# Martin Rees

**Institute of Astronomy, University of Cambridge**

Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0HA

ArXiv

Book among many Books:* Just Six Numbers*

CV

Facebook

Homepage

Wikipedia

YouTube

References to Sir Martin Rees within this website:

- Redefining space and time
- A Different Framework To Define the Universe

- Communications in January 2020
- Wilczek – Aguirre – Rees – Tegmark
*Four Key Missing Pieces from Our Puzzle**Numbers: On Constructing the Universe From Scratch*

Most recent email: 5 April 2020

My dear Lord Martin Rees:

How shall I properly address a note to you? Should it have all the titles within it?

Also, I made a quick reference to you within this past homepage. It has been up for a couple of weeks now and even this note is included within our summary page of your work: https://81018.com/rees/

So you do not have to get on the web to go to that page, I’ll paste in that reference just below. I hope my conclusions are fair. Thanks for everything you do to encourage and enhance our scholarship.

Warmly,

Bruce

PS. That reference reads as follows:

^{2} **Albert Einstein**. Some of the best of Einstein’s students (and his students’ students) gathered in 1999 for a conference, *Structure Formation in the Universe*. Held at the Isaac Newton Institute (INI) of Cambridge University, it involved Alan Guth, Stephen Hawking, Martin Rees, Joseph Silk, Paul Steinhardt, Neil Turok, and a highly-select group of leading living scholars. A result of that effort was the emergence of models of the multiverse (i.e. Lisa Randall). Yet, at no time did a redefinition of space-and-time truly emerge. *More*…

Fourth email: 11 January 2020 @ 5:30 PM

My dear Lord Martin Rees:

My earlier question (email from August 8, 2019) about your *Just Six Numbers* and the Fourier transform, takes a backseat to call to question Newton’s absolute space and time. I believe Planck’s formulas tell us that both are derivative of light. We’ve been so blinded by big bang cosmology, we failed to do a simple calculation, Planck Length — 1.616255(38)×10^{-35} (m) — by Planck Time — 5.391 247(13)×10^{-44} (s) — is equal to 299,792,422.79 m/sec. It is close enough to the laboratory “in-a-vacuum” definition. It works again quite well at just one second between the 143rd and 144th notations (remembering that we applied base-2 and encapsulated the universe in 202 notations) whereby it renders a result within .01% of that laboratory number.

The Lucasian Professors, particularly #2 and #17, didn’t always score 100% on all their results. None of us do.

Your comments would be highly appreciated. Thank you.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

Third email: 8 August 2019 @ 10:57 PM

My dear Lord Martin Rees:

Do you know if anybody has looked at the first of *Just Six Numbers* in light of the possible relations within the Fourier Transform?

Here is what I said below: “I have a hunch that there are calculations between the inner and outer transformations that should confirm Sir Martin Rees’ first number within his book, *Just Six Numbers*.”

I know how much of a stretch it is, but stretching is good.

Thank you.

Warmly,

Bruce

Second email: January 21, 2016

My dear Lord Martin Rees:

I had no right to write to you until after attempting

to incorporate your six numbers into my working draft of

“On Building the Universe From Scratch.” Also, you have

already provided us with indispensable advice,

“Any plausible fundamental physical theory must be consistent

with these six constants, and must either derive their values

from the mathematics of the theory, or accept their values

as empirical.” – Just Six Numbers.

When we started our little exercise, we didn’t know

about anything, including the work of Kees Boeke. It had

been on my path. Phil Morrison (MIT) was a friend; I rather

ignored his coffee table book based on Boeke’s work… just

a novelty. Our work started with Planck Length, then added

Planck Time along side, then we added the other three base

units. Just prior to the 143rd notation, the speed of light

is confirmed. Yet, between notations 168 and 169, a simple

light year is off, so we have begun learning about the work

of those involved with the variable speed of light. We have

also engaged the Schwarzschild radius.

So, your Big Six are in the cue. Nothing easy about it,

yet I will not bother you again until I have had some

“success” with them!

Thanks again.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

First email: January 19, 2016

My dear Lord Prof. Dr. Martin J. Rees,

The October 13 announcement by RAS, NASA and ESA begs the question,

“Where is the mathematical structure?” To arrive at two trillion stars

would appear to require exponentiation. First, it is simple.

Wouldn’t Wheeler and Feynman insist on beauty and simplicity?

If base-2 notation and natural inflation is a script for the big bang

(without the bang), and it is 100% predictive, integrative, and

simple, shouldn’t it be subject to investigation and critical review?

What am I missing? https://81018.com/chart

Thank you.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

* * * * * * * *

Bruce Camber

PS. I am still working on the integration of your Big Six within the

base-2 framework. A little progress has been made.

Of course you are quoted and cited constantly and you surely do not have time for something quite so idiosyncratic as our work from within a New Orleans high school geometry class.

We got into dividing the tetrahedron in half until we were in the vicinity of the Planck Length. We multiplied out to the Observable Universe. Total base-2 notations: Just over 201. It became our model for everything, everywhere, encapsulating all time. We have the praxis — the simple math, logic and geometries — but no theoria.

Just recently we tried to find and prioritize those numbers that could be used to generate such a universe and that is when we found your work, *Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape The Universe*.

Given your deep history and direct descendancy from Sir Isaac, our model of the universe sides with Leibniz whereby space and time become relational, not absolute or infinite.

Would you advise us to continue this pursuit? Thank you.

Most sincerely,

Bruce Camber

**References: **

**Within this website**: As part of our effort to discern the top numbers of key importance within our little universe for the *Big Board-little universe Project*, we have begun to study the work of astrophysicist, cosmologist, Lord Martin Rees of Cambridge, particularly his book of the title, *Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape the Universe*, 1999, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London (173 pages)

**His six numbers give us some hope that our universe is based on well-ordered relationships and not from an original chaos**:

*N*, the ratio of the strength of the electrical force to the gravitational force (reviewer, Peter Roberts, Visions.- Check these statements:
- Planck mass, formed from the fundamental constants, equals 2.18×10
^{-8}kg. - Gravitational force between two particles, each with the Planck mass and unit electric charge, is 137 times stronger than the electric force.
- Our first attempts to begin to understand this ratio is within the Fourier transform.

- Planck mass, formed from the fundamental constants, equals 2.18×10

- Check these statements:
**ε**(epsilon)( definition of limits?)**Ω**(omega), measures the amount of material in the universe**λ**(lambda) (defined in 1998, the cosmic anti-gravitation physical force controlling the expansion of our universe)**Q**, the degree of structure in the universe**Q**, electric charge- Q, heat
- Q, volumetric flow rate
- Q, dynamic pressure
- Q, the Quaternion group

**D**, the number of*spatial*dimensions, 3.

## Here is what Wikipedia says:

Martin Rees’s Six Numbers:

“Martin Rees, in his book *Just Six Numbers*, mulls over the following six dimensionless constants, whose values he deems fundamental to present-day physical theory and the known structure of the universe:

*N*≈ 10^{36}: the ratio of the fine structure constant (the dimensionless coupling constant for electromagnetism) to the gravitational coupling constant, the latter defined using two protons. In Barrow and Tipler (1986) and elsewhere in Wikipedia, this ratio is denoted α/α_{G}.*N*governs the relative importance of gravity and electrostatic attraction/repulsion in explaining the properties of baryonic matter; [4]*ε*≈ 0.007: The fraction of the mass of four protons that is released as energy when fused into a helium nucleus.*ε*governs the energy output of stars, and is determined by the coupling constant for the strong force;^{[5]}- Ω ≈ 0.3: the ratio of the actual density of the universe to the critical (minimum) density required for the universe to eventually collapse under its gravity. Ω determines the ultimate fate of the universe. If Ω>1, the universe will experience a Big Crunch. If Ω < 1, the universe will expand forever;
^{[4]} *λ*≈ 0.7: The ratio of the energy density of the universe, due to the cosmological constant, to the critical density of the universe. Others denote this ratio by ;^{[6]}*Q*≈ 10^{−5}: The energy required to break up and disperse an instance of the largest known structures in the universe, namely a galactic cluster or supercluster, expressed as a fraction of the energy equivalent to the rest mass*m*of that structure, namely*mc*^{2};^{[7]}*D*= 3: the number of macroscopic spatial dimensions.

*“N* and *ε* govern the fundamental interactions of physics. The other constants (*D* excepted) govern the size, age, and expansion of the universe. These five constants must be estimated empirically. *D*, on the other hand, is necessarily a nonzero natural number and cannot be measured. Hence most physicists would not deem it a dimensionless physical constant of the sort discussed in this entry.

“Any plausible fundamental physical theory must be consistent with these six constants, and must either derive their values from the mathematics of the theory, or accept their values as empirical.”

“A long-sought goal of theoretical physics is to find first principles from which all of the fundamental dimensionless constants can be calculated and compared to the measured values.”