On following the work of Emily Conover…

Emily ConoverEmily-Conover, Science News
1719 N St. NW, Washington, DC 20036

Article: An experiment hints at quantum entanglement inside protons, May 17, 2019
Education: PhD, University of Chicago, 2014
Homepage (Personal) Twitter

References to her work in these webpages:
Link to this email below: https://81018.com/known/#Emails

Quick note: 18 February 2024

Some didn’t like the lack of formatting in that https://81018.com/bbc/ article on Feb 7. Very similar, but with a positive attitude and a more classic format: https://81018.com/reformat

The link to our page about your work is here: https://81018.com/conover/ (this page)

Best wishes,

Bruce

Third email: 7 February 2024

Dear Dr. Emily Conover:

Starting with Planck’s natural units and assuming a shell sphere infinitesimally smaller than a neutrino seems like an unlikely beginning of a story, but it’s the beginning of this one!  202 base-2 notations later seems too simple, but the results are stunning enough that I believe they’re worth a look.

https://81018.com is where the story unfolds. It’s the homepage for  a few days, then the URL to get to it is: https://81018.com/bbc/  Might you take a quick look and suggest if it is even close to being newsworthy? Thank you.

Warmest regards,

Bruce

Second email: 28 June 2022 at 9:30 AM

RE: Aristotle thought you could tile and tessellate the universe with tetrahedrons

Dear Dr. Emily Conover:

Aristotle’s 1800-year mistake was well-analyzed in 2012 by Jeffrey Lagarias (Michigan) and Chaunming Zong (Tianjin). For their work, they were recognized in 2015 with the AMS Levi L. Conant Prize. Lagarais gave the 2015 Clay (Mathematics Institute) Fellow Senior Talk. All that being said, we can find no analysis of the gaps created by five tetrahedrons sharing a common edge and centerpoints. And now, seven years later, their work, along with Aristotle’s mistake, is quietly fading from view.

I think these gaps are a fundamental geometric construction that has everything to do with quantum geometries and quantum computing. It seems logical that future progress in these disciplines will be limited until these gaps become a factor in our equations and circuitries.  My analysis is here: https://81018.com/geometries/

Do you think it is worth further study? Thank you.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

First email: 16 January 2020 at 6 PM

Dear Dr. Emily Conover:

Today I believe we have backed into a very different and credible model of the universe that is too simple to be true!
1. It started in a high school:  http://81018.com/home/
2. It became our STEM tool:   http://81018.com/stem/

Although none of the leading scholars would tell us why it was fallacious, we backed down — we didn’t want to be teaching our kids something so idiosyncratic it might taint them in college — but personally, I’ve became more curious, “Maybe there is something here!”

A simple explanation is here: http://81018.com/arxiv
All the numbers are here: http://81018.com/chart/

What do you think? What would you recommend we do with our rather idiosyncratic work?
Thanks.

Warmly,
Bruce

Tweet:  Monday, Jan 13, 2020

@emcconover Out of geometry classes in a New Orleans high school comes an idiosyncratic model of the universe by applying base-2 to the Planck units encapsulating the universe in 202 steps.

A STEM tool: http://81018.com/stem/
History: http://81018.com/home/

###