Abstract: our universe and everything in it is a fractal derived from the natural splitting of energy in a null space into orthogonal positive and negative forms, and the process is built on questing à orthogonalty à relevance, that provides all choices through ‘splitting’ and presents those choices at all times as orthogolal/virtual particles in empty space. Our universe can only be described as a higher level orthogonal of probability space and fractal space that is the fifth dimension (a+b)=1, where a and b are measurement/recorders that has dimension 1.5, but Life has built on this to make a mind-space of dimension 2 that changes the physical measurement/entanglement into the mathematics of concepts that uses the orthogonality of concept/context. Four ‘acts/activities’: null space, orthogonality, fractalization and probability space form the basis to the view of our universe, and are represented by the equation 0=(1+(-1)), and they are pertinent, complete and describe the multiverse, our universe and everything in it. The fractal aspect becomes obvious in the range of elementary particles that create new doublets and triplets as the energy of particle accelerators is increased. The doublets of quarks show orthogonality and they are, like the plumbing, organizational solutions that lie beneath and contribute to the elementary particles and show that doublets of quarks form the antiparticles, electron and positron, and triplets of quarks form the neutrons and protons. It requires two quarks to form elementary particles, with the third quark, in the neutron and proton, producing the organizational binding in the nucleus that, in the elementary particles is impervious to energy of any magnitude because of orthogonality. Further, the suite of elementry particles is principally organizational with masses comensurate with the energy that they need to deal with, and new ones will be made in doublets or triplets as needed through orthogonality to create hundreds of new particles as the need arises to transfer higher levels of energy in particle accelerators. These particles and the multitude of galaxies shows the organizational beauty of the fractal/orthogonalization of the universe and the binding energy of the quarks, and my assertion that gravity is organizational, marries them into one simple hyperbolic relationship y=1/x, and this leads directly into the Law of Attraction of Energy that extends the Law of Gravity, making the law applicable to all (organizational) energy, principally gravity and binding energy. An example of orthogonality is given showing that gravitational inertia is not the same as mass inertia, that is a postulate in Einstein’s General Relativity. Unfortuately, the beauty of the organization cannot be shown by Newtonian physics, nor mathematics because they are both dimension 1 and do not consider the orthogonal and as such, I believe, are chasing fractals and not solving the world’s problems. Extensions to mathematics through the orthogonal mathematics of concepts and to Newtonian physics are given that can be extended into the social sciences. The interpretation of Dirac’s equation predicting antiparticles is that antiparticles are available, if needed, and is an example of fallacies introduced by the limitations of Newtonian physics. The Big Whoosh is similar to the Big Bang after 10x-30 seconds when inflation started, but the concept/context of the splitting of nothing into a universe by the Big Whoosh allows a rational basis [concept] to be made for the creation of an infinite number of universes [context] with varying natural constants that can be called the multiverse, and this provides a reason why the physical constants in our universe allow us to exist. The multiverse provides a rational explanation of why our universe can sustain us and, together with the derivation of the universe from nothing, provides a direct personal choice of whether the universe occurred naturally, or was created by God, and further, that Faith and physics are orthogonal/independent and have nothing to do with each other, ever! The equation for the formation of the multiverse and of our universe is 0=(1+(-1)) and consequently, the concepts of the speed of transmission of gravity and the law of conservation of energy are only necessary in higher orthogonalities.
Preamble: the following is highly speculative by necessity and it depicts our universe as a probability/fractal space that is somewhat like the one that we actually inhabit. Our universe progressed through the Big Whoosh that is/was a fractal generated by the dimensions that I have taken to be that of a probability space [x, y, z, time passing and (a+b)=1 for measurement/recorder a and b], which is similar, to our universe [x, y, z, time passing and points a, b, c ….. such that a=0, b=0, c=0 etc]. In other words, I have to use a higher level of fractal/orthogonality to describe a lower level that subsumes the properties of the universe. A probability space, (a+b)=1, for simplicity, uses the fundamental operators questing à orthogonalty à relevance to generate a fractal/orthogonal series, where questing is (a+b+c …..)=1, (a and b and c …..)=1 and the orthogonality ‘+’ and ‘and’ that leads to relevance that is used to make choices as presented by the space [as virtual/orthogonal particles].
All of this is indeterminate unless measured and we, as parasites within the universe evolved to measure and be able to use the ‘higher’ levels of general mathematics and the mathematics of concepts by evolving a mind/brain through expanding the orthogonality space (‘+’ and ‘and’) into a plane of concepts and context. Over fourteen billion years the universe became a fractal of stars that are so bright that it is only Olber’s paradox that allows us to survive. In the reverse direction, nothing (literally nothing) splits into the orthogonality of energy and logic/organization, and questing, relevance and orthogonality of the space produced the elementary particles, as well as the photons, that through the dimensions, must, when measured, be found to travel at a constant speed with respect to the observer, no matter what the observer is doing [relativisation of the observer].
The fifth dimension, that energy is equivalent to (a +/and b)=1 [for simplicity] is an orthogonality of the physical and the logical/organizational at every point in the probability space, but whereas, in a probability space the sum of energy over all points, equals 1 [measuring space], in our space, the sum of energy is 0 because the energy at each point in the space is 0. Orthogonality produces, at each point, in our space, positive energy (physical) and negative energy (logical/gravity), and both energies and spaces are logically equivalent, and that gives me the licence to continue using a probability/fractal space.
This paragraph contains the apparent enigma that the effect of gravity is instantaneous over the whole universe, in spite of Einstein’s assetion that the speed of light is a maximum. I have pointed out, from the dimensions that the speed of transmission of energy (photon) is a maximum/constant of the speed of light, but the universe can only exist/work if the speed of gravity is instantaneous and this requirement led me to consider the universe as a probability space. Actually, the starting point was the concept of reality, but a mathematical probability space does cater for an instantaneous gravity, but there is another possibility, and that is the null space. The case that is presented here, is observable only because a probability/fractal space is a higher orthogonality of our space, that is a null space, and contains the same properties. In other words, there is no difference between each point and all points in a null space , except that we cannot picture it unless we expand it into orthogonalities that we can picture. This statement that our universe is a null space is true, I believe, but we will have to change the Newtonian concept of a ‘real’ universe to one that may be difficult to accept.
The interesting point is the phrase ‘in a null space’ and that is the only physical and logical situation that provides a logical/organizational solution with an infinitely rapid accounting that the total energy in the universe is constant. This is the point where Newtonian physics breaks-down because it ignores the organizational-physics, and that is the orthogonality of the physical and logical. So a simple example might be a fractal of the universe: (0) = (0 + 0) = (1 + (-1)) = (0 + (1 + (-1))) and this simple example shows the increase in the fractal of positive (1) and negative (-1) additions to the universe (0) = (0 + 0) = (1 + (-1)) = (0 + (1 + (-1))) etc. and the concept that every element (1 + (-1)) [every piece of energy] is intimately connected to itself and every other energy in the universe and whatever happens to one energy/particle (1 + (-1)) happens to the sum instantaneously/simultaneously. A null space shows orthogonality (1 + (-1)), fractalization (1 + (-1)) and a measuring/probability space (0 + (1 + (-1)))=0 at the same time and is my licence to proceed as I have done.
The null space and the fractal spaces are simple, but the probability space is more complicated because it contains two parts, firstly, that the sum of all parts is constant, which was simply explained as being the sum of all possible zeros is zero. Secondly, a probability space is a measuring space because every point must contribute to the sum, and this simple statement leads to the question ‘how are alternatives presented to the point to determine what the value is?’ Newtonian physics ‘glosses’ over this point by saying that ‘things come together to be in the lowest state of energy’. But what tells the point/reaction that something is the lowest energy? I believe that all choices are presented and these choices are orthogonal/virtual particles, as will be discussed, below. Newtonian physics is correct in that the lowest energy is used, but the reason is an organizatioal necessity to keep the law of conservation always zero.
Orthogonality presents independent choices and I am forced to ‘jump around’ to follow the discussion, but the whole discussioncan can be ‘anchored’ on the Multiverse producing our universe through the four ‘acts/activities’: null space, orthogonality, fractalization and probability space. It has been mooted that the universe can be described in one equation, and I thought that it could, as the fifth dimension (a+b)=1, but this is only the probability space and is too specific. I now propose that the four ‘acts/activities’, represented by the equation 0=(1+(-1)) are pertinent, complete and describe the multiverse, our universe and everything in it.
What is an orthogonality? It has been assumed by mathematics that the sequence is: point, number line [is a line], a plane [two independent quantities defining a plane], three dimensions etc. The two-dimensional space is the set of Cartesian coordinates for position, defined by (x, y), whereas, for an orthogonality, it is simply the ability to separate the (x, y) values into the x and y axes and is a simplification of the Cartesian concept. In other words, orthogonality is subsumed in a plane. I have defined two spaces, one defined by the independent axes, that contain the sum of all points equals one (probability space) and the other space has the possibility that any point can create two new values/points (fractal) [these new values are dark-energy/orthogonal/virtual-particles and are linked to the creation of space]. This is the same as visualizing the particle/wave duality in quantum mechanics because our space is the null space that contains nothing, and, thus the photon, instead of being a wave/particle to the measurer, is nothing/no-energy. In other words, what you see/realize depends on the fractal level, but what we see at higher levels are subsumed in the lower levels, there, but not there. This questing is the questing that we see in vacuum/virtual/orthogonal particles that are real and need to be calculated, as below.
This explains the wave/particle duality [as concept/context, not just x and y] and why we see either a wave or particle, and that is what the measurer can only visualize and our fractal produces two independent options [simplest/independent]. The fifth dimension is measurement/entanglement and everything depends on the measurement and the only definite measurement is the independence of the orthogonals [it requires a mind/brain between orthogonals, and that is concept/context]. However, the evolution of our mind has refined the process of orthogonal changes and we can handle choices that the two-dimensional plane offers [through forward-planning]. We have to measure by recognising orthogonals, else the problem becomes indeterminate [not connected] and there is nothing there with a solid base. There may be nothing there, but there is a logical/organizational quest [from the measuring space] and this starts the process of orthogonality and the measurer takes the choice offered according to relevance [questing à orthogonality à relevance].
In other words, the fractal only exists as it is measured and it is a measuring space and a measurement is required before a decision can be made and this decision is orthogonality [wave/particle]. In physical terms, this requires the orthogonal/ virtual particles to exist to present a choice and this logical/organizational entanglement is similar to a probability space and the physical ‘proof’/rationale for that is that an orthogonality/orthogonal-particle is the same for both particles except for one factor, such as electric charge, and this is a splitting into two parts. Orthogonality describes the subatomic particles and the subatomic particles are the proof of the universality of orthogonality and agrees/aligns with the Casimir Effect.
Re-stating this, the elementary particles form an organizational problem, and that is, how to make a unique workable system out of the components that are present in our space. Our space is a fractal and every thing in that space can split into two parts and everyone of those parts is accessible at any time, and this is the definition of the fractal space that I am using and can be written as questing à orthogonality à relevance (chapter 89). This relation has been derived from a probability space and a fractal space with dimensions x, y, z, time passing and (a+b)=1, where a and b are measurement/recorders with the first orthogonality (a+b)=1 and (a and b)=1 that represent the physical and organizational parts of the fifth dimension. I am using the probability space and a fractal space because I understand them as orthogonals of a space that does not exist because all points are zero [null space]. This mirrors the problem that quantum mechanics had with considering the photon as a particle or a wave, and the answer is that those views are orthogonal and independent, but our measuring (probability) space will return the answer to the experiment in terms of the orthogonality required by the experiment/measurement.
As discussed in chapter 88, the photon is the main transportor of energy and we can recognise two parts, the energy (a+b)=1 and the organization/entanglement (a and b)=1 of the fractal/universe and the photon contains these as orthogonal pairs with a total energy of zero. Notice that an orthogonality remains whilst the space is expanding and our universe is expanding because the speed of light is finite and constant. It is obvious that our universe is a fractal because we can see billions of galaxies and there are countless atoms and a mathematical fractal gets larger and smaller, by repetition and splitting, as far as we look/measure. Contrast this to the Big Bang that is supposed to contain a fixed amount of energy/matter.
Our view, as parasites that evolved to take advantage of this universe uses the four search axioms to link into our space, from chapter 81, ‘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 6), the measurement of each numeral (questing) and the relationship between numerals (relevance), so keeping these four quantities: elegance, forward-planning, questing and relevance in mind, I will return to them via the dimensions and the properties of a probability space.’
However, a physical fractal cannot become infinitely small and still function and so, there must be a limit, and that limit has been called the atom by/since the Ancient Greeks. Further, they thought that these atoms were held together with hooks and the current idea, that gluons hold the nucleus together and other particles ‘mediate’ fields etc. is not much better. I will show that these ideas can be explained using orthogonality that uses the independence of energy/energy and energy/organization to shield/ignore/contain the energy/energy, leaving the independent energy/organization to form the atom. Our universe is derived from only five dimensions and should be constructed simply.
Further, this orthogonality can never be separated and forms the basis of the most fundamental particle, which is the quark [as well as the photon]. Traditional physics works top-down and has slowly worked down through the atom, neutrons, protons etc., but I am going to build an atom from the bottom-up and it will show how logical and simple it is to build a universe through division/orthogonality, and that is the same way that life propagates by starting as a fractal through splitting in two, like amoebae and bacteria, and then changing its methods to using sex, and we will see how Life used the orthogonality of ‘+/and’ to develop a truly supercharged higher level mind/brain and the mathematics of concepts.
The fractal aspects of the space allows each particle to quest to produce more particles as needed through orthogonalization, so that the particles that are relevant to the job are available when needed. This is the function of a fractal, to use the fundamental operators: questing à orthogonalty à relevance and to have alternatives available, if needed [vacuum particles]. Firstly, all energy is a quest/splitting/orthogonalization of no/zero energy into positive energy [physical] and negative energy [gravity/organizational] as described in chapter 88 where the photon is considered as the smallest particle of free independent energy. Secondly, the next step is the ‘condensation’ of energy into matter, but still having the physical and logical aspects of orthogonality [matter/energy/organization], and we could call this matter, a neutron. The third orthogonalization is into electric charge, that leaves the electron and positron doublet [antiparticle], and the triplet of neutron, electron and proton[orthogonals], so that:
n à p + e- + antinutrino
Type First Second Third
Quarks
Up-type up charm top
Down-type down strange bottom
Leptons
Charged electron muon tau
Neutral electron neutrino muon neutrino tau neutrino
Generations of matter
‘There are three generations according to the Standard Model of particle physics. Each generation is divided into two. In particle physics, a generation (or family) is a division of the elementary particles. Between generations, particles differ by their flavour, quantum number and mass, but their interactions are identical.’ (Wikipedia, Generation (particle physics)
The Standard Model shows the doublets and triplets that are thrown up by orthogonality, depending on whether a neutral particle is used. This suggests that the range has been exhausted and I can only agree that ‘fourth and further generations are considered to be unlikely.’ (Wikipedia, Fourth generation) Considering that only five dimensions are available in the space, the multiple uses of orthogoality to create billions of suns/galaxies and at the same time the multitude of elementary particles is a momentous achievement, especially when it is derived from nothing! I believe that the same momentous effect/solution can be obtained through applying the mathematics of concepts, that is shown in the dimensions of a probability space, to our problems in the social sciences. The use of this organizational ‘technology’, as shown by considering a probability space, is the means to finding the answer to the world’s problems, but it requires an extension of mathematics and the sciences.
Whilst marvelling at the ability of a fractal to turn five dimensions into a univese, an even greater accomplishment has been wrought by a parasite on an obscure planet. Our mind/brain has, I believe taken the orthogonality space ‘+/and’ and turned it into a two-dimensional plane, and this is possible because the fifth dimension (a +/and b)=1 [probability space] is true for all a and b, whether measurement, concept or whatever else we can envisage. The mathematics of concepts, (a +/and b)=1 is fractal dimension one and a half in the physical world, but becomes two dimensional because the mind/brain, as the operator of the mathematics of concepts is two dimensional. The audacity/creativity that evolution has forced on Life by using survival of the fittest, that by necessity requires a sixth dimension [future-planning] has added/super-charged our mind/brain by half a dimension. The importance of our mind/brain being able to handle two dimensions will become clear when it is considered that Newtonian physics and mathematics are only one dimensional and have been holding us back!
‘The weak intereaction is the name we give to the force responsible for beta radioactivity. The simplest example of a weak interaction is neutron beta decay’, as above. (The New Quantum Universe, Tony Hey and Patrick Walters, p 211) This decay of neutrons is necessary, otherwise all of the energy in the universe would be tied up in neutrons and there would be no orthogonality, as above, and it is called radioactivity, and it has the property that half a sample will react over a certain time, called the halflife. Notice that radioactivity is not physical, but logical/organizational, and further, unlike Newtonian physics that concentrates on energy, the energy of accounting/organization is the most constructive/instructive part.
I am also suggesting that the photon and neutrino are related through orthogonality because the photon carries a continual spread of energy and organization, see chapter 88, whereas the neutrino is more complicated. ‘Neutrons are slightly more massive than protons and, left to themselves, will eventually decay to a proton and an electron…. But experiments indicated that momentum and energy could not be conserved unless another, electrically neutral particle was also involved.’ (p 211) This electrically neutral particle is the neutrino and shows properties that means that it could be orthogonal to the photon. The photon does a simple job of interacting with any atom that it comes across, but the neutrino is much more complex and much more inclined to a logical/organizational role and is far more ‘choosy’ with what it reacts.
It seems that the neutrino is the ‘odd man out’ because there is a lovely fractal organization in the elementary particles and in the galaxies, but, the neutrino gives the impression that it has been ‘cobbled together’ fractalwise to keep the universe working. If God designed the universe, surely He/She could do a better job of organization than n à p+ + e- + antinutrino, where the antineutrino has to (literally) carry off the ‘bits leftover’. I get the impression that the universe has/is a universe that we could evolve in, but, a lot of fundamental values have had to be ‘just right’ and this is possible if we consider a multitude of universes arising out of every point of nothing, and we are in one of the ones that is ‘just right’, see below. If the organization of the universe is not as perfect as we would hope and the neutrino is a filler/fixer, where did it come from? I suggest/guess an orthogonality of the photon as the simplest with a number of orthogonals to create the complexity needed.
Below, there is the possibility that strangeness is carried off by the neutrino and ‘we now know that strange particles possess a new type of charge that distinguishes them from ordinary matter such as protons, neutrons and pions. In the strong interaction reactions, the final state must have the same strangeness as the initial state …. In the decay of strange particles, strangeness is not the same on each side of the reaction. This means that the process is not allowed to proceed via the fast strong interactions, but can only take place, reluctantly, by the much slower weak interactions of beta radioactivity.’ (p 256) Further, might I suggest that the photon is energy/energy and energy/logic/gravity/no-strangeness whilst the neutrino is the same as the photon in most regards, but containing strangeness instead of no-strangeness, as well as any additional orthogonalities that are needed.
I freely admit that I know little of modern particle physics and my aim is not to know a great deal about the hundreds of particles that have been found. My aim is simplification and whereas we generated an atom in three orthogonalities, the same could be done to condense the simple Standard Model, above, by folding up the orthogonalies into the first generation, and we find our old friends, proton, neutron, electron, photon and neutrino. It is remarkable how the elementary particles all disappear by going backward, and there can be little doubt that our universe is a fractal. Hence, as stated before, the Big Whoosh will also reduce to nothing in reverse, and that is a lot easier that trying to justify some Big Bang!
‘Fractals are not limited to geometric patterns, but can also describe processes in time. Fractal patterns with various degrees of self-similarity have been rendered or studied in images, structures and sounds and found in nature, technology, art, and law. Fractals are of particular relevance in the field of chaos theory, since the graphs of most chaotic processes are fractal.’ (Wikipedia, Fractal) ‘The Mandelbrot set is the set of complex numbers c’ using z2+c (Wikipedia, Mandelbrot set), whereas (a+b)=1 is the set of physical and organizational measurements that I call the fifth dimension and naturally produces a universe, if it can, given the physical constants. These quotations were included to stress an extremely important point, that, just as all a and b can be used to define higher dimensions, such as concept/context [two-dimensional], in a fractal universe ‘higher’ fractals, such as ‘images, structures and sounds and found in nature, technology’ etc. are available, if we can use them [Mandrake effect]. This is the concept of a fractal, but the context of a fractal is its ubiquity/everywhereness that arises from such fundamental organization. In other words, to emphasize, the a and b [of (a+b)=1 in a probability space] can be anything that we can imagine, that works for us, and explains our culture because the splitting into orthogonals is derivation.
‘Another quark was needed to complete the quark pairings up and down, charm and strange, and top and bottom.These three quark pairs mirror the three lepton pairs consisting of electron, muon and tau together with their respective neutrinos.’ (The New Quantum Universe, Tony Hey and Patrick Walters, p 267) This suggests that charm and strange, and top and bottom are orthogonal pairs of the common up and down, and further that the triplet of electron, muon and tau suggest another orthogonality. Clearly, the photon is primarily engaged in the transfer of energy, whereas the nutrino is more complex and appears to change its form readily, ‘possible neutrino oscillations’ (p 277) and appears to favour the logic/organizational mode as it is not prone to interactions. Clearly, there must be enough interactions, otherwise all the energy in the universe would be tied up in neutrinos.
I am building an atom/photon etc. logically, and in chapter 88 showed how I believe that all matter, using the photon as an example, is built up from an orthogonality of physical energy/energy and logical/organizational/energy. Chapter 89 showed how the quark/antiquark pairs cannot be separated and this indicates that they are not antiparticles, but orthogonals, and this produces a relationship between quarks, called the ‘strong force’. The quarks belong to the space that we cannot comprehend, where there are fractional charges that are (multipart) solutions to an organization. Notice that the anti-particle is a ‘mirror-image’ around electric charge and both contain energy on anihilation, whereas an orthogonal pair, on not being used, disapear into nothing.
In other words, orthogonality is used in three senses, firstly, the antiparticles, such as electrons/positrons producing two gamma rays on anhililation, secondly, an electron and proton combine to a neutron, and thirdly, orthogonal-particles/virtual-particles must be present everywhere to be available organizationally [reality requires continuity and containment]. These three factors define the orthogonality that consists of Newtonian physics and ‘organizational physics’, and it will be shown, at a later date, that the latter is basic to chemistry and there has to be a reason that reactions occur, and this is an orthogonality of availability and ability.
The space/universe has properties, as above, and I am using a probability space for clarity, and these properties can be derived from a mathematical probability space that has the dimensions of three space, time passing and (a +/and b)=1 for measurement/recorders a and b, for simplicity from chapter 85, ‘if we quest the dimensions, we find three constant relationships: energy to time for all space, energy to space for all time and space to time for all energies because all of the dimensions change by the Lorentz contraction [for simplicity]. The first appears to suggest conservation of energy over time, the second that space has a set energy and that the creation of space creates energy, as is commonly thought, and could be the mechanism that forces matter/galaxies with its negative potential energy to move outwards as space is created [and vice versa]. The third relationship shows that all (free) energy, in the form of photons must have a constant speed, relative to the measurer, and this is the Michelson-Morley result (for all motions). These relationships are necessary quests in a measurement space and the second relationship, that space has a set energy and that the creation of space creates energy suggests a reason for dark energy to exist. “Dark energy is everywhere – a property of space itself – whereas dark matter occurs in blobs in the vicinity of galaxies.” (Star – Craving Mad, Fred Watson, p 256)’
This quest of the dimensions, space, time passing and energy, where energy is equivalent to the orthogonality (a+b)=1 and (a and b)=1, shows that x, y, z and time passing are important and define crucial properties of our space. Notice that I am using one orthogonal, (a+b)=1, to describe the physical view and the other, the organizational view, (a and b)=1, because I cannot comprehend what I believe is our true space a=0, b=0 …. in a similar way that we envisage energy as a wave or particle. The fractal of the space is carried into the subatomic region as well as into the universe and the speed of generation of the fractal space is set by the speed of light, which is, not surprisingly, independent of the dimensions, above. I say, not surprisingly, because the three quests of the dimensions, above, are organizational and any deviation in any of them anywhere in the universe would trigger a singularity and this explains the (seemingly) enigmatic results of the Michelson-Morley experiment.
From chapter 89, this quotation concerns the matter that we call ‘antimatter’, that is not the same as ‘orthogonal-matter’, but it does bear repeating. “In 1927, Dirac published a paper in which he presented a wave equation for the electron … the equation of the electron. Curiously, though, the equation had two solutions, rather like the way in which the simple equation x2=4 has two solutions… By 1931, he realized (along with other people) that the equation was actually predicting the existence of a previously unknown particle, with the same mass as an electron but positive charge…. Antimatter, as it came to be known, was a real feature of the physical world, and every type of particle is now known to have an antimatter equivalent with opposite quantum numbers.” (Science: a history 1543 – 2001, John Gribbin, p 521) This quotation presents three enigmas, firstly, one stated that “every type of particle is now known to have an antimatter equivalent with opposite quantum numbers” is an enigma until it is realized that the physical world has no way of deciding which particle to choose, and that it is more complicated to decide on one particular particle than to allow both, and further, this is the basis/nature of a fractal that every possibility is available, if quested. Secondly, matter that we call “antimatter” is not the same as ‘orthogonal-matter’, because positive and negative orthogonal energy recombine to zero/nothing. Thirdly, this quotation has been taken by Newtonian physics to assume that in a ‘real’ world, equal quantities will be made of matter and antimatter, whereas, in a probability space, only the possibilities of creation are equal. The problem has been created because Newtonian physics is too simplistic and does not consider the implications of the type of space that we live in.
A digression appears to be required because the Standard Model suggests an enigma that is answered simply by orthogonality, and that is ‘the observed matter-antimatter asymmetry in the universe. We are made of particles and not antiparticles. As far as we know there is no evidence for galaxies with stars and planets (and people) of antimatter elsewhere in the galaxy. The Standard Model cannot explain how a universe that was initially symmetric between particles and antiparticles could evolve to our present asymmetric situation.’ (The New Quantum Universe, Tony Hey and Patrick Walters, p 280) The problem appears to be caused firstly, by assuming a Big Bang where matter condensed out of the energy as it cooled and secondly, that equal quantities of matter and antimatter were created, and so, where did all the antimatter go?
Consider the Big Whoosh, where no/zero energy split into positive/negative energy as energy/organization at every point, and orthogonizing this picture, we have energy and particles (the neutron), and another orthogonalization gives electron, proton as well as neutron but with their antiparticles as virtual particles. If these antiparticles are not needed, they are not used, and if they are not used, they do not exist. QED. I had better explain that the orthogonal particles of every description are available at every point as logical choices (virtual particles, vacuum energy) to be used if needed, and they are not antiparticles as has been quoted elsewhere. Given that the space that we are viewing is a probability space, virtual/orthogonal particles are ‘choices’/possibilities that can be used, if needed, much like the ‘wavefronts’ at each point in Huygens’ explanation of diffraction, where the wavefronts are probability fronts in probability space, not real/actual wavefronts. Newtonian physics considers the universe to be real and it is not real. We are considering it to be a probability space, for ease of consideration, along with being fractal. Our true universe is, for simplicity, unknowable, and we are looking at Plato’s shadows of probability/fractal.
The above paragraph is difficult to grasp because it refutes several misconceptions, firstly, that the universe is real, secondly, that equal quantities of particles and antiparticles are produced, and thirdly, that there was a Big Bang, and thus becomes a ‘proof’ that we live in a probability space because there are not equal numbers of particles and antiparticles. Disposing of these three assumptions is shown in the paragraph above that the splitting of energy condensed to neutrons that orthogonated to protons and electrons plus the orthogonality of the fifth dimension that derives from a probability space.
It is apparent that the quark/antiquark, that is quoted in the textbooks, is a misnomer because a particle and its anti-particle destroy themselves on contact, leaving energy, in the case of an electron/positron, two gamma rays, also, the electric charges are different. So, keeping things simple, it has been shown that there is a multituse of quarks and, by necessity, their respective antiquarks and we, and the universe have a problem, how to make a stable system. It is debatable how life started, because the intermediate products have been lost, but not so for the creation of atoms because questing happens at every point with all possibilities and the universe has to solve an organizational problem of how to produce the orthogonality from the neutron to produce the proton and electron that have positive and negative electric charges.
From chapter 89, ‘The question is a simple mathematical/organizational one of, if there is an orthogonality of quark, zero and antiquark, what combination must the proton and neutron have to produce a neutron with no charge and a proton with a positive charge? Clearly, the answer is that the proton is two up quarks (2 x +2/3 charge) and one down quark (-1/3 charge), and the neutron is 1 up quark and 2 down quarks and that also fixes the problem of the strong binding of the protons. A quick check shows that the charges are correct and the reaction of a:
proton + electron à neutron +4/3 + -1/3 + -3/3 à +2/3 + -2/3 balances!
The simple strong law referred to above is orthogonality because it is simple, exists and is unbreakable and does away with the concept and problem of quark confinement because they are confined logically and physically, by orthogonality, also, it does away with the (theoretical) binding particle, the gluon.’
So, adding a little more complexity, if we look at ‘strange’ particles:
‘pion(-) + proton à lambda(0) + kaon (0)
where the lambda is a strange baryon and the kaon a strange meson. The most puzzling thing about these strange particle events was that, while it was easy to create pairs of strange particles from collisions of pions and protons, these strange particles, left to themselves, showed a marked reluctance to turn back into protons and pions. In other words, we must deduce that the production of pairs of strange particles takes place via the strong interactions but the decay of individual strange particles is governed by weak interactions
lambda(0) à proton + pion(-)
kaon (0) à pion(+) + pion(-)’ (p 255)
I want to simplify, not delve into the expansion of a fractal, but I have to ask ‘what is the weak force?’ because the quotation seems to say that it is a reluctance to return to protons and pions and another says that it is the result of beta particle production from the nucleus. Perhaps it is the necessary radioactivity that prevents a singularity that must be avoided in our universe if we are to exist, so that we can be here to record it. These three reasons are logical/organizational reasons and not physical. The four search axioms [forward-planning, questing, relevance and elegance] have also intruded, and as such, what allows them to be part of physics, when they are part of the experimenter. Why are these logical/organizational questions coming into the physics of the experiment. The answer is, of course, that Newtonian physics is one dimensional with ‘bits and pieces’ added on when necessary. There are innumerable examples of this, that modern physics is forcing out of the darkness, such as Einstein’s postulate in relativity, Feynman’s use of histories etc.
The quark/antiquark pair, in refusing to be split and being created as mesons suggests that they are not two particles, especially not a particle and its antiparticle as the literature suggests, but, as suggested for the photon, as an orthogonality, but with a difference. An orthogonality is a 50/50 combination of energy and logic/organization, and as such cannot be separated, as is also found in the quark/antiquark particle that is ejected as the energy input increases, but the charges are different. This mechanism suggests that we consider a particle in the same way as the photon was considered, as an orthogonality of energy and organization, but a little more complicated. The quark/antiquark bond does not require the gluon, but appears to use the independence that orthogonality imparts to the two parts to make them independent and unaffected by the other. This binding attraction in the nucleus is considered to be a ‘binding energy’, but it actually is a ‘binding organization’ and is quite general and is, I believe, the reason that particles stay together. Thus, it will be shown that the electron, proton, neutron and photon are true elementary particles with the neutron/proton and alpha particles using a weaker form of the bond due to the increased separation, see below.
However, the electron above, for simplicity was taken to be –3/3, when it is actually part of the organizational problem, as well as a particle in its own right, but to get a charge of –1, it has to be composed of at least two quarks and it does have to have an antiparticle. From the standard model:
pion(-) or electron is composed of an antiup quark and a down quark [–2/3 + -1/3 = -1], and the pion(+) or positron is composed of an up quark and an antidown quark [2/3 + 1/3 = +1].
It is obvious that this particle requires firstly, two quarks to give unitary charge, and secondly, that the quark/antiquark bond holds them together. The question is, what is that bond? A purely mechanical system, such as Newtonian physics, suggests a particle is ‘swapped’ between them creating the attraction. I would like to suggest a simpler theory, in that, viewing the elementary particles through the first orthogonality, there is universe-wide entanglement in the form of gravity/organization and this consideration links quantum mechanics with gravity, and that relationship has long been sought by physicists. If gravity is apparent in an orthogonality, it is available in lower/less orthogonality, but hidden until sought, in the same way that a null space can (potentially) orthogonate to a universe, by logic/organization, and thus, overall gravity is logically similar to binding at a point.
In other words, for this important point, for simplicity, gravity is a word that can be used to describe the organizational accounting across the universe as well as the binding accountability in the nucleus! It is not a force, but a true organizational quantum-gravity! To emphasise this further, the nuclear binding [strong force] in elementary particles is the same as the binding [gravity] between the galaxies/suns/planets and, for simplicity is firstly, hyperbolic, asymptotic near zero [binding energy] and asymptotic to zero at distance [gravity]. Notice that the distinction between elementary particle bonds, ‘strong’ bonds and gravity is separation, but bearing in mind that it is composed of energy/organization and impervious to energy/energy, otherwise a singularity could be formed. Secondly, I believe that this energy is organizational and orthogonal, but, using Newtonian physics it could be considered a similar linking of binding energy to gravity by considering a ‘lower’ orthogonality.
Thus, it could be said that Newtonian physics is a lower fractal that obscures the independence of the physical and organizational and that I am suggesting a consistent unrecognised expansion that augments Newtonian physics in the same way that mathematics is a special case of the general mathematics and mathematics of concepts. Further, there is no need for mathematics and physics to change, but the understanding/usefulness rises infinitely, as for a one-dimensional line to a two-dimensional plane. This expansion of understanding is particularly useful for using the mathematics of concepts on the social sciences and our present worldwide problems.
This mathematical picture of the amalgamation of the strong ‘force’ and the ‘force’ of gravity suggests a simple hyperbola with the equation y=1/x, and taking the masses as contributing reciprocally, we get the equations,
binding attraction/energy from the graph is inversely proportional to the separation, and thus, between two particles/suns/galaxies,
the attraction/energy is proportion to the product of the ‘masses’ divided by the square of the separation, which is the Law of Gravitation.
For completeness, this binding/gravity (negative) energy is orthogonal and independent of energy (positive) except that it is equal and opposite.
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)
I find it difficult to believe that the Universal Law of Gravitation is based on ‘a general physical law derived from empirical observations by what Isaac Newton called inductive reasoning’! However, this inductive reasoning that was derived from empirical observations must be so, because firstly, Newtonian physics considers positive and negative energy to be the same, when they are better/can-only-be considered as energy and organization, secondly, the negative energy of gravity is independent and completely hidden from/in Newtonian physics, and thirdly, the use of the name Universal Law of Gravitation is a little grandiose considering Newtonian physics’ lack of appreciation of, what I believe is, the true organizational nature of the attraction that is simple and continuous from elementary particles to the furtherest galaxies.
Fourthly, should I shall take the Universal Law of Gravitation as a postulate, for simplicity, because if Newtonian physics is unable to give a proof of the law of gravity, can/should I provide a proof based on the fact that binding/gravity is necessarily purely organisational (negative) energy that is independent of (positive) energy? The proof would be informative and indicitive of a change in thinking that quantum mechanics and relativity have brought to the fore, so, through the mathematics of concepts, that everything is related orthogonaly, the requirements of the principle of Occam’s razor and the simplicity of the relation y=1/x indicates that this relation is probably true. This proof may sound a little strange, but the orthogonality that we have seen in quantum mechanics and relativity limits provability when compared to the preciseness of mathematics, and so, we must welcome the indeterminate into our thinking.
To make it easier to understand, I would like to explain that othogonality is the basis of the expansion of the universe from five dimensions and presents an energy and organization that are independent and are two parts of nothing. Physics measures energy at or between points, but the organization can only be measured in its entirity and that can only be done using a measuring/probability space that quests every point continually and that is measurement/entanglement [or mathematics of concepts in mind-space] that shows the orthogonality and that mathematics has, for the parasites that have evolved, been made usable by setting determinate limits and living within those limits. Mathematics and physics are unfortunately dimension one [by deriving logically], the physical universe is dimension 1.5 [orthogonal] and Life is dimension two [forward-planning requires choice], and it can be seen that ‘bits’, such as ‘what Isaac Newton called inductive reasoning’ are literally ‘stuck on’. This is the basic problem, in that we cannot manage ourselves, or our planet, using our present organizational tools in mathematics, physics and especially the social sciences, and these tools will not exist until orthogonality is embraced, and the social sciences appreciate context.
Newton viewed gravity in isolation and Einstein considered the inter-relationship with surrounding objects and they succeeded because gravity is so simple and is just an organizational attraction/accountability between all energy. Questing the dimensions sets the value of constants for the speed of light and energy of space, but gravity is a physical constant that varies with the multiverse and its general form is a hyperbola. The attraction between all energy is a necessary organization of the orthogonality of the system/universe, but because of orthogonality, there is independence between energy and organization and this makes it impossible to use one to prove the other. This impossibility/inability for Newton and the innumerable physicists after him to derive Newton’s ‘signature’ formula shows that the ‘tools of physics’ are not up to the job and I believe that this is so, because I have derived the binding energy (y=1/x is the simplest form of a general hyperbola) as applicable to the nucleus and gravity and this suggests an attraction due to the separation in the form of y=1/x2 and all energy/mass is accountable to gravity.
I would like to give an example that has caused much discussion in Newtonian physics, and that is the question of gravitational mass and inertial mass. ‘no physical difference has been found between gravitational and inertial mass in a given inertial frame. In experimental measurements, the two always agree within the margin of error for the experiment. Einstein used the fact that gravitational and inertial mass were equal to begin his general theory of relativity, in which he postulated that gravitational mass was the same as inertial mass, and that the acceleration of gravity is a result of a “valley” or slope in the space-time continuum that masses “fell down”. Dennis Sciama later showed that the reaction force produced by the combined gravity of all matter in the universe upon an accelerating object is mathematically equal to the object’s inertia, but this would only be a workable physical explanation if, by some mechanism, the gravitational effects operated instantaneously.’ (Wikipedia, Inertia, Interpretations, inertial mass)
Considering the fourth part, the viewing of the universe as a probability space demands that gravitational effects operate instantaneously, as shown above, and the third part concerning acceleration is using units derived from the predator/prey situation and only complicates the situation, however, considering energy makes more sense. In the second part, Einstein ‘postulated that gravitational mass was the same as inertial mass’ clearly points to problems of interpretation as already mentioned. The first part is easily answered because gravitational and inertial mass have the same value, as has been found by experiment [concept value], but they are not the same in form [context value] because they are orthogonal/independent, and one is energy based (inertial) and the other is organizational based (gravitational). This can be proven, to my satisfaction, from a planet orbiting a sun, where the attraction (gravity) is between the centres and the inertial is (instantaneously) tangential to the motion and perpendicular/independent/orthogonal to the line of gravity/centres.
Dark energy is a quest of the dimensions, but dark matter may be nothing more than our inability to measure cold dark matter (CDM) that does not give out the light that we measure by. ‘Scientists who study the evolution of stars can provide an excellent estimate for the masses of different types of stars such that we can calculate how much stellar mass there is encolsed at different radii, M(<r), stepping outwards with increasing r from the centre of the galaxy.’ (The Dark Universe, Catherine Heymans, p 3) A discrepency is apparent between the ‘light’ mass and ‘dark’ mass that leads to the postulate of dark matter so ‘as we head towards the edge of the visible galaxy, we find that instead of the enclosed mass becoming a constant, the actual enclosed mass in the galaxy needs to continue to grow in order to keep the rotating stars bound. This startling conclusion can lead you to one of two conclusions. The first option is that equation [“equating the centripetal force experienced by an orbiting star of mass m with the gravitational force” (p 3)] is wrong. But while it is a noble pursuit to question the core foundations of physics, we will work under the assumption, for now, that we do understand gravity such that the favoured conclusion is option two; there is a massive clump of invisible dark matter surrounding this galaxy.’ (p 4)
This sidesteps two problems, firstly, the difficulty of measuring the total mass that we cannot see, and secondly, the accuracy of Newton’s force of gravity. The concept of gravity is organizationally necessary but its value is not, and, whereas the speed of light, dark-energy/energy-of-space and conservation of energy are quested by the dimensions, it is the multiverse, and our ability to live here, that decide the value of the attraction. Further, there are graphs that decrease towards zero as the x-axis increases, but the requirement of a hyperbola narrows the possibilities and hints at the simplest form of y=1/x and for attraction, the inverse square relationship 1/r2.
Each quark, like the photon, is a 50/50 combination of energy/energy and energy/organization and when a quark and antiquark are together, the ‘necessity’ of their coming together to create a unit charge is energy/organizational. Organizationally, the solution is for unity charge and the creation of fractional charges is thus a singularity and there is an organizational bond between the quark and antiquark that is orthogonal and independent and energy/energy cannot affect it. Thus, the application of energy/energy has no effect, other than to eject a quark/antiquark pair because they are orthogonal/independent. Calling the quark an elementary particle on its own is an enigma that like many others becomes simply explainable when organization is applied and this is the very thing that is lacking in Newtonian physics. The quark is an organizational solution that is only a solution as a doublet or triplet.
In simple terms, a neutron changing to a proton is a down quark changing to an up quark and neutrons and protons are elementary particles because they also contain a down/up pair of a triplet, and an electron/positron are elementary particles for the same reason, a doublet of anti-up/down and up/anti-down, whilst the binding organization is the third up/down that forces the proton and neutron to bind together. All other particles are formed by orthogonality as needed to contain/handle the higher energies. The (probable) orthogonality of photon/neutrino is probably needed for the infinitesimal/balancing of energy and organization that is needed to balance the energy and organization because the elementary particles are energy/mass constrained. It is apparent that this simple organizational solution of energy is itself reliant on orthogonality to take care of the higher energy reactions as well as to power the energy requirements of a necessarily expanding universe. The dimensions necessitate a constant speed of light/photons as a means of transporting energy and organization can be considered to act instantaneously because energy to time is constant for all space and conservation of energy must be maintained over the whole universe. The organization is truly breathtaking in its simplicity and interconnectedness and orthogonality allows us to understand it.
To repeat this simple view of an elementary particle as seen through the orthogonality of a probability space, if we remove the othogonality, the reasons, that we can understand, disappear – no gravity, no entanglement that causes diffraction, no reason for the quarks to stay together [logic of unit charge], why elementary particles are elementary, why logic must be instantaneous etc. Organization is an energy, but a different kind of energy, and has to balance energy/energy at all times. Orthogonality is the reason that a quark and an antiquark cannot be separated by energy. The quark/antiquark nomenclature is confusing because, I believe that a quark (and all energy) is composed 50/50 as above, and it is the quark and the antiquark’s organization and not their energy that powers the bond, and the proof is the inability to separate quarks and antiquark by the use of energy/energy.
Quarks, I believe are part of the space that we cannot imagine and we do not need to imagine because they are the solution to the organizational problem of the elementary particles and as such are essentially (but still 50/50) energy and organization and their concept is organizational. Logically, there has to be a minimum unitary particle of electric charge and mass otherwise the alternative is the infinitely small, such as the photon is, and must be, and this means that there must be organization. The photon is, I believe, the decider/definer of expansion of the universe and that is constant because the photon speed is constant [from the dimensions]. The dimensions require that space has energy and this is shown by the experiment of Willis Lamb, quoted below, that shows that space does present alternatives of energy [and necessarily, logic], the electric charge does affect the answer to the experiment, and the exactitude of the result is surely a proof.
Consider ‘higher energy (more massive) mesons were created momentarily in the Big Bang, but are not thought to play a role in nature today. However, such heavy mesons are regularly created in particle accelerator experiments, in order to understand the nature of the heavier types of quark that compose the heavier mesons. Mesons are part of the hadron particle family, and are defined simply as particles composed of two quarks. The other members of the hadron family are the baryons: subatomic particles composed of three quarks rather than two. Some experiments show evidence of exotic mesons, which do not have the conventional valence quark content of one quark and one antiquark. Each type of meson has a corresponding antiparticle (antimeson) in which quarks are replaced by their corresponding antiquarks and vice versa. For example, a positive pion (π+) is made of one up quark and one down antiquark; and its corresponding antiparticle, the negative pion (π−), is made of one up antiquark and one down quark.’ (Wikipedia) This paragraph has been added to show that more massive mesons can be constructed orthogonally to deal with any situation so that a singularity is not produced and other exotic mesons can be produced because the basis of our fractal space is producing particles to fit the requirements, when needed.
Strangeness appears to be an orthogonality in strong interaction reactions, and results in two strange particles, but the two particles separate and go their separate ways, so what happens to the strangeness? I suggest that the likely candidate is the neutrino as the carrier of strangeness, for, from below, the neutrinos appear to be the ‘universal vacuum cleaners’ that have the ability through the flavours to balance reactions and carry off the ‘left-overs’. ‘There are now some intriguing indications that suggest that our Standard Model may need to be extended. The first clue is concerned with the question of whether neutrinos have mass, or are mass-less like the photon.’ (p 277) If I may answer this question of extending the standard model, particles will be found in doublets and triplets that are massive enough to ensure that a singularity does not occur, so increasing the energy of the accelerator will bring them into view, but the question is one of expense and the particles may not be very interesting. On the other hand, as the Big Bang did not occur, as I believe, below, it might be possible to exceed the organizational constraints with our experiments and throw the universe into chaos.
‘This gives us four particles (proton, neutron, electron and neutrino) to worry about (plus their associated antiparticles) and four forces (electromagnetism, the strong and weak nuclear forces, and gravity) to consider. That is sufficient to explain everything that is detectable to our senses’. (Science: a histrory 1543 – 2001, John Gribbin, p 525) Firstly, is there a weak interaction, or is it merely historical to augment and force a relationship in the Unified Field Theory? If there is a weak interaction, it could be the necessary one of radioactivity that degrades what has been built up during a supernova. This creation and destruction is another orthogonality/safeguard imposed by our fractal universe in order for it to function so that we can be here to record it.
Secondly, from chapter 89, the predominant preferential use of the alpha particle is only possible because of the shielding effect of the quark-like/orthogonality-like effects of the protons and neutrons that allow the heavier nuclei to be built up in the sun. Thirdly, the emission of a beta particle is the direct result of the quark rearrangement from a ‘down’ to an ‘up’ in the movement of a neutron to a proton in the nucleus. All of these effects depend on the binding energy of the quarks and have little to do with a weak force, so one must question its need in any unified theory.
So, What are quarks and how do they build a universe? They are like the plumbing or wiring in a building, essential, but not seen and are the solution to an organizational situation/problem that creates a unique solution that always works and avoids logical/physical singularities that cause chaos and form a fractal universe of matter from a null space/point where each and every point is zero/nothing. They are created as orthogonals with half energy/energy and half energy/organization/gravity with fractional electric charges and form the fundamental particles of neutron, proton and electron with a basic electric charge of unity. As the basis of fundamental particles, they have the organizational property/solution of only forming orthogonal doublets and triplets with unity electric charge and never exist alone, and where the binding organization between two (different) quarks is orthogonal/organizational and independent of the application of energy.
Elementary particles are a logical necessity that supply a solution to the organizational problem of something being small enough, yet big enough to provide a unique solution. The quarks are the solution that are the organizational orthogonality (negative energy) and each quark attracts with an energy (gravity/binding energy) according to the relation y=1/x, where x is the separation, and this General Law of Attraction is the extension of the Law of Gravity and can be taken as the mutual attraction of energy being proportional to the product of the mass/energy of each particle, divided by the square of the separation, and this attraction ranges from the quark/antiquark association to the infinite separation throughout the universe. Thus the total attraction (negative energy) is dependant only on the energy/mass involved, its separation and the differentness of the quarks, and its total equals the (positive) energy of the universe and together they are zero.
The preferred form of binding within the nucleus of an atom is (roughly) equal numbers of neutrons and protons because they form a stable organizational bond of three up/down quark bonds, with one up/down bond in/forming the neutron and proton and one up/down bond between the neutron and the proton. This simplicity/elegance bears stressing that one up/down pair in the particle for the neutron and proton, and the third quark forms a bond between the neutron and proton, but there is, apparently, no bond between the protons (up-up) and neutrons (down-down). However, the alpha particle is similarly configured and its bonding strength is crucial to nuclear reactions and element building in stars [by tunnelling] because it is unusually stable, probably because of the close tetrahedral packing of the fundamental particles and thus the high organizational bonding.
Antiparticles are always able to be formed because logically/organizationally it is simpler to create the mirror-image as well, than to decide on one form and the electron is anti-up/down quarks and the positron is up/anti-down quarks with the appropriate unit electric charges. This method is seldomly used and the main production of elementary particles is through the third orthogonality [after positive/negative energy and the neutron] giving neutron, proton and electron and these are carried on to form the universe by the fractalization and energy creation orthogonalities of the fifth dimension, energy is equivalent to (a+b)=1, where a and b are measurement/records, of the probability/fractal view of the null space.
It should be noted that the story of the quarks is the story of the beginning (and growth) of the universe by what I call the Big Whoosh because it contains the necessary inflation as a constant ratio of energy to space. Quests of the dimensions of a probability space means that, as energy is made/split, so does space become determinant/increases, dependent of the speed of light but the (conservation of) energy is always zero. Inflation bedevils the Big Bang concept as an ‘add-on’. It will be shown that the Big Bang and the Big Whoosh are different views with the same result, but the above shows that the Big Whoosh is conceptually more likely/sensible because inflation is inate and energy increases with space [dark energy effectively drives a Steady State]. Further, the elegance and simplicity of the construction of the elementary particles is enhanced by the simplicity that orthogonality allows for an unlimited/adequate number of particles of higher energy, when needed, with every particle contributing to and affected by gravity.
‘The proton fusion puzzle was solved by quantum tunnelling …. It turned up exactly where Hoyle had predicted. The existence of this resonance allows three alpha particles to merge smoothly together, instead of colliding in an impact which smashes them apart. This creates an energetic nucleus of carbon-12 which then radiates away its excess energy and settles into the basic energy level (known as the ground state). This was the key discovery which explained how elements heavier than helium can be manufactured inside stars. Once you have carbon nuclei to work with, you can make heavier elements still by adding more alpha particles (going from carbon-12 to oxygen-16 to neon-20, and so on) or by the kind of drip-feed addition of protons.’ (Science: a history 1543 – 2001, John Gribbin, p 608)
This shows how important is the extreme shielding afforded by the quark/antiquark bonding of the alpha particle that allows the formation of the larger nuclei within the stars. ‘But it cannot explain the existence of elements heavier than iron, because iron nuclei represent the most stable form of everyday matter, with the least energy. To make nuclei of even heavier elements – such as gold, or uranium, or lead – energy has to be put in to force the nuclei to fuse together…. When their fuel runs out, such stars collapse dramatically in on themselves, and as they do so, enormous amounts of gravitational energy are released and converted into heat…. A third effect is to power a huge explosion in which most of the material of the star, including those heavy elements, is scattered through interstellar space, to form part of the raw material of new stars, planets and possibly people.’ (p 609) What a lovely theory, but, the Big Bang would have created just such an array of nuclei, whereas a Big Whoosh is a controlled process that would have produced only hydrogen and the ubiquitous helium/alpha-particles until the first suns created the higher elements, as above.
‘Feynman beautifully describes this paradox in his 1949 paper, A Theory of Positrons… particles that appear and disappear in timescales too short to measure are called virtual particles…. while they are not directly observable, it turns out that their indirect effects produces most of the characteristics of the universe we experience today….. Schrodinger equation ….. gets the answer almost exactly right. But not exactly…. Happily, Diracs equation managed to improve the predictions compared to Schrodinger’s equation and reproduced the general structure of the observations, including fine structure.’ (A Universe from Nothing, Lawrence M. Krauss, p 64)
‘April of 1947, United States experimenter Willis Lamb …. small disagreement with experiment … it was realized that the Dirac equation actually gives precisely the correct answer, but only if you include the effect of virtual particles.’ (p 66) ‘The virtual electron, being negatively charged, likes to hang around closer to the proton, while the positron likes to stay further away…. all the possible virtual particles that may exist intermittently in its vicinity. And when we do, we come up with the best, most accurate prediction in all of science.’ (p 68) This creates an enigma that the ‘virtual particles therefore exist’ (p 69), but not in the form of positron and electron because the annihilation leaves two gamma rays as we have seen. I believe that the virtual particles are orthogonal particles and they are ‘real choosable option’ particles, in probability space, that can be used if necessary but have together zero energy and thus do not affect the experiment/calculation. However, opposite electric charges are normally orthogonal because they annihilate each other, but affect the electron when present within the atom, as above. In other words, the orthogonal/virtual particles are available, if needed, and there is no residual energy to affect the atom, but their electric charges do, and I consider that the above goes a long way to proving the supposition of an orthogonal universe.
‘A Herculean effort … to try to calculate the fundamental properties of protons and neutrons …. Three quarks contained therein, but there is also a lot of other stuff. In particular, virtual particles reflecting the particles and fields that convey the strong force between quarks are popping in and out of existence all the time…. when we try to estimate how much they might contribute to the mass of the proton, we find that the quarks themselves provide very little of the total mass and that the fields created by these particles contribute most of the energy that goes into the proton’s rest energy and hence, its rest mass.’ (p 69) These fields could be the negative-energy/logic/organization/entanglement of the binding energy that necessarily generates two orthogonal energies including the positive energy/energy, that taken together make up the rest-mass, and that fits with what I am proposing. Further, higher orthogonalities need higher mass/energy to contend with more energetic reactions and this they do and that is the reason for the large masses of some particles.
‘The Cosmological Constant Problem, has been around since well before I was a graduate student, first made explicit by the Russian cosmologist Yakov Zel’dovich around 1967. It remains unsolved and is perhaps the most profound unsolved fundamental problem in physics today…. we too felt that when an ultimate theory was derived, it would explain how the effects of virtual particles would cancel, leaving empty space with precisely zero energy.’ (p 72) The solution to this problem is that the virtual particles are orthogonal particles with a total energy of zero, but have to be there in case they are needed [probabilistic organizational requirement]. The use of antiparticles for a very short time leads to having to ‘subtract from a very large positive number another very large positive number’ (p 73) to get zero, in spite of the fact that the annihilation of a particle and its antiparticle lead to energy remaining! This apparent enigma has been simply explained.
The net result of the last few paragraphs is that calculations that agree with experiment only occur when orthogonal particles are included and only make sense when considered as orthogonal particles. The basic problem is science’s top-down methods that comprise guesses and general agreement/acceptance among scientists. This is the way it has been done for thousands of years and enough is known to present a bottom-up approach, as I have done. The vast amount of experimentation and knowledge needs only a small shift in understanding and all of the unsolved enigmas (apparently) ‘fall into place’. The universe is a fractal powered by a simple equation and it is simple when viewed in the correct way, but complex when the key is obscured, and the key turns out to be to consider the universe to be a probability space that necessarily contains a fifth dimension [energy and organization: (a+b)=1] and possibility/fractals appear with the orthogonalization of (a+b)=1.
As I have made the statement that, bottom-up there should be no enigmas, so, ‘the origin and nature of dark energy is without a doubt the biggest mystery in fundamental physics today. We have no deep understanding of how it originates and why it takes the value it has. We therefore have no idea of why it has begun to dominate the expansion of the universe’. (p 89) From above, and from chapter 85, ‘if we quest the dimensions, we find three constant relationships: energy to time for all space, energy to space for all time and space to time for all energies because all of the dimensions change by the Lorentz contraction.’ Thus, dark energy is a function of the space, and as the speed of light is also a constant, new space is defined by photons moving outward at a constant speed, with their energy becoming less, but not/never zero. Hence, new space creates new energy (dark energy) and the galaxies move/expand outwards at a constant speed creating potential energy [of gravity, negative energy] and the space fills in by fractal expansion of the only thing there is, and that is energy, so energy [positive energy] is created so that they balance.
In other words, given the organization of space and the creation of space by that organization (speed of light), dark energy is simply a balancing item so that the total energy is always zero. Notice the elegance that, from the dimensions, ‘energy to time for all space’ is satisfied even when the universe is expanding and new energy [dark energy] is created and that solution is, simply, that the total energy is always zero over all time. This answers the enigma “What is the most challenging PhD topic in the world?’, to which he replied ‘Finding out why the expansion of our Universe is accelerating’. My very first thought was – ‘accelerating???’’ (The Dark Universe, Catherine Heymans, p 1) Needless to say that I believe that it is constant.
By working from the bottom-up, I keep running into ‘tendrils’ of top-down thinking, in relation to the above, ‘in a flat universe, and only in a flat universe, the total average Newtonian gravitational energy of each object moving with the expansion is precisely zero! This is what makes a flat universe so special. In such a universe the positive energy of motion is exactly cancelled by the negative energy of gravitational attraction.’ (A Universe from Nothing, Lawrence M. Krauss, p 103) From above, the dimensions of a probability space insist that the universe is flat [constant speed of light], thus at every point there is zero energy, and that allows fractal splitting unfettered range.
Finally, I have to say that, I believe that the concept of the Big Bang is one of these ‘tendrils’ and the above shows that the concept of the Big Bang is inappropriate, and the idea that all the energy is created at a point, inflation as an add-on, momentum powers the accelerating universe with some mysterious dark energy as well as not allowing a multiverse is ridiculous: ‘accelerated expansion simply made no sense! What possible source of energy could there be to fuel this ever increasing expansion of the universe?’ (The Dark Universe, Catherine Heymans, p 1) The Big Whoosh starts as a ’tearing’ of null space that creates a universe using the fractal separation of energy and organization and is natural in a space that can (only) be described as a probability/fractal orthogonality that uses inflation as the means of generating the fractal. This fractal is powered by the balancing of energy, as space is required, through the ‘dark energy’ that is written into the dimensions as energy to space is constant and so allows a constant energy per unit of space. This is actually the reverse of the Steady State theory that said that the creation of energy/energy powered the expansion, whereas, I am saying that energy and organization is created to balance the creation of space and that these energies are orthogonal.
Actually the Big Bang and Big Whoosh are (practically) the same after the ‘rapid period of inflation 10x-30 seconds after the Big Bang’ (p 8) and prior to that, could be called orthogonal as one starts with all the energy at a point and the other with no energy at that point. The test of a good theory is what it predicts and as they are the same, let’s work backwards and if we consider the concept of the Big Whoosh as a fractal, then it is a concept of the creation of a universe, but it has an orthogonal context and that leads into the Multiverse that is commonly considered to be the reason that we can evolve in this universe. In other words, our universe is the concept and the multiverse is the context of all possible universes and, as said previously, it is easier (logically) to generate random natural constants than to somehow try to ‘pick’ those constants that will support life, ‘grounded in a theory that predicts an almost infinite number of multiple universes.’ (p 24)
‘We imagine that our universe is the only reality, but perhaps the reason why we exist at all is because of our realization the fundamental constants, including lambda, are well tuned for life.’ (p 24) ‘The current favoured dark Universe model is called flat lambdaCDM. “Flat” implies that the global geometry of space-time is flat and hence infinite. “Lambda” implies that dark energy exists in the form of a “cosmological constant” – an arbitrary constant that can be included in Einstein’s gravitational field equations to counteract the pull of gravity. “CDM” implies that the dark matter that exists is “cold” or non-relativistic.’ (p 8) Clearly, this interpretation differs from the above, but not greatly when orthogonalization applies context to the concepts because we are adding an extra dimension (of context) to the current view of physics.
If our universe is fractal in itself, then why should not all universes be fractal with different universes having random natural constants, as this is organizationally easier? Considering that (literally) nothing splits into positive and negative energy, is there any limit to the number of universes that nothing can produce? This implies that there are an infinity of universes in existence, though, considering that they are all derived from nothing, at what level do they exist? From above, only by viewing the subsumed orthogonalitites with sympathetic/harmonic orthogonalities can we bring them into view. This discussion of the multiverse is a natural extension of the Big Whoosh and the multiverse has long been anticipated by physicists. ‘I’d also recommend this book to those who argue that the multiverse is wild fantasy’ (p 25) I believe that this rationalization of the multiverse has been a long time coming and like the Big Whoosh owes its usefulness to the recognition of orthogonality and its effect on basic physics and mathematics.
This answers two questions of very long standing, firstly, why are the physical constants in our universe so suitable for Life, and secondly, who, or what created our universe? I believe that we now have to make the choice from the orthogonal/independent questions of whether the universe, as we see it, erupted from nothing in a logical manner, or whether God played a part. At long last, we are considering the point where faith begins and the Big Whoosh proves that faith and physics are orthogonal/independent and all those arguments of using physics to prove the existence or non-existence of God are, and always will be, futile due to this orthogonality. This lays to rest the greatest enigma of them all, that creation is a personal choice from the orthogonality of God/physics, and now perhaps we can consider the problem that Life has evolved as a parasite to use this space for its own ends and needs to change/improve its association with its host to avoid killing itself/environment by overpopulation and that can be done with better use of the basic organization of the space, and the method of organization of our space is the mathematics of concepts.
Conclusion: The above is, as I have said, highly speculative, but, I think that it is correct and it appears to answer any enigma, to my satisfaction at least, and in particular, the elegance of the choice of creation that arises out of nothing. If it is not correct, it is certainly better than the tools that we have at our disposal and, I think, represents the extension to physics, mathematics and the social sciences that has become necessary to organize our ‘plauge’ on our environment.
The building of more energetic colliders will produce more and more particles as required/measured by the observer because a measuring space readily gives the answer to the question sought by the experiment by creating the required fractal answers easily through orthogonality. It seems likely that the answers from a fractal are not unique, nor particularly interesting at higher energies and new particles of higher mass/energy will be created to prevent singularities. This, probably answers the question of the large dispatity of energy/mass of these orthogonal particles to better handle transfers of energy as orgonizational solutions to the workings of our space.
Mathematics and physics are essentially one dimensional because of (artificial) limitations that have been placed on researchers. I say that because in a fractal universe there will always be new ground to explore because that is the nature of a fractal. However, the problem is in the definition of the fundamentals because mathematics uses the ‘exact’ subset of the mathematics of concepts and physics uses Newtonian physics that ignores the organizational half of the universe. Even worse, the social sciences, politics and organization in general have been denied an appropriate mathematics and physics. In other words, mathematics and physics are progressing, and will always progress, because they are chasing a fractal/measuring-space that will accommodate their endeavours, but, they are missing an opportunity. Mathematics is based on counting sheep and Newtonian physics uses energy and ignores organization, as I have shown above, and the key is to link them with reality through the dimensions of the space by orthogonalization.
The mathematics of concepts is obvious from the dimensions of a probability/fractal space [dimension 1.5] and the evolution of the mind/brain brings a supercharged mind to convert the physical dimensions to a mathematics of concepts [dimension 2], and considering mathematics and physics [dimension 1], let me ask: how much infinitely better is a plane to a line? The answer is the understanding and solution to the problems that plauge the world today, from global warming, politics etc., but that will have to wait till a later date.
References: all quotations are fully referenced in the body and earlier chapters can be found on darrylpenney.com if required.
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 88: Inside the Photon, the Law of Conservation of Energy, the Big Whoosh, Our Universe Viewed as a Probability Space, Unifying the Photon with Gravity, the Quark Confinement and the Grand Unified Theory (GUT).
Chapter 85: General Mathematics, the Three Fundamental Quests, the Law of Conservation of Energy and its Strange Effect on the Theory of Relativity, a Number of Enigmas are Explained, Creating a New Evolution Using Plato’s Politics and Developing the Concept of the ‘Second Coming’.
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.
darrylpenney 