ArXiv (100+): Horizons Protect Church-Turing (March 2020),
_____________ Complexity and Newton’s Laws (April 2019)
Youtube Collection: Lecture At the Santa Fe Institute, Why is Time a One-Way Street?
References to Leonard and this summary page within this website:
• Gravity (September 2018)
Most recent email: 9 May 2020 at 6 PM
Dear Prof. Dr. Leonard Susskind:
I did not know Planck Length divided by Planck Time is equal to 299,792 kilometers and is within .001% of the NIST / SI calculation (just reaffirmed in 2019). For me, it was a key calculation. Unrecognized, Planck was closer than anybody for over seventy years. In Planck units, 1 second will always equal 299,792 km. Please forgive me if I am being overly simplistic; this all came out of a high school geometry class.
You may remember that in 2011 we unwittingly applied base-2 while chasing tetrahedrons and its octahedron from our desktop models down to the Planck Length in 112 steps and out to the current size and age of the universe in just 90 steps. It was a very nice outline of the universe in 202 notations. One second is within Notation-143.
Of course, as a high school project, we didn’t know what it meant, if anything at all.
Today, we are fully idiosyncratic and boldly speculative. I have concluded:
1. Planck Length and Planck Time define the first instance of physicality.
2. That first moment instantiates an infinitesimal sphere, 67 base-2 notations smaller than waves and particles. It is an infinitely fast, steady stream of spheres.
3. Cubic close packing of equal spheres is part of the description of the dynamics for the emergence of geometries and forms, functions, structures… Langlands and your strings have a place to begin to unfold. The Fourier transform and all the dimensionless constants have their first coming-out parties. Continuity, symmetry and harmony rule the day.
Of course, a radically different model where Rovelli’s “Now” begins to make sense because every one of those notations are building off each other. Now that puts a different spin on things!
Space and time are derivative of each other, of light and all the dimensionless constants that define those Planck base units. Planck’s calculations in 1899 were very good. He rather ignored them. Einstein did as well. It’d take Frank Wilczek in 2001 to put a spotlight on the numbers to pull them into the public domain to be used by the scientific and scholarly communities.
We still have a long way to go. Space and time are derivative. Of what? Infinity? I define infinity only as continuity (order, numbers), symmetry (relations, geometries) and harmony (dynamics and space-time). It is the qualitative; the finite is the quantitative. Let’s not make it spooky.
I’ve played around with it all within my very first FQXi article. Coming out of my shell, you could easily kick my head right back in! What do I know?
Here we go:
PS. Our correspondence goes back a ways, but I have lost those records. To keep me somewhat aware of what I have said in the past, I now post my notes with references to our some of each scholar’s work that I follow. My page for you is here: https://81018.com/susskind/
Second email: 24 September 2018
RE: GR=QM Current reading: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1708.03040.pdf (10 August 2017)
“Dear Qubitzers, GR=QM”
Dear Prof. Dr. Leonard Susskind:
My study of quantum gravity is still naive and formative, yet I believe that the first part of our application of base-2 to the Planck base units, essentially the first 64 notations (doublings), gives substantial room for the mathematics of anti-de Sitter-conformal field theory correspondence to breathe more easily. Y’all seem to be forced into too tight a space for your gauge/gravity duality thoughts.
At some point in time, it seems that Robert Langlands and Ed Witten should be called into help, yet even they have no place to work with the big bang blocking their access to those Planck units.
Well, I’m formulating some thoughts about your work and this “lack of space to create the math” in a more systematic way so I will be referencing my letter to you here: https://81018.com/susskind and it will follow work done on this page about gravity: https://81018.com/gravity/
I know that it is all nonsense to the elite within these circles, yet at some point this simple model might have some relevancy.
Thanks. I wish you well.
First email: 6 July 2017
Dear Prof. Dr. Leonard Susskind:
I stopped today to listen to your lecture (you were 73 years old at when it was recorded).
I’m 70 and out of Boston University with Shimony, Cohen and that gang. Vicki Weisskopf opened the way for me to visit with Bell a couple of times at CERN (’75 and ’77). In 1980 in Paris JP Vigier and Olivier Costa de Beauregard were mentors.
Now, in your search for symmetry, my mind wandered back to Max Planck’s work. You started with Boltlzmann’s empty universe and 10-to-the-80th molecules compressed in a corner.
What if we were to start with Planck’s base units. Not very interesting? Well, what if we allow them to double and continue to double? Within 67 steps we enter the CERN-scale. In another 67-68 steps, we enter into the large-scale universe (Notation 134-5 would be out to the International Space Station). In another 67 steps, exit at notation 202 into the Age of the Universe right now.
The first second is between notations 143 and 144.
There are just over 202 doublings to inscribe the universe with multiples
of the Planck base units. There is a certain coherency in these doublings; they track well together providing a natural inflation and a very clear
definition of the cosmological epochs. The first 67 notations, perhaps
Wilczek’s grid, give us a more variegated possible mathematical foundation
than ever imagined.
Time symmetry is established in a rather awkward way. We know that
Planck Length divided by Planck Time equals the speed of light.
Max gave us that formula back in around 1900 and within each notation
the simple math gives us a variable speed of light, “symmetric
by notation” except for Notation-202.
A peculiar thought. Time becomes quite finite, entirely derivative,
quantized and quasi-symmetric.
Is this a bit of idiosyncratic silliness? We are just high school people
trying to learn the basics but not the mistakes of the old masters
(like Newton’s absolute time).
Although a strange introduction, it is as honest as I can be. We are in search of scholars who can help us better understand our simple math; is it just nonsense?