Fabiola Gianotti, Le Directeur Général, CERN

Dr. Fabiolla GianottiDr. Gianotti has received several emails from Bruce Camber about the base-2 project from the Planck Scale.

The first was inspired by her writings and interviews. The second was on the occasion of his visit in the summer of 2014 with a scientist at CERN labs.

Of course, with over 12,000 visiting scientists from over 70 countries – half of the world’s particle physicists – involved with CERN, Dr. Gianotti has always been too busy to reply.

Note:  No reply of a scholar or scientist will ever be published unless permission is given and the response answers key questions or helps to enlighten us.


Fourth email: 14 December 2016

Dear Dr. Gianotti:

I know you are exceedingly busy with the responsibilities of CERN and I apologize for interrupting your day. As high school people from the USA, it is presumptuous of us to write.  Yet, who knows who will be the next Einstein among our students?  I know we, the teachers, are too naive to matter. Yet, wouldn’t the students be worth a simple word of encouragement or  some precautions and even discouragement from going off the deep end?

My first note to you (below) was in August 2013 and I have sent occasional updates since that time.

Most sincerely,

Bruce Camber

Third email  Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 10:57 PM

Subject: A chart to focus on numbers from the Planck scale to the CERN-scale

Dear Dr. Fabiola Gianotti:

The extended CERN family may feel like they’ve just hit a wall with the diphoton results, notwithstanding there are a few good results that have emerged. Numbers of people are calling to re-examine basic-basic assumptions. Perhaps it would be good to go right back to the Newton-Leibniz debate1 to ask questions like, “Could space-time be derivative of symmetry-continuity?”2  Could a simple continuity equation for space-time be defined from the first moment of creation to the Age of the Universe and might the first 67 notations from the Planck scale3 to the CERN-scale be meaningful?4

If we use base-2 notation, there are about 200 notations from the Planck Time to the Age of the Universe. The first 67 notations to the CERN-scale have potentially very helpful data. Our chart is here:  https://81018.org/chart  It is horizontally-scrolled and has over 1300 very simple calculations.

This progression of numbers from the Planck Scale to the CERN scale is assuredly idiosyncratic, but quite curious for its logic and simplicity. It just might be a place for pure math and geometry that defines the earliest structural possibilities that are beyond the wires of physicality. The Langlands programs are one option to carry this research forward. I think there are more.

1. May I keep you posted on our work to develop this chart further?
2. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or advice? Thanks.


Bruce E. Camber
The chart:  https://81018.org/chart

[1]  That two-year debate (1715-1716) is far from over!
[2]  An ideal, universal symmetry-and-continuity that eventually gives rise to the space and time that we can measure. It takes the better part of 67 doublings of the Planck scale and it continues to the current 200+ notation such that all simple symmetries, symmetry-breaking and SUSY are all tangibly related. Our research of these numbers in the large horizontally-scrolled chart is on-going. It includes the dimensionless constants, nondimensionalization, renomalization and the role of infinity.
[3]  The Planck scale within these web pages is interpreted quite differently.
[4]  CERN scale: Within the chart, the CERN scale may well be defined between notations 60 to 80, yet it seems that most of the work of ATLAS and LHC is within notations 66-67-68.


Second email: Sun, May 1, 2016 

Subject: We are still working on our base-2 model of the universe

Dear Dr. Gianotti:

A few years ago I stopped by to visit a friend at CERN on my way to  Zurich. At that time, I dropped you a note about work being done in a New Orleans high school to develop a model of the universe using base-2 exponential notation from the Planck base units, particularly Planck Time to the Age of the Universe (and our current time) in just over 201 doublings (steps, groups, containers… etc).

We are making progress!

The homepage for our work is here:
http://bblu.org  And now, also: http://81018.com

Links to our charts are here:
Now, also: http://81018.org

We know it is idiosyncratic, but is it wrong?

Thank you.

Most sincerely,


First email: September 6, 2013

1.  Financial Times article, July 26, 2013 by Izabella Kaminska
2.  “Never Abandon Your Dreams”  – Fabiola Gianotti
3.   “Physics Validation of the LHC Software” 
4.  “Building a new particle is very nice but also demonstrating that a
mechanism that has been proposed as the solution for many years is not the
correct one is a major step forward for fundamental science…  Of course,
mankind has made giant steps forward,” she says. “However, what we know is
really very, very little compared to what we still have to know.”
– Fabiola Gianotti within an interview with CNN

Dear Dr. Gianotti:

I have over 100 students from our high school geometry classes, some who with baited breath are waiting to hear your short answer to their question about our universe-view.  We couldn’t find it anywhere on the web so we put it up to get critical comments.  Unfortunately, most people seem to be too unsure of themselves to answer.  Our question, “Is it useful?” and a “Yes” or “No” or even “Maybe” from the coordinator of the ATLAS program at CERN would be very helpful!

But, first, let us congratulate you on your leadership and vision.  And, second, we are grateful to discover your profound appreciation for the arts, especially music, and for simplicity.

As a bit of background, I was visiting with friends in Zurich, and because they knew about my much earlier visits to CERN back in the ’70s (through Vicky Weisskopf to meet with John Bell on the EPR paradox), my friend had clipped an article from Financial Times which focused on your work and your love of art and beauty.

Back in the ’70s I struggled with first principles and the foundations  of physics.  By the end of the decade I concluded that the enterprise was just too complex for me.  I needed something a bit more simple, so I dropped out and became a producer.  Now, at 66 years old, I have had a little time to go back and look at everything all over again.

A little background story about that universe-view.  I was substituting for my nephew’s five high school geometry and physics classes where we started at the Planck Length, used base-2 exponential notation, and applied simple Platonic nested-and-embedded geometries to start our tabulations.  By step 66 we were in the range of the diameter of the proton and by the 101st doubling we were up to 40.9755356 microns, the range of human hair.  We kept going; by the 135th step we were within the orbital range of the International Space Station or about 218 miles or 351.977184 kilometers.  Then, of course, by the 205.11 notation we were out in the range of those measurements of the SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey (BOSS) or to edges of the observable universe or about 1.03885326×1026meters.

Could you take a minute to have a look and provide a quick answer to the question, “Is this construct useful?”  Though it puts the entire universe in a mathematically ordered set and a geometrically homogeneous group, so what?   I continue to wrestle to find meaning within the first 65 steps.

Thank you.



Bruce Camber, CEO
Small Business School
Private Business Channel, Inc.
PS. You might find some of the links below useful
as further backgrounder info.
• The longest-running television series on PBS stations
in the USA and the Voice of America around the world
about best business practices.
• An intellectual exercise — our universe-view — that has
some potential to help open new levels of human creativity: