Conference Password: Help


Seven ScholarsWhat about Oprah Winfrey? What about National Poet Laureate?

Emily Nurse
Maria Spiropulu
Maryna Viazovska
Laura Mersini
Katherine Freese
Nancy Cartwright
Drew Gilpin Faust

From the Planck scale to wave-particle duality*

by Bruce E. Camber This page is currently under constructionEMAIL  TWEETS

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 with the assumption that each problem can be adequately defined and that the thoughtful-and-wise will have new insights and possible answers.

First principles. The position of this website is that nothing will fundamentally change until we begin testing new concepts, ostensibly new first principles about that which currently defines us, particularly space, time, matter and energy, and, yes, even infinity.

The women pictured above all have had new ideas and concepts. They are respected as teachers and have become qualified to be considered among the best teachers living today. One of the purposes of this page is to examine new insights and concepts about the first principles that these people have used to define the universe, the world, and us. 

Notwithstanding, we will caution you; when we engage first principles here within this website, it is based on an integrated view of the universe.  That is, in 2011 we discovered that we could parse the entire universe — everything, everywhere, throughout all time — with just 202 base-2 notations or doublings from the Planck units to the age and size of the universe. We developed a horizontally-scrolled chart to follow all those numbers. Inherent within such a chart is a belief in fundamental concepts like continuity, symmetry, and harmony. These concepts seem to be more fundamental than space and time and open a  deeper understanding of a relational universe that could move us beyond Newtonian subject-object thinking.

Subject-object thinking denies the fundamentality of the relation and assumes the fundamentality of space and time. We assume that there spaces within our universe where subjects and objects are not what is primary. One such space is where quantum fluctuations are dominant.

Case studies: A key mystery within the sciences is the very nature of  quantum fluctuations. The implications reach well beyond the sciences.

To be more creative in search of answers, let’s ask ten key questions of fourteen of our known scholars who have been thoughtful leaders in our exploration of new ideas. Let’s see if any harbor some speculative insights that might help us to construct this new picture of our universe.

Seven scholars above (pictured). All well-known leading thinkers, each has unique insights into the nature-and-role of the unknown. Although they may not know too much of anything about quantum fluctuations, they have learned a lot about researching and contemplating the unknowns. Although there are no known experts in the area of quantum fluctuations, each may be have analogical constructs from within their own discipline that might open new insights. There are five scientists (physicists), one philosopher, and one historian.

Seven scholars below… (to be determined)

Dynamic process. I’ll first check for potential answers to each question from within their respective writings already within public domain and, to the best of my abilities, summarize their best ideas and deepest insights.  Then, we’ll ask them to respond directly.

The Problem As Given: Somewhere between the Planck scale and particle-and-wave duality, quantum fluctuations appear. So, we ask:  Who? What? Why? When? Where? How?


1. Could numbers and geometries at the Planck scale create conditions for the beginnings of physicality?

Background. There are very few scholars who are examining the possibility that the intellectual and logical starting points for space and time are the Planck base units. Yet, if we take Max Planck’s number for Planck Length, and divide it by Planck Time, it equals the speed of light. The result rendered is within .001% of the laboratory definition used by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the International System of Units (SI). It confirms the voracity of each of Planck’s calculations that define Planck Length and Planck Time. That involves many variables. Then there is 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.

  • Is there a domain for perfection within space and time? What is the first moment in 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 chaos, could there be a domain or domains of perfection? What happens within sphere stacking and cubic-close packing of equal spheres? Does it necessarily define the first moment of space and time? Are the Planck base units an accurate description of that first moment (space and time, and matter and charge  or energy)? Is there a natural tetrahedral-octahedral tiling of the universe that fills all space?

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?

Background. For about 1800 years scholars echoed Aristotle’s mistaken notion that the universe could be tiled and tessellated with tetrahedrons.1 Perfect tilings and tessellations rule out fluctuations. Scholars subsequently found and defined a geometric gap that emerges from the most simple tetrahedral configuration. We start with a single tetrahedron. Add another to it. At most, five tetrahedrons can share a common edge; however, a gap is created. The first-known comprehensive study of Aristotle’s mistake was done in 1926 by a scholar, Dirk J. Sruik,2 who eventually became an MIT mathematics professor. Eighty-six years later, in 2012, Jeffrey Lagarias and Chuanming Zong3 analyzed this history again. 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 with five tetrahedron 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. Do the thrusts of Planck Charge and light constitute a natural inflation?

Background. 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  simple base-2 doublings of those numbers, here, too, are the tetrahedral configurations as previously defined [1].  

  • 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?

4. Could the simple sphere, an infinitesimal sphere, be the first representation of an object or a thing within physicality?

Background. These three key primary facets of the sphere — continuity, symmetry and harmony — that are involved with many of the dimensionless constant equations at the Planck scale.  Experts within this area suggest 26 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?

CURRENT WORK AS OF Thursday, July 9, 2020 — ROUGH DRAFT


  • How might those first notations be logically defined?
  • When and how and where might that gap be logically defined?




  • With the thrusts of Planck Charge and light, can we logically assume there is a natural inflation from the Planck base units? See the work of Katherine Freese.

  • Does it follow that this expansion is first defined by base-2 or simple doublings of these numbers?



  • How might the very first fluctuation be logically defined? Is it related to the gap created with five tetrahedrons sharing a common edge?



  • Is there a logically-defined, progression of geometries within each group of ten notations through to the wave-particle duality?



  • Are there domains within the 202 notations that is time-symmetric? Could all the domains except for the one with the current time, the Now, be time symmetric?


  • Are there places within this base-2 progression of Planck numbers for the Langlands programs and string theory scholars? Might their experts discern numbers, patterns or potentials that resonate with some aspect of their prior work?



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 particle-wave duality. What are possible, logically-defined geometrics within each group of ten 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.

Dynamics. Within this construct, we will need to decided on a potential facilitator and host who can keep each scholar focused on the question and place of each 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 ideal conference, a very partial list for a potential facilitator/host: Frank Wilczek (MIT), Brendan Hassett (Brown), Clifford Taubes (Harvard), Simon Donaldson (Stony Brook), Martin R Bridson (Oxford), Basil Hiley, … (many more to come)

Invited Scholars for quick analysis of a key question: David J. Gross (UC-SB), Steven Weinberg (UTexas-Austin), Peter Higgs (Edinburgh), Sheldon Lee Glashow (BU), Robert Langlands (IAS), Ed Witten (IAS), Brian Bowditch (Warwick), Katherine Freese (UTexas-Austin)… (many more to come)

A very partial list of potential young and old scholars for an abbreviated analysis and related questions: Arthur Jaffe (Harvard), Antonino Zichichi, Stephon Alexander… (many more to come)

Invited Scholars for open Q&A sessions: …

Video Conference, Web Conference, Webinars… to a Live Conference

Many layers of participation:

Participants might include 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.

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


Endnotes, Footnotes

On an electrodynamic origin of quantum fluctuations, Alvaro Lopez, January 2020

[1] Aristotle’s mistaken notion:

[2] Dirk J. Sruik,

[3] Jeffrey Lagarias and Chuanming Zong

[4] 7.35610317+ degree gap

[5] Planck base units of time and length6 Planck Length divided by Planck Time


Geometry and physics, Michael Atiyah, Robbert Dijkgraaf and Nigel Hitchin, 13 March 2010

Space, Time, and Theology in the Leibniz-Newton Controversy By Edward J. Khamara, 2006


Dirk J. Sruik

Jeffrey Lagarias and Chuanming Zong

7.35610317+ degree gap

Planck base units of time and length Planck Length divided by Planck Time

The Journal of Geometry and Physics

Miscellaneous Notes

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 ten key questions (above). we just might get a few new insights. Before engaging them…  For this posting…  Hopefully, in this process we’ll develop a consensus, maybe a new platform for dialogue.

Such an analysis may require a new mathematical logic and understanding of basic physics. For example, take the following questions:Are the Planck base units of time and length the very first units of length and time? Perhaps you consider space and time to be absolute. 

In August 2020 more work will be done on this page:


Tuesday, July 7, 11:54 AM
Dear Ramin-
Your Newsletter #32 is opened on my desktop, the first that I have received from you. I have a few quick questions and I believe from your newsletter that you’ll readily have answers.
1. Why doesn’t it all begin — the universe and everything that follows — with the four Planck base units… Planck Length/Planck Time and Planck Mass/Planck Charge?
2. Can we take that as a given? If so, could the first expression of physicality be the sphere?
3. If we take that as a given, could a primary functionality be sphere stacking?
4. And, if so, could cubic-close packing of equal spheres very nicely extend that functionality? Ultimately we get 202 base-2 notations from the first instant to the current expansion with no less than 64 notations totally in the dark (too small to measure, so much smaller than the wave-particle duality? We’re just high school folks. Where are we going wrong? Thanks.
PS. Thanks for your article, Why it’s time to take alternatives to dark matter seriously which prompted this note to you. -BEC

Friday, July 10, 2020 at 10 AM

Dear Prof. Dr. Edward Zalta:

I so enjoy your Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP). Thank you for all your work with it. It is a trusted resource and helps fill in some of my many blanks. Now, I am so old I remember many lectures with Quine and Putnam, even a spirited dinner with them at Quine’s Beacon Hill home. Thank you also for your work to follow-up the Correspondence with your lecture, Towards Leibniz’s Goal of a Computational Metaphysics.

I have a quick question.

Could a cogent metaphysics and physics start with the Planck base units?  If we were to assume the sphere is the first physical manifestation of space-time-matter-energy, might we also assume sphere stacking and cubic-close packing of equal spheres (such that a base-2 notation emerges)? The first second is in the 143rd notation and the current age-
and-size of the universe emerge in 202nd notation. It seems that our old friend, John Wheeler, might celebrate its simplicity.

I know how totally idiosyncratic it is, but maybe with such a different look at all the old problems, we can get beyond some of the dastardly impasses within science today.

Thanks again.



@BreneBrown On Miramar Beach for a morning walk and “Imperfection” is all I see of the reader. She looks up; I ask, “You know there is a veil of perfection within the physical world – from the Planck units and before wave-particle duality.”  (Reference: We talked. I thanked her. She thanked me.

@SCMPNews and @AFF_HK William – Its obvious that we have incomplete models of who we are and why. Worldviews are too small. Integrated universe views are still quite young — — yet are necessary to evolve. These are critical times requiring radically different concepts. -Bruce 


Key Dates for the posting, Conference

This page was initiated on June 1, 2020
Projected homepage start: July 20, 2020 @ 10:10 PM
Last edit: Friday, July 7, 2020
This page is:
Related pages:
The 1979 story: