Chapter 130: A Simple Stroll Through Fundamental Physics

by Darryl Penney

Abstract: fundamental physics is redefined by using general mathematical physics and a new way of thinking that shows truths that allows us to control our civilisation.

Extended abstract: along the way, we find the creation equation that generates the universe, a new conservation law (1), quantum gravity (4), correct the law of gravity, ‘dark energy’ (2), the speed of light is constant to any observer (3), the principle of least action (5) and Occam’s razor (5) that are the five absolutes that define the universe. One absolute of the mind is music and other truths are generated by Life, so that we can pick out evolution’s laws that we need to apply to our civilisation through the mathematics of concept-context [prices and democracy] derived from the creation equation. The structure of the universe is shown through Euler’s equation and it’s relationship with the mathematical constants [e, i, pi, 0 and 1] and relativity, more accurately orthogonality, shows the logic of the photon and how the universe works.

Keywords: relativity; orthogonality; organisation; quantum gravity; ‘new think’; creation equation; law of gravity; Euler’s equation; Occam’s razor; principle of least action; ‘dark energy’

‘Today’s problems cannot be solved with today’s mind’

Albert Einstein and many great thinkers …

(Fair Food, edited by Nick Rose, p 250)

The fundamental physics that describes our universe is simple, and depends on relativity. There can be no option or argument to the premise that at any point there is nothing or something [first fractal] and relativity says that if there is something, there must be two somethings not one, that are independent, yet entangled, so let’s call them energy ‘1’ and organisation ‘(-1)’ and their relationship is (1+(-1))=0. A second fractal is that energy ‘1’ becomes energy and organisation and organisation ‘(-1)’ becomes energy and organisation and so on for ever. I maintain that this representation accurately describes our universe, the physics of it and the mind/brain of Life, and I will give a number of examples from everyday life that any physics should be able to explain.

We listen to music because it provides emotions of various kinds [energy] when we measure [hear] the organisation of the notes arranged by the composer. The notes that we use are related through the octave and the octave, applied to a stringed instrument, is half or double the frequency or wavelength [the ratio eliminates relativity, is a truth of the mind and requires a reference frequency]. The music of all the different countries consist of the same octave, with a different number of notes in it. A joke is good if the setting leads our mind ‘up the garden path’ and, at the ‘punch-line’, the change in organisation in our thinking produces energy that has to go somewhere [as a laugh]. Churches, government buildings, church services etc. contain organisation that we see as awe [emotion]. The Mona Lisa and art in general uses organisation embedded in the painting [golden triangle] etc. to produce the emotion of appreciation [energy], and so on. The last three examples depend on the first absolute. Notice that all the emotions are feelings of energy.

A fractal is generated from a simple formula to give a form that we see [measure], and in the case of our universe it is the creation equation (1+(-1))=0, above, and because the universe is functional, it needs the logic of the half-truth. Energy appears to be simple and follow simple rules but organisation is much more difficult to handle [conceptually] and Newtonian physics tends to ignore it, but even if energy appears simple, it is always entangled with organisation and, as an example, Newtonian physics says that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. This is incomplete because I maintain that the sum of energy plus organisation is always zero [(1+(-1))=0] that allows energy to increase, provided organisation does also [first absolute truth].

Physics has always been about ‘how’ things work, in a measurement sense, not about ‘why’ they work and, in other words, Newtonian physics is about ‘how’ masses collide and it is unfair to stretch its use into ‘modern physics’ and to expect it to work to explain ‘why’, because ‘how’ and ‘why’ are orthogonal. Simply put, ‘how’ is top-down and ‘why’ is bottom-up and organisationally orthogonal, so, to create a physics that contains traditional Newtonian physics and ‘modern physics’ we need to create an orthogonality and for completeness, we need relativity, restrictions, truths and entanglement. Thus general mathematical physics is created from two orthogonalities with no big changes to worry the user.

If the universe is a fractal, the form of which is described by (1+(-1))=0, this equation is meaningless in traditional mathematics because traditional mathematics is incomplete and the complete form, that I call the mathematics of concept-context is immediately apparent from the form of the creation equation [orthogonality]. The universe is simple, but appears complicated because it is a fractal derived from the creation equation [in form] and the logic of the half-truth [in function]. However, we must take into account restrictions, such as that the creation equation only exists if 1 and (-1) never come together and this requires [the logic of] an expanding universe [which we have], logic and ‘truths’.

Logic is necessary to create a unique answer and a unique answer is necessary for an organisation to exist and thus we need the ‘principle of least action’ for energy and Occam’s razor for organisation. These two principles have been enigmas for hundreds of years and the answer is as simple as it is unexpected in that any interaction must entail a unique value and that value must be ‘the lowest’ because there are no other ‘goal posts’. In other words, relativity is destroyed by assigning a value [fifth absolute]. The other [four] absolute truths are easily obtained by ‘stripping out’ relativity from the universe because the structure of the universe is without relativity [the working is relativity] and the simplest way to do this is to create ratios. The universe must expand to exist and this generates energy, organisation, length and time and so, the ratio of length divided by time, for all energy and organisation says that energy and organisation [light quanta] have a constant speed with respect to any observer, which is the Michelson-Morley result that led to Einstein’s theory [second absolute]. This clears up the enigma of why every observer sees the speed of light as the same value irrespective of their motion and it requires us to consider that our universe is not what we think it to be.

I have never seen or heard any discussion of what form our universe takes, and that is one purpose of this paper, but, considering that our universe arose from nothing, above, it must be an organisation such as Pythagoras’s theorem that always has unique answers and must exist and be ‘real’ in some sense. Clearly, we have evolved to consider this universe as a ‘reality’ and have evolved to learn ‘truths’ from the evolution around us, such as that predators are ‘safe’ when far enough away. Another truth is in loco parentis that requires us to make considerable sacrifices for children [to perpetuate the race] but does not require that offspring acknowledge that sacrifice [a truth of the mind]. The major religions say that children should acknowledge that debt to parents, and thus, this is not a truth that we should build a civilisation on, if we wish it to last. In other words, there are truths and man-made conveniences.

Notice that, whilst the speed of energy and organisation is slow [speed of light], the speed of organisation contained in the measuring space is infinitely fast because it is a function of the measuring space and an example is gravity that is the ratio of energy divided by length PLUS organisation divided by length [fourth absolute]. We can call this sum ‘quantum gravity’ as it is completely general from organisation of the quarks to the gravity holding the galaxies together. Note that this attraction between two masses is twice that of Newton’s equation of gravity and Einstein ‘guessed’ this result by postulating curved space, which is a ‘convenience’ of the mind/brain. The mind/brain is a parasite that uses a probability space (a+b)=1 for all a and b, and is orthogonal to the physical and thus requires orthogonalities in general mathematical physics. Notice that quantum gravity is hyperbolic [1 divided by separation], whereas the attraction of gravity requires relativity that produces the inverse square:

E(mass1)/l times (for relativity) E(mass2)/l plus O(mass1)/l times (for relativity) O(mass2)/l

where E is energy, l is length, O is organisation for all time.

The structure of the universe is derived from the creation equation and can be better described by the enigmatic Euler’s equation that determines the form of the universe [(e to the power i times pi +1) = 0 can be written (e to the power i times pi + e to the power 0) = 0, which is an expression of orthogonality and describes an expanding [e, simple interest expansion] sphere [pi] from 0 symmetrical [i] through the centre]. Clearly, the universe is not speeding-up, nor slowing down and space is not ‘curved’. I have always found Euler’s equation enigmatic because it contains ‘i’ explicitly, but as can be seen from the ‘organisational expansion’, ‘i’ must be there because it represents relativity [through the centre] and everything, except the absolutes, is relative to something else as stated in the creation equation. For completeness, the third absolute is ‘dark energy’ which is energy plus organisation divided by time for all volume, which represents the increase in energy due to the expansion.

The above derives, what I believe to be the form of the universe, but relativity requires the working structure and that is given by the logic of the half-truth [true, false, alternating true-false and chaos]. Much discussion was given, a hundred years ago, to the wave-particle duality of the photon and the photoelectric effect closed the question by saying that both were energy. That was fine for Newtonian physics that largely ignores organisation, but the organisation is the key to the functioning of the universe and the ‘choice’ of whether a reaction occurs. A simile might be appropriate: in the Cambrian Era, teeth and bones developed because, I believe, better eyesight allowed better interaction [initially at a distance] between predator and prey. The law of conservation of energy is wrong and the correct form was given above as the sum of energy and organisation is zero and this allows both a change in both factors together or an oscillation between wave and particle and allows choice in reactions. [Traditional physics uses the mind-brain (think energy) to decide whether a reaction occurs, but in the physical, an actual trial of each must occur].

Let’s approach the wave-particle duality another way because it is still an unresolved question, but first a similar problem occurs in the generalist-specialist duality and the ‘siloing ‘ of knowledge in universities because of the orthogonality of generalist and specialist with increasing knowledge. These two dualities have relativity at their core and are a restriction on democracy. The above orthogonality of energy and organisation allows us to examine energy [as a photon] and expect to find energy and organisation within the photon [in a fractal], and indeed, I believe that we do. The [new] statement of conservation of energy and organisation (above) shows that energy can flow [no logical reason why not] into organisation and vice versa and the photon thus shows its relativity as particle [organisation] and energy [wave]. This explains the probabilistic behaviour of quantum mechanics [because our mind views it through a probability space (a+b=1), all a, b] and we can use Schrodinger’s wave equation or Feynman’s histories [as a particle].

Conclusion: the generation of a general mathematical physics, that is universally applicable [context], requires a concept to go with it and that concept could be called ‘new think’ because for the first time the software of the mind has been changed within the existing hardware of the brain. The mind-brain evolved to serve the cells of the body in coping better with the environment and ‘new think’ is the logical new step that is necessary to cope with today’s problems and produce a new type of mind [software] that fulfils the requirements of the quotation..

Prediction (relative to the conclusion): the above is, I believe, a simplification of fundamental physics that generates a new type of thinking because fundamental physics has been ‘shut down’ for the last hundred years when Einstein used ‘an analogy’ [curved space] to show [as did an experiment] that Newton’s law of gravity was wrong by a factor of two [and Newton did admit that it was an ‘inspired’ guess]. Huge resources are being spent by governments in the search for fundamental particles and not on methods to control civilisations and populations to stop global warming and over-consumption of resources. The above extrapolates into a new social mathematics [of concept-context] through the creation equation and allows truths to be applied to our civilisation to manage populations and re-start evolution. This problem of population control is not difficult when using these new methods, and more depth can be found on darrylpenney.com when required.

Overview: for most of my life I have pondered the question of ‘why the speed of light is relative to each person’s mind?’ [Michelson-Morley experiment] The above answers that question and the universe so derived appears to have no enigmas, that I am aware of, unlike Newtonian physics, so, perhaps it is correct and it does seem to satisfy the five absolutes. If we cannot accept this universe, we don’t deserve the ‘top spot’ in evolution, and, as the quotation says, we need a new way of thinking to solve today’s problems, and, the above says that the relativity generated by ‘new think’ could allow us to simply solve current problems and restart evolution.

References: this paper subtends any possible reference and stands on its own as a testament to its simplicity.