**Jack Xin**

Editor-in-chief, *Multiscale Modeling & Simulation*

Professor of Mathematics, University of California at Irvine

Professor of the Institute for Mathematical Behavioral Sciences

Professor of the Center for Hearing Research

Irvine, California

References to Jack Xin's work within this website:

Most recent email: Saturday, April 6, 2019

Dear Prof. Dr. Jack Xin:

Of three related articles, today’s has a reference to your work

and a link to our page about your work within our website which is:

https://81018.com/2018/04/18/xin/

These are the three related articles

https://81018.com/e8/ (Today, April 6. https://81018.com/e8/#EF )

https://81018.com/maybe/ (Wednesday, April 3)

https://81018.com/standard_model/ (Tuesday, April 2)

I am confident the evidence will eventually become compelling

enough, our scholarly community will have to address it; and at

that time, perhaps Wheeler’s comments will become true:

“Behind it all is surely an idea so simple, so beautiful, that

when we grasp it — in a decade, a century, or a millennium —

we will all say to each other, how could it have been otherwise?”

Thanks.

Best wishes always,

Bruce

Second email: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 5:18 PM

Dear Prof Dr. Jack Xin:

To keep track of our emails-letters-notes-tweets to scholars around the world, some are posted alphabetically within our website. As we explore the issues of multiscale modeling, there will be references to you and your work, your journal, SIAM, and other works by your *Multiscale* authors. As I study the interactions between such diverse systems — period-doubling bifurcation, multiscale modeling, nonlinear dynamical systems, chaos theory, and fractals — there will be many questions and observations in light of our base-2 work from the Planck scale to the current time.

May I keep you informed?

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Bruce

First email: Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 5:45 PM

**Subject**: Would an article for “*Multiscale Modeling and Simulation*” be of some interest?

Dear Prof. Dr. Jack Xin:

In 2011 my nephew asked me to substitute in his high school geometry and ACT classes in New Orleans. The students knew me as Uncle Bruce because in a few prior encounters, I had them build geometric forms based on Plato’s solids. Here is a sample of that work: https://81018.com/tot

On the last day of class before Christmas break, instead of serving milk and cookies and reading stories, the students and I began developing a scaling chart of the universe: https://81018.com/home/ The kids and I were quite fascinated by an exploration together of the universe’s relative measurements at different scales.

In the high school, that single day turned into an ongoing odyssey of exploration in Planck unit number relationships. Such scaling recalls a well-known book, Powers of Ten: About the Relative Size of Things in the Universe, but with a vital difference. We used the Planck base units to discover a systematic doubling that goes on from scale to scale.

We have long been looking for a means to justify or explain this behavior. It just might be a variant of the doubling phenomenon that occurs in a discrete dynamical system: Period-doubling bifurcation (Wikipedia). It seems to us that this doubling occurs as measurement moves from scale to scale in the universe, but we do not find that observation mentioned anywhere in your literature or the the chaos theory literature. Taken as a given, could it indicate that the universe itself is a continuous dynamical system?

The intriguing possibility suggested by our rather encompassing multiscale chart has been endlessly fascinating to us… that the entire universe could be encapsulated within the scaling bandwidth of 202 doublings! Who would have ever thought….?

The Planck units were the ruler. The doublings were the measurement that resulted. The goal was theoretically verifying the age and size of the observable universe by a systematic exploration of these doublings.

Over the years, its exploratory website has burgeoned: https://81018.com/chart

Might you advise us? Where has our logic gone askew? If it hasn’t gone askew, are we onto to something? If so, we will need some serious coaching and would hope that you might be able to help us a little.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

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