Aharonov, Yakir

Yakir AharonovAharonov

Chapman University
One University Drive
Orange, CA 92866

ArXiv:  A Completely Top-Down Hierarchical Structure in Quantum Mechanics (2017)
Books: Quantum Paradoxes
Google Scholar
Homepages(AIP) (Israel)
YouTube: The physical meaning of time (2016)Where I get my ideas (2016)

Personal notes were sent around to many of those scholars with whom I have written in the past. There were three consistent themes from which those notes were generated and this is the one Prof. Dr. Yakir Aharonov received. -BEC

Most recent email: Monday March 7, 2022 at 3 PM

RE: Reviewing your dialogue with Bohm, Bastin, von Weiizsacker, Linney and your essay with Petersen

Dear Prof. Dr. Yakir Aharonov:

Let’s start with a sphere. Is there anything about it that is infinite? …the non-repeating, endless numbers? …the many symmetries? ….the harmonic functions?

Is infinity defined by continuity, symmetry and harmony? (My question to Ted in 1972)

Are these qualities that are part of every sphere? …infinitesimal spheres? Are there infinitesimal spheres at the Planck scale? ...the Stoney-scale? Can we apply base-2 notation to either set of numbers? There are 202 notations that encapsulate the universe: https://81018.com/chart/. The first 64 notations are a new part of science; it’s a hypostatic order.

Are you available by telephone?



Second email: 17 February 2020 

Dear Prof. Dr. Yakir Aharonov:

I thought name-dropping some of our mutual acquaintances might peak your interest. I knew the subject matter would be a stretch and a strain.

At 87 you are not far from an inner circle of the Wise Ones: 90+ folks like Freeman Dyson, Gerard Holton, EO Wilson, Antonino Zichichi…

My letter to you on February 7 is now part of my reference page to your work. As I read more about your work, I’ll enfold new thoughts within that page. Also, that page is a trigger to remember the contents of my letter to you. I have already updated it!  https://81018.com/2020/02/13/aharonov/

Of course, I understand if you think my model and assumptions are crazy, “So, they’re crazy!” and, I am as well for putting them forth. Such is life.

But because those assumptions are not tautologies…
Enough, enough. My thanks to you for your life of scholarship.


First email:  Feb 7, 2020, 5:29 PM (with corrections)

References: https://www.chapman.edu/our-faculty/yakir-aharonov
https://english.tau.ac.il/profile/yakir https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakir_Aharonov

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.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.