UniverseView: What difference does it make?

Answer: More than we’ll ever know.


• Center for Perfection Studies • Austin, Texas • USA •
Article:
First draft.  Author: Bruce Camber   Invitation to critique: Your comments and insights are welcomed.
Initiated: Thursday, December 1, 2016  Updated: 9 Dec Prior Homepage(s): 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9
NAVIGATION:  Links often open a new tab/window within this site, bblu.org, or Wikipedia or ArXiv.

For My Friends. Many of you have asked, “Couldn’t you give me a basic understanding of this Universe View without all that scientific jargon?”

So, you know who you are, this one’s for you!

I’ll attempt to consolidate about 20 prior postings within this one with the most simple math and basic concepts. It is a huge topic with large conceptual leaps so I will divide it into three parts, each with its own purpose:
Part I: Space-time. The Goal: Put space and time in a box.
Part II: Finite-Infinite. The Goal: Keep the finite in the box but take the infinite out of it.
Part III: Old Science – New Science. The Goal:  Rediscover paths ignored and/or less traveled.

So, the big goal is to grasp this highly-integrated view of the universe without the jargon of the last homepage (linked here).

Part I. Time-and-space and Space-Time

Time. The first key step to adopt an integrated UniverseView is to begin to adopt another sense of time. If your sense of the past-present-future begins to evaporate before your eyes, we will have been successful.

Now, you know how old you are by years, how about in seconds?  Even more silly, how many seconds old is the earth (4.54 billion years, ±50 million years)? And, then how many seconds old is the universe (13.8 billion years, ±0.021 billion years)?  I think when you have those three numbers, you begin to open a gate that goes to a path to your first fully-integrated UniverseView.

Seconds. Of course, there are 60 seconds in a minute, 60 minutes in an hour, 24 hours in a day. So every day is equivalent to 86,400 seconds. Given the variables used to measure the days in a year (our solar year), people have used either 365 days, five hours, 48 minutes, and 46 seconds or 365.2425 days. In our progression, we use 331,556,952 seconds.  Others have calculated 331,556,926 seconds.

So, using 31,556,952 seconds in a year and 31,556,952,000 seconds in a millennium (see Notations 178 and 179), and 31,556,952,000,000 seconds in a million years (see Notations 188-189) and 31,556,952,000,000,000 in a billion years, it is rather straightforward now to answer the first three questions.

Why is this important?

First, we just put ourselves, this world and the universe within the same time scale.  That’s an important new orientation for most of us. Second, we just gave the universe a beginning point, just like the world and ourselves. That’s huge.  And, third, we just gave it an endpoint, today, the “Right Now,”  the ever-expanding moment that we all share. The universe, the world, and we are all getting older by the second.

Past-Present-Future. So, what is the past, the present and the future?  This conceptual frame of reference is a convenience we create. It is kind of like comfort food, yet this sense of time  introduces two scales that never truly exist.  The present is always becoming the future and the future is never quite here.  The past is rather peculiar. In this model it is an imprint within the notation and on the universe.  We will come back to this notion of an imprint later, but say goodbye to past-present-and-future.  Please, if just for this posting, attempt to see the universe with a definite starting time as the beginning point,  and the current time as the ever-changing endpoint.

Time didn’t always exist; it only exists because the universe, the sun-and-earth, and you exist and the only time is Now.

Space. Most of us have some inkling that space and time are related, hooked-at-the-hip, but few have a deep sense of how that is so. We’ll explore it.

But, first, try to remember your very best moments in grade school when you finally got it; you learned to multiply by 2. We are going right back to those days to pick up where you left off. We all got a little too self-assured, that we understood all that we needed to know about multiplying by 2. Unfortunately, there is an adult version and most of us were never introduced to it.

When we learned the story of the wheat-and-chessboard story — one grain of wheat on the first square, two on the second, four on the third, eight on the fourth and so on, the result was bewildering. By that 64th square on the chessboard, just multiplying by 2 for each new square, there are 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 or 18.446 quintillion grains of wheat (give or take a few).  That is called the power of 2,  or 2-to-the 64th  which in mathematics is displayed as 264 power.

It is a good introduction to where we are going. Our goal is go all the way out to  2200  which is so far beyond where any of us have ventured; you can well imagine  there will be many new conceptual frameworks to open along that path. Let’s review:

  • We know that this expansion is very simple — we are just multiplying by 2 just like every cell in life.
  • It is all natural and can be found in many other processes within life.
  • Everything is necessarily-related because it’s derivative.
  • It is expanding humongously larger than we are accustomed to be thinking.
  • And,  it would appear to go on forever, that is, be open-ended and entirely dynamic.

Space-time. To take in all this growth or expansion (perhaps best called inflation) into our deep understanding of things, we need real starting points.  One second sounds reasonably short, but light has already traveled 299,792,458 meters (in a vacuum). In just one second our universe is already quite large. It begs the question, “What would be the smallest possible units of space (length) and time?”

To find the best answer (that we have today), we have to learn about Max Planck. When we began our work on this project in December 2011, we knew very little about him: (1) he had something to do with physics and (2) he won a Nobel prize. We knew little more than that. His most formative work for our discussions was done in 1899.

Planck Length and Planck Time. It took about a year to begin to understand Planck Length and Planck Time. One of our teachers was MIT’s Frank Wilczek with his many helpful books and articles. When we multiply both numbers by 2, over and over again, it takes 67 doublings before we are in the range of particle physics such as the proton and fermion.  It will take another 20 doublings of Planck time before time can even be measured. At one second, there have already been just over 143 doublings.  In one year there will be just over 168 doublings and the universe will have expanded 9.460 trillion kilometers (9,460,536,207,068.016 kilometers, called a light year) which is getting “very close” to the gravitational reach of our Solar System.

With just over 200 doublings of the base Planck units, we are at the Age of the Universe and the Observable Universe. We have the entire universe, from its beginning to the current time, all contained within just over 200 doublings, or notations, or groups, sets, clusters, or domains.

Let there be Light. PlanckCLengthTimeX.pngSomething else quite naturally and logically wonderful is happening with each doubling. In every notation, every doubling, space when divided by time approximates the speed of light (this simple equation is right out of Max Planck’s 1899 work).

Space÷Time=c . Yes, light, space and time are inextricably woven such that every doubling approximates the speed of light (see line 10 within this horizontally-scrolled chart).  Though the logic goes right back inside the very definition of Planck Time and Planck Length, it appears that this simple equation hasn’t been verbalized, articulated and studied at any point within our academic/intellectual history.

So what?  Those familiar with Stephen Hawking and the big bang theory might immediately see that there is no big bang in this model. Everything, everywhere, for all time, has progressed by doublings from the smallest units possible, and simply have doubled, over and over and over again.

1. Big Bang Fizzle. Quieting that big bang is no small feat. To begin to minimize its de facto nihilism could be huge. In its place could be an ordering system that literally touches everything, everywhere, throughout all time throughout the entire universe.  If you’d like to read more about it, there are these two postings, Quiet Expansion and  Homogeneity and Isotropy.

2. The Small-scale Universe Grid or Matrix.  Those doublings where the numbers fall below the possible measurements of today’s instrumentation offer a special intellectual challenge.  Though apparently not beyond the limits for our minds, logic and mathematics, this range of doublings from the Planck base units to those things that are measurable requires continued analysis and study. Within this scale,  we predict there are major discoveries awaiting. Here are a few predictions: (1) The mind and sleep will find a place on the grid! (2) Mathematics and philosophy will have a place within this grid. (3) An entirely new science, intuited by many, will finally give the smallest units of energy (called quantum fluctuations) a place on this grid or matrix.

3. The Finite in light of space-time. The finite has been redefined to included everything, everywhere, throughout all time within the universe. That’s finite. It is in the container “surrounded and held” by the infinite.  It is a very special box that re-opens the question, “What is infinite?”

And, that’s a very special question.

When you believe you have space and time put into a box of just over 200 notations, please continue forward so we explore the finite-infinite in our next session.

Part II: Finite-and-Infinite: What can we know about both?

The finite in light of the infinite. The finite is everything that is contained within the 200+ notations or doublings of the smallest, most-meaningful numbers about space and time.  Those numbers are called the Planck base units which include Planck Length, Planck Time, Planck Mass, and Planck Charge.  We have developed a large, horizontally-scrolled chart, 34-pages all side-by-side, that shows the progression of each doubling within just over 200+ columns.

One of the special mysteries of this chart is the first 60 or so columns or doublings (also called notations, groups, sets, clusters, domains, as well as layers, steps and transformations).  It is all simple math yet it contains a new universe of information that, as earlier noted, has not been analyzed by the academic/scholarly community. It has, however, gotten a few cursory catcalls such as “meaningless” or “meaninglessly small.”

We give these 60+ doublings our  unmitigated respect. Yes, these doublings are beyond the measuring abilities of our instrumentation but obviously within the logic of our minds, the simple mathematics of that logic, and within the geometries of our mathematics and imaginations.  That is reality enough for us to explore possibilities.

The historic research of atoms, particles and hypothetical particles picks up at notation 67. The Planck base units start at notation 1.  Each notation builds on the prior notation. It would logically seem that all notations are active and current and each is defined by this moment in time. That is the finite.  It is in the box. So what is infinite?

The infinite.  Though clearly an important concept in mathematics and physics, it is also important for logic, ontology, philosophy and religion (or theology).  Here we should all be very gracious and respectful, yet rigorous and as scientific as possible.

Perfection. If there is one concept within our intellectual history that seems to pull together the most facets of the infinite, perhaps the word, perfection, works best.  I do not believe there is a religion that denies the perfection of their ultimate source of being. Within the sciences and aesthetics, perfection is associated with wholeness, but much more specifically with continuity (numbers and time) and symmetries (shape and space). Continuity gives rise to order; symmetry gives rise to relations.When the two begin interacting with each other, there are dynamics the are defined by harmonies.

The infinite could be defined as multi-faceted perfections.  At the very first moment of creation to this very moment, it seems that there are many bridges between that which is the finite and that which is the infinite. These bridges are defined by those numbers, equations and shapes that are by definition non-ending and non-repeating such a pi, the sphere, mathematical constants, dimensionless quantities, dimensionless qualities, and dimensionless physical constants. These all are manifest within both the finite and the infinite. There is a kind of perfection within the finite universe, however, it would, by definition, be primarily found within the small scale universe. Here the earliest mathematics and geometries have a potential to manifest a many-sided perfection.

The most important concept to take from Part II is that there are definitive bridges between the finite and infinite and that the infinite is primarily defined as that which is continuity creating order, symmetries that create relations, and harmonies that create dynamics. Within this definition the atheists can breathe along with the believers, and aestheticism and ethics have a foundation. The infinite is not the box, not inside the box, yet its perfections reach through the box.

The imperfect is ever inherent within our numbers and shapes. The simplest place for the imperfect to manifest is with the seven vertices where five tetrahedrons are nested and  an odd space is created between tetrahedrons and between two odd numbers. Let me add for our physicist friends that it seems that this is the beginning of all things quantum, including fluctuations.  So it is possible, that  imperfections can exist within early notations and this concept will be addressed in the our next overview.

Part III: Old science – new science: Rediscover paths ignored and/or less traveled

After all these years: Science is still a relatively young enterprise. Though it fundamentally transforms the way we live, there are big holes and gaps in our knowledge. Its strengths are also its weakness. We are able to transform raw materials into powerful tools, machines and weapons, yet we still do not have a compelling logic that tells us how to control them. Wars, corruption, and nihilism constantly overpower our simple logic and systems. Something is wrong; something is missing; we do not have the complete picture.

What paths did we see-but-ignore along the way that could have made us more whole?

  1. Newton-Leibniz debates: Science chose Newton’s absolute space and time and rejected Leibniz’s relational space and time.
  2. planckclengthtimexFoundations of light: Science chose as its primary reference Einstein’s formulation e=mc2 and not Planck’s formulation:
  3. Big Bang OR quiet expansion, plus the nature of inflation, and the nature of time

Newton’s absolute space and time or Leibniz’s relational space-and-time

The analysis of the history between Sir Isaac Newton  and Gottfried Leibniz continues within academic and scholarly circles.  There is plenty to read. At the core of this discussion Newton holds that space and time are absolute, the containers of the universe.   Leibniz gives us a space-and-time that are derivative of their relations. The world adopted for its commonsense logic Newton’s point of view where subjects became subjects and objects became objects.

Where are the boundaries?  Did space and time exist prior to and independent of the universe or is it created and sustained within the universe?  In the Big Board-little universe Project, space-and-time do not exist independently and are derivative of qualities of the infinite which have been summarized as continuity-that-creates-order, symmetry-that-creates-relations, and harmony-that-creates-dynamics.

Foundations of light: Einstein and Planck

Following line 10 in our “Mathematically-Integrated Chart Of The Known And An Unknown Universe,” it becomes clear that there is a variable speed of light that is dependent on the notation within which light is defined along the Planck Length-and-Planck Time expressions. The equation is given by Max Planck within his  definition of Planck Time (see the Planck base units, Table 2 within Wikipedia).

In this formula, Max Planck shows us that Planck Length divided by Planck Time equals the speed of light. And here we would add, “…within any given notation.” The simple formula by Planck is:  ( P)/ (T) =c  whereby light (c) becomes the foundation of these two Planck base units. We extend that formula throughout every doubling, (notation, domain, etc) since the beginning of space-time such that  each doubling of Planck Length and Planck Time notational value, 1 to 202.

Had Einstein and Planck adopted a Leibnizian point of view, they could well have concluded that the Planck base units are necessarily related and that the progression of the  expansion was defined incrementally and logically, base-2 being the simplest expansion. One might add, “If that is not true, then numbers and logic have no meaning for any application.”

Using a simple expression, x + x = 2 • x,    Einstein and Planck could have multiplied each Planck base unit by 2 over and over again to mimic a natural inflation and expanding univers). Their results would have been the same numbers within the rows 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the chart and within the same number of columns.

If they did, our view of the universe today would be substantially different.

E=mcreleased the power of mass.  c= ( P)/ (T) integrates the universe as a whole.

Big Bang or quiet expansion: The nature of inflation and time

Background. The Planck base units were formulated in 1899 and were not much more than a curiosity throughout the lifetime of Max Planck; he died in October  1947. Throughout the lifetime of Einstein and Planck, there was an on-going discussion about the best cosmological model in light of their work on unified field theories within physics. By 1975, the standard model of particle physics and the big bang theory of Hawking and Ellis were each on the ascendancy.

In 1957 a high school teacher by the name of Kees Boeke did a base-10 scale of the universe. Over the years it became quite popular.

In December 2011 we did our base-2 scale of the universe using just the Planck Length. We considered it a novelty, a way to impose structure on a universe that seemed so vast as to be beyond comprehension.  In 2014 when we added Planck Time to the chart, it began to challenge out simple knowledge of the big bang.  As we began an earnest study of the Planck base units and the Hawking-Guth models of the big bang and inflation, more questions opened up. It seemed that all their work could be readily absorbed within our simple model without the need of their big bang.

This view of the universe is simple and logical. The model is entirely predictive, it gives space-and-time a necessary role within the universe, and  it reopens a more vibrant sense of the finite-infinite relation.

That’s a rather new starting point.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s