Mario Livio, CV, Baltimore, MD
Books: Review them all, but I most enjoyed, Is God a Mathematician?, Symmetry, and The Golden Ratio
Homepage(s): NASA, USA Science & Engineering Festival,
Videos: Robert Kuhn, Closer to the Truth and Livio Sample: Galileo and the Science Deniers. Excerpt.
Third email: 31 October 2022 at 9 AM
You and I have gotten older. We’ve had a good life.
We don’t have that much time left this time around.
Let’s make some guesses about the nature of time:
1. It’s dynamic: https://81018.com/analysis/#Time
2. It’s a ratio. It makes numbering possible.
3. It’s an aspect of pi (π).
So, it’s basic but in a very different sense of time,
with an exception perhaps of Barbour, Rovelli, and folks like them.
Nobody is an expert when most of us only have a sense of it.
Much like feeling, hearing, smelling, seeing… it’s a sense and
all senses are ratios and dynamic and qualitative.
Second email: September 4, 2022, 10:12 PM
Dear Dr. Mario Livio:
Back in 2016 Prof. Dr. Chris Conselice estimated that there are two trillion galaxies in the universe. Although I questioned that number, I have not read a clear analysis as to why the number is wrong.
I am reading an earlier Nature article you wrote about Hubble. Has there been any comparative analysis of the data and any attempt to reconcile the disparity?
PS. This is what I said:
 James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) follows the work of the Hubble Space Telescope (history). In 2016 Prof. Dr. Christopher Conselice defended a two-trillion galaxy estimate from his Hubble analysis. He believed that number worked with big bang cosmology as understood by Hawking-and-company. Other respectable astrophysicists like Mario Livio (Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore) have not disputed that Conselice estimate but hold to a more conservative number between 100 and 200 billion galaxies. Notwithstanding, the JWST will continue to put pressure on the adequacies of the Hawking theory.
First email: Mar 14, 2021, 9:35 PM
RE: We love to pin our hopes on a star… yet they all come so late in our universe
Dear Prof. Dr. Mario Livio:
Of course, G-d is a derivative mathematician; all things are derivative of continuity, symmetry and harmony which within the infinitesimal is defined by the finite-infinite bridge, pi. So, please let this note to you be my Pi Day introduction.
Although we all know it is not granular enough, we defer to particles and waves and things we can measure. Yet we are all well aware of those limitations. It seems that we’ve got to construct things without things, just mathematics and the youngster’s logic.
Is there a best place to start?
I put my money (what little I have) on Planck’s base units and defer to Lemaitre’s primeval atom. I’d call it an infinitesimal sphere that defines Planck Time such that 539.116 tredecillion spheres per second render a rate of expansion. To make sense of things, we apply a base-2 exponentiation to create order and discover that we are rather early within the 202nd notation to our current time. Just for a bit of comparison, Notation-196 has the large scale structure formation at about 150 million years, Notation-169 holds the light year, Notation-143 holds the first second, Notation-136 holds the temperature for QGP, Notation-65-67 holds the quantum fluctuations and neutrinos, and Notation-0 holds Planck base units.
We have a sweet “emergence” story. It all broke open within a small New Orleans high school geometry class chasing tetrahedrons and octahedrons down Alice’s rabbit hole. Of course, we were chasing Zeno, being cautioned by Euler and beckoned by Max. Along the way we got lectured by Aristotle about his 1800-year old tessellation mistake with the tetrahedron. We showed him a little gap and how quantum fluctuations come alive.
It has been a challenging nine year trek and we know a seasoned hiker like yourself can help guide the rest of the way.. Thanks.
PS,. As much as we love Phi, let me again say, “Happy Pi Day.” It changes everything…. -BEC
Now I understand what you tried to say…