Saturday, January 30, 2016



The word paradigm, derived from a Latin word meaning to show beside, in the sense of an example or model, was first used to mean a scientific model or world view, by American physicist and philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn in his now-famous book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” published in 1962. He also introduced the term ‘paradigm shift’ to mean a fundamental shift in the basic concepts upon which science, or at least some major part of science, was based. Examples of major paradigm shifts include the shift from an Earth-centered cosmological model to a planetary solar system model, the shift to relativity, and the shift to quantum mechanics. Paradigm shifts do not negate everything known before, but they do profoundly change the way we understand the nature of reality.

A paradigm shift is the result of new evidence that contradicts the existing paradigm, and that evidence is most often discovered by scientists working in areas at the fringe, or outside of the existing paradigm. In every major paradigm shift, the scientists discovering them have been ridiculed by scientists in mainstream academia, who consider them to be misguided.

Relativity and quantum physics were considered to be separate, and even competing and conflicting paradigm shifts, but together, they have revealed an expanding quantized reality where the location, relative motion and consciousness of the observer interact dynamically with and influence the nature of physical reality. Thus they paved the way for the paradigm shift being discussed here. We now realize, and can demonstrate mathematically, that no paradigm can be a theory of everything if does not contain consciousness, and as we’ve discussed in earlier posts, reality consists of mass, energy and a third form, in a nine-dimensional finite space, time consciousness domain, expanding out of a structured transfinite domain into infinity. The connections between consciousness and space-time domains are well-defined in the Calculus of Distinctions.

The calculus of distinctions (CoD) is a system of mathematical logic uniquely and ideally suited to describing reality in terms of integral multi-dimensional quanta of mass, energy, space, time and consciousness. I will not post the mathematical derivation of the CoD here, because it is too lengthy and technical, and I have published it elsewhere. (Notably in “Infinite Continuity” 1990, in “Transcendental Physics, 1997 and 2000, in “The Calculus of Dimensional Distinctions in Elements of mathematical Theory of Intellect”, 2003, published in Moscow with Vladimir Brandin, in “Reality Begins with Consciousness”, 2013 with Vernon Neppe. See, and journal articles. The calculus of distinctions has advantages over the calculus of Newton and Leibniz, not the least of which is the fact that the CoD is designed to deal with quantum distinctions, and the calculus of Leibniz and Newton was not.

I will describe briefly here how the CoD was derived and applied to the elementary particles that make up physical reality. As I stated in an earlier post, the good news is: the calculus of distinctions is, in principle, easier to understand than the calculus used today. It is more basic than the calculus of Newton and Leibniz; it works the way your mind works. And learning the basics of the calculus of distinctions is like starting at the beginning of the story, not in the middle. The calculus of distinctions is logically prior to all mathematical expressions. Much like algebra and algebraic symbols, the calculus of distinctions is the logic of calculation, and distinctions are the objects of that calculation.
The awareness of reality begins with the first distinction drawn by a conscious entity: the distinction of self from other. And the distinction of self from other begins with the awareness of a feeling of being inside, as opposed to outside, experienced as I am ‘in here’, everything else is ‘out there’. This distinction is a necessary precursor to drawing other distinctions within self, and in other. It is the basis of all awareness of separation and combination, similarity and difference, equivalence and counting, and thus all mathematics. The distinctions of past, present and future lead to awareness of time, cause and effect, and finally, all science and knowledge. In space and time, we have distinctions of extent in 3 or more dimensions, and we have distinctions of content, as of mass and energy, and distinctions of intent or meaning, as in consciousness.

Distinctions beyond the distinction of self from other are defined in units of mass/energy/consciousness equivalence. In a quantized reality, it is logical, and very useful to define the unitary quantum distinction in terms of the smallest possible particle of the substance of reality. That particle is the electron.

Using Einstein’s mass-energy equivalence expressed by E = mc2, (true in SI units, i.e., where energy is measured in joules, mass in kilograms, and the speed of light in meters per second) we will ‘normalize’ our quantum unit by defining the measures of the electron as the basic units of measurement of quantum reality. This means that the quantity of mass and energy, and the volume of the electron are all set equal to one. These units are similar to Planck’s quantum units, but different from Planck units in a very important way: Planck’s units are derived by setting the five physical constants (the gravitational constant, the Coulomb constant, the Boltzmann constant, Planck’s constant, and the speed of light) equal to one. We are setting the basic mass, energy, space, and time measures of the electron equal to one.

Planck’s units are designed to simplify calculations involving the known ‘universal’ constants, and to remove the arbitrariness of macro-scale measurement units like feet, pounds, meters and grams. By redefining quantum units the way we have, we have defined measurement to be based on the four measurable features of physical reality: mass, energy, space and time, and the consciousness act of the drawing of distinctions, which is also an integral part of measurement. This removes the arbitrary aspect of measurement, as Planck units do, but we have also found a way to, at least tentatively include the action of consciousness. Defining the TRUE quantum unit in this way and using it as the unitary distinction in the CoD, we avoid the intractable difficulties of the current mathematics with more than two dimensions, by starting with 3D distinctions. We shall see that this greatly simplifies the mathematics needed to describe physical reality.

We know that stable elementary particles are spinning rapidly, at angular velocities even approaching the speed of light, and they are stable, because they don’t fly apart like an asymmetric lump of clay on a potter's wheel. This means that they must have symmetrical shapes. Planck’s discovery that reality is quantized provides an elegant way to determine the size and shape of the electron, and subsequently of the quantum unit, because, in a quantized reality, only certain symmetrical shapes are possible. I’ll go into this in more detail in technical papers, but for the purposes of this discussion, it is sufficient to say that symmetrical particles, spinning in three dimensions, behave as if they were spherical. This is because by spinning so fast they occupy the volume of a sphere.

 Contrary to the opinions of most physicists, classical physics principles do apply at the quantum level. Classical centripetal forces cause the extremities of spinning particles to be pulled toward the center, or shrink in size, increasing their spinning velocity, like a spinning skater. But, just as the quantum is the limit, or bottom, of physical mass, it is also the bottom of physical size, because the speed of light is the upper limit on relative velocity, which determines the limit on how small the particle can be. Thus, in the normalized electron unit we have the definition of the most basic unit of mass, energy and volume. Add to this the presence of the third form, carrying the logical structure of consciousness, and we have the Triadic Rotational Unit of equivalence, or TRUE unit as the basic unit of all three types of measurement: extent, content and intent.

I note in passing that the normalizing of the units of measurement to the TRUE unit, involves combining quantum and relativistic principles. Thus, by making the TRUE unit the basic distinction of the calculus of distinctions, we assure that the mathematics growing out of this will integrate relativity and quantum physics. In addition, the mathematics and geometry describing physical reality are greatly simplified because all of the particles that make up the physical universe, and any combination of them, are measurable in whole-number multiples of a basic equivalence unit, the TRUE unit. This normalizes all equations describing the combinations of quarks, electrons, protons and neutrons, atoms and molecules that make up the physical universe into simple Diophantine, or integer equations.

In future posts I will show how this approach leads to the discovery of the mathematical/geometrical/logical nature of the third form, which we’ve called gimmel in these posts, and how several long-standing puzzles of physics are solved using TRUE units of mass, energy and gimmel.

ERC 01/30/2016

1 comment:

  1. The fundamental, helical (vortical) and inherent mathematical code of the the Ultimate Force's duality within Its own Singularity! Mathematics of the 'One' in 'Y = X squared plus One', no less! My own Internet sites refer!