Thursday, December 22, 2016


©Edward R. Close, December 22, 2016

A very important fundament fact of nature was uncovered in the year 1900 when German physicist Max Planck discovered that nature metes out energy only in whole numbers of an extremely small amount called a quantum of energy. Within a few years, scientists realized that as a rule, all aspects of physical reality are quantized, and quantum physics was born.

Albert Einstein noted that mass is converted to energy by certain physical processes and energy is converted to mass by other processes. In 1905, Einstein showed that the exact mathematical equivalence of mass and energy is expressed by the equation E = mc2. In other words, he discovered that mass and energy are two different forms of the same thing.

In a paper entitled Does the inertia of a body depend on its energy content?Einstein concluded:

“It follows directly that: If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c². The fact that the energy withdrawn from the body becomes energy of radiation evidently makes no difference, so that we are led to the more general conclusion that the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content.”

In addition, based on the discoveries of general relativity, Einstein declared that there is no such thing as empty space or eventless time. The space-time continuum has meaning only in relation to mass and energy, which are quantized. In Appendix V of the 15th Edition of his popular book on Relativity, Einstein says:
“It is characteristic of Newtonian physics that it has to ascribe independent and real existence to space and time as well as to matter, for in Newton’s law of motion the idea of acceleration appears. But in this theory, acceleration can only denote ‘acceleration with respect to space’. Newton’s space must thus be thought of as “at rest’, or at least as “unaccelerated”, in order that one can consider the acceleration, which appears in the law of motion, as being a magnitude with any meaning. Much the same holds with time, which of course likewise enters into the concept of acceleration. Newton himself and his most critical contemporaries felt it to be disturbing that one had to ascribe physical reality to space itself as well as to its state of motion; but there was at that time no other alternative, if one wished to ascribe to mechanics a clear meaning.
Further on in Appendix V, after discussing several historical theoretical concepts of space, Einstein makes the following startling statement concerning “… how far the transition to the general theory of relativity modifies the concept of space”:
There is no such thing as an empty space, i.e. a space without field. Space-time does not claim existence on its own, but only as a structural quality of the field.
The idea that space and time do not exist without the presence of the mass and energy of physical objects is counter-intuitive for us because the everyday picture provided by the neurological processing of pulses of energy entering our consciousness through the functioning of our physical senses seduces us into thinking of space and time, or space-time, as a changeless background within which matter and energy interact to form objects and events. But we now know that this is not true. The illusion of space-time is created by the extension of the substance of physical objects in the form of gravitational and magnetic fields. There is no space-time to be distorted, it is the instruments of measurement (Einstein’s clocks and rods of his thought experiment) that are distorted by motion, not space-time as often depicted by popular presentations by leading mainstream physicists. A simple example will help clarify this point:
A steel ball, rolling across a table in a magnetic field created by the presence of a strong magnet placed under the table, will follow the curvature of the lines of force of the magnetic field. A non-metallic ball, however, unaffected by the magnetic field, will roll straight across the table. With this simple experiment we can see that the idea that the space above the table is warped by the magnet’s field is false. This, of course, is what you would expect if there is no such thing as empty space. In Einstein’s reasoning quoted above, this understanding is extended to space-time.
This shift in our understanding of space and time, made necessary by general relativity, (which, by the way, has been proved correct and accurate by very many, extremely detailed experiments and tests) tells us that there is no space-time independent of mass-and-energy objects and events, which are quantized. This means that the division of space and time, or space-time, into smaller increments than those occupied by a quantum of mass or energy, while theoretically conceivable, has no basis in reality. Thus for any valid mathematical analysis, space-time must be considered as quantized as is mass and energy, and it should not come as a  surprise that ignoring this requirement has resulted in erroneous conclusions about quantum reality and contributed to the perceived “weirdness” of quantum physics.
Newtonian Calculus and Quantum Mathematics
The calculus of Newton and Leibniz, known simply as “the calculus” for more than 300 years, is based on the assumption that the variables measuring objects and events may be divided indefinitely into smaller and smaller “infinitesimal” increments, approaching zero as closely as we please. However, in the real, quantized world of the physical universe, this cannot be done. As pointed out above, Planck’s discovery that energy is quantized, Einstein’s demonstration of the equivalence of mass and energy, and the conclusion that space-time has no independent existence, tells us, in no uncertain terms, that the division of the variables of space-time and mass-energy in the real world cannot approach zero infinitely closely. Therefore, the calculus of Newton and Leibniz, based on the assumption that this can be done, is inappropriate for application to quantum phenomena.
A new calculus, appropriate for application to quantum phenomena, is needed, and the Calculus of Distinctions is that calculus. I am currently working on two rigorously mathematical technical papers for submittal to mathematical physics journals proving this.

1. Planck, Max (1899) “Über irreversible Strahlungsvorgänge. Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin. 5: 440–480. pp. 478–80

2. Einstein, Albert (1905) “Does the inertia of a body depend on its energy content?”  Annalen der Physik, 17, 1905. Reprinted in The Principle of Relativity, Dover Pub.

3. Einstein, Albert (1962) “Relativity, the special and general theory, a clear explanation that anyone can understand”, Appendix V, pp. 135, 154 and 155, Crown Publishers, New York

Sunday, December 18, 2016


Edward R. Close © December 18, 2016

“He who thinks half-heartedly will not believe in God; but he who really thinks has to believe in God.”  – Sir Isaac Newton

 I want to elaborate a little on some of the statements made in my last post, entitled “the connection between the physical and the spiritual and why mainstream science continues to miss the point”. I like to make my posts as ‘stand-alone’ as I can. Sometimes this is hard to do when the ideas involved are complex.

First, the real connection between the physical and the spiritual has been discovered and scientifically defined by Close and Neppe, and published in peer-reviewed technical papers and in articles for the layperson. Briefly described, the discovery came about through the application of TRUE quantum unit analysis. (Reminder: TRUE stands for Triadic Rotational Unit of Equivalence.) A third form of the substance or content of reality, something real in addition to mass and energy, was discovered to be necessary in every atom of the universe for there to be any stable physical reality. We call that third form “gimmel”.

Gimmel cannot be measured directly the way mass and energy can, but it contributes very significantly to the spin (energy) and angular momentum (force) of elementary particles in a way that makes them stable, much the same way a spinning top or gyroscope is stable. Gimmel makes the formation of life supporting elements possible. It turns out that gimmel is consciousness, or at least the agent of consciousness in the physical universe, and consciousness is spiritual and ultimately non-physical.

Second, believers in spirit and a higher intelligence may have been shocked a little when I said that “believe” may be the most dangerous word in the world. Ministers and theologians make a point of telling their followers that they must have faith and believe. This is not necessarily a bad thing, because they usually ask you to believe something good; but we must be very careful about what we believe in. Many religious and political beliefs have proved to have deadly consequences, as I pointed out in the last post. And it is always better to know something than it is to just “believe” it.

Sometimes, a faulty belief system leads people to think they know something that turns out to be false. To wit, I quoted mainstream scientists who’ve said: “We know that dark matter is some form of matter, we just don’t know what that form is.” This demonstrates how the ‘knowing’ of something based on a faulty belief system, in this case, the belief in the completeness of materialism, leads to an unwarranted conclusion. We have demonstrated, with high confidence, that dark matter and dark energy are gimmel, and gimmel is neither matter, nor a form of matter. Matter is measurable as mass and energy, gimmel is not. Not only that, as Planck said, “There is no matter as such.” Mass, which we associate with weight on the macro scale, is actually an effect of the resistance to motion caused by the multi-dimensional spin of quanta.

Real data from the double-slit delayed-choice experiment demonstrates the fact that quanta have no localized form until a conscious choice prompts an act that sets up the conditions that cause quanta to manifest as particles or waves. It is only when an irreversible distinction is observed that the illusion of space and time is created in the mind of the observer. Thus the consciousness of observers and the distinctions of mass, energy, space and time are inseparably linked in the perception of physical phenomena.

A conscious entity automatically compares what is observed through the senses with a limited number of images, subjectively constructed in mind from memories of experiences imperfectly stored in and retrieved from that entity’s unique neurological system. This process of experience, storage and retrieval, and subjective interpretation is the basis of the belief systems of conscious entities. As I pointed out, it is likely that most of the members of the mainstream materialistic priesthood, like the inquisitors of the medieval church, actually believe that they are right, and don’t realize that they have bought into a belief system based on unsupported, and now unsupportable a priori assumptions.

Mainstream scientists don’t realize that they are constantly misrepresenting and distorting Planck’s quantum physics and Einstein’s relativity by talking about massless and dimensionless particles and a supposed warping of space-time, in spite of clear statements by Planck and Einstein that there is no matter, space or time independent of mass and energy, and, more importantly, there is no knowledge of physical reality without consciousness.

This brings us back to the Sir Isaac Newton quote at the beginning of this post:

He who thinks half-heartedly will not believe in God
But he who really thinks has to believe in God
Materialism is a very attractive belief system for scientists because it greatly simplifies their job. They don’t have to concern themselves with the really hard questions like: What is consciousness? How and why are we conscious? How has the existence of complex living organisms exhibiting consciousness come about? And how could the highly organized complexity of a physical universe that is perfectly balanced to support living vehicles for consciousness come about in a universe dominated by the physical laws of thermodynamics that describe the tendency of purely physical systems to break down and decay?  

Materialism is an overly simplistic and now completely unsustainable belief system. The sooner mainstream science recognizes this fact, the sooner we can move on to the science of the future, a science much more comprehensive and inclusive of all human experience. The longer science lingers in the dead-end backwater of materialism, promoting the fallacy that existence has no meaning, the greater the danger that the human race will destroy itself.

Is it necessary to believe in an Infinite Consciousness as Newton suggests? Ultimately, yes. 

A universe with no higher consciousness than the intelligence of limited human beings is doomed to fail. Such a belief system cannot sustain itself. But the general understanding of the existence of a much higher intelligence, which is ultimately spiritual, not physical, whatever we choose to call it, will gradually become clearer as we open our minds to the infinity of reality and grow spiritually. So I urge everyone to have confidence. The finite consciousness we experience is capable of developing much further, even approaching the goal of understanding the Mind of God. 

In spite of the tendency of mainstream human thinking to cling to the limited and limiting belief system of materialism, the Truth will eventually emerge. Even those who suffer from the mental illness of atheism will not be lost forever. Think of them with as much love and compassion as you can. Even the most misguided are redeemable.

Saturday, December 17, 2016



Edward R. Close © December 17, 2016

On December 8, 2016, John Herschel Glenn, Jr. left this Earth for the last time. As a tribute to him, I want to start this post with a John Glenn ‘right stuff’ quote:

“It has been my observation that the happiest of people, the vibrant doers of the world, are almost always those who are using - who are putting into play, calling upon, depending upon - the greatest number of their God-given talents and capabilities”. – John Glenn, Pilot, Military Leader, Astronaut and US Senator
Are you using your God-given talents and capabilities to the best of your ability to be everything you can be? Every day you fail to do so, you are wasting your time on this Earth, reducing your chances to become what you could and should be.

Human beings have a curious inclination to want to be absolutely right - forever. Behind this desire is the deep need to know The Truth. But this desire is dangerously perverted when you decide that what you believe is right, and that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, deluded and, even worse, evil. We have seen a lot of this during this election year, from both the extreme left and the extreme right of the political spectrum.

But, if one endeavors to avoid these extremes, there is another, much more subtle danger: the danger of believing that there is no absolute truth. This was epitomized by President Bill Clinton’s “It depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is!” In the world of this kind of thinking, truth is whatever you can make believe it is. This is very dangerous because it usually leads to self-destructive behavior. In fact, “Believe” may be the most dangerous word in the world. Most of the worst examples of man’s crimes against humanity are the result of acting on the basis of belief and socially institutionalized belief systems.

What does this have to do with the failure of mainstream science to acknowledge the connection between physical and spiritual reality? Mainstream science is not really science, it is almost completely dominated by a very simplistic belief system. That simplistic belief system is material reductionism: the belief that everything can be reduced to matter and energy interacting in time and space.

Mainstream science has become just another form of the same kind of blind-faith belief system that early science fought so hard against. Early scientists like Giordano Bruno, who was burnt at the stake for heresy, Galileo, who died under house arrest for daring to claim that the Earth revolves around the Sun, and many others, persecuted and ostracized for announcing discoveries that contradicted church doctrine, attest to the cruelty of institutionalized belief systems.
Today, any scientist who dares look outside the box for answers to questions raised by real data exposing contradictions in the current materialistic belief system is shunned and ostracized by mainstream science. Just the mention of certain words, considered to be taboo by the priesthood of mainstream science, in an otherwise valid research paper, guarantees that it will not be published. And the increasing number of clues that materialism is wrong, constantly arising from relativistic and quantum data are ignored by those perpetuating the mainstream dogma. The mainstream belief system masquerading as science routinely and systematically shuts down any voice daring to challenge it.

Even worse, the indoctrination of young students by self-proclaimed atheist instructors has produced an increasingly in-bred educational community of closed-minded people claiming to be scientists. Evidence of this perversion and indoctrination is widespread and even increasing, paralleling the widespread and increasing number of empirical clues from experimental data that materialism is wrong. For example, we hear statements like: “Of course, as a scientist, I’m an atheist.” And “We know that dark matter and dark energy are some form of matter and energy, we just don’t know what that form is.”

Statements from the giants of science concerning the spiritual nature of reality and to the effect that there is an Infinite Intelligence behind the reality we experience, are ignored and excluded from today’s text books. I’ve quoted a few of them in earlier posts, but here are some quotes from Newton, Planck and Einstein making my point:

“He who thinks half-heartedly will not believe in God; but he who really thinks has to believe in God.” 
“As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clearheaded science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a 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 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.”
“The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity.
I choose not to waste my time here by pointing out the fallacies of thinking in the statements made by many mainstream atheistic ‘scientists’ who believe that our existence is the result of a series of random events with no purpose or meaning. It is likely that most of the members of the mainstream materialistic priesthood, just like the inquisitors of the medieval church, actually believe that they are right, and don’t realize that they have bought into a belief system based on unsupported, and now unsupportable a priori assumptions. They don’t even appear to realize that they are constantly misrepresenting and distorting Planck’s quantum physics and Einstein’s relativity by talking about massless and dimensionless particles and warping of space-time, in spite of clear statements by Planck and Einstein that there is no matter, space and time independent of mass and energy, and no knowledge of it without consciousness.

In spite of man’s proclivity to screw up, the truth will eventually win out, and I intend to do everything I can to bring that about.

Tuesday, December 13, 2016


Today, I want to invite you to go with me on a magical trip via a ‘memory experiment’ inspired by Einstein’s famous gedankenexperiments (thought experiments). Only, if I succeed, it will be a gedankenexperiment on steroids! To prepare for our magical memory trip, I want you to think back to your childhood and imaginative stories you’ve heard, like: Tom Thumb, Alice in Wonderland, and The Incredible Shrinking Man.
Tom Thumb is a character of English folklore. The History of Tom Thumb was published in 1621, and was the first fairy tale printed in English. Tom is the size of his father's thumb, and his adventures include being swallowed by a cow, tangling with giants, and becoming a favorite of King Arthur. It is believed to have been written by a Londoner named Richard Johnson in 1621. This story may have been inspired by a real diminutive person. Tattershall, a village in Lincolnshire, England, claims to be the location of the home and grave of Tom Thumb.
Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland was written by English mathematician Charles Dodgson in 1865 under the pseudonym Lewis Carroll. We all remember how a little girl named Alice falls into a rabbit hole, and enters a world inhabited by many strange creatures like the Mad Hatter (a rabbit), the Cheshire cat, and the Queen of Hearts. The story allows the mathematician Dodgson to present interesting logical conundrums that make the story as popular with adults as with children.

The 1957 movie, The Incredible Shrinking Man starts out on a warm summer day with Scott Carey casually sunbathing on his yacht. A radioactive cloud envelops Scott, and a bit later, he begins to notice alarming changes. Within a few days, he loses weight, his clothes won't fit, and he slowly grows smaller and smaller. Doctors are at a loss to stop his shrinking. As he shrinks to the size of Tom Thumb, Scott gets unwanted media attention, and he has to deal with life-threatening situations like the family cat eyeing him as a snack, and a spider that, as he shrinks, appears to him to be the size of a bear. But he survives and continues to shrink away into seeming nothingness. His last words are worth reading. Here they are:

"I looked up, as if somehow I would grasp the heavens...the universe...worlds beyond number...God's silver tapestry spread across the night. And in that moment, I knew the answer to the riddle of the infinite. I had thought in terms of Man's own limited dimensions. I had presumed upon Nature. That existence begins and ends is Man's conception, not Nature's. And I felt my body dwindling, melting, and becoming nothing. My fears melted away, and in their place came...acceptance. All this vast majesty of creation - it had to mean something. And then I meant something too. Yes, smaller than the smallest, I meant something too. To God, there is no zero. I STILL EXIST!"

“To God, there is no zero.” In fact, Max Planck’s discovery that we live in a quantized universe, attests to the actual truth of this statement. In reality, there is no zero, only finite quanta, no absolute beginning or end, and there is no such thing as nothing. We have proved this mathematically and dimensionally with the Calculus of Distinctions. See the post of Feb. 6, 2016:

Are these stories pure fantasy, as most people believe, or do they reflect a deeper reality, vaguely remembered?  Before we start on our trip, let me share with you some very real experiences of mine. I have vivid memories from the age of eight or nine months. I thought everyone did, so I had no idea that there was anything unusual about it until much later in life. I have shared some of these early memories and how they were verified as real memories with a few others, but for now, let me skip ahead to the time when I was eight years of age.

One afternoon, as a sixth-grader sitting at my desk in my classroom, while I was looking at the teacher, suddenly, her face began to expand in my field of vision, and it continued to expand until it seemed to fill all space. I could see the pores of her skin as if I were looking at her through a magnifying glass. Then, just as suddenly, her face receded away into the distance, exactly as if I were looking through the wrong end of a telescope, until her head looked almost as small as a grain of sand.

Also, about the same time, occasionally, I would unexpectedly experience greatly heightened tactile and auditory senses. Lying in my bed waiting to go to sleep, my senses would become so acute that I would avoid moving because the rustling of the sheets sounded like a crashing landslide. Lying still, I could hear my father’s watch ticking in another part of the house, and by focusing, I could hear the music of a marching band. This was before the invention of television, but I had built a crystal radio set when I was seven, so I was familiar with the idea of ‘tuning in’ to different frequencies, and I learned to focus on other sounds in the ‘ether’; so I would often go to sleep listening to strains of classical music, which I believed was being played somewhere.

I told my father about these experiences, and he advised me not to worry. He said it was a by-product of rapid growth, and that he had had similar experiences as a boy. So I accepted the experiences as normal and actually learned to enjoy them.

Much later in life, I studied comparative religion and many mystical traditions. I found that in Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, and Taoist mystical teachings, some of the spiritual experiences marking the progress of a spiritual seeker is the ability to make things appear larger or smaller than they normally appear through the physical senses. Buddhism, for example, specifically lists this as one of the nine main siddhis (powers or accomplishments) on the path to enlightenment:

MADALASA VIDYA (Sanskrit: correct knowledge)
A being reaching this level of enlightenment becomes capable of increasing or decreasing the size of his/her body.
Anima Siddhi - The ability to decrease the size of one's body and become as small as the smallest particle.
Mahima Siddhi - The ability to increase the size of one's body, ultimately enveloping the universe.

I must add that the experiences I described above were spontaneous, and mostly beyond my control. But, is it possible that such experiences reflect a deeper reality? Or are they no more than fantasies? Before you dismiss them out of hand, suppose there is a way to test and verify such experiences. I believe there is, because I have verified things I learned in an expanded state of consciousness, things of which I had no previous knowledge. But that’s another story.

For now, let’s go on a gedanken trip together, first shrinking our perceptions to the size of the quantum world. You can think of it as imagination if you like, but what I propose is imagination guided by logic and scientific knowledge. If, by doing this, we can arrive at conclusions and understandings, and even obtain exact measurable and computable values that can be checked against known facts and scientific data, we will have proved that experiences like mine and perhaps those in the imaginative stories above are not pure fantasy, but actually reflect a reality beyond the world normally revealed by our physical senses, most of the time beyond our reach, but somehow vaguely remembered.

So come with me now, to the world of Tom Thumb, Alice, Scott Carey, and beyond: First, let’s shrink our immediate awareness from the perceptions of our earthly environment to organic and inorganic structures, to molecules, to atoms, to protons and neutrons, and finally to electrons and quarks, on the scale of the quantum world, to see things about a trillion times smaller than the smallest dot we can observe with our eyes. What will we find there? Then let’s zoom back up and pass the scale of our ordinary everyday experience, gradually encompassing the Earth, the Solar System, the Milky Way Galaxy, and on, to the very edges of the visible universe! We will be able to see how the world of our everyday experience is only the tip of the iceberg of reality, and how it is supported and sustained by a deeper quantum reality, suspended in a cosmological infinity that is unfathomable as long as we are limited to our finite physical bodies.

I’m not suggesting that your physical body will shrink like the fictional Scott Carey. But I am asking you to consider the possibility that consciousness is not limited to the physical body. My experiences involved the shrinking and expanding of my consciousness, not my physical body. The teacher and my classmates would have noticed that! But my point of view changed drastically. Suppose the energy of consciousness is imprisoned in physical forms by our choice, and we become so engrossed and identified with our physical bodies that we forget our true nature. What if our true nature is spiritual, and the physical senses are outward manifestations of a deeper ability to be consciously aware. Suppose we can shift our point of view, focusing inward and downward until the smallest quantum of physical reality appears to be a spinning ball of energy about the size of a softball. I see that ball of energy as a distinct ball of fire, rapidly spinning directly in front of me. Having distinguished it from myself and everything else, I am able to see how it combines with other balls of energy to form the atoms of physical reality. I am not the only one to ever think this way. An Oxford philosophy don and electronics engineer thought very deeply about how the logic of perceptions. He wrote:

 “A universe comes into being when a space is severed or taken apart.”- G. Spencer Brown, Laws of Form, A Note on the Mathematical Approach, page v. The Julian Press, 1977.

George Spencer Brown suggests that when we separate anything from everything else by drawing a distinction, we create a world of perception. A distinction is anything that is perceived, in any way, as distinct and separate from everything else. The first distinction of which we are consciously aware is the distinction of self from other. Without that, no perception is possible. But with that, we then find, in a universe where all things seem possible, there are actually logical laws governing what forms are possible. This is demonstrated in Brown’s Laws of Form: Reality has a natural logical structure that is inescapable. To see how this comes about, let’s look, from our shrunken state, at the very smallest physical distinction, the elementary particle called the electron. Why does it appear to be a spinning ball of fire? Symmetry is natural for an isolated object, because without the influence of other distinct objects there is nothing to prevent perfect symmetry. In the absence of anything else physical, the electron spins symmetrically.

It appears to be roiling, as if it is spinning in many different directions at the same time! As I watch it spin, I wonder: why is it spinning? We don’t seem to see anything like that in our everyday world. Oh, wait! The Earth is spinning on its axis, the moon is spinning around the Earth, and they go on spinning around the sun, and the solar system is in an arm of a spiraling galaxy. Everything is spinning! But why? And why is this super-small object spinning so fast? As a physicist, I can propose hypotheses that may answer this question, but theory must be tempered with experience and empirical data.

A little history of particle physics will help us to understand this: Physicists have known for a long time that a moving charged particle generates a magnetic field. Electric motors and generators work because of this fact. In 1922, two German physicists, Otto Stern and Walther Gerlach, working at the University of Hamburg, conducted a series of experiments designed to measure the magnetic fields produced by electrons orbiting the nucleus of an atom. They were surprised to find that the electrons themselves were spinning very rapidly, producing magnetic fields independent of those produced by their orbital motions. They also found that the surfaces of charged particles would have to be spinning faster than the speed of light in order to produce the magnetic moments they were measuring. This, plus the fact that spin, a measure of energy (angular momentum), like everything else at the quantum scale, is quantized, led physicists to believe that there was no way to explain quantum phenomena in everyday terms that relate to rotation of large objects. This is one reason that physicists, for almost 100 years, have been declaring that quantum physics is weird.

We find that the relativistic limit on spin in three dimensions actually defines the size of the smallest possible quantum, linking relativity and quantum mechanics. These spinning elementary particles are vortices connecting the three dimensions of space to six additional dimensions.

Physicists recognize that spin is a very real physical property, playing an important role in the structure of atoms and molecules, with significance in chemistry and solid-state physics. Spin is important in all interactions among subatomic particles, in the high-energy particle beams of the LHC, in low-temperature fluids, and in solar winds. Most physical processes, from the quantum scale to the galactic scale, depend on the interactions of subatomic particles regulated by the relative directions and rates of spin of those particles.

According to Victor J. Stenger, professor of physics at the University of Hawaii:

"Spin is the total angular momentum, or intrinsic angular momentum, of a body. The spins of elementary particles are analogous to the spins of macroscopic bodies. In fact, the spin of a planet is the sum of the spins and the orbital angular momenta of all its elementary particles. So are the spins of other composite objects such as atoms, atomic nuclei and protons (which are made of quarks).

"At our current level of understanding, the elementary particles are quarks, leptons (such as the electron) and bosons (such as the photon). These particles are all imagined as point-like, so you might wonder how they can have spins. A simple answer might be, perhaps they are composite, too. But deep theoretical reasons having to do with the rotational symmetry of nature lead to the existence of spins for elementary objects and to their quantization.

"Spin has served as the prototype for other, even more abstract notions that seem to have the mathematical properties of angular momentum … quarks are paired as isospin 'up' and 'down,' which are the names given to the two quarks that make up ordinary matter. The rotational symmetry of space and time is generalized to include symmetries in more abstract 'inner' dimensions, with the result that much of the complex structure of the micro-world can be seen as resulting from symmetry breaking, connecting profoundly to ideas describing the spontaneous formation of structure in the macro-world.”

From the viewpoint of the quantum scale, what we will see supports Professor Stenger’s description of spin; with a few important exceptions. As he suggests, from the quantum point of view, elementary particles like quarks do have additional features, they are not dimensionless points; they are composed of units of mass, energy, and as we have discovered, something else, which is not directly measurable as mass or energy, but does affect the total angular momentum of spinning objects, from electrons to galaxies. We have called this something else 'gimmel'. 

Elementary particles like electrons and quarks can only be treated as point-like in the current paradigm because of their extreme smallness relative to our ability to measure them from the macro-scale, and because the idea of a dimensionless particle is supported by the erroneous assumption of Newtonian calculus that physical variables can approach zero indefinitely closely.

The terms ‘symmetry breaking and spontaneous formation of structure’ have become ingrained in the jargon of physicists, but they are actually just verbal representations of what mainstream particle physicists see as arbitrary randomness in the formation of sub-atomic structure and other physical processes. Finally, we see that Professor Stenger’s allusion to “inner dimensions” is inaccurate. There are additional dimensions, but they are not “inner’ dimensions. Let me explain:

When we are successful in shifting our point of view, as happened in my spontaneous expansions of consciousness when I was a sixth grader, we are freed of the limitations of the physical body. What we see from that broader point of view, is that the additional dimensions required to explain quantum reality are not folded or curled up, as some physicists have imagined, and they are not the inner dimensions (actually pseudo dimensions) of matrices describing differential equations, they are extensions of the invariant relationships of the three dimensions we are aware of through the limited senses of the physical body. Just like one and two-dimensional domains are embedded within the three–dimensional domain, the three-dimensional domain is embedded in a fourth dimension (the first dimension of time) and so on. Pure mathematical number theory supports exactly nine finite dimensions embedded in an infinite substrate. The infinite substrate, encompassing all possible universes, connects the receding quantum realm with the expanding multiverses available to the three dimensions of consciousness in the three dimensions of time.

This is difficult to envision while confined to the physical body and its limited senses, but it provides the basis for explanations of a number of conundrums that have plagued physical science since the time of Einstein and Bohr. Application of dimensional mathematics from this point of view explains how and why quarks combine in threes to form the protons and neutrons of ordinary physical reality, why fermions have ½ intrinsic spin, and why there is a stable, life supporting universe, - why there is something rather than nothing. Also, the mathematics of nine finite dimensions shows that there is no arbitrary randomness in the formation of atomic structure. The universe is well-ordered, and it is accurately described by the Calculus of Distinctions, Dimensional Extrapolation and the Conveyance Equation. The mathematical proofs we’ve developed are beyond the scope of this discussion, but you can go to the post referenced earlier, You can also go to, a link to the IQNexus Journal, where you’ll find Vol. 8, No. 3, published September 01, 2016, that has the mathematical details, and Vol. 8, No. 4, published December 01, 2016 with Q&A discussions of TDVP.

Friday, November 25, 2016


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thursday, November 24, 2016


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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