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

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

Nagpal, Ritika

Prof. Dr. Ritika Nagpal

Department of Mathematics
Netaji Subhas Institute of Technology
Faculty of Technology
University of Delhi, New Delhi-110 078, India

ArXiv: Cosmological aspects of a hyperbolic solution in f(R,T) gravity
CV
Google Scholar
Homepage
Researchgate
Twitter
Wikipedia
YouTube

References within this website:

First email: Apr 16, 2019, 11:01 AM

Dear Prof. Dr. Ritika Nagpal:

I have been attempting to grasp the essences from your writing referenced above.

My work was done mostly at the high school level, so you can well understand that I am at a loss. Notwithstanding, I am trying hard to interpret work we did as a class when we went further and further the tetrahedron and octahedron with it until in 45 steps we were within particle physics and in another 67 steps we were within
the Planck scale. Of course, we then got our physics teacher involved and that opened a new universe for us.

When we took our desk top objects — https://81018.com/tot/ — and multiplied by 2, we were very surprised to find ourselves at the age and size of the universe in just 90 steps.

Base-2 notation with the checkerboard only went to the 64th power and here we were going to the 202 power. A wild ride! But, nobody seems to make any sense of it. Can you help us?

What logic functions are we failing to understand? If the universe is encapsulated ideally or mathematically within 202 notations, and these notations follow the Planck base units, and that scale seems to work, isn’t it a simple outline within which to begin to understand our universe in new ways?

Thank you for any help you can give us.

Our current homepage explains more: https://81018.com
Our chart is here: https://81018.com/chart

Most sincerely,
Bruce

Yamazaki, Masahito

Masahito Yamazaki

Kavli Institute for the Physics and Mathematics of the Universe (WPI)
University of Tokyo
Kashiwa, Chiba 277-8583, Japan

Articles: Do We Live in the Swampland? (September 2018)
ArXiv: Pure Natural Inflation  (April 2019)
Google Scholar Citations
Homepage
IAS
Inspire
Twitter

References within this website:
In Search Of Deeply-Informed Analyses

First Tweet: 17 April 2019

@196884 My note from a week ago was possibly too simple for you. For my own references, I have noted your work here: https://81018.com/e8/#Masahito and a page of references to your work is here: https://81018.com/2019/04/17/yamazaki/ Of course, we send best wishes for your every success.

First email: 8 April 2019

Dear Prof. Dr. Masahito Yamazaki:

I am trying my best to understand the basic concepts within your ArXiv article, Pure Natural Inflation. May I ask two naive questions?

1. Are you also exploring alternative theories to the ACDM model?

We naively backed into a very simple-yet-radically different model whereby base-2 notation is applied to the Planck base units and in just 202.34 doublings go out to the approximate size and age of the universe. Such a model requires the application of Neil Turok’s “always starting from scratch” not just for the first notation, but for all notations all the time.

2. Might you be able to debunk this simple model rather quickly?  It would be very helpful if you can.

https://81018.com/e8/ (Monday, April 7)
https://81018.com/maybe/ (Wednesday, April 3)
https://81018.com/standard_model/ (Tuesday, April 2)

We have been working around it too long and we do not know enough to interpret the data in light of conceptual integrity of current theory, i.e. the gauge field of a pure Yang-Mills theory. Thank you.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

Gambini, Rudolfo

Rodolfo Gambini

Facultad de Ciencias
Institu to de Física,
Igua 4225 C.P. 11400,
Montevideo, Uruguay

ArXivA single-world consistent interpretation of quantum mechanics from fundamental time and length uncertainties
Books: A First Course in Look Quantum Gravity
CV
Google scholar citations
Homepage
Twitter (a reference by Martín Monteiro)
Wikipedia
YouTube: The Issue of Time in Totally Constrained Systems

 

First email:  Monday, 15 April 2019

Dear Prof. Dr. Rodolfo Gambini:

Thank you for all your work on the edge of knowledge and insight.
I am smitten by your ArXiv article, especially with your heading,
A single-world consistent interpretation of quantum mechanics
from fundamental time and length uncertainties.”

We are just high school people so you can discount our work
very quickly, however, you might find it curious how we found
the 202 base-2 notations or doublings from the Planck units
to the approximate age and size of our universe. We thought
it was an excellent STEM tool but then the first 64 notations
bothered me. Our simple chart is here: https://81018.com/chart/

Much more than Kees Boeke’s base-10, this chart has an inherent
geometry, it has the Planck scale infused throughout it
from the first moment of time to this day. It has doublings that
act in the spirit of natural inflation. It has closed-cubic packing,
bifurcation theory, emergence…. I struggle to write it up:
https://81018.com/e8/

What do you think? Silliness? We know how entirely
idiosyncratic it is which is. Thank you.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

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

Quinn, Helen Rhoda

Helen R. Quinn

Stanford Linear Accelerator
Stanford, CA

AIP 2016 Compton Medal
Article: A Wormhole Between Physics and Education
ArXiv
Awards: National Academy of Sciences
Wikipedia

Most recent: Wednesday, 27 March 2019

Hi Helen,

I say to the kids, “Everything starts simple before it becomes complex.”
“There’s always a chain of command even if you can’t discern it.”

You’ll probably find this a bit hard to believe, but
when we started, I had no cosmology.
My dislike for it was rather visceral. It’s a story that
goes back to one of those clear summer nights (no moon);
I was a kid deep in the heart of the State of Maine,
looking up from a grassy knoll out into the Milky Way,
empathizing, stretching, and reaching for those stars,
when suddenly it started filling me and I felt like
I was suffocating within that infinity. Rather strange, I’ll admit.
Probably I should go get some therapy at 72 years old!
So, I avoided cosmology… anything beyond our solar system.

Also, I will be the first to admit that I am not satisfied
with our current understanding of the Planck scale.
Those are “real” numbers for mass, charge, length and time
and there hasn’t been enough ideation about it.
I do not think the string theorists have taken that data at
all seriously. Is there anybody else thinking at that scale?
It would be nice if the Langlands program people would
think about it, but they have their own starting points…

So, I take those four base units and ask, “What might those units
look like?” John Wheeler suggested quantum foam. More recently,
there are many who are now instantiating a “plancksphere.”

So, we ignored all cosmological models to look
for some new ontological model that works on up to cosmology…

Well, may I keep you abreast of our progress? Thanks.

First email:  Wednesday, Aug 2, 2018, 5:18 PM

Dear Prof. Dr. Helen Quinn:

I send this note in light of your work on the “Framework for K-12 Science Education.”

I have been puzzling a STEM tool that we fell into back in December 2011 within a high school geometry class.

The kids seemed to enjoy it when I took over my nephew’s geometry classes, so each time I was encouraged to think more creatively. This time instead of building models, we would do Zeno’s paradox by going inside the tetrahedron and by dividing the edges by 2, going deeper and deeper inside the four half-sized tetrahedrons and its one octahedron. Then we went within the eight tetrahedrons and six half-sized octahedrons with it. It got very busy very quickly. In just 45 steps within we were in the range of the fermion. Within another 67 steps within we were in the range of the Planck base units.

That was fascinating. 112 steps from the desk-sized object down to the Planck objects where we hit the “Planck wall.”

It didn’t take too long before we doubled that classroom tetrahedron). In just 90 steps, we were out to the Observable Universe.  It was too simple. We looked around for help to confirm our fascinating project. Even Frank Wilczek encouraged us!

But, interest dropped off quickly. People didn’t know what to do with it.

It was a curious thing, yet still nobody knew what to do with it. So, I continued to push its simple logic to try to determine where that logic fell apart:
https://81018.com/chart
https://81018.com/logic
https://81018.com/2016/06/01/quiet/

Might you be able to help?

Most sincerely,
Bruce
****************
Bruce Camber

PS. On quite another project, I will be on a tour of SLAC next Monday. Will you be in the area? -B

Colyvan, Mark

Mark Colyvan

Professor of Philosophy and Philosophy of Mathematics
Department of Philosophy
University of Sydney
Sydney, NSW, 2006. Australia

CV
Homepage
Wikipedia
YouTubeThe World’s Most Incredible Mind

The article that brought Mark Colyvan’s work to our attention:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mathphil-indis/

 First email:  Saturday, 23 Feb 2019, at 10:25 am

Dear Prof. Dr. Mark Colyvan:

I am so old I remember many times sitting next to Hilary Putnam at the lectures of the Boston Colloquium of Philosophy of Science and on one occasion joining him at the home of W.V.O. Quine for dinner with a small group of graduate students and faculty. I have been circling back and, of course, discovered your Stanford article and I had to say, “Thank you.”

Then I went to your home page and CV and I am very impressed. You might be able to help me discern the proper approach to a problem of mathematics and logic.

It arose in 2011 out of work with my nephew’s geometry classes. We went inside the. tetrahedron and octaherdon,, by dividing the edges by 2, connecting the new vertices; in 45 steps we were looking at particles (physics) and in another 67 steps we were looking at the Planck Wall. We multiplied by 2, and in 90 steps we were out to the approximate age and size of the universe: It was a treat. https://81018.com/home/

It was also quite baffling to overnight become so idiosyncratic. Of course, it was helpful to discover Kees Boeke’s base-10 scale of the universe. It was good to discover MIT/Nobel laureate Frank Wilczek’s 2001 work, Scaling Mt. Planck. But the simple process of doubling those units and then emerging with a chart of 202 notations.  That chart —

https://81018.com/chart/ has raised more questions than given us assurances.

What do we do with this madness? Does it mean anything?

Of course, we think meaning can easily be instantiated, but real meaning must be substantiated. What do we do with it? Are the first 64 notations particularly interesting because nobody has ever imagined that they are there? Each is defined by actual numbers, doublings of the Planck base units.

Might you help us a bit with your deep knowledge of logic, mathematics, and mathematical logic? I hope so. Thank you.

Most sincerely,
Bruce