“We’re coming up with such a ridiculous answer that it really forces us to reinvestigate every single assumption that we made along the way to get there.” – Claudia de Rham, Quanta Magazine, The Physicist Who Slayed Gravity’s Ghosts, by Thomas Lewton, August 2020
Most recent email: June 23, 2021, 5:47 PM
Dear Prof. Dr. Claudia de Rham:
You’ve given me a lot of homework to do and a rather steep learning curve as well. But your great energy and pithy comments when you are interviewed keep the door opened as I explore your expertise within theoretical physics.
I failed to mention in my first email to you (just below), our explorations actively began in 2011 within a high school geometry class. Initially we were quite sure that we had uncovered the best possible STEM tool in the world– it included everything, everywhere for all time! It took us the better part of five years to realize that nobody had done a base-2 chart of the universe.
Back in 1957 another high school group led by Kees Boeke did a sweet piece of work with his 40 steps for a cosmic view. We like ours more. With 202 steps, it was more granular; it had a very fascinating geometry and the Planck scale; and, it had some functional curiosities.
In 1899 when Planck calculated his numbers, the speed of light was pegged at about 298,000 k/s by Leon Foucault (1862) and 299,910 k/s by Albert Michelson (1879). Planck gave us his formula, but either he never did the calculation with his own numbers (unlikely) or he didn’t think it was significant enough to announce (as unlikely). What’s going on?
Using his figures that he calculated, the result is 299,792.42279 k/s.
That rate would not be more closely approximated until 1972.
This curiosity gave us a little confidence that our charts just might have some integrity. That figure was popping up everywhere throughout our chart. Yet, we were just beginning our step ascent from the Planck scale to quantum fluctuations. Just over 64 steps, each twice as large as the prior, Langlands programs and string theory were the first two stories we had to absorb. Those academics have been working years and years with so little reward. It gave us some hope that we could find some partners in the milieu who just might find our work of some interest.
We are still looking.
So, let me say, “Thank you for all your inspirational work.” We will be actively following it into the future.
PS. Our research page about your work: https://81018.com/derham/ will only include a record of our emails to you. https://81018.com/derham/#First
You are part of our homepage this week: https://81018.com
After this week the URL is: https://81018.com/empower/
First email: Nov 12, 2020, 5:47 PM
Dear Prof. Dr. Claudia de Rham:
If the answers are so ridiculous, why not try a ridiculously simple model? Why not start with Max Planck’s base units and assume a cold start and the emergence of a primordial sphere seemingly ex nihilo. That would be one infinitesimal primordial sphere per infinitesimal-primordial second (on the order of the Planck base units); and, of course, at that rate per second a rather astronomical expansion would be underway.
Now, I realize that such a model is rather pedestrian because it is so embarrassingly simple.
Notwithstanding, might you comment?
PS. On your homepage, you might consider changing the link embedded with these words: “See inSpires for a list of publications” which goes to a generic search page to this one: https://inspirehep.net/authors/1030566 which goes to your page. –BEC