**David I. Kaiser**

Germeshausen Professor Professor of the History of Science

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

**ArXiv** (25) *Inflationary paradigm after Planck 2013* A. Guth, David I. Kaiser, Y. Nomura

Blog (Huffington Post) *Physicists Golden Jubilee*

Book: *How the Hippies Saved Physics: Science, Counterculture, and the Quantum Revival (*2011)

CV

Wiki

Most recent email: February 22, 2017

Dear Prof. Dr. David Kaiser:

I am reading your article, Viki Weisskopf: Searching For Simplicity in a Complicated World.

There are many successive “ah-ha” moments. Thank you. Just perfect at the right time.

Of course, you are “*…not too far removed*…” from anything and your

brilliance overflows. No self-deprecation accepted! The first 67 or so

notations are yet to be unmasked, but unmask them we will!

By the way, Viki opened the doors for me to visit with John Bell at CERN

in 1977. On that trip I spent a day in London with Bohm and his aspiring

PhD candidates. We talked about points, lines, triangles asking, “What

are we missing?” When Bohm died in 1992, I took down his little book

that he given to me,* Fragmentation and Wholeness*, and while reading,

I finally asked, “What is perfectly enclosed within the tetrahedron?”

I did not know. Even an old mentor, Bucky Fuller (he, too, was a “member”

of Arthur Loeb’s Philomorphs) answered the question in a rather cavalier

manner. There is more there than meets the eye. Base-2, applied to such

simple geometries, opens profoundly-simple, eternally-complex systems.

I so wish that I could have that discussion with Viki today.

Viki had a wonderful sense of the eternal. We became friends

when I suggested to a Wall Street Journal friend and Boston-based writer

that he do an A-hed article (the most-read column and considered a prize

We were at the faculty club over lunch. Too serious, my friend could not

get Viki to speculate about a God particle. Of course, Higgs has total

disdain for the expression. I say, “A Particle it isn’t; a Ratio it is.”Though the A-hed never shaped up for publication, it still needs to be

written. Months later in his home, we spent time looking through his

wonderful collection of art and art books talking about eternal things.May I keep you informed of our progress? Simplicity is calling us.

When Lee Smolin and Anthony Zee attempted to combine Brans-Dicke

gravitation with a Higgs-like spontaneous symmetry breaking potential,

their preconditions of understanding were simply not simple enough.

If space-time is derivative, finite, discrete and quantized… doesn’t it

change everything?

Enough of my blather. I need to get back to your article and

your ArXiv articles!

Again, I thank you. You’ve made my morning!

-Bruce

First email: October 6, 2016

Inflationary paradigm after Planck 2013

Alan H. Guth, David I. Kaiser, Yasunori Nomura

https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.7619

Dear Prof. Dr. Kaiser:

Congratulations on all your work posted in ArXiv and for your many books and articles. I am just now starting to wade into all your work. I am trying to answer a question about base-2 notation from the Planck time to the age of the universe. In 2011 in a high school geometry class, we discovered just over 200 notations and we have been puzzled that nobody seems to find it at all interesting.

I guess that makes us idiosyncratic and probably a bit simple.

Now, quite a long time ago, I was a friend of Viki Weisskopf; and in the past few years, I have found the work of several MIT people to be most helpful, i.e. Wilczek on Planck (2001, *Physics Today*) and more recently, Guth on inflation and Tegmark on infinity.

Are bifurcation theory and base-2 related? Isn’t cellular production a base-2 phenomena? Where are we going wrong? Homepage

Could you help steer us in the right direction? Thank you.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

* * * * *

Bruce Camber

http://81018.com

http://bblu.org

PS. In and around 1975 I discovered and became fascinated with David Bohm’s work, *Causality & Chance in Modern Physics* (1957). On pages 163-164 he said:

“Thus, in the last century only mechanical, chemical, thermal, electrical, luminous, and gravitational energy were known. Now, we know of nuclear energy, which constitute a much larger reservoir. But the infinite substructure of matter very probably contains energies that are as far beyond nuclear energies as nuclear energies are beyond chemical energies. Indeed, there is already some evidence in favour of this idea. Thus, if one computes the “zero point” energy due to quantum-mechanical fluctuations on even one cubic centimetre of space, one comes out with something of the order of 10^{38} ergs, which is equal to that which would be liberated by fission of about 10^{10} tons of uranium.”