Châu, Ngô Bao

Ngô Bao Châu
University of Chicago

ArXiv: The 80-year development of Vietnam mathematical research, 2020
ArXiv: Invariant theory for the commuting scheme of symplectic Lie algebras; Algebraic Geometry (math.AG), February 2021. “We propose a proof for conjectures of Langlands, Shelstad and Waldspurger known as the fundamental lemma for Lie algebras and the non-standard fundamental lemma. The proof is based on a study of the decomposition of the l-adic cohomology of the Hitchin fibration into direct sum of simple perverse sheaves.”

Research and Relate: (1) Hitchin fibrations — purely geometric objects, (2) Galois groups in algebraic number theory to automorphic forms and representation theory of algebraic groups over local fields and adeles, (3) the automorphic L-function, L (s, π, ρ), as Langlands discovered, depended not only on the automorphic representation π, but also on an auxiliary finite dimensional representation ρ of a canonically associated dual group or L-group.

Homepages: Chicago, Google Scholar, IAS, VIASM (About)
Semantic Scholar

References with this website:

First email: 4 December 2021 at 4 PM

Dear Prof. Dr. Ngô Bao Châu:

I spent a few days in Hanoi and Saigon about ten years ago. My very first interactions with Hanoi were in 1969 and 1970. That’s a long story.

In 2014 I picked up Ed Frenkel’s Love & Math and was introduced to Robert Langlands, of course, and to others like Drinfeld and Gelfand. It is a very steep learning curve; and like most, I have barely scratched the surface.

Your work quickly came to my attention and it has taken until today to humble myself and confess that I will probably die before even grasping the essentials… even after spending time on the IAS papers of so many of the primary program authors like yourself.

My working summary page about your work is here: (this page). It is just starting. It had been a secure file and the password was Bao (case sensitive).

May I ask you a few questions? It will be in light of my current work to follow-up this page: The next article will open with comments about the Langlands programs understanding of place and role of infinity, pi, and infinitesimal spheres? Thank you.

Most sincerely,


Bruce E. Camber


Bibi Gul

At one time, during the American occupation from 2002 through August 2021, Bibi Gul also known as Rula Ghani was the First Lady of Afghanistan.

On August 18, 2018 we sent her a little note to her through her official email account. It went like this:

My dear First Lady of Afghanistan, Rula (Bibi Gul) Ghani,

The world’s people have been bleeding with the people of Afghanistan for many years. We have also followed the travails of Pakistan. Of the seven nations defined by a -stan, please consider the possibility of forming an alliance between the seven nations to teach us all throughout the world the first principles of life.

These principles must incorporate-yet-transcend religion to address the best of all religions.  These principles would take education to a higher level.

I would be most happy to be a very quiet advisor:

Western science has its own history of mistakes and working out those mistakes will take a new scholarship that the First Ladies of your seven-nation alliance could be instrumental in helping to reset. Also, the world’s people need to be introduced to the best within your seven nations. Become a destination for the world’s people. The place and importance of seven countries shared history needs to be proudly told by all her citizens.

Your alliance could help us all to understand the very nature of government, of ethics, and of family. In time, I shall write to the other six First Ladies and invite them to consider this simple suggestion.

Most sincerely,
Bruce Camber, USA

The Seven-Stan Countries:
AfghanistanKazakhstanKyrgyzstanPakistanTajikistanTurkmenistan and Uzbekistan

Niemeyer, Jens

Jens Niemeyer
University of Göttingen
Institute of Astrophysics
Friedrich-Hund-Platz 1
37077 Göttingen, Germany

Google Scholar
Wikipedia (German)

Second email: July 10, 2021 at 12 noon

Dear Prof. Dr. Jens Niemeyer:

My first email just below became the start of a homepage:
Also, I’ve started a reference page with links to your work and copies of these emails to you: It helps me to remember to whom I have written and what it was that I said.

Your work, Formation of inflaton halos after inflation, arXiv:2011.13333 [astro-ph.CO] , 2021, is so informative to read, “For a simple model we find these halos have masses of up to 20 kg and radii of the order of 10−20 m, roughly 10−24 seconds after the Big Bang.” We are most interested to follow the logic of any-and all infinitesimal estimates. It seems that the “after the Big Bang” reference and the citations to Guth, Linde, and Starobinsky are gratuitous. Since the 1999 conference at the Isaac Newton Institute of Cambridge University, the core prognosticators, which included Hawking, have each attempted to rethink the Big Bang. It had been failing in too many ways.

Our radical departure from given theory unwittingly began in 2011 in that high school geometry class. That work now begs the question, “Is pi (π) scale invariant to the Planck scale (or an analogue of it vis-à-vis a Stoney scale or Ralston scale)? Obviously pushing the boundary conditions, the question could also be asked about other key dimensionless constants. I believe the theoretical answer would be a yes.

So, if you were to follow our chart of 202 base-2 notations, the first instance starts within the Planck scale and comes to the current time (Notation-202). At Notation-64 the duration is 9.94×10-25 seconds and the length scale is 2.98×10-16 meters. Your 20 kg would appear in Notation-30. Your 10−20 meters is within Notations 50-52. At least this base-2 chart gives us approximate values where today we have no ordered system within which to get predictive data.

Your thoughts? Thank you.

Most sincerely,


First email: Tuesday, June 1, 2:26 PM

RE: Mapping the first zeptosecond within Notations 65-to-67 of 202 exponential notations from the Planck units to the this day, the Now

Dear Prof. Dr. Jens Niemeyer:

Can we assume that the calculations of George Johnstone Stoney and Max Planck have at least some metaphorical validity as a partial description of the infinitesimal universe?

Might we assume that these numbers could concresce as an infinitesimal sphere? I realize that may be difficult.

What if the universe is in a dynamic relation, historically known as the finite-infinite relation; however, we avoid metaphorical language and consider only the description of the fullness pi (π) as a description of ultimate things? It seems that we can know much more about pi. What if the facets of this most-historic, well-known dimensionless constant are also facets of our very earliest universe and also of the infinite?

We just might give Hilbert and all his extensions some time off.

Now, could a primordial sphere concresce? At what rate per second? Would it be fair to assume one primordial unit of time per primordial sphere? Now, that certainly would be quite a natural inflation.

We started our little project in December 2011 in a New Orleans high school. We are easily ignored so I started putting things up on web just to be able to share them with other schools and a few of the more open scholars. In 2016 we posted a horizontally-scrolled chart from the Planck units to the Age and Size of the Universe. You might enjoy that outline of a map of the universe:

The most recent work is always the homepage — — however, this week’s page revisits one from 2018:

If the concepts are anywhere close to reality, might it help to inform your work a little? 

Congratulations on what you and your team are doing.  I’ll be studying your past work and new developments as much as I can.

Thank you so very much all your work and that of your colleagues.



Integral Transforms on Wikipedia

Key Integral Transforms

An extension of the Fourier transforms and a necessary part of the earliest universe and the definition of functions throughout the 202 notations, this chart comes directly from the Wikipedia page and is posted here for easy and quick reference. –BEC

Transform Symbol K f(t) t1 t2 K−1u1u2
Abel transform \frac{2t}{\sqrt{t^2-u^2}}u \infty \frac{-1}{\pi\sqrt{u^2\!-\!t^2}}\frac{d}{du}\infty
Fourier transform{\mathcal {F}} e^{-2\pi iut} L_{1}-\infty \infty e^{2\pi iut}-\infty \infty
Fourier sine transform \mathcal{F}_s\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}} \sin(ut)[0,\infty ) {\displaystyle 0} \infty \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}} \sin(ut) {\displaystyle 0}\infty
Fourier cosine transform \mathcal{F}_c\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}} \cos(ut)[0,\infty )0\infty \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}} \cos(ut)0\infty
Hankel transform t\,J_\nu(ut)0\infty u\,J_\nu(ut)0 \infty
Hartley transform {\mathcal {H}}\frac{\cos(ut)+\sin(ut)}{\sqrt{2 \pi}} -\infty \infty \frac{\cos(ut)+\sin(ut)}{\sqrt{2 \pi}}-\infty \infty
Hermite transform H {\displaystyle e^{-x^{2}}H_{n}(x)}-\infty \infty {\displaystyle 0} \infty
Hilbert transform \mathcal{H}il \frac{1}{\pi}\frac{1}{u-t}-\infty \infty \frac{1}{\pi}\frac{1}{u-t} -\infty \infty
Jacobi transform J{\displaystyle (1-x)^{\alpha }\ (1+x)^{\beta }\ P_{n}^{\alpha ,\beta }(x)}-1 1 {\displaystyle 0} \infty
Laguerre transformL{\displaystyle e^{-x}\ x^{\alpha }\ L_{n}^{\alpha }(x)} {\displaystyle 0} \infty {\displaystyle 0}\infty
Laplace transform{\mathcal {L}}e−ut0 \infty \frac{e^{ut}}{2\pi i}c\!-\!i\inftyc\!+\!i\infty
Legendre transform {\mathcal {J}}P_{n}(x)\, -1 1 {\displaystyle 0} \infty
Mellin transform{\mathcal {M}}tu−10\infty \frac{t^{-u}}{2\pi i}\, c\!-\!i\infty c\!+\!i\infty
Two-sided Laplace
{\mathcal {B}}e−ut-\infty \infty \frac{e^{ut}}{2\pi i}c\!-\!i\inftyc\!+\!i\infty
Poisson kernel\frac{1-r^2}{1-2r\cos\theta +r^2}0
Radon Transform -\infty \infty
Weierstrass transform {\mathcal {W}} \frac{e^{-\frac{(u-t)^2}{4}}}{\sqrt{4\pi}}\, -\infty \infty \frac{e^{\frac{(u-t)^2}{4}}}{i\sqrt{4\pi}}c\!-\!i\inftyc\!+\!i\infty

Wilson, Emily

Emily Wilson
London, England

Homepage (Science Journalists)
Who’s Who at NewScientist

Third email: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 @10:22 AM

Hi Emily,

I have had a bit of concurrence with Peebles’ point of view; in a note this morning, Dan Hooper, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Center for Particle Astrophysics, Batavia, and University of Chicago, Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics and Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics, agrees with him.

How about NS writing an article, titled: “We do not know what happens before the first trillionth of a second.” “Peebles is right. We have no theory of the beginning.” “So we think we know everything. Such arrogance.”




PS. At the very least we can learn the differences between picosecond (10−12), femtosecond (10−15), attosecond (10−18), zeptosecond (10−21) and yoctosecond (10−24) . Then we can kick the butts of the national institutes for standards to name six groups of fractions from that yoctosecond to the the PlanckSecond (10−44), StoneySecond (10−45), or LemaitreSecond (also a primordial second). -BEC

Second email: May 25, 2021, 12:01 PM

Hi Emily,

As I said in my comment on your Twitter post, “Congratulations on the nine PPAAwards.”

2019 Nobel laureate, James Peebles, says that we do not have a theory of the beginning of the universe (6th paragraph). That is quite a challenge for all those who follow Hawking and Guth. After thinking about it, I had to acknowledge that our 202 notations did not constitute a theory; it is about 1000 highly-related numbers, but it doesn’t address the look and feel of the first instance. So, I’ve outlined it and today, I asked Prof. Dr. James Peebles, “Does it qualify as a theory even if it is wrong?”

If you are interested, I’ll let you know what he says (if anything at all).

Can we get a discussion going about Peeble’s comment, “It’s very unfortunate that one thinks of the beginning whereas in fact, we have no good theory of such a thing as the beginning.”

Thanks, Emily.



References (6th paragraph)

Tweet: May 25, 2021: Congratulations! 9 PPAAwards awards! 

Now, let’s get back to work!

Is what Nobel 2019 James Peebles says about our theories of the beginning true?

Could this modest article qualify as a theory? Thanks. -Bruce

First email: Mar 12, 2021, 7:52 AM

RE: Nobody seems to think pi is a fundamental equation for cosmology. Do you?

Hi Emily,

How does pi (π) shape our Universe? Is it there in the first instant?

I believe so and therefore we have a “simple” cold start whereby the numbers show that it readily becomes hot enough for the Quark-Gluon processes within less than a microsecond:

My story of those processes then continues here:

Let’s entertain new ideas. The old ones have stymied progress for over 50 years.

Most sincerely,



Kafatos, Menas

Menas Kafatos
Los Angeles, CA, USA

Publications: Limitations of Observational Cosmology
Homepage Chapman Chopra

Most recent email: May 24, 2021 @ 3:32 PM

Dear Menas Kafatos:

We are in our wisdom years and you’re just two years ahead of me. About a year ago, I introduced myself to you: I’ll be building on that page slowly

I began following the work of Deepak Chopra when he was practicing in Stoneham and I was living in Melrose and working on the foundations of physics and theology with Abner Shimony, Robert Cohen and his gang at Boston University (1973-1981). Somebody had given me an early copy of one of Deepak’s manuscripts and we corresponded once or twice.

Even at that time I was hung up on a moment of perfection in space time and the place of continuity (order), symmetry (relations, and harmony (dynamics).

Of course, you may never have seen my earlier note or you didn’t want to deflate our little balloon and say, “Just numbers.” Notwithstanding, we continue our trek: is always the most current work.

I would enjoy hearing from you just to know that the connection has been made.

Best wishes,


First email: May 6, 2020, 2:22 PM

Dear Prof. Dr. Menas Kafatos:

Congratulations on all that you do. Such a remarkable life.

Your Wikipedia entry is sensational. Regarding your work on new perspectives for the self organization of the universe, I wonder if you might comment on our entirely idiosyncratic work that began in 2011 in a high school geometry class!

Instead of absorbing the night skies over Crete, we went inside Plato’s cave. We were studying the tetrahedron (and the octahedron within it), and caught Zeno’s spirit. Dividing the edges by 2, connecting the new vertices, we did this over and over and over again until we were down to the Planck Length.

In 45 steps we were in the range of particle physics and in another 67 steps we were within the Planck scale. Of course, the next day we multiplied by 2, and we were shocked to find the rest of the universe within just another 90 jumps or doublings. Of course, the work of Kees Boeke eventually came to our attention. Long ago I enjoyed the company of old friends, Phil and Phyllis Morrison of MIT, who popularized Boeke’s work.

It took awhile, but by 2014, we added Planck Time, and in 2015 we added Planck Mass and Charge and then made a horizontally-scrolled chart in 2016.

Taking just those numbers to create 202 base-2 notations, is it meaningful? I hope you think it is, but we are prepared to hear, “It’s just numbers!” Thanks.

Warmest regards,

Ralston, John Peter

John P. Ralston
University of Kansas
Department of Physics and Astronomy
Lawrence, KS 66045

ArXiv (76): Quantum Theory without Planck’s Constant, Mar 2012
Books: How to Understand Quantum Mechanics, IOP, 2018; Emergent un-Quantum Mechanics, 2013
Google Scholar
inSPIREHEP: Revising your world-view of the fundamental constants, 2013
Twitterspan id=”Fifth”>

Fifth email: February 4, 2021, 1:58 PM

Might you share the answers to your Pop Quiz or must I embarrass myself and submit my guesses to receive the right answers?!? Might the quiz be a good four-part video? I am thinking 26:46 minutes each for PBS member stations. May I add a few questions?

On a personal note, another quick question: Could the Planck base (adjusted for work on the Planck Constant) units be a description of the first instant in time?



Fourth email: October 9, 2018, 2 PM

Article Title:  Redefining Light  That link goes to Part I, the Thesis.

Lead: Planck’s constant: Called into action or called into question?

Part II: Antithesis and still untitled, possibly “Redefining Light: Part II.

Working notes link

Dear Prof. Dr. John Ralston:

It looks like that article about light and the Planck Constant will be in three sections.
The first section, as given today, requires a few more hours of editing.

My working notes have also been moved into a new page: where Part II will be developed over the next week or so. That will be primarily focused on your work.
Part III is open. It may well be a synthesis using the base-2 chart.

When I am well on my way with the explanation of your work, I’ll drop another note and, of course, I will anticipate that you will be as critical as you need to be. Thanks.


Bruce E. Camber

Third email: October 3, 2018, 8:55 PM

Dear Prof. Dr. John Ralston,

I am now reading your ResearchGate papers and ArXiv’s as fast as I can and yet slow enough to grasp your essence. To date, I had relied on Frank Wilczek’s encouragement, “Explore the Planck base units!”  I asked, “Do they double? Can I multiply them by 2?”  No real answer… “You can multiply them by anything you want!” (Sabine Hossenfelder) So, I ask, “Is it meaningful?” No real answer. 

The path from infinity to pi. I’ve now also started that research of the Ralston collection. Is pi the first manifestation of physicality at the very beginning? Were the Planck base units in some measure present? Obviously I am not a big fan of Hawking, Guth and the Big Bang folks…

PS. I like your exaggerations! I’ll show you some of mine about your work soon.


Bruce E. Camber

Second email: Tuesday, October 2, 2018, 2:28 PM

Dear Prof. Dr. John Ralston:

Do you stand by your article (ArXiv 2012)? If so, I will send it along to the Trinity College Dublin (TCD) folks.  

Your articles are wonderful homework. I’ll read, and re-read until I begin to grasp all that you have said (to the best of my abilities). I am ready to wake up! It seems most of the IAS folks are rather sure of themselves, yet when I finish reading their work, often I feel like they’re hiding something… first, it seems that they really don’t want us to understand completely and then intimidate us to hold back all our questions. 

Thank you again for your references.  I’ll see if I can purloin or otherwise buy a copy of your book. Would Max Planck and Frank Wilczek applaud?  I hope so.  – Bruce

  • How to Understand Quantum Mechanics, John P. Ralston, The University of Kansas ISBN: 9781681741628 • eBook ISBN: 9781681742267, May, 2018
  • Emergent un-Quantum Mechanics  © 2013 Ralston
  • Revising Your World–View of the Fundamental Constants, October 2013 
  • METROLOGY:  Measurement of the fine-structure constant as a test of the Standard Model, Parker et al., Science 360, 191–195 (2018) 13 April 2018

    Bruce E. Camber

First email: Sunday, Sep 30, 2018, 4:22 PM

Dear Prof. Dr. John Ralston:

Thank you for your work over six years ago (25 Mar 2012) on “Quantum Theory without Planck’s Constant” found here within ArXiv: PDF

Are there subsequent un-ArXived papers about his work? Do you stand by it? I hope so. In your conclusions you said,”There is still a place for standardizing Planck’s constant, just as standardizing other units is important to engineering and commerce.” Yet, your analysis is so entirely informative of the history that has transpired. Very helpful.

I would like to send those ArXiv references along to the folks at Trinity College Dublin’s School of Physics and the Trinity College Dublin’s Centre for Research on Advanced Nanostructures and Nanodevices (CRANN), particularly to their folks making this claim:
“One of the measurable characteristics of a beam of light is known as angular momentum. Until now, it was thought that in all forms of light the angular momentum would be a multiple of Planck’s constant (the physical constant that sets the scale of quantum effects).”

This is an important topic, especially in light of Sir Michael Atiyah‘s recent publication of “The fine-structure constant” (α).

Thank you.
Most sincerely,
Bruce Camber