INFINITY

Jacqui

INFINITY: From the Mundane to the Sublime

Note to friends and followers of Transcendental Physics and the Neppe-Close paradigm shift: I’ve discovered that there are, among those who find what I write to be of interest, both math-ophiles (lovers of mathematics) and math-ophobes (those who dislike and fear mathematics), and everything in between. But, regardless of where you fall on the math-tolerance spectrum, bear with me, for this post will connect the antipodes, i.e., it will show that infinity unites us all. Infinity encompasses all things because it has no beginning and no end. It even unites epistemology and ontology. [For those who might not be familiar with these two words, the E-word is the study of knowing, and the O-word is the study of being.]

Let me start by quoting two of my favorite thinkers: Niels Bohr, Danish physicist and philosopher of science, and Ludwig Wittgenstein, Austrian philosopher of logic and mathematics:

Bohr said: “Science is only about describing what we experience. …

Every great and deep difficulty bears in itself its own solution.…

A deep truth is a truth so deep that not only is it true but it's exact opposite is also true.”

Wittgenstein said: “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.…

If we take eternity to mean not infinite temporal duration but timelessness, then eternal life belongs to those who live in the present.”

What do these quotes have to do with Infinity? - Bear with me.

First, I want to address the question of whether or not I am qualified to say anything about infinity. As someone formerly trained as a scientist, I have to agree with Bohr. We can only describe that which we have experienced. So, also applying what Wittgenstein said, if I haven’t experienced infinity, then I cannot speak of it, and must remain silent.

In fact, I have experienced infinity. I will even argue that everyone who is a conscious being has. Here’s my most recent example: Grief. My wonderful, beautiful wife of more than forty years, Jacqui, passed from physical being one year and fifteen days ago, and over the past year, grieving ever more and more deeply, I have discovered that grief is infinite. It has no bounds. I miss her so much, that every time I think I have reached a new depth in grief, crying out to God and the universe, surly descending to the bottom of despair, I find I have not reached the end of grief. Grief is a bottomless pit.

But life is all about experiencing opposites. So, as Bohr said, every great and deep difficulty bears in itself its own solution. And, the deeper the difficulty, the greater and more important is its solution. Then, to paraphrase Bohr’s third quote, An infinite truth is a truth so deep that not only is it true but it's exact opposite is also true. Therefore, infinite grief implies the existence of its exact opposite: INFINITE JOY!

An interesting historical note:

Even though infinity was touched upon by mathematicians like Fermat, Newton and Leibniz in the 17^th century, with the idea of infinitesimals, i.e., the infinitely small, it was the Russian-born German mathematician, Georg Cantor, in the late 1800s into the early 1900s, who brought infinity into mathematics as a legitimate subject. But he was ahead of his time. Most mathematicians rejected his work as belonging to theology and philosophy, not mathematics. Cantor said about this:

“The fear of infinity is a form of myopia that destroys the possibility of seeing the actual infinite, even though it in its highest form has created and sustains us, and in its secondary transfinite forms occurs all around us and even inhabits our minds.”

Even today, many mainstream scientists and mathematicians deny the existence of infinity as something existing as part of the reality we experience. Denial of the existence of infinity is the same as adopting the metaphysical belief in physicalism or materialism, which, as I’ve pointed out many times, does not rise to the status of a scientific hypothesis. I agree with Cantor, and my research partner, Dr. Vernon Neppe: No scientific theory of reality is complete without Infinity, if the goal of science is, as Bohr implied, to describe what we experience. And we do experience infinity. As Cantor said, denying the existence of infinity is myopic, born of fear of the unknown and the desire to limit reality to a comfortably finite box. Infinity and its secondary transfinite forms are all around us, and infinity certainly exists in conscious minds.

Look at the second Wittgenstein quote above. The only time that we ever experience is the present. There is no credible evidence that the present ever ceases to exist. Thus it is eternal and infinite. The physical universe is surrounded by, embedded in and inter-penetrated by the infinite. Sorrow and joy are infinite, as are the other pairs of opposites like love and hate, dark and light, life and death.

Jacqui and I had a tradition that we followed from the first new year’s eve we spent together: We made sure that for several minutes before and after midnight on December 31, we were meditating together on the Infinite. We agreed that if we could experience the Infinite in the present time existing between the old year and the new, we could experience the Infinite anytime during the year. So that’s what we are doing yet again tonight. I know we are meditating together tonight because the present we experience together is the same eternal, infinite present, and thanks to a very scientific double-blind experiment and several experiences since, we both exist, even though Jacqui is no longer inhabiting a physical body. This makes no difference, because Love is eternal and infinite.

ERC, New Year’s Eve, 2019

EXCERPTS FROM SURVIVAL, A WORK IN PROGRESS

 SURVIVAL

Jacqui

The Question of Survival

The question of whether the consciousness of a living person can survive the physical destruction of that person’s physical body arises because of the assumption that no one really knows what consciousness is. Clearly, mainstream science does not; and most mainstream scientists today accept the assumption that consciousness is epiphenomenal, i.e., a strange, insubstantial something that arises when matter and energy reach a certain level of complexity; although no one seems to know exactly what that level of complexity is, or even whether the complex structure must be a living organism or not,  This position is consistent with the metaphysical belief system now known as physicalism, a updated, scientific version of materialism.

Beyond the Quantum Veil

It took a while, but eventually, I began to get over the intense heartache that came with the realization that the life Jacqui and I had shared so joyously was over, gone, and that I would never again in this life, feel the smoothness of her skin and the warmth of her physical presence. We were now separated by an invisible curtain that I knew I must somehow part. Fortunately, I also knew that I had some advantages that might make this possible: First, I knew that Jacqui was probably working to do the same thing from the other side. Her message through the medium had been loud and clear: She had been a tremendous help to me while alive, and, as she said, she was “not going to stop just because she died!” Second, we had meditated together for more than forty years.

What is beyond the quantum veil, beyond the physical universe, and beyond the land of our dreams? Based on Sri Yukteswar’s cyclic concept of time and the development of mental virtue, G. Spencer Brown’s Laws of Form, and the esoteric teachings of all the mystic geniuses of all of Earth’s history, - almost all of reality! The reduction valves of our senses only allow us to see a fraction of it. But, even that fraction reflects a bit of the wonder and bliss of Reality. That is why we can be enthralled by the majesty of a mountain range capped with snow, the exquisite beauty of a rose, or the wonder of a starry night. The rest of this book is dedicated to the chronicling of part of our journey together, Jacqui’s and mine, with Jacqui in the spirit world, and me incarnate, working together to do our part to help humankind reach our goal: The goal of all existence, Cosmic Consciousness!

The beauty of the paradigm shift my research partner and spiritual brother, Dr. Vernon Neppe and I call the Triadic Dimensional Vortical Paradigm (TDVP), is that it provides a logical theoretical framework within which to explain the experience of working with someone who has gone beyond the quantum veil into the greater reality of the Spirit world, the so-called “other side”. Within that framework, we can see how the Spirit world is not something wholly apart from physical reality: In the dimensionometry of TDVP, the spirit world and physical reality are not disconnected realms, separated in a way that ‘never the twain shall meet’. On the contrary, the physical domain of three dimensions of space and one dimension of time is a sub-domain existing within the spiritual domain of consciousness, in the same way a line exists within a plane, or a plane exists within a volume.

Beyond what we normally perceive through the physical senses, the spiritual domain with its embedded physical world is immersed in, and surrounded by the infinitely continuous matrix of Primary Consciousness. In the same way physical reality is a sub-domain, embedded within spiritual reality, the logical structures and patterns of the physical universe, which we call the laws of science, are a sub-set of the greater logical structure of Primary Consciousness. That part of the logic of the greater logical structure of Primary Consciousness is conveyed down into the physical domain by the existence of gimmel, the non-physical, organizing aspect of physical reality, found in every discrete, spinning vortex-like (vortical) particle, viz., quarks, protons, neutrons and atoms, that make up stable, life supporting physical reality. With this link-up of experience with the mathematical logic and science of the TDVP, Jacqui and I will continue to tell our story.

ON THE VIRTUE OF PATIENCE, FERMAT’S LAST THEOREM AND DYING

ON THE VIRTUE OF PATIENCE, FERMAT’S LAST THEOREM AND SURVIVAL

© Edward R Close 2019

“…at length, the truth will out.” – Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice.

Dear Reader, I want to ask you to use your imagination. Please imagine that Pierre de Fermat, a Jurist who worked in the Parliament of Toulouse France in the middle of the 17^th century (1630-1665) is speaking:

“From childhood, I was fascinated by numbers, and mathematical propositions often came to me quite as naturally as breathing! But, alas, it was not my fate to become a professional academic. My father, Dominique Fermat, prevailed upon me to study law in order to have a vocation that would enable me to support my family. While my law degree did enable me to become a productive member of society, I was often bored with legal work, and turned to musings about numbers when not occupied with my duties as a juror. I had studied Greek and Latin while at University, which allowed me to have access to the works of natural philosophers and mathematicians of the past. Around 1625, I began working in my spare time on reconstructing the works of the Greek geometer Apollonius, having to do with loci and planar surfaces.

Because I was not an academic, I had no ready institutional support to publish my findings, so I saved my mathematical musings in the back of my desk and tried to correspond with professional mathematicians as I could, on occasion. Rene Descartes, the recognized genius of the day, dismissed me as an amateur, derided my use of “obscure notation” and called my demonstrations “lucky guesses” when I proved to be right. I was able to calculate areas and volumes under various curves using the process of diminishing infinitesimals, something which Descartes declared to be “impossible”. We also had disagreements about the mathematics and geometry of the refraction of light and the construction of tangents to curves, and even though he was wrong, his inflated ego would not allow him to see the truth! Later, I found more favorable reception of my ideas with the eminent philosopher of natural sciences, Blaise Pascal, especially regarding the calculation of probabilities, but it was number theory that was my first love; especially Diophantine equations and infinite descent. The acme of my mathematical musings was my proof of the following proposition: 

Xⁿ + Yⁿ cannot equal Zⁿ, when X, Y and Z are integers and n is an integer larger than 2.

It was well-known from the time of the Greek mathematician Pythagoras that the sum of the squares of two whole numbers can equal a larger whole number squared. In fact, there are an endless number of such triads, XYX, such that X² + Y² = Z², as is demonstrated in the Pythagorean Theorem. But no one was able to produce a set of numbers satisfying this requirement when n is larger than 2. In 1637 I found an elegant proof that the equation Xⁿ + Yⁿ = Zⁿ has no whole-number solutions when n is greater than 2. I penned a statement to this effect in the margin of my copy of the book Diophantus’ Arithmetica, but the proof was a little too long to include in the note. However, the whole proof scarcely covered a single page, and I placed it among some other short notes in a cubbyhole of my desk for safe keeping.”

▬  ▬ ▬ ▼▲▼ ▬ ▬ ▬

Now, as the reader may know, Pierre de Fermat’s proof that Xⁿ + Yⁿ ≠ Zⁿ, when X, Y, Z and n are integers and n > 2 became famous as “Fermat’s Last Theorem”, because Fermat’s proof was never found and the world’s best mathematicians were unable to prove or disprove it to their satisfaction for more than 300 years. Because of that, mathematicians came to believe that Fermat was probably mistaken about having a proof. What the reader may or may not know, is that I proved Fermat’s Last Theorem in 1965, 30 years before Andrew Wiles’ proof was finally accepted in 1995. My proof was short, unlike Wiles’ proof of more than 200 pages, and in Fermat’s notation it would probably fit on a single page. 

All attempts to refute my proof, which I call FLT65, over the past 50 plus years have failed, but it still has only been accepted by a few mathematicians because of the general belief that a “simple” proof of FLT is simply impossible. The whole history of my attempts to get it accepted and several of the attempts to refute it are posted on this blog. Just search for ‘FLT65’ if you want  to see them.

Fermat’s Last Theorem proved to be important in the development of the quantum mathematics I developed, called the Calculus of Dimensional Distinctions, which Dr. Vernon Neppe and I applied in our Triadic Dimensional Vortical Paradigm (TDVP), a shift to consciousness based science. However, the TDVP does not rely on my FLT65 proof at all, because it only requires the the validity of FLT for values of n from 3 to 9, and it has been known that FLT is valid for n=3 to a much larger value than 9 for a very long time.

It would be nice to be recognized for being the first to prove FLT since Fermat, and it would restore Fermat’s honor and reputation as a first-rate mathematician, but I’m not holding my breath. I’ve learned to be patient because I believe at length, the truth will out!

On a deeper level, I was beginning to feel depressed about the loss of the physical presence of my soulmate Jacqui. I am fortunate to have evidence in the form of a meticulous double-blind experiment that she still exists as a conscious entity, able to communicate with me and help me as she did while alive. But that evidence is of an indirect nature. I would like the communication to be more direct and personal, just between the two of us. I am becoming impatient for that to happen, and impatience leads to disappointment and disappointment breeds depression. 

Today is Black Friday, the seventh anniversary of the day Jacqui suffered acute kidney failure in Tucson Arizona, and I had to rush her frantically to the ER at St. Joseph's Hospital,

a black day indeed. Jacqui’s birthday is coming up in two weeks and the first anniversary of the day she died is only three days later, so during the first holiday season without her, it’s easy for me to become depressed. But I must be patient.

ERC 11/29/2019

SURVIVAL!

An excerpt:

Proof of the Continuation of Consciousness

This book presents, perhaps for the first time in the current period of development of empirical science and ascending mental virtue, indisputable scientific evidence of the survival of human consciousness beyond the destruction of the physical body. For years, many people have reported near-death experiences (NDEs), out-of-body experiences (OBEs) and evidence that the consciousness of loved ones who have died survives, but the evidence is usually very subjective. The evidence reported in this book goes beyond subjective feelings, dreams. Imagination, or seeing visions of smiling departed loved ones, assuring those left behind that they are happy in a reality beyond the pain and suffering of physical life. This book contains proof, in the form of the results of a double-blind scientific experiment, that Jacquelyn Ann Hill-Close, known and loved simply as Jacqui by thousands she helped during her all-too-short lifetime, survived the funeral pyre and still has the ability to interact with those of us she has left behind.

This is not a ghost story. It is not an account of a faint voice in the darkness or an eerie apparition. It’s not based on dreams or wishful thinking, it’s a report of credible scientific evidence of the continued robust existence of Jacqui’s consciousness, still functioning in much the same way it did when she was moving among us in a physical body. This book is a sequel to the book Secrets of the Sacred Cube, A Cosmic Love Story, written by Jacqui and me, her husband of more than forty years, and published about nine months after she left her physical body for the last time in this life.

MESSAGES

MESSAGES FROM THE HEART AND MIND

On this blog I have now posted 458 statements, essays and videos, comments on science, life, Thinking, and living. Read as many as you wish. Search with key words, like Dr. Vernon Neppe, Edward R Close, Jacqui Close, Quantum Physics, Relativity, Consciousness, Spirituality, Proof, Gimmel, Love, etc. Here are links to my latest efforts, two new books, and recent You-Tube interviews with Jeffery Mishlove on New Thinking Allowed:

Information on how to get Secrets of the Sacred Cube, A Cosmic Love Story

http://www.erclosetphysics.com/2019/10/autographed-copies-of-secrets-of-sacred.html

Is Consciousness Primary? [my contribution is Chapter 4 and Appendix A]:

Http://www.Amazon.com Search for “Is Consciousness Primary?”

New Thinking Allowed ERC Interview No. 1: The Delayed-Choice Double-Slit Experiment, released October 11

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXqRnad00dI&t=1161s

New Thinking Allowed ERC Interview No. 2: The Constancy of the Speed of Light, released October 21

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHliZ8ezu1s

New Thinking Allowed ERC Interview No. 3: Spiritual Practice and Scientific Inquiry, released November 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYAkX4-LsR8

New Thinking Allowed ERC Interview No. 4: The Mysterious Component of Reality, released November 11

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWN0rM88bUg&list=UUFk448YbGITLnzplK7jwNcw

New Thinking Allowed ERC Interview No. 5: Nonlocality, released November 20
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrMdNyLfnK8&list=UUFk448YbGITLnzplK7jwNcw&index=1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?

New Thinking Allowed: Interview No. 6: Mathematics and the Physical Universe, Released November 29
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8qp2TNFO6A

WRITING

I wrote my first book of poetry when I was 10 years old. The first time words that I wrote were published was when I was a freshman in college in 1955. I’ve written more than 200 technical papers, and my first book was published by Libra Publishers in New York in 1977. In the 42 years since then, I’ve authored and/or co-authored nine books, - and as long as I am alive, there will be more to come!

So, I’m a writer? No, writing is just something I do. Why do I do it? I agree with Flannery O’Connor, who said: "I write to discover what I know." I also agree with Anais Nin who said: "We write to taste life twice, in the moment and in retrospect."

In my latest book, Secrets of the Sacred Cube, A Cosmic Love Story, I have tried, as diligently as I could to reflect these sentiments, and to fulfill the words of Carl Sagan, famous Cosmologist and popularizer of science. I think he got it right when he wrote: "A book is made from a tree. It is an assemblage of flat, flexible parts (still called "leaves") imprinted with dark pigmented squiggles. One glance at it and you hear the voice of another person, perhaps someone dead for thousands of years. Across the millennia, the author is speaking, clearly and silently, inside your head, directly to you. Writing is perhaps the greatest of human inventions, binding together people, citizens of distant epochs, who never knew one another. Books break the shackles of time--proof that humans can work magic."

Finally, it was Franz Kafka, who said: "Don't bend; don't water it down; don't try to make it logical; don't edit your own soul according to the fashion. Rather, follow your most intense obsessions mercilessly."
I write, first and foremost, for myself. It’s my way of getting everything out in concrete form, so I know what I know, understand and remember. And I’m willing to share. I offer it to you, to read to ponder and think about. You don’t have to agree, but read first, with an open heart, then decide.

ER Close, November 14, 2019

WHAT IS LIGHT?

WHAT IS LIGHT?

^©Edward R. Close, 2019

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. Genesis 1:3

To most people, the word light just means visible light, but physicists have discovered that visible light is just a tiny fraction of an existing spectrum of electromagnetic radiation. Most physics texts define the radiant energy that includes visible light, as “a transverse electromagnetic wave” that moves through the vacuum of interstellar space at the enormous velocity of 186,282 miles per second. That’s more than 670 million miles per hour. But, if light is a form of energy that travels in waves, like the kinetic energy of a rock thrown into a pool of water travels in waves in the water, we must ask: What is it that oscillates in the vacuum of empty space? If that isn’t enough of a puzzle, a little farther along in the physics text, we find out that light can travel at this tremendous speed either as little energy packets called photons, or as waves of electromagnetic energy, as indicated in the definition, depending on how we choose to measure it!

But it gets even worse! In the delayed-choice, double-slit experiment, we learn that light is neither particle (photon) nor wave, until it impacts a receptor, like a photographic plate or a screen. Until then, it is only describable a mathematical expression called the Schrödinger wave equation, which is a probability function. That means that it only gives us a range of probabilities concerning the location of the photon or wave, but reveals nothing about its physical characteristics, such as whether it is wave or particle. That is not revealed until it impacts a receptor. So, we must ask: why? In my opinion, the Close-Neppe discovery of gimmel answers that question. I will explain more later in this post.

Scientists, pretty much like most human beings, fall quite easily into the self-delusional trap of thinking that naming something is the same as knowing what that something is. The definition of light is an excellent example. Look at the definition quoted above again. It sounds very scientific and may convince the reader that the physicist who wrote the book actually knows what light is. Nothing could be further from the truth! Almost everything mainstream science theorizes about light is vague, and even paradoxical like the question of its particle-wave nature, and certainly only scratches the surface of an understanding of what light is. Exactly what is a transverse electromagnetic wave? It’s a self-propagating wave of energy that consists of two forces, electric and magnetic, energetic pulses that manifest in vectors that are at right angles to each other. The electric charge alternates from positive to negative, while the magnetic force alternates from attraction to repulsion, and the whole thing travels like a juggler on a unicycle in a direction which is at right angles to both of the directional electromagnetic forces. The neat little diagrams of electromagnetic waves that we find in physics books tell us about as much about light as a cardboard cutout of a cartoon picture of a man tells us about human beings.

In the Neppe-Close Triadic Dimensional Vortex Paradigm (TDVP), reality consists of dynamic mass, energy, consciousness events occurring in a nine-finite-dimensional domain, embedded in a 10^th dimension which is transfinite, embedded in an infinitely continuous conscious substrate. Gimmel is the link between the 3S-1t (three dimensions of space and one quantum of time) domain that is available to our physical senses and the infinitely continuous conscious substrate. And light is the actual form of the infinitely continuous conscious substrate.

What is light? Nothing less than the physical manifestation of Primary Consciousness. The reason light does not exist as particle or wave in 3S-1t until it impacts a receptor, is because it is the impact on something perceptible to our senses, that causes it to manifest in 3S-1t. This explains the double-slit experiment, the delayed-choice experiment, the EPR paradox, Schrödinger's cat, and quantum entanglement.

ERC November 8, 2019

NEW THINKING ALLOWED

NEW THINKING ALLOWED ER Close with Dr Jeffrey Mishlove

OCTOBER 11, 2019: TODAY’S THE DAY!!!

The first of six conversations between Dr. Jeffrey Mishlove and Yours Truly (Edward R Close) on NEW THINKING ALLOWED is available TODAY at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXqRnad00dI&t=1161s

Here are the titles of the six conversations and dates scheduled:

New Thinking Allowed ERC Interview No. 1: The Delayed-Choice Double-Slit Experiment Scheduled for release October 11

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXqRnad00dI&t=1161s

New Thinking Allowed ERC Interview No. 2: The Constancy of the Speed of Light 

Scheduled for release October 21

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHliZ8ezu1s

New Thinking Allowed ERC Interview No. 3: Spiritual Practice and Scientific Inquiry 

Scheduled for release November 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYAkX4-LsR8

New Thinking Allowed ERC Interview No. 4: The Mysterious Component of Reality 

Scheduled for release November 11
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWN0rM88bUg&list=UUFk448YbGITLnzplK7jwNcw

New Thinking Allowed ERC Interview No. 5: Non-locality 

Scheduled for public release on November 20

New Thinking Allowed ERC Interview No. 6: Mathematics and the Physical Universe, Scheduled for release November 29.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8qp2TNFO6A


Please feel free to peruse the many posts on this blog for  related discussions.

Autographed Copies of Secrets of the Sacred Cube, A Cosmic Love Story

SECRETS OF THE SACRED CUBE, A Cosmic Love Story by Jacqui and Ed Close

Available Now on Amazon and Amazon Prime!

Description:

430 pages with 21 full-color photographs, 20 tables and numerous first-hand accounts of Out-of-Body Experiences (OBEs), Near-Death Experiences (NDEs) and other personal experiences from the lives of the authors. Price on Amazon: Hardcover $55.95, Quality Paperback $40.95

To get an autographed copy, watch for conferences that I will be attending, or send $40 for a Quality Paperback, or $55 for a Hardback copy, with return address and the name for whom the book is to be autographed

To:         Ed and Jacqui Close (or EJC)

              PO Box 368

              Jackson, MO 63755

Free shipping! Make check or money order payable to EJC

Note: This book is, in part, a report on the results of my research of the past 50 plus years. If you wish to contribute to the advancement of my research into consciousness and the mind-matter connection, include any amount you can afford and request that it be used for my research.

Ancient Doorways

NEW THINKING ALLOWED

OCTOBER 11, 2019: TODAY’S THE DAY!!!

The first of six conversations between Dr. Jeffrey Mishlove and Yours Truly (Edward R Close) on NEW THINKING ALLOWED is available TODAY at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXqRnad00dI&t=1161s

Here are the titles of the six conversations and dates scheduled:

New Thinking Allowed ERC Interview No. 1: The Delayed-Choice Double-Slit Experiment Scheduled for release October 11

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXqRnad00dI&t=1161s

New Thinking Allowed ERC Interview No. 2: The Constancy of the Speed of Light 

Scheduled for release October 21

New Thinking Allowed ERC Interview No. 3: Spiritual Practice and Scientific Inquiry 

Scheduled for release November 1

New Thinking Allowed ERC Interview No. 4: The Mysterious Component of Reality 

Scheduled for release November 11

New Thinking Allowed ERC Interview No. 5: Non-locality 

Scheduled for public release on November 20

New Thinking Allowed ERC Interview No. 6: Mathematics and the Physical Universe, Scheduled for release November 29.

Please feel free to peruse the many posts on this blog for  related discussions.

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

CAN A MACHINE BE CONSCIOUS?

THE SINGULARITY, A Short Story

Dan was very excited. This was the day! All the conditions were now met! Today, the day that he and many others had anticipated for many years was about to be realized. Everyone in the Bio-psycho-physics lab gathered around a complex machine known as the A/E-2000. The A/E-2000 was the culmination of artificial intelligence technology developed by scientists and engineers from around the world over the past 100 years. A/E-2000 had all the complexity of the human brain and nervous system, everything scientists had determined necessary for a man-made machine to be conscious. But AE-2000 did not look like the human-copy androids of the science fiction movies of the past. They had realized that constructing a mechanical clone of ourselves unnecessarily complicated the project. So they had focused on the essentials in order to reach the goal sooner. The first conscious robot did not have to look like a human being. It looked more like what might happen if one combined some organs from an animal with a circuit board and a mechanical octopus. One of Dan’s less technical friends joked that they should have called it RK-2000, an acronym for ‘Road-kill-2000’.

Dan had been fascinated with the idea of artificial intelligence from the day he saw the movie “A.I.”, a sci-fi movie about an android named David who looked like an 11-year old boy. And when Dan read Ray Kurzweil’s book “The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology” the die was cast. He knew that he wanted to be one of the scientists who would realize Kurzweil’s vision. He had worked hard to get the kind of education he needed, and he had been successful. He was the lead scientist on the Singularity Project, and today was the day! Of course, there were religious kooks who questioned the wisdom of the Project: They accused Dan and his colleagues of “playing God”. When asked about this in a TV interview, Dan answered like most scientists of the day: “Being a scientist, I am, of course an atheist. There is no reason to bring outmoded religious fantasies into a scientific project like this.”

This was the moment they had anticipated. When they threw the switch, bringing the final electromagnetic pulse into the already throbbing mass of complex technology they affectionately called Adam/Eve 2000, it came to life. With the cameras rolling to record this historic moment, Dan said:

“Hello, A/E !”

A/E-2000’s amplifier hummed slightly and a vibrant voice replied:

“Hello Dan!”

“Describe for us how you feel.” Dan prompted.

After a slight pause, the voice said:

“Like I just woke from a long sleep! The last thing I remember was being in the hospital.”

“That’s impossible”, Dan replied, “We didn’t program a memory like that for you, A/E -“

There was another pause, as the camera-like eyes quickly surveyed the room and then swiveled back around to focus on Dan.

“Who’s this Aye-ee”. it said. “My name’s not ‘Aye-ee’, “I’M YOUR UNCLE FRED, YOU NINNY!”