Susskind, Leonard


Leonard Susskind

Stanford University
Stanford, CA


ArXiv
CV
Homepage
Twitter
Wikipedia
Youtube Collection: Lecture At the Santa Fe Institute, Why is Time a One-Way Street?


References to this page within this website:
Gravity (September 2018)

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 (at the age of 73, four years ago).
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 somewhat “symmetric
by notation.”

Quasi-symmetry?

A peculiar thought. Time becomes quite finite, entirely derivative,
quantized and quasisymmetric.

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?

Thanks.

Most sincerely,
Bruce
*******************
Bruce Camber
http://81018.com

PS. The chart of numbers is here: https://81018.com/chart
The reflections in light of the big bang: https://81018.com/2016/06/01/quiet/