A NEW APPROACH PART 24

 

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