A MAGICAL MEMORY TRIP

A MAGICAL MEMORY TRIP

Today, I want to invite you to go with me on a magical trip via a ‘memory experiment’ inspired by Einstein’s famous gedankenexperiments (thought experiments). Only, if I succeed, it will be a gedankenexperiment on steroids! To prepare for our magical memory trip, I want you to think back to your childhood and imaginative stories you’ve heard, like: Tom Thumb, Alice in Wonderland, and The Incredible Shrinking Man.

Tom Thumb is a character of English folklore. The History of Tom Thumb was published in 1621, and was the first fairy tale printed in English. Tom is the size of his father's thumb, and his adventures include being swallowed by a cow, tangling with giants, and becoming a favorite of King Arthur. It is believed to have been written by a Londoner named Richard Johnson in 1621. This story may have been inspired by a real diminutive person. Tattershall, a village in Lincolnshire, England, claims to be the location of the home and grave of Tom Thumb.

Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland was written by English mathematician Charles Dodgson in 1865 under the pseudonym Lewis Carroll. We all remember how a little girl named Alice falls into a rabbit hole, and enters a world inhabited by many strange creatures like the Mad Hatter (a rabbit), the Cheshire cat, and the Queen of Hearts. The story allows the mathematician Dodgson to present interesting logical conundrums that make the story as popular with adults as with children.

The 1957 movie, The Incredible Shrinking Man starts out on a warm summer day with Scott Carey casually sunbathing on his yacht. A radioactive cloud envelops Scott, and a bit later, he begins to notice alarming changes. Within a few days, he loses weight, his clothes won't fit, and he slowly grows smaller and smaller. Doctors are at a loss to stop his shrinking. As he shrinks to the size of Tom Thumb, Scott gets unwanted media attention, and he has to deal with life-threatening situations like the family cat eyeing him as a snack, and a spider that, as he shrinks, appears to him to be the size of a bear. But he survives and continues to shrink away into seeming nothingness. His last words are worth reading. Here they are:

"I looked up, as if somehow I would grasp the heavens...the universe...worlds beyond number...God's silver tapestry spread across the night. And in that moment, I knew the answer to the riddle of the infinite. I had thought in terms of Man's own limited dimensions. I had presumed upon Nature. That existence begins and ends is Man's conception, not Nature's. And I felt my body dwindling, melting, and becoming nothing. My fears melted away, and in their place came...acceptance. All this vast majesty of creation - it had to mean something. And then I meant something too. Yes, smaller than the smallest, I meant something too. To God, there is no zero. I STILL EXIST!"

“To God, there is no zero.” In fact, Max Planck’s discovery that we live in a quantized universe, attests to the actual truth of this statement. In reality, there is no zero, only finite quanta, no absolute beginning or end, and there is no such thing as nothing. We have proved this mathematically and dimensionally with the Calculus of Distinctions. See the post of Feb. 6, 2016: http://www.erclosetphysics.com/search?q=TRUE+units+mathematics.

Are these stories pure fantasy, as most people believe, or do they reflect a deeper reality, vaguely remembered?  Before we start on our trip, let me share with you some very real experiences of mine. I have vivid memories from the age of eight or nine months. I thought everyone did, so I had no idea that there was anything unusual about it until much later in life. I have shared some of these early memories and how they were verified as real memories with a few others, but for now, let me skip ahead to the time when I was eight years of age.

One afternoon, as a sixth-grader sitting at my desk in my classroom, while I was looking at the teacher, suddenly, her face began to expand in my field of vision, and it continued to expand until it seemed to fill all space. I could see the pores of her skin as if I were looking at her through a magnifying glass. Then, just as suddenly, her face receded away into the distance, exactly as if I were looking through the wrong end of a telescope, until her head looked almost as small as a grain of sand.

Also, about the same time, occasionally, I would unexpectedly experience greatly heightened tactile and auditory senses. Lying in my bed waiting to go to sleep, my senses would become so acute that I would avoid moving because the rustling of the sheets sounded like a crashing landslide. Lying still, I could hear my father’s watch ticking in another part of the house, and by focusing, I could hear the music of a marching band. This was before the invention of television, but I had built a crystal radio set when I was seven, so I was familiar with the idea of ‘tuning in’ to different frequencies, and I learned to focus on other sounds in the ‘ether’; so I would often go to sleep listening to strains of classical music, which I believed was being played somewhere.

I told my father about these experiences, and he advised me not to worry. He said it was a by-product of rapid growth, and that he had had similar experiences as a boy. So I accepted the experiences as normal and actually learned to enjoy them.

Much later in life, I studied comparative religion and many mystical traditions. I found that in Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, and Taoist mystical teachings, some of the spiritual experiences marking the progress of a spiritual seeker is the ability to make things appear larger or smaller than they normally appear through the physical senses. Buddhism, for example, specifically lists this as one of the nine main siddhis (powers or accomplishments) on the path to enlightenment:

MADALASA VIDYA (Sanskrit: correct knowledge)

A being reaching this level of enlightenment becomes capable of increasing or decreasing the size of his/her body.

Anima Siddhi - The ability to decrease the size of one's body and become as small as the smallest particle.

Mahima Siddhi - The ability to increase the size of one's body, ultimately enveloping the universe.

I must add that the experiences I described above were spontaneous, and mostly beyond my control. But, is it possible that such experiences reflect a deeper reality? Or are they no more than fantasies? Before you dismiss them out of hand, suppose there is a way to test and verify such experiences. I believe there is, because I have verified things I learned in an expanded state of consciousness, things of which I had no previous knowledge. But that’s another story.

For now, let’s go on a gedanken trip together, first shrinking our perceptions to the size of the quantum world. You can think of it as imagination if you like, but what I propose is imagination guided by logic and scientific knowledge. If, by doing this, we can arrive at conclusions and understandings, and even obtain exact measurable and computable values that can be checked against known facts and scientific data, we will have proved that experiences like mine and perhaps those in the imaginative stories above are not pure fantasy, but actually reflect a reality beyond the world normally revealed by our physical senses, most of the time beyond our reach, but somehow vaguely remembered.

So come with me now, to the world of Tom Thumb, Alice, Scott Carey, and beyond: First, let’s shrink our immediate awareness from the perceptions of our earthly environment to organic and inorganic structures, to molecules, to atoms, to protons and neutrons, and finally to electrons and quarks, on the scale of the quantum world, to see things about a trillion times smaller than the smallest dot we can observe with our eyes. What will we find there? Then let’s zoom back up and pass the scale of our ordinary everyday experience, gradually encompassing the Earth, the Solar System, the Milky Way Galaxy, and on, to the very edges of the visible universe! We will be able to see how the world of our everyday experience is only the tip of the iceberg of reality, and how it is supported and sustained by a deeper quantum reality, suspended in a cosmological infinity that is unfathomable as long as we are limited to our finite physical bodies.

I’m not suggesting that your physical body will shrink like the fictional Scott Carey. But I am asking you to consider the possibility that consciousness is not limited to the physical body. My experiences involved the shrinking and expanding of my consciousness, not my physical body. The teacher and my classmates would have noticed that! But my point of view changed drastically. Suppose the energy of consciousness is imprisoned in physical forms by our choice, and we become so engrossed and identified with our physical bodies that we forget our true nature. What if our true nature is spiritual, and the physical senses are outward manifestations of a deeper ability to be consciously aware. Suppose we can shift our point of view, focusing inward and downward until the smallest quantum of physical reality appears to be a spinning ball of energy about the size of a softball. I see that ball of energy as a distinct ball of fire, rapidly spinning directly in front of me. Having distinguished it from myself and everything else, I am able to see how it combines with other balls of energy to form the atoms of physical reality. I am not the only one to ever think this way. An Oxford philosophy don and electronics engineer thought very deeply about how the logic of perceptions. He wrote:

 “A universe comes into being when a space is severed or taken apart.”- G. Spencer Brown, Laws of Form, A Note on the Mathematical Approach, page v. The Julian Press, 1977.

George Spencer Brown suggests that when we separate anything from everything else by drawing a distinction, we create a world of perception. A distinction is anything that is perceived, in any way, as distinct and separate from everything else. The first distinction of which we are consciously aware is the distinction of self from other. Without that, no perception is possible. But with that, we then find, in a universe where all things seem possible, there are actually logical laws governing what forms are possible. This is demonstrated in Brown’s Laws of Form: Reality has a natural logical structure that is inescapable. To see how this comes about, let’s look, from our shrunken state, at the very smallest physical distinction, the elementary particle called the electron. Why does it appear to be a spinning ball of fire? Symmetry is natural for an isolated object, because without the influence of other distinct objects there is nothing to prevent perfect symmetry. In the absence of anything else physical, the electron spins symmetrically.

It appears to be roiling, as if it is spinning in many different directions at the same time! As I watch it spin, I wonder: why is it spinning? We don’t seem to see anything like that in our everyday world. Oh, wait! The Earth is spinning on its axis, the moon is spinning around the Earth, and they go on spinning around the sun, and the solar system is in an arm of a spiraling galaxy. Everything is spinning! But why? And why is this super-small object spinning so fast? As a physicist, I can propose hypotheses that may answer this question, but theory must be tempered with experience and empirical data.

A little history of particle physics will help us to understand this: Physicists have known for a long time that a moving charged particle generates a magnetic field. Electric motors and generators work because of this fact. In 1922, two German physicists, Otto Stern and Walther Gerlach, working at the University of Hamburg, conducted a series of experiments designed to measure the magnetic fields produced by electrons orbiting the nucleus of an atom. They were surprised to find that the electrons themselves were spinning very rapidly, producing magnetic fields independent of those produced by their orbital motions. They also found that the surfaces of charged particles would have to be spinning faster than the speed of light in order to produce the magnetic moments they were measuring. This, plus the fact that spin, a measure of energy (angular momentum), like everything else at the quantum scale, is quantized, led physicists to believe that there was no way to explain quantum phenomena in everyday terms that relate to rotation of large objects. This is one reason that physicists, for almost 100 years, have been declaring that quantum physics is weird.

We find that the relativistic limit on spin in three dimensions actually defines the size of the smallest possible quantum, linking relativity and quantum mechanics. These spinning elementary particles are vortices connecting the three dimensions of space to six additional dimensions.

Physicists recognize that spin is a very real physical property, playing an important role in the structure of atoms and molecules, with significance in chemistry and solid-state physics. Spin is important in all interactions among subatomic particles, in the high-energy particle beams of the LHC, in low-temperature fluids, and in solar winds. Most physical processes, from the quantum scale to the galactic scale, depend on the interactions of subatomic particles regulated by the relative directions and rates of spin of those particles.

According to Victor J. Stenger, professor of physics at the University of Hawaii:

"Spin is the total angular momentum, or intrinsic angular momentum, of a body. The spins of elementary particles are analogous to the spins of macroscopic bodies. In fact, the spin of a planet is the sum of the spins and the orbital angular momenta of all its elementary particles. So are the spins of other composite objects such as atoms, atomic nuclei and protons (which are made of quarks).

"At our current level of understanding, the elementary particles are quarks, leptons (such as the electron) and bosons (such as the photon). These particles are all imagined as point-like, so you might wonder how they can have spins. A simple answer might be, perhaps they are composite, too. But deep theoretical reasons having to do with the rotational symmetry of nature lead to the existence of spins for elementary objects and to their quantization.

"Spin has served as the prototype for other, even more abstract notions that seem to have the mathematical properties of angular momentum … quarks are paired as isospin 'up' and 'down,' which are the names given to the two quarks that make up ordinary matter. The rotational symmetry of space and time is generalized to include symmetries in more abstract 'inner' dimensions, with the result that much of the complex structure of the micro-world can be seen as resulting from symmetry breaking, connecting profoundly to ideas describing the spontaneous formation of structure in the macro-world.”

From the viewpoint of the quantum scale, what we will see supports Professor Stenger’s description of spin; with a few important exceptions. As he suggests, from the quantum point of view, elementary particles like quarks do have additional features, they are not dimensionless points; they are composed of units of mass, energy, and as we have discovered, something else, which is not directly measurable as mass or energy, but does affect the total angular momentum of spinning objects, from electrons to galaxies. We have called this something else 'gimmel'. 

Elementary particles like electrons and quarks can only be treated as point-like in the current paradigm because of their extreme smallness relative to our ability to measure them from the macro-scale, and because the idea of a dimensionless particle is supported by the erroneous assumption of Newtonian calculus that physical variables can approach zero indefinitely closely.

The terms ‘symmetry breaking and spontaneous formation of structure’ have become ingrained in the jargon of physicists, but they are actually just verbal representations of what mainstream particle physicists see as arbitrary randomness in the formation of sub-atomic structure and other physical processes. Finally, we see that Professor Stenger’s allusion to “inner dimensions” is inaccurate. There are additional dimensions, but they are not “inner’ dimensions. Let me explain:

When we are successful in shifting our point of view, as happened in my spontaneous expansions of consciousness when I was a sixth grader, we are freed of the limitations of the physical body. What we see from that broader point of view, is that the additional dimensions required to explain quantum reality are not folded or curled up, as some physicists have imagined, and they are not the inner dimensions (actually pseudo dimensions) of matrices describing differential equations, they are extensions of the invariant relationships of the three dimensions we are aware of through the limited senses of the physical body. Just like one and two-dimensional domains are embedded within the three–dimensional domain, the three-dimensional domain is embedded in a fourth dimension (the first dimension of time) and so on. Pure mathematical number theory supports exactly nine finite dimensions embedded in an infinite substrate. The infinite substrate, encompassing all possible universes, connects the receding quantum realm with the expanding multiverses available to the three dimensions of consciousness in the three dimensions of time.

This is difficult to envision while confined to the physical body and its limited senses, but it provides the basis for explanations of a number of conundrums that have plagued physical science since the time of Einstein and Bohr. Application of dimensional mathematics from this point of view explains how and why quarks combine in threes to form the protons and neutrons of ordinary physical reality, why fermions have ½ intrinsic spin, and why there is a stable, life supporting universe, - why there is something rather than nothing. Also, the mathematics of nine finite dimensions shows that there is no arbitrary randomness in the formation of atomic structure. The universe is well-ordered, and it is accurately described by the Calculus of Distinctions, Dimensional Extrapolation and the Conveyance Equation. The mathematical proofs we’ve developed are beyond the scope of this discussion, but you can go to the post referenced earlier, 

http://www.erclosetphysics.com/search?q=TRUE+units+mathematics. You can also go to http://iqnexus.org/mag.htm, a link to the IQNexus Journal, where you’ll find Vol. 8, No. 3, published September 01, 2016, that has the mathematical details, and Vol. 8, No. 4, published December 01, 2016 with Q&A discussions of TDVP.

FROM QUARKS TO STARS

FROM QUARKS TO STARS

© Edward R. Close, November 25, 2016

In the over 355 articles, discussions and videos posted on this site over the past five years, I have attempted to introduce the reader to the Triadic Dimensional Vortical Paradigm, an admittedly complex model of reality. It is my contention, however, that the TDVP model is simpler and ultimately easier to understand than the current mainstream scientific paradigm. Not only that, TDVP includes consciousness in the equations. This is what makes it a true paradigm shift. Finally, while including the things that have proved to be good and correct about the current paradigm, the TDVP model explains many things that the current paradigm cannot, and reveals new scientific discoveries, strongly validating this approach.

Important things to remember while reading my Transcendental Physics blog posts:

(1) In a quantized world (which our universe is), when everything is measured in truly quantized units, there are no fractions. This is a great simplifier of the math. Imagine a mathematical system with no decimal fractions. Complex numbers of the form A + Bi do arise, but only in regard to extra dimensions, and the A and B components are always integers. The square root of minus one is not really imaginary, and it is not a fraction or an irrational number in a quantized system, it is simply another root of unity beyond +1 and -1, providing measurement in a new dimension beyond the first three.

(2) The truly quantized unit, the Triadic Rotational Unit of Equivalence (TRUE), is defined by the mass and volume of the free electron. This simplifies the math even further, because in a quantized reality, the most basic quantum unit is three-dimensional. This eliminates the infinitesimals of the calculus of Newton and Leibniz. Variables cannot approach zero infinitely closely because the mass, energy and volume of the TRUE unit is the bottom of descent. Most of the problems easily solved using Newtonian calculus are one- or two- dimensional. Three-dimensional problems quickly become very difficult. When the calculus of the current paradigm is replaced with a calculus using three-dimensional distinctions as units of measurement, calculation starts with three dimensions. This greatly simplifies three-dimensional problems.

(3) All things experienced by conscious beings are perceived by drawing distinctions and looking for patterns in those distinctions. When the fact that consciousness is involved in every measurement and/or observation, it should be obvious that consciousness must be included in the equations describing reality.

(4) The Calculus of Distinctions (CoD) is the most basic system of mathematical logic dealing with distinctions. The CoD is easily refined to deal with distinctions of three or more dimensions. This refinement is called the Calculus of Dimensional Distinctions (CoDD). 

(5) In the CoDD, three-dimensional distinctions are related to the real world by being defined in terms of elementary particles. This provides us with a system of mathematical logic that truly reflects the basic elements of the real quantized world of the physical universe.

(6) Quarks, protons, neutrons, Atoms, molecules, and everything made of them are whole-number multiples of elementary distinctions. This means that all distinctions, from quarks to stars, are whole-number multiples of the quantum units (Triadic Rotational Units of Equivalence).

The simple math of the TDVP thus reflects the true nature of the quantized universe, from quarks to stars.

FROM A SIMPLE BEGINNING...

© Edward R. Close, November 24, 2016

A Brief Sharing

Like all real partners in life, Jacqui and I often take a few moments to share our thoughts. This morning I was sharing an idea about expanding the sphere of awareness. I remarked how wonderful it is that the basic ideas of the Calculus of Distinctions are so simple, and went through a brief explanation of how the simple concept of how distinction involves consciousness. When I paused, Jacqui made an important observation that I want to share with you. She said:

“That’s what you should start with.” 

  

“I have.” I said. “I’ve published the simple basis of the CoD in papers and books.”

“No, I mean you should start every presentation with that simple explanation you just gave me. You should start every post on the TPhysics blog that way. You always get into the details of things you’re excited about, things you’ve discovered and explained, but no one can follow you if they’re not familiar with the calculus of distinctions. Without the calculus, they don’t see how you got to the point you’re talking about.”

“But most people don’t want to learn something new and complicated, especially if it sounds like ‘math’. You know everyone says that for every mention of the word mathematics, you lose 10 readers, and for every equation, you lose 100 readers.”

“Yes, but anyone can understand that simple description of the original idea of the calculus that you just explained to me.”

She was right! I had just been making the very point that it is wonderful how very simple the basic concepts of the CoD are.

So, without further ado, let’s start:

What is a Distinction?

A distinction is anything that can be set apart in any way from its surroundings. A circle drawn on a sheet of paper, for example, is a distinction. It distinguishes everything within the circle from everything outside the circle. The ability to draw a distinction between ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ is common to most if not all animals, including humans, mammals, reptiles, insects, and even simpler forms of life. A fox, for example, certainly knows the difference between being inside his den and outside in the open. The most basic feature of conscious awareness is the distinction of ‘in here’, as opposed to ‘out there’, leading, most importantly, to the distinction of ‘self’ from ‘other’; and awareness of this basic distinction leads to all sorts of experiences: experiences of pain and pleasure, the survival instinct, and other complex behavior patterns.

What is the Calculus of Distinctions?

The CoD is the formal system of logic defining the operations that allow for all possible mathematical calculations using elementary distinctions as defined above as the basic units of measurement of extent and content that describe reality. The definition of distinction necessarily involves consciousness.

Consciousness is real because I know I am conscious, and if you are reading this, you know that you are conscious. In fact, no experience of reality is possible without consciousness. But for the past few hundred years, mainstream scientists have carefully kept consciousness outside of objective reality, observing it without being a part of it. Relativity and quantum physics have both shown us that this is a mistake. Relativity reveals that mass, energy, space and time, i.e. all of the known primary measures of reality, are affected by the position and motion of the observer; and quantum physics experimental results show us that the observer is also a part of what is being observed, directly affecting the outcome of quantum mechanical experiments. The Calculus of Distinctions keeps consciousness in mathematics.

Anthropologists used to refer to human beings as “tool-making animals’, but this description has not been used much since non- homo-sapiens species have also been observed fashioning simple tools for certain specific purposes. We make tools to use to shape reality to our advantage, and some scientists, especially engineering scientists and technicians, think of mathematics as a tool invented by human beings to measure and describe reality. But pure math is not just a tool. In the post entitled “THE ILLUSION OF MATTER AND GRAVITY”, posted November 12, 2016, I made the argument that mathematics is not just a tool invented by human beings for solving quantifiable problems, pure mathematical thought is a true reflection of reality at its deepest level. The Calculus of Distinctions is a logical system conceptually prior to all other mathematical tools. Consciousness, as part of reality is an integral part of the CoD.

How does the CoD keep consciousness in the equations describing the nature of reality? By making sure it is included in the Calculus of Dimensional Distinctions (CoDD), a refinement of the CoD developed for application to quantum physics. Why has this not been done in conventional science? You only have to go back in history a little to understand why science has only recently even begun to consider the possibility of a ‘science of consciousness.’

Historical Perspective

After the Catholic Church had persecuted early scientists as heretics, e.g. burning Giordano Bruno at the stake in 1600, and trying Galileo for heresy and imprisoning him from 1633 until his death in 1642, the Church was embarrassed as scientific evidence proved that Bruno and Galileo were right. Eventually this led to a tacit agreement that the study of ‘nature’ was the jurisdiction of science and mathematics, and matters of spirit, including consciousness and the soul were to be left to the Church. After that, most scientists carefully avoided any hypothesis relating consciousness directly to the physical universe, even ignoring any evidence suggesting it. That taboo continues to this day. It is institutionalized in our colleges and universities.

Professional scientists have become the new priesthood. In their minds, they are the only legitimate guardians of truth. Anyone wanting to study subjects considered taboo or questionable by the scientific establishment, like the effects of prayer and meditation, or hypotheses concerning possible origins of humanity and the physical universe other than the theory of physical evolution from nothing to what we have now, and even the science of parapsychology, are considered misguided by most mainstream scientists.

What is the Way Forward?

We can get past the current scientific elitism and prejudice with logic and common sense. Consider the following line of thought: Suppose I draw a circle on a sheet of paper, representing a distinction, and then go on about my business. When I come back some time later, I find that the circle is still there, just like I left it. I conclude that this distinction continued to exist after I drew it, with or without my presence. If I make a ball of clay, or build a house, the same is true: they may continue to exist with or without me. And, of course, I also am aware of other apparently existential distinctions that I didn’t draw myself. There are things drawn or constructed by other conscious beings of course, and there are also other things, like mountains and seas, that are enduring ‘natural’ phenomena.

I want to raise two questions here that are not answerable in the current scientific paradigm, but that are positively answerable with the further development of the CoDD and its application to quantum physics:

(1) How could this awareness of the distinction of self from other ever arise in a reality composed entirely of matter, atoms and molecules, limited to mass and energy interacting in space and time? If we had to rely on the current scientific paradigm alone, this question would remain forever a mystery, - perhaps the greatest mystery of all.

(2) What is the origin of ‘natural’ phenomena? Could planets and galaxies exist as they do without the existence of some form of consciousness? In the current paradigm, this is not even a legitimate question. In the current paradigm, it cannot even be proposed as a scientific hypothesis because it cannot be tested, proved or disproved. Why? Because no universe can be observed and investigated without the existence of consciousness.

If you find it hard to believe that these two questions can actually be answered, consider the following:

The Proof is in the Pudding

Application of the Calculus of Dimensional Distinctions in the framework of the nine-dimensional Triadic Dimensional Vortical Paradigm (TDVP) has already yielded the following logically and/or mathematically reproducible results:

(1) Explanation of the intrinsic ½ spin of fermions (the elementary particles making up the ordinary atomic elements of the Periodic Table) as the result of rotation in nine dimensions

(2) Derivation of the exact value of the Cabibbo mixing angle, a puzzle of particle physics for more than 50 years, with nine-dimensional rotation

(3) Explanation of the exact masses of electrons, up-quarks and down-quarks derived from Large Hadron Collider data in terms of spin and angular momentum

(4) Derivation of the Triadic Rotational Unit of Equivalence, the truly primary quantum unit

(5) The discovery of the existence of gimmel, the third form of the content of reality in addition to mass and energy

(6) Explanation of the ‘weak sub-atomic force’ in terms of electron spin and symmetry

(7) Explanation of the ‘strong sub-atomic force’ in terms of proton and neutron symmetry and spin

(8) Derivation of the exact mass of the proton in the Hydrogen atom from particle symmetry and spin, explaining why it is so much greater than the sum of the masses of two up-quarks and one down-quark

(9) Derivation of the exact mass of the neutron in the deuterium atom (and all subsequent atomic elements) from particle symmetry and spin, explaining why it is so much greater than the sum of the masses of one up-quark and two down-quarks

(10) Explanation of why there is something rather than nothing

(11) The discovery that Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Sulfur, free Electrons, and Nitrogen (CHOSEN), elementary distinctions supporting organic life, contain the highest number of TRUE units of gimmel

(12) Discovery that the ratio of the mass and energy to gimmel in the natural elements is the same as the ratio of ordinary mass and energy to dark mass and dark energy in the universe as determined from the Hubble Space probe

Even more explanations and discoveries are emerging from our applications of the mathematical logic of the CoDD almost daily.

Now, if TDVP only explained one of these things, like the reason the Cabibbo angle has the exact size it has, skeptics would call it a coincidence. Even if we explained two or three of these things, skeptics steeped in academic materialism might still choose to ignore TDVP because it includes things that are taboo in the current paradigm. But explaining 10 things unexplained in the current paradigm, and discovering things unknown to mainstream science with reproducible mathematics and logic should be enough to persuade the reader that we might indeed be able to answer the two questions posed above, even though they are completely unanswerable in the current paradigm.

It might also be enough to get some attention from mainstream scientists, and perhaps against their better judgement, some consideration of the possibility that TDVP may actually be a legitimate paradigm shift rather than an unconscionable heresy denying the truth of the current materialistic reductionist paradigm. Perhaps a few may even begin to consider TDVP to be a valid major paradigm shift.

THE MOST IMPORTANT ADVANCEMENT IN HUMAN HISTORY

THE MOST IMPORTANT ADVANCEMENT IN HUMAN HISTORY

© Edward R. Close, November 19, 2016

THE TRUTH EXISTS AND WE ARE CAPABLE OF FINDING IT! - Albert Einstein

Such a simple thought, and yet so profound! I want to begin this post by reiterating the most important point of my last post:

Pure mathematical thought is a true reflection of reality at its deepest level.

In my opinion, mainstream science has gone astray; confusing conceptual mathematical tools with pure, mathematical logic that accurately reflects the nature of reality. By missing this distinction, scientists have gone down the wrong path by applying infinitesimal calculus to quantum reality, where it doesn’t apply, resulting in paradoxes and illogical conclusions. In past posts we have seen how rectifying this mistake allows us to discover new science and answer questions and explain puzzles that are inexplicable in the current mainstream paradigm.

Accept, if you will, that the statement in bold italics above is literally true; that pure mathematical logic is not an invention of the human mind, but something very real that is there to be discovered by any intelligent life form. While the symbols expressing it might be different for different forms of intelligent life, the truths they reflect will always be the same. There is only one reality - and we are capable of knowing it.

If the facts of pure mathematics accurately reflect reality, then exploring the logical structure of mathematics will yield valid information about objective reality. Of course, we must be very careful to continually check our findings against hard data, because consciousness (mind) has more degrees of freedom than the dimensional domains of space and time. For the past forty or fifty years, theoretical physicists have constructed a number of elaborate theories (e.g. string theories) that are internally consistent, but cannot be checked against objective reality.

The reason mainstream science has gone astray is easily understood when we take a look at the underlying assumptions of Newton’s calculus and compare them with the more basic logic of the calculus of distinctions (CoD), and ask what calculus is appropriate for application to the real world. The physical universe as we experience it through the physical senses is quantized, meaning that mass, energy, space and time only occur in whole-number multiples of quantum units. But Newtonian calculus assumes that physical measurements are infinitely divisible. This assumption works very well on the everyday scale of measurement but fails at the quantum scale.

The Calculus of Distinctions is a more primitive form of calculation that applies to the whole spectrum of reality. The Calculus of Dimensional Distinctions (CoDD) developed for the new, more comprehensive paradigm (TDVP) and the Calculus of Infinitesimals (Newtonian calculus) are actually sub-sets of the CoD. The basic units of measurement in the CoDD are quantum units, defined as measurements of the smallest possible measures of our quantized reality, based on real data. Thus, by definition, they cannot be divided into smaller units, making the CoDD applicable at the quantum scale. We know that mass and energy are quantized, but what about space and time?

In his note to the 15^th Edition of Relativity, Einstein said: 

“Physical objects are not in space, but … are spatially extended. In this way the concept of “empty space” loses its meaning.”

In our exploration of the mathematical structure of the CoDD, we find that space and time also prove to be quantized, and consistent with Einstein’s statement, the concept of ‘empty’ space-time has no meaning.

A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT

Albert Einstein also said:

I am convinced that purely mathematical construction enables us to find those concepts and those law-like connections between them that provide the key to the understanding of natural phenomena.

Einstein liked to use thought experiments, and I’d like you, the reader, to participate in a slightly different kind of thought experiment here. Consider the nature of human awareness: there is no question that our awareness extends beyond the physical brain located in the bony cage of the human skull. I know this is true, because I am simultaneously aware of my body from the hairs of my head, to the tips of my toes and fingers, and I am also aware of my existence in the room in which I sit and type these words. Visualize with me the sphere in which you exist, and of which you are aware. It doesn’t matter whether you think of it stopping at the boundaries of your skin, or at the walls of the room you are in, at the edge of some limited sphere like this planet and its atmosphere, or even the much greater sphere of awareness, all of the visible universe. Pick a physical object within your sphere of awareness. In this instant, that object and every other object within your sphere of awareness can be exactly located using only three numbers.

Most people are familiar with Cartesian coordinates. Several other types of mathematical coordinate systems for locating points in a finite field of awareness have been developed: Polar, cylindrical, spherical, curvilinear, skewed coordinates … etc. Mathematicians have devised these different coordinate systems for application to specific kinds of problems. The Cartesian coordinate system, with three orthogonal dimensions, and six directions of motion: up, down, right, left, front and behind, is the easiest to work with, but in any of these coordinate systems, the location of each and every physical object of which we are directly aware through our physical senses, can be exactly located with just three numbers defining its position relative to any reference frame. The geometry of this three-dimensional spatial field is defined by the axiomatic geometry of Euclid.

There are other types of geometries that have been developed for specific purposes, but they are all defined in reference to Euclidean geometry. Euclidean geometry is the most natural geometry of our physical perception, so we will visualize our thought experiment in Euclidean space. For Euclidean space of more than three dimensions, I prefer the term Euclidean Dimensionometry.

Mass, Energy and Consciousness in our Sphere of Awareness

Planck showed us that energy is quantized; Einstein showed us the equivalence of energy and mass in the simple but profound equation E = mc². Through the general theory of relativity, Einstein also saw that space and time exist only as extensions of the substance of reality; and application of the CoDD to the conscious drawing of distinctions has shown us that all real phenomena are aspects of one thing, which manifests as combinations of mass, energy and consciousness, and that any conceptualized reality without all three is meaningless.

It is logical that in such a unified reality, there should be a basic unit of measurement to which all measures of reality can be related by mathematical equivalence, and to which all measures can be normalized. We call that unit the Triadic Rotational Unit of Equivalence, or ‘TRUE unit’ for brevity in written discussion. The TRUE unit is defined by the mass and volumetric equivalence of the free electron spinning away from an ionized Hydrogen atom. The volume of the spinning electron shrinks in size and its angular velocity increases rapidly until, before it shrinks to zero, it reaches the relativistic limit of light speed. Its volume at that point is the minimum quantum volume possible. The mass and volume of this truly minimum quantum unit, which we call the TRUE unit, is then the basis of all CoDD measurements.

The Existence of ‘Extra’ Dimensions

Like most people, you probably think that you are aware of only three dimensions. This idea is often heard expressed in statements like: “If there are more than three dimensions, why can’t I see them?” This misconception arises from imprecise, and for our purposes, improper uses of the word ‘dimension’. In common usage, the word dimension can mean a variety of things. For example, you may hear: “The exact dimensions of the room are ten feet by twelve feet, six inches, with an eight-foot ceiling” (meaning measurements); or: “The many social dimensions of the problem must also be considered” (meaning aspects); or, “Maybe UFOs come from another dimension” (meaning somewhere unknown).

We do experience dimensions in our sphere of awareness, but we cannot ‘see’ dimensions; we see objects that have measurable extent in our field of vision. In our thought experiment, we shall adhere to a very precise definition of the word dimension: A dimension is measurable in the units of a variable of extent only.

All finite forms existing in our sphere of awareness are made up of distinctions of three types that are naturally drawn in the fabric of reality by human beings: (1) distinctions of extent, (2) distinctions of content, and (3) distinctions of conscious intent or impact.

(1) The three dimensions of spatial extent are measured in multiples of units of like feet, meters, miles, and kilometers. But we are also aware of a fourth dimension with measurable extent, a dimension of duration, or extent in time.

(2) Distinctions of content are measurable in multiples of units like mass, energy and thought. Unlike distinctions of extent, distinctions of content are not dimensional. They do not have direct relationships to the measurable dimensions of spatial extent, because spatial extent alone does not determine the content of an object. For example, a cannon ball has a very different content than a balloon of the same size, and while the contents of thoughts are reflections of physical impressions, including images, sounds and other sensations, they take up no physical space. Electrical and chemical reactions in the brain may trigger thoughts containing mental images, sounds and sensations, but they are not identical with our awareness of thoughts and mental sensations.

(3) Distinctions of conscious intent or impact reflect a higher level of complexity than distinctions of extent and content. How is this higher level of complexity reflected in the logical structure of the CoDD? Are there, in fact, more than four dimensions existing in our field of awareness?  When we analyze reality in terms of the DoDD, we find that the answer is yes. There are dimensions of consciousness, i.e. extent, and within those dimensions, there are distinctions of content as thoughts.

Dimensional Domains

As we recognize the existence of an increasing number of dimensions, it is helpful to think in terms of dimensional domains. One of the most important invariant relationships of dimensional domains is: Each n-dimensional domain is embedded in an (n+1)-dimensional domain. A one-dimensional domain (a line), for example, is embedded in a two-dimensional domain, a plane, and a plane can be seen to be embedded in the volume of a three-dimensional domain. With increasing numbers of dimensions, each dimensional domain in our sphere of awareness becomes increasingly more subtle and complex. The inclusion of time as a fourth dimension complicates a timeless three-dimensional domain by introducing changing forms, motion and relative velocities. The inclusion of additional dimensions of time and consciousness introduces potentials and qualities unimaginable in the simple 4-D domain of space-time.

Now I want to put what we’ve learned from this sphere-of-awareness thought experiment into historical context and connect it with some of the concepts we have discussed in previous posts:

CALCULI, DISTINCTIONS, TRUE UNITS AND DIMENSIONAL DOMAINS

The CoD represents mathematical logic that is conceptually prior to its division into separate disciplines like geometry, number theory and algebraic representation. The thread of this primary and fundamental mathematical logic runs through the teachings of Plato, Diophantus and Pythagoras, the methods of Gauss, Fermat and Cantor, and has surfaced again more recently in Lie and Grassmann algebras where number theory, algebra and geometry have been at least partly reintegrated for application to quantum physics. The logical structure of the CoDD and the Newtonian calculus are subsets of the logical structure of the CoD.

When we analyze the sphere of awareness in terms of distinctions, we see that as long as we are drawing distinctions on the macro scale of our physical perceptions, Newton’s Calculus of Infinitesimals works perfectly well, but when we consider that physical objects are actually made up of stable combinations of much, much smaller objects: electrons, protons and neutrons, and that neutrons are made of combinations of quantized up-quarks and down-quarks, we must use the Calculus of Dimensional Distinctions with finite minimal quantum units to measure and describe them. Then, because the structure of pure mathematics is a reflection of the structure of reality, we can look at the mathematical structure of the Calculus of Dimensional Distinctions to help us understand the nature of quantized reality in our sphere of awareness.

The Basis of the TRUE Quantum Unit is Real Data

Using Large Hadron Collider (LHC) data, we defined the most basic quantum unit of measurement as the minimal equivalent normalized mass and energy of the electron, and by applying relativistic principles to the electron stripped from the Hydrogen atom in the process of ionization, we determined its minimal quantum volume and thus defined the true minimal quantum unit of calculation for the CoDD, and called it the TRUE quantum unit. Applying TRUE unit analysis to the stable elementary particles that make up our physical universe, we found that up-quarks contain 4 TRUE units of mass, and down-quarks contain 9 TRUE units of mass. We also found that protons consist of a total of 24 TRUE units, and neutrons contain 38 TRUE units.

Dimensional Extrapolation and Fermat’s Last Theorem

We can project our dimensional-domain awareness from one dimensional domain to the next with the mathematical procedure of Dimensional Extrapolation using a specific form of the Conveyance Equation: (X₁)^m + (X₂)^m + (X₃)^m +…+ (X_n)^m = (X_n+1) (See THE BASIS OF TRUE UNIT ANALYSIS posted October 15, 2016) that happens to be the Diophantine form of the Pythagorean Theorem: (X₁)² + (X₂)² = (X3)².

When Fermat’s Last Theorem was applied to the Conveyance Equations describing the combinations of the TRUE units of the elementary particles, and their integer solutions were found, we discovered that a third form of reality, which we called ‘gimmel’, not measurable as mass or energy, but contributing directly to the total angular momentum of any spinning structure, had to exist for electrons, protons, neutrons, and atoms to continue to exist as stable objects. Previous discussions, including one posted October 28, 2016, “MORE REVELATIONS ABOUT THE NATURE OF REALITY”, provide derivations of the TRUE unit and gimmel in more detail.

How are the CoD and CoDD Related to Conventional Mathematics?

In conventional geometry, a mathematical singularity is a point with zero extent, i.e., zero dimensions; a line is a one-dimensional concept consisting of an infinite number of points, potentially stretching to infinity in opposite directions; a plane is a two-dimensional domain; and a three-dimensional domain is a space. Physical objects on the macro scale on this planet at least, have weight and occupy space.

In a quantized reality, comprised of combinations of quanta that contain integer multiples of the quantum unit, a reality where space and time do not exist in the absence of matter and energy, the point, defined in the Newtonian Calculus as a mathematical singularity, with zero dimensions, simply does not exist. In a quantized reality, the nearest thing to a point would be a single quantum unit, which would be a three-dimensional domain the size of a free electron, and, conceptually, the line might be replaced by a string of electrons placed in a row. But electrons all carry the same electrical charge, and repel each other. So no such thing exists in a quantized reality. Similarly, two-dimensional planes are conceptual, not objectively real, because they have no volumetric extent capable of containing mass and/or energy. So the first level of our sphere of awareness is a three-dimensional domain containing objects composed of integer combinations of quantum units. Non-substantial geometric figures of less than three dimensions, like segments of straight lines and planes, as well as regular polygons and even circles, are only approximated in the real world of quanta and quantum combinations.

What else have we learned from TRUE analysis?

By applying TRUE analysis to the atomic elements of the Periodic Table, we found that electrons existing within the structure of stable atoms have at least 106 TRUE units of gimmel. This also led to the discovery that the elements most supportive to organic life have a volume of (108)³ TRUE units with many more units of gimmel than elements less supportive or necessary for life. We also found, as reported earlier in these posts, that the application of TRUE analysis in a nine-dimensional spin model yields answers to a number of questions that have perplexed physicists for decades, like why quarks combine in triples, the Cabibbo mixing angle, and other puzzles.

How do we know there are more than four dimensions, and how many are there?

Awareness of a three-dimensional domain is only possible from the vantage point of awareness of a larger dimensional domain, i.e., a domain of four dimensions or more. A four-dimensional domain exists in our sphere of awareness because, thanks to memory and imagination, we are aware of the passage of time. This is true because, while we experience only one quantum of time, at a time, we remember previous events and anticipate a logical succession of those events, thus becoming aware of a linear progression of time. Clearly, the fourth dimension, as time line, is quite different than the first three dimensions, with subtle meanings in our sphere of awareness not possessed by the first three, and it seems to have only one direction. The dimensions of the 4-D event domain are related to each other and mass and energy mathematically by the transformation equations of relativity.

The Conveyance Equation also yields quantum combination equations which play a central part, as demonstrated in previous posts and publications, in the determination of the mathematical properties of the different dimensional domains. By repeated applications of the process of Dimensional Extrapolation, we see that the Dimensionometric structure of the CoDD consists of sequentially embedded domains totaling nine finite dimensions embedded in a transfinite domain, finally embedded in an infinite substrate. It is also worth noting that the various string theories, and brane theories developed in an attempt to accommodate both relativity and quantum mechanics, require several dimensions beyond the three of space and one of time.

We have shown previously that, mathematically, after each triad of embedded dimensions, the next triad must include a new type of number representing the rotational projection into the next dimensional domain. In a quantized reality, the first three dimensions are characterized by integers. The new numbers derived by Dimensional Extrapolation for the 4^th through 6^th dimensional domains turn out to be the so-called “imaginary” numbers written ‘Ai’, where ‘A’ is an integer and ‘i’ equals the square root of minus one. After three Ai dimensions, the new numbers derived for the 7^th through 9^th dimensional domains turn out to be ‘complex’ numbers of the form A + Bi. Finally, after three A + Bi dimensions, any additional domains, of ten dimensions or more, are ‘hyper-complex’ and transfinite, if they exist, because all of the roots of unity after m = 9 are complex numbers. So, our sphere of awareness is potentially one of nine finite dimensions descending through a transfinite domain from an all-embracing infinitely continuous substrate. As human beings, however, with the limitations of a specific physical form equipped with very limited physical senses, we are only directly aware of three spatial dimensions, one quantum moment in time and three dimensions of consciousness. But the mathematical logic of the CoDD, strongly suggests that the three Ai dimensions are dimensions of time.

Someone asked: "Are the three dimensions of time ‘past, present and future’?" No. The present is the quantum moment of one’s immediate experience, and that moment along with the past and future define the timeline of one’s individual experience.

SPECULATIONS ABOUT NINE-DIMENSIONAL REALITY

What is the nature of the three dimensions of time? Two or more non-congruent timelines, like those of multiple conscious entities, suggest two-dimensional time, and the potential awareness of two or more timelines, suggests three-dimensional time (see the invariant relationship of embedded domains mentioned above under the heading “Dimensional Domains”).

How do I envision the three dimensions of consciousness?

I see the three dimensions of consciousness as analogous to the three dimensions of space, providing a framework for thoughts and images in what we call mind. The three dimensions of space and the three dimensions of consciousness are most likely causally linked to the three dimensions of time. Just like the concept of empty space is meaningless without mass and energy, the concept of time without events is also meaningless. Thus I see reality as a unified structure of space, time and consciousness that would be completely meaningless if any one of the three were absent. This implies that the structure of our sphere of awareness actually consists of seven dimensions, not just three and the structure of the CoDD implies that, in addition to space-time, there are at least two more dimensions, and a postulated transfinite realm that are potentially knowable. Further exploration of the logical mathematical structure of the CoDD may give us some additional clues about what the other domains will be like, if we can find ways to expand our awareness to directly include them.

Why do elementary particles, planets, solar systems, and galaxies rotate and spin? After years studying the mathematical structure of the CoD as reflective of the structure of reality, and applying the CoDD and TRUE analysis to the compound structures of physical reality, I have become increasingly convinced that the full answer to this question is to be found in the nature of the other two dimensions of time, the transfinite domain, and the infinite substrate of space, time and consciousness. But the best answer that I can offer now, is that it may be that our limited view of reality from the reference frame of space-time, where we have heretofore accepted the illusion that we have a uniquely stationary position as conscious observers at rest in an otherwise dynamic, ever-changing reality, most likely distorts our view of the ultimate nature of reality significantly. The illusion that we are stationary, even though we are actually whizzing around with dizzy angular velocities, spinning with the surface of this planet at up to 1000 mph, rotating around the sun still much faster, and wheeling at a yet even faster rate though the cosmos with our galaxy, puts us at the center of a nexus of opposing forces of expansion and contraction.

How are mass, energy and gimmel related to consciousness? So far, I have found no conclusion other than that mass, energy and gimmel must be finite manifestations of the logical structure of the infinite substrate, which I speculate may be the ever-existing essence of consciousness, the source of all things, without which nothing would exist.

It is also my opinion that we exist in a reality that has no absolute beginning or end, only the illusion of beginnings and endings, arising from the apparent ever-changing panorama available from our limited frame of reference. And, if we are ever able to see the whole scope of reality from infinity to infinity, then, for us, I believe the illusion of separation will disappear.

Finally, it is my hope that the reader who has followed me this far can see the potential within TDVP for the scientific expansion of human knowledge to include provable principles of paranormal phenomena, currently considered by mainstream science to be beyond the realm of real science. I have some ideas about this that I hope to discuss in future posts.

THE ILLUSION OF MATTER AND GRAVITY

MORE ABOUT THE ILLUSION OF MATTER AND GRAVITY

©Edward R. Close Novemver 12, 2016

In the last post I discussed the true nature of mass, the measure which we mistakenly take to indicate the existence of what we perceive to be solid matter. We have seen that, as Max Planck said, there truly is no matter as such; matter is an illusion created by inertia, the resistance to motion. We have traced this resistance to the gyroscopic-like inertia of the spinning of something at the quantum and atomic levels of physical reality. But, just what is that something, and why is it spinning? Before I attempt to answer these important questions, I’d like to put this into the proper historical perspective: It is a basic principle of relativity that inertial and gravitational mass are actually one and the same thing. Einstein called this the “Equivalence Principal’. This principal, which was posited by the Austrian polymath Ernst Mach (1838 – 1916), inspired Einstein to think in broader relativistic terms, but exactly how inertial and gravitational mass are equivalent has never been fully explained, nor has it been explainable, – until now.

The limitations of our physical senses and extensions of them create the illusion of solid matter, but that illusion fades away as soon as we try to precisely locate the separate entities that we have conceptualized as atoms, protons, neutrons and quarks. As we try to isolate these ‘particles’, seeking to find the ultimate substance of reality, they simply slip through our fingers, and any other net we can devise, leaving us with ephemeral ‘massless’ bits of conceptual nothingness we conceptualize as gluons and bosons. But, by recognizing that there is a ‘bottom’ to quantum reality, and applying the Calculus of Dimensional Distinctions to quantized reality, defining the true quantum unit (TRUE), and solving the resulting Diophantine equations, we see beyond the illusion of solid matter and we find that reality actually depends entirely upon the existence of a third form of that spinning something that cannot be directly measured as mass nor energy, but that is equivalent to mass and energy at the quantum level. That something is what we have called gimmel. With the discovery of gimmel and the hyper-dimensionality of space, time and consciousness, we are now at long last in a position to explain what mass and gravity really are.

The Equivalence Principle says that resistance to motion, whether it is measured as the force it takes to blast the mass of a rocket from the surface of Planet Earth, or the force it takes to overcome the resistance to motion due to the spinning of the substance of reality at the quantum level, is really the same thing. How can this be? To see the truth behind this, we must reverse the reductionist approach of particle physics and abandon the illusion that reality is separated into ‘particles’ at the quantum level, and see the universe as an integrated multi-dimensional reality. This is hard for us to do because for all practical purposes, objects can be considered to be quite separate on the macro level, but, if objects at the quantum level are not separate, objects at the macro level are not really separate either. The shift to a multi-dimensional understanding of reality requires a deeper understanding of relativity and quantum physics, and in particular a deeper understanding of the Equivalence Principle.

We have to expand our conceptualization of reality to include consciousness, space, time, mass and energy as the real, measurable parameters of multi-dimensional distinctions of extent and content mathematically related by volumetric equivalence at the quantum level. This means extending the mathematical description of reality into dimensions beyond the three dimensions of space and one of time. Efforts in this direction were made by German physicists Theodore Kaluza and Wolfgang Pauli, Swedish physicist Oscar Klein, and others. Kaluza, who was encouraged by Einstein, expanded the general relativity model into five dimensions and was successful in unifying gravity and electromagnetism. Klein, who developed a 5-D model independently, had some success combining quantum theory with his five-D model. However, these efforts were eclipsed in mainstream physics by easier pathways to progress by developing relativity and quantum theory separately, and the 5-D effort, known as the Kaluza-Klein model is generally considered to be simply a forerunner of modern string theory.

Hyper-dimensional relativistic quantum theory never really got off the ground because of multiple conceptual errors arising from the inappropriate application of infinitesimal calculus to quantum reality and the resulting lack of development of an appropriate mathematical approach. In order to explain how we can avoid these conceptual errors and get back on the right track, I will have to speak in terms that may seem very abstract to the average reader. Fortunately, the concepts are simple, and it may actually be the well-educated scientist who will have a more of a problem here because he/she will have to unlearn some of the standard dogma of conventional mathematical physics taught in our colleges and universities today.

I don’t want to be misunderstood or misinterpreted. I want to assure you that I am not saying that all of the math and physics developed since the paradigm shifts of relativity and quantum mechanics in the first half of the last century are worthless or meaningless. Not at all. But, due to narrow professional specialization and academic departmentalization, the direct relationship between mathematics and physical reality has been misunderstood and almost completely lost.

Philosophically, most mainstream scientists align themselves with logical positivism, roughly defined as any system of thought that confines itself to the factual data of experience and excludes a priori or metaphysical speculation. This approach was articulated by the French philosopher Auguste Comte (1798–1857). The basic precepts of positivism are (1) that all factual knowledge is based on the “positive” data of experience and (2) that beyond the realm of facts is that of pure logic and pure mathematics. The position of Danish physicist Niels Bohr, sometimes called the father of quantum physics, exemplifies this position. He said:

“Physics is to be regarded not so much as the study of something a priori given, but rather as the development of methods of ordering and surveying human experience… There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature... In this respect our task must be to account for such experience in a manner independent of individual subjective judgement and therefore objective in the sense that it can be unambiguously communicated in ordinary human language.”

These quotes are found in “The Philosophy of Niels Bohr” by Aage Petersen, in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Vol. 19, No. 7 (September 1963), ”The Genius of Science: A Portrait Gallery” (2000) by Abraham Pais, p. 24, and in “Niels Bohr: Reflections on Subject and Object” (2001) by Paul. McEvoy, p. 291.

There is much to be said for the positivist point of view, especially in experimental physics. Of course, wild, undisciplined speculation should be avoided because, while there may be an infinite number of ways to be wrong, there is arguably only one way to be right. Strict adherence to this approach, however, would virtually eliminate theoretical physics and severely limit the advancement of science. Contrast Bohr, for example with Einstein, who said in his 1933 Herbert Spencer lecture:

“If, then, it is true that the axiomatic foundation of theoretical physics cannot be extracted from experience but must be freely invented, may we ever hope to find the right way? Furthermore, does this right way exist anywhere other than in our illusions? May we hope to be guided safely by experience at all, if there exist theories (such as classical mechanics) which to a large extent do justice to experience, without comprehending the matter in a deep way? To these questions, I answer with complete confidence, that, in my opinion, the right way exists, and that we are capable of finding it. Our experience hitherto justifies us in trusting that nature is the realization of the simplest that is mathematically conceivable. I am convinced that purely mathematical construction enables us to find those concepts and those law-like connections between them that provide the key to the understanding of natural phenomena. Useful mathematical concepts may well be suggested by experience, but in no way can they be derived from it. Experience naturally remains the sole criterion of the usefulness of a mathematical construction for physics. But the actual creative principle lies in mathematics. Thus, in a certain sense, I take it to be true that pure thought can grasp the real, as the ancients had dreamed.” (The emphases in bold are mine.)

I have reproduced this Einstein quote in its entirety here because I wanted to capture the deep sense of his thought process so that you can see that, in a very real way, TDVP is actually a continuation along the same line of enquiry pursued by Albert Einstein. In fact, I would state this view of reality even more strongly as follows: Mathematics is not just a tool invented by human beings for solving quantifiable problems. Pure mathematical thought is a true reflection of reality at its deepest level.

As for me, I reject the conclusions of mainstream physicists like Bohr and Feynman, who proclaim that “quantum physics is just weird. You can’t understand it, just accept that that’s the way it is and go on with the practical application of its principles to technology.” I agree with Einstein that the truth exists and we are capable of finding it.

In our first book together, “Reality Begins with Consciousness” available at www.BrainVoyage.com, Dr. Neppe and I introduced the concept of Lower-Dimensional Feasibility, Absent Falsification (LFAF): the inclusion of concepts in scientific hypotheses that may not be falsifiable in the 3S-1t domain. Our physical senses are not only severely limited, detecting only very narrow ranges of energy, they do not reveal more than three spatial dimensions and one moment in time, even though the existence of additional dimensions is clearly required by both relativity and quantum physics.

Mainstream science has gone astray because it has taken the positivist approach too literally, confusing conceptual mathematical tools with pure, or existential mathematics. By missing this distinction, scientists have gone down the wrong path, continuing to apply infinitesimal calculus to quantum reality, where it doesn’t apply, resulting in paradoxes and illogical conclusions. Most scientists don’t even realize that ‘the calculus’ of Newton and Leibniz is only one of a number of possible calculi, and most mathematicians ignore the distinction between conceptual and existential mathematics. In my next post, I will clarify these distinctions and show you how the TDVP nine-dimensional model of space, time and consciousness explains mass and gravity.