# Gabriele Veneziano

**Articles/books**: Gabriele Veneziano: A Concise Scientific Biography and an Interview

**ArXiv**: Quantum hair and the string-black hole correspondence

**Biography**: College de France

**Homepage**

**Researchgate**

**Twitter**

**Wikipedia**

**YouTube**

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 Gellman

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 Gabriele Veneziano, “Is this a domain for string theory?”

We will always accommodate any change you request.

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:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close-packing_of_equal_spheres#Simple_hcp_lattice

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