PATTERNS OF REALITY

 

PATTERNS OF REALITY

© Copyright 2022, Edward R. (Ed) Close

Introduction

Hello! My name is Ed Close. Who are you, dear reader? Maybe someone who has read some of my posts before. If not, then not only is this an introduction to what I am going to talk about in “Patterns of Reality”, it’s an introduction to me as a person, as well. As of this moment, I have placed 571 posts on this blogsite. One might think that is more than enough. The last one was number 24 in a series that explains pretty much who I am and what I’ve been up to for the past few hundred years. I also have several books in print and a number of papers and articles. You can read or re-read them if you have time and want to.

Notice that the by-line on this post is just my name. I’ve dropped the PhD, PE, DSPE, Charter Member…Distinguished Member…etc., etc. some of which I could legitimately still attach to my name; but I’ve done that for a reason: I am retired. I am not PhD-ing, PE-ing, or DSPE-ing, … any more. I’m just Ed Close, and that’s enough. I am still writing though, that’s part of who I am. You can still call me Dr. as a title of respect, if you’d like, or just call me Ed Close, or “that guy who writes all sorts of crazy stuff”. I don’t care. I don’t need any more accolades or praise. When I skip on the next life, I am hoping that I will have made some difference in the world for the good of myself and my fellow human beings who have to go on with this drama; but that’s not up to me.

I don’t mean to suggest that I am going to walk off into the sunset anytime soon. Not at all! I woke up this morning knowing that I still have a lot of work to do. The patterns of thought and structures of gimmel-guided electrons, quarks, atoms, compounds, cells, organs, and symbiotic organisms that make up my physical body are still very much active in the game of life, and this life is not over until the real “Big Guy”, the one who spoke the reality we all experience into existence, says it is. So there! Enough said about me.

In the pursuit of identifying the Patterns of Reality that can change lives for the better, I intend to draw on things I’ve learned during the 85 years of this life, and beyond. One thing I’ve learned, is that the experiences of life, even those that seem chaotic and uncertain – like a stumbling trial and error path through a frightening minefield of death and destruction - are actually governed by hidden patterns designed to further consciousness expansion and spiritual evolution. I tried very hard to boil a lot of the apparent randomness down in previous blogposts. The patterns I want to identify now, through a further distillation of life and death experiences, are the guiding patterns of reality that can be recognized by separating the patterns that are real and profound from the trivial and often illusory concepts that are not real.

Patterns Real and Imagined

The idea is surfacing more persistently as time goes on, that anything we can imagine can be manifested, and the history of the progress of science and technology over the past 200 years – a sizable part of which I have experienced myself – seems to bear this out. When I first started getting interested in science and mathematics in this life, a few years before the end of World War II, - “the war to end all wars” according to the hopeful US President Franklin Delano Roosevelt - television was a new invention and cars were replacing horses, even in the Ozarks. People began to imagine all sorts of fantastic things for the future, and some of it has come true.

If we can affect the patterns of reality by what we imagine, we must be very careful what we wish for. Reality is not as simple as it looks on the surface. It exists in more than two dimensions, and until our consciousness is expanded beyond the duality of simplistic two-dimensional thinking, trying to motivate reality to manifest what we wish for can be dangerous. In the part of reality that we perceive through the physical senses, i.e., the contents of three-dimensional space and one unidirectional dimension of time, the asymmetric 4-D pattern guarantees that what is manifested will rarely, if ever, be what the dreamer dreams of, and it may even be the opposite of what was intended, especially if the dream is absolute or profound. The concepts of true and false, and simple versus profound, are distorted by an incomplete understanding of the nature of reality.  

Niels Bohr, the Danish physicist who explained the layered structure of the atom and was instrumental in the development of quantum physics, put it this way:

“The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth.”

The first sentence of this statement is an obvious example of binary logic based on the assumption that a meaningful statement is correct if it corresponds with reality, and false if it does not. The second sentence raises some important questions: Are there distinctly different levels of truth? What is a profound truth? Is a profound truth absolute, a priori, self-evident, i.e., needing no proof? If so, the assumptions upon which systems of logic, including philosophical, political, and scientific theories are based may be profound truths. If they are not, the theories are flawed or at least incomplete. The existence of profound truths implies the existence of other, not-so-profound truths. What is the difference between a profound truth and a simple truth?

Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell, in their three-volume work Principia Mathematica, elucidating the foundations of mathematical logic, identified three types of statements: true, false, and meaningless. But in the development of the quantum calculus of dimensional distinctions (CoDD), we find that some statements that are meaningless in a binary system of logic are actually meaningful in a higher-dimensional triadic model of reality. This is consistent with G. Spencer Brown’s findings in Laws of Form. A truth that does not qualify as profound, is either simple or an indicator of the existence of a higher dimensional domain with more than 3 or 4 dimensions. How can we tell what kind of truth a given true statement is? Let’s look at some examples.

True or False

Let’s start with the statement: “All crows are black.” I think that this statement, if true, is a simple truth, the opposite of which is false. I grew up in the country where I saw a lot of crows. All of them were black. I have also seen crows in other parts of the world, and all of them were black. So, this statement may well be true, but I can’t prove it because I have not seen every crow that exists. But suppose it really is true. Suppose that at this instant, every crow that exists is black. That truth could change at any time. Some demented person might spray-paint a crow orange, or through mutation, a crow might hatch that is white or brown. Conclusion: The statement “All crows are black” may be true at one time and false at another time. A truth that can change to false over time cannot be classified as profound, and so must be classified as simple and provisional, as opposed to complex and profound.

One man, perhaps one of the smartest men who ever lived, Rene Descartes, famously said: “I think, therefore, I am.” That sounds pretty profound. But is it? If the statement can be verified as true and can be generalized to apply to all of thinking beings, - and if its opposite may be a profound truth too, then it will surely qualify as a profound truth. The first step is to determine whether or not it is true. The “I think” and the “I am” parts of the statement can be verified and accepted as true because there is no doubt that Descartes existed, and the fact that he did a lot of thinking is quite well documented. If the “therefore” part is also true, then the statement can be generalized to apply to all thinking beings simply by removing the personal pronouns and replacing the “therefore” with “implies’, so that the statement becomes: “Thinking implies existence”.

In this context, opposite means in opposition to, or in contradiction of the original statement. In this case, for Descartes’ statement, there are four possible statements in opposition to “I think, therefore I am” and its generalization, “Thinking implies existence”: there is one converse statement and three negating statements. To be thorough, we must look at each of them. The converse statement is “existence implies thinking”. This opposite statement certainly isn’t a profound truth because it isn’t even true. E.g., the rock I was holding in my hand in the picture above exists, but most people would agree that it doesn’t think. It holds a lot of information about the Earth’s crust in a certain location and time period, but it doesn’t think.

The negative opposites of Descartes’ statement are: The nominative negation: “Not thinking implies existence”, the objective negation: “Thinking implies non-existence”, and the complete negation: “Not thinking implies non-existence”. Considering each opposing statement separately, I think we can agree that none of them are profound, or even true. Therefore, Descartes’ statement “I think therefore I am” may be true, and it is certainly more complex than the statement about black crows, but is it also provisional like the black crows statement? The answer to that depends on the definitions of thinking and being, and the process that might make the conjunctive adverbs “therefore” or “implies” true. So, we must look deeper into what is meant by “thinking” and “being”, and whether or not they are causally connected.

Thinking is a mental activity associated with electrical and chemical processes in complex physical structures known as brains. Thinking should not be confused with computing, which can be done automatically by a properly programmed machine. And being is a synonym for existing, implying the status of being an existing part of reality. The discovery of the existence of gimmel, a stabilizing non-physical feature of reality, means that Descartes’ statement is true, if, and only if, the process represented by the word “therefore” or “implies” in the general case, is also supported by the presence of gimmel. Since any mechanism that could link thinking to being depends on the stability of electrons, and protons, which contain specific numbers of units of gimmel, Descartes’ statement is verified as a truth that is more complex than a simple truth, but not a truly profound truth.

In Search of Profound Truth

So far, we have only found examples of a simple truth and a complex truth. To be honest, I didn’t really expect “All crows are black” to be a profound truth, but I had greater expectations for “I think, therefore I am”. However, just like in the case of the crows, Descartes’ clever declaration turns out to be true and complex, but not profound. Do profound truths exist, as Bohr suggests, or are all a priori assumptions provisional because of the asymmetrical nature of time? If so, this could be the hidden basis of Gödel’s incompleteness theorems and there may not be such a thing as profound truth. But I don’t think so, and it is worth taking a moment to explain why I am convinced that profound truths do exist.

When symmetric dimensions of time and consciousness were added to the four-dimensional (4S-1t) model of the Standard Model of particle physics to produce the TDVP system of mathematical logic, we were able to derive a calculus that explained a substantial number of things that were paradoxical and contradictory in conventional Standard Model analyses. These included explaining why only triadic combinations of elementary particles produce stable subatomic structures, deriving the Cabibbo quark mixing angle from theory, explaining the additional mass of protons and neutrons formed from up- and down-quarks, and many more. Following the time-honored axioms of “the proof is in the pudding”, and the simplest possible answer is usually the correct one (the law of parsimony), I conclude that profound truth does exits.

To determine whether I am right, I need to find an example of a profound truth. Where can we find such a treasure? As indicated above, profound truths might be found hidden in plain sight among the a priori assumptions supporting successful theories like relativity and quantum physics; so, let’s look there. One unifying statement that stands out because it connects the two theoretical pillars of modern physics is Einstein’s statement: “the speed of light is constant”. This statement and the complementary declaration of “no preferred reference frame” is the basis of the special and general theories of relativity. The same statement, paired with Planck’s discovery that energy and mass are quantized also underlies quantum mechanics and quantum physics. So perhaps the constancy of the speed of light is a profound truth.

Surely, Einstein’s constant light speed is a more profound statement than Descartes’ thinking implies being, - or is it? First, we need to understand exactly what Einstein meant when he declared “the speed of light is constant”. Is the speed of light the same in every circumstance? No. Light travels through space and transparent and translucent things at different rates. The speed of light in water, for example, is about 25% slower than the speed of light in the near vacuum of space. This appears to be a case where the opposite is also true, conforming with Bohr’s remark that the opposite of a profound truth may also be a profound truth! The speed of light is constant for every observer, but the speed of light is not constant in every circumstance. But, if the speed of light varies depending on physical circumstances, isn’t that a provisional truth? And what about time? Might not the speed of light actually change over time? If so, can constant light speed really be a profound truth?

Obviously, Einstein was not saying that the speed of light is the same under all circumstances, but then, what was he saying? He was saying something more amazing and consequential – and more profound. He was saying that the speed of light is always the same for all observers, regardless of the motion of the source and receiver. For example, if astronaut scientists in two different rocket ships flying through space at the same time are measuring the speed of light coming from a light source into their ships and one of the ships is moving toward the light source at a high rate of speed, while the other is moving at a high rate of speed away from the source, they will both measure the speed of the sunlight they receive to be exactly the same! Contrary to the expectations of classical mainstream physicists of the 1800s and early 1900s, experimental evidence verified Einstein’s declaration that this is true.

If this concept of constant light speed doesn’t seem strange to you, then think about what it would be like if, instead of light, the scientists were measuring the velocities of moving physical objects like bullets or other projectiles. The scientist moving away from the place of the object’s origin would find a much slower object velocity than the one moving toward it. The actual velocity of each object could be determined by the addition or subtraction of velocity vectors. Not so with light. Why? If light is a purely physical phenomenon, then, whether scientists are measuring the speed of arrival of a photon or a wave front, why wouldn’t the law of addition of velocity vectors hold? The fact that it doesn’t, and all observers detect the same light speed despite relative motion of sources and observers, points to profound truths about the nature of space, time, and the propagation of light. It turns out that space and time have no objective existence of their own, and light is evidence of a primary universal constant.

The quantum equivalence unit, or Triadic Rotational Unit of equivalence (TRUE) used as the basic unit of measurement, is defined by setting the mass and volume of the free electron, the smallest stable elementary object, equal to one; and the quantum calculus mentioned so often in previous posts and publications, the Calculus of Dimensional Distinctions (CoDD), is derived by setting the speed of light equal to one. The result is a normalized whole-number system of multi-dimensional mathematical logic that serves as the descriptive quantified language for the Triadic Dimensional Vortical Paradigm (TDVP) model of reality.

Application of this normalized TRUE system of mathematical logic to analyze the simplest combination of elementary objects, i.e., the combination of quarks to form a proton, has revealed some interesting serial numerical patterns that may have significance for future research. The next post will explore some of those patterns.

ERC – 5/7/2022    

WHEN THE IMPOSSIBLE BECOMES POSSIBLE

WHEN THE IMPOSSIBLE BECOMES POSSIBLE

When does the impossible become possible? When opposites become one, when all becomes one, and one becomes all. Then thought becomes mathematical, science becomes poetry and poetry becomes science.

The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all of the previous centuries of its existence.

-       Nikola Tesla 1856

Many years ago, I cried out to the universe: “God, I want to know everything!”

The Universe answered, but it took me 70 years to fully understand the answer, and for science to become poetry.

There is no such thing as an empty space. …Space and time claim no existence of their own. They are structural features of the field. -  Albert Einstein 1952

The realization that space and time have no existence of their own, allows us to understand the true meaning of following poetic statement:

To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour                              - William Blake 1862

But we seem to live in a very hard, physical world. The minute we are born, our soul tells us we are infinite and eternal, but the world insists that we are finite, insignificant and very mortal. Life appears to be the beginning of a journey that only ends in death. Which vision is reality? The man who discovered that the physical universe is quantized, said:

As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear-headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter. – Max Planck 1905

Is it possible that the physical universe is an illusion? Is it possible that life is meaningless? Is it impossible to know?

When does the impossible become possible? It doesn’t happen when we take everything apart to see how it works; it happens when we put it all together. When we come to know that the physical and the non-physical are one, when a stranger is instantly known as yourself, when you are everything and nothing at the same time, i.e., when you are fully awake and fully conscious.

Yesterday I met a stranger. But there was a de-ja-vu moment: I knew her, and she knew me, from the beginning of time, for the past and future are inventions of the mind. We never experience anything but the present, there is only here and now, then and there are phantoms of the mind. In reality, there is only the I AM, the one consciousness that we all share.

A good friend of many years, formally trained as a scientist, but also a deeply religious man, once said “science has its limits. There are questions science cannot answer.”

Are there questions that are Impossible for the rational mind to answer? He was both right and wrong. Are there important questions that are impossible for science? Yes for science as we know it. No for science as it must become. The physical universe is quantized, discrete, separate. But consciousness is infinitely continuous, and consciousness is the only thing we experience directly. Matter, energy, space and time, we only experience indirectly through the imperfect organs of the senses. Consciousness we experience with our whole being.

Mainstream science today tells us that there is nothing but matter and energy interacting in time and space. But the great minds I quoted above, upon whose work mainstream science relies, said “There is no matter as such”, “Space and time have no existence of their own.” And science will advance by leaps and bounds when it begins to study the non-physical phenomena we experience directly.

The truth is: the physical universe, a fraction of the reality we experience, is quantized, while consciousness, the only thing we experience directly is infinitely continuous. When we realize that they are one and the same, the impossible becomes possible, and we can hold infinity in our hand, experience eternity in this hour, see the world in a grain of sand, and Heaven in a wildflower.

ERC 2/1/2020

MORE ON GIMMEL AND CONSCIIOUSNESS

MORE ON GIMMEL AND CONSCIOUSNESS

© 2019 by Edward R. Close

The Significance of the Discovery of Gimmel

Non-physical gimmel is real and at least as important in the structure of physical reality as mass and energy and it very well may provide us with a refreshing new avenue to investigate consciousness in a systematic, scientific manner. In this discussion, I will use the triad of mass, energy and gimmel to address an important and very basic question about the nature of consciousness: the question of whether consciousness is an epiphenomenon of physical complexity, or the architect of it; in other words, which came first, matter or consciousness?

The current mainstream paradigm assumes that particulate matter, in the form of quarks, electrons, and protons, evolved first, producing hydrogen and other elements billions of years ago, and that self-aware consciousness arose only very recently, after sufficiently complex organic structures had evolved. But this is a very restricted view of consciousness, assuming that it is limited to the self-awareness in human beings and functioning perhaps, to a lesser extent, in other living organisms. In the light of the discovery of the necessary existence of gimmel in every single elementary particle for atomic stability, we have evidence that the logical structure of consciousness exists in every particle of the physical universe, suggesting that the reasoning leading to the mainstream model may be flawed. Consciousness, not matter, may be primary.

Consciousness and the Physical Universe

Self-aware sentient beings, in particular, human beings like you and me, are born into a world where an amazing plethora of complexity already exists, and apparently has existed for billions of years. Some of us, sometimes called scientists, are capable of conceptualizing different levels of complexity, and using objects that exist around us to build laboratories and instruments to investigate some of the existing complex objects discovered by those who have preceded us, like the atoms known as the elements of the periodic table.

The reality you experience, including your own body, appears to be made of a range of complex molecular and atomic structures, in turn made of electrons, protons and neutrons. Clever scientists before us have discovered that protons and neutrons are further composed of even more elementary entities, known as quarks: specifically of two sizes, called up-quarks and down-quarks, for reasons we need not go into here. All of these objects making up our environment appear to be made of atoms, starting with the simplest atom, the hydrogen atom, consisting of only one electron and one proton, ranging through more and more complex atoms consisting of hundreds of electrons, protons and neutrons; so everything appears to be made of atomic structures composed of only three things: electrons, up-quarks and down-quarks. Some of the atoms, at a certain level of complexity, combine to form life-supporting organic compounds that join together and form self-aware organisms like you and me, capable of conscious experience.

Limitations of the Standard Model of Particle Physics

When we decided to study these complex structures, to see what makes them work with Swiss-watch-like precision, we started with the hydrogen atom, the smallest and simplest structure existing at or near the threshold of observation and measurement using our physical senses and conceivable extensions of them. Gradually, we devised increasingly more sophisticated ways to break atoms apart and measure the mass and energy of the constituent particles indirectly. We had to devise indirect methods to do this because the sub-atomic constituents (electrons and quarks) are so very, very small that we couldn’t observe and measure them directly.

The methods we devised were intrusive and destructive, including ionization (forcing electrons out of the outer-most shell of atoms) and engineering collisions of protons (obtained by the ionization of hydrogen atoms) with each other and other atoms. More and more sophisticated methods were developed for accelerating particles and targeting other particles and atoms. Using powerful electromagnets, particles were accelerated to extreme velocities, with momentums great enough to penetrate complex atoms and break them apart. The atom-smashers, from the earliest versions, built in the late 1920s and early 1930s, from the Cyclotron, to the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) in use today, employ the same method: blasting atoms apart and examining the resulting fragments.

The Swiss watch analogy is instructive: An atom, considered as a finite object, separate from any more complex structure, is, like a fine Swiss watch, an intricate, dynamic structure of interacting parts. If you decide to take a watch apart to see how it works, hopefully, you have the appropriate watch-maker’s tools on hand, so that you can take it apart carefully, in order to observe how each cog-wheel, spring and ratchet operates and how they work together to produce a precise and accurate time-keeping instrument. But suppose you are a five-year-old child, and the only tool you have is a hammer. You manage to pop the case apart, but the mystery of how the clock works is not immediately apparent, so you continue to hammer it until you have produced as many bits and pieces to look at as you can. When you finally stop  hammering, the various constituent parts may be so damaged and even broken into pieces in the smashing process that, their function while they were in the watch is totally obscured.

If we count the number of pieces scattered around when our five-year old is finished hammering, we may have many times more pieces than the number of parts used in the construction of the watch, and studying them will not likely lead to much understanding of how a watch works. Particle physicists are like children with hammers. Their standard model of reality based on destructive collisions consists of as many as 80 or 90 particles and anti-particles. But most of these particles are not functional in the atoms making up the everyday stable world we experience, they are created by the atom-smashing process, and they decay rapidly, lasting for  only very extremely short periods of time under extreme high-energy conditions, which may or may not have existed at the time of the hypothetical big-bang origin of the universe.

The physical reality we experience is built up primarily of the mass and energy of three particles: electrons, protons and neutrons, combined in various stable configurations. And protons and neutrons are primarily comprised of the mass and energy of up-quarks and down-quarks, so at the most elementary level, the physical features of everything we experience in our lives on this planet are the results of combinations of electrons and quarks and the associated gravitational, magnetic and electro-magnetic forces that are generated as results of their interactions in space and time. The other members of the particle zoo, generated by the hammering of particles together in high-energy particle colliders, while interesting from a theoretical point of view, are so ephemeral they have little or no effect on the physical reality we experience as sentient beings.

Deriving and Applying a System of Quantum Equivalence Units

We have concluded that the basic building blocks of our physical reality, measurable in units of mass, energy and volume of space, spinning at some specific number of rotations per unit of time, are electrons, up-quarks and down-quarks. The free electron has the least mass of the three, and if we take that mass as the quantum unit of mass, normalize and naturalize the LHC masses of the up-quark and down-quark, we find that they have masses of 4 and 9 quantum mass units respectively. Then, by naturalizing the units of space and time (extent and duration), Einstein’s famous equation, E = mc² yields  a system of measurement in which the units of mass, energy, space, and time are equivalent. Noting that quarks, because they are rotating physical objects, are three-dimensional, I call these 3-D units quantum equivalence units. In the geometry of symmetrical rotating objects, application of Fermat’s Last Theorem proves that quarks must combine in threes to produce stable rotating objects. Because of these facts, the resulting basic units of quantum calculus are called Triadic Rotational Units of Equivalence (TRUE).

Using the TRUE as the basic unit of the Calculus of Dimensional Distinctions, an adaptation and expansion of G. Spencer Brown’s Calculus of Indications, from his seminal work Laws of Form, we have, for the first time since Planck discovered that physical reality is quantized, a quantum calculus appropriate for the investigation of quantum phenomena. With application of this system of mathematical logic, we are able to solve a number of puzzles that have plagued particle physics for decades, like explaining the EPR paradox, the double-slit and delayed-choice experiments, as well as explaining why the Cabibbo quark-mixing angle has the exact value it does, why fermions have an intrinsic spin number of ½, why neutrons and other complex particles have the exact masses they do, and much more.

A Wider Range of the Scientific Investigation of the Nature of Reality

By developing the proper tools for investigating quantum phenomena, and applying them to the known parameters of the elementary particles that make up the physical universe we experience, a third form of the substance of reality, necessary for structural stability, was discovered. We call that third form gimmel. Each and every elementary particle has to have an exact number of mass, energy and gimmel units to be stable, and thus the amount of gimmel in every combination of particles in physical reality can be mathematically determined. When this method of analysis was applied to the elements of the periodic table, we found that the major life-supporting elements, carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen, contain higher percentages of gimmel than other elements, especially those that are poisonous or detrimental to consciousness-supporting life. This strongly suggests that the universe is the result of intelligent design. The discovery of gimmel reveals that the self-referential structure of the physical universe is designed very specifically to support the development of complex living organisms capable of manifesting increasingly sophisticated forms of consciousness.

So what is gimmel that makes it capable of affecting the nature of the physical universe in this way? It is not some form of matter, or some form of energy, as I’ve pointed out in the previous post, because if it were, it would add to the measurable mass and/or energy of the particles that form protons, they would no longer be quarks, atomic structure would be unstable, and there would be no physical universe as we know it. Science can only describe what we experience and become consciously aware of through physical, mental or spiritual perception. That means that to understand what gimmel is, we have nothing but our experience to draw from.

Consciousness is the only thing we experience directly. Matter, energy, space and time are experienced indirectly through the reduction valves of the physical sense organs that only allow vibrational energies of specific ranges of frequencies to be channeled to the central nervous system where they are converted to images. Space and time have no existence of their own because space is simply the dimensional extent around and between objects, and time is the duration between events. Without objects and events, there is no space or time. So there are only three sources of our experiences: matter, measured as mass, energy, measured as force, and pure consciousness, measured as individual awareness. Since gimmel cannot be matter or energy, by process of elimination, it is pure consciousness.

Historically, when pure consciousness has been perceived in the midst of physical reality by finite self-aware individuals, it has been called the Holy Spirit. To complete the only model that is able to describe everything we can experience as human beings, we need only envision three finite dimensional domains of three dimensions each, embedded in an infinity of pure consciousness. All of the laws of physical, mental and spiritual reality are conveyed into the dimensional domains of finite quantized reality mathematically from pure consciousness in the mathematical ratios of mass, energy and gimmel. 

There could be no particles, no hydrogen atoms and no physical universe without gimmel. If, as concluded above, gimmel is pure consciousness, then consciousness is primary and matter secondary, not the other way around as assumed by the materialist mainstream scientific paradigm.

Pure consciousness, represented in the structures of the physical universe, is Planck’s “conscious intelligent spirit”, and Einstein’s “spirit … manifest in the laws of the Universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.”(See the previous post.)

ERC 3/18/2019

MY PLANS FOR THE FUTURE

MY PLANS FOR THE FUTURE

As my Face Book Friends know, yesterday I celebrated my 9x9 = 81^st birthday. Thank you again for all the wonderful birthday wishes, comments and blessings. I wish to send Love and Light to each and every one of you, and please know that I am going to be around for a while longer, I still have a lot to do.

Would you believe that someone asked me a few years ago: “How long have you been retired?” My response was: “Retirement is not a meaningful word in my vocabulary.” What on Earth makes someone think I’m retired? People retire when they are tired of what they’ve been doing, and/or are getting ready to die!

Concerning death, the cerebral comedian Woody Allen said:

“I’m not afraid to die, I just don’t want to be there when it happens!”

I believe we are on this Earth to learn that life and death are passing dreams from which we all must one day waken, and for most of us, it takes a while. I worked as an actuarial mathematician, writing computer programs for the Univac computer for a major insurance company in downtown Los Angeles 57 years ago and saw statistics that showed that most men (I think it was about 87%) died within 6 months after retirement. I decided right then, never to retire.

How long do I plan to live? Let me answer that by quoting British biologist Thomas Huxley:

“The rung of a ladder was never meant to rest upon, but only to hold a man's foot long enough to enable him to put the other somewhat higher.”

There is still so much to learn. I believe when one stops learning, one starts dying.

“Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.”

- Thomas Huxley again.

I’ll go a bit further than that: Pick out something you love, it could be anything; I believe that if you really try to learn everything there is to know about something, anything real, and get even close, you’ll know a lot about everything else.

Most of you know about my efforts to get mainstream science out of the dead end of gross materialism. I’ve just finished writing a chapter for a book being published by the Academy for the Advancement of Post-Materialist Science that proves that the reconciliation of relativity and quantum physics in the new paradigm Dr. Vernon Neppe and I have developed, eliminates materialism as a valid metaphysical basis for science. Mainstream scientists who are self-acclaimed atheists hate this because it threatens their world view and overturns their life’s work. Some have resorted to calling us names.

No real scientist can possibly be an atheist. Because atheism does not meet the necessary criteria to become a scientific hypothesis. A scientific hypothesis must be “falsifiable”, i.e. it must be testable, and capable of proof or disproof. The hypothesis that God does not exist cannot be proved. On the other hand, the reality that nothing would exist without the organizing action of a higher form of consciousness is provable, - by direct experience. But mainstream scientific egos think they are authorities on the subject, declaring that because they haven’t experienced anything greater than their own egos, no one has!

 Quoting Huxley again:

“Every great advance in natural knowledge has involved the absolute rejection of authority.”

Interestingly, Huxley, the grandfather of Aldous Huxley, the author of Beyond the Doors of Perception, defined himself as an agnostic. And that’s fine, every scientist should be an agnostic, especially about his own field. An agnostic is a skeptic, a doubter, a “doubting Thomas”. Concerning God, about all an agnostic can say is that God, if he exists, hasn’t appeared in front of him, or spoken to him. Of course, that is probably because most scientists don’t know how to stop thinking long enough to hear Him!

I have learned to live as if something wonderful is about to happen, - because it does, and has, repeatedly! Every day I see the sun rise is a wonder. The fact that there is something instead of nothing is an on-going miracle. Your existence as a conscious being is a miracle beyond miracles.

My plan, when the time comes to leave this body, is to exit consciously, unafraid and expecting something wonderful to happen!

Edward R. Close, October 8, 2017

TRUE Quantum Calculus and the Electron

TRUE QUANTUM CALCULUS and the ELECTRON

By Edward R Close, PhD
Copyright September 23, 2017


Uniting Quantum Physics, Relativity and Consciousness
THE FIRST OF THREE VIDEOS

MORE ABOUT FERMAT'S LAST THEOREM

 A recent email to an ISPE friend:

A good friend does not give up trying to convince someone he considers to be his friend of the truth. I believe that you are my friend, because if that were not the case, you would have given up trying to convince me that my FLT65 proof is flawed long ago. So, in return, I must not tire of trying to convince you that FLT65 is valid, as long as I see it that way.

After responding to your recent email containing the short circular argument put forth by your retired math professor friend, I had an inspiration. I believe I see a more direct way to explain FLT65. Here it is:

If one number is divisible by another, then dividing the smaller one into the larger one produces a zero remainder, while if they are not divisible, the remainder is non-zero. These simple facts are expressed by the division algorithm and its corollaries and they are true for all polynomials over the field of real numbers, whether reducible to integers or to any other real number.

Recalling FLT65, we see that when p ≥ 3, p a prime number, the FLT equation can be factored and expressed in the form (z-x)( z^p-1 + z^p-2x + z^p-3x² + ••• + x^p-1) = y^p. If there are integer solutions for z^p – x^p = y^p, then, with specific integer values of x, y and z, g(z) = z–x and f(z)= z^p-1+ z^p-2x + z^p-3x² +•••+ x^p-1 must be equal to relatively prime integers raised to the pth power. That is to say that, if there is an integer solution, then y^p will be equal to B^pA^p, where B^p = z –x, and A^p = z^p-1+ z^p-2x + z^p-3x² +•••+ x^p-1, A and B relatively prime integers. Furthermore, for an integer solution, the fact that integers are closed with respect to addition guarantees that there is always an integer a, such that z –a = A.

Of course A^p is divisible by A, so A^p = z^p-1 + z^p-2x + z^p-3x² +•••+ x ^p-1 must be divisible by A = z – a, and the division algorithm Cor. III says that f(z) is divisible by z – a, IF AND ONLY IF, the remainder, f(a), is equal to zero. Therefore, to find the value of x for any given values of z and a, we must set f(a) = a^p-1 + a^p-2x + a^p-3x² +•••+ x ^p-1 = 0 and solve for x. There are exactly p-1 solutions to this equation and for all of them, x is non-integer. This proves that for z and y equal to integers, x cannot be an integer, and FLT is proved.

I believe that the argument above is a more direct way to see FLT65, and it is completely equivalent to FLT65. I also believe that it becomes even clearer when illustrated with a numerical example, and I will use one provided by the critics.

While there are a few competent mathematicians who agree with me that FLT65 is a valid proof of FLT, more of them agree with you. For example, while reviewing my work, a Nobel Prize physicist and a very competent Israeli number-theory professor of mathematics, responded with what, in their opinions are counter examples that call FLT65 into question and, they believed, might even refute it. 

They both correctly noted that my argument in FLT65 is that when the factor of the Fermat equation f(z) = z^p +xz^p-1 +… + x^p-1 is divided by z – a, the remainder, f(a) cannot be zero, while, for any integer solution, f(z) is definitely divisible by z – a. In fact, f(z) = A^p divided by z - a = A is A^p-1, where, if there is an integer solution to the Fermat equation, A is an integer, and this produces an inescapable contradiction. They argued that this is, or may be, incorrect because they could produce examples  for the equation when p = 3 with the remainder f(a) non-zero even though f(z) is clearly divisible by z - a when certain integers are chosen for z, x and a.

Here is one such example offered by the math professor:

Let z=7 and x=4. Thus 3 divides z² +xz+x², because f(z) = 49 + 28 + 16 = 93 = 3x31. So for a=4, the integer z - a = 3 divides the integer z²+xz+x². However, in the polynomial ring R[Z], the polynomial z - a does not divide the polynomial z²+xz+x² =z²+4z+16.  Indeed, the remainder is a²+xa+x² > 0. Thus, he reasoned, the non-zero remainder when dividing polynomials does not prove that f(z) is not divisible by z – a = A if x, y, z, and a are integers.

There is however, a serious error in this argument. The error lies in the fact that, after choosing z = 7 and a = 4, the value for x is arbitrarily, and incorrectly chosen to make f(z) divisible by 3, allowing the production of a spurious “counter example”. The error is compounded by assuming that this supposed disparity in divisibility between the polynomial f(z) and its integer value may exist for the Fermat equation.

In fact, if z = 7 and a = 4 in the Fermat equation, then x cannot be equal to 4. This is easily and clearly demonstrated as follows:

The division algorithm expresses the essence of the fundamental operation of division for all real numbers, including integers. Corollary III of the division algorithm says that f(z) is divisible by z – a IF AND ONLY IF f(a) = 0. Therefore, in this example fabricated by the math professor, in order to see what x must be to satisfy the equation when z = 7 and a = 4, we must set f(a) = 4²+4x+x² = 0. When this equation is solved for x, we see that x cannot be equal to 4. In fact, solving this equation for x, we see that the two values of x satisfying the equation with z = 7 and a = 4 are – 2 + 2Ö3i and – 2 - 2Ö3i, which are complex numbers, and definitely not integers.

This is easily generalized for all integer values of z and a, and for all p>2 because all values of p are odd allowing the factorization into z – x and z^p-1 + z^p-2x + z^p-3x² + ••• + x^p-1, a polynomial of p terms; and that is exactly what FLT65 does. The polynomial f(a) can never equal zero if x, z and a are integers, which they must be for an all-integer solution of the Fermat equation z^p – x^p = (z-x)(z^p-1 + z^p-2x + z^p-3x² + ••• +  x^p-1) = y^p. This proves FLT.

Now one must ask: Why has this simple proof, which I believe is, in essence, Fermat’s “marvelous proof”, been overlooked for more than 300 years, even by the world’s most brilliant mathematicians??? 

It appears to go back to Leonhard Euler and Carl Friedrich Gauss, arguably two of the most brilliant mathematicians of all time. Euler used complex numbers to prove FLT for p = 3, and Gauss developed modular algebra in an effort to prove or disprove the solvability of Diophantine equations including FLT. Unfortunately, like many mathematical procedures, modular algebra obscures as much about integer and non-integer polynomials as it reveals. When Gauss was unable to produce a proof using this method, he famously announced that he could produce any number of such theoretical propositions that could be neither proved nor disproved, and thus would waste no more time on it. This set the tone for many professional mathematicians in the years to follow.

Kurt Gӧdel’s incompleteness theorem proved that there are always logical propositions that cannot be proved or disproved within the mathematical system giving rise to them. This strengthened Gauss’s speculation that FLT might not be provable using basic mathematics. Add to this the increasingly extreme specialization encouraged by academia in the last 200 years, and you have a general attitude that Fermat must have been mistaken about having a proof.

Especially after Andrew Wiles and Richard Taylor produced a torturously complex proof of hundreds of pages in 1995, it was thought probable that Fermat had fooled himself into believing that he had a proof, when in fact he had not, because the complex theorems used in Taylor and Wiles’ proofs were not available to Fermat in 1637. This line of reasoning, while convincing, of course does not prove there can be no simple proof.

After many years of trying to get professional mathematicians to take my 1965 proof of FLT seriously, I had given up. When I discovered in about 1989 or 1990 that FLT had an important application in quantum physics, I revisited FLT65. In 2010, even though the quantum physics application only required FLT to be true for p £ 9, I mentioned my 1965 proof to Dr. Neppe, who was intrigued, and after studying it and proving it correct for himself, urged me to resume efforts to get it recognized and accepted.

To date, only a few competent mathematicians have agreed with me that FLT65 is a valid proof, but, importantly, no one has shown me any real proof that FLT65 is not valid. The proclivity of professional mathematicians to dismiss it because of the belief that no simple proof is possible has led even otherwise competent mathematicians to think erroneously that examples like the one presented above disprove FLT65. 

Even those who have acknowledged that such examples are not counter examples because they have no relevance to actual solutions of the Fermat equation, apparently are loathe to think that FLT65 could be valid.

I believe that the simplified FLT65 approach presented above should convince some skeptics, perhaps including you, my friend, of the truth of FLT65, if it is carefully and thoroughly considered.

With Regards,

Ed Close June 16, 2017

QUANTUM CALCULUS MAINSTREAM FALLACY

THE MAINSTREAM FALLACY

AND

THE NEED FOR A REAL QUANTUM CALCULUS

©Edward R. Close, December 22, 2016

A very important fundament fact of nature was uncovered in the year 1900 when German physicist Max Planck discovered that nature metes out energy only in whole numbers of an extremely small amount called a quantum of energy. Within a few years, scientists realized that as a rule, all aspects of physical reality are quantized, and quantum physics was born.

Albert Einstein noted that mass is converted to energy by certain physical processes and energy is converted to mass by other processes. In 1905, Einstein showed that the exact mathematical equivalence of mass and energy is expressed by the equation E = mc². In other words, he discovered that mass and energy are two different forms of the same thing.

In a paper entitled “Does the inertia of a body depend on its energy content?” Einstein concluded:

“It follows directly that: If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c². The fact that the energy withdrawn from the body becomes energy of radiation evidently makes no difference, so that we are led to the more general conclusion that the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content.”

In addition, based on the discoveries of general relativity, Einstein declared that there is no such thing as empty space or eventless time. The space-time continuum has meaning only in relation to mass and energy, which are quantized. In Appendix V of the 15^th Edition of his popular book on Relativity, Einstein says:

“It is characteristic of Newtonian physics that it has to ascribe independent and real existence to space and time as well as to matter, for in Newton’s law of motion the idea of acceleration appears. But in this theory, acceleration can only denote ‘acceleration with respect to space’. Newton’s space must thus be thought of as “at rest’, or at least as “unaccelerated”, in order that one can consider the acceleration, which appears in the law of motion, as being a magnitude with any meaning. Much the same holds with time, which of course likewise enters into the concept of acceleration. Newton himself and his most critical contemporaries felt it to be disturbing that one had to ascribe physical reality to space itself as well as to its state of motion; but there was at that time no other alternative, if one wished to ascribe to mechanics a clear meaning.

Further on in Appendix V, after discussing several historical theoretical concepts of space, Einstein makes the following startling statement concerning “… how far the transition to the general theory of relativity modifies the concept of space”:

There is no such thing as an empty space, i.e. a space without field. Space-time does not claim existence on its own, but only as a structural quality of the field.

The idea that space and time do not exist without the presence of the mass and energy of physical objects is counter-intuitive for us because the everyday picture provided by the neurological processing of pulses of energy entering our consciousness through the functioning of our physical senses seduces us into thinking of space and time, or space-time, as a changeless background within which matter and energy interact to form objects and events. But we now know that this is not true. The illusion of space-time is created by the extension of the substance of physical objects in the form of gravitational and magnetic fields. There is no space-time to be distorted, it is the instruments of measurement (Einstein’s clocks and rods of his thought experiment) that are distorted by motion, not space-time as often depicted by popular presentations by leading mainstream physicists. A simple example will help clarify this point:

A steel ball, rolling across a table in a magnetic field created by the presence of a strong magnet placed under the table, will follow the curvature of the lines of force of the magnetic field. A non-metallic ball, however, unaffected by the magnetic field, will roll straight across the table. With this simple experiment we can see that the idea that the space above the table is warped by the magnet’s field is false. This, of course, is what you would expect if there is no such thing as empty space. In Einstein’s reasoning quoted above, this understanding is extended to space-time.

This shift in our understanding of space and time, made necessary by general relativity, (which, by the way, has been proved correct and accurate by very many, extremely detailed experiments and tests) tells us that there is no space-time independent of mass-and-energy objects and events, which are quantized. This means that the division of space and time, or space-time, into smaller increments than those occupied by a quantum of mass or energy, while theoretically conceivable, has no basis in reality. Thus for any valid mathematical analysis, space-time must be considered as quantized as is mass and energy, and it should not come as a  surprise that ignoring this requirement has resulted in erroneous conclusions about quantum reality and contributed to the perceived “weirdness” of quantum physics.

Newtonian Calculus and Quantum Mathematics

The calculus of Newton and Leibniz, known simply as “the calculus” for more than 300 years, is based on the assumption that the variables measuring objects and events may be divided indefinitely into smaller and smaller “infinitesimal” increments, approaching zero as closely as we please. However, in the real, quantized world of the physical universe, this cannot be done. As pointed out above, Planck’s discovery that energy is quantized, Einstein’s demonstration of the equivalence of mass and energy, and the conclusion that space-time has no independent existence, tells us, in no uncertain terms, that the division of the variables of space-time and mass-energy in the real world cannot approach zero infinitely closely. Therefore, the calculus of Newton and Leibniz, based on the assumption that this can be done, is inappropriate for application to quantum phenomena.

A new calculus, appropriate for application to quantum phenomena, is needed, and the Calculus of Distinctions is that calculus. I am currently working on two rigorously mathematical technical papers for submittal to mathematical physics journals proving this.

REFERENCES:

1. Planck, Max (1899) “Über irreversible Strahlungsvorgänge. Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin. 5: 440–480. pp. 478–80

2. Einstein, Albert (1905) “Does the inertia of a body depend on its energy content?”  Annalen der Physik, 17, 1905. Reprinted in The Principle of Relativity, Dover Pub.

3. Einstein, Albert (1962) “Relativity, the special and general theory, a clear explanation that anyone can understand”, Appendix V, pp. 135, 154 and 155, Crown Publishers, New York