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
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.
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: https://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: https://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.