*We can find new insights to solve the world’s most pressing problems…

Light as both particle and wave, 2015:

A new place to explore: From the
Planck scale to wave-particle duality.*

by Bruce E. Camber Key Dates. Eight Questions Answers EMAIL TWEETS COMMENT
FaustDrew Gilpin
Prof. Dr. Katherine FreeseKatherine
Mersini-HoughtonLaura Mersini-
Prof. Dr. Emily L. NurseEmily Nurse
Lisa-RandallLisa Randall
Prof. Dr. Maria SpiropuluMaria Spiropulu
OprahOprah Winfrey
Prof. Dr. Maryna ViazovskaMaryna

Forward. This world has always been fraught with deep and abiding problems. We obviously do not understand key concepts about our universe, our world, and ourselves. Over the years many people have thought, “Let’s bring the best of our deep thinkers together and have them address these problems assuming each problem can be adequately defined and the thoughtful-and-wise will have new insights and possible answers to old questions.

First principles. The position of this website is that nothing will fundamentally change until we begin testing new concepts within those concepts that seem to define us, particularly space/time, matter/energy, and, yes, even infinity.

The people pictured on this page. All have had new ideas and concepts. They are each respected as teachers and have become so highly qualified, they’re considered to be among the best teachers living today. One of the purposes of this article is to examine new insights and concepts about the first principles that these people have used to define their universe, their world, and life itself

Who are we and why?

But, please, let me specially caution you: The first principles of this website are being developed as a result of  a highly-integrated, mathematical view of the universe. That is, in 2011 our high school geometry classes discovered that we could parse the entire universe — everything, everywhere, throughout all time — within just 202 base-2 notations or doublings from the Planck units to the age and size of the universe today. In 2016 we developed a horizontally-scrolled chart to follow all those numbers. It still needs to be critically reviewed.

Inherent within such a chart is a belief in the fundamentality of concepts like continuity, symmetry, and harmony. We  concluded that these concepts give rise to space-time-mass-energy and light; and together, these open a deeper understanding of  the relational universe that could move us beyond Newtonian subject-object thinking.

Assumptions. We assume the fundamentality of the relation. We assume that subjects-and-objects and space-time are derivative.

A place where relations are fundamental is where quantum fluctuations dominate. Our challenge is to define that place, then work to discover or uncover other such places.

Prof. Dr. Stephon AlexanderAlexander
Prof. Dr. Martin BridsonBridson
Prof. Dr. George F.R. EllisEllis
Prof. Dr. Basil HileyHiley
Prof. Dr. Frank WilczekWilczek
Prof. Dr. Edward ZaltaZalta

Dearest Oprah, Please interview them. Ask about their understanding of (1).infinity, (2) the first quantitative moment and (3) the first fluctuation.


The Problem As Given:
An infinitesimal universe exists. It is defined by primordial numbers. Both George Stoney (1874) and Max Planck (1899) calculated what would approximate the smallest units of space and time and very small units of mass and charge. There is a scale between those primordial units and particle-and-wave duality. Using base-2 notation, there are about 64 progressive doublings of those infinitesimal numbers before there are quantum fluctuations. How can we know that scale? Of course, we should start with simple questions: Who? What? Why? When? Where? How?

Eight Questions

[1] Can numbers, geometries and dimensionless constants create physicality?

[2] Do quantum fluctuations begin with the geometries of the tetrahedral gap?

[3] Are the well-known functions of cubic close packing of equal spheres and sphere stacking the beginning of the expansion of our universe?

[4] Is an infinitesimal sphere the very first object or a thing within the physical?

[5] Quantum fluctuations appear to emerge between Notations-64-to-67; might there be similar gaps and fluctuations that manifest in prior notations?

[6Is there a natural inflation-and-expansion best described as base-2 exponentiation from the Planck base units?

[7] Are there logically-and-mathematically defined, progressions of geometries?

[8] Are the Notations, 1-201, time-symmetric and Notation-202 asymmetric or directional?

My Answers

1. Might the numbers, geometries and dimensionless constants, seemingly generated at the Planck scale and perhaps the finite-infinite transformation point, create conditions for the beginnings of something physical to manifest? I believe so.

Background. It all has to start somewhere and pi seems to be cross-dressing between the finite and the infinite. The infinite is the qualitative expression of continuity, symmetry, and harmony. The finite is the quantitative expression. I am in search of credible scholars who are examining the possibility that the intellectual and logical starting points for space and time are the Planck base units and that Max Planck’s numbers for length, time, mass and charge could be considered the first definitions of a sphere.

  • What is pi (π)? What is never-ending and never-repeating? Is this simple formula a domain for perfection that is qualitatively infinite and quantitatively finite manifesting as space and time?

The concept of perfection within the physical world was put aside when we began to understand quantum mechanics. The essential nature of things appeared indeterminant, even chaotic.

  • Behind the chaotic that we observe, could there be a domain or domains of perfection? What happens within sphere stacking and cubic-close packing of equal spheres? If it necessarily defines the first moment of space and time, are the Planck base units an accurate description of those first moments, space-and-time, and mass-and-charge (or energy)? Is there a natural tetrahedral-octahedral tiling of the universe that fills all space? Does the complete filling of one domain naturally open the next (a natural inflation and expansion of the universe)?


2. What are the conditions for the beginning of quantum fluctuations? Does the geometric gap created by five tetrahedrons have anything to do with these fluctuations and wave-particle duality? I believe it does.
Background. For about 1800 years scholars echoed Aristotle’s mistaken notion that the universe could be tiled and tessellated with tetrahedrons.1 Add an octahedron and there is a perfect tiling and tessellation. Fluctuations are ruled out. But, start with a single tetrahedron and add another to it. At most, five tetrahedrons can share a common edge; yet when they do, a gap 2 is created. Finally recognized in the 1400s, it wasn’t until 1926 that a Dutch scholar, Dirk J. Struik,2 re-opened that analysis. Though he eventually became an MIT mathematics professor, it would take another eighty-six years (2012) for Jeffrey Lagarias and Chuanming Zong3 to analyze this history further. But even today, there are no known studies within mathematics or physics that have engaged the logical effects of this 7.35610317+ degree gap created when five tetrahedrons sharing a common edge.

Again, what are our boundaries? What are the dynamics of the simplest configurations of tetrahedrons? Do the five tetrahedral and six-tetrahedral configurations begin to define a next generation of dynamics beyond sphere stacking and cubic-close packing of equal spheres?


3. Might functional mechanisms heretofore associated with the human scale actually be describing an essential mechanism at the Planck scale that could be the root of the expansion of the universe? I believe so.
. One possible explanation for the emergence and expansion of the universe is contained within the logic of cubic-close packing of equal spheres and sphere stacking. A very explosive rate is defined by distance each Planck-Length doubling goes within the related Planck-Time. Those infinitesimal spheres are generated at the slight variables of the speed of light yet always within .1% of the laboratory-defined value. That has been true from the first notation and continues now within the largest, Notation-202. With the simple application of base-2 resulting in the  doublings of the Planck base numbers, our first three charts emerged: (1) the first in 2011, (2) a more simple single-page, desktop model in 2013-2014, and (3) a horizontally-scrolled chart of 202 notations in 2016 with each of the Planck-numbers expanded.

  • What does it mean if the Planck Length divided by Planck Time equals the speed of light (within .1% of the laboratory definition used by NIST and SI)? Does it confirm Max Planck’s calculations in 1899? Does it tell us about the very nature of light? Is the nature of light a key to understanding the nature of life? Doesn’t it confirm the voracity of each of Planck’s calculations that define Planck Length and Planck Time? Those calculations involve many variables. Then there is a next level formula whereby Planck Length divided by Planck Time is equal to the speed of light. That opens yet another story that warrants our attention and further key questions.


4. Could the simple sphere, an infinitesimal sphere, be the first representation of an object or a thing within physicality? I believe it is.
. These three key primary facets of the sphere — continuity, symmetry and harmony — are involved with many of the dimensionless constant equations at the Planck scale. The experts within this area suggest 26 dimensionless constants are necessary for the the Standard Model at the wave-particle duality. The most ubiquitous facet is driven by all the equations related to pi (π).  These geometric symmetries and continuous transformations create a simple grid from the first moment of time to this very day.

  • Is it meaningful? We continue our struggle to find out!


5. Assuming that the five-tetrahedral configuration is the beginning of quantum fluctuations (and assuming these fluctuations are first measured between Notation-65 and Notation-67), might this gap manifest in prior notations? I believe it does.

Background: Within the first ten notations, the tetrahedral-octahedral couplet would seem to dominate structure and it would be defining forms in the classical ideation of Plato and Platonic scholarship over the years. It would seem that other logical forms might be introduced and tested within those notations that are prime numbers, i.e. 3, 5, and 7 within the first group of ten notations. Within Notation-3, the thrust would be for all things three.

Within Notation-5, the thrust would be for all things five. Within Notation 7, the thrust would be for all things seven. Within this primordial start, we may be just counting vertices. Basic forms are being constructed. Octahedrons are naturally emerging from tetrahedrons within cubic close packing of equal spheres. Look carefully at the space created by all the red tetrahedrons in this dynamic image (GIF). I have been asking many of the same people for several years now. They have not said, “That’s stupid and here is why it is so.” I have asked through these articles and through an FQXi competitive submission. Their quietness tells us that we are going is a plausible direction. With each subsequent doubling, especially when three and two become Notation-6, a three-tetrahedral configuration could be “tested.” When five-and-two become Notation-10, that five-tetrahedral configuration could be “tested” but I suspect the perfect tetrahedral-octahedral stacking is naturally extended. It is too easy and too natural. In this model, all notations are always active and each of our prime-number notations would be constantly optimizing its definition based on how each subsequent notation evolves.

Though quite simple, it doesn’t feel simple. Notation-11 through Notation-20 contain prime-number notations 11, 13, 17, and 19. Yet, these are always active within each of the base-2 extensions. It seems that each each of these four prime-number notation would also harbor unique possibilities for dimensionality as forms and structures. Here I believe we just might find a way to apply the automorphic forms as uniquely defined by Langlands and Witten. Also, I believe that the tetrahedral-octahedral configuration will continue to dominate. Perhaps Aristotle’s vision of Ousia for substance could be within Notations 21-30 and prime-number notations 23 and 29 could add possible unique mathematical applications. Now, recognizing that these prior paragraphs are very rough, I ask that we leave it alone for a day or two to see if anything speaks more clearly through it. Also, I have to remind myself that we are looking for the first quantum fluctuation based on Aristotle’s mistake, the five-tetrahedral gap. Consider Notation-15, Notation-20, Notation-25, Notation-30, Notation-35, Notation-40, and Notation-45. All require very special reflections to determine the logical extensions of the prime, 5.

Of course, there will be a special logic that will develop for all the primes, 7, 11,13,17,19, 23-29, 31-37, 41-43-47, 53-59, and 61-67.

Although I suspect Witten and Langland will dominate these primes, there may well be competition from among other logic systems. I don’t know, but together we may find out. Among their experts, someone just might begin to discern numbers, patterns and potentials that resonate with some aspect of their prior work.

  • When and how and where might that gap be logically defined? I suspect the first logical gap will happen within Notation-15, yet it will not come out as an affect on the look and feel of all other structures. It will be contained and there ill be no fluctuations. I suspect there will be fluctuations until Notation-50, projected to be the beginning of Systems and our most primitive “consciousness” that we share with all organic things.


6. With the thrusts of Planck Charge and light, can we logically assume there is a natural inflation from the Planck base units? I think so.

Background. The debates from the early days with Lemaitre to Bondi-Gold-Hoyle, through to my college years with Hawking-Ellis, and now to Ijjas-Steinhardt and Feldbrugge-Lehners-Turok (and, yes, just a few thousand others), are all admittedly incomplete. And, our little model has yet to be critically reviewed.

Our chart tells a story. It’s an open universe that has an ongoing relation with infinity that is defined by continuity-symmetry-harmony gives this model its energy and stability, so, yes, there will be much more to come.

  • Does it follow that this expansion is first defined by base-2 or simple doublings of these numbers? What is a natural inflation? We’ll continue to ask scholars like Freese to help us to open this model further.


7. Are there logically-defined, progressions of geometries within groups of notations through to the wave-particle duality at Notation-67? I think so.
. Our mathematically-integrated universe view is the only cosmology (and ontology and epistemology) that begins with infinitesimal spheres that generate tetrahedrons and octahedrons (cubic close packing of equal spheres) and looks to develop other mathematical models within each prime-number notation that is grounded within our simple doublings. Here is a cosmology totally based on mathematics, geometries, the nature of light, and the continuities, symmetries, and harmonies inherent in spheres and light. 

  •  Does it help if we limit the discussions about infinity to continuity (order), symmetry (relations), and harmony (dynamics)? There are so many like Kurt Gödel and David Hilbert who would be asked to just take a break.


8. Are the Notations, 1-201, time-symmetric? Could all the domains except for Notation-202 with its current expansion and the Now, be time symmetric? I think all 202 notations are always in process and 202nd notation per se is directional.
Background. Time’s asymmetry or directional time has been one of our on-going, stubborn, intellectual challenges. Sleep and consciousness are right up there within it. What if all three are profoundly related?  Much more to come…

Conclusions for Part I

This analysis is a first draft. It begins to identify a problem as given and some possible scholars to address these questions about the nature of space/time, mass/energy and infinity.

Part II will be an analysis of the work of these 19 scholars in light of the questions above.  It has been started; and, the very rough pages will be made available to scholars sometime soon. With some help, it could be posted in the public by August 18.

Part III. Today we have options. Conferences are expensive and time consuming, and the results are quite variable. Why not experiment with different formats? Can we create a more vibrant, results-oriented “conference” by asking our best living scholars to address particular questions with pithy new insights, perhaps even with a bit of capricious whimsy, yet still a cogent and responsible answer?If we ask key questions (above), we just might get a few new insights. Someone’s analysis may render a new mathematical logic and/or understanding of basic physics. For example, if the Planck base units of time and length are taken as the very first units of length and time, and time is not absolute, how are we to understand the redshift?

See: https://81018.com/fluctuations/ and https://81018.com/cern-scale/ as we prepare for the next level of engagements, online, real-time meetings. Thank you. –BEC

Endnotes & Footnotes

Editor’s note:  A few footnotes and endnotes might be added in the next few weeks.

Review. Using base-2, there are 202 notations from the first moment of time (assuming Planck Time) and 13.81+ billion years later to this current point of time, right now, today. Out of all 202 notations, the first 64 are too small for our current measuring devices currently used to focus on wave-particle duality. What are possible, logically-defined geometrics within natural groups of notations from Notation-1 to Notation-64? By studying the progression of these numbers, the Langlands programs and string theory scholars, may be able to discern patterns and potentials that may resonate with their prior work. Within the scope of this inquiry, leading theorists may be able to make postulations and predictions that have experimental potential.

There could be an edge, an anticipation, to hear the thoughts of such scholars. The question about the relation of geometries to fluctuations is current, dynamic, and a key part of the future of  both mathematics and physics.


Participation:  Within this construct, we will need to decided on a potential facilitator and host who can keep each scholar stay focused on the question and all other insights for an answer. If the initial question and the scholar’s answer is limited to about 15 minutes, there would be time for a quick analysis with additional questions by a young scholar and an older scholar. The role of the host-facilitator of each key question would be a key to getting possible answers and new insights. For this so-called ideal conference, a very partial list for a potential facilitator/host: Brendan Hassett (Brown), Clifford Taubes (Harvard), Simon Donaldson (Stony Brook)…

A very partial list of potential young and old scholars for an abbreviated analysis and related questions: Brian Bowditch (Warwick),  David J. Gross (UC-SB), Steven Weinberg (UTexas-Austin), Peter Higgs (Edinburgh), Sheldon Lee Glashow (BU), Arthur Jaffe (Harvard), Antonino Zichichi.

Participation should be open to any scholar who has addressed such a question within their teaching, research, and writing be it in a journal or other professional publication or be it only online. Please just drop me a note.  –BEC


Potential sponsors and hosts:  Allstate Foundation, S. D. Bechtel, Jr. Foundation, Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative, Fetzer Franklin Fund, FQXi, National Science Foundation, Nour Foundation, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Rockefeller, Solvay, Templeton, Wallace Foundation

Please comment and criticize!

Please send along your comments or questions:


*This Webpage Will Evolve In Three Parts: This is Part I.

*Yes, this homepage will be done in three parts. Hopefully each part can stand on its own merits, yet be intelligently related to each other. This first part posits the thesis. Within this website, it is a discovery process of  the foundations of space/time, mass/energy and infinity that pivots from new insights on what is between the Planck scale and the wave-particle duality.

Part II will be the antithesis, perhaps a bit strong for insights and ideas that have been harbored by our scholars pictured above. Currently, you might click on their names to review some of their work and to see a copy of my correspondence with them. 

Part III will be a new synthesis. Here will be a proposal to each of these scholars to participate in a conference that would be associated with one of their schools, and with sponsoring groups and businesses.

wave-particle-lineAbout this image: Light as both particle and wave, 2015

This picture is reported to be the first that actually shows the wave-particle nature of light. It was captured by

Key Dates for the posting, Conference

This page was initiated on June 1, 2020
Homepage start: July 20, 2020 @ 10:10 PM
Last edit: Wednesday, April 4, 2021
This page is: https://81018.com/conference/
Related pages: https://81018.com/alphabetical/ https://81018.com/cern-scale/
First principles and assumptions: https://81018.com/presuppositions/

The 1979 story: https://81018.com/mit/
Scholars: https://81018.com/scholars77/