Nathan Adams, University of Manchester, England

First email:  Saturday, 15 June 2024 @ 10:01 AM

Dear Dr. Nathan Adams,

Instead of breaking the universe, let’s make the universe! (Referencing your Scientific American quote.

Big Bang cosmology’s infinitely small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense point [1] challenged our imaginations. In 1980 when Alan Guth added his hypothetical, uniquely-singular event of instantaneous inflation, many people balked, but nobody came up with a better idea. Notwithstanding, challenges to the theory kept being articulated, especially from the observational data from the WMAP, Planck ESA, Hubble (HST), and the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). The cleansing and tweaking of Big Bang cosmology has been an ongoing effort. Controversies abound. I especially enjoyed your dramatic positioning of the results; “It’s a bit too early to say we’ve completely broken the universe.”[2]

In 2001 scholars were learning about the extremely infinitesimal numbers of the Planck’s base units from Frank Wilczek (MIT). His articles, Scaling Mt. Planck I, II, III, were demythologizing Max Planck’s work of 1899 regarding natural units. Big Bang theorists have had no place for such tiny numbers. In 2012, Freeman Dyson and Wilczek personally encouraged us. A high school project, we had done a base-2 chart of the universe with those Planck base units, all in 202 base-2 notations. That chart readily encapsulated the universe; 100% mathematical and geometrical, it gave us a different perspective of the universe but without the drama of the Big Bang and its inflation. It also had us reconsidering the nature of time because all the notations were always active. It also challenged our assumptions about the finite-infinite relation. This construction started with an infinitesimal sphere and an expanded role for π (pi). It also seemed to open issues about gravity, dark matter-dark energy, and physics beyond the standard model.

There are 64 notations below all our thresholds for measurement, but not beyond functional analysis. With 64 notations, we have a new foundation! So we say, let all the work of these distinguished scholars continue and let’s help them integrate it into the larger continuum! 

Why not?

Thank you.

Warm regards,

Bruce
________________
Bruce. E. Camber
https://81018.com/bec/

PS. This page URL is https://81018.com/adams/ (working on it)
This email has footnotes! Thanks again! Great quote. -BEC

[1] Stephen Hawking, PBS-TV, Genius, 2016, “The answer, as most people can tell you, is the big bang. Everything in existence, expanding exponentially in every direction, from an infinitely small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense point, creating a cosmos filled with energy and matter. ”. Hawking, like so many others, never did the simple math of exponential notation. If he did, he would be following Nathan Adams!

[2] Jonathan O’Callaghan, “JWST’s First Glimpses of Early Galaxies Could Break Cosmology”, Scientific American, September 14, 2022 quoting Nathan Adams, University of Manchester, England, Go to the last section, A RUSH TO BREAK THE UNIVERSE, second paragraph.

[Note] David Spergel, a theoretical astrophysicist and current president of the Simons Foundation in New York City, agrees. “I think what we’re seeing is that high-mass star formation is very efficient in the early universe,” he says. “The gas pressures are higher. The temperatures are higher. That has an enormous impact on the environment for star formation.” Magnetic fields might have arisen earlier in the universe than we thought, driving material to kick-start the birth of stars. “We might be seeing a signature of magnetic fields emerging very early in the universe’s history,” Spergel says.