## Friday, October 28, 2016

### KEYS TO UNDERSTANDING TDVP, THE SCIENCE OF THE FUTURE

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 sub-atomic phenomena not explained adequately, if at all, in the current materialistic reductionist scientific paradigm. The TDVP view of reality is based on the multi-dimensional 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 = mc2 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 (whole-number) 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 here-to-fore ‘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 up-quarks and one down-quark, and that particle physicists have determined the masses of the up-quark, the down-quark 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" quark-antiquark 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 Gell-Mann 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 Gell-Mann, 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 up-quark, down quark and the proton in Mev/c2, the mass-energy equivalence unit, directly from LHC data are:

Up-quarks range from 1. 87 to 2. 15 Mev/c2, averaging 2.01 Mev/c2.
Down-quark: 4. 63 to 4. 95 Mev/c2, averaging 4.79 Mev/c2.
Proton: 736 to 1140 Mev/c2, averaging = 938 Mev/c2.

So, the mass of two up-quarks plus one down-quark equals about 8.81 Mev/c2, which is less than 1% of 938 Mev/c2, 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/c2 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/c2, 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 up-quark, down-quark and the proton in MeV/c2 by the mass of the electron in MeV/c2 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 up-quark = 4 TRUE units

The mass of the down-quark = 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/c2 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 Bose-Einstein 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 up-quarks 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 clear-headed 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 9-D objects as detected in 3S-1t are 1, 2 and 3. Their squares are 12 = 1, 22 = 4, and 32 = 9 TRUE units. Notice that these squares are analogous to cross-sectional areas, but the TRUE units are multi-dimensional, and 3-D 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, up-quark and down-quark. 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 cross-section 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 sub-quantum 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 mass-energy 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/c2 (million electron volts divided by the speed of light squared). With normalized mass, energy volume units, the mass-energy equivalence of the electron is 1, the MeV/c2 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 one-unit-thick 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 sub-atomic 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 ten-pound object obviously has more mass than a one-pound 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 gyroscope-like 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/c2) 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 mass-energy 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 2-D Volume e - 3 1 105 106 1, 191, 016 P+ + 3 17 7 24 13, 824 N0 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
TRUE-Unit 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 = 1083

THE MULTI-DIMENSIONAL NATURE OF ATOMS AND THE ORIGIN OF MASS
In current particle physics calculations, some sub-atomic particles, like the electron, are treated as if they were dimension-less 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 high-energy 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 multi-dimensional 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 gimmel-stabilized structure of the Hydrogen atom is summarized in Table Three. Notice that the symmetrically stable structure of the Hydrogen atom in the 3-D domain of physical observation is exactly 108 linear units cubed.

We can determine the relative masses of the electron, up-quark and down-quark in combination in the Hydrogen atom from this picture as follows: If mass is actually the measure of inertial resistance to motion due to multi-dimensional gyroscopic spin, then the mass of a spinning object is equal to the number of TRUE units in the cross sectional 3-D area of the spinning object, multiplied by the unit mass. The Hydrogen atom, with a TRUE volume of (108)3has a cross-section 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 cross-section 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 9-D unitary volume, whether it is measurable as mass or energy, or detectable as gimmel in the quantized 3-D 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 3-D 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 cross-sections of the first three distinctions are 12 = 1, 22 = 4, and 32 = 9 TRUE units. If the mass of a spinning object is equal to the cross-section 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, up-quark 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 multi-dimensional 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 cross-section of the atom is thus 108 3-D 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 3-D orbital relationship with the proton.

The total inertial mass of the Hydrogen atom, as a spinning object, is equal to its 3-D cross-section 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 multi-dimensional 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 mass-energy 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 multi-dimensional 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 9-D 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 multi-dimensional 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 multi-dimensional 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, self-contradictory 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 10-28-16