“You can’t calculate probabilities with just algebra. The geometry must be taken into account.”

Comte George Buffon, Essay on Moral Arithmetic


In the mid 1890’s, in the false dawn of the 20th Century, Joseph Sylvester retired and wrote his memoirs. He had held the Savilian Chair of Geometry at Oxford and is recognized as one the great geometers of the 19th Century. His memoirs were extensive. He wrapped them up with a close examination of the Needle which he referred to as of the “greatest notoriety.”

Like many others before him and to follow him, Sylvester missed the point of the original Needle. He had adopted Laplace’s version of …any length at all. That, of course, as discussed throughout this history, renders the original Needle’s geometric probability …meaningless.

It also leaves “action at a distance” mathematically senseless.

Twenty years later, as he was writing his theories of relativity, Albert Einstein referred to “action at a distance” as “spooky.”

Einstein’s relativity theories were effectively shot down with the success of Quantum Mechanics. What doomed Einstein was his starting random value of a radius as: “1.” Along this line, Einstein valued the work of Laplace.

Had Sylvester looked at the original Needle instead of Laplace’s disingenuous version, Einstein was smart enough to have picked up on it and have almost surely seen the geometric truth and value of: “1.”

In 1926, Werner Heisenberg introduced his theory of Quantum Mechanics. He used a 4 pole matrix (just like the original Needle). Heisenberg used “action at a distance.” However, to date, Quantum Mechanics has never been resolved with traditional random theory. The reason is that the unit of measure used by physicists is still the algebra of the decimal system rather than the geometric probability of the original Needle in which the decimal system does not stand alone in an endless field of algebra but is used is used to value and describe geometric probability.

In 1933, Heisenberg won a Nobel Prize for his theory of Quantum Mechanics.

In 1935, Einstein challenged quantum theory with his Einstein/Podolsky/Rosen Paradox (the now infamous EPR) “Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?”

Einstein was essentially saying that it is impossible to predict the time and place of a particle (like predicting a number on a roulette wheel). Bell’s Theorem shot down the main sour grapes thrust of the EPR concerning random predictions, but left intact the ostensible main question of the EPR. To paraphrase Einstein, “even assuming Quantum Mechanics is right in their remarkable prediction of random particle spin …what about everything else? What about everything that isn’t part of the particle prediction?”

The answer to Einstein’s question is found in the original Needle. Everything else is simply relative pi in rotation. Perhaps more accurately, relative 1/4 pi in rotation.

When physicists built the first atomic reactor (Manhattan Project) they had to use the Needle (by randomly tossing a handful of nails on a grid floor) to determine the geometric probability of random neutron collision so as to know how thick to build the walls.

In 1964, John Stewart Bell, created a theoretical model of the EPR and concluded Einstein would lose his argument about predictions. However, it still left the main question unanswered: “what about everything else?”

In 1982, Alan Aspect used a particle splitter to prove Bell’s Theorem.

Physicists have been stuck in the laboratory ever since …still with the same old problem: “what about everything else?”

It is a mental problem with a psychological solution. To break free …to break out of the lab and release the quantum success into the world’s actuarial sciences …only requires a leap of faith. Relative to a series of random measurements of gravity …everything other than the straight line of gravity’s pull is just relative pi in rotation. The correct gravitational unit of measure for the quantum sciences and any other series of random measurements is …the original Needle’s length as the universal random average: relative 1/4 pi.

The only question for a series of random measurements is …how many units of relative 1/4 pi?

Modernly we have to ask ourselves why, if “action at a distance” was worth suppression by the Vatican for hundreds of years …and why, if “action at a distance” was the subject of the longest debate in the history of the Paris Academy of Sciences …why isn’t “action at a distance” studied in schools today?

In our 21st Century, anyone may now light up the pipe of “action at a distance” and load it with any random series of anything. What comes out isn’t smoke. Its the beautiful sweet grail of a universal random flat bet advantage.

Back To Top