Paul C. W. Davies, Regents’ Professor
Director of the Beyond Center for Fundamental Concepts in Science
Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona
Articles (100s): Why is the Universe Just Right for Life? (2010)
• An Undecidable Universe (2020)
ArXiv: The problem of what exists (2006), The “Hard Problem” of Life (2016)
Books: The Demon in the Machine. Chapters of books
Homepage(s): ASU, Facebook, ResearchGate (The hidden simplicity of biology)
YouTube: “Where do the laws of physics come from?“ and many others
Most recent and 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,
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
I would be grateful.
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 — https://81018.com/bridge/ — and
thought if you had an extra moment, you might comment. Thank you.
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: https://81018.com/chart
My simple theory: https://81018.com/spacetime/
Natural Inflation: https://81018.com/ni/
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?