Started to follow the work of Steven Weinberg in 1976

Steven Weinberg died: July 23, 2021 Born: May 3, 1933Steven_Weinberg
Weinberg Theory Group, University of Texas – Austin, Austin, Texas

ArXiv (6): What Happens in a Measurement? (2016)
BooksThe Quantum Theory of Fields I, II, III, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1995
•  Gravitation & Cosmology,
Wiley, 1972
The First Three Minutes, Basic Books, 1977
_Facing Up, Harvard University Press, 2001  and dozens more.
Nobel Laureate: 1979 Nobel Lecture
Research: String Theory and Quantum Field TheoryFrom the Planck Scale to the Hubble Scale

Citations within this website: Weinberg Theory Group
Where do we go from here?
•  From Perfection to Imperfection
The First Three Minutes Revisited

Key associates: Willy Fischler, Jacques Distler, Can Kilic, Sonia Paban (IAS), and Vadim Kaplunovsky

Steven Weinberg’s statement, “The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it seems pointless” came from his most-popular (best-selling) book, The First Three Minutes, Basic, 1977. Unfortunately, he died in July 2021 without discovering the depths of pi (π). This image is from a lecture by Prof. Dr. Barbara Drossel in Waterloo, Ontario.
Last email: July 13, 2021 at 9:28 PM

Dear Prof. Dr. Steven Weinberg:

I believe there is a direct correspondence between the breakdown of values throughout our world and the inadequacies of our scientific models. I can hear you reply, “Utter nonsense,” so I beg your patience. Our scientific models are a key part of our worldviews and if they are wrong or too narrowly focused, our beliefs become solipsistic. If the universe is mathematical and highly-integrated, then our understanding of that starting point, now over 13.8 billion years, is key.

Might we consider Max Planck’s base units a starting point? Why not?

Of course, those units are derivative of other key numbers. If we take as a given that Max’s 1899 calculations of his base units are close enough, at least as a symbolic description, how might these initial conditions manifest as the first instant of the universe? …perhaps an infinitesimal sphere? If not these numbers, are there any numbers and calculations that would be more fundamental?

Do you believe Max’s 1899 calculations of his base units are “close enough” to an accurate description of the parameters of the first instant of the universe? If not, are there any such calculations that would be? I believe John Ralston of the University of Kansas is working on recalculations. Thanks.

Most sincerely,



Third email: 30 March 2020 at 4 PM

Dear Prof. Dr. Steven Weinberg:

Of course, you are one of the most cited scholars in our time so I recognize that my little references are just a nuisance. I will be going deeper within your concept of a grand reductionism. From Planck Time to this moment, the Now, all ordered by base-2 exponentiation (assuming a doubling of the numbers of planckspheres for each of the 202 notations so an infinitesimal aether becomes the underlayment of the universe) seems rather “grand” though totally idiosyncratic! But given these days and times of sheer idiocy, I ask, Why not?”

I’ll insert the two references below so you can see them, albeit slightly out of context.

I wish you continued excellent health in these strange days,


PS. The two most recent references are found here:, /imperfection/#2f (reconstructed below):

Illustration 1: The four Planck base units, their formulas, and their discrete values (numbers)

Consider the four equations and their numbers for space (length), time, mass and charge.  We ask, “If the Planck Length and Planck Time are the smallest possible units of length and time, does it follow that these are also the first units of length and time? [1]

Does it follow that these equations, with all their dimensionless constants, come together to become the very first moment of physicality?” Unwittingly we had opened the “CDM of the universe” and wondered if Steven Weinberg would consider it a “grand reductionism.” [2]
We started as everything does — simple. We take very little steps and ask simple questions. We try to respect all the scholarship that has gone on before us. When we become confused, we step back to something more simple. So, it was with deep respect that we engaged the CDM approach to the universe. We read that Steven Weinberg (book, Facing Up) might call this model, “a grand reductionism.” We continue wrestling with his work and with these other scholars:

Beyond the Dynamical Universe: Unifying Block Universe Physics and Time as Experienced, Silberstein, Stuckey, McDevitt, Oxford (2018)

Personal note: In 1979 I first met Steven Weinberg at his office in Jefferson and Lyman Labs at Harvard. He did not yet have his Nobel prize, but The First Three Minutes was out.

My overview page: Thanks. -BEC

Second email: 29 October 2018

RE:  The First Three Minutes Revisited

Dear Prof. Dr. Steven Weinberg:

Our first conversation in your office in Lyman Labs (1979) was about The First Three Minutes.* Please observe that out of the 202 base-2 notations from Planck Time to the Age of the Universe, the 1/100th of a second is within the 138th notation and the third minute is within the 151st notation well after two-thirds of the total information. The first light year is within the 169th notation. The first million years is within the 189th notation. The first billion years is within the 198th notation. The 202nd represents about 10.98 billion years of which only about 2.9 billion years has come to be.

I would be interested to hear your thoughts about this rather idiosyncratic chart! Thank you.

Most sincerely,
Bruce Camber

PS. These are the key points that have emerged from this chart. Obviously, it is all a quite stretch!

  1. The universe is encapsulated by 202 base-2 notations from the Planck units
    to this moment and day and current size of the universe
    , and by definition that includes everything, everywhere, for all time.
  2. A natural inflation is defined within the unfolding numbers of each doubling.
  3. Max Planck teaches us that light is equal to Planck Length divided by Planck Time.
  4. The universe appears to be exponential; Leonhard Euler’s mathematics apply.
  5. All notations are always active and deeply-and-profoundly interrelated.
    The first 64-notations are below the thresholds of measurement.
  6. The geometries for imperfection might beget quantum physics-and- fluctuations.
  7. The four Planck base units manifest first within space-time as spheres.
  8. Emergence might begin with sphere stacking and the thrust within those base units.
  9. The never-ending, never-repeating generation of spheres could be a finite-infinite bridge.  All the dimensionless constants that define the base units could be as well.
  10. Continuity/order, symmetry/relations, and harmony/dynamics might define  infinity.
  11. These qualities of infinity seem to impart “an ethical bias” within the structure of universe.
  12. Basic concepts like dark energy and dark matter could possibly be addressed.
    Even old concepts like a point can be revisited.

*We also talked about the display project at MIT and my work to summarize your work. There were 77 living scholars selected from around the world and you were among them.

First email in a long time: 1 January 2015

RE: Planck’s Time & Length, The First Three Minutes, and Time in Powers of Ten

Dear Prof. Dr. Steven Weinberg:

Unwittingly we have begun working with Planck Time. We started with the Planck Length on December 19, 2011.

Our high school geometry classes over here in New Orleans backed into a model of the universe using base-2 exponential notation. We multiplied the Planck Length and Planck Time by 2 until we got out to the Observable Universe and the Age of the Universe respectively. Here is a link within our work on a science fair project: (original) (current)

It took just 202 notations or doublings and it all started because we went inside a tetrahedron, halving the edges, connecting those vertices to discover the four smaller tetrahedrons, one in each corner and an octahedron in the middle. We did the same with the octahedron (finding the six smaller octahedrons in the corners and eight tetrahedrons, one in each of the eight faces) and we didn’t stop until we were somewhere around the Planck Length.

The fascinating thing we discovered along the way is what we are calling “the really-real small-scale universe.” It has a geometry and a systemic order (numbers and symmetries). Nobody seems to know much about it although analyzed throughout human history and called the aether (ether), vinculum, plenum, matrix, grid, continuum, firmament and hypostases. If we divide this little mathematical-geometric universe into “thirds” as the small-human-large scale, the small-scale universe finally has some definition but now it only takes us up to size of the fermions and bosons.

What do you think? Just poppycock? Nonsense?

If it is nonsense, please, please tell us why and we can go back to normal and get on with our life. If not… I thank you.

Most sincerely,
Bruce E. Camber

Historical footnote: My First letter, 7 March 1979

The Quantum Theory of Fields, Vol. I and II by S. Weinberg,