Why Are Physicists So Mentally Challenged?

by Darryl Penney

Abstract:: society and the environment are being endangered by our lack of ability to understand organisation, the same lack that physics is living with by not accessing the physical and so being unable to progress with ‘modern’ physics theory. Physics appears to have stifled research into these areas for the last hundred years, but now a new extension to physics is proposed that includes the physical and organisation that makes sense of thinking, emotion, gravitational attraction, magnetism and all the other enigmas that Newtonian physics has caused. As a result of this inability to progress, it seems sensible to propose a new complete bionic Homo completus in place of the Homo sapiens [more vain than wise] that is unable to understand society, how to fix it or make it symbiotic with the environment.

Preface

The traditional way of ‘dumbing-down’ a section of the community is to restrict information and it is difficult to believe that the ‘cutting-edge’ of research has been ‘blunted’ in this way at huge cost to society. Whether this ‘dumbing-down’ was done by a few for their own benefit, the result of the lack of intelligence of Homo sapiens in general, or the bureaucratic carrying on with the ‘shutting-down’ of modern physics that was started a hundred years ago is debatable. Probably, in fairness, the physics bureaucracy is waiting for a new approach to physics and realises that it can not come from the teaching of the universities, or from someone with a career in physics, or indeed, from any physicist because physics is built on voting what to accept, not on the physical, and physics needs to be re-built from the bottom up [concept] but dovetailing [context] with society in general. This is a big ask, but possible because I am not a practising physicist and am outside of the influences of the discipline.

The pity is that physics is incomplete and hiding organisation that is sorely needed to rationally organise our society and the so-called ‘softer’ sciences and the only reason that they are ‘softer’ is because physics is [inadvertently] hiding rational management. Physics is ‘bathing in the glory’ that rightfully belongs to technology, because the theoretical base of physics is suspect and physics cannot fix it from within because it’s management [organisation] is not rational, so, using the rational management [context] that comes from this ‘new’ physics to ‘create an orthogonality’, progress can be made, if physics will accept it. To do this, I need to point out that the concept of thinking is being held back by the problems in the structure of physics because the construction of physics is withholding the context of thinking.

Thinking involves measurements that operate under the same restrictions as the physical construct of the wave-particle duality because we can only separate concept and context, being orthogonal [independent but entangled], if the measurer is cognisant of both. Both are always present because that is the form of the fractal that the universe is built upon [the creation equation] and the fractal that is generated shows that intelligence and knowledge obey the creation equation. In other words, intelligence and knowledge are ‘lock-stepped together and restricting knowledge restricts intelligence and at the same time, a small brain [or poor software] cannot use a wide field of knowledge. This may seem trivial, but is profound because it is the creation equation and science is supposed to simplify.

The ancient Greeks produced a science that lasted for 2,000 years, but, sadly, could not produce a civilisation that continued for very long before being destroyed. The Renaissance sought to build on the Greek-Roman empire and reintroduced art whilst science was rebuilt as Newtonian physics and that civilisation has continued until today, but it is unstable and is destroying itself through lack of control of it’s population and resources. Unfortunately, we still do not understand art, Newtonian physics does not access the physical and we have not answered Socrates’ questions, and further, our [world-wide] civilisation is threatened by over-population, over-consumption and a complete lack of knowing what to do about it.

The problem starts with calling ourselves Homo sapiens [wise man] that is ludicrously conceited because technology is not wisdom, indeed, the concept of wisdom is meaningless without the context of wisdom and that relativity is the very beginning of what I am putting forward here.. Relativity requires that whatever we do, it must be be relative to a goal and we must use the physical, not the comfortable view of a universe that we have built in our ignorance, so, expect surprises.

Introduction

It all started with technology [farming] that moved us out of the organisation of survival of the fittest and into our own organisation using technology. Firstly the ancient Greeks, then the Renaissance and Newtonian physics allowed us to think that we understand nature, which worked so well that no one dared tinker with it, even though it does not access the physical and is so simple that it cannot describe many common conditions, such as ‘what is emotion?’, ‘how do we think?’, ‘what is laughter?’ and so on.

Einstein used Newtonian physics and tried to extend it with the wave-particle duality and ‘curved space’, which encompasses an acceleration that produces gravity, but is a long way from the accelerating universe, see below. Quantum mechanics was the ‘final straw’ and physics had to say ‘use quantum mechanics, but don’t try to understand it’ and discouraged research, presumably because the tools needed for understanding were not available. The model below, is, I believe, what physics needs to rebuild itself on a new foundation, and that foundation produces a new way of thinking because it adds more dimensions to the software that we use in the brain.

Intelligence is a concept of thinking, together with the context of knowledge. This is not a simple statement [see Form of the Universe, below] because, for a universe to be constructed from nothing, two concepts must be created that are orthogonal and remain existing [which requires an accelerating separation] and can only be measured [recognised] by a second measurer that is outside of the universe [Life is a possible parasite or symbiote on the universe] and measures those concepts [affordances]. To explain affordances, ‘psychologist James J. Gibson developed the concept of affordance over many years, culminating in his final book The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception in 1979. He defined an affordance as what the environment provides or furnishes the animal. . . . The key to understanding affordance is that it is relational and characterizes the suitability of the environment to the observer, and so, depends on their current intentions and their capabilities. . . . This notion of intention/needs is critical to an understanding of affordance, as it explains how the same aspect of the environment can provide different affordances to different people, and even to the same individual at another point in time. ‘(Wikipedia, Affordance)

The multiple needs of affordances are met by considering the fractal created from nothing using orthogonality [independence with entanglement] where the organisation [concept] sought by the measurer appears as an energy in the measurer’s mind-brain because the measurer has intruded into the scope of the environment and changed it’s organisation to include the measurer [This is the answer to whether the observer influences the experiment.]. Also, the questions above, “such as ‘what is emotion?’, ‘how do we think?’, ‘what is laughter?’ and so on” are answered because emotion is the energy produced by measuring the organisation of art, music etc. How we think is [simply] to compare the emotion attached to each of the measures of concepts and laughter is the release of energy when the punch-line reorganises the organisation of the content of the joke. Affordances, like everything, are the product of the creation equation energy plus organisation equals zero with the restriction that the space must be accelerating to keep the two concepts from meeting. This is the theory or equation of everything because it creates a fractal universe and generates everything within it, and in particular a complete physics because it contains organisation explicitly.

A New Physics

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, 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. 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 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 are 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 line, area, volume and hyper-volume is similar to what happens to our thinking in this model.

What is Thinking?

Thinking is very simple and is based on relativity, which should not surprise because everything is based on relativity through the creation equation. The definition of affordance above, is the top-down description of relativity as afforded by the creation equation and the physics of thinking is simply the comparisons of the energy generated by measuring two concepts and deciding which is larger. Thus, thinking involves the comparison of concepts and I call this process the mathematics of concept-context that is simply derived from the creation equation and reflects the relativity that is found everywhere.

Conclusion

To define the thinking of a Homo completus we need to consider an orthogonality of relativities, firstly, relativity itself [sideways] as comparison or goals and secondly, logical relativity as top-down and bottom-up organisation. Thus physics, with it’s top-down organisation and little relativity could be compared to Homo sapiens, whilst Homo completus uses organisation that extends physics to general mathematical physics which is the context of the concept of a new way of thinking. Further, a general mathematical physics is the entanglement of everything including the relativity of materials engineering [technology] and social engineering that shows that both are ‘hard’ sciences based on the creation equation. In particular, social engineering has been hidden and is what we need to use to understand the working of society and is the means of control that we currently lack that is jeopardising our future civilisation.

An Example

Consider the quotation ‘despite the fact that we have yet to determine the theoretical underpinnings of inflation, and that inflation happened a long time ago, it leads to testable predictions, which have convinced most of us that inflation, or something very similar to inflation, has occurred.’ (Dark Matter And The Dinosaurs, Lisa Randell, p 51) Clearly, there is a demand for a model that explains that inflation is still going on and will always ‘go on’ ,forever, and that ‘dark energy fits the bill’ (p 23) is possibly far wide of the mark, so, I will use this new model, below, to try to give a simpler explanation of [a couple of aspects of] cosmology’s version of the creation of the universe as outlined in Dark Matter And The Dinosaurs.

Cosmology found that ‘the standard Big Bang theory of an expanding, cooling, aging Universe. . . is remarkably successful, but it’s not the whole story. Cosmological inflation occurred before the standard Big Bang evolution took over. . . . Once inflation ended – also only a fraction of a second into the Universe’s evolution – it left behind a large, smooth, flat homogeneous Universe whose later evolution is predicted by the traditional Big Bang theory.’ (p 47) ‘Inflation diluted away the initial matter and radiation as the rapid cooling sent the temperature very close to zero. Hot matter was reintroduced only when inflation ended and the energy driving inflation was converted to a tremendous number of elementary particles’ (p 48) These elementary particles are assumed to be composed of matter and antimatter and leads to ‘matter-antimatter asymmetry’ (p 29), ‘we are left with matter – that five percent of the Universe’s energy’ (p 28) ‘Dark energy also remains constant over time’ (p 8), but, ‘observations led to the remarkable conclusion that some unanticipated energy source was accelerating the rate of the Universe’s expansion. Dark energy fits the bill’. (p 23) Add to this that the law of gravitation is only a guess and it becomes apparent that a new theory is needed.

From below, both the magnitude and form of [what we call] gravity is the effect of the acceleration of the space in which the universe is contained and it applies to every concept at a point, that is, mass, energy and organisation. The reason why the the universe has to expand is a restriction on the existence of the creation equation and the form of the acceleration is dictated by the absolutes, one being that the speed of light is constant [see below] and the acceleration is a hyperbola of a constant divided by time. Clearly, near the creation [time zero], the expansion is infinite dropping down, but never reaching zero, with time. This satisfies cosmic inflation and the slowing, but never zero acceleration of the universe. [see the currently unpublished paper Why Solving Cosmic Inflation Could Change Your Mind]

I should point out the similarities derived from measurement: inflation is necessary, energy suddenly appears, ‘energy driving inflation’ is undefined, ‘tremendous number of elementary particles’ is the fractal growth, ‘matter and antimatter’ is unjustified because a fractal creates simplicity and similarity in growth, ‘dark energy also remains constant over time’ but now ‘some unanticipated energy source’ is increasing the acceleration of the universe, and so on with gravity etc. Clearly, this is an example of top-down organisation using unrelated elements to create a system.

Overview: clearly physics, in restricting itself to energy, has neglected organisation and logic, and in the latter is, I believe, the explanation of the wave-particle duality [the logic of the half-truth is true, false, true and false at the same time and chaos] and the orthogonality of which uses the same logic as concept-context as well as energy-organisation. This says that a generalist and specialist do not think the same way and that is why I have to reference [as a relativity] Lisa Randall’s book. This new way of thinking requires specialists and generalists to collaborate because, if they do not, this paper becomes necessary [to put it in the nicest possible terms, things go awry].

Clearly, physics, mathematics, philosophy etc. need rebuilding and a new Homo completus must be the aim and outcome to produce a truly stable civilised culture that extraterrestrials might want to visit. Further, I cannot reference the current situation of Homo sapiens without introducing a Homo completus [relativity] that could become a goal, especially considering that the internet adds another dimension [bionic; biology and electronic] to the mathematics, above.

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.