Clare Burrage, University of Nottingham, UK
Wikipedia. This page is: https://81018.com/burrage/
Key reference: https://81018.com/standard-models/#Emails

First email: 21 October 2023 at 6:25 PM 

Dear Prof. Dr. Clare Burrage:

You certainly waste no time in castigating the Standard Model for Cosmology when you open with the sentence, “The standard model fails to account for 95 per cent of the contents of the universe.” The September 6, 2023 issue of New Scientist came to my attention where I was stopped by the “Six Ways” article. You could have been a little cheeky and then said, “But it does do a relatively good job with the five percent it knows.”

Six ways we could finally find new physics beyond the standard model is a good summary of the conundrum of modern physics and your section of that article, Hunting cosmological chameleons, is provocative. I wasn’t aware of chameleons in cosmology and quickly added it to my list of key hypothetical particles.

There are three idiosyncratic steps we can take to shed new light on these old problems:

The first is put the big bang theory on hold. It colors our lenses with very dark glasses. In the clear light of day, we can see an entire science down near the Planck Length. Max Planck (1899), George Stoney (1874) and the ISO (2023) all have their own unique set of numbers to describe natural units using dimensionless constants. Here is a baseline for our universe that is slowly coming into focus. We’ll use Planck’s numbers to test our concepts knowing well that these numbers will all be fine-tuned over time.

The second step is to parse the universe using base-2 exponential notation. There are just 202 notations using Planck, Stoney or the ISO numbers. The most important numbers of the 202 are the first 64 notations starting at the Planck Scale and going up to the electroweak scale. Although groups like the Institute for Particle Physics Phenomenology (IPPP) at Durham University (director, Michael Spannowsky) have made it their mission to break through and get beyond the standard model, no group has focused on those first 64 notations.

I suggest that the math is already in place in many different, rather diverse disciplines including Langlands program, string theory, SUSY and others. The base-2 math is important for each notation; it defines the container. The math from our many disciplines using functional analysis provide the dynamics and transitions between notations and within a notation.

The third step is to grasp the simple dynamics within those first 64 notations. After arguing for a few years, we assumed that the sphere was the most simple object that could manifest first to define the first moment of space-time. Further assuming that there would be one sphere (conditionally named a Plancksphere) per unit of Planck Time and Planck Length. That rendered about 539 tredecillion spheres per second. Some have suggested that is a rather different kind of cosmological constant. Others have pointed to it as the basis for dark matter and dark energy.

The fourth step is to recognize the density and speed at which these planckspheres are being rendered. There is no time for fluctuations or any kind of imprecision. Space-time is being perfectly filed with spheres. Here is the simple basis for smoothness and homogeneity-isotropy. A fascinating notion, it will be explored for a long, long time to come.

The fifth step was to acknowledge quantum fluctuations within the range from Notation 65 to Notation 67. We had been studying what we called squishy geometry within five tetrahedrons, five octahedrons, icosahedrons and the Pentakis dodecahedron. Certain combinations of geometries fit perfectly and others created spaces that made the object indeterminant. It is another study among many that we will be exploring for the rest of our life.

I have already written to Jon Butterworth and Alex Keshavarzi. I apologize for my long email. Each time I write to a scholar-expert-scientist like you, it pushes me to be more succinct. Obviously, I’ll have to write to many more people to do even better. Notwithstanding, I thank you for your work and thoughtfulness.

For me, it has been an exercise to clarify my idiosyncratic concepts.

One of the Muppet characters, a frog named Kermit, sings, “It’s not easy being green.” Ray Charles and I agree.

Thank you for all you do to challenge the status quo.

Warmly,

Bruce

###