**Edward Witten**, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, NJ

**ArXiv**: Matrix Models… (June 2020)

Light Rays, Singularities, and All That (January 2019)

Open Strings On The Rindler Horizon (October 2018)

A Note On Boundary Conditions In Euclidean Gravity (September 2018)

A Mini-Introduction To Information Theory (September 2018)

Integrable Lattice Models From Gauge Theory (September 2016)

More On Gauge Theory And Geometric Langlands (June 2016)

The problem of gauge theory Perturbative Gauge Theory (2008)

Perturbative Gauge Theory As A String Theory In Twistor Space (2003)**CV** (PDF)**Homepage****Wikipedia****Weinberg-Witten theorem**: No-go theorem excludes the hypothetical composite and emergent theories. **YouTube**: Consciousness, Nature Rhymes…

Pages within this website: Consciousness, Sleep and other questions

Most recent and the sixth email: April 13, 2022, 9 AM

Dear Prof. Dr. Ed Witten:

Have we been living with incomplete definitions of points, vertices, and point-particles?

You may remember that within those 202 base-2 notations from Planck Time to the current time (the Now), the first 64 notations are below all thresholds of measurement. I have suggested to you and Robert Langlands that the first group of notations is a natural place for automorphic forms and Langlands programs and the next group for string and M-theories. Yet as I have been analyzing this domain, the first question is, “What manifests first?” I believe the simple answer is, “An infinitesimal sphere that is defined by pi, dimensionless constants, the qualitative of pi that is infinite and are given within continuity, symmetry, and harmony and even the Fourier Transform and its immediate expressions of electromagnetism or gravity.”

These facets redefine a period, the vertex, and even point-particles that are among the construction blocks of our infinitesimal universe.

These are generalities, of course, but y’all already have the details. Both you and Langlands need an operating container (base-2 and an exponential universe with clear finite-infinite boundaries), the parts and pieces (a range of infinitesimal spheres), and a little imagination to hook what you have into this infrastructure of 64 notations.

Is it (1) possible, (2) mildly absurd or (3) totally absurd? Thanks.

Warmly,

Bruce

Fifth email: February 26, 2021, 10:51 PM

Dear Prof. Dr. Ed Witten:

Does pi have a role within emergence, especially in the first moments of our universe?

Max Planck’s base units were ostensibly ignored for over 100 years. Today, we recognize their reality notwithstanding those four numbers could radically change our understanding of things with four working assumptions:

- The four Planck base units manifest as a basic building block that is an infinitesimal sphere many orders of magnitude smaller than neutrinos.
- This sphere is further defined by pi, cubic-close packing of equal spheres and the Fourier Transform.
- Planck Time, 5.391 16(13)×10
^{-44}seconds, defines a rate of expansion at 539.116 tredecillion units per second. - Apply base-2 to that expansion and all those spheres and the universe are encapsulated within 202 notations, the first 64 being well-below the reach of measuring devices. Notation-0 is the first sphere and it is the first moment in time. The current time is within Notation-202. A chart of those numbers encapsulates everything, everywhere, for all time.

We begin to learn about a new aether, dark energy and dark matter, and the basis of homogeneity and isotropy which ultimately will help mitigate our inherent proclivity toward solipsism.

Happy Pi Day: https://81018.com/challenge/

Conclusions: The three primary facets of pi and of life — continuity, symmetry, and harmony — are the definition of the essential structure of the sphere, which ultimately give rise to the very structures of our little universe. It all starts superconductingly cold. Yes, and, these facets manifest the deepest nature of the finite and the infinite.

Warm regards,

Bruce

PS. I try to keep uninvited emails to a minimum, no more than one per year.

I’ve reached my limit! With a smile… -BEC

Fourth email: 25 May 2020

Dear Prof. Dr. Edward Witten:

Tragic news out of Fine Hall with our country’s most imaginative geometer. I hope you and your families are all well and doing fine.

Knowing how entirely idiosyncratic I am, please consider this my first and only email for the year!

I made a very odd conclusion about the point particles of string theory — https://81018.com/67-steps/ — and I would be most pleased if you’d just stop me in my tracks. Obviously, I am stuck in this strange world of base-2 notation because the authorities have not yet told me, “You can’t walk on those tracks!” That posting was inspired by my writing about Aristotle’s failure with the tetrahedron, Newton’s absolutes, and Hawking’s infinitely hot: https://81018.com/duped/

Have a wonderful holiday!

Warmly,

Bruce

Third email: February 26, 2019

Dear Prof. Dr. Edward Witten:

My questions about the Weinberg-Witten theorem have an unusual context. That orientation was introduced in my two earlier emails; however, I will attempt to be more succinct today.

My assumptions are as follows:

1. The Planck Base Units are proper calculations and a real reality.

2. Planck base units are defined by dimensionless constants that are also real.

3. The composite of the four base units is a sphere; we’ll call it a plancksphere.

4. That sphere is also defined by two formulas:

e = *mc*^{2}

c = ℓP divided by *t*P**Note**: Space and time are consider discrete, finite, and quantized, certainly not absolute.

5. Sphere-stacking as understood within cubic-close packing is the beginning of scaling, ostensibly doublings, and structure.

6. There are no less than 64-doublings prior to any possible measurements by CERN, SLAC, and any other accelerator or other known devices.

One of my naïve questions is:

If those assumptions are taken as a given, are both gauge bosons truly massless or could a truly infinitesimal mass be below (the cutoff) the thresholds of measurement by our physical instrumentation?

*“ Brush infinity under the rug.”* If infinity is redefined as continuity, symmetry and harmony perhaps Dirac, Feynman, ’t Hooft, Tegmark, Weinberg and so many others can relax and we can begin asking questions about a transformation nexus between the finite-and-infinite. We know renormalization has a narrow application in physics and it is not a general antidote.

I apologize for my simplicity. Thank you.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

PS. Reading and learning more today about the cutoffs within renormalization. It seems that a different starting point begins to simplify so many issues. -BEC

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

Most sincerely,

Bruce

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, and 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 begins, the constants — like the Feigenbaum (and others) — are enlivened, and a simple thrust within the new universe begins to unfold.

In 2011 the bones of this nascent model came out of high school geometry classes. We were following Zeno inside the tetrahedrons and their internal octahedron. Dividing the edges by 2, connecting the new vertices, we did it again and again and again. In 45 steps we were in the range of the proton. In 67 more steps we were down among the Planck units. The next day we multiplied the edges by 2 and connected those new vertices. Within another 90 steps, we were somewhere in the range of the Observable Universe. We created a five-foot chart with those 202 doublings (or steps, or groups or notations). I believe it is the first 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?

• Could we “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!

Thank you.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

*************

Bruce Camber

https://81018.com/chart/

____________

“A first-order quantum chromodynamics (QCD) phase transition that occurred reversibly in the early universe would lead to a surprisingly rich cosmological scenario. Although observable consequences would not necessarily survive, it is at least conceivable that the phase transition would concentrate most of the quark excess in dense, invisible quark nuggets, providing an explanation for the dark matter in terms of QCD effects only. This possibility is viable only if quark matter has energy per baryon less than 938 MeV. Two related issues are considered in appendices: the possibility that neutron stars generate a quark-matter component of cosmic rays, and the possibility that the QCD phase transition may have produced a detectable gravitational signal.” – Ed Witten, Cosmic separation of phases, Phys. Rev. D 30, 272 (July 1984)

____________