On following the work of Stefan Vandoren…

Stefan Vandoren, Professor in Theoretical Physics, Institute for Theoretical Physics, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

YouTube (many)

References within this website
• An inspiration to map Planck Time
• A natural sequel to Kees Boeke’s work (NASA’s Eames film)

Sixth email: 21 May 2020 @ 12:12 PM

Dear Prof. Dr. Stefan Vandoren:

I believe the key problems with science today go back to a mistake by Aristotle that is not well-known today. Then, Newton’s absolute space and time continues to be a problem because it remains the commonsense view of most people living today. And finally, the continued affirmation of the infinitely hot start of the universe promulgated by Hawking and so many others is problematic. My summary is here: https://81018.com/duped/

I hope you have been spared some of the madness of these days and that your work continues forward.

Thank you.


Embedded link: https://81018.com/duped/#Aristotle

Fifth email: Nov 11, 2017, 12:36 PM

Dear Prof. Dr. Stefan Vandoren:

Yes, it is just a little plug indeed!

4. Cosmic View (goes to a Wikipedia page): Although the first limited universe view, I do not believe that enough meaning has been pulled out of it. The best work on the power of ten is by Nobel laureate Gerard ‘t Hooft and Stefan Vandoren:

It is part of my response to an email received this morning from Barack Obama:

I hope you are well and doing fine.

Most sincerely,

Fourth email:  Sep 4, 2017, 6:16 PM

Dear Prof. Dr. Stefan Vandoren:

I think you might enjoy seeing where we are today with our base-2 charts:

We are finally posting these new pages in their own website!

I hope you are well and doing fine.
Did you happen to know an old friend of mine, Patricio Letelier?
We were at BU together in the 1970s. He died a few years ago,
quite unexpectedly, while still working within string theory.

PS. That Wikipedia page for Patricio is one that I wrote up.

Third email: Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 12:54 PM

Dear Prof. Dr. Stefan Vandoren:

After working on the HTML to better display the numbers at each doubling or notation, we finally have a print-out (seven pages) to study more closely what is happening in those space-time progressions from their Planck units.

There appears to be just over 201 notations which doesn’t quite match the estimates for the Observable Universe. I suspect that one of them needs to be stretched out a little.

That the distance that light travels in a day, week, month and year appear to match up might be expected by the scientific community; it was a profound confirmation for us that space and time are in fact necessarily connected.

I wrote to Steven Weinberg about it all.  He was gracious enough to see me in 1979 in his office within the Jefferson Lab. He was one of the 77 scholars selected by a committee of Boston University, Harvard, and MIT professors  to address the first principles within their discipline for a project that would be displayed under the dome at MIT.  He started his analysis within “The First Three Minutes” at about 1/100 of a second which is up around the 137th doubling from the Planck Time.  At one second the Planck Length is out over 360,000 kilometers from the so-called singularity.  At one day (Notation-159), the length goes out the distance light travels in a day.

This work, for us, becomes a fascinating exploration of long-standing concepts in new ways.

Would you encourage this exploration or are we missing something very basic?  Thanks.



A sequel and second email: Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 5:27 AM

I am going way out on thin ice here…
forgive me, a fool.

We did a comparison between the two,
Planck Time to the Age of the Universe and
Planck Length to the Observable Universe
I am sure that you’ll find our chart to be totally idiosyncratic —
it is — but of some theoretical interest.

I believe there is a lot of exegetical work to be done in there!

It started because I was thinking of the first 65 doublings
from the Planck Length and how scholarship has virtually ignored them.
Then came the most remarkable Hooft-Vandoren work!
With your inspiration, well, I just couldn’t help myself.

I am sure people will say, “Lock him up.” And my mother
— if she were alive — would gleefully add, “And throw away the key.”
And she would only be slightly kidding with me.

Of course, I would enjoy your initial comments.

Warm regards,


First email: Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 2:57 PM

Time in Powers of Ten, Natural Phenomena and Their Timescales
(authors): Gerard ‘t Hooft (Utrecht University, The Netherlands) and
Stefan Vandoren (Utrecht University, The Netherlands)
Translated by: Saskia Eisberg – ‘t Hooft

Dear Prof. Dr. Stefan Vandoren:

Congratulations on your book with Prof. Dr. Gerard ‘t Hooft ! Thank you.
Our students and I have been looking for someone to do it. In 2011, we
suggested to a Washington State University mathematics professor that
he do it. He didn’t. You did. Three cheers!

Our only criticism is that we were hoping to see base-2 used just to add
a bit more granularity to it all. Yet, we were happy to finally see a Scale
of Time from the Big Bang (right down to 10-44 seconds, certainly in the range
of Planck time, the accepted conceptual limits of a time measurement.

We are a group of high school geometry classes who backed into
the Planck length, and then became aware of Kees Boeke’s 40 jumps,
the Ames film, the Morrison book, and more. We did note that if Boeke
wanted to go to the natural limits, the Planck Length to the Observable
Universe, he would have about 62 jumps. The Huang twins made
the correction when we pointed it out to them in January 2012.

Our work is simple, probably simplistic. We took the tetrahedron as
a starting point, divided each edge in half, connected those new vertices
and discovered the four tetrahedrons, one in each corner and the octahedron
in the center. We continued. The octahedron yields a half-sized octahedron
in each of the six corners and a tetrahedron in each face. So, we just kept
going until we had imposed that tetrahedral-octahedral-tetrahedral tiling
on the universe and came up with 202.34 to 205.1 notations.

In December 2011, we couldn’t find it on the web or in Wikipedia, so
we wrote up the first draft for Wikipedia in April 2012 but it was removed
as original research. We thought that was a bit contrived. It was all
out there, but not focused within one article.

We are constantly updating our webpages about it. One of our recent summaries is here:
https://81018.com/math/ The most recent summary is always the homepage: https://81018.com
An index to all the article over the years is here:

Thanks again for your work on what is a pivotal book.

Most sincerely,

Bruce Camber

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.