TO: Wayne Hu, 
Paul Snowden Russell Distinguished Service Professor, Department of Astronomy & Astrophysics, KICP, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois USA
FM: Bruce E. Camber
RE: Your many articles and publications, especially within arXiv(234), i.e. Primordial Black Holes as Dark Matter through Higgs Criticality (Dec. 5, 2019); even your CV lists other publications as do your homepages, i.e. Chicago and Collaborations. To go deeper, we also looked at Google Scholar, Inspire, and YouTube: Secondary Anisotropy in the CMB
Wayne Hu seeks to understand how the structures of the universe formed. He quotes Chuang-tzu (300BC), “It is the nature of things that they are ties to each other.“
URL for this page: https://81018.com/hu/
Third email: 14 November 2025
Dear Prof. Dr. Wayne Hu:
Since my earlier email in January 2019, we have found our 202 notations from “0” at the Planck scale to Notation-202 at the current time and size of the universe, have many ties back to Chuang-tzu. The stories that we’ve learned from Lemaitre and his followers are very imaginative. Ties to Chuang-tze are limited. That you quote him set your “apart from the madding crowd.”
Second email: January 9, 2019 @ 6:44 PM
Dear Prof. Dr. Wayne Hu:
I hope you will entertain a rather naive-and-idiosyncratic question from high school people.
In 2011, we backed into a model of the universe within our geometry classes by going within the tetrahedron and octahedron, ostensibly a base-2 application. In 45 steps within, each time dividing the edges by 2 and connecting the new vertices, we were in the area of CERN-labs measurements. In another 67 steps we were within the area of the Planck Scale. It was just 112 steps to the Planck scale. Then, from our classroom, when we multiplied our little models by 2, we were at the size and age of the universe in just 90 additional doublings. 202 doublings outlines our universe. Fascinated, we could only find Kees Boeke’s base-10 work plus all the derivatives of it including his book, Scale of the Universe, and Morrison, Eames and IMAX’s Powers of Ten. Nobody had bothered with base-2 yet we found doublings are quite natural within so many basic operations in science. So we called it our in-house STEM tool and every once and awhile, we’d go back to it to ask, “What we were missing? What else do we need to know to carry this sweet, naive model forward?”
The first 64 or so notations were most baffling. Obviously below CERN’s ability to measure, it seemed to be an area of pure logic, simple math, and basic geometries. We couldn’t find any references so we’ve become speculative thinkers, possibly just idiots…
My key question for you is this:
Is it possible that dark energy/matter are just the effects of matter/energy and space/time that are just too small for our physical devices to measure directly? Might we just be observing the effects? Our chart of numbers is here: http://81018.com/chart/
Please excuse our overly speculative enthusiasm when it breaks out! Thank you.
Most sincerely,
Bruce
First email: Thursday, December 8, 2018
Reference: http://background.uchicago.edu/~whu/beginners/introduction.html
Dear Prof. Dr. Wayne Hu:
Your website (reference above) is entirely approachable and highly instructive especially for those of us who are trying to explain things to high school students (even the best of our 6th graders).
THANK YOU.
We’ve become a bit idiosyncratic because in 2011 in our New Orleans high school we were studying nested geometries, tessellations and tilings of the tetrahedron, and unwittingly backed into a base-2 model of the universe. We all learned about Max Planck, the Planck Length, the Observable Universe, and so much more. And, we have not stopped! So it was fun for us to discover your website with your doctoral dissertation and years at the University of Chicago. I have been trying to learn more about CMB [2][3]. We are also now searching your Phys. Review and ArXiv articles as well!
Not long into our studies, we discovered the work of Kees Boeke, a Dutch high school person who did a rather rough outline of a universe view back in 1957. He used base-10 notation and wrote about it: Cosmic View: The Universe in 40 Jumps. He missed about 22 jumps because he didn’t start at the Planck Length or Planck Time and he didn’t go to the Observable Universe or the Age of the Universe.
Base-2 is, of course, so much more granular — the universe in just 202 notations. To develop our chart, we took Planck length-time-mass-and-charge as a given. We reverse ordered temperature (following our logic that everything starts simply). Within the first second between notations 142-to-143, it seems that the temperature is high enough to trigger the quark-gluon plasma and we have what might be called an all-natural inflation.
Do you know anybody who is looking at natural inflation this way? Thank you.
Most sincerely,
Bruce
PS. When this email was written, we were struggling to organize too much data. Yes, it was “information overload.” Natural groupings helped. To be able to see where we were, they are presented below, rather than editing them out and forgetting them.
Ongoing The first group Scholars / Specialists Index
_____________
Bruce Camber, Coordinator, Big Board – little universe Project
New Orleans, In search of an integrated view of the Universe: http://81018.com