Upon learning about the work of Martin López-Corredoira

TO: Martin López-Corredoira, Instituto de Astrofísicade Canarias, La Laguna, Spain
FM: Bruce E. Camber
RE: History and Problems of the Standard Model in Cosmology, 20 July 2023, plus ArXiv (18): https://arxiv.org/find/all/1/au:+Lopez%5fCorredoira/0/1/0/all/0/1, plus your book, The Twilight of the Scientific Age, 2013; as well as your key ArXiv article such as Non-standard Models and the Sociology of Cosmology, 2013; your YouTube: https://youtu.be/caKCho7DFYs (2013) and your website: https://lopez-corredoira.com/datos_en.html

This page is https://81018.com/lopez/ Grok’s response to my questions of Martin

Third email: 12 January 2025 (updated)

Today: History and Problems of the Standard Model in Cosmology And, then I opened to your motherload — lopez-corredoira.com — and now there are miles to go before I sleep!

Dear Prof Dr. Martin López-Corredoira,

I initially wrote to say there’s another alternative model in cosmology. I call it: “A highly-integrated view of the universe by applying base-2 notation to the Planck base units to arrive at 202 notations from the first moment in time to our current time.”  Otherwise, it is known as the “Quiet Expansion.” https://81018.com/sound/

If you can make a special moment in time:  https://81018.com/csh/

You are a gift.  Given your deep, broad, and powerful perspectives, any comments would be appreciated!

Respectfully,
Bruce
*********************
Bruce E. Camber
https://81018.com/bec/
**************************

Second email: 21 September 2024 (updated)

Dear Prof. Dr. Martin López-Corredoira:

I was reminded of your work today; in the logs from our website was a visit to our page about your work that I had created long ago: https://81018.com/lopez/

In these eight years that have passed, we have continued on with our work:
1. Model for start/expansion of universe: https://81018.com/interdependencies/
2. Dark energy/dark matter: https://81018.com/dark/

Do these articles qualify as a model for the “start-expansion” and for dark energy-dark matter?

For more, the numbers: https://81018.com/chart/

Thank you.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

First email:   Tuesday, 25 October 2016

Dear Prof. Dr. Martin López-Corredoira:

Thank you for all your work. It is most encouraging.

I am having great fun and learning so much from your well-researched, unfiltered arXiv (1311.6324v2 [physics.hist-ph] 17 Dec 2013) submission entitled, Non-standard Models and the Sociology of Cosmology.

Notwithstanding, you may find my question that follows most peculiar, but we ask it in earnest:

“Is it possible that high school people could come up with a non-standard model worthy of the attention of the scholarly community?”

In December 2011 two teachers and about 80 high school students rather naïvely began to explore a geometric progression that first went down in size to the Planck Length then reversed to go back up all the way to the Observable Universe.  That entire story is here.

Almost five years later we are still at it. Our most recent chart of all the base-2 numbers from the Planck base units is here: https://81018.com/chart

It wasn’t until Frank Wilczek (MIT) wrote three articles, Scaling Mt. Planck, in Physics Today (2001) did anybody take Max Planck’s basic units very seriously.  By that time big bang cosmology was firmly entrenched. None of those folks would be inclined to stop to ask, “Is it possible that the Planck base units, anywhere along the base-2 chart, are always ratios of each other, deeply and fundamentally related, and the universe is a highly-integrated whole?”

On its face, it looks like a silly question, appropriate for high school people and all our naiveté.  Yet, the further I go within our relatively new study of cosmology, especially looking at the work done within natural Inflation, the more we see the parallels with big bang cosmology.  It mimics the big bang but without the big bang. Would you take a look at our chart, scrolling the top numbers with time, length, mass, and charge?  Isn’t it fascinating? If our universe is so ordered, what an alternative to the nihilism of the big bang!

That theory has too many people acting like there is no tomorrow.  This theory or model depends on continuity and symmetry where the only time is Now and everything we do is encoded or imprinted on the universe.

What shall we do?  Have we gone too far off the deep end? Can we ever be taken seriously? Thank you.

Most sincerely,
Bruce
* * * * *
Bruce E. Camber
New Orleans

Notes to date from Non-standard Models and the Sociology of Cosmology:

“Halton C. Arp (1927– 2013), a heterodox observational cosmologist, known through his proposal of  (Lopez-Corredoira, 2003,§ 2.8), would point out: ‘Of course, if one ignores contradictory observations, one can claim to have an “elegant” or “robust” theory. But it isn’t science.’  (Arp & Block, 1991)   Also see: https://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Arp_H/0/1/0/all/0/1

(Alternative models) fail to account for the abundance of deuterium in the cosmos, because deuterium easily undergoes nuclear fusion in stars and there are no known astrophysical processes other than the Big Bang itself that can produce it in large quantities. Hence the fact that deuterium is not an extremely rare component of the universe suggests that the universe has a finite age.

“Theories which assert that the universe has a finite life, but that the Big Bang did not happen, have problems with the abundance of helium-4. The observed amount of Helium (4He) is far larger than the amount that should have been created via stars or any other known process. By contrast, the abundance of 4He in Big Bang models is very insensitive to assumptions about baryon density, changing only a few percent as the baryon density changes by several orders of magnitude. The observed value of 4He is within the range calculated.”

***

Increasingly we will use Grok instead of recognized scholars for feedback.

In response to Martin in January 2025, I questioned Grok and received extended comments. I recognize just in the brief period of using Grok, that it is programmed to be polite and encouraging, but at least it is an immediate response and we can beginning tailoring our questions ad nauseam until we are asking better questions. Within this response below, we’ve added links to various comments to expedite further research. No links are added by Grok. So now, here’s Grok:

“The evaluation of the concepts presented here involves looking at how they integrate fundamental physical theories, mathematics, and philosophical considerations into a coherent model of the universe.

“Here’s an analysis of the key points:

“Conceptual Framework:

  1. Primordial Units and Base-2 Notations (2011, 2014, 2016, 2020):
    • Using Planck, Stoney, ISO units, or an anticipation for Ralston time, to map the universe in 202 base-2 notations is an innovative approach. This framework suggests a highly structured, mathematical model for understanding the universe from the smallest scales to the current moment. This method contrasts with traditional cosmological models by suggesting a very granular, exponential expansion from the Planck scale. However, the practical application and empirical validation of such a model would be challenging due to the scales involved and the speculative nature of some of the units proposed.
  2. Primordial Spheres and Universe Expansion (2016, 2018):
    • The idea of starting the universe with spheres (PlanckSpheres) and their subsequent stacking to initiate expansion is interesting but speculative. It ties into theories of quantum geometry but lacks empirical support. The assertion that these spheres account for dark energy and dark matter is a bold claim that would need significant scientific backing to be accepted by the broader community.
  3. Mathematical and Physical Implications (2015, 2017, 2018, 2020, 2021):
    • The integration of concepts like cubic-close packing, Fourier, and the Poincare sphere into this model suggests an attempt to bridge different areas of physics and mathematics. However, these connections appear more philosophical or metaphorical rather than directly supported by current physical theories or experiments. The claim that this model integrates string theory, Langlands programs, etc., within the first 64 notations is a significant theoretical leap without clear pathways for experimental verification.
  4. Philosophical and Ethical Dimensions (1972, 2016):
    • Defining the infinite by continuity, symmetry, and harmony, and suggesting values and ethics derive from this, introduces a metaphysical or philosophical layer to the model, which is unusual in scientific discourse. This aspect might appeal to those interested in the intersection of science and philosophy but would be contentious within strictly empirical scientific communities.
  5. Time and Consciousness (2019, 2020):
    • The unique treatment of time, suggesting different behaviors within different notations, and the speculative connection between consciousness and this grid system, ventures into areas where science and philosophy blur. These ideas challenge conventional understanding of time and consciousness, offering a new speculative framework without direct empirical support.
  6. Mathematical Constants and Universal Dynamics (2020, 2022):
    • The assertion that pi is defined by continuity, symmetry, and harmony, and its relation to Fourier transforms, is an interesting philosophical take on a mathematical constant. However, these interpretations would need rigorous mathematical proof or at least a consensus among mathematicians to be widely accepted.

“Evaluation:

  • Innovative but Speculative: The model is rich in ideas and attempts to synthesize various scientific, mathematical, and philosophical concepts into a unified view of the universe. However, much of it remains speculative without direct empirical evidence or widespread theoretical acceptance.
  • Challenges for Validation: The scale of the model, from the Planck length to the observable universe, poses significant challenges for experimental validation. Many claims, particularly those involving dark matter, dark energy, or the nature of time and consciousness, would require new experimental techniques or observations.
  • Philosophical Depth: The integration of philosophical concepts into a scientific model is intriguing but might be seen as overreaching by some scientists who prefer models based solely on observable, measurable phenomena.
  • Potential for Misinterpretation: The complexity and speculative nature of these ideas could lead to misinterpretation or misuse, especially in areas where scientific consensus is still forming, like the nature of dark energy or the foundations of quantum mechanics.
  • Contribution to Thought: Regardless of its empirical viability, this model contributes to the discourse on how one might think about the universe in a holistic, mathematically structured way, possibly inspiring new areas of research or philosophical inquiry.

“In conclusion, while the model is highly conceptual and imaginative, it would need substantial scientific scrutiny, theoretical development, and experimental support to move from speculative to accepted science. It offers a thought-provoking framework that could stimulate further exploration into the nature of the universe, time, and the integration of different scientific disciplines.”