Cosmology: In Search of an Uncommon and Simple Logic

CENTER FOR PERFECTION STUDIES: CONTINUITY•SYMMETRY•HARMONY  • USA • GOALS • SEPTEMBER 2018
HOMEPAGES: JUST PRIOR|ASSUME|INTRO|INFINITY|MAX|WEINBERG|REVIEW|Scholars|ORIGINAL

72 OF 202: GRID OF EVERYTHING, EVERYWHERE FOR ALL TIME – NOT A THEORY OR VISION – JUST MATH.

CommonSense, Not Common & Not a Sense

By Bruce Camber Related pages: Critical Analysis and Foundational Concepts  Out there: Radical Chic

I ask all kinds of people, “Is Big Bang cosmology right?” While alive, Stephen Hawking often said that the universe started from an “…infinitely small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense point…”

In my years of doing this inquiry, nobody, except the scholars who have made it their life’s work, say, “Yes, that’s how this universe started.” People are more likely to say, “It just doesn’t make sense.” Indeed, big bang cosmology is profoundly complex and conceptually most difficult.

“It ain’t simple.” Big bang cosmology has a peculiar logic and it is not simple. Infinitely small, infinitely hot, and infinitely dense is difficult to imagine or conceptualize, especially when very few of us have a working sense of the very nature of infinity.  Infinitely small seems beyond imagination. How can the entire universe become so small?  Infinitely hot, hotter than anything close to the enigmatic Planck Temperature, is impossible to envision. Then we ask, “How can things be compacted so much more densely than a neutron star?”

Yet, these may not be the key issue. The most important may be something we all learned as children; that is, “Everything starts very simply.” Also, things usually begin with a simple logic that most everybody can follow. We multiply-and-divide, add-and-subtract, before we do calculus.

So many scholars and average people have told me, “The Big Bang is nonsense.” Back in June 2004,  33 top scientists took on the theory’s dominance. Today hundreds more have signed on to that declaration. These scholars from around the world argue that big bang cosmology is a theory, others should be entertained, and its dominance has not been good for physics or mathematics. As for me, I fault it for reinforcing Newton’s absolute space and time instead of opening that venue for questioning. Others go considerably further in their denigrations. One particularly colorful description among these commonsense folks believes big bang cosmology is a deceptively euphemistic description of hell, not a starting point for the mystery and majesty of our universe.

Don’t you just love the poets among us?

If the only substantial difference between Big Bang cosmology and the base-2 integrated view of the universe (aka Quiet Expansion or Big Board-little universe) is the first three epochs, let’s get a grip. Those three epochs represent somewhere around one picosecond in duration. Just one picosecond. Any of the other differences are relatively minor, just the details of details.

Because we all empathized with Hawking and felt that he was living a certain kind of hell, only the lionhearted were capable of being critical of him. Neil Turok was such a lion among scholars. To summarize their findings, in 2017 his team concluded the universe is in a state of constantly starting. That doesn’t fit well with the big bang history.  It does, however, work well with a never-ending quiet expansion and with its derivative nature of space and time. Here, every notation is always active, integrated, totally-interrelated and dependent on the prior notation.

The first 64 notations. Of the 202 doublings, 64 are well-below the threshold for particles and measurable physicality. Here mathematics and logic must dominate. Those 64 notations or doublings are more than enough space — a hypostatic space — to formulate the most basic structures of the universe that give rise to particles.

Call for scholarly analysis and logic
There are just 202 notations or doublings of the Planck base units. Every notation has a definition of length, time, mass and charge. Either that natural progression is right or it is wrong. It shouldn’t take too many expert scholars too long to analyze all 202 sets of numbers and to speculate about the ways in which each of the numbers could be correct. It shouldn’t take too much time to begin to interpret the meaning and value of these numbers. So, in that spirit,  our “Call For Scholars” has gone out and continues with this posting.

Editor’s Notes about Navigation and Other Points of Interest:

  1. Navigation: Scroll to the top of the page. Cursor over the word HOME and a very long drop down menu will be displayed. It can be scrolled. There is a link to every homepage within this site from its beginning in September 2016.
  2. Homepage. Click on Our Universe in 202+ Doublings to go to the current homepage.
  3. That second header contains links to the past 25 homepages. “Just Prior” always goes to the most recent, then each number is active to the next prior homepage.  The image goes to the horizontally-scrolled chart as does its tagline.
  4. Values and ethics: Universals and constants give rise to a sense of value that gives rise to values and ethics. The antithesis is nihilism which opens dystopia.
  5. Related Letters: Times Literary Supplement
  6. Wayback:  

The current struggle: Who will lead us? Who can break the impasse?

Might the seven First Ladies of oldest trade routes of our world break the impasse?

________________

More key evocative questions:

Back in my very early days at Synectics Education Systems (1971-    ), in the days of metaphors and analogies, one of the most important activities was trying to engage key evocative questions. Here are a few of those questions explored within this site:

  1. What are the fundamental units without which we would not have our universe?
  2. Does each progression represent a “longest possible” continuum?
  3. Are any big bang theories necessary in light of a natural inflation?
  4. Is our intellectual depth being constricted by our two Standard Models?
  5. Shall we revisit our structure for scientific revolutions?
  6. Can these concepts be tested using rather simple formulas?
  7. Does measurement qua measurement actually begin with pure math and logic?
  8. Is “infinitely-hot, infinitely-dense, infinitely-small” the wrong place to start?
  9. What is the deep nature of growth?
  10. Are our imaginations working overtime?
  11. What is an inertial frame of reference in light of 202 notations?
  12. Are some concepts first principles”?
  13. Can Turok, Arkani-Hamed or Tegmark open a new frame of reference?
  14. What is pi that we are mindful of it?
  15. Ask the penultimate questions:  What is finite? What is infinite?
  16. Are we asking enough “what if” questions?
  17. Who is on our team? To whom do we turn?
  18. What has been the driving vision?
  19. What is the fabric of the universe?
  20. Are there rules for our roads?  What are they?
  21. Is the universe exponential? Is Euler’s identity spot on?
  22. Is this model built on something even faster than exascale computing?
  23. Does the universe go on forever or just as far as the current expansion?
  24. Is there a better way to keep track of all these writings?
  25. Who among us is really and truly in a dialogue with the universe?
  26. Why?  Then as a child, ask the question again, Why? And again, ask, “Why?”
  27. Have there been summaries of these ideas? What have we missed?
  28. Are the 202 doublings still a virtually unexplored area for research?
  29. The arrogance of language: How do we know what we know and don’t know?
  30. What are the most important qualities of infinity?
  31. Does the original homepage (January 2012) anticipate the future?

Join us. Challenge us. Help us.  We need all the help we can get!

 

An excellent resource to translate any of our pages by its URL:
http://itools.com/tool/google-translate-web-page-translator

If you liked this page and website, please do not hesitate to follow us on Twitter or  Linkedin. 

Our visitors come from many countries (a snapshot on August 24, 2018)