Creation vs Evolution: a Debate Arising from a Deep Misunderstanding

cREATION OR EVOLUTION?

Richard Dawkins, high-profile self-proclaimed atheist is on national TV today making declarative statements like "Evolution is a fact with thousands of proven examples, implying that there was and is no 'Creator'." Mr. Dawkins is either an idiot, or he is being deliberately misleading. Yes things, including biological life, evolve over time, but this in no way eliminates the fact that there has to be an intelligent creative force. In fact, without an intelligent creative force there could be no physical universe. This is true for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the second law of thermodynamics. It is understandable that many may think that the debate over the existence of God vs a universe evolving from the random combination of matter and energy after a big-bang explosion, but this is a misguided debate arising from a profound misunderstanding on the part of the participants on both sides. While there is ample evidence that things evolve, there is also ample evidence of an infinite form of consciousness behind it all. So we need to avoid the extremists' rantings on both sides, and examine the evidence without prejudice. 

The Illusion of Material Reality

Clues from relativity and quantum physics suggest that the time-honored idea that matter, energy, space, and time exist separately is incorrect.  It appears that the macro forms of matter, space and time we perceive through our physical senses are subtle illusions; although, as Einstein said about time², they are “very persistent” illusions. TDVP is built upon, and an extension of, the monumental works of a number of intellectual giants like Pythagoras, Fermat, Leibniz, Poincare, Cantor, and Minkowski; but most especially, it is built upon on the deep insights of Max Planck and Albert Einstein.

Max Planck said: "As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear-headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as the result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter."¹⁴

And, Albert Einstein said: “Space-time is not necessarily something to which one can ascribe a separate existence.”¹⁵ And “I want to know the thoughts of God, everything else is just details”¹⁶

These statements, from two of the most brilliant scientists who spent their entire lives studying physical reality, reveal the important conclusion that the common perceptions of matter, energy, space, and time, conveyed to our brains by the physical senses, are subtle illusions! And both of them conclude that the reality behind these subtle illusions is a conscious, intelligent Mind!

It has long been known that the appearance of solid matter is an illusion, in the sense that there appears to be far more empty space than substance in an atom. But now we learn that the matter of sub-atomic particles and the “empty” space around them are also illusory. This is, however, consistent with quantum physics experiments that bear out the conclusion resulting from the resolution of the EPR paradox¹⁶ with the empirical demonstration of John Bell’s inequality¹⁷ by experimental physicist Alain Aspect¹⁸ and many others that the particles and/or waves of the objective physical reality perceived through our senses cannot be said to exist as localized objects until they impact irreversibly on a series of receptors constituting a distinct observation or measurement by a conscious entity.

We must be clear, however, that this does not validate subjective solipsist theories like that of Bishop Berkley¹⁹ as one might think; rather, it reveals a deeper, multi-dimensional reality, only partially revealed by the physical senses. It suggests that reality is like a fathomless, dynamic ocean that we can’t see except for the white caps. The difference is that the particles and waves, analogous to the white caps, only appear in response to our conscious interaction with the ocean of the deeper reality.

As noted above, Albert Einstein is quoted as saying: “Ich will Gottes Gedanken zu wissen, alles anderes ist nur Einselheit.” (I want to know God’s thoughts, the rest is just detail.) And he also said “Rafinert ist der Herr Gott, aber Bohaft ist er nicht!” (The Lord God is clever, but he is not malicious.) Taken together, these two statements reveal that Einstein’s science was rooted in a deeply spiritual understanding of reality. It appears that he believed that the universe, as a manifestation of God’s thoughts, is very complex, but understandable. Agreeing with Einstein, TDVP seeks to reveal that all things are, in fact connected to, and part of that deeper ocean of reality, only momentarily appearing to be separated from it. This apparent separation, perpetuated by the conscious drawing the distinction of ‘self’ from ‘other’ and the drawing of distinctions in self and other, allows us to interact with and draw distinctions in the ‘other’. TDVP posits that, although ostensibly separate in the 3S-1t world of our physical perceptions, we are never truly separated from the whole of reality, but remain connected at deeply embedded multi-dimensional levels.

There are some in the current mainstream of science who do see the universe as deeply mathematical, but even those scientists seem to shy away from including consciousness in their equations. An example is the Swedish physicist Max Tegmark. In his brilliant book “Our Mathematical Universe” he concludes that the ultimate nature of reality is mathematical structure. In reaching this conclusion, however, he strips mathematical description of any intent or purpose. He says “A mathematical structure is an abstract set of entities with relations between them. The entities have no ‘baggage’: they have no properties whatsoever except these relations.” ^{ref p. 231} In other words, he still does what most mainstream materialistic scientists do: he throws the baby out with the bath water. It is critically important to separate science from fantasy and wishful thinking, but consciousness is an extremely important part of reality and should not be excluded from the equations of science just because it complicates the picture.

From the broader viewpoint of TDVP, it is not surprising that mainstream science, focused, as it is, on the limiting philosophy of reductionist materialism, has lost touch its metaphysical roots, and thus cannot explain how it is that a large part of reality is not available to us for direct observation, but makes its existence known only indirectly through quantum phenomena like non-locality and quantum entanglement, as well as the near light-speed vortical spin of fermions and the effects of so-called dark matter and dark energy in the rotation of spiral galaxies²⁰.

TDVP also answers the real need to explain why we sometimes catch glimpses of a broader reality in rare extra-corporeal (out-of-body) experiences and other documented psi phenomena. The current mainstream scientific paradigm cannot explain so-called anomalous phenomena and the “missing” portions of reality because there is no place in its formulation for phenomena that may involve more than matter and energy interacting in three-dimensions of space and one dimension of time. TDVP, on the other hand, reveals a multi-dimensional reality and the need to recognize a third form of reality, not measurable as mass or energy, in the equations of science. As we shall see, TDVP provides a theoretical basis for a much deeper understanding of reality, as well as providing the appropriate tools for exploring it.

DO WE LIVE IN AN ACCIDENTAL UNIVERSE OF RANDOM COINCIDENCES?

Dividing the world of our experiences into the internal or subjective and the external, assumed to be completely independent of any form of consciousness, i.e. leaving consciousness out of the equations, as the current scientific paradigm does, alienates consciousness from the ‘real’ world of the physical universe and leads to an endless chain of unresolvable paradoxes. The prevalence of this attitude among scientists is expressed very well by MIT physicist - become science writer Alan Lightman in his recent book “The Accidental Universe”. In talking about the apparent ‘fine-tuning’ of the physical universe (if any one of a number of parameters were only a tiny bit different, there would be no chance for life as we know it), he says “Intelligent Design is an answer to fine-tuning that does not appeal to most scientists.” 

When confronted with the observer-related non-locality of Bohr’s solution to the EPR paradox, most scientists prefer the multiverse theory, devised to preserve Cartesian duality and keep consciousness out of the picture of ‘scientific objectivity’. In the multiverse theory, there are many, many parallel universes. Just how many there are is unknown and unknowable, because your consciousness only exists in this one, and unfortunately you cannot experience any of the other universes. Thus, just like the spate of string theories, there is no hope of proving or disproving such a theory. Even though these scientists pride themselves in being ‘hard-nosed’ objective scientists (read: materialists), it doesn’t seem to bother them that string theory and the multiverse theory cannot be tested. At best, they can only be internally consistent; and thus they do not even qualify as scientific hypotheses. By retreating into safely unprovable theories, they continue to throw the baby out with the bath water. TDVP, on the other hand, by including consciousness as an objective reality, is producing testable results and explaining observations that the current materialistic paradigm cannot explain. Several of these are listed in the previous section. In a new paper, I take the time to explain exactly how we put consciousness into the equations as part of objective reality, and show how doing so explains many things inexplicable in the current materialistic paradigm.

Unifying Quantum Physics and Relativity

The full unification of quantum physics and relativity is brought about in TDVP by applying the tools of CoDD and Dimensional Extrapolation²¹ to the mathematical expressions of three well-established features of reality, recognized in the current scientific paradigm: 1.) quantization of mass and energy as two forms of the same essential substance of reality; 2.) introduction of time as a fourth dimension, and 3.) the limitation of the velocity of rotational acceleration to light speed, c. In this process, the need for a more basic unit of quantization is identified, and when it is defined, the reason there is something rather than nothing becomes clear.

Einstein recognized that mass and energy are interchangeable forms of the physical substance of the universe, and discovered that their mathematical equivalence is expressed by the equation E=mc². In TDVP, accepting the relativistic relationship of mass and energy at the quantum level, we proceed, based on Planck’s discovery, to describe quantized mass and energy as the content of quantized dimensional distinctions of extent. This allows us to apply the CoDD to quantum phenomena as quantum distinctions and describe reality at the quantum level as integer multiples of minimal equivalence units. This replaces the assumption of conventional mathematical physics that mass and energy can exist as dimensionless points analogous to mathematical singularities.

The assumption of dimensionless physical objects works for most calculations in practical applications because our units of measurement are so extremely large, compared to the actual size of elementary quanta, that the quanta appear to be existing as mathematical singularities, i.e. dimensionless points. (The electron mass, e.g., is about 1x10^-30 kg, with a radius of about 3x10^-15 meter.) Point masses and point charges, etc. are simply convenient fictions for macro-scale calculations. The calculus of Leibniz and Newton works beautifully for this convenient fiction because it incorporates the fiction mathematically by assuming that the numerical value of a function describing the volume of a physical feature of reality, like a photon or an electron, can become a specific discrete finite entity as the value of a real variable, like the measure of distance or time approaches zero asymptotically (i.e. infinitely closely). This is a mathematical description of a non-quantized reality. But we exist in a quantized reality.

Planck discovered that the reality we exist in is actually a quantized reality. This means that there is a “bottom” to physical reality; it is not infinitely divisible, and thus the calculus of Newton and Leibniz does not apply at the quantum level. This is one reason scientists applying Newtonian calculus to quantum mechanics declare that quantum reality is ‘weird’. The appropriate mathematical description of physical reality at the quantum level is provided by the calculus of distinctions with the relationships between the measureable minimum finite distinctions of elementary particles defined by integral solutions of the appropriate Diophantine equations. The mathematics of quanta is the mathematics of integers.

In TDVP we find that, for quantized phenomena, existing in a multi-dimensional domain consisting of space and time, embedded in one or more additional dimensional domains, the fiction of dimensionless objects, a convenient mathematical expedient when we did not know that physical phenomena are quantized, is no longer appropriate. We can proceed with a new form of mathematical analysis, the calculus of dimensional distinctions (CoDD), and treat all phenomena as finite, non-zero distinctions. Replacing the dimensionless points of conventional mathematical physics with distinctions of finite unitary volume, we can equate these unitary volumes of the elementary particles of the physical universe with integers. We can then relate the integers of quantum reality to the integers of number theory and explore the deep relationship between mathematics and reality.

In TDVP, we have also developed the procedure of Dimensional Extrapolation using dimensional invariants to move beyond three dimensions of space and one of time. Within the multi-dimensional domains defined in this way, mass and energy are measures of distinctions of content. If there are other dimensions beyond the three of space and one of time that are available to our physical senses, how are they different, and do they contain additional distinctions of content? If so, how is such content different from mass and energy? We know that mass and energy are two forms of the same thing. If there are other forms, what is the basic “stuff” that makes up the universe? Is it necessarily a combination of mass and energy, - or something else? For the sake of parsimony, let’s begin by assuming that the substance of reality, whatever it is, is multi-dimensional and uniform at the quantum level, and that mass and energy are the most easily measurable forms of it in the 3S-1t domain. This allows us to relate the unitary measure of inertial mass and its energy equivalent to a unitary volume, and provides a multi-dimensional framework to explore the possibility that the “stuff” of reality may exist in more than two forms.

Since 1989, I have been determined to find a better way to explain putting the Primary Reality of Consciousness into the equations of science. In 1996 I published the book “Transcendental Physics”, an effort to make the 1989 work more accessible. It reached a few more people, but still only a relative handful of scientists and others interested in the merging of science and spirituality.  One who shared my vision, and has been my research partner for the past six years, is the world-renowned neuroscientist, Dr. Vernon Neppe, MD, PhD. Together Dr. Neppe and I have developed a comprehensive framework, a paradigm for the science of the future. We call it the Triadic Rotational Dimensional Distinction Paradigm (TDVP). It was first published as “Reality Begins with Consciousness” in 2011, and has been reviewed by more than 200 scientists and philosophers worldwide. We have also published a number of technical papers; and recently, I’ve found a way to explain the revelations of the Calculus of Distinctions of 1989, 1996 and 2011, in a more accessible way. This paper does that, and in the process, I believe, it does much more.

The exists empirical evidence that provides the answer to two important questions: 1.) Why is there something rather than nothing? And, 2.), what is missing from the current scientific paradigm? The answer to both questions can be summed up in one word: Consciousness. Without consciousness there could be no physical universe; and yet, there is no place in the current paradigm for consciousness. The clues that consciousness is the answer to the first question are plain in both relativity and quantum physics, but most mainstream scientists, steeped in reductionist materialism, are blind to those clues, and their belief – it is not even a valid scientific hypothesis – that the universe could exist without some primary form of the consciousness manifest in sentient life, is stubbornly maintained and the clues are ignored.

Many of the key scientists of the past were deeply spiritual. But the materialistic belief system widely taught in our educational institutions today brings otherwise rational people to scoff at, and ridicule, any mention of any form of intelligence superior to their own. This egotistical position of mainstream scientists is justified in their minds by the successes of materialistic science. But those successes lie almost entirely in the realm of explaining superficial physical mechanisms. Deeper and ultimately much more important questions about the meaning and purpose of manifest physical reality, life and conscious awareness, are beyond their reach. Those questions, of paramount importance to humanity, are within reach of meaningful analysis when consciousness is included in the equations of science. The purpose of a new paper by Close and Neppe is to show how this is done.

The bottom line is that, in this world of human experience, we will never truly understand the Nature of Reality until our searches for scientific and spiritual knowledge are merged into one serious, combined effort. Once this happens on a global scale, humanity will experience an explosion of new knowledge and understanding far beyond anything experienced so far in the current era of recorded history. The argument between creationists and evolutionists will be seen for what it iss: a profound misunderstanding. In TDVP, we show how consciousness is describable in the equations of quantum physics and relativity, and a few of the explanatory revelations produced as a result. And, believe me, this is only the tip of the iceberg! 

Note: the references indicated in this article will be provided in the paper on TRUE units, currently in press.

TRUE UNITS AND THE THIRD FORM OF REALITY

TRUE UNITS & THE THIRD FORM

STABLE VORTICAL FORMS AND TRUE QUANTAL UNITS

Chemists trained in the current paradigm think of the combination of elementary particles and elements as forming atoms and molecules by the physical bonding of their structures, and model these combinations in tinker-toy fashion with plastic or wooden spherical objects connected by single or double cylindrical spokes. This is helpful for visualizing molecular compounds in terms of their constituents prior to combining, but that is not necessarily what actually happens. Inside a stable organic molecule, volumetrically symmetric atoms are not simply attached; their sub-atomic spinning vortical “particles” combine, forming a new vortical object. Elementary particles are rapidly spinning symmetric vortical objects and when three of them combine in proportions that satisfy the three-dimensional Conveyance Equation, they do not simply stick together - they combine to form a new, dimensionally stable, symmetrically-spinning object. Because they are spinning in more than one plane, these objects are best conceived of as closed vortical solitions.

The triadic combinations of elementary vortical objects, like up- and down-quarks, form new vortical objects called protons and neutrons; the combinations of electrons, protons and neutrons form new vortical objects called elements; and the triadic combinations of volumetrically symmetric elements form new vortical objects called organic molecules. Thus, the dimensional forms of symmetrically-spinning objects formed by the combining of smaller vortical objects form closed vortices in 3S-1t with new physical and chemical characteristics, depending upon both their internal and external structure. We will take the volume of the smallest possible quantized vortical object as the basic unit of measurement as the true quantal unit.

THE TRUE UNIT, THE CONVEYANCE EQUATION AND THE THIRD FORM OF REALITY

Conceptually, the true quantum unit in TDVP is therefore a sub-quark unitary extent/content entity spinning in the mathematically required nine dimensions of quantized reality. When we choose to measure the substance of a quantum distinction, the effects of its spinning in the three planes of space register as inertia or mass, spin in the time-like dimensional planes manifests as energy, and spinning in the additional planes of reality containing the space and time domains, requires a third form of the stuff of reality, in addition to, but not registering as either mass or energy, to complete the minimum quantum volume required for the stability of that distinct object. Because this third form of the stuff of reality is unknown in current science, we need an appropriate symbol to represent it. Every letter in the English and Greek alphabets has been used as a symbol for something in math and science, so we have gone to the historically earlier Phoenician-Aramaic-Hebrew alphabet. We will represent that potential third form of reality here with the third letter of the Aramaic alphabet, ג (Gimmel), and we will call the sub-quark unitary measure of the three forms of reality the Triadic Rotational Unit of Equivalence, or TRUE Unit.

The mix of the three forms, m, E and ג, needed to maintain symmetric stability, present in any given 3S-1t measurement, will be determined by the appropriate Conveyance Equation, as demonstrated below. When n = m = 3, Σⁿ_i=1 (X_n)^m = Z^m yields:

(X₁)³ + (X₂)³ + (X₃)³= Z³

The integer solutions of this Diophantine equation in TRUE units represent the possible combinations of three symmetric vortical distinctions forming a fourth three-dimensional symmetric vortical distinction.

THE PRIMARY LEVEL OF SYMMETRIC STABILITY – QUARKS

With the appropriate integer values of X₁, X₂, X₃, and Z, in TRUE units, this equation represents the stable combination of three quarks to form a Proton or Neutron. There are many integer solutions for this equation and historically, methods for solving it were first developed by Leonhard Euler ^ref. The smallest integer solution of this Conveyance Equation is 3³ + 4³ + 5³= 6³.

Trial Combination of Two Up-Quarks and One Down-Quark, i.e.

The Proton, With Minimal TRUE Units

Particle	Charge*	Mass/Energy	ג	Total TRUE Units	MREV**
u1	+ 2	4	-1	3	27
u2	+ 2	4	0	4	64
d	- 1	9	-4	5	125
Total	+ 3	17	-5	12	216=63

* For consistency in a quantized reality, charge has also been normalized in these tables.

^** Minimum Rotational Equivalent Volume (MREV)

If we attempt to use the smallest integer solution, 3³ + 4³ + 5³= 6³, to find the appropriate values of ג for the Proton, we obtain negative values for ג for the first up-quark and the down-quark and zero for the second up-quark. It is conceivable that some quarks may contain no ג units, but negative values are a problem, because a negative number of total ג units would produce an entity with fewer total TRUE units than the sum of mass/energy units of that entity, violating the conservation of mass and energy, destroying the particle’s equilibrium and identity. When we try to use the smallest integer solution of the conveyance equation to describe the combination of one up-quark and two down-quarks in a neutron, all of the quarks have negative ג units. See the table below:

Trial Combination of One Up-Quark and Two Down-Quarks in TRUE Units

Particle	Charge	Mass/Energy	ג	Total TRUE Units	MREV
u	+ 2	4	-1	3	27
d1	- 1	9	-5	4	64
d2	- 1	9	-4	5	125
Totals	0	22	-10	12	216=63

In conformance with the Bohr’s solution of the EPR paradox (the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics), newly formed elementary entities do not exist as localized particles in 3S-1T until a 3S-1t measurement or observation is made. This is only possible if all TRUE units are ג units, undetectable in 3S-1t, before observation and measurement. This means that they exist in the dimensional substrate and will manifest as either mass/energy, or ג units, to manifest the logical patterns of the substrate in observable symmetrically stable 3S-1t forms. In this way, the encompassing substrate, the additional six plus dimensions of the nine-dimensional structure of reality, organizes the 3S-1t world that we experience through the physical senses and their extensions into discrete forms.

The redistribution of TRUE units cannot result in the appearance of negative ג units in the internal structure of an entity. A triadic entity with negative total ג units is not possible because a negative number of total ג units would violate the conservation of mass and energy, destroying the particle’s equilibrium and identity. Analogous to the axiom ‘nature abhors a vacuum’, a result of the second law of thermodynamics, just as the electrons of an incomplete shell rush around the entire volume of the shell trying to fill it, negative ג units would pull a TRUE units out of the mass/energy of the particle to fill the void and the measurable mass/energy of the particle would no longer be that of a proton or neutron and conservation of mass/energy in 3S-1t would be violated.

Attempting to use the smallest integer solution, (3, 4, 5, 6) of the Conveyance Equation to find the appropriate values of ג for the proton and neutron, we obtain negative total ג unit values. This solution would change the particle’s measurable mass/energy identity and violate conservation of mass and energy, so we continue to look for an appropriate solution. The next numerically smallest integer solution for the Conveyance Equation is 1³ + 6³ + 8³= 9³, but, using it also results in negative values. The smallest integer solution of the Conveyance Equation that produces no negative values of ג for the Proton is 6³ + 8³ + 10³= 12³, using this solution we have the electrically and symmetrically stable Proton:

The Proton (P⁺)

Particle*	Charge	Mass/Energy	ג	Total TRUE Units	MREV
u1	+ 2	4	2	6	216
u2	+ 2	4	4	8	512
d1	- 1	9	1	10	1,000
Total	+ 3	17	7	24	1728=123

* u₁ and u₂ have the same number of TRUE units of mass and energy, and therefore will register as up-quarks in the collider data, but have different numbers of TRUE units of equivalent volume participating as ג to produce the volumetrically symmetric, and therefore stable, Proton.

Nature, reflecting the patterns of the dimensional substrate, does not have to rely upon random particle encounters to build complex structural forms. Compound structures are formed within the mathematical organization of the Conveyance Equation, and useful building blocks have a significant level of stability in 3S-1t for protons to combine with other compound particles and create structures sufficiently complex to support life. To see how other structures arise from quarks, protons and electrons, we need to know how protons, neutrons and electrons relate to the Conveyance Equation: (X₁)³ + (X₂)³ + (X₃)³= Z³. If the number of TRUE units in the proton is equal to the integer X₁, the number of TRUE units in the neutron = X₂, the number of TRUE units in the electron = X₃, then the resulting compound entity, will be stable in the 3S-1T domain of physical observations.

We know that the 24 TRUE-unit Proton must combine with an electron to form a Hydrogen atom, and with other protons, electrons and neutrons to form the other elements. In order to find the smallest solution of the conveyance equation that can include the 24 TRUE units of the proton, we may start by trying the solutions we’ve used so far. 24 is a multiple of 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8, any one of which can be a factor of X₁ in the conveyance equation solutions we’ve used so far. Up to this point we’ve only used the first two of the smallest primitive integer solutions of the equation: 3³ + 4³ + 5³ = 6³ and 1³ + 6³ + 8³ = 9³. (A primitive Diophantine solution is defined as one without a common factor in all terms.) We have also used 6³ + 8³ + 10³= 12³, an integer solution obtained by multiplying all of the terms of the smallest primitive solution by 2. The first 36 integer solutions of the conveyance equation (X₁)³ + (X₂)³ + (X₃)³ = Z³ are listed below in ascending order. Primitive solutions are in bold.

3³ + 4³ + 5³ = 6³

1³ + 6³ + 8³ = 9³

6³ + 8³ + 10³ = 12³

2³+ 12³ + 16³ = 18³

3³ + 10³ + 18³ = 19³

7³ + 14³ + 17³ = 20³

12³ + 16³ + 20³ = 24³

4³ + 17³ + 22³ = 25³

3³ + 18³ + 24³ = 27³

18³ + 19³ + 21³ = 28³

11³ + 15³ + 27³ = 29³

15³ + 20³ + 25³ = 30³

4³ + 24³ + 32³ = 36³

18³ + 24³ + 30³ = 36³

2³ + 17³ + 40³ = 41³

6³ + 32³ + 33³ = 41³

16³ + 23³ + 41³ = 44³

5³ + 30³ + 40³ = 45³

3³ + 36³ + 37³ = 46³

27³ + 30³ + 37³ = 46³

24³ + 32³ + 40³ = 48³

8³ + 34³ + 44³ = 50³

29³ + 34³ + 44³ = 53³

12³ + 19³ + 53³ = 54³

36³ + 38³ + 42³ = 56³

15³ + 42³ + 49³ = 58³

21³ + 42³ + 51³ = 60³

30³ + 40³ + 50³ = 60³

7³ + 42³ + 56³ = 63³

22³ + 51³ + 54³ = 67³

36³ + 38³ + 61³ = 69³

7³ + 54³ + 57³ = 70³

14³ + 23³ + 70³ = 71³

34³ + 39³ + 65³ = 72³

38³ + 43³ + 66³ = 75³

31³ + 33³ + 72³ = 76

The numbers appearing in the totals in the tables describing quarks, protons, neutrons and atoms are the smallest possible non-negative integers consistent with the empirical data and the requirement for symmetry that the sum of the three totals cubed must equal an integer cubed. Thus, we can calculate the number of ג units involved, and the totals of TRUE units required by the conveyance equation to yield results consistent with empirical particle collider data. Note that the TRUE units in these tables are measurements of three-dimensional objects in multiples of the unitary linear measure of their volumes, and their minimal rotational equivalence volumes (MREV), listed in the last column, are equal to the TRUE unit values cubed.

Negative values for ג cannot occur because of the conservation of mass and energy. Negatives would destroy the mass/energy/ ג balance and turn the quarks into unstable combinations which would decay quickly. So we must find the smallest unique conveyance equation solution for each combination of sub-atomic particles. The correct unique solution can be found for each triadic sub-atomic particle by starting with the smallest integer solution of the conveyance equation and moving up the scale until no negative values are obtained. Using the solution 6³ + 8³ + 10³= 12³, the first attempt to find the TRUE unit configuration of the neutron is shown below:

Trial Combination of One Up-Quark and Two Down-Quarks in TRUE Units

Particle	Charge	Mass/Energy	ג	Total TRUE Units	MREV
u	+ 2	4	2	6	216
d1	- 1	9	-1	8	512
d2	- 1	9	1	10	1000
Totals	0	22	2	24	1728=123

Since this solution still produces a negative value of ג for d₁, we must move to the next larger solution to represent the Neutron. The smallest unique Conveyance Equation solution with no negative or zero values of ג for the stable Neutron is 9³ + 12³ + 15³= 18³

Second Trial of Quark Combinations for the Neutron

Particle	Charge	Mass/Energy	ג	Total TRUE Units	MREV
u3	+ 2	4	5	9	729
d2	- 1	9	3	12	1,728
d3	- 1	9	6	15	3,375
Totals	0	22	14	36	5,832=183 = 54x108

These TRUE unit numbers give us a stable neutron; but we have another problem: None of the solutions with a term equal to 24 have a second term equal to 36. Nor do any of the solutions listed have two terms with the ratio 24/36 =2/3. This is a problem because it means that combinations with equal numbers of protons and neutrons could not be stable, and we know that Hydrogen, the element Helium, and other elements are stable combinations with equal numbers of protons and neutrons. Looking at the TRUE-units analysis of Helium as an example, we have:

Attempt to Construct a Helium Atom with P⁺ = 24 and N⁰ = 36

Particle	Charge	Mass/Energy	ג	Total TRUE Units	MREV
2e	- 6	2	78	80*	512,000
2P+	+ 6	34	14	48	110,592
2N0	0	44	28	72	373,248
Totals	0	80	120	200	995,840=(99.861…)3

*Note: The number of TRUE units making up the electron is unknown at this point. This value was chosen because it is the integer value that produced a total MREV nearest to a cube, as it must be for a stable Helium atom. The smallest integer value in TRUE units for the proton is 24.

Since a neutron of 36 TRUE units produces an unstable Helium atom, contradicting the empirical fact that stable Helium atoms exist, we have to seek another integer solution of the conveyance equation for the neutron.

Going back to the list of conveyance equation solutions, we see that the next smallest solution that does not generate negatives for the neutron is the primitive solution 7³ + 14³ + 17³ = 20³.

Third Trial of Quark Combinations for the Neutron

Particle	Charge	Mass/Energy	ג	Total TRUE Units	MREV
u3	+ 2	4	3	7	343
d2	- 1	9	5	14	2,744
d3	- 1	9	8	17	4,913
Totals	0	22	16	38	8,000=203

Next, we need to see if this quark combination for the neutron combined with protons and electrons will yield stable atomic structures. Using the values we derived for P⁺ and N⁰, the first integer solution of the conveyance equation containing the values X₁ = 24 and X₂ = 38 is obtained by multiplying both sides of the primitive solution 12³ + 19³ + 53³ = 54³ by 2, yielding  the integer solution 24³ + 38³ + 106³ = 108³.

Helium Atom with P⁺ = 24 and N⁰ = 38

Particle	Charge	Mass/Energy	ג	Total TRUE Units	MREV
2e	- 6	2	210	212*	9,528,128
2P+	+ 6	34	14	48	110,592
2N0	0	44	32	76	438,976
Totals	0	80	256	336	10,077,696=2163

^*With the TRUE units determined for protons and neutrons, the Helium atom is stable only if the total number of TRUE units for the electron is 106.

Besides the TRUE units that appear as mass/energy in given elementary particles, because of the embedded nature (dimensional tethering) of dimensional domains in TDVP, there must be a minimum number of ג units associated with each particle for stability. Consistent with up- and down-quark decay from the strange quark, the stabilization requirement of an integer solution for the conveyance equation, and the additional TRUE units of ג needed for particle stability, the following table describes the electron, proton and neutron in TRUE units, with up quarks composed of a total of 24 TRUE units, down quarks composed of a total of 38 TRUE units and electrons composed of a total of 106 TRUE units. It therefore represents the normalized mass/energy, minimum ג and total volumes for stable electrons, protons and neutrons, the building blocks of the physical universe. 

NEXT: The Elements of the Periodic Table and the Three levels of Stability.