Tuesday, December 15, 2015


O.K. Now I’m going to give you something really new, something that mainstream scientists do not know! And I’m going to try to explain it so that anyone, even a Nobel-Prize winning physicist, can understand it.
I am being facetious of course, but an honest scientist, physicist or mathematician, should try to make things as simple as possible. Einstein said:
 “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.”  Reference: (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alberteins103652.html#J67RBLLHBeIJUTD1.99
You may wonder how I could possibly know something that mainstream scientists don’t. How could I make such an outrageous claim? Physicists are generally pretty smart, with IQ scores of 125 or above. Famous Caltech Physics Professor Richard Feynman, for example, reported that he scored 125 on a standard IQ test. Stephen Hawking, on the other hand, scored 154, and Albert Einstein, who never took an IQ test as far as I know, is estimated by experts on intelligence measurement to have had an IQ in the range 160 to 190. Is it possible that I could have reached an understanding of the nature of reality while such geniuses have not? If you are reading this post, you’ll have a chance to judge that for yourself.
For most of my life, I have not known my IQ, and I haven’t particularly cared to know it. It is clear to me that people who flaunt high IQ scores openly, generally do so to bolster their egos because of inferiority complexes, stemming from some deep-seated lack of self-worth. People who feel the need to announce to the world “Look at me, I’m smarter than everyone else!” are generally people you would want to avoid. However, in order to establish credibility, I believe it is necessary or me to include a brief discussion of my IQ here. But I will put it in a footnote*, so that you can skip it if you want.
As I did with Question #2, I will start with a brief presentation of the current paradigm Standard Model understanding of quantum spin, followed by the Transcendental Physics, TDVP explanation of the ½ spin of elementary particles.
The concept of ‘spin’ like many concepts in the current quantum paradigm, is a reflection of the inability of particle physicists, trained in classical mechanics, to deal with the strangeness of the results of quantum experiments. In the early days of quantum physics Niels Bohr said:If quantum mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you haven't understood it yet.”
And Richard Feynman said: “I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.” And, when asked to explain the nature of the ½ spin of elementary particles he saidI couldn't reduce it to the freshman level. That means we really don't understand it.”
Physicists teaching quantum physics have gone on in this vein ever since, saying things like “Quantum physics is weird. That’s just the way it is. You can’t explain it in classical terms, just learn to deal with the mathematics of quantum numbers and get on with your life.” Mainstream physicists understand the spin of elementary particles as follows:
Spin, sometimes called “intrinsic spin” is the quantum version of the classical concept of angular momentum. Unlike the angular momentum of a macro-scale object, however, according to today’s text books, technical papers and on-line forums, physicists believe the ‘spin’ of a quantum particle has nothing to do with actual rotational spinning.
In spite of that, they do believe that angular momentum is a measurable feature of a rotating object, and quantum particles are rotating.  However, they go on to say, at the atomic or sub-atomic scale we obtain very strange results when calculating angular momentum, results that are contradict our understanding of the nature of normal spinning physical objects. For example, we know that a rotating object with an electric charge creates a magnetic field. If you know how the charge is distributed, and how fast the object is spinning, you can calculate the strength of the magnetic field.  The greater the charge and the greater the rotational speed, the stronger the magnetic field.  And there are several reliable ways to measure the strength of a magnetic field. So we can measure the strength of a specific magnetic field associated with an object, and if we know the electrical charge of the object, we can easily calculate the speed with which that object is spinning.
Electrons, protons and neutrons have measurable magnetic fields, but when we try to determine their rate of rotation, or spin from the strength of their magnetic fields in the normal way, we have a problem:  For the charge and size of an electron, for example, the calculated strength of the magnetic field is much too great.  An electron would have to be spinning faster than the speed of light to produce the magnet field we calculate form measurement data. But that cannot be right, because it would contradict the most basic principle of relativity and lead to complete chaos. The universe as we know it would cease to exist.  And yet, an electron definitely has the angular momentum necessary to create the stronger magnetic field, but we don’t know how it does it!

Somehow elementary particles have angular momentum. They even act just like tiny gyroscopes, but they cannot be rotating like objects do on the everyday scale of baseballs, basketballs and planets. So physicists have given up the idea that they are rotating in the usual, classical manner, and instead, they just consider a particle’s angular momentum as another quantum property, like charge or mass, without worrying how it is produced by the particle.  Physicists use the words “spin number” or “intrinsic spin” to distinguish the angular momentum that particles have, from the regular angular momentum of objects known to be rotating physically.

It may surprise you to learn that I determined why electrons and other elementary particles have that ‘intrinsic‘ spin of ½ some time ago, using mathematical methods I developed for the purpose of dealing with a multi-dimensional quantized  reality consisting of space, time, mass, energy, and consciousness: the calculus of distinctions and dimensional extrapolation. Fortunately, you do not have to learn these new mathematical techniques to understand what they revealed. They reveal that the elementary particles that make up ordinary matter: electrons, protons and neutrons, are spinning in 3, 6 or 9 dimensions. Also, I think you’ll be happy to know that I have devised a way you can test it and verify it for yourself.

You can demonstrate the fact that an object rotating in 3, 6 or 9 dimensions gains 180 degrees, i.e., ½ spin with each complete rotation using a Rubik’s cube! I used a Rubik’s cube just because I happened to have one handy. If you don’t happen to own a Rubik’s cube, you can use an ordinary child’s rubber or plastic ball. Prepare the ball by painting a different color on each of six equidistant points on the surface of the ball. You can do this by first painting a spot on the ball anywhere, at random. The spot can be any size equal to or less than 1/4th the circumference of the ball in diameter. That is just so the spots won’t overlap. Then, choosing a different color, paint another spot on the exact opposite side of the ball. An imaginary line between the two spots should pass through the exact center of the ball. Next, turn the ball one-quarter turn around an axis perpendicular to the imaginary line connecting the two spots through the center of the ball, and paint two more opposing spots using different colors. You will now have spots of four different colors, equidistant from each other around a circumference of the ball (like around the equator of the Earth). Finally, paint two more opposing spots, one on the top and one on the bottom (like the north and south poles of the Earth).  The ball now will have six different colored spots equidistantly spaced on the surface of the ball, like the six different colored sides of the Rubik’s cube.

Note: It will be easier to follow the instructions below if you use a ball or cube with the colors in the same spatial arrangement as on my cube. The colors on my cube are arranged as follows: With red facing me, yellow is up, green is to my left, blue is to my right, white is on the bottom and orange is opposite red. If your cube or spotted ball is different, you will have to interpret the movements described here accordingly.

A particle spinning in two dimensions is like a globe mounted on a merry-go-round, with both globe and merry-go round rotating at the same rate. The blue-green axis, analogous to the axis of the globe, is horizontal and the red-orange axis, analogous to the axis of the merry-go-round, is vertical. A particle rotating in three dimensions, then, is analogous to the spinning merry-go-round, with the spinning globe attached, rotating at the same rate, end-over-end around an axis perpendicular to the other two, (the Yellow-white axis).
Using your spotted ball or Rubik’s cube, you can now simulate an object like an electron, proton or neutron spinning around three mutually perpendicular axes. First, hold the ball or Rubik’s cube in front of you, with the red side facing you and the yellow side up. Take this as your starting, or “original” configuration. Now rotate the cube one-quarter turn (90°) so that the red side, instead of facing you, is up. This will be a rotation around the axis running through the blue and green faces. This is analogous to a 90° rotation of the globe on a horizontal axis. Next, rotate the cube clockwise (looking down on the red face), around the red-orange axis. Analogous to the merry-go-round, this replicates a 90° rotation around the vertical axis of the particle. Then rotate the cube around the third axis (Yellow-white) so that the blue side is up. With a continuously rotating particle, these 90° rotations in three different planes take place at the same time, but the result will be the same, and rotating the cube or ball simulates a particle rotating 90 degrees simultaneously in three planes. Repeating these rotations one more time, you will find the ball or cube is back in the original configuration. While a particle rotating in only one plane takes four 90 degree rotations to return to its original position, a particle rotating simultaneously in three planes only takes two 90 degree rotations to return to its original position.
Now, consider observations of rotating elementary particles in the electromagnetic field of a particle collider. Imagine looking along a line from your location to the center of a particle in one of the planes of its rotation. As in our macro-scale simulation, choose a specific observed configuration as the starting original configuration or quantum state of the object. We know that one complete rotation will have occurred when the object returns to its original position, with all measurable variables describing the particle indicating that the particle has returned to the original configuration relative to your reference frame. As we measure the angle through which the particle has rotated in our plane of observation, we find that it has returned to its original configuration after only two quarter turns, or a rotation of 180 degrees, not 360 degrees. So in the plane of our observation, it appears to have rotated an extra ½ rotation. The particle always seems to have an extra, built in, one-half rotation - an intrinsic ½ spin. Mystery solved!
Now you know what no mainstream physicist knows: The elementary particles called fermions, including electrons, protons and neutrons, are spinning in 3, 6 or 9 planes, and thereby exhibit an intrinsic spin of ½, with at least three times the angular momentum of a particle spinning in only one plane.

Now that we understand spin, we are ready to try to answer the question of why elementary particles spin with so much energy. But since this post is already very long, that will be Part 2 of the 3rd question.

* My first score on a standard IQ test, taken when I was 14, was 167, but I never learned that until much later in life. At the age of 72, I decided to take the IQ test of the International Society for Philosophical Enquiry (ISPE) with an entrance requirement of IQ at 149 or above. I decided to apply after reading a book of essays by members of ISPE. Like many ‘gifted’ people, I had not encountered many with whom I could discuss some of the things I thought about. I was not motivated by ego, but by the desire to communicate with highly intelligent people.  I had applied for admission to MENSA in 1982 (I was 46) and was accepted on the basis of my Graduate Record Exam score taken in 1976, which indicated an IQ above 150, but I wasn’t sure I could qualify for admission to ISPE, but I did. I was told that my IQ was considerably higher than the entry level. After being admitted to ISPE, I was selected as a participant in a Child Prodigy/Adult Genius Study, which required documentation of early-age IQ. It was then that I was able to find out what my high school IQ score had been. I also learned that my IQ might have actually been even higher, because 167 was the maximum dependable score possible on the test administered by my high school in 1954. The admission officer of the ISPE test hinted that my IQ might be in the 180 to 190 range. I did not feel the need to go beyond ISPE, but, based on my ISPE test score and achievements since 2008, I have been invited to join two other, even more exclusive intellectual achievement organizations. I am still not inclined to brag about my high IQ, for the reasons stated above, but I feel that the claims I’m making in this post require this disclosure to establish my credibility.
I certainly don’t claim to be the most intelligent person in the world. There people who claim to have IQ scores as high as 200 or more, but such claims are questionable, because such scores are not statistically valid.  IQ test scores higher than 190, six standard deviations above normal (normal = 100, SD = 15), have wide margins of error because of the scarcity of people with such high sores. To see how IQ scores relate to scarcity, go to http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/iqtable.aspx where you’ll find a table listing IQ scores with corresponding percentile and scarcity numbers related to the general population. For example, an IQ of 178 is at the 99.99999 percentile with a scarcity of one in 10,016,587, and an IQ of 195 is at 99.999999988 percentile with a scarcity of one in about 8.3 billion, the current population of the Earth. So one could say that the highest meaningful IQ is about 195. Anyone claiming a higher IQ is probably just trying to impress.

No comments:

Post a Comment