On discovering the work of Nima Arkani-Hamed…

Nima Arkani-Hamed

Nima Arkani-Hamed, Institute for Advanced Study (IAS), Princeton, New Jersey

Aha: Space-time is doomed. What replaces it? Oct 2010
Article: A Jewel at the Heart of Quantum Physics, Wolchover, Quanta, 9.2013
• Interview with Nima Arkani Hamed, Panos Charitos, CERN, 2015, where he says, “…everything we discover in mathematics or physics is actually out there.”
ArXiv: Causal Diamonds, Cluster Polytopes and Scattering Amplitudes, Dec 2019
Homepage(s): Twitter: IAS, Wikipedia
Physical Review D 59, 086004 (1999). N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, and G. R. Dvali
YouTube: What’s the point of doing fundamental science? April 15, 2019
• The Doom of Space Time: Why It Must Dissolve… 2017
• The Future of Fundamental Physics Jun 6, 2016
• Where in the World are SUSY & WIMPS?  Jul 20, 2017
• Madrid: Unification and Fundamental Physics: A Status Report 9-21-2018
• Oxford: How do we make do without space-time?  May 7, 2014
• Z Lecture:  Space-time is doomed. What replaces it? Oct 18, 2010

Other pages within this site: https://81018.com/derivative/ June 20, 2021: https://81018.com/empower/
Key pages: https://81018.com/redefinition/ https://81018.com/redefine/
With a sweeping naturalness, proclaims “Spacetime is doomed”

Most recent email: 3 March 2022 at 8:56 PM

Dear Prof. Dr. Nima Arkani-Hamed: 

The confusion within our sciences — space-time is doomed — allows for the narcissism and solipsism of folks like Putin. Anything goes. That he has a finger so close to the nuclear hot buttons and threatens to use them should alarm all of us.

I have an image of you and a few words under the heading, Our Scholars Are Tied Up In Knots on today’s homepage. That page calls Putin to question. It proposes a highly-integrated, mathematical view of the universe (over all little worldviews).

We can integrate all your theories and concepts within the 202  base-2 notations from the Planck base units (assuming it to be the first instance) to the current time: https://81018.com/stem/

Best wishes,

Bruce

Eighth email: Saturday, July 17, 2021 at 7 PM

Dear Prof. Dr. Nima Arkani-Hamed:

Picking up on your theme that we need to redefine spacetime and infinity, how would you like to get involved with these explorations:

  • The first second is still alive and well and is still moving outward!
  • Today’s expansion of the universe is also the first moment of the universe.
  • Blackholes aren’t just sucking everything in; they (Type B) are also just pushing it out at levels (sizes) that our measuring devices will ever pick up.

Thanks.
Warmly,
Bruce

PS. I think the current homepage is worth a quick read: https://81018.com/ Also, I know you get too much email so I will not send another email to you without an invitation to do so. -BEC*

*Oops. I apologize for the email above. I’ll try harder. –BEC

Seventh email: Tuesday, 25 May 2021 @ 9:58 PM

Dear Prof. Dr. Nima Arkani-Hamed:

We have not given up our idiosyncratic pursuit of a cosmology defined by a radically different concept of space-time and infinity.

You inspired it with your comments about space-time being doomed:
https://81018.com/envision/ is the long-term link.

Yes, you have been back on our homepage with Turok and Tegmark.

Of course, the page of references to your work has also been modestly updated: https://81018.com/arkani/
To suggest that pi and continuity-symmetry-harmony are the starting points for our universe might seem absurd; nevertheless, the entire system has a sweet coherence below the zeptosecond and back to primordial time be it Planck Time or Stoney Time or a new definition of base units by ISO.

I wish you well with all that you do.

Warmly,

Bruce

Sixth email: Thursday, 9 January 2020 @ 2:54 AM

Dear Prof. Dr. Nima Arkani-Hamed:

Even though you are too busy to respond to correspondence like mine, you continue to be one of my favorite scholars. You don’t hold back.

So, space-time as we’ve known it is doomed.

Might we assume that space-time is the most simple face of light?

It is not Newton’s absolute, but finite, derivative, and quantitative.  Thank you.

Sincerely,

Bruce

Unfinished-not-sent email:  (in process)

Dear Prof Dr. Nima Arkani-Hamed:

In your lecture, Where in the world are SUSY and WIMPS? published on July 20, 2017, you say, “…go back and think about these things again from a totally different view, something completely, radically, 100% out of left field, totally different from anything we’ve thought about before.”

We have. We are. But, you’ve given us no feedback on our chart of the universe using base-2 notation from the Planck scale to the current age of the universe today.

…what does gates coupling interaction have to do with it?

Fifth email: 26 April 2017

RE: Two quick questions… regarding Amplituhedrons and topos theory

Dear Prof. Dr. Nima Arkani-Hamed:

To simplify the problem of visualization, attempting to drive into the heart of topos theory, I have begun thinking that we will take just five or six samples out of the chart of 202+ base-2 notations. I’ll post our first pass selection just below.  The Planck units would, of course, establish the base line. I would like to bring Langlands program in as we quickly go up the scale to notation 31.  We’ll start with the most simple geometries (perhaps beginning with pi, the Feigenbaum constant and close-packing of equal spheres. As we approach Notation-67, I would like to see some of those geometries morph into an amplituhedron.  It may be premature given we will be using the epochs of the Big Bang as benchmarks, but those are decisions we’ll make when we get to that point.

My questions are few:
1. Do you have any programs that generate a 3D model of an amplituhedron?
2. Is Andy Gilmore’s illustration for the Natalie Wolchover article a good one?
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20130917-a-jewel-at-the-heart-of-quantum-physics/

Thank you.
Most sincerely,
Bruce
Bruce Camber
http://81018.com

Notation:Planck Time (Seconds)Planck Length (Meters)Planck Mass (Kilograms)Planck Charge (Coulombs))
15.391(13)×10-441.6162(38)×10-352.176.47(51)×10-81.875545(41)×10-18
311.1577×10-34 s.470762×10-26m46.79kg (103lbs)4.0278116×10-9 C
677.9563×10-24 s2.38509×10-15m3.2119×1012 kg276.78910 C
1078.748×10-12 s2.6224 mm 3.5315×1023 kg3.0433×1014 C
14938.47432 s11,533,588.2 km1.5532×1036 kg1.3384×1027C
173645,492,017.5 s1.9350×1017 km2.605×1043 kg2.245×1034 C
1994.331×1016 s1.298×1024 km1.748×1051 kg1.506×1042C

Chart I. An article being developed around it is here: https://81018.com/planck_universe/

Fourth email: Tuesday, April 25, 2017
RE: Amplituhedron, topos theory and NASA's Space App Challenge

https://2017.spaceappschallenge.org/challenges/ideate-and-create/1d-2d-3d-go/details

Dear Prof. Dr. Nima Arkani-Hamed:

We may be taking the data from our base-2 chart from the Planck units to the Age of the Universe — there are 202+ notations — to create a “spaceapp” this weekend for NASA’s Space App Challenge.

The first second within the life of this universe takes up just over 143 of those 202+ notations. The first 67 notations are much smaller than the work done at CERN so imagination is a key to creating a visualization of the initial notations.  The amplituhedron is cited in notation, 62.

We should be using the the epochs defined by the big bang theory as a level set and guide.

Close-packing of equal spheres using the Feigenbaum constant, Wolfram’s computer automaton, and possibly some representation of the Langlands program and topos theory will be competing for pointfree vertices. I see attempting to represent the amplituhedron within notations 60 to 67.

Of course, the entire domain just might be the first time dimensionless or pointfree geometries (from Alfred North Whitehead to topos theory) would be visualized,  especially visualized within a base-2 view of the universe.

Do you have any programs and/or people you could loan us to apply some of the more visual manifestations of topos theory and the role of the amplituhedron?

Thank you.

Most sincerely,

Bruce Camber
http://81018.com

Third email: Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 8:49 AM
Subject: Space-time and the limits of CERN

Dear Prof. Dr. Nima Arkani-Hamed:

Could space-time be derivative of symmetry-continuity?
(Newton-Leibniz debate)

Shouldn’t there be some consideration of the space-time
defined between the Planck scale and the CERN-scale?

If we use base-2 notation, there are 202 notations
from the Planck Time to the Age of the Universe. The
first 67 notations to the CERN-scale have information:
https://81018.com/chart/

It appears to be that there are many transformation lines
between the finite and infinite. CERN has hit the wall
and now only pure math and geometry will carry this
research forward. Langlands programs are
one option;  I think there are more.

Silliness or worth further consideration?
Thanks.

Most sincerely,
Bruce
*****************
Bruce Camber
http://81018.com  (updated)

PS.  Back in 2012 you heard from me when we were still trying to grasp
the legitimacy of using base-2 this way.  It was characterized as
idiosyncratic, but nobody seemed to think it was wrong per se.
I think you were still at SLAC at the time.

Second email: Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 4:47 PM

Subject: You might see some correspondence between the Planck Length and Planck Time that we are missing…. Ref.  http://www.sns.ias.edu/arkani

Dear Prof. Dr. Nima Arkani-Hamed:

We are still doing our simple project with the Planck Units and base-2 notation to their known limits.  I am sure that you will find some correspondences between the Planck Length and Planck Time within the 201+ doublings that will be peculiar and of interest.  That side-by-side chart is here:  https://81018.com/chart (updated)

Best wishes,
Bruce
Bruce Camber
http://81018.com 

First email: Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Subject: Might the hierarchy be extended using base-2 exponential notation from the Planck Length to the edges of the observable universe?

Prof. Dr. Nima Arkani-Hamed, Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94309, USA

Dear Prof. Dr. Nima Arkani-Hamed:

Has the scientific community discounted using base-2 exponential notation, beginning with the Planck Length and going the 202 steps (or doublings or notations) out to the edges of the observable universe? If so, I would dearly appreciate understanding the logic for discounting it. If not, then I would ask about the meaning of the first 64 steps and if anybody has done any investigations of them as inter-related layers, steps or notations.  If there is such scholarship, could you point me to it?  Thank you.

Warmly,
Bruce
****************************

Bruce Camber, CEO
Small Business School
Private Business Channel, Inc.
http://SmallBusinessSchool.org

Further backgrounder:
Reference:  
• The longest-running television series on PBS stations in the USA and the Voice of America around the world about best business practices.

•  Every business owner was recommended by many local business advocates, often the local Chamber of Commerce, and confirmed by their national trade association for their leadership, generosity of spirit, ethics, and courage.  Nobody can pay or has ever paid to be on this show.

• Many publishers, business associations, schools, and  journals provide their constituents with access to daily business tips.

Notes:

Wednesday, 20 November 2019 @ 7:54 AM

https://81018.com/bridge/#11b
Special groundwork has been laid by many scholars from within different disciplines. From Loop Quantum Gravity, Carlo Rovelli says that time is an illusion. Then, from thinking about time travel, Berkeley physicist, Richard Muller, also calls time an illusion. From within string theory, Nima Arkani-Hamed says space and time are doomed. “Come up with something better!”

https://81018.com/bridge/#11f
11. Groundwork: There are many thought leaders who have trouble with Newton’s absolute space and time. Carlo Rovelli, Richard Muller, and Nima Arkani-Hamed are moving beyond Newton’s absolute space and time. Max Tegmark and Neil Turok have also called for a fundamental re-examination of these concepts. We’ll continue adding to this list as time goes on.

Article: https://81018.com/bridge/
Lead-in title: 1687 marked a new level of confusion about the finite-infinite relation
Title: Here’s An Easy, Most Simple Explanation

###