**Justin Khoury**

Department of Physics & Astronomy

University of Pennsylvania

Philadelphia, PA 19104-6396

ArXiv: *An Alternative to Particle Dark Matter* (2014)

________*Superfluids and the Cosmological Constant Problem* (May 2018)

________ *Accessibility Measure for Eternal Inflation* (December 2019)

Articles: *Physicist theorizes that dark matter is a superfluid, *Williamson-Rea, Sept. 2018

Homepage (World Science Festival)

Inspire^{HEP}

YouTube: Alternatives to Inflation – lecture 1 (Feb 28, 2018)

Third email: April 16, 2022 at 7 PM

Dear Prof. Dr. Justin Khoury:

I appreciate your work, especially for acknowledging symmetry (your quote is at the bottom of our resource page about your work). My first note was in February 2019 and the last one in January 2020. What if we were all thrown off by Aristotle’s bad geometry, Newton’s arrogance about time, and Hawking’s assurances about big bang cosmology? What if Rovelli and so many others are right and the only time is Now? What if the Planck scale is the best place to start to explore the universe?

More than all these questions, there are many simple propositions, too.

I wish you well with all your work. Let’s bring continuity, symmetry and harmony into the centerfold of science. Maybe we’ll get better results. Thanks.

Warm regards,

Bruce

PS. Is it time to redefine points, point particles, and vertices in light of the Planck or Stoney scales? -BEC

Second email: January 27, 2020 at 11:47 AM

RE: Revisiting all your ArXiv articles today

Dear Prof. Dr. Justin Khoury:

We have begun to aggregate your ArXiv research and other references within one page within our website — https://81018.com/2019/02/26/khoury/ It goes back to our first email to you about a year ago. That began with your 2014 article, *An Alternative to Particle Dark Matter* (PDF-2014). It seems everyone is idiosyncratic these days. In 2012 when John Baez told us we were idiosyncratic, we thought, “No, we’re such simpletons; we must be overlooking really simple stuff. ” After all, we’re just high school people doing what we thought was a rather cool STEM project.”

Just now, upon rediscovering my first email to you, it became clear that your work is among those whom we should be following much more closely.

I don’t believe you responded to our note below. If you did, would you please resend that response? If you didn’t respond, might you today?

Is this work just too naive to pursue further? A YES / NO would be sufficient. Thank you.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

First email: Tue, Feb 26, 2019, 11:17 PM

RE: A rather different starting point for the universe started as a STEM tool in high school geometry.

Dear Prof. Dr. Justin Khoury:

I quickly became aware how idiosyncratic it is to view the universe in terms of the Planck base units and our 202 base-2 doublings, all taken together, giving us an approximate age and size of the universe. Albeit natural and logical, we learned that is an entirely unorthodox (idiosyncratic) view of the universe.

Now, having started to work through your ArXiv articles, I’ll be looking for any clues that might support our inherent assumptions or first principles. We know that it is a naive model of the universe. Our assumptions are simple:

- The Planck Base Units are proper calculations and a real reality.
- Each Planck base unit is defined by dimensionless constants that are also real.
- The composite of the four base units is a sphere; perhaps it should be called a plancksphere.
- That sphere is also defined by two basic formulas:

e = mc^2

c = ℓP divided by tP - Space and time are consider discrete, finite, and quantized, certainly not absolute.
- Sphere-stacking as understood within cubic-close packing is the beginning of scaling, ostensibly doublings, and structure.
- There are no less than 64-doublings prior to any possible measurements by CERN, SLAC, and any other accelerator or other known devices.

Might you comment?

Has some fundamental lemma been overlooked?

Thank you.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

PS. To see a chart of the progression of these base units: https://81018.com/chart/

“There has been, in particle physics, this prejudice that symmetry is at the root of our description of nature,” said the physicist Justin Khoury of the University of Pennsylvania. “That idea has been extremely powerful. But who knows? Maybe we really have to give up on these beautiful and cherished principles that have worked so well. So it’s a very interesting time right now.” (tenth paragraph,

Quanta Magazine, K.C. Cole, June 26, 2019)