Upon following the work of George F. R. Ellis…

George F. R. Ellis, FRS, Professor Emeritus, Applied Mathematics 
University of Cape Town, South Africa

Articles: The physics of infinity, Nature Physics, V. 14, Issue 8, p.770-772, 2018
________ Physics on Edge, Inference (International Review of Science), V3, #2________ Physicist George Ellis Knocks PhysicistsJohn Horgan, Scientific American, July 2014
ArXiv: Stephen William Hawking: A Biographical Memoir (PDF), February 2020
_____ Emergence of time (PDF), Nov. 2019
_____ Theoretical Cosmology (with Alan A. Coley), (PDF), Sept 2019 
_____ Causal Structures in Cosmology (PDF) Dec. 2016)
_____ 100 Years of General Relativity (PDF) Sept. 2015) (video)
_____ The arrow of time and the nature of spacetime (PDF), March 2013
_____ A Note on Infinities in Eternal Inflation (PDF), January 2010
Books: The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time (PDF, with Stephen Hawking), CUP, 1973
______ The Universe Around Us: An Integrative View of Science & Cosmology 2002-07-29
Conference: Time in Cosmology    FRS
Homepage(s): Google Scholar,   inSPIREHEP, Wikipedia  
Video: http://videolectures.net/george_ellis/  https://www.whyarewehere.tv/people/george-ellis/
YouTubePhilosophy of Cosmology, 2020; George Ellis, Ard Louis, Top-Down Causation, 2017

Within this website: (1) https://81018.com/validate/#1f and https://81018.com/validate/#References;
(2) https://81018.com/2016/06/30/perimeter/, and (3) https://81018.com/conference

Most recent email: 27 July 2022 at 5:01 PM

Reference: The physics of infinity, Nature Physics, V. 14, Issue 8, p.770-772, 2018

Dear Prof. Dr. George Ellis:

Given your wisdom, might you tender a slightly different notion of infinity. I describe it as one of three facets of pi that are not finite or quantitative so we assume (hypothesize and/or hypostatize) these facets define the infinite and the qualitative.

Continuity is our first facet of infinity. It is the very nature of order. Within the finite it looks like a string of numbers and feels like time. Pi qualifies; it’s an equation that has never-ending results that are always the same and always changing.

Symmetry is the second facet of infinity. It looks like geometries and is the very nature of a relation. Within the finite it feels like space. Pi qualifies; it’s a symmetry that generates symmetries. It’s an equation that generates equations.

Harmony is the third facet of infinity. It is the very nature of dynamics; and within the finite, it is always cyclical (periodicity) and experienced as space-time moments. Pi’s numbers, geometries, and equations (Fourier transform and others) are here within an eternal dance and there’s a domain of perfection which may be experienced as a moment of perfection.

All other definitions of the infinite are put on hold. Most are personal definitions that come from personal experiences and family history. That is one’s own business, not ours. If those beliefs help you through life, that is great. Our goal here is to engage those principles and functions that give rise to mathematics, physics, and eventually all the other sciences.

What do you think? …gobbledegook? …worthwhile? Thanks.

With warmest regards,

Bruce

Eleventh email: 30 January 2022 at 12:06 PM

Dear Prof. Dr. George Ellis:

Oh, just to capture a sacred moment where time does not flow! 

I hope you are well-and-fine and that your life is good.

I have made a little reference to you, a footnote within an article that I am currently shaping to become a homepage: “Prove it to me!” Numbers-Geometry-Equations The link is here: https://81018.com/validate/#1f Also, there is a reference here: https://81018.com/validate/#References My “big page” about your work is here: https://81018.com/2016/01/11/ellis/ (this page)

Best wishes always,

Bruce

PS. Just in case you do not go to links within emails, here is one of those references:

[1] VSL. There is a wide range of leading scholars who have been writing about VSL for many years. Perhaps the most foundational is by Robert Dicke in 1957. John Moffatt (1992), Andreas Albrecht (Wikipedia)George Ellis (Wikipedia) (2007), and João Magueijo (Wikipedia) (1998) kept it alive. The chart of 202 notations, particularly line 10, is quite possibly the first actual mathematical approach to validating a VSL.

See:
• Ellis, George F RNote on Varying Speed of Light Cosmologies (PDF),  in General Relativity and Gravitation39 (4): 511–520. 2007
• Magueijo, JoãoNew varying speed of light theories (PDF), Reports on Progress in Physics, 2003, 66 (11): 2025–2068. arXiv:astro-ph/0305457
• Moffatt, John W, J. Magueijo), “Comments on “Note on varying speed of light theories”,” 2008
• Yves-Henri Sanejouand, Empirical evidences in favor of a varying-speed-of-light,” ArXivABSIOP, 2009

Tenth email: July 28, 2020 at 4:56 PM

Dear Prof. Dr. George Ellis:

I’ve tried to clean-up this page with all my references to your work and to some of my notes to you over the years:  https://81018.com/2016/01/11/ellis/

Also, our first reference to you on this site is here (top of page). The actual, long-term URL for that page is: https://81018.com/conference/  Along with 18 others I have also sent you my notes inviting a critical review of the base-2 chart of 202 notations from the Planck scale, especially Planck Time, to our current time.

One of the first principles of this website is that infinity is continuity/order, symmetry/relations and harmony/dynamics and that space/time matter/energy are all finite and derivative. I think Tegmark and Hilbert and so many others have just made it too big of an issue. Our working definition allows the ancient philosophies to breathe a little.

Also, my clean-up of your page was to prioritize my reading and study so I can readily answer my eight questions on that top-level page from your perspective. After I finish, I’ll send you a copy of it to see how close I have come.

As well, I should add that I think Frank Wilczek was simply saying that the Planck base units were largely ignored by scholarship until his three articles in Physics Today. Barrow’s Natural Units Before Planck (1983) is a favorite. Dirac had his large numbers. Planck had his infinitesimals.

The infinitesimals open clear questions about infinity and within this base-2 model, one face is quantitative and the other qualitative.

Best wishes always,

Bruce

Ninth Email: May 22, 2020, 11:06 PM

Dear Prof. Dr. George Ellis:

The most recent homepage has a section about Hawking which starts off with your 1973 co-authored work. I thought you might find it of some interest: https://81018.com/duped/#HawkingThat article is entitled, Duped by Aristotle, Newton & Hawking. Thank you.
Most sincerely,Bruce

Seventh and Eighth emails: September 17 & 21, 2019

RE: Foundational Issues Relating Spacetime, Matter, and Quantum Mechanics (PDF), Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2019 GFR Ellis – When I sent birthday greetings to Freeman Dyson, he responded “Nunc Dimittis is a better text for a 95-year old.” Yes, and perhaps Max Planck was right, “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather… science advances one funeral at a time.” ( Max Planck, Scientific autobiography, 1950, p. 33).

I wish you well,

Bruce Camber

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 3:36 PM Bruce Camber wrote:

Dear Prof. Dr. George Ellis:

Can’t we just start with the Planck base units? Can we assume with the dimensionless constants, Planck Charge, and light (c), that there is a very infinitesimal thrust that generates a simple sphere, and then another, and another until there is sphere stacking and a doubling, then another and another: https://81018.com/chart/ http://81018.com https://81018.com/2016/01/11/ellis/

If that is the simple start, time is derivative.

Thanks.

-Bruce

Sixth Email: Saturday, February 2, 2019

Dear Prof. Dr. George Ellis:

When we followed Zeno’s logic back to the Planck scale, ostensibly going deeper and deeper inside a tetrahedral-octahedral construct, we were challenged, “What if we multiply by 2?” We had to go down inside 112 notations to get to the Planck scale. When we went out, multiplying by 2, larger and larger, there were just 90 doublings to the Age of the Universe, the Now.

We asked further, “Is our chart logical? Is it a valid STEM tool?”

We have not been advised by any scholar to date as to why this basic logic is off. Might you? Our chart is here: https://81018.com/chart/ Our most recent overview: https://81018.com/boundary/

I thank you for your extraordinary career and for being a Platonist!

Most sincerely,

Bruce

Fifth email: August 3, 2018, 4:18 PM

Dear Prof. Dr. George Ellis:

There is a huge space between the Planck scale and CERN Labs smallest measurements. It is “huge” because it is the size of the Planck scale doubled no less than 64 times. It may be infinitesimally small; it is mathematically huge and entirely open-ended. Of course, there is a mathematics of infinity. And, there is a physics of space-time (where infinity shares that space) and possibly a “physics” of the transformation (where a certain expression of finiteness is shared with infinity), but the physics of infinity per se?

Thinking of David Hilbert’s now famous paper, On the infinite, delivered, June 4, 1925, perhaps a most simple question to ask could be, “Where do the never-ending, never-repeating dimensionless constants like pi reside?” Surely if it is truly never-ending, never repeating, it exists within infinity and that actual ratio exists in the finite. If Hilbert were alive today, I’d like to ask him that question.

Regarding your article, The physics of infinity, I’ve only been able to read the first page here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-018-0238-1.epdf

I have also engaged your May 11, 2017 article (PDF), The Standard Cosmological Model.

Questions:

  1. Is it possible that Newton’s absolute space and time is throwing us off?
  2. Is it possible that space and time are finite and derivative?
  3. Is it possible that our weak understanding of infinity is holding us back? What if the dimensionless constants, every ratio, has a place within both the finite and infinite?

Naive, possible silly questions…

Most sincerely,

Bruce

PS. The Epochs, 9/43 page of your article, The Standard Cosmological Model (PDF) commemorating the legacy of Fr. George Lemaître, Specola Vaticana, Castel Gandolfo, is especially helpful. Do you support an infinitely hot beginning per Hawking, Guth et al, or Lemaître’s cold start?

Thank you, thank you. You are the first person I have found to say this: “We probably don’t exist in small universe but case is not entirely closed.” And you explain: “If we did it would be only case we could see all matter in the universe, could actually predict the future from visible initial data, and see our own galaxy at different times in its history.”

Yes, yes, let’s explore this further!  -BEC

Fourth Email: Tuesday, April 18, 2017

Dear Prof. Dr. George Ellis, FRS:

Just an update…  we are still at it, working with the numbers generated from applying base-2 notation from the Planck units to the Age of the Universe.  Our latest chart is here: https://81018.,com/chart/  It is horizontally scrolled so we can more easily follow the progression of a particular Planck unit. The natural inflation of the numbers is sometimes counter-intuitive, but we attribute that to our learning curve and naïveté.

You have your own page within our new website! I’ll insert a link to it below. Essentially it is to document our letters to you and provide key references to your work for our students and web visitors.

I hope the page meets with your approval.  Thank you.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

Third email: 5 October 2016 

Thank you for your work on The Universe Around Us: An Integrative View of Science & Cosmology.

In December 2011 we “fell into” an integrated view of the universe that started with the Planck base units and went to the Age of the Universe in just over 200 base-2 notations.

It appears to be the first time that little continuity equation with all its numbers was actually written out and posted on the web. It certainly is simple. It is mathematically integrated. It appears to be an alternative to the big bang (and the big bang’s nihilism).

It seems that most of the people at the Perimeter Institute conference, Time in Cosmology, accept the place of the big bang.

To help our students and to attempt to context that diverse dialogue, I have created a few links to the conference and to your work. There currently are three key pages. First, there is a brief overview of the conference on our homepage today (fourth section down). It will be there for a few days to come: http://81018.com. Thereafter: https://81018.com/2016/10/02/2october2016/
There is also this page on the conference:
https://81018.com/2016/06/30/perimeter/

Our general overview page of your work is this page; the URL is:
https://81018.com/2016/01/11/ellis/

If there is anything you would like to have added, deleted or changed, please just say the word! Thanks.

Now, thinking about time and the large-scale universe, perhaps another conference could be entertained, Time in the small-scale and human scale universe. In less than a second, the universe within this base-2 model has already expanded well into the large-scale universe. Of the 200 notations, the first second from Planck Time is within notations 143-144. The first day (86400 seconds) is between notations 160 and 161. A light year is between notation 168 and 169. That’s all cosmology.

If we engage the numbers generated using base-2 from the Planck base units, it appears to expand rather quietly right out beyond the need for a big bang.

Sincerely,

Bruce
* * * *
Bruce E. Camber
http://81018.com

PS. Yes, I know how naive and idiosyncratic our work is. The simplicity of the logic and math, however, has caught our attention. The numbers seem to speak louder than words. Although temperature is a problem, I think in time we’ll be able to adjust that line of figures with some kind of “reasonable” rationale, perhaps even a different algorithm. -BEC

***

Second email: August 4, 2016 

Dear Prof. George Ellis:

I am working through your 2009 ICG Portsmouth Powerpoint presentation at the Unity of the Universe meeting, “Critical Tests of the Standard Model of Cosmology
.”  Thank you.

Since this report below (January 2016), the following key documents have emerged.

  1. A horizontally-scrolled base-2 chart from Planck Scale: http://81018.com
  2. Big bang questions for academia: https://81018.com/2016/06/01/quiet/
  3. Questions for the public:  https://81018.com/bigbang/
  4. Planck Epoch: https://81018.com/Planck/

Also being tweaked:
  1. Unification: https://81018.com/Unification/
  2. Inflation: https://81018.com/Inflation/
  3. Electroweak: https://81018.com/Electroweak/
  4. Human will: https://81018.com/uniqueness/

Your comments are invited on any one posting, yet the small-scale domain from the Planck base units to the particle zoo is of keen interest to me.  Could pure math and geometry beget those numbers? I think so; and if so, we have as new view of reality within which to get to work.

Thank you.

Warm regards,

Bruce

First email: January 11, 2016

Reference: https://www.quantamagazine.org/20151216-physicists-and-philosophers-debate-the-boundaries-of-science/

Dear Prof. Dr. George Ellis:

In reflecting on reports from your conference in December (2015) at the LMU in Munich, I ask a rather unusual question, “Could a new construct possibly come out of  a high school? Could the naive possibly have the simple mathematics for a model of the universe that includes everything, everywhere and for all times?  Yes, ours is a very simple model in search of a theory.

Our small-but-growing group of high school teachers and students used base-2 exponential notation, the Planck base units, simple geometries, and the simple numbers and concepts to map our universe.  We’ve been at it since December 2011.

At the time we did not know about Kees Boeke and his base-10 scale of the universe. We were studying a tetrahedron with its embedded octahedron.  We were observing the parts-whole relations — the four half-sized tetrahedrons and an octahedron within each tetrahedron  and the six half-sized octahedrons and eight tetrahedrons within each octahedron. We observed the four hexagonal plates within each octahedron and could see many different tessellations of our universe.

Chasing those geometries, going within about 45 times, we were in the range of the fermion. Another 67 times we were in the range of the Planck Length.  To get consistent we then started at the Planck base units and went out to the Age of the Universe in just 202 notations. It gave us an ordered universe, nevertheless, the authorities responded, “So what?” or “See Boeke’s work” or something like, “Cute.” The first 67 notations were so impossibly small, our “small-scale universe” was discounted by most “real” scientists and mathematicians.

So to attempt to explain its potential importance as an alternative model, at the end of the year I wrote up a David Letterman-like Top Ten. Ours is titled, The Top Ten Reasons to give up those little worldviews for a much bigger and more inclusive UniverseView.  That wasn’t enough, so I immediately began prioritizing the numbers that were important to us. Though way-way beyond our pay grade, we are trying to make sense of many new concepts all at the same time.  We ask, “What does Kepler’s conjecture have to do with anything?”  Right now I am in the process of abusing Mitchell Feigenbaum’s constants.

I’ll continue to stutter around, unfortunately skimming and bouncing over details on what skiers call Black Diamond slopes (way beyond my capacities). We’ll continue to take quite a few tumbles and hard falls. It is a heck of a way to attempt to make sense of things that we have never ever observed in the past.  It’s a very steep learning curve!

Your comments would be most welcomed.

Most sincerely,

Bruce


Pages which reference the work of G. F. W. Ellis


In 1927 Prof. Dr. Georges Lemaître wrote that the universe started cold.

Title

Left Yellow ArrowRight Yellow ArrowCENTER FOR PERFECTION STUDIES: CONTINUITYSYMMETRYHARMONY GOALS.AUGUST.2020 PAGES: ARISTOTLE|DARK|FORMULAS|HAWKING|KEYS|NEWTON |RELATIONS|Transformation|UP

Background:

On June 29, 2020, twenty-seven scholars from around the world 1 released a rather provocative article, “The.First Three Seconds: A Review of Possible Expansion Histories of the Early Universe.” To respond to it, I have written this Open Letter to suggest a series of open questions. Real answers just might add to their possible expansion history. They readily admit in their article, “…there remains a gap in our understanding of cosmic history – a gap that spans the first few seconds.” Note: Well over two-thirds of the notations that define our universe occur within three seconds! So, yes, we have a lot to learn about that gap. There are 145 base-2 notations that define the gap from the Planck base units. Inviting Lemaître to answer, our first key question: Is it a hot or cold start?

Open Letter:

To all 27 contributing authors:

And, to all scholars and budding scholars especially among the astrophysics community who affirm the basic foundations of the book, The First Three Minutes 2 by Steven Weinberg.3 (Basic Books, 1977) and to all who affirm the infinitely-hot big bang concept: 4

I have simple questions about your work to grasp the first few seconds:

• Is there a possible continuum from the Planck base units to the current time and size of the universe? https://81018.com/chart/ We naively defined such a thing by applying base-2 or doublings to the Planck units to emerge with this chart of 202 notations.5

• Is an infinitesimal sphere the first manifestation of the Planck units and light (and other probable dimensionless constants) whereby continuity (never-ending, never repeating numbers), symmetry, and harmony manifest? Is this hypostatization a key finite-infinite relation? https://81018.com/sphere/ Here, two vertices and the never-ending, never-repeating numbers, create perfect circles and spheres. It’s a very simple idea.6

• Is sphere stacking a fundamental action of the universe starting with the Planck base units? https://81018.com/stacking/ When we engage all the work around sphere stacking since Harriot and Kepler, it seems obvious that an answer is worth pursuing.7

• Is cubic-close packing of equal spheres a fundamental action for the expansion of the universe? https://81018.com/ccp/ Studying how it opens up the Fourier transform and Euclidean geometries, again it seems obvious that the question is worth pursuing.8

2011, high school geometry class 9 We chased the interiority of the tetrahedron (with its four “half-sized” tetrahedrons in each corner and the octahedron in the middle). Inside that octahedron are six “half-sized” octahedrons in each corner and eight tetrahedrons, one in each face. Additionally, the octahedron has four hexagonal plates, everything shares a common centerpoint, and there are also multiple square and triangular tilings and tessellations. We went all the way down to the Planck Length in just 112 steps; and then, when we multiplied by 2 the next day, we were out to the size and age of the universe; at that moment in time, it was approximately 90 steps.

There are a total of 202 notations, doublings or steps from Planck Time to this day.

It took me three years to realize that a base-2 expansion had not already been done. Of course, in 1957 in his Dutch high school Kees Boeke did a base-10 chart.10 Our base-2 model is a bit more granular and more natural, and it has a geometry, the Planck base units, dimensionless constants, spheres, sphere stacking, and cubic-close packing.

We have asked many scholars — https://81018.com/alphabetical/11 — about our chart. It is too idiosyncratic for most. Yet, it easily absorbs big bang cosmology and opens the first three seconds within 145 successive doublings starting with the Planck Length, Planck Time, Planck Mass and Planck Charge. For mathematicians those 145 doublings are a veritable playground to begin to define the structures of the earliest universe.
1. Perhaps you know of a scholar who might engage these numbers.
2. Perhaps you are that scholar.
3. If not, perhaps you can explain these numbers in a more compelling way than I have.

Thank you.
Warmly,
Bruce E. Camber

PS. Your article has become a basic challenge for me. Every bit and byte of your data must fit into our charts, somewhere, somehow and at some time. While working on other articles, I’ll continue to update this article by trying to incorporate your data while insisting that it works within the simple logic-and-flow of the base-2 numbers. Although that work will become another article, it will also be integrated within this article and with these key two charts:
https://81018.com/calculations/ and https://81018.com/chart/ Thank you. -BEC

__________

Endnotes and Footnotes

(Please note: Many links that follow will open a new window or tab outside of this site.)

* Georges Lemaître. I was surprised to learn that in Lemaître’s first theory (1927), the universe started cold. Harvard scholars David Layzer and Anthony Aguirre have studied this concept, yet it appears that nobody has found Lemaître’s explanation for why he allowed his theory to change from starting cold to starting hot (yet perhaps not quite as infinitely hot as Stephen Hawking suggested). Who convinced him to go from cold to hot? What is the best concept? If you have been on this site for any time, you know that we worked with the concept that the universe started very cold. More

Big Bang Mythopoetics: See Weinberg’s The First Three Minutes. In Chapter 4: “Recipe for a Hot Start” (Basic Books, 1977, pp 77-99) Weinberg makes his highly-informed, educated guess about the big bang, both conceptually and historically. Inflation is still enigmatic. Cooling is problematic. And, the simplicity that he touts in his 1979 Nobel lecture is non-existent in his review of his “hot start” of the universe. An alternative view (of a high school teacher) finds the conditions for nucleosynthesis at the temperature of 109 degrees Kelvin is approximated in and around our Notation-137. That’s less than a second from the first moment. We need help to examine these numbers in light of the Quark-Gluon Plasma (QGP), aka quark soup, the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation and isospin.

Weinberg had never seen a base-2 progression from the Planck units; and given his history, he would have immediately written it off as bit of silliness and crackpottery. It may well be, but I don’t think so (obviously). However, I will remain open to learn why it is a bit of nonsense unless, of course, one of our scholars tells us, “It’s worth looking into.”

Notations. The first 64 notations out of 202 have received very-very limited analysis and it would seem only within this website to date. The first measurement of a length appears within Notation-67. Some might argue Notation-64, however, these are derivative numbers from ratio analyses, not an actual measurement per se. Notation-84 is currently the smallest measurement of a unit of time. The first three seconds appears within Notation-145. The first year is between Notations 168-and-169. The first 1000 years — 31,556,952 seconds in a year and 31,556,952,000 seconds in a millennium is between Notations 178-and-179. The first million years is within Notation-189. Large-scale structure formation, 150 million to 300 million years, is within Notations 196-to-197.

Review. Notation-0 is the Planck units and Notation-202 is the current notation defining the current time and expansion. Planck’s calculation for temperature is still enigmatic and appears to have only a derivative role. Our mathematical model of the universe begins to capture the big bang at 1.8751×109 Kelvin (Notation-127) and surely within Notation-36 at 1.9201×1012 Kelvin. The universe is less than one-hundreth of second from its start and may have a diameter of 1750 miles. A natural inflation is generated by light, the Planck charge, and the mix of dimensionless constants. A natural symmetry is created within Notation-1 to Notation-201 because although “complete” they are still dynamic and “pushing up” Notation-202 where the very first sphere is possibly at the point of the current expansion.

So now this investigation continues. We will create a new page just for the viewpoints of the 27 co-authors of the article in question! We’ll have many questions for each!

__________

[1] The authors of the ArXiv article, The First Three Seconds. These scholars come from the USA, UK, Sweden, Spain, Poland, Japan, India, Finland, France, Estonia, Columbia, China, and Bulgaria. They write about the possible expansion from within the first three seconds of the universe. Many of these authors are also representing their birth country. They came to study and stayed! Some countries are still being added. The scholars are:  1).Rouzbeh.Allahverdi,  2).Mustafa.Amin, 3).Asher.Berlin,  4).Nicolás.Bernal, 5) Christian T. Byrnes, 6) M. Sten Delos, 7).Adrienne.L..Erickcek, 8).Miguel.Escudero,  9).Daniel.Figueroa, 10) Katherine Freese, 12).Tomohiro.Harada, 13).Dan.Hooper, 14) David I. Kaiser, 15).Tanvi Karwal, 16).Kazunori Kohri, 17).Gordan.Krnjaic, 18).Marek.Lewicki, 19) Kaloian D. Lozanov, 20).Vivian.Poulin, 21).Kuver. Sinha, 22).Tristan.Smith, 23) Tomo Takahashi, 24) Tommi Tenkanen, 25).James.Unwin, 26).Ville.Vaskonen, and 27).Scott.Watson  That prior link (six lines) goes to a page of affiliations with links to their working pages.

[2] The First Three Minutes. While working on a project at MIT back in 1979, I had a chance to visit with Steven Weinberg in his Lyman Lab office at Harvard. We talked about his book. Just recently, I wrote up this little summary about it. The article by these 27 scholars (PDF) is in light of Weinberg’s book. Their engagement of the “possible history” is from within big bang cosmology.

[3] Steven Weinberg. In 2018, I ended up living in the greater Austin area, home of the University of Texas (UT). In 1983 Steven Weinberg had moved his laboratory to UT, in part to work more closely with his mentor, John Wheeler.

Although I did not meet Weinberg again in Austin, I did call and I sent a few notes to re-introduce myself hoping to find somebody in his group who could tell me why our logic was so wrong. I had finally realized that our model was profoundly idiosyncratic. We stop working on it with the high school students. I didn’t want them to be tainted by it in college! So, now, it just gets moved along here.

[4] Big Bang Cosmology. In the earliest stages of our work between 2011 and 2016, we very naively wrote to Stephen Hawking and Alan Guth (MIT) and other thought leaders who were advocating an infinitely-hot big bang. With no real response, even in 2016, Hawking was reminding us on public television, “The answer, as most people can tell you, is the big bang…”

Many highly-recognized scholars (foremost among them, Neil Turok) have written excellent articles about the weaknesses of the theory. Even with Turok’s background, he didn’t change the beliefs of those who had committed so much time and energy to that infinitely-hot start.. Big bang cosmology just continued to dominate as it does even today. Finding it all quite perplexing, I decided that the big bang would continue to dominate because a viable alternative had not been affirmed. Understandably, an alternative from a high school geometry class is not acceptable. Yet, it seems to me, over these years, our simple, natural inflation described within our 2016 horizontally-scrolled chart just makes more sense.

[5] Our Chart of the Universe in 202 doublingsPlease open this page: https://81018.com/chart/ At Notation 0, the chart begins with Max Planck’s 1899 base units. These calculations were largely ignored within academia until 2001 when Frank Wilczek wrote his three articles in Physics Today touting their place among the parameters we use to define the universe. Yet, by 2001 the entrenchment of the big bang cosmology was further abetted by a hit television series. Most everybody was sure the big bang held all answers. Many scholars weren’t as convinced. Their work just didn’t fit well within that model.

I say, “Eventually, we will all get over this period in our history!”

[6] Circles, spheres, rotations, intervals, and more. There are no less than 64 notations before the first manifestations of particles. Notation-64 begins at 2.98×10-16 meters. It is a given that these Planck numbers define something with length, time, mass and charge. It appears from here that the most simple, basic thing that could define Notation-0 is an infinitesimal sphere. We all recognize that the size of the neutrino is so small, we are all bombarded every day by billions and, of course, never thought about it. The infinitesimal sphere at Notation-0, when compared to the neutrino, is like the size of the atom compared to

As a result, I began a more formal study of spheres. I also began analyzing the many questions and a few answers about dark matter and dark energy.

[7] Sphere Stacking. Can something so simple as sphere stacking be a key operation within this universe? Please visit our earlier pages about sphere stacking. There is so much important work within the domain that has been done in our time by Thomas Hales and Maryna Viazovska.

[8] Cubic-close packing of equal spheres. Basic geometries, and basic mathematical functions, and the most basic physics all get brought into the equations for beginning of this universe. Everything, everywhere for all time becomes highly ordered. Please visit our early pages — https://81018.com/ccp/ — where it is quite obvious Euclidean geometries and the Fourier transform come alive.

[9] High school geometry and physics.  Even within the very first page (2012) of this website we had begun questioning the need for an infinitely hot beginning. Of course, we were aware of Planck Temperature, but it seemed to be a derivative calculation and perhaps those kinds of calculations are always stay at the top of the chart.  Also, it seemed that each notation was building on the prior notations and each needed those prior notations to be active. That called into question the very nature of time. Also, it was great fun to think that what we were learning in geometry about tetrahedrons and octahedrons (and in physics, about the Fourier transform) had an immediate application within the start of the universe.

[10] Kees Boeke’s base-10 chart. Back in the early 1970s, I was working with MIT physicist, Phil Morrison, on a proposed budget for the Pentagon. We met in his home and on his coffee table was his book, The Powers of Ten. Both his book and related film, sponsored by IBM, were based on Kees Boeke’s little book, Cosmic View: The Universe in 40 Jumps. I was still active with a New York City group that actively proposed new concepts that could impact the quality of our life and an educational think-tank in Harvard Square (Cambridge) that focused on conceptual breakthroughs and paradigm shifts. Here, basic concepts were being shaped as first principles and theories.

[11] Asking Scholars Simple Questions. Though there are many groups of people, only notes to the most visible scholars are currently displayed — https://81018.com/alphabetical/ — and each listing opens a page of references to each scholar’s work as well as my notes, emails, and tweets. As this website moves forward, it will begin to include all the scholars who are listed as authors of a given paper.


References & Resources for more study:

1. Seven-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Cosmological Interpretation”,  The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series; Komatsu, E.; Smith, K. M.; Dunkley, J.; Bennett, C. L.; Gold, B.; Hinshaw, G.; Jarosik, N.; Larson, D.; Nolta, M. R.; Page, L.; Spergel, D. N.; Halpern, M.; Hill, R. S.; Kogut, A.; Limon, M.; Meyer, S. S.; Odegard, N.; Tucker, G. S.; Weiland, J. L.; Wollack, E.; Wright, E. L. (1 February 2011). 192 (2): 18. arXiv:1001.4538. Bibcode:2011ApJS..192…18K. doi:10.1088/0067-0049/192/2/18.

2a. A new type of isotropic cosmological models without singularity, A.A. Starobinsky, Physics Letters B, Volume 91, Issue 1, 24 March 1980, Pages 99-102  See footnotes. Screen Shot 2020-08-11 at 8.14.29 AM2b. Exploring cosmic origins with CORE: Survey requirements and mission design, 2018
2c. A.A. Starobinsky Resource page on this website

3. Emilio_Panarella, “Wave-particle duality” Proceedings Volume 5866, The Nature of Light: What Is a Photon?; (2005) https://doi.org/10.1117/12.637651

4. The Nature of Light: What is a Photon? edited by Chandra Roychoudhuri, A.F. Kracklauer, Kathy Creath

5. “There are theoretical motivations to consider physics beyond ΛCDM, such as the unknown nature of inflation, dark matter (DM), dark energy, and mechanisms to explain neutrino masses.”  See: Beyond ΛCDM: Problems, solutions, and the road ahead (2016) and others.

6. Zeta function regularization, the multiplicative anomaly and the Wodzicki residue, E. Elizalde, L. Vanzo, S. Zerbini, ArXiv, January 1997  Email to Emilio Elizade on July 2020  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_zeta_functions

7. The emergence of background geometry from quantum fluctuations, J. Ambjørn R. Janik, W. Westra, S. Zohren, Physics Letters B, Volume 641, Issue 1, 28 September 2006, pp 94-98 https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0607013

8. Inflation and String Cosmology, Andre Linde, July 20, 2001 

9. Mythopoetic imagination as a source of critique and reconstruction: alternative storylines about our place in cosmos, Heikki Patomäki, Journal of Big History, III(4); 77 – 97. DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.22339/jbh.v3i4.3433

10. Freese, Katherine (2017) [1988]. “Status of dark matter in the universe”. The Fourteenth Marcel Grossmann Meeting. pp. 325–355. arXiv:1701.01840. doi:10.1142/9789813226609_0018. ISBN978-9813226593

11. Dark Matter, Jaan Einasto, ArXiv, 2010 (PDF)

12. Do electrons have third component of isospin? (Physics Stack Exchange 2017) John Wheeler is known to have said, “Only when we recognize how strange the universe is will we understand how simple it is.”

 __________________________

Email:

All 27 co-authors cited above received a personal email about this page. The first group included Rouzbeh Allahverdi, Mustafa A. Amin, Asher Berlin, Nicolás Bernal, Christian T. Byrnes, M. Sten Delos, Adrienne L. Erickcek and Miguel Escudero Abenza. Those emails became the basis for this “Open Letter.”

Tuesday, 11 August 2020: Email to A.A. Starobinsky More

Monday, 17 August 2020: Another email to those cited just above and to  Daniel.G. Figueroa, Tomohiro.Harada, Dan Hooper, and Tanvi Karwal.

Tuesday, 18 August 2020: Finally, a  somewhat personal email went out to the rest of the co-authors: Kazunori Kohri,  Gordan Krnjaic, Marek Lewicki, KaloianLozanov, Vivian Poulin,  Kuver Sinha, Tristan Smith, Tomo Takahashi, Tommi Tenkanen, James Unwin,  Ville Vaskonen, and Scott Watson.  It went something like this: “Dear (Dr/Prof/ Name): Earlier this month I began working through your collective work with 26 others, The First Three Seconds; it is quite a look from so many perspectives. It seems that the definitive insights for the first three seconds will be discussed into eternity. I posted an entirely idiosyncratic “Open Letter” to you and your co-authors.

“As of today, it includes two direct references and links to you and your work:

“If you would like me to add or delete anything, I will gladly accommodate.

“A few years ago I was disappointed to read that Max Planck said, A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather… science advances one funeral at a time My hope is with the young. I’m 73. Notwithstanding, I don’t think Max Planck’s pessimism is well-placed. I think all of us can always be learning something new, even profound. And, I think we all have a ways to go before we sleep!

“I know what I have written is a stretch, yet I have also learned that even Hawking, Ellis, Guth, Linde… and thousands more, make many educated guesses. This base-2 concept just opens their time frame for the first three seconds so it becomes a mathematical domain with plenty of “room” to experiment with ideas. In the first three epochs of the big bang, not quite to the first second of the expansion of the universe, 143rd notations are created. So much is already happening, then this base-2 model readily begins to integrate all the following epochs of big bang cosmology, but not as epochs that start and finish, but as processes that go on forever. The first three epochs of big bang cosmology are within the first nanosecond and they appear to be, as Neil Turok says, perpetual processes.

“Again, let me thank you for your scholarship! I certainly wish you the best as you forge ahead!

“Most sincerely, Bruce PS. I continue to struggle with these issues within every new top-level post a/k/a homepage, which will remain the top-post for just a month, a week or sometimes, just for a day: https://81018.com/just-a-second/BEC”

 __________________________

Tweets:

7 August 2020, Vatican Observatory Foundation:
Dear friends,

I have looked at the work of David Layzer and Anthony Aguirre and there is now a Wikipedia entry, “Cold-big bang.” Could Lemaître’s super “primeval atom” actually be the most primitive of spheres? I have started to develop an answer online here: https://81018.com/open-envelope  Your comments would be most appreciated. Thank you. Warmly, -Bruce

 __________________________

Contact us with your comments and questions:

Wave-particle-line

Key Dates for Open-Envelope

This article was initiated on Sunday, August 2, 2020.
The first time Open-Envelope was a homepage or top-level posting: August 2, 2020.
Last update: Saturday, October 8, 2022

The Prior Homepage: https://81018.com/conference/
The URL for this page: https://81018.com/open-envelope/
The initial tagline: Open this envelope – There is a universe inside.
Next: https://81018.com/just-a-second/


Open Questions (Preserve):

What is happening at each doubling prior to particle physics which is between Notation-67 (first measurable unit of Length) and Notation-80 (first measurable unit of Time)?

In what ways does each notation change with the addition of the next notation?

Ellis, John

John.Ellis

Jonathan Richard Ellis
CERN
Geneva, Switzerland

Articles/books
ArXivWhere is Particle Physics Going?
CERN
Homepage
Wikipedia
YouTubeBrief Introduction to Everything, John Ellis

John Ellis references within this website:
https://81018.com/empower/#3fa

Most recent email: 27 August 2021 at 11:01 AM

Just as an FYI:

New Physics Beyond the Standard Model (BSM) (Wikipedia). So stymied for so long, BSM has become a special category of study. And, it should be. We’ve all got to push the edges of our understanding of things. These studies are all too important to be left in the hands a few elite scholars. Among those who cannot yet imagine a new physics based on infinitesimal spheres that are defined by the Planck scale, an excellent read is John Ellis’ May 2021 ArXiv article from the Andromeda Proceedings (BSM-2021 Conference, Zewail City, Egypt), SMEFT Constraints on New Physics Beyond the Standard Model (PDF). The Center for Fundamental Physics (CFP), in collaboration with the Faculty of Engineering and Natural Sciences at Sabancı University sponsored an online international conference titled, Beyond Standard Model: From Theory to Experiment (BSM-2021), March 29-April 2, 2021. It seems to me that a conceptual stumbling block goes back to the general acceptance of concept that the infinite is nowhere found within the finite (Hilbert). Of course, we start with pi. Is it finite or infinite? We observe the continuity of its never-ending, always the same, forever-changing numbers. …finite or infinite? We observe its perfect symmetry. Is it finite or infinite? Now, how about the sphere’s inherent Fourier transforms? Are those harmonic functions finite or infinite? Both? A dynamic bridge between the two?

It is part of this homepage and it is now also within my notes to you (this page). -BEC

Third email: Thursday, December 26, 2019 @ 4:08 PM

I thought you might enjoy this page based on the work of
Artist/Scientist, Daniel Dominguez at CERN:
https://81018.com/proton/

-Bruce

Second email: Monday, June 3, 2019 @ 7:08 PM

Dear Prof. Dr. John Ellis:

Of course, it would have been good to hear from you.

Not often do high school people come out with a 100% mathematical, an entirely-predictive, quiet expansion and a natural inflation of the universe. Also, it all begins like Lemaitre’s original model, very cold.

The logic is simple — the universe is exponential.

By the way, we are learning and making our distinctions between you and George Ellis.

Now, here’s an idea! Perhaps you two Ellis savants could do a joint article and a critically review of our high school logic!

Our working page about your work is here: https://81018.com/john-ellis/

Thanks.

Warmly,
Bruce

First email: Monday, March 11, 2019, 9:20 PM

Dear Prof. Dr. John Ellis:

My introduction to you and your work was an August 2013 Interview with John Ellis that I read earlier today: https://ep-news.web.cern.ch/content/interview-john-ellis

Most recently, I’ve begun reading your ArXiv articles:
Probing the Scale of New Physics in the ZZ Coupling at e+e− Colliders
https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.06631

I would like to stretch our imaginations a little with a speculative idea, a what-if, so I beg that you will bear with me.

There are five very speculative concepts that form the basis of this idea.
1. A simple mathematical grid. Apply base-2 notation to the Planck base units to encapsulate the universe within 202 base-2 notations. We start at Planck Time and go to the present time.

2. A simple building block. Assume the the first expression of physicality is the sphere, some have called it a plancksphere and John Wheeler called it quantum foam.

Apply cubic-close packing — https://81018.com/number/#Kepler –and we have form-and-structure emergent. https://81018.com/circles-spheres/

3. Quantum fluctuations. Assume basic structure includes a five-tetrahedral unit; we have called it a pentastar. It has a gap (0.12838822… radians or 7.356103172… degrees) There is also the twenty-face icosahedron and the sixty-face pentakis dodecahedron. In each the same gaps that could readily manifest as quantum indeterminacy by the 64th notation.

4. Every notation is always emergent, never-ending, never-the-same. All time is Now. Obviously, within the 202nd notation, there is a perception of past-present-and-future, a sense of time. This notation is 10.9 billion years and only about 2.84 of it has emerged.

5. Re-open the doors to define more deeply the concept of infinity. We’ve got to lighten up a little. It is obvious nobody is making progress with the old-time debate, but some progress just might be able to be made both within mathematics and physics: https://81018.com/infinity/

It is such a different model, it is hard to engage. It took me the better part of four years to realize this model was more than a STEM tool. Our little history is here: https://81018.com/home/. My whole story is here and an introduction here.

Idiosyncratic to be sure. Where does our simple logic and simple math break down? Thank you so very much.

Warmly,
Bruce

Big Bang versus Quiet Expansion:

Left Yellow Arrow
.
Right Yellow Arrow

CENTER FOR PERFECTION STUDIES: CONTINUITY•SYMMETRY•HARMONY Dec.1-2,.2022
Pages: Agree | Gravity| Hope | Hypostasis Mistakes | PI (π) | Questions | Sphere | STEM | Up
THIS PAGE: CHECKTHIS | FOOTNOTES | REFERENCES EMAILS | IM | PARTICIPATE | Zzzz’s

Logic and simple math open new paths to explore………….
Let Us Collaborate and Compare…………..
Big bang theories has too many loose ends.…..
by Bruce E. Camber
.

Abstract: Big bang theories (BBT) start with a singularity[*] that seems well-beyond human grasp. The BBT’s first minute is guesswork and extralogic. The Quiet Expansion starts with simple geometries of infinitesimal, scale-invariant spheres that generate tetrahedrons and octahedrons that are readily understood by primary school students. Big bang theories incorrectly explain the basis for various conditions of our universe today that obfuscate new research and discovery. The Quiet Expansion has a well-defined logic and mathematics to explain those same conditions. Plus, the big bang theories cannot address several open issues. The Quiet Expansion does. It has foundations to examine and begin to explain some of the most troubling issues within science today, i.e. dark energy and dark matter, Planck scale physics, quantum fluctuations, the cosmological constant, and the bridge between quantum gravity and relativity theory. It also recognizes an expanded role of pi, perfected states in space-time, all-natural grounds for valuations and ethics, and an always active finite-infinite relation, whereby continuity, symmetry and harmony are the primary functions of pi.[†]

An open, working document
A first draft for collaborations

There are nine key points, five of which are used to ground the big bang theory and four where it falls short. Unfortunately, the BBT concepts that instantiate those first five points actually obfuscate the four points that follow.

Big Bang Theory (BBT)Quiet Expansion (QE)
1. Nucleosynthesis1. Geometries of nucleosynthesis at the Planck scale
2. The abundances of the light elements2. The simple geometries of light elements
3. The CMB (or CMBR)3. The geometries and structure of the CMB
4. Large-scale structure4. Totally hierarchical, on-going, ever-changing
5. Hubble’s law5. Natural inflation and expansion
6. Doesn’t explain initial density perturbations 6. Geometries of quantum gravity density perturbation
7. Doesn’t explain flatness problem7. Pre-fluctuations: perfected states
8. Doesn’t explain horizon problem8. A very different cosmological constant
9. Doesn’t explain monopole problem9. The dynamic nature of finite-infinite equations

The scholar-theorists holding on to big bang theories are unaware of our Quiet Expansion (QE). They have not looked at a base-2 expansion of the Planck base units. They have not started from Planck Time, symbolically the first moment of time, to go the 202 doublings to this very moment in time. We propose that we collaborate and do a few exercises together to determine if there is a higher truth here:
1. We’ll go inside the simple tetrahedron with its internal octahedron and four smaller internal tetrahedrons back 45 steps into particle physics, and then the next 67 steps back into Planck scale physics. We’ll then go out to discover the additional 90 steps to the current expansion of the universe. By doubling those Planck units, over and over again, 202 times, the entire universe is encapsulated from the first moment of time to this very moment in time within a base-2 grid that inter-relates everything, everywhere, for all time. They’ve been right; “It is all mathematics.”
2. We will ponder Planck scale physics. Does it define the first moment of time? We can consider how these units could be a manifestation of a finite-infinite relation whereby the continuity-symmetry-harmony of the sphere manifest through all space-time and mass-energy.
3. We will review the stacking and packing of spheres. We’ll begin with Kepler-Harriot and cubic-close packing of equal spheres. We’ll see how tetrahedrons and octahedrons begin to manifest.

We propose that this is the beginning of an alternative theory, a real foundation that starts with pi, the most-simple geometries, and base-2 notation. This exercise began in our high school geometry classes in December 2011. Early in 2012 we began appealing to scholars, “What does it mean?” By August 3, 2014, we even asked Stephen Hawking. Nobody affirmed our work; yet more importantly, nobody denied it. It wasn’t idiotic; it was unprecedented. It was a new insight. It engaged old concepts in new ways. We studied spheres. We studied pi (π) . We studied Wilczek, Dyson, and Guth. We engaged hundreds of our living scholars about some facet of these problems:
1. Quantum fluctuations
2. Dark matter and dark energy
3. Homogeneous and isotropic
4. Natural inflation

Each year we chipped away at our little sculpture and asked, “How could we be so idiosyncratic and out of line with today’s scholarship?”

We also discovered many scholars who were at odds with the big bang. They were earnest. They were searching for truth. They had emerged with very sophisticated perspectives. When we discovered the 1999 conference at the Isaac Newton Institute of Cambridge University, the core prognosticators, which included Hawking, were challenged to rethink the Big Bang. It had been failing in too many ways. Yes, those deepest within the BBT are well aware of its shortcomings. Yet, no alternative theory has been compelling enough to convince enough of these scholars to abandon the big bang in order to create a concerted movement in a new direction. It appears that the big bang will de facto remain in place until such an alternative is uncovered.

There may well be other pressures outside of the scholarly community.

Something curious happened over the summer of 2022. One of the leading critics of the BBT, Neil Turok, seems to have reaffirmed the bang! Having said that the universe acts like it is perpetually starting, it is a bit puzzling so we will investigate further.

To admit that our leading scholars have been wrong for so long will be a difficult act of contrition. Yet, it’s important for our cultures to know the truth. Such an admission will need to be constantly re-evaluated and more deeply evaluated. One never knows, it may even open confessions in other areas of scholarship.

The big bang theory does not work. It fails the Kantian test; it does not answer the questions, “Where did I come from? Where am I going? What is the meaning and value of life?”

We can do better. We must do better.

Thank you. -BEC

More today… Still being developed and updated today, Thursday, December 1, 2022.
Want to help? Please drop me a quick note! – BEC

Endnotes and Footnotes
These points already have pages within this website.

[*] Singularities. This primary concept in big bang cosmology doesn’t work well. There is dimensionality down to the Planck scale. With this homepage, we will begin immediately reworking our page about singularities. We’ll be searching for the most insightful resources and experts to help us.

[†] Geometries and mathematics of fluctuations. The concept of a fluctuation is a primary unsolved problem in physics and we will begin reworking our page with the help of experts. More…

[1] Big bang nucleosynthesis (BBT). Requiring guesses and jiggering, the BBT hides the simple geometries that opened a path for us in 2011 to go down to the Planck scale. The BBT had never considered simple geometries and the de facto base-2 progression to the Planck or Stoney base units as a starting point. Within those first instants we find many keys. The BBT is locked into a one-of-a-kind inflation that lasts “…a millionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second.” In 2017 within Scientific American their editor said, “For physicist and cosmologist Alan Guth, one big question about the big bang remains: ‘What was it that banged?'”

We will answer that question several times over before the end of this article.

Quiet Expansion (QE). Within our nascent, emerging model known by many names but most affectionately as the Quiet Expansion (QE), that “…millionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second” has been parsed 98 times. That is, there are 98 doublings or base-2 notations from the Planck Time, each notation with a distinctive look and feel, and each within a progression of mathematics and geometry. Yes, those 98 doublings up until the first millionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second hold many never-imagined configurations and keys to start and grow our universe.

Inflation as described by Alan Guth and his collaborators is unique, highly-imaginative, and a one-of-a-kind event that requires extralogic. Within the QE, all 98 notations are active today and the entire universe is building on them right now. From notations 1-to-64, before the first particle, there is enough mathematics and geometry to lay foundations for nucleosynthesis. Within the QE’s numbers, geometries and functions, it is on-going. It is always on-going.

[2] The light element abundance. Helium and other light elements (deuterium, helium-3, beryllium) are believed to be created in the primordial Universe. The existence of these elements is used as a proof for the necessity of a very hot Universe, thus the BBT.

QE. Yet, the abundances of the light elements including all the elements of the periodic table are each uniquely pre-defined within a range of notations between Notation-67 and Notation-84 based on the Planck Length multiple. It’s all quite natural. The primordial universe is still with us. The same is true about the cosmic microwave background. If the Planck base units are taken as given (even while recognizing the disparity with Stoney’s base units from 1874), the universe starts very dense. There are many different approaches to try to figure out the approximate temperature. From Notations 1-to-64, the most basic forms and functions, structures, substances, qualities, relations, systems are shaped and continue to shape the universe this day and moment.

[3] The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB or CMBR). It all begins with a measuring device, people doing the measuring, and a time stamp. The first was the Holmdel Horn Antenna (Penzias-Wilson, 1965). More recent surveys by Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE, John Mather – George Smoot, 1989), the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP, Charles Bennett, 2001-2012), and BICEP (Background Imaging of Cosmic Extragalactic Polarization) and Keck Observations (John O’Meara, 2022); all detail the CMBR and are used to justify the BBT.

QE. Notwithstanding, the black body, thermal radiation of the universe at a temperature of 2.73 Kelvin is readily supported by the QE within Notation-202 down to Notation-188. That includes this moment right now, and goes back around 13.79+ billion years to 375,000 years from the very beginning, the first moment of time. There are several factors involved with the heating and cooling, a function of the size, mass, and energy (coulombs) of the universe. Even if with an initial blast of light defined by the Planck Temperature, following the inverse square law, by the Notation-106 (4.37402×10-12 seconds), it would be in the range of 2.73 Kelvin. More fine-tuning can be done within the QE theory than can be done within the BBT.

[4] Large-scale structure. The BBT large-scale structure starts at the QE Notation-188.

QE. The QE large scale-structure begins with Notation-134. It is hierarchical, on-going, and ever-changing. All time is Now. There is no horizon problem. The Universe is in fact statistically homogeneous and isotropic because that is exactly how it unfolds. There is a rather different concept of the cosmological principle.[a][b][c] Where the BBT is guessing, our simple calculations are given using either the Planck or Stoney base units. Given we have only used the Planck numbers for our first-calculations, we expect adjustments. For example, there are 539 tredecillion infinitesimal spheres per second using the Planck base units and 4609 tredecillion using the Stoney base units. We have requested that the ISO render a judgement regarding the disparities between the Planck and Stoney numbers. Either way, within the QE model, the universe is dynamic, wholistic, intimate, and inclusive.

One might say that our universe is a huge, hyper-sensitive grid, one that some might think is overly sensitive, because it appears to respond to the thoughts, words and deeds of everyone as everything-everywhere becomes part of the face of the universe. Again, the big bang theory (BBT) hides and obfuscates these simple, very basic calculations of natural units and dimensionless constants.

The first and second laws of thermodynamics (you can’t create or destroy matter or energy) is relegated to Notation-202 where there is a directional, linear flow of time. Where primordial fluctuations within the BBT are considered density variations in the early universe, within the QE the seeds of all structure in the universe, the seeds of the large scale structure are given in the perfections (stability) within the earliest notations between 1-64. Within the QE theory, primordial fluctuations are imperfect geometries with gaps that have become systemic and have nothing to do with an inflationary paradigm or scale factors during inflation. More… a direct communication from George Ellis, I learned that Planck Temperature was not a consideration in 1972 when they jointly wrote The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time, CUP, (PDF), 1973.

[5] Hubbles’ law and redshift. The Big Bang theory de facto adopts the absolute time of Newtonian physics through the inflationary paradigm of Guth and associates.

The QE theory is more aligned with other studies, like Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG), that say there is only the current time. If true, the redshift is looking back within the current time. Thinking about it in terms of all notations being active might help. The concept may be unprecedented. It needs further examination because, if it abides, it changes everything. It immediately changes how we count galaxies. It doesn’t change the nature of the redshift; it changes the way we interpret it. Much moreHubble Natural inflation Expansion

[6] The initial conditions for structure formation and density perturbation. Within the big bang theory, structure is generally thought to arise through a growth of density perturbations which originate in the early universe. If smooth, the big bang theory is in trouble. There is no consistent logic upon which to build. Everybody realizes that the starting points for structure are still a mystery.

QE. At the first notation, the first doubling of our symbolic Planck base units, there are inherent geometries of quantum gravity. The initial condition is the infinitesimal sphere. There is a structure formation with-and-without density perturbations. It’s a radical departure. More to come

[7] Doesn’t explain flatness problem. What can the BBT say about the flatness problem? It’s stymied by its one-time event with no analogues anywhere in the universe. It doesn’t even have a guess at the type of structure or the advance of that structure. It is hidden in the mysteries of their so-called singularity.

QE. Out of 202 notations, the first sixty-four appear to be pre-quantum fluctuations. Eventually clever postdocs will figure out a way to test that projection. They may also be able to discern perfected states. The base-2 progressions for the density of matter and energy in the universe are close, perhaps closer than the current estimates. Again, this is territory for our best postdocs!

[8] The horizon problem. The horizon problem is the problem of determining why the Universe appears statistically homogeneous and isotropic in accordance with the cosmological principle.[a][b][c] It is a cosmological fine-tuning problem within the Big Bang model of the universe.

QE. The spatial distribution of matter in the universe is homogeneous and isotropic because the space, time, mass and coulombs are all doubling together within abiding and highly-interactive dependencies as already understood via-a-vis Einstein and Planck. More to come…

The horizon problem (also known as the homogeneity problem) is a cosmological fine-tuning problem within the Big Bang model of the universe. Fine-tuning is the backbone of the QE model.

[9] Doesn’t explain monopole problem. The BBT has nothing to say about the monopole problem. The scholars of nine most basic disciplines (below) will have much more to say about the monopole problem when they begin to accept the 202 notations, and the necessity of the finite-infinite relation.

QE: The monopole problem points to the infinite. That is, the primary foot of electromagnetism is within the infinite as understood to be continuity, symmetry, and harmony. At least the QE has a rationale that is consistent with its overall theory. It has everything to do with the concept of quantization which is being addressed by no less than these nine key disciplines: (1) Langlands programs, (2) string theories, (3) supersymmetry (SUSY), (4) loop quantum gravity (LQG), (5) causal dynamical triangulation (CDT), (6) causal set theory (CST), (7) field theories, (8) spectral standard model (SSM), and (9) all the hypothetical particles.

Even the best of us make mistakes. https://81018.com/duped/

_____

References & Resources
As these issues are studied, updated key references and resources will be added.

Causal Dynamic Triangulation
A non-perturbative Lorentzian path integral for gravity (PDF), Ambjørn, Jurkiewicz, Loll, 2000
Scaling in four dimensional quantum gravity (PDF), Jan AmbjornJerzy Jurkiewicz (1995)

Strengths and weaknesses of the big bang cosmology, Narlikar, Jayant V., Astronomical Society of India, Bulletin (ISSN 0304-9523), vol. 20, no. 2, p. 1-12, March 1992
Strengths: The predictions of the expanding universe, the abundances of light nuclei, and the MW (microwave) background.
Weaknesses: Evidence for anomalous redshift, the age problem, the low abundances of helium, and the failure to find any feature in the microwave background as predicted by the theories of structure formation.

Day One Project (of the Federation of Atomic Scientist): https://www.dayoneproject.org/
The team: https://fas.org/fas-experts/ Ryan Buscaglia: URL: https://fas.org/expert/ryan-buscaglia/

Follow-up of these key pages is on-going: https://81018.com/communicate/#4z (Cover-ups),

_____

Emails
Recent emails. There will be emails to many of our scholars about this page.

• Salvatore Torquato, Princeton University, December 1, 2022
• Julia Collins, ECU, Joondalup, Australia, December 1, 2022
• Hugh David Politzer, Caltech, 29 November 2022
• Corrin Clarkson, NYU, NYC, NY Tuesday, November 29, 2022
• Sam Harris, NYC, November 29, 2022
• Dr. Oliver Janzer, ETH Zurich, November 28, 2022
• June Huh, Princeton, November 23, 2022
• Jonathan Doye, Oxford, UK, November 23, 2022
• Related email to Stephen Hawking in 2016

_____

IM
There will also be many instant messages to thought leaders about this page.

8:12 AM · Dec 1, 2022 @AyronJonesMusic Our problem as a people of many cultures and beliefs is our limited worldviews. A highly-integrated view of the universe is the beginning of wholeness, acceptance of diversity, and a bit of harmony: https://81018.com is a start on it. RU up for new lyrics? His album, Filthy, he says, “Where I’m from, the word ‘filthy’ is the highest compliment in the land. It’s being so good at what you do and who you are that it should be a sin.” Notwithstanding, we need new music with bigger lyrics.

2:25 PM · Nov 7, 2022 Geraint F. Lewis, @Cosmic_Horizons @Sydney_Uni Go inside the tetrahedron (divide the edges by 2, connect new vertices) and in 67 steps you’ll be at the Planck base units. Now multiply those units by 2, 202 times and you have the universe: https://81018.com/chart/ A little math and geometry go a long way!

_____

Participate You are always invited.

_____

Keys to this page, parameters

• This page became the homepage on November 23, 2022.
It is very much under construction; it’s open for collaborations to improve it.
• The last update was November 24, 2022.
• This page was initiated on November 7, 2022.
• The URL for this file: https://81018.com/parameters/
• Prior homepage: https://81018.com/old-theory/
• The headline for this article: Let’s Collaborate and Compare
• First byline is: Big bang versus Quiet Expansion

###

______________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________

Still editing (and mostly deleting) these references from the prior homepage.

Hawking’s big bang theory has reached its limits: https://81018.com/old-theory/

Notations 0-to-201 are nonlocal. Locality is limited to each person’s unique space-and-time (universally recompiled within sleep – more to come).

Langlands programs and string and M theories need to be dropped into this base-2 container. Structure could easily be confused with points or vertices, but these have dimensional qualities, including qualities defined by the Fourier transform and attractors and repellers (Milnor and Smale).

Some editor needs to take my article for Foundational Questions Institute (FQXi) and help make it work for some one of our science publications.

_____

Questions. Are quarks in the range of 10−18 meters? If so that would be in Notations 56-59. Are fermions within Notation-67? What else can be within to be in the range of the Planck base units (10−33 meters)? Are all the dimensionless constants? Are they on the cusp of the finite-infinite relation? Are these often misconstrued as vertices or points? Are simple doublings the most basic function in the universe? Does that circle of value and qualities extend to the Planck base units and out tot the current expansion?

Remember this Summary. This model is dynamic, wholistic, intimate, and inclusive. Here our universe is a huge, hyper-sensitive grid, one that some might think is overly sensitive, because it appears to respond to the thoughts, words and deeds of everyone as everything-everywhere becomes part of the face of the universe.

Key pages:

_____

Max Planck Dr. John Mather, pi at its core drives our most significant formulas, foremost among them being that for the infinitesimal sphere.

Foundational Questions Institute Max Tegmark and Anthony Aguirre with financial help from the Templeton Foundation. https://81018.com/3u/ Strengths and weaknesses of big bang theory by Jayant Narlikar,

Wikipedia Unsolved Problems. physics, mathematics, and astronomy, particularly cosmology. Cosmology and general relativity.

https://81018.com/aristotle/

Worldviews are too intransigent. A fully-integrated UniverseView is needed.

Concepts key to an Integrative Universe
by Bruce E. Camber A working draft, in process on this late August day

Intransigence becomes hostility. People from every nation and walk of life are not willing to see a broader, more-inclusive context to grasp the meaning-and-value of life. Limited worldviews clash. Temperatures flare and people fight. A better way is an integrative model of the entire universe within which to know ourselves, our world, and a bit more about our universe.

This outline of an integrative universe uses eight concepts:

#1 Infinite qualities — continuity, symmetry and harmony — shape every-and-all finite quantities, each a dynamic equation and the beginning of spacetime.

The finite-infinite relation is best understood by expanding our understanding of pi. We first learn the first simple equation, the circumference-to-diameter ratio. That’s a start, then it builds from there. As noted in the summary of pi, “…It is our oldest, most-used, mathematical constant, and the ultimate basis for all equations, especially those describing a fundamental principle of our universe.”

There are three facets of pi, however, that are not finite or quantitative so we assume (hypothesize and/or hypostatize) these facets define the infinite and the qualitative.

Continuity is our first facet of infinity. It is the very nature of order. Within the finite it looks like a string of numbers and feels like time. Pi qualifies; it’s an equation that has never-ending results that are always the same and always changing.

Symmetry is the second facet of infinity. It looks like geometries and is the very nature of a relation. Within the finite it feels like space. Pi qualifies; it’s a symmetry that generates symmetries. It’s an equation that generates equations.

Harmony is the third facet of infinity. It is the very nature of dynamics; and within the finite, it is always cyclical (periodicity) and experienced as space-time moments. Pi’s numbers, geometries, and equations (Fourier transform and others) are here within an eternal dance and there’s a domain of perfection which may be experienced as a moment of perfection.

Ultimately, pi is the face of both sides of every equation, one is qualitative (infinite) and the other is quantitative (finite). Let those natural, dynamic relations be natural. Let all your relations breathe and come alive. Be open and engage the harmony of the universe.

#2 There are foundations within mathematics to integrate our Universe.

Are Planck Length and Planck Time real? Among the scholars in this area, they seem to say, “Real enough.”
Are their numbers real? Infinitesimally small, we are prone to say that these are symbolically real and “close enough.”
What manifests first? Pi drives the finite-infinite equations; we consider a size/time invariant sphere that is defined by those Planck base units (numbers). We’ve also used Stoney’s numbers. Both sets of numbers are symbolic placeholders until there is a new consensus among scholars, NIST and ISO.

#3 There are 202 base-2 notations that encapsulate the universe.

Our Story. In December 2011, our high school geometry classes unwittingly made a first pass at defining the universe using base-2 notation starting at the Planck base units. We believed the scholars that the Planck units for length and time were the smallest possible units of space and time. Our conjecture was that they would also be the very first units of spacetime.

We decided to explore. To get down that small, we followed a 4D path inspired by Zeno. We divided the edges of a tetrahedron by 2, and then its internal octahedron and four smaller tetrahedrons, and continued dividing by 2. There were just 112 steps within to the Planck scale. We thought it might feel a bit like Alice’s fall into that rabbit hole as in Lewis Carroll’s Wonderland. But, our walk was highly-ordered, systematic, yet most magical. As we went down deeper and deeper within, it was not at all confusing. Even our shrinking in size each step seemed quite natural.

We rebounded back in the classroom by multiplying the Planck Length by 2. Later we would add Planck Time. And then even later, Planck Mass and Planck Charge. It was extraordinary going from that smallest unit out to the edge of the universe to watch the current expansion, all in just 202 base-2 notations. Yes, from the smallest to the largest sizes and from the first moment of time to 13.81+ billion years later, we had encapsulated everything-everywhere-for-all-time.

#4 It’s an answer to big bang cosmology… but it’s just too simple.

Exponentiation. The entire universe, from the smallest possible measurement to the largest in 202 notations, stretches credulity yet it’s 100% mathematical and predictive. All notations are profoundly related and always dynamic. We were so new and naive about it all, we asked questions of the thought leaders of big bang cosmology, Hawking, Ellis, Guth, Steinhardt… and so many others. “What are we doing wrong?” Nobody was willing to guide us, so we placed the time line for the big bang and our big board, side-by -side. We found only a microsecond’s difference with Hawking cosmology. We were beginning to learn about the problems, so when a scholar labeled our model, idiosyncratic, we knew that his judgement was quick and somewhat flippant. There was — and still is — just too much here to consider.

It has taken ten years to begin to understand why change is difficult to engage. First, there is so, so much vested in the Hawking model. It has stood strong for many years. It began building in 1973 when Hawking and Ellis wrote a thesis, The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time. Every new citation, each new book and movie and video, making reference to Hawking’s big bang cosmology, created a muscular defense around Hawking and his model. Yet, that core belief system could not answer a growing number of questions. It had to choose to ignore others. Second, no new model came along. Still, eventually some of our best scholars broke rank and called more stridently for a new paradigm.

We were late to that party and we had no scholarly credentials, yet our emergent model had clear, simple, and compelling mathematics and logic. Nobody argued that.

#5 The first 64 notations are the foundations.

Those first 64 notations. Although impossibly small, here is a huge infinitesimal domain that is well below the current thresholds of measurement. Unwittingly, all 64 notations, albeit a most-speculative domain, had never been considered. The more we read and studied about the mathematics of Langlands programs, those earliest notations seemed like a natural home. It also seemed like string and M-theory could benefit. Then we began learning about SUSY, and studies like causal set theory (CST), loop quantum gravity (LQG), spectral standard model (SSM), and others. All could benefit. Then came all the hypothetical particles and what we called the Moonshine outliers. They all needed a place to begin working with the two Standard Models. Most naively we raised our hand, “Over here!” Yet, I would guess that we were too simple, too basic, and our grasp so superficial, nobody dared to get too close. We could readily taint their work! I understood… and understand even today.

Consider the obvious. These 64 notations have dimensionality. The conjectured infinitesimal spheres are not “one-dimensional space entities or membranes of higher-dimensional extensions existing in higher-dimensional spaces.” We might say as above, so below, considering that we started with numbers and basic geometries and carry it forward throughout the entire universe.

A new geometry. In May 2022, our simple clear-plastic models opened a new door. We had plenty of images of a five-tetrahedral gap and that work was well-known within small circles of scholars. With various five-tetrahedral models on my desk for several years, one day I asked myself, “Could there be a five-octahedral gap?” In minutes the first models were made; and within the month, we had our first pass at an explanation. A most-challenging composite is a five-tetrahedral gap on the top and bottom with the five octahedral gap in the middle. In June 2022 we began inviting scholars within pure geometry to help interpret where these gaps fit within the larger scholarly models of the universe. My simple thought was that these basic geometries, especially the three with basic gaps — tetrahedrons, octahedrons, and icosahedrons — could be part of the transition from Standard Model of Particle Physics to a new, different, and very-special science of the infinitesimal. The earliest infinitesimal architecture, we conjectured from Notation-0 to Notation-64, would give us that smooth-most-perfect start of the universe and then open a domain, Notations 65-to-67, for quantum fluctuations (our 2017 speculations).

#6 Proposed: Geometries of Quantum Fluctuations

Very few talk about a geometry of quantum fluctuations. When those words were placed in quotes within an online search, the only references that came up in September 2021 were to this website. Yet, when students made tetrahedrons, octahedrons and icosahedrons with those clear plastic models, they naturally dubbed it squishy geometry (also: https://81018.com/squishy/) and quantum geometry.

When pressed on the possible application of these gaps, our scholars seem to avoid those discussions. We can avoid it no longer. It is time to engage the gaps and all their implications for mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology (i.e. synapses).

#7 Pi, One Sphere Per Unit of Planck Time, Cubic Close Packing…

The expanding definition of pi as the actual bridge between the dimensionless constants of the infinite and all finite quantities is a key. Pi and spheres go hand and glove. The first sphere emerges, then one infinitesimal sphere per unit of Planck time. In the first second, we are out to Notation-143 and no less than 539 tredecillion (1042) infinitesimal spheres. In the first year within Notation 169, we would multiply 539 tredecillion by 31,556,952 (seconds per year). Exponential notation has taken over, yet there is a linearity deep within each notation.

For better or worse, the universe has begun.

#8 Next steps: Building consensus

Where do we go from here? Mathematicians and physicists are opening pathways to this domain. It is the domain of finite-infinite transformations where there just happens to be a fair amount of activity. From the esoteric to the basics, magazines like Quanta explore the edges of knowledge. New people are introduced everyday. People like Philipp Dumitrescu call into question the very nature of time. Mary Gaillard, a particle theorist at University of California – Berkeley, asks about the very nature of mass. Peter Scholze pushes forward with his perfectoids in Langlands programs. Although those who define infinity in other ways may disagree, it all seems to boil down to the finite-infinite relation. Many mathematicians are attempting to get beyond David Hilbert and Kurt Gödel and the limitations created by their logic that never entertained the first 64 notations and the perfected states within continuity, symmetry and harmony.

_____

Let’s get beyond our worldviews.

Let us look beyond our little worldviews and consider the universe. In the process of exploring our universe, it was gratifying to find that the International Astronomical Union (IAU) and the United Nations promulgating Universe Awareness, a group that got started in 2004 through the initial work of George Kildare Miley, an Irish-Dutch astronomer and professor at Leiden University’s Observatory. Miley was the Director from 1996 to 2003. Once this page has been gone through several edits, I will introduced these folks to this work and references. Already oriented to a view of the universe, the question is, “Will they be open to the 202 base-2 notations that encapsulate this ever-expanding universe?”

There are many living scholars who have had vision and courage who have helped us begin to break out of our own limited worldviews, people like Frank Wilczek, Robert Langlands, George Ellis, Edward Witten, Helen Quinn, Paul Steinhardt, Sylvester Gates, Alain Connes, and Salvatore Torquato. Of course, there have been many others.

So, as you may well imagine, there will be many more scholars to come who will lead us. -BEC

_____

Endnotes & Footnotes
These Endnotes are placeholders. I anticipate feedback that will open the discussion. Footnotes may be added. -BEC

  1. Infinite qualities — continuity, symmetry and harmony — shape all
    finite quantities. All dynamic equations, here is the beginning of spacetime
    .

    The keys: Qualitative-Quantitative. Continuity, symmetry and harmony are the qualitative; it follows that real numbers that are generated by dimensionless constants constitute the quantitative. So, students, without fully grasping the most-sophisticated work of Hawking, Hilbert, Gödel and so many others over the decades, can understand the outside parameters defined by 202 base-2 notations, then become increasingly sophisticated as they add more and more textures to it. So, we will tarry on unless, of course, we hit a wall where the feedback is deafening and complete.
  2. Foundations for the mathematics to integrate our Universe
    We begin with real numbers. These are the best numbers we have today. They could readily be refined, yet the conceptual boundaries defined by base-2 will be little changed. Notwithstanding, we hold that no page within this website is ever finished. Each can be improved.
  3. The 202 base-2 notations that encapsulate the universe
    Our chart emerged over a five-year period. It took us that long to believe it hadn’t been done and to engage the fullness of it. Beginning in July 2016, the chart stimulated the development of this website for research and another for our secondary schools. That is was all highly-ordered and systematic was surprising and reinforced our basic geometries.
  4. An Answer to Big Bang Cosmology… It’s just too simple and expansive.
    It can’t go on forever. Aristotle had an 1800 year old mistake. We’re less than 100 years into this mistake (Lemaître, 1932; Hawking, 1990). We can begin to clean it up in our lifetime.
    ________
     The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time (PDF), S. Hawking and G. EllisCambridge,1973
    ________
  5. The First 64 Notations as the Foundations for Everything
    So many possibilities open up, an empowering creativity could become contagious. Ethics could begin to break out all over.
  6. Emergent Geometries of Quantum Fluctuations
    When we know there is far more room to expand, we will. Today we have an index of a bit more than a million total words but collectively use less than 170,000 words, and personally limit ourselves to somewhere around 25,000 words. According to Simon Plouffe, there are 215,000,000 dimensionless constants; to grasp that level of subtlety will require new words and new studies. Entirely new fields of study will emerge.
  7. Pi, One Sphere Per Unit of Planck Time, then Cubic Close Packing…
    A re-engagement with pi and an exponential universe such that every expression understood today will become part of standard curriculum. We know from our teaching and testing with 6th grade students that they can readily grasp these concepts and begin using them immediately.
  8. Next steps: Building consensus
    New leadership worldwide could well be empowered. We already have witnessed how younger scholars have been empowered. Getting the attention of today’s leading thinkers is more difficult. However, people making breakthroughs like Peter Scholze or Philipp Dumitrescu may be more open to simplicity. Then, some within their emeritus status, like Mary Gaillard (Berkeley), may become incrementally bolder and not be so quick to judge the new and the simple.
    _____
    Dynamical topological phase realized in a trapped-ion quantum simulator, Philipp T. Dumitrescu, Justin G. Bohnet, John P. Gaebler, Aaron Hankin, David Hayes, Ajesh Kumar, Brian Neyenhuis, Romain Vasseur & Andrew C. Potter, Nature, V.607, pp.463–467, July 20,2022
    ________
    International Astronomical Union (IAU) and the United Nations promulgate Universe Awareness, a group that got started in 2004 through the initial work of George Kildare Miley, an Irish-Dutch astronomer and professor at Leiden University‘s Observatory (Director, 1996 to 2003).

_____

References & Resources
A few of the key related works that are studied but not within an endnote or footnote, are added here.

ArXiv: Dark Photon Stars: Formation and Role as Dark Matter Substructure, March 2022 with references to Witten, Wilczek, Kolb, Dimopoulos, Preskill, Fairbairn, Hogan (Carl J.), Garcia-Garcia, and others
Alain Connes, Noncommutativity and Physics: A non-technical review, July 25, 2022 (PDF)
George Ellis, Emergence of time, 2019 with Barbara Drossel and The physics of infinity, Nature Physics, V. 14, Issue 8, p.770-772, 2018
Sylvester Gates, Supersymmetry and Representation Theory in Low Dimensions, Dec. 2020
Robert Langlands, Langlands Program, Trace Formulas, and their GeometrizationEdward Frenkel, 2014
Helen Quinn, BOSE NAS, 20218
Scientific American: The Universe’s Unseen Dimensions, The visible universe could lie on a membrane floating within a higher-dimensional space, (PDF), Georgi Dvali, Nima Arkani-Hamed and Savas Dimopoulos, 20028
Paul Steinhardt
Salvatore Torquato
Frank Wilczek
Edward Witten

_____

Emails
There will always be emails to our scholars with questions about their work.

Craig J. Hogan, University of Chicago, August 4, 2022 at 2:00 PM
Jürgen Jost, Max Planck Institute for Mathematics, Leipzig, August 4, 2022 at 11:18 AM
Sir Peter Knight, Imperial College London, August 2, 2022, at 3:320 PM
Peter Scholze, Max Planck Institute for Mathematic, Bonn, August 1, 2022 at 4:51 PM
Steve J. Carlip, UC-Davis, July 31, 2022
George Ellis, Cape Town, South Africa on July 27, 2022 at 5:01 PM
Helen Quinn, Stanford, on July 27, 2022 at 11:118 AM
Possible: Frank Wilczek, MIT / Paul Steinhardt, Princeton / Sylvester Gates, Brown
Alain Connes, IHES, Paris / Salvatore Torquato, Princeton / Edward Witten, IAS
Robert Langlands, IAS

_____

IM
Here will also be many instant messages to thought leaders about key points.

UNESCO, International Banks, Vladimir Putin, Ukraine, Pope, China,

_____

Participate
You are always invited to lead a program, Each One – Teach Two.

_____

Keys to this page, as-above-so-below

• This page became a homepage on July 28, 2022.
• The prior homepage is https://81018.com/starting-point/
• The last update was Friday August 26, 2022.
• This page was initiated on July 12, 2022.
• The URL for this file is https://81018.com/as-above-so-below/
• Current headline: Eight Concepts toward an Integrative Universe
• Earlier headlines for this article: The Mathematically-Integrated View of the Universe
• Current byline: Worldviews are too intransigent. A fully-integrated UniverseView is needed.
Other bylines: A good revolution in our time: Old Worldviews to New UniverseView!
The geometry of quantum fluctuationsThe First 64 Notations Out of 202 Are Key
Essential Key: Three Basic Geometries of Quantum Fluctuations
All of us are getting too hostile and intransigent. Let’s embrace the universe.
Let the next revolution begin! Independence from absolute time!

______

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Validating that which cannot be directly measured

Right Yellow Arrow
Left Yellow Arrow

CENTER FOR PERFECTION STUDIES: CONTINUITYSYMMETRYHARMONY GOALS.FEBRUARY 2022+
Pages: Blackhole |  C. | Empower | Hope.|. Mistakes.|. PI (π) | Redefine | Singularity | Sphere. |.TOE.|.Up
THIS PAGE:. ASSUMPTIONS.FOOTNOTES
 |.REFERENCES 1, 2 |.EMAILS  | IM  | PARTICIPATE. |  Zzzz’s

“Prove it to me!”
Numbers-Geometry-Equations
by Bruce E. Camber
a working draft

Background. In December 2021 a friend asked me, ‘How can we begin to validate some part of this theory?’ It is a tough question and one that speculative people throughout time have asked about new concepts. We have a special problem because the “things” of our first 64 of 202 base-2 notations are below the thresholds of measurement.* We all really need to understand the “things” of those 64 notations out of the 202 notations that literally encapsulate everything, everywhere for all time. -BEC

Numbers, Geometries, Equations. Unlike so many theories, this one — our most-simple, base-2 mathematics from Planck’s base units to the age and size of the universe today* — is all numbers, geometries, and equations.

There are well over a thousand numbers to explore. All are generated from that base-2 equation. More importantly, it all started with geometries; and, those geometries stay with us no matter how small or large our numbers become. Also, we’ve had the landmark calculations of Max Planck and George Johnstone Stoney. Although Max Planck’s numbers are disputed by some scholars (John Ralston, 2012), Stoney’s numbers provide a comparative analysis. A few of us consider such numbers to be a symbolic description of the first instant of the universe. The most critical consider those extrapolated numbers — the 202 notations from Planck Time to the current time — to be “just numbers.”

For this article, we simply ask you defer judgment in order to explore this model further.

I think these continuity equations generate quite a bit more than just numbers. These are living numbers. This extrapolation of numbers from the first instant to this day so closely approximates actual measurements, it loudly calls for more scrutiny of this grid.

The Speed of Light. From the infinitesimals to the largest possible numbers, one of the best numbers to study is the currently-accepted value for the speed of light: https://81018.com/c/ Particularly, I point to Notations 143-and-144: https://81018.com/chart/#143

On February 1, 2022 I had a wonderful exchange with Viktor Toth, a Max Planck scholar. He is a frequent co-author with John Moffat (Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics) and others. I had written right here within an earlier draft of this paragraph, “In 1899 when Max Planck was calculating his base units, the speed of light had not been determined strictly through mathematics.” I just didn’t dig deeply enough. Toth gave me the precise references for Max’s calculations!** Max used his base units to divide length by time to render the speed of light at 300,000 meters/second. I had found references to Planck Length — 1.616255×10-35 meters — which when divided by Planck’s Time — 5.391247×10-44 seconds — renders 299,792.4228 kilometers per second. The provenance of those calculations is not yet clear. Notwithstanding, whether 300,000 or 299,792, the results are close enough and worth pondering. Planck Length divided by Planck Time: Is it always equal to the speed of light? Showing up within Notation-143 right about at the distance light travels in a second, is that meaningful? Does that base-2 chart truly encapsulate the universe within 202 doublings of those Planck units?

In that light, I ask you, “Is this a validation that the chart has some cogency?” I think so.

Earlier work, other references within this area:
Overview: https://81018.com/light-stats/
Speed of light 1: https://81018.com/wikipedia-speed-of-light/
Speed of light 2: https://81018.com/speed-of-light/
Just a second: https://81018.com/universeclock/

Variable Speed of Light (VSL). [1] There is a line of numbers within our chart, each a multiple of Planck Length divided its multiple of Planck Time. Yes, line 10 is the value of the Planck Length within a given notation divided by its corresponding multiple of Planck Time. As one might anticipate, the results are a variable-speed of light (VSL) [1]. It was a new study for us, and it had an acronym, VSL, and it had scholars — a rather substantial group — who had concluded that the speed of light is not constant. To our knowledge, our line 10 is the first time this concept of a variable had been defined as a simple function of mathematics.

Could it really be the first mathematical confirmation of an hypothesis of others? As a result, the works of scholars advocating VSL are of interest to us. This could become a significant validation of this base-2 model; it appears to be heading in that direction.

Please note: It seems that the top-level numbers within Notation-202 approximate numbers currently determined by actual measurements by our academic and scientific communities of today’s existing realities. Such coincidences are also perfunctory validations. Yet, I’ll be the first to admit, that as these numbers within this chart are more carefully studied, adjustments will be necessary. I would not be surprised to see shifts of an entire column, left or right!

Finite-Infinite. Identified within the footnotes of several prior articles are three master keys to the big questions about our universe. The first is a Finite-Infinite key. The second key is for the Integrative Systems that Structure the Universe. The third is the Redefinitions of Space-Time (Mass-Charge) key. The longest running of the three is the finite-infinite key. You can well-imagine that it goes back throughout most of our human history.

Since around 1974, I have been following the work of the John Templeton. [2] The founder of two foundations that carry his name. John Templeton was one of our world’s early billionaires and he knew that religion could inform science about the universal, and that science could inform religion with their universals, and that the two groups rarely truly listened to each other.

I shared that sentiment profoundly and still do.

The Templeton Foundation helped to start the Foundational Questions Institute (FQXi) [3] with physicists, Max Tegmark and Anthony Aguirre. Those two are very sophisticated scholars working at the edges of scientific inquiry. FQXi has supported many fine scholars and any one of them could help us clarify our issues and craft ways to test our model. Of several hundred scholars, at the time of this writing, I had asked over 60 of them for a critical review of our base-2 model. I recognize our presuppositions are a stretch and I appreciate why most are quite cautious with their responses.

Notwithstanding, I will continue to engage FQXi (my 2021 paper for them) and their scholars regarding the finite-infinite relation. Can it be distilled to a simple discussion of those aspects of pi that are infinite? Going forward, that will be my focus with the FQXi people, i.e. an email to Tim Palmer of Oxford.

Redefinitions of Space-Time: The first three seconds. [4] I am hoping that we might slowly build working relations with a number of scholars who have made the infinitesimally small their primary focus. Among them are the scholars who have been analyzing the first three seconds of the universe. All 27 contributing scholars of the article, The First Three Seconds, were asked:
• Is there a mathematical continuum from the Planck base units to the current time and size of the universe? https://81018.com/home/
• Is there any possibility that our universe is exponential and that our base-2 chart describes a most-basic manifestation of exponentiality in our universe? https://81018.com/chart/
• Is an infinitesimal sphere the first manifestation of the Planck units (and light, pi and other probable dimensionless constants)? https://81018.com/sphere/
• Is pi one of our earliest examples of continuity (never-ending, never repeating numbers), symmetry, and harmony within the physical universe? https://81018.com/challenge/
• Is this hypostatization a key finite-infinite relation? https://81018.com/almost/
• Is sphere stacking a fundamental action of the universe starting with the Planck base units? https://81018.com/stacking/
• Is cubic-close packing of equal spheres a fundamental action for the expansion of the universe? https://81018.com/ccp/ Does it open up the Fourier transform and Euclidean geometries?

I think such questions are worth asking. As I continue to read their most current work, I will engage these scholars further.

Physics of Quantum Electronics. [5] There are other efforts that are equally ambitious. The scholars within this most-select, highly-creative scientific group, Physics of Quantum Electronics (PQE), have been writing and presenting papers since 1971. They are motivated to reduce quantum theory to practice, that is, practical applications and devices. To do so, they take chances with new ideas. We will continue to ask questions of these creatives to engage our model because it should open many new ways the quantum world can be reduced to practice. We have redefined that world; it only goes as small as its quantum fluctuations and then there are domains of perfection where quantum physics no longer abides. It is such a radical stretch, most will shut us down. For those who know we have been going in circles for well-over 100 years searching for a new paradigm, I say, “Thank you and welcome. There has got to be what we might call technologies of perfection that will demonstrate a reality of this hypostatic domain.”

Christodoulou, Di Biagio & Martin-Dussaud. [6] The infinitesimal (or smallest-scale universe) cannot be measured directly, yet there are scholars who are working to validate its presence by measuring its direct effects and possible affects. In 2019 I enjoyed discovering the work of post-docs, Andrea Di Biagio (La Sapienza), Marios Christodoulou (Oxford), Pierre Martin-Dussaud (Aix-Marseille Univ., Université de Toulon). They are trying to formulate an experimental environment to determine time sequences as short as the PlanckSecond. One of their goals is to determine if time is discrete-and-digital or continuous-and-qualitative.

We will continue to encourage their work. I’ve suggested to them that they need to add a third category: both digital-and-continuous. We will attempt to help as they inch closer to a reduction in practice to measure the unmeasurable.

Institute for Particle Physics Phenomenology (IPPP). [7] The IPPP of Durham University is entirely focused on the range from the Planck scale to the electroweak scale. Their leadership has not yet engaged the logic-and-mathematics of our first 64 (out of 202 notations); it’s still open for discussion. All 64 notations are well below the thresholds of measurement. It would be good to have one or two within this group to study our model. Perhaps the prior homepage, The First Particle, could be dressed up to become an invited paper for their 2022 annual conference.

Routledge Handbook of Emergence [8]. Also at Durham University, three faculty members, Sophie Gibb, Robin Findlay Hendry, and Tom Lancaster, edited a landmark book, Routledge Handbook of Emergence, as part of the Durham Emergence Project. Many other people have also been involved; among them scholars from the Durham University of Institute for Advanced Studies. Many at Durham University have struggled for years to clarify the unsolved mysteries and tensions within science. All those involved might consider our novel approach to be of interest.

Independent scholars around the world.[9] There are over 10,000 thoughtful people listed by Jean de Climont in his 2022 publication, The Worldwide List of Alternative Theories and Critics (PDF). The editor, Jean de Climont, listed himself (page 475) — he’s written many books that explore the edges of physics. Our work has been referenced on page 311. With over 10,000 people listed, there are mistakes, yet de Climont updates pages very quickly. Most of the people listed have poked holes into the fabric of our most commonly-accepted scientific concepts and theories. Sorting it all out is time-consuming yet it is a place to check to see what is said about a scholar whose work is intriguing. When given, the contact information listed is generally accurate. It is also a good place to learn names of others asking similar questions. There are, for example, 81 people listed who investigate the cosmological constant. There are 71 listings that use the concept, perfect. There are twelve who use the word, continuity. One-hundred use the word, symmetry. Nine use the word, harmony. For me, each is a reference of interest.

There are many more facets to add. [10] We all seem to be working in the same direction. We’re in search of some fundamental truth that will make all our disparities begin to cohere, plus cut down on the number of arguments and lay foundations for new constructions. We have identified eight such disciplines that can create new bridges and close some gaps. Each could spark a revolution in the way we think about things.

Shell particle. There are groups of people working to define a shell particle that could help us understand our many hypothetical particles. A better definition could spark a revolution in the way we think about things.

Spin. There are groups of people attempting to identify the nature of spin, both particle spin and that spin defined by the Fourier transform. The very nature and reason for particle spin is a mystery for those who study it. The spin within the Fourier transform is perhaps more settled. The relations between the two have begun to be explored.

Cosmological constant. If Planck Time gives us a de facto rate of expansion of the universe — that is one Planck sphere per Planck unit of time — it is a simple computation, 539 tredecillion spheres per second. Somebody will figure out how to test that rate within our time. Given Ralston‘s misgivings about the Planck Constant, as a symbolic gesture, perhaps we should include Stoney’s number and suggest a symbolic range whereby between 539-to-4605.4 tredecillion infinitesimal spheres — first particles — are generated every second and that rate defines the look-and-feel of the expansion of the universe.

I believe that such a rate of expansion may eventually be considered a cosmological constant.

Perfected States Within Space-Time. There is a thrust and compactification, whereby what manifests within the earliest notations reflect what defines a perfected-state within space-time. It is hypothesized that quantum indeterminacy first begins to manifest with a five-tetrahedral structure sharing a common edge. Hold five tetrahedrons tight to a common edge and there is a 7.356103+ degree gap. That gap is also natural within expressions of dodecahedral or icosahedral structures. Within our work, those spatial dynamics are currently generally classified as quantum fluctuations.

Continuity-Symmetry-Harmony (CSH). I have saved the best for last. Many scholars and scientists are vehemently opposed to the idea that the foundations of science should be the foundations of theology and these should be the foundations of ethics and values. That this is true within this construction is a key validation that it is on the right path. These foundations — CSH — do give rise to our ethics and values. It is a very important part of this very holistic approach to mathematics, physics, the sciences, ethics, and values.

_____

Conclusion. Nothing is ever easy. Yet, this model, even with its many moving parts, is simple. It is not easy, but it is simple. Some of our elementary school children (6th graders) appreciated it. So what do you think?

Thank you very much. -BEC

Of course, your comments are most welcome.

_____

Endnotes/Footnotes

* This work emerged from concepts started in a high school in 2011. The chart of 202 base-2 notations from the Planck scale to the current time is here: https://81018.com/chart/ Quantum indeterminacy appears to be measurable from about Notation-67. Notation-0 to Notation-64 are well below the scale of quantum physics. Also, even though this study is young — it began in December 2011 — we’ve started to address the very nature of Planck Temperature.

** See: Von Kirchoff bis Planck: Theorie der Wärmestrahlung in historisch-kritischer Darstellung, Hans-Georg Schöpf, Springer, 1978. Also, see Planck’s 1899 article, “Über irreversible Strahlungsvorgänge“, Max Planck, 1900 (which is included within the von Kirchoff book.

_____

[1] VSL. There is a wide range of leading scholars who have been writing about VSL for many years. Perhaps the most foundational is by Robert Dicke in 1957. John Moffat (Wikipedia) (1992), Andreas Albrecht (Wikipedia) and João Magueijo (Wikipedia) (1998) kept it alive. The chart of 202 notations, particularly line 10, is one possible mathematical validation of VSL.

Footnotes:
Ellis, George F R, Note on Varying Speed of Light Cosmologies (PDF), in General Relativity and Gravitation39 (4): 511–520. 2007
Magueijo, João, New varying speed of light theories (PDF), Reports on Progress in Physics, 2003, 66 (11): 2025–2068. arXiv:astro-ph/0305457
Moffat, John W, J. Magueijo), “Comments on ‘Note on varying speed of light theories”,” 2008
Yves-Henri Sanejouand, Empirical evidences in favor of a varying-speed-of-light, ArXiv (PDF), 2009

_____

[2] Templeton. Many online discussions about the finite-infinite relation can trace their roots back to the John Templeton Foundation. The most simple definition of that relation is found within our understanding of the three faces of pi (π) which is the focus of this article. There is no guessing about the nature of the infinite; pi gives it away.

Footnotes:
Harvey Friedman, Foundational Investigations Into The Infinite/Finite In Mathematics, 2012: https://www.templeton.org/grant/foundational-investigations-into-the-infinitefinite-in-mathematics
Sy Friedman, The Hyperuniverse: Laboratory Of The Infinite, 2015
Heather Templeton Dill, The Purpose of the John Templeton Foundation, 2021
Wikipedia’s listing about the John Templeton Foundation

_____

[3] FQXi. The Templeton Foundation was the founding sponsor of the Foundational Questions Institute (FQXI). The institute has empowered studies of the most foundational questions such as:
What is the finite-infinite relation? Mathematicians Bridge Finite-Infinite Divide, N. Wolchover, Quanta, 2016
Theodore Slaman, University of California, Berkeley
Ulrich Kohlenbach, Technical University, Darmstad
 Keita Yokoyama, Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Nomi, Asahidai (Japan)
 Ludovic Patey, Diderot University, Paris
 Andreas Weiermann, Ghent University, Ghent
• What is the nature of space/time?
• What are the most basic systems that structure our universe?

Footnote: Craig Callender, Can Time Be Saved From Physics? (FQXi), 2019

_____

[4] Three seconds. Twenty-seven scholars wrote The First Three Seconds: a Review of Possible Expansion Histories of the Early Universe (PDF), June 2020. They used the concept of Steven Weinberg’s 1977 book, The First Three Minutes to begin to consider the first three seconds. In our chart, the first three minutes places us in between Notations-149-150. The first three seconds is between Notations-143 to-145. This group needs to look at the first three Planck Seconds, Notations 1-2-3.

Our standards people (NIST, ISO, etc.) do not even have a name for something of such short durations. Our goal is to follow up our first analysis with all 27 scholars and to encourage them to explore the first three Planckseconds. Bernal and Hooper were among the 27 contributors.
Nicolás Bernal, Moira Venegas et al. New opportunities for axion dark matter searches in nonstandard cosmological models (PDF), 2021
Dan Hooper, TASI Lectures on Indirect Searches For Dark Matter (PDF), 2018
Adrienne L. Erickcek, Formation of microhalos (PDF-page 299ff), 2020
Tommi Tenkanen, Catarina Cosme, Spectator dark matter in non-standard cosmologies, (PDF) 2021
More to come. The next up is the other corresponding author, Ville Vaskonen, and then everybody else!

_____

[5] PQE. This 2018 article opened the door for me on the Physics of Quantum Electronics folks. There are about 30 people listed for each annual conference. Our appeal will be with no less than five of these “practical-but-most-esoteric” folks and that will be based on recognizing their name from other groups and articles. http://www.pqeconference.com/ https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.06110 (PDF)
Light, the universe, and everything — 12 Herculean tasks for quantum cowboys and black diamond skiers (PDF), 2018
Frank Wilczek, Are there new quantum phases of matter away from equilibrium that can be found and exploited – such as the time crystal?, page 23, 2018 (PDF), ArXiv, Light, the Universe and everything

_____

[6] Authors. Those graduate students and postdocs who collaborate (especially from various fine schools) and who ask questions and make suggestions that may open new grounds to be explored, are to be encouraged.
•  Andrea Di Biagio (La Sapienza), Marios Christodoulou (Oxford), Pierre Martin-Dussaud (Aix-Marseille Univ, Université de Toulon), An experiment to test the discreteness of time, 2020 (revised 2021) (PDF) .
Arno KeppensEmergent Quantum Mechanics – David Bohm Centennial Perspectives, Physics Today, July 22-26, 2020. Keppens says, “Important attempts to devise an emergent quantum (gravity) theory require space-time to be discretized at the Planck scale.”
•   Randyn Charles Bartholomew, Let’s Use Tau–It’s Easier Than Pi, Scientific American, June 25, 2014

_____

[7] Durham University IPPP. The Institute for Particle Physics Phenomenology IPPP of Durham University is entirely focused on the range from the Planck scale to the electroweak scale. Although their leadership has not yet affirmed our model with those first 64 notations well below measurement, this has been their domain for years and years. Perhaps they can tell us where we are going wrong. Perhaps they can tell us why those 202 mathematically-defined notations that encapsulate everything-everywhere-for-all-time the universe do not qualify as a reasonable STEM tool for teaching-learning. I will continue to follow this group. At some point they may have people who can suggest further tests of the actual numbers and inherent geometries within our little model. Of course, a dream would be to see invited papers for their 2022 annual conference.
• Seven IPPP graduate students, What is the smallest thing in the universe?, 2021
•  Isabel Garcia Garcia, Bounce of Nothing, June 2021 (PDF) Also see; ArXiv, May 2021

_____

[8] Routledge. The first collection of articles to attempt to discern the essence of emergence, from the Routledge Handbook of Emergence, I started with these four articles:
• Kerry McKenzie, Fundamentality, Chapter 3, 11 pages, (video)
George Ellis, Evolution, Information and Emergence, Chapter 30, 18 pages
Christian Wüthrich, The Emergence of Space and Time, Chapter 25, 12 pages
• Robin Findlay Hendry, Sophie Gibb, Tom Lancaster, Introduction, 19 pages

_____

[9] The Worldwide List of Alternative Theories and Critics (WLATAC). If Jean de Climont continues to work on these listings, this publication could become an even more valuable tool. The Worldwide List of Alternative Theories and Critics (PDF) will become most helpful in putting people together. Those collaborations will help to clarify issues and we may finally begin to breakthrough the impasses of our times. Among all the unaffiliated, boldly speculative thinkers, there are leading scholars like Gerald Holton (Harvard) and Andrei Linde (Stanford).
•   Gerald James Holton, Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought, HUP, 1988, WLATAC, page 894
•   Andrei Linde, (wiki), 2014 Kavli Prize in Astrophysics for pioneering the theory of cosmic inflation with Alan Guth (wiki) and Alexei Starobinsky (wiki) WLATAC, page 1195

_____

[10] Facets of physics opening many questions: (1) Langlands programs, (2) String theory and Mtheory, and (3) SUSY (including work Beyond the Standard Model), (4) Causal sets and causal set theory, (5) Loop Quantum Gravity, (6) Scalar Field Theory, (7) Spectral Standard Model and (8) Causal Dynamical Triangulation.

#

Validations to date

A domain of perfection: Logically-inferred in December 2021
Planck Temperature at Notation-0: Scientific-orthodoxy force fit to work here, December 2021
Continuity-symmetry-harmony (CSH): Logically validated, circa 2021
The speed of light using Planck Natural Units: Mathematically validated, circa 2016
The Variable Speed of Light (line 10): Mathematically-and-logically validated, circa 2016
The geometries of quantum fluctuations (gap): Logically-and-geometrically validated, circa 2013
Base-2 continuity from Planck Time to the Now: Mathematically-and-logically validated, circa 2013

The presuppositions: https://81018.com/presuppositions/ (as a checklist)

##

Open Questions about Continuity-Symmetry-Harmony

•  Does continuity-symmetry-harmony define the infinite as well as the very first instant?
•  Are the Planck units or the Stoney units the best approximations of the first dimensions?
•  Are we at the limits of measurement of time with a trillionth of a billionth of a second (or a decimal point followed by 20 zeroes-and-a-1)? It is confirmed to be the shortest scientific measurement of a unit of time. It is within Notation-74.
•   Is there just too little time from the zeptosecond to the Planck second for imperfections?
•   When might a special combination of geometries and equations begin to manifest such that a quantum fluctuation could begin? … years? The first year manifests within Notation-169. Perhaps the patterns and thrusts of perfection are so great that it takes thousands if not a million years (Notation 189) before there is a quantum fluctuation.
•  Is the infinite qualitative and the finite is quantitative?
•  
Are infinitesimal circles-spheres-tetrahedrons-and-octahedrons invariant within each notation?
•  Does cubic-close packing (ccp) of equal spheres define the first functional activity within space-time?
•  Might the expansion rate of the universe be set by PlanckTime (or possibly Stoney Time) and might that number (between 539 tredecillion spheres to 4605.4 tredecillion spheres per second) be a cosmological constant?
•  
Is there an initial thrust for perfection for homogeneity and isotropy and a smooth beginning?
•  Are the best possible studies to answer these questions Langlands programs,.string theory and Mtheory, SUSY (including Beyond the Standard Model work), .Causal Sets (and Causal Dynamical Triangulation),.Loop Quantum Gravity, .Scalar Field Theory, and the Spectral Standard Model?

_____

References / Resources  ________ Prior / Next

References from within this website:
1. This work began in 1970 within the study of the 1935 EPR paradox.
2. It was part of a conference at MIT in 1979 in search of first principles.
3. There are many pages that consider the first instants of the universe.
4. There are also these presuppositions and assumptions.

_____

Emails

  1. George Scialabba, Cambridge, Massachusetts
  2. Prof. Dr. Jenann Ismael, Columbia University, NYC
  3. Viktor Toth, Papers and publications, Ottawa, Ontario
  4. Adrienne L. Erickcek, UNC, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
  5. Prof. Dr. Barends Mons, CODATA, Leiden, Netherlands

____

IM

@KyendeKimeu Martin – We all need an expansive grounding. Our little worldviews are too small, solipsistic and often nihilistic. A highly-integrated mathematical view of the universe opens a whole new dialogue. A start is here: http://81018.com Technologies are derivative.

@brithume If you want to have clarity in your comments, you’ll have to let go of that limited worldview and begin working on a highly-integrated, mathematical view of the universe. It’s simple, but not easy: https://81018.com is a start. So much of DC has adopted nonsense!

@Acosta Please become an advocate to encourage us all to break free of little worldviews and to adopt a highly-integrated view of the universe. What happens is infinity is bridged by continuity-symmetry-harmonyhttps://81018.com It’s a start.

@georgesoros I’d like to recruit you to become an advocate to encourage us all to break free of little worldviews and to adopt a highly-integrated view of the universe. What happens is infinity is bridged by continuity-symmetry-harmonyhttps://81018.com It’s a start.

To many others: If there is ever going to be a little harmony in this world, we’ll need to break out of our little worldviews for an integrated view of the universe. Ours is a simple start: https://81018.com And, that it provides a foundation for ethics was gratifying: https://81018.com/ethics/

_____

Invitations and Collaborations

With whom do we collaborate? Of the hundreds of people who visit this site every month, who among them might want to extend a right hand and say, “Let’s work together.” Our only thrust is that the foundations of this universe and life itself be seen in light of infinity and the continuity-symmetry-harmony that the infinite engenders. Please, talk to us. Thank you. -Bruce

_____

Key dates for this document, validate.

_____

Afterthoughts: A Personal Addendum. The concept of a worldview was formalized in the 1700s first by Immanuel Kant and then by the general philosophical community. Yet, the intellectual and religious communities have had worldviews dating back to ancients like Plato. As the world began shrinking, we learned that there are many different worldviews and there are tensions among them.

Even when the German word is used, Weltanschauung, it’s still not big and comprehensive enough. Although Sir Isaac Newton and Immanuel Kant captured the world, the mysterium of a German word does not encompass the universe. As a concept, it is dated, incomplete, and not quite big enough. We need to move on to a integrated, mathematical view of the universe. -BEC

_____

+ About the two dates at the top of the home page Close to 6 AM (TZ-19 or USA CST) each day, the days listed at the top of this page get advanced by one digit. It should be a relatively easy program to write, yet I rationalize that I do it manually just to remember our granular (sun-to-earth) sense of time. TZ-19 is time zone #19 assuming that the International Date Line is #1 and Greenwich Mean Time falls within Time Zone 13. Notwithstanding, we all know the only time is the Now (not based on our solar system and includes everything, everywhere for all time).

____________________________________

Finite-Infinite relations studied through pi (π) open a different Universe

Left Yellow Arrow
Right Yellow Arrow

CENTER FOR PERFECTION STUDIES: CONTINUITYSYMMETRYHARMONY GOALS.JANUARY2022+
Pages: Blackhole.| C.|.Empower | Hope.|.Mistakes.|.PI (π) |.Redefine.|.Singularity | Sphere. |.TOE.|.Up
THIS PAGE:.ASSUMPTIONS.|.FOOTNOTES |.REFERENCES |. EMAILS.| IM | PARTICIPATE.| Zzzz’s

Infinity, Pi, And Ultimate Questions
by Bruce E. Camber

Living scholars have key parts of answers to our most important, enduring questions. Yet, we can always know more about our universe and ourselves and we can know it all more profoundly. In December 2011, by exploring the internal parts of the tetrahedron and octahedron, a simple base-2 progression became a highly-integrated, mathematical view of the universe. Max Planck provided the base units for length, time, charge, and mass. That chart has 202 notations from Planck’s units to the total size, age, energy and mass of today’s universe. To interpret the chart, studies of pi’s most infinitesimal, scale-invariant spheres start with cubic close-packing of equal spheres. When some of the dynamics of pi did not appear to be finite or quantitative, those facets were projected to be infinite and qualitative. That’s all re-introduced here just to see if these concepts help us over those conceptual hurdles that prevent us from seeing how all things everywhere throughout all time are part of an intellectual and mathematical grid that necessarily binds all disciplines. By exploring those hurdles we hope to begin a series of new syntheses.[*].– BEC

I. The finite-infinite relation. Always controversial and exceedingly provocative, our simple hypothesis is based on the “never-ending, never-repeating, always the same, always changing” numbers of pi ). Such an enigmatic statement begs questions about the essence of pi.[1]

The pi equation — never-ending, never-repeating, always the same, always changing — is a key. Although those words also describe other facets of mathematics, today we focus on our very old friend, pi, as in π r2 from our high school geometry days.

There are three facets of pi that are not finite or quantitative so we assume (hypothesize and/or hypostatize) these facets define the infinite and the qualitative (unique class and category).

Continuity is our first facet of infinity. It is the very nature of order. Within the finite it looks like a string of numbers and feels like time. Pi qualifies; it’s an equation that has never-ending results that are always the same and always changing.

Symmetry is the second facet of infinity. It looks like geometries and is the very nature of a relation. Within the finite it feels like space. Pi qualifies; it’s a symmetry that generates symmetries. It’s an equation that generates equations.

Harmony is the third facet of infinity. It is the very nature of dynamics; and within the finite, it is always cyclical (periodicity) and experienced as space-time moments. Pi’s numbers, geometries, and equations (Fourier transform and others) are here within an eternal dance and there’s a domain of perfection which may be experienced as a moment of perfection.

All other definitions of the infinite are put on hold. Most are personal definitions that come from personal experiences and family history. That is one’s own business, not ours. If those beliefs help you through life, that is great. Our goal here is to engage those principles and functions that give rise to mathematics, physics, and eventually all the other sciences.

Review: In this model the infinite is profoundly within the finite. It is not finite, but actively imparts qualities to the finite. For those who follow David Hilbert, please stay open. Pi’s three facets of the infinite are really real. These are not just abstractions, but realities of every circle and sphere. These three qualities condition the finite. Everything-everywhere-for all time, is in accordance with numbers, geometries, and equations; and, it all has some manifestation of these infinite qualities.

A rather different start to grasp the finite-infinite relation, our understanding of the infinite starts with pi and her most infinitesimal circles and spheres.[1]

_____

II. An infinitesimal sphere to 202 base-2 notations. First, infinitesimal spheres stack, pack, and give rise to tetrahedrons, then octahedrons, then the Platonic solids, then to every kind of geometry and equation that we can possibly imagine.[2]

Given the current calculations for the age of the universe — generally between 13.81 and 14.1 billion years — there is a range. There is a starting point for space-time and mass-charge. The endpoint is Now.

Given the nature of sphere stacking-packing-and-generating tetrahedrons and octahedrons, a natural doubling function within the universe is first seen by going inside a tetrahedron, by dividing each edge by 2, connecting those new vertices, and going within one step. Each face of tetrahedron becomes a face of smaller tetrahedrons and an octahedron.

This base-2 model of the universe began to emerge in 2011, initially only with Planck Length. In 2014, Planck Time was added and in 2015 Planck Charge and Planck Mass. In 2016 the chart was laid our horizontally to follow the progression of numbers more readily.

Using dimensionless constants in 1899 Max Planck calculated base units of time, length, mass and charge. These numbers give us a definition of the first manifestation of physicality, an infinitesimal sphere. Planck Time de facto gives us a rate of expansion of one Planck sphere per Planck unit of time which computes to 539 tredecillion spheres per second. These numbers logically define the first instant of time, then the look-and-feel of the expansion of the universe.

Perhaps such a rate of expansion could eventually be considered a cosmological constant.

One very basic combination using Planck Length and Planck Time is at one second. That calculation, Planck Length divided by Planck Time, is within .001% of the NIST/ISO value for the speed of light set in 2019. Other well-known values can be similarly tested. There is a thrust and compactification, whereby what manifests within the earliest notations reflect what defines a perfected-state within space-time. It is hypothesized that quantum indeterminacy first begins to manifest with a five-tetrahedral structure sharing a common edge. Hold those five tight to the common edge and there is a 7.356103+ degree gap. That gap is also natural within every expression of dodecahedral or icosahedral structures. Those spatial dynamics are currently generally classified as quantum fluctuations.[2]

_____

To the grid! To the grid: Specialized disciplines focus on a part of our problem.

III. The Nature of Space and Time: To be a scholar, a person gets to know some part of the 202 notations most profoundly. First principles are often assumed, “That’s commonsense.” Yet commonsense is not a sense and it is not very common. That is to say, we absorb our concepts of space and time from our culture and both are stubbornly held and incomplete.

Today, all 202 notations are always active (like when each first manifests).

“All notations are always active” redefines space-time and begins to define “the Now.” [3]

That is — and will continue to be — a primary challenge for many, especially within the eight specific studies into which this website continues to be focused: (1).Langlands programs, (2).string theory and M-theory, and.(3).SUSY (and going Beyond the Standard Model), (4).Causal Sets, (5) Causal Dynamical Triangulation, (6).Loop Quantum Gravity, (7).Scalar Field Theory, and (8).Spectral Standard Model. All are within our on-going purview. All are in need of seeing how they connect to the grid.

Also important is to see how these foundations give rise to our ethics and values.

_____

IV. The challenge. Within the footnotes (below), those eight subjects (cited just above) are each linked to their Wikipedia page. Most of the Wikipedia editors are either experts within that topic and/or work with the leading scholars within the field. And, those writers are usually very good to flag the conceptual impasses within their discipline.

Those conceptual impasses will be a focus in light of points 1-2-3 above. How can scholars be conclusive if the building blocks are not defined?

Within each focus, there are leading advocates with their most basic concepts. Although my prior studies of each have been relatively perfunctory, for these reports, our next step will be, after re-engaging their work, to ask each of those leading scholars, “What is your working concept of the infinite? What is the role for pi (π) and spheres? What is your concept of time?”[4]

Some of our best scholars want to do away with the concept of infinity, and/or time. Pi and the simple sphere are old, well-known studies, and largely overlooked. Yet, just maybe, that old-old equation might harbor simple secrets that could change everything.

Langlands programs. For example, by using Wikipedia and Google and by asking questions in many possible ways, we quickly learn that within the Langland programs, there is no necessary working relation between their programs and infinity, pi, and spheres. Their automorphic forms appear to jump over continuity, assume symmetry, and begin with generalizations of periodic functions.

I believe there are unique footings to discover within the facets of continuity and symmetry. By jumping into periodic functions, it appears to me that Langlands programs is starting within Notations-65-to-67 and perhaps as low as Notation-50. There’s much too much left unexplored within Notations-0-to-50.

Within our model, Langlands automorphic forms begin to be defined within the first ten notations. There is plenty of room for their number theory to work its magic, yet it will be even more magical when their number theory engages infinity, pi (π) and spheres, and the very nature of space-time.

In the same spirit, string theory, Mtheory, and SUSY are too quick to jump into point-like particles and one-and-two dimensional objects, assuming such things are part of particle physics. It appears to be just a bit too quick. Those first 64 to 67 notations are a little faster than the zeptosecond range; nobody is measuring those interactions. Why would the three-dimensions of space begin to manifest as two-dimensional equations or as singular points until into (perhaps “well-into”) Notation-0. And there, these may begin to be elements of a bridge between the finite and infinite. Those three dimensions of space may actually manifest in several types of transformations even on the bridge. That is all to say that there is no clear consideration of infinity, π (pi), and spheres and the jump into levels of abstraction provides no clear path to the working physics of our time.

Conclusion.

We’ll see what our leading scholars within those eight disciplines have to say in response to our emails. Ours is an earnest and sincere exploration; nevertheless, within these disciplines, with just my cursory knowledge and simple assumptions, it is too early to know what they’ll say. If I am wrong, then I am seriously wrong and a fool. It will be good to know how and why I have been foolish. Yet, through it all (ten years of explorations using these parameters), it seems to me that our scholars are almost there. They are getting close and that there are just a few conceptual hurdles to go! So, why not try to get over those hurdles?

Thank you very much. -BEC

_____

Editor’s notes: Perhaps not evident, yet by writing as if I had a group of high school students and teachers collaborating with me, reading every word, perhaps eventually we’ll get out of the weeds and closer to first principles. Yet, the most dynamic part of this page follows. These are the evolving endnotes-footnotes, references, emails, and instant messages, yet be forewarned, sometimes these people are quite deep in the weeds!

Of course, your comments are most welcome.

_____

Endnotes/Footnotes

* Many scholars. It seems all are in a search for three master keys: (1) a Finite-Infinite key, (2) the “Integrative Systems that Structure the Universe” key, and (3) the “Redefinitions of Space-Time (Mass-Charge)” master key. There are many prior homepages that touch on these three topics and there are many ways to access those pages. One of my favorite ways is to click on the left arrow at the top of each page. That will take you back, homepage by homepage, to the beginning of this website in August 2016. The work on these concepts started in a high school in 2011.

_____

[1] Continuity-Symmetry-Harmony (CSH). By imbibing the very nature of pi, can we grasp the nature of the infinite? Does CSH create a corresponding Order-Relations-Dynamics? Is that enough to initiate this understanding of infinity and the infinite? Is it the best possible? Can we define the very first instance and the dimensions of the challenge?

Of course, I believe the answer to all these questions is “Yes.” The assumed many-sided perfections of the infinite are imparted to the finite. In much less than a zeptosecond — a trillionth of a billionth of a second (or a decimal point followed by 20 zeroes-and-a-1 is currently the shortest scientific measurement of a unit of time and it is within Notation-74) — there is too little time for imperfections. One might project that this special combination of geometries and equations may not have been manifest within the physical domain for years and years. The first year manifests within Notation-169. And even then, the patterns and thrusts of perfection may well be so great that it takes thousands if not millions of years (Notation 189 and beyond) before there is a quantum fluctuation. Of course, there will be more to come…

____

[2] Structure. Perhaps there is a way to debunk the hypothesis that there is “one Planck sphere per Planck unit of time.” That would undercut the entire model. We’ve been at this study for almost ten years. If we are wrong, it would be good to know it sooner than later. We could take a break without this monkey on our back. We’ve been asking many of our leading scholars for many years, “What is wrong with this model?” Can it be that the infinite is qualitative and the finite is quantitative?

Infinitesimal circles-spheres-tetrahedrons-and-octahedrons actually provide a good foundation. The study of cubic-close packing (ccp) of equal spheres gives us that much. Then, consider the 539 tredecillion spheres per second. Surely that gives more than enough structure with which to work. The thrust for perfection would provide more than enough homogeneity and isotropy for a smooth beginning.

Of course, there will be much more to come…

_____

[3] Logic. It is a simple logic. One notation develops and the next begins. Within one second, over 143 notations have become active. Within one year, 169 notations; then within one million years, 189 notations. Within a billion years, 199 notations have become active. The 202nd notation is the only notation that has a directional asymmetry. That is being addressed in rather convoluted ways. We will first examine many of these through our studies through their Wikipedia pages noted here: (1).Langlands programs, (2).string theory and Mtheory, and.(4).SUSY (including Beyond the Standard Model work), (5).Causal Sets (and Causal Dynamical Triangulation), (6).Loop Quantum Gravity, (7).Scalar Field Theory, and (8).Spectral Standard Model. Then, as stated, we will engage scholars within each study to ask how they define infinity, time, and spheres, and what the role, if any, pi has within the start of the universe and its current expansion.

Of course, there will be more to come…

_____

[4] It is all a wonderful challenge and ginormous puzzle. Those eight studies represent the bleeding, leading edge of scientific inquiry. Their scholars are among the best and most articulate. They catch the hot potato (the scrutiny of the world) and hold onto it for as long as possible before throwing it on to the next. The scientific press will have written a few stories and then chases after the next story.

There’s got to be a better way.

Yes, of course, there will be more to come…

_____

Right Yellow Arrow

References

More references from within this website. Early work that laid the foundations:
1. This work began in 1971 within the study of the 1935 EPR paradox.
2. It was part of a conference at MIT in 1979 in search of first principles.
3. There are many pages that consider the first instants of the universe.
4. There are also these presuppositions and assumptions.

_____

Emails

  1. RE: Investments in Educator Development
    TO: STEM Solutions and Partnerships
    National Math and Science Initiative, Dallas
  2. Alex Berezow, Big Think
  3. Ngo Bao Chau, University of Chicago on Langlands Programs
  4. Siska De Baerdemaeker, Stockholm University
  5. Jeremey Nicholas Butterfield, Cambridge University
  6. Priyamvada Natarajan, Yale astrophysicist
  7. Sara Leikin, Ed.D.

____

IM

@SheerPriya Prof. Dr. Priyamvada Natarajan, Yale astrophysicist.
Author: Mapping the Heavens. Scholar: Exotica in the universe — dark matter, black holes
@SheerPriya If we were to map the universe, assuming Planck base units as the start, apply base-2, there are just 202 notations: https://81018.com/chart/ to today. Blackholes may be more diverse than we think: https://81018.com/almost/ Let us hope that the dark matter veil can be lifted.

@tribelaw (Laurence Tribe) @MollyJongFast @JohnAmato The problem with both right-and-left is the de facto little worldviews tie the mind up in knots and contortions which become lies and smears. We need a mathematically-integrated view of the universe. A start is here: https://81018.com. Also sent to @lukebroadwater (NYT-Congressional).

To many others: If there is ever going to be a little harmony in this world, we’ll need to break out of our little worldviews for an integrated view of the universe. Our’s a simple start: https://81018.com

_____

Invitations and Collaborations

With whom do we collaborate? Of the hundreds of people who visit this site every month, who among them might want to extend a right hand and say, “Let’s work together.” Our only thrust is that the foundations of this universe and life itself be seen in light of infinity and the continuity-symmetry-harmony that the infinite engenders. Please, talk to us. Thank you. -Bruce

_____

Key dates for this document, almost.

____________________________________

Afterthoughts: A Personal Addendum. The concept of a worldview was formalized in the 1700s first by Immanuel Kant and then by the general philosophical community. Yet, the intellectual and religious communities have had worldviews dating back to ancients like Plato. As the world began shrinking, we learned that there are many different worldviews and there are tensions among them.

Even when the German word is used, Weltanschauung, it’s still not big and comprehensive enough. Although Sir Isaac Newton and Immanuel Kant captured the world, the mysterium of a German word does not encompass the universe. As a concept, it is dated, incomplete, and not quite big enough. We need to move on to an integrated, mathematical view of the universe. -BEC

_____

+ Final notes on Tuesday, December 28, 2021 at 3:45 AM. Close to 6 AM (TZ-19) each day, the days listed at the top of this page get advanced by one digit. It should be a relatively easy program to write, yet I rationalize that I do it manually just to remind me of our granular sense of time. TZ-19 is time zone #19, assuming that the International Date Line is #1 and Greenwich Mean Time falls within Time Zone 13.

End of year reflection: There are signs that we my soon be closing this very long chapter of being simply “idiosyncratic.” Our Infinitesimal Sphere is a particle by any scale of definition. So, if we are to refer to that sphere as a particle, what do we call it? There are 369 Google reference to “Archetypal Particle” but no long-standing use by any one group, so we’ll put it on a list of possibilities. “Primordial Particle” is also currently used by a diversity of people. That term also goes on our list to research.

Perhaps “The First Particle” will win the day.

We’ll get this done, hopefully with the earliest days of the New Year. –BEC

Could the first 64-notations-out-of-the-202 be our common ground?

by Bruce Camber

A First Draft

Introduction. One of my quiet goals in life has been to understand how concepts somehow transcend our diverse-and-sometimes-opposing points of view. Yet, nothing seems to work for groups of people who have been hating each other for centuries; peace-makers are hard-pressed to come up with a concept that heals such deep divisions.Tensions and divides are everywhere… and yes, these divides also exist within the sciences.

Over the years I have turned to a rather diverse group of scholars1 (going back into the 1960s) who have been wrestling with first principles and our understanding of the foundations of life and of our universe. Some of their concepts just might might help make a difference in the way we understand ourselves, our histories, our sciences and even our religions.

We started working on our base-2 chart of the universe in December 2011. It has become apparent to us that within this chart of 202 notations, there are many concepts that change our worldview and our views of space, time and infinity. We are aware of how idiosyncratic it is!

The first 64 notations out of 202 are most unusual. These may be common grounds of a most fundamental nature that might address age-old questions in physics and cosmology.

In 1899 Max Planck defined four fundamental natural units. He defined the numbers, but they were so unusual, he ostensibly ignored them. Only a few scholars1d picked up on his numbers over the next 100 years. In 2001 Frank Wilczek2 began to pull those Plank numbers free from numerology,3 and Planck’s base units began getting more consistent attention. Today, science tends to recognize the Planck units, i.e. their potential to become part of (1) an integrative theory about the nature of things, even a starting point for creation, and (2) the beginnings of complexity, a concept that helps us to understand the foundations of the sciences, mathematics, logic, and epistemology.

Geometries. Now, for a little perspective on our work, we were high school geometry people4 who in 2011 followed a very simple tetrahedral-octahedral complex5 back 45 steps (halving at each step) down among elementary particles and then another 67 steps to the Planck scale.Being rather naive about it all, we then decided to start with Planck’s base units and multiply by two (2). Sure enough, in 112 steps we were back in the classroom and in another 90 steps we were at the current expansion of the universe.6 We asked, “Did we just encapsulate everything, everywhere, for all time? …the entire universe in just 202 base-2 notations or doublings?

The Chart, A Map of the Universe. Although there are many blanks spaces, the chart seemed to be the beginning of a simple map7 of the universe using base-2 (doublings). We learned that the conceptual foundations of base-2 (exponential functions) were introduced to the world around 1740 by the Swiss mathematician, Leonhard Euler (there’s always so much to learn). Rather unwittingly, we took Euler’s base-2 to the 202nd power and have now begun to ask questions about its context in light of the nature of creation, space, and time.We had been unaware of the 1957 work by Kees Boeke in his private school, De Werkplaats, in Bilthoven, Holland. Boeke did his base-10 chart, Cosmic View: The Universe in 40 Jumps8 and over time it became sensationally popular.

Our chart is a bit different. First, we have our geometries. Second, we start with the Planck units. Third, we have a scale of the Planck’s units from the smallest units of space and time to the largest. Fourth, we have the current expansion of the universe within the 202nd notation. Fifth, our chart is 3.333+ times more granular than base-10. Sixth, this chart mimics life’s natural doublings. And seventh, our base-2 chart has a built-in, all natural inflation.9That is quite a lot, but then, it really began to challenge us:• Mathematical confirmation of the speed of light. We discovered between the 143rd and 144th notation, a simple mathematical confirmation of the speed of light,10 that validated both the distance and the time units.

That’s a key; it actually completes the simple logic of this chart. It has a mathematical, functional, and conceptual wholeness.

Dark energy and dark matter defined. Looking further, we observed the first 64 notations couldn’t be reached by CERN laboratories in Geneva, Switzerland or by all the experts at the Max Planck Institute in Garching Germany; they have held the record11 for the shortest unit of measured time. Those first 64 notations are too short and too small to ever be measured by physical tools. So, what is all that aggregating mass and energy? A simple, logical conclusion: it is the “impossible-to-define” dark energy and dark matter.12 As we bring it into the light of day, I believe we will discover it is also our long-sought-for common ground.

Retrospective. Granted, that’s rather radical for simple people using simple logic. Yet, once opened for inquiry, this virtually unexplored domain of just over 64 notations looks like it can also give us the footings to create a bridge13 between quantum mechanics and general relativity, and between the Langlands programs and string theory. These are not incompatible concepts but different faces of a common foundation just before those few transformations that precede the 67th notation where particles and waves are finally observed.

In 1999 NATO gathered our most elite astrophysicists and cosmologists14 living at that time. All were scholars of structure formation. At no time did they have a discussion about the Planck base units. Nobody was asking, “What could be the earliest manifestation of the Planck base units?” For us, twelve years later in 2011, it was the only question we wanted to try to answer.

Space-time defined by spheres.15

Looking around the scholarly world, it became obvious that we were unwittingly jumping on a bandwagon with Carlo Rovelli and Robert Muller who found space-and-time to be derivative, discrete and quantized. In our model, each notation builds on the prior notation(s). Each notation is part of the operational whole. Each is active and seemingly forever. Space and time are defined by pi (π), continuity, symmetry, and harmony. A simple circle, then a sphere, becomes a key nexus for transformations, all functions with qualities that describe (1) the infinite, (2) a finite-infinite bridge,15 and (3) the inherent quality and actual quantities that define the finite and our very first instant of time.

__________

This is such a different perspective.16 In a very rudimentary way we’re coming full circle. As I explore the common grounds between pi (π), space, time, continuity, symmetry and harmony, there are both quantitative and qualitative shared expressions. Taking a rather speculative leap of faith, I believe these are also the foundations of ethics and aesthetics.16

Of course, altogether too simple for most, I know this will be bit difficult to sell but as a people and global community, what are our options? …continue going on the way we are?Quantitative science, qualitative living.17

Some time ago, in one of my many statements online, I said it would be wise for science to be critical of theology. Science can inform theology, yet theology can also inform the sciences. There can be mutual respect. So, I asked, “What might we learn from the core insights from within religious beliefs?” To create an example, I went back into my family’s traditions. Given the Abrahamic faiths have the attention of about 57% of the world’s population (that includes Jews, Christians and Muslims as well as the Druze, Bahá’í and Rastafarians), an example of such respect might be this very different interpretation of the Genesis story shared by all Abrahamic faiths. The antithesis of disagreements, nastiness, and even violence. In the face of hostility, there is symmetry and harmony as a foundational understanding18 of the very nature of our very beingness. Given all notations are always active, what we consider to be history is the active encoding of our universe.

That is, I would conclude everything you say, do or think; it all impacts the look and feel and quality of our little universe.You make a difference. And, that difference is greater than one could ever imagine.#It is refreshing to find people out on the web who are also shining their light in these seldom visited spaces and who are open and joyful in the process. If you, or anybody you know, has such a vision, please let us know! We would enjoy meeting you online. Thank you. -BEC

__________________________
  • For more, go to these prior homepages:
  • A Simple Model – 12 points absorb the universe in 202 steps.
  • It’s been “top down” too long.  It’s time to build from the “bottom up”
  • Transformations – Cubic close packing, period doubling, Fourier transform

Common grounds — The first 64-notations

Every concept can be improved even if it seems complete unto itself

Questions, questions, and more questions

__________________________

Endnotes and Footnotes: (currently the most heavily edited area of this work)

1. Scholars: In less cynical times, most of us believed that the truth always rises. And, some of us have had great faith that scholars engage that truth most readily:

1a. The most recent scholars to whom I have turned (and a few have disappointed)

1b. 77+ scholars in 1979. The project was called “An Architecture for Integrative Systems.”

1c. Influential, today, such work does make a difference.

1d. Aggregating articles and papers about Max Planck’s base units. To date, these are most substantial that I’ve found. If you can add any to it, I would be grateful. -BEC

2. Frank Wilczek: In his Physics Today article, “Scaling Mount Planck II: Base Camp,” Wilczek says: “The strong and weak couplings equalize — at roughly the Planck scale! Planck, of course, knew of neither the strong nor the weak interaction, nor of quantum field theory and running couplings. The reappearance of his scale in this entirely new context confirms his intuition about the fundamental character of the Planck scale” (fifth paragraph).

These are not coincidences. Numbers are numbers. Functions are functions. And, as well, our chart of numbers tells an important story of our time. Here is a highly-integrated mathematical scaling of the universe. Academic openness and integrity should subject this new conceptual frame of reference to a rigorous analysis.

3. 2004 Nobel Laureate and the Planck numbers: Wilczek’s three articles about the Planck base units in Physics Today stirred the pot; yet, when he received his Nobel Prize in 2004, all his writings took on a new vibrancy and importance. Wilczek became part of an elite group of celebrity physicists. His analysis of the Planck scale set these numbers apart in a most-special category even though there are other similar methods to generate fundamental numbers.

4-5. High school geometry people: Straying just a bit from the textbook, the teachers were fascinated with the way the octahedron and tetrahedron, two of Plato’s solids, were inextricably woven. Some of the students became equally fascinated. https://81018.com/home/ https://81018.com/tot/

6. Current Expansion, a chart: Starting with Planck Length in December 2011, Planck Time was added three years later, and Mass and Charge were added in February 2015. Today’s working chart emerged in April 2016. It was our first horizontally-scrolled chart whereby any one of the Planck numbers could be readily tracked. Notation 202 has a duration of 10.9816 billion years, and the current expansion defines the Now, this current moment of time which is shared everywhere throughout the entire universe. https://81018.com/chart/

7. Map of the Universe Using Base-2 (or doublings): Euler was a mathematician’s mathematician. He opened the way to infinitesimal calculus and a most-penetrating analysis of the infinite. We believe Euler will be instrumental in helping us interpret our charts. In 1988, 240 years after being published, one of Euler’s most seminal work, Introductio in analysin infinitorum (1748), was finally translated into English by John D. Blanton. Others quickly followed. We will be using an online translation by Ian Bruce. Of our 202 doublings, from the first notation to at least the 67th notation, could readily be considered infinitesimal. Our goal is to begin to understand the relation between the infinite and the infinitesimal, and we invite you on this journey with us.

8. Kees Boeke’s base 10 work. Here is a precedent for our work. In 1957 in a high school in Holland, headmaster Kees Boeke developed a wonderful teaching tool showing the relative sizes of things with his book, Cosmic View: The Universe in 40 Jumps. Within a short time, it had its champions and today it has become well-known through the world as an IMAX production and several online iterations. It appears that at no time did any scholar attempt to establish causal efficacy between successive notations.Using base-2, the challenge becomes apparent.

9. All Natural. With the work of Alan Guth (MIT) and so many others in the astrophysics community, the rapid expansion and continued inflation of the universe had become a major issue and stumbling block. Causal efficacy is stretched and strained. In the 1999 conference on structures, the most-elite inner circle of of cosmology threw up their hands and said, “Let’s come up with a better theory.”In our simple model a natural inflation is readily observed from the start. Several doubling mechanisms have been identified, however, the most-simple doubling, sphere stacking at the infinitesimal domains, could readily account for most all other doubling phenomenon.This explanation is sweet because it is so simple.

10.  Speed of light. The electromagnetic spectrum in some sense of the word extends from Notation 1 to 202. Let us start a deep search of the literature that explores this bandwidth beyond the first possible visible light (within the 94-and-95th notations). What is the initial very, very small charge? Does each new sphere bring and equal charge and do these aggregate with each doubling? Within the chart of numbers, it is assumed that there is an aggregation because at one second, between the 143rd and 144th notations there is a mathematical confirmation of the speed of light.

11. Measuring an interval of light. The Max Planck Institute in Garching Germany has held the record for measuring the shortest interval of time. They are down into the attoseconds (10-18 seconds). It is a long way to go to get to Planck Time at 5.39116(13)×10-44 seconds. Our understanding of the current range is limited. It goes from the somewhat familiar nanoseconds (a billionth of a second) to picoseconds, then to femtoseconds, and finally into attoseconds. Beyond the attosecond there are zeptoseconds and the yoctosecond 10−24, but SI units recognize nothing smaller. References: https://81018.com/a84 https://81018.com/formulas/ https://81018.com/dark/

12. Dark energy-matter. Just look at the chart and observe the line for coulombs and the line for mass. Each notation “fills up” so every notation has a percentage of dark energy and dark mass. This would be the most simple explanation for dark energy and dark matter. A science writer was complaining, “I’m the only one who doesn’t have a dark energy and dark matter theory.” So, I wrote to her and said she would be most welcome to adopt ours as her own. You would be welcomed to do the same! Our first analysis, October 18, 2018, is here.

13. Bridges to build. For over 100 years there has been an insurmountable divide between quantum mechanics and relativity theory. Some of the smartest people on earth have been unable to create that bridge. First, all the big bang talk obscured the primary playing field. They now have 64 notations within which to work. It might also help if these exquisitely smart people would create a bridge between the Langlands programs and string theory. All the factors involved with those two bridges will also be involved in building a bridge between the infinitesimal and the infinite (another look). All key bridges, none have been built because the experts and scholars have not had room to think or breath. Most have been unaware of those 64 doublings with 19 prime numbers with which to work. Our scholars’ imaginations have been hamstrung with particles and waves.

14. NATO and Structure Formation. At the Isaac Newton Institute for Mathematical Sciences, Cambridge University, the consensus among the world’s best scholars was that the big bang theory needed to be revised. The net-net. These scholars departed from this conference and many engaged in multiverse speculations, and speculations, and speculations. George Ellis, who authored a seminal work (PDF) with Stephen Hawking in 1974, has an excellent commentary, Physics on Edge (Inference: International Review of Science, VOL. 3, # 2, AUGUST 2017), on the fractured belief systems among scholars who study these issues. That seminal work, The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time, was highly influential, but failed to understand the infinitesimal structure of space-time.

15. Bridge Finite-Infinite-Divide: Not often discussed, a Google search in October 2019 with delimiter quotes rendered just 674 results, most referring to a May 24, 2016 article in Quanta Magazine. By using the word, bridge, as a noun, i.e. the “Finite-Infinite Bridge,” Google pulled up just six results of which three are from our work here.Key words to explore further: Carlo Rovelli Robert Muller derivative, discrete and quantized. pi (π) continuity, symmetry, and harmony circle sphere a key nexus for transformations

16. May the circle be unbroken: Not often within this kind of discussion are the subjects of ethics and aesthetics engaged, however, within our exploration of concepts that can bridge the finite and infinite, continuity, symmetry and harmony were applied to replace absolute space and time. Within those three concepts an understanding of both aesthetics and ethics emerge.

17.  Science & Theology: Too much “positional” time and energy is spent on this topic. Open questions should be clearly and carefully stated without all the positional gestures and maneuvers. We know there is incompleteness. We know that both sides of the equations have “stood their ground.” That is not enough. We need to do better. If we open up the dialogue of first principles in light of the first 64 notations, I predict that ground will be fertile. Not only will the Abrahamic faiths benefit, all religions including atheism, might discover common grounds. The creation story, the old Genesis story, can be opened up for all.

18. Universals: One of my earlier considerations of the emergence of constants and universals

Yes, work continues today, Saturday, October 26, 2019… thank you for your patience.One of the next articles for this site will use both expressions, Bridge Finite-Infinite-Divide, and Finite-Infinite Bridge in the title and subtitle. Comments? Please email me (BEC) or complete the form below.

Please send along your comments or questions.

__________________________

References, research, and resources:

Set Theory, Zermelo-Fraenkel Set Theory, Future Summary, WilczekArts, Twelvefold way The zeta function Euler’s formula Unifying Lattice Models, Links and Quantum Geometric Langlands via Branes in String Theory, Meer Ashwinkumar, Meng-Chwan Tan, Quantum q-Langlands, Correspondence Mina Aganagic, Edward Frenkel, Andrei Okounkov 2007 – No time – Rovelli as seen in Discover magazine

On learning about the work of Krzysztof Antoni Meissner…

meissnerKrzysztof Antoni Meissner

Faculty of Physics, Institute of Theoretical Physics
University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
AntoniKrzysztof.Meissner@fuw.edu.pl
Articles: The physics of infinity, Nature Physics, Volume 14, Issue 8, p.770-772, 2018
ArXiv: Supermassive gravitinos and giant primordial black holes (PDF), July 2020
_____._ Softly broken conformal symmetry… (PDF), Nov. 2018
Homepage
inSPIREHEP
Twitter: Conformal Standard Model Nature Physics-Infinity
Wikipedia
YouTube: Lemaître Workshop (May 9-12, 2017), Vatican Observatory INAF and INFN
________ Conformal Standard Model, Krzysztof Meissner, Apr 20, 2015

First email: 28 July 2020 at 3:30 PM

Dear Prof. Dr. Krzysztof A. Meissner:

I have started a reference page about your work within our website (this page).

We rather fortuitously applied base-2 notation to the Planck scale and ended up parsing the universe within just 202 notations. I was overwhelmed and criticized myself, “How did I miss this?” I assumed it was well-established work. My very first pass at our chart of the universe was done in 2011 inside a geometry class in our local high school.

We thought it was a terrific STEM tool and I encouraged one of the students to make it into a Science Fair project. Two years later we shut down that work within the school because we had students going off to some of the premier undergraduate schools in the country and I had learned how idiosyncratic it was. Yet, none of the great scholars to whom we wrote would tell us where our logic failed and why such continuity equations were taking us in the wrong direction.

I write to you today hoping you can tell me where I’m going so far off track. This work has become pretty much a solo mission. I did my earlier work from 1972 to 1980 at Boston University, a little at Harvard, and a little at MIT.

I discovered your work because I am checking out all the co-authors with George Ellis (Integrity) and (Infinity) and, of course, you are one of them.

I am earnestly seeking your most critical review.  Thank you.

Most sincerely,
Bruce

PS. Beside those pages linked above, here are links to two pages you might find of interest:
Imperfectionhttps://81018.com/imperfection/
Planck scale to Wave-particle dualityhttps://81018.com/conference/   –BEC


Mathematical Constantshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mathematical_constants
Algebraic structures: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algebraic_structure
Binary operationhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_operation

Common Ground: Possibly 64-notations-of-the-202 are partially shared by everything, everywhere for all time

This page is “Common Ground” (July 2020): https://81018.com/foundational/
Prior page: October 19, 2019, https://81018.com/common/
First start of the rewrite: June 6, 2020,  https://81018.com/67-steps/
Consider: https://81018.com/langlands-programs/
A Simple Beginning: https://81018.com/concepts-parameters/
Summary page: https://81018.com/notations/

Two Primordial Mysteries

Introduction. Two primordial mysteries, (1) dark matter-and-energy and (2) the reasons for homogeneity and isotropy, have roots within 64 unexplored domains that start at the Planck base units and applied base-2 or doublings each successive notation to the wave-particle duality (and our understanding of quantum fluctuations).

The values of the base units were determined in 1899 by Max Planck. At that time, they were so unusual, even he ostensibly ignored them and only a few scholars1 picked up on his numbers for over years.

A key breakthrough in 2001, initiated by Frank Wilczek.2 pulled those numbers free from numerology,3 and open a path for more consistent attention. But even today, those numbers are not recognized as the first moment of time.

Even though the very nature of light is within these numbers, the numbers are still all but ignored. Just divide Planck Length by Planck Time and you’ll see that Planck was the earliest to confirm the speed of light within .1% of the laboratory measurements. That, too, is not recognized.

The path from the simplicity of those numbers to simple complexities that define us has not been analyzed. Here are the foundations of mathematics, logic, epistemology, ethics and value, all within these first 64 notations, waiting to be affirmed.

Geometries. The most simple sphere and the generation of the tetrahedral-octahedral complex4 has been somewhat understood since Kepler. Cubic-close packing of equal spheres was initiated, yet at no time was it applied to the infinitesimal.

Encapsulate everything, everywhere, for all time. The entire universe is defined by  just 202 base-2 notations or doublings. Our scale of the Planck’s units from the smallest units of space and time to the largest within 202nd base-2 notations changes the paradigm. Beside mimicking life’s natural doublings, here is a built-in, all natural inflation.

Across the entire chart, there is a mathematical confirmation of the speed of light.


Mathematical, functional, and conceptual wholeness

Dark energy and dark matter defined. Looking further, we observed the first 64 notations couldn’t be reached by CERN laboratories in Geneva, Switzerland or by all the experts at the Max Planck Institute in Garching Germany; they have held the record11 for the shortest unit of measured time. Those first 64 notations are too short and too small to ever be measured by physical tools. So, what is all that aggregating mass and energy? A simple, logical conclusion: it is the “impossible-to-define” dark energy and dark matter.12

As we bring it into the light of day, I believe we will discover it is also our long-sought-for common ground.Retrospective. Granted, that’s rather radical for simple people using simple logic. Yet, once opened for inquiry, this virtually unexplored domain of just over 64 notations looks like it can also give us the footings to create a bridge13 between quantum mechanics and general relativity, and between the Langlands programs and string theory. These are not incompatible concepts but different faces of a common foundation just before those few transformations that precede the 67th notation where particles and waves are finally observed.


In 1999 NATO gathered our most elite astrophysicists and cosmologists14 living at that time. All were scholars of structure formation. At no time did they have a discussion about the Planck base units. Nobody was asking, “What could be the earliest manifestation of the Planck base units?” For us, twelve years later in 2011, it was the only question we wanted to try to answer.

Space-time defined by spheres.15 Looking around the scholarly world, it became obvious that we were unwittingly jumping on a bandwagon with Carlo Rovelli and Robert Muller who found space-and-time to be derivative, discrete and quantized. In our model, each notation builds on the prior notation(s). Each notation is part of the operational whole. Each is active and seemingly forever. Space and time are defined by pi (π), continuity, symmetry, and harmony. A simple circle, then a sphere, becomes a key nexus for transformations, all functions with qualities that describe (1) the infinite, (2) a finite-infinite bridge,16 and (3) the inherent quality and actual quantities that define the finite and our very first instant of time.

__________

This is such a different perspective.16 In a very rudimentary way we’re coming full circle. As I explore the common grounds between pi (π), space, time, continuity, symmetry and harmony, there are both quantitative and qualitative shared expressions. Taking a rather speculative leap of faith, I believe these are also the foundations of ethics and aesthetics.16 Of course, altogether too simple for most, I know this will be bit difficult to sell but as a people and global community, what are our options? …continue going on the way we are?

Quantitative science, qualitative living.17 Some time ago, in one of my many statements online, I said it would be wise for science to be critical of theology.

Science can inform theology, yet theology can also inform the sciences. There can be mutual respect. So, I asked, “What might we learn from the core insights from within religious beliefs?” To create an example, I went back into my family’s traditions. Given the Abrahamic faiths have the attention of about 57% of the world’s population (that includes Jews, Christians and Muslims as well as the Druze, Bahá’í and Rastafarians), an example of such respect might be this very different interpretation of the Genesis story shared by all Abrahamic faiths. The antithesis of disagreements, nastiness, and even violence. In the face of hostility, there is symmetry and harmony as a foundational understanding18 of the very nature of our very beingness. Given all notations are always active, what we consider to be history is the active encoding of our universe.

That is, I would conclude everything you say, do or think; it all impacts the look and feel and quality of our little universe.You make a difference. And, that difference is greater than one could ever imagine.#It is refreshing to find people out on the web who are also shining their light in these seldom visited spaces and who are open and joyful in the process. If you, or anybody you know, has such a vision, please let us know! We would enjoy meeting you online. Thank you. -BEC

 

__________________________

For more, go to these prior homepages:

A Simple Model – 12 points absorb the universe in 202 steps.It’s been “top down” too long. It’s time to build from the “bottom up”Transformations – Cubic close packing, period doubling, Fourier transform

Common grounds — The first 64-notationsEvery concept can be improved even if it seems complete unto itself

Questions, questions, and more questions

__________________________

Endnotes and Footnotes:

[1] Scholars: In less cynical times, most of us believed that the truth always rises. And, some of us have had great faith that scholars engage that truth most readily:

1a. The most recent scholars to whom I have turned (and yes, a few have disappointed)
1b. 77+ scholars in 1979. The project was called “An Architecture for Integrative Systems.
1c. Influential, today, such work does make a difference.
1d. Aggregating articles and papers about Max Planck’s base units. To date, these are most substantial that I’ve found. If you can add any to it, I would be grateful. –BEC

[2] Frank Wilczek: In his Physics Today article, “Scaling Mount Planck II: Base Camp,” Wilczek says: “The strong and weak couplings equalize — at roughly the Planck scale! Planck, of course, knew of neither the strong nor the weak interaction, nor of quantum field theory and running couplings. The reappearance of his scale in this entirely new context confirms his intuition about the fundamental character of the Planck scale” (fifth paragraph).

These are not coincidences. Numbers are numbers. Functions are functions. And, as well, our chart of numbers tells an important story of our time. Here is a highly-integrated mathematical scaling of the universe. Academic openness and integrity should subject this new conceptual frame of reference to a rigorous analysis.

[3] 2004 Nobel Laureate and the Planck numbers: Wilczek’s three articles about the Planck base units in Physics Today stirred the pot; yet, when he received his Nobel Prize in 2004, all his writings took on a new vibrancy and importance. Wilczek became part of an elite group of celebrity physicists. His analysis of the Planck scale set these numbers apart in a most-special category even though there are other similar methods to generate fundamental numbers.

[4-5] High school geometry people: Straying just a bit from the textbook, the teachers were fascinated with the way the octahedron and tetrahedron, two of Plato’s solids, were inextricably woven.

Some of the students became equally fascinated. https://81018.com/home/ https://81018.com/tot/

[6] Current Expansion, a chart: Starting with Planck Length in December 2011, Planck Time was added three years later, and Mass and Charge were added in February 2015. Today’s working chart emerged in April 2016. It was our first horizontally-scrolled chart whereby any one of the Planck numbers could be readily tracked.

Notation 202 has a duration of 10.9816 billion years, and the current expansion defines the Now, this current moment of time which is shared everywhere throughout the entire universe. https://81018.com/chart/

[7] Map of the Universe Using Base-2 (or doublings): Euler was a mathematician’s mathematician. He opened the way to infinitesimal calculus and a most-penetrating analysis of the infinite. We believe Euler will be instrumental in helping us interpret our charts. In 1988, 240 years after being published, one of Euler’s most seminal work, Introductio in analysin infinitorum (1748), was finally translated into English by John D. Blanton. Others quickly followed. We will be using an online translation by Ian Bruce.

Of our 202 doublings, from the first notation to at least the 67th notation, could readily be considered infinitesimal. Our goal is to begin to understand the relation between the infinite and the infinitesimal, and we invite you on this journey with us.

[8] Kees Boeke’s base 10 work. Here is a precedent for our work. In 1957 in a high school in Holland, headmaster Kees Boeke developed a wonderful teaching tool showing the relative sizes of things with his book, Cosmic View: The Universe in 40 Jumps. Within a short time, it had its champions and today it has become well-known through the world as an IMAX production and several online iterations. It appears that at no time did any scholar attempt to establish causal efficacy between successive notations.Using base-2, the challenge becomes apparent.

[9] All Natural. With the work of Alan Guth (MIT) and so many others in the astrophysics community, the rapid expansion and continued inflation of the universe had become a major issue and stumbling block. Causal efficacy is stretched and strained. In the 1999 conference on structures, the most-elite inner circle of of cosmology threw up their hands and said, “Let’s come up with a better theory.”In our simple model a natural inflation is readily observed from the start. Several doubling mechanisms have been identified, however, the most-simple doubling, sphere stacking at the infinitesimal domains, could readily account for most all other doubling phenomenon.This explanation is sweet because it is so simple.

[10] Speed of light. The electromagnetic spectrum in some sense of the word extends from Notation 1 to 202. Let us start a deep search of the literature that explores this bandwidth beyond the first possible visible light (within the 94-and-95th notations). What is the initial very, very small charge? Does each new sphere bring and equal charge and do these aggregate with each doubling? Within the chart of numbers, it is assumed that there is an aggregation because at one second, between the 143rd and 144th notations there is a mathematical confirmation of the speed of light.

[11] Measuring an interval of light. The Max Planck Institute in Garching Germany has held the record for measuring the shortest interval of time. They are down into the attoseconds (10-18 seconds). It is a long way to go to get to Planck Time at 5.39116(13)×10-44 seconds. Our understanding of the current range is limited. It goes from the somewhat familiar nanoseconds (a billionth of a second) to picoseconds, then to femtoseconds, and finally into attoseconds. Beyond the attosecond there are zeptoseconds and the yoctosecond 10-24, but SI units recognize nothing smaller. References: https://81018.com/a84 https://81018.com/formulas/ https://81018.com/dark/

[12] Dark energy-matter. Just look at the chart and observe the line for coulombs and the line for mass. Each notation “fills up” so every notation has a percentage of dark energy and dark mass. This would be the most simple explanation for dark energy and dark matter. A science writer was complaining, “I’m the only one who doesn’t have a dark energy and dark matter theory.” So, I wrote to her and said she would be most welcome to adopt ours as her own. You would be welcomed to do the same! Our first analysis, October 18, 2018, is here.

[13] Bridges to build. For over 100 years there has been an insurmountable divide between quantum mechanics and relativity theory. Some of the smartest people on earth have been unable to create that bridge. First, all the big bang talk obscured the primary playing field. They now have 64 notations within which to work. It might also help if these exquisitely smart people would create a bridge between the Langlands programs and string theory. All the factors involved with those two bridges will also be involved in building a bridge between the infinitesimal and the infinite (another look). All key bridges, none have been built because the experts and scholars have not had room to think or breath. Most have been unaware of those 64 doublings with 19 prime numbers with which to work. Our scholars’ imaginations have been hamstrung with particles and waves.

[14] NATO and Structure Formation. At the Isaac Newton Institute for Mathematical Sciences, Cambridge University, the consensus among the world’s best scholars was that the big bang theory needed to be revised.

The net-net. These scholars departed from this conference and many engaged in multiverse speculations, and speculations, and speculations. George Ellis, who authored a seminal work (PDF) with Stephen Hawking in 1974, has an excellent commentary, Physics on Edge (Inference: International Review of Science, VOL. 3, # 2, AUGUST 2017), on the fractured belief systems among scholars who study these issues. That seminal work, The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time, was highly influential, but failed to understand the infinitesimal structure of space-time.

[15] Bridge Finite-Infinite-Divide: Not often discussed, a Google search in October 2019 with delimiter quotes rendered just 674 results, most referring to a May 24, 2016 article in Quanta Magazine. By using the word, bridge, as a noun, i.e. the “Finite-Infinite Bridge,” Google pulled up just six results of which three are from our work here.

[16] Key words to explore further: Carlo Rovelli, Robert Muller, derivative, discrete and quantized. pi (π), continuity, symmetry, and harmony, circle, sphere, nexus for transformations, m ay the circle be unbroken: Not often within this kind of discussion are the subjects of ethics and aesthetics engaged, however, within our exploration of concepts that can bridge the finite and infinite, continuity, symmetry and harmony were applied to replace absolute space and time. Within those three concepts an understanding of both aesthetics and ethics emerge.

[17] Science & Theology: Too much “positional” time and energy is spent on this topic. Open questions should be clearly and carefully stated without all the positional gestures and maneuvers. We know there is incompleteness. We know that both sides of the equations have “stood their ground.” That is not enough.We need to do better. If we open up the dialogue of first principles in light of the first 64 notations, I predict that ground will be fertile. Not only will the Abrahamic faiths benefit, all religions including atheism, might discover common grounds. The creation story, the old Genesis story, can be opened up for all.

[18] Universals: One of my earlier considerations of the emergence of constants and universals.

One of the next articles for this site will use both expressions, Bridge Finite-Infinite-Divide, or Finite-Infinite Bridge in the title and subtitle. Comments?

Please send along your comments or questions.

Editor’s Notes
__________________________
References, research, and resources: Set Theory, Zermelo-Fraenkel Set Theory, Future Summary, Wilczek, Ars Conject and Twelvefold way, The zeta function, Euler’s formula, Unifying Lattice Models, Links and Quantum Geometric Langlands via Branes in String Theory,

Meer Ashwinkumar,

Meng-Chwan

TanQuantum

q-Langlands Correspondence

Mina Aganagic,

Edward Frenkel,

Andrei Okounkov

2007 – No time – Rovelli as seen in Discover magazine