Wilczek – Aguirre – Rees – Tegmark article ( Phys.Rev.D73:023505,2006 )

Originally 10.1103/PhysRevD.73.023505 2005
Open Access 2006: ArXiv ( arXiv:astro-ph/0511774v3 )
Dimensionless constants, cosmology and other dark matters

31 dimensionless physical constants
required by particle physics and cosmology

We started our work to chart the universe in 2011 using the Planck Length. We tiled and tessellated the universe using base-2 notation and an ascending sizes starting with the Planck Length. We uncovered 202 notations  to encapsulate the universe, everything, everywhere, for all time. Among others, we asked Frank Wilczek about its meaning. Later Aguirre, Rees and Tegmark were also queried.

Key Charts: The Aguirre-Rees-Tegmark-Wilczek original article appeared on January 11, 2006 in ArXiv.  Although not mentioned in the article or footnotes, I have a sense that the 2005 Solvay conference created a thrust that prompted them to write their article. It will be analyzed asking the question, “What might change within this analysis if the Big Bang theory and its current inflationary theory is flawed and what if the Big Board-little universe, Exponential Universe, and Quiet Expansion are less flawed?” Our charts are entirely open;  we re just raising questions and looking at the options. Yes, our chart, by definition,  includes everything, for all time, everywhere in the universe, but it’s just a chart of numbers, not a theory of everything.

Those theories may be forthcoming. Thank you. -BEC


The key 2005 Wilczek-Aguirre-Rees-Tegmark Chart


Wilczek-Aquire-Reese-Tegmark


For more, please go to the 29-page document (PDF) in ArXiv:
Dimensionless constants, cosmology and other dark matters, January 11, 2006, Table 1, page 2, 5.

The first footnote (1of 123) is to the following:

1. PDF: Of Atoms, Mountains, and Stars: A Study in Qualitative Physics, Victor F. Weisskopf, Science, Vol. 187, No. 4177 (Feb. 21, 1975), pp. 605-612 Published by: American Association for the Advancement of Science URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1739660

2. Also see:

  • Anthony Aguirre, ApJ, 521, 17 (1999),  Aguirre, astro-ph/0506519, 2005, https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0409072
  • Martin J. Rees, Our Cosmic Habitat (Princeton Univ. Press: Princeton, 2002
  • Max Tegmark, Ann. Phys., 270, 1 (1998),, Tegmark, JCAP, 2005-4, 1 (2005), astro-ph/0304536, 2003, PRD, 69, 103501 (2004)
  • Frank Wilczek, Phys. Today, 57/1, 10 (2005), Phys. Today, 58/10, 12 (2005), Phys. Today, 59/1, 10 (2006), PRL, 66, 5 (1991), Phys. Lett. B, 120,127 (1983), PRL, 40, 279 (1978)
  • A report to the PQE Conference Participants:  If The Universe Starts At The Planck Scale

Upon discovering the work of Frank Wilczek…

Wilczek

Frank Wilczek, Professor of Physics, MIT, Cambridge, MA
Founding Director and Chief Scientist, Wilczek Quantum Center
at the T. D. Lee Institute, Shanghai
Distinguished Origins Professor, Arizona State University

Article(s): Why Change Without Change Is One of the Fundamental Principles of the Universe
• Physics Today, 312. Scaling Mt. Planck I: A View from the Bottom (June 2001)
• Physics Today, 321. Scaling Mt. Planck II: Base Camp (Nov 2001)
Physics Today, 328. Scaling Mt. Planck III: Is That All There Is? (August 2002)
• A Prodigy Who Cracked Open the Cosmos (January 2021)
ArXiv: Dimensionless constants, cosmology & other dark matters, 2006
Fundamental Constants, 2007
Book(s): A Beautiful Question,2015; Longing for the Harmonies, 1988; and many, many others
Curriculum Vitae
Homepage (s): Personal, Axions, Anyons, Time Crystals (video), Nobel laureate (2004),
InspireHEP
, Templeton Award (2022) Twitter Wikipedia YouTube

Cited over 38 times, please use the internal search icon, to find the references to Wilczek.

Most recent email: 25 October 2022 at 1:34 PM

I am working on this homepage for tomorrow: https://81018.com/penultimates/

We’ve underestimated Planck’s base units, infinitesimal spheres, and pi (π).
These appear to be among the penultimates of physics and mathematics:

I. Planck Base Units. Practically ignored for about 100 years, in 2001 Frank Wilczek[1] put Planck’s base units on a fast track for adoption by our scientific community, yet those Planck units remain enigmatic and are still questioned by some.

Then, in the footnote, for the very first time, I was critical of you:

[1] Wilczek. Webpages: https://81018.com/wilczek/ and Physics Today, 312. 321 and 328.

Endnotes (BEC Comment): In his latest work, Fundamentals: Ten Keys to Reality, I was disappointed that Wilczek used the words, “after the Big Bang.” With its current raft of problems, I had hoped that he would hold back from reaffirming the big bang. Even after ten years I recognize that he’s not quite ready to affirm our natural inflation with base-2 notation, the Planck base units, infinitesimal spheres and pi, yet I still have hopes that maybe someday he will. He must somehow believe that the Planck base units are a remote part of the bing bang singularity. We met on two occasions; if we ever meet again, I’ll ask him that question.

__________

I thought you might appreciate learning about this page from me. Thanks.

-Bruce

Email: 7 October 2022 at 5:34 PM

Does the James Webb Space Telescope open a door that the Hubble found? Is smoothness a problem for big bang cosmology? What else will we discover along the way? I suspect the galaxy count will put pressure on our grasp of time. Are these snapshots by redshift of the same phenomenon? That should be relatively simple to determine. Perhaps each then needs to be segmented by notation. It is all still quite a mashup of concepts, services, issues, solutions, tools, platforms, applications and the like. I am asking questions in our rendition of the story here: https://81018.com/reason/ Thanks.

Warmly,

Bruce

P.S. The embedded link: https://81018.com/analysis/#Time The first instance of this definition within this website. -BEC

Email: June 14, 2022 at 2:45 PM

Precis. In 2001 Frank Wilczek wrote three “Scaling Mt. Planck” articles. In 2004 when he won the Nobel (with Gross and Politzer) those Physics Today articles became priceless! Planck’s base units had been grossly undervalued for over 100 years. For me those articles were an awakening, so I wanted to thank Wilczek and ask a few questions. On a brisk January day in 2013, we met in his MIT office. He encouraged us high school people to continue to study the Planck Length. We did. Yet, the more we studied, the more we realized that our simple construction was idiosyncratic …https://81018.com/editors/

I hope your summer is looking like a great one. As you can see above, you are at the top of the homepage this week: https://81018.com/editors/

Also, you might find this forthcoming homepage of some interest: https://81018.com/known/ I am hoping that I can work this idiosyncratic stuff out of my system before I die!

Thanks for everything.

-Bruce

Email: 11 May 2022 at 11:16 AM

RE: Announcing the 2022 Templeton Prize Winner, Dr. Frank Wilczek

Congratulations, indeed, to both Frank Wilczek and Heather Templeton Dill. Perhaps the next step in remythologizing God and belief with universals and constants is to see continuity, symmetry and harmony, three of the staples of Wilczek’s insights, and declare, “Here is the bridge between the finite and infinite whereby the finite is quantitative (numerical, discrete, etc) and the infinite is the qualitative (the continuity, symmetry and harmony of pi).”

Perhaps the agnostics and atheists can relax a little.

Lifting up continuity, symmetry and harmony is not quite so imposing as religious beliefs and it’s a bridge!

Best wishes, Frank! Warmest regards to Betsy Devine!

Email: 16 January 2022 at 8:22 AM

I hope all is well with you and your families and associates.
I haven’t given up yet, however, at 74, one never knows when that little exit ramp will appear.

This is how I began this week’s article:

Abstract
The first particle has all the structural and dynamic elements of a most simple sphere. Also, it is defined by the four Planck base units of time, length, mass and charge. It is an infinitesimal, archetypal, primordial sphere that defines the first moment of space-time. The Planck scale is also defined by dimensionless constants so here we propose several mechanisms to begin to bridge the Planck scale with the electroweak scale as currently understood within particle physics. Our base-2 Planck scale originated in 2011 and it begs for more analysis. For example, if Planck Time also defines a rate of expansion by taking as a given that there is one “Planck particle” per unit of Planck Time and Planck Length, this becomes a different model of our universe. Seemingly logical, we have suspended our harshest judgments in order to explore whatever mechanisms we can imagine in light of the Standard Model for Cosmology (ΛCDM or Lambda cold dark matter) and the Standard Model for Particle Physics with all their successes and problems. [*].- BEC

Key words: Structure of spacetime at the Planck Scale, Planck particle, physics at the Planck scale, shell particle, plancksphere, infinitesimal sphere, archetypal sphere, sphere dynamics

The prequel: https://81018.com/primordial/ (stretching)  https://81018.com/almost/ (de-Hilbertizing)

Of all the people of the world, there are a handful, with you among them, who immediately grasp all these possibilities. I wish you well,
Warmly,
Bruce

Email: May 13, 2021, 7:29 AM

Could it all have started with pi?

I don’t think anybody else that you know would ask such a question. Yet, I suspect that you may have asked it yourself. On its face, it is so out of the mainstream as to be laughable. But, I have no reputation. People can laugh.

I have five key concepts to start and four to grow. That’s today’s homepage: http://81018.com
Later it will be accessed by its actual URL: https://81018.com/starts/
Just a crazy idea or does it have a peculiar, sweet, naive logic? Thanks.

Warmly,
Bruce

Email: March 14, 2021, 7:29 AM

Happy Pi Day!

My tribute: https://81018.com/challenge/
and https://81018.com/instance/

Just now learning about Connes et. al. Spectral Standard Model. 

I saw the picture of the Westinghouse festivities and decided that you were 1 or 2.

I was glad to see that I was wrong about my first guess. #2 is more aware of the purpose of the moment.

Wonderful story. -Bruce

Email: February 6, 2021, 7:29 AM

Key conclusions:
The first instant of space-time of our universe is defined by the Planck base units.
A primordial sphere manifests, again defined by the Planck units and pi.
With the sphere are the de facto harmonies of the Fourier Transform.
There is one PlanckSphere per PlanckSecond.
The rate of expansion is 539.116 tredecillion planckspheres per second.
Planck Time is equal to 5.39116×10−44 seconds
.
The PlanckSphere is the most essential, foundational unit to define the universe.
That PlanckSphere is foundationally defined by pi.
Pi (and the sphere) are defined by continuity-symmetry-harmony.
The Planck base units uniquely identify every instant and everything within the universe.
These Planck base units are dynamic numbers constantly expanding with every instant.
We apply base-2 notation to instantiate a system for counting planckspheres.
There are just 202 notations from that first instant to this very moment in time.
The first 64 notations are generally below our thresholds for measurement.
… It is a domain for Langlands programs and string theory and consciousness.

Email: Friday, February 1, 2019 at 8:42 PM

Dear Prof. Dr. Frank Wilczek,

With every passing day, I confront the depths of my naiveté and learn a little more about just how radically-idiosyncratic, our simple, mathematical model of the universe is. I think my 2016 explanation — https://81018.com/why-now/ — captures the key reasons. Big bang cosmology has been hiding the Planck scale. It hides the robustness of its natural inflation. It hides the simple doubling mechanisms. Of course, I believe it has seriously blocked our view since 1973 with that little booklet by Ellis / Hawking).

Would you entertain a new series of three articles for Physics Today in light our chart and the first assumptions? You have my permission to just rake it over the coals!

Thanks, Frank.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

Email: Saturday, January 26, 2019, 6:31 PM

Do you follow the work of Julian Barbour, shape dynamics? He has the Now part of the equation, but Planck’s numbers are not deep in his equations. His simple response, “…it makes no sense to me as a physicist,” doesn’t clarify issues around the Planck numbers or the strained-but obvious concurrence with the base-2 natural inflation and big bang epochs. The first three minutes is rather challenging and a gift.

What say you, dear professor? Thank you. -Bruce

Email: Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 8:08 PM

Dear Prof. Dr. Frank Wilczek,

I was invited to be part of the NASA SpaceApp challenge. It felt a bit odd being 70 years old among all the millennials, but it was great fun. A group from Stanford wanted to use the data from our horizontally-scrolled chart of the doublings of each of the Planck base units — just over 202 of them — to the Age of the Universe and Observable Universe.

It gave me a chance to reflect on the work to date. This is what I said:
https://81018.com/nasa1/ (third paragraph)

History lessons. Though Max Planck developed the basic math for these units between 1899 and 1905, it wasn’t until 2001 when a Nobel laureate, Frank Wilczek of MIT lifted these numbers out of the category of numerology. He had written a series of articles, Scaling Mt. Planck[3] (2001) and slowly the Planck’s units began becoming part of the core of accepted scientific thought.

“I don’t know if you ever bumped into Ed Fredkin. I don’t think you two overlapped at MIT. He told me back in my earlier times with these numbers (2012), that he was one of the few people who did not believe in Planck’s base units. Only today did I catch up with the Fredkin finite nature hypothesis where there is the claim, “…ultimately all quantities of physics, including space and time, are discrete and finite. All measurable physical quantities arise from some Planck scale substrate for multiverse information processing.”

I suspect the substrate is the 65 notations from the base units to the CERN scale. Yes, but who am I? Nobody from nowhere. I hope that the above reference is OK. Thanks.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

Email: Saturday, April 22, 2017

Dear Prof. Dr. Frank Wilczek:

I have written the following two paragraphs about your work on the Planck units. Does it capture the spirit? Would you have me change anything? Thanks.
Sincerely,
Bruce

“Although Max Planck began developing these numbers in 1899 and first published them in 1906, nobody paid much attention to them until 2001 when Frank Wilczek (MIT) began publishing three articles for Physics Today around the title, Scaling Mt. Planck (312, 321, 328). Others had done significant work using one or more of the Planck numbers, yet the citations began to break open with the Wilczek articles.

“Yet, there were others who had even earlier intuitions about the significance of these numbers. In 1959 C. Alden Mead (UMinn) began his struggle to published his work about the Planck Length. Though finally published in 1964, the article,  Possible Connection Between Gravitation and Fundamental Length  Phys. Rev. 135, B849 (10 August 1964), was ignored by the scholarly community. Planck Length commanded no respect as a fundamental unit of length.”

Friday, October 21, 2016 email

These statements have been sent to Stephen Hawking, Alan Guth, Max Tegmark, Frank Wilczek, and Freeman Dyson.

Another email: March 24, 2016  Work began at MIT, long ago!

From the LinkedIn blog:

Physics Today (MeadWilczek discussions – Ref. 9): Though formulated in 1899 and 1900, the Planck Length received very little attention until 1959 when C. Alden Mead of the University of Minnesota 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. More…

From a posting titled, “Could The Planck Length Be The Next Big Thing? Could Planck Time Be A Gateway To The Universe?”

Theories abound.
Oxford physicist-philosopher, Roger Penrose16 calls it, Conformal Cyclic Cosmology made popular within his book, Cycles of Time. In a September 24, 2008 interview on NBC News (Cosmic Log), Frank Wilczek of MIT 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 our model, the 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. More…

From the web postings within the Big Board-little universe:

Notwithstanding, there is a substantial amount of work that has been done within the academic and scientific communities with all the Planck numbers and those base numbers that were used to create the five Planck base units. Perhaps chemistry professor, C. Alden Mead of the University of Minnesota began the process in 1959 when he first tried publishing a paper using the Planck units with serious scientific intent. Physics professor Frank Wilczek of MIT was the first to write popular articles about the Planck units in 2001 in Physics Today (312, 321, 328). From that year, the number of articles began to increase dramatically and experimental work that make use of these numbers has increased as a result. More…

Fourth email: Thursday, January 17, 2013, 3:32 PM
Wilczek
MIT office, January 2013: Encouraging our students to keep studying the Planck Length.

I am making progress on all your enclosed articles and then with some of the referenced articles from within each. I understand why you are a Nobel laureate, yet none of the students quite believe that a Nobel laureate would make time for them. Might it be possible to come by your office to snap a quick picture of you and me, perhaps with a note on a white board behind us that says something like, “John Curtis geometry students- keep studying the Planck Length and the five platonic solids! You may find something important.”

I know it is a lot to ask but it has been awhile since the school sent MIT a student.

Thanks.

Warmly,

Bruce

Third email: December 23, 2012, 1:35 PM

I find comfort in your words where you said, “…Planck’s proposal for a system of units based on fundamental physical constants was, when it was made, formally correct but rather thinly rooted in fundamental physics.” (Reference: “Scaling Mt. Planck I: A View from the Bottom” in Physics Today, June 2001, p 13).

You are helping me to put things in perspective.  I have a new appreciation for how slowly science can move.

I am thoroughly enjoying those four attachments and any references like your “Future Summary” to which they refer: http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0101187 As a result of your spirited writings and gracious interactions, I am now committed to reading the entire Wilczek corpus. You are a most remarkable thinker and scholar.

Certainly by comparison I have had a chunky-clunky history. https://81018.com/bec/

However, I would like to point you to one short piece of work that I did long, long ago. It is also thinly rooted in fundamental physics, however, you might find it of some small interest given the season and your history with theological belief systems recorded in your Nobel biography.

Blessings to you and your family and to your future work in the New Year… I am off to bury my thinking within your writing. I know it won’t be easy, but what a way to start the new year!

Bruce

____________

“…the Planck length is not a substance or law, just a rough concept. So for example twice or half the Planck length would be just as good as the Planck length itself, as a concept — it’s basically a matter of convention which you use.” Dec 20, 2012, 7:38 AM

____________

Second email: Dec 19, 2012, 10:32 PM

Dear Prof. Dr. Frank Wilczek:

Our problem is the Planck Length. What is it? We do not know anything other than that specific calculation and its derivation.

Is it a point? If so, and even though it may be a dimensionless or a dimensionful number, when you multiply it by two, do you have two points? When you multiply it by two again, are there four points, then eight points, then sixteen points, and so on?

That is what we have done and before we go too, too far, we want somebody of authority to tell us it is OK? We want to know that we aren’t doing something egregiously stupid. These are high school kids. I do not want to lead them down a blind alley even though their little thought experiment has give rise to their Big Board – little universe. They have studied Kees Boeke’s base-10 and the Morrison’s Powers of Ten (Scientific American Library, 1994) (Phil Morrison was a personal friend) and have found there has been no one who has used base-2 and the 202.34 notations as a sweet ordering mechanism for information.

They are now taking images from the Argonne National Lab and Nikon’s Small World studies and are applying them to notations 65 to 101. We currently have eight images within the large scale universe — notations 140 to 202.34 and we are having great fun learning about our little universe using the Planck Length as a guiding measurement!

Is it an OK thing to be doing?

Thanks.

Warmly,

Bruce

PS. I have read much of your attachment of quantum beauty and have found the Pythagoras-Plato-Planck a great review. The discussion of Maxwell, is inspirational and I am going back so I perfectly understand your symmetry comments. We admire your work!

First email: Friday, December 14, 2012 at 5:40 PM

Our first email to 2004 Nobel laureate, MIT physics professor, Frank Wilczek
Bruce Camber wrote:

Dear Prof. Dr. Frank Wilczek:

Back ten days ago, we sent this note through your resources page
within your website — http://frankwilczek.com/resources.html
It is from five high school geometry classes.

We have a model of the universe and we are not sure what to do with it.

We started with one meter and divided it in half as if it
were an edge of a tetrahedron, and then we continued dividing
in half until we got down in the area of the Planck Length. Later,
we used the Planck Length and used base-2 exponential notation
to go out the 202+ steps to the edges of the observable universe.
We used Plato’s five basics as an inherent continuity equation and
symmetry function.

It seems too easy, perhaps a bit of poppycock, but we don’t know
why. The question now is how to continue to develop it. Is it a useful
ordering system (STEM project)? Or, could it possibly be more?
We don’t know. After all, we are just five high school geometry classes.

Is it just a bit of silliness? Or, might it be useful? We (the kids and
teachers), are anxious to know. We will be having a major discussion about it
next week with all five classes. Thanks. -Bruce

Bruce Camber

Note: We first found you here:
Alden Mead’s 1959 paper Physics Today, Alden Response PDF
http://frankwilczek.com/resources.html

Other primary references: Problem of Strong P and T Invariance in the Presence of Instantons, F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 40, 279 – Published 30 January 1978


Upon following the work of Hugh David Politzer

Hugh David Politzer, Caltech, Pasadena, California

Articles: Phys. Rev. Letters 30 (1973), Phys. Rep. 14 (1974)
ArXiv (26)
Homepage(s): American Academy, inSPIREHEP, Michigan, Nobel, Wikipedia, YouTube

First email: 29 November 2022 at 4:41 PM

Dear Prof. Dr. H. David Politzer:

In December 2012 I approached Frank Wilczek with a peculiar question about a path our high school geometry classes had followed deep inside the tetrahedron and the octahedron within it. Dividing the edges by 2, connecting the new vertices, we went down 45 steps to particle physics, and then 67 more steps to the Planck scale numbers. We turned around, used the Planck numbers, multiplied by 2 and in 112 steps we were back in our classroom and in another 90 steps we were well over 13.79+ billion years and a size just a little under estimated current size of the universe which would include the current expansion.

That first chart quickly became the fourth chart for our working numbers. 202 base-2 notations had mapped the universe: https://81018.com/stem/

Pi and her continuity-symmetry-harmony became our penultimates. It changed everything:
1. There is an infinitesimal domain for perfected states in space-time.
2. There is a geometry for fluctuations.
3. In time, I am confident it will shine a new light on asymptotic freedom.

I thought you might find these links among all the idiosyncratic ones out there to be a challenge. It’s banjo physics all over again, “Just pick it up and play…” It’s mixed metaphors with pineapples and Hussey’s songs cutting through icy caverns.

That’s enough already!

If you are still with this old man (75), it’s your turn!

Warmly,

Bruce

PS.  I am hearing challenged; there’s a bit too much sound competition within your recording of The Simple Harmonic Oscillator. Are your lyrics posted anywhere? -BEC

*From his reflections on banjo physics, Hugh David Politzer (HDP) tells this story:

“In August 1914, twenty year old Leonard Hussey joined Ernest Shackleton’s expedition to the South Pole. In October 1915, their ship was ground to bits by ice floes. Escaping on lifeboats, the crew members were restricted to two pounds of personal belongings. But Shackleton insisted that Hussey also bring his banjo, saying, “We must have that banjo. It is vital mental medicine.” Eventually, Shackleton set out with a small party to get a rescue ship for his stranded crew. On August 30, 1916, all were saved — with no loss of life.

The walnut instrument in the photo is from the same manufacturer and essentially the same model as Hussey’s, only about thirty years newer.

Big Bang versus Quiet Expansion:

Left Yellow Arrow
.
Right Yellow Arrow

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

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

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

An open, working document
A first draft for collaborations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We can do better. We must do better.

Thank you. -BEC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_____

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

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

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

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

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

_____

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

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

_____

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

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

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

_____

Participate You are always invited.

_____

Keys to this page, parameters

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

###

______________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

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

_____

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

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

Key pages:

_____

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

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

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

https://81018.com/aristotle/

On following the work of Geraint Lewis…

in process

Geraint F. Lewis, Sydney Institute for Astronomy, Sydney, Australia

ArXiv (9): The Trouble with “Puddle Thinking”, 2021
Book(s): The Cosmic Revolutionary’s Handbook, 2019; Where Did the Universe Come From? and Other Cosmic Questions: Our Universe, from the Quantum to the Cosmos, 2021
Homepage(s): ADS-NASA, Sydney, Twitter, Wikipedia
YouTube video(s): Where Did The Universe Come From? With Prof. Geraint F. Lewis, 2021

First email:  7 November 2022 at 5:14 PM (revised a little)

Dear Prof. Dr. Geraint F. Lewis:

I sent you a tweet, but whoever sees those tweets? I’ll be capturing more from your 400 articles, especially those in ArXiv, but I’ll also peruse your books, especially the one that you wrote for me, The Cosmic Revolutionary’s Handbook! It just may be what I need.

We are a high school class of geometers who followed a base-2 path down inside the tetrahedron and its octahedron. In 45 steps going deeper and deeper inside, we passed the fermions; and, in another 67 steps, we were in the Planck base units. 

We decided for consistency to multiply the base units by 2, and in 112 jumps, we were back in the classroom and another 90 out to the current expansion and age of the universe. 

We thought it was pretty neat. Nobody else did. Well, Frank Wilczek and Freeman Dyson did until we got serious. Freeman died on us. Wilczek became like a god! 

You might enjoy our little story: https://81018.com/home/
Our chart of 202 notations: https://81018.com/chart/
Our first study of it all: https://81018.com/stem/

I’ll start a page tonight, https://81018.com/geraint-lewis/. At my age, I need as many memory props as it takes! Thanks for all that you have done and all that you are doing. I think the magic of numbers and geometries and their functions will begin to flourish!

Best wishes,

Bruce

First Tweet: 2:25 PM · Nov 7, 2022 (revised a little)

Geraint F. Lewis, @Cosmic_Horizons @Sydney_Uni Go inside the tetrahedron (divide the edges by 2, connect new vertices) and in 45 steps you’ll be among the particles and in another 67 steps you’ll be at the Planck base units. Now multiply those Planck units by 2, 202 times and you have the universe: https://81018.com A little math and geometry go a long way!

Getting to know our Universe, the seen and unseen

Left Yellow Arrow
.
Right Yellow Arrow

CENTER FOR PERFECTION STUDIES: CONTINUITY•SYMMETRY•HARMONY November 2022
Pages: Agree | Gravity| Hope | Hypostasis Mistakes | PI (π) | Questions | Sphere | STEM | Up
THIS PAGE: CHECKLIST | FOOTNOTES | REFERENCES EMAILS | IM | PARTICIPATE | Zzzz’s

An All-Natural View ___
___by Bruce E. Camber, Working first draft

We’ve underestimated Planck’s base units, infinitesimal spheres, and pi (π).
These appear to be among the penultimates of physics and mathematics.

I. Planck Base Units. Practically ignored for about 100 years, in 2001 Frank Wilczek[1] put Planck’s base units on a fast track for adoption by our scientific community, yet those Planck units remain enigmatic and are still questioned by some. In 2011 our high school geometry classes[2] peeled back some of the mystery by blazing a path of geometries and simple mathematics (dividing by 2) to Planck’s base units. We uncovered 202 doublings or notations[3] from the first possible moment of time to our current time.

We were told that it was the first base-2 chart of the universe. Logically that chart includes everything, everywhere for all time. It builds on itself. All notations are active. Space and time are redefined. Our universe is perpetually starting. And, there is no need for big bang cosmology.[4]

We were exploring the tetrahedron and octahedron[5]. Rather unwittingly we also had to learn about base-2 exponential notation[6] and along that way, we discovered the universe.[7] There are 112 steps from our classroom model down to the Planck base units, and then, just 90 steps going out to the current time. We used the generous estimate of 13.81 billion years to approximate the age and then the size of the universe. Quite naive, those simple calculations were not made thinking about theories of the origins of our universe.

“It is just simple math — doubings — dividing or multiplying by 2.”

So what does one make of all those numbers?
We turned to our scholars and experts for help.[8]

II. Infinitesimal spheres. First, we considered the Planck base units to be Notation-0 and we asked the question, “What would that look like?” Many scholars and experts say, “A singularity.”[9] But, that is difficult to imagine. In 1927, Georges Lemaître said, “A primeval atom.”[10] In 2011, our class of high school geometers said, “A primordial sphere” and today we say, “An infinitesimal sphere.”

There is nothing simple about the first sphere. The Fourier transform[11] opened the door on complexity. Steve Smale and John Milnor‘s work with attractors and repellers[12] opened it further. The deep-seated continuities-symmetries-harmonies[13] of pi, opened the qualitative and the infinite most fundamentally. Pi is ubiquitous; it is used to define the most fundamental equations that define our universe.

So, where is pi within the big bang theory?
And the answer it seems is, “It’s nowhere to be found
.”

Scalar fields.[14] At the 67th notation, 7.95630×10-24 seconds is much too small for any possible measurement of time. The corresponding length, 2.38509×10-15 meters, is on the cusp of possible length measurements. As a result, we hypothesize that Notations 0-to-64 define scalar fields that can be used by Langlands programs, string theories, SUSY, loop quantum gravity, and all those other disciplines currently not on the grid. Every moment grows with numbers and geometries to uniquely define it as it adds notations. These are scalar fields for everything, everywhere for all time.

Expansion or inflation. We assume there is one infinitesimal sphere per unit of Planck Time and Planck Length. It’s a key assumption. Within the first second, there would be 539 tredecillion spheres.[15a] The 1874 calculations by George Johnstone Stoney render 4609 tredecillion spheres per second.[15b] Given the first second of the universe is between Notations 143-and-144 and represents over two-thirds of all notations, it became obvious that the earliest universe is the focus of this study.

In just the first day, if we were to line up all those spheres, we would be out to around the gravitational edge of our solar system. Someday that statement may become significant. Today, it is an observation. And for now, we need to be doing cubic calculations (and, that will be done).

The first year is between Notations-168 and 169. The first million years is between Notations 188-and-189. And, the first billion years is between Notations 198-and-199.

As we studied the dynamics of sphere stacking and packing going back to Kepler and Harriot, we also discovered the dynamics of close-cubic packing of equal spheres[16] whereby tetrahedra and octahedra are generated and perfectly fill space. There is a natural inflation that is homogeneous and isotropic. The earliest densities create a thrust to continue to perfectly fill space. It’s the path of least resistance.

It is smooth and it is within the realm of possibilities that it could remain smooth for 200+ million years and out to the current observations of the James Webb Space Telescope[17] (JWST). Although there are many potential gaps for fluctuations[18], we will wait for more results from the JWST and the judgments of their experts.[19]

III. Pi (π). If we accept a sphere as given, and recognize that pi is its leading dimensionless constant, we can learn about the finite-infinite relation. The discrete-numerical-quantitative is finite. And, the continuous-geometrical-qualitative is infinite. Pi (π) gives us continuity, symmetry, and harmony[20], preconditions for order, relations, and dynamics, and the essence of the finite-infinite relation[21]. The key to it all is within pi and its perfected states in space-and-time.[22] And because this model is inherently respectful of people and things, no matter the religion, philosophy or total lack thereof, we do not, at this time, feel a need to go any further with our examination of the infinite.

Perfected-states in space-time was part of my early research of the EPR paradox[23]. Given its deeper relations with the Planck base units and within pi, it can be readily integrated with everything, everywhere, for all time, now discretized with numbers and geometries. Plato and Pythagoras may celebrate. Loop Quantum Gravity and all studies not on the grid [24] may want to celebrate because time is redefined and the grid is extended and opened up substantially. Again, all notations build on each other and are always active. Time’s arrow is relegated to an infinitesimal slice of the current time within Notation-202 and, most unusually, it seems to be associated with a recompile during the sleep cycles of all sentient beings.

Our chart with its 202 base-2 notations is slowly becoming a model and our hope is that you will help us to understand it. In this world of Planck’s base units, infinitesimal spheres, and pi, it appears to use less extralogic and seems less idiosyncratic than Alan Guth’s inflation and his hypothetical inflaton.[25]

Within our emerging model of the universe, there is no need for hypotheticals. Thank you. Thank you very much. -BEC

_____

Endnotes & Footnotes
Most of these points already have pages within this website.

[1] Wilczek. Webpages: Frank Wilczekhttps://81018.com/wilczek/
Physics Today, 312. Scaling Mt. Planck I: A View from the Bottom (June 2001)
Physics Today, 321. Scaling Mt. Planck II: Base Camp (Nov 2001)
• Physics Today, 328. Scaling Mt. Planck III: Is That All There Is? (August 2002).

Endnotes (BEC Comment): In Frank Wilczek’s latest work, Fundamentals: Ten Keys to Reality, I was disappointed that he used the words, “after the Big Bang.” With its current raft of problems, I had hoped that Wilczek would have been inclined to hold back from reaffirming the big bang. Even after ten years I recognize that he’s not quite ready to affirm a natural inflation with base-2 notation, the Planck base units, infinitesimal spheres, and pi, yet even after two one-on-one discussions and countless emails, I still have hopes that maybe someday he will. He must somehow believe that the Planck base units are remotely related to the bing bang singularity. If we ever meet again, I’ll ask him that question.

_____

[2] 2011 high school geometry Webpage: https://81018.com/home/

Endnotes (BEC Comments and Questions): We started with geometry and math and followed Zeno in a three-dimensional way. It seems strange that in ten years nobody has commented about that 112-step walk down to the Planck scale. It is a natural progression. The final 67 notations should fascinate every geometry student and teacher. It is a most simple math and geometry. On one hand, I ask, “Why is everybody ignoring it?” and then on the other, “What am I failing to grasp?” I acknowledge that the Planck base units have only been on the ascendancy since 2001. The Big Bang Theory had over twenty solid years of undivided attention from 1979 to 2001. In that time, any doubter was chastised into complacency and declared idiosyncratic at best.

I caution myself, “This isn’t going to be easy! Look how much investment there is each year within sciences based on after the big bang. It’s mind-numbing.”

____

[3] A Chart of 202 Base-2 Notations  Webpage: https://81018.com/chart/

Endnotes (BEC Comments) : This chart was based on earlier charts, the first being from 2011. There has been a steady progression of charts yet the focus today is on our horizontally-scrolled chart that was started in 2016. It has a long way to go before we will be happy with it. The biggest challenge is the first 64 notations where we fully expect to integrate those studies currently not on the grid (See Footnote 24 below). We also hypothesize scalar fields are defined within those first 64 notations.

_____

[4] No Big Bang, a key idea. Webpages: https://81018.com/redefinition/ https://81018.com/bbtheory/ https://81018.com/analysis/#Time

Endnotes: Scholars have been calling for a fundamental redefinition of space and time. A most credible scholar, Neil Turok, occupies the Higgs Chair at Edinburgh, says the universe acts like it is perpetually starting. It is. And, of course, it cannot be perpetually starting as a big bang. It can perpetually start as an infinitesimal sphere. The big bang will slowly be put on ice and we will slowly and more logically re-engage infinity.

_____

[5] Tetrahedrons and Octahedrons (always have four hexagonal plates). Webpages: https://81018.com/tot/ https://81018.com/tot-2/ https://81018.com/octahedron

Endnote: (BEC Comments): The most-simple interior parts of the tetrahedron — a tetrahedron in each corner and an octahedron in the middle — can be readily visualized, but we don’t. We do not grasp the interior parts of the most simple of Plato’s five solids. Its internal octahedron is a key element for our general education. It should be the subject of study within elementary schools. It’s not.

Even one of the world’s greatest geometers had to buy time when asked, “What objects most simply and completely fill the octahedron? Of course, John Conway knew the answer, but it wasn’t spontaneous. All of us should be able to answer that question easily by the time we are in the sixth grade. We all should know about the four hexagonal plates that crisscross through the octahedron. We all should know about the square plates as well. The octahedron and tetrahedron are the essence of stability and in this model of the universe, it is a key element of the overall architecture. Here is a fundamental oversight in our general education.

_____

[6] Everything, everywhere, for all time. Webpage: https://81018.com/toes/

Endnotes: Those 202 notations start with the smallest working units of space-and-time and then expand to the largest possible units of space and time. Logically, doesn’t that include everything, everywhere for all time? If not, why not? For many of the notations, we have started a special page to begin to drill down into it. For example, at one second: https://81018.com/a143/

_____

[7] Mapping the Universe: A STEM tool. Webpage: https://81018.com/stem/

_____

[8] Scholars and experts. Webpage: https://81018.com/alphabetical/

Endnotes: Over the years we have turned to the finest scholars we could find. Direct mail, text messages, and tweets have been sent. Believe it or not, this list (linked) is a small percentage of all the people who have contacted.

_____

[9] Singularity Webpages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_singularity and gravitational and others

Endnotes: If all our notations are always active, this model redefines the nature of space and time. It defines a very different notion of a singularity. Our page about singularities was started in 2017; and with this reference, more attention will be given to the topic: https://81018.com/singularity/

_____

[10] Primeval atom of Lemaître. Webpage: https://81018.com/Lemaître/

Endnotes: In 1927 Lemaître made his first postulations about a primeval atom and a cold start of the universe. Initially we replied that it was a primordial sphere. Perhaps the best concept is that of an infinitesimal sphere.

_____

[11] Fourier transform. Web page: https://81018.com/fourier/

Endnotes: Open the door on complexity. There is nothing simple about the first sphere.

_____

[12] Smale-Milnor. Webpages: https://81018.com/smale/ and https://81018.com/milnor/

Endnotes: Smale and Milnor‘s work with attractors and repellers opened the initial complexity even further.

_____

[13] Fundamentals. Webpages: https://81018.com/starts-2/

Endnotes: The deep-seated continuity-symmetry-harmony within pi most fundamentally opened the qualitative and the infinite. Pi is everywhere. It is pivotal within the most fundamental equations that define our universe.

_____

[14] Scalar Fields. Webpage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalar_field and theory

Endnotes: With this webpage, scalar fields are introduced. It seems natural. We will be seeking help from experts in this field. Since it is a hypothetical field, we expect the experts will also mostly be involved with the definition of dark energy and dark matter.

_____

[15] Tredecillion. Webpage: https://81018.com/tredecillion/ https://81018.com/stoney-2/

Endnotes: Something like the following quote has been said in many different ways by many different people, “Inflation causes growth at an exponential rate and is due to a hypothetical scalar field that has never been directly observed. Expansion is basically just the general-relativistic version of inertia and requires no new physics.”

An appeal has been made to the International Standards Organization (ISO) to open an analysis of these different results from Planck and Stoney. We will advocate that the work of John Ralston and Espen Gaarder Haug be part of that assessment, especially of our understanding of the Planck constant.

George Johnstone Stoney. At least 26-years before Max Planck, natural units were introduced by Stoney. These units are part of the great unsolved problems within physics.

_____

[16] CCP and a natural inflation. Stacking spheres sounds relatively innocuous. It is not. It may well be the most basic building block for space and time. Wikipedia’s section on face-centered cubic (FCC), also called cubic-close packed, and hexagonal-close-packed (HCP) introduces a dynamic graphic that demonstrates how tetrahedra and octahedra are perfectly generated and perfectly fill space from stacking spheres. We brought that work down into the infinitesimal. We also recognized that this is a natural inflation that becomes the basis for homogeneity and isotropy. Here was our initial look at perfected states that define space-time. Here was our initial introduction to Aristotle’s mistaken geometry and the geometries of quantum fluctuations.

_____

[17] James Webb Space Telescope. Webpage: https://81018.com/analysis/

_____

[18] Fluctuations. Webpages: https://81018.com/fluctuations/ Also, the prior homepage.

Endnotes: The issue of quantum fluctuations has been scratched by a few. First, I believe there are no less than two general flavors of fluctuations, physical and mental. And within those two, there all are at least six flavors each that are geometrically determined: tetrahedral, octahedral, tetrahedral-octahedral, icosahedra A, icosahedral B, and dodecahedral. This very early introduction started with this page, https://81018.com/geometries/ That these studies pick up where Aristotle failed us is important. Aristotle made a most basic error in geometry that great scholars repeated for 1800 years. Talk about setting scholarship back a few years and we still haven’t come out of it. Aristotle tainted geometry and its place within our intellectual landscape.

_____

[19] JWST Experts. Webpage: https://81018.com/JWST/

_____

[20] Continuity, symmetry, and harmony Webpages: https://81018.com/analysis/#CSH https://81018.com/introduction/
https://81018.com/continuity/ https://81018.com/symmetry/ https://81018.com/harmony/

_____

[21] Finite-infinite. Webpage: https://81018.com/ethics/

Endnotes: The essence of the finite-infinite relation and the beginning of an ethics.

_____

[22] Perfected-states in space-time. Webpage:  https://81018.com/almost/#CSH https://81018.com/ethics/ https://81018.com/challenge/

Endnotes: There is an infinitesimal perfection within the physical world. This is a major correction to quantum theory and controversial. However, if the first notations have no fluctuations and are smooth, it does suggest a new physics and we hypothesize that it is within the first 64 notations.

_____

[23] Einstein, Podolsky Rosen 1935. Webpage: https://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.47.777

_____

[24] Loop Quantum Gravity and others. Webpages: (1) https://81018.com/lqg/ (2) https://81018.com/langlands_programs/ (3) https://81018.com/strings/ (4) https://81018.com/susy/ (5) https://81018.com/cdt/ (6) https://81018.com/cst/ (7) https://81018.com/ft/ (8) https://81018.com/ssm/ and (9) https://81018.com/hypothetical_particles/ 

_____

[25] Guth and his inflaton Webpage: https://81018.com/2016/10/11/guth/#First https://81018.com/foundations/

_____

References & Resources
As these references are studied, key references and resources will be added within this website.

Homepages and other key pages: Hawking’s big bang theory has reached its limits (November 2022), The Known Unknowns (5 February 2022), The Resilience Project (October-November 2022), The First 64-Notations (October 2019)

Bounce of Nothing (PDF) (Conference Presentation PDF), Isabel García García, KITP, UC Santa Barbara, 2020, 2021

Bubble collisions in the very early universe, S. W. Hawking, I. G. Moss, and J. M. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D 26, 2681, 15 November 1982

_____

Email
There will be emails to many of our scholars.

• Isabel García García, KITP, UC Santa Barbara, 28 October 2022 at 11 PM 
• Andronikos Paliathanasis, Oct 28, 2022, 5:48 PM 
• Quick notes to Robert DiSalle, Espen Haug, Tomonori Totani, and Denis Weaire:
   “Your page on our site has been seeing some activity today!” 27-28 October 2022
• Richard J. Fitzgerald, Editor, Physics Today, AIP Publishing, 11:10 AM, October 26, 2022
• Frank Wilczek, MIT, 25 October 2022 at about 1:34 PM

_____

IM
Often using Twitter. Criticized, now also using Parler.

9:04 PM · Nov 2, 2022: @TheOnion Pictures from the James Webb Space Telescope challenge big bang cosmology. The pictures of the early universe are just too smooth! An alternative model: mathematical-geometrical doublings of Planck base units, the first moment of time to this day all in 202 notations: https://81018.com/

November 1, 2022: Parler #1: We’ll all be moving from the old-and-tired big bang theory (with its inherent nihilism) to an integrated mathematical-and-geometric view of the universe. First, start with the base units by Max Planck. Apply base-2 notation and in just 202 all-natural doublings, we’ll go from the first moment of time to this day. It is an easy, yet unprecedented map of the universe and a special continuity-symmetry-and-harmony because it all starts with an infinitesimal sphere  and pi (π): https://81018.com/    https://81018.com/chart/   https://81018.com/stem/  
• 12:11 AM · Oct 30, 2022 @tim_cook (Apple, CEO) I think Einstein was closer to the truth when he said arrogance was the bigger danger. https://81018.com/arrogance/ Hawking was rough on anybody who dared to question the big bang theory. Now, the James Webb Space Telescope is! A more simple-complete theory: https://81018.com/
• 2:29 PM · Oct 25, 2022 Sergio Mujica@ISOSecGen Secretary-General of ISO
• 4:57 PM · Oct 26, 2022 John Brockman, @brockmanincOur worldviews are too small and an integrated view of the universe seems impossible. It’s not. Start at the Planck base units. Apply base-2 and in 202 notations you have the outline: https://81018.com/chart/ And, https://81018.com tells a good story.

_____

Participate…     You are always invited.

_____

Keys to this page, penultimates

• This page became a homepage at 10:30 PM, 25 October 2022.
• The last update was 6 November 2022.
• This page was initiated on 8 October 2022.
• The URL for this file is https://81018.com/penultimates/
• The headline for this article: An all natural view of the universe
• First byline is: Getting to know our Universe, the seen and unseen

A note to Ted Trimpa of Denver, Colorado

Ted Trimpa is at http://tedtrimpa.com
Ross Kaminsky is at https://koacolorado.iheart.com/featured/ross-kaminsky

First email: 25 October 2022 at 2:50 PM

Note: Ted Trimpa was interviewed by Ross Kaminsky of the iHeart Radio group in Denver, Colorado. They two talked sensibly and earnestly about the emotional state of Colorado and the country. It prompted this note to Ted:

Hi Ted, 

Ross Kaminsky likes you and believes you are a fair person. The problem with party politics is that none of the parties have a large enough worldview. In fact, to be truly inclusive and forward thinking, we each need a highly-integrated view of the universe.

It is not as complex as it is currently made out to be. 

The smallest recognized units of space-and-time were defined by Max Planck in 1899 and reinforced in 2001 by Nobel laureate,Frank Wilczek, in Physics Today. Apply base-2 and there are just 202 doublings to include everything, everywhere for all time.

That’s an integrated view of the universe! It reveals more about us and our universe than most people know and grasp. Here are the basic basics.

I would like to apply it to party politics to see if it can liberate us from all the small thinking.  Can we talk?

Thanks.

Warm regards,

Bruce

On following the work of the editor of Physics Today, Richard J. Fitzgerald

Physics Today is a publication of the American Institute of Physics (AIP).

First email: 22 October 2022 at 11:10 AM

Dear Richard J. Fitzgerald,

Frank Wilczek says in his first article of a 2001 three-part series in Physics Today, “…Planck’s proposal for a system of units based on fundamental physical constants was, when it was made, formally correct but rather thinly rooted in fundamental physics.” Reference: “Scaling Mt. Planck I: A View from the Bottom,” Physics Today, June 2001, p 13.

Just today, I am back quoting it: https://81018.com/penultimates/#1a I thought you might enjoy seeing it.

Thank you. 

Warm regards,

Bruce

PS. My footnote opens that discussion further. -BEC 

[1] Wilczek. Webpages: Frank Wilczek – https://81018.com/wilczek/
• Physics Today, 312. Scaling Mt. Planck I: A View from the Bottom (June 2001)
• Physics Today, 321. Scaling Mt. Planck II: Base Camp (Nov 2001)
• Physics Today, 328. Scaling Mt. Planck III: Is That All There Is? (August 2002).

Endnotes (BEC Comment): In Frank Wilczek’s latest work, Fundamentals: Ten Keys to Reality, I was disappointed that he used the words, “after the Big Bang.” With its current raft of problems, * I had hoped that he would hold back from reaffirming the big bang. Even after ten years I recognize that he’s not quite ready to affirm a natural inflation with base-2 notation, the Planck base units, infinitesimal spheres, and pi, yet I still have hopes that maybe someday he will. He must somehow believe that the Planck base units are remotely related to the bing bang singularity. We met on two occasions; if we ever meet again, I’ll ask him that question.

* The “current raft of problems” refers to all the discussions coming from scholars working with the results from James Webb Space Telescope and the issues of smoothness. Several recent homepages focused on it including: 

  1. https://81018.com/reason/#1a  
  2. https://81018.com/communicate/
  3. https://81018.com/mathematical-universe/
  4. https://81018.com/analysis/

Nobel Prize recipients whose works touch this website…

Two categories, Historic and More current Nobel prize winners, are referenced:

Historic: Walther Nernst (Chemistry, 1920), Albert Einstein (Physics, 1921), Max Planck (Physics, 1918), Robert Millikan (Physics, 1923) and Max von Laue (Physics, 1914), Arthur Holly Compton (Physics, 1927),  Eugene Wigner (1963),  Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson (1978)

More current recipients:

Looking further into the work of:

Getting to know our Universe, the seen and unseen

Left Yellow Arrow
.
Right Yellow Arrow

CENTER FOR PERFECTION STUDIES: CONTINUITY•SYMMETRY•HARMONY November 2022
Pages: Agree | Gravity| Hope | Hypostasis Mistakes | PI (π) | Questions | Sphere | STEM | Up
THIS PAGE: CHECKLIST | FOOTNOTES | REFERENCES EMAILS | IM | PARTICIPATE | Zzzz’s

An All-Natural View ___
___by Bruce E. Camber, Working first draft

We’ve underestimated Planck’s base units, infinitesimal spheres, and pi (π).
These appear to be among the penultimates of physics and mathematics.

I. Planck Base Units. Practically ignored for about 100 years, in 2001 Frank Wilczek[1] put Planck’s base units on a fast track for adoption by our scientific community, yet those Planck units remain enigmatic and are still questioned by some. In 2011 our high school geometry classes[2] peeled back some of the mystery by blazing a path of geometries and simple mathematics (dividing by 2) to Planck’s base units. We uncovered 202 doublings or notations[3] from the first possible moment of time to our current time.

We were told that it was the first base-2 chart of the universe. Logically that chart includes everything, everywhere for all time. It builds on itself. All notations are active. Space and time are redefined. Our universe is perpetually starting. And, there is no need for big bang cosmology.[4]

We were exploring the tetrahedron and octahedron[5]. Rather unwittingly we also had to learn about base-2 exponential notation[6] and along that way, we discovered the universe.[7] There are 112 steps from our classroom model down to the Planck base units, and then, just 90 steps going out to the current time. We used the generous estimate of 13.81 billion years to approximate the age and then the size of the universe. Quite naive, those simple calculations were not made thinking about theories of the origins of our universe.

“It is just simple math — doubings — dividing or multiplying by 2.”

So what does one make of all those numbers?
We turned to our scholars and experts for help.[8]

II. Infinitesimal spheres. First, we considered the Planck base units to be Notation-0 and we asked the question, “What would that look like?” Many scholars and experts say, “A singularity.”[9] But, that is difficult to imagine. In 1927, Georges Lemaître said, “A primeval atom.”[10] In 2011, our class of high school geometers said, “A primordial sphere” and today we say, “An infinitesimal sphere.”

There is nothing simple about the first sphere. The Fourier transform[11] opened the door on complexity. Steve Smale and John Milnor‘s work with attractors and repellers[12] opened it further. The deep-seated continuities-symmetries-harmonies[13] of pi, opened the qualitative and the infinite most fundamentally. Pi is ubiquitous; it is used to define the most fundamental equations that define our universe.

So, where is pi within the big bang theory?
And the answer it seems is, “It’s nowhere to be found
.”

Scalar fields.[14] At the 67th notation, 7.95630×10-24 seconds is much too small for any possible measurement of time. The corresponding length, 2.38509×10-15 meters, is on the cusp of possible length measurements. As a result, we hypothesize that Notations 0-to-64 define scalar fields that can be used by Langlands programs, string theories, SUSY, loop quantum gravity, and all those other disciplines currently not on the grid. Every moment grows with numbers and geometries to uniquely define it as it adds notations. These are scalar fields for everything, everywhere for all time.

Expansion or inflation. We assume there is one infinitesimal sphere per unit of Planck Time and Planck Length. It’s a key assumption. Within the first second, there would be 539 tredecillion spheres.[15a] The 1874 calculations by George Johnstone Stoney render 4609 tredecillion spheres per second.[15b] Given the first second of the universe is between Notations 143-and-144 and represents over two-thirds of all notations, it became obvious that the earliest universe is the focus of this study.

In just the first day, if we were to line up all those spheres, we would be out to around the gravitational edge of our solar system. Someday that statement may become significant. Today, it is an observation. And for now, we need to be doing cubic calculations (and, that will be done).

The first year is between Notations-168 and 169. The first million years is between Notations 188-and-189. And, the first billion years is between Notations 198-and-199.

As we studied the dynamics of sphere stacking and packing going back to Kepler and Harriot, we also discovered the dynamics of close-cubic packing of equal spheres[16] whereby tetrahedra and octahedra are generated and perfectly fill space. There is a natural inflation that is homogeneous and isotropic. The earliest densities create a thrust to continue to perfectly fill space. It’s the path of least resistance.

It is smooth and it is within the realm of possibilities that it could remain smooth for 200+ million years and out to the current observations of the James Webb Space Telescope[17] (JWST). Although there are many potential gaps for fluctuations[18], we will wait for more results from the JWST and the judgments of their experts.[19]

III. Pi (π). If we accept a sphere as given, and recognize that pi is its leading dimensionless constant, we can learn about the finite-infinite relation. The discrete-numerical-quantitative is finite. And, the continuous-geometrical-qualitative is infinite. Pi (π) gives us continuity, symmetry, and harmony[20], preconditions for order, relations, and dynamics, and the essence of the finite-infinite relation[21]. The key to it all is within pi and its perfected states in space-and-time.[22] And because this model is inherently respectful of people and things, no matter the religion, philosophy or total lack thereof, we do not, at this time, feel a need to go any further with our examination of the infinite.

Perfected-states in space-time was part of my early research of the EPR paradox[23]. Given its deeper relations with the Planck base units and within pi, it can be readily integrated with everything, everywhere, for all time, now discretized with numbers and geometries. Plato and Pythagoras may celebrate. Loop Quantum Gravity and all studies not on the grid [24] may want to celebrate because time is redefined and the grid is extended and opened up substantially. Again, all notations build on each other and are always active. Time’s arrow is relegated to an infinitesimal slice of the current time within Notation-202 and, most unusually, it seems to be associated with a recompile during the sleep cycles of all sentient beings.

Our chart with its 202 base-2 notations is slowly becoming a model and our hope is that you will help us to understand it. In this world of Planck’s base units, infinitesimal spheres, and pi, it appears to use less extralogic and seems less idiosyncratic than Alan Guth’s inflation and his hypothetical inflaton.[25]

Within our emerging model of the universe, there is no need for hypotheticals. Thank you. Thank you very much. -BEC

_____

Endnotes & Footnotes
Most of these points already have pages within this website.

[1] Wilczek. Webpages: Frank Wilczekhttps://81018.com/wilczek/
Physics Today, 312. Scaling Mt. Planck I: A View from the Bottom (June 2001)
Physics Today, 321. Scaling Mt. Planck II: Base Camp (Nov 2001)
• Physics Today, 328. Scaling Mt. Planck III: Is That All There Is? (August 2002).

Endnotes (BEC Comment): In Frank Wilczek’s latest work, Fundamentals: Ten Keys to Reality, I was disappointed that he used the words, “after the Big Bang.” With its current raft of problems, I had hoped that Wilczek would have been inclined to hold back from reaffirming the big bang. Even after ten years I recognize that he’s not quite ready to affirm a natural inflation with base-2 notation, the Planck base units, infinitesimal spheres, and pi, yet even after two one-on-one discussions and countless emails, I still have hopes that maybe someday he will. He must somehow believe that the Planck base units are remotely related to the bing bang singularity. If we ever meet again, I’ll ask him that question.

_____

[2] 2011 high school geometry Webpage: https://81018.com/home/

Endnotes (BEC Comments and Questions): We started with geometry and math and followed Zeno in a three-dimensional way. It seems strange that in ten years nobody has commented about that 112-step walk down to the Planck scale. It is a natural progression. The final 67 notations should fascinate every geometry student and teacher. It is a most simple math and geometry. On one hand, I ask, “Why is everybody ignoring it?” and then on the other, “What am I failing to grasp?” I acknowledge that the Planck base units have only been on the ascendancy since 2001. The Big Bang Theory had over twenty solid years of undivided attention from 1979 to 2001. In that time, any doubter was chastised into complacency and declared idiosyncratic at best.

I caution myself, “This isn’t going to be easy! Look how much investment there is each year within sciences based on after the big bang. It’s mind-numbing.”

____

[3] A Chart of 202 Base-2 Notations  Webpage: https://81018.com/chart/

Endnotes (BEC Comments) : This chart was based on earlier charts, the first being from 2011. There has been a steady progression of charts yet the focus today is on our horizontally-scrolled chart that was started in 2016. It has a long way to go before we will be happy with it. The biggest challenge is the first 64 notations where we fully expect to integrate those studies currently not on the grid (See Footnote 24 below). We also hypothesize scalar fields are defined within those first 64 notations.

_____

[4] No Big Bang, a key idea. Webpages: https://81018.com/redefinition/ https://81018.com/bbtheory/ https://81018.com/analysis/#Time

Endnotes: Scholars have been calling for a fundamental redefinition of space and time. A most credible scholar, Neil Turok, occupies the Higgs Chair at Edinburgh, says the universe acts like it is perpetually starting. It is. And, of course, it cannot be perpetually starting as a big bang. It can perpetually start as an infinitesimal sphere. The big bang will slowly be put on ice and we will slowly and more logically re-engage infinity.

_____

[5] Tetrahedrons and Octahedrons (always have four hexagonal plates). Webpages: https://81018.com/tot/ https://81018.com/tot-2/ https://81018.com/octahedron

Endnote: (BEC Comments): The most-simple interior parts of the tetrahedron — a tetrahedron in each corner and an octahedron in the middle — can be readily visualized, but we don’t. We do not grasp the interior parts of the most simple of Plato’s five solids. Its internal octahedron is a key element for our general education. It should be the subject of study within elementary schools. It’s not.

Even one of the world’s greatest geometers had to buy time when asked, “What objects most simply and completely fill the octahedron? Of course, John Conway knew the answer, but it wasn’t spontaneous. All of us should be able to answer that question easily by the time we are in the sixth grade. We all should know about the four hexagonal plates that crisscross through the octahedron. We all should know about the square plates as well. The octahedron and tetrahedron are the essence of stability and in this model of the universe, it is a key element of the overall architecture. Here is a fundamental oversight in our general education.

_____

[6] Everything, everywhere, for all time. Webpage: https://81018.com/toes/

Endnotes: Those 202 notations start with the smallest working units of space-and-time and then expand to the largest possible units of space and time. Logically, doesn’t that include everything, everywhere for all time? If not, why not? For many of the notations, we have started a special page to begin to drill down into it. For example, at one second: https://81018.com/a143/

_____

[7] Mapping the Universe: A STEM tool. Webpage: https://81018.com/stem/

_____

[8] Scholars and experts. Webpage: https://81018.com/alphabetical/

Endnotes: Over the years we have turned to the finest scholars we could find. Direct mail, text messages, and tweets have been sent. Believe it or not, this list (linked) is a small percentage of all the people who have contacted.

_____

[9] Singularity Webpages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_singularity and gravitational and others

Endnotes: If all our notations are always active, this model redefines the nature of space and time. It defines a very different notion of a singularity. Our page about singularities was started in 2017; and with this reference, more attention will be given to the topic: https://81018.com/singularity/

_____

[10] Primeval atom of Lemaître. Webpage: https://81018.com/Lemaître/

Endnotes: In 1927 Lemaître made his first postulations about a primeval atom and a cold start of the universe. Initially we replied that it was a primordial sphere. Perhaps the best concept is that of an infinitesimal sphere.

_____

[11] Fourier transform. Web page: https://81018.com/fourier/

Endnotes: Open the door on complexity. There is nothing simple about the first sphere.

_____

[12] Smale-Milnor. Webpages: https://81018.com/smale/ and https://81018.com/milnor/

Endnotes: Smale and Milnor‘s work with attractors and repellers opened the initial complexity even further.

_____

[13] Fundamentals. Webpages: https://81018.com/starts-2/

Endnotes: The deep-seated continuity-symmetry-harmony within pi most fundamentally opened the qualitative and the infinite. Pi is everywhere. It is pivotal within the most fundamental equations that define our universe.

_____

[14] Scalar Fields. Webpage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalar_field and theory

Endnotes: With this webpage, scalar fields are introduced. It seems natural. We will be seeking help from experts in this field. Since it is a hypothetical field, we expect the experts will also mostly be involved with the definition of dark energy and dark matter.

_____

[15] Tredecillion. Webpage: https://81018.com/tredecillion/ https://81018.com/stoney-2/

Endnotes: Something like the following quote has been said in many different ways by many different people, “Inflation causes growth at an exponential rate and is due to a hypothetical scalar field that has never been directly observed. Expansion is basically just the general-relativistic version of inertia and requires no new physics.”

An appeal has been made to the International Standards Organization (ISO) to open an analysis of these different results from Planck and Stoney. We will advocate that the work of John Ralston and Espen Gaarder Haug be part of that assessment, especially of our understanding of the Planck constant.

George Johnstone Stoney. At least 26-years before Max Planck, natural units were introduced by Stoney. These units are part of the great unsolved problems within physics.

_____

[16] CCP and a natural inflation. Stacking spheres sounds relatively innocuous. It is not. It may well be the most basic building block for space and time. Wikipedia’s section on face-centered cubic (FCC), also called cubic-close packed, and hexagonal-close-packed (HCP) introduces a dynamic graphic that demonstrates how tetrahedra and octahedra are perfectly generated and perfectly fill space from stacking spheres. We brought that work down into the infinitesimal. We also recognized that this is a natural inflation that becomes the basis for homogeneity and isotropy. Here was our initial look at perfected states that define space-time. Here was our initial introduction to Aristotle’s mistaken geometry and the geometries of quantum fluctuations.

_____

[17] James Webb Space Telescope. Webpage: https://81018.com/analysis/

_____

[18] Fluctuations. Webpages: https://81018.com/fluctuations/ Also, the prior homepage.

Endnotes: The issue of quantum fluctuations has been scratched by a few. First, I believe there are no less than two general flavors of fluctuations, physical and mental. And within those two, there all are at least six flavors each that are geometrically determined: tetrahedral, octahedral, tetrahedral-octahedral, icosahedra A, icosahedral B, and dodecahedral. This very early introduction started with this page, https://81018.com/geometries/ That these studies pick up where Aristotle failed us is important. Aristotle made a most basic error in geometry that great scholars repeated for 1800 years. Talk about setting scholarship back a few years and we still haven’t come out of it. Aristotle tainted geometry and its place within our intellectual landscape.

_____

[19] JWST Experts. Webpage: https://81018.com/JWST/

_____

[20] Continuity, symmetry, and harmony Webpages: https://81018.com/analysis/#CSH https://81018.com/introduction/
https://81018.com/continuity/ https://81018.com/symmetry/ https://81018.com/harmony/

_____

[21] Finite-infinite. Webpage: https://81018.com/ethics/

Endnotes: The essence of the finite-infinite relation and the beginning of an ethics.

_____

[22] Perfected-states in space-time. Webpage:  https://81018.com/almost/#CSH https://81018.com/ethics/ https://81018.com/challenge/

Endnotes: There is an infinitesimal perfection within the physical world. This is a major correction to quantum theory and controversial. However, if the first notations have no fluctuations and are smooth, it does suggest a new physics and we hypothesize that it is within the first 64 notations.

_____

[23] Einstein, Podolsky Rosen 1935. Webpage: https://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.47.777

_____

[24] Loop Quantum Gravity and others. Webpages: (1) https://81018.com/lqg/ (2) https://81018.com/langlands_programs/ (3) https://81018.com/strings/ (4) https://81018.com/susy/ (5) https://81018.com/cdt/ (6) https://81018.com/cst/ (7) https://81018.com/ft/ (8) https://81018.com/ssm/ and (9) https://81018.com/hypothetical_particles/ 

_____

[25] Guth and his inflaton Webpage: https://81018.com/2016/10/11/guth/#First https://81018.com/foundations/

_____

References & Resources
As these references are studied, key references and resources will be added within this website.

The Known Unknowns. Initiated in 5 February 2022.

The Resilience Project, Initiated in October and last updated on 2 November 2022

The First 64-Notations. URL: https://81018.com/common/

Bounce of Nothing (PDF) (Conference Presentation PDF), Isabel García García, KITP, UC Santa Barbara, 2020, 2021

Bubble collisions in the very early universe, S. W. Hawking, I. G. Moss, and J. M. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D 26, 2681, 15 November 1982

_____

Email
There will be emails to many of our scholars.

• Isabel García García, KITP, UC Santa Barbara, 28 October 2022 at 11 PM 
• Andronikos Paliathanasis, Oct 28, 2022, 5:48 PM 
• Quick notes to Robert DiSalle, Espen Haug, Tomonori Totani, and Denis Weaire:
   “Your page on our site has been seeing some activity today!” 27-28 October 2022
• Richard J. Fitzgerald, Editor, Physics Today, AIP Publishing, 11:10 AM, October 26, 2022
• Frank Wilczek, MIT, 25 October 2022 at about 1:34 PM

_____

IM
Often using Twitter. Criticized, now also using Parler.

9:04 PM · Nov 2, 2022: @TheOnion Pictures from the James Webb Space Telescope challenge big bang cosmology. The pictures of the early universe are just too smooth! An alternative model: mathematical-geometrical doublings of Planck base units, the first moment of time to this day all in 202 notations: https://81018.com/

November 1, 2022: Parler #1: We’ll all be moving from the old-and-tired big bang theory (with its inherent nihilism) to an integrated mathematical-and-geometric view of the universe. First, start with the base units by Max Planck. Apply base-2 notation and in just 202 all-natural doublings, we’ll go from the first moment of time to this day. It is an easy, yet unprecedented map of the universe and a special continuity-symmetry-and-harmony because it all starts with an infinitesimal sphere  and pi (π): https://81018.com/    https://81018.com/chart/   https://81018.com/stem/  
• 12:11 AM · Oct 30, 2022 @tim_cook (Apple, CEO) I think Einstein was closer to the truth when he said arrogance was the bigger danger. https://81018.com/arrogance/ Hawking was rough on anybody who dared to question the big bang theory. Now, the James Webb Space Telescope is! A more simple-complete theory: https://81018.com/
• 2:29 PM · Oct 25, 2022 Sergio Mujica@ISOSecGen Secretary-General of ISO
• 4:57 PM · Oct 26, 2022 John Brockman, @brockmanincOur worldviews are too small and an integrated view of the universe seems impossible. It’s not. Start at the Planck base units. Apply base-2 and in 202 notations you have the outline: https://81018.com/chart/ And, https://81018.com tells a good story.

_____

Participate…     You are always invited.

_____

Keys to this page, penultimates

• This page became a homepage at 10:30 PM, 25 October 2022.
• The last update was 6 November 2022.
• This page was initiated on 8 October 2022.
• The URL for this file is https://81018.com/penultimates/
• The headline for this article: An all natural view of the universe
• First byline is: Getting to know our Universe, the seen and unseen