Emeritus Professor

Faculty of Natural Sciences, Department of Physics

Imperial College London

South Kensington Campus

London SW7 2AZ

**Articles**: “How fundamental are fundamental constants?” (17 December 2014)**ArXiv** (105): Thirty years of Erice on the brane (Dec. 2018) **_______• **M-history without the M (2015)**_______•** Trialogue on the number of fundamental constants (2002)

Google scholar**Homepage** Weebly**inSPIRE**

JHEP: SISSA (See the footnotes on Planck and Stoney)**Website****Wikipedia**

Referenced page(s) within this website:**• Fundamental constants** See section on “Standard Models” (7th paragraph).

Most recent (seventh) email: April 10, 2021

Dear Prof. Dr. Michael Duff:

We live in such a small world. We are all so profoundly related and interconnected. And, we also readily recognize how quickly life passes.

John Ralston (Univ. Kansas) reminded me that Planck’s constant was poorly conceived and taints the accuracy of the Planck base units calculations. Does it change our basic understanding of fundamentals? Though I am not a person to judge the efficacy of his work, it seems coherent.

Again, if his logic works, does it change the essential ideation? Is there a starting point that is orders of magnitude smaller than particles and waves? Could there be as many as 64 base-2 notations between that moment that defines space-time to our first possible measurements (and current limits of measurement) of quarks, neutrinos, that give rise to particles and waves? Might the very first expression of space-time, mass-energy, and electromagnetism-gravity be a sphere? Could that first moment be defined by pi and key dimensionless constants and contain within it a rate of expansion by which spheres are created?

I have made initial adjustments to my questions — https://81018.com/questions-1 –contained within my note from April 2. Questions 6, 7 & 8 stand as they are. Thank you.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

Sixth email: Friday, Apr 2, 3:33 PM<

Dear Prof. Dr. Michael Duff:

I was just reviewing our summary of your outstanding history — https://81018.com/duff — and see that you are two years my junior. I thought you might be amused with my questions given your lifetime of work around these issues. I am obviously not a scholar. My work in this area stopped back in 1980 and got unwittingly picked up in a high school geometry class in 2011. Of course, I would enjoy your comments, especially if I might quote you in an article that I am developing around those questions! Thank you so very much.

Warmly,

Bruce

****************

Bruce E. Camber

**Questions**:

1. Might there be fundamental units of length and time, as well as mass and charge (similar to, but more accurate than the Planck base units), that are among the parameters that define the first moment or instant of the universe?**Answer**: Yes | No | Maybe**Comment**:

References from 2021, 2019(a) and 2019(b)

____________

2. Might an infinitesimal sphere be a first manifestation of such base units?**Answer**: Yes | No | Maybe**Comment**:

References from 2021(a), 2021(b) and 2019^{____________}

3. Might sphere stacking and cubic-close-packing of equal spheres be among the.first functional activities to define the universe?**Answer**: Yes | No | Maybe**Comment**:

References from 2021(a), 2021(b) and 2019_{____________}

4. Might the rate by which spheres emerge be determined by a fundamental unit of time which would be one sphere per unit of a fundamental length? For example, we used Planck Time. That computes to 539.116 tredecillion spheres per second given the value of Planck Time is 5.39116(13)×10^{-44} seconds.**Answer**: Yes | No | Maybe**Comment**:

References from 2021, 2019 and 2017

____________

5. Might base-2 notation be applied to create an ordering schema for these spheres? If those fundamental units of time were Planck Time, approximately 436,117,076,900,000,000 seconds have been created to get to the current time. That would be within the.202nd.doubling (base-2).**Answer**: Yes | No | Maybe**Comment:**

References from 2021, 2020 and 2018

____________

6. Might there be a range of perfection from the earliest notations and prior to any kind of quantum fluctuation, be it ontological or physical?**Answer**: Yes | No | Maybe**Comment:**

References from 2021, 2020 and 2016

____________

7. Might these spheres:

___(a) be defined by continuity-symmetry-harmony (which redefines infinity)?

___**Answer**: Yes | No | Maybe **Comment**:

___(b) …become the basis to define the aether?

___**Answer**: Yes | No | Maybe **Comment**:

___(c) …be the reason for homogeneity and isotropy?

___**Answer**: Yes | No | Maybe **Comment**:

___(d) …and, be the essence of dark matter and dark energy?

___**Answer**: Yes | No | Maybe **Comment**:

____________

8. Might you be open to receive another eight questions about foundational concepts and no sooner than eight months from today?**Answer**: Yes | No | Maybe**Comment**:

Fifth email: November 10, 2020

Dear Prof. Dr. Michael Duff:

Given your work with Gabriele Veneziano, I will copy this email to him as well. Recognizing that the Planck base units provide a rate for the expansion of the universe within the definition of Planck time itself, I have been checking that logic and those numbers.

Though very much *in process*, what we have to date is a bit interesting. Here we assume the universe begins with the Planck base units, and that (1).the first manifestation of physicality is a PlanckSphere which is, in part, defined by those Planck base units and (2).each doubling is ostensibly caused by the rapid generation of those Planckspheres.

Admittedly naive, this discovery process has been going on since 2011 and the logic is simple. To create a baseline for a rate of expansion, it is extended to one second between Notation-143 and Notation-144. At one second, Planck Time is 5.391 16(13)×10^{-44} seconds.

If there is one plancksphere per plancksecond, there are 10^{44} planckspheres per second. That is:

539,116,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planckspheres/second

Planck Length is 1.616229×10^{-35} meters and one PlanckSphere is equal to one PlanckLength. In one second, the PlanckSpheres will push out 299,792.458 kilometers, first as a point, momentarily as a line, lines, then sheets, then 3-D wall-to-wall PlanckSpheres.

Planck Mass, at 2.176.470(51)×10^{-8} kilograms, at one second will equal to 4.036862067×10^{34} kilograms. That’s raising many questions. Planck Charge, 1.875 545.956×10^{-18} coulombs jumps to 3.47877437×10^{23} coulombs, quite formidable. Of course, questions abound! Your comments at this stage might save us a lot of embarrassment and time. Might you advise us? Thank you.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

Fourth email: May 7, 2019

Reference: https://arxiv.org/abs/1412.2040

Dear Prof. Dr. Michael Duff:

In your 17 Dec 2014 arXiv “fundamentals” article (indexed above), you say,

“*To measure the speed of light we need a clock and ruler: if the distance between the notches on our ruler is the distance light travels between ticks of our clock then c = 1 whatever our theory and will remain so until the cows come home*.”

Though true, might we also take Max Planck’s simple formula for Planck Time and confirm the speed of light through simple division.

It appears to be true throughout all 202 base-2 notations as evidenced here within line 10 on our horizontally-scrolled chart: https://81018.com/chart/

Thank you.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

PS. At c=1 within this configuration, the Planck Length multiple divided by the Planck Time multiple (which is between Notations 143 and 144) is as you’d expect 299,792+ km

Footnote:

Third email: April 25, 2019

Dear Prof. Dr. Michael Duff:

On chasing down a reference to your most-challenging work, I chided myself, “Go over this one more time.” And then, puzzled, I asked myself, “Have you ever written to Michael Duff?” Looking it up, indeed, I had. Twice. Almost a year ago and then again, almost three years ago, so with another rebuke, I concluded, “Put those notes up on the site so you can see what was written and what Duff references prompted those brief notes.”

That reference became this page: https://81018.com/duff/ Our work is simple and uses a very simple logic, but it still doesn’t seem to stand to reason or commonsense.

First, there is our map (or base-2 chart) of the universe from the Planck base units to this moment in time… “a simple logical construction.” Multiplication is multiplication. The Planck units are the Planck units. The 202 notations make it a construct. So I ask, “How is it that it does not follow… that it’s just a bunch of numbers?” Reference: https://81018.com/chart/

Second, in the analysis of those numbers, many things seem to fall into place. Should I could go on? Thank you.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

Second email: June 21, 2018

Dear Prof. Dr. Michael Duff:

Can we assume the Planck base units of length/time and mass/charge

are the first manifestation within space-time? Could it naturally double and

continue doubling until in 202 notations it was out to the size and age of

the universe?

I struggle with that rendering: https://81018.com/growth/

Could you help me understand why this is an impossible construct?

Thank you.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

First email: August 26, 2016, 5:34 PM

Dear Prof. Dr. Michael Duff;

We need all the help we can get.

We went off course in 2011 when we chased a tetrahedron inside, dividing the edges by 2, over and over again, until in 112 notations we were within the Planck scale. To get out of that tight space, we reversed ordered and multiplied by 2 using Planck’s chosen numbers. By the 202.345+ notation we were out to the age and size of the universe. This happened in a high school in New Orleans. A little history of our work is here: https://81018.com/home/

So what do we do now? We were told, “Nobody has done it.” “Nonsense,” we replied. Our simple geometries and simple base-2 pre-conditioned our thinking, we thought, “It’s all too simple. There’s got to be a catch.”

Here is my history: https://81018.com/bec/ (nobody special)

Here is my nonsense: https://81018.com/2016/06/01/quiet/

Will you guide us back to sanity or do you think there could be something here? Thank you.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

PS. I had a project at MIT long ago that kind of anticipated this development:

https://81018.com/mit/

**Not for the general public…**

## M-Theory (the Theory Formerly Known as Strings),

“Superunification underwent a major paradigm shift in 1984 when eleven-dimensional supergravity was knocked off its pedestal by ten-dimensional superstrings. This last year has witnessed a new shift of equal proportions: perturbative ten-dimensional superstrings have in their turn been superseded by a new non-perturbative theory called M-theory…”