Steinhardt, Paul

Paul J. Steinhardt

SteinhardtPrinceton University
Princeton, New Jersey

ArXiv (over 108 articles)
YouTube: The Myth of InflationA New Kind Of Matter (March 2019) and dozens more

References to Steinhardt’s work within this website:

Most recent email: Thursday, 9 April 2020

Dear Prof. Dr. Paul Steinhardt:

Thank you for all you do to guide our students and our world’s scholarship. I have enjoyed coming to know you through your writings and videos. You challenge me on every turn!

Notwithstanding, our little idiosyncratic model has not been debunked, just categorized as “idiosyncratic” and it is. There are five of general assumptions from which this model emerged. These are as follows:

  • The four Planck base units define the first moment of time.
  • The infinitesimal sphere is the first expression of a physical thing.
  • There is a natural inflation whereby sphere stacking and cubic-close packing of equal spheres creates structure and emergence.
  • There is a finite-infinite relation and the infinite is defined, primarily as a result of discerning aspects of that sphere. It is: (a).continuity and it creates order and the face of time, (b) symmetry and it create relations and the dimensions of space, and (c) harmony and it create dynamics and a space-time moment. That is the sum total definition of the infinite (and infinity) and there is a constant working bridge between the finite and infinite.
  • These spheres continue stacking and become an aether and natural inflation. There are just 202 base-2 notations from the Planck Time to the current time. This endless stream of spheres is the current expansion and every notation is always active and present.

I’ll continue to work on this model and will attempt to become more compelling within each step of the way.

In today’s homepage there is a reference to you and the 1999 Structure Formation conference at Cambridge University’s Isaac Newton Institute so I was reminded once again of your most impressive history within this domain.  I thank you.

Most sincerely,


First email: Wednesday, January 14, 2015, 3:55 PM

Dear Prof. Dr. Paul Steinhardt:

I came upon references to your work within the Kavli Foundation pages and then began reading about the breadth of your work on your own Princeton homepage. We’ve been looking for alternative approaches to understand our earliest universe.

We backed into this work by following simple geometries back to the Planck Length and then out to the Observable Universe. Our work is simple-simple (yes, possibly simplistic) and entirely idiosyncratic. Last month we added Planck Time to our base-2 progression and we are filled with questions.

Have you ever seen the simple compilations of the progressions from the Planck Length and Planck Time (using base-2 notation) to the Observable Universe and Age of the Universe respectively? Based on our initial observations, I think it raises questions about nature of space and time. We can guess. Although we have no conclusive answers, let me admit that we are a little prone to wild speculations and flights of the imagination.

Yet, as high school teachers and students — certainly not experts on the subject by any stretch of the imagination — we still had the audacity last September to begin asking questions. It may all just be an overactive imagination based on simplistic logic. Perhaps this challenge to our understanding of space and time is just too profound for us little folks with such little depth and background in cosmology and astrophysics.

I thought you at least would find such an unusual, rather idiosyncratic approach to these questions to be of some interest. If not, well, sorry to waste your time. However, if you feel that way, I have five classes of high school geometry students and this teacher who would be fascinated to know why.

Best wishes to you and your teams for 2015,

New Orleans
Bruce Camber, Mathematics, Geometry
PS. Given your work with quasicrystals and five-fold symmetries, you may also find this page about tilings and tessellations to be of some interest as well as the following:

  1. The references to your work (just above) for digging down further.
  2. Our “work” began in 2011 in a high school geometry class. That story is here:
  3. This posting of the two progressions side-by-side was done in December 2014:
  4. Earlier work from September 2014, mostly questions… one must start somewhere: Did A Quiet Expansion Precede A Big Bang?