Transcendental Physics
Saturday, February 28, 2015
TDVP vs MAINSTREAM SCIENCE
With the discovery of TRUE units, TDVP puts consciousness into the equations of the laws of nature and solves hard physics problems that have puzzled physicists for more than 50 years. TDVP also answers questions about real psychic and spiritual phenomena, and gives meaning and purpose to physical existence. Yet, many mainstream thinkers, scientists, philosophers, priests and ministers are hesitant to look at TDVP.
Here are three questions for anyone interested in this issue:
1. What do YOU think should be included in a 'theory of everything'?
2. Why do you think most mainstream scientists are NOT welcoming TDVP with open arms?
3. Why do you think most mainstream philosophers of religion are also NOT welcoming TDVP with open arms?
Please give some serious thought to these questions. Your answers may help us find ways to get more general acceptance for TDVP, the science of the future.
Friday, February 27, 2015
THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING
At 7:00 AM, this morning, February 27, 2015, I googled “Theory of Everything”. Sites
with information on the new movie about the life of Stephen Hawking came up
first, and my post, “THE UNIFICATION OF QUANTUM PHYSICS, RELATIVITY AND THE
TDVP THEORY OF EVERYTHING”, with 15,940 views, came
up next.
Like the character, Walter O’Brien, says in the intro to the TV series “Scorpion”,
I have one of the highest IQs ever documented. But, I quite agree with Stephen Hawking when he says “people
who brag about their IQs are losers”. So, why would I say such a thing?
I am saying it because it is true. I am a “Distinguished Member” of the
most restrictive high IQ organization on the planet, even though I didn’t seek
that membership, and I am saying it to get your attention, because I believe it
is vitally important, even crucial for the future of humankind, that the world understands
what a real theory of everything has to be.
I admire Stephen Hawking and honor him for all he has
accomplished, but note that, in his 1988 book, “A Brief History of Time”, he predicted
that a theory of everything would be in hand by 2000. That didn’t happen, and since
then, at least a dozen books have been published by or about Stephen Hawking
and the theory of everything. But still, no theory of everything.
Hawking thinks that MTheory is best candidate. He says
it is “a theory that unites all five string theories, as well as super gravity,
within a single theoretical framework, but which is not yet fully understood”. The MTheory, however, is not a theory of everything. Why? Because it simply does not
include everything! There are no variables in the equations of MTheory for
consciousness. Consciousness connects physical reality with spiritual reality, giving
rise to the better qualities in human beings, like honesty, integrity, loyalty,
reverence, compassion, and love, yet it is nowhere to be found in any of
mainstream science ‘theories of everything’.
Why would scientists call
a theory restricted to physical phenomena a ‘theory of everything’? It’s simply
because physicists focus on physics. If all you have is a hammer, everything
looks like a nail. I know this well, because of my years of training as a physicist
and mathematician.
The portrayal of a ficticious young theoretical physicist, Dr. Sheldon
Cooper, on the TV show “The Big Bang Theory” is an exaggeration for comedic
effect to be sure, but the character does resemble some intelligent people I
know. But, be assured, a real theory of everything is not going to come from
highly educated individuals, however high their IQs may be, if they are adolescents
spiritually, socially and emotionally handicapped as a result.
Physicists have been seeking
a ‘theory of everything’ ever since Albert Einstein spent his final years
trying to find a unified field theory. But, by ‘a theory of everything’, physicists
simply mean a theory that will accurately explain how mass and energy interact
in space and time, from the quantum level to the level of galaxies and the
whole universe. Such a theory should answer many questions about the physical
workings of the universe and advance modern technology, but cannot answer many
of the really important questions like: Why is there something rather than
nothing? What is the ultimate nature of reality? What is the meaning and
purpose of life? What is consciousness? And how does it relate to physical
reality? Who or what are we? Where did we come from, and where are we going?
Dr. Vernon Neppe, MD, PhD,
an internationally renowned neuroscientist, and I, with the combined experience
of nearly 100 years as scientists, have developed the Triadic Dimensional Vortical
Paradigm (TDVP). TDVP provides a new, comprehensive basis not just for physics,
but for all of the sciences, including the life sciences, psychology, studies
of consciousness and even rare event phenomena. TDVP answers many of the most puzzling
questions of modern physics, unifies classical science, modern science and
parapsychology, and provides answers to more important questions about the purpose
and meaning of consciousness and life in the universe.
Labels:
Big Bang Theory,
Consciousness,
Einstein,
Fermat's Last Theorem,
High IQ,
MTheory,
Scorpion,
Sheldon Cooper,
Stephen Hawking,
String Theory,
TDVP,
Theory of Everything,
Walter O'Brien
Tuesday, February 17, 2015
DISCUSSION WITH A CRITICAL REVIEWER
The reviewer quotes me from my previous comments:
"even the most abstract mathematical
theorem finds application in the real world sooner or later"
this is a highly unconventional
view, to put it mildly. Sure, within the discipline of mathematics there
are differences in the viewpoints regarding some new math as only becoming
real/known after discovery or the more Platonic viewpoint that all possible
(logic) math is already 'out there'waiting to be discovered.
However, in mathematical physics, trying to describe our *realities* in line with experiments, whether materialistic, biological, economical, or sociological, or in medical science, it is commonly thought that only a subset of all known math applies; that's why a pure study of mathematics is often considered to be highly theoretical. Which engineer would be interested to prove that the sequence of 'twin primes' (prime numbers with only a difference
However, in mathematical physics, trying to describe our *realities* in line with experiments, whether materialistic, biological, economical, or sociological, or in medical science, it is commonly thought that only a subset of all known math applies; that's why a pure study of mathematics is often considered to be highly theoretical. Which engineer would be interested to prove that the sequence of 'twin primes' (prime numbers with only a difference
of 2, eg 5,7, or 11, 13) is infinite ? According to Terence Tao
this is not proven yet. Not to mention the infinite number of possible
string theories, of which we know that provided even *one* could apply they
not all can apply to our common physical reality. Hope you see what i mean. For
the rest i will revert to Ed by mail, i have some important points where i
claim you cannot extend dimensions to known physics theories without having to
rewrite all the basics again; well at least for s (which E and V) do not extend
beyond 3, but also for t, which is onedimensional in our current mainstream
theories. Extend that and you throw five centuries of physics into the garbage
tray. And eg. Newton but also many others would turn around in their graves in misery.
My reply:
I don't believe Newton would turn over in
his grave, because he was a believer in something more than matter and energy.
I think he would accept that new theories like relativity, QM, and now TDVP,
extend his work, not throw it into the garbage heap. I think discussions with
Standard Model paradigm scientists like you are helpful in the sense that they
reveal questions that Vernon and I need to know how to answer, and they provide
material for additional books and articles. But they have also prompted
me to think more deeply about why there is such vehement resistance to our
ideas. I believe I now know why they will not  and perhaps cannot  open their minds to a paradigm that
allows room for paranormal phenomena, conscious spiritual experience and God. It’s
not just that they are defending their life’s work, although that is certainly
a strong motivator, they are defending what they see as the basis for all
certain knowledge and sanity.
Science is about the search for
certainty. The scientific ‘laws of nature’ provide some measure of certainty
and predictability, which makes us, as small, vulnerable individual life forms,
feel more secure and safe in a universe that appears to be violent and chaotic.
Even with Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, the uncertainty is contained
within a very narrow range that can be managed by a probability distribution
function, allowing for reasonable prediction within the limits of our ability
to observe and measure quantum phenomena. Standard Model scientists see allowing
consciousness into the equations of physical science as opening the door to
mysticism, which they see as fantasy and insanity, an anathema to their world
of rationality. They will allow this only over their dead bodies!
One has to wonder if such individuals, at least in this
lifetime, are capable of understanding that spiritual phenomena are real, and
that verifiable paranormal and other phenomena, not explainable in the Standard
Model paradigm, can be brought within objective rationality by including consciousness
a a variable in the equations describing the laws of nature.
Sunday, February 15, 2015
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS BY A REVIEWER
Dear _____,
First
of all, I want to thank you for your continuing interest in what Vernon and I
are trying to do. As I think you know, we have asked a substantial number of
people, scientists, mathematicians, philosophers, and serious thinkers of
various kinds, to review our work. The most important of these reviewers, from
my point of view, are those with sufficient training in mathematics and physics
to be able to understand the basic concepts underlying Transcendental Physics
and TDVP. These thinkers, one would hope, would be very openminded and
objective. However, based on the comments and statements of those who have
responded to date, openmindedness is quite rare. In, my opinion, those who
have commented fall into of one the following categories:
1.)
Those
who assume we don’t know what we are talking about. Their approach is to look
for obvious errors and be done with us.
2.)
Those
who have unconventional theories of their own. Their approach is to determine
to what extent our ideas might support theirs. When they find at some point that
they do not, they quickly lose interest.
3.)
Those
with heavily vested interest in the socalled Standard Model. As with group #1,
they search for any error at all to discredit our ideas because, if we are
right, the paradigm they have invested their lives in must be wrong, and their
life’s work is threatened. Our experience shows that they will do anything they
can to defend the current paradigm.
4.)
Those
who are truly open minded, as all scientists should be, and are willing to
follow the logic of new ideas wherever it leads, even when the results conflict
with their life’s work and/or their own belief system. So far, our experience
is that such minds are very few and far between.
I
have found that discussions with people in the first three categories are largely
a waste of time. The first two have no interest in anything outside their own
ideas, or ideas with which they are familiar, and people in the third group
have no interest in anything outside the box of the current materialistic
paradigm. I think you can probably identify some individuals in the discussions
of the past couple of years who fall in to these categories. Two or three, for
example, who sought to find flaws in the math, started by criticizing
references to, and use of, some simple, basic mathematical concepts, but failed
to understand the significance of these concepts in the new paradigm. Next,
they offered counter examples to certain mathematical proofs and conclusions.
When I pointed out flaws in their reasoning, they at first grudgingly admitted
a mistake or two, and then got upset. One even told me that the discussion was
not about criticizing his ideas. He even posted that he had “refuted” certain
of my arguments, when it was easy to show that he had not.
I
want to address your comments, but first, please permit me to recount a little more
history to put the current discussions into proper perspective:
After
studying the works of Planck, Einstein, Minkowski, Lorentz, Schrödinger, Bohr,
and Heisenberg, while I was an undergrad physics student, I was convinced as
early as 1956, that a theory of everything, even if it was defined only as a
theory that would unify the known forces of nature, was not possible without
including the actions of consciousness in the equations. I wrote about this
around 1957  1959 or so. I also recognized that new math was needed, and that
I needed to know more about number theory. I earned a degree in mathematics in
1962, and started in a graduate program in theoretical physics. I also found the
basis for the new math I needed in George Spencer Brown’s ‘Laws of Form’ in
1962; coincidentally about the same time I studied John Bell’s inequality
theorem and learned of Alain Aspect’s experimental resolution of the EPR
paradox.
I
developed the Calculus of Distinctions to deal with the interaction of
consciousness and physical reality; and I first published some of the results
of including consciousness in the equations in 1989 in “Infinite Continuity”.
Prior to publication, I sent a copy of the manuscript to Stephen Hawking for
review. He had a problem with the concept of threedimensional time and
rejected, out of hand the idea that consciousness had anything to do with
reality at the quantum level.
I
expanded some of the ideas, and published them again in ‘Transcendental
Physics’ in 1996. My ideas were accepted and heralded as the new paradigm
uniting relativity and quantum physics by several, including experimental
physicist Dr. Henry Swift and astrophysicist Dr. Philip Anderson. It was
discussed for months on the Karl Jaspers Forum and other internet forums and in
the journal “Science within Consciousness” in the period 1996 – 1998. One
participant suggested that I should be careful about sharing my ideas so freely
on the internet, because “the ideas clearly represent a new paradigm, and
unscrupulous individuals will steal them and call them their own.” Another
participant quipped: “If you have something truly new, no one will steal it.
You’ll have to cram it down their throats!” Unfortunately, the second comment
proved to be the more accurate. Most people it seems, even scientists, believe
that if they don’t understand something immediately, it must be wrong. As Max
Planck said, “Science advances one funeral at a time.”
Now,
on to your comments: I am thankful for
your comments because they give me an opportunity to more fully explain the
concepts underlying the mathematics of TDVP. I will copy from your email and
then respond:
You
wrote:
“Here´s some new feedback, specifically about theoretical
physics (or at least its required methods) within your theories, but not about
the *whole* TDVP theory (except physics, possibly extended to broader,
nonmaterialist realms), and especially about QM (again) in relation to your
(or Ed's) 9 dim. Spin model:
When I first mentioned to you in some mails years ago
theories with hidden
variables in QM (David Bohm), and now when you have a 9D
spin model with apparently more detailed variables, I point to the necessity of
QM again, or at least consistency with experiments.”
My response:
You
refer to ‘hidden variables’. This term, as used in QM, refers to attempts by
some physicists, notably David Bohm, Eugene Wigner, and a few others, to
explain the nonlocality quantum entanglement of Bell’s inequality and the EPR
paradox in terms of underlying, inaccessible variables which, if there, would
validate Einstein’s opinion that QM as developed by Bohr and Heisenberg was
incomplete, and eliminate, theoretically, the probabilistic uncertainty
formalized by Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle.
The
additional variables of TRUE units in TDVP are in no way hidden variables of
this sort. They are hidden only in the sense that they are not directly
measurable. The magnitudes of TRUE units, including mass, energy and gimmel
(the third form) for specific subatomic entities are all indirectly
determinable, like many things in science. The amount of gimmel in a given
particle does not affect the quantum uncertainty between the measurements of
location and angular momentum any more than the amount of mass or energy in the
particle does. Heisenberg’s relationship of probabilistic uncertainty is not
affected by Gimmel, an indirectly measurable variable combining with units of
mass and energy to make up the TRUE quantum units of all stable particles, and
thus they are not ‘hidden’ variables in the sense proposed by Bohm, et al.
You
wrote:
“I do not see how the use of integers only will improve
consistency with the known QM framework and the experiments; there needs to be
some randomization as well i stronglysuspect. The reason is, like I posted, because
of the (statistical nature of the) measurements.
My response:
Let
me explain the importance of using integers in the analysis of the combination
of elementary particles to form stable compound particles like protons and
neutrons: Planck’s discovery that elementary particles are always integer
multiples of a basic unit means that we are dealing with discrete, as opposed
to continuous values in the statistical analysis of collider data. A discrete
random variable has a very different probability distribution than a continuous
random variable, and functions representing compound entities formed by the
combination of integral numbers of basic units can only have integer values. This
means we are dealing with equations with integer variables, known to mathematicians
as Diophantine equations. I’ll elaborate on this more as I respond to your
further comments.
You
wrote:
In some way with some quantum logic Ed or your other math
assistant might
be able to add this to this spinmodel, in order to generate
the most common
QM experiments, but it won't be easy.
My response:
This
has already been done. And, while it wasn’t as difficult as you might imagine,
it may be hard to grasp at first. This is actually what Dimensional
Extrapolation with unitary extensions and integer solutions to the Conveyance
Equations in TRUE units are all about. The 9D spin model is an outcome of the
mathematics, not the other way around.
You
wrote:
“For the rest when describing physics at the Planck scale,
just a 9D spin model is not enough of course, because it's not only *particle*
spin, there also is QM involved with
(massless) *photons*, and in fact with a
whole of other particles (some
with rapid decay); called the particle 'zoo'. In fact the existence of most of
these particles seems to come out of the quantum field theories inherent in the
Standard Model, but that's another and slightly broader subject.”
My response:
Actually,
the mathematics of TDVP accurately encompasses all known QM processes. The
derivation of TRUE units is fully consistent with, and actually dependent upon
the statistical nature of the quantum measurements of collider data. TDVP is
also consistent with the existence of massless photons and the entire ‘particle
zoo’. All of the particles detected in the debris from highenergy collisions
decay under ‘normal’ conditions into photons, electrons and up and downquarks,
the four subatomic entities that make up the physical structures of our
everyday world. The other particles are teased into existence by highenergy
collisions here on Earth, or are naturally produced in extreme conditions of
heat and pressure like those in stellar processes. This becomes clear in the
9D integral model. TRUE units describe the total mass/energy/consciousness
composition of subatomic particles under normal conditions. Only the particle
combinations with the TRUE unit values that satisfy integer solutions of the
Conveyance Equation for n = m = 3, dictated by Fermat’s Last Theorem achieve
symmetric stability.
You
wrote:
“Now I understand you
or Ed have to start somewhere within the TDVP framework, i.e. with the 9D
particle spin model, but then this would
only be a (minor) start, and certainly not a description or foundation of
some 'new physics' or new paradigm in physics at large.”
My response:
As
you might gather from my explanations above, I strongly disagree with this
statement. While our presentations, as you say, must ‘start somewhere’, as a
new paradigm, TDVP does not start with randomly chosen concepts. As a new
paradigm must, it starts with proven fundamental mathematical and physical
basics and expands them with new mathematics, new definitions and a new, more
comprehensive theoretical framework, just as relativity and quantum mechanics
did.in the early part of the last century.
Since
1935, there have been no paradigmshifting new physics discoveries, only
experimental and technological evidence of fields, particles and concepts that
fit within the current materialistic paradigm. TDVP, on the other hand, with
the inclusion of the action of consciousness, and detailed mathematical and
dimensionometric applications of the Calculus of Distinctions, Dimensional
Extrapolation and the Conveyance Equations, provides a new, expanded paradigm
that not only encompasses and integrates known physics, chemistry, the life
sciences, and verified paranormal phenomena, it provides answers and
explanations for quantum and macroscale phenomena not explained, or even
explainable in the current paradigm.
You
wrote:
Also i would like to come back on the subject of peer review
(about stuff like
this 9D spin model) in the area of theoretical *physics*.
… I would be more interested with which modern physicists you andor Ed
are talking in detail about the mathematical theories within your TDVP context.
My response:
My response:
We
certainly agree about the importance of colleague review, and we have been eagerly seeking
it for years. I have approached people like Stephen Hawking, Menos Kafatos,
Henry Stapp, and Roger Penrose, and a number of mathematicians to get these
ideas peer reviewed, and Vernon has approached many others. But finding
qualified reviewers who are willing to spend their precious time reviewing
something outside the box is easier said than done. See my comments above
regarding the four categories of reviewers.
You
continue:
This also because imho inventing workable validated theories
in mathematical physics usually should not be much determined only by 'creativity'
(although this may apply for generating hypotheses) but by having an
understanding of experimental physics as w ell. Without the experiments, imho
you are most of the time in fact almost alwaysonly creating (highly) speculative 'theories' (in
fact more hypotheses than theories); a well known fact in the
philosophy of science btw, and mentioning things as new paradigms or being
decades ahead of the others do not change such facts. NB it is not intended as
(severe) criticism, but more as a suggestion how to continue the research and
if also focus on the interconnections between your 'new physics' and the wellestablished
older theories.
My response:
I
certainly understand and appreciate this, as I’m sure Vernon does, but you apparently
didn’t know that I’ve relied heavily on experimental physics in developing the
mathematics.
You
continued:
At least in your latest response on Ning you now seem to
have acknowledged this, but then you also should admit that there is not much 'linkage'
(yet?) between all the new ideas (including these TRUE units) with conventional
'fundamental' physics (apart from the periodic table, but that's not enough.
Like i wrote earlier, in theoretical physics the quantum mechanics of the
electron bands around the core (and the Pauli Exclusion Principle) are
determining the periodic index; and also their reactivity with other elements.
But that's another subject. While it
looks like an 'Eureka' experience finding such a new way of setting up the
periodic table, together with some possible new findings, imho again more
validation and verification is to be done to make it a workable theory instead
of just a (wild) hypothesis.”
My response:
Again,
you seem to be unaware of much of what we’ve published. As my previous discussion
shows, there are multiple linkages between TDVP and fundamental physics,
quantum mechanics and relativity. In addition to explaining why quarks combine in
triads, the unique value of the Cabibbo angle, explaining the Periodic Table
consistent with electron shell theory and Pauli’s exclusion principle, but in much
more detail, explaining why fermions have an intrinsic spin number of ½, why
photons, electrons, protons, and neutrons have the physical characteristics
they do, and the quantization of angular momentum, as well as explaining
nonlocality and quantum entanglement, we are finding more links and
explanations almost daily. If this doesn’t make TDVP “a workable theory instead
of just a (wild) hypothesis”, I’d like to know what would.
You
wrote:
About the methods used in general in your physics theories
as part of your
Toe: maybe this '' C.O.D.' theory by Ed indeed is innovative
new method which can be used in mathematical physics, to be recognized as such
it should be studied more in detail by
others i suppose, and only then later it might be acknowledged as such.”
My response:
Unless
you’ve read the published articles associated with “Reality Begins with
Consciousness” and/or the posts on my Transcendental Physics blog, located at www.ERCloseTPhysics.com, you wouldn’t
know that over the years, I have discussed the mathematical basis of
Transcendental Physics and TDVP with a substantial number of professional mathematicians
and mathematical physicists; I have approached at least fifty or sixty. I have
documentation of many of these discussions in the form of letters and emails. Of
these, only a handful, I believe 5 or 6 actually took the time to look at my
work in any detail. The problem, as with getting reviewers for TDVP, is few are
willing to invest much time to review anything outside the mainstream paradigm,
especially if it involves new math. One professional mathematician, Dr.
Vladimir Brandin, has endorsed CoD and used it in his studies of intelligence.
We published one paper together:
Brandin
V, Close ER: The calculus of dimensional distinctions: Elements of mathematical
theory of intellect. Moscow: 2003.
Details
of CoD and applications have been published in journal articles. We can supply
copies if you want to see them.
I’d
like to elaborate a bit more on the mathematical and dimensionometric bases of
Transcendental Physics and TDVP for you by pointing out the difference between
classical Aristotelian and Platonic reasoning as it pertains to mathematics and
scientific research: Aristotelians see mathematics simply as a manmade tool,
while Platonists see mathematics as symbolic reflections of an underlying
reality. As such, the imperfect tools of human formulation can always be improved
to more and more closely mimic and reveal the perfectly logical patterns of reality.
I see the value of the Aristotelian point of view in technological and engineering
applications, but I also subscribe to the Platonic point of view as valid in
constructing a paradigm to illustrate the nature of reality.
To
understand TDVP and the use of the CoD, I think it will be helpful for you to
know that there are three basic concepts behind the mathematics of TDVP:
1.)
There is a direct correlation between the structures of number theory and the
structures of the universe. This is why even the most abstract mathematical theorem
finds application in the real world sooner or later.
2.)
The experimental resolution (Aspect, et al) of the EPR paradox implies
consciousness involvement and nonlocality. These features are explainable
within the framework of a universe with more dimensions than the four of the
spacetime of Minkowski and Einstein (3S – 1T).
3.)
Max Planck discovered that we live in a quantized universe, but mathematical
physics has not been properly adjusted to accommodate this fact.
You
may agree or disagree with basic concept #1. If you are primarily Aristotelian
in your thinking, as many scientists are, you may see the correlation between
the types of numbers and the measures of dimensions, as shown by Dimensional
Extrapolation, as a remarkable coincidence. If you accept basic concept #1, you
will agree that the correlations we’ve discovered are not coincidental.
Basic
concept #2 by itself does not imply any specific number of discrete dimensions,
but when combined with #1, a maximum number of nine finite orthogonal
dimensions are derived.
Concerning
basic concept #3, to adjust mathematical physics to a quantized universe, we
must first recognize that the calculus of Newton and Leibniz does not apply at
the quantum level because, for applications of differential and integral
calculus to yield valid results, the domains of the variables involved must be
continuous. In a quantized universe, distinctions of content, like mass, energy
and consciousness, exist only in finite, discrete integer amounts, and, as we have
shown in TDVP, the distinctions of extent, like space and time, are also limited
to finite, discrete volumes due to the relativistic lightspeed limitation on
velocity.
So
the dimensional domains of a quantized universe are not continuous. No variable
in a quantized universe can approach zero infinitesimally closely, as it must
be able to do for Newtonian calculus to yield valid results at the quantum
scale. In TDVP, the infinitesimals of Newtonian calculus are replaced by the
minimal distinctions of TRUE units, and the Calculus of Distinctions is the
mathematical system I’ve developed to extend calculus to the subquark level. To
be clear, the CoD does not replace Newtonian calculus at the macro scale; it
extends calculation to the quark scale, analogous to the way relativity does
not replace Newtonian physics at normal scales of measurement, and only comes
to play in the vicinity of extremely massive objects, or when relative
velocities are near lightspeed.
In
summary, contrary to the impressions you have portrayed in your email of Feb.
3, 2015, TDVP is, in fact a comprehensive new paradigm with new mathematics, allowing
consciousness to be included in the equations of mathematical physics for the
first time. This paradigm has explained a number of empirical observations not
explained by the current paradigm. The new mathematics, rigorously defined in several
published books and articles, reveals an existential ninedimensional finite domain
embedded in an infinite substrate which contains the blueprints of all of the stable
forms that support life and consciousness in the universe. I have tried
repeatedly since 1989 to obtain competent peer review, and Vernon and I have
sought colleague review in every venue available to us over the past six years
as we’ve continued to develop the new paradigm. If you have any questions or
concerns, or require more detailed explanations, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Edward
R. Close, PhD, PE, DISPE
Tuesday, February 3, 2015
CLARIFICATION OF DIMENSIONAL EXTRAPOLATION, EUCLIDEAN AND NONEUCLIDEAN SPACE, AND THE DERIVATION OF TRUE UNITS
Clarification of
Dimensional Extrapolation, euclidean AND NONEUCLIDEAN SPACE, and THE
DERIVATION OF TRUE units
To understand Dimensional Extrapolation and the
nature of TRUE units, it is necessary to unlearn some of the things mainstream physicists
think they know. The idea that mass warps space, which is generally accepted as
implied by the Theory of Relativity, is one of those things. Einstein himself
raised doubt about this when he said in his Note to the Fifteenth Edition of
“Relativity, the Special and General Theory” June 9^{th}, 1852: “In
this edition I have added, as a fifth appendix, a presentation of my views on
the problem of space. … I wished to show that spacetime is not necessarily
something to which one can ascribe a separate existence. … Physical objects are
not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way, the
concept of ‘empty space’ loses its meaning.” If spacetime does not exist apart
from distinct objects, the idea that the 3D space of our physical observations
is warped by mass is, at best, a conceptual analogy that may be useful in helping
us to grasp the idea of gravitational gradient in a fourdimensional domain. Is
spacetime warped by mass? If so, how can we measure the warping if the point
from which we observe and measure it is also within the same warped spacetime
domain?
We exist in a dynamic multidimensional reality; but
our physical senses only convey the information of one, two and three dimensional
conceptual images to our physical brains. We deduce the existence of a fourth
dimension based on comparison of current observation with the memory, actually pictures
stored in the present brain, of previous observations. Our observations are conceptually
limited to one, two and three dimensional slices of a dynamic
multidimensional reality. “Dimensional Extrapolation” is the term I use for
the process of rotation and extension that is necessary to move from an
ndimensional domain into an (n+1)dimensional domain.
The
necessary angle of rotation in the dimensional extrapolation needed to expand our
awareness from a onedimensional Euclidean domain (a line) to a twodimensional
Euclidean domain (a plane) is 90 degrees. This is because this amount of
rotation places the extension equidistant in angular degrees from the two
directions of freedom of movement in the onedimensional domain. Similarly, the
angle of rotation needed to expand our awareness from a plane, which is a twodimensional
Euclidean domain to a volumetric threedimensional Euclidean domain is also 90
degrees, and in general, moving from any ndimensional Euclidean domain into an
(n+1)dimensional Euclidean domain requires rotating a unitary extension to a
point that is equiangular in rotation away from all of the dimensions of the
ndimensional domain. This angle of rotation for Euclidean domains is always 90
degrees, and the magnitude of the unitary projection from any ndimensional
domain into the (n+1)dimensional domain is determined by using the Pythagorean
Theorem. With the unitary orthogonal projections in the ndimensional domain as
sides of the Pythagorean triangle, the magnitude of the projection into the
(n+1)dimensional domain is calculated as the hypotenuse.
The
Pythagorean equations are subsets of the expression described mathematically
by Σ^{k}_{i=1} (X_{k})^{n}
= Z^{n}. where n =
1,2,3,…, the natural integers. The Pythagorean equations are obtained when k = n = 2, and two other important equations
are obtained when k = 2 and n = 3, and when k = n = 3. Integer solutions to the first of these three equations,
the Pythagorean equation, yield the Pythagorean
triples. The lack of integer solutions to the second equation, proved by
application of Fermat’s Last Theorem,
and the integer solutions of the third equation prove to be of primary
importance in determining how the stable structures of elementary particles are
formed, as we shall see below. It is probable that other values of k and n will produce additional important equations useful in describing
combinatorial relationships between particles in the quantized reality of the universe.
A second, related concept that requires unlearning
is the idea that there is something called nonEuclidean space. The problem here arises from confusing dimensions of
different types. While the dimensions of space and time are both measured in
units of distinctions of extent, space domains and spacetime domains are
quantitatively and qualitatively different. First, let’s see how the dimensions
of space and time are quantitatively different: When moving from a 1dimensional
Euclidean domain to a 2dimensional Euclidean domain and from a 2dimensional
Euclidean domain to a 3dimensional Euclidean domain, the units of extent are
the same, i.e., they can be measured mathematically consistently in real
numbers. But when moving from a 3dimensional Euclidean domain to a 4dimensional
Euclidean domain, rotating 90 degrees away from all of the directions of
freedom of the 3dimensional domain, requires that the extension into the
4dimensional domain is imaginary, i.e. a multiple of the square root of minus one, as calculated using the
Pythagorean Theorem.
Beyond and even more important than these problems
with definitions and the basic logic of mathematical physics, is the failure to
include the functioning of consciousness in the equations. Consciousness is
intimately involved in our observations. Clarifying the fact that a
nonEuclidean domain is only definable relative to the Euclidean domain of conscious
observation provides an important step toward understanding how to put
consciousness into the equations of mathematical physics.
The problem with the concept of nonEuclidean space as an existing reality is partly
because of confusion due to poorly defined terminology, partly because of ignoring
the role of consciousness, and partly because of the loss of detail in
mathematical generalization. The Perception of a nonEuclidean dimensional
domain is necessarily relative to the dimensional domain of the conscious
observer. The qualitative differences between the observations of space and
spacetime domains exist because of the way we perceive reality through the
limited physical senses and the way memory is stored in the neurological
functions of the brain. Because the observation and measurement of a nonEuclidean
domain is defined relative to the dimensional domain of the observer, it should
be recognized as a relatively
nonEuclidean domain. With these points in mind, we can no longer accept the
assumption that space and time exist apart from, and without reference to
consciousness.
Mathematicians have generalized the concept of space
by considering Euclidean space as only one of many possible ‘spaces’ with
different degrees of curvature. In that view, Euclidean space just happens to
be the one with zero curvature. Threedimensional Euclidean space, however, is
the most important spatial domain in respect to all physical observations
because it is the only space of observation available to our limited physical
senses. It is, therefore, the only reference we have from which to define
nonEuclidean dimensional domains. Threedimensional Euclidean space is the
natural arena of our physical observations and what we perceive as reality. And
because the images of reality created by our physical brains are created within
the limits of our physical observations, Euclidean space is the space of
consciousness. The terminology can be improved by using the term ‘space’ for
the threedimensional domain only and
Euclidean space as the space of reference
for all observations.
When n ≠ 3,
an ndimensional domain, Euclidean
or otherwise, can only be conceptualized in reference to the 3dimensional
Euclidean domain of our physical observations. For example, if a 2dimensional
plane is curved, i.e. nonEuclidean, its curvature can only be seen from the
viewpoint of a 3dimensional Euclidean domain. Similarly, the curvature of a
nonEuclidean 4 or 5 dimensional domain can only be meaningfully measured and
described from the viewpoint of our 3dimensional Euclidean domain of
observation. We know from Einstein’s relativity, validated many times by
experimental evidence, that the measure of 1dimensional time is distorted by
relative velocity and mass. This means that the 4dimensional spacetime domain
is observed as Euclidean or nonEuclidean, depending on the observer’s relative
velocity and proximity to massive objects.
Thus ‘Space’ can only be defined unambiguously as
the domain of the first three dimensions, within which, because of the
limitations of our physical senses, all our physical observations are made.
Through the physiological and the neurological processing of the data supplied
by our senses, we perceive the 3dimensional domain of the universe as
Euclidean. In fact, if any part of the 3dimensional domain of our observations is
nonEuclidean, it can only be said to be nonEuclidean relative to the
3dimensional domain of our conscious observations.
The very real differences, both perceptual and
mathematical, between space and time domains are generally ignored by human
beings, including scientists. They can be ignored without serious consequences
in nonmathematical verbal descriptions when comparing one measurement of time
with another, but ignoring them in the mathematical equations describing
spacetimematterenergy relationships is problematic. This problem, in
conjunction with the inappropriate application of Newtonian continuous calculus
to discrete quantum phenomena, leads to virtually all of the socalled
“weirdness” of quantum physics, as well as most of the apparent conflicts
between quantum mechanics and relativity. So, while there may be many nonEuclidean
domains relative to our Euclidean domain of observation, the three dimensional
domain of space cannot be said to be existentially nonEuclidean.
Many of the problems of mathematical physics, unsolvable
in the context of the current scientific paradigm, are relatively easily solved
by the concepts presented here and by use of the Calculus of Distinctions,
which is applicable where Newtonian calculus is not. Dr. Neppe and I have
already published some of these solutions in the book “Reality Begins with
Consciousness” (www.BrainVoyage.com) and in papers explaining the spin number
of fermions, why quarks are always found combined in groups of three, and the
Cabibbo mixing angle.
These problems with the current paradigm become
paramount when dealing with the physics of elementary particles, starting with
the quarks that make up the protons and neutrons of atomic structure. In a
particle accelerator like the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), particles are
accelerated to very high relative velocities and caused to collide, breaking
compound particles apart into smaller particles. The mass and energy of the elementary
particles flying away from a collision are deduced from threedimensional
snapshots of their apparent paths in a magnetic field. The fact that none of the
measured amounts of the mass and energy of these elementary particles obtained
in this manner are unitary, or even integer multiples of the unit commonly
used, tells us that the unit being used is not the truly minimum subquantum
unit.
We can determine the relative mass and energy of the
minimal elementary particle unit by normalizing the mass and energy of
electrons and quarks. Because of the
relativistic lightspeed limit to rotational velocity, using the mass of the minimal
elementary particle, the electron, and its angular momentum, we are able to
determine the minimum possible volume occupied by any elementary particle. Finally,
setting the minimal massenergy and minimal volume to unity (+1), we define the
truly minimal unit, the proper unit with which to measure all physical
phenomena. Defined in this way, all physical particles will be integer
multiples of this subquantal unit. Because this subquantal basic unit is
derived from the existence of a minimalvolume highvelocity rotating particle,
and all particles are integer multiple of it, I call it the Triadic Rotational
Unit of Equivalence, or TRUE Unit for short.
Given that the stable subatomic elementary
particles, i.e. electrons and quarks, are highvelocity symmetrically spinning
objects, we look at how they must combine to form compound symmetrically
spinning objects. The reason symmetry is so important here is because
asymmetric objects spinning at angular velocities approaching the speed of
light would quickly fly apart because the centrifugal forces of angular
momentum, unequal on opposing sides of the spinning object would pull it apart.
Thus, the second law of thermodynamics, operating on all particles combining
due to the attractions of opposite electrical charges and/or magnetic
attraction, would cause any randomlyoccurring asymmetric combination to decay
almost immediately back to maximum entropy. This means that the complex physical universe as we know it cannot have
evolved accidentally from flotsam from a giant explosion however many billions
of years ago.
Normalized particle collider data tells us that upquarks
are made up of 4 of the minimum massenergyvolume units described above, and
downquarks are made up of 9 minimal units. Applying Fermat’s Last Theorem to
the equation resulting when k = 2 and n = 3, in the expression Σ^{k}_{i=1} (X_{k})^{n} = Z^{n}, tells us that two symmetric objects made up of
any integer multiples of the minimum massenergyvolume unit cannot combine to
form a new symmetric object because there are no integer solutions to (X_{1})^{3} + (X_{2})^{3}
= Z^{3}. On the other hand, the equation (X_{1})^{3} + (X_{2})^{3} + (X_{3})^{3
}= Z^{3}, obtained when k
= n = 3, has integer solutions.
Noting that Einstein’s E=mc^{2} , validated by empirical data, proved that mass
and energy are two forms of the same thing, we deduce that there has to be a
third form of reality, not measurable as
mass or energy, producing stable, symmetric triadic particles. This is why
under the normal conditions existing in the universe of our observational
domain quarks are always seen in triadic combinations: two upquarks and one
downquark form a proton, and one upquark and two down quarks form a neutron.
The number of units of the third form needed to form
symmetrically stable quarks, protons and neutrons are uniquely determined from
the integer solutions of the equation obtained from the general expression Σ^{k}_{i=1} (X_{k})^{n} = Z^{n},
when k = n = 3.
Because of the continuing discovery of the relationship
of the mathematical structure (rings, fields, etc.) of numbers studied in the
discipline called number theory, to the structure of the observable universe, I
believe that our discoveries strongly suggest that reality consists of the
three forms of distinctions of content interacting in nine finite dimensions of
extent: three dimensions of space, three dimensions of time, and three dimensions
of consciousness, all contained and
pervaded by a conscious transfinite
substrate. The logical mathematical patterns of the conscious transfinite
substrate are conveyed to the 3dimensional subdomain of our observations by
the expression Σ^{k}_{i=1} (X_{k})^{n}
= Z^{n}.
For this reason, I call this the Conveyance Expression and equations derived
from it Conveyance Equations.
Experimental data tell us that the Hydrogen atom is
unique, being the only element that consists simply of one electron and one
proton; but Fermat’s Last Theorem tells us that this combination is asymmetric,
and would therefore be extremely unstable, and would not exist long enough to
form the universe we perceive without the addition of a particle composed entirely
of units of the third form.
When we determine the number of units of the third
form needed to stabilize the Hydrogen atom, and apply this analysis to all of
the elements of the Periodic Table, we find that the most stable and most
abundant elements in the universe are those that support life and sentient
beings. Furthermore, gaps in symmetry that are found existing within the
Periodic Table as we have known it, are filled by compounds prominent in amino
acids and molecules of DNA and RNA, the building blocks of conscious life
forms.
This fits nicely with our hypothesis that the third
form of the substance of reality is the original primary form of consciousness
itself, guiding the formation of a universe able to sustain life forms that are
capable of experiencing consciousness. It also appears that the ratio of the
third form to the mass/energy substance, based on abundance of lifesustaining
elements in the universe and Hubble Telescope data, conforms with the
conjecture that dark matter and dark energy are also composed of the third
form.
Perhaps
the most important, and consequently also the most controversial aspect of this
analysis, is the unavoidable conclusion that consciousness in its primary form
has always existed, and will always exist, in the quantized, relativistic
universe that we experience, and that life, fully capable of supporting
everexisting consciousness, is the purpose of the physical universe.
Saturday, January 10, 2015
WHAT TRUEUNIT ANALYSIS TELLS US AND WHAT IT MEANS
WHAT WE HAVE LEARNED  AND WHAT IT MEANS
Applying
the Calculus of Distinctions to Quantum Physics and Relativity led to the discovery
of TRUE Units. From the TRUE unit analysis of the elements, we have learned
that:
1. There could be no universe without
the third form of reality, in addition to matter and energy, existing in every
particle of the universe.
2.
The third form is the factor within elementary particles that makes
possible the stable atoms and molecules that make up the universe.
3.
The third form is more than 95% of reality and is detected as ‘dark
matter’ and ‘dark energy’ in spiral galaxies.
4.
Reality exists in nine real, sequentiallycontained finite dimensional
domains embedded in a conscious transfinite substrate.
5.
Ninedimensional space, time and consciousness reality explains things
inexplicable in the current scientific paradigm.
6.
The transfinite substrate contains all the logical patterns that
manifest as physical reality.
7.
The elements of the Periodic Table, stabilized by the third form, are
designed specifically for the purpose of manifesting life and consciousness.
8.
The multidimensional third form completes the patterns of Primary Consciousness
of mass/energy in the fourdimensions of spacetime. This relationship is
expressed mathematically by the Conveyance Equations.
9.
The Conveyance Equations include the Pythagorean Theorem and Fermat’s
Last Theorem, mathematical invariances that allow us to explore higher
dimensional domains through Dimensional Extrapolation.
What
it means, in plain English:
We are finite reflections of the
Infinite Intelligence from which all reality originates. That Infinite
Intelligence is available to all of us. The goal is to be completely and continuously
aware of our eternal connection with the Infinite. The difficulty of attaining
that state is directly proportional to our resistance to truth.
Friday, January 9, 2015
FILLING THE GAPS, SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This post completes the installations of a 40page paper entitled "PUTTING CONSCIOUSNESS INTO THE EQUATIONS OF SCIENCE, The TRUE Units of Measurement and the Theory of Everything". There will be one more post, in which I will attempt to explain the significance of this new paradigmatic information in nontechnical terms.
FILLING THE GAPS
FILLING THE GAPS
While
filling the gaps in the sequence of (nx108)^{3} symmetric structures in the Periodic
Table, we find that there may be two or more compounds with the exact TRUE
volume to fill the gaps, increasing in number as n
increases. We also discover that,
after n
= 9, there are symmetric compounds equal in TRUE volume to some elements. H_{2}O,
for example, has a TRUE volume of (10x108)^{3}, the same TRUE volume as
the inert gas Neon. The TRUEunit analyses for the compounds in the Table
immediately above are displayed below.
Helium Hydride, Valence =  2 + 3 = +1
Compound

Particles

Mass/Energy

ג

Total TRUE
Units

Volume

He + H_{}

3e

3

315

318

32,157,432

3P^{+}

51

21

72

373,248


3N^{0}

66

48

114

1,481,544


Totals

120

384

504

34,012,224=(324)^{3}
= (3x108)^{3}

Lithium Hydride, Valence =  2 + 4 = +2
Atoms

Particles

Mass/Energy

ג

Total TRUE
Units

Volume

Li + H2

4e

4

420

424

76,225,024

4P^{+}

68

28

96

884,736


4N^{0}

88

64

152

3,511,808


Totals

160

512

672

80,621,568=(432)^{3}
= (4x108)^{3}

(He)_{2}H, Valence =  2 + 5 = +3
Atoms

Particles

Mass/Energy

ג

Total TRUE
Units

Volume

(He)_{2}H

5e

5

525

530

148,877,000

5P^{+}

85

35

120

1,728,000


5N^{0}

110

80

190

6,859,000


Totals

186

640

826

157,464,000=(540)^{3}
= (5x108)^{3}

HeH_{3}, Valence =  2 + 5 = +3
Atoms

Particles

Mass/Energy

ג

Total TRUE
Units

Volume

(He)_{2}H

5e

5

525

530

148,877,000

5P^{+}

85

35

120

1,728,000


5N^{0}

110

80

190

6,859,000


Totals

186

640

826

157,464,000=(540)^{3}
= (5x108)^{3}

HO, Hydroxide Ion, Valence =  2 + 9 = +7
Atoms

Particles

Mass/Energy

ג

Total TRUE
Units

Volume

2H + O^{}

9e

9

945

954

868,250,664

9P^{+}

153

63

216

10,077,696


1Cג+8N^{0}

176

166

342

40,001,688


Totals

338

1,174

1,512

918,330,048=(972)^{3}
=
(9x108)^{3}

H_{2}N, Valence =  2 + 9 = +7
Atoms

Particles

Mass/Energy

ג

Total TRUE
Units

Volume

2H_{ }+
N^{}

9e

9

945

954

868,250,664

9P^{+}

153

63

216

10,077,696


9N^{0}

176

166

342

40,001,688


Totals

338

1,174

1,512

918,330,048=(972)^{3}
=
(9x108)^{3}

CH_{3}, Valence =  2 + 9 = +7
Atoms

Particles

Mass/Energy

ג

Total TRUE
Units

Volume

C + 3H^{}

9e

9

945

954

868,250,664

9P^{+}

153

63

216

10,077,696


9N^{0}

176

166

342

40,001,688


Totals

338

1,174

1,512

918,330,048=(972)^{3}
=
(9x108)^{3}

H_{2}O, Water, Valence = 2 8 + 10 = 0
Atoms

Particles

Mass/Energy

ג

Total TRUE
Units

Volume

2(H2)+O^{*}

10e

10

1050

1060

1,191,016,000

10P^{+}

170

70

240

13,824,000


8N^{0}+2C_{ג}

176

204

380

54,872,000


Totals

356

1,324

1,680

1,259,712,000=(1,080)^{3}
=(10x108)^{3}

H_{4}N, Valence = 11 2 – 8 = +1
Atoms

Particles

Mass/Energy

ג

Total TRUE
Units

Volume

4H1+ N^{}

11e

11

1,155

1,166

1,585,242,296

11P^{+}

187

77

264

18,399,744


4Cג+7N^{0}

154

264

418

73,034,632


Totals

352

1,496

1,848

1,676,676,672=(1,188)^{3}
=(11x108)^{3}

C_{2}H, Valence = 13 2 – 8 = +3
Atoms

Particles

Mass/Energy

ג

Total TRUE
Units

Volume

2C + H^{}

13e

13

1,365

1,378

2,616,662,152

13P^{+}

221

91

312

30,371,328


Cג+12N^{0}

264

230

494

120,553,784


Totals

498

1,686

2,184

2,767,587,264=(1,404)^{3}
=(13x108)^{3}

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Applying the process of rotation and
unitary projection from dimension to dimension in Euclidean space, we find that
the mathematical structure of basic number theory requires the existence of
nine finite orthogonal dimensions embedded successively in an infinitely
continuous substrate. Applying the logic of the Calculus of Dimensional Distinctions,
an application and extension of George Spencer Brown’s Laws of Form, to LHC
particlecollider mass/energy data for electrons, protons and neutrons,
considered as spinning distinctions of content occupying unitary distinctions
of extent in the 3S1t dimensional domain of physical observations, we find
that the lightspeed limitation of Einstein’s special relativity and Planck’s
quantization of mass and energy define a minimal unitary distinction. This
minimal mass/energy, spacetime distinction is the smallest possible finite
building block of the 3S1t universe.. As such, it replaces the infinitesimal
of the differential calculus of Newton and Leibniz in the mathematical analysis
of physical reality. The Calculus of Dimensional Distinctions provides us with
the tool needed to extend the work of Minkowski, Einstein, Kaluza, Klein,
Pauli, and others who have attempted to use multidimensional analysis to
integrate and explain the laws of physics.
The process of rotation and unitary
orthogonal projection from the planes of one dimension to the next in Euclidean
space utilizes the Pythagorean Theorem. Generalization of the Pythagorean
Theorem equation to three dimensions and application to the minimal quantized
distinctions of extent and content produces a set of Diophantine expressions
that perfectly describe the combination of elementary particles. Integer
solutions of these equations represent stable, symmetric combinations of
elementary particles; but when there are no integer solutions, the expressions
are inequalities representing unstable combinations that decay quickly.
Fermat’s Last Theorem applied to the equation describing the combination of two
elementary particles tells us that there are no integer solutions, and thus no
stable combinations. The equation for the combination of three particles, on
the other hand, does have integer solutions. This explains why three quarks,
not two, combine to form protons and neutrons.
Application of the equation
describing the combination of three particles to particlecollider mass/energy
data expressed as multiples of the minimal unit, reveals that, in order for
stable combinations to form, in addition to the volumetrically equivalent forms
of mass and energy, there has to be a third equivalent form that does not
register in physical measurements as mass or energy. Representing the third
equivalent form with the symbol ג in the equations describing the combination of three particles as integer
multiples of the minimal unit, we are able to calculate the unique number of
mass/energy units and ג units needed to produce the stable protons and neutrons of
the atoms that make up the physical universe, i.e., the elements of the
Periodic Table.
Analyzing the new information
provided by the third form of the “stuff” of the physical universe, we find
interesting patterns in the structure of the Elements. For example, Carbon,
Nitrogen, Oxygen, and Sulfur have the exact same percentage of ג units. This
exact ratio in elements that play a major role in lifesupporting organisms is
not accidental. Without the presence of ג units, no stable structures
could form and there would be no physical universe. This means that ג TRUE units had to be present from the formation of the
first elementary particle, guiding the formation of the physical universe to
produce structures capable of supporting life. This supports the hypothesis
that logical structure, meaning, purpose and life are not emergent epiphenomena,
but intrinsic features of reality.
TDVP provides a “mechanism”
explaining why there is something rather than nothing. In TDVP, the form and
structure of reality is determined by the intrinsic logic of ninedimensional
reality, without requiring any transfer of mass or energy.
These results strongly suggest
that, in a ninedimensional spin reality, stable structures are purposefully
formed for use as vehicles through which the consciousness of the Csubstrate
may experience spacetime reality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)