Jonathan A. Bagger, John Hopkins University; CEO, American Physical Society (APS), College Park, Maryland

ArXiv(40): Gauge Symmetry and Supersymmetry of Multiple M2-Branes, 2007
Articles: Supersymmetry Working Group: https://archive.org/details/arxiv-hep-ph9612359
Book: w/Julius Wess, Supersymmetry and Supergravity: Revised and Expanded Edition, Princeton, March 1992, ISBN 0-691-02530-4
Homepages(s): Bio, CV (Publications), IAS, John Hopkins, LinkedIN, TRIUMF lab
Videos: “Aspects of Supersymmetry, Part 1 – Jon Bagger”, IAS, YouTube. 10 July 2017.
•  “Supersymmetry and Superspace, Part 2 – Jon Bagger”, IAS,YouTube. 11 July 2017
•  “Supersymmetry and Superspace, Part 3 – Jon Bagger”, IAS, YouTube. 10 July 2017
Wikipedia

This page is https://81018.com/bagger/ Referenced and linked: https://81018.com/reformat/

Most recent (third) email: 17 February 2024

Dear Prof. Dr. Jonathan Bagger:

We are high school people who first discovered that there are embedded geometries whereby one can do a three-dimensional walk as if with Zeno (and his paradox) deeper and deeper inside the tetrahedron and its internal octahedron. In 45 steps we were down within the scale for particles and in another 67 notations we were within the Planck scale. If we start with the same tetrahedron and octahedron and multiple those edges by 2, there are just 90 notations out to the observable universe. Then, using Planck Time along with Planck Length, there are the same 202 notations to the current time.

We were puzzled about the origins of the tetrahedron and octahedron. Working with mathematician and geometer, Phil Davis of Brown, we learned about the primacy of spheres, and how spheres generate triangles and tetrahedrons and octahedrons. Of course, symmetries are everywhere.

That got us thinking about the Planck base units and the first manifestation of something that could be defined by them. The easy answer is the sphere. Within our construction there are 202 base-2 notations and there are sheres connecting everything, everywhere, throughout all time. There are also various manifestations of triangles, tetrahedrons, octahedrons (with their four hexagonal plates within each). We could readily believe that supersymmetries connected various notations together. Although way over our head, it was great fun to have a vision of the unity of everything.

Is this just specious, sophomoric thinking? If so, I will use your comments to rework this article: https://81018.com/reformat/ Thank you.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

Second email: June 10, 2023

Dear Prof. Dr. Jonathan Bagger:

Would you please consider being the fourth signatory of a petition to our learned societies around the world, in light of the results coming in from the James Webb Space Telescope, to look at the current dynamics and weaknesses of big bang cosmology and to encourage their scholars to entertain new paradigms?

To demonstrate that new paradigms are possible, we also encourage these learned societies to encourage their scholars to study a paradigm that has been worked on by high school people since 2011 whereby pi (π) is the first equation that defines our universe.

This message to the leadership of these learned societies is online here. Thank you.

Warmly,

Bruce

First email:  August 31, 2022 at 4:42 PM 

Dear Prof. Dr. Jonathan Bagger:

First principles should be first principles, yet not all are equal. I enjoyed John Wheeler who insisted on simplicity; yet like his colleague, James Peebles, he had not been able to discern those laws of physics that create the mechanisms for the universe to come into being.

Perhaps we need our friends within mathematics, especially geometry, and we need to begin with a most simple sphere which seems to divide its look-feel-functionality between the finite and infinite. As idiosyncratic as that sounds, here’s an outline: https://81018.com/analysis/ (in light of the JWST). It is totally idiosyncratic but isn’t that what we need to break out into a new paradigm or do we continue to hope that our incrementalism does it?

Your comments as both CEO of APS and research professor at JHU would be most-highly regarded.  Thank you.

Warmly,

Bruce

PS. Since December 2011 we have been asking a question of leading scholars around the world: “What is between the electroweak scale and the Planck scale?” In June 2021 a group from Durham University called the Institute for Particle Physics Phenomenology (IPPP) addressed the issue. In November 2021, it was reviewed in two homepages here, Smallest to Largest and Let’s go over this one more time. Indeed there appears to be a hierarchy that is best understood through infinitesimal fine tuning (mostly through thought experiments). Of course, it’s the hierarchy problem. -BEC