Upon discovering the work of Michael Szell…

Michael Szell, Computer Science Dept.
IT University of Copenhagen
, Rued Langgaards Vej 7, 2300 København, Denmark

ArXiv (22): Interdisciplinarity: A Nobel Opportunity (PDF), 2018
Google Scholar
Homepage(s): Copenhagen, Santa Fe, Szell.net, University of Vienna

Second email, December 23, 2021, 6:57 PM

Dear Prof. Dr. Michael Szell:

I have started a reference page for you and your work: https://81018.com/szell/ (this page).
Today within the Wikipedia’s listing about Interdisciplinarity, I added a reference to Interdisciplinarity, A Nobel Opportunity. 

Has anybody started a Wikipedia listing, Michael Szell

Have a wonderful holiday as we celebrate the ending of a most difficult year,   

Happy New Year,


First email: Tuesday, August 13, 2019, 2:16 PM

Dear Prof. Dr. Michael Szell:

Who better to ask the old question, “What is light?”  in light of your sense of interdisciplinarity. Of course, we know about visible light, but what about the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum?  Is it also light?  We know there is an inherent charge and mass to that spectrum; it seems the most-famous and  formidable Einstein equation has given us a sense of that.  Yet, there is also Max Planck’s rather forgotten equation that might be telling us something equally important about the nature of light. 

His simple ratio has not received much attention over the years. Perhaps it should be what happens when we attempt to resolve these two equivalences?  Can we? Thank you.

Most sincerely,


PS.  Perhaps you might appreciate a little background. I rather unwittingly got into this strange area of questioning when in 2011 in a high school geometry class we proceeded to ask the Zeno-like question as we divided the edges of a tetrahedron in half, connected the new vertices, and found the four smaller tetrahedrons in each corner and the octahedron in the middle. We continued by dividing the edges of both objects, until we reached the size of things within particle physics. Then, in a somewhat arbitrary manner, we decided that there would be consolidation of objects as the scale got ever so much smaller.  Eventually we discounted the possibility of a singular primordial atom as Lemaître proposed.

Instead, we engaged the concepts of John Wheeler but considered his quantum foam to be more appropriately named Planck spheres. We actually calculated the numbers within the progression of spheres! Of course, we had to learn a little about dimensional analysis and we have a ways to go to be confident about anything! Then we had to learn about inflation, natural inflation, and period doubling, but that work wasn’t basic enough. Only by going back to Kepler and the progressive studies of cubic close packing did we feel that there was a possibility of understanding light-and-time-and-infinity in rather new ways.

We know how dangerously close we are to nonsense. Idiosyncratic borders on idiocy! So, of course, we want the help of the most integrative thinkers. Hopefully you can help steer us in a more appropriate direction!  Thanks again.  -BEC

Our working references:


Bruce Camber

Also: Perspective | Published: 01 October 2015
A century of physics, Roberta Sinatra, Pierre Deville, Michael Szell, Dashun Wang & Albert-László Barabási