The Unification Of Symmetry, Simplicity And Similarity In A Fractal Universe

Abstract: Newtonian physics is a fractal that seems to be created in the same way that the universe was created and they lived happily apart until fundamental physics tried to access the physical, then the problems started. This paper shows how they can be brought together harmoniously and at the same time shows that fundamental physics is incomplete and when completed, shows a new social engineering as a relativity to technology [materials engineering] that may supply the tools to prevent the impending social disaster of over-population etc. As an aid to understanding the scope of the new way of thinking, wormholes are suggested as a means of anchoring the convenience of Newtonian physics to the reality of the universe and the equation E=mc2 and Fermat’s last theorem, become self-evident examples of this new method as well as that Pythagoras’s theorem can be used as a means of finding the wormholes.

Keywords: symmetry; quantum gravity; fractal universe; relativity; quantum mechanics; wormholes; law of gravitation; social engineering; creation equation; “New Think”; general mathematical physics

‘All science is a search for unification.’ (The Goldilocks Enigma, Paul Davies, p 118)

Preamble

Science began with the ‘armchair musings’ of the ancient Greeks, Roger Bacon suggested experimentation, the physicists measured and the theorists built theories on those measurements that became ‘armchair musings’ because they called them ‘the laws of physics’ that did not access the physical and fundamental physics gave up trying a hundred years ago by saying of quantum mechanics, ‘use, but don’t try to understand’.

This paper is about unification and the symmetry, simplification and similarity as found in a fractal:

first, that everything is relative to something else [creation equation, not Einstein’s relativity that examines the effect of the Michelson-Morley experiment],

second, the top-down of science versus the bottom-up of the physical which it does not currently access,

third, the law of conservation of energy is replaced by the creation equation that considers energy and organisation,

fourth, physics [energy] leads to materials engineering and is symmetrical with physics [organisation] that leads to social engineering that may allow us to control civilisation,

fifth, the fractal universe contains inherent symmetry from the simple creation equation,

sixth, the mind is forced into a higher state [similar to the Cambrian when vision may have improved] by an updated software that may allow us to control ourselves, society and science,

seventh, relativity requires a goal for the future of civilisation, that we do not currently have, that comes through organisation [religion, ethics etc.],

eighth, the orthogonality of the dimensions [two sets] requires a mind-brain to measure, and receive as emotional energy, the increased organisation that is part of the measurement.

ninth, the equation of everything [context] of the creation equation [concept] may be the long sought-after ‘unified theory’ via two sets of dimensions.

Preface

‘Unifying quantum mechanics and general relativity to construct a quantum theory of gravity remains one of the greatest challenges confronting physics.’ (Life on the Edge, Jim Al-Khalili and Johnjoe McFadden)

A quantum theory of gravity remains one of the greatest challenges confronting physics because firstly, physics does not understand how quantum mechanics works and secondly, general relativity is based on ‘guesstimates’ as well as, that the law of gravitation has never been derived [Newton’s ‘inspired guess’] because physics measures and tries to understand with top-down ‘armchair musings’, similar to the ancient Greeks. This paper suggests that relativity underwrites the universe and physicists must reprogram the software of their mind-brains using the bottom-up organisation of a complete fundamental physics that shows that quantum gravity is simple, and as an example, at the same time as deriving quantum gravity, the speed of light is shown to be constant to the measurer, no matter how they are moving, and we know of the effects that that ‘little gem’ had on physics a hundred years ago.

The Aim

Theoretical physics is a top-down organisational conglomeration of measurements assembled into a monumental whole that lacks structure with a disturbing number of enigmas when it is extended from the everyday Newtonian physics. The aim is to show that the existing physics is similarly constructed, using absolutes, to a bottom-up organisation using the absolutes from the creation equation, and to create a complete physics that is a composite that is constructed orthogonally to use both physics and the physical. In other words, physics does not consider the physical, although it gives the impression that it does, and when it does try to access the physical as in quantum mechanics, it finds that it does not have the understanding.“New Think” [concept] with its context of general mathematical physics allows a new way of thinking about the physical and at the same time releases a scientific basis for the social sciences [social engineering] that is orthogonal to technology [materials engineering] and may provide the tools to control our civilisation.

The context of general mathematical physics shows a new approach that combines aspects of mathematics, physics etc. as shown by the simple derivations of E=mc2 and Fermat’s last theorem, as well as as a discussion of gravity and quantum gravity that shows the wormholes between the physical and what has been built into Newtonian physics. Newtonian physics is very similar to the generation of the universe through absolutes, as one would expect in a fractal, and it is this property of a fractal that creates the wormholes, so, why doesn’t physics (and mathematics etc.) take the easy way by recognising the physical? At the same time, the energy of emotion, that physics ignores, creates social engineering which our civilisation desperately needs. In other words, this paper uses the organisation, that physics has always tried to avoid.

Do Physicists Really Understand Physics?

I do not believe that physicists understand physics, because physics is an empirical science, built on measurement, but, do physicists even understand measurement and the logic behind it? I don’t think that they do, because they don’t understand the importance of relativity and further, that Einstein’s special theory of relativity was about the constant speed of light to the observer’s mind-brain, not about relativity in general. Fundamental physics tried to incorporate physics and the workings of the universe, but the search was abandoned a hundred years ago, because both they and I believe that it needs a new way of thinking.

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

Albert Einstein and many great thinkers …

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

Finding fundamental physics will answer a lot of enigmas and will surprise in its simplicity, but will come with several problems, firstly, I am reminded of the problems of overturning the geocentric theory [where the sun revolved around the earth] and Darwin’s evolution of humans and wonder whether people will accept a universe different to their assumed ‘real’ world. Secondly, not only will the physical ‘real’ world be challenged, the mental world will also, and will require a new way of thinking [“New Think”], and thirdly, relativity requires not only a fundamental physics based on energy [as physics is], but a new social science based on organisation that will produce the relative [social engineering] to materials engineering [technology] and is, I believe, a chance to solve our civilisation’s problems.

Relativity

Physics is based on energy and the law of conservation of energy is that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but what is this one thing called energy? Don’t say the Big Bang, for that is for children and if physics wants to bypass the workings of God, it has to acknowledge that energy has to have a relativity if it is to be created from nothing. That relativity I will call organisation, so that energy plus organisation equals zero and that is the fractal equation that, I believe, generates the universe. Notice that this ‘word’ equation generates a fractal and a new mathematics, that I call the mathematics of concept-context because energy and organisation are concepts, but they can be contexts and they can create a fractal composed of concepts and contexts and the generation of the fractal uses this new mathematics. In the creation equation [energy plus organisation equals zero], energy and organisation can be considered concepts and the ‘plus’ is the context, which is anything that can be considered, but in a measurement it will be given a value, because that is the purpose of measurement and the act of measurement is an organisation that creates an equal amount of energy in the mind of the measurer. It is important to remember that in the physical, energy and organisation cannot be measured because they are orthogonal [ninety degrees in Cartesian coordinates, independent but entangled at the origin] and can only be measured through a third entity, such as our mind-brain.

Affordances

Physics has been ‘doing its own thing’ completely separate to the physical, and when fundamental physics was needed, it found that it could not understand the physical. An example is the Michelson-Morley experiment that found that the speed of light was the same to the measurer’s mind-brain no matter how the measurer was moving. This was an enigma in peoples’ perception of a ‘real’ world and was used as a postulate by Einstein in his special theory of relativity that described the effects of measurement. However, the logic of the creation equation means that many postulates can be understood, such as how the mind functions [affordances] and when physics is expanded from merely measuring to be able to consider logic and organisation, the mathematics of concept-context shows the structure of the mind-brain etc.

‘Affordances are what the environment “offers the animal …. either for good or ill,” according to Gibson”. (This Idea Is Brilliant, edited by John Brockman, Daniel C. Dennett, p 147) ‘The huge gap in Gibson’s perspective was his refusal even to entertain the question of how this “direct pickup” of information was accomplished by the brain.’ (p 148) This “direct pickup” was answered above, where energy appears in the mind-brain of the observer and constitutes the energy of the measurement and we call it emotion and it happens whenever we view organisation in music, art, religion, parades etc. Another important issue is how the brain thinks, again using the creation equation, because a simple sugar [glucose] is burnt to supply energy and at the same time organisation [thinking] is created and the mind-brain, weighing 2% of body-weight consumes 20% of the body’s energy consumption, in the form of glucose. and thought is determined by a different equation a+b=0, where a, b and ‘+’ are whatever we want them to be because we are parasites and can do what we please.

Logic is a formidable working hypothesis, but it must be rooted in the physical, and is derived in the section Form of the Universe, but we are still left with the question of measurement and the last that I heard was the argument over ‘did the observer affect the experiment?’ in quantum mechanics. That question is answered in the aforementioned section because everything is entangled in, I believe, two ways, the first being the creation equation and the second in the context of the dimensions. The dimensions are orthogonal and independent [concepts], but overall, in the organisational solution, they must be connected [context]. Physics appears to have great difficulty with dimensions because ‘in physics and mathematics, the dimension of a mathematical space (or object) is informally [my emphasis] defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify any point within it.’ (Wikipedia, Dimensions) [Notice that I am using two sets of dimensions.]

Logic, Restrictions and Proverbs

A small digression to clarify entanglement, ‘two ways, the first being the creation equation and the second in the context of the dimensions’. Firstly, in a fractal, everything is similar [because of the simple generator]: the creation equation, orthogonality, the structure of the photon [shimmer of energy and organisation], mass [deBroglie waves, organisation], wave-particle duality etc. Secondly, the dimensions are orthogonal, as is everything in the form of the universe, as shown by Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, thirdly, by the restrictions [such as that the universe must be expanding so that the creation equation exists], fourthly, that the usage of Life over time produces ‘truths’, such as that everyone has an unbroken chain of ancestors over 3,000 million years, or, survival of the fittest etc.

Physics combines these necessities, measures them and says that such-and-such happens, but that is not the fundamental physics that explains ‘why things happen’. Physics is the concept of measurement and fundamental physics is the context of measurement, and as these are orthogonal, it is small wonder that physics cannot comprehend fundamental physics. Truly, a new way of thinking is needed to measure orthogonals, and that is what the mind-brain does. “New Think” uses the orthogonals of the physical, physics, relativity, logic and restrictions. Logic is not in the creation equation, but is the relativity of the restrictions and has infinite speed and this is a requirement for the universe to exist [Occam’s razor and the principle of least action must always be minima]. In other words, restrictions and its orthogonal, logic, have infinite speed because the universe can not exist unless they are always present [as minima] and while we may not easily recognise restrictions, this explains why the logic that we use daily, works for us. For example, quantum mechanics is measurement [context], but we cannot measure measurement unless we stand outside measurement and the creation equation makes that possible because it contains energy and organisation and our mind-brain can measure these orthogonals at the same time.

Information as organisation is limited to the speed of light as shown by the creation equation, but ‘quantum entangled particles . . . can remain correlated irrespective of the distance between them. This bizarre feature of the quantum world seems not to respect Einstein’s cosmic speed limit, for a particle in one place can instantaneously influence another, however far apart the two may be.’ (Life on the Edge, Jim Al-Khalili and Johnjoe McFadden, p 251) Notice that gravity is a concept but also a logical context of entanglement [non-local] as well as a local context of attraction.

Dimensions

The dimensions are the structure of the universe and yet they are ‘ informally [my emphasis] defined’ in physics, which suggests that physics may contain misconceptions, and one misconception is that physics actually considers the physical, because it does not. Newtonian physics, which is convenient to use, is an ‘armchair’ attempt to produce a useful tool to describe the visible world, but we are parasites that, at the moment, are little concerned with our treatment of our host, the environment, which has led to the world’s current problems. Physics must do more than measure, it must reengage the physical, as it tried to do a hundred years ago because within the creation equation is the ability to control ourselves, and that I call social engineering.

As an example, ‘Einstein’s . . . . E=mc2, which expresses the idea that energy and mass are equivalent (with c being the speed of light)’ (The Man Who Loved Only Numbers, Paul Hoffman, p 122) contains the view that ‘energy and mass are equivalent’, whereas they are, I believe, the opposite, independent yet entangled and the ‘=’ sign is misleading because we are trying to use mathematics. In the language of Cartesian coordinates, they are on different axes and are independent, and entangled at the origin. [E=mi2 is equivalence on the particle and E=mc2 is the view off the particle, see below.] In a fractal, everything is similar because the generating equation is simple, so, the wave-particle duality, in the macroscopic, becomes a ‘shimmer’ of possibilities [of particle and wave] in the photon and an expression of the creation equation [energy plus organisation equals zero]. These are concepts, not numbers, and need a new type of mathematics to express them, which I call the mathematics of concept-context that is evident from the creation equation.

However, I maintain that the universe is a fractal and a property of a fractal is that everything is similar, so, the ‘armchair musings’ of Newtonian physics must be similar to the derivation of the universe, and if this is true, it shows the same context, even if dissimilar concepts. So, relativity is all around us, and we can remove the relativity of energy and mass by a simple transformation, E/m=i2, which is a constant and this class of constants I call an ‘absolute’. Where E is energy and m is the organisation of energy in a condensed form, such as a neutron and c is a constant called the speed of light that is itself an absolute and i is the square root of -1 and is the creation equation, above [E=mi2 on the photon, and E=mc2 measured off the photon]. Other simple equations in physics are E=Fs, where E is energy, F is force and s is distance, E=hf, where f is frequency of a wave and h is Plank’s constant, F=kx, where F is force, x is extension and k is the spring constant, F=ma, where a is acceleration from Newton’s laws of motion and F=Gm1m2/R2 is the law of gravitation between two masses m1 and m2 separated by distance R and G is the gravitational constant.

Thus, physics takes (literally) nothing and divides it into two parts [a relativity] and creates the working of physics from those parts and the structure and form of physics comes from the ‘lack of relativity’ [a constant] created by the division of the relatives, and that should be clear from the examples [h,k, s etc.]. In other words, physics uses absolutes in the same way that the universe does, as is shown below. This is not surprising because a property of a fractal is that everything is similar. The numerous examples, that I have given, create the aura of elegance and good feeling that makes physics so appealing and I can prove this statement because measuring the organisation of physics generates emotion [energy] in the mind-brain according to the creation equation, for example, the satisfaction of knowing the physical bottom-up verses guessing top-down.

As above, the fractal is created from a concept becoming a concept and context and a context becoming a concept and a context and an example is energy as a concept and all the different types of energy as a context, and further, potential energy is a concept and a context of how high the mass is, extension of the spring, gravity at various points etc. Thus, a fractal is created, not of numbers, but of words and in particular, concepts and contexts that are the result of creating two entities from nothing and imposing the restriction that they be kept apart and the simplest way to do that is to require an expanding universe, which we have. More explicitly, this suggests that the knowable universe is moving out at the speed of light [third absolute] and the infill energy and organisation is presumably being created [second absolute] to balance. In other words, the universe is physical and mathematical, but overall, it is philosophical and described by concepts and contexts.

Measurement

The ‘Devil is in the detail’ and it is easy to not understand the complexity behind measurement because even Einstein believed that the universe is ‘real’ and pushed into modern physics using Newtonian physics by postulating ‘seeming absurdities’ that are part of the universe in which we live. His viewpoint was ‘top-down’, like everyone before him and he had no option but to postulate, such as the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment [the speed of light is constant to the mind-brain of the observer, no matter how they are moving] and other examples are the curvature of space by mass, the equivalence principle of gravitational and inertial mass and the wave-particle duality and relativity itself. If we measure something, the universe is cognisant of it also, which is a necessity because an organisational solution, as our universe is, is relative to the measurer.

Looking at these examples from physics, there is a pattern, and that pattern is of energy or force divided by an organisation which might be frequency of a wave, extension of a spring, the acceleration of a mass or the more complicated organisation of the centre of gravity of the earth and the diameter. In other words, physics in general has been simplified to a number of absolutes, and this occurs because, I believe, that the universe is a fractal based on the equation that energy plus organisation equals zero. This creation equation firstly, generates a fractal that must include generating physics because every part of a fractal is similar [Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” in economics that what is good for the individual is good for the economy], and secondly, requires a new mathematics of concept-context, of which mathematics is a special case.

Quantum Gravity

Newton apparently ‘inspire guessed’ the law of gravitation, and he might have done that using absolutes because it is well known that Galileo experimented with inclined planes and suggested that all masses fall at the same rate, a proposal that was counter-intuitive, and still is, but shows the simplicity behind the universe. This simplicity is shown by the gravitational constant g and F/m is acceleration a and must be the same, otherwise two solutions are possible, which could cause chaos [Occam’s razor must be minimal at all times, as must the principle of least action]. Thus, all masses fall at the same rate and the Equivalence principle is necessarily true that inertial and gravitational masses are equivalent.

In other words, Galileo established an absolute of gravitational force divided by the mass is a constant [the acceleration due to gravity], secondly, ‘by 1679, Hooke thought gravitation had inverse square dependence and communicated this in a letter to Isaac Newton my supposition is that the attraction always is in duplicate proportion to the distance from the center reciprocall.’ (Wikipedia) Notice the trials and tribulations of top-down thinking: ‘Hooke remained bitter about Newton claiming the invention of this principle, even though Newton’s 1686 Principia acknowledged that Hooke, along with Wren and Halley, had separately appreciated the inverse square law in the solar system, as well as giving some credit to Bullialdus’ (Wikipedia). Thus, Newtonian physics says that the absolute [force/mass] is proportional to the mass of the earth and the inverse square law. The inverse square law might be applicable to the radiation from a hot body, but there is relativity between the masses in this case and it needs the absolutes of the universe to sort it out. The law of gravitation is thus, that the attraction between two bodies is proportional to the product of the masses divided by the square of the separation. Compare this to the explanation below, that the attraction is the product [relativity] of two constants [(energy plus organisation) divided by the separation] from quantum gravity, below.

Firstly, the above shows the importance of absolutes in physics, secondly, that the inverse square law was a guess and is, see below, a product of the measurement of the absolutes [quantum gravity]. Thirdly, it was only after a number of years that Einstein doubled the gravitational effect by also attributing it to the curvature of space, whereas, I maintain that it is the effect of the organisation and that space is simple, not curved. Fourthly, energy plus organisation is zero and requires an expanding universe, whereas, in the constants [energy divided by the separation plus organisation divided by the separation] give twice the value of Newton’s equation because both exist, but the shimmer of the logic of the wave-particle duopoly means that only one [of the two possibilities] exists at one time.

“New Think”

Bringing the physical, Newtonian physics and fundamental physics together is not difficult if we use relativity, which is preferable to the edict of quantum mechanics that appears to be ‘use it, but don’t question it’. Similar applies at wormholes in physics in general and explanations can be attached to cases such as the equation of gravity, which is no longer a law because it is derived from first principles, and the same could be said of the creation equation, formally known as the law of conservation of energy. A correct interpretation for fundamental physics is important, but the orthogonality of organisation allows a complete social science which leads to social engineering of ourselves and our society. It brings together the ‘softer’ sciences and gives them the rigour of a physical base through the creation equation, and allows us to attempt to structure society as we did with stone tools, farming, governance, religion etc.

Life is a parasite on the environment and can do as it pleases and I am suggesting a new way of thinking that accesses the physical [“New Think”], but this concept must have a context, and I call this context general mathematical physics that includes everything. In other words, I am using the entanglement of everything and calling it general mathematical physics. This amalgamation appears to be sought, according to the following quotation. ‘For scholars and intellectuals it also promises to provide a scientific holy grail that has eluded us for centuries: a single overarching theory that unifies all the scientific disciplines from musicology through economics to biology. . . . It gives all scientists a common language, builds bridges over academic rifts and easily exports insights across disciplinary borders.’ (Homo Deus, Yuval Noah Harari, p 428) The quotation was actually about ‘Data Religion’, but I hijacked it because I believe that the analytical linking of disciplines is inclusive of the data and it shows the inadvisability of silo-ing in universities.

As an example, music, like physics and the universe is created the same way [by absolutes] and in particular, an infinite set of vibration [like energy and organisation] of a string is divided , or multiplied by two, three etc. to give the octave, thirds etc. with the restriction that middle C must be specified [as a frequency] for musicians to play together. In economics, the mathematics of concept-context describes the market [and democracy in philosophy] and in biology, relativity says that the genes [atoms, energy] have an organisation that I call orgenes [organisational genes] that equates to epigenetics.

Social Engineering

Physics forms the basis of materials engineering and technology which produces a marvellous lifestyle for many people, but if we move into fundamental physics, we find difficulties because physics, and thus fundamental physics, at present, do not access the physical. The change from the passive energy cannot be created or destroyed to the equation energy plus organisation equals zero generates a fractal that we call the universe and unlocks a discipline called social science that leads to social engineering and that is the ‘mirror image’ [orthogonal] to technology. At the moment, social science exists as a scattering of disciplines that suffer from the same problem as fundamental physics in not accessing the physical. For example, emotion [energy] is generated in the mind-brain when the organisation behind religion, art, music etc. is appreciated. However, it is crucial that the social sciences should access the physical because they depend on emotion in their dealings and emotional energy is generated by organisation. Social engineering hardly exists at the moment, and needs to access the physical to provide a base from which to operate and further, we need to know what we are doing. Negative examples abound, as in wartime, ethic cleansing and genocide etc. and on the personal level, murder, robberies etc.

The purpose of social engineering is, for us, similar to materials engineering and that is to engineer people voluntarily, genetically and mentally to become better citizens and to set attainable goals because relativity says that there must be a goal. Religion has an emotional effect on a lot of people because of the Bible stories, churches, robes, hymns etc., as does the state’s monumental buildings, parades, uniforms etc. and this is a reaction to measuring the organisation. Relativity requires us to set goals or we follow unsustainable aims like trying to feed an ever-growing population and thereby endangering civilisation

The Universe That We Live In

I now understand why Newtonian physics [F/m=a] works, because it uses the absolutes that align with the fractal, but it does not access the actual physical absolutes [F/m=a versus E/m=i2] and that needs to happen as in the section “New Think”, but first consider how easy fundamental physics becomes when considered bottom-up. The gravitational force on two masses is the product of their absolutes [mass/separation and organisation/separation], which are constants, but when released, to in-fall, the absolute [attraction F/m] is the same, because it is a constant. ‘Albert Einstein developed his general theory of relativity starting with the assumption of the intentionality of correspondence between inertial and passive gravitational mass, and that no experiment will ever detect a difference between them, in essence the equivalence principle.’ (Wikipedia) The Equivalence principle wonders whether the gravitational and moving inertia are the same and, of course they are the same because everything is unchanged and everything is described by constants and those constants must be minima [Occam’s razor]. That is the simplicity of the physical.

Let’s look at measurement and in the gravity equation it is the product [multiplication] of two constants, which means one mass is measuring the other and vice versa. This does not happen in a ‘real’ world that we have considered our world to be, up until this point. The universe that we live in is an organisation where everything is entangled and the universe is involved in every measurement. It is somewhat like Christianity says, that God knows everything, every action, every thought. This is the reason for the squares in Pythagoras’ theorem: we measure the length of a side and the side measures being measured through relativity and ‘tells’ the universe of the measurement by increasing the organisation, that now contains the measurer, that corresponds to the energy that appears as emotion in the measurer’s mind.

If this is hard to believe, let’s take another simple example, that of E=mc2. It is pretty obvious that mass is a condensation [organisation] of energy, but why the c [speed of light] and the square? The wave-particle duality is that there is no basic difference between the energy of a wave and a particle, and they show relativity and in a fractal, all levels exhibit this form. Thus the photon is the ‘shimmer’ of wave [energy] and particle [organisation] that is so frequent that it doesn’t affect the workings and adds variation [Occam’s razor and the principle of least action must be minimal and both must be represented]. The absolute of the dimensions says that the photon travels at ‘c’ when measured, so the measurement that I make is ‘c’ and the relativity to the universe is ‘c’ and the absolute E/m is c squared. As above, E=mi2 on the photon and E=mc2 off the photon, but the mind-brain must measure because E and m are independent, but entangled [at zero, which generates Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle by testing an orthogonality].

Quantum Gravity Continued

Consider the quotation, ‘it is widely hoped that a theory of quantum gravity would allow us to understand problems of very high energy and very small dimensions of space, such as the behavior of black holes, and the origin of the universe.’ (Wikipedia, Quantum gravity) Much work is being done in this area, but in a fractal everything is simple and that I have indicated above, and what I call quantum gravity is shown above in the derivation of the gravity equation. It is interesting that Newton’s Universal law of gravitation has never been derived from first principle, until now [‘This is a general physical law derived from empirical observations by what Isaac Newton called inductive reasoning.’ (Wikipedia, Newton’s Universal law of gravitation)], nor can it ever be proven unless an extra term is included. Einstein doubled the effect by postulating the effect of ‘curved space’. Notice that curved space is an organisation that exactly matches the organisation that I am proposing, but which comes from understanding the fundamental effect of relativity in the latter.

Complicated subatomic and relational theories abound in physics with a multitude of dimensions whereas I am using two sets of dimensions. Physics is, I believe, incomplete and the quantum gravity that I propose is the only complete solution, no matter how the variables of energy, organisation [including gravity], distance and time change. If these complicated theories cannot even derive the simple gravity equation, what good are they? Further, these complicated theories neglect relativity [sideways] and the bottom-up and top-down organisation [vertical] that I am proposing in “New Think” [concept] and general mathematical physics [concept] that brings together all of the academic disciplines through wormholes is indicated below.

Wormholes

Wormholes in space are a favourite with science fiction writers who want to ‘get around’ the absolutes of the speed of light and the simple space-time, but it may be possible in other areas and I believe that they are all around us and link the physical with physics. This is to realise that physics does not actually use the physical, but uses an ‘armchair’ version called Newtonian physics and the concept of wormholes, that I am using, is where the physical, behind the creation of the universe, meets, and is used by physics. I am not going to try to force the physical on the reader, but the wormholes show the underlying principles of measurement and measurement is enigmatic in physics, but necessary in the physical.

A Test Run

Continuing with quantum gravity, the attraction is a constant at extreme distance [gravity] and at very short distances the attractions become huge in the nucleus and exhibit organisational solutions through the quarks, which explains why they are not found on their own. If the universe is a fractal, derived from the creation equation, everything is simple and could well be as I say, but if my theory is correct, there will be no enigmas, and one enigma haunted Newton and no explanation appears to have been put forward since, so, I will present a simple explanation for diffraction. The bending of a light beam is, like a flower, more severe at the edges of the hole and is caused by quantum gravity, just as a photon is bent by passing a massive object, such as a star.

There are stories that Einstein imagined riding on a photon, so, the creation equation becomes E/m=i2, on the photon, where ‘i’ is the square root of -1, and outside of the photon, the third absolute says that the speed of a photon is ‘c’, so the measurement is ‘c squared’, and, E=mc2. This derivation could be called Einstein’s triviality, but it ties in nicely with what I am saying. I mean no disrespect of Einstein’s work, ‘he took as his starting point what Poincare, Lorentz, and other leading physicists had, earlier in the game, been working painstakingly to prove.’ (Einstein’s Clocks, Poincare’ Maps, Peter Galison, p 294) Einstein ‘stood’ in Newtonian physics and pushed against the boundaries of modern physics, but I believe that it needs a new approach and the one that I am suggesting seems appropriate.

I, like everyone else was baffled by the thought of mass, time and length changing, in Einstein’s special theory of relativity, but in using absolutes [that cannot change, such as the speed of light], they must change, the equation E=mc2 becomes a triviality, gravity is the product [relativity] of absolutes and Born’s rule, Pythagoras’ theorem etc. are the relativity of measurement [the square rule]. It is easy when a simpler way is found, however, the social engineering that arises from the creation equation gives us a chance to make a ‘new’ world for ourselves and that is the important and potentially massive innovation that should equate with technology.

There remains the problem of ‘how powerful is “New Think”?’. As in religion, where belief underlies acceptance, do we believe? Are the rewards of religion and “New Think” great enough? How do we measure the benefit? Consider, ‘in number theory, Fermat’s Last Theorem (sometimes called Fermat‘s conjecture, especially in older texts) states that no three positive integers a, b, and c satisfy the equation a n + b n = c n for any integer value of n greater than 2.’ (Internet) If this is true for n=2, a right angle exists and the above derivation of measurement becomes true that a single unique minimum is required for both energy and organisation [Occam’s razor and the principle of least action] and that proves that Fermat’s Last Theorem is true and also shows why a general interconnected mathematical physics is necessary. That is a physics solution, using “New Think” that possibly equates to Andrew Wiles 200 page mathematics proof ‘which threw the entire kitchen sink of complex twentieth-century techniques at the problem’ (The Man Who Loved Only Numbers, Paul Hoffman, p 199)

Conclusion and Prediction

Consider the importance of Pythagoras’ theorem in modern mathematics, ‘the theorem has been given numerous proofs – possibly the most for any mathematical theorem. They are very diverse, including both geometric proofs and algebraic proofs, with some dating back thousands of years. The theorem can be generalized in various ways, including higher-dimensional spaces, to spaces that are not Euclidean, to objects that are not right triangles, and indeed, to objects that are not triangles at all, but n-dimensional solids. The Pythagorean theorem has attracted interest outside mathematics as a symbol of mathematical abstruseness, mystique, or intellectual power; popular references in literature, plays, musicals, songs, stamps and cartoons abound.’ (Wikipedia, Pythagorean theorem)

Wormholes are created at numerous points according to the quotation, and this is why it is necessary to use “New Think” and general mathematical physics to find the easy solutions that lie in the physical that solve the problems that are occurring in other top-down disciplines.

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], secondly, energy and organisation are necessarily created to balance the necessary expansion [for the creation equation to exist] of the universe [E/t+O/t, all volume], thirdly, the constant speed of light [with respect to any measurer] is l/t (all E and O) and fourthly, gravity [so called quantum gravity] is E/l+O/l (all t). The law of gravitation is:

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

Notice that the ‘inverse square law’, 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. Further, ‘today physicists feel confident that this set – gravity, electromagnetism, the weak force, and the strong force – represent the full complement of our physical universe. But what really began to excite them was the idea that all four might be just different aspects of a single overarching force – a kind of unifying super-force.’ (The Pearly Gates Of Cyberspace, Margaret Wertheim, p 211) This refers to the quantum gravity above, which is a single absolute, not a force and, I believe, explains everything from quarks to gravity. Electromagnetism is similar to the macroscopic wave-particle duality expressed as wave [energy] and particle [organisation] alternating.

‘As with the Schrodinger equation itself, we still have no fundamental way of deriving Born’s rule.’ (Beyond Weird, Phillip Ball, p 41) This is not surprising because Born’s rule requires the same derivation as the law of gravitation. ‘If the amplitude of an electron wavefunction at x is 1 (in some units), and at y it is 2, then repeated experiments to determine the electron’s position will find it at y four times (2×2) more often than at x…. How did Born know this? He didn’t. Again, he “guessed”’. (p 41). In every oscillation between a wave and particle [wave-particle duality], the particle has to reappear somewhere, and it appears with a probability dependant on the square of the amplitude of the wave because, as quantum gravity [absolute (4)] varies inversely as the separation, relativity requires the inverse square law [or the square law, in this case] and there is obviously relativity between the wave and particle.

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

If there is a creation equation, as I propose, the universe must be a fractal and everything in it must conform to certain simple rules. Adam Smith was the first to realise this in Economics, where an ‘invisible hand’ works so that what is good for the individual, is good for the economy. Clearly everything shows this form of the universe in its use and as an example, let’s look at Euler’s equation, which is claimed by Mathematics as the enigmatic relationship between the fundamental mathematical quantities pi, e, i, 1 and 0, though what 1 has to do with the others appears a little strange. However, as a description of the physical universe, it makes more sense because it determines the form of the universe [(e to the power i times pi +1) = 0 can be written (e to the power i times pi + e to the power 0) = 0, which is an expression of orthogonality and describes an expanding [e, simple interest expansion] sphere [pi] from 0 symmetrical [i] through the centre]. This ‘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 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. Newton’s laws of motion, Einstein’s theory and Maxwell’s equations all hide organisation and that obscures the picture, for example, magnetism is an organisation that registers the relativity between a charged particle and the measurer as can be seen by its odd behaviour [sign depends on direction, magnitude on speed].

Measuring organisation such as beauty, music, religion, buildings and parades etc. creates energy that we release as laughter, in extreme cases [good joke], dance energy [foot-tapping] or just feeling emotional energy of appreciation [Mona Lisa painting possibly due to the golden triangle ratios]. Thus, social engineering is necessarily orthogonal to material engineering and is the key to controlling our civilisation and preventing a (so far) inevitable break-down. 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.

Conclusion: saving our civilisation would be a great feat because it would be the first in history to do so, and social engineering is the key, but it needs “New Think” and the romance of an Indiana Jones to put it into effect before it is too late. It is not hard because in a fractal, as Adam Smith [“invisible hand” in economics] found, the individual, family, business, country etc. all work the same way, but people hate change, and the reason is that, I believe, at the moment, it is a ‘leap of faith’, whereas with social engineering, it is logical.

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