James Gilbert Glimm, Stony Brook, New York
Articles: The continuous structure of discontinuities (1989)
J. Glimm, A. Jaffe, T. Spencer, “The Wightman axioms and particle structure in quantum field model”, Ann. of Math., 100: 3 (1974), pp. 585–632.
ArXiv (12): Reynolds Averaged Solutions of the Navier-Stokes Equation, 2023
Homepage(s): CV, Google Scholar, Institute for Multiscale Studies, inSPIREHEP, Wikipedia, YouTube
Editor’s note: James Glimm was born on 24 March 1934. If a person of his stature and age ever answers an email, it is a special moment in time. If I could wave a magic wand, I would have him look at a most fundamental discontinuity, quite possibly the most fundamental discontinuity, certainly within basic geometries: https://81018.com/15-2/ Also, when one considers multiscale studies, taking on the universe might seem a bit ambitious. Yet, using base-2 notation starting at the Planck scale, there are just 202 notations to include everything-everywhere-for-all-time. It is very approachable. Our 6th grade AP science class was on top of it quickly. -BEC
Fifth communication: 6 October 2024
RE: On those earlier queries
Thank you for this helpful response. I’ll look forward to the revised ArXiv article. That issue has re-opened our imaginations in some most provocative ways.
Yes, of course, base 2-or-10 does not affect the inner dynamics of the conclusions, we just have more data to analyze to trigger new insight. Plus, doublings are naturally within bifurcation theories giving us other dynamics to consider.
EJE Peebles challenges us to imagine the first instant. Stoney, Planck, BIPM and Wilczek ask us to look at impossibly small units of space-and-time. Take Planck’s units just as a example/sample. Do we surrender to our lack of knowledge like Vafa and proclaim our lack of ideas or do we throw some logic and guesses at it? And when something simple like pi (π) presents a new logic, do we say, “…been there, done that…” or do we go in and explore the cave just one more time?
These troubled times need and deserve a new logic that opens a little wisdom and gives us the tenacity to face the storms.
Best wishes,
Bruce
Postscript: It also gives us a natural valuation tool: https://81018.com/ethics/
Fourth communication (IM): 5 October 2024
I’ve wondered if Dr. James has seen our page about his work with my three notes — https://81018.com/glimm/ — and my configuration to define the first moment as a combination of hypotheses about natural units, today’s homepage— https://81018.com/
That page’s actual url is https://81018.com/infinitesimals/
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Bruce
Third email: December 28, 2023
Dear Prof. Dr. Jim Glimm:
The anniversary of my earlier letters to you has passed.
Yet, already today, of over 50 pages that have been visited,
our page about your work has been visited as much as the homepage!
It’s so unusual, I’ll admit that I looked in the obituaries!
We never know when that time is coming.
So, first allow me to wish you the very best of this holiday period:
https://81018.com/newyears/ and https://81018.com/christmas/
Now our page about your work with my three notes to you is here:
https://81018.com/glimm/ and today’s homepage — https://81018.com —
is entirely germane; I have more questions than answers,
yet we’ve garnered quite a few new insights over these past 13 years.
I hope you are well and doing fine. I will try communicating with your co-authors,
yet in the spirit of the times, let us say, “Congratulations on all your work.
You have identified key pieces of the effort to solve major riddles of our universe.”
We wish you the very best,
Bruce
Second email: June 22, 2022 at 10:48 AM
With so much blocking of email, you may not have received my little note to you from last week, June 15 at 5:42 PM. And because I am older now and need as many memory assists as possible, I created my own page just to follow your work and to see my prior messages to you: https://81018.com/glimm/
I can easily make that page private if you wish.
My primary question is about the use of base-2 notation from the Planck scale to the size and age of the universe today: https://81018.com/chart/ There are 202 notations; and, if each notation is always active, it becomes an interesting alternative to Hawking’s model.
Of course, your comments would be dearly appreciated.
Warmly,
Bruce
First email: 15 June 2022 at 5:42 PM (many links added)
Dear Prof. Dr. Jim Glimm:
I came to your webpages through your work on constructive quantum field theory (CQFT) and Wightman axioms.* We are so oriented to Newtonian space-time it is hard to imagine a different model. Of course, Leibniz gave us a start. I think we need Euler’s base-2, Planck’s base units, and a little thought experiment to break free… that is, to bring both Leibniz and CQFT alive.
Our thought experiment was simple — we worked ourselves down inside a base-2 tetrahedral-octahedral honeycomb (our simple model). In 45 steps we were within particle physics. In another 67 steps we were within the Planck scale. To be consistent we then used the Planck base units, and in 112 base-2 steps we were back in our classroom. In another 90 base-2 steps we were out to the age and the size of the universe. That chart is here: http://81018.com/chart/
We thought of it as a STEM tool, but over the years, it has become more:
https://81018.com/editors/
https://81018.com/known/
Of course, that base-2 chart is unrecognized by scholars today. It’s simple math and logic. If all notations are intellectually equal, no less than 64 of them appear to be below the thresholds of measurement. Yet, with 64 base-2 notations, Langlands and Witten all the others have room to breathe.
Is it all just poppycock or is it possible? …with some modifications?
Thank you.
Warmly,
Bruce
*We are now studying: Hilbert space, function space, vector space, Euclidean space
********************
Bruce E. Camber
http://81018.com/
http://81018.com/bec/
***************************