Spekkens, Robert W.

Robert W. Spekkens

Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

: The Paradigm of Kinematics and Dynamics Must Yield to Causal Structure
Google Scholar citations

First email: February 7, 2019 at 12:50 PM

Dear Prof. Dr. Robert Spekkens:

In 1977, I joined David Bohm and his doctoral candidates to become a point, a line, a triangle and a tetrahedron (a three-hour seminar). In 1979 Viki Weisskopf helped arranged for me to meet and have a private one-on-one with John Bell at CERN. In 1980 I sent six months studying one day with Olivier Costa de Beauregard and the next with J.P. Vigiers at the Institut Henri Poincare. Then, with my head spinning, I returned home to Boston to make a living.

In 2011 I returned to all those questions in a rather peculiar way. My nephew asked me to  introduce the Platonic solids to his high school geometry students (about 80 students). Several were fascinated by the most simple internal structure of the tetrahedron and octahedron. With deference to Zeno, we  started going within the tetrahedron by dividing the edges by 2. In 45 steps within we were looking at particle physics (and billions of tetrahedrons and octahedrons). In 67 more steps, we were looking at the Planck Wall and began examining the Planck base units. What happens to all those tetra-octa structures as everything infinitesimally small? We concluded, “They must be shared by everything. It’s hypostatic.”

Deciding to start with the Planck units, we multiplied back up to the classroom object and continued the 90 additional steps to the Age of the Universe and the approximate size of the universe. Of course, it is a natural inflation and at the 144th notation, we were just over one second. At the 197th notation we were at the large-structure formation of the universe. With the 202nd doubling (10.9 billion years), we are just 2.9 billion years into it. Is it at all meaningful?

Thank you.

Most sincerely,


Alexander, Stephon

Stephon Alexander

Professor of Physics
Department of Physics
Brown University
Providence, Rhode Island

ArXiv:  Novel Substructure and Superfluid Dark Matter, 25 January 2019

Twitter: https://twitter.com/stephstem
YouTube:  The Jazz of Physics

Most recent email: Jan 27, 2019

Dear Prof. Dr. Stephon Alexander:

You may remember two years ago, when I wrote that you were the first person in the physics who at least acknowledged that logically this universe starts either super hot at the Planck Temperature or superconductingly cold at zero temperature. Of those choices, I had chosen to explore the cold start.

We haven’t progressed terribly far from that point, yet you might enjoy reading the latest work. And, of course, your comments will always be welcomed. Please be just as pointed as you can be!

Now, I haven’t forgotten that I owe you a session at Snug Harbor, New Orleans with your fellow jazz artist, Donald Harrison with an audience of fellow physicists from around the city, all accompanied by one of their jazz aficionados. It’ll be quite a night. We’ll make it happen.

Warm regards,


Second email: Oct 30, 2017, 8:21 PM


Thank you, Stephon and Laura!

I’ve gone through your September 1, 2017 article and have highlighted several spots, particularly “We are exploring the possibility of an underlying microphysical mechanism that limit contributions to vacuum energy from phase transitions in the early universe, and furthermore which relates the energy of the vacuum to the coupling constants of nature and their hierarchy, in other words to the the Standard Model, in a fundamental way…”

In the microphysical scale, if you begin at the Planck units and use base-2, you’ll have those 64-to-67 doublings to the CERN scale which define the very-very early universe. Between the 143rd and 144th doubling the universe is just a second old and the length is the distance light travels in a second. https://81018.com/chart/ At the 197th we are within our first 500 million years and at the 202 we are now emergent within the Age of the Universe today.

That simple math and simple logic, of course, is too simple for most. You may be surprised, once you are inside those domains, how complex and open it all is.

Thanks again for your article.
Wonderful collaboration!

Most sincerely,

First email: Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 11:00 AM

Dear Prof. Dr. Stephon Alexander:

Let’s improvise!  It looks like I’ll be quoting you more than not!

I have now listened to you play and tell your story about your dear Mr. Kaplan. I have surveyed your website. Hardly irrational thinking; it is meta-rational. Can you hear the harmony of the spheres? Love your rhythm and harmony comments.

Now, I was on your website (wonderful site, thank you) and on it I sent this note through your


“Wow, how very impressive. When you come to New Orleans,  please let me know. My wife and I would love to hear you play live!  Can we get you booked into Snug Harbor, one of our many jazz clubs?”

Now, for those special words of yours that I would like to quote:
“Alexander described two potential ways the universe began. Either it was at the Planck temperature and then inflated and cooled to create what we see today. Or it started off at zero temperature and speeded up as it expanded. So one of two situations could have happened,” he said, “and it would be interesting if, indeed, both situations are really the same underlying phenomenon.”

You are the first person I have found who said the “either-or” on temperature. Do you have colleagues who are so open?  Also, I would like to credit the source for that quote if it was from one of your publications.  I am looking for it now.  Thanks

I am now surveying your ArXiv submissions.  Have you ever thought that the old CMBR can be achieved within your OR suggestion?  Here’s one way to do it: https://81018.com/chart

Thanks again for all that you do (and I thank Mr. Kaplan, too!).


A little message to Patrick Honner, a Brooklyn math teacher

Hi Patrick!

I’m the one who just sent this little response through your Twitter account where you say, “I asked my BC Calculus students to integrate 1/(x² – 1) today. One of my students did this! I was blown away by her creative thinking. #math #mathchat #APCalc

I replied: “Yes, blown away! Amazing. BC is Boston College? Math teacher equals professor? Incredible. And here I thought we were being smart to do base-2 notation from the Planck base units to the Age of the Universe in 202 steps. It turns out to be so idiosyncratic, I had to pull it back.”

More reflections: So, if I I use 2 in your example, I have 1/3, and if 3, then 1/8, and 4, 1/15… Your student obviously takes us deeper. Can you help us follow her?

Also, would you explain the reason for your challenge and her response — her thoughts and insights — for those us us who would love to inspire our own students to think outside the box as well as through many boxes at the same time!

BTW, our work resulted in this little website: http://bblu.org We initially thought it would be an excellent STEM tool — everything, everywhere throughout the universe and for all time. It got under my skin so I continued with it: here http://81018.com Probably I am making a huge fool of myself, but the really smart ones haven’t kicked me with a simple response. Being called idiosyncratic is OK, in fact, it is self-evident. But what’s wrong? There must be something wrong with the Planck base units. I think both Planck and Wilczek are probably wrong.

That blog is on an earlier page here: https://81018.com/references/

Thanks again for sharing your wonderful teaching experience. Power to you!


Corporate social responsibility: Sustainability, governance and ethics

John Fraser, Ph.D., AIA
President & CEO
New Knowledge
New York City

Second email: Wednesday, January 9, 2019, 4:22 PM

Dear John:

The question of consciousness is age-old yet today the focus is diverse and intense. If we can establish elements of it on this grid from 1-202, particularly within the first 64, our self-perceptions begin to change. The first 64 notations of the 202 redefine the infinitesimal. If we become intimate with our infinitesimal universe that appears now to be shared with all sentient things, empathy and intuitions take on very new flavors.

Likewise today’s questions around time symmetry are intense. If we can establish that space/time is derivative and finite, and we can establish empathic exercises that demonstrate how this could be so, our proximate perceptions begin to expand and I will project, eventually begin to touch the entire universe. The mappings done by all the new telescopes will become wider points of interest. I am not at all sure of that trajectory, but I can “feel” it opening up.

And for millennium, the intensity of questions around infinity has not abated. If bridges between the finite and infinite can be  be constructed in ways the historic religions/philosophies have been unable to accomplish — rational, logical, mathematical — our most proximate perceptions of reality will open even deeper, wider, further, richer, and probably even in ways that are a bit more fun.

As we go forward, if I write something up that seems germane to your work, I’ll send a brief note and link!


First email: Friday, January 6, 2019, 8:56 PM

Dear Dr. John Fraser: 

In an early abstract for a conference paper on corporate social responsibility (CSR),  I said, “CSR must be integrated within one’s view of oneself, our world, and yes, even our universe. A simple level of mathematical integration exists by applying base-2 notation to the Planck Scale whereby the universe is quantized within 202 doublings or notations.”

That may sound a bit specialized; it’s not. The Planck Scale is the beginning of the definition of infinitesimals, ostensibly the small scale universe. The 202 doublings are in three groups — the small-scale universe, the human-scale, and the large-scale.

This simple integration of concepts, I believe, is “new knowledge.” The only online references are from our work.  I believe it is I important because it opens diverse possibilities for sustainability, ethics and governance that have, heretofore, been overlooked.

Ethics is most often relegated to a secondary or derivative track. Within these levels of integration, the ethical judgment becomes a scientific, mathematical, logical and necessary judgment.

More about it all can be found here:

Do you think it is new knowledge and is it worth pursuing? Thank you.

Most sincerely,

Francis, Matthew R.

Matthew R. Francis

Key Articles:
• The Origins of Dark Matter (Symmetry, November 2018)
• The quest to test quantum entanglement (Symmetry, November 2018)
• Already beyond the Standard Model (Symmetry, October 2018)
• Five mysteries the Standard Model can’t explain (Symmetry, October 2018
• Will We Recognize Alien Life When We See It? (Mosaic / digg, October 2015)
• Quantum and Consciousness Often Mean Nonsense (Slate, May 2014)
LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/matthewrfrancis
Twitter:  @DrMRFrancis
Websites: http://bowlerhatscience.org/  (Personal Website)
http://GalileosPendulum.org   (Blog)

First email: 15 November 2018

Dear Prof. Dr. Matthew R. Francis,

Is simplicity good?

We took the Planck base units of Length, Time, Mass and Charge and
applied base-2 exponentiation. In 202 doublings, the chart is out to the
Age of the Universe. It seems straight forward, however, the results are
rather startling.

First, it is a simple, logical, mathematical map of the universe.
I am not sure… are there any others?

By studying the numbers associated with each doubling, we see
that most of the 202 doublings are about the early universe.
Notation 143 contains the first second.
Notation 197 contains the beginning of large structure-formation.
All the numbers are here: https://81018.com/chart/

Though entirely idiosyncratic, I think there is something here.

1. Of course, the Planck Length doubling at one second, divided
by the Planck Time doubling at one second is very close to the value
of the speed of light in a vacuum. It is consistent with Planck’s initial
equation for Planck Time. Yet, it is naturally also consistent within
each of the other 202 notations.

Thus, space-and-time appear to be derivative, quantized, and discrete.

2. There is a natural inflation that mimics the ΛCDM model.

3. All notations appear to be forever active and necessarily
interdependent and appears to define the Now for Richard Muller
and Carlo Rovelli.

We started this project in a high school geometry class in 2011
( https://81018.com/home/ ) with just the Planck Length. We
did not introduce Planck Time until 2014 and Planck Mass and
Planck Charge until 2015. So, really we have just begun to study
and attempt to understand these numbers in light of current theories
within cosmology and physics. It is entirely provocative!

Even though it is idiosyncratic, is there any hope for it?
The current homepage is my latest attempt to spotlight key ideas
and problems. Thank you.

Most sincerely,

Lewis, Geraint

Geraint Lewis

School of Physics
Sydney Institute for Astronomy
University of Sydney
Sydney, Australia


First email: 14 November 2018

Dear Prof. Dr. Geraint Lewis:

In the course of studying Plato’s forms, particularly observing how the tetrahedron perfectly encloses a half-sized tetrahedron in each of the four corners and an octahedron in the middle, and how the octahedron perfectly encloses six half-sized octahedrons in each corner and a tetrahedron in each of the eight faces, we got to thinking about Zeno. If we continued going within, how far could we go? Would we hit a wall, possibly defined by the Planck Length?

In 45 steps (on paper) we were in the size range of the proton. In 67 more steps, we were touching the Planck Wall.

Idiosyncratic for sure.  It is reminiscent of Kees Boeke’s 1957 work with base-10.

Of course, we then went the other direction, doubling the sizes; and within 90 steps, we were out to the edges of the universe. Some time later we added Planck Time and watched with amazement as the two tracked so well together. Then we added Planck Mass and Planck Charge and became overwhelmed with the information.

It made for some widely speculative thinking.
Our numbers are here: https://81018.com/chart/
Our little history is here: https://81018.com/home/
It’ll soon be seven years from the first wild-and-crazy days.
Then, because we got no critical review, I pulled it back from
the classroom.  It could be tainting our college-bound students.
Most speculatively we see how each notation builds on each other.

Certainly less sophisticated than Langlands Programs
(we are still trying to grasp that work), we were excited to find
Neil Turok’s work —- https://81018.com/bbtheory/where he says
the universe is constantly starting.  In its special way, all Time
appears to be Now and everything “imprints” on the universe.

The first 64 or so notations are below the thresholds of measurement
and a wonderful area to consider the most speculative theories!
Your thoughts and comments, discouragement or encouragement
would be highly regarded and appreciated.

Kind thanks.

Most sincerely

Fischler, Willy (The Weinberg Group)

Willy Fischler

willy_fischlerPhysics Department
The University of Texas

Video: January 2018

References:  Steven Weinberg’s Theory Group

First email: 31 October 2018

Dear Prof. Dr. Willy Fischler:

I am writing regarding motion at the Planck scale and your work on that NSF grant for String Theory and Quantum Field Theory: From the Planck Scale to the Hubble Scale. I’ve also begun to follow your work with Tom Banks on holographic space-time and the initial conditions for inflation.

You and your people are today’s pioneers and quiet heroes. Congratulations on all that you have done. And, thank you.

Before going further, let me assure you that I am a nobody from nowhere special and I have already stretched young minds in ways that may not be helpful, especially within their academic careers, so I continue my studies with great purpose-and-direction!

Long ago I had a chat with Weinberg in his office at Harvard while I was a graduate student at Boston University working on a project at MIT; and just yesterday, I came full-circle with his book,The First Three Minutes.

Perhaps I have missed the others, but it seems your article with Banks is the first to predict an early era of structure formation prior to the Big Bang. If you were to set aside the big bang thinking for a bit and enter the Leibniz-Boltzmann space of low entropy, where are we? I suspect in the Planck Epoch (a “Turok process“) with the Planck base units, and possibly we are witnessing the first, very-special sphere. That charge and inherent energies of light manifesting as space-time-and-mass, make for a very special moment that replicates over and over again, instantly creating a doubling and … the very simple beginning of inflation.

I am working through HST cosmology and FRW slices. Yet, in our simple sphere environment, we have 64 base-2 doublings within which to bring in all this very important conceptual work that is at the edges of my understanding.

As smart as Planck was, the wars and family were penultimate distractions. He could have applied base-2 to his Planck scale base units and found the 64 doublings before we could possibly begin to measure things. He could have found all 202 doublings to the current Age of the Universe but history obfuscated Planck’s work until Wilczek’s 2001 articles in Physics Today.

It appears that I have gone on too long. Please excuse me.

Again, congratulations on all your work. I hope that I have not wasted your time.

The long-and-short of it, perhaps you can tell me (and about 80 high school students) why base-2 cannot be meaningfully applied to the Planck base units. Thanks again.

Most sincerely,
PS. My initial RE for this note was, “Could one be a fly (perhaps a gadfly) on the wall in Physics 309K?” I need to grasp the application of Newton’s laws of the motion to the motion of particles, especially in light of your “Holographic Space-time (HST) theory of cosmology and its relation to conventional theories of inflation.” I’ve enjoyed entering your Leibniz-Boltzmann state of very low entropy. It feels like the first 64 notations!

All but one of the embedded links above go to articles on 81018.com:
NSF: https://81018.com/2018/10/30/weinberg-theory-group/
Willy/Tom: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1806.01749.pdf
High school: https://81018.com/home/
MIT: https://81018.com/mit/
Three Minutes: https://81018.com/three/
Turok: https://81018.com/lefschetz/
Wilczek: https://81018.com/wilczek/