Close, Frank E.

Frank E. Close

Like yesterday, all our troubles seemed so far away…

Oxford University
Rudolf Peierls Centre for Theoretical Physics
Clarendon Laboratory
Parks Road
Oxford OX1 3PU UK

YouTubeCan Nothing exist?

 Most recent email: Wednesday, March 27, 2019

We don’t have a theory.
We just have simple, simple mathematics.
Our chart of 202 notations is just an extension of Planck’s base units.

It is a natural inflation:

We start with Max Planck’s numbers from 1899.
We use base-2 notation or a simple doubling progression.
We found a simple mechanism for doubling within cubic-close packing:
Plus, this is all out of a high school — both teachers and students are pleading for help.

Automated Response received: 27 March 2019

Thank you for your email concerning your Theory. I receive large numbers of suggestions that claim to have developed theories of particles, forces and/or answered my conjecture about features of some future theory. I am sorry to have to send this generic response as I cannot digest all of these ideas and decide which might be more worthy than another; but nor should I as it is experiment that decides. I urge you to develop a testable prediction whose experimental failure would enable your theory to be refuted. That is the nature of science. If you have already done so in your theory then I apologise and wish it success, but life is short. I have a full workload and am unable to take on unsolicited ventures in my retirement.”

First email re-sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 
Original sent: Sat, Jun 3, 2017 (probably not received)

Dear Emeritus Prof. Dr. Frank E. Close –

Life is never a straight arrow.
Back in the 1970s I did early work with
many of the greats, but got dizzy and stymied,
so started a business, made some money,
and then stumbled back into it all in 2011
through a back door helping my nephew
with his high school geometry classes.

I am sure you have thought about the veracity of the Planck base units.

Can they be meaningfully multiplied by 2? If so, you can go
from the Planck Time and Planck Length to the Age of the Universe
and the Observable Universe in just over 202 base-2 notations.
Frank Wilczek (MIT) seems to think we could multiply by 2.
Others like Ed Fredkin were not convinced.

With the kids and nephew we applied base-2 exponentiation,
unwittingly a bit like Kees Boeke in 1957 applied base-10, but
ours opened an observation about a natural inflation that captured
the cosmological epochs as well as the speculations of the big bang. is a horizontally-scrolled chart of the numbers.
My ever-so-slow process of reflecting on it all is here:

Is it just idiosyncratic nonsense?

If not, the mathematics of the first 60 or
so notations need our careful attention.

Bruce Camber