CENTER FOR PERFECTION STUDIES: CONTINUITY•SYMMETRY•HARMONY GOALS.October 2016
PAGES:  π (pi)  | CHECKLIST | Dark | Formulas| Infinity| Keys | Map.| Transformation | Up

We All Need To Reconsider Big Bang Cosmology.
By Bruce Camber Initiated: October 10, 2016 Updated” October 2017

The cities of Cambridge in England and in Massachusetts: There is a simple alternative to the big bang cosmology; and although it is being proposed by high school people, there is enough confidence in the basic concepts to ask two of big bang’s strongest advocates, the professors-doctors Stephen Hawking (Cambridge) and Alan Guth (MIT), to take a look at this work.

The numbers that make up the “simple chart of the universe” are 100% predictive so it will be easily tested against actual numbers collected over the centuries. Initially the Planck length was multiplied by 2, and each result by 2, until the entire universe is contained within 202 doublings. This horizontally-scrolled chart (new window) of all the numbers is believed to be the first time that the universe has been defined so simply and completely. ¹

The study of these simple numbers began in December 2011 with teachers and students in a New Orleans high school. The project was first considered to be a STEM tool;  Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics from the Planck scale required logically containing everything in the universe in an ordered set.  When Planck Time was added in 2014, we began saying, “Everything, everywhere for all time!”

In February 2015, the other Planck base units were added. Questions about the Planck Temperature were raised. It is extremely large. However, if one were to start with temperature, the four primary Planck units would have to be ignored. That is exactly what the Big Bang theorists do. Starting with “infinitely hot” ignores length/time and mass/charge. If those four are taken together and a mechanism for doubling those units is discerned, that is a new model. Because Planck Temperature is as large as the Planck Length and Planck Time are small, one could asked, “Shall we reverse order it? Everything starts small, so why not put Planck Temperature at the top of the chart.”

Nobody has answered the question, “Why should the other units be ignored?” ² Planck Charge and Planck Mass, although small, are not infinitesimally small. Planck Charge as initially calculated is over eleven times larger than the elementary charge carried by an electron (1.6021×10⁻¹⁹ coulombs).  Yet, results using the more common Lorentz–Heaviside units results in the smaller 5.291×10⁻¹⁹ coulombs). When multiplied by 2, that number is very close to Planck’s initial calculation.

There are so many fine relations, dimensions, and numbers to be explored and studied with all these numbers! Planck Mass introduces dimensional analysis and alternative normalization and all the years of research since 1975 when the big bang theory began its trek to become dominant within scientific circles. That history has occupied the work of hundreds of thousands of scholars and scientists over their lifetime.

Our high school group recognizes that we are neophytes, pipsqueaks in a land of giants. We know this chart is idiosyncratic, yet we also know that it is unprecedented and it has never been critically reviewed by the experts. We have asked many, many scholars who know these things inside and out. When they see the chart, even if it has naively egregious mistakes, they fall silent. That’s when we begin to think that there is more truth than fiction within these numbers.

We all need to reconsider the necessity of a big bang. There have been many studies that have focused on the inherent nihilism within big bang cosmology.  Some claim that it is destroying cultures and that is endemic to humanity’s existential angst that have us all feeling that our world is spinning apart.

Yes, the two prime movers of the big bang cosmology are Stephen Hawking and Alan Guth.

They have been called on, at least to acknowledge this more simple theory with its actual numbers that define the first three minutes of creation then goes on out to this current moment in just over 200 notations, or doublings, or steps. Hawking was sent an email on October 7, 2016 to request that review. Guth was sent a copy of the Hawking note and then his own very similar email on October 10. The big bang and its inflation of Stephen Hawking and Alan Guth have no numbers for the first sixty-four notations. Their model is not a strong predictive model. The power of 2 is the antithesis; it is all numbers; it is profoundly predictive.

The charge in these emails to the two distinguished scientists begins, “Big Bang cosmology is not necessary; the needed inflation is defined within the doublings from the Planck scale to the Age of the Universe.” ³ Although all the numbers can be readily tracked across all 202 columns within the 34-page chart, interpreting those numbers is still very early-stage work and to get help with that analysis, we have gone right to the top of the big bang industry and to many of the big bang’s strongest advocates and true believers.

This simple model has more than enough inflation of length, mass, and charge to engulf the imagined effects of a big bang. Though the expansion within a second from the first notation to the 144th notation happens quickly and could be easily confused with a bang, it’s more like a quiet expansion. Unfortunately the prime movers and this industry have too much invested in a big bang cosmology. It is not a “good” theory.  Stephen Hawking and Alan Guth (MIT), should look at this simple model with an open mind and be prepared to abandon big bang cosmology and the inherent nihilism within it. This simple  model appears to be a more-comprehensive alternative. And, more than anybody else, they know their big bang theory and its inflationary model are incomplete.

^_____

Footnotes and endnotes

¹ The Planck Scale had been largely ignored by the academic community for over 100 years. In 2001 Frank Wilczek (MIT) wrote a series of three articles for Physics Today, “Scaling Mt. Planck.” It would be the first time that Max Planck’s work from 1899 would be textured in a way that the scientific community could build on Planck’s original insights. Yet, the big bang cosmology was already so firmly established and formidable, Planck time was ignored. The question could have been asked, “Could Planck Time be considered the beginning of time?” Notwithstanding, most any challenge to the big bang cosmology was rather quickly dismissed because there was no good alternative theory. In 2011 the first outline for a possible alternative was unwittingly mounted within a geometry class in a New Orleans high school using base-2 notation.  The first 67 notations were so small, several scientists told the group that the numbers were meaningless.  Undaunted, it appeared that the work of many scholars could be applied.  There was the work of Robert Langlands,  scalar field theory, point-free geometry, the bifurcation theory (Mitchel Feigenbaum),  cellular automaton, cubic close packing, and so much more. Their work progressed. Those first 67 notations have taken on special meaning and possibility. Those notations are shared by everything in the universe and would account for the isotropy and homogeneity of our universe. Even more speculatively, within those first 67 notations are relations (ratios) that define the dimensionless constants as well as the structure of dark matter and dark energy.

² The big bang cosmology starts infinitely-hot (perhaps. the Planck Temperature) and totally ignores the other Planck base units. There is no progression and no ordering system, just a superluminal event with no analogue to anything else within science or history. ³ Inflation is built into the very fabric of the universe. In other domains of study, that energy is also known as thrust. David Bohm in his book, Causality & Chance in Modern Physics, 1957, pages 163-164, said: “Thus, in the last century only mechanical, chemical, thermal, electrical, luminous, and gravitational energy were known. Now, we know of nuclear energy, which constitute a much larger reservoir. But the infinite substructure of matter very probably contains energies that are as far beyond nuclear energies as nuclear energies are beyond chemical energies. Indeed, there is already some evidence in favour of this idea. Thus, if one computes the “zero point” energy due to quantum-mechanical fluctuations on even one cubic centimeter of space, one comes out with something of “the order of 10³⁸ ergs, which is equal to that which would be liberated by fission of about 10¹⁰ tons of uranium.” (David Bohm, Causality & Chance in Modern Physics, pp 163-164, 1957

  Hawking circa 1965