I went to re-review your Falling Walls lecture and that link pulled a 404 page: https://falling-walls.com/videos/Jean-Luc-Lehners-1139 I did find links that work. My question for you, are there transcripts for your videos?
Might you be able to tell me the most obvious way that it fails? Today’s home page provides a very short overview: https://81018.com/uni-verse/ Thank you.
Most sincerely,
Bruce
First email: Sunday, June 18, 2017, 5:00 PM
Revised and resent: Sunday, October 20, 2019, 5:30 PM
RE: Might we add a radically different possibility to your Multiverse and bubble universe collection? We’re not cosmologists, just students.
Dear Prof. Dr. Jean-Luc Lehners:
Thank you for your most prodigious work. Thank you for your openness to new ideas.
Today, I beg your patience with a naive, simple idea that originated in a high school geometry class in 2011. By doubling the Planck base units, over and over and over again, the results are an interesting map of the universe whereby everything starts simply, quietly and infinitesimally.
At the 149th notation the universe is now 38.47 seconds old. At 11,533,588.224 kilometers, the length is almost 10 times larger than the diameter of our sun (1.392 million kilometers). The mass at 1.5532×1036 kilograms is now substantially greater than the sun (1.989×1030 kilograms).
The coulombs number has grown to 1.3384×1027 or 1338 yoctocoulombs.
Notation
Planck Time
Planck Length
Planck Mass
Planck Charge
173
645,492,017.5 s
1.9350×1017 km
2.605×1043 kg
2.245×1034 C
199
4.331×1016 s
1.298×1025 km
1.748×1051 kg
1.506×1042 C
I know this is a very cursory introduction. The embedded link above goes to the chart of numbers: https://81018.com/chart We know that it is entirely idiosyncratic, yet your video on YouTube reflects a special integrity. You can set us straight. We can take it!
Are we just being silly? Could simple math and simple logic have given us a simple foundation for the first sphere of the very first moment of creation? My most recent reflection about our work is here: https://81018.com/common/ Thank you.
Most sincerely, Bruce *************** Bruce Camber
PS. Given challenges by friends and family, I have been working to attempt to explain the chart in a more systematic and visual manner. BUT, with all my deep limitations, you know that it is a very steep challenge indeed. -B
—- Planck TimePlanck Length Planck MassPlanck Charge 173 645,492,017.5 s 1.935015×1017 km 2.605×1043 kg 2.245×1034 C 199 4.331×1016 s 1.298×1024 km 1.748×1051 kg 1.506×1042C
LAST SCATTERING SURFACE. According to the standard Big Bang theory, the early Universe was sufficiently hot for all the matter in it to be fully ionised. … These photons reach present-day observers as the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB).
Job Feldbrugge, Jean-Luc Lehners, Neil Turok No smooth beginning for spacetime. 2017. [arXiv][pdf]
Abstract: The big bang theory stretches commonsense and logic. We’ve never met anyone who can really imagine everything in the universe being compressed into a singularity.* That first moment of time about which Stephen Hawking said, “….everything in existence, expanding exponentially in every direction, from an infinitely small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense point, creating a cosmos filled with energy and matter” (PBS-special, Genius, May 2016). That’s a theory. Our more simple theory assumes there are structures and functions below the thresholds of our measuring devices that begin with the natural units calculated in 1899 by Max Planck. Today known as base units, the first calculation of natural units was in 1874 in Dublin by George Stoney. If base-2 notation is applied to those units, there are about 64 successive doublings prior to an actual measurement of a length and 74 prior to measuring a unit of time (zeptosecond, 10-21 or a trillionth of a billionth of a second). Within that gap from Notation 0-to-64, there are possibilities for most every kind of geometry-mathematics prior to particles, waves and fluctuations.[†]
Introduction: A challenge to big bang cosmology. There are 202 base-2 notations from a well-defined start, about 13.81 billion years ago to this day.[1] The defenders of the big bang do not know this chart. It wasn’t in their books. Without precedent, the 202 notations were defined in 2011 in a New Orleans high school geometry class. There has been no peer-reviewed article about that start — an infinitesimal sphere originates from a functional infinity that we know through the qualitative values of continuity- symmetry-harmony within pi (π), the three inherent qualities of scale-invariant spheres (so, yes, this definition is circular for now).
There is a growing discontent and tensions within this little world which we attribute it to the inherent nihilism of the big bang theory, so there is a sense of urgency to expand this nascent theory and the positive qualities within pi (π).
Perpetual starts. In 2017 Neil Turok[2] who today sits in the Higgs Chair of Edinburgh University says the universe is perpetually starting[3]. Logically not the Big Bang, our Notation-1 is perpetually starting. All 202 notations are always active. Turok and his team use the mathematics of Solomon Lefschetz, yet those articles and that mathematics have not sparked a growing following or flood of experimental work. That same criticism can be leveled on many other attempts to break through with a more compelling theory, all alternatives, potential replacements, about the start-and-art of our universe.[4]
The veracity of a theory is when others are able to build on it. So with this page, we will attempt to interview Turok, Job Feldbrugge, Jean-Luc Lehners (and their other co-authors) to follow-up our first reports from 2017. We’ll try to get their first-hand insights and explanations of the current place of their work. We will also focus on those nine alternative approaches by diverse scholarly groups around the world.
That’s the thesis. The antithesis is where there has been an explosion of excitement and experimental work involving hundreds-of-thousands of scholars and scientists.
_____
Real data, right now: The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). The JWST is a challenge to Stephen Hawking’s old, tired, fantastical theory.[5] In July 2022 the first images came back from the most advanced telescope in human history. It began confirming what the Hubble telescope had glimpsed. The early universe is just too smooth for big bang cosmology… much too smooth. There’s nothing there to grab to start to build a universe. Every scholar in the know is scrambling to come up with a better theory. The world is desperate for new Ideas, yet there are tried-and-true concepts with wisdom that may serve us very well. Let’s go over pi(π) one more time to see if we can learn anything new about it. Let’s go smaller and deeper, be even more inclusive, integrative, and diverse. In the spirit of E.P. Wigner, let us declare that the universe is totally-integrated, an amalgamation of most ubiquitous equations. We already know that pi (π) is integral to our most important equations. Notations 0-to-201 are nonlocal. Locality is limited to each person’s unique space-and-time (universally recompiled within sleep – more to come).
_____
The synthesis: A new model. Structure and dynamics are built into the infinitesimal spheres and these structures (geometries) immediately begin to shape this universe. Langlands programs and string and M theories need to be dropped into this base-2 container. The projection is that Langlands and strings will finally be on the grid. The concept of a singularity is put on hold until our understanding of that grid is expanded. The structures emerging 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).
In 2020 an article was prepared for the Foundational Questions Institute (FQXi)[6] It was, at that time, the most comprehensive review of our model and nascent theory. Notwithstanding, it was not reviewed within that scholarly community. It is so idiosyncratic, it didn’t get beyond an initial, casual review within one of their competitive challenges.
_____
History. The model is simple mathematics (algebra) and geometries. The first outline was developed by chasing tetrahedrons and octahedrons further and further within themselves. In about 45 steps from our classroom, by dividing the edges by 2 and connecting those new vertices, we were in the range of fermions (10−15 meters). Quarks, theoretically in the range of 10−18 meters, would be in Notations 56-59. From the fermions, there are 67 additional steps within to be in the range of the Planck base units (10−33 meters). Going out from the classroom, by multiplying the edges by 2 and connecting those imaginary vertices, there are just 90 steps to inscribe an approximate size and age of the universe, all just simple doublings.[7]
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.
_____
Brief Review. Our first outline of the universe was first created by applying base-2 notation to the simple geometries of the tetrahedron and octahedron, then the same process was applied to the Planck base units. The result is a mathematical and geometrical outline of just 202 rather comprehensive, natural doublings from the first moment of time to the Now. We believe it is a chart worth studying, an easy-yet-unprecedented map of the universe.[8]
_____
Possible Action Plans: Specific steps governments, schools and people can take today.
First, we need to acknowledge the problem; the weaknesses and strengths of big bang theory[9] need to be even more clearly articulated. Wikipedia has started this process within its sections of unsolved problems in physics, cosmology, and mathematics. The open issues from big bang cosmology are mostly covered within one section, Cosmology and general relativity.[10]
Also, a place for alternative theories needs to be lifted up. Important within this process is to come to terms with the fact that we are all fallible. We make mistakes. We learn by doing. Successive approximations are okay. We need to be gentle with each other.[11]
Yes, second, all people should be constantly gentle with all others. Inherent within the 202 base-2 notations, there is a valuation determined by continuity, symmetry, and harmony, each a face of pi(π) and infinitesimal spheres. Beside the mistakes, at times we are even duped.[12]
Third, we must start educating everybody starting with the leaders with access to our most horrific weapons of war, and also with our children and our decision makers. Again, we would begin with the chart of numbers and the map of the universe because both are easy to understand and learn. We would also introduce the circle of value and qualities as noted at the very beginning of this brief article.
Around the globe, politics brings out the worst and the best within people. It has since time immemorial. This chart and map should help to bring out the best.
Fourth, we should get the prize people to focus on the issue so there is a reward at the end of these many tunnels exploring these issues. We should recognize the best theory each year until there is a consensus among most of our active scholars. Thank you. -BEC
[*] Singularities. In 2017 the concept of a singularity was first examined within this website. It is a primary concept in big bang cosmology but it doesn’t work very well. There is dimensionality down to the Planck scale. With this homepage, we will begin immediately reworking that page about singularities with resources and experts until it is consistent with the past five years of our work.
[†] Geometries and mathematics of fluctuations. Also, in 2017 the concept of fluctuations was first explored within this website. We were had just learned about Aristotle’s gap. The icosahedral gaps were just being modeled. Five years later we would discover an octahedral gap. There was not scholarly precedent for it. New light was being shined on a primary unsolved problem. So, with this work, we will begin rethinking this page about fluctuations with more current resources and experts until it, too, is consistent with the past five years of our discoveries. More…
[1] Early history, No Start, Abundant Nihilism. The 202 notations were defined in December 2011. Our working chart was first posted in 2016. Our second attempt to publish was a re-work of a letter to editors of big three publication, Scientific American, Nature, and AAAS Science. It became our STEM article yet was never accepted for publication. James Peebles, a Princeton Nobel laureate (2019) and an early developer of our understanding of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), most directly confronts the lack of a starting point for the big bang theory. It has, for example, no concept that incorporates the Planck base units. Big bang cosmology has also failed to recognize the simple progressions of geometry and algebra using base-2 notations or doublings thus excluding ways to incorporate major studies along the grid within those first 64 notations. Also, science and her theories are not value neutral. The big bang theory as understood by Stephen Hawking captures his extreme skepticism that life has any deep, inherent meaning, or intrinsic value. Some have labelled that orientation, postmodernity. Some extend a sense of neutrality for mathematics; however, we found a value structure based on simple geometries and a sense of perfection inherent within those geometries. Within the sphere and pi (π) alone, there are perfections of continuity, symmetry and harmony.
[2] Neil Turok. A key part of the history of Neil Turok is when he held the Chair of Mathematical Physics at the University of Cambridge, Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics (DAMTP). He is the director emeritus of Canada’s Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics (2008-2020). And, in 2020 he was appointed to the Inaugural Higgs Chair of Theoretical Physics at the University of Edinburgh.
The general press most-often quoted these three paragraphs from the Perimeter press release:
“Professor Neil Turok, director of the Perimeter Institute in Canada, has long-questioned Hawking’s vision of the Big Bang, when space, time and matter are thought to have burst into existence.” London Daily Mail, June 29, 2017
“Now he has published research suggesting that the basic maths behind Hawking’s views is incorrect and that science must rethink the origins of the universe.”
“Our research implies that we either should look for another picture to understand the very early universe, or that we have to rethink the most elementary models of quantum gravity,” said Job Feldbrugge, one of Turok’s co-authors.” Sunday Times, 25 June 2017
In the summer of 2022 he opened questions about big bang in light of the strong CP Problem. Although it initially sounds like he is re-engaging the big bang, more study is needed. We have asked Elizabeth Gibney, a journalist with Nature magazine if she might consider doing a deeper analysis!
[3] Perpetually starting. Of course, if this universe is perpetually starting, it can’t be a “big bang.” So what is it? In our 2017 overview of the Turok team’s work, we were delighted to find scholars who made a claim similar to our own. This time around we are going to understand their conclusions and the Picard-Lefschetz theory. Turok and his team do not yet recognize the simple logic for perfections of the earliest notations. They do not recognize the continuity-symmetry-harmony inherent within the infinitesimal spheres. They do not recognize the first 64 infinitesimal notations (out of the 202 base-2 notations that encapsulate the universe from the first moment of time until now). Hypothetical particles, most often considered point particles within more traditional studies, have dimensionality, mass, charge, and all the facets of the dimensionless constants that define them. So, we will enter Picard-Lefschetz theory and the work of Solomon Lefschetz and Émile Picard to see if they contributed to Turok team’s reluctance to embrace these natural units as given.
[5] James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). There’ll be many senior scholars who will hold onto the big bang cosmology until they die. A 1949 statement by Max Planck proclaims that truth. They’ll have the company of great scholars like Dr. John Mather, Nobel Laureate (2006) and James Webb Space Telescope Senior Project Scientist. As the smoothness of the early universe gets deeper and deeper (older and older), the big bang will slowly lose its grip on the mythopoetics around the start of the universe. The nine groups of potential alternatives (just above), all within the outline of the 202 notations, will define a powerfully entangled grid with pi at its core driving our most significant formulas, foremost among them being that for the infinitesimal sphere.
[6] FQXi. The Foundational Questions Institute was started by Max Tegmark and Anthony Aguirre with financial help from the Templeton Foundation. This concrescence of interest and abilities is a key to make a breakthrough. Tegmark, with Turok and others have called for a fundamental rethinking of space, time and infinity. Yet, among the defenders of the big bang faith, the deep believers, do not easily question the fundamentals of those beliefs. Our abiding hope is that FQXi can help us all out of our ruts of misunderstanding. https://81018.com/3u/
[7] Simple doublings. Doublings, multiplying and dividing by 2, is something we learn as a child. There is a special delight in feeling that process unfold. We have failed to grasp that process within three-and-four dimensional geometries. The interiority of the octahedron will surprise most scholars. It is more complex and more simple at the same time. There is a linear doubling and exponentiation where a linear doubling becomes systemic and we get the numbers within our chart.
[11] One step at a time, and often two steps forward, one step back. It is not easy. All the great scholars of all times made mistakes. It is part of life. We are all on a learning curve all the time. Aristotle should become a new icon for this most basic failing. We all need to know about Aristotle’s error and how it was repeated for 1800 years and how the implications of that overlooked gap still taunts our intellectual well-being today. https://81018.com/aristotle/
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 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.
12 November at 3:31 PM: Dr. Hans Havlicek, Vienna 10 November at 2:23 PM: Dr. Lisa Randall, Harvard 9 November at 3:26 PM: Dr. Cumrun Vafa, Harvard 7 November 2022 at 5:14 PM: Dr. Geraint F. Lewis, Sydney Institute for Astronomy 6 November at 3:48 PM: Dr. Zeeya Merali, FQXi 6 November 2022 at 3:21 PM: Dr. John Mather, JWST, Senior Project Scientist 5 November 2022 (Sat) at 1:45 PM: Dr. Shadab Alam, University of Edinburgh, Scotland UK 3 November 2022: Dr. Arnab Dasgupta, University of Pittsburgh 2 November 2022 (re-evaluated): Sent 10 October 2022, Dr. Fabienne Casoli, Paris Observatory Related email to Stephen Hawking in 2016
_____
IM There will also be many instant messages to thought leaders about the key points.
2:25 PM · Nov 7, 2022Geraint F. Lewis, @Cosmic_Horizons@Sydney_Uni Go inside the tetrahedron (divide the edges by 2, connect new vertices) and in 45 steps you’ll be among the elementary particles and in another 67 steps you’ll be at the Planck base units. Now multiply by two, over and over, 202 times and you have the universe: https://81018.com A little math and geometry go a long way!
Abstract. Our evolving theory posits a most-simple start of our Universe by applying base-2 notation (multiplying by 2) to the Planck-or-Stoney base units.[*] The entire universe is mapped within 202 notations that logically and mathematically encapsulate everything, everywhere for all time.[†] That’s the outline. Structures are the next issue. Given the utter simplicity of the sphere and its total dependency on pi (π), hypothesized is that those base units first manifest as an infinitesimal sphere. All natural units, that sphere is projected to be the first moment of time.[a] Assuming one sphere per unit of time and length, anywhere from 539-to-4605 tredecillion infinitesimal spheres per second manifest.[b] Those infinitesimal spheres, an obvious candidate for dark matter-and-energy, have been filling our universe from the beginning. It creates a grid.[c] A radically different scenario (to big bang cosmology), this grid outlines systems for our universe. We began in 2011 in a New Orleans high school geometry class.[d] Initially considered to be a most comprehensive STEM tool, it was idiosyncratic because it didn’t start with the big bang.[e] Ours is a quiet expansion. All notations are always active. Initially we started with the simple tetrahedron and octahedron until a scholar convinced us the sphere was more fundamental.[f] We then learned about the history and deep dynamics of close-cubic packing of equal spheres (ccp) and its generation of tetrahedral-octahedral structures.[g] It is smooth; there are no-gaps at the start of this model of the universe. There is a perfection of the three faces of the sphere, continuity-symmetry-harmony. [h]
Background: Since the 1980s the big bang theory (BBT) has been the default theory within cosmology; and whether we know it or not, it profoundly impacts us all. Two generations of scholars have known nothing else. So, this effort to lift up a different theory is admittedly ambitious. We do it not to be different or competitive, but because we think our theory answers more questions while being more inclusive, more comprehensive, more kind, more liberating, more integrative, and a bit less judgmental. Also, we are not alone. There are others; highly-respected scholars have said, “The BBT is wrong.” [1]
_____
Our plan of action for our base-2 model is to study big bang problems and scientific paradoxes to see if our quiet expansion might address them. Big bang advocates like Sean Carroll are so sure of its veracity, he has made statements like, “…it is true that there is no point doubting the Big Bang model.” But then, he goes on to confess, “The first minute is a little bit up for grabs.”[2]
The first minute is everything. In our model even the first second and zeptosecond are everything!
_____
The model. There are a total of 202 base-2 notations that go from the first moment of time until today. It is 100% simple mathematics. The first second (between Notations 143-and-144) involves over two-thirds of all notations. Carroll’s first minute is between Notations 148-and-149. The first year, a light year, is between Notations 168-and-169. Each notation confirms the mathematics of the speed of light; the Planck Length (or multiple of it) is the distance light travels in Planck Time (or the corresponding multiple of it).
This model readily encapsulates the BBT.[3] It works with all other theories. Simple math is simple math. Yet, the path of scientific discovery and for the absorption of new data is wavering. On our path we’ve found cover-ups,[4]extralogic,[5] and a bit of arrogance.[6]
_____
Hotspot. Results from the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) are pouring in. While most astrophysicists are looking for some way to participate, we’re looking for new challenges to big bang cosmology as we’ve understood it. These old galaxy records are telling us something new: GN-z11 galaxy, discovered in 2015, held the record for seven years by going back to within 400 million years “after the big bang.” That would be 13.4 billion years ago. GLASS-z13, a galaxy found in July 2022, went back to 352.3 million years after the start. That would be 13.4577 billion years ago. A bit later in July 2022 the CEERS-93316 galaxy was observed and it goes back to 235.8 million years after the start. That would be about 13.556 billion years ago.
Astrophysicist Dr. Rebecca Bowler (Manchester), reporting through the Cosmic Dawn Center of the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen and of the National Space Institute at the Technical University of Denmark, comments, “Already we’ve found more galaxies in the very early Universe than computer simulations predicted, so there is clearly a lot of open questions about how and when the first stars and galaxies formed.”
The logic of it all. The 202-notations build on each other. No notation is ever complete. The universe evolves together. What is happening to time? Every notation is sharing it equally. Within the first minutes, everything is okay. But in Notation-169, there is a year’s distance from Notation-1. If Notation-1 is still active and participating in making Notation-169, they share the same time and same moment. The same is true with Notation-179 at 1000 years, 189 (1,000,000 years), 199 (1,000,000,000 years). All notations are involved with the unfolding of Notation-202. Space-time becomes a very different concept. These two no longer separate us. They are dynamically involved with everything all of the time.[8]
That is even a lot for me to process.
_____
Counting galaxies is not as straightforward as we think. In October 2016 NASA, European Space Agency (ESA), and the Royal Astronomical Society (RSA) jointly announced a tenfold increase in our galaxy count to over two trillion galaxies in today’s universe. Although some astrophysicists continue to use the old estimate of 100-to-200 billion galaxies, Dr. Chris Conselice bumped that number up to two trillion based on Hubble data.[9] And now, we know with the JWST, those numbers are increasing. The JWST is exuding new questions. Along with many old questions, the big bang theory will be hard pressed to answer them.
Perhaps a little exercise will help. 13.82 billion years may seem like a long time. But, if we convert it to seconds, the results is 436,117,076,600,000,000 or 436 quadrillion seconds.[10] In that time, does the big bang theory account for all the stars and planets and its smoothness? Some scholars are already saying, “No,” especially as the JWST seems to be reaching further and further back in time.
Perfectly smooth. In our simple model, from Notation-1 to about Notation-64, the universe is perfectly smooth for a reason. The geometries are perfectly filling.[11] There is no “lumpiness.” There are no quantum fluctuations. The essence of homogeneity and isotropy are instantiated here. From Notation-64 to Notation-134, the essentials of our physical world manifest. From Notation-134 to Notations 194, the foundations for our Solar System and Milky Way emerge. From Notation-194 to Notation-202 large scale structure formation evolves. It is all happening in this moment of time within Notation-202. sustained and dynamically related to every other notation. We cannot add the observed galaxies together as we go back in time. We would be looking at the same galaxies as each is being shaped within that given point in time.
That statement can be tested and this theory, a quiet expansion, can be either thrown out or further studied.
_____
Notations. To date, the Hubble and the JWST only analyze data from the last seven notations: 1. Notation-202 starts at 10.9816+ billion years. There’s only been about 2.8394 billion years of churn. 2. Notation-201 starts at 5.4908+ billion years and goes 5.4908 billion years adding unique substance and structure to the universe, and continues today within Notation 202 and with all shorter notations. 3. Notation-200 starts at 2.744+ billion years and uniquely goes 2.744 billion years adding its unique substance and structures but today functions with and within all other notations. 4. Notation-199 starts at 1.3727+ billion years. It first builds on Notations 1-198 and then extends and builds Notation 200, then 201, and now 202 for about another 11 billion years. 5. Notation-198 at 686.806+ million years, is an extension of Notations 1-197, then becomes symmetrical with all those notations, and that symmetry now extends into Notation-202. 6. Notation-197 at 343.15+ million years is where GN-z11, GLASS-z13 and the CEERS-93316 galaxies were discovered. Interpreting that data correctly will be a challenge. 7. Notation-196 at 171.5+ million years and it today, right now, functions within all other notations.[12]
A Prediction. Among all the pressure points on the big bang theory, I predict the pressure from the James Webb Space Telescope will become so pervasive, alternatives will be demanded. Smoothness at the start is in our favor; at some point in time, among all the alternatives, our model and theory will be critically reviewed and some of several possible alternatives will begin to grow in stature. And, as one of them does, using words like “after the Big Bang” will slowly wane, then stop being used. Living documents will be updated, and then the term will disappear except for within our historical documents.[13]
We’ve contrasted our model with the big bang by calling it a “Quiet Expansion.” Because its simplicity allows for diversity and complexity, I am hopeful that the work within this website will stimulate some discussion that helps the process along to grasp how it is that we go from an infinitesimal sphere to a galaxy to our universe.
Endnotes & Footnotes There may not be many because all these points already have pages within this website.
[*] Base Units. We start with two “natural-units gurus,” George Johnstone Stoney with his base units and Max Planck with his. The ISO and NIST may eventually come up with even better numbers. When base-2 notation is applied, these numbers are a parallel construct and by Notation-202 end up in essentially in the same moment.
[†] Another Map of the Universe. “The most detailed map ever created of the cosmic microwave background…” of the universe was done in 2009 when the Planck satellite measured the CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background radiation or CMBR). Scholars like George Efstathiou, director of the Kavli Institute for Cosmology at the University of Cambridge, believe it is “380,000 years after the big bang.” For us, time and temperature are works-in-progress; there are so many open questions. Our little map of 202 notations “mathematically encapsulates everything, everywhere for all time” so we are working to grasp the fullness of the Efstathiou 380,000 years, and his time-stamp, “after the big bang.”
In our model, all notations are always active and time is fundamentally redefined; the universe is foundationally exponential.
[a] Infinitesimal Spheres. So once there is a mathematical map of the universe, the question is raised, “What does that first moment look like?” The focus returns to the derivation of the natural units by G.S. Stoney and Max Planck. The most consistent and fundamental part of those equations is pi. So, we assume pi with its special numbers that are endless, totally-changing, and always the same. One enigmatic statement follows others. There are the perfections of sphere; its internal and external symmetries are bewildering. There are the harmonic functions of spheres. There is a deep and inherent energy of spheres. There are electromagnetic and gravitational factors. And, the list goes on. Spheres are magical. The centerpoints come alive. So, an infinitesimal sphere is projected to create the first moment of time.
[b] Tredecillion. If we assume there is one infinitesimal sphere per unit of Planck or Stoney length and Planck or Stoney Time, very large numbers result.
[d] High School. We all want our children to succeed. We all know education is a vital part of it and science-math education is a key. Yet, the big bang theory obfuscates and confuses, and the scholarship around it just doesn’t empower. We must all be grateful for all efforts by scholars to educate the public. But most important is educating the children. Since 2011 we have been pleading with scholars around the world to tell us what is wrong with our model. None have. After hundreds of emails and ten years, I have concluded there is nothing “wrong” with our model; it is just wildly idiosyncratic but we believe it is on the right path.7 That it came out of a high school also suggests that all educators on all levels need to be brought into the mainstream of research. There can be no elitism within scholarship. There is a place for simple observations like ours.
[e] STEM. It is a problem that this first article about it all has been rejected by over a dozen publications without comment. Initially I thought the errors were so egregious it just wasn’t worth their time. Yet, out of hundreds of scholars who have been asked to comment, a few would have pointed out something if they could, so we continue to follow and build upon the geometries, the numbers, and the logic.
[f] Geometry. This project started as a study of the most simple tetrahedron and octahedron. Together they fill space perfectly. Separately, they are the first step within the domain of quantum fluctuations. Our students and faculty need to know these simple geometries, how they work together and what they are capable of doing alone.
Prof. Dr. Philip Davis of Brown University finally convinced us that the sphere was more simple and fundamental. That opened a much deeper analysis of circles, spheres, and pi (π).
[g] CCP. We need a section in our geometry book: Close-cubic packing of equal spheres (ccp). Here begins the generation of tetrahedral-octahedral structures. Here geometry takes its place as a key function of our universe. It is relevant and a key critical part of who we are.
That the Chinese Communist Party shares those initials is fortuitous. There are several Chinese scholars who follow our work yet politics taints scholarship. We become overly sensitive to power struggles (politics) when the most important thing is the veracity of a concept and how it coheres with others. This work is important because it crosses political lines and looks for common ground and we find it within the sphere and pi as the hyphen between the finite-infinite and quantitative-qualitative. We know that hyphen is continuity-symmetry-harmony which is an expression of the first dynamic – the manifestation of an infinitesimal sphere, the second dynamic – sphere stacking, and the third dynamic – cubic-close packing of equal spheres.
[h] Perfections. This exploration began by going inside the tetrahedron and octahedron down to the Planck base units. We learn about geometry, mathematics (base-2), and about natural units and their formulae. We ostensibly learn a little about a continuity-symmetry-harmony that is shared by everything, everywhere throughout all time. We learn about smoothness, no gaps, and perfection and that becomes the centerpiece of this model and theory.
____
[1] Big Bang Theory is wrong. There are real experts who believe the big bang theory, as constituted by Hawking–Guth and others, is wrong. Their colleague, Neil Turok, says it as if the universe is actually in a perpetual state of big bangs. Turok’s co-author, Job Feldbrugge says, “Our research implies that we either should look for another picture to understand the very early universe, or that we have to rethink the most elementary models of quantum gravity.” Notation-0 within our model is the start, and it is perpetually starting.
J. Feldbrugge (Perimeter Institute), J.L. Lehners (Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics and Albert Einstein Institute), and N. Turok (Perimeter Institute), “Inconsistencies of the New No-Boundary Proposal,” arXiv:1805.01609 (PDF), Universe 4 (2018) no.10, 100. _________________________
Our theory is more liberating because it starts with things that we know, simple geometries and simple math, then goes out and includes everything for all time. Thus, it’s also more integrative and inclusive. And, it is a bit less judgemental because it includes the qualitative. It is a theory with heart and feelings that doesn’t promote nihilism.
Sean Carroll, a distinguished professor at Caltech, occupies Richard Feynman’s office and uses his desk! He has a natural impatience, yet he seems to be earnestly seeking the truth so I try to understand his logic. His big bang theory is not quite the Hawking-Guth model, yet it’s not yet clear to me how he would differentiate. We know quite assuredly he would not start with the Planck base units, or use base-2 notation, infinitesimal spheres, and 202-notations; and, he would not affirm a no-gap perfection of substance-and-structure within the first 64-notations given through geometries of sphere-stacking. The first minute is between Notations 148-and-149. The first second is between Notation-143 and Notation-144. The zeptosecond (1×10-21) is between Notations 65-to-67, the range of first measuring quantum fluctuations. There’s a lot of work to do to interpret those notations properly.
If each notation is always active, these observations aren’t past, but are the activity within the current day within a specific notation. As commented within earlier homepages, a re-interpretation of the redshift is also in order. We have a lot to learn.
[4] Cover-Ups We have found unwitting cover-ups. First, the big bang theory unwittingly covers up the pathway to a quiet expansion. It took the naïveté of high school people to follow basic geometries down into the Planck scale, apply base-2, map the universe, and then rather innocently ask, “What do we do with this?”
Second, in much the same way, quantum physics emerged and slowly affirmed the primacy of its fluctuations and indeterminacy without ever being able to explain those roots or origins. It got established as rigorous theory with a huge unknown for its start. It, too, became an unwitting cover up.
While learning about spheres, we were introduced to a tetrahedral gap and learned about a third cover-up initiated by Aristotle. He made a mistake and scholars didn’t catch it for 1800+ years. Even today, scholars do not know what to do with the geometric gap that Aristotle missed. That gap breaks the perfect filling of space. In the process of that study, we also uncovered a heretofore unrecognized octahedral gap. We work with perfect tetrahedrons and octahedrons, so once the question was asked about five octahedrons sharing a common centerpoint, it took minutes to see the exact same gap as with five tetrahedrons.
We then found more subtle coverups. Our most popular interactive geometry software (IGS) and their dynamic geometry environments (DGEs) easily accommodate these gaps. Never programmed for these gaps, it’s a little like Aristotle’s failure. We also discovered that the geometric construction kits like the Zometool also would not display these gaps. Further analysis of both software systems and construction kits is underway.
[5] Extralogic. Within the circles of people who study logic, there are rules and conventions. There is also extralogic that can be a little like religion and look like Guth’s inflation. MUCH MORE TO COME… See Ed Zalta.
[6] Arrogance. I enjoy Einstein’s quote. It’s true, but arrogance is endemic to the many insecurities of the human family and scholars are not exempt from them.
[7] Hotspot: James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). If we do not have a construct for the first second, there is no way that we will have the first year or the first million years (Notation 189) correct. Observational technology reaches back in between Notation 196-to-197; that 13.556 billion years is 235.8 million years “after the big bang.” The big bang theory misses all the most formative processes of the universe. The JWST started capturing data in July 2022. It sits within a dynamic tension out on the L2 (Lagrange Point 2) about 1.2 km from earth. The Planck satellite mission, also within L2, has been working since 2009. In all probability, the JWST will do equally well, if not better. We have many years to be capturing data to help us determine the real realities of this universe. We look forward to more of the work of Rebecca Bowler and the Cosmic Dawn Center. They are building on a long history about which we are now learning: List of the most distant astronomical objects.
[8] Time. In our model of the universe all notations are always active. Each builds off of the other. There is a dynamic reach from the first notation to the 202nd. It is fully symmetric from Notation-1 to Notation-201 and to just a small sliver of 202. Time is always right Now. In that light, the galaxy counters may well want to re-think their galaxy count. The looking back may be notational. We may be witnessing activity within a notation today. That is a very difficult concept to wrap one’s mind around.
So, if the electroweak processes are based on the Fermi scale whereby one fermi equals 1×10-13 cm or about .00000000000010 centimeters, if it were observable, we’d be looking at today’s activity within Notation-73.
We’ll continue struggling with the logic of it all.
[9] Galaxy Counting. Some astrophysicists like Mario Livio continue to use the old estimate of 100-to-200 billion galaxies even though in 2016 Dr. Chris Conselice bumped that number up to two trillion based on Hubble data. Today some speculative folks are saying that the number is yet much higher.
If all time is now, and there is only a infinitesimal sliver of time that is directional, all these estimates need to be revisited.
[10] 436 quadrillion seconds or a little more closely, 436,117,076,600,000,000, introduces a new reality that it all has to happen within 436 quadrillion seconds. It is the next group of numbers after a trillion. When looked at in this way, 13.82 billion years doesn’t seem much time at all.
[11] Perfections. Quantum theory became the de facto background of our universe through the 1920s and ’30s. In our model, the universe starts out perfectly smooth with no gaps. Quantum physics has little possibility of breaking into the model until quantum geometries become systemic. We suspect in the first pass through the first second within Notation-143, there is too much thrust and density for any of the quantum geometries to manifest. Did it take a year, 1000 years, or a million-or-a-billion years? I wouldn’t hazard a guess. Yet, once there is a system whereby quantum fluctuations begin, I suspect it then works its way back to Notation-67 where it first becomes measurable. This domain will become an entirely new area of mathematics and physics. I call it hypostatic.
[12] Notations. GN-z11 galaxy, discovered in 2015 in the Ursa Major constellation, held the record for seven years by going back to within 400 million years of the start. That would be 13.4 billion years ago. GLASS-z13, a galaxy found in July 2022, went back to 352.3 million years after the start. That would be 13.4577 billion years ago. A bit later in July 2022 the CEERS-93316 galaxy (ArXiv) was observed and it goes back to 235.8 million years after the start. That would be about 13.556 billion years ago.
References & Resources As these references are studied, key references and resources will be added.within this website.
CMBR, Dark Matter-Dark Energy: We’ll be looking into the 1960’s data of Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson from the Holmdel Horn Antenna. CMB. We’ll even be going back to the 1933 computations of Fritz Zwicky of Caltech. He had a way of calling people he didn’t like spherical bastards. Given our idiosyncratic approach, I suspect we’d get lumped with them! There’ll be much more to come.
“…space-time itself does expand faster than the speed of light” and “…how it is possible that there may be galaxies that are almost 100 billion light years apart.” – Gerardus ‘t Hooft (Nobel, 2019)
Extralogical: “…the bulk of extant mathematics is believed to be derivable logically from a small number of extralogical axioms, such as the axioms of Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory (or its extension ZFC), from which no inconsistencies have as yet been derived. Thus, elements of the logicist programmes have proved viable, but in the process theories of classes, sets and mappings, and higher-order logics other than with Henkin semantics, have come to be regarded as extralogical in nature, in part under the influence of Quine‘s later thought.”
GN-z11: After seven years, attention is shifting to CEER-93316 and the JWST. However, in 2016 it was Pascal Oesch (Yale, Geneva) and Gabriel Brammer (Niels Bohr Institute) who reported their 2015 findings and have been the voices of GN-z11. If our model has any viability, these two would be excellent minds to reconsider what the redshift is tell using if all time is now. We’ll keep you posted. There’ll be much more to come!
Their colleague, Neil Turok, says it as if the universe is actually in a perpetual state of big bangs. Turok’s co-author, Job Feldbrugge says, “Our research implies that we either should look for another picture to understand the very early universe, or that we have to rethink the most elementary models of quantum gravity.”
Notation-0 within our model is the start, and it is perpetually starting.
J. Feldbrugge (Perimeter Institute), J.L. Lehners (Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics and Albert Einstein Institute), and N. Turok (Perimeter Institute), “Inconsistencies of the New No-Boundary Proposal,” arXiv:1805.01609 (PDF), Universe 4 (2018) no.10, 100. _________________________
Two most seminal calculations, Max Planck’s in 1899 and George Johnstone Stoney’s in 1874, beg the question, “What could be so small as these respective base units?” And, the answer is, “Only logic and mathematics.” So sure of our particles and waves, the consensus developed over time is that only point particles could exist at such infinitesimal scales. To the best of my most-limited knowledge, nobody postulated shell spheres at the Planck or Stoney scales.
Do you think it could be a good avenue to explore as a simple thought experiment?
Of course, tomorrow is Pi Day and we now add the remembrance of Stephen Hawking’s death on Pi Day 2018. Life is short; and, we’ll all follow Stephen soon. Plus, with people like Putin, life could be short for everyone. So, celebrate we must: https://81018.com/pi-day-march-14/
We should ask our friends in string and M-theory this simple question as well.
Thank you.
Warmly,
Bruce
Ninth email: Saturday, 17 July 2021 at 7 PM
Dear Prof. Dr. Neil Turok:
Picking up on your theme that we need to redefine spacetime and infinity, perhaps you would like to get involved with these explorations:
The first second is still alive, well and moving outward 13.8 billion years later!
Or, today’s expansion of the universe is also the first moment of the universe.
Or, blackholes aren’t just sucking everything in; they (Type B) are also pushing it out at levels (sizes) that our measuring devices will never pick up.
Thanks. Warmly, Bruce
PS. I think the current homepage is worth a quick read: https://81018.com/empower/ Also, I know you get too much email so I will not send another email to you without an invitation to do so. -BEC
Eighth email: 3 April 2021 @ 4:17 AM
Dear Prof. Dr. Neil Turok,
I know how entirely idiosyncratic my little construct is, yet nobody explains how it misses the mark.
I do not think real scholars have spent any time with the numbers: https://81018.com/chart/ You are a real scholar so your answers are important to me! Thanks.
1. Might the Planck Length-and-Planck Time and Planck Mass-and-Planck Charge be among the parameters that define the first moment or instant of the universe? Answer: Yes | No | Maybe Comment: ____________
2. Might an infinitesimal sphere be a first manifestation of Planck’s Base Units? Answer: Yes | No | Maybe Comment: ____________
3. Might sphere stacking and cubic-close-packing of equal spheres be among the.first functional activities to define the universe? Answer: Yes | No | Maybe Comment: ____________
4. Might the rate by which spheres emerge be determined by Planck Time at one sphere per unit of Planck Length such that there could be 539.116 tredecillion spheres per second given the value of Planck Time is 5.39116(13)×10-44 seconds? Answer: Yes | No | Maybe Comment: ____________
5. Might base-2 notation be applied to create an ordering schema for these spheres such that Planck Time expands approximately 436,117,076,900,000,000 seconds to the current time within just 202 doublings? Answer: Yes | No | Maybe Comment: ____________
6. Might there be a range of perfection from the earliest notations and prior to any kind of quantum fluctuation, be it ontological or physical? Answer: Yes | No | Maybe Comment: ____________
8. Might you be open to receive another eight questions about foundational concepts and no sooner than eight months from today? Answer: Yes | No | Maybe Comment: ____________
Thank you very much. -BEC ****************
Bruce E. Camber
Seventh email: 11 March 2021 @ 4:17 AM
Dear Prof. Dr. Neil Turok:
Might we take as a given: A key structure of the universe is an infinitesimal sphere defined by the Planck base units. It is, of course, orders of magnitude smaller than any particle. What can we say about that sphere? [1] It is defined by pi (π). [2] It is defined by the Planck base units. [3] It is defined by the other dimensionless constants that define those units. [4] This very-first infinitesimal sphere is never-ending, never-repeating, always the same and forever changing in relations to all other spheres. [5] This quality redefines continuity. It creates order and numbers and it is the first moment of time and the very nature of time.
[6] Now, to better visualize this event, know that the rate at which these spheres are manifesting is defined by Planck Time: 539 tredecillion spheres per second. [7] Sphere stacking necessarily begins, but this is just the beginning.
[8] The second quality of this most-infinitesimal sphere is its symmetries which create relations which create space. Think of cubic-close packing of equal spheres.
[9] Continuity and symmetry are simple perfections.
[10] Focusing on cubic-close packing (ccp) and the creation of lines, tetrahedrons and octahedrons, many different types of symmetries emerge including a five-tetrahedral cluster that will become systemic or ontic and quantum fluctuations within given notations.
[11] A third quality of spheres is harmony and it, too, is a simple perfection. [12] With this image, pi and spheres are dynamic, extending through time. Called the Fourier Transform, we are now researching possible faces of it and the harmonic functions uniquely created.
We’ve applied base-2 to order these spheres and there are 202 notations from the first instant to the current time. If Notation #1 is close to absolute zero, by the notation-136, the temperature has risen high enough for the Quark-Gluon plasma processes to begin. By Notations-143-to-144, the first second of the universe is defined. Agreeing with Neil Turok that big bang cosmology is wrong, this cold-start model is more like Lemaitre’s original ideas of 1927.
Your comments are most welcomed. Thank you.
Warmly,
Bruce
PS. I am having great fun getting to know of your good works in South Africa and throughout Africa. Stunning. -BEC
Sixth email: 27 March 2020 @ 8:10 AM
Dear Prof. Dr. Neil Turok:
Along with Nima and Max, you three constitute a force in physics and are three of my favorites among the legions of the brilliant.
Today’s homepage — the unique URL is https://81018.com/uni-verse — has links to you three, plus to one of my very favorite pages, https://81018.com/bbtheory/ Beside the banality of the comedy, The Big Bang Theory, your comment comes alive. Hopefully I quote you correctly, “Turok believes that the universe behaves as if it is always starting from scratch.”
Of course, our idiosyncratic model certainly meets that criteria in some literal way: 1. The infinite-finite relation whereby the infinite as the qualitative expression of continuity (order), symmetry (relations), and harmony (dynamics) while the finite is the quantitative expression of continuity, symmetry, and harmony. 2. There is an initial perfection of the qualitative that recognizes that the geometric gap of the five tetrahedral configuration and it becomes the grounds for quantum fluctuations which become systemic around Notation-64 when particles and waves begin to manifest.
The fact that the speed of light is confirmed within .01% of laboratory-defined speed at the one second mark between Notation-143 and Notation-144 and then again with a light year between Notation-168-and-169 is sweet.
So, just a few days ago I read about your blocking Fotini from applying for tenure and I realized you do not suffer fools easily. Of course, Fotini is no fool. She’s brilliant. Yet, when it comes to testing new ideas, we are all fools albeit some of us more foolish than others given those quantum leaps and impatience with incrementalism.
I wish you well. Stay healthy in these very odd times when we can be thankful that the universe is constantly renewed.
This base-2 model of the universe begins with Planck Time, logically the first instance of the universe, to the current day and time, all within just 202 notations or doublings. In this model, the universe becomes hot enough to support the quark-gluon plasma by Notation-136 (which is before the first second transpires between notation 143 and 144). Here is an area for the “never-ending starts” suggested by Neil Turok and Job Feldbrugge of the Perimeter Institute, and Jean-Luc Lehners of the Albert-Einstein-Institut of Potsdam, Germany. Here is a mindset to fulfill the wishes of Nima Arkani-Hamed and Max Tegmark for a fundamentally new concept of spacetime and infinity.”
Dear Prof. Dr. Neil Turok:
Any advice that you could give to improve this introduction just above or the entire page — https://81018.com/arxiv/ — would be profoundly appreciated.
Might you comment on our homepage today, particularly on the first goal of our website where we reference your work?
The impasse within the Standard Model is highly documented, especially since the diphoton results (2015, 2016). In his July 20, 2017 IAS lecture — “Where in the world are SUSY and WIMPS?” — Nima Arkani-Hamed says, “…go back and think about these things again from a totally different view, something completely, radically, 100% out of left field, totally different from anything we’ve thought about before.”
The power of 2, just doubling the four basic Planck numbers, creates a very special flow within the universe where space and time and infinity are redefined.
There is merit in simplicity yet we (the scientific community) distrust the truly simple (and often naive people like me).
If you would comment, I would be ever so grateful. Thank you.
Warmly,
Bruce
PS. Here is a sample of one of many references to your work:
1. Unplug the big bang theory. It’s on life support. We can replace the strained logic of “infinitely hot, infinitely dense” with a natural inflation. Neil Turok’s perpetual starts is the first notation where infinitesimal spheres manifest. The 202.34 mathematically-integrated notations begin with the logic of pi and a simplicity that redefines space, time and infinity. We start with the Planck base units and go to this very moment of time. More…Chart…
Third email: June 27, 2017
Congratulations, Prof Dr. Neil Turok.
When I listen to your lectures, I feel like I am surrounded by goodness and what I am hearing is from a sweet therapist coaching me along my way. Indeed, congratulations, on a life well lived.
Thank you for your conference, Time in Cosmology. What an extraordinarily astute group of people; the videos of the sessions are most helpful.
I have created a few links to the conference, to your work and to the Perimeter Institute. You all have already greatly informed us on our journey. We expect you will continue to do so.
There are three key pages:
First, there is a brief overview of the conference, Time in Cosmology, on our homepage today, in the fourth section down. It will be there for a few days to come and thereafter: https://81018.com/2016/10/02/2october2016/
This page, copies of our communications: https://81018.com/2016/08/02/turok/ If there is anything you’d like changed or deleted, 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. Before the first three minutes, time is well in to the large-scale universe. Of our 202 base-2 notations, the first second from Planck Time is within notations 144-145. The first day (86400 seconds) is between notations 160 and 161. A light year is between notation 168 and 169. Now we finally get inside cosmology.
If we engage the numbers generated using base-2 from the Planck base units, it all appears to expand rather quietly right out beyond the need for a big bang.
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 a different algorithm. -B
What a wonderful introduction and lecture. You are so powerfully endearing.
I would like to invite you to demythologize and debunk our work that started in a high school geometry class when we divided the edges of a tetrahedron in half and connected the four new vertices. There was a half-sized tetrahedron in each corner and an octahedron in the middle.
We did the same for the octahedron and kept going further within. In about 45 steps we were in the range of a fermion. In another 67 steps we had arrived at the Planck scale.
When we multiplied that same tetrahedron by 2, in about 89 steps we were out to the Age of the Universe. Great fun, yet it took us two years to begin to believe that base-2 notation from the Planck Scale had not yet been done. Base-10, of course, had Kees Boeke’s imprint and Gerard t’Hooft recently did his Time in Powers of Ten.
For us, base-2, the Planck base units, an inherent geometry, and a simple little continuity equation from the smallest to the largest possible measurements of length, time, charge, mass, and temperature just seemed like the achievement of a lifetime. Yes, we did have fun.
It is a great little STEM tool. (But it all just may be silliness.) When we started filling in the numbers — https://81018.com/chart/ — it was simplicity incorporated! But…it did raise questions!
Obviously, our logic is wrong or the old big bang is wrong. We named the progression from the singularity to the fermion and friends, the Quiet Expansion. It must be pure math with a very special reality kin to Dark Energy and Dark Matter.
We would love to know what you think. You can be rough on us. We can take it. Thanks again for all that you do.
Most sincerely,
Bruce ***************** Bruce Camber
PS. Thank you as well for your introduction to Art McDonald and his work with neutrinos in subterranean Sudbury. We will be having discussion groups around your online video, The Astonishing Simplicity of Everything, 2014. And we were especially happy to hear that you believe we will eventually understand the reason for the simplicity, homogeneity and isotropy of our universe home. -BEC
Abstract. Most everything starts simple. Our base-2 outline of the universe starts with the first instant of space-and-time (for now, we’re using Planck’s base units, taken-as-given, and assumed to manifest as a primordial sphere). Calculated with dimensionless constants, Planck’s units also define a rate of expansion. The role of pi, the finite-infinite relation, basic geometries, and quantum fluctuations are explored. Issues within big bang thinking are also explored within this alternative model. -BEC
Introduction: Eight key points constitute the foundations of this emergent model of the universe: (1).Key Numbers, (2).Key Geometries, (3).The Heart of Dynamics, (4).Finite-infinite and all their dimensionless constants, (5).Perfections, (6).Imperfections, (7).Mind-values-consciousness, and (8).Everything, everywhere, for all time. A discussion about each point follows.
1. Numbers are used to grasp continuities, order, and time.
Numbers define: Assumed are primordial numbers like those calculated by Max Planck (1899) and by George Stoney (1874). Scholars like John Ralston (University of Kansas, 2021) advocate for new calculations based on current knowledge, yet Planck’s results create a conceptual basis for working parameters and boundaries. The numbers can always be tweaked. Taken as a given, his numbers give us a place to start. Though in part metaphorical, we have a starting point of the universe. With the calculation of the age of the universe, we also have an endpoint; one might call it “Today” or perhaps “Right now” or even the “current point.”
Also, between the smallest number and largest number is every possible second and every infinitesimal part of every second. It is all encapsulated, accounted, and grouped; and, simple boundaries and largest-possible scale are established. [1]
2. Geometries are used to grasp symmetries, relations, and space.
Shapes define the look-and-feel of the first instant. Lemaître intuited a primordial atom. Within our emerging theory, it is an infinitesimal primordial sphere defined by dimensionless constants starting with pi (π). Pi reaches beyond the finite and provides our first look at the nature of the infinite. Pi, a key dynamic ratio, is never-ending and never-repeating, always the same and always changing. Everybody knows pi but none of us know it very well.
Geometries at work. In 2011 in our high school geometry classes, we chased tetrahedrons and octahedrons, going within, smaller and smaller. From our classroom model to the Planck length there were just 112 base-2 steps by dividing the edges by 2 and connected the new vertices until we were about as small as Planck’s length.
Then, when we multiplied Planck Length by 2, there were 112 steps to the classroom and just 90 more stepsto the edges of the universe. Our workingchart of 202 notations began to emerge in 2014. We then engaged the far-reaching Langlands programs. We studied a bit of string theory and M-theory. But, when we finally learned about cubic-close packing (of equal spheres), we began thinking that we just might be onto a different model of the universe. Ours had simple numbers, well-explored and generally-understood concepts, and potentially every possible geometry from the first instant, i.e. the very start of the universe.[2a]
Within the heart of our geometries. Planck’s infinitesimal numbers pushed us into a very different logic. Here dimensionless constants dominate. And among all the constants, pi dominates. Then we identified three facets of pi, continuity, symmetry, and harmony. How could such a dimensionless constant be finite? Is “never-ending and never-repeating” finite?
Intuiting the essence of pi. Quickly we ran into the closed-or-open universe debates. So, we postulate that the universe is finite and infinity is totally other. We postulate that infinity is the source for pi and the other dimensionless constants such that pi reaches between the finite and the infinite. Then, we postulate that pi’s first finite manifestation is a primordial sphere — the first sphere and first thing in the universe.
Imputing boundaries and boundary conditions. Base-2 is a most simple means to sort all the seconds and parts of a second that define our universe. Symbolically and analogically, we’ve used Planck’s numbers from his 1899 calculations to create our working chart of the universe. And yes, the result is the 202 notations to encapsulate the universe — all time, all space, everything, everywhere. Like a DNA sequence, numbers define and shapes define. [2b]
3. And, dynamics are used to grasp continuities-symmetry in motion.
We assume all notations are always active. Each builds on the prior; therefore, only the current notation has time asymmetry. That key issue is being addressed in several ways, albeit it’s one of our youngest issues among many open issues within this emerging theory. [3a]
The number of notations, of course, is not the key. The concept of a grid from the first moment to this day is. Again, using Planck Time, we go from the first moment to the first second (Notation-143) to the first light year (Notation-169), and then to 370,000 years (Notation-187) for recombination, to 300 million years (Notation-196) for large-scale structure formation, to the first billion years within Notation-198 to this very time right now (Notation-202). And, yes, these numbers outline aether theories which would include lattice Higgs theories!
The stacking and packing of spheres is a key activity and a natural inflation. By following the progression of Planck Charge and Planck Mass, we find that there is more than enough heat for the Quark-Gluon Plasma (QGP) between Notations 134-and-135. Using Euler’s base-2 exponential notation, from a cold start (very close to absolute zero), the QGP begins within the first second.[3b]
Natural Inflation: One primordial sphere per primordial unit of length. The thrust for an expanding universe starts with one primordial sphere per unit of primordial time. If the expansion is then calculated for just the first second, using Planck’s base units, PlanckTime generates 539-tredecillion spheres per second. StoneyTime generates 4605-tredecillion spheres per second. Those numbers are necessarily woven together with Planck Mass, Planck Charge, and the speed of light.
4. We assume a necessary, always-active, finite-infinite relation.
Finite-infinite. Many scholars say that infinity is messing up science. Perhaps their concept of infinity is incomplete. Perhaps they do not think about the origins of dimensionless constants. Now, we have a very large number of infinitesimal primordial spheres per second coming from somewhere. If we say “infinity” most scholars will have a problem. Yet, if we say that pi is the concrescence of continuity, symmetry and harmony, and that looks like a sphere, there will be fewer problems. If we say that the qualities of continuity, symmetry and harmony define the infinite, I believe we should stop and contemplate that.
Think. Reflect. Be gracious… because that is exactly what is being asked of every scholar-scientist-student.
Infinitesimals. Creating a transitional logic, infinitesimals challenge us to begin to grasp the dynamics between the finite and infinite. If on one hand we open the definition of the infinite and on the other we radically limit its scope, we might begin to understand how infinitesimals relate to strange things like blackholes, singularities, multiverses, and all our hypothetical particles proposed over the years.
Science is the continuity and symmetry that start within the sphere. And, science is also the harmony that is found deep within the sphere’s Fourier Transform. Continuity has simple values: order… memory. Symmetry has more complex values: relations… balance. And harmony has the most complex values: continuities-and-symmetries in motion. It is life, consciousness, and perhaps all our other values, even hope and love.
Categorically, infinity is continuity, symmetry and harmony, nothing more and nothing less. All metaphorical, confessional, or personal language is left to the individual. We can respect each other’s privacy and personal beliefs; we are hoping that you can respect ours as we search for the most simple truth; and for us, that opening line of this paragraph seems to be it for now.
5. We assume domains of perfection...
In the face of quantum fluctuations. In light of the 202 notations, the focus is first between Notation-64 and Notation-67, a range within which current research detects fluctuations. It begs the question about what is happening between Notations 1-and-64. If cubic-close packing is generating basic geometries within densities that are on the order of neutron stars (based on Planck’s numbers), one can imagine that only the most efficient combinations of points, lines and geometries manifest. There is a thrust of simple perfections; yet, there are also many more factors to analyze that could interrupt a flow of the geometries of a simple perfection. [5]
6. We assume domains of imperfection (quantum fluctuations).
One possible indeterminacy that could give rise to quantum fluctuations is the gap created by five tetrahedrons sharing a common edge. If systems begin to manifest around Notation-50, there could be many notations where indeterminacy prevails but is too infinitesimal to be measured..[6]
7. There’s a place on this grid for the Mind-consciousness-values.
Further considering the continuity, symmetry and harmony within pi. Throughout our brief history as a civilization, the wise among us have said something like, “Truth sets you free.” Surely the best of science has empowered us. The best of science has liberated the human mind. Yet, freedom is a rather value-laden word and I would argue that at its core, science begins with the continuity that we first find within the sphere.
Pi, spheres, infinitesimals and notations are well-known parameters within science yet at no time have those parameters been applied to the first instance of the universe. The progression, Notation 1-to-64, have not been formally engaged. Within one of our early charts, we made groups of ten notations and postulated Forms (like Langlands programs and automorphic forms) develop in the first ten notations, 2-11. Archetypal Structures develop in the next ten, from Notations 11-20. Archetypal Substances developed in the next ten, Notations 21-30. Here within these thirty notations might be the hypothetical particles that mirror the particles within the Lambda Cold Dark Matter (ΛCDM) model and the Standard Model for Particle Physics. From Notations 31-40, Archetypal Qualities, were given a place along the grid. And from Notations 41 to 50, Archetypal Relations, were postulated. From those five groups, Archetypal Systems were then postulated (Notations 51-60). Here within these notations was the beginning of systems theory, the Mind, consciousness and values. It is all physical. Yet, the physical systems measured by our most sensitive devices like the Large Hadron Collider can only measure effects from around Notation-65 and larger.
So, within those 65 notations, perhaps even more boldly, we will continue to consider further how these infinitesimal spheres manifest the Fourier transforms and all other integral transforms. These dynamics are so rich, surely here are the very keys for electromagnetism and gravity and the yoke that ties them together. [7]
Our history is so short, so minuscule, and we’re on a step learning curve. And, describing this infinitesimal universe has been problematic. Now, we are not scholars, certainly not a cosmologist nor astrophysicist. We are high school people, but that has not stopped us from discovering Tim N. Palmer of Oxford and his work with Invariant Set Theory, or Simon White of the The International Max Planck Research School on Astrophysics in Munich who is developing a Cold Dark Matter paradigm.
We have asked for advice from many people — “What are we doing wrong?” We have so many more questions. [8]
Where pi has continuity from the first moment of time to the current time, phi (φ) has a very different ordering principle that appears to be limited within each notation. There may be other kinds of fluctuations where these two ordering principles seat together. It is ideation that is currently being explored.
Many brilliant scholars have been working on these problems from quite a different perspective. None have acknowledged the simple outline created by the 202 base-2 notations. To say the least, our first 64 notations are enigmatic. Although infinitesimal, Notations-65-to-67 are on the edge of our measuring capabilities of our finest instruments (i.e. the LHC, CERN, Geneva).
We recognize how idiosyncratic such statements are. For many our work would naturally be characterized as crackpottery. Yet, this is just our beginning. If we take the base units as defined by Planck or Stoney, densities are in the range of neutron stars and blackholes. It is a very different picture of our expanding universe. Yet, the enigmatic and idiosyncratic may be necessary to open new paradigms of who we are and why.
Concepts and ideas. On my path, I have met a few of our finest living scholars. All struggle. It’s never easy even though a few make it look easy. Many of us do not have the finesse of others and our work is written off too quickly. There are so many ways to interpret a data set like the chart of 202 notations. When the data doesn’t cohere or leaves questions unanswered, theories provide temporary work-arounds. Our theory has been known by many names. Big Board-little universe captured the sense that space and time are disintermediated and the two need to be redefined. Quiet Expansion was our simple way to distance ourselves from the Big Bang. Yet, the most descriptive was “the Mathematically-Integrated View of the Universe.” This model, to my knowledge, is the only one that outlines the universe with mathematics — both numbers and geometries — with causal efficacy from the first instance to this very moment. It is based on unique assumptions and presuppositions. Once all 30 of our presuppositions have, in some manner, been engaged, we believe there could be a profound intellectual awakening and possibly a resurgence of ethics. -BEC
[1] Boundaries & Parameters. First we have a start time 13.81 billion years ago. Then we have our current time. Just like DNA, every moment has its special numbers that identify it within the universe. Every instant using base-2 is part of key continuity equations. Like Emma Iwao’s 31 trillion digits of pi (31,415,926,535,897) that are never-ending and never-repeating (always changing and always the same), here is the heart of our horizontally-scrolled chart of the universe. Of course, the first continuity equation is Planck Time to the current time. Planck Length to the size of the universe is next. Then, Planck Mass to the total mass of the universe and Planck Charge to the total charge in the universe follows. It is a bit too much to grasp and its veracity is questioned and explored throughout this website.
Keep questioning everything. We get bored and dull if we don’t. For many years (and within some quarters, even today) if you questioned the big bang, you’d be laughed out of the room. Part of our problem is our arrogance that cuts off intellectual discussion. For example, many scholars are sure that science is value neutral. That’s just a bit of silliness. Its deepest definitions exude value and values. Eventually we’ll realize that we have adopted old constructs that impede our thinking and our sciences. Here are three: • Hawking’s infinitely-hot big bang start holds us back. It blocks a cold start. • Newton’s cosmology of absolute space and time suffocates us. It blocks the current point. • Aristotle’s failures with geometry truncate creativity. It blocks our grasp of indeterminacy and creativity.
[2a] Geometries have been making a comeback. Topology, shape theory, representation theory, category theory, Langlands programs, string theory (M-theory) and supersymmetries (SUSY) are all mathematical formulations that have a place on our grid. Base-2 is the simplest grid. Mathematical realities are precursors of physical realities. These and many other disciplines need the first 64 notations out of the 202 that outline the universe and redefine space-time and infinity. A simple function like cubic-close packing of equal spheres can take its place as a most-simple, key function of our universe. Why not?
Big bang cosmology lacks continuity. First, it’s too hot. Problematically, it tries to cool things off too quickly. Then, it runs out of energy. And, it fishtails with inflationary excuses.
It is, however, very difficult to imagine that one primordial sphere is generated for every unit of an infinitesimal primordial length. That’s a tall order, but it is logically coherent. The net-net is the generation of a phantasmagorical number of infinitesimal primordial spheres per second. Every second something on the order of the area defined by the path of the International Space Station is created (seemingly out of nothing). Within a year, an area about the size of our solar system is created.
An infinitesimal sphere defined by dimensionless constants has a metaphorical equivalent in every level of science and within each notation. The universe would appear to be constantly testing, changing, and evolving to be more efficient or “more integrated”. It is not difficult to imagine. Stephon Alexander’s group, The Autodidactic Universe, is working on it.
So, again, our essential challenge is to re-engage our understanding of the nature of infinity and to give it some breathing room without all the poetry and mythopoetics.
Our model sometimes called the Quiet Expansion, is a mathematical — both numerical and geometrical– model of the universe and it is entirely predictive.
[3a] Scholars like Neil Turok make similar claims. I thought for sure that Neil Turok and his colleagues, Feldbrugge and Lehners, would quickly embrace our model. They did not. One of their claims is that the universe acts like it is constantly starting. Within big bang cosmology, such a claim is counter-intuitive. Within a cold-start model, it at least has a chance to work. They reached their conclusions from a totally different path. Our first note to them was back in 2016, but they have had nothing to say to us. I think if they could point to something that was wrong, one of them would have said as much. At times scholars can be a rather close-knit group.
[3b] Scale Invariant Sphere Dynamics. From the infinitesimal sphere to the movement of galaxies, pi and phi (circles and Fibonacci sequences), are fundamental dynamics within everything. Pi crosses notations; phi builds within a given notation. This model not only uses numbers and geometries, it uses pi, phi, prime numbers, values, and more where big bang cosmology is based on singularities that do not account for dimensionless constants like pi. The mathematics of materialism generally disregards other systems of engagement. How is it that pi is scale invariant? What are the deep dynamics of spheres? We are trying to learn… we are in the earliest stages of our studies of the Fourier transforms and integral transforms. Of course, we’d welcome any and all help to understand these disciplines as well as Steven Strogatz.
[4] Scientific truth. The influence of Tegmark, Arkani-Hamed, and Turok on our thinking is substantial. Until we are able to grasp a better definition of space, time and infinity, all scientific truth is relative or incomplete. It is clear that the concepts of continuity-symmetry-harmony have an “extra” scientific truth. Being first derived from dimensionless constants that are not finite, these qualities beg the questions about the very nature of infinity. It may well be true that we have built up the concept over the centuries. Perhaps all that it is are these three basic concepts. Why not?
[5] Perfection. The concept of perfection was increasing minimized as quantum theory developed. All the greats of physics were involved. Starting with Max Planck, Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, Erwin Schrödinger, Werner Heisenberg, and Max Born, concepts like the uncertainty principle, indeterminacy, and quantum entanglement were increasingly mathematically formulated and began dominating scientific thought. Only in 2001 did Planck’s base units receive the kind of scrutiny that would cause them to be lifted up and examined. It wasn’t until December 2011 that we did our little geometric progression back to his base units. It wasn’t until 2015 did we begin examining the numbers assuming that the first instance was an infinitesimal sphere and that pi defined three facets of perfection within the sphere. And because those spheres are the footings and foundations of each base-2 notation, the concept of perfection and a place for perfection was re-introduced within a very limited framework.
[6] Imperfection. In 2011 in those high school geometry classes, we made models of the five-tetrahedral star, the icosahedron and the Pentakis dodecahedron; we called it squishy geometry. The pieces do not perfectly fit together. There are natural gaps. Aristotle made a mistake that was reinforced by academic thinking for over 1800 years. Even after the mistake was discovered in the 15th century, it had to be rediscover in 1926 and then again in 2010 and still there has been no general debate about the significance of five-tetrahedral star and its gap. Here is one profound imperfection built into the very geometries of the universe and it is largely ignored. Here is one critical gap and a place for quantum physics. There are possibly several other equally important places that will be discussed in future homepages. This is a topic of ongoing analysis.
[7] Transformations. Within the panoply of “big bang” cosmologies, the Fourier transform is ignored. Pi and the simplest geometries are as well. If we are to create a working theory, it seems that it should start simple and begin building as best we can using simple concepts. In our model of the universe, the most basic tools of mathematics and science are, by design, all used progressively, building off of one another. In this model there is a place for Langlands programs. There is a place for point-free geometries. There is a more fundamental place for binary functions, scalar field theory and Lagrangian field theory. It is all a bit much for high school people, yet our intuitions help to guide us.
Stephon Alexander: The Autodidactic Universe (PDF), 2021: The universe learns its own laws by exploring a landscape of possible laws (a class of matrix models) and constantly evolves. Stephon Alexander has his six co-authors. Their work has parallels with the elemental principles of our model: 1) each notation builds on the prior, 2) all notations are always active, 3) there is a dynamic, never-ending relation between the finite and infinite, 3) the facets of pi help us to understand a perfection within the finite which is the perfection of the infinite which is continuity-symmetry-harmony, and 4) continuity-symmetry-harmony are facets of the infinite creating, the order, relations and dynamics within the most infinitesimal spheres.
Ard A. Louis: Generalization bounds for deep learning, Guillermo Valle-Pérez, Ard A. Louis, arXiv:2012.04115v2, December 2020 With some caution, it seems that our theory complies with the requirements for a theory for deep learning, i.e. such a theory would readily scale with data complexity. In our theory we eventually scale to include everything everywhere for all time. We’ve become a de facto school to capture the differences between the architectures within the first 64 notations. It is entirely computable on the surface and we are confident it will accommodate the differences between any and all optimization algorithms. We had been familiar with prior work by Ard Louis and from this December 2020 ArXiv article we will now turn to others within the deep learning space.
Thanu Padmanabhan: Planck length: Lost + found, Thanu Padmanabhan, Elsevier, Science Direct, Physics Letters B, Volume 809, 10 October 2020. Thanu Padmanabhan has been focused on the Planck scale as long as anybody living today. It is a domain of the mind. It cannot be reached by anything other than logic and mathematics. One might think that at such an infinitesimal scale, there is an absolute convergence of time, space, matter and energy. It all becomes a singularity. It is a viewpoint now echoed throughout the scholarly world. For me, it begs the question, “What are Planck’s four base unit calculations? Shall we ignore them?” I don’t think so. Padmanabhan tells us that a “relativistic point particle is a zero dimensional object.” I am not so confident. Even though these calculations look like a “point” particle, all the dynamics of the dimensionless constants that define those units are theoretically scale invariant; those characteristics or qualities do not go away. The classically-schooled scholars still think in terms of the qualities of particles and waves when those calculations are quite obviously much smaller than any wave or particle measurement. We can only know that these physical things exist mathematically. As high school people we found that there are no less than 64 base-2 steps to get into the most infinitesimal Planck scale state. It would seem that each step defines a very unique reality. More to come regarding his comments about the (Feynman) propagator and his 1988 examination of the conceptual framework for blackholes.
Claudia de Rham: Although much of Claudia de Rham’s work is co-authored with others and they use specialized language within very unique conceptual settings, her videos and interviews tend to be more general and generally more self-aware and critical of their collective progress. She is her own best critic and has a delightful sense of humor, so as we go forward, we’ll try to weave a path between her public expressions and her very challenging research. So, yes, there’s more to come.
Nima Arkani-Hamed. He may forever be known by his lecture in Cornell on October 6, 2010 and for his statement, “Spacetime is domed.” It provoked lots of discussion. I say that a key to a transformative concept of spacetime is to establish its boundaries, then its boundary conditions. We have a symbolic or metaphorical start with Planck’s units. If we accept as a given that the calculations for the age of the universe are close enough, we have a range. If we apply a mathematical construct, Euler’s base-2, we have a process. It is simple and builds on prior work: period doubling bifurcation, Feigenbaum’s constant, Poincaré… The 202 notations become functional. The first second comes out within Notation-143. The first light year is within Notation-169. The first billion years emerges toward the end of Notation-198. Every notation builds of the priors. All time is active. All space-and-time share that emergence and thus spacetime is being redefined. There’s an alternative.
Emma Haruka Iwao: The Endless Number. It took a single-minded dedication for Emma Haruka Iwao to singlehandedly introduce the world to the largest possible number in all of creation. From her early childhood she has had a fascination with pi. She may not be Archimedes, yet her work runs circles around him. She has pulled pi out of the finite. And, we proclaim that it is the bridge between the finite and infinite. We further claim that the facets of pi — continuity-symmetry-harmony — are the very definition of the infinite. That’s it. Stop there. We do not need the millions of books about infinity and the infinite. Pi gives us the infinite in a nutshell and Emma Iwao pushes our nose right into it. Here is where we should begin our theories about the start of the universe!
Mansoora Shamim’s Hypothesized, Reified, Hypostasized Numbers: I was stopped short with the work of Mansoora Shamim at CERN labs. On her way to her PhD she did seminal work at University of Oregon and Kansas State University. She didn’t name the squark or gluino, but she helped to keep these two mathematically-defined concepts alive.
You’ll find squarks and gluinos in the pages of the Standard Model of Particle Physics but both remain illusive. Why? Could it be that all the mathematics that define these hypothesized particles are just “too infinitesimal” for the Large Hadron Collider? Dr. Mansoora Shamim just might be able to tell us so. She may be the one who opens a path to Notation-64.
A Dynamical Theory for Massive Supergravity, S. James Sylvester, 2013 In 1971, about when theories about supersymmetries began to emerge, S. James Gates was at MIT. His 1977 PhD thesis was the first at MIT that studied supersymmetries. He has written over 157 papers and several books about it. SUPERSPACE or One thousand and one lessons in supersymmetry, 1983, written with two colleagues, was his first book about it all; the index begins on page 542. At no time did they stop to ask about dimensionless constants, or the role of pi and the Planck numbers. A little like Johnny Lee’s song, Looking for love in all the wrong places, they did not know that there are continuity and symmetry equations that extend well below all possible measurements of space and time. Though infinitesimal and beyond our measurements, the mathematics is still there.
Opening the Pandora’s box at the core of black holes, Raúl Carballo-Rubio (Corresponding author), Francesco Di Filippo, Stefano Liberati, Matt Visser, 2019
2. Email to Robert Laughlin: “Deep inside the tetrahedron (and its octahedron within), this dynamic GIF (Graphics Interchange Format) showed us how both were derived from spheres (cubic-close packing or sphere-stacking in action). When we started to follow pi back to its source, continuity-symmetry-harmony were deep within. Acknowledging a symbolic starting point (defined by some analogue to the Planck Length and Planck time), space and time became derivative, finite, and quantized. When Newton’s absolutes are tamped down, a dynamic finite-infinite relation opens up. Here, pi, as the key dimensionless constant, is quantitative in practice while her infinite expression is qualitative. We had a start of the universe with a single, infinitesimal sphere, Lemaitre’s 1927 long-sought-for primeval atom.
3. Email to scholarly collaborators with the scholars mentioned above: Guillermo Valle Perez (June 22).
4. Google+: Get free of little worldviews. Get the entire universe. Get access to a simple logic. Pi holds clues that opens it all up. Pi is continuity, symmetry and harmony. Continuity-symmetry-harmony is a bridge between the finite and infinite. Learn more here.
5. WordPress: This work and website is to break the impasse created by infinitely-hot big bang theories (versus a cold start — https://81018.com/start/) and by misleading concepts of space and time (https://81018.com/duped/#Newton) and by a failure of Aristotle in basic geometry, a mistake that was repeated for over 1800 years (https://81018.com/duped/#Aristotle). As a result of this effort, we anticipate there could be a profound intellectual awakening and possibly a resurgence of ethics. -Bruce
A complete left turn, I just sent Reed Hasting (co-CEO of Netflix) a note to congratulate him for his past ten years of hard-fought successes. Yet here, I recommend that he incorporate an integrated view of the universe in all that he does.
Magdalena Skipper writes, “Confronting gender bias in Nature’s journalism – at Nature, we know we need to continue to work hard to eliminate gender & other biases.” To which I sent the following Tweet.
@Magda_Skipper No surprise. So going forward, empowering all people is the name of the game. To do it, we’ll all need to break through our limited worldviews so we totally engage the universe, everything, everywhere for all time: http://81018.com No surprise indeed!
Simon Ainslie, NEOM “The thrust for perfection is built into the very fabric of the universe. Continuity-symmetry-harmony, the essence of the circle and sphere, are infinite qualities that are the foundations of the finite, the first moment. To open a way to a sustainable future, build on these three universals defined by the oldest equation in our common history, pi. http://81018.com is a small start on a model of the universe that uses such logic, mathematics, and physics. Until we break through our limited worldviews, our ethics and values will also be limited. Thank you. -Bruce
In 1980 in Paris at the Institut Henri Poincaré, one day I would be in discussions with Jean-Pierre Vigier and the next day with Olivier Costa de Beauregard. We focused on the EPR Paradox and Bell’s inequality equations. By the time I returned to Boston University later that year, I thought, “Nobody has an answer. You could spend your life spinning in circles.” I collected my books at BU and continued walking. I went back to a business that I had started ten years earlier. Little did I know that by helping out in a high school geometry class (December 2011), all these issues would be reopened. It would take me at least five years to get reoriented to learn what today’s scholars were saying. They’ve made some progress. Many new concepts have been introduced. But unanswered is the question, “How does it all cohere?” Solutions to key issues were still outstanding. I do not have that much more time in my life so I have asked quite a few scholars, “What’s wrong with this picture?” Those 202 base-2 notations, “Is it a framework, an outline within which to work, or not?” I believe it is. -BEC
We would celebrate if you could take time to answer the questions of either survey! Copy the questions to an email and send them in with your answers and comments!
Abstract. Things start simple. Our base-2 outline of the universe starts with the first instance of space-and-time. For now, Max Planck’s base units are taken-as-given and assumed to manifest as a primordial sphere, defined in part by key dimensionless constants which are all used to calculate Max’s historic results. These units also define a rate of expansion (assuming one primordial sphere per Planck unit of time). The role of pi, a dynamic bridging of the finite-infinite, as well as basic geometries and quantum fluctuations are explored. Issues within big bang theories are also explored.
I invite you to explore an alternative model for the emergence of our universe. -BEC
1. With numbers we grasp continuities, order, and time.
Numbers define: Assumed are primordial numbers like those calculated by Max Planck (1899) and by George Stoney (1874). Today’s scholars like John Ralston (University of Kansas) advocate for new calculations based on current knowledge, yet Planck’s base units, taken as given, open a conceptual model for the initial conditions, parameters, and boundaries of our universe. Planck’s numbers will be tweaked. His calculations are based on dimensionless constants. Natural units have a special status and give us a metaphorical-yet-clear start of the universe. If the current calculations for the age of the universe are also taken as given, we have a duration and an endpoint we might call, “today’s expansion,” the Now, and even “the current point.”
Between the smallest number and largest number is every possible second and every possible part (infinitesimals) of every second. It is all encapsulated, numbered, and accounted; and, simple boundaries and the largest-possible scale are established. [1]
2. With geometries we grasp symmetries, relations, and space.
Shapes define the look-and-feel of the first instant. Lemaître intuited a primordial atom. Within our emerging theory, it is an infinitesimal primordial sphere defined by dimensionless constants starting with pi (π). Pi reaches beyond the finite and provides our first look at the nature of the infinite. Pi, a key dynamic ratio, is never-ending and never-repeating, always the same and always changing. Everybody knows pi yet it seems that very few know it well.
Geometries work. In 2011 in our high school geometry classes, we chased tetrahedrons and octahedrons, going within, smaller and smaller. From our classroom model to the Planck length there were just 112 base-2 steps by dividing the edges by 2 and connecting the new vertices until we were about the size of the Planck’s length.
Of course, when we multiplied the Planck Length by 2, there were 112 steps back up into the classroom and just 90 more stepsto the edges of the universe. We were more than flummoxed; it was all too simple.
By 2014 our current workingchart of 202 notations began taking shape. We engaged the far-reaching Langlands programs. We studied a bit of string theory and its M-theory. When we finally learned about cubic-close packing (of equal spheres), we began thinking that we just might be onto a different model of the universe. Ours had simple numbers, well-explored and generally-understood concepts, and potentially every possible geometry from the first instant, i.e..the very start of the universe. [2a]
Within the heart of our geometries. Planck’s infinitesimal numbers push us into a very different logic. Here dimensionless constants dominate. And, among all the constants, pi dominates. And, there we identified three facets of pi, continuity, symmetry, and harmony. How could such a dimensionless constant be finite? Is “never-ending and never-repeating” finite?
Intuiting the essence of pi. Quickly we ran into the closed-or-open universe debates. So, we postulate that the universe is finite and infinity is totally other. We postulate that infinity is the source for pi and the other dimensionless constants such that pi reaches between the finite and the infinite. Then, we postulate that pi’s first finite manifestation is a primordial sphere — the first sphere and first thing in the universe.
Imputing boundaries and boundary conditions. Base-2 is a most simple means to sort all the seconds and parts of a second that define our universe. Symbolically and analogically, we’ve used Planck’s numbers from his 1899 calculations to create our working chart of the universe. And yes, the result is the 202 notations to encapsulate the universe — all time, all space, everything, everywhere. Perhaps a little like a DNA sequence, here numbers and shape define it all. [2b]
3. And, within dynamics we grasp continuities-symmetries in motion.
We assume all notations are always active. Each builds on the prior; therefore, only the current notation, 202, has time asymmetry. That key issue is being addressed in several ways, albeit it’s one of our youngest issues among many open issues within this emerging theory. [3a]
The number of notations, of course, is not the key. The concept of a grid from the first moment to this day is. Again, using Planck Time, we go from the first moment to the first second. Out of 202 notations, the first second is within Notation-143. The first light year is within Notation-169. Then, we go 370,000 years (Notation-187) for recombination, to 300 million years (Notation-196) for large-scale structure formation, to the first billion years within Notation-198 to this very time right now (Notation-202). And, yes, these numbers outline aether theories (and that would even include lattice Higgs theories).
The stacking and packing of spheres is a key activity and a natural inflation. By following the progression of Planck Charge and Planck Mass, we find that there is enough temperature for the Quark-Gluon Plasma (QGP) between Notations 135-and-136. Using Euler’s base-2 exponential notation, from a cold start (very close to absolute zero), the QGP begins within the first second of the start of the universe.[3b]
Natural Inflation: One primordial sphere per primordial unit of length. The thrust for an expanding universe starts with one primordial sphere per unit of primordial time. If the expansion is then calculated for just the first second, using Planck’s base units, PlanckTime generates 539-tredecillion spheres per second. Those numbers are necessarily woven together with Planck Mass, Planck Charge, and the speed of light. If we were to use StoneyTime, it would generate 4605-tredecillion spheres per second.[3c]
4. We assume a necessary, always-active, finite-infinite relation.
Finite-infinite. Many scholars say that infinity is messing up science. Perhaps their concept of infinity is incomplete. Perhaps they do not think about the origins of dimensionless constants. Now, we have a very large number of infinitesimal primordial spheres per second coming from somewhere. If we say “infinity” most scholars will have a problem. Yet, if we say that pi is the concrescence of continuity, symmetry and harmony, and that looks like a sphere, there may be fewer problems. If we say that the qualities of continuity, symmetry and harmony define the infinite, perhaps we should stop and contemplate that.
Think. Reflect. Be gracious… because that is exactly what is being asked of every scholar-scientist-student.
Infinitesimals. Creating a transitional logic, infinitesimals challenge us to begin to grasp the dynamics between the finite and infinite. If on one hand we open the definition of the infinite and on the other we radically limit its scope, we might begin to understand how infinitesimals relate to strange things like blackholes, singularities, multiverses, and all our hypothetical particles proposed over the years.
Science is the continuity and symmetry that start within the sphere. And, science is also the harmony that is found deep within the sphere’s Fourier Transform. Continuity has simple values: order… memory. Symmetry has more complex values: relations… balance. And harmony has the most complex values: continuities-and-symmetries in motion. It is life, consciousness, and perhaps all our other values, even hope and love.
Infinity is continuity, symmetry and harmony, nothing more and nothing less. Categorically, that’s it for now.
5. We assume domains of perfection...
Facing quantum fluctuations. In light of the 202 notations, the focus is first between Notation-64 and Notation-67, a range within which current research detects fluctuations. It begs the question about what is happening between Notations 1-and-64. If cubic-close packing is generating basic geometries within densities that are on the order of neutron stars (based on Planck’s numbers), one can imagine that only the most efficient combinations of points, lines and geometries manifest. There is a thrust of simple perfections; yet, there are also many more factors to analyze that could interrupt a flow of the geometries of a simple perfection. [5]
6. We all know there are domains of imperfection.
Indeterminacy and quantum fluctuations are inherent in our universe. Yet, many people are unaware of the gap created by five tetrahedrons sharing a common edge and how within the infinitesimal scale it opens the way to fluctuations. If systems begin to manifest around Notation-50, there could be many notations where indeterminacy prevails but is too infinitesimal to be measured..[6]
7. A place on this grid for the consciousness-values-and-The Mind
Further considering the continuity, symmetry and harmony within pi. Throughout our brief history as a civilization, the wise among us have said something like, “Truth sets you free.” Surely the best of science has empowered us. The best of science has liberated the human mind. Yet, freedom is a value-laden word. What is continuity? What is symmetry? What is harmony? Are all three necessarily what defines both the first sphere and the concept of freedom?
Pi, spheres, infinitesimals and notations are well-known parameters within science yet apparently at no time have these three been applied to the first instance of the universe. Also, the progression, Notations 1-to-64, has not been formally engaged within academia. Within one of our early charts, we made groups of ten notations and postulated (guessed, imagined, hypostatized) the following: 1. Forms (like Langlands programs/automorphic forms) develop in the first ten notations, 2-11. 2. Archetypal Structures develop in the next ten, from Notations 11-20. 3. Archetypal Substances develop in the next ten, Notations 21-30.
4. From Notations 31-40, Archetypal Qualities are given a place along the grid. 5. And from Notations 41-to-50, Archetypal Relations are postulated. 6. From those five groups, Archetypal Systems are then postulated (Notations 51-60). Here within these notations was the beginning of systems theory, the Mind, consciousness and values. It is all physical. Yet, the physical systems measured by our most sensitive devices like the Large Hadron Collider can only measure effects from around Notation-65 and larger.
The first 64 notations. We will continue to explore how these infinitesimal spheres manifest the Fourier transforms and all other integral transforms. These dynamics are so rich, surely here are the very keys for electromagnetism-and-gravity and the yoke that ties them together. [7]
Our history is so short, so minuscule, and we’re on a step learning curve. And, describing this infinitesimal universe has been problematic. Now, we are not scholars, certainly not a cosmologist nor astrophysicist. We are high school people, but that has not stopped us from discovering Tim N. Palmer of Oxford and his work with Invariant Set Theory, or Simon White of the International Max Planck Research School on Astrophysics in Munich who is developing a Cold Dark Matter paradigm, or Alain Connes (and company) regarding their Spectral Standard Model.
Where pi has continuity from the first moment of time to the current time, phi (φ) has a very different ordering principle that appears to be limited by notation. There may be other kinds of fluctuations where these two ordering principles seat together. It is ideation that is currently being explored.
Many brilliant scholars have been working on these problems from quite a different perspective. None have acknowledged the simple outline created by the 202 base-2 notations. To say the least, our first 64 notations are enigmatic. Although infinitesimal, Notations-65-to-67 are on the edge of our measuring capabilities of our finest instruments (i.e. the LHC, CERN, Geneva).
We recognize how idiosyncratic such statements are. For many our work would naturally be characterized as crackpottery. Yet, this is just our beginning. If we take the base units as defined by Planck or Stoney, densities are in the range of neutron stars and blackholes. It is a very different picture of our expanding universe. Yet, the enigmatic and idiosyncratic may be necessary to open new paradigms of who we are and why.
Concepts and ideas. On my path, I have met a few of our finest living scholars. All struggle. It’s never easy even though a few make it look easy. Many of us do not have the finesse of others and our work is written off too quickly. There are so many ways to interpret a data set like the chart of 202 notations. When the data doesn’t cohere or leaves questions unanswered, theories provide temporary work-arounds. Our theory has been known by many names. Big Board-little universe captured the sense that space and time are disintermediated and the two need to be redefined. Quiet Expansion was our simple way to distance ourselves from the Big Bang. Yet, our most descriptive was the “Mathematically-Integrated View of the Universe.” This model, to my knowledge, is the only one that outlines the universe with mathematics — both numbers and geometries — with causal efficacy from the first instance to this very moment. There are thirty presuppositions. If, in some manner, these are engaged, we believe there could be a profound intellectual awakening and possibly a resurgence of ethics. -BEC
[1] Numbers, Boundaries & Parameters. First, we have a start time around 13.8 billion years ago. Then we have our current time. Just like DNA, every moment has its own unique identify within the universe. Every instant using base-2 notation is part of key continuity equations. Like the 31 trillion digits of pi (31,415,926,535,897) (See the work of Emma Iwao) that are never-ending and never-repeating (always changing and always the same), here is the heart of our horizontally-scrolled chart of the universe. Of course, the first continuity equation is Planck Time to the current time. Planck Length to the size of the universe is next. Then, Planck Mass to the total mass of the universe and Planck Charge to the total charge in the universe follows. A bit much, the veracity of such a concept is questioned and explored throughout this website.
Keep questioning everything. We get bored and dull if we don’t. For many years (and within some quarters, even today) if you questioned the big bang, you’d be laughed out of the room. Part of our problem is our arrogance that cuts off intellectual discussion. For example, many scholars are sure that science is value neutral. That’s just a bit of silliness. Its deepest definitions exude value and values. Eventually we’ll realize that we have adopted old constructs that impede our thinking and our sciences. Here are what may be considered the biggest three: • Hawking’s infinitely-hot big-bang start holds us back. It blocks a cold start. • Newton’s cosmology of absolute time and space suffocates us. It blocks the current point. • Aristotle’s failures with geometry truncate creativity, blocks our grasp of indeterminacy and creativity, and diminishes geometry in general. This story is one of the deep failures of scholarship.
Current work: Fine Structure Constant and Pi. Scholars have been challenged and mystified by these two physical constants. They should be. Inherent in both are starting points for the universe. I am now working through the scholarship of Jeff Yee, author of The Relationship of the Fine Structure Constant and Pi (June 2019) and of Giuseppe Dattoli, the author of The fine structure constant and numerical alchemy, 2010. Yee has clearly stated, “…the fine structure constant is derived from a geometric ratio of surface areas, as a result of vibrations in a lattice with a body-centered cubic arrangement.” Then later, “The fine structure constant can be derived in terms of pi due to a ratio of geometric shapes, possibly the result of the motion of something that fills empty space.” He’s on it!
Written within my mind’s eye, “We should not underestimate the place, position, and power of pi!” We still have many open questions within number theory.
[2a] Geometries have been making a comeback. Topology, shape theory, representation theory, category theory, Langlands programs, string theory (M-theory) and supersymmetries (SUSY) are all mathematical formulations that have a place on our grid. Base-2 is the simplest grid. Mathematical realities are precursors of physical realities. These (and many other) disciplines need the first 64 notations out of the 202 that outline the universe and redefine space-time and infinity. A simple function like cubic-close packing of equal spheres can take its place as a most-simple, key function of our universe. Why not?
Big bang cosmology lacks continuity. First, it’s too hot. Problematically, it tries to cool things down too quickly. Then, it runs out of energy. And, it fishtails with inflationary excuses.
An infinitesimal sphere defined by dimensionless constants has a metaphorical equivalent in every level of science and within each notation. The universe would appear to be constantly testing, changing, and evolving to be more efficient or “more integrated.” It is not difficult to imagine. Stephon Alexander’s group, The Autodidactic Universe, is working on it.
It is, however, very difficult to imagine that one primordial sphere is generated for every unit of an infinitesimal primordial length. That’s a tall order, but it is logically coherent. The net-net is the generation of a phantasmagorical number of infinitesimal primordial spheres per second. Every second something on the order of the area defined by the path of the International Space Station is manifest (seemingly out of nothing). Within a year, an area about the size of our solar system is created.
So, again, our essential challenge is to re-engage our understanding of the nature of infinity and to give it some breathing room without all the poetry and mythopoetics.
Our model sometimes called the Quiet Expansion, is a mathematical — both numerical and geometrical– model of the universe and it is entirely predictive. Just silliness? Please let us know: 12-question survey for this article.
[3a] Scholars like Neil Turok make similar claims. I thought for sure that Neil Turok and his colleagues, Feldbrugge and Lehners, would quickly embrace our model. They did not. One of their claims is that the universe acts like it is constantly starting. Within big bang cosmology, such a claim is counter-intuitive. Within a cold-start model, it at least has a chance to work. They reached their conclusions from a totally different path. Our first note to them was back in 2016, but they have had nothing to say to us. I think if they could point to something that was wrong, one of them would have said as much. Also, it is natural that close-knit groups evolve with specialized language and concepts which those outside their group do not fully understand.
“New Physics Beyond the Standard Model“ (Wikipedia). Stymied for so long, Beyond the Standard Model has its own acronym now, BSM. It has become its own 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, this online international conference was titled, “Beyond Standard Model: From Theory to Experiment (BSM-2021)” and it ran from March 29-April 2, 2021. It seems to me that a conceptual stumbling block goes back to the general acceptance of the 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?
[3b] Scale Invariant Sphere Dynamics. From the infinitesimal sphere to the movement of galaxies, pi and phi (circles and Fibonacci sequences), are fundamental dynamics within everything. Pi crosses notations; phi builds within a given notation. This model not only uses numbers and geometries, it uses pi, phi, prime numbers, values, and more where big bang cosmology is based on singularities that do not account for dimensionless constants like pi. The mathematics of materialism generally disregards other systems of engagement. How is it that pi is scale invariant? What are the deep dynamics of spheres? We are trying to learn… we are in the earliest stages of our studies of the Fourier transforms and integral transforms. Of course, we’d welcome any-and-all help to understand these disciplines as well as Steven Strogatz.
[3c] Expanding Universe. This model of the universe has a very natural inflation. It is naive on the surface — one primordial sphere per primordial unit of length and time — the result is bewildering. How can we begin to imagine what 539-tredecillion spheres per second means? If necessarily woven together with Planck Mass, Planck Charge, and the speed of light, it is a radically different model of who we are and why. That finite-infinite relation becomes penultimate.
[4] Scientific truth. The influence of Tegmark, Arkani-Hamed, and Turok on our thinking is substantial. Until we are able to grasp a better definition of space, time and infinity, all scientific truth is relative or incomplete. Continuity-symmetry-harmony have an “extra” scientific truth. Derived from dimensionless constants that are not finite, these qualities beg the questions about the very nature of infinity. Over the centuries, scholars and religionists have built up the concept of infinity. Perhaps all that we can definitively know are the three basic concepts. Why not?
[5] Perfection. The concept of perfection was increasingly minimized as quantum theory developed. All the greats of physics were involved. Starting with Max Planck, Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, Erwin Schrödinger, Werner Heisenberg, and Max Born, concepts like the uncertainty principle, indeterminacy, and quantum entanglement were increasingly mathematically formulated and began dominating scientific thought. In 2001 Frank Wilczek scrutinized Planck’s base units and caused them to be lifted up and re-examined. It wasn’t until December 2011 that we did our little geometric progression backing into Planck’s base units. Not until 2015 did we begin examining the numbers assuming that the first instance was an infinitesimal sphere and that pi defined three facets of perfection within the sphere. And because those spheres are the footings and foundations of each base-2 notation, the concept of perfection and a place for perfection has been re-introduced within a very different framework: •Foundations Within Foundations: https://81018.com/foundations/ •Perfections of Pi: https://81018.com/perfection/ •The Start: https://81018.com/starts-8/ •Center for Perfection Studies: https://81018.com/center/
[6] Imperfection. In 2011 in those high school geometry classes, we made models of the five-tetrahedral star, the icosahedron and the Pentakis dodecahedron; we called it squishy geometry. The pieces do not perfectly fit together. There are natural gaps. Aristotle made a mistake that was reinforced by academic thinking for over 1800 years. Even after the mistake was discovered in the 15th century, it had to be rediscovered in 1926 and then again in 2010; and still, there has been no general debate about the significance of five-tetrahedral star and its gap. Here is one profound imperfection built into the very geometries of the universe and it is largely ignored. Here is one critical gap and a place for quantum physics. There are possibly several other equally important places that will be discussed in future homepages. This is a topic of ongoing analysis.
[7] Transformations. Within the panoply of “big bang” cosmologies, the Fourier transform is ignored. Pi and the simplest geometries are as well. If we are to create a working theory, it seems that it should start simple and begin building as best we can using simple concepts. In our model of the universe, the most basic tools of mathematics and science are, by design, all used progressively, building off of one another. In this model there is a place for Langlands programs. There is a place for point-free geometries. There is a more fundamental place for binary functions, scalar field theory and Lagrangian field theory. It is all a bit much for high school people, yet our intuitions help to guide us.
These eight scholars have inspired us. This website is an open dialogue with leading scholars, scientists, and students who think about things like space, time and infinity. These eight scholars are well-known to the people who frequent this website. Each has a reference page to their work, especially as it applies to introducing a new model for the start and growth of our universe. With all the brilliance within academia over the years, it is inexplicable that our base-2 model originated within a high school geometry class. In 2011 we were just following the path down inside a tetrahedron and octahedron to the Planck base units. It was that simple. Today, we will document those efforts by scholars who are beginning to use analogous constructs._
Stephon Alexander: The Autodidactic Universe (PDF), 2021: The universe learns its own laws by exploring a landscape of possible laws (a class of matrix models) and constantly evolves. Stephon Alexander has his six co-authors. Their work has a few parallels with the elemental principles of our model: 1) each notation builds on the prior, 2) all notations are always active, 3) there is a dynamic, never-ending relation between the finite and infinite, 4) the facets of pi help us to understand a perfection within the finite which is the perfection of the infinite which is continuity-symmetry-harmony, and 5) continuity-symmetry-harmony are facets of the infinite creating, the order, relations and dynamics within the most infinitesimal spheres.
Ard A. Louis: Generalization bounds for deep learning, Guillermo Valle-Pérez, Ard A. Louis, arXiv:2012.04115v2, December 2020 With some caution, it seems that our theory complies with the requirements for a theory for deep learning, i.e. such a theory would readily scale with data complexity. In our theory we eventually scale to include everything everywhere for all time. We’ve become a de facto school to capture the differences between the architectures within the first 64 notations. It is entirely computable on the surface and we are confident it will accommodate the differences between any and all optimization algorithms. We had been familiar with prior work by Ard Louis and from his December 2020 ArXiv article (linked above); we will now turn to others within the deep learning space.
Thanu Padmanabhan: Planck length: Lost + found, Thanu Padmanabhan, Elsevier, Science Direct, Physics Letters B, Volume 809, 10 October 2020. Thanu Padmanabhan has been focused on the Planck scale as long as anybody living today. It is a domain of the mind. It cannot be reached by anything other than logic and mathematics. One might think that at such an infinitesimal scale, there is an absolute convergence of time, space, matter and energy. It all becomes a singularity. It is a viewpoint now echoed throughout the scholarly world. For me, it begs the question, “What are Planck’s four base unit calculations? Shall we ignore them?” I don’t think so. Padmanabhan tells us that a “relativistic point particle is a zero dimensional object.” I am not so confident. Even though these calculations look like a “point” particle, all the dynamics of the dimensionless constants that define those units are theoretically scale invariant; those characteristics or qualities do not go away. The classically-schooled scholars still think in terms of the qualities of particles and waves when those calculations are quite obviously much smaller than any wave or particle measurement. We can only know that these physical things exist mathematically. As high school people we found that there are no less than 64 base-2 steps to get into the most infinitesimal Planck scale state. It would seem that each step defines a very unique reality. There’ll be more to come regarding his comments about the (Feynman) propagator and his 1988 examination of the conceptual framework for blackholes.
Claudia de Rham: Although much of Claudia de Rham’s work is co-authored with others and they use specialized language within the very unique conceptual settings of astrophysics, her videos and interviews tend to be more general and generally more self-aware and critical of their collective progress. She is her own best critic and has a delightful sense of humor, so as we go forward, we’ll try to weave a path between her public expressions and her very challenging research. So, yes, here there’s more to come as well.
Nima Arkani-Hamed. He may forever be known by his lecture in Cornell on October 6, 2010 and for his statement, “Spacetime is domed.” It provoked lots of discussion. I say that a key to a transformative concept of spacetime is to establish its boundaries, then its boundary conditions. We have a symbolic or metaphorical start with Planck’s units. If we accept as a given that the calculations for the age of the universe are close enough, we have a range. If we apply a mathematical construct, Euler’s base-2, we have a process. It is simple and builds on prior work: period doubling bifurcation, Feigenbaum’s constant, Poincaré… The 202 notations become functional. The first second comes out within Notation-143. The first light year is within Notation-169. The first billion years emerges toward the end of Notation-198. Every notation builds of the priors. All time is active. All space-and-time share that emergence and thus spacetime is being redefined. There’s an alternative.
Emma Haruka Iwao: The Endless Number. It took the single-minded dedication of Emma Haruka Iwao to singlehandedly introduce the world to the largest possible number in all of creation. From her early childhood she has had a fascination with pi. She may not be Archimedes, yet her work runs circles around him. She has pulled pi out of the finite. And, we proclaim that it is the bridge between the finite and infinite. We further claim that the facets of pi — continuity-symmetry-harmony — are the very definition of the infinite. That’s it. Stop there. Science does not need the millions of books about infinity and the infinite. Pi gives us the infinite in a nutshell and Emma Iwao pushes our nose right into it. Here is where we should begin our theories about the start of the universe!
Mansoora Shamim’s Hypothesized, Reified, Hypostasized Numbers: I was stopped short with the work of Mansoora Shamim at CERN labs. On her way to her PhD she did seminal work at University of Oregon and Kansas State University. She didn’t name the squark or gluino, but she helped to keep these two mathematically-defined concepts alive.
You’ll find squarks and gluinos in the pages of the Standard Model of Particle Physics but both remain illusive. Why? Could it be that all the mathematics that define these hypothesized particles are just “too infinitesimal” for the Large Hadron Collider? Dr. Mansoora Shamim just might be able to tell us so. She may be the one who opens a path to, and down smaller through, Notation-64. Please do a word search of this website on her first name, Mansoora.
Robert Laughlin, Stanford, A Different Universe, Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down, 2005 On page 120 he says, “The word “ether” has extremely negative connotations with theoretical physicists because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it is rather nicely captures the way most physicists today actually think about the vacuum.”
A Dynamical Theory for Massive Supergravity, S. James Sylvester, 2013 In 1971, about when theories about supersymmetries began to emerge, S. James Gates was at MIT. His 1977 PhD thesis was the first at MIT that studied supersymmetries. He has written over 157 papers and several books about it. SUPERSPACE or One thousand and one lessons in supersymmetry, 1983, written with three colleagues, was his first book about it all; the index begins on page 542. At no time did they stop to ask about dimensionless constants, or the role of pi and the Planck numbers. A little like Johnny Lee’s song, Looking for love in all the wrong places, they did not know that there are continuity and symmetry equations that extend well below all possible measurements of space and time. Though infinitesimal and beyond our measurements, the mathematics is still there.
Footnote: There are many other related pages currently being developed. Most have a security wall requiring a password because these pages are still early-stage developments. If you are interested in helping to develop this model, please request the URL and passwords to join this effort
2. Email to Robert Laughlin: “It may be a very different universe.” Deep inside the tetrahedron (and its octahedron within), this dynamic GIF showed us how both were derived from spheres (cubic-close packing and sphere-stacking). When we started to follow pi back to its source, continuity-symmetry-harmony were deep within. Acknowledging a symbolic starting point (defined by some analogue to the Planck Length and Planck time), space and time became derivative, finite, and quantized. When Newton’s absolutes are tamped down, a dynamic finite-infinite relation opens up. Here, pi, as the key dimensionless constant, is quantitative in practice while her infinite expression is qualitative. We had a start of the universe with a single, infinitesimal sphere, Lemaitre’s 1927 long-sought-for primeval atom.
3. Emails while hammering on the homepage: Inspirations come from many places. First, there are all the many collaborators and co-authors mentioned within our scholars’ published works, plus there are journalists and world leaders who cause us to write. For example, Guillermo Valle Perez is a co-author with Ard Louis. Then, I receive an email soliciting money for the Obama Library. A special listing of a range of people will evolve as each are sent emails about how our work is related to their work.
5. WordPress: The purpose of this work and website is to break the impasse created by infinitely-hot big bang theories (versus a cold start — https://81018.com/start/) and by misleading concepts of space and time (https://81018.com/biased/#Newton) and by a failure of Aristotle in basic geometry, a mistake that was repeated for over 1800 years (https://81018.com/biased/#Aristotle). As a result of this effort, wouldn’t it good to have an intellectual awakening around integrative thinking, a resurgence of ethics, and a hypersensitivity about the nature of our walk in this universe. To that end, many.emails are sent to key academic thinkers and leaders throughout the world. -Bruce
A complete left turn, I sent Reed Hasting (co-CEO of Netflix) a note to congratulate him for his past ten years of hard-fought successes. Yet here, I recommend that he incorporate an integrated view of the universe in all that he does.
Magdalena Skipper writes, “Confronting gender bias in Nature’s journalism – at Nature, we know we need to continue to work hard to eliminate gender & other biases.” To which I sent the following Tweet.
@Magda_Skipper No surprise. So going forward, empowering all people is the name of the game. To do it, we’ll all need to break through our limited worldviews so we totally engage the universe, everything, everywhere for all time: http://81018.com No surprise indeed!
Simon Ainslie, NEOM “The thrust for perfection is built into the very fabric of the universe. Continuity-symmetry-harmony, the essence of the circle and sphere, are infinite qualities that are the foundations of the finite, the first moment. To open a way to a sustainable future, build on these three universals defined by the oldest equation in our common history, pi. http://81018.com is a small start on a model of the universe that uses such logic, mathematics, and physics. Until we break through our limited worldviews, our ethics and values will also be limited. Thank you. -Bruce ( A message through Linked IN)
Then there are all the short spontaneous ones like these: @brianmclaren You need an integrated view of the universe… part epiphany, a little MEGO, but a bit of fun: https://81018.com Or, like this: @lsarsour – @CoriBush – @AOC Yes, yes, yes, but we need a new context for this atonement. Our little worldviews are clashing all the time. A step out of that foray is an integrated view of the universe — just 202 simple base-2 notations. Our start on it: http://81018.com It is easy and calming, too!
In 1980 in Paris at the Institut Henri Poincaré, one day I would be in discussions with Jean-Pierre Vigier and the next day with Olivier Costa de Beauregard. They were polar opposites. We focused on the 1935 EPR Paradox and Bell’s inequality equations. By the time I returned to Boston University later that year, I thought, “Nobody has an answer. You could spend your life spinning in circles.” I collected my books at BU and continued walking. I went back to a business that I had started ten years earlier. Little did I know that by helping out in a high school geometry class (December 2011), all these issues would be reopened. It would take me at least five years to get reoriented to learn what today’s scholars were saying. They’ve made some progress. Many new concepts have been introduced. But unanswered is the question, “How does it all cohere?” Solutions to key issues are still outstanding. I do not have that much more time in my life so I have asked quite a few scholars, “What’s wrong with this picture?” referring to our 202 base-2 notations, “Is it a framework, an outline within which to work, or not?” I believe it is. –BEC
We would celebrate if you could take time to answer the questions of either survey! Copy the questions to an email and send them in with your answers and comments!
Forward. This world has always been fraught with deep and abiding problems. We obviously do not understand key concepts about our universe, our world, and ourselves. Over the years many people have thought, “Let’s bring the best of our deep thinkers together and have them address these problems assuming each problem can be adequately defined and the thoughtful-and-wise will have new insights and possible answers to old questions.
First principles. The position of this website is that nothing will fundamentally change until we begin testing new concepts within those concepts that seem to define us, particularly space/time, matter/energy, and, yes, even infinity.
The people pictured on this page. All have had new ideas and concepts. They are each respected as teachers and have become so highly qualified, they’re considered to be among the best teachers living today. One of the purposes of this article is to examine new insights and concepts about the first principles that these people have used to define their universe, their world, and life itself.
Who are we and why?
But, please, let me specially caution you: The first principles of this website are being developed as a result of a highly-integrated, mathematical view of the universe. That is, in 2011 our high school geometry classes discovered that we could parse the entire universe — everything, everywhere, throughout all time — within just 202 base-2 notations or doublings from the Planck units to the age and size of the universe today. In 2016 we developed a horizontally-scrolled chart to follow all those numbers. It still needs to be critically reviewed.
Inherent within such a chart is a belief in the fundamentality of concepts like continuity, symmetry, and harmony. We concluded that these concepts give rise to space-time-mass-energy and light; and together, these open a deeper understanding of the relational universe that could move us beyond Newtonian subject-object thinking.
Assumptions. We assume the fundamentality of the relation. We assume that subjects-and-objects and space-time are derivative.
A place where relations are fundamental is where quantum fluctuations dominate. Our challenge is to define that place, then work to discover or uncover other such places.
The Problem As Given: An infinitesimal universe exists. It is defined by primordial numbers. Both George Stoney (1874) and Max Planck (1899) calculated what would approximate the smallest units of space and time and very small units of mass and charge. There is a scale between those primordial units and particle-and-wave duality. Using base-2 notation, there are about 64 progressive doublings of those infinitesimal numbers before there are quantum fluctuations. How can we know that scale? Of course, we should start with simple questions: Who? What? Why? When? Where? How?
Background. It all has to start somewhere and pi seems to be cross-dressing between the finite and the infinite. The infinite is the qualitative expression of continuity, symmetry, and harmony. The finite is the quantitative expression. I am in search of credible scholars who are examining the possibility that the intellectual and logical starting points for space and time are the Planck base units and that Max Planck’s numbers for length, time, mass and charge could be considered the first definitions of a sphere.
What is pi (π)? What is never-ending and never-repeating? Is this simple formula a domain for perfection that is qualitatively infinite and quantitatively finite manifesting as space and time?
The concept of perfection within the physical world was put aside when we began to understand quantum mechanics. The essential nature of things appeared indeterminant, even chaotic.
Behind the chaotic that we observe, could there be a domain or domains of perfection? What happens within sphere stacking and cubic-close packing of equal spheres? If it necessarily defines the first moment of space and time, are the Planck base units an accurate description of those first moments, space-and-time, and mass-and-charge (or energy)? Is there a natural tetrahedral-octahedral tiling of the universe that fills all space? Does the complete filling of one domain naturally open the next (a natural inflation and expansion of the universe)?
_____
2. What are the conditions for the beginning of quantum fluctuations?Does the geometric gap created by five tetrahedrons have anything to do with these fluctuations and wave-particle duality?I believe it does. Background. For about 1800 years scholars echoed Aristotle’s mistaken notion that the universe could be tiled and tessellated with tetrahedrons.1 Add an octahedron and there is a perfect tiling and tessellation. Fluctuations are ruled out. But, start with a single tetrahedron and add another to it. At most, five tetrahedrons can share a common edge; yet when they do, a gap 2 is created. Finally recognized in the 1400s, it wasn’t until 1926 that a Dutch scholar, Dirk J. Struik,2 re-opened that analysis. Though he eventually became an MIT mathematics professor, it would take another eighty-six years (2012) for Jeffrey Lagarias and Chuanming Zong3 to analyze this history further. But even today, there are no known studies within mathematics or physics that have engaged the logical effects of this 7.35610317+ degree gap created when five tetrahedrons sharing a common edge.
Again, what are our boundaries? What are the dynamics of the simplest configurations of tetrahedrons? Do the five tetrahedral and six-tetrahedral configurations begin to define a next generation of dynamics beyond sphere stacking and cubic-close packing of equal spheres?
What does it mean if the Planck Length divided by Planck Time equals the speed of light (within .1% of the laboratory definition used by NIST and SI)? Does it confirm Max Planck’s calculations in 1899? Does it tell us about the very nature of light? Is the nature of light a key to understanding the nature of life? Doesn’t it confirm the voracity of each of Planck’s calculations that define Planck Length and Planck Time? Those calculations involve many variables. Then there is a next level formula whereby Planck Length divided by Planck Time is equal to the speed of light. That opens yet another story that warrants our attention and further key questions.
_____
4. Could the simple sphere, an infinitesimal sphere, be the first representation of an object or a thing within physicality? I believe it is. Background. These three key primary facets of the sphere — continuity, symmetry and harmony — are involved with many of the dimensionless constant equations at the Planck scale. The experts within this area suggest 26 dimensionless constants are necessary for the the Standard Model at the wave-particle duality. The most ubiquitous facet is driven by all the equations related to pi (π). These geometric symmetries and continuous transformations create a simple grid from the first moment of time to this very day.
Is it meaningful? We continue our struggle to find out!
Background: Within the first ten notations, the tetrahedral-octahedral couplet would seem to dominate structure and it would be defining forms in the classical ideation of Plato and Platonic scholarship over the years. It would seem that other logical forms might be introduced and tested within those notations that are prime numbers, i.e. 3, 5, and 7 within the first group of ten notations. Within Notation-3, the thrust would be for all things three.
Within Notation-5, the thrust would be for all things five. Within Notation 7, the thrust would be for all things seven. Within this primordial start, we may be just counting vertices. Basic forms are being constructed. Octahedrons are naturally emerging from tetrahedrons within cubic close packing of equal spheres. Look carefully at the space created by all the red tetrahedrons in this dynamic image (GIF). I have been asking many of the same people for several years now. They have not said, “That’s stupid and here is why it is so.” I have asked through these articles and through an FQXi competitive submission. Their quietness tells us that we are going is a plausible direction. With each subsequent doubling, especially when three and two become Notation-6, a three-tetrahedral configuration could be “tested.” When five-and-two become Notation-10, that five-tetrahedral configuration could be “tested” but I suspect the perfect tetrahedral-octahedral stacking is naturally extended. It is too easy and too natural. In this model, all notations are always active and each of our prime-number notations would be constantly optimizing its definition based on how each subsequent notation evolves.
Though quite simple, it doesn’t feel simple. Notation-11 through Notation-20 contain prime-number notations 11, 13, 17, and 19. Yet, these are always active within each of the base-2 extensions. It seems that each each of these four prime-number notation would also harbor unique possibilities for dimensionality as forms and structures. Here I believe we just might find a way to apply the automorphic forms as uniquely defined by Langlands and Witten. Also, I believe that the tetrahedral-octahedral configuration will continue to dominate. Perhaps Aristotle’s vision of Ousia for substance could be within Notations 21-30 and prime-number notations 23 and 29 could add possible unique mathematical applications. Now, recognizing that these prior paragraphs are very rough, I ask that we leave it alone for a day or two to see if anything speaks more clearly through it. Also, I have to remind myself that we are looking for the first quantum fluctuation based on Aristotle’s mistake, the five-tetrahedral gap. Consider Notation-15, Notation-20, Notation-25, Notation-30, Notation-35, Notation-40, and Notation-45. All require very special reflections to determine the logical extensions of the prime, 5.
Of course, there will be a special logic that will develop for all the primes, 7, 11,13,17,19, 23-29, 31-37, 41-43-47, 53-59, and 61-67.
Although I suspect Witten and Langland will dominate these primes, there may well be competition from among other logic systems. I don’t know, but together we may find out. Among their experts, someone just might begin to discern numbers, patterns and potentials that resonate with some aspect of their prior work.
When and how and where might that gap be logically defined? I suspect the first logical gap will happen within Notation-15, yet it will not come out as an affect on the look and feel of all other structures. It will be contained and there ill be no fluctuations. I suspect there will be fluctuations until Notation-50, projected to be the beginning of Systems and our most primitive “consciousness” that we share with all organic things.
Background. The debates from the early days with Lemaitre to Bondi-Gold-Hoyle, through to my college years with Hawking-Ellis, and now to Ijjas-Steinhardt and Feldbrugge-Lehners-Turok (and, yes, just a few thousand others), are all admittedly incomplete. And, our little model has yet to be critically reviewed.
Our chart tells a story. It’s an open universe that has an ongoing relation with infinity that is defined by continuity-symmetry-harmony gives this model its energy and stability, so, yes, there will be much more to come.
Does it follow that this expansion is first defined by base-2 or simple doublings of these numbers? What is a natural inflation? We’ll continue to ask scholars like Freese to help us to open this model further.
_____
7. Are there logically-defined, progressions of geometries within groups of notations through to the wave-particle duality at Notation-67?I think so. Background. Our mathematically-integrated universe view is the only cosmology (and ontology and epistemology) that begins with infinitesimal spheres that generate tetrahedrons and octahedrons (cubic close packing of equal spheres) and looks to develop other mathematical models within each prime-number notation that is grounded within our simple doublings. Here is a cosmology totally based on mathematics, geometries, the nature of light, and the continuities, symmetries, and harmonies inherent in spheres and light.
Does it help if we limit the discussions about infinity to continuity (order), symmetry (relations), and harmony (dynamics)? There are so many like Kurt Gödel and David Hilbert who would be asked to just take a break.
_____
8. Are the Notations, 1-201, time-symmetric?Could all the domains except for Notation-202 with its current expansion and the Now, be time symmetric? I think all 202 notations are always in process and 202nd notation per se is directional. Background. Time’s asymmetry or directional time has been one of our on-going, stubborn, intellectual challenges. Sleep and consciousness are right up there within it. What if all three are profoundly related? Much more to come…
Conclusions for Part I
This analysis is a first draft. It begins to identify a problem as given and some possible scholars to address these questions about the nature of space/time, mass/energy and infinity.
Part II will be an analysis of the work of these 19 scholars in light of the questions above. It has been started; and, the very rough pages will be made available to scholars sometime soon. With some help, it could be posted in the public by August 18.
Part III. Today we have options. Conferences are expensive and time consuming, and the results are quite variable. Why not experiment with different formats? Can we create a more vibrant, results-oriented “conference” by asking our best living scholars to address particular questions with pithy new insights, perhaps even with a bit of capricious whimsy, yet still a cogent and responsible answer?If we ask key questions (above), we just might get a few new insights. Someone’s analysis may render a new mathematical logic and/or understanding of basic physics. For example, if the Planck base units of time and length are taken as the very first units of length and time, and time is not absolute, how are we to understand the redshift?
Editor’s note: A few footnotes and endnotes might be added in the next few weeks.
Review. Using base-2, there are 202 notations from the first moment of time (assuming Planck Time) and 13.81+ billion years later to this current point of time, right now, today. Out of all 202 notations, the first 64 are too small for our current measuring devices currently used to focus on wave-particle duality. What are possible, logically-defined geometrics within natural groups of notations from Notation-1 to Notation-64? By studying the progression of these numbers, the Langlands programs and string theory scholars, may be able to discern patterns and potentials that may resonate with their prior work. Within the scope of this inquiry, leading theorists may be able to make postulations and predictions that have experimental potential.
There could be an edge, an anticipation, to hear the thoughts of such scholars. The question about the relation of geometries to fluctuations is current, dynamic, and a key part of the future of both mathematics and physics.
Participation: Within this construct, we will need to decided on a potential facilitator and host who can keep each scholar stay focused on the question and all other insights for an answer. If the initial question and the scholar’s answer is limited to about 15 minutes, there would be time for a quick analysis with additional questions by a young scholar and an older scholar. The role of the host-facilitator of each key question would be a key to getting possible answers and new insights. For this so-called ideal conference, a very partial list for a potential facilitator/host: Brendan Hassett (Brown), Clifford Taubes (Harvard), Simon Donaldson (Stony Brook)…
Participation should be open to any scholar who has addressed such a question within their teaching, research, and writing be it in a journal or other professional publication or be it only online. Please just drop me a note. –BEC
*Yes, this homepage will be done in three parts. Hopefully each part can stand on its own merits, yet be intelligently related to each other. This first part posits the thesis. Within this website, it is a discovery process of the foundations of space/time, mass/energy and infinity that pivots from new insights on what is between the Planck scale and the wave-particle duality.
Part II will be the antithesis, perhaps a bit strong for insights and ideas that have been harbored by our scholars pictured above. Currently, you might click on their names to review some of their work and to see a copy of my correspondence with them.
Part III will be a new synthesis. Here will be a proposal to each of these scholars to participate in a conference that would be associated with one of their schools, and with sponsoring groups and businesses.
Just a few minutes ago, I found your 2019 doctoral thesis (505 pages) and started to read it (PDF). Of course, I had questions: • Though you tell us a little, I would want to hear more about your minimal assumptions, especially about the very nature of space and time. • What is assumed about space and time within the topology of a real manifold AND by looking at the critical points of a real function? I think, “Perhaps the singularity and unitarity are further away than you currently intuit.” So, I went looking throughout the thesis for your analysis of the Planck scale and found on page 142 (5.2.4 Recovering unitarity), particularly where you say, “…we should recover local quantum field theory, along with unitarity of scattering amplitudes in the quantum field theory sense.” Really? • References: Picard-Lefschetz theory, catastrophe theory, infinite dimensional measure theory, and weak-value theory… page 177, Putting everything together, we find the causal propagator to create a perturbed three-sphere of radius R in reduced Planck units “from nothing”…
And, of course, who am I to be reading your thesis and certainly the question should be asked, “Is it of any consequence?” I don’t want to waste your time so, let me stop here and thank you, and again offer my sincere congratulations.
Stay well. Be bold. Have integrity!
-Bruce
Second email: Tue, Sep 26, 2017, 1:13 PM
Dear Job,
I really think you and your colleagues are the hope of the world.
If you have any objections, I will remove it immediately. -Bruce
First email: Monday, September 25, 2017
Dear Job:
There are two pages where I prominently cite your work with Neil Turok and Jean-Luc Lehners. Because the television series, The Big Bang Theory, is in its final season, there will be an increased number of discussions around the globe about the theory. And, of course, because your Neil Turok has had such a deep history with Hawking, a major focus will be on your collective work.
In your work, you all say, “perpetual bangs.” I think you should be saying, “perpetual starts” and leave the “bang” out of it.
Guth, Linde,3 and so many others of equal caliber have lamented the “bang” tag that Fred Hoyle gave it in 1949. I believe that a “quiet expansion” encapsulates the action a little more succinctly. When sound waves become possible, they have too much catching up to do to make a difference! Of course, I could be wrong on those two pages (as well as any number of others) on so many levels.
If you have any suggestions to improve the two pages referenced above, I would be delighted. If it is all just too pedestrian for you all, I will expect this email to be ignored.
My studies within cosmology are still in their earliest stages. I have a lot to learn. However, my work in ontology goes back to the early 1970s. I’ll be contacting many scientists from major universities who use the words, “According to the big bang theory…” because it is an indication that their starting points may well be incorrect.
I think our biggest problems stem from another Lucasian Professor, Hawking’s predecessor, Isaac Newton and his absolute space-time.
Katherine
Laura Mersini-
Emily Nurse
Maria Spiropulu
Gates
Hiley
Witten
Wilczek
Worldviews limit perspective 