###### **CENTER FOR PERFECTION STUDIES: CONTINUITY•SYMMETRY•HARMONY • USA • GOALS** • **FEB. 14-15, 2019**

**HOMEPAGES**: ASSUME|INTRO|INFINITY|MAX|WEINBERG|REVIEW|**Scholars**|DARK|EMERGE|**ORIGINAL**

# The Universe As Extended Planck Base Units

## Towards a Unified Theory of Cosmology, Mathematics, Mind & Physics

###### BY BRUCE E. CAMBER FEBRUARY 2019 **MORE**: **ASSUMPTIONS**, INFINITY, Scholars

**Introduction**. In December 2011, we backed into our research of the early universe. We had developed a simple chart of doublings of the Planck base units; and within it, we discovered a rather naive paradigm for emergence. As we studied more, this chart seemed to be opening a path to an integrated-or-unified theory of mathematics. This base-2 chart starting with the Planck base units went to the age of the universe in just 202 steps. Yet, the first 64 doublings, though enigmatic, seemed to open a way to re-address some of our more perplexing, intellectual problems. Our inherent assumptions even cast light on ethical judgment. Upon further study, we asked, “Could this continuum also contain the foundations for consciousness?” In a rather speculative moment, we asked, “Could notations 50-to-60 be the start? Of course, it was idiosyncratic. We could find no prior research based on the doublings of the Planck base units. Only the earlier work of Thomas Kuhn and people like Jim Khalili inspired further exploration of this nascent paradigm.

**Key Questions**. The question was asked, “Is it ready to ask foundations and financial institutions to support further research and education?”

**The Challenge**. Certainly, if we stop to consider the current state of affairs within politics and ethics within any country as reflected by her leaders and people, there is room for improvement. Perhaps bankrupt systems and our constant tensions are a result of our broken, weak or confused intellectual systems. There has to be a better way. And, at the very least, this model opens new pathways to explore. To date, this model of the universe that has had very limited exposure within the academic community. Of the 100± scholars who have had some exposure it, nobody has stopped to do an analysis even though many are scholars who reject big bang cosmology. Stephen Hawking’s co-author and former boss at Cambridge, Neil Turok says, “The big bang theory is wrong.” Then this question must be addressed, “Is Hawking’s *infinitely hot, infinitely dense, infinitely small* the correct place to start?”

Turok might do better within a radically different start.

**A new theory.** Our simple theory tends to absorb big bang cosmology, however it starts totally other. It is a quiet, cold, simple-and-natural expansion (emergence and inflation) of the Planck base units. Such a simple model, especially with forty years of heavy investments into big bang cosmology, is hard to absorb. First, people can not be absurd to themselves. Plus, this alternative theory is late to the game (2011). And, it’s just a simple mathematical progression (until the logical flow of those numbers are analyzed). Still, *critical reviews are not easy*. But eventually, the reviews will come because it is too mathematical and too simple and it has too much commonsense and it actually emulates the big bang epochs!

**Max Planck’s work on base units was overlooked from 1904 to 2001**. So even with its many limitations, big bang cosmology had time to root.

**Why?** More complete and rigorous research of the logic of the Planck base units and doublings (emergence), particularly the progressions from the first doubling to the 64th doubling might be considered for funding. Current work within particle physics does not easily reach into this infinitesimal domain. A hypostatic structure, the key hypothesis is that mathematics builds from simplicity to complexity and that a primary consciousness evolves within this mathematical construct well before it is possible to measure with instrumentation.

**A New Frontier And Innovative Idea **

**Planck units**. For three years, some precedent for the legitimacy of these Planck numbers was investigated. We began a literature search for anything with the words, “Planck scale” or “Planck base units.” A turning point was the discovery of a series of three articles, “*Scaling Mt. Planck*” which was the 2001-to-2002 work of Frank Wilczek (MIT) in *Physics Today*. In his office and at his blackboard, Wilczek personally encouraged us to continue our studies of the Planck numbers. By 2015 and 2016 we had compiled the simple progressions of the all four of the Planck base units so we could follow the logic of doublings or base-2 notation.

**Emergence**. We also discovered the extensive work done to follow the 1957 publication, “*Cosmic View: The Universe in 40 Jumps*” by the Dutch educator, Kees Boeke. There was a precedent! Old friends, Philip and Phylis Morrison (MIT), had written a coffee-table book based on Boeke’s work. Called “*The Powers of Ten: About the Relative Size of Things in the Universe,*” it used what is known as base-10. They just added or subtracted a zero. By using base-2, our work would be more gritty, yet it also begged questions about doublings. In our initial analysis of key numbers used to define the universe (January 2016), we discovered sphere stacking, cubic-close packing, and the dynamics of tetrahedral-octahedral emergence from spheres. We’ll continue those studies yet attempt to go deeper by working with the key concepts of living scholars and also with historical scholars like Luigi Bianchi and Sophus Lie through people like Bob Coeke^{.1} Questions abound. Motivation is high. There are over 100 years of scholarship stuck in little silos looking to become integrative and whole. I think this platform may well be one of the keys for such integration.

**Proposal**. We propose to investigate questions from ontology to cosmology, including the mathematics from the simplicity of the Planck scale to the complexities of astrophysics. It will follow-up the work edited by Sophie Gibb, Robin Hendry, and Tom Lancaster within their publication, *Routledge Handbook of Emergence*^{2}, to shed more light on the question, “*What is the path of emergence from infinity to pi to complex systems to neuroscience to the universe*?”

**Self-funded**. The non-profit organization, *My Golden Rules* (501)(c)(3) was started to support adult education, particularly focused on questions about infinity, time, life-death, and eternity. It is prepared to administer any funding that should result from this brief description. Although this project is unlikely to be supported by conventional funding sources, the problems of our society may merit a second look.

**Collaborations**. Within the original formula for Planck Time, Max Planck defines space-time as a necessary relational nexus defined by light and each other. That simple formula appears to apply to every notation defined within our chart (see line 10). We will very selectively re-engage scholars with whom we have communicated in the past and engage those scholars who are experts within multi-scale modeling, the Planck scale, bifurcation theory (period-doubling), category theory, and disciplines acknowledged on line 11 of our horizontally-scrolled chart.

**Risks**. Though this work has had over seven years of intermittent work, it has not been highly-focused nor critically reviewed. The primary risk is its naïveté and simplicity. Yet, John Wheeler’s work has encouraged us. In 1977 Wheeler sent me a personal copy of his “*Frontiers of Time*” to assist us in grappling with the 1935 EPR paradox and John Bell’s inequality equation. Our chart is perhaps the only chart that provides a mathematical definition of the earliest-possible, infinitesimal universe that begins to follow pi and the key dimensionless constants from their most simple expression within the first notation to their most complex within the 202nd.

-BEC

## Footnotes

[1] **Luigi Bianchi, Sophus Lie, Bob Coeke**: There are dozens of specialized disciplines and quite literally hundreds of excellent scholars whose work remains within information silos. Common roots between their work is assumed and even intuited, but without those first 64 notations, there is not enough intellectual space to define the connections. As well, it seems strident belief in big bang cosmology circumvents discovering them. Outside the most scholarly academic circles, starting the universe from “*infinitely hot, infinitely dense, and infinitely-small*” appears to many to be counter-intuitive; yet inside the circle, it is a very different story.

[2] **Emergence, creatio ex nihilo, the first moment of physicality**: Every approach must be analysed and digested.

*The Routledge Handbook of Emergence*, edited by Sophie Gibb, Robin Hendry, and Tom Lancaster, is the first such collection. To be released on March 19, 2019, some of the articles within with its 422 pages are posted within ArXiv such as “The emergence of space and time” by Christian Wüthrich.