Siegel, Ethan

Ethan R. Siegel, Ph.D.

Most recent email: Thursday, 19 March 2020

I have just read your 23 December 2016 article, A Perfect Universe as a result of googling the words, “The universe started perfectly.” The first four references are to your work. I read it but also had to cut through your political commentary, your theatrical style, and your enthusiasm for the big bang theory. More to come

Most recent email: 11 February 2020 at 8:21 AM

Hi Ethan –

I just finished updating my page of references to your work
and thought it would be good to send greetings!

None of the scholars have taken a moment to tell me why or
how the base-2 logic fails, so I am increasingly of the mind that
it doesn’t fail and none of them are quite sure what to say to me.

So, what is one to do? How do we get a critical review? …especially
being a nobody with no pedigree or position?

So, here’s my bite-size look at starting points:
https://81018.com/difference/
The summary: https://81018.com/arxiv/

I hope you are well and that you will critically comment about this work.
Thanks, Ethan.

Most sincerely,
Bruce

Fourth email:  21 September 2019 @ 11:20 AM

Dear Ethan:

I suspect you would agree that your 2016 (World Scientific) Beyond the Galaxy could be appropriately re-subtitled, “How humanity looked beyond our Milky Way and BEGAN TO discover the rest of the Universe.”

What we need is a mathematical ordering function to lay down over the entire universe.

The most simple is base-2 notation. It gives us a simple beginning at Planck’s natural units of length, time, mass and charge, and in 202 doublings we are out to the age of the universe, the estimated size of the universe, the estimated mass of the universe, and the estimated charge of the universe.  Of course, that’s not quite compelling enough, so the first 54 to 64, from the Planck scale to where you say, “…we can safely say that all the known particles are point-like and structure-free down to 10-19 meter scales.”  We know in terms of scale, the Planck length is to the atom what the atom is to the universe.

We can do a lot of construction from that first notation up to the 54th to 64th notations. Dark matter-and-energy are just yearning to be defined mathematically right there.

The 202nd notation, defining 10.9 billion years and continuing at the edge of the expansion, is also the primary domain of today’s cosmological observations. How much richer would it all become if we had all those earlier notations to grasp the complexities of the present moment. It might also help us to grasp the Nowness of discrete time a little better.

The current  two pages are:  https://81018.com/bottom-up/ and https://81018.com/formulas/

Thanks for all that you do.

My overview of your work is here: https://81018.com/2017/01/05/ethan/.  If you would like me to change, delete or add anything, please advise me.

Thanks.

Bruce

Third email: July 16, 2018

Dear Ethan,

You are such a Lucasian 2/17!
Of course, Newton is #2 and Hawking #17.
(Editor’s Note: Two most-famous Lucasian Professors of Cambridge University)

What if in regards to space and time, they are both mistaken?
What if the universe starts very quietly, the very least amount
of temperature, and infinitesimally small (which is quite
the counterpoint to Hawking’s “…infinitely small, infinitely hot…“)?

In less than a second, on the path of this counterpoint, it could get
get noisy, but even Hoyle would probably say it is not so much a
bang as it is a harmonic emergence or something like that.

Nobody has truly defrocked the logic of our quiet expansion starting
with the Planck base units, then doubling, each over and over again.
We hypothesize that the Plancksphere must be the first manifestation
with a space-time moment establishing pi’s finite-infinite bridge.

How nutty is that?
Bruce

Tweet: 5 January 2017

ethansiegel


Ethan's response: 12/24/16

Hi Bruce,

Thanks for your link (that’s an interesting visualization) and your questions about time, space, and the speed of light. For me, the speed of light is the fundamental relationship between those two entities: space and time. I think that Einstein, Planck and others put that together extremely well.

Remember that the Universe has expanded over time; using special relativity and/or flat space isn’t going to cut it if you want a quantitatively accurate description. For that, you need general relativity, whose math typically goes beyond what a high school student can handle.

Thanks for your inquiry, and hope you keep enjoying the articles!

All the best,
Ethan


Second email: 12/24/16 Just the next day!

Thank you, Ethan.

Our high school kids are typical, but tenacious.
Plus, I am a strong advocate for breaking out
of old sack clothes and intricate cocoons.

Strangely enough, I think base-2 from the first
to the 67th notation give enough infrastructure
and complexity to handle GR, SR, and QM.

-Bruce
http://81018.com

The original note: 12/23/16

Thanks, Ethan, for your article in Forbes about the speed of light and time.

Did Max Planck tell us best? Is time simply an aspect of light? Is space a necessary component of light?

We’ve been exploring the issue since our December 2011 when our high school geometry class mapped the universe using base-2 notation. Kees Boeke used base-10. We would love to hear your comments! https://81018.com/chart

We are still trying to figure out if we are wrong, and if so, how?

-Bruce



“Are The Smallest Particles Of All Truly Fundamental?”

In November 2018, Ethan answers:

“The most important thing you should take away from this question — of whether truly fundamental particles exist or not — is that everything we know in science is only provisional. There is nothing that we know so well or so solidly that it is immutable. All of our scientific knowledge is merely the best approximation of reality that we’ve been able to construct at present. The theories that best describe our Universe might explain all the phenomena we can observe, they might make new, powerful, testable predictions, and they might even be unchallenged by any alternatives we know of at present.

“But that does not mean they are correct in any absolute sense. Science is always seeking to collect more data, explore new territory and scenarios, and to revise itself if ever a conflict arises. The particles we know of look fundamental today, but that’s no guarantee that nature will continue to indicate the existence of fundamental particles the deeper we learn to look.”


“…we can safely say that all the known particles are point-like and structure-free down to 10-19 meter scales.” – Ethan

Editor’s note: 1.455743×10-19 meters is Notation 53 and 5.82297×10-19 meters is Notation 55.


 

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 )

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.