TO: Natalie M. Paquette, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, formerly: Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, NJ
FM: Bruce E. Camber
RE: Your articles especially String Theoretic Illuminations of Moonshine, (January 2020) and A View from the Bridge, Inference (magazine), 2018; your ArXiv articles; even your homepage. Also, your listings in IAS, inSPIREHEP; YouTube: The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Physics in Mathematics (Stanford, 2017). Our page about your work on this website: https://81018.com/paquette/
URL for this page: https://81018.com/paquette/ Within this website: https://81018.com/15-2/
Third email: Friday, October 3, 2025
Dear Prof. Dr. Natalie Paquette:
I think you will find this to be of interest. Yesterday I asked Grok to convert our 18.5 tredecillion PlanckSpheres per second to the standard Hubble constant units (km/s/Mpc). It yields approximately 71 km/s/Mpc. Multiplying by the distance conversion factor (1 Mpc ≈ 3.086 × 10^{19} km), even Google AI gave us 71 km/s/Mpc— remarkably close to observed values from supernovae measurements of ~73 km/s/Mpc.
Meaningful? We’ve been touting the 18.5 figure for years.
Thank you.
Most sincerely,
Bruce
Second email: Friday, July 8, 2022 at 5:43 PM
Dear Prof. Dr. Natalie Paquette:
I share your appreciation of Eugene Wigner‘s Unreasonable Effectiveness… along with Tegmark and so many others. Quick question: Have you ever seen the five-octahedral gap? It is a little like the five-tetrahedral gap that Aristotle failed to observe. You may have seen reports. Aristotle’s mistake was replicated by many for over 1800 years, and little discussed for another 500 years. In none of these studies, especially the Lagarias-Zong article (PDF), does it mention an octahedral gap.
I am not finding any specific references to the five-octahedral gap anywhere! Perhaps it goes by another name. It has the same 7.35610+ degree gap created by five tetrahedrons. Taken together, I believe the gaps are significant and attractive! Here is my best image of the gaps to date!
Of course, the twenty-tetrahedral icosahedron also has significant gaps. Any five tetrahedrons of the twenty fit nicely on top or under the five-octahedral gap. It is a very different gap, yet makes for a most-fascinating stack (infinitesimal spindle) and complexity. It is a challenge.
Currently, I envision this tetrahedral-octahedral generation as part of the dynamics of the first ten base-2 notations (within the 202 that encapsulate the universe — everything-everywhere-for-all-time). Perhaps here may be a hypergeometric as well as hypogeometric series and a very different start of automorphic forms… all conjectures and very simple geometries. Thank you.
Warmly,
Bruce
First email: Tuesday, April 13, 2021 at 5:08 PM
Dear Prof. Dr. Natalie Paquette:
We are so far removed from your flux vacua and F24 SCFT, I can only hope that you have a moment for a few naive questions?
Our work started within the unique naïveté of a high school geometry class. We were studying the tetrahedron — http://81018.com/tot/ — and the octahedron within it. We could not find references to the four hexagonal plates within that octahedron so on a visit with John Conway, I asked a few questions. It was a busy day in Princeton and that discussion didn’t get enough attention.
December 19, 2011, New Orleans: I had a few days with the kids in a high school where we did a three-dimensional Zeno walk down inside the tetrahedron and octahedron. We didn’t know we were blazing a new trail. Getting infinitesimally, ever-so-much-smaller, we went all the way down to Planck’s scale and then out to the age of the universe following the doublings of Planck Time and Length. It mapped out nicely: https://81018.com/chart/ There were just 202 base-2 notations from the first moment to Now!
What do we do it? We had posted pages all over the web so in 2016 I started collecting them in one place: https://81018.com
The homepage is usually our latest query. If you do not have time to go to those pages, might you consider the questions just below that are on the homepage today? Your answers would be very helpful as we try to continue our walk between physics and math. Thank you, thank you.
Most sincerely,
Bruce
************************
Bruce E. Camber
http://81018.com
Questions:
1. Might there be fundamental units of length and time, as well as mass and charge (similar to, but more accurate than, the Planck base units), that are among the parameters that define the first moment or instant of the universe?
Answer: Yes | No | Maybe
Comment:
____________
2. Might an infinitesimal sphere be a first manifestation of such base units?
Answer: Yes | No | Maybe
Comment:
____________
3. Might sphere stacking and cubic-close-packing of equal spheres be among the first functional activities to define the universe?
Answer: Yes | No | Maybe
Comment:
____________
4. Might the rate by which spheres emerge be determined by a fundamental unit of time which would be one sphere per unit of a fundamental length? For example, we used Planck Time. That computes to 539.116 tredecillion spheres per second given the value of Planck Time is 5.39116(13)×10-44 seconds.
Answer: Yes | No | Maybe
Comment:
____________
5. Might base-2 notation be applied to create an ordering schema for these spheres? If that fundamental unit of time were Planck Time, approximately 436,117,076,900,000,000 seconds would pass to get to the current time which would be within the 202nd doubling (base-2).
Answer: Yes | No | Maybe
Comment:
____________
6. Might there be a range of perfection from the earliest notations and prior to any kind of quantum fluctuation, be it ontological or physical?
Answer: Yes | No | Maybe
Comment:
____________
7. Might these spheres:
___(a) be defined by continuity-symmetry-harmony (which redefines infinity)?
___Answer: Yes | No | Maybe Comment:
___(b) …become the basis to define the aether?
___Answer: Yes | No | Maybe Comment:
___(c) …be the reason for homogeneity and isotropy?
___Answer: Yes | No | Maybe Comment:
___(d) …and, be the essence of dark matter and dark energy?
___Answer: Yes | No | Maybe Comment:
____________
8. Might you be open to receive another eight questions about foundational concepts no sooner than eight months from today?
Answer: Yes | No | Maybe
Comment:
_____
String Theoretic Illuminations of Moonshine
Natalie Paquette, Wednesday, January 15, 2020