Sean Carroll, John Hopkins University, Sante Fe Institute
2006-2022: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California
1999-2006: University of Chicago (See CV)
ArXiv (17): The Quantum Field Theory on Which the Everyday World Supervenes, Jan 2021
CV – Books: Spacetime and Geometry, 2019; Something Deeply Hidden, 2019
• The Big Picture, 2016
• The Particle at the End of the Universe, 2012
• From Eternity to Here, 2010
Homepage(s): John Hopkins, AIP, Twitter, Wikipedia
YouTube: Big Bang Creation Myths, AIA, 2018 (featured)
• The Passage of Time & the Meaning of Life, 2022
• Why are we here? Big Bang Creation Myths (Dec. 2018)
Top Quotes: “The laws of physics are determined solely by the energy eigenspectrum of the Hamiltonian.” (ArXiv, 2021)
• “It was just temporary dark energy,” Carroll told SPACE.com. “It converted into ordinary matter and radiation through a process called reheating. The universe went from being cold during inflation to being hot again when all the dark energy went away.” (15th paragraph)
Most recent email: 11 October 2022 at 11:04 AM
Dear Prof. Dr. Sean Carroll:
Congratulations! John Hopkins is one of the world’s finest schools. Also, you’re not far from IAS, Penn, Princeton and so many others.
But, Baltimore over Pasadena? That’s tough, so I wish you well. Given your history, however, with Villanova, Harvard, MIT, and Chicago, you know what the cold of winter is all about.
I’ll update our pages about you and your work accordingly (this page).
Best wishes always,
Bruce
PS. Thank you for this quote: “The laws of physics are determined solely by the energy eigenspectrum of the Hamiltonian.” (ArXiv, 2021). I can trust you’ll always challenge me to think! -BEC
Quick Note: 26 September 2022 at 11:11 AM Updated: 11 October 2022
October 2022: https://81018.com/reason/#5a https://81018.com/reason/#5z
September 2022: https://81018.com/communicate/#2a https://81018.com/communicate/#2z
_____
Our plan of action for our base-2 model is to come up alongside any big bang problem to see how our quiet expansion might address it. Big bang advocates like Sean Carroll are so sure of its veracity, he has made statements like, “…it is true that there is no point doubting the Big Bang model.” But then, he goes on to confess, “The first minute is a little bit up for grabs.”[2]
The first minute is everything. In our model even the first second and zeptosecond are everything!
_____
The model. There are a total of 202 base-2 notations that go from the first moment of time until today. It is 100% mathematical. The first second (between Notations 143-and-144) involves over two-thirds of all notations. Carroll’s first minute is between Notations 148-and-149. The first year, a light year, is between Notations 168-and-169. And, every notation confirms the mathematics of the speed of light; the Planck Length (or multiple of it) is the distance light travels in Planck Time (or the equivalent multiple of it).
[2] Video: R. Penrose, S. Carroll, L. Mersini-Hougton, Big Bang Creation Myths, AIA, (1:58/38:11), 2018
Sean Carroll, before moving on to John Hopkins University, was a distinguished professor at Caltech who occupied Richard Feynman’s office (and used his desk!). He has a natural impatience, yet he seems to be earnestly seeking the truth so I try to understand his logic. His big bang theory is not quite the Hawking-Guth model, yet it’s not yet clear to me how he would differentiate. We know quite assuredly he would not start with the Planck base units, or use base-2 notation, infinitesimal spheres, and 202-notations; and, he would not affirm a no-gap perfection of substance-and-structure within the first 64-notations given through geometries of sphere-stacking whereby the first second is between Notation-143 and Notation-144. He would not affirm the zeptosecond (1×10-21), between Notations 65-to-67, as a range to measure the first quantum fluctuations. We’ll be the first to admit that there’s a lot of work to do to interpret those notations properly.
Fourth email: 17 June 2022 at 12:45 PM Updated: 17 Oct. 2022
Dear Prof. Dr. Sean Carroll:
Back in 2014 I sent you my first note about our high school geometry class following Zeno down into a tetrahedral-octahedral honeycomb but where the edges were constantly being divided by 2. In 45 steps we were whizzing right through the fermion family and in another 67 steps we plunked down onto Planck’s platform. To get out, we multiplied those Planck units by 2 and in 112 steps we were back in our classroom, but decided to just keep going. In 90 more steps we were out on the edges of the expanding universe and 13.81 billion years later within the current time. Just 202 notations to encapsulate the universe! It became our in-house, idiosyncratic, STEM tool. There was nothing quite like it out there. That slowed us down; we became a bit more cautious.
Now, I just did a little update on our page about your work and my communications with you: https://81018.com/2014/11/26/carroll/ (this page). And while I was at it, I did the same for your brilliant wife, Jennifer. She is among our best professional science writers: https://81018.com/2019/02/13/ouellette/
Isn’t simple better? I am still working on it: https://81018.com/editors/ and will continue until someone shuts the lights out or some expert like you can tell us where we are going so wrong. Thanks!
Warm regards,
Bruce
PS. You might find the next homepage to be of some interest: https://81018.com/known/. -BEC
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 updated, 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 160. 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/about/
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 added
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://81018.com/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://81018.com https://81018.com/home/ https://81018.com/stem/
Most sincerely,
Bruce
———————-
Bruce E. Camber
@jsomers @TheAtlantic
Worldviews limit perspective 