**CENTER FOR PERFECTION STUDIES: CONTINUITY•SYMMETRY•HARMONY•** **USA**•GOALS•September.2019

**HOMEPAGES**: ASSUMPTIONS|DARK|EMERGENCE| INFINITY|Inflation|Letter| REVIEW|Transformation

# On Asking Nobel Laureates Key Questions^{*}

##### by Bruce Camber, working draft, initiated in August 2019

Related: Base-2, **Dark**, Lemaître, Questions, Structure, Subjects-Objects, Time, Transformation

**Background**. In 1969 I worked for a group that developed new priorities for the USA. One of my jobs was to do the initial research and compile data, including one-on-one interviews with scholars from around the world.^{1} These were people who had expert knowledge and key insights about a pivotal subject for our time. That experience served me well.

When my attention turned to creativity, invention, scientific anomalies, and paradigm shifts, the 1935 Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen thought formula ^{2} became my most obstinate-and-key challenge. Something wasn’t right. It became an on-going challenge to determine what was missing. For the next ten years I called on some of the best who might have new key insights. By 1980, it became entirely obvious, I was going in circles. It was time to earn a living. I backed off knowing eventually somebody would breakthrough.^{3}

In 2011, thirty-one years later, something finally hit me; I was helping a high school teacher in our extended family with his geometry classes. That early story is now well-told; a very-simple mathematical model of the universe emerged.^{4} It had just 202 base-2 notations (successive doublings) of the Planck base units whereby the first notation is the first moment of time. The 202nd notation holds this day (*the Now*). That *202nd* notation also holds all of human history as well as the current expansion of the universe. Fresh from an experience of working with over 100 school kids who seemed to grasp it all, I began asking questions of everyone else.

**Potential breakthrough**. **I’d ask, “Did we back into a new paradigm? ****Is it _right or wrong?” ^{ 5} **

Nobody had an answer. A few made one or two-word comments. So, what does one do? Ask the smartest among us? …Nobel laureates? Surely they are among our best; so why not? Of course, these laureates are all extremely busy and in high demand. And, to be fair, 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. Yes, I’m still asking the same questions that I asked in 1979 for a “first principles” project 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 one of the concepts that give meaning and value to our life can still be improved even if a concept 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 our simple little starting point is either more fully understood or discredited. To date, it seems that those 64 doublings from the Planck Scale to the CERN-scale, if examined, just might give us access to new answers.

Three levels of engagement became increasingly clear: (1) cubic close packing of equal spheres and sphere stacking from the Planck scale, (2) period doubling bifurcation at the Planck scale and (3) the Fourier transform at the Planck scale.^{6}

**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 (each picture is linked to a discussion that then goes to recent letters to them). At no time has any one of them said, “Yes, let’s look into this further.” That could change.

**The Future. We will not rest until we know how it is that we are wrong .** Our simple paradigm of reality is based on the following concepts:

**Continuity**(order). All time is now.^{7}There is no past or future. There are 202 notations that encapsulate our universe, and every notation is active, different, and encodes every thought, word and deed of every person and every change of every thing. Notations 1-201 are fully symmetric and 202 becomes symmetric, possibly individually through sleeping.**Symmetry**(relations). The primary real.^{8}Space and time are derivative, albeit fundamental relations. Mass and charge are also derivative, albeit fundamental relations. Each of the 202 base-2 notations have different parameters that defines it, yet base-2 (doublings) are held in common by all notations. And, it logically seems all notations are active in the current definition of who we are and why we are.**Dynamics**(harmony). Networks.^{9}There is a plenum, an aether, grid or matrix of planckspheres. It fills the universe within those 202 notations and this is the basis of homogeneity-and-isotropy, dark matter-and-dark energy and moments of perfection also known as harmony. Notations 1 to 64 are the basis of the continued expansion of the universe.

**Leading-edge thinking**. Of the eleven Nobel Laureates pictured on this page, questions have already been raised with eight. Those letters to each are linked from the discussion about each below. More questions will be pursued. Any answer will be deeply 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 our simple construct is true or it is not**.** And, either way, we will learn a lot about mathematical logic**.

________________

*Much more research to come*…

*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 insight*s *of scholars is a key…*

*The study of*

*critical insight*

*of scholars is a key…*

## Marie Curie | ## Gérard Mourou | ## Frank Wilczek | ## Barry Barish | ## Rainer Weiss | ## Katherine Freese |

**Endnotes, Footnotes, References and Resources**

**A basic premise of this website**: Every concept can be improved even if it seems complete.

* **Six Nobel laureates**. Pictured at the top of this page (with another five just above this section endnotes, footnotes, etc.) have all been asked key questions about our simple, mathematical (base-2) model of our universe. Letters to each are linked below. Plus, there are many others among our listings of people who have also been contacted about this work.**Ada E. Yonath **(Email) 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 does it begin? How is it sustained? How would you answer our questions to her? In our base-2 model, life as we know it today doesn’t begin until the 202nd notation. Only 2.83 to 3 billion years of this notation has unfolded. Also, the earth is just 4.543 billion years old, the sun 4.6 billion and the Solar System 4.51 billion! That all began in the 201st notation!

**Steven Weinberg** (Email & Letters) was awarded 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. As expansive and detailed as their knowledge is, 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 actual measurement! Just because these theorists have never considered that there could be “the first 64 notations,” it is easily written off as poppycock!

**Barack Obama** (Letter and emails) was awarded **the Nobel Peace Prize**. It was controversial at the time and continues to be so. Notwithstanding, our former president 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, I believe it should be a component of every Nobel Peace Prize, i.e. an intellectual contribution to our understanding of, and need for, an ever-improving quality of life for everyone.

In his Nobel speech, Obama said, “*To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism – it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason*… *We do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better place… Let us reach for the world that ought to be – that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls.”* **My comment**: I think we can go deeper.

**Kip Thorne** (**Letters**) 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** (Email) 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?**” Much more than visible light, the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum doesn’t look like light. Can we understand light in new ways from the four Planck base units? We think so.

**Gerardus ‘t Hooft** (Email) in 2011 with his Dutch colleague, Stefan Vandoren, wrote the heart of their book, *“Time in Powers of Ten*: Natural Phenomena and Their Timescales.” Translated into English by Saskia Eisberg-t’Hooft and republished in 2014, it was a natural sequel to the 1957 work of another Dutch educator, Kees Boeke with his book, *“Cosmic View*: The Universe in 40 Jumps.” ‘t Hooft became a Nobel Laureate in 1999. Though our work has not been embraced by our Dutch friends, it also has never been challenged.

**Frank Wilczek** (Emails, meetings) 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 times, he has encouraged us.

**Rainer Weiss** (Email) is a new Nobel Laureate and his LIGO experiments are being heavily analyzed and discussed. He has spent a lifetime focused on the subject. For us to ask him to consider a completely different set of starting principles was a bit presumptuous. But, one never knows. A seed may have been planted.

**Katherine Freese** (Email) is not a Nobel laureate but there is good reason to think that she could become one. In 1999 principal thought-leaders among cosmologists and theoretical physicists were called in to make sense of inflation. They haven’t. Here we find the work of somebody who has. She further opened her study of natural inflation (appears to have begun in 1991). She seems like the kind of person who might consider asking what natural inflation would look like if it were to begin at the Planck scale. If she and her associates were to find a natural, exponential inflation that redefines time, she would be in line for a Nobel prize and I would be most pleased.

^{1} New priorities for the USA*.* Cold-calling is an essential part of business growth and it seems also to be true about intellectual growth. To grow we have to risk a little. Science advances incrementally and most often it is slow and even arduous. Paradigm shifts are very rare. Yet that “cold calling” *modus operandi* prevailed and served me well. *A little more history*…

** ^{2} The 1935 Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen**. Commonly referred to as the EPR paradox, my first encounter in 1970 was through David Bohm when a friend introduced me to his work with Aharonov from 1957. As one thing always leads to another, soon we were studying his other 1957 article about “

*…Paradox of Einstein, Rosen, and Podolsky*.” There were 77 scholars whose insights I especially sought out.

*____________________*

** ^{3} Something new will come. **That’s the creative process. Sometimes you just have to

*“back off until something hits you.”*We had gone over the details incessantly. We asked the question, “What are we missing?” We didn’t know. We had continuity-symmetry-and-harmony, but also Bell’s inequalities, quantum fluctuations and action-at-a-distance. It was enigmatic!

** ^{4 }A mathematical model of the universe**. Long before we had that simple model, I had questions for everyone. A mathematical physicist, Patricio Letelier, told me in and around 1976, that strings were the smallest constituents of matter. We were all working on our PhDs at Boston University and even at that time I was thinking that string theory had something to do with a finite-infinite bridge. Though renormalization was helpful in getting specific mathematical equations to work, it did not mitigate or truncate the concept of infinity, especially if we redefine infinity as continuity (order), symmetry (relations) and harmony (dynamics). In 2011 we quickly discovered that our 202 base-2 notations were not part of current academic thinking. Base-10 (Kees Boeke’s 1957 work and the ‘t Hooft – Vandoren 2014 work) was, yet it was also functionally aloof and not granular enough. We began to tell the unfolding of our 2011 story, “Isn’t this remarkable? What’s happening within those first 64 notations?” We had

*questions for everyone*, but at least, we had a STEM tool!

** ^{5} …a new paradigm? …not even wrong?** It took seven years (2011-2018), but the light is shining a little more brightly. Then, in July 2019 the homepage article (herein to be known as “the transformation homepage“) just seemed to open it all up. There was a concresence of concepts. At no time had those concepts been applied to the Planck scale. As it was happening, it just seemed right. So, our rather radical re-engagement of these starting points is either right or wrong

**.**I’ll give it until August 31 — “

*Let’s go over that just one more time*” — and we’ll begin submitting that article to professional publications. When they reject it, we will plead for some explanations. Maybe we can get some conceptual clarity.

My 1979 MIT project is finally back in business!

** ^{6} Three faces or forms of the transformation**. From among all the concepts examined over the years, three unlikely, principal concepts emerged for our

*transformation homepage*:

1. Cubic close packing of equal spheres (and sphere stacking) from the Planck scale

2. Period doubling bifurcation at the Planck scale

3. The Fourier transform at the Planck scale

Literally, taken together, I will guess that all three will touch most every academic discipline. I cannot see how it could be otherwise.

** ^{7} Three infinite functions of the transformation**. Of the principal concepts within that

*Transformation homepage*, our paradigm for infinity will be applied. The first is

**continuity (order)**whereby all time is now.

*________**_________*

** ^{8} Symmetry** (relations). A primary real. Instead of running away from the concept, we embrace infinity. With only a superficial analysis of pi, people like David Hilbert are challenged. When we begin to explore space and time as derivative, what becomes fundamental is clear — the relations. Mass and charge are also derivative, albeit fundamental relations. These 202 base-2 notations each have different parameters that define it, yet base-2 (doublings) are held in common by all notations. And, it logically seems all parameters are active in the current definition of who we are and why we are.

*___________________*

** ^{9} Dynamics** (harmony). Networks. There is a plenum, an aether, grid or matrix of planckspheres. It fills the universe within those 202 notations and this is the basis of homogeneity-and-isotropy, dark matter-and-dark energy and moments of perfection also known as harmony. Within every second of our universe, there are 143 notations that pulsate, like a heart beat, expanding the universe.

*More editing to come.*

## References & Resources

**Reference/Resource #1**. David Bohm in his book, *Causality & Chance in Modern Physic*s, 1957, pages 163-164, said: “Thus, in the last century only mechanical, chemical, thermal, electrical, luminous, and gravitational energy were known. Now, we know of nuclear energy, which constitutes a much larger reservoir. But the infinite substructure of matter very probably contains energies that are as far beyond nuclear energies as nuclear energies are beyond chemical energies. Indeed, there is already some evidence in favour of this idea. Thus, if one computes the “zero point” energy due to quantum-mechanical fluctuations on even one cubic centimetre of space, one comes out with something of the order of 10^{38} ergs, which is equal to that which would be liberated by fission of about 10^{10} tons of uranium.”

**Reference/Resource #2**. A seminal work, *Discussion of Experimental Proof for the Paradox of Einstein, Rosen, and Podolsky*, D. Bohm and Y. Aharonov, Technion, Haifa, Israel Phys. Rev. 108, 1070 – Published 15 November 1957 (Received May 10, 1957 [PDF]

**Reference/Resource #3**. On of the most seminal works in physics, On the Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen Paradox [PDF], J.S. Bell, Physics Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 195—200, 1964

**Challenge us, coach us**. We need all the help we can get. I’d be pleased to hear from you. -BEC