The following open letter to physicist/author/media personality Dr. Michio Kaku virtually wrote itself. I was attempting to work on a very different, scheduled blog, but it nagged at me until it was finally posted on LinkedIn.

It leaves me with questions and second thoughts. Some, for example, have to do with the many levels of gatekeepers who guard the doors of the knowledge industry. Colleges and Universities grant degrees. Federal and state departments of education regulate curriculum and license those deemed qualified to administrate and teach in public schools. Professional associations certify members to practice in specific fields. Until recently, the publishing industry held yet another monopoly on the content and distribution of knowledge.

In all cases, the front side of the gatekeeper coin is “quality control.” The public interest is being protected,” is the rationale. But the opposite, back side of the same coin is the vested interest of insider power-holders in maintaining a status quo that operates to benefit a few at the expense of the many.

An overriding survival question looms large. Who protects the interests of the public from the multitude of self-interested gatekeepers? I speak with the authority of experience. My statistical research dissertation inadvertently proved with .99% significant results that the selection of principals in Wisconsin public schools is a closed shop, decided in an informal pre-selection process by existing administrators.

To discredit the messenger bearing this unwelcome news, professors used punitive grades to guarantee that I’d never teach at the university level. Just an example. It’s water long since passed under the dam. No real loss.

The point here is that the public loses big time when the knowledge industry devolves to the status of a power fiefdom. Nor do I post blogs with the expectation of winning popularity contests now. There’s far more at stake. Human survival hangs in the balance.

An Urgent Open Letter To Michio Kaku

Dear Dr. Kaku:

Recently I received two messages apparently prompted by books on Einstein, Human Survival and the Positive Paradigm of Change. They deserve your attention. One claims to have found the Holy Grail of Physicists for which you’re also searching. The other asserts that I must submit my work, which if correct, would “revolutinate” physics, to the test of mainstream scientists. Both were sent by LinkedIn connections I’ve never met personally.

Someone of your stature and professional qualifications is best qualified to answer them. I can, at best, make a few personal comments from my point of view.

The first message was sent by a researcher educated in Madrid, now residing in Argentina. Jorge Barcellos lists Portuguese and Spanish as languages of proficiency. English isn’t on the list, though he seems to do okay.

In light of earlier blogs on Millennials, his avatar choice is especially interesting. It’s an Einstein photo and quote: “I fear the day that technology will surpass our human interaction. The world will have a generation of idiots.”

I responded to his original invitation with another Einstein quote, the premise of Rethinking Survival. “We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if mankind is to survive.”

Here’s what he wrote back:

Dear Patricia.

I finished this year’s work of uniting the whole physics.
I managed to complete the dream of Einstein.
The theory of everything is a theory of information.
which clearly demonstrates the existence of a creator.
Continuity of Awareness after death.
Board quantum mechanics and relativity theories about the same algebraic theory and simple.
Resolving the apparent paradox between time-space between the two theories.
And also 100% compatible with the classical mechanics and electromagnetism.
In general the theory unifies all the physics goes beyond allowing join the religious understanding of the existence of the universe!
However it is not very different from the final agreement would be imagined by physicists in the past!
The grand universe is a quantum computer that uses strings on your hardware!
And it creates in its interior a holographic structure that is called reality!
What I am describing here all the math supporting structure is not philosophy!
It is the result of a string theory in 5 dimensions!
Thank you for listening.

Jorge Barcellos.

WOW!

His closing, “Thank you for listening,” is poignantly simple and humble for someone who has accomplished a work with potentially huge historical impact. Why?

After taking a few days to think this over, I sent back a brief message thanking him for contacting me. I asked if he had published his findings, or is planning to. (It would seem that if Jorge has truly accomplished what he claims, his name would be worldwide news, well-familiar to everyone.) So far, no response.

Is he, perhaps, relatively unknown, as am I, because his work has necessitated working alone (as did Einstein’s until his discovery was completed and confirmed), sheltered from the slings and arrows of outrageous academic-publisher politics?

I have no doubt that all that he claims is possible. Even so, giving him this benefit of the doubt, I still have reservations. Most importantly, it’s this: Sages throughout time have discovered the Unified Theory of which I’m speaking, but experientially – not intellectually. This inner knowing transformed their lives, exponentially improving the quality of their personal relationships and physical health, as well as giving them supernatural, seemingly magical power over the forces of nature.

This inner illumination is not unique. It’s the essence of the perennial philosophy that pervades the world’s enduring religions. Everyone, everywhere shares this same innate potential for transformation in common.

So many questions. Why did his choose to share his discovery with me? Was it because his work confirms and reinforces mine?

Does Jorge intend, as do I, to use the Unified Theory which completes Einstein’s work to facilitate the new way of thinking which might – just maybe – ensure human survival? Would it be used to protect us from the consequences of poor decisions made by leaders by whose technology exceeds their humanity?

What does he foresee as the consequences of his work, for himself and for others?

Has he remained in the shadows for fear that his work will fall into the wrong hands? This scenario is far from impossible After all, Einstein’s work was not used (as it might have been and still could be) to unify and lift humanity, but rather to build atomic bombs. Could this knowledge be used against humanity again, for example, to build high-tech, genetically engineered robots like the death-dealing “Sentinels” envisioned in the latest X-Men movie?

On a lesser scale, could Jorge be anticipating the vengefulness of professional rivals? The possibility is not unheard of. For example, it has been suspected that Mozart’s early, unnatural end was orchestrated by the jealousy of a lesser composer, Antonio Salieri,

Does Jorge dread the consequences of truth-seeking like those suffered by the medieval philosopher featured in last week’s post, Abelard? Power holders accused him of heresy. He was obliged to recant. His books were condemned and burned. He died in prison shortly afterward.

Or is it possible that Jorge dreads the competitive politics of mainstream academic scientists, who have a vested interest (on many levels) in preventing his ideas from getting into the hands of those who would use the information to change their lives – even society – for the better?

After all, tyrants hate truth and go to extraordinary lengths to bury it, discredit its messengers, and use the legal system (via exclusive contracts,non-competition agreements, dead-end patent lawsuits, the IRS . . . whatever dirty tricks work) to prevent life-saving ideas from reaching the public.

Can I help ensure that Jorge’s work reaches the new breed of humanistic corporate leaders described by Art Kleiner in The Age of Heretics – those who can and will put his ideas to good use? With the little clout I have, I’ll do my best!

I devoutly hope, Dr. Kushi, as a wielder of far greater clout in the fields of both physics and public opinion, that you too will give him the benefit of the doubt, do whatever it takes to bring these potentially scale-tipping ideas to the public, and protect their creator from the slings and arrows of outrageous academic politics.

The second message I mentioned came Roberto Neves Silva. It’s copied to an intimidating list of scientists (much longer than the message itself). Their names suggest worldwide membership.

Roberto lists Portuguese as his native language and claims proficiency in English. He gives his location as Brazil and occupation as Prefeitura do Municipio de Sao Paulo –1993 – Present (21 years).

He lists the acronym EPCAR to represent his education, which he apparently assumes is meaningful to others. I searched several places, but the only EPCAR that comes up on the web is the East Polk County Association of Realtors. I don’t think that’s what he means.

Here’s what he sent:

I have read your ideas on your website
I see that if you are right it would revolutionate physics.
It must be tested by physics mainstream scientists, how many of them agree on test your theories ?

An extraordinary number of assumptions are packed into this brief communication.

First, it’s doubtful that he did little more than scan. Had he read thoughtfully, he would know for a certainty that he’s addressing someone who doesn’t agree with his faith in empirical science as a method for arriving at Truth.

Second, he assumes that he and/or his mainstream peers have the authority to require that my ideas be submitted to their validity tests. (Does he believe I am held to this standard as an absolute, regardless of whether or not I agree with it?)

Third, he assumes that my ideas aren’t valid until/unless a certain number of scientists test and validate them. From my point of view, Truth is not a matter of consensus. It certainly doesn’t require a stamp of approval from mainstream academic authorities (some of whom may be far afield from Truth themselves). I trust, Dr. Kushi, that you would agree.

The kindest response I can muster is simply to repeat, the Unified Theory of which I speak is first and foremost experiential. Its origins rest deep within each of us, at the center of the Life Wheel – something taboo and outside the narrow, constricting parameters of empirical science. Like Einstein, I’m advocating, as a matter of human survival, a substantial rethinking of this incomplete, dysfunctional paradigm.

Nowhere do I claim that the ideas I’m presenting are revolutionary. Though presented with a model that meets the dual standard of Occam’s Razor – utmost simplicity with maximum inclusiveness – the basic concepts are not news.

Nor is revolution in my worldview a positive value. According to the Chinese Book of Change, revolution simply implies revolving back and forth in cyclical pendulum swings over time, accomplishing little of substantive value.

In contrast, the Positive Paradigm of Change which embodies Einstein’s Unified Theory reflects the unchanging essence of eternal Truth as it has been consistently experienced by the deepest thinkers of every generation.

Truth itself is not revolutionary. Rather, time and time again we fall asleep. When inspired teachers or sudden shocks have the effect of reawakening us to who we truly are, we only imagine that it’s new and for the first time.

My bottom-line response to the verification demand: Truth is not subject to the whims of power-holding gatekeepers or rules of democracy, where the most influence and/or votes win the day. Consistent with Gandhi’s worldview, One with God is a majority.