**Dr. Fabiola Gianotti has received occasional emails from Bruce Camber about the base-2 project from the Planck Scale.**

The first was inspired by her writings and interviews. The second was for a CERN visit in the summer of 2014 with a CERN scientist.

Of course, with over 12,000 visiting scientists from over 70 countries – half of the world’s particle physicists – involved with CERN, Dr. Gianotti is very busy.

**Note of assurance:** No reply of a scholar or scientist will ever be published unless permission is given. If no permission is possible, that is OK. New information and insights help us to answer key questions; and, every piece of insight that helps to enlighten us is welcomed.

**References**:

Science has no passport, no political party, no gender.” (2019)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabiola_Gianotti

Letter to the editor, CERN Courier

CERN *Accelerating Science:* 100 Years of the Proton

Most recent email: 16 October 2021

I was surprised to discover that my comments within that 15 Nov 2019 *Physics Today *article about your re-election as Le Directeur Général, CERN are the only comments there. I was so surprised, that I started a new page with those comments and eventually it will be my primary reference to your work. This current page with a rather peculiar name — https://81018.com/c-2/ — will be repurposed as a study of CERN’s understanding of light.

I believe the primary transition the physics community needs to make is from particles/waves to a mathematical physics that starts at the Planck scale and follows those first 64 base-2 notations up to just below the CERN-scale. The presuppositions are idiosyncratic — https://81018.com/presuppositions/ as is some of the resulting conclusions — https://81018.com/hypostasis/ — but such radical concepts are need to get this industry on a progressive track for development.

I hope you are well and doing fine.

Warmly,

Bruce

Sixth email: 21 November 2019

Congratulations (on her reappointment as Director General of CERN)! A milestone indeed. Your comments are prescient. You said, “Science has no passport, no political party, no gender.”

Yes, so true, so profoundly true. Yet, I think we can agree, however, that science has a personality, biases, and intransigence. It has an attitude. It has a belief system. And, the fundamentals of that belief system just may not reflect our so-called “really real” universe as well as it could. Just maybe in 1687 Newton threw us off with his “absolute” space and time. Just maybe Leibniz was closer to the truth! We know from the 1999 conference on structure formation at the Newton Institute at Cambridge that Hawking and Guth and so many others were challenged — something is not quite right with the “infinitely hot” start of the universe.

It is interesting to think that Lemaître with his model initially started cold.

There is still so much we don’t know and so much to learn.

Let’s take up the challenge to see something more fundamental than space and time. Can we find something more fundamental than particles and waves?

All the dimensionless constants, plus the mathematics of Langlands programs and string theory open unexpected doors for a truly mathematical definition of the Planck scale physics as a foundation for CERN-level physics.

This next time around, let’s bring the two together.

Best wishes with the next term!

Most sincerely,

-Bruce

Fifth email: 1 February 2019

Dear Dr. Fabiola Gianotti:

Of all 11,000+ scientists in some way affiliated with CERN, I think you might find it of some interest to know that we are making progress with our base-2 application of the Planck base units to measure the universe. Our primary assumptions:

1. The Planck base units of length, time, mass and charge describe a real reality.

2. The conceptual door to this infinitesimal universe is where all four Planck base units concresce (grow together, yet individuate). We are not alone in our belief that infinitesimal spheres result, and there is an endless stream. Though physical, length-time are well below thresholds of measurement, the progression of mass-charge units can be studied. These four units are, in some manner of speaking, the Janus-face of each other and of light.

3. Conceptually, sphere stacking becomes cubic-closest packing; tetrahedrons and octahedrons emerge. Doublings begin. Our universe emerges. Their numbers eventually begin to define things within our current scientific realities. This is a natural inflation. And, it’s not dark.

Your comments would be most helpful. Thank you ever so much.

Sincerely,

Bruce

Fourth email: 14 December 2016

Dear Dr. Gianotti:

I know you are exceedingly busy with the responsibilities of CERN and I apologize for interrupting your day. As high school people from the USA, it is presumptuous of us to write. Yet, who knows who will be the next Einstein among our students? I know we, the teachers, are too naive to matter. Yet, wouldn’t the students be worth a simple word of encouragement or some precautions and even *discouragement from going off the deep end?*

My first note to you (below) was in August 2013 and I have sent occasional updates since that time.

Most sincerely,

Bruce Camber

`Third email: Aug 15, 2016 at 10:57 PM The Diphoton Results`

Subject: A chart to focus on numbers from the Planck scale to the CERN-scale

Dear Dr. Fabiola Gianotti:

The extended CERN family may feel like they’ve just hit a wall with the diphoton results, notwithstanding there are a few good results that have emerged. Numbers of people are calling to re-examine basic-basic assumptions. Perhaps it would be good to go right back to the Newton-Leibniz debate^{1 }to ask questions like, “Could space-time be derivative of symmetry-continuity?”^{2} Could a simple continuity equation for space-time be defined from the first moment of creation to the Age of the Universe and might the first 67 notations from the Planck scale^{3} to the CERN-scale be meaningful?^{4}

If we use base-2 notation, there are about 200 notations from the Planck Time to the Age of the Universe. The first 67 notations to the CERN-scale have potentially very helpful data. Our chart is here: https://81018.org/chart It is horizontally-scrolled and has over 1300 very simple calculations.

This progression of numbers from the Planck Scale to the CERN scale is assuredly idiosyncratic, but quite curious for its logic and simplicity. It just might be a place for pure math and geometry that defines the earliest structural possibilities that are beyond the wires of physicality. The Langlands programs are one option to carry this research forward. I think there are more.

1. May I keep you posted on our work to develop this chart further?

2. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or advice? Thanks.

Bruce

Bruce E. Camber

**The chart**: https://81018.com/chart/

[1] That two-year debate (1715-1716) is far from over!

[2] An ideal, universal symmetry-and-continuity that eventually gives rise to the space and time that we can measure. It takes the better part of 67 doublings of the Planck scale and it continues to the current 200+ notation such that all simple symmetries, symmetry-breaking and SUSY are all tangibly related. Our research of these numbers in the large horizontally-scrolled chart is on-going. It includes the dimensionless constants, non-dimensionalization, renormalization and the role of infinity.

[3] The Planck scale within these web pages is interpreted quite differently.

[4] **CERN scale**: Within the chart, the CERN scale may well be defined between notations 60 to 80, yet it seems that most of the work of ATLAS and LHC is within notations 66-67-68.

`Second email: May 1, 2016 `

**Subject**: We are still working on our base-2 model of the universe

Dear Dr. Gianotti:

A few years ago I stopped by to visit a friend at CERN on my way to Zurich. At that time, I dropped you a note about work being done in a New Orleans high school to develop a model of the universe using base-2 exponential notation from the Planck base units, particularly Planck Time to the Age of the Universe (and our current time) in just over 201 doublings (steps, groups, containers… etc). We are making progress!

The homepage for our work is here:

http://bblu.org And now, also: http://81018.com

Links to our charts are here:

https://81018.com/chart/

We know it is idiosyncratic, but is it wrong?

Thank you.

Bruce

`First email: September 6, 2013`

**References**:

1. Financial Times article, July 26, 2013 by Izabella Kaminska

2. “Never Abandon Your Dreams” – Fabiola Gianotti

3. “Physics Validation of the LHC Software”

4. “*Building a new particle is very nice but also demonstrating that a**mechanism that has been proposed as the solution for many years is not the**correct one is a major step forward for fundamental science… Of course,**mankind has made giant steps forward*,” she says. “*However, what we know is**really very, very little compared to what we still have to know*.”

– Fabiola Gianotti within an interview with CNN

## Our Key Question: Is our simple construct (base-2 chart of the universe) helpful?

Dear Dr. Gianotti:

I have over 100 students from our high school geometry classes, some who with bated breath are waiting to hear your short answer to their question about our universe-view. We couldn’t find it anywhere on the web so we put it up to get critical comments. Unfortunately, most people seem to be too unsure of themselves to answer. Our question, “Is it useful?” and a “Yes” or “No” or even “Maybe” from the coordinator of the ATLAS program at CERN would be very helpful!

But, first, let us congratulate you on your leadership and vision. And, second, we are grateful to discover your profound appreciation for the arts, especially music, and for simplicity.

As a bit of background, I was visiting with friends in Zurich, and because they knew about my much earlier visits to CERN back in the ’70s (through Viki Weisskopf to meet with John Bell on the EPR paradox), my friend had clipped an article from *Financial Times* which focused on your work and your love of art and beauty.

Back in the ’70s I struggled with first principles and the foundations of physics. By the end of the decade I concluded that the enterprise was just too complex for me. I needed something a bit more simple, so I dropped out and became a producer. Now, at 66 years old, I have had a little time to go back and look at everything all over again.

A little background story about that universe view. I was substituting for my nephew’s five high school geometry and physics classes where we started at the Planck Length, used base-2 exponential notation, and applied simple Platonic nested-and-embedded geometries to start our tabulations. By step 66 we were in the range of the diameter of the proton and by the 101st doubling we were up to 40.9755356 microns, the range of human hair. We kept going; by the 135th step we were within the orbital range of the International Space Station or about 218 miles or 351.977184 kilometers. Then, of course, by the 202.34 notations we were out in the range of those measurements of the SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey (BOSS) or to edges of the observable universe or about 1.03885326×10^{26 }meters.

Could you take a minute to have a look and provide a quick answer to the question, “Is this construct useful?” Though it puts the entire universe in a mathematically ordered set and a geometrically homogeneous group, so what?

I continue to wrestle to find meaning within the first 65 steps.

Thank you.

Warmly,

Bruce

Bruce Camber, CEO

Small Business School

http://SmallBusinessSchool.org

PS. You might find some of the links below useful as further backgrounder info.

• The longest-running television series on PBS stations in the USA and the Voice of America around the world about best business practices. http://smallbusinessschool.org/page18.html

• An intellectual exercise — our https://81018.com/ — that has some potential to help open new levels of human creativity: >https://81018.com/2014/05/21/propaedeutics/