THE NEW
APPROACH, PART TWENTY-FOUR
©
Copyright 2022, Edward R. Close
THE
SIMPLE MISTAKE
The Problem of Understanding
Reality
Like many students of quantum
mechanics in the mid nineteen seventies, I spent some time on the Caltech
campus in Pasadena California in order to sit in on some of Richard Feynman’s
lectures, because he was arguably one
of the best physics professors of that era, and a Nobel Prize winner for his
work in quantum mechanics. He was well-known for his engaging personality and
his ability to explain complex concepts, but, when asked about some of the
strange concepts of quantum mechanics, he said: “I believe I can safely say
that no one understands quantum mechanics!”
In his book Feynman’s
Lost Lecture, David Goodstein, a colleague of Richard Feynman’s wrote:
Feynman was a truly
great teacher. He prided himself on being able to devise ways to explain even
the most profound ideas to beginning students. Once, I said to him, “Dick,
explain to me, so that I can understand it, why spin one-half particles obey
Fermi-Dirac statistics.” Sizing up his audience perfectly, Feynman said, “I’ll
prepare a freshman lecture on it.” But he came back a few days later to say, “I
couldn’t do it. I couldn’t reduce it to the freshman level. That means we
don’t really understand it.
For the
record, it is my opinion that the “quantum weirdness” that some physicists like
to talk about so much, is not an actual feature of quantum reality, but
instead, the result of a flawed theory based on a simple mistake. This post is
about that mistake and how it has caused science to go astray and miss the most
important discovery since Max Planck and Albert Einstein.
The Trip of a Lifetime – And More
When I deplaned at Schiphol on a bright February day in
2010, I hurried to exchange some American dollars for Dutch currency, and
boarded public transportation to go to the Downtown Amsterdam Hilton. It would
be my first face-to-face meeting with Dr. Vernon Neppe, MD, PhD, after about
two years of email correspondence. I was on my way to Cairo and Luxor to
participate in the making of a documentary film, and Dr. Neppe and his wife
Lis, were on their way to visit relatives in their native country of South
Africa. It appeared that the universe had planned this meeting because neither
of us knew that we were going to be in Amsterdam at the same time until the
airline tickets had already been purchased. Mine were purchased by the company that
invited me to participate in the filming of a documentary on the Frankincense
Trail in Egypt and Jordan, and the Neppes made this journey back home, as often
as Vernon’s busy schedule of medical and
research commitments allowed.
Dr. Neppe, highly respected internationally for his work
in medicine, psychiatry, and neuroscience, was also a very high-ranking member
of the International Society for Philosophical Enquiry (ISPE), an organization for
which I proved to be qualified on the basis of IQ tests, experience, and
integrity. I took the ISPE test, passed, and joined in 2008.
Dr Neppe’s background in the study of intelligence and neuroscience,
mine in systems analysis and mathematical physics, plus our common interests in
consciousness studies, parapsychology, and spirituality, made us perfect
research partners in the new discipline of biopscychophysics. We had distinctly
different scientific and cultural backgrounds, and yet, our views were generally
compatible. We had both developed our own models of reality: His was called Vortex
Pluralism, and mine was Transcendental Physics. The similarities were striking,
and the differences were complementary.
When Vernon came down to
meet me in the lobby of the hotel, I recognized him immediately, even though I
had not seen a current photo. I had the feeling that I was meeting an old
friend, after many years, - in this case, lifetimes. I had a nine-hour
layover in Amsterdam, and we made the most of it. Vernon recorded almost every
word we spoke together on a little hand-held recorder, and when the lobby
became a little too noisy, we went up to their room where I met Lis. Thinking
that she might resent this intrusion on their privacy, I was pleasantly surprised
to be welcomed like an old friend, or perhaps even a family member, which I
well may have been - in past lives.
When it was time for me to
leave in order to catch my flight to Cairo, Vernon and I were still busy talking.
As we walked to the nearest bus stop, we had reached the level of discussing the
stable vortex called the proton and its quark constituents. Vernon remarked
that there should be a way to explain why atomic nucleons (proton and neutrons)
were composed of three quarks, and why no subatomic particles were ever formed
from two or four, or any number of quarks other than three. I responded that I
could show him exactly why that was so mathematically, and that it involved a
quantum calculus I had developed, solving Diophantine equations, and Fermat’s
Last Theorem. The
key was in understanding the way quantum vortices combine. I proceeded trying to explain, but the bus came along
too soon, and the explanation had to wait to be completed until we were both
back in the US about a month later.
In the meantime, Vernon
and Lis enjoyed their visit back home in South Africa, while I had some
interesting experiences in Egypt and Jordan, - experiences that occurred in the
dessert south of the Bent Pyramid, in the Great Pyramid on the Gisa plateau, in
several ancient Egyptian temples, in the Valley of the Kings, in the Ancient City
of Petra in southern Jordan, on Mount Nebo, where Moses died, and at the river
Jordan, where John baptized Jesus. This was one of the most important and
meaningful trips of this lifetime.
Two days after flying from
Amsterdam to Cairo, I suffered a dangerous near-death experience (NDE) in the
Great Pyramid and had a series of out-of-body experiences (OBEs) in Egypt and
Jordan. During these startling experiences, information was rapidly downloaded
from the surrounding stone structures, streaming into my brain nonstop for more
than 24 hours, and it continued sporadically for three more days. Later, as
some of this information resurfaced slowly, I began to see how mainstream
science of the past 500 years has gone astray because of one simple mistake
that has all but completely hidden a large part of reality from humanity during
the dark ages of the Kali Yugas, from 701 B.C. to 1699 A.D.
The
Simple Mistake and Some Clues
That simple mistake is the
mistake of continuing to use binary logic, despite the fact that we now know
that the basis of reality is triadic. It’s like acting as if only nouns and predicates
exist and trying to form meaningful sentences without verbs. Binary logic works
pretty well if we choose to deal with only two categories of variables:
variables of content and variables of extent. And if we ignore the existence of
organic life and consciousness and measure the variables in each category with
the same kinds of units, then we can model the physical universe with no problem.
But the paradoxes in the standard model of particle physics that mainstream
physicists pass off as “quantum weirdness”, are clear indications that
something is wrong, and the belief in materialism is also a result of the
mistake. The much-needed quantum calculus (CoDD) mentioned often in previous posts,
resolves these paradoxes.
It was clear to me from
the beginning of my life, and even before, that the physicists’ dream of a
theory of everything was an illusion, unless there was a way to include
consciousness in the equations. Memories of past lives and between lives
surfaced soon after the trauma of my birth wore off. They included memories
from lives during which I had been a scientist and mathematician. My memories
and a number of OBEs and experiences of expanded consciousness early in this
life propelled me to want to earn degrees in mathematics and physics, which I
did.
While I was teaching
mathematics and working for the US government as a systems analyst specializing
in mathematical modeling, I began to develop a system of triadic logic that
grew into a calculus in 1989, with the derivation of some of the fundamental
mathematical operations of the calculus of dimensional distinctions (CoDD). I
will spare the reader the tedious details of the derivations because they have
been published elsewhere and are clearly beyond the scope of this post.
Besides, only the rare mathematical logician is likely to enjoy such things.
As an aside, and at the
risk of sounding arrogant, I am not attempting to lay out an argument here to
convince anyone. I really do not care whether I am believed or not. What I have
to say has already been proved, both by agreement with experimental data and
empirical observation, by resolving numerous paradoxes in the standard model,
and by mathematical proof from basic axiomatic principles. The reader will find
all of this peer-reviewed and published. Lists of the publications are provided
in posts on this blogsite. In this series of posts, I am just trying to tell
the truth as I understand it.
I know that the ideas I am
presenting here are controversial in the eyes of many scientists, but I have listened
patiently, and carefully analyzed numerous counter arguments from some of the
most highly regarded mainstream scientists and mathematicians from some of the
best universities in the world, for more than a decade, and none of them stood
up under scrutiny. Every argument challenging my 1965 proof of Fermat’s Last
Theorem and the demonstrations and proofs of TDVP, failed when analyzed using Fermat’s
logically impeccable process of infinite descent. When the quantum descent
reached the level of basic assumptions, their arguments failed, and they were
reduced to Richard Feynman’s defense: “We simply don’t understand it.”
Taking
a Deeper Look
To my surprise, relativity
and quantum physics, the double foci of my master’s degree work in 1962, have become
quite popular subjects. Not because they are easily understood; no, it’s quite
the opposite. It is because almost no one understands these subjects that the
words ‘relativity’ and ‘quantum’ are often used by people who have never opened
a physics book. And it is a curious thing that just about every physicist, when
asked about quantum theory, talks about quantum weirdness, and states the
opinion, in some form, that nobody really understands it! I have also found
that almost no one, including people with advanced degrees in engineering and science,
actually understands what constant light speed implies and, consequently, what relativity
is really about. TDVP effectively integrates and clarifies quantum physics and
relativity, but in this post, I will focus on quantum physics to highlight the
simple mistake that led modern science astray.
Most people who think
about it much, come to realize that the difference in size between the everyday
objects that our physical senses are designed to deal with and the elementary objects
existing at the quantum scale, is really immense. Try to wrap your mind around
this:
“The data
tell us that the radius of the quark is smaller than 43 billion-billionths of a
centimetre (0.43 x 10−16 cm). That’s 2,000 times
smaller than a proton radius, which is about 60,000 times smaller than the
radius of a hydrogen atom, which is about forty times smaller than the radius
of a DNA double-helix, which is about a million times smaller than a grain of
sand. So there. Quarks (along with electrons) remain the smallest things we
know, and as far as we can tell, they could still be infinitely small.”
– Particle physicist Prof. Jon Butterworth, University College of London, and
CERN Large Hadron Collider researcher
The phrase “infinitely
small”, when applied to a quantum object, is an oxymoron - a self-contradictory
phrase that implies that elementary quantum particles are dimensionless points.
Particle physicist Professor Butterworth is telling us with a straight face that
electrons and quarks are actually nothing substantial, that they are
mathematical singularities, and despite having no physical dimensions, they
have physical properties like mass and energy, and/or are able to impart mass
and energy to other particles. How can this be possible? If this is quantum
mechanics, then what exactly is the mechanism involved?
Questioning statements of
experts like Professor Butterworth is not being disrespectful. Actually,
questioning the experts is the heart of the scientific method. Just because an
expert tells us something, doesn’t necessarily mean that it is true -
especially if it contains such blatant paradoxes! Could this paradoxical
situation be an indication that there is a mistake in the assumptions upon
which the standard model is built?
We should be skeptical of
details deduced from generalizations, even if the generalizations are widely
accepted. For example, in this case, why do we continue to believe that
elementary quantum objects like electrons and quarks are particles, when the
empirical evidence suggests that they are not? The fact that the size of an
elementary particle is many, many orders of magnitude smaller than the smallest
thing our most advanced technology can detect with any specificity, makes any
details and properties deduced about these objects fuzzy at best, and probably
erroneous. Professor Butterworth continues:
“According to
our best theory (the ‘Standard Model’) quarks are in fact point like –
infinitely small. This doesn’t mean they have zero chance of being scattered by
an electron, but it does mean that this chance can be precisely predicted just
by considering the forces involved, including various odd but understood
quantum effects. Once you have taken those into account, the quark should look the
same, no matter how closely you look.”
Just because we can’t see the
details of quantum objects doesn’t mean that those details don’t exist, but if
there is no way we can see them, what does it mean to talk about how a quark
looks? We should be suspicious of “various odd but understood quantum effects”
that, when taken into account, will make a quark “look the same, no matter how
closely you look.” I’m sorry, but odd quantum effects sound like handy fudge
factors, or sophisticated smoke and mirrors to cover the fact that particle
physicists have no idea what they are talking about. And finally, the paradox
of dimensionless particles is a fundamental problem. In a stable quantum
reality, such things simply cannot exist because energy and mass are quantized.
Fractions of quanta, if they ever exist, are so unstable that they disappear in
a flash, radiating away with no effect on stable structures.
You might be wondering how
I can say with certainty that dimensionless particles cannot exist, given the
extreme smallness of quarks and electrons described above. My answer may
surprise you. Like any good math problem, it can be proved in a number of ways,
and I will describe three of them now.
DIMENSIONLESS
PARTICLES CANNOT EXIST
Proving
a Negative
I’ve heard an amazing
number of otherwise intelligent people say: “You can’t prove a negative!” Perhaps
you have too. If so, and you believed it, you might be saying now: How can you
prove that dimensionless particles do not exist? That’s trying to prove a negative!
We hear a lot about “mis-information” these days; well, the statement that a
negative statement can’t be proved is a good example of a bit of misinformation
that has been widely believed. Sometimes, proving a negative can be really
difficult, but it can be done, if the negative is true, and it has been done many
times by mathematicians, logicians, and even ordinary people.
I think this wrong idea
may have risen from the fact that it is much easier to disprove a
negative than it is to prove one. The classical example is a statement about
black crows: “There are no crows of any color other than black”. Even if you
convert this negative statement into a positive one: “All crows are black” It
can only be proved by looking at every single crow that exists, while it is easily
disproved the minute you find only one crow of any other color.
Similarly, the statement
that you “can’t prove a negative” is proved wrong if even one counter example
can be shown, and here’s one that’s easy to prove: No prime number greater
than 2 is an even number. Fortunately, we don’t have to look at every prime
number larger than 2, because there are an infinite number of them. But, by
definition, a prime number is only divisible by itself and 1, and all even
numbers are divisible by at least three numbers: 1, 2, and the number itself.
Therefore, no prime number greater than 2 is even, QED.
I provided this proof of a
negative for two reasons: 1) to disprove the idea that a negative can’t be
proved, and 2) to show that proving even a fairly obvious truth is not as easy
as one might think. It has been my experience as a teacher of mathematics, that
most people have only a vague notion of what a proof is.
A famous negative
statement that was so difficult to prove that it took the world’s best
mathematicians more than 300 years to prove it, is known as Fermat’s Last
Theorem. It is stated as follows: “There are no whole-number solutions for the
equation xn +yn =zn when n is greater than 2.”
I proved Fermat’s Last Theorem in 1965 and published it in an appendix in my
first book, The Book of Atma, in 1977, 340 years after Fermat articulated
it in 1637. The torturous history of my proof is documented in posts on this
blog.
Proof
of No Singularities by Direct Perception
I vividly remember the
first time it happened. I was eleven years old, sitting in a classroom in the
old Pilot Knob schoolhouse built of pink granite blocks of stone from the Graniteville
quarries in the next valley north. I slipped into a day-dreaming state. Looking
at the teacher, who was standing at the front of the room, suddenly, my senses began
to be heightened. Everything I could see and hear was being magnified, bigger
and bigger, louder, and louder, until anything I focused my attention on filled
all time and space. It was as if I was zooming in on the teacher’s face, for
example, until I could see every detail of her face, more and more highly
magnified, until I was seeing cells, and beyond. It was my first experience in
this life of several siddhis carried over from a previous life. But I
didn’t know what it was at the time, and I had no control of what I was
experiencing.
Fortunately, this
spontaneous state of expanded consciousness didn’t scare me. It didn’t happen to
me in circumstances where it might have been dangerous, and it continued to
happen many times after that. It usually happened following moments of reverie
or at night just before I went to sleep. After it had happened several times, I
told my father about what I was experiencing, and he reassured me, saying that
he had had similar experiences as a boy, and that I would probably outgrow it; so,
I never tried to avoid it or stop it. In fact, I enjoyed it, drifting off to
sleep some nights while listening to some distant orchestra, hearing the perfect
harmony of various instruments, and sometimes, I saw exotic gardens where fountains
of crystal-clear waters sparkled in the sun, and the colors of the flowers and
foliage were brighter and more vibrant than any I have ever seen with my
physical eyes.
It occurred to me that my
physical senses were severely fragmented, limited remnants of the total
spiritual awareness that is the essence of human consciousness. In expanded
states of consciousness, distant viewing, distant hearing, and the ability to
see anything, even as large as the whole physical universe, or as small as an
electron, is possible. This brings me to the studies of Annie Bessant, Charles
Leadbeater, and others who were inspired to use siddhis developed in
meditation to view the subatomic structures of the atoms of the periodic table in
the time period 1895 to 1925 in England. Their results were published in a book
in 1926. They were summarily rejected by the scientific community because their
methods did not conform to the established scientific paradigm, and the results
were couched in the esoteric language of nineteenth century mysticism.
More than a century later,
Dr. Surendra Pokharna, an Indian PhD physicist, studying the ancient science of
Jainism, was inspired by TDVP and our work identifying the quantum equivalence
units (TRUE) of gimmel in each of the elements of the periodic table, to
suggest a study determining whether there was a correlation between the number
of anu units Bessant and Leadbeater “saw” in each of the elements and the
number of TRUE we found in them mathematically. The study was done, and a paper was written: The remarkable
Besant-Leadbeater studies in Quantal Clairvoyance (quantal remote viewing)
correlate profoundly with the Triadic Rotational Units of Equivalence Quantal
models in TDVP, by Vernon M Neppe MD, PhD, Surendra Singh Pokharna PhD, and
Edward R. Close PhD, PE.
file:///C:/Users/erclo/Downloads/Besant.pdf
The following excerpt from
the paper is relevant to our discussion:
“This paper, more than any
other in the history of Consciousness Research, provides indisputable data for
psi. The data is not only profoundly statistically significant … it is truly
unmeasurable, possibly beyond the one in a billion-billion probability, with
correlation coefficients approaching one. It also describes the never-before (scientifically)
proven phenomenon of Clairvoyant Remote Viewing…it has major implications for
‘Consciousness’ …functioning at the higher dimensional levels (e.g., Dimensions
7 to 9) based on TDVP theory. The results, …fraud-proof because the Besant data
has been available in published form for a century, …and TDVP data has been
previously mathematically proven, is 100% replicable, with TRUE quantal unit
scores definitively empirically validated. We must recognize the physical 3S-1t
domain that we experience as part of our multidimensional… existence. …Quantal
Clairvoyance must apply in the 9D- TDVP-TRUE context.”
Note: This paper is also part of a prize-winning essay
on survival: We definitely live after death: The scientific proof © Vernon Neppe MD, PhD, FRS (SAf), 2022.
This study is relevant to our
discussion here because it verifies the existence of the siddhis. It
also validates the results of the Bessant-Leadbeater study because the TRUE
analysis results that validate the Bessant-Leadbeater clairvoyant results, are
validated by current LHC experimental data.
Physical
Proof of No Singularities
In a stable quantum
reality, physical singularities simply cannot exist because energy and mass are
quantized. Fractions of quanta, if they ever exist, are so unstable that they
disappear in a flash with no effect on stable structures.
Mathematical
Proof of No Singularities
The combination of two quarks, expressed as a Diophantine equation (because
quantum objects are quantized) has no solution; a fact easily proved by
application of Fermat’s Last Theorem. But the TRUE mathematical combination of
two up-quarks and one down-quark that results in the formation of the extremely
stable object known as the proton, solved as a Diophantine equation, has
solutions that have significant meanings in the physical world. Proofs of these
significant physical configurations are accomplished by the elegant method known
as infinite descent. CoDD proofs show conclusively that singularities cannot
exist in quantized reality. In simple terms, stated as clearly as I can put it:
There is a “bottom” to physical reality. That bottom is one quantum, not an
infinitely small singularity. The siddhi referred to in the paragraphs above
is the direct conscious experience of the mathematical process of infinite
descent.
CONCLUSION
As I watch the endless cycles of life displayed again in the Ozarks wilderness
outside the windows of my retirement home on the edge of the Mark Twain
National Forest and the Current River National Scenic Waterways, on this first
day of May 2022, I am grateful to God, AKA Primary Consciousness, for the
blessings of a wonderful life, full of adventure, intrigue, challenges, and fulfillment.
And this is just the beginning because even though there is a bottom to an
infinite descent, Reality is not limited to one dimension with one direction. There
is also Infinite Ascent, with no ceiling!
What is the meaning
and purpose of this series of 24 blogposts? I would have written every one of
them, even if I knew no one would ever read them because as Richard Feynman
once said, if I can’t explain it so a first-year student can understand it,
then I don’t understand it. And as Mrs. Roberts, English teacher, and Counselor
extraordinaire at Houston High in 1954 said, all those years and tears ago: “You
might become the greatest scientist who ever lived, but if you can’t
communicate what you find, then it’s meaningless.”
This series
began in the spacetime dimensional domain where I was when I decided to enter
this life in 1936: on the threshold of consciousness, and proceeded, like a
stone skipping on a pool of still water to visit a few highlights of this
journey, where I tried to distill some of the lessons learned and communicate
them to one, or a few who might be interested. I believe that I had, and have, no
less than six spiritual guides who gave me a mission to fulfill, and only they,
with directions from the One who spoke this universe into existence, can tell
me when it is accomplished. Until then, I will continue to do whatever this is
that I am doing, and you, dear reader, can decide whether you think these words
are of any value or use to you or not.
As you know, if you’ve read
and understood these posts, no system of logic is ever complete; there was no
absolute beginning, and there will be no final end. I have told Gottfried Wilhelm
Leibniz, if he’s listening, that there is something rather than nothing because
there is no beginning or end, and thus no such thing as nothing. With the
discovery of gimmel and the indisputable proof that reality has a non-physical
part, and that that non-physical part is much larger, more important, and more
real, than the physical part, I think I can rest until the stone skips again,
and I have to continue to contend with the joys and sorrows of existing.
Finally, what I have been
trying to say is: God is Love, God is Light, and as long as we can feel that
love for everyone and everything that’s real, we’ll be alright!
ERC – 5/1/2022
.jpg)
.jpg)
