A Letter To Physics

by Darryl Penney

Abstract: physics has ignored theoretical modern physics for the last 100 years, but now, that social science has become a true predictive science, this same new model can be used to understand the organisation that physics has ignored for 350 years and make a complete physics.

Keywords: Principle of Science; Francis Bacon; relativity; creation equation; gravity; inflation

Physics is in poor shape, and seems incapable of fixing itself, probably through the deficiencies of Homo sapiens itself [as having evolved from the animals and not liking change] and in particular, the definition of science as given by Francis ‘Bacon’s influence led to a focus on practical experimentation in science. He was, however, criticized for neglecting the importance of the imaginative leaps that drive all scientific progress.’ [Scientific Revolution] (The Little Book Of Philosophy, p 57) Physics needs theory and is incomplete because absolutes are needed [for relativity] to compare measurements and this statement is the Principle of Science and is not that which Francis Bacon implies. Newtonian physics seemed to work, until it suddenly did not work with modern physics, and physics realised that it didn’t understand how or why things worked as they did. Einstein might be considered the last classical physicist that believed that the universe was ‘real’, but no one has a clue as to what it really is, and physics was in no hurry to question that statement, and closed down modern theoretical physics a hundred years ago with the classic admonition ‘to use quantum mechanics, but don’t try to understand it’

Physics appears incomplete [considers energy only] and lacks explicit mention of organisation, logic [reference 2] and restrictions and is not a real science because it lacks adequate absolutes [the absolute that it uses (acceleration due to gravity) is unnecessarily complex]. How can anything be a science without fixed basic absolutes? [I think that Homo sapiens needs an upgrade to the mind, which is what this letter is also seeking.] Physics rejected this model [reference 1], which was taken up by the social sciences that can (hopefully) now be considered real sciences because they contain absolutes of organisation [reference 3, 4. 5]. So, having shown the value of this approach, I once again offer it to physics. Firstly, we need to consider the scientific principle that must contain absolutes [to destroy relativity] and contain theory [to consider relativity] and secondly, consider a space that derives organisation, logic and restrictions, and the absolute of that space is the creation equation that generates a fractal, thinking, gravity and the universe in general. The overall effect is to change the way that we think, to encompass better concepts [specialist] and apply context [generalist] to them and to realise that they are orthogonal [basically independent].

Technology has created a successful modern world, albeit with social problems, with physics actively feeding the process but physics appears to have become a modern-day religion that dislikes change, and this is understandable, because, in nature it is offspring that seek out new niches whilst the parents continue their success. There are no enigmas in technology, but physics is riddled with them and that is because [materials] engineering follows Francis Bacon’s dictate of measurement, but physics also needs theory. Indeed, like the proverbial frog, physics had one foot in Newtonian physics and one in modern theoretical physics until it became too hot and the latter was sidelined a hundred years ago.

The answer is simple and is that the universe is based on relativity, not just Einstein’s relativity, but a relativity that is basic to everything and this can be found in reference 1. The paper links the organisation of the environment to the emotional energy of the measurer, by the act of measuring, and by remembering scenarios, explains the concept of thinking, and further, relativity requires that social engineering is related [orthogonality] with technology and yet social engineering is derived from social science. But first, social science had to be made a science [references 3, 4, 5] by establishing absolutes of organisation, and organisation is a problem that physics refuses to face, and that is because it’s current absolutes are not sufficiently simple and yet we live in a fractal [reference 2] that requires similarity along with simplicity and this creates enigmas because thinking is limited, and it is limited by using ‘Bacon’s method is an example of the application of inductive reasoning’ (Wikipedia, Baconian method). Inductive reasoning is top-down reasoning and needs the organisation, that physics ignores explicitly, to understand that bottom-up reasoning is necessary as a relativity.

It is a well known proverb and unfortunately appropriate here, ‘that you can lead a horse to water . . . . ‘,so, perhaps a few examples might suffice. If we strip the sameness out of two different things, we will be left with a difference [orthogonality], such as concept-context, for example energy [a concept that is infinitely numerate from zero to infinity] and organisation [a context that is infinitely complex from zero to infinity] that could have come [or been created] from nothing using a creation equation such as energy plus organisation is nothing. Obviously these two things must be kept apart to exist and that can only logically be done in an accelerating frame of reference, and this was verified by Hoyle [all stars are accelerating away from us]. Note that there must be acceleration in the radii, and it is pretty obvious when you think about it because gravity comes from the acceleration of the space. For example, Newton required masses to attract each other [law of gravity], Einstein required energy [photons] to be attracted also, and this gave the correct result when he required space to be curved [an organisation]. Clearly, as below, space is linear, thus speed [of light (energy and organisation)]is constant and acceleration is curved [hyperbolic, a constant divided by time].

Everything is changing relative to everything else, so, the classic way [of handling this problem] is to divide one by another to cancel out the relativity [linked variability] and create an absolute. This was Archimedes’ “Eureka” moment where he used density! So, doing similar, the orthogonals [dimensions] of our universe are energy, organisation, time and distance and dividing them creates the absolutes [reference 1], and as an example, distance divided by time is the constant speed of light [energy and organisation] relative to any measurer, no matter how they are moving [Michelson-Morley experiment] and that enigma ushered in modern physics. [It was thought that the speed was constant relative to the environment [aether] and any motion of the observer would naturally change it.] The speed is constant because both time and distance increase linearly [see Occam’s razor] and the universe must be an organisation [not real].

When we divide energy and organisation by time [to eliminate relativity], we see a hyperbola, infinitely large at time zero and positive for all time. This corresponds to the Big Bang with a huge creation of energy [and organisation] initially, and presumably the momentum is currently thought to provide the expansion [though the continued acceleration is an enigma]. Physics has found evidence for this “cosmic inflation”, where the space expanded far faster than the speed of light for no apparent reason, but according to this theory, cosmic inflation was the rapid creation of energy and organisation that was a restriction on the creation equation [ being a hyperbola]. Note the ability for energy to be created [with organisation].

Conclusion and prediction: because relativity always requires goals, the bottom-up goal is the reason behind quantum mechanics, as shown in reference 1 and the top-down goal is that this theory can complement the existing theory. In other words, physics considers quantum mechanics to be a superb theory, without understanding it, because it is built on an organisational basis that is different to the ‘real’ world that we would like the world to be, and so, current thinking is biased and needs an epiphany or flip-flop of the orthogonality of viewpoint. Thinking is a comparison of the affordances presented by measuring the organisation of the measurement overlain by the restrictions required by Life and a generalist is needed to make sense of the work of specialists, and that links into the social sciences. That epiphany demands a new way of thinking [perhaps a new Homo completus] that requires a return to goals to replace that of the animals [survival of the fittest] and complete the innovation that technology started [with farming].

Physics needs to recognise that the Principle of Science requires absolutes and this can be easily done by using Newtonian physics [top-down] in everyday use, along with this model [bottom-up] for the atomic with the recognition of relativity at all times and the following should make this clear.

Why Newtonian Physics is Not Physical [reference 6]

Galileo’s law of motion [an absolute that F/m=a is the force (F) on a mass (m) due to the constant acceleration due to gravity (a)] was, possibly generalised by Newton and the reason that Newtonian physics works, in the main, is because it is based on an absolute in a relative universe, such as we have. In other words, Newtonian physics works because it uses the form of this bottom-up derivation without the reasoning behind the creation [only the measurement], and the reason that it does not work properly is because it is different to the absolute that this model uses, which is, energy plus organisation equals zero. This becomes energy/organisation=i(squared), where ‘i’ is the square root of (-1) compared to F/ma=1. This is the point where Newtonian physics departs from the physical and disregards relativity. The similarity is obvious, but the physical requires the use of energy [not force] because force requires a determination of ‘how much’ and depends on the measurer, ‘ma’ is an organisation and ‘i squared’, I believe, signifies a relativity that must always exist [both states (of ‘i’) are ‘imaginary’ without measuring relativity].

Does force [‘F’] have a physical meaning, in spite of the above? Yes it does, because relativity, as above, only exists if the relatives are kept apart [accelerating universe, celestial mechanics], but celestially, relativity acts as a pair of measurers that use the effect of the accelerating space [that we call gravity] to keep two bodies orbiting each other [in a stable state]. Thus ‘F’ is the ‘gravitational attraction’ [of energy and organisation] that causes quantum gravity [the dimensions of energy plus organisation divided by the separation [an absolute]] to be what each measures and so the gravity equation is the multiplicand of the absolutes of each body. Thus, Newtonian physics moves into the non-physical world [no relativity] in considering the motion of a [one] particle [F=ma]. Newton ‘inspire guessed’ [meaning that he could not derive] the law of gravitation and this was ‘corrected’ by Einstein who added organisation to double the effect [of Newton’s equation] by postulating a ‘curvature of space’ [rubber sheet analogy]. That this analogy produced exactly an equal amount of attraction as did the masses [twice the effect of Newton’s equation] did not appear to be questioned, presumably because this was ‘justified’ [gave the correct answer] by experiment [Eddington’s observations] and physics tolerated this, but quantum mechanics was ‘a step too far’. In fact, the ‘rot set in’ when the wave-particle duality was considered to be two forms of energy [which they are not, from the creation equation].

Reference: 1. Form of the Universe, Can Affordances Save Civilisation, Mind & Society,20(1), 107-110

1. From an unpublished paper The Logic Of The Half-truth And Plato’s Cave
2. From an unpublished paper Social Engineering: Using Social Science To Improve Ourselves And Society submitted to IJSSS

5. From an unpublished paper A Future Scenario For Common Markets submitted to IJSSS

6. From an unpublished paper The Dysfunctional Family of Newtonian Physics