This Shifting Paradigm Changes Our Perception Of Everything

Please Note: ALL LINKS will eventually be re-routed to this website, 81018.com.  That UPDATE is on-going. Many links currently go to back to the first postings within our website for our television series, Small Business School (1994-2012).  A weekly, half-hour, that show aired on PBS-TV stations around the country and Voice of America (VOA-TV) affiliates throughout the world.

An Integrated UniverseView: Beyond the WorldWideWeb & Worldviews

1.  The Universe is finite. That’s huge. It has measurable smallest units for space and time. It has measurable units for the largest dimensions of space and time, the Observable Universe and the Age of the Universe, respectively.  More

2. The Universe has an ethical bias. Yes, it certainly appear to be so! The theological among us have some very real work to do. Theology is informed by science and science is informed by theology.  When they disagree, one of them is wrong.  Those within radical Islam have much to learn from Allah (the Arabic word for “God”) and how science tells us so much about the Creator of all things.

3.  The Universe is smaller and more ordered than we think. In 201+ steps, you go from the smallest measurement to the very largest. Initially it sounded ridiculous and it seemed inconceivable.  Yet over time, it sinks in.

4.   The Universe is more connected than we think.   In fact, everything is related to everything, all within 201+ steps!  Seems impossible; it’s not.

5.  The Universe gets structure from space-and-time, but not its essence.  The structures go back to basic geometries that have become exquisitely complex (Also, see the reference just above). The essence of that structure comes from the infinite through our constants and universals which appear to be best engaged through the Planck Units.

We Can All Strive For A Higher Perfection, A Better Way

To our guests, our extended Small Business School family, and to all our first-time contacts, especially among editors and writers:

First, this Universe View is related to everything, everybody, every behavior and every thought. Some of the work actually began way back in the early 1970s.  Some of it came into focus with our old  television series from 1994 to 2012.  We all share the same first principles (linked from here). For us personally, it was a direct reflection of our faith and our belief that faith and science must cohere or one of them is wrong.

Second, we used those first principles in all that we have done. That’s how one knows the first principles work. Yet, eventually, those first principles inform in new ways.   It is not automatic.  It takes time.  But, there is always a next step. We can always improve on the initial conditions. That is the reason for this page.

Third, we all need to extend our principles globally, then extend them throughout the universe. That drove our work on the Big Board-little universe back in December 2011.  We can also now see how such principles just might become the core of a new small business revolution.

Now, with all these references, we now say, “Let’s get focused; there are great things to do to get us all on track for a brilliant future.”

Everything Starts Most Simply. Therefore, Might It Follow That The Planck Length Becomes The Next Big Thing?

Prepared and first posted on July 9, 2013 by Bruce Camber for five classes of high school geometry students and a sixth-grade class of scientific savants.

Propaedeutics: Let us analyze three very simple concepts taken from a high school geometry class, (1) the smallest-and-largest measurement of a length, (2) dividing and multiplying by 2, and (3) nested-embedded-and-meshed geometries. Though initially a simple thought exercise (hardly an experiment), our students quickly developed a larger vision to create a working framework to categorize and relate everything in the known universe. Though appearing quite naive and overly ambitious in its scope, the work began at the Planck Length and proceeded to the Observable Universe in somewhere over 201 base-2 exponential notations. That range of notations is examined and the unique place of the first sixty notations is reviewed. This simple mathematical progression and the related geometries, apparently heretofore not examined by the larger academic community, are the praxis; interpreting the meaning of it all is the theoria, and here we posit a very simple foundation to open those discussions. Along this path it seems we will learn how numbers are the function and geometries are the form, how each is the other’s Janus face, and perhaps even how time is derivative of number and space derivative of geometry.

Simple Embedded Geometries, The Initial Framework For A Question

Observing how the simplest geometric objects are readily embedded within each other, a high school geometry class [1] asked a similar question to that asked by Zeno (circa 430 BC) centuries earlier.2 “How many steps inside can we go before we can go no further?” The students had learned about the Planck Length, a conceptual limit of 1.616199(97)x10-35 meters. Using base-2 exponential notation, these students rather quickly discovered that it took just over 101 steps going within to get into the range of the Planck Length. For this exercise they followed just two geometrical objects, the simple tetrahedron and the octahedron. Within that tetrahedron is an octahedron perfectly enclosed within it. Also, within each corner are four half-sized tetrahedrons.

TetrahedronIllustration 1: The simple tetrahedron, the center triangle
being a face of an octahedron

We went inside again. At each notation or step we simply selected an object and divided the edges in half and connected the dots. Perfectly enclosed within the octahedron are six half-sized octahedrons in each of the six corners and eight half-sized tetrahedrons in each of the eight faces.


Illustration 2: An octahedron with its simplest internal parts.
Four pivotal hexagonal plates are outlined (red-white-blue-yellow); all surround the center point.

octahedronSelecting either a tetrahedron or octahedron, it would seem that one could divide-by-2 or multiply-by-2 each of the edges without limit. If we take the Planck Length as a given, it is not possible at the smallest scale. And, if we take the measurements of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS III),  Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey (BOSS)3 as a given, there are also apparent limits within the large-scale universe — it is called the Observable Universe.

Also, observe how the total number of tetrahedrons and octahedrons increases at each doubling. At the next doubling there are a total of 10 octahedrons and 24 tetrahedrons. On the third doubling, there are 84 octahedrons and 176 tetrahedrons, and then on the fourth, 680 octahedrons and 1376 tetrahedrons. On the fifth step within, there are 10944 tetrahedrons and 5456 octahedrons. The numbers become astronomically large within 101 steps. It is more aggressive than the base-2 exponential notation used with the classic wheat and chessboard story4 which, of course, is only 64 steps or notations.

The following day we followed the simple math going out to the edges of the Observable Universe. There were somewhere between 101 to 105 steps (doublings or notations) to get out in the range of that exceeding large measurement, 1.03885326×1026 meters. By combining these results, we had the entire “known” universe, from the smallest to the largest measurements in 202.34+ (calculation by NASA’s Joe Kolecki) to 205.11+ (calculation by Jean-Pierre Luminet) notations5. At the same time the growth of the number of objects by multiplying or dividing became such a large number that it challenged our imaginations. We had to learn to become comfortable with numbers in new ways — both exceedingly large and exceedingly small, and the huge numbers of objects.

Not long into this exploration it was realized that to achieve a consistent framework for measurements, this simple model for our universe ought to begin with the Planck Length (ℓP). It was a very straightforward project to multiply by 2 from the ℓP to the edges of the Observable Universe (OU). That model first became a rather long chart that was dubbed the Big Board – little universe.6 And then, sometime later we began converting it to a much smaller table7 (also, a working draft).

This simple construction raised questions about which we had no answers:
1. Planck Length. Why is the Planck Length the right place to start? Can it be multiplied by 2? What happens at each step?
2. The first 65 Notations. Although we initially started with a tetrahedron with edges of one meter, in just 50 notations, dividing by 2, we were in the range of the size of a proton.8 It would require another sixty-five steps within to get to the Planck Length. It begs the question, “What happens in each of those first 65 doublings from the Planck Length?”
3. Embedded Geometries. When we start at the human scale to go smaller by dividing by 2, the number of tetrahedrons and octahedrons at each notation are multiplied by 4 and 1 within the tetrahedron and by 8 and 6 within the octahedron. That results in an astronomical volume of tetrahedrons and octahedrons as we approach the size of a proton. What does it mean and what can we do with that information?

Starting at the Planck Length, a possible tetrahedron can manifest at the second doubling and an octahedron could manifest at the third doubling. Thereafter, growth is exponential, base-4 and base-1 within the tetrahedron and base-8 and base-6 within the octahedron. To begin to understand what these numbers, the simple math, and the geometry could possibly mean, we turned to the history of scholarship particularly focusing on the Planck Length.

Discussions about the meaning of the Planck Length.

Physics Today (MeadWilczek discussions).9 Though formulated in 1899 and 1900, the Planck Length received very little attention until C. Alden Mead in 1959 submitted a paper proposing that the Planck Length and Planck Time should “…play a more fundamental role in physics.” Though published in Physical Review in 1964, very little positive feedback was forthcoming. Frank Wilczek in that 2001 Physics Today article comments that “…C. Alden Mead’s discussion is the earliest that I am aware of.” He posited the Planck constants as real realities within experimental constructs whereby these constants became more than mathematical curiosities.

Frank Wilczek continued his analysis in several papers and books and he has personally encouraged the students and me to continue to focus on the Planck Length. We are.

The simple and the complex

A very simple logic suggests that things are always simple before they become complex. It seems that I adopted this idea while growing up as a child; my father would ask, “Is there an even more simple solution?” Complex solutions make us feel smarter and wiser, yet the opposite is most often true. When teaching students from ages 12 to 18, one must always start with the simplest new concepts and build on them slowly. Then, a good teacher might challenge the students to see something new, “If you can, find a more simple solution.”

Our class was basic science and mathematics, focusing on geometry. My assignment was to introduce the students to the five platonic solids. Yet, by our third time together, we were engaging the Planck Length. Is it a single point? Is it a vertex making the simplest space? What else could it be? Can it be more than just a physical measurement? Are we looking at point-free geometry? 10 Is this a pre-structure for group theory?11 Speculations quickly got out of hand.

We knew we would be coming back to those questions over and over again, so we went on. We had to assume that the measurement could be multiplied by 2. We attributed that doubling to the thrust of life.12 So, now we have two points, or two vertices, or a line, and a larger space of some kind. Prof. Dr. Freeman Dyson13 in a personal email suggests, “Since space has three dimensions, the number of points goes up by a factor eight, not two, when you double the scale.” We liked that idea; it would give us more breathing room. However, when we realized there would be an abundance of vertices, we decided to continue to multiply by two. We wanted to establish a simple platform using base-2 exponential notation especially because it seemed to mimic life’s cellular division and chemical bonding.

The first 60 doublings, layers, steps, or notations

Facts & Guesses. If taken-as-a-given, the Planck Length is a primary vertex and it can be multiplied by 2. The exponential progression of numbers becomes a simple fact. Guessing about the meaning of the progression is another thing. And to do so, we must hypothesize, possibly just hypostatize, the basic meanings and values. In our most far-reaching thoughts, this construct seems to open up possibilities to intuit an infrastructure or pre-structure that just might-could create a place for all that scholarship that doesn’t appear to have a grid and inherent matrix — philosophies, psychologies, thoughts and ideas throughout time. So herein we posit a simple fact and make our most speculative guesses:

  • Within the first ten doublings, there are over 1000 vertices. Perhaps we might think about Plato’s Eidos, the Forms.
  • Within twenty doublings, there are over a million vertices. What about Aristotle’s Ousia or Categories?
  • Within thirty steps, there are over a billion vertices. Perhaps we could hypostatize Substances, a fundamental layer that anticipates the table of elements or periodic table.
  • Within forty layers, there are over a trillion vertices. Might we intuit Qualities?
  • Within 50 doublings, there over a quadrillion vertices. How about layers for Primary Relations, the precursors of subjects and objects?
  • Between the 50th and 60th notation, still much smaller than the proton, there are over a quintillion vertices. Perhaps Systems and The Mind, and every possible manifestation of a mind, awaits its place within this ever-growing matrix or grid.
  • The simple mathematics for these notations, virtually the entire small-scale universe, appears to be the domain of elementary cellular automata going back to the 1940s work of John von Neumann, Nicholas Metropolis and Stanislaw Ulam, and the more recent work of John Conway and his Game of Life, and most recently the work of Stephen Wolfram and his research behind A New Kind of Science.

With so many vertices, one could build a diversity of constructions, then ask the question, “What does it mean?” Our exercise with the simplest math and simple concepts is the praxis. We have begun to turn to the history of scholarship to begin to deem the theoria and begin to see if any of our intuitions might somehow fit.

We knew our efforts were naive, surely a bit idiosyncratic (as physicist, John Baez14 had characterized them), but we were attempting to create a path that would take us from the simplest to the most complex. If we stayed with our simple math and simple geometries, we figured that we did not have to understand the dynamics of protons, fermions, scalar constraints and modes, gravitational fields, and so so much more. That could come later.

Although not studied per se, these 60 notations have been characterized throughout the years. Within the scientific age, it has been discussed as the luminiferous aether (ether).15 Published in 1887 by Michelson–Morley, their work put this theory to rest for about a century. Yet, over the years, the theories around an aether have been often revisited. The ancient Greek philosophers called it quintessence15 and that term has been adopted by today’s theorists for a form of dark energy.

Theories abound.

Oxford physicist-philosopher Roger Penrose16 calls it, Conformal Cyclic Cosmology made popular within his book, Cycles of Time. Frank Wilczek simply calls this domain, the Grid,17 and the most complete review of it is within his book, The Lightness of Being.

We know with just two years of work on this so-called Big Board – little universe chart and much less time on our compact table, we will be exploring those 60-to-65 initial steps most closely for years to come. This project will be in an early-stage development for a lifetime.

From Parameters to Boundaries and Boundary Conditions

This construction with its simple nested geometries and simple calculations (multiplying the Planck Length by 2 as few as 202.34 times to as many as 205.11 times) puts the entire universe in an mathematically ordered set and a geometrically homogeneous group. Although functionally interesting, quite simple and rather novel, is it useful?

Some of the students thought it was. This author thought it was. And, a few scholars with whom we have spoken encouraged us. So the issue now is to continue to build on it until it has some real practical philosophical, mathematical, and scientific applicability.

Taking our three simple parameters just as they have been given, (1) the Planck Length, (2) multiplication by 2 and (3) Plato’s simplest geometry, what more can we say about this simple construct? Let me go out on a limb here:

1. Parameters. These parameters have functions; each creates a simple order and that order creates continuity. The form is order and the function is “to create continuity or its antithesis, discontinuity.” As a side note, one could observe, that this simple parameter set is also the beginning of memory and intelligence.

2. Relations. The parameters all work together to form a simple relation. From four points, a potential tetrahedron, simple symmetries are introduced. With eight points, the third doubling, a potential simple octahedron could become manifest. All the parameters work together to provide a foundation for additional simple functions to manifest. The form is the relation and the function is “to make and break symmetries.”

3. Dynamics. Our simple parameters, now manifesting real relations that have the potential to be extended in time, create a foundation for dynamics, all dynamics. That is the form with the potential to become a category, and the function is to create various harmonies or   to create disproportion, imbalance, or disagreement. Dynamics open us to explore such concepts as periodicity, waves, cycles, frequency, fluctuations, and more. And, this third parameter set, dynamics-harmony, necessarily introduces our perception of time. With this additional parameter set we begin to intuit what might give rise to the fullness of any moment in time and of time itself. Also, perspectivally, these parameter sets, on one side, just might could summarize perfection or a perfected moment in time, and on the other side, imperfection or quantum physics.

Please note that our use of the double modal, might could, is a projection for future, intense analysis and interpretation. It is a common expression in the New Orleans area.

Perfections and Imperfections.

The first imperfection can occur very early within the notations (doublings-steps-vertices). With the first doubling there are two vertices (the smallest line or smallest-possible string). At the next doubling, there are four vertices; a perfect tetrahedron could be rendered. It is the simplest three-dimensional form defined by the fewest number of vertices and equal angles. There are other logical possibilities: (1) four vertices form a longer line or string, (2) four vertices form a jagged line or string of which various skewed triangles and polygons could be formed, (3) three vertices form a triangle that defines a plane with the fourth vertex forming an imperfect tetrahedron that opens the first three dimensions of space. Five vertices can be used to create two tetrahedrons with a common face. Six vertices could be used to create an octahedron or three abutting tetrahedrons (two faces are shared).

The third doubling renders eight vertices. With just seven of those vertices, a pentagonal cluster of five tetrahedrons can be inscribed (Illustration 3), however, there is a gap of about 7.36° (7° 21′) or less than 1.5° between each face.19 There are many other configurations of a five-tetrahedral construction that can be created with those seven vertices. These will be addressed in a separate article. For our discussions here, it seems that each suggests a necessarily imperfect construction. The parts only fit together by stretching them out of their simple perfection. One might speculate that the spaces created within these imperfections could also provide room for movement or fluctuation.

FiveTetrahedrons
Illustration 3: The earliest analysis of these five regular tetrahedra sharing one edge appears to be the work of F. C. Frank and J.S. Kaspers in their 1959 analysis of complex alloy structures. (See footnote 19 for more details on this reference).

With all eight vertices, a rather simple-but-complex figure can be readily constructed with six tetrahedrons, three on either side of a rather-stretched pyramid filling an empty space between each group. This figure has many different manifestations using just eight vertices. Between seven and eight vertices is a key step in this simple evolution. Both figures can morph and change in many different ways, breaking-and-making perfect and imperfect constructions.

A few final flights of imagination

In one’s most speculative, intuitive moments, one “might-could”  see these constructions as a way of engaging the current work with the Lie Group,20 yet here may begin a different approach to continuous transformations groups. Just by replicating these eight vertices, a tetrahedral-octahedral-tetrahedral (TOT) chain emerges.21 Here octahedrons and two tetrahedrons are perfectly aligned and a simple structure reaching from the smallest to the largest readily emerges and tiles the universe. Then, there is yet another very special hexagonal tiling application to be studied within the octahedron by observing how each of the four hexagonal plates interact with all congruent tetrahedrons.

Within the all the following notations simplicity begets complexity. Structures become diverse. And, grids of potential and a matrix of possibilities are unlocked.

Footnotes: (Work-in-progress)
1 Our Start DateMonday, December 19, 2011 Bruce Camber substituted for the geometry teacher within the John Curtis Christian High School, just up river from New Orleans. The concept of a Big Board – little universe developed within the context of these classes.

2 Zeno’s paradoxes, Zeno of Elea (ca. 490 BC – ca. 430 BC), a pre-Socratic Greek philosopher and member of the Eleatic School founded by Parmenides known for his paradoxes to understand the finite and infinite.

3 Base-2 Exponential notation: For most students, the wheat & chessboard example is their introduction to exponential notation. Wikipedia provides an overview.

4Most Precise Measurement of Scale of the Universe,” Jennifer Ouellette, Discover Magazine, April 6, 2012

Editor’s note: That page on the Discover Magazine site is no longer found. However, a report about the experimental work can be found on the site of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) using the Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey (BOSS).

5 Prof. Dr. Jean-Pierre Luminet, on Wednesday, July 17, 2013, wrote: “I tried to understand the discrepancy between my calculation and that of Joe Kolecki. The reason is simple. Joe took as a maximum length in the universe the so-called Hubble radius, whereas in cosmology the pertinent distance is the diameter of the observable universe (delimited by the particle horizon), now estimated to be 93 billion light years, namely 8.8 10^26 m. In my first calculation giving the result 206, I took the approximate 10^27 m, and for the Planck length 10^(-35) m instead of the exact 1.62 10^(-35) m. Thus the right calculation gives 8.8 10^26 m / 1.62 10^(-35) m = 5.5 10^(61) = 2^(205.1). Thus the number of steps is 205 instead of 206. You can quote my calculation in your website.” – Jean-Pierre Luminet, Directeur de recherches au CNRS, Laboratoire Univers et Théories (LUTH), Observatoire de Paris, 92195 Meudon Cedex http://luth.obspm.fr/~luminet/

6 Big Board – little universe, a five foot by one foot chart that begins with the Planck Length and uses exponential notation to go to the width of a human hair in 102 steps and to the edges of the observable universe in 202.34-to-205.11 notations, or steps, or doublings.

7 Universe Table, ten columns by eleven rows, this table is made to be displayed on Smartphones and every other form of a computer. At the time of this writing, Version 1.0.0.2. was posted..

8 Very large Numbers:  Taking just the octahedron, the calculation is: 665=3.8004172ex1050 octahedrons and 865= 5.0216814e58 tetrahedrons. Add to that, with the tetrahedrons at each step are four tetrahedrons: 465=1.3611295ex1039 and the additional octahedron within it at each step: 165=65

9Frank Wilczek, the head of the Center for Theoretical Physics at MIT and a 2004 Nobel Laureate has a series of articles about the Planck Length within Physics Today. Called Scaling Mt. Planck, these are all well-worth the read. His book, The Lightness of Being, to date, is his most comprehensive summary.

10 Point-free geometry, a concept introduced by A. N. Whitehead in 1919/1920, was further refined in 1929 within his publication of the book, Process & Reality. More recent studies within mereotopology continue to extend Whitehead’s initial work.

11Group Theory and Speculations: One might speculate that group theory, with its related subjects such as combinatorics, fields, representation theory, system theory and Lie transformation groups, all apply in some way to the transformation from one notation to the next. Yet, two transformations seem to beg for special attention. One is from the Human Scale to the Small Scale and the other from the Human Scale to the Large Scale. If there are 202.34-to-205.11 notations, our focus might turn to steps 67 to 69 at the small scale and 134 to 138 at the large scale universe. One’s speculations might could run ahead of one’s imaginative sensibilities. For example, at the transformation to the small scale, approximately in the range of the diameter of a proton, one could hypostatize that this is where the number of embedded geometries begins to contract to begin to approach the most-simple structure of the Planck Length. It would follow that within the small-scale all structures would necessarily be shared. Perhaps the proton is some kind of a boundary for individuation. That is, the closer one gets to the singularity of the Planck Length, the more those basic geometric structures within the notation are shared. Because this structure currently appears to be beyond the scope of measuring devices, we could refer to these notations as a hypostatic science, whereby hypotheses, though apparently impossible to test, are still not beyond the scope of imagination. Also, as the large scale is approached, somewhere between notations 134 to 138, there might be a concrescence that opens the way to even more speculative thinking. Though not very large — between 248 miles (notation 134) and- 3500 miles (notation 138) — it might appear to be silly, truly nonsensical, to begin the search for the Einstein-Rosen bridges or wormholes! That’s certainly science fiction. Yet, if we let an idea simmer for awhile, maybe workable insights might-could begin to emerge.

12 Purdue & NSF:  Although the term, Thrust of Life, is used within religious and philosophical studies, it is also the subject of continuous scientific study by groups such as the Center for Science for of Information (Purdue University) through funding from the National Science Foundation.

13 Freeman Dyson:  Personal email to me regarding multiplying the Planck Length by 2, he said: “Since space has three dimensions, the number of points goes up by a factor eight, not two, when you double the scale.” Certainly a cogent comment, however, given we have seemingly more than enough vertices, we decided on the first pass to continue to multiply by 2 to create an initial framework from which attempt to grasp what was important and functional.

14 Anonymous:  Personal email to me regarding the initial posting for Wikipedia, he said: “…it’s certainly an idiosyncratic view, not material for an encyclopedia.”  To which we say, “Thank you.”

15 The luminiferous aether was posited by many of the leading scientists of the 18th century, Sir Issac Newton (Optiks) being the most luminous. The Michael-Morley experiments of 1887 put the theory on hold such that the theory of relativity and quantum theory emerged. Yet, research to understand this abiding concept has not stopped. And, it appears that the editorial groups within Wikipedia are committed to updating that research.

16 Quintessence, the Fifth Element in Plato’s Timaeus, has been used interchangeably with the aether aether. It has a long philosophical history. That the word has been adopted in today’s discussion as one of the forms of dark energy tells us how important these physicists believe dark energy is.

17 Roger Penrose inspired the 1998 book, The Geometric Universe: Science, Geometry, and the Work of Roger Penrose. Surely Penrose is one of the world’s leading thinkers in mathematics and physics. He has been in the forefront of current research and theory since 1967, however, his work on Conformal Cyclic Cosmology is not based on simple mathematics or simple geometries. It is based on the historic and ongoing tensions within his disciplines. Though his book, Cycles of Time, written for the general population, it is brings all that history and tension with it.

18 Frank Wilczek has written extensively about the Planck length. He recognizes its signature importance within physics. When we approached him with our naive questions via email in December 2012, we did not expect an answer, but, we received one. It was tight, to the point, and challenged us to be more clear. Given he was such a world-renown expert on such matters, we were overjoyed to respond. The entire dialogue will go online at some time. He is a gracious, thoughtful thinker who does not suffer fools gladly. And because we believe, like he does, in beauty and simplicity, perhaps there will be a future dialogue that will further embolden us.

19 Frank, F. C.; Kasper, J. S. (1958), “Complex alloy structures regarded as sphere packings. I. Definitions and basic principles”, Acta Crystall. 11. and Frank, F. C.; Kasper, J. S. (1959), and “Complex alloy structures regarded as sphere packings. II. Analysis and classification of representative structures”, Acta Crystall. 12. More recently, this construct has been analyzed by the following:
(1) “A model metal potential exhibiting polytetrahedral clusters” by Jonathan P. K. Doye, University Chemical Laboratory, Lensfield Road, Cambridge CB2 1EW, United Kingdom, J. Chem. Phys. 119, 1136 (2003) The compete article is also available at ArXiv.org as a PDF: http://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0301374‎
(2) “Polyclusters” by the India Institute of Science in Bangalore has many helpful illustrations and explanations of crystal structure. PDF: http://met.iisc.ernet.in/~lord/webfiles/clusters/polyclusters.pdf
(3) “Mysteries in Packing Regular Tetrahedra” Jeffrey C. Lagarias and Chuanming Zong, a focused look at the history. To download: http://www.ams.org/notices/201211/rtx121101540p.pdf

20 The work of Sophus Lie (1842 – 1899), a Norwegian mathematician, not only opened the way to the theory of continuous transformation groups for all of mathematics, it has given us a pivot point within group theory by which to move our analysis from parameters to boundary conditions and on to transformations between each notation. We are hoping that we are diligent enough to become Sophus Lie scholars.

21New family of tilings of three-dimensional Euclidean space by tetrahedra and octahedra” John H. Conway, Yang Jiao, and Salvatore Torquato.

About the author(s)
In 1970 Bruce Camber began his initial studies of the 1935 Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) thought experiment. In 1972 he was recruited by the Boston University School of Theology based on (1) his research of perfected states in space-time through work within a think tank in Cambridge, Massachusetts, (2) his work within the Boston University Department of Physics, Boston Colloquium for the Philosophy of Science, and (3) his work with Arthur Loeb (Harvard) and the Philomorphs. With introductions by Victor Weisskopf (MIT) and Lew Kowarski (BU), he went to CERN on two occasions, primarily to discuss the EPR paradox with John Bell. In 1979, he coordinated a project at MIT with the World Council of Churches to explore shared first principles between the major academic disciplines represented by 77 peer-selected, leading-living scholars. In 1980 he spent a semester with Olivier Costa de Beauregard and Jean-Pierre Vigier at the Institut Henri Poincaré focusing on the EPR tests of Alain Aspect at the Orsay-based Institut d’Optique. In 1994, following the death of another mentor, David Bohm, Camber re-engaged simple interior geometries based on several discussions with Bohm and his book, Fragmentation & Wholeness. In 1997 he made the molds to manufacture clear plastic models of the tetrahedron and octahedron. These models are used just above. In 2002, he spent a day with John Conway at Princeton to discuss the simplicity of the interior parts of the tetrahedron and octahedron. In 2011, he challenged a high school geometry class to use base-2 exponential notation to follow the interior structure of basic geometries from the Planck Length and to the edges of the Observable Universe.    The first iteration of the Big Board-little universe was created. In September 2013, the first iteration of the Universe Table was created. In 2014, a chart to enclose a moment of perfection extending from the chaotic to the good was introduced.

Initially on the web as: https://doublings.wordpress.com/2013/07/09/1/

****************************************************************************************************

Potentially a highly-integrated model of the universe

Yellow ArrowRightArrowYellowCENTER FOR PERFECTION STUDIES: CONTINUITYSYMMETRYHARMONY GOALS.December.2019
HOMEPAGES: ASSUMPTIONS |DARK|FORMULAS|INFINITY|Map|KEYS|RELATIONS|Transformation|UP

Four Key Missing Pieces from Our Puzzle

by Bruce Camber Early, WORKING draft: December 2019

Introduction: The scholarly community has not openly asked the question, “Are there logical, sequential, relational structures that begin at the Planck scale and go up to the CERN-scale of measurement?” If we apply base-2 (doublings) to the Planck scale, there are at least 64 doublings to get to that particle-wave scale. Then, there are 138 more doublings to go on out to the age and size of the universe. That work was done in December 2011 within a New Orleans high school,. Geometry students structurally encapsulated “everything, everywhere, for all time” within 202 base-2 notations. That resulted in a chart that does the following: (1) Mathematically confirms the speed of light based on Max Planck’s 1899 calculations for the base units of length and time, (2) Opens an actual range to define dark energy and dark matter, (3) Opens homogeneity and isotropy for deeper study whereby conceptual silos of information can be manipulated, particularly including string theory, Langlands programs, and a substantial range of theoretical objects from axions to branes to preons (and most other hypotheticals), and (4) Redefines space-time and matter-energy; all are derivative and finite. Here is a new understanding of emergence; it is the simple beginning of an integrated-and-unified theory of mathematics of the infinitesimal structure of the universe.

Navigation. This article is a compilation of the last five articles for this website. There is easy access to those articles, first by clicking on the yellow arrows to the left and right (and just above the title), or by clicking on the underlined text just above the title.

Logic. The universe is a mathematical, highly-integrated system. There are several layers of simple logic that hold this construct together and gives it a certain veracity that is lacking in many of our more speculative theories about the origins of the universe held by experts and thought leaders within cosmology, theoretical physics, and astrophysics. There is something quite refreshing about starting simple and building from “the smallest possible” infinitesimal units of space, time, matter and energy.

Process. Over the next few years, these pages will be strengthened (and parts substantially rewritten). Experts (scholars) will be consulted. Hopefully there will be many helpful discussions about these four points.

Four conceptual frames of reference

Time Summary
Go to the Chart of 202

1. The Speed of Light. Based on universal physical constants, in 1899 Max Planck discerned the values for Planck Length and Planck Time. The equation for time included the statement that Planck Length divided by Planck Time equals the speed of light. Ostensibly he was right. Also, if you multiply Planck Time and Planck Length by 2, over and over again, between the 143rd and 144th doubling, you could stop at one second to see that the length figure is the distance light travels in one second.

Simple mathematics defines relations that represent the deep order within the universe. If, indeed, it all begins with a simple doubling, we could be inspired to boldly say, “The universe is exponential.”  Of course, this is a most simple validation of an experimental definition of the speed of light. Within this website, we will continue to examine simple formulas that use the speed of light. Our first and the most basic formula, the one that Max Planck grasped in 1899, is: “Planck Length divided by Planck Time is equal to the speed of light.”

Light, time and length appear inextricably woven. So, in what ways is the very essence of light both time and length? In this relational model where the ratios are primary, the effects, a very specific time duration and a length, are both derivative. So, this question, from this rather different perspective, is well-worth our time to grasp more richly and fundamentally.

For example, that result between the 143rd and 144th notations works within every other notation (see line 10 within the chart) and it gives us encouragement that our chart and emerging model of the universe is worth our time to explore further even though there has been no scholarly validation of it. Because the implications and ramifications are a bit overwhelming, perhaps for that reason alone, there has also been no scholar who has told us why or how these numbers are wrong.

If this model is not wrong, because the chart is so simple and so comprehensive, our metaphors for life could begin to change once it is acknowledged. As this model absorbs most of the big bang epochs as defined by scholars and the flow as defined by our natural inflation, we have slowly come to realize that, “Everything is related to everything.”

So, we will continue to study all formulas that use the speed of light and continue to add to the simple facts that we have found in each notation within this emergence of our universe. And, we will continue to invite others to help explain these numbers. To that end, much of our work is focused on STEM tools and curriculum to help others participate.

With every article, we’ll always push to go even deeper. We need to get beyond our basic understanding of our simple chart. For example, let us try to bring in Einstein’s best-known formula ( e=mc2 ).  The next steps

0-64 Mass
Go to the Chart of 202

2. The structure of dark energy and dark matter. To date, the academic community does not recognize any “…logical, sequential, relational structures that begin at the Planck scale and go up to the CERN-scale of measurement.” To date, our exploration of the emergence of functionalities within each of the first 64 notations starts with an infinitesimal sphere.

Through simple doublings, it has been shown how a simple tetrahedral-octahedral couplet is  generated. One can readily see how simple basic infinitesimal geometries can emerge and then begin to complexify. The first sphere, for now, is known as a plancksphere. Our on-going analysis considers how it is a finite-infinite bridge and how tiling-and-tessellating of the universe logically begins right here. Some have called it a fabric of the universe. There is well-established mathematics to show how each notation could readily create multiple fabrics functionally expanding earlier concepts of the aether and fields within fields, right up to a specific convergence where particles and waves begin to emerge between notations 64, 65, 66, and 67.

Having begun to identify forms/functions within sphere stacking and period doubling of equal spheres, the earliest work of Henri Poincare, and the more current work of Mitchell Feigenbaum, Ari Lehto (Finland), and Charles Tresser (IBM) are engaged. Within scholarly work, in-and-around 1920 David Hilbert and Stefan Banach began to define vector spaces and function spaces. At this stage in our efforts, we ask a lot of questions: When and how do these morph? What is the functional relational between reciprocal spaces and Fourier spaces? Could these simple doubling functions open up the work of Henri Poincaré and his sections, periodic orbits, and state space?”

1-64-Charge
Go to the Chart of 202

Hypothesized within these earliest notations is a place for all known mathematical systems to begin to emerge and to have each naturally build on the systems that birthed its essential structures.

We can’t measure any of it. We might confirm all of it.

Yes, although well-below the thresholds of direct measurement, I believe our mathematical devices, intuitions, and logic can, and will, create ways to confirm its reality and how-and-where it is included within the base-2 model. Today we start with the first notations; we have numbers generated from the Planck logic and these numbers are all being verified scientifically, logically, and mathematically.

That finite-infinite bridge may be defined by stretching the logic of existing scholarly studies already well-known and well-defined within their information silos. Though the work with subspace-hypercyclic operators” is currently just beyond my reach, I have a hunch that this work could help us to understand the roles of pi and the other dimensionless constants within this model that work both within the finite and infinite.  The next steps…

3. Homogeneity and isotropy. There are conceptual silos of information everywhere within our scholarly world. Two of the more fundamental studies are string theory within theoretical physics and the Langlands programs within mathematics. Neither has easily fit in with the current foundations of knowledge, yet both are very robust studies. Neither starts simply, yet both use the first principles of continuity (order) and symmetry (relations). So, those first 64 notations of the 202 could provide the necessary bandwidth to build the relational bridges.

In our preliminary studies, the first ten notations were for fundamental forms. Both string theory and Langlands engage specialized concepts of forms. In much the same way, both proceed with structures, substances, qualities, relations and systems. These are also the foundations for homogeneity and isotropy.

As simplicity becomes increasingly complex, all sorts and flavors of what are currently consider theoretical objects emerge. Things like axions, branes, and gravitons-and-gravitinos have had years of work to define them, but no place to go within a grid so all are still considered hypothetical. The currently-recognized grid that starts with particles and waves is just too limiting. Here the grid is huge — no less than 64 doublings of the Planck base units.

Unlike the Big Bang inflationary cosmology there is no need to project (as MIT’s inflationary universe scholar, Alan Guth, did) an infinitesimally short period of exponential growth to smooth out any and all irregularities from their infinitely hot start. Our first 64 notations  start cold and these are that exponential growth. It has smoothness (continuity and symmetry) right from the start.

Of course, within the base-2 model, chaos must come at some point before the 67th notation. Also known as quantum fluctuations, perhaps the five-star tetrahedral cluster with its pentastar gap is the source whereby the imperfect fitting creates a new domain for creativity, chance, randomness, and, yes, even free will.

Also, as a result of engaging these first 67 notations since 2011, I believe that the homogeneity-and-isotropy within our universe reflects the very nature of the infinite while chance, randomness, creativity, and free will reflects the very nature of the finite. If the instantiation of that five-star cluster is a marker, I suspect it is not a static location, but actually floats within a range of notations. The next steps...

Length Summary
Go to the Chart of 202

4. Space-time, matter-energy as derivative of light. There is a continuum of light that starts simply defined as the speed of light, c, and then another at c2.  Suprasets, c3, c4, c5 and beyond are used in the definitions of the Planck base units. Hopefully our scholars will be the ones who will lead us into these areas. Important for all of us is to grasp the finite, derivative, and necessary relations between these four basics, the first faces of physicality.

Of course, within the world of our scholars, that is a heretical statement. More common among them would be comments  like Frank Wilczek’s summary, “Because Newtonian space is infinite and homogeouous (sic),  Earth and its surface are not special places.” He says this on page 5 in his book, Lightness of Being, Basic Books, 2008. The (sic) reference is to the relatively easy misspelling, “homogeouous” for homogeneous. In this emergent model of the universe, space is derivative and every place is special, i.e. uniquely defined.  The next steps

______________

Building on prior homepages:
(1) Bridge (2) Formulas (3) Map the Universe (4) Bottom-up (5) Transformation

______________

Endnotes & Footnotes

1 The Speed of Light. The electromagnetic spectrum is a well-understood facet of light. We’ve added time and length as two more facets. How about Einstein’s work on mass and energy? Within this chart, it appears that it is instantaneously multiplied by itself, mass and energy manifest as a third and fourth face of light. These four facets are part of the entire spectrum of 202 notations whereas we suspect electromagnetism, as we currently understand it, does not reach much below the 67th notation. Theoretically, the dimensionless constants, the Fourier transform, and close cubic packing do.

We’ll keep raising questions. The range for visible light is very small. The electromagnetic spectrum reaches beyond that ultraviolet light on the short side of visible light and possibly beyond what we understand are ultra-short gamma waves. The long radio waves not only reach the 202nd notation, these are also a facet of light. References/resources

Planck Mass Summary
Go to the chart of 202

2 Dark Matter and Dark Energy. To make progress, we have to bare our limitations and ask for help.  Although I find the logic within this base-2 model to be compelling enough to continue to dig deeper after all these years (since 2011), it is risky business.  So many fundamental questions have not been answered.  The most fundamental: Is the universe finite or infinite?

We don’t know so we split the difference and say it is a closed-but-flexible universe that continues to expand with a rather magical fabric that weaves between the finite and infinite with literally innumerable relations that bind the two. On the “other side” of the current expansion is the infinite which is defined by continuity, symmetry and harmony. Now, as a quick reminder, all the metaphors and mysteries of personal belief are left to the believers. We only ask them, “Do those three concepts in any way help to define our understanding infinite?”

Planck Charge Summary
Go to the chart of 202

Computations. Dark matter and dark energy are not understood. First, consider the range. Scholars currently estimate that dark matter is anywhere from 25% to 95% of all matter. For those who suggest 25%, we will need to aggregate those earliest notations,   0-to-64 for all 202 notations.  Each begins with the “same”  4.01495×1011 kilograms. We’ll get some help to see how close that calculation comes to  25% of our calculation within the chart of  1.399×1052 kilograms for the mass of the universe or to the higher figure, 1.5 × 1053 kilograms, used online in many places. Then, for those who calculate as high as 95% of the universe, it would suggest that all matter prior to the current notation, 202, essentially goes dark. Given the pivotal role of dark matter and dark energy within physics and cosmology and for the rest of us to understand the meaning and value of life, as of this article, much more intense work will be done here. References/resources…

3 Homogeneity and isotropy.  Assumed by most of the scholarly community, these two seminal words bind our universe as a single system. Notwithstanding, there is no currently-recognized cosmology that starts with and then builds upon those two concepts.

The essence of homogeneity and isotropy is continuity and symmetry and that is the very foundation of our model that starts with the Planck base units and encapsulates the universe in just 202 base-2 notations. Here the cosmological constant are those continuity equations  that cross the finite-infinite bridge to open the way for all the dimensionless constants. It is good to have the 31 identified by Wilczek and Aguirre, Rees, Tegmark (W-ART) as a starting point. They are clear to say that all necessary for the standard models of particle physics and cosmology (ArXiv PDF: page 2, Table 1), yet they are top-down particle-wave physicists.  With their 31 as a goal, it seems that it might be much more interesting to use them to build basic forms, then structures, that are purely mathematical yet begin to manifest with infinitesimal values for time and  length and very small values for mass and charge. We will continue to try to encourage bottom-up construction and not top-down thinking. References/resources…

4 Space, time, matter-energy and the finite-infinite. Since the advent of dimensional analysis, renormalization, and cutoff regularization, the concept of infinity has been less of a problem for scholars. But, it is no secret that each works around the problems of infinity. After awhile, it is easy to stop looking at each result to ask, “What does this tell us about the very nature of infinity? What does it tell us about the four Planck base units?”  The deeper inherent assumptions pulls us back into homogeneity and isotropy and that  the universe is a result of continuity, symmetry and harmonics.  It has an active and constant role with all things dimensionless. It part of the definition of light and as such is intimate with space-time and mass-charge. All four values are a reflection of the speed of light.  More to come..  References/resources…

 …on getting inside equations    More to come…._

_____________

Building on prior homepages:
(1) Bridge (2) Formulas (3) Map the Universe (4) Bottom-up (5) Transformation

______________

References & Resources

(very  rough draft includes hunches and notes)

1. The Nature of Light.  On Absolute Units: Choices

Building on: (1) Bridge (2) Formulas (3) Map the Universe (4) Bottom-up (5) Transformation

2. The Nature of Dark Energy and Dark Matter.

https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy

Dark Energy is thought to be… to be continued…

fields within fields: physics and mathematics

______________

Building on: (1) Bridge2 (2) Formulas #3 (3) Map the Universe10 (4) Bottom-up (4) Transformation

______________

3. The Nature of Homogeneity and Isotropy.

The Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker (FLRW) metric starts with the assumption of homogeneity and isotropy of space.

From the Planck scale to particles-and-waves, a hypostatic domain

and harmony (dynamics) of the infinite are transformed as

______________

Building on: (1) Bridge (2) Formulas (3) Map the Universe (4) Bottom-up (5) Transformation

______________

4. The Nature of Space-Time and Matter-Energy.

Regularization, Renormalization, and Dimensional Analysis (PDF): Dimensional Regularization Meets Freshman E&M ∗ Fredrick Olness & Randall Scalise Department of Physics, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX 75275-0175, U.S.A. (Dated: August 22, 2017)

How To Think About QFTs David Morrissey March 20, 2019 (PDF)

Base-2 chart of the universe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Poincar%C3%A9

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercyclic_operator

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_orbit

The intersection of a periodic orbit in the state space of a continuous dynamical system with a certain lower-dimensional subspace, called the Poincaré section, transversal to the flow of the system.

Then, that those two numbers have an internal relation that is necessarily related to light, has nothing to do with doublings. Or, does it?

Multiply by 2 works. In every one of the 202 notations, it approximates the speed of light. Mathematically Confirmed it take shape with many different faces from a simple notation, a step, an interval, a group, a set, a category, a shape, First, each notation is a group, first related by the mathematics of base-2 and then by inherent geometries.

The arrow and flow of time are limited to those 202 notations. To grasp the very nature of time. https://81018.com/bridge/

First Steps of Quantum Gravity and the Planck Values, by Gennady Gorelik

http://people.bu.edu/gorelik/cGh_FirstSteps92_MPB_36/cGh_FirstSteps92_text.htm

In each case, a mathematical function called the Lagrangian is a function of the generalized coordinates, their time derivatives, and time, and contains the information about the dynamics of the system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_mechanics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixing_(mathematics)#Topological_mixing

Evolution of Phase Transitions

A Continuum Theory. Rohan Abeyaratne,

T. Jacobson, S. Liberati and D. Mattingly, “Astrophysical bounds on
Planck suppressed Lorentz violation,” Lect. Notes Phys. 669 (2005)

S. Doplicher, K. Fredenhagen and J. E. Roberts, “The Quantum struc-
ture of space-time at the Planck scale and quantum fields,” Commun.

Math. Phys. 172 (1995) 187.
In particle physics, preons are point particles, conceived of as sub-components of quarks, and leptons. The word was coined by Jogesh Pati and Abdus Salam, in 1974.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_transition

A group is a set, G, together with an operation • (called the group law of G) that combines any two elements a and b to form another element, denoted ab or ab. To qualify as a group, the set and operation, (G, •), must satisfy four requirements known as the group axioms:[5]

Closure
For all a, b in G, the result of the operation, ab, is also in G.[b]
Associativity
For all a, b and c in G, (ab) • c = a • (bc).
Identity element
There exists an element e in G such that, for every element a in G, the equation ea = ae = a holds. Such an element is unique (see below), and thus one speaks of the identity element.
Inverse element
For each a in G, there exists an element b in G, commonly denoted a−1 (or −a, if the operation is denoted “+”), such that ab = ba = e, where e is the identity element.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixing_(mathematics)#Topological_mixing

Wilczek-LOB

2.17643109 × 1059 m7 / s7

Rapid progress in the understanding of superconductivity gained momentum in the mid-1950s. It began with the 1948 paper, “On the Problem of the Molecular Theory of Superconductivity”, [1] where Fritz London proposed that the phenomenological London equations may be consequences of the coherence of a quantum state. In 1953, Brian Pippard, motivated by penetration experiments, proposed that this would modify the London equations via a new scale parameter called the coherence length. John Bardeen then argued in the 1955 paper, “Theory of the Meissner Effect in Superconductors”,[2] that such a modification naturally occurs in a theory with an energy gap. The key ingredient was Leon Cooper’s calculation of the bound states of electrons subject to an attractive force in his 1956 paper, “Bound Electron Pairs in a Degenerate Fermi Gas”.[3]

___________________________________________________________
Initiated in private on Thursday, November 21, 2019
Public Access For Insiders; No Direct Links: Friday, November 22, 2019
Most active editing: November 21 – December 6, 2019

A first draft homepage: Not yet projected
Last edit of substance: December 6, 2019

Possible Paradigm Shift For Time, Space, Mass And Charge

YellowArrow20x38YellowArrow-RightCENTER FOR PERFECTION STUDIES: CONTINUITYSYMMETRYHARMONY USAGOALS•September.2019
HOMEPAGES: ASSUMPTIONS|DARK|EMERGENCE| INFINITY|Inflation|Letter| REVIEW|Transformation

On Asking Nobel Laureates Key Questions*

Yonath278 Ada E. Yonath
Steven WeinbergSteven Weinberg
Barack ObamaBarack Obama
Kip ThorneKip Thorne
Donna StricklandDonna Strickland
G't HooftGerardus ‘t Hooft

by Bruce Camber, working draft, initiated in August 2019
Related: Base-2, Dark, Lemaître, QuestionsStructure, Subjects-Objects, Time, Transformation

Background. In 1969 I worked for a group that developed new priorities for the USA. One of my jobs was to do the initial research and compile data, including one-on-one interviews with scholars from around the world.1 These were people who had expert knowledge and key insights about a pivotal subject for our time. That experience served me well.

When my attention turned to creativity, invention, scientific anomalies, and paradigm shifts, the 1935 Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen thought formula 2 became my most obstinate-and-key challenge. Something wasn’t right.  It became an on-going challenge to determine what was missing. For the next ten years I called on some of the best who might have new key insights. By 1980, it became entirely obvious, we were going in circles. It was time to earn a living. I backed off knowing eventually somebody would breakthrough.3

In 2011, thirty-one years later, something finally hit me; I was helping a high school teacher in our extended family with his geometry classes. That early story is now well-told; a very-simple mathematical model of the universe emerged.4  It had just 202 base-2 notations (successive doublings) of the Planck base units whereby the first notation is the first moment of time. The 202nd notation holds this day (the Now). That 202nd notation also holds all of human history as well as the current expansion of the universe. Fresh from an experience of working with over 100 school kids who seemed to grasp it all, I began asking questions of everyone else.

Potential breakthrough. I’d ask, “Did we back into a new paradigm?  Is it _right or wrong?” 5

Nobody had an answer. A few made one or two-word comments. So, what does one do? Ask the smartest among us? …Nobel laureates? Surely they are among our best; so why not? Of course, these laureates are all extremely busy and in high demand. And, to be fair, we also know that they don’t have all the answers. Just look at our world’s problems. Look at how very nasty we can be with each other. Obviously, there is something we haven’t quite grasped. And, my suspicion is that even the smartest among us haven’t a clue how to answer our most vexing questions. Yes, I’m still asking the same questions that I asked in 1979 for a “first principles” project at MIT.

Yet, what if this rather radical re-engagement of our starting points opens a new door? Could it become a major paradigm shift? We know that every one of the concepts that give meaning and value to our life can still be improved even if a concept seems complete unto itself. Our world is filled with silos of information that do not readily communicate with other silos of information.

Our basic premise — a very different starting point — shows how everything is related to everything. There is connective tissue. There is an aether. There is a a grid or matrix. So, we will ask questions until our simple little starting point is either more fully understood or discredited. To date, it seems that those 64 doublings from the Planck Scale to the CERN-scale, if examined, just might give us access to new answers.

Three levels of engagement became increasingly clear: (1) cubic close packing of equal spheres and sphere stacking from the Planck scale, (2) period doubling bifurcation at the Planck scale and (3) the Fourier transform at the Planck scale.6

Let’s critically evaluate it. To that end, I have sent notes, emails, and tweets to many Nobel laureates, six of whom are pictured above (each picture is linked to a discussion that then goes to recent letters to them). At no time has any one of them said, “Yes, let’s look into this further.” That could change.

The Future. We will not rest until we know how it is that we are wrong.  Our simple paradigm of reality is based on the following concepts:

  • Continuity (order). All time is now.7 There is no past or future. There are 202 notations that encapsulate our universe, and every notation is active, different, and encodes every thought, word and deed of every person and every change of every thing. Notations 1-201 are fully symmetric and 202 becomes symmetric, possibly individually through sleeping.
  • Symmetry (relations). The primary real.8 Space and time are derivative, albeit fundamental relations.  Mass and charge are also derivative, albeit fundamental relations.  Each of the 202 base-2 notations have different parameters that defines it, yet base-2 (doublings) are held in common by all notations. And, it logically seems all notations are active in the current definition of who we are and why we are.
  • Dynamics (harmony). Networks.9 There is a plenum, an aether, grid or matrix of planckspheres. It fills the universe within those 202 notations and this is the basis of homogeneity-and-isotropy, dark matter-and-dark energy and moments of perfection also known as harmony.  Notations 1 to 64 are the basis of the continued expansion of the universe.

Leading-edge thinking. Of the eleven Nobel Laureates pictured on this page, questions have already been raised with eight. Those letters to each are linked from the discussion about each below. More questions will be pursued. Any answer will be deeply appreciated and analyzed. Additional questions will be raised. Questions with those laureates listed just below will also be raised.  Others will be asked, especially those who carry on the traditions of laureates who have died. 

Either our simple construct is true or it is not.
And, either way, we will learn a lot about mathematical logic.

________________

Much more research to come

  • The Nobel Prize in Physics 2016: David J. Thouless, F. Duncan M. Haldane and J. Michael Kosterlitz “for theoretical discoveries of topological phase transitions and topological phases of matter”
  • The Nobel Prize in Physics 2015: Takaaki Kajita and Arthur B. McDonald “for the discovery of neutrino oscillations, which shows that neutrinos have mass”
  • The Nobel Prize in Physics 2008:  Yoichiro Nambu “for the discovery of the mechanism of spontaneous broken symmetry in subatomic physics”
  • The Nobel Prize in Physics 2004:  David J. Gross, H. David Politzer and Frank Wilczek “for the discovery of asymptotic freedom in the theory of the strong interaction”
  • The Nobel Prize in Physics 2003: Alexei A. Abrikosov, Vitaly L. Ginzburg and Anthony J. Leggett “for pioneering contributions to the theory of superconductors and superfluids”
  • The Nobel Prize in Physics 2001: Eric A. Cornell, Wolfgang Ketterle and Carl E. Wieman “for the achievement of Bose-Einstein condensation in dilute gases of alkali atoms, and for early fundamental studies of the properties of the condensates” 

The study of critical insights of scholars is a key…

Marie CurieMarie Curie
MourouGérard Mourou
Frank WilczekFrank Wilczek
Barry BarishBarry Barish
Rainer WeissRainer Weiss
FreeseKatherine Freese

Endnotes, Footnotes, References and Resources


A basic premise of this website: Every concept can be improved even if it seems complete.
* Six Nobel laureates. Pictured at the top of this page (with another five just above this section endnotes, footnotes, etc.) have all been asked key questions about our simple, mathematical  (base-2) model of our universe. Letters to each are linked below. Plus, there are many others among our listings of people who have also been contacted about this work.

Ada E. Yonath (Email) is included because she never gave up. Who can claim 25,000 trials over ten years? Not many people. Most of us would have given up. But, Ada had an insight, a hunch, an inner driving motivation. She may have gotten discouraged, but she would not be deterred. So, who better to ask about the very nature of life? There is a huge discussion within biology — genomics, RNA/DNA, protein, bioinformatics, back to the simple archaea family.  How-when-where does it begin? How is it sustained? How would you answer our questions to her? In our base-2 model, life as we know it today doesn’t begin until the 202nd notation. Only 2.83 to 3 billion years of this notation has unfolded. Also, the earth is just 4.543 billion years old, the sun 4.6 billion and the Solar System 4.51 billion! That all began in the 201st notation!

Steven Weinberg  (Email & Letters) was awarded his share of a Nobel prize in 1979. Even before that time, he did not suffer fools gladly. This special assurance of knowing what is right and who is wrong often bristles people, but I rather enjoy such folks. I continue to nudge this ever-so-famous emeritus professor and his group of scholars working on basic theory through a grant from the National Science Foundation, Department of Energy. As expansive and detailed as their knowledge is, I think they have a limited view of the possibilities between the Planck scale and fundamental particles. In our model dark matter and dark energy emerge within those first 64 notations, well-below the thresholds of actual measurement! Just because these theorists have never considered that there could be “the first 64 notations,” it is easily written off as poppycock!

Barack Obama (Letter and emails) was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. It was controversial at the time and  continues to be so. Notwithstanding, our former president is included here because with the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu, and the Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamanei of Iran, they were all introduced to our work, particularly where it invokes continuity, symmetry and harmony, the quantitative/qualitative faces of this project. This value dimension is a key part of the project. This note was to invite them to challenge the incompleteness of religious hermeneutics and the our understanding of the finite-infinite relation. Although this work now falls to all thoughtful world leaders, I believe it should be a component of every Nobel Peace Prize, i.e. an intellectual contribution to our understanding of, and need for, an ever-improving quality of life for everyone.

In his Nobel speech, Obama said, “To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism – it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reasonWe do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better place… Let us reach for the world that ought to be – that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls.” My comment: I think we can go deeper.

Kip Thorne (Letters) has allowed his knowledge to be challenged by everyday people. He has had a primary role with the development — writing, production, and follow-up — of the 2014 movie, InterstellarOur hope is that with his unique sense of openness, he will eventually tell us where, how, and why our model could work within the world of physics and even general science.

Donna Strickland (Email) was awarded her share of the Nobel Prize in 2018 within key areas of laser technologies. Who better to ask the question, “What is light?”  Much more than visible light, the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum doesn’t look like light. Can we understand light in new ways from the four Planck base units? We think so.

Gerardus ‘t Hooft (Email) in 2011 with his Dutch colleague, Stefan Vandoren, wrote the heart of their book, “Time in Powers of Ten: Natural Phenomena and Their Timescales.” Translated into English by Saskia Eisberg-t’Hooft and republished in 2014, it was a natural sequel to the 1957 work of another Dutch educator, Kees Boeke with his book, “Cosmic View: The Universe in 40 Jumps.” ‘t Hooft became a Nobel Laureate in 1999. Though our work has not been embraced by our Dutch friends, it also has never been challenged.

Frank Wilczek (Emails, meetings) was the first Nobel laureate to teach us about Max Planck and the nature of the Planck scale. His articles and books are everywhere within this website and our offices. He has not yet shut us down and at times, he has encouraged us.

Rainer Weiss (Email) is a new Nobel Laureate and his LIGO experiments are being heavily analyzed and discussed. He has spent a lifetime focused on the subject. For us to ask him to consider a completely different set of starting principles was a bit presumptuous. But, one never knows. A seed may have been planted.

Katherine Freese (Email) is not a Nobel laureate but there is good reason to think that she could become one. In 1999 principal thought-leaders among cosmologists and theoretical physicists were called in to make sense of inflation. They haven’t. Here we find the work of somebody who has. She further opened her study of natural inflation (appears to have begun in 1991).  She seems like the kind of person who might consider asking what natural inflation would look like if it were to begin at the Planck scale. If she and her associates were to find a natural, exponential inflation that redefines time, she would be in line for a Nobel prize and I would be most pleased.

____________________

1 New priorities for the USA. Cold-calling is an essential part of business growth and it seems also to be true about intellectual growth. To grow we have to risk a little. Science advances incrementally and most often it is slow and even arduous. Paradigm shifts are very rare. Yet that “cold calling” modus operandi prevailed and served me wellA little more history

____________________

2 The 1935 Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen. Commonly referred to as the EPR paradox, my first encounter in 1970 was through David Bohm when a friend introduced me to his work with Aharanov from 1957. As one thing always leads to another, soon we were studying his other 1957 article about “Paradox of Einstein, Rosen, and Podolsky.” There were 77 scholars whose insights I especially sought out.  

____________________

3 Something new will come. That’s the creative process. Sometimes you just have toback off until something hits you.” We had gone over the details incessantly. We asked the question, “What are we missing?”  We didn’t know. We had continuity-symmetry-and-harmony, but also Bell’s inequalities, quantum fluctuations and action-at-a-distance. It was enigmatic!

____________________

4 A mathematical model of the universe. Long before we had that simple model, I had questions for everyone.  A mathematical physicist, Patricio Letelier, told me in and around 1976, that strings  were the smallest constituents of matter. We were all working on our PhDs at Boston University and even at that time I was thinking that string theory had something to do with a finite-infinite bridge. Though renormalization was helpful in getting specific mathematical equations to work, it did not mitigate or truncate the concept of infinity, especially if we redefine infinity as continuity (order), symmetry (relations) and harmony (dynamics). In 2011 we quickly discovered that our 202 base-2 notations were not part of current academic thinking. Base-10 (Kees Boeke’s 1957 work and the ‘t HooftVandoren 2014 work) was, yet it was also functionally aloof and not granular enough. We began to tell the unfolding of our 2011 story, “Isn’t this remarkable? What’s happening within those first 64 notations?” We had questions for everyone, but at least, we had a STEM tool

____________________

5 …a new paradigm? …not even wrong? It took seven years (2011-2018), but the light is shining a little more brightly. Then, in July 2019 the homepage article (herein to be known as “the transformation homepage“) just seemed to open it all up. There was a concresence of concepts. At no time had those concepts been applied to the Planck scale. As it was happening, it just seemed right. So, our rather radical re-engagement of these starting points is either right or wrong I’ll give it until August 31 — “Let’s go over that just one more time” — and we’ll begin submitting that article to professional publications. When they reject it, we will plead for some explanations. Maybe we can get some conceptual clarity.

My 1979 MIT project is finally back in business!

____________________

6 Three faces or forms of the transformation. From among all the concepts examined over the years, three unlikely, principal concepts emerged for our transformation homepage
1. Cubic close packing of equal spheres (and sphere stacking) from the Planck scale
2. Period doubling bifurcation at the Planck scale
3. The Fourier transform at the Planck scale

Literally, taken together, I will guess that all three will touch most every academic discipline.  I cannot see how it could be otherwise.

____________________

7 Three infinite functions of the transformation. Of the principal concepts within that Transformation homepage, our paradigm for infinity will be applied.  The first is continuity (order) whereby all time is now

_________________

8 Symmetry (relations). A primary real. Instead of running away from the concept, we embrace infinity. With only a superficial analysis of pi, people like David Hilbert are challenged. When we begin to explore space and time as derivative, what becomes fundamental is clear — the relations. Mass and charge are also derivative, albeit fundamental relations. These 202 base-2 notations each have different parameters that define it, yet base-2 (doublings) are held in common by all notations. And, it logically seems all parameters are active in the current definition of who we are and why we are.

___________________

9 Dynamics (harmony). Networks. There is a plenum, an aether, grid or matrix of planckspheres. It fills the universe within those 202 notations and this is the basis of homogeneity-and-isotropy, dark matter-and-dark energy and moments of perfection also known as harmony. Within every second of our universe, there are 143 notations that pulsate, like a heart beat, expanding the universe.

___________________

More editing to come.

References & Resources

Reference/Resource #1. David Bohm in his book, Causality & Chance in Modern Physics, 1957, pages 163-164, said: “Thus, in the last century only mechanical, chemical, thermal, electrical, luminous, and gravitational energy were known. Now, we know of nuclear energy, which constitutes a much larger reservoir. But the infinite substructure of matter very probably contains energies that are as far beyond nuclear energies as nuclear energies are beyond chemical energies. Indeed, there is already some evidence in favour of this idea. Thus, if one computes the “zero point” energy due to quantum-mechanical fluctuations on even one cubic centimetre of space, one comes out with something of the order of 1038 ergs, which is equal to that which would be liberated by fission of about 1010 tons of uranium.”

Reference/Resource #2. A seminal work, Discussion of Experimental Proof for the Paradox of Einstein, Rosen, and Podolsky, D. Bohm and Y. Aharonov, Technion, Haifa, Israel Phys. Rev. 108, 1070 – Published 15 November 1957 (Received May 10, 1957 [PDF]

Reference/Resource #3. On of the most seminal works in physics, On the Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen Paradox [PDF], J.S. Bell, Physics Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 195—200, 1964

Spacetime



Challenge us, coach us. We need all the help we can get.  I’d be pleased to hear from you. -BEC

On using base-2 from the Planck base units versus big bang theories

Yellow Arrow
CENTER FOR PERFECTION STUDIES: CONTINUITYSYMMETRYHARMONYUSAGOALS • March 2019
HOMEPAGES: Assumptions|Dark|Emerge|Infinity|Intro|Max|Review|Scholars|WEINBERG|ORIGINAL
1-36
36 of 202 base-2 exponential notations from the first moment of time to the current age of the universe.

BY BRUCE E. CAMBER FEBRUARY 2019 Just Prior: Unified Theory?|Ask Scholars?|ASSUMPTIONS?|INFINITY?|MORE

A Fraction Of A Second Difference

Comparison. The key difference between the big bang theories and our base-2 Quiet Expansion is about one picosecond  (just 10-12 seconds or one trillionth of a second).  The following chart was buried in a larger June 2016 document. It has been extracted so we can focus on the differences between the models and then begin to explore the connections with the two Standard Models.

Who? What? Why?

When? Where? How?

Who: The history of big bang cosmology (bbt) is highly documented. It is an intellectual cornerstone within experimental and theoretical physics, cosmology, and astrophysics.

What: To challenge the bbt appears foolhardy at best. Yet, there are many, many reasons to challenge it, but most of all because (1) it is overly complex and confusing, (2) it is not very good philosophy, and (3) it is very poor psychology.

Why: The first three key parts of the bbt, involving substantially less than a trillionth of a second, are based on hunches and a need to shoehorn data to support the model.

Wikipedia says, “Planck scale is beyond current physical theories; it has no predictive value. The Planck epoch is assumed (or theorized) to have been dominated by quantum effects of gravity.”

We say that the Planck scale is the starting point for the initial six notations (de facto defined by the bbt) and that these notations are shared by everything, everywhere in the universe. Painfully aware of the limitations of our vocabulary, these first notations are considered to be archetypal forms, structure and substance. Archetypal is used in the sense of the original pattern or model by which all things of the same type are representations, the prototype, or a perfect example. For more, see all of 202 encapsulating notations (opens in a new window or tab).

Both models have made key assumptions. We believe the QE model is internally more consistent, imaginative, and stimulating.

This “Singularity” Is a Meeting Place of Converging Formulae, perhaps also known as a Modulus-or-Nexus of Transformation

Keys to this Quiet Expansion: More than the big bang theory‘s four forces of nature — gravity, electromagnetism, the strong force, and the weak force — within this Planck scale we assume these four are encapsulated within all four Planck base units and the constants that define them, and some manifestation of this unification is carried throughout all 202 notations. And, as we have noted, the Planck base units are defined by length, time, mass,  and charge; and, these are further defined by the speed of light (or special relativity), the gravitational constant (or general relativity), the reduced Planck constant (or ħ or quantum mechanics), the Coulomb constant (or ε0 or electric charge or electromagnetism), and the Boltzmann constant (or kB or of temperature).

The Planck scale is not beyond logic, numbers, and conceptual integrity. Simple logic and simple math rule. Homogeneity and isotropy are the results. Within the Quiet Expansion (QE) model, we have applied that simple logic somewhat arbitrarily by placing Planck Temperature at the top of the scale, just beyond the 202nd notation and then dividing by 2, it goes down approaching Absolute Zero. We are ready to adjust it at any time when a more integrative logic prevails! Also, we are increasingly finding a simple relational logic between the four original  Planck base units. Notwithstanding, this logic will be constantly revisited throughout our ever-so-slow development of QE model.

Within the QE model, the Planck Charge, a Coulombs value, is taken as given. Within the big bang theory (bbt), the Planck Charge is ignored. The bbt value is as large as possible. Their measurement is given in GeV units, one billion electron volts. Add 1016 zeroes and you have quite a charge.

To begin to understand all these numbers and their correlations, questions are asked, “Are these all non-repeating, never-ending numbers like Pi? Are all numbers that are non-repeating and never-ending somehow part of the infinite yet also the beginning of quantum mechanics?” The suggestion has been made that we carry out each of the Planck numbers at least 10 decimal places, and if need be, 100 decimal places, and possibly even 1000 decimal places, to see if patterns can be discerned. We recognize that relative to other units of measurement, such as the SI base quantities, the values of the Planck units are approximations mostly due to uncertainty in the value of the gravitational constant (G).

The QE model holds that things are simple before complex and everything is related to everything. Imputed, hypostatized and/or hypothesized are pointfree vertices and simple geometries as the deep infrastructure that gives rise to the work on combinatorics, cellular automaton, cubic close packing, bifurcation theory (and the Feigenbaum’s constants), Langlands program, mereotopology (point-free geometry), the 80-known binary operations, and scalar field theory. Here are people working on theories and constructions of the simple, yet their concepts are anything but simple.

Big Bang Theory (bbt)

Planck epoch

Planck time:

<10−43 seconds

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Planck Temperature:

1032 Kelvin

First key bbt error

Planck Energy:

1019 GeV

Second bbt error

Grand Unification

Epoch

<10−36 seconds~
1016 GeV
(gigaelectronvolts)

Third bbt error

Inflationary

Epoch and

Electroweak

Epoch

<10−33 s to <10−32 seconds

1028 K to 1022 Kelvin

Expansion: 1026 meters

Editor: “Science Fiction”

Fourth bbt error~

QuarkEpoch

>10−31 to

>10−12 seconds

1012 Kelvin

We sync the QE time to the bbt time.  The temperature scale is now beginning to sync as well.

Hadron Epoch

10−6 seconds to

10−1 seconds

1010 Kelvin to

109 Kelvin

Lepton Epoch

1 second to

10 seconds

109 K

Note: QE temp higher

Photon Epoch

(Nucleosynthesis)

10 seconds to

103 seconds to

1013 seconds~

1011 Kelvin to

109 Kelvin to

103 Kelvin

10 MeV to 100 keV
Note: Seeking expert help.

Matter-dominated

era

47 ka (47,000 years) to

10 Ga (10×109) years~

104 Kelvin to

4 Kelvin

Recombination

380 ka (380,000 years)~

4000 Kelvin

Dark Ages

380 ka to 150 Ma (Mega-annus)

or 150 million years

4000 Kelvin to

60 Kelvin

Stelliferous Era

150 Ma (150 million years)

100 Gab (150 billion years)

60 Kelvin to 0.03 Kelvin

Reionization

~150 Ma to

1 Ga (1 Billion)~

>60 K to 19 K

Galaxy formation

and evolution

1 Ga to 10 Ga

19 Kelvin to 4 Kelvin

Dark-energy

dominated era

>10 Ga

Present time

13.8 Ga

2.7 Kelvin

Quiet.Expansion.(QE)

Notations 0-6

Planck base units

Planck time:

5.39106×10−44 seconds

 ≈ 4.4×10-27 (K)

Temperature: Derivative

of the base units?

1.8×10-18 Coulombs

2.176×10-8 kilograms

1.61×10-35  meters

Notation 7 to 34

7:  6.901×10−42  (s)

31: 1.157×10−34 (s)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
4.02×10-9 Coulombs

A simple natural inflation

Notation 35 – 40

35:  6.44×10-8 Coulombs

40: 2.06×10-6 (C)

35: 1.852×10-33  (s)

40: 5.927×10−32 (s)

Note: QE syncs to bbt time

2.42×10-17 (K)

35: 5.55×10-25 meters

40:  1.77×10-23 (m)

Notation 41-104

41: 1.18×10−31 seconds

104: 1.09×10−12 (s)

41: 4.84×10-17 Kelvin

104: 4.47×102 (K)

(Please note: 310K is equal to  98.33°F, 36.85° C. That’s special.

Notation 105142

105: 2.18×10−12 (s)

142: 3.0×10−1 (s)

105: 8.94×102 Kelvin

142: 6.14×1013 (K)

Notation 143147

143: 6.01×10−1 (s)

147: 9.61 (s)

143: 2.45×1014 Kelvin

147: 3.93×1015 (K)

Notation 147-154187

147: 9.6185 seconds
154: 1231.1 (s)
187: 1.05×1013 (s) or
or 320± thousand years
147: 3.932×1015 Kelvin
154: 5.03×1017 (K)
187: 4.32×1027 (K)
147: 3.346×1026 (C)
154: 4.28×1028 (C)
187: 3.67×1038 (C)

Notation 184– 201

Cosmology emerges!

184: 41,919.31 years

201: 10 billion years

184: 5.4×1026 Kelvin

201: 7.0×1031 (K)

Notation 187

320± thousand years

3.6×1038 (C)

4.3×1027 Kelvin

Notation 187-196

196: 171.2± million years

5,414,779,502,320,000 sec

2.2×1030 (K)

Approaching Planck Temperature

Notation 196-199

196: 171.2± million years

199: 1.27 billion years

Notation 196-199

196: 171.2± million years

199: 1.27 billion years

Note:

.Notation 199-202

199: 1.27 billion years

203+: Way-Distant future

7.08×1031 Kelvin

Notations 1-202

The dark-energy dominated era is being evaluated in light of the first 64 notations, the derivative natural of time, and homogeneity and isotropy.

Notation 202+

13.8 billion years

Planck Temperature

When: In the very beginning…

Wikipedia says that the Planck epoch requires speculative proposals, a “New Physics” such as “…the Hartle–Hawking initial state, string landscape, string gas cosmology, and the ekpyrotic universe.” Each is a conceptually-rich, dense jungle of ideas. Cutting through that entanglement is only for the highly-motivated and academically astute. Most of us will just go on to the grand unification epoch, in search of a logical system that builds consistently upon itself.

About the bbt model, Wikipedia simply says, “The three forces of the Standard Model are unified.” Of course, the QE goes much further, however, first consider a bbt problem. Electromagnetism, gravitation, weak nuclear interaction, and strong nuclear interaction are most often related to relations defined above the 65th notation.

Wikipedia says, “Cosmic inflation expands space by a factor of the order of 1026 over a time of the order of 10−33 to 10−32 seconds.[1] The universe is supercooled from about 1027 down to 1022 kelvins.[6] The Strong Nuclear Force becomes distinct from the Electroweak Force.” [1] (Our emphasis) First, consider that the Planck Temperature is 1.41683×1032 Kelvin. The bbt appears to skip the cooling from 1032 to 1027 Kelvin and it uses bubbly magic to address what causes the cooling to 1022 Kelvin. Also, consider the amount of expansion and the short duration assumed in their statement above. To create that much space in that short of an interval would require light to travel so far beyond its normal speed; it would constitute the penultimate anomaly (Pardon us, Sean Carroll fans).

Also, because the bbt begins at the Planck Temperature, they truly need a supercooled concept. Within the Quiet Expansion model the temperatures from notations 1 through 102 are all superconducting, being well below the superconducting transition temperatures. Perhaps the very concept of temperature will become better understood as a result of our struggles to define a different model of the universe.

About this inflationary epoch, Wikipedia says, “The forces of the Standard Model have separated, but energies are too high for quarks to coalesce into hadrons, instead forming a quark-gluon plasma. These are the highest energies directly observable in experiment in the Large Hadron Collider.”

Within the QE, the quark-gluon plasma which requires 1012 Kelvin, is between notation 135 and 136, 9.6008×1011 Kelvin to 1.92016×1012 Kelvin respectively. Notation 136 is 4.6965×10-3 seconds from their space-time “singularity.” One second is between Notations 143 and 144. Also, the Kelvin scale is counter-intuitive in many ways. The temperature of the Sun is about 5,778 K. Within the QE, that is expressed between Notations 107 (3.5765×103 K ) and 108 (7153.178 K). The human temperature at 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit is 310.15 Kelvin which is between Notations 103 and 104 (447.073 K). Also, at Notation 103 the Planck Length is now .163902142 millimeters or 1.63902142×10-4 meters or about the size of a human egg.

  1. How did it all begin? And, what does it mean? (January 2011)
  2. Quiet Expansion of the Universe (June 2016)
  3. A Chart: Our working, horizontally-scrolled chart is a most-simple, integrated model of the universe.
  4. Notations 1-202: An analysis notation by notation has just begun!
  5. Planck base units from 0 at the beginning to today: https://planckbaseunits.wordpress.com/

 

On defining concepts like free space, singularity…

Free space, singularities, vacuums… all relative

In this model free space and singularities are a place for converging formulae.

Keys to this Quiet Expansion: Within the big bang theory (bbt) it is theorized that there are four forces of nature — gravity, electromagnetism, the strong force, and the weak force — become a singularity. We are not convinced. We assume these four are encapsulated within all four Planck base units and the constants that define them, and some manifestation of this unification is carried throughout all 202 notations. Those Planck base units define length, time, mass, and charge; and, these are further defined by the speed of light (or special relativity), the gravitational constant (or general relativity), the reduced Planck constant (or ħ or quantum mechanics), the Coulomb constant (or ε0 or electric charge or electromagnetism), and the Boltzmann constant (or kB or of temperature).

This Planck scale is not beyond logic, numbers, and conceptual integrity. Rational, sentient homogeneity, isotropy and simple logic rule. Yet, within the Quiet Expansion (QE) model, we have applied that simple logic somewhat arbitrarily by placing Planck Temperature at the top of the scale, just beyond the 202nd notation and then dividing by 2, it goes down approaching Absolute Zero. We are ready to adjust this scale at any time when a more integrative logic prevails! Also, we are increasingly finding a simple relational logic between the four original Planck base units.

Notwithstanding, this logic will be constantly revisited throughout our ever-so-slow development of QE model.

Within the QE model, the Planck Charge, a Coulombs value, is taken as given. Within the big bang theory (bbt), the Planck Charge is ignored. The bbt value is as large as possible. Their measurement is given in GeV units, one billion electron volts. Add 1016 zeroes and you have quite a charge.

To begin to understand all these numbers and their correlations, questions are asked, “Are these all non-repeating, never-ending numbers like Pi? Are all numbers that are non-repeating and never-ending somehow part of the infinite yet also the beginning of quantum mechanics?” The suggestion has been made that we carry out each of the Planck numbers at least 10 decimal places, and if need be, 100 decimal places, and possibly even 1000 decimal places, to see if patterns can be discerned. We recognize that relative to other units of measurement, such as the SI base quantities, the values of the Planck units are approximations mostly due to uncertainty in the value of the gravitational constant (G).

The QE model holds that things are simple before complexand everything is related to everything. Imputed, hypostatized and/or hypothesized are pointfree vertices and simple geometries as the deep infrastructure that gives rise to the work on combinatorics, cellular automaton, cubic close packing, bifurcation theory (and the Feigenbaum’s constants), Langlands program, mereotopology (point-free geometry), the 80-known binary operations, and scalar field theory. Here are people working on theories and constructions of the simple, yet their concepts are anything but simple.

The original document in its entirety is here…

This project began on Monday, December 19, 2011.

CENTER FOR PERFECTION STUDIES: CONTINUITYSYMMETRYHARMONY  USAJANUARY 2018

Homepages: Just Prior 1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|11|12|13|14|15|16|17|18|19|20|Original

Arrow2Before this project ever began, there were longstanding beliefs, presuppositions and first principles that shaped and colored every insight, concept and idea:

•  First, there was continuity and it created order.

•  Then, there was symmetry and it created relations.

•  And, there are moments of harmony that create perfect dynamics.

Big Board – little universe, December 2011: Starting with the Planck Length, multiplying by 2 over and over and over again, 202 times, brings us out to the Observable Universe.Arrow2

.Not finding it anywhere on the web, we started developing our first chart.

.

This highly-integrated grid-matrix-system of the universe is on a 6×1 foot chart with 202 notations or doublings. Eventually a horizontally-scrolled chart from four Planck base units to the Age of the Universe emerged.

Quiet ExpansionApril 2014: After three years of reflections, it seemed that this grid should be looked at in light of the big bang theory. Hawking’s infinitely dense, infinitely hot start of the universe had always required extralogic and a meta-physics.

Arrow2

Easily contrasted is a Quiet Expansion, a natural inflation from the Planck units. It fills in the missing data for the first 300 million years;  100% predictive and prescriptive, this chart and model of the universe somewhat affirmed all the cosmological epochs as already defined.  Logic?

Question: Could the Universe Be Exponential? November 2017 Multiplying the Planck units by 2, and each result by 2, over and over again is like a base-2 exponential notation. Could this progression be seen in light of Euler’s equations?  Might this universe have a fundamental sense of order, not chaos. More than multiplying by 2 over and over and over again, more than a mathematical grid, we became painfully aware that we needed to define the place where the finite and infinite meet and greet. It seemed so clear, so self-evident, the question is now raised, “Why not?

.

We have entered a golden hour for reflections, actions, and developments. More…Arrow4

Harmony.  Yes, harmony. The study of Euler’s equations began slowly in November 2017… the simplicity of 0, 1, and pi, and the complexity of  i , an expression for all imaginary numbers, started to come together to teach us.  Inside the radius of every circle and every sphere, we began to see string theory as a dynamic weaving throughout 64± notations, the earliest fabric of the universe. Nothing was static. It is as if this fabric is in part textured by the thoughts-feelings-actions within each spacetime notation. Though we are all within the 202nd notation, it seems that all notations are always available to us and there is total fluidity between them.  More

Symmetry.  Indeed, symmetry. Planck Length divided by Planck Time is equal to Light ( ). As that simple equation for light comes alive in every notation, absolute space and time are no longer so sure of themselves.  Sir Isaac stutters as Max Planck smiles. Like no other, here is a real potential to shake up the sciences and our commonsense logic. More

Continuity. Now a continuity like no continuity ever experienced, we begin to see the entire universe as a whole extending with all its dimensionality right through a transformation nexus to an infinite of ever-so-many-more dimensions, colors, shapes, sounds and senses.  How could it be so easy when we have made it all so hard?

***************

Notes:  Redefining the very nature of time:  Planck Time is so small that the first second of the universe doesn’t emerge until just after Notation 143. The first light year is within Notation 169. Our large-scale universe begins to emerge between notations 196 and 197. The current notation, 202, includes all of human history and most of the history of our little earth. The 202nd notation is 10.9816 billion years billion years (346,545,888,147,200,000 seconds) — of course, it is currently expanding, still very much “on the make.”

This article is a subset of a working index of key postings over the past six years; it marks the beginning of our official anniversary day celebration,  December 19.

The Current Horizontally-Scrolled Chart. In 2011, the project started with a very simple chart that followed the Planck Length. Today’s working chart came out in April 2016 and follows the Planck base units. Not being the brightest lightbulb in the family, it took me awhile to realize, “That’s Euler’s equation. Leonhard Euler was describing the universe! He didn’t know it, but he was.” [See Endnote 1]

We live in an Exponential Universe! That’s new information. Throughout all of our mathematics communities today, scholars have had a special affection for Euler’s equation. It is a pretty equation. It includes the most fundamental numbers of mathematics. But now, there is an even more compelling reason to love the equation. It describes the functional dynamics of our universe better than any other equation. [See Endnote 2]

Big Board-little universe · Exponential Universe · Quiet Expansion

This project now goes by all three titles. The European Space Agency’s Planck space mission and our NASA’s Hubble space mission have released the most accurate and detailed maps of the oldest light in the universe. They’ve opened up the universe and we have all been flummoxed with its depth and breadth. Yet, right in the face of all that new knowledge, this project comes along and calls it “a little universe” because it is encapsulated in just 202 notations. [See Endnote 3]

“Just 202 notations!” Yes, but even more importantly, space and time begin to look like they are necessarily derivate and finite. Both drop their absolute status given to them by Isaac Newton in 1868 (Principia Mathematica). In this emerging model, all the notations are still active and imprinting our expanding universe. Everything is related to everything and every notation impacts all other notations. [See all the other endnotes]

Dialogue with the universe. World-famous landscape architect, Charles Jenks says, “We’re in dialogue with the universe!” It’s a nice sentiment, but most of the world’s people are hung up within some little worldview. We believe it is time to explore an integrated view of the universe. This is just one simple offering.

A dialogue with the universe has yet to begin in earnest. Let us all say, before we get completely out of control, “Let the dialogue begin!”

**************

Endnotes:

[1] Today, you can now get your own copy of that chart! It measures 6 inches by 16 feet! It is a great conversation starter. https://81018.com/chart

[2] Do we live in an exponential Universe? Is it time to change our orientation from worldviews to an integrated universe view. Worldviews are killing us. Yes, the purpose of this website and all these pages is to encourage your involvement with that idea.

[3] Seven reasons to go further. Concepts to grasp a simple model of the Universe

[4] The Thrust of the Universe: What is it? / Visualizing the Universe (working notes)

[5] Measuring an Expanding Universe Using Planck Units (first draft)

[6]  First Principles and Key Equations as we explore the possibilities that our universe is exponential.

[7] Langlands IIIIIIIV

[8] An Index of the 202

cross

Infinitude

Yellow ArrowCENTER FOR PERFECTION STUDIES: CONTINUITYSYMMETRYHARMONYGOALS • November 2017 Homepages: Langlands I Langlands II|INFINITY|Inflation|KEYS|Original|REVIEW|Transformation

DeepSpace

On More Fully Recognizing The Infinite

By Bruce Camber, November 5, 2017

Précis: Whenever we look up into a clear night sky, often someone will say, “It goes on forever.” As children we learned to accept the infinitude of space and time. It is deeply ingrained within our thought structures. The problem is that this perception is not quite right.

History. Alchemist Isaac Newton was an experimenter and he made mistakes. He used trial and error. When he described space and time, he was off the mark. Though a genius, he was overly sure of himself and was often arrogant and condescending. Perhaps his penultimate contribution to our universe of knowledge is his sense of space-time and the infinite. These lasting imprints, however, were only partially right.

Isaac Newton, Lucasian Professor at Cambridge University (1669). Wikipedia says: “He was a devout but unorthodox Christian, who privately rejected the doctrine of the Trinity and who, unusually for a member of the Cambridge faculty of the day, refused to take holy orders in the Church of England.”

Infinity: Newton was confused about the nature of infinity. And, his confusion became our confusion; and, it has become the world’s confusion. Infinity to this day remains a problem for many in the academic community because it is too often interlaced with theological and religious language. The God wars between the arrogant among religious thinkers have caused many intellectuals to avoid religious language. A possible resolution to that conundrum is to use those terms that describe the universals and constants that originate in mathematics and science. Those terms should capture facets, a certain essence, that is part of both the finite and the infinite.

Three Faces of Infinity. Though most of these studies on this website are of the finite, the infinite has a substantial, abiding and fundamental role. The infinite describes a never-ending, never-repeating perfection or completeness or a wholeness that is not fundamentally part of the finite. Within these studies the infinite is defined as continuity, that which creates order, sequences, and the nature of time. The infinite is symmetry, that which creates the foundations of relations, of balance and of the nature of space. And, the infinite is defined as harmony, that which creates dynamics, and creates a space-time moment. The use of religious or theological language and concepts is left to each reader.
.
These three simple postulations about form-and-function assume a panoply of necessary-and-abiding transformations. When we look into the clear night sky, we “see” only as far as today’s transformations within this expanding universe.
.
Set within the 202 base-2 notations from the Planck base units to this current moment, the Now, it challenges us to see how the entire universe is bound together within what is initially a most-simple mathematical and geometrical system that profoundly redefines space-and-time and our relation to the universe. In 2011 the first name of the project was “Big Board – little universe.” Those 202 steps, all active, make for a rather intimate place.

We live in a highly-integrated exponential universe.
.
The continuity-symmetry-harmony concepts were first written down in 1972 to define the three faces of a perfected state in space-and-time. Each seemed to hold plausible answers to deeper questions about life and to such practical things as superconductors, quantum fluctuations, heartbeats, sleep, consciousness, reproduction… but the articulation of those facets of the transformations was too weak and generalized. There was no systemic application or coherence until it was discovered that our entire universe is contained within those 202 base-2 notations. So profoundly and deeply integrated, this chart gave us our first introduction to the first 67 notations that provide the footings to explain the homogeneity and isotropy of the universe. Here was the story of the Chessboard and Wheat all over again. There is so much space-and-time, every strain of mathematics will have its place within these first notations. There is enough room for consciousness, ethics, psychology and all other disciplines that have never had a place on a scientific grid.

This project opens new explorations. Certainly it re-awakens the finite-infinite relation, the nature of light, and the very nature of space-and-time. And, it thrusts enormous responsibility on each of us for our every thought, word and deed because it shows us how everything is related to everything and everything that we do impacts this little universe.

***

For more, click back through the homepages or click here:

  • Two additional pages to be added: (1) the small scale universe and (2) the large scale universe
Small Scale
Speculations
Ideas
Concepts
and
Parameters

Boundaries
and
boundary
conditions

Trans-
forma-
tions

Human Scale

Numbers
and
Number
Theory
Forms:
Order
Relation
Dynamics
Functions
Continuity
Symmetry
Harmony

Large Scale

1
Planck Length
( ℓP )
Transition:
Small-to-Human Scale
1. Display area: Every number/word hyperlinked – quick results display here
2. Options: Open full screen, new tab or window to the research of the experts
3. Also: Related videos-images and online collaborations with up to nine visitors
4. Key Links: bblu.org Universe-View.org BigBoardLittleUniverse.org
Transition:
Human-to-Large Scale
205+
Observable Universe
2- 10
Forms1
Vertices:1024
77
Research
ℓP:2.44×10-12m
78
X-ray
Wavelength
95
Range:
Visible Light
96
Bacteria
Red Light
113
Hand-sizeH
16.78+cm
114
TextbookT
12.8+inches
131
Marathon
27+miles
132
54+ miles
87.99+km
204+
Observable
Universe
11-20
Structure-Ousia
V: 1+million
76
Gamma
Wavelength
79
Huang
Scale
94
Nanoparticles
100-10000+nm
97
Blood cellR
2.4+microns(µm)
112
Finger-size
3.3″(inches)
115
Things
67.134±cm
130
Race
21.998+km
133
Drive
108+miles
202-203+
Observable
Universe
21-30
Substances
V:1+ billion
75
Falstad
Scale
80
Periodic
Table
93
Gold LeafG
160.06±nm
98
Capillary
5.12+microns
111
Spoonful
4.19+cm
116
A child
52.86±in
129
Distances:
6.834+miles
134
Gravity-free
351.97+km
198-201
Superclusters

6.1-54+yottometers
31-40
Qualities
V:1+ trillion
74
Research
1.52+x10-13m
81
HydrogenH
31±pm
92
Nanowires
80.03±nm
99
Cells
10.24±microns
110
MakeupM
.82±inches
117
A bed
105.72±inches
128
Village
3.41±miles
135
Distance
437.41±miles
191-197
Virgo
Supercluster3
41-50
Relations
V:1+ quadrillion
73
Research:
Tunneling4
82
HydrogenH
78+ pm
91
Little chipslc
40.01+nm
100
Sperm
20.48+microns
109
LipstickL
1.04+centimeters
118
Bedroom
5.37+meters
127
Walk
1.7+miles
136
Fly
874+miles
181-190
Galactic
Group6
51-60
Systems
The MindM
72
NucleusN
7.63+x10-14m
83
CarbonC
70±pm2
90
Viruses
20.007+nm
101
HAIR
40+microns
108
DiamondD
5.2+mmM
119
Home
35.24+feet
126
Downtown
1.37+km
137
Rivers
2815.81+km
171-180
Milky
Way
61-65
Elementary
Particles
71
GoldAU
Nucleus

84
WATERW
3.12+x10-10m
89
Cell Wall
10+nm
102
Paper
81.95+microns
107
Ants
2.62+mm
120
Property
21.48+m
125
Superdome
687.45+m
138
USA-to-UK
3500+miles
161-170
SolarS
Interstellar
65-67
Neutron
Proton-Fermion
70
AluminumAl
1.90+x10-14m
85
DNAD
6.25+x10-10m
88
Insulin
5.00+x10-9m
103
EggE
.16+millimeters
106
Sand
1.31+mm
121
Yacht
142+feet
124
Skyscraper
343.7+meter+
139
EarthE
11,263+km
151-160
Solar
SystemS
68
HeliumHe
4.77+x10-15 m
69
Electron
9.54+x10-15m
86
Buckyballs
1.25+nm
87
Ribosomes
2.50+nm
104
>.< Period
.32+mm
105
Bacterium
.65+mm
122
Sequoia
85+meters
123
Tall Building
171.86+m
140
GPS Satellite
22526+km
141-150
Earth
Systems

Universe to Milky Way to our Solar System to Earth to 500 East 4th St. #484, Austin, TX 78701

https://81018.com/2017/11/04/infinitude/

 

Finite-Infinite

Yellow ArrowCENTER FOR PERFECTION STUDIES: CONTINUITYSYMMETRYHARMONYGOALS • November 2017 Homepages: Langlands I Langlands II|INFINITY|Inflation|KEYS|Original|REVIEW|Transformation

DeepSpace

On More Fully Recognizing The Infinite

By Bruce Camber, first posted here on November 4, 2017

Précis: Whenever we look up into a clear night sky, often someone will say, “It goes on forever.” As children we learned to accept the infinitude of space and time. It is deeply ingrained within our thought structures. The problem is that this perception, in light of the base-2 exponentiation from the Planck units to the age and size of the universe, is probably not quite right.

History. Alchemist Isaac Newton was an experimenter and he made mistakes. He used trial and error. When he described space and time, I believe he was off the mark. Though a genius, he was overly sure of himself and was often arrogant and condescending. Perhaps his penultimate contribution to our universe of knowledge is his sense of space-time and the infinite. These lasting imprints, however, were only partially right.

Isaac Newton, Lucasian Professor at Cambridge University (1669). Wikipedia says: “He was a devout but unorthodox Christian, who privately rejected the doctrine of the Trinity and who, unusual for a member of the Cambridge faculty at that time, refused to take holy orders in the Church of England.” More (Wikipedia)…

Infinity: Newton was confused about the nature of infinity. And, his confusion became our confusion; and, it has become the world’s confusion. Infinity to this day remains a problem for many in the academic community because it is too often interlaced with theological and religious language. The God wars between the arrogant among religious thinkers have caused many intellectuals to avoid religious language. A possible resolution to that conundrum is to use those terms that describe the universals and constants that originate in mathematics and science. Those terms should capture facets, a certain essence, that is part of both the finite and the infinite.

Three Faces of Infinity. Though most of these studies on this website are of the finite, the infinite has a substantial, abiding and fundamental role. The infinite describes a never-ending, never-repeating perfection or completeness or a wholeness that is not fundamentally part of the finite. Within these studies the infinite is defined as continuity, that which creates order, sequences, and the nature of time. The infinite is symmetry, that which creates the foundations of relations, of balance and of the nature of space. And, the infinite is defined as harmony, that which creates dynamics, and creates a space-time moment. The use of religious or theological language and concepts is left to each reader.
.
These three simple postulations about form-and-function assume a panoply of necessary-and-abiding transformations. When we look into the clear night sky, we “see” only as far as today’s transformations within this expanding universe.
.
Set within the 202 base-2 notations from the Planck base units to this current moment, the Now, it challenges us to see how the entire universe is bound together within what is initially a most-simple mathematical and geometrical system that profoundly redefines space-and-time and our relation to the universe. In 2011 the first name of the project was “Big Board – little universe.” Those 202 steps, all active, make for a rather intimate place.

Our conclusion: “We live in a highly-integrated, exponential universe.”
.
The continuity-symmetry-harmony concepts were first written down in 1970-72 to define the three faces of a perfected state in space-and-time. Each seemed to hold plausible answers to deeper questions about life and to such practical things as superconductors, quantum fluctuations, heartbeats, sleep, consciousness, reproduction… but the articulation of those facets of the transformations was too weak and generalized. There was no systemic application or coherence until it was discovered that our entire universe is contained within those 202 base-2 notations. So profoundly and deeply integrated, this chart gave us our first introduction to the first 67 notations that provide the footings to explain the homogeneity and isotropy of the universe. Here was the story of the Chessboard and Wheat all over again.  There is so much space-and-time, every strain of mathematics will have its place within these first notations. There is enough room for consciousness, ethics, psychology and all other disciplines that have never had a place on a scientific grid.

This project opens new explorations. Certainly it re-awakens the finite-infinite relation, the nature of light, and the very nature of space-and-time. And, it thrusts enormous responsibility on each of us for our every thought, word and deed because it shows us how everything is related to everything and everything that we do impacts this little universe.

+++

Isaac Newton did not have the advantage of Leonhard Euler‘s exponentiation. Base-2, the most simple, still lacks proper respect. Newton did not have Planck’s base units. He was Lucasian Professor #2 and gave us our commonsense worldview: Absolute space and time.
https://81018.com/uni/
https://81018.com/ math/
https://81018.com/lucasian/
https://81018.com/malaise/
https://81018.com/arrogance/

***

For more, click back through the homepages or click here:

  • Two additional pages to be added: (1) the small scale universe and (2) the large scale universe
Small Scale
Speculations
Ideas
Concepts
and
Parameters

Boundaries
and
boundary
conditions

Trans-
forma-
tions

Human Scale

Numbers
and
Number
Theory
Forms:
Order
Relation
Dynamics
Functions
Continuity
Symmetry
Harmony

Large Scale

1
Planck Length
( ℓP )
Transition:
Small-to-Human Scale
1. Display area: Every number/word hyperlinked – quick results display here
2. Options: Open full screen, new tab or window to the research of the experts
3. Also: Related videos-images and online collaborations with up to nine visitors
4. Key Links81018.com  https://81018.com/bridges
Transition:
Human-to-Large Scale
205+
Observable Universe
2- 10
Forms1
Vertices:1024
77
Research
ℓP:2.44×10-12m
78
X-ray
Wavelength
95
Range:
Visible Light
96
Bacteria
Red Light
113
Hand-sizeH
16.78+cm
114
TextbookT
12.8+inches
131
Marathon
27+miles
132
54+ miles
87.99+km
204+
Observable
Universe
11-20
Structure-Ousia
V: 1+million
76
Gamma
Wavelength
79
Huang
Scale
94
Nanoparticles
100-10000+nm
97
Blood cellR
2.4+microns(µm)
112
Finger-size
3.3″(inches)
115
Things
67.134±cm
130
Race
21.998+km
133
Drive
108+miles
202-203+
Observable
Universe
21-30
Substances
V:1+ billion
75
Falstad
Scale
80
Periodic
Table
93
Gold LeafG
160.06±nm
98
Capillary
5.12+microns
111
Spoonful
4.19+cm
116
A child
52.86±in
129
Distances:
6.834+miles
134
Gravity-free
351.97+km
198-201
Superclusters

6.1-54+yottometers
31-40
Qualities
V:1+ trillion
74
Research
1.52+x10-13m
81
HydrogenH
31±pm
92
Nanowires
80.03±nm
99
Cells
10.24±microns
110
MakeupM
.82±inches
117
A bed
105.72±inches
128
Village
3.41±miles
135
Distance
437.41±miles
191-197
Virgo
Supercluster3
41-50
Relations
V:1+ quadrillion
73
Research:
Tunneling4
82
HydrogenH
78+ pm
91
Little chipslc
40.01+nm
100
Sperm
20.48+microns
109
LipstickL
1.04+centimeters
118
Bedroom
5.37+meters
127
Walk
1.7+miles
136
Fly
874+miles
181-190
Galactic
Group6
51-60
Systems
The MindM
72
NucleusN
7.63+x10-14m
83
CarbonC
70±pm2
90
Viruses
20.007+nm
101
HAIR
40+microns
108
DiamondD
5.2+mmM
119
Home
35.24+feet
126
Downtown
1.37+km
137
Rivers
2815.81+km
171-180
Milky
Way
61-65
Elementary
Particles
71
GoldAU
Nucleus

84
WATERW
3.12+x10-10m
89
Cell Wall
10+nm
102
Paper
81.95+microns
107
Ants
2.62+mm
120
Property
21.48+m
125
Superdome
687.45+m
138
USA-to-UK
3500+miles
161-170
SolarS
Interstellar
65-67
Neutron
Proton-Fermion
70
AluminumAl
1.90+x10-14m
85
DNAD
6.25+x10-10m
88
Insulin
5.00+x10-9m
103
EggE
.16+millimeters
106
Sand
1.31+mm
121
Yacht
142+feet
124
Skyscraper
343.7+meter+
139
EarthE
11,263+km
151-160
Solar
SystemS
68
HeliumHe
4.77+x10-15 m
69
Electron
9.54+x10-15m
86
Buckyballs
1.25+nm
87
Ribosomes
2.50+nm
104
>.< Period
.32+mm
105
Bacterium
.65+mm
122
Sequoia
85+meters
123
Tall Building
171.86+m
140
GPS Satellite
22526+km
141-150
Earth
Systems

Universe to  Milky Way to our Solar System to Earth to 500 East 4th St. #484, Austin, TX 78701

https://81018.com/2017/11/04/infinitude/

Dunning, Hayley

Hayley Dunning, Research Media Officer
Imperial College, London, Faculty of Natural Sciences
Academic: http://www.imperial.ac.uk/people/h.dunning
Article: http://phys.org/news/2016-07-big.html
WordPress: https://hayleydunning.wordpress.com/

Most recent email: 9 June 2017

Dear Hayley:

Well, obviously, my earlier note to you was not compelling!

A mathematically-integrated view of the universe in 202 notations
whereby everything is related to everything is not a theory of
everything. It is just a model of everything.

It is too simple for words.

We learned how to multiply by 2 in the second and
third grades and that is all we are doing.
The Planck base units are either wrong or right.
If they are wrong, where is the evidence?
There is plenty of evidence that they are right.

Ours is a model in the making:
https://81018.com/chart

Can we talk?

Thanks.
Most sincerely,
Bruce
*******************

Bruce Camber
http://81018.com

First email: Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 8:07 AM
Re: Article, "The Big Bang might have been just a Big Bounce"

Dear Hayley:

Wonderful summary! “…physicists have long debated this idea as it means the universe began in a state of complete breakdown of physics as we know,” OR it began, not just simply, but very, very simply at the Planck scale (and as it does in so much of science), it just doubles.

Use base-2 notation from the base units and you get the universe as we know it in just over 200 doublings, notations, steps, groups, sets etc.

So simple, in 2011 a high school geometry class kinda-sorta backed into it!
http://bblu.org is the kids site (in the making).
http://81018.com is for everybody else.

I hope you will take a look and that we might hear from you.
Thanks.

Most sincerely,
Bruce
* * * *
Bruce Camber
New Orleans
http://bblu.org
http://81018.com

Reference: Perfect Quantum Cosmological Bounce, Steffen Gielen and Neil Turok, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 021301, 6 July 2016 ( https://arxiv.org/abs/1510.00699 ) Also: https://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+Steffen+Gielen/0/1/0/all/0/1