On following the work of Shadab Alam…

Shadab Alam, University of Edinburgh, Scotland UK

ArXiv (63), ADSinSpireHEP
Dissertation: Mysteries of Universe Imprinted on Redshifts, 2016 (PDF)
Homepage(s): Google sites, LinkedIN, ResearchGate, Lecture

First email: Nov 5, 2022, 1:45 PM

Dear Shadab:

Can we envision the universe? We accept that it is bigger than big. Is too big to envision? Can we envision the big bang?  We accept a “singularity” but that’s not easy. Might a more minimalist theory be better?

Would you entertain the concept that the universe is truly scale invariant from the current expansion to the Planck base units? What if those units are not a singularity, but manifest as an infinitesimal sphere  defined by those base units? Can it be tested in any way?  

We applied base-2 to Planck Time and there are 202 notations or doublings to the age of the universe. Minimalistic to the core and initially hard to believe, it is a highly-integrated mathematical and geometric model whereby the first possible measurements are within Notations 67 (length) and 72 (time). https://81018.com/chart/

It is a major mindshift. It took us a few years reflecting on the simple logic to actually begin to make the shift.

Now, I must say, “congratulations” on your 63 articles in ArXiv, and especially for your dissertation, Mysteries of Universe Imprinted on Redshifts. Yes, I agree with you that “…nature turns out to be an amazing scriptwriter enticing the humans at every step with a new mystery.”

Thanks for all that you do and are doing. Again, Congratulations.

Warm regards,


A note to Ted Trimpa of Denver, Colorado

Ted Trimpa is at http://tedtrimpa.com
Ross Kaminsky is at https://koacolorado.iheart.com/featured/ross-kaminsky

First email: 25 October 2022 at 2:50 PM

Note: Ted Trimpa was interviewed by Ross Kaminsky of the iHeart Radio group in Denver, Colorado. They two talked sensibly and earnestly about the emotional state of Colorado and the country. It prompted this note to Ted:

Hi Ted, 

Ross Kaminsky likes you and believes you are a fair person. The problem with party politics is that none of the parties have a large enough worldview. In fact, to be truly inclusive and forward thinking, we each need a highly-integrated view of the universe.

It is not as complex as it is currently made out to be. 

The smallest recognized units of space-and-time were defined by Max Planck in 1899 and reinforced in 2001 by Nobel laureate,Frank Wilczek, in Physics Today. Apply base-2 and there are just 202 doublings to include everything, everywhere for all time.

That’s an integrated view of the universe! It reveals more about us and our universe than most people know and grasp. Here are the basic basics.

I would like to apply it to party politics to see if it can liberate us from all the small thinking.  Can we talk?


Warm regards,


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 E. Camber


Mathematician Professor Dirk Struik dies at 106 a report from MIT

MIT Tech Talk, Publication Date: October 25, 2000

Editor’s note: MIT Tech Talk, the institute’s official newspaper, ceased publication in September 2009. This article is to provide perspective on the work of Dirk Struik as lifted up by Lagarias and Zong in their history of Aristotle’s simple geometric mistake that was not caught for 1800 years. Though finally uncovered in the 1400s, it was summarily ignored. Struik rekindled a little interest in a remarkable failing of the academy.

MIT Tech Talk: “Professor Emeritus Dirk J. Struik, a highly respected analyst and geometer and an internationally acclaimed historian of mathematics, died at his home in Belmont on Saturday. He celebrated his 106th birthday on September 30 (2000).

“Professor Struik was a member of the MIT mathematics faculty from 1928 until 1960, and remained intellectually active throughout his life.

“Beginning in 1912, Professor Struik was educated very broadly in mathematics and physics at the University of Leiden, taking courses from Lorentz and de Sitter. After a short interruption (for lack of funds), he was invited by J. A. Schouten to do research on tensor analysis and differential geometry. It was during this time that he met and soon married Saly Ruth Ramler, a Czech mathematician and accomplished modern dancer. Dr. Ramler wrote her doctorate on the axiomatics of affine geometry under G. Pick and G. Kowalewski at the University of Prague in 1918, and as Professor Struik later wrote, “Ruth may well have been the first woman at the more than 500-year-old university to receive a doctorate in mathematics.”

“With a stipend from a Rockefeller Fellowship, the Struiks moved to Rome and then to Gottingen, which was becoming a major mathematical center. There they met and worked with Cartan, Courant, Hilbert, Landau and Noether, among others. Professor Struik also collaborated with MIT Professor Norbert Wiener, who in the spring of 1926 offered him a lectureship beginning that fall.

“Professor Struik’s long and successful career in differential geometry led to a great many mathematical papers and books, including the 1950 text Lectures in Classical Differential Geometry. He had been interested since spending time in Rome in the history of mathematics. In 1948 he published A Concise History of Mathematics, Volumes I & II and Yankee Science in the Making. One reviewer of the first book said that “the author takes care to distinguish between established facts, plausible theories, wild hypotheses and traditional ideas.”

“In a centennial tribute to Professor Struik in 1994 by the Dibner Institute for the History of Science and Technology, Executive Director Evelyn Simha said: “As an historian of mathematics, he is particularly important to us here at this center for advanced research in the history of science and technology, because of his great and influential book, A Concise History of Mathematics, beautifully balanced between technicalities and generalities, translated into uncountable languages, most recently Persian. With this book and his historical scholarship, Struik has become the instructor responsible for half the world’s basic knowledge of the history of mathematics.”

“Professor Struik held an abiding interest in Marxism. Following World War II and into the McCarthy period, his political views attracted attention, and in September 1951 he was indicted by a Middlesex County Grand Jury on charges of advocating the overthrow of the United States and Massachusetts governments. At the time of the indictment, MIT suspended Professor Struik from teaching duties with full pay and benefits until the case could be dealt with in the courts. After five years, the charges were dropped without trial, due to lack of evidence and a US Supreme Court ruling that states do not have jurisdiction in such matters.

“In May 1956, MIT President James R. Killian Jr. reinstated Professor Struik. The following October, acting on the recommendations of a faculty review committee, the MIT Corporation’s executive committee upheld the restoration of Dr. Struik’s tenure but censured him “for conduct unbecoming” an MIT professor, based largely on his use of the Fifth Amendment before the House Un-American Activities Committee and “his comparative lack of candor with members of the administration.”

“On this subject, Dibner Institute Executive Director Evelyn Simha noted in her 1994 tribute: “From the very beginning, personally and professionally, and continuing even now, Professor Struik’s great concern for people in oppressed situations has been the backdrop for all his activities, has informed his life and work in fact, even when it brought him hard times.” Later, she added: “He wanted to link mathematics with the socio-economic background against which mathematics developed, questioning the weight of social and economic forces in the development even of the ‘pure math’ of the Greeks, for example. He is now interested in ethno-mathematics and remains unshaken in his social and political beliefs.”

“Professor Struik continued his scholarly and teaching work after his retirement in 1960. In 1975 he was awarded a Gold Medal of Achievement by the National University of Mexico “for his services to the teaching and development of mathematics in Mexico over the years.” In March and April that year, Professor Struik gave a series of lectures on the History of Mathematics to the MIT Concourse Forum. In Hamburg, Germany, in May 1989, he was awarded the first Kenneth Ownsworth May Prize for outstanding contributions to the history of mathematics by the International Commission on the History of Mathematics & International Union of the History and Philosophy of Science.

“Born in Rotterdam in the Netherlands, Professor Struik was educated at the University of Leiden in Holland, where he received his doctorate in 1922. He was an assistant at the Technical University in Delft from 1917 to 1924, and an International Education Fellow in Italy and Germany from 1924 to 1926.

“He came to MIT in 1926 as a lecturer in mathematics and was appointed an assistant professor in 1928. He was promoted to associate professor in 1931 and professor in 1940. He became an American citizen in 1934. He retired from MIT in 1960 as Professor Emeritus of Mathematics. In 1972 he was made an honorary research associate in the History of Science Department at Harvard University.

“Asked what he missed most when he turned 100, Professor Struik said simply, “My wife.” Dr. Ramler, his wife of 70 years, died in 1993 at the age of 99.

“Professor Struik is survived by three daughters, Ruth Rebekka Struik, a mathematics professor emerita at the University of Colorado; Anne Macchi of Arlington, MA, a retired teacher; and Gwendolyn Bray of New Zealand, an ecologist; 10 grandchildren and three great-grandchildren. A memorial will be scheduled by the Department of Mathematics.

A version of this article appeared in MIT Tech Talk on October 25, 2000. MIT Tech Talk, the institute’s official newspaper, ceased publication in September 2009.


A summary of the problems associated with sphere packing is found in the December 2015 article, Mathematical Optimization for Packing Problems, by Fernando Màrio de Oliveira Filho and Frank Vallentin. They make references to Struik’s “De Impletione Loci” and pointed out that Majorie Senechal had translated that work from Dutch to English.

URL: http://wiki.siam.org/siag-op/images/siag-op/c/c4/ViewsAndNews-23-2.pdf


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

Editor’s Note: Started on Saturday, July 30, 2022; in process.

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

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

First email: Sunday, August 1, 2022

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


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.

When 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 my earlier 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.




On learning about 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) W boson mass too high?worrisome) link, 2022.
• ArXiv (46): The Duality Cascade, 2005 (latest work is from 2009)
• Homepage(s): Harvard, inSPIREHEP, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube
• Wikipedia: Cascading gauge theory

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

8 November 2022 at 2:30 PM

Dear Dr. Matthew J. Strassler:

Our page about your work — https://81018.com/2022/07/28/strassler/ — is one of over 2000 pages-and-posts. In my daily monitoring of web activity, I’ll often re-visit a post that’s active the prior day which often prompts the question, “I wonder what (he/she) is up to today?” You’re recently part of that group, so today I revisited our page about your work and added a link to your March 21, 2014 article Did The Universe Really Begin With a Singularity?, as well as to your Facebook page.  And to be sure that we include your most recent work, W boson mass too high? is linked. 

I have three questions for you:

1. Do you have any interest in beefing up Cascading gauge theory Wikipedia listing?

2. Where is Wikipedia’s article about you? You are mentioned in the Cascading article. There’s a link to Igor Klebanov, but none to you. 

3. I have asked the ISO to consider the differences between the Planck base units and Stoney’s units. I then add, “It would also be helpful if there were a discussion about the possibilities of what is being manifest at that time. That is, given our understanding of dimensionless constants, could an infinitesimal sphere be defined by those basic units?”

Of course, your explanation of singularity is classic. It’ll be occupying our thought-space for a long time to come.

Thank you.

Most respectfully,


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,


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, 

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
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.



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


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.



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 information 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 that 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.

Here are some of the smartest people alive on our little Planet Earth. We will now search back through the writings of each to see if any have a highly-integrated, mathematical view of the universe.

How can we grasp the dynamics of the universe without such an integrated view? How can we know about quantum information if we haven’t a sense of the origins of the quanta? Going back to Max Planck’s natural units seems like a natural thing to do. Do the 202 base-2 notations give us a map of exponential notation that mimics the expansion of the universe better than big bang cosmology? The numbers are virtually the same.