# Edward Anderson

Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics

University of Cambridge Centre for Mathematical Sciences

Cambridge, United Kingdom

AstroParticule et Cosmologie (APC)

Université Paris Diderot

Paris, France

**ArXiv**: Triangleland. II. Quantum Mechanics of Pure Shape

• Foundations of Relational Particle Dynamics

• A Local Resolution of the Problem of Time (January 2020)

• Problem of Time: Temporal Relationalism…(June 2015)

** • **Problem of time is slightly inhomogenous cosmology (March 2014)

**Books:**

*The Problem of Time*

**FQXi**

**Homepage**

**inSPIRE-HEP**: The Problem of Time

YouTube

Most recent email: 24 March 2020

Idiosyncratic, yes, but maybe that’s what we need right now.

It’s a quick read: https://81018.com (the home page)

In a few weeks it’ll still be here: https://81018.com/uni-verse/

Of course, your comments are always most welcomed.

Thanks.

Warmly,

Bruce

Second email: Monday, 13 January 2020 @ 4:41 PM

You certainly are among the top, living experts on the nature of time! It would be wonderful to hear back from you.

**Might I ask a series of Yes/No questions?** These are:

1. Have you ever seen the universe ordered by base-2 notation from the Planck base units to the age/size of the universe in just 202 notations?

2. Is it worth pursuing as a model of the universe?

3. Is Newton’s absolute space and time the commonsense view of the universe held by mathematicians and other scholars who think about such things?

Thank you.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

First email: October 21, 2018 @ 1:07 PM

Dear Prof. Dr. Edward Anderson:

Your exhaustive work on time within the QG, QM and GR paradigms open paths for *my* further work, i.e. the geometrodynamical approach, loop quantum gravity, supergravity and string/M-theory.

Notwithstanding, might there be a naive Planck interpretation whereby Max Planck’s definitions of time are seen strictly from the perspective of light whereby we further explore his simple equation, Planck Length divided by Planck Time is equal to light. If carried across a base-2 mapping of the universe (202.34 notations), it seems that it is worth exploring further. Could it be another paradigm for physics?

Line 9 of this horizontally-scrolled chart tracts the very preliminary results of that equation. https://81018.com/chart

It is idiosyncratic for sure. Is is idiotic or perhaps just imaginative? Thank you.

Most sincerely,

Bruce