Department of
Physics
Varian blg. 352
Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305
Varian blg. 352
Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305
-
phone: (650) 723 2687 and 650 494 6106
-
FAX: (650) 725 6544
-
email: alinde@stanford.edu
Dear
Professor Linde
I read about your
‘Inflation’ theory in The Australian on March 19. See the video also hereunder
embedded in the link below showing Professor Chao Lin Kuo and yourself, ‘the
founding father of Inflation theory.’.
‘’The theory posits that less than a trillionth of a trillionth
of a trillionth of a second after the Big Bang, the universe expanded by a
factor of 100 trillion, trillion
times.’’
I
hope your inflation theory receives it's appropriate
recognition.
My students and I have
always had a fascination with very – large numbers and the inverse. Therefore
kindly inform us about the ‘’the trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a
second in The Australian, became ‘’millions and billions as delivered by you,
Prof Linde. As indeed quoted by the
video embedded in the link above.
Note also that the former
is more than reasonably represented by 1 and 36 zeroes.
The latter is at huge
variance by BILLIONS – no TRILLIONS of per cent. Indeed it may not matter if you
respond to other arenas herein this epistle.
Could you send me your
calculations as to how you either of the above were
calculated?
-
We are looking at surely such a short element of time that the human brain manifestly cannot reasonably encompass.
-
Unless it resides in the realm of theoretical physicists. I want to understand you. I can understand you if you posit a theory that has the potential of being proved wrong. That is true science as I teach it to my students.
-
Furthermore, our people appreciate that all this happened 15.8 BILLION years ago. And for you make the claim that the universe expanded by a factor of trillions of trillions of trillions of times, note that all this is accumulated. We already had enough trouble with the first mega – diminutive; now you postulate meta large numbers: you need to explain that it is not merely an attempt to create unimpeachable over – large / small numbers as a contrivance to avoid discussion. This my dear professor is what this email is about.
-
Therefore, even as / in spite of the fact that you effectively add another matter inexplicable in the opposite direction, this is something you must explicate. I have heard theoreticians expound on a far easier set of numbers with these words: ‘’modern cosmologists believe the universe was created, not in time but with time’’Please explain how mere word – plays like this replace reason?
-
I am not interested in creation theory – to wit am not interested in any unkind references to the classical argument from design. I just want a response that I can show my students.
A response in logical terms will add credibility to your inflated
theory.
We have always been
interested in the higher forms of large numbers and the logical inverse. Why you
did not use googleplex: surely more manageable? AND of course – read below
please.
We are also not able
to appreciate the margin of error relating to matters of over 15.8 Billion years
and how you accounted for it via your "five-sigma"
certainty’’ to millions to one certainty. Innate in the figures quoted are
questions that the Inflation Theory will elicit if it is proffered for a Nobel
Prize. The above has error by far too great a figure to meaningfully calculate
here.
We would like to
learn more about these theoretical calculations of
yours.
As an aside
the title of your theory elicits Zimbabwe and post war Germany.
Your title is seemingly trite- you may reconsider it. You
do not want to be compared with the US deficit squred a trillion
times?
I am afraid that someone will make that throw – away remark. You deserve
better. You deserve to be treated on the true merits of your
work.
Yours
Sincerely
Geoff
Seidner
East St Kilda
Melbourne,
Australia
No comments:
Post a Comment