NEW APPROACH PART EIGHTEEN

 

WHAT IS THE TRUTH?

© Copyright 2022, Edward R. Close, PhD

Introduction

I have a friend who is a certified member of more than 30 high-IQ societies, with very high-level entry requirements. Even most of the members of MENSA would not be able to qualify for membership in them. No one would doubt that my friend is an exceptionally gifted person. But he is not very happy. Why would he feel the need to join so many high-IQ societies? What is he trying to prove? What should he do with his life? Is his life worth living? These are serious questions that I will not try to discuss further in a public forum because I respect my friend’s privacy, and because the academic subject of intelligence is only peripherally related to the subject I want to discuss in this post. I do, however, want to make a point that I think is relevant:

A person’s intelligence quotient (IQ) is nothing more than a measure of his or her relative intellectual potential. That number alone is not very important. What the individual does with that potential IS important.

When I was a junior in High School in Houston Missouri, my classmates, and I were given a battery of aptitude tests and the standard Stanford-Benet IQ test. Most of us didn’t take the tests very seriously. They were administered by Mrs. Roberts, the school’s guidance counselor, for the purpose of helping us know what we might be able to do with our lives. We were shown our scores on the aptitude tests but were not told our IQ scores - for obvious reasons. The guidance counselor, who also taught English, knew that I was interested in science and mathematics, and she also knew that I had very little interest in other subjects. What Mrs. Roberts said during my private counselling session, changed my life forever. She said: “You scored in the 99 percentiles on all of the aptitude tests, and your IQ is good enough that you should be successful in science, engineering, or anything you might choose to do.”

Students were being told at that time that people going into professional careers should have IQs in the 120 to 125 range. So, I assumed that I had probably scored somewhere in that range. I was curious about how I had done on the IQ test, but when I asked, she said: “Your score on the IQ test is unimportant. It’s just a measure of potential. What IS important, is what you do with that potential.” She paused to let me think about what she had said, and then continued: “If you become the greatest scientist who ever lived, but can’t communicate what you learn to others, it is meaningless!" I knew that what Mrs. Roberts had said was true, and from that moment on, I began to take my education more seriously.

Looking back, I realize that none of us lives in a vacuum. While success in life depends primarily on our own thinking and actions, what we have, the raw material of mental resources that we have to deal with life, is what God and our ancestors gave us. I know that some of my ancestors, including a great grandfather on one side, and a great uncle on the other, were well-educated professionals, but beyond that, I know very little about them. My ancestors immigrated from Europe, England, Scotland, and Ireland to America from about 1720 to 1850 and eventually to the Midwest. My grandparents on both sides came to the St. François Mountains before Missouri was a state. It was still part of the Louisiana Territory on the frontier of a new nation. They came here seeking the freedom to live their lives as they saw fit.

The two small villages, where my parents were born, about 20 miles apart, were basically mining camps, several days’ journey by horse and wagon south of St. Louis. Life was hard, and they worked hard to help support their families. Education beyond the eighth grade was not an option for either of my parents. My mother dreamed of being a dancer, but she never had the opportunity to fulfill that dream. Because she was one of the eldest in a family of ten children, she had to help care for her younger siblings, and she married my father at the age of 19 and became a mother and a housewife. My father had some natural skills and the ability to build things, so he became a carpenter, later a small business owner, and after World War II, a police officer.

I was born in the relatively peaceful time period between World War I and World War II. When I began talking at the age of nine months, my mother realized that I had a better than average ability to learn, so she began teaching me to read and write and basic math before I was old enough to go to school. School was easy for me, and my parents encouraged me, telling me that I could be anything I wanted to be. My maternal grandmother and paternal grandfather were of German descent, and my best friend was from a family of German descent, so I learned German at an early age, and because I found languages interesting, I started learning Spanish and French at the age of eleven or twelve. Algebra and geometry were easy for me, and I discovered Einstein’s special theory of relativity the summer I was fourteen. It opened a fascinating new world for me, and I decided that I wanted to be a physicist.

I was blessed to have the ancestors and parents I had, to be born when and where I was, and to grow up close to nature in peaceful times, and finally, to have the opportunity to apply myself in ways that might benefit my family and maybe even humanity in general. When the tests indicated that I had the potential to succeed at whatever I wanted to do, it simply verified what my parents had been telling me from day one: I could be whatever I chose to be. Unlike my friend who is obsessed with IQ, I knew that IQ was not nearly as important as motivation, so I applied myself in order to try to achieve whatever my potential might be. I never knew or cared what my score was on that high school IQ test, until I was 72 years old – technically a senior citizen. Why and how I came to know my IQ is not important, but I learned that I had scored above 165 on that high school test. Later, my scores on the graduate record exam, the Army General Classification Test (AGCT), actuarial systems analysis tests, and a High-IQ society test, taken when I was 25, 28, 50, and 72, respectively, indicated that my IQ was higher than 165. But the rarity of IQ scores above 165 makes assigning an exact IQ number meaningless, and as Mrs. Roberts the guidance counselor said, what my IQ may or may not be, is really unimportant. What I do with whatever potential I may have, is what’s important, and that brings us back to TDVP.

My only reason for revealing the fact that I have an IQ in the same range as people like Einstein, Planck, Bohr, Pauli, and Gödel, scientists who have discovered some of the deepest secrets of reality, is to lend credibility to the claim that TDVP is the long-awaited paradigm of the future that expands science to include non-physical reality. Dr. Vernon Neppe and I have certainly made this claim - because we believe it - and it has also been made in writing by others too, namely some of the 200-plus scientists world-wide who have reviewed our work. Those whose statements lauding TDVP are quoted in many of our papers and books, include some very accomplished individuals with PhDs in physics, geophysics, astrophysics, and other sciences.

Having an exceptionally high IQ does not necessarily give one an advantage in life or make one happier than most. In fact, a person with an IQ above 175, lacking other positive human qualities like emotional maturity and social skills, may become a very unhappy, lonely, antisocial individual who will never fit into normal human society. In this regard, IQ is not unlike other relative measures of human existence and abilities. Physical size is a good example. In America, the average height of adult women is 5 feet 4 inches (2.63 meters), and the average height of men is 5 feet 9 inches (1.75 meters). A few inches more in either case can be an advantage. But the advantage goes away when it becomes extreme. Excessive height becomes a negative for women quicker than it does for men. A woman who is 6 feet to 6 feet 2 or 3 inches tall may be good at sports, but the extra height will be a social disadvantage. A man who is 6 to 7 feet tall may be good at sports, and still be considered normal otherwise. But a woman who is 7 feet tall or more, and a man who is 8 feet tall or more is likely to be disadvantaged in many ways.

In IQ scores, anyone with a score within one standard deviation (15 points) on either side of the average score of 100, which includes 68% of the population, should not have much trouble fitting in. Those in the 115 to 130 range will, like good athletes, be capable of being successful easily, and those in the 130 to 145 range (the MENSA entry level is 132) should be able to excel and still fit into society quite well. This would be comparable to 6-to-7-foot athletes. Those with scores from 145 to 160 should be exceptional at whatever they do, like the top echelon of athletes who often become celebrities, but just as often have problems fitting into society; and those with IQs much above that will, like people who are 9 or 10 feet tall, not fit in anywhere very well. All they can hope to do is to use their special gift in some marginally beneficial way.

What does IQ have to do with truth? Not nearly as much as people with above average IQs like to think it does. Successful people, especially those in the 130 to 160 IQ range, because of their exceptional ability to reason, often believe that whatever they reason to be true, is true. More often than not, however, they are wrong. Some highly intelligent people, despite their potential to do good, actually do great harm. Because they know they are very intelligent, they convince themselves that they are superior to everyone else and believe that that gives them the right to tell everyone else what to do. There are many historical examples, pharaohs, kings, tyrants, and dictators, people who essentially believe that they can replace God. Unfortunately, as the world population increases, there are more of these psychopaths.

The reason that people sometimes outsmart themselves in this way, is because they fail to examine their own a priori assumptions. That is to say, their own brilliance blinds them to the fact that the logical system they believe in is based on some assumptions that have been accepted without proof because they cannot be proved using the logical system within which they arise. This self-referential fact about all consistent logical systems was proved by the brilliant mathematician Kurt Gödel in 1933. The logic proving this fact is called the incompleteness theorem. (Note that a mathematical theorem is not a theory. It is a hypothesis that has been proved.)

Before we go on to discuss what truth is, I want to be sure that you get three very specific things from this introduction: 1) You shouldn’t accept what any human being says as truth on face value, because conclusions produced by even the most intelligent person who ever lived, no matter how brilliant and no matter how logically rigorous the reasoning may be, may still be wrong if even one assumption behind the system of logic being used is wrong. 2) Be aware that the most impeccable logical reasoning, perfectly applied, may not be able to prove the truth or falsity of a given statement, in the context of the logical system within which it is stated, however  true or false it may sound. 3) These two pitfalls in the search for truth can only be avoided by in-depth critical examination of basic assumptions. In the first case, wrong assumptions must be identified based on direct evidence, and removed or replaced. In the second case, basic assumptions may have to be expanded or augmented, based on direct evidence, before the statement can be proved to be true or false.

Practical Application of TDVP in Today’s Reality

We have a very serious situation in the world today, with several groups of intelligent people espousing conflicting beliefs about what the truth is. These conflicting beliefs have already caused a lot of violence and will probably lead to more violence if the truth isn’t revealed and recognized. Is there a way to determine what the truth really is? Yes, there is, and it involves the critical examination of basic assumptions as discussed above, followed by comparison of the conflicting belief systems with existing truth, and correction.

In the last post, we answered the first of the three questions posed at the end of post number sixteen. We uncovered the truth about who you are. You are not a name, you are not what you do, and you are not a physical body. You are a quantized bit of pure consciousness. This totally refutes the basis of identity politics so prevalent today. As pure consciousness, you are immortal and forever part of Primary Consciousness, the reality behind all things. The reality that is Primary Consciousness has been detected by physical science as the Zero-Point field within which all objects in the physical universe exist as temporary continuity perturbations.

Understanding these truths brings about the realization that violence with evil intent harms everyone, including the perpetrator, and ultimately, it is the perpetrator who will pay the most. This raises the concepts of good and evil, which also have to be related to truth and falsehood, existence, and non-existence. while exploring these relationships, I will address the remaining two question from post number sixteen. Questions two and three were: 2) How can you recognize what can help or hinder your physical, mental, and spiritual progress? And 3) how can you find the path leading to the ultimate goal? To answer number two, we begin by examining the basic assumptions behind the concepts of truth and reality.

Truth and Reality

Historically, mathematicians and logicians have chosen to separate truth from existence in the basic assumptions of logic and the primitive equations of mathematics, in order to make the proofs they produce as general as possible, so that resulting theorems and syllogisms can describe the universal principles and laws of the natural sciences. This approach served us very well until Max Planck discovered that physical reality is quantized. Recall that in earlier posts, we saw that in order to develop a consistent system of quantized mathematical logic, reality had to be defined as everything that exists. Thus, in the quantum calculus of TDVP, truth is equivalent to existence, and existence is reality, but in the mathematics of contemporary mainstream science, this equivalence is not recognized except in special cases where the equivalence is obvious.

An in-depth examination of basic assumptions has revealed a paradox in contemporary science, providing us with a basis for making some progress. Revising this basic assumption of reason by restoring the equality of reality and truth, as required for a logically consistent quantum calculus, resolves the paradox, and the process of infinite descent leads to the discovery that the non-physical aspect of reality that we call gimmel, and the discovery that we exist as quantized non-physical consciousness are two aspects of the same thing. That thing, which I am calling Primary Consciousness, is the fabric of the universe and the only reality. With the truth that the existence of a stable physical universe is only made possible by the existence of quanta of non-physical reality in atomic structure as well as in consciousness, we can proceed in future posts, to answer questions two and three.

ERC – April 2, 2022

QUESTION #3: WHY ARE ELEMENTARY PARTICLES SPINNING PART 1

QUESTION #3: WHY ARE ELEMENTARY PARTICLES SPINNING WITH SO MUCH ENERGY?

O.K. Now I’m going to give you something really new, something that mainstream scientists do not know! And I’m going to try to explain it so that anyone, even a Nobel-Prize winning physicist, can understand it.

I am being facetious of course, but an honest scientist, physicist or mathematician, should try to make things as simple as possible. Einstein said:

 “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.”  Reference: (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alberteins103652.html#J67RBLLHBeIJUTD1.99

You may wonder how I could possibly know something that mainstream scientists don’t. How could I make such an outrageous claim? Physicists are generally pretty smart, with IQ scores of 125 or above. Famous Caltech Physics Professor Richard Feynman, for example, reported that he scored 125 on a standard IQ test. Stephen Hawking, on the other hand, scored 154, and Albert Einstein, who never took an IQ test as far as I know, is estimated by experts on intelligence measurement to have had an IQ in the range 160 to 190. Is it possible that I could have reached an understanding of the nature of reality while such geniuses have not? If you are reading this post, you’ll have a chance to judge that for yourself.

For most of my life, I have not known my IQ, and I haven’t particularly cared to know it. It is clear to me that people who flaunt high IQ scores openly, generally do so to bolster their egos because of inferiority complexes, stemming from some deep-seated lack of self-worth. People who feel the need to announce to the world “Look at me, I’m smarter than everyone else!” are generally people you would want to avoid. However, in order to establish credibility, I believe it is necessary or me to include a brief discussion of my IQ here. But I will put it in a footnote*, so that you can skip it if you want.

As I did with Question #2, I will start with a brief presentation of the current paradigm Standard Model understanding of quantum spin, followed by the Transcendental Physics, TDVP explanation of the ½ spin of elementary particles.

The concept of ‘spin’ like many concepts in the current quantum paradigm, is a reflection of the inability of particle physicists, trained in classical mechanics, to deal with the strangeness of the results of quantum experiments. In the early days of quantum physics Niels Bohr said:”If quantum mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you haven't understood it yet.”

And Richard Feynman said: “I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.” And, when asked to explain the nature of the ½ spin of elementary particles he said “I couldn't reduce it to the freshman level. That means we really don't understand it.”

Physicists teaching quantum physics have gone on in this vein ever since, saying things like “Quantum physics is weird. That’s just the way it is. You can’t explain it in classical terms, just learn to deal with the mathematics of quantum numbers and get on with your life.” Mainstream physicists understand the spin of elementary particles as follows:

Spin, sometimes called “intrinsic spin” is the quantum version of the classical concept of angular momentum. Unlike the angular momentum of a macro-scale object, however, according to today’s text books, technical papers and on-line forums, physicists believe the ‘spin’ of a quantum particle has nothing to do with actual rotational spinning.

In spite of that, they do believe that angular momentum is a measurable feature of a rotating object, and quantum particles are rotating.  However, they go on to say, at the atomic or sub-atomic scale we obtain very strange results when calculating angular momentum, results that are contradict our understanding of the nature of normal spinning physical objects. For example, we know that a rotating object with an electric charge creates a magnetic field. If you know how the charge is distributed, and how fast the object is spinning, you can calculate the strength of the magnetic field.  The greater the charge and the greater the rotational speed, the stronger the magnetic field.  And there are several reliable ways to measure the strength of a magnetic field. So we can measure the strength of a specific magnetic field associated with an object, and if we know the electrical charge of the object, we can easily calculate the speed with which that object is spinning.

Electrons, protons and neutrons have measurable magnetic fields, but when we try to determine their rate of rotation, or spin from the strength of their magnetic fields in the normal way, we have a problem:  For the charge and size of an electron, for example, the calculated strength of the magnetic field is much too great.  An electron would have to be spinning faster than the speed of light to produce the magnet field we calculate form measurement data. But that cannot be right, because it would contradict the most basic principle of relativity and lead to complete chaos. The universe as we know it would cease to exist.  And yet, an electron definitely has the angular momentum necessary to create the stronger magnetic field, but we don’t know how it does it!

Somehow elementary particles have angular momentum. They even act just like tiny gyroscopes, but they cannot be rotating like objects do on the everyday scale of baseballs, basketballs and planets. So physicists have given up the idea that they are rotating in the usual, classical manner, and instead, they just consider a particle’s angular momentum as another quantum property, like charge or mass, without worrying how it is produced by the particle.  Physicists use the words “spin number” or “intrinsic spin” to distinguish the angular momentum that particles have, from the regular angular momentum of objects known to be rotating physically.

It may surprise you to learn that I determined why electrons and other elementary particles have that ‘intrinsic‘ spin of ½ some time ago, using mathematical methods I developed for the purpose of dealing with a multi-dimensional quantized  reality consisting of space, time, mass, energy, and consciousness: the calculus of distinctions and dimensional extrapolation. Fortunately, you do not have to learn these new mathematical techniques to understand what they revealed. They reveal that the elementary particles that make up ordinary matter: electrons, protons and neutrons, are spinning in 3, 6 or 9 dimensions. Also, I think you’ll be happy to know that I have devised a way you can test it and verify it for yourself.

You can demonstrate the fact that an object rotating in 3, 6 or 9 dimensions gains 180 degrees, i.e., ½ spin with each complete rotation using a Rubik’s cube! I used a Rubik’s cube just because I happened to have one handy. If you don’t happen to own a Rubik’s cube, you can use an ordinary child’s rubber or plastic ball. Prepare the ball by painting a different color on each of six equidistant points on the surface of the ball. You can do this by first painting a spot on the ball anywhere, at random. The spot can be any size equal to or less than 1/4^th the circumference of the ball in diameter. That is just so the spots won’t overlap. Then, choosing a different color, paint another spot on the exact opposite side of the ball. An imaginary line between the two spots should pass through the exact center of the ball. Next, turn the ball one-quarter turn around an axis perpendicular to the imaginary line connecting the two spots through the center of the ball, and paint two more opposing spots using different colors. You will now have spots of four different colors, equidistant from each other around a circumference of the ball (like around the equator of the Earth). Finally, paint two more opposing spots, one on the top and one on the bottom (like the north and south poles of the Earth).  The ball now will have six different colored spots equidistantly spaced on the surface of the ball, like the six different colored sides of the Rubik’s cube.

Note: It will be easier to follow the instructions below if you use a ball or cube with the colors in the same spatial arrangement as on my cube. The colors on my cube are arranged as follows: With red facing me, yellow is up, green is to my left, blue is to my right, white is on the bottom and orange is opposite red. If your cube or spotted ball is different, you will have to interpret the movements described here accordingly.

A particle spinning in two dimensions is like a globe mounted on a merry-go-round, with both globe and merry-go round rotating at the same rate. The blue-green axis, analogous to the axis of the globe, is horizontal and the red-orange axis, analogous to the axis of the merry-go-round, is vertical. A particle rotating in three dimensions, then, is analogous to the spinning merry-go-round, with the spinning globe attached, rotating at the same rate, end-over-end around an axis perpendicular to the other two, (the Yellow-white axis).

Using your spotted ball or Rubik’s cube, you can now simulate an object like an electron, proton or neutron spinning around three mutually perpendicular axes. First, hold the ball or Rubik’s cube in front of you, with the red side facing you and the yellow side up. Take this as your starting, or “original” configuration. Now rotate the cube one-quarter turn (90°) so that the red side, instead of facing you, is up. This will be a rotation around the axis running through the blue and green faces. This is analogous to a 90° rotation of the globe on a horizontal axis. Next, rotate the cube clockwise (looking down on the red face), around the red-orange axis. Analogous to the merry-go-round, this replicates a 90° rotation around the vertical axis of the particle. Then rotate the cube around the third axis (Yellow-white) so that the blue side is up. With a continuously rotating particle, these 90° rotations in three different planes take place at the same time, but the result will be the same, and rotating the cube or ball simulates a particle rotating 90 degrees simultaneously in three planes. Repeating these rotations one more time, you will find the ball or cube is back in the original configuration. While a particle rotating in only one plane takes four 90 degree rotations to return to its original position, a particle rotating simultaneously in three planes only takes two 90 degree rotations to return to its original position.

Now, consider observations of rotating elementary particles in the electromagnetic field of a particle collider. Imagine looking along a line from your location to the center of a particle in one of the planes of its rotation. As in our macro-scale simulation, choose a specific observed configuration as the starting original configuration or quantum state of the object. We know that one complete rotation will have occurred when the object returns to its original position, with all measurable variables describing the particle indicating that the particle has returned to the original configuration relative to your reference frame. As we measure the angle through which the particle has rotated in our plane of observation, we find that it has returned to its original configuration after only two quarter turns, or a rotation of 180 degrees, not 360 degrees. So in the plane of our observation, it appears to have rotated an extra ½ rotation. The particle always seems to have an extra, built in, one-half rotation - an intrinsic ½ spin. Mystery solved!

Now you know what no mainstream physicist knows: The elementary particles called fermions, including electrons, protons and neutrons, are spinning in 3, 6 or 9 planes, and thereby exhibit an intrinsic spin of ½, with at least three times the angular momentum of a particle spinning in only one plane.

Now that we understand spin, we are ready to try to answer the question of why elementary particles spin with so much energy. But since this post is already very long, that will be Part 2 of the 3^rd question.

Footnote:

* My first score on a standard IQ test, taken when I was 14, was 167, but I never learned that until much later in life. At the age of 72, I decided to take the IQ test of the International Society for Philosophical Enquiry (ISPE) with an entrance requirement of IQ at 149 or above. I decided to apply after reading a book of essays by members of ISPE. Like many ‘gifted’ people, I had not encountered many with whom I could discuss some of the things I thought about. I was not motivated by ego, but by the desire to communicate with highly intelligent people.  I had applied for admission to MENSA in 1982 (I was 46) and was accepted on the basis of my Graduate Record Exam score taken in 1976, which indicated an IQ above 150, but I wasn’t sure I could qualify for admission to ISPE, but I did. I was told that my IQ was considerably higher than the entry level. After being admitted to ISPE, I was selected as a participant in a Child Prodigy/Adult Genius Study, which required documentation of early-age IQ. It was then that I was able to find out what my high school IQ score had been. I also learned that my IQ might have actually been even higher, because 167 was the maximum dependable score possible on the test administered by my high school in 1954. The admission officer of the ISPE test hinted that my IQ might be in the 180 to 190 range. I did not feel the need to go beyond ISPE, but, based on my ISPE test score and achievements since 2008, I have been invited to join two other, even more exclusive intellectual achievement organizations. I am still not inclined to brag about my high IQ, for the reasons stated above, but I feel that the claims I’m making in this post require this disclosure to establish my credibility.

I certainly don’t claim to be the most intelligent person in the world. There people who claim to have IQ scores as high as 200 or more, but such claims are questionable, because such scores are not statistically valid.  IQ test scores higher than 190, six standard deviations above normal (normal = 100, SD = 15), have wide margins of error because of the scarcity of people with such high sores. To see how IQ scores relate to scarcity, go to http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/iqtable.aspx where you’ll find a table listing IQ scores with corresponding percentile and scarcity numbers related to the general population. For example, an IQ of 178 is at the 99.99999 percentile with a scarcity of one in 10,016,587, and an IQ of 195 is at 99.999999988 percentile with a scarcity of one in about 8.3 billion, the current population of the Earth. So one could say that the highest meaningful IQ is about 195. Anyone claiming a higher IQ is probably just trying to impress.

THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING

At 7:00 AM, this morning, February 27, 2015, I googled “Theory of Everything”. Sites with information on the new movie about the life of Stephen Hawking came up first, and my post, “THE UNIFICATION OF QUANTUM PHYSICS, RELATIVITY AND THE TDVP THEORY OF EVERYTHING”, with 15,940 views, came up next.

Like the character, Walter O’Brien, says in the intro to the TV series “Scorpion”, I have one of the highest IQs ever documented. But, I quite agree with Stephen Hawking when he says “people who brag about their IQs are losers”. So, why would I say such a thing?

I am saying it because it is true. I am a “Distinguished Member” of the most restrictive high IQ organization on the planet, even though I didn’t seek that membership, and I am saying it to get your attention, because I believe it is vitally important, even crucial for the future of humankind, that the world understands what a real theory of everything has to be.

I admire Stephen Hawking and honor him for all he has accomplished, but note that, in his 1988 book, “A Brief History of Time”, he predicted that a theory of everything would be in hand by 2000. That didn’t happen, and since then, at least a dozen books have been published by or about Stephen Hawking and the theory of everything. But still, no theory of everything.

Hawking thinks that M-Theory is best candidate. He says it is “a theory that unites all five string theories, as well as super gravity, within a single theoretical framework, but which is not yet fully understood”. The M-Theory, however, is not a theory of everything. Why? Because it simply does not include everything! There are no variables in the equations of M-Theory for consciousness. Consciousness connects physical reality with spiritual reality, giving rise to the better qualities in human beings, like honesty, integrity, loyalty, reverence, compassion, and love, yet it is nowhere to be found in any of mainstream science ‘theories of everything’.

Why would scientists call a theory restricted to physical phenomena a ‘theory of everything’? It’s simply because physicists focus on physics. If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. I know this well, because of my years of training as a physicist and mathematician. 

The portrayal of a ficticious young theoretical physicist, Dr. Sheldon Cooper, on the TV show “The Big Bang Theory” is an exaggeration for comedic effect to be sure, but the character does resemble some intelligent people I know. But, be assured, a real theory of everything is not going to come from highly educated individuals, however high their IQs may be, if they are adolescents spiritually, socially and emotionally handicapped as a result.

Physicists have been seeking a ‘theory of everything’ ever since Albert Einstein spent his final years trying to find a unified field theory. But, by ‘a theory of everything’, physicists simply mean a theory that will accurately explain how mass and energy interact in space and time, from the quantum level to the level of galaxies and the whole universe. Such a theory should answer many questions about the physical workings of the universe and advance modern technology, but cannot answer many of the really important questions like: Why is there something rather than nothing? What is the ultimate nature of reality? What is the meaning and purpose of life? What is consciousness? And how does it relate to physical reality? Who or what are we? Where did we come from, and where are we going?

Dr. Vernon Neppe, MD, PhD, an internationally renowned neuroscientist, and I, with the combined experience of nearly 100 years as scientists, have developed the Triadic Dimensional Vortical Paradigm (TDVP). TDVP provides a new, comprehensive basis not just for physics, but for all of the sciences, including the life sciences, psychology, studies of consciousness and even rare event phenomena. TDVP answers many of the most puzzling questions of modern physics, unifies classical science, modern science and parapsychology, and provides answers to more important questions about the purpose and meaning of consciousness and life in the universe.