“If the anomaly in S8 and the Hubble constant stands the test of time, then both may imply new physics.” – Avi Loeb

Avi Loeb, The Center for Astrophysics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts

Articles by Avi
ArXiv (741): Overview of the Galileo Project, August 2022; Direct Measurement of Cosmological Parameters from the Cosmic Deceleration of Extragalactic Objects, 1998, plus more.
Books: Extraterrestrial, 2021
Homepage(s): Google Scholar, IAS, inSPIREHEP Scientific American, Smithsonian, Wikipedia
Publications: Quote (in the header just above): Our Unexpectedly Smooth Universe May Point To New Physics, Govert Schilling, Sky & Telescope, July 31, 2020
Twitter: National Cathedral
YouTube: CNBC, TOE

First email: 10 September 2022 @ 3:29 PM (an updated version)

Dear Prof. Dr. Avi Loeb:

You are open to idiosyncratic concepts. The question is, “…just how idiosyncratic?” Our work all started with simple math and geometry in a high school and I do not think it will be a waste your time to review a bit of our work.

By the way, we share some commonalities.

In 1972 at Harvard I worked with Arthur Loeb back within the Philomorphs. In the attic of Sever Hall, geometry was everything; Bucky Fuller was part of it.  In 1975 with Arthur McGill over in the Divinity School, we studied Austin Farrer’s Finite and Infinite and it seared in my mind with the need for a better, more encompassing definition of infinity.

Later, in 1979 I was invited by Steven Weinberg to come by his Lyman office. My last note to him was just ten days before his death. With my mixed bag of studies, continuity-symmetry-harmony were not particularly meaningful to him, but he didn’t call it utter nonsense to my face! He would with these two articles: First three minutes revisited and Dark Matter-Dark Energy.

So I ask, “Might we take the Planck base units as the symbolic representation of the first moment in time? Might we apply base-2 to those units to create a chart with boundaries and parameters?” There are just 202 base-2 notations from that first moment to this day. From Notation-1 to Notation-143, essentially the first second, it captured and is currently capturing all but a microsecond of classic big bang cosmology.

Much more recently I found that continuity-symmetry-harmony describe the three faces of pi and, of course, pi is involved with the most pivotal equations of physics. Might pi also define the first units of space-time? …an infinitesimal sphere?  If so, that sphere emerges about 64 notations from the first measurements of quantum fluctuations.

May I go on?  Thank you.

Most sincerely,


PS. Eleonora Di Valentino (and colleagues at Snowmass 2021) also raised the spectre that S8 could be calling for a new physics. -BEC


Note: John Langeloth Loeb Jr. CBE is another Loeb in my life. An American businessman, former United States Ambassador to Denmark, and former delegate to the United Nations, he is an advocate for religious freedom and separation of church and state. In 2009 he founded the George Washington Institute for Religious Freedom located in Rhode Island. He is another very impressive Loeb! -BEC

On studying the work of Steve Carlip, Ricardo Mosna, and João Pitelli

Steven Jonathan Carlip, Department of Physics
University of California
, Davis, CA 95616, USA
Ricardo A. Mosna and João Paulo M. Pitelli, Departamento de Matematica Aplicada
Universidade Estadual de Campinas, 13083-859, Campinas, Sao Paulo, Brazil

ArXiv (78): A Schwarzian on the Stretched Horizon, 2022
Quantum Fields, Geometric Fluctuations, and the Structure of Spacetime, 2018, 2020
Homepage(s): Personal

Our references to your work:

Second email: Friday, March 3, 2023 at 5 PM 

RE: Quantum Fields, Geometric Fluctuations, and the Structure of Spacetime


Have you ever seen a five-octahedral gap? https://81018.com/2022/05/19/five/#Gap. We’ve found no references to it and computer-aided design does not properly compute it. I would enjoy reading an article from you about the relation of these gaps to quantum fluctuations. It seems that scholarship has ignored the natural starting points within pi (π), especially if the cosmological constant is computed based on the Planck base units. Wouldn’t it be around 539 tredecillion infinitesimal spheres per second? It seems we make things too complicated before we start. A deeper study of pi (π) might help lay proper foundations: https://81018.com/pointing/ which today is the homepage: https://81018.com/

I would thoroughly enjoy your reply.

Thank you.

Most sincerely,


PS. My reference page to your work is here: https://81018.com/carlip/
Bruce E. Camber

First email: Sunday, July 31, 2022 at 8:45 AM. (Update: March 3, 2023)

Dear Professors/Doctors Steve Carlip, Ricardo A. Mosna, and João Paulo M. Pitelli:

In ArXiv Steve Carlip,  Ricardo A. Mosna and João Paulo M. Pitelli came to my attention first. In a search today there are not many articles that have geometry and quantum fluctuations in the same sentence. So, very quickly, I saved your article so I could read it at my leisure and study your references, especially given your background in physics and mathematics through Harvard, IAS, and UC-Davis. 

As points of reference, in 1979 I had a project at MIT and got Steven Weinberg and Sheldon Glashow involved. A friend of mine from Boston University, Patricio Letelier, was a Chilean mathematical physicist and professor at University of Campinas (UNICAMP). I suspect your colleagues knew him or of him. I created a Wikipedia entry about him (See: View History, August 20, 2019).

My background within academia is incomplete. I have also become biassed by discovering in 2011 that there are just 202 base-2 notations from the Planck scale to the current time (and size of the universe). Also in 2022, I found a five-octahedral gap that complements the five-tetrahedral gap that Aristotle made infamous. One of the results is a very different take on transitions to non-Gaussianity within the first 64 notations along the way to quantum fluctuations.

I just started a page about this note. It’s still rough but it’s the only way I can keep track of the work of scholars to whom I write. Our work will strike you as rather odd, but you may have some “first-impressions” and advice for us and that is why I write to you.  I’ll be using your work to further develop my thoughts to follow-up this page: https://81018.com/geometries/

Thank you for your time.

Most sincerely,


PS. I think I remember seeing you at a UC-Davis conference that touched on the EPR that I dropped in on back in 2018. Also, looking at Steve Carlip’s ArXiv publications, it is gratifying to see so many articles where he is the single author. Also, I grew up in the shadows of Harvard. When still in high school in 1964, I joined the Harvard SDS. Later, in 1971, I was with Arthur Loeb and his group called the Philomorphs in the attic of Sever Hall. In 1975 I was over at the Harvard Divinity School with Arthur McGill where we engaged Austin Farrer’s Finite and Infinite

I may have crossed paths with Steve Carlip more than once! -BEC

On studying the work of William Hugh Woodin 

W. Hugh Woodin, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts

Articles: To Settle Infinity Dispute, Wolchover, Quanta Magazine, Nov. 2013
ArXiv (11)
Homepage(s): dblp, PhilPeople, Contemporary Mathematics (2015)

• Woodin, W. Hugh (1999), The Axiom of Determinacy, Forcing Axioms, and the Nonstationary Ideal, Walter de Gruyter, doi:10.1515/9783110804737ISBN 3-11-015708-XMR 1713438

• Woodin, W. Hugh (2001), “The continuum hypothesis. I” (PDF), Notices of the American Mathematical Society48 (6): 567–576, ISSN 0002-9920MR 1834351

• Woodin, W. Hugh (2001b), “The Continuum Hypothesis, Part II” (PDF), Notices of the AMS48 (7): 681–690

• Woodin, W. Hugh (2005), “The continuum hypothesis”, in Cori, Rene; Razborov, AlexanderTodorčević, Stevo; et al. (eds.), Logic Colloquium 2000, Lect. Notes Log., vol. 19, Urbana, IL: Assoc. Symbol. Logic, pp. 143–197, MR 2143878

Twitter: Wolchover update, Baez
Wikipedia: born April 23, 1955
YouTube: World Science Festival (2013), On the Mathematical Necessity of the Infinite, 2020

Most recent and Second email: 17 July 2022 at 11:27 AM

Dear Prof. Dr. W. Hugh Woodin:

If the Planck base units are meaningful, and that seems to have been settled in the past twenty or so years, does it describe a starting point for spacetime? I have naively concluded that it does. When Planck’s efficacy was questioned, I dropped back to the 1874 work of George Johnstone Stoney and suggest the actual numbers be understood to be symbolic yet still a real reality.

So, from where does everything come? I redefined infinity in light of three most basic facts of pi, and say, “Continuity-symmetry-harmony.” All other discussions are considered personal. Of course, that may well be just too naive in light of the work of Hilbert, Gödel and Woodin. Yet, if we can show from where imperfections originate, maybe we have something a little different. Assuming perfection is the sphere and pi, the first imperfections may well be geometric; and, Aristotle may have unwittingly missed that key marker, five tetrahedrons creating a gap. It seems nobody recognized the five-octahedral gap. It is too simple, but it looks good coupled with the five-tetrahedral gap. I think there is something to it. That little cluster looks like a logic gate and when you add the twenty-tetrahedral icosahedron in place of a five-tetrahedral unit, complexity-and-possibility are multiplied.

I seem to be off in la-la land, but it might be of some interest to a scholar with depth of knowledge and perspective. Is there anything interesting going on here?

Thank you.



First email: July 7, 2022, 2:33 PM

Dear Prof. Dr. W. Hugh Woodin:

While a senior in Wilmington High School (1965), my father and I went to an “all-night” teach-in at Memorial Hall upon which I joined the Students for a Democratic Society (which met in the basement of Sever Hall until we were thrown off campus). Six years later I was back with Arthur Loeb and Bucky Fuller (Philomorphs) which met in the attic of Sever. Then a few years later I was with Arthur McGill over at HDS where nine graduate students pried open Finite and Infinite by Austin Farrer.  

My infinity statement is here; I was pleased to find yours, Infinity captivates the imagination; and then, even more pleased to engage your Ω-logic. Thank you for all that you do.



Bruce E. Camber

On following the work of George Scialabba…

George Scialabba (Wikipedia), Cambridge, Massachusetts

Homepage(s): Baffler, Boston Review, Image, Commonweal, New Republic, The Nation

Sometime on or before January 31, 2022 (small edit)

Dear George:

Yes, our worldviews are just too small, especially outside of a totally-integrated, geometric and mathematical view of the universe from the first instant to this very day. Yes, sounds silly, but by using Leonhard Euler’s base-2 notation and Max Planck’s base units, I think we have an actual start.

A possible result looks something like this: https://81018.com/chart/ It defrocks the big bang!

I hope you’ll give it a shot. Poke some holes in it. Perhaps we can make something of it.

Thank you.


PS. I did a Synectics thing with Bill Gordon from 1971-1973 just off Brattle Street while also getting involved with the Philomorphs (Arthur Loeb) at the Harvard’s Carpenter (Arts Center). I also did a little with Howard Gardner at HGSE, a little with Arthur McGill at HDS, and on and on. While in high school I was a member of Harvard’s SDS (Sever Hall) until thrown off campus. Yes, yes, still crazy after all these years… -BEC

On following the work of Dudley R. Herschbach…

Dudley Herschbach, Harvard University
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138

ArXiv (9): Confirmation of Kramers-Henneberger Atoms
Books: Molecular Collisions Chem Physics, World Scientific, Nov., 2004
Homepage (Another at Harvard) TAMU
Nobel Prize
YouTube: Science and the Written Word, March 2016

Second email: 2 February 2022

Dear Prof. Dr. Dudley Herschbach: 

I now have a reference page to your work: https://81018.com/herschbach/ I’ll work on it a bit more. It can be better.

Now my grandparents were part of Episcopal Theological School near Radcliffe; it’s moved down to NYC (imagine that). My dad did HVAC sheet metal work to keep Mark I cool. I did a stint while in high school with the Harvard SDS (1964). Dad and I had attended an “all-night” teach-in  at Memorial Hall that fall. Later, in 1970 I was back on campus with Arthur Loeb (and his friend Bucky Fuller) as part of his Philomorphs group. My highest and best use of time was with Arthur McGill at HDS studying Finite and Infinite by Austin Farrer. I also spent a bit of time with Steven Weinberg before he went off to join his mentor, Johnny Wheeler.

In 1979 I did a special display project at MIT and got great advice and help from Gerald Holton. There were so many others in the Harvard community. With Hilary Putnam and a handful of grad students we went to W.V.O. Quine’s home for dinner to discuss the foundations of logic. That’s still ongoing!

Let me simply send my best wishes to you and those you love.

Congratulations on all that you’ve done.

The big break through is yet to happen, however, I think we may have it outlined: https://81018.com/chart/ My guess about what it all means is here: https://81018.com

With warmest regards,


First email:  Jun 14, 2020, 8:20 AM

RE: A simple question about starting points

Dear Prof. Dr. Dudley Herschbach:

Of course, Max Planck’s work on fundamental units of length, time, matter and energy (charge) was mostly ignored for over 100 years. And even today, the place and importance of his work is not well understood.

Ostensibly the Planck scale is heavily-laden with imagination. A simple fact demonstrates this point. Planck Length divided by Planck Time is equal to the speed of light. Even today there is no general confirmation of that fact.* Simply by dividing Planck’s numbers, 299,792,422 meters per second is rendered. That is still not part of the corpus of our scientific information.

If Planck Length and Planck Time are taken as the logical, very-first moments of space and time, our parameter set by which we engage the universe is quite different. If we were to apply a simple ordering system like base-2, we would end up with a chart of 202 notations or doublings from the  first moment of time to this very day and instant. This sweeping chart of the universe logically encompasses everything, everywhere for all time. A most significant group of numbers defines the Planck scale to the wave-particle duality (at Notation-67, perhaps with a range of plus-or-minus three notations). Those earlier notations, historically too small to matter, have never been rigorously considered. 

I could go on, but that would be foolhardy for an initial letter. It is already stretching credulity. You’ve seen the world; you have achieved beyond one’s wildest imagination, yet you know we all are a mixture of raw nerves these days because we do not understand fundamental things. 

Perhaps this is an opening to address those fundamentals in a more encompassing, qualitative manner.  

I thought and hoped that you might respond.

Thank you.

Most sincerely,

Bruce E. Camber

* It may well be in the very definition of those all-natural units based on the fundamental constants of nature, yet those numbers still result in actual numbers that were 75 years ahead of the crowd in providing an approximation of the speed of light that was within .001% uncertainty.

PS. I was born in Boston and spent many years in and around Harvard, but I was always a bit of a rascal. -BEC

The Stern-Gerlach experiment and the origin of electron spin are described in historical context. SPIN 2014 occurs on the fortieth anniversary of the first International High Energy Spin Physics Symposium at Argonne in 1974.  Richard G. Milner (MIT, LNS)

Bretislav Friedrich and Dudley Herschbach, Physics Today, p. 53, Dec. 2003

FIFTY YEARS OF SPIN: Personal reminiscences, Physics Today (American Institute of Physics) 29, page 43, June 1976, George E. Uhlenbeck

Symposium Summary, Richard G. Milner, MIT, LNS)

International Spin Physics 2014 Summary, Richard G. Milner

Isaacson, Walter

Walter Isaacson

Tulane University
New Orleans, Louisiana

Bio (Aspen Institute) Google Scholar Tulane (Homepage) Twitter Wikipedia

Fifth email:  June 9, 2020 @ 7 PM

Dear Prof. Walter Isaacson:

With your depth of scholarship and with your intimacy with the
the best and the brightest, along with Einstein’s mentoring, and
your adoption of da Vinci’s universal genius and his love of ideas,
let us take the next step.

I am sure you are aware that scholars followed Aristotle into a corner,
painting the universe with just a tetrahedron for 1800+ years. It seems
that academia wanted a theoretical geometry. Rectified in-and-around
1450 by Regiomontanus, and first documented by Paulus van Middelburg,
we still do not talk about the 7.35+ degree gap created by tetrahedrons.
My best guess is that this gap goes right down into Max Planck’s
infinitesimal scale and manifests as quantum fluctuations, but even
well before that as individuality, creativity, and consciousness.

Here is a real potential for a new beginning.

Newton gave us absolute space and time. Max Planck and Einstein
pushed that into the corners of history. Today, the academy struggles
to redefine time. It is time to do it.

Then, of course, we had Hawking. Who could be critical of Hawking?
Many were, even his close friends and co-authors, but the general press
would not hear of it, yet his infinitely hot beginning
even flew in the face of Georges Édouard Lemaître.

Fascinating? I think so. And, it all began right there in NOLA
in a high school down river from the airport. It’s quite a bit more
than a sweet, homegrown STEM tool! Thanks.


PS. Some of my work was influenced by Arthur McGill
back in and around 1976 when I spent a semester with him
and a few other grad students studying Austin Farrer’s book,
Finite and Infinite. As a kid, I grew up in the greater Boston area…. -B

Third/fourth: Apr 24, 2015, 8:23 PM and Sat, Mar 19, 2016, 9:49 PM

Re: https://www.linkedin.com/in/walter-isaacson-b8b81520

Dear Mr. Isaacson:

Might an integrated view of the entire universe
in just over 201 base-2 exponential notation be useful
to replace limited worldviews? ‎http://81018.com

Thank you.

Most sincerely,


Second email: Apr 24, 2015, 8:23 PM
1. Ordered using base-2 exponential notations (groups) and the base Planck Units.
2. Just 201+ notations from the Planck’s to the Observable Universe
3. Simple logic based on continuity and symmetry functions
4. Simple platonic geometries first embedded, then combinatorial

Dear Mr. Isaacson:

Let’s think about getting beyond the “worldView elitism” by opening up a fully-scaled, simple-but-comprehensive, UniverseView. Maybe a larger perspective on things will give us all new insights.

And, perhaps some high school kids could point the way to their secret passageway to universal knowledge, insight and wisdom: https://81018.com/2014/12/01/door/

Thank you.

Most sincerely,


First email: Dec 22, 2010, 9:01 PM

Dear Walter,

We’ve crossed paths but have never met. Just a moment ago I bought a copy of your book on Einstein. In 1972, I was smitten by the EPR Paradox, got to know and visit with John Bell at CERN and a host of others.

I was part of Harvard’s Philomorphs with Arthur Loeb (and occasionally Bucky Fuller) while hanging out at a think tank called Synectics on Brattle Street. Later I studied with Arthur McGill at HDS with a particular focus on Austin Farrar’s Finite & Infinite (Oxford don in the ‘40s).

In the last ten years, reflecting on the deep problems represented by the EPR results over the years, I reviewed an earlier discussion in London and suddenly realized that the academy had overlooked some relatively simple, but significant entry points to creativity and a possible breakthrough. We had ignored basic geometries; as a scientific community, we had been focused on calculus for well over 100 years and to the best of my knowledge nobody truly asked or explored the perfection of the inside of basic structure starting with the tetrahedron. The center of the tetrahedron, an octahedron, renders the most information quickly. Among literally hundreds of academics and professionals that I asked, only John Conway (surreal numbers man) of Princeton could begin to define the simplest interior structure of the octahedron.

Now, that’s just an aside.

For over ten years the Voice of America re-aired our weekly television series. The PBS-stations had the first three years exclusive, but the show was a weekly and we endured over 40 seasons with IBM, AT&T, Travelers, Microsoft, Verizon, and USPS sponsors. Called Small Business School, we examined best business practices of people who were loved in their community for their successes, their ethics, and their generosity. They were all nominated by local business advocates (like the Chamber of Commerce CEOs) and confirmed by their national trade associations for their leadership and integrity.

Partners for a New Beginning, I just returned from Abu Dhabi where we are continuing our efforts to develop local versions of the show within the 48 predominantly Muslim countries. We are working with distinguished faculty, entrepreneurs, and entrepreneurial groups first to identify the oldest businesses in each country just to get a list going, and then we will begin to add those businesses that have created jobs for at least ten years and their founders are respected for their success, ethics and generosity in their local communities.

One of the new series will be called, The Best Businesses of ___ (community, state, country). It will all be locally based and locally generated.

We have a ways to go but our infrastructure to support such an effort is coming along well and we believe it is entirely possible in this “Facebook age.”

I am located in New Orleans just a few miles from the airport. If you are ever coming into the city, please do not hail a cab; let me pick you up and bring you to wherever you are going. We can continue this introduction at that point. Thanks.



Continuity-symmetry-harmony becomes logic-mathematics-science.

The murder of George Floyd in late May 2020 sparked outrage around the world.

Violence Begins With An Incomplete Philosophy


History. The crescendo of violence within the history of our past twenty generations (about 400 years) should stop us cold. It’s insanity. Who do we think we are? The nastiest side of all of us must be profoundly rooted within the deep chemistries of life. Evidence goes back to 4000 BCE. It’s nothing new. What is new is that we are now beginning to understand the actual geometry and physics of violence. Just maybe! Our naive hope is that as people shine light on the very nature of violence, perhaps we’ll begin to get a handle on it, and we’ll learn how to grow out of it. Yes, the antithesis of violence-and-killing is continuity-symmetry-harmony. Either we have growth and prosperity or chaos and dystopia.*  -BEC


Integrating everything, everywhere, for all time

We’ve been duped. Misled. Most of the time, unwittingly so.

What if everything we think-say-and-do actually effects the quality of life for everyone, everywhere, and throughout all time?

Perhaps a truism, but if a fact that we learned in childhood, might things be different today?

By using simple logic, mathematics and science, we can explore a more-inclusive model of our universe. Just maybe, it could help us to see things in a very new way and we can all conclude:

Every one of us is vitally important. Each of us makes a huge difference.riot-line

Still looking for answers

Introduction: Many of the concepts by which we live our life are incomplete. Some of them are wrong. And, we all know that that we could do better, but we don’t. First we have to unlearn what is wrong, affirm what seems to be correct, and then learn new concepts.

Some of those concepts will not seem new, but we’ll be looking at them in new ways. Basic concepts should give us a sense of value. The actual nature of values also should be a substantial part of all our discussions. So first, let me ask, “What is the origin of new concepts, emotions, ideas and values?” Nobody really knows, but let’s work on it!

Off track long, long ago. The geometer/philosopher, Plato, died in 348 BCE. His most famous student, Aristotle 1 became so respected and so astute about most things, when he made a claim about geometry that was wrong, people believed him anyway. He was such a genius and so sure of himself, it took over 1800 years to catch his biggest mistake.2 And even today, nobody is sure about the implications. The geometry of his error is still not well understood.

Tetrahedrons need octahedrons
Aristotle believed the universe could be perfectly filled with tetrahedrons. It_can’t. With just the tetrahedron, there are geometric gaps.3 In our studies of the most-infinitesimal, there are no gaps.4 Tetrahedrons with octahedrons fill space perfectly. Yet, it’s assumed that infinitesimal gaps occur considerably before the particle-wave duality within physics.

We project that these gaps have everything to do with consciousness, the mind, identity, and creativity. We think of them as highly-refined, but much-much smaller synapse.5 Yes, the claim is made that synaptic functions have analogues in the infinitesimal and here is the beginning of consciousness.

If in some measure true, this facet of this domain will open a new path to explore one of our great mysteries. Even today our measuring devices can not size up anything much smaller than the particle-wave duality. Quite random but entirely consistent, the largest of these gaps is called a quantum fluctuation,6 yet scholars admit that they do not know what it is or why it is.

In these times, we need to know more about this most basic motion. It’s fundamental.

I know it sounds unlikely, but please bear with me. I project that it is within the gaps in the deep composition of our universe that formulas and ratios build relations and make new things happen. I project that it is within these gaps that we each get our unique identity. It is within these gaps that we find our creativity. Here is the indeterminant. And, here too is our madness. Here, too, is our debauchery and it is all called free will.

This first clue that we have missed over and over again, this gap opens up one’s sense of the potential you, but then Newton comes along and puts us squarely in a box and closes the lid and we begin to forget about tetrahedrons and octahedrons.

riot-lineFirst, Aristotle, and now Newton

Newton confines us all to simple spaces.7 Instead of studying Aristotle’s error, we’ve ignored it. And now, even after Max Planck and Albert Einstein give us real reasons to abandon absolute space and time, we fail to recognize that Newton was wrong.

Space and time are derivative, finite, and quantitative. But we do not give up on those absolutes. Plus, there has been no simple alternative to Newton’s work so it has persevered.

And, we’re not highly motivated. Newton’s concepts agree with us. His concepts became our commonsense view of the universe. Absolute space and time give us a certain sense of independence. It gives us our own space and time, a sense of privacy. Ultimately it also gives us our ego, our own world and worldview, and that’s comforting. We can all live separate lives. It’s okay to be either the subject or the object. Things can be things. You are over there and me, I’m over here.

We’ve become entirely comfortable within Newton’s ways, so we’ll first have to break through his sense of our commonsense. Isaac Newton, though clearly a genius, did not have all the answers. He had quite a few good ones, but his biggest idea was also his worst. When he thought about space and time, he needed both to be absolutely everywhere, behind-within-and-throughout everything — the container of all that is.  He really thought it was true. His arguments were convincing, so he was believed within his time, and eventually we all believed him. “It is just commonsense.”  So, rather unwittingly our parents believed him, and most everybody in the family going right back into the 1700s, believed him (even though they may not have even known his name). Notwithstanding, he was wrong.

And, we got stuck, no, imprisoned within that simple body of data. We realized that the world is very large and we’re just a speck. And, now we’ve discovered that the universe is so much larger and we’re even more removed and less important.

The truth is that Newton’s wishful thinking is all a facade that we create in our minds.

A better idea. The truth of simple mathematics is that we are all profoundly and intimately related and this universe is not as big as it looks.

The process. We’ve returned to the 1740s to use Leonhard Euler’s base-2 math with the 1899 calculations of Max Planck’s base units.

A new synthesis. Here spacetime is derivative and finite. Everything is necessarily building and evolving all the time; what we do effects not only our health and the health of others, it immediately effects the health of the nations and even the universe.

The conclusion. Everything you think-say-and-do makes a difference.

Yes, Newton was wrong about space and time.

Space-time has a beginning, a starting point. And, the endpoint is right now, Today. According to our best scientific measurements, it all began about 13.81-to-14.1 billion years ago. Now that seems long ago but it’s a bit like yesterday, so let’s dig deeper. riot-line

Graduate from a limited worldview to an Integrated UniverseView

Learning a new model.8 Back in 2016, while studying the charts that we had been working on since 2011 in our high school geometry classes, it became clear that this new model was mostly about the very earliest universe. We laid out each notation in a continuous line. Unusually long for the internet, that page scrolls right and left, or side to side. We started with that first unit of time defined mathematically in 1899 by the fellow who helped Einstein get out of that Swiss patent office in Bern, go back to school, and get his Nobel Prize (1921). Yes, that was Max Planck.

Max was a force unto himself; but, Einstein and World War I & II over-shadowed him. His most-seminal work of 1899 was virtually ignored. Even Max ignored it. But in 2001, an MIT professor, Frank Wilczek, opened the door and turned on the lights, and now Max’s work is part of the recognized foundations of physics.

Yet, at the same time, our physics community had 100 years of very fertile, imaginative work. Some of it is idiosyncratic and it will continue to be idiosyncratic until new concepts9 build bridges to it. Our scholars force-fit their work around the dominant, infinitely-hot, big bang paradigm. Though they’ve had some success, there were always concepts that didn’t fit well.

They tried to create a string theory, but it’s still balled up. They tried creating multiverses but couldn’t sell them to the public. They tried pulling math and physics together with what are known as Langlands programs, yet that bridge is barely a string over a huge chasm.

When we began to engage all these studies, we were naive. We’re still naive. But, at no time in our brief history did the infinitely-hot, big bang metaphor resonate because when we began trying to learn about it, we were also going deep inside the universe to the Planck scale chasing tetrahedrons and octahedrons. Once acclimated at a particular level, we would cut an edge in half and go down to the next smaller level. In 45 steps from our classroom, we were down among the particles. In 67 more steps we were into Planck’s scale.

For me, the Planck scale is a transformation nexus, surely not a singularity.10 Speaking metaphorically, this singularity is like a convergence of interstate highways at a bridge.11 Such highways usually go from one state to another. The bridge is all the formulas (relations) that are shared in common. Here, many formulas go back and forth between the two states; and in this study, the two states are the finite and the infinite.

We were lucky; we had Max Planck to instruct us. We learned a bit about our 112 steps down to the Planck scale. To be a bit more consistent, we used his numbers, particularly Planck’s length to go back up to our classroom, just multiplying the edges by 2. Just like you’d expect, in 112 steps we were back in the classroom, but then in just another 90 steps, doubling those numbers each step of the way, we were out to this day and the size of our universe.

You read that correctly. Just 90 additional doublings from our classroom! That’s a total of just 202 base-2 doublings to encapsulate the universe — everything, everywhere, for all time.

Back in 2011 we were having a good time discovering the universe when we were told that we were entirely idiosyncratic. A little concerned because we were nobody from nowhere special, it took nine years to learn how idiosyncratic everybody else was as well! So now, with a shade more confidence, we believe these 202 base-2 notations are mathematically logical and real. And, they actually seem to want to share more key facts about our universe.

Within this construct, the first claim became self-evident because of its simple logic. It’s a fact: “The universe can be parsed by 202 base-2 notations from the very first moment of time to this exact time, today.” To date, there are nineteen more insights that follow.12 That the universe is foundationally exponential is the 20th claim. Each of those claims opens up our universe for deeper explorations.

For example, the 19th claim is disarming: “Among those who suggest that, as base-2 encapsulates the universe, base-3, base-5, base-7, base-11 and all other possible prime number bases define what have been called wormholes or shortcuts throughout the universe.”13

There has been a limited amount of discussion about these shortcuts in other homepages.

Surely if base-2 notation accurately describes a natural doubling mechanism of the universe, why not explore base-3, base-5, base-7… all the other possible prime number bases? When we do so, we will begin to find other functional mechanisms. Why not? If all notations are always dynamic, there is thrust, a natural expansion underway.

The universe seems quite opportunistic and seems willing to try every-and-any equation to find what works best. So, yes, these prime number notations are begging to be explored further.

I think here we will find openings to John Wheeler’s wormholes,14 a rather special mathematics and geometry to facilitate shortcuts throughout the universe. If so, as small as it is within 202 notations, the universe will get substantially smaller.

Among all the missing puzzle pieces that Planck gave us in 1899, the first 67 notations from the Planck base units to the wave-particle duality are new, unique, and important. Although still unknown to most of our scientific and academic community, these notations change the way we see our universe and ourselves. Here is a very simple beginning, the core connectivity that pulls everything closer together.

riot-line An infinitely-hot clue to a very-cool start

Numbers. One of Max Planck’s mysterious numbers was not infinitesimally small. It was grotesquely large. Planck Temperature was enigmatic at the get-go and it still is today.15 Though aware of it, that calculation was not part of the considerations of Stephen W. Hawking and George F.W. Ellis16 when they made their pronouncements in 1973 within their first and only book together, The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time. A relatively short book, it is rich with mathematical formulas and theory.

Today the best among our scholars are deeply aware of Planck Temperature and have gone through great gyrations to accommodate it into their attempts to recapture the records of the early universe. Often such work today is part of a theory of everything.

The fact is that an infinitely-hot beginning is entirely problematic.

Hawking and Ellis knew that energy had to come from somewhere; and holding tight to their knowledge of the second law of thermodynamics, the infinitely-hot contraction seemed to be the most reasonable path forward.

It wasn’t always that way. In 1927 when Georges Lemaître 17 began to theorize a big bang, he postulated a cold start of the universe. Rather mysteriously in 1930s it turned hot and it seems that our best scholars do not know exactly how that happened.

Until our high school geometry class mapped the universe in those 202 notations, the Planck length and Planck time units were just too small to matter. As several possible mechanisms for doublings were discerned, that base-2 progression from those Planck base units increasingly look like a possible alternative waiting to be explored further.

It was easy to guess that a sphere would be the first manifestation defined by space-and- time and mass-and-charge. It was relatively easy to see the sphere-stacking and the cubic-close packing of equal spheres. It was not so easy to claim that these spheres constitute a new grid, a plenum of connectivity, a matrix for integrative-activity, and a redefinition of the aether and the fabric of the universe. Yet, that’s what we are claiming today! Plus, there’s much more.

If it all starts near absolute zero, then this cold start would be naturally superconducting. As one watches the mass-and-charge calculations double, it is easy to intuit how basic structures and processes might begin to emerge. There are 67 notations or doublings before the wave-particle duality emerges. That is three notations larger than the classic base-2 expansion introduced and studied as a result of the many stories that evolved from the original chessboard and a grain of wheat story.

It’s huge. It’s significant. Here is an entire domain and a potentially new science waiting to emerge. Plus, there are several mathematical systems without a home that just might find a place on this expanded grid. We have under-estimated the potential within the infinitesimal scale from the Planck Length to particle physics. Although infinitesimal, mathematics and logic still work very well at this scale.

Yet, there appears to be a catch.

Within this model of the universe, everything is building upon the structures before it. Every notation is necessary. Notation-1 is still active and has become a perpetual starting point.18 The first second, which is within Notation-143 is still modulating every new second of our universe.19 The first day is within Notation-160.20 One year is within Notation-168. One million years is within Notation-188. And, none of it is static. Every notation moderates its own self-definition in light of the abutting notations and those synchronized with any other base relation.

Nothing is static. Nothing gets pushed into a static past. Everything is active. With just 202 notations, every notation is not far away. Then, if we add other notational systems along with base-2, everything is ever so much closer.


Finite Time, Limited Infinity, Open Systems

• If time is necessarily defined within and by the Planck base units, it’s quantitative and finite. • If infinity is the qualitative expression of these base units, it has a face within the finite. •  If that finite-infinite relation is always active, the universe is an open system.

The three most controversial concepts (above). The finite-infinite relation is redefined.21 On most homepages within this website, three facets of infinity, CONTINUITY • SYMMETRY • HARMONY are highlighted at the top of the page. All are terms well understood by logic, mathematics and the sciences. Each describes the foundations of those systems.

This model of the universe begins with pi (π). Pi doesn’t exist in the universe, but it begins the process to define the universe. Some scholars claim 30 other dimensionless constants are needed to build this universe. Others have it up to over 300. All these dimensionless constants are by definition part of the infinite and some of them have been crossing the bridge since the first moment in time. These are part of what defines us. They pull us throughout the universe and into the infinite. We have a long way to go to understand it all, but let us all begin again where we left off in grade school. Let us begin to understand pi and all those dimensionless constants anew. Thank you.  -BEC

P.S. There are many, many problems to solve!


Footnotes and Endnotes

Editor’s Note: There are concepts that are linked but not specially cited with a footnote or endnote. Those concepts that have been well-explored within this website are linked for the advantage of our new readers.


[*] A Long History of Violence. The very earliest record of war, back between 4000 BCE and 3500 BCE, is from Hamoukar in today’s northeast corner of Syria. Part of the data now actively being collected suggests these people were invaded and conquered by the Uruks of Mesopotamia just south in today’s Iraq (see image on right).

Violence is somehow deep within our nature and it is ubiquitous. Here, the basis for values: continuity (order), symmetry (relations), and harmony (dynamics) has an antithesis: discontinuity-asymmetry-and-dissonance which ultimately render dystopia. More on the author

[1] Getting on track. The prior homepage focuses on four people, Aristotle, Newton, Planck, and Hawking. Often I’ll say, “Let’s go over that one more time. We’re missing something.” Yet, of the four, Aristotle made a very simple-but-important mistake. Obviously he did not have tetrahedrons and octahedrons to build models. He did not grasp simple tilings. That he thought the universe could be tiled and tessellated with just the tetrahedron is a mistake. The 7.35+ degree gap is part of our most fundamental geometries and it necessarily becomes part of our most-fundamental facts of physics.

Our first scholarly encounter with the gap in light of the 202 notations was in 2013. Up until that point, we talked about squishy geometry, our name for quantum geometries. In 2009, we began playing with the five-tetrahedral configuration; it was one of our earlier constructions. That gap is also present with twenty tetrahedrons, known as the icosahedron, and with 60 tetrahedrons known as the Pentakis dodecahedron.


[2] Over 1800 years to catch Aristotle’s mistake.  The gap that Aristotle missed, of course, is easily visible on the human scale. Yet, these gaps logically first appear in the universe somewhere between Planck’s scale and the particle-wave duality.

In our model of the universe where the first object is a sphere and the first dynamic is sphere stacking and then cubic-close packing of equal spheres, the first notations necessarily manifest the perfections being generated from pi and tetrahedral-octahedral tilings and tessellations. Our model caught the spirit of Plato and Aristotle; the first ten notations were allocated to the concept of Forms (and also introduces functions). The next ten notations are allocated to forms becoming Structure then Substance. These earliest doublings (notations, domains) appear to manifest a perfection. The five-tetrahedrons and its gap do not. It seemed that the first gap could not manifest until Systems manifest; and within this model, that would be around Notation-50.


[3] Geometric gaps. Scholars are not talking about these geometric gaps. That should change. Here is the transition from perfection to imperfection. Here is the beginning of the indeterminate. If we stop to begin to sense the textures from the first notations to this gap, other basic concepts emerge. A perfect tiling and tessellating gives us our sense of (1) continuity and order, (2) symmetry and relations and a sense of balance, and (3) harmony and dynamics. These words are both quantitative and qualitative. Here is a framework for values and the only wiggle room is when that gap finally manifests. Here is the possibility of unique identity. Here opens the possibilities for creativity, and for new concepts and ideas. And here may well be the toxic mix that opens the way for disagreement, for ego, and even for getting angry. One can almost see a pathway where certain types of anger block rationality (continuity and symmetry) and opens a way to violence. Anger, however, can also become creative. To date, in our studies of scholars, no one has reached such idiosyncratic conclusions.


[4] Perfections to imperfections.  Here is one of the most important pivot points for the emergence of consciousness and identity. Here is our free will. Here is the beginning of values and valuations. Here we open up the ways to solipsism, narcissism, nihilism, and dystopia. We will be coming back to this point over and over and over again.


[5] Analogues in the infinitesimal to the synapse and synaptic functions. Freeman Dyson and I have argued about this point. Are the functions at one of the 202 notations analogically similar to another? I said, “Yes,” and he said, “No.” Though our dear professor has died, one of my goals in all this work is to discern in what ways the synaptic function is similar to, or analogically like, quantum fluctuations, and then how quantum fluctuations are like the very first, infinitesimal fluctuation (geometric gap) well below the notation that includes the particle-wave duality.


[6] Quantum fluctuations.  To say there is confusion within the foundations of physics is understatement. So much is built on hypothetical mathematics built on hypothetical concepts. The study of fluctuations could readily benefit from a bit of simplicity and some analogical reckoning. More to come…


[7] Newton’s confinement. To break out of Newtonian space-time, we’ll continue our study of the progression of the four Planck base units: length-time and mass-charge. That base-2 progression carries its own logic. The four are necessarily defined by each other which makes them all quite finite and derivative. Yet, these constants are also defined by continuity (order), symmetry (relations) and harmony (dynamics) which obviously gave Newton his inspiration to begin thinking that both are absolute.  The logic Newton was sought to define was the very nature of infinity. Space and time are derivative of each other and the infinite.

Newton’s misstep on space and time continues to dupe some of our best scholars. Isaac_Newton was arrogant and it got the best of him with his dialogue through Samuel Clarke with Gottfried Leibniz. Today many believe that Leibniz was closer to the truth.

A net result of the Newtonian worldview is narcissism. It is a type of solipsism and it can turn to nihilism; and in its worst form, it becomes dystopian. And then very close by, the “Physics of Violence”  begins to unfold.

We can have growth-and-prosperity or confusion-and-conflict. It is the dichotomy between good and evil.


[8] Planck’s base units and a new model of the universe. This website builds on Planck’s basic numbers from 1899. Most of our new ideas come from a grid of 202 base-2 notations from Planck’s base units (Notation-0 ) to this current day and the current expansion of the universe (Notation-202). Simple concepts that effect us deeply, the most important part of that chart is the block of notations from the Planck values to the particle-wave duality or from Notation-0 to about Notation-67. It is not been formally recognized by academia. It is not part of current discussions among our scholars. It is an unrecognized domain that it seems to have only been discussed within this website.


[9] One new concept. opens another. Naïveté, like the natural simplicity of childhood, is learning something new for the first time. It is a mindset that we need to recognize early and cultivate throughout life. Our earliest charts were all quite naive. We aren’t expected to know advanced abstract concepts in high school geometry classes. Learning sine and cosine are difficult enough. Frank Wilczek has a childlike openness. I thought he would chase tetrahedrons and octahedrons with us.

The 19th claim is disarming. Not just base-2, but base-3, base-5, base-7, base-11… every prime number base looked like it could be an actual path for John Wheeler’s wormhole metaphor.  Yes, there is something happening here, and “what it is ain’t exactly clear.”


[10] Looking  at singularities.  If you were to look at what current science considers to be a singularity, within this model it appears more like a convergence of highways at a bridge of transformations between the finite and inifnite!


[11] New concepts from Langlands and String Theory. When you change your starting points, new concepts emerge. Robert Langlands wanted to start it all with automophic forms. It was a good place to start yet the most simple automorphic form needed some numbers (Planck’s base units) and a naive exploration of how those numbers and a sphere might behave.I was pleased to find an article by Ed Witten struggling to bridge Langlands and string theory.

So dumbfounded by all the new concepts that seemed to be popping up, list after lists were itemized to go over these seemingly new concepts just one more time.


[12] Insights begin to turn into claims. Sometime in 2012, when it became clear there was no scholarly work done on a base-2 chart of the universe from Planck Time and Planck Length to the current age and size of the universe, we had to decide, “What do you do with it? Is it significant? Is it just a bunch of numbers?” Yet, as a counter argument, one could say, “This chart, Big Board-little universe, started with geometry.” The argument is pushed further, “Just numbers and just geometry. Where’s the connection to reality?”

When the first numbers and geometries were tied down within Notation-67, the next quick question is obvious, “What is happening between Notation-1 and Notation-67?” Many scholars are asked. None have ventured a guess. In 2013 the Universe Table emerged with an entire series of guesses. In 2016, when the horizontally-scrolled chart emerged, there was an entire line (#11) for guessing. Today, every homepage is to attempt to get critical feedback. Every email and tweet is as well.

To date, these are our twenty guess that have slowly become claims. Perhaps as a claim they can be more readily critiqued.


[13] The disarming 19th claim:  This new model is so radical, most scholars will not accept it. They have too much invested in this universe with an infinitely-hot beginning. Those espousing multiverses, or strings, or Langlands automorphic forms, and  at least a dozen other conceptual starting points, most will readily work within this highly-integrated, base-2, mathematical model of the universe. None of these other models are as simple as the Big Board-little universe.  No others begin with the Planck base units. None redefine the very nature of time.

These 20 claims open a pathway to John Wheeler and his wormholes. The universe becomes very small with just 202 notations. Now all these other possible shortcuts, every corner of the universe becomes entirely approachable.

It has to be disconcerting to those who have invested their entire life on a platform like COBOL, an early computer programming language that is still being used in many legacy systems, but everyone knows that COBOL will not take us well into the next generation of programming.


[14] Shortcuts throughout the universe.  Discussions about returning to the moon and going on to Mars has been the subject of many speculations online, in print, and with video. One of my favorite scholars wrote the book, Disturbing the Universe, whereby Freeman Dyson set his solar sails to catch the winds of the universe to take him to far away places if only in his mind. Though he rather pooh-poohed the idea that there is a foundational geometry that pervades everything, everywhere, throughout all time,  at least he tried to engage. This site will continue to research any scholar’s work that appears to be building on John Wheeler’s wormholes!

This homepage is to explore how a change in our basic perceptions of ourselves and our universe could change everything else. This is a radically different model and it has taken us many years to begin to become comfortable with these conclusions. Unfortunately, there doesn’t appear to be a shortcut to learn how this universe is filled with shortcuts, but as evidenced here, it is very important to try.

Most recently, I’ve begun looking at the QBOL database for bacteria and viruses. There will be analogues everywhere.


[15] The most enigmatic of Planck’s calculations: Temperature.  When we began our first chart in 2011, we were unaware of Planck’s Temperature. It was based solely on Planck Length.

First, Natalie Wolchover, an excellent science journalist for Quanta Magazine and the Simon Foundation (ArXiv and so much more) talks about its faster-than-fast expansion. Then, Peter Tyson, back when he was the Editor-in-chief of NOVA Online, declared in his piece, Absolute Hot, “…the Planck temperature, equals about 100 million million million million million degrees, or 1032 Kelvin.”

Now, our high school kids say, “That’s wicked hot.”

Tyson quotes a Columbia University physicist, Arlin Crotts, “It’s ridiculous is what it is. It’s a billion billion times the largest temperature that we have to think about,” referring to gamma-ray bursts and quasars. And though it may have seemed to be a logical place to begin, 1032 K is a most enigmatic concept within which to find answers to questions about the deep nature of our universe.

So, we placed Planck Temperature at the top of the chart within Notation-204 so by the start of the universe, the temperature was close to absolute zero. We are still puzzling Planck Temperature, yet cold start or hot start, it continues to be a difficult subject to begin to comprehend. Of course, we believe it all starts cold. It is just the most simple logic.


[16] George F. W. Ellis: With his co-author, Stephen Hawking, their 1973 book is simply titled The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time. George F. W. Ellis remembers his postdoc days at Cambridge University. He tell us (private correspondence) that there was no consideration of Planck Temperature in their earliest discussions about the structure of space-time. The Planck base units were not a concern. They started their work, as proclaimed in the opening chapter, “The subject of this book is the structure of space-time on lengthscales from 10-13 cm, the radius of an elementary particle, up to 1028 cm, the radius of the universe.” There is no examination of the range from the Planck base units to the wave-particle duality.

Also, there is within their book, The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time, Chapters 8 &10, consideration of space-time singularities, particularly what they call “the initial singularity of the universe. Of course, this model with its emphasis on an open universe that is constantly exponentially growing, there will, of course, be much more to come!


[17] Since Georges Lemaître’s cold start, there are more questions than answers.  Open questions persist now for over 100 years. Foremost among them is dark matter and dark energyThe Big Board-little universe model addresses it.  For science, mathematics and logic to work, the best scholars have insisted that homogeneity and isotropy describe our most basic starting point. Nobody can tell you why. The Big Board-little universe model does.  For many hundreds of years, philosophers and ethicists have argued about the foundations of ethics. Here we begin the process of pulling consciousness, identity, creativity, ethics and values to the grid.


[18]  A perpetual start of the universe. One of the most encouraging conclusions of three scholars (and their two prestigious institutions) was when described the universe as if it were within a state of “perpetual starts” which describes the Big Board-little universe model. Their base article is called, No smooth beginning for spacetime (2017). I would argue with them just on logic alone, that the first 45-to-55 notations are smooth. Current work involves ongoing analysis of more recent work. Other articles include: • Inconsistencies of the New No-Boundary Proposal (May 2018) • Quantum Incompleteness of Inflation (Sept. 2019)

This footnote will be expanded as more related information is uncovered.


[19] A very different starting point. Space and time are derivative and finite. Please spend time with any scholar who questions absolute space and time. I am currently digging in on Jaffe and Rovelli. • Arthur Jaffe, The illusion of time (Review of Rovelli’s The Order of Time), Nature, 16 April 2018 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-04558-7 Scaffolding of the Galaxies



[20] Getting to know each notation. An analysis of the Planck unit multiples has begun; there is a long way to go.

Notation 31: Mass and energy can be measured and are significant Notation 64: Transition from the hypostatic to the physical Notation 67: Wave-particle duality Notation 101: At the width of a human hair Notation-143: One second Notation 169: One year Notation 173: Large-scale structure Universe Clock.


[21] Finite-Infinite  These basic concepts also give us our sense of values and even suggest why it is that we get angry, and how certain types of anger can turn to violence. Yet, our anger can also become creative. Yet, as far as we have come in the studies by our scholars, there are no conclusions that suggest in other than perfunctory ways where our emotions and ideas come from.

In our mathematically-and-geometrically-integrated view of the universe., values manifest as facets of perfected states within space and time. Controversy will follow this model!


A metaphor for state-to-state transformations

Six legs of the interstate highway system converge within Nashville: I-40 in the East (Wilmington, NC) goes 2,556 miles to the West (Barstow, CA), I-24 in the SouthEast (Chattanooga) goes 316 miles NorthWest (Pulley’s Mill, Illinois), and I-65 in the North (Gary, Indiana) goes 868 miles South (Mobile, Alabama).

Resources, Reference and Reflections

Links to current articles throughout all resources on the internet will continue to be added below.

Miscellaneous Emails, Notes, Tweets and More


Robert Garisto, Editor, Physical Review Letters

An unexpected result…”  by Emily Conover,   June 17, 2020 at 11:38 AM
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/unexpected-result-dark-matter-experiment-new-particles https://www.science.purdue.edu/xenon1t/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/xenon1tlowersearches.pdf

Dear Editors:

Just curious, our high school physics class has discussed this 100+ year search for dark energy and dark matter. Could it be hidden deep down within the infinitesimal scale from the Planck scale to the rather large wave-particle duality with its “gross” quantum fluctuations? It’s a bit counter-intuitive.* BTW, we are trying to think of a way y’all could “measure something too small to measure” (that is, much smaller than the domain of quantum indeterminacy). We are asking ourselves if there might be a way to boomerang back results (vis-a-vis periodic standing wave patterns) that could be measured. Is that a silly concept?

– Bruce and the high school STEM project

*Of course, at the Planck scale Time and Length are infinitesimal. Mass and Charge are small, yet if all units doubled, then continued to double, by the 50th doubling (notation), Mass is a substantial 2.450532×107 kilograms and Charge is starting to happen at .002111733 Coulombs. By the 64th notation Mass is up to 4.01495×1011 kilograms  and charge is 34.59863 Coulombs, yet the Planck Time and Planck Length doublings are still below measurement. Of course, this assumes the universe is exponential, the Planck units are the start, and a doubling mechanism and thrust are identified. -BEC



July 11, 2020: Replying to @michaelkruse, @jmartNYT, @staceyabrams, @maggieNYT: “The Sun Belt expansion is what will drive the next 30 years of elections.”

MY RESPONSE: “No, both parties have to go bigger. Much bigger. Our old worldviews, right up to the Weltanschauung, need exploding out to include the universe, the whole tamale, right from the first moment: https://81018.com/integrating is a start and https://81018.com/chart/ for all the numbers.

July 3, 2020: Replying to  @cbrownLmath of Clovis, California and @Mathgarden, and @realJ_Mitchell: “Yes, yes, yes. Inspire, encourage, and connect. All the dots. Everywhere, everything, for all time! https://81018.com/math Our math should model our universe. No little “world” views, everything in context with the universe and up to about 14.1 billion years.”

Replying to @jamestanton and @DebbieBarkerMEI, @KenyaLLawrence, @MEIMaths, @JenniferWathallEverything starts with a circle. Isn’t it a finite-infinite bridge? Too much is made of the infinite. If we take it as continuity-order, symmetry-relations, harmony-dynamics, and leave “the rest” alone. We start from the Planck base units to this day: https://81018.com/sphere and https://81018.com/math/

Replying to @TimArmoo and @UKTrevor:OK, you two insiders. Young and crazy and full of beans. Let’s see if I can sell you on an integrated view of the universe so you can encourage the Zs to get beyond little worldviews: http://81018.com is just a start. Look at the numbers: https://81018.com/chart/ Questions?

July 2, 2020: Replying to Tammy Clementi, PhD  @kidzcanlearn “Try to learn as much as you can about the person and try to win their hearts…”

@kidzcanlearnTrue, true, true. Where is that heart? …not the pump but the passion; not the cells, but the consciousness of it all. All our models are still weak. Space and time. We’re basically Newtonian. How about an integrated views of the universe? http://81018.com is a simple start!

https://twitter.com/laurenepowell @laurenepowell “It’s time to transition from Isaac Newton’s space and time to the spacetime of Max Planck (Nobel, 1918) and Einstein (Nobel, 1921) whereby the universe is dynamically parsed (start with base-2) from Planck Time to now in 202 notations: https://81018.com/chart/ The New Revolution

Replying to @GloriaSteinem and @AppleTV It has been a long time since Bella’s fundraiser at Barbara Streisand’s townhouse (before it was rehabbed). I was there with Ruth Meyers; I worked with Bill on the Fund for New Priorities. Here’s today’s work: https://81018.com/integrating/ where we start getting a handle on violence.

26 June 2020: @ValerieJarrett @ObamaFoundation I got your note through the Obama Foundation a few minutes ago. We need to rise above our little worldviews. Here’s a start on an integrated, logical, mathematical, scientific view of the universe that creates an ethical platform: https://81018.com/integrating/

25 June 2020: @raminskibba An idiosyncratic look at the dark stuff: https://81018.com/dark It all starts at Planck’s base units and applies Euler’s base-2 to come out with 202 notations of which the first 67 notations are always beyond the reach of measuring devices, possibly Notations 1-201 as well.


June 22, 2020, Replying to @amychua @luluchuru and @rabbisacks and @JDVance1 “We’ve all got to rise above worldviews, by definition too simple and incomplete, and begin adopting highly-integrated universe views that are defined by value equations: http://81018.com is my early attempt at it. It’s still too simple and incomplete! Talk about hard-working, thinking people: Amy Chua


Esta Gordon Epstein @esta_epstein Thank you for all that you do to make this universe a better place. What hurts us are limited worldviews. What we need is a highly-integrated view of the universe. Once we are all working within that context, narrow views will fall away. http://81018.com is a modest start.”

Replying to @MediaActive @MollyJongFast @AmbJohnBolton @thedailybeast @ProjectLincoln @TheRickWilson @GOPWill we ever find common ground? I think it is all worldview related; everyone’s just too limited. We need a highly-integrated view of the universe. It just maybe that special place. My early attempts at such an integrated view: http://81018.com are still naive.


The power of  264 is ginormous. Of course, 2202 must be about the whole universe!

Robert Williams in LinkedIn: Robert – http://81018.com is where I hang out virtually. I was with Arthur Loeb from 1970 to 1979 (Philomorphs). Yes, of course, Bucky was part of it all. My rather idiosyncratic viewpoint started with the tetrahedron and sphere: https://81018.com/stacking Would enjoy connecting with you! -Bruce

Key Dates for Integrating

This page was initiated on June 4, 2020 Posted online for collaborations: June 5, 2020 Homepage start: June 26, 2020 @ 10:10 PM Last edit: Thursday, January 28, 2021 This page is: https://81018.com/integrating/ Related: https://81018.com/duped/ https://81018.com/redefining/ https://81018.com/claims/ The Universe As An Intimate Place: https://81018.com/alternative/

Minneapolis, May 2020
The beginnings of a study of the physics of madness (Minneapolis, May 28, 2020)

Observing Howard Georgi’s work


Howard Georgi, Mallinckrodt Professor of Physics, Harvard University
Leverett House, 28 DeWolfe St.. Cambridge, Massachusetts

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.

Most sincerely,

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.


On discovering the work of Albert-László Barabási…

Albert-László Barabási, Center for Complex Network Research,
Northeastern University Physics Department, 177 Huntington Avenue, 11th Floor
Boston, MA 02115

ArXiv (51): Spectrum of Controlling and Observing Complex Networks March 2015
____________ Emergence of scaling in random networks October 1999
Books: Linked and many others
Google Scholar Citations
YouTube: Networked and many others

Third email: 14 August 2019

Ref. Emergence of scaling in random networks

Dear Prof. Dr. Albert-László Barabási:

The Planck scale is still largely ignored. There is however, one simple equation that could change our perception of things: c = lP / tP The speed of light is equal to Planck Length divided by Planck Time. The simple mathematics bears it out. https://81018.com/chart/

If we assume cubic close packing and sphere stacking as a doubling mechanism so in effect we apply base-2 to mass-charge and time-length, at 67th notation (doubling) we are at the CERN-scale (particle physics). At the 116th we are well into the human scale. At the 143rd we are out to just over one second and at 169th over one light year. At the 202nd we have gone just beyond the Age of the Universe and size of the universe.

This network, grid or matrix essentially includes everything, everywhere for all time. Those first 64 or so doublings are below our scales of actual measurements yet could include the mind, consciousness, and ideation such as Plato’s forms, Aristotle’s Ousia, Bourbakian structure and so on. It is a sweet model, but so what?

Could we talk a little about its usefulness?
Thank you.

Most sincerely,

Second email: Thursday, 20 April 2017

Dear Prof. Dr. Albert-Laszlo Barabasi:

I sent a note to Kim Albrecht this morning when I discovered the short video on the Science magazine’s website, The Network Behind the Cosmic Web. I believe the reason networks cohere from the microscopic to the macroscopic is that it all begins at the Planck scale and doubles, essentially using a base-2 exponentiation creating an isotropic and homogeneous universe in just over 202 notations. Within the human scale vis-a-vis Planck Length from the 67th (particles) to 134th (up in the range of the International Space Station), there is a certain openness (currently known as quantum fluctuations) that provides for the diversity and exceptions. More on that to come.

I entered Boston University through the Cohen/Wartofsky door and their Boston Colloquium for Philosophy of Science. In 1971, it became my new religion. I was an associate of Synectics Education (an Arthur D. Little invention-lab spin off with WJJ Gordon), a tag-a-long with Arthur Loeb (Philomorphs) and Bucky, and a groupie of Dennis Meadows and Jay Forrester at Sloan at MIT.

Of course, I would so thoroughly enjoy hearing from you. The letter to the AAAS that eventually brought me to you is posted on our website.

Congratulations on your work. Magnificent.

Most sincerely,
Bruce Camber
New Orleans

First email:  3/24/15

DearProf. Dr. Albert-Laszlo Barabasi:

If the Planck Units are “the singularity” and the network is absolute, then there is a continuity equation or two that our academic community has missed. That continuity could be simple, like base-2 exponential notation from the Planck Time to the current time, which our high school kids in New Orleans uncovered in December 2011.  Your thoughts?  -Bruce

P.S. I would refer you to three articles and two charts:
Our very first page: https://81018.com/home/
What surprised us: https://81018.com/2014/12/01/door/

Our most current analysis: https://81018.com/
Chart #1 is named, Big Board-little universe: https://81018.com/big-board/
Chart #2 is a Mathematically-integrated Chart of the Universe: https://81018.co0m/chart/