Initiated: June 2016 Most recent update: November 2017

Given the state of world affairs today, the quick answer would be “No.” Yet, if we were able to answer, “Yes,” perhaps there are things we could learn from the universe to solve some of our world’s most vexing problems. With that goal in mind, let us begin by using the old journalistic framework for questioning: Who: On one side you have the scholars of the Big Bang theory (hereinafter referred to as bbt) includes many Nobel laureates, and on the other side are a few high school math and science teachers and their students. The scholars’ bbt is highly documented. It is an intellectual cornerstone within experimental and theoretical physics, cosmology, astrophysics, and even ontology. The high school work has been primarily driven by this author and it has had virtually no peer review. We call our very simple model the Quiet Expansion (hereinafter we use the abbreviation, QE). To explain such a position requires a detailed analysis and comparison between the big bang (and its many facets) and all the details created within each notation of the QE (a very large horizontallyscrolled file). Not too many people question the big bang theory (bbt). Quite obviously, we do. Yet, it was only in September 2014 did we publicly raise questions about it. Given all the work that has gone into the big bang theory over so many years, only a fool would dare challenge it. So, such is life; each of us must sometime play the fool. This posting is a “working draft.” Given the depth and breadth of the foundations upon which the big bang theory (bbt) currently rests, your comments while this posting is being refined, are most welcomed. If this embedded link does not open your email browser, my address is camber (at) 81018 (dot) com or click on Contact. The key to our model is multiplication by 2, starting with the Planck base units. It begins at the nexus of transformation between the finite and the infinite, defined by the crossing lines at “0” in the first image above on the right. Introducing Frank Wilczek who introduces Max Planck’s base unitsWhen we began in December 2011, we knew nothing about those pivotal Planck calculations done in 1899 by Max Planck. We hardly knew his name. We asked everybody who seemed to know something about the Planck numbers, “Can we multiply each value by 2?” We sought out experts and quickly found the work of Prof. Dr. Frank Wilczek (at that time at MIT). With very few exceptions, it was not until Wilczek began writing a series of articles in 2001, Scaling Mt. Planck, (Physics Today), did anybody think those Planck numbers amounted to anything more than numerology. Though it seemed that most everybody was familiar with Kees Boeke’s 1957 work (Cosmic View) using base10, we were not. Most all our academic contacts made quick reference to it, yet were still surprised to see our base2 chart from the Planck Length to the Observable Universe. A few suggested that to multiply by 2 was no better than multiplying by 10. Some thought it was a frivolous exercise. But because we had our geometries that went right down to that scale, we proceeded. Our work began in December 2011 by multiplying the Planck Length by 2, and then each result by 2, over and over and over again. It was straightforward, a bit tedious, but quite simple. When we discovered that there are only 202 doublings to get to the Age of the Universe and the Observable Universe, we couldn’t believe it. Though hard to believe, it’s true. That simple math, called “base2 exponential notation,” is what cells do. It’s a bit like chemical bonding. Another way to envision these dynamics may well be bifurcation theory. In December 2014 we included Planck Time within our chart. In February 2015 we included the other three Planck base units. By the time one reaches the estimated Age of the Universe, this model has encapsulated every moment of time since the very beginning, all within 200+ “somethings” that have at various points been called: (1) clusters, (2) containers, (3) domains, (4) doublings, (5) groups, (6) layers, (7) notations, (8) ratios, (9) sets or (10) steps. The result is, by definition, an entirelyordered universe. When we stopped looking at the numbers individually, we began to realize each was in an active relation (a ratio) with the others within each notation. Then, we began to see this multiplicity of ratios as living, dynamic relations struggling to be recognized. As long as we were consistent in using the same value structure to determine each number, these ratios became the penultimate determinants of a given reality within a given notation. Within our web presence, Big Boardlittle universe, there is more background about our rather brief history. Bigbang Theory Drowns Out DiscussionsTo attempt to come up to speed, to learn more about it all as quickly as possible, we’ve been using Wikipedia’s summaries. Wikipedia’s goal is to represent the best current thinking of the thought leaders within the relevant scientific communities. These scientists have lived within this theory throughout their professional careers. It is part of their intellectual being. Notwithstanding, we believe most all of their work can be absorbed within the QE. Our primary questions are about the first four and most fundamental periods which they call “Epochs.” Taken together, these four epochs represent less than a fractionofafraction of a second within the QE model. With just little tweaks, we believe most all their work within the subsequent epochs can be readily integrated. The writers within the Wikipedia community overlap with those within these scientific communities. Wikipedia, constantly in the process of refining their writing, provides several summaries of the History of the Universe. Work based on observations and measurements has a place within the QE and our guess is that the interpretation of those observations and measurements will become richer and more informative when the QE parameters and boundary conditions are engaged. In 1970 there were competing theories about the beginning of the universe. By 1990 the bbt had become dominant. In 2011 our little group of high school geometry people began to explore the interior structures of the tetrahedron and octahedron and that is when we found within our tilings and tessellations, just over 201 base2 exponential notations from the Planck base units to the Age of the Universe and to the Observable Universe. That continuum appeared so simple, we first engaged it as an excellent STEM (ScienceTechnologyEngineeringMathematics) tool. Yet, with further study and thought, it also seemed to challenge some of our basic commonsense assumptions about nature (the back story). As we studied our new little model, the bbt continued to solidify its dominance within the general culture; nevertheless, we started to question it. We began to believe that the actual physics of the first moments of creation might be better defined by the simple mathematics of a quiet expansion, especially the first 67 notations. Those 67 have never been recognized as such and certainly have not been discussed within academia. The great minds throughout the ages have not been aware of the 201+ base2 notations, especially those first 67 notations. So mysterious are the 67, we began more actively to think about them and to make some postulations about their place and purpose. Our first posting about this Quiet Expansion was a result of our naive, informal, and often idiosyncratic studies of the Planck Base Units, base2 exponential notation, and an inherent geometry assumed to be within every doubling throughout the universe. We have moved slowly. Having backed into the Planck base units from our simple exercises in a high school geometry class, we were not at all sure of ourselves. So, after observing our results for a couple of years, we began asking the question, “Could this be a moresimple, moreinclusive model of the universe than the big bang theory?” Because we only have the beginnings of an outline of a model, we have continued our quest and continue to ask more questions, primary among them, “If space and time are finite, then what is infinite?” Throughout recorded history, the infinite has been described as perfect. So, we began thinking about perfections in mathematics and science. As a result, our first answer to that question: (1) Continuity. Simple continuity creates every manifestation of order (equations). (2) Symmetry. Simple symmetries define simple relations. Complex symmetries define complex relations. (3) Dynamics. Perhaps the best description of a dynamic moment is captured by harmonic analysis. There appears to be layers of perfection based on the interactions of these three faces of perfection. Here it seems, is the very basis for natural law, ethics, value and more. The QE model holds that things are simple before complex; and “everything is related to everything.” Hypothesized are simple geometries, a deep infrastructure that gives rise to the work within these leading intellectual studies of our time: combinatorics, cellular automaton, cubic close packing, bifurcation theory (and the Feigenbaum’s constants), the Langlands program, mereotopology (pointfree geometry), binary operations (80known), and scalar field theory. Here are people working on theories and constructions of the simple, yet their concepts are anything but simple. 
Consider this unusualyetveryimportant concept. Within every notation, the QE model aggregates what is called “base8 pointfree vertices” using scaling laws and dimensional analysis. That insight came from a most prominent theoretical physicist, Prof. Dr. Freeman Dyson of the Institute for Advanced Studies in Princeton (Einstein’s old hangout). There are single line entries for both the base2 (line 8) and base8 (line 9) progressions within the horizontallyscrolled chart. At the 41^{st} notation there are 10,633,823,966,279,326,983,230,456,482,242,756,608 pointfree vertices. It takes just four vertices to make a tetrahedron. It takes six to make an octahedron. With a quintillionquintillion vertices, a huge, possiblyquite complex, infrastructure necessarily evolves. Perhaps the base2 simple doublings could be aggregating base8 structures as groups or sets. Further defined by the Planck base units, in the range 41to60, we hypothesize that these are the domains for archetypal relations and systems. There are 549,755,813,888 base2 pointfree vertices at Notation 41 and 5,070,602,400,912,917,605,986,812,821,504 at Notation 104. That is more than enough groups and sets to create the diversity of atomic, chemical, and biological structures that define our universe and life. Here it would appear is the deep infrastructure of the universe where the simple mathematics of ratios between space, time, charge, mass and temperature create real realities within every notation. The ratios are called, the really real. Within the continuum of charge here is the socalled dark energy within notations 185 to 200 and with the continuum of mass there is the dark matter. If we ever have a chance, we’ll rename both as the deep energy and deep matter of the universe, the manifestations of really real mathematical ratios. Within the bbt there is what is called the Quark Epoch. It generalizes 63 of the QE notations, from 41 to 104. These notations within the QE model are so foundational, this comparison to Quark Epoch is a key. Within the bbt this Quark Epoch cannot begin until the temperature is cool enough. Given the bbt’s temperature requirement, within the QE model, the Quark Epoch would not begin until upandaround Notation 136 where the temperature has finally risen to 1.9201×10^{12} Kelvin. If that is the right range, as suggested by proponents of the bbt, less than a second has transpired, the universe has a diameter of about 874 square miles and a mass of about 1.896×10^{32} kilograms. The Sun is estimated to be 1.989×10^{30} kilograms. Fascinating, isn’t it? Our naïvebutplayful question, “How can the mass of the universe within just 874 square miles be larger than our sun?” The simple logic of the QE model causes us to stop and ponder, What is mass? Is it weight in kilograms or is it a working ratio of energy and other dimensionless constants that are expressed as weight, density, and force. This major subject is addressed further and will be a key focus for a long time. Within the QE model from around Notations 65 to 69 is the transition from the small scale to the human scale. This “human scale” is the middle third of the 201 notations, i.e. 67to134. Even though twothirds of the way through the 201 doublings, less than a second has transpired from the start. It is all quite fascinating. And it all demands a new logic about the universe, space and time. — most active edit area— Let us take stock of where we are. Even though the Quark Epoch of the bbt seems to overlap and begin to become simpatico within the QE, there are fundamental logic and conceptual problems ahead. A key question within the QE model is, “What is a notation?” All 200+ are also known as an archetype, cluster, doubling, group, layer, set, and/or step. Each word is perspectival. Each notation is dynamic, always in the process of being defined, right up to the current time within our current notation. Space and time are local per notation and all “past” is an imprint on the universe that literally defines it beingness right now, thus there is no time asymmetry. What does that mean? Each notation has an active role right now in defining who we are and what this universe is here and now. Each notation has an active role in defining all other notations. Today, right now, all of these notations are actively defining the now. We are imprinting on the universe right now. The past is not past; it is an imprint on the universe. There is only the Now, only right now, only today. Humanity or the human scale seems to be defined between notations 67to134, but the current notation is 200+. Therefore, these notations must be something like the archetypes of forms and functions (notations 1to67) that define our deeper beingness. The notations from 134to200 define our planetary and galactic systems and these are the notations where most of the work of the bbt physicists, cosmologists, and astrophysicists work. In just a few more notations, between 142 and 143, the universe is at the one second mark. This measurement is most often used to determine the speed of light. Yet, as noted in earlier postings, within every notation, the multiple of the Planck length divided by the multiple of the Planck Time renders an approximation of the speed of light. Though commonsense when we see that the speed of light plays prominently in the definitions of Planck Length and Planck Time, it gives each notation a special substantiation. The question to be answered, “What is the meaning of temperature? …within the bbt? Within the QE model, we impute that it is the total temperature throughout the area defined by the notation (or cluster, container, domain, doubling, group, layer, or step). This measurement within the Hadron Epoch within the bbt is lower than it is within the QE model. There is a natural correlation between all these numbers within the QE simply because they start with the same definitional characteristics (the Planck base units) and the evolution of those numbers using base2 exponential notation. The ratio of length to temperature renders 7.3322+ ratio. That result is currently being analyzed, spacetotemperature or kelvin per meters. In 1972 George Ellis and Stephen Hawking began to explore the boundary conditions that define our universe between 10^{13} centimeters (elementary particles) and 10^{28} cm, the assumed radius of the universe. They did not approach the Planck base units which would have expanded their range to 1.616199×10^{−35} meters (Planck Length) and then it would have tucked them in at about 5.1942×10^{25} meters according to current best guesses regarding the Age of the Universe. Earlier it was observed that the big bang is not good philosophy and it is bad psychology. Philosophy is taken as a study of first principles and systems, the universals and constants that create the boundary conditions as well as the continuity equations that bind our universe together. Since 1972, especially with the very key question about the very nature of the first microseconds, the bbt has not progressed very far. Their Planck epoch is still mysterious. It is bad psychology for that very reason. It is so disjointed, so out of touch with anything human, it de facto promotes a certain form of nihilism. Theories should have elegance, beauty, coherence, and simplicity. Children should be able to begin to understand. And with the QE, children quickly begin to understand 2 times 2. We just have to carry it out a few more places for them. What are the implications if the Quiet Expansion is true? For the big bang theory: For the Quiet Expansion (QE): 5. As an archetype, each notation serves specific purposes in defining the textures and substance of the universe. The future, both shortterm and longterm: Our “To Do” List. *** Disclaimer: Our charts and discussion are our first time to make a comparative analysis between the big bang theory and our Quiet Expansion. Silly errors are inevitable. We are neophytes, not scholars, within these fields, so please point out any of our failures with logic, math, and physics. We will be most grateful. This ends the first story about two very different models of the universe. Of course, it is a story that is to be continued. 

Footnotes and endnotes:The first working title of this posting was “Did A Quiet Expansion Precede the Big Bang?” which was deemed too confrontational. The more important questions were, “How did it all begin and what does it mean?” That change was made on Friday morning, June 17, 2016. Cf. 1 Big bang theory: The worldrenown Cambridge University physicist, Stephen Hawking, is the leading spokesperson for the big bang. He has become a rock star among scientists because he has been so successful as its primary advocate. Within his May 2016 PBSTV series, Genius, he asks rhetorically, “Where did the universe come from? The answer, as most people can tell you, is the big bang. Everything in existence, expanding exponentially in every direction, from an infinitely small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense point, creating a cosmos filled with energy and matter. But what does that really mean and where did it all begin?” His confidence also exudes from his 1988, bestselling book, A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes, and even from his foundational writing in 1973 (coauthored with Cambridge colleague, George F. R. Ellis) the highlytechnical book, The Large Scale Structure of SpaceTime. Are spaceandtime unbounded or bounded? If bounded, is our universe a container universe? Are the Planck base units and all the dimensionless constants part of the definitions of the boundaries between the finite and the infinite? Within the current bbt analysis gravitational waves arise from within their inflationary period. The bbt thought leaders ascribe a much fasterthanlight expansion just after the big bang. And, that begs the question: What are the preconditions of superluminal events and motion? There haven’t been any answers since 1902 when Jacobus Kapteyn made his initial observations, since the 1983 “superluminal workshop” at Jodrell Bank Observatory, and since the subsequent studies of microquasars, their accretion disks and such phenomenon as magnetorotational instability. It is all a very special language, logic and reality; the observational results are welldefined; yet, the mostpenetrating conclusions are pending. Prime factorization of 81018: 