Illuminating The Dark Ages

by Darryl Penney

Abstract: ‘definition of renaissance . . . expressed in a flowering of the arts and literature and by the beginnings of modern science’ (Wikipedia) , but we do not understand art, the mind-brain or quantum mechanics unless we use the creation equation of everything to understand that organisation produces emotion, thinking, quantum mechanics and even gravity. Physics is part of the Dark Ages and does not consider the physical, which is modern science, but clings to a crippled version that this model points out so that everything becomes clear in an enhanced mind and produces social engineering that may allows us to control society and ourselves and thus avoid the failures of all societies before us.

Keywords: gravity; creation equation; relativity; dark matter; mind-brain; social engineering

‘Given the dominance of dark energy and dark matter, and even the mystery of why so much ordinary matter has survived to today, physicists also joke that we live in the dark ages.’ (Dark Matter And The Dinosaurs, Lisa Randall, p 9)

Preamble

Civilisation has ‘reached the end of its tether’ and needs a new way of thinking to overcome it’s problems [population numbers, over-consumption, lack of goals etc.] if it wants to survive into the future intact. Our mind-brain is mired in the organisation of survival of the fittest and we need a new way of thinking to match the technology that we have developed and to provide the necessary controls and guidance to use that technology properly. The quotation suggests that physics has not completed the renaissance that takes us from the constraints of survival of the fittest to a new Homo completus that overcomes the stupidity of Homo sapiens [more conceited than wise] by increasing our mental capacity to control the technology that we have developed and can at last truly enter a new renaissance. The so called Renaissance was built on the Greek-Roman civilisation that collapsed and our task will not be complete until we understand art, understand science and understand how to control civilisation so that is does not collapse again. Physics is not part of modern science because it does not include the physical, uses an incomplete vision of hundreds of years ago, cannot expand Newtonian physics and is holding up progress by hiding organisation. This paper aims to help correct that state of affairs by completing physics [context] and necessarily creating a new way of thinking [concept].

Preface

There are two types of mind-brain, the specialists and the generalists where the specialists know everything about (nearly) nothing and generalists know (nearly) nothing about everything and this difference is written into the fabric of the universe [creation equation, wave-particle duality, concept-context etc.]. This paper requires that I create a third [universe, Homo sapiens, Homo completus] person that can realise [measure] the orthogonality [independent, but entangled] between two concepts and this can be done using the creation equation [mathematics of concept-context] to develop the theory of everything because it creates the fractal universe in which we are parasite-players. In other words, I need to create a Homo completus in order to stand outside and measure [affordances] the interplay of Homo sapiens and the environment. This is a statement of relativity and is more profound than it first appears because firstly, Homo completus is the goal that we must recognise to examine Homo sapiens and secondly, that is how we think.

Lisa Randall wrote a book about dark matter as befits a specialist seeking answers to longstanding problems within a speciality, looking for clarification [context] that will change the software of her mind-brain to produce a new way of thinking that creates answers [concept] and this change is the moving towards Homo completus, who has the potential to use a much [one dimension to four dimensions] increased mind-brain software along with bionic [biological and electronic] parts by using the internet. The internet allows up to date, complete [in the main], immediate access to all knowledge via the computer and forms another dimension of thought. This explanation of organisation is the context of a problem that Homo sapiens has been unable to comprehend because ‘information remains bewildering, partly because it crops up in different guises in so many scientific fields. (Chance, ed. Michael Brooks, Paul Davies, p 21)

Lisa Randall’s book Dark Matter And The Dinosaurs seems to have an undertone of railing against her inability to understand dark energy, cosmic inflation and dark matter. This is a logical reaction to physics’ ‘shutting-down’ the theory of modern physics a hundred years ago when it could not understand quantum mechanics and the reason that modern physics cannot be understood is because physics is not based on the physical. When our thinking changes to include the physical, modern physics becomes simple and understandable. The secret is to account for organisation because the universe is built on relativity.

Introduction

As above, I believe that the Renaissance needs to be updated and repaired because it is experiencing world-wide problems due to the lack of understanding of the physical that has led physics to ‘hide’ the organisation needed to fix the problem of creating a stable civilisation as well as the understanding of art, the working of the mind, modern physics etc. The energy upon which physics is built is orthogonal to the organisation that it ignores, and yet the two are related in a simple manner. In particular, physics aligns with material engineering, whilst the relativity is social engineering, that has been ignored by physics, and it is the part that allows us to understand ourselves, the family and the country and to possibly prevent the hitherto inevitable collapse into another dark age.

Further, could it be believed that, what physics calls dark matter, is simply that which physics has hidden, that makes up half the universe and helps provides the gravity that holds everything together? Absolute five, below, says that the universe cannot contain ‘bits’ that do not have a designated purpose, so, what is dark matter’s role? To accept this theory, that I am putting forward, I believe, requires a significant change in viewpoint and ultimately a moving from the viewpoint of Homo sapiens to Homo completus so that we can understand our present short-comings. So, an example might help, that Newton believed masses attract through gravity, Einstein believed that masses and energy [photons] attract each other and that ‘curved space’ provided the other half [a version of scceleration], but found to be correct [in result] by Eddington. I propose to include the gravity of organisation [both physical and the importance of] to the concept of ‘curved space’, which is an attempt [misguided, but correct] to include acceleration and if relativity is accepted, the creation equation becomes energy plus organisation equals zero, and below, is the explanation of why Newtonian physics works whilst being incorrect [in the bigger picture]. If this is hard to believe, consider that if organisation is ignored [held constant], the equation becomes the bedrock of Newtonian physics [energy cannot be created nor destroyed] which is clearly ‘rubbish’ in an accelerating universe. We desperately need simplification to our understanding of these basic concepts.

Dark Matter Disappears

Firstly, let’s get rid of ‘matter-antimatter asymmetry’ (that is a consequence of assuming that energy is the only consequence of the Big Bang) that produces ‘the mystery of why so much ordinary matter has survived to today’. The expansion of a fractal generates similarity, so the initial creation equation generates matter of only one type which is carried on forever. Very tiny amounts of antimatter have been created in the laboratory, but it is expensive and difficult to handle.

Secondly, ‘why should all matter interact with light? Dark matter can simply be matter that has different or no fundamental charges. . . . Dark matter is not dark – it is transparent.’ (p 5/6) The simplest explanation could be to not introduce a new form of matter, but to realise that dark matter might be organisation. Matter [energy] and organisation are orthogonal [independent yet entangled] because a universe, house, car etc. cannot be built unless different things stay different, that is, independent, yet entangled in the car etc. and, the simplest explanation is that the universe came from nothing with the restriction that the space has to be accelerating to keep the ‘bits’ apart.

Finding dark matter is a serious business because ‘dedicated probes are searching . . . but so far dark matter remains invisible. Its effects haven’t influenced detectors at their current level of sensitivity . . . even though it is unseen and unfelt, dark matter played a pivotal role in forming the Universe’s structure.’ (p 3) It really is difficult to consider [with a ‘straight face’] that the dark matter that physics is trying to find is the organisation that physics refuses to consider!

The Gravity of the Situation, Part 1

[this section is reproduced from a paper Why Are Physicists So Mentally Challenged? Submitted to the IJTP]

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 that 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 [Copenhagen interpretation, which they are not, from the creation equation].

Quantum mechanics is simply the application of the creation equation that physics calls the wave-particle duality and examples are given below, but much more importantly Newtonian physics is based on energy with a little organisation thrown in, when necessary, because ‘information remains bewildering, partly because it crops up in different guises in so many scientific fields. (Chance, ed. Michael Brooks, Paul Davies, p 21). Clearly, physics does not understand that organisation is relative [orthogonal] to energy, and with energy, creates the universe. In other words, physics is only considering half [energy] of the form of the universe and only half [top-down] of its operation [organisation]. Thus, if these four possibilities were dimensions, the software of our brain is only using one dimension instead of four dimensions and if we consider mathematics as an example, the difference in scope of point, line, area and volume is similar to what happens to our thinking in this model.

The Gravity of the Situation, Part 2

This model is the extension that completes Newtonian physics by adding the two orthogonalities [relativity and top-bottom organisation] and is the context of thinking, where the mind-brain is the concept, and this relativity leads to the necessary existence of generalists using context versus specialists using concepts and it can be seen how this situation evolved in physics. Specialists should not make mistakes, as they seem to have done in this case, because they cannot see the bigger picture, whereas generalists need to make mistakes and be corrected by specialists who are the ‘number crunchers’. A better method is for both to work together because they think differently as would be expected from the creation equation.

Consider ‘asymmetric dark matter. Models that contain dark matter of this type address another remarkable coincidence that might be accidental or might give us an insight into the nature of dark matter: the amount of dark matter and the amount of ordinary matter are surprisingly comparable.’ (p 278) Asymmetric dark matter has been dealt with above and is not relevant, but what is relevant is that the two matters are comparable, and, as this model suggests, are orthogonal and need the inclusion of energy to make them, the matters, equal [essentially]. It is important to realise that many things that we call ‘equal’ are actually orthogonal, which means independent yet entangled and Cartesian coordinates are an example, where x and y in (x, y) are independent except at (0,0) where they are equal. This has ramifications for the creation equation and leads to the Heisenberg uncertainty problem, ‘the mathematical framework of quantum physics does not support the notion of simultaneously well-defined conjugate properties expressed by a single value’ (Wikipedia) The ‘ conjugate properties’ in this case are position [organisation] and momentum [energy] and they can never be non-orthogonal [equal], which occurs at (0, 0), see below.

Another well-known example is E=mc(squared) that is equal, as far as the unit conversion is concerned, but clearly orthogonal in this model because energy and matter are orthogonal with organisation, but it should be noted that the equation ‘works’ for physics because, as above, for F-ma=0 is the same form as E-mc(squared)=0 and the creation equation energy plus organisation equals zero. Generalising the form of these equations [as I believe Newton did], what is the meaning of E=mx(squared)? Clearly, it is the equation of a parabola where x is one coordinate and the square indicates relativity with another [hypothetical] mass m. I apologise for taking liberties with the mathematics, but that seems to have been what physics has done. This shows the form of the motion of celestial objects, while the magnitude of the attraction is given by the absolutes creating the law of gravity, below.

I should point out firstly, that mathematics is complicated because, for counting, it is based on the number line, whereas the mathematics of concept-context is much simpler and obvious from the creation equation and forms the basis of literature. Secondly, gravity acts on the position and what is at that position [energy, mass, organisation] and the introduction of dark matter creates more problems, such as, ‘a dark matter particle with mass about one hundred times heavier than the proton – a commonly assumed value for dark matter masses’ (p 328). Gravity is not a simple attraction that is fixed by postulating a bit more mass, but is, I believe an organisation that is an intimate part of the working of the universe as quantum gravity shows.

The Gravity of the Situation, Part 3

(Cosmic inflation is explained in the currently unpublished paper Why Solving Cosmic Inflation Could Change Your Mind)

‘Just suppose that the universe started as a ‘whimper’, with nothing [literally nothing] dividing into energy and organisation, as is possible for relativity [compare vacuum energy], then the necessary acceleration of the space [from the creation equation] between them must be distance divided by time squared, but the speed of light [distance divided by time is a constant], so the acceleration of the space is inversely proportional to time. Thus, the expansion of space starts at time zero, and dividing by zero makes for big big numbers that rapidly decrease with time [hyperbola]. That could be a simple answer to cosmic inflation and an accelerating universe!’

Thus this model predicts the necessity of both cosmic inflation and an accelerating [albeit decreasing with time, but never zero] space, which is desirable as our universe appears to act in this way. Further, a hyperbolic form is continuous everywhere and unending in both axes making it a candidate for reality [which must be everywhere continuous, else magic happens]. Similarly, the same form is found in quantum gravity, below, ranging from organisation [quarks are never found alone] and the inverse of infinity of gravitational attraction. Physics treats gravity as a force, which is akin to an energy, whereas, I consider it to be an organisation, and this presents an orthogonality that illustrate the problem with the wave-particle duality that is usually considered to be two forms of energy by physics. However, I consider a wave to be pure energy and a particle as organisation [as a first approximation] then a fractal is the expansion of an orthogonality that oscillates between the two, but each generates the other, and that is the reason, I believe, that physics is able to consider them as only one form. Indeed, the requirement of their magnitudes being equal makes dealing with organisation more simple.

Physics seems to be comfortable with the idea that the space can expand [practically] infinitely fast [cosmic inflation] and I believe that gravity is not an energy, nor an organisation, but a property of the space. The justification is simply that if it is allowed at [small] time, it should be allowed at all time as it is the same curve. In other words, gravity has no speed [is infinitely fast] and is a property of the space, and this is necessary if all parts of the universe are to be continually accountable. This is simply assuring that local effects and universal effects must be treated as one, as generated interest in cosmic inflation. Thus gravity has local effects given by the law of gravity, below, but it must be extended to include the acceleration of the universe because gravity is acceleration, as Einstein postulated.

As a generalist, I have no idea of the magnitude of the three influences: relativity of matter, relativity of the organisation or the acceleration of the universe. My aim is to try to elucidate the concepts of the three and leave the context to the physicists because, according to the creation equation, that is all that is necessary and sufficient for the task. Notice the fractal generation of the switching of generalist-specialist, concept-context, wave-particle, energy-organisation, plot and story-line etc.

Dark Energy and Dark Matter Revisited

‘Two teams of supernova researchers used this insight to discover dark energy in 1998, when they measured the redshifts of the galaxies in which the Type 1a supernovae reside . . . In fact, this picture – though widely accepted – is currently disputed by experts’ (p 22) ‘Their observations led to the remarkable conclusion that some unanticipated energy source was accelerating the rate of the Universe’s expansion. Dark energy fits the bill, since its gravitational influence makes the Universe expand at an increasingly rapid rate over time.’ (p 23) This quotation makes me think of the proverb that ‘when the only tool that you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail’ and that an accelerating universe requires a new source of energy to push it. Physics needs completeness and that means recognising the organisation that civilisation needs to produce and maintain aims.

This model, by expanding the base to include energy and organisation produces a logical restriction that allows an explanation for both cosmic inflation and an accelerating space, which is also necessary to create gravity. ‘Zwicky calculated that the amount of mass required for the cluster to have sufficient gravitational pull was 400 times greater than the contribution of the measured luminous mass – the matter that emits light. . . . Lundmark, like Oort, hadn’t made the more daring suggestion of an entirely new form of matter . . . the true value, which we now know to be about five.’ (p12) ‘Measurements of gravitational lensing also play a role in what is perhaps the most compelling evidence for dark matter, which comes from clusters of galaxies that have merged – as happened with the now-famous (among physicists at least) Bullet Cluster.(p 16) The lensing appears as a ‘halo’ around the clusters that have passed through each other and that the so-called dark-matter follows the light emitting matter, as would be expected if both light emitting matter and it’s organisation contributed.

This quotation shows the propensity to introduce new concepts [splitters] top-down, whereas it appears that bottom-up produces consistency [lumpers] and also shows the necessity of specialists and generalists being different. In essence, Newtonian physics is a ‘sacred cow’ because it uses a ‘wormhole’ into the physical and works, in a limited way, but now that its limitations are understood, surely it is time to fix it and complete the Renaissance.

Conclusion and Prediction

If the above is true, and I have yet to find inconsistencies, a serious situation has developed through not using organisation, and far more, the damage that the ‘shutting’ down of physics has done to enthusiasm and careers, such as for Lisa Randall. Humankind must use organisation in a necessary way by assigning goals, but organisation is a context and requires a better software and the time for unpublished papers, such as Rationalising Management, Money And The Gifts Of The Ancient Greeks has yet to come.

The above is a ‘stuff up’, not because it is not ‘true’, because it is [not true] according to the model that I am suggesting, but because top-down theories have been ‘stuffed’ into it to fill a need, for example, dark matter is created to provide gravitational ‘pull’, but gravitation does not ‘pull’ because it is the result of ‘curved space’, or an accelerating universe. Dark energy expands to create the accelerating universe whereas I believe that it is the infill energy for the acceleration, cosmic inflation is postulated as separate to the sudden influx of energy from a supposed Big Bang. Fair go! The ‘stuff up’ is creating concepts without contexts and is explained in the paper Why Are Physicists So Mentally Challenged? submitted to the IJTP. This theory seems to answer all of the enigmas satisfactorily, such as ‘What is emotion?’, ‘What is thought?’, ‘What is laughter?’, ‘What does the Mona Lisa painting have that makes it special?’ etc.

Physics as a concept is great, but it does not access the physical and its context is troubling, as I have shown. Physics needs to think better and as thinking is the context linked to thought [everything is relative], if context is poor, so thinking must be poor. Einstein was awarded a Nobel Prize for the wave-particle duality, but that is like E=mc(squared), not quite correct because this theory says that energy-organisation is an orthogonality [independent, but entangled] which explains entanglement of particles in particular. Consider affordances, ‘psychologist James J. Gibson developed the concept of affordance over many years, culminating in his final book The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception in 1979. He defined an affordance as what the environment provides or furnishes the animal. . . . The key to understanding affordance is that it is relational and characterizes the suitability of the environment to the observer, and so, depends on their current intentions and their capabilities. . . . This notion of intention/needs is critical to an understanding of affordance, as it explains how the same aspect of the environment can provide different affordances to different people, and even to the same individual at another point in time. ‘(Wikipedia, Affordance)

This is saying, among other things, that we receive answers to the questions that we ask, there are no free lunches, for if we ask the wrong questions from the wrong theory, we get misleading information [rubbish in, rubbish out], as above. Top-down thinking is what the animals do because they exist in an organisation [survival of the fittest], but technology has disturbed the status quo and we need to find a new organisation [social engineering] to constrain society and fix the current mess. In other words, using the creation equation doubles the present scope and allows social engineering to control the use of technology [materials engineering] and thus control society. In loco parentis is mankind’s greatest driving force, but it withers away without selection of the fittest [a goal] and without an organisation that supports it and further, we need to create Homo completus as a goal to see Homo sapiens as a conceited has-been.

The following important section appeared in the October issue, 2020, of Mind and Society [Can Affordances Save Civilisation?]. It has been expanded, but may not need to be included in the paper.

The 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 energy plus organisation equals zero], secondly, energy and organisation are necessarily created as infill to balance the necessary acceleration [relativity 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).

Other orthogonalities [independent, but entangled] are created that operate similarly to the absolutes, such as that the speed of a particle and the speed of a photon must not be the same [Einstein’s special theory of relativity] and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, below, that tests the orthogonality of the creation equation and the dimensions. It is also important to note that other entities are products of the space, such as gravity, entanglement and logic from the creation equation and do not have speed restrictions such as the speed of light and organisation.

This theory explains cosmic inflation as well as predicting its form because the speed of energy and organisation is constant [an absolute] within the space that is accelerating. This might seem contradictory because it would seem that a constant speed is impossible in an accelerating space, but acceleration is relative because it contains time and so is orthogonal and completely independent of the speed [absolute] even though the universe [space] accelerates as the reciprocal of time with a possible singularity at time zero. Thus the form is hyperbolic explaining cosmic inflation at very small time and the accelerating universe for all time, decreasing, but never zero. The creation equation [energy plus organisation = zero] could be written as E=mi(squared) on the photon, where ‘i’ is the square root of -1, and E=mc(squared) off the photon [absolute three]. Notice that the infill [to balance the necessary acceleration] of the universe [E/t+O/t, all volume] is a constant.

Thus, the universe does not know that it exists until Life, as a measuring tool, creates itself and provides another view [relativity] and this can be seen in the ‘square’ of measurement [the creation equation (energy only for simplicity) on the photon is E=mi(squared), Einstein’s equation off the photon E=mc(squared), form of gravity E=mx(squared), Born’s rule, product of absolutes in the gravity equation etc.]. I believe that the ‘square’ is the reciprocity of relativity and shows a relationship between Life and the environment that is a true symbiosis because both come into existence at the same time. Thus, in an accelerating space [needed for the creation equation to logically exist], gravity is generated and in two or more dimensions, any point x, is measured as x(squared) [the relativity of the measurer and the universe] which could be viewed as a parabola y= x(squared), with constant acceleration, which shows that anything [energy or organisation] at x will orbit another anything [for relativity, Kepler’s laws]. Notice that everything at that point attracts [energy and organisation] and is the reason for the enigma that all weights fall at the same rate. [Galileo held that two masses with different weights (one dimension, absolute four), when let go, the accelerating space produces the same path for each]

Gravitation [in one dimension] is the product of the two absolutes:

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

Notice the product of the absolutes, so that the universe records our measurement, and that the ‘inverse square law’, as it is usually described, 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.

‘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 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 length 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?

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 ‘subsuming’ is the expected result in a fractal and Euler’s equation appears enigmatic because of the appearance of ‘i’ [the square root of ‘-1’], but it’s appearance becomes obvious due to relativity. Consider the quotation “wavefunctions generally contain ‘imaginary’ numbers – one involving the square root of -1, which is not something that has a physical meaning” (p 53). I am drawing attention to it because it shows the current confused thinking of physics, in that ‘i’ is an operator from quantum gravity [E/l+O/l for all t] because relativity is shown by ‘1’ and ‘-1’ from the inverse square law and that must be generated by ‘i’ and that is why “wavefunctions generally contain ‘imaginary’ numbers” because ‘i’ [and every number] is not only a number [concept], but also an organisation [context] and quantum gravity is the ‘spread’ from the atom [quarks] to gravity [in galaxies]. In other words, ‘i’ is imaginary, and does not exist, because relativity always exists and not because it does not make sense in mathematics.

So, Newtonian physics is a creation of the mind and has nothing to do with the physical [except that it uses the absolute force/mass = acceleration] 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, and clearly, organisation must be included, whereas the absolutes looks at the things that don’t change [invariants of the universe]. Notice that we have just extended Einstein’s special theory of relativity and also that information [concept] is necessarily constrained to the speed of light, something that has been a conjecture, also, Einstein’s theory shows the orthogonality of the speed of light and mass and what happens as in Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle when challenges to the fundamental structure of the universe are attempted. It is also 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] due to the affordances that convert the organisation of the surroundings [given the measurer’s questioning] to emotional energy in the mind-brain that allows for decision making via the mathematics of concept-context. 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. 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.

“New Think” [concept] is a new complete way of thinking that uses the simplicity and ease of use of top-down traditional Newtonian physics with the bottom-up of the creation equation, relativity and the restrictions and a general mathematical physics [context] that creates a description of everything. This is not the ‘law’ of everything that requires peer review, it is literally everything and raises our thinking to a new level because a complete physics generates a social engineering [orthogonal to technology] that, in a fractal, offers improvements in personal, group and country involvement.

It is a property of a fractal that everything is simple, symmetrical and similar and Life enables the universe that is built on orthogonalities to discover itself through Life and be similar to the Christian God that is everywhere and knows everything because the universe has to be part of every measurement, but we need social engineering to determine the ethics [concept] to be used in religion [context] to derive an aim for civilisation.

References: no references are given as everything has been derived from first principles.