Editor-in-chief, Physics Today, 2015-2022

Google Scholar

Homepages: *Physics Today*

LinkedIN

Twitter

Third email: 8 June 2022

Frank Wilczek’s articles back in 2001 on “Scaling Mt. Planck” were good; when he won the Nobel (with Gross and Politzer) in 2004 those *Physics Today* articles became priceless! Planck’s base units had been grossly undervalued. I met with Wilczek in his MIT office on a brisk January day in 2013. He encouraged us to continue to study the Planck Length.

Yet, the more we studied, the more we realized our simple construction was idiosyncratic. It was a radically different model. We were sure that we were missing something. Yet, then again, maybe we weren’t.

The scientific community has been spinning its back wheels as if on ice. Incrementalism doesn’t solve big problems. That’s the domain of a paradigm shift. Lots of folks shift a little. Witten, Langlands, Rovelli perhaps shifted more, but still their wheels continue to spin.

First, we have to tuck linear time within a system that recompiles it on a regular basis, like a sleep cycle, so we have a relatively symmetric universe. For us, that system was defined by taking Euler’s base-2 work and applying it to Planck’s work. We ended up encapsulating the universe in just 202 notations.

That came out of a high school geometry class in New Orleans in December 2011.

It’s been ten years now. For my friends who ask, “How do you verify any of these conjectures?”, I wrote up: https://81018.com/validate/ More recently, From Perfected States to Gaps & Fluctuations, Eight Initial Conditions, Answering “Yes” starts a paradigm shift, and today’s homepage — https://81018.com/ — brings you current.

It’s a stretch and it certainly isn’t incrementalism!

I wish you well with all your work!

Warmly,

Bruce

PS. That picture taken by your wife is excellent. It should be swapped out with others so your readers begin to get to know you! -BEC

Second email: 8 June 2021

Dear Charles:

Indeterminacy. Chaos. Free will. Ego. Arrogance. And then, it gets worse! We are all so prone to error, it is a small miracle that we get things done correctly at all.

Quick question: Do you know anybody who is working to define a grid from the Planck base units (or the Stoney units or other yet-to-be-defined primordial units) to the wave-particle duality or quantum fluctuations?

Do you think it is a reasonable task to undertake? Thanks.

Warmly,

Bruce

First email: 8 October 2019 at 12:12 PM

**RE**: Shouldn’t we asking, “What is time?” when it all feels like yesterday.

Hi Charles,

The internet brings us all together in the most elusive *and* direct ways. Given all your strengths — PhD in X-ray astronomy from the University of Cambridge in 1988 — you might enjoy a little thought experiment:

“If we take the Planck base units, and multiply them by 2, over and over again, how many steps would it take to get to the current moment in time (assuming Planck Time is the first moment in time)?”

Answer: 202 notations or doublings See the numbers here: https://81018.com/chart/

Might it help to know that the universe is just about 436,117,076,640,000,000± seconds old? It is a rather peculiar notion that the age of the universe can be computed in seconds. Might it help to know that the first second falls between Notations 143 and 144? https://81018.com/formulas/ https://81018.com/chart/#Second

Yes, we mapped the universe in 202 base-2 notations (doublings) in a high school geometry class. It was a result of playing with embedded geometries and by asking Zeno’s question. We didn’t know what we didn’t know. https://81018.com/home/

That Planck scale has not been explored enough!

We started our explorations back in 2011. That horizontally-scrolled chart emerged in 2016. Nobody has debunked that little chart, even after repeated requests of some of our finest scholars! https://81018.com/alphabetical/

I hope you are intrigued enough to take a look. Why does the logic and math look so straightforward but it is all summarily ignored?

Thanks.

Bruce

*The first email to Charles Day but the third email to AIP and *Physics Today*.