**Sylvester James Gates**, first MIT PhD on SUSY

Director, Ford Foundation Professor of Physics, Brown Theoretical Physics Center

340 Brook Street, Providence, RI 02912

formerly John S. Toll Professor, University of Maryland

**Article**: Why Theoretical Physicist Sylvester James Gates Sees No Conflict Between Science and Religion, Smithsonian Magazine, 2013**ArXiv** (157): *A Dynamical Theory for Massive Supergravity* 2013**Great Course**: Superstring Theory: The DNA of Reality**Homepage**(s): AIP, MIT MLK, Watson Institute**inSpire-HEP****Video**: NOVA – PBS-TV The Uncertainty of Disbelief, Chrysalis Institute, September 27, 2014. what

• Perimeter Institute Distinguished Visiting Research Chair**Twitter****Wikipedia****YouTube**: The Gift of Physics, Oct 27, 2015

• Jim Gates: Supersymmetry, String Theory Dec 25, 2019

**Within this website**: https://81018.com/2019/04/09/gates/ (this page)

https://81018.com/empower/ as well as https://81018.com/empower/#Gates

https://81018.com/conference/

Most recent email: 17 June 2021 at 4:26 PM

Dear Prof. Dr. Sylvester James Gates:

I am circling back through your work so you’ll see your image along with seven others at the top of the homepage: https://81018.com/ The permanent URL when not a homepage is: https://81018.com/empower/ There is a paragraph about your work under “References” that is still being developed.

Other scholars will be directed to it. If you object, I can easily remove the reference to you. Please advise me and I’ll update it. Thanks so much.

Warmly,

Bruce

****************

Bruce E. Camber

https://81018.com/bec/

Third email: 10 May 2020 at 10 AM

Dear Prof. Dr. Sylvester James Gates:

In the depths of every family’s history, we’ve all *looked north at the south end of a mule* and some of us thought about the simple wholeness of life… how so much was just simply *in, transformation, and more simply out*.

I think the finite-infinite relation is similar: https://81018.com/redefining/#Jim

It would seem that supersymmetries manifest (within our model of 202 base-2 notations from the Planck scale to the current time), from notations 1-to-about-50. It seems way too simplistic and idiosyncratic, for sure, but given the progress of the past hundred years, perhaps a very different starting point is in order and the Planck scale has been overladen with preconceptions of space and time.

I map it out a little further here:

Summary: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3428**Article**: https://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Camber_3u.pdf

And please, to be sure I am not wasting more of your time, there is no need to reply. Thanks.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

Second email: 20 January 2020 at 4:44 PM

RE: We believe! We believe!

Dear Prof. Dr. Sylvester James Gates:

Back in 2011 three high school teachers and about 90 geometry students began to explore how we could go deeper and deeper inside the tetrahedron by dividing the edges by 2 and going inside the four tetrahedrons, one in each corner and the octahedron in the middle. We also went inside the octahedron, one smaller octahedron in each of the six corners and eight tetrahedrons, one in each of the eight faces. In just 45 steps from our little classroom objects — https://81018.co/tot/ — we were down among the fermions. In another 67 steps we were facing Max Planck’s base units and could go no smaller. When we finally returned to our classroom model and continued multiplied by 2, we were even more surprised to find we were out to the current age and size of the universe in just another 90 steps or doublings. We made a chart!

That is a total of 202 steps to encapsulate the universe.

How very clever we thought!

Out of a New Orleans high school class no less!

Well, we learned about tiling and tessellating the universe.

It was great fun!

Everything was related to everything.

No elitism anywhere!

Then we discovered, it was idiosyncratic. We felt duped by our simple logic and simple math! Here we were discovering how symmetries and continuities were ruling the universe and, “No, it’s wrong… idiosyncratic!” Well, what do you do when you are nobody from nowhere special? We kept plodding along: https://81018.com/stem/

**Now you don’t have to respond to this email.** It’s a symbolic day and this is our symbolic gesture to the *Supersymmetry Man*! We thank you for your scholarship! And, congratulation you on your Brown University – Watson move.

Now, if Newton’s absolute space-and-time fall were to breakdown under the strength of the Leibniz relational model, space-time would be understood to be derivative. That just might help us find a sweet little supersymmetry hiding within those first fifty notations! Just a hunch!

Be well,

Warmest regards,

Bruce, Steve, Cathy, and Bryce and even more students today

First email: Tuesday, April 9, 2019 at 6:26 PM

Dear Prof. Dr. Sylvester James Gates:

I was listening to your lecture online: On gravitational waves (part of the E.E. Just Symposium, 2014. I’ve also been reading your work within ArXiv. You have seen it all.

Yet, sometimes, don’t *even you* think we are on the wrong path?

I have read enough on your work to know you would readily discern whether Max Planck and our base-2 expansion of his base units constitute a legitimate model of the universe. It is idiosyncratic but it opens possibilities for new concepts about space, time and even infinity. Could Max Planck’s “little formula” for space-time do what Einstein did for mass-charge? https://81018.com/c/

202 base-2 notations or doublings. The universe is mathematically-encapsulated within this simple chart: https://81018.com/chart/ BUT, what do we do with it?

Much more than Kees Boeke’s base-10, our progression has an inherent geometry; and, it has the Planck scale from the first moment of time to this day. It has doublings that looked like a natural inflation. It has closed-cubic packing, bifurcation theory, emergence, and more. So I have written it up: https://81018.com/e8/

What do you think? Poppycock? Silliness? We know how entirely idiosyncratic it is which is altogether too close to being idiotic! If it is not idiotic, might you help guide us through this maze, particularly looking at notations that first define particles, then those notations that define elements?

Thank you.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

****************

This post URL: https://81018.com/2019/04/09/gates/

_____