Matthew Headrick (Brandeis) on quantum entanglement

TO: Matthew Headrick, Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts
FM: Bruce E. Camber
RE: Your arXiv article, Quantum entanglement and the geometry of spacetime (July 2018), your homepage, also at Brandeis and YouTube

Second email: 24 January 2024

Dear Prof. Dr. Matthew Headrick:

Now over three years ago, I sent you a note (https://81018.com/headrick/#First) regarding your work with the geometry of spacetime within quantum entanglement. I had been looking for a real scholar who was researching and writing about things like the geometries of entanglement. After a thirty year absence, it was good to find your work and be introduced to the work of your colleagues, A. Almheiri, A. R. Brown, X. Dong, T. Faulkner, M. Guica, D. Harlow, T. Hartman, V. E. Hubeny, R. C. Myers, M. Van Raamsdonk, M. Rangamani, D. A. Roberts, S. Ryu, B. Swingle, T. Takayanagi, Y. Zha, and Y. Zhao. Every new reference is important to me. So many of my old teachers, friends and acquaintances from the 1970s, most are no longer writing or they have died (Bohm, Weisskopf, Bell, Shimony, More…).

Currently, base-2 notation from the Planck base units is not recognized. The first 64 notations of a total of 202 (that encapsulate the universe) expands the bandwidth within which to work below the known thresholds of physical measurement and quantum fluctuations. There are 18 prime-number notations therein. Among others, I have been encouraging scholars like Langlands and Witten to take a look. That’s gone nowhere.

Also, it seems everybody ignores π (pi) except for the celebrations in-and-around March 14. I started taking circles and spheres more seriously after a long debate with Phil Davis of Brown. If there is one infinitesimal sphere per unit of Planck Time and PlanckLength we have possible challenge to big bang cosmology. I have written up a little summary here: https://81018.com/star-formation/#Summary

Idiosyncratic, I know. but is it just silliness? Thanks.

Warmly,

Bruce

 First email: In and around Tuesday, August 11, 2020

Dear Prof. Dr. Matthew Headrick:

Instead of “What if” questions, I more deferentially ask, “Might we assume…?

  • Might we assume that Max Planck’s base units could help open the logjam at the intersection of quantum theory and relativity?
  • Might we assume that Planck Time is the first unit of time?
  • Might we assume a thrust given with light and the Planck Charge that energizes whatever it is that manifests as those four Planck base units?
  • Might we assume that an infinitesimally small sphere — some might call it a PlanckSphere, planckion, or Planck Particle or quantum foam — would manifest? 
  • Might we then assume many spheres and sphere stacking? 
  • Might we assume cubic-close packing of equal spheres? Here we have a transformation from sphere to tetrahedrons and octahedrons. 

To begin to impart some order, could we assume base-2 notation to follow that expansion of spheres?

We mapped 202 notations from Planck Time to the current age of the universe. Does it tell us anything? We think so, but we need critical reviews to avoid making mistakes (…more mistakes). We’ve probably already made many egregious mistakes. Thank you.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

PS. I’ve been on the Brandeis campus many times over the years. It is still a quiet little jewel within the Boston area. I once did a training event for teachers in Lincoln schools and had a few friends who lived in town. –BEC

###