**DISCOVERY OF THE NATUTRE OF REALITY BEYOND
MATTER AND ENERGY**

**© Edward R. Close, October 2019**

**Introduction**

This post was prompted by questions raised by Dr. Jeffery Mishlove when he interviewed me for his program "New Thinking Allowed". The interviews are scheduled to be aired on Youtube starting October 11.

The
discovery of the third form of the essence of reality occurred about seven or
eight years ago, when I was working out the math and physics of the volumetric
quantum-equivalence unit I call the Triadic Rotational Unit of Equivalence
(TRUE). I was developing this unit for use as the basic unit of measurement of
the quantum calculus that I called the Calculus of Dimensional Distinctions
(CoDD). Dr. Vernon Neppe and I decided to use *gimmel*, the third letter
of the Hebrew alphabet, to represent the third form of reality, a form that cannot
be measured as mass or energy - but, never-the-less, adds to the total angular
momentum of rotating elementary objects, like electrons, quarks and protons –
and is necessary for the very existence of any and all stable structures in the
physical universe.

We
needed a unique symbol to represent this new third component in the equations
describing the mathematical structure of reality, and gimmel was appropriate
for a number of reasons. The derivation that resulted in the discovery of
gimmel has been published in several peer-reviewed papers and three books, as
of this moment, but the purpose of this essay is to explain, in plain English
that anyone can understand, the reasoning that led up to this important discovery.

**The
Need for a Quantum Calculus**

The
calculus used extensively in mainstream science today is the calculus of Newton
and Leibniz, developed over 350 years ago. Newtonian calculus is based on two assumptions
about reality: 1) the assumption that expressions describing reality can be
considered to be continuous functions, and 2) the assumption that variables of measurement
are infinitesimally divisible. But we have known for at least 100 years that
our reality is quantized; and such functions and variables cannot describe objects
that exist in quantized reality. Newtonian calculus is accurate and very useful
for solving problems on the scale of limited human perception, e.g. the directly
observable and easily measurable every-day scale of human bodies, automobiles,
buildings, airplanes and missiles, but it is inappropriate for application at
the quantum or cosmological scale. Reality exists in discrete quanta that
cannot be divided indefinitely, and thus there is a “bottom” to quantized
reality, beyond which no further division is possible. Much of the so-called “quantum
weirdness” physicists like to talk about is simply the result of inappropriate applications
of Newtonian calculus at the quantum level.

**Quantum
Calculus and the Quantum Equivalence Unit**

Any
system of observation and measurement, to be mathematically consistent, must
have a well-defined basic unit, and in a quantized reality, it is most
efficient to define that basic unit as equivalent to the quantization of the smallest
elementary object. In our quantized reality, that happens to be the electron. Using
the data from the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), and naturalizing our measurement
system by setting the mass and volume of the free electron equal to one, we
find that the normalized masses of the up-quark and down-quark, the components
of the proton, are, respectively: 4 quantum mass equivalent units and 9 quantum
mass equivalent units. We show later, that these values are also consistent
with the known formulae for angular momentum.

We
already have mass/energy equivalence defined in the equation made famous by
Albert Einstein: E = mc^{2}, and
physicists have also naturalized light-speed by setting c = 1, so all we have
left to do, to have a fully naturalized mass-energy-space-time volumetric quantum
equivalence unit to use as the basis of our quantum calculus, is normalize the up-
and down-quark masses from LHC data to the inertial rest-mass of the electron
and convert all units to volumetric quantum equivalence units. This turns out
to be relatively easy to do because of the limitation of all motion relative to
the observer to the speed of light. Every step of this derivation is included
in published articles, books and is posted on this Transcendental Physics blog.

**Derivation
of the Diophantine Equations that Describe Quantum Reality**

After
defining the minimum quantum equivalence unit (the TRUE) of both mass/energy
and space/time, elementary particles can be described in terms that consist of whole
numbers of these units. This reflects the simple definition of quantization: The
measures of quanta can only be divided to the point of the one TRUE, no further
divisions are possible. This means that all measurements in a quantized
calculus are volumetric, occupying domains of at least three dimensions, and stable
forms of matter and energy can only exist in multiples of these units. This
means that when elementary particles are combined, the combination will also
consist of a whole number (integer) multiple of TRUE. Equations describing combinations
of elementary particles will then be Diophantine equations. i.e., equations
involving variables that may only take on integer values. For example, if A and
B represent elementary particles, whose measures are multiples of TRUE, then A
+ B = C represents the combination of those elementary particles to form a new object,
C, which must also contain a whole number of TRUE.

When
we add the physical fact that A and B are stable, rapidly-spinning objects, as
in the case of up-quarks and down-quarks combining to form protons, we see that
as spinning objects, A and B are three-dimensional. So the volume of each
spinning object is a function of its radius of rotation. Rotating objects occupy
spherical volumes, so we have A = 4/3π(r_{1})^{3} and B = 4/3π(r_{2})^{3
}where r_{1} and r_{2} are the radii of rotation of A and
B. The angular momentum of A and B are conserved in their combined form, and if
C is to be a stable spinning object, then C = 4/3π(r_{3})^{3},
where r_{3} is the radius of rotation of C. But the shape factor cancels
out, so the equation becomes (r_{1})^{3}+(r_{2})^{3}=(r_{3})^{3},
where, due to relativistic effects, r_{i} and r_{2} are integer
multiples of TRUE. The form of this equation is x^{3} + y^{3} =
z^{3} , which is the equation of Fermat’s Last Theorem when n = 3. But Fermat’s
Last Theorem tells us that there are no integer solutions for this equation. In
other words, if r_{1} and r_{2} are integers, r_{3} cannot
be an integer, and C cannot occupy a volume equal to a symmetrical rotating
object made up of an integral number of TRUE.

The
equation (x_{1})^{3} + (x_{2})^{3} = z^{3}
is just one of a family of equations generated by the expression

which I call the
Conveyance Expression.

The
next simplest equation generated by this expression is (x_{1})^{3}
+ (x_{2})^{3 }+ (x_{3})^{3} = z^{3},
which __does__ have integer solutions. This tells us that while no
two TRUE elementary particles can combine to form a third stable symmetrically
spinning object, three such elementary particles can combine to form a fourth stable
spinning object. This explains why quarks combine in triads to form protons,
the most stable compound form in the universe, not twos or fours.

**The
Necessity of the Existence of Gimmel, the Non-Physical Form of Reality**

By
determining the integer values of x_{1}, x_{2}, x_{3},
and z that satisfy the conveyance equation for our 3-D physical observations
and measurements, we find that no stable forms are possible without the
existence of a third form of the essence of reality that can be neither mass nor
energy. Like the mysterious stuff of dark matter and dark energy, it exists and
adds to the total angular momentum of the quarks that make up the stable
structures of reality we call the physical universe; but since it cannot be
measured as either mass or energy, it is non-physical by definition.

In
the process of discovering how this works, we also discover why mass and energy
are physically equivalent and convertible from one to the other, and how the
appearance of solid matter, measured as inertial mass, i.e., the resistance to
motion in any direction, is caused by the angular momentum of elementary
objects rapidly spinning in three planes. This explanation of how mass arises also
applies to combinations of elementary particles. Mass defined as the resistance
to motion as an effect of spin in three orthogonal planes, leads to the
mathematical determination of the mass of the proton, which exactly equals the
mass determined empirically in experiment, and the explanation of why the mass
of the proton is so much greater than the combination of the masses of the
elementary particles that combine to form them. This approach, which can be
termed TRUE analysis, also explains other known phenomena that are not satisfactorily
explained by the Standard Model of mainstream particle physics, like the nature
of dark matter and dark energy, the value of the Cabibbo quark-mixing angle,
the and the mass of the neutron in combination with protons in stable atoms.

**What
is Gimmel?**

We
have shown that gimmel is a necessary part of reality without which no physical
universe would exist. But if gimmel is not matter or energy, what is it? Here,
I have to fall back on a statement by Niels Bohr, the famous Danish physicist,
who said, when writing about science in *Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge*:

“In our description of nature the purpose is
not to disclose the real essence of the phenomena but only to track down, as
far as possible, relations between the manifold aspects of our experience.”

I
take from this that Bohr is saying that in science, we can only describe that which
we experience. But the only thing we experience *directly* is
consciousness. Everything else is only known to us by inference. We experience
objects that we take to be outside our conscious selves very indirectly through
the chains of energy transference that we call perception. So our experience is
comprised of awareness of self as consciousness and the awareness of other as
objects comprised of matter, energy, time. and space. According to quantum
field theory, time and space are artifacts of the interaction of consciousness
with matter and energy; they have no existence of their own. So, if gimmel is neither
matter nor energy (because if it were measurable as mass or energy, its
presence would change the mass and/or energy of the combining quarks, and they
would register as something else when observed or measured in LHC experiments),
the only thing remaining is consciousness. This is consistent with the fact
that gimmel organizes the stuff of the physical universe (mass and energy) in
such a way that structures of mass and energy can form vehicles through which
conscious reality can see and experience itself. It should not surprise us that
consciousness exists as the organizer of matter and energy in every particle of
physical reality.

Bohr
also said, when talking about quantum reality:

“Everything
we call real is made up of things that cannot be regarded as real.”

This
explains why mainstream scientists think quantum reality is weird, and illustrates
the fallacy of the assumption that everything must fit into the box of physicalism.
If we restrict reality to matter and energy interacting in time and space, our
experience of it will ultimately make no sense. In accordance with Gӧdel’s
incompleteness theorems, reality will always expand beyond any finite box within
which we attempt to confine it.

ERC
10/04/2019