Died: March 14, 2018
Centre for Theoretical Cosmology
Cambridge University, Cambridge, England
Books: The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time, CUP, (PDF), 1973
CV PhD thesis, Publications, Website, Wikipedia, YouTube (TED)
References within this website:
• Stephen Hawking was on our homepage.
Also: https://81018.com/2016/10/16/infinite/
• Hawking was the world’s leading advocate for the big bang theory. In 1975 he published (with G.F.R. Ellis) his first major (but small) book about it. In 2012 we were just starting our rather idiosyncratic studies within this domain. By 2014 we began to realize that our little model just might have key numbers for each epoch as theorized by big bang advocates. Surely if the simplicity of these numbers begins to resonate, we would hope to receive some acknowledgement from someone within the University of Cambridge, Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics (DAMTP).
• Hawking’s “…infinitely small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense point…” full quote.
• Our first email: August 3, 2014
Please note: Other DAMPT scholars have also received notes over the years. This includes Fred Alford, John Barrow, Michael Cates, Marianne Freiberger, Michael Green, H.Keith Moffatt, David Skinner, David Tong, Maria Ubiali and others. And not far away at Cambridge is also Jeremy Nicholas Butterfield. -BEC (September 2020)
Final email: March 7, 2017, 10:24 PM
Dear Prof. Dr. Stephen Hawking:
You know that continuity and symmetry are the bedrocks of logic, mathematics, and physics. However, for the past 100 years we’ve been focused on particles, not the mathematics of continuity.
Of course, there are continuity equations from the Planck scale to the Age of the Universe using base-2, base-10 or any other base. But base-2 is most simple. And, simple is good.
In the chart — https://81018.com/chart — you can follow how the simple logic of continuity applied here creates a lovely simulation program that mimics the big bang epochs yet through an all-natural, organic inflation.
Cognitive dissonance works against accepting its simplicity, especially in light of 52 years of particles.
Of course, we would so like to know what you think of that continuity equation in principle and in fact. Thank you.
Most sincerely,
Bruce
Another email: Friday, October 21, 2016, 12:29 PM
Dear Prof. Dr. Stephen Hawking:
A most-simple natural process by which natural inflation quietly encapsulates the universe uses base-2 notation from the Planck Time to the Age of the Universe to create a matrix of just 202 columns where each Planck base unit doubling can be readily observed. Though logical, most-simple, integrated, and predictive, this mathematical view of the universe can now be tested, compared and contrasted will all existent measurements within cosmology. Over two-thirds of the entire chart is a focus on the first second of creation (from the first notation through to notation 143). A light year is encapsulated within notation 169. The first aeon, a billion years, is within notation 189. All of human history is easily within a very small part of notation 202. By looking at the raw data, this simple, little model would appear to provide a clear alternative to big bang cosmology. It reinforces the extensive work on natural inflation models, and it provides a very different entry point to questions about Dark Energy and Dark Matter, isotropy, homogeneity, and the very nature of space-and-time and the finite-and-infinite.
Not until February 2014 had anybody done the simple-but-tedious work to double the infinitesimal Planck Time, then double each result 201 times. As a consequence, this application of base-2 notation has not been studied. I say, “The 202-column chart of the universe that starts at Planck Time and goes to the Age of the Universe reveals a simple logic for a natural inflation that readily mimics the big bang cosmology of Stephen Hawking and Alan Guth.”
Because it is an entirely predictive chart, this nascent base-2 model can readily be tested with all existing data from all other models of the universe.
Might you have any comments for us? Thank you.
Most sincerely,
Bruce
P.S. About our model of just 202 columns:
1. https://81018.com/chart (Please Note: It is a large file that is horizontally scrolled).
2. Alternative to big bang cosmology: https://81018.com/cosmology/
3. Space-time, finite-infinite: https://81018.com/infinite/
4. Stephen Hawking and Alan Guth: https://81018.com/big/
Another email: Monday, June 6, 2016, 5:19 PM
Dear Prof. Dr. Stephen Hawking (and a warm hello to Jonathan Wood):
It has taken the better part of a month, but a rough draft comparison of the big bang and our quiet expansion is now on the web (https://81018.com/2016/06/01/quiet/). It begins: “In September 2014 for the first time we publicly raised questions about the big bang theory”. Of course, Stephen Hawking has always been its biggest and best salesperson. He has become a rock star among scientists, especially with his current 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 work. So, such is life; each of us must at some time play the fool. “
Much further down I say: “More than just the big bang theory’s (bbt) four forces of nature within the Planck scale, we assume a certain unification of all five Planck base units and those constants that define them, and that this unification is carried through the entire 201+ notations to the current time and present day (until proven to be otherwise). The Planck base units are defined by length, time, mass, temperature 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 have any comments?
Thank you.
Most sincerely,
Bruce Camber
Second email: January 26, 2015, 12:01 PM
My dear Prof. Dr. Stephen Hawking (and Jonathan Wood):
Steven Weinberg begins his book, “The First Three Minutes” at 1/100th of a second. He missed 136 doublings from the Planck Length and Planck Time (on the way to the Observable Universe-Age of Universe respectively).
Here is our chart of the two within 202 doublings.
The first 67 doublings involve the de facto structure that gives rise to space and time and may begin to deflate the Big Bang Theory as theory. In revisiting Einstein’s 1913 work, the hole argument (Stanford summary), spacetime is derivative of gravity. John Stachel has an even strong paper. History has missed each boundary condition from the Planck Length-Time to the outer limits, first defined by a simple continuity and symmetry within 3D tilings and tessellations that by that 67th doubling manifest more complexity than all the evolutionary thinking within CERN could possibly imagine. We may just find that Jane’s intuitions served her well. For me, I say that we must find a way to take Kepler one step further so we can begin to harmonize this little universe. Of course, I do not anticipate a response. We wish you and Prof. Dr. Steven Weinberg well.
Most sincerely,
Bruce
First email: August 3, 2014, 9:29 PM
My dear Prof. Dr. Stephen Hawking:
I think our high school geometry classes, although very rough around the edges with major conceptual leaps, is closing in on a very real, elegant, simple model of the universe that involves base-2 exponential notations to define the boundary conditions from the Planck Length to the Observable Universe. It includes 3D tilings that begin with a tetrahedral-octahedral truss, then considers the parallel construct to music (and takes Kepler one step further so to harmonize within this little universe).
You may enjoy it: https://81018.com/order/ Thanks.
Warmly,
Bruce
Worldviews limit perspective 