Chapter 114

Preamble [the necessary context to the concept below]: I am writing this letter because I believe that there are problems in science that need widespread discussion and this has now become possible because of a new definition of relativity. This ‘letter-form’ was chosen to reach as many readers as possible, and especially those that normally ‘throw up their hands in horror’ at words like relativity, quantum gravity, gravity, quarks etc. but these are the areas that show the problems with Newtonian physics. Einstein said (along the lines of) ‘that we should be able to explain the universe so simply that a child could understand it’ and I intend doing just that, but the basic problem is, I believe that Newtonian physics, especially, has been pushed past its limits and needs fixing.

This letter shows that fundamental physics is exceedingly easy when looked at in the correct way, and that there are fundamental differences in the conception of ‘specialists’ and ‘generalists’ as well as [the truth from evolution] that the ‘establishment’ resists change. Thus, ‘peer review’ is deeply flawed and the simplicity of this approach shows that any interested person, such as your readers, can judge the merits of this approach. Nothing is changed, just expanded and mathematics, physics and philosophy are brought into a general mathematical physics based on relativity and everything is made clear through the dimensions and the type of space.

Does anyone seriously believe that there are only four dimensions [space-time]? The answer is that there are more and, I believe, five [energy] and six [organization] but entangled so that they disappear if we are not careful. Newtonian physics is based on energy and its organization is voted upon [peer review] and is kept separate when possible, presumably because organization is dangerous stuff probably because it cannot be measured. Or can it be sufficiently measured? Einstein introduced organization [curved space] into physics, was supported by experiment [photon/solar-mass] and thus created a ‘no-go’ zone in fundamental modern physics for 100 years. The universe measures organization in a very simple way [Occam’s razor, principle of least action] and we can create an expanded physics bottom-up from first principles [organizational physics] and end up showing that mathematics, physics, philosophy etc. are not only all linked together, but are parts of a whole. A special treat will be to have Newton’s law of gravitation ‘drop out’ before ‘our very eyes’ – a feat that neither Newton [‘inspired reasoning’] nor Einstein [analogy] could do, and as a bonus, Coulomb’s law is shown to be a restatement of Newton’s law. More practical to everyday life is how the mind/brain works, how to judge an art show, enjoy dancing, understand classical music and much more. Science really is simple!

Physics From First Principles – The New Renaissance

Abstract: the mind/brain is considered complex, but viewing it in a new way makes it simple and similar happens when the method is applied to the subject of physics. A new principle of relativity is derived that defines the basis of the universe and, in particular, the properties of gravity and Newton’s law of gravitation (in its correct form) is immediately apparent from the absolute truths of the creation equation as well as the type of spaces in which Life and the universe exist, the lack of knowledge of which has stalled fundamental modern physics for a century. For the first time, ever, science is shown to be the orthogonalities of space [mind/physical], organization [up/down] and relativity that brings everything together, and yet does not change the existing experimental results [truths]. Coulomb’s law for charges is simply derived and the inverse square law that is associated with the two laws is shown to be inappropriate and is a combination of relativity and the absolute of gravitational attraction diminishing with separation.

“I was told by my professor that ‘If the brain were so simple that we could understand it, we would be so simple that we couldn’t.'” (Unthinkable, Helen Thomson, p 264) The reason for this letter is to refute this suggestion that the mind/brain, the universe and (fundamental) science are too complicated to understand, and to show that they only appear complicated because of our lack of understanding and appreciation of organization. The consequence of this lack places our civilization in danger from global warming etc. and stifles evolution, so we need to rewrite science from the bottom-up and combine it with the top-down that we have been using. In particular, Newtonian physics has been found wanting and fundamental modern physics has been curtailed for the last century because it doe not adequately describe relativity and so, a new approach is needed. Einstein and Bohr’s difference of opinion on the type of space that we inhabit has held up fundamental physics for a hundred years and made it a ‘no go’ zone.

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

Both were wrong and this letter will hopefully renew interest.

Newtonian physics is a top-down ‘guess’ that uses the relativity of the momentum of particles [laws of motion] to create truths on which we can base decisions. Unfortunately, the momentum, on which his laws of motion are based is not an absolute and, as shown below, is at odds with the physical world [relativity]. ‘Peer review’ is supposed to keep the organization of physics ‘pure and correct’ by building one acceptance [by peers] on another and match experiment [a truth]. This system worked and we call it Newtonian physics, but it was found to be inadequate in modern fundamental physics and sensibly, an embargo was placed on research in that area for a hundred years [Snow White effect]. I believe that this letter provides the correct definition of relativity that will allow us to determine absolute truths on which correct decisions can be made.

The problems surfaced with the Michelson-Morley experiment that showed that the measurement of the speed of light gave the same value irrespective of the speed of the observer and this led to Einstein’s theory of relativity and its oddities. These oddities [change in all of mass, length and time] indicate the type of space of the universe and show that it is not a probability space [Bohr], which our mind/brain is based on, not a ‘common sense’ space [Einstein], but a measuring space. The universe is a measuring space because the speed of light must remain constant to any observer, but to investigate the space in which we live, we need to start at the beginning.

In the beginning there was nothing (0) and it is a property of orthogonality to make two independent things, but entangled [at the origin], such as (1) and (-1) [first fractal] and that forces the second fractal (1+(-1))=0 [this equation I call the creation equation because it yields the form of the universe] and it’s orthogonal is the logic of the half-truth [true, false, both true and false simultaneously] that yields ‘physical choice’ [shimmer presents opportunities for a reaction through the wave/particle duality] that leads to the working of the universe [‘a single particle could seemingly span a field as would a wave, a paradox still eluding satisfactory explanation’ Wikipedia, Elementary particle]. Life employs a mind/brain to make better choices based on the structure of the probability equation [mathematics of concept/context] in the brain as well as thought [(-1), organization] from the burning of a simple sugar [(1), glucose]. That is the answer to the quotation, above, but with a ‘twist’ because Life uses a probability space [(a+b)=1] that is similar to the measuring space [(1+(-1))=0], but allows all concepts a, b to be considered.

Notice that the creation equation exits only if (1) and (-1) are kept apart and this logic requires an expanding universe, which we have [Big Bang], and this expansion produces the dimensions of space-time, energy and organization. The equation also says that everything is relative to something else, with no exceptions, except that ratios naturally become absolutes and they are the conservation of (total) energy/organization [energy/time], constant speed of light [distance/time], dark energy [energy/space] and gravity [energy/separation] and this becomes the principle of relativity in a measuring space [and replaces the present one that the laws of physics are the same in constantly moving frames]. The absolutes produce stability – the first leads to Occam’s razor and the principle of least action, the second to the constant [to the measurer, Michelson-Morley] speed of light, the third to the infill energy/organization [dark energy] to balance the expanding energy/organization of the universe and the fourth to gravity.

The limitations of Newtonian physics have made gravity an enigma for a long time and I believe, it is not an attraction [Newton], not ‘bent’ space that introduced organization and shut down modern physics for a hundred years [Einstein, deflection of a photon by a solar mass], but simply an absolute [energy-organization/distance], where all matter is composed of energy and organization and the doubling effect that Einstein (eventually) found is due to relativity where:

Attraction equals E(1)/d times E(2)/d plus O(1)/d times O(2)/d where E is energy, O is organization and d is the separation of two masses (1) and (2).

This leads to twice the Newtonian value where only energy is considered and is in line with Einstein’s finding. Notice that this is the first time that Newton’s law of gravitation has been derived because Newton used an ‘inspired reasoning’ [Robert Hooke maintained that it was stolen from him] and Einstein used an ‘analogy’. Clearly, this explanation shows that the inverse-square law has nothing to do with it!

We now understand gravity completely in that it’s effect has and will always be constant, it cannot exist except between two objects [relativity], its value depends only on the total amount of energy/organization and the separation and shimmer [from particle to wave] has no effect because two terms are involved as a sum. Also, the equation E=mc2 is misleading because mass and energy are the same thing and the equation is a conversion of the units that we have assigned, but what is not so obvious is that all of energy/mass and all of organization contribute equally [relativity]. It was accepted in Newton’s time that mass had an attraction and in Einstein’s time that energy [photon] had the same attraction, but the fact that organization had an attraction [curved space] and gave the correct experimental answer was a ‘step too far’ and fundamental physics closed down.

This enigma is a result of the short-comings of Newtonian physics, and it is not an enigma when it is realized that energy and organization are ‘two sides of the same coin’ and further, that this complexity is a mathematical physics solution because the first orthogonality [energy/organization] produces a second where, in part, organization gives gravity [organization] and energy [of gravity] through the absolute. To maintain the condition that universe is expanding [(1) and (-1) kept separate] gravity must be a solution and be non-zero because a zero gravity produces random walk, which, in the limit, is not stable. The “e” in Euler’s equation determines a constantly growing universe [“e” is the driver in compounded interest].

From above, the statement that ‘the absolutes produce stability’ needs expansion, firstly, ‘the absolutes produce stability’ is, of course, true because they define the structure of the universe, secondly, ‘Occam’s razor and the principle of least action’ are an organizational requirement that only the simplest and least energetic response is possible if the organization is to have unique answers. In other words, the universe does measures organization and the measurement requires that the lowest energy be used [first absolute]. Thirdly, the requirement that all of energy/mass, length and time obey the Lorentz contraction together is an organizational requirement in that it is simpler that all change proportionately than to list an order of change.

Fourthly, compare the treatment of organization in Newtonian physics where organization is allowed upon experiment or peer review. The English philosopher, Francis Bacon was correct that physics must be based on experiment because [repeatable] experiment is a truth and we can also use the long-term effects of evolution as truths. ‘The general idea of the importance and possibility of a sceptical methodology makes Bacon the father of the scientific method’. (Wikipedia) For example, ‘in loco parentis’ passes from parent to offspring and not visa versa as the major religions demand. Peer review is a half-truth that is true only for specialist subjects and false for general subjects because specialists think differently to generalists [relativity] plus two truths are violated [relativity, and evolution (the established resist change)]. Notice the ‘thread’ that I am using is not the usual [ancient Greeks to Newton to Einstein to the Snow White effect], but a different successful thread [ancient Greeks to Bacon (experimental truth) to this theory (absolutes, experimental truths and evolutionary truths)]

Fifthly, the principle of relativity, stated above could also be called the principle of orthogonality because they are relative to each other and everything contains elements that are either the same or independent to something else and it is the orthogonals that form the basis of the mathematics of concept/context that is immediately apparent from the probability equation.

Coulomb’s law for charges is similar in form to Newton’ law, and many must have, like I, wondered about this, and both are, [inappropriately as it turns out] associated with the inverse square law. A simple explanation is to use the fractalness that the neutron [mass] is a special case of energy [photon] and orthogonates to a proton, electron and a neutrino and that Newton’s law describes the mass attraction, whilst Coulomb’s law describes the charge attraction. Obviously they must be equivalent, apart from sign and magnitude. Clearly, the inverse square law is a top down complication of the relativity and the products of the absolute of mass/charge to distance.

Another example of orthogonality in the real world is the painting of Mona Lisa that is small [77 cm x 53 cm (30 “ x 21 “)], but is the most famous painting in the world because, I believe, that Leonardo da Vinci was conversant with mathematical organization [golden triangle, golden rectangle etc.], incorporated them into the paintings and the measurement [by looking] created energy [emotion] in the viewer. The production of emotion is common in art, music, church buildings and services, flags etc. and the more and better the organization inserted by song-writers, authors etc., the greater their success. Thus, the judgement of the worth of a piece of art, architecture or the golden triangle is simply the amount of emotion that it produces in the judges and viewers. This is obvious when pointed out, but important contextually.

Having come this far, I should point out the simple form of the oft sought quantum gravity in physics which is a hyperbola of organization with gravity at one end [between the stars] and the organizational solution of the quarks in the subatomic particles [and why they cannot exist as separate entities] that forms the asymptotes at each end. Quantum gravity is organizational and does not form part of Newtonian physics, so general mathematical physics [this theory] needs to be used. The interrelationship of electric charges and magnetism is another example of organization because electric charges allow the possibility of particles being able to exceed the absolute speed limit and magnetism is, I believe, the organizational measuring device to stop this occurring.

In conclusion, the above is a taste of bottom-up organization together with the sideways orthogonality that can be combined with traditional top-down science to make a general mathematical physics [that includes philosophy through the mathematics of concept/context] and joins the probability with the measuring space. The universe is simple when viewed in the correct manner as shown by the ease with which the (correct) derivation of Newton’s formula for gravity was obtained and that gravity is a necessary condition for an expanding universe. No one could follow Einstein because he introduced organization from top-down, but with this method, gravity is immediately apparent from the absolutes of the dimensions, logic and relativity.

Prediction: I have on occasion read of suggestions that multiple universes are ‘hived-off’ at each instant and that different universes use different physical constants, but the ‘strength’ of this theory is that the absolutes demand that only one type of universe with the same physical constants be generated. This is a major simplification. Also, it can be seen that the universe that is generated is not a probability space, as such, but a measuring space that produces the most likely scenarios – a major simplification to the exactness of a probability space. In effect, the universe is a mathematic, but using the mathematics of concept/context to derive the most likely scenarios.

Finally, no references are cited because everything can be derived simply from the first principles and the examples given above. However, it is pointless ‘reinventing the wheel’ and most of it will be on my website darrylpenney.com when required.