TO: Paul C. W. Davies, Regents’ Professor; Director of the Beyond Center for Fundamental Concepts in Science, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ
FM: Bruce E. Camber
RE: Your articles (100s): Why is the Universe Just Right for Life? (2010); An Undecidable Universe (2020); your arXiv articles like The problem of what exists (2006) and The “Hard Problem” of Life (2016); your books like The Demon in the Machine (2019) and many chapters within books; and your homepages especially at ASU, CV, Facebook, ResearchGate, inspireHEP, Wikipedia, and YouTube: “Where do the laws of physics come from?“ (2106) and many others
Sixth email: 24 March 2024
Dear Prof. Dr. Paul Davies,
We are quoting your statement from The Conversation in today’s homepage and the next homepage.
It’s all a bit strange. I suspect you’ll have some trouble with this: https://81018.com/incommensurable/
The Primary Irrational Numbers: Although Pi (π), Phi (φ), the Square root of 2 (√2), and Euler’s number (e) (for our logarithms,) are among the basics, some are little-known and often ignored. Yet, with the posting of this article, we’ve been told that for the first time these four basics are being associated with each other and as a necessary part of the geometries within the octahedron. We’ve been pondering pi (π) for many years and our special question has been, “Is this a higher-order functionality of the sphere — continuity-symmetry-harmony — within everything, everywhere for all time?” And now, we have begun pondering that same question with the three others: phi (φ), the square root of 2 (√2), and Euler’s number (e). Science would be nowhere without these concepts and numbers. We asked Grok many questions about these concepts and now have the perspective of AI’s answers. We captured two of them: https://81018.com/irrationals/ and https://81018.com/grok-3/
It appears nobody is making such claims. Or, have I missed them?
-Bruce
Fifth email: 2 January 2024 at 4:30 PM
Dear Prof. Dr. Paul Davies,
Miriam Frankel in her March 15, 2023 issue of The Conversation, Fundamental constants: Is the universe fine-tuned for life? quotes you saying,
“We don’t know whether some of those constants are linked deep down. If we had a deeper theory, we’d find that they’re not actually independent of each other, but we don’t have that theory at the moment, we’ve just got all these numbers.”
-Paul Davies, theoretical physicist, Arizona State University
Since my first email to you back in 2017, I have been doing a fair amount of thinking about π (pi). I would ask you, please, to consider in light of the results from Planck, Hubble and now the JWST, that we do a thought experiment: What if we were to put the big bang theory on hold and look at the first instant of the universe as an expression of the Planck base units. What if the first manifestation of those units is an infinitesimal sphere that expands exponentially (base-2). There are no less than 67 notations before our finest instrumentation can pick up a quantum fluctuation. What if those 67 notations are fundamentally defined by the continuity, symmetry, and harmony that is defined by pi and one might argue that it defines the infinite and is the interdependence of the dimensionless constants that we need.
Could it help us over some of these hurdles? Thank you.
Most sincerely,
Bruce
PS. My webpage that focuses on your work is here: https://81018.com/2017/09/09/davies/ -BEC
Fourth email: 29 September 2022 at 9 AM
Dear Prof. Dr. Paul Davies,
Symbolically it seems the dance between form and function is between Fibonacci (the order of addition and linearity), the Golden Ratio (symmetry of multiplication), and pI [π (the dynamics of both)] — continuity-symmetry-harmony all over again. Now my problem is to explain that. It will have to include light as a constant that preconditions the starting point of the first moment of spacetime as an infinitesimal sphere. If there is an inverse-square cooling, where/when would that first infinitesimal sphere manifest?
I am sending this gobbledegook to you as a challenge to myself to explain it.
My most recent attempt to update empower (my earlier email) is https://81018.com/communicate/ and my page about your work is here.
Best wishes always,
Bruce
PS. The windows all seem to be closing with Joe Biden – Vladimir Putin – Xi Jinping playing nuclear brinkmanship. We desperately need a new model of who we are and why. “…after the big bang” does not cut it. We all know its failures and dead ends. Let’s start at the very beginning… one more time. -BEC
Third email: 5 July 2021 at 7:13 AM
Any comments?
I would be grateful.
Thanks.
Warmly,
Bruce
Second email: 20 November 2019 @ 10 AM
Dear Prof. Dr. Paul Davies,
Thank you again for your kind response (2017) to my earlier re-introduction
from my Boston University days within the Center for Philosophy and
History of Science, particularly Bob Cohen’s Boston Colloquium
for Philosophy of Science.
I have addressed the old arrow of time, Newton-Leibniz, and finite-infinite
relation from my unusual perspective of the 202 base-2 notations from
the Planck units to the current time — http://81018.com/bridge/ — and
thought if you had an extra moment, you might comment. Thank you.
Warm regards,
Bruce
First email: 9 September 2017
Dear Prof. Dr. Paul C.W. Davies:
If my memory serves me, I was one of two people who introduced you at your first Boston Colloquium lecture back in-and-around 1974. It was a little experiment with student introductions. I had been a groupie of the series for three years and because I was one of those who read as much as possible before the lecture (and always crafted probing-but-sensitive questions), Bob Cohen would often invite me to the pre-lecture dinner and he would sit me next to the guest. Looking back, it was as if I was a decoy for what I always thought were nasty comments immediately after the lecture during the Q&A.
Your memory may serve you better than mine does me. Might you happen to remember what for me was an auspicious evening? I suspect your topic was related to your book, The Physics of Time Asymmetry, or perhaps a precursor of Space and Time in the Modern Universe.
Those lectures and that community were important to me; I was seeking to define “a moment of perfection” within spacetime. Impossible task and an unlikely group within which to be involved, by 1980, I went back to work in a business that I had started in 1971. Fast forward, in 2011, I had pulled back from 9-5 and had been dubbing around with basic geometries.
Something happened when I was helping a nephew with his three high school geometry classes and two ACT preparation classes. We chased the tetrahedral-octahedral clusters from the classroom models back to the CERN scale (dividing by 2) in about 45 jumps, and then back to the Planck scale in 67 additional jumps. The next day we multiplied by 2 and in 90 jumps we were out to the Observable Universe and the Age of the Universe. It became our sweet little STEM tool until we started examining and questioning the first 67 notations.
Math is math. Continuity is continuity. Symmetry is symmetry. Only math can fill those notations. Who might make sense of that math? Sir Martin Rees? Barrow? Maybe Langlands can. Maybe Wilczek can. Maybe you can.
I’ll continue dabbling along in my own way, but as idiosyncratic as it is, we just may have stumbled into something here. That little model does wonders for space and time!
My frequently changing homepage: http://81018.com
A chart of all the numbers: http://81018.com/chart
My simple theory: https://81018.com/spacetime/
Natural Inflation: https://81018.com/ni/
Thrust: https://81018.com/thrust/
I know it is a bit out to the left of left field line (foul ball). Is it just specious thinking or might we be able to bring it into the playing field?
Thanks.
Most sincerely,
Bruce