Right Honourable Stephen Harper
Mr Christopher Bek
House of Commons
Ottawa ON K1A 0A6
602, 1133 Eighth Avenue SW
Calgary Canada T2P 1J7
1 November 2013
Dear Prime Minister Harper,
Subject—My House and the Nobel Prize
Quotation—Restricting knowledge to a small group deadens the philosophical spirit of people and leads to spiritual poverty. —Albert Einstein
Summary. This letter argues that the government owes me a house and that the government should nominate me for the Nobel Prize.
My House. In 2003, just before I lost my house, I sent two letters to the Canadian Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin which claimed that the government had no legal right to take my house. My arguments are that the government must respond to all arguments and that the Godmade laws of nature trump the manmade laws of government. Relativity Theory (1905), Quantum Theory (1925) and my Theory of One (2001) are all laws of nature. Unless the government is prepared to formally state that it is not responsible for answering arguments—and that it holds the manmade laws of government above the Godmade laws of nature—I want my house back.
The Nobel Prize. I would also ask you to nominate me for The Nobel Prize. It would compel the government to respond to my arguments. The Nobel Prize in physics is awarded to individuals who achieve scientific greatness. My Theory of One solves the greatest scientific problem of all time in uniting Relativity Theory and Quantum Theory by recognizing that lightspeed and Planck’s constant are the same boundary of the spacetime continuum—and that there is only one photon and that photon is God.
Conclusion. Even if my arguments are wrong, they are still effectively right because they are most assuredly biting in the right direction. I am presenting you with a glorious opportunity to show Canada and in fact the entire world that the Canadian Government answers arguments and also holds the Godmade laws of nature above the manmade laws of government. It could be the turning point that would transform Canada into a nation of philosophers. I will contact you in one month unless I hear from you before then.
Quantum theory does not hold undisputed sway, but must share dominion with that other rebel sibling—relativity. And although these two bodies together have led to the most penetrating advances in the search for knowledge—they must remain enemies. Their fundamental disagreement will not be resolved until both are subdued by a still more powerful theory that will sweep away our present painfully won fancies concerning such things as space, time, matter, radiation and causality. The nature of this theory may only be surmised—but it will ultimately come down to the very same certainty as to whether our civilization as a whole survives—no more no less.
Relativity asks questions like—Is there a beginning and end to time? Where is the farthest point in the universe? What lies beyond the farthest point? What happened at the point of Creation? By contrast, quantum theory asks the opposite questions—What is the smallest object in the universe? Can matter be divided into smaller and smaller units without limit? In many ways these two theories appear to be exact opposites. Relativity concerns itself with the universe at large while quantum theory probes the subatomic world.
Neither relativity nor quantum theory by themselves provides a satisfactory description of nature. Einstein showed that relativity theory alone cannot form the basis for the unified field theory. Nor is quantum theory satisfactory without relativity. Quantum theory can only be used to calculate the behavior of atoms and not the large-scale behavior of galaxies and the expanding universe. Merging the two theories has consumed the Herculean efforts of scores of theoretical physicists for the past half century.
If we do discover a complete theory of everything, it should be understandable by everyone and not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists and ordinary people, be able to take part in discussing questions as to why both we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason—for then we would at last know the mind of God.
Quantum theory deals with fundamental units of matter and energy. Relativity deals with space, time and the structure of the universe as a whole. Both are accepted pillars of modern scientific thought.
The final theory of everything will undoubtedly be a mathematical system of uncommon tidiness and rigor that accommodates the physical facts of the universe as we know it. The mathematical neatness will arrive first followed by its explanatory power. Perhaps one day physicists will find a theory of such compelling beauty that its truth cannot be denied—truth will be beauty and beauty will be truth. The theory will be, in precise terms, a myth. A myth is a story that makes sense on its own terms, offers explanations of everything we see before us, but can neither be disproved nor tested. This theory of everything will indeed spell the end of physics. It will be the end not because physics has been able to explain everything, but because physics has at last reached the end of all the things for which it has the power to explain.
I know not what the world thinks of me, but as for myself, I seem to be only a boy playing on the seashore, now and again finding a smoother stone or a more beautiful shell—all the while the great ocean of truth lies undiscovered before me.
—Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
The theory of one brings the reader face to face with the stunning realization that the universe is bounded—rather than unbounded, as Einstein and others have asserted. The theory of one delivers the ocean. It is the theory that spells the end of physics. It is the monolith of 2001—a spacetime odyssey.
—Christopher Bek, The Theory of One (2001)
If this discovery is confirmed, it will surely be one of the most stunning insights into our universe that science has ever uncovered. Its implications are as far-reaching and awe-inspiring as can be imagined. Even as it promises answers to some of our oldest questions, it poses others even more fundamental. We will continue to listen closely to what it has to say as we continue the search for answers and for knowledge that is as old as humanity itself, but essential to our people’s future.
—President William J Clinton
Christopher Bek is a mathematician, actuary, philosopher, scientist and writer—and is a superior spreadsheet, database and riskmodeling craftsman. He has consulted to the top executives of one of the largest companies in Canada—and has made presentations relating to the philosophy and science of risk management in Houston and New York. Chris founded Risk Management Services in 1995 dedicated to helping executives develop scientific management practices that will allow organizations to properly serve the shareholders, the stakeholders and society in the community. Socrates (470-399 BC) set the table for Plato (427-347 BC) by radically insisting that we must first answer the question of what X is before we can say anything else about X. Plato then founded philosophy by daring to ask what existence would be like outside the cave. Chris founded Philosophymagazine on 1 January 2001 in support of those who have taken a less traveled road in the struggle towards daylight.