Emails, Letters, and Tweets To A Young Scholar


Our Hope Is Within The Integrity Of Our Young
To Break out of our Ruts of Misunderstanding

Around our world: We all remember special moments of our youth. Especially cherished are those moments when we learned something radically new. There is an awakening to an entirely new aspect of our world and universe. As we grow up we quickly settle within the confines of belief systems and those wondrous instances of discovering something truly new become further and further apart. Perhaps one of the challenges of life is to re-awaken the discovery process so we do not get caught in ruts and possible misunderstandings.

For me the big bang theory is a rut of misunderstandings. Between 1975 and 2005, the theory got so well-established, getting out of that rut has become a rather difficult task. To make it easier, new frameworks for a better theory must emerge. Any and all possibilities should be welcomed, thoroughly analyzed, and either politely set aside or further tested. Turok in Wired Magazine back in February 2008, said, “In the end, bad ideas will not survive. If you have a good, clean idea that’s elegant and precise and agrees with observations, it’ll get through.”1

I would add, “Yet, it’ll still take time and selling!”

To that end, this is the first of at least two letters to a young scholar, Job Feldbrugge, of the Perimeter Institute in Canada. He works with Neil Turok who once championed the Big Bang Theory as a colleague and co-author with Stephen Hawking. In and around the year 2001, Turok began exploring alternatives. In June 2017 he concludes that Hawking’s big bang theory is wrong and that the universe is in a perpetual state of starting.

In 2017, this is what I wrote to Job Feldbrugge:

RE: Might we focus on three items:
1. “The Big Bang Is Wrong,” Says Prof. Dr. Neil Turok, “There is a perpetual state of big bangs.”
2. If Turok Tells Us That Hawking Is Wrong, The Big Bang Apple Is Falling.
3. Your Research: “I am generally interested in cosmology, ranging from the the big bang and the epoch of last scattering in the early universe to the formation of the large scale structure which we observe today.”2


Dear Job:

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.

The foundations first:

The faces of the infinite:

Let’s study the numbers:

Analyzing the numbers:

Where do we go from here?

Your Scholarship:

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, 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.3 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. Let’s work on it further.

Most sincerely,

Bruce Camber


1. Though I share Turok’s optimism (this link goes to the Wired article), there is nothing easy about selling a very different concept of the finite-infinite relation and of finite space and time.

2. Quote is directly from Job Feldbrugge’s webpages linked here.

3. Editor’s note: Of course, this flies in the face of bang’s infinitely hot start theory. The quiet expansion begins with infinitesimal measurements of time and length and the very small mass and charge, and perhaps something close to absolute zero. Planck’s temperature would be happening but it is more like Guth’s inflation but not quite. We’ll have to work on those constructions.

4. Go to a page of links to Arkani-Hamed’s work including the video where he makes this claim.

5. Go to a page of links to Tegmark’s work where he decries the concept of infinity.

6. Job Feldbrugge et al. Lorentzian quantum cosmology, Physical Review D (2017). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.103508 Read more at:

* We are asking for your help. There should be a tab or two, or more, just below to share this document. For example, if you have a Twitter account, a link to it should appear just below. If more than one tab appears, please click on at least one of them. Let’s get a discussion going about this topic.