**Carlo Rovelli,** Centre de Physique Théorique, Universite de la Mediterranee

163 Avenue de Luminy, 13288 Marseille Cedex 9, France

**Articles**: “There is no such thing as past or future” (Guardian, April 2018)**ArXiv**: Time’s arrow perspectival

_______ *Physics Needs Philosophy. Philosophy Needs Physics* (2018)**Books**: The Order of Time, Covariant Loop Quantum Gravity

Conference: *Time in Cosmology*

Editor-in Chief (2016 – ): Foundations of Physics (Springer)**CV****Homepage****Twitter****Video**: Perimeter (29 June 2016), Royal Institution (30 April 2018)**Wikipedia****YouTube**

**Pages on this site where Carlo Rovelli is mentioned**:

• **Who will lead us?** https://81018.com/attitudes/

• *Time in Cosmology*

**Emails to Carlo Rovelli** regarding the theories within loop quantum gravity (LQG)

Most recent email: Tuesday, 31 July 31, 2018

Dear Prof. Dr. Carlo Rovelli:

Could the initial spin state be related to Euler’s identity and be associated with the concept of planckspheres? I realize it is a rather peculiar question!

Thank you,

-Bruce

PS. Your image and references are on the current hompage where it says:

Carlo Rovellihas gone where others fear to tread. He has a huge following around the world for his books that explain difficult concepts in physics with fluency and ease. His work, in an area called Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG), has everybody asking, “Is this the real beginning of a Theory of Everything (TOE)?”

Third email: 3 July 2018

Dear Prof. Dr. Carlo Rovelli:

Here in the USA the 4th of July celebrations have begun; it’s time to think of about foundations, roots, and revolutions. Surely, your work with time qualifies.

How will you re-write both Standard Models? …follow Tegmark and get rid of infinity? Is anybody following Arkani-Hamed to throw out space and time?

I have so much more to learn about LQG, but even before LQG, I believe our starting points are off. So in that light, I continue working on my idiosyncratic model of the universe using that base-2 application with the Planck Base units. In the process, I think there are about ten concepts that could be worth our time to review and comment. Although our scholarly and scientific communities have used all of the following words (within the Postscript), none of their inherent concepts have been lifted up as primordial, keys to begin to integrate ideas within a simple mathematical model of the universe (that base-2 application from the Planck scale to the Age of the Universe in 202 notations). So, here are ten key ideas, rather radical concepts, that are presented so we might begin to see our “very first moment,” then ourselves, and our universe more logically.

Could these ten (or twelve) concepts sow the seeds of a quiet revolution? Thanks.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

Second email: 29 July 2016

**Please note**: This email was a rewrite of the first email in May 2016 (just below).

**References**: http://www.cpt.univ-mrs.fr/~rovelli/

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0604064

http://www.sevenbrieflessons.com/

https://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/GrainySpace.html

“…

and we have to learn to do physics and to think about the world in a profoundly new way. Our notions of what are space and time are completely altered. In fact, in a sense, we have to learn to think without them… Our space in which we live is just this enormously complicated spin network.” – Dr. Carlo Rovelli

Dear Prof. Dr. Carlo Rovelli:

Thank you for all your marvelous work. You make very difficult concepts very approachable. That helps us tremendously.

We have so little background in your world, however, in our high school geometry class, we started with the tetrahedron with the octahedron [https://81018.com/tot/] inside of it, and kept on going within, dividing by 2, until in about 45 steps we were down around the fermions and in another 67 steps we were within the Planck base units. When we multiplied by 2, we were out to the Age of the Universe in just under 90 doublings. Since December 2011 we have worked on our integrated UniverseView [https://81018.com/home/] using base-2 exponential notation as a general outline.

It is 3.333 times more granular than Kees Boeke’s base-10, it has an implied geometry, and it has the Planck base units. Some of our current work is here: https://81018.com/ It has become quite a modelling project.

Notations 1 to 67 challenge us to rethink our understanding of the basic notions of Time and Space. Your work is helping us to see that others are doing substantial work in this area from a much more professional point of view.

Is our work at all helpful as a framework for research?

Thanks.

Most sincerely,

Bruce Camber, resource teacher

https://81018.com/

PS. We are just now starting to consider the nature of spin!

PPS. Our first note to you was sent on Sun, May 1, 2016 but it either did not reach you or it was gobbledygook. We are trying to write as clearly as possible. Forgive me, please, if this continues to be too strange and not very charming. -BEC

***

First email: Sunday, May 1, 2016

**References**: http://www.cpt.univ-mrs.fr/~rovelli/

https://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/GrainySpace.html

University of Pittsburgh: “

Our space in which we live is just this enormously complicated spin network,” said Dr. Carlo Rovelli of the University. He and Dr. Lee Smolin of the Center for Gravitational Physics and Geometry at Pennsylvania State University have figured out how to use spin nets to calculate area and volume — all this information is encoded within the web-like structure.

Dear Prof. Dr. Carlo Rovelli:

We, too, are trying to rethink our understanding of the basic notions of Time and Space, plus light and the Planck base units. Since December 2011 we have worked on an integrated UniverseView using base-2 exponential notation as a general outline.

It is all quite a bit more granular than Kees Boeke’s base-10. Ours came out of a chase of the embedded tilings and tessellations of the tetrahedron and the octahedron within it. We were building models in our high school geometry class and decided to “go within” until we got to Planck’s base units. That was easy. Going out to the Observable Universe was easier. It has become quite a modeling project!

Are we onto to something or off within some fallacy of misplaced concreteness?

Thanks.

Most sincerely,

Bruce Camber, resource teacher

New Orleans high school

http://81018.com

PS. We are just now starting to consider the nature of spin (and Euler’s identity)! We once had a reference to work within the Nobel Prize committee’s website, but they have removed that page. Unfortunate.

_____