TO: Jonathan Richard Ellis, CERN, Geneva, Switzerland
FM: Bruce E. Camber
RE: Your 469 ArXiv articles, particularly Where is Particle Physics Going? and the many topics raised on your homepage(s) at CERN, even Wikipedia, and YouTube: Brief Introduction to Everything, John Ellis
This page URL: https://81018.com/john-ellis/
John Ellis references within this website: http://81018.com/empower/#3fa
Sixth email: 31 October 2025
Dear JRE:
Growing up in Massachusetts, we learned this little ditty, “Here’s to the town of Boston, The land of the bean and the cod, Where the Lowells speak only to Cabots, And the Cabots speak only to God.” Of course, the Cabots have had enormous influence in the Boston area, and somehow that sense of sophistication has become the norm for many in our society today.
Here’s is my latest ode as the JWST continues to challenge the big bang: https://81018.com/universe-geometry/
Best wishes,
Bruce
Fifth email: 16 May 2025 at 11:40 AM
Dear Prof. Dr. Jonathan Richard Ellis:
I watched your video from 2017, Brief Introduction to Everything, and around 13 minutes into it, you pegged the formation of atoms at 300,000 years. Eight years later with Malcolm Fairbairn, Juan Urrutia, Ville Vaskonen, you creatively begin making adjustments due the data from JWST. Such creatives!
If a more simple and perhaps more robust answer could be imagined, might you be inclined to consider it?
Thank you.
P.S. A more simple answer might include Planck’s base units, base-2 notation, basic Euclidean geometries, the four primary irrational numbers, and the geometries of the gaps. –BEC
Fourth email: 18 May 2025 at 11:01 AM
Just as an FYI:
“New Physics Beyond the Standard Model“ (BSM) (Wikipedia). So stymied for so long, BSM has become a special category of study. And, it should be. We’ve all got to push the edges of our understanding of things. These studies are all too important to be left in the hands a few elite scholars. Among those who cannot yet imagine a new physics based on infinitesimal spheres that are defined by the Planck scale, an excellent read is John Ellis’ May 2021 ArXiv article from the Andromeda Proceedings (BSM-2021 Conference, Zewail City, Egypt), SMEFT Constraints on New Physics Beyond the Standard Model (PDF). The Center for Fundamental Physics (CFP), in collaboration with the Faculty of Engineering and Natural Sciences at Sabancı University sponsored an online international conference titled, Beyond Standard Model: From Theory to Experiment (BSM-2021), March 29-April 2, 2021. It seems to me that a conceptual stumbling block goes back to the general acceptance of concept that the infinite is nowhere found within the finite (Hilbert). Of course, we start with pi. Is it finite or infinite? We observe the continuity of its never-ending, always the same, forever-changing numbers. …finite or infinite? We observe its perfect symmetry. Is it finite or infinite? Now, how about the sphere’s inherent Fourier transforms? Are those harmonic functions finite or infinite? Both? A dynamic bridge between the two?
It is part of this homepage and it is now also within my notes to you (this page). -BEC
Third email: Thursday, December 26, 2019 @ 4:08 PM
I thought you might enjoy this page based on the work of
Artist/Scientist, Daniel Dominguez at CERN:
https://81018.com/proton/
-Bruce
Second email: Monday, June 3, 2019 @ 7:08 PM
Dear Prof. Dr. John Ellis:
Of course, it would have been good to hear from you.
Not often do high school people come out with a 100% mathematical, an entirely-predictive, quiet expansion and a natural inflation of the universe. Also, it all begins like Lemaitre’s original model, very cold.
The logic is simple — the universe is exponential.
By the way, we are learning and making our distinctions between you and George Ellis.
Now, here’s an idea! Perhaps you two Ellis savants could do a joint article and a critically review of our high school logic!
Our working page about your work is here: https://81018.com/john-ellis/
Thanks.
Warmly,
Bruce
First email: Monday, March 11, 2019, 9:20 PM
Dear Prof. Dr. John Ellis:
My introduction to you and your work was an August 2013 Interview with John Ellis that I read earlier today: https://ep-news.web.cern.ch/content/interview-john-ellis
Most recently, I’ve begun reading your ArXiv articles:
Probing the Scale of New Physics in the ZZ Coupling at e+e− Colliders
https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.06631
I would like to stretch our imaginations a little with a speculative idea, a what-if, so I beg that you will bear with me.
There are five very speculative concepts that form the basis of this idea.
1. A simple mathematical grid. Apply base-2 notation to the Planck base units to encapsulate the universe within 202 base-2 notations. We start at Planck Time and go to the present time.
2. A simple building block. Assume the the first expression of physicality is the sphere, some have called it a plancksphere and John Wheeler called it quantum foam.
Apply cubic-close packing — https://81018.com/number/#Kepler –and we have form-and-structure emergent. https://81018.com/circles-spheres/
3. Quantum fluctuations. Assume basic structure includes a five-tetrahedral unit; we have called it a pentastar. It has a gap (0.12838822… radians or 7.356103172… degrees) There is also the twenty-face icosahedron and the sixty-face pentakis dodecahedron. In each the same gaps that could readily manifest as quantum indeterminacy by the 64th notation.
4. Every notation is always emergent, never-ending, never-the-same. All time is Now. Obviously, within the 202nd notation, there is a perception of past-present-and-future, a sense of time. This notation is 10.9 billion years and only about 2.84% of it has emerged.
5. Re-open the doors to define more deeply the concept of infinity. We’ve got to lighten up a little. It is obvious nobody is making progress with the old-time debate, but some progress just might be able to be made both within mathematics and physics: http://81018.com/infinity/
It is such a different model, it is hard to engage. It took me the better part of four years to realize this model was more than a STEM tool. Our little history is here: http://81018.com/home/. My whole story is here and an introduction here.
Idiosyncratic to be sure. Where does our simple logic and simple math break down? Thank you so very much.
Warmly,
Bruce
*************
Bruce E. Camber
Austin, Boston, San Diego
###