Adler, Steve Louis

Steve Adler

Steve L. Adler
Institute for Advanced Study
The School of Natural Sciences (IAS)

Princeton, New Jersey

ArXiv: Minimum Interior Temperature for Solid Objects Implied by Collapse Models (2017)
Books: Quantum Theory as an Emergent Phenomenon
Working articles & projects

Most recent email:  Wednesday, January 16, 2019

Dear Prof. Dr. Steve Adler:

I know that I am a nobody from nowhere special, but my questions are genuine and nobody seems to be able to answer those questions about our infinitesimal universe (Notations 1 to 64).

In 1994 you were writing what eventually became a book, Quaternionic Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Fields, (Oxford University Press). So, we should be moved to ask, “What has quaternionic quantum mechanics done to further our common insight? Has it moved us beyond the all the open questions in big bang cosmology?” Please excuse me if my questions seem too direct or offensive:

1. Is big bang cosmology still the best model?

2. Isn’t Newton’s absolute space-and-time assumed, and is it the best model?

3. Could there a natural inflation from the Planck scale? The numbers using base-2 are interesting:

4. Could a doubling mechanism originate within the dimensionless constants, especially from light — and the Planck Charge?

Thank you.

Most sincerely,


P.S. I write to scholars. I have also written about these four questions to Claus Keifer (Cologne) and Alexander Vilenkin (Tufts) and all three of you are referenced on this homepage.
Second email: 15 October 2018

Dear Prof. Dr. Steve Adler:


You had a special advantage having written “The Secret of Light” (1952) so early in your life, at a formative time. Yet, we all eventually learn,  the boundaries of physics are still being shaped.


So, I ask in light of your history and most recently events like the  IAS PiTP, From Qubits to Spacetime, is it reasonable to consider Max Planck’s simple definition of time when we talk about the interior of the space-time?


Planck’s more simple formulation actually computes well with experimental results. And, if base-2 notation is applied to Planck Time, it certainly computes within every notation, not just at one second but throughout all 202 notations from Planck Time to the current time or age of the currently expanding universe, the Now.

By inserting the other base units along this scale of the universe, the data sets becomes more challenging, yet the simple correspondence between length and time tells a profound story. The correspondence with mass and charge, though stretches the imagination, but still retains a deep logic and continuity.

Might you comment? Just nonsense?

Thank you.

Most sincerely,
Bruce Camber
Austin, Texas

PS. You may remember that this work started in a New Orleans high school geometry class where we chased Zeno’s paradox to the Planck Wall and then asked, “What else can we do?”
Related links:
Chart of numbers: (see line 10)
A little background story:

First email: Wednesday, 26 April 2017

RE: Idiosyncratic concepts can emerge from a high school geometry class

Dear Prof. Dr. Steve Adler:

I was reading the 2008 compilations and commentaries on ArXiv and thought you just might be bold enough to tell us where we have gone so wrong.

In December 2011 with my favorite geometry classes, we followed Zeno inside the tetrahedron to find the octahedron and four half-sized tetrahedrons by dividing all the edges by 2 then connecting up those new vertices. We continued with that simple progression.

Besides ending up with an enormous number of parts, within 45 steps we were near the limits of CERN-lab’s measurements, somewhere smaller than the proton. We continued our base-2 division. On paper and in theory, we were back to the Planck units in just 67 additional steps.  The next day we multiplied our original objects by 2; and just over 90 steps later, we were at the Age of the Universe.

We had tiled and tessellated the universe with octahedral-tetrahedral clusters and had a terrific chart of everything, everywhere throughout all time. We thought it was a great little STEM tool.

Of course, it was just a bit of silliness. Or is it?

We weren’t sure. For three years we searched around for something like it and only found Kees Boeke’s work from 1957. My old friend, Phil Morrison (MIT), loved Boeke’s work. Without any clear criticisms, we started putting it up within its own site on the web and today, I beg people to tell us where we have gone wrong. We are just high school people.

Are the first 67 notations the matrix or Frank Wilczek’s grid? Is this the domain of pointfree geometries?

I would be perfectly delighted to hear from you no matter how harsh your criticisms.  Thank you.

Warm regards,

Bruce Camber
New Orleans