12 February 2014
TO: Brian David Josephson, FRS, TCM Group, Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge University
FM: Bruce Camber
RE: Planck length, 205.11 base-2 notations and nesting and combinatorial geometries
Dear Prof. Dr. Josephson,
I would like to talk with you about base-2 exponential notation from the Planck Length to the Observable Universe whereby the known universe is seen within the 202.34 notations (layers, doubling, or steps – NASA’s calculation for us) to about 205.11 (JP Luminet’s calculations for us). Those calculations provide an ordered set within a very granular environment, but more. I believe cellular automaton, most recently by Stephen Wolfram (inventor of Mathematica) might readily apply to the first 20 to 30 notations. Benoit Mandelbrot’s work might then follow. At notation 65 the fermions and protons begin to emerge.
Why has the academic community ignored the simple expansion of the Planck Length using base-2?
I was a personal friend of Phil and Phylis Morrison when Powers of Ten came out. That took a high school teacher (Kees Boeke) to lead the way. It seems to me that even Max Planck could have stopped long enough to make some modest speculations about a base-2 progression back in 1901. We need to pull in Alfred North Whitehead’s point-free geometries and I think we may have the basis to create an unusual scientific platform whereby space increasingly becomes derivative of geometries and time derivative of numbers and sequences. We’ve become quite speculative observing how major transitions involve tunneling. Your tunnels. Exit tunnels for ribosomal proteins. Birthing tunnels. Perhaps someday we can go into the Einstein-Rosen tunnel and begin to calculate when-where-and-how to exit!
My question is simple, “Why not use base-2 notation from the Planck Length to the Observable Universe as a simple ordering tool?” Can simple embedded geometries be consistently and meaningfully extended throughout it all? Thanks.