A quick note to Johannes Buchner

First email: 25 September 2022

Dear Dr. Johannes Buchner,

Might we assume that base-2 notation from the Planck scale renders useful information?

If so, there are 202 notations from Planck Time to the current time and there are 67 notations from Planck Length to particles-waves and fluctuations. 

Might we do some thought experiments within those 67 notations?

Thank you.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

********************

Bruce E. Camber
https://81018.com/bec/

********************

Research Paper by Bryce Estes

As a student, kids say the darnedest things!

Walk the Planck!

Note: This research paper is done in conjunction with Walk the Planck, a project for the National Science Fair which involve online surveys and tours of the Big Board-little universe and the Universe Table.  Based on the school fair and the constructive comments of the judges,  shorter and more frequent surveys are being developed.

Research

Physicists use the Planck length to put things that are insanely small into perspective. By the time most scientists get anywhere near the Planck length, they believe it stops making much sense to talk about the difference between two points in any measurable situation. Historically, because of the uncertainty principle, there is no useful, or physically relevant, difference between the positions of things separated by such distances. It seems that most scientists today who think about the Planck Length believe nothing fundamentally changes at the Planck scale, and there is nothing special…

View original post 2,488 more words

The Geometric Fluctuations as understood by Carlip, Pitelli, and Mosna

Editor’s Note: This page started on Saturday, July 30, 2022; it is very much in process.

Quantum Fields, Geometric Fluctuations, and the Structure of Spacetime, 21 Sep 2018 (v1), last revised 17 Dec 2020 (v4)

S. Carlip, Department of Physics, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA
R. A. Mosna and J. P. M. Pitelli, Departamento de Matematica Aplicada, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, 13083-859, Campinas, Sao Paulo, Brazil

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1809.08265.pdf

First email: Sunday, August 1, 2022

TO: Joao Paulo Manoel Pitelli
cc: Ricardo A. Mosna, Steve Carlip

Gentlemen:

Your workCarlipMosnaPitelli — regarding geometric fluctuations has come to my attention. There are not too many articles that have geometry and quantum fluctuations in the same sentence. So, very quickly, I saved it out so I could read it at my leisure and study all your references.

Now a friend of mine from Boston University, Patricio Letelier, was a Chilean mathematical physicist and professor at University of Campinas (UNICAMP). I created a Wikipedia entry about him (see: View History, August 20, 2019) a few years ago. I suspect you knew him or knew of him.

Patricio got his PhD; I went back into a business that I had started six years earlier so my background within academia is incomplete. I returned to that early work quite by accident when helping a nephew by taking his geometry classes for a few days. That was back in 2011. We were having fun with embedded geometries when we rather unwittingly uncovered the fact that there are just 202 base-2 notations from the Planck scale to the current time (and size of the universe). We thought it was a good STEM tool. For years, the first 64 notations up to particle physics eluded us. We could not imagine what was there. Then, we learned a little about Langlands programs and I returned to memories of late night discussions about string theory with Patricio. More recently I uncovered an octahedral gap commensurate with the five tetrahedral gap. Together they struck me as a possible gate in quantum computing. I also began thinking about transitions to non-Gaussianity within those first 64 notations.

I fully agree that our work is entirely odd, a wiffle ball coming out of left field. But I thought you’d be interested to see this page about that it: https://81018.com/geometries/ Of course, I would be most fascinated with your initial comments, no matter how harsh or direct you’d like to be!

Thank you.

Warmly,

Bruce

_____

On bumping into Matthew J. Strassler and his work…

Matt Strassler, Center for Fundamental Laws of Nature, Harvard University,
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138

• Articles: Slow and steady. Nat. Phys. 15, 725 (2019)
• ArXiv (46): The Duality Cascade, 2005 (latest work is from 2009)
• Homepage: Harvard
• inSPIREHEP
• Publications: Bulk – A New Physics, 2016
• Twitter
• Wikipedia: Cascading gauge theory
• YouTube

Others related to Harvard: Randall, Georgi, Woodin, Elkies, Loeb (Avi), Holton, Schild, Ossiander

Second email: September 12, 2022 at 10:09 PM

Dear Dr. Matthew J. Strassler:

Yes, I rediscovered my note to you from June — https://81018.com/strassler/#First — and then the more recent tweets. I thought you might not mind a question regarding your work in 2015 when you wrote about the data captured by the Planck satellite about the CMB. More recently the JWST results appear to show an even smoother earlier start. Some like Avi Loeb suggest that this smoothness may require a new physics.  

What do you think?

Just as a thought experiment, might we assume that it does require a new physics based on a domain from the Planck-scale to the electroweak scale. Some proposed The First Three Seconds, yet this domain is fractionally smaller yet. From the 2021 at the IPPP 23rd International Conference from the Planck Scale to Electroweak Scale, new insights were few. 

But, if we apply base-2 to the Planck base units, out of the 202 notations from Planck Time to this day, there are 64 notations that create a huge grid for that infinitesimal area and time. It is below the thresholds of direct measurement and might be be reserved for Langlands, strings, SUSY and a host of others. Might you comment? Thank you.

Warm regards,

Bruce

September 10-11, 2022: Tweets

2:48 PM · Sep 10, 2022. Matt Strassler, a theoretical physicist studying particles and strings, tweeted, “So, the news from #Kharkiv is surprisingly good, but very worrying. This is not retreat, it is collapse. (Izium, already!) #Putin cannot tolerate more humiliation. I fear he will lash out.” 

9:16 AM · Sep 11, 2022, To which I replied, “You are right. The world needs to be giving him (Putin) an off ramps everyday. Let’s get creative! https://81018.com/Vladimir/ https://81018.com/putin/

Tweet: 3:00 PM · Jun 6, 2022, @MattStrassler Can you help us unfold this base-2 chart of the universe: https://81018.com/chart/ The current homepage is my latest struggle with it all: https://81018.com/

PS. I am going through your work within  inspireHEP.

First email: Jun 6, 2022, 4:50 PM

Dear Dr. Matthew J. Strassler:

I am sure you have a graduate student who could rather quickly bring your website, https://profmattstrassler.com/, up to speed. I think it is worth saving. 

At the divinity school (Harvard) back in 1977 with Arthur McGill, we focused on the Finite and Infinite relation through a slow reading of Austin Farrer’s book of that title. In trying to consider the fundamental laws of nature, it seems there should be some working assumptions about infinity. In my reading of your work, it is not clear to me what those assumptions might be. 

Have you articulated any such assumptions?

Beyond inSpireHEP, your ArXiv collection is a good resource. I am now working through your 2000 article with Joseph Polchinski. Excellent!

Warm regards, 
Bruce

On discovering the work of John Lane Bell

John Lane Bell,  University of Western Ontario (emeritus),  London, Ontario

ArXiv: Cover Schemes, Frame-Valued Sets and Their Potential Uses in Spacetime Physics, 2003
•  Reference by D Perlis: Taking physical infinity seriously, 2016
•  Reference by Michael O’Connor, An Introduction to Smooth Infinitesimal Analysis, 2008
Homepage
Wikipedia
Youtube: Lecture at Ecole Normale Superieure, May 2007

A sample of articles:

A sampling of books:

Appearing within this website: Intuition https://81018.com/intuition/

Second email: 21 June 2022 at 1:16 PM

Dear Prof. Dr. John Lane Bell:

In 2011 we followed Zeno down into a tetrahedron (and its octahedron) by dividing the edges by 2 and  connecting the new vertices. It creates a rather unique path down into particle physics in about 45 steps and down to the Planck base units in another 67 steps.

That’s simple geometry. When we multiplied by 2, we found just 90 additional steps to the approximate  age and size of the universe. No mystery. Boeke did a base-10 version in 1957 with his high school class.

We thought it was a great little STEM tool: 202 notations to see the universe as an integrated whole. Naiveté can be invigorating at first, then it becomes confusing within its own idiosyncrasies:
1. It was more simple than big bang phenomenology.
2. It had 67 notations that had never been explored per se. Here the infinitesimal is truly outlined. 

Is our logic so naive, it would be too much trouble to just slap it down? You’ve only got a couple of years  on me. At this stage in our life, you can be brutal!

Thanks so much.

Warmly,

Bruce

PS. Embedded links above:
1. STEM: https://81018.com/stem/
2. 202 Notations: https://81018.com/chart/
Other references:
1. Our page about your work: https://81018.com/2022/06/20/bell/
2. Tetrahedron: https://81018.com/tot-2/
3. Boeke: https://81018.com/Boeke/

Thanks. -BEC

First email: Monday, September 4, 2017, 2:27 PM

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/continuity/
http://publish.uwo.ca/~jbell/

Dear Prof. Dr. John Lane Bell:

I thank you again and again for your body of work and the work of your doctoral students (now professors) who studied with you.

Our work is focused on base-2 notation from the Planck units, out to Observable Universe and the Age of the Universe in 202 notations: http://81018.com. Chart of numbers: https://81018.com/chart

We are entirely idiosyncratic, often naive, yet hopefully open to learning as much as we can about why we are wrong, and, if by chance, why we are right.

Thanks again for all your work so germane to our discussions.

Warmly,
Bruce

______

Solvay 2022, Physics: The Physics of Quantum Information

Seated: Ketterle, Maldecena, Haroche, Henneaux, Gross, Zoller, Wineland, Preskill, Halperin, Wen
Second row: Aharonov, Stanford, Engelhardt, Aaronson, Rey, Vazirani, Girvin, Schoelkopf, Blatt, Cirac, Gottesman, Shor, Verstraete
Third row: Sevrin, Hubeny, Gambetta, Terhal, Simmons, Khemani, Nakamura
Fourth row: Marcus, Bloch, Browaeys, Vidick, Pollmann, Wiebe, Penington
Fifth row: Jiang, Fisher, Wall, Harlow, Martinis, Troyer, Farhi, Almheiri, Calabrese, Altman

Frank Verstraete @fverstraete The conference was great, and it was a great honour to be the rapporteur on the topic of “quantum imformation and many-body physics”.

_____

The 2022 Science for the Future Solvay Prize has been awarded to Katalin Karikó  for her work on the biochemical modification of synthetically produced messenger RNA (mRNA), which has enabled the rapid development of vaccines and saves many lives. It could also help fight other diseases like cancer, infection from influenza, malaria, or HIV in the future. Professor Karikó is an adjunct professor at the University of Pennsylvania, where she worked for 24 years before joining BioNTech SE in 2013 as a senior VP. She is also professor at University of Szeged, Hungary from where she received her PhD in biochemistry in 1982.

Upon learning a little about the work of Lobsang Tenzin Negi…

Homepage(s): Center for Sustainable Living, Apple Podcast
YouTube

First email: 1 April 2022 at 12:55 PM

Lobsang Tenzin Negi, PhD
Center for Contemplative Science and Compassion-Based Ethics
Department of Religion
Emory University
Atlanta, GA 30322

Dear Prof. Dr. Lobsang Tenzin Negi:

As we all know so well, our little world consistently makes a diabolical mess of things. If we are ever going to get it right, we’ve got to do as Julie Andrews (Sound of Music) and James Peebles (Nobel 2019) say, and “Start at the very beginning.” We don’t know where that is, so we guess.

And so I ask, “Can we guess a little more boldly?”

Here is how I’d do it:

1. If we start with the Planck base units, we’ll begin to see our entire universe.
https://81018.com/begin-here/

2. How did the universe start? When we agree, we’ll all really get to work.
https://81018.com/ultimatum/

3. Checklist: Acknowledge, consider, note, observe
https://81018.com/checklist/

4. Our rather simple overview about the start of the universe
https://81018.com/stem/

Thank you.

-Bruce

****************
Bruce E. Camber
Center for Perfection Studies
https://81018.com
https://81018.com/bec/