Witten, Edward

Edward Witten

WittenInstitute for Advanced Studies,
Princeton, NJ

ArXiv:  A Note On Boundary Conditions In Euclidean Gravity (September 2018)
_______ A Mini-Introduction To Information Theory (September 2018)
_______  Integrable Lattice Models From Gauge Theory
_______ The problem of gauge theory Perturbative Gauge Theory (2008)
_______ Perturbative Gauge Theory As A String Theory In Twistor Space (2003)
YouTube: Consciousness

Most recent email: November 1, 2018

Dear Prof. Dr. Edward Witten:

In the summer of 1979, I visited with Freeman Dyson at IAS. What a special place on this earth. It’s kind of like mixing Oxford, MIT, Stanford, Princeton and a touch of Harvard and Cambridge. Sweet alchemy!

Arrogance is a powerful tool and some within the IAS family can’t believe their great fortune for being there, and in their insecurity become aloof and somewhat arrogant.

We all should always have time for children. Perhaps it was Einstein who said, “The pursuit of truth and beauty is the sphere in which we are permitted to remain children all our lives.”

My earlier letter to you is here: https://81018.com/witten
A new reference to that page is on our homepage today.
It is here: https://81018.com/three In 1979 I also went to
Steven Weinberg’s office at Harvard to chat briefly about
The First Three Minutes and a little project at MIT I had
going at that time: https://81018.com/mit/

Today and for the next few weeks, I will attempt to better
understand your collaboration with Weinberg that resulted
in the the Weinberg-Witten theorem.

I thank you for all your work to help us all understand
this life, this universe, and the reason for it all.

Most sincerely,

First email: 3 May 2017

Update: 17 September 2017 (small corrections)
References: YouTube Videos and others

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. In 2001, Frank Wilczek published three articles, Scaling Mt. Planck, within Physics Today. When he received his Nobel in 2004, intellectual authority was imparted to those three articles and Wilczek managed to bring the Planck base units out into the clear light of day.

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. We backed into that activity, yet it appears to render results 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.  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), 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)?

Also, is it possible that Planck gave us something fundamental within his equation for Planck Time:

plancktimelengthc   That is: PlancTime  or:  c=pl:pt  (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!

Thank you.

Most sincerely,

Bruce Camber