On discovering a video by Laurence Eaves…

Laurence Eaves, Research Professor, Faculty of Science
Nottingham University, Nottingham, England, UK

Arxiv:  The apparent fine-tuning of the cosmological, gravitational and fine structure constants
Royal Society
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEL3Amxf8eI

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: 7 March 2023 at 8:13 AM

https://81018.com/eaves/ (this page)

I have watched and shown your video on the Planck Length many, many times. 

Although you are a year younger, you were a de facto mentor. In January 2013 Frank Wilczek of MIT took over. Then, I truly discovered many others. I have had a chance to meet with Wilczek a couple of times, gifting him on one occasion with my clear plastic models that I had manufactured of the tetrahedron and octahedron and from which we created the 20-tetrahedral icosahedron. That all eventually opened the way to uncover the five-octahedral gap which when stacked with the five-tetrahedral gap, is a pretty thing. 

I wrestle with its meaning today. Do you know of any person who equates these gaps with quantum fluctuations? …any papers?

I’ve been so idiosyncratic for so long now, it’s natural… my Pi Day page 2023 gives it all away: https://81018.com/pointing/

We are now safely into the last stages of this life. It seems strange to me that so many have for so long force-fit beliefs into systems based on Guthian hypostatizations.

Best wishes to you to continue to find meaning and value as we wrap it up!



Second email: September 1, 2021 at 10 AM

Dear Prof Dr. Laurence Eaves,

About eight years ago, you unwittingly helped our high school geometry classes explore Max Planck’s base units with your writings and video. I sent a note of introduction back on Thursday, February 1, 2018 at 1:20 PM.  That email become an historic footnote for us so I created a reference page to you and your work: https://81018.com/eaves/

Unfortunately those of us who are idiosyncratic are easy to ignore, especially when we redefine space and time and move away from Newton’s absolutes.

We’ll be making a virtual reality program of our chart of notations: https://81018.com/chart/  Would you like to help? You’d be a great expert witness. Thanks.



First introductory 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 these 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,