Most recent email: Wednesday, 16 January 2019
Dear Prof. Dr. Claus Kiefer:
Does the concept of a singularity imply an absolute singularity?
If not, does the concept of singularity require discounting the Planck units, truncating the over-reach of pi and the other dimensionless constants, all while assuming there is no infinitesimal structures between our Planck scale and that which is currently measurable? Of course, the absence of any discussion about bridges between the infinite and the finite assumes there is a fullness within renormalization such that the more mathematical and scientific concepts that capture some element of infinity must not be considered very useful. So, that being said, let me excuse the following questions if these seem in any way too direct or offensive:
- Is big bang cosmology still the best model?
- Isn’t Newton’s absolute space-and-time assumed, and is it the best model?
- Could there a natural inflation from the Planck scale? The numbers using base-2 are interesting: https://81018.com/chart/
- Could a doubling mechanism originate within the dimensionless constants, especially from light — https://81018.com/c/ and the Planck Charge? https://81018.com/thrust/
P.S. I’ll also send a note along to Nick Kwidzinski and Wlodzimierz Piechocki. Perhaps your co-authors will also have some insights. I think your article, “On the dynamics of the general Bianchi IX spacetime near the singularity” (September 6, 2018) in ArXiv is very important. -BEC
First email: Thursday, 20 September 2018
RE: Two little questions with longer explanations
Dear Prof. Dr. Claus Kiefer:
What a sensational career — so much in-depth writing on essential topics. I am now listening to your YouTube lecture, “Does Time Exist in Quantum Gravity?” from the FQXi Azores Conference 2009. I am also reading your 5 September 2018 ArXiv article, “On the dynamics of the general Bianchi IX spacetime near the singularity.”
May I ask you two questions? A “YES/NO” response is enough.
1. Can we interpret Max Planck’s 1899 formula for Planck Time
such that his first equivalence is simply stated as follows:
In 2011 we naively created a map of the universe by applying base-2 to the Planck base units such that there are just 202 notations or doublings. Within each notation, the value of the simple equation computes within 1% of the experimentally defined speed of light (line 10).
The chart seems to suggest that time and space are derivative of light and that finite-infinite conversion appears to be overlooked. Because of my friendship and empathy with people like Dawkins, Dennett, and Harris, I returned to work that I did back in 1972 to redefine infinity without renormalization or reification. I came up with order-continuity, relations-symmetry, and dynamics-harmony. Sweet, but it didn’t go anywhere.
2. Can we re-engage the finite-infinite transformation as a very different definition of the singularity simply because it involves so many dimensionless constants which we know exist within this finite universe, yet by definition perhaps also define the infinite as well?
It is perfectly enigmatic!
I should tell you that I tried finding you on Twitter. There is a Claus Kiefer there; he’s an empathetic farmer-dairyman, at https://twitter.com/clauskiefer His last tweet in January 2015 was “Je suis Charlie” as in Hebdo. Of course, the world is waiting for a paradigm shift that says essentially, “Harm them, and you harm us. Harm me and you harm yourself.” I think space and time are redefined as derivative, his Charlie comment just may be profoundly true.
Thank you for taking time with me. I am struggling to catch up after abandoning my PhD studies at BU (1980) where I was also active with many within Harvard and MIT. My last bit of work was with Costa de Beauregard and J.P. Vigier at the Institut Henri Poincare on EPR-Bell and what has morphed as entanglement. Thank you.