TO: Chiara Marletto, Wolfson’s New Frontiers Quantum Hub, University of Oxford, Oxford, England UK
FM: Bruce E. Camber
RE: Your articles particularly Constructor Theory of Life, Journal of the Royal Society Interface. 12 (104): 20141226, arXiv-1407.0681, doi:10.1098/rsif.2014.1226, PMC-4345487, PMID:25589566, Jan. 2015 from arXiv (3): Constructor Theory of Life, 2014; your book The Science of Can and Can’t, A Physicist’s Journey Through the Land of Counterfactuals, 2021, 2022; even your homepage including at Wolfson, Google Scholar, inSPIREHEP, X-tweets (Quanta Magazine); and even the Wikipedia entry about Constructor theory; and your YouTube and Vimeo especially The Theory That Could Rewrite the Laws of Physics (Quanta, 2021) and Decoding the Universe (2018)
URL for this page: https://81018.com/marletto/ Within this website: https://81018.com/particle/#Emails
Second email: 8 January 2022 at 8 PM (updated)
Dear Dr. Chiara Marletto:
Given your leadership within constructor theory (wiki), your work with the Wolfson’s New Frontiers Quantum Hub, and even ISI Turin, I have some hope you might comment about the possibility of a constructor that begins with pi, spheres, and the Planck scale as a symbolic infinitesimal starting point.
You and our current scholars like Max Tegmark (MIT) and our historic scholars like E.P. Wigner and Pythagoras all truly believed the universe is ordered and mathematical. Might we say that it is all according to numbers, geometries, and equations that are scale invariant?
If so, can we start with concepts at the Planck scale, base-2, pi, and infinitesimal spheres?
Something is either right or fundamentally wrong with our base-2 progression from the Planck base units to the current age and size of the universe in 202 notations. ( https://81018.com/chart/ )
Might you have time to take a quick look? Might a constructor model be built around such simple assumptions and presuppositions? It all started on a December day in 2011 when in a high school geometry class we decided to follow the progression back inside a tetrahedron and then the tetrahedrons and the octahedron within it. We mapped the universe! I think Zeno was leading the way.
Thank you.
Warmly,
Bruce
First email: Jul 5, 2021, 8:41 PM
Dear Dr. Chiara Marletto:
Though just now being introduced to you, it seems like your work may help us interpret what we are doing. Here are just a few of the pages studied and now studying about you and constructor theory: https://www.chiaramarletto.com/about/ http://constructortheory.org/about-us/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiara_Marletto https://arxiv.org/abs/1407.0681 http://constructortheory.org/research/. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2009.04588.pdf https://www.wolfson.ox.ac.uk/person/chiara-marletto
https://81018.com is where I work which began in a high school geometry class in 2011 when we decided to follow Zeno and go inside the tetrahedron and its octahedron within by halving the edges connecting the new vertices, and jumping further within. In just 45 steps we were within the particles of the Standard Model. In 67 more steps we were with Max Planck and his base units.
We decided Max knew better than we did, so we used Max’s numbers, multiplied by 2, and we were back in the classroom in 112 steps. Not surprising.
We were flummoxed when we continued multiplying by 2. In just 90 steps we were out to the edges of the universe. We thought, “What a great little STEM tool.” But, it raised many questions:
1. What was below Notation 65-67, our guess for quantum fluctuations and the wave-particle duality and what we called “squishy geometries” with the five tetrahedral star, the icosahedron, and the pentakis dodecahedron. All great fun. But, everybody observing just shook their head, “What are they doing?” We didn’t know. High school people. Things move slowly. In 2015 we added time; in 2016 we took that vertical chart and made it horizontal.
2. What’s time here? What’s space? Is everything connected?
3. Is the universe exponential? Is everything always active?
4. Is this the hole that Alice dropped into?
5. So what do we do? It is so contrary to everything; nobody’s going to touch this stuff. So in 2016, I started consolidating it all to one webpage: http://81018.com/ and we just went off the deep end. Though just now being introduced to you, it seems like your work may help us interpret what we are doing.
6. What do you think? Maybe? If you have read this much, I thank you. Most people it seems just roll their eyes, and get back to their business. For ten years now I have been asking the learned, “What are we doing wrong?”
I’ve pleaded with great scholars, “Kick us back into reality;
it is a bit weird being so idiosyncratic!”
Maybe you can help.
Thanks.
Warmly,
Bruce
PS. I am now researching your work. Here are just a few of the pages I am now studying: https://www.chiaramarletto.com/about/ http://constructortheory.org/about-us/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiara_Marletto https://arxiv.org/abs/1407.0681 http://constructortheory.org/research/ Click to access 2009.04588.pdf
https://www.wolfson.ox.ac.uk/person/chiara-marletto
It’s a start! -BEC