Roger Penrose

Oxford University, Oxford, UK

ArXiv: Correlated “noise” in LIGO gravitational wave signals: an implication of Conformal Cyclic Cosmology, July 2017

Inspire^{HEP}

Nobel prize speech: 2020

Royal Society

Twitter

Wikipedia: Cycles of Time

YouTube: Cycles of Time (2016), *Big Bang Creation Myths* (Dec. 2018)

Most recent email: 4 May 2021

Dear Prof. Dr. Roger Penrose:

You have been on our homepage for the past six weeks: https://81018.com/questions-1/

I will be updating our profile about you here: https://81018.com/2017/04/19/penrose/

The openness of CCC is slowly being analyzed,i.e. there are 64 infinitesimal doublings from the

first instant (or from the beginning) that require

further definition. Our work is inhibited by our

naïveté so it goes very slowly.

May I keep you posted?

And, always, your advice would be most welcomed.

Best wishes,Bruce

Another email: 6 July 2020

Dear Prof. Dr. Penrose, Sir Roger:

Five years have passed since my first email to you, and 24 years have passed since your 65th birthday compendium. So much has been achieved, yet it seems that our scholarly community continues to go in circles. Please allow me to ask a few what if questions:

*What if*the universe starts with the Planck base units, what might be the first “thing” created?*What if*the first thing created is a sphere defined by those Planck base units?*What if*there is an endless stream of spheres and the first functional activity is sphere stacking?*What if*sphere stacking opens cubic close packing of equal spheres and tetrahedrons and octahedrons are generated? Does Plato follow?*What if*the concept of infinity has been so tainted by philosophies, we miss its most simple definition — continuity creating order, symmetry creating relations, and harmony creating dynamics; and then we add, “Please keep all other definitions to yourself. They are not necessary here.”- And so we finally ask, “Is there a glimmer of truth to our simple
*what if*questions? If so, doesn’t that change our basic equations a bit?”

Our simple extension of that logic is a chart of just 202 base-2 notations encapsulating everything, everywhere for all time. It’s just numbers, but it has a simple expression that our students grasped. BUT, we stopped using all of this “wild-and-crazy thinking” in our curriculum because we didn’t want to taint the students with something so idiosyncratic! Though it has a special logic, nobody seems to care. Could you tell us why? Thank you.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

First email:14 February 2015Resent: Wed, May 6, 2020 at 3:43 PM

##### Editor’s Note: URLs have been updated

Dear Prof. Dr. Penrose, Sir Roger:

The Planck Units can be extended using base-2 exponential notation, all within 202+ doublings or clusters, domains, groups, or steps. Planck Temperature, of course, offers its own unique set of challenges.

These following links are all within an educational site related to our classroom work.

- Planck Units: https://81018.com/chart
- History: https://81018.com/home
- Analysis: https://81018.com/2016/06/01/quiet/

I have just begun to analyze the simple logic, simple mathematics, and yes, simple geometries associated with all these numbers.

We have started reading your 65th birthday compendium in your honor (1996), *The Geometric Universe: Science, Geometry, and the Work of Roger Penrose*; and having recently finished the* Cycles of Time,* it seems you might have something to say about our simple logic, simple mathematics and simple geometry*. *

I hope so! Thank you.

Most sincerely,

Bruce