ArXiv, Google Scholar, LinkedIn, Nature: The illusion of infinity (March 2022), Twitter…

Second email: 17 April 2023

When I find somebody’s work of interest like your review of The illusion of infinity, and I write a note, I’ll often put the note online just so I can be reminded of your work later on. Today, I saw traffic on our website to https://81018.com/milana/

It was great fun for me to revisit your work.

My sequel to that note is here: https://81018.com/csh/

Also, there is now a listing for you just under Nature: E Gibney: https://81018.com/alphabetical/#N

Gödel and Hilbert put “infinity” kind of “off limits” for most people: https://81018.com/godel/ and https://81018.com/hilbert/

I wish you well in all that you do.

Warmly,

Bruce

First email: 21 April 2022, at 5:15 PM (light editing)

Dear Silvia Milana (PhD):

Just a quick note to tell you how much I enjoyed reading those thoughts coming from your pen about the light exhibit at the Tate, yes, Yayoi Kusama’s Infinity Mirror Rooms. I am a bit attenuated to anything and everything about infinity, especially to see if infinity is being redefined in a new way. I’ve watched the Tate’s online video and from what I have seen, Kusama’s redefinition is profoundly personal and more intuitional than literal.

My current focus is on pi (π) and those never-ending, never-repeating (infinite?), always symmetric, yet inherently asymmetric, entirely irrational-and-transcendental, forever quantitative-and-qualitative, and deeply within, generating harmonic functions, that we know through Fourier Transforms. Now, that’s a different approach to infinity!

I am rather sure there is light fundamentally in there. Isn’t it a bit odd that we don’t ask more questions and demand more from pi (π)? Who are our pi (π) and light experts?

I just looked and there are quite a few documents to work through… thanks for opening those doors.

You’d be good as a light and pi expert. In light of an increasingly robust study of the Planck scale, I think there is a need to consider redefining two-dimensional materials, or at least to more carefully study the concepts of singularities and 2D. Perhaps more thoughts later? Might I share?

Best wishes,

Bruce

PS. The Planck base units are symbolic. The original units have been updated several times by the standards organizations like ISO. Some dispute the calculation of the Planck Constant and its impact. There are several studies of the Stoney units, one by John Barrow, but Stoney’s units were not generally embraced. It is overdue that the standards organizations take another pass at defining the base units. -BEC