Mathematical Physics Comes In From The Cold

by Darryl Penney

Abstract: mathematics, physics and philosophy are, I believe, old, incomplete and unwilling to change and the new sciences [cosmology, quantum mechanics, particle physics, neuroscience etc.] that are based on the physical are struggling and need a mathematical physics [context] that is the basis of a new way of thinking [concept] that supplies the necessary theory. This theory is possibly presented in this paper, which is new and could be called an opinion piece because it is not based on prior work, but relies on a completely new bottom-up organisation that provides a new and better software for our existing brain and the social engineering that physics has been obscuring. Mathematical physics-organisation is the logical candidate to take over theoretical modern physics that has been lacking for the last 100 years and that ommission puts our society in jeopardy.

Extended abstract: our society is in a bad way and is possibly heading for another Dark Age, unless we come to our senses, literally, due, I believe to piecemeal policies led by technology and a mind mired in the past [of evolution], so, the transition to a successfully managed society has been too difficult for our current mind and we need to reappraise the basics of thinking. Mathematical physics should be the context of this new way of thinking [concept] that deserves more than the cavalier treatment that a senescent physics is affording it’s offshoot disciplines, exampled below, caused by physics’ distaste of organisation, that has suffocated theoretical modern physics for the last 100 years and hidden the social engineering that we need. This model, I believe, provides a new way of thinking and a new context of mathematics and physics etc. by deriving a creation equation that shows that both are orthogonal views of the same thing.

It took mathematics 2,000 years to show that equations were not adequate descriptors of the physical [quintic] and then Galois introduced symmetry, so, let’s consider a fractal, but what is the generator? Clearly it is physical, but physics apparently forswore modern physics a hundred years ago and left it’s offspring without the physical, so, can we find this relationship from mathematics’ ‘skeletons’ that have been ignored for 2,000 years, in particular, the baffling negative roots of equations? This generalised mathematical physics adds a commonality to all disciplines and must include the afeared organisation and the answer is relativity that comes from the exclusion of zero and is the context of thinking, which is currently woefully deficient because it lacks the organisation which allows the social engineering that is behind our endangered civilisation to become visible and this paper suggests a new complete software that can be easily used to improve our thinking.

Newtonian physics is built on gravity and a falling apple, but, ‘the attraction of gravity does not exist, it is the requirement of relativity upon which the accelerating universe is built that affects everything including organisation, energy, mass and virtual particles’.

‘Mathematics and physics are a chimera that is composed of the logic of the possibilities and restrictions within the expansion of the fractal generating equation of everything and not what we think that logic should be’.

[restrictions such as the necessity of probability in quantum mechanics, Born’s rule, constant speed of light, simple proof of Fermat’s last theorem, cosmic inflation, particles are differentiated by speed etc., and possibilities such as the wave-particle duality, virtual particles increasing gravity in galaxies, the Pauli exclusion principle etc.]

Preamble

Both physics and mathematics ignore the physical and it’s contribution to logic. Physics is built on the (so-called) ‘scientific principle’ that arises from only accepting agreed results [peer review] that forms a club that locks science into a common belief [creation myth or religion] that must be believed, or you are ‘not scientific’ and are out of the club. This state of affairs has been obvious for the last hundred years because no plausible theory of modern physics has arisen and no extension of Newtonian physics has been considered even though it is incomplete and inadequately describes the physical. Examples given are the simplification of particle physics, dark matter, cosmic inflation, accelerating universe, quantum mechanics etc., below. Mathematics is similar, but more subtle because it is supposedly built on ‘pure logic’ [Bertram Russell], but perhaps it is an ‘ivory tower’ of the mind that works in the way that Newtonian physics ‘works’, which is, again, incomplete, ‘clubby’ and ignores the physical. Examples below are the number line, zero, relativity, Euler’s equation, Fermat’s last theorem etc.

Further, scientists, and in particular physicists, ‘don’t think so good’ because they ignore organisation, which is the basis of intelligence while mathematics is the epitome of logic, but who’s logic because it ignores it’s physical base. But you say ‘we are not interested in the physical’ and I say ‘what of Galois’ work?, ‘what of the negative solutions [of equations] that you have been ignoring for 2,000 years?’, ‘what does Euler’s equation mean?’ and ‘what is zero really about?’. Are they mathematical or physical? Is everything, including the universe, mathematical, physical or mathematical-physics? So, let’s go back to the very beginning and see what went wrong, bearing in mind that the answer to a measurement depends on the question being asked [see affordances] and are we asking the right questions? For example, if the universe is generated from an equation it becomes a fractal and there is no difference between the mathematical and the physical, except, of course, if we don’t understand it correctly, which is precisely what seems to have happened. The overall problem is that we do not understand organisation, which is not surprising because Life exists in the survival of the fittest and we have not been able to replace it with our own organisation to control technology because we don’t understand how it has to be restricted. For example, Hobbes said that people hate government, but they hate the anarchy that comes with lack of government even more [and that is a restriction].

This paper started by considering the organisation that physics explicitly excludes and mathematics tries to replace with it’s version of logic but there is a relationship that is not appreciated [and so not used] and that is an orthogonality, not an equation, that apparently derives everything as the generator of a fractal universe and physics, by using mathematics, without the physical is unable to see that ‘=’ is not an orthogonality. Physics has built a defensive wall around Newtonian physics and is not prepared to allow challenges even though modern physics is an extension of Newtonian physics, and similarly, mathematics has isolated itself with it’s own logic, but mathematical physics needs to be restructured using the physical and this can be done using orthogonalities. However, after 100 years and a society of the verge of collapse caused by ignoring organisation, is it not time to open the gates to discussion and let mathematical physics do it’s job unimpeded? [see the section below, Why Newtonian Physics is Not Complete]

The major problem is that we have, through technology, created an unstable society that is probably heading for disaster because we lack the knowledge to control it and that knowledge is being withheld, albeit somewhat unknowingly, by the use of Newtonian physics that lacks organisation. Social engineering is the orthogonality of material engineering [technology] and is the knowledge needed to control technology, especially population growth. Organisation at all levels is needed, but we do not understand how to control organisation and that secret lies in imposing restrictions, in the same way that the universe imposes restrictions for itself to exist, for example, an accelerating universe is necessary for the creation equation to logically exist and we need to increase our thinking capacity by improving the software that we use in our existing brain and for that we need the mathematics of concept-context based on relativity.

Neither mathematics nor physics are doing the job that they should and mathematical physics is a ‘pig in a poke’ used by physics and ignored by mathematics, so, I’ll quickly derive Einstein’s equation [E=mc(squared)] to show that it is not an equation, but is, I believe, structural, and thus a triviality [when viewed correctly]. E [energy] is orthogonal to m [organisation] from the creation equation and never equal [‘=’] nor even the same but independent, and do not exist at the same time [wave-particle duality] with the proviso that this occurs on the photon [no relativity with the measurer], whereas off the photon the speed to the measurer is c [speed of light, absolute three] and to relate the experience to both [both being relative] universe and measurer [affordance] requires c (squared) and the mind-brain is necessary to the measurement. The mind is the decision-maker [mathematics of concept-context] and thinks using emotion as generated by measuring and comparing the memories held in the brain and affordances from the environment, see below.

In other words, E=mc(squared) is one end point of the reality [off the photon] and the other end is the creation equation [E=m] on the photon that becomes E=mv(squared) for any speed v [in the reality] and shows the parabolic form. Notice that speed is the factor [in an accelerating space] that defines [separates] the particles, see Aspects of Organisation, below. This is not an inherent attraction [gravitation], but a property of the accelerating space and this relativity is also shown in the negative roots of equations in mathematics that have been ignored for 2,000 years. The magnitude of the apparent attraction is given in absolute four and the overall form of the universe is shown by Euler’s equation, below. Notice that speed differentiates the particles in the [proposed] standard model as is to be expected in a simple fractal [see below].

It is small wonder that physics clings so tenaciously to the simplicity of Newtonian physics and refuses to contemplate modern physics, but organisation can be simply applied by orthogonality when this is understood [Newtonian physics, the bottom-up organisation of the physical and relativity] and there is a need to acknowledge organisation, in the form of social engineering to allow civilisation to succeed into the future. Unfortunately, the problem that Galileo had with the Church springs to mind, and it took hundreds of years for them to apologise, and I doubt that we have that luxury of time because the basic problem is that our thinking is that of the animals from which we evolved and a [software] upgrade is needed [which this model may be] to manage the technology that we have let loose.

Preface

Firstly, the physical is set out as sections: the Form of the Universe describes the creation equation, the expanding universe, cosmic inflation, gravity and quantum mechanics and examples of particle physics and dark energy are given as Aspects of Organisation and Why Newtonian Physics is Not Complete is self evident and should be of concern. Secondly, the mind-brain evolved by using affordances and the mathematics of concept-context so that an animal could measure and interact with its surroundings because the only way to measure and compare two[independent] orthogonals is through a third [not independent] measurer. Thirdly, mathematics is a construct designed to exclude the physical, and the use of the number line, relativity and zero is considered in Entanglement. Fourthly, mathematics and Newtonian physics are doing a great job in supplying the day-to-day counting of sheep etc. and technology of phones, television etc., but the organisation of the physical is beyond them [see Aspects of Organisation] and this simplicity is hiding the organisational skills needed to control population growth, manage genetics and set goals for planning for the future.

Given the above, the aim is to show that currently, mathematical physics suffers from similar problems and it’s importance as the context of the concept of thought demands that it’s relativity to the physical be recognised and understood [for example ‘=’]. In other words, our civilisation is on the verge of collapsing because we think like the animals from which we evolved and need a mental shake-up to include the organisation that we apparently fear.

The Essence of Everything

Mathematics took a couple of thousand years to find general solutions to the quartic equations, a couple of hundred years attacking the quintic without much success, then ‘the revolution that Galois had started grouped together entire domains that were previously unrelated. Fields as far apart as the laws of nature and music suddenly became mysteriously connected.’ (The Equation That Couldn’t Be Solved, Mario Livio, p 273) This slow process was a result of top-down organisation that science has always used 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) and they did not realise that organisation must have restrictions applied to control it and make it useful, and the restrictions on our universe are given below. The top-down ‘flowering’ of mathematics in the field of symmetry is indicative of the results that can be gained when bottom-up organisation is added, see the section Form of the Universe. It could also be considered as the intrusion of physics into mathematics, or, as is suggested here, they complement each other [as a chimera].

Physics and mathematics are old and wrong to the extent that they are placing our civilisation in jeopardy by their structure, not to mention the resultant effect on other species. It is time to increase the quality of our thinking [concept] which is in lockstep with the context of a general mathematical physics and the aim of this paper is to have the same effect on science in general as Galois had on equations, using not just symmetry, but the properties of a fractal [simplicity, symmetry and similarity] that come from a proposed creation equation of our universe. To do this requires that physics, philosophy and mathematics, that developed over thousands of years, be seated in this equation, and this can be done by using relativity [Socrates contribution] and as exemplified for physics, above. Civilisations have been ‘remoulded’ many times in history and are we to be one of them, or can we produce a stable society for the future?

Arithmetic is [for simplicity] currently based on the number line that consists of an infinite number of positive and negative numbers and one solitary zero and this can be replaced by the concept of relativity in the same way that the creation equation is simply constructed for physics. In other words, relativity says that for each sheep counted, there exits a no-sheep somewhere [double entry bookkeeping] and whilst zero is a placeholder in numbers [that took millennia to eventuate], it does not exist except as nothing, or the possibility of the creation of two things that must continue to remain apart to exist [assuming that everything came from nothing]. I am saying that zero is a restriction and does not exist, but you can get as close as you like to it. Alternately, the reality of the dimensions cannot use zero because it has been used in the creation. ‘Used unwisely, zero has the power to destroy logic’ (Zero, Charles Seife, p 219) because, I believe that the square is relativity [consider the product of absolutes in the law of gravity, below] and logical, but, going the other way, zero is not logical because one thing cannot exist on its own [consider the square root of -1]. The square [relativity] is fundamental to the existence of the universe and must only occur uniquely [absolute five] and that is one proof of Fermat’s last theorem. Notice that this trivial [physical] solution requires hundreds of pages in traditional mathematics and shows the possibilities in a complete mathematical physics.

As an example that also belongs with the golden ratio below, why is Pythagoras’ theorem so important that it has been taught for thousands of years as the beauty of mathematics? I think that it illustrates the orthogonality that the universe is built on [and resonates with that organisation] and that organisation is the reason for its effect [beauty] because the squares of the sides that include the right angle [notice the word ‘right’] is the orthogonality that creates the ‘square’, which is the product [multiplication] of the two views of the measurement [by the brain and the universe as relativity]. This is also shown by the product [relativity] of the absolutes in the calculation of gravity, below, and further, the overall gravitational effect is the entanglement of every mass [the sum of both energy and organisation] including the virtual particles that may or may not be present [dark matter].

Notice that ‘this theorem may have more known proofs than any other (the law of quadratic reciprocity being another contender for that distinction); the book The Pythagorean Proposition contains 370 proofs’ (Wikipedia) and is entwined heavily within the fractal nature on the construction of the universe. Given that a measurement must involve the measurer and the universe, the squares must be used and the hypotenuse is the sum of the projections on the orthogonalities, the relationship is obvious and further, Fermat’s last theorem must be true because there must be a unique answer [absolute five] that there is no simpler form.

Whereas arithmetic is a convention, originally using fingers etc. and mathematics is ‘logical’ by convention [scientific method], but not according to the physical, so, mathematics has the creation equation concept plus context equals zero and contains physics because energy is a concept and organisation is a context. Thus thinking is the use of energy and organisation, as affordances within the brain to produce the mind as the decider of the emotion that is produced and answers the question ‘just as it is hard to describe what makes a piece of music or a painting aesthetically pleasing, it’s equally difficult to describe what makes a mathematical theorem or a physical theory beautiful.’ (p 199). On the contrary, beauty is the emotional energy produced by the relativity of the measurement of the organisation. Further, ‘an equation discovered by Euler . . . is the paragon of mathematical beauty’ (p 199) and shows the form of the generator in a fractal. The structure of the universe is derived from the creation equation and can 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 (note this is possibly the acceleration that

our universe has)] sphere [pi] from 0 symmetrical [i] through the centre]. I have always found Euler’s equation enigmatic because it contains ‘i’ explicitly, but ‘i’ must be there because it represents relativity [through the centre, in this case] and everything, except the absolutes, is relative to something else as stated in the creation equation.

So, everything uses relativity, and that can be considered to be the Cartesian coordinate system where independence disappears at the origin and so, the origin is a restriction that leads to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, below. Notice that relativity requires the entanglement of everything [to the dismay of physicists, as they have measured it’s effects with particles], but the physical surely does not affect mathematics in it’s carefully defined ‘ivory tower’? On the contrary, an example is the negative solutions to quadratics that mathematics has ‘swept under the rug’ for 2,000 years, and in particular, the golden ratio has ‘a value of about 1.618, is positive, thus it is the only one that made sense to the Greeks’ (Zero, Charles Seife, p 223). The solution of the quadratic that the Greeks ignored is (1-square root of 5)/2 whereas the acceptable solution is (1+square root of 5)/2 and whilst mathematics ignores the first solution [and has for 2,000 years], our minds react to recognising the organisation [affordance, through the creation equation] by creating emotional energy in our brain. Thus, the generation of emotion is the reason that the golden ratio has the reputation of elegance, beauty etc., and further, is presumably the reason that the Mona Lisa painting is so famous [reputed to contain golden triangles in its form].

Just as Euler’s equation contains, presumably, the form of the universe, the golden ratio is a line segment that possibly describes relativity of physical structure [architecture], whereas the same segment division defines music [monochord] as simple ratios defining the octave. In other words, concept plus context equals zero is the creation equation that shows relativity, and relativity requires that concept and context be orthogonal [independent] and must be kept apart [accelerating universe restriction] or oscillate so fast that they are effectively separate [wave-particle duality possibility]. There are many restrictions and possibilities that are applicable [above], but the most important is thought [concept] that requires a general mathematical physics-organisation as context, and clearly each is necessary to produce intelligence which is the operation of the mathematics of concept-context where affordances [the creation equation] translate the organisation into emotional energy in the brain through measurement.

Conclusion and Prediction

All civilisations collapse [Roman Empire, British Empire etc.] because of, I believe, lack of organisation and our world-wide civilisation is on the same path and needs change and that is the reason behind this paper. [Note the posturing of USA, China, Russia etc. today.] We need social engineering which is the orthogonality of technology that arose out of a simple Newtonian physics that ignores organisation, so, instead of rebuilding the academic disciplines of physics, mathematics etc., let us leave them in peace with their simple ways and use organisation to fix the problem in a minimalist way. Mathematical physics is especially important as the context of the concept of thinking and it is in that discipline that rigour is necessary and it is young enough to change and become the home of context [of the concept of thinking]. In other words, mathematical physics has always been ‘unowned’ by the major disciplines, presumably because it is contextual, hence the title, but can now take it’s rightful place as context [generalist] to the specialities of the academic disciplines and hold their relevance in theory across the academic ‘board’ [orthogonality of the creation equation]. Perhaps a Cinderella story of rags to riches? Perhaps an ‘action figure’ to save the planet?

Prediction [as the relativity of the conclusion]: we have to add the physical and the mind into the current top-down organisational mess with which humanity has burdened science and that can be done by increasing the quality of thinking [by changing the software] that is determined by the context of the concepts held in the brain [because they are strictly related]. An example of bottom-up thinking could be by Galois inventing ‘an entirely new branch of mathematics and to identify symmetry as the source of the most essential properties of equations.’ (The Equation That Couldn’t Be Solved, Mario Livio, p 172). Further, ‘symmetry sits right at the intersection of science, art, and perceptual psychology. Symmetry represents the stubborn cores of forms, laws, and mathematical objects that remain unchanged under transformations.’ (p 45) I am trying to go a step further and show that the universe is a fractal [see the section Form of the Universe, below] where everything is symmetrical because the universe is derived from the creation equation, and even further, the universe is also simple and similar, and most importantly, everything is entangled, as below.

As above, physicists ‘don’t think so good’ because they ignore organisation as evidenced by the expensive experiments on the entanglement of particles. Einstein’s special theory says that, given the constant speed of light, energy, mass, time and distance are simply related [as this model shows] and it can all be done by considering simple mathematics. A line segments is the simplest entity [that is entangled] and we can destroy relativity by division and this is called an octave [half or twice etc.] and further divisions give music [see chapter 128 on darrylpenney.com]. Another simple ratio leads to the golden ratio, above, and to Cartesian coordinates and in energy, mass, time and distance [four dimensions] generates the universe in which we exist.

We have taken the smallest thing imaginable that can exist [a line segment that is infinitely dividable, but never zero – notice the similarity to a photon] and shown how the important fields of music and architecture are created [by eliminating relativity] and that the mind has evolved due to the creation equation that turns the organisation of our surroundings into energy that we experience as emotion and allows the mind to decide between options [on the level of the energy]. In higher dimensions, the orthogonality is the equivalent to division that eliminates relativity, and hence the importance of Pythagoras’ theorem, which is the lack of relativity at the orthogonality [90 degrees] and shows the ‘square effect’ that I interpret as the relativity of measurement of the mind and the entanglement of the universe. [The energy of emotion is created by the increase in organisation of the environment that henceforth includes the measurer.]

As an example of entanglement [what is essentially a new way of thinking], let’s consider an answer that has been given by religion to the question posed by our view of the universe [of which we are a part], and for the first time, consider an alternative to the consideration that the universe is ‘real’. That everything appears ‘real’ is beyond question and it needs to be ‘real’ [to us] for us to function in it and magic is the result if physical laws are not followed. The fifth absolute says that if and only if the most efficient path is followed does our universe exist [principle of least action] simply because any other situation would give two results for the same occasion, which is chaotic [magic]. Consider, as our knowledge increased, the stars appeared as points of light, fires, suns, galaxies etc. as we examine them more closely and they will continue to show us what they necessarily must have been, in the past, to produce our world as it is today [as a minimisation]. All possibilities are ruled out except for the one that is the most efficient. Similarly, why do two different people see the same view over the other side of a hill? Clearly, everything is entangled [above] and if they saw a different view, chaos would result.

Everything is logical, but mathematics, like physics, must use an orthogonality of traditional man-made science [top-down], relativity [sideways organisation] and the bottom up of the physical [thinking (concept) and general mathematical physics (context)] if it is to consider all options. If we are to move into the future, in any planned way, we must use planning, which is relativity and look at social engineering [the orthogonal (organisation)] that has been hidden by physics.

Final word: firstly, it is obvious that a ‘hole’ has existed in theoretical physics over the last 100 years and that some discipline should delve into theoretical physics and extend it to social engineering as this paper suggests and it is a legitimate way to bring mathematical physics ‘out of the cold’. Secondly, as to the negative roots of equations, that have formed a pivotal point in this paper, what is their role? Everything in an organisation has a role and negative solutions are necessary for organisation and emotion that we can appreciate as necessary to this paper, but do they have a purpose, or are they like neutrinos? Neutrinos are necessary to balance equations, then stay out of the way by being mainly nonreactive, so, negative roots have fulfilled their function in the organisational solution, but to ignore them, as mathematicians have done for 2,000 years shows a lack of complete understanding. Thirdly, if a particle and line segment are chimeric, as above [everything can be derived from a creation equation with four dimensions], it might simplify M-theory considerably, and fourthly, much interest has been generated by ‘black holes’ of energy, and yet the above is concerned with the symmetry that is, according to the creation equation, being produced by physics and mathematics ‘locking up’ organisation and mathematical physics may be the key to fixing the disastrous imbalance that is threatening our civilisation.

Why Newtonian Physics is Not Physical

[this rest of this section is reproduced from an unpublished paper Why Are Physicists So Mentally Challenged?]

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].

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.

Aspects of Organisation

Four examples are given that illustrate the simplicity that comes from a complete model that allows firstly, I believe, a significant simplification to the atomic particle model, secondly, the use of the completeness of the model to understand dark energy and thirdly, a simple explanation of cosmic inflation, gravity and the expanding universe. Fourthly, the universe becomes the simple place of quantum mechanics that the fifth absolute requires and the resultant knowledge increases, not just our intelligence, but our intellect [which includes being correct].

Firstly, energy and organisation are necessarily orthogonal concepts and have contexts and there are names for different types of energy [potential, kinetic etc.], and the same applies to organisation and I would like to mention a simplification from a paper The Standard Particle Physics Model Versus Modern Physics that has been sent to Scientific Reports that shows the effect of simplification.

Concept: everything is relative and energy plus organisation equals zero in everything, so this representation is a table of operations categorised by the organisation of speed [tier one] and lifetime, energy etc. [tier two], the acceleration of the universe produces the (so-called) gravity in everything that affects everything as gravity and internally as quantum gravity [(energy plus organisation) divided by separation relative to something else]. In other words, all particles, that we call energy [photon] and what we call mass [neutrinos, protons etc.] are all composed of energy and organisation and the thing that makes them different is their speed and further, each particle is nothing [zero] if the universe stops accelerating.

[It is important to realise that this description and the standard model do not differ substantially (conceptually) from each other, because F/ma=1 is similar to the creation equation, below, but organisationally (contextually) the difference is great because the accelerating universe creates the effects of (what we call) gravity, whereas physics uses a construct that they call gravitons: ‘the gravitational force between the sun and the earth is ascribed to the exchange of gravitons between the particles that make up these two bodies. Although the exchanged particles are virtual, they certainly do produce a measurable effect – they make the earth orbit the sun!’, see below.]

Context: plus [tier 1]: quarks up and down [no speed relative to the particle]

proton, electron [less than light speed]]

neutrinos assorted [less than but extremely close to light speed

photon [light speed]

Plus [tier 2]: bosons, muons, taus, neutrons and other quarks etc. [organisation changelings]

Notice that the speed of the neutrinos occupy the only available speed ‘slot’ that is between the asymptote of the allowable speed of particles and the speed of light, as well as the changing form of the neutrinos being an organisational possibility to minimise any broadening of the speed ‘slot’ [a possibility within the logic of the half-truth that avoids chaos].

Secondly, the following example is a simplification from Deriving The Mind submitted to Cognitive Neurodynamics and shows that the containment of a fractal is completeness that allows closure, as does the postulate of virtual particles. How does physics consider the universe? ‘Using the wave-particle duality . .,. everything in the universe, including light and gravity, can be described in terms of particles.’ (A Brief History Of Time, Stephen Hawking, p 75) Simplifying in this way, by only using particles, is a very dangerous procedure because information is lost. Newtonian physics is a product of the Renaissance and it’s formulation has been made too simple presumably 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) This model uses organisation explicitly.

Consider, ‘the gravitational force between the sun and the earth is ascribed to the exchange of gravitons between the particles that make up these two bodies. Although the exchanged particles are virtual, they certainly do produce a measurable effect – they make the earth orbit the sun!’ (A Brief History Of Time, Stephen Hawking, p 79) Fair go! This shows an overuse of top-down ‘splitting’ to the extent that virtual particles are created to justify an assumption, whereas bottom-up organisation tends to ‘lump’ things together because relationships can be seen. In other words, physics is a top-down creation that does not access the physical and is complicated by being excessively simple and this is shown by the requirement that energy cannot be created nor destroyed..

Consider the enigma, ‘the uncertainty principle means that even “empty” space is filled with pairs of virtual particles and antiparticles. These pairs would have an infinite amount of energy and, therefore, by Einstein’s famous equation E=mc(squared), they would have an infinite amount of mass.’ (A Brief History Of Time, Stephen Hawking, p 189) If we assume that these particles [composed of both energy and organisation] do exist, as they could [and presumably do in the Casimar effect] their sum-total might provide the gravitational effects of dark matter that seems to be driving cosmologists and particle physicists to distraction.

Firstly, the universe is an organisation that physics does not recognise and as such, physics allows limited possibilities and one problem is dark energy that I consider to be the infill energy to balance the acceleration [absolute two], secondly, gravity [due to acceleration] was larger [hyperbola] in earlier times [cosmic inflation] and we are looking back in time at galaxies, thirdly, that organisation leads to gravity [Einstein’s ‘curved space’] and that leaves only one other possibility, that fourthly, virtual particles contribute the necessary gravity, which they can do in this model through the creation equation] and the logic of the half-truth. Thus, the gravity of the so-called virtual particles is the balancing item and the problem disappears. In other words, the number of virtual particles is simply illustrated by the [gravitational] shape of the galaxies. The logic of the half-truth is simply all possibilities: true, false, true and false with restrictions, and chaos. An interesting point is how the universe uses the third term: an accelerating space for the creation equation to exist, wave-particle duality [wave and particle are the same] with speed differentiating, there is no reason that virtual particle cannot be created, but presumably the antimatter component meets an opposite eventually, but in the meantime, both contribute to gravity. [The creation caused cosmic inflation, whereas today ‘random walk’ insures recombination.]

Thirdly, using the third absolute, that the speed of light [energy plus organisation] is a constant, the requirement of acceleration [for the creation equation to exist] is a hyperbola [inverse of time] that requires high accelerations at the beginning [cosmic inflation] and a continuing acceleration dropping towards zero with time.

Fourthly, I believe that with this model we attain an intellect that cannot be surpassed and that is the aim and requirement to the goal of a Homo completus.

Intelligence

From a paper Don’t Do What Your Big Sister Done! submitted to Mind & Society,

Consider Theories of Intelligence in Psychology (Kendra Cherry) ‘while intelligence is one of the most talked about subjects in psychology, there is no standard definition of what exactly constitutes intelligence.’ (Internet) I would like to suggest that intelligence is an exact science based on the creation equation, see Form of the Universe below, and is the application of the concept of the mathematics of concept-context where each concept [fact, experience etc.] that is held in the mind-brain has an affordance attached to it, where affordance is the level of the emotional energy created in the brain relative to the requirements of the measurer each time that the measurement is made. Affordances are the recognition of the organisation of the environment, but also have the same effect with stored memories, and the comparison of which, is thinking [concept] and the context is some general mathematical physics [composed of relativity, Newtonian physics and the physical].

‘Psychologist James J. Gibson developed the concept of affordance over many years, culminating in his final book The Ecological Approach to Visual Perceptionin 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) So, affordances are the mechanism [creation equation : energy plus organisation equals zero] that measures the organisation of the environment and also the measuring of stored memories and their emotion label. Thinking is making a decision on the emotion levels with reference to tribal mores, creation myths and the physical requirements of the body. Notice that the definition ‘same individual at another point in time’ must be broadened to include ‘mindset’ or ‘capabilities’, which is considered here because ‘garbage in, garbage out’ has occurred. To restate one of the goals of this paper, the universe cannot lie [absolute five] and if we change our mindset [software], the affordance will change, our intellect will change and we might be able to save our civilisation.

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.