Harry Swinney, Center for Nonlinear Dynamics
Physics Department, University of Texas at Austin
Hands on program
YouTube: Universality in Nature: 2015 MIT C.C. Mei Distinguished Lecture
First email: Wednesday, January 10, 2018 Resent: April 18, 2018
Dear Prof. Dr. Harry Swinney:
Your work within the foundations of physics, especially in light of John Wheeler’s earlier work at UT, is encouraging. https://history.aip.org/phn/11610002.html
Your Wikipedia overview is remarkable. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Swinney
The Hands On Schools program is gracious and giving. Your work with the Saturday program for high school teachers is most encouraging. Your work with the Wednesday evening lectures brings me back to my hometown of Boston, and the evening lectures of the Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science.
I hope you will might advise me so I might advise our high school teachers and students.
We are new to the Austin area, having moved into Round Rock just months ago.
I worked on my PhD at Boston University (1975-1980). I frustrated the best of my faculty. People like Abner Shimony and Bob Cohen, and the likes of people like David Bohm and John-Pierre Vigier who all tried to keep me on track. I was too Leibnizian and couldn’t buy into absolute space and time vis-a-vis Newton: https://81018.com/foundations/
In 1980 I returned to work within a business that I started earlier. Yet, in the back of my mind, I expected at some time to return to that earlier academic work from 1973 to 1980.
In 2011 a nephew invited me to help him with his high school geometry classes. We explored embedded geometries (tetrahedron and octahedron). From our classroom model down to the CERN-scale, there were just 45 steps, dividing each edge by 2 and connecting the new vertices. In another 67 steps, we were down into the Planck-scale: https://81018.com/home To try to be more consistent, we turned around and multiplied the Planck Length by 2, over and over and over again. In just 112 doublings we were back up to our original objects and then we went to the observable universe in another 90 doublings.
A picture of the universe in 202 doublings from the smallest to the largest measurements of space and time emerged. Of course, the math is simple; understanding the chart is not.
I certainly could use some help to debunk our chart of numbers so we all can grasp the failure of this logic, or understand it in a new way and organize it more systemically in light of today’s scholarship — https://81018.com/chart/
I would highly regard any insights that you have.