Siegel, Ethan

“…we can safely say that all the known particles are point-like and structure-free down to 10-19 meter scales.” – Ethan

Editor’s note: 1.455743×10-19m is Notation 53 and 5.82297×10-19m is Notation 55.

Ethan R. Siegel, Ph.D.

Most recent email:  21 September 2019 @ 11:20 AM

Dear Ethan:

I suspect you would agree that your 2016 (World Scientific) Beyond the Galaxy could be appropriately re-subtitled, “How humanity looked beyond our Milky Way and BEGAN TO discover the rest of the Universe.”

What we need is sa mathematical ordering function to lay down over the entire universe.

The most simple is base-2 notation. It gives us a simple beginning at Planck’s natural units of length, time, mass and charge, and in 202 doublings we are out to the age of the universe, the estimated size of the universe,  the estimated mass of the universe, and the estimated charge of the universe.  Of course, that’s not quite compelling enough, so the first 54 to 64, from the Planck scale to where you say, “…we can safely say that all the known particles are point-like and structure-free down to 10-19 meter scales.”  We know in terms of scale, the Planck length is to the atom what the atom is to the universe.

We can do a lot of construction from that first notation up to the 54th to 64th notations. Dark matter and energy are just yearning to be defined mathematically right there.

The 202nd notation, defining 10.9 billion years and continuing at the edge of the expansion, is also the primary domain of today’s cosmological observations. How much richer would it all become if we had all those earlier notations to grasp the complexities of the present moment. It might also help us to grasp the Nowness of discrete time a little better.

The current  two pages are: and

Thanks for all that you do.

My overview of your work is here:  If you would like me to change, delete or add anything, please advise me.



Third email: July 16, 2018

Dear Ethan,

You are such a Lucasian 2/17!
Of course, Newton is #2 and Hawking #17.
(Editor’s Note: Two most-famous Lucasian Professors of Cambridge University)

What if in regards to space and time, they are both mistaken?
What if the universe starts very quietly, with the least-possible amount
of density, the very least amount of temperature, and infinitesimally
small (which is quite the counterpoint to Hawking’s
…infinitely small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense point…“)?

In less than a second, on the path of this counterpoint, it could get
get noisy, but even Hoyle would probably say it is not so much a
bang as it is a harmonic emergence or something like that.

Nobody has truly defrocked the logic of our quiet expansion starting
with the Planck base units, then doubling, each over and over again.
We hypothesize that the Plancksphere must be the first manifestation
with a space-time moment establishing pi’s finite-infinite bridge.

How nutty is that?

Tweet: 5 January 2017


Ethan's response: 12/24/16

Hi Bruce,

Thanks for your link (that’s an interesting visualization) and your questions about time, space, and the speed of light. For me, the speed of light is the fundamental relationship between those two entities: space and time. I think that Einstein, Planck and others put that together extremely well.

Remember that the Universe has expanded over time; using special relativity and/or flat space isn’t going to cut it if you want a quantitatively accurate description. For that, you need general relativity, whose math typically goes beyond what a high school student can handle.

Thanks for your inquiry, and hope you keep enjoying the articles!

All the best,

Second email: 12/24/16 Just the next day!

Thank you, Ethan.

Our high school kids are typical, but tenacious.
Plus, I am a strong advocate for breaking out
of old sack clothes and intricate cocoons.

Strangely enough, I think base-2 from the first
to the 67th notation give enough infrastructure
and complexity to handle GR, SR, and QM.


The original note: 12/23/16

Thanks, Ethan, for your article in Forbes about the speed of light and time.

Did Max Planck tell us best? Is time simply an aspect of light? Is space a necessary component of light?

We’ve been exploring the issue since our December 2011 high school geometry class when we mapped the universe using base-2 notation. Kees Boeke used base-10 We would love to hear your comments!

We are still trying to figure out if we are wrong, and if so, how?



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.