# David J. Gross

Professor of Physics

Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics

University of California, Santa Barbara

**ArXiv**: Twenty Five Years of Asymptotic Freedom, *The Bulk Dual of SYK: Cubic Couplings*

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

Homepage

inSPIREHEP

Nobel Prize (2004)

Wikipedia

YouTube (and many more such as this on QCD)

The work of David Gross cited within this website: https://81018.com/solvay23/

With Frank Wilczek and H. David Politzer, they formulated the concept of *asymptotic freedom in the theory of the strong interaction* for which they shared a Nobel prize in 2004) offers a similar chart.

Fourth email: March 28, 2020 Two Quick Questions

Dear Prof. Dr. David J. Gross:

In your 2017 article, *The Bulk Dual of SYK: Cubic Couplings*, there is a gap between the Majorana fermion and the Planck Length. [1] In the spirit of Wheeler’s quantum foam and simplicity, might the first spheres manifest at the Planck scale? If those spheres are considered a real reality, and sphere packing and sphere stacking are assumed, we have a very different model.

There are several inflationary pressures to anticipate a base-2 exponential growth. Assuming such there would be at least 64 doublings to get to the fermion scale. The first second of this model is between Notation-143-to-144 and the first year between Notation-168-and-169. The Planck Length doubling at one second is within .01% of the laboratory definition of the distance light travels in a second; and then, of course, the distance light travels within a light year.

From Planck Time to the current time, there are a total of 202 notations whereby Notation-202 is 10.98 billion years and just over 2.9 billion has unfolded. [2] Is this nascent model of any possible interest? Thank you.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

Third email: April 2, 2018

The two emails below were reworked and resent. The key sentiment of that letter is, “I painfully recognize our academic weaknesses and naiveties, however, doesn’t everything start simply? Doesn’t complexity develop from simplicity?”

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. David 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 simply double the Planck base units, and double each result, there are about 200 doublings or 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://81018.com/chart/ (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

http://81018.com

[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 202+ doublings 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, renormalization and the role of infinity.

[2] The Leibniz-Clarke (Newton) two-year debate (1715-1716) is far from over!

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

First email: Jan 9, 2016, 9:59 AM Updated and resent: April 2, 2018

Dear Prof. Dr. David Gross:

Science writer, Natalie Wolchover, comments, “…desperate times call for desperate measures,” then quotes you from the December 7, 2015 conference at Ludwig Maxmillan University, “Fundamental physics faces a problem — one dire enough to call for outsiders’ perspective. I’m not sure that we don’t need each other at this point in time.”

I know you were not thinking about high school people when made your comment, yet I hope you might encourage (*or correct*)* *a growing-but-small group of high school teachers and students who have taken on the universe by simply doubling the Planck base units, and each result, over and over and over again. Our chart has over 202 columns, over 1000 simple calculations, whereby we start with the Planck units and go to the current age of the Universe and size of the universe. We began by working with simple geometries and the simplest numbers and concepts that we could attempt to understand. 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 down 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 202 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 to the big bang theory, 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?” Yes, we have abused Mitchell Feigenbaum’s work as well.

I’ll continue to bounce 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

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

Bruce Camber

PS. That is an update our first note to you on 9 January 2016. Subsequently, we sent another note