Sean Carroll

Carroll, Sean

California Institute of Technology
Pasadena, California

YouTube:  Why are we here? Big Bang Creation Myths (Dec. 2018)

Third Email & Tweet: Wednesday, 12 October 2016

BB-lu & Camber @Bibo_lu tweeted: “You’re talking to all of us!  Yet, in this time of year, we’re all kids!  For our integrity, let’s revisit big bang’s data!”
Dear Prof. Dr. Sean Carroll:

In December 2011 our high school geometry classes  “fell into” an integrated view of the universe ( ); today we  start with the Planck base units and go to the Age of the Universe in 202 base-2 notations ( ).

We were quickly told by an MIT Wikipedia editor (Stephens) that it was “original” research. We were also told it was idiosyncratic (Baez).  We know that it is simple. It is mathematically whole. For some of us, we’ve begun to think it could be a real alternative to the big bang cosmology (and big bang nihilism).

Now, it seems from our cursory overview that most of the people at the Perimeter Institute conference, Time in Cosmology, accept the place of the big bang.

To help our students and to attempt to context that diverse dialogue, I have created a few links to the conference and to your work. There are currently three key pages. First, there is a brief overview of the conference on a prior homepage  of the site (fourth section down):
There is also this page on the conference:
Our general overview page of your work is here:

If there is anything you would like to have added, deleted or changed, please just say the word!

Now, thinking about time and the large-scale universe, perhaps another conference could be entertained, Time in the small-scale and human scale universe. In less than a second, the universe within this base-2 model has already expanded well into the large-scale universe. Of the 200 notations, the first second from Planck Time is within notation 143. The first day (86400 seconds) is within notation 1601. A light year is within notation 169.

If we engage the numbers generated using base-2 from the Planck base units, it appears to expand rather quietly right out beyond the need for a big bang.

Most sincerely,

* * * *
Bruce Camber

PS.  Yes, I know how very naive and totally idiosyncratic our work is. Notwithstanding, the simplicity of the logic and math has caught our imaginations. The numbers seem to speak louder than words. Although temperature is a problem, I think in time we’ll be able to adjust that line of figures with some kind of “reasonable” rationale, perhaps a different algorithm. -BEC

Second email: Thursday, 17 June 2016

Hi Sean,

What a marvelous thing you do with your life!

First, congratulations on being married to Jennifer.
She is such a mensch. I quoted her several years ago
given an article about the size of the universe based
on the Hubble (telescope) measurements.

We are just silly high school teachers. Neophytes.
We backed into a strange universe view based on
work in our geometry classes using the tetrahedron
and octahedron. We divided the edges in half, connected
the vertices to find all the nested tetras and octas
and kept going within 40 times, right by the old fermion
and another 67 times down into the Planck scale.

That was a trip. When we decided to multiply by 2, we
were out to the edge of the universe in about 90 doublings.
Couldn’t believe it. It was Kees Boeke on steroids. He just had
zeros (base-10). We had the Planck base units, the Age of the Universe,
all that incredible geometry, and 3.333 times more information.

So what?

Well, we thought it was a good STEM tool, then those
67 notations between the fermion and the Planck scale just
started to tickle us. What is there? Nothing?

I don’t think so. Here’s our latest chart (horizontal scrolling):
We have lots of charts:
And now, after five plus years we are getting bold
and probably very stupid:

Have we dropped off the cliff? Can you help us get back
on terra firma? What’s wrong with our idiosyncratic logic?
Just idiotic?


Most sincerely,



First contact: Email & Tweet, Wednesday, 26 November 2014

@seanmcarroll Is the universe really preposterous? How about an integrated UniverseView?

That Tweet was followed by this email on the same day:

Dear Sean:

Why shouldn’t there be a conceptual continuum from the Planck Length to the Observable Universe? What might it tell us? We are a lot over our heads but we are plowing along! Any advice would be welcomed:

Most sincerely,
Bruce Camber

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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.