THE TRIADIC NATURE OF REALITY
A CLEAR EXPLANATION THAT ANYONE CAN UNDERSTAND
© Edward R. Close, 2016
Toward the end of his life, Albert Einstein published a little book entitled:“RELATIVITY, the Special and General Theory, a clear explanation that anyone can understand”.
Of course, not everyone did, and most still haven’t.
I’m quite sure that Albert did not expect everyone to understand it. Please note that he said that anyone can understand it, not that everyone would.
He talked about measurement, and how the relative nature of physical objects could be described in terms of the geometry of four dimensions. In his final note to the fifteenth edition of the little book, he suggested that space-time is a property of physical objects, and does not exist as a separate, unchanging backdrop to the drama of events, as our sense data leads us to believe. He suggested that in a four-dimensional reality, “the concept of ‘empty space’ loses its meaning”. Clearly, the concept of empty time also loses its meaning; there simply is no such thing as time without events.
In the previous post, I explained how the great minds of science concluded that the finite concept of matter, energy, space, time, and separation are illusions. In this post, I shall attempt to explain, in terms that ‘anyone can understand’ how the extension of the theories of quantum physics and relativity into descriptive dimensional domains beyond the four of space-time reveals the true nature of reality. We (Dr. Neppe and I) call this the Triadic Dimensional Vortical Paradigm (TDVP).
THE LOGIC OF MATHEMATICS REFLECTS REALITY
In the previous post I told you what I know about the illusion presented to us by the brain’s interpretation of the data it receives from the limited physical senses. But I can do much more than just quote the opinions of great scientists of the past. I can explain how I know about this illusion by describing the logic of the mathematics that reflects Reality.
The mathematics being applied by scientists operating in the current paradigm does not accurately reflect reality. It is based on the 300 year-old calculus of Newton and Leibniz, which is inappropriate for describing a quantized reality. Why is ‘the calculus’ which served us so well before the shifts of relativity and quantum physics now suddenly inappropriate? Because it is based on the mistaken idea that the variables of measurement can approach zero infinitely closely. But this simply cannot be the case in a quantized world.
The infinitesimals of the calculus of Newton and Leibniz must be replaced by the quantum, which is exceedingly small, but finite, providing the bottom of the infinite descent of the division of the variables of measurement. The calculus of Newton works for most measured variables only because the quantum is so very small relative to our limited ability to observe and measure. Replacement of the calculus of Newton and Leibniz with the Calculus of Distinctions became necessary the moment Max Planck discovered that the physical universe is a quantum universe. While Planck units, based on five universal constants, greatly simplifiy calculations, they are not truly quantum units. So, how do we define true quantum units?
A very much under-appreciated modern thinker, George Spencer Brown, stated in his book “Laws of Form” that “…a universe comes into being when a space is severed or taken apart”. This is the basis of his ‘calculus of indications’ which I expanded and modified for application to quantum physics in the 1980s. I called this expanded calculus the Calculus of Distinctions, with the unitary distinction defined as the smallest possible quantum entity.
The basic unit of measurement adopted for this calculus is the smallest possible space-time-mass-energy equivalence unit, the true quantum unit. When this was done, puzzles and paradoxes of quantum mechanics and relativity were surprisingly easily explained.
Many of these explanations have been peer reviewed and published, and have been described in posts on this blog. A number of applications of the Calculus of Distinctions to physical problems that I produced during the period from 1986 to 1989 were published in a book entitled “Infinite Continuity” in 1990. For example, when the Calculus of Distinctions is applied to the red-shift expanding universe, a contradiction is found, and this contradiction is resolved only when it is shown that the red shift is not actually due to relative motion, and that the observed constant speed of light is a result of the limitations of the physical senses. In short, application of the Calculus of Distinctions proves that the big-bang expanding universe is an illusion.
THE TDVP PARADIGM SHIFT
So, if space, time, matter, energy, and separation are illusions, then is nothing real? Is it all imagination, all in our minds? To think so would be a misinterpretation of the words of Newton, Planck, Einstein, and Schrӧdinger mentioned in the previous post. As much as I object to statements declaring that quantum physics is weird and cannot be explained in terms that can be understood by anyone, statements made by several famous physicists, including Niels Bohr, Erwin Schrӧdinger and Richard Feynman and then echoed again and again, by nearly all mainstream scientists, I do agree with what Richard Feynman said when asked about a certain quantum physics fact. He said that “If we can’t explain it so that a freshman student can understand it, then we really don’t understand it!” I would even amplify this to say that if we can’t explain a new idea so that the average person can understand it, we really don’t understand it.
But what if a new idea lies outside the current understanding of science, i.e. outside the current mainstream scientific paradigm? Can we explain it so that a scientist with vested interest in the existing paradigm can understand it? I believe we can, and not only that, since a scientist working within the current paradigm is really no different than anyone else with respect to a new idea that lies outside the paradigm, if we really understand the idea, we should be able to explain it so anyone can understand it.
TDVP is a paradigm shift in very much the same way relativity and quantum physics were paradigm shifts. In Einstein’s relativity as well as Bohr and Heisenberg’s quantum mechanics, the shifts were to relative space-time and quantized mass-energy, respectively. In TDVP, the shift is to a consciousness-based understanding of the nature of reality.
The various discoveries and explanations of phenomena and empirical data coming after, and still being produced by the relativistic and quantum paradigm shifts, are not paradigm shifts by themselves, but the results of paradigm shifts. Similarly, new ideas and explanations produced by TDVP of previously unexplained phenomena are results of the paradigm shift not paradigm shifts in and of themselves. But, exactly how does TDVP achieve the shift to a consciousness-based understanding of reality?
To answer this question, I must begin at the beginning, and the beginning of my understanding of the TDVP shift was brought about by application of the Calculus of Distinctions to quantum mechanics and particle physics. Clearly, this presents me with a unique challenge: How do I explain the TDVP paradigm shift without getting into the complex details of the mathematical derivation and application of the Calculus of Distinctions, involving algebraic, numerical and geometrical demonstrations and proofs, during which I would most likely lose most of my readers?
I believe I can do it by telling my story in descriptive, rather than mathematical terms. For those who may want to see the mathematical demonstrations and proofs, they exist in a number of published and unpublished papers, and will be further expanded, demonstrated and applied in future publications.
WAKING FROM THE ILLUSION OF MATTER TO CONSCIOUS REALITY
In this discussion, I will try to do something that, so far as I am aware, is almost never done in technical presentations: I will try to avoid referring to abstract mathematical concepts and procedures. Instead, I will describe the major features of TDVP in descriptive, straight-forward concrete terms as much as I can.
We know now that it is an indisputable fact that we live in a quantized world. What does this mean? It means that all of the substances of reality occur, and can only occur, in multiples of a very small, but finite amount. This very smallest amount may have many properties, but we are only going to talk about its three most basic properties right now: the property of occupying a minimum volume, the property of maximum accelerated rotation or spin, and the property of combination.
The minimum possible volume is defined by applying the principles of relativity and quantum mechanics to the free electron stripped from the electron shell of a Hydrogen atom. Why the electron? Because the electron has the smallest mass of any of the elementary particles making up the stable atoms that comprise the universe we experience.
When the mass and energy of the electron is no longer held in stable rotation around the nucleus of the Hydrogen atom, it begins to contract, causing it to spin faster and faster, similar to the way a spinning skater’s spin speeds up as she pulls her arms in. If the spin could exceed the speed of light, the volume occupied by the free-spinning electron could go to zero, but Einstein’s relativity tells us that the velocity of the spin cannot exceed the speed of light. Thus the smallest possible volume is finite; that is to say, greater than zero. This minimum mass-energy equivalence volume is the absolute ‘bottom’ of infinite descent, and is defined in TDVP as one unit, the true quantum unit. Planck’s discovery requires that all elementary particles must be comprised of whole-number multiples of this absolute minimum unit.
When this unit is used to describe the elementary particles that combine to form the stable Hydrogen atom, we find that a third substance, not measurable as mass of energy, must be present for the Hydrogen to be stable. This is why we call the true quantum unit the Triadic Rotational unit of equivalence (TRUE).
I’ve described how the properties of minimum volume and maximum spin are defined by combining the principles of relativity and quantum physics; what about the combination of elementary particles, multiples of the TRUE quantum unit, to form atoms?
In the current particle physics paradigm, measurable electric, magnetic and gravitational forces and secondary particles called ‘gluons’ are assumed to be what holds the elementary particles that make up atoms together. In fact, these measurable forces are measurable result of the symmetric combination of the spinning elementary entities. A clue to this combinational symmetry is the fact that quarks only combine in threes to form protons and neutrons.
Application of a famous mathematical theorem known as Fermat’s Last Theorem to the combination of two symmetrically spinning particles explains why two symmetric particles cannot combine volumetrically to form a new symmetric entity. On the other hand, combining three symmetric entities can produce a stable, symmetrically spinning object. Mathematically, this result is obtained by solving the whole-number equation (what mathematicians call a Diophantine equation) describing the combination of three symmetrically spinning particles volumetrically. But these integer solutions are only possible if there is a third form of the substance of reality not measurable as mass or energy. We call this third form ‘gimmel’.
Recognition of the existence of this third non-material form, and determination of the specific amounts of it mathematically required for symmetry in the elementary particles that make up the structures of the physical universe, explains the stability of the Hydrogen atom, the most abundant element. It turns out that the stability of the life-supporting elements exceeds that of other elements, explaining why life is persistent and abundant in the universe.
The presence of gimmel explains the ‘strange attractors’ found in chaos theory, and replaces the randomness of chaos theory with a theory with meaning and purpose. The presence of gimmel also explains the effects of what is erroneously called ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy’ in the current paradigm. Ultimately, with TDVP, we demonstrate that it is conscious meaning and purpose that drives the universe, not randomness and chaos.
A family of simple combinatorial Diophantine (integer) equations, which I call the conveyance equations, describes the conveyance of the logic of a primary form of consciousness, the conscious substrate of reality, to the 3S-1t dimensional domain available for observation with our limited physical senses and extensions of them.
With the comprehensive framework of TDVP, expanded to include consciousness in the form of gimmel, we are able to explain many things inexplicable in the current materialistic paradigm. Examples that have been published so far include explanations of the triadic combinations of quarks, the intrinsic ½ spin of fermions (the particles that make up the universe we experience), the exact value of the Cabibbo quark mixing angle in the Large Hadron Collider data, the abundance of life-supporting data, and the existence of so-called dark matter and dark energy. This is just the ‘tip of the iceberg’, more explanations are forthcoming.
The fact that the TDVP model of reality, consisting of nine finite dimensions of extent and three forms of content, mass, energy and consciousness, explains so many empirical observations so simply, speaks strongly to the value of replacing the current materialistic paradigm with the consciousness-based paradigm of TDVP.