Upon learning about the work of Weinan E…

Weinan E, Professor, Department of Mathematics,
Program in Applied and Computational Mathematics,
Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544-1000 U.S.A.

ArXiv: Deep learning-based numerical methods
Books: Principles of Multiscale Modeling

References within this website:

First email: April 8, 2019

Dear Prof. Dr. Weinan E:

I don’t think we did a very good job teaching geometry. In 2001, after spending a few hours with John Conway there in Fine Hall, he asked me, “Why are you so hung up on the octahedron?” I answered, “Because nobody knows what is perfectly enclosed within it.” I continued, “…we don’t know its most simple interior parts. …we don’t know about its four hexagonal plates. …we fail to recognize its necessary relation with the tetrahedron. Shall I go on?”

Ten years later with a high school geometry class we went deep inside that tetrahedral-octahedral complex. In 45 base-2 notations going within, we were well within particle physics. Within another 67 notations we were within the Planck Scale. We went back out; and from the desktop, it was only 90 additional doublings and we were at the approximate age and size of the universe. We then discovered Kees Boeke’s base-10. It had no inherent geometry. It had no Planck scale doublings. It was an empty shell while we had the dynamics of cubic-close packing.

We later learned that we had the penultimate multiscale model. Could it be classified within your heterogeneous multiscale method (HMM)?

Now, regarding all this data, there are three pages about which I would enjoy your harshest judgments:

https://81018.com/e8/ (Monday, April 8, 2020)
https://81018.com/maybe/ (Wednesday, April 3)
https://81018.com/standard_model/ (Tuesday, April 2)

Can you help? Thank you.

Most sincerely,



On learning from the work of Sabine Hossenfelder…

Sabine Hossenfelder, HossenfelderFrankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies
Frankfurt am Main, Germany

Article(s): Physicist Sabine Hossenfelder Fears Theorists…Scientific American, 2016
ArXiv (48): Rethinking Superdeterminism (13 Dec. 2019)
Books: Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray, Basic Books, 2018 (AAPT Review) (Amazon)
Blog: Backreaction: What is emergence? What does “emergent” mean?
•  The Planck length as a minimal length, January 2012
Google Scholar
Homepage  (Research Fellow)

Most current within this website: https://81018.com/empower/#Sabine

Most recent (fifth) email: 19 June 2021

Dear Prof. Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder:

I am circling back through your work so you’ll see your image along with seven others at the top of the homepage: https://81018.com/ The permanent URL when not a homepage is: https://81018.com/empower/#Scholars

There is a paragraph about your work under “References” that is still being developed.

Other scholars will be directed to it. If you object, I can easily remove the reference to you. If it needs updating or correction, please advise me. I’ll update it as expeditiously as possible. Thanks so much.



PS. My primary reference page to your work is here:

Tweet: 11:25 AM · January 13, 2021 @skdh (SabineHossenfelder)

You are brilliant, a lightbulb for the sun. Our favorites, Kepler and Wilczek, play their violins as we contemplate pi over an Italian dinner. Yes, that simple pi with its deep continuity, those ubiquitous symmetries, and never-ending harmonies, and ask, “Is that all there is…”

My editorial note: Sabine’s book, Lost in Math, is indeed, quite brilliant, but all our complexity within mathematics and physics leads back to pi and the sphere. Add the Planck base units, and apply a bit of base-2 exponentiation, and you have yourself a most-simple beginning of a model of the universe.

Fourth email: 5 April 2020

Since 2016 I have probably wasted a huge chunk of my time exploring and re-exploring our little base-2 model of the universe from the Planck scale, particularly Planck Time to this moment, our current time, all in 202 notations.

In that same time you’ve gotten a most, prestigious new job, published a most provocative book, Lost in Math with Basic Books (2018), written a dozen technical articles that appear in ArXiv and many of the best journals, have had dozens of articles written about you, and richly extended your blogging within Backreaction. Your production values climb as you continue to extend your YouTube activities and you burn the lines of Twitter. You’re (expletive) incredible. Congratulations. You’ve become a super star!

…and all the while I’ve become more and more idiosyncratic out here inside an Alice-in-Wonderland passage down into Planck’s base units.


Third email: Aug 15, 2018, 8:13 PM (slight corrections)

I don’t come out of my shell too often. Old age is catching up to me.

Regarding our base-2 model of the universe from the Planck units to current time all within just 202 notations or doublings, I am rather sure that you find it all quite idiosyncratic. It is. But, is it going in the right direction? Is it more right than wrong? How about the simple logic? Is the universe a highly-integrated whole?

Allow me please to include a recent “Twelve Key Functions” and “Reconstruct Our Universe.” Your comments and criticisms would be highly appreciated.


202+ successive doublings of the Planck scale outline our universe

  1. 202+ successive doublings of the Planck scale outline our universe. [1][2]
  2. Doubling mechanisms are built into the universe[1][2][3]
  3. A natural inflation/thrust is within the first moment of space and time. [1]
  4. We are primarily defined by ratios, all the dimensionless constants (all
    appear to be natural bridges between the finite and infinite).
  5. Space, time, and light are more fully integrated. Time appears to be finite. 
    (Length/time continuum suggests this model may actually be on target.)
  6. Consider 64 Unexplored Doublings from the Planck Scale to CERN’s Scale. [1] [2]
  7. One might conclude that it defines an exponential universe.
  8. It quite possibly opens a geometry for quantum fluctuations.
  9. It is becoming clear that infinity needs to be reopened as a key study.
  10. Key concepts like continuity and symmetry, are all reopened for re-evaluation.
Second email: Sat, Jun 30, 2012, 8:13 PM

Hi Sabine –

Thank you for your straightforward response.

It was a genuine question. No trick.
And, you understood the question in the proper
context. I appreciate your answer.

That is what I thought, but I certainly do not
have the depth of knowledge or scholarship
to know with any certainty if life becomes more
than peculiar at that point, i.e. the Planck length.

I was looking for an informed scholar’s
deep-seated insights regarding the functional
nature of the Planck length.

It is so small, so seemingly unknown-but-known,
I decided to explore it in some manner of speaking.
In the first 20 steps of exponential, base-2 notation,
that so-called point, a width/length/height expands to over
one million points (or lines or strings or forms or …. )
and, I assume, a specific length/width/height.

Do you happen to know Ed Fredkin (MIT, Carnegie Mellon, BU)?

He was a long-standing friend of a mutual friend, so while talking about life, I asked him about the Planck length. He responded that exponential, base-2 notation of the Planck length is numerology with physics. Essentially it’s meaningless.

I am not so sure.

If we were to assume that math, particularly simple geometry applies across all space and time, right down to the Planck Length, then those million of points begin to have some value.

Is that a faulty assumption?

I have been thinking about these concepts since December 2011 while preparing for that geometry class.
I hadn’t seen base-2 from the Planck Length to the edges of the observable universe — I just thought that I had fallen asleep in those classes when this topic was introduced, yet after doing some due diligence, it appears to be an oversight.

I would dearly appreciate any insight you may add to this direction of thinking. Thank you.


First email sent: Saturday, June 30, 2012 1:15 AM

Subject: A simple, quick question?

Sabine Hossenfelder, aka Bee

Dear Bee:

I am not a scholar, but I do appreciate good scholarship.

In this past year, I have been introduced to Planck’s length
in my research of basic structure in preparation to substitute for
a high school geometry class (Yes!).

My simple question, “Is there any conceptual error in multiplying
the Planck length by 2, exponential notation from its “single point”
out to the edges of the observable universe?

That high school geometry class — where I was substituting
for my nephew that day — we had a little help to find just over
202.34 notations or steps or doublings.

A YES or NO answer would be a wonderful starting point.
An explanation of NO would be extraordinarily informative.

Thank you.

Bruce E. Camber

PS. I am a television producer with over 51 seasons on PBS-TV and
the VOA-TV around the world. I am currently working on early-stage
ideation for a new series that could touch on this question.