Chapter 138: Does A Better Quantum Computer Already Exist?

by Darryl Penney

Abstract: Newtonian physics is incomplete and a product of ‘armchair’ thinking that does not involve the physical absolutes and as an example, Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity is made complete by including organisation and in particular, magnetism. Physics needs the addition of bottom-up organisation to supply the physical, relativity and restrictions to produce a new software that might make quantum computing redundant because the hardware already exists and operates at room temperature. Quantum mechanics is the interaction between the mind and the physical, and without the physical, it doesn’t make sense, yet with the physical, it is simple, but accessing the physical shows that physics is effectively doubled in size and leads to a new field of social engineering that uses the energy of beauty, elegance, emotion, governance, organisation etc. and is the necessary balance to the technology that is causing our civilisation’s problems.

Keywords: relativity; quantum mechanics; quantum computing; quantum gravity; law of gravitation; social engineering; creation equation; fractal universe, Bohr atom; Schrodinger; Born’s rule; general mathematical physics; Special Theory of Relativity; the role of magnetism; Nietzsche’s superman; music

“Arguably the most important lesson of quantum mechanics is that we need to critically revisit our most basic assumptions about nature.”

Yakir Aharonev et al.

(Beyond Weird, Phillip Ball, introduction)

Extended abstract: physics has had a troubling time over the last 100 years because extending Newtonian physics into quantum mechanics and gravitation created problems that we are still experiencing because Newtonian physics is incomplete and too simple. The creation equation allows an ‘extended’ physics that I call “New Think” [concept] with general mathematical physics [context] that requires generalists that are orthogonal to the specialists of the current universities where the generalist supplies the entanglement that quantum computing seeks. Now that physics can be understood, in the new light of the physical, it can be seen that it lacks a social-organisational engineering that is relative [orthogonal] to traditional (energy-material) engineering, that we can use to control civilisation and perhaps save the planet. Quantum computing is the Holy Grail promising what is delivered by “New Think’, which is all encompassing, unique, works and most importantly, is ready to go, and can be ‘loaded’ by understanding this paper. The question is, will physics embrace this extension before it is too late? This derivation shows the mechanism behind the working of the universe including the strange effects of Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, which is incomplete without organisation, as is shown by magnetism that is a ‘speedometer’ that adjusts the measurement of the speed of charged particles so that they remain within the speed of light. Finally, a universe of music that is familiar to everyone, and used by everyone, is derived from first principles as an example of a fractal and what can be done by “New Think”.

Preface: in the first section the oddities of current quantum mechanics are explained using “New Think”, then the Form of the Universe, including the simple derivation of quantum gravity, why the speed of light is constant for any observer and, deriving for the first time ever, the law of gravity. The historical picture of the Bohr atom is given for interest sake, because it is taught at school, but is better explained using “New Think” and a discussion of how music and academic disciplines are self-contained universes emulating the creation and, by their very nature are a dis-entangling force that quantum computing appears to be trying to rectify, but cannot. Lastly, the mechanism behind the working of the universe [relativity], its form [absolutes] and the role of restrictions through magnetism as the ‘speedometer’ that affects the measurement of the motion of charged particles, is discussed.

Einstein used Newtonian physics, until he added organisation [curved space, to get the correct answer], but modern physics needs a fresh approach. I believe that there is another physics that has lain hidden because Newtonian physics is incomplete, not just a little incomplete, but effectively doubling it’s scope and this extension leads to what I call social engineering, that is on a par [orthogonal] with mechanical engineering [technology]. As an example, I have taken two aspects of modern physics [gravity and quantum mechanics] and have shown that not only are they wrong, but wrong because physics is incomplete. Physics does not even consider the physical because it looks top-down, makes up theories and has a vote on what to believe [peer review]. I can barely find a relevant quote on quantum mechanics, but perhaps the best might be that ‘this book aims to give a sense of the current best guesses about what that real quantum theory might look like, if it existed’. (Beyond Weird, Phillip Bell, p 9) There is a case to be made that quantum mechanics, in any shape or form, does not exist, but in its leaving, we finds a vastly more important issue of “New Think’ and general mathematical physics leading to social engineering and actually creating a new type of software for our mind/brain that transcends quantum computing because it uses the mathematics of concept-context and not just numbers. Surely, in a subject as important as quantum mechanics there must be a quote that makes sense, and on the last page, there is an admission that quantum mechanics is measuring the extremities of a physics that we do not understand. ‘We figured we could go on forever asking and being answered, at ever finer scales. When we discovered that we cannot, we felt shortchanged by nature and pronounced it “weird”’. (p 354) The same is happening with particle accelerators and the finding of large numbers of unstable particles as the energy is increased.

Armchair Musings

The first step is to define the problems of quantum mechanics and I am quoting from Beyond Weird where Phillip Bell lists ‘the most common reasons for calling quantum mechanics weird’ (p 11) and I will explain each point in terms of “New Think” [concept], with general mathematical physics [context] that are generated by Newtonian physics in our mind/brain [top-down], the physical view of the universe [bottom-up], sideways relativity and a number of restrictions.

(A) Quantum mechanics can be both waves and particles. This is wave-particle duality.

In a simple physical universe, if you create something you must create its orthogonal [so that (1+(-1))=0, where 1 is energy and (-1) is organisation] because they must be independent [to exist], and together they must always be nothing [and require a restriction to keep them apart]. A wave is pure energy and a particle is pure organisation of that energy and in a fractal [derived from the creation equation (1+(-1))=0] a photon oscillates between the two, fast enough so that anomalies do not appear in reactions [the simplest case, because it is more complicated to assign a reason ‘why?’ or ‘why not?’]. If two different solutions occurred, that fact would causes chaos and that universe could not exist. The picture, as shown in Wikipedia, of a photon composed of orthogonal sinusoidal electric and magnetic fields needs to be thought of as a square wave switching between particle [organisation] and wave [energy]. Further, I can say this because in a fractal, the microscopic and macroscopic effects are the same [Adam Smith’s ‘invisible hand’ in economics] and Einstein showed the wave-particle duality existed in the photoelectric effect.

(B) Quantum objects can be in more than one state at once: they can be both here and there , say. This is called superposition.

Our mind/brain is separate to the physical and we can imagine possible alternate forms or positions, whereas, in the physical, these alternatives are possible options, that have not been chosen, but the act of measurement gives a unique answer. If the answer was not unique, the universe could not exist. Absolute five below, explains that Occam’s razor [organisation] and the principle of least action [energy] must always be minima, for this reason.

© You can’t simultaneously know exactly two properties of a quantum object. This is Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle.

This statement is not quite accurate and requires some explanation. ‘This restriction on precise knowledge does not apply to all pairs of quantum properties. It applies only to some, which are said to be “conjugate variables”. Position and momentum are conjugate variables, and so are energy and time (although the uncertainty relationship between them is subtly different from that between position and momentum) … I have never found an intuitive explanation of what makes two variables conjugate’. (p 150) The universe is created from an orthogonality [independent, but entangled at the origin] of energy [momentum] and organisation [position] and I repeat that they must be independent because independence gives the universe a form and to ‘simultaneously know exactly’ two things cannot be if they are independent and is a restriction. This restriction cannot happen in the physical because a finite sized [energy] photon must be used, which disturbs the system and no zero energy photon exists in the physical. Energy and time, along with organisation and position are dimensions and must be orthogonal so that their ratios can uniquely define absolutes for the universe to exist. For example, the universe must expand to allow the creation equation to exist [the Big Bang is a childish concept] and for energy and organisation to be independent. In other words, conjugates and dimensions are the structure of the universe built out of orthogonalities, absolutes and restrictions and destroying any of these destroys the universe.

Another example, using the mind-brain [a+b=0, all a, b] is the generalist-specialist duality where generalists think and act differently to specialists and this duality is a restriction, just as real [in the mind/brain] as the wave-particle duality, and is discussed below. As an example, specialist journals have depth and generalist journals do not like depth, so papers like this one find it difficult to find a publisher. Universities do not contribute ‘earth-shaking’ new theories [like this one, if I may be so bold] because they perpetuate the teaching and have to fit in to society. “New Think” shows, among other things, that emotion is energy that is generated by the viewing [measuring] of organisation, such as government buildings, church buildings or religious texts, and vice versa from the creation equation and allows social engineering to modify civilisation. This simple statement [from the creation equation] shows that physics [and philosophy, mathematics etc.] must be roused from their top-down armchair musings and fix the technology problem by providing its relativity, social organisation.

(D) Quantum objects can affect one another instantly over huge distances: so called ‘spooky action at a distance’. This arises from the phenomenon called entanglement.

From (A) above, firstly, entanglement is the simultaneous creation of two things at once, and you can not take one away, and so they must be entangled and secondly, everything is entangled because the universe is a solution to an organisational problem, and you can not take part of it away without affecting the whole.

(E) You can’t measure anything without disturbing it, so the human observer can’t be excluded from the theory: it becomes unavoidably subjective.

From (D), the observer must be included in the experiment and furthermore, the result has relevance to the observer’s mind-brain in the same way that the speed of light [absolute three] is constant with respect to the observer’s mind-brain [Michelson-Morley experiment]. The universe comes into being when it is measured, as Descartes said ‘I measure, therefore I am entangled with the universe’ [‘I think, therefore I am’] and the observer, far from being excluded, is the reason for its existence. Notice that something cannot simply appear, but must follow a logical path to being, so, astronomers can look back in time to see the formation of the stars and a universe will only exist, to be measured, if it follows the absolutes and restrictions.

(F) Everything that can possibly happen does happen.

(a) One is rooted in the (uncontroversial) theory called quantum electrodynamics that Feynman and others formulated.

‘In a formulation of quantum theory called quantum electrodynamics …. the path that a quantum particle takes as it travels through space takes into account not just straight-line trajectories but every route possible…. However, this picture is just a metaphor for the mathematics‘. (p 75) Yes, this formulation takes into account that all paths are possible, because they are possible, but there are restrictions associated with the universe. The restriction is absolute five, below, that both the organisation and energy must be at a minimum, however the classical law of conservation of energy [that energy cannot be created nor destroyed] forbids all paths that don’t have a particular energy. Clearly, something is wrong, and what is wrong is that the law of conservation of energy is false because the creation equation [absolute one] says that energy plus organisation equals zero and energy is created or destroyed as long as the organisation is commensurate. Thus, all paths are possible, but the energy and organisation must be minimal, which is the principle of least action and Occam’s razor [absolute five]. Note that the traditional law of conservation of energy appears to give the correct answer for the wrong reasons and this is carried throughout Newtonian physics because traditional physics does not use organisation explicitly and the conservation law [energy plus organisation equal zero] apparently becomes energy remains constant, top-down.

(b) The other comes from the (extremely controversial) ‘Many Worlds Interpretation’ of quantum mechanics.

This interpretation that alternate universes are hived off continually is both correct, incorrect and misleading. Consider Descartes’ ‘I think, therefore I am’ is, in physical terms, ‘I measure, therefore I am entangled with the universe’. My mind-brain measures [or my eyes see, or ears hear] and creates the universe out of nothing and what we see, hear etc. is an organisational solution held open by Life. When alternatives occur, only the one that the observer chooses remains and the other alternative ‘world’ close off, so there are no ‘Many Worlds’, just one. However, if two people choose alternatives, they live with the results because the universe is generated by the mind/brain of each, but they must have a common reality and that means a common universe. This is the ‘micro’ explanation and, in a fractal, ‘micro’ and ‘macro’ are similar and further ramifications are considered below.

Conclusion: the universe is a simple place, but we have formulated philosophy, physics, mathematics etc. in a top-down way that obscures that simplicity and so we see fundamental physics and quantum mechanics as it was left a hundred years ago. No progress could be made using Newtonian physics and it needs “New Think” to solve the problems.

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

Albert Einstein and many great thinkers …

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

Prediction (relative to the conclusion): the world is facing a catastrophe of our own making and science is hindering a solution unless it accepts new ideas, such as this paper is putting forward, and constructs the social engineering that is relative to material (energy-particle) engineering. In other words, material engineering [technology], through Newtonian physics, has created an unbalanced world that is in crisis and needs the relativity of social [organisational] engineering that can only come through “New Think” and general mathematical physics.

Form of the Universe

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 five 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 [with respect to any measurer] 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

Notice that the ‘inverse square law’ is inappropriate [one mass, charge etc. can not exist] and is actually derived from the absolutes and relativity and the ‘+’ in the creation equation stands for all relationships [physical, logical, restrictive, use etc.] between two entities. Further, ‘as with the Schrodinger equation itself, we still have no fundamental way of deriving Born’s rule.’ (Beyond Weird, Phillip Ball, p 41) This is not surprising because Born’s rule requires the same derivation as the law of gravitation. ‘If the amplitude of an electron wavefunction at x is 1 (in some units), and at y it is 2, then repeated experiments to determine the electron’s position will find it at y four times (2×2) more often than at x…. How did Born know this? He didn’t. Again, he “guessed”’. (p 41). In every oscillation between a wave and particle [wave-particle duality], the particle has to reappear somewhere, and it appears with a probability dependant on the square of the amplitude of the wave because, as quantum gravity [absolute (4)] varies inversely as the separation, relativity requires the inverse square law and there is obviously relativity between the wave and particle.

‘Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle…. This restriction on precise knowledge does not apply to all pairs of quantum properties. It applies only to some, which are said to be “conjugate variables”. Position and momentum are conjugate variables, and so are energy and time (although the uncertainty relationship between them is subtly different from that between position and momentum) … I have never found an intuitive explanation of what makes two variables conjugate’. (p 150) The universe is created from an orthogonality [independent, but entangled at the origin] of energy [momentum] and organisation [position] and trying to measure an orthogonality [measuring each exactly is the same as between the two] is logically impossible because it is a restriction on the creation equation [independence]. Energy and time, along with organisation, volume and position are dimensions and must be orthogonal so that ratios can uniquely define absolutes.

Fifthly, the role of Occam’s razor and the principle of least action is crucial to the understanding of the functioning of the universe and the latter asks ‘why does light travel in a straight line?’. Newton’s laws of motion say that a photon must travel in a straight line otherwise the laws do not work and so misses out on vital information and is, again, ‘up in the air’. I believe that the answer is that there has to be a unique answer and the only unique answer in every case is the minimum and the organisation that belongs to the minimum energy is the most efficient organisation. I can say this with conviction because if either energy or organisation were not at a minimum, there would be two solutions at the same time and this would cause chaos in the functioning of the universe. This last sentence questions whether our universe is “real”, although derived from nothing is a bit of a difficulty, but then, what or where do we expect it to come from and suggests that it is an organisational solution based on possibilities created by measurement [such as Pythagoras’s theorem]?

If there is a creation equation, as I propose, the universe must be a fractal and everything in it must conform to certain simple rules. Adam Smith was the first to realise this in Economics, where an ‘invisible hand’ works so that what is good for the individual, is good for the economy. Clearly everything shows this form of the universe in its use and as an example, let’s look at Euler’s equation, which is claimed by Mathematics as the enigmatic relationship between the fundamental mathematical quantities pi, e, i, 1 and 0, though what 1 has to do with the others appears a little strange. However, as a description of the physical universe, it makes more sense because it 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]. This is the expected result in a fractal. Euler’s equation appears enigmatic because of the appearance of ‘i’ [the square root of ‘-1’], but it’s appearance becomes obvious due to quantum gravity [E/l+O/l for all t] because relativity is shown by ‘1’ and ‘-1’ from the inverse square law.

Newtonian physics is a creation of the mind and has nothing to do with the physical until general mathematical physics is used and then it can be seen that additional information is created from measuring organisation. For example Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity shows that there is a simple relationship between mass, length and time, but this is incomplete because the above says that energy, organisation, length and time are simply related through the ratios that destroy relativity. Einstein was looking at the relativistic changes, whereas the above looks at the things that don’t change. Newton’s laws of motion, Einstein’s theory and Maxwell’s equations all hide organisation and that obscures the picture, for example, magnetism is an organisation that registers the relativity between a charged particle and the measurer as can be seen by its odd behaviour [sign depends on direction, magnitude on speed]. It is important to realise that the dimensions are independent, but entangled organisationally.

Measuring organisation such as beauty, music, religion, buildings and parades etc. creates energy that we release as laughter, in extreme cases [good joke], dance energy [foot-tapping] or just feeling emotional energy of appreciation [Mona Lisa painting possibly due to the golden triangle ratios]. Thus, social engineering is necessarily orthogonal to material engineering and is the key to controlling our civilisation and preventing a (so far) inevitable break-down. The difficulty with the question of energy shows that Newtonian physics is convenient for us in our world, but does not consider the physical host that we live within [as parasites], and it behoves all good parasites to understand and consider the health of their host, for to kill their host is to die as well. This is a truth that we should seriously consider acting upon because “new Think” is based on truths.

The Bohr Atom in terms of “New Think”

We are all familiar with the Bohr atom from school, and the below, I think, is historically interesting because the scientific ‘cowboys’ ran the show [they were exciting times] leaving Newtonian physics behind, and no one could follow. Now, “New Think” contains, I believe, the physical base that fundamental physics needs to understand itself and to progress.

(G) ‘In 1924 …. Louis de Broglie proposed that quantum particles … might display wavelike properties.’ (p 39) This is justified because in a fractal, the wave-particle duality exists at all levels and this has been found experimentally, and even measured in the macroscopic.

(H) ‘Schrodinger’s wave equation, which is now a part of the core conceptual machinery of quantum mechanics, was built partly by intuition and imagination’. (p 40) Schrodinger wrote down a generalised wave equation as a measure of the energy whereas the creation equation says that energy and the organisation are equal and opposite and thus we could imagine that the wave and particle are both found alternately, which links in with Born’s rule, below.

(I) ‘As with the Schrodinger equation itself, we still have no fundamental way of deriving Born’s rule.’ (p 41) ‘If the amplitude of an electron wavefunction at x is 1 (in some units), and at y it is 2, then repeated experiments to determine the electron’s position will find it at y four times (2×2) more often than at x…. How did Born know this? He didn’t. Again, he “guessed”’. (p 41) According to (G), every component oscillates between a wave and particle and the particle reappears with a probability dependant on the amplitude of the wave [that it was]. Quantum gravity [absolute four] varies inversely as the separation, but relativity requires the inverse square law between two entities and it should, in a fractal, be appropriate that the interaction between a point in a wave and the reappearance of the particle should depend on the square of the energy at that point. In other words, in the physical, there must be a restriction on where the particle reforms, if it is to reform, then the relation between the point [organisation] and energy, should follow a square law of relativity [the ‘i’ of quantum gravity gives ‘-1’ under a squaring and ‘1’ is contained in everything in mathematics].

(J) ‘In a crude picture of Bohr’s quantum atom, electron energies are fixed by the requirements that the whole numbers of waves in their wavefunctions must fit around the orbits.’ (p 50) ‘Bohr could offer no justification for why the orbits were quantized.’ (p 49) Firstly, this is a restatement of the first absolute, that if only certain organisations [standing waves] are possible, so the energy must be commensurate, and secondly, the energy and organisation [together] change to allow a quantum to be absorbed or ejected, and other energy is transferred to the atom itself, raising or lowering its temperature [that the energy is a minimum explains the photoelectric effect]. The quantisation is explained because a standing wave is organisationally simplest [Occam’s razor] and the (possible) reason for the Pauli Exclusion Principle is that a standing wave is the same for one or two waves [organisationally] apart from amplitude and explains ‘spin’ [to some extent].

(K) Quantum tunnelling (p 52) is simply explained in (I) where the particle reforms from the wave at a place dependent on Born’s rule and can reappear on the other side of an energy barrier and similarly for radioactivity (p 55), where appearing outside of the nucleus constitutes decay.

(L) ‘Wavefunctions generally contain ‘imaginary’ numbers – one involving the square root of -1, which is not something that has a physical meaning’ (p 53) The physical meaning, I believe, of the square root of ‘-1’ is to be found in quantum gravity and again in Euler’s equation in that it describes the formation of the universe, which is always necessary in a fractal. In other words, the ‘i’ must be there because everything is entangled [relativity] and the entanglement requires the square [of ‘i’] that creates ‘-1’, which is orthogonal to ‘1’ [that in mathematics is everywhere a=ax1].

Conclusion: firstly, using “New Think” allows a simple explanation of the formation of the Bohr atom, at a school level at least, secondly, a fractal is the same at all levels [Adam Smith’s ‘invisible hand’] that means thirdly, that quantum computing, if it is needed, is contained in “New Think”. In other words, uniqueness is required, based on the creation equation, that allows all answers, both allowable physically and mentally by logic, where the logic [restrictions] must be plainly stated, even where they appear weird to our mind/brain because they are solutions to an organisation. Examples are the strangeness of the Michelson-Morley experiment result [that the speed of light is constant to every observer] and the odd results [that mass, length and time behave strangely] obtained from Einstein’s ‘special relativity’ [which is an aspect of the relativity discussed here].

I have always wondered, as I’m sure many people have, why, what must be considered the most ‘stable’ of objects [mass, length and time], can behave so strangely, and the answer is, above, that everything in the universe [it’s functioning] is relative and the only non-relatives are the absolutes that are the form of the universe. It is these absolutes, with the relativity cancelling out, that form the universe [and its restrictions] and show that it is understandable that strange things happen when an absolute is ‘challenged’ by exploring its restrictions. If we accept the restrictions imposed on us, I believe, that quantum mechanics is completely understandable, which contradicts Feynman’s well known quotation that no one can understand quantum mechanics, the quotations above, and below, that quantum mechanics is weird and that no one understands quantum computing.

Quantum Computing and “New Think”

Thinking, for 3,000 million years, has been top-down and so, physics and all of the other sciences have been conceived top-down and the concept of quantum mechanics has been the top-down search for the working of the universe without understanding the underlying physics of the universe. This has created absurdities in fundamental physics, led to the formation of quantum mechanics and presumably quantum computers because ‘no one fully understands how quantum computers work’ (p278) apart from the refrigeration required that makes quantum computing difficult and expensive to operate. This statement is, I believe, justifiable because ‘mini-universes’ have routinely been created in the same manner as our universe was created and this is to be expected in a fractal.

Quantum computing is, possibly, a Holy Grail based on the expectation that entanglement will provide all possible solutions to every problem proposed. This aim, I believe, can be achieved by “New Think”, not by quantum computing because “New Think” links the mind/brain with the physical. Quantum computing is a subset of, and contained within “New Think”, but ‘New Think’ contains the organisation that is largely ignored in physics. There is a big difference between the availability and quality of information top-down and bottom-up as well as the extension of mathematics into concept and context. As an example, the ancient Greeks were successful because they used organisation, but Newton combined energy and organisation into a ‘convenient to use’ theory [top-down] and that made modern physics, that needed bottom-up, largely unavailable.

Making ‘mini universes’ is the traditional method used in science and all other studies found in universities, such as physics, mathematics, music, languages, law etc. and is, in effect, dis-entangling civilisation and is the opposite to the aims of quantum computing [assuming, for the moment, that the organisation of Life could be accessed by the quantum]. All of these ‘mini-universes’ are built-up from a creation equation, just as I am proposing for our universe, so let’s consider the enigma of music, that forms such a large part of our lives and how it is generated in the same way that I believe that our universe is generated [as should be expected]. Music [concept] is the organisation of the infinite progression of frequencies [context] that are available on a string, and music only becomes music when it is organised and contains emotional energy, that is, firstly, divided into measures [time] and secondly, the relativity of the frequencies is organised by a ratio [octave], where the octave is 2 times or half of any wavelength, the restriction of a reference point [middle C] and the composer’s contribution is top-down. ‘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.’ (Measured Tones: The Interplay of Physics and Music, Ian Johnston, 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) It can be seen that the same dimensions have been used: time, distance, relativity, organisation, energy and restrictions.

Mathematics uses the number line, to count sheep, and that is far more complicated than the orthogonality of the creation equation and looking at the creation equation and considering the independence of two concepts, a mathematics of concept-context becomes apparent where we assign, by measurement of the observer, values to the context between the concepts and observer and the measurements allow the mind/brain to make a decision. This is simple, but not trivial, even though it seems that way, because the mind/brain is built on it, as is thought. Clearly, traditional mathematics is also a special case of a much larger mathematical physics [see Euler’s equation]. Newtonian physics is based on the applicability of energy, organisation, relativity and simplification to a couple of balls that are supposed to capture the essence of a universe, but led to Newton’s ‘inspired guess’ for the law of gravitation, corrected in analogy by Einstein and simply derived, above. The law of conservation of energy is wrong, the energy of organisation was missed and peer review and the lack of absolutes hampered new work etc. It’s time for a change.

Thus, to use entanglement, we need to bring all of these diverse disciplines together and the easiest way is to take the creation equation that is common to all [bottom-up], the top-down individuality of each discipline, the ubiquitous relativity and the restrictions to logic that are forced on us. This is “New Think” [concept] and general mathematical physics [concept] that can be ‘loaded’ easily into our existing room-temperature computer [mind/brain] just by understanding this paper. As an example of the usefulness of this approach, Newtonian physics is found to be both too simple and incomplete and when “New Think” is applied, a new discipline emerges [social engineering] that could be used to manage our civilisation. Materials engineering is building the infrastructure to accommodate a growing population, but it needs an orthogonality that is social engineering to control that population in number and quality.

Conclusion: “New Think” is complete and all encompassing because it is based on the creation equation, contains Life’s contribution and recognises relativity and the restrictions that are necessary for everything to function properly.

Prediction (the relativity to the conclusion): Compare physic’s current concept of a light wave as consisting of electric and magnetic fields with the idea above that a photon is energy and organisation, so, an electric field is energy and a magnetic field is organisation. This clarifies Maxwell’s equations as being a simple mathematical description of classical experiments using mathematical symbols that incorporate orthogonality, and still suffers from the same problems as Newton’s laws of motion in that they mix energy with organisation and hide what is really going on. So, what is going on? Charged particles can easily reach close to the speed of light, and regularly do so, on Earth in particle accelerators, cosmic rays etc., that test absolute three. I used music as an example of the ubiquity of the the creation equation in a fractal relative to the mind/brain and magnetism appears to be a physical example generated by the speed of a charged particle with respect to the measurer. Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity derives a simple relationship between energy, length and time, but when physics is made complete with energy, organisation, length and time, we can expect that organisation varies simply as well [energy plus organisation equals zero].

Overall conclusion: Clearly, the law of conservation of energy and the (new) conservation law are at odds, but apply at different levels of the physical and the everyday, are convenient to use and their use recognises relativity in that every problem must be approached from two directions as in the generalist and the specialist. This is not a ‘marriage of convenience’, but is written in the creation equation that says that every concept is entangled with everything as a context and to ignore it leads to the current problems with the universities and that we are parasites that, at the very least, should do no harm to the environment, unlike the present situation where we are killing our host. A specific example can be found in the Bay of Pigs fiasco, below.

We call ourselves Homo sapiens, but having ‘absorbed’ the Neanderthal (possibly) through a more agile mind/brain, there is contention that we are Homo sapiens sapiens, however, given that we are in a ‘run away’ global ‘meltdown’ through an uncontrolled population, if we control the situation, by using a new software, will we be Homo sapiens sapiens sapiens? Or, if we do not control it, what? This is not idle speculation because, as Nietzsche said:

‘Man is a rope stretched between the animal and the superman – a rope over an abyss’.

Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra

(Superhuman, Rowan Hooper, p 305)

This quotation identifies the relativity that applies to us, as a civilisation and we need a complete physics to generate social engineering to determine the goal of superman [Homo sapiens sapiens sapiens]. Homo sapiens sapiens is a poor specimen that is destroying its host, and, while aware that it is happening, does not possess the will or organisation to change. However, the above, I believe, contains the information that is needed to make these changes, but where is the will? Everyone of our ancestors for 3,000 million years has shown the determination to breed by breeding successfully and ‘micro’ social engineering is where we need to look to develop a superman.

The above is ‘full on’ and may obscure the central message that firstly, quantum computing hopes to use entanglement, but it does not understand that entanglement comes (1) from the creation equation and also (2) the solution to the organisation of everything. Secondly, (1) the entanglement of the mind/brain requires generalists to be used, that are relative to the specialists of the universities etc. [relativity] and (2) quantum computing has no access to the mind/brain, hence, “New Think” might provide a simple workable alternative to quantum computing. In fact, I might state [a general knowledge] that “generalists know a little about a lot and specialists know a lot about a little” and this can have severe ramifications in leadership, such as found by the investigation into the Bay of Pigs fiasco giving the [I believe, somewhat wrong] finding that the specialists at the meetings act as generalists outside of their specialities. Clearly, (specialist) generalists are needed at each step of decision-making, as is happening in this paper.

Overall prediction: the brain is 2% of body weight and uses 20% of the available energy. It apparently doesn’t do much, for the average person while running 24 hours a day, however, it is capable of great feats of memory, coordination and calculation when required, especially by musicians [in their universe], so, by using “New Think’ as a new software, is Nietzsche’s superman within reach [in our universe]? In other words, everything in a fractal is similar and if musicians can attain such heights, as in concerts with millions of musical notes, similar to, and within our universe, can we, given the correct fractal equation [as proposed here] transform civilisation into a society of supermen? There seems to exist the possibility that we do not need to create exotic universes, such as quantum computing, and we just need to correct our universe to give us such enormous potential.

However, a healthy mind requires a healthy body and, considering modern eating habits and general health and weight, will an anti-ageing philosophy centre be the next growth industry on the way to Homo sapiens sapiens sapiens? Does the mind/brain improve with age? It is for questions like this that social engineering is crucial, and this goal may be closer than we think because music proves the above, because it is a generation of a universe in the mind, by the mind-brain, using a creation equation and showing the extraordinary abilities of the mind-brain to function in that universe. Further, it was from the emotion [energy], created by the relativity [of organisation] that our ancestors selected the notes [wavelengths] that were pleasing [provided most energy] and this happened long, long ago. The physics explanation, above, shows that the subjective choosing of the notes were based on the organisation of the notes, and seeing that music has only brought pleasure to civilisation, why can’t we derive a civilisation that is able to live harmoniously together and with it’s host? I believe that ‘micro’ social engineering holds the key.

According to the above, I am a generalist that needs to work with specialists to complete the eventual aim of understanding the working of the universe, bring social organisation to fruition and save civilisation [the ultimate romance]. In place of quantum computing, the above suggests that entanglement be used, via your journal, to engage interested specialists as a super computer across the academic world. The answer to understanding the universe appears close, but so does a breakdown in civilisation, so, can your [several thousand] journals disseminate “New Think” and winkle out Homo sapiens sapiens sapiens with the following advertisement?

Wanted, a real-life Indiana Jones for the Ultimate Romance to save civilisation and create a new race of Nietzsche’s supermen.

References: traditional science is built on references to previous work that are considered an ‘absolute’, and therein is the problem that this paper points out, that there are no references because science ‘got it wrong’ and the true absolutes are as above. More information can be found on darrylpenney.com if needed.