**Robert Hans Brandenberger**, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

**Articles***: Alternatives to cosmological inflation **(Physics Today*, March 2008)*_________ Unconventional Cosmology* (ArXiv, Sept. 2012)**ArXiv**: *Beyond Standard Inflationary Cosmology* (Sept. 2018))*_______Trans-Planckian Censorship and Inflationary Cosmology *(Nov. 2019)**CV****Homepage** (another)

inSPIRE**Wikipedia****YouTube: **Emergent space and its possible observational signatures (June 2017)

Second email: December 27, 2019 @ Noon

Dear Prof. Dr. Robert Brandenberger:

Why would your work from 15 November 2019 on the TCC* be context in light of Standard Big Bang cosmology? Why not start from a *tabula rasa*?

**TCC offering**: Why not demand a simplicity at the Planck scale? What if we were to assume it all starts very cold and logically construct the best possible universe with a natural inflation?

That universe would necessarily include Witten’s constructs with strings and Langlands mathematical constructions with conjectures, functions and representations.

I believe the Planck scale is much more ordered than anybody currently thinks: https://81018.com/theory/ Yet, who am I? Just a nobody.

Oh, yes, I updated our resource page about your work with the inSPIRE references as well as this note: https://81018.com/2018/10/13/brandenberger/

My best wishes for a productive conference on January 19-21, 2020, in Abu Dhabi (NYUAD).

Warmly,

Bruce

* For readers who are unfamiliar with the Trans-Planckian Censorship Conjecture, Wikipedia’s introduction and the ArXiv articles make a good introduction.

First email: 14 October 2018

Dear Prof. Dr. Robert Brandenberger:

I have been listening to your lecture at the Rotman Institute of Philosophy from June 12, 2017 at Western University in Ontario. I am also reading *Beyond Standard Inflationary Cosmology* while you talk. Every once and awhile, I have to look over to examine your illustrations within the lecture. And, to say the least, I am glad to hear your emphasis on the “s” of theorie*s* (as well as model*s*).

Before going further, let me say that you project a sensitive and honest integrity that just might tolerate the strangeness of our simple work.

We backed into cosmology through a high school geometry class where we were watching the embedded geometries of our tetrahedrons and octahedrons become increasingly smaller. The initial edges were just two inches. Within just 45 steps our numbers were in the range of the CERN-scale. In just 67 more steps we were touching the Planck Wall defying Zeno’s paradox. When we multiplied by 2, our little geometry exercise opened the windows of cosmology. In just 90 more doublings from our simple tetrahedron, we were approaching the Age and Size of the Universe. That is a total of 202 doublings from the Planck scale to the current Age of the Universe!

That was December 2011. We’re not what one might call a “quick study.” We initially thought of our chart as a good STEM tool. In April 2016, after developing many different visual aids, we evolved with a horizontally-scrolled chart that allow a closer examination of the natural inflation of the numbers: https://81018.com/chart/

*I know how idiosyncratic it is*. Still there is enough logic and commonsense and simple math that we continue our explorations. Might you comment on this work? Have we totally lost it or is there some possibility that this model can begin to breathe?

Thank you.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

####