# Stefan Vandoren

Professor in Theoretical Physics

Institute for Theoretical Physics

Utrecht University

Utrecht, The Netherlands

ArXiv

CV (**PDF**)

Homepage

inSPIRE^{HEP}

YouTube (and many others)

References within this website…

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.

Warmly,

Bruce

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: https://www.amazon.com/Time-Powers-Ten-Phenomena-Timescales/dp/9814489816

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

https://81018.com/veteransday

I hope you are well and doing fine.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

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:

https://81018.com/chart

https://81018.com/planck_universe

We finally posting these new page 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.

Warmly,

-Bruce

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 appear 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.

Warmly,

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.

https://81018.com/plancktime/

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.

https://81018.com/order/

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 (1090s) right down to 10-44s, certainly in the range

of Planck time, the accepted conceptual limits of time measurement.

We are a group of fifteen 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 the websites. One of our recent summaries is here:

https://81018.com/math/

An index to all the article over the years is here:

https://81018.com/index/

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

Most sincerely,

Bruce

_____________

Bruce Camber

http://81018.com