## Juan M. Maldacena

Institute for Advanced Study

Princeton, NJ 08540

ArXiv: Eternal traversable wormhole

CV

Homepage

Publications: Most cited since 1997 (15,000+ by September 2018):

_____________ The Large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity

_____________ Int.J.Theor.Phys. 38 (1999) 1113–1133, [hep-th/9711200].

Talks

Wikipedia

YouTube: Black Holes and the Structure of Spacetime (2018)

_____________ (scroll to 1:31 at the beginning of the lecture)

____________ _July 20, 2010, AdS/CFT I think is a bad name. It should be called,

_________“___“Quantum Field Theory / Quantum Gravity Duality / Gauge Gravity Duality.”

First email: Tuesday, 25 September 2018

Dear Prof. Dr. Juan Maldacena:

Is it reasonable to consider Max Planck’s simple definition of time when we talk about the interior of the space-time?

Planck’s more simple formulation computes well with the experimental results. And, of course, if we were to apply base-2 notation to Planck Time, there would be a small variable as each quantity is multiplied by 2. It appears to remain within 1% throughout all 202 notations from Planck Time to the current time or age of the universe.

By inserting the other base units along this scale of the universe, the data sets become more challenging, yet the simple correspondence between length and time tells a profound story. The correspondence with mass and charge, though stretching the imagination, still retains a deep logic and continuity.

Might you comment? Just nonsense?

Thank you.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

****************

Bruce Camber

PS. This work started in a New Orleans high school geometry class where we chased Zeno’s paradox to the *Planck Wall* and then asked, “What else can we do?”

Related links: https://81018.com/c/

Chart of numbers: https://81018.com/chart/ (see line 10)

A little background story: https://81018.com/home

More references:

The symmetry and simplicity of the laws of physics and the Higgs boson

Juan Maldacena 2016 Eur. J. Phys. 37 015802