The relation between the Finite and the Infinite is rather hotly debated, mostly between people who equate the infinite with God and those who have no place for any kind of god. Yet, the infinite also creates conundrums within science. In 2014, MIT physicist, Max Tegmark advocated, “I’m betting that we also need to let go of it.” He wants to retire what he and others call an incorrect assumption – infinity. His friend, Stephen Hawking, opened that door with his 1983 No Boundary Proposal that holds that the universe has no beginning or end.1
“Not so fast y’all” as it is said along the banks of the Mississippi River in New Orleans. With these two thought leaders, Hawking and Tegmark, it should be acknowledged that both are being speculative and that their concepts are brilliantly incomplete.
In the Big Board-little universe model using base-2 notation from the Planck Time to the Age of the universe, the entire physical universe is contained within just over 200 notations that are highly-integrated and totally-predictive. Notations are also known as clusters, doublings, groups, sets or steps. Within the first second of the universe, there is more than enough “natural inflation” from the Planck Charge to get “things” going. As a result of studying and working with this model since December 2011, there are many-many facets to explore, however one of the most important is that this model logically suggests that time is derivative and that the finite and the infinite are perhaps best understood in terms of continuity, symmetry and harmony.
Continuity. Though an unusual way to define infinity, even with quantum indeterminacy, continuity throughout the universe is the bedrock of science, logic, and rational thought. Numbers clarify this continuity. If we were to carry our measurements out a billion places, the universe and its systems around us would still replicate day after day with utmost precision.
Within this model, continuity is more fundamental than time; it begets time. It is the initial condition of order. More…
The complexity of a single molecule
Symmetry. The second face of the infinite is symmetry. Though so much of life is asymmetrical, the deepest examination of any physical thing begins to reveal deeper symmetries. Numbered relations define those symmetries, relations are created, and the universe appears to be tiled and tessellated deeply within every notation throughout the model. Here symmetry is more fundamental than space; it begets space. More…
Harmony. Speculating, it is hypostatized that two symmetries begin interacting within a notation and then across notations, dynamics are created, and though not quite perfect, the interaction of the symmetries perfects the moment for the observer or for the notations involved. Therefore, we have moments of perfection within our experiences of the universe.2 More…
Our studies. At this point in our studies, there is not much more we can say about how the infinite defines the model and what the model says about the very nature of the infinite. These three insights, although reflective of the model, in part come out of a study of a moment of perfection in 1972,3 then from studies of the book, Finite and Infinite: A Philosophical Essay (Austin Farrer, Oxford, Dacre Press, Westminster, 1943), and from an application to a business model.4 More…
These three qualities became the bedrock for our model of the universe and for discussions about the shared nature of the finite and infinite.
What difference does it make? First, it is a clear contrast to the nihilism of big bang cosmology. Building in strength and popularity over the past 30 years, that nihilism has had a lot to do the fraying of our little world. So much is out of control and spinning apart. Money is not the issue. What we believe and how we believe is. Hope is. Charity is. Integrity is.
What is 5000 to 13.8 billion years?
The finite and infinite relation has been the focus of humanity for as long as we have been recording our ever-so-short history. In light of 13.8+ billion years, five thousand years of records is, of course, quite short. We’ve just begun to make sense of it all.
Today in history. The finite is usually associated with physical, limited things. The infinite is often capitalized and associated with godly things, the eternal and everlasting. To our knowledge, Max Tegmark is the first theoretical physicist who has suggested that the concept of the infinite be abandoned. His rationale is that it gets in the way. He cannot make it work for the science he wants to create. Within these many articles, we hope to convince him, Hawking, Guth and so many others to re-engage our simple definition of the infinite. It does not require a religion or religious beliefs. Notwithstanding, it also does not necessarily fly in the face of those who believe in a much more robustly-defined Infinite.
We can all begin to tolerate each other.
This is our simple introduction to a very large topic and we will return to this page often to expand its range and its depth.
Zeeya Merali, Research scholar, author and journalist. London, UK
Background: Natural sciences degree from University of Cambridge and a PhD in cosmology from Brown University, Dr. Merali is a consulting editor for Foundational Questions Institute (FQXI).
In the latest homepage, https://81018.com/old-theory/, there are two paragraph about FQXi and I want to be sure it accurately reflects reality. In the body of the article is says:
“In 2020 an article was prepared for the Foundational Questions Institute (FQXi)[6]. It was the most comprehensive review of our model and nascent theory at that time. Notwithstanding, it was not accepted for reviewed within that scholarly community. Our work is so idiosyncratic, it didn’t get beyond an initial, casual review.”
The footnote:
[6] FQXi. The Foundational Questions Institute was started by Max Tegmark and Anthony Aguirre with financial help from the Templeton Foundation. This concrescence of interest and abilities are keys to make a breakthrough. Tegmark, with Turok and others have called for a fundamental rethinking of space, time and infinity. Yet, the defenders of the big bang faith, the deep believers, do not easily question the fundamentals of those beliefs and FQXi helps us all out of our ruts of misunderstanding. https://81018.com/3u/
Thanks, Zeeya.
-Bruce
Seventh email: 27 June 2022 @ 8:20 AM
Good morning! Are you aware of Aristotle’s mistake that was touted as truth for about 1800 years? We all make mistakes, but that’s got to be the penultimate. That it is so little discussed and understood is disconcerting. Here is my idiosyncratic take on it: https://81018.com/geometries/. Would FQXi have any room for it anywhere? Thanks. -Bruce
…delighted to see you within some of the FQXi videos. You may know from my earlier submission, within FQXi “3U’s” that I am off in a la-la land of simple math and geometries that keep impacting my understanding of things and relations. Most people write that work off automatically, first because it came from out of a high school and then I think because there is no published intellectual paper trail.
I know it is not by any means, a complete system; there are many more very basic concept puzzles to explore (and then always more). Today’s most problematic is here: https://81018.com/primordial/#Green
I am now trying to go back to the earlier thinkers, people like Schwarzschild and Compton to a point where the simplicities within pi provide structure where structure is unexpected. So, to that end, I’ve started my “Letters to Legends” and Schwarzschild was my first.
In the meantime I am getting to know some of the finest intellects living today. Unfortunately, time is running out on me, but until the last breadth, I’ll continue this unusual quest.
I am delighted you recognized BEC as being a Bose-Einstein Condensate. Did you know as BEC is being formulated, all the vowels are squeezed out first and Camber becomes CMBR…. peculiar. And silly.
Best wishes,
Bruce
Fourth email: January 14, 2022
Hi Zeeya –
I am slowly tightening up that page about your work: https://81018.com/2016/10/14/merali/ What if pi gives us real information about the finite-infinite relation? I think it does. https://81018.com/almost/ What if the infinite, for the purposes of logic-mathematics-and-science, is continuity, symmetry and harmony? Why not? What if the first moment of space/time is defined by the Planck base units? https://81018.com/particle/ That seems to be the beginning of a more simple, more inclusive model.
Of course, apply base-2 to those numbers and in 202 notations; we’ve gone from the start to the current time – and we have over 1000 simple calculations to check! https://81018.com/chart/ Thanks. –Bruce
The finite-infinite relation has not been addressed very well: https://81018.com/infinity We all seem to be afraid of God talk. I commend you for your boldness.
Regarding the IaF: Any proposals from Google Mind Team? Could people from these two groups work together on a joint venture? Thanks.
If you’d like me to change anything, just tell us what.
I suspect there are many people working as hard as possible, night and day, to the same end goals of redefining science and religion. I have been focused on it since 1969 (college graduation).
When I found your science and non-duality page, I thought, “More of Zeeya’s people!”
To construct the universe, what about starting at the Planck scale? If we initially focus just on time, length, mass and charge and use the simplest extension, base-2 notation, the results render a rather dramatic result: https://81018.com/chart/ Today’s homepage — https://81018.com — is a always the most recent page to be created. We will always have a focus on time: https://81018.com/2016/10/02/2october2016/ Thanks.
Most sincerely,
Bruce
First email: Wednesday, July 13, 2016
Thank you, Zeeya, for being such an insightful person.
You’ll see a horizontally-scrolled chart of the 202 base-2 notations from the Planck base units to the Age of the Universe. Here continuity and symmetry are our cornerstones. It stands to reason that there is something between the Planck base units and quarks, fermions and photons.
1. To remind me of the contents of my prior emails and references to your most current work, I have created a reference page within our website: https://81018.com/2016/10/13/baryshev/ [Please note: That’s this page.] If you ever want changes, updates or deletions to it, just say the word. That page is meant to be helpful.
2. Also, that page could easily be reworked to become a Wikipedia page. We have done this for other scholars, i.e. Petricio Letelier Once the baseline page is up, anybody can easily add to it. Would you like us to start such a page?
3. I believe the key problems with science today go back to a mistake by Aristotle that is not well-known today. Then, Newton’s absolute space and time continues to be a problem because it remains the commonsense view of most people living today. And finally, the continued affirmation of the infinitely hot start of the universe promulgated by Hawking and so many others is problematic. My summary is here: https://81018.com/duped/
I hope you have been spared some of the madness of these days and that your work continues forward. Thank you. Warmly, Bruce
You may remember an earlier email from me where in a high school geometry class we created model of the universe by doubling the Planck base units, then doubling the results over and over again, until in 202 doublings (base-2 notation) we are at the size and age of the universe. That chart is here: https://81018.com/chart
Of the many possible roots of conceptual problems, I believe John Wheeler’s search for the most simple* holds the most promise. Hawking’s work is a mess of contradictions within his first epoch which only get worse in his second, third and fourth epochs (which all total together less than a fraction of a fraction a second).
I had to go back to high school to see where we’ve all gone so wrong. To be alive in the past forty years is to know that our theories in cosmology, epistemology, and ontology are very incomplete:
Why not go back to the Newton-Clarke discussions with Leibniz?
Why not re-engage our understanding of the infinite?
Why not allow the infinite to enter our thinking?
Must we renormalize and regularize every equation?
Why not let some of those tensions teach us?
Yes, I have been bothering the old guard, from Hawking, to Guth, E.O. Wilson, Antonio Zichichi and others. Long ago, I was the guest of Freeman Dyson (IAS), and more recently of Frank Wilczek (MIT) who wrote Scaling Mt. Planck, I, II, III for Physics Today, 2001). He was very helpful.
Nobody has given any reason why base-2 notation from the Planck scale is a waste of time. There has been no refutation regarding those first 67 notations. Nobody has said, “There is no possibility…”
It is obvious to me that we all imbibed the big bang theory for such a long time that Hawking’s theoretical fabrication has successfully and rather quietly held most of us in check. But not you… would you spend a little time with me to go over the five questions above?
Further introduction: A good friend was Ted Bastin. Viki Weisskopf introduced me to John Bell whom I visited at CERN. With six of David Bohm’s PhD candidates (1977), we spent seven hours within his Fragmentation and Wholeness thinking about points, lines, triangles and tetrahedrons. In 1980 I spent a semester with Olivier Costa de Beauregard at the Institut Henri Poincaré. I met with Alain Aspect on a visit with JP Vigier and Bernard d’Espagnat. Twenty years later, (Bohm had died) I went inside the tetrahedron, then the octahedron. In 2011 I followed that progression to the CERN Atlas scale, then further within to the Planck scale. We caught our breath and began multiplying those Planck numbers by 2 until we were out to the Edge of the Universe, and then out to the Age of the Universe. https://81018.com/home for the history. Beyond all that name dropping above, here is a rambling timeline: https://81018.com/2016/12/31/1947-2016/
Mitigation of the big-bang “boom” continues. Originally published, October 2016 First Update: June 2017 Most recent update: 14 May 2023
Although the big bang has been the dominant theory since the 1980s, support for big bang cosmology has not been unanimous. Here we will aggregate articles –most-recent first — that raise questions about the theory. If you find a well-reasoned article, please forward it or a reference to it along us. Thanks! -BEC
2014-2017: There is a wide range of YouTube videos that question the big bang. Stephen Hawking knew this day was coming. He’s known for a long time that the big bang is seriously flawed. Now, the quality of the content and the productions vary widely (as one might expect).
Since scientists first proposed the big bang theory, many people have questioned and criticized the model. Here’s a rundown on some of the most common criticisms of the big bang theory: (1) It violates the first law of thermodynamics, which says you can’t create or destroy matter or energy. Critics claim that the big bang theory suggests the universe began out of nothing. Proponents of the big bang theory say that such criticism is unwarranted for two reasons. The first is that the big bang doesn’t address the creation of the universe, but rather the evolution of it. The other reason is that since the laws of science break down as you approach the creation of the universe, there’s no reason to believe the first law of thermodynamics would apply.
(2) Some critics say that the formation of stars and galaxies violates the law of entropy, which suggests systems of change become less organized over time. But if you view the early universe as completely homogeneous and isotropic, then the current universe shows signs of obeying the law of entropy.
(3) Some astrophysicists and cosmologists argue that scientists have misinterpreted evidence like the redshift of celestial bodies and the cosmic microwave background radiation. Some cite the absence of exotic cosmic bodies that should have been the product of the big bang according to the theory.
(4) The early inflationary period of the big bang appears to violate the rule that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Proponents have a few different responses to this criticism. One is that at the start of the big bang, the theory of relativity didn’t apply. As a result, there was no issue with traveling faster than the speed of light. Another related response is that space itself can expand faster than the speed of light, as space falls outside the domain of the theory of gravity.
There are several alternative models that attempt to explain the development of the universe, though none of them have as wide an acceptance as the big bang theory.
Alternative Cosmology Group, Open Letter on Cosmology,New Scientist, May 22, 2004
“The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed — inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.
“But the big bang theory can’t survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation.
“Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe. Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory’s explanation of the origin of the light elements. And without dark energy, the theory predicts that the universe is only about 8 billion years old, which is billions of years younger than the age of many stars in our galaxy. What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory’s supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centered cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.
“Yet the big bang is not the only framework available for understanding the history of the universe. Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesize an evolving universe without beginning or end. These and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements, the generation of large-scale structure, the cosmic background radiation, and how the redshift of far-away galaxies increases with distance. They have even predicted new phenomena that were subsequently observed, something the big bang has failed to do.
“Supporters of the big bang theory may retort that these theories do not explain every cosmological observation. But that is scarcely surprising, as their development has been severely hampered by a complete lack of funding. Indeed, such questions and alternatives cannot even now be freely discussed and examined. An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences. Whereas Richard Feynman could say that “science is the culture of doubt”, in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.
“Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific inquiry.
“Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.
“Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method — the constant testing of theory against observation. Such a restriction makes unbiased discussion and research impossible. To redress this, we urge those agencies that fund work in cosmology to set aside a significant fraction of their funding for investigations into alternative theories and observational contradictions of the big bang. To avoid bias, the peer review committee that allocates such funds could be composed of astronomers and physicists from outside the field of cosmology.
“Allocating funding to investigations into the big bang’s validity, and its alternatives, would allow the scientific process to determine our most accurate model of the history of the universe.”
How old is the universe? “13.8± billion years, within .1%” How many seconds would that be? 435.48 quintillion seconds. Each day adds another 86,400 seconds. Each year adds approximately 31.55 million seconds
[3] Lemaître, Hawking, Guth were the most pivotal thinkers to promulgate the big bang. Of course, Lemaître is long dead, and the very few who knew him are now close to the end of life. Hawking died on Pi Day, March 14, 2018. I can well-imagine he had had enough. Photo-op after photo-op, it is hard to be a celebrity and even consider doing serious science. Our infinitesimal sphere just may be a very good definition of Guth’s inflaton. It is creating the laws of physics as it populates the universe which based on either Planck‘s or Stoney’s base units could be anywhere from 539-to-4605 tredecillion infinitesimal spheres per second…
[11] Penultimate grid. The first infinitesimal sphere has been likened to Lemaître’s primeval atom and Guth’s inflaton. Both are hypothetical. Our very first infinitesimal sphere is a little less hypothetical. The universe has to start with something to create space-time. Of course, our postulation that our universe is totally populated by such infinitesimal spheres is also hypothetical. Notwithstanding, this hypothetical penultimate grid warrants inspection. Although the finite-infinite transformations between the faces of continuity-symmetry-harmony (CSH) are assumed, our focus is on the finite. The finite is first defined by CSH, then defined by the Fourier transform, and the Poincaré sphere, and then the Poincaré homology sphere. Any and all types of spheres are included as potential spheres waiting for their mathematics to evolve (be possible, come out). This, of course, would include Smale and Milnor’s spheres and attractors and repellers.
Eighth email: Tuesday, December 13, 2022
Dear Prof. Dr. Alan Guth:
This is our eighth email. Our first email on July 6, 2016 (below) appealed to you for help to interpret our simple base-2 progression from the Planck units. Over the past six years, we’ve been inching along, studying articles by you and other scholars like you. Much of it is over our heads so we have to go over it many times and dig back further and further within each conceptual framework. We’re learning!
Most recently, this is what I concluded about our work:
“Our chart with its 202 base-2 notations is slowly becoming a model and our hope is that you will help us to understand it. In this world of Planck’s base units, infinitesimal spheres, and pi, it appears to use less extralogic and seems less idiosyncratic than Alan Guth’s inflation and his hypothetical inflaton.[25]”
I know our nascent model is a possible model for the following reasons: 1. In over ten years, nobody has said, “This is where you are going wrong and these are the reasons why.” 2. Most people readily admit that they had never seen a base-2 progression from the Planck units to the current time. It is a new conceptual frame of reference. 3. People readily admit to not regarding the Planck base units. They have not considered how these natural units are defined in terms of four universal physical constants (each physical constant can take on a numerical value of 1 when expressed in terms of the other three units) and thus define a fundamental reference point that is still not readily understood or embraced. 4. This model introduces infinitesimal spheres consistent with the “primeval atom” proposed in 1931 by Lemaître. Our counter to the atom is an infinitesimal sphere which instantiates the primacy of pi (π) and a deep-seated order-relations-dynamics, conditions of spherical continuities, symmetries, and harmonies. A causal efficacy emerges through cubic-close packing for the generation of spheres.
There are as many as 30 additional reasons, among them, a redefinition of space-and-time, and the finite-infinite, and quantitative-qualitative relations.
I remember well my time with Vicki Weisskopf. For all the above reasons, I will continue to analyze your beloved theory and, to the best of my abilities, counter all the arguments that surround it until one day you say, “Okay, I surrender. Your logic is tighter than mine.”
Of course our high school work is idiosyncratic, typical sweet poppycock, and we shouldn’t be bothering you — yet I still feel it is only right that you know when, where and how your name is being used. You’ve show up in a footnote (below) about the 1999 Structure Formation conference within our homepage today: https://81018.com/uni-verse/#2f
You may remember the 202 base-2 notations from the Planck scale to the current size and age of the universe. It’s a sweet little model with a natural inflation and a simple logic that has been readily ignored by the academy for the past eight years.
I have updated our working page about your scholarship (this page) because it is currently linked from today’s homepage. I have also updated the primary page that prompted my first email and those that followed. https://81018.com/s4a/
Let me wish you a bright and prosperous 2020. We all have work to do!
Getting somebody with your history and of your caliber to test the assumptions, logic, and mathematics of base-2 model of the universe is very high among my short term goals. So obviously, I would so appreciate any help to understand why our simple logic and simple mathematics fails.
We now have some rough numbers, a natural inflation from the Planck units, using base-2 exponentiation to the Age of the Universe, and the logic flow just might be defensible with a Guth or Linde or Steinhardt depth of knowledge about cosmology.
Is there any possibility that “natural inflation” is the grounding for base-2 expansion within cells, bifurcation theory, and quantum fluctuations?
-Bruce
Second email: Monday, 10 October 2016 email
Dear Prof. Dr. Guth:
Might we create a new model of the universe by using the Planck base units and base-2 exponential notation to carry those units out to the Age of the Universe? We are a high school geometry class; our math and logic are all quite simple. There are a total of just over 200 notations. By the 144th notation, just over a second from the first moment, there is more than enough inflation (mass-energy-length-and-temperature) to produce a very compelling, exquisitely dense, quark-gluon universe without so much as a bang. It is a wonderland, and it seems that this Alice redefines the very nature of space and time.
Just silliness? I don’t think so. And given the gravity of the inherent nihilism within the big bang model, it is most important that the two leading theorists for it, be intellectually honest, even after a lifetime of devotion to it. Everyone must be prepared to challenge their most cherished concepts.
We all need to reconsider the necessity of a big bang. Thank you.
TO: Prof. Dr. Alan Guth, Victor F. Weisskopf Professor of Physics, MIT
Dear Prof. Dr. Alan Guth:
I was born in July 1947, so you are my senior; and, I write with admiration and respect for what you have accomplished. There is a special confidence that one gets from affirmations especially from being published. It seems so very eternal.
My question comes out of work done in a high school geometry class when we ducked inside a tetrahedron, found half-sized tetrahedrons in the four corners and an octahedron in the middle.
We then went inside that octahedron, divided each edge by 2, and found half-sized octahedrons in each of the six corners and a tetrahedron in each of the eight faces. A perfect tessellation, it was easy to continue. In about 45 jumps within, we were down among the protons. In another 67 we were in some kind of exquisitely-busy “singularity” with the Planck base units.
Feeling a little uncomfortably tight, we quickly multiplied those base units by 2 and in a total of 202 notations we were out in-and-around the Age of the Universe and the Observable Universe.
Now, this is all happening just up river from the New Orleans Zoo, downriver from the NOLA international airport. We’re just high school folks and the kids.
That was 2011. We rushed right by Kees Boeke whose work MIT’s Phil Morrison embraced. When we included all the Planck base units in our little chart, it got very challenging.
1. Nobody talks about those 67 notations from the fermion-proton range down to the first Planck base units’ doublings.
“Much too small to be meaningful!” say the kings and queens of physics. Why? “Off with your head!” (in the spirit of Alice in Wonderland’s Queen of Hearts).
2. Really now, if Max Planck found a path to such small numbers (length, time, mass) and to the not so small charge, and to an absolutely gargantuan temperature, shouldn’t there be a way to get to them through a bit of simple logic and simple math?
Why not? We’ve mapped it out in a large horizontal chart: https://81018.com/chart/. It’s rich with information, but it could be all wet. Any advice for us literal abstractionists? Thanks.
PS. Long ago, in 1976, I was the guest of Victor Weisskopf at the MIT faculty club where I had arranged for a Wall Street Journal (WSJ) writer to interview him for an “A-Hed” article. It was to be about how the chairman of the MIT physics department was involved with the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in Rome. Though the article was never published, Weisskopf invited me to his home to review great artwork, some quite religious, that challenged our understanding of space-time and infinity.
About six months later, on a trip to visit with folks in Geneva at both CERN and the World Council of Churches, Weisskopf arranged my first meeting with John Bell to talk about the EPR paradox and his inequalities.
Then, in 1979, I had a display project under the dome at 77 Massachusetts Avenue called, “What is life?” after Schrodinger’s book of the same title. It was an attempt to examine the first principles and answers to the question by 77 leading, living scholars from around the world.
Jerome Wiesner buttonholed me at that time, “What’s this?” thinking it was a right-to-life group! Such memories. So, now so many years later, I am still wrestling with the same old questions!
These paragraphs from the preface of your book, The Inflationary Universe, I enjoy:
“Guth realized that a sudden, ultra-rapid stretching of the universe could take a tiny uniform patch and expand it to a size where it ultimately would grow and become the observable universe. During the fleeting instant of inflation, any irregularities in the primordial cosmos would be propelled beyond detection, offering a kind of blank slate. It is like taking a crinkled tablecloth and stretching it out so quickly that it appears flat on a tabletop and any wrinkles left are off the table and out of view. Only tiny, jiggling quantum fluctuations would disturb the uniformity; these fluctuations would be the seeds of the galaxies and galaxy clusters we see today.
“Inflation solved critical problems in cosmology, but it also split the Big Bang into distinct phases: In the inflationary portrait, the creation of almost all of the matter and energy in the universe takes place at the close of the inflationary period, through a process called “reheating,” rather than before inflation. Reheating involves a massive release of energy from inflation’s driving engine: an entity called the “inflaton,” thought to be a fluctuating energy field that ignited ultra-rapid cosmic expansion.”
“Theorists think that at the end of inflation, the inflaton field released an enormous reservoir of potential energy into space—which, following Einstein’s famous equivalence between energy and mass, converted into a deluge of particles. Before then, because stretching causes cooling, the universe was actually relatively cold. As the cosmos rapidly expanded, its hot initial temperature dropped by a factor of many thousand (the precise amount depends on the particular model), becoming extraordinarily hot only after reheating. If you feel that an event should be fiery if it’s going to be called the “Big Bang,” then reheating, not the cosmic dawn, was the true “bang.” That’s because the energy fields created then wouldn’t have been very hot.”
Would you have a quick look at a large horizontally-scrolled page with just over 200 columns. You can easily scroll the four Planck base units from their so-called singularity to the current Age of the Universe: https://81018.com/chart/
Time. Our simple mathematical progression and simple logic provide a radically different approach to historic questions about time. If you multiply the smallest unit of time by 2, then each result by 2, over and over again, in just over 200 steps you will be at the Age of the Universe. It is hard to believe. That it is a view of the entire universe is hard to believe. That logically-speaking it is the most-simple, most-integrated, most-comprehensive grid that can be defined is just as hard to believe. Called base-2 notation from the Planck Scale to the Age of the Universe, this simple model suggests that space-and-time are finite, derivative, local, and quantized. The net-net, bottomline conclusion: What you do today imprints on the universe forever. Go to that model and all the numbers.
If space and time are finite, one might then ask, “Then, what is infinite?”
Infinity Is a Beautiful Concept – And It’s Ruining Physics: An article in Discover magazine, here Max Tegmark explores questions that surround infinity. Tegmark, a physics professor at MIT and the author of books like Our Mathematical Universe, has written hundreds of articles, and has done thousands of interviews and lectures. Infinity gets in his way (see: renormalization and regularization). He concludes that science does not need the infinite. This is an increasingly popular position among many very smart people. Although his conclusion is perhaps too quick, his engagement of the key questions is very good. More…
If space and time are finite, one might ask, “Is there anything that is infinite?” As a result of the simple base-2 model, a most simple answer could be “Continuity, symmetry, and harmony.” Order, relations, and dynamics – it appears that the thrust of the universe and the thrust of our cells require all three. To explore what that means, we will use the simple model to see how it impacts every article (including Max Tegmark’s), book, conference, and late night discussion about the nature of time referenced here. That base-2 simple chart...
This is a working document; it will continue to be updated. It will evolve in time.
Article. A Debate Over the Physics of Time by Dan Falk
Quanta Magazine, July 19, 2016 and Atlantic Monthly , July 26, 2016 (just a week later)
Dan Falk is the author of In Search of Time and a distinguished science writer from Toronto. In this article, first published by Quanta Magazine and then by Atlantic Monthly, he opens the door on a June 30, 2016 conference at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Ontario. We are able to listen in on many of the world’s leading theorists of the physics of time. That conference ended inconclusively and their debate continues to go on and on and on.
Here are very smart people. Each writes prolifically, so we will examine their work and we will write to them to ask questions. To that end, on these pages we will share our emails to them and, when permission is granted, share their responses to us.
Every reference that Dan Falk has made to a scientist-philosopher will be followed up. Every person will be queried, “What is wrong with this simple model of the universe that begins with the Planck Scale and goes to the Age of the Universe in just over 200 base-2 notations?”
Book. NOW: The Physics of Time by Richard A. Muller, WW Norton & Company, 2016
Richard A. Muller is a professor of physics at University of California – Berkeley. He is the author of many books, hundreds of articles, and thousands of lectures and interviews. In his September 2016 book, NOW: The Physics of Time, he concludes that there is no past and future, only this time, right now. Because his orientation is big bang cosmology, everything physical is interpreted in that light. When it comes to talking about the nature of the the infinite, Muller chooses to insert it at the back of the book within Appendix 6. There he quotes other astute scientists’ comments about the infinite and then he offers his own confession on a single page (338) entitled, “Me” (partial image below). He offers no specific qualities of the infinite that could in some fundamental way give rise to space and time. These kinds of discussions often revert to very personal generalizations that offer very little insight into a more scientific understanding of the infinite.
Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo (Canada) was the site of a four-day conference (Monday to Thursday) to focus on the issues defining and explaining time. Science is all about time symmetry. Time’s arrow from the past to the present to the future has been a longstanding problem.
You may remember our first horizontally-scrolled chart of the numbers: https://81018.com/chart/. It was peculiar in 2011 and it is even more so today. It’s so idiosyncratic. We are not quite sure how and where the logic breaks down.
Just maybe, it doesn’t.
It begs questions: (1) What are the mechanisms whereby notations build on each other? (2) Is it first the domain of Langlands, operad theory, strings, and so much more. We didn’t know; we just knew we had a lot to learn. (3) Do they continue to build off of each other to this moment in time? Are they always active?
I know that you get more tweets and email than a rock star. We just want to keep you in our loop.
Thanks for all your work that has inspired us over these years!
Warmly,
Bruce
Fourth email: Tuesday, 31 July 31, 2018
Dear Prof. Dr. Carlo Rovelli:
Could the initial spin state be related to Euler’s identity and be associated with the concept of planckspheres? I realize it is a rather peculiar question!
Thank you,
-Bruce
PS. Your image and references are on the current hompage where it says: Carlo Rovelli has gone where others fear to tread. He has a huge following around the world for his books that explain difficult concepts in physics with fluency and ease. His work, in an area called Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG), has everybody asking, “Is this the real beginning of a Theory of Everything (TOE)?”
Third email: 3 July 2018
Dear Prof. Dr. Carlo Rovelli:
Here in the USA the 4th of July celebrations have begun; it’s time to think of about foundations, roots, and revolutions. Surely, your work with time qualifies.
I have so much more to learn about LQG, but even before LQG, I believe our starting points are off. So in that light, I continue working on my idiosyncratic model of the universe using that base-2 application with the Planck Base units. In the process, I think there are about ten concepts that could be worth our time to review and comment. Although our scholarly and scientific communities have used all of the following words (within the Postscript), none of their inherent concepts have been lifted up as primordial, keys to begin to integrate ideas within a simple mathematical model of the universe (that base-2 application from the Planck scale to the Age of the Universe in 202 notations). So, here are ten key ideas, rather radical concepts, that are presented so we might begin to see our “very first moment,” then ourselves, and our universe more logically.
“…and we have to learn to do physics and to think about the world in a profoundly new way. Our notions of what are space and time are completely altered. In fact, in a sense, we have to learn to think without them… Our space in which we live is just this enormously complicated spin network.” – Dr. Carlo Rovelli
Dear Prof. Dr. Carlo Rovelli:
Thank you for all your marvelous work. You make very difficult concepts very approachable. That helps us tremendously.
We have so little background in your world, however, in our high school geometry class, we started with the tetrahedron with the octahedron [https://81018.com/tot/] inside of it, and kept on going within, dividing by 2, until in about 45 steps we were down around the fermions and in another 67 steps we were within the Planck base units. When we multiplied by 2, we were out to the Age of the Universe in just under 90 doublings. Since December 2011 we have worked on our integrated UniverseView [https://81018.com/home/] using base-2 exponential notation as a general outline.
It is 3.333 times more granular than Kees Boeke’s base-10, it has an implied geometry, and it has the Planck base units. Some of our current work is here: https://81018.com/ It has become quite a modelling project.
Notations 1 to 67 challenge us to rethink our understanding of the basic notions of Time and Space. Your work is helping us to see that others are doing substantial work in this area from a much more professional point of view.
Is our work at all helpful as a framework for research?
PS. We are just now starting to consider the nature of spin!
PPS. Our first note to you was sent on Sun, May 1, 2016 but it either did not reach you or it was gobbledygook. We are trying to write as clearly as possible. Forgive me, please, if this continues to be too strange and not very charming. -BEC
University of Pittsburgh: “Our space in which we live is just this enormously complicated spin network,” said Dr. Carlo Rovelli of the University. He and Dr. Lee Smolin of the Center for Gravitational Physics and Geometry at Pennsylvania State University have figured out how to use spin nets to calculate area and volume — all this information is encoded within the web-like structure.
It is all quite a bit more granular than Kees Boeke’s base-10. Ours came out of a chase of the embedded tilings and tessellations of the tetrahedron and the octahedron within it. We were building models in our high school geometry class and decided to “go within” until we got to Planck’s base units. That was easy. Going out to the Observable Universe was easier. It has become quite a modeling project!
Are we onto to something or off within some fallacy of misplaced concreteness?
Thanks.
Most sincerely,
Bruce Camber, resource teacher New Orleans high school http://81018.com
PS. We are just now starting to consider the nature of spin (and Euler’s identity)! We once had a reference to work within the Nobel Prize committee’s website, but they have removed that page. Unfortunate.
, 
Worldviews limit perspective 
