is to comprehend, matter creates at once both space and time’ (p 65) is correct and incorrect [logic of the half-truth] as can be seen when comparing this statement with the above where energy [mass] and organisation are created from nothing with the requirement that the universe that is created must expand and that expansion creates the dimensions that define the universe. The first statement is incomplete and misleading, but partially correct, whereas the second statement leads to the absolutes and a workable universe.

‘The general theory of relativity replaces Newton’s concept of gravity as a force with a completely new analogy. Instead of an attraction between objects, a distortion of the space-time continuum impels one object to move towards another.’ (p 74) Firstly, notice the phrase ‘completely new analogy’, and given the preamble above, surely we can do better than analogies that are possibly based on erroneous ideas. Secondly, I believe that the key to understanding gravity lies in the absolutes above and is an effect derived from the absolutes. The creation equation is only viable/exists if the universe is expanding [as ours is], the third absolute provides the energy [dark energy] to balance the expansion [quantum gravity] and thus the universe expands for this logical [organisational physics] reason, not some Big Bang.

To return to the Snow White analogy, physics has been in a deep sleep for a hundred years and this (may have) occurred because two heavyweights in physics could not agree on the type of universe that we inhabit, Einstein maintained a ‘real’ [our common sense] universe in spite of postulating the results of Michelson-Morley in his special theory of relativity and being the ‘father’ of quantum mechanics, however, ‘Einstein is also the last of the classical physicists in the sense that he never truly accepted quantum theory and its dependence on the concept of probability’. (p 101). That the speed of light is the same to all measurers is enigmatic unless the universe is a measuring space and has an absolute that the speed of energy is constant, as above. In other words, the quantum world (1+(-1))=0 is a measuring/orthogonality space that is similar to a probability space (a+b)=1, but they are obviously not the same in form. A probability space is not an orthogonality space, which forms the basic logic of the universe, and was used to describe quantum mechanics because (presumably) we are familiar with it and it seems to fit, in a top-down sense.

If it is true, as it appears, that scientists have ‘shut down’ discussion of fundamental physics, they have done it for a very good reason, and that reason is, simply, ‘which view is correct?’. The resolution of the argument requires tying one, or both views to an absolute and we know that there are only three absolutes that come into being as the logic that allows the creation equation to exist and that is that the universe must continually expand. The first absolute [that the (total) energy and organisation is constant and zero] produces the logic of Occam’s razor and the principle of least action to provide a unique requirement at all times that (total) energy and organisation are the same at all times [organisational physics].

It would be presumptuous of me to declare either Einstein or Bohr correct, but this division, presumably led to a ban on the development of fundamental physics, even to the extent of forcing people out of career paths.

[http://bostonreview.net/science-nature-philosophy-religion/tim-maudlin-defeat-reason]

I believe that the null space can only be viewed through a fractal/probability space because only that space has the requisite properties [absolutes] to describe the logic and (nearly) everything becomes a probability. One way out of this dilemma is to offer a convincing decision that (from top-down) convinces the scientific community, as Einstein did, see below. This method is not based on absolutes and, though accepted at the time, led science, I believe, ‘up the garden path’.

I believe that we must view our universe as a fractal/probability space and starting with Life, a probability space (a+b)=1 is a measuring space for all a, b [concepts a, b and contexts +, ‘and’] and explains the results obtained by the Michelson-Morley experiment as well as the functioning and organisational structure of the mind/brain: (a) abstract thought, all a, b, (b) the structure of thought [mathematics of concept/context that is obvious from (a+b)=1] and (c) also the construction of the brain. The reason why the brain requires a disproportionate amount of energy from the body is explained further below and it is that the more physical/energy that is burnt, the more logical/organisational thought is generated in the mind and the better that we can cope with our surroundings.

To digress, it is well known that mankind’s brain has increased over the last couple of million years and that the Neanderthal’s brain was bigger than ours. It is possible that the later Cro-Magnon’s [of Europe] brain, as well as other cave-painters around the world had enough mental complexity to allow excessive organisation to become art, social organisation on a larger scale, buildings, sculptures etc. and led to modern mankind that seems to have no trouble with complexity such as computers, telephones, timetables etc.

The Big Bang theory and its onetime rival, the Steady State theory are creation myths rather than scientific principles because there is no rational explanation for their beginning. The creation equation is a legitimate scientific theory because everything in the universe, I believe, can be derived from that equation. The orthogonality [independence with entanglement] that physically (‘+’) and logically (‘and’) separates ‘1’ and ‘-1’ is all around us in the form of buildings (bricks and non-bricks) to create living space, the atom (neutrons forming protons and electrons) to create atoms that create opportunities for building etc. In common terms ‘1’ and ‘-1’ are energy and organisation Newtonian physics is an attempt to describe the workings of the universe in terms of energy and modern physics has carried on the process and has basically ‘ground to a halt’ because energy is only half the story.

The reason that life was able to evolve a mind from the physical creation equation is because they are similar in form [(1+(-1)=0 and a probability space a+b=1], but (1+(-1))=0 is not the same as 1=1 that mathematics would have us believe. As an example, the enigmatic Euler’s equation that links the mathematical constants together is, I believe, an orthogonal equation (see chapter 98), and this is to be expected because everything is orthogonal. Given that the relationship between energy and organisation is so fundamental, the burning of simple sugars [glucose] produces organisation [thinking mind] in the brain and organisation, inherent in music, golden ratio triangle, church services etc. create emotion (chapter 106 and 107). This last sentence derives the mind and emotion from the creation equation together with the three absolutes, above, and these provide, I believe, undeniable proof that the universe is constructed on the creation equation and that choice is provided, physically, by shimmer and for life, by the choices decided by our mind. After all, the only way to define choice is to have something, whether it is us [evolution] or a computer program, act out the alternatives, and considering the use of the mind, only the rational alternatives are considered and this imparts efficiency to survival.

‘In the first years of the 20^th century, physics was in crisis.’ (Einstein: Decoding the Universe, Francoise Balibar, p 30) Two problems are mentioned, firstly, that a fixed ether was needed for the transmission of light and this conflicted with the principle of relativity that the laws of physics were the same in a stationary or constantly moving frame of reference. Notice that the creation equation derives the principle of relativity, above, and replaces the postulate in the last sentence. Secondly, ‘continuity and discontinuity are two totally opposite qualities, a thing cannot be both discontinuous and continuous, or change from a continuous to a discontinuous state.’ (p 36) Einstein demonstrated that the perceived opposition between continuity and discontinuity does not exist, for both light and matter are composed of particles. This was called the quantum hypothesis of light.’ (p 40) Also, ‘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’. (p 40)

Unfortunately, these two problems were not answered and ‘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.’ (p 111) All of these problems, including the third, that needs to reconcile quantum mechanics and gravity referred to in the last sentence, are answered simply by the creation equation and the orthogonality that it necessarily contains. A simple thought experiment shows that orthogonality is the perfect building block because from nothing you can create two independent things, that by definition are independent, such as energy/matter, photon/neutron, a neutron produces a proton and electron, bricks and air etc. The proof is all around us.

Firstly, ‘a thing cannot be both discontinuous and continuous, or change from a continuous to a discontinuous state’ is actually a true statement, I believe, because it is a statement of shimmer, above, which is the agent of choice in the physical world. Secondly, light energy is propagated organisationally because of the requirement of an absolute speed [second absolute], and thus answers the question of how energy is propagated without ether in a vacuum. ‘Thrilled as he was at having found even a partial solution to the problems that had plagued physicists of the preceding generation, Einstein could not foresee that this question of the true nature of light – of the “reality” of light quanta – would haunt him all his life.’ (p 45) Clearly, Einstein was using Newtonian physics and forcing everything to be energy, whereas gravity, potential energy, the speed of light etc. are organisational and products of logic [organisational physics].

The true nature of light, as I believe it is, is given in chapter 88 and is a fundamental orthogonality of energy and organisation We could expect that the energy is held in an organised way and this seems to be how the neutron would form, but light, I believe is different because a neutron is a discrete energy and has set properties, whereas light quanta have to be infinitely variable in terms of energy. This raises the questions that define organisational physics and makes it different to physics. If light quanta contain all energies and are continuous, as is required for a reality, then, in what form is energy held, unless the organisation of energy is commensurate with the amount of energy? Energy cannot exist on its own [principle of relativity] and is defined by the two absolutes [first and third], which is the second orthogonality.

Physics is the result of thousands of years of top-down guessing and thus often contains enigmas. One enigma was the requirement of the ether to enable a wave structure, because the ether provided the reserve of energy when the wave became zero, as it does every half-wavelength. Why not consider the same mechanism taken inside the photon and the wave becomes a particle in a progressive shimmer? Organisationally, top-down is a poor way to investigate the unknown compared to bottom-up and thus organisational physics is the way that the universe works and not how we would like it to work. This theory of the quantum energy also provides choice in the shimmer because the quantum is always a wave and a particle at all times [except for infinitely small occasions].

In an expanding universe, as must occur to keep (1+(-1))=0 in existence, energy (1) is expanding and creating an associated potential energy (-1), and so, potential energy is an organisation not an energy, unlike as Newtonian physics teaches us and likewise, gravity is the manifestation of potential energy that is required by the law of conservation of (total) energy. The organisation of the subatomic particles, and in particular the distribution of quarks is the other end of gravity (see chapter 89). It appears that the subatomic organisational solution is not quite perfect and the release of a neutrino in the orthogonality of neutron to a proton and electron presents a problem that appears to be mitigated by the low absorption of the neutrino.

Newton’s force of gravity could be considered to act locally, Einstein’s view of a ‘distortion of the space-time continuum’ is a somewhat-local view, whereas the view that I am offering is a total universe wide interpretation. This latter view allows us to understand that gravity is organisational, orthogonal to energy, but organisation is composed of both energy and organisation and likewise, energy is composed of energy and organisation and it is the level of the fractal splitting that must be considered. The principle of relativity, together with the three absolutes that are derived from the necessary expansion that generate the dimensions [4, 5 or 6] determine the overall structure of the universe, whereas choice is logical [logic of the half-truth] and provides the mechanism of the universe.

Quantum gravity (-1) is simply the organisation that is the first orthogonal with energy (1) and is a hyperbolic function from the unbreakable solution of the quarks to what we call gravity. It is not a force or acceleration [Newton], nor a curvature of space [Einstein], but is the result of the conservation of (total) energy [first absolute] that forces dark energy [third absolute] to be created to balance the increasing organisation of the [necessarily constant (second absolute)] expansion of the universe.

Einstein used the addition of the curvature of space [organisation] to double the effect of Newtonian gravity to give the correct answer for the displacement of light passing a stellar mass. Clearly, from the creation equation, both organisation and energy must have equal effects and so Einstein was correct in his answer, but not correct in his reasoning. ‘Put simply: matter tells space how to curve; space tells matter how to move’ (p 60) is a little simplistic, but it is organisational and gives a reason, if obscure, that the deflection of a photon was twice that given by Newton’s attraction. My interpretation is that space is always simple and the accounting in a measuring space must always follow the law of conservation of (total) energy is zero and that both energy and organisation contribute equally.

The probability equation (a+b)=1 has more to tell us, because the a and b must be orthogonal, both physically and logically, and thus, if we define a, then b needs to be orthogonal and that brings us back to the ‘ban’ on research on fundamental physics. Universities are composed of departments [silos] that are orthogonal to other departments with little, if any, communication between departments, and this system represents the creation equation. Universities are only using the concepts a, b and not the context of ‘+’ and ‘and’, so are not using the mathematics of concept/context. It appears that universities have ‘shot themselves in the foot’ and are not providing the guidance and fundamental research that they should (chapter 102). Break-throughs, as physics has been waiting for, for a hundred years come from ‘lone wolves’ outside of the university system, and I can sight Newton, Einstein, and perhaps myself as being outside of the system at times, and as an example, ‘throughout his life Einstein was a man alone’ (p100)

Back to the fairy story, and it is obvious that physics has to remove the poisoned apple that the genius of Einstein provided with intrusions into quantum gravity that no one could extend, presumably because Newtonian physics is energy based. The universe is a simple place when viewed bottom-up, but full of problems when viewed top-down as has been happening for thousands of years. All disciplines are contained in a general mathematical physics (chapter 101) that contains top/down and sideways orthogonalities and brings everything together. In particular, general mathematical physics is anchored in the creation equation [bottom-up] and traditional mathematical physics is similar to the often used word ‘reality’ that is top-down and un-anchored, so care should be used because it is not unique.

Returning to the disagreement between Einstein and Bohr, the mind is capable of all concepts [a and b of the space (a+b)=1] that may or may not align with the physical universe and a probability/measuring space makes physics more difficult, but it is organisationally imperative that the (total) energy/organisation remain constant to allow the logic of accounting to create [when we measure it] the organisation that we call the universe. Science has to realise that organisation must occur in a proper manner to allow logic to operate and that opinions must be anchored in the absolutes, or a specified relativity. This can perhaps best be explained by the logic of the half-truth that in its most general form [true, false, both true and false at the same time] is a logical nonsense, but can generate shimmer as the agent of physical choice [true, false, shimmer, chaos].

The mind is the agent of Life’s choices and that is instigated by a measurement because there is nothing else in a measuring space. Shimmer physically tries the options of particle and wave, at contact and close by, but the mind operates by concepts [a, b, …] and context [+/and] initiated through measurement of some description [hearing, sight etc.] of the external world.

An alternate choice [true, false] is the question here and this choice can be used at different situations such as the subatomic is probabilistic because we view the happenings through a probability space [organisational physics], but in the macroscopic, out everyday logic suffices. Similarly, relativity exists because it is a requirement of a probability/measurement space that the speed of light is constant, whereas in the null space, the speed is infinite.

Conclusion: ‘Einstein is also the last of the classical physicists in the sense that he never truly accepted quantum theory’. (p 101) This statement, together with the prestige of Einstein, along with the message of the creation equation [that Newtonian physics can not be applied to modern physics and that universities are suffering under the specialist/generalist orthogonality] is (possibly) the reason behind the reluctance of physicists to support argument into fundamental physics, above. How do you judge concept if your context is uncertain? How do you judge concepts without absolutes? These two questions show the lack of relativity inherent in the creation equation, and yet that is what the universities are doing. The question of ‘peer review’ of papers [the blind leading the blind] is responsible for the snow white effect. General mathematical physics is outside of Newtonian physics and outside of common sense, but contains them top-down, and stands alone based on the simplicity of the creation equation and the logic of the half-truth and its structure delineates the various realities that abound and places them in perspective.

I am (somewhat) a generalist and [following the creation equation] this fact has allowed me to ‘flit’ around and link together many areas of science so that they make sense as a whole (to me). The universities will have to change their tactics and actively pursue the generalist approach to improve their performance, but they must realise that there is a world outside of their hierarchy that can add value and must be actively sought as part of the context of life.

The above is a mess/miss-mash of concepts such as probability, gravity, top-down, bottom-up, Newtonian physics etc. and Academia had no option but to suspend discussion on fundamental physics until a simple theory was put in place. This theory will attempt to do that, but it should be realised that this is not a theory, but a ‘truth’ because it is simple, logical, bottom-up and starts at the beginning of everything.

Prediction: The creation equation generates a system where gravity is the orthogonality of the energy that is continually being produced by the system. In other words, gravity is an ‘organisational reflection’ of the energy of the universe. A mathematical probability space [(a+b+c ….)=1] has a similar form to the creation equation, but it is not the same and thus quantum mechanics appears to be probabilistic, but the universe is a measuring space and much different. A measuring space supports the principle of relativity [that everything is relative to something else, including that the absolutes are relative between themselves] and the absolutes impose logic to the organisation in the form of Occam’s razor and principle of least action. This explains two enigmatic experiments, firstly, that the wave equation collapses when a measurement is made, which has nothing to do with probabilities and secondly, the Michelson-Morley experiment where the speed of light is constant to measurers no matter what their motion might be, and again has nothing to do with probabilities. Thus, quantum mechanics is not probabilistic physically [(1+(-1))=0], but appears probabilistic to us because our mind [the measurer] is built on a special case [(a+b)=1] that is supported by the creation equation. Thus neither Einstein nor Bohr was correct and its time to resume fundamental modern physics.

The scientific community uses top-down organisation that is checked and accepted by a vote of peers [peer review]. Clearly, top-down is organisationally primitive and prone to huge organisational errors and general mathematical physics is a sensible fix that combines the thousands of years of research with the mathematics [mathematics of concept/context] and physics [organisational physics] that powers the universe. Thus, I believe that it is time for the universities to remake themselves in accordance with the creation equation.

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

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

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

Chapter 106: Philosophy and Global Religious Pluralism (draft)

Chapter 107: Filosofy Rewrites Philosophy to Explain Beauty, Music, the Golden Triangle, Emotion etc. and Answers the Gun Control Question and the Riddle of the Mona Lisa

Chapter 88: Inside the Photon, the Law of Conservation of Energy, the Big Whoosh, Our Universe Viewed as a Probability Space, Unifying the Photon with Gravity, the Quark Confinement and the Grand Unified Theory (GUT)

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 102: To the Vice-chancellor

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