Every concept can be improved even if it seems complete unto itself.*

 Working draft, more work today, Saturday, August 17, 2019
Endnotes, Footnotes, References and Resources being developed…

YellowArrow20x38YellowArrow-RightCENTER FOR PERFECTION STUDIES: CONTINUITYSYMMETRYHARMONY USAGOALS•August.17-18,.2019
HOMEPAGES: ASSUMPTIONS|DARK|EMERGENCE| INFINITY|Inflation|Letter| REVIEW|Scholars|START

Nobel Laureates Asked Key Questions

Ada E. Yonath Ada E. Yonath
Steven Weinberg Steven Weinberg
Barack Obama Barack Obama
Kip Thorne Kip Thorne
Donna Strickland Donna Strickland
Gerardust'Hooft Gerardus ‘t Hooft
by Bruce Camber
Related: Base-2, Dark, Lemaître, QuestionsStructure, Subjects-Objects, TimeTransformation

Background. In 1969 I worked for an organization that studied new priorities for the USA. One of my jobs was to do the initial research and compile data, including one-on-one interviews of scholars from around the world. These were people who had expert knowledge about a pivotal subject for our time. That experience served me well.

When my attention turned to creativity, invention, problem-solving, paradigm shifts, and innovative thinking, the 1935 Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen thought formula became my most obstinate-and-key challenge. Something wasn’t right and knowing what it was could change everything. For the next ten years I called on some of the best who might have a key insight, but by 1980, I said, “We’re no closer. Back off until something hits you.”

In 2011, thirty-one years later, something finally hit me; I was helping one of the many teachers in our family with his high school geometry classes. That story is now well-told.

I now ask, “Did we back into a new paradigm?  Is it right or wrong?

So who does one ask? …Nobel laureates? Why not? Of course, they are all extremely busy and in high demand; but, everybody knows how smart they are. Yet, we also know that they don’t have all the answers. Just look at our world’s problems. Look at how very nasty we can be with each other. Obviously, there is something we haven’t quite grasped. And, my suspicion is that even the smartest among us haven’t a clue how to answer our most vexing questions, i.e. I’m still asking many of the same questions that I was asking in 1979 at MIT.

Yet, what if this rather radical re-engagement of our starting points opens a new door? Could it become a major paradigm shift? We know that every concept can be improved even if it seems complete unto itself. Our world is filled with silos of information that do not readily communicate with other silos of information.

Our basic premise — a very different starting point — shows how everything is related to everything. There is connective tissue. There is an aether. There is a a grid or matrix. So,  we will ask questions until that starting point is understood or totally discredited.  To date, it seems that our 64 doublings from the Planck Scale to the CERN-scale, if examined, just might give us access to new answers.

Let’s critically evaluate it.  To that end, I have sent notes, emails, and tweets to many Nobel laureates, six of whom are pictured above and those pictures are linked to recent  letters to them. At no time has any one of them said, “Yes, let’s look into this further.” That has to change. 

We will not rest…

This very different paradigm for reality holds the following propositions:

  1. Time. All time is now. There is no past or future. The universe encodes every thought, word and deed of every person and every change of every thing.
  2. Relations. There are 202 base-2 notations from the very first moment of time until now. Each notation has different parameters that define it, yet base-2 (doublings) are held in common by every notation (doubling). All parameters are active in the current definition of who we are and why we are.
  3. Networks. There is a plenum, an aether, or a grid or matrix of planckspheres that fill the universe within those 202 notations and is the basis of homogeneity and isotropy.

Of the eleven Nobel Laureates pictured, questions have already been raised with eight. Those letters are linked from their image.  Those questions will be pursued. Every answer will be appreciated and analyzed. Additional questions will be raised. Questions with those laureates listed just below will also be raised.  Others will be asked, especially those who carry on the traditions of laureates who have died.  Either this simple construct is true or it is not. Either way, we will learn a lot about mathematical logic.

Much more research to come

  • The Nobel Prize in Physics 2016: David J. Thouless, F. Duncan M. Haldane and J. Michael Kosterlitz “for theoretical discoveries of topological phase transitions and topological phases of matter”
  • The Nobel Prize in Physics 2015: Takaaki Kajita and Arthur B. McDonald “for the discovery of neutrino oscillations, which shows that neutrinos have mass”
  • The Nobel Prize in Physics 2008:  Yoichiro Nambu “for the discovery of the mechanism of spontaneous broken symmetry in subatomic physics”
  • The Nobel Prize in Physics 2004:  David J. Gross, H. David Politzer and Frank Wilczek “for the discovery of asymptotic freedom in the theory of the strong interaction”
  • The Nobel Prize in Physics 2003:  Alexei A. Abrikosov, Vitaly L. Ginzburg and Anthony J. Leggett “for pioneering contributions to the theory of superconductors and superfluids”
  • The Nobel Prize in Physics 2001: Eric A. Cornell, Wolfgang Ketterle and Carl E. Wieman “for the achievement of Bose-Einstein condensation in dilute gases of alkali atoms, and for early fundamental studies of the properties of the condensates”

The study of critical insights of scholars is key…

Marie CurieMarie Curie
MourouGérard Mourou
Wilczek-FrankFrank Wilczek
Barry BarishBarry Barish
Rainer WeissRainer Weiss
FreeseKatherine Freese

Endnotes, Footnotes, References and Resources


* A basic premise of this website.
Six Nobel laureates are picture at the top of this page. Another five are just above, prior to these footnotes. There are many others among our listings of people who have also been contacted about this work.

Ada E. Yonath is included because she never gave up. Who can claim 25,000 trials over ten years? Not many people. Most of us would have given up. But, Ada had an insight, a hunch, an inner driving motivation. She may have gotten discouraged, but she would not be deterred. So, who better to ask about the very nature of life? There is a huge discussion within biology — genomics, RNA/DNA, protein, bioinformatics, back to the simple archaea family.  How-when-where did it begin? How is it sustained? How would you answer our questions to her?

Steven Weinberg was award his share of a Nobel prize in 1979. Even before that time, he did not suffer fools gladly. This special assurance of knowing what is right and who is wrong often bristles people, but I rather enjoy such folks. I continue to nudge this ever-so-famous emeritus professor and his group of scholars working on basic theory through a grant from the National Science Foundation, Department of Energy. I think they have a limited view of the possibilities between the Planck scale and fundamental particles. In our model dark matter and dark energy emerge within those first 64 notations, well-below the thresholds of measurement! Just because these theorist have never considered the the first 64 notations, it is easily written off as poppycock!

Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. It was controversial at the time and even more controversial today. Though our former president has declining popularity even among the Democrats, he is included here because with the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu, and the Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamanei of Iran, they were all introduced to our work, particularly where it invokes continuity, symmetry and harmony, the quantitative/qualitative faces of this project. This value dimension is a key part of the project. This note was to invite them to challenge the incompleteness of religious hermeneutics and the our understanding of the finite-infinite relation. Although this work now falls to all thoughtful world leaders, no further contacts have been made.

Kip Thorne has allowed his knowledge to be challenged by everyday people. He has had a primary role with the development — writing, production, and follow-up — of the 2014 movie, Interstellar.  Our hope is that with his unique sense of openness, he will eventually tell us where, how, and why our model could work within the world of physics and even general science.

Donna Strickland was awarded her share of the Nobel Prize in 2018 within key areas of laser technologies. Who better to ask the question, “What is light?” 

Gerardus ‘t Hooft with his Dutch colleague, Stefan Vandoren, in 2011 wrote the heart of their book, Time in Powers of Ten: Natural Phenomena and Their Timescales. Translated in English by Saskia Eisberg-t’Hooft and published in 2014, it was a natural sequel to the 1957 work of another Dutch educator, Kees Boeke, Cosmic View: The Universe in 40 Jumps. Our work has not been embraced by our Dutch friends but it has also never been challenged.

   More to come today…

Frank Wilczek was the first Nobel laureate to teach us about Max Planck and the nature of the Planck scale. His articles and books are everywhere within this website and our offices. He has not yet shut us down and at timers, he has encouraged us.