Chapter 105: The Basis of Jurisprudence

By Darryl Penney

General: I have to go to court and face a trial with a maximum penalty of two years jail for gun-storage that was regularly inspected by police. Clearly, the justice system has broken down in spite of the court of equity being added to the court of law [fusion] in a muddled attempt to fix this type of problem. The justice system needs to be reorganised and be made complete by adding bottom-up organisation to the current top-down attempt. The universe is based on orthogonality [independence with entanglement] for its construction and is different to our notions of logic, but it does explain why things have to happen if we are to live in this universe and its use creates a complete ‘general jurisprudence’. [‘Jurisprudence or legal theory is the theoretical study of law, principally by philosophers but, from the twentieth century, also by social scientists. Scholars of jurisprudence, also known as jurists or legal theorists, hope to obtain a deeper understanding of legal reasoning, legal systems, legal institutions, and the role of law in society.’ (Wikipedia, Jurisprudence)]

Firstly, the government and judiciary are orthogonal, as are each with the police, and they are standing in place of the parent [in loco parentis] and thus, must do the best for the offspring to survive and secondly, agree with each other about what is told to the offspring [logic of evolution]. Thirdly, the gun storage law is not relative [opposite/orthogonality of orthogonality and not recognised] and is thus not a ‘proper’/relative law and fourthly, the orthogonality of the specialist and generalist is (possibly) shown by this case because our mind/brain is limited in scope. In other words, everything in the universe must be relative to the physical structure of the universe and that structure is not what we think that it is.

When a ‘general jurisprudence’ is created by adding bottom-up and top-down orthogonality to the law/equity orthogonality, plus general mathematical physics, there is hope/possibility to organise the world through the use of class actions through the international court to force precedents on governments’ law-making and so guide humanity to solve the world’s over-population etc. problems.

Abstract: law is an orthogonality of both the physical and Life because Life arose from and is entwined with the physical. The continuance of Life requires an enigmatic orgene [organisational gene] that requires parents to illogically accept added competition and this becomes part of the logic of organisational physics. Law must obey the principle of relativity and be based on the orthogonality of the mathematics of concept/context and organisational physics [to make general mathematical physics] as well as the orthogonalities of society and parenting. The word ‘equity’ is a misnomer, as it is currently used, and the court of equity is shown to benefit the ruler and his position, in the main instance and benefit the person inadvertently so as to keep them more content with the outcome. The creation equation generates a simple fractal/probability space and the governance of our society reflects the parenting in evolution [in loco parentis] as would be expected in a fractal. This fractalness shows that the government and judiciary are orthogonal, with the police orthogonal to both, and that each stands in loco parentis to the population and that they have a responsibility to agree on the laws that either, can make, or change. This relativity/orthogonality aligns with the physics of the universe that requires a different logic to what we normally use. The case considered shows the basic design/method of creating sensible laws and their applicability based on the principle of relativity and the organisational physics of the universe. Further, suggestions are made to overcome the apparent inability of society to manage/organise the world’s society and an example is made that the judiciary, through class actions, could supply the context that is the missing link in politics and the universities

Part 1: Fundamentals

‘In current English, a “whipping boy” is a metaphor which may have a similar meaning to scapegoat, fall guy, or sacrificial lamb; alternatively it may mean a perennial loser or a victim of group bullying.’ (Wikipedia, Whipping boy) It appears that I am being so used by Senior constable Craig Barlow in his avowed effort to not allow any gun to be stolen and in my case I am being prosecuted for not keeping a ‘pea rifle’/’rabbit gun’ in a 150 kilogram safe even though the method used [lockable toolbox solidly bolted to a support and the rifle-bolt kept separate] was requested and inspected by Batemans Bay police several times over the years.

It appears that I am facing a maximum sentence of two years jail as a ‘whipping boy’ being used in a possible internal police ‘whistle blowing’ exercise (possibly) designed to force the police to adhere to a law that is (possibly) excessive for a farm ‘pea rifle’ and designed for the larger calibres. A simple solution is given in chapter 103 as an example using general mathematical physics and it is possible that the ‘manoeuvring’ that underlies this case is a reflection of the orthogonality/independence of government, judiciary and police. Senior constable Craig Barlow’s ‘hands appear to be tied’ in respect of having to press charges until he gets a change in the law, or a precedent from a court. In other words, Senior constable Craig Barlow is setting in motion a procedure to investigate what he sees as conflicts/errors in the law and wants them solved/legitimised.

How many innocent farmers have been caught in this situation by doing as the police instructed? Why was the simple solution, as given in chapter 103 not implemented? The cause, I believe, lies in the orthogonality of government, judiciary and police and not recognising the definition of orthogonality. The three arms of governance are considered to be independent, but the definition of orthogonality is independence [of two] with entanglement and as will be shown below, to comprise concept and context [entanglement] and is part of the underlying physics of the universe [organisational physics] and not the made-up independence that we ascribe to governance. This is an extremely important point and shows that the three arms of governance must have entanglement and that entanglement is that both the government and judiciary can make laws that must reflect the same outcomes [in loco parentis].

I have prepared this defence using law and in particular the venerable and well known law, in loco parentis. I am not considering the law as it has stood for thousands of years, but am adding an orthogonality to it to make it complete, also I am pleading this case myself because orthogonality is not new [Cartesian coordinates] but is generally unknown as being basic to everything. It will also be shown, using in loco parentis that there is an orthogonality in law and evolution [principle of relativity], so, what is true in law is true in evolution and vice versa. I can say this because governance is orthogonal [government, judiciary and police] and in some courts, law and equity have been ‘fused’, but still retain their orthogonality/independence [fusion fallacy].

This (alleged) fact of orthogonality in governance is welcome news because it means that governance aligns with the physics of the universe [organisational physics] and allows unique solutions through the general mathematical physics. This is important because traditional mathematics and Newtonian physics are based on man-made logic that is at odds with the physical world and, in particular, because of its universality, both disciplines are special cases of general mathematical physics. Thirdly, as the amount of knowledge accumulated by humans increases, it becomes increasing apparent that a relativity between specialist and generalist is emerging that is jeopardising the legitimacy of decisions and so requires a ‘team effort’, where the team is adequately represented by specialist and generalist (see chapter 102)

The universe is a simple place, as should be expected from the creation equation (1+(-1))=0 with its orthogonality and relativity and further, that the physical possibility [of chemistry] leads to the creation of Life that evolved the mind/brain from the probability space (a+b)=1, for all a and b. From chapter 97, ‘in a probability/fractal space, the Principle of Relativity is that everything is relative to something else (1+(-1))=0, except for the conservation of total energy, the speed of electromagnetic waves in a vacuum and the increase in energy/organisation per unit of newly created space [dark energy].’ The instability of the equation requires the continual expansion of the universe [which occurs] and that expansion determines the dimensions, and the ratios of the dimensions necessarily become ‘absolutes’.

Life is a parasite that has created thought in the form of organisation/concepts a and b [mathematics of concept/context] and is one of the possibilities of the creation equation which builds on the first orthogonality of energy (1) and organisation (-1) which can be done because (1+(-1))=0 is also a fractal/probability space/generator [the equation is only stable with an expanding universe, which we have]. Orthogonality is the result/producer of relativity and consists of vertical and horizontal forms as well as concept and context that presents as a single concept that is equal to an infinite sequence. An example of the latter, from chapter 102, ‘mathematics is a case in point and contains the enigma that the constants can all be expressed in infinite series [e, pi etc. and all these are related by Euler’s equation (chapter 98)]. Clearly, this is an orthogonality of exact versus infinite series and this equates to the basic/first orthogonality [energy/organisation] in that energy is exact and organisation is an infinite series that is efficient ‘in the limit’ [evolution].’

An example of vertical and horizontal forms is the generations of organisms [parents and offspring] where the parents are themselves orthogonal [men, women] as are the children [brothers, sisters] and this concept has been extended [as a context] over 3,000 million years [evolution]. Thus, it is no surprise that the family structure has been extended in this form to the governance of communities and in particular, defines our modern orthogonality/independence of government, judiciary and police, and further, even to religion with God the Father. Orthogonality is independence combined with entanglement and is a feature of organisational physics [based on the universe] and is different to Newtonian physics and traditional mathematics that are human constructions and special cases of general mathematical physics. An example is the Cartesian coordinate system where the X-Y axes are said to be orthogonal/independent, but ignores the case at (0, 0) where there is entanglement where the axes join together.

Further, the fact that parents firstly, expend the energy to produce offspring, that will secondly, compete with them, thirdly, actively feed them and teach over a considerable time, the skills to compete is what I call an ‘orgene’. This is an organisational ‘gene’ or function that is detrimental to the parent’s well-being and not in their immediate interest, but is a concept that is necessary for the perpetuation of the species. In other words, it is a function that is costly and altruistic but is inbred for thousands of million years. Clearly, only those organisms having this ‘orgene’ would pass it to the next generation [thus highly heritable] and this forms the basis to the formation of Life. In other words, for life to exist, organisational physics contains the requirement of the parent.

From chapter 102, ‘postscript: it is with great surprise and pleasure that I find the essence of the above ‘alive and well’, though unrecognised, in governance [government, police and law are orthogonal/independent] and again in the court of law [fusion of law and equity]. It is also a surprise that the law, with a pedigree as old as mathematics and science and a reputation of being old-fashion/staid is based on the same system that I believe mathematical physics should be using in being in the forefront of technology.’ The law, as practiced, is top-down and needs to consider the logic of organisational physics to be complete and this derivation is a ‘case in point’.

Senior constable Craig Barlow has brought two charges (1) not kept firearm safely, and (2) not having approved storage, against me and I will show that those charges have no relevance to me and that I am being used, necessarily, for him to gain entrance into a Court that excludes him in his official capacity. In other words, it is possible that senior constable Craig Barlow is using me as an excuse [whipping boy] to gain entrance to a court to ‘whistle blow’ a police matter and I have been warned to get a solicitor and hope for a good behaviour bond. If this is normal behaviour, there is something very wrong with the governance system.

I will show that those charges have no relevance to me because the Batemans Bay police are standing in loco parentis for me. The relevant section is:

In loco parentis: ‘originally derived from English common law, it is applied in two separate areas of the law.
Second, this doctrine can provide a non-biological parent to be given the legal rights and responsibilities of a biological parent if they have held themselves out as the parent.’ (Wikipedia, In loco parentis)

I believe that every member of governance stands in loco parentis to the citizens and in total constitute the fatherland/motherland and as such do not have the right to punish unjustly when the injustice has been brought to their attention. In other words, it could be said that not one, of the practically infinite number of organisms in 3,000 million years has knowingly lied about finding food to its offspring and further, it is obvious that the two parents must be in agreement as to the advice given to offspring. In the context of this case, the concept of punishing me must be for my own good, is not retrospective because I was obeying the Batemans Bay police acting in loco parentis and the government, judiciary and police must be in agreement. Clearly this has not happened.

Conclusion: I believe that I have proven that I have not been at fault and that the dispute is between my ‘parents’ and the law must be changed because it is unconscionable as it stands in requiring a 150 kilogram safe to house a single shot ‘pea’/rabbit rifle. The law can be changed by either of government or the court making a decision to do so, with the court having the power [precedent] at any time.

Prediction: firstly, I have assumed that the court of equity has been concerned about fairness of the law, but viewing the above, in the light of the law [in loco parentis], an orthogonality emerges that the purpose of in loco parentis is to feed/support the offspring and has nothing to do with fairness, but is a means of retaining the status quo. ‘While imports could ease the crisis of supply, and thus lower prices in the French towns accessible from the Mediterranean, this was not possible for Paris, where a worker’s daily bread now cost 97 per cent of his income…. If the French Revolution was not borne of climatic crisis, bad weather was at least the midwife.’ (The Birth of Europe, Michael Andrews, p 173) Thus, the court of equity is a means of curtailing the excesses of the ruler/governor with the aim of retaining their power and not provoking the populous

Notice that ‘the teachings of Confucius (551-479 BC) were to form the basis of one of the most powerful political philosophies in history … as with father and son, the subject’s duty to his ruler was balanced by the ruler’s moral duty to his subjects.’ (Timelines of the Ancient World, Dorling Kindersley, p 149) This shows the nature of the current concept of the equity court that is necessarily top-down, as is the law, and are ‘truths’ through usage, but must always be tempered by bottom-up context.

Secondly, the requirement that the parents do the best by the offspring and thereby maximise their usefulness to evolution raises complex social issues around state of mind, nutrition and exercise as well as the problem of overpopulation. A couple of examples are chapters 54 and 59.

Part 2: the Law

The above is from the point of view of ‘equity’, together with the law, because they are orthogonal and ‘equity’ is the context of the law because the principle of relativity requires two aspects to be considered on all occasions. This also explains the ‘fusion’ of law and ‘equity’ in that they are independent and yet entangled and I need to consider the law, on its own [concept] and I can do that through the principle of relativity. The law is a man-made law based on concepts and context, but it is also based on physical laws/logic. The governance system and the court (in general) are (somewhat) based on the organisational physics that is the logic of the physical universe, whereas physics and mathematics are based on a man-made logic and contain enigmas. The laws that have been brought against me are of the latter type and are badly formulated and that is why there are problems and I have to plead ‘not guilty’.

The laws under which I am being charged do not fall under the principle of relativity because they lack relativity and thus are not ‘proper’ and are man-made and thus contain enigmas. The only proper logic is based on the universe, and the mathematics of concept/context [(a+b)=1] is the system that our brain uses to create the mind. Thought [mind] is the organisation (-1) that is produced by the burning of a simple sugar [glucose] (1) in the brain in line with the equation of creation (1+(-1))=0. The physical brain and the resultant organisation are, not surprisingly, based on the mathematics of concept/context. Note that the law of conservation of energy is empirical and man-made because both energy and organisation are created all the time [the two absolutes in the principle of relativity show this occurs as energy/time and energy/space and the latter is continually created in a necessarily expanding universe].

The ‘general law’ is always workable because it is built on the same structure and logic as the universe, but working top-down involves guesswork, whereas working bottom-up is straightforward and gives unique answers. I am going to show that the ‘gun laws’ have not been applied properly and are bad laws for this reason and that is why I am challenging the structure of the ‘gun law’. Simply, the definition of a ‘gun’ [within the law] lacks relativity. When I was a child I used part of an old car tyre pump, dropped in a lighted ‘bunger’ and a piece of wood to see how high the wood reached when the ‘bunger’ exploded. That was a ‘gun’.

When Senior constable Craig Barlow was at the farm, someone had placed a ‘gun’ on the bench that had a wooden stock, a nail for a trigger and a barrel with a ¾ inch bore. I asked if he wanted that, but he disdained it even though it was a passable-looking shotgun. A ‘pea rifle is not an assault rifle and yet there is little relativity as to their purpose. In chapter 104, I pointed out that the concepts are the type of gun and the ‘dangerousness’ of the gun is the context and the answer is the type of storage. Under the current law, all guns have the same level of dangerous and type of storage [150 kilogram safe]. The above, by showing that toy guns are excluded provides relativity, and requires a relationship between ‘size of the gun’ and the storage [or lack of storage].

Batemans Bay police, presumably tried to inject more sense into the problem by allowing a toolbox to be used for ‘pea’ rifles, however, that is contrary to the law and requires a court decision as a precedent, or a change in the law. To have this unfair and badly constructed law changed is my intention and secondly, to show how relativity must be used to construct laws. Physics and mathematics are based on special cases and the hierarchy seem to be reluctant to examine their structure, whereas the law/equity has come a long way on the correct path but the world’s problems cannot wait while top-down guesses are examined and trialled.

Conclusion: from part 1, a child cannot logically be chastised for obeying another parent [police in this case], so this appearance should find that I have no case to answer and secondly, from part two, the law is badly constructed and is not logical and does not achieve its aim in a conscionable way.

Part 3: Entanglement

The principle entanglements are:

(1) the specialist/generalist divide that occurs as the amount of specialist information increases until it becomes necessary when employing specialists to include sufficient generalists.
(2) The above shows that the Law has been constructed top-down and that there is a top-down and bottom-up orthogonality of the conscionability and that bottom-up is based on the physical as determined by the probability space (a+b)=1.
(3) It also suggests a sideways orthogonality in that the arguments used in law are part of the mathematics of concept/context and are already part of general mathematical physics.
(4) Law/equity concerns Life, and evolution can only occur if animals have evolved and they must always form part of the organisational physics of the universe of which we are part.

The fact that this attendance at court has been required, I believe, shows that the Law is deficient in its application [no bottom-up] and requires amendment and the above provides a base on which a ‘scientific law’ can be constructed. Organisational physics is not our ‘natural’ logic, for instance concepts of fairness, justice, good, evil etc. are, like physics and mathematics, human constructs and we must take care that they align with organisational physics if we want to make the law scientific and work properly. Clearly, this is the top to bottom orthogonality where bottom-up is organisational law and top-down is conventional law such as ‘no alcohol’, no parking etc. and organisational law is always present.

Part 4: Prediction

I want to stress that I did not pick in loco parentis ‘out of a hat’, but it is the core ‘physical law’ of the infinite series [context] that corresponds to the single concept of survival of the fittest [as mathematical concepts pi, I, e etc. are infinite series]. If government, judiciary and God are ‘parents’ to everyone on the planet [in loco parentis] and the universe is simple [from a simple creation equation], then the solution to the world’s problems will become simple, when it is based on bottom-up logic. Mathematics, physics and law are special cases of the mathematics of concept/context with law closest to the attainable. Universities are composed of specialists turning out technology without context as to its use, and mathematics, physics and law can make do, as above, within a general mathematical physics, but there is agreement between the judiciary [precedent] and government [laws] and each is independent but entangled because the law/precedent of each affects the other, just as parents must agree on the best for their offspring.

Politicians spend their time trying to be re-elected and statesmen/women are rare because they do not know how to proceed without bottom-up knowledge, but the judiciary are appointed for the long-term and are answerable to the public in an ‘orthogonal’ way to the politicians. Politicians tend to deal in concepts, whereas the judiciary can determine a class action [context] that becomes a precedent and this can be done in any court and, in particular, an international court. Perhaps this is a way to fix the world’s problems. ‘International Court of Justice is the judicial organ of the United nations. Its duty is to settle international disputes and determine the legal rights of the member nations. The members of the U.N are bound to abide by the decisions of the I.C.J whose judges are elected by the members of the General assembly and Security council.’

Conclusion: the top-down guesswork in making laws and then fixing them up in a ‘trial and re-make’ depending on the citizens’ response forces me to defend this obviously problematical law and seek changes as I have outlined above. It also appears that the use of the court of equity is to safeguard the system and not the citizen and I am reminded that a major religion surfaced in spite of the government and courts failing to modernise 2,000 years ago. Orthogonality is a two-way street due to entanglement and it would be easier to change society with the ‘parents’’ blessing and help.

In other words, the law has to stay pertinent and now that it has been shown to lack relativity, it must change and become ‘general law’ and reflect the physical basis that is part of the structure of the universe and the physical base provides its own defence, in that the parent does the best that they can in the light of the knowledge of the circumstances without punishment [basis of my case]. The knowledge of a general law provides the measurement [as a re-occurrence in a fractal] in that knowledge of an experiment ‘decides’ quantum mechanical wave/particle properties [single/double slit experiment] and is a property of a measuring/probability space [Michelson-Morley experiment where the speed of light is constant (absolute) to the measurer] and thus be part of general law.

Part 5: Opening

I would like to thank you for the opportunity to state my case for I fear that there may be technical reasons why I cannot proceed as I do not know the law, and I will have to ask for your indulgence, further as I must conduct my defence myself, as this is private research and the circumstances of my using it is to show that the understanding of some of the law is incomplete and that is because the law ignores the basis property of the universe, namely relativity.

I have always believed that we should do what the police tell us to do, so why am I in this court? Clearly, as I did what I was told to do, and the police inspected the housing on a number of occasions, there is an internal organisational problem in governance that obviously needs fixing and obviously no one seems to know how to fix it. So, my defence is to fix it. Principally, the law, mathematics and physics are incomplete because relativity requires considering the physical space that we live in, and what we assume for this universe is wrong [Michelson-Morley experiment and Einstein’s postulate for the special theory of relativity]. This case shows the truth of that state of affairs because firstly, we have a difficulty in that the court is a specialist at law, whilst I am a generalist that knows little of the law. Secondly, the basic problem is that it is the organisation behind the law that is not understood. Thirdly, the law is based on humanity and ignores the physics of the universe that must part of the law, and the inclusion of the physical is necessary for relativity.

My strategy is to give all concerned a statement of my arguments and an adjournment may be in order to consider it because it could cause a basic rethink of parts of the law, in particular, jurisprudence. However, I feel it best to briefly present my case so that questions can be asked and then rely on what I have written because it is important that it be understood. Firstly, I intend to prove that the law, in its entirety, is intended for humans and thus deficient and ‘out of step’ with the fundamental principle of relativity, then secondly, I will show that the law in loco parentis has physical ramifications that preclude me from blame and thirdly, that a not guilty judgement will, by necessity, become a precedent and require a change in the law because there is an entanglement between government and judiciary.

Fourthly, I will also show that the justice system, shown in this powerful new light might possibly be able to solve the world’s organisational problems of global warming, over-population etc. and the outcome of this trial has a direct link in the outcome. Fifthly, I feel justified in challenging this appearance because a lot of time and money is being spent because, I believe, the organisation behind the structure of the law is not appreciated and I may be able to help sort it out. Sixthly, the answer, I will show, is simple, straight-forward and powerful in its effect because it is fundamental and will lay a floor to the question of jurisprudence. Seventhly, there is a possibility that that the justice system has been politicised and should perhaps require the gun storage system that logic suggests.

In other words, the law is a truth because it is relevant to humanity through usage, but the law is not relevant to the physical space and this fact changes the meaning of law and that needs to be fixed. In this case the police are readjusting their internal political stance on weapon storage and using me as a ‘whipping boy’ to test the parental resolve/agreement of government and judiciary.

References: all quotations are fully referenced in the body and earlier chapters can be found on darrylpenney.com or from the author on darryldarryl1@bigpond.com phone 0410668511, if required.

Chapter 103: Understanding Governance Through Orthogonality

Chapter 102: To the Vice-chancellor

Chapter 98: The Principle of Relativity, the Creation and Euler’s Equation Explained

Chapter 104: The Family Court and Parental Responsibility

Chapter 54: The Determination Orgene, Selecting the ‘Best’ and a General Solution to ‘Struggle Street’ and the World’s Overpopulation.

Chapter 59: Measurement of Concepts, the Relativity Paradox Explained and Why our Health has Not Improved Over the Last 165 Years

Chapter 104: The Family Court and Parental Responsibility

Abstract: just as general mathematical physics is a top-down amalgamation/orthogonality of traditional mathematics and Newtonian physics with the mathematics of concept/context and organisational physics and a sideways orthogonality of mathematics and physics, the same can be done for the organisation of society through governance and in particular, the judicial system. The judicial system can be understood and managed as a higher orthogonality of the parental system that is part of our success in evolution incorporating the orthogonality that is the basis of everything. Our very success in evolution [as a contextual iteration] is proof [of the orthogonal concept] that the organisation [in loco parentis – in the place of the parent] used in our society is capable and robust enough to solve society’s global problems when the mathematics of concept/context is used in a probability space.

In loco parentis: ‘originally derived from English common law, it is applied in two separate areas of the law.
Second, this doctrine can provide a non-biological parent to be given the legal rights and responsibilities of a biological parent if they have held themselves out as the parent.’ (Wikipedia, In loco parentis)

Overall, both Norma and I are prepared to accept the valuer’s valuation of the joint assets, however, Norma wants to convert all of her share to cash and depart to Queensland with her boyfriend. I find this course of action troubling and fear that she is in danger of losing her life’s savings and would like to suggest a better way that contains ‘natural’ justice. At the age of 65 years, her working life is effectively over and she cannot realistically expect to rebound financially if things ‘go wrong’, so I would like to place before the court a new way of looking at the problem that uses the orthogonality and entanglement that is inherent in the construction of the universe and thus a necessary part of any and every organisation Thus, the Family Court appears to have the power under ‘in loco parentis’ if it so declares to ensure a fair outcome.

Equity can now be measured by the use of general mathematical physics and, in particular, by the use of probabilities as required by using the probability space that generates our thinking [organisational physics]. This allows organisational physics/logic to better specify the value [concept] of the equity awarded and to whom [context] it should be awarded and, as should be expected in a simply generated universe, equity can be treated in the same way as quantum mechanics.

From chapter 97, ‘in a probability/fractal space, the Principle of Relativity is that everything is relative to something else (1+(-1))=0, except for the conservation of total energy, the speed of electromagnetic waves in a vacuum and the increase in energy/organisation per unit of newly created space [dark energy].’ The instability of the equation requires the continual expansion of the universe [which occurs] and that expansion determines the dimensions, and the ratios of the dimensions necessarily become ‘absolutes’.

Firstly [horizontally], the orthogonality of the specialist and generalist necessarily limits the applicability of a judgement and shows that, in a modern world, decisions should involve a team composed of both specialist and generalists. Higher courts currently attempt this by using multiple judges, but this does not solve the inherent orthogonality of specialist and generalist because the judges are all specialists.

Secondly, [vertically], in the context of this court, the trial of Jesus [no equity led to the washing of Pilate’s hands and the giving over of Jesus to the authorities] is relative to a modern court [with equity] where a more equitable decision is available through the court of equity that is part of every court of law [orthogonality]. The ‘fusion’ of law and equity are orthogonal/independent [as can be seen from (1+(-1))=0] but necessarily entangled.

From chapter 103, ‘In 1972 NSW also adopted one of the essential sections of the Judicature reforms, which emphasised that where there was a conflict between the common law and equity, equity would always prevail. (Wikipedia, Equity (law)) Our system of governance is the orthogonality [independence with entanglement] of the government, police and judicial system that protect the rights of the citizens [‘To no man will we sell, or deny, or delay, right or justice.’ – Magna Carta, 1215, clause 40 (Denny Day, Terry Smyth, frontispiece)] and to do this, the English produced a system of government that aligns with general mathematical physics by using the organisational physics that is the logic of our universe [note that traditional mathematics and Newtonian physics use a different system] and this enables the use of the mathematics of concept/context in the judicial system. Concept/context is the well-used ‘lifeblood’ of the governing system and we should not be surprised that it is based on a solid foundation. This is a major triumph as Newtonian physics and traditional mathematics are only special cases and littered with enigmas.’

However, ‘Christianity did play a role in creating Common Law, however it does not have any control or power in the court of law.’ (Wikipedia, Equity (law), origins of common law) Over the centuries the English legal system added a court of equity to the court of law to protect the citizens from outrageous demands of officialdom, as above. The governance system again needs a ‘tweaking’ to bring it into line with a change in community values and this case shows the problem and (possibly) a solution.

My intention is to stress that the Family law court is principally a court of equity, has precedence over law and is largely based on a solid theoretical foundation and that equity is not bounded, and extends to all parties and includes all parties [note that this is exactly the case of quantum mechanics including the suggested extension to probabilities and vertical orthogonality]. There is necessarily an orthogonality/entanglement between parents and children as well as between the state and each and vice versa. In other words everything is relative, as above, and the business of the Family law court is to award equity but there is the question of ‘how it awards equity’, which is an orthogonality of ‘how much’ [concept] and ‘to whom’ [context].

However, the means of allocating the equity forces the court to consider all probabilities [like quantum mechanics] because (1+(-1))=0 also represents a probability space (a+b)=1 for all a, b as well as a fractal space. Parents are generally responsible for bringing up children and the court requires that (about 25% minimum) of a parent’s estate be awarded to children at the parents’ death. I believe that these extremes are precedences that show that children are always the responsibility of parents and protecting them is an ongoing commitment and that parents should not abandon them to become a burden to the state. By using probabilities and the mathematics of concept/context we can allocate the equity between parents and children, state and parents and state and children.

The orthogonality [independence plus entanglement] of Norma and her children, relatives, friends, state etc. contains a fundamental entanglement that is part of the structure of the universe through the equation of creation (1+(-1))=0 and is not the same as our concept of independence [no entanglement]. That is why the court’s judgements must be based on organisational physics because Newtonian physics is based on energy and a subsumed logic that is based on a ‘peer’ vote for acceptance. Further, traditional mathematics is no better and ‘formal logic’ has been left with philosophy so the court is left little formalised guidance, at present and my suggestion of using organisational physics fills that gap.

This is the essential part of my argument and bears repeating. Our logic assumes that two independent things are independent, but the equation of creation (1+(-1))=0 shows that everything in the universe is entangled and unless we define two things as independent, they will always be entangled. This has been verified by experiments on subatomic particles and is as enigmatic (to us) as is the wave/particle duality/orthogonality on which the atom is built.

But, what of the case before the court? Norma’s plans appear to be to liquefy all of her share of the family assets, marry her pensioner boy-friend and put some of the money into a house and seek the aged pension. There is a probability that she will live happily ever after, but there is the probability the she will lose her assets and return as a burden to her children. Selling income-producing assets to get the pension is an investment strategy that is an inequity on the government/people, losing her money is an inequity on her children that has precedent in the requirement of the will, above. Thus, I ask that Norma be required to retain $100,000 equity in the farm that may [probability] be required for future generations that she has brought into the world.

Notice that primogeniture of the English is orthogonal to the European equal-division of assets to beneficiaries and whilst we use English law, I envisage the farm and plant production as jointly owned and run by those that need it. I consider it to be a (monetary) low-return safety net in the future and consider that Norma’s idea of taking all assets condemns future generations to (effectively) starting off without help and that is foreign to the successful evolutionary idea of training offspring. Also, why should I be required to put extra money into a probability position that equally applies to Norma? Norma is apparently abandoning her parental duties, whereas I have to use superannuation money to hold the assets for future generations to the detriment of my living standards in my old age. I must add that at 73 I do not get a pension and am keeping the farm going by growing plants as I started doing 40 years ago, and also providing employment.

Remainder is personal.

Chapter 103: Understanding Governance Through Orthogonality

by Darryl Penney

Abstract: it is often considered that the law and governance are relics of the past and somewhat ‘out of touch’ with modern life and that mathematics and physics are leading technology. Nothing could be further from the truth because law and governance are based on general mathematical physics whilst traditional mathematics and Newtonian physics are mere special cases of the general form and are creating, to a large extent, the world’s problems, or at the least, their limitations are not providing solutions. Using a simple example, in real life, and showing the fractal nature of our universe, the court of equity is shown to be orthogonal to the court of law [fusion] and thus the mathematics of concept/context can be used to provide any solution, and does so for the storage of firearms. However, because no one person knows everything in modern times the use of a team of two judges sitting in the court, a specialist and a generalist, is a necessary step in the correct direction and will be increasingly be so in the future.

Senior constable Craig Barlow has brought two charges (1) not kept firearm safely, and (2) not having approved storage, against me and I will show that those charges have no relevance to me and that I am being used, necessarily, for him to gain entrance into a Court that excludes him in his official capacity. In other words, it is possible that senior constable Craig Barlow is using me as an excuse to gain entrance to a court to ‘whistle blow’ a police matter and I have been warned to get a solicitor and hope for a good behaviour bond. If this is normal behaviour, there is something very wrong with the system.

‘In 1972 NSW also adopted one of the essential sections of the Judicature reforms, which emphasised that where there was a conflict between the common law and equity, equity would always prevail.’ (Wikipedia, Equity (law)) Our system of governance is the orthogonality [independence with entanglement] of the government, police and judicial system that protect the rights of the citizens [‘To no man will we sell, or deny, or delay, right or justice.’ – Magna Carta, 1215, clause 40 (Denny Day, Terry Smyth, frontispiece)] and to do this, the English produced a system of government that aligns with general mathematical physics by using the organisational physics that is the logic of our universe [note that traditional mathematics and Newtonian physics use a different system] and thus enables the use of the mathematics of concept/context. Concept/context is the well-used ‘lifeblood’ of the governing system and we should not be surprised that it is based on a solid foundation. This is a major triumph as Newtonian physics and traditional mathematics are only special cases and littered with enigmas.

From chapter 97, ‘in a probability/fractal space, the Principle of Relativity is that everything is relative to something else (1+(-1))=0, except for the conservation of total energy, the speed of electromagnetic waves in a vacuum and the increase in energy/organisation per unit of newly created space [dark energy]. The requirement of the continual separation of “(1)” and “(-1)” requires an expanding universe and the production/definition of the dimensions of space and time passing are a result of that expansion as well as the creation of two types of energies and a simple ratio of the dimensions leads to the “absolute” restrictions above.’

‘Everything is relative to something else’ and in this case I can sight the judicial injustice that led to the formation of the Christian religion where Pontius Pilate washed his hands of the matter by giving Jesus to the establishment. ‘Christianity did play a role in creating Common Law, however it does not have any control or power in the court of law.’ (Wikipedia, Equity (law), origins of common law) Over the centuries the English legal system added a court of equity to the court of law to protect the citizens from outrageous demands of officialdom, as above. Notice that the mathematics of concept/context has been used to rank the orthogonalities [law/equity] so that equity is higher. This choice/entanglement is necessary to create the orthogonality in the same way that an expanding universe creates the universe [orthogonality is independence with entanglement].

In this case, senior constable Barlow’s accusations against me may be legitimate in law, but under the court of equity, that apparently take precedence, his assertion that I have broken the law is incorrect. His demand is that I have to answer charges that I did not keep an old rabbit gun in a 150 kilogram safe even though Batemans Bay police instructed me to use a lockable tool-box and viewed it on several occasions. Senior constable Barlow’s assumption that the heavier the safe, the less chance of the gun (and safe) being carried off is, of course true, but not ‘user friendly’ and ignores the type of gun.

The ‘fusion’ of the two courts [law and equity] should not disguise the necessary orthogonality that is the mathematical representation of the principle of relativity and that orthogonality also applies to the three orthogonalities/arms of government, police and judiciary. In other words, our system of government is that the citizenry obey the three orthogonalities/arms of governance and is protected from excessively harsh orders and if they are thought to be inappropriate can apply to the court of equity. It is a surprise to me that the law, often thought of as archaic and mired in tradition is so ‘modern’ whilst the seemingly progressive technical subject of mathematical physics is so limited in scope and stuck in tradition. In particular, the orthogonality appears to mean that an instruction issued to me by one arm of governance is independent of the other two, except in equity, and as I was acting under the advice of the Batemans Bay police, I cannot be held accountable.

It should be noted that (1+(-1))=0 is also the equation of a fractal space, and further, that the burning of energy (1) [glucose] in the brain produces an organisational logic [that we call thought] (-1) and (a+b)=1 defines a probability space for all a and b that defines the mathematics of concept/context and is the basis of the mind/brain. This probability/mind/brain equation (a+b)=1 leads to the (apparent) enigma that specialists and generalist think orthogonally and thus ‘differently’ because of the type and depth of their knowledge. This is a simple statement of orthogonality/independence and confounds the current workings of democracy and this reason [that specialist’s and generalist’s thinking is orthogonally/essentially-different] shows why I am not ‘digging deeply’ into the law. Ideally, a team containing specialists and generalists should be used (chapter 102) to ameliorate the effect of this requirement of the limited amount and type of knowledge.

An organisational chart shows senior constable Barlow on the court of law side and the Batemans Bay police on the court of equity side shielding me because I did as they requested, namely used a steel box that was inspected by them on a number of occasions. However, the Batemans Bay police have apparently usurped the authority of the court and presumably senior constable Barlow is ‘whistle-blowing’ that they are not adhering to the law that requires a 150 kilogram safe to house a rabbit rifle.

Clearly, senior constable Barlow has a problem [in bringing this action] that needs to be legitimised and I appear to have been used as a means of bringing this problem to the place where a proper decision can be made that necessarily affects all three sections of governance because a decision being given by this court, becomes a precedent. This case is not simple because this paper is based on unpublished research that enlightens the orthogonality of the three arms of governance, and as this governance is built on orthogonality, the general mathematical physics can be used to provide a solution.

The solution in this case is not difficult and is readily accessible in a top-down manner, but traditional mathematics and Newtonian physics are rife with enigmas and creaking dangerously by using top-down guesswork. A simple example is the Michelson-Morley experiment that shows that the speed of light is the same to each observer, irrespective of their movements [a postulate in the special theory of relativity] and easily answered from the principle of relativity through the requirement that the universe must expand. In mathematics, 0=1 [an enigma], ‘written like this (1-1)+(1-1)+(1-1)+… the sum is clearly 0. On the other hand 1-(1-1)–(1-1)- … is clearly 1. So 0=1, and the whole of mathematics collapses in a contradiction.’ (The Problems of Mathematics, Ian Stewart, p 56). These examples [chapter 102] clearly show absoluteness and orthogonality that are the basis of everything.

Using the mathematics of concept/context, the guns themselves are the concept and their ‘dangerousness’ to the public etc. of each are the concepts and the type of storage etc. varies with the context and clearly a ‘rabbit gun’ should not require the same method of storage as a larger gun and senior constable Barlow’s case evaporates, Batemans Bay police are vindicated and the decision becomes a precedent and further, a precedent based on ‘first principles’.

Conclusion: this has been an exercise in organisation (context, generalist) and I have been careful to distance myself from the law/equity (concept, specialist) because it takes ‘two to tango’ [(1+(-1))=0] and necessarily those persons need to have (literally) orthogonal outlooks. The sequence above is completely general and applicable to governance, but mathematical physics needs to ‘put its house in order’, which it can do quite simply, when the desire is there and it must do so in the near future to have any hope of saving the planet. In other words, technology is the work of the specialists without the organisation/context applied by the generalist and is unbalanced and apparently unworkable. This point is the failing of the governance system, as pointed out above, in spite of the organisation being so close to that required by a probability/measuring space.

Ideally, law and equity are orthogonal and equity is judged more important than law and this requires two judges, specialist and generalist to satisfy the basic constraints of the probability space. Thus, the recommendation is that two or more classes of gun storage be used and that a non-legal judge should preside or co-chair the equity [orthogonal] cases.

This is inline with the current thoughts that ‘the Judicature Reforms in the 1870s effected a procedural fusion of the two bodies of law, ending their institutional separation. The reforms did not effect any substantive fusion, however. Judicial or academic reasoning which assumes the contrary has been described as a “fusion fallacy”.’ (Wikipedia, Equity (law))

The above explanation, whether it is justified in law or equity, is organisationally important because it explains the “fusion fallacy” that is enigmatic unless described in terms of the principle of relativity and its underlying orthogonality. Further, the whole of goverance is now an ‘open book’ from bottom-up and we can examine solutions to the world’s problems through equity and law [perhaps class actions] instead of relying on politicians and universities that have organizational problems of their own [chapter 102].

References: all quotations are fully referenced in the body and earlier chapters can be found on darrylpenney.com or from the author on darryldarryl1@bigpond.com

Chapter 97: You Asked For A Simple Theory, Stephen Hawking, So, Enjoy It!

Chapter 102: To the Vice-chancellor

To the Vice-chancellor

at the University of Adelaide, the Australian National University and the University of Canberra that I attended over the years.

I am sending this to you because, I believe, it indicates a number of issues that should be addressed and the universities have the expertise to review this enclosure from a number of angles.

Regards, Darryl Penney 27/6/2018

Preamble: all of us are worried about global warming, nuclear arms, overpopulation etc. and we expect that the universities, as repositories of knowledge, will show us the way, but the universities have been conspicuously silent on how to approach these problems and are, I believe, actually incapable of providing a solution [as evidenced by a hundred years of modern physics] and the answer is simply to very slightly change the form in which the universities are functioning.

Academics are lamenting that ‘theoretical physics has been stuck for the past forty years’ (Know This, Edited by John Brockman, p 133) or ‘the hope is that in the end we will have new physics analogous to Einstein’s new physics in the two theories of relativity’ (p 136). This paper dissects Einstein’s theories to show what is wrong with current thinking and also questions whether academics and science in general have lost the ability to change?

The universe is not logical, as we understand logic, and requires a new type of logic [organisational physics] based on the form of the creation to solve the problem of technology. This new approach is simple in the extreme and yet rigorous and contains the organisation behind the communication that is lacking in this world. I believe that the universe sprang from one equation (1+(-1))=0 and so, everyone can believe that the answer must lie within that same equation and that belief will unite (literally) everything and the application of the same orthogonality will enable the universities to provide the solutions through a new organisational structure.

‘Quantum Entanglement is Independent of Space and Time’ (p 134) shows that no one appears to have questioned the type of universe that we live in, and that is the key because we created/evolved a mind/brain/thought/free-will through a probability space. Thus the possibility exists to use the understanding of organisation that is inherent in the structure of the universe to create a symbiosis with the environment using the entanglement contained in orthogonality and an example is given of how the present organisation can be changed to pursue this aim.

Abstract: this paper accuses the scientific community, including the universities of a conspiracy and collusion, albeit somewhat unintentional, that possibly has the effect of withholding the solution to the world’s organisational and social problems that are so sorely needed in this modern age. I present a general mathematical physics, derived from first principles, that contains the mathematics of concept/context and organisational physics that are contained in thirty papers that were rejected, without peer review by an international journal of theoretical physics. As an example of the possibilities of the work, I have restated Einstein’s ideas and aims [equation of everything] into a simple unified format that could have been used in the creation of the universe. In addition to describing the physical universe, the same equation of everything (1+(-1))=0 contains the ability to describe our view [of the null space] through a fractal/probability space and describes (literally) everything but with the necessary limitations of the spaces. Of particular interest is the reason behind the creation of thought in the mind/brain from the orthogonal energy input of glucose, the reason why every person sees the speed of light as a constant [Michelson-Morley experiment] that laid the groundwork for relativity, bringing organisation formally into a general mathematical physics with top-down and sideways orthogonalities, the three absolutes/invariants that are derived from the dimensions of space-time that occur from the necessary expansion of the universe, the reason why the universe has to expand, the structure of quantum gravity, the role of magnetism etc. All of these aspects are apparent when organisation is included in its rightful place as being orthogonal/independent to energy, and yet still entangled and this entanglement is a necessary part of a probability space. The inclusion of organisation in the general mathematical physics, and in particular the quantitative measurement of organisation enhances Thom’s catastrophe theory and suggests how humanity can better weather the transition from survival of the fittest to the survival of the best and secure symbiosis with the environment with the minimum likelihood of a catastrophe. Other examples using choice and free-will explains Descartes’ ‘I think, therefore I am’ and indicates our position as generators of the future and finally, the effects of gravity are derived from the equation of everything (1+(-1))=0 showing that gravity is an orthogonality, principally an accounting and potential energy that is intimately tied into the working of the universe. A surprise is that orthogonality is the basis of governance and especially the modern fusion of the courts of law and equity.

As is well known, science and religion formally started several thousand years ago, and several hundred years ago progress produced Newtonian physics and that state of affairs has even survived a hundred years of modern physics, albeit with enigmas. You may have wondered why mathematics and physics are so resistant to change and it appears that this is so, not because they are all-encompassing, which they are not, but I believe, for a number of much more subtle reasons.

The problem is ‘in plain sight’ and far-reaching, and is outlined below, but if it stops progress in science and affects the state of the planet, it needs fixing, and quickly. Firstly, there have been three ‘towering’ figures in the history of physics [the ancient Greeks, Newton and Einstein] and they succeeded for a number of reasons [armchair musings, dominant personality and luck] but they all had one thing in common and that was that they informally introduced organisation into a physics that is built on energy with scant regard for organisation Secondly, the practice of adding organisation to an energy-based physics has been achieved by basing physics on a voting system because accepting a modicum of organisation is the only way that physics can progress in a top-down way.

Thirdly, there are fundamental reasons [lack of context] why the teaching of physics in universities is failing physics and the students, and this is not apparent until bottom-up methods are used. Simply, what we call ‘independent things’ are, in a physical sense, entangled and this presents an (apparent) enigma similar to the wave/particle duality. This (apparent) enigma is a product of our probability/fractal space and it should be taken into consideration if we are to use the simplicity and completeness of bottom-up thinking. A simple example of independence/entanglement is the conservation of (total) energy that sums every (so-called independent) energy in the universe and entangles/adjusts them to a set figure. Notice that the law of conservation of energy is not true locally because energy is continually being created.

Fourthly, successful organisations have a momentum and any change in direction is strenuously resisted, and this state of affairs should be contrasted to business that pay large salaries to leaders that can forward-plan change prior to it being needed. Science, as an organisation has had to rely on ‘lone wolves’ for fundamental breakthroughs because the inefficiencies of top-down thinking and the denial of the basic laws of organisation have created a dilemma/enigma that science does not recognise, and will not recognise without considering orthogonality, that is the basis of everything.

To return to the specific case of the universities, ‘these academics also observed that they faced increased pressure to trawl for industry-based funding and external consultancies which, in effect, “channelled research effort into safe, well defined areas, rather than speculative or curiosity driven ones”’ (Whackademia, Richard Hill, p 83) and lecturer/researchers ‘despite their listless demeanours they weren’t so much depressed as crushed under heavy workloads and excessive managerial scrutiny.’ (p 160) This state of affairs has a simple solution that leads into the ‘enhanced team’ approach, below, that utilises the generalist approach and offers a much better bottom-up outcome. The following derives the theory that is costs little, except acceptance, to embrace the ‘lone wolves’ whose work can reinvigorate research and add to the prestige of the university. This realisation/recognisance initiates an orthogonality that shows that the universities are presently lacking insight and forward-thinking and this will be revisited later.

Further to the above that creativity is suppressed by the need for funding and by excessive administration, it is possible that universities are actively selecting against the most creative by seeking the most intelligent. ‘Subjects in these studies were subjected to a variety of IQ tests and on average were found to have IQ’s in the 120 –130 range…. The general conclusion is that most creative people are smart, but they do not have to be extremely smart. An IQ around 120 is good enough.’ (The Creating Brain, Nancy C. Andreasen, p 30) Similarly, the ‘creative personality’ (p 30) is not one that is sought by universities and recognising this means that ‘lone wolves’ need to be fostered and their work considered.

The universe grew [fractal] from a simple happening at a point source [somewhat like the Big Bang] and consequently must be a simple place, and it is simple when viewed in the correct way and that perspective covers everything, literally, because a fractal is repetitive. Another (apparent) enigma that burdens science is organisational and is the top-down/bottom-up viewpoint that aligns with Occam’s razor and yet organisation is actively discouraged in physics. As an example, let me come at the problem from another angle that simplifies the current ‘mess’ that has been ‘relativity’ over the last hundred years. ‘History seems to be repeating itself, since physicists today find themselves in nearly the same situation as their predecessors in 1905: facing the need to reconcile two apparently incompatible theories. Physics awaits a new Einstein who, inspired by a simple insight, will resolve this contradiction.’ (Einstein: Decoding the Universe, Francoise Balibar, p 111) The 1905 theory was the wave/particle duality that is still not understood, in spite of the quotation and the current problem is quantum gravity and they both share a common solution/understanding in orthogonality.

Einstein, Newton etc. were not geniuses, but were not products of a system [of science] that is fundamentally stultifying and in need of change. The change is not difficult nor is it expensive, but represents an organisational change [to the mind/brain] firstly, top-down/bottom-up and secondly, accepting mathematical physics as concept/context. The study of organisation has produced as many textbooks as physics and, like physics, is also misunderstood until we accept that everything is built on the equation of creation and the resulting fractal expansion. The problem is that we do not recognise how the universe formed and what drives its expansion and so we cannot understand its mechanism. Further, it will be shown that [energy based] science and organisation are independent, but entangled in the same way that the universe is constructed [organisational physics], and that entanglement is enigmatic to us because we define independence as non-entangled.

Albert Einstein (1879 – 1955) was so radical a thinker that his brilliance is difficult to grasp. He was not an outstanding student, yet in 1905, at the age of 26, he published groundbreaking studies …’. (back cover) I believe that geniuses are made not born, and Einstein was not a genius, but a ‘lone wolf’ that functioned outside of the regulated system. Newton also produced his best work while the university was closed due to plague. What is happening? Simply, I need your help because it appears that I may have derived an answer to a problem that is/was not suspected and possibly it is due to the complexity composed of two parts, top-down/bottom-up organisation and the orthogonality that contains independence with entanglement. Organisation is a subject that science and mathematics have shied away from, presumably because it cannot be measured, but there is a way, and that is through a probability space.

To put the above in perspective, if the universe is considered to be a fractal, and it is obvious that it is, derived from a creation then the form of the university’s teaching should be in accordance with the equation of the creation. However, the university’s teaching is not, currently in that form, and, even worse, traditional mathematics and Newtonian physics are not in that form and there are good reasons why this state of affairs cannot be rectified without appreciating the organisation of agreement/context, and that requires the knowledge that I am trying to impart. I studied mathematical physics and organisation and believe that I have a different viewpoint that needs to be considered, but am having trouble having it considered. This is not surprising because inertia [mass inertia and gravitational inertia] is basic to physics and is defined as resistance to change and resistance to change is a basic problem in organisations such as science and society.

Apart from resistance to change, there are very good reasons why traditional mathematics and Newtonian physics are unable to easily change their fundamental structure and that is because their formulation and foundations are incomplete and based on special cases. I believe that the time has come to develop a new basis to science that may/will allow a solution to the world’s problems. This could be called the Second Coming, the attaining of Symbiosis between the parasite (Life) and its environment or just simple logic/progress because it derives everything from the bottom up from one simple unstable equation that describes the creation and requisite expansion of the universe. These are large claims and have taken much work to derive them, but they could be the key to creating a new age [of understanding].

Specifically, a general mathematical physics is described/derived (chapter 101) because it must contain orthogonality [top/bottom and mathematics/physics] as well as proof that technical scientists, of which universities are principally composed, are literally unable to appreciate context and this has, I believe, contributed to the inability of mathematics and physics to change with the times. In other words, traditional mathematics and Newtonian physics have developed on a somewhat inappropriate foundation that needs the application of context and orthogonality to bring them into a general form. There is the possibility that a counter-argument would be that both disciplines are forging ahead, so there cannot be too much wrong, but, in a fractal, every point generates new possibilities, but where is the starting point?

The concept that specialists and generalists do not see the same things is so simple, but so important and yet it is a recent problem as the amount of knowledge has increased. Clearly, the more knowledge, the more a specialist has to know and the less the grasp of the bigger picture is available and in the limit, the specialist knows everything about nothing and the generalist knows nothing about everything and an orthogonality has developed. This is a very recent change in organisation

The above requires a change in thinking and that is very difficult to accomplish for the established scientist because it threatens their position and success, so, I’ll quote the work of Einstein and rework it into, what I think is a more understandable form using the new format. In other words, I am taking what is reputed to be difficult to understand, rework it and show that it is logical and even simple when looked at bottom-up [organisationally]. ‘He demonstrated that the perceived opposition between continuity and discontinuity does not exist, for both light and matter are composed of particles’ (p 40) This pronouncement stifled the heated controversy, but it is in the form of the ‘energy base’ of physics and the wave/particle enigma is true because wave and particle are orthogonal and both are necessary to the mechanics of the atom [it takes two to tango]. Further, the photon, I believe, is physically constructed on the wave/particle duality (chapter 99).

‘He presented a theory of light, called the special theory of relativity, that dispensed with the idea that light must travel through a medium such as an ether … and he presented his great discovery that (under certain circumstances) the speed of light is constant for all observers in differing contexts’ (p 40). This postulate, contained in the theory was found by experiment [Michelson-Morley] and was not discovered by Einstein and is true for all motion and further the constant speed of light is a logical/organisational requirement of the dimensions and this can be seen within the principle of relativity.

From chapter 97, ‘in a probability/fractal space, the Principle of Relativity is that everything is relative to something else (1+(-1))=0, except for the conservation of total energy, the speed of electromagnetic waves in a vacuum and the increase in energy/organisation per unit of newly created space [dark energy]. The requirement of the separation of “(1)” and “(-1)” requires the production/definition of the dimensions of space and time passing as well as the creation of two types of energies and a simple ratio of the dimensions leads to the “absolute” restrictions above. However, as an example of the importance of the requirement of expansion to the dimensions, the logical requirement of simplicity [Occam’s razor] applied to the Special Theory of Relativity accounts for the (apparent) enigma that all of time, length and mass [energy] being distorted by the same amount [Lorentz contraction] to satisfy the absolute conditions, above.’ Notice that this implies that all of time, length and mass [energy] are dimensions [4,5 or 6].

The quotation that ‘he demonstrated the most famous equation in all of physics: E=Mc2, describing a relationship between energy and mass.’ (p 50) is a simple orthogonality that describes the two forms/states of energy E and a solid component M. These are composed of the same energy in two forms because you cannot build a universe unless you create something to build it out of, and the simplest way is to create the building blocks out of nothing [(1+(-1))=0] by orthogonality. The quarks are an organisational solution and do not appear alone whilst the neutron is the resultant particle that orthogonates into the electron and proton that builds the atom and the universe. The organisation of the functioning of the atom is orthogonality [(1)/(-1), wave/particle duality]

Some points of interest, firstly, (1+(-1))=0 is unstable unless there is continual expansion [the Big Bang], secondly, the energy (1) and energy (-1) are, in common terms, what we call energy and organisation, thirdly, (1) and (-1) are independent but obviously entangled [in an equation], fourthly, (1+(-1))=0 [in physics] is not the same as 1=1 [as they are in traditional mathematics]. The last point is that traditional mathematics is based on equality and is severely restricted and can be extended to the mathematics of concept/context simply by using (1+(-1))=0.

As an example, ‘written like this (1-1)+(1-1)+(1-1)+… the sum is clearly 0. On the other hand 1-(1-1)–(1-1)- … is clearly 1. So 0=1, and the whole of mathematics collapses in a contradiction.’ (The Problems of Mathematics, Ian Stewart, p 56). Clearly the two methods/ways of calculation are orthogonalities and acceptable in my view/theory, but inexplicable in traditional mathematics. Fifthly, (1+(-1))=0 is also the generator of a fractal and a probability space, and this latter space was used in the special theory of relativity as a postulate [above, that the speed of light is the same to all observers irrespective of their motion]. Notice that my derivation is completely general and derived.

‘Einstein’s objections, which he repeated for twenty years, focused on an aspect of quantum theory called probability…. “God”, he remarked, “does not roll the dice”.’ (p 95) Using/postulating a measuring space, which is a probability space, the act of opening up the null space necessarily changes time from absolute to relative because the speed of light is a constant and we have to view everything as probabilities [because of the type of space]. ‘In part he was distracted by another direction of enquiry, which occupied him for the rest of his life. Having completed the special and general theories of relativity, he began to look for a grand overarching theory – called the unified field theory – that would describe in a single system of equations the properties of light, matter and gravitation’ (p 96). The equation that he was looking for is (1+(-1))=0.

To return to relativity, ‘to tell the truth, the theory of relativity is a theory of invariables; it seeks out whatever in nature does not vary, regardless of the observer’s vantage point. The constant c, the speed of light, is a good example of an invariable – something that is not relative.’ (p 46) Notice the three absolutes that are invariable above in the principle of relativity because of the necessary expansion and it is obvious, given two types of energy, that the conservation of (total) energy requires the continual generation of both energies to balance the expansion required by the equation. Further, whilst the speed of transmission of energy (1), as a wave is constant, the speed of its orthogonal [a particle] is not, and the speed of (-1) [quantum gravity] is a property of the space and is instantaneous. Thus, the concept of gravity waves, gravitons etc. are not needed.

Galileo stated that ‘”all bodies fall with the same movement, whatever their mass”’ (p 57) and ‘Newton, working a generation later, had been unable to give a satisfactory explanation of this fact.’ (p 56) ‘In other words, the general theory of relativity is linked to the law of gravity, and mass and inertia are the same thing.’ (p 57) I believe that mass is energy and inertia is organisational energy and that they are independent/orthogonal [but entangled] and are not the same thing. The equation (1+(-1))=0 shows that anything/everything must be the same or orthogonal and in one direction [dropping weights] are the same, but in two dimensions [planetary system] they are necessarily numerically the same, but orthogonal [centripetal/tangential].

‘Thus not only space but also time disappears if the world is emptied of matter. Difficult though it is to comprehend, matter creates at once both space and time’ (p 65). Considering the equation (1+(-1))=0, no creation of energy means no expansion means no dimensions and nothing results and this explanation is effectively the same, but simpler and more logical. It is the creation of two types of energy that dictates the requirement of separation and thus the dimensions and the creation of space and time. This is the reason that the effect of expansion occurs and is not just a bald statement and thus we can say that there will be no Big Crunch and that the expansion will last forever, and that the Big Bang is not the precursor of momentum running down.

This statement is supposed to lead to ‘put simply, matter tells space how to curve; space tells matter how to move.’ (p 60). This last quotation might be simple, but it is misleading and the equation (1+(-1))=0 states a lot of things, as above, but it only [logically/simply] exists if it is expanding linearly and there is no ‘curve’ to space, and energy, not space, tells matter how to move. What the last quotation is trying to say, I believe, is that the attraction (1) of energy must be balanced by the attraction of organisational energy (-1) to satisfy the equation (1+(-1))=0. In other words, the constant speed of light [Cosmic Background Radiation] creates volume/space simply.

‘Einstein realised that space and time are stitched together into a fabric, which is warped by the presence of matter, and that gravity is the consequence of this warping of spacetime.’ (History’s Greatest Discoveries, Joel Levy, p 202) On the contrary, the equation (1+(-1))=0 suggests a simple Newtonian attraction for both energy (1) and organisation (-1) with a simple probability space providing the conservation of (total) energy [zero] and gravity is the necessary accounting/organisation of the energy in the measuring space [more below]. A small but important digression that reinforces my case is that a probability space (a+b)=1 for all a and b allows the evolution of a mind/brain based on the mathematics of concept/context [all a, b] and that is immediately apparent from (1+(-1))=0, and I find that it is even more applicable that the burning of glucose [pure energy] produces thought [organisation].

Considering the total eclipse of 1919, ‘Newtonian theory also predicts that gravity will act on the particles in a beam of light. A similar value had been published in 1804 by the German astronomer Johann Georg von Soldner … Einstein had written to leading astronomers as early as 1913, trying to interest them in such a test, but it was not until 1917 that anyone took up his offer (perhaps serendipitously, given that it was only in 1916 that he made the correct calculation).’ (p 201) ‘Before this Einstein had been a complete unknown outside of scientific circles’ (p 204)

The above paragraph shows an element of luck, and I am not trying to demean his work, but consider the following. ‘We should pay tribute to the German physics establishment of the time, particularly the publishers of the leading physics journal Annalen der Physik (Annals of Physics), who took the risk – one that few journals today would dare – of publishing two revolutionary articles written by an unknown employee of the Swiss patent office.’ (Einstein: Decoding the Universe, Francoise Balibar, p 41) I have had nearly thirty papers (chapters 71 to 99) rejected ‘out of hand’ without peer review by a leading international journal of theoretical physics and I believe that there is a conspiracy [albeit somewhat unintentional] and I think that I have proved this, in that the specialists employed by the universities etc., and the journals that pander to them [that are supported by specialists], are literally incapable of appreciating a generalist’s contribution, or worse, do not wish to.

Further, ‘apparently the German university, an institution otherwise all too rigid and hierarchical, was not above allowing a marginal figure to speak his mind. And we should not overlook the young Einstein’s remarkable mental balance. It’s easy to imagine how destabilising it might have been for a young man of 26, working alone, to come up with the solution to problems that had foiled people with twice his experience for generations’ (p 41). Einstein was lucky! He was also fortunate in recognising in time that the deviation was twice that of the Newtonian system and that both types of energy must have equal effect on the photon passing the sun because (1+(-1))=0 requires twice [exactly] that of energy alone [and the photon is composed, equally, of both energy and organisation].

‘The problem was that the more carefully theoretical physicists looked at Einstein’s general theory of relativity and Maxwell’s theory of light, the more they were convinced there must be a way of joining them together – of creating a unified theory’ (E=mc2 The Great Ideas That Shaped Our World, Pete Moore, p 39)]. ‘This holy grail of theoretical physics is still proving elusive at the opening of the 21st…. you could draw the two theories together so long as you introduced a fifth dimension.’ (p 39) It seems obvious that there must be more than the four dimensions of spacetime for something to happen and above, an expanding universe generates spacetime and two energy dimensions [sum is zero], so the total dimensions are four, five or six [your choice]. ‘Einstein rejected the idea when it was first presented to him, before embracing the concept … Klein suggested that a particle moving a short distance along this fifth axis would return to where it began…. All electromagnetic waves can be thought of as vibrations of this fifth dimension…. For many years the Kaluza-Klein was more or less a curiosity … It has however found a new dawn in the light of string theory…. The search continues for ways of making sense of all the mathematics and observations that are coming from the enormous particle accelerators’ (p 39)

This seems to indicate that the fifth dimension is energy, in the form of electric and magnetic fields that are vibrating in the electromagnetic wave that travels at a constant speed with respect to the measurer. This is a typical top-down explanation of an electromagnetic wave. However, I believe that a photon oscillates/orthogonates between a wave and particle [wave/particle duality/orthogonality] every half wavelength to provide ‘action at a distance’ in the wave mode for atomic absorption of quanta. The magnetic field is part of the organisation [quantum gravity] that balances the energy and sets the relativity between the measurer and the photon, which must be constant (see chapter 99). Further, the photon only exists because the organisation of the photon balances the energy of the photon and is held orthogonally/independently to allow construction of the photon and its operation.

Traditional physics appears to be having problems understanding the multiplicity of subatomic particles by top-down methods, but from a bottom-up perspective of a fractal, the more energy thrown at the particles in the accelerator, the more particles are generated to handle the extra energy as would be expected [in a fractal] (see chapter 90). I believe that organisation is a type of energy that is equal to our concept of energy and this is suggested by Einstein’s doubling of the attraction of the photon to a star’s gravity and further, that the sharing/creation of energy and organisation is the means of creating the universe and is shown by the equation of everything (1+(-1))=0. Traditional physics concentrates on measuring the ‘how?’ things happen without the ‘why?’ things happen and the first bottom-up question is ‘what is the universe made of?’, and the answer is an orthogonality/independence of two things [energy/organisation].

I will repeat that the specialist and generalist are necessarily independent/orthogonal and whilst entangled, the formation of a probability space [(a+b)=1] shows this to be literally true and that is the reason that any generalised mathematical physics must stand/be-used as a mathematical physics and not subdivided as general mathematics [concept, based on the mathematics of concept/context] and general physics [context, based on the organisational physics/logic]. This does not say that specialists need change their methods, but it does say that there is a completely new and just as an important field for generalists [and this example indicates this]. I know how difficult it is to ‘winkle’ the above from the status quo of the technical world and over ten years work and one hundred chapters testify to this and so I can appreciate the work of scientists, but in the light of the above and in hindsight everything is simple [orthogonal], as is the equation of everything (1+(-1))=0.

Finally, what is gravity? Notice that traditional physics views gravity as a constant attraction between energy/matter, and so it could be as an overall simple local view, but according to the principle of relativity, there are two independent (yet entangled) effects, in general, and in this case the attraction is a hyperbolic relationship [chapter 89] that is asymptotic [maximum] in the nucleus and at infinity [minimal] [Newton’s law of gravity], but there is an entanglement that is the law of conservation of (total) energy and that is the ‘other side’/orthogonality of gravity. Thus, if gravity is potential energy it is not constant, anywhere, anytime, and further, this orthogonality is saying that gravity has two parts [as does everything], an instantaneous part that is quantum gravity that controls/entangles the universe and the energy part that potters along at the speed of light [because it is an energy and together they are energy/organisation orthogonality]. It is this latter part that the so-called ‘gravity experiments’ is measuring and as it is moving at the speed of light, it is change in energy [not organisation]. But, where does this energy come from? As the equation says, at each fractal step new energy/organisation is created and whilst quantum gravity is organisational, the fractal generates energy/organisation of potential.

Thus gravity, like everything else, has two parts and presumably this causes the confusion because it is energy [potential energy] and an organisation [quantum gravity]. Traditional physics is based [mainly] on energy and ignores organisation, when it can, but the fundamental that has been missed is orthogonality and how can I describe a dual- based system of the universe with a one-base system of physics? Simply put, each energy and its associated organisation generates [as a fractal] their own energy/organisation and leave it at that. Perhaps the next ‘age’ of civilization is the Age of Orthogonality because it answers all the problems so that for each concept [technology, population, food etc.] there is a context [who uses the concept] that must be applied to groups of people and an overarching entanglement with the environment. This is the answer to all problems and is similar to the law of conservation of (total) energy, as would be expected in a fractal.

It could be said that physics has walked into a trap, of its own making, and that allows us to poke a stick at it and examine it in the ‘scientific method’ and I believe that it is ‘wanting’. As above, the supposedly difficult subject of the effects of gravity appear simple, but complicated by the relativity/duality and gravity is both a potential well and part of the organisation of the universe. It simply answers the question of ‘does a heavier weight fall faster than a light weight?’ because each atom/particle is affected equally by the potential [at that point]. However, traditional physics must change because of the structure of the universe and the equation of everything expands to general mathematical physics and the physics component is needed in a complete form if we are to solve Humanity’s problems. Thus, I find myself, inadvertently, as a prophet and worse, an ignored prophet of a story that no one seems to know how to fix [population control, resource allocation etc.]. The Greens, with their top-down interference are merely nuisances, but like gravity, above, have the potential to work properly when the bottom-up case is realised, or perhaps the politicians might provide the context, as above, if the universities are incapable of organising themselves. This is a distinct possibility because ‘we persist in organising ourselves in academic silos and risk looking like those blind men groping an elephant … “The world has problems, universities have departments.”’ (Know This, Edited by John Brockman, p 369)

Conclusion: chapter 100 uses as an example the reasons for the formation of (biological) species and finds that these reasons are the same as those behind quantum gravity. This is not surprising as the universe is a fractal and thus not complicated as it arose from a simple equation (1+(-1))=0.

Chapter 101 is the precursor to this application and gives a ‘tried and true’ organisational method of gaining acceptance that has been used before that created a religion and overthrew the existing regimes. Adding organisation to science/technology is long overdue and is needed to provide a planned alternative to the problems that technology has let loose and the acceptance of this theory will come, as there is no other alternative, but our civilization cannot wait until physics admits that it is blind to fundamental change and somehow blunders into the above.

To summarise the main points: firstly, I believe that Einstein’s explanation of the wave/particle duality is not correct as the duality/orthogonality is ‘real’ and is necessary to build a universe that we can view through a fractal/probability space. Secondly, quantum gravity is orthogonal to energy and that allows organisation to be measured, thirdly, everything is necessarily entangled and nothing is completely independent [conservation of (total) energy, the orthogonal axes of the Cartesian system are independent but entangled at zero] due to the probability space, fourthly, these effects create an enigma that no person can be (totally) both a specialist and a generalist, at the same time, which is (somewhat) obvious, and forces every decision to be made by a mathematics of concept/context and the mathematics of concept/context is obvious from (a+b)=1 and its usefulness/power is in its transparency of application.

The writing of this chapter (102) has shown just how dangerous the situation has become in that the universities, as a repository of the world’s knowledge, are (presently) incapable of solving the world’s organisational [as opposed to technological] problems. I believe that the universities should be at the forefront of change, but to do that, they have firstly, to consider the ‘lone wolves’ and welcome their unique contribution [context] and secondly, that context is equally important [(1+(-1))=0] as the specialist’s contribution [concept] and yet, outside of their ability to consider. This is an enigma that would probably be emphatically denied by the specialists, but it is written in the equation of everything and in my experience, above, and is an example of why a bottom-up organisational physics is crucial. Thirdly, our universe is not ‘real’, not logical and not changeable (by us) and the organisational physics (bottom-up) must be our logic.

What is the relativity implied in the above paragraph? ‘The universities, as a repository of the world’s knowledge, are (presently) incapable of solving the world’s organisational [as opposed to technological] problems’ and if they cannot ‘run’ with the suggestions that I have made [to internally generate orthogonality], it is necessarily the government’s duty, as representing society, to impose the organisation to create the necessary orthogonality by creating a separate entity [of context] overseeing the universities [that presently (largely) consists of technical concepts].

Any new theory should explain the status quo and then predict something, and this is, of course, the use of organisation, but can we simply explain the principle of least action and Occam’s razor that have sat on the sidelines for centuries. We can explain these easily with the application of organisation, because they are orthogonal [no surprise] and the principle of least action is energy based [through being discussed in Newtonian physics] but a [physics] probability space requires ‘least action’ in an energy sense because there must be a unique value in computing the total energy [this is assumed in a mathematical probability space].

Likewise, Occam’s razor states that the simplest form is usually the best, but a physics probability space requires the simplest form be used because it must equal the minimum energy. I have read that attempts to formalise Occam’s razor have been made, but it requires measuring organisation, as above, to do that, so, Occam’s razor is true in a physical sense, true in the limit for stable states [survival of the fittest and survival of the best], but not in the intervening periods when catastrophes can occur [Rene Thom, catastrophe theory]. Our planet is obviously in a transition between these two states and a catastrophe is possible.

“‘Although Thom became disenchanted by the theory toward the end of his working life, it presented a new way of analysing natural events in fields as varied as engineering and the social sciences’. (E=mc2 The Great Ideas That Shaped Our World, Pete Moore, p 105) Thom appeared to acknowledge that organisation determined the result between the stable states that could lead to a catastrophe, but ‘”as soon as it became clear that the theory did not permit quantitative prediction, all good minds …. decided it was of no value.”’ (p 105) This state of affairs may have changed because, I believe that we now have the ‘proper’ tools [firstly, general mathematical physics] to keep the catastrophe, that our civilization seems to be heading towards, at bay and we know that secondly, the more energy that we apply, the more organisation that we apply [compare the mind/brain’s use of sugar] and the thirdly, the more energy/organisation that we apply, the better/simpler/more accurate the outcome [Occam’s razor], above.

In other words, civilisation’s most pressing problem is the organisation of humanity and yet science is apparently incapable of guiding us to a new steady state [survival of the best] from the survival of the fittest that we have left behind. The above paragraph says that we now have the tools, and the more energy/work that we apply [in the limit], the better will be the result and the greater the expectation of a non-catastrophic outcome and the more likely that we obtain symbiosis with the environment. The key is, I believe, the greatly expanded general mathematical physics that incorporates organisation/orthogonality, the mathematics of concept/context and organisational physics.

In a fractal universe, there is no ending, and we have found the beginning [(1+(-1))=0], so the following is another example of why the above is useful. Why are the universities so wrong/misguided [specialists only], physics [energy mainly] and mathematics [equality almost exclusively]? The solution is orthogonality, that everything is constructed of independent, yet related things and this is putting into words the equation of everything and therein lies choice/decision. The reason, I believe, that everyone seems to have missed it is because they do not realise the orthogonality inherent in the last sentence – universities must include context, physics must include organisation and mathematics is a case in point and contains the enigma that the constants can all be expressed in infinite series [e, pi etc. and all these are related by Euler’s equation (chapter 98)]. Clearly, this is an orthogonality of exact versus infinite series and this equates to the basic/first orthogonality [energy/organisation] in that energy is exact and organisation is an infinite series that is efficient ‘in the limit’ [evolution].

We find it easier to use the ‘exact’ [mathematics], than the infinite series [mathematics of concept/context] but we now recognise this series as computing science and thus can understand the basis of evolution, or choice (chapter 94). So, what are we? I think that we are the manifestation of choice because there is no other way to arrive at a conclusion than to ‘act it out’ and this explains the theory that at every instant, possibilities are generated because they are possibilities. ‘Free will’ is a ‘God given’ possibility that we can use, for our own benefit when we understand orthogonality and general mathematical physics and can, if we want, find survival of the best. Notice that the last sentence sums up Descartes’ ‘I think, therefore I am’ and also gives the reason why it works [choice] and how it works [free will].

This paper is trying to describe everything [(1+(-1))=0], which is a fractal and also its context to specialists that are (literally) trying to understand the (contextual) fundamentals of the universe and I am trying to do that in spite of the orthogonality that separates specialist and generalist. ‘The possibility that the vacuum may have energy was discussed almost a century ago by Einstein, but then he discarded the idea…. Why do we live exactly at the time when the energy of empty space is comparable to the energy of normal matter?’ (Know This, Edited by John Brockman, p 90) This energy of space [dark energy, vacuum energy 10-29 grams per cubic centimetre] must balance the [organisational, potential] energy that matter possesses because the universe is in equilibrium through its necessary expansion.

Finally, just as we, as parasites, created mind/brain/thought/free-will from the generalness [a, b of (a+b)=1] of the probability space, by understanding orthogonality/independence we can perhaps use the entanglement of the independence/equation [(1+(-1))=0] to create a [somewhat] amalgamation of technician/specialist and generalist/philosopher that can appreciate the solution to humanity’s organisation problems and forge a symbiosis with the environment. Firstly, this is not difficult to accomplish, but it needs a ‘team’, and a ‘team that recognises orthogonality and includes enough generalists’, secondly, there are career possibilities for students becoming ‘lone wolf’/generalists and thirdly, as universities seem to be doing, becoming part of the wider community, but in a form that enhances the community.

Fourthly, ‘in the United States, universities have moved rapidly left since 1990, when the left/right ratio of professors across all departments was less than 2:1. By 2004, the left/right ratio was roughly 5:1, and it is still climbing. In the social sciences and humanities, it’s far higher. Because this political purification is happening at a time of rising cross-partisan hostility, we can expect increasing hostility from Republican legislators toward universities and the things that they desire, including research funding and freedom from federal and state control.’ (p 360) This is saying that the political party or ideology has greater effect than race, gender or religion, and may prompt government to orthogonalize universities.

Prediction; the above is a means of a solution to the world’s problems using general mathematical physics and the solutions given are that the universities change their thinking and take a proactive role, and if they do not, the government/politicians could create a new type of university and if these fail, the public could force the politicians to act. These are not unique solutions and change as the ranking changes, but the above shows that a solution to the world’s problems is possible and how to approach it using a unique means that uses the equation of everything.

I am going to expand this last paragraph because it is so important and requires a different outlook/logic [organisational physics] to the human-based/egocentric logic that we use. I repeat that any or all of the three solutions can be used, and they all contain the orthogonality and context that is at the heart of general mathematical physics. The universities need to create an orthogonality in the form of lone wolves by recognising them and helping publish their ideas that will stimulate their staff and add prestige [context]. The politician becomes a statesman/woman by using general mathematical physics to help solve the world’s problems, knowing that he/she has the best [bottom-up] solution and can influence everyone irrespective of political parties and ideologies [context].

Every concerned citizen knows that there are problems that involve everyone [context] and knowing that there is one solution [general mathematical physics], a new [ultimate] religion could start, as did the Christian Church. Helping your neighbour is commendable, but in a modern world we are seeing the results of that creed [overpopulation] and it is plain that it needs modifying and general mathematical physics contains the knowledge, organisation and transparency to have it accepted [context].

The ultimate conclusion is that the Age of the Greeks lasted over two thousand years [and is still with us in science and especially democracy today], the Age of Reason from Newton over the last several hundred years using top-down methods dominates science and mathematics today and now this must be replaced with what must be called the Age of Understanding using bottom-up organisation

Postscript: it is with great surprise and pleasure that I find the essence of the above ‘alive and well’, though unrecognised, in governance [government, police and law are orthogonal/independent] and again in the court of law [fusion of law and equity]. It is also a surprise that the law, with a pedigree as old as mathematics and science and a reputation of being old-fashion/staid is based on the same system that I believe mathematical physics should be using in being in the forefront of technology.

‘Real-life’ court cases/appearances are given in chapter 103 and 104 that shows how an understanding of orthogonality simplifies the understanding of governance that adds a fourth possibility to the above, that class action decisions in courts based on equity could provide the authority/impetus to governance to change the way that they act.

References: all quotations are fully referenced in the body and earlier chapters can be found on darrylpenney.com or from the author on darryldarryl1@bigpond.com if required.

Chapter 99: The Principle of Relativity, the Role and Importance of Magnetism, the Amplitude of Electromagnetic Waves and Unfolding the Photon

Chapter 100: The Equation of Everything, a General Mathematical Physics Developed and Used to Resolve ‘How Species Form?’

Chapter 101: The Spanners of Creation – Concept and Context, Orthogonality and General Mathematical Physics

Chapter 90: Organisational Physics Replaces Mathematical Physics with Fundamental Extensions in Mathematics and Physics.

Subtitle: the Equation of the Multiverse is (1+(-1))=0, the Big-Whoosh/Big-Bang is the Natural Orthogonality of a Null Space into a Fractal and Probability Universe, Proof that the Speed of Gravity is Instantaneous, How Conservation of Energy Works, Orthogonal/virtual Particles in a Vacuum, Mind-space, the Mathematics of Concepts, Doublet and Triplet Elementary Particles are Orthogonal, Why there is Little Antimatter in the Universe, Extending the Law of Gravitation to Include Nuclear Bonding, Proof of Newton’s Law of Gravity, Why Inertial Mass is Different to Gravitational Mass, Our Universe as Part of the Multiverse, Faith and Physics are Orthogonal/independent and the Need to Extend Mathematics, Physics etc.

Chapter 98: The Principle of Relativity, the Creation and Euler’s Equation Explained

Chapter 89: The Universe as an Orthogonality, the Quark/antiquark Bond, the Universe is Fractal as are the Subatomic Particles, Quantum ChromoDynamics and the Unified Field Theory Simplified, the Role of Quarks, the Three Fundamental Operators and Inside the Nucleus

Chapter 94: Why Newtonian Physics Needs Choice

Subtitle: Defining Choice Within a ‘New’ Philosophy, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle Resolved, the Physics of Choice Creates Atoms Through the Wave/particle Duality/shimmer, Mind/thought is the Organisational Orthogonality of the Brain’s Energy Consumption, Orthogonality defines the dimensions, How the Voting System Effects Housing Affordability and How to Fix It Through Rational Choices

Chapter 103: Understanding Governance Through Orthogonality

Chapter 104: The Family Court and Parental Responsibility

Chapter 101: The Spanners of Creation – Concept and Context, Orthogonality and General Mathematical Physics

by Darryl Penney

Abstract: the Principle of Relativity is the most fundamental law that attracts absolutes depending on how we view our universe. Any universe must be simply defined and fractal because it is derived from a creation but traditional mathematics and Newtonian physics are not based on the simplicity of the creation and this leads to an inability to change the structure of science as new knowledge is gained that would allows us, as parasites, to form a symbiosis with our host, the environment. General mathematical physics is derived that satisfies the Principle of Relativity using orthogonality that builds on the existing traditional mathematics and Newtonian physics and suggests a way to implement it organisationally using a previously successful method based on the modern religions. Further, the general mathematical physics that is derived is unique in form and far more encompassing than traditional mathematical physics and an example is given by comparing the energy-based Newtonian gravity, the inclusion of organisation by Einstein’s general theory of relativity to correct the Newtonian method and the expansion/repair of the Einstein model into a general quantum gravity.

It does not matter where I start [in a fractal, as our universe is], but several hundred years ago, the principle of least action played a big part in trying to understand science [for example, why light travels in a straight line]. Occam’s razor has been around even longer and is still the organisational enigma that it has always been. Newton apparently had a personality that ‘carried the day’ and we ended up with a physics that aligns with the principle of least action that appears in Newton’s laws of motion [for example, momentum is a combination of energy and organisation] and the most pertinent thing, I believe, that can be said of those laws is that they are the units of evolution with which we evolved [speed and distance of attack producing a safe zone]. Traditional mathematics and Newtonian physics are not totally correct, but are the ‘shadows’/special-cases of a another state that I will derive, below

I was recently asked about what organisation I am affiliated with and that reminded me that science is based on a democratic system of who believes what and the resultant general consensus of that belief is so-called ‘science’! Traditional mathematics and Newtonian physics have proven to be resistant to change over hundreds of years and we must ask whether that is because they useful, correct or somehow immune to change. Considering the below, they are useful because they are based on the units that the predator/prey situation has forced on us over evolution, they are far from correct and we have made them immune to change because their structure is incomplete.

This decision-making by scientists, as voters, fails for the same reason that political voting fails to be the democracy that everyone assumes it to be, and that is the disparity in importance given to concept and context [chapter 67]. Basically, the voter has to be knowledgeable about the subject and use it the correct way and the proof of this statement is shown by the composition of the universities that comprise specialists [concepts] with very few generalists [contexts]. Specialists are not competent to vote on generalist matters because specialist and generalist matters are independent and not related to each other [but are entangled] and this is described below. This sounds absurd, but the creation of the independence of two types of matter [a neutron orthogonates to a proton and electron] forms the universe and is a fundamental necessity like the wave/particle duality that is the mechanism of the atom].

It is an ‘urban myth’, that I believe is true in this case, that the most important fundamental advances are made by ‘lone wolves’ because the ‘way out’ subjects do not attract funding, as they should not, because the subjects are too risky. Notice that Newton, Einstein and others could be included in this class, if the study were done. However, that does not mean that ‘lone wolves’ should be neglected because the unusual approach may be extremely valuable and should, I believe be given due consideration and that is the purpose of this paper. I am a generalist, as opposed to the specialists found in universities and as such have been able to explore organisation that is stifled by the academic world because of a lack of understanding of orthogonality.

[Orthogonality is independence combined with entanglement that is incomprehensible to us because we believe that independence means total independence between two things. Just as the wave/particle duality has been inconceivable to physics until it is explained as being a change from wave to particle every half wavelength [chapter 99]. A simple example of orthogonality [independence plus entanglement] is conservation of (total) energy (1+(-1))=0 where energies ‘(1)’ and ‘(-1)’ are independent at every point but entangled overall through ‘(+)’ and ‘0’. Firstly, this is a serious flaw in mathematics and physics and shows that top-down methods are fraught with problems and secondly, this example of conservation of (total) energy describes our universe as a probability/measuring space.]

There is an (apparent) enigma that burdens science that is organisational in structure and that is top-down/bottom-up that aligns with Occam’s razor (another enigma) and yet organisation is actively discouraged in physics. As an example, let me come at the problem from another angle. ‘History seems to be repeating itself, since physicists today find themselves in nearly the same situation as their predecessors in 1905: facing the need to reconcile two apparently incompatible theories. Physics awaits a new Einstein who, inspired by a simple insight, will resolve this contradiction.’ (Einstein: Decoding the Universe, Francoise Balibar, p 111) ‘The impossible union of quantum theory and general relativity’ (p 111) refers to quantum gravity that is simply explained when (1+(-1))=0 is considered.

Albert Einstein (1879 – 1955) was so radical a thinker that his brilliance is difficult to grasp. He was not an outstanding student, yet in 1905, at the age of 26, he published groundbreaking studies …’. (back cover) I believe that geniuses are made not born (refer to the earliest chapters), and Einstein was not a genius, but a ‘lone wolf’ that functioned outside of the regulated system. Newton also produced his best work while the university was closed due to plague. What is happening? Possibly it is the complexity of two parts, top-down/bottom-up and the orthogonality that contains independence with entanglement. Organisation is a subject that science and mathematics have shied away from, presumably because it cannot be measured, but there is a way, and that is through a probability space.

I have degrees in mathematical physics and business administration that are an unusual combination but particularly relevant to the (generalist) discussion here and ‘fly in the face’ of the usual academic pursuit of technicality because business studies are studies of organisation and organisation is purposely lacking within mathematics and physics. For example, traditional mathematics uses an internal logic and forgets the four ‘search axioms’ that link the mind/brain to the physical through the properties of the space [chapter 86] and, in particular, where does elegance/beauty that is a big part of mathematics/science come from (chapter 78)? Likewise, physics is based on energy and only uses logic when necessary, and an example is Newton’s laws of motion that are based on organisation and energy, and a little contemplation of the principle of least action will show this. Actually, now that an alternative explanation has been introduced, the statement of the principle of relativity becomes apparent/relevant.

[From chapter 97, ‘in a probability/fractal space, the Principle of Relativity is that everything is relative to something else (1+(-1))=0, except for the conservation of total energy, the speed of electromagnetic waves in a vacuum and the increase in energy/organisation per unit of newly created space [dark energy].’ This organisationally based definition is vastly different to the current version that the ‘principle of relativity states that the same physical laws apply – that is, things occur in the same manner – whether they are observed in a stationary state or within a moving context.’ (p 31)]

The three exceptions/absolutes are a necessary result of the dimensions [space-time] generated by the necessity that the equation (1+(-1))=0 is stable and that only occurs when the system is expanding. An example is that space and time-passing are generated in an expanding universe, such as ours, and the Big Bang is a misnomer for (1+(-1))=0 because Newtonian physics accounts for energy ‘1’ and neglects organisation ‘(-1)’. Clearly, if organisation is ignored, a Big Bang of energy is the only alternative and the explosion suggests an expanding universe, albeit with enigmas. In other words, it has been said that it should have been obvious to scientists, from Newton on, that a non-expanding universe is unstable and collapses (concept) and the equation is the context and the space-time dimensions [with total energy zero] are a product of the expansion.

Repeating the above, science is based on a flawed democracy that favours energy ‘1’ and concept over organisation ‘(-1)’ and context and thus feeding ‘bite-sized’ chunks of science [concepts] to scientists is not the way to proceed and has resulted, I believe, in a top-down mess and a better procedure is to present a bottom-up picture that includes a general mathematical physics that includes the organisational-physics/logic necessary to link the mind/brain with the physical world [context]. This is not a problem because the mind/brain operates on the general mathematical physics that will become obvious from (1+(-1))=0. In fact, it explains why the mind/brain consumes sugar and that consumption of energy [sugar] generates thought/organisation that Life evolved to forward-plan [chapter 95]

In other words, science cannot break out of the constraints of a mathematics based on counting sheep and a physics based on energy in spite of over one hundred years of modern physics because the participants are specialists that cannot see the ‘big picture’. Literally, the ‘big picture’ is context ‘(-1)’ that is equally important as concept ‘1’ and is independent although entangled together, as explained above. I think that specialists need the ‘big picture’ ‘shoved under their noses’ so that they can absorb the organisational physics/logic that the physical world is based on and use it in their concepts of technology. Clearly, the concepts of technology are being given to the population without the context of its use and that has led to overpopulation, over-consumption and all the other problems such as global warming, politics etc.

This point is necessarily important to solving the enigma of technology that is ruining the world through lack of control/organisation of its products, especially in allowing the population to increase. The same basis necessarily underlies all problems because of the fractal nature of a universe derived from (1+(-1))=0 and the problems of the planet are reflected in the problems of changing the basis of science. I repeat that the universities etc. are filled with specialists/technicians that are independent/orthogonal in their pursuits, but are entangled because they are part of the world that is in trouble because of their technologies. I believe that they are not competent to judge organisation/context and neither are the journals that are their means of communication. [I have had chapters 71 to chapter 99 rejected by an international journal specialising in theoretical physics without peer review] A possible solution to this enigma is taken up in the conclusion.

The basic problem, apart from that mentioned above is the reluctance/inertia of scientists to relearning the basis of their ‘craft’, but it is necessary, and will probably need a generational change, because, in deriving this, I have sought out the enigmas that litter Newtonian physics. As an example, the Michelson-Morley experiment shows that every observer/measurer, no matter what their motion, measures the speed of light to be a constant and Einstein used this as a postulate in his Special Theory of Relativity. From above, a constant speed is immediately derivable from the dimensions [principle of relativity] and the real (apparent) problem with the Special Theory of Relativity is that (all of) mass/energy, length and time should vary together [by the Lorentz contraction]. These are the dimensions and they vary firstly, because both energy and organisation must change together, secondly, that there is nothing else that can change and thirdly they change together because, I believe that it is organisationally simpler to do this than to differentiate and this leads us into the principle of least action and Occam’s razor that describe a more general mathematical physics.

Notice that Einstein’s special theory of relativity is correct because it is based on the Michelson-Morley experiment that I believe shows the existence of a probability/fractal space, whilst the General Theory uses the traditional view of our universe with a little organisation added and is thus not very rewarding. The following is an example that shows that Einstein’s fame, rested on overturning Newton’s ideas, but that those new ideas were organisational and used the methods that I am proposing, albeit in a ‘confused’ manner. That was the secret of his success. The setting was ‘a new opportunity for some British astronomers to look for the deflection of stellar light as it passed the sun. An expedition led by Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington (1882 – 1944) to the equatorial island of Principe … On his return to England, the photos were analysed: the star was indeed just where Einstein said it would be.’ (p 69).

‘In 1911 Einstein predicted … precisely the degree of displacement predicted by classical Newtonian mechanics … published in 1804 by the German astronomer Johann George von Soldner, following similar suggestions by Henry Cavendish in 1784…. In 1916 Einstein calculated the total deflection at the limb of the sun would be twice the Newtonian value.’ (History’s Greatest Discoveries, Joel Levy, p 201) ‘When the results of the experiment were announced in November 1919, they generated extraordinary headlines.’ (p 203)

‘Einstein realised that space and time are stitched together into a fabric, which is warped by the presence of matter, and that gravity is the consequence of this warping of spacetime. Light would still travel the shortest distance between two points, but on a curved surface this is not a straight line but a geodesic; thus the hypothetical beam of starlight passing close to the Sun would be additionally deflected by the curvature of spacetime.’ (p 202)

Einstein was correct in his calculations, but he has added a complication of an organisational effect of curved spacetime. Firstly, from above, the dimensions derived from the necessary expansion are simple [not parabolic] dimensions of space and time unlike what Einstein seems to be suggesting. Secondly, the principle of equivalence, one of the tenets of Einstein’s theory of relativity, which states that acceleration and gravity are equivalent’ (p 201) is a statement of the equivalence of mass and inertia. Galileo’s law of falling bodies is true [one dimension] where a heavy and light ball fall at the same rate [no friction], but in two dimensions the statement is only partially true and this can be seen in a simple planetary system that gravitational mass [line of centres] balances inertial mass [tangential]. The simplest explanation is that everything [(1+(-1))=0] is the same or orthogonal and in one dimension they are the same and in two dimensions they are orthogonal, so, they must always be equal in magnitude, but can be independent/entangled.

Thirdly, the curved spacetime concept is organisational and as Newtonian physics contains only energy, their figures differ by a factor of two. From above, (1+(-1))=0 says that energy (1) is only half of the equation and the organisation (-1) must be added to the system, as Einstein did, but without introducing unnecessary complications. Fourthly, ‘thus not only space but also time disappears if the world is emptied of matter. Difficult though it is to comprehend, matter creates at once both space and time.’ (Einstein: Decoding the Universe, p 65) This statement is of course correct, but it is so much easier to understand that the creation of matter (1+(-1))=0 is only stable if it is expanding and expansion generates space, time and energy/organisation [=0].

Fifthly, and again to illustrate how much easier it is from bottom-up, consider an orange on a stretched canvas sheet to represent the Earth and marbles rolling down the incline. ‘Newton said that the marble (the stone) is attracted by the orange (the Earth); but it is equally possible to state, with Einstein and all physicists since, that the orange (the Earth) has modified space – it has deformed space by inscribing a dent – and that the marble (or stone), without anyone having touched it, rolls naturally along the line of greatest incline … as Galileo had stated.’ (p 64) I have included this quotation ‘to get the ball rolling’ and am not convinced that it offers a convincing explanation of why all masses are equally attracted to the centre of the earth and I believe that the explanation of the orthogonality of inertial and gravitational mass holds the key. But as everything is orthogonal, or the same, there is another explanation and that is that inertia is a measure of energy and gravitational mass is an orthogonal organisational explanation, because (1+(-1))=0.

The equation (1+(-1))=0 is a probability space in which the sum of something over every point remains constant and, in this case, that is total energy [=0] but that does not stop local differences of energy and organisation and the probability space has infinitely fast accounting and that accounting is quantum gravity and there is the same attraction for all the energies as well as all the organisations (as above). Thus the attraction/accounting of every mass to every other mass is proportional to their masses [energy] QED. Quantum gravity is simply that the attraction of all energy to every other piece of energy is dependent on the separation and is true from the binding attraction in the nucleus to the gravitational attraction of the stars (chapter 96).

From the principle of relativity, the potential energy (-1) is balanced by the creation of dark energy (1) as the expansion of everything necessarily proceeds. There is a simple Newtonian attraction between all energy because the accounting balances/records the energy, but Einstein introduced organisation albeit in a not very constructive way and the above, with organisation supplying quantum gravity makes for a simple explanation of literally everything. The one addition is the importance of Occam’s razor [principle of least action] that has always joined energy and organisation and becomes a ‘hard and fast’ rule in the limit in the physical world tying everything together, eventually at the lowest energy.

The conservation of (total) energy in an expanding universe requires an infinitely fast accounting of energy [a product of a probability/fractal space] and it cannot be energy ‘(1)’ because of the principle of relativity, so the conservation of (total) energy must be organisational ‘(-1)’ and that leads into quantum gravity. Newtonian physics cannot recognise quantum gravity, magnetism and other organisational ‘necessities’ because of the way that it has been constructed. For example, magnetism, I believe, is the mechanism that is necessary to make the principle of relativity workable because the measurement of the relative speeds of two frames of reference cannot exceed the speed of light and there must be a mechanism to measure the speed difference logically [chapter 99].

Clearly, my aim, as mentioned above, is to present a complete ‘package’ of general mathematical physics to the specialist that is rigorous and complete and to do that, I need to show that there are top/bottom as well as sideways orthogonalities, as would be expected because everything in the universe is an orthogonality and the principle of relativity also says that there are always two independent ways to view a problem and they are related/entangled [(1+(-1))=0] and must be kept apart, and as above, mathematics and physics are such an orthogonality. In mathematical physics, mathematics and physics must be kept apart to a degree that allows each to exist and yet they cannot be considered separately because they are entangled as (1+(-1))=0.

It should be noted that the equation (1+(-1))=0 is also the equation that generates a probability space and a fractal space and thus we would expect our universe to accommodate both spaces and this is apparent in the generation of subatomic particles and stars. In particular, the neutron is one orthogonal of energy/organisation and it fractalizes/orthogonates to an electron and proton that is necessary to create the atoms [through the wave/particle duality, chapter 94)]. A probability space is more complicated because it is generated by (a+b)=1 where a and b are undefined/general ‘things’ [but still contains the form (1+(-1))=0)] that Life has used to create concept and context and ‘fill in’ the space between the orthogonal axes [chapter 95].

Further, from chapter 86. ‘The Math Book, (by Clifford A. Pickover, p 284) gives the five Peano Axioms as a basis of arithmetic, and certain things appeared to be missing, such as the mind/brain to determine elegance of content, forward planning (dimension 7), the measurement of each numeral (questing) and the relationship between numerals (relevance)’.

‘If we unfold (a+b)=1 in a probability space, as above, including Life, we get:
concept/forward-planning/quest/relevance/beauty/context.

If we unfold (a+b)=1 in a probability space, as above, excluding Life, we get:
measurement/quest/relevance/entanglement.

Notice that forward-planning is a dimension specific to Life and necessary for the predator/prey basis of iteration and the four axioms are immediately obvious in the above.’

As an example, from chapter 100, ‘the physical search for the cause of speciation was akin to quantum gravity with all the problems that unfolding a probability space entails, but including Life, as is necessary, shows, in the paragraph above that the probability space allows concept/forward-planning/quest/relevance/beauty/context and these are in the mind of the beholder and connect the mind/brain with the physical universe. Thus, there are both physical and mental reasons contributing to speciation and beauty [golden triangle (a+b)] is an unexpected player (chapter 78).’ This paragraph considers the similarity of the cause of speciation with quantum gravity to highlight the fractal nature based on the equation (1+(-1))=0 as well as the (apparent) enigma of beauty/elegance arising in a physical universe and shows that the golden triangle is mathematical and appears in mathematical textbooks.

Another (apparent) enigma that also appears in mathematical textbooks is the sum of infinite series that generates the concept/context of ‘pi’, ‘e’, ‘i’, ‘1’, ‘0’ etc. No reason, that I have seen accounts for this enigma and especially for Euler’s equation that shows that there are exact relationships between infinite series. It is often admitted that no one knows what Euler’s equation means and with the universe being a fractal, all of these series above have a place that is defined by Euler’s equation and this is shown in chapter 98 and describes the creation and the relation, in exact terms, of infinite series. I believe that we are seeing the expression of an orthogonality that is exact as in traditional mathematics and iterative as in the mathematics of concept/context.

As an example of ‘bringing everything to a “focus”’ or ‘considering the fractal relationship’, the fact that ‘pi’ or ‘e’ etc. can be described by an infinite series is enigmatic, but considering the series as an orthogonality supplies more information as was shown in the discussion of Euler’s equation (chapter 98). The constant “pi’, ‘e’ etc. plus the negative of the infinite series equals zero says, through the principle of relativity that the constant and the series are equivalent and represent two independent (but entangled) views of the same thing. This is not a surprising revelation, but expanding this concept leads to general mathematics [not complete] and into general mathematical physics [complete] by incorporating the mathematics of concept/context and organisational-physics/logic.

The mathematics of concept/context is shown by (a+b)=1, and is, as above, applicable to Life and is the comparison of (independent) concepts through their context [entanglement] and is (part of) general mathematical physics and is applicable to the social sciences. This was the original challenge and reference can be made to the initial chapters. To keep it simple, the top/bottom orthogonality is exact [traditional mathematics, top/down] and iterative [the mathematics of concept/context, bottom-up] and the necessity of this [mathematics, concept] must always be considered with its orthogonality [organisational physics/logic, context].

At this point I should point out that as ‘1’ is energy and ‘(-1)’ is organisation [to use common terms], the equation of these terms orthogonates to (1+(-1))=0 and (1 and (-1))=0 where ‘+’ is mathematical and ‘and’ is logical and this latter expression is forbidden in traditional mathematics and very suspect in Newtonian physics [an exception is Dirac’s prediction of the positron]. This shows where traditional mathematics and Newtonian physics is lacking compared to the general mathematical physics.

To return to the infinite series, they are included in the general mathematical physics quite naturally because everything is probabilistic because we are looking at a null space through a probability space [the problem of the perception of quantum mechanics], the special theory of relativity is obvious when given the necessarily constant speed of light and the general theory of relativity has little appeal and can be replaced by quantum gravity [with the proviso that energy and organisation are equal and opposite and we must double the Newtonian effect, as Einstein did, above]. As mentioned previously, I have sought the enigmas in traditional mathematics and Newtonian physics and have generated a (hopefully) functional general mathematical physics. Notice that these are specific common terms that are a lesser/lower orthogonality and include (literally) everything as the ‘tools of creation’ [(1+(-1))=0]. An example is that it is the step/end in evolution for humanity and is an example of ‘explosive evolution’, if this theory is taken up.

The question of diffraction is an enigma that as been studied from Newton’s time and its cause has not been understood because it is part of quantum gravity and quantum gravity is the hyperbolic attraction from the nuclear forces to the gravity of the stars and as Einstein eventually concluded, gravity is not a force. Diffraction must be considered to be equivalent to the bending of light by the sun, above, because of the simplicity of a fractal universe and in the case of water waves, the effect appears in the macroscopic. In other words, diffraction is a property of a quantum gravity attraction between the wave and the mass and scales with distance from the nuclear to the stars as is expected, with water waves in between.

Conclusion: there is no conclusion to evolution/time-passing because the universe is a fractal and necessarily expanding and I believe that this general mathematical physics is the medicine that we need to regain sanity as a species. There is much wrong with the planet, such as global warming, over-population, wars etc. that needs organisation to balance technology and thus, we as a species, are unbalanced and so, are, at the moment, without a complete understanding and the use of context, literally insane.

Survival of the fittest was workable, but we are currently in transition in changing to a Survival of the Best and general mathematical physics is the tool of creation that can allow us to navigate an evolutionary explosion of organisation/culture that we have seen previously as Stone Age, Bronze Age, Iron Age etc. Literally, this coming age, if we are to be successful, needs general mathematical physics to link us [the parasite] to the physical universe so that we can continue to ‘grow’/evolve without hurting our environment [as a symbiote].

Our mind/brain is built on the mathematics of concept/context, but the logic of the organisational physics must be derived, as we have done, in part, but how to proceed in the face of the enigma of the ‘stuck in the mud’ specialists needs to be addressed. There are fundamental reasons [independence without sufficient entanglement] in the organisational ‘feedback’ mechanism that causes mathematics and physics to be resistant to change, but as a fractal, the answer is in history and evolution.

Given that the above is a new paradigm that needs to be born, networking [context] must be supplied to the birth [concept], so, in the light of the previous chapter, affiliation with the few available generalists becomes necessary and one of the few generalists in a university would be the vice-chancellor [wise man, overseer]. The vice-chancellors of the universities that I have attended [University of Adelaide, University of Canberra and Australian National University] might be three wise men that could attend the birth [Second Coming perhaps] and perhaps inspire some believers that might spread the word. In a fractal, there is nothing new, and I have always wondered why the three wise men were present and it could be for elegance [golden ratio] or the concept/context of storytelling and another example is the orthogonality of ‘it was the best of times, it was the worst of times ….’. However, as a fractal, there is a need to balance the importance of the birth with the importance of the attendees, and this seems to explain the enigma of the story of the birth of Jesus.

Clearly, our [parasitic] thinking is unbalanced with respect to [principle of relativity] the environment [the host] and we need to change our way of life/thinking [as above] before we damage it irrevocably and cause future generations unnecessary pain. The general mathematical physics, above, is simplicity itself, as is the universe, and can be ignored by the vast majority of scientists, but the organisational-physics/logic that lies behind thinking/logic cannot be ignored.

It is generally thought that the modern view of the world of physics is to ‘fine-tune’ the ‘edges’ of the physics that has been in use for a long time, but I am suggesting that the fundamental basis of mathematical physics is in error and this error has been built-in and unrecognised from the beginning. The basic reason is, possibly, because we are naturally selfish, as we need to be to survive, except for a strange (apparently) enigmatic orgene [organisational gene] that manifests as context in the form of love, children etc. and has even created the religions. However, the implementation and present use of religion has contributed to the problems of the planet, but knowledge of concept/context could right the situation by indicating direction.

References: all quotations are fully referenced in the body and earlier chapters can be found on darrylpenney.com or from the author on darryldarryl1@bigpond.com if required.

Chapter 67: Unfolding Democracy, the Fifth Dimension and Waking Plato to Save our World

Chapter 99: The Principle of Relativity, the Role and Importance of Magnetism, the Amplitude of Electromagnetic Waves and Unfolding the Photon

Chapter 86: How the Mind Works, Evolution in Mind-space, the Placebo/nocebo Effect Has Two Parts, Combating Chronic Pain, Why Eastern and Western Medicine are Similar, Unfolding Mind-space from the Fifth Dimension and the Law of Conservation of Minimum Energy

Chapter 97: You Asked For A Simple Theory, Stephen Hawking, So, Enjoy It!

Chapter 95: The Organisation and Software behind the Mind and Abstract Thought

Chapter 94: Why Newtonian Physics Needs Choice

Subtitle: Defining Choice Within a ‘New’ Philosophy, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle Resolved, the Physics of Choice Creates Atoms Through the Wave/particle Duality/shimmer, Mind/thought is the Organisational Orthogonality of the Brain’s Energy Consumption, Orthogonality defines the dimensions, How the Voting System Effects Housing Affordability and How to Fix It Through Rational Choices

Chapter 78: Love, Beauty, Ecstasy, the Golden Ratio and the Reason that Sexual Selection Works

Chapter 100: The Equation of Everything, a General Mathematical Physics Developed and Used to Resolve ‘How Species Form?’

Chapter 98: The Principle of Relativity, the Creation and Euler’s Equation Explained

Chapter 96: The Unification of Top-down and Bottom-up and the Theory of Everything

Chapter 100: The Equation of Everything, a General Mathematical Physics Developed and Used to Resolve ‘How Species Form?’

by Darryl Penney

Abstract: Newtonian physics and traditional mathematics have proved to be resistant to change and this is, I believe, because they use the units and methods that are natural to us and are based on the predator/prey situation with which we evolved even though enigmas necessarily abound because Newtonian physics and traditional mathematics are at odds with the universe around us. This paper uses the basic construction of orthogonality of a fractal/probability universe to derive a bottom-up mathematics of concept/context and organisational physics that augments the traditional approach and explains relativity, quantum mechanics, quantum gravity, magnetism, organisation etc. and a mathematics of concept and context that especially suits the social sciences. Further, the fractal/probability space links the mind/brain to the physical through two relationships, firstly, for Life, ‘concept/forward-planning/quest/relevance/beauty/context’ and secondly, for the physical ‘measurement/quest/relevance/entanglement’. Whilst the top-down/bottom-up orthogonality explains the long-standing enigmas, it is necessary to consider the orthogonality that mathematics is a concept and physics is a context that defines the logic of the mathematics of concept/context upon which the workings of the mind/brain is built and that they cannot be separated because of the Principle of Relativity. The end result derives a general mathematical physics and proves that it is the only combination of mathematics that can exist and be a complete description of everything and that traditional mathematics and Newtonian physics are special cases that have frustrated humanity for a long time. An example is given of Darwin’s problem of how speciation occurs that illustrates the fractal/probabilistic nature of the universe and the problems of measurement of species, quantum mechanics and relativity by highlighting the three absolutes that are required to ‘open the null space’ to our view.

It was the best of times [with technology] and it was the worst of times [with overpopulation, overuse of resources etc.] and the cause is a mathematical physics mired in (somewhat) antiquity and even the (so-called, 120 years ago) ‘modern’ physics has not been able to push mathematical physics into a more useful form. We cannot control civilization because mathematical physics is very resistant to change, presumably because it is top-down and no one has a clear idea of where it is going. Novelists had a clearer picture [of orthogonality], as above, and it will be shown that orthogonality is the basic construction technique used by the universe and that we have neglected it (probably) because it is too simple.

This paper shows that mathematical physics was led up the wrong [of two] path and I have derived a general mathematical physics that can be appended to the current usage. Notice the use of the combination ‘mathematical physics’ because there must always be concept and context to make sense [relativity] and this shows that there must always be specialists and generalists and that this fundamental requirement is usually overlooked [especially by universities]. I will use difference [orthogonality/independence] as well as sameness [equations] on which to base a ‘new’ mathematical physics that is complete in two orthogonalities because we will also be using bottom-up as well as the top-down guesses that Newton and others have ‘set in concrete’. I will stress the use of ‘two orthogonalities’ because of the requirements of the Principle of Relativity [apart from the absolutes] requires orthogonalities in all cases except for the absolutes.

Newtonian physics and traditional mathematics have been resistant to change because we have used the units of the predator/prey situation and the counting of sheep, both of which are pertinent to ourselves and have ignored the physical world. This is not an isolated use because we tend to ignore the environment and the physical world and think in terms of the use that we can gain for ourselves, but the difference equation shows that every independent concept is related to every other. This is enigmatic that independent things can be related, but obvious when it is pointed out [e.g. conservation of total energy] but it is a general rule that affects everything and is as enigmatic as the wave/particle duality until its use is understood [to create atoms from neutrons].

Mathematics and physics are stuck ‘in a rut’ and need a fundamental change to make them applicable to the social sciences as well as modern physics and this paper presents a proof that this is so, and shows how the fractal/probability space that must be used [to view the null space], supports four axioms that link our mind/brain with the physical and provide bottom-up methods to link the traditional into a ‘new’/absolute mathematical physics. Bottom-up (physical) and top-down (Life) link orthogonally in the same way that mathematics (concept) and physics (context) need to go together and it is the only way to truly understand the organisational problems that our current methods have inflicted on the planet.

Traditional mathematics and Newtonian physics are constructs that we use because they are useful, but they have no place in the physical universe. Firstly, the units of speed and distance are familiar to us because they are necessary in the predator/prey situation to set up zones where we feel safe, and secondly, because they are both based on equality, whereas, the universe is built on differences [note the relativity/orthogonality of same/different]. An example is that the textbooks are filled with derivations and theorems that rely on equality through the use of the equation, but I believe that the physical universe uses orthogonality, which uses independence not sameness because, in general, independence builds whereas similarity is static.

Sameness is 1=1, whereas, difference is (1 + (-1))=0 and you might say that there is no difference but I say that there is a huge difference between these two equations and that difference produces the universe and everything in it, and shows why traditional mathematics and Newtonian physics [that use 1=1] are only special cases of a general mathematical physics [uses (1 + (-1))=0]. The difference between the two equations is organisation and yet traditional mathematics, in particular, tries to eliminate it! Clearly, we have been engaging in a fishing expedition [top-down] because we have no clear idea of what is below the surface and we have got mathematics and science so wrong for so long! Bottom-up gives a unique view and the proof is that the enigmas disappear.

The above paragraph is a blunt statement, but, I believe, true nonetheless and indicates why traditional mathematics is having so much trouble with the social sciences and Newtonian physics is having so much trouble describing modern physics. The answer is ‘sameness is 1=1, whereas, difference is (1 + (-1))=0’ and we complicate our view because we do not recognise this fact. As an example, Euler’s equation has been known to be true for hundreds of years, but no one understands it because it is in the form of the difference (the latter equation) as described in chapter 98. The universe is a fractal/probability space and everything is repeated in a fractal space because it is generated from a simple equation [(1 + (-1))=0] and Euler’s equation thus shows the form of the creation of the universe. [Note that Euler’s equation does not contain a Big Bang singularity, but does allow splitting.]

A small digression that traditional mathematics is inbred and not helping itself and is based on methods that have little to do with the real world, and this is why it is unnatural without a context [of physics, relativity]. As an example, what I am saying about differences is already (somewhat) known and excluded from traditional mathematics, and that is computing that is based on the comparison of differences, literally, in the processor, is the 1 or 0, the same or different to the 1 or 0 in the register. In other words, is the number/letter/symbol is determined as the same or different.

The equation that generates the fractal is, not surprisingly, (1 + (-1))=0, and that is why I say that the universe is built on this equation, and the reference to a probability space is because a probability space is a measuring space also built on (1 + (-1))=0. However, a probability space is much more than that because it is a measuring space and is actually (a+b)=1 where a and b are general and this allows Life to evolve a mind/brain that uses concepts and context [a and b] between the orthogonals [the independent axes of the Cartesian coordinates]. We will return to this later because there are four ‘search axioms’, derived from the spaces that link the mind/brain to the physical universe.

If we take the equation (1 + (-1))=0 and using the same technique [of difference over sameness], this orthogonates to (1 + (-1))=0 and (1 and (-1))=0 and ‘(1)’ might represent energy and ‘(-1)’ might represent organisation, to use common terms, and in the same way, ‘+’ might represent the physical [energy] and ‘and’ might represent logic [organisation]. This ‘up/down’ and ‘sideways’ orthogonality lead to the interesting possibility that ‘(1)’ and ‘(-1)’ have a number of properties, firstly, that the equation is only stable if ‘(1)’ and ‘(-1)’ are moving apart from each other. I believe that the universe is expanding for this reason, and, the expansion is needed to generate the dimensions of space and time. Secondly, that ‘(1)’ and ‘(-1)’ are independent [physically and logically], but entangled organisationally

This statement appears to be an enigma because when two things are independent, we consider them to be completely independent, but the difference equation says differently, and it is correct, in that two things are independent, but are always entangled. An example is that the total energy is zero [law of conservation of (total) energy] because the sum has to always be zero irrespective of what happens at every point and the sum is the entanglement of the independent points/values. This makes the general point that we must use organisational physics to see/consider [as a context] our logic because it must be based on the spaces in which we exist. To try to set up a traditional mathematics based on something that we consider important is somewhat heroic, but a little futile and a special case when the mathematics of concept/context is staring us in the face [(a+b)=1] and that contains traditional mathematics as a special case and allows a mathematic for the social sciences.

This point is very important because total energy is conserved through (1 + (-1))=0, but energy is always being created to necessarily balance the expansion of everything. Note that this can be confusing because we do not have unique words because (literally) everything (energy or organisation) orthogonate into energy and organisation Another example is the requirement that two frames of reference in a measurement between them do not exceed the speed of light in a vacuum [chapter 99 suggests that magnetism is the control]. This equation (1 + (-1))=0 also proves that electric charge is conserved and angular momentum, but linear momentum that is often said to be conserved is only a local special case. I have always been comfortable with conservation of charge, but not angular momentum, in a general conservational sense, until now.

Notice that the above explained the Big Bang, conservation of (total) energy, charge and angular momentum, the structure of magnetism, energy and organisation and we have hardly started! The equality equation is static, whereas the difference equation contains expansion that forms the universe and this constitutes a mathematical/physical/organisational proof that the difference is superior. In other words, the bottom-up mathematics and physics, I suggest, is superior, but both [top-down/bottom-up and equality/difference] are needed for a complete discipline [to accommodate us]. Notice also that expansion derives the dimensions to create a universe and that this proof actively involves organisation/mind/decision that is an ‘add-on’ to the traditional form of mathematics and physics.

Thirdly, these requirements can be simply derived from the dimensions of space/time above and from chapter 99, ‘I believe that the universe is constructed on orthogonality/choice and that we, by necessity, must view/expand the null space through a probability/fractal lens that allows that expanded view. The requirement of a probability/fractal space complicates our view of orthogonality and leads to the Principle of Relativity. From chapter 97, “in a probability/fractal space, the Principle of Relativity is that everything is relative to something else (1+(-1))=0, except for the conservation of total energy, the speed of electromagnetic waves in a vacuum and the increase in energy/organisation per unit of newly created space [dark energy].”’

The requirement of the separation of ‘(1)’ and ‘(-1)’ requires the production/definition of the dimensions of space and time passing as well as the creation of two types of energies and a simple ratio of the dimensions leads to the ‘absolute’ restrictions above. However, as an example of the importance of the requirement of expansion to the dimensions, the logical requirement of simplicity [Occam’s razor] applied to the Special Theory of Relativity accounts for the (apparent) enigma that all of time, length and mass [energy] being distorted by the same amount [Lorentz contraction] to satisfy the absolute conditions, above.
‘Whether or not the universe is five-dimensional is a topic of debate … German mathematician Theodore Kaluza and Swedish physicist Oscar Klein independently developed the Kaluza-Klein Theory in 1921, which used the fifth dimension to unify gravity with electromagnetic force. Although their approaches were later found to be at least partially inaccurate, the concept provided a basis for further research over the past century.’ (Wikipedia, Five-dimensional space)

It is apparent now that traditional mathematics and Newtonian physics are deficient in firstly, that they are based on sameness [‘sameness is 1=1, whereas, difference is (1 + (-1))=0’], but this is fortunate because sameness and difference are orthogonal. Secondly, physical/organisational [(1+(-1))=0 and (1 and (-1))=0] is (somewhat) lacking because the logical ‘and’ is relegated to an external mind/brain. Presumably this is done to simplify the construction of the traditional mathematics. Thirdly, entanglement [(1 +/and (-1))=0] is a physics concept because physics spreads the mathematical concepts across the various fields and provides the logic required by mathematics because we have to use the logic imposed by the fractal/probability space in the use of physics.

Further, more problems arise, fourthly, top-down and bottom-up [top-down is exploring-possibilities/guessing whereas bottom-up is derivable from the dimensions], fifthly, traditional use [the familiar units of the predator/prey situation are used], sixthly, the mind/brain extends the [axes of] orthogonality into [the plane of] concept/context that defines a mathematics of concept/context] and seventhly, putting it all together in a useful whole to make an absolute/general mathematical physics using orthogonality.

So, where are we going with this derivation? The first three points have been investigated, but another example of current usage might shed light on where progress can be made. The operators ‘+’ and ‘and’ have the same importance, but neither traditional mathematics nor Newtonian physics likes to use the ‘and’, and one common reference (Dirac) is in anticipating the positron. This suggests that top-down versus bottom-up allows many surprises and I have mentioned a few [e.g. no Big Bang, but expansion is logically required]. Traditional use of units is important and must be part of any absolute/general mathematic/physics and the answer is at hand in that everything is orthogonal and orthogonality can be used to solve the problem [because it is so basic/intrusive].

Three aspects are needed, firstly, top-down traditional mathematics and Newtonian physics, secondly, bottom-up mathematics of concept/context and organisational physics. Note that the mathematics can be seen from (a+b)=1 for general concepts a and b. Thirdly, the four ‘search axioms’ that link the mind/brain through the probability/fractal space, see below.

The first question is ‘what will this affect?’ and the answer is ‘only what you want it to affect’. The big winners will be the social sciences and the social organisations through the mathematics of concept/context, including the (theoretical) ability to solve the planet’s problems with population etc. In other words, the concept of adding numbers of things has been expanded to include (literally) everything and especially the concepts themselves. In mathematical physics it will be changes to our thinking and concepts more than the ‘nuts and bolts’ because mathematics is the concept and physics is the context, but we must be careful of the equations (equality), for example.

Referring to the above, and quoting from chapter 99, ‘firstly, a digression, because [literally] everything is an orthogonality, but an orthogonality may be the same in some regards, but different [states such as water, steam and ice] or independent [such as the frequency and amplitude of a wave]. E=mc2 is a relationship that illustrates this because energy and mass are the same thing [states of each other] and the units that we use to describe energy and mass are (presumably) related through the speed of light. E=hf is another case in point, of the second kind, but not so trivial because energy is orthogonal to mass as well as organisation This might seem confusing because everything [in the universe] is an orthogonality if it is not identical [1=1 versus (1+(-1))=0], kept separate by expansion [the universe] or by orthogonality [the atom].’

Further, from chapter 99 it was suggested that the photon is a wave/particle duality with the wave turning into a particle every half wavelength so that choice is presented as is necessitated by the capture of the electron by a proton to form an atom. This is part of the expansion of the universe, otherwise the proton and electron de-orthogonate into a neutron and the hydrogen atom collapses, which would not be helpful to the general living space. Thus, the universe is an organisational solution that we cannot affect, and our top-down thoughts, such as equality are not universe-building and the equations E=mc2 and E=hf must be regarded as nonsensical as orthogonality intertwines them and they are one and the same [except in form/shape].

Is a ‘new’ mathematical physics proper? The answer is ‘yes’ if we think the correct way. After all of the above, it might be time to consider philosophy, which has been isolated as being without answers because the amenable parts have been ‘hived off’ as disciplines. The mathematics of concept/context is the mathematics of philosophy and will answer all questions, much like the Oracle of Delphi of legend, because answers will be probabilistic [we are looking through a probability space] and require a mind/brain, but we can see the philosophical ‘roots’. Every question must contain concept/oneness/equality as well as everything-else/context/difference as shown in the first orthogonality [1=1 and (1+(-1))=0] and the mathematical notation makes it easier to comprehend.

So again, is mathematical physics proper? The answer is ‘yes’ if we think the correct way. Traditional mathematics is exact and made of equations [equals], whereas traditional physics can be thought of as orthogonals [differences] and that creates an orthogonality together [the original orthogonality is equal/not-equal]. The mathematics of concept/context is iterative (orthogonal) and the organisational physics is exact because it is logic and together form an orthogonal. The four ‘search axioms’ are the link between the mind/brain and the physical and the mind/brain is based on the mathematics of concept/context (orthogonals) and the physical concept is exact [the reason that Euler’s equation appears in traditional mathematics]. Thus, instead of a humanity based on thinking in terms of equality, we have found a universe based on independence, entanglement and orthogonality and yet we can fit into it using a ‘proper’ organisational physics.

The above is new, different, full-on and concise and I have tried to give examples to make it easier, so, another example that cannot be answered by traditional methods has been an enigma for a long time. Why do species form? ‘Ironically, considering that Darwin called his book On the Origin of Species, the one thing that he couldn’t explain was how species originated. Darwin’s theory suggested a mechanism for how a species might become stronger or better or faster – in a word, fitter – but gave no indication of how it might throw up a new species.’ (A Short History of Nearly Everything, Bill Bryson, p 346)

The answer is to be found, I believe, in three parts, firstly [physically], by consulting the ‘opening of the null space’, above, because two measurement/species occur when the two elements are not entangled as in separation by a sea, mountain range etc. Secondly [organisationally], you can neither tell if two species are separate if their range is expanding nor if they are organisationally entangled. I can say this with complete confidence because it has been derived bottom-up and the answer has to do with measurement, or, more precisely, the lack of ability to measure, because we are looking through a probability space and are facing the same probabilistic problems as in quantum mechanics.

How do you know when two species have been formed and the answer is when they can not breed together and that is an unknown unless we can individually watch and take account of every individual to see if mating produces viable offspring. This problem is organisational and requires infinite speed of accounting as in quantum gravity, and on the ground, requires walking or driving, and in the modern sense, with its own problems, radio collars. Needless to say, the absolute (relatively) slow speed of measuring, of which we are capable, is analogous to the Theory of Relativity. Ho hum! When you derive from the bottom-up in a fractal space, the options are limited and the same options in evolution apply to mathematical physics as to the rest of the universe.

Thirdly [Life], from above, we have to incorporate the ‘opening of the null space’ and the Principle of Relativity into a combined mathematical physics that will handle examples of social science, politics, philosophy etc. with the same ease as speciation is being considered. This requires considering the properties of the probability space and that Life is a parasite that has evolved and in particular has taken advantage of the mathematical/physical space of the universe to evolve a place and this is clarified by the following quotation from chapter 86. ‘The Math Book, (by Clifford A. Pickover, p 284) gives the five Peano Axioms as a basis of arithmetic, and certain things appeared to be missing, such as the mind/brain to determine elegance of content, forward planning (dimension 7), the measurement of each numeral (questing) and the relationship between numerals (relevance)’.

Further, ‘If we unfold (a+b)=1 in a probability space, as above, including Life, we get:
concept/forward-planning/quest/relevance/beauty/context.

If we unfold (a+b)=1 in a probability space, as above, excluding Life, we get:
measurement/quest/relevance/entanglement.

Notice that forward-planning is a dimension specific to Life and necessary for the predator/prey basis of iteration and the four axioms are immediately obvious in the above.’

The physical search for the cause of speciation was akin to quantum gravity with all the problems that unfolding a probability space entails, but including Life, as is necessary, shows, in the paragraph above that the probability space allows concept/forward-planning/quest/relevance/beauty/context and these are in the mind of the beholder and connect the mind/brain with the physical universe. Thus, there are both physical and mental reasons contributing to speciation and beauty [golden triangle (a+b)] is an unexpected player (chapter 78).

In conclusion, the mathematical physics [mathematics and physics do not exist on their own, relativity] of the universe is determined by (1+(-1))=0 [measurement/entanglement/choice] and a probability space has a more expansive definition of (a+b)=1, where a and b are completely general and Life has used this to evolve a mind/brain to explore the space between the orthogonals and produce the mathematics of concept/context. In other words, I believe that the mind/brain evolved to use the orthogonality of energy/organisation to produce thought [and forward planning] by consuming/burning large quantities of glucose [energy] in order to produce thought [organisation]. The concept of the creation of a mind/brain has been an enigma of long-standing and the orthogonality of energy/organisation presents a simple relationship between burning sugar and thought.

The ‘new’ physics and the ‘new’ mathematics have been ‘cobbled’ together to allow ‘common usage’ to use a systems of units that were useful in the predator/prey situation of the survival of the fittest, but using the physics of the universe. This general/absolute mathematical physics is the only general mathematical physics that can be derived through a fractal/probability space and our society needs it to put more emphasis on organisation to stop the population growing and outstripping resources. Clearly, concept, context and expansion form the basis of survival of the fittest and that is why it works, but, the misery of the participants is apparent in the competition and we need a better organisational means of limiting population to a sustainable level.

References: all quotations are fully referenced in the body and earlier chapters can be found on darrylpenney.com if required.

Chapter 99: The Principle of Relativity, the Role and Importance of Magnetism, the Amplitude of Electromagnetic Waves and Inside the Photon

Chapter 98: The Principle of Relativity, the Creation and Euler’s Equation Explained

Chapter 97: You Asked For A Simple Theory, Stephen Hawking, So, Enjoy It!

Chapter 78: Love, Beauty, Ecstasy, the Golden Ratio and the Reason that Sexual Selection Works

Chapter 86: How the Mind Works, Evolution in Mind-space, the Placebo/nocebo Effect Has Two Parts, Combating Chronic Pain, Why Eastern and Western Medicine are Similar, Unfolding Mind-space from the Fifth Dimension and the Law of Conservation of Minimum Energy

Chapter 32: Reality and the Mathematics of the Social Sciences

Chapter 99: The Principle of Relativity, the Role and Importance of Magnetism, the Amplitude of Electromagnetic Waves and Unfolding the Photon

by Darryl Penney

Abstract: Traditional physics views electricity and magnetism as being related as described by Maxwell’s equations and neglects their orthogonality, which is a simple concept that leads to the Principle of Relativity and absolute/’new’ physics that provides a simple description of the working of the photon and explains the enigma in traditional physics that an electromagnetic wave passes through magnetic and electric fields unaffected, but is affected by the entanglement with energy leading to the effect of diffraction and the conservation of energy. Magnetism has a crucial organisational role in recording the speed of moving frames of reference and providing choice to the act of measurement to prevent a logical singularity and shows how the enigma of the Special Theory of Relativity is due to the use of an incomplete Newtonian physics.

I believe that the universe is constructed on orthogonality/choice and that we, by necessity, must view/expand the null space through a probability/fractal lens that allows that expanded view. The requirement of a probability/fractal space complicates our view of orthogonality and leads to the Principle of Relativity. From chapter 97, ‘in a probability/fractal space, the Principle of Relativity is that everything is relative to something else (1+(-1))=0, except for the conservation of total energy, the speed of electromagnetic waves in a vacuum and the increase in energy/organisation per unit of newly created space [dark energy].’

Orthogonality is basic and is buried in the Principle of Relativity in the equation (1+(-1))=0 and it can be immediately seen that (1) and (-1) are opposite/independent and yet linked and this linkage is also shown in the second orthogonality (1+(-1))=0 [physical] and (1 and (-1))=0 [logically/organisationally] that there are always two parts that are independent and yet related [Principle of Relativity]. It is difficult to comprehend that independent things are related/entangled, but (1) and (-1) only exist because everything is continually moving apart so that (1) and (-1) continue to exist, and the universe, seen through a fractal space, must continue to expand because a fractal requires repeatability [Big-Bang/Big-Whoosh].

As an example, to increase the understanding of orthogonality/choice, from chapter 98, ‘another example that has perplexed physicists for centuries and can be explained simply by orthogonality is the difference between gravitational mass and inertial mass [gravitational between the planets and inertial tangential to the motion] and they have the same value [for logical reasons], but operate orthogonally/independently and are thus fundamentally different/independent because inertia is (literally) energy and gravity is (literally) organisational/logic [energy versus organisation orthogonalisation].’

Notice that ‘the difference between gravitational mass and inertial mass’ is because ‘inertia is (literally) energy and gravity is (literally) organizational/logic’ and this shows a difference [orthogonality] that is ignored in Newtonian physics because Newtonian physics does not have a formal recognition of organisation. Ignoring the differences with masses can be done, in most cases, because they have the same magnitude of mass, but electricity and magnetism will be seen, I believe, to be similar, in that they are orthogonal, but different in that they do different jobs and are recognisably different and yet interact between themselves. Traditional physics views electricity and magnetism as being the same thing and ignores orthogonality, which is a simple concept with a multitude of contexts from which the universe is built and run.

A small digression about ‘what is physics?’ might be in order because from chapter 96, “up to now, most scientists have been too occupied with the development of new theories that describe what the universe is to ask the question why. On the other hand, the people whose business it is to ask why, the philosophers, have not been able to keep up with the advance of scientific theories.’ (A Brief History of Time, Stephen W. Hawking, p 174) It appears that we both agree that both technicians [concept] and generalists [context] are necessary to fully understand a subject [place it in context], but there are other considerations.’

‘Considering the “what?” and the “why?” in the above in the light of orthogonality and the Principle of Relativity, the quotation is correct in the traditional Newtonian physics, but shows another aspect of orthogonality. Mathematics is said to be the “handmaiden of the sciences”, but I believe that mathematics is the concept and physics is the context [horizontal orthogonality], but philosophy is a lower level [vertical orthogonality] because philosophy spawned mathematics and physics. Thus, I believe that the quotation is incorrect because physics is not only responsible for the concept “how?”, but also for the context “why?” [Principle of Relativity] as a third orthogonality. The orthogonal of philosophy (concept) might be the ‘spread of learning’ because philosophy was the original discipline, however, the point of this paragraph is that physics must pursue its own “why?”.’

This argument shows that the way that Newtonian physics described physics 350 years ago, is not adequate today and that physics needs to consider both ‘what?’ and ‘why?’ on the same level to avoid the confusion that has occurred in only considering top-down. In other words, currently, Newtonian physics (practically) ignores organisation [and choice] and cannot comprehend the place of organisation that is (literally) half of physics, and now I find the same has occurred for magnetism, and considering the importance of electricity and magnetism in our technology, this is an opportunity that should be taken to understand it better.

To foreshadow the aim of this discussion, in my belief, Newtonian physics is energy based and orthogonality requires an organisational side [quantum gravity plus housekeeping organisation] and the same can be said for electricity [energy] and magnetism [organisation], but with a difference that magnetism has a role to play in electromagnetic radiation as the ‘speedometer’ that is the mechanism [of choice] that allows the strange effects of relativity to come into effect as the speed difference [measurement] between two frames of reference increases. Just as we use electricity from electrons that the universe uses as atoms to build itself, we use magnetism in electric motors, whereas the universe uses the organisation of magnetism to monitor and safeguard the universe from [logical] singularities. As parasites, we grab whatever we can use for our own comfort/benefit.

The strange effects of relativity come about because we have to look through a probability and a fractal space and the dimensions, created by (1+(-1))=0, require a constant speed of light, expansion etc. This imposes a logical restriction on our ability to measure when we use an energy-based speed of light [traditional physics] instead of the accounting speed used by the organisation of the universe. Quantum gravity is the relationship [hyperbola] of attraction between all energy/organisation from the nucleus to the stars and magnetism has another use because there has to be a mechanism to measure/control the speed of light/energy because of the restriction to the constant speed of the photon. In other words, magnetism is similar to quantum gravity [organisation] but has and does a different job and further, traditional physics measures electricity and magnetism with the same yardstick even though one is energy and the other is organisation.
‘Magnetism is as familiar as a fridge magnet or a compass needle, yet it is also a force that is still not fully understood by physicists, and which is difficult to explain in any detail…. Gilbert … demonstrated that although both static electrical charges and magnetism have powers of attraction and repulsion, they are different kinds of forces…. James Clerk Maxwell … with a rigorous mathematical description of the relationship between electricity and magnetism, the two forces have been united into one: electromagnetism.’ (History’s Greatest Discoveries, Joel Levy, p 142)

Traditional modern physics says that electricity and magnetism go together like the proverbial horse and carriage, and modern physics is firmly seated on Newtonian Physics, and thus, is incapable of understanding the basic orthogonality relationship and is littered with enigmas. As an example, ‘in Einstein’s equations, magnetism and electricity were manifestations of the same thing seen by viewers in different frames of reference; an electric field in one moving frame would be seen as a magnetic field in another.’ (50 Physics Ideas, Joanne Baker, p 91)

This quotation suggests that firstly, ‘magnetism and electricity were manifestations of the same thing’, whereas, I believe that they are orthogonal/independent with electricity being energy and magnetism being the organization created by the change in energy brought about by the difference in the speed of the frames of reference. An analogy might be appropriate, as a car’s relationship to its speedometer is organisational and is an instrument of the car and necessary to the car, but is different to a car. Thus, magnetism is a manifestation of choice based on the speed of one frame of reference with respect to another because there must be a means of monitoring that speed difference because the speed of energy is a constant/maximum that we call the speed of light in a vacuum and further it is an absolute as noted in the definition of the Principle of Relativity. This corresponds to the car staying within the speed limit of the road/law with respect to our method of measurement.

Secondly, ‘seen by viewers in different frames of reference’ suggests that magnetism and electricity are the same thing but orthogonal in different frames of reference due to the motion and thus a measurement of the speed difference. To digress, a probability space has the dimension of (a+b)=1 where a and b are general measurement/record and Life has used this to operate the mind/brain with concept/context and the physical universe uses the simple form [measurement/entanglement/choice] to keep track of energy [conservation of energy] and to guard against ‘tripping’ a singularity. Note that these are organisational singularities that occur because of the [organisational] restrictions on the solution of the organisation, thus the speed of every frame of reference in the universe is monitored against every other frame by using the accountability of the space.

In other words, both the [concept of the] conservation of energy [of every particle/energy] and the speed [relative] of every particle is monitored by the general a and b of a probability space [(a+b)=1]. This is a property of a probability space and is the reason behind the mathematics of concept/context, Feynman’s sum of histories and Occam’s razor where certainty is only attained by a complete accounting of organisation [the opposite of ‘slow’ energy]. It has been said that our planet is a life-form, but it is apparent that the universe is an organisational life-form and we [the mind/brain especially] are built on the same principle. Whilst (a+b)=1 is the mechanism of the accounting of the space, for all a and b, we are now considering magnetism that varies as the speed between every frame of reference and can be compared against an absolute, and that absolute is, I believe, carried by every photon for comparison and is, at a guess, the amplitude.

Thus: magnetism is the organisational energy created orthogonally with the energy change necessitated by two charged particles moving in two different frames of reference, also, magnetism is the ‘speedometer’ that allows logic to compare the speed between the two frames of reference and prevent the measurement of frames of reference exceeding the speed of light. The first part is the simple definition/explanation of magnetism that has escaped traditional physics for centuries because of omissions in its basic Newtonian structure, whereas the second part shows the use and the necessity of magnetism as a fundamental part of the organisational structure of the universe, so, this definition tells more of the whole story. Notice that this definition consists of two parts [Principle of Relativity] that are concept and context [and requires choice].

Let us start with the usual picture of an electromagnetic wave as shown in Wikipedia with electric and magnetic fields arising and falling in rhythm because electric fields generate magnetic fields and vice versa at right angles to each other [possibly a small appreciation of orthogonality?]. The enigma is that the energy of the photon, as shown by the electric and magnetic field, drops to zero at every half wavelength. It would make more sense, in an energy sense, if the electric and magnetic fields were out of sequence by a quarter of a wavelength because the sum of the squares equals unity and that would mean that the energy transfers from electric to magnetic fields and the total remains constant. But, as above, they generate each other at the same time, so, how does the photon remember how much energy it is supposed to have? Obviously there is more to it and probably involves the concept/context of organization.

The mind/brain uses the concept/context of wave/particle duality that is a higher ‘use’ of the orthogonality space [between the orthogonals] than the physical world that uses measurement/entanglement [only the orthogonals], and this duality occurs in every particle and, in particular, the photon, and when the wave is at zero, the photon is in particle form and when the wave is maximal, it is in wave form. Thus, orthogonality provides a ‘shimmer’ that makes available choice in the physical world and makes orthogonality, ‘either this and that, else stays the same’ available with the ability of both the physical and organisational to choose. Orthogonality and choice [in the form of shimmer, see chapter 94] are the bedrock of the universe and the structure of the universe is produced by the requirement of space to provide ‘living room’. The expanding universe is evidence of this necessity, as is the wave/particle duality [forming atoms].

The neutron is energy/organisation in a solid state and orthogonates to a proton and electron and the proton/neutron bond in the nucleus is part of the quantum gravity organisation with the gravity of the galaxies being the other extreme. The electrons encircle the neutrons/protons [roughly equal numbers due to the bond] in Bohr orbits depending on their wavelength and are, in some cases, loosely held and form electric currents that have an associated magnetic field with all the properties found in a physics textbook. However, quantum mechanics and relativity are major players in any discussion because we view the universe through a probability/fractal space that dictates that the speed of light is relatively slow (see chapter 98) and that everything is probabilistic.

According to modern physics, the speed of light ‘is fixed by the absolute electric and magnetic properties of free space’ (p 89), which says very little, and what it implies is incorrect because it is the measurement that determines the relative speed between the object and the measurer’s mind/brain. The ratio of the dimensions, length to time for all energy is a constant and the same constant [Lorentz transformation] applies to all of the dimensions for logical simplicity. That is a bottom-up reason from the dimensions [of a probability/fractal space] that the speed of electromagnetic radiation is fixed [with respect to the measurer], organisationally [the speed is the same to each mind/brain], not the electric and magnetic properties of free space, which is completely different [as is being outlined here]. This again shows the lack of appreciation of organisation and energy in traditional physics and this is crucial to thinking because our logic is (literally) organisational physics.

The constant/absolute speed of light [with respect to the measurer] means that a singularity/nonsense is created if a particle exceeds that speed and cannot be measured by traditional physics and there is no other possibility than by changing the dimensions of the particle’s frame of reference [Special Theory of Relativity] by the Lorentz contraction. I have always wondered how this could be done and suspect that the reason is the same as, I believe, that every person, no matter how they are moving, sees the speed of light as an absolute [Michelson-Morley experiment], that is, organisationally. Nothing changes with the moving particle [energy], but the measurement [organisation] becomes impossible in an energy/physical sense because there is nothing [energy-wise] that is able to measure above that speed. The universe continues to function because it uses [the infinite speed of] accountability, that is not appreciated by Newtonian physics and this is the context that goes with the concept, as required by the Principle of Relativity.

The universe is a simple place built on a simple formula [in the form (1+(-1))=0], so why should our understanding have problems? I believe that it is the limitations of traditional physics and mathematics that is causing the difficulty, apart from the natural urge to not change our thinking. The equation creates the universe and that equation requires expansion for it to exist and remain valid and a fractal repeats a simple organisation continually and this expansion is ‘written into’ our universe that we see as the Big-Bang/Big-Whoosh, but also, orthogonality creates areas of stability [atoms] using the wave/particle duality of the electrons (chapter 97). The expansion is balanced by the creation of energy [dark energy], thus creating organisational stability through expansion.

Restating this, if two charges are considered, there is necessarily a measurement/entanglement between them because (1+(-1))=0 contains three important properties: measurement between 1 and (-1), entanglement between 1 and (-1) and the equation is only stable if the space is expanding. If the charges move with respect to each other the energy relationship changes and the [necessarily] associated organisation also changes and that change we call magnetism. Notice that organisation has infinite speed of entanglement, whereas energy is restricted to the speed of light and that we are concerned with charged particles. As an example, the recording of (so called) gravity waves from cosmic events that we see in the newspapers is the energy reaching us after millions of years, not gravity changes.

So, what is magnetism? Firstly, it is a direction, and this has been recognised by having been called north/south [reversing the motion of the charged particle reverses the polarity] and secondly, forms part of the organisational entanglement similar to quantum gravity that is instantly accountable universe wide. Thirdly, magnetism is a speedometer that measures the relationship between frames of reference. The Special Theory of Relativity describes what must happen to frames of reference as their speed approaches the absolute speed of transmission of the [positive] energy component [light] that is bound by the dimensions of a probability space, but the measurement between frames of reference must be made as an organisational solution [negative] that is akin to the measurement of the speed of light by the mind/brain as shown in the Michelson-Morley experiment.

The Michelson-Morley experiment effectively says that the speed of light is constant as measured by all observers irrespective of their motion with respect to each other. This is an enigma in Newtonian physics and is a postulate in Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity and means, to repeat, that every measurer’s mind/brain measures the speed to be the same. This is not a physics’ ‘energy’, but is a logical/organisational happening/solution due to the absolute in the Principle of Relativity that comes from viewing [the null space] through a probability space. Absolute time [null space] becomes relative time as we open up the null space using a necessarily slow speed of light and so the time and space of observers vary and give the effects as shown in the Special Theory of Relativity. This change in space, time and both forms of energy occurs because they are the only things that can change to preserve the Principle of Relativity.

Traditional physics is top-down and, thus, by necessity can only describe ‘how?’ things happen, whereas organisational physics is bottom-up and answers the question of ‘why?’ things happen, and of course, this is an orthogonality that leads into the ‘new’ physics. So, fourthly, the ‘how?’ [concept] of magnetism involves the ‘why?’ [context] of magnetism and we then realize that magnetism is the logical mechanism/solution behind relativity. It is the speedometer and a speedometer is only necessary if we need to watch our speed because there are speed limits that attract penalties and the speed limit is the speed of light and there is no possibility of exceeding it [in a measurement]. Note that a measuring space will do its best to return the type of measurement required [wave/particle duality].

In Newtonian physics I could make the following a postulate, that there is no possibility of a particle of energy (with no charge) reaching the speed of light except as a photon. I do this because magnetism [as the speedometer] registers only charged particles that are capable of exceeding the speed limit, as well as being contained in the photon that maintains/measures the speed limit. I would have to make it a postulate because Newtonian physics does not recognise logic/common-sense/organisational-physics because they are not energy based, unless it is necessary and most scientists agree with it.

In traffic theory, if a car passed another, it is taken as a transfer of momentum [not an addition], whereas, in real life a policeman will ‘book’ you if you exceed the speed limit in passing, as happened to me through their ‘forward radar’ fitted to their cars, even when they were kilometres away. The ‘cosmic policeman’ is just as ‘unfair’ and chaos [logical] will occur if any energy/measurement exceeds the speed of light in a vacuum, but can an uncharged particle exceed this speed? My view of organisational physics contends that it cannot, and it is my decision that only charged particles can be accelerated sufficiently and they have, I believe, a speedometer on them in the form of magnetism. Magnetism must be part of organisation somewhat like quantum gravity with an infinitely fast accounting.

The role of ‘cosmic policeman’ greatly enhances magnetism’s importance as a fundamental part of the universe’s organisation and further shows that electricity and magnetism are not the same. Considering Newtonian physics, the Michelson-Morley experiment is enigmatic because every mind/brain is affected [in measurement] and this could only happen in a measuring space [probability space], and in the same way the measurement of speed, conservation of total energy and doing something about it could only happen in a measuring/organisational space. It is easier to consider the universe and its workings as organisational solutions where everything works based on five inputs/dimensions of energy, space and time passing [not time interval], so, let’s look at organisation/quantum-gravity through the following quotation.

‘Einstein made the revolutionary suggestion that gravity is not a force like other forces, but is a consequence of the fact that space-time is not flat, as had been previously assumed: it is curved, or “warped”, by the distribution of mass and energy in it.’ (p 29) This consideration that firstly, gravity is not a force is that which I am saying, and secondly, that space-time is warped is, I believe, a complication that is not very helpful and as the energy to space ratio is constant, above, and the speed of light is constant there is no reason to suspect that the dimensions created by the expansion are not simple [constant/linear not parabolic]. In other words, at the instant of creation the expanding [initially logical, not hot energy] space and time are orthogonal [not “warped”, but independent] by necessity, and remain so and I think that organisation is a better assumption than a ‘rubber sheet’ space-time deformed by mass and the reason that I say this is because both interpretations are organisational [concept], but quantum gravity broadens our understanding [context].

An example of the need for a speedometer is shown by the following quotation. ‘after 1,000,000 years neck and neck, the light ray would beat the proton to the finish line by about 4 centimetres…. Cosmic-ray scientists refer to it a the “Oh-My-God Particle”…. It had more than 50 joules of energy, or about 12 calories.’ (Extreme Cosmos, Bryan Gaensler, p 89) This is an example of the workings of relativity, the speed limit [concept] to energy and the need of a speedometer [context] and that magnetism is the physical means that logic can measure, and work on changing the dimensions [to the measurer] to prevent excessive speed [as viewed through traditional physics].

If we are looking at a frame of reference that is close to the speed of light relative to us, what causes the mass/energy etc. to increase and the answer is, that it does not increase. Our measurement of its dimensions changes so that our measurement of the speed of light is not exceeded and this reflects a relationship [entanglement] between concept and context. Looking at the Michelson-Morley experiment shows that measurement obeys logical laws that maintain that the measurement of the speed of light is constant to each measurer. The constant speed of light is a small price to pay to be able to use a measuring space and we do live in a measuring space because that is how we see/measure our surroundings. The Principle of Relativity says that there is energy and organisation and to not appreciate organisation distorts our view. In other words, we establish a concept and a context between the frames of reference of the form (a+b)=1, or in physical terms (1+(-1))=0, so, we should expect measurement to have an entanglement [context]. We consider ourselves to understand energy and have based Newtonian physics on it, but consider hammering a nail, the energy is apparent, but there is a lot of organisation involved that we are dismissing.

If the first orthogonal is energy/organisation, the second orthogonal of organisation is energy plus quantum gravity [attraction], magnetism [policing] and other organisation, thus quantum gravity and magnetism have a common requirement of accountability, but different outcomes. At least, an important part of physics has been better explained when compared to the modern Newtonian physic’s idea that ‘electricity and magnetism go together like a horse and carriage’. They do work together through our ingenuity in electric motors etc., but it does show how we bend nature to our own uses.

I believe that we have found that magnetism is independent/orthogonal to electricity, and is the organisation part of the energy that arose/created from the difference in the speed of the frames of reference and that its value is a measure of the speed difference between the charged particle and the observer so that, being organisational, there is an infinite speed of accounting to ensure that [measurement of] the speed of light, in vacuo is not exceeded. This interpretation severely diminishes the elegance of Maxwell’s equations that link electricity and magnetism because, whilst not incorrect, as they are mathematical descriptions of simple experimental laws, they are a mixture of two independent/orthogonal relationships and show our prowess as a parasite. Thus Maxwell’s laws might be correct, but the underlying assumption that they represent two related effects may not be the case, and further, the name ‘electromagnetic’ suggests this association, even though photons do not react with either electric or magnetic fields.

As this theory needs a prediction, so, returning to the Principle of Relativity [(1+(-1))=0 and (a+b)=1], it can be seen that the equation of the physical and of the mind/brain can orthogonate to the physical and organisational [(1+(-1))=0, (1 and (-1))=0, (a+b)=1 and (a and b)=1], and that requires a measurement/entanglement and/or concept/context for everything apart from the three absolutes. Thus, the current textbook concept is that a photon is sinusoidal electric and magnetic waves rising and falling together, orthogonally, to some amplitude with the energy (E) equal to Plank’s constant (h) times the frequency (f). This representation is troubling/enigmatic and quite possibly wrong because firstly, if both electric and magnetic fields drop to zero every half wavelength, how does the photon know how much energy it is supposed to be carrying, as above, and secondly, why is the amplitude not used? The law [E=hf] is extremely important, but traditional modern physics makes no mention of the amplitude of the photon wave. Why, when traditional physics considers that increasing the amplitude of a wave increases the energy, and that is clearly not so for electromagnetic waves?

Firstly, a digression, because [literally] everything is an orthogonality, but an orthogonality may be the same in some regards, but different [states such as water, steam and ice] or independent [such as the frequency and amplitude of a wave]. E=mc2 is a relationship that illustrates this because energy and mass are the same thing [states of each other] and the units that we use to describe energy and mass are (presumably) related through the speed of light. E=hf is another case in point, of the second kind, but not so trivial because energy is orthogonal to mass as well as organisation. This might seem confusing because everything [in the universe] is an orthogonality if it is not identical [(1+(-1))=0], kept separate by expansion [the universe] or by orthogonality [the atom].

E=hf is readily apparent because we evolved to see the change in frequency as colours as part of our reality, but frequency and amplitude are orthogonal and no one has pointed to amplitude and said that it does some job, and yet it is as important as frequency. Radios have been invented that are amplitude modulated and frequency modulated, but in the fundamental physics of electromagnetic radiation no one has questioned the amplitude, so, it could be a constant, and if it is constant, it could be so, for a very good reason. In a probability space the dimensions dictate that the speed of light must be constant [absolute] and this could mean that the amplitude is constant and so has passed ‘under the radar’ of scientists.

These two deficiencies [incompleteness and amplitude] are rectified in the light of the above, quite simply, I believe. We could use the wave/particle duality shimmer (chapter 94) where the diminution of the wave is the conversion to the particle so that choice is presented twice in each wavelength. The magnetic field is orthogonal to the electric field [energy/organisation] and that leaves only the amplitude and magnetic field to be explained.

The magnetic field has an amplitude that represents the difference in speed [notice speed] between the charged particle and the observer and is a [organisational] constant because the speed of light is the same for every observer irrespective of their motion in a probability space. Thus the amplitude in the photon is constant [for the electric and magnetic orthogonal components must be the same] and represents the maximum [speed of light] and is available for (organizational) comparison with charged particles or observers. Just as there has to be physical choice for reactions to be carried out, there has to be comparisons within that choice, and as I have said before, fractal expansion provides the correct energy ‘direction’ [zero first to maximum last for logic]. In other words, the amplitude of the magnetic and electric waves must be the same because of orthogonality and we know that the frequency is available for the energy [both energy and organisation are equal] and the speed [of light] is (possibly) determined by the amplitude and this assertion, that the speed is a constant/absolute, is seen [relative to] by every observer.

Clearly, electric and magnetic waves seem to fit the circumstances, but it has always been of concern to me that light, though it supposedly contains a magnetic and electric field, is not bent by a magnetic or an electric field. The answer may lie in organization/logic because if a photon were bent by a magnetic or electric field, the entanglement would affect one of the electric or magnetic waves and they would no longer be equal, as required by (1+(-1))=0. In other words, there is a logical reason that a photon cannot react with an electric or magnetic field [where only one is affected], however, the entanglement of quantum gravity [attraction of mass] is apparent in the bending of light by matter/energy in diffraction because both energies [(1+(-1))=0] are affected equally.

The equality that these questions point to, in the fundamental fact of orthogonality, that traditional physics ignores, in the main, strongly suggests that there must be specialists and generalists [(a+b)=1] to properly investigate/understand a problem because this energy/organisation carries over into our social system and the very core of where we are going as humanity. In other words, universities are hampering research by not having generalists to match their specialists.

Conclusion: from the above, the photon is the ‘workhorse’ [energy, concept] of the universe and connected to every other piece of energy [gravity, context] and consist of a pulsating [provides choice] orthogonality of particle/wave [duality, orthogonality] that moves at a set speed [absolute of the probability/fractal space] (possibly) determining the amplitude of the electric and magnetic fields [orthogonal, equal] relative to any measurer, and the energy is determined by the frequency. This is a simple picture of the photon, but it requires the use of absolute/’new’ mathematics and physics in a probability/fractal space, with orthogonality, no Big Bang, belief in the wave particle duality etc., but it does suggest a solution to the enigma of why the electromagnetic wave is unaffected by electric and magnetic fields.

Everything in the universe is an orthogonality and presents two views/’faces’, and an alternate concept to the context in the paragraph above, is that a photon is energy/organization considered as a wave/particle, a third orthogonality shows that the wave aspect is electric [energy] and magnetic [organisation] and a fourth is that they are linked together at 90 degrees [orthogonality] and so on. This shows that Newtonian physics cannot adequately describe a physics of energy/organisation by energy alone, as it has been doing/attempting for 350 years, and at a later date, it will be shown that top-down derived traditional mathematics and Newtonian physics are fundamentally different [orthogonal] because they need to be.

Newtonian physics and counting mathematics align with our accepted use and views of our reality, but modern physics has shown that a change is needed and that could be, I believe, a simple amalgamation of the top-down and bottom-up. This view is enhanced by the finding that the long accepted picture of Maxwell’s laws and the choice of naming photons as electromagnetic waves, even when they do not exhibit those properties was a typical top-down ‘inspired guess’ that the inclusion of logic/organisation can now justify.

The major gain from recognising and including organisation is to place modern physics on a firm base and provide a mathematics of concept/context that allows context equal importance in the social sciences where it is sorely needed to improve the functioning of society.

References: all quotations are fully referenced in the body and earlier chapters can be found on darrylpenney.com if required.

Chapter 98: The Principle of Relativity, the Creation and Euler’s Equation Explained

Chapter 97: You Asked For A Simple Theory, Stephen Hawking, So, Enjoy It!

Chapter 94: Why Newtonian Physics Needs Choice

Subtitle: Defining Choice Within a ‘New’ Philosophy, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle Resolved, the Physics of Choice Creates Atoms Through the Wave/particle Duality/shimmer, Mind/thought is the Organisational Orthogonality of the Brain’s Energy Consumption, Orthogonality defines the dimensions, How the Voting System Effects Housing Affordability and How to Fix It Through Rational Choices

Chapter 96: the Unification of Top-down and Bottom-up and the Theory of Everything

Chapter 98: The Principle of Relativity, the Creation and Euler’s Equation Explained

by Darryl Penney

Abstract: the universe is a simple place, but to view it requires the use of ‘distorting’ lenses [probability/fractal spaces] that define the Principle of Relativity that is composed of orthogonality and three absolutes derived from the dimensions and these ‘tools of creation’ are required for us to define a creation event. The creation event is repeated throughout the universe because a fractal space is based on repeatability and appears complicated to us in the same way that the Mandelbrot series is both (apparently) complicated yet generated simply. Our universe appears similar, and as an example, Euler’s enigmatic equation can be expressed as a statement of orthogonality [mathematical, concept] and physically as a description of the creation of the universe [physical, context] in line with absolute mathematical physics being a composite of traditional mathematics [concept] and Newtonian physics [context] because everything in the universe is orthogonal. Traditional mathematics and Newtonian physics, are useful workable theories, but are incomplete and, on their own, misleading and a rethink is necessary and is presented as a (necessarily) overarching energy/organizational orthogonality that simplifies our view of our universe. In other words, mathematics and physics are not separate disciplines [Principle of Relativity] and require two viewpoints [specialist and generalist] with organizational physics supplying the bottom-up [correct logic], the four search axioms that link the mind/brain with the physical universe and finally, the simplification advice that was given to Stephen Hawking is to use the appropriate orthogonality.

‘In 2007, Swedish-American cosmologist Max Tegmark published scientific and popular articles on the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis (MUH) that states that our physical reality is a mathematical structure and that our universe is not just described by mathematics – it is mathematics.’ The Math Book, Clifford A. Pickover, p 516) Firstly, this quotation is in the same vein as Newtonian physics and wrong for the same reason, and that reason is that it violates orthogonality and, I believe that the whole universe is built on orthogonality. Orthogonality is the physical ‘force’ that derives the universe and the Principle of Relativity is the mind/brain’s concept of orthogonality tempered by three absolutes derived from the dimensions due to the effect of the probability/fractal spaces that must be used to view it.

Secondly, I believe that the statement that ‘many modern theories, like quantum mechanics and relativity, can defy intuition’ (p 516) is not true when viewed through the appropriate spaces, but these theories are enigmas when considered in terms of Newtonian physics and an incomplete theory will return enigmas until viewed through the appropriate space in the appropriate way. Thirdly, it is appropriate to ask ‘what is our universe?’, as above, because our universe is not what we assume and the Michelson-Morley experiment [that the speed of light is the same to all observers no matter how they are moving] shows that this is true and leads to the Special Theory of Relativity that showed bizarre effects [that energy/mass, length and time changed to ensure (the logical effect) that the speed of light did remain constant to every viewer].

From chapter 97: in a probability/fractal space, the Principle of Relativity is that everything is relative to something else (1+(-1))=0, except for the conservation of total energy, the speed of electromagnetic waves in a vacuum and the increase in energy/organization per unit of newly created space [dark energy]. It would be nice and convenient to have the universe that Newtonian physics assumes that we have, but it is not so, and I believe that we have to look through an orthogonality of a fractal and probability space that turns quantum mechanics probabilistic, imposes a constant speed of light to each viewer and so on. Newtonian physics uses the units of speed and distance that we evolved for the predator/prey situation and that reality breaks down as we look closer at nature.

This principle can be stated with confidence because it will be derived bottom-up from (literally) nothing, including the dimensions and at the same time solve the enigma of Euler’s equation by placing it in its proper context. The Big Bang is a ‘creation myth’ based on the fact that the vast majority of stars are receding from us [Doppler red shift] and assumes that all of the energy was created at a point and the momentum has carried us to where we are today. This picture/guess explains the facts, as seen, but it will be seen that the Big Whoosh is a better and more logical explanation that is tied into the fractal ‘shape’ of the universe and does not have singularities.

In other words, our universe is not and cannot be solely mathematics, it must contain something else to satisfy relativity, and that is organizational physics, which is ‘everyday’ logic derived bottom-up using the dimensions of a probability/fractal space because our thinking must involve the bottom-up physical, if it is to be correct. Traditional mathematics does not really contain logic, it passes formal logic to philosophy and ‘everyday’ logic, that has no fixed/immutable basis, to Newtonian physics, that is based on energy only [limited organization] and thus breaks the Principle of Relativity. Traditional mathematics is based on the counting of sheep, and as such, has little to do with the working of the universe. As an example, Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity is based on the Michelson-Morley experiment that the speed of light is the same to all observers [irrespective of their motion], which is an enigma in Newtonian physics, but correct in the definition above.

In other words, referring to the quotation above, it is apparent that the enigma is neither within relativity nor quantum mechanics, but in the ‘lens’ we use to view them, and that ‘lens’ is twofold, firstly, in using Newtonian physics and traditional mathematics, whereas we should be using an absolute/‘new’ physics and mathematics that are based on the bottom-up derivation of the dimensions. Traditional mathematics is based on the counting of sheep and Newtonian physics on a top-down guess made 350 years ago and I believe that the time has come to redress this situation and that can be done with minimum disturbance through the use of orthogonality, that is (literally) the true basis to everything.

Secondly, the Big Whoosh [a more appropriate description of the Big Bang] is based on the Principle of Relativity and that relativity emerged from (literally) nothing [null space]. Nothing has the property that it is simple and can split into two independent parts (1+(-1))=0 and this equation is also the equation of a fractal and a probability space, and the latter space is a measuring space (a+b)=1 for all measurements a and recorders b. Thus, the ‘lens’ that I will use is a fractal/probability [orthogonality] that takes notice of the relativity between (literally) everything and by doing that, we see a mathematics that is different to, and contains traditional mathematics as a special case. Indeed traditional mathematics suffers from the same lack of relativity by design even though, continuing the above quotation, ‘”we all live in a gigantic mathematical object – one that is more elaborate than a dodecahedron, and probably also more complex than objects with intimidating names like Calabi-Yua manifolds, tensor bundles, and Hilbert spaces, which appear in today’s most advanced theories.”’ (p 516) This quotation is given as suggesting that the universe is thought to be complicated, but it is exceedingly simple, as below, but physicists and mathematicians tend to complicate things unnecessarily (Chapter 97: You Asked For A Simple Theory, Stephen Hawking, So, Enjoy It!).

If I say that the universe was created by the concept (1+(-1))=0, orthogonality says there must be a context, and that is (1 and (-1))=0, and this is (literally) forbidden in traditional mathematics and barely tolerated in modern/Newtonian physics and an example is the prediction of antimatter [Dirac]. If I overuse the word ‘literally’ it is because the universe tolerates no exceptions, because an exception is a singularity and an organizational solution must have only one solution [as everything is energy, any discrepancy negates the logic of the conservation of total energy, an absolute]. This comes about because relativity demands that energy [1] has an equally important partner that we could call organization [-1]

These two equations are saying, in common terms that the physical energy and the organizational/logic (together), are created at the Big Whoosh, as would be expected. These two equations are an orthogonality in that they are, just as 1 and (-1) are, independent and opposite and are a simpler form of Cartesian coordinates because the plane between the orthogonals is not used and an example is the wave/particle duality/orthogonality, the electron/proton duality/orthogonality etc. Another example that has perplexed physicists for centuries and can be explained simply by orthogonality is the difference between gravitational mass and inertial mass [gravitational between the planets and inertial tangential to the motion] and they have the same value [for logical reasons], but operate orthogonaly/independently and are thus fundamentally different/independant because inertia is (literally) energy and gravity is (literally) organizational/logic [energy versus quantum gravity orthogonalization].

From above, mathematicians consider the universe to be complex, as do physicists, ‘second, any model that describes the whole universe in detail would be much too complicated mathematically for us to be able to calculate exact predictions. One therefore has to make simplifying assumptions and approximations – and even then, the problem of extracting predictions remains a formidable one.’ (A Brief History of Time, Stephen W. Hawking, p 137) So, returning to the initial quotation, ‘our universe is not just described by mathematics – it is mathematics’ was shown to be not true and further, orthogonality states that there should be an orthogonal to mathematics.

Hence, keeping it simple, if mathematics is a concept, it follows that physics is the context [and orthogonal] and the universe is not only mathematical, but also physical and a description in mathematics is also described in the physical world and this is what the quotation above, I believe, was trying to say [that the universe is mathematical and physical, which is the Principle of Relativity]. Everything in the universe, including the creation, is an orthogonality of the form (1+(-1))=0 and further that as a fractal, the form of the universe can be seen repeatedly throughout mathematical physics. These logical/physical truths form the basis of our thinking and so our thoughts should/must be based on the correct interpretation of the physical universe and I call this organizational-physics/everyday-logic.

It could be said that I have complicated the view of our universe with the ‘lenses’, but the question of absolute time and relative time obviously occurs when the only means of communicating is via a constant slow speed of light when we, by necessity, open out a null space. This slow constant speed of light causes/produces modern Newtonian physics, whereas the space/’lens’ that we must look through [organizationally/logically] is a probability/fractal space because the conservation of (total) energy must be constantly monitored to avoid a singularity [logic requires one solution]. The probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics reflects this because certainty only occurs if all possibilities are considered [Feynman’s histories, mathematics of concept/context, Occams’ razor].

The Principle of Relativity is necessarily complicated by the effects of the ‘lens’ and so require the ‘tools of creation’ [the three absolutes and orthogonality, chapter 97], but the essence of the principle is the equation (1+(-1))=0 that generates the creation bottom-up. However, we can be led astray when the answer is ‘staring us in the face’, so, I will use Euler’s equation to illustrate firstly, that our universe is fractal everywhere, and secondly, that Euler’s equation also tells us about the physics of creation.

This last sentence is simply saying that the universe is a fractal generated by (1+(-1))=1 and a fractal may look complicated to us [Mandelbrot pictures], but it is derived from a simple expression and is repetitive throughout its form and that is why I say that the universe is simple even though the quotations suggest otherwise. Fractals generate ‘apparent’ complexity, so consider Euler’s equation that has perplexed traditional mathematics for centuries:

(e to the power i times pi + 1) = 0, where e is Euler’s constant, i is the square root of minus 1 and pi is a circle constant.

‘Harvard mathematician Benjamin Pierce said that “we cannot understand [the formula], and we don’t know what it means, but we have proved it, and therefore we know it must be the truth.”’ (The Math Book, Clifford A. Pickover, p 166) Euler’s equation is testament to the above that there is no mathematics without physics [Principle of Relativity], and indeed, (literally) everything is linked to mathematical physics, and that is itself linked to philosophy because everything is linked together [fractal]. I believe that Euler’s equation is a mathematical/physical description of the form/context of the universe and must be an orthogonal equation of the form (1+(-1))=0.

Firstly, as above, the probability space that we use to view the universe must be used because it is a simple space that allows instantaneous control/accounting of the conservation of (total) energy [an absolute]. Thus, (a+b)=1 [definition of a probability space] that defines a probability space, for all a and b enables the parasite [Life] that evolved to produce a mind/brain that uses concept/context [in the plane between the orthogonals] instead of the physical measurement/entanglement [orthogonal axes only]. This use of the ‘plane between the orthogonals’ greatly enhances the range of our concept/context thinking and separates our mind/brain from the measurement/entanglement [(1+(-1))=1] of the physical (chapter 81).

When we expand/open a null space out to view it [(1+(-1))=0], we necessarily have to view it through a space that accommodates an infinitely fast measurement/accountability to prevent a singularity occurring in the conservation of (total) energy [(1+(-1))=0] and to keep this equation stable, the space must be continually expanding and the simplest situation is a sphere, because every point is moving away from every other. The equation of fractal expansion is also [(1+(-1))=0] and this fractalness is apparent in the stars and the doublets and triplets in the sub atomic particles.

If our universe is a fractal, parts will repeat throughout the universe. Euler’s equation, on Wikipedia, is apparent in a number of (somewhat) unrelated mathematical fields and appears to be fractal, and so, the equation must be relevant at all expansions, and in particular, we should see it at the creation. As above, everything must be mathematical (conceptual) and physical (contextual) [Principle of Relativity], so, Euler’s equation is also physical with a physical interaction of its components. Now, Euler’s equation is written above in mathematical notation, simply because that suited Euler, but we must write it in physical notation and that notation is of the form (1+(-1))=0.

First a digression that traditional physics and mathematics are built on the usage of the units of the predator/prey situation that moulded us [distance and speed of attack], and similarly, counting is useful for counting sheep, but the number line is not simple. As an example, the counting of sheep requires a number line, whereas the Principle of Relativity suggests that (1) generates the realization that there exists the opposite (-1), so that (1+(-1))=0. This simple formula has invoked no great mathematical interest in the past, but it is the key to the simple physics that produced the universe! Likewise, the necessity of viewing our universe through a probability/fractal space has allowed our mind/brain to evolve complex concepts and context because of the generality of a and b in the fifth dimension [energy] (a+b)=1.

Having stated that the ‘new’ mathematical physics is a creation of our mind/brain and not part of the physical universe, we have to join the two with four ‘search’ axioms. The Math Book, by Clifford A. Pickover, (p 284) gives the five Peano’ Axioms as a basis of arithmetic, and certain things appeared to be missing, such as the mind/brain to determine elegance of content, forward planning, the measurement of each numeral (questing) and the relationship between numerals (relevance). See chapter 81: the Four Axioms of Measurement that Link the Mind/brain to Mathematics and the Dimensions of a Probability Space. These four ‘search axioms’ are relevance and questing, that are powered by both energy and physical opportunity/organization, forward planning that Life has had to evolve as part of the predator/prey situation and elegance/beauty, that I believe evolved as a sexual selection based on the ‘resonance’ with the mathematical Golden triangle ratio of (a+b). This reason is a little speculative, but it does link the enigmatic elegance/beauty to the mathematical base, and in particular, the general form of the probability space (see chapter 78: Love, Beauty, Ecstasy, the Golden Ratio and the Reason that Sexual Selection Works).

I have not described the dimensions because they do not exist until energy [in our words] and organization [in our words] are created by God or chance and (1+(-1))=0 can only exist under one condition, and that is, if 1 and (-1) are kept separate and this is the reason, I believe, that the universe must be continually expanding. If the initial conditions require an expansion, a fractal will necessarily continue it. The restrictions to the Principle of Relativity are caused by the interaction of the dimensions and the slow light speed creates space and dark energy is created to balance the conservation of energy. In other words, the three restrictions are all needed, both energy-wise and organizationally, to be in balance to keep the equation viable.

This three-way physical/organizational/orthogonal solution defines the form of the universe as an entity with the requirement that the universe must continually expand and this contextual view is a representation of the planetary system or pendulum that causes changes between potential and kinetic energy. Whilst the general form of the universe is expansion, the same form (of expansion) forms the matter of the universe and creates stable islands (atoms) due to orthogonality and the consequence of the wave/particle duality (Chapter 97: You Asked For A Simple Theory, Stephen Hawking, So, Enjoy It!).

At the instant of separation of the orthogonals 1 and (-1), distance (x, y, and z) and time passing are created and all are orthogonal and created by the necessary expansion. Now I can explain the restrictions to the Principle of Relativity by taking ratios of firstly, energy/time othogonalities for all space is the Law of Conservation of Total Energy [total energy = 0 always], secondly, energy/space othogonalities for all time is the creation of dark energy [to balance the expansion], thirdly, distance/time othogonalities for all energy is the speed of light. It should be noted that for all energy, no matter how small, the photon exists to carry it, and this leads into the idea that the universe is constantly expanding via the cosmic microwave background, and will do so forever. This is the concept of the creation in the context of word description and this should be able to be expressed in mathematical/physical terms as Euler’s equation.

Looking through a fractal space and as Euler’s equation is true [above] and exists throughout mathematics [Wikipedia, fractal], so Euler’s equation must describe some aspect of the creation of the universe.

The question of why these three exceptions to the Principle of Relativity are constants, and they have to be constants, is not something that can be answered by Newtonian physics because Newtonian physics is incomplete and does not consider organization. This leads to the real enigma of the Special Theory of Relativity and why relativity is thought to be ‘beyond our ken’ and I want to point out several points even to the extent of ‘flogging a dead horse’. Why do mass, length and time all change as the speed of light is approached? This, I believe is the ‘strangeness’ that has caused the enigma of relativity and the answer is simple! Mass [inertial and gravitational] is a form of energy [energy and organizational energy] and energy, length/distance and time passing are the dimensions and they are all there is that can change because there is nothing else that can change to stop the speed of light being exceeded!

The speed of light is an absolute measure/condition of physical energy, but not of organizational energy because a measuring space must have an infinite speed of transmission of information to preserve the ratio of energy to time for all space. In other words, if the accounting is not correct at all times, an organizational singularity occurs and produces a logical chaos that cannot be corrected/restored. An organizational solution is just as valid as a physical solution and the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, the speed of light etc. for example is, I believe, only due to us looking through a probability space.

I find that the true beauty of the creation is the orthogonality of the physical and the organization seen through the absolutes in the Principle of Relativity and how they involve and answer the enigma called Occam’s razor that is an organizational/logic ‘theorem’ that cannot be handled by traditional mathematics because traditional mathematics is a special ‘exact’ case of the mathematics of concepts/context. Occam’s razor says that the simplest solution is probably the best solution and the fractal space presents choice in the fractal sense that the lowest fractal is presented first [virtual/orthogonal choices/particles] and this ‘marries’ with the logical exactitude of the conservation of energy requirement. Also, that all of the dimensions should change together because that is organizationally simpler than that one in particular should change. Physically, this is what we find occurs in nature [Theory of Relativity].

The question of choice is extremely important and traditionally Newtonian physics says that choice is determined solely by an energy gradient, whereas the proposal of virtual/orthogonal possible particles that I am putting forward [and exist in experiment] solves these problems with no energy problems and provides for the lowest energy as a starter. Also, the formation of virtual/orthogonal particles is no different to the mechanism that caused the Big Whoosh, however, if they are not used, recombine to nothing. Choice (in Chapter 94: Why Newtonian Physics Needs Choice), was shown to be part of orthogonality and no separate choice was necessary because the simplicity of orthogonality and its limited effect, of being either/or means that it is automatically accountable. Choice for Life’s mind/brain is an orthogonality because the mind/brain is based in its construction, its form and operating system on orthogonality and this provides a simple solution to ‘how does the brain think? Chapter 95: The Organization and Software behind the Mind and Abstract Thought describes the brain as an orthogonalty of energy and organization, and, if energy is supplied to the brain, the result is organization/thought. Of course, everything is orthogonal, but the simplicity of supplying energy to output thought is so simple and shows the reciprocal relationship between energy and organization, but, of course, the brain had to evolve a means of gaining efficient thought through evolution.

It is apparent that (literally) everything is an orthogonality and orthogonality powers/produces the physical universe and everything in it. However, the universe is a ‘closed book’ unless we use a mind/brain to join the orthogonalities and work in the plane between those orthogonalities and to do this requires the mathematics of concept/context and this requires a decision of what choice is made, not just an either/or situation as with orthogonalities. Choice requires considering and comparing a number of contexts for a particular concept and the logical way is to assign numerical probabilities to outcomes to gauge the ‘best’ outcome. The predator/prey situation is why the mind/brain evolved and that is why Newtonian physics uses speed, distance and time interval as its basis. It is clear that the mathematics of concept/context handles organizational probabilities and is the way to attain an organizational symbiosis with our neighbours and our environment.

Thus, it requires a mind/brain to understand and work the mathematics of concept/context, to question creation and choose the most probable theory, so returning to Euler’s equation, consider the quotation, ‘One of the most amazing mathematical relationships ever discovered, e to the power (i times pi) + 1 = 0, which unites the five most important symbols of mathematics: 1, 0, pi, e and i (the square root of –1). Harvard mathematician Benjamin Pierce said that “’we cannot understand [the formula], and we don’t know what it means, but we have proved it, and therefore we know it must be the truth.” Several surveys among mathematicians have placed this formula at the top of the list for the most beautiful formula in mathematics.’ (The Maths Book, Clifford A. Pickover, p 166)

The beauty, lack of understanding and enigmatic strangeness of this formula reminds me of the evidence of alien artefacts in recent motion pictures but an all encompassing mathematics does now exist and can be seen in the dimensions of a probability space (a+b)=1, as above, and I call it the mathematics of concepts/context because it shows the orthogonal relationship between a and b, where a and b are measurement/record and (a+b)/(a and b) is the orthogonal relationship between them. Life has built on this relationship to make a mathematics of concept/context, and recently, technology/control, telephone/communication, computer/information and so on, without realizing the interconnectedness of these concepts/contexts and how that interconnectedness requires/produces a ‘new’ mathematical physics that explains, I believe, (literally) everything.

Quantum mechanics and relativity cause problems in the physical world because fractals breaks down in the organizational solution where the universe is faced with measuring rods that are finite and the speed of light is fixed etc. However, fractalization of (total) energy/organization appears to become photon-energy/frequency or photon-energy/wave-packet as a mathematical fractilization that continually gets smaller (to the infinitely small) but larger to form particles. There comes a point, like the atom, or quarks etc. when there is a relationship between the orthogonals as we delve smaller and smaller and that relationship is set by a and b. Thus, I believe, that Euler’s equation is one of the relations that link the mathematical/physical/logical constants.

From the quotation above, I believe that the following is correct: ‘unites the five most important symbols of mathematics: 1, 0, pi, e and i (the square root of –1)’ but at first sight there is nothing particularly important about 1, but the others, I believe represent the creation in essence and in form. However, 1 is special because even though Zeno’s paradox has always struck me as being a bit silly, it keeps reoccurring in the text books. ‘One modern tendency is to attempt to resolve Zeno’s paradox by insisting that the sum of this infinite series 1/2+1/4+1/8+… is equal to 1.’ (p 46) ‘The number e … is the limit value of the expression (1+1/n) raised to the nth power, when n increases indefinitely.’ (p 166) ‘The arctan function in trigonometry can be expressed by arctan(x)=x-x/3+x/5-x/7+…. Using the arctan series, the series for pi/4 is obtained by setting x=1.’ (p 110)

So, Euler’s equation is an exact relationship, in the limit, of a number of limits and that is presumably why it surfaces in traditional mathematics.

So, if we replace 1 with e to the power 0, we get a clearer picture:

(e to the power (i times pi) + e to the power 0) = 0

and comparing it to the physical expression (1+(-1))=0, it can be seen that there is an orthogonality between the powers of e, and they are i times pi and 0. Thus, this could represent a sphere [through pi], the complex sphere [being the inverse of the sphere] centred at 0 or/and the surface of a sphere in Euclidean space-time, below.

Is this description too fanciful? I don’t think so, because there is only one mathematic that we have found from bottom-up, and that is the mathematics of concept/context of which traditional mathematics is a special case. Thus, the equation is not some artefact of some advanced civilization, but, I believe, shows the inadequacy of the recognition of orthogonality in traditional mathematical physics. Euler’s equation, the orthogonality (1+(-1))=0, looking through a probability/fractal space, the absolute/‘new’ physics and mathematics etc. seems to answer all the enigmas.

So, can we give meaning, in the physical sense to Euler’s equation from top-down? Stephen Hawking is worried about singularities in the Big Bang theory of creation and the inability of physics to handle them. The Big Whoosh does not contain an initial singularity and has no end because it goes on forever as a fractal, whereas, the Big Crunch and Big Bang both contain singularities. I am not going to attempt to reconcile Stephen Hawking’s musings (A Brief History Of Time, Stephen W. Hawking, p 138) with the above, but he does say that ‘only if we could picture the universe in terms of imaginary time would there be no singularities’ and further, ‘to avoid the technical difficulties with Feynman’s sum over histories, one must use imaginary time’ (p 134). I am merely pointing out that imaginary time is a concept that is used in modern traditional physics, and further, ‘a space-time in which events have imaginary values of the time coordinate is said to be Euclidean, after the ancient Greek Euclid, who founded the study of geometry of two-dimensional surfaces. What we now call Euclidean space-time is very similar except that it has four dimensions instead of two.’ (p 134)

Euler’s equation appears to say firstly, that it is exact because there is no possibility of dispute in its operation or exactitude, secondly, that i [square root of –1] and pi are orthogonal to 0 makes sense in the form of non-existence before 0 [but no singularity] and circular/spherical expansion from a point after time 0, where time and space are linked through the expansion inherent in (1+(-1))=1. This is a simplistic guess/explanation, but in-line with the physics of the mathematical expression. Also, this equation orthogonates to (1+(-1))=0 and (1 and (-1))=0 and this shows the relationship between the physical and the logical, so, there are physical orthogonalities between 0 and pi and between 0 and i [square root of –1] in a directional sense, but also between pi and i [square root of –1] in a logical sense.

This might seem trivial, but it does support my contention that everything is orthogonal and this leads directly to the absolute mathematical physics of which traditional mathematics and physics are special cases.

Conclusion: the above is suggesting that traditional mathematics and physics are incomplete because they are misaligned and too simple and the time has come to rectify that by adding the four search axioms, bottom-up organizational physics and the mathematics of concept/context to make absolute/general mathematical physics and prevent the enigmas that presently abound. The orthogonal structure, that I suggest, does not change the traditional use of mathematical physics unless a more complete picture is needed, in which case, the appropriate structure can be used.

In other words, mathematics and physics are not separate disciplines [Principle of Relativity] and require two viewpoints [specialist and generalist] with organizational physics supplying the bottom-up [correct logic], the four search axioms that link the mind/brain with the physical universe and finally, the simplification advice that was given to Stephen Hawking is to use the appropriate orthogonality, lowest first, for the highest concept/context.

The ‘elephant in the room’, or should I say planet, is organization and the mathematics of concept/context has the solution to all the problems that can be thrown at it, but it is so transparent that it requires men and women with good intensions. Euler’s equation was enigmatic and complicated until it was looked at in the correct way and turned out to be simple in the extreme and the same can be done for the planet, if the will is applied.

References: all quotations are fully referenced in the body and earlier chapters can be found on darrylpenney.com if required.

Chapter 78: Love, Beauty, Ecstasy, the Golden Ratio and the Reason that Sexual Selection Works

Chapter 97: You Asked For A Simple Theory, Stephen Hawking, So, Enjoy It!

Chapter 94: Why Newtonian Physics Needs Choice

Subtitle: Defining Choice Within a ‘New’ Philosophy, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle Resolved, the Physics of Choice Creates Atoms Through the Wave/particle Duality/shimmer, Mind/thought is the Organizational Orthogonality of the Brain’s Energy Consumption, Orthogonality defines the dimensions, How the Voting System Effects Housing Affordability and How to Fix It Through Rational Choices

Chapter 95: The Organization and Software behind the Mind and Abstract Thought

Chapter 81: Parasites in Probability Space, General Mathematics, Logic, Measurement, Organization, the Four Axioms of Measurement that Link the Mind/brain to Mathematics and the Dimensions of a Probability Space, Life as a Possible Sixth Dimension, the Why of Godel’s Incompleteness Theorems and the Goal of Explaining Everything by a Single, Elegant, Unified Equation is Attained.

Chapter 97: You Asked For A Simple Theory, Stephen Hawking, So, Enjoy It!

by Darryl Penney

Abstract: it requires a special heroism to discuss modern physics and wish that it were simple because you might just get what you wished, as in the proverb! Orthogonality is everything, and the universe is its manifestation, but orthogonality produces relativity except for three absolutes that are necessarily part of the probability/fractal space through which we must view our universe. We can use orthogonality and relativity to create an absolute/‘new’ mathematics and physics that describes traditional mathematics and physics in a uniquely useable form that retains the exactitude and calculations but allows the simplicity of the dimensions to show the true form/composition of the universe. Examples are made of the traditionally, supposedly difficult Theory of Relativity, subatomic particles and fields that can be simply understood at whatever academic level is chosen. Further, it is shown that we must use these ‘spanners of creation’ [three absolutes and orthogonality] to understand the fractal/probability universe, that we call home, that is created by the equation (1+(-1))=0.

This chapter is dedicated to Stephen Hawking because he asked for a simple complete science. Relativity and orthogonality have produced just that, neatly packaged in the form of a fractal that can give anyone exactly what they want, from the layman to scientist, as well as the traditionally forgotten/ignored organization that might just save our civilization.

‘Up to now, most scientists have been too occupied with the development of new theories that describe what the universe is to ask the question why. On the other hand, the people whose business it is to ask why, the philosophers, have not been able to keep up with the advance of scientific theories.’ (A Brief History of Time, Stephen W. Hawking, p 174) It appears that we both agree that both technicians and generalists are necessary to fully understand a subject [place it in context], but there are other considerations. ‘However, if we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists.’ (p 175) I also agree that if we fully understand a subject, it can be simply explained at any [fractal] level, and traditional mathematics and physics are not able to do this because their bottom-up base is not understood.

I am trying to outline derivations and place them in perspective in an endeavour to determine a simple Theory of Everything, much like Stephen Hawking would like. This, I believe, has now been done and is the equation (1+(-1))=0, but the problem is to reduce our existing plethora of theories into this equation and show people that this works better, and also, to allow philosophers, as generalists, to be able to organize the information and understand the principles involved. This wish is a fractal and ‘opens out’ as a person’s interest deepens in any area and I will show, below, that using a lower level of the fractal allows organization to ‘condense’ complex concepts into understandable concepts. An example of the difference in level of concept is that the energy consumed (in the brain) creates the production of thought (in the mind) [first orthogonality] that we only see as a physical brain composed of cells and dendritic connections [second orthogonality]. Alternately, the energy consumed (in the body) creates the production of movement (in the body) [first orthogonality] and that concept and the associated context explain more than does examining a muscle [second orthogonality].

The energy/thought relationship is a first level orthogonal that Life has used and it is very powerful and carries the most general concepts, and in the physical creation of the universe it appears as energy (1) and organization (-1), in our common terms. It will be shown that everything is relative to something else [(1) to (-1) and (1) and (-1) that represents the physical and logical] except for three terms that are absolutes [not relative]. We can use this same relativity to place traditional mathematics and physics ‘under the microscope’ and I will compare them to absolute/’new’ mathematics and physics. The two latter subjects have been derived from the dimensions of a probability/fractal space that are x, y, z, time passing and energy, where energy is the sum of energy [(1)] and organization [(-1)] that, if they come together again equal 0 [annihilate each other].

Traditional mathematics has its theorems/’seashells’ that once derived are derived forever, however, in the ‘new’ mathematics, the mathematics of concept/context is ‘flowing’/moving and requires a prediction. The ‘new’ mathematical physics has become the repository of theorems in the form of ‘universal truths’ [organizational physics] that are based on our view of the real universe and they are a little strange because of the probability/fractal space through which we must view the universe. Whatever the universe is [null space], we must expand it for us to comprehend it [and that needs a probability/fractal space] and that introduces more strangeness [such as a constant speed of light to any measurer] as well as the strangeness introduced by traditional mathematics and physics that have been based on the units of evolution [speed and distance from predators]. Further, top-down workings invite errors and guesswork and so, I believe that bottom-up provides a more sensible approach, however, professional careers require decades of work and no-one likes/wants their ‘apple-cart’ upset, so, where am I going with this? The history of science has shown that long periods of time can pass before acceptance is general, so, I will make my way slowly and show accepted theories in the light of the ‘new’ physics and wait for a new generation of students to question their teachers. Thank you for your interest Stephen Hawking!

In the previous (chapter 96), Newton’s Universal Theory of Gravitation became quantum gravity and Newton’s use of the inverse square depletion of (mutual) attraction was vindicated. Was this relationship a guess, because textbooks generally use the inverse square depletion of the intensity of light from a point source as an example? This might be a case of simplification, but, I believe, that the attraction of the quantum gravity [Chapter 91: Organizational Physics: ‘Why Things Happen?’, Quantum Gravity] hyperbola in the form y=1/x, where y is the attraction and x is the separation of all energy that describes the attraction from nuclear binding energy to the gravitational attraction of the stars. [the slope of 1/x is 1/x squared, the inverse square law]

There are always winners and losers, and I say that with conviction because the statement is an orthogonality and everything in the universe [except for the three absolutes] is built on orthogonality except our creations such as traditional mathematics and traditional physics. It will be seen that the ‘new’ physics and mathematics have been created by adding relativity/orthogonality to traditional mathematics and physics. In the limit, everything is either the same or independent because when the same parts are removed, only the independent parts remain and they are orthogonal, and orthogonals create the mathematics of concept/context

If Newton’s theory becomes the winner [quantum gravity (-1) is half of the organizational physics (1+(-1))=0], the loser is Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity and, I believe that that was his greatest mistake. This judgement seems a little harsh because the General Theory works, so, to reconcile the two we could use the belief/idea that everything is orthogonal, and Einstein’s work becomes orthogonal to quantum gravity. Orthogonality falls ‘through the cracks’ of traditional mathematics because orthogonality is the axes, but not the plane of the Cartesian coordinates and is a concept that seems to be too simple to be of much use in traditional physics. Orthogonality is independence and, I believe, is the means of building the universe by creating space because the organization/logic requires continual expansion. We have to go back to the equation (1+(-1))=0 that orthogonates to (1+(-1))=0 and (1 and (-1))=1 that shows a physical and logical presence is always ‘a step away’ [fractal].

As an example, ‘the means of building the universe by creating space’ is indicated by the equation (1+(-1))=0 being stable only in an expanding universe, which we have [and that is probably the reason for it], but within that expansion of space, there must occur stability, as in matter, and this could be achieved by orthogonality. As examples, the photon has a wave/particle duality [the Physics of Choice Creates Atoms Through the Wave/particle Duality/shimmer, chapter 94], the neutron orthogonates to the electron and proton and thus forms the atom and the neutron/proton binding using the logic of the quarks and the wave aspect of the electron creates the Bohr orbits. The bonds between atoms, leading to chemistry is due to the stability of the pair of electrons that have an organizational bond [the Covalent Chemical Bond, the Enigmatic Pauli Exclusion Principle, Superconductivity, chapter 92]. Thus, it could be said that everything in the universe, including the structure of the universe is due to orthogonality except for the three absolutes.

On a lighter note, ‘the discovery that the universe is expanding was one of the great intellectual revolutions of the twentieth century…. Newton, and others, should have realized that a static universe would soon start to contract under the influence of gravity…. Even Einstein, when he formulated the general theory of relativity in 1915, was so sure that the universe had to be static that he modified his theory to make this possible, introducing a so-called cosmological constant into his equations.’ (p 39) In addition, Einstein’s theory considers space-time to be the dimensions of our universe, but what of the energy of the Big Bang? My interpretation [Big Whoosh] assumes that total energy is zero, and that is definitely not so with the Big Bang that ignores organization and can not explain energy.

To foreshadow the aim, Newtonian physics uses the energy of the first orthogonality with informal organization added, but then calls the organization of quantum gravity [(-1)], that I believe are the first orthogonality, to be energy, a second orthogonality [of organization]! It is small wonder that Newtonian physics has had such trouble with deriving quantum gravity. To examine the theories of gravitation of Newton and Einstein, and put them on a common base for comparison, I will compare both through the absolutes based on the dimensions of a probability/fractal space. This will show how the difficulties of traditional modern physics [relativity, subatomic particles and fields] will simplify.

Clearly, the generalization of Newton’s Law of gravitation that has been expanded into quantum gravity contains more information than Einstein’s General Theory that is necessarily based on an energy-based Newtonian physics. This shows the ‘generalness’/free-will that the fifth dimension (a+b)=1 [probability space] grants to Life that evolved concept/context from a and b. Further, the (a+b)=1 orthogonates to (a+b)=1 and (a and b)=1 that is the basis of the mathematics of concept/context and leads to a simple solution to the ‘new’ physics and ‘new’ mathematics. The solution is to use both [(a+b)=1 and (a and b)=1] because they are orthogonal (concept) and yet linked (context) both ‘’sideways’ and through the ‘level’ of orthogonality and by using both, one provides concept/context in one and calculation in the other, as subsets of the absolute/‘new’ mathematical physics.

In other words, absolute/’new’ mathematics and physics contains three parts, firstly the search axioms that link the mind/brain to the physical universe (the Four Axioms of Measurement that Link the Mind/brain to Mathematics and the Dimensions of a Probability Space, chapter 81), secondly, traditional mathematics and physics [top-down] and thirdly, the organizational physics derived from bottom-up. The Principle of Relativity requires orthogonality to have relativity/entanglement associated with it, but the requirement of ‘absolutes’ [from (1+(-1))=0] require a probability space [conservation of total energy], and a fractal space [dark energy] as well as the constant speed of energy [photon]. Any ‘new’ or general mathematics and physics requires a probability/fractal space and that requires recognition of ‘absolutes’.

‘Einstein’s general theory of relativity seems to govern the large-scale structure of the universe. It is what is called a classical theory; that is, it does not take account of the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics, as it should for consistency with other theories.’ (p 60) Thus, it is not a ‘general’ theory and it is not really about relativity, but gravity (chapter 96). I believe that relativity is a synonym for context [and entanglement] with the restrictions that the three conditions derived from the fifth dimension are absolute and not relative and it is simpler to change all of the dimensions by a logical factor [Lorentz transformation] to guard against a singularity [constant speed of light/wave-energy] than to decide on one factor to change.

I propose that: in a probability/fractal space, the Principle of Relativity is that everything is relative to something else (1+(-1))=0, except for the conservation of total energy, the speed of electromagnetic waves in a vacuum and the increase in energy/organization per unit of newly created space [dark energy]. Secondly, this theory, being a lower level of orthogonality should contain more information, and this is already apparent, above, and I will use the fact that relativity, as defined above, creates two independent theories to contrast. This was done with the absolute/‘new’ mathematics and the absolute/‘new’ physics, but it can be seen that organizational physics, based on the dimensions is an ‘absolute’ in itself and its use, with top-down, allows a composite convenience and correctness.

As a result of the Michelson-Morley experiment, ‘all observers should measure the same speed of light, no matter how fast they are moving. This simple idea has some remarkable consequences. Perhaps the best known are the equivalence of mass and energy, summed up in Einstein’s famous equation E=mc2 (where E is energy, m is mass, and c is the speed of light), and the law that nothing may travel faster than the speed of light.’ (p 20)

Firstly, an equality (=) can only occur in an incomplete system where there is an equality of part to part of two objects in that space and if the mathematics of concepts/context is accepted, traditional mathematics and physics are incomplete. A complete system, as viewed through the dimensions of a probability/fractal space contains orthogonality that necessarily creates independence or sameness because the space must be logical and repeatable. Hence, E=mc2 is a famous equation in traditional physics, whereas I view it as a triviality because mass is a ‘state’ of energy, as in water, ice and steam. E and mc2 are/is the wave/particle duality that creates space in the atom through the orthogonality of electrons and protons [from neutrons] and creates space through the motion [as a wave] of the electrons in the atom (chapter 94).

Secondly, a measuring space is a probability space because the sum of the energy over all points as seen by any observer, or the space, must be constant [conservation of total energy] and that defines the type of space that we have to view the universe through, and thus that view explains the probabilistic view of quantum mechanics. Notice that Einstein’s postulate that every measurer sees the speed of light to be the same is an enigma unless each person has their own view of space and time [not absolutes] and presumably, space and time are absolutes in a null space [no space] and that explains that relative dilemma [no separation so space and time become absolutes].

Thirdly, ‘the law that nothing may travel faster than the speed of light’ is a ‘step too far’ and can be justified only for energy and not for the accounting of energy [conservation of (total) energy] and shows the incompleteness and dangers of using top-down traditional physics. I believe that the slow speed of light is necessary to provide time for the universe and life to evolve so that someone can measure/record the probability of ‘everything’ happening. This is perhaps the source of the ‘measurement/recorder as part of the experiment’ question that has ‘plagued’ quantum mechanics where a ‘reality’ is provided only by a probability space [continuous and complete] that necessarily contains entanglement [everything is entangled].

‘An equally remarkable consequence of relativity is the way it has revolutionized our ideas of space and time…. all observers must agree on how fast light travels.’ (p 21) If all observers must see the speed of light as an absolute fixed value, their clocks and distance must vary because the division sets the speed of light. In this theory, the same effect occurs because an expanding universe is required for the equation (1+(-1))=1 to exist and that generates space x, y, z and time passing. The energy (1+(-1))=0 divided by space and time, as well as space divided by time generate the absolutes in the Principle of Relativity, above, and the addition of logic suggests that all three will change by the same amount [Lorentz transformation] because it is simpler than deciding on a particular dimensional change to avert a singularity. This is the reason ‘why?’ the speed of light is a constant and not just the result of an experiment and provides much more information.

Another few simple, but far-reaching examples will suffice to show how current significant physics problems can be explained and simplified. There are (literally) hundreds of sub atomic particles used to transfer energy in high-energy physics experiments and I believe that they are just fractal states of energy and are of no importance except to the specialist because orthogonality can produce them as a fractal in energy, (somewhat) ad infinitum. I believe that the most important is the first orthogonality that is energy/organization, the second that energy becomes the photon and neutron [wave/particle], the third that the neutron becomes the proton and electron and these are elementary particles within an organizational solution of the quarks (chapter 90).

Another trend of traditional physics is to define particles that transfer or link ‘stuff’, such as gravitons, gluons, Higgs boson etc., and yet the answer is simple and two-fold in the entanglement that is the basis of a probability/fractal space (1+(-1))=0 and organization in the form of (-1). Traditional physics is described as energy-based with ‘things’ proceeding if it results in lower energy, but if the universe is composed only of energy, so matter must be energy, so why the fuss over E=mc2? Much like ancient cartographers indicating sea monsters at the unknown edges of their maps, I believe that physicists give ‘free rein’ to their imagination because traditional physics, I believe, does not recognise (literally) half of organizational physics and that half is, I believe, organization and organization is what these ‘particles’ are meant to do.

Gluons are supposed to be the organization that holds the quarks together (The Universe as an Orthogonality, the Quark/antiquark Bond, the Universe is Fractal as are the Subatomic Particles, chapter 89). Gravitons are supposed to ‘carry’ gravity, but I believe that quantum gravity is an accounting. The Higgs boson, I believe, is supposed to ‘confer mass’, but inertial mass and gravitational masses are orthogonal and seem to be sufficient, both in energy and organization (Why Inertial Mass is Different to Gravitational Mass, chapter 90). The initial orthogonalities into energy/organization accounts for many of these particles and especially as the desire/requirement of ‘action at a distance’ that these particle invoke is adequately catered for by entanglement that is the orthogonal of measurement in a physical sense [and leads to concept/context in the mind/brain].

‘It is an important property of the force-carrying particles that they do not obey the exclusion principle. This means that there is no limit to the number that can be exchanged, and so they can give rise to a strong force. However, if the force producing particles have a high mass, it will be difficult to produce and exchange them over a large distance. So the forces that they carry will have only a short range. On the other hand, if the force carrying particles have no mass of their own, the forces will be long range. The force-carrying particles exchanged between matter particles are said to be virtual particles because, unlike “real” particles, they cannot be directly detected by a particle detector. We know that they exist ……’ (p 69). The quotation appears as monstrous are the cartographer’s imaginings and indicates that a re-think using organization instead of some ‘pin-ball’ machination is necessary. Entanglement is a fundamental part of both a probability and fractal space and is really a simple alternative. The virtual particles referred to, are probably the fractal/orthogonal choices that must be presented to allow a decision to proceed (Why Newtonian Physics Needs Choice, chapter 94) because in traditional physics, physical availability of choice is ignored and is governed only by the ‘flow’ of energy.

Prediction: (a) it was once said that only a few people understood relativity and that is because the mathematics and physics that we have evolved are not ‘in tune’ with the universe, so, I am going to answer the questions posed above [relativity, subatomic particles and fields such as gravity, charge etc.], in a simple way. The Principle of Relativity [creating something must create its opposite] is the starting point and it is obvious that I have put energy and organization into creating this paper [1, (-1)] and so, (1+(-1))=0 because they are equal and opposite [energy in two forms] and this statement is only stable if everything is expanding [creates dimensions of space, time passing and energy (zero)] and that creates three absolutes [conservation of total energy (energy to time, all space), infill energy to compensate for the expansion (energy to space, all time) and constant speed of energy (space to time, all energy) for the photon] that are all the same [for simplicity, Lorentz transformation]. That is the Theory of Relativity, and accounts for the bizarre effects of changes in mass/energy, length and time passing as a particle approaches the speed of light because it must be stopped [logically] from doing so and there is no other solution, but to change the dimensions so that it cannot happen because there is nothing else that can be changed!

(b) Fields/organizations are basically of two types, firstly, physical, the measurement/entanglement of the second orthogonality (1 and (-1))=0 due to the organization of the probability and fractal spaces, and secondly, the concept/context (a and b)=1 used by the mind/brain to consider the measurement/entanglement of the physical that becomes concept/context. I believe that the two concepts of organization [(-1)] and entanglement [(1 and (-1))=0 and (a and b)=1] are sufficient to explain everything in the way of gravitons, gluons etc. Add this miscomprehension to our version of mathematics and physics that we evolved and it is small wonder that we have difficulty and have placed our world in jeopardy with our mismanagement.

(c) The stars and subatomic particles are numerous, to say the least, because they are fractals [organization] and ‘open up’ as we look into them and we will always see more as we look further because that is the function/structure of a fractal and we see concepts and context within our mind/brain through a probability space with general a and b. Thus, the further and closer that we wish to study, the more that there will be to study. This answers one of Stephen Hawking’s desires as a fractal, and the other is through the probability space that there must always be concept and context, that leads to the requirement that specialists and generalists work together all the time.

‘Any model that describes the whole universe in detail would be much too complicated mathematically for us to be able to calculate exact predictions. One therefore has to make simplifying assumptions and approximations – and even then, the problem of extracting predictions remains a formidable one.’ (p 137) Clearly, I cannot support this statement and believe that the universe is simple when viewed in the correct way [through the equation (1+(-1))=0] unless you want to make it complicated [fractal] and a fractal will oblige. The secret is to make sure that you use the lowest fractal because that has the highest concept.

(d) Life evolved a mind/brain that uses energy/organization [(1+(-1))=0, first orthogonal] in its functioning, that has evolved through the predator/prey interaction to view the universe through [a probability/fractal space that uses] the more general form (a+b)=1, where a and b are measurement/record and most importantly, a and b are general and can replace measurement/entanglement [physical world] with concept/context [mind/brain]. Concept and context are completely general and allow all thoughts, such as car/travel, letter/delivery, electricity/distribution, subatomic-particles/interactions, stars/distant-suns etc. We need to view the null space through a probability space because a probability space supports conservation of energy [(a+b)=1] and a fractal space to infill energy [to balance the expansion] and of course, a constant speed of light [verified by the Michelson-Morley experiment].

Now, if the first orthogonality is (a+b)=1, the second orthogonality (a+b)=1 and (a and b)=1 [representing the physical and logical] is not allowed in traditional mathematics and yet is descriptive for concepts a and b and the logic ‘and’ between them, then this describes a mathematics of concepts and context of which everything [in the universe] is a part and, in particular, traditional mathematics. Traditional mathematical physics is composed of traditional mathematics (concept) and traditional physics (context) and are obviously orthogonal, and this should not be surprising because everything [except for the three absolutes] is orthogonal.

The point that I am making is that we are not using the ‘spanners of creation’ [absolute mathematical physics], and until we do, we will have difficulty understanding and describing the universe. The final step, referring to the original quotation, that philosophers are the generalists [context] to the scientists [concept] shows that everything must be orthogonal and even the ‘tools’ that we must use are orthogonal and based on the three absolutes.

Conclusion: my aim has been to clear up the enigmas that litter traditional physics but my journey seems to have uncovered an underlying simplicity in the construction of the universe that requires few dimensions [4, 5 or 6, depending on nomenclature] and further, this simplicity indicates a mathematical physics of concept/context of which traditional mathematics and physics are special cases. The recognizance of organization allows us to better describe context, where context is the relationship between ourselves and our environment that is creating a major problem on our planet. The difficulty is acceptance and to get people to consider the fundamentals because unless we use the correct ‘tools’ we are complicating matters unnecessarily.

If the universe is built on orthogonality and the three absolutes [tools of creation], then a probability and a fractal space are independent/orthogonal based on the same equation [(1+(-1))=0], and a fractal space is very like traditional mathematics on being generated by a very small set of axioms and continually expanding thereafter. Traditional physics has also had trouble coming to terms with the three absolutes. Conservation of energy is too simple and not correct, a constant speed of light rocked physics to its foundations [the Michelson-Morley experiment showed that our universe is different to the one that we assumed it to be leading to the special theory of relativity] and dark energy is disguised by the Big Bang. However, traditional mathematical physics is still an orthogonality of traditional mathematics (concept) and traditional physics (context) and it can be seen that the ‘new’ absolute forms are a simple insertion from the bottom, and so, whether you wish to use them or not, they make the understanding easier.

Well Stephen Hawking, I believe that the above provides that which you desire and that all the (present) enigmas are hopefully explained, so, bring on the philosophers! Enjoy!

References: all quotations are fully referenced in the body and earlier chapters can be found on darrylpenney.com if required.

Chapter 96: The Unification of Top-down and Bottom-up and the Theory of Everything

Chapter 94: Why Newtonian Physics Needs Choice

Subtitle: Defining Choice Within a ‘New’ Philosophy, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle Resolved, the Physics of Choice Creates Atoms Through the Wave/particle Duality/shimmer, Mind/thought is the Organizational Orthogonality of the Brain’s Energy Consumption, Orthogonality defines the dimensions, How the Voting System Effects Housing Affordability and How to Fix It Through Rational Choices

Chapter 92: The ‘New Physics’: the Orthogonality of Organizational and Newtonian Physics, Quantum Gravity, the Covalent Chemical Bond, the Enigmatic Pauli Exclusion Principle, Superconductivity, Logic Defined and the Mathematics of Concept/context

Chapter 81: Parasites in Probability Space, General Mathematics, Logic, Measurement, Organization, the Four Axioms of Measurement that Link the Mind/brain to Mathematics and the Dimensions of a Probability Space, Life as a Possible Sixth Dimension, the Why of Godel’s Incompleteness Theorems and the Goal of Explaining Everything by a Single, Elegant, Unified Equation is Attained.

Chapter 91: Organizational Physics: ‘Why Things Happen?’, Quantum Gravity, ‘Everyday’ Logic and the Theory of Everything (1+(-1))=0 Derived from Nothing

Chapter 90: Organizational Physics Replaces Mathematical Physics with Fundamental Extensions in Mathematics and Physics.

Subtitle: the Equation of the Multiverse is (1+(-1))=0, the Big-Whoosh/Big-Bang is the Natural Orthogonality of a Null Space into a Fractal and Probability Universe, Proof that the Speed of Gravity is Instantaneous, How Conservation of Energy Works, Orthogonal/virtual Particles in a Vacuum, Mind-space, the Mathematics of Concepts, Doublet and Triplet Elementary Particles are Orthogonal, Why there is Little Antimatter in the Universe, Extending the Law of Gravitation to Include Nuclear Bonding, Proof of Newton’s Law of Gravity, Why Inertial Mass is Different to Gravitational Mass, Our Universe as Part of the Multiverse, Faith and Physics are Orthogonal/independent and the Need to Extend Mathematics, Physics etc.

Chapter 89: The Universe as an Orthogonality, the Quark/antiquark Bond, the Universe is Fractal as are the Subatomic Particles, Quantum ChromoDynamics and the Unified Field Theory Simplified, the Role of Quarks, the Three Fundamental Operators and Inside the Nucleus

Chapter 96: The Unification of Top-down and Bottom-up and the Theory of Everything

by Darryl Penney
Abstract: unification is ‘the strong desire among theoretical physicists to find a single theory of everything – with an equation that can fit on their T – shirts’ (30 – second theories, Paul Parsons, p 50) and that equation is (1+(-1))=0. The use of this equation is illustrated top-down and bottom-up, as well as examples refining Einstein’s General Theory of Gravitation, the Big Bang and the future of the universe. In particular, the context of quantum gravity is a simple hyperbola that finally derives Newton’s Universal Law of Gravity and it really is universal from quarks to galaxies. The Big Bang is shown to be completely erroneous and the Big Whoosh answers all the questions in a straight-forward manner.
Part 1: Bottom-up/Top-down

I have always considered that the dimensions were the most fundamental attributes of our universe and yet they are undefined and, as I will show, unknown. Consider,‘in physics and mathematics, the dimension of a mathematical space (or object) is informally defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify any point within it.’ (Wikipedia, Dimension) Notice the phrase ‘informally defined’, and this inability to define a definition hides the problem within Newtonian physics and traditional mathematics that will be exposed by considering mathematical physics derived from the bottom-up and contrast it to Newtonian Physics and traditional mathematics that were ‘derived’ from top-down. I used ‘derived’ because Newtonian physics was a construction that was put together (somewhat) wrongly 350 years ago.

A valiant effort has produced modern science and technology, but with enigmas, and these enigmas show that the basic system that is being used is not correct, not complete, and both. Traditional mathematics likes to think that it is derived from first principles, and so it is, in a manner, but it is completely ‘off track’ in its conception and it is obvious, upon reflection that a number line is complicated and not basic. The basic mathematical unit is the concept of an ‘opposite’ to a number or indeed, the opposite to anything and this idea is orthogonality that everything is relative to something else and if we or the universe creates something, we/it must create the opposite. This is a theory of relativity, but in looking at our universe, we find that the dimensions of a probability/fractal space impose three absolutes that are not relative and these are conservation of total energy, the creation of space creates a fixed energy and the speed of transmission of energy (photon) is constant to every measurer.

‘We still think that there exists a single world substance out of which everything is made – matter/energy, strings, or whatever turns out to be the right way of looking at this.’ (Why The World Does Not Exist, Markus Gabriel, p 85) I believe that this substance is orthogonality and predates the creation of energy or anything else. Thus the opposite of 0 is obviously 0, the opposite of 1 is (–1) etc., so that the equation of everything is (1+(-1))=0 and so generates everything and the basic ‘unit’ defining the universe is orthogonality.
Orthogonality appears in a probability/measuring space because (a+b)=1 where a and b are measurement/records and whatever is in that probability space is summed to a constant value, and I believe that we can describe the energy, being in that space, in our universe as a constant of the form (1+(-1))=0. Orthogonality also appears in a fractal space as (1+(-1))=0 and we live in a fractal universe because the evidence is all around us in the form of stars, coastlines and subatomic particles. The properties of a fractal space is that it is ‘self similar’ and features can be expected to reoccur throughout the space.
‘Much of the early work on five dimensional space was in an attempt to develop a theory that unifies the four fundamental forces in nature: strong and weak nuclear forces, gravity and electromagnetism. German mathematician Theodor Kaluza and Swedish physicist Oskar Klein independently developed the Kaluza–Klein theory in 1921, which used the fifth dimension to unify gravity with electromagnetic force. Although their approaches were later found to be at least partially inaccurate, the concept provided a basis for further research over the past century. To explain why this dimension would not be directly observable, Klein suggested that the fifth dimension would be rolled up into a tiny, compact loop on the order of 10-33 centimeters.’ (Wikipedia, Five Dimensional Space)
This quotation shows that the need for more dimensions was recognized and sought, but, sought top-down, and the answer eluded the seekers because they used the same top-down and ‘armchair’ ponderings that started with the ancient Greeks and created problems for thousands of years. I am going to use the same ‘armchair’ ponderings, but, bottom-up and starting from (literally) nothing and using no postulates or assumptions. I will be using an indeterminate number of dimensions that are not ‘rolled up into a tiny, compact loop on the order of 10-33 centimeters’, but are visible and work hard to produce the universe and the parasite (Life) that has evolved within it.
I will foreshadow the following from chapter 94, to combine the basic with the final derivation for completeness. ‘I have always considered that the dimensions form the basic description of a space, but orthogonality derives the dimensions and the sequence appears to be:

orthogonality à choice à organizational physics à decision à dimensions.’
To simplify, the orthogonality [(1+(-1))=0] is only stable when its space [our universe] x, y, z is expanding over time passing, and that expansion creates the dimensions along with energy [(1+(-1))=0] that must be in two parts [1, (-1)] and these can be called energy and organization in our terms. This is bottom-up and everything can be derived by looking through a probability/fractal space because their structure is (1+(-1))=0 and this is necessary because energy is conserved by (1+(-1))=0. Also, the speed of energy [photons, x, y, z versus time passing] is constant to every measurer [measuring space] and energy [dark energy, positive] is created in each volume of space to balance the potential energy [organization/quantum-gravity, negative] of the necessary expansion [constant speed due to constant speed of the photon] of the universe. [Note that these are absolutes because the logic of Occam’s razor indicates that it is simpler that all dimensions change together by the Lorentz transformation.]
We have derived everything from the bottom-up, and for completeness, the time has come to review top-down traditional physics and it is not pretty. The greatest/best-known equations of traditional physics are ‘duds’, because they are not describing what we think they are describing. E=mc2 and E=hf [E energy, m mass, c speed of light, h Planck’s constant and f frequency] are trivialities relating two states/orthogonalities of the same thing. This might seem harsh, but, from above, (1+(-1))=0 says that everything is energy or organization (to use common ideas/words) and they are orthogonal and the two equations are describing orthogonalities of energy/mass and particle/wave-form [(E+(-mc2))=0 and (E+(-hf))=0]. Mass is the orthogonal form of energy that does not move at the speed of light as required by the dimensions and frequency is the orthogonal form of energy/mass that is required to build atoms. Both of these common orthogonalities are needed in the universe that we evolved in, for us to be in the form that we are.

The basic problem is using a mathematical equivalency (=) for things that are independent/orthogonal. They are not equal [E=mc2] but should be considered as orthogonal [(E+(-mc2))=0] and the purpose/use, by us, and the universe, of using them is because they are not equal, but are independent and are by necessity, different forms of the same thing. This use of the same thing in different guises is the ultimate simplicity that one would expect from the universe [Occam’s razor, steam/water/ice] Thinking/thought of these properties could be remedied by a simple change not in nomenclature, but in a change in comprehension because everything is orthogonal [if it is not the same thing]. This leads to the problem that quantum gravity has no definition because it cannot be described by traditional physics and that is because traditional physics is incomplete. Quantum gravity is the orthogonal of energy and is the organization (to use a common word) that allows energy to exist because (energy +organization)=nothing [(1+(-1))=0].

To put it simply, the elementary particles (electrons and protons) are orthogonal in electric charge and orthogonals of neutrons (and the product of an organizational solution involving quarks) that are elementary particles because they cannot be broken up (into quarks) by definition and by effect that they are orthogonal/independent to energy and thus are (effectively) organization and impervious to applications of energy. This absolute inability to use energy to break up elementary particles is tempered by the huge attraction within the nucleus between the protons and neutrons, but susceptible to applications of energy [binding energy, asymptotic] and the opposite end of the graph is gravity and asymptotic to zero at infinity (stars). This simplicity has a point, and that is, that energy and quantum gravity are orthogonal, independent and quantum gravity can be represented by a hyperbola y=1/x, where y is the attraction and x is the separation. This is the basic problem with traditional physics that it does not recognize orthogonality and puts gravity as being equivalent to energy and so loses information.

From above, ‘E=mc2 and E=hf are trivialities relating two states/orthogonalities of the same thing’ might seem to be a harsh judgement, especially considering the statue of the scientists responsible, so, can we derive orthogonality, that is the basis of (literally) everything, in a top-down manner to show that they could have used it. The answer is yes, when you know what you are doing, and further, I will also derive the mathematics of concept/context, of which traditional mathematics is a special case. This shows how working top-down can easily lead to the wrong solution unless we know what the bottom-up solution is, and the point that I am making is precisely that, that the answer is/was available top-down!

Let us start with a complicated scenario, but one that is supposed to be simple, from Euclidian geometry, that a triangle has three sides. I could say that a triangle has three sides [concepts 1, 2, 3] and the end of one is attached to the end of another [context 1 to 2, 2 to 3, 3 to 1] and this can be written as (a+b)=1, where a is the measurement and b is the record and this orthogonalizes to (a+b)=1 and (a and b)=1 that accounts for the physical and the logical aspects. Notice firstly, that everything can be written as (a+b)=1 [probability space], and secondly, that traditional mathematics ignores the logical (a and b)=1, so, this logic concept is new to traditional mathematics that circumvents this problem by bringing the mind of the mathematician into the problem. This is a serious problem that requires a ‘new’ mathematics.

To repeat, a measurement has to be made [1, 2, 3] and a record kept if the measurement is to exist [2 to 3, 3 to 1, 1 to 2] and this requires a mind/brain. (a+b)=1 is the simplified form of a probability space and the simplification (1+(-1))=0 is a fractal and both of them are statements of orthogonality. Thus orthogonality is the basis of everything in the universe. QED In other words, top-down and bottom-up are the same when you do not get lost, as has clearly happened to traditional mathematics and physics. However, traditional mathematics and physics have proved useful, but it can be seen that they are incomplete, littered with enigmas and are special cases of a ‘new’ mathematics and a ‘new’ physics.
The ‘attempt to develop a theory that unifies the four fundamental forces in nature: strong and weak nuclear forces, gravity and electromagnetism’ was put forward 100 years ago and did not succeed because the dimensions were not understood and I believe that the following is more appropriate. The organization of elementary subatomic particles, the strong nuclear force, diffraction and gravity are instances/parts of quantum gravity, a hyperbolic relation of the form y=1/x where the attraction y depends on the separation x of ALL energy. Electromagnetic radiation is only one form of energy and all forms of energy are orthogonal to quantum gravity and the weak nuclear force is not relevant. For completeness, magnetism will be shown to be a manifestation of quantum gravity, at a later date.
Part 2: Quantum Gravity

Consider that ‘Newton’s law of universal gravitation states that a particle attracts every other particle in the universe using a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. This is a general physical law derived from empirical observations by what Isaac Newton called inductive reasoning. It is a part of classical mechanics and was formulated in Newton’s work Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (“the Principia”), first published on 5 July 1687.’ (Wikipedia, Newton’s law of universal gravitation)

This is saying that one of Newton’s and physics’ ‘signature’ equations was ‘derived from empirical observations by what Isaac Newton called inductive reasoning’. I find that the acceptance of this by physicists, in general, is very hard to believe, but what could they do, without a better theory/solution? Notice that the quantum gravity that I am proposing provides the proof because when both ends of the hyperbola are recognised in the asymptotic nuclear binding energy [infinity] and gravity [to zero], the slope of 1/x, for separation x, becomes 1/x squared and the product of the masses of subatomic particles and galaxies becomes relevant at the asymptotes. QED. The often quoted spherical diminution from a point source to illustrate the inverse square rule I have never found convincing and in the light of the above, misleading. Unless the quantum gravity graph is extended to the two ends and assumed to be a simple 1/x [Occam’s razor], for separation x, Newton was guessing/’inductive reasoning’ at the relationship.

From above, Newtonian physics confuses gravity with energy and the answer is, I believe, to use a top/down orthogonality where the ‘new’ physics combines top-down Newtonian physics with bottom-up organizational physics and that also solves the problem of ‘everyday’ logic because that is the same as organizational physics and must accurately represent our universe even if that universe is a probability/fractal view.

Considering the Principle of Least Action, ‘quantum theory, which describes how things work on the subatomic scale, seems to be the one area where the principle of least action does not apply. Quantum objects can be in two states at once, and can take multiple paths when travelling from one place to another. Richard Feynman went so far as to suggest that a quantum particle will simultaneously take every possible path when making a journey!’ (30 – Second Theories, Paul Parsons, p 16) Firstly, this is the common/probabalistic view of quantum mechanics and is, I believe, the result of viewing the null space through a probability space because a probability space is a measuring space and describes the null space through a distortion that is required to supply an instantaneous speed of accounting of the conservation of energy. If we only have one pair of glasses and they distort things, how do we know the ‘true’ picture? The ‘true’ picture is unknown to us, unless we can de-orthogonize. Secondly, every path must be included in the calculation in a probability space otherwise certainty is not attained, and certainty was Feynman’s aim.

‘Quantum mechanics is probably the single most important theory in physics. Despite the difficulty we have in understanding what it all means, we have it to thank for almost all of modern technology…. However, despite its tremendous success, quantum mechanics remains shrouded in mystery because, uniquely among scientific theories, no one really knows how or why it works.’ (p 38) I believe that quantum mechanics is simple in that it has been known since ‘the 5th century BC by the Greek philosopher Democritus, who speculated that everything in the world is ultimately composed of small, hard and indivisible particles’ (p 36) and that allows/demands uncertainty. The problem is compounded because we have to look at that uncertainty through a probability space and all the problems that it puts in our way, such as constant/absolute speed of light to every observer, the expanding universe [expansion is a necessary requirement for (1+(-1))=0 to exist] that fooled us into postulating the Big Bang theory, the probabilistic paths of particles, not to mention the wave/particle duality that forms atoms and orthogonality and so forth. On top of all that, the Newtonian physics that we use only describes half the picture and muddies the scene and leaves enigmas along the way, and further, the mathematics that we use was derived from counting sheep and so on. It really is a wonder that we have got as far as we have, but then, we are ruining the planet in the process and so it really is time to get it right, and in particular, by using organization appropriately.

Part 3: Einstein’s theory of General Relativity

‘Incorporating gravity into his theory of special relativity, Albert Einstein’s theory of general relativity revolutionalized our view of space and time. Going beyond Newton’s laws, it opened up a universe of black holes, worm holes and gravitational lenses.’ (50 Ideas You Really Need To Know: Universe, Joanne Baker, p 92) Unfortunately, to build, one has to re-model the existing and to establish the ‘playing field’, let me say that Newton and Einstein were innovative but left enigmas. As far as I can see, and in spite of the above quotation, and given the low level of my view, Einstein’s general relativity is little different to Newton’s concept of gravity and the concept of general relativity is a requirement that cannot be met by Newtonian physics. I believe that within this context, Einstein made his biggest blunder and the blunder was not the cosmological constant, it was general relativity and was a product of his times.

Einstein’s special theory of relativity is based on a slow constant, to each measurer, speed of light that was the startling result of the Michelson-Morley experiment and the effects on distance, time and energy/mass [dimensions] reflect the problems of that singularity (and logic) because from the dimensions of a probability space, for all energy, space to time is a constant, and thus provides a maximum speed for energy. However, as in a lot of cases in the universe, orthogonality is used to ‘sidestep’ problems, as in the wave/particle duality to build atoms, and the orthogonality of energy is organization. Thus, we have the accounting of energy that is logically and instantly required throughout the universe as gravity/organization that is conceptually different to the slow speed of light. This orthogonality [(1+(-1))=0] provides the basic construction of the universe and we need instantaneous accounting for the conservation of energy as well as a slow speed of light that increases space at a pace that allows us time to evolve.

Now, if the (necessary) slow speed of light produces relativity [between moving frames], the non-infinitesimal measuring rods produces quantum mechanics and gravity is an accounting term, there is no way to amalgamate these, unless we de-orthogonalize to a lower level and that level is the null space that we can view only by using the equation of everything (1+(-1))=0. I have used the terms energy and organization for 1 and (-1) for convenience, but they are both energy and again, the two types of energy appear to have been taken by Newtonian physics to be one.

Consider, ‘Einstein recognized that this acceleration was the equivalent to the force of gravity. So, just as special relativity describes what happens in reference frames, or inertial frames, moving at some constant speed relative to another, gravity was a consequence of being in a reference frame that is accelerating. He called this the happiest thought of his life.’ (p 92) This introduces a simplicity [that gravity is a force] that is particularly welcomed by Newtonian physics, but, I believe that it is a ‘simplicity too far’ and is caused by the top-down consideration that has led physics into problems over recorded history and is due to using a lower/different fractal level of orthogonality.

If whatever you are standing on, is taken away, of course you accelerate toward the closest mass [a simplification] and you have to ask, ‘what has this to do with the accounting?’ [a different orthogonal/fractal level]. If Special Relativity is caused by the constant value of the measurement of the speed of light to all observers because the space is a probability space, gravity has nothing to do with the speed of light, so why is the theory called General Relativity and an extension of Special Relativity? The rubber sheet analogy is a picturesque way of explaining attraction, but is space-time ‘bent’? Space and time passing were generated from first principles, above, and are quite simple, so, what is happening here?

Why would Einstein confuse a force with an accounting unless there was a good reason, and I believe that that reason arose from the top-down view as well as the properties of a fractal. Both a probability space and a fractal space use the equation (1+(-1))=0 that defines the mathematics of concept/context and this shows the level of orthogonality. Also, whilst the mind/brain utilizes concepts [(a+b)=1], we have problems envisaging concepts outside of our experience, so, consider the example of the mind, that the first orthogonality is energy/organization that leads to thought/thinking in our mind/brain, and the second orthogonality is the physical level of nerves, action potentials etc. that we would find enigmatic without knowing/experiencing thinking (chapter 95).
‘Gram for gram, our brain consumes a disproportioately huge amount of energy. It represents 2.5 percent of our total body weight but consumes an incredible 22 percent of our body’s energy expenditure ar rest. The human brain expends about 350 percent more energy than the brain of other anthropoids like gorillas, orangutans, and chimpanzees.’ (Grain Brain, David Perlmutter, Kristin Loberg, p 181) Clearly, a higher orthogonality is to consider energy/organization and that explains the level of thought versus energy for humans versus the other anthropoids. The second orthogonality/fractal finds that all anthropoids have the same type of mind/brain and information is lost.
I will repeat this by coming at an opposite/orthogonal direction because it is so important to understanding the situation. We all know the scope of thought [energy/organization fractal level] derived from the consumption of energy in the brain, but to derive thought by looking at the nerves and tissues in the brain [lower fractal level] would be almost impossible, as we currently find. Using the same idea [top/down orthogonality] applied to traditional mathematics and physics versus the ‘new’ mathematics and physics, one could say that, ‘until the process is understood, it cannot be appreciated’.

A fractal is self replicating and the first orthogonality energy/organization self-replicates to energy being composed of energy/organization and organization is composed of energy/organization and so on ad infinitum. Thus, I believe that it is possible that Einstein used the second level of orthogonality and its energy component to derive/describe the General Theory, which it is not, whereas the Special Theory is based on an experiment and is confirmed bottom-up, above.

To repeat, relativity is a result of orthogonality and orthogonality is basic to everything [(1+(-1))=0], orthogonality produces independent concepts and relativity is context and this splitting must always produce concept and context except for the three absolutes defined by the probability space [conservation of energy, dark energy and the constant speed of light]. Special relativity is a product of the constant speed of light measurement to all observers, but the so-called General Relativity belongs to conservation of energy [gravity]. Relativity is a context and ‘everything is relative except for the three factors of the probability space’ and yet both the special and general theories are based on those non-relativistic examples.

In other words, relativity is a fact of creation [(1+(-1))=1, context], but the three absolutes of a probability space complicate relativity [constant speed of light to each measurer for each measurement etc.]. The concept is the type of energy [1, (-1)] and is orthogonal to the context [1+(-1)], and there lies the problem. Traditional physics ignores the difference between inertial and gravitational mass [same value, but orthogonal], and here it is again, so that ignoring the concept and context, Einstein has assigned the same energy to the two parts. The Special Theory of Relativity was based on ‘hard’ experimental data [Michelson-Morley] and shows the dimensions changing to avoid a logical singularity, but the General Theory is a complete misnomer.

I should point out that (literally) everything in the universe is orthogonal except for the three absolutes of the probability space, and for convenience I use (1+(-1))=1 as the first orthogonality, but, in the second orthogonality (1+(-1))=1 represents the physical and (1 and (-1))=1 represents the logical. The mind/brain is a product of the probability space that has the form (a+b)=1 where a is any measurement and b is any record, and in a second orthogonality, (a+b)=1 and (a and b)=1 cover the physical and logical. In a measuring space, a and b are quite general and we have added computers, cars, electric light etc. to our consciousness and record. Now we have to add one more to a and b, and that is orthogonality, that leads to the mathematics of concept/context and (presumably) solutions to the world’s problems.

Another example of (possibly) using a higher level orthogonality that is costing a lot of money and effort is ‘another aspect of general relativity is that waves can be set up in the space-time sheet, radiating especially from black holes and dense spinning compact stars like pulsars. Astronomers have seen pulsars’ spin decreasing, so they expect that this energy will have been lost to gravity waves, but the waves have not yet been detected. Physicists are building giant detectors on Earth and in space’. (p 95) If gravity is the accounting/organization of energy across the universe, we can only see it through a space that is a measuring space, and the simplest is a probability/fractal orthogonal space represented by the equation [(1+(-1))=0] that contains a measurement/entanglement orthogonality, with an infinite speed. The value of the gravitational energy is propagated at the speed of light because it is energy. We could go so far as to say that Newtonian/Einsteinian physics cannot measure gravity because it is independent/orthogonal to the energy based system that they use.

Part 4: The Big Bang That Wasn’t

‘The Big Bang theory includes an event called inflation. The entire universe was contained within a single point, before being inflated into an incredibly hot fireball that has since cooled into the galaxies and stars. Quantum uncertainty allows tiny packets of energy to appear out of nothing at all. Usually these ‘vacuum fluctuations’ disappear again in a tiny fraction of a second. However, if such a bubble contains a form of energy known as a scalar field, the scalar field can act like antigravity, making the bubble expand extremely rapidly up to a volume about 10 centimetres across.’ (30 – Second Theories, Paul Parsons, p 120)

The Big Bang theory is a typical creation myth that takes the observation that every star/galaxy is moving away from us, to form a simple premise that this observation was caused by a big explosion that created all of the energy/matter in the universe at one moment in time. As time and research passed, the theory became embellished with inflation. It should be noted that energy has a (relatively) slow speed as a photon, whereas quantum gravity is a product of the probability space and has infinite speed because it is an accounting. Consider the unfolding/generation of a fractal, such as the Mandelbrot series, is it restricted to the speed of light? No, because it is an accounting not an energy. The reference to ‘vacuum fluctuations’ is, I believe, better considered as ‘choice’ through orthogonal particles.

‘Inflation theory was developed in the early 1980s. It explains the origin of the large-scale structure of the cosmos. Quantum fluctuations in the microscopic inflationary region, magnified to cosmic size, become the seeds for the growth of structure in the Universe … Many physicists also believe that inflation explains why the Universe appears to be the same in all directions (isotropic), why the cosmic microwave background radiation is distributed evenly, why the Universe is flat, and why no magnetic monopoles have been observed.’ (Wikipedia)

I believe that the requirement by the dimensions that the speed of light is constant means that the universe must expand at a constant speed [Cosmic Microwave Background] and that dark energy [positive] be created as a necessary accounting [potential energy] for the expansion of energy/matter [negative]. Quantum gravity is an accounting of the space and is not limited to the speed of light and that negates the whole problem of inflation.

The fate of the universe seems to call for speculation – will it slow, continue expanding at a set rate, even accelerate! According to the above, the universe will continue to exist and grow, as long as it is expanding and if it were to grow smaller, it would slowly disappear because dark energy would be lost as the universe contracted in a balance of potential energy with energy. I see no reason that it should not expand forever with dark energy fuelling dust/stars/galaxies as a fractal must do. This is ‘steady state’ and everything is expanding, not from some initial Big Bang, but logically because the dimensions require photons to always travel at a set speed that creates space and that space creates dark energy to balance the potential energy increase of the universe and so on forever (in a null space).

The Big Bang is the accepted theory of the creation of the universe and yet it is a creation myth that is the antithesis of science, so, I will show its problems with reference to the above. (a) The sudden creation of all the energy in the universe is not something that the energy based Newtonian physics should consider because it should ask where did this energy come from and how does this fit with the conservation of energy? (b) ‘Three critical observations underpin the success of the Big Bang model. The first is Edwin Hubble’s observation in the 1920s that most galaxies are moving away from our own.’ (50 Ideas you really need to know: Universe, Joanne Baker, p 57) Firstly, above, everything is moving away to create the logical separation that is produced by the creation of space that increases the dark energy that expands the universe to balance the two energies.

Secondly, ‘In the first few seconds, the universe was so hot and dense that not even atoms were stable…. Within the first three minutes, cosmic chemistry mixed the protons and neutrons, according to their relative numbers into atomic nuclei…. Once the universe cooled below the fusion limit, no elements heavier than beryllium could be made.’ (p 57) The first question is how did the ‘relative numbers’ of protons and neutrons know the correct number to form? The above assumes choice and direction in the numbers and presenting the reactions that might form. I believe that considering that protons and electrons are orthogonal to neutrons and thus the sum of the electric charges is conserved, protons and electrons form at a rate that is necessarily the solution to this enigma.

In the 1940s, Ralph Alpher and George Gamow predicted the proportions of light elements produced in the Big Bang, and this basic picture has been confirmed’. (p 57) This aligns with my interpretation that the plasma is hot and dense because there is, as yet, no mechanism to create space quickly because the photons are absorbed by the plasma. In other words, for 400,000 years there was no mechanism to allow the universe to expand at the speed of light and so cool down.

Thirdly, ‘another pillar supporting the Big Bang theory is the discovery in 1965 of the faint echo of the Big Bang itself…. they had stumbled upon the cosmic microwave background … predicted in 1948 by George Gamow, Ralph Alpher and Robert Hermann. Although nuclei were synthesized within the first three minutes, atoms were not formed for 400,000 years. Eventually, negatively charged electrons paired with positively charged nuclei to make atoms of hydrogen and light elements. The removal of charged particles, which scatter and block the path of light, cleared the fog and made the universe transparent. From then onwards, light could travel freely across the universe, allowing us to see back that far.’ (p 58)

The sudden release of photons form the ‘burst’ of microwaves at the frequency that they are now, that we call the Cosmic Microwave Background. In expanding to create the space of the universe, their energy has presumably been reduced because they are out-running the mass of the universe that is expanding at a necessarily slower pace.

(c) ‘It is a major puzzle why the universe contains mostly matter and not antimatter.’ (p 70) This is, I believe, a problem associated with top-down theories that have no organization, just powered by energy, such as Newtonian physics because it is logical that both mass and anti-mass should form. The above, from first principles, offers choice to the reaction that is contemplated because there is an orthogonality between matter and antimatter and there has to be a reason to choose antimatter. Not finding antimatter suggests the Big Whoosh is more appropriate because organization is available.

(d) Flatness: cosmic inflation must represent the most bizarre theory because ‘we think that the answer is inflation – the idea that the baby universe swelled up so fast in a split second that its wrinkles smoothed out and its subsequent expansion balanced gravity exactly.’ (p 76) According to the above, the expansion of energy in the universe balances the gravity/organization exactly all of the time because of the relation (1+(-1))=0, where quantum gravity and energy are equal and orthogonal.

(e) Sameness: ‘the puzzle is that the universe is so big that its opposite edges should not be able to communicate even at the speed of light…. This is the ‘horizon problem’, where the ‘horizon’ is the furthest distance that light has travelled since the birth of the universe, making an illuminated sphere. There are regions of space that we cannot and will never see because light from there has not yet had time to travel to us.’ (p 77) From the above, we have to look, I believe at our universe [in null space], through a probability space because a probability space supports an infinite speed of accounting of measurement through entanglement across the universe. This ensures that gravity, that is an organization, is everywhere active in the universe and not an energy that is constrained to the speed of light.

(f) Smoothness: ‘galaxies are spread fairly uniformly across the sky’ (p 78) I believe that the Big Whoosh is perhaps a better description than Big Bang because it seems that, whether by God or by chance, a point source developed energy/heat with little increase in size over 400,000 years because it had no rapid means of expansion until electrons formed stable orbits and allowed the photons to create space at the speed of light. Thus, smoothness was generated along with the simple atoms simply by considering numbers and time for stabilizing. Also, the creation of dark energy to balance the expansion would have, I believe, created a ‘fractal infill’.

(g) ‘The flatness, horizon and smoothness problems of the universe can all be fixed with one idea: inflation. …. Inflation has not yet been proven and its ultimate cause is not well understood – there are as many models as theorists – but understanding it is a goal of the next generation of cosmology experiments.’ (p 78) The theory presented here suggests that the concept of inflation is superfluous and is not needed.

Conclusion: Notice that the Big Whoosh is similar to the Big Bang, but with a better, more believable means of initiation.

It appears that energy in its basic form [photons] is constrained to a speed, but there is no ‘graininess’ and the energy/organization works at any level of energy. This would be expected for two reasons, firstly, any restriction in the quantum of energy would throw up singularities [as we see in subatomic particles] and secondly, the creation could have started with the creation of a tiny amount of energy separation.

This begs the question of what is a photon and I believe that it is a wave/particle duality/orthogonalization as well as the orthogonal fields of electromagnetism where the electric field is the energy and the magnetic field is the organization that is the reference for the logic of the requirement that no charged particle can exceed the speed of light (see chapter 95) in a probability space. This also answers the question of magnetic monopoles, above, that positive and negative electric charges are orthogonal organization and exist, but magnetism is, I believe, organizational [quantum gravity] and north and south are (organizational) directions and a direction always has an anti-direction.

The overall conclusion is that the reasons for the Big Bang apply equally to the Big Whoosh and that theory presents a reason for the formation of energy and supplies the logic [organizational physics] that allows us to understand its workings. Further, a logical [steady state] increase in energy over time indicates and provides the underlying picture of a continually increasing universe that as a fractal, will remain similar to the present forever.

References: all quotations are fully referenced in the body and earlier chapters can be found on darrylpenney.com if required.

Chapter 94: Why Newtonian Physics Needs Choice

Subtitle: Defining Choice Within a ‘New’ Philosophy, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle Resolved, the Physics of Choice Creates Atoms Through the Wave/particle Duality/shimmer, Mind/thought is the Organizational Orthogonality of the Brain’s Energy Consumption, Orthogonality defines the dimensions, How the Voting System Effects Housing Affordability and How to Fix It Through Rational Choices

Chapter 95: The Organization and Software behind the Mind and Abstract Thought