Sunday, January 20, 2019

A BRIEF, CONCISE VERSION OF MY RESPONSE TO AN ARTICLE BY TWO PHYSICISTS CRITICIZING TDVP



 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.



4 comments:

  1. Convincing evidence of TDVP needn't be mainstream if post-materialist philosophy is true. I am quite good at ideation but sadly very average at mathematics. I promptly flunked out of calculus. I tried to learn math through example, much like trying to learn programming by reading a textbook, and so I never became a programmer as I could not explore programs like I could explore a biology or history textbook. Its therefore like trying to read while dyslexic -- I think that analogy 'groks', maybe? Does this make intuitive sense? Crystallized intelligence is an apparently separate ability that does not help much with thinking logically -- in my direct experience, but also as measured by the WISC IQ test.

    I really admire your work and understand enough to find some resonance with it, but its always going to be a shallow understanding. You might try posting a curriculum of steps to take in order to have the ability to understand your work, as clearly few are capable of you and Vernon's creativity.

    How few people really understand calculus? Can a a first year graduate engineering student typically learn your unique version of calculus? My guess is you don't have enough examples to say its likely.

    I think sadly probably not, just as the typical calculus student with an A in calculus cannot really apply that knowledge rigorously outside the domain of examples within the course. This why I wanted to understand calculus -- but it just couldn't be done 'by example'. Again, it appears to be an ability, like walking and talking. What I was doing was parroting.

    I feel fortunate to not have been gifted at mathematics, even modestly so. For if I had, I would have remained a physicalist because my ego would have been rewarded with social status and a good income, given my circumstances.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wayne, thank you very much for your very honest comments and thoughts, Yes, sadly, it's true that few grad students in engineering and applied physics, or even applied math, understand "the calculus", and even fewer understand that the calculus taught in our universities is only one of several possible calculi. I was fortunte to have a very good teacher who tried to make sure his students rerally understood the concepts behind the calculus, not just how to apply it.

      Delete
  2. Hmm. Here is Sir Roger Penrose briefly discussing his opinion on continuity vs discreteness in physics: https://youtu.be/DJADe-_dRB0?t=5043

    He has some funding for a new Penrose research institute in california where a principal concern is testing if wave function collapse *is* consciousness (if i understand his collaboration with Stuart Hameroff correctly). I thought it was interesting especially considering his interpretation of Godel's incompleteness theorem strongly implies to me this is not a simulated universe.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the link to the Sean Carrol/ Roger Penrose youtube. I haven't had time to listen to it yet, but I respect Penrose, who I have met once, and I've known Stuart Hameroff for more than 20 years, and have seen the ideas of Penrose and Hameroff evolve.

      Delete