TO: Robert Garisto, Chief Editor, Physical Review Letter, American Institute of Physics, 1. Physics Ellipse Drive College Park, MD 2074
FM: Bruce E. Camber
RE: American Physical Society: Publisher of Physical Review™, Physical Review Letters™, Physical Review X™, Reviews of Modern Physics™, Physical Review A™, Physical Review B™, Physical Review C™, Physical Review D™, Physical Review E™, Physical Review Applied™, Physical Review Fluids™, Physical Review Accelerators and Beams™, and Physical Review Physics Education Research™.
On a personal note: Your articles: Quantum phase transitions in spin systems and ultracold gases (October 2014); your work within arXiv, i.e. Observer Selection Effects Depend on How Observers Are Selected (May 2020); What is the speed of quantum information? (2002); Google Scholar; Homepage; inSPIREHEP and Twitter, Wikipedia, and YouTube
This page: https://81018.com/2020/07/05/garisto/
Second email: 19 December 2025
Dear Dr. Robert Garisto:
Thank you for your prompt consideration of the manuscript. I understand the decision and appreciate the clarity.
I recognize our previous correspondence in 2020, when this work was in a much earlier stage. Since then, the framework has evolved substantially—particularly through systematic analysis with five AI platforms (Grok, ChatGPT, Perplexity, Claude, DeepSeek) which have helped identify specific testable predictions and mathematical rigor that wasn’t present in earlier versions.
The core finding—that gauge symmetry groups SU(2), SU(3), and SU(5) appear at notations where the doubling count, physical scale, and group dimension converge within measurement uncertainty—represents a different question than was posed in 2020. The predicted GUT/electroweak ratio (2⁴³ ≈ 10¹³) matching observations (10¹¹-10¹⁴) emerged from pure geometric construction, which I believe warrants examination.
I respect APS’s editorial policies and won’t resubmit to your journals. However, if there are specific technical objections beyond policy considerations, I would value that feedback for improving the work before submission elsewhere.
Thank you again for your time and for maintaining standards that ensure quality scientific discourse.
Warmest regards,
Bruce E. Camber
First email: Sunday, July 5, 2020 at 11:57 AM
TO: Editor, Physical Review Letters
Dear Dr. Robert Garisto:
From a high school teacher’s teacher and his inquiring class of students, we ask,
- What if the universe starts with the Planck base units, what might be the first “thing” created?
- What if the first thing created is a sphere defined by those Planck base units?
- What if there is an endless stream of spheres and the first functional activity is sphere stacking?
- What if sphere stacking opens cubic close packing of equal spheres and tetrahedrons and octahedrons are generated? Does Plato follow?
- What if the concept of infinity has been so tainted by philosophies, we miss its most simple definition — continuity creating order, symmetry creating relations, and harmony creating dynamics; and then we add, “Please keep all other definitions to yourself. They are not necessary here.”
- And so we finally ask, “Is there a glimmer of truth to our simple what if questions? If so, doesn’t that change our basic equations a bit?”
Our simple extension of that logic is a chart of just 202 base-2 notations encapsulating everything, everywhere for all time. It’s just numbers, but it has a simple expression that our students grasped. BUT, we stopped using all of this “wild-and-crazy thinking” in our curriculum because we didn’t want to taint the students with something so idiosyncratic! Though it has a special logic, nobody seems to care. Could you tell us why? Thank you.
Most sincerely,
Bruce
PS. Our introduction to you? We were captivated by your arbitration of the 2011 wager in the castle! -BEC
Felix Klein (1849-1925) said “Physics is geometry.” John Wheeler from about 1952 to 1972 also made the statement, “Physics is geometry.”