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 t.h.e 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
Second and final 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.
First email: 15 June 2022 at 5:42 PM
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 to bring both Leibniz and CQFT alive.
Our thought experiment was simple: We worked ourselves down inside a base-2 tetrahedral-octahedral honeycomb. 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: https://81018.com/chart/
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 are well 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?