**Laurence Eaves**

Research Professor, Faculty of Science

Nottingham University

Arxiv: The apparent fine-tuning of the cosmological, gravitational and fine structure constants

Royal Society

Wikipedia

YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEL3Amxf8eI

References: **March 2012**: https://81018.com/2012/03/31/notations/ where you can find: “*Professor Laurence Eaves of the University of Nottingham in England has a delightful YouTube video that explains this length that is used to define a point*.”

Most recent email: 1 February 2018

Dear Prof. Dr. Laurence Eaves,

You are kind of a folk hero for us. Quite literally, you were the first

to give us a kind introduction to the Planck Length back in 2012.

In the process of helping a nephew (math/geometry teacher), we began

chasing embedded geometries (tetrahedron and octahedron) by dividing

the edges by 2 and connecting those new vertices. In 45 steps we were

down into the CERN-scale. In another 67 steps within, we were down

into the Planck scale.

We had to learn a little about the Planck scale, Planck Length, and base-2 exponentiation. Could we meaningfully multiply this numbers by 2 because in about 90 additional steps (total of 202 notations), we were out to the age and size of the universe.

We thought it was a neat home-grown STEM tool until we began

thinking about those first 64 notations in light of the rather remarkable

Wheat & Chessboard story. In reviewing the emerging literature

of the infinitesimally small, everything from strings, pions, and quarks,

to topos theory, Langlands conjectures, and so on, it seemed that

this rather “extraordinary place for mathematical purity” (that’s my

euphemistic expression) was not being respected for its potential

diversity.

Slowly, we expanded our simple Planck Length chart to include time,

then mass, charge and temperature. There was a natural inflation.

The logic seemed to flow. And, rather unusual conclusions seemed

to be looking for recognition:

1. We live in an exponential universe. Euler’s equation rules.

2. Space and time are derivative, finite and quantized.

3. In an over-generalized sort of way, the infinite seemed

to be defined by continuity (order), symmetries (relations)

and harmony (dynamics).

Given the richness and depth of your work — we are *still* just newbies —

I thought you might be able to straighten us out and guide us right,

or are we just too far gone?!?

If you don’t have that kind of time (we understand), perhaps one of your graduate students might get us back on the straight and narrow way! Thanks!

Most sincerely,

Bruce