First email: 3 May 2017
Dear Prof. Dr. Edward Witten:
A core idea came out of Max Planck from 1899-to-1905 with the Planck units yet he (and most others) ignored those numbers throughout his lifetime. Frank Wilczek says that began to change after he published his three articles, Scaling Mt. Planck, beginning in 2001 within Physics Today.
If we assume that both Planck and Wilczek are correct, a simple exercise to begin to test the Planck units might include multiplying the four base units by 2, over and over again. It renders results that may be worth studying.
First, there are just over 202 notations to the Age of the Universe and the Observable Universe. There is a natural inflation — it’s a virtual simulation program — that scripts the big bang epochs without a bang per se. Within the close-packing of equal spheres within a pointfree system, lattice, triangles, tetrahedrons and octahedrons are generated. Bifurcation theory and the Feigenbaum constants are enlivened and a simple thrust within this new universe begins to unfold.
In 2011 the bones of this nascent model came out of high school geometry classes who were following Zeno inside the tetrahedrons and their internal octahedron. They had divided the edges by 2, connected the new vertices, then did it again and again and again. In 45 steps they were in the range of the proton and fermion. In 67 more steps they were down among the Planck units. The next day they multiplied the edges by 2 and connected those new vertices. Within another 90 steps, they were somewhere out in the range of the Observable Universe. They created a five foot chart with those 202 doublings (or steps, or groups or notations) and had a Planck-based map of the universe.
It seemed a bit too simple and logical, so I have asked around for over five years now, “What do you make of it? Do those first 67 notations begin to define dark energy and dark matter? Is this the deep infrastructure for homogeneity and isotropy? Why not? Is it just too simple?”
Perhaps we could pick up the other geometries with the ever-growing number of scaling vertices (line #9 in this chart)? Is it possible that Planck gave us something fundamental within his equation for Planck Time:
That is: or: (line #10 in the chart)
We have so many questions and there are no scholars brave enough to tell us to stop being silly! Is this silliness or might those first 67 notations, highly-integrated, simple mathematics be the part of the foundations of the foundations of our little universe?
I hope you can help us see the light!