**David J. Gross**

Professor of Physics

Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics

University of California, Santa Barbara

ArXiv: Twenty Five Years of Asymptotic Freedom

Books: *The Quantum Structure of Space and Time: Proceedings of the 23rd Solvay Conference*

Homepage

Nobel Prize (2004)

Wikipedia

YouTube (and many more such as this on QCD)

Second email: Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 9:13 PM

Propaedeutics: The extended CERN family hit the wall with the diphoton results and a well-justified call to re-examine basic-basic assumptions has gone out. Wolchover article: What No New Particles Means for Physics *(Quanta, Aug. 9, 2016)*

Dear Prof. Dr. Gross:

Could space-time be derivative of symmetry-continuity^{1} (the Newton-Leibniz debate^{2} all over again)? Shouldn’t there be some consideration of the space-time defined between the Planck scale^{3} and the CERN-scale^{4} ?

If we use base-2 notation, there are about 200 notations from the Planck Time to the Age of the Universe. The first 67 notations to the CERN-scale have potentially very helpful data: https://bbludata.wordpress.com/1-204/ (horizontally-scrolled and over 1300 very simple calculations)

This progression of numbers from the Planck Scale to the CERN scale is assuredly idiosyncratic, but quite curious for its logic and simplicity. It just might be a place for pure math and geometry that defines the earliest structural possibilities that are beyond the wires of physicality. The Langlands programs are one option to carry this research forward. I think there are more.

1. May I keep you posted on our work to further develop this chart?

2. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or advice? Thanks.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

Bruce E. Camber

New Orleans

[1] An ideal, universal symmetry-and-continuity that eventually gives rise to space and time that we can measure. It takes the better part of 67 doublings of the Planck scale and it continues to the current 200+ notation such that all simple symmetries, symmetry-breaking and SUSY are all tangibly related. Our research of these numbers in the large horizontally-scrolled chart is on-going. It includes the dimensionless constants, nondimensionalization, renomalization and the role of infinity.

[2] That two-year debate (1715-1716) is far from over!

[3] The Planck scale within these web pages is interpreted quite differently.

First email: Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 9:59 AM

Dear Prof. Dr. Gross:

I know you were not thinking about high school people when you said, “I’m not sure that we don’t need each other at this point in time” (December 2015, Ludwig Maximilian University) however I hope you might encourage *or correct *a growing-but-small group of high school teachers and students who have taken on the Universe using base-2 exponential notation, simple geometries and the simplest numbers and concepts that we can find. We’ve been at it since December 2011.

At that time we did not know about Kees Boeke and his base-10 scale of the universe. We were studying a tetrahedron with its embedded octahedron. We were observing the parts-whole relations — the four half-sized tetrahedrons and an octahedron within each tetrahedron and the six half-sized octahedrons and eight tetrahedrons within each octahedron.

We chased those geometries, going within about 40 times, to get into the range of the fermion. Another 67 times we were in the range of the Planck Length. To get consistent we then started at the Planck base units and went out to the Age of the Universe in just over 201 notations.

We learned that we had tessellated the universe! It gave us an ordered universe, nevertheless, the authorities responded, “So what?” or “See Boeke’s work” or something like, “Cute.” The first 67 notations were so impossibly small, our “small-scale universe” was discounted by real scientists and mathematicians.

So to attempt to explain its potential importance as an alternative model, at the end of the year I wrote up a David Letterman-like Top Ten. Ours is titled, The Top Ten Reasons to give up those little worldviews for a much bigger and more inclusive UniverseView. That wasn’t enough, so I immediately began prioritizing the numbers that were important to us. Though way-way beyond our pay grade, we are trying to make sense of many new concepts all at the same time. Most would ask, “What does Kepler’s conjecture have to do with anything?” I am right now in the process of abusing Mitchell Feigenbaum’s constants.

I’ll continue to stutter around, unfortunately skimming and bouncing over details on these Black Diamond slopes (way beyond my capacities). We’ll continue to take quite a few tumbles and hard falls. It is a heck of a way to attempt to make sense of things we have never ever observed in the past. It’s a very steep learning curve!

Your comments would be most welcomed.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

************************