**Gabriele Veneziano**, CERN Labs, Geneva, Switzerland

**Articles/books**: Gabriele Veneziano: Concise Scientific Biography/Interview**ArXiv**: Quantum hair and the string-black hole correspondence**Biography**: College de France**Homepage****ResearchGate****Twitter****Wikipedia****YouTube**

Most recent email: 13 May 2021

Dear Prof. Dr. Gabriele Veneziano:

When our simple logic is too simple, it would seem that scholars could dispel its lack of efficacy or extensibility rather quickly. One such assertion is about the conceptual start of universe (which is on the current homepage): https://81018.com/starts/

There I assert, “Our Universe begins with pi, a keyway for all dimensionless constants.” So, I ask you, “Is it possible?” Might you provide a simple one word answer, Yes, No, or Maybe. Thank you.

Most sincerely,

Bruce E. Camber

PS. Of course, that one question is part of an article with twelve implied questions. It is an extension of our first survey with just eight questions. I am trying hard to capture a process to use with our high school students so they can more quickly recognize a path to deeper truth or one that opens greater obfuscations. Thanks. –BEC

Fourth email: 10 November 2020

Dear Prof. Dr. Gabriele Veneziano:

Given your work with Michael Duff, I will copy this email to him as well. Recognizing that the Planck base units provide a rate for the expansion of the universe within the definition of Planck time itself, I have been checking that logic and those numbers.

Although very much “in process”, what we have to date is a bit interesting. Here we assume the universe begins with the Planck base units, and that (1).the first manifestation of physicality is a PlanckSphere which is, in part, defined by those Planck base units and (2).each doubling is ostensibly caused by the rapid generation of those Planckspheres.

Admittedly naive, this discovery process has been going on since 2011 and the logic is simple. To create a baseline for a rate of expansion, it is extended to one second between Notation-143 and Notation-144. At one second, Planck Time is 5.391 16(13)×10^{-44} seconds.

If there is one plancksphere per plancksecond, there are 10^{44} planckspheres per second. That is:

539,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planckspheres/second

Planck Length is 1.616229×10^{-35} meters, and if one PlanckSphere is equal to one PlanckLength. In one second, the PlanckSpheres will push out 299,792.458 kilometers, first as what would appear to be a point, then momentarily as a 3-D wall-to-wall PlanckSpheres.

Planck Mass, at 2.176.470(51)×10^{-8} kilograms, at one second will equal to 4.036862067×10^{34} kilograms. That’s raising many questions. Planck Charge, 1.875 545.956×10^{-18} coulombs jumps to 3.47877437×10^{23} coulombs, quite formidable. Of course, questions abound! Your comments at this stage might save us a lot of embarrassment and time. Might you advise us? Thank you.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

Third email: 16 July 2019

**References:**

PDF: https://www.bipm.org/ws/BIPM/CCU-WORKSHOP/Allowed/Presentations/G.Veneziano.pdf

Trialogue on the number of fundamental constants: https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0110060

Dear Prof. Dr. Gabriele Veneziano:

I was sorry to discover that Lev Okun died (November 2016). I was just

getting to appreciate his irascible spirit! Obviously he was a good member

of your triumvirate.

Wikipedia has a nice summary about him for people like me! With Murray Gell-Mann gone, there are not too many left from that era!

My most recent read was the 2001 Trialogue and now your 2017 presentation, Fundamental Strings and Fundamental Constants (**PDF**). I enjoyed your reference to Weinberg’s comment that we can’t do any better because *we do not know of anything more fundamental* (page 24).

Are there hidden assumptions about time? Though we cannot say “…that space is time in disguise…” might we say that time is a Janus-face of space inextricably woven with light?

Where is the weaving? How about between the CERN-scale of measurement

and the 64+ steps (halvings) back into the Planck scale? Silly? Naive? Perhaps both are part of a return to a more simple way.

Thanks.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

Second email: 11 May 2019

Dear Prof. Dr. Gabriele Veneziano:

As an academic exercise, we applied base-2 to the Planck base units and created a model of the universe within 202 notations from the Planck scale to the current time (i.e., following Planck Time). This section (just below) is from a homepage with that reference:

“The first 64 of the 202 notations: Physics has historically been focused on particles and waves. Here we introduce forms and functions that give rise to particles and waves.

“Of course, from the viewpoint of waves and particles, these 64 doublings are too small for anything. Yet, if there is a more basic structure (and we posit an infinitesimal sphere that begins to evolve at the Planck scale), classic physics has already discounted it and their big bang blocks any view of it.

“We have wrestled with the nature of these 64 notations from the very beginning. I have asked Robert Langlands and Edward Frenkel, “Is this a domain for a unified theory of mathematics?” I have asked Ed Witten, Michael Duff, and you, “Is this a domain for string theory?”

BTW, we will always accommodate any change you request on our page about your work. Thanks.

Warmly,

Bruce

PS. Our Gabriele Veneziano page: https://81018.com/2019/05/07/veneziano/

First email: 7 May 2019

Dear Prof. Dr. Gabriele Veneziano:

Perhaps fundamental constants can be understood within

a very different construct. Can we assume the Planck scale

is the beginning of physicality? Can we apply base-2 to those

Planck units? It is an Euler-like doubling whereby a substantial

bridge to the CERN scale of measurements would have no less

than 64 notations, all well below thresholds of measurement.

It would look a bit like this chart: https://81018.com/chart/

A very simple doubling function is within cubic close packing and it does well as a natural inflation: https://81018.com/calculations/

I thought you might find this interesting and might have some thoughts for us. Thank you.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

Also, see Michael Duff.