Saturday, May 21, 2022

CAN WE CONSCIOUSLY AFFECT REALITY AT THE QUANTUM LEVEL?

 



QUANTUM REALITY AND CONSCIOUSNESs

© Copyright 2022, Edward R. Close

The proposition that consciousness might directly affect reality at the quantum level is controversial to say the least. Most mainstream scientists at the present time are skeptical of this possibility because of the materialistic metaphysical belief prevalent in the scientific community. This is not a criticism of science; it is just a statement of fact. Scientists who have religious or spiritual beliefs often keep their work and their faith separate, or even hide their religious beliefs for perfectly legitimate and practical reasons related to maintaining their standing in their careers and society. However, in fact, there is only one reality.

The proper attitude of a scientist is one of open-minded skepticism. Scientists who have not had personal spiritual experiences, NDEs, OBEs, or involvement in consciousness research producing experimental data suggesting a real mind-matter interface, are likely to be agnostic. This attitude is completely appropriate for a scientist, but it should not be confused with atheism. Agnosticism is an attitude of healthy skepticism. Atheism is not healthy skepticism; it is a negative belief that is based on a lack of evidence and a judgmental attitude toward the beliefs and/or knowledge held by others.

Does attitude have an effect on the reality we experience? Yes, of course. There is ample evidence of this. But can individual consciousness have a direct effect on the nature of reality? Most mainstream scientists are very skeptical of this, and some flatly say no, even while accepting the fact that the observer is part of the experiment in quantum experiments like the double-slit and delayed-choice experiments. A deeper look into negative assertions like this usually reveals that they are based on materialistic metaphysical beliefs, not empirical evidence. Atheism has no scientific basis, and rushing to negative conclusions consistent with atheism, instead of maintaining the proper agnostic skepticism, is wrong, but understandably human.

This brings me to the point of the importance of the discovery of proof that a measurable non-physical component (called gimmel by Dr. Vernon Neppe and me) is a necessary component of reality at the quantum level for there to be stable subatomic objects and any subsequent complex macrostructure. This discovery and the development of the quantum calculus (CoDD) with TRUE analysis makes it possible to investigate the interaction of consciousness and manifest reality at the quantum level. TRUE analysis presents opportunities to find out whether there are practical methods that may be used to manifest positive effects on the logical patterns of reality based on science, not fantasy.

Before we can continue investigating quantum reality to determine whether or not there are practical ways to consciously manifest the reality we want to experience, we need to know as much as possible about what we are actually dealing with physically, mentally, and spiritually. In this regard, light is an important physical phenomenon that connects the observable aspects of reality and human consciousness. For this reason, it is important to analyze the nature of light and understand how it relates to consciousness and reality at the quantum level. In these posts, my intention is to provide a scientific basis for understanding these connections and perhaps even to find a way that we may affect positive changes in reality through direct conscious intent at the quantum level.

Light, Consciousness, and Reality

Max Planck and Albert Einstein provided two thirds of the triadic theoretical basis of the TDVP model of reality by establishing the principles of relativity and quantum physics. The three paradigm-shifting discoveries of these two great physicists were 1) the quantization of mass and energy, 2) the constancy of the speed of light, and 3) the hyper-dimensionality of physical reality. TDVP is simply the integration of quantum physics, relativity, and consciousness research in a logical multi-dimensional model that expands the theoretical framework of science to include the three basic aspects of consciousness: individual, transpersonal, and primary.

The TDVP model completes the description the innate triadic nature of reality by expanding the physical models of quantum and relativistic physics to include consciousness. In the TDVP model, the measurable contents of objective reality are mass, energy and non-physical gimmel, comprising the triadic contents of the triadic dimensions of space, time, and consciousness.

Light is the single most important physical phenomenon illuminating and connecting the content, extent, and intent of reality. As physical beings, we are able to perceive light at the macro level as a local phenomenon through our physical senses, but light is also a universal and non-local phenomenon, permeating and connecting all of the triadic aspects of reality at every level. The current scientific understanding of the nature of light and its functioning at the quantum and cosmological levels of reality is superficial and simplistic, but that is where we must start.

The familiar sinusoidal-curve, two-dimensional representation of light, depicting wavelength, amplitude, and frequency in one-dimensional time and two-dimensional space, is incomplete and misleading, because space, time, and light are subtle multi-dimensional phenomena that cannot be fully represented in one- or two-dimensional models. In order to investigate the nature of light in the framework of TDVP, it is necessary to understand the basic volumetric principles of quantum dimensionometry.

The first principle of quantum dimensionometry is: No dimensional domain with less than three orthogonal dimensions can contain quantized volumes of mass, energy, and gimmel. This should be obvious, since a point, line, or area has no volume.

The second principle of quantum dimensionometry, an expression of the mathematical invariance of dimensional domains, is: When expanding the awareness of dimensional domains sequentially, from domains with 1 through 9 dimensions, in the process of dimensional extrapolation, after moving through each triad of mutually orthogonal dimensions, i.e., after 3, 6, and 9 dimensions, the numerical value of the representative quantum equivalence unit of measurement changes in form to the next mathematical root of unity, as determined by application of the Pythagorean theorem. Quantum volumetric measurements in the 3-dimensional domain are integers, in the 4- through 6-dimensional domains they are integer multiples of the square-root of minus one, and in the 7- through 9-dimensional domains they are integer multiples of complex roots of unity. As a result, equations describing quantized reality in the 3- through 9-dimensional domains must be expressed and solved as Diophantine equations, where only integer solutions are relevant to the reality experienced by finite conscious beings.

The third principle of quantum dimensionometry is: All experiences of finite space, time, and consciousness occur within the expanded 9-dimensional domain. This has to be true, because when awareness of reality is expanded beyond the 9-dimensional domain, the units of measurement are multiples of hyper-complex roots of unity. The multipliers, however, cannot be integers since, if they were, no projections into the higher dimensional domains would result. Therefore, while reality is infinite, all of finite reality at any point in planetary time, is describable within a 9-D model, and higher dimensional domains are probably infinitely continuous, not quantized.

Applying TDVP analysis to the phenomenon we call light, using the quantum calculus (CoDD) with its quantum equivalence unit (TRUE), provides a much more detailed understanding of the nature and function of electromagnetic radiation. In this post, I will try to explain this mode of analysis verbally, avoiding mathematical notation and jargon as much as possible. Let’s start with the concept of constant light speed.

Because I want to reach readers who do not necessarily have much training in the physical sciences, I need to explain that in physics, the terms speed and velocity are not synonymous. Speed is defined as the rate of motion of an object relative to the conscious observer in units of distance traveled per unit of time, making it a binary concept, while velocity is a triadic concept, consisting of the distance traveled, the time it took, and the direction of travel relative to a specific inertial reference frame. You also need to know that inertial reference frames are defined as arbitrary systems of coordinates used for measurement of the extent and content of real phenomena. An inertial reference frame is a geometrical framework established in relation to an arbitrary zero-point that is stationary and unaccelerated relative to the conscious observer constructing it.

A unique characteristic of electromagnetic radiation, of which visible light is a minor component, is its speed (not its velocity) is always constant, i.e., the same, relative to its source and all conscious observers regardless of their relative motions. This means that there is no universally preferred reference frame for observation because physical observation is dependent on the propagation and reception of light in the consciousness of an observer. Thus, the second principle of relativity (there is no preferred reference frame) is a direct result of the first principle of relativity (light speed constancy). This is just one example of how the basic principles of reality are interrelated.

While the math is well beyond the scope of this post, the reader should be able to visualize the vibratory energy of light as a 3-D phenomenon, expanding at a constant rate of speed in all directions through the 3-, 6-, & 9-D nested domain of space, time, and consciousness. For the speed of expansion to be constant, relative to the inertial reference frames of all possible conscious observers, the measurements of space, time, mass, and energy must vary by specific amounts for each observer, in the exact mathematically predictable way determined by the well-known Lorenz transformation equations. The only variable parameters in these determinations are the observers’ velocities relative to the light source.

Thus, it appears that constant light speed implies something very surprising about the nature of the reality we experience. What it implies is certainly counter-intuitive, and it profoundly changes the way we must think about and look at reality. The most basic measurable aspects of physical reality: space, time, matter, and energy, are not independent of the consciousness of the observer in the way that we have assumed based on the limited input of our physical senses. The physical universe can no longer be considered to be the largely unaffected background of human events that we have assumed it to be.

This surprising implication of light-speed constancy has been hidden from us as conscious human observers by the limitations of the organs of physical sensing through which we observe reality. Now that we know that the physical universe and consciousness are intimately related aspects of one eternal self-consistent and self-referential system of space, time, matter, energy, and consciousness that we call reality, the question becomes how can we use this knowledge to manage our existence in a way that will effectively enhance our appreciation and enjoyment of existence? Specifically, does this knowledge provide a way for us to affect positive changes at the quantum level?

Because this discussion contains complex concepts that must be pondered, understood, and thoroughly digested to form a sound basis for subsequent discussions about spiritual consciousness expansion, I will pause here.

ERC - 5/22/2022


Saturday, May 14, 2022

PATTERNS OF QUANTUM REALITY

 


PARADOX, PATTERNS AND REALITY

Reality Awaits Discovery

© Copyright 2022, Ed Close

Dreaming the Unreal

As mentioned in the last post, the idea that there might be a way for conscious beings to “re-imagine” and change reality in whatever way we might want to, has become increasingly popular, and the history of science and technology attests to the fact that we do actually affect real changes in processes that start with imagination because some things that surfaced in human imagination as science fiction 50 to 100 years ago, have actually manifested and radically changed our lives. Not only that, certain advanced experimental and theoretical developments suggest that some aspect of consciousness may interact directly with physical reality in some way, at the quantum level.

It is obvious that conscious beings interact with reality all the time at the macro level, in ways that effectively change some of the natural features of reality for specific purposes through the organization and preparation of materials, followed by appropriate construction activities. Examples include everything from insect and animal nests to skyscrapers, computers, and rocket launchers. But the dream is that we may be able to affect reality in a more direct way by making changes at the quantum level. But before we can do that consciously and safely, with any hope of producing positive results, we need to have a far better understanding of exactly how consciousness relates to physical reality at the quantum level.

A very formidable barrier we have to overcome before we can think about how to affect changes at the quantum level without wreaking havoc, is the huge difference in size between what we perceive with our physical senses and the scale of elementary quantum objects. Prof. Jon Butterworth’s attempt to help us grasp the true magnitude of this unimaginable size difference was quoted in the New Approach Part 24 blog, under the heading Taking a Deeper Look, posted on May 1, 2022. Underlining his point, I’d just like to say that the difference is far greater than the difference between the size of a grain of sand and the size of the Earth or sun; it’s more like the difference between a grain of sand and the size of the milky Way, or the volume of the largest spiral galaxy in the physical universe.

This relative size barrier, while ostensibly overwhelming, is not insurmountable because of an innate skill that will eventually be available to us all. It’s a yogic siddhi (a spiritual sense perception in this case) enabling a conscious being to magnify anything to a size that is as large as is needed. In a couple of books and previous posts I have described how I first experienced this innate ability spontaneously while sitting in a classroom when I was eleven years old.

For the purposes of this discussion, I’m asking you to imagine, or to suspend your belief system momentarily if you can’t imagine it and accept that I am describing a real experience. In the study mentioned earlier, in which we determined the correlation between the Annie Bessant meditation viewing of atomic structure and results of TRUE analysis of atomic structure using the TDVP CoDD, we see experimental and mathematical evidence of the existence of the siddhi that allows us to magnify quantum details. This is essentially what I did to develop the CoDD, and that resulted in the discovery of gimmel, the non-physical organizing feature of reality.

Developing a quantum calculus (the CoDD) based on a quantum unit (the TRUE), defined as the mass and volume of the smallest elementary object, the electron, and applying it to analyze the most stable quantum-level process, the  combination of two up-quarks and one down-quark to form the proton, also revealed concepts in the current Standard Model that have no existence in reality. The most obvious are dimensionless and massless particles, one-dimensional objects, and two-dimensional objects. No such things exist in reality. They are purely conceptual. How do we know this?

Zero-, one-, and two– dimensional domains do not exist in a quantized reality because, as Einstein pointed out, space has no existence of its own, and Zero-, one-, and two– dimensional domains have no capacity to contain anything, not even one quantum of mass or energy. From a purely logical point of view, a mathematical singularity, a line, or an area, have no content, no mass, and no energy. They only exist as mental concepts. No real object can have less than one TRUE of mass, energy, or consciousness content. The inclusion of mathematic singularities, lines, and areas with no depth in reality models leads to contradiction, confusion, and logical paradox.

Paradox and Dimensional Patterns

Paradox, like pain and suffering, is God’s gift to those who take thinking about human existence seriously. Without paradox, there is no real progress: No real progress in Love, science, artistic creativity, intellectual understanding, or spiritual evolution. Real paradox means contradiction, conflict, and confusion – but also, most importantly, paradox presents profound opportunities for consciousness expansion and spiritual growth. Therefore, paradox should be welcomed as an invitation into a more comprehensive reality with opportunities for scientific and spiritual progress.

Paradoxes revealed when conventional mathematical descriptions of physical combinations are translated into the quantum calculus of the CoDD lead to the discovery of higher dimensionality and revelation of many more meaningful patterns of reality. The simplest example is the “imaginary” number of conventional mathematical calculation. The square-root of negative one is a paradox in 3-D space, but in 4-D spacetime, it is not paradoxical. In fact, the square root of negative one is the proper value of the unitary projection from the 3-D domain into the 4-D domain. An important invariant feature of hyper-dimensional domains is the transmutation of the basic unit of measurement into a more complex root of unity after each triad of dimensions. This becomes obvious in applications of the primary quantum calculus (CoDD), while it remains hidden in conventional mathematics because the units of observation and measurement are not related directly to quantum reality.

With the basic unit of measurement, the TRUE, defined by the mass and volume of the electron, patterns reflecting the physical features of quantum reality appear in the integer multiples and Diophantine equations of the CoDD model that are hidden in the conventional physical and mathematical analyses of the Standard Model by inappropriate applications of the infinitesimal calculus of Newton and Leibniz and by idealized concepts like dimensionless particles, and one- and two-dimensional structures that do not actually exist in quantized physical reality. Here are some examples of patterns revealed by the CoDD, with measurements in triadic rotational units of equivalence (TRUE):

The electron: 12 = 13, a perfectly symmetrical 3-D rotating stable object.

The up quark: 22 = 4, consisting of 4 three-dimensional unitary objects rotating around each other is not a perfectly symmetrical 3-D object, but the up quark is the simplest and most stable quark, and it is symmetric in three planes, making it almost as stable as the proton.

The down quark: 32 = 9, consisting of 9 three-dimensional objects rotating in one plane; not a perfectly symmetrical 3-D object, it decays in a little under 15 minutes when not in combination with up quarks to form a proton.

The proton: (2x3x4)3 = (24)3 =1728, a perfectly symmetrical 3-D rotating object.

The Hydrogen Atom:  (11x22x33)3 = 13x26x39 = (108)3 = 1,259,712, two symmetrical objects, an electron, and a proton, rotating around each other in three dimensions.

People known as numerologists have been fascinated with numerical patterns in mathematics for centuries, but most of the patterns they note are not directly related to the structure of reality because the conventional units of measurement are not quantum units. They are related to the fundamental operations of mathematics and the use of the number base 10. Change the number base or the operational rules of calculation, and most of the patterns noticed in conventional math by numerologists disappear or change.

The important point here is not just that there are interesting numerical patterns in CoDD quantitative descriptions of elementary objects, but that these patterns tell us something about the actual dimensional structure of the quantized elementary objects that make up physical reality, and how they combine to form more complex objects. The numerical patterns in the quantum units (TRUE) describing the three elementary objects (the electron, up quark, and down quark) and two combinations (the proton and the hydrogen atom) described above, tell us the following:

1)   The primary features that make quantum physical objects stable are simplicity, symmetry, and spin, creating maximum angular momentum.

2)   The total number of TRUE is equal to a cube in the most stable objects, the electron, and the proton, indicating perfect dimensional symmetry.

3)   Objects with total TRUE equal to a square (like down quarks) are symmetric in one plane only, with limited stability when they are not in combination with other partially symmetric objects.

4)   Elementary objects do not combine like macro-objects, they merge in a manner similar to volumes of fluid at the quantum level.

In future posts I will describe the nature of quantum reality revealed by TRUE analysis in more detail and explain how this knowledge will help us to  be able to affect positive changes in reality at the quantum level.

ERC – 5/14/2022    

 




Saturday, May 7, 2022

PATTERNS OF REALITY

 



PATTERNS OF REALITY

© Copyright 2022, Edward R. (Ed) Close

Introduction

Hello! My name is Ed Close. Who are you, dear reader? Maybe someone who has read some of my posts before. If not, then not only is this an introduction to what I am going to talk about in “Patterns of Reality”, it’s an introduction to me as a person, as well. As of this moment, I have placed 571 posts on this blogsite. One might think that is more than enough. The last one was number 24 in a series that explains pretty much who I am and what I’ve been up to for the past few hundred years. I also have several books in print and a number of papers and articles. You can read or re-read them if you have time and want to.

Notice that the by-line on this post is just my name. I’ve dropped the PhD, PE, DSPE, Charter Member…Distinguished Member…etc., etc. some of which I could legitimately still attach to my name; but I’ve done that for a reason: I am retired. I am not PhD-ing, PE-ing, or DSPE-ing, … any more. I’m just Ed Close, and that’s enough. I am still writing though, that’s part of who I am. You can still call me Dr. as a title of respect, if you’d like, or just call me Ed Close, or “that guy who writes all sorts of crazy stuff”. I don’t care. I don’t need any more accolades or praise. When I skip on the next life, I am hoping that I will have made some difference in the world for the good of myself and my fellow human beings who have to go on with this drama; but that’s not up to me.

I don’t mean to suggest that I am going to walk off into the sunset anytime soon. Not at all! I woke up this morning knowing that I still have a lot of work to do. The patterns of thought and structures of gimmel-guided electrons, quarks, atoms, compounds, cells, organs, and symbiotic organisms that make up my physical body are still very much active in the game of life, and this life is not over until the real “Big Guy”, the one who spoke the reality we all experience into existence, says it is. So there! Enough said about me.

In the pursuit of identifying the Patterns of Reality that can change lives for the better, I intend to draw on things I’ve learned during the 85 years of this life, and beyond. One thing I’ve learned, is that the experiences of life, even those that seem chaotic and uncertain – like a stumbling trial and error path through a frightening minefield of death and destruction - are actually governed by hidden patterns designed to further consciousness expansion and spiritual evolution. I tried very hard to boil a lot of the apparent randomness down in previous blogposts. The patterns I want to identify now, through a further distillation of life and death experiences, are the guiding patterns of reality that can be recognized by separating the patterns that are real and profound from the trivial and often illusory concepts that are not real.

Patterns Real and Imagined

The idea is surfacing more persistently as time goes on, that anything we can imagine can be manifested, and the history of the progress of science and technology over the past 200 years – a sizable part of which I have experienced myself – seems to bear this out. When I first started getting interested in science and mathematics in this life, a few years before the end of World War II, - “the war to end all wars” according to the hopeful US President Franklin Delano Roosevelt - television was a new invention and cars were replacing horses, even in the Ozarks. People began to imagine all sorts of fantastic things for the future, and some of it has come true.

If we can affect the patterns of reality by what we imagine, we must be very careful what we wish for. Reality is not as simple as it looks on the surface. It exists in more than two dimensions, and until our consciousness is expanded beyond the duality of simplistic two-dimensional thinking, trying to motivate reality to manifest what we wish for can be dangerous. In the part of reality that we perceive through the physical senses, i.e., the contents of three-dimensional space and one unidirectional dimension of time, the asymmetric 4-D pattern guarantees that what is manifested will rarely, if ever, be what the dreamer dreams of, and it may even be the opposite of what was intended, especially if the dream is absolute or profound. The concepts of true and false, and simple versus profound, are distorted by an incomplete understanding of the nature of reality.  

Niels Bohr, the Danish physicist who explained the layered structure of the atom and was instrumental in the development of quantum physics, put it this way:

The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth.

The first sentence of this statement is an obvious example of binary logic based on the assumption that a meaningful statement is correct if it corresponds with reality, and false if it does not. The second sentence raises some important questions: Are there distinctly different levels of truth? What is a profound truth? Is a profound truth absolute, a priori, self-evident, i.e., needing no proof? If so, the assumptions upon which systems of logic, including philosophical, political, and scientific theories are based may be profound truths. If they are not, the theories are flawed or at least incomplete. The existence of profound truths implies the existence of other, not-so-profound truths. What is the difference between a profound truth and a simple truth?

Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell, in their three-volume work Principia Mathematica, elucidating the foundations of mathematical logic, identified three types of statements: true, false, and meaningless. But in the development of the quantum calculus of dimensional distinctions (CoDD), we find that some statements that are meaningless in a binary system of logic are actually meaningful in a higher-dimensional triadic model of reality. This is consistent with G. Spencer Brown’s findings in Laws of Form. A truth that does not qualify as profound, is either simple or an indicator of the existence of a higher dimensional domain with more than 3 or 4 dimensions. How can we tell what kind of truth a given true statement is? Let’s look at some examples.

True or False

Let’s start with the statement: “All crows are black.” I think that this statement, if true, is a simple truth, the opposite of which is false. I grew up in the country where I saw a lot of crows. All of them were black. I have also seen crows in other parts of the world, and all of them were black. So, this statement may well be true, but I can’t prove it because I have not seen every crow that exists. But suppose it really is true. Suppose that at this instant, every crow that exists is black. That truth could change at any time. Some demented person might spray-paint a crow orange, or through mutation, a crow might hatch that is white or brown. Conclusion: The statement “All crows are black” may be true at one time and false at another time. A truth that can change to false over time cannot be classified as profound, and so must be classified as simple and provisional, as opposed to complex and profound.

One man, perhaps one of the smartest men who ever lived, Rene Descartes, famously said: “I think, therefore, I am.” That sounds pretty profound. But is it? If the statement can be verified as true and can be generalized to apply to all of thinking beings, - and if its opposite may be a profound truth too, then it will surely qualify as a profound truth. The first step is to determine whether or not it is true. The “I think” and the “I am” parts of the statement can be verified and accepted as true because there is no doubt that Descartes existed, and the fact that he did a lot of thinking is quite well documented. If the “therefore” part is also true, then the statement can be generalized to apply to all thinking beings simply by removing the personal pronouns and replacing the “therefore” with “implies’, so that the statement becomes: “Thinking implies existence”.

In this context, opposite means in opposition to, or in contradiction of the original statement. In this case, for Descartes’ statement, there are four possible statements in opposition to “I think, therefore I am” and its generalization, “Thinking implies existence”: there is one converse statement and three negating statements. To be thorough, we must look at each of them. The converse statement is “existence implies thinking”. This opposite statement certainly isn’t a profound truth because it isn’t even true. E.g., the rock I was holding in my hand in the picture above exists, but most people would agree that it doesn’t think. It holds a lot of information about the Earth’s crust in a certain location and time period, but it doesn’t think.

The negative opposites of Descartes’ statement are: The nominative negation: “Not thinking implies existence”, the objective negation: “Thinking implies non-existence”, and the complete negation: “Not thinking implies non-existence”. Considering each opposing statement separately, I think we can agree that none of them are profound, or even true. Therefore, Descartes’ statement “I think therefore I am” may be true, and it is certainly more complex than the statement about black crows, but is it also provisional like the black crows statement? The answer to that depends on the definitions of thinking and being, and the process that might make the conjunctive adverbs “therefore” or “implies” true. So, we must look deeper into what is meant by “thinking” and “being”, and whether or not they are causally connected.

Thinking is a mental activity associated with electrical and chemical processes in complex physical structures known as brains. Thinking should not be confused with computing, which can be done automatically by a properly programmed machine. And being is a synonym for existing, implying the status of being an existing part of reality. The discovery of the existence of gimmel, a stabilizing non-physical feature of reality, means that Descartes’ statement is true, if, and only if, the process represented by the word “therefore” or “implies” in the general case, is also supported by the presence of gimmel. Since any mechanism that could link thinking to being depends on the stability of electrons, and protons, which contain specific numbers of units of gimmel, Descartes’ statement is verified as a truth that is more complex than a simple truth, but not a truly profound truth.

In Search of Profound Truth

So far, we have only found examples of a simple truth and a complex truth. To be honest, I didn’t really expect “All crows are black” to be a profound truth, but I had greater expectations for “I think, therefore I am”. However, just like in the case of the crows, Descartes’ clever declaration turns out to be true and complex, but not profound. Do profound truths exist, as Bohr suggests, or are all a priori assumptions provisional because of the asymmetrical nature of time? If so, this could be the hidden basis of Gödel’s incompleteness theorems and there may not be such a thing as profound truth. But I don’t think so, and it is worth taking a moment to explain why I am convinced that profound truths do exist.

When symmetric dimensions of time and consciousness were added to the four-dimensional (4S-1t) model of the Standard Model of particle physics to produce the TDVP system of mathematical logic, we were able to derive a calculus that explained a substantial number of things that were paradoxical and contradictory in conventional Standard Model analyses. These included explaining why only triadic combinations of elementary particles produce stable subatomic structures, deriving the Cabibbo quark mixing angle from theory, explaining the additional mass of protons and neutrons formed from up- and down-quarks, and many more. Following the time-honored axioms of “the proof is in the pudding”, and the simplest possible answer is usually the correct one (the law of parsimony), I conclude that profound truth does exits.

To determine whether I am right, I need to find an example of a profound truth. Where can we find such a treasure? As indicated above, profound truths might be found hidden in plain sight among the a priori assumptions supporting successful theories like relativity and quantum physics; so, let’s look there. One unifying statement that stands out because it connects the two theoretical pillars of modern physics is Einstein’s statement: “the speed of light is constant”. This statement and the complementary declaration of “no preferred reference frame” is the basis of the special and general theories of relativity. The same statement, paired with Planck’s discovery that energy and mass are quantized also underlies quantum mechanics and quantum physics. So perhaps the constancy of the speed of light is a profound truth.

Surely, Einstein’s constant light speed is a more profound statement than Descartes’ thinking implies being, - or is it? First, we need to understand exactly what Einstein meant when he declared “the speed of light is constant”. Is the speed of light the same in every circumstance? No. Light travels through space and transparent and translucent things at different rates. The speed of light in water, for example, is about 25% slower than the speed of light in the near vacuum of space. This appears to be a case where the opposite is also true, conforming with Bohr’s remark that the opposite of a profound truth may also be a profound truth! The speed of light is constant for every observer, but the speed of light is not constant in every circumstance. But, if the speed of light varies depending on physical circumstances, isn’t that a provisional truth? And what about time? Might not the speed of light actually change over time? If so, can constant light speed really be a profound truth?

Obviously, Einstein was not saying that the speed of light is the same under all circumstances, but then, what was he saying? He was saying something more amazing and consequential – and more profound. He was saying that the speed of light is always the same for all observers, regardless of the motion of the source and receiver. For example, if astronaut scientists in two different rocket ships flying through space at the same time are measuring the speed of light coming from a light source into their ships and one of the ships is moving toward the light source at a high rate of speed, while the other is moving at a high rate of speed away from the source, they will both measure the speed of the sunlight they receive to be exactly the same! Contrary to the expectations of classical mainstream physicists of the 1800s and early 1900s, experimental evidence verified Einstein’s declaration that this is true.

If this concept of constant light speed doesn’t seem strange to you, then think about what it would be like if, instead of light, the scientists were measuring the velocities of moving physical objects like bullets or other projectiles. The scientist moving away from the place of the object’s origin would find a much slower object velocity than the one moving toward it. The actual velocity of each object could be determined by the addition or subtraction of velocity vectors. Not so with light. Why? If light is a purely physical phenomenon, then, whether scientists are measuring the speed of arrival of a photon or a wave front, why wouldn’t the law of addition of velocity vectors hold? The fact that it doesn’t, and all observers detect the same light speed despite relative motion of sources and observers, points to profound truths about the nature of space, time, and the propagation of light. It turns out that space and time have no objective existence of their own, and light is evidence of a primary universal constant.

The quantum equivalence unit, or Triadic Rotational Unit of equivalence (TRUE) used as the basic unit of measurement, is defined by setting the mass and volume of the free electron, the smallest stable elementary object, equal to one; and the quantum calculus mentioned so often in previous posts and publications, the Calculus of Dimensional Distinctions (CoDD), is derived by setting the speed of light equal to one. The result is a normalized whole-number system of multi-dimensional mathematical logic that serves as the descriptive quantified language for the Triadic Dimensional Vortical Paradigm (TDVP) model of reality.

Application of this normalized TRUE system of mathematical logic to analyze the simplest combination of elementary objects, i.e., the combination of quarks to form a proton, has revealed some interesting serial numerical patterns that may have significance for future research. The next post will explore some of those patterns.

ERC – 5/7/2022    


Sunday, May 1, 2022

A NEW APPROACH PART 24

 


THE NEW APPROACH, PART TWENTY-FOUR

© Copyright 2022, Edward R. Close

THE SIMPLE MISTAKE

The Problem of Understanding Reality

Like many students of quantum mechanics in the mid nineteen seventies, I spent some time on the Caltech campus in Pasadena California in order to sit in on some of Richard Feynman’s lectures, because he was arguably one of the best physics professors of that era, and a Nobel Prize winner for his work in quantum mechanics. He was well-known for his engaging personality and his ability to explain complex concepts, but, when asked about some of the strange concepts of quantum mechanics, he said: “I believe I can safely say that no one understands quantum mechanics!”

In his book Feynman’s Lost Lecture, David Goodstein, a colleague of Richard Feynman’s wrote:

 

Feynman was a truly great teacher. He prided himself on being able to devise ways to explain even the most profound ideas to beginning students. Once, I said to him, “Dick, explain to me, so that I can understand it, why spin one-half particles obey Fermi-Dirac statistics.” Sizing up his audience perfectly, Feynman said, “I’ll prepare a freshman lecture on it.” But he came back a few days later to say, “I couldn’t do it. I couldn’t reduce it to the freshman level. That means we don’t really understand it.

For the record, it is my opinion that the “quantum weirdness” that some physicists like to talk about so much, is not an actual feature of quantum reality, but instead, the result of a flawed theory based on a simple mistake. This post is about that mistake and how it has caused science to go astray and miss the most important discovery since Max Planck and Albert Einstein.

 

The Trip of a Lifetime – And More

When I deplaned at Schiphol on a bright February day in 2010, I hurried to exchange some American dollars for Dutch currency, and boarded public transportation to go to the Downtown Amsterdam Hilton. It would be my first face-to-face meeting with Dr. Vernon Neppe, MD, PhD, after about two years of email correspondence. I was on my way to Cairo and Luxor to participate in the making of a documentary film, and Dr. Neppe and his wife Lis, were on their way to visit relatives in their native country of South Africa. It appeared that the universe had planned this meeting because neither of us knew that we were going to be in Amsterdam at the same time until the airline tickets had already been purchased. Mine were purchased by the company that invited me to participate in the filming of a documentary on the Frankincense Trail in Egypt and Jordan, and the Neppes made this journey back home, as often as Vernon’s busy schedule of  medical and research commitments allowed.

Dr. Neppe, highly respected internationally for his work in medicine, psychiatry, and neuroscience, was also a very high-ranking member of the International Society for Philosophical Enquiry (ISPE), an organization for which I proved to be qualified on the basis of IQ tests, experience, and integrity. I took the ISPE test, passed, and joined in 2008.

Dr Neppe’s background in the study of intelligence and neuroscience, mine in systems analysis and mathematical physics, plus our common interests in consciousness studies, parapsychology, and spirituality, made us perfect research partners in the new discipline of biopscychophysics. We had distinctly different scientific and cultural backgrounds, and yet, our views were generally compatible. We had both developed our own models of reality: His was called Vortex Pluralism, and mine was Transcendental Physics. The similarities were striking, and the differences were complementary.

When Vernon came down to meet me in the lobby of the hotel, I recognized him immediately, even though I had not seen a current photo. I had the feeling that I was meeting an old friend, after many years, - in this case, lifetimes. I had a nine-hour layover in Amsterdam, and we made the most of it. Vernon recorded almost every word we spoke together on a little hand-held recorder, and when the lobby became a little too noisy, we went up to their room where I met Lis. Thinking that she might resent this intrusion on their privacy, I was pleasantly surprised to be welcomed like an old friend, or perhaps even a family member, which I well may have been - in past lives.

When it was time for me to leave in order to catch my flight to Cairo, Vernon and I were still busy talking. As we walked to the nearest bus stop, we had reached the level of discussing the stable vortex called the proton and its quark constituents. Vernon remarked that there should be a way to explain why atomic nucleons (proton and neutrons) were composed of three quarks, and why no subatomic particles were ever formed from two or four, or any number of quarks other than three. I responded that I could show him exactly why that was so mathematically, and that it involved a quantum calculus I had developed, solving Diophantine equations, and Fermat’s Last Theorem. The key was in understanding the way quantum vortices combine. I proceeded trying to explain, but the bus came along too soon, and the explanation had to wait to be completed until we were both back in the US about a month later.

In the meantime, Vernon and Lis enjoyed their visit back home in South Africa, while I had some interesting experiences in Egypt and Jordan, - experiences that occurred in the dessert south of the Bent Pyramid, in the Great Pyramid on the Gisa plateau, in several ancient Egyptian temples, in the Valley of the Kings, in the Ancient City of Petra in southern Jordan, on Mount Nebo, where Moses died, and at the river Jordan, where John baptized Jesus. This was one of the most important and meaningful trips of this lifetime.

Two days after flying from Amsterdam to Cairo, I suffered a dangerous near-death experience (NDE) in the Great Pyramid and had a series of out-of-body experiences (OBEs) in Egypt and Jordan. During these startling experiences, information was rapidly downloaded from the surrounding stone structures, streaming into my brain nonstop for more than 24 hours, and it continued sporadically for three more days. Later, as some of this information resurfaced slowly, I began to see how mainstream science of the past 500 years has gone astray because of one simple mistake that has all but completely hidden a large part of reality from humanity during the dark ages of the Kali Yugas, from 701 B.C. to 1699 A.D.

The Simple Mistake and Some Clues

That simple mistake is the mistake of continuing to use binary logic, despite the fact that we now know that the basis of reality is triadic. It’s like acting as if only nouns and predicates exist and trying to form meaningful sentences without verbs. Binary logic works pretty well if we choose to deal with only two categories of variables: variables of content and variables of extent. And if we ignore the existence of organic life and consciousness and measure the variables in each category with the same kinds of units, then we can model the physical universe with no problem. But the paradoxes in the standard model of particle physics that mainstream physicists pass off as “quantum weirdness”, are clear indications that something is wrong, and the belief in materialism is also a result of the mistake. The much-needed quantum calculus (CoDD) mentioned often in previous posts, resolves these paradoxes.

It was clear to me from the beginning of my life, and even before, that the physicists’ dream of a theory of everything was an illusion, unless there was a way to include consciousness in the equations. Memories of past lives and between lives surfaced soon after the trauma of my birth wore off. They included memories from lives during which I had been a scientist and mathematician. My memories and a number of OBEs and experiences of expanded consciousness early in this life propelled me to want to earn degrees in mathematics and physics, which I did.

While I was teaching mathematics and working for the US government as a systems analyst specializing in mathematical modeling, I began to develop a system of triadic logic that grew into a calculus in 1989, with the derivation of some of the fundamental mathematical operations of the calculus of dimensional distinctions (CoDD). I will spare the reader the tedious details of the derivations because they have been published elsewhere and are clearly beyond the scope of this post. Besides, only the rare mathematical logician is likely to enjoy such things.

As an aside, and at the risk of sounding arrogant, I am not attempting to lay out an argument here to convince anyone. I really do not care whether I am believed or not. What I have to say has already been proved, both by agreement with experimental data and empirical observation, by resolving numerous paradoxes in the standard model, and by mathematical proof from basic axiomatic principles. The reader will find all of this peer-reviewed and published. Lists of the publications are provided in posts on this blogsite. In this series of posts, I am just trying to tell the truth as I understand it.

I know that the ideas I am presenting here are controversial in the eyes of many scientists, but I have listened patiently, and carefully analyzed numerous counter arguments from some of the most highly regarded mainstream scientists and mathematicians from some of the best universities in the world, for more than a decade, and none of them stood up under scrutiny. Every argument challenging my 1965 proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem and the demonstrations and proofs of TDVP, failed when analyzed using Fermat’s logically impeccable process of infinite descent. When the quantum descent reached the level of basic assumptions, their arguments failed, and they were reduced to Richard Feynman’s defense: “We simply don’t understand it.”

Taking a Deeper Look

To my surprise, relativity and quantum physics, the double foci of my master’s degree work in 1962, have become quite popular subjects. Not because they are easily understood; no, it’s quite the opposite. It is because almost no one understands these subjects that the words ‘relativity’ and ‘quantum’ are often used by people who have never opened a physics book. And it is a curious thing that just about every physicist, when asked about quantum theory, talks about quantum weirdness, and states the opinion, in some form, that nobody really understands it! I have also found that almost no one, including people with advanced degrees in engineering and science, actually understands what constant light speed implies and, consequently, what relativity is really about. TDVP effectively integrates and clarifies quantum physics and relativity, but in this post, I will focus on quantum physics to highlight the simple mistake that led modern science astray.

Most people who think about it much, come to realize that the difference in size between the everyday objects that our physical senses are designed to deal with and the elementary objects existing at the quantum scale, is really immense. Try to wrap your mind around this:

The data tell us that the radius of the quark is smaller than 43 billion-billionths of a centimetre (0.43 x 10−16 cm). That’s 2,000 times smaller than a proton radius, which is about 60,000 times smaller than the radius of a hydrogen atom, which is about forty times smaller than the radius of a DNA double-helix, which is about a million times smaller than a grain of sand. So there. Quarks (along with electrons) remain the smallest things we know, and as far as we can tell, they could still be infinitely small.” – Particle physicist Prof. Jon Butterworth, University College of London, and CERN Large Hadron Collider researcher

The phrase “infinitely small”, when applied to a quantum object, is an oxymoron - a self-contradictory phrase that implies that elementary quantum particles are dimensionless points. Particle physicist Professor Butterworth is telling us with a straight face that electrons and quarks are actually nothing substantial, that they are mathematical singularities, and despite having no physical dimensions, they have physical properties like mass and energy, and/or are able to impart mass and energy to other particles. How can this be possible? If this is quantum mechanics, then what exactly is the mechanism involved?

Questioning statements of experts like Professor Butterworth is not being disrespectful. Actually, questioning the experts is the heart of the scientific method. Just because an expert tells us something, doesn’t necessarily mean that it is true - especially if it contains such blatant paradoxes! Could this paradoxical situation be an indication that there is a mistake in the assumptions upon which the standard model is built?

We should be skeptical of details deduced from generalizations, even if the generalizations are widely accepted. For example, in this case, why do we continue to believe that elementary quantum objects like electrons and quarks are particles, when the empirical evidence suggests that they are not? The fact that the size of an elementary particle is many, many orders of magnitude smaller than the smallest thing our most advanced technology can detect with any specificity, makes any details and properties deduced about these objects fuzzy at best, and probably erroneous. Professor Butterworth continues:

According to our best theory (the ‘Standard Model’) quarks are in fact point like – infinitely small. This doesn’t mean they have zero chance of being scattered by an electron, but it does mean that this chance can be precisely predicted just by considering the forces involved, including various odd but understood quantum effects. Once you have taken those into account, the quark should look the same, no matter how closely you look.

Just because we can’t see the details of quantum objects doesn’t mean that those details don’t exist, but if there is no way we can see them, what does it mean to talk about how a quark looks? We should be suspicious of “various odd but understood quantum effects” that, when taken into account, will make a quark “look the same, no matter how closely you look.” I’m sorry, but odd quantum effects sound like handy fudge factors, or sophisticated smoke and mirrors to cover the fact that particle physicists have no idea what they are talking about. And finally, the paradox of dimensionless particles is a fundamental problem. In a stable quantum reality, such things simply cannot exist because energy and mass are quantized. Fractions of quanta, if they ever exist, are so unstable that they disappear in a flash, radiating away with no effect on stable structures.

You might be wondering how I can say with certainty that dimensionless particles cannot exist, given the extreme smallness of quarks and electrons described above. My answer may surprise you. Like any good math problem, it can be proved in a number of ways, and I will describe three of them now.

 

DIMENSIONLESS PARTICLES CANNOT EXIST

Proving a Negative

I’ve heard an amazing number of otherwise intelligent people say: “You can’t prove a negative!” Perhaps you have too. If so, and you believed it, you might be saying now: How can you prove that dimensionless particles do not exist? That’s trying to prove a negative! We hear a lot about “mis-information” these days; well, the statement that a negative statement can’t be proved is a good example of a bit of misinformation that has been widely believed. Sometimes, proving a negative can be really difficult, but it can be done, if the negative is true, and it has been done many times by mathematicians, logicians, and even ordinary people.

I think this wrong idea may have risen from the fact that it is much easier to disprove a negative than it is to prove one. The classical example is a statement about black crows: “There are no crows of any color other than black”. Even if you convert this negative statement into a positive one: “All crows are black” It can only be proved by looking at every single crow that exists, while it is easily disproved the minute you find only one crow of any other color.

Similarly, the statement that you “can’t prove a negative” is proved wrong if even one counter example can be shown, and here’s one that’s easy to prove: No prime number greater than 2 is an even number. Fortunately, we don’t have to look at every prime number larger than 2, because there are an infinite number of them. But, by definition, a prime number is only divisible by itself and 1, and all even numbers are divisible by at least three numbers: 1, 2, and the number itself. Therefore, no prime number greater than 2 is even, QED.

I provided this proof of a negative for two reasons: 1) to disprove the idea that a negative can’t be proved, and 2) to show that proving even a fairly obvious truth is not as easy as one might think. It has been my experience as a teacher of mathematics, that most people have only a vague notion of what a proof is.

A famous negative statement that was so difficult to prove that it took the world’s best mathematicians more than 300 years to prove it, is known as Fermat’s Last Theorem. It is stated as follows: “There are no whole-number solutions for the equation xn +yn =zn when n is greater than 2.” I proved Fermat’s Last Theorem in 1965 and published it in an appendix in my first book, The Book of Atma, in 1977, 340 years after Fermat articulated it in 1637. The torturous history of my proof is documented in posts on this blog.

Proof of No Singularities by Direct Perception

I vividly remember the first time it happened. I was eleven years old, sitting in a classroom in the old Pilot Knob schoolhouse built of pink granite blocks of stone from the Graniteville quarries in the next valley north. I slipped into a day-dreaming state. Looking at the teacher, who was standing at the front of the room, suddenly, my senses began to be heightened. Everything I could see and hear was being magnified, bigger and bigger, louder, and louder, until anything I focused my attention on filled all time and space. It was as if I was zooming in on the teacher’s face, for example, until I could see every detail of her face, more and more highly magnified, until I was seeing cells, and beyond. It was my first experience in this life of several siddhis carried over from a previous life. But I didn’t know what it was at the time, and I had no control of what I was experiencing.

Fortunately, this spontaneous state of expanded consciousness didn’t scare me. It didn’t happen to me in circumstances where it might have been dangerous, and it continued to happen many times after that. It usually happened following moments of reverie or at night just before I went to sleep. After it had happened several times, I told my father about what I was experiencing, and he reassured me, saying that he had had similar experiences as a boy, and that I would probably outgrow it; so, I never tried to avoid it or stop it. In fact, I enjoyed it, drifting off to sleep some nights while listening to some distant orchestra, hearing the perfect harmony of various instruments, and sometimes, I saw exotic gardens where fountains of crystal-clear waters sparkled in the sun, and the colors of the flowers and foliage were brighter and more vibrant than any I have ever seen with my physical eyes.

It occurred to me that my physical senses were severely fragmented, limited remnants of the total spiritual awareness that is the essence of human consciousness. In expanded states of consciousness, distant viewing, distant hearing, and the ability to see anything, even as large as the whole physical universe, or as small as an electron, is possible. This brings me to the studies of Annie Bessant, Charles Leadbeater, and others who were inspired to use siddhis developed in meditation to view the subatomic structures of the atoms of the periodic table in the time period 1895 to 1925 in England. Their results were published in a book in 1926. They were summarily rejected by the scientific community because their methods did not conform to the established scientific paradigm, and the results were couched in the esoteric language of nineteenth century mysticism.

More than a century later, Dr. Surendra Pokharna, an Indian PhD physicist, studying the ancient science of Jainism, was inspired by TDVP and our work identifying the quantum equivalence units (TRUE) of gimmel in each of the elements of the periodic table, to suggest a study determining whether there was a correlation between the number of anu units Bessant and Leadbeater “saw” in each of the elements and the number of TRUE we found in them mathematically. The study was done, and  a paper was written: The remarkable Besant-Leadbeater studies in Quantal Clairvoyance (quantal remote viewing) correlate profoundly with the Triadic Rotational Units of Equivalence Quantal models in TDVP, by Vernon M Neppe MD, PhD, Surendra Singh Pokharna PhD, and Edward R. Close PhD, PE.

file:///C:/Users/erclo/Downloads/Besant.pdf

The following excerpt from the paper is relevant to our discussion:

“This paper, more than any other in the history of Consciousness Research, provides indisputable data for psi. The data is not only profoundly statistically significant … it is truly unmeasurable, possibly beyond the one in a billion-billion probability, with correlation coefficients approaching one. It also describes the never-before (scientifically) proven phenomenon of Clairvoyant Remote Viewing…it has major implications for ‘Consciousness’ …functioning at the higher dimensional levels (e.g., Dimensions 7 to 9) based on TDVP theory. The results, …fraud-proof because the Besant data has been available in published form for a century, …and TDVP data has been previously mathematically proven, is 100% replicable, with TRUE quantal unit scores definitively empirically validated. We must recognize the physical 3S-1t domain that we experience as part of our multidimensional… existence. …Quantal Clairvoyance must apply in the 9D- TDVP-TRUE context.”

Note: This paper is also part of a prize-winning essay on survival: We definitely live after death: The scientific proof   © Vernon Neppe MD, PhD, FRS (SAf), 2022.

This study is relevant to our discussion here because it verifies the existence of the siddhis. It also validates the results of the Bessant-Leadbeater study because the TRUE analysis results that validate the Bessant-Leadbeater clairvoyant results, are validated by current LHC experimental data.

Physical Proof of No Singularities

In a stable quantum reality, physical singularities simply cannot exist because energy and mass are quantized. Fractions of quanta, if they ever exist, are so unstable that they disappear in a flash with no effect on stable structures.

Mathematical Proof of No Singularities

The combination of two quarks, expressed as a Diophantine equation (because quantum objects are quantized) has no solution; a fact easily proved by application of Fermat’s Last Theorem. But the TRUE mathematical combination of two up-quarks and one down-quark that results in the formation of the extremely stable object known as the proton, solved as a Diophantine equation, has solutions that have significant meanings in the physical world. Proofs of these significant physical configurations are accomplished by the elegant method known as infinite descent. CoDD proofs show conclusively that singularities cannot exist in quantized reality. In simple terms, stated as clearly as I can put it: There is a “bottom” to physical reality. That bottom is one quantum, not an infinitely small singularity. The siddhi referred to in the paragraphs above is the direct conscious experience of the mathematical process of infinite descent.


CONCLUSION 

As I watch the endless cycles of life displayed again in the Ozarks wilderness outside the windows of my retirement home on the edge of the Mark Twain National Forest and the Current River National Scenic Waterways, on this first day of May 2022, I am grateful to God, AKA Primary Consciousness, for the blessings of a wonderful life, full of adventure, intrigue, challenges, and fulfillment. And this is just the beginning because even though there is a bottom to an infinite descent, Reality is not limited to one dimension with one direction. There is also Infinite Ascent, with no ceiling!

What is the meaning and purpose of this series of 24 blogposts? I would have written every one of them, even if I knew no one would ever read them because as Richard Feynman once said, if I can’t explain it so a first-year student can understand it, then I don’t understand it. And as Mrs. Roberts, English teacher, and Counselor extraordinaire at Houston High in 1954 said, all those years and tears ago: “You might become the greatest scientist who ever lived, but if you can’t communicate what you find, then it’s meaningless.”

This series began in the spacetime dimensional domain where I was when I decided to enter this life in 1936: on the threshold of consciousness, and proceeded, like a stone skipping on a pool of still water to visit a few highlights of this journey, where I tried to distill some of the lessons learned and communicate them to one, or a few who might be interested. I believe that I had, and have, no less than six spiritual guides who gave me a mission to fulfill, and only they, with directions from the One who spoke this universe into existence, can tell me when it is accomplished. Until then, I will continue to do whatever this is that I am doing, and you, dear reader, can decide whether you think these words are of any value or use to you or not.

As you know, if you’ve read and understood these posts, no system of logic is ever complete; there was no absolute beginning, and there will be no final end. I have told Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, if he’s listening, that there is something rather than nothing because there is no beginning or end, and thus no such thing as nothing. With the discovery of gimmel and the indisputable proof that reality has a non-physical part, and that that non-physical part is much larger, more important, and more real, than the physical part, I think I can rest until the stone skips again, and I have to continue to contend with the joys and sorrows of existing.

Finally, what I have been trying to say is: God is Love, God is Light, and as long as we can feel that love for everyone and everything that’s real, we’ll be alright!

ERC – 5/1/2022