Matt Strassler, Center for Fundamental Laws of Nature, Harvard University,
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138
• Articles: Slow and steady. Nat. Phys. 15, 725 (2019) W boson mass too high?…worrisome) link, 2022.
• ArXiv (46): The Duality Cascade, 2005 (latest work is from 2009)
• Homepage(s): Harvard, inSPIREHEP, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube
• Wikipedia: Cascading gauge theory
Others related to Harvard: Randall, Georgi, Woodin, Elkies, Loeb (Avi), Holton, Schild, Ossiander
8 November 2022 at 2:30 PM
Dear Dr. Matthew J. Strassler:
Our page about your work — https://81018.com/2022/07/28/strassler/ — is one of over 2000 pages-and-posts. In my daily monitoring of web activity, I’ll often re-visit a post that’s active the prior day which often prompts the question, “I wonder what (he/she) is up to today?” You’re recently part of that group, so today I revisited our page about your work and added a link to your March 21, 2014 article Did The Universe Really Begin With a Singularity?, as well as to your Facebook page. And to be sure that we include your most recent work, W boson mass too high? is linked.
I have three questions for you:
1. Do you have any interest in beefing up Cascading gauge theory Wikipedia listing?
2. Where is Wikipedia’s article about you? You are mentioned in the Cascading article. There’s a link to Igor Klebanov, but none to you.
3. I have asked the ISO to consider the differences between the Planck base units and Stoney’s units. I then add, “It would also be helpful if there were a discussion about the possibilities of what is being manifest at that time. That is, given our understanding of dimensionless constants, could an infinitesimal sphere be defined by those basic units?”
Of course, your explanation of singularity is classic. It’ll be occupying our thought-space for a long time to come.
Thank you.
Most respectfully,
Bruce
Second email: September 12, 2022 at 10:09 PM
Dear Dr. Matthew J. Strassler:
Yes, I rediscovered my note to you from June — https://81018.com/strassler/#First — and then the more recent tweets. I thought you might not mind a question regarding your work in 2015 when you wrote about the data captured by the Planck satellite about the CMB. More recently the JWST results appear to show an even smoother earlier start. Some like Avi Loeb suggest that this smoothness may require a new physics.
What do you think?
Just as a thought experiment, might we assume that it does require a new physics based on a domain from the Planck-scale to the electroweak scale. Some proposed The First Three Seconds, yet this domain is fractionally smaller yet. From the 2021 at the IPPP 23rd International Conference from the Planck Scale to Electroweak Scale, new insights were few.
But, if we apply base-2 to the Planck base units, out of the 202 notations from Planck Time to this day, there are 64 notations that create a huge grid for that infinitesimal area and time. It is below the thresholds of direct measurement and might be be reserved for Langlands, strings, SUSY and a host of others. Might you comment? Thank you.
Warm regards,
Bruce
September 10-11, 2022: Tweets
2:48 PM · Sep 10, 2022. Matt Strassler, a theoretical physicist studying particles and strings, tweeted, “So, the news from #Kharkiv is surprisingly good, but very worrying. This is not retreat, it is collapse. (Izium, already!) #Putin cannot tolerate more humiliation. I fear he will lash out.”
9:16 AM · Sep 11, 2022, To which I replied, “You are right. The world needs to be giving him (Putin) an off ramps everyday. Let’s get creative! https://81018.com/Vladimir/ https://81018.com/putin/
Tweet: 3:00 PM · Jun 6, 2022, @MattStrassler Can you help us unfold this base-2 chart of the universe: https://81018.com/chart/ The current homepage is my latest struggle with it all: https://81018.com/
PS. I am going through your work within inspireHEP.
First email: Jun 6, 2022, 4:50 PM
Dear Dr. Matthew J. Strassler:
I am sure you have a graduate student who could rather quickly bring your website, https://profmattstrassler.com/, up to speed. I think it is worth saving.
At the divinity school (Harvard) back in 1977 with Arthur McGill, we focused on the Finite and Infinite relation through a slow reading of Austin Farrer’s book of that title. In trying to consider the fundamental laws of nature, it seems there should be some working assumptions about infinity. In my reading of your work, it is not clear to me what those assumptions might be.
Have you articulated any such assumptions?
Beyond inSpireHEP, your ArXiv collection is a good resource. I am now working through your 2000 article with Joseph Polchinski. Excellent!
Warm regards,
Bruce
Worldviews limit perspective 