Sunday, January 20, 2019


 We can’t solve problems using the same kind of thinking that created them.”- Albert Einstein

A few Days ago, I posted a link to an article by two European scientists critiquing the math of TDVP, along with my response to their article, on this transcendental physics website. The two articles together amounted to more than 30 pages, and about 15,000 words, not including references. That’s a lot to read, so for those of you who might not necessarily want to invest so much time from your busy lives to read a detailed abstract discussion, here is a condensed version, focusing on the main criticisms leveled at TDVP math and physics in the article: the derivations of quantum equivalence units, the Cabibbo quark-mixing angle and gimmel, the non-physical aspect of reality. Their criticisms are presented here along with my responses, stated as briefly as possible.

Section 3, of the article, called “Critical Results and Analysis.” takes bits and pieces of these derivations out of context, and because of this, the authors missed the significance of the fact that a quantum calculus is needed for a quantized reality.

Sections 3 and 4 of the article contain a number of erroneous statements about TDVP, but I expect that the authors probably didn’t deliberately misrepresent the math of TDVP; it is more likely that they simply didn’t understand it. When a new paradigm arrives, those working within the old paradigm rarely recognize it, and often attack it viciously because they see it as threatening to their life’s work.

Derivation of  Quantum Equivalence Units
The authors of the article criticized the derivation of the true quantum units of TDVP by referring to a table (their Figure 1) containing the masses of quarks determined statistically from Large Hadron Collider data. In the table, the masses of the up-quarks and down-quarks, determined from terabytes of LHC data, expressed in energy equivalence units (mega electron volts divided by the speed of light squared), are 2.3 ± 0.7 and 4.8 ± 0.5 Mev/c2 respectively, where the ± 0.07 and ± 0.05 are the Einstein-Bose statistical confidence limits.

The authors say: “… the mass values are assumed (by Close and Neppe) to be integers, apparently to be in line with quantum physics. Yet from the data in Figure 1, we can see the quark masses are not integer at all.”

This statement demonstrates that the authors, who say they have master’s degrees in physics,  didn’t understand the simple naturalization of basic units. In addition, they didn’t even seem to realize that there actually are integers within the ranges of the LHC data for these quarks.

The LHC data in their Figure 1, is actually the exact same data I used to derive the quantum units for TDVP. The authors obviously missed the fact that, when normalized to the naturalized mass of the electron, the masses of up- and down-quarks have to be integers.

It is amazing that two scientists with master’s degrees in physics would not be familiar with the naturalization and normalization of data to obtain the integer values of masses in quantized units! Surely, having taken graduate courses in physics, they should at least be familiar with Planck units, which are derived in the same way, using naturalized universal constants. 

Derivation of the Cabibbo Angle
The critics continue: “In his derivation, Close took a classical spinning object (which is incorrect for fermions because spin is quantified) and let it spin/rotate with the speed of light (which is incorrect) to generate the magnetic influence it should ‘spin’ faster than the speed of light. However, it is not mechanical spin; quantum spin is a quantum property. Close then calculates a ‘Lorentz contraction,’ which may look impressive to non-physicists because it happens to be about 1/9 of the experimental value of the Cabibbo angle…”

When I first read this, I said to myself, WOW! I could write a whole book on the errors and misunderstandings in this short paragraph alone, and I wrote a couple of pages in the response article, but I’ll boil it down to the bare bones here. Starting with the last error, I’ll work my way back to the first.

The error in the last sentence is the factor 1/9, which does not enter into the derivation at all. In the derivation of quantum-equivalence units, I determined that the angular velocity of a spinning electron stripped from a hydrogen atom would reach light speed before its diameter could shrink to zero. [I think it is relevant to note that theoretical physicist Wolfgang Pauli, who was held in very high regard by other physicists (including Albert Einstein), also discovered that the angular velocity of a spinning electron would reach light speed before its diameter shrinks to zero.]

Next, the real measure of rotation and inertia (erroneously called mass by mainstream particle physicists)  is angular momentum.The spinning object analyzed was an electron, and the result is the same whether spin is called “classical” or a “quantum property.” The angular velocity at the minimum quantum volume is calculated to be 2.9974 x108 m/sec, a large fraction of the speed of light. Applying the Lorentz contraction equation, the contraction for each of eight quantized dimensional rotations of 90 degrees each, is 0.01810x90,  or 1.629 degrees. One axis of rotation will be stationary in the observer’s inertial reference frame, so only 8 of the 9 dimensions in a 9-D reality are rotating with respect to the observer’s frame of reference. Consequently, for each rotation from one dimension to the next, 1.629 is multiplied by 8, not 9 as implied in the critique, yielding 13.032 degrees, which is in agreement with the Cabibbo angle derived from experimental data, which is  13.04±0.01 degrees.

The Derivation of Gimmel
The authors of the article are especially critical of the derivation of gimmel, the non-physical aspect of reality that is mathematically necessary for any stable atomic structure to exist. I addressed a number of their misrepresentations of this in my response article, but the root of their errors is revealed in the following statement: “Close calculated negative numbers for gimmel, but then continued with some number juggling (with some arbitrary integers for gimmel), until the whole thing seemed to work again, which is not an established, sound method in physics.”

The negative calculated values were simply part of the iterative computation used to establish the simplest possible integral solution of the equations representing the combinations of the quarks forming protons. None of the values used in determining the amount of gimmel in naturalized quantum-equivalence units in each quark were “arbitrary.” And certainly, any competent physicist should be familiar with the method of using best estimates as the starting point to iteratively zero in on the values that actually satisfy an equation. This method, called iterative computation, is used routinely and extensively in applied physics and engineering.

When the solution is simple, God is answering.—Albert Einstein25

The conclusion of my response article is summarized below:
The article by the two European scientists is primarily a defense of physicalist theory, not a serious evaluation of TDVP. It appears that the authors believe TDVP can’t be correct simply because it includes consciousness as an integral part of reality, conflicting with the dogma of mainstream physics. They misconstrue TDVP as dismissing QFT, which is a description of subatomic structure, while, in fact, TDVP explains the phenomena that Quantum field theory describes.  

The critical article contains a number of errors not addressed in my response, but to be more complete, I briefly addressed a couple more:

the authors of the “critique” say: “… our critical evaluation, as described above, of their derivation of nine dimensions is a strong refutation …”

Refutation requires a rigorous mathematical or logical disproof, not just comparison with the standard model. The article, riddled with errors and misrepresentations, presented no coherent mathematical or logical argument against TDVP at all, just opinions based on belief.

Finally, the authors express the opinion that “religion and science cannot mix. And they probably will never be reconciled.” The fact is, religion is not addressed in TDVP, but spiritual phenomena are, because they are part of the real world; and Close and Neppe are not alone in thinking that science should investigate them. There are a growing number of scientists who agree with us.

Thursday, January 17, 2019


Close and Neppe receiving Excellence in Education Award

To read the article criticizing TDVP go to 

Beyond the limits of 3S-1t: Interpreting the Triadic Dimensional Vortical Paradigm Appropriately:
A Response to “An Evaluation of TDVP”

Edward R. Close PhD, PE, DSPE, DF (ECA)
With Vernon M Neppe MD, PhD, Fellow Royal Society (SA),

An innovative consciousness-based paradigm was published by Neppe and Close in a volume titled Reality Begins with Consciousness in 2011. It was the combination and culmination of many years of independent research by the authors, carried out long before they met. Hailed by some peer-reviewers as the next major paradigm shift, the Triadic Dimensional Vortical Paradigm (TDVP) has been further developed and significantly expanded over the past seven years in a number of papers and articles, published outside of mainstream scientific journals because of the unspoken taboo against including consciousness in mathematical physics. This article is a response to criticisms leveled in the article An Evaluation of TDVP, published in Telicom XXX.5 – Fourth Quarter 2018, by physicists J.E.F. Kaan and Simon Olling Rebsdorf. The article underlines the difficulty that mainstream scientists have understanding the basics and implications of TDVP. This article is a response to the criticisms in the article, and an explanation of some of the basic ideas that make TDVP such a controversial shift from materialistic physicalism to a comprehensive consciousness-based scientific paradigm.

TDVP is an inter-disciplinary scientific model 1 developed and published by Vernon M. Neppe, DSPE and Edward R. Close, DSPE, between 2008 and the present. 2 An article titled An Evaluation of TDVP by J.E.F. Kaan, MSPE and Simon Ollings Rebsdorf, MSPE, was published in Telicom XXX.5, Fourth Quarter 2018. 3 This is a response to that article.  
Dr. Neppe and I are eager to engage in meaningful discussions about TDVP concepts with anyone interested in doing so. Personally, I am especially interested in evaluations of the mathematical logic and physical concepts of TDVP by people with training and a depth of knowledge in those subjects. Over the past ten years, I have had the good fortune to have many useful discussions about TDVP concepts with dozens of competent scientists, many of whom are PhDs in mathematical physics or related fields. The following quotes are representative:

“I rank Dr. Edward R. Close and Dr. Vernon M. Neppe as peers of the major authors of modern physics and mathematics. I equate them with greats, such as Planck, Einstein, … Newton…. Their work has clarified, and extended the science and mathematics that these geniuses originated …I foresee the day when they will both be awarded other honors, such as a Nobel Prize in Physics and (equivalent in) Mathematics.” … “The Close-Neppe seminal work in creating TDVP constitutes one of the most profound and far-reaching discoveries and developments in the history of the sciences.When two polymaths make discoveries that are so groundbreaking they change the whole fabric of reality, it is clear that this is Nobel Prize material.”- Dr. David M. Stewart, PhD, ND, geophysicist, author of 17 books, international educator and speaker

The 21st Century's revolutionary paradigm shift”; … “unprecedented brilliance and potentially limitless scientific and philosophical outreach …yielding a fresh and accurate understanding of various investigation fields of Nature, and opening … groundbreaking development perspectives for Sciences (emphatically plural!)”. The Neppe-Close contributions will change mankind's futureA seismic shift in understanding the understanding process itself! The 21st Century's revolutionary paradigm shift. Dr. Adrian Klein, DD, PhD, Dimensional Biopsychophysicist

“After having first read their papers my initial personal reaction was “This deserves a Nobel prize”. Later, I discovered that these two polymaths belong to the same high intellect societies in which I held personal membership, and in my opinion, they appear to be amongst the most creative thinkers currently advancing science in our world today.” … “When taken altogether, the entire work is worthy of several separate Nobel Prizes. Ultimately, these two creative genius scientists have changed the world. in order to look at the mathematics, Neppe and Close have recognized that there needs to be volume in everything. And if something is volumetric, this means it is 3-dimensional; it effectively can be calculated mathematically in terms of cubes. This leads to a whole string of Diophantine equations and what calculations do and do not fit within our empirical reality.”- Dr. Alan Hugenot, PhD, Author, Lecturer

“Dear Ed and Vernon, First, it was wonderful hearing Ed present at the ASCI meetings. … I found myself understanding, appreciating, and celebrating what the two of you have been doing. In fact, as I look over the 40 years of my attending scientific meetings, Ed's presentation is among THE MOST MEMORABLE AND MEANINGFUL of my entire academic (and personal) life”. – Dr. Gary E. Schwartz, PhD, Professor of psychology, medicine, neurology, psychiatry, and surgery, University of Arizona, Tucson

“We cannot have any particle, tiny or macroscopic or in our astronomical reality, without what is called ‘gimmel’— Neppe, Close and I and others regard gimmel as consciousness, or its vehicle as there is simply no other explanation … Neppe and Close have provided the data to solve complex questions by TDVP. Effectively, once one introduces extra dimensions, infinite continuity which embeds the 9 finite quantized dimensions, and consciousness/gimmel—“the God Matrix”— with math proofs plus unified reality as key points, the solutions for all finite reality become easier. This is why their TDVP model—unlike any other scientific model based on the Theory of Everything (TOE) criteria analysis—works, and why TDVP so closely reflects and encompasses the spiritual aspects.”- Dr. Surendra Pokharna PhD, Physicist, Ahmedabad, India

We are currently corresponding with PhD professionals interested in the applications and implications of TDVP and the natural quantum units of the calculus of dimensional distinctions. I have had a number of informal discussions with Mr. Kaan over a period of several years, but I can’t say that they were very productive, because his comments were generally negative, with no in-depth discussion of the math and physics behind TDVP; and I have had no previous discussions with Mr. Rebsdorf. Similar to their practice of shortening Neppe and Close to N&C, I will refer to them as K&R. We want to be respectful to K&R’s work, but understandably, we need to correct the obvious errors. 
When I was told that a critique of TDVP had been submitted to Telicom, I was hopeful that there would be something of substance to discuss — and there was. I am, however, disappointed with the K&R article because, much like some of Mr. Kaan’s informal comments, it is basically an opinion piece, with no in-depth scientific or mathematical evaluation of any of the innovative ideas in TDVP, even though it attempts to address, unsuccessfully, as I will show, the gimmel and Cabibbo angle derivations.

I am thankful that K&R took the time and effort to write this critique, and pleased to be able to respond to some of the misunderstandings and misinterpretations of TDVP found in the article. Except for a few general comments, I will confine my responses to K&R criticisms of the math and physics of TDVP, and leave other topics, like feasibility, falsifiability, and philosophy of science questions to Dr. Neppe. But, there will likely be some overlap in our responses, because physics and mathematics, while very important in any scientific paradigm, are only one part of the greater question concerning the nature of reality.

First, it is probably a good idea to acknowledge that we (N&C) have a fundamentally different opinion about the nature of reality than K&R, who apparently accept the physicalist belief that consciousness is an epiphenomenon, only arising when a certain level of physical complexity happens. We favor the opposite concept, that consciousness, in some form, had to precede the organization of elementary particles into stable, life-supporting structures. For me personally, this position is not just a philosophical belief, but a conclusion based on experience and reason.

At a very young age, I was inspired by the genius of scientists like Newton 4, Leibniz 5 and Einstein 6-8, and mathematicians like Euler 9, Gӧdel 10; 11and von Neumann 12, but I  knew from personal experiences, that my consciousness can and does exist outside of and beyond my physical body. Most of the scientists, engineers and physicists I know who now support the view that consciousness is a fundamental part of reality, were mainstream physicalists before paradigm-shattering experiences changed their worldviews forever. I know several well-educated, professional scientists who have experienced unsought out-of-body experiences as the result of horrifying  accidents, or flat-lining on the operating table, and who later returned to normal bodily awareness, defying all conventional physicalist medical theories.

Second, K&R 3 state on page 144 of the Telicom article that: “TDVP seems to be based on two fallacious assumptions, namely:

1.     Physics excludes the paranormal (or “spiritual”).

2.     In order to be able to allow for paranormal events, you can modify the fundamentals of mainstream physics – without checking if the new theories still work for old experiments”

TDVP is not based on such assumptions. If I accepted assumption #1, I never could have written Transcendental Physics 13 in the early 1990s to make the point that physics could be expanded to include spiritual reality without detracting from what had already been discovered, by including consciousness in the equations. Concerning #2, in fact, we have checked upwards of fifty specific instances to see if TDVP actually works for prior existing experiments, and it does. And, finally, the conclusion of the article seems to be: TDVP simply can’t be right, because it doesn’t agree with the mainstream model of particle physics. I, like K&R, was trained in modern mathematical physics, but I have to reject this argument because it makes mainstream physics seem much like a religion. If you don’t agree with the physicalist doctrine, you are wrong by definition. Unfortunately, this is the kind of thinking that stifles real progress in the scientific understanding of the nature of reality.

In my opinion, academic specialization, and the division of natural science into separate academic fields, each with their own specialized assumptions, theories and arcane jargon, is the greatest single barrier to an integrated understanding of the nature of reality. Science and spirituality are both part of reality, and should not be incompatible. I understand why Georges Lemaître 14; 15 (mentioned by K&R) and other thinkers like him in the past, whose interests included both science and theology, avoided integrating their research: It would have been very difficult from the standpoint of an individual’s ability to study several subjects in one lifetime, and doing so could have literally resulted in losing one’s head. Governments and religions organized in the Middle Ages to control the masses had no compunction about physically enforcing their authority with torture and murder, when they were challenged. Perhaps the time has finally come for the reconnection of natural science with its metaphysical roots. We need to  expand science to include more than just the tip of the iceberg of reality represented by physical theory.

K&R’s criticisms of the math and physics of TDVP are presented in Section 3 of their article, titled: “Critical Results and Analysis”. This section takes bits and pieces of some TDVP derivations out of context, and out of the logic in which they were developed. Because of this, it misses the importance of the need for a quantum calculus. And K&R, like physicalists in general, ignore the clues pointing to the errors in their own paradigm.

K&R’s arguments contain several misunderstandings and/or misrepresentations. They also, rather predictably, fall back on some of the refrains adopted by mainstream physicists trying to avoid the empirical evidence that points to something very distasteful for physicalists: the implication that consciousness may have a direct effect on reality. In the article we find the claim that “spin, related to quantum phenomena is not mechanical spin; quantum spin is a quantum property” without any explanation of what is meant by that. This is one of several statements mainstream physicists put forth as if they were self-evident facts, culminating in the statement “Quantum Mechanics Does Not Require Any Conscious Observer” 16. K&R do not offer any proof of this statement, but simply state that “This fact is undisputed and well established, comprehensively described and empirically demonstrated in any graduate-level theoretical physics textbook.”

K&R are correct that the mainstream physicalist position is that quantum mechanics does not require a conscious observer. But they grossly overstate the case when they say that this belief is undisputed and empirically demonstrated. If one reads the existing literature on the measurement problem arising from the interaction of the observer with quantum phenomena, and not just the mainstream physicalist opinion, one finds that avoidance of interpretation of empirical evidence suggesting the involvement of the observer is the unstated bias of mainstream physicalists.17 The result is that the measurement problem is treated totally within the mathematical formulation of the physicalist interpretation of quantum theory. If the problem is approached in a theory-neutral manner, a number of physicists have concluded that no interpretation of quantum phenomena can completely avoid the existence of a measurement problem involving the observer. 18; 19 A few mainstream physicists like David Bohm 20; 21, John Wheeler 22; 23, Amit Goswami 24; 25, Fred Alan Wolf 26, Menas Kafatos 27, and Henry Stapp 28-30 have been bold enough to think outside the box of strict physicalist interpretations of the data from quantum experiments like the double-slit 31 and delayed-choice experiments. 22

The subjectively biased position of most mainstream scientists is that the laws governing quantum phenomena are so different from the laws of “classical” physics, that you should not bother to think about the possibility that there might be logical relationships between them. A common refrain of mainstream physicists 32 is: “Quantum physics is simply weird. We must just accept that there is no explaining it, and go on with practical application of what we know about quantum-scale phenomena, even though it conflicts the laws of macro-scale physics,”  But, in fact, reality is never in conflict with itself, the conflict is between scientific theories.

Before addressing the misunderstandings in K&R’s analysis of the TDVP derivation of the Cabibbo angle and gimmel, perhaps some history of the origin of the party-line used by physicalists to avoid dealing with consciousness 19, is in order. The basic dodge is the intellectual smokescreen provided by the statement that some of the physical processes of quantum phenomena are so strange, that they cannot be compared with, or explained in “classical” physical concepts. This mental barrier prevents mainstream scientists from asking why the standard model has massless and mathematical singularity “particles”. We can see why and how this wizard-of-Oz curtain was fabricated by examining the thinking of some leading physicists.

The main players in the publicized version of the drama called the Einstein-Bohr debate 33 were Albert Einstein 7 and Niels Bohr. 34 The argument was about the nature of reality at the quantum scale, which is also what we are talking about here. The argument was over whether reality at the quantum scale is inherently probabilistic to the degree specified by Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle 35, or completely deterministic. Einstein argued for determinism 7; 33, and Bohr for probabilism 34.

The argument centered around a paper that became known as the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) Paradox. 33 Using a well-known quantum phenomenon, and applying classical dynamics, the EPR paper produced a clear contradiction of the Uncertainty Principle. Einstein argued that this paradox implied that quantum theory, as formalized by Bohr 34; 36, Heisenberg and Schrӧdinger 37-39, must be incomplete. Bohr countered with what became known as the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics 40, which stated that quantum phenomena are not localized until observed or measured, and implied that elementary particles could not be described in classical terms. This was unacceptable to most mainstream physicists because it implied that, as theoretical physicist John Wheeler put it:

 “There is no elementary phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon”. 41 

Most quantum physicists believe that the only way the EPR paradox is avoided is by concluding that quantum phenomena do not obey the classical laws of physics. The exact location and momentum of an elementary particle cannot be known simultaneously, as is the case with macro-scale objects like baseballs or missiles.

The eventual resolution of the Einstein-Bohr debate, made possible by Bell’s Inequality (also known as Bell’s Theorem 42-44) applied to the EPR experiment, resulted in a consistent demonstration of quantum uncertainty. This result is well known, and has been discussed and written about ad nauseam, but the point to be made here is that it raises profound questions about the nature of reality, and establishes quantum entanglement 45-47, a concept that helps to explain the results of quantum experiments like the double-slit 18; 31 and delayed-choice experiments 22, dealing with electrons, photons and other elementary particles.

Niels Bohr had some interesting things to say about quantum mechanics that I think may have started mainstream physicists on the yellow brick road to the Land of Oz and the impenetrable magic curtain of quantum weirdness 48:

·       If quantum mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you haven't yet understood it.
·       Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.
·       It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how Nature is. Physics is only concerned with what we can say about our experience of Nature.
But, I agree with Bohr when he said 48:

·       Nothing exists until it is measured.
·       A physicist is just an atom’s way of looking at itself.
·       Every description of natural processes must be based on ideas which have been introduced and defined by classical theory.

This last quote tells us that, even though some of Bohr’s statements may have inspired the attitude that quantum weirdness cannot be explained in terms of classical physical theory, he himself did not believe that!

Physicalists like Richard Feynman 32, and most experimental particle physicists since Bohr, have perpetuated the idea that quantum physics is weird, counter-intuitive, and cannot be reconciled with classical physics. The following Feynman quotes are revealing:

·       One does not, by knowing all the physical laws as we know them today, immediately obtain an understanding of anything much…The more you see how strangely Nature behaves, the harder it is to make a model that explains how even the simplest phenomena actually work. So theoretical physics has given up on that 49
·       “What I am going to tell you about is what we teach our physics students in the third or fourth year of graduate school... It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don't understand it. You see, my physics students don't understand it.... That is because I don't understand it. Nobody does.” 49

Lest anyone think that I disrespect Niels Bohr and Richard Feynman because I trace the beginnings of the irrational doctrine of quantum weirdness to them, I assure you, I do not.
Niels Bohr was a great physicist. Also, in my opinion, Richard Feynman was a great teacher of physics. I choose to call him a teacher rather than a professor, as a compliment, because there are many professional scientists who haven’t the foggiest notion how to teach as well as he did. And I admire his  honesty very much. He never pretended to know more than he did, a very rare thing among physicists!

Reading through Sections 3 and 4, I found that they contain no less than forty (40) erroneous statements about TDVP. Most of them are easily rebutted, but addressing each statement separately would be tedious and not very instructive because they are presented in a random order, suggesting that K&R might be deliberately misrepresenting TDVP definitions and derivations primarily in order to defend the standard model. But, after carefully reading the article again, and thinking about each statement, I conclude that they were probably not deliberately twisting and garbling the ideas behind TDVP; they just didn’t understand them. Most of the incorrect statements were related to a few basic misunderstandings. So, I will clarify the misunderstandings first, because I think that will be the best way to explain TDVP. Of course, not everything K&R have said is false, and by weeding out the things that are, we may be able to find some common ground.

Putting the Basic Concepts in the Proper Context
The critique addresses two aspects of TDVP seen by K&R as key concepts: (1) The discovery of gimmel, the third form of the substance of reality, and (2) the TDVP derivation of the Cabibbo angle. But they are taken out of context because K&R did not understand the need for a natural quantum equivalence unit as the basis of a quantum calculus. Most of the errors in the article can be cleared up by addressing the criticisms in proper order: First, the derivation of natural quantum units. second, the discovery of gimmel, and third, the Cabibbo angle derivation.

The Need for a Quantum Equivalence Unit and a Quantum Calculus

We can’t solve problems using the same kind of thinking that created them. – Albert Einstein

The most basic thing that K&R missed, is the need for a calculus with measurement units that are tied to the natural quanta of the real world. This mis-step is evidenced by their reference to Figure 1, displayed on page 147 of the article:

 “… the mass values are assumed to be integers, apparently to be in line with quantum physics. Yet from the data in Figure 1, we can see the quark masses are not integer at all. The same will, of course, be found in any text on this topic.”

Indeed, these masses for quarks, from the statistical evaluation of terabytes of Large Hadron Collider (LHC) data are not integer, and they are readily available. But these data for up-quarks and down-quarks, along with the mass of the electron, are the same data used in the derivation of the basic quantum units of mass in the TDVP calculations. The way they are naturalized is straight-forward and should be understood by any undergraduate physics or math student. The derivation of natural quantum units for TDVP has been published several times, including in Reality Begins with Consciousness 78 and in several 79-81 peer-reviewed papers 79; 82 in addition to my Transcendental Physics blog — 83

I would expect anyone trained in modern physics to be familiar with the conversion of SI units to natural units. Naturalized units of measurement are created in a number of ways, and as physicists, K&R should at least be familiar with naturalized Planck units. They shouldn’t have to be told why, even though mass is quantized in the real world, the values in Figure 1 are not integers. They are not integers because the units of measurement being used are not naturalized quantum units.

Quantization of energy and mass means that, if the units used to measure mass are normalized to the value of the smallest stable mass in natural elements, which happens to be the mass of the electron, then all stable masses should be integer multiples of that quantum mass.

Shortly after this misunderstanding, on page 148, K&R state: “N&C’s detailed calculation method can be found in a blog by Close (but not in any peer-reviewed physics journal article)30. In his calculation, the use of the equation (charge3 + mass3 + gimmel3 )1/3 is really obscure physics …”
There are several errors in this statement,[1] including the fact that  this expression cited by K&R is not an equation.  The type of equation we apply in the derivation is the Diophantine equation: W3 + X3 + Y3 = Z3, where W, X, Y, and Z are each converted to quantum equivalence units of mass, energy and gimmel.

As K&R suggest, dimensional analysis is an excellent tool to help assure that there are no errors in an equation. The unitary equation should reduce to the same basic units on both sides. Adding Coulombs, kilograms and quantum equivalence units of gimmel would make no sense at all, and that is never done in TDVP derivations. All of the terms in TDVP equations are in quantum equivalence units. Note: When scalar quantum equivalence units are raised to any multiple of the third power, they become volumetric and are called Triadic Rotational Units of Equivalence (TRUE).
Missing the most basic and critical step of TDVP analysis, i.e., the conversion of SI units to quantum equivalence units, K&R failed to follow the derivations. For example:

“Close calculated negative numbers for gimmel, but then continued with some number juggling (with arbitrary integers for gimmel), until the whole thing seemed to work again, which is not an established sound method in physics.”

This shows, to their credit, that they read some of the TDVP derivations, but, unfortunately, they didn’t understand them. The negative calculated values were simply part of the iteration to establish the simplest possible solution. None of the values used in determining the amount of gimmel in naturalized quantum equivalence units in each quark were “arbitrary’. And any experimental or theoretical physicist should be familiar with the method of using reasonable estimates as a starting point and then iteratively zeroing in on the values that actually satisfy an equation. This method is used routinely and extensively in applied physics and engineering. It is called iterative computation. 84

The Discovery of Gimmel and a Simpler Approach to Explaining Subatomic Phenomena

When the solution is simple, God is answering – Albert Einstein 85

Nature follows the rule of parsimony 86; 87: the simplest theory that explains the most, is best. The Ptolemaic geo-centric model of the universe, e.g., with cycles and epi-cycles, explained the observed movements of the known planets at the time of Ptolemy (second century AD), but it was very complex, and it became even more complex every time a new astronomical body was discovered. The helio-centric solar system model that eventually replaced it, was much simpler, and explained more.

We are now again at the same kind of flex point. And the clues have been piling up after relativity 8; 88; 89 and quantum mechanics 25; 90; 91 revolutionized our understanding of reality, and application of the new knowledge advanced technology. Experiments began to show that something was wrong. Science was becoming more and more complicated. Particle-wave duality 92 was introduced by de Broglie 93; 94, Planck declared there is no matter as such 95 and Einstein concluded that space-time has no existence of its own 96, and reality is a field phenomenon 7. Resolution of the EPR paradox revealed strange new phenomena like non-locality 77; 97 and quantum entanglement 45; 98. Not only that, particle physics would not work without the existence of objects that are not really particles. Some “particles” have no mass, and some are dimensionless, violating the very definition of a physical particle.

The standard model holds that gluons, defined as vector bosons, with little or no mass, mediate the strong force that holds protons together, but just how they do this is unknown. It is wrapped up in the quantum weirdness of abstract terms called “quantum properties” 50 like spin numbers 60; 99; 100 , “flavors” and “colors”. 49On the other hand, our 2011 2 discovery 1 that something without mass or energy, i.e., something non-physical, has to be present in up-quarks and down-quarks for stable protons 69; 101to exist 79; 80, tells us that there is much more to reality than matter and energy interacting in time and space. The discovery that the greater part of reality, the part that assures that the atomic structures supporting organic life forms are the most stable is non-physical, is revolutionary. 2 When the LHC masses of up- and down-quarks are converted to integer multiples of the natural quantum units of the electron, we find that protons, composed of two up-quarks of four quantum equivalence units each, and one down-quark of nine quantum equivalence units, would be asymmetric and rotationally unstable without a specific number of quantum equivalence units of something that cannot be measured as mass or energy. 79; 82

The existence of this third form of content 79, which we have called gimmel 69; 81; 82; 102-104, makes the physical structure of the proton larger and symmetrically stable, so that classical relativistic dynamics explains the weak and strong forces, and the exact amount of mass measured experimentally for the proton, is determined mathematically. Clearly, with gimmel, TDVP explains more, in simpler terms, than the standard model explains. It also explains why quarks only combine in triples, why fermions have ½ intrinsic spin, and even why there is something, rather than nothing. 73; 105; 106  Quite independently, Saul-Paul Sirag also showed prior to us doing this, that fermion groups come in three 107 (our work with 2 quarks and an electron would be an example).

TDVP is simple, but it is hard for scientists trained in the physicalist philosophy of the mainstream educational system to comprehend, because it expands scientific investigation beyond the limited range of energies revealed by the physical senses and physical extensions by including consciousness in the equations 76 describing the combination of quarks to form stable protons and other stable structures 108.

The TDVP Derivation of the Cabibbo Angle
One of the earliest challenges to the TDVP model, came from a Johns Hopkins astronomer. He said that if we could explain why the Cabibbo angle has the strange value it has, he would take TDVP more seriously. The empirical value of the angle was 13.04 degrees, but no one could explain why it should be that value. It could not be derived from the standard particle physics theory. Our initial response was that TDVP was a metaparadigm and that this question was outside the scope of TDVP at that time. If the model proved to be successful, such technical detail might be something we could investigate later.

Before I explain the TDVP derivation, some history may again be in order: I was accepted into a graduate program in theoretical physics at the University of Missouri at Rolla in 1964. That was the same year Murray Gell-Mann introduced the idea that protons and neutrons, thought at that time to be the ultimate building blocks of atomic nuclei, were actually composed of yet smaller components that he called quarks. The existence of these sub-proton particles was confirmed experimentally in 1968 in the Stanford linear accelerator. Physicist Richard Feynman called the sub-proton particles partons, but it soon became clear that they were the same objects that Gell-Mann had called quarks, and that name stuck. In 1969, Gell-Mann received the Nobel Prize in Physics for defining the family of elementary particles called quarks.

In 1963, just one year prior to Gell-Mann’s introduction of subatomic quarks, the Italian physicist Nicola Cabibbo introduced what became known as the Cabibbo angle, written θC. It was the angle of rotation of the eigenvectors of matrices describing the inertial bodies of elementary particles, preserving the universality of the so-called weak interaction thought to govern the formation and decay of elementary particles.

What are eigenvectors? To answer that question, we go back about 200 years, when the Swiss mathematician and physicist Leonhard Euler noted the importance of the principal axis of rotation in analyzing rotating rigid bodies, and one of his contemporaries, French mathematician Joseph-Luis Lagrange, recognized that the principal axes of rotation were the characteristic vectors of inertia matrices describing rotating objects. But the terms eigenwert (eigenvalue) and eigenvector may be traced back even farther, to the German physicist Hermann von Helmholtz. Eigen is the verb “to own” in German, and is also used to mean something’s “own characteristic”, or something specific, or peculiar to a person or object; so, it was natural to call the characteristic vector of a matrix the eigenvector of the matrix.

Later, θC became known as the quark mixing angle, a matrix feature related to the probability of strange-quarks and down-quarks decaying to up-quarks. And finally, the Cabibbo angle is now recognized as part of the Standard Model of particle physics Cabibbo–Kobayashi–Maskawa matrix, or CKM matrix. The CKM matrix is a unitary matrix, containing information about the strength of the flavor-changing weak interaction force among quarks. It specifies the asymmetry of the quantum states of quarks, and is relevant to the understanding of CP violation in the three generations of quarks. Bear in mind that Gell-Mann’s quark theory was unknown to Nicola Cabibbo when he described θC in 1963. [Nicola Cabibbo. Phys. Rev. Lett. 10, 531 – Published 15 June 1963]

Because of the challenge by the Johns Hopkins astronomer, I began to think about it, and soon became convinced that the value of the Cabibbo angle could be derived by applying the math of TDVP to the dynamics of the rotation of quarks and electrons. The basis of my optimism was the fact that I had been able to explain the ½ intrinsic spin of fermions by simulating an object spinning in multiple planes at the same time, suggesting that the Cabibbo angle might also be the result of vortical rotation, i.e. spin in multiple dimensions.

In the derivation of quantum equivalence units in the Calculus of Dimensional distinctions (CoDD), the quantum calculus of TDVP, it was determined that the angular velocity of a spinning elementary object reaches light speed before its diameter shrinks to zero. This means that the angular velocity at the minimum quantum volume is calculated to be 2.9974 x108 m/sec, a large fraction of the speed of light. Applying the Lorentz contraction equation, the contraction for each dimensional rotation is calculated to be a factor of 0.01810, or 1.629 degrees REF. For an observer, one axis of rotation is stationary as part of the reference frame, so only 8 of the 9 dimensions in a 9-D reality are rotating with respect to the observer. Consequently, 1.629 is multiplied by 8, yielding 13.032 degrees, in agreement with θC derived from experimental data for the Cabibbo angle (13.04±0.01 degrees).

Reading K&R’s discussion of the Cabibbo angle reveals another deep misunderstanding: They appear to think that TDVP contradicts and seeks to replace Quantum chromodynamics (QCD) and Quantum Field theory (CFT). It does not. QCD and QFT describe the structure of the family of quarks revealed by LHC experiments, TDVP explains why there is a family of quarks. QCD and QFT are primarily descriptive, TDVP is explanatory.

One of the things K&R got right, was the statement that “… because N&C include consciousness 76 in particle physics, we expect the academic community at large will likely not give much attention to TDVP.” Achieving publication of TDVP derivations in mainstream math and physics journals has been difficult because of the interdisciplinary nature of TDVP. We have had negative responses from editors of mainstream journals citing reluctance to publish “material outside the journal discipline” and the “unavailability of peer-reviewers with the appropriate interdisciplinary expertise”.

How does a concept outside the mainstream paradigm get published in mainstream journals dominated by editors who share the physicalist philosophy? We thought that explaining phenomena not explained by the mainstream paradigm might get their attention; but apparently that does not work if the word ‘consciousness’ 76 is mentioned. The idea that consciousness is fundamental is rejected as pseudoscience by physicalists. The sad part is that they don’t seem to realize that their position is unscientific.

K&R say that both of the following statements are unscientific and unfalsifiable:

A) The universe cannot exist without consciousness.
B) The universe could exist without consciousness.

TDVP actually falsifies B and proves that A is true. It does this simply by showing that the most stable structure in the universe, the proton, cannot be stable without the existence of consciousness 77. This makes ‘physicalism pseudoscience’ and TDVP a real paradigm shift.

The article by K&R is not an effective evaluation of TDVP. It is little more than a weak defense of outdated physicalist theory. The authors rush to judgement, presenting their conclusions first, reflecting their belief that TDVP can’t be correct, because it addresses consciousness as a fundamental part of reality, which doesn’t conform to the physicalist dogma of mainstream physics. The article misconstrues TDVP as an attack on QCD and QFT, which are descriptions of subatomic structure, while TDVP actually explains the phenomena that QCD and QFT describe. Instead of trying to understand TDVP, the authors appear to be looking for a way to dismiss it without going to the trouble of trying to understand the basic concepts, or following the detailed derivations, mathematical proofs, and verified results it contains, to their logical conclusion.

[1] With respect, K&R’s detailed TDVP derivations are not in the cited reference #30 in K&R 1. Kaan J, Rebsdorf SO: An evaluation of TDVP. Telicom 30: 5; 142-157, 2018.  and (charge3 + mass3 + gimmel3 )1/3 is certainly not an expression used in the TDVP derivations.

1. Neppe VM, Close ER: Reality begins with consciousness: a paradigm shift that works (First Edition) 1 Edition. Seattle:
2. Neppe VM, Close ER: Applying consciousness, infinity and dimensionality creating a paradigm shift: introducing the triadic dimensional distinction vortical paradigm (TDVP). Neuroquantology 9: 3; 375-392, 2011.
3. Kaan J, Rebsdorf SO: An evaluation of TDVP. Telicom 30: 5; 142-157, 2018.
4. Newton I. Letter to Richard Bentley.   Retrieved 2014, 2014, 2014 (from 1692).
5. Anonymous. Leibniz: metaphysics. 2001.
6. Einstein A: Last Update Date. Relativity and the problem of space. Series Relativity and the problem of space   Retrieved  Date, Access 1952 (English translation 1954) 1952 (English translation 1954)
7. Einstein A: Physics and Reality. Monograph.1936.
8. Einstein A: Fundamental ideas and methods of the Theory of Relativity, presented in their development  Papers 7: 31, 1920
9. Euler L: Euler, L.  . Novi. Comm. Acad. Petrop. 6, ad annos 1756-1757: 181, 1761.
10. Berto FJ: There's something about Gödel: the complete guide to the incompleteness theorem. New York: John Wiley and Sons.2010.
11. Smullyan R: Gödel's incompleteness theorems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.1991.
12. Von Neumann J: Mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics 1 Edition. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.1932.
13. Close ER: Transcendental Physics. Lincoln: I-Universe.2000.
14. Lemaître G: The beginning of the world from the point of view of quantum theory. Nature 127: 3210; 706, 1931.
15. Lemaître G: The primeval atom – an essay on cosmogony. New York: D. Van Nostrand Co.1946.
16. Wimmel H: Quantum physics and observed reality: a critical interpretation of quantum mechanics. Singapore, Singapore: World Scientific.1992.
17. Rosenblum B, Kuttner F: The observer in the quantum experiment. arXiv,
18. De Bianchi MS: Quantum measurements are physical processes. Comment on “Consciousness and the double-slit interference pattern: Six experiments",  By Dean Radin et al. [Physics Essays 25, 2 (2012)]., 2012.
19. Yu1 S, Nikolic D: Quantum mechanics needs no consciousness. Ann. Phys. (Berlin) 523: 11; 931 – 938,
20. Bohm D: Wholeness and the implicate order. London: Routledge.1980.
21. Bohm D, Hiley BJ: The undivided universe. London: Routledge.1993.
22. Wheeler JA: Delayed-choice experiments and the Bohr-Einstein dialogue, in The American Philosophical Society and the Royal Society: papers read at a meeting, June 5, 1980. Edited by APS, (UK) R. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society.  9-40 1980.
23. Wheeler JA: At home in the universe. Woodbury, NY: American Institute of Physics.1994.
24. Goswami A: The Visionary Window. New York: Quest Books.2006.
25. Goswami A. Quantum activism for better health and healing. 2011.
26. Wolf FA: Taking the quantum Leap: the new physics for nonscientists Revised edition (originally 1981) Edition. New York: New York: Harper Perennial.1989.
27. Kafatos M, Nadeau R: The Conscious Universe: Parts and Wholes in Physical Reality. New York, NY Springer.2000.
28. Stapp HP: Quantum physics and the physicist’s view of nature: philosophical implications of Bell’s Theorem, in The world view of contemporary physics. Edited by Kitchener RE. Albany, NY SUNY Press.   1988.
29. Stapp HP: The hard problem: a quantum approach, in Explaining consciousness—the hard problem. Edited by Shear J. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.  197-215 2000.
30. Stapp HP: Mindful universe: Quantum mechanics and the participating observer. New York Springer-Verlag.2007.
31. Radin D: Consciousness and the double-slit interference pattern: Six experiments. Physics Essays 25: 2; 157– 171, 2012.
32. Feynman RP (ed.). The Feynman lectures on physics. USA, Addison-Wesley, 1965.
33. Einstein A, Podolsky B, Rosen N: Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Phys. Rev. 47: 10; 777-780, 1935.
34. Bohr N: The quantum of action and the description of nature. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.1934
35. Heisenberg W: Physics and beyond: encounters and conversations. New York: Harper & Row.1971.
36. Bohr N: Atomic physics and human knowledge. Woodbridge: Ox Bow Press.1987
37. Schrödinger E: What is life?: With mind and matter and autobiographical sketches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.1992.
38. Schrödinger E: Probability relations between separated systems. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 32: 3; 446-452, 1936.
39. Schrödinger E: Discussion of probability relations between separated systems. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 31: 4; 555-563, 1935.
40. Anonymous. Copenhagen interpretation.   Retrieved 7/3/2011, 2011, 2011.
41. Wheeler JA: accessed August 2018. Brainyquotes of John Wheeler.
42. Bell J: Free variables and local causality. Epistemological Letters 15: 2; 15, 1977.
43. Bell JS: On the problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics. Reviews of Modern Physics 38: 3; 447-452, 1966.
44. Bell JS: On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox. Physics 1: 195-200, 1964.
45. Zimmerman Jones A. What is Quantum Entanglement?   , 2014, 2014.
46. Bokulich A, Jaeger G: Philosophy of quantum information and entanglement, in. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.2010.
47. Aczel AD: Entanglement: the greatest mystery in physics. New York: Four Walls Eight Windows.2001.
48. Bohr N: accessed August 2018. Brainyquotes of  Niels Bohr.
49. Feynman RP: Electrons and their interactions. QED: The strange theory of light and matter. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.1985.
50. Shifman M, Loffe BL: The frontier of particle physics: Handbook of QCD, Vol. 4. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing 2002.
51. BloggerAnonymous: Last Update Date. Theoretical calculation of Cabibbo and Weinberg angles. Series Theoretical calculation of Cabibbo and Weinberg angles   Retrieved  Date, Access 2011 2011
52. Hughes IS: Cabibbo Mixing, in Hughes, I.S., Vol. Elementary Particles (3rd ed.). Edited by Hughes IS. Cambridge University Press.: Cambridge, England.  242–243 1991.
53. Palmer WF: Cabibbo angle and rotation projection. Phys. Rev., D 8: 4; 1156-1159, 1973.
54. Reifler F, Morris R: Prediction of the Cabibbo angle in the vector model for electroweak interactions. J. Math. Phys. 26: 8; 2059-2066, 1985.
55. Yang GC, Liu HC, Luo LF: A derivation of the cabibbo angle and quark-lepton masses from a composite model. Lettere Al Nuovo Cimento Series 2 37: 3; 111-115, 1983.
56. Close ER, Neppe VM: Fifteen mysteries of 9 dimensions: on Triadic Rotational Units of Equivalence and new directions,  Part III. Neuroquantology 13: 4; 439-447, 2015.
57. Close ER, Neppe VM: The twelfth conundrum: The thought experiment replication of 9 dimensional spin. IQNexus Journal 7: 2; 57-59, 2015.
58. Neppe VM, Close ER: Translating some conundrums of the universe by applying a 9 dimensional spinning model of finite reality: References. IQNexus Journal 7: 2; 84-88, 2015.
59. Neppe VM, Close ER: Reality, 9 dimensions, and TDVP, Section 1. IQ Nexus Journal 9: 1; 8-16, 2017.
60. Close ER, Neppe VM: The eighth conundrum: angular momentum and intrinsic electron spin. IQNexus Journal 7: 2; 44-45, 2015.
61. Close ER, Neppe VM: The Cabibbo mixing angle and other particle physics paradoxes solved by applying the TDVP multidimensional spin model. IQNexus Journal 14: 1; 13-50, 2014
62. Close ER, Neppe VM: The fifth conundrum: applying mathematical dimensional extrapolation non-specifically in our dimensional calculations to demonstrate multidimensionality. IQNexus Journal 7: 2; 34-38, 2015.
63. Close ER, Neppe VM: The Calculus of Distinctions: A workable mathematicologic model across dimensions and consciousness. Dynamic International Journal of Exceptional Creative Achievement 1210: 1210; 2387 -2397, 2012.
64. Close ER, Neppe VM: Further implications: quantized reality and applying Close’s Calculus of Distinctions versus the Calculus of Newton(Part 19). IQNexus Journal 7: 4; 110-111, 2015.
65. Close ER, Neppe VM: The tenth conundrum: weak universality based on the 9D findings. IQNexus Journal 7: 2; 50, 2015.
66. Close ER, Neppe VM: The ninth conundrum: two different solutions to electron rotation IQNexus Journal 7: 2; 46-49, 2015.
67. Close ER, Neppe VM: Conservation of angular momentum and electron spin: Section 4:  In:  Derivation and application of TRUE quantum calculus for the analysis of quantized reality. 2018, In submission.
68. Close ER, Neppe VM: The eleventh conundrum: The double Bell normal curve and its applications to electron cloud distribution IQNexus Journal 7: 2; 51-56, 2015.
69. Close ER, Neppe  VM: Derivation and application of TRUE quantum calculus for the analysis of quantized reality,  including empirically verifiable new approaches to mass, neutrons, protons, law of conservation of gimmel and TRUE, TDVP and Deuterium. 2018 In submission.
70. Close ER, Neppe VM: The origin of mass: Section 5:  In:  Derivation and application of TRUE quantum calculus for the analysis of quantized reality. 2018, In submission.
71. Close ER, Neppe VM: The problem of determining the mass of the neutron: Section 7:  In:  Derivation and application of TRUE quantum calculus for the analysis of quantized reality. 2018, In submission.
72. Close ER, Neppe VM: Applying hydrogen-1 and deuterium: The origin of mass: Section 8:  In:  Derivation and application of TRUE quantum calculus for the analysis of quantized reality. 2018, In submission.
73. Neppe VM, Close ER: The Cabibbo mixing angle (CMA) derivation: Is our mathematical derivation of the Cabibbo spin mixing angle (CSMA) equivalent? IQNexus Journal 7: 4; 120-128, 2015.
74. Close ER, Neppe VM: The sixth conundrum: theoretical knowledge on deriving the Cabibbo angle. IQNexus Journal 7: 2; 39-40, 2015.
75. Close ER, Neppe VM: The seventh conundrum: the mathematical derivation of the Cabibbo mixing angle in fermions. IQNexus Journal 7: 2; 41-43, 2015.
76. Neppe VM, Close ER: EPIC consciousness: A pertinent new unification of an important concept. Journal of Psychology and Clinical Psychiatry 1: 00036: 6; 1-14, 2014.
77. Neppe VM, Close ER: Relative non-locality - key features in consciousness research (seven part series). Journal of Consciousness Exploration and Research 6: 2; 90-139, 2015.
78. Neppe VM, Close ER: Reality begins with consciousness: a paradigm shift that works (5th Edition) Fifth Edition. Seattle:
79. Close ER, Neppe VM: Putting consciousness into the equations of science: the third form of reality (gimmel) and the “TRUE” units (Triadic Rotational Units of Equivalence) of quantum measurement IQNexus Journal 7: 4; 7-119, 2015.
80. Close ER, Neppe VM: Speculations on the “God matrix”: The third form of reality (gimmel) and the refutation of materialism and on gluons. World Institute for Scientific Exploration  (WISE) Journal 4: 4; 3-30, 2015.
81. Close ER, Neppe VM: The TRUE unit: triadic rotational units of equivalence (TRUE) and the third form of reality: gimmel; applying the conveyance equation (Part 12). IQNexus Journal 7: 4; 55-65, 2015.
82. Close ER, Neppe VM: Introductory summary perspective on TRUE and gimmel (Part 1) in Putting consciousness into the equations of science: the third form of reality (gimmel) and the “TRUE” units (Triadic Rotational Units of Equivalence) of quantum measurement IQNexus Journal 7: 4; 8-15, 2015.
83. Close ER. Transcendental Physics blog. 2015-2018.
84. Amritkar A, De Sturler E, Świrydowicz K, et al.: Recycling Krylov subspaces for CFD applications and a new hybrid recycling solver. Journal of Computational Physics 303: 222, 2015.
85. Einstein A. Collected quotes from Albert Einstein. 2015.
86. Ariew R: Ockham's Razor: A Historical and Philosophical Analysis of Ockham's Principle of Parsimony:Dissertation, University of Illinois. Urbana-Champaign, Ill1976.
87. Palmer J: Dulling Occam's razor: The role of coherence in assessing scientific knowledge claims, in. European Journal of Parapsychology, 773-82.1987
88. Einstein A: Relativity, the special and the general theory—a clear explanation that anyone can understand. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.2001.
89. Einstein A: Relativity, the special and the general theory—a clear explanation that anyone can understand (Fifteenth Edition). New York: Crown Publishers.1952.
90. Vedral V: Living in a quantum world. Scientific American Magazine: 5 (May); 38-43, 2011.
91. Malin S. What does quantum mechanics imply about the nature of the universe? Section 7: Physical Reality and Consciousness, 2011.
92. Anonymous: June 13, 2011. Wave-particle duality. 2011, 2011.
93. De Broglie L: Thesis, Paris:  Recherches sur la théorie des quanta (Researches on the quantum theory). Ann. de Physique 10: 3; 22-, 1924.
94. De Broglie L: The reinterpretation of wave mechanics. Paris, France: Académie des Sciences, Institut de France.1924.
95. Planck M: There is no matter as such, in Web notepad: Everything noticed and interesting.1918
96. Einstein A: In this way the concept 'empty space' loses its meaning, in Summary and simple solution to main problems of Albert Einstein's Relativity Theory: On truth and reality The wave structure of matter (WSM) in space.1950.
97. Neppe VM, Close ER: The concept of relative non-locality: Theoretical implications in consciousness research. Explore (NY): The Journal of Science and Healing 11: 2; 102-108,
98. Neppe VMC, Edward R.: The physics of psi: the role of entanglement. Dynamic International Journal of Exceptional Creative Achievement 1207: 1207; 2291-2303, 2012.
99. An1, Zheng X, Aniol K, et al.: Precision measurement of the neutron spin asymmetry and spin-flavor decomposition in the valence quark region. Physical  Review  Letters 92: 012004, 2004.
100. Neppe VM, Close ER: The Triadic Dimensional Distinction Vortical Paradigm (TDVP): The nine-dimensional finite spin metaparadigm embedded in the infinite  Dynamic International Journal of Exceptional Creative Achievement 1401: 1401; 4001-4041, 2014.
101. Close ER, Neppe VM: Why TRUE units have to be correct: the mass in the proton: re-affirming the truth of Triadic Rotational Units of Equivalence.  Chapter 6 IQ Nexus Journal 8: 4 —V6.122; 70-96, 2016.
102. Close ER, Neppe VM: Understanding TRUE units and gimmel as part of TDVP: chapter 7   IQ Nexus Journal 8: 4 — V6.122; 97-106, 2016.
103. Neppe  VM. Understanding Gimmel with Vernon Neppe. (YouTube). New Thinking Allowed, 2018.
104. Neppe VM, Close ER: Wondrous gimmel:  Section 8. In  Integrating spirituality into science: applying the Neppe-Close Triadic Dimensional Vortical Paradigm (TDVP). IQNexus Journal 10: 2; 42-47 2018.
105. Close ER, Neppe VM: Translating fifteen mysteries of the universe by applying a nine dimensional spinning model of finite reality: A perspective, the standard model and TDVP. Part 1. Neuroquantology 13: 2; 205-217, 2015.
106. Close ER, Neppe VM: The nine-dimensional finite spin model (Part 14). IQNexus Journal 7: 4; 70, 2015.
107. Sirag S-P: Why there are three fermion families. Bulletin of the American Physics Society 27: 1; 31, 1982.
108. Close ER, Neppe VM: Space, time and consciousness: the tethered triad. Seattle: press