Thursday, March 22, 2018



Time is important to every one of us. Whatever your goal or mission is, even if it is just to find happiness in this lifetime, time is of the utmost importance. My goal, my mission, if you will, in this lifetime, is to do everything I can to bring science, which is humanity’s effort to know Reality, out of the stifling dark ages of materialism. I am very thankful for those who resonate and align with me in this effort. But, increasingly, I do not have time for those who just want to discuss, deny and obstruct. The following message is directed to anyone reading my posts on this site or the several books by myself, with and by others of like mind, including Drs. Vernon Neppe, Charles Tart, Gary Schwartz, Dean Radin, Imants Baruss, Marjorie Woolacott, Julia Mossbridge, Mario Beauregard, Lisa Miller, Diane Powell, Menas Kafatos, Rupert Shelldrake, Stephan Schwartz, and others. It is especially intended for those who are upset or angered by what I write and want to defend materialism and/or atheism as viable belief systems. Skepticism is encouraged, close-minded materialism is not.

Dear skeptic, I want to be completely honest with you, and hope that you will reciprocate. I have spent a lot of time over the past 60 plus years, since earning my first degree in physics and math, debating with colleagues who have strong backgrounds in physics and other science disciplines. Some such discussions have been very productive, some have been a great waste of time. I am currently in my 82nd year on this planet in this lifetime, so time is increasingly important to me. Consequently, I have no desire to spend my time trying to convince someone who will never be convinced.

Having had discussions with literally hundreds of colleagues, some continuing for several years, I have learned that there is a basic difference between those with whom I have had productive discussions and those with whom it was a waste of time. The difference is one of basic metaphysical belief. It is a waste of my time to argue with anyone who has an adamant materialistic belief system and is unwilling, or unable to think outside of that box. I know from direct experience that there is much more to reality than matter and energy interacting in space and time, and any real “theory of everything” must contain consciousness and spiritual reality as real components, in addition to mass, energy, space and time.

If it is the case that your belief system does not allow you to consider anything beyond the limiting box of materialism, then I suspect that no matter how many peer-reviewed papers I direct you to, or how many people with PhD degrees in math and physics have endorsed some or all of our work, you will not be convinced. Please be honest with me. If this is your position, it is better that we just agree to disagree and get on with our lives. Or, if you are genuinely interested in the work that Dr. Neppe, the one-dozen plus scientists of the Academy for the Advancement of Postmaterialist Sciences and I are engaged in, then we can proceed.

Sincerely, Edward R. Close, PhD, PE, DISPE, Distinguished Fellow ECAO.

Wednesday, March 21, 2018


©Edward R. Close 2018 

First, I want to say on the behalf of Dr. Vernon Neppe and myself, that we are very appreciative of the increasing interest in our work. We have been working together on these innovative comprehensive scientific concepts for about ten years now, and separately for many years each before that. We are very excited that much of what we have been working for all these years is finally coming into fruition. At the request of several who are interested in this work, we are endeavoring to develop a series of at least four technical papers laying out the proof of the existence of a non-physical aspect of reality. The approach is laid out in this post.

A concise proof of the existence of gimmel, a non-physical component of the substance of reality, includes four necessary steps:

1.     The development of a system of natural quantum units similar to Planck units. These quantum units are like Planck units in principle, and in particular, in that space and time units are normalized by setting c, the speed of light, equal to unity. But, instead of normalizing the other four physical constants, as Planck units do, mass-energy equivalence units are normalized to the mass of the electron. This is justified because the electron has the smallest and most well-defined mass of the three elementary particles that make up the hadronic mass of the universe. These quantum equivalence units are developed using the Lorentz-Bohr-Dirac relativistic model of the hydrogen atom.

2.     The Derivation of precise representations of up- and down-quarks in quantum equivalence units from Large Hadron Collider data. Planck’s quantization of energy and Einstein’s definition of mass-energy equivalence were used in 2011 to develop the quantum equivalence unit, which I later called the Triadic Rotational Unit of Equivalence (TRUE).

3.     The development of the Calculus of Dimensional Distinctions (CoDD), using the TRUE as the basic unit of measurement. This calculus is similar to the calculus of indications developed by British logician George Spencer Brown in his book “Laws of Form”, but differs from, and goes beyond Brown’s calculus in several important ways. The CoDD is rendered applicable to physical analysis by defining the electron-based TRUE as its multi-dimensional basic unit. This application yields several advantages over the use of conventional mathematics including the calculus of Newton and Leibniz. It is a very powerful tool for analyzing quantum phenomena because the CoDD equations describing the combination of quarks to form protons and neutrons are Diophantine equations with integer solutions, and the analysis of physical phenomena starts with three-dimensional objects, which is where conventional mathematics becomes difficult and often even intractable. 

4.     The TRUE Analysis of the combination of up- and down-quarks to form protons and neutrons using the CoDD leads to the discovery of the necessity of a third form of sub-atomic reality: gimmel. This step is based on the principle that rotating objects, especially objects spinning at near light-speed angular velocities, must be symmetrical to be stable. With the Pythagorean Theorem and Fermat’s Last Theorem, two important number theory theorems that apply to quantized phenomena because the combination equations for elementary particles are Diophantine, we prove that the stability found in protons and neutrons is only attainable physically and mathematically if there is a third form of reality that is not detectable as mass or energy. The existence of this multi-dimensional third form affects the total angular momentum of compound rotating objects, like protons, neutrons and galaxies.

The presence of gimmel in fermions, and consequently in every hadronic particle, explains a number of experimental observations of phenomena not explainable otherwise, including the intrinsic spin of fermions, why quarks combine in threes, the exact physical characteristics of protons and neutrons, including mass and volume, how neutrons are formed, the exact value of the Cabibbo quark mixing angle, what Dark matter and dark energy are, why the elements of the Periodic Table that support conscious life are the most abundant elements in the universe, and much more.

It is obvious to us that the discovery of gimmel opens the door to a more comprehensive analysis of the reality we experience than ever before in the history of modern science. We appreciate the interest and comments of anyone interested in this work.

Monday, March 19, 2018


©Edward R. Close 2018 

I’m borrowing the subtitle above from Albert Einstein’s Book “Relativity, The Special and General Theory” because that’s what I am going to try to do: provide a clear explanation that anyone can understand. A clear explanation of what? Why, of gimmel, of course. In my opinion, the discovery of the existence of gimmel, the third form of reality that is neither mass nor energy, is the most important scientific discovery since Max Planck discovered quantum physics, Albert Einstein discovered relativity and Theodore Kaluza discovered that a five-dimensional model of reality works better than the Einstein-Minkowski 4-D spacetime model.

What I want to do is explain gimmel in clear terms, using analogies with familiar things as much as I can, things with which I hope most readers will be familiar. I believe that the concepts are simple enough that, indeed, anyone can understand them. But first, a few words about language. [I hope the reader will not be put off and might in fact enjoy my natural tendency to explore relevant side issues, of which this side-bar is one, because I think such relevant side-issues will enhance the narrative which some readers might otherwise find tedious.]

There are hundreds of languages in the world, many of which are related to each other in interestingly complex ways, but most people are fluent in only one or a few of them. English, like most modern languages, is a mixture of several of them. The basic grammatical structures and most of the basic words, like mother, father, house, home, etc., in English are Teutonic (Germanic), but many words of common English usage are borrowed from other languages. This makes English non-phonetic (many words are not pronounced the way they are spelled). That makes it confusing, for a non-native speaker, and it also make English much weaker grammatically. Because of its mixed origin, English is capable of conveying subtle nuances, and that can be a good thing, but it can also lead to misunderstandings. Somewhat purer languages like German and French, are much more precise. It may surprise some readers to learn that some of the world’s most ancient languages are more precise and more sophisticated than English or any other modern-day language. Examples include Sanskrit, Hebrew and Chinese.

This brings to mind an amusing experience I’d like to share. [A relevant side-bar.] While working and living in the Middle-East a few years ago, I was invited to a wedding feast. Several of the attendees were American or European, but many were natives of the area. While waiting for one of the courses to be served, the chit-chat turned to languages. An Englishman asked a young Saudi accountant seated next to me, how many languages he spoke. The young man said:

 “I speak three languages.”

“Oh, very good!” The English gentleman said. “What are they?”

“I speak Arabic, French and Italian.” The young man replied.

“But, what about English?” the Englishman raised his eyebrows, “You forgot about English!”

“Oh, that’s not a language!” The young man’s replay was unexpected.

I tried not to laugh at the shocked look on the Englishman’s face. But, of course, the young man was right. English is not a pure language. It’s a mixture of Germanic languages, missing much of the grammar, and is laced with horribly mis-pronounced words borrowed from other languages.

Back to the task at hand: Mathematics is (are?) also language(s). [Here’s a good example of mixed language: To the British, the word mathematics is plural (that’s why it has an ‘s’ at the end) and it is treated as such. They talk about the different “maths” such as algebra, trigonometry, calculus, etc., while in American English, we treat it as a singular noun:

 Mathematics, like English, is a symbolic language, where the symbols convey logical units.

Mathematical expressions form an actual written language, a language designed to express basic logical concepts like quantification, enumeration, equivalence, and transformational operational processes (addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, roots, differentiation, integration, etc.). When I was teaching high-school algebra, I liked to make the point that math is a language and an equation is a sentence in that language. When you diagram a sentence, the subject and its modifiers form the left-hand side of the equation, the verb is the equals sign, and the object and its modifiers form the right-hand side of the equation. This helped some students, who had learned to diagram sentences to identify the parts of speech, to set up and solve word problems using algebra.

The challenge of communication for mathematicians and physicists is that of trying to translate complex mathematical and physical concepts into a language with which the reader is familiar. Some theoretical concepts must be communicated by analogy because the exact mechanism or process being discussed may not be something with which the reader is familiar.

I agree with Richard Feynman when he said: “If we can’t explain it so that a first-year student can understand it, then we don’t really understand it ourselves!” So, my purpose here is two-fold: First, I hope to explain gimmel in a way that anyone can understand, and second, by doing so, demonstrate that I really do understand it myself. Before I get into explaining gimmel, it may be helpful to explore the origin of the attitude of quantum weirdness held by most physicists.

I think Erwin SchrÓ§dinger may have been the one who coined the term quantum weirdness, because, even though he is cited as one of the most important pioneers in the field, he certainly didn’t like the way quantum theory evolved. In fact, he said: “I don’t like it, and I’m sorry I ever had anything to do with it.” Source:
Most, if not all of the founders of modern quantum theory, including Niels Bohr, were physicists who were unable to explain why things like quantum uncertainty, quantum entanglement and quantum jumps should exist, and modern mainstream physicists have adopted the “quantum weirdness” mantra and like Richard Feynman, tell their students: “Don’t try to understand it, just accept the fact that it’s weird and do the calculations, because it works!”

I shouldn’t have to point out that this is not a scientific attitude. Likewise, the idea that there is one set of rules for macro-scale phenomena (big stuff) and a different set of rules for quantum-scale phenomena (little-bitty, unbelievably teeny-weenie stuff), is scientifically unacceptable, because the rules, as currently formulated, are incompatible. Reality is not incompatible with itself. That which happens on the macro-scale depends on what is going on at the quantum scale. John von Neumann showed this elegantly in his book “Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics”. But, there shouldn’t ever be any question about this point; it’s just common sense: If everything is composed of quanta of mass and energy, then everything is quantum phenomena, period.

This brings us to the discovery of gimmel. You may well ask: “How in the world was it ever possible to discover something which is neither matter nor energy?” We can measure the mass of an object in terms of its weight or inertia (its resistance to any attempt to move it), and its energy in terms of the force it exerts upon impact upon another object, and in regard to elementary particles, which are what we will be talking about here pretty soon, the only things measured in “atom smashers” like the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) for example, are mass and energy or the compound effects of mass and energy through statistical analyses. If something exists that is neither matter nor energy, then how is it detected? Gimmel shows up in something physicists call angular momentum. I can explain what angular momentum is most easily with a mathematical equation, but in keeping with my desire to explain everything so that anyone can understand it, I will use analogy.

Imagine you are on a children’s playground, standing on a merry-go-round, near its center, and it is spinning very fast at a constant rate. Also imagine that there is a large tree growing near the merry-go-round and some of its branches over-hang the merry-go-round so that the smallest ends of several limbs are hanging down to the level of your face. When you are standing near the center and the end of a branch brushes your face, you’ll hardly notice it; you’ll probably just wave it aside with your hand. Now imagine that you move slowly toward the outer edge of the merry-go-round, and you encounter the end of a branch of the same size near the edge. It will sting your face like a whip.

The difference between the gentle brush and the whip-like lashing, is the difference in the angular momentum. Your mass, indicated by your weight, hasn’t changed in any measurable way, you weigh the same whether you are standing at the center of the merry-go-round, or on the edge. The mass of the two limbs is the same, and the mass and the motion of the merry-go-round haven’t changed. The difference is a result of increased angular momentum.

Next, I must talk about mathematics a little bit, in particular about “the calculus”; but, again, I’ll stay away from mathematical symbols and operations that comprise the language of mathematics in which the average person is not fluent as much as I can, and talk about the underlying concepts. I was fortunate to have an excellent calculus teacher in the prime of his tenure. His name was Dr. Floyd Helton. He made sure I understood the basic concepts, not just how to plug in numbers and get answers.

When the first grades were posted for Dr. Helton’s class, I saw that I had received a B+. I had been told by upperclassmen that Dr. Helton had only awarded two A grades in sophomore calculus in over 10 years of teaching, but because I had the highest test-score average in the class by several points, I had expected an A. Math was an easy subject for me and I was accustomed to earning A’s. When I went to his office to ask about the grade, before I could complain, he said: “You did very well, Ed. If you apply yourself, you might be able to raise your grade to an A – during the next quarter-semester!” He went on to tell me that, if I were a math major (I was a physics major at the time) he would be concerned about my unorthodox methods of solving problems. (I often found quicker, easier ways to solve some of the problems he gave us, and by doing so, by-passed some of the problem-solving techniques he wanted his students to learn.

In those days, most math and physics departments in US colleges and universities had two or three levels of basic math and physics courses in their curricula: Introductory level classes for students not majoring in math or physics, a second, more stringent level for students bound for medical school, called “pre-med” math or physics, and a third, more rigorous level of classes for students majoring in the math and/or physics department. At the time, many students saw this as elite-ism, and I tended to agree, but after witnessing the gradual dumbing-down of American institutes of higher learning over the past 50 years, I realize that the process of multiple career tracks is not elite-ism, but a way to insure that when a student is awarded a degree in math or physics, he or she actually has some in-depth knowledge of the subject. Having been responsible for hiring professionals for many years, I know that, increasingly, this is too often not the case.

Enough of my soap-box lecturing on what I see as a serious problem in modern education. Back to the concepts behind the mathematics used by mainstream scientists: There are two points I want to stress, because they will be important in getting you to the point where you can understand gimmel. First, the calculus of Newton and Leibniz, generally known as “the calculus” (TC), is only one of several possible calculi, -we will talk about others. Second, the successful application of TC depends upon the concepts of variables, functions, continuity and limits. A variable is the measurable feature of an object, like length, weight, energy, etc. A function is the mathematical description of an object which depends on the values of variables. Continuity means that the measurement of something (like mass, energy, space, and time) can be divided indefinitely, and a limit is a specific mathematical value a function approaches as one or more of the variables are diminished repeatedly, approaching but never reaching zero.

At the macro-scale, i.e., the everyday size of the things we can see and feel, everything seems to be continuous, that is, infinitely divisible. But, at the quantum scale, below the sensitivity of our physical senses, this is not true. So, while TC works on the macro-scale, it fails at the quantum scale because the requirements of continuity of variables are not met. The application of TC at the quantum level leads to incorrect results and much of the quantum “weirdness” proclaimed by physicists. Because the physical universe is quantized, we need to recognize this fact and develop quantum mathematics accordingly.

The obviously inappropriate application of TC to quantum phenomena has been over-looked by mainstream science for more than 100 years. The reason it has been over-looked is easy to understand: In a quantized world, no variable can approach zero infinitely closely, as it must do for TC to apply. It must always be a multiple of one quantum. The smallest it can be possibly be, and still be an object, is one quantum. Max Planck discovered that every object in the physical universe is made up of quanta of mass and energy. Imagine a physical object as a stack of blocks. If you remove one block at a time, the stack becomes smaller and smaller, all the way down to one block. If you remove that final block, you no longer have an object. Planck discovered that there are no fractional quanta. Mass and energy always occur in multiples of whole quantum units. Thus, variables measuring physical objects cannot approach zero infinitely closely, as it must do for TC to apply.

Newton’s calculus (TC) has served us wonderfully well for more than 300 years because the quanta that make up reality are so small that they are far below our ability to observe, weigh and measure directly. For the problems of classical and relativistic physics, and practical engineering problems dealing with macro-scale objects like houses, bridges and rockets, the assumption of the continuity of variables and the application of TC yields results that are correct within the margin of measurement error. In terms of our macro-units of measurement like inches, centimeters, pounds and grams, etc., a quantum of mass or energy can be considered to be an infinitesimal, that is, a virtually dimensionless point. That’s why TC works for macro-scale objects, but it does not work for quantum objects. Until Planck discovered that we exist in a quantized reality, and John von Neumann proved that all objects are quantum objects in his mathematically elegant book “Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics”, we had no way of knowing that our math would not work for subatomic phenomena like quarks.

The way to rectify this problem is clear: a quantum mathematics with a quantum calculus is needed. I will proceed to discuss conceptually how this was done with the foundational mathematics of the Triadic Dimensional Vortical Paradigm (TDVP) model of reality developed by Dr. Vernon Neppe and this author over the past ten years.


Quantum Units
Max Planck understood the need for quantum units and attempted to provide them. He reasoned that the known universal constants normalized to 1 should provide a set of basic quantum units. The term “normalization of units” may sound mysterious and complicated to some readers, but it is really quite simple. We are so used to thinking in terms of units like inches, feet, miles, and pounds, etc., or centimeters, meters, kilometers, grams, etc., that we forget that the length, distance, weight, etc. they describe were chosen quite arbitrarily. Inches, feet and pounds, e.g., were based on certain physical characteristics of an English king. It makes no difference how we define a unit of measurement, as long as we agree on a standard definition of the unit.
Planck’s units, sometimes called natural units or normalized units, are physical units of measurement defined by normalizing the 5 known universal physical constants c, G, h, Ke, and KB to one. The universal constants normalized to 1 to define Planck units are:

The speed of light in a vacuum, c,
The gravitational constant, G,
The reduced Planck constant, ħ,
The Coulomb constant, Ke,
The Bolyzmann constant, Ke,

Setting these constants equal to one provides a quantized basis for calculation, but, there are two problems with this normalized system of measurement: First, they don’t result in whole-number descriptions of physical objects, and two, Planck did not identify the problem with using TC in quantum calculations.

In 1989, I realized that the first problem with Planck units could be resolved by normalizing the units of measurement of the four primary variables of physics: mass, energy, space and time, instead of normalizing universal constants, and the second problem was then eliminated by defining a quantum equivalence unit for the primary variables as the basis of a quantum calculus. That quantum equivalence unit is the Triadic Rotational Unit of Equivalence (TRUE), and the quantum calculus is the calculus that uses the TRUE as the basic unit of measurement and calculation. In 1990. I published my second book, “Infinite Continuity” in which I presented these concepts and applied them to some physics and cosmology paradoxes and problems.

After publishing these concepts in 1990, and again in my third book “Transcendental Physics in 2000, I filled in the details, defining the quantum equivalence unit (TRUE) by starting with a very accurately defined quantity, the minimum mass of particle physics data, the mass of the electron, which I normalized to 1 and then determined the normalized masses of the up and down quark as multiples of that natural unit. I chose to develop the quantum calculus by focusing on electrons and quarks, because the normal matter of the physical universe is made up almost entirely of combinations of electrons, up-quarks and down-quarks, and I reasoned that any other objects that exist in the universe would arise naturally as results of application of the laws of physics to various combinations of these particles.

Adding to what Planck discovered, Einstein taught us that mass, energy and space-time are very precisely related mathematically. That relationship is expressed by the equation E = mc2. It is not necessary for the reader to understand the math and physics behind this equation. The point I want to make here is that there is a well-defined equivalence of mass and energy related to space-time. With this knowledge, I used relativity to define a volumetric space-time equivalence unit, the Triadic Rotational Unit of Equivalence (TRUE). I call it this because the elementary particles that make up reality are rotating, or spinning, very rapidly, and the unit used to describe them Includes the equivalence of mass and energy by normalization. Taking this unit as the basic distinction of calculation, I proceeded to develop the Calculus of Dimensional Distinctions (CoDD). Why do I call it this? Because it is a calculus dealing with dimensional distinctions (TRUE) as the basic quantum units of quantized reality.

In plain English, this simplifies the measurement and description of reality tremendously by using a calculus with a natural quantum unit as its basic unit of measurement. It simplifies everything because all descriptions of reality in this calculus are multiples of whole numbers of quantum equivalence units. This is why I am so bold as to think that I can explain TDVP in terms that anyone can understand!

In the CoDD, the equations that describe the combinations of electrons and quarks, namely protons, neutrons and all the atoms of the Periodic Table, are whole-number equations, equations called Diophantine equations, after the Greek mathematician Diophantus, who studied them. Diophantine equations are simply equations that have whole-number solutions and no fractional variables or constants.

My intention in writing this article was, and still is, to explain gimmel in a way that anyone can understand, and I intend to do that by avoiding the use of mathematical equations and complex calculations. But I think most readers will forgive me for referring to E = mc2 because the equation is so well known. I’m hoping readers will also accept another overt display of abstract mathematical symbolism in the same vein. Like the E = mc2, it is a brief abstract expression that has far-reaching implications.

It is the general summation expression: 
This expression, with X, Z, n, and m defined as positive integers (whole numbers) is the expression in conventional mathematical symbols that represents the CoDD combination of all possible distinctions made of multiples of the TRUE unitary distinction. In other words, with the right choice of positive whole-number values for the variables X, Z, n, and m, this expression can represent any combination of elementary particles, including electrons, quarks, protons, neutrons and atoms. I call it the Conveyance Expression because it conveys the logic of combination from quantum equivalence units to observable and measurable objects in the everyday world of our common experience.

This expression is a bridge in many ways: It is a bridge from the finite to the infinite, because, with the variables ranging from one to positive infinity, it represents an infinite number of equations. It is a bridge between dimensions because m represents the number of dimensions in the domain of each specific equation. For example, the integer solutions when n = 2 and m = 2, are the triples of the Pythagorean Theorem, and the lack of integer solutions when n = 2 and m ≥ 3, represents Fermat’s Last Theorem. It also provides a bridge between integers and complex numbers by determining the roots of the quantum equivalence unit that act as location indicators in n-dimensional domains, where n can be any positive integer, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ….

OK, enough about the mathematical, concepts. How does this help get us to gimmel? It reveals that for protons and neutrons to be as stable as they are, there is something occupying volumes of specific numbers of quantum equivalence units in up- and down-quarks, that are neither mass nor energy. Dr. Neppe and I have chosen to call this something gimmel because there is no word for it in the current scientific or mathematical lexicons. Describing the combinations of up-quarks and down-quarks as distinctions that combine to form stable protons and neutrons also explains why they are made up of three quarks each: 2 up-quarks and 1 down-quark for protons, and 1 up-quark and 2-down quarks for neutrons. They cannot combine in twos to form symmetric objects.

I think it will help to talk about the stability of spinning objects here. Exactly why the elementary entities that make up physical reality are spinning, is another very interesting question, but it would take a lot more discussion to explain, so I’ll skip that for now, and simply state that we know that they are spinning at high rates of angular velocity. In the process of defining the quantum equivalence unit, e.g., it was necessary to calculate the angular velocity of the electron after it is stripped from a hydrogen atom in the process called ionization, and we found that the free electron spins at, or very near light speed.

Protons are very stable. They may, in fact, be the most stable compound entities in the universe. Estimates of their half-life exceed the age of the big-bang universe. This means that, because they are spinning, they must be perfectly symmetrical. As an analogy, think of a lump of clay on a potter’s wheel. As the angular velocity of the potter’s wheel increases, if the lump isn’t quickly guided into a symmetrical shape, it will fly apart. The same thing is true for the proton. The conveyance equation describing the combination of two up-quarks and one down-quark to form a stable proton, shows us that, in order for the proton, composed of quarks which are comprised of normalized quantum equivalence units, to be symmetrical, there has to be something that is neither mass nor energy occupying some of the volume of the up- and down-quarks. The details of the math proving this have been published in several journal articles and in the book “Reality Begins with Consciousness” published in 2011. See

Returning to the merry-go-round analogy: The mass of the quarks in a proton will have a different effect on the total angular momentum of a proton and the mass of a proton than they have on their own, because of where the mass is in relation to the center of rotation of the proton. When we determine this, it explains why the mass of the proton is much greater than the mass on two up-quarks and one down-quark. The same type of analysis also yields the explanation of the mass of the neutron.

It is important to understand why this something called gimmel cannot be mass or energy: If it were, the object detected could not be identified in LHC data as an up-quark or down-quark; it would have the wrong mass-energy equivalence. Gimmel cannot be detected as mass or energy and only shows up in its contribution to the total angular momentum of particles like electrons, protons, neutrons, and atoms. Having no mass or energy, gimmel has to be classified as non-physical, because it does not fit the definition of a physical object. A physical object, by definition, is composed of matter and energy and occupies space.

In addition to explaining why quarks combine in threes and explaining away “quantum weirdness”, the existence of non-physical gimmel explains many things not explained by the current mainstream paradigm, including why particles spin, why fermions like protons and neutrons have an intrinsic spin of 1/2, the Cabibbo angle, what dark matter and dark energy really are, and much more.

The question for further discussion is: If gimmel is not matter or energy, what is it?

Friday, March 16, 2018


Professor Stephen W. Hawking (8 January 1942 – 14 March 2018)

One of the most successful mainstream theoretical physicists who has ever lived just passed away. There are numerous tributes to him to be found on the internet. He has been hailed as the new Einstein and as one of the great thinkers of our time. I never met Professor Hawking in person, but I knew him through his work and though a brief correspondence with him in 1989. I sent him a manuscript of my second book, “Infinite Continuity” prior to publishing it in 1990. In it, I proposed that, mathematically, reality must consist of at least 9 dimensions, with three dimensions of time, and that there could not have been an absolute beginning from a mathematical singularity as he and Sir Roger Penrose posited. I suggested that their conclusion that there was a big-bang beginning of everything, was in error because it ignored the facts of multi-dimensional quantum reality. Professor Hawking responded that he didn’t see the need for extra dimensions, and that he could not imagine three-dimensional time. A few years later, he changed his mind about both extra dimensions and absolute beginnings.

The fact we didn’t agree about everything is not surprising. It is extremely rare that any two scientists agree about everything; but possibly our biggest disagreement, related to thinking about science and the nature of reality, was his stance as an atheist. With respect, scientists who declare that there is no God do a great disservice to science and humanity, because if a man on the street hears that the “smartest man on the planet” says there is no God, he may decide that he can do whatever he wants, however illegal or immoral, if he can avoid being caught in the act, because there is no final accounting for his actions. The drift into atheism, aided and abetted by many professors of academia, is one of the avoidable imprudent factors that leads to senseless acts of inhumanity and violence and the breakdown of civilization.

The statement “There is no God” is not a statement of science, it is a statement of belief based on ignorance. Note that I am not using the word ignorance in a pejorative sense here. There is nothing hopeless, or even unusual, about ignorance, it is rampant in the world; most of us are ignorant of a whole list of things, but our ignorance of things does not mean that they don’t exist. There is a remedy for ignorance, it’s called education. Sadly, what passes for education today is not really education. The word education is derived from the word “educe”, which means to draw out. The pumping in of miscellaneous data into the heads of students is not education unless it draws out the desire for the direct experience of truth. All too often, it is simply indoctrination into a point of view.

A scientist who declares there is no God is analogous to a theologian declaring there is no Higgs boson: he has no basis for such a statement. The theologian has never seen any evidence that such a thing as a boson exists, nor does he have any reason to even suspect that it might exist. Having a particle physicist tell him it does exist is like having a Holy man tell a particle physicist that God exists. But the reality of this dichotomy goes even deeper: The non-experience of an individual does not prove non-existence, whereas the positive experience of something does prove its existence.

For the conjecture that there is no God to be a scientific hypothesis, it would have to be open to proof or disproof, and no one has proved there is no God, not even the most famous atheist in the world today, Richard Dawkins. Lack of evidence of something is not proof of the non-existence of that something, especially if the belief-system of the observer admits no basis for the existence of that something in the first place. Disproof of the atheistic hypothesis, i.e., proof of the existence of God, on the other hand, is possible, but not within a materialistic paradigm. Proof of the mathematical and physical necessity of the existence of the third form of reality that cannot be matter nor energy, leads to proof, as does the direct experience of advanced spiritual people of all times.

Concerning Stephen Hawking’s atheistic position, let’s look at some of actual statements he made over the years:

Hawking’s first best-selling book, “A Brief History of Time”, published in 1988, discussed black holes, the big bang and his belief that science would have a “theory of everything” by the year 2000; and that with that theory, our understanding of the universe would be a glimpse of “the mind of God.” Obviously, his prediction was wrong. Physicists did not have a theory of everything in 2000, and they still don’t. The reason is quite simple: You can’t have a theory of everything if the theory doesn’t include everything, and matter and energy interacting in time and space doesn’t include everything experienced by conscious beings. When Professor Hawking was asked about his statement about “the mind of God” several years later, he said:

 What I meant by ‘we would know the mind of God’ is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God, which there isn’t.”

Talking to Reuters News Service In 2007, Hawking, described himself as “not religious in the normal sense” He said: “I believe the universe is governed by the laws of science. The laws may have been decreed by God, but God does not intervene to break the laws.”

On another occasion, he said:
"I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark”,
When asked if he though it possible that there could be an afterlife, he said: “I believe the simplest explanation is, there is no God. No one created the universe, and no one directs our fate. This leads me to a profound realization that there probably is no heaven and no afterlife either. We have this one life to appreciate the grand design of the universe and for that, I am extremely grateful.”

Talking about his 2010 book, “The Grand Design”, co-authored with Leonard Mlodinow, another mainstream physicist, Stephen Hawking said that he believed that there is a "grand design" to the universe, but that “it has nothing to do with God”. With continual breakthroughs, science is coming closer to "The Theory of Everything," and when it does, “all of us will be able to understand and benefit from this grand design”.

In 2014 during an interview with Pablo Jauregui, a journalist from El Mundo, Hawking said:
“Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation. What I meant by ‘we would know the mind of God’ is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God, which there isn’t. I’m an atheist.”
Because Stephen Hawking was generally considered one of the smartest people on Earth, and because he was a world famous theoretical physicist and cosmologist who received many honors for his work in the field of cosmology, quantum physics, black holes, and the nature of spacetime, when he said that God didn't exist and added the sentence, "I am an atheist,” to his statement, it got world-wide attention.
In Hawking’s view of the universe’s origin, he and co-author Leonard Mlodinow wrote in the 2010 book, “The Grand Design,” that the big bang was inevitable. “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing,” the book states. “Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to …set the universe going.”

The idea that something can come from nothing is about as unscientific as you can get! There is no evidence for this. No one has ever seen something spontaneously appear from nothing. If you think that the virtual particles of quantum physics provides an example of this, you are wrong; because what we thought of as “empty space”, is filled with energy. Virtual particles do not arise from nothing, they arise from an infinite field of energy, sometimes called the zero-point field. There is no scientific evidence that absolute emptiness, i.e., nothing actually exists, ever existed, or can ever exist. What about before the big bang? No, there is no proof of “nothingness” there either. Materialist scientists who refuse to consider the possibility of the existence of something real that is neither matter nor energy (a very unscientific position) are forced to accept paradoxical things like mass-less and energy-less particles, infinite mass in a mathematical singularity, and something from nothing!

Einstein had something to say about this in the later years of his life. In a final appendix to his book “Relativity the Special and General Theory, A Clear Explanation That Anyone Can Understand” he debunked the idea that there is any such thing as “empty space” He said that objects do not exist in space, but rather that mass and energy are “extended” in the form of fields. The exact quotes are available in some of my earlier posts.

In discussing the book, Professor Hawking told ABC News: “One can’t prove that God doesn’t exist. But science makes God unnecessary. … The laws of physics can explain the universe without the need for a creator.”

While Professor Hawking was a brilliant physicist, in my opinion, he was never in the same league with Albert Einstein because Einstein was a paradigm shifter and a deeply spiritual man. Stephen Hawking, a competent mathematician and a brilliant theoretical physicist, was not a paradigm changer nor a spiritual man. As far as I can see from his published papers and books, he worked completely within the current materialistic paradigm. My intent here, however, is not to criticize Professor Hawking's work, but to celebrate his remarkable strength of mind and enormous success despite suffering from a debilitating and ultimately fatal disease. Here is a list of his remarkable accomplishments:

Working with English mathematical physicist Roger Penrose, Stephan Hawking did ground-breaking work helping to prove the probable existence of gravitational singularities and theorized that the universe might have begun as such a singularity. The Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems attempt to answer the question of under what circumstances gravitational singularities may arise.

A gravitational singularity is a theoretical dimensionless point which contains an infinite amount of mass. In a singularity, gravity becomes infinite, space-time collapses on itself and “the laws of physics as we know them cease to exist”. With James Bardeen and Brandon Carter, Stephen Hawking proposed four laws that govern the mechanics of black holes. These laws are physical properties that black holes are believed to satisfy and are analogous to the well-known laws of thermodynamics. In January 1971, his essay titled “Black Holes” won the prestigious Gravity Research Foundation Award.

His most significant theory is that black holes emit radiation
Previously physicists believed nothing could escape a black hole. In 1974, Stephan Hawking showed that black holes emit radiation, which may continue till they exhaust their energy and evaporate. Stephen’s prediction of what became known as the Hawking radiation initially created a controversy but on further research was considered an important breakthrough in theoretical physics.

He contributed to the theory of cosmic inflation
Introduced by Alan Guth in 1980, cosmic inflation is a theory in physical cosmology which proposes that, following the Big Bang, the universe expanded exponentially before settling down to slower expansion. It is now widely accepted. Stephen Hawking was one of the first to calculate quantum fluctuations that were created during cosmic inflation and to show how they might give rise to the spread of galaxies in the universe. I have discussed the rapid expansion theory in my writings and conclude that it is mathematically necessary in an expanding universe.

Professor Hawking helped propose an important theoretical model of the universe’s initial state
Along with James Hartle, he published a model known as the Hartle–Hawking state in 1983. It proposed that time didn’t exist before the Big Bang and hence the concept of the beginning of the universe is meaningless. The Hartle–Hawking state universe has no beginning as it has no initial boundaries in time or space. It remains one of the most prominent theories on the initial state of the universe, and is one I agree with in principle.
With Thomas Hertog, he proposed a theory of “top-down cosmology”
In 2006, Stephen Hawking, along with Thomas Hertog of CERN, proposed a theory of “top-down cosmology”. It proposed that the universe had not one unique initial state but consisted of a superposition of many possible initial conditions. Thus, as we don’t know the initial conditions at the beginning of the universe, we can’t have a bottom-up model. This leaves the possibility of only a top-down approach as we know the final state of the universe – the one we are in now. The theory became popular because it fits in with the well-known string theory, including multiple extra dimensions.

Stephen Hawking’s accomplishments are significant and should be celebrated, especially because of the odds he overcame to achieve them. His contributions to physical science are truly remarkable. But his knowledge of spiritual reality was woefully limited during this life, possibly due to programming by those he admired and looked up to early in life. Unfortunately, when those who achieve fame in any given field make statements about subjects of which they have no direct experience or knowledge, and consequently about which they know very little, make declarative negative statements about those subjects, they do a great disservice to us all. We see this all too often with celebrities of all kinds, singers, actors and politicians, as well as scientists. Just because one is successful in one area of endeavor, it does not mean that one is an authority in all things. And a person with a high IQ is just as capable of being wrong about something he has little knowledge of, as any of us.

Finally, because of the conservation of mass, energy and consciousness (see my posts on Gimmel) I posit that Stephen Hawking’s consciousness still exists. However, because a strong belief in the limitation of reality to the material world of matter and energy, many souls who exit the physical body when it stops functioning and goes into entropic decay, are still in disbelief. This results in a temporary state of suspension, a sort of dream-like state that can last for a few days or many years, depending on the depth of the soul’s mistaken conviction and attachment to the physical body. My prayer for you, Dr. Hawking, is that you wake soon!

Tuesday, March 13, 2018



(For Part 1 – 5, Scroll down or type CONVERSATION WITH AN ATHEIST in the Search Box.)

©Edward R. Close 2018 

When we met at Starbuck’s this time, my friend seemed like a different person. He came in with a smiling face, not the frowning scowl I was used to. I knew that something had changed.

“Hello Ed! How are you doing today?” His greeting was friendly, almost cheerful.

I’m great. You’re sounding happy. What’s new?

“I’ve come today just to enjoy a cup of coffee with you. - And to thank you!”

For what?

“Well, thanks to your persistence, and sometimes aggravating confidence in your math and logic, I have, for the first time, a reason to think there might be something more than matter and energy interacting in spacetime!”

Really? Are you saying you’ve become a believer?

“Oh, no. Not that … I’m still a scientist, still skeptical, an agnostic. But, I will no longer make fun of people who go to church, mosque, synagogue, temple, or whatever.  Maybe they, or at least some of them, really do know something that I don’t. I’m no longer the arrogant SOB I was!”

I never called you that!

“No, I probably would have walked out to never come back if you had. No, you were patient, and I have to thank you for that. You didn’t try to save my soul, get me to pray to Jesus, Krishna, or recognize some ancient prophet, you just talked about mathematics, geometry, physics, symmetry, and logic. The proof of the necessary existence of gimmel, neither matter nor energy, is what made sense to me. It opened a door that I never even believed existed. It opened my eyes to the possibility that there may be something more … “

I closed my eyes, turned toward that light that illuminates my inner world and expressed my gratitude. This was a rare event, but one worth waiting for.

I opened my eyes, smiled at my friend and we finished our coffee.

What is enlightenment? Here's something I wrote 40 years ago:

“Enlightenment! Enigma of all enigmas. An infinity of infinities. Opposites merge, extremes become middles. Nothing is said or done, yet the whole universe sparkles in the corner of an eye. A full statement of all truth resounds in the sound of my breathing. I walk, I sit, …I simply am. And that is absolutely and profoundly enough!

The eye observed;
And stretching forth,
The senses would rebound:

For in the room
No breath stirred
And stolid glances stood around.

Then Seven reached
Time’s grasping hand
And empty visions fled away

Then Nothing was,
And No Thing did,
And even Death was dead.”

 The Book of Atma, E.R. Close, published October 1977