TO: Nathan Seiberg, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, New Jersey
FM: Bruce E. Camber
RE: Your arXiv articles, especially Exotic U(1) Symmetries, Duality, and Fractons in 3+1-Dimensional (2020), Emergent Spacetime (Jan. 2006), Why is the Matrix Model Correct? (1997) (ABS); also your homepage and CV and your other publications, plus Google Scholar, Twitter, Wikipedia, YouTubeTalks: Where is Fundamental Physics Heading? “Often research progresses in steps (1).Collect data, (2).Find a pattern – explain a lot of data using fewer numbers (parameters), (3).Understand the underlying reason – the origin of the pattern , (4).Explore the remaining parameters and (5).Collect more data.”
URL for this page: https://81018.com/2018/10/13/seiberg/
Third email: 27 February 2024
Dear Prof. Dr. Nathan Seiberg:
We are taught very early in our education to keep it simple. Unwittingly, Occam’s razor becomes part of our logic. And, starting simply and growing into complexity seems logical. However, Lemaître, Hawking and Guth gave us a picture of reality that was complex and non-intuitive. Sacrosanct to many, those theories are increasingly recognized “as a theory” and there is increasing openness to other views. The most-simple picture of the universe is based on Euler’s base-2 which renders a mathematically-integrated view of the universe within 202 notations starting with natural units. It works as well using the ISO, Planck, Stoney and even Hawking units after one minute). Would you comment please? Thank you.
Warmly,
Bruce
PS. With the volume of your email, my earlier emails were readily missed. I post my emails along with an introduction to that scholar’s work: https://81018.com/seiberg/ is my primary page about your work, however, I have cited you within the current homepage here — https://81018.com/reformat/ — in three places: a link to string and M-theory: https://81018.com/reformat/#Seiberg, this email: https://81018.com/reformat/#Emails, and February emails. Thanks again for all that you do to move scholarship forward. –BEC
Second email: 6 June 2022 at 11:31 AM
RE: “Often research progresses in steps 1..Collect data. 2..Find a pattern – explain a lot of data using fewer numbers (parameters). 3..Understand the underlying reason – the origin of the pattern. 4..Explore the remaining parameters. 5..Collect more data.”
Dear Prof. Dr. Nathan Seiberg:
We’ve been collecting new data for over ten years. We have found many new patterns and we’re beginning to explain the underlying reasons for those patterns (using fewer parameters). The one most simple pattern about which I find no references is to a five-octahedral gap. It is a clearly related to the five-tetrahedral gap that Aristotle (and so many who followed him) missed. It feels like we just might be able to begin considering a geometry of quantum fluctuations. The simplicity and complexity of those geometries may also be a key to understand hypothetical particles a bit better. To go any further with such speculations would surely just be nonsense.
In my simplistic way, I have posted these pages:
• An image of the gap created by a five-tetrahedral, five-octahedral, five tetrahedral stack:
https://81018.com/15-2/
• My very preliminary analysis: https://81018.com/geometries/
Of course, your comments would be highly regarded. Thank you.
Most sincerely,
Bruce
First email: Saturday, 13 October 2018 (Revised/resent: 2020)
Dear Prof. Dr. Nathan Seiberg:
We are high school people who have backed into a very simple outline of the universe. We were following the embedded geometries of the tetrahedron and octahedron, smaller and smaller, back to the Planck Length (and Planck Time). It took 112 base-2 notations. We then multiplied by 2, essentially doubling, then doubling over and over again. From our classroom in just 90 doublings we were out the size and age of the universe. We wrote it up as a STEM tool and assigned those things that approximately “fit” within each of those 202 notations. Of course, when we got below the sizes within particle physics, we had to learn something new again. What could possibly be there?
I knew enough to know that I didn’t know anything. A friend in graduate school was Patricio Letelier (BU) who with Tom Banks’ wrote a paper “A Critique of Pure String Theory: Heterodox Opinions of Diverse Dimensions” (published in 2003).
Thinking about strings, may we say that very shortest distance is the radius (then the diameters) of the “plancksphere” defined at the Planck scale by the four base units? Here are a few of my rough ideas: https://81018.com/64-notations/#Strings
Could the supersymmetries* we seek to discover simply be just below the CERN scale and from the Planck scale; i.e. beyond all possibilities of measurement? For example, from the Planck base units to the CERN-scale of measurement, there are no less than 64 successive doublings of Planck’s numbers. Given that there are many different, simple doubling mechanisms built into the universe, might it follow that we have the beginnings of an outline for a new model of the universe with a natural inflation?
Our chart of numbers for that outline is here: https://81018.com/chart/
These rather simple, naive concepts, perhaps too simple for our scholars and our academic community just might have been entertained by someone like John Wheeler who seemed to believe in the simple. In that chart of 202 notations, space and time are finite, discrete, and derivative.
If you have any comments for me, you know I will be very grateful. Thank you for all that you have done and all that you are doing to open scholarship to everyone.
Most sincerely,
* N. Seiberg, Five-dimensional SUSY field theories, nontrivial fixed points and string dynamics, Phys. Lett. B388(1996) 753 [hep-th/9608111] ArXiv