“Science has no passport, no political party, no gender.”
Comments by, and emails from, Bruce E. Camber
Dr. Fabiola Gianotti is right; science should never have a passport, a political party, or gender.
Yet, science does have personality, bias, and a natural intransigence. It has an attitude. It has a belief system. And, the fundamentals of that belief system just may not reflect our so-called ‘really real’ universe as well as it could.
Perhaps Aristotle threw us off with his lack of geometric sophistication. He believed we could tile and tessellate the universe with just a tetrahedron when octahedrons and tetrahedrons are needed. Perhaps it was Newton who threw us off with his ‘absolute’ space and time and it was Leibniz who was closer to the truth. Some will remember the 1999 conference on structure formation at the Newton Institute at Cambridge when Hawking and Guth and so many others had to admit the ‘infinitely hot’ start of the universe had serious issues. At that time a few were reviving the Lemaître’s 1927 model of a cold-start of the universe. Others were opening up a multiverse.
There is still so much we don’t know and so much to learn… let’s take up the challenge to see something more fundamental than space and time (Tegmark, Turok, Arkani-Hamed). Perhaps all the dimensionless constants, plus the mathematics of Langlands programs and string theory will finally open unexpected doors for a truly mathematical definition of the Planck scale physics as the foundations for CERN-level physics.
This time around, perhaps we can bring the Planck scale and the “CERN-scale” together.
Thank you. -BEC
Overview: This page URL — https://81018.com/gianotti/ — replaces the initial page about Fabiola Gianotti’s work at CERN — https://81018.com/c-2/.
My first visit to CERN in 1977 was to chat with John Bell about the EPR Paradox. I was personally guided by Viki Weisskopf (MIT) and Lew Kowarski (Boston University). Weisskopf was Directeur-General from 1961-1965. Kowarski was the first to propose a laboratory for fundamental research; he was tasked with organizing and setting up it up with Raoul Dautry, Pierre Auger, Edoardo Amaldi and Niels Bohr. -BEC
Physics Today, from November 15, 2019. A Key Position Paper by Dr. Fabiola Gianotti,
The European Strategy for Particle Physics and CERN’s future, June 2021 (PDF)
Eighth email: 9 October 2023
Dear Dr. Fabiola Gianotti:
The work of Jon Buttterworth came to my attention through the 6 September 2023 New Scientist article, Six ways we could finally find new physics beyond the standard model. It was bold of the New Scientist editors to try to respond to the results of the James Webb Space Telescope and it was bold of their six writers of that article to stand strong in the face of an avalanche of questions.
My introduction to the concepts within a natural inflation was a 2014 article in ArXiv, Natural Inflation: Consistency with Cosmic Microwave Background Observations by Katherine Freese, then of the Univ. of Michigan, and William H. Kinney of the Univ. at Buffalo, SUNY. It appears that neither of them has spoken about the JWST, smoothness and a natural inflation from the Planck base units to the electroweak scale. There are 202 base-2 notations and from the first moment of time (Planck Time) to the Now. The first 64 base-2 notations are in need of deep exploration. No scholar-scientist has done it.
It is time to bring it forward, look at it, and either cut it off now for egregious errors or lift it up for its comprehensive simplicity.
Do you agree? Thank you.
Warmly,
Bruce
Seventh email: 16 October 2021
I was surprised to discover that my comments within that 15 Nov 2019 Physics Today article about your re-election as Le Directeur Général, CERN are the only comments there. I was so surprised, that I started a new page (this page) with those comments and eventually it will be my primary reference to your work. My old link and page about your work (with a rather peculiar name, https://81018.com/c-2/ ) will be repurposed as a study of CERN’s understanding of light.
I believe the primary transition the physics community needs to make is from particles/waves to a mathematical physics that starts at the Planck scale and follows those first 64 base-2 notations up to just below the CERN-scale. The presuppositions are idiosyncratic — https://81018.com/presuppositions/ — as are some of the resulting conclusions — https://81018.com/hypostasis/ — but such radical concepts are needed to get this industry on a progressive track for development.
I hope you are well and doing fine.
Warmly,
Bruce
Sixth email: 21 November 2019
Congratulations (on her reappointment as Director General of CERN)! A milestone indeed. Your comments are prescient. You said, “Science has no passport, no political party, no gender.”
Yes, so true, so profoundly true. Yet, I think we can agree, however, that science has a personality, biases, and intransigence. It has an attitude. It has a belief system. And, the fundamentals of that belief system just may not reflect our so-called “really real” universe as well as it could. Just maybe in 1687 Newton threw us off with his “absolute” space and time. Just maybe Leibniz was closer to the truth! We know from the 1999 conference on structure formation at the Newton Institute at Cambridge that Hawking and Guth and so many others were challenged — something is not quite right with the “infinitely hot” start of the universe.
It is interesting to think that Lemaître with his model initially started cold.
There is still so much we don’t know and so much to learn.
Let’s take up the challenge to see something more fundamental than space and time. Can we find something more fundamental than particles and waves?
All the dimensionless constants, plus the mathematics of Langlands programs and string theory open unexpected doors for a truly mathematical definition of the Planck scale physics as a foundation for CERN-level physics.
This next time around, let’s bring the two together.
Best wishes with the next term!
Most sincerely,
-Bruce
Fifth email: 1 February 2019
Dear Dr. Fabiola Gianotti:
Of all 11,000+ scientists in some way affiliated with CERN, I think you might find it of some interest to know that we are making progress with our base-2 application of the Planck base units to measure the universe. Our primary assumptions:
1. The Planck base units of length, time, mass and charge describe a real reality.
2. The conceptual door to this infinitesimal universe is where all four Planck base units concresce (grow together, yet individuate). We are not alone in our belief that infinitesimal spheres result, and there is an endless stream. Though physical, length-time are well below thresholds of measurement, the progression of mass-charge units can be studied. These four units are, in some manner of speaking, the Janus-face of each other and of light.
3. Conceptually, sphere stacking becomes cubic-closest packing; tetrahedrons and octahedrons emerge. Doublings begin. Our universe emerges. Their numbers eventually begin to define things within our current scientific realities. This is a natural inflation. And, it’s not dark.
Your comments would be most helpful. Thank you ever so much.
Sincerely,
Bruce
Fourth email: 14 December 2016
Dear Dr. Fabiola 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: Aug 15, 2016 at 10:57 PM The Diphoton Results
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 202 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
Bruce E. Camber
The chart: https://81018.com/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 202 notations 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, renormalization 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: May 1, 2016
Subject: We are still working on our base-2 model of the universe
Dear Dr. Fabiola 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://81018.com
Links to our charts are here: https://81018.com/chart/
We know it is idiosyncratic, but is it wrong?
Thank you.
Bruce
First email: September 6, 2013 (Updated)
References:
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
Our Key Question: Is our simple construct (base-2 chart of the universe) helpful?
Dear Dr. Fabiola Gianotti:
I have over 100 students from our high school geometry classes, some who with bated 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 Viki 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 202.34 notations 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 1.03885326×1026 meters.
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.
Warmly,
Bruce
Bruce Camber, Executive Producer/CEO
Small Business School
http://SmallBusinessSchool.org
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. https://smallbusinessschool.com/
• An intellectual exercise — our https://81018.com/ — that has some potential to help open new levels of human creativity: https://81018.com/2014/05/21/propaedeutics/
###