RE: An experiment to test the discreteness of time (ArXiv, 16 Jul 2020)

TO: Andrea Di Biagio (La Sapienza), Marios Christodoulou (Oxford), Pierre Martin-Dussaud (Aix-Marseille Univ, Université de Toulon)

Third email: Monday, November 9, 4:11 PM

Dear **A**ndrea, **M**arios, and **P**ierre (AMP),

Of course, you know if you can “prove” that time is discrete, you will be have knocked off Newton’s absolute 333 year hold on our commonsense worldview! Your doctorates will be legendary, you’ll be welcomed anywhere for your postdoc, and fame will follow!

So, without question, I’m fascinated to follow your budding careers.

I have updated our page on discrete time (this page) and will continue to do so as I learn more from you. If you followed some of those links that were in the past two emails, you know we recognize how entirely idiosyncratic our work is. John Baez told us in 2012, but Frank Wilczek found it curious that high school people were asking such unusual questions with such little background. Freeman Dyson had been an old acquaintance back when I first met him in 1977. He always encouraged anybody who was thinking, yet in 2012 he thought we had not accepted some of the cherished first principles of physics (probably because we didn’t know what they were).

I continue our efforts here with these two works in progress:

- https://81018.com/history/ which is titled,
*Work Toward a Mathematically-Integrated Model of the Universe* - https://81018.com/expansion/ titled, The Expansion of this Universe. Not too modest, it needs a lot of help. If any of you or all of you think there is any hope for that article, I would welcome your insight and advice.

I wish you three well, the best of all insights and the special gifts of this world (I am a classic older one, i.,e. wine-women-and-song).

Warmly,

Bruce

Second email: Monday, November 2, 6:41 AM

Thank you for your response to my rather oblique note (just below). By studying your experimental designs, you’ll teach us about discreteness! Sir Isaac Newton may learn a few things from you all as well. And, I am sure your work will help us with our own ideas and models about time’s discreteness.

What we have is a simple geometry (embedded geometries), which took us down to the Planck scale. We then adopted Max’s numbers and turned around to emerge within 112 doublings back up into our classroom. Because we were so surprised with that circular journey, we just continued to multiply by 2 until we were at the approximate size of the universe. We had some help from a NASA mathematician and the Hubble’s measurements. We were even more surprised that it took only 90 more additional doublings, just 202 notations in all. Too cool to let go, we wrote it up: https://81018.com/stem/ and thought we’d get a pat on the head from the STEM folks (and thought, “Maybe they’ll publish it as our* letter to the editor* in Scientific American.” But, no, everyone essentially asked, “Why?” or said, “So what.”

Hardly a theory, it is a bunch of very interesting progressions.

When we finally followed Planck Time out alongside Planck Length in 2015, it certainly seemed a bit more compelling. It just prodded us further, “What do we do with this cache of base-2 progressions? Is Euler pushing us (and the universe) into a fundamentally exponential order?”

Having lived with these progressions for a few years (and knowing how entirely idiosyncratic they are), I pulled our project out of the high school curriculum. We could image our best and brightest trying to explain it in their sophomore physics and astronomy classes! Now we only look for work like yours that might be doing something to help us interpret our little *multiplication-and-division-by-2* STEM project.

Obviously, your work is important to us. In our simple model time not only appears to be discrete, but necessarily linked to space, an aspect of light, and within a most intimate family with mass and charge.

So that little reference to your ArXiv research sparked my interest.

You’ve got a groupie! I believe your work can help us understand our own work better!

Our numbers are 100% predictive; they exhibit a simple and sweet logic. …but, are they *really* logical? In the face of all that is big bang cosmology, I (and a few others) think these numbers are especially logical.

Closer to Pythagoras than to Hawking, may we be a “Greek chorus” and sing your praises hoping that you don’t mind having some folks look over your shoulder! Thanks.

Best wishes indeed,

Bruce

**RE**: An experiment to test the discreteness of time – https://arxiv.org/pdf/2007.08431.pdf

**TO**: Marios Christodoulou, Andrea Di Biagio, Pierre Martin-Dussaud

Did you know that there are 202 base-2 notations from the Planck base units to the current day and size of the universe?

**To follow the numbers**: https://81018.com/chart/

**Beginnings**: https://81018.com/home/ We’re just a bunch of high school people exploring a tetrahedron and the octahedron and tetrahedrons within it, and so on down.

**112 steps to the Planck Length**: https://81018.com/tot/

**Current explanation**: https://81018.com/world/