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)
CV
LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/matthewrfrancis
Twitter:  @DrMRFrancis
Websites: http://bowlerhatscience.org/  (Personal Website)
http://bowlerhatscience.org/writing-portfolio/
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,
Bruce

Lewis, Geraint

Geraint Lewis

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

ArXiv
CV
Homepage
Twitter
Wikipedia
YouTube

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
Bruce

Fischler, Willy (The Weinberg Group)

Willy Fischler

willy_fischlerPhysics Department
The University of Texas

Articles
Video: January 2018
Wikipedia

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,
-Bruce
****************
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/

Schweingruber, Heidi

Dr. Heidi Schweingruber

Board on Science Education at the National Research Council (NRC)
National Academies of Sciences 
Washington, D.C.

Key Research Report: A Framework for K–12 Science Education (2011)

Most recent email: Thu, Oct 11, 2018

RE: Might you advise us or might you know somebody who can?

Dear Dr. Heidi Schweingruber:

We are high school people who are still struggling with an extra-curricular project that began in December 2011. It came out of our geometry classes, but quickly involved our physics classes, then we even got our middle school (advanced placement) classes involved.

The students enjoyed the tour de force, but… our scholarly people just think our project is idiosyncratic and we agree!

We are trying desperately to find some scholar to tell us why we have failed to understand first principles somewhere along the way.

You certainly have been thinking about these things for awhile. Maybe you can help. BTW, congratulations on your work at Rice. …love that school.

Essentially we backed into a Kees Boeke-like scale of the universe by going deeper and deeper into embedded geometries (octahedron and tetrahedron particularly). Our scale applies base-2 to the Planck scale and goes to the age and size of the universe in 202 steps or doublings or notations. Because so much of scientific growth is about doublings, we thought we had something worthy of being explored further. Until we know for sure that we are not leading the students astray, we’ve begun to hold back on this project.

Again, can you help or might you know somebody who can advise us? Thank you.

Most sincerely,

Bruce
****************
Bruce Camber
camber@81018.com
http://81018.com

First email: Mar 31, 2015, 9:19 AM

References:
1. http://sites.nationalacademies.org/DBASSE/BOSE/DBASSE_066193
2. Helen Quinn, Heidi Schweingruber, and Thomas Keller, Editors; Committee on Conceptual Framework for the New K-12 Science Education Standards; Board on Science Education; Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; National Research Council
——————————————————————————–

Dear Dr. Heidi Schweingruber:

We are very impressed and excited to find your history of activities within K-12 science education.

In our high school geometry classes, we were following embedded or nesting platonic figures (like the Russian nesting dolls) until we could go no further on the small side In about 100 steps we were at the Planck Length. When we multiplied by 2, in just over 100 steps we were at the edges of the observable universe.

Unwittingly we had a container universe where everything was indexed. When we went looking for some experts to help guide us through our wonderfully-simple, entirely-engaging chart that we had created; we couldn’t find anybody. There were almost no Google references to base-2 exponential notation from the Planck Units to the Observable Universe. We began asking more general questions of cosmologists and senior scientists and we received remarkable encouragement from Nobel laureates from MIT, Stanford, Oxford and more. Along this path we learned about Kees Boeke’s base-10 notations (also out of a high school). We thought that our base-2 work was much more granular, natural, and informative.

It became our working STEM program. Because of your work with STEM education, we would dearly like to know what do you think:
•  What are we missing?
•  Do you find it of interest?
•  As we progress, would you want to learn more?

Thank you.

Most sincerely,

Bruce
——————————————————–
Bruce Camber, teacher (among other things)
New Orleans

Saltzberg, David

Screenshot 2018-10-15 15.51.29David Saltzberg
Professor, Chair
High Energy Experiment
UCLA Physics & Astronomy
475 Portola Plaza
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1547

ArXiv
Homepage
Twitter
Wikipedia
YouTube  (scientific advisor to the television series, The Big Bang Theory)_

First email: 15 October 2018

RE: A cry in the wilderness!

Dear Prof. Dr. David Saltzberg:

We are high school people who are still struggling with an extra-curricular project that began in December 2011. It came out of our geometry classes, but quickly involved our physics classes, and even our 6th grade AP classes! Net-net, we encapsulated the universe from the Planck scale to the Age of the Universe in just 202 base-2 notations or steps or groups. We initially thought it was a great little STEM tool. Then we got stuck trying to figure out the place of the first 64 doublings or notations.

The students enjoyed this tour de force of our universe, but… most scholarly people just think our project is idiosyncratic. And, we know that! So, we are trying very hard to find some scholar to tell us where we have failed to understand first principles somewhere along the way.

You certainly have been thinking about these things for awhile. Maybe you can help. Essentially we backed into a Kees Boeke-like scale of the universe by going deeper and deeper into embedded geometries (octahedron and tetrahedron particularly). His scale is a base-10 scale. Our scale applies base-2 to the Planck scale and goes to the age and size of the universe in 202 steps or doublings or notations. Our chart is here: https://81018.com/chart/ Because so much of scientific growth is about doublings, we thought we had something worthy of being explored further. Until we know for sure that we are not leading the students astray, we’ve begun to hold back on this project.

Again, can you help or might you know somebody who can advise us? Thank you.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

Brandenberger, Robert Hans

Brandenberger-RRobert Brandenberger
McGill University
Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Articles: Alternatives to cosmological inflation (Physics Today, March 2008)
ArXiv: Beyond Standard Inflationary Cosmology (Sept. 2018)
CV
Homepage
Wikipedia
YouTube: Emergent space and its possible observational signatures (June 2017)

First email: 14 October 2018

Dear Prof. Dr. Robert Brandenberger:

I have been listening to your lecture at the Rotman Institute of Philosophy from June 12, 2017 at Western University in Ontario. I am also reading Beyond Standard Inflationary Cosmology while you talk.  Every once and awhile, I have to look over to examine your illustrations within the lecture. And, to say the least, I am glad to hear your emphasis on the “s” of theories (as well as models).

Before going further, let me say that you project a sensitive and honest integrity that just might tolerate the strangeness of our simple work.

We backed into cosmology through a high school geometry class where we were watching the embedded geometries of our tetrahedrons and octahedrons become increasingly smaller. The initial edges were just two inches. Within just 45 steps our numbers were in the range of the CERN-scale.  In just 67 more steps we were touching the Planck Wall  defying Zeno’s paradox. When we multiplied by 2, our little geometry exercise opened the windows of cosmology. In just 90 more doublings, we were approaching the Age and Size of the Universe. There were a total of 202 doublings from the Planck scale!

That was December 2011. We’ve are not what one might call a “quick study.”  We initially thought of our chart as a good STEM tool. In April 2016, after developing many different visual aids, we evolved with a horizontally-scrolled chart that allow a closer examination of the natural inflation of the numbers: https://81018.com/chart/

I know how idiosyncratic it is. Still there is enough logic and commonsense and simple math that we continue our explorations.  Might you comment on this work? Have we totally lost it or is there some possibility that this model can begin to breathe?

Thank you.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

 

Seiberg, Nathan

Seiberg-NNathan Seiberg
Institute for Advanced Studies
Princeton, New Jersey

ArXiv: Sigma Models on Flags (27 Sept. 2018) Emergent Spacetime (Jan. 2006)
CV: Publications Google Scholar
Homepage
Talk: Where is Fundamental Physics Heading?
Twitter
Wikipedia
YouTube

First email:  Saturday, 13 October 2018

Dear Prof. Dr. Nathan Seiberg:

Thinking about strings, might we say that very shortest distance is the radius (then the diameters ) of the plancksphere defined at the Planck scale by the four base units?

I had a brief view of it here:   https://81018.com/64-notations/#Strings

Could the supersymmetries we seek to discover simply be below the quantum scale of measurement?  For example, from the Planck base units to the CERN-scale of measurement, there are no less than 64 successive doublings of Planck’s numbers. Given that there are simple doubling mechanisms built into the universe, might it follow that we have the beginnings of an outline for a new model of the universe with a natural inflation?

Our chart of numbers for that outline is here: https://81018.com/chart/

There are no wild ideas here. These are simple concepts but given the tightness of our academies, they could seem a bit radical. Perhaps this very different view draws on  John Wheeler’s simplicity.  In this outline of a model, space and time are not quite an illusion but certainly finite, discrete, and derivative.

Maybe we are just stuck in silly loop-de-loop out in quirky left field!

If you have any comments for me, you know I will be entirely grateful. Thank you for all that you have done and all that you are doing to open scholarship to everyone.

Most sincerely,

Bruce