PAST LIVES AND DNA

THE VOLUMETRIC PATTERNS OF MATTER,

LIFE, CONSCIOUSNESS, and DNA

It is my opinion that everything must be based on a simple idea. And it is my opinion that this idea, once we have finally discovered it, will be so compelling, so beautiful, that we will say to one another, yes, how could it have been any different.- John Archibald Wheeler, theoretical physicist

The simple idea John Wheeler foresaw as the future of science is the principle of quantum equivalence, the idea behind the Triadic Rotational Unit of Equivalence (TRUE), a term I coined sometime in 2010 or 2011, while working on the Triadic Dimensional Vortical Paradigm (TDVP) with Dr. Vernon Neppe. While the mathematics that TRUE engenders, which I call the Calculus of Dimensional Distinctions (CoDD), is complex, the principle of volumetric equivalence is simple and easy to understand: Reality is volumetric. It’s that simple! There are no zero-dimensional particles, no one-dimensional trajectories, and no two-dimensional electrons. All real objects have volume, and to pretend they don’t invites confusion and paradox.

The importance of the simple realization that reality is volumetric can be seen in an analogy: Consider a cross-section of a living organism, like slicing a living animal into two halves. While revealing a lot of information, one cross-section can never explain how the internal organs of the living being function. Even multiple cross-sections, unless there are so many of them that they include every quantum unit of width, do not convey the whole picture. And even then, the volume must not be limited to three dimensions. The fourth dimension of time is crucial, and we have found that the combination of elementary particles, and many other natural processes are not fully explained without expanding the hyper-volumetric analysis of real phenomena to nine finite dimensions embedded in an infinite field of consciousness.

The principle of quantum equivalence is simply the recognition that everything in the cosmos is composed of combinations of volumetric equivalence units of mass, energy and consciousness. The fact that everything can be measured in multiples of a minimum volume, a quantum unit, was first indicated with the discovery by physicist Max Planck in 1900, when he found that radiant energy only occurs in multiples of a very small unit. Put that together with the mass/energy equivalence of Einstein’s E = mc², the TRUE and the discovery of gimmel, the volumetric form of reality that has no physical mass or energy, and you have the elegantly beautiful and simple idea Professor Wheeler envisioned. All the phenomena and processes of reality are volumetric in multi-dimensional space-time.

I’ll not go into the details of the definition of the fundamental mathematical operations of the CoDD and the derivation of the TRUE here; we’ve published them elsewhere. In this post, I want to look ahead to some exciting applications made possible by using the CoDD and Dimensional Extrapolation to shed new light on many things from cosmological to quantum, from galaxies to quarks.

The Universality of TRUE, the Quantum Equivalence Unit

To our delight, Dr. Neppe and I found that calculations in TRUE volumetric units at both the quantum scale and the cosmological scale agree within very small margins of measurement error with empirical data obtained in the Large Hadron Collider, and the Hubble “dark matter, dark energy” data. It turns out that gimmel, the agent of consciousness in physical reality, helps explain things at both ends of the spectrum of observation and measurement. For the first time in modern science, we have a way to put consciousness into the equations and explain things that have puzzled mainstream scientists for decades, like the Cabibbo quark mixing angle, why quarks combine in threes, intrinsic fermion spin, and as many as fifty other paradoxes and puzzles. Even more exciting, is the fact that by putting consciousness into the equations in the form of gimmel, we are beginning to explain why and how organic life forms are vehicles of consciousness in the physical universe.

Expanding the Understanding of the DNA Genetic Code to Include Consciousness

When we realize that the structure of reality is volumetric, it is no surprise that biologists were only able to begin to “decode” human DNA when they realized its molecular structure was a three-dimensional spiral. The gimmel-rich compounds in DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), provide a molecular blueprint that consciousness uses to build and sustain functional living organisms. RNA, or ribonucleic acid, also high in gimmel content, limits the development of organic life forms to forms within the DNA blueprint.

Your DNA contains the information consciousness uses to build your body, including organic structures that result in brain capacity, eye color, hair color, height, and the detailed features of your face. But, all your physical features are encoded in less than 5% of your DNA’s molecular structure. The rest is mental and spiritual information that enable the physical vehicle of your body to manifest the many nuances of your nature as a human being.

In the previous post, discussing the survival of consciousness and the possibility of reincarnation, I mentioned the hypothesis that there might be a connection between memories of past lives and DNA.

This post is an expansion of that hypothesis. Perhaps comparing the DNA of those who have past-life memories with their DNA might be a way to test the viability of this hypothesis.

This brief introduction is intended to provide an example of how TDVP opens the door to a deeper understanding of what Dr. Neppe has called bio-psycho-physics.

GIMMEL, THE NON-PHYSICAL PART OF REALITY, AN EXPLANATION ANYONE CAN UNDERSTAND

GIMMEL, THE NON-PHYSICAL ASPECT OF REALITY

A CLEAR EXPLANATION THAT ANYONE CAN UNDERSTAND

©Edward R. Close 2018 

I’m borrowing the subtitle above from Albert Einstein’s Book “Relativity, The Special and General Theory” because that’s what I am going to try to do: provide a clear explanation that anyone can understand. A clear explanation of what? Why, of gimmel, of course. In my opinion, the discovery of the existence of gimmel, the third form of reality that is neither mass nor energy, is the most important scientific discovery since Max Planck discovered quantum physics, Albert Einstein discovered relativity and Theodore Kaluza discovered that a five-dimensional model of reality works better than the Einstein-Minkowski 4-D spacetime model.

What I want to do is explain gimmel in clear terms, using analogies with familiar things as much as I can, things with which I hope most readers will be familiar. I believe that the concepts are simple enough that, indeed, anyone can understand them. But first, a few words about language. [I hope the reader will not be put off and might in fact enjoy my natural tendency to explore relevant side issues, of which this side-bar is one, because I think such relevant side-issues will enhance the narrative which some readers might otherwise find tedious.]

There are hundreds of languages in the world, many of which are related to each other in interestingly complex ways, but most people are fluent in only one or a few of them. English, like most modern languages, is a mixture of several of them. The basic grammatical structures and most of the basic words, like mother, father, house, home, etc., in English are Teutonic (Germanic), but many words of common English usage are borrowed from other languages. This makes English non-phonetic (many words are not pronounced the way they are spelled). That makes it confusing, for a non-native speaker, and it also make English much weaker grammatically. Because of its mixed origin, English is capable of conveying subtle nuances, and that can be a good thing, but it can also lead to misunderstandings. Somewhat purer languages like German and French, are much more precise. It may surprise some readers to learn that some of the world’s most ancient languages are more precise and more sophisticated than English or any other modern-day language. Examples include Sanskrit, Hebrew and Chinese.

This brings to mind an amusing experience I’d like to share. [A relevant side-bar.] While working and living in the Middle-East a few years ago, I was invited to a wedding feast. Several of the attendees were American or European, but many were natives of the area. While waiting for one of the courses to be served, the chit-chat turned to languages. An Englishman asked a young Saudi accountant seated next to me, how many languages he spoke. The young man said:

 “I speak three languages.”

“Oh, very good!” The English gentleman said. “What are they?”

“I speak Arabic, French and Italian.” The young man replied.

“But, what about English?” the Englishman raised his eyebrows, “You forgot about English!”

“Oh, that’s not a language!” The young man’s replay was unexpected.

I tried not to laugh at the shocked look on the Englishman’s face. But, of course, the young man was right. English is not a pure language. It’s a mixture of Germanic languages, missing much of the grammar, and is laced with horribly mis-pronounced words borrowed from other languages.

Back to the task at hand: Mathematics is (are?) also language(s). [Here’s a good example of mixed language: To the British, the word mathematics is plural (that’s why it has an ‘s’ at the end) and it is treated as such. They talk about the different “maths” such as algebra, trigonometry, calculus, etc., while in American English, we treat it as a singular noun:

 Mathematics, like English, is a symbolic language, where the symbols convey logical units.

Mathematical expressions form an actual written language, a language designed to express basic logical concepts like quantification, enumeration, equivalence, and transformational operational processes (addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, roots, differentiation, integration, etc.). When I was teaching high-school algebra, I liked to make the point that math is a language and an equation is a sentence in that language. When you diagram a sentence, the subject and its modifiers form the left-hand side of the equation, the verb is the equals sign, and the object and its modifiers form the right-hand side of the equation. This helped some students, who had learned to diagram sentences to identify the parts of speech, to set up and solve word problems using algebra.

The challenge of communication for mathematicians and physicists is that of trying to translate complex mathematical and physical concepts into a language with which the reader is familiar. Some theoretical concepts must be communicated by analogy because the exact mechanism or process being discussed may not be something with which the reader is familiar.

I agree with Richard Feynman when he said: “If we can’t explain it so that a first-year student can understand it, then we don’t really understand it ourselves!” So, my purpose here is two-fold: First, I hope to explain gimmel in a way that anyone can understand, and second, by doing so, demonstrate that I really do understand it myself. Before I get into explaining gimmel, it may be helpful to explore the origin of the attitude of quantum weirdness held by most physicists.

I think Erwin Schrӧdinger may have been the one who coined the term quantum weirdness, because, even though he is cited as one of the most important pioneers in the field, he certainly didn’t like the way quantum theory evolved. In fact, he said: “I don’t like it, and I’m sorry I ever had anything to do with it.” Source: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/erwin_schrodinger_304793.

Most, if not all of the founders of modern quantum theory, including Niels Bohr, were physicists who were unable to explain why things like quantum uncertainty, quantum entanglement and quantum jumps should exist, and modern mainstream physicists have adopted the “quantum weirdness” mantra and like Richard Feynman, tell their students: “Don’t try to understand it, just accept the fact that it’s weird and do the calculations, because it works!”

I shouldn’t have to point out that this is not a scientific attitude. Likewise, the idea that there is one set of rules for macro-scale phenomena (big stuff) and a different set of rules for quantum-scale phenomena (little-bitty, unbelievably teeny-weenie stuff), is scientifically unacceptable, because the rules, as currently formulated, are incompatible. Reality is not incompatible with itself. That which happens on the macro-scale depends on what is going on at the quantum scale. John von Neumann showed this elegantly in his book “Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics”. But, there shouldn’t ever be any question about this point; it’s just common sense: If everything is composed of quanta of mass and energy, then everything is quantum phenomena, period.

This brings us to the discovery of gimmel. You may well ask: “How in the world was it ever possible to discover something which is neither matter nor energy?” We can measure the mass of an object in terms of its weight or inertia (its resistance to any attempt to move it), and its energy in terms of the force it exerts upon impact upon another object, and in regard to elementary particles, which are what we will be talking about here pretty soon, the only things measured in “atom smashers” like the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) for example, are mass and energy or the compound effects of mass and energy through statistical analyses. If something exists that is neither matter nor energy, then how is it detected? Gimmel shows up in something physicists call angular momentum. I can explain what angular momentum is most easily with a mathematical equation, but in keeping with my desire to explain everything so that anyone can understand it, I will use analogy.

Imagine you are on a children’s playground, standing on a merry-go-round, near its center, and it is spinning very fast at a constant rate. Also imagine that there is a large tree growing near the merry-go-round and some of its branches over-hang the merry-go-round so that the smallest ends of several limbs are hanging down to the level of your face. When you are standing near the center and the end of a branch brushes your face, you’ll hardly notice it; you’ll probably just wave it aside with your hand. Now imagine that you move slowly toward the outer edge of the merry-go-round, and you encounter the end of a branch of the same size near the edge. It will sting your face like a whip.

The difference between the gentle brush and the whip-like lashing, is the difference in the angular momentum. Your mass, indicated by your weight, hasn’t changed in any measurable way, you weigh the same whether you are standing at the center of the merry-go-round, or on the edge. The mass of the two limbs is the same, and the mass and the motion of the merry-go-round haven’t changed. The difference is a result of increased angular momentum.

Next, I must talk about mathematics a little bit, in particular about “the calculus”; but, again, I’ll stay away from mathematical symbols and operations that comprise the language of mathematics in which the average person is not fluent as much as I can, and talk about the underlying concepts. I was fortunate to have an excellent calculus teacher in the prime of his tenure. His name was Dr. Floyd Helton. He made sure I understood the basic concepts, not just how to plug in numbers and get answers.

When the first grades were posted for Dr. Helton’s class, I saw that I had received a B+. I had been told by upperclassmen that Dr. Helton had only awarded two A grades in sophomore calculus in over 10 years of teaching, but because I had the highest test-score average in the class by several points, I had expected an A. Math was an easy subject for me and I was accustomed to earning A’s. When I went to his office to ask about the grade, before I could complain, he said: “You did very well, Ed. If you apply yourself, you might be able to raise your grade to an A – during the next quarter-semester!” He went on to tell me that, if I were a math major (I was a physics major at the time) he would be concerned about my unorthodox methods of solving problems. (I often found quicker, easier ways to solve some of the problems he gave us, and by doing so, by-passed some of the problem-solving techniques he wanted his students to learn.

In those days, most math and physics departments in US colleges and universities had two or three levels of basic math and physics courses in their curricula: Introductory level classes for students not majoring in math or physics, a second, more stringent level for students bound for medical school, called “pre-med” math or physics, and a third, more rigorous level of classes for students majoring in the math and/or physics department. At the time, many students saw this as elite-ism, and I tended to agree, but after witnessing the gradual dumbing-down of American institutes of higher learning over the past 50 years, I realize that the process of multiple career tracks is not elite-ism, but a way to insure that when a student is awarded a degree in math or physics, he or she actually has some in-depth knowledge of the subject. Having been responsible for hiring professionals for many years, I know that, increasingly, this is too often not the case.

Enough of my soap-box lecturing on what I see as a serious problem in modern education. Back to the concepts behind the mathematics used by mainstream scientists: There are two points I want to stress, because they will be important in getting you to the point where you can understand gimmel. First, the calculus of Newton and Leibniz, generally known as “the calculus” (TC), is only one of several possible calculi, -we will talk about others. Second, the successful application of TC depends upon the concepts of variables, functions, continuity and limits. A variable is the measurable feature of an object, like length, weight, energy, etc. A function is the mathematical description of an object which depends on the values of variables. Continuity means that the measurement of something (like mass, energy, space, and time) can be divided indefinitely, and a limit is a specific mathematical value a function approaches as one or more of the variables are diminished repeatedly, approaching but never reaching zero.

At the macro-scale, i.e., the everyday size of the things we can see and feel, everything seems to be continuous, that is, infinitely divisible. But, at the quantum scale, below the sensitivity of our physical senses, this is not true. So, while TC works on the macro-scale, it fails at the quantum scale because the requirements of continuity of variables are not met. The application of TC at the quantum level leads to incorrect results and much of the quantum “weirdness” proclaimed by physicists. Because the physical universe is quantized, we need to recognize this fact and develop quantum mathematics accordingly.

The obviously inappropriate application of TC to quantum phenomena has been over-looked by mainstream science for more than 100 years. The reason it has been over-looked is easy to understand: In a quantized world, no variable can approach zero infinitely closely, as it must do for TC to apply. It must always be a multiple of one quantum. The smallest it can be possibly be, and still be an object, is one quantum. Max Planck discovered that every object in the physical universe is made up of quanta of mass and energy. Imagine a physical object as a stack of blocks. If you remove one block at a time, the stack becomes smaller and smaller, all the way down to one block. If you remove that final block, you no longer have an object. Planck discovered that there are no fractional quanta. Mass and energy always occur in multiples of whole quantum units. Thus, variables measuring physical objects cannot approach zero infinitely closely, as it must do for TC to apply.

Newton’s calculus (TC) has served us wonderfully well for more than 300 years because the quanta that make up reality are so small that they are far below our ability to observe, weigh and measure directly. For the problems of classical and relativistic physics, and practical engineering problems dealing with macro-scale objects like houses, bridges and rockets, the assumption of the continuity of variables and the application of TC yields results that are correct within the margin of measurement error. In terms of our macro-units of measurement like inches, centimeters, pounds and grams, etc., a quantum of mass or energy can be considered to be an infinitesimal, that is, a virtually dimensionless point. That’s why TC works for macro-scale objects, but it does not work for quantum objects. Until Planck discovered that we exist in a quantized reality, and John von Neumann proved that all objects are quantum objects in his mathematically elegant book “Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics”, we had no way of knowing that our math would not work for subatomic phenomena like quarks.

The way to rectify this problem is clear: a quantum mathematics with a quantum calculus is needed. I will proceed to discuss conceptually how this was done with the foundational mathematics of the Triadic Dimensional Vortical Paradigm (TDVP) model of reality developed by Dr. Vernon Neppe and this author over the past ten years.

THE DERIVATION OF QUANTUM UNITS

AND

THE CALCULUS OF DISTINCTIONS

Quantum Units

Max Planck understood the need for quantum units and attempted to provide them. He reasoned that the known universal constants normalized to 1 should provide a set of basic quantum units. The term “normalization of units” may sound mysterious and complicated to some readers, but it is really quite simple. We are so used to thinking in terms of units like inches, feet, miles, and pounds, etc., or centimeters, meters, kilometers, grams, etc., that we forget that the length, distance, weight, etc. they describe were chosen quite arbitrarily. Inches, feet and pounds, e.g., were based on certain physical characteristics of an English king. It makes no difference how we define a unit of measurement, as long as we agree on a standard definition of the unit.

Planck’s units, sometimes called natural units or normalized units, are physical units of measurement defined by normalizing the 5 known universal physical constants c, G, h, K_e, and K_B to one. The universal constants normalized to 1 to define Planck units are:

The speed of light in a vacuum, c,

The gravitational constant, G,

The reduced Planck constant, ħ,

The Coulomb constant, K_e,

The Bolyzmann constant, K_e,

Setting these constants equal to one provides a quantized basis for calculation, but, there are two problems with this normalized system of measurement: First, they don’t result in whole-number descriptions of physical objects, and two, Planck did not identify the problem with using TC in quantum calculations.

In 1989, I realized that the first problem with Planck units could be resolved by normalizing the units of measurement of the four primary variables of physics: mass, energy, space and time, instead of normalizing universal constants, and the second problem was then eliminated by defining a quantum equivalence unit for the primary variables as the basis of a quantum calculus. That quantum equivalence unit is the Triadic Rotational Unit of Equivalence (TRUE), and the quantum calculus is the calculus that uses the TRUE as the basic unit of measurement and calculation. In 1990. I published my second book, “Infinite Continuity” in which I presented these concepts and applied them to some physics and cosmology paradoxes and problems.

After publishing these concepts in 1990, and again in my third book “Transcendental Physics in 2000, I filled in the details, defining the quantum equivalence unit (TRUE) by starting with a very accurately defined quantity, the minimum mass of particle physics data, the mass of the electron, which I normalized to 1 and then determined the normalized masses of the up and down quark as multiples of that natural unit. I chose to develop the quantum calculus by focusing on electrons and quarks, because the normal matter of the physical universe is made up almost entirely of combinations of electrons, up-quarks and down-quarks, and I reasoned that any other objects that exist in the universe would arise naturally as results of application of the laws of physics to various combinations of these particles.

Adding to what Planck discovered, Einstein taught us that mass, energy and space-time are very precisely related mathematically. That relationship is expressed by the equation E = mc². It is not necessary for the reader to understand the math and physics behind this equation. The point I want to make here is that there is a well-defined equivalence of mass and energy related to space-time. With this knowledge, I used relativity to define a volumetric space-time equivalence unit, the Triadic Rotational Unit of Equivalence (TRUE). I call it this because the elementary particles that make up reality are rotating, or spinning, very rapidly, and the unit used to describe them Includes the equivalence of mass and energy by normalization. Taking this unit as the basic distinction of calculation, I proceeded to develop the Calculus of Dimensional Distinctions (CoDD). Why do I call it this? Because it is a calculus dealing with dimensional distinctions (TRUE) as the basic quantum units of quantized reality.

In plain English, this simplifies the measurement and description of reality tremendously by using a calculus with a natural quantum unit as its basic unit of measurement. It simplifies everything because all descriptions of reality in this calculus are multiples of whole numbers of quantum equivalence units. This is why I am so bold as to think that I can explain TDVP in terms that anyone can understand!

In the CoDD, the equations that describe the combinations of electrons and quarks, namely protons, neutrons and all the atoms of the Periodic Table, are whole-number equations, equations called Diophantine equations, after the Greek mathematician Diophantus, who studied them. Diophantine equations are simply equations that have whole-number solutions and no fractional variables or constants.

My intention in writing this article was, and still is, to explain gimmel in a way that anyone can understand, and I intend to do that by avoiding the use of mathematical equations and complex calculations. But I think most readers will forgive me for referring to E = mc² because the equation is so well known. I’m hoping readers will also accept another overt display of abstract mathematical symbolism in the same vein. Like the E = mc², it is a brief abstract expression that has far-reaching implications.

It is the general summation expression: 

This expression, with X, Z, n, and m defined as positive integers (whole numbers) is the expression in conventional mathematical symbols that represents the CoDD combination of all possible distinctions made of multiples of the TRUE unitary distinction. In other words, with the right choice of positive whole-number values for the variables X, Z, n, and m, this expression can represent any combination of elementary particles, including electrons, quarks, protons, neutrons and atoms. I call it the Conveyance Expression because it conveys the logic of combination from quantum equivalence units to observable and measurable objects in the everyday world of our common experience.

This expression is a bridge in many ways: It is a bridge from the finite to the infinite, because, with the variables ranging from one to positive infinity, it represents an infinite number of equations. It is a bridge between dimensions because m represents the number of dimensions in the domain of each specific equation. For example, the integer solutions when n = 2 and m = 2, are the triples of the Pythagorean Theorem, and the lack of integer solutions when n = 2 and m ≥ 3, represents Fermat’s Last Theorem. It also provides a bridge between integers and complex numbers by determining the roots of the quantum equivalence unit that act as location indicators in n-dimensional domains, where n can be any positive integer, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ….

OK, enough about the mathematical, concepts. How does this help get us to gimmel? It reveals that for protons and neutrons to be as stable as they are, there is something occupying volumes of specific numbers of quantum equivalence units in up- and down-quarks, that are neither mass nor energy. Dr. Neppe and I have chosen to call this something gimmel because there is no word for it in the current scientific or mathematical lexicons. Describing the combinations of up-quarks and down-quarks as distinctions that combine to form stable protons and neutrons also explains why they are made up of three quarks each: 2 up-quarks and 1 down-quark for protons, and 1 up-quark and 2-down quarks for neutrons. They cannot combine in twos to form symmetric objects.

I think it will help to talk about the stability of spinning objects here. Exactly why the elementary entities that make up physical reality are spinning, is another very interesting question, but it would take a lot more discussion to explain, so I’ll skip that for now, and simply state that we know that they are spinning at high rates of angular velocity. In the process of defining the quantum equivalence unit, e.g., it was necessary to calculate the angular velocity of the electron after it is stripped from a hydrogen atom in the process called ionization, and we found that the free electron spins at, or very near light speed.

Protons are very stable. They may, in fact, be the most stable compound entities in the universe. Estimates of their half-life exceed the age of the big-bang universe. This means that, because they are spinning, they must be perfectly symmetrical. As an analogy, think of a lump of clay on a potter’s wheel. As the angular velocity of the potter’s wheel increases, if the lump isn’t quickly guided into a symmetrical shape, it will fly apart. The same thing is true for the proton. The conveyance equation describing the combination of two up-quarks and one down-quark to form a stable proton, shows us that, in order for the proton, composed of quarks which are comprised of normalized quantum equivalence units, to be symmetrical, there has to be something that is neither mass nor energy occupying some of the volume of the up- and down-quarks. The details of the math proving this have been published in several journal articles and in the book “Reality Begins with Consciousness” published in 2011. See www.BrainVoyage.com.

Returning to the merry-go-round analogy: The mass of the quarks in a proton will have a different effect on the total angular momentum of a proton and the mass of a proton than they have on their own, because of where the mass is in relation to the center of rotation of the proton. When we determine this, it explains why the mass of the proton is much greater than the mass on two up-quarks and one down-quark. The same type of analysis also yields the explanation of the mass of the neutron.

It is important to understand why this something called gimmel cannot be mass or energy: If it were, the object detected could not be identified in LHC data as an up-quark or down-quark; it would have the wrong mass-energy equivalence. Gimmel cannot be detected as mass or energy and only shows up in its contribution to the total angular momentum of particles like electrons, protons, neutrons, and atoms. Having no mass or energy, gimmel has to be classified as non-physical, because it does not fit the definition of a physical object. A physical object, by definition, is composed of matter and energy and occupies space.

In addition to explaining why quarks combine in threes and explaining away “quantum weirdness”, the existence of non-physical gimmel explains many things not explained by the current mainstream paradigm, including why particles spin, why fermions like protons and neutrons have an intrinsic spin of 1/2, the Cabibbo angle, what dark matter and dark energy really are, and much more.

The question for further discussion is: If gimmel is not matter or energy, what is it?

CONVERSATIONS Part 5

 The Large Hadron Collider

CONVERSATION WITH AN ATHEIST AGNOSTIC PART 5

(For Part 1 through 4, Scroll down or type CONVERSATION WITH AN ATHEIST in the Search Box.)

CONVERSATIONS

©Edward R. Close 2018 

We met again at our favorite Starbuck’s:

“I’ve been thinking,” My friend began, “maybe you’re right. Maybe I’m not going to call myself an atheist any more. Maybe agnostic describes my position better.”

What made you change your mind? I wondered.

“I think it was the negativity. When I looked at my friends and colleagues who claim to be atheists, and analyzed that approach, and especially when I looked at myself, I realized that proclaiming that one is an ‘atheist’ is a matter of reacting to something we don’t like, something that we see as delusional wishful thinking. Trying to convince believers that they’re wrong, trying to destroy their fantasy, is a very negative thing. I’ve decided that you are right, they have just as much right to believe whatever they want to as I do. If it makes them feel better, or makes them better able to cope with life, who am I that I should deprive them of that?

“I still believe that I’m right that there is no god, no all-powerful entity watching over us, but, all I can say, from a logical standpoint, is that I see no evidence for that sort of superstitious, anachronistic belief. I guess that makes me an agnostic, not an atheist.”

I agree. I think most people who declare that they are atheists do so either to conform with their peer group, or as a form of protest. In either case, they may not distinguish between atheism and agnosticism. I’m glad we agree about something!

“Yes, but we don’t agree about this ‘something’ you call gimmel. I just don’t see how something that’s needed to make subatomic particles stable can have anything to do with consciousness. So far, I don’t think your arguments for that are very convincing. I think that, just like dark matter, it has to be some form of matter”

Let’s see if I can understand why you don’t believe gimmel is consciousness. What do you mean when you say “consciousness”? What is your definition of consciousness?

“Consciousness is the state of being aware. It is the subjective experience of being a sentient human being.”

Are you saying that only human beings are conscious?

“No, I suppose animals have some level of consciousness; they are aware of their surroundings. They’re just not self-aware.”

Don’t you think a dog is self-aware when you call his name and he knows it is him and not a cat or another dog you are calling?

“That’s just conditioned response.”

How is it different from your being conditioned to respond to your name as a small child?

“OK, maybe some animals are self-aware, but, they have a less-developed form of consciousness than human beings.”  

Do you think consciousness depends on our physical senses?

"Sure! How else can we be aware?"

But, dogs have a much more developed sense of smell, and cats have a much more developed sense of sight,... does that mean that their consciousness is more developed than ours, at least in one or more of the senses?

"Oh, I see where you're going with this: Consciousness is not just the senses, right?"

Right! Do you think consciousness is just different levels of one thing, or are there various kinds of consciousness?

“I would say that because we seem to relate to each other through awareness by means of our physical senses, seeing, hearing, etc., and animals like dogs do too, it’s just different levels of one thing: ‘awareness’.”

OK, then, how are we aware of matter and energy?

“By feeling and seeing them as something apart, as solid material. having weight and  taking up space, in the case of matter, and pressure or force in the case of energy.”

Ok, would you agree that these are distinctions, perceived as distinct from us as conscious observers, and distinct from each other?”

“Yes, I think that’s right.”

And, how do be demonstrate that an object is real?

“By measuring it, determining its weight and volume and plotting its path through space.”

Over time?

“Yes, over time.”

What are the parameters that we can measure?

“We can measure their Mass, energy and volume, and we can determine how they change over time.”

Perfect! You’ve just described the classical science of physics in a nutshell! Physical objects are described by only four measurable variables: mass, energy, space, and time. And, the basic relationship between them is described by the equation made famous by Einstein: E = mc². This simple little equation expresses the relationship between all four variables: E is energy, m is mass, and c is the distance light travels (space) in one unit of time.

“I hadn’t quite thought of it that way, but, yeah, that’s right.”

So, if physical reality is made up of particles and waves interacting in space and time, how is a particle identified, say in the Large Hadron collider?

“By its mass and energy.”

That’s right; and if we normalize the speed of light, as is done in Planck units and in Triadic Rotational Units of Equivalence, our quantum equivalence units in the calculus of distinctions, then the c is defined as the movement of light through one unit of space in one unit of time, and Einstein’s equation becomes E = m(1/1)² = m, showing that mass and energy are equivalent.

“OK. That’s cool!”

Now, in particle physics, where relativity and quantum physics meet, mass and energy are identified as, and measured in, the mass-energy equivalence units of mega electron volts (Mev). Mega, of course means million. One unit of mass is equivalent to one million electron volts of energy in this system of measurement.

“Yeah, that’s pretty basic particle-physics stuff,”

Given that, how do we identify a specific particle. Like a quark, proton, neutron, boson, etc., in the LHC?

“By their mass in Mev!”

Yes. Exactly right! Now, remember the derivation of gimmel, the extra something that stabilizes the proton. Do you remember why gimmel cannot be matter or energy?

“No.”

It’s because if the units of gimmel needed to establish symmetric stability were mass or energy, it would change the measurement of the mass-energy of the proton, and it would not be a proton, it would be identified as some other particle.

“OK, that makes sense.”

Now, if something identified as a necessary part of every atom for stability is neither matter nor energy, what is it?

“I don’t know. How can consciousness be something, but not be matter or energy? It’s a puzzle. I need to think about it.”

OK, while you’re thinking about that, consider the fact that when the amount of gimmel in the elements are calculated, and the apparent percentages of each element in the universe are taken into account, the percentage of gimmel is almost exactly the same as the volumetric equivalence of dark matter and dark energy in the universe based on the Hubble Probe data!

“Really? That’s kinda mind boggling! There must be some kind of explanation other than consciousness! I need some time to think about this.”

With that, he frowned, grabbed his latte, and walked out of the Starbuck’s.

WHAT IS DARK MATTER AND DARK ENERGY?

DARK MATTER AND DARK ENERGY

ARE NOT MATTER AND ENERGY AT ALL

First, let’s be clear: “Dark matter” and “dark energy” are, like many popularized scientific terms, complete misnomers. Take the “Big Bang Theory”, for example: It is a catchy title, but the origin event of the universe as it is understood by mainstream scientists today was not “big” and was not a “bang’. The only thing correct about this title is the word “theory”. It is a theory. The same is true about “dark matter” and “dark energy”. The phenomena known as dark matter and energy are neither matter nor energy. Let me explain.

In the 1930s, when Swiss astronomer Fritz Zwicky, working at Cal Tech, discovered while calculating the mass of a certain spiral galaxy, that the observed motion of the galaxy could not be explained by the amount of mass it contained. He concluded that there must be additional matter in the galaxy that could not be seen, and assumed that it wasn’t visible because it did not emit or reflect light. He therefore called it “dark matter”. His discovery was largely ignored because it was overshadowed by Edwin Hubble’s discovery at about the same time of the correlation of the red shift of light from distant stars with distance, which was interpreted as evidence of universal expansion. Besides, no one could imagine just what this “dark” substance could be.

Many years later, based on meticulous observations of the Andromeda galaxy, Astronomers Vera Rubin and W.K. Ford published "Rotation of the Andromeda Nebula from a Spectroscopic Survey of Emission Regions," [Astrophysical Journal 159:379, 1970], which documented the effects of Zwicky’s “dark matter” in that galaxy. They then continued to make the same kind of observations for over sixty other spiral galaxies, confirming the same effects in all of them, which was interpreted as an indication that the presence of dark matter was a wide-spread phenomenon in the universe. And, the effects were huge, indicating that more than 90% of the mass was missing!

THE CONNECTION BETWEEN ‘DARK MATTER’, ‘DARK ENERGY’

AND CONSCIOUSNESS

There have been some speculations, mostly by non-scientists, that dark matter and dark energy might have something to do with consciousness. Such speculations are usually related to the idea that conscious experiences might arise as field phenomena associated with the brain and other organs, and possibly even with organisms other than human beings. This kind of speculation arises, at least in part, because consciousness, like dark matter and dark energy, is not directly detectable as mass or energy in the forms with which we are familiar. Such theories are generally considered by most scientists to be wild speculation, not rising to the level of scientific hypothesis or even rational speculation, because there has been no known data or mathematical proof supporting such a connection. That is, until now.

For a long time now, we’ve known that matter is not the solid impenetrable substance it appears to be. The illusion of solid matter is created by extremely small quanta spinning at near light speed angular velocities like vortexes of energy, and the limitations of our physical senses. And now, the application of the appropriate mathematical procedures for quantum reality, the calculus of distinctions, to Large Hadron Collider particle physics data has revealed that a portion of the substance that makes up atoms at the quantum level is not detectable as either matter or energy. This means we have discovered a third form of the substance of reality, which we call gimmel. Like so-called dark matter and energy, it is only detectable indirectly because its effect on angular momenta, stabilizing atomic and subatomic structure.

Further investigation, reported in the paper whose abstract was published in the last post, shows that the proportions of gimmel associated with electron shells and with the nuclei of atoms are virtually the same, within statistical error, as the published proportions of “dark” energy and “dark” matter in the universe as calculated from data from the Hubble Probe. We have also seen, in earlier studies by Neppe and Close, that gimmel has characteristics usually attributed to consciousness. It is the organizer of logical structure and meaning that supports life. Thus it appears quite possible, or perhaps even very likely that what astrophysicists are calling “dark” matter and energy are not matter and energy at all, but are actually forms of a wide-spread form of consciousness, confirming the intuitions of many non-scientists.

DARK ENERGY AND DARK MATTER EXPLAINED BY TDVP

A data analysis preliminarily validates the new hypothesis that the ratio of dark matter and dark energy to gimmel and TRUE units (Triadic Rotational Units of Equivalence) is ‘contained’ in the atom: Dark matter correlates with gimmel in the atomic nucleus and dark energy with gimmel in electrons.

Vernon M Neppe MD, PhD and Edward R Close PhD, PE [1][2][3]

Citation: Neppe VM, Close ER: A data analysis preliminarily validates the new hypothesis that the atom 'contains' dark matter and dark energy: Dark matter correlates with gimmel in the atomic nucleus and dark energy with gimmel in electrons. IQ Nexus Journal 7: 3; 80-100, 2016.

Abstract:

Neppe and Close have previously demonstrated that the proportion of combined volumetric dark matter plus dark energy in the cosmos correlates almost exactly with the proportions of gimmel to TRUE units in the corresponding most abundant elements in the cosmos (0.0008 difference in score). Gimmel is the so-called third substance besides mass and energy, and it is mass-less and energy-less and without it, mathematically, all atoms would necessarily be unstable, and gimmel is calculated using a new method of quantitating atoms, Triadic Rotational Units of Equivalence (TRUE). This study is now extended to the atom by mathematically comparing the ratios of volumetric dark matter to dark energy with the ratios of gimmel in protons and neutrons (nucleons) compared with gimmel in electrons. Despite data showing that certain factors can be up to 3% different in dark matter and dark energy alone, our derivation shows that the two results are within 2.27% of each other. This correlative result may possibly imply that dark matter and dark energy exist in every atom. Specifically, the results support the hypothesis that the far more loosely bound electron may involve dark energy, yet dark matter may involve the tightly bound strong forces of the nucleon. The implications of these findings are huge. We postulate that ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy’ would not fit into the Standard Model of Physics of 3 dimensions of space in a moment in time. Instead, these ‘dark ’components would fit into our 9 dimensional spin model (9D), Moreover, as gimmel is conceptualized across 9D in the finite, and if gimmel is in union with these ‘dark’ substances, then these two should also be applied in the 9D spin context. Dark matter and dark energy are ‘contained’ in the atom but only relative to the 9-dimensional explanatory model: 9D has previously been demonstrated by Close and Neppe. We need not look to bizarre locations in the cosmos, possibly just to the atom. And we might have located the missing 95.1% of dark substance.

Key words: 9 dimensions, Atom, Close, Cosmology, Cosmos, Cube, Daled, Dark energy, Dark matter, Electron, Gimmel, Mathematics, Neppe, Neutron, Nucleon, Proton, Ratios, Third substance, TDVP, TRUE units, Unit, Volume

---

[1] Vernon M. Neppe MD, PhD, Fellow Royal Society (SAf), DPCP (ECAO) and Edward R. Close PhD, PE. DCF (ECAO): Pacific Neuropsychiatric Institute, Seattle (pni.org) (Neppe: Director; Close: Research Associate); and Exceptional Creative Achievement Organization (Neppe: Distinguished Creative Professor; Close, Distinguished Creative Fellow).

[2] © ECAO. 2016.

[3] We gratefully acknowledge the Exceptional Creative Achievement Organization (ECAO.us), who hold copyright, for permission to

publish this article.