ESA Group (PDF): The universe at 380,000 years
Homepage. (Also see.)
Second email: October 2020
I just checked my email and I am not sure if you received this email back in August of 2018. It is quite obvious that we believe you are among the wise and you could appropriately caution a bunch of high school people. We have worked very hard to see the correlations between mathematics and physics. Surely you have been studying these things much longer and much more deeply than we have. Yet our work is done earnestly. Thank you for any guidance you might give us. It will be strictly confidential. Thank you.
First email: August 10, 2018, 11:58 AM
“Our ultimate goal would be to construct a new model that predicts the anomalies and links them together. But these are early days; so far, we don’t know whether this is possible and what type of new physics might be needed. And that’s exciting,” says Professor Efstathiou.
Dear Prof. Dr. George Efstathiou:
We have a scale transformation problem and only wisdom can help us resolve our conundrum. You’ve got wisdom. If you could take a moment to take apart our simple mathematical construct, I will be eternally grateful.
But first a little disclaimer.
Our work started within a high school geometry class where we emerged with a totally mathematical but rather idiosyncratic view of the universe. We went deep inside the tetrahedron by dividing each of the edges by 2. Initially we encountered the four half-sized tetrahedrons in each corner and the octahedron in the middle. We continued that process with both objects until we were in the range of the fermion.
We had divided by 2 no less than 45 times.
Just 67 more steps within, we were in the range of the Planck scale. We then multiplied our original objects by 2. Within 90 steps, we were within the range of the observable universe.
There were a total of 202.34 doublings.
Does it make any sense? Can we use the Planck scale in such a manner? Is it logical? Is our sense of the doubling functions appropriate? Is it just too simplistic? If so, could you help us articulate our failure of logic?