On following the work of Natalie Wolchover of Quanta Magazine…


Natalie Wolchover
Author, journalist, investigative reporter and senior writer at Quanta Magazine
BusinessInsiderLinkedIn, Scientific American, Simons, Twitter

A focus of this site has been on these articles:
• A Deepening Crisis Forces Physicists to Rethink Structure of Nature’s Laws(Quanta, March 1, 2022)
The Webb Space Telescope Will Rewrite Cosmic History. (December 3, 2021)
• A Deepening Crisis Forces Physicists to Rethink Structure of Nature’s Laws(Quanta, March 1, 2022)
• A Different Kind of Theory of Everything, The New Yorker (Feb. 19, 2019)
• The Peculiar Math That Could Underlie the Laws of Nature (July 20, 2018)
• What No New Particles Means for Physics (Quanta, Aug. 9, 2016)
• Mathematicians Bridge Finite-Infinite Divide (May 24, 2016)
• Physicists Hunt for the Big Bang’s Triangles (April 19, 2016)
• Visions of Future Physics with Nima (as in Arkani-Hamed) (September 22, 2015)
• Infinity and Beyond: The Ultimate Test (Quanta, Nov. 3, 2014)
Theory of Origin of Life (January 22, 2014)
• Amplitudhedron: Jewel (September 17, 2013)
• Pictured on homepage with direct quote from “Physicists Hunt for the Big Bang’s Triangles

References to Natalie’s work on this website:
• https://81018.com/instant/#Quanta  Analysis of the work of Fermilabs Chris Quigg with visualizations
• https://81018.com/cosmology/ Duplicated here: https://81018.com/finite-to-infinite/
• https://81018.com/attitudes/ Attitudes, Beliefs, and Conceptual Frameworks
• https://81018.com/octonions/ The quaternion-and-octonion space
• Discovered: https://81018.com/2015/02/05/fifteen/

Most recent and third email: 14 October 2022 at 7:06 PM

Dear Natalie, 

Thank you again and again for all your work and perspicacity. I continue to add your articles to my list of one’s that I find most significant: https://81018.com/wolchover/

That page also reminds me of the last time I wrote and what I said. Since the first images came back from the JWST, unexpected smoothness is causing some anxieties about our basic cosmological models. Those of us who suspect the big bang (BB) is covering up a deeper analysis of structures, we will await the scholarly analyses and confirmations. 

Although we explore an alternative model, we are not as quick as Eric Lerner of LPP Fusion to proclaim the big bang is over. 

We backed into our naive model by going deeper and deeper inside a tetrahedron down to the Planck scale in our high school geometry classes. Our model has a geometry, algebra, dimensionless constants, spheres, tetrahedrons, octahedrons, a natural inflation, and continuity-symmetry-harmony, but WE have no pedigree. It would be silly to proclaim anything. But we can ask, and we will ask, questions. Can a base-2 mathematical map of the universe in 202 notations encapsulate big bang cosmology and articulate the unfolding of the 17 epochs, give rise to the CMB, and answer a few of the unanswered BB questions?

We cautiously say, “Yes.” https://81018.com/reason/ is our most recent exploration.

Your comments and criticisms would be profoundly appreciated. Thank you.

Warm regards, 


Second email/tweet: July 30, 2018

Dear Natalie:

Your image is on our current homepage which eventually will only be reached at this URL: https://81018.com/attitudes/  Just below the image is this brief title:


The embedded link within that header goes to this statement:

* These eight are truly a rare breed of scholar-celebrity-and-critical thinker; each is making a substantial difference in our world. Here, images-names are linked to emails to them.

And below that there is this summary of your work:

Natalie Wolchover has a global following for every article she writes for Quanta Magazine.  She consistently takes us all to the leading-bleeding edge of scholarship with a depth of understanding that creates a fluency of conceptual development.”

The link embedded within your name goes to our page about you and your work:

If you ever want us to update this posting, please let me know.

Thank you.


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 Updated: 17 Aug 2016

TO: Natalie Wolchover (and the Editorial Team of Quanta Magazine)
FM: Bruce Camber

Dear Natalie:

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. Yes, 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.

Most sincerely,


Bruce E. Camber
The chart: https://81018.com/chart/