Rothman, Tony

Tony Rothman

Lectuter, New York University

Collaborators: Stephen Boughn, George F.R. Ellis, E. C. G. Sudarshan
FQXi:  (7th paragraph)
Google scholar

First email: Wednesday, July 10, 2019 at 11:00 PM

Dear Prof. Dr. Tony Rothman:

I have come to you through a rather awkward path. I have just one quick question and, of course, it has several related questions.

Is this a an acceptable question:
“Can we use the Planck base units as a starting point for the universe?”

Here is a copy of my post about that concept:

“Planck Time (tP) opens basic questions. First, tP is a direct correlation and necessary relation with a length and light in much the same way Einstein’s well-known equation, e0=mc 2 necessarily and dynamically relates mass, energy and light. These four Planck base units are each natural units using only the most fundamental universal constants to define them.

“Could these four base units and light (and the dimensionless constants that contribute to the essential natural of the Standard Model of Physics) be the very first moment in time?

“Could the universe starts cold? If so, then what might be the first expression of these all these facets of reality ? …the very first manifest?

“Could it be a sphere? John Archibald Wheeler imagined quantum foam. Others are also suggesting a sphere and that we call these spheres planckspheres. What if there is an application of cubic close packing of equal spheres (ccp) at this scale and the stacking amounts to a doubling? Within 202 doublings of base-2 notations these Planck base units have become the age of the universe, the size of the universe, the total mass of the universe, and the total energy of the universe, and yes, it is still happening right now. The universe is expanding!”

Addendum: Exploring such a simple model has been our effort since December 2011: To see a chart of the numbers and to get a sense of the emergence and natural inflation:

It is too simple, so simple it seems a bit of silliness. But if you look at the numbers, there is a sweet logic that prevails.

I would be very pleased to hear from. you.
Thank you.


Lee, Jae-Weon

Prof. Dr. Jae-Weon Lee
Associate Professor
Dept. of Electrical and Electronic Engineering
Jungwon University
Goesan-gun, Chungcheongbuk-do, Korea

References in order of appearance:

Dear Prof. Dr. Jae-Weon Lee:

My work comes out of the Planck scale, particularly assuming that Planck Time is the first moment of time; and today, the now, is the current expansion. To get to such a conclusion, I applied base-2 exponentiation to the Planck base units. Such a configuration creates 202 notations or doublings that are easily followed:

It is all so very simple, I have spent years trying to understand why it has been quite so elusive:

John Wheeler anticipated something quite simple and logical. Could this be the pathway into that intuition back in 1986?

Your comments or critical review would be profoundly appreciated. Thank you.

Most sincerely,

Bruce Camber

“Behind it all is surely an idea so simple, so beautiful, that
when we grasp it — in a decade, a century, or a millennium —
we will all say to each other, how could it have been otherwise?”
– John Archibald Wheeler, 1911-2008, physicist
How Come the Quantum? from New Techniques and Ideas in Quantum Measurement Theory,
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 480, Dec. 1986 (p.304–316), DOI:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1986.tb12434.x

Parry, Alan (and spherically symmetric spacetime)

Alan Parry

Utah Valley University (UVU)
800 West University Parkway
Orem, Utah

ArXiv: A Survey of Spherically Symmetric Spacetimes
Spherically Symmetric Static States of Wave Dark Matter

First email: 6 July 2019

Dear Prof. Dr. Alan Parry:

I hadn’t realized that “spherically symmetric spacetimes” had become a discipline specialty; and I was delighted to find your survey (however difficult for me) at this stage in my academic development. I will be asking for a little guidance from Steven Strogatz of Cornell so I do not read too much into the processes that have been defined to date. That’s my problem. I am prone to read too much into data where I do not comprehend the boundary conditions.

Particularly, I would also ask you if you think the Fourier transform has any bearing on your insights within your survey? Strogatz wrote a sensational “Pi Day” article in 2015 that opened that door for me.  It was published in none other than The New Yorker!

Thank you for your work in 2012 and 2014 to publish and update this article:

Most sincerely,


Spherically symmetric spacetimes

This section of this page will be developed in conjunction with another about the Fourier transform and harmonic analysis.

Wikipedia:  “Spherical symmetry is a characteristic feature of many solutions of Einstein’s field equations of general relativity, especially the Schwarzschild solution and the Reissner–Nordström solution. A spherically-symmetric spacetime can be characterized in another way, namely, by using the notion of Killing vector fields, which, in a very precise sense, preserve the metric.”   See: proper time.  …the radial derivative of the circumferential radius in a freely-falling frame; this becomes explicit in the tetrad formalism.  Also:

Spherically-symmetric solutions

Banks, Tom

Tom Banks

Rutgers NHETC (New High Energy Theory Center)
New Brunswick (and across the Rantan River in Piscataway) New Jersey

ArXiv: The Holographic Space-Time (HST) Model of Cosmology   (5 June, 2018)
Why The Cosmological Constant is a Boundary Condition (31 October 2018)
Homepage (Rutgers)  Also: University of California Santa Cruz (UCSC)
Wikipedia: “…with Willy Fischler, Stephen Shenker, and Leonard Susskind… originators of M(atrix) theory, or BFSS Matrix Theory, an attempt to formulate M theory in a nonperturbative manner.”
YouTube: A Holographic Quantum Theory of Spacetime

References within this website:

First email: Sunday, June 16, 2019

Dear Prof. Dr. Tom Banks:

I am fascinated with your work with Willy Fischler, particularly the HST concept that predicts an early era of structure formation, prior to emergence.

Why not engage the Planck units where they are?

If we apply base-2 notation, in 202 successive doublings, we will have encapsulated the universe in a smooth gradient from the most infinitesimal to the current expansion of the universe. Planck Time within the 202nd notation is just 10.9 billion years, so only about 2.8 of it has transpired. The only time asymmetry is in this current notation. Because we intuit the first manifestation of physicality at that first notation is a sphere, we applied cubic close packing of equal spheres as a mechanism for expansion and the Fourier Transform as a key part of the dynamics. Fluctuations come later in those notations where densities begin to allow the gap represented within the pentastar, the icosahedron, etc. I superficially realize how entirely idiosyncratic this construct is.

My checkered history includes meetings and a little work with some of the greats. Yet, the only thing I have published on this topic is on web.

What would you do with it?  It has a simple logic.  It certainly adds a lot of character to our understanding of the very early, most infinitesimal universe. Would you encourage further work?

I am sure you remember that landmark 1999 conference.  I just discovered it and make reference it within the 16 June 2019 homepage .

Thank you.


Taking notes from your HST Model of Cosmology article:

The theory of Holographic Space-time (HST) sheds new light on these ancient questions. It posits that “nothing” is actually the state of maximal entropy of the universe, because in that state all degrees of freedom in the universe live on the cosmological horizon, with a dynamics that scrambles information at the maximal rate allowed by causality.” Page 3, first paragraph, ] 5 Jun 2018

asymptotically dS space”  Wikipedia: “…n-dimensional anti-de Sitter space (AdSn) is a maximally symmetric Lorentzian manifold with constant negative scalar curvature.

“…the only way in which a direction (or tangent to a path at a spacetime point) can be distinguished is whether it is spacelike, lightlike or timelike. The space of special relativity (Minkowski space) is an example.”

Veneziano, Gabriele

Gabriele Veneziano

VenezianoCERN Labs
Geneva, Switzerland

Articles/booksGabriele Veneziano: A Concise Scientific Biography and an Interview
ArXivQuantum hair and the string-black hole correspondence
Biography: College de France

Third email: 16 July 2019
Trialogue on the number of fundamental constants:

Dear Prof. Dr. Gabriele Veneziano

I was sorry to discover that Lev Okun died (November 2016). I was just
getting to appreciate his irascible spirit! Obviously he was a good member
of your triumvirate.

Wikipedia has a nice summary about him for people like me! With Murray Gellman
gone, there are not too many left from that era!

My most recent read was the 2001 Trialogue and now your 2017 presentation,
Fundamental Strings and Fundamental Constants (PDF). I enjoyed your reference to Weinberg’s comment that we can’t do any better because we do not know of anything more fundamental (page 24).

Are there hidden assumptions about time? Though we cannot say “…that space is
time in disguise…” might we say that time is a Janus-face of space inextricably
woven with light?

Where is the weaving? How about between the CERN-scale of measurement
and the 64+ steps (halvings) back into the Planck scale? Silly? Naive?
Perhaps both are part of a return to a more simple way.

Most sincerely,

Second email:  11 May 2019

Dear Prof. Dr. Gabriele Veneziano:

As an academic exercise, we applied base-2 to the Planck base units and created a model of the universe within 202 notations from the Planck scale to the current time (i.e., following Planck Time). This section (just below) is from a homepage with that reference:

The first 64 of the 202 notations: Physics has historically been focused on particles and waves. Here we introduce forms and functions that give rise to particles and waves.

“Of course, from the viewpoint of waves and particles, these 64 doublings are too small for anything. Yet, if there is a more basic structure (and we posit an infinitesimal sphere that begins to evolve at the Planck scale), classic physics has already discounted it and their big bang blocks any view of it.

“We have wrestled with the nature of these 64 notations from the very beginning. I have asked Robert Langlands and Edward Frenkel, “Is this a domain for a unified theory of mathematics?” I have asked Ed Witten, Michael Duff, and Gabriele Veneziano, “Is this a domain for string theory?”

We will always accommodate any change you request.


PS. Our Gabriele Veneziano page:

First email: 7 May 2019

Dear Prof. Dr. Gabriele Veneziano:

Perhaps fundamental constants can be understood within
a very different construct. Can we assume the Planck scale
is the beginning of physicality? Can we apply base-2 to those
Planck units? It is an Euler-like doubling whereby a substantial
bridge to the CERN scale of measurements would have no less
than 64 notations, all well below thresholds of measurement.

It would look a bit like this chart:
A very simple doubling function is within cubic close packing:
and it does well as a natural inflation:

I thought you might find this interesting and might have some thoughts for us.
Thank you.

Most sincerely,


Rauscher, Elizabeth A.

Elizabeth A. Rauscher

Professor, PhD, President
Tecnic Research Laboratory
3500 S. Tomahawk Rd., Bldg #188
Apache Junction, AZ 85219 (due east of Phoenix) 480-982-2285

YouTube (many)

Most recent email: Thursday, April 29, 2019

Dear Elizabeth:

Though Freeman Dyson and I go back to work in 1979, I remember writing to you in and around 1970! I am getting too forgetful and these postings are a way for me to check on my most recent communications with a person. If you would like anything changed, updated or deleted on this page, just let me know and I will be as expeditious as possible. Thanks.


Third email: Thursday, June 28, 2018, 9:21 PM

Hi Elizabeth –

You might find today’s homepage to be of some interest:

In a few weeks it will be easily accessed at this URL:

We are in South San Francisco and Sacramento for the next two months!
Might you be coming into the area?

Most sincerely,

Second email: Monday, April 30, 2018, 3:46 PM

Hi Elizabeth –

I just updated the Wikipedia reference under “Personal Website” from to
It’s now going to the correct page!

I just came upon the work of Nassim Haramein where I learned about his
Unified Field And Sacred Geometry that you were attempting to write
a scaling law essentially to encapsulate the universe. How is that going?

Might the 202 doublings of the Planck base units to the Age of the Universe
and the size of the universe be a simple solution? Perhaps too simple, at least
it is a start:



First email: Sunday, July 17, 2016, 9:05 AM

Dear Elizabeth:

We corresponded back in the ’70s. Noyes, Bastin, Bohm were all mutual friends. My interim story is too arduous, perhaps for another time.  You have been prodigious. What a vitae!

In 2011 in a high school I had the five geometry classes go inside the tetrahedron and octahedron. Dividing by  2, this perfect, interior tessellation brought them face-to-face with the proton in just 40 steps, and then face-to-face with the Planck base units in another 67 steps.  A sweet journey it was.  In our next time together, we multiplied by 2 and in about 90 steps we were out to the edge of the universe, well beyond Kees Boeke.* 3.33 times more granular with imputed geometries and the Planck base units, what was not to love about it?

The project got away from us and has it own life:
That link goes to a rather large, horizontally-scrolled file.

Is it all wet? …too idiosyncratic? …too simple?

I thought you would find it of some interest, if just as a novelty. A penny for your thoughts? Thanks.

Most sincerely,
Bruce Camber
New Orleans

*Of course, Kees Boeke’s base-10 is great fun, but it doesn’t mimic
cellular reproduction and bifurcation theory, nor does it engage
cellular automaton, or the automorphic forms of the Langlands