Currently the focus of this site is on these articles:
1. Part II: A New Physics for Theory of Life (July 26, 2017)
2. What No New Particles Means for Physics (Quanta, Aug. 9, 2016)
3. Mathematicians Bridge Finite-Infinite Divide (May 24, 2016)
4. Physicists Hunt for the Big Bang’s Triangles (April 19, 2016)
5. Visions of Future Physics with Nima (as in Arkani-Hamed) (September 22, 2015)
6. Infinity and Beyond: The Ultimate Test (Quanta, Nov. 3, 2014)
7. Theory of Origin of Life (January 22, 2014)
8. Amplitudhedron: Jewel (September 17, 2013)
First Tweet: Monday, 26 February 2018
@nattyover Is this the best possible description of the big bang? “Once upon a time, about 13.8 billion years ago, our universe sprang from a quantum speck, ballooning to one million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion times its initial volume…?” Quanta 4-19-2016
First email: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 Most recent update: 17 Aug 2016
TO: Natalie Wolchover (and the Editorial Team of Quanta Magazine)
FM: Bruce Camber
I find that more often than not, when a link goes to an article in Quanta magazine, it is by Natalie Wolchover. You are quite remarkable with a wonderful sense of what is important in the field and what new piece of work will be shaping our future. Remarkable.
What No New Particles Means for Physics (Quanta, August 9, 2016) is a point in case. Among all the summaries of the diphoton results, yours brought me back to CERN and into the inner circle where people are puzzled, concerned, and anxious. What will the future bring?
You caught one of the more important results at this point on our journey into the ever smaller world of high energy physics, when you quoted Raman Sundrum, “Naturalness is so well-motivated that its actual absence is a major discovery.” Among the many thousands directly involved and the hundreds of thousands who actively await studying the results, there have been several calls to re-examine the fundamental assumptions and first principles of their disciplines and their experimental platform. What are we missing? What variables might we tweak?
I had to write to you to say, “Thank you.” To experimental folks, I simply ask, “What about the progression of numbers from the Planck scale to the CERN scale?” Most will not know anything about that simple continuity equation, base-2 exponential notation, that binds all the Planck scale base units to every notation to this very day. That truly changes everything.
Yes, it is idiosyncratic, but simple things are a gift, aren’t they?
Thanks again for being who you are and for working as hard as you do.