eBook 2021 Investigations into universal physics (unfinished)If you want an academic qualification, go to university.
We have discussed the implications of this engineering. Graham thinks new energy sources are necessary to kill the oil industry and bring us out of climate catastrophe as a first stage
whilst we think what properly we can do about it. My opinion is that renewable energy is sufficient to provide all energy resources for planet Earth in the forseeable future. Admittedly
this does not prevent climate catastrophe now, we would have had to take action in 1937 to properly contain the problem. If implemented, a renewable energy infrastructure for the planet
would provide enough breathing space to look at this problem in detail. Given the ingenuity of the human race, I do not think a solution to climate catastrophe is impossible, it just looks
impossible at the moment. There is no indication that such a programme is being implemented. Indeed I would say its probability is nil. High energy physics is dangerous. It is the reason
I have backed off from looking at it all my life. Our political system is fascist and irrational. It is completely unreasonable that high energies should be available to the planetary elite in
the expectation that this resource would be used wisely to the benefit of humanity. Graham believes the energy range involved in these devices is low. I would agree that in terms of what
we have available at the moment this is so. The absolute energy of these process is so mind bogglingly large that few people are able to come to grips with what they are. Power is obtained
from energy transfers. The argument is that we are dealing with the vacuum in equilibrium, so that some of the energies, like the Casimir effect, are so low they are laughable. Our theory in
its broadest outline is a nonequilibrium one. We are presented with the fact that on implementation of a programme to engineer these energy transfer systems, the energy transfers will be
stupendously large. I have already backed off in my life from studying other processes involving lower energies which I am sure many scientists realise are available but would prefer to
remain silent on their possible realisation. In introducing this energy idea, and going along with it, what we are doing is like introducing fire to early man for the first time. If we had the
rational decision as to whether man should have developed fire, I think we would say yes, despite its huge implications for other creatures on Earth. This surely would introduce dominance
of the human species, and many of the effects of this are terrible. But it would introduce human civilisation, so despite all this we might say it is a benefit. The pursuit of this idea, even as
we would say now its mere introduction as a possibility, is I believe of comparable or greater significance. Einstein said of his involvement in the project to develop the nuclear bomb he
had become a criminal to mankind. This was indeed the case. The details of his work are to this day still secret. The work of this interseting and humane man resulted in the war crimes of
the nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. For this crime a retributive justice would demand that he should have been executed.
Concerning opening new knowledge there are at least two mythologies in western culture.
The first is Greek. It is Pandora's box which had enticing contents. Having opened it, it can never be closed. It ejects things from itself and overwhelms everything that was before.
Seemingly unstoppable despite resistance to retain the alleged beauty and calm of what was before, its contents engulf the world. Unstoppable and impossible to reject, it creates a new
reality which we are forced to accept. This reality is bigger than what was before, its needs are different, it has new beauties and the potential of considerable ugliness, even the death of
all that surrounds it smothered in the detritus of its emanating newness
The second is the allegory of Adam and Eve. It is interesting that Adam is part of my own name. Adam was the first man. Omen nomen. Perhaps I have followed this instruction in my
own life. Adam and Eve were naked in the Garden of Paradise. They were forbidden by God to eat from the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. A serpent, representing the Devil,
enticed Eve of the lovliness of the apples of the tree and instructed that they should eat it. Eve spoke to Adam, and they agreed that this should be done. Perhaps as an indication of this
story representing the beginning of history, Adam and Eve realise they are naked, they feel shame, and cover the sexual parts of their anatomy with fig leaves. Then God, realising what
they have done orders an angel to stand with a sword over the Garden of Paradise and eject them from it. The final contradiction in this allegory, is that they go to a city full of people!
The ideas of Ghandi I do not understand. It seems related to Jainism, which I have never studied, and is part of the culture which Ghandi naturally appropriated, and with which western
culture, which often denies anything of significance outside of itself, is unconcerned. Specifically, I am embedded in the western cultural condition. Its physical manifestation was the
British Empire and the war in Vietnam.
Ghandi speaks of atman. Underlying the transformations of his individuated consciousness lies the atman. This atman extends everywhere. Over all time it is oneness. I will call oneness
the universal spirit, or something, which pervades everything. It is related for me to ideas on quantum mechanics, partly relativity, aspects of mathematics called category theory, the
philosophy of science called logical positivism and a theory of psychology called behaviouralism. In some sense or other I reject all aspects of these ideas as a true and faithful
representation of what is there. At least half of humanity says no to oneness. They agree with Poincare, a substantial mathematician, that in a sense humanity decides what is there.
They locate their own soul within the entire universe and that this is everything that exists. This is wrong. Perhaps, if the reader is sufficiently diligent, he or she can locate within my
own work the objections to current understandings which reject oneness and locates all knowledge within human experience or within observations.
Ghandi, a politician with no formal status in the Congress Party, was negotiating with Churchill on Indian independence. Rejecting violence of all kinds, he also thought about what Jews
should have done in the face of Hitler's implementation of the Shoah, or holocaust. Since he cannot condone violence of any kind, he cannot recommend violence against Hitler. He
suggests, which is strange to me, that the Jews should commit suicide which is publicly known at every instance. This extreme view I have to reconcile within myself. Ghandi was a
vegetarian. This is a well-established cultural condition in India. With me it has great resonance, an affirmation that all living things have consciousness and as an aim it is impermissible
to destroy this consciousness.
The idea of Lucifer, was that he was the greatest angel. In Milton's Paradise Lost he has great plans for the universe. He wished to overcome God himself. For this, he was ejected from
heaven, and had to set up his own domain in Hell.
The idea of Ghandi is that in the universe Ghandi and Hitler are part of the oneness. The idea of Hitler that he is God himself is an outcome of what the oneness is. If Ghandi destroys
Hitler, he is killing what extends from him in the oneness of which he is a part, to destroy another part of the oneness which contains Hitler. He is destroying what he identifies as himself.
Since Ghandi is nonviolent, he cannot do that. That is his dilemma. Hitler, and more significantly Martin Bormann, was responsible for the Shoah which killed 6 million Jews. Hitler was
responsible for the Second World War with significantly more dead. Ghandi cannot kill Hitler. He believes he is part of the universal will. I too believe that.
This universal will cannot be changed. We have no option to change it. We do not have free will. We have the appearance of free will. This appearance allows us within our cognition
to initiate changes within it. In absolute terms, it is a delusion. What happens is absolute. Locating ourselves within the universe as thinking objects with self-will which directs its intent
and achieves physical aims, in absolute terms the universe is fixed and can never change. The oneness directs. It creates Lucifer. Lucifer acts to challenge God. This is part of the oneness.
Lucifer commands the universe, but the oneness directs the configurations, the changes that will happen to him. These changes imply his own death. In the distant future, our sun will
expand and turn red. This changed star will eventually engulf the Earth and destroy it. Not only will our planet be destroyed, many other things in the universe we know and beyond it
will change. This change in a sense may be death, or it may be a continuation. These changes are embedded in a system which is itself static, I believe. It is eternal. It is everywhere. It is
In saying this to you, I have made an irredemable mistake. As my tears glisten, my direction to you, I as Lucifer, is to reject everything I say. Knowing what is, you yourself, if you are
not another Lucifer, must find the truth that surrounds you. You may know it exists outside of you. These systems I propose are not the truth, they are its represention. They may indeed
be wrong, I do not know. I propose them in full expectation that these new understandings will generate a representation of reality which opens up new energies to mankind. These
energies, if I am correct, are stupendous.
Look around you. What do you see? How violent is our world? Do you see any possibilities with the present social systems that they are capable of coping with these energies without
indulging in an orgy of self-destruction? You think so! Explain this to me. Together with these new understandings must go new social mechanisms. This is the realisation I have come
to too late.
Accepting then that my criminality could be substantially greater than that of Hitler, who was responsible directly for the death of 100 million people, I say let's get on with it. It will and
must be necessary in parallel with this development to change the global political system. This is quite feasible, and extensive plans to remove the most vile elements of the elite should
be taken as soon as possible, the phrase is, if not sooner. I am a pacifist. I do not believe it was necessary to use the guillotine in the French revolution. Any society which denies the
humanity of a section of it will end up denying the humanity of others for ever. If we were to remove all the land assets of Brenda Windsor and frame plans so she could not get them
back, in particular so that these assets were not centralised but were distributed to those who currently own them, then like Solon who according to Aristotle made the wise decision to
cancel all debts, we will have eliminated one of the principal disfigurements of the world system. It is necessary to dismantle the military assets that Brenda possesses. This is also
possible and equally, or more, important. If this were done and replicated everyhere else, then there is some possibility of reconfiguring the world system to a more rational one, and
replacing fascism, at least by representative democracy, which is the facade at present of a democratic system that behind the scenes acts as a substantial and coordinated fascist entity.
Better, this system would be replaced by collectivity from below. This is outside the range of normal debate. In the UK the establisment is conservative, fascist or nazi. It sometimes
but infrequently allows reference to the middle of the political spectrum, since it is there and is the majority opinion, which is social democracy, liberalism (in the UK, but not the US
meaning of that word) and christian democracy. On the left, anarchism, Stalinist collectivity, and if that is the case Trotskism as something intermediate between Stalinism and social
democracy are always excluded from debate as historical deformities or ideologies of no significance for which there is no need to bring them even into the cognitive horizon. It is
sometimes not realised that within anarchism there are various debates, like the splitting of religions into various denominations as occurs in Christianitiy, Judaism, Buddism and Islam.
I represent one of these ideas in anarchism, something until recently I did not accept, since I thought anarchism was about individualism without state control. I have ideas on collectivity
from below, defined by coherence of common ideas existing as social structures under negotiation by members locating themselves within its idea, and defining boundaries by this idea.
Defined as a larger plan between many such structures and providing coherence for it, the negotiations between these local structures I call politics. This is a locally defined type of
society that is not, I believe and hope, Stalinist. Clearly I am providing an idea, or plan, for the way this operates. I may need to apologise for this. But the person who starts out and
designs the game football, is not the same person who plays all the games, or determines what it is today, say in its media presence, its economics and its rules. The ideas I am proposing
are to the left of anarchism, or possibly part of it. They define reason as the guidng authority, not personal control, and definitely not a military idea. It is my contention that we need to
develop this type of society and civilisation within the planet. I believe it is necessary to have this type of civilisation in order that humanity can survive, flourish and prosper. It could
indeed exist side by side with other social systems. I invite you to think around this idea, like someone who thinks around introducing football games after the idea of football has first
been proposed. Because this idea is to the left of what the system considers is the left, it is excluded from debate. It is necessary to introduce this debate. You may see what I have to say
further on this issue in the Evolutionary and Postevolutionay section of this website.
1. Schedule of research for 2018. This is the current research schedule for papers on physics.
A new work on Heim theory (2016) is given as item 3.
I have a non logical-positivist philosophy, so I think things are "there" whether they are being observed or not. This means my view of relativity is that suggested as a possibility by John Bell, and is really the position of Lorentz rather than Einstein. To make this clearer, in General Relativity, since there is no simultaneity, there is the possibility of the space splitting into mutually inconsistent worlds. But if there is a "cross product" that is everywhere in the space, this only makes sense if there is a "simultaneous" globalisation.
My view of quantum mechanics is similar: The ground state, being the empty set, is not equivalent to a transformation to itself. I take the view of de Broglie and Bohm, who had the same quantum equations but a "thinkable" theory.
1. Pictures of physics: theories and experiments. This was the old 2015 chapter headings for the eBook on this subject.
2. Electroweak chiralty, 10-novanions and the heterotic string On May 14th 2014, I had a conversation with a Hungarian (and blind) first year physics student at Sussex University. Having explained to him the proof on the existence of the 10-novanion algebra, as a division algebra except at time t = 0, he came up with the astounding suggestion that 10-novanions correspond to the 10-dimensional heterotic string. I was so won over by the idea that I wrote an article, describing various linked ideas and including this theory as its end point.
3. Novanions and Einstein-Heim unification This indicates that 10-novanions may be used to describe the remarkable unification of physics by the German physicist Burkhard Heim, which includes a computation of the fine structure constant and explicit computation of particle mass-spectrums.
4. Physics programme In 2013 I had the idea that rather than talk of a "pilot wave", we deal with a "pilot sheaf". This is interesting because sheaves can be contravariant if they are described by "back arrows", but do not have to be, and physical laws (actually the "potential") are covariant. So I thought we might be looking at toposes, combined spaces, logic and sets, in particular possibly the functors C -> Cop, which is equivalent to a contravariant functor C -> C (the sheaf) and Cop -> Cop (the covariant tensor potential). Since research into physics was not due to begin until 2015, I was asked to sketch its outline, herea little amended and extended, of conversations on the 'day of pi', March 14th 2013, represented by the number 3.14.
The Physics archive accesses historical material that went into the creation of Universal physics.
Return to Table of Contents.