A working draft
First posted: December 8, 2015 Most recent update: Wednesday, 7 March 2018 (Yes, still in process, still being updated!)
Please note: All links open a new tab or window.
It was inevitable. Our little Big Board-little universe model is getting rammed by the big bang theory and its illusive black holes.
In September 2014 I tested an idea: “Did a Quiet Expansion Precede the Big Bang?” There seemed to be some credible scientific questioning by respected scientists about the cosmology of the big bang theory. Also, given that academia had never wrestled with base-2 exponential notation from Planck Length and Planck Time to the Edge of the Universe and the Age of the Universe (respectively), we thought there was a possibility that the big bang cosmology was a bit upside-down. Yet, our simple challenge from our simple perspective was still quite young and admittedly naïve; we knew we would not, and could not, be a serious challenge to one of the most formidable theories in science. But then on November 26, 2015, an article in AAAS Science magazine (DOI: 10.1126/science.aad1182) raised fascinating questions within black hole physics; it has become entirely obvious to go forward with the Big Board – little universe model, we must engage the entire history of big bang cosmology and ultimately every related facet within its astrophysics. It is such a daunting task, one would be inclined to give up quickly. But, logic is logic; simplicity is simplicity. We’ll take it one slow step at a time.
Nevertheless, we just may be wrong. Let me review our work a little more.
Using our very simple logic, simple mathematics (power of two) and the Planck base units, we developed our first charts with somewhere just over 202 notations. Our emphasis had been on just the Planck Length. Rather sweetly, that first chart had placed humanity in the center of the 202+ notations. In December 2014, we plotted Planck Time side-by-side with the Planck Length and followed it out to 13.78 to 13.81 billion years. Now our charts logically included everything, everywhere, throughout all time. Yet, our known universe and the entire history of humanity were all within notation 202 (possibly including a bit of 201). Human life and history are barely a speck within those 13.78+ billion years of this universe. Though the Planck Time chart offered many new insights and raised some hard questions, in February 2015, with the addition of the other three Planck base units, mass-charge-temperature, even more difficult questions were raised.
The placement of Planck Temperature was such a key question. Does it begin simply or does it begin with a bang, a full bore, the hottest of the hot? And, if it starts with the other Planck numbers, does it continue to double from there? The universe is getting warmer, but not quite that warm! And, of course, the opposite makes no logical sense; the universe is not getting cooler. So, we wonder, “Maybe our progression is a straw man. Maybe it should be ignored.”
The first number that provides us with a commonsense experience is Planck Mass. At the 31st notation we see that the total mass of the universe is now up to 103 pounds or 46.702 kilograms. With the other units so small, there does appear to be a certain simple logic to it all. At the 67th notation, with the first instances of physicality, the weight of the universe is now over 3.21196×1012 kg (or 7.08115968×1012 pounds). Yes, and there is a certain logic to that, too.
The temperature scale is the key. We know there is order in the universe. Yet, the Planck Temperature makes it a special challenge. Some scientists claim if we were to start it with the other Planck base units, it is already hotter than the sum total of the universe. So, we reversed-order its progression. While the other Planck base units are doubling from the bottom up, the Planck Temperature started at notation 202 and is divided-by-2 from the top down. It just so happens between notations 104 and 103, very much within the primary human scale, the temperature is 310K which is 98.33°F or 36.85° C.
The logic within the time column suggests that the history of discussions about a variable speed of light could be reviewed in light of this model of the universe. Though most of the figures within the column can not be tested, there may be logical constructs that could suggest something about the overall cogency of the model.
That AAAS Science magazine article, placed within the context of the list of unsolved problems in physics and mathematics, poses a challenge to us, yet certainly no more than those larger lists of unsolved problems.
We’ll stop here for awhile to see what holds water.
Thank you. -Bruce Camber