Friday, November 25, 2016


© Edward R. Close, November 25, 2016
In the over 355 articles, discussions and videos posted on this site over the past five years, I have attempted to introduce the reader to the Triadic Dimensional Vortical Paradigm, an admittedly complex model of reality. It is my contention, however, that the TDVP model is simpler and ultimately easier to understand than the current mainstream scientific paradigm. Not only that, TDVP includes consciousness in the equations. This is what makes it a true paradigm shift. Finally, while including the things that have proved to be good and correct about the current paradigm, the TDVP model explains many things that the current paradigm cannot, and reveals new scientific discoveries, strongly validating this approach.
Important things to remember while reading my Transcendental Physics blog posts:

(1) In a quantized world (which our universe is), when everything is measured in truly quantized units, there are no fractions. This is a great simplifier of the math. Imagine a mathematical system with no decimal fractions. Complex numbers of the form A + Bi do arise, but only in regard to extra dimensions, and the A and B components are always integers. The square root of minus one is not really imaginary, and it is not a fraction or an irrational number in a quantized system, it is simply another root of unity beyond +1 and -1, providing measurement in a new dimension beyond the first three.

(2) The truly quantized unit, the Triadic Rotational Unit of Equivalence (TRUE), is defined by the mass and volume of the free electron. This simplifies the math even further, because in a quantized reality, the most basic quantum unit is three-dimensional. This eliminates the infinitesimals of the calculus of Newton and Leibniz. Variables cannot approach zero infinitely closely because the mass, energy and volume of the TRUE unit is the bottom of descent. Most of the problems easily solved using Newtonian calculus are one- or two- dimensional. Three-dimensional problems quickly become very difficult. When the calculus of the current paradigm is replaced with a calculus using three-dimensional distinctions as units of measurement, calculation starts with three dimensions. This greatly simplifies three-dimensional problems.

(3) All things experienced by conscious beings are perceived by drawing distinctions and looking for patterns in those distinctions. When the fact that consciousness is involved in every measurement and/or observation, it should be obvious that consciousness must be included in the equations describing reality.

(4) The Calculus of Distinctions (CoD) is the most basic system of mathematical logic dealing with distinctions. The CoD is easily refined to deal with distinctions of three or more dimensions. This refinement is called the Calculus of Dimensional Distinctions (CoDD). 

(5) In the CoDD, three-dimensional distinctions are related to the real world by being defined in terms of elementary particles. This provides us with a system of mathematical logic that truly reflects the basic elements of the real quantized world of the physical universe.

(6) Quarks, protons, neutrons, Atoms, molecules, and everything made of them are whole-number multiples of elementary distinctions. This means that all distinctions, from quarks to stars, are whole-number multiples of the quantum units (Triadic Rotational Units of Equivalence).

The simple math of the TDVP thus reflects the true nature of the quantized universe, from quarks to stars.

Thursday, November 24, 2016


© Edward R. Close, November 24, 2016
A Brief Sharing
Like all real partners in life, Jacqui and I often take a few moments to share our thoughts. This morning I was sharing an idea about expanding the sphere of awareness. I remarked how wonderful it is that the basic ideas of the Calculus of Distinctions are so simple, and went through a brief explanation of how the simple concept of how distinction involves consciousness. When I paused, Jacqui made an important observation that I want to share with you. She said:

“That’s what you should start with.” 
“I have.” I said. “I’ve published the simple basis of the CoD in papers and books.”

“No, I mean you should start every presentation with that simple explanation you just gave me. You should start every post on the TPhysics blog that way. You always get into the details of things you’re excited about, things you’ve discovered and explained, but no one can follow you if they’re not familiar with the calculus of distinctions. Without the calculus, they don’t see how you got to the point you’re talking about.”

“But most people don’t want to learn something new and complicated, especially if it sounds like ‘math’. You know everyone says that for every mention of the word mathematics, you lose 10 readers, and for every equation, you lose 100 readers.”

“Yes, but anyone can understand that simple description of the original idea of the calculus that you just explained to me.”

She was right! I had just been making the very point that it is wonderful how very simple the basic concepts of the CoD are.
So, without further ado, let’s start:

What is a Distinction?
A distinction is anything that can be set apart in any way from its surroundings. A circle drawn on a sheet of paper, for example, is a distinction. It distinguishes everything within the circle from everything outside the circle. The ability to draw a distinction between ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ is common to most if not all animals, including humans, mammals, reptiles, insects, and even simpler forms of life. A fox, for example, certainly knows the difference between being inside his den and outside in the open. The most basic feature of conscious awareness is the distinction of ‘in here’, as opposed to ‘out there’, leading, most importantly, to the distinction of ‘self’ from ‘other’; and awareness of this basic distinction leads to all sorts of experiences: experiences of pain and pleasure, the survival instinct, and other complex behavior patterns.

What is the Calculus of Distinctions?
The CoD is the formal system of logic defining the operations that allow for all possible mathematical calculations using elementary distinctions as defined above as the basic units of measurement of extent and content that describe reality. The definition of distinction necessarily involves consciousness.

Consciousness is real because I know I am conscious, and if you are reading this, you know that you are conscious. In fact, no experience of reality is possible without consciousness. But for the past few hundred years, mainstream scientists have carefully kept consciousness outside of objective reality, observing it without being a part of it. Relativity and quantum physics have both shown us that this is a mistake. Relativity reveals that mass, energy, space and time, i.e. all of the known primary measures of reality, are affected by the position and motion of the observer; and quantum physics experimental results show us that the observer is also a part of what is being observed, directly affecting the outcome of quantum mechanical experiments. The Calculus of Distinctions keeps consciousness in mathematics.

Anthropologists used to refer to human beings as “tool-making animals’, but this description has not been used much since non- homo-sapiens species have also been observed fashioning simple tools for certain specific purposes. We make tools to use to shape reality to our advantage, and some scientists, especially engineering scientists and technicians, think of mathematics as a tool invented by human beings to measure and describe reality. But pure math is not just a tool. In the post entitled “THE ILLUSION OF MATTER AND GRAVITY”, posted November 12, 2016, I made the argument that mathematics is not just a tool invented by human beings for solving quantifiable problems, pure mathematical thought is a true reflection of reality at its deepest level. The Calculus of Distinctions is a logical system conceptually prior to all other mathematical tools. Consciousness, as part of reality is an integral part of the CoD.
How does the CoD keep consciousness in the equations describing the nature of reality? By making sure it is included in the Calculus of Dimensional Distinctions (CoDD), a refinement of the CoD developed for application to quantum physics. Why has this not been done in conventional science? You only have to go back in history a little to understand why science has only recently even begun to consider the possibility of a ‘science of consciousness.’

Historical Perspective
After the Catholic Church had persecuted early scientists as heretics, e.g. burning Giordano Bruno at the stake in 1600, and trying Galileo for heresy and imprisoning him from 1633 until his death in 1642, the Church was embarrassed as scientific evidence proved that Bruno and Galileo were right. Eventually this led to a tacit agreement that the study of ‘nature’ was the jurisdiction of science and mathematics, and matters of spirit, including consciousness and the soul were to be left to the Church. After that, most scientists carefully avoided any hypothesis relating consciousness directly to the physical universe, even ignoring any evidence suggesting it. That taboo continues to this day. It is institutionalized in our colleges and universities.

Professional scientists have become the new priesthood. In their minds, they are the only legitimate guardians of truth. Anyone wanting to study subjects considered taboo or questionable by the scientific establishment, like the effects of prayer and meditation, or hypotheses concerning possible origins of humanity and the physical universe other than the theory of physical evolution from nothing to what we have now, and even the science of parapsychology, are considered misguided by most mainstream scientists.

What is the Way Forward?
We can get past the current scientific elitism and prejudice with logic and common sense. Consider the following line of thought: Suppose I draw a circle on a sheet of paper, representing a distinction, and then go on about my business. When I come back some time later, I find that the circle is still there, just like I left it. I conclude that this distinction continued to exist after I drew it, with or without my presence. If I make a ball of clay, or build a house, the same is true: they may continue to exist with or without me. And, of course, I also am aware of other apparently existential distinctions that I didn’t draw myself. There are things drawn or constructed by other conscious beings of course, and there are also other things, like mountains and seas, that are enduring ‘natural’ phenomena.

I want to raise two questions here that are not answerable in the current scientific paradigm, but that are positively answerable with the further development of the CoDD and its application to quantum physics:

(1) How could this awareness of the distinction of self from other ever arise in a reality composed entirely of matter, atoms and molecules, limited to mass and energy interacting in space and time? If we had to rely on the current scientific paradigm alone, this question would remain forever a mystery, - perhaps the greatest mystery of all.
(2) What is the origin of ‘natural’ phenomena? Could planets and galaxies exist as they do without the existence of some form of consciousness? In the current paradigm, this is not even a legitimate question. In the current paradigm, it cannot even be proposed as a scientific hypothesis because it cannot be tested, proved or disproved. Why? Because no universe can be observed and investigated without the existence of consciousness.

If you find it hard to believe that these two questions can actually be answered, consider the following:

The Proof is in the Pudding
Application of the Calculus of Dimensional Distinctions in the framework of the nine-dimensional Triadic Dimensional Vortical Paradigm (TDVP) has already yielded the following logically and/or mathematically reproducible results:

(1) Explanation of the intrinsic ½ spin of fermions (the elementary particles making up the ordinary atomic elements of the Periodic Table) as the result of rotation in nine dimensions
(2) Derivation of the exact value of the Cabibbo mixing angle, a puzzle of particle physics for more than 50 years, with nine-dimensional rotation
(3) Explanation of the exact masses of electrons, up-quarks and down-quarks derived from Large Hadron Collider data in terms of spin and angular momentum
(4) Derivation of the Triadic Rotational Unit of Equivalence, the truly primary quantum unit
(5) The discovery of the existence of gimmel, the third form of the content of reality in addition to mass and energy
(6) Explanation of the ‘weak sub-atomic force’ in terms of electron spin and symmetry
(7) Explanation of the ‘strong sub-atomic force’ in terms of proton and neutron symmetry and spin
(8) Derivation of the exact mass of the proton in the Hydrogen atom from particle symmetry and spin, explaining why it is so much greater than the sum of the masses of two up-quarks and one down-quark
(9) Derivation of the exact mass of the neutron in the deuterium atom (and all subsequent atomic elements) from particle symmetry and spin, explaining why it is so much greater than the sum of the masses of one up-quark and two down-quarks
(10) Explanation of why there is something rather than nothing
(11) The discovery that Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Sulfur, free Electrons, and Nitrogen (CHOSEN), elementary distinctions supporting organic life, contain the highest number of TRUE units of gimmel
(12) Discovery that the ratio of the mass and energy to gimmel in the natural elements is the same as the ratio of ordinary mass and energy to dark mass and dark energy in the universe as determined from the Hubble Space probe

Even more explanations and discoveries are emerging from our applications of the mathematical logic of the CoDD almost daily.

Now, if TDVP only explained one of these things, like the reason the Cabibbo angle has the exact size it has, skeptics would call it a coincidence. Even if we explained two or three of these things, skeptics steeped in academic materialism might still choose to ignore TDVP because it includes things that are taboo in the current paradigm. But explaining 10 things unexplained in the current paradigm, and discovering things unknown to mainstream science with reproducible mathematics and logic should be enough to persuade the reader that we might indeed be able to answer the two questions posed above, even though they are completely unanswerable in the current paradigm.

It might also be enough to get some attention from mainstream scientists, and perhaps against their better judgement, some consideration of the possibility that TDVP may actually be a legitimate paradigm shift rather than an unconscionable heresy denying the truth of the current materialistic reductionist paradigm. Perhaps a few may even begin to consider TDVP to be a valid major paradigm shift.

Saturday, November 19, 2016


© Edward R. Close, November 19, 2016

Such a simple thought, and yet so profound! I want to begin this post by reiterating the most important point of my last post:
Pure mathematical thought is a true reflection of reality at its deepest level.
In my opinion, mainstream science has gone astray; confusing conceptual mathematical tools with pure, mathematical logic that accurately reflects the nature of reality. By missing this distinction, scientists have gone down the wrong path by applying infinitesimal calculus to quantum reality, where it doesn’t apply, resulting in paradoxes and illogical conclusions. In past posts we have seen how rectifying this mistake allows us to discover new science and answer questions and explain puzzles that are inexplicable in the current mainstream paradigm.
Accept, if you will, that the statement in bold italics above is literally true; that pure mathematical logic is not an invention of the human mind, but something very real that is there to be discovered by any intelligent life form. While the symbols expressing it might be different for different forms of intelligent life, the truths they reflect will always be the same. There is only one reality - and we are capable of knowing it.

If the facts of pure mathematics accurately reflect reality, then exploring the logical structure of mathematics will yield valid information about objective reality. Of course, we must be very careful to continually check our findings against hard data, because consciousness (mind) has more degrees of freedom than the dimensional domains of space and time. For the past forty or fifty years, theoretical physicists have constructed a number of elaborate theories (e.g. string theories) that are internally consistent, but cannot be checked against objective reality.

The reason mainstream science has gone astray is easily understood when we take a look at the underlying assumptions of Newton’s calculus and compare them with the more basic logic of the calculus of distinctions (CoD), and ask what calculus is appropriate for application to the real world. The physical universe as we experience it through the physical senses is quantized, meaning that mass, energy, space and time only occur in whole-number multiples of quantum units. But Newtonian calculus assumes that physical measurements are infinitely divisible. This assumption works very well on the everyday scale of measurement but fails at the quantum scale.

The Calculus of Distinctions is a more primitive form of calculation that applies to the whole spectrum of reality. The Calculus of Dimensional Distinctions (CoDD) developed for the new, more comprehensive paradigm (TDVP) and the Calculus of Infinitesimals (Newtonian calculus) are actually sub-sets of the CoD. The basic units of measurement in the CoDD are quantum units, defined as measurements of the smallest possible measures of our quantized reality, based on real data. Thus, by definition, they cannot be divided into smaller units, making the CoDD applicable at the quantum scale. We know that mass and energy are quantized, but what about space and time?
In his note to the 15th Edition of Relativity, Einstein said: 

Physical objects are not in space, but … are spatially extended. In this way the concept of “empty space” loses its meaning.

In our exploration of the mathematical structure of the CoDD, we find that space and time also prove to be quantized, and consistent with Einstein’s statement, the concept of ‘empty’ space-time has no meaning.


Albert Einstein also said:

I am convinced that purely mathematical construction enables us to find those concepts and those law-like connections between them that provide the key to the understanding of natural phenomena.

Einstein liked to use thought experiments, and I’d like you, the reader, to participate in a slightly different kind of thought experiment here. Consider the nature of human awareness: there is no question that our awareness extends beyond the physical brain located in the bony cage of the human skull. I know this is true, because I am simultaneously aware of my body from the hairs of my head, to the tips of my toes and fingers, and I am also aware of my existence in the room in which I sit and type these words. Visualize with me the sphere in which you exist, and of which you are aware. It doesn’t matter whether you think of it stopping at the boundaries of your skin, or at the walls of the room you are in, at the edge of some limited sphere like this planet and its atmosphere, or even the much greater sphere of awareness, all of the visible universe. Pick a physical object within your sphere of awareness. In this instant, that object and every other object within your sphere of awareness can be exactly located using only three numbers.

Most people are familiar with Cartesian coordinates. Several other types of mathematical coordinate systems for locating points in a finite field of awareness have been developed: Polar, cylindrical, spherical, curvilinear, skewed coordinates … etc. Mathematicians have devised these different coordinate systems for application to specific kinds of problems. The Cartesian coordinate system, with three orthogonal dimensions, and six directions of motion: up, down, right, left, front and behind, is the easiest to work with, but in any of these coordinate systems, the location of each and every physical object of which we are directly aware through our physical senses, can be exactly located with just three numbers defining its position relative to any reference frame. The geometry of this three-dimensional spatial field is defined by the axiomatic geometry of Euclid.

There are other types of geometries that have been developed for specific purposes, but they are all defined in reference to Euclidean geometry. Euclidean geometry is the most natural geometry of our physical perception, so we will visualize our thought experiment in Euclidean space. For Euclidean space of more than three dimensions, I prefer the term Euclidean Dimensionometry.

Mass, Energy and Consciousness in our Sphere of Awareness
Planck showed us that energy is quantized; Einstein showed us the equivalence of energy and mass in the simple but profound equation E = mc2. Through the general theory of relativity, Einstein also saw that space and time exist only as extensions of the substance of reality; and application of the CoDD to the conscious drawing of distinctions has shown us that all real phenomena are aspects of one thing, which manifests as combinations of mass, energy and consciousness, and that any conceptualized reality without all three is meaningless.

It is logical that in such a unified reality, there should be a basic unit of measurement to which all measures of reality can be related by mathematical equivalence, and to which all measures can be normalized. We call that unit the Triadic Rotational Unit of Equivalence, or ‘TRUE unit’ for brevity in written discussion. The TRUE unit is defined by the mass and volumetric equivalence of the free electron spinning away from an ionized Hydrogen atom. The volume of the spinning electron shrinks in size and its angular velocity increases rapidly until, before it shrinks to zero, it reaches the relativistic limit of light speed. Its volume at that point is the minimum quantum volume possible. The mass and volume of this truly minimum quantum unit, which we call the TRUE unit, is then the basis of all CoDD measurements.

The Existence of ‘Extra’ Dimensions
Like most people, you probably think that you are aware of only three dimensions. This idea is often heard expressed in statements like: “If there are more than three dimensions, why can’t I see them?” This misconception arises from imprecise, and for our purposes, improper uses of the word ‘dimension’. In common usage, the word dimension can mean a variety of things. For example, you may hear: “The exact dimensions of the room are ten feet by twelve feet, six inches, with an eight-foot ceiling” (meaning measurements); or: “The many social dimensions of the problem must also be considered” (meaning aspects); or, “Maybe UFOs come from another dimension” (meaning somewhere unknown).

We do experience dimensions in our sphere of awareness, but we cannot ‘see’ dimensions; we see objects that have measurable extent in our field of vision. In our thought experiment, we shall adhere to a very precise definition of the word dimension: A dimension is measurable in the units of a variable of extent only.

All finite forms existing in our sphere of awareness are made up of distinctions of three types that are naturally drawn in the fabric of reality by human beings: (1) distinctions of extent, (2) distinctions of content, and (3) distinctions of conscious intent or impact.

(1) The three dimensions of spatial extent are measured in multiples of units of like feet, meters, miles, and kilometers. But we are also aware of a fourth dimension with measurable extent, a dimension of duration, or extent in time.

(2) Distinctions of content are measurable in multiples of units like mass, energy and thought. Unlike distinctions of extent, distinctions of content are not dimensional. They do not have direct relationships to the measurable dimensions of spatial extent, because spatial extent alone does not determine the content of an object. For example, a cannon ball has a very different content than a balloon of the same size, and while the contents of thoughts are reflections of physical impressions, including images, sounds and other sensations, they take up no physical space. Electrical and chemical reactions in the brain may trigger thoughts containing mental images, sounds and sensations, but they are not identical with our awareness of thoughts and mental sensations.

(3) Distinctions of conscious intent or impact reflect a higher level of complexity than distinctions of extent and content. How is this higher level of complexity reflected in the logical structure of the CoDD? Are there, in fact, more than four dimensions existing in our field of awareness?  When we analyze reality in terms of the DoDD, we find that the answer is yes. There are dimensions of consciousness, i.e. extent, and within those dimensions, there are distinctions of content as thoughts.

Dimensional Domains
As we recognize the existence of an increasing number of dimensions, it is helpful to think in terms of dimensional domains. One of the most important invariant relationships of dimensional domains is: Each n-dimensional domain is embedded in an (n+1)-dimensional domain. A one-dimensional domain (a line), for example, is embedded in a two-dimensional domain, a plane, and a plane can be seen to be embedded in the volume of a three-dimensional domain. With increasing numbers of dimensions, each dimensional domain in our sphere of awareness becomes increasingly more subtle and complex. The inclusion of time as a fourth dimension complicates a timeless three-dimensional domain by introducing changing forms, motion and relative velocities. The inclusion of additional dimensions of time and consciousness introduces potentials and qualities unimaginable in the simple 4-D domain of space-time.

Now I want to put what we’ve learned from this sphere-of-awareness thought experiment into historical context and connect it with some of the concepts we have discussed in previous posts:

The CoD represents mathematical logic that is conceptually prior to its division into separate disciplines like geometry, number theory and algebraic representation. The thread of this primary and fundamental mathematical logic runs through the teachings of Plato, Diophantus and Pythagoras, the methods of Gauss, Fermat and Cantor, and has surfaced again more recently in Lie and Grassmann algebras where number theory, algebra and geometry have been at least partly reintegrated for application to quantum physics. The logical structure of the CoDD and the Newtonian calculus are subsets of the logical structure of the CoD.

When we analyze the sphere of awareness in terms of distinctions, we see that as long as we are drawing distinctions on the macro scale of our physical perceptions, Newton’s Calculus of Infinitesimals works perfectly well, but when we consider that physical objects are actually made up of stable combinations of much, much smaller objects: electrons, protons and neutrons, and that neutrons are made of combinations of quantized up-quarks and down-quarks, we must use the Calculus of Dimensional Distinctions with finite minimal quantum units to measure and describe them. Then, because the structure of pure mathematics is a reflection of the structure of reality, we can look at the mathematical structure of the Calculus of Dimensional Distinctions to help us understand the nature of quantized reality in our sphere of awareness.

The Basis of the TRUE Quantum Unit is Real Data
Using Large Hadron Collider (LHC) data, we defined the most basic quantum unit of measurement as the minimal equivalent normalized mass and energy of the electron, and by applying relativistic principles to the electron stripped from the Hydrogen atom in the process of ionization, we determined its minimal quantum volume and thus defined the true minimal quantum unit of calculation for the CoDD, and called it the TRUE quantum unit. Applying TRUE unit analysis to the stable elementary particles that make up our physical universe, we found that up-quarks contain 4 TRUE units of mass, and down-quarks contain 9 TRUE units of mass. We also found that protons consist of a total of 24 TRUE units, and neutrons contain 38 TRUE units.

Dimensional Extrapolation and Fermat’s Last Theorem
We can project our dimensional-domain awareness from one dimensional domain to the next with the mathematical procedure of Dimensional Extrapolation using a specific form of the Conveyance Equation: (X1)m + (X2)m + (X3)m +…+ (Xn)m = (Xn+1) (See THE BASIS OF TRUE UNIT ANALYSIS posted October 15, 2016) that happens to be the Diophantine form of the Pythagorean Theorem: (X1)2 + (X2)2 = (X3)2.

When Fermat’s Last Theorem was applied to the Conveyance Equations describing the combinations of the TRUE units of the elementary particles, and their integer solutions were found, we discovered that a third form of reality, which we called ‘gimmel’, not measurable as mass or energy, but contributing directly to the total angular momentum of any spinning structure, had to exist for electrons, protons, neutrons, and atoms to continue to exist as stable objects. Previous discussions, including one posted October 28, 2016, “MORE REVELATIONS ABOUT THE NATURE OF REALITY”, provide derivations of the TRUE unit and gimmel in more detail.

How are the CoD and CoDD Related to Conventional Mathematics?
In conventional geometry, a mathematical singularity is a point with zero extent, i.e., zero dimensions; a line is a one-dimensional concept consisting of an infinite number of points, potentially stretching to infinity in opposite directions; a plane is a two-dimensional domain; and a three-dimensional domain is a space. Physical objects on the macro scale on this planet at least, have weight and occupy space.

In a quantized reality, comprised of combinations of quanta that contain integer multiples of the quantum unit, a reality where space and time do not exist in the absence of matter and energy, the point, defined in the Newtonian Calculus as a mathematical singularity, with zero dimensions, simply does not exist. In a quantized reality, the nearest thing to a point would be a single quantum unit, which would be a three-dimensional domain the size of a free electron, and, conceptually, the line might be replaced by a string of electrons placed in a row. But electrons all carry the same electrical charge, and repel each other. So no such thing exists in a quantized reality. Similarly, two-dimensional planes are conceptual, not objectively real, because they have no volumetric extent capable of containing mass and/or energy. So the first level of our sphere of awareness is a three-dimensional domain containing objects composed of integer combinations of quantum units. Non-substantial geometric figures of less than three dimensions, like segments of straight lines and planes, as well as regular polygons and even circles, are only approximated in the real world of quanta and quantum combinations.

What else have we learned from TRUE analysis?
By applying TRUE analysis to the atomic elements of the Periodic Table, we found that electrons existing within the structure of stable atoms have at least 106 TRUE units of gimmel. This also led to the discovery that the elements most supportive to organic life have a volume of (108)3 TRUE units with many more units of gimmel than elements less supportive or necessary for life. We also found, as reported earlier in these posts, that the application of TRUE analysis in a nine-dimensional spin model yields answers to a number of questions that have perplexed physicists for decades, like why quarks combine in triples, the Cabibbo mixing angle, and other puzzles.

How do we know there are more than four dimensions, and how many are there?
Awareness of a three-dimensional domain is only possible from the vantage point of awareness of a larger dimensional domain, i.e., a domain of four dimensions or more. A four-dimensional domain exists in our sphere of awareness because, thanks to memory and imagination, we are aware of the passage of time. This is true because, while we experience only one quantum of time, at a time, we remember previous events and anticipate a logical succession of those events, thus becoming aware of a linear progression of time. Clearly, the fourth dimension, as time line, is quite different than the first three dimensions, with subtle meanings in our sphere of awareness not possessed by the first three, and it seems to have only one direction. The dimensions of the 4-D event domain are related to each other and mass and energy mathematically by the transformation equations of relativity.

The Conveyance Equation also yields quantum combination equations which play a central part, as demonstrated in previous posts and publications, in the determination of the mathematical properties of the different dimensional domains. By repeated applications of the process of Dimensional Extrapolation, we see that the Dimensionometric structure of the CoDD consists of sequentially embedded domains totaling nine finite dimensions embedded in a transfinite domain, finally embedded in an infinite substrate. It is also worth noting that the various string theories, and brane theories developed in an attempt to accommodate both relativity and quantum mechanics, require several dimensions beyond the three of space and one of time.

We have shown previously that, mathematically, after each triad of embedded dimensions, the next triad must include a new type of number representing the rotational projection into the next dimensional domain. In a quantized reality, the first three dimensions are characterized by integers. The new numbers derived by Dimensional Extrapolation for the 4th through 6th dimensional domains turn out to be the so-called “imaginary” numbers written ‘Ai’, where ‘A’ is an integer and ‘i’ equals the square root of minus one. After three Ai dimensions, the new numbers derived for the 7th through 9th dimensional domains turn out to be ‘complex’ numbers of the form A + Bi. Finally, after three A + Bi dimensions, any additional domains, of ten dimensions or more, are ‘hyper-complex’ and transfinite, if they exist, because all of the roots of unity after m = 9 are complex numbers. So, our sphere of awareness is potentially one of nine finite dimensions descending through a transfinite domain from an all-embracing infinitely continuous substrate. As human beings, however, with the limitations of a specific physical form equipped with very limited physical senses, we are only directly aware of three spatial dimensions, one quantum moment in time and three dimensions of consciousness. But the mathematical logic of the CoDD, strongly suggests that the three Ai dimensions are dimensions of time.

Someone asked: "Are the three dimensions of time ‘past, present and future’?" No. The present is the quantum moment of one’s immediate experience, and that moment along with the past and future define the timeline of one’s individual experience.


What is the nature of the three dimensions of time? Two or more non-congruent timelines, like those of multiple conscious entities, suggest two-dimensional time, and the potential awareness of two or more timelines, suggests three-dimensional time (see the invariant relationship of embedded domains mentioned above under the heading “Dimensional Domains”).

How do I envision the three dimensions of consciousness?
I see the three dimensions of consciousness as analogous to the three dimensions of space, providing a framework for thoughts and images in what we call mind. The three dimensions of space and the three dimensions of consciousness are most likely causally linked to the three dimensions of time. Just like the concept of empty space is meaningless without mass and energy, the concept of time without events is also meaningless. Thus I see reality as a unified structure of space, time and consciousness that would be completely meaningless if any one of the three were absent. This implies that the structure of our sphere of awareness actually consists of seven dimensions, not just three and the structure of the CoDD implies that, in addition to space-time, there are at least two more dimensions, and a postulated transfinite realm that are potentially knowable. Further exploration of the logical mathematical structure of the CoDD may give us some additional clues about what the other domains will be like, if we can find ways to expand our awareness to directly include them.

Why do elementary particles, planets, solar systems, and galaxies rotate and spin? After years studying the mathematical structure of the CoD as reflective of the structure of reality, and applying the CoDD and TRUE analysis to the compound structures of physical reality, I have become increasingly convinced that the full answer to this question is to be found in the nature of the other two dimensions of time, the transfinite domain, and the infinite substrate of space, time and consciousness. But the best answer that I can offer now, is that it may be that our limited view of reality from the reference frame of space-time, where we have heretofore accepted the illusion that we have a uniquely stationary position as conscious observers at rest in an otherwise dynamic, ever-changing reality, most likely distorts our view of the ultimate nature of reality significantly. The illusion that we are stationary, even though we are actually whizzing around with dizzy angular velocities, spinning with the surface of this planet at up to 1000 mph, rotating around the sun still much faster, and wheeling at a yet even faster rate though the cosmos with our galaxy, puts us at the center of a nexus of opposing forces of expansion and contraction.

How are mass, energy and gimmel related to consciousness? So far, I have found no conclusion other than that mass, energy and gimmel must be finite manifestations of the logical structure of the infinite substrate, which I speculate may be the ever-existing essence of consciousness, the source of all things, without which nothing would exist.

It is also my opinion that we exist in a reality that has no absolute beginning or end, only the illusion of beginnings and endings, arising from the apparent ever-changing panorama available from our limited frame of reference. And, if we are ever able to see the whole scope of reality from infinity to infinity, then, for us, I believe the illusion of separation will disappear.

Finally, it is my hope that the reader who has followed me this far can see the potential within TDVP for the scientific expansion of human knowledge to include provable principles of paranormal phenomena, currently considered by mainstream science to be beyond the realm of real science. I have some ideas about this that I hope to discuss in future posts.

Saturday, November 12, 2016



©Edward R. Close Novemver 12, 2016

In the last post I discussed the true nature of mass, the measure which we mistakenly take to indicate the existence of what we perceive to be solid matter. We have seen that, as Max Planck said, there truly is no matter as such; matter is an illusion created by inertia, the resistance to motion. We have traced this resistance to the gyroscopic-like inertia of the spinning of something at the quantum and atomic levels of physical reality. But, just what is that something, and why is it spinning? Before I attempt to answer these important questions, I’d like to put this into the proper historical perspective: It is a basic principle of relativity that inertial and gravitational mass are actually one and the same thing. Einstein called this the “Equivalence Principal’. This principal, which was posited by the Austrian polymath Ernst Mach (1838 – 1916), inspired Einstein to think in broader relativistic terms, but exactly how inertial and gravitational mass are equivalent has never been fully explained, nor has it been explainable, – until now.

The limitations of our physical senses and extensions of them create the illusion of solid matter, but that illusion fades away as soon as we try to precisely locate the separate entities that we have conceptualized as atoms, protons, neutrons and quarks. As we try to isolate these ‘particles’, seeking to find the ultimate substance of reality, they simply slip through our fingers, and any other net we can devise, leaving us with ephemeral ‘massless’ bits of conceptual nothingness we conceptualize as gluons and bosons. But, by recognizing that there is a ‘bottom’ to quantum reality, and applying the Calculus of Dimensional Distinctions to quantized reality, defining the true quantum unit (TRUE), and solving the resulting Diophantine equations, we see beyond the illusion of solid matter and we find that reality actually depends entirely upon the existence of a third form of that spinning something that cannot be directly measured as mass nor energy, but that is equivalent to mass and energy at the quantum level. That something is what we have called gimmel. With the discovery of gimmel and the hyper-dimensionality of space, time and consciousness, we are now at long last in a position to explain what mass and gravity really are.

The Equivalence Principle says that resistance to motion, whether it is measured as the force it takes to blast the mass of a rocket from the surface of Planet Earth, or the force it takes to overcome the resistance to motion due to the spinning of the substance of reality at the quantum level, is really the same thing. How can this be? To see the truth behind this, we must reverse the reductionist approach of particle physics and abandon the illusion that reality is separated into ‘particles’ at the quantum level, and see the universe as an integrated multi-dimensional reality. This is hard for us to do because for all practical purposes, objects can be considered to be quite separate on the macro level, but, if objects at the quantum level are not separate, objects at the macro level are not really separate either. The shift to a multi-dimensional understanding of reality requires a deeper understanding of relativity and quantum physics, and in particular a deeper understanding of the Equivalence Principle.

We have to expand our conceptualization of reality to include consciousness, space, time, mass and energy as the real, measurable parameters of multi-dimensional distinctions of extent and content mathematically related by volumetric equivalence at the quantum level. This means extending the mathematical description of reality into dimensions beyond the three dimensions of space and one of time. Efforts in this direction were made by German physicists Theodore Kaluza and Wolfgang Pauli, Swedish physicist Oscar Klein, and others. Kaluza, who was encouraged by Einstein, expanded the general relativity model into five dimensions and was successful in unifying gravity and electromagnetism. Klein, who developed a 5-D model independently, had some success combining quantum theory with his five-D model. However, these efforts were eclipsed in mainstream physics by easier pathways to progress by developing relativity and quantum theory separately, and the 5-D effort, known as the Kaluza-Klein model is generally considered to be simply a forerunner of modern string theory.

Hyper-dimensional relativistic quantum theory never really got off the ground because of multiple conceptual errors arising from the inappropriate application of infinitesimal calculus to quantum reality and the resulting lack of development of an appropriate mathematical approach. In order to explain how we can avoid these conceptual errors and get back on the right track, I will have to speak in terms that may seem very abstract to the average reader. Fortunately, the concepts are simple, and it may actually be the well-educated scientist who will have a more of a problem here because he/she will have to unlearn some of the standard dogma of conventional mathematical physics taught in our colleges and universities today.

I don’t want to be misunderstood or misinterpreted. I want to assure you that I am not saying that all of the math and physics developed since the paradigm shifts of relativity and quantum mechanics in the first half of the last century are worthless or meaningless. Not at all. But, due to narrow professional specialization and academic departmentalization, the direct relationship between mathematics and physical reality has been misunderstood and almost completely lost.

Philosophically, most mainstream scientists align themselves with logical positivism, roughly defined as any system of thought that confines itself to the factual data of experience and excludes a priori or metaphysical speculation. This approach was articulated by the French philosopher Auguste Comte (1798–1857). The basic precepts of positivism are (1) that all factual knowledge is based on the “positive” data of experience and (2) that beyond the realm of facts is that of pure logic and pure mathematics. The position of Danish physicist Niels Bohr, sometimes called the father of quantum physics, exemplifies this position. He said:

“Physics is to be regarded not so much as the study of something a priori given, but rather as the development of methods of ordering and surveying human experience… There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature... In this respect our task must be to account for such experience in a manner independent of individual subjective judgement and therefore objective in the sense that it can be unambiguously communicated in ordinary human language.”

These quotes are found in “The Philosophy of Niels Bohr” by Aage Petersen, in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Vol. 19, No. 7 (September 1963), ”The Genius of Science: A Portrait Gallery” (2000) by Abraham Pais, p. 24, and in “Niels Bohr: Reflections on Subject and Object” (2001) by Paul. McEvoy, p. 291.

There is much to be said for the positivist point of view, especially in experimental physics. Of course, wild, undisciplined speculation should be avoided because, while there may be an infinite number of ways to be wrong, there is arguably only one way to be right. Strict adherence to this approach, however, would virtually eliminate theoretical physics and severely limit the advancement of science. Contrast Bohr, for example with Einstein, who said in his 1933 Herbert Spencer lecture:

“If, then, it is true that the axiomatic foundation of theoretical physics cannot be extracted from experience but must be freely invented, may we ever hope to find the right way? Furthermore, does this right way exist anywhere other than in our illusions? May we hope to be guided safely by experience at all, if there exist theories (such as classical mechanics) which to a large extent do justice to experience, without comprehending the matter in a deep way? To these questions, I answer with complete confidence, that, in my opinion, the right way exists, and that we are capable of finding it. Our experience hitherto justifies us in trusting that nature is the realization of the simplest that is mathematically conceivable. I am convinced that purely mathematical construction enables us to find those concepts and those law-like connections between them that provide the key to the understanding of natural phenomena. Useful mathematical concepts may well be suggested by experience, but in no way can they be derived from it. Experience naturally remains the sole criterion of the usefulness of a mathematical construction for physics. But the actual creative principle lies in mathematics. Thus, in a certain sense, I take it to be true that pure thought can grasp the real, as the ancients had dreamed.” (The emphases in bold are mine.)

I have reproduced this Einstein quote in its entirety here because I wanted to capture the deep sense of his thought process so that you can see that, in a very real way, TDVP is actually a continuation along the same line of enquiry pursued by Albert Einstein. In fact, I would state this view of reality even more strongly as follows: Mathematics is not just a tool invented by human beings for solving quantifiable problems. Pure mathematical thought is a true reflection of reality at its deepest level.

As for me, I reject the conclusions of mainstream physicists like Bohr and Feynman, who proclaim that “quantum physics is just weird. You can’t understand it, just accept that that’s the way it is and go on with the practical application of its principles to technology.” I agree with Einstein that the truth exists and we are capable of finding it.

In our first book together, “Reality Begins with Consciousness” available at, Dr. Neppe and I introduced the concept of Lower-Dimensional Feasibility, Absent Falsification (LFAF): the inclusion of concepts in scientific hypotheses that may not be falsifiable in the 3S-1t domain. Our physical senses are not only severely limited, detecting only very narrow ranges of energy, they do not reveal more than three spatial dimensions and one moment in time, even though the existence of additional dimensions is clearly required by both relativity and quantum physics.

Mainstream science has gone astray because it has taken the positivist approach too literally, confusing conceptual mathematical tools with pure, or existential mathematics. By missing this distinction, scientists have gone down the wrong path, continuing to apply infinitesimal calculus to quantum reality, where it doesn’t apply, resulting in paradoxes and illogical conclusions. Most scientists don’t even realize that ‘the calculus’ of Newton and Leibniz is only one of a number of possible calculi, and most mathematicians ignore the distinction between conceptual and existential mathematics. In my next post, I will clarify these distinctions and show you how the TDVP nine-dimensional model of space, time and consciousness explains mass and gravity.

Friday, October 28, 2016


©Edward R. Close October 28, 2016
OK; it’s time to get back to work. Today I am posting another explanation of sub-atomic phenomena not explained adequately, if at all, in the current materialistic reductionist scientific paradigm. The TDVP view of reality is based on the multi-dimensional application of the Calculus of Distinctions, Dimensional Extrapolation and TRUE quantum analysis. These mathematical methods may at first seem strange and complex, but Reality is ultimately simple and I believe the methods and revelations of TDVP can be understood by anyone who reads these posts. Detailed mathematical derivations have been published in technical papers, and the book “Reality Begins with Consciousness” by Vernon M. Neppe and this author, available at The basics of the derivation of the TRUE quantum unit is also included in the previous post entitled “THE BASIS OF TRUE QUANTUM ANALYSIS”. So I will make only brief references to the mathematical procedures of TDVP here and focus on brief, understandable descriptions. First, let’s put the TRUE quantum analysis into the proper perspective of particle physics:

Realizing that the choice of units is arbitrary, physicists often normalize measurement units to the speed of light constant, i.e. they set the speed of light equal to 1 to simplify calculations. How can we do that? Simply by redefining the basic units of space and time. Since inches, feet and miles or centimeters, meters and kilometers are arbitrary measures related to practical applications, there is no reason we cannot redefine these units in ways that are practical for quantum analyses. If we define one unit of distance, d, as the distance traveled by light in one unit of time, t, then c = d/t =1. Now instead of 670,616,629 miles per hour, or 299,792,458 meters per second, we have c = 1, a very much easier number to handle in calculations. With the new units, Einstein’s equation E = mc2 becomes E = m, simplifying the mathematical expression of the equivalence of mass and energy. These new quantum units, normalized to the speed of light, are called Natural units. The most popular system of Natural units in use is the system of units called Planck units, with four more universal constants normalized to unity in addition to the speed of light: the gravitational constant, the reduced Planck constant, the Coulomb constant, and the Boltzmann constant. 

Of course, these Natural units of space and time are very, very small compared to the units we are used to, but this is quite appropriate for calculating the relative measures of elementary quanta, which are also very, very small relative to the units of measurement we are used to dealing with. You can calculate the actual size of these new units in fractions of feet or meters if you want to, but I will leave that as an exercise for the reader rather than clutter this post up with such calculations. Normalized units not only simplify calculations, they are more consistent with the fact that we live in a quantized physical reality.

In TDVP, we take a slightly different approach: We start by normalizing all of the basic units of measurement. The basic unit of TDVP analyses, the Triadic Rotational Unit of Equivalence (TRUE) is defined by normalizing the mass, energy and volume of the electron to unity, i.e. as in any system of Natural units, setting them equal to one. This provides us with a normalized unit for all of the known basic physical parameters, mass, energy, space and time, and by doing this, we make it possible to describe all physical phenomena in terms of integer (whole-number) multiples of one basic quantum unit. As we have seen in previously published papers and posts, integer solutions of the combinatorial Diophantine equations, describing the combinations of electrons, quarks, protons and neutrons making up physical reality, reveal many here-to-fore ‘hidden secrets’ of reality: like why three quarks combine to form the stable protons and neutrons of the atoms of the Periodic Table of Elements, why reality must consist of integer multiples of quanta of mass, energy and a third form that we’ve called gimmel, and why elementary particles (fermions) have an intrinsic angular momentum spin of ½. And, importantly, these integer solutions also reveal a significant amount of new science.

Everyone knows that the Hydrogen atom, the most abundant element in the universe, is made of an electron whirling around a proton. And most, who are interested in such things, know that the proton is made up of two up-quarks and one down-quark, and that particle physicists have determined the masses of the up-quark, the down-quark and the proton to great accuracy from years of experimental data obtained in the Large Hadron particle Collider (the LHC for short). Furthermore, you may know that, strangely, the mass of the proton is much greater than the masses of the three quarks added together. So the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. OK, we know that many things in the real world are like that. But physicists and mathematicians like to have things add up. If not from the quarks, where does the extra mass come from?

Some very learned and distinguished physicists concluded that the proton must have other things in it, and they received Nobel prizes in physics for developing quantum chromodynamics (QCD) a theory that, among other things, proposes that a bunch of massless particles called gluons and a flock of "virtual" quark-antiquark pairs must be swarming around undetected within the proton, somehow giving it all that extra mass. Eventually, they concluded that the three quarks are bound together by the "strong nuclear force," a force somehow transmitted by those massless particles. Quarks, antiquarks, and gluons have been accepted by mainstream science as the underlying elementary objects in the structure of protons. Distinguished American Physicist Murray Gell-Mann was awarded a Nobel Prize in physics in 1969 for his contributions and discoveries concerning the classification of the numerous elementary particles and their interactions. With QCD widely accepted, Wikipedia tells us that:

“The remainder of the proton mass is due to the kinetic energy of the quarks and to the energy of the gluon fields that bind the quarks together.

With all due respect to Professor Gell-Mann, and his colleagues who received, - and should have received - wide recognition for their bold efforts to make sense of this, I find their answer less than satisfactory. What, pray tell, is a massless particle? And exactly how do massless particles impart mass to other particles and bind them together? Can a particle really impart something it itself doesn’t have? Could there be a simpler, more understandable explanation? Yes there is. Based on particle spin, TDVP, with application of the Calculus of Distinctions to the Hydrogen atom, determines the exact mass of the proton, and it is numerically identical with experimental data. And you can do the math yourself.

Briefly, the masses of the up-quark, down quark and the proton in Mev/c2, the mass-energy equivalence unit, directly from LHC data are:

Up-quarks range from 1. 87 to 2. 15 Mev/c2, averaging 2.01 Mev/c2.
Down-quark: 4. 63 to 4. 95 Mev/c2, averaging 4.79 Mev/c2.
Proton: 736 to 1140 Mev/c2, averaging = 938 Mev/c2.

So, the mass of two up-quarks plus one down-quark equals about 8.81 Mev/c2, which is less than 1% of 938 Mev/c2, the mass of the proton. Why? The QCD answer is “zillions of gluons”.

We don’t have to buy that answer. Here’s another answer, the TDVP answer: Due to Planck’s discovery, proved by experimental data many times over, we know that mass and energy only occur in integer multiples of some finite quantum amount, never in fractions of that amount. Thus, if the mass of an object is measured in true quantum units, the number of units representing its mass will be a whole number. So Mev/c2 is obviously not a truly quantum unit. The choice of any unit of measurement, like the pound or the gram, as pointed out above, is arbitrary. But once a basic unit is established as a standard, objects can be consistently described in terms of that standard.

If we take the mass of the least massive particle in the Hydrogen atom, the electron, very accurately determined from LHC data to be 0.51099894610 Mev/c2, as the quantum unit, and convert the masses of the quarks to multiples of that unit, we will have their masses in units relative to the electron. Note: Again, you can do this math yourself. Just divide the mass of the up-quark, down-quark and the proton in MeV/c2 by the mass of the electron in MeV/c2 and round each result off to the nearest whole number.

When we do this, from LHC data, we have:

The mass of the electron = 1 true quantum unit

The mass of the up-quark = 4 TRUE units

The mass of the down-quark = 9 TRUE units.

And the mass of the proton from LHC data = 1836 TRUE units.

Note: Even though the mass of the electron in MeV/c2 has been determined to eleven decimal places, there is no need to use more than three significant figures because that’s all we have for the quarks. Also, rounding up or down to the nearest whole numbers is certainly justified because the reality of the quantization of mass and energy, proved by Max Planck, and, if the electron is the smallest possible mass, quantum and relativistic principles require that the values must actually be whole number multiples of the mass of the electron. The reason dividing particle masses by the mass of the electron does not always produce exact whole numbers is because of sampling error and statistical estimating errors inherent in the LHC experimental data. This is not a criticism of the LHC technology or the Bose-Einstein statistical method, but a true statement for all experimental data. There is always sampling and estimating error.

So the mass of the proton, if made up of 2 up-quarks and one down quark should be 4 + 4 + 9 = 17 TRUE units. But its mass in TRUE units is 1836. Now, using TDVP, let’s see if we can find out why.

Max Planck said:
"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear-headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as the result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such!”
If there is no matter as such, then what are we measuring when we measure mass?

The answer is: we’re measuring inertia, or resistance to motion. What causes resistance to motion? The combined gyroscopic effect of millions of spinning particles, which I’ll explain in more detail below. But for now, in this brief overview, let’s just look at the results. The inertial resistance of a simple spinning object is directly proportional to the diameter of the spinning object squared. The diameters of the first three 9-D objects as detected in 3S-1t are 1, 2 and 3. Their squares are 12 = 1, 22 = 4, and 32 = 9 TRUE units. Notice that these squares are analogous to cross-sectional areas, but the TRUE units are multi-dimensional, and 3-D in physical observations. Then the masses of the first three smallest elementary particles should be 1, 4 and 9 TRUE units respectively. As we saw above, that’s exactly what they are for the electron, up quark and down quark as derived from LHC data.

Finally, calculating the mass of an elementary particle within a complex spinning particle, like a proton within a Hydrogen atom, as opposed to the simple spinning particles 1, 2 and 3, discussed above is more complicated. We’ll take the proton next, because it is the next in the elementary particles in mass after the electron, up-quark and down-quark. The proton, within the Hydrogen atom, has 17 TRUE units of mass, merged with the mass of the Hydrogen atom, and it shares the diameter of 108 TRUE units with the Hydrogen atom. How these measures are determined is explained in more detail below. The mass (inertial resistance to motion) of the proton within the Hydrogen atom is equal to the diameter of the atom times the TRUE units of mass of the up and down quarks of the proton. Think of this as the ‘area’ of the part of the cross-section of the atom due to the proton, similar to the way the diameter squared is analogous to an area in the simpler particles. So the mass of the proton within the Hydrogen atom is 17 times 108 = 1836 TRUE units, the exact same mass derived from the LHC data!

This is a key validation of the of the application of the Calculus of Distinctions to physical reality, and consequently, along with our explanations of other phenomena like the intrinsic ½ spin of fermions, the triadic necessity of quark combinations and the Cabibbo angle, a key validation of TDVP theory. For those who want to see it, more detail is presented below.

The first key to understanding the Calculus of Distinctions application of TRUE analysis to atomic structure is understanding exactly what the Triadic Rotational Unit of Equivalence (or TRUE quantum unit) actually is. Do not confuse units of measurement with the particles they are designed to measure. I realized that this was a problem for some people when a reader of my posts said “You define TRUE units in terms of electrons, so that means that everything is made of electrons, and the TRUE unit is a sub-quantum particle within up and down quarks, right?” No, and absolutely not! An analogy that may help is this: Suppose we define a pound as the weight of specific chunk of metal, and then we find that a certain sack of potatoes weighs 10 pounds. Does this mean that the potatoes are actually 10 chunks of metal? Obviously not. The Triadic Rotational Unit of Equivalence is a unit of measurement, not a particle. While it is defined by the physical (relativistic and quantum) features of the electron, it is not ‘an electron’; and the fact that the up quark has 4 times the mass of an electron and a down quark has 9 times the mass of an electron does not mean that they are actually composed of electrons.

The second key to understanding TRUE analysis is a bit more subtle: It is understanding what is meant by an equivalence unit. The example of mass-energy equivalence already existing in physics, and mentioned above, is based on the electron volt (written eV), which is the quantum of energy produced by moving the charged mass of one electron across an electrical potential of one volt. The unit used for measuring the mass and energy of elementary particles is the equivalence unit MeV/c2 (million electron volts divided by the speed of light squared). With normalized mass, energy volume units, the mass-energy equivalence of the electron is 1, the MeV/c2 equivalence unit is 1, and we are set to apply the Calculus of Distinctions to particle physics with the TRUE unit as the basic, smallest possible real distinction.

The third key to understanding TRUE analysis revolves around the word ‘real’ as used in the last sentence above. I’ve mentioned in these posts before that the Calculus of Distinctions is logically prior to the Calculus of Newton and Leibniz, and that we have to replace Newtonian Calculus in TDVP with a Calculus of Finite Dimensional Distinctions to avoid the error of applying ‘infinitesimals’ to quantum phenomena. And at a deeper level, for the valid application of any mathematical analysis to physical phenomena, existence is also a very important consideration.

Mathematical representations may reflect existential or conceptual objects. For example, the electron, whose mass and volume are taken as minimum units for CoD analysis, is real, and valid mathematical representations of it reflect the existential reality of the electron, while points, lines and planes, which are legitimate mathematical entities, do not reflect real objects, and as mathematical representations, they are only conceptual. They do not exist in a quantized universe. In a quantized universe, the point is approximated by the volume of a single TRUE unit, a line is a row of true units and a plane is a one-unit-thick layer of TRUE units. In Laws of Form, G. Spencer Brown makes the point that in the mathematical logic of determining whether something is true or false, reality and existence are not prerequisite. So rigorous mathematical logic applies whether the objects being analyzed are real or merely conceptual. In the real, quantized physical world, however, real distinctions smaller than the relativistic minimum volume of the electron do not exist; because if they did, energy and mass would not be quantized. But Max Planck discovered that they are, and the reality of the quantization of physical phenomena has been validated many times since Planck’s time, and much of modern electronic technology is based upon Planck’s discovery.

In applying mathematical methods to the analysis of reality, scientists often forget or ignore the distinction between existential and conceptual. This can lead to erroneous conclusions. This has obviously happened when physicists speak of dimensionless objects and massless particles. In this post, by looking at the real source of the angular momentum and mass of elementary particles we will see that there is an exact correspondence between the masses of sub-atomic particles derived from normalizing the experimental data from the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) and the masses derived from application of TRUE analysis. This exact correspondence of theoretical prediction with experimental data is strong evidence of the validity of TDVP.

You may remember that I have published several posts, and that we (Neppe and Close) have published several papers with discussions of the origin of mass related to the rotational spin of elementary particles in the elements of the Periodic Table. I will repeat some of the basic concepts briefly here, with a minimum of mathematics.

Max Planck said “There is no matter, as such.”
TRUE analysis shows us that Planck was right. I intend to explain why he was right in this post. We usually think of matter and mass in terms of weight: a ten-pound object obviously has more mass than a one-pound object. But weight does not tell us what mass is. Weight is just a relative indicator of mass. For instance, if I weigh 185 pounds on the surface of the Earth, I will weigh only about 31 pounds on the Moon, about 70 pounds on Mars, 437 pounds on Jupiter, - and I will be essentially weightless in outer space. But my body does not lose mass. The mass of my body, assuming no untoward accidents, is still the same, whether in space, or on the surface of the Earth. So what is mass?

You can go to YouTube and watch my video “What is Mass?” posted May 24, 2015: In this video, I describe a demonstration that Professor Abernathy, a physics instructor at Central Methodist, where I earned my Bachelor’s degree, used to teach undergraduate physics students about the gyroscopic effect. To summarize, basically, mass is actually inertia, which is the resistance to motion caused by the gyroscope-like spin of elementary particles. Anyone interested in the mathematics supporting this idea can find the details in “Reality Begins with Consciousness” and other references like those mentioned above, so, rather than going through the detailed math again here, I will focus on describing the underlying concepts in terms that I think anyone can understand.

In TDVP, the building blocks of the elementary particles that make up the bulk of the physical universe are described in terms of Triadic Rotational Units of Equivalence (TRUE). The numbers of these quantum units comprising each of the elementary particles making up ordinary matter (see the Table One below), are based on the normalization of massive amounts of data collected from the many experiments of the “atom smashers” or particle colliders, including the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). Normalizing the average mass of the electron and the up and down quarks to the nearest integer value, as shown in Table One, is justified on the grounds that the actual values must be integer multiples of the most basic unit of quantized mass expressed in equivalent units of energy, as discovered by Max Planck.

Table Two presents the number of quantum units (multiples of TRUE) of mass, energy equivalence and gimmel that are necessary in electrons, protons and neutrons for hydrogen, Helium and the other natural elements of the Periodic Table to exist as stable atomic structures. And Table Three shows the stable structure of the Hydrogen atom.

The information in these three tables have been published before, but they are reproduced again here for convenient reference in this discussion of the nature and origin of mass.

Table One
The LHC Data for Subatomic Particles Comprising the Physical Universe
(Raw LHC Data in MeV/c2)
(Normalized to electron mass)
0. 511
Up quark
1. 87 – 2. 15
Down Quark
4. 63 – 4. 95
736 - 1140
 *Notice that the mass of the proton is more than 100 times the combined masses of two up quarks and one down quark. Why is this? In the current reductionist theory, most of the mass of the proton is thought to come from an unknown number of gluons existing within the proton. The mass of the proton in the Hydrogen atom is assumed to be the total mass-energy equivalence of the system of quarks and gluons making up the particle, even though the gluons are themselves massless. The energy of the gluons is believed to somehow be converted to mass, so that the effect of massless particles is measured as part of the total mass of the system of quarks and gluons making up the proton.

A real spinning object possessing TRUE unitary mass, and occupying TRUE unitary volume is, by definition, an electron, and when its mass is converted to energy, the result is a photon. Einstein explained the equivalence between electrons and photons in terms of the constant speed of light, its frequency and Planck’s constant in a paper for which he received the Nobel Prize.

Table Two
The Building Blocks of the Elements in TRUE Units
Total TRUE Units
2-D Volume
- 3
1, 191, 016
+ 3
13, 824
54, 872
The exact number of TRUE units of gimmel associated with the electron, 106, is uniquely determined from TRUE unit analysis of the Hydrogen atom and the other atoms of the Periodic Table.

Table Three
TRUE-Unit Analysis for the Hydrogen Atom
Total TRUE
- 3
1, 191, 016
+ 3
13, 824
54, 872
1,259,712 = 1083

In current particle physics calculations, some sub-atomic particles, like the electron, are treated as if they were dimension-less points. This is not actually possible in a quantized reality, but it is not an unreasonable assumption for dealing with particles that are, in size, so far below our ability to observe and measure directly. In TDVP, however, mass, energy, space and time, consistent with Planck’s discovery of quantization, are considered to be quantized. Therefore, in reality, there are no dimensionless particles.

Toward the end of his life, Albert Einstein made statements indicating that, with the validation of the general theory of relativity, ‘empty’ space has no meaning, and thus space is not something that exists on its own; it is simply the extension of matter and energy. See the Note to the Fifteenth Edition of “Relativity the special and general theory, a clear explanation that anyone can understand” by Albert Einstein. Time, a dimension of extent, just like the dimensions of space, also has no meaning without events involving mass and energy. With these ideas in mind, we see that the conventional conceptualization of the Hydrogen atom as three quarks held together as a proton by a mysterious strong force, and an electron held in orbit around the proton by a weaker force, is not really tenable.

The unspoken assumption of this reductionist model of the Hydrogen atom is the idea that the whole is no more than the sum of the parts, and that mass is a measure of a material substance. This leads to the incorrect expectation that when the atom is blown apart in a high-energy collision engineered in the LHC, the parts, identified by their differing masses, as indicated by their paths through the artificially imposed electromagnetic field in the collider, are identical with the sum of the masses of the quarks that they are composed of. This is simply incorrect. As noted above, when the total mass of the proton is determined, it is found to be more than 100 times the mass of two up quarks and one down quark. In the case of the proton, the whole is clearly much greater than the sum of the parts, and particle physicists assume that it must be explained by the existence of undetectable massless physical particles that somehow impart mass to the proton. In a quantized world, massless and dimensionless particles simply do not exist. They are just convenient fictions adopted to make the reductionist model appear to work. Such fictional concepts are inconsistent with the multi-dimensional quantized reality described by the Calculus of Dimensional Distinctions in TDVP.

Using the mass of the electron provided by particle collider data as the basis for defining the Triadic Rotational Unit of Equivalence (TRUE), the truly minimum quantum unit, as the basic distinction of the Calculus of Dimensional Distinctions, we have a new picture of the Hydrogen atom. That new picture, revealing the gimmel-stabilized structure of the Hydrogen atom is summarized in Table Three. Notice that the symmetrically stable structure of the Hydrogen atom in the 3-D domain of physical observation is exactly 108 linear units cubed.

We can determine the relative masses of the electron, up-quark and down-quark in combination in the Hydrogen atom from this picture as follows: If mass is actually the measure of inertial resistance to motion due to multi-dimensional gyroscopic spin, then the mass of a spinning object is equal to the number of TRUE units in the cross sectional 3-D area of the spinning object, multiplied by the unit mass. The Hydrogen atom, with a TRUE volume of (108)3has a cross-section of 108 TRUE units. (Hint: think of the (108)3 as a cube made up of (108)3 = 1,259,712 cubic TRUE units. Then any cross-section orthogonal to any side of the cube consists of 108 TRUE quantum units.)

It is very important to keep in mind that the measurable TRUE quantum unit always occupies the equivalent of a convexly symmetric 9-D unitary volume, whether it is measurable as mass or energy, or detectable as gimmel in the quantized 3-D domain of physical observations. In order to follow this discussion, think of the unitary TRUE distinctions as cubes. I’m not necessarily saying that they are cubes, it is just that cubes are the easiest symmetric shapes to visualize. So think of this as a thought experiment involving visualizing these spinning distinctions as cubes.

As pointed out above, the three smallest distinctions possible as existential entities in multiples of 3-D TRUE units are 1, 2 and 3. But because the TRUE unit is three dimensional, 2 units cannot combine to form a symmetrical object, due to the restriction of Fermat’s Last Theorem. the cross-sections of the first three distinctions are 12 = 1, 22 = 4, and 32 = 9 TRUE units. If the mass of a spinning object is equal to the cross-section of the space occupied by the spinning object, then the masses of the first three smallest elementary particles, the electron, the up quark and the down quark, should be 1, 4 and 9 respectively. And looking at Table One, we see that the masses of the electron, up-quark and down quark, derived from the normalized LHC data, are 1, 4 and 9 TRUE mass units, exactly the masses predicted! This seems to suggest a reliable pattern, a way of calculating the mass of any spinning object.

The Hydrogen atom is the result of the multi-dimensional merging of an electron and a proton, and the proton is composed of two up quarks, and one down quark plus the additional units of gimmel necessary to form a stable symmetrical object spinning in three orthogonal dimensions. Looking at Table Three, we see that the volume of the Hydrogen atom is represented by 108 TRUE units cubed, and as already noted, the cross-section of the atom is thus 108 3-D TRUE units. But the structure of the Hydrogen atom is complicated by the fact that the electron and the proton have opposite electrical charge, created by opposite spin, which is cancelled out when the electron and proton combine. And the electron, with less mass: 1 TRUE unit to the 17 mass units of the proton, has less angular momentum and is thus drawn into a 3-D orbital relationship with the proton.

The total inertial mass of the Hydrogen atom, as a spinning object, is equal to its 3-D cross-section in TRUE units. So the effective mass of the atom without a neutron, is the mass of the proton which is equal to 17 times the 108 True unit cross section of the atom. This means that the mass of the proton in combination with the electron in the multi-dimensional spinning hydrogen atom should be 17x108 = 1836 TRUE units of mass. As mentioned above, this is in stark contrast with the mass of the proton as the combination of two up quarks and one down quark, which is only 17 TRUE units. Returning to Table One, we see that the statistical average of the collider data, in normalized electron TRUE units, to the nearest whole unit, is actually 1836! Thus, the mass of the proton in the Hydrogen atom, predicted by TDVP as the result of spin inertia, is the same as obtained from experimental data, validating the TDVP paradigm shift.

The detailed mathematical derivation of this, involving the Calculus of Distinctions and the Conveyance Equation is fairly straight forward. Incidentally, it is interesting to note that when space and time are recognized as simply extensions of the mass-energy equivalence of spinning objects as Einstein suggested, we can also explain the inverse square law of gravity. The decrease of the strength of gravitational attraction between two objects in multi-dimensional space is proportional to the product of their inertial masses divided by the square of the distance between them. This is an important subject for further discussion, but for now, let’s focus on the importance of this determination of the mass of the proton in combination with an electron in the Hydrogen atom.

In my opinion, this determination is the most important validation of TDVP yet, because one might argue that our derivation of the numerical value of the Cabibbo angle using a 9-D spin model was a numerical coincidence, and that the mathematical proof that the most stable quark combinations are triadic is just a proof of something already known. You might argue that my explanation of the intrinsic ½ spin of fermions in terms of multi-dimensional spin, dispelling the ‘weirdness’ of quantum theory is debatable, and you might argue that we ‘invented’ gimmel to make our theory work. But I think it is very hard to deny the fact that this explanation of the huge disparity between the mass of the proton and the combined masses of its constituent quarks using the TDVP multi-dimensional spin model is much more satisfying and convincing than the assumption that there are unknown numbers of massless and dimensionless particles, which is the case in current mainstream physical theory.

As mentioned in several posts, the inappropriate use of Newtonian calculus at the quantum level, where no measure can approach zero infinitesimally closely, causes physicists to have to accept strange, self-contradictory entities like massless and dimensionless particles. Application of the calculus of Dimensional Distinctions to physical phenomena with the TRUE quantum unit as the basic dimensional distinction, eliminates such nonsensical conceptual conclusions, and what Niels Bohr called “astonishing” and Richard Feynman called “quantum weirdness”.

Using TRUE, the truly minimum quantum unit as the basis of calculation, we have explained why there is something rather than nothing by demonstrating mathematically that there could be no stable atomic structure without the existence of a third form of the essential substance of reality, which we’ve called gimmel, in addition to mass and energy. You may take issue with our interpretation of gimmel as a primary form of - or an extension of - consciousness, but we challenge you to find an alternative. By accepting gimmel as an agent of consciousness, mathematically conveying order and meaning into the physical universe, we gain access to a whole new holistic way of looking at reality. It opens the door to a new science capable of investigating mental, psychic and spiritual phenomena, real experiences currently off limits to mainstream science.

We see this as the beginning of new science, revitalized with conscious energy and unified with the ageless truth of spirituality. Stay tuned for more. ERC 10-28-16