On discovering the work of Eva Silverstein…

Eva Silverstein, Stanford Linear Accelerator, Stanford, California

ArXiv (109): TF1 Snowmass Report (Oct. 2022-PDF)
• The dangerous irrelevance of string theory (2017-PDF) )
• TASI lectures on cosmological observables and string theory (2016-PDF)
Articles: Kavli (2009), Eva Silverstein’s Spirals and Strings (2017)
Homepage(s): inSpireHEP, Stanford, ResearchGate, Wikipedia

Second email:  Friday, November 2, 2019 at Noon

Dear Prof. Dr. Eva Silverstein:

If our outline of the universe is too small, our thinking is as well.

Our outline — a base-2 chart from the very first instant at the Planck base units
up the 202nd doubling to the current time — by definition includes everything,
everywhere, for all time, bears debunking or corroboration at some level. No?
Either one would work for me. Your thoughts?


First email:  Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 5:35 PM

REF: The dangerous irrelevance of string theory (ArXiv, 2017)

Dear Prof. Dr. Eva Silverstein:

String theory may not be grounded in empirical science; I believe it can be grounded within empirical mathematics. To date, we have not really had a working model of the universe to consider and test.

There is good reason to believe that the universe supports a natural inflation. The application of base-2 to the Planck base units provides the shell whereby the first 64 doublings create a “huge” grid or matrix for testing.

The first measurements of CERN are not until the 67th notation. The first measurement of a unit of time (Garching) is not until the 84th notation. The first second is not until the 144th notation.

A horizontally-scrolled chart of the numbers is here: https://81018.com/chart/

A simple overview is here: https://81018.com/option/
The most recent analysis is always the homepage: http://81018.com
I know it is entirely idiosyncratic!

I have also asked your colleague, Helen Quinn, for feedback! Thanks.
Most sincerely,
Bruce Camber