Witten, Edward

Edward Witten

WittenInstitute for Advanced Studies,
Princeton, NJ

ArXiv: 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
The problem of gauge theory Perturbative Gauge Theory (2008)
Perturbative Gauge Theory As A String Theory In Twistor Space (2003)
CV
Wikipedia
Weinberg-Witten theorem: No-go theorem excludes the hypothetical composite and emergent theories.
YouTube: Consciousness

Most recent 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 = mc2
c = ℓP divided by tP
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) all 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-to-the-infinite. We know renomalization 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 all your work to help us all 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, 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
*************
Bruce Camber
https://81018.com/chart