Chapter 128: The Enigma of Music and Laughter is Resolved which Completes Fundamental Physics, Describes the Universe and Creates a New Way of Thinking

by Darryl Penney

Abstract: the question is asked, probably for the first time in a meaningful way ‘what is our universe?’ and finds that the basis of fundamental physics is simple, and its orthogonal, music, is even more so, but our current thinking cannot penetrate the (apparent) complexity of a fractal universe and so, both fundamental physics and music are currently enigmatic. A new approach is suggested where everything in the universe is relative and the form of the universe, physics, music etc. are absolutes when relativity is stripped out. ‘Quantum gravity’ derives the law of gravity and shows why it is incorrect, in agreement with Einstein, but the real importance is a ‘unification’ that produces a new way of thinking [‘new think’] that contains everything and could produce a ‘rallying call’ that everyone can support to use organisation [including money] to finally ‘fix’ our civilisation for the future in an equitable democratic way that attains a Survival of the Best.

Keywords: ‘new think’; music; relativity; orthogonality; general mathematical physics; creation equation; quantum gravity

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

Albert Einstein and many great thinkers …

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

This quotation is both true and false at the same time and requires the logic of the half-truth that drives the universe through the relativity of the wave-particle duality. Our brain [energy] evolved over 3,000 million years and is the only one that we have, or likely to get, but relativity says that the brain has an entangled mind [organisation] and that can be changed easily because it is based on ‘software’, and a new type of software is now available. Einstein used an analogy of ‘curved space’ to correct Newton’s law of gravitation whilst using Newtonian physics and thus made the above quotation in good faith because he was correct that a new way of thinking, based on the structure of the universe is necessary to correct Newtonian physics and society. Newtonian physics described the known universe, several hundred years ago in terms of three laws of motion and the time to update it is long overdue. The result is ‘new think’ that eliminates enigmas, shows that physics is closely related [entangled] with music and reworks fundamental physics as shown by the simplicity of the derivation of the law of gravity, below.

Summary: fundamental physics needs restructuring to be useful in a modern world and should be expected to explain common events such as music, laughter, emotion, the law of gravitation, the law of conservation of energy etc., but it cannot as it is incomplete, as it stands, and this has been known for a 100 years. This derivation shows how a general mathematical physics can be constructed to answer all these questions and this amalgamation allows a new type of thinking that resolves enigmas such as music and laughter and can go on to, hopefully ‘save the world’. Music and fundamental physics are independent yet entangled and can only be accessed relative to the mind/brain and these orthogonalities are shown in the creation equation that generates the fractal that is the universe. The derivation of the law of gravitation that eluded Newton and Einstein is given as an example of the power of ‘new think’ and music and laughter are compared to show an example of the scope that can be accessed by ‘new think’ because it incorporates, for the first time ever, a change in the ‘software’ of the way we think. Two new absolutes of the mind are derived, firstly, the specialist-generalist duality and secondly, that music is a part of general mathematical physics and is a tool that can access the mind without changing the brain chemistry with drugs.

Preface: firstly, the perennial question in philosophy is ‘when did consciousness appear?’ and it could not be properly answered until now because the question lacked relativity because consciousness is a property of all mind/brains at any stage of development where only top-down processing is used and bottom-up is necessary for reference. The development of art, religion, thought etc., that started around 40,000 years ago when the brain consumed enough energy now allows a new superior type of thinking [software] that defines another type of consciousness [bottom-up]. ‘New think’ is one of a handful of breakthroughs by Life in 3,000 million years of evolution and is a ‘game changer’ that may allow us to control our civilisation. Examples of major breakthroughs are the creation of Life, multi-celled organisms, the Cambrian era and farming with its disastrous effect on the planet. Secondly, the concepts of music and laughter are considered from a physical point of view, thirdly the contexts of music and laughter are derived from the bottom-up to show their essential differences and the relationship between music and laughter is defined using the general mathematical physics [context] of ‘new think’ [concept]. Fourthly, music is shown to be a possible psychiatric tool because the measurement of its organisation generates energy within the mind/brain, probably because the mind and music are built on the mathematics of concept-context [inherent in the creation equation]. Fifthly, the concept of fundamental physics has a relativity [othogonality] that we call music because both use organisation to produce organisation in physics and energy [as emotion] in music.

The Concept of Music and Laughter

‘The Overlords, in Arthur C. Clarke’s novel Childhood’s End ‘found a musical concert “unintelligible”’ (Musicophilia: Tales of Music and the Brain, Oliver Sachs, p ix) and this could not be true in real life, I believe, because music and laughter are deeply entwined with Life. ‘Darwin himself was evidently puzzled, as he wrote in The Descent of Man: “As neither the enjoyment nor the capacity of producing musical notes are faculties of the least use to man … they must be ranked among the most mysterious with which he is endowed.”’ (p x) Music and laughter are enigmatic, to us, because the physics that we use is not complete and organisation is largely ignored. A well functioning physics should explicitly consider energy, organisation, the measurer’s mind, the physical universe [especially orthogonality] and logic [especially restrictions], whereas Newtonian physics considers energy explicitly and the others implicitly via acceptance [peer review (‘the blind leading the blind’)]. Further, a general mathematical physics must include the other disciplines such as mathematics, philosophy, economics, music etc. as one, by sideways and top-down bottom-up orthogonalities resulting in a new way of thinking [‘new think’].

We are currently using Newtonian physics, that was proposed several hundred years ago in spite of the fact that fundamental physics was closed down a hundred years ago when Einstein used the organisation of ‘curved space’ to correct Newton’s law of gravitation. The indented paragraph, below, derives the law of gravitation from first principles and shows where Newton guessed the (so-called) ‘inverse square law’ [which ignores relativity] and Einstein added organisation, in the form of ‘curved space’ to the equation to get the correct answer to the bending of a photon’s path around the sun. The derivation below provides the basis and reasoning that was missing and also shows why music and laughter are such an important part of our lives as well as emotion, art, beauty, architecture, parades, religion, churches etc. Physics must be updated and relativity shows that a new way of thinking can emerge.

Relativity is the functioning of the universe and a lack of relativity is the form of the universe and a lack of relativity is easily created [and our understanding of the universe] by the ratios of the dimensions [energy (E), organisation (O), time (t) and length (l)] created by expansion. The absolutes are firstly, the sum of energy and organisation is always zero [from the creation equation (1+(-1))=0], secondly, energy and organisation [dark energy] are necessarily created to balance the necessary expansion [for the creation equation to exist] of the universe [E/t+O/t, all volume], thirdly, the constant speed of light is l/t (all E and O) and fourthly, gravity [so called quantum gravity] is E/l+O/l (all t). The law of gravitation is:

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

and this shows why Einstein (eventually via curvature of space) chose twice the Newtonian value that proved correct and ‘shut down’ fundamental physics for the last hundred years. Notice that the ‘inverse square law’ is inappropriate and is actually derived from the absolutes, Newton assumed that E/l was constant, but missed O/l and Einstein added a further assumption that O/l was due to the curvature of space to attain the correct experimental figure. Notice also, that the ‘multiplication table’ that we had to learn is relativity [everything is relative] as shown in the law of gravitation and similarly the ‘+’ in the creation equation stands for all relationships [physical, logical, restrictive, use etc.] between two entities.

‘We know that music is constructed from notes. Not just any notes, but a special set of notes called a scale. (Measured Tones: The Interplay of Physics and Music, Ian Johnston, p 2) Using a string stretched between two supports [monochord] listen ‘to the two notes sounded when the bridge is placed at two different positions. The degree to which one note is higher than the other – the interval between them – involves your perception of what they sound like, together or one after the other. It is difficult to describe this perception in words, but your brain clearly measures it in some way … this perceptual interval is related to the ratio of the two lengths of string you plucked…. So long as the ratio of lengths is the same, even though the pitch of the note changes, the interval stays the same. Now compare two notes from the string, fully unstopped and secondly stopped exactly in the middle, so that the length ratio is 2/1. The interval you hear is that which is called the octave.’ (p 2) The perception that is referred to, above, is the energy released when the measured organisation is the octave, which is the organisational simplicity of the ratio 2/1. I believe that I find the same effect when tuning the strings of my guitar, that the note ‘sounds louder’ when synchronised, as it should because the sound energy increases with the degree of organisation [relative to the measurer]. Further, ‘when men and women sing together in “unison” they are actually singing an octave apart, even though their perception is that they are singing the same notes.’ (p 3) Clearly, the octave is intimately entangled within us.

‘The next most important musical interval is that which we call the perfect fifth … stop the string a third of the way from one end. The notes from the unstopped string, and from the longer divided part will be exactly a fifth apart…. The length ratio this interval corresponds to is 3/2 … The other part of the string (which is 1/3 of the length) will sound’ an octave higher. (p 3) Again this interval occurs naturally. It is typically the separation between a tenor and a bass voice, or between a soprano and an alto. Untrained singers will often find themselves singing a fifth apart without being aware of it. The same division of the string contains another important interval, between the note from 2/3 of its length and from 1/2 … we call this interval the perfect fourth … it corresponds exactly to the ratio 4/3′. (p 3) Notice that the word ‘exactly’ is used repeatedly and signifies that the effect is heightened at that ‘exact’ ratio. This suggests that the wave-particle duality [shimmer] within the photon is a ‘square-wave’ [logic] not sinusoidal as in an electromagnetic wave depiction.

‘We know about four musical ratios already – 1/1, 4/3, 3/2 and 2/1…. Note generating procedure; Take an existing ratio and multiply or divide it by 3/2. If the number you get is greater than 2 then halve it; if it is less than 1 then double it.’ (p 7) This leads to the pentatonic scale and the septatonic scale, which is the one that we use. ‘You will also notice … that all of the eight notes are separated by only two different intervals … The larger of these ratios, 9/8 or 1.125, is an interval which is called a tone. The smaller ratio, 256/243 or 1.0535, is called a semitone, since your ear judges it to be about half of the other.’ (p 9) Two very important observations are firstly, ‘remember that I stressed that this was an abstract mathematical exercise’ and secondly, ‘there was never any suggestion that real musical scales actually originated in this way. Presumably in very early human civilisations, musicians found from experience that some intervals were pleasing and others not; that only some steps in pitch were good to sing.’ (p 10) In other words, music originated from perceptions and feelings in the mind and only later were seen to arise from the organisation of the simplicity of the ratios of the wavelengths!

I think that I can rest my case that only at specific organisations do the above effects occur [energy released by the measuring (hearing) of the note] and that they occur for no other reason that they are exact ratios that have organisational simplicity. Notice that this finally explains the enigma of Occam’s razor [least organisation] and its relative, the principle of least action that requires the least energy. Note also, that the creation equation says that energy and organisation (of that energy) are equal, and independent, but being entangled can form an energy packet [photon] that could be called the wave-particle duality that obeys the first absolute. The wave-particle duality is shown by the possibility of the oscillation in the first absolute [E+O=0], and further, notice that the working of the universe is relativity [the relativity of this relativity is the form of the universe – the absolutes] and this is shown in the ratios of the length of strings that form the notes and that the simplest division of these intervals is the octave. ‘All musical cultures base their scales on this interval, but the Chinese divide it into 5 parts, the Arabs into 17 and the Indians into 22.’ (p 3)

Thus, the octave in being universal can be considered to be an absolute and it is an absolute because it is the ratio of relatives in the same way that the universe’s absolutes were defined from the dimensions. Clearly the octave, or the ratio 1 to 2, in its simplicity, is an extremely important part of our relationship with the universe in general, and the octave is an absolute to the mind/brain [measurer] and not physical and the same can be said of civilisation, that it is a set of absolutes [of the mind/brain] that society writes as law and custom, but much of everyday life, such as the foods that we eat, are passed through the generations as culture that are affected by advertisements and processed foods to the extent that 60% of those adults are overweight or obese. A ‘miss-match’ between our genetic make-up and modern life is shown in the modern diseases [heart attacks, diabetes etc.] versus the infectious diseases of the past and we must create absolutes for ourselves in the foods that we eat, such as a wide range of plant based foods that hunter-gatherers would eat.

Why we laugh is simply answered, I believe, because a joke is designed to ‘lead us up the garden path’ and the punch line, being unexpected, requires reorganising the information in our mind/brain and that releases energy, that we have to eliminate, and we do so by laughing. The better the joke, the louder the laugh! The retelling of a joke, or the person ‘not getting it’ does not invoke the energy of a laugh. Similarly, why do people ‘tap their foot’, ‘hand jive’ etc. when listening to music and I believe that they are using the energy produced by measuring [listening to] the organisation in the music and that energy has to be used. As for dancing, the energy of the music ‘propels’ the dancers around the floor and produces a ‘high’ as the organisation of the dance-steps accentuates that of the music. Fast rock’n’roll has been a passion of mine for decades.

The Context of Music and Laughter

The question of ‘absolute pitch’ highlights absolutes because absolute pitch is an absolute that the mind creates, but being of the mind, ‘absolute pitch can shift with age, and this has often been a problem for older musicians’ (Musicophilia, Oliver Sacks, p 133) and its instigation is like speech, something that we acquire easily at a young age and preferentially being a native speaker using a polyphonic language. It was suggested above that the only ‘absolute’ in music is the octave that is a ratio of two lengths of string, and so all music is an absolute recognised by Life, and in particular, by humans. Thus, as a parasite we make use of music, religion, architecture, art etc. to enrich our lives but we do not show the respect for the environment and each other that is needed for us to become symbiotic in the long term. This is the context that we should be considering.

Notice that there have been a number of ‘milestones’ in the evolution of Life, such as better sight that could have produced the Cambrian era or the creation of life itself, but there seems to have been a ‘coming of age’ [modern consciousness] when we evolved a mind/brain that created enough energy consumption that allowed enough thought to access the world of music through organisation as well as all of those things that we have had so much trouble quantifying, such as art, music, architecture, religion, parades etc. Thus, it would seem that this point is an important ‘milestone’ in evolution that could lead us to a symbiosis with the planet and a chosen evolution. Music is clearly a part of general mathematical physics because it satisfies the four [concept, context, bottom-up and top-down] requirements as well as being orthogonal to physics because music’s organisation is designed to give emotion [energy] to the listener, whereas physics uses organisation to produce a concept without context, and that is it’s failing. This can be explained by considering the title [music and laughter] because in a ‘relative world’, two things must be considered at once to make sense, unless we use the absolutes as I have done. Music is part of a general mathematical physics, whereas laughter is the necessary energy release of a sudden organisation change.

The ancient Greeks were so impressed by music that they thought that ‘the arrangement of the planets was nothing more or less than a musical scale. Even the separation of the earth and sun corresponded to a perfect fifth. So was born the music of the spheres.’ (Measured Tones, Ian Johnston, p 11) These erroneous thoughts persisted for two thousand years and also, ‘for centuries, humans have searched for a relationship between music and colour. Newton thought that the spectrum had seven discrete colors, corresponding in some unknown but simple way to the seven notes of the diatonic scale.’ (Musicophilia, Oliver Sacks, p 177) The same top-down armchair guesswork was used to design Newtonian physics, though it’s saving grace is that it is usable in the everyday world, but it fails outside of its narrow boundaries because, though (supposedly) based on the physical universe, it mixes energy and organisation [independent yet entangled]. However, using the orthogonality of the creation equation to combine correctness with convenience, Newtonian physics can be brought into a general mathematical physics without problems, albeit with a little care and the same with Maxwell’s equations [statements of orthogonality] and Einstein’s ‘curved’ space. This sentence ‘mirrors’ the creation equation, as does everything, along with the restriction that they be kept apart, but are entangled.

I should stress that general mathematical physics is complete because it contains everything in the physical universe, contains a contribution from people [convenience] and the necessary parts of orthogonality, relativity and organisational logic. Hence, there should be no enigmas and as an example, the quantum gravity equation shows why, I believe, quarks are never found alone [part of an organisational solution], that diffraction is caused by gravitational interaction at close quarters [flower shape showing more bending near the mass], gravity holds the galaxies together and the continual expansion explains the Big Bang and so on. Newton thought that gravity affected mass, Einstein believed that the photon [energy] was similarly affected, but now it is obvious that organisation also affects gravity, and this has been confirmed by experiment [light passing the sun]. Notice that it is logically simpler to assign gravity to organisation than assume that gravity is twice that of energy and we must do it to produce a unique solution [Occam’s razor] and this fact has been verified by experiment [deviation around the sun]. If the reader prefers to hold the view that the Big Bang miraculously appeared then this would be an example of the orthogonality in general mathematical physics, but a little thought shows that the two theories are effectively the same [with organisation ignored].

I have never seen nor heard of a discussion about what the universe really is, and it seems that everyone assumes that it is ‘real’ and conforms to what we think it should be. Presumably, that is why physicists were so appalled at one of the absolutes, namely that the speed of light is constant to every observer and this led to modern physics and the ‘shutting down’ of fundamental physics in the light of the correctness of Einstein’s gravitational ‘analogy’. This particular enigma, that the speed of light is constant relative to the measurer’s mind [Michelson-Morley experiment and a presumption in Einstein’s Special Theory] prompted a personal search for a reason and this paper is, I believe, that solution and further a solution that is all-encompassing by being based on a unique creation of the universe. In a universe that is derived from nothing, our reality is an organisational solution that must have unique solutions including logic and restrictions. Organisation has a value, from the creation equation, every bit as valid as energy, and the ‘devil is in the detail’, such as the logic and the restrictions that require the lowest energy and organisation, and it is this fact that allows the universe to exist [out of chaos]. If there are restrictions, such as an expanding universe [for the creation equation to exist], relativity suggests that there are ‘no-restrictions’ also, and an example is the tunnel effect where there is a probability that a reaction can occur across an energy barrier. By ‘no-restrictions’, I mean that every possibility is available and an example is that the wave-particle discussion was ‘glossed over’ [a hundred years ago] by saying that both wave and particle were energy, but this ignores the necessity of choice [opportunity] that is provided by the wave-particle duality, and an example is the ‘upset’ of evolution [teeth and armour] in the Cambrian Era that resulted, possibly from improved vision [that a plan of attack at a distance could be made].

In a ‘real’ universe we need ‘real’ logical carriers, such as the aether, ‘spooky action at a distance’, gravity waves, gravitons, gluons etc., whilst in a ‘possibility’ universe we have logic and restrictions that produce ‘organisational answers’, such as why Pythagoras’s theorem [or any other theorem] always gives the correct answer. This orthogonality between ‘real’ and organisational solutions represents the top-down and bottom-up part of general mathematical physics and as an example, quantum gravity is hyperbolic [(E+O)/l] that becomes the law of gravity when relativity is considered in a ‘real’ world. Thus, our universe is constructed of absolutes, operates using organisational ‘theorems’ and indicates computational truths through evolution and we can use these truths to construct a civilisation that works in the long term, as below. Notice that physics emerges as based on misconceptions of the absolutes and mathematics is confined to organisational theorems and not the more general mathematics of concept-context from the creation equation.

The creation of a photon [as an energy transfer of an atom] is the same mechanism as shown by the creation equation where orthogonality creates the stability and when the energy is high enough, presumably a neutron is ‘organised’. A neutron can break up into an electron, proton and neutrino that then allows the organisational solution of the nucleus of the atom by the action of protons and neutrons and those same atoms allowed Life to form and in particular, us. The ‘real’ world considers that a moving charge generates a magnetic field that we use in electric motors, but consider a car in a world with speed limits and a necessary gadget is an organisation called a ‘speedometer’ because a restriction is that we cannot exceed the speed of light and the simplest way to not exceed it is to redefine mass, length and time [‘real’ world] with respect to the measurer. The ‘real’ world has a law of conservation of energy [a convenience because it is wrong] that should be (E+O)=0 and it is easy to see that ‘mass’ can change and length and time with it [E, O, l, t are all generated at the same time and move together]. The first fractal generates energy and organisation with the restriction that the speed of light is constant [to all measurers], but a second fractal generates charges with the restriction of a magnetic field that measures the rate of movement between charges [as a speedometer] because it is only charges that can potentially be accelerated above the speed of light.

Thus, the question of ‘why does the universe exist?’ has already been answered [expanding universe], but ‘why does the universe continue to exist?’ and it continues to exists for a very good reason because there is a restriction. Protons and neutrons form an organisational bond in the nucleus that allows the formation of stable atoms and explains the reason why neutrinos are so reluctant to react with matter, and that is because, possibly, the coming together of a proton and electron is a rare occurrence [very low probability] which reflects the reactability of the neutrino [a different type of separation]. There has been much consternation at the difficulty of recording neutrino interactions with matter [concept]and this difficulty is why the universe continues to exist [context]. This stems from the same reasoning that was used over 100 years ago at the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment [speed of light constant to every observer] because the universe is not the way that we think that it should be. Logic and restrictions are not the same, they are orthogonal [independent but entangled] and logic flows from the creation equation and the logic of the half-truth, whereas restrictions are requirements that allow them to exist, such as an expanding universe, the absolutes, that the neutrinos seldom react with matter [because electrons and protons are kept apart] etc.

Conclusion: the reason that music and laughter have been considered together is to show that the appreciation of music and a joke is different, but similar, in that they require a consideration of organisation that produces energy that can be measured [by an observer] and that measurement may change [a joke to an observer with laughter (energy) as the increment of change], but it is still within the realm of (an extended) physics, and obviously requires a general mathematical physics. In other words, everything must be compared to something else, whereas physics sets it’s own absolute in the measurer. Further, I believe that I have shown how the absolutes, logic, organisation, energy and the mind/brain all appear combined in music, and yet, as music has been described in this way, so, music must be a physics, and within a new complete physics that involves literally everything in the universe. That was the intention, but relativity requires a context to go with the concept of the conclusion and I call that the prediction and this prediction vastly increases the concept of the conclusion because it includes entanglement.

Prediction: this prediction parallels, but is fundamentally different, to the theory of theories in physics that says that a prediction is required to test a theory. A context, to the conclusion is required because of relativity and this shows that relativity is always with us and poses a warning that when a conclusion is ‘called’ for, so is a prediction and vice versa. The mind/brain is a ‘fact of Life’ and uses the measuring space as a probability space [(a+b)=1, for all a, b] because we are parasites and can use it that way and that, I believe, is why we call quantum mechanics ‘probabilistic’ [concept], whereas we should also call it ‘opportunistic’ [context], and now, in ‘new think’, we can. Notice that the tunnel effect is a prime example of both probability and opportunity and is an enigma in Newtonian physics.

Over the last several million years, the mind/brain has grown to be large enough, in an energy sense [atoms are energy] to handle modern life and allow art, music, religion etc. [by burning enough glucose to produce enough thought organisation]. In Australia, ‘Mungo Man’s people carried two types of mitochondrial DNA – the ancient kind and the contemporary kind. The latter spread by Darwinian natural selection throughout the population, so it must have conferred some advantage, perhaps to do with powering the brain.’ (The Bone Readers, Claudio Tuniz, Richard Gillespie & Cheryl Jones, p 148) We have always used a top-down approach in our thinking and that has led to many problems over thousands of years, but now, the above shows a much more powerful way of thinking that uses sideways [creation equation] and top-down [traditional physics] with the bottom-up requirements and restrictions of the universe. An example of restrictions are the four necessary absolutes [one of which says that the speed of light is constant relative to every observer (Michelson-Morley experiment)], that the universe must expand to exist [the Big Bang is enigmatic] and Euler’s equation 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.

‘It really is a very odd business that all of us, to varying degrees, have music in our heads’. (Musicophilia, Oliver Sacks, p 43) This has a (possibly) simple answer that has to do with the burning of glucose in the brain to produce the mind. Twenty per cent of the body’s energy is consumed in the brain and it becomes a question of control of the burning because organisation [thought] is produced ‘maximally’ for competition and the extra organisation, above what we are thinking about, presumably becomes the simplest form, which is music, especially as the mind confabulates into familiar forms, which are remembered tunes. Clearly, mental and psychological problems, to do with diet, age, trauma, life-style etc. as well as the effects of drugs on energy production in the body could produce the problems and effects of hearing music [excess energy production] and sedating the patient [lesser energy production] presumably suppresses the problem. However, Oliver Sacks is investigating extreme cases, and as in quantum mechanics, the ‘odd’ situations surface, from which we can learn and improve physics, which is precisely the aim of this derivation [see Overview].

The generalist-specialist duality [from the probability equation] in our mind arises as the quantity of information increases and is as fundamental as the wave particle duality [in a physical sense]. This generalist-specialist duality is little-known and unappreciated, at present, especially in the structure of universities and ‘spills over’ into governance and the organisation of society and must be attended to as part of our planet’s problem. One example is the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban missile crisis, where the fiasco was investigated and the result was that specialists on planning teams ‘were to speak not only as specialists in their area of expertise, but as generalists, with a licence to question anything.’ (The Third Industrial Revolution, Jeremy Rifkin, p 195) Clearly, the generalist-specialist duality forbids this and requires ‘genuine’ generalists. I believe that science has become increasingly specialised [concept] and ignored the generalist [context] and the planet is suffering, perhaps terminally, because of this.

Overview: firstly, an overview is needed because if I describe the universe, I have to be relative to the universe, and must stand where a ‘god’ must stand, and this requirement of completeness shows why specialists and generalists are required to work together. Secondly, for the universe to exist, the organisational solution must contain restrictions, such as expansion [Big Bang], an energy that is unique by always being the lowest possible [principle of least action] and similar for organisation [Occam’s razor]. Currently, these are all ‘unresolved’ zones for physics, and other restrictions are part of the logic of the half-truth [true, false, alternating true-false, chaos] that without restrictions, there is no solution [chaos]. We recognise true and false, but the wave-particle duality apparently uses the third term to provides a choice of whether a reaction is possible and the rate of choice [frequency] is dependent on the energy [Plank-Einstein relation]. It would thus appear that the wave-particle duality is a fundamental restriction required to obtain an organisational solution that is unique because any ‘lack of choice’ would lead to chaos [if every possibility was not able to be used]. Note that the explanation, accepted 100 years ago, that both forms [wave and particle] are energy is misleading because they are also different. Thirdly, the vast ‘reservoir’ of classical, ‘pop’, jazz, country etc. music is defined by having been composed [organised] as compared to the infinite variety of noise and random notes [chaos] and it becomes a ‘tool’, as below. Fourthly, the mind/brain is, I believe, constructed on, and uses the mathematics of concept-context so it is not surprising that certain types of music will affect the working of normal [production of emotional energy] and damaged mind/brains, whether as input or generating musical talent [such as Pick’s disease (Musicophilia, Oliver Sacks, p 341)]. Even more compelling is the effect of music in ‘William’s syndrome, it is now known, there is a “microdeletion”of fifteen to twenty-five genes on one chromosome’ (p 367) and the much more common dementia ‘remarkably and almost without exception – they retain their musical powers and tastes even when most other mental powers have been severely compromised.’ (p 379)

‘Unfortunately, during the twentieth century psychiatry has extended its administrative power and organization more than its knowledge and practical effectiveness. Furthermore, there is an enormous lack of knowledge and expertise, as well as profound disagreements, about the interplay between body and mind.’ (Medicine: a History of Healing, editor Roy Porter, p 65) The above derivation proposes a link between the mind and brain, the construction of the brain based on the mathematics of concept-context, a new software to describe consequences of the mind/brain, that the mind/brain can be influenced by the tool of music and shows that the demented can ‘retain their musical powers and tastes even when most other mental powers have been severely compromised’ must hold new ideas for psychiatry. Dementia is an extremely expensive burden on society that is growing more common as medicine improves and we live longer and is amenable to traditional genetic selection, but music, anti-ageing [state of mind, nutrition and exercise] and reorganising the genetic selection of society are possibilities in the short term.

Conclusion (to the prediction): the ‘elephant in the room’ is ‘saving the world’ and requires managing our society by planning using general mathematical physics. We need to change the organisation of the whole of society, from what we want, to what we need, in acceptable ways, however, it is a truth that the established continue on, and it is up to the children to examine new niches, so, the solution is simple, does exist in draft form and requires ‘new think’, and I will keep it until sufficient interest requires it.

Changing civilisation has been done many times before by farming, technology, medicine, ideas, etc. and in particular, Christianity that was orthogonal to the savagery of the times, but in all of these changes, mistakes of organisation have been made [top-down], but now ‘new think’ offers a way to create a civilisation and evolution based on the mathematics of concept-context and its derivatives of price, money and democracy. This paper started with a possible flaw in Childhood’s End and we can now, I believe, see a different more realistic (non-) ending of a utopia on earth [concept] arising from ‘new think’ and the quotation [context] of ‘Albert Einstein and many great thinkers …’.

Underview (orthogonal to the overview): this derivation of ‘new think’ is based on three orthogonalities [concept-context, up-down and entanglement (physics-music)] and is a completely general basic tool, but the specialist-generalist duality and parent-offspring truth appear to have led to the continued use of outmoded theories and I do not expect a rapid acceptance. This is chapter 128 of my working notes that remain unpublished and is the work of 15 years, but now this ‘tool’ is available and, I believe necessary, to manage society. Both Newton [diffraction] and Einstein [quotation] knew that more was needed and this derivation, I believe, is the tool for us to manage a symbiosis with the planet and fix the problems that we have created.

References: no references are cited because everything can be derived simply from the first principles and the well-known examples given above. The current concept of physics is to continually build and expand the science, by general consensus of its adherents through communication through journals etc. on a generally agreed base following the lead of the Ancient Greeks. This is the fourth time that the manuscript has been returned for me to include references and shows the truth of the last sentence, that physics is based on precedent. There is one case of no precedent, and this is it because unfortunately, physics got it wrong and uses top-down organisation and this paper shows that this process leads to enigmas and proposes a completely new and organisationally simpler method of viewing physics. This paper is a new encompassing framework that contains everything that has gone before, but is not built on what has gone before and thus contains no references. However, it is pointless ‘reinventing the wheel’ and greater depth, if needed, will be on my website darrylpenney.com when required.