TO: José M.M. Senovilla, Universidad del País Vasco UPV/EHU, Department of Theoretical Physics and History of Science, University of the Basque Country Basque: Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea, P.O. Box 644, E-48080 Leioa, Biscay, Bilbao
FM: Bruce E. Camber
RE: Your homepage(s): CV, UPV/EHU, Google Scholar, inSpireHEP, Métrica de Senovilla
Publications: A very singular theorem, Europhysics News 52 (1), 25-28 (PDF); especially Singularity Theorems and Their Consequences, General Relativity & Gravitation, 29/5, 1998
Third and most recent email: 28 October 2024
Dear Prof. Dr. José M. M. Senovilla:
Just over three years ago I sent a couple of notes to you regarding singularities. We had been wrestling with the concept of singularities in our classroom for several years by that time. It all started when we used base-2 notation to create a grid to the Planck base units from our classroom. When we got there within 112 steps, we assumed the first manifestion in space-time was an infinitesimal sphere. We had followed those Planck units from out studies of embedded tetrahedrons with the tetrahedron and octahedron. It was a most naive project within a geometry class. Today I am re-referencing that page here: https://81018.com/vision/#Senovilla This note and the two prior notes are here: https://81018.com/senovilla/
It’s been three years since the Penrose Nobel. Are his answers adding clarity to our understanding? Are people building on them? Or, is Johnny Wheeler’s 1986 confession ringing more true: https://81018.com/vision/#Wheeler
Thany you!
Most sincerely,
Bruce
Second email: Saturday, 24 July 2021
Dear Prof. Dr. José M. M. Senovilla:
Of course, you have had substantial influence in how we all think about a singularity, be it an initial singularity, gravitational singularity, spacetime singularity or “a location in spacetime where the curvature becomes infinite.” Yet, who talks about infinity? Who talks about Planck’s base units? Who talks about absolute space and time?
It’s all too disconcerting.
Not arguing the place for the work of Dyson, Witten, Weinberg or Wilson, bottomline, renormalization doesn’t deny infinity. Might we allow infinity to be defined strictly as continuity, symmetry and harmony, all being defined by the sphere and circle?
https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0703115.pdf α ∈ (−π/2, π/2]
Would you try to define infinity?
My attempt: https://81018.com/empower/#Infinity
Might you entertain my definition? Thank you.
Warmly,
Bruce
First email: Friday, 23 July 2021 (updated)
Dear Prof. Dr. José M. M. Senovilla:
If the Planck base units are real, might that the transformation point be defined?
Is Planck Time the first unit of time?
Can we be thinking beyond global causality and about causality throughout the universe?
There are 202 base-2 notations from the Planck units to the current time: http://81018.com/chart/ Interpretation: https://81018.com/empower/ Thank you.
Warmly,
Bruce
Further reading:
S. Doplicher, K. Fredenhagen, J.E. Roberts, page 190 Commun. Math. Phys. 172, 187 -220 (1995)
The associated energy-momentum tensor Tμv generates a gravitational field which, in principle, should be determined by solving Einstein’s equations for the metric ημV9
Rμv-½Rημv = 8πTμv.
The smaller the uncertainties Δxμ in the measurement of coordinates, the stronger will be the gravitational field generated by the measurement. When this field becomes so strong as to prevent light or other signals from leaving the region in question, an operational meaning can no longer be attached to the localization.