First email: July 23, 2021, Re-written and resent: 23 February 2022
Dear Prof. Dr. Christopher Smeenk:
Your 2003 work lives on. The title helps. What might be involved at the absolute zero of time? Three words, time’s absolute zero, open so many debates. Congratulations. What might Stephen Hawking say? His infinitely hot Big Bang was a compression of the universe. In 1927 Lemaitre argued for a cold start (Wikipedia); by 1931 he changed and started hot. Theories continue to bounce all over the place. To my knowledge, none actually start with the Planck base units and come up to this day. We unwittingly went down that path in 2011 within a New Orleans high school. First, we had started with a tetrahedron and chased its parts smaller and smaller to the Planck base units. We then used the Planck Length for the edge of our smallest tetrahedron, multiplied by 2, and in 202 steps were out to the age of the universe. We learned about base-2, Max Planck, George Johnstone Stoney, cubic-close packing and so much more. We were having quite a lot of fun until we learned that it didn’t work with any theories within cosmology.
If we start with the symbolic Planck base units of length-and-time, apply base-2, then go to our current time, could (or would) anything be left out? I don’t think so…
I would enjoy your critique! Thanks.
References along the way:
Gaining Access to the Early Universe, ed. R. Dawid, K. ‘Thebault, and R. Darshati (eds.), Why Trust A Theory? Epistemology of Fundamental Physics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2019), pp. 315-338