Michela Missimi, Professor of Philosophy of Science
University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Articles: Getting It Right in Aeon
Homepage (Personal homepage)
Interviews: The Universe Speaks In Numbers Among interviews with Michael Atiyah, Freeman Dyson, Juan Maldacena, Roger Penrose, Martin Rees, Leonard Susskind and Edward Witten.
Third email (most recent) Monday, May 11, 2020 at 7 PM
Dear Prof. Dr. Michela Missimi:
I was recalling your interview within that astute group of scholars (within Graham Farmelo’s book, The Universe Speaks In Numbers), then your article, Getting It Right, and then your warm spirit of engagement within your videos.
I hope you are well and your work is strong.
Back in 2011, a small group of teachers and high school geometry students began wrestling with a base-2 model of the universe that began at the Planck scale and went to the current time in less than 202 notations. We thought it was our own special STEM tool and began sharing with other teachers around town. But then we discovered, it was entirely idiosyncratic. There were no scholars or authorities who were saying that the universe started with at the Planck base units. “Oops!” We advised our friends and stopped sharing it with the kids because it wasn’t part of the mainstream and they were all college bound. “What would their professors think?”
I have spent these intervening years trying to figure out why it’s so idiosyncratic. Instead, it seemed as if our little chart was crying out to be recognized. There in the 143rd notation and just shy of the 144th was one second and the Planck Length multiple was the distance light travels in one second.
I got rather excited, “This chart works!” Then, looking at Max Planck’s formulations and calculations from 1899, it finally dawned on me that his little formula could readily be re-written. In 1899, Max Planck was within .001% of the speed of light in a vacuum ascertained in 1975 and re-affirmed as recently as 2019.
The first 64 notations. Even while we were developing the first chart, we couldn’t find anything small enough to matched up with the sizes of the Planck Length doublings from Notation-1 to Notation-65. Waves and particles were just now beginning to emerge. What could be actually smaller? …yes, between the Planck scale and particles and waves?
It became a major study for me.
Just reading this little bit. I hope you are intrigued and you might help straighten out our idiosyncratic thinking! To get feedback, I posted in the FQXi website: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3428
A five page article with five pages of footnotes is here:
I hope you’ll give us some guidance. Thanks.
Second email: 26 December 2019
I am so enjoying your work. Thank you again.
My New Years’ greetings are here: https://81018.com/newyears/
My teasing the CERN folks about particles and waves. https://81018.com/proton
First email: Saturday, June 29, 2019, 6:08 PM
Dear Prof. Dr. Michela Missimi:
Thank you! You unwittingly became my teacher today.
I have been watching your YouTube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivbE9Xgoxl4 thinking about my own need to better understand “undetermination of theory by evidence.” I had to go back to Duhem-Quine thesis and now I am doing a very general survey.
I always wanted to go to Edinburgh, the university, so now I have a little flavor for it. I visited the school not long ago and Thomas Torrance and Peter Higgs were two of my favorites. Of course, Michael Atiyah hung out there after 1997, but he was so very smart and he had such depth and bandwidth, I was disappointed that he never fully deposed absolute space and time for us. He could have.
So, let me say, “Thanks again for your work!”