**Jirina Rikovska Stone**, Department of Physics, Oxford

ArXiv

Conference Presentation: Chinese Academy of Sciences, *Finite nuclei and nuclear matter in the Quark-Meson-Coupling Model *(QMC) 2015.

CV

Homepage **Publications**: Over 100 papers in refereed journals and 65 key contributions to conference proceedings. Over 105 invited and contributed talks given at conferences, colloquia, and seminars. Over 500 citations in peer reviewed publications: Physical Review C: Tensor and pairing interactions within the quark-meson coupling energy-density functional, September 2020

Most recent and fifth email: Friday, Apr 15, 2022 3:28 PM

Dear Prof. Dr. Jirina Stone:

I continue to work on that puzzle to get our base-2 model of the universe critically reviewed. Perhaps our starting points are just too esoteric or idiosyncratic:

- Is it possible that the first instance of the universe is defined by Planck’s base units? I should note that George Johnstone Stoney’s 1874 base units are used for comparison. John Barrow did a helpful analysis that was published in the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 24, P. 24, 1983.
- Is it possible that the first manifestation of those base units is an infinitesimal sphere?
- Might the characteristics of pi describe those spheres? …continuity for the never-ending never-repeating numbers, symmetry for the spatial relations, and harmonic functions for the Fourier Transform and emerging dynamics?
- Might the Fourier Transform impart either electromagnetic or gravitational effects to each sphere?
- Is it possible that one sphere manifests per unit of length and time?
- If so, doesn’t that compute to 539 tredecillion spheres per second using Planck units and 4605 tredecillion units using Stoney time?
- Are the densities on the order of a blackhole?
- To create some sense of order with those infinitesimal spheres, can we use base-2 notation?
- Using base-2 notation, are there 202 base-2 notations from Planck Time to the current time?
- Are the calculations for Notations 143 and 144 significant? Might these help to affirm the viability of the model? For example, the simple calculation for Notation-143 is .60116 seconds and Notation-144 is 1.2023 seconds. At one second the Planck Length multiple is a very close approximation of the distance light travels.
- Is it significant that quantum fluctuations are measured within Notation-67? It appears to be the limit of our abilities to measure an actual physical length. Notation-72 appears to be the limit of our abilities to measure a duration of time.
- Would these notations, 1-64, provide up to 64 possible redefinitions of a point-particle? …of a vertex?

Twelve questions. Might you have some suggestions for me? Thanks so much.

Warm regards,

Bruce

Fourth email: Sunday, November 29, 2020 at 4:18 PM

I hope you are well and fine and your family is as well. It is a strange, strange world. There is so much deceit at so many levels.

I had started an article for four teenage boys who I am encouraging to become more proficient in mathematics and physics. Two are recent citizens, Chinese boys who were adopted! The other two are nephews. My subject for them was to consider the first instant of space and time. That’s when I also realized that I needed to be focusing on my lack of knowledge.

So, just now I am in the process of focusing on your work and that of Joseph Silk (among others) so I started a new page for the boys. Essentially I am re-writing the original: https://81018.com/instant/ It is still quite rough and incomplete. It needs several more weeks of work.

I think you realize how entirely idiosyncratic my baseline concept is. I suspect that you also realize how idiosyncratic my starting point is. Would you encourage me anyway? If so, do you think that “first instant” article could be tightened up enough for ArXiv? Thanks.

Warmly,

Bruce

Third email: July 20, 2020 @ 11:24 AM

Dear Prof. Dr. Jirina Stone:

If you are ever back in Knoxville, I would enjoy the opportunity to come to say “Hello,” or, as they say, “Meet and greet!” On occasion, I cross over that way to go to Wofford College, to a dear friend’s memorial site for his dad in Tryon, North Carolina, or to other friends and projects throughout those blue mountains. Also, at some point I hope my path would involve an experimentalist inside the national lab at Oak Ridge.

**New simple ideas**. Yes, the old ones are tired and do not work as well as we’ve all hoped. And, yes, nature does like simplicity. Quite some time ago, John Wheeler sent me a copy, a preprint of *Frontiers of Time.* His vacation home in Maine was just down the street from our family’s old farm. Of course, you have had a most special bridge to Wheeler. I just read that one of your collaborators was Cheuk-Yin Wong at ORNL. Very nice.

As a thought experiment, it might be productive to get just four of you together (perhaps include Ted Barnes) to take as a given, “The Planck units describe a *really real* state of beingness. Now, in how many possible ways might we describe it?”

We are so much bunched up at the wave-particle duality door, our brains naturally jam. Can’t we open it up to logic and mathematics for 64 doublings of the Planck Length and Planck Time? Can’t we have some breathing room for the simplest of our geometries to dynamically manifest?

For at least forty years I have been in the background of a group of geometers, mostly university professors, who readily conceive every possible shape. We need those 64 doublings from the Planck scale to the wave-particle duality so toroidal nuclear shapes can have some space to come alive.

Enough of my silliness for the morning. It was lovely to hear from you.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

Second email: July 18, 2020 @ 9:36 PM

RE: Perhaps I could find such a statement within your writings….

Dear Prof. Dr. Jirina Stone:

Today I happen to be re-engaging the paper you attached to your email back in 2017. It was written with M. Angeles Perez-Garcia and Joseph Silk, *Dark Matter, Neutron Stars, and Strange Quark Matter*. I particularly appreciated your comment that you sent to me regarding our first exchanges:

Private communication

The *EoS of Baym et al. is still valid at the density you indicate. However, there are many models (which differ among themselves) regarding the structure of matter at high densities. It is likely that nucleons will change their identity – perhaps there will be a transition to interacting quark matter – nobody really knows. So, I do not think there is one answer to “how dense is too dense’. You may think about the density at the Big Bang – but a cosmologist would tell you much better. We are trying to develop models but there is very little to compare the outcome with too many loose ends.*Baym, Pethick & Sutherland (1971)

What a wonderful quote! Thank you.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

First email: Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 9:40 AM

References:

1. ArXiv: Dark matter, neutron stars and strange quark matter

2. ArXiv: Finite nuclei and nuclear matter in the Ouark-Meson-Coupling Model (QMC)

3. Incompressibility in finite nuclei and nuclear matter

Dear Prof. Dr. Jirina Stone:

Thank you for all your very brilliant work. We are learning from you today (above). In our high school studies of the Planck base units we have arrived with unusual numbers. Within 2.38509×10^{-15} meters, is it possible to have a mass of 3.211962×10^{12} kg? It goes beyond one’s imagination.

Does the work of Baym, Pethick & Sutherland (1971) still hold whereby densities could approach 4.3×10^{14} kg/m3? There is so much to learn just to answer the question, “How dense is too dense?”

Nuclear pasta, saturation density… yes, so, so much to learn. Thank you.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

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