**Isabel Garcia Garcia**, Oxford (PhD) and Cambridge (DAMTP)

Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA USA

Institute for Advanced Studies (IAS), Princeton, NJ

ArXiv (11): **Bubble of Nothing** (PDF), May 2021

– Properties of Discrete Black Hole Hair, 2018

Books: Naturalness in Beyond the Standard Model Physics, 2017

Colloquia: Gravity and Effective Field Theory, January 31, 2022

Homepage(s): Sci Talks (Oxford)

inSPIRE^{HEP}

Publications: ORCID

YouTube: P not PQ, KITP, 2021

Within this website: (1) https://81018.com/smallest-largest/#Garcia

(2) https://81018.com/questions-questions/#Garcia

(3) https://81018.com/validate/#7b

(4) https://81018.com/validate/#7f

Most recent (third) email: Sunday, November 14, 2021

Dear Dr. Isabel Garcia Garcia:

Congratulations on all your very pointed work. And thank you for your presentation at the IPPP June 2021, Planck Scale to Electroweak scale, *Bouncing Nothing.* I have made reference to it within my rather idiosyncratic overview: https://81018.com/smallest-largest/#Garcia

Notwithstanding, are you aware that old Aristotle permeated the scholarly world with a mistake that wasn’t picked up for over 1800-years? It is still largely unrecognized and very little understood. Just five tetrahedrons sharing a common edge prove that you cannot perfectly tile and tessellate the universe with tetrahedrons. He thought tetrahedrons did. The error was first discovered in the 1400s, then rediscovered in the 1920s, and most-recently reported by Lagarias (Michigan) and Zong (Tianjin) in 2012.

Does that gap in any way describe a boundary for the definition and actualities of quantum physics and the quanta? Could there be a domain for mathematics and geometries that give rise to particles and waves? Of course, Langlands programs and string and M-theory, and supersymmetries, and so many others are trying to define such a domain. Here they have more breathing space than they know. From the Planck scale to the current time there are 202 base-2 notations. No less than 64 of those notations define the area from the electroweak scale down to the Planck scale. With all 202 notations, the universe is seen as a whole, a highly-integrated operational whole, where everything everywhere for all time is intimately related. There is no “bubble of nothing.”

Now, I assume everyone is overloaded with email. I am. Notwithstanding, your work with Patrick Draper and Benjamin Lillard (and so many other scholars) is so very important for all of us to understand; I’ve begun collecting more and more references to that work and have aggregated it all here: https://81018.com/garcia-garcia/

I also have references to your work on these pages:

If you ever want anything updated, I will most-gladly accommodate.

Thank you.

Warmly,

Bruce

PS. In part based on my interactions with your work, I’ve begun developing these “true or false” questions:

1. The universe is exponential and not linear.

2. The sphere is the most simply-defined physical object.

3. An infinitesimal sphere is defined by Planck base units.

4. That primordial sphere is the beginning of sphere stacking.

5. Cubic close packing of equal spheres (sphere stacking) is a most fundamental function of the universe. It begins the automatic generation of tetrahedrons, octahedrons, and the other Platonic solids.

6. The universe is interconnected by these infinitesimal spheres.

Second email: Friday, October 22, 2021 @ 3:44 PM

Isabel Garcia Garcia, UCSB-KITP

Dear Dr. Isabel Garcia Garcia:

Thank you for being one of the participants in the Planck 2021 IPPP-Durham University conference. I am going through those papers now asking the questions, “What are the most special insights from those 21 scholars? How do we get beyond the Standard Model without getting too far beyond it?”

I know that we’ve gone a bit too far by starting at the Planck scale with a concept like Lemaitre’s primordial sphere. If you have a moment, please take a look: https://81018.com/smallest-largest/#Garcia

By applying base-2 notation at the Planck scale, there are 202 notations from Planck Time to this day.

The numbers are fascinating — https://81018.com/chart/ — but interpreting those numbers is not easy. Your comments and insights would be treasured. And, yes, we certainly realize how idiosyncratic that model is.

Thank you.

Most sincerely,

-Bruce

First email: October 7, 2021 @ 1:25 PM

https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.08068

A radical left turn from your presentation for the “International Conference From the Planck scale to the Electroweak scale”

TO: Isabel Garcia Garcia, KITP (UCSB)

Dear Dr. Isabel Garcia Garcia:

I know how entirely idiosyncratic my point of view is, but just maybe — a very slight chance — that it is not idiotic! https://81018.com

Apply base-2 notation starting at the Planck scale. The result: 202 notations from Planck Time to this day. Here are the numbers: https://81018.com/chart/ There are 64 notations of “nothing” (that’s measurable). Perhaps it is a new definition of John Bell’s beables?

I would very much appreciate your comments and insights.

Thanks.

-Bruce

_____

**Isabel Garcia Garcia**, **Kavli, January 31, 2022**

**Colloquia at the University of Washington, Dept. of Physics**

“From the cosmological constant to the smallness of the weak scale to the strong-CP problem, the problems of the Standard Model are problems of effective field theory. Yet improvements in our understanding of gravity — from the absence of global symmetries to the sub-extensive entropy of black holes — challenge some of our long-held views on the applicability of this framework.”

“I will discuss how gravitational considerations provide an opportunity to get a new perspective on some of the long-standing puzzles in particle physics. I will emphasize the role of semiclassical gravity techniques and black hole thought experiments on our improved understanding of gravitational theories, and argue that only a combination of new theoretical developments and original ideas, confronted with the vast array of experiments at our disposal, will provide us with the big picture we need to discover what comes next.”

_____