Rejected by AAAS Science Magazine

A student and his math & science teachers ask,

“What is wrong with our simple logic and math?”

by Bryce Estes,1 Cathy Boucvalt,2 Steve Curtis,3 and Bruce Camber4
New Orleans, LA 70123, USA

Introduction

tetrahedrons159
Tetrahedron

High school is a place to explore the unknown and to build on the  basics. It is a time to soak up information, knowledge, and wisdom. Some of those unknown concepts are quite simple but perplexing. Our example of this fact happened when we divided by 2, each of the edges of a tetrahedron, then an octahedron. The process creates half-sized embedded geometries. In about 45 steps, going within, we were at the CERN-scale, and in another 67-steps going within, we were at the Planck scale. We then multiplied our little model by 2 and in about 90 doublings were were somewhere in the range of the Observable Universe. We created a chart of the universe with just 202 notations.

It was remarkable to see the universe all mathematically notated on one chart.

We quickly discovered that a base-2 scale of the universe hadn’t been done and was not part of any formal academic program. We discovered Kees Boeke’s 1957 work in Holland, a base-10 chart with just 40 jumps. It had become quite popular, but it did not start at the Planck units nor did it go to the Age of the Universe. We started to write up our results and we attempted to get others involved. Our first article for Wikipedia was rejected in 2012. (Editor’s note: AAAS rejected this article in April 2016.)

So, now we go back over our logic and math and ask, “What are we doing wrong?”

Challenge

Since December 2011 a small group of high school students and a few of their teachers have been trying to figure out what to do with an all-encompassing but simple mathematical and geometrical model. Findings to date are presented with the hope that the academic-scientific community can tell us how best to proceed with our very simple charts.

History

As noted above, the project began by dividing the edges of a tetrahedron in half. We connected the new vertices and discovered a tetrahedron in each of the four corners and an octahedron in the middle. We then divided the edges of the octahedron in half and discovered an octahedron in each of the six corners and a tetrahedron in each of the eight faces. Delighted with the simple complexity, we continued to divide each subsequent object in the same way until we had to resort to paper. By the 45th step within we were in the range of a proton. In another 67 steps we were in the range of the Planck base units. Back up inside the classroom we decide to multiply by 2. Within about 22 steps we were out to the International Space Station. In about 90 steps, we were out to the Observable Universe and the Age of the Universe.

________________

1 Electronic address: bestes@bblu.org Webpage: http://bblu.org/bryce
2 Electronic address: cb@bblu.org Webpage: http://bblu.org/cb
3 Electronic address: sc@bblu.org Webpage: http://bblu.org/steve
4 Electronic address: camber@bblu.org, Web-page: http://bblu.org/bec

________________

“What is wrong with our simple logic and math?”     Thursday, June 16, 2016              page 2
________________

It was delightful process charting the universe in what we quickly learned was base-2 exponential notation. We thought Kees Boeke’s work  was interesting but not granular enough. As we began to study our work, we realized it was an excellent Science-Technology-Engineering-Math (STEM) tool so we began sharing it with others within very preliminary web pages, Cf. the Ref. [1]

The first chart was a 60″ by 11″ board that started with the Planck Length and went to the Observable Universe, Cf. the Ref. [2] so we called our little project, Big Board-little universe. Because we didn’t know where to stop, we got a little help with our calculations, Cf. the Ref. [3]. A year later a desktop version of the chart was started; it was dubbed, Universe Table, Cf. the Ref. [4]. In December 2014 Planck Time was added to the chart, Cf. the Ref. [5]. Those numbers tracked well with the Planck Length. Now we had a better number, Age of the Universe, to determine when to stop multiplying by 2.
Here we discovered that that Max Planck’s ratio of of the Planck Length to Planck Time within each of the 202 notations was always within 1% of the speed of light. In February 2015, we added the other three Planck base units to the chart, Cf. the Ref. [6]. Here we discovered that each number is a ratio to the others and provides summary data about inherent order within the universe.

The teachers include three of the authors of this paper, Bruce Camber, Cathy Boucvalt, and Steve Curtis and a student, Bryce Estes who represents the many years of students, including a sixth grade class back in the Spring of 2012 when they were introduced to these charts.

The very first observation was that each chart is a highly efficient way to organize vast amounts of information, but these charts also raised some rather fascinating questions.

Questions and Challenges

First, we wondered why couldn’t find some vestiges of these charts within our textbooks or someplace on the World Wide Web. In May 2012 Wikipedia rejected an article we submitted because it was “original research,” , Cf. the Ref. [7]. We asked, “Isn’t all this information somewhere within the academic world?

Stepping back from our charts, we asked, ”Isn’t each column of the chart a very basic continuity equation from a Planck base unit to its largest possible measurement? Isn’t continuity the bedrock of order? Should this be the first principle within our work?”

The small numbers were impossibly small and the large numbers were impossibly large, yet the 202 notations were relatively manageable. The nagging question was, “Is there a problem with our logic and math?” It was exponential notation that helped us get comfortable with both extremes. It helped make the numbers more manageable. Yet, it takes time. It has been a steep learning curve for our feelings or intuitions about the very nature of a number. We asked more questions, “What are these numbers? What are they telling us about the universe and ourselves?

The geometries started simple, but became exceedingly complex. We asked, “What is geometry? How is space necessarily defined? Does it require all the Planck base units? Does it require the extended Planck units?”

The human family seems to dominate the middle of this chart yet the time epoch for humanity’s existence is entirely within notation 202. What is the correlation, the working relation, between the current time and the other notations? Are all notations concurrent, active and forever? What does that imply about the nature of space and time?

________________

“What is wrong with our simple logic and math?”    Thursday, June 16, 2016             page 3
________________

When the chart is divided into thirds, the small-scale universe is extremely small. It goes from the Planck Length to about the size of the fermion. This particular view of the small-scale universe is virtually unknown yet it has a substantial amount of data waiting to be properly analyzed. We reached out to many of the finest scholars for their inputs.

Everybody seemed puzzled. The human scale and large scale did not seem to challenge our simple logic until the time column was observed, particularly the figures at one second, Cf. the Ref. [8]. What does it mean that the Planck Length multiple is the distance light travels in a second? Well over two-thirds of all the notations are within one second and within an area defined by the earth to the moon. What does that tell us?

Nobody seems to know what to do with these charts. So, to get some scrutiny, online articles, blogs and emails, Cf. the Ref. [9] were written. Feedback has been limited. How can that change?

Prof. Dr. Freeman Dyson (email, Cf. the Ref. [10]) recommended that we use dimensional analysis and scaling laws to determine the number of possible vertices starting at the Planck base units. The numbers become extremely large rather quickly; nevertheless, because the first 60+ notations were not on anybody’s charts of known things within space and time, we concluded that these vertices must be shared by the entire universe and have something to do with homogeneity, isotropy, the very nature of symmetry and the symmetry of nature, and the cosmological constant. Are we crazy or what?

Concluding Questions

Are these numbers important? Is this model important? We believe these numbers are trying to tell us something very new and rather special so we will continue writing blogs about our ideas, intuitions, conjectures, and sometimes rather-wild speculations until we learn why our simple logic and simple math have failed us.

Have they?

References

  1. Big Board-little universe, “Can our entire universe be meaningfully encapsulated within just over 201 base-2 exponential notations?” the basic web page. https://81018.com/chart
  2. Big Board-little universe, “An exploration of 101 steps from the smallest measurement, the Planck length, to the human scale, and then 101 more steps to the Observable Universe” December 2011
  3. Big Board-little universe, “Some Calculations and Thoughts Regarding Measurement by Joe Kolecki, NASA scientist, retired” https://81018.com/2012/05/14/nasa/
  4. Big Board-little universe, “Universe Table – Human Scale” https://81018.com/table/
  5. Big Board-little universe, “UniverseView: Begin at the Planck Time and Planck Length, Use Base-2 Exponential Notation”  https://81018.com/plancktime/
  6. Big Board-little universe, “Five Planck Base Units – Vertically scrolled, 204-to-0” February 2015 https://81018.com/chart4/
  7. Big Board-little universe, “The original Wikipedia article as written in March 2012” https://81018.com/2012/05/05/wikipedia/
  8. Big Board-little universe, “Five Planck Base Units – Horizontally scrolled, 0-204 to the first second” May 2016. https://81018.com/chart
  9. Big Board-little universe, a working “Index” of articles, January 2012 to June 2016  https://81018.com/index/
  10. Big Board-little universe, “Freeman Dyson: A Guiding Light” October 22, 2012 https://81018.com/2012/10/22/dyson/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s