NEW APPROACH PART TEN

 

TEN: SEEING BEYOND THE LIMITATIONS OF LINEAR SPACE AND TIME 

Copyright 2022, Edward R. Close, PhD

“Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood, let alone believed, by the masses.” – Plato

One of the sub-themes of this series of posts is that the advancement of human consciousness occurs by concurrent triadic expansion, i.e., by expanding in three dimensional domains: physical, mental, and spiritual. Neglecting any of the three, leads to serious imbalance and instability. This is because none of the three have much meaning without the other two. Like mass, energy, and consciousness, all three are quantified aspects of the essence of reality, providing conscious experience ranging from the simplicity of physical reality to the subtlety of mental reality, to the infinite complexity of spiritual reality. No model of reality is complete without all three.

At this point in planetary time, because it is the simplest, our understanding of the physical aspect of reality has outstripped mental and spiritual virtue, causing a dangerous imbalance in human societal activity. If a balance of the three is not achieved, civilization will continue to become more and more divided, until the bulk of humanity realizes that we are on the brink of self-destruction. Then, whether it is called TDVP, or something else, a science based on the fundamental recognition of the triadic nature of reality, physical, mental, and spiritual, must emerge.

These posts have also been about recognizing that what most of us call reality is primarily our own involuntary personal conceptual model, burdened with illusions created by our perceptual limitations. If we don’t seek to think for ourselves and expand our consciousness beyond the awareness we were born with, we are simply accepting the average-to-lowest common denominator of the illusions of mainstream mindlessness. Today’s society seems to be designed to interfere with the freedom to seek the truth, rather than to aid in the effort, and formal education, both public and private, and even modern science, has become more of a hinderance than a help.

With the specialization and dumbing down of education over the past century, we now have hundreds of thousands of people who think they are scientists. But the vast majority of them have MS or PhD after their names simply because they parroted back to university professors and department heads what they wanted to hear, while those same professors were too busy getting mostly mediocre papers pushed through the academic bubble of peer-review to teach their students how to think clearly. Sad to say, but, to many of them, any original thought that might actually lead to scientific advancement is labeled as pseudo-science. They are just too busy complying with the groupthink of their narrow field of study, in search of tenure, to think outside the sterile box of simplistic materialism. As a result, there has been no real paradigm shift in human thought since Einstein and Planck, nearly a century ago, - until TDVP.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.”  – Mark Twain

In this post I want to continue to explain the triadic nature of dimensionality. Without a clear understanding of how and why there are three dimensions of space, three dimensions of time, and three dimensions of consciousness, progress in individual consciousness expansion is very difficult. While spontaneous mental and spiritual leaps into hyper-dimensional domains may happen for many of us, an understanding that there is a step-by-step procedure from where you are now, into an expanded state of consciousness, is critical. A basic awareness of the triadic nature of reality is very helpful, if not necessary for progress at this point in planetary time.

Because most of the changes in our individual physical existence are governed by the time cycles of Earth’s rotation on its axis and revolution around the sun, it is difficult to conceive of why and how the apparent flow of time we experience on this planet is not uniform and universal, but it is not. We have Albert Einstein to thank for exposing the cultural shadows and lies related to space and time. But modern science has yet to discover the complex laws governing the connections between the cycles of space, time, and consciousness. With the TDVP model, we are drawing science into a deeper analysis of the triadic nature of reality. In this post, we will have a slightly more detailed look at what applications of the CoDD reveals about the dimensional domains of space and time.

Expanding Our Awareness of Space and Time

With the application of the CoDD TRUE analysis, once again, we find that the phenomenon perceived through the physical senses as light, plays a critically central role in the expansion of our awareness of the nature of reality. The simplest, most basic aspect of light is its constant speed for all observers, regardless of relative motion. While the speed of light is expressed as a ratio of linear units of distance per linear unit of time, in current scientific analysis, CoDD TRUE analysis shows that this linear expression of light speed is inadequate, and that it results in erroneous implications about reality, because light is a three-dimensional phenomenon, not a linear one.

In fact, light is not propagated linearly. It is propagated radially by alternately fluctuating electric and magnetic fields expanding to infinity in every direction of the three-dimensional domain. When expressed in triadic rotational units of equivalence (TRUE), the speed of light is equal to one TRUE unit of space per one TRUE unit of time, For easier calculation in the CoDD, that ratio is set equal to one. At first glance,  this may appear to be identical to the setting of the speed of light equal to one in Planck units, but it is not. In the TDVP model, the speed of light is defined by the expansion of light through one 3-D TRUE volume of space in one 3-D TRUE of time, making the speed of light equal to (one TRUE)/(one TRUE ) = 1. In this way, the speed of light is automatically unity because of the basic principle of quantum equivalence.

The principle of quantum equivalence is the central mathematical axiom of the TDVP. The unitary quantum equivalence of the rest mass and volume of the smallest stable elementary object, the electron, is the most logical natural base unit for analysis of quantum phenomena. Defining the electron mass/energy/volume quantum equivalence unit as the basic unit of measurement for quantum phenomena, allows us to develop a natural primary calculus for mathematical analysis of phenomena at the quantum scale. I call that calculus the CoDD.

Max Planck discovered that energy is quantized and suggested that “there is no matter as such”, while his friend and colleague, Albert Einstein, derived E = mc², defining the mathematical  equivalence of mass and energy, and declared that space and time have no existence of their own. With no physical existence, it seems reasonable to assume that space and time are infinitely divisible, even though energy and the mass equivalence of energy are not. But, if space and time are infinitely divisible, and the speed of light energy moving between two observation and measurement locations is constant, then we have another paradox related to light.

The fact that that this is a paradox may not be immediately obvious, but to see that it is a paradox, we need only remind ourselves that speed is distance traveled divided by the time it takes. For example, if it takes us two hours to drive 100 miles, then we compute our speed as 100 miles divided by 2 hours equals 50 miles per hour. Of course, we didn’t drive at the exact speed of 50 mph all the time during the 2-hour trip, so 50 mph is an average, but light doesn’t speed up or slow down, because light speed is constant. As the linear distance in space between the two points decreases, and the time interval between measurements approaches zero, instantaneous linear velocity (speed) of a moving object determined by Newtonian calculus approaches either some finite linear value divided by zero, or zero divided by zero (0/0), and both are mathematically undefined. What does this mean? Every basic course in algebra includes a demonstration showing that dividing by zero results in erroneous results or mathematical absurdities like 2 = 1.

So, how is this paradox resolved? By looking at the assumptions and determining which one is erroneous. There are only two assumptions in this case: 1) the speed of light is constant, and 2) space and time are infinitely divisible. Constant light speed is the basis of the theory of relativity, and the fact that the speed of light is constant is so well documented that we must accept it as true. So, we are left with the conclusion that the assumption that space and time can be divided into smaller and smaller amounts indefinitely must be wrong. To eliminate the paradox, we simply recognize that TRUE quantum units, whether of energy, mass, space , or time, are three-dimensional. Then, the smallest possible ratio is one 3-D quantum/ one 3-D quantum = 1.

This is just one example of the many ways that ignoring the fact that everything existing in quantized reality is three dimensional, not singular, one-dimensional, or two-dimensional, leads to absurd results. In fact, application of the primary calculus to quantum combinations exposes all of the “weirdness” of quantum mechanics that particle physicists like to talk about, as simply the end result of the inappropriate application of Newtonian calculus to phenomena at the quantum-scale level. Why is the Newton/Leibniz differential and integral calculus inappropriate for application at the quantum level? Simply because it is based on the assumption that space and time are infinitely divisible. Why does it work at the macro-scale? Simply because TRUE quanta are many orders of magnitude (powers of 10 times the basic unit) smaller than the limited precision of our means of direct observation and measurement, so that the facts of quantum-scale phenomena must be ascertained by indirect means and deductive reasoning.

In future posts in this series, I intend to further clarify exactly how the misapplication of Newtonian calculus to quantum phenomena came about and why it leads to paradoxes and errors that can be explained and corrected using the quantum calculus I call the calculus of dimensional distinctions (CoDD). We will also see how the appropriate application of the quantum mathematical principle made the discovery of non-physical quantized reality possible. Of course, I am referring to the discovery of gimmel, the measurable non-physical aspect of reality.

ERC – 2/14/2022

THE NATURE OF TIME

 

TIME HAS NO POWER OVER LOVE

Remnants of Summer, once green, flying now in a brown flock of leaves,

Smelling, in that breath of Autumn air, a hint of Winter’s coming frost,

I am reminded of the long, lonely days that like an awful gang of thieves,

Robbed us of the love we knew and left us crying for what we had lost.

But I hear: “True Love never dies”, echoing like a love song’s sweet refrain,

Though dark clouds may hide the skies, and bitter tears may fill our eyes,

When Spring brings healing sun and rain, all that was comes back again.

Can time dim the love shining in our eyes? No, Love, true Love never dies!

God’s Love fills all time and space, each second, and in every place. Amen!

 

WHAT IS TIME?

It is time to take a deeper, more detailed look at time. Why? Because time is definitely NOT what most of us, including mainstream scientists, think it is; and yet we allow erroneous beliefs about time to rule our lives. This is a bad mistake that produces mostly negative effects and ultimately disastrous end results. I have written about time many times before. My interest in the subject goes all the way back to my earliest memories. The first time I wrote about time was in a series of poems that I wrote when I was about ten years old. However, the first time anything I wrote about time was published was when I was a first-year university student and a member of an English Department sponsored creative writing club called Scribblers and Scrawlers.

I touched on some of the mysteries of time in my first book, The Book of Atma, published in 1977, and I discussed the three-dimensional nature of time in considerable detail in my second book, Infinite Continuity, devoting more than thirty pages to the subject. Unfortunately, that book, published in 1990, is currently out of print. But most of the discussion about the nature of time presented in that Infinite Continuity has been repeated and expanded in more detail in several published papers and books since then. But it is time to think about time again because, thanks to the current world crises, people have a lot of time on their hands, and the results of that have been disastrous.

It is not my intention to repeat mathematical proofs, scientific detail, and experimental data supporting the TDVP view of time in this post. That has been covered fairly well in references found listed at the end of my October 24, 2021 blogpost entitled “Dimensions of Space, Time, and Consciousness”. In today’s post, I want to discuss the importance of trying to know what time actually is, and perhaps even more importantly, what time is not.

Is Time Something?

Late-night talk show host and comedian David Letterman had a routine a few years ago, called “Is this something?”, in which he presented a weird act, object, or concept, asking “Is this something, or is it nothing?” It turns out that time is not a ‘thing’ in the sense that an object like a table or a chair is, but it also is not ‘nothing’. If time is not something, but also not nothing, then what is it? This is not a trivial question because it has significant implications in understanding the nature of reality, if we can find an answer to it.

Could it be one of those Gödel questions that cannot be answered in the logical system within which it is asked, like the three questions discussed in the previous blogpost, “The Answer”, posted November 7, 2021? Yes, that’s exactly what it is. The logical system within which we ask this question is a model based on the common human experiences of reality brought into our consciousness through the physical senses. But you might ask: Isn’t that all we have? No, we have developed tools to expand our knowledge of the nature of reality and its major features of space, time, matter, and energy, beyond the limits of physical perception. Through technological advances like the microscope, electron microscope, telescope, and radio-telescope, and the use of inductive and deductive reasoning, we have learned about relativistic and quantum phenomena, things that exist at the upper and lower ends of the scale of measurable reality. We have only begun to explore things not directly available to us through our physical senses.

Some parts of this post may prove to be challenging for anyone not familiar with the basic concepts and terminology of quantum physics and the Neppe-Close paradigm, the Triadic Dimensional Vortical Paradigm (TDVP). But the ideas presented are included to provide a logical pathway to understanding the nature of time.

 

No less a deep thinker than Albert Einstein said that time, like space - or spacetime, if you like - “has no existence of its own.” He concluded that time and space are simply structural features of the field of reality, and by “the field”, he meant the four-dimensional physical domain shaped by the distribution of the substance of reality. Einstein suggested that time is not a thing in and of itself, and that it may be an artifact of observation, created by the functioning of consciousness. He said: “Time and space are modes by which we think and not conditions in which we live.”

Because time has no substance, scientists have assumed that it is infinitely divisible and that we can measure it using arbitrarily chosen linear units. However, if the units we choose to measure time are not commensurate with the units we use measure mass and energy, then the logical process of developing a conceptual model can lead to absurdities, like mathematical singularities (dimensionless points) in space or time, things that do not actually exist in the physical world. This is why it was necessity to develop a functional quantum calculus, the calculus of dimensional distinctions described in previous publications. In this post, however, I will focus on the question of what time is and is not, not on the mathematical details of the quantum calculus.

Is Time Nothing?

Albert Einstein once wrote that those who believe in physics “know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion”. Some people have interpreted this as saying that time is an illusion, i.e., that time doesn’t actually exist. I agree with Einstein’s statement, but not with the interpretation. Based on personal OBEs and TDVP research, I believe that the way we think of time, as consisting of a single “timeline” connecting past, present, and future, is an illusion, but that does not mean that time does not exist. The common conception of time as a one-way linear flow of events, which, along with 3-D space, provides a universal background, within which all objective things exist and evolve, actually is an illusion. But it is an illusion based on incomplete knowledge. This is quite a different thing from saying that time does not exist.

Science and the Nature of Time

With the help of a brilliant research partner, Dr. Vernon Neppe, MD, PhD of Pacific Neuropsychiatric Institute, and the encouragement of some very special people, like my late wife Jacqui, Dr. David Stewart, PhD, ND, Dr. Gary Schwartz, of AAPS, Dr. Jeffrey Mishlove, of New Thinking Allowed, Erin J. Morgart, Writer, Agent, Model, Grig Oprea, founder of Academia Ars Morendi in Romania, and a few others, I have been able to explain the science and mathematics behind the discovery of gimmel, the quantifiable non-physical component of reality and the three-dimensional nature of time in published books, papers, articles, YouTube videos, and blogposts. What I want to do in this post, is to open the door a little farther to provide a glimpse of the multi-dimensional nature of time.

It is a fair question to ask: If time, like space, is three-dimensional, why hasn’t mainstream science discovered this long before now? The answer reveals a simple, albeit subtle truth: Ingrained beliefs, however wrong they may be, form an almost impenetrable barrier to the expansion of human consciousness to include a broader, more comprehensive view of reality. Weighed down by the unwarranted limiting assumptions of materialism, mainstream scientists and the bulk of humanity cannot surmount the barrier of belief to consider the radical new idea of three-dimensional time. But this does not deter me, because I know that radical new ideas grounded in truth have always been the hallmark of scientific advancement.

As science historian Thomas Kuhn pointed out in his book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, science does not merely progress by the gradual accumulation of data and knowledge, as is generally believed, but in periodic revolutions called paradigm shifts. When these shifts occur, the scientific understanding of reality is abruptly expanded with the introduction of new ideas that appear radical to the scientists working in the existing paradigm. Radical new ideas are always questioned by established scientists, and that is a legitimate part of the scientific method. But those who have a vested interest in the status quo, often resist, attack, and ridicule ideas that are outside the box of their belief system.  

Kuhn argued that science advances in three stages: First, a period of investigation during which a formal model of reality is formed. This is followed by a period of what he called “normal science”, when scientists apply the model of reality to solve real-life problems. Eventually, they find that there are real problems that cannot be solved with their model. This should be expected. (See the discussions of Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem in my previous posts). Finally, new facts about reality are discovered that form the basis of a radical new, more comprehensive paradigm.

When the scientific community realizes that the new paradigm can solve problems and resolve paradoxes that could not be addressed in the old paradigm, a revolutionary shift in the understanding of the nature of reality occurs. More importantly for the advancement of science, when a new scientific paradigm solves a paradox that existed in the old paradigm, it also reveals a new aspect of reality so radical that it could not even be imagined in the old paradigm. This, in my opinion, is the case with the understanding of the nature of time.

Can Actions in the Present Change the Future and the Past?

Of course, things we do today can and do affect the future. We know this to be the case from everyday experience. We see that actions taken in the present do affect the future in predictable ways through the law of cause and effect. Without a logical relationship between cause and effect, no stable reality, life, or science would be possible. With the common assumptions about space and time, however, we cannot imagine that choices we make and actions we take in the present could possibly change the past, but there is evidence suggesting that they can. How is this possible?

 

Space and time are just words, names we give to the dimensional extent of objects and events, past, present, and future. If objects and events of the past can be affected by making changes in the present, then the space and time of the past will naturally conform to those changes, and the past will be changed by present actions. If this can happen, then the question is not just about time, it’s about the physical objects of past events being affected by actions that can be performed now. There actually is evidence that they can be. To explain this, I need to describe two relevant experiments that I have discussed in previous publications, notably in Transcendental Physics, published in 1997.

 

The discoveries of Planck and Einstein early in the last century resulted in revealing serious paradoxes in the mainstream materialistic paradigm that had been extremely successful up until that point in time. Most striking was the Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen (EPR) paradox. The EPR paper presented a thought experiment that if correct, contradicted the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics formalized by German mathematical physicist Werner Heisenberg. Studying the EPR paper, Heisenberg and Danish theoretical physicist Niels Bohr realized that the only way out of the paradox was to challenge the totally reasonable assumption that the elementary particles produced in the proposed experiment were actually localized objects like the word “particle” suggests.

 

Bohr proposed that elementary objects like those in the EPR experiment are not discrete localized particles until they impact a receptor in an irreversible manner. Until then, he suggested, both the location and momentum of the “particles” can only be represented by Heisenberg’s uncertainly principle using non-commutative matrix equations, or wave-like probability distributions represented by the Schrödinger wave equation. Eventually, experimental evidence proved that Bohr was right. When in motion, the elementary particles of physical reality are not tiny, localized particles! This solution to the EPR paradox was called the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, and a later version of it led to an eye-opening experiment that would bring traditional beliefs about space and time into serious question.

 

A simple experiment with light, called the double-slit experiment, producing wave interference patterns, was first performed by an English physician, Dr. Thomas Young, in 1801. In 1804, he published the results of the experiment as proof that light is a wave phenomenon. About one hundred years later, however, it was discovered that light also exhibits particle behavior under some circumstances, and it was discovered that the double-slit experiment could be modified to show that the physical form of light can be caused to manifest as either particle or wave, depending upon specific actions taken by the person performing the experiment.

In the modified form of the experiment, a light source is aimed at an opaque wall with two slits in it and a photographic plate is placed on the other side of the wall to receive the light. If only one slit is opened, the light going through the slit behaves like tiny particles (photons) producing a scattering of dot-like images on the photographic plate. But when both slits are open, the light behaves like undulating waves, producing an interference pattern on the plate.

 

As interesting as that was, it got a lot more interesting when John A. Wheeler, a student of Einstein’s, revisited the double-slit experiment, and reasoned that, given that Bohr’s resolution of the EPR paradox had proved to be correct, the particle or wave nature of the light impacting the photographic plate could be changed at will by opening or closing one of the slits at any time before the light reached the plate - even after it had passed through the slitted wall! This experiment was appropriately called the delayed-choice double-slit experiment. When it was carefully performed, by research teams in Germany and in the US, Wheeler’s reasoning proved to be correct. Somehow, the light seemed to “know” that a slit had been opened or closed, even when the action was delayed until after the light had passed through the slitted wall.

 

Since the delayed-choice double-slit experiment was first performed, it has been refined to the point where one photon at a time can be fired at the slits. The speed of light is known with great accuracy, and the distances between the light source and slits, and between the slits and the photographic plate, can be determined with great precision, so the exact location of a given photon or wave front can be determined very accurately at any time after it leaves the light source, and the exact times that it reaches the slits and the photographic plate can also be determined. But no matter how many times the experiment was run with the opening or closing of the slit performed at various points in time, the result was always the same.

 

Note: It has also been shown that all stable elementary particles behave the sa way, making non-locality a fundamental feature of reality at the quantum level. This fact is important because every atom in the physical universe is made up of elementary particles in motion.

 

Wheeler also developed a thought experiment version of the delayed-choice experiment using light coming from a distant star and reached some startling conclusions about time. Considering light coming from a quasar at the edge of the universe, into an observatory telescope, he realized that a choice made in the present, namely the choice of whether to capture the light in a photon collector, or on a photographic plate, would determine whether the light had curved around the gravitational lens of a massive galaxy existing between the quasar and the Earth, billions of miles away, and millions of years in the past, to be captured in the photon collector, or if it had traveled through the galaxy as a wave, to contribute to an interference pattern on the photographic plate.  

 

In his book At Home in the Universe, John Wheeler presents this delayed-choice experiment as a paradoxical violation of the one-way arrow of time. We think of reality as existing in the past, present, and future, but he says: “The past has no existence except as it is recorded in the present.” And, based on the results of the delayed-choice experiment: “It is wrong to think of the past as ‘already existing’ in detail… What we have a right to say of past space, time, and past events is decided by choices made in the present. The phenomena called into being reach backward in time, even to the earliest days of the universe. Useful as it is under everyday circumstances to say that the world exists ‘out there’ independent of us, that view can no longer be upheld. There is a strange sense in which this is a ‘participatory universe’.”

 

The results of the delayed-choice experiments definitely verify Bohr’s resolution of the EPR paradox, rejecting the assumption that elementary particles are localized objects moving through space like tiny baseballs. And major aspects of the phenomena of the chain of events that we call reality do not exist in detail in the past. They are “called into being by choices” made by conscious observers in the present.

 

This understanding of the nature of reality is basic to Wheeler’s “It from Bit” view of how everything comes into being. In his view, choices and actions of conscious beings in the present and near past determine what we can say about what happened in the past, what reality is now, and what the potential realities of the future may be. In other words, the here and now is real, but both the past and the future are affected under certain circumstances by choices and actions in the here and now, because the elementary particles of which everything is made are non-local until registered in the present.

 

It is important to realize that the reasonable, but unwarranted EPR assumption of continuous particle localism is one that we all buy into as conscious human beings on a daily basis. We assume, based on the time illusion created by the reliability of the man-made mechanisms we call clocks, that time is a real thing that flows uniformly from past to future in the same way, throughout the universe, but that simply is not true. Empirical evidence from experiments verifying the principles of both relativity and quantum mechanics, the two pillars of modern physics, proves that time has no existence of its own and, like space, is not independent of the mass, energy, and consciousness existing in the present.

 

I find it interesting that Albert Einstein and Max Planck, the two brilliant scientists who created the last great paradigm shift, were friends in the days before World War II when they made their respective discoveries that led to general relativity and quantum physics. Besides being serious scientists searching for truth, they both loved music. Planck sang and played piano, and Einstein played violin. They spent many hours together, playing and listening to classical music.

 

Getting back to the subject of the nature of time, I want to be clear that the demotion of time from the status of a uniform tangible feature of reality to a variable structural feature, does not make it any less important in our lives, and it does not imply that we can manipulate time in any frivolous manner we might fancy. All of the quantifiable and measurable aspects of reality, including time, are inter-related in a mathematically invariant structure that is identical with the logical structure of pure mathematics. The exact way time varies throughout the physical universe, from the quantum scale of the electron to the macro-scale of galaxies, can be accurately calculated. Such calculations can be made by applying the primary quantum calculus of TDVP to the processes of quantum mechanics and the principles of relativity expressed in the time-dilation equations of general relativity.

 

The Dimensionality of Reality

The Calculus of Dimensional Distinctions (CoDD) was developed by expanding G. Spencer Brown’s calculus of indications to include consciousness and dimensional geometry as fundamental features of the form. In developing the Laws of Form, Brown took the drawing of a distinction with a closed boundary as the first step in the construction of any model of reality. The calculus of indications, based on two equations describing expansion and contraction of the form, is a mathematically elegant system of binary logic. The laws of form, comprised of theorems proved within this system of logic, begin to mimic the structure of reality when the logical counterpart of “imaginary” numbers is brought into the calculus, a fact that takes most people by surprise, apparently including even Brown himself.

 

Conceptualization of the dimensionality, or more accurately, of the dimensionometry of the TDVP model is key to seeing how the structure of pure mathematics corresponds with the logical structure of reality, including space, time, and consciousness. Dimensionality does not arise explicitly in Brown’s derivations until the logical counterpart of imaginary numbers is introduced in the next to last chapter, Chapter 11 of Laws of Form. In contrast, the calculus of dimensional distinctions was expanded from the beginning to include the distinctions of space, time, and consciousness, each with variables of content, extent, and intent. Because of this, it should not be surprising that the TDVP model reflects the structure of reality in considerably more accuracy and detail than the calculus of indications.

 

Three Dimensions of Time

Albert Einstein was arguably the most brilliant physicist of modern times, with the possible exception of Wolfgang Pauli. But it is not a criticism, nor does it lessen my respect for him in any way, to acknowledge that he was not really a mathematician. In fact, it was not Einstein, but his former math professor at Zurich, Hermann Minkowski, who developed the four-dimensional model for special relativity. Because mathematics was not his main interest, Einstein dismissed the 4-D model at first, as unnecessary mathematical sophistication, and David Hilbert, considered to be the leading mathematician of the time, almost beat him to completing the 4-D model for general relativity.

 

Application of the CoDD to expand the model by dimensional extrapolation to include these additional features of reality revealed the fact that dimensions beyond the first three could not be dimensions of space due to an important mathematical invariance, and that after the three dimensions of space, the next three dimensions are dimensions of time. And we know that G. Spencer Brown realized that the fourth dimension had to be a dimension of time. On page 58 and 59 in Chapter 11 of Laws of Form, speaking of the “imaginary state” he says:

 

“Since we do not wish, if we can avoid it, to leave the form, the state we envisage is not in space but in time. (It being possible to enter a state of time, without leaving the state of space in which one is already lodged.)”

 

Both of these statements by Brown are verified by the application of the CoDD in dimensional extrapolation. The three dimensions of space are measurable in integer quantum equivalence units. The fourth dimension, measurable in integer multiples of i, the square root of -1, completes the 4-D domain, which includes the three dimensions of space. Thus, entering the 4-D domain of space-time does involve leaving the domain of space.

 

The same mathematical invariance, described in detail in several other published papers, requires that, after three dimensions of time, the next three dimensions cannot be dimensions of space or time. They have to be dimensions of consciousness, measurable in units of integral complex numbers, a + bi, and the conscious domains also contain the space and time domains.

 

The derivation of the quantum equivalence units that I call Triadic Rotational Units of Equivalence (TRUE), the basic measurement units of the Calculus of Dimensional Distinctions (CoDD), has been published in several books and papers. (See References.) These quantum equivalence units are defined by the mass and volume of the free electron, the smallest stable elementary “particle”. This definition of the TRUE ties the TDVP model to physical reality and the application of the CoDD using them solves a number of problems that are not addressable in the current mainstream paradigm known as the Standard Model of Particle Physics. Physical parameters like the mass of the proton and neutron, and the Cabibbo quark mixing angle, calculated from TDVP theory correspond exactly, or within measurement error, with experimental data. These results verify the TDVP model and the correspondence of the structure of pure mathematics with the logical structure of reality.

 

Conclusion: Time, like space, is three dimensional, and the reality we experience as human beings consists of the stable union of mass, energy and gimmel in a nine-dimensional domain, three of space, three of time, and at least three of consciousness.

 

ERC – 11/21/2021

THE DISCOVERY OF THE NON-PHYSICAL IN PHYSICAL REALITY

DISCOVERY OF THE NATUTRE OF REALITY BEYOND MATTER AND ENERGY

© Edward R. Close, October 2019

Introduction

This post was prompted by questions raised by Dr. Jeffery Mishlove when he interviewed me for his program "New Thinking Allowed". The interviews are scheduled to be aired on Youtube starting October 11. 

The discovery of the third form of the essence of reality occurred about seven or eight years ago, when I was working out the math and physics of the volumetric quantum-equivalence unit I call the Triadic Rotational Unit of Equivalence (TRUE). I was developing this unit for use as the basic unit of measurement of the quantum calculus that I called the Calculus of Dimensional Distinctions (CoDD). Dr. Vernon Neppe and I decided to use gimmel, the third letter of the Hebrew alphabet, to represent the third form of reality, a form that cannot be measured as mass or energy - but, never-the-less, adds to the total angular momentum of rotating elementary objects, like electrons, quarks and protons – and is necessary for the very existence of any and all stable structures in the physical universe.

We needed a unique symbol to represent this new third component in the equations describing the mathematical structure of reality, and gimmel was appropriate for a number of reasons. The derivation that resulted in the discovery of gimmel has been published in several peer-reviewed papers and three books, as of this moment, but the purpose of this essay is to explain, in plain English that anyone can understand, the reasoning that led up to this important discovery.

The Need for a Quantum Calculus

The calculus used extensively in mainstream science today is the calculus of Newton and Leibniz, developed over 350 years ago. Newtonian calculus is based on two assumptions about reality: 1) the assumption that expressions describing reality can be considered to be continuous functions, and 2) the assumption that variables of measurement are infinitesimally divisible. But we have known for at least 100 years that our reality is quantized; and such functions and variables cannot describe objects that exist in quantized reality. Newtonian calculus is accurate and very useful for solving problems on the scale of limited human perception, e.g. the directly observable and easily measurable every-day scale of human bodies, automobiles, buildings, airplanes and missiles, but it is inappropriate for application at the quantum or cosmological scale. Reality exists in discrete quanta that cannot be divided indefinitely, and thus there is a “bottom” to quantized reality, beyond which no further division is possible. Much of the so-called “quantum weirdness” physicists like to talk about is simply the result of inappropriate applications of Newtonian calculus at the quantum level.

Quantum Calculus and the Quantum Equivalence Unit

Any system of observation and measurement, to be mathematically consistent, must have a well-defined basic unit, and in a quantized reality, it is most efficient to define that basic unit as equivalent to the quantization of the smallest elementary object. In our quantized reality, that happens to be the electron. Using the data from the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), and naturalizing our measurement system by setting the mass and volume of the free electron equal to one, we find that the normalized masses of the up-quark and down-quark, the components of the proton, are, respectively: 4 quantum mass equivalent units and 9 quantum mass equivalent units. We show later, that these values are also consistent with the known formulae for angular momentum.

We already have mass/energy equivalence defined in the equation made famous by Albert  Einstein: E = mc², and physicists have also naturalized light-speed by setting c = 1, so all we have left to do, to have a fully naturalized mass-energy-space-time volumetric quantum equivalence unit to use as the basis of our quantum calculus, is normalize the up- and down-quark masses from LHC data to the inertial rest-mass of the electron and convert all units to volumetric quantum equivalence units. This turns out to be relatively easy to do because of the limitation of all motion relative to the observer to the speed of light. Every step of this derivation is included in published articles, books and is posted on this Transcendental Physics blog.

Derivation of the Diophantine Equations that Describe Quantum Reality

After defining the minimum quantum equivalence unit (the TRUE) of both mass/energy and space/time, elementary particles can be described in terms that consist of whole numbers of these units. This reflects the simple definition of quantization: The measures of quanta can only be divided to the point of the one TRUE, no further divisions are possible. This means that all measurements in a quantized calculus are volumetric, occupying domains of at least three dimensions, and stable forms of matter and energy can only exist in multiples of these units. This means that when elementary particles are combined, the combination will also consist of a whole number (integer) multiple of TRUE. Equations describing combinations of elementary particles will then be Diophantine equations. i.e., equations involving variables that may only take on integer values. For example, if A and B represent elementary particles, whose measures are multiples of TRUE, then A + B = C represents the combination of those elementary particles to form a new object, C, which must also contain a whole number of TRUE.

When we add the physical fact that A and B are stable, rapidly-spinning objects, as in the case of up-quarks and down-quarks combining to form protons, we see that as spinning objects, A and B are three-dimensional. So the volume of each spinning object is a function of its radius of rotation. Rotating objects occupy spherical volumes, so we have A = 4/3π(r₁)³ and B = 4/3π(r₂)³ where r₁ and r₂ are the radii of rotation of A and B. The angular momentum of A and B are conserved in their combined form, and if C is to be a stable spinning object, then C = 4/3π(r₃)³, where r₃ is the radius of rotation of C. But the shape factor cancels out, so the equation becomes (r₁)³+(r₂)³=(r₃)³, where, due to relativistic effects, r_i and r₂ are integer multiples of TRUE. The form of this equation is x³ + y³ = z³ , which is the equation of Fermat’s Last Theorem when n = 3. But Fermat’s Last Theorem tells us that there are no integer solutions for this equation. In other words, if r₁ and r₂ are integers, r₃ cannot be an integer, and C cannot occupy a volume equal to a symmetrical rotating object made up of an integral number of TRUE.

The equation (x₁)³ + (x₂)³ = z³ is just one of a family of equations generated by the expression

 which I call the Conveyance Expression.

The next simplest equation generated by this expression is (x₁)³ + (x₂)³ + (x₃)³ = z³, which does have integer solutions. This tells us that while no two TRUE elementary particles can combine to form a third stable symmetrically spinning object, three such elementary particles can combine to form a fourth stable spinning object. This explains why quarks combine in triads to form protons, the most stable compound form in the universe, not twos or fours.

The Necessity of the Existence of Gimmel, the Non-Physical Form of Reality

By determining the integer values of x₁, x₂, x₃, and z that satisfy the conveyance equation for our 3-D physical observations and measurements, we find that no stable forms are possible without the existence of a third form of the essence of reality that can be neither mass nor energy. Like the mysterious stuff of dark matter and dark energy, it exists and adds to the total angular momentum of the quarks that make up the stable structures of reality we call the physical universe; but since it cannot be measured as either mass or energy, it is non-physical by definition.

In the process of discovering how this works, we also discover why mass and energy are physically equivalent and convertible from one to the other, and how the appearance of solid matter, measured as inertial mass, i.e., the resistance to motion in any direction, is caused by the angular momentum of elementary objects rapidly spinning in three planes. This explanation of how mass arises also applies to combinations of elementary particles. Mass defined as the resistance to motion as an effect of spin in three orthogonal planes, leads to the mathematical determination of the mass of the proton, which exactly equals the mass determined empirically in experiment, and the explanation of why the mass of the proton is so much greater than the combination of the masses of the elementary particles that combine to form them. This approach, which can be termed TRUE analysis, also explains other known phenomena that are not satisfactorily explained by the Standard Model of mainstream particle physics, like the nature of dark matter and dark energy, the value of the Cabibbo quark-mixing angle, the and the mass of the neutron in combination with protons in stable atoms.

What is Gimmel?

We have shown that gimmel is a necessary part of reality without which no physical universe would exist. But if gimmel is not matter or energy, what is it? Here, I have to fall back on a statement by Niels Bohr, the famous Danish physicist, who said, when writing about science in Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge:

“In our description of nature the purpose is not to disclose the real essence of the phenomena but only to track down, as far as possible, relations between the manifold aspects of our experience.”

I take from this that Bohr is saying that in science, we can only describe that which we experience. But the only thing we experience directly is consciousness. Everything else is only known to us by inference. We experience objects that we take to be outside our conscious selves very indirectly through the chains of energy transference that we call perception. So our experience is comprised of awareness of self as consciousness and the awareness of other as objects comprised of matter, energy, time. and space. According to quantum field theory, time and space are artifacts of the interaction of consciousness with matter and energy; they have no existence of their own. So, if gimmel is neither matter nor energy (because if it were measurable as mass or energy, its presence would change the mass and/or energy of the combining quarks, and they would register as something else when observed or measured in LHC experiments), the only thing remaining is consciousness. This is consistent with the fact that gimmel organizes the stuff of the physical universe (mass and energy) in such a way that structures of mass and energy can form vehicles through which conscious reality can see and experience itself. It should not surprise us that consciousness exists as the organizer of matter and energy in every particle of physical reality.

Bohr also said, when talking about quantum reality:

“Everything we call real is made up of things that cannot be regarded as real.”

This explains why mainstream scientists think quantum reality is weird, and illustrates the fallacy of the assumption that everything must fit into the box of physicalism. If we restrict reality to matter and energy interacting in time and space, our experience of it will ultimately make no sense. In accordance with Gӧdel’s incompleteness theorems, reality will always expand beyond any finite box within which we attempt to confine it.

ERC 10/04/2019

A SIMPLE ONLINE COURSE IN THE BASICS OF TDVP

A SIMPLE COURSE INTEGRATING THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH

One of the founders and first President of the Academy for the Advancement of Postmaterialist Science (AAPS), Dr. Gary Schwartz, has suggested that I prepare an online course designed to help people understand Transcendental physics and the Triadic Dimensional Distinction Vortical Paradigm (TDVP), the shift to a consciousness-based science. The previous post, “TDVP MATHMATICS AND THE STRUCTURE OF REALITY”, together with this post, articulate the basis for such a course.

In the previous post, I discussed the difference between the Aristotelean and the Platonic approach. The Aristotelean approach (Aa) emphasizes the use of mathematics as a tool to solve problems, while the Platonic approach (Pa) looks deeper and sees mathematics as a reflection of the logical structure of reality. The Aa is primarily descriptive, while the Pa is primarily explanatory. So, contrary to the belief of scientists like professor Rowan-Robinson, quoted in the previous post, neither is wrong, both are needed, and they must be integrated in the search for truth.

Publishers tell authors writing for the general public to avoid equations. They say something like: “With every equation, you lose a thousand readers.” Most mathematicians, however, think in equations, and most physicists use equations to describe physical processes. Equations are the sentences of the language of mathematics and science; and every branch of science and engineering has developed its own language. To understand Transcendental Physics and TDVP, you must set aside such specialized languages and learn a new language, a language integrating physics and geometry, engineering and theory; thinking and doing. That language is a primary calculus that I call the Calculus of Distinctions (CoD). It includes procedures like Dimensional Extrapolation {moving from an n-dimensional domain to an (n+1)-dimensional domain}, quantum equivalence units, called Triadic Rotational Units of Equivalence (TRUE) and Diophantine equations that I call Conveyance Equations, because they convey the logic of consciousness into physical structure. Are these intimidating terms for you? They won’t be if I’m able to develop a course comprised of clear, simple steps from the basics to the integrated language of TDVP.

Understanding the CoD is the first crucial step toward  understanding TDVP. Inspired by George Spencer Brown’s “Laws of Form”, I developed the calculus of distinctions in 1986, and published the basics in my second book, “Infinite Continuity” in 1990, and expanded on it in “Transcendental Physics” in 2000. Even now, more than 30 years after the first inspiration, only a few people, probably less than half a dozen, understand the importance of the calculus of distinctions, a system that integrates mathematics, science and consciousness.

I’m called a mathematician, physicist, logician and cosmologist because I’ve gone through the training and hazing of formal education: from high school math and science to college and university courses in applied and theoretical science and engineering, attaining degrees, and going on to post-graduate research. But in this integrated course, I must rise beyond, and go deeper than those specialized labels. I am no longer a physicist or an engineer, no longer an Aristotelean or Platonic thinker, a scientist or a lay-person, neither a materialist nor a spiritualist, I am an integrated human being. And the task I am setting for myself is nothing less than to explain in simple terms, the integration of the human search for truth, i.e., the integration of mathematics, science, philosophy, and spirituality.

THE BASICS

·      Physical reality is quantized. This simply means that the basic measures of physical reality, i.e., mass and energy, only occur in multiples of one very small unit, and that is the smallest quantum unit.

·      An exact equivalence exists between mass and energy. That means that mass and energy are simply two different forms of the same thing. This is expressed mathematically by the simple equation E = mc², where c, the speed of light, is defined as the distance travelled in a given unit of time, like miles per hour, or meters per second.

·      In observing, describing and measuring physical reality, there are two types of variables: variables of extent: width, length and depth, and variables of content: mass and energy. All other measurables are combinations of these.

·      To describe quantum reality in its simplest form, all units of measurement of the variable of observation and measurement must be normalized directly to the quantum equivalence unit of mass and energy. This is done very simply by naturalizing the speed of light to unity; i.e., by defining the speed of light as one, so that c = one unit of distance divided by one unit of time. In other words, c = 1/1 = 1. In this system of units, with c = 1, from which c² = 1, the equation E = mc² becomes E = m, signifying a one-to-one relationship between mass and energy.

·      Along with the two types of physical variables of content and extent, there is a third type of variables, the variables of consciousness. They are the variables of intent, resulting in impetus and impact on physical reality, leading to meaningful structure and purpose.

·      There are no “separate realities”. Quantum reality and macro-reality are one and the same, and that reality includes both physical objects and conscious beings. Therefore, a comprehensive science must include both consciousness and physical objects, and the way in which they relate to each other.

·      Consciousness, i.e., conscious reality, is a reality that is as important as, if not more important than physical reality. Without it, there is no you or me.

·      The reality we experience, in all of its complexity, begins with the simple drawing of a distinction. This is why we (Neppe and Close) called our first book together “Reality Begins with Consciousness”. All the various forms of reality arise from the drawing of distinctions.

·      The first and most important distinction is the distinction of self from other.

·      Secondary distinctions are formed in the “other”. They are formed, or are recognized as pre-existing by conscious entities.

·      All of natural atomic structure (called hadronic matter by contemporary science) is made up of electrons, protons and neutrons. But protons and neutrons are made up of up-quarks and down quarks. So the three basic building blocks of stable atomic structure, capable of forming molecules, hadronic matter and sustaining life, are electrons, up-quarks and down-quarks.

·      The basic quantum equivalence unit is derived from the physical characteristics of the electron, the elementary entity with the smallest mass among the three basic building blocks.

·      All of the basic units of measurement of mass, energy, space, and time can be naturalized to the quantum equivalence unit, which, because of the spinning of elementary particles, and the inclusion of consciousness, is called the Triadic Rotational Unit of Equivalence (TRUE), the true quantum equivalence unit. See derivations in Parts 8 - 13 of the IQNexus article referenced in the previous post. (Putting Consciousness into the Equations of Science: The Third Form of Reality (Gimmel) and “TRUE” Units (Triadic Rotational Units of Equivalence) of Quantum Measurement, the IQNexus Journal, 2015 Vol. 7, No. 4.

·      This basic quantum equivalence unit (TRUE) is the basic distinction of the calculus of dimensional distinctions (CoDD), a subset of the primary logic of the CoD.

·      All measurements are integer multiples of this unit, and all equations describing the combination of elementary entities including electrons, quarks, protons and neutrons will be Diophantine equations, i.e., equations with integer (whole numbers: 1, 2, 3, …) solutions. This allows us to use mathematical theorems (independently proved relationships) like the Pythagorean Theorem and Fermat’s Last Theorem, to answer questions like why quarks combine in threes and why fermions have one-half integral spin.

An understanding of these basic concepts should enable anyone to follow the logical development of TDVP, including putting consciousness into the equations of science, and the solutions and explanations of many problems that cannot be adequately addressed in the paradigm of current mainstream science.