Roberto Trotta, Professor of Astrostatistics
Astrophysics Group, Imperial College London
2021-2022 Visiting Professor of Cosmology at Gresham College, London
International School for Advanced Studies (SISSA), Trieste, Italy
ArXiv: Bayesian Methods in Cosmology (2017)
Books: The Edge of the Sky
Homepage (Gresham) (ICL) (Urbanomic) (Science Factory)
YouTube: The Unexpected Universe.
Most recent email: August 25, 2021 @ 4 PM USA
Dear Prof. Dr. Roberto Trotta:
Congratulations on your Gresham lectures, your SISSA appointment, and your openness to exploring the universe with the general public. I am delighted to see that you are even open to consulting. We may be knocking on that door as well.
Because I am back reading your work, I have created a reference page to some of it and to your website. That page is: https://81018.com/trotta/ (this page). Also, there is this reference page: https://81018.com/alphabetical/#T
My basic questions that I asked in that earlier email are still open. Your YES/NO answers would be helpful:
1. Could the Planck base units describe the first moment of time: YES/NO/MAYBE
2. If so, might the first “thing’ within space-time be a sphere? YES/NO/MAYBE
3. If so, might that sphere instantiate continuity, symmetry and harmony within space-time. YES/NO/MAYBE
4. Could the dimensionless constants be a bridge to continuity, symmetry and harmony? YES/NO/MAYBE
5. Might that bridge be finite or infinite or both? Is it just a bridge? YES/NO/MAYBE
First email: July 5, 2020, 3:37 PM
“My research in cosmology is about analysing, interpreting and making sense of cosmological observations, in order to learn more about the properties and nature of dark matter and dark energy. I’m also interested in the early Universe and in developing connections between cosmology and particle physics.” – Prof. Dr. Roberto Trotta
Dear Prof. Dr. Roberto Trotta:
I was just reading one of your articles on ArXiv and thought perhaps a personal note might be a bit better than the form on your website. I think Jamie Farnes (Oxford) captured the spirit of so many when he says, “We’re at a point where our best theories seem to be breaking. We clearly need some kind of new idea. There’s something key we’re missing about how the universe is working.”
Earlier I sent the following note: “Thank you for your great spirit and wonderful scholarship. Perhaps you can straighten us out. We got off track a long time ago: https://81018.com/home/
1. What if the universe starts with the Planck base units, what might be the first “thing” created? https://81018.com/a0/
2. What if the first thing created is a sphere defined by those Planck base units? https://81018.com/sphere/
3. What if there is an endless stream of spheres and the first functional activity is sphere stacking? https://81018.com/ccp/
4. What if sphere stacking opens cubic close packing of equal spheres and tetrahedrons and octahedrons are generated? Of course, Plato follows.
5. What if the concept of infinity has been so tainted by philosophies, we miss its most simple definition from pi — continuity creating order, symmetry creating relations, and harmony creating dynamics; and then we add, “Please keep all other definitions to yourself. They are not necessary here.”
6. And so we finally ask, “Is there a glimmer of truth to our simple what if questions? If so, doesn’t that change our basic equations a bit?”
Our simple extension of that logic is a chart of just 202 base-2 notations — https://81018.com/chart/ — encapsulating everything, everywhere — https://81018.com/math/ — for all time. It’s just numbers, but it has a simple expression that our students grasped. BUT, we stopped using all of this “wild-and-crazy thinking” in our curriculum in high school — https://81018.com/stem/ — because we didn’t want to taint the students with something so idiosyncratic!
Though it has a special logic, nobody seems to care. Is it that wrong?
PS. What if we are on the right path?