TO: Andrea J. Liu, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA USA
FM: Bruce E. Camber
RE: Your work with our National Academy of Sciences as given in your homepage(s), especially arXiv, dblp, Google, LRSM, National Academy of Sciences, Wikipedia, and YouTube, i.e. Nagel Sidney R. (November 1998). “Jamming is not just cool any more”. Nature. 396 (6706): 21–22.
This page: https://81018.com/liu/ References: https://81018.com/nas/
First email: 14 February 2024 (updated)
RE: Quick questions to open the investigation and break the log jam of inquiry
Dear Prof. Dr. Andrea J. Liu:
In 2011 when I was learning about the Planck base units and the very nature of natural numbers, I was puzzled, “This is very basic stuff.” Did I miss those lectures?” It was a Do-Re-Me moment (Sound of Music) with A-B-Cs and 1-2-3s! I wondered, “Why was it virtually ignored for 100 years? What did Planck say? Where are the experts?”
But first, please allow me to say, “Congratulations on your service to the board of our National Academy of Sciences and for your work within theoretical soft condensed matter, particularly in grasping features, functions and mechanisms of jamming.” We’ve just started to engage all that work, particularly focused within our studies of cubic-close packing of equal spheres at the Planck scale. We unwittingly applied base-2 notation to our studies of the interior structures of the tetrahedron (and then the octahedron), and continue to go deeper and deeper We learned about Planck Length and Planck Time and assumed it was a good place to stop. Surprisingly, there were just 112 notations going within. Using Planck’s numbers, we multiplied by 2 and we were back to our model in 112 steps and at the approximate size and age of the universe in just an additional 90 steps. Our first response was, “Wow, what a STEM tool!”
Now what do we do? We discovered that there is too much to do! The first thing is to get authorities within science (people like you) to tell us where and how we are going wrong with our simple geometry and mathematics of base-2 notation that results in 202 notations. Might you advise us? For three years, we thought the work had already been done and for the next three years, we thought we were missing some simple logic, and for the past six years we’ve been thinking, “It’s too simple for all the most complex thinking that culture, does today, especially our scholars and scientists.”
That’s the reason for my open letter to the National Academy of Sciences. It’s peculiar because I am feeling that it’s the “emperor new clothes all over again.” Again, how might you advise us?
Thank you.
Most sincerely,
Bruce
###