# George Musser

Contributing editor, Scientific American

2014-2015 Knight Science Journalism, MIT

Glen Ridge, New Jersey

Articles: *What Is Spacetime?*, Nature, May 2018

________ Many within Aeon

Books: *The Complete Idiot’s Guide to String Theory*, July 2008

_______ *Spooky Action at a Distance**,* Farrar, Straus & Groux, 2015

_______*Spacetime Is Doomed*, a chapter within* Space, Time and the Limits *

_______*of Human Understanding* (Springer, 2017) edited by Shyam Wuppuluri and Giancarlo Ghirardi, Foreword by John Stachel, and afterword by Noam Chomsky

Big Think

C-Span

Facebook>General Assembly

Homepage

LinkedIn

**Twitter**: @gmusser

Wikipedia

**References within this website: **

1. Musser G. (2017) *Spacetime Is Doomed*. In:* Space, Time and the Limits of Human Understanding* (Springer, 2017) edited by Shyam Wuppuluri and Giancarlo Ghirardi Foreword by John Stachel, and afterword by Noam Chomsky

Most recent communication: January 28, 2020, 7:37 PM

Dear George:

A couple of years ago we exchanged notes. Communicating our work has never been easy. Very early, back in 2012, John Baez told me that our model is idiosyncratic, but at that time we did not know how out of the mainstream it was. Yet, I continued to work to identify its weaknesses and strengths. Have you ever looked at the chart of raw numbers? https://81018.com/chart/

Though you^{†} and Arkani-Hamed say “Spacetime is doomed,” it may be better to understand both in radically new ways.

Our work unwittingly continues the work of David Bohm, one of my mentors from the 1970s.

The current homepage for the site is http://81018.com

I am still asking the questions: Is it meaningful? Is it worth pursuing?

Thanks.

Warmly,

Bruce

^{†} Musser G. (2017) *Spacetime Is Doomed*. In:* Space, Time and the Limits of Human Understanding* (Springer, 2017) edited by Shyam Wuppuluri and Giancarlo Ghirardi Foreword by John Stachel, and afterword by Noam Chomsky Particularly see the references.

Third email: Dec 12, 2018, 8:11 PM

Hi George –

I am still at it. You may remember an earlier email where, in a high school geometry class, we created a model of the universe by doubling the Planck base units, then doubling the results over and over again, until in 202 doublings (base-2 notation), we are at the size and age of the universe. The chart is here: https://81018.com/chart

The current homepage for the site is http://81018.com

I am still asking the questions: Is it meaningful? Is it worth pursing?

Your insights would be helpful. Thank you.

Warm regards,

Bruce

PS. I have aggregated some links to your work. Is there anything you would add or delete? Thanks. -BEC

Second communication: Feb 20, 2018, 5:24 PM

Thank you, George, for being on top of this note to you.

Of course, our work started out as a simple ordering tool.

We could set everything within a length that was a multiple

of the Planck Length. We were very surprised that it only took

202 doublings to get to the approximate size of the universe.

Reference: http//81018.com/home

We thought it was most peculiar that there were no references

to this simple mathematical progression on the web. Of course,

did find Kees Boeke’s base-10. One of my old professor

friends was Phil Morrison who with his wife Phylis created

the book, Powers of Ten based on Boeke’s work.

References: https://81018.com/big-board/

https://81018.com/why-now/

When we added the other Planck base units of time, mass and charge,

and observed the logic of that natural inflation without a big bang,

we wondered, “What is this simple math doing?”

https://81018.com/chart/

When it came to us that this was e, Euler’s equation, and

it defined an exponential universe, we thought we had something quite

special. But, nobody else did. https://81018.com/exponential-universe/

We began to wonder about our commonsense and logic. Then, the

more we thought about our simple model, it appeared that every

notation was necessarily an active part of the current definition of

the universe and that time was some kind of an illusion or was always

entirely local so we went back to the other Lucasian professor,

Sir Isaac, and delved into his debate with Leibniz.

Reference: https://81018.com/pursuit/#2

Now, this is getting very weighty and most of the kids went off

to play football. Some of them hung in and are as curious as I am:

What’s wrong with our simple model besides “everything”?

Where does the logic break down or does it? Is it possible that

the universe is an exponential notation machine?

Reference: https://81018.com/finite-to-infinite/

Personally, I think we fell into something much larger than we are.

So, advice? We are all ears! Thanks.

-Bruce

First communication: 20 Feb 2018, @ 4:40pm

RE: Models of the universe

Dear George:

Our work originates from a high school geometry class where we followed the tetrahedron-octahedron, going within, by dividing the edges in half, deeper and deeper, 112 steps to the Planck scale. We then went out just 90 more steps by multiplying by 2, to get in the range of the Observable Universe. We thought it was a good STEM tool. On further consideration the first 67 notations to the CERN-scale began to intrigue us. Then, we added Planck Time to our Planck Length chart, then we added Planck Charge and Planck Mass. We began to think that we lived in an exponential universe and thought Euler would be pleased. Certainly the Hawking-Guth team would not be. Within the chart, there is a natural inflation that does not defy all logic. Then we began looking for alternatives to absolute space and time…

Will it ever stop? Please somebody, help us! We are drowning in issues that are way-way over our heads. But, our simple model? What do we do with it? Why is it wrong?

I am confident you can get us back on the straight and narrow! Maybe you can become an advisor!?!

Our primary websites and webpages are many:

High school work: https://81018.com/stem/

On-going research: http://81018.com

Horizontal-chart: https://81018.com/chart

Our brief history in time: https://81018.com/home

We’ve been called idiosyncratic; we know that, but where are we going wrong?

Thanks.

Bruce