Albrecht, Andreas

Andreas Albrecht
University of California, Davis

Arrow of time
ArXiv:  Tuning, Ergodicity, Equilibrium and Cosmology
Cosmic Inflation and the Arrow of Time
Structure Conference 1999
Twitter
Wiki
YouTube

References within this website:
On the homepage: https://81018.com/concepts/#Albrecht

Most recent email: Friday, March 12, 2021

Personal notes were sent around to many of those scholars with whom I have written in the past. There were three consistent themes from which those notes were generated and this is the one Prof. Dr. Andreas Albrecht received. -BEC

Second email: Wednesday, October 12, 2016

Dear Prof Dr. Andreas Albrecht:

You may remember that in December 2011 our high school geometry classes  “fell into” an integrated view of the universe: http://bblu.org   Today, we  start with Planck’s base units  and go to the Age of the Universe in just over 200 base-2 notations: https://81018.com/charts

We were quickly told by an MIT Wikipedia editor (Stephens) that it was “original” research.  We were also told it was idiosyncratic (Baez).  We believe that logically, it must be the most-simple AND the only mathematically-integrated model of the universe to date. For some of us, we’ve begun to think it could be a real alternative to the big bang cosmology (and the big bang’s nihilism).

Now, it seems from our cursory overview that most of the people at the Perimeter Institute conference, Time in Cosmology, accept the place of the big bang.

To help our students and to attempt to context that diverse dialogue, I have created a few links to the conference and to your work. There are currently three key pages. First, there is a brief overview of the conference on a prior homepage  of the site (fourth section down):   https://81018.com/2016/10/02/2october2016/
There is also this page on the conference:  https://81018.com/2016/06/30/perimeter/
Our general overview page of your work is here: https://81018.com/2016/08/08/albrecht/

If there is anything you would like to have added, deleted or changed, please just say the word!

Now, thinking about time and the large-scale universe, perhaps another conference could be entertained, Time in the small-scale and human scale universe. In less than a second, the universe within this base-2 model has already expanded well into the large-scale universe. Of the 200 notations, the first second from Planck Time is within notations 144-145. The first day (86400 seconds) is between notations 160 and 161. A light year is between notation 168 and 169.

If we engage the numbers generated using base-2 from the Planck base units, it appears to expand rather quietly right out beyond the need for a big bang.

Most sincerely,

Bruce
* * * *
Bruce Camber
New Orleans (2017: Now in the Austin, Texas area)
http://bblu.org
http://81018.com

PS. Yes, I know how very naive and totally idiosyncratic our work is. Notwithstanding, the simplicity of the logic and math has caught our imaginations. The numbers seem to speak louder than words. Although temperature is a problem, I think in time we’ll be able to adjust that line of figures with some kind of “reasonable” rationale, perhaps a different algorithm. -BEC

***

First email: Friday, August 8, 2016

Dear Prof. Dr. Andreas Albrecht –

Again, thanks for all your work and access to it:
http://albrecht.ucdavis.edu/special-topics/dark-energy-task-force

I especially appreciated finding, among so many,
a reference to your work here (Slow-roll inflation):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)
We are making slow progress on our base-2 model;
my hope is to interject enough current work that we bump
into a hard conceptual stopping point or there is enough “stuff”
there to be critically examined. It is laughably naive, but we are just following our noses.

Best wishes indeed,

Bruce
http://bblu.org   (STEM tool for high school teachers and student)
http://81018.com (most current work)

Turok, Neil

Neil Turok
Director Emeritus
Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

Turok

Article: PhyCon 2016: …on investigating the unpopular
ArXiv: Perfect Quantum Cosmological Bounce, Steffen Gielen and Neil Turok, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 021301, 6 July 2016 (https://arxiv.org/abs/1510.00699 ),
Book: The Universe Within
Homepage
inSIREHEP
TED: Working on a model of the universe that explains the big bang
Twitter
Wikipedia
YouTube Channel Video: The Astonishing Simplicity of Everything (October 2015)

Pages that reference Turok’s work within this website:
•  We do not understand space and time.
Get a grip. Get the universe.
An Integrated Structure of the Universe
If Turok Tells Us That Hawking Is Wrong,  The Big Bang Apple Is Falling
There is a perpetual state of big bangs…
Job Feldbrugge:  Breaking out of Ruts of Misunderstanding
Redefine Space, Time and Infinity
References: https://81018.com/alphabetical/  https://81018.com/2016/06/30/perimeter/#Turok
• This page: https://81018.com/2016/08/02/turok/

Most recent email: 3 April 2021 @ 4:17 AM

Dear Prof. Dr. Neil Turok,
I know how entirely idiosyncratic my little construct is, yet nobody explains
how it misses the mark.

I do not think real scholars have spent any time with the numbers: https://81018.com/chart/  You are a real scholar so your answers are important to me!  Thanks.

Warmly,

Bruce

_____________________________________________________________

Questions:

1. Might the Planck Length-and-Planck Time and Planck Mass-and-Planck Charge be among the parameters that define the first moment or instant of the universe?
Answer: Yes | No | Maybe
Comment:
____________

2. Might an infinitesimal sphere be a first manifestation of Planck’s Base Units?
Answer: Yes | No | Maybe
Comment:
____________

3. Might sphere stacking and cubic-close-packing of equal spheres be among the.first functional activities to define the universe?
Answer: Yes | No | Maybe
Comment:
____________

4. Might the rate by which spheres emerge be determined by Planck Time at one sphere per unit of Planck Length such that there could be 539.116 tredecillion spheres per second given the value of Planck Time is 5.39116(13)×10-44 seconds?
Answer: Yes | No | Maybe
Comment:
____________

5. Might base-2 notation be applied to create an ordering schema for these spheres such that Planck Time expands approximately 436,117,076,900,000,000 seconds to the current time within just 202 doublings?
Answer: Yes | No | Maybe
Comment:
____________

6. Might there be a range of perfection from the earliest notations and prior to any kind of quantum fluctuation, be it ontological or physical?
Answer: Yes | No | Maybe
Comment:
____________

7. Might these spheres:
___(a) be defined by continuity-symmetry-harmony (which redefines infinity)?
___Answer: Yes | No | Maybe Comment:
___(b) …become the basis to define the aether?
___Answer: Yes | No | Maybe Comment:
___(c) …be the reason for homogeneity and isotropy?
___Answer: Yes | No | Maybe Comment:
___(d) …and, be the essence of dark matter and dark energy?
___Answer: Yes | No | Maybe Comment:
____________

8. Might you be open to receive another eight questions about foundational concepts and no sooner than eight months from today?
Answer: Yes | No | Maybe
Comment:
____________

Thank you very much. -BEC
****************

Bruce E. Camber

Seventh email: 11 March 2021 @ 4:17 AM

Dear Prof. Dr. Neil Turok:

Might we take as a given: A key structure of the universe is an infinitesimal sphere defined by the Planck base units. It is, of course, orders of magnitude smaller than any particle. What can we say about that sphere?
[1] It is defined by pi (π).
[2] It is defined by the Planck base units.
[3] It is defined by the other dimensionless constants that define those units.
[4] This very-first infinitesimal sphere is never-ending, never-repeating, always the same and forever changing in relations to all other spheres.
[5] This quality redefines continuity. It creates order and numbers and it is the first moment of time and the very nature of time.

[6] Now, to better visualize this event, know that the rate at which these spheres are manifesting is defined by Planck Time: 539 tredecillion spheres per second.
[7] Sphere stacking necessarily begins, but this is just the beginning.

[8] The second quality of this most-infinitesimal sphere is its symmetries which create relations which create space. Think of cubic-close packing of equal spheres.

[9] Continuity and symmetry are simple perfections.

[10] Focusing on cubic-close packing (ccp) and the creation of lines, tetrahedrons and octahedrons, many different types of symmetries emerge including a five-tetrahedral cluster that will become systemic or ontic and quantum fluctuations within given notations.

[11] A third quality of spheres is harmony and it, too, is a simple perfection.
[12] With this image, pi and spheres are dynamic, extending through time. Called the Fourier Transform, we are now researching possible faces of it and the harmonic functions uniquely created.

We’ve applied base-2 to order these spheres and there are 202 notations from the first instant to the current time. If Notation #1 is close to absolute zero, by the notation-136, the temperature has risen high enough for the Quark-Gluon plasma processes to begin. By Notations-143-to-144, the first second of the universe is defined. Agreeing with Neil Turok that big bang cosmology is wrong, this cold-start model is more like Lemaitre’s original ideas of 1927.

Your comments are most welcomed.  Thank you.

Warmly,

Bruce

PS. I am having great fun getting to know of your good works in South Africa and throughout  Africa.  Stunning. -BEC

Sixth email: 27 March 2020 @ 8:10 AM

Dear Prof. Dr. Neil Turok:

Along with Nima and Max, you three constitute a force in physics and are three of my favorites among the legions of the brilliant.

Today’s homepage — the unique URL is https://81018.com/uni-verse — has links to you three, plus to one of my very favorite pages, https://81018.com/bbtheory/ Beside the banality of the comedy, The Big Bang Theory, your comment comes alive. Hopefully I quote you correctly, “Turok believes that the universe behaves as if it is always starting from scratch.”

Of course, our idiosyncratic model certainly meets that criteria in some literal way:
1. The infinite-finite relation whereby the infinite as the qualitative expression of continuity (order), symmetry (relations), and harmony (dynamics) while the finite is the quantitative expression of continuity, symmetry, and harmony.
2. There is an initial perfection of the qualitative that recognizes that the geometric gap of the five tetrahedral configuration and it becomes the grounds for quantum fluctuations which become systemic around Notation-64 when particles and waves begin to manifest.

The fact that the speed of light is confirmed within .01% of laboratory-defined speed at the one second mark between Notation-143 and Notation-144 and then again with a light year between Notation-168-and-169 is sweet.

So, just a few days ago I read about your blocking Fotini from applying for tenure and I realized you do not suffer fools easily. Of course, Fotini is no fool. She’s brilliant. Yet, when it comes to testing new ideas, we are all fools albeit some of us more foolish than others given those quantum leaps and impatience with incrementalism.

I wish you well. Stay healthy in these very odd times when we can be thankful that the universe is constantly renewed.

Warmest regards to your two exceptional colleagues, Job Feldbrugge and Jean-Luc Lehners.

Most sincerely,
Bruce

Fifth email: 17 January 2020
Asking for advice to modify this statement:

This base-2 model of the universe begins with Planck Time, logically the first instance of the universe, to the current day and time, all within just 202 notations or doublings. In this model, the universe becomes hot enough to support the quark-gluon plasma by Notation-136 (which is before the first second transpires between notation 143 and 144). Here is an area for the “never-ending starts” suggested by Neil Turok and Job Feldbrugge of the Perimeter Institute, and Jean-Luc Lehners of the Albert-Einstein-Institut of Potsdam, Germany. Here is a mindset to fulfill the wishes of Nima Arkani-Hamed and Max Tegmark for a fundamentally new concept of spacetime and infinity.”

Dear Prof. Dr. Neil Turok:

Any advice that you could give to improve this introduction
just above or the entire page — https://81018.com/arxiv/
would be profoundly appreciated.

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,
Bruce
****************
PS. My reference page to your work is here: https://81018.com/2016/08/02/turok/

Fourth email: 8 March 2018

Dear Prof. Dr. Neil Turok:

Might you comment on our homepage today, particularly on the first goal of our website where we reference your work?

The impasse within the Standard Model is highly documented, especially since the diphoton results (2015, 2016). In his July 20, 2017 IAS lecture — “Where in the world are SUSY and WIMPS?” — Nima Arkani-Hamed  says, “…go back and think about these things again from a totally different view, something completely, radically, 100% out of left field, totally different from anything we’ve thought about before.”

The power of 2, just doubling the four basic Planck numbers, creates a very special flow within the universe where space and time and infinity are redefined.

There is merit in simplicity yet we (the scientific community) distrust the truly simple (and often naive people like me).

If you would comment, I would be ever so grateful.  Thank you.

Warmly,

Bruce

PS. Here is a sample of one of many references to your work:

Four primary goals

Sphere to tetrahedron-octahedron couplet

1. Unplug the big bang theory.  It’s on life support.    We can replace the strained logic of “infinitely hot, infinitely dense” with a natural inflation. Neil Turok’s perpetual starts is the first notation where infinitesimal spheres manifest. The 202.34 mathematically-integrated notations begin with the logic of pi and a simplicity that redefines space, time and infinity. We start with the Planck base units and go to this very moment of time.  More…  Chart…
****************

Third email: June 27, 2017

Congratulations, Prof Dr. Neil Turok.

When I listen to your lectures, I feel like I am surrounded by goodness
and what I am hearing is from a sweet therapist coaching me along my way.
Indeed, congratulations, on a life well lived.

I couldn’t help but pick up the discussions about the big bang:
https://81018.com/lefschetz/

I also put it out on my LinkedIn site:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/hawking-wrong-bruce-camber

Of course, I wish you continued successes with your work.

Most sincerely,

Bruce
*********
Bruce Camber
http://81018.com

Second email: Tuesday, October 4, 2016

Dear Prof. Dr. Neil Turok,

Thank you for your conference, Time in Cosmology. What an extraordinarily astute group of people; the videos of the sessions are most helpful.

I have created a few links to the conference, to your work and to the Perimeter Institute. You all have already greatly informed us on our journey. We expect you will continue to do so.

There are three key pages:

Now, thinking about time and the large-scale universe, perhaps another conference could be entertained, Time in the small-scale and human scale universe. Before the first three minutes, time is well in to the large-scale universe. Of our 202 base-2 notations, the first second from Planck Time is within notations 144-145. The first day (86400 seconds) is between notations 160 and 161. A light year is between notation 168 and 169. Now we finally get inside cosmology.

If we engage the numbers generated using base-2 from the Planck base units, it all appears to expand rather quietly right out beyond the need for a big bang.

Sincerely,

Bruce

* * * *

Bruce Camber
http://81018.com

PS. Yes, I know how naive and idiosyncratic our work is. The simplicity of the logic and math, however, has caught our attention. The numbers seem to speak louder than words. Although temperature is a problem, I think in time we’ll be able to adjust that line of figures with some kind of “reasonable” rationale, perhaps a different algorithm. -B

***

First email:  August 2, 2016

Dear Prof. Dr. Neil Turok:

What a wonderful introduction and lecture.
You are so powerfully endearing.

I would like to invite you to demythologize and debunk
our work that started in a high school geometry class
when we divided the edges of a tetrahedron in half and
connected the four new vertices. There was a half-sized
tetrahedron in each corner and an octahedron in the middle.

We did the same for the octahedron and kept going further
within. In about 45 steps we were in the range of a fermion.
In another 67 steps we had arrived at the Planck scale.

When we multiplied that same tetrahedron by 2, in about
89 steps we were out to the Age of the Universe. Great fun, yet
it took us two years to begin to believe that base-2 notation
from the Planck Scale had not yet been done. Base-10, of course,
had Kees Boeke’s imprint and Gerard t’Hooft recently did his Time in Powers of Ten.

For us, base-2, the Planck base units, an inherent geometry, and
a simple little continuity equation from the smallest to the largest
possible measurements of length, time, charge, mass, and temperature
just seemed like the achievement of a lifetime. Yes, we did have fun.

It is a great little STEM tool.  (But it all just may be silliness.)
When we started filling in the numbers —
https://81018.com/chart/ — it was simplicity incorporated!
But…it did raise questions!

Obviously, our logic is wrong or the old big bang is wrong.
We named the progression from the singularity to the fermion
and friends, the Quiet Expansion. It must be pure math with a
very special reality kin to Dark Energy and Dark Matter.

We would love to know what you think.
You can be rough on us. We can take it.
Thanks again for all that you do.

Most sincerely,

Bruce
*****************
Bruce Camber

PS. Thank you as well for your introduction to
Art McDonald and his work with neutrinos in subterranean Sudbury.
We will be having discussion groups around your online video,
The Astonishing Simplicity of Everything. And we were especially
happy to hear that you believe we will eventually understand the
reason for the simplicity, homogeneity and isotropy of our universe home.

###

Afshordi, Niayesh

Niayesh_AfshordiNiayesh Afshordi

Perimeter Institute (PI)
University of Waterloo – Department of Physics and Astronomy
Waterloo, Ontario

ArXivOut of the White Hole: A Holographic Origin for the Big Bang
Facebook
CV
Homepage: Waterloo
PhD
Twitter
YouTube: Reflections on Spacetime (See notes on that page)

First email: 6 June 2016

Our reference regarding big bang cosmology:  https://81018.com/2016/06/01/quiet/
Our referencing page: https://81018.com/2016/06/30/perimeter/

Dear Prof Dr. Niayesh Afshordi:

I have gotten to know you through your writings on the web. The link above goes to our posting critical of the Big Bang. It begins:

“In September 2014 for the first time we publicly raised questions about the big bang theory (herein abbreviated “bbt“). Of course, Stephen Hawking has always been its biggest and best salesperson. He has become a rock star among scientists, especially with his PBS-TV series, Genius, and the continued updating-and-capitalizing on his 1988, best-selling book, A Brief History of Time. In 1973 he co-authored his first book about the the subject, The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time.

“Only a fool would dare challenge his (Hawking) work.”

So, such is life; each of us must at sometime play the fool. Much further down I say:

“The key: More than just the bbt‘s four forces of nature within the Planck scale, we assume a certain unification of all the Planck base units and those constants that define them, and that this unification is carried through the entire 202 base-2 exponential notations to the current time and present day (until proven to be otherwise). The Planck base units are defined by length, time, mass and charge. These Planck units are further defined by the speed of light (or special relativity), the gravitational constant (or general relativity), the reduced Planck constant (or ħ or quantum mechanics), the Coulomb constant (or ε0 or electric charge or electromagnetism), and the Boltzmann constant (or kB or of temperature).”

I wonder if you might have any comments about our model? …just so much idiosyncratic poppycock?
Thank you.

Most sincerely,
-Bruce
* * * *
Bruce Camber
http://81018.com
_______________________

Afshordi regarding the YouTube video above:

“I outline why I think convergence of empirical evidence and theoretical insights from particle physics, astrophysics, and cosmology point to a concrete and more fundamental paradigm for spacetime.”

Niayesh Afshordi, University of Waterloo, and Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics,  June 14, 2017
Cosmology and the Future of Spacetime conference, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada

“Dr. Afshordi dabbles in Astrophysics, Cosmology, and Physics of gravity and is obsessed with observational hints that could help address problems in fundamental physics.”

Ellis, George F. R.

George F. R. Ellis, FRS

Professor Emeritus, Applied Mathematics  http://www.math.uct.ac.za/prof-george-ellis-0
University of Cape Town, South Africa

Articles: The physics of infinity, Nature Physics, Volume 14, Issue 8, p.770-772, 20180
______ Physics on Edge, Inference (International Review of Science), V3, #2______ Physicist George Ellis Knocks PhysicistsJohn Horgan, Scientific American, July 2014
ArXiv: Stephen William Hawking: A Biographical Memoir (PDF), February 2020
_____ Emergence of time (PDF), Nov. 2019
_____ Theoretical Cosmology (with Alan A. Coley), (PDF), Sept 2019 
_____ Causal Structures in Cosmology (PDF) Dec. 2016)
_____ 100 Years of General Relativity (PDF) Sept. 2015) (video)
_____ The arrow of time and the nature of spacetime (PDF), March 2013
_____ A Note on Infinities in Eternal Inflation (PDF), January 2010
Books: The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time (PDF, with Stephen Hawking), CUP, 1973
______  The Universe Around Us: An Integrative View of Science & Cosmology 2002-07-29
Conference: Time in Cosmology    FRS
Google Scholar  Homepage   inSPIREHEP
Video: http://videolectures.net/george_ellis/  https://www.whyarewehere.tv/people/george-ellis/
Wikipedia  
YouTubePhilosophy of Cosmology February 2020 
___________ George Ellis and Ard Louis, Top-Down Causation

References within this website:   
1.  https://81018.com/2016/06/30/perimeter/  Related: https://81018.com/2016/06/30/perimeter/
2.  https://81018.com/conference/ 
3.  https://81018.com/contacts/
Tenth email: July 28, 2020 at 4:56 PM

Dear Prof. Dr. George Ellis:

I’ve tried to clean-up this page with all my references to your work and to some of my notes to you over the years:  https://81018.com/2016/01/11/ellis/

Also, our first reference to you on this site is here (top of page). The actual, long-term URL for that page is: https://81018.com/conference/  Along with 18 others I have also sent you my notes inviting a critical review of the base-2 chart of 202 notations from the Planck scale, especially Planck Time, to our current time.

One of the first principles of this website is that infinity is continuity/order, symmetry/relations and harmony/dynamics and that space/time matter/energy are all finite and derivative. I think Tegmark and Hilbert and so many others have just made it too big of an issue. Our working definition allows the ancient philosophies to breathe a little.

Also, my clean-up of your page was to prioritize my reading and study so I can readily answer my eight questions on that top-level page from your perspective. After I finish, I’ll send you a copy of it to see how close I have come.

As well, I should add that I think Frank Wilczek was simply saying that the Planck base units were largely ignored by scholarship until his three articles in Physics Today. Barrow’s Natural Units Before Planck (1983) is a favorite. Dirac had his large numbers. Planck had his infinitesimals.

The infinitesimals open clear questions about infinity and within this base-2 model, one face is quantitative and the other qualitative.

Best wishes always,

Bruce

Ninth Email: May 22, 2020, 11:06 PM

Dear Prof. Dr. George Ellis:

The most recent homepage has a section about Hawking which starts off with your 1973 co-authored work. I thought you might find it of some interest: https://81018.com/duped/#HawkingThat article is entitled, Duped by Aristotle, Newton & Hawking. Thank you.
Most sincerely,

Bruce

Seventh and Eighth emails: September 17 & 21, 2019
RE: Foundational Issues Relating Spacetime, Matter, and Quantum Mechanics (PDF ), Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2019 GFR Ellis – When I sent birthday greetings to Freeman Dyson, he responded “Nunc Dimittis is a better text for a 95-year old.” Yes, and perhaps Max Planck was right, “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather… science advances one funeral at a time.” ( Max Planck, Scientific autobiography, 1950, p. 33)
I wish you well,
Bruce Camber
On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 3:36 PM Bruce Camber wrote:
Dear Prof. Dr. George Ellis:
 
Can’t we just start with the Planck base units? Can we assume with the dimensionless constants, Planck Charge, and light (c), that there is a very infinitesimal thrust that generates a simple sphere, and then another, and another until there is sphere stacking and a doubling, then another and another: https://81018.com/chart/
If that is the simple start, time is derivative. 
Thanks.
-Bruce
Sixth Email: Saturday, February 2, 2019

Dear Prof. Dr. George Ellis:

When we followed Zeno’s logic back to the Planck scale, ostensibly going deeper and deeper inside a tetrahedral-octahedral construct, we were challenged, “What if we multiply by 2?” We had to go down inside 112 notations to get to the Planck scale. When we went out, multiplying by 2, larger and larger, there were just 90 doublings to the Age of the Universe, the Now.

We asked further, “Is our chart logical? Is it a valid STEM tool?”

We have not been advised by any scholar to date as to why this basic logic is off. Might you? Our chart is here: https://81018.com/chart/ Our most recent overview: https://81018.com/boundary/

I thank you for your extraordinary career and for being a Platonist!

Most sincerely,

Bruce

Fifth email: August 3, 2018, 4:18 PM

Dear Prof. Dr. George Ellis:

There is a huge space between the Planck scale and CERN Labs smallest measurements. It is “huge” because it is the size of the Planck scale doubled no less than 64 times. It may be infinitesimally small; it is mathematically huge and entirely open-ended. Of course, there is a mathematics of infinity. And, there is a physics of space-time (where infinity shares that space) and possibly a “physics” of the transformation (where a certain expression of finiteness is shared with infinity), but the physics of infinity per se?

Thinking of David Hilbert’s now famous paper, On the infinite, delivered, June 4, 1925, perhaps a most simple question to ask could be, “Where do the never-ending, never-repeating dimensionless constants like pi reside?” Surely if it is truly never-ending, never repeating, it exists within infinity and that actual ratio exists in the finite. If Hilbert were alive today, I’d like to ask him that question.

Regarding your article, The physics of infinity, I’ve only been able to read the first page here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-018-0238-1.epdf

I have also engaged your May 11, 2017 article (PDF), The Standard Cosmological Model.

Questions:

  1. Is it possible that Newton’s absolute space and time is throwing us off?
  2. Is it possible that space and time are finite and derivative?
  3. Is it possible that our weak understanding of infinity is holding us back? What if the dimensionless constants, every ratio, has a place within both the finite and infinite?

Naive, possible silly questions…

Most sincerely,

Bruce

PS. The Epochs, 9/43 page of your article, The Standard Cosmological Model (PDF) commemorating the legacy of Fr. George Lemaître, Specola Vaticana, Castel Gandolfo, is especially helpful. Do you support an infinitely hot beginning per Hawking, Guth et al, or Lemaître’s cold start?

Thank you, thank you. You are the first person I have found to say this: “We probably don’t exist in small universe but case is not entirely closed.” And you explain: “If we did it would be only case we could see all matter in the universe, could actually predict the future from visible initial data, and see our own galaxy at different times in its history.”

Yes, yes, let’s explore this further!  -BEC

Fourth Email: Tuesday, April 18, 2017

Dear Prof. Dr. George Ellis, FRS:

Just an update…  we are still at it, working with the numbers generated from applying base-2 notation from the Planck units to the Age of the Universe.  Our latest chart is here: https://81018.,com/chart/  It is horizontally scrolled so we can more easily follow the progression of a particular Planck unit. The natural inflation of the numbers is sometimes counter-intuitive, but we attribute that to our learning curve and naivete.

You have your own page within our new website! I’ll insert a link to it below. Essentially it is to document our letters to you and provide key references to your work for our students and web visitors.

I hope the page meets with your approval.  Thank you.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

Third email: 5 October 2016 

Thank you for your work on The Universe Around Us: An Integrative View of Science & Cosmology.

In December 2011 we “fell into” an integrated view of the universe that started with the Planck base units and went to the Age of the Universe in just over 200 base-2 notations.

It appears to be the first time that little continuity equation with all its numbers was actually written out and posted on the web. It certainly is simple. It is mathematically integrated. It appears to be an alternative to the big bang (and the big bang’s nihilism).

It seems that most of the people at the Perimeter Institute conference, Time in Cosmology, accept the place of the big bang.

To help our students and to attempt to context that diverse dialogue, I have created a few links to the conference and to your work. There currently are three key pages. First, there is a brief overview of the conference on our homepage today (fourth section down). It will be there for a few days to come: http://81018.com. Thereafter: https://81018.com/2016/10/02/2october2016/
There is also this page on the conference:
https://81018.com/2016/06/30/perimeter/

Our general overview page of your work is this page; the URL is:
https://81018.com/2016/01/11/ellis/

If there is anything you would like to have added, deleted or changed, please just say the word! Thanks.

Now, thinking about time and the large-scale universe, perhaps another conference could be entertained, Time in the small-scale and human scale universe. In less than a second, the universe within this base-2 model has already expanded well into the large-scale universe. Of the 200 notations, the first second from Planck Time is within notations 143-144. The first day (86400 seconds) is between notations 160 and 161. A light year is between notation 168 and 169. That’s all cosmology.

If we engage the numbers generated using base-2 from the Planck base units, it appears to expand rather quietly right out beyond the need for a big bang.

Sincerely,

Bruce
* * * *
Bruce E. Camber
http://81018.com

PS. Yes, I know how naive and idiosyncratic our work is. The simplicity of the logic and math, however, has caught our attention. The numbers seem to speak louder than words. Although temperature is a problem, I think in time we’ll be able to adjust that line of figures with some kind of “reasonable” rationale, perhaps even a different algorithm. -BEC

***

Second email: August 4, 2016 

Dear Prof. George Ellis:

I am working through your 2009 ICG Portsmouth Powerpoint presentation at the Unity of the Universe meeting, “Critical Tests of the Standard Model of Cosmology
.”  Thank you.

Since this report below (January 2016), the following key documents have emerged.

1. A horizontally-scrolled base-2 chart from Planck Scale: http://81018.com

2. Big bang questions for academia: https://81018.com/2016/06/01/quiet/

3. Questions for the public:  https://81018.com/bigbang/

4. Planck Epoch: https://81018.com/Planck/

Also being tweaked:
1.  Unification: https://81018.com/Unification/

4. Human will: https://81018.com/uniqueness/

Your comments are invited on any one posting, yet the small-scale domain from the Planck base units to the particle zoo is of keen interest to me.  Could pure math and geometry beget those numbers? I think so; and if so, we have as new view of reality within which to get to work.

Thank you.

Warm regards,

Bruce

First email: January 11, 2016

Reference: https://www.quantamagazine.org/20151216-physicists-and-philosophers-debate-the-boundaries-of-science/

Dear Prof. Dr. George Ellis:

In reflecting on reports from your conference in December (2015) at the LMU in Munich, I ask a rather unusual question, “Could a new construct possibly come out of  a high school? Could the naive possibly have the simple mathematics for a model of the universe that includes everything, everywhere and for all times?  Yes, ours is a very simple model in search of a theory.

Our small-but-growing group of high school teachers and students used base-2 exponential notation, the Planck base units, simple geometries, and the simple numbers and concepts to map our universe.  We’ve been at it since December 2011.

At the time we did not know about Kees Boeke and his base-10 scale of the universe. We were studying a tetrahedron with its embedded octahedron.  We were observing the parts-whole relations — the four half-sized tetrahedrons and an octahedron within each tetrahedron  and the six half-sized octahedrons and eight tetrahedrons within each octahedron. We observed the four hexagonal plates within each octahedron and could see many different tessellations of our universe.

Chasing those geometries, going within about 45 times, we were in the range of the fermion. Another 67 times we were in the range of the Planck Length.  To get consistent we then started at the Planck base units and went out to the Age of the Universe in just 202 notations. It gave us an ordered universe, nevertheless, the authorities responded, “So what?” or “See Boeke’s work” or something like, “Cute.” The first 67 notations were so impossibly small, our “small-scale universe” was discounted by most “real” scientists and mathematicians.

So to attempt to explain its potential importance as an alternative model, at the end of the year I wrote up a David Letterman-like Top Ten. Ours is titled, The Top Ten Reasons to give up those little worldviews for a much bigger and more inclusive UniverseView.  That wasn’t enough, so I immediately began prioritizing the numbers that were important to us. Though way-way beyond our pay grade, we are trying to make sense of many new concepts all at the same time.  We ask, “What does Kepler’s conjecture have to do with anything?”  Right now I am in the process of abusing Mitchell Feigenbaum’s constants.

I’ll continue to stutter around, unfortunately skimming and bouncing over details on what skiers call Black Diamond slopes (way beyond my capacities). We’ll continue to take quite a few tumbles and hard falls. It is a heck of a way to attempt to make sense of things that we have never ever observed in the past.  It’s a very steep learning curve!

Your comments would be most welcomed.

Most sincerely,

Bruce


Pages which reference the work of G. F. W. Ellis


 

Unger, Roberto Mangabeira

Roberto Mangabeira Unger

Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Massachusetts

Homepage
Twitter
Wikipedia
YouTube

References within this website:
https://81018.com/2016/06/30/perimeter/#Smolin

Second email:  Tuesday, 4 October 2016

RE: Nihilism and the lack of an integrated universe view

Dear Prof. Dr. Roberto Unger:

Thank you for your work on  Beyond Nihilism: Directions in the Spiritual History of Mankind.

In December 2011 we “fell into” an integrated view of the universe that started with the Planck base units and went to the Age of the Universe in just over 200 base-2 notations.     ( https://81018.com/chart )

We believe that was a first for a base-2 progression. It is simple. It is mathematically integrated. And, it just may be a clear alternative to the big bang (and the big bang nihilism).  Most of the people at your conference, Time in Cosmology, at the Perimeter Institute accept the place of the big bang as a given.

To help our students and to attempt to context that diverse dialogue, I have created a few links to the conference and to your work.  There currently are three key pages. First, there was a brief overview of the conference on our homepage, http://81018.com and now, https://81018.com/2016/10/02/2october2016/

There is also this page on the conference:
https://81018.com/2016/06/30/perimeter/

Our general overview page to your work is here:
https://81018.com/2015/01/01/unger/

If there is anything you’d like changed, please just say the word! Thanks.

Now, thinking about time and the large-scale universe, perhaps another conference could be entertained, Time in the small-scale and human scale universe. In less than a second, the universe within this base-2 model has already expanded well in to the large-scale universe. Of the 200 notations, the first second from Planck Time is within notations 144-145. The first day (86400 seconds) is between notations 160 and 161. A light year is between notation 168 and 169. That’s cosmology.

If we engage the numbers generated using base-2 from the Planck base units, it all appears to expand rather quietly right out beyond the need for a big bang.

Sincerely,

Bruce
* * * *
Bruce Camber
New Orleans

PS. Yes, I know how naive and idiosyncratic our work is. The simplicity of the logic and math, however, has caught our attention. The numbers seem to speak louder than words. Although temperature is a problem, I think in time we’ll be able to adjust that line of figures with some kind of “reasonable” rationale, perhaps a different algorithm. -B

***

First email: January 1, 2015

Roberto Mangabeira Unger
Roscoe Pound Professor of Law
Harvard

Dear Prof. Dr. Roberto Unger:

I read with great interest your recent work with Lee Smolin.  You may
find two of our very unusual conclusions to be of some interest.

From our work within a high school in New Orleans, we have begun to
believe that there is an ethical bias deep within the very fabric of
the universe:  https://81018.com/values/

Also, regarding time, we ask, “Might time simply be a sense of time?”
Within our work time appears to be derivative.  Planck Time provides
the beginning and the Age of the Universe provides the end of a very
finite scale.  There are just 202.34 base-2 exponential notations from
beginning to end; and as you might anticipate, the Planck Length and
Planck Time track well together.  Though I had not see this chart
until we created it, you might find it to be of some interest.
https://81018.com/2016/09/28/81018/   https://81018.com/home/

When just a kid in the ’50s, I grew up playing childhood games
throughout the areas of the Law School, Jefferson Lab and the Peabody.
So much has changed!

Best wishes for the New Year.

Most sincerely,

Bruce
———————–
Bruce Camber
http://81018.com


Sean Carroll

Carroll, Sean

California Institute of Technology
Pasadena, California

ArXiv
Homepage
Twitter
Wiki
YouTube:  Why are we here? Big Bang Creation Myths (Dec. 2018)

Third Email & Tweet: Wednesday, 12 October 2016

BB-lu & Camber @Bibo_lu tweeted: “You’re talking to all of us!  Yet, in this time of year, we’re all kids!  For our integrity, let’s revisit big bang’s data!”
**********************
Dear Prof. Dr. Sean Carroll:

In December 2011 our high school geometry classes  “fell into” an integrated view of the universe ( https://81018.com/home/ ); today we  start with the Planck base units and go to the Age of the Universe in 202 base-2 notations ( https://81018.com/chart ).

We were quickly told by an MIT Wikipedia editor (Stephens) that it was “original” research. We were also told it was idiosyncratic (Baez).  We know that it is simple. It is mathematically whole. For some of us, we’ve begun to think it could be a real alternative to the big bang cosmology (and big bang nihilism).

Now, it seems from our cursory overview that most of the people at the Perimeter Institute conference, Time in Cosmology, accept the place of the big bang.

To help our students and to attempt to context that diverse dialogue, I have created a few links to the conference and to your work. There are currently three key pages. First, there is a brief overview of the conference on a prior homepage  of the site (fourth section down):   https://81018.com/2016/10/02/2october2016/
There is also this page on the conference:  https://81018.com/2016/06/30/perimeter/
Our general overview page of your work is here: https://81018.com/2014/11/26/carroll/

If there is anything you would like to have added, deleted or changed, please just say the word!

Now, thinking about time and the large-scale universe, perhaps another conference could be entertained, Time in the small-scale and human scale universe. In less than a second, the universe within this base-2 model has already expanded well into the large-scale universe. Of the 200 notations, the first second from Planck Time is within notation 143. The first day (86400 seconds) is within notation 1601. A light year is within notation 169.

If we engage the numbers generated using base-2 from the Planck base units, it appears to expand rather quietly right out beyond the need for a big bang.

Most sincerely,

Bruce
* * * *
Bruce Camber

PS.  Yes, I know how very naive and totally idiosyncratic our work is. Notwithstanding, the simplicity of the logic and math has caught our imaginations. The numbers seem to speak louder than words. Although temperature is a problem, I think in time we’ll be able to adjust that line of figures with some kind of “reasonable” rationale, perhaps a different algorithm. -BEC


Second email: Thursday, 17 June 2016

Hi Sean,

What a marvelous thing you do with your life!
https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/self.html

First, congratulations on being married to Jennifer.
She is such a mensch. I quoted her several years ago
given an article about the size of the universe based
on the Hubble (telescope) measurements.

We are just silly high school teachers. Neophytes.
We backed into a strange universe view based on
work in our geometry classes using the tetrahedron
and octahedron. We divided the edges in half, connected
the vertices to find all the nested tetras and octas
and kept going within 40 times, right by the old fermion
and another 67 times down into the Planck scale.

That was a trip. When we decided to multiply by 2, we
were out to the edge of the universe in about 90 doublings.
Couldn’t believe it. It was Kees Boeke on steroids. He just had
zeros (base-10). We had the Planck base units, the Age of the Universe,
all that incredible geometry, and 3.333 times more information.

So what?

Well, we thought it was a good STEM tool, then those
67 notations between the fermion and the Planck scale just
started to tickle us. What is there? Nothing?

I don’t think so. Here’s our latest chart (horizontal scrolling):
https://81018.com/chart
We have lots of charts: https://81018.com/charts/
And now, after five plus years we are getting bold
and probably very stupid:
https://81018.com/2016/06/01/quiet/

Have we dropped off the cliff? Can you help us get back
on terra firma? What’s wrong with our idiosyncratic logic?
Just idiotic?

Thanks.

Most sincerely,

-Bruce

***

First contact: Email & Tweet, Wednesday, 26 November 2014

@seanmcarroll Is the universe really preposterous? How about an integrated UniverseView? https://bblu.org/2014/06/03/order/

That Tweet was followed by this email on the same day:

Dear Sean:

Why shouldn’t there be a conceptual continuum from the Planck Length to the Observable Universe? What might it tell us? We are a lot over our heads but we are plowing along! Any advice would be welcomed: http://bblu.org

Most sincerely,
Bruce
———————-
Bruce Camber