Rush Holt

Most recent email: Monday, November 28, 2016 at 9:27 PM
Dear Dr. Holt:

First, let me advise you that I am not an MD or PhD. I barely qualify to teach high school. Yet, I carefully read your article, “What now for science?” [Science  25 Nov 2016: Vol. 354, Issue 6315, pp. 947  DOI: 10.1126/science.aal4180]. I was especially enthusiastic about the very final conclusion of your article: “…pay more attention to the process of careful, open vetting of hypotheses and claims.”

On one hand, there is not enough money flowing into Washington, DC and on the other, there is way too much flowing out. One of our mutual concerns is the $900 billion funding of research. All too often the process is not careful, the vetting is not open, and there is a witting and unwitting bias within both hypotheses and claims.

We’ve come to understand those statements in a very visceral way. We have backed into a simple model with very simple math and simple logic that has challenged us in unusual ways. We have asked for help to interpret this model, but it is difficult to find scientists and mathematicians willing to risk.

There is such a thing as scientific bias that does not respect the openness of the search — all the unanswered questions —  and presumes one theory’s predominance over all others.

Our work that needs scrutiny comes out of our high school work. It is much like the 1957 work by Kees Boeke in a Dutch high school when he did a base-10 mini-scale of the universe called Cosmic Vision, The Universe in 40 Jumps. Our 202 jumps (or notations, doublings, steps, sets, groups, etc.) used base-2 and it was an exercise in 2011 within our geometry classes to look more closely at possible embedded geometries and tilings-and-tessellations of the universe. Our first chart opened many new questions that even surprised some of my scholar friends like Frank Wilczek (MIT) and Freeman Dyson (IAS). Given bifurcations, fractals, cellular division, and so many other ordered-and-continuous doublings, we  asked even more questions. We also began to apply the other Planck’s base units to our original model.

It is coming up on five years of studying this model. It opened up a deep study of cosmology, natural inflation, compactification, and many other issues within astrophysics. We are now doing an active exploration of hundreds of ArXiv articles. We expanded our model in 2014 by adding Planck Time, then again in 2015 with Planck Mass and Planck Charge; and in April 2016, we flattened it out as a horizontal chart to follow each notation more easily across the 202 notations.

I particularly like your question when you ask, “Most important, will the next administration be evidence-based?

Evidence requires logic and numbers; it often, however, also harbors philosophies and first principles which most often go unacknowledged. Point in case, in 1980 I was doing research at  l’Institut Henri Poincaré in Paris with Olivier Costa de Beauregard and Jean-Pierre Vigier. The two men disparaged each others work and could not understand why I divided my time between them. The subject was the EPR paradox, Bell’s inequality principle, and the research results of Alain Aspect at the Institut d’optique, d’Orsay.  Vigier was a Marxist and his conclusions were filtered by that belief. Costa de Beauregard was a devout Catholic and he was more open to things of the spirit and the relation between science and faith.

We all carry within us deep and abiding first principles that more often than not, are incomplete and even somewhat off.

Now, I’ve gone on too long!  Excuse me please, however, I just thought you would enjoy hearing from one of your readers out in the hinterlands of a New Orleans high school. Thank you.

Warm regards,

* * * * * * * * * *
Bruce Camber
Coordinator, Big Board – little universe Project

Initial email: Tuesday, November 29, 2016

Email policy: Friday, November 25, 2016

Date: Friday, November 25, 2016
From: Bruce Camber
To: Dr. Rush. D. Holt, Chief Executive Officer
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)


Dear Dr. Holt:

“Advancing science, technology, innovation, and an education system that prepares a capable workforce” is never easy, but it is even harder when the science we currently engage is self-fulfilling, arrogant, and nihilistic.

I know that immediately pegs me as idiosyncratic. Might I still receive a receptive heart and open mind? I would like to comment on your article, “So what now for science?”

Thank you.

Most sincerely,

* * * * * * * * * *
Bruce Camber
Coordinator, Big Board – little universe Project
Applying base-2 from the Planck base units to the Age of the Universe
Also, a high-school STEM project: