Emails and Letters

Bill Nye tweets:
“Tragedies around the US. As president remarked: “We can do better.”

Bruce Camber tweets to Nye: “”We’ll do better when we have a new model of the universe base on continuity and symmetry, not a big bang: https://bblu.org/”

Background: There are two people who are very influential among our more scientifically-engaged youth of the world, Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson (New York’s Hayden Planetarium). Both have more answers than questions. Both could be opening doors for inquiry instead of saying, “You got that right!” as if there were steadfast right-and-wrong answers. We all need to explore the openness of answers, not the “correctness” so we know how and where to continue to explore.

The big bang theory is such a case in point. Both Nye and Tyson talk about the big bang as if it is a hard fact. There are many alternatives. And among the alternatives, we know that the model implied by the Big Board-little universe Project, currently called the Quiet Expansion, has not been critically reviewed by the general academic and scientific communities.

****

Email, May 27, 2016
Sent to those networked through LinkedIn:

Hi –

It has been four and a half years in the making!
Finally, enough common sense doors opened
to begin to engage the big bang theory using the data
from the Quiet Expansion:
https://bbludata.wordpress.com/2016/05/25/timeline/

The first article about it all was back in September 2014:
https://bblu.org/2014/09/10/qe/

It’ll all be tied back to this article about ethics:
https://bblu.org/2014/09/02/ethics/

Best wishes,

Bruce

****

Email, April 9, 2016:
Response to a physics undergraduate student who has an active faith:

Thanks, Tom; what a pleasant surprise. Good to hear from you.

Are you familiar with Frank Wilczek’s (MIT) work on the grid? He’s well aware of our work (yes, out of a high school), so he is somewhat forgiving of our naïve approach. The problem with his grid is that physics is physics and it is difficult to hypostatize or impute a grid that is not a derivative of “particleness.” But, why not “pure” geometry? Why not projective geometries? …algebraic geometries?

What if it all boils down to how we engage the infinite? Of course, when we put on our hats to celebrate and worship, we say, The Infinite. And, that begs the question, how is it that God reaches us through that finite-Infinite transformation of creating, sustaining, loving, hearing, feeling, and responding to us?

When you fully engage the idea that those first 67 notations are all about
homogeneity and isotropy, and render the effects of universality and renormalization, well, there is a lot to impute and hypostatize. How does God’s perfection and the gift of freedom and knowing, slowly become the imperfections of us all and of quantum mechanics?

My LinkedIn account is where I try to write about such things.
https://linkedin.com/today/author/brucecamber
The site for our work — http://bblu.org — holds back a little and on LinkedIn
I am now trying to stretch and will begin to dig into the particulars.

Are you familiar with the Langlands programs? The work of Grothendieck?
I believe their work may well someday be applied to these 67 notations.

Powers of 2 is another way of say bifurcation, bonding… so there is a lot
of math and physics that may be brought to bear on the first 67!

Thanks. May God bless and keep you always,

Bruce

April 7, 2016: Email to a science writer

Dear Eric:

Congratulations on all that you have done and are doing. What a fine mix of schools (Princeton-Cambridge-Stanford) and disciplines to be able to craft a question and search for answers within the deep dynamics of our universe.

I write representing the mathematics and physics departments of a local high school. We went off course in our geometry classes in December 2011 by innocently going inside a tetrahedron and octahedron. By dividing the edges by 2 (connecting the new vertices), going deeper and deeper, we were down among the fermions in about 40 notations and down with the Planck base units in another 67 notations. We went the other way by multiplying by 2 until we were out to the age of the universe in about 94 more notations. At that time we didn’t know about Kees Boeke’s 1957 base-10 work. When we caught up with his Cosmic Vision, we were underwhelmed. Ours was 3.333 times more granular, it has an inherent geometry and it has the Planck base units. Then we began discovering so much more.

We consulted with the greats, people like Freeman Dyson and Frank Wilczek. Though puzzled that they had not seen a base-2 scale of the universe, they cautiously encouraged us to continue our pursuit. Nobody has yet said, “That’s crazy and here is the reason why.”

What do you think?

It is obvious that science is missing a few key links. Perhaps we all got hung up with Sir Isaac’s infinite space and time. This nascent model looks like it would side with Leibniz within that historic debate. If we follow the simple mathematics and logic out to the necessary results, it all begins to boggle the mind.

Again, I would be delighted to hear from you.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

February 29, 2016: Tweet

Growing up is hard to do. It is easier with a highly-integrated universe view –http://bblu.org — with order and ethics.

POTUS regarding his STEM initiative: “Bring your children to the lab today.”

In my work with high school students — http://bblu.org — we developed an integrated view of the entire universe using base-2 exponential notation. There are just over 67 notations in the truly small-scale universe. There are just over 67 notations in the human scale universe. And, there are, of course, just over 67 notations in the large-scale universe. Our “little chart” is called the Big Board (11″ x 60″); and because everything, everywhere for all time is in an ordered view within a total of just over 201 notations, we call it a “little universe.”

It is the perfect STEM tool for students and adults because it begins to make sense of all the subjects, puts them in a proper progression, and builds things systematically.

Would you like a copy of our “Big Board-little universe” for your office? Thanks.

Most sincerely,

Bruce and our high school geometry students

January 27, 2016

Dear (a brilliant mathematician),

Our high school geometry class here in New Orleans backed into a model of the universe using base-2 notation from the Planck Time to the Age of the Universe. We started with Planck Length and then much later, we added Planck Time; and then, a few months later, the other base units. There were just over 201 notations end to end.

It all began as a result of looking at the interior structures of the tetrahedron by dividing each edge in half and connecting the new vertices. Our initial object was 2.5″ (6.35 cm). In about 40 notations we were in the range of an atom, with another 70 notations were were in the range of the Planck Length.

That was 2011 when the math was easy. We were excited to discover the work of Kees Boeke using base-10. But base-2 does things base-10 cannot. Besides being 3.333 times more granular, base-2’s consistent view of the universe mimicked cellular reproduction, chemical bonding, and couplings and bifurcations of every kind.

Although we initially thought that the world of science had virtually ignored the first 67 doublings, on our hunt to find people who were doubling anything (even within pure math), it occurred to us, “No, it’s the bleeding edge of science and mathematics. It’s just been going over our heads.” Yet, we still thought perhaps, maybe, just-by-chance, our simple model could be helpful to some of those people, even the virtually impenetrable Langlands programs!

To go even further into places we have never gone before, we have challenged ourselves to define which numbers come first and naturally build on each other. We know our logic is quite idiosyncratic given the dominance of the Big Bang, yet if we can create a number trail from the singularity of the Planck base units to the elementary particles… well just maybe we have something here!

We know that we are way over our heads looking up at mathematical logic.

Would you advise us? Is our work simply misplaced concreteness? Thank you.

Most sincerely,

Bruce
*************
Bruce Camber
The Big Board – little universe Project
New Orleans

January 20, 2016:
Dear (Brilliant Astronomer),

Of course you are quoted and cited constantly and you surely do not have time for something quite so idiosyncratic as our work from within a New Orleans high school geometry class.

We got into dividing the tetrahedron in half until we were in the vicinity of the Planck Length. We multiplied out to the Observable Universe. Total base-2 notations: Just over 201. It became our model for everything, everywhere, encapsulating all time. We have the praxis — the simple math, logic and geometries — but no theoria.

Just recently we tried to find and prioritize those numbers that could be used to generate such a universe and that is when we found your work…

Though most people default to Sir Isaac’s sense of space and time, our model of the universe sides with Leibniz whereby space and time become relational, not absolute or infinite.

How would you advise us as we continue this pursuit? Thank you.

Most sincerely,

Bruce Camber
New Orleans

(He responded immediately.)

January 21, 2016:
Dear Brilliant Astronomer – Thank you for your perfectly lovely and generous note.

I had no right to write to you until after attempting to incorporate your work into my working draft of “On Building the Universe From Scratch.” Also, you have already provided us with indispensable advice with your comment that any plausible fundamental physical theory must be consistent with all the fundamental physical constants.

When we started our little exercise, we knew very little
about the very small universe, including the work of Kees Boeke.
It had been on my path. Phil Morrison (MIT) was a friend; I rather
ignored his coffee table book based on Boeke’s work… I thought, “Just a novelty.”

Our work started with the Planck Length. We added Planck Time in December 2014, then the other three base units in 2015. Just prior to the the 143rd notation, the speed of light is confirmed. Yet, between notations 168 and 169, a simple light year is off, so we have begun learning about the work of those involved with the variable speed of light. We have also engaged the Schwarzschild radius.

So, all your key numbers are in our cue. Nothing easy about it, yet I will not bother you again until I have had some “success” with them!

Thanks again.

Most sincerely,
Bruce

January 19, 2016: This email was to a brilliant mathematician, author, and professor.

Hi Jim –

It is all quite fascinating, isn’t it?

In our not-so-brilliant naïveté we started with the Planck Length then went out to what thought could be the Observable Universe. We were out to 206-to-209 notations (our very first chart). First, a retired NASA scientist who had a heart for educating those in high school, helped us with that calculation — https://bblu.org/2012/05/14/nasa/. So, we used 202.34 notations for about three months when Jean-Pierre Luminet of the Paris Observatory gave us a 205-206 range. We used 202.34 to 205.1 until December 2014 when we finally did our own base-2 progression of Planck Time. There were so many places along the path that the two columns were in sync in informative ways. Seeing the speed of light between the 143nd and 144rd notations was great fun. Seeing the variations around a simple light year was quite a challenge, yet exciting to see. I learned about those working on the concept of a variable speed of light. In February 2015 when we “did” the other Planck base units, it was a bit overwhelming. Just too much to process, “A new universe order.” Our world is important but there is so much more.

I have just begun to scratch the surface of the Schwarzchild radius; it’s a prickly thing on the edges of its black hole.

Of course, I unwittingly backed into the group that raised questions about old priestly George Lemaître’s early intuitions of a big bang. A mentor back in 1973 had just come from Cambridge on a sabbatical with Fred Hoyle and the arguments were quite lively. Then the bang got the upper hand. But now, even the likes of Penrose raise serious questions.

I am studying Langland’s programs today as I continue working on the endnotes and references for that numbers article.

Best wishes,

Bruce

Advertisements