University of Rome La Sapienza

Rome, Italy

Articles: *Is the Universe a Giant Loop?,* Rafi Letzter, LiveScience, November 5, 2019

ArXiv; Cosmic Discordance: Planck and luminosity distance data exclude LCDM, 2020

Google Scholar

Homepage (Geneva)

inSPIRE^{HEP}

Wikipedia

YouTube: Constraining fundamental physics with the CMB (2011)

Di Valentino, Melchiorri, and Silk

*Planck evidence for a closed Universe and a possible crisis for cosmology Nat Astron (2019) doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0906-9*

An article by Eleonora Di Valentino, Alessandro Melchiorri & Joseph Silk, Nature Astronomy (November 4, 2019) doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0906-9 https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.02087

First email to this group: 7 November 2019 @ 4:30 PM Revised email to this group: November 8, 2019

**Editor’s note in October 2020**: In what ways could our base-2 chart be a closed system? It seems quite open and evolving. I’ll be going over this email quite a few more times to try to discern how I came to my earlier conclusion and why. Notes! -Bruce

**Dear Prof. Dr. Alessandro Melchiorri (Corresponding Author)**,

(and Prof. Dr. Eleonora Di Valentino and Prof. Dr. Joseph Silk):

*There should be no crisis for cosmology*!

We all want to live within the best possible understanding of our actual reality. Could a closed-universe model be easily created by starting with Planck Time, Planck Length, Planck Mass and Planck charge, and by applying base-2, encapsulating the universe within 202 exponential notations that start at the very first moment of space and time and goes to the current age-and-size of the Universe?

That is NOT a simple closed universe AND it is totally idiosyncratic. It should open new doors to explore and that could be quite exciting. **Please Note: Highlighted words added in October 2020.**

First, we find the 202 notations: https://81018.com/chart/

That link opens to all the numbers horizontally scrolled.

Then we should explore the first 64 notations; these are virtually unexplored.

This work comes out of a high school so I apologize if there are silly errors. Also, we did a comparison of that progression of numbers with the definition of the Big Bang epochs within the standard model: https://81018.com/calculations/ It seems to compare well.

So we just might have our cake and eat it, too. Of course, we’ll need to jump on the Rovelli bandwagon (along with Richard Muller of Berkeley and others) and finally grasp a new understanding of our illusion of time’s arrow.

Thank you for all your work. Congratulations. Brilliant!

Warmly,

Bruce