Einstein on Problems & ThinkingAlbert Einstein on problem solving

Mode Shifting Einstein

enabling mode shifting
Enabling Mode Shifting

Right from the beginning we must say that what Albert Einstein created with the body of his work was absolutely 100% logically correct, and therein lay the strategic clue needed to gain the precipice of unification. This is a simplistic discussion about mode shifting Einstein, for beginners if you will. No math. Just a discussion employing the basic concepts of Elegant Reasonism. If you are not familiar with that utility process or its framework you may wish to explore those materials first. Otherwise your expectation of these insights to be within existing context will be severely tested. This article is intended for those superficially familiar with Elegant Reasonism and looking to better understand the simultaneous truths, logical correctness of multiple Encapsulated Interpretative Models (EIMs), logic artifacts and clues of EIMs which can not close to unification. Those who are exploring how civilization came to this inevitable place in history may also find it of interest.

Usually fundamental concepts are derivatives of one or more Encapsulated Interpretative Models (EIMs) M1, M2, or M5. Yes we left some EIMs off the list but those discussions are already on the website elsewhere. The discussion paragraphs below are generally construed to be “proven”; however, to understand what we are doing here we need to understand what “proving” a concept means. Many of the discussion points are discussed in the presentation: In Unification’s Wake, Part 02: Mathematical Proofs. Using Empiricism as the guiding epistemology “proving” means agreement with experiment, repeatability, etc. and having said that we remind you that Elegant Reasonism is a superset epistemology which integrates empiricism but statistically weights it relative to and respective of the unified Universe. You may also want to review other epistemological papers in the User Library. This article is better understood if you have already reviewed Elegant Reasonism materials available from this source.

Elegant Reasonism Rules require a plurality of Encapsulated Interpretative Models (EIMs) for any given investigation and this one is no different in that regard and at least one of those EIMs must close to unification. You may use any fully compliant EIM which closes to unification. You do not have to use The Emergence Model. The cogent description of M5 is offered only in satisfaction of the unification requirement. You are free to explore any other EIM capable of holistic full compliance, surviving analysis of concept sieves employed by Elegant Reasonism. The point here is that in order to demonstrate how logically correct interpretative models do or do not accomplish not only detail set alignment within a given domain of discourse but with the unified Universe there are a great many issues needing reconciliation and that requires the discipline and rigor associated with the process and analytical framework. There is no specific desire to detract or demean anyone, anywhere, living or gone. It is important to illuminate and illustrate what satisfies unification criteria reconciliation and in order to do that we must also show why other ideas may not rise to that challenge. For example, nothing real may transition the spacetime-mass interface exactly because any real object is converted to energy as defined and governed by a fairly famous equation needing no introduction here. That hard cold fact means no EIM employing those constructs can also employ a common geometric basis point as is required by unification criteria. Therefore no EIM employing those constructs is real; rather it is only logically correct (e.g. it is virtual). We can therefore conclude that not only do such EIMs not accomplish unification, they are incapable of doing so. Not ever, no matter how much energy is pumped into them. The point is philosophical and we must ask different questions to understand why all this is true. Many of the knee-jerk reactions are explored: In Unification’s Wake, Part 01: Stereotypical Questions.

We can generally answer 100% of these discussion areas with two words: simultaneous truth. To understand that however we recognize that we must understand that the source of truth may differ EIM to EIM. That  In the video below Richard Feynman discusses knowing vs understanding. In this discussion he makes the point about simultaneous truths. All of our past successes also provide something of a barrier to understanding these issues. Something can be logically correct and remain physically different. The good news is that we now have a new tool: Elegant Reasonism.

Part of the rhetorical point Feynman makes is ‘does it make any difference whether we choose theory A or theory B if they both are logically correct and both agree with experiment?’ We contend that the difference might well mean everything if one of those theories closes to unification and the other does not. Presume for a minute that both close, the set of questions then become quite different don’t they. At issue is which represents a greater truth relative to the unified Universe (e.g. fundamental nature).  We must make sure that we know why something is true in this larger context and consistent with the unified Universe. The larger context and the process used to discern it is critical and here’s why: Known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns as mathematical sets of data points (e.g. constituents within a matrix) change values when we mode shift them between EIMs. The same is true of the standard set of root cause analysis questions and answered. For example, if someone asks “Why are Newton’s (e.g. M0) laws true?” If the person answering that questions uses M1 as a basis manifesting context they might cite one of the equations answering that question. Mode shifting that question to discern the M5 answer however we might simply cite the cogent description for that EIM for those reasons. Which is the more powerful answer? We think that is patently obvious any any critical review may look at our original systems review or EMCS01 to illuminate and illustrate to comprehension. These are further reasons that we must not depend on rote learnings but rather on the process, its analytical framework, rigor and discipline in order to truly discern issues and answers in the fully illuminated unified Universe consistent with Elegant Reasonism. Knowing why something is true and in context of the unified Universe is of vital importance.

There are two ways to look at the body of clues represented in the references below. One is testing whether or not Einstein was right or wrong and we reject that argument. Einstein was logically correct in our view. It’s just that that logical view is just that, virtual. It is not philosophically real. Does it agree with experiment? Yep, pretty much it does. There is an article below in the experiments section of the User Library which states: experiments described in the Dec. 22, 2005, issue of Nature,* the researchers added to a catalog of confirmations that matter and energy are
related in a precise way. Specifically, energy (E) equals mass (m) times the square of the speed of light (c 2 ), a prediction of Einstein’s theory of special relativity. By comparing NIST measurements of energy emitted by silicon and sulfur atoms and MIT measurements of the mass of the same atoms, the scientists found that E differs from mc 2 by at most 0.0000004, or four-tenths of 1 part in 1 million. This result is “consistent with equality” and is 55 times more accurate than the previous best direct test of Einstein’s formula, according to the paper.

Here’s a rhetorical and quite philosophical question. If nothing goes faster than the speed of light then why are you allowed to square it in any formula? What does that say about the rules under which one operates? Should those rules not conform to the same tests? The Encapsulated Interpretative Model (EIM) M2 which represents Einstein’s original views does not close to unification. It can not close exactly because its core constructs preclude transiting the spacetime-mass interface without first conversion to energy. An article analyizing the NIST article points out that those authors were discussing kinetic energy of the systems and Einstein had made two points about the subject and their article agrees with the first point, not the last. These points are not to denegrate anyone’s work but to illuminate clues which we must look at, relative to enabling mode shifting and experiment setups.

The Body Of Work Reflecting M2 Is Not A Single Insight but Many

Our User Library and Acknowledgements page are replete with investigators, their experiments and musings on what M2 (e.g. Einstein‘s original thinking) meant to them and to us all. Erwin Schroedinger’s treatise on the Spacetime Structure is an example not just of such material but also the implications of committing Langer Epistemology Errors. Dr. Lev B Okun‘s article on The Concept of Mass essentially distinguishes M2 from modern status quo thinking reflected by M1. History clearly shows the wondrous successes in those empirically delivered results that blinded us all and obfuscated the path forward as an ultimate result. It is said many times herein, likely not for the last time, that what Einstein crated was absolutely 100% logically correct and therein lay the strategic clue needed to gain the precipice of unification.  See Guide to Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge (SEBoK).

Mode Shifting Declaratory Statements

I remember my history professor acting out what he believed Galileo said on his walk home after his trial. He envisioned Galieleo turning and shaking his fist in the air shouting “Nature works this way no matter what you believe!” The Mirror of Erised from Harry Potter’s fictional adventures is a mirror, which, according to the character Albus Dumbledore, shows the “deepest and most desperate desire of one’s heart.” The name “Erised” is “desire” spelled backwards, as if reflected in a mirror. The happiest person in the world would look in the mirror and see a reflection of exactly the way he or she is. There are several lessons from history, least of all is Plato’s allegory of The Cave.  There is a caution in all of this and it is being careful in castigating arrogance in the presence of clear entrepreneurial innovation. Two points in all of that might be The Innovator’s Dilemma and Mode Shifting The Baloney Detection Kit. We must all be constantly vigilant lest we fall prey to Langer Epistemology Errors and find ourselves on the wrong side of the issues discussed In Unification’s Wake, Part 05: Business Impact.

Gravitational Lensing

Gravitational Lensing will occur around any gravity source. The question is how that source instantiates the lensing effect. EIMs employing spacetime constructs (e.g. M1 and M2) manifest gravity as a function of mass warping spacetime. EIMs that do not employ spacetime must manifest gravity in other means (e.g. M5 and M6).   In the case of M5 and M6 that means is a particle called the Graviton. The cogent description of M5 defines that The Fundamental Entanglement Function, limited by Severance configures everything real along the entire entanglement gradient as some configuration of dynamic architectural mass. Finding gravitational lensing in nature does not necessarily prove M1 or M2 as much as it does their logical correctness. The constructs of M5 and M6 have the same predication but are true for different reasons.

The point here is that this concept as a Paradigm of Interest/Nature (POI/N) can be mode shifted across these various EIMs such that they are simultaneously true. All these EIMs will instantiate gravitational lensing as a POI/N.

Gravity Waves

Ripples in spacetime or waves of Gravitons? Is there any difference? How would you know? One way to know is by inspecting the EIMs instantiating these concepts. Both agree with experiment and theoretical characterizations, as Feynman points out in the above video. However, one does not close to unification and one does. Which EIM would you use?

Time Dilation

Time dilation experiments work. They have been performed and repeated a number of different ways, least of which were the famous Apollo missions to the moon. Time dilation under M1, M2 or M3 requires a discussion about Lorentz transformations which is math but is often explained visually by a photon bouncing between two mirrors like a old time sand clock and then tracing out the path those balls (photons) take as we move the sand clock (two mirrors). We then use trigonometry to perform some math that leads us ultimately to the Lorentz transformation and Einstein’s math of relativity. That’s all well and good, probably standard fare for anyone who has studied any of this for any length of time (no pun intended). Taking this as a POI/N we then take it through the Elegant Reasonism process to mode shift the various abstractions involved. Distilling it all down we first notice that under M5 time is not defined in the same manner. We note those abstractions and their respective and relative implications. Time under M5 is an action displacement index of relativistic architectures of mass which implies measurement. We know, from having read the cogent description of M5, how it defines the core constructs of that EIM. Also simultaneously reconciled are time related issues incongruous with empirical experience of daily life experienced by every human. For example: “Time’s Arrow”, why is it always positive. M1 suggests that it should be bi-directional. Mode shifting that concept to M5 we find time defined as an action displacement index and since action is always positive, so is its ‘arrow’. The reconciliation is both natural and expected under M5 where as M1 suggests otherwise where we must conclude the bi-directional issue as a logic artifact of M1 and not anything associated with reality.

Black Holes

Under M1 or M2 black holes have gravity so high that not even light can escape. Under M5 the action per unit area of architectural mass leverages The Fundamental Entanglement Function, limited by Severance to the same result. Light does not come out. More succinctly nothing comes out because it was eviscerated. There is more we do not yet know than we do know in this area, besides the results being the same. We know that structure equals properties and that properties infer intrinsic structure. We know from the intrinsic nature of the core constructs of M5 that they will follow that nature. What we do not know are the architectures which may form beneath the event horizon.

Any critical review of lists of black holes is that they grow. The Big Bang under M1 requires a concept called rapid expansion in order to produce what we find in astronomical evidence today. That is along the emergence vector of the entanglement gradient. Flipping that around we must be able to instantiate rapid expansion’s corollary, something called ‘infinite compression’.  That is to say we must be able to stuff everything back in the box. The problem with all of this is that no one can reconcile infinite compression with black hole growth. If they were infinitely compressible they would not grow but they do grow. Therefore infinite compression does not exist in nature. If that does not exist neither does its corollary. Mode shifting that however provides us with the ability to describe the Big Bang in a ‘Bang to Bang‘ manner under M5 rules and do so congruent with nature. Paruse the User Library and you will find many papers on many of these issues.

Quantum Wave Function

This is sometimes attributed to Einstein but is more rightly attributed to Erwin Schroedinger as in Business Insider’s article on 5 of Einstein’s experiments allegedly proving his theories ‘correct’. That correctness has more to do with the nature of the logical correctness for all the reasons pointed out holistically here and elsewhere. It should be noted that The Death of Schroedinger’s Cat article published some years ago now by a British psychology group demonstrated in a blind test the logical nature of the wave function suggesting measurement alone would collapse the wave function.

Einstein Was Absolutely 100% Logically Correct

What is needed however is Elegant Reasonism in order to perceive and engage how what he did fits into the unified Universe.  This article is under development. We will continue to update it as we work integration of content from our original systems review. This post will be a landing page for these discussions. So please subscribe to the Elegant Reasoner Newsletter and register with the website. We have more content to integrate here so please stay tuned.

Logic Artifacts

Logic artifacts are those concepts and constructs which may arise as a function of any given EIM, especially those which do not, or can not, close to unification. The EIM may be logically correct and its various detail sets have high congruence within particular domains of discourse, but leave many other questions unanswered or slightly out of alignment either with each other or as compared to the unified Universe. The actual real Universe is unified whether or not our thinking about it is. Our challenge is to evolve our thinking until the affinity and alignment with the unified Universe can no longer be improved (and that might take forever).

  1. Einstein‘s original and holistic body of work is represented by the EIM M2, not M1. First time readers here will be confused here because predominant status quo thinking attributes so much to Einstein that simply is not true. Einstein believed mass was invariant, not variant as modern practitioners are so oft to promulgate. See Dr. Lev B Okun’s work here. Also see Elegant Reasonism Rules about EIM enumeration and iteration. Goal post moving, tweaking, etc. are driven into iterative EIMs not slightly modified considerations as articulated in Feynman’s video above. The reason for this is to ensure systemic relationships which may not be readily apparent are fully captured across the entire entanglement gradient.
  2. Einstein was not working on unification when he first began publishing in 1905. The problem he was working on revolved around the constancy for the values being reported by Interferometer experiments for the speed of light.
  3. M2, logically correct though it is, does not, can not, close to unification exactly because it’s core constructs preclude it. M2 precludes attaining unification exactly because nothing real may transition the spacetime-mass interface without first conversion to energy. The most famous equation in history governs that ‘transaction’. For these and other reasons nuclear engineers and physicists call this the nuclear binding energy equation. Einstein developed these constructs through the use of his now famous ‘thought experiments’ (e.g. they were philosophical in nature and therein too lay yet another clue). For these reasons M2 will never close to unification. The challenge then is to understand how various Paradigms of Interest/Nature (POI/N) mode shift EIM to EIM.
  4. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. (unknown author often miss-attributed to Einstein)
  5. Any honest critical review of the holistic body of work reflected here will come to the same conclusions. The user library contains original author’s actual papers, not other people’s analysis of those papers (though that is also there in many cases). If this article is your first point of contact with Elegant Reasonism know that many people around the world are quite vested in status quo positions and will not want to hear, perceive, or engage any of this material. As their familial awareness increases with these precepts they will in all likelihood transition through the industry standard stages of grief. We very strongly encourage everyone to wield Elegant Reasonism transformationally and with great empathy and compassion.


Albert Einstein





Shop Now



#ElegantReasonism #EmergenceModel #Unification #ModeShifting #Einstein #Gravity #GravitationalLensing #GravityWaves #Gravitons #LIGO #Interferometers #SpeedOfLight


By Charles McGowen

Charles C McGowen is a strategic business consultant. He studied Aerospace Engineering at Auburn University '76-'78. IBM hired him early in '79 where he worked until 2003. He is now Chairman & CEO of SolREI, Inc. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2439-1707