Upon studying the work of Arthur Jaffe

Arthur Jaffe, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA

Articles: The illusion of time (Review of Rovelli’s The Order of Time)
: The Physics of Energy, MIT OCW Course (2008) based on the boo
CV (PDF) and Publications (PDF)
Homepage(s): Personal, Google Scholar, inSPIREHEP, Twitter (2018), Wikipedia, YouTube

First email: May 30, 2020 (Updates: 2 Jul 2020, 26 Dec 2022)

Dear Prof. Dr. Arthur Jaffe:

Most scholars recognize the veracity of the Planck base units. Is it true that not as many know that Max Planck’s value for what we now call Planck Length divided by his value for Planck Time is equal to the speed of light (within .1%)?

It does seem that physics begins at this scale.

It also seems that we will know very little about the origins of quantum fluctuations until we know more about emergence of these Planck units. A most simple proposal is that these units represent the first definition of space and time. Physicality starts here. So, as high school people, we have asked the question, “What might it look like?” Our students in our geometry classes were glad to guess!

  • With an abundance of pi in all the key equations that define our universe, isn’t the sphere a reasonable guess?
  • By applying cubic-close packing of equal spheres, isn’t there a natural expansion that is best ordered as each doubling (base-2 notation) is defined?
  • Don’t tetrahedrons and octahedrons begin to tile and tessellate a very young universe? It seems to us that particles and waves are not seen for at least 64 more doublings (notations, layers, groups, sets).

Aristotle taught his students that one could tile the universe with the tetrahedron. Though wrong, it wasn’t until over 1800 years later that he was corrected. There is a 7.35610317245345…+ degree gap.

Do you know anybody who associates this gap with quantum fluctuations? If not, is it an idea worth exploring further? We all think so. Thank you.

Most sincerely,


PS. Because so few scholars respond, I believe either I’ve become an idiosyncratic gadfly or the simplicity is just too much to take in and it throws so much of our prior work into a little tizzy. Perhaps both. Yet in my years, I was personally encouraged by John Wheeler and Viki Weisskopf to simplify without become simplistic. It is a rather fine line. Notwithstanding, so I do not become too much of a nuisance, I keep track of my correspondence. With you it will be here: https://81018.com/jaffe/

I promise not to send another email unless encouraged to do so! -BEC