Close and Neppe receiving Excellence in Education Award
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),
DSPE, DPCP (ECA)
ABSTRACT
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.
INTRODUCTION
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 future…
A 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.
GENERAL
COMMENTS
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
CRITICISM OF THE MATH AND PHYSICS OF TDVP
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 EINSTEIN-BOHR
DEBATE
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.
“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!
CRITIQUE
OF THE CRITICISM
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 — http://www.erclosetphysics.com.
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.
CONCLUSION
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.
REFERENCES
1.
Neppe VM, Close ER: Reality begins with consciousness:
a paradigm shift that works (First Edition) 1 Edition. Seattle:
Brainvoyage.com.2012.
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, http://scienceau.com/.
2014 (from 1692).
5. Anonymous. Leibniz: metaphysics. http://www.iep.utm.edu/leib-met/.
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) http://www.relativitybook.com/resources/Einstein_space.html.
1952 (English translation 1954) http://www.relativitybook.com/resources/Einstein_space.html
7. Einstein A: Physics
and Reality. http://www.kostic.niu.edu/:
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, https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0011086.2001.
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)]. http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.0804,
2012.
19. Yu1 S, Nikolic D: Quantum mechanics needs no
consciousness. Ann. Phys. (Berlin)
523: 11; 931 – 938, http://www.danko-nikolic.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Yu-and-Nikolic-Qm-and-consciousness-Annalen-Physik.pdf.2011.
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. http://www.amitgoswami.org/category/papers/.
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, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation.
2011.
41. Wheeler JA: accessed August 2018. Brainyquotes of
John Wheeler. https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/niels_bohr.
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, http://physics.about.com/od/quantumphysics/f/QuantumEntanglement.htm.
2014.
46. Bokulich A, Jaeger G: Philosophy of quantum information and entanglement, in. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.2010.http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511676550
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: Brainvoyage.com.2014.
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. http://www.erclosetphysics.com.
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.
http://rescomp.stanford.edu/~cheshire/EinsteinQuotes.html.
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, http://cognet.mit.edu/posters/TUCSON3/Malin.html.
2011.
92. Anonymous: June 13, 2011. Wave-particle duality.
2011, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave-particle_duality.
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.http://www.spaceandmotion.com/physics-einstein-problems-theory-of-relativity.htm
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, http://www.explorejournal.com/article/S1550-8307(14)00233-X/pdf.2015.
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, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhV96ShslU4.
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: Brainvoyage.com.In
press
