# Dean Rickles

Centre for Time

The University of Sydney

Sydney, Australia

ArXiv: Mirror Symmetry and Other Miracles in Superstring Theory (2010)

Books: *Covered in Deep Mist*, Oxford University Press, 2020

______ *What is Philosophy of Science?* (Wiley, 2020)

______ *Symmetry, Structure and Spacetime* Mathematical Reviews, February, 2011)

Google Scholar

Homepage

inSPIRE^{HEP}

Vision – https://newagendasstudyoftime.wordpress.com/

Wikipedia: *Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing*

Third email: 24 April 2020

Dear Prof. Dr. Dean Rickles:

There are several references to your work within Wikipedia but no entry on Dean Rickles per se. Should we start one? What do you think? I wrote up this one for my old friend, Patricio Leteleier. His wife and I still correspond. Thanks.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

PS. Of course, it is easier to get into Wikipedia if you’re dead, but Witten, Duff, Veneziano and a gaggle of your living colleagues have pages. – BEC

Second email: October 12, 2019, 3:02 PM

https://arxiv.org/abs/1004.4491

Dear Prof. Dr. Dean Rickles:

Not long ago, I sent you a quick note to thank you for your 2010 work published in ArXiv as *Mirror Symmetry and Other Miracles in Superstring Theory (April 2010).*

I especially enjoyed your selection of the words, *no miracles* within Hilary Putnam’s work. Long ago, I sometimes sat next to Putnam at lectures of *Boston University’s Center for Philosophy and History of Science.*

Mathematical fertility is real.

First, more of an introduction. In 1970 I started several businesses. In 1972, I was invited to become part of a graduate program where I was exploring “moments of perfection in space-time.” It didn’t last long. By 1980 while at the Institut Henri Poincare, one of my companies began making some money! I diverted from full-time academic work back to business. In 2011, helping a nephew, I backed into “academia” through a bit of a wormhole: https://81018.com/home

Have you seen a mathematical confirmation of the speed of light?

https://81018.com/formulas/#5b It was just part of our simple calculations.

There are several other examples, but let me not be wasting your time if you are thinking it is all a bit dubious and certainly less than auspicious. I will await your encouragement or discouragement.

Thanks.

-Bruce

First email: Monday, 4 November 2019 @ 12:08 PM

RE: *What a pleasant surprise to find you within Lawrence Sklar’s references*

Dear Prof. Dr. Dean Rickles:

What a vision and what a special history. I wish that I had found you sooner, but my research is rather helter-skelter. I should have discovered you in 2011 when I picked up this line of inquiry which I had dropped in 1980 within my EPR studies (going in circles makes one dizzy…).

I picked it all back up by going inside the tetrahedron with a high school geometry class. Zeno’s question drove us and the Planck Length was our goal. We were back into elementary particle physics in 45 steps, and into the Planck scale in another 67 steps. We then multiplied by 2, and we were out to the size and age of the universe in just another 90 steps. 202 notations (doublings) encapsulated the universe.

“Rather peculiar.”

We thought it was a reasonable STEM tool. The first second of the universe was between Notations 143 and 144, the first year – Notation 168 and 169, the first million years – 188 and 189, and the first billion, an aeon, between notations 198 and 199.

Here is a model of the earliest universe! Most peculiar! But the numbers have a special logic. Would you take a look and tell us what we are doing wrong? Where is our failure of logic? Thanks so much.

Warmly,

Bruce