chapter 135: Physics is to Blame for Quantum Mechanics and the World’s Woes

by Darryl Penney

Abstract: “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)

Yes, especially the physical, because ‘armchair’ Newtonian physics ignores it. Newtonian physics is too simple and needs “New Think”, derived from the creation equation with bottom-up organisation to supply the physical, orthogonalities, restrictions and logic to use in the mind/brain. Quantum mechanics is the interaction between the mind/brain and the physical, and without the physical, it doesn’t make sense, but with the physical, it disappears. Engineering (mechanical) and technology is booming, but relativity says that social engineering is being ignored because physics is incomplete, and it’s lack is bringing the world to the ‘brink of disaster’. Social engineering uses all of those concepts that current physics ignores, such as elegance, emotion, governance, organisation etc. and the relationship between them. Quantum computing might be useful in a niche sense, but “New Think” provides the software to create a new and expanded means of thinking, immediately, using our existing mind/brain.

Keywords: “New Think”; relativity; orthogonal; quantum mechanics; quantum gravity; quantum computing; law of gravitation; social engineering; creation equation; fractal universe, Bohr atom; Schrodinger; Born’s rule; general mathematical physics

Extended abstract: potential fundamental physicists have been warned-off 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 [independent] to the specialists [establishment and universities] to be included because of the generalist-specialist duality. Now that physics can be understood, 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 save the planet. This is not a trivial assertion because “New Think” supplies the emotion, elegance, organisation, governance etc. that is missing from traditional physics and is needed to create social engineering.

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, proven for the first time ever, the law of gravity composed of energy and organisation. The historical picture of the divining of the Bohr atom is given for interest sake, because it was taught at school, but is better explained using “New Think” and lastly, a short discussion of quantum mechanics and “New Think”.

The title of this paper is that physics is to blame for the mess that the world is in, but who will believe me? I need to show that there is another physics that has lain hidden because physics is incomplete, not just a little incompleteness, but a huge amount that I call social engineering that is on a par with mechanical engineering. But again, who will believe me? So, I have taken two aspects of modern physics [gravity and quantum mechanics] and 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 it up and has a vote on what to believe [peer review]. I can barely find a quote, 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, “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. Now, that might make a story!

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) In © below, it is shown that we tried to ‘corrupt’ the universe [in our ignorance] and I suggest that ‘atom-smashing’ experiments, that find hundreds of new particles are ‘pushing’ another boundary to chaos.

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 the relativity of our mind/brain [top-down], the physical view of the universe [bottom-up], sideways relativity and a number of restrictions that are derived from the creation equation below.

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

In a 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 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. In a fractal [derived from the creation equation (1+(-1))=0] a photon oscillates between the two [to keep them separate], fast enough so that anomalies do not appear in reactions. 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 logical square wave switching between particle and wave, further, I can say this because in a fractal, the microscopic and macroscopic effects are the same [Adam Smith’s ‘invisible hand’ in economics].

(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, and in the physical, these alternatives are options, 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 more 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 trying to measure an orthogonality is logically impossible because it is a restriction on the creation equation. Energy and time, along with organisation, volume and position are dimensions and must be orthogonal so that ratios can uniquely define ratios [absolutes] for the universe to exist. This is one of a class of logical restrictions that must exist for the universe to function and have a measurable value. For example, the universe must expand to allow the creation equation to exist [the Big Bang is a childish concept]. The entanglement is at zero [of the orthogonality] where they are co-joined and independent everywhere else, so, as we approach zero, the measurement becomes impossible [chaos]. 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.

Other examples are the generalist-specialist duality where generalists think and act differently to specialists in that 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 including generalists.

(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. Newtonian physics mixes energy and organisation together, calls gravity a force, whereas it is both an energy and also an organisation [quantum gravity] as is made clear when the law of gravity is derived below. Notice that neither Newton nor Einstein derived the equation, whereas the derivation below is quantum gravity and is immediately obvious using “New Think”. In other words, simple with “New Think”, impossible without it. Why? Because “New Think” is complete.

(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 two] is constant with respect to the observer’s mind-brain [Michelson-Morley experiment]. The universe come 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.

(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. For example, for the creation equation [(1+(-1))=0] to exist 1 and (-1) must never meet and this can only happen if the universe expands and we call this the Big Bang. The restriction is 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 gives the correct answer for the wrong reasons and this is carried throughout Newtonian physics. In other words, because traditional physics does not use organisation explicitly, the conservation law [energy plus organisation equal zero] becomes energy remains constant.

(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 quantum mechanical 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. Life creates one reality because if we are not in a particular reality something will eat your body without you knowing it [magic happens when reality is not continuous]. 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.

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 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 a “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 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. I will repeat that because it is so important. Material engineering, 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.

Overview: the paper, Saving the World Requires Social Engineering has already been written, but does anyone want it? Its precursor, Grow Up, Think Better, Live Longer and Save Civilisation! has been submitted and rejected with the editorial comment that the content is all over the place. Surely, that is the idea of a generalist paper that points out where the specialists have got it wrong! The ‘age of the specialist’ is over, physics, mathematics, philosophy etc. must combine as generalists [as well as specialists] to (literally) save the world and we now have the tools. I am pleased that the Springer Organisation now offers advice on alternate journals to rejected papers and will reassign them if requested. In other words, a generalist editor is assigned to assist publication of papers. A step in the correct direction!

The Form of the Universe

Traditional science requires references to build on previous work [to create an absolute], but clearly, everything must depend on the absolutes that strip out relativity. These five absolutes appear strange because they are products of necessity, for example, (2) that the speed of light is constant to any observer, irrespective of their motion [Michelson-Morley experiment], a fact that turned physics ‘on it’s head’ a hundred years ago [distance/time, all energy and organisation]. (1) from the creation equation [(1+(-1))=0, where 1 is energy and (-1) is organisation], the conservation law that the sum of energy and organisation is zero, and note that energy can increase, as long as organisation does also [an example is a spring – Hooke’s law]. (3) that energy plus organisation per volume is constant, for all time [result of constant expansion], (4) that energy and organisation divided by distance is constant [quantum gravity], for all time, and (5) Occam’s razor and principle of least action define uniqueness by being minima [if not minima, the system does not exist].

Notice that quantum gravity is hyperbolic [(energy plus organisation) divided by separation, for all time], whereas the attraction of gravity requires relativity that produces the inverse square of the separation:

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 also be 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.

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” is the base that fundamental physics needs to reinvigorate itself and generate a new social engineering and save the planet. As a taste, Newtonian physics ignores beauty, emotion, religion, governance etc. which are part of a larger physics that defines social engineering. Half of a new physics, is new and the other half needs remodelling, which makes an interesting career, and might save civilisation!

(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, 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. Quantum gravity [absolute (4)] varies inversely as the separation, but relativity requires the inverse square law for gravity between the two 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. After all, in the physical, there must be a restriction on where the particle reforms, if it is to reform, then the relation between point [organisation] and energy, should follow a square law of relativity.

(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. Notice that heat energy is shown, by absolute one, to consist of energy and vibration [Hooke’s law for springs] and in an orbit by energy and standing wave. 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 meaning, I believe, of Euler’s equation is given above, and describes the formation of the universe, which is always necessary in a fractal, and I assume that the presence of the imaginary ‘i’ in all the equations refers to the ubiquity of relativity from the creation equation.

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].

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 physics of the universe. This has created absurdities in fundamental physics, led to the formation of quantum mechanics and presumably none more so than 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. Quantum computing is a subset of, and contained within “New Think”, but ‘New Think’ contains the organisation that physicists have tried so hard to ignore in physics and that is an unwarranted restriction on relativity. 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.

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 and it (effectively, as a theory) closed down a hundred years ago, just when it was starting up. Why seek a quantum computer when “New Think” does the job using the mind-brain computer? As an example, materials engineering is building the infrastructure to accommodate a growing population, but it needs an orthogonality that is social engineering to control the population, but physics cannot access the organisation of elegance, religion, the golden rule etc. because it does not support relativity. Thus, it can be said that physics is causing the world’s problems and perpetuating the existence of quantum mechanics because of its incompleteness.

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.