Job Leon Feldbrugge, Higgs Fellow, Higgs Centre for Theoretical Physics
University of Edinburgh
once at Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Homepage(s): Higgs Centre, inSPIREHEP, Interests, Perimeter Institute
Thesis: PhD thesis (PDF)
Video: Caustic skeleton of the cosmic web, July 2022
Places within this website with references to you:
• Get a Grip – Get the Universe
• If Turok Tells Us That Hawking Is Wrong, The Big Bang Apple Is Falling
• Job Feldbrugge: Breaking out of Ruts of Misunderstanding
Most recent email: Friday, March 26, 2020 at 11 AM
Congratulations on your PhD. No small achievement especially with Turok as your supervisor.
No page will ever be static on the 81018.com website until I die
(and then who knows what will happen!).
That’s all to say, https://81018.com/feldbrugge/ has
been updated and a new page for you has begun:
Just a few minutes ago, I found your 2019 doctoral thesis (505 pages) and started to read it (PDF). Of course, I had questions:
• Though you tell us a little, I would want to hear more about your minimal assumptions, especially about the very nature of space and time.
• What is assumed about space and time within the topology of a real manifold AND by looking at the critical points of a real function? I think, “Perhaps the singularity and unitarity are further away than you currently intuit.” So, I went looking throughout the thesis for your analysis of the Planck scale and found on page 142 (5.2.4 Recovering unitarity), particularly where you say, “…we should recover local quantum field theory, along with unitarity of scattering amplitudes in the quantum field theory sense.” Really?
• References: Picard-Lefschetz theory, catastrophe theory, infinite dimensional measure theory, and weak-value theory… page 177, Putting everything together, we find the causal propagator to create a perturbed three-sphere of radius R in reduced Planck units “from nothing”…
And, of course, who am I to be reading your thesis and certainly the question should be asked, “Is it of any consequence?” I don’t want to waste your time so, let me stop here and thank you, and again offer my sincere congratulations.
Stay well. Be bold. Have integrity!
Second email: Tue, Sep 26, 2017, 1:13 PM
I really think you and your colleagues are the hope of the world.
Your integrity matters most so I’ve placed my letter to you on my homepage:
http://81018.com which will be https://81018.com/feldbrugge when a new page takes over.
If you have any objections, I will remove it immediately.
First email: Monday, September 25, 2017
There are two pages where I prominently cite your work with Neil Turok and Jean-Luc Lehners. Because the television series, The Big Bang Theory, is in its final season, there will be an increased number of discussions around the globe about the theory. And, of course, because your Neil Turok has had such a deep history with Hawking, a major focus will be on your collective work.
In your work, you all say, “perpetual bangs.” I think you should be saying, “perpetual starts” and leave the “bang” out of it.
Guth, Linde,3 and so many others of equal caliber have lamented the “bang” tag that Fred Hoyle gave it in 1949. I believe that a “quiet expansion” encapsulates the action a little more succinctly. When sound waves become possible, they have too much catching up to do to make a difference! Of course, I could be wrong on those two pages (as well as any number of others) on so many levels.
If you have any suggestions to improve the two pages referenced above, I would be delighted. If it is all just too pedestrian for you all, I will expect this email to be ignored.
My studies within cosmology are still in their earliest stages. I have a lot to learn. However, my work in ontology goes back to the early 1970s. I’ll be contacting many scientists from major universities who use the words, “According to the big bang theory…” because it is an indication that their starting points may well be incorrect.
I think our biggest problems stem from another Lucasian Professor, Hawking’s predecessor, Isaac Newton and his absolute space-time.
Arkani-Hamed4 wants to throw them all out and Tegmark5 wants to retire “infinity.” As smart as those two are, I think they are both mistaken. Space-time and infinity can be defined more succinctly.
Thank you and your team for all the work you are doing with Picard-Lefschetz theory and the rather slippery concept of a singularity.
Bruce E. Camber