Monday, December 14, 2015

QUESTION #2: WHAT IS THE SOMETHING OF REALITY?


WHAT IS THE SOMETHING OF REALITY MADE OF?

In contemporary science, everything, at least everything in the vicinity of planet Earth, is believed to be made of something measurable as mass and/or energy in the form of combinations of the atoms of the elements of the Periodic Table. These atoms are physical structures made up of combinations of three things: electrons, protons and neutrons, with photons being emitted from the structures under certain circumstances. The protons and neutrons are made up of triads of up-quarks and down-quarks that are almost never, if ever, seen alone. These ‘elementary’ particles all have an intrinsic characteristic spin of ½, and are called fermions. Other members of the ‘particle zoo’ with whole-number spin, called bosons, are short-lived products of atomic and sub-atomic collisions and reactions, and/or exist within atoms and nuclei as gluons. To preserve parity, that is to keep physical reality balanced, all of these particles have anti-particles. Oh yes, and because of the immense rotational and translational energy of these particles, they are surrounded by electromagnetic and gravitational fields. Finally, in keeping with de Broglie and Einstein’s work, all particles have vibratory or rotational frequencies.

This theoretical picture, called the Standard Model, is reasonably successful and complete. There are, however, a few things that the standard model of particle physics does not explain, and, there are some conflicts with relativity.   Some of the things unexplained by the standard model are: particle mixing angles, like the Cabibbo angle, named after the Italian physicist who discovered it, why fermions have an intrinsic spin number of ½, the role of symmetry, broken symmetry and super symmetry, and why particles spin at all. This last one will be the subject of the next post.

The Close-Neppe TDVP nine-dimensional spin model answers these questions, and unites relativity and quantum physics by putting consciousness into the equations. The logic of TDVP incorporates some new math called the calculus of distinctions, dimensional extrapolation, and Diophantine conveyance equations. This should not be surprising, because paradigm shifts have always required new math. Relativity required the new math of Minkowski’s 4-D space-time, and quantum mechanics required SchrÓ§dinger’s wave equation and Heisenberg’s probability matrix and Uncertainty Principle. The calculus of distinctions, which I developed and extended from George Spencer Brown’s Laws of Form in 1989, may be difficult to learn, but it is no more difficult than the rotational group theory of Grassman algebra, Lie algebra, and other complex algebras used in attempts to explain spin in the current paradigm.

The calculus of distinctions is the replacement of the calculus of Newton and Leibniz, made necessary by the discovery that the universe is quantized. Dimensional extrapolation and the conveyance equations are also necessary to deal with a quantized reality. The calculus of Newton and Leibniz was sufficient when we thought physical reality was infinitely continuous, and is still very useful for macro-scale calculations. At the quantum level, however, it is inappropriate and leads to some of the weirdness and misunderstandings[EC1]  in the current paradigm.

So physical reality is made up of spinning, quantized bits of something, - but spinning quantized bits of what? It’s not spinning bits of matter, because the more we’ve looked at atoms, nuclei, electrons and quarks, the less solid and matter-like it has become. The smallest possible spinning something turns out to be a nine-dimensional energy vortex. How do we know it is the smallest possible bit? Because Einstein’s relativity tells us that as a spinning bit gets smaller and smaller, its spin (angular momentum), volume and mass approach a limit dictated by the limit on spin velocity: the speed of light. Where these limits converge the TRUE unit is defined.

Speaking of relativity, Einstein’s famous equation E= mc2 can tell us a lot, and it doesn’t take complicated mathematics. Anyone can understand it. Einstein’s equation applies to any finite system, from the smallest bit of something, to the entire physical universe at any given point in time. So consider the smallest possible physical system: a system consisting of just one unit of energy and one unit of mass. If one unit of energy is equivalent to (equals) one unit of mass times the speed of light squared, then by the simplest mathematical logic, the speed of light is equal to the square root of one unit of energy divided by one unit of mass. But speed is defined as distance travelled divided by the length of time required for something to travel that distance (miles per hour, for example). So if mass and energy are quantized (as proved by Max Planck) and the smallest possible volume of space is the space occupied by the spinning bit of something, we can define the smallest meaningful distance as the circumference of the spinning bit, and the smallest meaningful amount of time as the time it takes for the bit of spinning something to complete one rotation. Setting each of these quantities of mass, energy, space and time equal to one, we have the Triadic Rotational Unit of Equivalence defined.

Now, because the speed of light, as Einstein’s equation says, is equal to the ratio of energy to mass, we see that in any finite system of mass and energy, like the Earth, or the solar system, or the Milky Way Galaxy, the speed of light is determined by the ratio of energy to mass. If mass is converted to energy (as in an explosion) the ratio of E to m becomes larger and the speed of light increases, and if energy is converted to mass (as in a system that is cooling down) the ratio of E to m becomes smaller, and the speed of light decreases.  This tells us that, if a finite, localized part of the universe is losing energy, the speed of light has to get slower than in the rest of the universe, and if an isolated part gains energy, the speed of light will be faster. However, in any stable finite system, at any point in space-time, the speed of light is constant and nothing can accelerate past it (Einstein’s first Principle of Relativity).

Finally, the spinning bits of something that make up the observable and measurable physical universe, from the combinations of three quarks that make up the three elementary particles of atoms, which make up the molecules, compounds and cells, of animals, vegetables and minerals, everything occurs in triads, and the most basic of these spinning bits of something, the quarks, are also triadic. In order to be stable long enough to support life, they must be composed of three ostensibly different forms of the something: mass, energy and a third form which we are calling Gimmel. That third form of the something is neither mass, energy nor Gimmel, but the organizing factor that pervades the universe and conveys logical structure, meaning and purpose to the physical universe, the virtual tip of the iceberg of reality. That’s what the spinning bits of something are made of, and without it, there would be no physical universe, or meaning or purpose.

With the discovery of TRUE units of Gimmel, leading to the discovery of the source of mass, energy and Gimmel, i.e., the source of all things, the pervasive, unnamed something, finally, an understanding of the substance, meaning and purpose of the universe can be restored to our collective consciousness. This is vitally important and crucial at this moment in the unfolding of space, time and human consciousness, if we are to move away from the brink of destruction, and enter a new era of security, peace and abundance on this planet, a tiny ball of rock, water and mud, supporting life, intelligence and consciousness in a minor rotational arm of an otherwise un-noteworthy galaxy, spinning in space, time, floating in the un-manifest void of Primary Consciousness.






2 comments:

  1. Thank you for your continuing illumination of my understanding.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you for your continuing illumination of my understanding.

    ReplyDelete