TO: Lee Smolin, Founding member and Senior Faculty, Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
FM: Bruce E. Camber
RE: Your arXiv (109) articles, CV, your Homepage, at Perimeter, X (Twitter), and Wikipedia
URL for this page: https://81018.com/2016/09/29/smolin/
Sixth email: 28 August 2024
RE: Pi (π), Spheres, Planck scale,
Views, variety and celestial spheres (February 2022)
Quantum symmetry, the cosmological constant and Planck scale phenomenology (June 2003)
Dear Prof. Dr. Lee Smolin:
As a thought experiment, may we start with a hypothetical infinitesimal sphere defined by the Planck base units? Does it have qualities of the infinite that are defined by pi (π)’s continuity, symmetry and harmony as defined by Fourier — Gauss — Poincaré? Does it have those quantities as defined by Planck? Does it have a built in natural expansion based on (1) Planck time, (2) base-2 notation and (3) multiple sources of thrust? Might base-2 notation provide a mechanism to tract these infinitesimal spheres?
Thank you.
Most sincerely,
Bruce
Fifth and most recent email: 4 March 2024
Dear Prof. Dr. Lee Smolin:
Before I go any further, I just checked our page about your work — https://81018.com/2016/09/29/smolin/ — four emails going back, the first in 2010, two in 2016, and another in 2020. It was a fun re-read for me. If you have a moment, I am working on this page: https://81018.com/tighter/ and anticipate quoting you rather extensively, particularly from your Trouble with Physics (2006).
There are five orientations that I am now struggling to describe. I’ll insert the summary below. It is part of the thrust to reformat the big bang (another article) and get ready for pi day:
(a) The universe is a grid of infinitesimal spheres that are defined by Planck’s base units.
(b) Redefine infinity and the infinite as the qualities of pi, continuity-symmetry-harmony.
(c) Our discovery that there are just 202 base-2 notations to encapsulate the universe.
We ask rhetorically, “What else could Planck Time be other than the first moment of time and Notation-0 or Notation-1. At the top of the chart is Notation-202. It is over 10.98 billion years in duration. Notations-1 to Notation-64 will be filled in by functional analysis by those disciplines not on the grid.
(d) Domains of perfection below the first 64 notations. Quantum physics by Max Planck… had he respected his numbers for natural units and had he suggested that those units define the universe, he and his colleagues could have done our base-2 chart in and around 1900. The first 64 notations are such a short duration — a yoctosecond or a trillionth of a trillionth of a second — and the densities are so high — on the order of a neutron star, and the geometries of perfection are most efficient, there is no time or space for inefficiencies. The first second is within Notation-143, the first year within Notation-169, and the first 1000 years within Notation-179. We would only be guessing when the geometry of gaps and quantum fluctuation begin.
(e) All notations are always active. And, all notations are actively contributing to the look, feel and functionality of the universe today, right Now. Ostensibly time is redefined.
I thought you might be amused. It is so easy to write off the idiosyncratic! Maybe…
Best wishes, be well,
Bruce
Fourth email: Thursday, December 30, 2020
Dear Prof. Dr. Lee Smolin:
You, Frank Wilczek, Paul Davies, and a few other leading scholars are open enough to tell us why our simple construct (of the universe) just might warrant further attention. It came out of a high school geometry class.
We did a simple thought experiment and went deeper and deeper within the tetrahedron and its internal octahedron by dividing the edges in two and connecting the new vertices. In 45 steps we were in the size range of particle physics. In 67 more steps within we were studying the Planck base units. We also doubled our original models; and, in just 90 steps, we were out to the age and size of the universe. We created a chart with all that very simple math: https://81018.com/chart/
It was intriguing because our cold start (like Lemaitre’s 1927 model) actually compared favorably with an infinitely-hot start. Of course, our start had a natural inflation and easily accommodated homogeneity and isotropy. https://81018.com/calculations/
Shall we continue to pursue our simple model where base-2 notation has been applied to the Planck base units? All notations are dynamic, there is a perpetual start, the first 201 notations are symmetric, and that
arrow of time exists only in Notation-202. I think it has a lot going for it, but it needs scholarly counsel and perspective. Thank you.
Most sincerely,
Bruce
PS. Happy New Year! My hope is that everyone has a better year, but
I will admit, my optimism has been dented and tarnished… -BEC
Third email: Tuesday, October 4, 2016
Dear Prof. Dr. Lee Smolin:
Congratulations on all that you have done, especially for the Perimeter Institute. Phenomenal.
We are creating links to your work and the Perimeter Institute. As our journey progresses, there will be two pages about Perimeter — https://81018.com/2016/06/30/perimeter/ – and a brief overview of the conference, Time in Cosmology ( https://81018.com/2016/10/02/2october2016/ ).
There is also a general overview page of your work:
https://81018.com/2016/09/29/smolin/
If there is anything you’d like changed, please just say the word!
Thanks.
Sincerely,
Bruce
* * * *
Bruce Camber
http://81018.com
PS. Yes, I know how naive and idiosyncratic our work is. The simplicity of the logic and math, however, has caught our attention. The numbers seem to speak louder than words. Although temperature is a problem, I think in time we’ll be able to adjust that line of figures with some kind of “reasonable” rationale. -B
Our second email: July 25, 2016
Dear Prof. Dr. Lee Smolin:
I swear the years are becoming superluminal they’re going so fast. It’s the Inflationary Epoch all over again.
In 2011 a group of high school folks (teachers and students) began mapping the universe using base-2 exponential notation from the Planck base units to the Age of the Universe. We fell into a tetrahedron and kept sliding to the center…
We tried using The Trouble with Physics as our rappelling ropes, but around the 67th notation, down with the fermions and protons, those ropes quickly turned to strings so we dropped into a virtual free fall until squeezed at the door of “the singularity” with Max’s secret codes. Wilczek gave us some clues on interpreting the codes. We just got lucky and found our way out and then went up the next 90 notations to the Now. Quite a trip. Just over 200 notations! 65 or so had never been explored! Incredible, isn’t it? Just a silly daydream? Could there be anything to it?
So, we’ve been at it now for five years and eight months. It’s time to get real or get serious. Can you help us?
All criticism is highly valued and encouraged!
Most sincerely,
Bruce
First email: 20 September 2010
Reference: http://www.leesmolin.com/
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/
https://www.edge.org/memberbio/lee_smolin
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/smolin_susskind04/smolin_susskind.html
Dear Prof. Dr. Lee Smolin:
Your work has fascinated me over the years. You have always been larger than life. But now, we are getting older and genius seems to be more approachable with the web.
You know the tetrahedron. You know the octahedron. The quick question: What is perfectly enclosed within the octahedron? If you half the edges and push an octahedron in each corner, you’ll have a start. I wonder if you quickly knew the answer to that very simple, basic question about structure.
Most of the folks I have asked since friend and colleague David Bohm died in 1992 pull a blank. John Conway, and some of Bucky and Arthur Loeb’s folks figure it out or just know (back in the ‘70s I was part of Loeb’s Philomorphs).
I am looking in on your work that is posted on the web and then I will dig even deeper. I thought you might enjoy the simple question (please let me know if you knew the answer). I suspect you do not think it really matters. But wait, maybe it does. Thank you.
Warmly,
Bruce E. Camber
PS. If you have a moment and you want to know more about why I think it does: This is what I said to Len Mlodinow, Stephen Hawking’s collaborator (and the background story about Bohm): https://81018.com/mlodinow/
We all need a summary statement about life and its meaning and value:
https://81018.com/foundations/
A little start on a TOE: http://81018.com/mit/
Of course, we should try to foment some anxiety for all those who have all the answers: