# Giovanni Amelino-Camelia

Articles: *New Scientist*, 2005, Big ideas: Relativity

ArXiv

CV

Google Scholar

Homepage

Lecture: 1999, PSU: Are we at the dawn of quantum-gravity phenomenology?

inSPIRE^{HEP}

Twitter

Wikipedia

YouTube: The Planck Scale II

Most recent email: 8 May 2020 at 4:45 PM

Dear Prof. Dr. Giovanni Amelino-Camelia:

You were one of the first people we asked about our simple little formulation of base-2 notations from the Planck units to the current age of the universe. It came out of a high school, so we were quite unsure what we had done. Just over 202 notations or doublings gave us a simple outline of the universe. After a bit of study, and with a most naive understanding of the issues of cosmology and theoretical physics, we knew we had a very steep learning curve. And, best of all, you didn’t laugh at us!

We are making slow, very slow, progress, but from an outline, today we may have the makings of a model.

Given your involvements with FQXi, I wonder if you might look at our very first time to enter such a sophisticated arena of scholars:

Overview: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3428

Article: https://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Camber_3u.pdf

(The first five pages is the article. There are five pages of references.)

Do you think that it could have some merit?

Thank you.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

Second Email: March 26, 2018, 11:52 AM

Dear Prof. Dr. Giovanni Amelino-Camelia –

Almost five years have past since our first exchange (below) and three since my last note.

My work with high school students (and now some college students and professors) continues. Can we attempt to understand fluctuations right down to the Planck-length? Would the rate be one fluctuation per each unit of Planck time?

Our general work is here: http://81018.com

We have evolved with a simple-but-highly-integrated mathematical chart of the universe based on simple doublings of four Planck units: length/time and mass/charge. In 202 steps we go from the smallest to the largest possible measurements in what appears to be a logical progression: https://81018.com/chart

Would you have a moment to advise us?

Most sincerely,

Bruce

Second email: Thursday, February 5, 2015 at 10:47 PM

1. Phenomenology of Philosophy of Science: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1206.3554v1

2. The principle of relative locality: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1101.0931v2.pdf

3. Quantum-Spacetime Phenomenology: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0806.0339v2

4. Against spacetime: http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/AmelinoCamelia_fqxiESSAY201.pdf

Dear Prof. Dr. Giovanni Amelino-Camelia:

You are on my radar again. I have downloaded several more files to my Giovanni folder! Can spacetime be derivative of continuity and symmetry? Might spacetime always require dynamics — harmonics — that are held in tension to create a spacetime moment?

Nonsense questions, but increasingly it seems that our container, finite universe, points in such directions.

In 1957 when Kees Boeke’s book, Cosmic Vision,The Universe in 40 Jumps, was published, he had the attention of prominent scientists. Then, the Eames film, the Morrison’s book, *Powers of Ten*, the IMAX (Smithsonian) movie (guide), and the Huang’s scale of the universe opened a conceptual door for everyone. They could have a systematic view of the entire universe.

It was a paradigm shift; all the attention was justified.

Most of the world’s people live within their OwnView. Even though subjective and often quite naïve, the solipsistic among us lift it up as the only view. If and when we start to grow up, spread our wings and begin to explore beyond our horizons, we develop an objective view of the world. As we integrate more and more facets of our subjective and objective views, it begins to qualify as a WorldView (in the spirit of the old Weltanschauung). In light of Boeke’s work, the next step for all of us is to bring whatever WorldView we have, and see how it fits and works within a view of the entire universe.

Kees Boeke’s work is historically the very first UniverseView. Although Boeke only had 40 jumps and used base-10 exponential notation), it is still the first systematic view of the entire Universe.

Our high school geometry class developed what just may be the second systematic UniverseView. It is quite a bit more granular than Boeke’s work and it was initially based on simple embedded and nested geometries. This work began in March 2011, used base-2 exponential notation and emerged with about 202+ doublings, layers, notations, or steps. It properly began at the Planck Length and Planck Time and then expanded to the Observable Universe and the Age of the Universe respectively. This fully-integrated UniverseView emerged in December 2011 and was officially dubbed, “Big Board – little universe.”

First, we thought our UniverseView with its 202+ notations would be a good container for Science-Technology-Engineering-Mathematics (STEM) education. It put everything within a simple ordering system. Then, in January 2012, in the process of trying to find scholarly references to understand the foundations of our work, we discovered Kees Boeke. In so many ways, it was a vindication that we were not totally idiosyncratic. Somebody had been here before us, but not too, too much was done to extract meaning from the model.

With our simple geometries and math, we thought this was a real ordering system that could help us make sense of the meaning of things within that historic tension to understand who we are, why we are, where we are going, and the meaning and value of life. Given this model has a starting point and an end point, this UniverseView certainly suggests that the universe is finite. To engage the Infinite it appears that we hold the objective and subjective in a creative balance called geometry, calculus and algebra through which we can more fully discover relations.

Boeke’s work is great, but it is not relationally integrated; it just adds (or subtracts) zeroes. It takes base-2 exponential notation (3.333+ times more granular) to begin seeing the simplest continuities, relations and dynamics within each notation. Base-2 is the heart and spirit of cellular division, chemical bonding and complexification (1 & 2). It is here we begin to create a truly relational, integrated and functional UniverseView. It is here that we find the rough-and-tumble within science.

So, although our base-2 UniverseView is the second UniverseView, it seems to hold greater promise. And though we fully recognize that our preliminary models are still just a crack in the doorway, what a sweet and simple opening it is. Kepler should be proud.

We are now just starting to grow our little association with real-and-graciously-open scholars. Just possibly, this work will have as much impact as base-10. Maybe more… if it somehow truly captures the spirit of John Wheeler when he said, “Behind it all is surely an idea so simple, so beautiful, that when we grasp it — in a decade, a century, or a millennium — we will all say to each other, how could it have been otherwise? How could we have been so stupid for so long?”

A simple introduction to our simple work is here: https://81018.com/order/

Shall I keep you abreast of any developments? I have three lists: annual, quarterly, or monthly basis. I just placed you on my annual list. Is that OK?

Most sincerely,

Bruce

First email: July 17, 2013

Dear Prof. Dr. Giovanni Amelino-Camelia:

You never know who is going to be reading those intimate phenomenological words of yours, a most personal exploration of your most recent insights (1999 and 19 slides). Fascinating read. Just fascinating.

Anything new to add?

- I’ll do a thorough research of your most recent work (ArXiv) (inSPIRE).
- Yes, there is more going on at the Planck Length than meets the eye!
- My very simple, little speculative view of the ℓP.

I’ll be in Geneva in August when everyone else (but a few) will be traveling!

-Bruce