# A Study Of Notation #199

### The Numbers: A doubling of the Planck base units.

How large is our Universe now?
Notation #199: 1.3727 billion years, 199 doublings, the largest prime number of all the notations
.
Overview: There are just three more doublings until we reach the current time. The 200th notation will bring us to 2.7 billion years. The 201st notation will add 5.4 billion years, and the 202nd notation will eventually add 10.8 billion more years. At this notation, our little universe has only been working for just 43.318 quadrillion seconds.

In light of this model, that does not seem so very long.

199th doubling of the Planck Time: 43,318,236,018,400,000 seconds (1.3727 billion years), the sum total for the entire universe

199th doubling of the Planck Length: 1.298×1024 kilometers, the sum total for the entire universe Within Wikipedia, the best guess for the size of the universe is 8.8×1023 kilometers so this chart is within a seemingly reasonable proximity. By the 202 notation that figure will have increased to 1.038×1026 kilometers. It seems that all the numbers from the Planck Length, a logical natural inflation, holds a stronger hand and a more disciplined approach to reach its conclusions.

199th doubling of the Planck Mass: 1.748×1051kilograms, the sum total for the entire universe within Notation 199 Wikipedia’s editors guess that the total mass of the universe is 1.46×1053 kilograms. At the 202nd notation the mass within our chart of numbers is 1.399×1052 kilograms. Certainly these numbers are in the same family as those within Wikipedia and ArXiv.

199th doubling of the Planck Charge: 1.506×1042 Coulombs, the sum total charge for the entire universe within Notation 199

One possible conclusion: These numbers all seem to be working very well together. Even the temporary placement of Planck Temperature seems to have a coherency within this set of six notations. As we have asked since December 2011 and we will continue asking around, “What are we doing wrong?” The most substantial challenge to our imaginations is the density-mass numbers within the human-scale notations. The coulombs numbers throughout the human scale and large scale also challenge the imagination, so these elements within each notation will continue to be our primary analysis.

***

### The next steps: An analysis of cycles, frequency and periodicity

The first prime numbers might give us new insights into systems theory, bifurcation theory, and numbers. Of course, staying within the 202 notations, the priority for this analysis will be determined by the following prime numbers: 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53, 59, and 61.

Our focus will be on those numbers in bold which are the doublings of a prime number:

• 2-4-8-16-32-64-128: This notation, 128, contains many common elements of life. The Planck Length multiple is 5.499 km or 3.42 miles. That would be the size of the universe at just .0000183 seconds, readily measurable with today’s instrumentation. The mass is extraordinarily dense (7.406±×1029kg), considerably larger than the Earth’s mass (5.97×1024 kg) yet smaller than the sun (1.988±×1030 kg). So the next notation to be studied will be 128.
• 3-6-12-24-48-96192: These two analyses will build up and around 67 and 101 for notation 96 and 169 and 199 for notation 192.
• 5-10-20-40-80160: Things the size of buckyballs or fullerenes are at notation 80. The first day, the distance light travels within 86400 seconds is between notations 160 and 161. Each of these analyses will build upon and improve upon the closest prior analyses.
• 7-14-28-56-112: Everything and anything that is around 8.3917 cm or 3.3 inches
• 11-22-44-88176: Things the size of a virus are at Notation 88 and almost 500 years at Notation 176.
• 13-26-52-104: The size of this “.” A dot!
• 23-46-92184: Nanowires (92) and 41,891 years, a young universe (184)
• 29-58-116: All things around 1.34 meters or 53 inches

Then, the following notations will be engaged: 31-62-124, 41-82164, 43-86-172, 47-94188, 53-106, 59-118, and 61-122. The following notations will also be engaged yet each of these doublings are into the large-scale universe(where our challenges to the imagination seem to be fewer): 67-134-202, 71-142, 73-146, 79-158, 83-166, 89-178, and 97-194. Of course, Notation 101 is part of this article, and 202 will have been analyzed a little earlier.

• What could be happening as number-form-function aggregate?
• In how many different ways could these numbers be interpreted?

First, there is the simple doubling of the Planck Units and the study of inflation. Then, there is the scaling exponentiation of the construction vertices. There are the emergent geometries. And perhaps, there is this periodicity which just might also be doubled in the mix of processes, forms and functions.

What do you see?

Thank you.

Endnote on August 3, 2017: Three primes have been deleted from this study to bring the jumps a bit closer together so the range is between 30 and 36 notations. The range had been from 24 to 42 notations. Notations 107, 149 and 173 were part of the first listing and are now being replaced with Notations 101, 137 and 167.

Two additional key articles also currently under construction:
• The Thrust of the Universe: What is it?
• Visualizing the Universe

***

***

## People ask, “Why haven’t we seen this model until now?

Planck Units: The four Planck base units are “…properties of nature and not from any human construct.” Yet, these Planck numbers did not command basic respect across the entire scientific community. Not until Wilczek’s (MIT, Nobel laureate, 2004) wrote a series of three articles for Physics Today (Scaling Mt. Planck, I, II, III), did these Planck units begin to move beyond numerology into wide-scale acceptability.

By that time, the big bang theory had gained the high ground. Nobody thought to follow simple nested or combinatorial geometries back to the Planck Length. Nobody thought to multiply the Planck units by 2. It took a huge amount of naïveté and almost no knowledge of cosmological models to bias our exploratory instincts. It also required discounting our commonsense view of time promulgated by Isaac Newton that space and time are absolute. In so doing, a more relational model, as suggested in 1715 by Leibniz, was entertained and the raw numbers emerged. Totally predictive, it should be as relatively straight-forward process to affirm or discount this model.