”…I liked to double the numbers…”
James H. Simons (born, 25 April 1938), homepages: Flatiron Institute, Renaissance Tech, Simons Foundation, Wikipedia, YouTube
Second email: 9 May 2023 after 5 PM
Dear Jim:
I listened to you say that at the age of 3 or 4 that you liked to double numbers (at 0.0.31 seconds) and that when you reached 1024, it was enough. Yet, today you might agree that doubling is a primary function of the universe and to be informed, we really need to go as far as 2-to-the-202nd power or by using Euler’s notation — 2202 — to encapsulate the universe and all the time since the beginning. Stephen Hawking and others describe the Big Bang as an exponential expansion, yet surprisingly none of our scholars have ever examined actual numbers associated with fundamental constants using exponential expansion. If they had, it would have caused a fundamental stir within academia.
I think our primary problems are associated with Isaac Newton’s primordial definition of time and though Einstein wove time into the fabric of space, most of the general public can not let go of absolute time. It maintains its absolute hold on our imaginations so when we overwhelmed by what we see on a very clear, dark-night sky, we are prone to say that it goes on forever and not that it goes as far as the current expansion. Time is the plenum of the universe.
Our thoughts shape what realities we see and how we see our realities.
Let’s explore that further!
Thanks.
Warmly,
Bruce
First email: 7 August 2021
Dear Prof. Dr. James H. Simons:
James Peebles, 2019 Nobel laureate in physics from Princeton, surprised me when he said there was no theory of the beginning of the universe. Reading further, he was saying nobody could account for the very first instances of space-time, mass-charge. I thought Max Planck had given us a rather good definition in 1899 with his four base units, however, there apparently is no concurrence that those units describe the first instant of space-time.
I believe It needs to be more aggressively studied and pursued.
Prior to Planck’s work, George Johnstone Stoney rendered similar numbers for a speech in 1874 in Belfast, Ireland.
My questions:
1. If the Planck numbers are taken as a symbolic description of the first instant, what does it look like? My guess is a primordial sphere, a little like Lemaitre’s primordial atom, yet a sphere tells us so much more: https://81018.com/challenge/
2. If the sphere is taken as a given, what comes next? Here I guess sphere stacking and packing, the beginnings of basic geometries with the tetrahedron and octahedron and then all the geometries of the Fourier Transform.
3. Would the rate of a natural inflation and expansion be given by one primordial sphere per primordial unit of time? If so, we have a highly-structured start of our universe: https://81018.com/empower/
I thought you might find such a thought experiment to be of some interest.
Thank you.
Most sincerely,
Bruce
*************
Bruce E. Camber
http://81018.com and http://81018.com/bec / http://81018.com/bec/#Narrative
PS. This all started in earnest back in the summer of 1971 in my little summer cottage in Hamilton, Massachusetts. Thinking about the mathematics and physics of perfection, I unwittingly captured the essential nature of pi and Cantor’s infinity — continuity (which creates order), symmetry (which creates relations), and harmony (which creates dynamics). It wasn’t until 2011, working with high school geometry students that I picked up that study again. Those questions emerged from it.
Here is the penultimate STEM tool. -BEC