Chapter 71: The Logic/Quantum/Gravity Description of the Universe Applied to the Why and the How of the Theory of Relativity Leads to the Realization that Relativisation is the Basic Mechanism of Our Universe and Showing Why Science is Successful and Politics is Not

 

By Darryl Penney

 

Abstract: I have inserted a bottom-up ‘floor’ under science to place its concepts in context. Science uses mathematics and measurement to ‘build’, through experiments, layers of technology and has had monumental success, however, mathematics ‘breaks down’ in certain areas, and requires a mathematics of concepts, to consider the logic/quantum/gravity description of the universe, relativity, quantum mechanics, the social sciences etc. because logic has been, I believe, unappreciated. Reasons are given to why Francis Bacon’s scientific method is so successful and a simple logical explanation of the Special Theory of Relativity and how space-time is bent by energy and the dimensions of the universe are variable with only the speed of light absolute, thus combining the Special and General Theories of Relativity into one simple relativisation, which is a simple property of a probability universe (fifth dimension (a+b+c….)=1 and shows the mechanism behind relativity and conservation of energy and is another indicator that our universe is a probability space.

I believe that the Michelson-Morley experiment proves that our universe is a probability of existence universe and ‘British astronomer Sir Martin Rees defines the multiverse to be the ensemble of all possible universes…. Nevertheless, the many-universe postulate is intellectually challenging, and purports to explain a plethora of unlikely circumstances… Surely there must be some underlying theory, which provides a physical explanation.’ (The Infinite Cosmos: questions from the frontiers of cosmology, Joseph Silk, p 175)

 

There is an explanation and it is that we are ‘abstractions’ that evolved because we could evolve in this probability universe, and maybe in others, but we can never know of the others. Scientists have done a good job explaining ‘how’ things work, but ‘to understand the universe at the deepest level, we need to know not only how the universe behaves, but why….  This is the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe and Everything.’ (The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, p 9). Mankind is at last realizing its true importance, first the sun circled the earth, then we believe, and still do believe, that we live in a ‘real’ world and now we find that we may not even exist, and if we do, it is as mathematical/logical abstractions in probability space!

 

Its no use considering if we could exist in a ‘real’ world, because our universe is a probability space and that means a fifth dimension (a +/and b)=1 with a and b being measurements/measurers, as an illustration) that gives CEM (mathematics of concepts/entanglement/measurement) and they indicate the basis to the following quotations.  ‘If individual particles interfere with themselves, then the wave nature of light is the property not just of a beam or of a large collection of photons but of the individual particles.’ (p 70) Everything that we are, or surrounds us, is energy, of the Big Bang, in different states (like water, steam, ice) and states have similarities as well as differences, and the wave/particle duality is because we are using world O (our) world units/thinking and the underlying duality is concept/context (or measurement/logic).

 

‘Quantum physics might seem to undermine the idea that nature is governed by laws, but that is not the case. Instead it leads us to accept a new form of determinism: given the state of a system at some time, the laws of nature determine the probabilities of various futures and pasts rather than determining the future and past with certainty.’ (p 72) This quotation aligns with a probability universe, and further, the Law of Conservation of Energy (through entanglement (a+b)=1) is changing every point (of energy, which is everything) in the universe continually (relativisation), so nothing is static.

 

The same equation (a+b)=1 shows the mathematics of concepts where a result is determined ‘exactly’ only when every point in the universe is considered and then only at that instant. In other words, measurement/concepts are linked together by entanglement in a duality and a concept requires a measurement. Another interpretation of the same equation (a+b)=1 is that there is no absolute to a particle, but there is to the speed of a photon (Michelson-Morley experiment, in vaccuo), and that sentence expands into the (apparent) ‘weirdness’ of relativity, below. In a probability space, all probabilities must be considered and that simple equation (a+b)=1 has many ‘faces’ that must be considered, especially logic, because we can write it as (a +/and b)=1.

 

Further, I believe that we are necessary to define/make logical decisions, whether we exist or not and further, that we can use that logic and apply it to our world, so let’s look at the enigmatic relativity. Relativity is reputed to be a ‘difficult’ subject to understand, but applying the mathematics of concepts, that can be derived by observation from the dimensions of our probability space, we can trivialize its effects and form a general theory. In other words, we will combine the Special and General Theories of Relativity into a simple understandable/logical whole without disturbing the mathematics behind them. This can be done by inserting a bottom up context using the dimensions of a probability space that forms part of the logic/quantum/gravity description of the universe.

 

For a probability space, using the simple notation (a+b)=1=(a+c) shows the Michelson-Morley experiment that b=c when we compare the measurement of the speed of light for observers b and c and, and the relation (a+b)=1 shows the fifth dimension. Considering relativity, we find that mass, length and time do strange things. Why do these particular attributes all change? Ours is a simple probability space, so why do we get such horrors as the Lorentz contraction, which is 1/square root (1-v squared/ c squared) affecting time, length and mass? The reason is that there is one absolute (the speed of light) and everything else, being/including the dimensions, relativises to keep the speed of light an absolute/constant in terms of measurement and logic.

 

Relativisation forces two observers moving relative to each other to measure the speed of light (in vacuuo) to be the same and that is a property of a probability space (a +/and b)=1 with interdependence of concepts (a, b) and context (a +/and b) in measurement (concept) and logic (context/entanglement). The speed of light provides the only absolute/solution (unless we provide one) to (a+b)=1 and that is why we will find that the dimensions of the frame of reference and the energy (space-time and the fifth dimension (a+b)=1) of a non-rest-mass particle changes as the speed of light is approached, in order to prevent both a logical (context) and measurement (concept) singularity.

 

This Lorentz contraction is used by mathematics to model what is both a measurement of, and a logical solution to a singularity and I am going to show how this situation is logically sorted out by our universe so that is does not occur. This leads to foreshadowing a statement of relativity that is simple and straight-forward, that ‘as a frame of reference approaches the speed of light (in vaccuo) as viewed from our frame, the dimensions of that frame of reference relativise’. This statement is simple and requires no postulates and shows that the fifth dimension provides a simple answer.

 

It is difficult to believe how important is the fifth dimension, and that it have been neglected for so long, so as an aid to showing the duality of concept and context, let us look at the concept of the Lorentz contraction and its application to Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, which is the relativity between two observers. There is nothing wrong with the mathematics and the equations have been fully tested, but ‘why’ and ‘how’ do such weird happenings occur? There is a singularity/absolute at the speed of light, and it is both a logical (context) and a measurable (concept) singularity because the measuring stick (speed of light) becomes unavailable. This is a simple situation and can be dealt with simply by relativisation.

 

I believe that a logic component would be lost and chaos would apply if the particle’s frame of reference did not relativise. In other words, the logic that the speed of light exceeds the absolute between two frames of reference is forbidden logically as well, as above, by being physically unmeasurable because the speed of light would be slower. The mathematics of concepts (a +/and b)=1 shows that there are many attractors that contribute to an answer, but the ‘+/and’ shows the concept/measurement and context/logic are a duality and both must be considered independently. The above has for me, answered the fundamental reasons (logic and measurement) of why relativisation must occur without confusing the issue with space/time/energy doing strange things.

 

Relativisation is a fundamental part of the workings of the universe and acts on ‘muons in the cosmic rays because of the phenomenon of time dilation. Produced high in the atmosphere, the muon take milliseconds to reach the earth. They should have decayed: in its rest frame a muon only survives a microsecond before spontaneously decaying… This means that a single cosmic ray proton has the same energy as that of a rock weighing a kilogram dropped from the top of the Eiffel Tower…. These very energetic cosmic rays are rather rare. Only about one per hundred square kilometers per year at the very highest energies impacts the earth. Each impact at the top of the atmosphere produces a shower of energetic particles.’ (The Infinite Cosmos, Joseph Silk, p 54)

 

A reality is needed in an organization/evolution and I used a Logic of the Half-truth as a reality (true, false, true some of the time and false the rest, both true and false at the same time (chaos)) to separate out chaotic statements and limit them. A movement into chaos is non-reality, magic/non-organization happens and we move into non-logic because every point in a probability space is counted continually. In other words, chaos could be viewed as a logic singularity that is just as destroying as the concept/mathematical singularity.

 

First, I will repeat a quotation given before that shows how logic bypasses a singularity. ‘I am using five dimensions against spacetime’s four dimensions, and worrying facts like inside a black hole’s horizon “does spacetime come to an end”? (Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein’s Outrageous Legacy, Kip S. Thorne, p 465)’ Whether space-time exists is of no concern to me because the black hole is still doing its job of providing gravity (fifth dimension) around which stars rotate and being part of the universe’s house-keeping calculations (of energy). In other words, inside a black hole is irrelevant to the discussion.

 

I will start bringing us into the real world by citing Plato’s problem that there are no absolute solutions to (a +/and b) =1 unless we assign one, and this ‘overlaps’ with the (world O sixth dimension) forward-planning. This simple equation is the fifth dimension of our probability of existence universe and knowing that the speed of light is an absolute, that allows a unique solution, and forces the universe to relativise the observers b and c in the experiment (a+b)=(a+c)=1. This would be an enigma in a ‘real’ world, or in a world that thinks it is ‘real’ and it has been annoying me for decades and it is nice to lay it to rest because it is a contextual proof of a probability universe and shows that in our universe, space makes the speed of light an absolute, or perhaps, we should say that the properties of our universe, dictate the speed of light.

 

In other words, firstly, quantum mechanics in a probability space must continually test every possibility, and secondly, no determination/determinant is made until an iteration or mind/brain requests a determination by measuring something and making it determinant. This is a simple logical statement that something is only determined when it is measured, because (literally) everything (energy) is being relativised continually because entanglement (a+b) is necessary for conservation of energy and it must act instantly.

 

Of the five dimensions, three space produce length shortening in the direction of motion, time passing slows down, energy increases, mass increases, perhaps chemical bonds strengthen etc. The effect appears to be to increase the energy inputted and these changes to the dimensions are to ensure that an absolute is never breached and no particle (with rest-mass) can ever reach the speed of light. These results show that space-time relativise, but mass, which is a form of energy changes and this suggests that energy is a dimension, and is, in fact, the fifth dimension.

 

I believe that a breakdown in logic cannot be allowed to happen. This ‘begs the question’ of why logic/organization/repeatability is so important and goes back to the reality (logic of the Half-truth) where the only options are between true/false and chaos (lack of organization). There would be no going back if chaos occurred because ‘the second law of thermodynamics, which may be the most fundamental law in the universe. It applies to absolutely everything, no exceptions. Put simply, it says that in closed systems the total entropy (roughly speaking, disorder) can never decrease.’ (The Eerie Silence, Paul Davies, p 150)

 

All resources are being thrown at this possibility, because (logically) if one particle somewhere in 400 billion galaxies over 14 billion years, exceeded the absolute, its mass would become infinite, its energy infinite and make a mess, so, it is back to the multiverse/biocomputer and the fact that it has not happened nor likely to happen soon, because we are the proof that it has not happened.  So many changes in so many variables reflects that it is logically simpler (Occam’s razor) to change all of the dimensions in a frame of reference than to single out one, which requires extra rules. This last sentence looks simple, but it is profound because Occam’s razor is a simple solution to the general mathematics of concepts and also, that that mathematics is so basic to our universe that it is immediately apparent from (a +/and b)=1 (context and concept). Also, relativisation occurs, simply because (a+b+c…)=1 is a dimension of a probability space, but, also, the fifth dimension CEM (mathematics of concepts/entanglement/measurement) can be derived from it. Also, perhaps the singularity can be thought of as the merging of concept/context which is forbidden in a probability space where (a +/and b)=1 only has a solution with an absolute (or assigned absolute, Plato’s problem).

 

I believe that ‘as a frame of reference of a non-rest-mass particle approaches the speed of light (in vaccuo), the dimensions of that frame of reference are relativised to stop the speed of light being attained’ is a simple and complete explanation of the Special Theory of Relativity. This focuses the mind on the energy that is absorbed by the particle as shown by the Lorentz contraction. Further, it uses the dimensions and the absolute in the same way that is needed to solve Plato’s problem and shows why we must set absolutes and long-term planning for the world. The long-held view that logic/measurement is ‘outside’ consideration (that the observer is distinct from the experiment) must change when it is realized that everything is affected by the dimensions and the fifth and sixth dimensions must be included.

 

We can take this further, by building on the currently accepted space-time curvature that is caused by gravity near large suns etc., and I should stress that the mathematical framework can be used, but the current logic/theory is not correct, in my opinion. I mentioned five dimensions (three space, one time passing and one Consciousness/energy) and that these were relativised as the speed of light is approached by a frame of reference, and further, gravity is a big part of the General Theory of Relativity, but I believe, that gravity is both an energy and a logic.

 

In other words, the Special and General theories are really one simple relativisation of everything as mentioned in the Theory of Everything because everything is energy and every form of energy contains a logic component that is part of the ‘essence’ of a probability space (a +/and b)=1 and concept and context must be separate, and the concept of the Law of Conservation of Energy links with the context of the Theory of Everything.

 

Restating the above, ‘as a frame of reference of a non-rest-mass particle approaches the speed of light (in vaccuo) as viewed from our frame, the dimensions of that frame of reference are relativised to stop the speed of light being attained’ is similar to the Special Theory, but as the energy (concept, including gravity) and gravity (context), is relativised, I believe that the General Theory is contained in it as well. ‘Einstein completed his general theory of relativity in 1916. It is a theory that describes the interaction between matter, space and time, operating through gravity’ (The Universe A Biography, John Gribbin, p 112) In other words, in world O, the force of gravity is used, but gravity is both concept and context in world P units and they are a duality and can never be the same.

 

We now have to return to the concept of the multiverse, and that is the infinite set of probability spaces (universes) that contain all of the variations of the physical constants.  Gravity is an ‘attraction’ that is necessary for us to exist and to hold us on the surface of the planet and is a physical constant that probably changes throughout the multiverse. Notice that, in the simple case of kinetic energy and gravity, as in a star system, if we label the kinetic energy positive, the gravity potential is negative and the total is zero.

 

‘One requirement any law of nature must satisfy is that it dictates that the energy of an isolated body surrounded by empty space is positive, which means that one has to do work to assemble the body. That’s because if the energy of an isolated body were negative, it could be created in a state of motion so that its negative energy was exactly balanced by the positive energy due to its motion…. Empty space would therefore be unstable.’ (The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, p 179).

 

Thus it is apparent that gravity must have a physical value that allows everything to work, and it is probably true (or workably true) that all forms of energy have an ‘accountable’ proportion of gravity. Occam’s razor would say, as above, that it is simpler if all forms have the same proportion, or a workable proportion, as our universe is still functioning. Further, entanglement ensures that an ‘accounting’ leads to the conservation of energy and the variables (of energy) are relativised through (as one form) the energy of light quanta (Pound-Rebka).

 

In other words, ‘”theoretical physics” does not mean ”having conjectures about physics”. It means establishing an elaborate interlocking system of specific mathematical equations to capture aspects of physical reality that on casual inspection we would never guess are related, and then modeling those relationships quantitatively.’ (The Eerie Silence, Paul Davies, p 75) The book from which this quotation was taken makes the case that we are lucky to have theoretical physics because many other civilizations used ‘conjectures’ etc., and the basis of this method was outlined by Francis Bacon, but, why does the experimental method work so well? The scientific method sets an experiment (ascribes an absolute), experiments, and if successful, makes a theory, but the quotation does not mention logic, except implied in designing the experiment, but the duality of concept/context or measurement/logic is built in to the method. That is why science is so successful and we must do the same with politics if we wish to manage the planet sustainably.

 

In particular, this ‘theory’ provides a logic/quantum/gravity description of the universe that through the concept of conservation of energy and the contextual Theory of Everything as well as the sixth dimension that we derived, that we call forward planning is used to impart success to our day-to-day lives. This all started with the mathematics of concepts that provided the means of questioning our existence and that same mathematics is obvious from the dimensions, albeit, when you know what to look for (from (a+b)=1). I believe that these are the tools that we need to manage our social lives, limit population, decrease emotional damage through a better family-life etc. Even better is, by being bottom-up, it can be ‘slid’ under the current mathematics/technology/whatever without changing that which has gone before. I think that this is shown above, and especially in chapter 70, where the ‘greatest minds’, each, had to initiate a top-down concept instead of the far easier method of following a concept that is already ‘anchored’ in context.

 

The simplicity of the one sentence approach to understanding relativity makes it easier to contemplate and to use as a context for the confabulation that we need in day-to-day life. Relativisation is the ‘key’ and is provided out of the dimensions, and of course, everything must be available through the dimensions and provides another ‘proof’ that we live in a probability universe and we can take this further at a later date.

 

Prediction 1: mathematics is exact and says that the relative speed of two photons leaving opposite sides of the sun is 2 x the speed of light, but Einstein postulated the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment and that is a product of a probability universe, not a ‘real’ universe. Relativisation simplifies the concept of relativity (as above) because relativity is simply a result of the concept/context of a fixed speed of light, further, the mathematics (of concepts) that must be used is also contained in the fifth dimension. The prediction is simplification of so many concepts and the duality of concept/context leads to the use of the mathematics of concepts for the social sciences and better managing the planet. Society will have to adjust to this concept/context that can be ‘slid under’ and make everything so much clearer, just as the fact that the earth revolves around the sun was accepted, albeit, eventually.

 

Prediction 2: this is a good opportunity to consolidate, from the quotation, above, that theoretical physics forms an ‘elaborate interlocking system’, and bringing the above use of the dimensions into the real world, the Feynman diagrams are a good example. Looking at the fifth dimension CEM (mathematics of concepts/entanglement/measurement it is literally obvious that Feynman’s formulation was correct because entanglement (context) links every point, measurement (concept) is available for every point and provides the probability of quantum states in a probability space (a+b+c+d …)=1 and this indicates yet another ‘proof’ that our universe is a probability space.

 

The knowledge/measurement of every possibility, as shown by the Feynman formulation leads to relativisation of the dimensions to prevent concept/context singularities and this process is undoubtedly that which lies behind the Law of Conservation of Energy. When the duality of concept/context is extended to the summation of energy terms, bearing in mind that (literally) everything in the universe is energy, the ‘natural’ place of dark matter and especially dark energy becomes apparent.

 

Further, dark energy is a vital part of us being here (multiverse) and ‘vacuum/dark energy is there alright, with a density of a little less than a joule per cubic kilometer’ of space. (The Eerie Silence, Paul Davies, p 150) Relativisation is a basic property of a probability space (a+b+c..….)=1 and its use in energy conservation also, shows why dark energy is necessary and why it needs to be such a large quantity.

 

References: (1) this chapter (71) follows and adds to chapter 69: The Logic of the Big Bang and an Explanation of Inflation, the Law of Conservation of Energy is Unfolded with Gravity Producing Feedback through the Mathematics of Concepts and Michelson-Morley Type Relativisation Producing a Logic/Quantum/Gravity Description of the Universe that Defines a Solution of Everything that Contains Plato’s Political System

 

(2) all quotations are fully referenced in the body and earlier chapters can be found on   http://darrylpenney.com  if required.