Friday, July 29, 2016



With the new understanding of reality presented by the Triadic Dimensional Vortical Paradigm (the TDVP shift), the world has changed forever! Don’t just take my word for it, look at what other scientists are saying. Here are just three, out of dozens of comments from scientists world-wide:

“I once heard a minister say ‘God is an affirmation of faith, not an inference from fact.’ This statement is no longer true …
“Dr. Close has accomplished what no one has ever done before. He has taken all the fundamental discoveries and facts of modern science and has proven, conclusively, that none of these laws of science could be true without the all-pervading consciousness of God -- …
“With the publication of this work it is no longer logically consistent to be both a scientist and an atheist, nor is it logically correct to believe in God and say that science does not support such a belief.”
 – Dr. David Stewart, PhD, DNM, educator and author of a number of books including “The Chemistry of Esential Oils made Simple, God’s Love Manifest in Molecules

“I feel very excited to have sensed myself, the enthusiasm of discovering so many overlapping fields in our views!
…A work that will change mankind's future.
For the first time in mankind's history, its real nature is scientifically disclosed at the highest charismatic academic level!
…A seismic shift in understanding the understanding process itself!
…The beginning of the ultimate disclosure about the nature of an all-encompassing reality.
…A monumental work forcing obsolete preconceptions to crumble.
…The 21st Century's revolutionary paradigm shift.”
-- Dr. Adrian Klein, Consciousness Researcher.

“What an astonishing and prodigious accomplishment! The Neppe-Close paradigm now provides for a much more coherent way to understand reality. Once introduced, the actualities of these unifying concepts begin to live. It is quite stunning to observe people speaking from an "already having changed" perspective…a thrilling journey!
-- Alan Bachers, PhD, Neuroscientist; Director, Neurofeedback Foundation

These comments were all written before the latest profound realization has come out of our work. What is that realization?  Even before any question is formed in any language, all questions are answered. Let me explain:

I discovered Albert Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity when I was fourteen. I spent my fifteenth summer soaking up every book on mathematics and physics I could find, and a new world opened up for me. I began to see how science and mathematics reveals a deep reality that would otherwise remain hidden. The beauty and symmetry of the universe revealed by mathematics and science, coupled with the beauty of nature I was privileged to experience every day in the remote corner of the Missouri Ozarks where I lived with my parents, made me wonder if, among the hidden things like atoms and electrons, pervasive as the air and water, a higher intelligence was smiling at me. One evening, thinking about this, I walked out into nature, looked up at the sky and said: “I want to know everything!” Because there seemed to be so much to learn, I thought maybe that was too much to expect, so I innocently asked: “God, is it possible to know everything?” The response I received changed my life.

During the years that followed, I learned the general wisdom was that no one could ever know all there is to know. After all, even though the human brain contains about 100 billion neurons and each neuron may be connected to as many as 10,000 other neurons, making as many as 1,000 trillion synaptic connections, far more than the number of stars in the sky or grains of sand on the planet, the physical brain in anyone’s head is still finite. So there is a limit to how much can be stored there. That, however, is not the end of the story.

In the multi-dimensional relativistic, quantized reality of TDVP, the 3S-1t physical universe, of which my brain is part, is embedded in a series of increasingly encompassing dimensional domains, embedded in an infinite substrate which turns out to be conscious! In that infinite consciousness, everything is embedded. Thus, everything that is, has ever, or can ever be known already exists. And the scripture says: “Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.” -- Matthew 7:7

In the geometrically symmetrical mathematics of TDVP we found that gimmel, the TRUE quantum units of consciousness in your brain are in direct connection with the Primary Consciousness of the conscious substrate of reality. So, while your brain is finite, if you learn how to ask, any question can be answered.

I received an answer all those years ago. It just took this long to prove it with math and science!

Monday, July 25, 2016



I just read a National Geographic article about how science is redefining death:

I found the comments following the article more interesting than the article itself. Readers labeled it everything from “beautiful” and “inspiring” to “pseudoscience” and “crap”. Most of the comments say a lot more about the people who wrote them than they say about the article. My advice, especially to the non-scientist is take time to think a little before commenting on an article like this, and judge not, lest ye be judged.

If you find it necessary to belittle someone else’s point of view in order to defend yours, you probably are not that sure of your own thoughts. It takes some real effort to think for yourself and test ideas that you question, and not just defend a borrowed belief system because it sounds good to you. Use of emotion-charged pejoratives is a sure sign that the user finds his/her belief system threatened.

Anyone who resorts to name calling and abusive language is really only displaying intolerance and/or trying to elevate his/her own views by denigrating others. Politicians do this a lot. Think about the current political conventions. But don’t just blame the politicians. They do it because they know that it works to fire up their supporters emotionally and recruit voters. But think for a minute what this says about us as voters. Unfortunately, the average voter often seems to know very little about the candidates or issues, but votes primarily on the basis of the hype being broadcast by one side or the other.

Does a belief system have to be based on faith?

Does science rule out the existence of God, or life after death?

Do we just have to believe one way or the other, or can we find the truth by thinking for ourselves?

Can we ever know with absolute certainty?



Sunday, July 24, 2016


 © Edward R. Close, July 24, 2016

Scientific Paradigms
First, let’s be clear about what a scientific paradigm is. A paradigm is not just a theory. A paradigm is a world view, a comprehensive model of reality made up of known facts, reasonable ideas and feasible theories. The current scientific paradigm is the body of ideas that most scientists agree upon. A paradigm shift occurs when one or more of the basic assumptions upon which the current paradigm is built is found to be false and is replaced by a newly discovered fact or a new assumption that represents reality in a better or more complete way. As examples of major paradigm shifts, I would point to the shift from thinking that we exist in an earth-centered universe to a heliocentric solar system, relativity and quantum physics.

We must also be clear about the difference between a theory and a theorem. The two words look and sound similar, but they are almost completely opposite in meaning. A scientific theory is an idea that has not been proved. A theorem, on the other hand, is a mathematical statement that has been proved. A theory may be convincingly reasonable, or wildly speculative. A scientific theory, even though widely accepted for years, must be discarded if contrary evidence is found. A theory that can be expressed mathematically is called a conjecture until it is either proved or disproved. If a mathematical conjecture is proved, it becomes a theorem. So a scientific theory is subject to validation or falsification, while a mathematical theorem is true forever.

Perhaps some simple examples will make the difference between a theory and a theorem clear:

Example 1: The idea that the sun circles the earth once every 24 hours is a theory that seemed obvious based on our perceptions and daily experience. The sun appears to move, and the earth seems to be stationary. But that theory has been thoroughly disproved with empirical data and mathematical determinations. We know now that the earth spins on its axis, completing one revolution every 24 hours and orbits around the sun once in a year. So the stationary earth theory has been discarded.

Example 2: I claim that the sum of any three consecutive non-negative numbers will always be divisible by 3. This statement is a conjecture until a way is found to prove or disprove it. I can give specific examples that seem to validate the claim, like 0+1+2=3; 1+2+3=6; 2+3+4=9; 7+8+9=24, etc., but these specific numerical examples only provide a feasibility argument, not a conclusive proof. If there exists even one set of three consecutive integers in the infinity of numbers that do not add up to a multiple of 3, the claim is false and will have to be discarded. Of course I can’t check every possible three-number sequence. I can, however prove the claim algebraically in three simple steps:

1.     Let n be any whole number from 0 to infinity.
2.     Then n+(n+1)+(n+2) algebraically represents a sequence of three consecutive numbers.
3.     Then, by simple addition, n+(n+1)+(n+2)=3n+3=3(n+1), which is divisible by 3 for all n from zero to infinity.

Now my conjecture is actually a theorem, a mathematical statement that will be true of all whole numbers forever. No future discovery can disprove it.

So, a scientific theory is a statement that may be either true or false. If it can be proved true, it becomes a solid part of the paradigm, if false, it is discarded. The mathematical counterpart of a scientific theory is a conjecture, and a theorem is a conjecture that has been proved. A scientific paradigm is subject to change, while a mathematical theorem is true forever. This explains the power of mathematics and the relationship of mathematics to reality.

The Current Paradigm
The current scientific paradigm consists of a number of more or less strongly related ideas describing what we know, or think we know about reality. I believe it is really important to classify and separate the ideas that make up the scientific paradigm into three different types: 1. Ideas that have been succinctly described mathematically, proved and validated by empirical data. 2. Ideas that make so much sense in conjunction with the known facts that they are accepted by the scientific community even if they have not been unequivocally demonstrated to be true. 3. And there is a third class of ideas that are speculative and hypothetical.

These three classes of ideas can be identified by the nature of their origins. The ideas that make up the scientific paradigm are of three origins:

1.     Existential – undeniably real
2.     Perceptual – probably real, based on direct observation but subject to the limitations of our physical senses and/or extensions of them
3.     Conceptual – possibly real, based on logical deduction and extrapolation from known facts and/or feasible conjectures, but may be hypothetical and/or speculative.

The Triadic Dimensional Vortical Paradigm (TDVP) Shift
The paradigm described in these posts and in the numerous technical papers, books and articles authored by Neppe and Close or Close and Neppe, over the past several years comprise the description of a major shift from the reductionist material-based paradigm of current mainstream science, to an integrated consciousness-based paradigm. In TDVP, Consciousness is the primary substance of reality. I want to be very clear that this primary form of consciousness is not the limited awareness of a conscious individual. Rather, all of finite reality, including individualized consciousness, is embedded in Primary Consciousness. As an analogy, we might assay that the individualized consciousness in the body of a living organism is to Primary Consciousness as the air in a balloon is to the atmosphere in which the balloon is suspended. Unlike the balloon, however, even the substance of the body is also a form of Consciousness. That is to say, just as matter is a form of energy, energy is a form of Consciousness.

Quantum Physics
Niels Bohr, often called the father of quantum physics, said “The business of physics is to describe what we experience, not to explain the nature of reality.” Why would he say that? Surely, science, especially physics, the most concrete of sciences, should be concerned with what is real and what is not. To understand what Bohr was saying, you must put it into the context of what was going on when he said it. He was engaged in a debate with Albert Einstein, who had attacked the uncertainty principle, one of the most basic ideas of quantum mechanics.

The uncertainty principle, expressed in Heisenberg’s matrices and Schrӧdinger’s wave equation, two different mathematically equivalent expressions of the probability distribution of states of quantum particle/wave phenomena, predicts a very small, but unavoidable uncertainty in the measurement of one of two parameters. For example, if the exact location of a particle can be known, its angular momentum and total energy cannot be known exactly, and vice versa. This uncertainty, even though very small, introduces randomness into quantum reality. Einstein couldn’t accept this as real. He famously said: “God doesn’t play dice.”

Einstein thought that Bohr’s quantum theory was incomplete, and that if the missing component could be determined, the uncertainty would go away. To make his point, he and two colleagues proposed a hypothetical experiment involving a sub-atomic reaction that appeared to disprove the uncertainty principle by providing a specific physical situation in which there would be no uncertainty. Remember, it only takes one contradiction to disprove a theory. Einstein called the EPR concept a “thought experiment” because, at that time, the technology to perform it did not yet exist. It became known as the EPR (Einstein Podolsky Rosen) paradox because it used a known fact about certain sub-atomic reactions to contradict a basic principle of quantum mechanics that was backed by experimental data. Eventually, the uncertainty principle prevailed, but that story has been told many times, and is not necessarily relevant to this discussion.

What I want to focus on here is Bohr’s use of the word “experience”. When he said that physics is about what we experience, he clearly did not mean this in the general sense of the word experience as we usually use it. Our experience includes things like happiness, anxiety, attraction, and revulsion, even love. He meant experience strictly in the sense of experimental physics. He was suggesting that we can only describe the results we ‘experience’ in quantum experiments, not what causes those results. Using the terms I’ve defined here, we would say that the results of an experiment are existential, or at least perceptual, while speculations about a causative reality are conceptual and speculative. In TDVP, we consider experience in the broader, more inclusive sense of conscious awareness.

A New Calculus
If we look at TDVP as a scientific hypothesis, i.e. a theory, we must attempt to find a way to test its feasibility and prove its validity, just as I found a way to test the sum of 3 consecutive integers conjecture and prove its validity. We have found a way to test the feasibility of TDVP by using some new mathematical techniques, and we have been more successful than we could ever have imagined. We have been able to explain observations, experimental data and paradoxes that have not been satisfactorily explained within the current paradigm, and the mathematical tools we developed have also provided us a way to prove the validity of TDVP in much the same way a mathematical conjecture is proved, turning it into a theorem. To help you understand how this is done, I am going to explain the basis and general nature of the Calculus of Distinctions.

The calculus that has been used as the main tool to describe our dynamic physical universe for the more than 300 years, was developed independently by Leibniz and Newton. I developed a new calculus, not because the one in use was so old, but because I saw the need for a quantum calculus. As I’ve stated in published books and papers, and in previous posts, in a quantized reality, the assumption of infinite divisibility, basic to the integral and differential calculus of Newton and Leibniz is invalid. I developed the Calculus of Distinctions in 1986 and published it along with applications to relativity, quantum physics and cosmology in 1990.

Experience, Distinctions, and a Quantum Calculus
Experience, or individual awareness arises from the distinction of self from other. As conscious beings, we experience the awareness of ‘in-here’ versus ‘out-there.’ Taking this distinction as existential, in the same way the distinction of a particle (mass) or a force (energy) is existential, we have developed a calculus of three dimensional distinctions. This led to the definition of a quantum equivalence unit (The Triadic Rotational Unit of Equivalence) and the discovery of gimmel, a third form in addition to mass and energy, of the primary substance of reality that is necessary for the formation of stable atomic and sub-atomic particles.

When the TRUE quantum distinction is taken as the basic unit of calculation, a quantum calculus we call the Calculus of Dimensional Distinctions (CoDD) is formed. When the experience of consciousness is incorporated into the mathematics describing existential reality, a new, more comprehensive scientific paradigm is formed. This paradigm shift to a consciousness-based reality, TDVP, is more of a “theory of everything” (TOE) that anything developed within the current scientific paradigm because no TOE developed within the current paradigm includes everything. Consciousness is left out of the current paradigm. The time for the shift to a consciousness-based scientific paradigm has come.

Thursday, July 21, 2016



Is the Photon the Real God Particle?

The Higgs Boson was first called the “God Particle” in a book by that name written by physicist Leon Lederman and science writer Dick Teresi.  In an interview, Teresi explained that Lederman had used “The God Particle” as a working title for the manuscript as a joke, not as a serious title suggestion, and that he and Lederman were actually both atheists. In the beginning, the title didn’t even refer to the Higgs boson, and they were a bit embarrassed when the publisher saw it and wanted it as a title. To their surprise, and the dismay of most physicists, the name was picked up and promoted by other science writers and the media to generate interest in the search for traces of the particle that physicist Peter Higgs and others predicted based on mathematical analysis of the standard model.

So the scientifically uneducated media and the general public liked the name God particle and the Higgs boson and physics got stuck with another popular misnomer much like the big-bang misnomer. The words “Big-bang” were first used by astronomer Fred Hoyle to ridicule the idea on a radio program interview. He actually opposed the idea of an explosive beginning to the universe, and was appalled when the name stuck and became the accepted popular description of the theory. So “big bang” and “God particle’, arguably the most misleading and inappropriate descriptors associated the current scientific paradigm, originated as tongue-in-cheek off the record remarks taken out of context and promoted by people who have little understanding of the theories of particle physics and cosmology.

Concerning the term God particle, it would be much more appropriately applied to the photon and/or the electron, because together, the photon and electron are the wave-particle-field phenomena that actually make up the physical universe.  And they have far greater ratios of TRUE units of gimmel to TRUE units of mass and energy than any other quantum entities.

To truly understand the nature of light, is to understand the nature of reality.
Let’s start with Maxwell’s wave equation, which describes the propagation of light as the alternating expansion and contraction of electric and magnetic forces in three dimensions. Imagine an expanding, pulsating sphere. Then move on to de Broglie’s particle/wave equation: 
λhν/mν2 hmν, where λ= wave length, h=Planck’s constant, m=mass, and ν=frequency, a simple expression relating particle mass to wave length and frequency.

Next, we see that Schrӧdinger’s wave equation for light is the quantum mechanical form of Maxwell’s wave equation interpreted as a probability function; that is, it describes the distribution of probable locations of the light as its fluctuating energy moves through space-time. Quantum mechanical experiments show us that it does not exist as a localized particle or wave until it makes an impact upon a receptor. And a choice made by a conscious observer determines whether a particle or wave phenomenon will be recorded.

Finally, application of the Calculus of Distinctions and dimensional extrapolation to the electron spinning in nine dimensions, suggests that, under certain conditions described by the appropriate Conveyance Equation, an electron may be transformed into light, spreading throughout all dimensional domains, creating the nine-dimensional structure of space-time and consciousness. Finally, the energy of this radiation appears to be a localized phenomenon (wave or particle) as it is reconnected with Consciousness when the associated electromagnetic pulse is received in the consciousness of an observer.

Wednesday, July 20, 2016





In the last post, I shared the finding that given that something exists, then application of the logic of the Calculus of Distinctions indicates that there is no such thing as nothing. In other words, I contend that I’ve proved that Planck’s discovery that the substance of the universe is quantized means that if even one quantum of anything actually exists, a state of nothingness cannot exist anywhere or any time in the quantized universe.

Now I can imagine a doubter saying: “You cannot prove a negative, and your conclusion that there is no state of nothingness is negative, so you can’t have proved it. There must be something wrong with your logic, Dr. Close!”  I think the common belief that you can’t prove a negative may come from the fact that negative statements are often very difficult to prove or disprove, and from confusing the fact that many negative statements that seem reasonable, are often false, with the idea that you cannot prove a negative.  Consider the following example: “We had been studying crows or many years, and all of them were black. We had never seen a white crow, so we concluded that there are no white crows. Today a white crow showed up and the negative statement we thought to be true is obviously false.”

So is it a fact that you can’t prove a negative? No, for two reasons: 1. because if the statement that you can’t prove a negative is true, then it is self-contradictory because it is itself a negative statement, and therefore can’t be proved. Furthermore, it can be proved that the statement that you cannot prove a negative is false as follows: Like in the example of the crows, if I  can produce even one proof of a negative statement, the belief that you can’t prove a negative is proved wrong, and I can produce several. Any mathematician, if he’s worth his salt, has produced several. For example, I have proved, as have other mathematicians, the negative statement that there are no integer solutions for the equation X3 + Y3 = Z3. It can’t be proved by trial and error of course, because there are an infinite number of triplet integers X,Y,Z that could be tried.

Now many ordinary folks who are true believers and even some professional theologians have used the false argument that you can’t prove a negative to combat the atheistic claim that there is no God. True believers do not like the fact that the argument that a negative can’t be proved is false.  But just because you can prove that there are negatives that can be proved, doesn’t mean that a given negative like “There is no God” can be proved. So, while you lose the argument that you can’t prove a negative, the common argument that a number of atheists have posted on the internet and written in popular books, that there is no God because there is no scientific evidence that there is a God” Is also very faulty logic. Just because self-proclaimed atheists haven’t seen a scientific proof of the existence of God doesn’t mean there isn’t one. It is the height of arrogance to believe that just because you can’t prove that God exists, no one can. Not only that, we now have TRUE unit analysis which proves what no atheist wants to hear:

There would definitely be no physical universe without the involvement of some primary ubiquitous form of consciousness from the beginning of reality as we know it, wherever and whenever that beginning might be.

See the details in the references placed in the last post and other previous posts.

Monday, July 18, 2016


 Edward R. Close, July 18, 2016

Almost sixty years ago, in the winter of 1956, when I was an undergraduate student pursuing a degree in physics and mathematics, I voiced the following concern: “I think there is more to reality than just matter and energy interacting in time and space, but  no one seems to be interested in thinking outside this box of materialism.”

Even today, mainstream science is still stuck in the same box. Most of the millions of academic publications that have flooded the world since 1956 are focused on filling in the details of the currently accepted scientific paradigm. Few dare to push the boundaries of the paradigm, and to go outside of it is professional suicide. Data indicating that the paradigm might be incomplete or even wrong is largely ignored.

Scientists working for the government or a major university must conform to the rules and policies of the system. I’ve done both in my long career, but I chose, after getting my PhD, and working my way up in the system, to work outside the system, taking graduate and post-graduate courses at a number of major universities to keep up with developments in the current paradigm while pursuing my own independent research. In the last seven years, I joined forces with another outside-the–box thinker, Dr. Vernon Neppe, MD, PhD, and together we have developed a new paradigm we call TDVP.

Question:  How Can Science Ever Get OUT of the Self-Imposed Materialist Box?

Answer: We Have to Question the Basic Assumptions of the Current Paradigm.

Why? Because some of the basic assumptions behind the current scientific paradigm may simply be WRONG.

Working within the current paradigm, mainstream scientists have been very successful, explaining most of the phenomena that we observe and experience through the physical senses. But when it comes to a broader understanding of the nature of reality, mainstream scientists have been stuck in the Reductionist/Materialist hole for a long time. The good news is that the efforts to fill in the details of the model incorporating classical physics with relativity and quantum mechanics have illuminated some problem areas in the current paradigm. More and more scientists from every discipline are recognizing the need for radical change in our understanding of matter, energy, space and time. They just don’t seem to know what that radical change might be.

What is wrong with the current scientific paradigm?
1.     Even though the great innovators of the last century, including Albert Einstein, Max Planck and more recently others have indicated that they believe that an Infinite Conscious Mind is behind physical reality, mainstream science has virtually excluded consciousness and spirituality from scientific study. There have been valid reasons for this in the past, but there is increasing empirical evidence that consciousness may be just as fundamental as matter and energy.
2.     The fallacy of something from nothing: The current paradigm concludes that the universe as we experience it is the result of an explosion that happened some 13.8 billion years ago, but fails to explain why the explosion occurred, and how a highly organized, stable universe like ours could evolve from nothing.
3.     Mainstream scientists are applying the calculus of Newton and Leibniz to quantum phenomena beyond its legitimate range of applicability. This is the source of some of the quantum ‘weirdness’ physicists talk about.

In 1986, I applied a mathematical tool I call the Calculus of Distinctions to the standard model of the universe, and found that the big-bang, red-shift expanding universe theory contains unresolved paradoxes. Having been a devout follower of Einstein’s work, I was at first surprised to find that these paradoxes could be resolved by taking the quantum nature of physical reality seriously. By doing this and avoiding the fallacies listed above, I found that the Hawking and Penrose ‘proof’ of a singularity origin for the universe was most likely a mathematical abstraction, with no existential counterpart in the dynamics of the physical universe.

Other conclusions included the revelation that time, like space, must be three-dimensional, implying that, consistent with the law of conservation of mass and energy, our dynamic reality has no absolute beginning or end, only change.

I submitted an early manuscript presenting my findings to Stephen Hawking in late 1987. After about three months, I received a reply from his student/interpreter, saying that Prof. Hawking was very busy and that he was not interested in hyper-dimensional (more than 4-D) models. I finished writing the manuscript in 1988 and published my findings in a book titled: “Infinite Continuity” in 1990.

At about this same time, in a publicized lecture in California, Prof. Hawking stated his opinion that consciousness has no direct involvement in the forming of physical reality, and he further stated that someone had suggested to him that time might be three dimensional, but that he could not imagine that. In later publications, Prof. Hawking began to consider the extra dimensions of string-theory models, and after a serious attempt to reconcile general relativity with quantum theory, he abandoned the mathematical singularity origin of the physical universe idea, saying that we should probably not be talking about absolute beginnings and endings, only change.

I completely agree. Research conducted by applying the Calculus of Distinctions at the quantum level produces a surprising conclusion: There is no such thing as nothing because the laws of physics imply that there can be no existential state of absolute nothingness. Therefore, in our quantized universe, there was no absolute beginning and there can be no absolute end, only change.

We can begin to understand what is necessary to correct the current paradigm by considering the following facts:  1. We live in a quantized universe. 2. All existential forms are made up of multiples of quanta of mass and/or energy. 3. Mass and energy are two forms of the same thing, related mathematically by the equation E = mc2.  If we live in a quantized universe, then we need a quantized calculus to replace Newtonian calculus because in Newtonian calculus, the important processes of differentiation and integration depend on the assumption that the variables can approach nothingness infinitesimally closely.

There are four primary variables in any mathematical model describing physical reality: mass, energy, space and time. Planck’s discovery that mass and energy are only meted out in multiples of very small units, coupled with Einstein’s discovery that they are related mathematically by the equation E = mc2, means that neither mass nor energy can be divided infinitely; there is a finite smallest equivalence unit; in other words, there is a smallest possible scale, a bottom to the precision with which a measurement can be made in a quantized universe.

You can reduce a given amount of mass and/or energy to smaller and smaller amounts by removing units of mass and/or energy one at a time, but, you can only end up with one unit or none, not anything in between, because Planck’s discovery means that there can be no fractional quanta. Thus the variables used to measure mass and energy cannot approach nothingness infinitely closely, meaning that the basic assumption of the differential and integral calculus of Newton and Leibniz is invalid for application to quantum mass and energy. 

But, what about space-time? Can space and/or time be divided infinitely? It might seem so, but a closer examination reveals that such divisions are meaningless because the space-time continuum is not a stand-alone reality, it is a derivative of mass and energy.

To understand this, notice that the equivalence expression, E = mc2 involves not just mass and energy, but also space and time. The speed of light, represented by ‘c’, is the distance travelled by light in a unit of time. We can measure it in miles per hour, kilometers per second, etc. But, in order to normalize the units of mass and energy so that in keeping with empirical evidence of quantization, i.e. the results of Planck’s black body radiation experiments, we must also normalize the units of space and time. We can do this by defining the speed of light as the movement of light across one unit of space in one unit of time. In this normalized system of units,
c = Δx/Δt = 1/1 =1.
This is consistent with the ‘natural’ units known as Planck units, and it is also consistent with Einstein’s final appendix to his book on relativity suggesting that space-time is derivative of mass and energy, and has no independent existence. Space and time have meaning only in relation to mass, energy and observation by a conscious entity. In TDVP, as in relativity, the concepts of empty space and empty time have no meaning.

Thus the variables of space and time, like mass and energy, cannot meaningfully approach nothingness infinitesimally as assumed in the application of Newton’s differential and integral calculus.

The remedy for this problem is easy to understand: We must simply replace the calculus of Newton and Leibniz with a quantum calculus, a calculus in which variables approach a finite quantum limit, not nothingness.

Newtonian calculus is very successful when applied to macro-scale problems. But when applied at the quantum scale, it leads to erroneous results. For example, if we are trying to determine the exact location of an elementary particle in a dynamic system, the assumption of continuity is invalid. No variable of measurement can approach nothingness infinitely closely because the accuracy of the measurement stops at one quantum. The quantum value of the expression describing the location of the particle will be different than the value obtained by applying Newtonian calculus. The appropriate calculus for analyzing and describing quantum phenomena is a calculus with one quantum equivalence as its basic unit of measurement.

I developed such a calculus in 1986, the Calculus of Distinctions, published in “Infinite Continuity” in 1990, and I applied the Calculus of Distinctions to the processes of consciousness in “Transcendental Physics,” 1997 and 2000. The Calculus of Distinctions was also applied to the analysis of intelligence in “The Calculus of Dimensional Distinction” in “Elements of mathematical theory of intellect”, Brandin V, Close ER, Moscow, Interphysica Lab, 2003. The Calculus of Distinctions was further developed and published in articles including “The Calculus of Distinctions: A Workable Model across Dimensions and Consciousness”, the Dynamic Journal of Exceptional Creative Achievement (DJECA) 1210:1210; 2387 -2397, 2012, Close ER, Neppe VM, and “Reality Begins with Consciousness” Neppe, VM and Close, ER, 2012.

As early as 1986, I reasoned that, if the natural elementary particle with the smallest mass also had the smallest volume, then it would be the logical candidate for the unitary distinction of the Calculus of Distinctions for application to quantum mechanics. In a quantized system, variables can only have integer values, and the equations describing a quantized reality become Diophantine, meaning that only integer solutions correspond to reality. This brought me to the realization that proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem for n = 3 might explain why quarks combine in threes to form protons and neutrons. I developed the concept and published a brief description of it in “Infinite Continuity” pp. 68 – 71 and 192, in 1990.

Problems involving dynamic systems in three dimensions are difficult in conventional mathematics, and such analyses in more than three dimensions are often virtually intractable. On the other hand, using a calculus of quantized distinctions, the analysis is three-dimensional from the beginning and once the problem is set up, results can often be obtained by hand with a few lines of calculations. In my opinion, this computational simplification resulting from switching to a quantum calculus makes the trouble of learning a new system of mathematical logic worthwhile. And there is an added bonus: the Calculus of Distinctions can be used to evaluate hypotheses. If a hypothesis can be translated into the language of the calculus, a few calculations can determine whether the hypothesis is valid, or contains logical contradictions. As explained later, on page 8, I have built a bridge from the Calculus of Distinctions back to the Standard Model. Therefore, it is not necessary to be proficient in the Calculus of Distinctions to evaluate some of the work completed as a part of TDVP.

In 2010, when Dr. Vernon Neppe and I first met in person in Amsterdam, I confided to him that I believed that I could explain why up-quarks and down-quarks combine in threes. In 2011, using particle collider data, I was able to demonstrate that up-and down-quarks combine in threes to form stable rotating structures because they combine volumetrically. That is, the quarks in a proton or neutron are not just stuck together like a cluster of grapes, they merge to form symmetrically stable entities.

In 2012, I applied the principles of relativity and quantum mechanics to the Hydrogen atom and used the mass and volume of the free electron to define a basic quantum unit of measurement. Normalizing collider data for quarks to multiples of this unit, which I named the Triadic Rotational Unit of Equivalence (the TRUE quantum unit), I was able to show that there would be no stable atomic structure without TRUE quantum units of a third form of substance. These units of the third form occupy the same volumes as units of mass and energy, but have no measurable mass or energy. After some amount of discussion, Dr. Neppe and I decided to call this third form of the substance of reality ‘gimmel.’

Combining TRUE analysis with data on the abundance of elements in the universe, and computing the volumetric ratio of gimmel to mass/energy, we found it to be exactly the same as the ratio of dark matter and energy to ordinary matter and energy computed by astrophysicists using the Hubble Space Probe data. This strongly suggests that so-called dark matter and dark energy are either the same as or equivalent to gimmel!

Applying TRUE analysis to the natural elements, we found that the most stable atoms of the Periodic Table having this basic symmetry provided by gimmel, are the elements that support life, and gaps that occur in the progressive symmetry of the Periodic Table, are filled by compounds that are part of the RNA and DNA molecules that make up the physical structure of organic life. These facts strongly suggest that the universe is designed specifically for conscious life as we know it.  And ‘gimmel’ provides a way to evaluate the amount of consciousness present in a given form of matter.

When I voiced my concerns about science nearly 60 years ago, almost no one was interested. Even in 1996, when I attended the second ‘Toward a Science of Consciousness’ conference in Tucson, where I presented “the Case for the Non-Quantum Receptor’, the primary focus was materialistic. I talked with Henry Stapp, Amit Goswami, Charles Tart, and a number of others about this problem. At the Toward a Science of Consciousness conference in 2012, David Chalmers stopped and scanned my Poster Presentation on the findings of TDVP, but at that time he still seemed to me to be very much in the material/reductionist camp.

Recently, however, in a TED video published July 14, 2014, David Chalmers asked the question “How do you explain consciousness?” Now, David Chalmers, along with an increasing number of scientists, including Henry Stapp, Roger Penrose, Stuart Hameroff, David Peat, Peter Russell, Fred Alan Wolf, Dean Radin, Menos Kafatos, John Hagelin, and Deepak Chopra, appear to be moving toward the TDVP position that the non-physical aspects of consciousness are legitimate subjects for scientific investigation.

David Chalmers asks: “How do we accommodate consciousness in science?” No one knows. He says: “Maybe it is time to consider a crazy idea: Maybe consciousness itself is fundamental and universal in reality.” Based on this TED presentation, it appears that, in his quest to solve the ‘hard problem’ of explaining why we experience the amazing qualia of consciousness, Chalmers favors the ‘crazy idea’ that consciousness is fundamental; but he is less certain about whether or not consciousness is universal.

These researchers are recognizing that what is missing is a scientifically reproducible, and mathematically provable connection between the laws of physics and the qualia of conscious experience. And that is exactly what is provided in TDVP.

What is TDVP and How Does it Fix the Current Scientific Paradigm?
TDVP is an Acronym for the Close-Neppe Triadic Dimensional Vortical Paradigm (TDVP). TDVP argues that the assumption that consciousness is an epiphenomenon arising from complex structures of matter is wrong. TDVP presents compelling evidence that some form of consciousness is just as fundamental in the universe as mass and energy. Working from this basic assumption, TDVP introduces new mathematical procedures resolving the conflicts and paradoxes in the empirical data and the problem areas of the current paradigm.

Why is it called the Triadic Dimensional Vortical Paradigm (TDVP)?
TRIADIC - because it describes reality in terms of three types of variables of extent: Space, Time and Consciousness; three variables of content: mass, energy and consciousness; and three forms of consciousness: Primary, individual self, and individual other.
DIMENSIONAL – because the framework within which all phenomena and events are described is comprised of a series of three-dimensional domains.
VORTICAL – because physical objects are composed of rapidly spinning triadic quanta that form vortexes connecting space, time and consciousness domains.
PARADIGM – because it is not just a group of theories patched together, it is an integrated logical framework within which every sort of phenomena can be described.

TDVP turns the current paradigm upside down: It provides proof that consciousness is fundamental and universal, and that the physical universe is an emergent feature of consciousness, not the other way round.

TDVP is an expanded model of reality that incorporates all of the demonstrably correct features of the Standard Model as a subset of a larger self-participatory conscious universe. Like the paradigm shifts of the past, TDVP requires new mathematics.

The shift from classical physics to relativity required the new mathematics needed to describe reality as a four-dimensional continuum and the shift to quantum mechanics required the new mathematics needed to describe the dynamics of quantum probability: Schrӧdinger’s wave equation and Heisenberg’s probability matrices.

The TDVP shift from a dualistic material-based description of reality to a triadic consciousness-based description integrating classical physics, relativity and quantum physics requires the following trio of new mathematical tools:

1. The Calculus of Distinctions
A calculus derived from the conscious drawing of distinctions including the distinction of self from other, and inside from outside.
2. Dimensional Extrapolation
The process of rotation and projecting mathematically from an n-dimensional domain to an n+1 dimensional domain.
3. The Conveyance Equations
A set of Diophantine (integer) equations describing the volumetric combination of two or more objects comprised of multiples of quantum units (TRUE) of two or more dimensions.

The mathematics of TRUE quantum analysis, derived by applying these three new mathematical tools, is the scientifically reproducible, and mathematically provable connection between the laws of physics and the qualia of conscious experience.

As stated previously, one need not learn the Calculus of Distinctions, Dimensional Extrapolation, or the Conveyance Equations to evaluate the TRUE units and TRUE quantum analysis. I have developed the math of TRUE analysis by working backwards from the Calculus of Distinctions to build a bridge to the existing paradigm that anyone trained in basic physics and mathematics can follow, utilize, and evaluate the material.

Application of these new mathematical techniques has explained, and continues to explain an increasing number of phenomena inexplicable in the current paradigm, confirming the validity of TDVP. The following are conundrums, observations and measurements explained by TDVP that are not explained by the current scientific paradigm and the Standard Model of particle physics:

1.     Why up- and down-quarks can only combine in threes to form stable particles
2.     The exact value of the Cabibbo quark mixing angle
3.     The intrinsic ½ spin of fermions
4.     Why Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe
5.     Why some elements are much more stable than others
6.     Quantum entanglement and non-locality
7.     The nature of dark matter and energy and its ratio to ordinary matter and energy
8.     Why there is something rather than nothing
9.     The role of consciousness in the physical universe

By reversing the basic assumption of scientific materialism, TDVP expands the legitimate application of scientific analysis into areas long avoided by the current paradigm, and simplifies our understanding of the universe. In the process, it provides new analytical tools that allow us to determine whether a particular hypothesis represents an existential part of reality, or is merely a conceptual abstraction.

In conclusion, I believe that TDVP is the science of the future, and I predict that in the future nearly every thinking person alive will realize that the paradigm of scientific materialism was actually the crazy theory, and will wonder how anyone could ever have thought that reality could possibly exist without consciousness.

Browse this archives of Transcendental Physics blog for more.