**Espen Gaarder Haug**

Norwegian University of Life Sciences (**NMBU)**

Norges Miljø-og Biovitenskapelige Universitet

Ullevålsveien 72, 0454 Oslo, Norway

Academia: https://independent.academia.edu/EspenHaug**Articles**: http://vixra.org/pdf/1801.0414v2.pdf *Zeno’s Paradox and the Planck Length, The Fine Structure Constant and The Speed of Light 137 and 144 and 64 ArXiv: The Ultimate Limits of the Relativistic Rocket Equation. The Planck Photon Rocket*

**Homepage**: http://www.espenhaug.com/

*Lectures: https://www.cqf.com/why-cqf/lecturers/our-faculty/dr-espen-gaarder-haug*

Wikipedia (Norwegian)

First email: Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 8:22 AM

Subject: *Can Planck Length Be Found Independent of Big G?*

Dear Espen Gaarder Haug:

Your insights and work are formidable. You came up in a search just minutes ago: “Ed Wittten” + “Planck units” + light.

I have already renamed your article from 71785-264193-2-PB.pdf to

EspenGaarderHaug-Norway-2017.pdf Rare indeed:

1. How many people are interested in the Planck Length?

2. How many people spend time finding derivative means to calculate it?

Answer: Perhaps you, Max Planck, and maybe Ed Witten. Thank you for ALL your work.

Is it meaningful, in some sense of the word, to dwell on Planck’s simple formula for light — https://81018.com/c/ — especially in light of our simple natural inflation by apply base-2 notation and following it out the 202 doublings or notations? It is a rather simple progression of Planck Length and Planck Time. Thank you.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

Espen Haug's Response: Sunday, Oct 20, 2019

**Espen Gaarder Haug replied and gave his permission to post it:**

Hi Bruce,

Took a quick look at your theory after your tweet (@eghaug) and email to me.

I now see you used CODATA numbers, so likely that they have to round of *t*_{P} when calculating it from *l*_{P}. But, I am looking more into it.

And yes, it is well known that c=*l*_{P} / *t*_{P}, but I am not sure who mentioned this first. I would love to find out. Have you seen some older papers on it? I just remember to have seen it in some papers published early 2000, but I would expect this to goes back much further.

And yes, I worked shortly on something similar to your doubling table that I at first thought possibly was a key to understanding some concepts in modern physics better, but I cannot say I succeeded from this method. I am talking about my working paper using Zeno-steps, Zeno’s-paradox, but I went other way down, from larger scales down to the Planck length. http://vixra.org/pdf/1801.0414v2.pdf

Still I must admit I think this leads to nothing special, like one can explain something unexplained or explain existing phenomena in simpler ways. I think things come in quanta of Planck units, but doubt it has to be doubling all the time, except for the first step. So I am not sure doubling in this way leads to any new insight about physics, but it would be very interesting if it does.

I have also worked, looking into the Planck units, for many years, and got a break through last few years as I now can measure Planck length with no knowledge of G in a Cavendish apparatus http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/article/view/71785

This paper in particular I think is break through as one can now measure Planck length without G or hbar (In for review with a journal). https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/201809.0396/v1

See also (published): http://vixra.org/pdf/1603.0207v6.pdf

and this in for review: https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/201806.0391/v1

So yes the Planck length, the Planck time, the Planck mass, and the Planck energy and yes even *c*=*l*_{P} / *t* _{P} are all very essential. But also I have not been able to figure out such things as periodic table yet, please tell me if you do.

Best regards,

espen

###