Anthony Aguirre, Professor of Physics,
University of California at Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA 9506
Ph.D., Astronomy, Harvard University, 2000
Co-Founder & Associate Scientific Director, Foundational Questions Institute
Articles: What Does Our Understanding of Time Suggest About the Nature of Reality? (March 2014)
_______ · The Cosmic Background Radiation in a Cold Big Bang, Astrophysical Journal,
________ 533:1-18, April 10, 2020
_______ · Next Step Infinity, Edge, February 2011
_______ · Not a Bad Idea, Aguirre, A., Scientific American, p. 36 (August 2002)
ArXiv: The Cold Big-Bang Cosmology, 12 Jul 2001
______ · Dimensionless constants, cosmology and other dark matters, ArXiv, Nov 2005
______ · Cold big-bang cosmology as a counterexample to anthropic arguments, 2002
Homepage(s) About, CV, inSpireHEP, Twitter, Wikipedia
YouTube: Dirty little secrets of cosmology, Banff 2017
References within this website:
• https://81018.com/w-art/ to Dimensionless constants, cosmology and other dark matters
• https://81018.com/finite-to-infinite/ Wilczek-Aguirre-Rees-Tegmark article, 2006
Third email: January 30, 2022, 11:21 PM
Dear Prof. Dr. Anthony Aguirre:
There are modest references to your work here:
If you cannot go to those links, this is what it says:
“The Templeton Foundation helped to start the Foundational Questions Institute (FQXi)  with physicists, Max Tegmark and Anthony Aguirre. Those two are very sophisticated scholars working on the edges of scientific inquiry. FQXi has supported many fine scholars and any one of them could help us clarify our issues and craft ways to test our model. Of several hundred scholars, at the time of this writing, I had asked over 60 of them for a critical review of our base-2 model. I recognize our presuppositions are a stretch and I appreciate why most are quite cautious with their responses.
“Notwithstanding, I will continue to engage FQXi (2021 paper) and their scholars regarding the finite-infinite relation. Can it be distilled to a simple discussion of those aspects of pi that are infinite? Going forward, that will be my focus with the FQXi people.”
The footnote is here: https://81018.com/validate/#3f Again, if you cannot go to that link, here is what it says:
“ FQXi. The Templeton Foundation was the founding sponsor of the Foundational Questions Institute (FQXI). The institute has empowered studies of the most foundational questions such as:
• What is the finite-infinite relation? Mathematicians Bridge Finite-Infinite Divide
• What is the nature of space/time?
• What are the most basic systems that structure our universe?
See: Craig Callender, Can Time Be Saved From Physics? (FQXi), 2019″
Our primary reference page to your work is here: https://81018.com/2017/07/08/aguirre/ (this page). If you want anything deleted, updated, or changed, please let me know. Thanks.
Bruce E. Camber
Second email: May 4, 2020 at 8:46 PM
Dear Prof. Dr. Anthony Aquirre:
I am very grateful for your work on the cold start of the universe. I have also been reviewing David Layzer’s work. Is this statement true: “Nobody seems to know how Lemaître’s cold start turned infinitely hot. Harvard’s David Layzer (1996) and Anthony Aguirre (2001) entertained cold-start models but they did not get traction.”
PS. I like the cold-start model. You might remember from my note back a few years ago —https://81018.com/2017/07/08/aguirre/ (this page) — we start at Planck Length – Planck Time. Of course, Planck Mass and Charge are too small to create much of a temperature!
I’ve been making very slow progress within this idiosyncratic data stream… it’s been over nine years now! Some of my earliest correspondence goes back to you, Tegmark, Wilczek, and Baez.
I finally had enough confidence to stick my neck out a little: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3428
Thanks so much for all that you do. Congratulations on all that you and Max Tegmark are doing through FQXi. Marvelous. Sensational. Congratulations. -BEC
First email: Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 3:16 PM (Updated: Feb 18, 2018)
Dear Prof. Dr. Anthony Aguirre:
Thank you for all your work; I’m tackling the above cited articles and your work within ArXiv.
Our high school geometry class went off on a wild tangent a few years ago. We decided Newton was wrong* and that Leibniz was going in the right direction, and Planck’s base units should not be ignored.**
We applied base-2 exponentiation, simple doublings of the Planck units; and in 202 notations we had an all-natural, simple inflation from a very cold start. The numbers stretched our imagination. Do you think there is enough cogency to continue this admittedly entirely idiosyncratic study?
Your comments would be highly regarded. Are we just too naive for words?
http://81018.com https://81018.com/home/ https://81018.com/chart/
*Tegmark wants to throw infinity out and Nima Arkani-Hamed wants to retire space and time.
**Big bang theory ignores all but temperature but temperature is always derivative.
Read Max Planck’s Survey of Physical Theory.
- Aguirre, Anthony N. (10 April 2000). “The Cosmic Background Radiation in a Cold Big Bang”. The Astrophysical Journal. 533 (1): 1–18. Bibcode:2000ApJ…533….1A. doi:10.1086/308660.
- Komatsu, E.; Smith, K. M.; Dunkley, J.; Bennett, C. L.; Gold, B.; Hinshaw, G.; Jarosik, N.; Larson, D.; Nolta, M. R.; Page, L.; Spergel, D. N.; Halpern, M.; Hill, R. S.; Kogut, A.; Limon, M.; Meyer, S. S.; Odegard, N.; Tucker, G. S.; Weiland, J. L.; Wollack, E.; Wright, E. L. (1 February 2011). “Seven-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Cosmological Interpretation”. The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series. 192 (2): 18. arXiv:1001.4538 Bibcode:2011ApJS..192…18K. doi:10.1088/0067-0049/192/2/18
By 1927, Georges Lemaitre had attempted to understand the origin of atoms in nature by proposing that before the expansion of the universe started there existed a primeval atom consisting of all the matter in the universe crushed to nuclear densities. It formed a gigantic ball of nuclear liquid which existed in this state at very low temperature. The low temperatures were required to keep this cosmic atom from falling apart via thermal agitation. But this fluid broke-up anyway under mechanical instabilities, into a mist of microscopic particles. He estimated that only 260 binary divisions would be needed to convert the cosmic mass into atom-sized particles. This idea was pursued by Maria Meyer and Edwin Teller, but ultimately this idea couldn’t explain why the universe should expand, or where the light elements came from.
“…if matter existed as a single atomic nucleus, it makes no sense to speak of space and time in connection with this atom. Space and time are statistical notions that apply to an assembly of a great number of individual elements; they were meaningless notions, therefore, at the instant of first disintegration of the primeval atom…” — Georges Lemaitre
A variant on Lemaitre’s cosmology was proposed in 1966 by David Layzer, developed a short-lived alternate to Hot Big Bang cosmology by proposing that the initial state was near absolute zero. The motivation for proposing such an initial state, reminiscent of Lemaitre’s initial state. Through thermodynamic arguments, Layzer proposed that rather than the universe starting in a high entropy state, it began in a very low entropy state near Absolute Zero. It was matter-dominated with little free radiation, and the conditions were favorable for the formation of galaxies via fragmentation. The famous Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation discovered by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson in 1965 was produced much later when galaxies were forming in a dusty environment.
Odenwald, Sten, Ph.D. (Contributing Author); Bernard Haisch (Topic Editor). 2009. “Universe: Cold Big Bang.” In: Encyclopedia of the Cosmos. Eds. Bernard Haisch and Joakim F. Lindblom (Redwood City, CA: Digital Universe Foundation). [First published January 13, 2008].
http://www.cosmosportal.org/articles/view/138894/. (very slow to post)