**Zeng-Bing Chen** (English) (陈增兵)

National Laboratory of Solid State Microstructures

School of Physics, Nanjing University (Wikipedia)

Nanjing, Jiangsu, China

Prior: Dept. of Modern Physics, USTC, Hefei, Anhui

ArXiv: Synopsis of a Unified Theory for All Forces and Matter

Google Scholar

Homepage

Inspire^{HEP}

Most recent email: Friday, July 30, 2021 @ 10:04 AM

Dear Prof. Dr. Zeng-Bing Chen:

I hope maybe you will appreciate a little thought experiment. Of course, it starts with that simple mathematical model of the universe that I reported and linked in my first note in 2017. That work began in 2011 in a New Orleans (Louisiana, USA) high school. Of course, it was very naive.

Notwithstanding, it started with Max Planck’s base units and assumed those numbers defined the first moment of time. Do you think that is an appropriate assumption?

We then mapped the universe in 202 base-2 notations. Of course, the last notation, 202, includes the current time and it is 10.9+ billion years in duration. As you can imagine, from Planck Time to the first second takes us from Notation-0 to Notation-143. The first light year is within Notation-169. Essentially base-2 exponential notation gives us that mathematical model of the universe. The numbers are here: https://81018.com/chart/

Do you believe it is possible that this universe is first and foremost an exponential universe?

If we take this construction as a thought experiment and assume it to be so, what might the first manifestation of space-time be? We were thinking about the role of pi in all of these constructions because an old professor friend from Brown University in Providence Rhode Island (USA) argued with me and said that the most simple construction in the universe (and necessarily the beginning point) is the sphere with its two vertices. It is simple and it is ubiquitous and it is historic and it is well-understood by many but not profoundly understood by any.

For us it had to be the first expression of spacetime. Is that a logical construct?

For us, deep within the sphere, we discover continuity, symmetry, and harmony. Those three qualities exist in our minds; they each define pi and every circle and sphere. These qualities are not finite, so might we attribute them to infinity and open a finite-infinite relation so there is some causal efficacy for the numbers of spheres being generated per second if we follow the logic of Planck’s base units and one sphere per unit of Planck Time.

I know we are stretching logic and this construct, but where else can we go? Is our logic faulty?

When we consider the current measurements for particles, waves, and quantum fluctuations, we end up in the area of Notation-65 to Notation-67. How should we think about Notation-0 to Notation-64? I believe it holds great promise for understanding dark energy and dark matter, for grasping the basis for homogeneity and isotropy, and for deeming a natural inflation within our universe.

I thought that I would send a brief note to you, but this one seems to have gotten carried away. I apologize, yet, I hope this little thought experiment has been worth your time to consider. Your comments will remain between you and me unless you ask me to post them both within our page about your work — https://81018.com/2017/04/03/chen/ — and our most current work to redefine the very nature of a singularity, a blackhole, and a theory of everything. It is our little struggle to attempt to define an interface between the finite and infinite, and it seems that now is the time!

Thank you again for all your extraordinary work.

Warmly,

Bruce

Second email: Saturday, June 29, 2019 @ Noon

Dear Prof. Dr. Zeng-Bing Chen:

Now over a year, I can see that major things have happened in your life! I discovered that all the old links to USTC (just above) were not found because you had moved from USTC to Nanjing University. Congratulations! The climate is a little bit more moderate. That should make life a bit easier and Nanjing is a very special place and school.

You also now look more like a professor!

Interesting, too, is that your name is no longer hyphenated. Just Zengbing.

Yet, your work is boldly building within the ArXiv and Google citations.

Congratulations on everything.

My page about your most prodigious work is here: https://81018.com/2017/04/03/chen/ Surely you know that if there is anything you would ever like to have updated, changed, or deleted, I would be delighted to do so.

Now, I would like to invite you back to comment on the most recent pages on this site:

- https://81018.com/believed which builds off the personality of Murray Gell-Mann
- https://81018.com/lemaitre-today which goes back to Georges Lemaitre’s beginning
- https://81018.com/structure/ which starts with Max Planck’s base units

Today I am at work on this page: https://81018.com/nature/ and before I finish with it, I hope to link to your work within ArXiv, i.e. Synopsis of a Unified Theory for All Forces and Matter.

I hope to hear from you. Your work as a scholar has really just begun. My work is within its final chapter. Changing our orientation to this universe would be a very good thing for people of all cultures and backgrounds. Our commonsense view of things, should not be tied in knots by Isaac Newton! Thank you.

Most sincerely,

PS. I have saved your 2016 document, *Synopsis of a Unified Theory for All Forces and Matter* as “Zeng-Bing.Chen-2016-Synopsis.pdf” Thanks. – BEC

First email: Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 10:56 AM

Dear Prof. Dr. Zeng-Bing Chen:

Today, I have engaged your 2015 ArXiv PDF,*An Informationally-Complete Unification of Quantum Spacetime and Matter,*and I wanted to write to thank you for your scholarship.

The focus of my work in 1972 was the EPR paradox.

Just about the time you were born, I was puzzling that work from 1935.

In 1976 Viki Weisskopf (MIT) helped arrange for me to meet with J.S. Bell

at CERN. Even at that time, it seemed that Newton-Leibniz debate was

incomplete and that Leibniz was correct and Newton’s absolute space and

time was not. I held *continuity* (instead of *time*) and symmetry (instead of *space*)

as the penultimate.

Carlo Rovelli and Richard A. Muller address the issue of time symmetry

in different ways yet their conclusions are equally startling. Leibniz

would be pleased.

Our very simple introduction to a simple mathematical model of the universe is here: http://81018.com

I would be very pleased if you would comment on this work or this open letter (email) to the editors of *Science *magazine of the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences.

Thank you.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

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

Bruce Camber

http://81018.com

https://81018.com/chart