PHYSICAL REALITY IS AN ILLUSION

The physical universe, of which we know only very little through the limited scope and imperfect lens of our five physical senses, is what we take to be reality, as long as we indentify ourselves solely as physical bodies. Since we are only capable of seeing a tiny fraction of the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation, hear only a negligible portion of the total range of vibrational sound, feel only the surface of the deeply fractal structure of molecules and atoms, and smell and taste far fewer organic compounds that many of our animal friends, what makes us think that the picture of reality constructed in our minds are complete? After all, that picture is nothing more than the subjective interpretation of streams of severely limited data, allowed to continue on its inward path to your mind only after it is processed and passed through multiple layers of physical and neurological filtering structures that are part of our pyhsical bodies. This reducing of bits, waves and fields of radiated and reflected energy to specific forms is not arbitrary, however, it is done for the practical reason of survival. Without this reduction of the spectrum of energies that flood the cosmos, to a manageable stream going into our brains, the physical vehicles forming a link between consciousness and the cosmos would be destroyed.

As we push the frontiers of scientific understanding beyond the simplistic pictures provided by our physical senses, the farther we go, the more we see that those pictures are imcomplete and misleading concerning the true nature of reality. The fact that our best pictures of reality, used by science to construct a Standard Model of reality, are incomplete and misleading, is reflected in the history of science. The Standard Model, the consensus of mainstream scientists, defended by many as the truth, is constantly changing. Examples abound: The consensus was once that the earth was flat and the center of the universe. The scientific model of reality is continually changing. Just during my lifetime, the confidently estimated size of the universe has changed by huge factors multiple times. The continental drift theory was rejected as psuedo-science when I was an undergraduate, but is now fully accepted as plate tectonics. And there are many more examples of the dynamic nature of scientific truth.

I have seen yesterday’s speculations become today’s reality many times since I was in my twenties in the late 1950s and early 60s. And this is as it should be. It is seen, in retrospect as progress. Perhaps the most instructive example is the search for the basic building block of the universe. As scientists studied the structure of physical reality, it became clear that the everyday objects of our experience were made up of smaller objects, and those smaller objects of yet smaller objects. The bodies of living plants and animals were found to be made of organic structures and cells, inanimate objects were found to be made of several types of macro-forms, supported by patterns of crystaline structures, and both cells and crystals were found to be made of molecules, and the molecules were found to be made up different atoms, which in turn were found to be made up of electrons, protons and neutrons.

But when scientists tried to find the most basic building block of atoms, it seemed to keep slipping through their fingers. The discovery by Max Planck that reality is quantized promised a bottom to this descent into micro-reality. From the point of view of a physicist, reality consists of only four things: matter, energy, space, and time. But physicist Max Planck said, in "'Das Wesen der Materie' ('The Nature of Matter')". Speech in Florence, Italy,, 1944.:

“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 a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such.“

And Albert Einstein, on page 155, in Relativiy The Special and general Theory, said:

“There is no such thing as empty space… Space-time does not claim existence on ots own, but only as a structural quality of the field.“

So, three of the four things physicalists consider as real, either do not exist, or they are not what our senses seem to tell us they are! What about the fourth one: energy? Quoting Planck again:

“All [of what we call] matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together.”

So is everything ultimately made of energy? Continuing on, Planck said:

“We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.”

So as long ago as 1944 (still well within my lifetime; I was born in 1936.) two leading physicists, Albert Einstein and Max Planck, now considered to be the founders of the two pillars of modern science: relativity and quantum physics, said that matter, energy, time, and space, have no existence of their own, and Planck went a bit further, he said that consciousness is behind matter and energy, the substance of physical reality.

So, to summarize, the four things we think of as the basic components of physical reality: space, time, matter and energy, are not what we think they are. This is just another way of saying they are illusions. And solid matter faded away as an illusion, as we learned atoms are mostly space. The “particles” we call electrons, protons and neutrons, are dependent upon energetic forces, and consciousness is behind the forces.

Application of the quantum math I’ve described in several publications, including Reality Begins with Consciousness, (Neppe and Close, 2015) and Is Consciousness Primary? (The Academy for the Advancement of Postmaterialist Sciences, 2019), reveals that consciousness (we called it gimmel) is present in electrons and the quarks that make up the protons and neutrons in every atom of what we call ordinary matter. Not only that, it is present in greater proportions in the elements of the periodic table that make up living organisms. Another important finding of analyses using quantum math is that individualized consciousness (you or me, for example) is part of the primary matrix of consciousness that is behind the forces that shape reality.

Conclusion: What we think of as physical reality is an illusion.

Application of the calculus of dimensional distinctios, the quantum calculus, shows that the basic building blocks of reality are formed in the underlying reality of Primary Consciousness by the conscious drawing of distinctions. As sentient beings, we are quantums of conscioiusness evolving in a dynamic quantized world floating in the infinite domain of Cosmic Consciousness. Thus we are all connected in consciousness, and the evolution of reality is not random, it is meaningful change driven by Spiritual forces.

ERC 9/22/2019

THE SIMPLE MATH OF TRUE UNITS

THE ELEMENTARY MATH OF TRUE UNITS

ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND UNITS OF MEASUREMENT

In order to see how the minimal quantum extent and content of our smallest possible elementary distinction relates to known elementary particles, we develop equations that can be used to describe the combination of up- and down-quarks to form the proton and neutron of the Hydrogen atom. We choose the Hydrogen atom to start with because it is the simplest, most stable, and most abundant known element in the universe. If all forms of substance are quantized, then in order for quarks to combine in stable structures, they must satisfy the Diophantine (integer) forms of the equations of Dimensional Extrapolation conveying the logic of the transfinite substrate into the space-time domain of our experience. This family of Diophantine equations is represented mathematically by the expression

Σⁿ_i=1 (X_n)^m = Z^m.

The Pythagorean Theorem equation, the Fermat’s Last Theorem equation and other important equations are contained within this general expression. We mention this fact here because these theorems play key roles in the geometry and mathematics of Dimensional Extrapolation and the combination of elementary particles to form stable physical structures. Because the various forms of this expression as m varies from 3 to 9 conveys the geometry of 9-dimensional reality to our observational domain of 3S-1t, we call this expression the “Conveyance Expression”, and individual equations of the expression ”Conveyance Equations”.

 When n = m = 2, the expression yields the equation

(X₁)² + (X₂)² = Z²

which, when related to areas, describes the addition of two square areas, A₁ and A₂ with sides equal to X₁ and X₂ respectively, to form a third area, A₃, with sides equal to Z.  When these squares are arranged in a plane with two corners of each square coinciding with corners of the other squares to form a right triangle, we have a geometric representation of the familiar Pythagorean Theorem demonstrating that the sum of the squares of the sides of any right triangle is equal to the square of the third side (the hypotenuse) of that triangle.

We use this simple equation in Dimensional Extrapolation to define the rotation and orthogonal projection from one dimensional domain into another, in the plane of the projection. There are an infinite number of solutions for this equation, one for every conceivable right triangle, but in a quantized reality, we are only concerned with the integer solutions. Considering the Pythagorean equation as a Diophantine equation, we find that there exists an infinite sub-set of solutions with AB = X₁, BC = X₂ and AC = Z equal to integers. Members of this subset, e.g. (3,4,5), (5,12,13), (8,15,17), etc. i.e., (3² + 4² = 5², . 5² + 12² = 13², 8² + 15² = 17², … ) are called “Pythagorean triplets”.

To describe the combination of two three-dimensional particles, we have the Conveyance equation when n = 2 and m = 3:

(X₁)³ + (X₂)³ = Z³.

When we define X₁, X₂ and Z as measures of volumes, just as we defined them as measures of areas when n = m = 2, we can apply this equation to quantal volumes in a three-dimensional domain. Using the minimal quantal volume of the electron as the unit of measurement, and setting it equal to one, we have a Diophantine equation related to our hypothetical elementary particle with minimal spinning volume containing uniform substance: if it is spherical, we can set its radius equal to r₁, and if there is a second uniform spinning particle rotating at maximum velocity, with radius r₂, we can describe the combination of the two particles by the expression 4/3π(r₁)³ + 4/3π(r₂)³. If this combination produces a third spinning spherical object we have:

4/3π(r₁)³ + 4/3π(r₂)³ = 4/3π(r₃)³,

where r₃ is the radius of the new particle. Dividing through by 4/3π, we have:

(r₁)³ + (r₂)³ = (r₃)³, which is a Diophantine equation of the form of the Fermat equation,

X^m + Y^m = Z^m when m =3.

Notice that the factor, 4/3π cancels out, indicating that this equation is obtained regardless of the shape of the particles, as long as the shape and substance is the same for all three particles. (This is an important fact because we found in investigating the Cabibbo angle that the electron, while symmetrical, is not necessarily spherical.) Note also, that the maximum rotational velocity and angular momentum will be different for particles with different radii, because the inertial mass of each particle will depend upon its total volume. In a quantized reality, the radii must be integer multiples of the minimum quantum length. Since this equation is of the same form as Fermat’s equation, Fermat’s Last Theorem tells us that if r₁ and r₂ are integers, r₃ cannot be an integer. This means that the right-hand side of this equation, representing the combination of two quantum particles, cannot be a symmetric quantum particle. But, because Planck’s principle of quantized energy and mass tells us that no particle can contain fractions of mass and/or energy units, the right-hand side of the equation represents an unstable asymmetric spinning particle. The combined high-velocity angular momentum of the new particle will cause it to spiral wildly and fly apart. This may lead us to wonder how it is that there are stable particles in the universe, and why there is any physical universe at all. Again, we are faced with Leibniz’s most important question: why is there something instead of nothing?

The answer turns out to be relatively simple, but is hidden from us by the limitations of our methods of thinking and observation if we allow them to be wholly dependent upon our physical sense organs. For example, we think of a sphere as the most perfect symmetrical object; but this is an illusion. Spherical objects can exist in a Newton-Leibniz world, but we actually exist in a Planck-Einstein world. In the real world, revealed by Planck and Einstein, the most perfectly spherical object in three dimensions is a regular polyhedron. (polyhedron = multi-sided three-dimensional form; regular; all sides are of equal length.) The most easily visualized is the six-sided regular polyhedron, the cube. In the Newton-Leibniz world, the number of sides of a regular polynomial could increase indefinitely. If we imagine the number of sides increasing without limit while the total volume approaches a finite limit, the object appears to become a sphere. But in the quantized world of Planck and Einstein, the number of sides possible is limited, because of the finite size of the smallest possible unit of measurement (which we are defining here) is relative to the size of the object. And because the “shape” factor cancels in the Conveyance Equation for n = 3, Fermat’s Last Theorem tells us that, regardless of the number of sides, no two regular polyhedrons composed of unitary quantum volumes can combine to form a third regular polyhedron composed of unitary quantum volumes.

To help understand the physical implications of this, suppose our true quantum unit exists in the shape of a cube. Using it as a literal building block, we can maintain particle symmetry by constructing larger cubes, combining our basic building blocks as follows: a cube with two blocks on each side contains 8 blocks; a cube with three blocks on each side contains 27 blocks; a cube with four blocks on each side contains 64 blocks; etc. Fermat’s Last Theorem tells us that if we stack the blocks of any two such symmetric forms together, attempting to keep the number of blocks on all sides the same, the resulting stack of blocks will always be at least one block short, or one or more blocks over the number needed to form a perfect cube. Recall that if these blocks are elementary particles, they are spinning with very high rates of angular velocity, and the spinning object resulting from combining two symmetric objects composed of unitary quantum volumes will be asymmetric, causing its increasing angular momentum to throw off any extra blocks until it reaches a stable, symmetrically spinning form.

This requirement of symmetry for physical stability creates the intrinsic dimensionometric structure of reality that is reflected in the Conveyance Expression. It turns out that there can be stable structures, because when n = m =3, the Conveyance Expression yields the equation:

(X₁)³ + (X₂)³ + (X₃)³= Z³,

which does have integer solutions. The first one (with the smallest integer values) is:

3³ + 4³ + 5³= 6³

It is important to recognize the implications of Σⁿ_i=1 (X_n)^m = Z^m. When n, m, the X_i and Z are integers, is an exact Diophantine expression of the form of the logical structure of the transfinite substrate as it is communicated to the 3S-1t domain. For this reason, we call it the Conveyance Expression. It should be clear that the Diophantine equations yielded by this expression are appropriate for the mathematical analysis of the combination of unitary quantum particles. When the Diophantine expressions it yields are equations with integer solutions, they represent stable combinations of quantum equivalence units, and when they do not have integer solutions, the expressions are inequalities representing asymmetric, and therefore, unstable structures.

In the quantized nine-dimensional domains of TDVP, the variables of the Conveyance Equations are necessarily integers, making them Diophantine equations, because only the integer solutions represent quantized combinations. When n = m = 2, we have the Pythagorean Theorem equation for which the integer solutions are the Pythagorean Triples. When n = 3 and m = 2, the Conveyance Equation yields the inequality of Fermat’s Last Theorem, excluding binomial combinations from the stable structures that elementary particles may form. On the other hand, the Diophantine Conveyance Expression when n = m = 3, integer solutions produce trinomial combinations of elementary particles that will form stable structures. This explains why there is something rather than nothing, and why quarks are only found in combinations of three.

Embedded within the transfinite substrate are three dimensions of space and three dimensions of time that are temporarily contracted during observations, and condensed into the distinctions of spinning energy (energy vortices) that form the structure of what we perceive as the physical universe. In the humanly observable domain of 3S-1t, this spectrum ranges from the photon, which is perceived as pure energy, to the electron, with a tiny amount of inertial mass (0.51 MeV/c² ≈ 1 x10^-47 kg.) to quarks ranging from the “up” quark at about 2.4 MeV/c², to the “top” quark at about 1.7 x10⁵ MeV/c², to the Hydrogen atom at about 1x10⁹ MeV/c² (1.67 x10^-27kg.), to the heaviest known element, Copernicum (named after Nicolaus Copernicus) at 1.86 x10^-24kg . So the heaviest atom has about 10²³ times, that is, about 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times heavier than the inertial mass of the lightest particle, the electron. All of the Elements of the Periodic Table are made up of stable vortical distinctions that are known as fermions, “particles” with an intrinsic angular spin of 1/2, or they are made up of combinations of fermions. Table One, above, lists the fermions that make up the Hydrogen atom and their parameters of spin, charge and mass based on experimental data.

Bohr’s solution of the EPR paradox, validated by the Aspect experiment and many subsequent experiments refined to rule out other possible explanations, tells us that newly formed fermions do not exist as localized particles until they impact irreversibly on a receiver constituting an observation or measurement. In the TDVP unified view of reality, every elementary particle, every distinct entity in the whole range of particles apparently composed of fermions, is drawn from the continuous transfinite substrate of reality when it is registered as a finite distinction in an observation or measurement. Our limitations of observation and measurement and the dimensional structure of reality result in our perception of fermions as separate objects with different combinations of inertial mass and energy. What determines the unique mix that makes up each type of observed particle? To answer this question, we must continue our investigation of the rotation of the minimum quantal units across the four dimensions of space, time and the additional dimensions revealed by the mathematics of TDVP.

One of the most important invariant relationships between dimensional domains is the fact that each n-dimensional domain is embedded in an n+1 dimensional domain. This means that all distinctions of extent, from the ninth-dimensional domain down, and the distinctions of content within them, are inextricably linked by virtue of being sequentially embedded. Because of this intrinsic linkage, the structure of any distinction with finite extent and content, from the smallest particle to the largest object in the universe, reflects patterns existing in the logical structure of the transfinite substrate. Such a distinct object will always have in its content, combinations of the forms reflecting those patterns. In a quantized reality, the dimensionometric forms of such objects will be symmetric and a multiple of the smallest unit of measurement,

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 (Gimel), 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

---

NUMBERS

THE WHOLE NUMBERS AND THE STRUCTURE OF REALITY

Dr. Vernon Neppe and I are amazed almost daily with the results of applying TRUE analysis (defined in the posts of this blog) to quantum physics and relativity. Those results include answers to questions that have puzzled scientists for years. But, if that weren’t enough, in addition, we see an increasing number of numerical patterns emerging. The reason for this is the fact that mathematics is not just a tool invented for the purpose of calculation, the logical structure of mathematics actually reflects the multi-dimensional structure underlying physical, mental and spiritual reality. Why does TRUE analysis reveal more of the patterns and structure of reality than conventional math and science? Because the reality available to our senses for observation and measurement is quantized; i.e., made up of whole numbers of quanta of mass, energy and a third form of the substance of reality; and TRUE analysis is based on the normalization of observation and measurement to the smallest possible quantum unit, the Triadic Rotational Unit of Equivalence.

Normalization simply means setting that smallest possible unit of equivalence equal to one, so that all observations and measurements in a quantized world are whole number multiples of that unit. Exactly how this minimum TRUE unite was discovered and defined is detailed in our paper “PUTTING CONSCIOUSNESS INTO THE EQUATIONS OF SCIENCE: THE THIRD FORM OF REALITY (GIMMEL) AND THE “TRUE” UNITS (TRIADIC ROTATIONAL UNITS OF EQUIVALENCE) OF QUANTUM MEASUREMENT” published in the IQNEXUS Magazine, and being posted in installments on this blog. In this post I will focus on the relationship of integer (whole number) numerical patterns to the observation and measurement of reality.

Numerical Patterns

Meaningful numerical patterns are what make music and poetry pleasing. Certain patterns of sight and sound strike a chord in our souls because they reflect the order and logic of reality. A very important example of numerical patterns is the Periodic Table of Elements. The very nature of different physical substances, like solid, liquid or gaseous, weight, color, taste, texture, nutritive or toxic, in short, everything that makes up the physical world we experience, depends upon specific patterns of numerical sequences of combinations of elementary particles. Triadic sequences, e.g. of equal numbers of electrons, protons and neutrons, make up the basic elements Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Sulfur, Nitrogen, etc. the patterns of living organisms. Identifying such numerical patterns is the basis of mathematics and science, and the ability to do so is the basis of human intelligence.

Because of this, IQ tests, in addition to testing your vocabulary and challenging your ability to verbalize objects in 3-D, always include problems that test your ability to identify numerical patterns. That is why you see questions like: “What is the next number in the sequence 2, 4, 6 …?”  Of course, you are expected to recognize this as the sequence of ‘even numbers’ and respond with ‘8’. And, for the sequence 1, 3, 5 …? You will respond ‘7’. These are easy, but tests of your ability to recognize numerical patterns can get much more difficult. What if you are confronted with the sequence 1, 2, 3, 5, 7 …?

I’ve chosen this sequence to make a point: If you see this as the sequence of prime numbers (prime numbers are numbers that are only divisible by themselves and 1), then the correct answer is ‘11’. But if you see it as a sequence of sequences of three numbers with differences increasing by one with each sequence: 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 12, 15, 18 … the correct answer is ‘9’. So, sometimes there can be more than one correct answer. While still in high school, I became famous, or maybe more aptly, infamous, by correcting errors my teachers made, and by finding errors in the ‘answers’ in the back of text books. The ability to point out errors made by authorities has gotten me into trouble more than a few times! The point, however, is that the designer of a test must be at least as intelligent as the most intelligent person taking the test, or the resulting score  may be wrong. I’ll relate some of my personal experiences with test taking at the end of this post for anyone who might find them interesting or amusing.

What if I presented you with the sequence 0, 108, 27648 … and asked you to supply the next number in the sequence? The most likely response would be “How the (expletive deleted) should I know? But this is a legitimate, logical sequence with a real answer that turns out to have relevance in the TRUE analysis of the natural elements. I was going to give you the answer, i.e. the next number in the sequence 0, 108, 27648 … but I think I’ll wait and see if anyone can come up with it.

HINT: what are the prime factors of 108?