MORE REVELATIONS
ABOUT THE NATURE OF REALITY
©Edward R. Close October 28, 2016
OK; it’s time to get back to work. Today I am posting
another explanation of subatomic phenomena not explained adequately, if at
all, in the current materialistic reductionist scientific paradigm. The TDVP
view of reality is based on the multidimensional application of the Calculus
of Distinctions, Dimensional Extrapolation and TRUE quantum analysis. These
mathematical methods may at first seem strange and complex, but Reality is ultimately
simple and I believe the methods and revelations of TDVP can be understood by
anyone who reads these posts. Detailed mathematical derivations have been
published in technical papers, and the book “Reality Begins with Consciousness”
by Vernon M. Neppe and this author, available at www.BrainVoyage.com. The basics of the
derivation of the TRUE quantum unit is also included in the previous post
entitled “THE BASIS OF TRUE QUANTUM ANALYSIS”. So I will make only brief
references to the mathematical procedures of TDVP here and focus on brief,
understandable descriptions. First, let’s put the TRUE quantum analysis into
the proper perspective of particle physics:
Realizing that
the choice of units is arbitrary, physicists often normalize measurement units
to the speed of light constant, i.e. they set
the speed of light equal to 1 to
simplify calculations. How can we do that? Simply by redefining the basic units
of space and time. Since inches, feet and miles or centimeters, meters and
kilometers are arbitrary measures related to practical applications, there is
no reason we cannot redefine these units in ways that are practical for quantum
analyses. If we define one unit of distance, d, as the distance
traveled by light in one unit of time, t, then c = d/t =1. Now instead
of 670,616,629 miles per hour, or 299,792,458 meters per second, we have c = 1, a very much easier number to
handle in calculations. With the new units, Einstein’s equation E = mc^{2}
becomes E = m, simplifying the mathematical expression of the equivalence of
mass and energy. These new quantum units, normalized to the speed of light, are
called Natural units. The most
popular system of Natural units in use is the system of units called Planck
units, with four more universal constants normalized to unity in addition to
the speed of light: the gravitational constant, the reduced Planck constant,
the Coulomb constant, and the Boltzmann constant.
Of course, these Natural
units of space and time are very, very small compared to the units we are used
to, but this is quite appropriate for calculating the relative measures of
elementary quanta, which are also very, very small relative to the units of
measurement we are used to dealing with. You can calculate the actual size of
these new units in fractions of feet or meters if you want to, but I will leave
that as an exercise for the reader rather than clutter this post up with such
calculations. Normalized units not only simplify calculations, they are more
consistent with the fact that we live in a quantized physical reality.
In TDVP, we take
a slightly different approach: We start by normalizing all of the basic units
of measurement. The basic unit of TDVP analyses, the Triadic Rotational Unit of
Equivalence (TRUE) is defined by normalizing the mass, energy and volume of the
electron to unity, i.e. as in any system of Natural units, setting them equal to one. This provides us with a normalized unit
for all of the known basic physical parameters, mass, energy, space and time,
and by doing this, we make it possible to describe all physical phenomena in
terms of integer (wholenumber) multiples of one basic quantum unit. As we have
seen in previously published papers and posts, integer solutions of the combinatorial
Diophantine equations, describing the combinations of electrons, quarks,
protons and neutrons making up physical reality, reveal many heretofore ‘hidden
secrets’ of reality: like why three quarks combine to form the stable protons
and neutrons of the atoms of the Periodic Table of Elements, why reality must
consist of integer multiples of quanta of mass, energy and a third form that
we’ve called gimmel, and why
elementary particles (fermions) have an intrinsic angular momentum spin of ½. And,
importantly, these integer solutions also reveal a significant amount of new
science.
PROOF THAT ANYONE CAN UNDERSTAND
Everyone
knows that the Hydrogen atom, the most abundant element in the universe, is
made of an electron whirling around a proton. And most, who are interested in
such things, know that the proton is made up of two upquarks and one downquark,
and that particle physicists have determined the masses of the upquark, the downquark
and the proton to great accuracy from years of experimental data obtained in
the Large Hadron particle Collider (the LHC for short). Furthermore, you may
know that, strangely, the mass of the proton is much greater than the masses of
the three quarks added together. So the whole is greater than the sum of the
parts. OK, we know that many things in the real world are like that. But
physicists and mathematicians like to have things add up. If not from the
quarks, where does the extra mass come from?
Some
very learned and distinguished physicists concluded that the proton must have other things in it, and they received
Nobel prizes in physics for developing quantum
chromodynamics (QCD) a theory that, among other things, proposes that a bunch of massless
particles called gluons and a flock
of "virtual" quarkantiquark pairs must be swarming around undetected
within the proton, somehow giving it all that extra mass. Eventually, they concluded that the three quarks are bound
together by the "strong nuclear force," a force somehow transmitted
by those massless particles. Quarks, antiquarks, and gluons have been
accepted by mainstream science as the underlying elementary objects in the
structure of protons. Distinguished American Physicist Murray GellMann was
awarded a Nobel Prize in physics in 1969 for his contributions and discoveries concerning the
classification of the numerous elementary particles and their interactions.
With QCD widely accepted, Wikipedia tells us that:
“The remainder of the proton
mass is due to the kinetic energy of the quarks and to the energy of the gluon
fields that bind the quarks together.”
With
all due respect to Professor GellMann, and his colleagues who received,  and should
have received  wide recognition for their bold efforts to make sense of this,
I find their answer less than satisfactory. What, pray tell, is a massless particle? And exactly how do massless
particles impart mass to other particles and bind them together? Can a particle
really impart something it itself doesn’t have? Could there be a simpler, more understandable
explanation? Yes there is. Based on particle spin, TDVP, with application of the
Calculus of Distinctions to the Hydrogen atom, determines the exact mass of the
proton, and it is numerically identical
with experimental data. And you can do the math yourself.
Briefly,
the masses of the upquark, down quark and the proton in Mev/c^{2}, the massenergy equivalence
unit, directly
from LHC data are:
Upquarks range from 1. 87 to 2. 15 Mev/c^{2}, averaging
2.01 Mev/c^{2}.
Downquark:
4. 63 to 4. 95 Mev/c^{2}, averaging 4.79 Mev/c^{2}.
Proton: 736 to 1140 Mev/c^{2}, averaging = 938 Mev/c^{2}.
So, the
mass of two upquarks plus one downquark equals about 8.81 Mev/c^{2}, which
is less than 1% of 938 Mev/c^{2}, the mass of the proton. Why? The QCD
answer is “zillions of gluons”.
We
don’t have to buy that answer. Here’s another answer, the TDVP answer: Due to
Planck’s discovery, proved by experimental data many times over, we know that mass
and energy only occur in integer multiples of some finite quantum amount, never
in fractions of that amount. Thus, if the mass of an object is measured in true
quantum units, the number of units representing its mass will be a whole number.
So Mev/c^{2} is
obviously not a truly quantum unit. The choice of any unit of measurement, like
the pound or the gram, as pointed out above, is arbitrary. But once a basic unit is established as a
standard, objects can be consistently described in terms of that standard.
If we take the mass of the least massive
particle in the Hydrogen atom, the electron, very accurately determined from
LHC data to be 0.51099894610 Mev/c^{2}, as the quantum unit, and
convert the masses of the quarks to multiples of that unit, we will have their
masses in units relative to the electron. Note: Again, you can do this math yourself.
Just divide the mass of the upquark, downquark and the proton in MeV/c^{2}
by the mass of the electron in MeV/c^{2}
and round each result off to the nearest whole number.
When we do this, from LHC data, we have:
The mass of the electron = 1 true quantum unit
The mass of the upquark = 4 TRUE units
The mass of the downquark = 9 TRUE units.
And the mass of the proton from LHC data = 1836
TRUE units.
Note: Even
though the mass of the electron in MeV/c^{2} has been
determined to eleven decimal places, there is no need to use more than three
significant figures because that’s all we have for the quarks. Also, rounding
up or down to the nearest whole numbers is certainly justified because the
reality of the quantization of mass and energy, proved by Max Planck, and, if the
electron is the smallest possible mass, quantum and relativistic principles require
that the values must actually be whole number multiples of the mass of the
electron. The reason dividing particle masses by the mass of the
electron does not always produce exact whole numbers is because of sampling
error and statistical estimating errors inherent in the LHC experimental data. This
is not a criticism of the LHC technology or the BoseEinstein statistical
method, but a true statement for all experimental data. There is always
sampling and estimating error.
So the mass of the proton, if made up of 2
upquarks and one down quark should be 4 + 4 + 9 = 17 TRUE units. But its mass
in TRUE units is 1836. Now, using TDVP, let’s see if we can find out why.
Max Planck said:
"As a man who has devoted his
whole life to the most clearheaded science, to the study of matter, I can tell
you as the result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as
such!”
If
there is no matter as such, then what are we measuring when we measure mass?
The
answer is: we’re measuring inertia, or resistance to motion. What causes
resistance to motion? The combined gyroscopic effect of millions of spinning
particles, which I’ll explain in more detail below. But for now, in this brief
overview, let’s just look at the results. The inertial resistance of a simple spinning
object is directly proportional to the diameter of the spinning object squared.
The diameters of the first three 9D objects as detected in 3S1t are 1, 2 and
3. Their squares are 1^{2} = 1,
2^{2} = 4, and 3^{2}
= 9 TRUE units. Notice that these
squares are analogous to crosssectional areas, but the TRUE units are
multidimensional, and 3D in physical observations. Then the masses of the
first three smallest elementary particles should be 1, 4 and 9 TRUE units respectively. As we saw
above, that’s exactly what they are for the electron, up quark and down quark
as derived from LHC data.
Finally,
calculating the mass of an elementary particle within a complex spinning
particle, like a proton within a Hydrogen atom, as opposed to the simple
spinning particles 1, 2 and 3, discussed above is more complicated. We’ll take
the proton next, because it is the next in the elementary particles in mass after
the electron, upquark and downquark. The proton, within the Hydrogen atom,
has 17 TRUE units of mass, merged with the mass of the Hydrogen atom, and it
shares the diameter of 108 TRUE units with the Hydrogen atom. How these
measures are determined is explained in more detail below. The mass (inertial
resistance to motion) of the proton within the Hydrogen atom is equal to the diameter
of the atom times the TRUE units of mass of the up and down quarks of the proton. Think
of this as the ‘area’ of the part of the crosssection of the atom due to the
proton, similar to the way the diameter squared is analogous to an area in the
simpler particles. So the mass of the
proton within the Hydrogen atom is 17 times 108 = 1836 TRUE units, the exact same
mass derived from the LHC data!
This
is a key validation of the of the application of the Calculus of Distinctions
to physical reality, and consequently, along with our explanations of other
phenomena like the intrinsic ½ spin of fermions, the triadic necessity of quark
combinations and the Cabibbo angle, a
key validation of TDVP theory. For those who want to see it, more detail is
presented below.
UNDRSTANDING THE NEW SCIENCE
The first key to
understanding the Calculus of Distinctions application of TRUE analysis to
atomic structure is understanding exactly what the Triadic Rotational Unit of
Equivalence (or TRUE quantum unit) actually is. Do not confuse units of
measurement with the particles they are designed to measure. I realized that
this was a problem for some people when a reader of my posts said “You define TRUE
units in terms of electrons, so that means that everything is made of electrons,
and the TRUE unit is a subquantum particle within up and down quarks, right?”
No, and absolutely not! An analogy that may help is this: Suppose we define a
pound as the weight of specific chunk of metal, and then we find that a certain
sack of potatoes weighs 10 pounds. Does this mean that the potatoes are
actually 10 chunks of metal? Obviously not. The Triadic Rotational Unit of
Equivalence is a unit of measurement, not a particle. While it is defined by
the physical (relativistic and quantum) features of the electron, it is not ‘an
electron’; and the fact that the up quark has 4 times the mass of an electron
and a down quark has 9 times the mass of an electron does not mean that they are
actually composed of electrons.
The second key to
understanding TRUE analysis is a bit more subtle: It is understanding what is
meant by an equivalence unit. The example
of massenergy equivalence already existing in physics, and mentioned above, is
based on the electron volt (written eV), which is the quantum of energy
produced by moving the charged mass of one electron across an electrical
potential of one volt. The unit used for measuring the mass and energy of
elementary particles is the equivalence unit MeV/c^{2 }(million
electron volts divided by the speed of light squared). With normalized mass,
energy volume units, the massenergy equivalence of the electron is 1, the
MeV/c^{2} equivalence unit is 1, and we are set to apply the Calculus
of Distinctions to particle physics with the TRUE unit as the basic, smallest
possible real distinction.
The third key to understanding TRUE analysis revolves
around the word ‘real’ as used in the
last sentence above. I’ve mentioned in these posts before that the Calculus of
Distinctions is logically prior to the Calculus of Newton and Leibniz, and that
we have to replace Newtonian Calculus in TDVP with a Calculus of Finite Dimensional
Distinctions to avoid the error of applying ‘infinitesimals’ to quantum
phenomena. And at a deeper level, for the valid application of any mathematical
analysis to physical phenomena, existence
is also a very important consideration.
Mathematical representations may reflect existential
or conceptual objects. For example, the electron, whose mass and volume are
taken as minimum units for CoD analysis, is real, and valid mathematical
representations of it reflect the existential reality of the electron, while
points, lines and planes, which are legitimate mathematical entities, do not
reflect real objects, and as mathematical representations, they are only
conceptual. They do not exist in a quantized universe. In a quantized universe,
the point is approximated by the volume of a single TRUE unit, a line is a row
of true units and a plane is a oneunitthick layer of TRUE units. In Laws of
Form, G. Spencer Brown makes the point that in the mathematical logic of
determining whether something is true or false, reality and existence are
not prerequisite. So rigorous mathematical logic applies whether the objects
being analyzed are real or merely conceptual. In the real, quantized physical world, however, real distinctions smaller
than the relativistic minimum volume of the electron do not exist; because if
they did, energy and mass would not be quantized. But Max Planck discovered
that they are, and the reality of the quantization of physical phenomena has
been validated many times since Planck’s time, and much of modern electronic technology
is based upon Planck’s discovery.
In applying mathematical methods to the analysis of
reality, scientists often forget or ignore the distinction between existential
and conceptual. This can lead to erroneous conclusions. This has obviously
happened when physicists speak of dimensionless objects and massless particles.
In this post, by looking at the real source of the angular momentum and mass of
elementary particles we will see that there is an exact correspondence between the
masses of subatomic particles derived from normalizing the experimental data from the Large Hadron
Collider (LHC) and the masses derived from application of TRUE analysis. This
exact correspondence of theoretical prediction with experimental data is strong
evidence of the validity of TDVP.
WHAT IS MATTER? WHAT IS MASS?
You may remember that I have published several posts,
and that we (Neppe and Close) have published several papers with discussions of
the origin of mass related to the
rotational spin of elementary particles in the elements of the Periodic Table.
I will repeat some of the basic concepts briefly here, with a minimum of
mathematics.
Max
Planck said “There is no matter, as such.”
TRUE analysis shows us that Planck was right. I intend
to explain why he was right in this post. We usually think of matter and mass
in terms of weight: a tenpound object obviously has more mass than a onepound
object. But weight does not tell us what mass is. Weight is just a relative
indicator of mass. For instance, if I weigh 185 pounds on the surface of the Earth,
I will weigh only about 31 pounds on the Moon, about 70 pounds on Mars, 437
pounds on Jupiter,  and I will be essentially weightless in outer space. But
my body does not lose mass. The mass of my body, assuming no untoward
accidents, is still the same, whether in space, or on the surface of the Earth.
So what is mass?
You can go to YouTube and watch my video “What is Mass?”
posted May 24, 2015: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKCN1o6aJuY.
In this video, I describe a demonstration that Professor Abernathy, a physics
instructor at Central Methodist, where I earned my Bachelor’s degree, used to
teach undergraduate physics students about the gyroscopic effect. To summarize, basically,
mass is actually inertia, which is
the resistance to motion caused by the gyroscopelike spin of elementary
particles. Anyone interested in the mathematics supporting this idea can find
the details in “Reality Begins with Consciousness” and other references like
those mentioned above, so, rather than going through the detailed math again here, I
will focus on describing the underlying concepts in terms that I think anyone
can understand.
In TDVP, the building blocks of the elementary
particles that make up the bulk of the physical universe are described in terms
of Triadic Rotational Units of Equivalence (TRUE). The numbers of these quantum
units comprising each of the elementary particles making up ordinary matter
(see the Table One below), are based on the normalization of massive amounts of
data collected from the many experiments of the “atom smashers” or particle
colliders, including the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). Normalizing the average
mass of the electron and the up and down quarks to the nearest integer value,
as shown in Table One, is justified on the grounds that the actual values must
be integer multiples of the most basic unit of quantized mass expressed in
equivalent units of energy, as discovered by Max Planck.
Table Two presents the number of quantum units (multiples
of TRUE) of mass, energy equivalence and gimmel that are necessary in
electrons, protons and neutrons for hydrogen, Helium and the other natural
elements of the Periodic Table to exist as stable atomic structures. And Table
Three shows the stable structure of the Hydrogen atom.
The information in these three tables have been
published before, but they are reproduced again here for convenient reference
in this discussion of the nature and origin of mass.
Table One
The LHC Data for Subatomic Particles
Comprising the Physical Universe
Particle

Symbol

Spin

Normalized
Charge

Mass
(Raw LHC Data in MeV/c^{2})

Mass
(Normalized to electron mass)

Electron

e

1/2

3

0. 511

1

Up
quark

u

3/2

+2_{
}

1. 87
– 2. 15

4

Down
Quark

d

3/2

−1

4. 63
– 4. 95

9

Proton

P^{+}

1/2

+1

736 
1140^{}

1836*^{}

*Notice that the mass of
the proton is more than 100 times the combined masses of two up quarks and one
down quark. Why is this? In the
current reductionist theory, most of the mass of the proton is thought to come from an unknown
number of ‘gluons’ existing within the proton. The mass of
the proton in the Hydrogen atom is assumed to be the total massenergy
equivalence of the system of quarks and gluons making up the particle, even though
the gluons are themselves massless. The energy of the gluons is believed to somehow
be converted to mass, so that the effect of massless particles is measured as part of the total mass of the system
of quarks and gluons making up the proton.
A real spinning object possessing TRUE unitary mass, and occupying TRUE unitary
volume is, by definition, an electron,
and when its mass is converted to energy, the result is a photon. Einstein explained the equivalence between electrons and
photons in terms of the constant speed of light, its frequency and Planck’s
constant in a paper for which he received the Nobel Prize.
Table Two
The
Building Blocks of the Elements in TRUE Units
Particle

Charge

Mass/
Energy

Gimmel

Total
TRUE Units

2D Volume

e

 3

1

105

106

1, 191, 016

P^{+}

+ 3

17

7

24

13, 824

N^{0}

0

22

16

38

54, 872

The exact number of TRUE units of
gimmel associated with the electron, 106, is uniquely determined from TRUE unit
analysis of the Hydrogen atom and the other atoms of the Periodic Table.
Table Three
TRUEUnit Analysis for the Hydrogen Atom
Particle

Charge

Mass/Energy

Gimmel

Total TRUE

Volume

e

 3

1

105

106

1,
191, 016

P^{+}

+ 3

17

7

24

13,
824

Gimmel

0

0

38

38

54,
872

Totals

0

18

150

168^{}

1,259,712 = 108^{3}

THE MULTIDIMENSIONAL NATURE OF ATOMS AND THE ORIGIN OF MASS
In current particle physics calculations, some subatomic particles, like the electron, are treated as if they were dimensionless points. This is not actually possible in a quantized reality, but it is not an unreasonable assumption for dealing with particles that are, in size, so far below our ability to observe and measure directly. In TDVP, however, mass, energy, space and time, consistent with Planck’s discovery of quantization, are considered to be quantized. Therefore, in reality, there are no dimensionless particles.
Toward the end of his life, Albert Einstein made
statements indicating that, with the validation of the general theory of
relativity, ‘empty’ space has no meaning, and thus space is not something that
exists on its own; it is simply the extension of matter and energy. See the
Note to the Fifteenth Edition of “Relativity the special and general theory, a
clear explanation that anyone can understand” by Albert Einstein. Time, a
dimension of extent, just like the dimensions of space, also has no meaning
without events involving mass and energy. With these ideas in mind, we see that
the conventional conceptualization of the Hydrogen atom as three quarks held
together as a proton by a mysterious strong force, and an electron held in
orbit around the proton by a weaker force, is not really tenable.
The unspoken assumption of this reductionist model of
the Hydrogen atom is the idea that the whole is no more than the sum of the
parts, and that mass is a measure of a material substance. This leads to the
incorrect expectation that when the atom is blown apart in a highenergy
collision engineered in the LHC, the parts, identified by their differing masses,
as indicated by their paths through the artificially imposed electromagnetic
field in the collider, are identical with the sum of the masses of the quarks
that they are composed of. This is simply incorrect. As noted above, when the total mass of the
proton is determined, it is found to be more than 100 times the mass of two up
quarks and one down quark. In the case of the proton, the whole is clearly much
greater than the sum of the parts, and particle physicists assume that it must
be explained by the existence of undetectable massless physical particles that
somehow impart mass to the proton. In a quantized world, massless and
dimensionless particles simply do not exist. They are just convenient fictions
adopted to make the reductionist model appear to work. Such fictional concepts
are inconsistent with the multidimensional quantized reality described by the
Calculus of Dimensional Distinctions in TDVP.
Using the mass of the electron provided by particle
collider data as the basis for defining the Triadic Rotational Unit of
Equivalence (TRUE), the truly minimum quantum unit, as the basic distinction of
the Calculus of Dimensional Distinctions, we have a new picture of the Hydrogen
atom. That new picture, revealing the gimmelstabilized structure of the
Hydrogen atom is summarized in Table Three. Notice that the symmetrically
stable structure of the Hydrogen atom in the 3D domain of physical observation
is exactly 108 linear units cubed.
We can determine the relative masses of the electron,
upquark and downquark in combination
in the Hydrogen atom from this picture as follows: If mass is actually the
measure of inertial resistance to motion due to multidimensional gyroscopic spin,
then the mass of a spinning object is equal to the number of TRUE units in the cross
sectional 3D area of the spinning object, multiplied by the unit mass. The
Hydrogen atom, with a TRUE volume of (108)^{3}has a crosssection of 108
TRUE units. (Hint: think of the (108)^{3} as a cube made up of (108)^{3}
= 1,259,712 cubic TRUE units. Then any crosssection
orthogonal to any side of the cube consists of 108 TRUE quantum units.)
It is very important to keep in mind that the measurable
TRUE quantum unit always occupies the equivalent of a convexly symmetric 9D unitary
volume, whether it is measurable as mass or energy, or detectable as gimmel in
the quantized 3D domain of physical observations. In order to follow this
discussion, think of the unitary TRUE distinctions as cubes. I’m not necessarily
saying that they are cubes, it is just that cubes are the easiest symmetric
shapes to visualize. So think of this as a thought experiment involving visualizing
these spinning distinctions as cubes.
As pointed out
above, the three smallest distinctions possible as existential entities in multiples
of 3D TRUE units are 1, 2 and 3. But because the TRUE unit is three
dimensional, 2 units cannot combine to form a symmetrical object, due to the
restriction of Fermat’s Last Theorem. the crosssections of the first three
distinctions are 1^{2} = 1,
2^{2} = 4, and 3^{2}
= 9 TRUE units. If the mass of a
spinning object is equal to the crosssection of the space occupied by the spinning
object, then the masses of the first three smallest elementary particles, the
electron, the up quark and the down quark, should be 1, 4 and 9 respectively. And looking at Table
One, we see that the masses of the electron, upquark and down quark, derived
from the normalized LHC data, are 1,
4 and 9 TRUE mass units, exactly the masses predicted! This seems to
suggest a reliable pattern, a way of calculating the mass of any spinning
object.
The Hydrogen atom is the result of the multidimensional
merging of an electron and a proton, and the proton is composed of two up
quarks, and one down quark plus the additional units of gimmel necessary to
form a stable symmetrical object spinning in three orthogonal dimensions. Looking
at Table Three, we see that the volume of the Hydrogen atom is represented by
108 TRUE units cubed, and as already noted, the crosssection of the atom is
thus 108 3D TRUE units. But the structure of the Hydrogen atom is complicated
by the fact that the electron and the proton have opposite electrical charge,
created by opposite spin, which is cancelled out when the electron and proton
combine. And the electron, with less mass: 1 TRUE unit to the 17 mass units of
the proton, has less angular momentum and is thus drawn into a 3D orbital
relationship with the proton.
The total inertial mass of the Hydrogen atom, as a
spinning object, is equal to its 3D crosssection in TRUE units. So the
effective mass of the atom without a neutron, is the mass of the proton which
is equal to 17 times the 108 True unit cross section of the atom. This means
that the mass of the proton in combination with the electron in the
multidimensional spinning hydrogen atom should be 17x108 = 1836 TRUE units of
mass. As mentioned above, this is in stark contrast with the mass of the proton
as the combination of two up quarks and one down quark, which is only 17 TRUE
units. Returning to Table One, we see that the statistical average of the
collider data, in normalized electron TRUE units, to the nearest whole unit, is
actually 1836! Thus, the mass of the proton in the Hydrogen atom, predicted by TDVP as the result of spin inertia, is the same as obtained from experimental data, validating the TDVP paradigm
shift.
The detailed mathematical derivation of this,
involving the Calculus of Distinctions and the Conveyance Equation is fairly
straight forward. Incidentally, it is interesting to note that when space and
time are recognized as simply extensions of the massenergy equivalence of
spinning objects as Einstein suggested, we can also explain the inverse square
law of gravity. The decrease of the strength of gravitational attraction
between two objects in multidimensional space is proportional to the product
of their inertial masses divided by the square of the distance between them.
This is an important subject for further discussion, but for now, let’s focus
on the importance of this determination of the mass of the proton in
combination with an electron in the Hydrogen atom.
In my opinion, this determination is the most
important validation of TDVP yet, because one might argue that our derivation
of the numerical value of the Cabibbo angle using a 9D spin model was a
numerical coincidence, and that the mathematical proof that the most stable
quark combinations are triadic is just a proof of something already known. You
might argue that my explanation of the intrinsic ½ spin of fermions in terms of
multidimensional spin, dispelling the ‘weirdness’ of quantum theory is
debatable, and you might argue that we ‘invented’ gimmel to make our theory
work. But I think it is very hard to deny the fact that this explanation of the
huge disparity between the mass of the proton and the combined masses of its
constituent quarks using the TDVP multidimensional spin model is much more
satisfying and convincing than the assumption that there are unknown numbers of massless and
dimensionless particles, which is the case in current mainstream physical
theory.
As mentioned in several posts, the inappropriate use
of Newtonian calculus at the quantum level, where no measure can approach zero
infinitesimally closely, causes physicists to have to accept strange,
selfcontradictory entities like massless and dimensionless particles. Application
of the calculus of Dimensional Distinctions to physical phenomena with the TRUE
quantum unit as the basic dimensional distinction, eliminates such nonsensical
conceptual conclusions, and what Niels Bohr called “astonishing” and Richard Feynman called
“quantum weirdness”.
Using TRUE, the truly minimum quantum unit as the
basis of calculation, we have explained why there is something rather than nothing
by demonstrating mathematically that there could be no stable atomic structure
without the existence of a third form of the essential substance of reality, which
we’ve called gimmel, in addition to mass and energy. You may take issue with
our interpretation of gimmel as a primary form of  or an extension of 
consciousness, but we challenge you to find an alternative. By accepting gimmel
as an agent of consciousness, mathematically conveying order and meaning into
the physical universe, we gain access to a whole new holistic way of looking at
reality. It opens the door to a new science capable of investigating mental,
psychic and spiritual phenomena, real experiences currently off limits to
mainstream science.
We see this as the beginning of new science,
revitalized with conscious energy and unified with the ageless truth of spirituality. Stay tuned for more. ERC 102816