TO: Michael B. Green, Lucasian Professor #18 (followed Stephen Hawking #17), Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics (DAMTP), Cambridge University, Cambridge, England UK
FM: Bruce E. Camber
RE: Your arXiv(98) articles especially Superstring Amplitudes… (2019), and Exploring transcendentality in superstring amplitudes (2019); even your homepage is helpful, including ERC and Wikipedia.

This page: https://81018.com/2019/11/14/green/ Other references within this website: http://81018.com/consciousness-2/#Green

Third email: Saturday, 7 February 2026

Dear Prof. Dr. Michael Green:

Within 1% on a cosmic scale with simple mathematics amounts to compelling evidence that the universe actually is guided by the 202.34 base-2 notations that scale from Planck’s base units to the current time: https://81018.com/cosmology-homology/

It is also mapped out here: https://81018.com/base-2-map/
And here: https://81018.com/notations-0-10/

It is a discrete base-2 scaling from Planck units to the present epoch reproducing the age and horizon size of the universe to within 1%, and with a significant offset—a 1.754-step difference between length and time scaling—which directly encodes the observed dark-energy density  through the standard ΛCDM integrals.

Your comments? Thank you very much.

Warmly,

Bruce

Second email: Sunday, January 5, 2020

Dear Prof. Dr. Michael Green:

I have begun studying the references that I have made to your work here (this page): https://81018.com/2019/11/14/green/ Also, there is a quick reference to you and a link to that page on our homepage today (pictured just below Hawking and Guth): https://81018.com/consciousness/

I am particularly hooked on your ArXiv collection, starting with your most recent work first. The citations and references and the other work of your co-authors makes it all profoundly and efficiently informative. Thank you, thank you.

Mistaken about so many things, I am probably mistaken again when I conclude the scholarly community has not openly asked the question, “Are there logical, sequential, relational structures that begin at the Planck scale and go up to the CERN-scale of measurements?”

That’s where my entirely-idiosyncratic work comes in.

If we apply base-2 (doublings) to the Planck scale, there are at least 64 doublings to get to that particle-wave scale. Then, there are 138 more doublings to go on out to the age and size of the universe. That work was done in December 2011 within a New Orleans high school. Geometry students structurally encapsulated “everything, everywhere, for all time” within 202 base-2 notations. That resulted in a chart that does the following: (1) Mathematically confirms the speed of light based on Max Planck’s 1899 calculations for the base units of length and time, (2) Opens an actual range to define dark energy and dark matter, (3) Opens homogeneity and isotropy for deeper study whereby conceptual silos of information can be manipulated, particularly including string theory, Langlands programs, and a substantial range of theoretical objects from axions to branes to preons (and most other hypotheticals), and (4) Redefines space-time and matter-energy; all are derivative and finite.

Just maybe, however idiosyncratic, this could be a new view of emergence. it could be a simple beginning of an integrated-and-unified theory of mathematics of the infinitesimal structure of the universe.

Your thoughts and comments would be most-highly regarded. Thank you.

Most sincerely,
Bruce

First email: Nov 12, 2019 @ 5:39 PM

Dear Prof. Dr. Michael B. Green:

Is there any possibility that we need to revisit Newton’s absolute space and time? I have attempted to re-open that question here: http://81018.com/bridge/

If Planck Time is taken as a given and we apply base-2, in 202 notations, everything, everywhere throughout all time is encapsulated.  The first 64 notations (doublings) are where space-and-time are still infinitesimal and beyond physical measurements. Could it be a place for string theory, field theory, gravity, Langlands programs, and finally for quantum field theory and quantum gravity?

Thank you.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

###