Monika Schleier-Smith, Stanford University, California
ArXiv: Quantum Simulators: Architectures and Opportunities, 2019
Homepage(s): Stanford, Schlier-Smith Lab, APS, Hertz, MacArthur
inSPIREHEP (no profile yet, but many referenced articles)
Publications: CV-PDF, Overview
YouTube: “Atoms and Photons: from Fundamental Physics to Quantum Technology“
Second email: October 15, 2022
Dear Prof. Dr. Monika Schleier-Smith,
Following up my email from 30 May, first I should note that we’ve started our own reference page about you and your work: https://81018.com/schleier-smith/ It’ll also have a copy of any correspondence to you or your team members so, hopefully, we do not interrupt your work too much.
Independent of all our given theories about the nature of things, might we just take as a given that there are 202 base-2 notations from the Planck base units to the current time? It is a map or outline of the universe. The first 64 notations define a domain which is not formally recognized within academia, yet it has already been defined by the many who are not on the grid. I ask somewhat rhetorically, could those first 64 notations be the infamous missing link between relativity and quantum theory?
Could we have cracked open a new door or is it all just poppycock and simplistic nonsense?
I had noticed some activity on our website on my page about your work, so I updated it. If you ever want anything updated, advise me and it’ll be done!
Thank you for all that you do.
PS. Though I explained in my earlier notes, this particular strain of my work originated within the naiveties of a high school geometry class. It needs some critical review — some simple validation that it is possible or some clear censure that it is impossible. I would welcome either! -BEC
First email: 30 May 2022 at 4:22 PM
Dear Prof. Dr. Monika Schleier-Smith,
We can view the universe as 202 base-2 notations, starting at Planck Time and then come up to this very moment. I’ve linked our little chart with its 202 columns of numbers. It is horizontally-scrolled! We started that exercise in 2011 in a New Orleans high school geometry class. We immediately began to ask, “Is it just a group of numbers or is it meaningful?”
Because we started within a tetrahedron and then the octahedron within it, and then went deep down inside 112 steps to about the Planck Length, we thought, “Well, it has an imputed structure. That’s something.” We then used that Planck Length as the size of the edge of our first tetrahedron and multiplied by 2. In 67 notations we were up inside the CERN measurements for particle and waves. In another 45 notations we were back in the classroom. We kept going. In another 90 notations we were out on the edges of the universe and the current time at about 13.82 billion years.
We thought we had the penultimate STEM tool. After all, it seemed to include everything, everywhere for all time. Because our best attempts to write about it were consistently rejected, we have taken to web. Our URL — http://81018.com — opened in 2016.
While studying those numbers, its inherent logic, and geometries, the block from Notation-0 to Notation-64 was mysterious. What’s there? Also, it seemed that it could be perfectly filled with simple geometries. In that time, we also discovered Aristotle’s mistake with the tetrahedron. It is little-known scholarship and I believe it might be near the edges of your research. I am now looking for the scales within which you are working. My guess is that your work would be in a range, possibly starting around our Notation 80 or 1.9538×10-11 meters. Our Notation-67 is in-and-around 2.38509×10-15 meters.
We wondered, “Is this the range where quantum fluctuations are detected?”
Yes, we have begun asking questions ourselves about the geometry of quantum fluctuations. It is here that we began thinking about Aristotle’s gap and other pentagonal gaps. We wondered, “Might that gap have something to do with quantum fluctuations?” Of course, we don’t know, but it has become a rather speculative conjecture; and, off the cuff, I wondered if you thought it might be worth pursuing? Thanks.
E. J. Davis, A. Periwal, E. S. Cooper, G. Bentsen, S. J. Evered, K. Van Kirk, and M. H. Schleier-Smith, Phys.
Rev. Lett. 125, 060402 (2020).