15 Years Providing Weekly Foresight
The most accurate predictive letter in computing and telecommunications,
To hear Mark's latest interview for NPR, with host Dave Meyer, please visit:
To hear Mark's latest interview for the BBC, with host Peter Day, please visit:
For my parents, Robert and Marilyn Anderson
This week we are publishing, for the first time, the original paper describing Resonance Theory. To see this paper, with all supporting documents and submission letters, please go to:
This work, although begun in 1980, continues to describe a revolution in physics. The complete theory has additional sections not yet included in the archived online paper.
The basic aspects of this theory have the potential to affect computing, communications, photonics, materials science, and many other sectors we in SNS follow daily. For that reason, although it may seem abstract to some, it should be considered critically important for those members following the idea flow from science to technology.
After 50 years of building up the particle zoo, and another 30 wondering how to make String Theory useful, the scientific world should now be ready for Resonance: it provides a physical foundation for Strings and 'Branes, and goes far beyond these in offering a new way of understanding physical phenomena.
What is it about light that allows it to pass through empty space, when all other waves require a medium?
Is space really empty?
What allows a light wave to violate the law of Conservation of Energy as it travels or does it not?
How can the speed of light be constant, regardless of whether one is moving toward it or away from it, and regardless of one's speed?
Why is our perception of everything except light (mass, distance, and time) directly changed by (relative) velocity?
Why can particles (with rest mass) approach but never achieve the speed of light?
Why is it that speed, in distance over time (i.e., meters/second), is exactly equivalent to the divided square roots of the electrical and magnetic capacitances of empty space?
How can space that is empty have these measurable physical characteristics?
What is so special about light?
What is empty space?
I was sitting in a Stanford physics class one day, when it became clear that the professor was suggesting that light waves could cancel each other in a vacuum, and then reappear shortly thereafter. To the rest of the class, it just looked like a typical wave picture. But it started me thinking: how can energy be there one moment, not the next, and then back after that?
If there is one basic law in physics that stands above all others, it is the law of conservation of energy, which states that the total amount of energy in a system remains constant over time; and so (mass-) energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Don't ask me why, but this is the law that you don't want to mess with.
A little investigation revealed to me that a single electromagnetic wave of plane-polarized light presented, in theory, the same problem. While many people drew this wave with the electric and magnetic fields out of phase so that, la James Clerk Maxwell's original intent, they seem to be exchanging energy over time these waves (particularly near the transmitter) can also exist as in-phase.
In other words, the two fields that make up light (electromagnetic radiation) can have maxima and zero values at the same time, traveling through empty space.
In 1980, I took almost two years off all other work to read about, and begin theoretical research on, the physics of light, and the vacuum. I found that I had to work through many issues to get there (science history, matrix math and tensors, the segmentation of force laws, etc.), and I created a set of rules of my own to avoid digesting the wrong with the right. (I knew that there would be fuzzy thinking and wrong theories mixed in with the truth.)
When Albert Einstein began thinking about physics problems, he had a very good rule: only accept as true those things that can be physically measured e.g., by a real clock, ruler, or scale.
In my case, I wanted to revert to what was truly known and experimentally proven. There were whole mountains of ideas that were about half-right, and a good part of my task was to not accept these as true.
One of the results of this work was what I called Resonance Theory, which I put into a paper and submitted to what was considered the best physics journal of the day, the Physical Review. Having come from Stanford University, I knew that the chances of getting published were close to zero, for two reasons: 1) I was not then at a recognized institution, enough alone to destroy any such chance; and 2) I was not writing under the name of a well-known professor or researcher. I was also fully aware that my language in the paper would come across as being "not of the tribe," a truly fatal flaw. And last, and not least, I was suggesting a real revolution in theory.
While in Einstein's and Newton's day, it was expected that skilled amateurs would become leaders in science, in 1980 (and today) the expectation is the opposite. Today, amateurs never get near the front gates to the playing field, much less are allowed onto the freshly mowed grass. That is, they never get published.
The paper was sent back to me with a condescending (anonymous) peer review, suggesting that I should know better about how to apply the law of conservation of energy in this special situation, and should have talked with practicing physicists before sending it in for publication.
What the referee didn't know or didn't understand:
a) When you try to fake a reason for not using the law of conservation of energy, it means your own theory is incomplete. In this case, the whole scientific area of fields, action-at-a-distance, wave conduction in a vacuum, and the definition of the vacuum (as well as, historically, what is the ether) was fraught with sticking tape, glue, bolt-ons, and goofy ideas. It was a field of very complicated assumptions waiting for reduction and simplification.
b) In testing whether the work held up properly, I identified a number of leading scientists who had done work that linked with my new understanding. I decided to visit them, share these ideas, and get their reactions. Among these were: David Bohm at Birkbeck College, University of London; Nobelist James Cronin at the University of Chicago; and Roger Penrose at Oxford University. Readers will recognize these names as the global leaders at the time in quantifying space, CPT asymmetry, and twistor mathematics.
All of these scientists were important to various parts of Resonance, and each of these meetings led me to believe that I really did have a possible new understanding of how the universe worked.
A year of regular discussions with William Bender, then Professor Emeritus of Physics at Western Washington University, helped me acquire confidence in the force unification work I was doing at the time, most of which remains unpublished. And the occasional, ongoing and always productive, conversations with my friend John Cramer, currently Professor Emeritus of Nuclear Physics at the University of Washington, were of great assistance in assisting my understanding of spin and other particle behaviors.
Later, physicist Fred Alan Wolf was kind enough to read the original paper, suggesting that, since he could find nothing wrong in it, it must be treated as correct. (For those in theoretical physics, "not being wrong" is the ultimate positive test outcome.) In 1991, after String Theory had become accepted, Fred was very helpful in trying to get the Resonance paper published by Physical Review again, using the original submission date.
Despite his help, it was again rejected. (Only this week, I discovered that the rejecting editor had put out a "Do Not Publish in Physical Review" rule for the San Francisco physicists crowd, including Fred Wolf, Jack Sarfatti, and a host of others working on the more exotic aspects of quantum mechanics, observation, and consciousness. Interesting, no?)
My guess at the time was that we had added a political problem: by insisting on the original submission date, we would be showing that the original editor, still in power, had rejected the first paper in a field that was later to become String Theory, the primary candidate for a Theory of Everything even now, 30 years later.
In this week's discussion, I will offer an English-language companion piece to the original Resonance Theory paper, which we will link to in the coming pages and at the end of this issue. With the original, we have also included all of the date-stamped and serial-number proofs relating to the original submission date, together with copies of the correspondence that accompanied the rejection of the paper by the Physical Review in 1980, and again in 1991; and an opening letter, with three addenda, describing this paper for those not reading this newsletter.
Members interested in knowing how the physical world works, but not interested in either the details or the math, can read this issue of SNS alone, and get the gist of Resonance Theory. Those with a physics background or bent are encouraged to read the original paper.
This work was done at a time when the Standard Model governed physics as our best, if an insufficient, Theory of Everything. The Model was based on a large number of numeric "fudges," and aimed to describe a world made of particles, of which there were an unendingly-expanding number. These particles supposedly moved through empty space to collide, and physics described the results, in theory and in practice.
Then, as now, Special and General Relativity existed without any connection to Quantum Mechanics, a huge problem resulting from what Einstein and I have both (it later turned out) called "Einstein's Greatest Mistake." (See references below and online.)
For those who care about such things, I undertook this work alone, working for about 18 months, in an old shipwright-built waterfront house, with books, paper, and pens spread out on a long wooden table. Not having a PC or Net, I opted for a 100-yard piece of 3-foot-wide butcher paper that I could slide across the table as I sat. Colored pens added one more dimension, as I worked to decipher the mysteries of how light worked, what made Relativity tick, how all of the force laws converged into one, and what empty space really was.
I filled three of these butcher rolls, and about eight notebooks, in doing the work.
The summary of all of this is wonderfully easy to state:
"The laws of physics derive directly from the physical and symmetry properties of otherwise-empty space."
It turns out we were studying the wrong thing: it's space itself we need to study, and not the particles and waves that are made of it.
There is a lot more to Resonance Theory, but for the purpose of this issue, I'll do a straightforward walk through the ideas laid out in the original paper. At some future, not too-distant date, I hope to add 3-5 more pieces of the puzzle, and will let SNS members know as these become available. As for Resonance itself, now that it is public, I plan to also publish it in an online journal in the next month or so.
I have given up on wrestling with the Physical Review, and have found this other way of capturing the original submission date. Even now, reading the journal's responses, they seem overstrained, almost ridiculous.
And yes, Dear Editor, the law of conservation of energy applies everywhere, all the time. With no exceptions.
Members can read the original paper, with all supporting documents and submission letters, at:
Conservation of Energy and the Mass Wave
Resonance begins with the challenge of applying the law of conservation along the axis of travel of a beam of light. For reasons of simplicity, I selected a plane-polarized wave, as it casts the problem in a bright light. Light, or electromagnetic radiation, is what is called a lateral wave (like a snake, it moves sideways in order to move forward). When the (lateral) E (electric) and B (magnetic) fields shift from their simultaneous maximum values to simultaneous zero values (and all during this downward shift), the law of conservation of energy requires that the "lost" energy from these fields be transferred to something else.
(See "Takeout Window" below for Figures for this paper.)
But to what? The vacuum, or even the space of "zero-point" energy, favored by quantum physicists at the time, was capable of nothing greater than a state of virtual "foam," of the spontaneous creation of particles and anti-particles that appeared and disappeared inside any measurable time frame. Not helpful, in this case.
I was aware of the extensive work that had been done as what I would call "replacement for understanding," in order to make more sense of Maxwell's original equations for how light waves work. The literature on field theory is deep; it is unfortunate that no one knows what a field (or, for that matter, an electron) is made of.
Instead of adding to this growing artifice, I decided to apply the most basic tool in physics. The energy along a wave had to be constant. When waves passed through a physical medium, like water, the medium itself carried constant energy. What about space?
The short answer had to be: it's the same. But since everyone believed space to be empty, I decided to describe the "missing" energy and assign it a name: the mass wave.
The resulting three waves have a constant summed energy along the axis of time and travel (the Z-axis) for an electromagnetic wave, and therefore do not violate the conservation laws.
Do we have any information about how this mass wave is distributed in the X,Y plane as the wave propagates? Insofar as the electric and magnetic waves, seen in the lateral plane, both maximize in-phase, we can draw an E+B vector right between them. If energy is to be equally distributed around the axis of travel at each moment, then we can position the mass wave as being diametrically opposed to this E+B vector.
In other words, if electric and magnetic energy is pointing 45 degrees to the upper right at a given moment, the mass energy will be pointing 180 degrees opposed, or 45 degrees to the lower left.
To see pictures of both of these waves, you may refer to Figures 1 and 2 in the "Takeout Window" in this issue, and at the end of the original paper on the Web.
At this point, one might wish to pause. We have begun by taking the vacuum as being empty, and proposed corresponding mass waves so that we have no loss of energy along the axis of travel, and conservation of momentum in the X,Y plane at any moment which allows the beam to travel straight.
What do we know about this space through which light travels?
We know a few simple things. We know that space exhibits two physical, measurable quantities, representing the expression of electric and magnetic fields. You might say these parameters permittivity and permeability represent the capacity of empty space to express these forces.
We know that a moving electric charge (and its field) generate a magnetic field, according to velocity; that there is only one apparent velocity of light, c; and that a fluxing magnetic field induces an electric field.
With this information, Maxwell was able to create the first equations for light, which remain valid today.
We also know that these fields do not appear randomly around the axis of travel of light, but occur at right angles to each other, in a consistent fashion.
In other words, space itself has "built-in" electric and magnetic physical characteristics, AND these are expressed according to a "built-in" symmetry.
We are starting to see that light itself is a particular expression of space. In some way or other, it is space itself which, when energized, we see as light.
And we are starting to understand that the ideas of charge and interaction may also be seen as symmetries of these waves in space. If this is just space itself behaving, perhaps we don't need the ideas of "field" any longer, or "action at a distance," but rather just need to see space interacting with itself. And, as we'll see below, the geometries of interactions may contribute to our definitions of distance.
Are these one-dimensional strings waving? Are they two-plus-dimensional 'branes? Or are they real waves, made of space itself?
Here we have the foundation of String theory, in its earliest form, but already cast as resonating space.
Matter, Anti-matter, and Charge
One of the more interesting facts of physics is that virtually all particles have anti-particle partners. Each alone has "rest mass" i.e., has ponderable weight (acceleration in a gravitational field) and is prevented from traveling at the speed of light.
Amazingly, touching these two together creates a photon which has no rest mass (but does have mass through impact measurements), and which only and immediately travels at the speed of light.
What gives? How can this be explained?
If we look at the three-wave symmetry we have described along the axis of travel, we see two distinct symmetries in each half of the wave; I am calling these symmetries Charge Inversion Modes (CIMs). It is a proposal of Resonance Theory that these symmetries, when separated, show rest mass and act like particles and anti-particles; and when conjoined, become the self-inducing light waves described by Maxwell.
If this is true, then electric charge is the result of a specific symmetry, as pictured in Figs.1 and 2.
Another short note is in order here:
These waves no longer seem to be what physics gave us at the start of this discussion: rather than calling them "fields," we are aware that they may display field behaviors, but are the result of the physical nature of space itself. Ultimately, it may be velocity and geometry which determine how space is expressed, and we will find a new language to better suit this understanding.
Continuous Functions for Velocity, Momentum, and Energy
This section of the paper is mathematical (rather than graphic), and I recommend those interested to read it directly in the original.
Its purpose is to recast equations for kinetic energy and mass-energy in terms, first, of our new Charge Inversion Modes.
Second, it is to recast velocity equations in terms of energy; most of us are used to the reverse (energy in terms of velocity).
Insofar as Special Relativity tells us that local measurements of mass, distance, and time are directly affected by relative velocity, we are working toward recasting our math so that velocity is first isolated and then, ultimately, understood in new ways.
Here, we are expressing velocity as a balance of electromagnetic energy and mass energy. Everyone is used to E = mc2, but now you should think about c=E/m (this strange notation is a function of Word version use).
Velocity is equal to the square root of energy over mass.
You can see where this is heading: in Resonance, Velocity is much more interesting than energy or mass.
Similarly, we can recast Momentum and Energy, for single Charge Inversion Modes (with rest mass and charge), or for paired modes (without either).
And, finally, we can write equations for the wave itself, as what we once called "fields" expand and contract laterally in the X,Y plane. Why would we bother with that?
Because, contrary to our thinking up until now, it is starting to appear that all of the "action" (energy and movement) of these waves is, in fact, lateral, despite our history of being interested in only the longitudinal travel of this phenomenon we call light. We will come back to this idea later, in an addendum to Resonance Theory.
Symmetry: C, Spin, and Time-Stability
We now start to look at velocity more from a geometric perspective, and we first see that c is only available to objects with the geometry of having paired Charge Inversion Modes. The idea that the merging two rest-mass particles at low energies can lead to the instantaneous achievement of c by the resulting photon further casts doubt on the idea of velocity as solely a measure of distance over time. By writing
c = (k/k')1/2,
where k and k' are the electrical (permittivity) and magnetic (permeability) constants of empty space, and recalling our similar equation for c as a proportion of energy types
c = (Ee/Em)1/2
we start to consider whether c is also a state, rather than the usual idea of velocity. Here we see that c is clearly a ratio between two kinds of energy. How can this be a velocity? (Later, we will rewrite all velocities as energy states.)
Further, we know that this state is one attainable only when both Charge Inversion Modes are paired in the same object.
Is it possible that the intuitively elusive parameter of spin is also capable of being described in this model?
Without looking at the more detailed ideas of internal waves, standing waves, and their mathematics, it would appear that we can assign a single spin state to a single CIM. It is possible that many of the spin states and anomalies of spin derive from the idea of standing waves in a single CIM, vs. in a paired CIM wave. We will look more closely at a rather surprising, and successful, prediction of the relation of spin angle and geometry to velocity in a later addendum to Resonance.
Is it possible that this symmetry also explains the so-called "right hand rule" of electron flow and magnetic field creation? The single-CIM symmetry of the electron would actually dictate (or, more likely, mirror) this rule. By this model, positrons (with opposite symmetry) would evince an equal and opposite field.
Increasingly, as we look at the aspects of this transverse wave and its components, we see that the activity is either in the X,Y plane (lateral) or along the axis of travel. In fact, given that relative velocity is the determinant of apparent mass, time, and distance, it is worth noting that the first two appear to be wholly active in the X,Y plane of the wave, and are increased with relative velocity; while distance, along the Z-axis of travel, is the only parameter decreased with relative velocity.
It is possible that the difference in these behaviors is a direct result of this difference in symmetry, considering that the Z-axis is, by definition, the axis of interaction, and therefore of all measurement. There will be more said on this in the Interaction Theory addendum to this paper.
Having shifted our understanding of how to consider objects with and without rest mass, we come to the obvious question: can this view of a space with inherent physical characteristics and symmetries help with describing forces?
The paper provides a series of suggestions linking how various symmetrical groups of single-CIM modes might affect one another. From a simple perspective, I am trying to group our wave sets into a hierarchy of symmetries, and match these to the four (now three) basic forces accepted in 1980 physics (gravitational, electromagnetic, strong, and weak).
It is suggested that we might find any wavelike disruption of space to be the same material referred to in General Relativity, the deformation of space (time). This seems natural to Resonance. As we further know that our CIMs are equivalent in their symmetry to (plus and minus) charge, we look to some aspect of their difference in understanding electromagnetic force.
The other two forces, and the families of symmetry, are suggested also, but are more speculative.
Although I was unaware of Einstein's 1920 Leiden speech until after this paper was written, there is a concluding paragraph or two which perfectly fit this moment in the paper; and, hopefully, in the reader's new vision of how the world works.
Having earlier said that he would never again mention the ether, and having subsequently separated the worlds of quantum mechanics (charge-based) and general relativity (mass-based) his Greatest Mistake he now recants, completely and eloquently. It is as though he is laying out the Resonance Theory foundations specifically:
"Of course it would be a great advance if we could succeed in comprehending the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field together as one unified conformation. Then for the first time the epoch of theoretical physics founded by Faraday and Maxwell would reach a satisfactory conclusion. The contrast between ether and matter would fade away, and, through the general theory of relativity, the whole of physics would become a complete system of thought, like geometry, kinematics, and the theory of gravitation. ---
"Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only wonld be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense."
Einstein address at the University of Leiden, 1920
In fact, what we seem to have found is a new way of looking at physics through the event itself, asking about the event's structure and symmetry in terms of space. Rather than replacing past theories, we are taking a new view, and we can assume that most, if not all, of current physics remains intact, but may suffer a language and perception shift, after Resonance becomes more widely understood and accepted.
After all of the time spent on the question of frames, frame dragging, absolute frames, inertial frames, etc. over the last hundred years, the Resonance perspective is one of geometries natural to space, and internal to the objects we're describing.
In an addendum on Interaction Theory, we'll find out that there are no objects at all, from a purely scientific and observational perspective, but only interactions.
This paper, although not outdated, is no doubt painful to read for modern graduate students in physics. For one thing, it isn't littered with cool words and concepts like "deSitter dark energy," "Wheeler-Feynman total absorbers," and "reinterpretations of Mach's Principle."
But even in its current relative simplicity (and, perhaps, because of it), this theory lays out a turning in thought that Einstein himself missed, for almost all of his productive years, and which current physics has also missed.
In this sense, the Resonance paper is not so much a description of exactitude as the suggestion of a program, a way out of the dead-ends that contemporary physics has been stuck with for decades.
It doesn't matter, for instance, if the exact plane-polarized light wave version is used, as long as the program of requiring energy conservation along the beam path is followed; any configuration will work, although presenting slightly more complex results.
Those paying close attention to this work will, in looking at the internal symmetries of these wave forms, come up with several interesting questions, such as:
What is a wave?
What is velocity?
Is there a difference, in space, between X,Y plane interactions and Z-path interactions?
Have we found a platform for unifying forces?
Can we now speak more clearly about the meaning of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, in terms of space itself, rather than uncertainty?
Can we understand all current physical data as the result of interactions, and recast this knowledge in those terms, rather than in the old Newtonian particulate manner?
Can we understand interactions in terms of geometry, internal and relative, rather than the prior world view of distance, time, mass, and velocity?
How does that world work?
I have been working on these ideas for the last few decades, at a much-reduced pace, and, as mentioned above, intend to publish a series of Addenda or additional notes that will contribute to the answers to these questions.
These should include (and perhaps not be limited to):
A universal force and energy mathematics: The Russian Dolls
A physical interpretation of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle
Interaction Theory: Extending the inherent geometry of space
A geometric model for Special Relativity interactions
For those not reading the original paper, here are a few quotes that capture some of the key points therein:
For closed systems, time rate is the result of the proportion of energy to mass.
The velocity of light is non-relative because its vector is perpendicular to the velocity vector of rest mass; and c cannot be achieved by rest mass for the additional reason that only light is composed of coupled charge inversion modes.
Empty space may be devoid of energy, but even in this case contains the potential of inherent geometry and physical properties which during activation can be accurately described for all values of velocity and size.
The final conclusion of the theory must be that the properties of physical events are the properties of space.
While it is possible, and even likely, that some aspects of this original paper are incorrect, the intervening years have convinced me that those who adhere to String Theory need to see what would likely have been the original paper on this subject, as a Theory of Everything.
In fact, the most surprising aspect of the experience of "sitting on" this theory since 1980 has been watching the physics world go through the radical changes necessary to come so much closer to the core of Resonance Theory. What in 1980 was essentially sacrilege (or "nave," in the referee's terms) today seems almost inevitable.
Readers may ask why I did not re-submit this work to Physical Review more quickly, or submit it to other organs, as is the norm, after its first rejection. Without being too specific, I'll mention that I felt there were ethical questions involved in publishing this work that I needed to understand more clearly before proceeding. Ten years later, I was at relative ease on this front. But at that time, in order to claim the proper date of its writing, I needed to stay with the original intended publication.
There is nothing in Resonance Theory to prevent later work in String, Superstring, and 'Brane work. More important, Resonance links these to the fundamental properties of space. Indeed, one has reason to hope that today's work in these areas will sit directly on top of Resonance. From this perspective, one can also hope to jettison the 10 to 15 unknown but necessary dimensions required by stringlike mathematics, and treat these instead like the symmetry families outlined here, of real space, in three dimensions.
Such a view would likely link all of the String-related Theories to a foundation in three-dimensional space, and perhaps unify them with additional symmetry theories currently under study.
Why does any of this matter to SNS members? Just as technology drives economics today, physics drives technology. Among the hard sciences, it is the most general: theoretically, some day, all other sciences may be derived from physics.
At the heart of physics is the question of How the World Works. And, in the search for one basic platform for understanding this question, we see not only the ultimate connectedness of all physical phenomena, but the inherent beauty driving the universe.
To see the original paper, with all supporting documents and submission letters, please go to www.stratnews.com/Resonance.html.
Your comments are always welcome.
Mark R. Anderson
"This was a total Apple store rip-off. A beautiful rip-off a brilliant one the best rip-off store we had ever seen. Being the curious types that we are, we struck up some conversation with these salespeople who, hand to God, all genuinely think they work for Apple." BirdAbroad blogger in China, on Wednesday, revealing three full-on fake Apple stores operating in Kunming, complete with Apple logos everywhere, Apple uniforms, signage, posters, and (fake or not fake?) Apple products. Quoted in Reuters.
"Famous U.S. brands, and the respect and loyalty they command from consumers, are critical to our ability to compete in China and around the world. Press reports of a fake Apple store are indicative of the challenges we continue to face combating intellectual property theft in China. Confronting those challenges is a high priority for the Obama Administration." A senior U.S. trade official; quoted in Reuters.
"On one side you have the unrivalled energy and ambition of the American worker. On the other, you have the unrivalled complacency, self-righteousness and bloody-mindedness of Washington. I never thought I would say this, but I'm starting to wonder which will prevail." Clive Crook, in the Financial Times.
"China has no reason at all to reduce its covert operation against Taiwan, and now the Taiwan government is making such operations easier." York Chen, professor at Tamkang University and former senior advisor in Taiwan's national security council; quoted in the FT.
"China will use any and all opportunities to place more spies on the ground in Taiwan. This includes using tourist visas." Wendell Minnick, Asia bureau chief of Defense News, longtime observer of the Taiwan military; in the FT.
"While US trade is important, outside of close neighbors, it is the global bellwether natures of US bonds and equity markets that generates the majority of spillovers." IMF report, quoted in the FT.
"From public transport safety to coal mine safety to food safety, these accidents show that theoretically there is no problem with the conception of safety plans. But they are not executed properly." Editorial on government-run website in China, after 43 were killed and 210 injured in a Chinese high-speedrail crash; in the WSJ.
"It now seems to be everyone for themselves. The edifice is cracking: they are all fighting like rats in a sack." Paul Farrelly, Labour member of Parliament in the U.K. and a prominent critic of News International; on the same. Quoted in the WSJ.
"We need to change the way we manage our businesses so that foreign exchange movements won't affect us as much. The basic idea is that, whenever we see markets where demand is sure to expand, we'll try to build solar cell plants there." Mikio Katawama, CEO of Sharp.
As mercantilists lose their advantage in the Currency Wars, this is the next step.
Re: "SNS: Having It All"
Subject: China is now counterfeiting entire Apple stores!
I thought you'd get a kick out of this one, Mark. How brazen the Chinese have truly become. Wild.
Santa Barbara, CA
Subject: Copies of Apple Stores (!)
Thought you might enjoy this:
In the context of Other People's IP - cloning the whole store?
Shades of the Cornflakes wars, where Kellogg starting putting his signature onto the 'real' boxes.
Maybe we need Steve Jobs' signature on the front of each genuine Apple store
[Founder and CEO
Simon and John,
By now, this story has appeared in the general press, although I thank you for catching it before it became "news."
There is now an update by the original blogger here:
which includes this text:
As we head towards 1,000,000 views in less than 72 hours over here on BirdAbroad, I think it's time to take stock and give an update on China's favorite ripoff Apple store.
As many of you know, this story has struck a nerve in the Western world, and has spread virallywell, basically everywhere. --- I can tell you that I have personally been contacted by every major news source in the US and Europe, included the AP, AFP, CNN, BBC, ABC, NBC ---
The Chinese news media is also catching on, with several hundred stories have been published locally and around the country. This seems like a good moment to introduce you all to an excellent and relevant word in Chinese: shanzhai (pronounced SHAN-JAI). It means fake, ripoff, counterfeit. As in:
"Woah, these Adidas are on sale for five dollars!!"
"Dude, save your money. Totally shanzhai."
An increasing number of Chinese people have contacted me, variously lamenting the enormous prevalence of shanzhai goods in China, but plenty of others have chastised me for even bothering to talk about this on the internet shanzhai is unstoppable in China, they say, and point out that they don't really care if the Apple store is shanzhai or not. Some have even said that Apple deserves to have shanzhai stores, since their products are absurdly expensive, despite being made right here in China. [Note: Bolding is ours. Pub.]
I've also been called upon to publicly apologize to the city and people of Kunming forI don't even know what. Presumably for besmirching their good name.
As for the main store that I photographed in my original post: an employee of the store has confirmed that it is unauthorized. An Apple spokeswoman has also confirmed that it is unauthorized (before they stopped responding to media inquiries entirely, or so it seems) ---
An unnamed "senior U.S. trade official" has even weighed in, saying, "Confronting [the challenges we continue to face combating intellectual property theft in China] is a high priority for the Obama Administration."
Regardless of the international furor, let me assure you that the store is still open and seems to be operating as normal.
And these (selected) reader comments:
Apple outsources the manufacturing of its iPhone and iPad to a mega-factory in Southern China, called Foxconn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn). One possible scenario Foxconn discreetly churns out authentic Apple products in excess of Apple's purchase order. Unbeknownst to Apple, Foxconn's authentic 'excess production' is sold and distributed illegally to unauthorized dealers in China, like the store in Kunming.
It matters not whether the merchandise is or is not authentic Apple product, or from where it came. When peddled by unauthorized Apple dealers, it is no different from merchandise 'fallen from the back of a truck'. It is stolen intellectual property and merchandise, stolen from Apple, an American company stripped of legal recourse within China's walls. What can Apple do? Apple can stop outsourcing to China and return sole production of its wares to the US, where it can better protect its interests.
It's a big deal because that store is not authorized to sell Apple products. You could say it's like a third party selling the products, but it's still the problem of intellectual property theft and impersonation. But since laws are so lax in China, it's no wonder that these have started popping up...well China needs to get more creative instead of imitating, stealing, and pirating other countries' ideas/products.
I am including all of this because the story is an example of what we've been working on at SNS over the last two years.
In that time, we have developed a new global view of economics, which describes an economic trade war over Intellectual Property. For the mercantilist nations pro this war, this is no secret at all: in fact, their attitude seems to be, what's the big deal?
Or, as one of the Chinese complainants above put it:
"shanzhai is unstoppable in China"
which I interpret to mean: Who cares what is right or wrong? Who cares who owns the IP? We will never stop stealing it.
The righteous emotion behind this kind of statement, which itself is, I think, rather in keeping with the Chinese culture and with today's prevalent attitudes, is even more important for innovators, inventors, and company executives to understand.
"So what if we're robbing you?" seems to be the message: Since we're never going to stop since this is a core part of China's national business model you'll just have to shut up and accept it.
It is this combination of righteousness with criminal activity that I find most dangerous to the innovating community. I don't think most Americans have a clue about this, when they think about China as a trading partner. I would go further, and suggest that even international CEOs, who have been briefed and should know better (Jeff Immelt of GE comes to mind), don't seem to understand.
Thank you for helping break this story,
You may have written about this before but I am fascinated as to how IBM has managed to last 100 years (as of last month) and seems to be doing better than ever. So few companies ever last that longespecially in a space defined by innovation.
My cousin Geoffrey Moore is coming out with a book in September entitled:
"Escape Velocity: Free Your Company's Future from the Pull of the Past"
Here is a Stanford talk he gave which gets at some of the key issues:
His book is basically a recipe for how Microsoft should reinvent itself. But IBM has managed to do this several times overit has to have to last a century.
I think it would be a great subject for one of your letters. "Why can't Microsoft be more like IBM?" or even better yet, "What IBM can teach Microsoftand everybody else."
All the best,
Tech Alliance NW
Since Geoffrey is writing this book already, perhaps I'll let him tell the story.
Even though Microsoft is increasingly finding itself on the Enterprise side of the ERP/Consumer equation, I am not sure that it needs to be like IBM. As I mentioned last issue, IBM is all about high margins, high service, and account control.
This is probably NOT the future for Microsoft, which makes highly integrated products for business.
I'll be interested to see the book, and thank you for letting us know.
Subject: Frames in biology
Just ran across this:
Seems that cognitive frames and biology are intimately linked.
Memories may skew visual perception
Visual perception can be contaminated by memories of what we have recently seen, impairing our ability to properly understand and act on what we are currently seeing, researchers at Vanderbilt University have found.
The researchers used a visual illusion called "motion repulsion" to learn whether information held in working memory affects perception. This illusion is produced when two sets of moving dots are superimposed, with dots in one set moving in a different direction from those in the other set. Under these conditions, people tend to misperceive the actual directions of motion, and perceive a larger difference between the two sets of motions than actually exists ---
--- Their findings provide compelling evidence that visual working memory representations directly interact with the same neural mechanisms involved in processing basic sensory events, the researchers said.
Min-Suk Kang, et al., Visual working memory contaminates perception, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2011; [DOI: 10.3758/s13423-011-0126-5]
Thank you for sharing this with our members. We can add this to a fast-growing list of scientific findings that indicate, as noted, that our sensors may be physically affected by prior exposure to various inputs, preventing us from getting an accurate picture of the world.
Further, there is excellent evidence, as we've discussed, that this goes beyond the sensor apparatus in humans, and includes the hard wiring of the brain. Not only are we prevented from sensing some things, but we may even be prevented from thinking them. And, having not thought them, we may lose the ability ever to think them.
Unfortunately, my own experience has been that the less a person knows, the more confidence they have; and vice versa. This inverse ratio between knowledge and self-confidence, pathetically evident in U.S. politics today, is a deep human characteristic.
If you want to find someone who is truly riddled by doubt, find the smartest person in the room. She inevitably knows that she is not seeing the whole world, or thinking about it in a complete, unbiased fashion.
Thank you for writing,
Charge Inversion Mode Field (Vector) Geometries:
To arrange for a speech by Mark Anderson on subjects in technology and economics, or to schedule a strategic review of your company, email firstname.lastname@example.org.
Registration is now open for the annual New York Predictions Dinner, December 8, 2011, at the historic Waldorf=Astoria Hotel: www.stratnews.com/newyork/2011
Register now for the 10th annual Future in Review conference, May 22-25, 2012, at the Montage Laguna Beach Hotel, California:
» SNS Media
"SNS iNews is a terrific idea."
Peter Petre, Author and Past Sr. Editor, FORTUNE magazine
Are you an AORTA (Always On RealTime Access) member of SNS? Use SNS iNews to stay in touch, in real time, with what your fellow members and FiRe Thought Leaders are achieving and then help them get there.
Click here for the current iNews digest: www.snsinews.com
(For ID and password assistance, email email@example.com)
We would like to welcome, among others, these new members to the SNS family: Alan Marcus, Senior Director, Head, IT & Telecommunications Industries, World Economic Forum, New York, NY; Craig Dower, President, APAC, Avanade, Pyrmont, Australia; Brad Schreiber, Writer-Producer, Parallel Universe, Sherman Oaks, CA; and Michael Hochberg, Director, Institute for Photonic Integration, Assistant Professor, Electrical Engineering at University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Site Sales by Commission. This person (or company) will join a team that continues our nearly 100% success rate in offering site licenses for the SNS newsletter to large companies. Current license holders include: Deloitte, Accenture, Deutsche Telekom, Internode Pty, Accenture's Global CIO Forum, and Adobe. Generous commissions available. Please send a cover letter and bio/resume to Sharon Anderson-Morris at firstname.lastname@example.org.
(All rates $USD)
If you are not currently an SNS subscriber, the SNS newsletter has been sent to you for a one-month trial. If you would like a one-year subscription to SNS, the current rate is $595, which includes approximately 48 issues per year, plus special industry alerts and related materials. Premium Subscriptions, which include passworded access to additional materials on the SNS website, are $895 per year. Subscriptions can be
UPGRADE YOUR SUBSCRIPTION TO PREMIUM LEVEL for $300 per year, and enjoy email access to our FiRe Conference speakers through our new service, SNS Interactive News (SNS iNews), along with other Premium benefits. After logging in to your Account, go to: www.tapsns.com/orders/?page=account.
VOLUME CORPORATE SUBSCRIPTION RATES: More than half-price savings, for up to 10 members: $2950. Additional members: $295.
SMALL COMPANY SITE LICENSE (for companies with fewer than 10 employees): Deep discount (far less than half price), for up to 10 members: $1495. Additional members: $295.
TEACHERS' GROUP RATE (five teachers): $295.
STUDENT and INDEPENDENT JOURNALIST RATE: $295 per year.
If you are aware of others who would like to receive this service, please forward this message to them, with a cc: to Mark Anderson at email@example.com; they will automatically receive a free one-month pilot subscription.
ANY OTHER UNAUTHORIZED REDISTRIBUTION IS A VIOLATION OF COPYRIGHT LAW.
SNS is the most accurate predictive letter covering the computer and telecom industries. It is personally read by the top managers at companies such as Intel, Microsoft, Dell, HP, Cisco, Sun, Google, Yahoo!, Ericsson, Telstra, and China Mobile, as well as by leading financial analysts at the world's top investment banks and venture capital funds, including Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Kleiner Perkins, Venrock, Warburg Pincus, and 3i. It is regularly quoted in top industry publications such as BusinessWeek, WIRED, Barron's, Fortune, PC Magazine, ZDNet, Business 2.0, the Financial Times, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and elsewhere.
Email sent to SNS may be reprinted, unless you indicate that it is not to be.
Mark Anderson is CEO of the Strategic News Service. He is the founder of two software companies and of the Washington Technology Industry Association "Fast Pitch" Forum, Washington's premier software investment conference; and has participated in the launch of many software startups. He regularly appears on the CNN World News, CNBC and CNBC Europe, Reuters TV, the BBC, Wall Street Review/KSDO, and National Public Radio programs. He is a member of the Merrill Lynch Technology Advisory Board, and is an advisor and/or investor in OVP Ventures, Ignition Partners, Mohr Davidow Ventures, the UCSD Calit2 Laboratory, the Global Advisory Council of the mPedigree Network (Ghana), SwedeTrade, The Family Circle (Europe), and the Australian American Leadership Dialogue.
* On November 7-9, Mark will be speaking at the Accenture Annual meeting in Berlin, on Economic Cyberwar and Valuing Intellectual Property. * Save the date now for the SNS Annual Predictions Dinner at the Waldorf=Astoria, New York, December 8th, 2011, where Mark will share his views on the economic landscape, and technology predictions for the coming year, and host a general discussion on what 2012 has in store. Registration is now open at www.stratnews.com/newyork/2011. * On May 22-25, 2012, he will be be hosting FiRe X, the 10th annual FiRe conference, at the Montage Laguna Beach. You really should sign up now, at www.futureinreview.com.
In between times, he will be thinking back to the first evening Resonance came together into one vision.
Walking out under a full moon at the waterfront house where he had been working for over a year, and seeing the sun's reflected light, the moon's bright face, the sea full of water waves, and the light waves crossing them, the land, the house, all bathed in the original waves of sunlight, and all made of the same simple thing, interacting with itself --
All made of what, until then, had been considered a vacuum.
"Strategic News Service," "SNS," "Future in Review," "FiRe," and "SNS Project Inkwell" are all registered service marks of Strategic News Service LLC.