**Adrienne L. Erickcek**

Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, UNC

Chapel Hill, North Carolina

ArXiv: *The First Three Seconds: a Review of Possible Expansion Histories of the Early Universe*, 2020

Homepage (PDF)

inSpireHEP

Within this website:

• First: https://81018.com/open-envelope/#1b

• https://81018.com/open-envelope/#1f

• https://81018.com/2020/06/29/early-universe/

• This page: https://81018.com/erickcek/

• Most recent: https://81018.com/validate/#4f https://81018.com/validate/#Emails

Third email: February 8, 2022 at 12:10 AM

Dear Prof. Dr. Adrienne L. Erickcek:

I am following up my earlier note (August 2, 2020, 3:57 PM) regarding your co-authorship of The First Three Seconds with 26 other scholars.

You are also listed here: https://81018.com/2020/06/29/early-universe/

We’ve been going in circles for over 100 years because we adopted several errors as our commonsense worldview when we need a highly-integrated, mathematical view of the universe. Within those 202 base-2 notations that I discussed earlier, the nature of our errors is slowly revealed.

1. Our understanding of geometries is weak. Aristotle’s mistake closed the door on a deeper and richer understanding of quantum indeterminacy. Within those 202 notations, the quantum world only begins, perhaps after Notation-50 and within the very early universe. Arguments could be made that it may not have actually begun until after Notation-143 at the first second, or Notation-169 at the first year. I can see rationales for even later!

2. Our understanding of Newton’s absolutes is weak. It was commonsense that space and time were absolute until Einstein and Planck came along. Yet, in our heart of hearts, we’ve seemed to hold onto Newton’s absolutes.

Idiosyncratic to be sure, but I don’t think it is idiotic to explore other possibilities. Is this a discussion that you might consider pursuing? If so, allow me, please, to comment on your article within the 27. Thank you.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

PS. I am engaging your microhalos. So many have used Whitehead’s “misplaced concreteness” regarding my writings, yet in so many ways it seems to boomerang. -BEC

Second email: Aug 17, 2020 at 10:53 AM

Dear Prof. Dr. Adrienne L. Erickcek:

I have used that email to you to post an Open Letter to all your co-authors of “*The.First Three Seconds:* *A Review of Possible Expansion Histories of the Early Universe*.”

There are now two references to you and your work:

• https://81018.com/open-envelope/

• https://81018.com/2020/06/29/early-universe/

If you would like me to add or delete anything, I am happy to do so.

A few years ago I was disappointed to read that Max Planck said, “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*.”

My hope is with the young. I’m 73. *Notwithstanding,* I don’t think Max’s pessimism is well-placed. I think all of us can always be learning something new and even profound. It has been nine years since I started thinking about a cold start to the universe. Ever-so-slowly learning about our deep-seated biases about the very nature of time, the place of geometries, exponentiation, and, of course, Tegmark’s infinity… I think we all have a ways to go *before we sleep*!

Thank you for your scholarship! This morning I am reading your dark matter annihilation article. I wish you well.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

PS. I continue to struggle with these issues on every new top-level post a/k/a homepage, which remains for just a month, a week or even just a day: https://81018.com/just-a-second/ –BEC

First email: Sunday, August 2, 2020 at 3:57 PM

References:

https://users.physics.unc.edu/~erickcek/

https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.16182ArXiv

https://inspirehep.net/authors/1025649

Dear Prof. Dr. Adrienne L. Erickcek:

I have three very simple questions about your work to follow up the first three minutes:

1. Is there a possible continuum from the Planck base units to the current time and size of the universe? https://81018.com/chart/ We naively defined such a thing by applying base-2 or doublings to the Planck units to emerge with that chart of 202 notations.

2. Is sphere stacking a fundamental action of the universe starting with the Planck base units? https://81018.com/stacking/ When we engage all the work around sphere stacking since Kepler, it seems obvious that an answer is worth pursuing.

3. Is cubic-close packing of equal spheres a fundamental action for the expansion of the universe? https://81018.com/ccp/ Studying how it opens up the Fourier transform and Euclidean geometries are defined in the earliest notations, again it seems obvious that an answer is worth pursuing.

In a high school geometry class, we chased the interiority of the tetrahedron (with its four “half-sized” tetrahedrons in each corner and the octahedron in the middle), and then inside the octahedron (with its six “half-sized” octahedrons in each corner and eight tetrahedrons, one in each face, with four hexagonal plates, everything sharing the common centerpoint also with square plates to tile and tessellate the universe). We went all the way down to the Planck Length in just 112 steps; and then when we multiplied by 2 the next day, we were out to the size of the universe in approximately 90 steps. That was in the year, 2011. There are a total of 202 notations.

It took me three years to begin to believe that there wasn’t another person who had done it, somebody like Kees Boeke (who did the first base-10 iteration in 1957). Using a base-2 expansion is just a bit more granular, yet it is also quite natural. We’ve been at it for a while believing that such a scholar exists somewhere: https://81018.com/aphabetical/

1. Perhaps you know of such a scholar.

2. Perhaps you are that scholar.

3. If not, perhaps you can explain these numbers in a more compelling way than we have.

Thank you.

Warmly,

Bruce

PS. You might find some of my correspondence to scholars over the years to be of some interest. Here is a link to my report on the first three minutes: https://81018.com/three/

Here is a link to my emails to Thomas Hales. -BEC

___