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

by Bruce Camber

A First Draft

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Space-time defined by spheres.15

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

__________

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

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

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

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

__________________________

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

Common grounds — The first 64-notations

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

Questions, questions, and more questions

__________________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please send along your comments or questions.

__________________________

References, research, and resources:

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

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

CENTER FOR PERFECTION STUDIES: CONTINUITY •SYMMETRY•HARMONY.GOALS.October.2019
HOMEPAGES: ASSUMPTIONS |DARK|HOME|INFINITY Inflation |KEYS|REVIEW|Transformation|Up

Common Grounds Despite Radical Diversity
by Bruce Camber A First draft.

Tensions and divides are everywhere… and yes, even within the sciences.

My first-hand experience, grasped from a rather diverse group of scholars¹ goes back into the 1970s. I had been wrestling with first principles, particularly our understanding of the foundations of physics (space, time, infinity) and of our universe. I expected that some of these scholars were working with concepts that just might help us break through old mysteries. Concepts could make a difference in the way we understand ourselves, our histories, our sciences and even our religions.

Quite a bit later in December 2011, after many fits and starts, we began working on our base-2 chart of the universe. It has become apparent to us that within this chart of 202 notations, there are many concepts that change our worldview and our views of space, time and infinity. Rather quickly, we are aware of how idiosyncratic it is!

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

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

Geometries. Now, for a little perspective on our work, we were high school geometry people⁴ who in 2011 followed a very simple tetrahedral-octahedral complex⁵ back 45 steps (halving at each step) down among elementary particles and then another 67 steps to the Planck scale.

Being rather naive about it all, we then decided to start with Planck’s base units and multiply by two (2). Sure enough, in 112 steps we were back in the classroom and in another 90 steps we were at the current expansion of the universe.⁶ We asked, “Did we just encapsulate everything, everywhere, for all time? …the entire universe in just 202 base-2 notations or doublings?

The Chart, A Map of the Universe. Although there are many blanks spaces, the chart seemed to be the beginning of a simple map⁷ of the universe using base-2 (doublings). We learned that the conceptual foundations of base-2 (exponential functions) were introduced to the world around 1740 by the Swiss mathematician, Leonhard Euler (there’s always so much to learn). Rather unwittingly, we took Euler’s base-2 to the 202nd power and have now begun to ask questions about its context in light of the nature of creation, space, and time.

We had been unaware of the 1957 work by Kees Boeke in his private school, De Werkplaats, in Bilthoven, Holland. Boeke did his base-10 chart, Cosmic View: The Universe in 40 Jumps⁸ and over time it became sensationally popular. Our chart is a bit different. First, we have our geometries. Second, we start with the Planck units. Third, we have a scale of the Planck’s units from the smallest units of space and time to the largest. Fourth, we have the current expansion of the universe within the 202nd notation. Fifth, our chart is 3.333+ times more granular than base-10. Sixth, this chart mimics life’s natural doublings. And seventh, our base-2 chart has a built-in, all natural inflation.⁹

That is quite a lot, but then, it really began to challenge us:

• Mathematical confirmation of the speed of light. We discovered between the 143rd and 144th notation, a simple mathematical confirmation of the speed of light,¹⁰ that validated both the distance and the time units. That’s a key; it actually completes the simple logic of this chart. It has a mathematical, functional, and conceptual wholeness.

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

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

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

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

__________

This is such a different perspective.¹⁶ In a very rudimentary way we’re coming full circle.

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

Quantitative science, qualitative living.¹⁷ Some time ago, in one of my many statements online, I said it would be wise for science to be critical of theology. Science can inform theology, yet theology can also inform the sciences. There can be mutual respect. So, I asked, “What might we learn from the core insights from within religious beliefs?” To create an example, I went back into my family’s traditions. Given the Abrahamic faithshave the attention of about 57% of the world’s population (that includes Jews, Christians and Muslims as well as the Druze, Bahá’í and Rastafarians), an example of such respect might be this very different interpretation of the Genesis story shared by all Abrahamic faiths.

The antithesis of disagreements, nastiness, and even violence. In the face of hostility, there is symmetry and harmony as a foundational understanding¹⁸ of the very nature of our very beingness. Given all notations are always active, what we consider to be history is the active encoding of our universe.

That is, I would conclude everything you say, do or think; it all impacts the look and feel and quality of our little universe.

You make a difference. And, that difference is greater than one could ever imagine.

It is refreshing to find people out on the web who are also shining their light in these seldom visited spaces and who are open and joyful in the process. If you, or anybody you know, has such a vision, please let us know! We would enjoy meeting you online. Thank you. –BEC

###

__________________________

For more, go to these prior homepages:

__________________________

Endnotes and Footnotes:

(currently the most heavily edited area of this work)

¹ Scholars: In less cynical times, most of us believed that the truth always rises. And, some of us have had great faith that scholars engage that truth most readily:
1a. The most recent scholars to whom I have turned (and yes, a few have disappointed)
1b. 77+ scholars in 1979. The project was called “An Architecture for Integrative Systems.“
1c. Influential, today, such work does make a difference.
1d. Aggregating articles and papers about Max Planck’s base units. To date, these are most substantial that I’ve found. If you can add any to it, I would be grateful. –BEC

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

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

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

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

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

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

Using base-2, the challenge becomes apparent.

⁹ All Natural. With the work of Alan Guth (MIT) and so many others in the astrophysics community, the rapid expansion and continued inflation of the universe had become a major issue and stumbling block. Causal efficacy is stretched and strained. In the 1999 conference on structures, the most-elite inner circle of of cosmology threw up their hands and said, “Let’s come up with a better theory.”

In our simple model a natural inflation is readily observed from the start. Several doubling mechanisms have been identified, however, the most-simple doubling, sphere stacking at the infinitesimal domains, could readily account for most all other doubling phenomenon.

This explanation is sweet because it is so simple.

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

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

References: https://81018.com/a84 https://81018.com/formulas/ https://81018.com/dark/

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

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

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

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

Key words to explore further: Carlo Rovelli Robert Muller derivative, discrete and quantized. pi (π) continuity, symmetry, and harmony circle sphere a key nexus for transformations

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

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

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

Yes, work continues today, Saturday, October 26, 2019… thank you for your patience.

One of the next articles for this site will use both expressions, Bridge Finite-Infinite-Divide, and Finite-Infinite Bridge in the title and subtitle. Comments? Please email me (BEC) or complete the form below.

Please send along your comments or questions.

__________________________

References, research, and resources:

Initiated in private on Thursday, October 19, 2019
Publicly Posted: Saturday, October 20, 2019
A first draft homepage: Sunday, October 21, 2019
Most active editing: October 19 to October 21, 2019

Most-simple model of the universe starts with the most-simple concepts

A Most-Simple Start
and Different Model of the Universe
by Bruce E. Camber (your comments are most welcomed)

The most-simple, most-comprehensive mathematical map of the universe¹
• Apply base-2 to the first moment of time, Planck Time. Go to the current time, the Now.
• 202 base-2 notations necessarily encapsulate everything, everywhere, for all time.. _ .. .

The most-simple expansion of the universe²
• One infinitesimal sphere per unit of Planck’s base units is assumed (hypothesized). ….
_• A simple calculation based on Planck Time, renders 539 tredecillion spheres/second.. ..
• A cosmological constant, these infinitesimal spheres most-densely pack the universe. .

Most-simple geometries create perfected states and quantum imperfections.³
_• Perfect: Geometries-and-notations with perfect continuity-symmetry-harmony . . . . . .
_• Imperfect: Geometries of the gap are the foundations of quantum fluctuations. . . . . . .

The most-simple explanation of the finite-infinite relation⁴
_____• The finite-infinite relation is defined by pi(π) which is continuity-symmetry-harmony. . ..

John Archibald Wheeler’s 1986 vision of “so simple, so beautiful“

We are beginning to see the reality of physicist John Archibald Wheeler’s increasingly well-known statement, “Behind it all is surely an idea so simple, so beautiful, that when we grasp it — in a decade, a century, or a millennium — we will all say to each other, how could it have been otherwise?”^[5]

Our on-going narrative — under construction since 2011
^{(all links open pages within this website)}

This “most-simple” start uses most-simple concepts. The first is that the universe is logically and mathematically parsed within 202 base-2 notations using Planck’s natural units. Through the stacking-and-packing of infinitesimal spheres that are defined by those Planck numbers, this emergent universe naturally includes everything, everywhere, for all time.

Math is math. Logic is logic. An expanding universe, it readily goes from that very first-moment in time to this very moment, within what many scholars and scientists call the Now. In 2013 we also thought, “It’ll be a great STEM tool.”

The second big concept is that the most-simple physical object is the sphere and the most-simple qualities of pi — continuity-symmetry-and-harmony — are defined by a sphere. That is a very different orientation to the infinite than Kurt Gödel and David Hilbert gave us. That it renders an expansion of 539 tredecillion infinitesimal spheres per second is a very different perception of a cosmological constant. And, here the earliest universe, up to and through the first year, starts infinitesimally small but at the highest-possible speed, uniformity, and packing density. That’s Notation-0 to Notation-169.

The third big concept has very little precedence. Nobody is talking about “a domain of perfection.” Yet the speed of emergence and those packing densities do not allow for the gaps of quantum fluctuations to emerge. Of course, there will be many who will object to reducing all fluctuations to the geometries of a gap. Based on a bit of guessing, today that domain could readily extend to about Notation-50 yet could, on occasion, extend much higher. Of course, the mathematics of imperfections whereby all quantum fluctuations are reduced to the geometries of a gap also has little precedence. Notwithstanding, it seems that the logic of gap geometries remains to be studied within academia.

And, the fourth big concept to consider is the finite-infinite relation which has been reduced to those three commingled concepts being generated by pi, continuity-symmetry-harmony.

There are over 30 presuppositions that we’ve made to come to these four simple concepts.

Four concepts: Right or wrong? Who shall we ask?

So we are on a search to learn why these concepts are on the right path or the wrong path. Here is a sample of recent questions of leading scholars around the world:

Do you know any scholar who is making it his or her mission to study the geometric gaps starting with the five-tetrahedral gap that Aristotle missed? Lagarias and Zong were awarded the 2015 AMS Conant prize for their studies of the tetrahedral gap. Unfortunately they focused on packing densities and not on that gap’s effects throughout the scales of physics (original).
There are many who are studying beyond the standard model and many who start at the Planck base units. Do you know of any scholar who is looking at a base-2 expansion of those Planck units?
There are just 202 notations from the smallest possible measurement of space-time to the largest. The infinitesimal notations, 1-64, represent an area for composites that I suspect are already defined by mathematicians within operadic theory and within these nine groups. Might we hypothesize that its all on the grid?
Do you know of any scholar who would not object if we were to say that infinitesimal composites start at or near the Planck base units?

Where and what are our missteps?

In December 2011 we were so sure that we were onto something a little different, we created that first chart: https://81018.com/big-board/ The project went by two names: Big Board-little universe and Quiet Expansion.
In January 2012, we began writing about it and posted it within free webpages so we could ask for critical reviews. https://bigboardlittleuniverse.wordpress.com/2013/02/23/beginning/ https://81018.com/early-story/
By 2013 we were asking for help from the very finest scientists: Frank Wilczek, Freeman Dyson, Stephen Hawking, Alan Guth and so many others. Nobody corrected us. And, every time we were ignored, it would embolden us to find scholars who could help us; “Somebody will know why we are wrong.”
By 2016, we wrote it up as sensibly as we could and every journal ignored us. Not even the American Academy of Arts & Sciences would take time to reply. That is when we got the domain, https://81018.com, to consolidate everything that we had written and to begin to dig down as deeply as needed to find the foundations and grounds for truth.

_____

I know there will be push back, especially where we explore how values and ethics⁶ come from within the finite-infinite definitions of continuity-symmetry-and-harmony. It seems natural, but I guess it is too simple for many.

Today, we look more closely at the issues being popularly addressed on the web within places like ArXiv, Physical Review, and so many others. We are learning about new concepts and new studies every day. It is great fun and eventually we will understand why we are on the wrong path, or perhaps, why we are on a good path that will open new doors to see new vistas. Thank you.

-BEC

_____

Endnotes & Footnotes
There may not be many because all these points already have pages within this website.

[1] How could it have been otherwise? Two key links: The first moment of time is Planck Time. It is Notation-0 and it is always the start of the universe. How can it be otherwise? If we were to apply base-2 to Planck Time there are just 202 base-2 notations to the current time. Within academia, it is often referred to as the Now.

Those 202 base-2 notations necessarily encapsulate everything, everywhere, for all time. It is not that hard to grasp. Our sixth-grade AP class and high school students mostly got it.

Unfortunately the big bang theory gets in the way. During his lifetime, nobody wanted to be hard on Stephen Hawking. He was suffering enough. Plus, the world has always been desperate for heroes and true leaders, yet we haven’t been taught how to think about these people. We tend to put them on a pedestal and celebrate their celebrity status. Instead, we all need to be taught that people and information are dynamic and we all have failings. We were so excited about our simple model we even to wrote to Hawking. Questioning people and ideas was what we were taught to do even though they are on a pedestal and seem untouchable.

Now, our first use of this Wheeler quote was in a 2015 document: https://81018.com/simple/ It will now be re-worked a little.

[2] Exponential growth. A simple logic and dimensional analysis inspired the conclusion that there is one infinitesimal sphere per unit of the Planck base units. It’s an assumption or hypothesis. The result is exponential growth which renders 539 tredecillion spheres per second most-quickly, most-densely, and most-efficiently. It amounts to a heretofore undeclared cosmological constant.

[3] Perfections and Imperfections.There will be a fair amount of push back from the classic physics community. I am not sure why there hasn’t been a more pointed study of Aristotle’s mistake and Newton’s absolute time. The simple formula for pi renders geometries-and-notations with perfect continuity-symmetry-harmony. The geometries of the gap are such a natural foundation for quantum fluctuations, how has it been missed?

[4] Finite-Infinite. The working relation between the finite and the infinite can be simplified by grasping a deeper understanding of the oldest, most-used equation in history, pi (π). We all need to learn to be more gracious.

A more simple definition of infinity is overdue.

[5] John Wheeler, his 1986 article, and the quote. John Archibald Wheeler had an enormous, global reputation. His focus was to define the most fundamental relations. By 1986 the particle zoo was overflowing. He knew that we were all missing something simple. So if you click on that quote, “Behind it all is surely an idea so simple, so beautiful, that when we grasp it — in a decade, a century, or a millennium, — we will all say to each other, how could it have been otherwise? the link opens to the full article. If he were alive today, I would be asking for his advice, “Is this simple enough? Or, is it too simple?”

[6] Ethics and values from the sphere. Given the failings and aggressions of the leadership in the USA, China, Russia, Iran, North Korea and so many others throughout our little world, it behooves the academic world to come up with a better model of the universe and the meaning and value of life. This model proposed from the most-simple concepts also has a value proposition, possibly an ethical bias: https://81018.com/values/

There will always be more to come.

_____

References & Resources
As this topic is studied, key references and resources will be added.

These related pages on this website are recommended:
1. What are our starting points? Why? What is the first unit of time?
__• https://81018.com/continuity-symmetry-harmony/
2. Why isn’t there a sense of order among the hypothetical particles?
__• https://81018.com/universe-numbers/
__• https://81018.com/infinitesimal-composites
3. Kurt Gödel‘s mathematical universe.
4. Eugene Wigner, The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences, 1960
5. Max Tegmark, Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality, Knopf, 2014
__ Also see: ArXiv (PDF) 2007
6. Redefine space, time and infinity, 81018, 2020

Within our time, Wigner and Tegmark carried on the historic tradition of Pythagoras and many of the greats of history. Within our studies, we provide actual numbers, all an extension of Planck units and basic geometries, that outline our universe from the very first instant of creation to this very day and time.

_____

Emails
There will be emails to many of our scholars about these points.

Wed, May 3, 12:48 PM, Jogesh Pati, Maryland
Tue, May 2, 10:01 PM, Adrian Ocneanu, Harvard, Penn State
Mon, May 1, 11:14 AM, Hsuan-Yi Liao, Taiwan – operads
Sat, Apr 29, 5:46 PM, Maxim Kontsevich, IHES, France
Thu, Apr 27, 4:59 PM, Connor Malin, Notre Dame
Tue, Apr 25, 8:08 PM, Alberto Cattaneo, Zurich – GAP
Mon, Apr 24, 10:33 PM, Christof Wetterich, Heidelberg
Mon, Apr 24, 11:46 AM, Tim R. Morris, Southhampton (UK) – trace anomaly
Sat, Apr 22, 5:54 PM, Alexandre V. Borovik, Manchester
Fri, Apr 21, 4:33 PM, Kirsten Wickelgren, Duke, GAP
Fri, Apr 21, 9:10 AM, Dorina Mitrea, Baylor Univ

_____

IM
There will also be many instant messages to thought leaders about these points.

8:23 AM · May 9, 2023 @JeffreyGoldberg The myth of “a comprehensive understanding of things” can readily be understood within the failings of our limited worldviews. Only when we have it all in context with the universe will we begin to understand. https://81018.com is my sandbox.
[Please note: Jeffrey is the Editor-in-chief of The Atlantic.]

5:44 PM · May 3, 2023 @the_xijinping Marxism “…was created in order to change the destiny of human history. …a collectivized world is just there, over [the horizon]. Whoever rejects that world will be rejected by the world.” – Xi Jinping Sounds like you! Can we talk about it? https://81018.com

1:39 PM · May 3, 2023 @TempletonPrize and @AnoushehAnsari Redefine space-time. It’s the only path to a real paradigm shift. The attached image is here: https://81018.com/2020/01/26/ansari/… Please explore the past four homepages: https://81018.com (click on the left back arrow at the top of each homepage).

9:32 PM · May 2, 2023 @AnoushehAnsari We won’t get far until we grasp the essence of space and time. And we won’t grasp that essence until its in context within a highly-integrated, mathematical view of the universe. Our start on it all is here: https://81018.com/ and https://81018.com/most-simple

9:53 PM · May 2, 2023 @xprize @PeterDiamandis @raykurzweil Real progress begins by redefining space-time. Try continuity-symmetry-harmony, the three facets of pi (π) — https://81018.com/pointing/ https://81018.com/csh/ — and a finite-infinite relation. Simple models follow: https://81018.com/most-simple/

_____

Participate

You are always invited.

_____

Keys to this page, most-simple

• This page became a homepage on May 3, 2023. It is still “under construction.”
• The last little updates were on May 18, 2023.
• This page was initiated on April 30, 2023.
• The URL for this file is https://81018.com/most-simple/
• The first headline for this article: Universe starts with the most-simple concepts
• Second headline for this article: A Most-Simple Start and Beautiful Model of the Universe
•The teaser* is: Most-simple model of the universe starts with the most-simple concepts

*Or, wicket, kicker or eyebrow.

###

For more, go to https://81018.com Also: https://81018.com/presuppositions/

Adopted and inherited biases…

CENTER FOR PERFECTION STUDIES: CONTINUITY •SYMMETRY•HARMONY GOALS.JUNE.2020
PAGES: CLAIMS|DARK|FORMULAS|INFINITY|KEYS|MAP| RELATIONS|TRANSFORMATION|UP

from Aristotle, Newton & Hawking

BY BRUCE E. CAMBER MAY 2020 – WORKING DRAFT PREQUEL EMAIL TWEETS WANTED (HELP!)

Introduction. Three thought leaders of our common history were also leaders in their own day. They held their ground when challenged. Throughout the years, their work became sacrosanct. Yet, among all the concepts they each introduced, I believe that they held onto a key conceptual mistake that still blocks us even today.

As a people we long for heroes and leaders; and, these three were ready to accommodate. Headstrong geniuses of their time, once they got into the limelight, they did not easily share it. They were not about encouraging others to discover their own gifts. They were more about imparting their genius to their adoring publics.

But, all three were fundamentally wrong about a foundational concept. They’ve thrown off generations of scholars. They’ve held us all back; and now it’s time to correct their mistakes, forgive them, and get on a path to breakthrough to new levels of insight.

Aristotle

Aristotle (384–322 BC, Athens)¹ was wrong about a most-basic geometric fact. Obviously he could not have had perfect tetrahedrons within his toolbox. If he did, he would have known that one cannot perfectly tile and tessellate the universe with just tetrahedrons. He thought it was possible.

There are obvious gaps. Using the very tightest configuration of just five tetrahedrons sharing a simple edge, a most fundamentally important geometric gap is created. Simple logic tells us that it is a relatively early gap in physicality. Aristotle never saw this 7.35+ degree gap; and to his dying day, he promulgated an error as a truth.

There’s always so much more to learn.

Aristotle had such stature that this error was repeated by scholars for over 1800 years. Even today, not many people know about the gap. That should change. Our children should see it and begin to appreciate it profoundly.

What is it? I believe this simple gap is the beginning of the geometry of quantum fluctuations. That’s huge, but there is so much more. First, we know this — it is necessarily created by just five tetrahedrons which also outline a face of the dodecahedron, and define the primary faces of the icosahedron and the Pentakis dodecahedron. Aristotle’s mentor, Plato, defined the five basic solids — the tetrahedron, hexahedron (aka cube), octahedron, dodecahedron and icosahedron.

That gap has everything to do with basic structure. It just may also have everything to do with creativity, individuality, consciousness…

Enter Jeffrey C. Lagarias & Chuanming Zong. In 2012 they wrote a most-definitive article about the gap. These two mathematicians provide the background and an introduction to the people in the 1400s who observed and noted Aristotle’s mistake. Then, drawing from the 1926 research of D. J. Struik, they cite Johannes Müller von Königsberg (aka Regiomontanus, 1436–1476) as the first to recognize the error. The first to document it was by Paulus van Middelburg (1445–1534), a professor of astrology in Padua. Even though Aristotle’s error had finally been observed and analyzed, people focused on the fact that it was an 1800-year mistake. They also focused on the concepts within cubic-close packing of tetrahedrons and spheres. Over the years Kepler, Minkowski, Hilbert, and Hales — just to name a few — contributed insights to analyze technical aspects regarding packing densities.

In 2015 Lagarias and Zong were recognized for their work. That is all very interesting, however, we are still looking for the scholars who have asked and answered the question, “What is the net-net effect of that natural gap on our understanding of ourselves and our universe?”

Such questions should never be ignored, so let’s speculate a little.

Projections about the meaning of it all. We turn to our outline of the universe — the 202 base-2 notations from the Planck scale to this current time. Yet, we specially consider the uniqueness of the first 67 infinitesimal notations which are mostly below the thresholds of measurement. Notation-67 is the threshold of wave-particle duality. Notation-76 is the current limit of a measurement of a unit of time. If Notation-0 defines a finite-infinite cusp, these 67 notations are a new field for exploration.

Infinite-finite-and-Hilbert. Within this model there is a thrust created, a finite-infinite bridge best characterized by functions of continuity, symmetry, and harmony, three most-basic facets of the sphere. Quite contrary to the work and logic of David Hilbert, it would seem that the face of the infinite is within the finite. First, there are simple perfections where everything fits with no gaps. Although as simple as possible, granted, it becomes complex rather quickly.

What works survives. Every possible geometric combination that works provides form, function, structure, and then substance, relations, and networks of relations. What works best, survives. The universe, the penultimate opportunist, is creating something big that requires solid foundations. Perhaps somewhere around Notation-50, our universe begins to experiment with those five tetrahedrons with its built-in gap. Out of an abundance of shapes and configurations, the five tetrahedral structure is surrounded by perfectly manifesting forms and structures. Within a moment, that gap comes alive. Perhaps as early as Notation-50, the gap becomes a structural system, and then becomes a systemic fluctuation. Just a guess, the first expression of these systemic fluctuations just might be considered a primitive consciousness. By Notation-67, when it can be measured and “observed”, it will be defined as a quantum fluctuation.

Notation-50 and systemic fluctuations. Here we could postulate the beginning of identity, individuality, creativity, undecidability and unpredictability — a transmogrification from the perfect to the imperfect and indeterminant. Here may well be the birth of life as we experience it firsthand. The perfect is still there, yet it is now beginning to be masked with color, charge, flavors, sounds, and an assortment of other patinas.

A simple mistake by a legendary man has been hiding one of the most substantial mysteries of our time. It is time to absorb it and begin to absorb the new realities that it has been hiding.

We’ll always have a lot to learn.

Newton

Issac Newton (1642 – 1726, Cambridge, England)² was wrong about a philosophical orientation adopted by the world as its commonsense perception of space and time yet that opinion does not integrate with tested formulas by Max Planck and Albert Einstein. Newton was bold to proclaim that space and time are absolute, the very fabric of our essential reality.

It certainly feels true. When you look up into the clear night sky, it goes on forever. Doesn’t it? And, the answer is, “No, it only does as far as the current expansion.”

In 1687 Isaac Newton finished his landmark, three-volume book, Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica. Better known as just the Principia, it helped to firm up the foundations for what we now know as the scientific method. Though glimpsed by science and mathematics (1) dating back to Babylonian astronomy (c. 1830 BCE) and the Egyptian medical schools (c. 1600 BCE), and then (2) seriously enhanced by Aristotle and the logic within his treatise, The Organon, and then (3) energized with the work of Copernicus, Johannes Kepler, and Galileo, one can say with some confidence that science as we know it today consistently grew out of Newton’s Principia.

Yet, within this landmark writing came his most important contribution to the disinformation of the world’s culture: absolute space and time. These absolutes will not begin to recede as a footnote in our intellectual history until a better orientation is adopted by most people. That is a problem because, to date, alternatives have been non-intuitive. Leibniz came close in 1716 within his indirect dialogues with Newton through Samuel Clarke — Leibniz said space and time are relational, derivative and finite. So we ask, “If not the container for all that is, what is?”

For many that question is about one’s belief in God.

We try not to engage in “God Talk” on this website. One’s personal belief systems are largely a factor of family systems. Our attention is focused on universal systems and their constants.

Enter Max Ernst Ludwig Planck (1858 – 1947, Kiel, Berlin)³ In 1899 Max Planck developed the equations to render base unit numbers of length, time, and mass that were defined by universal physical constants. Although largely ignored throughout his lifetime, this may well be his most important work. One of the earliest analyses of that work began in 2001 by Frank Wilczek. It was published in Physics Today in three parts. Titled, Climbing Mt. Planck I, II, and III; a key calculation was overlooked.

Too simple for most, Planck had tied Planck Length and Planck Time together: Planck Time is equal to Planck Length divided by the speed of light. Of course, his little formula for Planck Time, can readily be re-written; the speed of light is equal to Planck Length divided by Planck Time.

That formula works! It worked in 1899. Using Planck’s numbers, the value is 299,792,422 meters per second. Without fanfare or celebrations, Max Planck had defined the speed of light using the mathematics of his equations a full 73 years before the National Institutes for Standards and Technology (NIST) accepted a slightly closer estimate, 299,792,456.2 meters per second defined in 1972 by K.M. Evenson and his group within the National Bureau of Standards in Boulder, Colorado.

Planck’s numbers are real; they work with real laboratory measurements. To date, the academy virtually ignores them. Applying base-2 creates a natural progression of those numbers and the first 67 notations have only been marginally explored. Here is an even more logical way to study the earliest universe where space and time are clearly derivative. The question is, “…derivative of what? …light?”

In 1905, Max Planck advised a young Albert Einstein as he began to tie mass and energy together. Yet, at no time has the academy started with Einstein’s sacred formulation, e=mc², the very first step of the Planck scale.

So, what comes first? If we look into the finite-infinite relation from the point of view of the sphere, well-removed from particles and waves, we begin to see what just might be facets of light that could well be more fundamental than space and time. Finally, Newton’s absolutes did not seem quite so absolute.

A simple door with simple logic opens a new path to explore. Another “hiding in plain sight” story, we have been looking at this door since 1899. We seem to have a difficult time opening that door and walking down that extraordinary path on the other side. It follows continuity, symmetry and harmony and puts our unique time within this dimensionality into a whole new light.

Newton was the second Lucasian Professor and Hawking was the 17th.

Hawking

Stephen William Hawking (1942-2018, Oxford, Cambridge)⁴ captured the world’s imagination. He was a superstar. Everybody knew his name. In 1973 a young Stephen Hawking and George F. R. Ellis co-authored The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time at the University of Cambridge in England. Yes, although looking at the large-scale structure, Hawking and Ellis made a mistake at the get-go:

“The subject of this book is the structure of space-time on lengthscales from 10^-13 cm, the radius of an elementary particle, up to 10²⁸ cm, the radius of the universe.”

They missed the real foundations. They missed the core structures. They missed all the really cool stuff from 10^-13 cm down to and including the Planck Length at 10^-33cm. Within our base-2 outline of the universe, that range is from Notations 73-to-75 down to Notation-0.

By 1980 the big bang theory was clearly on the ascendancy. By 1988 with the publication of his book, A Brief History Of Time, especially with its rapid rise to multi-millions of books sold, Hawking was also on the ascendancy as the primary spokesperson for big bang cosmology.

In 2016, he rhetorically asked his basic question:

“Where did the universe come from?” He immediately continues:
“The answer, as most people can tell you, is the big bang. 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. But what does that really mean and where did it all begin?” -from the PBS-TV series, “Genius” aired in May 2016. (My emphases)

He was wrong. But, until he died on March 14, 2018, the big bang seemed to be the best answer even though it was fraught with problems and open questions.

When it comes to theories and mathematics, simple is better than complex.

For most of Hawking’s life, Max Planck’s numbers were considered by the leading scholars of this world to be a curiosity. Dirac had his very-large numbers. Planck had his very-small numbers. Dirac’s were too big to matter and Planck’s were too small to be significant. Again, it wasn’t until 2001 that Wilczek introduced the world to the meaning and value of Planck’s numbers. Slowly, the academy began to test those waters; yet, it was much too late for Hawking to enter. His 1973 co-author, G.F.R. Ellis, on the other hand, was open to explore the failures and deeper problems within the concept of an unfathomably hot beginning.

An introduction to Turok: https://81018.com/lefschetz

It doesn’t work, and it’s a conundrum. The big bang theory has been backed up with the humor of a twelve-year television series (2007-to-2019) that is now in endless re-runs. Yet, ever so much more daunting is the mythopoetics of Hawking’s life.

Diffusing the big bang will not be easy, but diffuse it we must.

The logic and simplicity of the 202 notations. Going from the Planck units to the current expansion appears to have the most simple mathematics of any construct of the universe offered to date. It has a natural inflation. It starts superconductingly cold and naturally heats up and becomes superconductingly hot just in time to absorb the epochs of big bang cosmology.

The problem with our so-called Quiet Expansion is that its concept of space-and-time is non-intuitive. There is some light on this path. Others have been talking about the Now as well.

The Now. In this model, there is no past and no future, only the Now for the entire universe. All of the 202 time periods are still active and everything, everywhere for all time is related to everything, everywhere for all time. It is all constantly encoding and re-encoding the universe.

Every thought-word-and-deed affects the look and feel of the universe.

And, because there are multiple paths throughout the 202 active notations (categories, clusters, containers, domains, doublings, groups, jumps, layers, periods, sets, steps…), in this model, it is not only a small world after all, it is also a small and intimate universe.

Conclusion

Currently there is no way around the naïveté within this three-point charge against three of the foremost scholars of our entire history. I expect each point will be hammered, yet it is only by such hammering can it all be shaped into real possibilities. Thanks. – BEC

__________

Three sections follow: (1) Footnotes & Endnotes, (2) References, Reflections & Resources, and (3)_Miscellaneous Notes including emails and tweets.

Footnotes & Endnotes

Navigation: Please click only on the section number to return go back. This page is a working document and editing continues on the Footnotes & Endnotes, as well as the References & Resources and the Miscellaneous Notes and it will all actively continue to be edited and updated for the next several months. Thank you. – BEC

[1] Aristotle (384–322 BC, Athens).

“Be a free thinker and don’t accept everything you hear as truth.
Be critical and evaluate what you believe in.”

1a. Jeffrey C. Lagarias & Chuanming Zong, Mysteries in Packing Regular Tetrahedra (PDF), American Mathematical Society (AMS), December 2012. In 2015 Lagarias and Zong were awarded the 2015 AMS Levi L. Conant Prize at the Joint Mathematics Meetings. And, there is more…

1b. Dirk J. Struik. If you do not have time to read the “Mysteries in Packing…”, you should know that Lagarias and Zong credit Struik, a Dutch-American and MIT mathematics professor, for reopening those discussions in the 1400s that broke the 1800+ year impasse. The primary reference: D. J. Struik, Het Probleem ‘De impletione loci’ (Dutch) (English: Translation by M Senechal), Nieuw Archief voor Wiskunde, Series 2, 15 (1926), no. 3, 121–137

1c. The geometric gap of 7.3561031+ degrees was first encountered within our work in July 2013 in the process of prioritizing numbers to answer the question, “What are the key numbers to create this universe?” This geometric gap was judged to be the fourth most important after (1) pi, (2) Kepler’s Conjecture, and (3) 0-and-1.

1d. Continuity, symmetry and harmony. Pi has to come into being in some manner. The spheres of the Kepler conjecture have to originate somehow.

To answer the question, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” we assume that something is more fundamental than space and time, matter and energy. Here is our attempt to define the concepts that create a finite-infinite relation that gives rise to homogeneity-isotropy. Within this emerging model, the infinite is the qualitative; the finite is the quantitative. Instead of retiring the concept of infinity (Tegmark, 2012), in this model, it is the centerfold but with very specific definitions.

1e. From systemic to quantum fluctuations. Because so many concepts are being introduced, these comments will become future postings and homepages within this site. In March 2020, I wrote up an overview of some of these concepts (PDF) to get some feedback from the FQXi people. Here are the key claims.

Recognizing how idiosyncratic it is to associate the geometric gap with fluctuations, it is certainly a greater stretch to differentiate types of fluctuations. Yet, that study has begun and eventually we’ll be showing a video of what we call “squishy geometries” and the rather unusual motions created by tetrahedrons.

Systemic fluctuations. Those two words in May 2020 only had 569 references within a Google search. These fluctuations, admittedly a guess, originate with the five tetrahedral structure fully engulfed by perfected systems. With the emergence of particle physics between Notation-64 to Notation-67, they become part of the look-and-feel that define all physical systems. It is a stretch, for sure, however, we will continue to pursue it further.

So, yes, there will always be more. Go to our References & Resources section.

[2] Issac Newton (1642 – 1726, Cambridge, England).

“No great discovery was ever made without a bold guess.”

2a. Tested formulas by Max Planck and Albert Einstein defrock Newton’s absolute time and space pageantry. Follow all four values from Notation 1 to Notation 202, our universe is naturally exponential. Space and time are derivative and finite.
2b. Very fabric of our essential reality. A new aether (ether) emerges. Described often in these pages, the subject has initially addressed (2017) as the fabric of the universe.
2c. Of course, Aristotle’s influence on the way we think runs deep. Newton credits Aristotle’s work, The Organon, within his Principia. Yet, we should ask which comes first, basic logic, or the continuity-symmetry-harmony, the heart of the structure of the universe.
2d. Leibniz challenged Newton in 1715 and 1716. In his lifetime, Leibniz advocated for a relational view of the universe and it perhaps is the best foundation for an alternative approach.

[3] Max Ernst Ludwig Planck (1858 – 1947, Kiel, Berlin)

“All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together.
We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind.
This mind is the matrix of all matter.“

3a. A key calculation has been overlooked. The math is simple. The results dramatic.
3b. Ken M. Evenson et al (1972), “Speed of Light from Direct Frequency and Wavelength Measurements of the Methane-Stabilized Laser“, Physical Review Letters, 29 (19): 1346–49. Bibcode: 1972 PhRvL..29.1346E, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.29.1346). Quantum Electronics Division, National Bureau of Standards, Boulder, Colorado 80302)
3c. More fundamental than space and time. Simple logic redefines the finite-infinite relation and the nature of light, and the nature of space and time.
3d. Continuity, symmetry and harmony are three facets of both the finite and infinite. It is the baseline of this model of the universe. Here it seems all are universals that are, in the same instant, dimensionless, dimensionful, and dimensional.

[4] Stephen Hawking (1942-2018, Oxford, Cambridge)

“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.”

4a. The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time is a classic; however, it is not easy reading because it is laden with formulas (PDF).
4b. A Brief History Of Time: Hawking reviews the history, but does not rule out absolute time. He is after all, the 17^th Lucasian professor, following in the footsteps of Sir Isaac Newton, the second Lucasian professor. Although scholars from around the world were calling for a re-evaluation of its growing status, there was increasingly less room for discussion. Its devotees accepted it as fact, not theory, and Hawking championed that big bang right to his dying day. More…

4 c. George F. R. Ellis, Hawking’s 1973 co-author, had begun to recognize the deeper problems with conclusions from those early years of explorations at University of Cambridge. In 2012 in his collaboration with Roy Maartens and Malcolm MacCallum, (Relativistic Cosmology [PDF], Cambridge University Press), the big bang model is clearly under close scrutiny and every assumption is on the table: inflation, singularities, the most-recent measurements of the Hubble spacecraft of the cosmic background radiation, fine-tuning…. he is open to explore virtually every issue; yet with close to 50 years of analysis, he can not be absurd to himself. In February 2020, with colleague, A.A. Coley, the topic is, Theoretical Cosmology (PDF), virtually all the same issues are reviewed.

I took the most comfort from an article in 2017, Physics on the Edge, where he names all the key players and essentially shows how confoundingly muddled it all is. Our 2017 academy of scholars do not have clear answers.

References, reflections & resources

Please note: The primary links into this section are from the Endnotes & Footnotes from where there is the word, More… Links back to that More… are from the [Numbers].

[1] Aristotle. Our work began in a high school geometry class. We knew it required a tetrahedron and octahedron to tile and tessellate the universe. In 2011 we walked with Zeno deeper and deeper inside each object and learned a lot. You should know that our shapes were all perfectly made according to Plato’s specifications.

Yes, in 1998 we manufactured our own tetrahedrons and octahedrons!

It was hard to believe that neither Aristotle nor 1800 years of scholars (at least 90 generations) did not have their own perfect tetrahedrons in their toolbox. We wondered if geometry had slid from importance or was Aristotle beyond criticism?

The icosahedrons and Pentakis dodecahedrons use the five-tetrahedral configuration; they have gaps, and we dubbed it “squishy” or quantum geometry. By 2011, now with many years of visceral experience, and within our new chart of the infinitesimal scales, we thought that such a pervasive gap had to be significant.

We began thinking of quantum fluctuations and then systemic fluctuations.

[1a] Jeffrey C. Lagarias & Chuanming Zong. In 2011, just about the time we were beginning to explore the infinitesimal universe, Lagarias and Zong had begun writing the best little introduction that I’ve found to this geometric gap. It is a relatively short article (PDF) for the American Mathematical Society (AMS), December 2012. We appreciate that the AMS has made it readily available.

Also see: Lagarias, Clay Fellow Senior Talk, “Packing Space with Regular Tetrahedra“ and Chuanming Zong, Can You Pave the Plane Nicely with Identical Tiles, 2018

The people of China and the USA — not the governments, but the people — must find common ground. One would think that mathematics and the sciences would give us an abundance of places with which to build ties that are greater than politics. Articles like this encourage us. As important as their personal relation is, these two are also building relations between the University of Michigan and Tianjin Center for Applied Mathematics (TCAM). Zong was initially at Peking National University. I believe that the work of Lagarias and Zong actually changes the quality of life for everyone and for everything within this universe.

So, it is incumbent on all of us to begin to understand this gap (See #19), the first in the universe. It just might teach us all to become more patient with each other, especially with our superficial historic differences.

[1b] Personal. For me, Aristotle was always secondary to Plato. I am still in my earliest stages of plowing beyond a perfunctory understanding of Aristotle. Just from this encounter, I am fascinated with him. It appears for some of the Aristotelian crowd, his understanding of the tetrahedron is a bit of an embarrassment. Substantial studies do not touch it. My interest was so piqued, I started simple — with the Wikipedia overview — and then went on to other authors who came up in specific searches. I empathize with the less well-known authors, people like Ric Machuga, a professor at a junior college (Butte College, Oroville, CA). His book, Life, the Universe, and Everything: An Aristotelian Philosophy for a Scientific Age, was published in 2011.

__________________

A summary of the problems associated with sphere packing is the December 2015 article, Mathematical Optimization for Packing Problems, by Fernando Màrio de Oliveira Filho and Frank Vallentin

URL: http://wiki.siam.org/siag-op/images/siag-op/c/c4/ViewsAndNews-23-2.pdf

__________________

[1c] Zeno, Aristotle, Planck and Infinite Divisibility. I remember well the puzzled look of our students, when in 2011 I said, “Zeno has bumped into a limit called the Planck Length. We cannot divide-by-2 forever.” Planck gave the universe boundaries and logical conditions for those boundaries. Not entirely satisfied with that perception, a Russian by the name of Sergey Fedosin has taken another step: Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter. I always immediately look to see what their starting points are. Within that document, they do not discuss the Planck base units and so they miss the possibility of defining the domain from the Planck units to the particle physics in a highly textured manner.

More References, reflections & resources:
[2 ] Issac Newton did not have the advantage of Leonhard Euler‘s exponentiation. He created the concept after Newton had died. Of all possible manners of notations, base-2, is the most simple, yet it still lacks proper respect. The chessboard stories are told but under-appreciated.

The seemingly simple progression, 264 yields a large number, 18,446,744,073,709,551,616. If you were turn turn it into pennies, you could easily retire the world’s debt, all nations and all people… I tried to explain it to my sister-in-law.

2²⁰² is another story. Notationally, 6.42775218×10⁶⁰ is the raw number. Once there is an amount associated with it, like infinitesimal spheres, it begins to open the imagination.

Newton did not have Planck’s base units. He was arrogantly unsure of himself. This Lucasian Professor (#2) was confident, however, that space and time were absolute. It is profoundly part of our commonsense worldview. Unfortunately, however, I believe it is wrong. Indeed, the approach of Gottfried Leibniz will render a much richer view of our universe.

There are two living Lucasian professors, Michael Green (#18), and Michael Cates (#19). I’ll keep trying to develop a working relation with them, yet prior history tells me that I am not sophisticated enough for these people. https://81018.com/uni/ https://81018.com/lucasian/

There are related postings within the website that need follow-up. Among them is: https://81018.com/ math/
https://81018.com/malaise/
https://81018.com/arrogance/

More References, reflections & resources:

[3] Max Ernst Ludwig Planck Within the complex of Max Planck institutes around the world, there have been several attempts to open discussions. In this section, we will look at some of those exchanges more closely.

Max Planck Innovation: https://www.max-planck-innovation.com/max-planck-innovation/max-planck-society.html

More References, reflections & resources:
[4] Stephen Hawking: There are many articles about the problems within big bang cosmology. A few of these papers will be selected and analyzed in light of the 202 notations. Our first emails to Stephen Hawking referenced our very early attempts to interpret our chart of just Planck Length and Planck Time doublings.

• Mauricio Mondragon ;& Luis Lopeza, Space and time as containers, Space divisibility, and unrepeatability of events, 2007, 2012

Miscellaneous Notes

DIRK J. SRUIK: “Aristoteles weiß, daß der Raum durch kongruente Würfel voll ausgefüllt werden kann, behauptet aber weiter, daß das auch mit Tetraedern gelinge. Verf. verfolgt diese falsche Behauptung, die auch für die Lehre vom Vakuum eine gewisse Bedeutung hat, durch die Geschichte der Mathematik. Der erste, der die Unrichtigkeit des Satzes nachweist, ist Regiomontanus. Aber Ramus und Snellius folgen wieder dem Aristoteles. Erst mit dem 16. Jahrhundert tritt völlige Klarheit ein (Benedetti, Blancani, Broscius). (V 3.)“

TRANSLATION: “ARISTOTLE KNOWS THAT CONGRUENT CUBES CAN FILL THE SPACE COMPLETELY, BUT FURTHER CLAIMS THAT THIS CAN ALSO BE DONE WITH TETRAHEDRA. THE AUTHOR FOLLOWS THIS FALSE ASSERTION, WHICH ALSO HAS A CERTAIN MEANING FOR THE TEACHING OF VACUUM, THROUGH THE HISTORY OF MATHEMATICS. THE FIRST TO PROVE THE INCORRECTNESS OF THE SENTENCE IS REGIOMONTANUS. BUT RAMUS AND SNELLIUS FOLLOW ARISTOTLE AGAIN. IT WAS NOT UNTIL THE 16TH CENTURY THAT COMPLETE CLARITY APPEARED (BENEDETTI, BLANCANI, BROSCIUS). (V 3.)” D. J. STRUIK, Het probleem “de impletione loci” (Dutch) JFM 52.0002.04 Nieuw Archief (2) 15, 121-137 (1926) (English: Translation by M Senechal).

• Ellis et al, Page 310, Chapter 12 – Structure formation and gravitational lensing

“The basic idea is that quantum fluctuations of the inflaton field behave like one-dimensional quantum harmonic oscillators (with time-varying mass). Zero-point fluctuations of a quantum harmonic oscillator induce a non-zero variance of the oscillator amplitude, ⟨xˆ2⟩ = /2ω. Similarly, the inflaton zero-point fluctuations generate a non- zero variance ⟨δφ2⟩. The fluctuation modes (with co-moving wave number k) are stretched from their original small scale (assumed to be above the Planck scale) by the rapid accelerating expansion of the universe, until their wavelength ak−1 exceeds the Hubble scale (when they are assumed to become classical fluctuations).”

• W. Patrick Hooper et al., , 2018, Platonic solids and high genus covers of lattice surfaces
We will be proposing one that has been reached by a few well-grounded scientist/scholars. Unfortunately, it still feels a bit more like science fiction, so we’ll come back to it within our final overview and conclusions.

• Alvaro G. López, On an electrodynamic origin of quantum fluctuations, ArXiv, 2020
Nonlinear Dynamics, Chaos and Complex Systems Group, Departamento de Física, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Tulipán s/n, 28933 Móstoles, Madrid, Spain (Dated: January 31, 2020)

Here, space and time appear quite derivative. It appears that he was not ready to challenge absolute space and time. He defines a relation that begins with the Planck units. When we apply base-2, we are looking at the natural unfolding. The two formulas mass-energy equivalence and length-time equivalence are bound by light and appear to be bound to each other.

• Wikipedia: A gauge theory is a type of field theory in which the Lagrangian does not change (is invariant) under local transformations from certain Lie groups. … If the symmetry group is non-commutative, then the gauge theory is referred to as non-abelian gauge theory, the usual example being the Yang–Mills theory.

• Chuanming Zong, Can You Pave the Plane Nicely with Identical Tiles, 2018

An Email to a therapist

You might want to ground your people within a very simple model of the universe. All our current models are too big for most of us and those models tend to cause great anxieties. We call our work, The Big Board – little universe. It mathematically connects everything, everywhere for all time within a functional schema that actually seems to be a much better model for cosmology, physics, and mathematics than the models we currently entertain. The universe can be parsed from the Planck base units (it’s our the start)to this current day within 202 base-2 notations (all simple doublings). Once people understand that we live in an exponential universe, this place we live and have our being becomes quite intimate, comforting and secure, plus we realize that we are an important part of the equation and what we do counts. We make a difference. For more, you might start with today’s homepage: http://81018.com

That homepage most-always has the most-recent work.

Please have a glance at the 202 notations, the chart: https://81018.com/chart/ Here is a short-cut: Review these claims: https://81018.com/checklist/; It is simple, simple, simple, so don’t let it appear otherwise.

And, yes, I am always open for questions!

Tweets

June 9, 2020: A few sample tweets

Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, Princeton: @KeeangaYamahtta
You have intuited what science has failed to understand –
There is a profound integration of all things everywhere for all time.
https://81018.com/biased/ is my first analysis of Aristotle’s mistake (geometry), Newton’s mistake (space and time), and Hawking’s mistake (infinitely hot start): https://81018.com/biased/#Now

There will be much more to come.

Please Note: I also sent a direct email. -BEC

Nature Magazine If you want to make a difference, teach us all something about the scientific foundations that we do not know, i.e. Aristotle’s geometry mistake, Newton’s space-time mistake, and Hawking’s lack of infinity: https://81018.com/biased/ It is all so tightly inter-related and we don’t see it.
Please note: Shall we re-submit this article to Nature? It was ignored.

_____

Key Dates for Biased

This article was initiated on Wednesday, May 20, 2020.
Biased became a homepage or top-level post: Wednesday, June 3, 2020.
Last update: Friday, September 25, 2020
The Prior Homepage: https://81018.com/alternative/
The URL for this page: https://81018.com/biased/
A section on Aristotle and geometry: https://81018.com/biased/#Aristotle
A section on Newton and absolutes: https://81018.com/biased/#Newton
A section on Hawking and “infinitesimally hot” start: https://81018.com/biased/#Hawking
The tagline: We reach for the stars, but we’re conceptually blocked…

Step-by-step

CENTER FOR PERFECTION STUDIES: CONTINUITY •SYMMETRY•HARMONY• USA • GOALS • MARCH 2019
HOMEPAGES: ASSUMPTIONS |DARK|EMERGENCE|INTRO| INFINITY|MAX|WEINBERG| REVIEW|SCHOLARS|ORIGINAL

WHAT CAN WE KNOW ABOUT OUR UNIVERSE? IS IT NECESSARILY MATHEMATICAL AND GEOMETRICAL?

Re-examine Big Bang Enigmas

BY BRUCE E. CAMBER

Introduction

Does everything start simple before it becomes complex?

In order to begin to explore a natural, highly-integrated mathematical view of the universe, it seems that two of our major conceptual orientations need to be set aside: (1) absolute space and time from Isaac Newton (1643-1727) and (2) the infinitely-hot start of the universe, ostensibly big bang cosmology, as represented by Stephen Hawking (1942-2018).

Our alternative is a natural inflation defined from Planck’s base units to the age-and-size of the universe in 202 base-2 notations or doublings that are always active and are progressively building on each other. Our definitions for space and time are Max Planck’s formulas ¹ from 1899 whereby both are quantized, discrete and finite.

Arguments

Arguments about finite space and time and the finite-infinite relation are part of the earliest recordings of our history. And, those arguments continue today without abatement. Possible answers are still debated with strong opinions on the opposing sides.²

We backed into our understanding slowly by adopting three very different concepts and orientations and, if true, these three may begin to open a new door to explore our universe in ways heretofore undocumented.

The Infinitesimally Small: The Planck base units. We have found no other references to a cosmology whereby the universe is fundamentally defined by applying base-2 exponentiation or doublings to the Planck base units of time, length, mass and charge. These units become the standard units of measurement to define 202 base-2 notations that extend to the age and the size, and the mass and the charge of the universe.

To lift up or debunk these 202 notations is the goal of this project.

Our most naive application of that concept was when we started in December 2011 as a group of mathematics (geometry) teachers and students in a New Orleans high school. Though similar to the 1957 work of Kees Boeke using base-10 (“…to scale of the universe in 40 jumps“), our 2011 group started with a geometry. We divided-by-2 the edges of the tetrahedron and octahedron to discover what we initially thought was a Zeno-like progression. It isn’t. There are limits!

Physical limits. We had discovered those limitations that Max Planck defined in 1899, particularly what is now known as Planck Length and Planck Time. In just 45 divisions we were among the size of particles within the atom. In another 67, we were among the two smallest Planck numbers. Then, to be consistent, we started with the Planck units and simply multiplied-by-2 and in 112 steps we were back to the approximate size of our classroom objects. In another 90 steps we were at the approximate size and age of the universe. We discovered that it took just 202 base-2 doublings or notations ³ to encapsulate the universe. It defined a natural inflation. And, it appears that it could provide a base platform for a grand unified theory of mathematics.

That is enough, yet this nascent model also encouraged questions about the finite-infinite relation and the very nature of infinity.

Early thoughts about cosmology

The Very Large Scale. Our initial introduction to these numbers was just with the Planck Length. We assumed that the first 64+ notations were just prior to the big bang and were defined by the Planck Epoch and the Grand Unification Epoch. The problem quickly became clear that the size, mass, and charge within our nascent model could not support a “big bang.” And there was no reason to think these processes required “infinitely hot.” We obviously needed more data. In 2014 we added a Planck Time progression alongside Planck Length; and then in 2015, we charted Planck Mass and Planck Charge progressions. These numbers described a natural inflation of the universe and our analysis and comparison with the big bang epochs ⁴ defied the logic of big bang cosmology.

We were challenged, “How do we reconcile these two vastly different models?” We rather slowly realized that there was no reconciliation, so we began to review the logic of our mathematics. We wrote for the advice of those scholars who had made this area of study their life’s work.

At that time, nobody analyzed our work. Nobody engaged its logic. Of course, it is naive; so here, we bring our work forward as logically and consistently as we can and request help from our scholars and scientists to interpret the data. Because we have viewed Max Planck’s formulas in rather unique ways, it should be straightforward to tell us where and how we have strayed from pure logic and math.

Three concepts, three questions:

Basic Construct: Does simple math-and-logic work consistently everywhere for all times?
Science believes our universe is homogeneous and isotropic but can not tell you why that is so. Doesn’t this simple math and natural inflation based on the progressive geometries of the tetrahedron and octahedron provide a construct or framework for an initial answer? Does the simple multiplying and dividing-by-2 provide another answer? Though we concluded that these two progressions provided new insights to old questions, we did not want to conclude too-too much so we have always sought the feedback of experts.
See footnotes 1 through 4.
Basic Shape: What could possibly be the building block at the Planck scale?
We decided that the most-simple, ubiquitous-but-mysterious building block is the sphere^.5 Pi is deep in the heart of most of Planck equations and definitions of dimensionless constants. As a result, we hypothesized that the first notation, perhaps the first, second and third notations, results in an endless generation of spheres. This is the face of the four Planck base units, plus light and the other dimensionless constants involved in the definition of those Planck units. Perhaps not a crystalline clear picture of what is happening at this finite-infinite transformation, it is the best we can do today. Some have call these spheres, “Planck spheres.” That seems appropriate so we have adopted that nomenclature. It seems that these planckspheres do not come “out of nothing” but out of that which we do not define as finite. It could be part of a definition of a finite-infinite bridge. It may also be how the infinite is expressed within the finite without becoming finite.
Basic Dynamics: What is the the most fundamental doubling mechanism?
Cubic-close packing ⁶ is an inherent doubling function whereby geometric structures, particularly the tetrahedron and octahedron, emerge. The thrust ⁷ to inflate this doubling may well come from Planck Charge, light, and the never-ending, never-repeating numbers of pi and the dimensionless constants. It is instructive to follow any one of the numbers on our horizontally-scrolled chart where the logic flow can be analyzed. ⁸

Basic functions at the Planck scale

These rather different, simple concepts are possibly enough to start a dialogue. We backed into this model. We claim no genius or depth of knowledge regarding the issues involved. There are open questions that are raised, but at least these first three steps along this path have been presented and our standing request of our readers is to tell us where and how our logic fails and that invitation is open to everyone including you.

Our Challenge: Research baseline questions

Who has the best insights about the very nature of the Planck units? We are exploring the work of Paul Steinhardt (ArXiv), Ed Witten, Andrei Linde, Andreas Albrecht, and others.
What is the role of quantum physics in cosmology? …isotropy? …homogeneity? DAMTP
Does space-and-time give rise to quantum effects or is space-time a quantum effect?
Do the Planck units have a quantum origin or do they originate from light, the dimensionless constants, and each other?
Do the 202 base-2 doublings from Planck base units to the age and size of the universe constitute the infrastructure for a real cosmology?
How do quantum effects play a key role in controlling the rate-and-end of inflation?
What about all the successes of general relativity?
How do you explain the stages meticulously described by Einstein gravity (and in agreement with observations) when the universe is not inflating?”

PLEASE NOTE: THE FOOTNOTES ARE STILL BEING WORKED-AND-REWORKED.

Endnotes, Footnotes, References & Resources:

¹ Max Planck’s formulas. Max Planck’s simple formula for light is part of his pre-definition of Planck Time. I don’t think anybody would dispute its basic logic, but its meaning is not straightforward. Has anybody truly answered the question, “What is light?” Of course, the first 93 doublings are below the visible spectrum (Notations 94 and 95). Notwithstanding, is there an inherent quality of light that presumably remains the same throughout all 202 notations? Certainly the electromagnetic spectrum provides a sense of the characteristics of light from gamma waves, to x-rays to ultraviolent on the infinitesimal side and then from infrared to microwave to radio waves within the human-scale and large-scale side of the spectrum. Yet, there is so much more going on here.

To date, our questions are also focused on the nature of the never-ending, never-repeating dimensionless constants. Do these define a bridge between the finite and infinite?

A key idea. Consider the nature of time. It seems that our Universe Clock, in light of this model, suggests that every second is active and continues to effect the content, the quality, and the substance of this universe. That time doesn’t stand still. It is always changing and it is always the the Now.

² Strong opinions on opposing sides. We try to avoid religious and theological discussions per se by redefining the very nature of the infinite as continuity, symmetry, and harmony as evidenced with those words highlighted at the top of every homepage. Though several of our homepages extend this insight, perhaps it would be helpful if people could just lighten up a little.

³ The 202 doublings enclose a trifecta to define the universe: (1) encapsulate all the space and time of the universe, (2) define a natural inflation, and (3) provide a base platform for a grand unified theory of mathematics. The result is that space and time are finite, the universe is totally interconnected and integrated, and all mathematics is likewise. The reasons for the homogeneity and isotropy of the universe become self-evident. Our sense of time becomes the Now.

⁴ Big bang cosmology versus the Quiet Expansion: There are seventeen epochs defined by big bang cosmology. Each is superficially compared to the notations of our Quiet Expansion, also known as a natural inflation. Often just one of the faces of each big bang epoch is used to position the Quiet Expansion alongside it. Eventually all four faces will be used and perhaps the known failures of big bang cosmology can be addressed in new ways.

⁵ The Sphere: Within this infinitesimally small domain, the sphere becomes known as the Plancksphere and it is being extruded from the finite-infinite relation as a constant stream of spheres, providing no less than 64 doublings up into the domain of particle physics.

It would seem these spheres are the basis of string theory. Clumping and stacking, defining space and time and mass and charge, then come the geometries and infinitesimal form, structure, relations, and systems. This is emergence.

⁶ Doublings: We were in search of the gritty visualization that is not given within descriptive words like base-2 exponential notation, Euler’s perfect number, fractal division and/or bifurcation theory. We all need a visual reference whereby physical processes demonstrate the doubling phenomena that is the natural inflation of this universe. We found it in 2016 within a visualization of cannonball stacking by none other than Johannes Kepler.

Here is our first reference to it: https://81018.com/number/#Kepler

⁷ Thrust: I have always told myself, “You start small and build on it day by day and finally it progresses and you have something.” Nothing just explodes into beingness. Though an older article now, the focus on thrust will be continued throughout this study.

⁸ Logic: The numbers within our charts stretch our imaginations; there is no question about that. Yet, this stretching feels productive, like it might lead somewhere special. Our first article is here: https://81018.com/planck_universe/

Our large-scale, notation by notation, effort has been opened up here: https://81018.com/1-202/

Challenge us. Coach us. We need all the help we can get.

Which concept is strongest? Which is weakest?

Name(required)Email(required)WebsiteComment(required)

SUBMIT

Welcome.

Today we welcome scholars and visitors from the following countries:

Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Congo-Kinsasha, Cambodia, Denmark, Estonia, France, Hong Kong, Hungary, India, Malta, Mongolia, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Russia, Slovaki, South Africa, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.

Let’s agree about the base units of our universe.

Eight Initial Conditions
by Bruce E. Camber REVIEW: Mathematical speculations
(Navigation: Also use the yellow arrows just above)

Eight concepts follow. I believe all are needed to understand how this universe started:

1. We live in a mathematical universe. In 1960 Nobel laureate Eugene Wigner (Princeton) wrote an oft-quoted article, The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences. In 2014, Max Tegmark (MIT) took Wigner further within his book, Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality. These two scholars did not discuss:
a. The never-ending, never-repeating numbers of pi (π),
b. The fundamentality of an infinitesimal, primordial sphere, and,
c. The essence and the place of the Planck Length and Planck Time.

So you may not agree… because here, in this model, the universe first begins within pi (π), spheres, and the Planck base units. Many, many orders of magnitude smaller than quantum fluctuations and particles, this model is also well within the 325,000 years before the first particles and atoms evolve and well prior to the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR). Yes, here, the universe begins and extends within our ever-present pi (π), an extraordinarily-fast-but-orderly incursion of infinitesimal-primordial spheres, and Planck’s base units of length and time.

These numbers and geometries relate everything, everywhere throughout all time. Though some of our most powerful tools within our mathematical arsenal, we know that our simple results do not sit well within current cosmological theory.

To open space for such results, we start where we began in 2011 within high school geometries.

2. Base-2 notation (clusters, doublings, functions, groups, jumps, layers, keys, ratios, sets, steps…). The universe is naturally defined by 202 base-2 notations. Mathematics is mathematics and geometry is geometry. Euler’s most-basic equation encapsulates the universe quite-simply and most-relationally. Our first page on the web describes how we were chasing basic geometries and discovered that it was a base-2 application. Of course, many more pages followed. It became our very own, most-comprehensive STEM tool. We wrote it up as a letter to the editors and as a plea for help from our many leading scholars and thinkers. Though idiosyncratic, it had logic, geometries and base-2 notations. We knew something very fundamental was happening when it absorbed big bang cosmology. So, although entirely idiosyncratic, we decided to persevere.

3. Pi (π) is the oldest, most-used, best-known equation within our mathematical arsenal. Unfortunately, pi (π) is taken for granted and ignored, yet it quantitatively and qualitatively defines our universe. The quantitative is the finite and the qualitative is the infinite. Pi’s qualities of continuity, symmetry and harmony create a natural bridge between the finite and infinite. Continuity gives us order, numbers and time. Symmetry gives us relations and space. And, harmony gives us the dynamics of space-time.

Perfected states of these qualities are part of the earliest notations.

4. The first Notation, then the Small-medium-and-large scale universe. Our stumbling block is the way we see our universe. Some might say we do not know our small scale universe, those notations smaller than particles and quantum fluctuations. But, we do know Notations 1-67. We are not looking at them in the best possible framework. Langlands programs, string-and M-theory, SUSY, and a host of other small-scale studies define the first 67 notations. Notations 67-134 have been the subject of our sciences and philosophies for millennium. The essence of the human scale is defined yet it remains nascent until well into Notation-202 when there is the necessary infrastructure and support for its current unfolding. With the most recent work using the measurements from cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB or CMBR), Notations 178-202, we have been inundated with new data. Our large-scale universe is on fire with new concepts and ideas. It will all become most meaningful when all that data is seen in light of the first 67 notations and woven throughout Notations 67-to-134. We should note that Notation-134 is within a millisecond of the universe’s beginning. A year is within Notation-169. 325,000 years is between Notations 177-and-178 (and the emergence of particles and waves).

Obviously, this model is foundationally about the earliest universe.

5. Infinitesimal, primordial spheres. The geometry of the straight line is held by the centerpoints of spheres which activate the centerpoints of octahedrons to form the first triangle that becomes a tetrahedron with an octahedron locked within it. From basic logic we find the first three shapes of our explosive quantity of spheres –539 tredecillion spheres per second using Planck Time to as high as 4609 tredecillion spheres per second using Stoney Time — is a quiet expansion of infinitesimal-primordial spheres.

The universe begins.

6. Dimensionless and Fundamental Physical Constants. Long before George Johnstone Stoney and Max Planck worked to discern natural units, scholars have tried to discern the most basic units that define us throughout time. In the 1800s that effort became an international collaboration and by 1992, it became a global standard, ISO-31, defined by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Within that framework, in 2016, Peter J. Mohr, David B. Newell, and Barry N. Taylor published “CODATA Recommended Values of the Fundamental Physical Constants” in the Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data.

Their constants define the bridge between the finite and infinite.

Discussions about the necessary dimensionless constants needed to construct the universe are helpful. There is the 2011 work of John Baez, How Many Fundamental Constants Are There? In 2005 the work of Frank Wilczek, Anthony Aguirre, Martin Rees, and Max Tegmark emerged; they thought 31 dimensionless constants would be required to start the universe.

Within our simple model, in effect, a rather different dynamic emerges whereby the dimensionless constants that are part of the Planck base units and infinitesimal-primordial spheres dynamics become penultimate. These equations all bridge the finite and infinite. These become the geometries of the earliest universe. And somewhere in that process — I speculate between Notations 50-to-67 — five tetrahedrons or five octahedrons bond, and eventually those so-called pentastars and pentagons begin to move and we have a new kind of motion that appears independent and free of the earlier structures and we call this motion, quantum fluctuations. There are four most-basic geometric manifestations for these fluctuations.

7. All time is now. In this model all notations are necessarily active right now. Each builds on the other. It resonates with the concepts within loop quantum gravity with Carlo Rovelli. It is a key issue in physics and philosophy. Within this model time’s arrow only appears within Notation-202 and that directional may well be mitigated by sleep cycles. As with the work of Neil Turok, this universe is forever just starting within Notation-0 and Notation-1 and every notation shares in common those first 64-to-67 notations. That it is possible to begin to address this key issue of time symmetry is a bellwether.

8. The finite-infinite relation: Continuity, Symmetry, and Harmony. That these three qualities of infinity nurture and shape the finite is another key issue. Too many of our finest scholars have limited infinity over the years. By doing so, they ostensibly remove the qualitative from our models of reality. Within that attitude there is a panoply of bad behaviors that start with solipsism, become a narcissism and then a form of nihilism which too often devolves to become dystopian. We can do better.

Thank you.

Here are eight concepts, ideas generated over ten years of looking at those 202 notations. It was called idiosyncratic by one scholar and we agreed. It is entirely idiosyncratic, yet it is based on the most simple logic, geometry and mathematics that we have.

Let’s figure this out together. Again, I thank you. -BEC

_____

Endnotes / Footnotes

Please Note: Footnotes and endnotes are dynamic. Based on the feedback from our visitors like you, these could be updated at any time. Thank you. -BEC

_____

[1] Mathematical universe.

• Eugene Wigner, The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences, 1960
• Max Tegmark, Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality, Knopf, 2014
Also see: ArXiv (PDF) 2007
• Redefine space, time and infinity, 81018, 2020

Within our time, Wigner and Tegmark carry on the historic tradition of Pythagoras and many of the greats of history. Within our studies, we provide actual numbers, all an extension of Planck units and basic geometries, that outline our universe from the very first instant of creation to this very day and time.

For millennium, scholars have proclaimed the place and importance of mathematics. In January 2016, I posted my initial analysis of numbers. Pi (π) is still my #1.

It is unique and requires a very different view of the universe.

Nobel Laureate James Peebles said back in 2019 that there is no theory for the start. He had not seen our chart of numbers; it is our simple start on defining the very first instants of this universe using Planck Time, pi (π) and her infinitesimal-primordial spheres. If we assume one sphere per unit of Planck Time, there is an explosion of spheres that goes on even today. That process is a most-intimate binding of everything, everywhere throughout all time.

Crazy? Of course. But then, this all started in a high school.

_____

[2] Notations. Just 202 base-2 notations to encapsulate the universe is an Art of the Impossible. Check the math. Savor Euler’s equation. We were confused and dumbfounded in 2011 when we first did the math. It was too easy and too comprehensive. For high school people, it was fun but overwhelming. We asked, “What could this mean?” and turned to our scholars for answers.

I suggest doing a study of “Notations.” Within these pages, click on the image of the magnifying glass on the top right on every page within this website. Enter the word, Notations, then do a key word search on Notations. We’re slowly making it a study.

STEM. You can only imagine our joy in discovering what we called the penultimate STEM tool. We wrote letters to the editors to begin to get some feedback.

Working with the epochs of big bang cosmology as defined by Stephen Hawking, we were surprised to find just a picosecond’s difference with our model. We thought ours was more integrative, predictive, and comprehensive. And, we began to think that Hawking was wrong about the nature and place of infinity.

_____

[3] Pi (π). “Let’s go over this one more time. We are missing something.” Even kids become arrogant; we learn to be big shots early. We say, “I understand,” when we have barely scratched the surface.

At one time I thought that it was overly simplistic to try to make a case that infinitesimal-primordial spheres at the Planck Length were the primary building blocks of the universe, then I began looking into that simple sphere and found complexity. Cubic-close packing of equal spheres looks like a simple stacking exercise until the center points of each sphere connect. The Fourier transform comes alive. Then, drilling within further, attractor and repeller spheres come active. There continues to be so much to learn.

A key facet of these earliest notations, i.e. all those prior to quantum fluctuations, is the perfections of the sphere and basic geometries. There should be many notations where it is too small and too dense for imperfections. We speculate that that domain of perfection dominates at least the first 50 notations and possibly can momentarily spike through all 202 notations.

_____

[4] Small-medium-and-large scale universe. The scholarly community works within Notation-202. Their current work in cosmology brings them back to about Notation-178. In photonics and optics, the work is down within Notation-74. In particle physics, the work is within Notation-67, perhaps Notations 66-and-65. The mysteries seem to be from Notations 1-65, yet there are many disciplines where fast arrays of mathematics define most, if not all, notations. Langlands programs, string and M-theory, and SUSY are the oldest three disciplines. Then comes a host of other small-scale studies, that include causal dynamical triangulation (CDT), causal set theory (CST), scalar field theory, loop quantum gravity (LQG), spectral standard model, and Moonshine Shadow* (Umbral Moonshine Conjecture).

_____

[5] Infinitesimal-primordial Spheres. The simple keys to start this universe have been discussed on virtually every page of this website. Yet to reduce it down to cubic-close packing of equal spheres and the Planck base units is just too simple. That there would be an explosive quantity of infinitesimal-primordial spheres is simply beyond comprehension unless one engages an active, total finite-infinite relation based on the continuity, symmetry, and harmony inherent within each infinitesimal-primordial sphere.

_____

[6] Constants. Scholarship moves slowly to develop a consensus. It skips over people all the time.
• George Johnstone Stoney appears to be the first to try to define natural units. He’s an unknown.
• Max Planck’s natural units are better known, but barely recognized for over 100 years.
• International Organization for Standardization, quick dissemination to the world’s people.
• Peter J. Mohr (AIP), David B. Newell (AIP), Barry N. Taylor (AIP): Three primary scholars of NIST.
• Constants define the bridge between the finite and infinite: Here I jump off into the deep end. I am in search of any scholarly work that makes a similar claim. The headwinds are strong with the work of David Hilbert, Kurt Gödel, Max Tegmark and the people working on renormalization. They create various firewalls around the infinite.
• John Baez, How Many Fundamental Constants Are There? John was early to these questions yet he quickly engages the most difficult parts of the subject so complexity comes quickly. Instead of spheres, he engages the octonion!
• Frank Wilczek, Anthony Aguirre, Martin Rees, and Max Tegmark. Four of the leading scholars of our time, this work was first published in 2005 yet it struggles to gain real traction but it does open many basic questions. It came to my attention in February 2018 and I was smitten by it!
• Pentastars. Aristotle’s 1800-year old mistake has become a 2400-year old mistake. Scholarship has not engaged the 7.3561031724+ degree gap. The most recent “rediscovery” of the gap was by Lagarias & Zong in 2012.
• At least four most-basic geometric manifestations. Geometric constants are as important as all other constants! I think this could be a project where we all work on it together.

_____

Peter J. Mohr (AIP), David B. Newell (AIP), and Barry N. Taylor (AIP), “CODATA Recommended Values of the Fundamental Physical Constants” in the Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data (45, 043102) https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4954402

_____

[7] Time. Non-intuitive, we feel the flow of time each evening when we go to sleep and every morning when we look into the mirror. Those who suggest that all time is Now seem to engage in specious thinking at best. My first exposure to such a conclusion was in 2016 when reviewing the work of those who attended a conference, Cosmology in Time at Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo (Canada). Also, at that time, Richard Muller of Berkeley had released his book, Now: The Physics of Time and Carlo Rovelli was rethinking the very nature of time through Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG). It was the beginning of a popular upsurge and interest in time symmetry, yet it has not gained deep traction among scholars. Something is missing.

The universe is symmetric, except Notation-202 appears and feels asymmetric because the perspective is from within a local solar system and not that of the universe. Over the years we have made a few highly-speculative guesses about how sleep is the time that our unique time and experience is recompiled into the universe of experience. Of course, much more will be done with that speculation.

_____

[8] Continuity-Symmetry-Harmony. The qualitative exists in our minds. It is real, yet it requires a judgment that involves continuity, symmetry, and harmony. These three qualities of pi permeate the universe at its finest, smallest, deepest level. Ignoring that continuity, symmetry, and harmony is possible because quantum physics readily masks its presence so we can develop our own solipsistic universe which for us becomes our really real. As a result, there is a raft of bad behaviors that start as a form of solipsism, morphs into a narcissism which opens the way to nihilism that devolves into dystopian thinking and behaviors.

To reverse direction within this world, we need to return to the inherent values that are “baked” into our universe. Thank you. -BEC

_____

References & Resources

Please Note: References and resources used to shape this posting are not yet footnotes; concepts are still being formulated. Thank you.

• Ronald J. Adler, Six easy roads to the Planck scale (PDF), ArXiv, 2010 AAPT, 2010)

• Philip Ball, Physicists Rewrite the Fundamental Law That Leads to Disorder, Quanta Magazine, May 23, 2022

• Doug Bonderud, 5 Odd Theories of the Universe That Might Just Be True, Now, Northrop Grumman, April 2022

• Valerio Faraoni (e), Three new roads to the Planck scale (PDF), American Journal of Physics 85, 865 (2017); https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4994804

• Universe’s Constants Now Known with Sufficient Certainty to Completely Redefine the International System of Units, NIST, 2016. See: CODATA Recommended Values of the Fundamental Physical Constants: 2014, See: Current their list of sixteen fundamental constants.

Valerii M. Vinokur et al, Arrow of time and its reversal on the IBM quantum computer (ETH-PDF), Nature, 2019, https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-b-000332774

• Garth Warner, Harmonic Analysis on Semi-simple Lie Groups I, Springer-Verlag, ISBN 0-387-05468-5, 1972

_____

Emails

Please Note: Just a few of the emails I have sent out regarding this posting. The first emails are to those who have been referenced in the article.

• 11 May 2022 at 11:16 AM, Frank Wilczek (MIT), upon receiving the 2022 Templeton Prize
• 11 May 2022 at 6 PM, James B. Hartle (UCSB)
• 12 May 2022 at 2:51 PM, Max Tegmark (MIT) on the homepage today
• 12 May 2022, 4:00 PM, Barry Taylor (NIST)
• 12 May 2022, at 8:15 PM, Jisuke Kubo

_____

Please Note: Some of my other communications to people, particularly instant messages and tweets. None of this work is done in a vacuum. Our world is in turmoil. It needs new models of who we are and why.

7:16 PM · May 10, 2022 @K_JeanPierre The most important thing we can do as a people is to get us all talking about the first principles of our sciences. There we’ll discover continuity, symmetry and harmony. All three must work together. Here’s a start: https://81018.com/

1:43 PM · May 12, 2022 Xi Jinping 习近平 @xijinpingc The question is “more centralization” or “decentralization.” Centralization requires obedience, monitoring, and control. Decentralization requires education and a most compelling offering that empowers people’s creativity for self-control: https://81018.com

May 12, 2022 @WHO @UNDESA @UNECOSOC The question is “more centralization” or “decentralization.” Centralization requires obedience, monitoring, and control. Decentralization requires education and a most compelling offering that empowers people’s creativity for self-control: https://81018.com

4:25 PM · May 17, 2022 @POTUS Please don’t give up on any part of the USA or any person. Our biggest problems result from incoherent scientific theories. We are breaking free of little worldviews and moving toward an integrated view of the universe — https://81018.com — is just a start!

10:44 AM · May 26, 2022 @DalaiLama More than live together, we need to see how we are all deeply, profoundly, and totally interconnected and come from the same active stuff, the first 64 notations of the 202 base-2 notations that define everything, everywhere for all time: https://81018.com/chart/ Also see: https://81018.com/agree/

10:54 AM · May 26, 2022 @WatsonInstitute If we were to all recognize that we all share the first 64 notations (out of 202 base-2 notations from the start of the universe till now): https://81018.com/chart/ and we each qualitative effect the whole: https://81018.com/ethics/ just maybe we’d begin to change.

7:55 PM · May 29, 2022 @linakhanFTC Every decision should be made in light of our history and in light of the universe. Our little worldviews are too often laced with personal bias. We need to graduate to a fully-integrated, mathematical view of the universe; our start is here: https://81018.com/. Lina Khan is Chair of the Federal Trade Commission.

_____

Keys to this document, agree

This page was started on Monday, May 9, 2022.
The last update was Monday, February 13, 2023.
This page became the homepage on Thursday, May 12, 2022.
The URL for this file is https://81018.com/agree/
First headline is: Initial Conditions – Eight basic concepts
Second headline: Eight Initial Conditions
First byline is: Agreements between us about fundamental units are critically important.
Second byline: Agreements between all of us about fundamental units are a key.
Third byline: Let’s agree about the base units of our universe.
Memorial Day in the USA, a time to remember. Life was simple but we made it complex. So, we fight. Many die. We all can do better…

______

Navigation: The links in each section go to the endnotes and footnotes just below. Please read through the entire article — it is relatively short — and then go back through it again. If you have been here in the past, you may already know where each link goes. Click on just those links that raise a question. Within the Endnotes/Footnotes, those links will take you to pages outside this website. Thank you. -BEC

On the work of Neil Geoffrey Turok…

Neil Turok, Higgs Chair of Theoretical Physics, The School of Physics & Astronomy
The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland

Article: PhyCon 2016: …on investigating the unpopular
Before Inflation, Structure Formation in the Universe, with Robert G. Crittenden, 2001
ArXiv (47): Perfect Quantum Cosmological Bounce, Steffen Gielen and Neil Turok, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 021301, 6 July 2016 (https://arxiv.org/abs/1510.00699)
Earlier work with Stephen Hawking: Gravitational Waves in Open de Sitter Space (2000)
• Open Inflation, the Four Form and the Cosmological Constant (1998)
• Open Inflation Without False Vacua (1998)
• Comment on `Quantum Creation of an Open Universe’, by Andrei Linde (1998)
Book: The Universe Within (2012)
Homepage(s): Edinburgh Research, Perimeter Institute, inSIREHEP, Twitter, Wikipedia, More…
TED: Working on a model of the universe that explains the big bang
YouTube Channel (video): Physics is in Crisis (October 2022); The Astonishing Simplicity of Everything (October 2015)

Pages that reference Turok’s work within this website:
• Most recent summary of Turok’s dilemma (November 2022)
• James Webb Space Telescope will challenge “Big Bang” Cosmology (2022)
• We do not understand space and time (2020).
• Get a grip. Get the universe.
• An Integrated Structure of the Universe
• If Turok Tells Us That Hawking Is Wrong, The Big Bang Apple Is Falling
• There is a perpetual state of big bangs…
• Job Feldbrugge: Breaking out of Ruts of Misunderstanding
• Jean-Luc Lehners
• Redefine Space, Time and Infinity
• References: https://81018.com/alphabetical/ https://81018.com/2016/06/30/perimeter/#Turok
• Time in Cosmology Conference: https://81018.com/2016/06/30/perimeter/
• The first reference page: https://81018.com/2016/08/02/turok/

Homepage references: 26 September 2022 at 11:11 AM

https://81018.com/communicate/#1a https://81018.com/communicate/#1z

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.

_________________________
Job Feldbrugge et al. Lorentzian quantum cosmology, Physical Review D (2017). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.103508 Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-06-universe-big.html#jCp

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.
_________________________

https://81018.com/turok/

Tenth email: Sunday, March 13, 2022 at 8:26 PM

RE: The deepest dynamics of our universe

Dear Prof. Dr. Neil Turok:

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.

Warmly,

Bruce

_____________________________________________________________

Questions:

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:
____________

7. Might these spheres:
___(a) be defined by continuity-symmetry-harmony (which redefines infinity)?
___Answer: Yes | No | Maybe Comment:
___(b) …become the basis to define the aether?
___Answer: Yes | No | Maybe Comment:
___(c) …be the reason for homogeneity and isotropy?
___Answer: Yes | No | Maybe Comment:
___(d) …and, be the essence of dark matter and dark energy?
___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.

Warmest regards to your two exceptional colleagues, Job Feldbrugge and Jean-Luc Lehners.

Most sincerely,
Bruce

Fifth email: 17 January 2020

Asking for advice to modify this statement:

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.

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,
Bruce
****************
PS. My reference page to your work is here: https://81018.com/2016/08/02/turok/

Fourth email: 8 March 2018

Dear Prof. Dr. Neil Turok:

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:

Four primary goals

Sphere to tetrahedron-octahedron couplet

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.

I couldn’t help but pick up the discussions about the big bang:
https://81018.com/lefschetz/

I also put it out on my LinkedIn site:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/hawking-wrong-bruce-camber

Of course, I wish you continued successes with your work.

Most sincerely,

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

Second email: Tuesday, October 4, 2016

Dear Prof. Dr. Neil Turok,

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/
There is also this page on the conference: https://81018.com/2016/06/30/perimeter/
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.

Sincerely,

Bruce

* * * *

Bruce Camber
http://81018.com

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

_____

First email:  August 2, 2016

Dear Prof. Dr. Neil Turok:

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

_____

Questions-questions-questions: In search of continuity-symmetry-harmony

Let’s go over this one more time.
Are these the smallest calculations and the largest?
Is Planck Temperature within the very first instant?
by Bruce E. Camber

The smallest. The domain from the Planck scale to the Electroweak scale* is filled with mystery and unanswered questions. Although the Planck scale is widely accepted and its base units of length and time are generally considered to be the smallest, meaningful numbers of length and time, the equations that generate these numbers have not become the focus of our scholars. Nor has its ubiquitous pi. I have pressed our older scholars, people like James Peebles and Peter Higgs, “Why not?” I have pressed those who are just starting to move our conceptual boundaries, people like Malcolm Fairbarin and Isabel Garcia Garcia. There are so many movers-and-shakers (more just below) within specialized disciplines. Our list includes people with whom we have contacted over the years. These are the thinkers who constantly come up with new ideas and concepts to test and texture.

The largest. Certainly the current size of our expanding universe and the current age of the universe might be considered the largest possible numbers of length and time. So, it is a dynamic number and not an actual measurement. Yet, one might argue that the never-ending, never-repeating expansion of the numbers of pi could be larger yet. Dimensionless constants precede dimensional numbers. Building on our earlier work, we’ll continue to review the case based on causal sets and her cousins within those other systems within mathematics, geometry, physics, and cosmology that create continuity-symmetry-dynamics. [1]

Background: People like Pythagoras, E.P. Wigner and Max Tegmark (MIT) believe in numbers and geometries. If equations systemically cohere, the numbers are systemically really real.[2*] There are many of us who hold similar beliefs. We actually believe mathematics and geometries order and relate all things within the universe. And, within this site with our chart of the universe, we take it a step further; we believe that our base-2 exponential model defines and encapsulates everything, everywhere for all time, right on down to each hypothesized, infinitesimal sphere within the Planck scale. The mathematics defines a real reality and we need to begin to discern how it all works, and its implications for technology and our understanding of the key questions about life.

In that vein, there are many tetrahedral-octahedral paths through the honeycomb [2*] and each is really real. Dropping down by dividing by two, there are 112 base-2 steps from the desktop into the Planck-scale. Going out by multiplying by two, there are 90 base-2 steps to the age-and-size of the universe. Those 202 base-2 steps from the smallest to the largest are like pi, always changing and never-repeating. Although the numbers of pi, the 3.14159+ continue linearly, it is a most intimate part of our base-2 expansion. It defines every primordial sphere that has been filling this universe since the first instant at a rate perhaps anywhere from around 539 tredecillion (Planck Time) to around 4605 tredecillion (Stoney time) infinitesimal-primordial spheres per second. Possibly more symbolic than actual, those numbers of infinitesimal spheres per second are a challenge. [3]

Questions, questions, questions: Are these insights that could finally open the doors to the begin to grasp the hyper-interconnectivity of all things, everywhere, throughout all time? Who has similar insights? Who can help us understand the strengths and weaknesses of this thinking? [4]

Scholars and their focus

People, people, people: In 1975 a friend, Patricio Letelier, introduced me to the basic concepts within string theory as understood at that time. Today, people like Ed Witten, Nathan Seiberg, Stefan Vandoren and Dean Rickles are at the forefront of current work; and it is entirely obvious, something is missing.

In 2013 I was introduced to Langlands programs. My first contacts were Edward Frenkel and Robert Langlands. I continued my studies with the work of people like Ngô Bảo Châu, Vladimir Drinfeld, Stephen Gelbart, Laurent Lafforgue, Vincent Lafforgue, Gérard Laumon, Michael Rapoport and Andrew Wiles. How do we connect these programs to other dimensions of physics? Something is missing. Might Emil Artin’s work help?

Since 2015 I’ve also engaged people working within causal dynamical triangulation (CDT). Renate Loll, Jan Ambjørn and Jerzy Jurkiewicz started those investigations. Fotini Markopoulou and Lee Smolin have tried to explain that work to the wider public. It has been said that it is an approach to quantum gravity that, like loop quantum gravity, is background independent. Although credited with many successes, physics is still splintered. Even within CDT something is missing.

How about causal set theory (CST)? It is the work of Rafael Sorkin, David Malament, Nick Huggett, James Owen Weatherall and Christian Wüthrich. Nick and Chris have been especially helpful. Yet, there are many others with insights. I’ll continue my studies of the work of colleagues like David P. Rideout, Graham Brightwell, and Ruth Gregory. Going back further, Luca Bombelli, Joohan Lee, and David Meyer contributed to the 1987 landmark article, Space-time as a causal set. It is all very compelling, but not compelling enough. Something is missing.

I continue to search. What about scalar field theory with Michael Peskin and Pierre Ramond? Right alongside is loop quantum gravity (LQG) and her thought leaders, Abhay Ashtekar, Carlo Rovelli, Jorge Pullin, and then, Jerzy Lewandowski, Francesca Vidotto, Israel Gelfand, Mark Naimark** and Irving Segal.

Also, I’ve looked into work on the spectral standard model, and particularly the work of Ali H. Chamseddine, Alain Connes and W.D. van Suijlekom. None have clearly broken through. [Please note: Those listed in gray type are deceased. We’re all dying; our pretensions are silly.]

So often, an article in publications like of Scientific American, Quanta Magazine, or Physics Today throws us a curve ball. In what group would you place those intrigued with the Moonshine Shadow? …mostly string theory? …number theorists? It’s real and it has another group of brilliant people like John McKay (1978), Don Zagier, Richard Borcherds, Shamit Kachru, John Duncan (Case Western Reserve), Miranda Cheng (NL), Jeffrey Harvey, Igor Frenkel, James Lepowsky, Arne Meurman, David Kaplan, Tohru Eguchi, Hirosi Ooguri, Yuji Tachikawa, Sander Zwegers, Ken Ono, Michael Griffin, and Terry Gannon. I thought, “Wouldn’t it be fun to have them all in one Zoom session? Martin Bridson could lead it!

Every scholar listed here knows that a radical paradigm shift is in order.

That it might be simple requires a bit of introspection about our essential nature, but that’s good. Let us all become a bit more introspective. [5]

Pi is much too plebeian for our leading thinkers. “Been there; done that.” Yet, I say, “Let’s go over this one more time. We’re missing something:”

Is pi the most simple relation?
Does it define the most simple thing?
Could that simple thing be a bedrock for all other things?

An infinitesimal sphere… I think so. And, I would like to encourage as many people as possible to reconsider pi. Perhaps Edward Burger, former mathematics professor at Williams College and once the president of Southwestern University (Georgetown, Texas), can help. His article begs the question, Pi: The Most Important Number in the Universe?

Could pi be both the smallest possible number that literally defines the first moment of time that renders the first spheres that began stacking, and continues to stack, and interconnects everything everywhere for all time? Could it be the largest possible number because it continues to go steps beyond the size of the universe and the current time because it defines both!

** In this website if the words are a person and are in light gray, that person has died.

_____

Question: If it is a quiet expansion up to the moment of the first possible physics for sound waves, who hears it?
Answer: We do not, we cannot, and we will never hear anything from these the earliest notations. It appears only possible within Notation-202.

_____

Crisis of Confidence, The Gift of Openness

Confessions. On Monday, November 1, 2021, we started a new month and it was time to review old documents in light of today’s simple grasp of where we are. For some reason, the Planck Temperature was bothering me. So many brilliant people are still so profoundly committed to it.

It started bothering me so much I opened our horizontally-scrolled chart and followed the numbers up and down those 202 notations. Back and forth, back and forth, for some reason, the inverse square law jumped into my simple equation of state and I wondered, “Is that crazy? What is that first moment? Ex nihilo? If the inverse square law applied from Planck Temperature at Notation-0, within 100 notations, it would be within the range of the quark-gluon temperatures. Does that have any logical footing?”

In 2015 when we first began thinking about Planck Temperature, it was too difficult for me. I decided to put if off into the future. “We can deal with it later.” I put it in Notation-203 and divided by 2. By Notation-0 it was as close to absolute zero as it could possibly be.

Five years passed, and later came sooner than I expected. I had begun thinking, “Let’s see what those numbers would look like with Planck Temperature at the beginning (Notation-0). Obviously it would not double with the other numbers. Perhaps there is a justification to divide by 2. Maybe the inverse square law could be applied.”

I took the old chart, made a copy and began taking those numbers down from the hottest possible start.

Question. I asked myself, “Could some kind of extra logic or metalogic might help?”

I wrote a little about those thoughts within the prior homepage. With this paragraph and within the context of continuity equations from the smallest to the largest, we begin a process of peeling back the layers of ideation since about 2013 and 2014 as we wrestled with Planck Time, and then 2015 as we wrestled with Planck Mass and Planck Charge, and 2016 when we rather arbitrarily shelved Planck Temperature. “It will be at least 7 billion years before we need to explain its location.”

That was irrational. I was thinking about the duration of Notation-202 which is 10.98+ billion years. If the universe at Notation-202 is already 10.98 billion years, we’ve only had a small sampling of 3+ billion years that has defined this universe to date.

Within systems theory there has to be a rationale for every decision and this was one of the most important that I could make. Is it hot or is it cold? Of course, that’s extremely hot or extremely cold. The more I thought about it, the more that extremely-hot entry point and an inverse square law began to reveal glimmers of possibility. Where is light in all these equations? What is light? What are photons? If Planck Temperature decreases inversely — because there was so-very-little to hold such a temperature — might that open a path for a new inquiry?

So, let us re-explore the question, “Could that infinitely hot start have any cogency?” [6]

The temperature itself from the calculations of Max Planck would require much more study and reflection. So, yes, let’s continue to look at these numbers and progressions. Thank you. -BEC

_____

Endnotes/Footnotes

* The range, Planck scale to the Electroweak scale. The prior homepage is about the 23rd conference (June 2021) to focus on that range, Planck scale to the Electroweak scale. It was coordinated by the Institute for Particle Physics Phenomenology of Durham University in England. Neither the conference nor IPPP has recognized the 64 base-2 notations from the Planck Scale to the Electroweak Scale. One of my reasons for focusing on this group of scholars is to invite their critical review. The essential question is, “Do we start our exploration of the infinitesimal from known particle-wave phenomenology or do we start with a hypothetical question about the most simple, infinitesimal structure that could define the first dynamic layers of space and time?”

Our focus is on pi and the 64 base-2 notations (out of the 202 that encapsulate everything, everywhere for all time).

[1] Scholars. People like James Peebles, Peter Higgs, Malcolm Fairbarin, Isabel Garcia Garcia, Max Tegmark, and over 60 other scholars who are listed and linked are among our world’s thought leaders living today. They are among the best of the best, the smartest of our smart. As a people, they do not come any better.

Could they all be assuming that they profoundly understand the very nature of pi? Would any of them dare go back and review it all just one more time? I don’t know, yet I will try to find out.

[2] Structure. If we know that the Planck Length and Planck Time are the smallest meaningful numbers of length and time, shouldn’t we ask, “Might a structure manifest within that time and length?” Why not start with the smallest numbers and assume these numbers are describing the smallest structure? Might the structure be a circle and/or a sphere? Isn’t there a lot we can still learn about spheres within the infinitesimal scale? When does the Fourier Transform begin? At what notation does sphere stacking begin? At what notation does infinitesimal cubic-close packing of equal spheres begin to generate the tetrahedron and then the octahedron? At which notation does that the five tetrahedral gap manifest and fluctuations begin? Can any of these ‘pure structures’ be more fundamental than quarks and neutrinos?”

[3] Epistemology. The earliest-known calculation of pi is found within the Rhind Papyrus from about 1650 BC. It appears to be the oldest and most-used equation in the world today. It permeates everything. If we allow pi and the sphere to permeate our thoughts, the first thing we discern is its continuity, then its symmetry, and finally its harmony and the Fourier transform. Are these the qualitative faces of the infinite that become the quantitative faces of the finite? Might we concur that here we begin to grasp the derivative nature of space-time and matter-energy? Are all those infinistirmal spheres, literally tredecillions per second, ostensibly the envisioned aether? Do we need to go over this one more time?

[4] Even More Questions. Why haven’t the folks within string and M-theory found their connection to particle physics? It’s been well over 50 years. Do the first 64 notations between the Planck scale and electroweak scale elude them? Just watch one of Leonard Susskind’s lectures. He is just too close to quarks, gluons, hadrons, protons and atoms, and he does not have any articulation of the length, weight (mass) scales from Planck to electroweak. Those 64 base-2 notations are a new universe of possibility.

We’ll continue this discussion with Susskind, Greene, and many of the other leading theorists. I have been particularly frustrated with the Langlands Program. They know they are in a mathematical, theoretical world. The 64-notations below possible thresholds of measurement provide a sweet entryway without getting into point particles and the limitations of two dimensions. Obviously, I am missing something (not unusual for me). Yet, just maybe they are missing those 64 base-2 steps out of the 202 base-2 doublings from the Planck scale. Yes, just maybe.

[5] Let us become a bit more introspective. My wife often tells me, “People can not be absurd to themselves.” That is, if you have spent your life defending an intellectual position, it is very difficult to change direction. Max Planck said,

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather… science advances one funeral at a time.”

[6] The cogency of an extremely-hot start. Could there be a progression within laser thermodynamics that follows the path of Planck Temperature down into the range of 2.75 Kelvin? To search for an answer, perhaps it is time to re-engage the study of laser thermodynamics? Could there be two tracks, one that is a very stretched analogue of big bang progression but it is limited to a single flash at Notation-0 and it is the Planck Temperature, and then it decreases exponentially following the inverse square law? The other track is as we have intuited, an explosive number of infinitesimal spheres being generated at Notation 1. Then, it approximates our original chart with the temperature increasing exponentially from close to absolute zero. Does that earliest generation of temperature require differential equations between the two?

_____

Editor’s notes: The most dynamic part of this page follows. These are the evolving endnotes/footnotes, references, emails, and instant messages. Your comments are most welcome.

_____

References

Finding The Radiation from the Big Bang, P. J. E. Peebles and R. B. Partridge, January 9, 2007 (PDF)
What is smaller than a quark? by Ludwika Tomala, Science in Poland, July 27, 2018
Planck-scale modified dispersion relations and Finsler geometry, Florian Girelli, University of Waterloo, Stefano Liberati, Scuola Internazionale Superiore di Studi Avanzati di Trieste, Lorenzo Sindoni, Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics (Albert-Einstein-Institute), Physical review D: Particles and fields 75(6), ArXiv, December 2006
Why space could be quantised on a different scale to matter (PDF), Matthew J. Lake, SciPost Physics Proc. August 2021
The scalar field in quantum gravity: a spin foam model, Ioan Oprea, Department of Physics, Gh. Asachi Technical University of Iasi, Iasi, Romania, 2004
The Quantum Engineer: Q&A with Alexia Auffèves, Miriam Frankel, FQXi, September 22, 2021
de Sitter Decays to Infinity, Florian Girelli, Stefano Liberati, Lorenzo Sindoni, 3 Nov. 2021
Out of Nowhere: Introduction: The emergence of spacetime, Nick Huggett, Christian Wuthrich, Jan. 23021
Selected topics in Planck-scale physics, Y. Jack Ng, May 2003
Emergence of space-time on the Planck scale described as an unfolding phase transition within the scheme of dynamical cellular networks and random graphs, Manfred Requardt(, Gottingen U.), Oct, 1996
Absolute Zero, Absolute Hot, Peter Tyson, PBS-TV, 2008

_____

Emails

Ronald J Adler, Hansen Experimental Physics Laboratory, Gravity Probe B Mission, Stanford University
John William McArthur, Brookings Institution, Global Economy and Development Program, Washington, DC
Pete Edwards, Director of Science Outreach, IPPP, Durham University
60+ emails: Out to many of the scholars cited in this post like this one to Rafael Sorkin.

_____

@malcfairbairn @FrancesVidotto and others: Pi is too plebeian for our leading thinkers, “Been there. Done that.” I say, “Let’s go over it one more time. We’re missing something.” Is pi the most simple relation? Does it define the most simple thing? Could that simple thing be a bedrock for all other things?

@USProgressives If things are ever to change fundamentally, we need to break free of our little worldviews and begin to engage an integrated view of our universe. We all think too small. We all fall short. We need to see the whole. A simple start is here: https://81018.com/

@gary_zukav Just took your WuLi (next to Capra’s Tao) off the shelf. Checked your TOC for infinity, spheres, Planck Time. Studied with Bohm, Aspect, Bell… congrats on all you’ve done. Break though time: https://81018.com/ by dropping worldviews for integrated UniverseView!

_____

Invitations and Collaborations

With whom do we collaborate? Of the thousands of people who visit this site every month, who among them might say, “May I help?” Our only thrust is that the foundations of this universe and life itself be seen in light of infinity and the continuity-symmetry-harmony that the infinite engenders. Please, talk to us. Thank you. -Bruce

_____

Key dates for this document, questions-questions

This edition was posted for the public on Monday, November 8, 2021.
This edition posted for collaborations, November 4, 2021
The URL: https://81018.com/questions-questions/
Prior Homepage: https://81018.com/smallest-largest/
First Headline: Let’s go over this one more time.
First Tagline: Questions-questions-questions: In search of continuity-symmetry-harmony
A second tagline: Are these the smallest measurements and the largest?
Is the Planck Temperature part of the first instant?
Another possible homepage: https://81018.com/tredecillion
The most recent update of this page: Saturday, 17 September 2021

____________________________________

A possible rapprochement with the naïvetés and simplicity of our youth

Smallest to Largest
by Bruce E. Camber

Sir Peter Higgs Replacements — A simple question… everybody has an idea but nobody has the answer.

Durham, UK (2021): Graduate students of the Institute for Particle Physics Phenomenology (IPPP Durham University) were substituting for Sir Peter Higgs. The question (above) for their audience is a major unsolved mystery.

At the IPPP 23rd International Conference from the Planck Scale to Electroweak Scale (June 2021), Prof. Dr. Malcolm Fairbairn of Kings College London presented “Dark Matter Hunting in 2021 – How do you look for something when you don’t know what it is?” His presentation raises key issues about the unsolved mysteries that have surrounded dark matter. On page 70, he challenges us all, “We are well into an era of using novel approaches to learn more about dark matter.”[1]

There were another 20 scholars with similar presentations; each focused on an open question within our smallest-scale universe. Those lectures need close scrutiny (see the endnotes below). The domain from the Planck scale to the Electroweak scale is filled with mystery and unanswered questions.

Princeton physicist and 2019 Nobel laureate James Peebles lifts up such questions as penultimates in physics and cosmology today.

All students are our sacred trust and treasure.

Thinking, learning, and seeing beyond. Students need to be challenged in every way. Yet, we also need to listen carefully to the ways they challenge us. Some of my most inspiring encounters have come from even younger students. In December 2011 and within all the naïvetés of a high school in the USA, we started exploring the infinitesimal. We had discovered a geometric and mathematical path through a tetrahedral-octahedral honeycomb.[2] It dropped down 112 base-2 steps into the Planck-scale. We also went out the 90 base-2 steps to the age-and-size of the universe. That is a total of 202 base-2 steps from the smallest to the largest. Yet, the first 64 base-2 steps stopped us cold. What could be so small? There are plenty of guesses, but nobody knew. And, we didn’t know what we didn’t know.[3]

We had a novel construct. By observing, thinking, and trying hard to be logical, over time we came to several radical conclusions: “That’s a quiet big bang. It’s a natural inflation. Perfectly smooth, it’s the basis for homogeneity-isotropy. Could it be dark matter and dark energy?”[4]

To say the least, we got a bit carried away! And, that is a problem. Nobody would touch it except the kids. [5]

“What’s the smallest thing in the universe?”

Our students’ response is quick, “An infinitesimal sphere, a little like Lemaître’s primordial atom.” Pushing back, “So what?” The retort is quick. “It’s defined by the Planck base units and there is one Planck sphere per Planck unit of time.” We had worked on the simple math so I asked,”What does that mean?” The answer is still baffling: “One Planck sphere per Planck unit of time computes to 539 tredecillion primordial spheres per second.” That’s a lot of spheres to track. We had our base-2 notation, a map encapsulating everything, everywhere for all time within 202 notations. It was a transformative surprise; it took us over two years to begin to accept the idea that is was a first. And as you’d expect, we were profoundly challenged by the multiplicity of issues it opens up.[6]

As crazy as it all seemed, we weren’t going to duck out. We learned to accept the idiosyncratic and to ask the experts for help. We continued on, but it could no longer be an extracurricular activity for our brightest seniors. They were going on to college and these concepts created too much tension. When I moved out of town, the lights on the project were turned down, yet I’ve continued to look for facts and to make some guesses… it’s a slowly-expanding history. [7]

Asked about the 539 tredecillion infinitesimal spheres per second, a few years before, we had examined questions about thrust and continue to pursue it focused on the infinitesimal thrust of numbers coming through pi and other dimensionless constants like light and Planck Charge.[8]

If Planck’s base units are symbolically the smallest, what could be the largest?

Discovering limits and a range. We became even more controversial. Built into our simple equations is an active f inite-infinite relation. We say that only because these continuity equations are never-ending and never-repeating. Like pi (and with pi), all continue to expand.

Those numbers should be the most-dynamic and the largest numbers within each of the general categories within Notation-202 of our horizontal chart. [9]

By staying deep within pi and an ideal sphere, nothing finite is found. There is a sense of continuity, symmetry, and harmony. These simple perfections manifest within the finite yet are not themselves finite. These three are facets of the infinite. Historically the infinite has been defined in numerous other ways. Most are personal matters. We avoid such language and choose only to defer to continuities which manifest as order and is experienced as time, symmetries which manifest as relations and are experienced as space, and harmonies which manifest as dynamics and are experienced as space-time moments. Although still a series of abstractions, there are boundaries and boundary conditions, logic and structure, and the inherent-yet-quite-derivative mathematics and geometries.[10]

Reviews of the model anticipating our ten-year anniversary

Models of the Universe. The original chart followed the Planck Length (December 2011). Then we added Planck Time (2013-2014). Quite naturally we began adding Planck Mass and Planck Charge to our chart in 2015 and 2016. That’s when the extremely-hot Planck Temperature became an extremely-big challenge.

With time/length and mass/charge seemingly the Janus-face of each other, a cold-start seemed more logical than a truly off-the-charts hot start. The four basic Planck units were doubling. It would be truly idiotic if we projected that the temperature doubled with the other facets of the Planck base units. We decided to put that mystery up beyond the current time and we divided it by 2 to give us the results (numbers) in our very first horizontally-scrolled chart.

Review. Anticipating the tenth anniversary of our studies (yes, we formally started on December 19, 2011), it was a good time to re-engage all 1000+ numbers in that chart. For some unknown reason, the inverse square law forced its way into this ideation, “What if you start with Planck Temperature and with each notation the temperature is cut in half? Does that make any sense at all?”

“Be open. Think about it. Be open; be open.”

To get a sense of those numbers I began a new chart that actually begins with Planck Temperature at Notation-0. Instead of multiplying by 2, divide by 2. Though a bit more commensurate with Hawking-style big-bang thinking, it is still entirely idiosyncratic. The approach to absolute zero is too quick. So now we will place the approximate temperature of deep space within Notation-202 and attempt to discern how mathematically we get from Notation-0 to Notation-202. We are currently contemplating the working relation between all the prime-number bases keeping in mind that base-10 has 64-to-65 notations. How many notations using base-3? …base-5? …base-7 …base-11? We’ll do the numbers like we did with base-10.

The thought process went something like this: “Might the thrust required to generate the first infinitesimal sphere to create the first space/time and matter/energy moment require extreme temperature? Perhaps. Is it worth looking at it? Yes. Might the temperature drop by a half with each or the earliest notations with that very small mass? Maybe. Within the first second (Notation-143) as the number of spheres are increasing to 539 tredecillion infinitesimal spheres per second, there just may be some relatively new mathematics perhaps related to laser temperatures that may well be logical. Let’s explore it. It just might work.”

Can we be re-examining the four laws of thermodynamics (0,1,2,3)? Can we grasp the thermodynamics of laser physics? …its spontaneous fluorescence? Might the inverse square law apply on the first notation? Might there be several different progressions down to the current, average temperature of the universe?

_____

For many, it is all too simplistic. And, perhaps it is. Yet, just maybe it is the simplicity that was within John Wheeler’s dreams and the correlation between reality and numbers that E.P. Wigner so loved. It seems as if this idiosyncratic path is about to become quite a bit more idiosyncratic![11] Thank you.

Editor’s notes: The most dynamic part of this page follows. These are the evolving footnotes, references, emails, and instant messages. Your comments are most welcomed!

This page and the following sections will continue to be updated. A new homepage has been started and it will be released soon.

_____

Endnotes/Footnotes

[1] Scholars. Durham University’s Institute for Particle Physics Phenomenology (IPPP) has achieved global recognition for her work and her graduate students. The seven pictured above are so good they stepped in for Sir Peter Higgs when he became too ill to make a public speech. The IPPP also hosted an event like the 23rd International Conference from the Planck Scale to Electroweak Scale (Planck 2021) where the focus was on some of the most-mysterious, open questions within the smallest scale of our universe. The intent of most conferences is to trigger new insights. That hope is especially true when considering the graduate students and postdocs. Our hope is also in those who make a presentation for a conference. There is nothing like a deadline! By making time fundamental, we experience its derivative nature.

From this 23rd conference, we now have access to the PDFs of the 21 scholars who’ve made a presentation where we can more readily ruminate about such things. Also, their references are always a great resource.

The primary reference to all related emails to these scholars will always be within this footnote:

Malcolm Fairbairn, King’s College London: Go to the PDF, scroll to Page 70
Dark Matter Hunting: How do you look for something when you don’t know what it is?
Isabel Garcia Garcia, Bounce of Nothing, June 2021 (PDF) Also see; ArXiv, May 2021

These 21 scholars come from around the world. Although each focused on probabilities and possibilities, some are closer in spirit to the Fairbairn presentation which challenges us to stretch in new ways. In every instance, my focus is on the nature of that stretching.

In December 2011 we started working to understand the 202 base-2 notations from the Planck scale to the current time. We have come to believe that the first 64 base-2 notations from the Planck scale to what we’ve called the CERN-scale (or Electroweak scale) are the hidden keys to help unlock silos of information that keep the key domains of physics separated. It’s been ten years. There is nothing like a ten-year anniversary to prompt a more critical review.

[2] The tetrahedral-octahedral honeycomb. Not just a speculative vision, here are geometries that open many-many multiple paths to the Planck scale from that simple tetrahedron (sitting on a shelf in the classroom). To give something so simple a little panache, consider those paths to be a tunnel similar to the concept of an Einstein-Rosen bridge (or a wormhole). Though a real reality, not a virtual reality, we’re creating “Zeno goggles” that automatically divide space in half while proportionately and relativistically shrinking the observer.

You’ll observe and experience the 112 steps, going deeper and deeper within. We’ll slow you down as you get to Notation-20. You’ll observe how the tunnel options have gotten fewer and at Notation-10, you’ll observe the actual creation of the tetrahedron and octahedron between Notations 1-5. You’ll actually see the stacking of those 539 tredecillion infinitesimal spheres. Called cubic-close-packing of equal spheres, it’s brilliant. Then you’ll observe how those infinitesimal spheres are popping out of the Planck scale fabric of the universe. That’s a wow!

Seemingly instantly up at Notation-112 where we came in from the classroom, you’ll be given what we call, “Euler-2-exponential goggles.” Here you will see how every notation is multiplied by 2; and in just 90 steps, you will be out to the age-and-size of the universe, watching the current expansion. A show stopper, you’ll see and experience the universe from the smallest to the largest in just 202 steps, notations, sets, jumps… if you haven’t been to our old chart it may be a good time to go.

The new chart has risen!

We all need to look more deeply inside the tetrahedron and octahedron! We all should spend time deep inside the honeycomb. There is nothing simple about a honeycomb.

[3] What do any of us really know? Are things always simple before becoming complex? It seems to be true, all except around those issues coming out of the big bang theory as promoted by Hawking, Guth, and many others. Now, more recently Princeton’s Paul Steinhardt and his coterie have been getting some traction with their quest for a new kind of matter. Dan Shechtman (wiki) before him looked at the small-scale and got his Nobel prize in Chemistry in 2011 for his discovery of quasicrystals, the imperfect geometries based on five tetrahedrons sharing a common edge and lacking a translational symmetry. In our book, it is confined by notation and its respective Fibonacci sequence. Of course, outside of the 202 notations, that statement is meaningless or gobbledegook. The bottomline is arrogance impedes ideas and creativity. Remember Fairbairn‘s comment about “novel approaches.”

[4] Quiet start? Natural inflation? Perfectly smooth? Dark Matter and Energy? What if the universe starts very simply with Lemaître’s primordial atom? In 1927 Lemaître had suggested as much; it was his first idea, a cold-start. We’ve believe it was his best idea. At least 64 base-2 notations before all the complexification of a particle or a wave, here are the pure numbers of a sphere. A little like the Democritus atom, the conceptual study of a sphere is at least 1500 years older and here we are still learning about it! If we take off Planck’s quantum blinders, we might see his numbers more readily and see homogeneity-isotropy in a very different light. We have been fretting about dark matter since Fritz Swicky’s 1933 formal theorem inferring the existence of dark matter.

Dark energy didn’t come into focus until in 1968 the Hubble Space Telescope began collecting the detailed data. Interpreting it all is still up for grabs. With dark matter estimated to be 27% of the universe and dark energy as much as 68%, it is certainly the most enigmatic issue within science today.

Yet, the first 64 notations puts it all in a new light. Here there is a universe of mathematics and geometry that can not be measured with a physical measuring device of any kind. With all these open issues and with so many others that are ever-so-much more problematic, isn’t it time for a radical shift in our constructs for that first septillionth of a second. It sounds like an insanely short amount of time. Within mathematics, one tredecillionth of a second, and that range, a septillionth to a tredecillionth, is another universe unto itself.

[5] Always looking for the start. Fundamental change within our scientific belief systems is difficult. There are too many people, too much history, and way too much money involved with every major theory, whether right or wrong. Scientific research today is big business. Among those at the the top is CERN laboratories. Straddling the border of France and Switzerland, just outside of Geneva, CERN (Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire) is a case study unto itself. Initially it involved twelve countries when it began in 1954. Today there are 23 member states, yet associations with virtually every country on the planet and well-over 100,000 research physicists around the world.

It is a very big business. As an organization, percolating out of the darkness and rubble of WWII, it had a bold start involving those twelve European nations. That start is well known. Yet most enigmatically and more importantly, even today the best of CERN are unsure about the first septillionth of a second at the very start of it all.

My first interactions with CERN folks started with Viki Weisskopf (MIT) and Lew Kowarski (Boston University). Weisskopf was Directeur-General from 1961-1965. Kowarski was the first to propose a laboratory for fundamental research; he was tasked with organizing and setting up it up with Raoul Dautry, Pierre Auger, Edoardo Amaldi and Niels Bohr. See: May 1952, Early beginnings

These were all people who understood the evolution of the first atomic weapon and how basic science can quickly become a Hiroshima or a General Electric. Any concepts that might upset these equations must be most compelling and be ready to face stiff, if not fierce, opposition. Yet, in time, the better concepts do rise. We think ours are straightforward.

[6] Redefining the first instant: Lemaître’s primordial atom, one Planck sphere per Planck unit of time. Those two basic assumptions opened the way to this simple calculation — 539 tredecillion primordial spheres per second.

It is Max Planck’s calculation for Planck Time extended to one second.

The results are beyond imagination. Even today, envisioning such numbers is an ongoing challenge. These numbers made their debut within this website in October 2020 and there are still many levels of error-correction yet to be done.

[7] Reaching out for critical feedback. In 1971 I became part of a think-tank on Brattle Street in Harvard Square in Cambridge. Part of the invention-research process was to suspend judgments and accept ideas as given. It wasn’t always easy to do. We are all naturally judgmental people. We are taught to look at new ideas critically. And, it is easy to fall into the trap of arrogance, “How can you be so stupid?” If only we could change that attitude to something like, “Let’s explore that idea and see where it takes us.” Idiosyncratic ideas are not always idiotic! Yet, it takes a bit of courage to approach our experts. So many of them ask, “How can you be so stupid?” After crawling back into our safety zone and hibernating for a bit, we eventually venture out again but with less ambitious goals. That’s why I enjoy the younger students. Some are still actively exploring imaginative ideas. Our goals as teachers should always be to explore such ideas thoroughly. In 2016, it was becoming clear to me that nobody was dealing with our numbers and the logic of base-2, doublings, spheres, stacking and so on. It was such a different paradigm. It was risky business for anyone with a high-standing within the community to come anywhere near it. Though I assured people that their responses would NOT be shared with the public, people were reluctant to be critical, so it became important to me to log my questions and develop a reference page to each scholar’s work. It is a very modest way to try to avoid becoming more of a nuisance and it helped to focus on their work as related to these efforts.

[8] Infinitesimal thrust of numbers coming through pi and all the all the dimensionless constants. Might it manifest as an inherent force within light and the Planck Charge? Might it be a manifestation of the intimate, immediate correlation with the continuity-symmetry-harmony of infinity? Might it be an ongoing, never-ending finite-infinite transformation? Might infinity be the source for the deepest nature of thrust and photons (force bosons)? Of course, we answer all four questions with a “Yes” and then ask, “What is this universe telling us?”

[9] Largest numbers. We are getting a grasp of the smallest numbers. We also can begin to grasp the very largest numbers that define our universe. These numbers give us some assurance that we are on the right path. The universe does, indeed, look more and more like it is base-2 exponential. Yet, again we asked, “In what ways is it also base-3 exponential? …base-5? …base-10? The largest numbers are not far from today’s actual numbers. Is that the roll of the prime numbers?

It all gives us clues and challenges us to fill in the mathematics and geometries.

[10] On infinity. In 1970, by asking questions about perfection in the face of quantum physics and Bell’s inequality equations, continuity-symmetry-harmony seemed like good abstractions. Building on each other, they were general enough yet have relatively specific scientific meaning. Eventually I asked if each could be a facet of the infinite. It didn’t go far because I could not discern a structure or a path from the infinite to the finite until 2011.

Those 202 notations have triggered new thoughts about very old concepts.

[11] From the old guard to the newest thinkers: From Wheeler dreams to Eugene P. Wigner’s extreme trust in numbers, we go to the likes of Tim N. Palmer, and others like Stephon Alexander, Espen Gaarder Haug, Ari Lehto, Ard Louis, Jirina Stone, Frank Wilczek, and Edward Zalta. It would be magical to have them all in a “Zoom-like” session to talk about this page. Yes, we can dream dreams like Wheeler.

With this ten-year review, we re-introduce Planck Temperature, no longer constantly pushing the boundaries out and getting closer to absolute zero, using the more traditional start at the Planck Temperature raises so many new questions for us. Every aspect of our mathematics will be pressed and stretched.

In a rather peculiar way, both models have the same results so that “the real model” of our universe, remains a mystery for another day. Thank you. -BEC

_____

Please let us know if you would like to join us for a “Zoom-like” discussion about it all.

All eleven of these endnotes/footnotes above are being re-edited and textured.

_____

References

Caltech Professor David Louis Goodstein, Episode 26. Harmony of the Spheres: Sensational review of continuity, symmetry, and harmony.
Mikhail Shaposhnikov, Is there a new physics between electroweak and Planck scale? Nottingham, 14 November 2012, 110 pages (Emailed: 19 October 2021, will be added)
Question: How do we define natural boundary conditions? Minhyong Kim, Oxford
Our smallest-largest studies: A Range of Numbers from the smallest to the largest
- The Continuum: From the smallest to the largest
- Could This Be The Smallest-Biggest-Simplest Scientific Experiment?
SMEFT (Standard Model Effective Field Theory) Jonathan Cullen, IPPP (Durham) PDF. (January 2018)
Is SMEFT Enough? (August 2020). See: Dave Sutherland, CERN
The Geometric Standard Model Effective Field Theory, Michael Trott, NBI/CERN, 2020 (BSM)
Martin Vetterli, President, EPFL, Lausanne (also Stanford (Phd), Colombia, Berkeley
Just a few of the other presentations from the IPPP 23rd annual conference (June 2021):
- Marco Drewes, UC Louvain, Origins – Baryon Asymmetry of the Universe (BAU) (2nd, Summary, PDF) ArXiv (62): Measuring the Inflaton Coupling in the CMB
- Prateek Agrawal, Axion Strings in the Sky, University of Oxford
- Rebecca Leane, Detecting Dark Matter in Celestial Bodies
- Ofri Telem, Amplitudes for Monopoles
- Miguel Escudero, B-Mesogenesis: Baryogenesis and Dark Matter from B Mesons

_____

Emails

• Sir Peter Higgs, Edinburgh: Sunday, November 7, 2021. A quick note about the question the grad students asked their audience on the occasion of substituting for him when he became too ill to present his public lecture.

• Simon White, International Max Planck Research School on Astrophysics at the Ludwi g Maximilians University Munich, has been at the forefront of a Cold Dark Matter paradigm. Because scholars like him have been working with cold concepts within a classic big bang model, I have been pushed to ask silly questions like, “Could there be a super-cooling from the Planck Temperature because that phenomena would most likely act like laser thermodynamics. Could the inverse square law apply?” Based on those flights of fancy, I just started another chart that starts with the Planck Temperature within Notation-0 and is divided by 2 to arrive at a radically reduced temperature for Notation-1. It is divided by 2 again for Notation-2. Because it is temperature assumed to be light and not an “infinitely-dense” singularity, but a very dense black light that within Notation-97 becomes visible light. If one Planck Sphere manifests per unit of Planck Time within thirty-one doublings, there are size is still an infinitesimal 3.470762×10^-26 meters, the mass is just 103 pounds (46.79 Kilograms). So now we are asking, “What might the temperature be and why?” Within our first horizontally-scrolled chart, it is 4.73×10^-18K. In the chart with Planck Temperature within Notation-0, it is 6.597×10²²K. The Electroweak Scale requires an estimated temperature of 2×10¹² Kelvin to create the Quark-Gluon Plasma (QGP). That’s an important benchmark. It requires 175 MeV per particle. We’ll need help to figure out which notation would be a logical place as another mechanism to force the review of possible mathematics and functions that may be at work.

• Malcolm Fairbarin, Kings College London We have started a profile page to follow his work with the International Conferences from the Planck Scale to Electroweak Scale.

• Marco Drewes, UC Louvain We will continue to study his work with the IPPP.

• A note to the attendees of the IPPP June 2021 conference:

“I see that you were one of the participants in the Planck 2021 IPPP-Durham University conference. I am going through those papers now asking the questions, “What are the most special insights from those 21 scholars? How do we get beyond the Standard Model without getting too far beyond it?”

“Personally, I know that we’ve gone a bit too far because we started at the Planck scale and hypothesized that something like the concept like Lemaitre’s primordial sphere defines the very first moment. I am rather sure Malcolm Fairbarin (linked just above) thinks it is more idiosyncratic than it is a “novel approach.”

“If you would like to take a look, it’s posted here: https://81018.com/smallest-largest/

“We then applied base-2 notation at the Planck scale to find just 202 notations from Planck Time to this day.The numbers are fascinating — https://81018.com/chart/ — but interpreting those numbers is not easy. Your comments and insights would be treasured.

“Surely more than a “novel approach.” Perhaps “idiosyncratic” is necessary today. Thank you.”

“Most sincerely,
-Bruce”

• From a student in Spain: Students ask us questions from schools around the world. Here is my response to a question from a biology student with a strong background in physics. He attends Complutense University of Madrid:

“Your English is excellent. Your references and links: Excellent. Your question, Do you know if Arkani-Hamed adopts something similar to Tegmark’s view as well?, is well placed. Those two are so cockily independent and aloof, they might disagree just to disagree. However, I think you nailed them. Like E.P. Wigner (pictured here), all the way back to Pythagoras (See – Theano, On Piety), they are all an inspiration to me. In my deepest being, I believe they are right and you’ll see throughout my work a deep belief in continuity-symmetry-harmony, the qualitative and infinite, always and profoundly giving rise to the finite. Too much of our being is spent being arrogant. That doesn’t help anyone. Science and religion are full of arrogance so I try very hard to stay open. Any more thoughts and questions, I am all ears! Thank you. -Bruce”

In Process: Simons Foundation folks: Leonard Susskind – 2020 lecturer, Patrick Hayden – director, Brian Swingle lecturer – Chaos-Protected Locality, and Juan Maldacena – lecturer, and so many more…

October 18, 2021: @BBCScienceNews@bbcnews@BBCNewsnight #RichardSharp Worldviews are incomplete; we all need a highly-integrated view of the universe. We’ve started here: http://81018.com

October 18, 2021: @MiddleEastEye @AlexandraPring Yes, true. Yet, even Gurnah’s work needs to be seen through a very different lens. We’ve all got to grow beyond our simple worldviews to fully integrated views of the universe. Sounds impossible… it’s not. We started here: https://81018.com/hypostasis/
Abdulrazak Gurnah received the Nobel Prize in Literature in 2021.

Other communications are being reviewed from this period and may be added.

_____

Invitations and Collaborations

With whom do we collaborate? You are among thousands of people who visited this page this site this month. Might you ask, “Can I help this effort?” The answer is, “Yes!” Our only thrust is that the foundations of this universe and life itself be seen in light of infinity and the continuity-symmetry-harmony that the infinite engenders. Please, talk to us. Thank you. -Bruce

_____

Key dates for this document, smallest-largest

This document was started early on Monday morning, October 18, 2021.
First posted for collaborations, late evening, October 18, 2021
This page became the homepage, late on Tuesday, October 19, 2021
The URL: https://81018.com/smallest-largest/
Prior Homepage: https://81018.com/hypostasis/
First Headline: The Smallest and the Largest
Second Headline: Smallest to largest
First Tagline: How do you answer, “What is the smallest thing in the Universe?”
Second tagline: A possible rapprochement with the naïvetés and simplicity of our youth
Another possible homepage: https://81018.com/tredecillion
The most recent update of this page: Monday, 21 March 2022

____________________________________

Concepts that just might change everything…

Eight What-if Questions
by Bruce E. Camber
once in Positano, Italy

1 Exponentiation. The 202 base-2 notations are the result of a high school geometry lesson in 2011.¹ Over time those eight key concepts above would emerge and be actively explored. Yet, each concept is out of step with today’s scholarship so we’ve asked our world’s leading scholars and their colleagues for their critical review.

It is difficult to get scholars to look at materials that originate in a high school geometry class. Early in the process, we thought it was a good STEM tool. It wasn’t. The concepts were too far outside the mainstream. Although this website provides some feedback, we are now in the process of creating a virtual reality platform of the major theories about the start of the universe and we will include this one so each of our eight key points above receives a larger audience.

Questions about an Exponential Universe. Who among all our scholars — including postdocs, graduate students, undergraduates — might be open to such a concept? Who is examining the domain from the Planck scale to the CERN-scale (or electroweak scale)? Might their concepts suggest an exponential universe?

This article is to answer these questions as succinctly and simply as possible. We build upon a concept that is analogous or similar to Planck Time or StoneyTime. Our primordial sphere is also analogous to Lemaître’s primordial atom.

In 1899 Max Planck first introduced his number for a natural unit of time based in part on fundamental physical constants. That calculation rendered 5.39116(13)×10^-44 seconds. In some academic circles, it is the shortest, meaningful interval of time. Those calculations, however, use Planck’s constant and there is a growing group attempting to re-qualify Planck’s base units without the use of Planck’s constant. Yet, even with new numbers, the concept of base units of length, time, mass and charge (energy) stands.

George Johnstone Stoney did his initial calculations in 1874 for a lecture in Belfast.³ His number was similar, but shorter — 4.6054×10^-45 seconds. We ask, ”What could possibly be rendered in such a short interval of time? What is the most simple thing?”

Eventually, the circle and sphere were studied.

Circles and spheres are each generated by just two vertices. So, yes, we began wrestling with the mysteries of pi and the nature of a circle and sphere. We’ve begun studying the types of Fourier transforms and quickly learned that we had to begin to grasp scale invariance and dimensionless constants more deeply.

Dynamic spheres open a radical concept. If we are correct and there is a range that begins somewhere around Planck and Stoney’s calculations, and if there is one infinitesimal sphere generated per that infinitesimal unit of time, we have an approximate rate of expansion of the universe. If we use Planck Time, it would be around 539 tredecillion spheres per second. If we use Stoney Time, it would be around 4605 tredecillion infinitesimal spheres per second.

Such numbers seem beyond the scope of imagination. Notwithstanding, if this picture is anywhere close to our real reality, the foundations of exponential notation are established.

Do a general search on ”We live in an exponential universe.” Many pages that are displayed originate from within this website. If our universe is exponential, then the seven concepts that follow are more true than false.

Many articles and this key chart contributed to this article:

_____

2 Base-2 Units. Geometrically and mathematically the 202 base-2 notations are a fact. Here is the most comprehensive-but-simple way to engage the entire universe. From the very first unit of time to the current time, over 13.81 billion years, is within Notation 202.

That very first unit of time is a key that opens doors that have never before been recognized or observed. Of course, Planck, Stoney and in our time, John Ralston, have wrestled with that definition. Notwithstanding, it is a key challenge for our entire academic community throughout the world: Do such base units, defined in the manner of Planck, Stoney, or Ralston, conceptually encapsulate a very first moment of time? We say, “Yes, conceptually, here is the first instance of time.”

In 2011 we backed into the 202 base-2 notations; we certainly had not studied its ramifications. Also, although we had been trying to discern the most simple object, we were reluctant to embrace the circle and sphere. Although we knew about Max Planck’s work, we really had no real insights about Planck Time.

We didn’t even know that cubic-close packing of equal spheres generates tetrahedrons and octahedrons. We knew nothing about Langlands programs and automorphic forms. To say that our learning curve was rather steep is an understatement. Yet perhaps there were some hidden benefits within all of our naïveté.

As we studied and thought about the first 64 notations, we began to experience the stories about the “Wheat and Checkerboard.” What appeared to be an ”infinitesimal nothing” was beginning to look huge and totally dynamic. Then, it appeared even larger; base-2 notation seemed to be a good way to bring some order to it all. Here we had the makings of a geometrical-mathematical science that just might incorporate Langlands programs, string and M-theories, and other promising theories. It just might incorporate many disciplines that have never been on a grid. All the hypothetical particles of SUSY and our standard model of particles just might have a new home.

Obviously these infinitesimal spheres are being generated in a dramatically-explosive yet totally-unobserved-discrete manner. Our simple orientation to the universe was changing and as it did, there were more and more facets to be explored.

Base-2 notation is just an ordering mechanism; it has no causal efficacy. It is just a way to context reality. It logically includes all possible bases. Yes, any other base expansion can ride on top of base-2. In fact, any and all our mathematical formulations can functionally ride on a base-2 platform.

More references:

_____

3 Causality begins long before particles/waves. No less than 64 notations are all within scales smaller than particles and waves. Perhaps only geometries and mathematics are able to define these notations. The inherent continuity, symmetry and harmony of the sphere appear to give rise to the first dynamical moment.

We’ve been too particle and wave centric for much too long. These new concepts begin to break that logjam. Stymied with so many hypothetical particles, we know our foundational orientation is lacking and those first 64 notations just might challenge us appropriately.

Also, if the base units of Planck and Stoney are metaphorically or conceptually correct, let’s rethink the very beginnings of everything. Why not start very, very simply? If the deep nature of the circle and sphere are entered, the mystery of its continuity, symmetry, and harmony become boldly apparent. Though quantum physics has little to say about each, the evidence for all three is everywhere.

Many writers have suggested that our top-down investigations were missing too much and that we should start from the bottom-up. Yet, the questions must still be asked, “What are the core foundations upon which to build? What is fundamental?’ We answer, “The infinitesimal primordial sphere, the finite-infinite relation, and three finite-infinite functions within the primordial sphere (pi): continuity (order) – symmetry (relations) – harmony (dynamics). Those three finite-infinite functions become the basis for valuations. And valuations become the basis for ethics, and ultimately for morals. Taken altogether, we have the beginnings of the universe.

More references:

_____

4 Complicate the concept of a blackhole. We agree; it’s a huge stretch. From Einstein to Hawking, the best of the best have been speculating about black holes.* Yet, given speculation is its cornerstone and given the first 64-notations, might there be another kind of blackhole?

Could there be a blackhole that is actually pushing out just below the scales of our measuring devices?

Given all the current anomalies within blackhole studies, it is beginning to look like it’s worth some consideration. Such a radical conclusion has not been entertained within the scholarly community — it has no precedent — but why not take a look? Those first 64 notations are below all our current thresholds of measurement. The time sequence is a bit over one quintillionth of a second. Our current commonsense logic tells us that it is too fast for anything; yet mathematically, it is a lifetime.

Recognizing how current black holes are seen as a sucking up everything, for many reasons, it may also be understood as being an essential foundation which cannot be measured by physical tools, yet, still be a real reality within space and time.

All of these references are recent documents and are still being developed:

*A consensus document, “Black holes, gravitational waves and fundamental physics: a roadmap”, over 100 authors, IOP Science, June 2019

_____

5 Hypostatics. If quantum fluctuations and all things quantum are measured above the first 64 notations, might the first 64 notations be considered hypostatic. Dating as far back as Plato and Plotinus, the word means “that which stands under” or the essence, or the substance, or underlying reality or fundamental reality.

Might these infinitesimal units of time be called “hypostatic time” and that space becomes ”hypostatic space” and then, of course, hypostatic energy, and hypostatic mass?

The study of substances and a substantial essence was going on well before our current history, and well before what is considered to be the Common Era (CE). Within over 202 notations, this Common Era represents an extremely thin slice of the 10.98+ billion years of Notation-202.

Although the use of CE has been traced back to 1615 to Johannes Kepler, ”annus aerae nostrae vulgaris…”,^[a][b] one might rightly regard all of known human history to be an infinitesimal common era.

Within the perspective of this website, every event with the Common Era is current history, yet within what has become known as ”before the common era” (BCE), the Greeks surely began to wrestle with the concept of hypostasis. What could possibly be substance, essence, and that which stands under? In these days, we well understand how just numbers and geometries compute without particles and waves, as in genomic functions and the functions within artificial intelligence. Waves and particles are involved with the computing systems, but are not themselves that which is computed.

Yes, yes, of course, there will be more to come.

_____

6 The infinitesimal sphere appears to be the key. Lemaitre, like so many before him going all the way back to Democritus, called it a “primordial atom.” It is always a sphere. In this model, this sphere is defined by the smallest units of space and time yet it still has all the functionalities of any sphere.

The sphere has continuity and symmetry, and most importantly it has harmonics (dynamics).

An infinitesimal primordial sphere is our most conceptually-rich starting point. That sphere is postulated to be the first instance of space-time, matter-energy, and electromagnetism-gravity (each sphere is an attractor or repeller). It has its never-ending, never-repeating numbers of pi. It has all the symmetries of a sphere. And, it has all the harmonic functions of a sphere. And those three characteristics of pi represent the infinite within the finite.

_____

7 Pi, our first clue about the nature of the infinite. Although religions of every kind claim to have an inside-and-direct track of information about the infinite, we will stay within mathematics, geometry, logic, and the foundations of physics. Notwithstanding, we will respect other people’s insights as currently stated.

Our belief and hope is that our information helps the philosophers, the religious, and the theologians to clarify their own beliefs, gesticulations, histories, and postulations.

David Hilbert was possibly just a bit too self-assured with his grasp of the rules of logic. How could he possibly know the depths of infinity such that he could discount some aspect of the infinite that readily manifests within and throughout the finite? Of course, this will be an ongoing subject of this website.

We all grow up within our family’s philosophical and theological orientations. As important as these orientations are to help socialize us, eventually we begin to learn about other traditions. Some of us attempt to build bridges and even to take the best from each tradition to create a new platform of understanding and for reflection. We are possibly thinking, “There has to be a way to respect other traditions without compromising your own or compromising one’s new platform of understanding.” People ask me, “What is your background? How does it influence you?” At the age of 10 in 1957, my mother and father encouraged me to explore and appreciate other traditions. By 1967 it was an avocation. By 1977 it was a vocation. In today’s world, the most dominant belief system is science and its most dominant philosophy is one of the many flavors of agnosticism and atheism. Our model engages them all. Our core belief is in order-continuity, relations-symmetries, and dynamics-harmonies. All are cornerstones of logic, rational thought, science, and our understanding of the infinite.

There are a few within our many cultures and religions who are desperately in search of a bridge of understanding that opens communications, an exchange of ideas, tolerance and trust. I continue to struggle with it all as evidenced within an invocation that I delivered at a birthday party for a friend in Positano, Italy, an event and place that inspired this page.*

Now, all these referenced documents were written over a nine-year period. I’ll be going every through each of them to create a more consistent message for today. Ultimately I believe the deeper truth is within the hyphen between the finite and infinite.

_____

8 Cubic-close packing of equal spheres. None of the other current theories for the start of our universe invoke this simple function. The continuity-symmetry-harmony of the sphere are extended throughout those first 64 notations through a finite-infinite relation. Every one of the 202 notations defines a dynamic relation of this universe.

Here is a progressive, highly-relational flow where every thing is related to everything, everywhere, throughout time. We are foundationally and fundamentally related.

Yet, it appears that none of these notations are sacrosanct and all of them are constantly changing and none of them would ever be exempt from change. The first 64 notations, representing about 9.945379×10^-25 seconds, is so far removed from any possible measurement, here is a new science and a new context for matter and energy (charge), and for gravity and electromagnetism. There is much more work that will be done on this last point. Essentially now that we have the foundations for the greatest diversity of geometries, formulations, and calculations; no part of science or the human experience is exempt, including the role of sleep (which only exists in Notation-202) and the nature of consciousness. And again, I repeat, continuity, symmetry, and harmony become the basis for valuations. And, valuations become the basis for ethics, and ultimately for morals.

_____

Note: This document was started on September 19, 2021 in Positano, Italy overlooking the Amalfi coast; it’s truly an emboldening place! That eighth point has much more work. – BEC

_____

Footnotes

[1] High school geometry lesson. The most wildly-speculative mind should be our high school kids, yet so many become passive, bored, and tired. What might happen within education if there was a growing crescendo of enthusiasm and creativity for scholarly work within each grade throughout our primary and secondary schools? What if by our senior year, the primary role of a teacher was to help context and interpret new ideas? That is the revolution these basic concepts should engender. Let us open up the box for creativity that is increasingly locked up with each passing year of education.

[2] Scholars. Who among us empowers the most insightful thinking, the most inclusive ethical understanding of things, and the most creativity? Those people are our best scholars. We’ve interacted with a few of them. Empowering people to discover their gifts and develop them is a high calling.

[3] George Johnstone Stoney. Our introduction to Stoney was through a short paper by John Barrow (enter the password: Stoney or go to Harvard’s UIRL). I believe Stoney should be acknowledged as the first to experiment with natural units.

[4] A consensus-driven article by 100+ scholars. The corresponding author, Vitor Cardoso, had his work cut out for himself to get well over 128 signatures on this “roadmap” through the mysteries. When I find important documents like this one, I stop to write to a few of the key authors. Here are leading thinkers and just maybe, these are people who might examine the 202 notations, particularly the first 64 notations at the quark interface to matter where quantum mechanics begins its work.

_____

References

Black Hole Survival Guide, Janna Levin
Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein’s Outrageous Legacy, Kip S. Thorne, Commonwealth Fund Book Program, January 1995
Strange mathematical term changes our entire view of black holes, Paul Sutter, 2021
“Top-Down” or “Bottom-Up”, Francisco Flores, 1998
An earlier visit with What If questions
Proceedings, International Conference From the Planck Scale to the Electroweak Scale.
From Summetria to Symmetry: The Making of a Revolutionary Scientific Concept, Giora Hon and Bernard R. Goldstein, 2008
Max Planck, A Survey of Physical Theory, Internet Archives, Dover, 1960. (PDF)
More to come… ergoregions and the ergosphere?

_____

14 October 2021: @zlj517 There is only one #Earth within the #Universe and China, the USA, Taiwan, and 195 other nations are an inalienable part of it. We have to grow beyond our simple worldviews for a comprehensive view of our universe: https://81018.com It is our key to the future. Note: Thi is just one of the many Chinese leaders to whom I have written. These people need to be hearing from us all. The concepts this leadership is using are still too tight and too limited.

12 October 2012: John L. Hennessy (Chairman), Sundar Pichai (CEO), Ruth Porat (CFO) of Alphabet You’ve been around idiosyncratic concepts; most are relatively complex. Simplicity is more difficult. In 2011 in a New Orleans high school geometry class, I had the kids chase smaller and smaller tetrahedrons and octahedrons by dividing the edges by 2, connecting the new vertices. We thought it was a great STEM tool. The page — https://81018.com/tot/ — goes to is one of our early models. It takes 45 steps within to get to particle physics and another 67 to the Planck scale. If you were to multiply those tetrahedrons by 2, in just 90 additional steps you’d be out to the approximate size and age of the universe. It is a model of the universe using base-2 exponential notation. In 1957 Kees Boeke did a base-10 model that became popular, but not functional. This model becomes functional: https://81018.com/hypostasis/

9 October 2021: Ken Ono, a number theorist at Emory University, Michael Griffin of Brigham Young, Larry Rolen of Vanderbilt, and Don Zagier of the Max Planck Institute of Mathematics are closing in on the Riemann Hypothesis (Wikipedia). Their work is important because all numbers, all equations are being carried forward within base-2, yet the prime numbers open new possibilities. This group and so many other scholars (Langlands programs and M-Theory) also have a role.

8 October 2021: To the Princeton People: Paul Benacerraf and Paul Steinhardt

Riemann, Bernhard (1859), “Ueber die Anzahl der Primzahlen unter einer gegebenen Grösse”, Monatsberichte der Berliner Akademie. In Gesammelte Werke, Teubner, Leipzig (1892), Reprinted by Dover, New York (1953). Original manuscript (with English translation). Reprinted in (Borwein et al. 2008) and (Edwards 1974)

“Let’s get a handle on the Riemann hypothesis. The Riemann zeta function is made for base-2 notation. We will exegete his 1859 article “On the Number of Primes Less Than a Given Magnitude” in light of base-2 whereby base-3, base-5, and base-7 ride on top of base-2. All prime number notations — there are only 45 primes within the 202 notations — will be initially considered. Notation-199 is a prime-number notation. The next will be Notation-211; it’s assuredly a bit removed from our immediate considerations.

5 October 2021, A note into Pasadena’s ArtCenter College of Design to Heidrun Mumper-Drumm

Much more to come…

_____

There are so many key words and key word combinations. Quite literally hundreds of instant messages will be sent to key thinkers around the world. Although it seems that we’ve become complacent about first principles and our starting points, we all wrestle with these questions every day.

October 12, 2021: @ChaseSupport @Chase We need to grow beyond all our old worldviews by starting over again with a highly-integrated view of the entire universe. Our model — https://81018.com — started in a high school. Continuity-symmetry-harmony become the bedrock of understanding.

October 7, 2021: Joshua Rothman, @joshuarothman. Rationality is blocked by unexamined concepts that provide erroneous foundations. https://81018.com/duped/ is a quick summary of what I think are the biggest. Here’s our different start: https://81018.com/hypostasis/ Newton’s absolute space and time is our biggest stumbling block.

October 5, 2021: @GuernseyCollege Guernsey, Guernsey, Guernsey — The only way we will ever manage equality-diversity-inclusion is to break free of limited worldviews and work on a mathematically-integrated view of the universe from the first moment of creation to this very day and time: https://81018.com/hypostasis/

October 4, 2021: @xijinping_xi Three fallacies of Western thought became “commonsense” for the world: https://81018.com/duped/ To break free of limited worldviews, we need a fully integrated view of the universe. A start: https://81018.com/hypostasis Mathematically: https://81018.com/chart/

October 4, 2021: @DrEugeniaCheng You’ve got all the right combinations from category theory to pi to infinity. Your music and cooking are a blessing. Now push it through Newton’s absolute space and time, and then through the infinitely-hot bang theory: https://81018.com/hypostasis begins to wrestle.

October 4, 2021: @BorisJohnson To right our little ship, Earth, we’ve got to take charge of Newton’s errors about “absolute” space and time and Hawking’s errors about an “infinitely-hot” big bang: https://81018.com/duped/ Those errors have become the world’s commonsense! https://81018.com/hypostasis/

October 3, 2021: @nickclegg [Facebook VP-Global Affairs] Nick – Let’s really empower leaders by breaking out of little worldviews. We need a fully integrated view of the universe to have depth and perspective and to unleash creativity: https://81018.com/hypostasis is just a beginning. Come on now. Life is short. Make it a work of art!

Communicate: China has become pivotal in our grasp of the transition from global perspectives to those perspectives that embrace the entire universe. Can cubic-close packing (ccp) become more pivotal than politics and parties to grasp the depths of our interconnectedness?

Politics is crazy. Desperation is in the air everywhere.

_____

Participate

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

_____

Key Dates for this document, Hypostasis

This document was started on Sunday, September 19, 2021 in Positano, Italy on the Amalfi Coast.
First posted for collaborations: September 20, 2021
This page became the homepage: October 6-7, 2021
The URL: https://81018.com/hypostasis/
The Prior Homepage:https://81018.com/virtual/
First Headline: Back to the Basics Second: Eight “What if…?” Questions
First Tagline: Concepts that change everything…
Another possible homepage: https://81018.com/tredecillion Password: Tredecillion
The most recent update of this page: 15 October 2021

_____

For now, the end of this article…

__________________________

__________________________

CENTER FOR PERFECTION STUDIES: CONTINUITY•SYMMETRY•HARMONY.GOALS.October.2019HOMEPAGES: ASSUMPTIONS |DARK|HOME|INFINITY Inflation |KEYS|REVIEW|Transformation|Up

__________________________

For more, go to these prior homepages:

__________________________

Endnotes and Footnotes:

Please send along your comments or questions.

References, research, and resources:

CENTER FOR PERFECTION STUDIES: CONTINUITY•SYMMETRY•HARMONY GOALS.JUNE.2020PAGES: CLAIMS|DARK|FORMULAS|INFINITY|KEYS|MAP| RELATIONS|TRANSFORMATION|UP

BY BRUCE E. CAMBER MAY 2020 – WORKING DRAFT PREQUEL EMAIL TWEETS WANTED (HELP!)

Conclusion

Miscellaneous Notes

CENTER FOR PERFECTION STUDIES: CONTINUITY•SYMMETRY•HARMONY• USA • GOALS • MARCH 2019HOMEPAGES: ASSUMPTIONS |DARK|EMERGENCE|INTRO| INFINITY|MAX|WEINBERG| REVIEW|SCHOLARS|ORIGINAL

Re-examine Big Bang Enigmas

PLEASE NOTE: THE FOOTNOTES ARE STILL BEING WORKED-AND-REWORKED.

Challenge us. Coach us. We need all the help we can get.

Which concept is strongest? Which is weakest?

Welcome.

Asking for advice to modify this statement:

A simple question… everybody has an idea but nobody has the answer.

CENTER FOR PERFECTION STUDIES: CONTINUITY •SYMMETRY•HARMONY.GOALS.October.2019
HOMEPAGES: ASSUMPTIONS |DARK|HOME|INFINITY Inflation |KEYS|REVIEW|Transformation|Up

CENTER FOR PERFECTION STUDIES: CONTINUITY •SYMMETRY•HARMONY GOALS.JUNE.2020
PAGES: CLAIMS|DARK|FORMULAS|INFINITY|KEYS|MAP| RELATIONS|TRANSFORMATION|UP

CENTER FOR PERFECTION STUDIES: CONTINUITY •SYMMETRY•HARMONY• USA • GOALS • MARCH 2019
HOMEPAGES: ASSUMPTIONS |DARK|EMERGENCE|INTRO| INFINITY|MAX|WEINBERG| REVIEW|SCHOLARS|ORIGINAL