Where Is The Math To Create Over Two Trillion Galaxies?

Yellow ArrowRightArrowYellowCENTER FOR PERFECTION STUDIES: CONTINUITY•SYMMETRY•HARMONY GOALS.September.2022
HOMEPAGES: ASSUMPTIONS |DARK|FORMULAS|INFINITY|KEYS|Map|REVIEW|Transformation|UP

Upon learning a little more
astrophysics and cosmology

By Bruce E. Camber Initiated, November 2016  Last Update, September 2022

The Universe. According to big bang cosmology 150 million years were needed before any large structure formation would begin.[1]  Out of our 13.8 billion years of the universe, 150 million years to get started and 560 million to develop our first galaxy seem reasonable. Yet, if it were to take another 560 million years to form the next galaxy, there is no way there could be two trillion galaxies in our universe. Even if we assume growing efficiencies, it would require popping out too many galaxies each year for the ensuing 13 billion years. Where is the causal efficacy?

How does it happen?

We’re digging into it. We’ve at least begun to attempt to understand this part of big bang logic and its primary mathematics. Yet, we have an admitted bias for exponentiation; and, our simple logic suggests that a deeper understanding of the design of the universe is required.

Hubble Space Telescope aka Hubblescope
Hubble Space Telescope

Thursday, October 13, 2016:[2] An historic, landmark announcement by NASA (Washington, DC), the European Space Agency (ESA-Paris) and the Royal Astronomical Society (RAS-London) tells the world, “The universe has ten times more galaxies than previously thought.” Prof. Dr. Chris Conselice then of the University of Nottingham (and now Manchester University) led the team that released their findings that justified a count that went from 200 billion up to around two trillion galaxies.[3]

It was such a huge announcement, it spread throughout the world overnight. Within a day there were over 43,800 references to the announcement on the web. Articles appeared in major publications everywhere. And, no one seemed to question it.

Out of my total naïveté, I did.

How could the big bang accommodate such an expansion? That naïveté, an admitted lack of deep knowledge of the processes involved, made it difficult to embrace, so I wrote to the experts and discovered that they weren’t troubled at all. They thought the big bang could easily accommodate those two trillion galaxies. It is as if the big bang is pure magic that can always be counted on to produce superluminal, super-compacting, extralogical events[4] on demand.

Studying dozens of ArXiv[5] articles, I struggle to understand what mathematics could possibly back it up. Given all our work on base-2 since December 2011, it seemed to me that exponentiation and a natural inflation would be necessitated and explored. Not quite yet. Forty plus years of the big bang is hard to break open even if there is a more simple, more comprehensive, entirely predictive model, one that the big bang chronology appears to mimic. Base-2 is a very good simulation program for the big bang however it has no bang; inflation is all natural; and every second and everything, everywhere has been accounted for and it is all working as a coherent whole even now![6]

GNZ-11.png
At 13.4 billion years, GN-Z11 is the oldest galaxy.

At 13.4 billion years, GN-Z11 is the oldest galaxy to be identified. Yet, given the simple math, it also appears to be the very first galaxy and, at that, this image on the right would be from within its formative years!

Nevertheless, when it comes to creating two trillion galaxies, even the exponentiation within our simple base-2 model has some challenges. To reach two trillion galaxies would require no less than 42 doublings from the creation of the first galaxy (follow line 8 across). In this simple model using base-2 notation from the Planck scale, out of 202+ notations, the block of 150 million years takes us from Notation 1 up to notations 189 and 190. The next jump of 550 million years brings us up to notation 198. To get 42 doublings in 13.1 billion years, the duration for each doubling needs to contract or we need a new formula.  My guess is that the process does become increasingly efficient and it decreases each time from that 550 million year start. For our base-2 model to work, the duration must average just under 300 million years.

Do you have some insights and ideas to add?

This posting is to open a discussion and to ask questions, so it is “to be continued.” Obviously dramatic things seem to happen in each of 202 notations, yet these last three notations of our universe, are particularly important. To wit, all of human history is easily within notation 202.

Thank you.  -BEC

###

Our Background History: In December 2011 we backed into a base-2 model of the universe. It became our simple foundation to begin studying cosmology and that, of course, required getting to know big bang cosmology specifically. The more I studied, the less confidence I had in big bang cosmology so I wrote to Stephen Hawking and Alan Guth (MIT, inflation theory) and asked a few questions (no responses yet).

The debate about big bang cosmology needs to be opened in the public square. Thousands of astute scientists around the world believe it is poor cosmology and misguided physics. It is nihilistic philosophy with a de facto psychology that hurts our diverse cultures.

The more I studied base-2, the more I liked it. It challenged our understanding of space-and-time. It challenged our understanding of the finite-and-the infinite. It had an inherent values component. It was a de facto focus on personal responsibility; it seems to suggest that we each have a unique role to play within this evolving universe, and we each could be a force for good as opposed to a force of evil or not a force at all.

Our view of the universe is critical so we each become the best that we can be.

Footnotes:

[1] Large structure formation. Our baseline information began within a Wikipedia page which opened many other pages. From there we quickly followed references to source materials in ArXiv which consolidates information from most of the leading journals. If simple logic were to break into this discussion, the numbers simply do not work. There are not enough seconds and too many planets, stars and galaxies to create. A nominal such discussion...

[2] Thursday, October 13, 2016: The Hubble Space Telescope is a joint effort of NASA and ESA. However, many other agencies such as the Royal Astronomical Society of London and the Space Telescope Science Initiative (STSI) in Baltimore participate in this research so all of them announced these findings at the same time.

[3] Two trillion galaxies. An introduction to that landmark paper is found here: https://arxiv.org/abs/1607.03909v2 (PDF). The primary authors are Christopher J. Conselice and Aaron Wilkinson (University of Nottingham, School of Physics & Astronomy), Alice Mortlock (SUPA, Institute for Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, Royal Observatory, Edinburgh) and Kenneth Duncan (Leiden Observatory, the Netherlands).

[4] Superluminal, supercompacting, extralogical: The issue about superluminality was addressed by Sean Carroll, a year to the day before the Conselice announcement. There are hundreds of ArXiv articles as well. Compactification and logical-extralogical are other issues that we have begun to study.

[5] A sampling of a few of the ArXiv articles being studied:

[6] Coherent whole. If you were asked, “How many seconds have passed since the beginning of time?” you might first ask, “How many seconds are there within a year?” There are approximately 31,556,952 seconds in a solar year. Multiply it by 13.8 billion years equals 435,485,937,600,000,000 or 435.4859376 quadrillion seconds assuming the integer progression, millions (7-9), billions (10-12), trillions (13-15), quadrillions (16-18), and quintillions (19-21).

It takes 42 base-2 doublings to go from 1 to a just over one trillion (follow line 8, B2Vertices).

Next:  The chronon will be redefined within this project.  Very similar to our 2012 suggestion that there be a standard length based on the Planck units, we are suggesting the same for time.  Perhaps we should consider the Planck time unit closest to one second, or one  light year.  That discussion will be a homepage in the near future.

Go to Prof. Dr. Christopher Conselice