Articles: Why Unify? (Nature, v.288, pages 649–651, 1980)
ArXiv (51): Unparticle Physics (May 2007) Wiki
Books: Lie Algebras In Particle Physics (Westview, 1999) (CRC Taylor & Francis, 2018) (PDF)
Wikipedia: Unparticle Physics
Most recent email: November 16, 2021 First Edit: March 2020
Original: 19 May 2016
Dear Prof. Dr. Howard Georgi:
Your work, Unparticle Physics, came to my attention in May 2016 so my studies of your work are still evolving. It is analogical to our tredecillionth-to-a-quintillionth of a second which is the first 64 of the 202 base-2 notations that we use to outline our universe from Planck Time to this day.
In and around 1979 John Wheeler sent me a copy of his booklet, The Frontiers of Time (PDF). Unfortunately, soon thereafter, I went back into a business that I had started nine years earlier.
I recently revisited Wheeler’s writings about quantum foam and simplicity. I would ask him today, “What about the Planck base units?” Might we consider Planck Time the first unit of time? Might we consider today, the Now, to be to be an endpoint? Can we use the current estimated age of the universe between 13.81-to-14.1 billion years?
If we apply base-2 notation to that continuum, there are just 202 notations from the first instant to today. At one second (between Notation 143 and Notation 144) the Planck Length is the distance light travels in a vacuum (within .001%).
Throughout those 202 notations, there are many places to check the integrity of the numbers, including the Planck Charge and Planck Mass doublings. There is a semblance of logic within it all. The first 64 notations are too small to be measured. The first doubling of the Planck Length that can be measured is within Notation-67. Units of time that can be readily measured (the attosecond) is within Notation-84.
Here is a domain, 0-64, for your unparticle physics. It would include Langlands programs, string theory, loop quantum theory and others. It has dimensionality and physicality that cannot be measured directly. We’ve been mystified by dark matter and energy long enough. Yes, I think this may well be a domain for your unparticle physics.
So, what might be the look and feel of your unparticles? Might an infinitesimal sphere at the Planck level be defined by the Fourier transform, Poincaré spheres, and cubic close packing of equal spheres? What are our limitations within mathematics and physics?
All notations appear to be active, so time is surely redefined. It would appear that there is symmetry across all but the current notation. I could go on, but this note has been quite idiosyncratic enough!
I hope you will comment. Thank you.
Bruce E. Camber
PS. This review was prompted by asking, “Who has a possible model? Who has possible parts of that model? Who is open to discussions about the idiosyncratic? Who has a bit of humility?” The next homepage will be an analysis of each. -BEC
Long, long ago… I was a member of Harvard SDS ’64 (local high school student – recruited from an all-night teach-in at Memorial Hall). Also I was a member of the Harvard Philomorphs with Arthur Loeb and Bucky Fuller, 1970-1973, and then one of nine (1977) with Arthur McGill (HDS) on Austin Farrer’s Finite and Infinite.