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 (AdS_{n}) 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.”

• Understanding what is the dark energy in the universe? We don’t even have a good idea… • What is the dark matter? (This is the other big unknown, but at least we have some handles. We know it is non-baryonic and evidence points to either supersymmetric particles, or maybe axions. Perhaps it is neither.) • What causes mass? (We have a very successful theory of particle physics, but the particles are massless. We need to understand the source of mass. The leading idea is that it is the Higgs mechanism, and we need to see if there is a Higgs particle or variant to make the next step. The Large Hadron Collider at CERN should answer this question.) • Is the neutrino its own antiparticle?(This is a puzzle going back to Fermi and perhaps the next generation of experiments will resolve it by looking for neutrino-less double beta decay.) • Is there ultimate unification of the forces of nature? (This is a long term intriguing simplification on our understanding of particles and fields, but present data does not support it. However, if there is a new symmetry in nature (supersymmetry) it could bring this unification.)

First email: 19 October 2018

Dear Prof. Dr. Barry C. Barish:

To begin to get a modest understanding of your work, I have started my own page of references, along with a copy of this note: https://81018.com/2018/10/15/barish/ (this page).

I found your work through a webpage from March 07, 2007 listing your five needed breakthroughs (just above). Although you might re-prioritize that list today, it seems that most respectable scientists would still agree with you just as it is.

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 and mathematics, the nature of integrity, and the concepts of continuity and symmetry.

As you might imagine, the first second is between notations 142 and 143. It is a natural inflation (aka Euler’s identity) and, to date, nobody has provided a rational reason to stop studying this progression. I am most fascinated with the potentials within the first 60+ notations. I do not believe these have ever been carefully examined by mathematicians.

I sent an introductory note to you on 8 April 2018! Thanks.

Good work! Nice thoughtful reflections. And, jsomers.net is nicely done. You’re a mensch!**

I sent this note through Twitter, but whoever sees a tweet? So, just for the record: @jsomers@TheAtlantic Excellent. At first I thought it was going to be a Wolfram promo piece, but that quickly changed! Thanks for the introduction to Jupyter. Thanks for the thoughtful reflections. What ArXiv entry has the most signatures? http://81018.com – An integrated universe view: visuals?

I am one of those idiosyncratic fellows who has been chasing the EPR paradox since 1971. Actually met JS Bell at CERN through MIT’s Viki Weisskopf… so many stories. In 2011 helping a nephew, I finally found a mathematical container for the universe: https://81018.com/home It’s been six plus years attempting to exegete that initial work. Here’s a chart/map of the universe that is laughable for its simplicity and grandiosity! https://81018.com/chart Thanks again!

Most sincerely, Bruce **************** Bruce Camber http://81018.com

I am not sure how many people have David Bohm and J.P. Vigier in common, yet when I saw their names so prominent in your Wikipedia listing and within your CV, it brought back pleasant memories (1977 & 1980) and encouraged further reading.

Then I saw this link: Ignazio Licata: Universe without singularities. A group approach to de Sitter cosmology, EJTP, Vol. 3 (2006), pp. 211-224 It is now on my active reading-study list initiated on ArXiv.

Having looked ahead to your most recent 4-index theory of gravity… I know your work will bring me quickly to the edges of my insights and knowledge, but people like you are rare indeed. I apologize if it appears that I am being frivolous with your time. I simply wanted to thank you for doing what you do!

Thank you and best wishes, Most sincerely, Bruce **************** Bruce Camber http://81018.com Austin, Texas

PS. What is infinite? In 1925, the great mathematician, David Hilbert wrote, “We have already seen that the infinite is nowhere to be found in reality, no matter what experiences, observations, and knowledge are appealed to.” Many scholars would agree even today. Maybe Hilbert and those scholars are mistaken. There are many non-ending and non-repeating numbers such as pi, Euler’s equation (e), and all the other dimensionless constants. Aren’t these numbers evidence or a manifestation of the infinite within the finite?

Yes, I believe access to the infinite is found in the primary dimensionless constants where the number being generated does not end and does not repeat. There are 26-to-31 such numbers that have been associated by John Baez, Frank Wilczek, and others to be necessarily part of the definition of the Standard Model of Particle Physics. There are over another 300 such numbers defined by the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST). All are dimensionless constants that seemingly never-end and never-repeat. And, then there is Simon Plouffe; he has identified, through algorithmic programming, 11.3 billion mathematical constants (as of August 2017) which includes pi, Euler’s number, and more. This use of “never-ending, never-repeating” as the entry to the infinite will be challenged. If it can be defended, then there are more connections between the finite and infinite than David Hilbert and most scholars had ever anticipated.

1. To remind me of the contents of my prior emails and references to your most current work, I have created a reference page within our website: https://81018.com/2016/10/13/baryshev/ [Please note: That’s this page.] If you ever want changes, updates or deletions to it, just say the word. That page is meant to be helpful.

2. Also, that page could easily be reworked to become a Wikipedia page. We have done this for other scholars, i.e. Petricio Letelier Once the baseline page is up, anybody can easily add to it. Would you like us to start such a page?

3. I believe the key problems with science today go back to a mistake by Aristotle that is not well-known today. Then, Newton’s absolute space and time continues to be a problem because it remains the commonsense view of most people living today. And finally, the continued affirmation of the infinitely hot start of the universe promulgated by Hawking and so many others is problematic. My summary is here: https://81018.com/duped/

I hope you have been spared some of the madness of these days and that your work continues forward. Thank you. Warmly, Bruce

You may remember an earlier email from me where in a high school geometry class we created model of the universe by doubling the Planck base units, then doubling the results over and over again, until in 202 doublings (base-2 notation) we are at the size and age of the universe. That chart is here: https://81018.com/chart

Of the many possible roots of conceptual problems, I believe John Wheeler’s search for the most simple* holds the most promise. Hawking’s work is a mess of contradictions within his first epoch which only get worse in his second, third and fourth epochs (which all total together less than a fraction of a fraction a second).

I had to go back to high school to see where we’ve all gone so wrong. To be alive in the past forty years is to know that our theories in cosmology, epistemology, and ontology are very incomplete:

Why not go back to the Newton-Clarke discussions with Leibniz?

Why not re-engage our understanding of the infinite?

Why not allow the infinite to enter our thinking?

Must we renormalize and regularize every equation?

Why not let some of those tensions teach us?

Yes, I have been bothering the old guard, from Hawking, to Guth, E.O. Wilson, Antonio Zichichi and others. Long ago, I was the guest of Freeman Dyson (IAS), and more recently of Frank Wilczek (MIT) who wrote Scaling Mt. Planck, I, II, III for Physics Today, 2001). He was very helpful.

Nobody has given any reason why base-2 notation from the Planck scale is a waste of time. There has been no refutation regarding those first 67 notations. Nobody has said, “There is no possibility…”

It is obvious to me that we all imbibed the big bang theory for such a long time that Hawking’s theoretical fabrication has successfully and rather quietly held most of us in check. But not you… would you spend a little time with me to go over the five questions above?

Further introduction: A good friend was Ted Bastin. Viki Weisskopf introduced me to John Bell whom I visited at CERN. With six of David Bohm’s PhD candidates (1977), we spent seven hours within his Fragmentation and Wholeness thinking about points, lines, triangles and tetrahedrons. In 1980 I spent a semester with Olivier Costa de Beauregard at the Institut Henri Poincaré. I met with Alain Aspect on a visit with JP Vigier and Bernard d’Espagnat. Twenty years later, (Bohm had died) I went inside the tetrahedron, then the octahedron. In 2011 I followed that progression to the CERN Atlas scale, then further within to the Planck scale. We caught our breath and began multiplying those Planck numbers by 2 until we were out to the Edge of the Universe, and then out to the Age of the Universe. https://81018.com/home for the history. Beyond all that name dropping above, here is a rambling timeline: https://81018.com/2016/12/31/1947-2016/

[3] Lemaître, Hawking, Guth were the most pivotal thinkers to promulgate the big bang. Of course, Lemaître is long dead, and the very few who knew him are now close to the end of life. Hawking died on Pi Day, March 14, 2018. I can well-imagine he had had enough. Photo-op after photo-op, it is hard to be a celebrity and even consider doing serious science. Our infinitesimal sphere just may be a very good definition of Guth’s inflaton. It is creating the laws of physics as it populates the universe which based on either Planck‘s or Stoney’s base units could be anywhere from 539-to-4605 tredecillion infinitesimal spheres per second…

[11] Penultimate grid. The first infinitesimal sphere has been likened to Lemaître’s primeval atom and Guth’s inflaton. Both are hypothetical. Our very first infinitesimal sphere is a little less hypothetical. The universe has to start with something to create space-time. Of course, our postulation that our universe is totally populated by such infinitesimal spheres is also hypothetical. Notwithstanding, this hypothetical penultimate grid warrants inspection. Although the finite-infinite transformations between the faces of continuity-symmetry-harmony (CSH) are assumed, our focus is on the finite. The finite is first defined by CSH, then defined by the Fourier transform, and the Poincaré sphere, and then the Poincaré homology sphere. Any and all types of spheres are included as potential spheres waiting for their mathematics to evolve (be possible, come out). This, of course, would include Smale and Milnor’s spheres and attractors and repellers.

Eighth email: Tuesday, December 13, 2022

Dear Prof. Dr. Alan Guth:

This is our eighth email. Our first email on July 6, 2016 (below) appealed to you for help to interpret our simple base-2 progression from the Planck units. Over the past six years, we’ve been inching along, studying articles by you and other scholars like you. Much of it is over our heads so we have to go over it many times and dig back further and further within each conceptual framework. We’re learning!

Most recently, this is what I concluded about our work:

“Our chart with its 202 base-2 notations is slowly becoming a model and our hope is that you will help us to understand it. In this world of Planck’s base units, infinitesimal spheres, and pi, it appears to use less extralogic and seems less idiosyncratic than Alan Guth’s inflation and his hypothetical inflaton.^{[25]}”

I know our nascent model is a possible model for the following reasons: 1. In over ten years, nobody has said, “This is where you are going wrong and these are the reasons why.” 2. Most people readily admit that they had never seen a base-2 progression from the Planck units to the current time. It is a new conceptual frame of reference. 3. People readily admit to not regarding the Planck base units. They have not considered how these natural units are defined in terms of four universal physical constants (each physical constant can take on a numerical value of 1 when expressed in terms of the other three units) and thus define a fundamental reference point that is still not readily understood or embraced. 4. This model introduces infinitesimal spheres consistent with the “primeval atom” proposed in 1931 by Lemaître. Our counter to the atom is an infinitesimal sphere which instantiates the primacy of pi (π) and a deep-seated order-relations-dynamics, conditions of spherical continuities, symmetries, and harmonies. A causal efficacy emerges through cubic-close packing for the generation of spheres.

There are as many as 30 additional reasons, among them, a redefinition of space-and-time, and the finite-infinite, and quantitative-qualitative relations.

I remember well my time with Vicki Weisskopf. For all the above reasons, I will continue to analyze your beloved theory and, to the best of my abilities, counter all the arguments that surround it until one day you say, “Okay, I surrender. Your logic is tighter than mine.”

Of course our high school work is idiosyncratic, typical sweet poppycock, and we shouldn’t be bothering you — yet I still feel it is only right that you know when, where and how your name is being used. You’ve show up in a footnote (below) about the 1999 Structure Formation conference within our homepage today: https://81018.com/uni-verse/#2f

Yes, even the idiosyncratic ones like me have tarried on into 2020.

You may remember the 202 base-2 notations from the Planck scale to the current size and age of the universe. It’s a sweet little model with a natural inflation and a simple logic that has been readily ignored by the academy for the past eight years.

I have updated our working page about your scholarship (this page) because it is currently linked from today’s homepage. I have also updated the primary page that prompted my first email and those that followed. https://81018.com/s4a/

Let me wish you a bright and prosperous 2020. We all have work to do!

Getting somebody with your history and of your caliber to test the assumptions, logic, and mathematics of base-2 model of the universe is very high among my short term goals. So obviously, I would so appreciate any help to understand why our simple logic and simple mathematics fails.

We now have some rough numbers, a natural inflation from the Planck units, using base-2 exponentiation to the Age of the Universe, and the logic flow just might be defensible with a Guth or Linde or Steinhardt depth of knowledge about cosmology.

Is there any possibility that “natural inflation” is the grounding for base-2 expansion within cells, bifurcation theory, and quantum fluctuations?

-Bruce

Second email: Monday, 10 October 2016 email

Dear Prof. Dr. Guth:

Might we create a new model of the universe by using the Planck base units and base-2 exponential notation to carry those units out to the Age of the Universe? We are a high school geometry class; our math and logic are all quite simple. There are a total of just over 200 notations. By the 144th notation, just over a second from the first moment, there is more than enough inflation (mass-energy-length-and-temperature) to produce a very compelling, exquisitely dense, quark-gluon universe without so much as a bang. It is a wonderland, and it seems that this Alice redefines the very nature of space and time.

Just silliness? I don’t think so. And given the gravity of the inherent nihilism within the big bang model, it is most important that the two leading theorists for it, be intellectually honest, even after a lifetime of devotion to it. Everyone must be prepared to challenge their most cherished concepts.

We all need to reconsider the necessity of a big bang. Thank you.

TO: Prof. Dr. Alan Guth, Victor F. Weisskopf Professor of Physics, MIT

Dear Prof. Dr. Alan Guth:

I was born in July 1947, so you are my senior; and, I write with admiration and respect for what you have accomplished. There is a special confidence that one gets from affirmations especially from being published. It seems so very eternal.

My question comes out of work done in a high school geometry class when we ducked inside a tetrahedron, found half-sized tetrahedrons in the four corners and an octahedron in the middle.

We then went inside that octahedron, divided each edge by 2, and found half-sized octahedrons in each of the six corners and a tetrahedron in each of the eight faces. A perfect tessellation, it was easy to continue. In about 45 jumps within, we were down among the protons. In another 67 we were in some kind of exquisitely-busy “singularity” with the Planck base units.

Feeling a little uncomfortably tight, we quickly multiplied those base units by 2 and in a total of 202 notations we were out in-and-around the Age of the Universe and the Observable Universe.

Now, this is all happening just up river from the New Orleans Zoo, downriver from the NOLA international airport. We’re just high school folks and the kids.

That was 2011. We rushed right by Kees Boeke whose work MIT’s Phil Morrison embraced. When we included all the Planck base units in our little chart, it got very challenging.

1. Nobody talks about those 67 notations from the fermion-proton range down to the first Planck base units’ doublings.

“Much too small to be meaningful!” say the kings and queens of physics. Why? “Off with your head!” (in the spirit of Alice in Wonderland’s Queen of Hearts).

2. Really now, if Max Planck found a path to such small numbers (length, time, mass) and to the not so small charge, and to an absolutely gargantuan temperature, shouldn’t there be a way to get to them through a bit of simple logic and simple math?

Why not? We’ve mapped it out in a large horizontal chart: https://81018.com/chart/. It’s rich with information, but it could be all wet. Any advice for us literal abstractionists? Thanks.

PS. Long ago, in 1976, I was the guest of Victor Weisskopf at the MIT faculty club where I had arranged for a Wall Street Journal (WSJ) writer to interview him for an “A-Hed” article. It was to be about how the chairman of the MIT physics department was involved with the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in Rome. Though the article was never published, Weisskopf invited me to his home to review great artwork, some quite religious, that challenged our understanding of space-time and infinity.

About six months later, on a trip to visit with folks in Geneva at both CERN and the World Council of Churches, Weisskopf arranged my first meeting with John Bell to talk about the EPR paradox and his inequalities.

Then, in 1979, I had a display project under the dome at 77 Massachusetts Avenue called, “What is life?” after Schrodinger’s book of the same title. It was an attempt to examine the first principles and answers to the question by 77 leading, living scholars from around the world.

Jerome Wiesner buttonholed me at that time, “What’s this?” thinking it was a right-to-life group! Such memories. So, now so many years later, I am still wrestling with the same old questions!

These paragraphs from the preface of your book, The Inflationary Universe, I enjoy:

“Guth realized that a sudden, ultra-rapid stretching of the universe could take a tiny uniform patch and expand it to a size where it ultimately would grow and become the observable universe. During the fleeting instant of inflation, any irregularities in the primordial cosmos would be propelled beyond detection, offering a kind of blank slate. It is like taking a crinkled tablecloth and stretching it out so quickly that it appears flat on a tabletop and any wrinkles left are off the table and out of view. Only tiny, jiggling quantum fluctuations would disturb the uniformity; these fluctuations would be the seeds of the galaxies and galaxy clusters we see today.

“Inflation solved critical problems in cosmology, but it also split the Big Bang into distinct phases: In the inflationary portrait, the creation of almost all of the matter and energy in the universe takes place at the close of the inflationary period, through a process called “reheating,” rather than before inflation. Reheating involves a massive release of energy from inflation’s driving engine: an entity called the “inflaton,” thought to be a fluctuating energy field that ignited ultra-rapid cosmic expansion.”

“Theorists think that at the end of inflation, the inflaton field released an enormous reservoir of potential energy into space—which, following Einstein’s famous equivalence between energy and mass, converted into a deluge of particles. Before then, because stretching causes cooling, the universe was actually relatively cold. As the cosmos rapidly expanded, its hot initial temperature dropped by a factor of many thousand (the precise amount depends on the particular model), becoming extraordinarily hot only after reheating. If you feel that an event should be fiery if it’s going to be called the “Big Bang,” then reheating, not the cosmic dawn, was the true “bang.” That’s because the energy fields created then wouldn’t have been very hot.”

Emails to Carlo Rovelli regarding the theories within loop quantum gravity (LQG)

Most recent email: Tuesday, 31 July 31, 2018

Dear Prof. Dr. Carlo Rovelli:

Could the initial spin state be related to Euler’s identity and be associated with the concept of planckspheres? I realize it is a rather peculiar question!

Thank you,

-Bruce

PS. Your image and references are on the current hompage where it says: Carlo Rovelli has gone where others fear to tread. He has a huge following around the world for his books that explain difficult concepts in physics with fluency and ease. His work, in an area called Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG), has everybody asking, “Is this the real beginning of a Theory of Everything (TOE)?”

Third email: 3 July 2018

Dear Prof. Dr. Carlo Rovelli:

Here in the USA the 4th of July celebrations have begun; it’s time to think of about foundations, roots, and revolutions. Surely, your work with time qualifies.

I have so much more to learn about LQG, but even before LQG, I believe our starting points are off. So in that light, I continue working on my idiosyncratic model of the universe using that base-2 application with the Planck Base units. In the process, I think there are about ten concepts that could be worth our time to review and comment. Although our scholarly and scientific communities have used all of the following words (within the Postscript), none of their inherent concepts have been lifted up as primordial, keys to begin to integrate ideas within a simple mathematical model of the universe (that base-2 application from the Planck scale to the Age of the Universe in 202 notations). So, here are ten key ideas, rather radical concepts, that are presented so we might begin to see our “very first moment,” then ourselves, and our universe more logically.

“…and we have to learn to do physics and to think about the world in a profoundly new way. Our notions of what are space and time are completely altered. In fact, in a sense, we have to learn to think without them… Our space in which we live is just this enormously complicated spin network.” – Dr. Carlo Rovelli

Dear Prof. Dr. Carlo Rovelli:

Thank you for all your marvelous work. You make very difficult concepts very approachable. That helps us tremendously.

We have so little background in your world, however, in our high school geometry class, we started with the tetrahedron with the octahedron [https://81018.com/tot/] inside of it, and kept on going within, dividing by 2, until in about 45 steps we were down around the fermions and in another 67 steps we were within the Planck base units. When we multiplied by 2, we were out to the Age of the Universe in just under 90 doublings. Since December 2011 we have worked on our integrated UniverseView [https://81018.com/home/] using base-2 exponential notation as a general outline.

It is 3.333 times more granular than Kees Boeke’s base-10, it has an implied geometry, and it has the Planck base units. Some of our current work is here: https://81018.com/ It has become quite a modelling project.

Notations 1 to 67 challenge us to rethink our understanding of the basic notions of Time and Space. Your work is helping us to see that others are doing substantial work in this area from a much more professional point of view.

Is our work at all helpful as a framework for research?

PS. We are just now starting to consider the nature of spin!

PPS. Our first note to you was sent on Sun, May 1, 2016 but it either did not reach you or it was gobbledygook. We are trying to write as clearly as possible. Forgive me, please, if this continues to be too strange and not very charming. -BEC

University of Pittsburgh: “Our space in which we live is just this enormously complicated spin network,” said Dr. Carlo Rovelli of the University. He and Dr. Lee Smolin of the Center for Gravitational Physics and Geometry at Pennsylvania State University have figured out how to use spin nets to calculate area and volume — all this information is encoded within the web-like structure.

It is all quite a bit more granular than Kees Boeke’s base-10. Ours came out of a chase of the embedded tilings and tessellations of the tetrahedron and the octahedron within it. We were building models in our high school geometry class and decided to “go within” until we got to Planck’s base units. That was easy. Going out to the Observable Universe was easier. It has become quite a modeling project!

Are we onto to something or off within some fallacy of misplaced concreteness?

Thanks.

Most sincerely,

Bruce Camber, resource teacher New Orleans high school http://81018.com

PS. We are just now starting to consider the nature of spin (and Euler’s identity)! We once had a reference to work within the Nobel Prize committee’s website, but they have removed that page. Unfortunate.

Dan Falk is the author of In Search of Time and a distinguished science writer from Toronto. His article, A Debate Over the Physics of Time, was first published in Quanta Magazine, July 19, 2016 and Atlantic Monthly, July 26, 2016 (just a week later).

Although most of the article is a focus on the June 2016 conference at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Ontario, there are many important concepts and references in this article that need to be part of one’s understanding of the the struggle to understand time.

All of these concepts will be studied in light of our simple model using simple concepts and simple math.

ArXivCVHomepageTwitterWiki P.S. An excellent little website, Crisis-in-Physics, once summarized and gave access to this professor’s articles. Unfortunately it has been shut down.

You, Frank Wilczek, Paul Davies, and a few other leading scholars are open enough to tell us why our simple construct (of the universe) just might warrant further attention. It came out of a high school geometry class.

We did a simple thought experiment and went deeper and deeper within the tetrahedron and its internal octahedron by dividing the edges in two and connecting the new vertices. In 45 steps we were in the size range of particle physics. In 67 more steps within we were studying the Planck base units. We also doubled our original models; and, in just 90 steps, we were out to the age and size of the universe. We created a chart with all that very simple math: https://81018.com/chart/

It was intriguing because our cold start (like Lemaitre’s 1927 model) actually compared favorably with an infinitely-hot start. Of course, our start had a natural inflation and easily accommodated homogeneity and isotropy. https://81018.com/calculations/

Shall we continue to pursue our simple model where base-2 notation has been applied to the Planck base units? All notations are dynamic, there is a perpetual start, the first 201 notations are symmetric, and that arrow of time exists only in Notation-202. I think it has a lot going for it, but it needs scholarly counsel and perspective. Thank you.

Most sincerely, Bruce

PS. Happy New Year! My hope is that everyone has a better year, but I will admit, my optimism has been dented and tarnished… -BEC

Third email: Tuesday, October 4, 2016

Dear Prof. Dr. Lee Smolin:

Congratulations on all that you have done, especially for the Perimeter Institute. Phenomenal.

PS. Yes, I know how naive and idiosyncratic our work is. The simplicity of the logic and math, however, has caught our attention. The numbers seem to speak louder than words. Although temperature is a problem, I think in time we’ll be able to adjust that line of figures with some kind of “reasonable” rationale. -B

Our second email: July 25, 2016

Dear Prof. Dr. Lee Smolin:

I swear the years are becoming superluminal they’re going so fast. It’s the Inflationary Epoch all over again.

In 2011 a group of high school folks (teachers and students) began mapping the universe using base-2 exponential notation from the Planck base units to the Age of the Universe. We fell into a tetrahedron and kept sliding to the center…

We tried using The Trouble with Physics as our rappelling ropes, but around the 67th notation, down with the fermions and protons, those ropes quickly turned to strings so we dropped into a virtual free fall until squeezed at the door of “the singularity” with Max’s secret codes. Wilczek gave us some clues on interpreting the codes. We just got lucky and found our way out and then went up the next 90 notations to the Now. Quite a trip. Just over 200 notations! 65 or so had never been explored! Incredible, isn’t it? Just a silly daydream? Could there be anything to it?

So, we’ve been at it now for five years and eight months. It’s time to get real or get serious. Can you help us?

Your work has fascinated me over the years. You have always been larger than life. But now, we are getting older and genius seems to be more approachable with the web.

You know the tetrahedron. You know the octahedron. The quick question: What is perfectly enclosed within the octahedron? If you half the edges and push an octahedron in each corner, you’ll have a start. I wonder if you quickly knew the answer to that very simple, basic question about structure.

Most of the folks I have asked since friend and colleague David Bohm died in 1992 pull a blank. John Conway, and some of Bucky and Arthur Loeb’s folks figure it out or just know (back in the ‘70s I was part of Loeb’s Philomorphs).

I am looking in on your work that is posted on the web and then I will dig even deeper. I thought you might enjoy the simple question(please let me know if you knew the answer). I suspect you do not think it really matters. But wait, maybe it does…. Thank you.

Warmly,

Bruce Camber

PS. If you have a moment and you want to know more about why I think it does: This is what I said to Len Mlodinow, Stephen Hawking’s collaborator (and the background story about Bohm): https://81018.com/moldinow/