**Robert B. Laughlin**, Stanford University

Department of Physics, McCullough 301, Stanford, California 94305

Amazon

ArXiv

Homepage(s): (Overview), Nobel (1998), Stanford

inspire^{HEP}

Publications: A Different Universe, (PDF), 2005

Wikipedia

YouTube: What is the Theory of Everything? (2021), Does God Mix with science? (2016), The Crime of Reason and the Closing of the Scientific Mind (2011)

This page is https://81018.com/2018/10/12/laughlin/

Fourth email: 27 September 2022 at 10:25 AM

Dear Prof. Dr. Robert B. Laughlin:

In the face of all headwinds, we’ve made a little progress: https://81018.com Also, the reference link above is to my resource page about your work which has a copy of these notes (as a memory tease to be sure I do not send too much too often). Since my first note in 2013, nobody has challenged the logic or simple math of our continuum from the Planck base units to this very moment. Nobody has challenged the simple geometries and the perfections of the first 64 notations. I believe the smoothness being seen by the JWST… is all discussed on that homepage.

I hope you are well and doing fine.

Best wishes,

Bruce

PS. We overlapped at MIT a little. Serendipitously, Viki Weisskopf became a friend because of his activities within the Pontifical Academy and then he and Lew Kowarski helped me visit John Bell at CERN a couple of times. -BEC

Third email: June 16, 2021

Dear Prof. Dr. Robert Laughlin,

*It may be a very different universe*.

Have you ever gone down, deep inside, the tetrahedron and its octahedron within it? Also, have you seen this graphical user interface that shows us how both are derived from spheres (cubic-close packing or sphere-stacking in action)?

When we started to follow pi back to its source, we found continuity, symmetry, and harmony deep within. Acknowledging a symbolic starting point (defined by an analogue to the Planck Length and Planck time), space and time are derivative, finite, and quantized. As Newton’s absolutes are tamped down, a dynamic finite-infinite relation opens up. Here, pi, as the key dimensionless constant, is quantitative in practice while her infinite expression is qualitative. We have a start of the universe with a single, infinitesimal sphere; it is Lemaitre’s 1927 long-sought-for primeval atom.

Most people would ask, “What is that again?” Given your background and history, I suspect you grasp it right out of the shoot!

Your comments would be highly regarded. Thank you.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

P.S. There are many references to your work on our website as well as this working research page — the URL is https://81018.com/2018/10/12/laughlin/ We’re still just high school folks trying to figure out the meaning of our simple model of 202 base-2 notations from the first instant of the universe to this day. We only lift it up our this very special STEM tool here on the web. The students are cautioned, especially those going into the sciences because this model is so contrary to what is being taught in colleges and universities. I am especially concerned about those kids going on into the studies from particle physics to astrophysics. -BEC

Second email: 11 October 2018

RE: From Emergent Quantum Field Theory to TOES, GUTS and the like

Dear Prof. Dr. Robert Laughlin,

In our extreme naïveté we outlined the universe in 202 base-2 notations, simple doublings from the Planck base units to the age and size of the universe.

I sent a note about it to you back in 2013 (when we were young).

To have a theory of everything, wouldn’t it be good to have included everything, everywhere throughout all time?

I believe that our chart outlines such a universe. Might you take a look? Our simple chart of the universe:

https://81018.com/chart is a horizontally-scrolled chart that I started for our high school students back in 2016. The project started back in December 2011.

Isn’t science asking “too much fundamentality” from our particles? Assuming our Planck base units are the starting points, the CERN-scale does not begin until the 65th to 67th doublings. That gives us at least 64 doublings, a huge array of possibilities for mathematical physics to develop every sort of flavor, spin, and emergent behavior required, measured, or observed.

Just a naive (totally idiosyncratic) thought.

Warmest regards (as I read your NAS, November 1999 paper),

Bruce

First email: Friday, Mar 15, 2013 at 2:50 PM

Reference: http://large.stanford.edu/

Dear Prof. Dr. Laughlin:

I had written to Don Kennedy (attached) an earlier note and he deferred any critical review to NAS to find an appropriate scholar. Given our simple logic, it will take a bold-but-kindly person to engage it.

Perhaps you can advise me and our best students from five high-school geometry classes what to do with out little formulation. I fully realize that with your background and engagement with life, you are very busy as well but a colleague at Stanford suggested that you might be intrigued enough to tell us how it is right and why we are wrong.

I was the substitute for my nephew ‘s high school geometry classes just up river from New Orleans. Similar to Kees Boeke base-10 scientific notation, we were working on base-2 exponential notation to examine the inside structure of the platonic solids. We started with the tetrahedron. By dividing each edge in half, using that point as a new vertex and connecting all the new vertices, we end up with a half-sized tetrahedron in each corner and an octahedron in the middle. By doing it again with the octahedron, we emerge with half-sized octahedrons in each corner and eight half-sized tetrahedrons in each face. One might assume it can be done *ad nauseam*, but one comes bumping into the Planck Length (PL) in about 100 notations. Going out, one hits the edges of the observable universe in about 100 steps.

Because we were getting so much conflicting information, we asked a NASA physicist to help us calculate that the total number of notations (doublings or steps or layers) based on recent results from SDSS-III BOSS measurements. Just 202.34 from the PL to the EOU! Now, we were quite surprised. Why haven’t we seen this before? How did we miss it? So, we did a literature search and found very little (at that time).

What are we doing wrong? If nothing, then, is the information worthy of deeper exploration? If not, why not?

In the intervening years since we started this trek, we have pushed on the edges of academia, but have had limited response. We have also written it up and attempted to get it out for a larger critical review. I’ll put some links to those pages below if you would like to read a little more.

Thank you.

Warmly,

-Bruce

***********

Bruce Camber (a lowly television producer)

Small Business School, a television series on PBS-TV and VOA-TV

PS. Updated links for more:

1. Chart in 202 notations: https://81018.com/chart/

2. Redefine Space, Time And Infinity: https://81018.com/redefinition/

3. How’d it all begin? Which model works best? https://81018.com/s4a/

4. Basic assumptions: https://81018.com/opening/

5. Quiet Expansion: https://81018.com/2016/06/01/quiet/