I LOVE ANIMALS!

I love animals! They are so open and genuine, no phony facades, no hidden agendas, and they love you unconditionally. As long as I can remember, I’ve had deep relationships with animals, mostly canine and feline, but other species as well. All animals contain a spark of the divine, and have so much to give. From a very young age, growing up in the Missouri Ozarks, animals were part of the family. Over the years, I've loved a number of dogs and cats as long as they lived. The following are only some of them from the past twelve years or so.

Several years ago, while living on Mount Washington in Southern California, some friends rescued a dog that had been hit by a car. They had several dogs and so asked us if we could take him. They were calling him Lucky because they found him in Lucky’s Supermarket parking lot. When Lucky, a shiny, black English field spaniel,  and I saw each other from half a block away, we knew we were long-lost friends. He ran and  jumped into my arms, licking my face, his eyes saying “Where have you been? I’ve missed you so much!”

 A couple years later, when I went overseas on an environmental consulting job, Lucky went to stay with friends about a mile away from our home on Mt. Washington. He was perfectly fine there until the night I flew in from The Middle East by way of Frankfurt Germany. I had been away more than three months. Jacqui picked me up at the airport and when we arrived home, about 3:00 am, Lucky was there to greet me! He had dug under the chain-link fence surrounding our friends’ yard that night, and I have no doubt that he knew the moment I touched down at LAX.

I regret that I have no pictures of Gingie, the Abyssinian – Sand cat I brought back from the Arabian Peninsula because of a computer crash, but I have many treasured memories of his unbelievable strength of character, wisdom and loving spirit. After he left the physical body at about 14 or 15 years of age, we had Jesse, the grey tabby we rescued from a spring branch in the Saint Francois Mountains. She had fallen in and couldn’t get out. She was weak from hunger and physical stress, and was clinging to a rock. A loud meee-ow caught our attention. We couldn’t believe that that volume of sound came from that tiny body!

Then came Patches. I saved her from strangulation by a collar that had been put on her neck as a kitten and never loosened. Patches was afraid of nearly everyone and everything.  Friends and even strangers remarked at how she stayed always as near to me as she could, and beamed her love at me through adoring eyes until the day she passed.

Then was Gracie, rescued from atop a roof at a car dealership in Cape Girardeau. I love animals of all kinds!

Queensland, Australia, 2011

Dark Matter and Dark Energy Explained at last!

“If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.” Nikola Tesla

Starting with the Triadic Dimensional Distinction Paradigm (TDVP) hypothesis that the substance of reality exists in three forms: matter, m, energy, E, and consciousness, C, interacting in a nine-dimensional domain: three of space, and at least one of time and one of consciousness, embedded within an open, and therefore infinite, multidimensional conscious domain, and applying the logic and mathematics of the Calculus of Dimensional Distinctions and Dimensional Extrapolation, I obtain the same value for the percentage of observable versus "hidden" substance of reality found by cosmologists seeking to determine how much of the substance of the universe is observable and how much is hidden as the mysterious substance called “dark” matter and energy. My analysis started at the smallest possible scale of quantum reality, while cosmological probes, including the most recent, the Planck Space Laboratory, start at the other end of the spectrum, the galactic and universal scale. Both approaches conclude that only about 4.9% of the universe is available for observation with the physical senses and technological extensions available to us at this point in the history of the science and the search to define the nature of reality. 

The conclusions of the Planck Probe cosmologists are based on the standard model of an expanding universe derived from observational data and solutions of Einstein’s equations of general relativity, while my conclusions are based on the basic hypothesis of TDVP outlined above.  

The major difference between the two theoretical pictures is that mainstream cosmology has no answer for the question of what dark matter and energy are, while TDVP identifies it as the original or primary form of consciousness. The conscious substance, C, and dark matter/energy are one and the same thing.

 The fact that mainstream relativistic cosmology and TDVP find the same percentage of the universe observable as ordinary baryonic matter and energy strongly suggests that TDVP is compatible with both relativity and quantum physics, and answers questions that neither relativity nor quantum physics as they are currently formulated can.

Consciousness and the Nature of Reality

In order not to lose sight of the objective of science while looking at the details of mathematical models (not seeing the forest for the trees) we have to keep in mind what it is that we are doing, and keep asking ourselves what it is we are looking for. In general, I believe, we are looking for the answer to the question “What is the nature of reality?”

In my search for the answers to that question, I started with the conviction that matter, energy, space, time, and consciousness are inseparably linked as finite aspects of one infinite thing: that we call reality; and that what makes them seem separate is the conscious drawing of distinctions. Any detailed study of the physical vehicle of human consciousness leads to the conclusion that what we take for reality is not reality at all, but simply a representation made up of images constructed in the brain. Of course, there actually is an existential reality, but, what is it and how can we know it? The polymath Leibnitz and others have opined that the most pertinent question is: “Why is there something rather than nothing?” And, indeed, if the second law of thermodynamics was in operation from the beginning, there should be no universe at all. If a big bang happened, it should have expanded and radiated to infinity, returning within nanoseconds to maximum entropy.  My answer to the question “why is there something rather than nothing?” is Consciousness. My hypothesis is: none of the six forms of reality (matter, energy and individualized consciousness, space, time and primary consciousness) exists without the others. Reality, including the physical universe, exists solely because of the action of consciousness, drawing distinctions and organizing those distinctions into logical patterns.

It is on the basis of this hypothesis that I set out to put consciousness into the equations of science in order to discover how consciousness shapes the form of reality, creating and maintaining something instead of nothing. So what we are looking for is evidence revealing how consciousness insures the formation of stable structures in the physical universe that can support life. In looking for this evidence, we are investigating the very edge of science: the interaction of mind and matter, the place where the logical patterns of Primary Consciousness become finite patterns of energy. The Conveyance Equation, Σⁿ_i=1 (X_n)^m = Z^m, is the mathematical expression of this process. The restriction of its quantifiers to integers reflects the quantization of finite distinctions of matter and energy. Its simplest expression in one dimension gives us the basis of arithmetic and algebra. The Pythagorean Theorem is its expression in two dimensions and its integral form in three dimensions and beyond is governed by Fermat’s Last Theorem. The TRUE unit unifies matter, energy, space, time and consciousness at the sub-quantal level of the most basic building blocks that make up quarks. In this context, the ratios of matter/energy units to consciousness units for atoms and molecules are significant, indicating the extent to which consciousness is involved. The fact that Hydrogen has the highest ratio of all (0.7000) is significant, and the fact that Carbon, Oxygen, Nitrogen and Phosphorus, the other elements that make up the DNA molecule, all have the same ratio (0.3488) is also significant. This is a reflection of the fact that they all have the same number of electrons, protons and neutrons, as you point out, but these atoms are stable structures only because of the operation of consciousness through the Conveyance Equation. Without this symmetry imposed by the logical structure of consciousness, they would decay rapidly.  

It may be that all of the naturally stable elements are necessary for life, and this may make the specific ratios of life–supporting elements and molecules seem unimportant, but I think this is again missing seeing the forest by focusing on the trees.  The C to m/E ratios for Adenine, Thymine, Guanine and Cytosine the molecules that, linked together by sugars and phosphates, are the building blocks of DNA, are around 0.4587 for to 0.4837, significantly higher than the ratios for any single element except Hydrogen. I believe this is significant. These numbers are all dependent on the integer solution of the Conveyance Equation I used. Assuming parsimony in nature, I used the simplest (smallest integers) solution that would not result in negative total TRUE units. There are other solutions that might be interesting for further research, to apply to see if the resulting ratios are different. 

UNDERSTANDING RELATIVITY PART II

The following is a more complete description of the refutation of the idea that there are logical contradictions that invalidate relativity. If you want to understand relativity, this is for you.

Over the past few years, while developing our Triadic Dimensional Distinction Vortical Paradigm dealing with the logical-mathematical nature of space, time, matter, energy and consciousness, along with continuing research and development, Vernon and I have reviewed a number of other theories that have at least some definable characteristics similar to TDVP, and we have entered into discussions with several of the authors of these theories. Most of the time, we find areas of both agreement and disagreement. One such theory is a theory put forth by a PhD engineer. To protect his privacy, I will refer to him here as Dr. X. While we find much to agree with, a key feature of Dr. X's theory that is, in my opinion, demonstrably wrong, is the complete rejection of both special and general relativity. In the course of the discussion, Dr. X has written:

 “So before going further I need to present the argument that I consider shows special relativity to contain the internal contradiction that renders it invalid. There can be no partial compromise, both SR and GR need to be rejected and replaced by a theory that is internally consistent and compatible with quantum theory.”

Vernon asked me to respond because relativity is one of my special areas of expertise. Over the years, I have taught relativity, written about relativity, and discussed Einstein’s relativity with many people. It always surprises me how many many intelligent and well-educated people really don't understand relativity, even when they think they do. Based on his statement copied above, it looks like Dr. X is one of those people. Let’s look at his argument:

He describes a thought experiment beginning with two spaceships, A and B, stationary in a given reference frame. While one remains stationary, the other accelerates to a “high speed and then cruises at a constant speed.” Thought experiments involving spaceships are convenient because one can envision them moving in deep space, beyond the significant influence of any gravitational field.

He continues:

“The observer in A, who has not moved, looks at B speeding away and therefore accords B a mass increase. This is correct since energy E has been added by the acceleration and m=E/c², and so mass, has been added due to the acceleration. Then, with acceleration cut off, B becomes an inertial frame that allows special relativity to be applied. However, according to Einstein, observer B is equally entitled to be considered stationary when now travelling at constant speed in a straight line. So B looks back and sees A speeding away backwards. So according to Einstein's theory B has no mass increase, even though moving, but accords mass increase to A that has not moved!”

Actually, according to Einstein’s principles of relativity, there is no universal or preferred reference frame. If this is correct, B will not see any mass increase in his own spaceship or person because any means he has of measuring mass is travelling with him. He will, on the other hand perceive an increase in A’s mass because if there is no preferred reference frame, B moving away from A will have the same effect as A moving away from B. The acceleration between A and B is the same in either case; only in opposite directions.

The counter-intuitive idea that A and B will each see the other’s mass increased, length contracted and time slowed down has caused many an intelligent and well-educated person to think that there are logical paradoxes in relativity, e.g., the “clock paradox”, the “twin paradox”, etc. Anyone might see these “paradoxes” as contradictions invalidating relativity, were it not for the mathematics of the Lorentz transformations (based on the constancy of the speed of light) and a lot of empirical evidence.

Dr X rejects the relativistic principle of “no preferred reference frame”, which he has a perfect right to do. But he must then provide an alternate explanation for the things that are neatly explained by the theory of relativity, like the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, radioactive decay of particles travelling at near light speed, the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment, and scores of other things. Let’s suppose he does have a theory that can explain all of the hundreds of things explained by relativity. Even if he has provided such a theory, his last statement, a sort of summary of his argument, is erroneous and easily disproved, as I will show. So let’s carry on with his thought experiment. He says:

“Each observer carries a pair of oppositely charged spheres mounted side by side. Now a magnetic field is produced by charge in motion and the fields produced by opposite charges try to push them apart…

So if A and B start at rest with respect to the quantum vacuum then v = 0 and neither can measure any magnetic field or magnetic force.

When B is in motion then both the field and the force can be measured by anybody in the spacecraft and so they cannot claim to be at rest. Furthermore if the conditions at A are reported to B by radio they will still see a null result despite A having a relative speed.” Finally, he says: "Put another way, according to Einstein, two observers in relative motion would each see the other having a magnetic field whilst not having one themselves. It is a logical impossibility for anything to both exist and not exist at the same time and in the same place."

First, Einstein’s relativity does not imply that each observer would "see the other having a magnetic field whilst not having one themselves." It is not the magnetic field, but the measurement of the magnetic field from the reference frames of the two observers in relative motion that is different for observers A and B. If you assume that there is a universal reference frame associated with the quantum vacuum, as Dr. X does, you would of course expect to see the contradictory affects he describes. If Einstein is correct however, neither observer would see the spheres move apart, because there would be no repulsive force relative to their reference frames of measurement. If they communicate by radio, they would agree that the spheres were not moving apart. Their observations would not be in conflict.

Which result deduced from this thought experiment is the real result? If there is no preferred reference frame, is there a real conflict or not? Fortunately, the answer to this question is easily determined by a simple laboratory experiment that anyone can perform. This experiment is known as Faraday's Experiment. Einstein himself referred to his contemplation of Faraday’s experiment as a primary factor in his gaining an understanding of the Principle of Relativity. It provides a powerful demonstration of the Principle of Relativity that does not require imagining observers travelling on spaceships in deep space.

Faraday observed that the movement of a magnetized or charged object creates a field that can be measured. When he moved a magnet through a coil of wire held stationary on a laboratory table, a meter attached to the coil registered a current. He expected, because it was believed that a universal reference frame or “ether” had to exist as the medium through which electromagnetic energy, light, and everything else moved, that the same current would be detected when both magnet and coil were moving together along a track on the laboratory table, since the motion relative to the ether was the same in both instances. But this was not the case!  No current was registered on the meter when both magnet and coil were moving with the same velocity in the laboratory. This greatly puzzled physicists at the time, but we know now that it demonstrates the fact that there is no universal reference frame, and it is the motion of the object in the reference frame of measurement that creates the field, not movement through an etheric universal reference frame.  Now let’s apply this knowledge to Dr. X's spheres.

One must look at the whole picture. In Dr. X's thought experiment, each observer will detect a magnetic field generated by the motion of the other observer’s spheres relative to his frame of reference. Since the charges on the spheres are themselves also moving through the magnetic field resulting from the motion, that field also exerts a force on them, producing another magnetic field. So from either observer’s point of view, we have two magnetic fields: one induced by the motion of the spheres relative to the observer’s reference frame, and one induced by the motion of the charges in that magnetic field. Thus two forces are acting on the spheres. Calculations show that the strengths of these fields are exactly equal, in opposite directions, canceling each other. 

Just as in Faraday’s experiment, for both A and B, even though they both will detect magnetic fields generated by the force of the motion pushing them apart, there will be no measurable electromagnetic force pushing the spheres apart. If we think of this as an experiment aimed at detecting motion in the quantum ether proposed by Dr. X, using a simple detector made from a magnet and a wire, and low velocities in an earth-bound laboratory, we find a null result, exactly as was found by the Michelson-Morley experiment. It is this knowledge that measurements and observations will necessarily be different for observers in relative motion, and mathematically dependent upon that relative motion, not motion through some fixed universal reference frame, that leads to an understanding of relativity.

To summarize: the problem with Dr. X's “logical impossibility” indicating unacceptable contradictions in relativity is that his reasoning is circular. Such reasoning is rooted in the belief in a universal reference frame and simultaneity. If you assume that simultaneity in such a universal reference frame exists, you will deduce contradictions in the theory of relativity. But the existence of such a universal ether is contradicted by the easily reproducible results of the Faraday experiment, as well as the Michelson-Morley experiment and a plethora of other data from experimental physics. Therefore, we have to reject Dr. X's argument.

The confusion of those who have not grasped this subtle difference between the observations and measurements of observers in relative motion can be excused. As Einstein said: “Rafinert is der Herr Gott, aber bohaft ist er nicht!” In plain English: God’s thoughts (i.e. reality) are subtle, but not malicious, i.e., not so convoluted that we can’t figure them out!

E.R. Close, December 15, 2013

Understanding Relativity

Over the years, I've been surprised to find how many highly intelligent well-educated people, even main-stream physicists, simply do not understand Einstein's relativity. Some even go so far as to reject it because of what they think are logical inconsistencies. In every case I've come across, those who reject it do so, not because of a flaw in relativity, but because they simply don't understand relativity; they just fail to grasp the basic principles. Their misunderstanding usually centers around some example of how two observers in relative motion do not see or measure the same thing. What follows is an actual case of a scientist who goes through a thought experiment involving space ships travelling at different velocities relative to each other. He finishes up stating what he sees as a logical impossibility:

"Put another way, according to Einstein, two observers in relative motion would each see the other having a magnetic field whilst not having one themselves. It is a logical impossibility for anything to both exist and not exist at the same time and in the same place." 

This affords an easy way to point out his lack of understanding of the basic principles of relativity and the errors in his thinking: The error in his "logical impossibility" is that it is rooted in a belief in a universal reference frame and simultaneity, which implies universal time, a sort of "ether" for the time domain. This conceptual error is compounded by another error within his statement: Einstein did not imply that each observer would "see the other having a magnetic field whilst not having one themselves." The magnetic field exists for both observers; it is measurement of the motion-generated current that is relative.

More to the point, his statement is easily disproved by a simple laboratory experiment that anyone can perform. It is generally known as Faraday's Experiment. I describe it in some detail in my Space,Time and Consciousness manuscript, because Einstein referred to his contemplation of it as the inspiration for his discovery of the Principle of Relativity. It provides a powerful demonstration of the Principle of Relativity that does not require observers in spaceships travelling at enormous speeds. If a magnet, or any magnetized object, is moved past a stationary coil of wire, a meter attached to the coil will show a current. On the other hand, if the coil, magnet and meter are moving together along a track in the laboratory, no current is registered on the meter. This demonstrates the fact that it is motion relative to the frame of observation and measurement, not movement through a universal reference frame that generates the current. It is this understanding that measurements and observations differ for observers in relative motion, and are mathematically dependent upon that relative motion by way of the Lorentz contraction equations, that leads to an understanding of special relativity.

WHY DO I DO WHAT I DO?

I’ve been asked: “Why do you do what you do?” and “Why do you think it important to ‘put consciousness into the equations?” I will attempt to answer these questions here, as briefly and succinctly as I can:

During my lifetime (I was born in 1936) I have seen a steady decline in morality and a steady increase in senseless violence. Why? I believe it is because during this time, for an increasing number of us, the declarations of organized science have replaced institutional religion as the trusted source of truth. This is arguably a good thing, except for one thing: science has become more and more materialistic. Prior to 1936, many, if not most leading scientists were deeply spiritual. Newton studied scriptures, looking for clues that he believed might have been placed there by God. Einstein said “I want to know the thoughts of God; everything else is just detail.” Over the years, since then, leading scientists are busy saying things like: We have no need for concepts like God or divinity; we are nothing more than random debris from a gigantic explosion 13.7 billion years ago; and the more we know, the more meaningless it becomes. The result is that more and more people believe there is no meaning or purpose to life and human existence. As such thinking permeates the youth of our society, senseless acts of violence like drive-by shootings and the recent public school massacres occur more and more frequently. I believe we have reached a critical stage in the history of humankind.

How can we reverse this self-destructive slide toward extinction? We can start by re-connecting natural science with its metaphysical roots, by putting consciousness into the equations. Why do we need to put consciousness into the equations of science? Mathematics is the language of science, and if there is no spirituality in the language of science, science cannot provide meaning, or even a complete description of reality. You cannot have a scientific “theory of everything”, if the most important aspect of “everything” consciousness is excluded for the language of science. Science without spirituality is shallow and dead. 

I have devoted my life to the task of bringing science out of the dark ages and dead end of materialism. As Max Planck, the father of quantum physics, said in 1944: "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! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter."

If you share my concern, please follow my posts, read the archives of this site and go to www.BrainVoyage.com for more detailed information about the research Dr. Vernon Neppe and I are persuing.

Updated Article on Consciousness and the elements of the Periodic Table

TRIADIC EXPLANATION OF THE PERIODIC TABLE OF ELEMENTS

Introduction

The Periodic Table, besides being a list of the elements that make up the physical universe, reflects, in the atomic number, mean atomic weight and grouping of elements with similar chemical properties, logical patterns underlying the physical structure of the universe. Where do these patterns come from? Application of the Calculus of Distinctions¹ within the Triadic Dimensional Distinction Vortical Paradigm² has suggested that the patterns can be explained in the context of a nine-dimensional spinning reality with the application of the Calculus of Distinctions, Dimensional Extrapolation and the principles of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics³. The purpose of this discussion is to explore that possibility.

What we know about the elements of the Periodic Table is almost entirely based on experimental data from investigations of just five distinct entities. They are known as the photon, the electron, the up-quark, the down-quark, and the strange quark. Table One lists these distinctions with two of the measureable parameters that characterize them: charge and mass.

TABLE ONE

Elementary Particle Charge & Mass

Particle	Symbol	Charge (Coulomb)	Mass  (m) (MeV/c2)
Photon	Ɣ	0	0
electron	e	-1	0.511
up quark	u	+2⁄3	1.5–3.3
down quark	d	−1⁄3	3.5–6.0
Strange quark	s	−1⁄3	70 – 132

Elementary Particles, Stability and the Structure of the Universe

It is an over-simplification to call these entities particles, since they can appear as particles or waves of energy, depending on how we choose to observe them. Of these five elementary entities, only two, the photon and the electron, enjoy separate, stable existence for any length of time. The other three are only detected as components of larger more stable particles. The stable structure of the matter that makes up the physical universe available to us for observation is composed of electrons, up quarks and down quarks. The atoms of the elements of the Periodic Table consist of specific, relatively stable arrangements of these three entities. Electrons orbit around atomic nuclei composed of neutrons and protons, and neutrons and protons are composed of up and down quarks as shown in Table Two.

Table Two

Components of Atomic Nuclei

Entity	Symbol	Consists of	Charge
Proton	P+	u + u + d	+1
Neutron	N0	u + d + d	0

Normalization

Except for the electron, the data for the mass of the particles in Table One are presented as ranges of values. The mass of the electron has been directly determined to be 0.511 MeV/c², while the masses of the other elementary particles are indirectly determined as energy equivalents from particle collider detector and collector data. The mass values are non-integer decimal fractions because the convenient standards adopted for the units of measurement (MeV/c²) do not happen to be integer multiples of the smallest possible unit of mass. Because energy only occurs in multiples of a smallest unit, when measured in the ultimately smallest possible quantized units, the numerical values of the actual masses of these particles must be integers, so we are justified in normalizing the data to integral values for purposes of comparison and calculation.

The normalized mass values for electrons and up and down quarks in Table Three are obtained by simply taking the smallest elementary mass, that of the electron, (0.511 MeV/c²) as unitary. Then to convert the mass of the up quark and down quark into multiples of that standard unit, we divide the average of each particle’s range of empirical data by 0.511and round the results to the nearest whole number. Even if the basic unit we have derived in this way is not be the actual smallest possible unit, because mass and energy are quantized, it will be a multiple of the real quantum unit, and the normalized values will reflect the relative proportionality of the actual masses of the particles. The strange quark has been included in these tables even though, unlike the up and down quarks, it is not a constituent of ordinary matter. It is included because it is the natural decay source of up and down quarks.

Because charge is a product of spin, we have also normalized it to avoid fractions by simply taking the charge of the electron as - 3. This normalizes the charge of the up quark to + 2 and the down quark to - 1. Again, as with mass, we are justified in normalizing the measure of charge because the standard unit, the Coulomb, a standard of convenience, is not an integral multiple of the actual quantum unit of charge, which may be either positive or negative. The balance, or zero sum of + and – charges in the decay process (called parity) reflects the operation of the Law of Conservation of Energy.

Table Three

Normalized Units

Particle	Symbol	Charge	Mass
Photon	Ɣ	0	0
electron	e	- 3	1
up quark	u	+ 2	5
down quark	d	− 1	9
Strange quark	s	- 1	201

Why are the particles that appear to make up ordinary matter, i.e. the electron, proton and neutron, as stable as they are, and how do they arise from the substrate of reality? Consider a state, perhaps in the early, high-energy, high-temperature universe, when there was a great abundance of free quarks and decaying and decayed quarks, - i.e. the less massive quarks and electrons. There would probably have also been other short-lived energetic by-products of quark collisions and decay like photons and neutrinos, radiating off to infinity, and perhaps there were other types of free particles like those created in experimental particle colliders, but we are focusing here on the decayed and decaying quarks destined to form Hydrogen atoms and the other atoms of the periodic table. In such a high-energy state, there would be many decay and re-combination paths, but the over-all tendency, due to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, would be from more massive particles, like the strange quark to less massive like the up quark. If we trace the decay of strange quarks in a nine-dimensional domain, we may be able to determine how the stable combinations that make up the elements are formed.

Implications of the Resolution of the EPR Paradox for Particle Physics

Resolution of the EPR paradox by the Aspect experiment, borne out by many detailed and sophisticated experiments, requires that we accept the fact that these entities do not exist as localized particles except when their masses and/or energies are registered in a way that can be observed and measured. The nine-dimensional spin model of TDVP accommodates this very nicely: Elementary particles exist in nine dimensions, but we can only observe and measure them in 3S-1T. Between observations, their substance is spread across the nine dimensions, and even when observed, only part of their substance and structure is available for observation in 3S-1t.

We have presented relevant evidence and arguments for the following theoretical ideas elsewhere, but we posit them here as axiomatic statements:

1.      Elementary particles are created as the result of the interaction of the three universal processes of expansion, contraction and rotation or spin. Their cause is thus triadic.

2.      Reality exists within at least nine finite, sequentially-nested existential dimensions.

3.      We are only partially aware of five of these dimensions through our physical senses: three of space, one of time, and one of consciousness.

4.      The processes affecting the creation and combination of elementary particles to form meaningful structures are rooted in the dimensionometric forms of nine finite dimensions and one or more transfinite dimensions. The mathematical expression of this dimensionometric form is Σⁿ_i=1 (X_n)^m = Z^m  (to be explained in more detail below).

5.      These particles are triadic in nature, comprised of a universal substance which manifests as matter, energy and consciousness interacting in the nine-dimensional domain.

The Origin of the Particles that form the Elements of the Periodic Table

How do waves and particles form in the first place? Consider an elementary contraction in the substance of reality characterized as a distinction. Call that distinction D₁. We have posited that its existence is made manifest by the interaction of mass, energy and consciousness, postulated to be three different aspects of the same thing. As demonstrated in our discussion of intrinsic spin and the Cabibbo angle⁶, this elementary distinction is rapidly spinning. With no external influence, and therefore no preferred reference frame, the distinction spins in nine dimensions, and each plane of rotation will cause it to resist movement like a spinning gyroscope. This resistance to movement, or inertia, is interpreted as mass. If the particle is spinning in more than one plane of rotation, each spinning plane may contribute to the total inertia of the particle. Since inertia is quantized, if the particle is spinning in nine dimensions, it will possess at least nine units of inertia. If we accept that these units are equivalent to units of mass normalized as we’ve done above, then such a particle is inertially equivalent to the down quark in Table Three.

Under the entropic expansive action characterized by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, strange quarks and down quarks decay into up quarks, releasing photons and neutrinos. This process, documented in many experiments, conforms to the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy. Nothing is lost or destroyed in the process; some of the substance of the particle changes from one measurable form, mass, to another: energy. Table Four below illustrates how the elementary distinction, D₁, recognized as the strange quark, s, in experimental observations, decays to form other less massive particles. These new particles formed by natural entropic decay have the exact normalized inertial masses that are characteristic of the other elementary particles, the down quark, up quark and the electron, the particles that make up all of the elements of the Periodic Table.

TABLE FOUR

Natural Decay Path of Elementary Entities

Elementary Distinction	Mass in Normalized Units	Units Emitted as Energy*	New Mass in Normalized Units	New Entity
D1 = s	201	192 (4x46)	9	d
D2 = d	9	4	5	u
D3 = u	5	4	1	e
D4 = e	1	1	0	Ɣ

^* Energy emitted is in the form of photons, Ɣ, and neutrinos. v_e , one photon plus one neutrino = 4 normalized units. The energy of neutrinos and photons can vary, but, since energy is quantized, their energy can only consist of integer multiples of normalized units. There are some indications that neutrinos may have a miniscule amount of mass, so the neutrino emitted may have 1 unit of mass and one or two units of energy. The photon’s mass is zero, and its energy is proportional to its wave length, so the photons emitted in the decay process may have a wave length reflecting the energy of one or two units.

Notice that the four units emitted, identified as mass in the quarks, are measured as mass and energy in the photon and neutrino.  This indicates an equivalence between normalized mass units and energy, and more importantly, a transformation of the measurable aspect of the universal substance from mass to energy. We know that the transformation relationship between mass and energy is E = mc². Since c² is a constant, we may normalize the units of energy into units equivalent with our normalized mass units very easily as follows: The standard unit used to measure the energy of elementary particles is the MeV(one million electron volts) the standard unit used in measuring the mass of the particles in Table One is one million electron volts divided by the speed of light squared (MeV/c²), equivalent to 1.782662×10⁻³⁶ kg., a very small fraction of a kilogram. So X units of mass in our normalized units in Table Two = X Mev/c².  That occurs as a result of the Substituting m = X Mev/c² into and E = mc², we get E = X  (Mev/c² ) ∙ c² = X Mev. Thus the units in Table Four are normalized equivalence units measuring both mass and energy. Any given number, X, of normalized units of mass in this table is equivalent to X normalized units of energy.

We have also posited that the substance of reality is not just mass and energy, i.e. binary in mode, but triadic, existing in three forms: mass, energy and consciousness. Since mass and energy are measurable in our normalized units, it is reasonable to expect that consciousness might also be. If, e.g., like mass and energy, consciousness is quantized, and each unit of consciousness is equivalent to a constant multiple of energy units, then consciousness can also be also be measured in multiples of these normalized units of equivalence, and the processes that form the elements of the Periodic Table can be described and analyzed using them. Even though we have not yet defined what a unit of consciousness might consist of, we may be able to define it indirectly relative to energy and mass in terms of the equivalence units. Extending the logic of E = mc², the mathematical relationship between mass and energy, the relationship between energy and consciousness, C, is probably of the form: C = Ek(∆t/∆c)ⁿ where ∆t/∆c is the ratio of the minimum increments at the border of the T and C domains just as ∆x/∆t  is the ratio at the border of the S and T domains, k is the maximum limiting rate of change of time with respect to consciousness, and n is > 2. Substituting, we have: C = mc² k(∆t/∆c)ⁿ.

Notice that no units of consciousness appear in the decay process depicted in Table Three because it is a natural entropic process. So why don’t all elementary distinctions simply decay into photons and neutrinos that expand to infinity, resulting in a swift return to a state of maximum entropy, a state where there are no distinctions in the substance of reality? Regardless of how particles originate, something happens to counteract the action of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. What happens to perpetuate the negative entropy we see around us? The answer lies in the conveyance of the logic of the C-substrate (dimensions 7, 8 and 9 of the nine dimensional domain of reality) into the 3S-1T domain of observation, by the intrinsic form of the dimensionometric domains represented mathematically by the equation Σⁿ_i=1 (X_n)^m = Z^m and by the action of one or more units of consciousness organizing mass and energy into stable structures reflecting the logic of the conscious substrate. In order for quarks to combine to form the stable sub-atomic particles we call protons and neutrons observable in the 3S-1t domain, they must meet the requirements of the Conveyance Expression equation when m = 3 and n = 2 as integer multiples of normalized units of mass, energy and consciousness. This is where Fermat’s Last Theorem enters the picture.

Fermat’s Last Theorem and the Combination of  Quantum Particles

Consider the combination of two elementary particles to form a new particle. This may be modeled by the Conveyance Expression when n = 2 and  m = 3. 

With n = 2 and m = 3, the expression Σⁿ_i=1 (X_n)^m = Z^m  yields the equation (X₁)³ + (X₂)³ = Z³.

X₁ and X₂ represent the number of normalized units making up the particles, i.e. quarks, which combine to form the proton, P⁺ and the neutron, N⁰. (X₁)³ and (X₂)³ represent the volumes of two combining particles and Z³ represents the volume of the particle formed in the combination. These normalized units that make up quarks are the real building blocks of the universe. They are holistic in the sense that each unit carries the blueprint of matter, energy and consciousness within it, reflecting the logical patterns of the conscious substrate.

In nine dimensions, at the sub-quark level, whether measured as mass, energy or consciousness, the numerical values of the spinning entities in normalized equivalence units are integers and dimensionometrically equivalent. We will, therefore, call them Triadic Rotational Units of Equivalence (TRUE). The increasing spin of the four elementary distinctions creates additional attractive and repulsive forces, and under the intelligent influence of the informed dimensionometric structure expressed by the Conveyance Equation, they exchange TRUE units so that combine to form new symmetric and therefore very stable sub-atomic components. All quantum processes involving TRUE units conform to the law of conservation of mass, energy and consciousness operating in 3S-1t macro-level observations.

Triadic Rotational Units of Equivalence, or TRUE units, for short, are the Calculus of Distinction equivalents of the infinitesimals of the Calculus of Newton and Leibniz. The difference, and it is a very important one, is that TRUE units are finite and always have integer values. Consistent with the quantum nature of reality, there are no fractional TRUE units. While the value of the differentiation variable of a function in Newtonian Calculus may approach zero infinitely closely, the Calculus of Distinctions numerical values of both content and extent variables of the finite distinctions of mass, energy and consciousness are quantized and thus cannot be smaller than one TRUE unit. Thus the TRUE unit is the bottom, or limit of infinite descent for all variables. Because elementary particles are rotating extremely rapidly, regardless of the probabilistic distribution of density (such as that demonstrated in our analysis of the electron)⁶,  a TRUE unit occupies a perfectly symmetrical volume, and that volume is the same whether the content is measured as mass, energy or consciousness.

Using the axioms proposed above, and TRUE units, we will proceed to describe the triadic makeup of the Hydrogen atom and the other elements of the Periodic Table. The values of the mass of the elementary entities, in multiples of the TRUE unit, are determined by normalization of experimental data as described above; the values of the energy of the entities, also in multiples of the TRUE unit, are calculated using the established mathematical relationship between mass and energy (E = mc²); and the values of the measures of the consciousness of the elementary entities in multiples of the TRUE units are determined by application of the Conveyance Equation and the assumption that a mathematical relationship, analogous to E = mc² exists between energy and consciousness.

At the quantum level, to be stable quantum particles, existing as finite three-dimensional distinctions, each of these volumes must be equivalent to either the volume of a single TRUE unit, or multiples of the volume of the TRUE unit. This means that X₁, Y₂ and Z must be integers.

Fermat’s Last Theorem tells us there are no integer solutions for this equation, which means that no two particles consisting of TRUE units, or integral multiples of TRUE units, can combine to form a new symmetrical entity. Such asymmetrical combinations of rapidly spinning entities will tumble or spiral, especially under the influence any external force, and will thus be far less stable than symmetric forms.

However, when n = m =3, the expression yields the equation

(X₁)³ + (X₂)³ + (X₃)³= Z³,

which does have integer solutions. The first one (with the smallest integers) is

3³ + 4³ + 5³ = 6³

It is important to recognize that the equations produced by Σⁿ_i=1 (X_n)^m = Z^m when n and m, and the X_i and Z are integers are mathematical expressions of the form of the logical structure of the C-substrate as it is conveyed to the 3S domain. For this reason, we will call this expression the Conveyance Expression. This expression, generalizing the summation of n finite m-dimensional distinctions, and the equations it generates when all variables are integers, including the equations of the Pythagorean Theorem and Fermat’s Last Theorem, prove to be indispensably useful in the mathematical analysis of the combination of elementary particles.

The simplest symmetric form in three-dimensional space is the sphere, and as noted above, we can assume that the TRUE unit of substance is spherical. If the particles are also spherical, their volumes are 4/3 π r₁³, 4/3 π r₂³, and 4/3 π r₃³, where r₁, r₂ and r₃ are the radii of the particles. But, since the volumes of the particles are integral multiples of the TRUE unit, r₁, r₂ and r₃ must be integer multiples of the radius of the TRUE unit; so let r₁= X₁R_T, r₂ = X₂R_T, and r₃ = X₃R_T where X₁, X₂ and X₃ are integers and R_T is the radius of the TRUE unit.  The Conveyance Equation representation of the combination of the three particles becomes:

4/3 π (X₁R_T) ³ + 4/3 π (X₂ R_T) ³ + 4/3 π (X₃R_T) ³

The new particle, consisting of the three particles combined, is represented by the expression 4/3 π (ZR_T) ³, where, Z is necessarily an integer, since no particle can contain fractional TRUE units, and we have:

4/3 π (X₁R_T) ³ + 4/3 π (X₂ R_T) ³ + 4/3 π (X₃R_T) ³ = 4/3 π (ZR_T) ³

Dividing both sides of the equation by all of the common constant factors: 4/3, π and (R_T)³, we have:

(X₁)³ + (X₂)³ + (X₃)³= Z³, where the X_i and Z are integers representing the number of linear cross-sections of the TRUE volumes of each particle represented by the terms of the equation.

Since spinning elementary particles are symmetric, and multiples of TRUE units, which are also symmetric, the fact that this equation has integer solutions, while the equation (X₁)³ + (X₂)³ = Z³ does not, tells us that for the elementary particles in Table Three to combine to form the most stable, symmetric compound distinctions, three particles, not two, must combine.

Note that this conclusion is independent of the actual shape of the combining particles and is even independent of the size and substance of the TRUE unit. As long as the particles have the same symmetrical form, the shape factor, in this case, 4/3 π (R_T )³, cancels out. They could, e.g., be any of the regular polyhedrons like tetrahedrons, with four equilateral triangular sides, hexahedrons (better known as cubes), with six square sides, octahedrons, etc.

Just as the intrinsic structure of dimensional domains of three or more dimensions causes the combination of two elementary particles to be asymmetric, it allows the combination of three particles to be symmetric and very stable.

We will limit the scope of the remainder of this mathematical description to the five particles that make up the elements of the Periodic Table, namely the electron, the up quark, the down quark, and the two composite particles, the proton and the neutron. At the point of observation, this set of particles forms an open system in the five-dimensional domain of space, time and consciousness (3S-1T-1C). As a finite physical system in the four dimensional domain of space-time, these elementary particles are subject to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which is expressed through the process of universal expansion toward maximum entropy; but this tendency toward maximum entropy is counteracted by the processes of contraction of the substance of reality into stable finite distinctions with high-velocity rotation and spin according to the pattern expressed through the form of the Conveyance Equation. The TRUE units are thus the substance of reality. We postulate that this substance of reality is triadic in nature, composed of mass, energy and consciousness. With the introduction of  the TRUE unit as the Calculus of Distinctions basic unitary distinction, and nine-dimensional spin as the dynamic nature of distinctions of  matter and energy supporting the logic of consciousness, we are re-integrating our understanding of physical reality with the awareness of the conscious substrate as the mathematically logical matrix from which physical reality originates.

Albert Einstein and Hermann Minkowski began this re-integration of the scientific description of reality with consciousness by recognizing the geometric nature of space and time as dimensional, establishing the concept of space-time⁴, and the nature of matter and energy as two different forms of the same substance. Bohr, Heisenberg and Schr introduced quantization, which ultimately requires the integration of consciousness into the process of observation and measurement. We are extending this integration to include the five additional finite dimensions indicated by the mathematics of Dimensional Extrapolation⁵, and including consciousness as the third aspect of the substance of reality. Even though Einstein coined the new term “space-time” describing the new concept of a four-dimensional geometric domain, and established the mathematical equivalence of matter and energy with E = mc², he introduced no new terminology for the generic substance of reality. We will use the terms “essential substance” or “essence” to indicate the substance of reality manifesting triadically as matter, energy and consciousness.

Consistent with decay from the strange quark and down quark to the up quark, and stabilization through the dimensionometric structure described by the Conveyance Equation, the following tables describe the electron, up quarks, down quarks, protons, neutrons, and the elements Hydrogen, atomic number 1, through Calcium, atomic number 20, in terms of TRUE units.

The Elementary Particles in TRUE Units

Particle	Charge	Mass/Energy	Consciousness	Total	Volume
e	- 3	1	9	10	1,000
u	+ 2	5	3	8	512
d	- 1	9	-3	6	216

Notice the difference between the number of TRUE units representing the mass, energy and consciousness content of a particle and the volume of a particle. The volume of the particle (in the three observable dimensions of space) is equal to the total number of units cubed. Notice also, that as the influence of consciousness increases, the TRUE units observable as matter or energy decreases.

The Proton (P⁺)

Particle	Charge	Mass	Consciousness	Total	Volume
u	+ 2	5	5	10	1,000
u	+ 2	5	3	8	512
d	- 1	9	-3	6	216
Total	+ 3	19	5	24	1,728

The number of TRUE units representing the mass and energy content of a particle in this table are fixed numbers determined by normalization of empirical data, and the number of consciousness units for each particle is fixed by the requirements of the Conveyance Equation. The numbers in the “Total” column are the smallest possible integers consistent with the empirical data and the Conveyance Equation requirement that the sum of the three totals cubed must equal an integer cubed. Any other set of numbers in the “Consciousness” column would either be inconsistent with the empirical data or produce a negative and/or non-integer value of TRUE units in the Proton, violating the quantum requirement. Thus, even though at this point, we cannot directly measure the consciousness involved, we have calculated the TRUE units of consciousness from the Conveyance Equation. We can derive different consciousness unit numbers for e, u and d from different integral solutions of the Conveyance Equation, but the solution 6³ + 8³ + 10³ = 12³ is the smallest integral solution consistent with sign and parity requirements and the empirical data from particle colliders.

The Neutron (N⁰)

Particle	Charge	Mass/Energy	Consciousness	Total	Volume
u	+ 2	5	5	10	1,000
d	- 1	9	-1	8	512
d	- 1	9	-3	6	216
Totals	0	23	1	24	1,728

Notice that there is more mass/energy and less consciousness in the neutron than in the proton, and consistent with experimental data, particles with more mass have less volume.

ELEMENTS OF THE PERIODIC TABLE

The projection of the  logical patterns of the Conscious Substrate into the structures of the physical universe is accomplished by the conformance of the TRUE units making up the elementary particles to the requirements of the Conveyance Equation. This allows the formation of the uniquely stable combinations of quarks that are needed to form the elements supporting life forms capable of acting as physical vehicles of consciousness. By organizing the structure of elementary particles in this way, Primary Consciousness builds a universe in which it can function as individualized consciousness experiencing reality in finite form.

HYDROGEN

Particle	Charge	Mass/Energy	Consciousness	Total	Volume
e	- 3	1	9	10	1,000
P+	+ 3	19	5	24	1,728
Totals	0	20	14	34	2,728

Notice that the electron, by rotating in nine dimensions, generates three units of charge (normalized here to three times unity). And the proton, rotating in the opposite direction, generates three units of charge of the opposite parity, resulting in an electrically stable atom.

TRITIUM (Isotope)

Particle	Charge	Mass/Energy	Consciousness	Total	Volume
e	- 3	1	9	10	1,000
P+	+ 3	19	5	24	1,728
N0	0	23	1	24	1,728
Totals	0	43	15	58	4,456

HELIUM

Particle	Charge	Mass/Energy	Consciousness	Total	Volume
2e	- 6	2	18	20	2,000
2P+	+ 6	38	10	48	3,456
2N0	0	46	2	48	3,456
Totals	0	86	30	116	8,912

LITHIUM

Particle	Charge	Mass/Energy	Consciousness	Total	Volume
3e	- 9	3	27	30	3,000
3P+	+ 9	57	15	72	5,184
4N0	0	92	4	96	6,912
Totals	0	152	46	198	15,096

Beryllium

Particle	Charge	Mass/Energy	Consciousness	Total	Volume
4e	- 12	4	36	40	4,000
4P+	+ 12	76	20	96	6,912
5N0	0	115	5	120	8,640
Totals	0	195	61	256	19,552

BORON

Particle	Charge	Mass/Energy	Consciousness	Total	Volume
5e	- 3	5	45	50	5,000
5P+	+ 3	95	25	120	8,640
6N0	0	138	6	144	10,368
Totals	0	238	76	314	24,008

CARBON

Particle	Charge	Mass/Energy	Consciousness	Total	Volume
6e	- 3	6	54	60	6,000
6P+	+ 3	114	30	144	10,368
6N0	0	138	6	144	10,368
Totals	0	258	90	348	26,736

NITROGEN

Particle	Charge	Mass/Energy	Consciousness	Total	Volume
7e	- 3	7	63	70	7,000
7P+	+ 3	133	35	168	12,096
7N0	0	161	7	168	12,096
Totals	0	301	105	406	31,192

OXYGEN

Particle	Charge	Mass/Energy	Consciousness	Total	Volume
8e	- 3	8	72	80	8,000
8P+	+ 3	152	40	192	13,824
8N0	0	184	8	192	13,824
Totals	0	344	120	464	35,648

FLUORINE

Particle	Charge	Mass/Energy	Consciousness	Total	Volume
9e	- 3	9	81	90	9,000
9P+	+ 3	171	45	216	15,552
10N0	0	230	10	240	17,280
Totals	0	410	136	546	41,832

NEON

Particle	Charge	Mass/Energy	Consciousness	Total	Volume
10e	- 3	10	90	100	10,000
10P+	+ 3	190	50	240	17,280
10N0	0	230	10	240	17,280
Totals	0	430	150	580	44,560

SODIUM

Particle	Charge	Mass/Energy	Consciousness	Total	Volume
11e	- 3	11	99	110	11,000
11P+	+ 3	209	55	264	19,008
12N0	0	276	12	288	20,736
Totals	0	496	166	662	40,744

MAGNESIUM

Particle	Charge	Mass/Energy	Consciousness	Total	Volume
12e	- 3	12	108	120	12,000
12P+	+ 3	228	60	288	20,736
12N0	0	276	12	288	20,736
Totals	0	516	180	696	53, 472

ALUMINIUM

Particle	Charge	Mass/Energy	Consciousness	Total	Volume
13e	- 3	13	117	130	13,000
13P+	+ 3	247	65	312	22,464
14N0	0	322	14	336	24,192
Totals	0	582	196	778	59,656

SILICON

Particle	Charge	Mass/Energy	Consciousness	Total	Volume
14e	- 3	14	126	140	14,000
14P+	+ 3	266	70	336	24,192
14N0	0	322	14	336	24,192
Totals	0	602	210	812	62,384

PHOSPHOROUS

Particle	Charge	Mass/Energy	Consciousness	Total	Volume
15e	- 3	15	135	150	15,000
15P+	+ 3	285	75	360	25,920
15N0	0	345	15	360	25,920
Totals	0	645	225	870	66,840

SULFUR

Particle	Charge	Mass/Energy	Consciousness	Total	Volume
16e	- 3	16	144	160	16,000
16P+	+ 3	304	80	384	27,648
16N0	0	368	16	384	27,648
Totals	0	688	240	928	71,296

CHLORINE

Particle	Charge	Mass/Energy	Consciousness	Total	Volume
17e	- 3	17	153	170	17,000
17P+	+ 3	323	85	408	29,376
18N0	0	414	18	432	31,104
Totals	0	754	256	1,010	77,480

ARGON

Particle	Charge	Mass/Energy	Consciousness	Total	Volume
18e	- 3	18	162	180	18,000
18P+	+ 3	342	90	432	31,104
22N0	0	506	22	528	38,016
Totals	0	866	274	1,140	87,120

POTASSIUM

Particle	Charge	Mass/Energy	Consciousness	Total	Volume
19e	- 3	19	171	190	19,000
19P+	+ 3	361	95	456	32,832
20N0	0	460	20	480	34,560
Totals	0	840	286	1,126	86,392

CALCIUM

Particle	Charge	Mass/Energy	Consciousness	Total	Volume
20e	- 3	20	180	200	20,000
20P+	+ 3	380	100	480	34,560
20N0	0	460	20	480	34,560
Totals	0	860	300	1,160	89,120

What we have shown, is how, in a nine-dimensional spin reality, stable structures are purposefully formed for use as vehicles through which the consciousness of the C-substrate may experience spacetime reality.