ArXiv: A Completely Top-Down Hierarchical Structure in Quantum Mechanics (2017)
Books: Quantum Paradoxes
Homepages: (AIP) (Israel)
YouTube: The physical meaning of time (2016), Where I get my ideas (2016)
First email: Feb 7, 2020, 5:29 PM (with corrections)
Dear Dr. Yakir Aharonov:
Ted Bastin was a friend back in the 70s and I visited with Bohm in London and Bell in Geneva in 1974 and 1977. Bohm gave me a copy of his little treatise, Fragmentation and Wholeness. I was part of Robert Cohen and Abner Shimony’s group at BU and an irregular with H. Pierre Noyes Natural Philosophy group at Stanford. In 1980 I also studied with Vigier at the Institut Henri Poincare. In 1981, feeling a bit like a whirling dervish, I dropped out and returned to a business that I had started in 1971.
Something was off with our models.
Renormalization wasn’t the answer.
Newton’s absolute space-and-time… not the answer.
And, everybody ignored Planck’s base units (and still do).
In 2011, helping a nephew with his high school geometry classes, we went deeper and deeper inside the tetrahedron (using base-2). In 45 steps, we were within the CERN scale of particle physics; and in 67 additional steps, we were within the Planck scale. We then started with the Planck units, using bas-2 we were back within the classroom scale in 112 steps, and then out to the age and size of the universe in another 90 steps. Just 202 notations outlined the universe. Although Kees Boeke used base-10 in 1957, it was just a scale of the universe and not the early start of a working model. Very early in our discovery process we had an intuition that base-2, simple doublings, had a functional activity. Yes, something as simple as cubic close-packing of equal spheres and sphere stacking just might be the start of a possible rapprochement to the old concepts of the æther.
I have spent too much time chasing that simple model of 202 steps. Does it have merit? Can it add anything to the discussion? These are my primary claims to date.