# Author: Bruce Camber

# Bibi Gul

## At one time, during the American occupation from 2002 through August 2021, Bibi Gul also known as Rula Ghani was the First Lady of Afghanistan.

**On August 18, 2018** we sent her a little note to her through her official email account. It went like this:

My dear First Lady of Afghanistan, Rula (Bibi Gul) Ghani,

The world’s people have been bleeding with the people of Afghanistan for many years. We have also followed the travails of Pakistan. Of the seven nations defined by a -stan, please consider the possibility of forming an alliance between the seven nations to teach us all throughout the world the first principles of life.

These principles must incorporate-yet-transcend religion to address the best of all religions. These principles would take education to a higher level.

I would be most happy to be a very quiet advisor: https://81018.com/stan

Western science has its own history of mistakes and working out those mistakes will take a new scholarship that the First Ladies of your seven-nation alliance could be instrumental in helping to reset. Also, the world’s people need to be introduced to the best within your seven nations. Become a destination for the world’s people. The place and importance of seven countries shared history needs to be proudly told by all her citizens.

Your alliance could help us all to understand the very nature of government, of ethics, and of family. In time, I shall write to the other six First Ladies and invite them to consider this simple suggestion.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

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

Bruce Camber, USA

http://81018.com

**The Seven-Stan Countries****:**

Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan

# Our heart encompasses the universe.

# Niemeyer, Jens

Jens Niemeyer

University of Göttingen

Institute of Astrophysics

Friedrich-Hund-Platz 1

37077 Göttingen, Germany

ArXiv

CV

Google Scholar

Homepage

inSPIRE^{HEP}

Publications

Wikipedia (German)

YouTube

Second email: July 10, 2021 at 12 noon

Dear Prof. Dr. Jens Niemeyer:

My first email just below became the start of a homepage: https://81018.com/empower

Also, I’ve started a reference page with links to your work and copies of these emails to you: https://81018.com/niemeyer/ It helps me to remember to whom I have written and what it was that I said.

Your work, *Formation of inflaton halos after inflation*, arXiv:2011.13333 [astro-ph.CO] , 2021, is so informative to read, “For a simple model we find these halos have masses of up to 20 kg and radii of the order of 10^{−20} m, roughly 10^{−24} seconds *after the Big Bang*.” We are most interested to follow the logic of any-and all infinitesimal estimates. It seems that the “after the Big Bang” reference and the citations to Guth, Linde, and Starobinsky are gratuitous. Since the 1999 conference at the Isaac Newton Institute of Cambridge University, the core prognosticators, which included Hawking, have each attempted to rethink the Big Bang. It had been failing in too many ways.

Our radical departure from given theory unwittingly began in 2011 in that high school geometry class. That work now begs the question, “Is pi (π) scale invariant to the Planck scale (or an analogue of it vis-à-vis a Stoney scale or Ralston scale)? Obviously pushing the boundary conditions, the question could also be asked about other key dimensionless constants. I believe the theoretical answer would be a yes.

So, if you were to follow our chart of 202 base-2 notations, the first instance starts within the Planck scale and comes to the current time (Notation-202). At Notation-64 the duration is 9.94×10^{-25} seconds and the length scale is 2.98×10^{-16} meters. Your 20 kg would appear in Notation-30. Your 10^{−20} meters is within Notations 50-52. At least this base-2 chart gives us approximate values where today we have no ordered system within which to get predictive data.

Your thoughts? Thank you.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

First email: Tuesday, June 1, 2:26 PM

RE: Mapping the first zeptosecond within Notations 65-to-67 of 202 exponential notations from the Planck units to the this day, the Now

Dear Prof. Dr. Jens Niemeyer:

Can we assume that the calculations of George Johnstone Stoney and Max Planck have at least some metaphorical validity as a partial description of the infinitesimal universe?

Might we assume that these numbers could concresce as an infinitesimal sphere? I realize that may be difficult.

What if the universe is in a dynamic relation, historically known as the finite-infinite relation; however, we avoid metaphorical language and consider only the description of the fullness pi (π) as a description of ultimate things? It seems that we can know much more about pi. What if the facets of this most-historic, well-known dimensionless constant are also facets of our very earliest universe and also of the infinite?

We just might give Hilbert and all his extensions some time off.

Now, could a primordial sphere concresce? At what rate per second? Would it be fair to assume one primordial unit of time per primordial sphere? Now, that certainly would be quite a natural inflation.

We started our little project in December 2011 in a New Orleans high school. We are easily ignored so I started putting things up on web just to be able to share them with other schools and a few of the more open scholars. In 2016 we posted a horizontally-scrolled chart from the Planck units to the Age and Size of the Universe. You might enjoy that outline of a map of the universe: https://81018.com/chart/

The most recent work is always the homepage — https://81018.com/ — however, this week’s page revisits one from 2018: https://81018.com/envision/

If the concepts are anywhere close to reality, might it help to inform your work a little?

Congratulations on what you and your team are doing. I’ll be studying your past work and new developments as much as I can.

Thank you so very much all your work and that of your colleagues.

Warmly,

Bruce

# Integral Transforms on Wikipedia

An extension of the Fourier transforms and a necessary part of the earliest universe and the definition of functions throughout the 202 notations, this chart comes directly from the Wikipedia page and is posted here for easy and quick reference. –BEC

Transform | Symbol | K | f(t) | t_{1} | t_{2} | K^{−1} | u_{1} | u_{2} |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Abel transform | u | |||||||

Fourier transform | ||||||||

Fourier sine transform | ||||||||

Fourier cosine transform | 0 | 0 | ||||||

Hankel transform | 0 | 0 | ||||||

Hartley transform | ||||||||

Hermite transform | ||||||||

Hilbert transform | ||||||||

Jacobi transform | ||||||||

Laguerre transform | ||||||||

Laplace transform | e^{−ut} | 0 | ||||||

Legendre transform | ||||||||

Mellin transform | t^{u−1} | 0 | ||||||

Two-sided Laplace transform | e^{−ut} | |||||||

Poisson kernel | 0 | 2π | ||||||

Radon Transform | Rƒ | |||||||

Weierstrass transform |

# Wilson, Emily

Emily Wilson

Editor-in-chief

NewScientist

London, England

Homepage (Science Journalists)

Twitter

Wikipedia

Who’s Who at NewScientist

Third email: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 @10:22 AM

Hi Emily,

I have had a bit of concurrence with Peebles’ point of view; in a note this morning, Dan Hooper, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Center for Particle Astrophysics, Batavia, and University of Chicago, Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics and Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics, agrees with him.

How about NS writing an article, titled: “We do not know what happens before the first trillionth of a second.” “Peebles is right. We have no theory of the beginning.” “So we think we know everything. Such arrogance.”

Thanks.

Warmly,

Bruce

PS. At the very least we can learn the differences between picosecond (10^{−12}), femtosecond (10^{−15}), attosecond (10^{−18}), zeptosecond (10^{−21}) and yoctosecond (10^{−24}) . Then we can kick the butts of the national institutes for standards to name six groups of fractions from that yoctosecond to the the PlanckSecond (10^{−44}), StoneySecond (10^{−45}), or LemaitreSecond (also a primordial second). -BEC

Second email: May 25, 2021, 12:01 PM

Hi Emily,

As I said in my comment on your Twitter post, “Congratulations on the nine PPAAwards.”

2019 Nobel laureate, James Peebles, says that we do not have a theory of the beginning of the universe (6th paragraph). That is quite a challenge for all those who follow Hawking and Guth. After thinking about it, I had to acknowledge that our 202 notations did not constitute a theory; it is about 1000 highly-related numbers, but it doesn’t address the look and feel of the first instance. So, I’ve outlined it and today, I asked Prof. Dr. James Peebles, “Does it qualify as a theory even if it is wrong?”

If you are interested, I’ll let you know what he says (if anything at all).

Can we get a discussion going about Peeble’s comment, *“It’s very unfortunate that one thinks of the beginning whereas in fact, we have no good theory of such a thing as the beginning.” *

Thanks, Emily.

Warmly,

Bruce**References**: https://81018.com/starts/

https://phys.org/news/2019-11-cosmologist-lonely-big-theory.html (6th paragraph)

Tweet: May 25, 2021: Congratulations! 9 PPAAwards awards!

Now, let’s get back to work!

Is what Nobel 2019 James Peebles says about our theories of the beginning true? https://81018.com/Peebles/

Could this modest article qualify as a theory? https://81018.com/starts/ Thanks. -Bruce

First email: Mar 12, 2021, 7:52 AM

RE: Nobody seems to think pi is a fundamental equation for cosmology. Do you?

Hi Emily,

How does pi (π) shape our Universe? Is it there in the first instant?

I believe so and therefore we have a “simple” cold start whereby the numbers show that it readily becomes hot enough for the Quark-Gluon processes within less than a microsecond: https://81018.com/challenge

My story of those processes then continues here: https://81018.com/instance/

Let’s entertain new ideas. The old ones have stymied progress for over 50 years.

Thanks.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

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

# Kafatos, Menas

Menas Kafatos

Los Angeles, CA, USA

ArXiv

Publications: Limitations of Observational Cosmology

Homepage Chapman Chopra

inSPIRE^{HEP}

Twitter

Wikipedia

YouTube

Most recent email: May 24, 2021 @ 3:32 PM

Dear Menas Kafatos:

We are in our wisdom years and you’re just two years ahead of me. About a year ago, I introduced myself to you: https://81018.com/2021/05/24/kafatos/ I’ll be building on that page slowly

I began following the work of Deepak Chopra when he was practicing in Stoneham and I was living in Melrose and working on the foundations of physics and theology with Abner Shimony, Robert Cohen and his gang at Boston University (1973-1981). Somebody had given me an early copy of one of Deepak’s manuscripts and we corresponded once or twice.

Even at that time I was hung up on a moment of perfection in space time and the place of continuity (order), symmetry (relations, and harmony (dynamics).

Of course, you may never have seen my earlier note or you didn’t want to deflate our little balloon and say, “Just numbers.” Notwithstanding, we continue our trek: http://81018.com is always the most current work.

I would enjoy hearing from you just to know that the connection has been made.

Best wishes,

Bruce

First email: May 6, 2020, 2:22 PM

Dear Prof. Dr. Menas Kafatos:

Congratulations on all that you do. Such a remarkable life.

Your Wikipedia entry is sensational. Regarding your work on new perspectives for the self organization of the universe, I wonder if you might comment on our entirely idiosyncratic work that began in 2011 in a high school geometry class!

Instead of absorbing the night skies over Crete, we went inside Plato’s cave. We were studying the tetrahedron (and the octahedron within it), and caught Zeno’s spirit. Dividing the edges by 2, connecting the new vertices, we did this over and over and over again until we were down to the Planck Length.

In 45 steps we were in the range of particle physics and in another 67 steps we were within the Planck scale. Of course, the next day we multiplied by 2, and we were shocked to find the rest of the universe within just another 90 jumps or doublings. Of course, the work of Kees Boeke eventually came to our attention. Long ago I enjoyed the company of old friends, Phil and Phyllis Morrison of MIT, who popularized Boeke’s work.

It took awhile, but by 2014, we added Planck Time, and in 2015 we added Planck Mass and Charge and then made a horizontally-scrolled chart in 2016.

Taking just those numbers to create 202 base-2 notations, is it meaningful? I hope you think it is, but we are prepared to hear, “It’s just numbers!” Thanks.

Warmest regards,

Bruce

# Ralston, John Peter

John P. Ralston

University of Kansas

Department of Physics and Astronomy

Lawrence, KS 66045

ArXiv (76): *Quantum Theory without Planck’s Constant*, Mar 2012

Books: How to Understand Quantum Mechanics, IOP, 2018; *Emergent un-Quantum Mechanics*, 2013

Google Scholar

Homepage

inSPIRE^{HEP}: Revising your world-view of the fundamental constants, 2013

Twitterspan id=”Fifth”>

Fifth email: February 4, 2021, 1:58 PM

Might you share the answers to your Pop Quiz or must I embarrass myself and submit my guesses to receive the right answers?!? Might the quiz be a good four-part video? I am thinking 26:46 minutes each for PBS member stations. May I add a few questions?

On a personal note, another quick question: Could the Planck base (adjusted for work on the Planck Constant) units be a description of the first instant in time?

Thanks,

Bruce

Fourth email: October 9, 2018, 2 PM

**Article** Title: Redefining Light That link goes to Part I, the Thesis.

**Lead**: Planck’s constant: Called into action or called into question?

**Link**: https://81018.com/light-dublin-trinity/**Part II**: Antithesis and still untitled, possibly “Redefining Light: Part II.

**Working notes link**: https://81018.com/Ralston

Dear Prof. Dr. John Ralston:

It looks like that article about light and the Planck Constant will be in three sections.

The first section, as given today, requires a few more hours of editing.

My working notes have also been moved into a new page: https://81018.com/ralston/ where Part II will be developed over the next week or so. That will be primarily focused on your work.

Part III is open. It may well be a synthesis using the base-2 chart.

When I am well on my way with the explanation of your work, I’ll drop another note and, of course, I will anticipate that you will be as critical as you need to be. Thanks.

Bruce

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

Bruce E. Camber

Third email: October 3, 2018, 8:55 PM

Dear Prof. Dr. John Ralston,

I am now reading your ResearchGate papers and ArXiv’s as fast as I can and yet slow enough to grasp your essence. To date, I had relied on Frank Wilczek’s encouragement, “Explore the Planck base units!” I asked, “Do they double? Can I multiply them by 2?” No real answer… “You can multiply them by anything you want!” (Sabine Hossenfelder) So, I ask, “Is it meaningful?” No real answer.

The path from infinity to pi. I’ve now also started that research of the Ralston collection. Is pi the first manifestation of physicality at the very beginning? Were the Planck base units in some measure present? Obviously I am not a big fan of Hawking, Guth and the Big Bang folks…

-Bruce

PS. I like your exaggerations! I’ll show you some of mine about your work soon.

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

Bruce E. Camber

Second email: Tuesday, October 2, 2018, 2:28 PM

Dear Prof. Dr. John Ralston:

Do you stand by your article (ArXiv 2012)? If so, I will send it along to the Trinity College Dublin (TCD) folks.

Your articles are wonderful homework. I’ll read, and re-read until I begin to grasp all that you have said (to the best of my abilities). I am ready to wake up! It seems most of the IAS folks are rather sure of themselves, yet when I finish reading their work, often I feel like they’re hiding something… first, it seems that they really don’t want us to understand completely and then intimidate us to hold back all our questions.

Thank you again for your references. I’ll see if I can purloin or otherwise buy a copy of your book. Would Max Planck and Frank Wilczek applaud? I hope so. – Bruce

- How to Understand Quantum Mechanics, John P. Ralston, The University of Kansas ISBN: 9781681741628 • eBook ISBN: 9781681742267, May, 2018
- Emergent un-Quantum Mechanics © 2013 Ralston
- Revising Your World–View of the Fundamental Constants, October 2013
- METROLOGY:
*Measurement of the fine-structure constant as a test of the Standard Model*, Parker et al., Science 360, 191–195 (2018) 13 April 2018Bruce E. Camber

First email: Sunday, Sep 30, 2018, 4:22 PM

Dear Prof. Dr. John Ralston:

Thank you for your work over six years ago (25 Mar 2012) on “Quantum Theory without Planck’s Constant” found here within ArXiv:https://arxiv.org/abs/1203.5557 PDF

Are there subsequent un-ArXived papers about his work? Do you stand by it? I hope so. In your conclusions you said,”There is still a place for standardizing Planck’s constant, just as standardizing other units is important to engineering and commerce.” Yet, your analysis is so entirely informative of the history that has transpired. Very helpful.

I would like to send those ArXiv references along to the folks at Trinity College Dublin’s School of Physics and the Trinity College Dublin’s Centre for Research on Advanced Nanostructures and Nanodevices (CRANN), particularly to their folks making this claim:

“One of the measurable characteristics of a beam of light is known as angular momentum. Until now, it was thought that in all forms of light the angular momentum would be a multiple of Planck’s constant (the physical constant that sets the scale of quantum effects).”

This is an important topic, especially in light of Sir Michael Atiyah‘s recent publication of “The fine-structure constant” (α).

Thank you.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

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

Bruce Camber

# Peebles, P. James E.

James Peebles

Jadwin Hall, Washington Road

Department of Physics at Princeton University

Princeton, New Jersey 08544

Articles: *Big Bang theory*, Nature, November 2019*Top cosmologist’s lonely battle against ‘Big Bang’ theory*, Ivan Couronne, Issam Ahmed

ArXiv (2): Discovery of the Hot Big Bang: What happened in 1948

Books: Cosmology’s Century: An Inside History of Our Modern Understanding of the Universe, 2020 (Preview); Finding The Radiation from the Big Bang (PDF), P. J. E. Peebles and R. B. Partridge, Jan. 2007

Homepage

inSPIRE^{HEP}

Nobel Laureate

Twitter

Wikipedia

YouTube

Second email: 13 May 2021

My dear Nobel laureate and emeritus Professor Dr. James Peebles:

Your comments to Ivan Couronne and Issam Ahmed for Phys.Org’s, November 14, 2019 article, have been weighing on my mind. I wondered, “Within our simple construct, what might be the logical progression, the very first steps?” The result: https://81018.com/starts/

Is there any merit to it? Thank you.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

PS. Would you like me to send it to you as a PDF? Thanks. -BEC.

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

Bruce E. Camber

214-801-8521

http://81018.com

https://81018.com/bec/

First email 23 March 2021

*“It’s very unfortunate that one thinks of the beginning whereas in fact, we have no good theory of such a thing as the beginning.”*

My dear Nobel laureate and emeritus Professor Dr. James Peebles:

We unwittingly focused on a cold-start because there was very little temperature at the level of Planck’s four base units. Built into his equations, however, was an expansion and a rate of expansion through Planck Charge, the dimensionless constants, and Planck Time. Here is a simple perfection of continuity, symmetry and harmony.

We had started inside a tetrahedron looking at the smaller tetrahedrons in the four corners and the octahedron in the middle. One of the students* asked a Zeno-like question so we divided the edges in half, and discovered the smaller octahedrons in each of the six corners and the eight tetrahedrons, one in each face. We had a process! We continued. In just 45 steps going deeper within, we were down with the elementary particles (fascinating and fun), and in another 67 steps we were at his wall chatting with Max Planck.

That required 112 steps going deeper within.

We went out by multiplying by 2; and, in 90 steps we were observing the current expansion and current time. That’s just 202 base-2 steps from the first moment until right Now. Along the way we met many wonderful characters — Euler, Kepler (sphere stacking and cubic-close packing of equal spheres), Fourier, Poincaré, Lemaître… and the list goes on. It has been a marvelous voyage… just so fascinating.

Recently we decided that Lemaître’s *primeval atom* was the first sphere. Using Planck Time we then assumed a really rather unbelievable quiet expansion and natural inflation that required a simple ordering structure that mimicked our geometry, so we applied base-2. Then we thought about our primeval sphere, “What primarily defines it?” We decided that pi (π) plays a most pivotal role as one of our earliest working equations (along with all the equations that defined each of the facets of Planck’s base units). I wrote it up: https://81018.com/instance/

I thought you might find its total naïveté amusing and possibly a breath of fresh air!

Thank you again for your wonderful legacy of discovery.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

PS. If possible, I would be deeply grateful to discuss the ways that this chart does not work! It is our chart of base-2 numbers from the first instant to the current time in just over 202 notations. –BEC

Editor’s note: This letter has been updated a little to add clarity and to correct simple errors. This page is also a homepage and has a reference page within our alphabetical listings of scholars who have been introduced to this base-2 application to the Planck base units.

# Carskadon, Mary A.

Prof. Dr. Mary A. Carskadon

Alpert Medical School, Brown University

Bradley Hospital Sleep Lab, 300 Duncan Drive, Providence, RI 02906

**References**:

Oxford University Press

Sleep for science staff

Homepage

First email: 30 October 2020

Dear Prof. Dr. Mary A Carskadon,

You have much better things to do with your time than to respond to this note; however, as an exercise, I need to get some thoughts down about circadian rhythms and the metaphor of an old computer’s overnight recompile. Of course, I found several references to your lifetime of work. Congratulations.

Yes, the kids need the most sleep. They are trying new things, absorbing a lot of new data, and *de facto* asking *what-if *questions. So, although the body rests, the mind remains active. I would postulate that the more organized our sleep becomes, the more creative our next day may be.

Further, if we take as a given that Max Planck’s base units are real (validated in many ways including dividing Planck Length by Planck Time to yield the speed of light), the circadian rhythms are profoundly part of the rhythms of the universe. That idea may well be worth exploring further. By applying base-2 notation to the Planck base units, we encapsulate the universe within 202 notations. Yet, simple logic tells us that only the current notation, Notation 202, is directional and asymmetric. The other 201 notations are complete and symmetric. My simple guess: Sleep, using the metaphor of recompiling, establishes a certain symmetry each day with and within our universe.

I often wonder if there is anybody within the scholarly sleep community who is asking such silly questions and who are attempting to couple it with the current dialogue about the very nature of time. Thank you.

Most warmly,

Bruce

PS. You look like my kid sister and project such a warmth and gentle spirit, I thought you wouldn’t mind my looking in on your work to further push my questions about circadian rhythms! Thanks. -BEC

PPS. I hope your trip to Adelaide happens this year. Disdain for the cold is a sign of maturity!