Most recent email: Friday, 1 February 201
Dear Prof. Dr. Rentsen Enkhbat:
Mathematics and physics have been woven deeply together. Physics can not work without mathematical logic. Why would it break down between the Planck scale and the CERN scale? Why isn’t it a reasonable procedure to apply a simple doubling or base-2 expansion to those Planck units and emerge with a chart of 202 doublings? Is it meaningful?
Our logic is here: https://81018.com/boundary/
Our chart (the results) here: https://81018.com/chart/
With your special perspective from Mongolia, we are anxious to hear your reply. Thank you.
First email: Sunday, 19 August 2018
Dear Prof. Dr. Rentsen Enkhbat:
I am not a professional mathematician, but I have studied a little throughout my 71 years. I am not a professional physicist, but I have worked with some of the finest since about 1970. My work and websites have been a search for meaning and value and simplicity.
In 2011 in a New Orleans high school geometry class, we were exploring the tetrahedron by dividing the edges by 2, connecting the new vertices, and discovery the half-sized tetrahedrons in each of the four corners and an octahedron in the middle. Doing the same with the octahedron, we discovered the six half-sized octahedron in each corner and the eight tetrahedron in each of the faces, all sharing a common center point surrounded by four hexagonal plates that could tile the universe.
Using Zeno’s paradox, we went deeper inside. Within about 45 steps we were in the range of the CERN-scale of measurements. Within another 67 steps, we were within the Planck scale. We then multiplied our original 2.5 inch tetrahedron including both its internal octahedron and tessellating octahedrons; and within 90 doublings of the Planck Length, we were out to the size of the universe. With Planck Time, we were out to the age of the universe.
By 2014, we had included the four Planck base units. By 2016, our 34-pages of charts were placed side by side so the numbers could be horizontally scrolled. Throughout this period, we were asking, “How can these 64 doublings below the CERN-scale measurements be used? Is the domain of mathematics and logic only?”
The exponential nature of base-2 is being studied and Euler’s equations and “everything Euler” is being examined and studied. We have a long way to go, so I seek experts to guide our thinking.
Would you consider thinking about the 64 doublings between the Planck scale and the CERN scale of measurements? Could the foundations of applied mathematics emerge from the Planck scale, building progressively with each doubling? Might we consider the primes along the way opportunities for unique expansions of equations?
With your extensive work within optimization, with your institute, and with your extended work on things like the Dinkelbach algorithm, would you consult with us?
Our work is here: http://81018.com
PS. Among our diverse interests, within mathematics we are exploring nonlinear programming and systems, optimization and the optimization of mathematical systems, systems theory, and all things Euler.
For Wikipedia under Mongolian Mathematicians: