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: https://81018.com/believed/

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.

Warmly,
Bruce

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

CERN 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
Homepage
Researchgate
Twitter
Wikipedia
YouTube

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: https://81018.com/chart/
A very simple doubling function is within cubic close packing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close-packing_of_equal_spheres#Simple_hcp_lattice
and it does well as a natural inflation: https://81018.com/calculations/

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

Most sincerely,

Bruce

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

Articles/Books
CV
Homepage: http://elizabethrauscher.org/
Researchgate
Wikipedia
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.

Bruce

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

Hi Elizabeth –

You might find today’s homepage to be of some interest:
https://81018.com

In a few weeks it will be easily accessed at this URL:
https://81018.com/emergence

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

Most sincerely,
Bruce

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

Hi Elizabeth –

I just updated the Wikipedia reference under “Personal Website” from
https://elizabethrauscher.net to https://elizabethrauscher.org
It’s now going to the correct page!

I just came upon the work of Nassim Haramein where I learned from 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: https://81018.com/chart

Thanks.

-Bruce

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 Plancks, what was not to love about it?

The project got away from us and has it own life:
/https://81018.com/chart
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
*****************
Bruce Camber
New Orleans
http://81018.com

*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
programs.

Engquist, Björn

Björn Engquist

The University of Texas at Austin
201 E. 24th Street, 1 University Station, Austin, Texas 78712-1229

ArXivNumerical methods for multiscale inverse problems (January 2014)
CV
Homepage
Twitter
Wikipedia
YouTube: Basis in Information Theory

References within this website:
https://81018.com/e8/#Björn
This page is https://81018.com/2019/04/18/engquist/

First email: 18 April 2019

Dear Prof. Dr. Björn Engquist:

Not being a scholar or expert, I am still fascinated with your work to define the development of absorbing boundary conditions.

We began our work in a high school geometry class where we were observing how an octahedron is in the center of a tetrahedron with half-sized tetrahedrons in each corner. Within the octahedron, there is a half-sized octahedron in each of the six corners and a tetrahedron in each of the eight faces all sharing the centerpoint.

We decided to do a Zeno-like progression and applied base-2 going back deeper and deeper inside. In 45 steps we were in the range of particle physics, and in another 67 steps we were in the range of Planck’s base units.

We then decided to multiply by 2 and in 90 steps we were in the range of the age and size of the universe.

For high school people, it was great fun. We encapsulated the universe in 202 steps. We only then found Kees Boeke’s work and began thinking of the differences between base-10 and base-2.

I suspect that you are one of the few people on earth who has thought very deeply about computational multi-scale methods. Might you advise us? Are we being illogical? Are we doing something wrong? Thank you.

Most sincerely,
Bruce

Links above:
https://81018.com/chart/
https://81018.com/home/
https://81018.com/tot/
https://81018.com

Current research:
https://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/trefethen/6all.pdf
https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php/Absorbing_boundary_conditions
https://math.mcgill.ca/gantumur/docs/down/Engquist77.pdf

Nagpal, Ritika

Prof. Dr. Ritika Nagpal

Department of Mathematics
Netaji Subhas Institute of Technology
Faculty of Technology
University of Delhi, New Delhi-110 078, India

ArXiv: Cosmological aspects of a hyperbolic solution in f(R,T) gravity
CV
Google Scholar
Homepage
Researchgate
Twitter
Wikipedia
YouTube

References within this website:

First email: Apr 16, 2019, 11:01 AM

Dear Prof. Dr. Ritika Nagpal:

I have been attempting to grasp the essence of your writing (referenced above).

My work has been done mostly on the high school level, so you can well understand that I am at a loss. Notwithstanding, I am trying hard to interpret work we did as a class when we went further and further inside the tetrahedron and octahedron until in 45 steps we were within the domain of particle physics and in another 67 steps we were within the Planck scale. Of course, we then got our physics teacher involved and that opened a new universe for us.

When we took our desk top objects — https://81018.com/tot/ — and multiplied by 2, we were very surprised to find ourselves we were out to the age and size of the universe in just 90 steps.

Base-2 notation using just the checkerboard goes out to the 64th power. Here we are going to the 202nd power to encapsulate the universe.  But, nobody seems to make any sense of it. Can you help us?

What logic functions are we failing to understand? If the universe is encapsulated ideally or mathematically within 202 notations, and these notations follow the Planck base units, and that scale seems to work, isn’t it a simple outline within which to begin to understand our universe in new ways?

Thank you for any help you can give us.

Our current homepage explains more: https://81018.com
Our chart is here: https://81018.com/chart

Most sincerely,
Bruce

Yamazaki, Masahito

Masahito Yamazaki

Kavli Institute for the Physics and Mathematics of the Universe (WPI)
University of Tokyo
Kashiwa, Chiba 277-8583, Japan

Articles: Do We Live in the Swampland? (September 2018)
ArXiv: Pure Natural Inflation  (April 2019)
Google Scholar Citations
Homepage
IAS
Inspire
Twitter

References within this website:
In Search Of Deeply-Informed Analyses

First Tweet: 17 April 2019

@196884 My note from a week ago was possibly too simple for you. For my own references, I have noted your work here: https://81018.com/e8/#Masahito and a page of references to your work is here: https://81018.com/2019/04/17/yamazaki/ Of course, we send best wishes for your every success.

First email: 8 April 2019

Dear Prof. Dr. Masahito Yamazaki:

I am trying my best to understand the basic concepts within your ArXiv article, Pure Natural Inflation. May I ask two naive questions?

1. Are you also exploring alternative theories to the ACDM model?

We naively backed into a very simple-yet-radically different model whereby base-2 notation is applied to the Planck base units and in just 202.34 doublings go out to the approximate size and age of the universe. Such a model requires the application of Neil Turok’s “always starting from scratch” not just for the first notation, but for all notations all the time.

2. Might you be able to debunk this simple model rather quickly?  It would be very helpful if you can.

https://81018.com/e8/ (Monday, April 7)
https://81018.com/maybe/ (Wednesday, April 3)
https://81018.com/standard_model/ (Tuesday, April 2)

We have been working around it too long and we do not know enough to interpret the data in light of conceptual integrity of current theory, i.e. the gauge field of a pure Yang-Mills theory. Thank you.

Most sincerely,

Bruce