In his book Essentialism, business writer Greg McKeown notes, “Jim Collins, the author of the business classic Good to Great, was once told by Peter Drucker that he could either build a great company or build great ideas but not both.”
There is a cute General Electric commercial you might have seen about a downtrodden idea, symbolized as a colorful, furry monster, who is welcomed to the business world and suddenly becomes happy. In fact, the reverse is often true. Those who create ideas are often overjoyed at having thought of them, only to have their work commodified unfairly by giant corporations or governments, always on the lookout for ideas to steal and from which to make gobs of money.
According to Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, most of our feted rich did not get their money through innovation, but through monopoly power. In an interview, he said, “The holders of monopoly tend to be very concentrated. When you look at the Forbes list, the top 2 are both monopolists. (Bill) Gates got his money through monopoly power, and (Carlos) Slim got his money through monopoly power in Telemex. It’s not a statement that they weren’t efficient or they didn’t do things well. They may or may not have been innovative — there’s a lot of criticism about Microsoft but we don’t have to go there. But what we can say is that a lot of the income they got was through the exercise of monopoly power, and I don’t think anybody would doubt that. So when you look at the top, it’s monopoly power.” Indeed, Bill Gates took most of his ideas for the personal computer from Xerox researchers, whose bosses didn’t see much of a demand for what would eventually pave the information age.
It may be news to you, but I invented cold fusion and a missile defense system in my spare time. These are now operational. I haven’t received a penny in compensation or a whiff of credit. These top secret scientific developments are potentially dangerous, so I’m OK with keeping them a secret. But even when I innovate publicly, I don’t get credit.
A research team just recently announced a new physics-based approach to solving the Riemann hypothesis, an old math problem with a million dollar prize attached to solving it. I laid out my conjectures months ago on Facebook, based on symmetry breaking and taking a quantum mechanical approach to solving the problem, only to find that this team of scientists crunched the numbers using my approach. Based on my interactions with the business-government structure, I’m not waiting on bated breath for the million dollar prize. (The details of my suggestions are below.)
New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez was recently on TV talking about how we need to compensate our innovators. But there is really no corporate or governing incentive to do so. If the government or businesses can get their information for free, why would they compensate lowly physicists or mathematicians? What impetus do they have––besides public shaming or the risk that dangerous information might be sold––to make sure that America’s great inventors are given more than a few lines in a speech or empty promises? There is none. As long as the patent system exists, one might argue, there are ways to compensate the creators of ideas. But if inventors are actually interested in helping their government and bypass the patent system, there is little reason to suspect the government or big business will honor inventors’ trust.
Where do we go from here? We have to create a culture that honors ideas and their creators. We have to put less emphasis on monetary success and more emphasis on brilliance and insight. We shouldn’t honor people who have created fortunes, but those whose work has revolutionized the world through ideation.
We have a long way to go to become a society that truly values the intellect. Now we value the externalization of the intellect in creating wealth. Think of all the new things we could create if we decided instead to value original ideas.
“Redefining the Riemann zeta function”
The R zeta function appears as a special symmetry situation. What we have is a continuous function, or the summation of many, with an attractor around the zone 0-1 where the function is not continuous. Yet there is a mark of symmetry within the 0-1 stretch at 1/2. What I propose is that the 1/2 mark is a mark of natural symmetry that would have accompanied the 0-1 attractor had the function not been shifted into the positive quadrant. (The natural mark would be 1/2 because the attractor would have spanned -1/2 to 1/2 without the shift.) Therefore, there is a memory to symmetry that maintains itself throughout translations, which I think is the central message of the zeta function. We're encoding prime information in a symmetry mark. In a sense, what's going on is a breakdown in symmetry, represented by the attractor from 0-1, creating more symmetry at the 1/2 line. Someone will probably prove Riemann within the decade, the more they understand that breaking down symmetry actually creates other layers, or dimensions, of symmetry.
“The symmetry of the unit circle”
A unit circle’s quadrant I discontinuity is represented in the Riemann function. A discontinuous quadrant I, half unit circle is the natural memory symmetry mark of the R quadrant I discontinuity because it pushes back toward the natural symmetry mark at 1/2. The natural symmetry mark remains after considering what the symmetry would be if all quadrants were involved with a given value.
Any isolated quadrant’s discontinuous unit circle’s natural symmetry mark is similarly at +/- 1/2.
A full unit circle’s natural symmetry mark is at zero.
In nothingness, we can expect to find programmed information of the unit circle.
What is zero? Is it really nothing or just an unrepresented value whose entrance could lead to programmed information from another dimension where the value is represented? Is this what black holes are?
What is significant about the difference between the 1/2 symmetries in the area of the unit circle and other 1/2 symmetries?
Can we expect similar relationships to exist with isolated and full quadrants of imaginary and real numbers? How would this impact quantum becoming and reveal what is programmed in superimposed quantum wave functions?