**Katherine Freese**, Professor of Physics, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas

**• Articles**: *In Search of Dark Star*, an interview in Quanta Magazine**• ArXiv**: Natural Inflation – Consistency with Cosmic Microwave Background Observations**• Big Think** (2010)

• **Book**: *The Cosmic Cocktail*: Three Parts Dark Matter (2014)

• Google Scholar

• Homepage (Univ.Michigan)

• **inSpire ^{HEP}**

**• Wikipedia**

**• YouTube**(and many others)

**References to her work within this website**:

• Homepage: The structure is the same. The particulars are different. (January 2020)

• Nobel Laureates Asked Key Questions (August 2019)

• From the simplicity of pi to the complexity of E8 (April 2019)

• Could this model of the universe work? (February, 2019)

• Attitudes, beliefs, and conceptual frameworks (July 27, 2018)

• Dark Matter & Dark Energy: Not Dark (October 2018)

Most recent email: Friday, February 1, 2019

Dear Prof. Dr. Katherine Freese:

Back in August 2017, I sent a heartfelt note of thanks for your work and observed how our application of base-2 or doublings starts at the Planck scale and goes to the age of the universe in just 202 notations. We have not had any scholars truly advise us how this logic could be failing us. The natural inflation appears to mimic the epochs defined within the Standard Model of Cosmology.

Would you please advise us? What is our most egregious error of logic?

Thank you.

-Bruce.

First email: Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 11:22 AM

Dear Prof. Dr. Katherine Freese:

You are an extraordinary scholar. So very inspiring. I am not a scholar, yet I have backed into a study of natural inflation and have discovered your prodigious work.

I have entered this domain with the intention of trying to understand the work of Alan Guth and Andrei Linde. I have mostly chosen those ArXiv articles where you are either the author or among no more than three authors. Of all the other entries, a few titles attract my attention and also give me opportunities to learn about the associations of scholars, especially with those whose work I have previously engaged.

I am like an English major who walks into your office having been caught by an article posted on your hallway bulletin board and who asks the ever-so naive question, “How natural is a natural inflation?”

Have you ever considered a very naive model of the universe that uses base-2 notation from the Planck units? We started that process in 2011. It is a little like the base-10 work by Kees Boeke, just a bit more granular, engages the Planck units, assumes inherent geometries and scaling vertices (after all, this work started in a high school geometry class), and uses the Age of the Universe as an approximate end point. It defines a very different approach to natural inflation following the Planck Charge.

Given the depth and breadth of current scholarship, is our little model so naive that it wastes your time even to respond? Of course, I hope not. Perhaps we need to break it into several articles.

Thank you.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

http://81018.com

_____