David Raymond Layzer
AIP Oral History
Articles: Arrow of Time, Cold Big Bang theory, Scientific American
Book: Cosmogenesis: The Growth of Order in the Universe Review
Encyclopdia of Thermodynamics
Information Philosopher Profile: David Layzer: The Origin of Information
Worldcat reference page
Most recent email: Monday, June 10, 2019, 7:29 AM
Dear Prof. Dr. David Layzer:
Prior to Saturday, June 8, I was unaware that Lemaître’s 1927 proposal
was for a cold start. It would be very helpful to see some primary sources
and secondary analyses about the progression to the now standard
“infinitely hot start.”
Today, I am still about where a high school student would be with knowledge
about the early days of astrophysics and cosmology. I am making progress,
but have a ways to go. My primary academic work was on the hocus-pocus
of the EPR and “moments of perfection.”
My statement about your work needs refinement. I tried to summarize
in one sentence why your cold start exploration in 1966 did not gain traction.
Is this following sentence reasonable? “1966: Harvard’s David Layzer
(right) began to re-explore the concept of a cold start, but he could
not account for the dynamics of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR).”
You certainly are the most informed person! You know.
Also, the next paragraph extends that somewhat: “In 1966 Harvard’s
David Layzer attempted to revive the concept of a cold start but he, too, did
not have any mathematics for exponential growth and the phase transitions
between notations so his cold start concept receded into the background.
Some believe that the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP)
observations from 2001 to 2010 should end all cold start speculations.”
You certainly are the primary source. What a very special opportunity
to get it right. I thank you for any corrections and insights that you add.
Yes, “Thank you.”
First email: Saturday, 8 June 2019 @ 11:44 AM
Dear Prof. Dr. David Layzer:
In 2011 I backed into a highly-order, cold start (near absolute zero) of the universe by applying base-2 notation to the Planck units (time, length, mass, charge) to create an outline of the universe — https://81018.com/chart/ — which is 100% mathematical and predictive.
Is it wrong? Most of our current scholars won’t weigh in. Perhaps everybody is afraid to be absurd to themselves. I think that “no response” lacks courage and intellectual integrity. Such a simple concept needs to be either appropriately shot down or further investigated.
Now, a simple doubling mechanism was found. It is associated with cubic-close packing of equal spheres, yet other doubling mechanisms have also been observed. Here the homogeneity and isotropy of the universe is a given within this emergent grid or matrix. There’s much more.
Might you be available for a quick telephone conversation about this simple model?