A conceptual framework…

The Universe As Extended Planck Base Units
Towards a Unified Theory of Cosmology, Mathematics, Mind & Physics
BY BRUCE E. CAMBER, FEBRUARY 2019 MORE: ASSUMPTIONS, INFINITY, Scholars

December 2011, New Orleans: A student asked, “How far down within the tetrahedron and octahedron can we go?” We were dividing the edges by two, connecting those new vertices, and we would then go further inside. Scholars said, “No further than Planck’s base units.” We were told that “the Plancks” were the smallest units of space and time. Through the work of John Barrow, we also studied the 1874 numbers of Dublin’s scholar, George Johnstone Stoney. Although it is not settled science, it seems close enough! If we go smaller, it’s just numbers. We are in the range… small enough! 1

There were 112 steps going smaller and only 90 steps going larger.2 The count going smaller was from our little model of a tetrahedron. One could argue about the number of steps, so to be a bit more accurate, going back up, we used Planck’s Length and Planck’s Time and multiplied by 2. The numbers tracked well together. We kept multiplying until we reached the 13.81 billion year mark. It was encapsulated within Notation-202. We had our boundaries and we had our chart.

Now, we wondered, “How do we interpret so much data?”2

“Has anybody seen a chart like this one? Is it meaningful? Is consciousness on the chart? Could ethics-and-values be on such a grid? It was a huge amount of data and it looked like nobody had ever come in here. We questioned, “Hello. Hello? Is anybody home?”3

The speed of light. We observed at one second, using Planck’s numbers, we could calculate the speed of light! Ever so sweet. We then mapped Planck Charge and Planck Mass into the chart. It raised so many questions.4

Did the first stuff of creation come out of nothing? One of the oldest questions of science, Newton gave us absolute space and time. That was his answer. Is it the best answer? Is there a role for an infinity that holds all our dimensionless constants?

Are the dimensionless constants our best definition of infinity? 5

First principles, presuppositions, assumptions, and hypotheses about the very nature of the finite and the infinite. The questions continued to add up. We had to take a chance and say, “Here is how it all started. Here are ways it could happen. Here is our understanding of the finite and the infinite. We would risk being wrong about our hypostatizations and reification.6

Right or wrong, we asked ourselves, “What is the truth?” Here we had all these numbers and we were having an impossible time interpreting them. We asked for help. People seemed reluctant to be critical. So, we tried figuring it out ourselves.7.

We can figure this out. Like Plato and Aristotle, we would start with a form and a substance (ousia), then build from there. We expected to find that behind our entirely natural inflation of numbers would be several mechanisms for growth and then for a mind and finally for consciousness. It’s a hunt, stalking truth anywhere.8

Help! We are over our heads We could easily be wrong. Why should we know anything? We were not scholars. We were only now studying cosmology and astrophysics. We were C-level students. Undergraduates are better positioned.9

Finding open scholars who would tolerate our idiosyncratic thinking was not easy. There are so many brilliant people in this world. It doesn’t make any sense that we have so many problems. It doesn’t make any sense that our leadership is so weak. We knew we would have to dig hard to find a scholarly cohort to help.10

Big Bang critics are abundant. Some of them knew Hawking well. Many authored papers with him. The more we learned, the more we realized that academia was a highly-politicized place. People were not freely-and-easily exchanging information. They were jockeying for position, place, and stature. It hurt to realize that I have been so naive for so long.11

One of my mentors taught me to say, “Let’s go over this one more time. I think we are missing something.” Especially when you are feeling confused, but even if it just doesn’t seem quite right, “Let’s go over this one more time. Why not?”12

A new theory. In little less than a second 13 our simple model begins to intersect with big bang cosmology. The big bang has to get cool enough and our model needs to get hot enough to begin what is known as the electroweak processes.14

Our mathematical model starts cold. The doublings are a natural expansion (emergence and inflation) of the Planck base units. With heavy investments into big bang cosmology, that little model is not easy to engage. First, people can not be absurd to themselves. Plus, this alternative has no pedigree. It came out of a high school! It’s a simple mathematical progression! If only the scholars would take some time to critically analyze the logic flows 15 of those numbers, it will be studied more widely or its logic will be debunked. Though critical reviews are not easy, eventually the reviews will come because it is too mathematical and too simple and it has too much commonsense; and within the first second, it naturally encapsulates key big bang epochs.16

Max Planck’s work on his base units was overlooked from 1904 to 2001. So even with its limitations, big bang cosmology started to become dominant in the 1980s, and then it became overly confident between 1990 and 2001. Our simple alternative didn’t even begin to evolve until 2011.

Why? More complete and rigorous research of the logic of the Planck base units and doublings 17 (emergence 18), particularly the progressions from the first doubling to the 64th doubling 19 might be considered for funding. Current work within particle physics does not easily reach into our infinitesimal domain. A hypostatic structure,20 the key hypothesis is that mathematics builds from simplicity to complexity and that a primary consciousness evolves within this mathematical construct well before it is possible to measure with instrumentation.

A New Frontier And Innovative Idea

Planck units. Are these Planck numbers legitimate? Can each be doubled over and over and over again? We did a literature search for anything with the words, “Planck scale” or “Planck base units.” A key turning point was our discovery of a series of three articles by Frank Wilczek (MIT); Scaling Mt. Planck 21 was written in 2001-to-2002 work for Physics Today. In his office and at his blackboard, Wilczek personally encouraged us to continue our studies of the Planck numbers. By 2015 and 2016 we had compiled the simple progressions of the Planck base units 22 so we could follow the logic of doublings or base-2 notation.23

Emergence. We also discovered the extensive work done to follow the 1957 publication, “Cosmic View: The Universe in 40 Jumps” by the Dutch educator, Kees Boeke. There was a precedent! Old friends, Philip and Phylis Morrison 24 (MIT), had written a coffee-table book based on Boeke’s work. Called “The Powers of Ten: About the Relative Size of Things in the Universe,” it used what is known as base-10. They just added or subtracted a zero. By using base-2, our work would be more gritty, yet it also begged questions about doublings. In our initial analysis of key numbers.25 used to define the universe (January 2016), we discovered sphere stacking, cubic-close packing, and the dynamics of tetrahedral-octahedral emergence from spheres.26 We’ll continue those studies yet attempt to go deeper by working with the key concepts of living scholars and also with historical scholars like Luigi Bianchi and Sophus Lie through people like Bob Coeke.27

Questions abound. Motivation is high. There are over 100 years of scholarship stuck in little silos looking to become integrative and whole. I think this platform may well have one of the keys to open the door to such integration.

Proposal. We will continue to investigate questions from ontology to cosmology, including the mathematics from the simplicity of the Planck scale to the complexities of astrophysics. We will follow-up the work edited by Sophie Gibb, Robin Hendry, and Tom Lancaster within their publication, Routledge Handbook of Emergence.28 Can we shed more light on the question, “What is the path of emergence from infinity to pi to complex systems to neuroscience to the universe?”

Self-funded. The non-profit organization, My Golden Rules (501)(c)(3), was started to support adult education, particularly focused on questions about infinity, time, life-death, and eternity. It is prepared to administer any funding that should result from this brief description. Although this project is unlikely to be supported by conventional funding sources, the problems within our global family may merit a second look. If you’d like to support this work, you can drop us a note!

Collaborations. Within the original formula for Planck Time, Max Planck defines space-time as a necessary relational nexus defined by light and each other.29 That simple formula logically applies to every notation defined within our chart (see line 10).30 We will very selectively re-engage scholars with whom we have communicated in the past 31 and engage those scholars who are experts within multi-scale modeling, the Planck scale, bifurcation theory (period-doubling), category theory, and disciplines from line 11 within the horizontally-scrolled chart and now being organized within two pages that focus on the issues of finite-infinite transformations, information silos,31 and mathematical-integrations.32

Risks. Though this work has had over seven years of intermittent work, it has not been highly-focused nor critically reviewed. The primary risk is its naïveté and simplicity. Yet, John Wheeler’s work has encouraged us. In 1977 Wheeler sent me a personal copy of his “Frontiers of Time” to assist us in grappling with the 1935 EPR paradox and John Bell’s inequality equation. Our chart is perhaps the only chart that provides a mathematical definition of the earliest-possible, infinitesimal universe that begins to follow pi (π) and the key dimensionless constants from their most simple expression within the first notation to their most complex within the 202nd.

Thank you. – BEC

Endnotes, Footnotes, References and Resources

Introduction
1. The Start. This project began in December 2011 in a high school geometry class!
2. The Question. Does this chart encapsulate everything, everywhere, for all time?
3. Integration. Can we go beyond a basic unified theory of mathematics and physics?
Can we also speculate about consciousness and ethics-and-values?
4. The Formulas. Where does Planck Charge get its charge? How does light get its force?
Are space and time the Janus-face of light?
Is light the Janus face of continuity, symmetry, and harmony (infinity)?
5. Infinity. Can we ask, “What is the transformation between the finite and infinite?”
6. Assumptions. Yes, basic assumptions can be articulated! To date, there are 20!
7. Ethics & Values. We can actually intuit the emergence of ethical judgment.
8. The Mind. From most simple to most complex systems includes consciousness.
9. We all need a coach… from our ancient writers to the scholars in our lifetime like Boeke.
Key Questions: Every key question is related to all other key questions.
The Challenge:
10. Of the 100± people introduced to this model, several are among our finest scholars.
11. Perpetual Starts. Is Neil Turok of the Perimeter Institute (Ontario) correct?
12. Wrong. Let’s review the “infinitely hot” and all other uses of infinitely.

A New Theory:
13. Logic.  What role does logic play to create a really “new” theory?
14. Big Bang absorption. In little less than a second!
15. Quark-Gluon Plasma.  The science of CERN begins within electroweak processes.
16. Initial Chart Analysis. There is a certain logical flow within these numbers.
17. In Less Than A Minute. Even by starting cold, it now emulates the big bang epochs.
Max Planck Overlooked:  How could something so simple be overlooked for so long?
Why: Four key concepts
18a. Planckspheres.  Stacking creates doubles and doubling is infrastructure.
18b. The faces of Planck base units. This emergence cannot be measured, only intuited
19. Complexity.  Remember the wheat-and-checkerboard story and its 64 doublings.
20. Physicality Redefined. We will discern ways to measure this hypostatic structure.
Planck Units
21. Eternally grateful for Frank Wilczek’s three articles titled, Scaling Mt. Planck.
22. First came a long chart but it was not easy to follow simple progressions.
23. The horizontally-scrolled chart made following the logic of doublings easier.
Emergence
_24. Base-10 scale:  From Kees Boeke to old friends, Philip and Phylis Morrison (MIT)
25. The logic of simplicity guides our analysis of key numbers.
26. From planckspheres to the sphere-stacking to a tetrahedral-octahedral complex.
27.  There are dozens of specialized disciplines and hundreds of excellent scholars whose work remains within information silos. Common roots between their work is assumed and even intuited, but without those first 64 notations, there is not enough intellectual space to define the connections. Also, big bang cosmology blocks and  circumvents discovering them. Outside the most scholarly academic circles, starting the universe from “infinitely hot, infinitely dense, and infinitely-small” is counter-intuitive; yet inside the circle, the big bang theory is defended. At this moment in time we are trying to discern how to integrated the work of historic figures like Luigi Bianchi and Sophus Lie. by studying current applications through the current work of people like Oxford professor, Bob Coeke.
Proposal
28. Concepts like emergence, creatio ex nihilo, the first moment of physicality are constantly analyzed. The Routledge Handbook of Emergence is a case in point. Edited by Sophie Gibb, Robin Hendry, and Tom Lancaster, this first-of-its-kind collection will be released on March 19, 2019. Some of the articles within with its 422 pages are posted within ArXiv such as “The emergence of space and time” by Christian Wüthrich.
Self Funded
Collaborations
29. On-going analysis of the four Planck base units — https://81018.com/c/ — has years to go!
30. Within our chart, line 10, suggests the speed of light is a variable, not a constant.
31. We have communicated with many of the finest minds alive today.
32. Excellent concepts are often contained information silos (line 11 of our chart).
Risks
33. Our openness and simplicity are encouraged by an icon of physics,  John Wheeler.
34. No stone will be left unturned. We return to Wheeler’s Frontiers of Time.

Which concept is strongest? Which is weakest?

Name(required) Email(required) Website Comment(required)

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.