ArXiv: Struggles with the Continuum (2016, 2018)
• From the Icosahedron to E8, December 21, 2017
• Physics, Topology, Logic and Computation: A Rosetta Stone (PDF), 2009
• A Prehistory of n-Categorical Physics (PDF), 2009
• Introduction to Spin Foam Models of Quantum Gravity and BF Theory, 1999
Webpages: How Many Fundamental Constants Are There? (ninth paragraph), 2011
Homepage(s): Azimuth Project, Blog, Network Theory, Worldcat
Publications: Quantum Quandaries, How Many Fundamental Constants Are There?
Wikipedia. Also see: David Black’s listing, The fundamental constants of nature, PDF
Most recent email: 18 September 2019 at 1.21 PM
Dear Prof. Dr. John Baez:
You have been a great source for information about current research within physics; and although we are just high school people, we have learned as much as we could understand from all your writing and for that we again thank you.
In December 2011 when we started, we soon discovered your April 11, 2011 online article, “How many basic constants are there?” It was like discovering a vein of gold. We soon realized it was a mother lode. There was so much more to uncover, discover and learn. Though a bit overwhelming, we persevered even though the distractions were many. It is all still in process, even today!
Email: 15 February 2018
Though still entirely idiosyncratic after all these years, I thought you might enjoy hearing that two of your recent papers within ArXiv (cited on this page) have been most helpful. I thank you.
Second email: Friday October 19, 2012 @ 9:40 PM
Dear Prof. Dr. John Baez:
Over 34 years ago I initiated a special display project at MIT called, “An architecture for integrative systems.” It was under of the main rotunda just off Massachusetts Avenue. The project used Erwin Schrodinger’s title from his much earlier work, “What is life?” Seventy-seven leading, living scholars participated. I am taking that old product and re-purposing it online using my idiosyncratic, base-2 exponential notation from the Planck Length to the edges of the observable universe. That is 202 steps or doublings in which to context information. By assuming nested geometries along the entire scale, it seems that we will have an inherent structure for analogous or metaphorical connection-making.
But before I go too much further, I would like to re-engage you and ask for your straightforward advice:
1. If the Planck Length is a dimensionful number representing a singularity or a point, can we multiply it by 2 and assume two points? …multiply it again and assume 4, then 8, 16, 32 and on up to 1024 by the 10th doubling?
2. Can we assume nested geometries throughout?
PS. A few simple web pages (updated) provide more background:
Our working model: https://81018.com/big-board/
First email: Monday, 4 April 2011
Quite an introduction online.
I know you have no time at all, but it would be an education
to find the higher scoring theories based on your Crackpot Index [Reference #2)
especially if their claims were available on websites.