Eaves, Laurence

eavesLaurence Eaves
Research Professor, Faculty of Science
Nottingham University

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

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 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

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,