The roots of this project go back to 1979 in the main entrance of MIT, Lobby 7, where the works of 77 key, living scholars were placed within either the small-scale, human-scale, or large-scale universe. At that time quarks and strings were the smallest things considered.
- Could it be that our small scale was not small enough?
- Are the Planck base units the right place to begin an analysis of the universe?
In March 2012 I initiated an article for Wikipedia about our work within a local high school. A few months earlier we had started to explore a very simple model where the small scale started with the Planck units, used base-2 exponential notation, and went up to the fermion. It then continued on to the Observable Universe for a total of 202 notations. Actually published in Wikipedia early in April, that article was deleted on May 2, 2012. In the course of online discussions with an MIT mathematics professor, a major Wikipedia editor, he said it was “original research.” There was no history within scholarship where the universe was defined by 202 base-2 exponential notations which used the Planck base units and the simplest Platonic geometries to define an infrastructure for the entire universe.
So, what is wrong with that starting point for a model of the universe?
You are here reading this posting for a purpose. I hope it is to think about its veracity and cogency, or to give it a critical review, or to share it with someone else. A simple “Thumbs Up” to encourage us to go forward would be helpful. An insightful comment would be highly appreciated. Sharing this posting with another is encouraged. Becoming associated with this research effort would be most uplifting. You are always invited and most welcomed.
It was with that 1979 project at MIT that I began to see the universe in terms of the small scale, human scale, and large scale (ontology, epistemology, and cosmology). With the Big Board-little universe project that early work has been re-birthed. On December 20, 2012, in response to an email, Frank Wilczek, MIT physics professor and Nobel laureate, said, “I should emphasize that the Planck length is not a substance or law, just a rough concept. So, for example, twice or half the Planck length would be just as good as the Planck length itself, as a concept — it’s basically a matter of convention which you use.”
Yet, within those charts that slowly emerged from our work, there are many, many numbers that should be analyzed and discussed. That has sparked these three conclusions:
1. We will always need your critical review of the our posts. Take, for example, On Constructing the Universe from Scratch. That post resulted in an extended LinkedIn commentary (https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/constructing-universe-from-scratch-bruce-camber) in part based on series of comments at the end of the original article. Comments are helpful!
2. At the end of the year, 2015, I attempted to define our first principles and basic assumptions for this project, Top Ten Reasons to give up those little worldviews for a much bigger and more inclusive UniverseView. That posting is now being revisited to begin to tighten it up. Again, comments are needed. Assumptions and first principles are keys to sharing our understanding of the nature of reality.
3. Your critical review of any posting in the Index is encouraged. Or, you could help with the current work focused on the best guesses of scholars regarding the expansion of the universe within the first seconds, years, millennium, and then million-year cycles. Please pass along any helpful references you have (such as Wikipedia’s Chronology of the universe and Timeline of the formation of the Universe). Of course, if there is any parity with the notations within the 201+ doublings, a much deeper analysis will commence!
Again, you are always invited and most welcomed to help. Thank you.