This simple model of the universe starts at the Planck scale…


Murray Gell-Mann said that our challenge is getting heard, believed, and taken seriously.*

In December 2011 we began asking scholars about our simple model…

 Stephen HawkingAlan GuthFrank WilczekFabiola GianottiStephon AlexanderRenate LollSophie GibbPingwen Zhang

There are hundreds more.9 We asked, “Is it possible? Could this base-2 progression10 account for inflation? Is this simple doubling a fundamental function of our universe? Does it help with any of our many unanswered questions from particle physics to cosmology?” At no time since we began these efforts in 2011 has a scholar11 said, “Here is your fallacy of misplaced concreteness…” or “Here is why a base-2 model from the Planck units does not work.”

Murray Gell-Mann was a penultimate nudge. Never satisfied, always looking for a better way, he died on May 24, 2019 in his home in Santa Fe (NM). He’ll be missed. This article is dedicated to Murray and all nudges. Forever the gadfly, he consistently attacked intellectual orthodoxies.

Could you be like Gell-Mann? Please tell us what is right or wrong with our simple little model?

A Model And A Nudge:  Base-2 from the Planck units to this day

The Horizontally-scrolled Chart

202 base-2 notations encapsulate the universe from the first moment at Planck Time to the current Age of the Universe. The very first measurement of a length, perhaps by CERN labs, would be within the 67th notation. The very first actual measurement of time was done by the Max Planck Institute in Garching (near Munich) and it falls within the 84th notation.


The first 64 doublings are too small to be physically measured for length or time, but render very real numbers for mass and charge. Are these 64 notations a place to unifiy theories of mathematics, string theory, and dark matter-dark energy? Can we apply cubic close packing of equal spheres as the basis for that doubling? Does the Fourier transform open those dynamics?


What might space, time, mass and charge look like at the first notation?
• is where I’ve struggled with answers. More
• All the numbers are in a horizontally-scrolled chart. Be nudged. Study Planck’s simple formula for Planck Time.

In 1927 Lemaître said the universe began cold! Really? Did you know that? I didn’t. We are currently researching it. Your comments are welcomed.

In 1966 Harvard’s David Layzer put forth a cold start theory but it didn’t get traction.

In December 2011 we unwittingly put forth a very different cold-start theory. Our cold start begins with the Planck base units and assumes a near-absolute zero temperature.  A simple doubling mechanism assumes the dynamics of cubic-close packing of equal spheres and the Fourier transform. The results:
1. Order, structure, and symmetries,
2. Everything necessary for a homogeneous and isotropic universe,
3. Pi and spheres and a finite-infinite opening with never ending, never repeating numbers, and
4. Notations 134 to 202 laying directly over the primary notations of the hot big bang.
5. Lemaître:  As of today, we will start a working page on Lemaître, especially to study the ideation around a cold start!

I wrote to Prof. Dr. David Layzer — — to see if our simple model has any merit whatsoever. If one were to follow the simple doublings, just over 1000 numbers, it is all quite fascinating.   For more, see: 

Moving on: Our next subject is the nature of time. Work is also being done to create a community.

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


Endnotes, footnotes, references and resources

* Murray Gell-Mann: One of the most prolific physicists even among the giants throughout history, Murray Gell-Mann has died. Throughout his life, he gave us a full-measure; and, his work will surely live on. Special thanks to Tom Seigfried who wrote an eloquent tribute for Science News.  Our homepage headline comes right out of his writing!

1 Stephen Hawking.  Here are many notes to Hawking before he died. One of his graduate assistants by the name of Jonathan replied one time. In 2011 we naively thought this new concept was worth exploring and any scholar would quickly see why (or why not) it might work. We also naively thought that given there were so many high school students involved (well over 100), his team would be quick to correct us, or direct us to resources that would guide us further. That such a response has never been forthcoming from any of the scholars to whom we have written has embolden our thinking, “This is a new path and we are walking within a new ideational territory.” Kees Boeke, his people, and now their followers walk around within a base-10 outline way up above (from where we are); that’s OK, it’s a good start, but let’s look for causal efficacies. It seems that they’re just looking out the windows of their Polar Express.


2 Alan Guth. Our extensive notes to Alan Guth are among those that disappointed me most. An intellectual leader can only be a leader if that person is willing to be a bit self-deprecating and always open to critical review. After all, he has been sitting in Viki Weisskopf‘s chair at MIT (Weisskopf had been one of the most open and generous people at MIT). Yet, more recently, I have learned how badly Guth has been beaten up over the years and I can well imagine how defensive and harden he has become. Notwithstanding, ideas are ideas, and concepts are concepts, and we should always be open to the shaping and reshaping of both our ideas and concepts.


3 Frank Wilczek. One of the more imaginative and genuine scholars among the Nobel laureates, Frank Wilczek has rock star status. I have often asked myself how a shift will happen from a very bad theory, the big bang, to a new theory that works better and opens up scholarly inquiries. Though it seemed to me that the biggest scholars could snap their fingers and it would happen, that is far from the truth. I recently discovered a 1999 conference of the best of the best and ostensibly they were saying to each other, “Come up with something new! Give us an alternative.” It seems that it was the beginning of the extreme abstractions of the multiverse with its 10 or 11 dimensions.


4 Fabiola Gianotti. My timing couldn’t have been worse.  The former head of CERN’s Atlas program, Dr. Fabiola Gianotti had become the first woman director of  the world’s most famous laboratory. She was being touted as the genius-darling of the sciences. Nominated to be Time magazine’s Person of the Year, she was always inundated with people; she surely didn’t need some cockamamie, idiosyncratic high school substitute teacher knocking on her door with some crazy notion of the origins of the universe!


5 Stephon Alexander. There are scholars. There are gentlemen. Sometimes you find both in one person. Such is Stephon Alexander. Though he is like the rest of us in so many ways, he is a jazz musician with a deep soul for that special harmony within the universe. To articulate it is difficult. He knows that well. We are still hoping that Alexander will rally his support around a cold start theory. To date, he has talked about it but hasn’t touched it!


6 Renate Loll. Whenever I begin bumping into a scholar’s name enough so that I recognize it and have a sense of the integrity of that scholarship, I am inclined to write a note and thank them for being my teacher. That is what happened with Renate Loll. She is a scholar’s scholar. I am anxious to understand her work more fully and functionally.


7 Sophie Gibb. In 2011 entanglement and emergence were two new words for me when I re-engaged these studies. In 1980 we only talked about the EPR paradox and Bell’s inequalities. We expected the solutions to these the mysteries must lie deeper. Where? How? How could it be? In those 30 years since my formal studies, several layers of textures had been added and here Sophie Gibb was the key editor of a book on emergence. That book has been ever so helpful.


8 Pingwen Zhang.  The SIAM journal, Multiscale Modeling & Simulation, had caught my attention on several occasions.  I first wrote to Jack Xin, Editor-in-chief, and then thought a more particular approach would work better. My first email to one of their scholar-professors on the editorial board, Prof. Dr. Pingwen Zhang, is an example of a letter sent to many folks around the world.


9 Dozens of other scholars: Our little alphabetical list of scholars is incomplete; it represents less than half of the scholars with whom we have communicated since 2011. We have learned a lot, more than we had ever anticipated.

One of the earliest notes, asking for a little help, went to a NASA scientist, Joe Kolechi. He helped us with some of the initial calculations. In May 2012, his point #5 was most gratifying where he said, “… a possible redefinition of the standard meter might be made by choosing one of these possibilities (i.e., 2115 or 2116 times the Planck length) and used to replace the present-day standard. The present day standard is based on the wavelength of a particular atomic emission line. This new standard would be based on a purely theoretical concept.”


10 Base-2 progression. We began developing the original chart in December 2011. It took us well over four years to finally evolve with a full-blown chart of all the Planck base units. To make it easier to follow the numbers, it was horizontally-scrolled over all 202 notations.


11When scholars do not tell you why you are wrong. We are told to listen and learn. With this model, we have been forced to listen to “the lack of discussion.” Statistically, there have been enough emails and notes and there has been enough silence to know that the silence has meaningful information within it.

Prior to his death in 1988, the ever-debonair physicist, Richard Feynman, asks us, “What do you care what other people think?” He had answered his own question in a 1955 public address at the National Academy of Sciences, The Value of Science where he said, “Throughout all the ages of our past, people have tried to fathom the meaning of life. They have realized that if some direction or meaning could be given to our actions, great human forces would be unleashed…. The dream is to find the open channel.”

One of the errors that stunts our growth is absolute space and time and  its self-importance.

(Editing will continue based on feedback from our readers. We are located in TZ 19)