Starkloff, Christina

Kristina Starklofft

Archives of the Max Planck Society
Archiv der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft
Boltzmannstr. 14
14195 Berlin, Germany

Courses & Lectures
Homepage
Royal Society, Senior Fellow in Residence, The Kavli Royal Society International Centre
Wikipedia
YouTube:  Dec 18, 2017

Within this website:  https://81018.com/2020/01/21/communications/

First email: 21 January 2020

Dear Dr. Kristina Starklofft:

Congratulations on all that you doing to preserve the best among our scholars.
I have a deep and abiding affection for Max Planck and his base units.

MaxPlanck1947Is it your office where the Vetter printing of Max Planck hangs today? Does your museum/library gift shop sell a replica?
So entirely delightful. That it was painted in my birth year, 1947, is sweet. That it is an artistic image, probably the last prior to his death, gives it even more vibrancy.

How very special.

May I use it with our website?
I might include it within any one of the following pages:
http://81018.com
https://81018.com/max-planck/
https://81018.com/quantum/
https://81018.com/realization3/
USW.

Thank you so very much.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

Max Planck, 1947, by Ewald Vetter, painter, Max-Planck Gesellschaft
https://www.archiv-berlin.mpg.de/58143/gemaelde_ewald_vetter

PS. With every use, the picture would have the two line description
and the picture itself link to your website. -BEC

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 about 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 Planck base units, 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

E, Weinan

Weinan E

Professor, Department of Mathematics, Program in Applied and Computational Mathematics
Princeton University
Princeton, NJ 08544-1000 U.S.A.

ArXiv: Deep learning-based numerical methods
Books: Principles of Multiscale Modeling
CV (PDF)
Homepage
Wikipedia
YouTube

References within this website:
https://81018.com/e8/#Weinan

First email: April 8, 2019

Dear Prof. Dr. Weinan E:

I don’t think we did a very good job teaching geometry. In 2001, after spending a few hours with John Conway there in Fine Hall, he asked me, “Why are you so hung up on the octahedron?” I answered, “Because nobody knows what is perfectly enclosed within it.” I continued, “…we don’t know its most simple interior parts. …we don’t know about its four hexagonal plates. …we fail to recognize its necessary relation with the tetrahedron. Shall I go on?”

Ten years later with a high school geometry class we went deep inside that tetrahedral-octahedral complex. In 45 base-2 notations going within, we were well within particle physics. Within another 67 notations we were within the Planck Scale. We went back out; and from the desktop, it was only 90 additional doublings and we were at the approximate age and size of the universe. We then discovered Kees Boeke’s base-10. It had no inherent geometry. It had no Planck scale doublings. It was an empty shell while we had the dynamics of cubic-close packing.

We later learned that we had the penultimate multiscale model. Would you classify it as part of your heterogeneous multiscale method (HMM)?

Now, regarding all this data, there are three pages about which I would enjoy your harshest judgments:

https://81018.com/e8/ (Monday, April 8)
https://81018.com/maybe/ (Wednesday, April 3)
https://81018.com/standard_model/ (Tuesday, April 2)

Can you help? Thank you.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

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

Ismael, Jenann

Jenann Ismael

Department of Philosophy
Columbia University
New York, NY


Articles: Passage, Flow, and the Logic of Temporal Perspectives

Books
CV
Homepage
Wikipedia
YouTube

References on this site: https://81018.com/2016/06/30/perimeter/
See: Foundational Questions Institute (FQXi)

First email: 19 October 2018

Dear Prof. Dr. Jenann Ismael:

I started seeing references to you and your work regarding the structure of space and time. Then, came FQI, then symmetry, Rovelli’s work, a conference about time at Perimeter… so I started to investigate. When I do, I create this little reference page along with a copy of my notes as I struggle to see how it all fits together.

Since December 2011 we have been studying an application of base-2 notation from the Planck base units to the age and size of the universe. We know well that it falls outside the normal work within physics-philosophy-mathematics today. But, such a simple concept renders rather unusual-even surprising results:
• There are just over 202 doublings. Our working numbers: https://81018.com/chart/
• Too small to measure, the first 64 notations: https://81018.com/64-notations/
• Does it address the derivative structure of space-time? https://81018.com/c/
• The doublings create a natural inflation: https://81018.com/ni/
• Perhaps it is just too simple. The first second emerges within the 143rd notation.
• The 202nd notation has a processing speed of 10.9816 billion years and I am not sure what it means to be just 2.8 billion years into it!

I thought you might find it all of interest. I don’t think it’s just poppycock… If it is, it seems we’ll have to re-examine the foundations of logic, mathematics, and integrity, and the concepts of continuity and symmetry!

On leave from Columbia, I hope your work is going very well and you are making very special progress. I would be delighted to hear from you either way,
poppy cock or not poppycock!

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Bruce

Trnka, Jaroslav

Jaroslav Trnka

TrnkaCenter for ​Quantum Mathematics And Physics
Department of PhysicsUniversity of California, Davis
Davis, CA 95616 USA

ArXivCutting Deep Into The Amplituhedron (Oct. 2018)
ResearchInspire
Resources
Twitter (Jarda’s not active)
Wikipedia (Amplituhedron)
YouTube: Singularity Structure of Gravity Amplitude, 2016, Nordita

Related pages on this website: https://81018.com/redefinition/

First email: 4 August 2018

RE: Key pages within Wikipedia and Google have a few broken links to your work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amplituhedron and  https://sites.google.com/site/grassmannian2014/

Dear Prof. Dr. Jaroslav Trnka:

Many I call you about your fundamental re-thinking
of space, time, infinity, first principles…  Yes, yes, it has been said,
But don’t step on my favorite theory or the special relics of our history.”

Why not see the universe as one big Planck scale whereby various doubling functions kick in and push the base units up to the current size of the universe,
the current age of the universe, the current mass of the universe, and the current charge of the universe?

https://81018.com/functions

On Monday, I’ll be at SLAC; are you in the area this summer?
Thank you.

Bruce

PS.  I’ll try to fix the broken links on those two pages
referenced above. Also, with some encouragement I could
start a Wikipedia page for you based on your current pages at QMAP and Davis.

PPS.  Everybody knows “…expanding exponentially in every direction,
from an infinitely small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense point,
creating a cosmos filled with energy and matter. 

(quoting Stephen Hawking) is problematic.

The only difference between the quiet expansion and the big bang theory is the first picosecond which defines the first three epochs in the big bang theory. Yes, their Planck Epoch, Grand Unification Epoch, and Inflationary Epoch are exceedingly short. Within our base-2/Planck scale model, those processes involve as many as forty doublings before the Electroweak processes begin, and as many as another 60 to 100 additional doublings before the Quark-then-Hadron processes begin. And, within this model, we are still within the first second of the unfolding universe. That is a lot of space for pure mathematics and geometries. -BEC