Google: Proposed Mechanism of Manifestation

Comments by Bruce E. Camber

The manifestation of these numbers is proposed to occur within the “first moment of time” through a hierarchical geometric arrangement:

Only possible as a thought experiment, the many facets of the infinitesimal PlanckSphere seem to concresce, but not create space-time. This could suggest a finite-infinite bridge.

1. Spheres: The fundamental entities are spheres. 
2. Tetrahedrons: These spheres are understood to be the results of tetrahedrons. 
3. Octahedrons: Within these tetrahedrons, octahedrons are present. 
4. Hexagonal Grids: Intrinsic to these octahedrons are four infinitesimal hexagonal grids, each associated with one of the four constants. 

The spheres are the results of the concresing of the four irrational numbers and the Planck base units, especially the continuity-symmetry-harmony of pi. The stacking and cubic-close packing (ccp) of these spheres renders the first tetrahedron. Here Google AI makes a mistake. Within this site, spheres are never derivative of tetrahedrons but of ccp.

No, there is no scientific consensus or established evidence that five-tetrahedral and five-octahedral gaps are the basis for quantum fluctuations; this idea is a conjecture proposed by the website 81018.com within their concept of “squishy geometry,” which is not part of mainstream quantum physics or cosmology. While the five-tetrahedral and five-octahedral gaps are real geometric phenomena, their proposed connection to quantum fluctuations remains a highly speculative and unproven hypothesis. 

Bruce Camber comments:

Google AI is right. Other than the few papers we’ve mentioned, there has not even been a discussion and debate about it as the basis for quantum fluctuations. Who is willing to admit that we have been incomplete for about 100 years?

There is a simple logic to it. There are also many configurations whereby these gaps can me made to jump and fidget in rather unpredictable ways.

• The Five-Tetrahedral Gap: When five regular tetrahedrons are arranged around a common edge, they do not perfectly fill 3D space, leaving a small angular gap. This is sometimes called the “pentastar gap”. 
• The Five-Octahedral Gap: Similarly, five octahedrons sharing a common center create a gap. 
• “Squishy Geometry”: The website 81018.com suggests that these gaps, along with other geometric concepts, form “squishy” or “quantum” geometries, which are dynamic interfaces between perfectly tessellating geometries and the imperfections seen in the real universe. 

In 2023 we asked Eric Weisstein of Wolfram MathWorld about five-tetrahedral gap. He quietly and quickly named it the “Aristotle Gap” because for 1800 years Aristotle, on his own authority, said you could perfectly fill space with a tetrahedron. He was wrong. Also, in May 2024 we realized that a five octahedral gap had also been ignored and the gaps together were quite striking (pictured above).

• A Hypothesis from 81018.com: This idea is presented on the website 81018.com as a speculative hunch that these gaps may be the underlying structure or origin of quantum fluctuations. 
• Basis in Imperfection:The website posits that in the extremely dense, fast, and small-scale universe, the “perfectly fitting” geometries were dominant. As the universe expanded and densities decreased, these five-tetrahedral and five-octahedral clusters became “systemic” and “quantum fluctuations began”. 
• Lack of Mainstream Support:There is no mention of this theory in mainstream physics literature, and it does not align with current models of quantum mechanics, which describe quantum fluctuations as inherent properties of quantum fields. 

That is correct, “a speculative hunch.”

At the first notation, the calculations for speed and density would be highest.

Gravity and electro-magnetics is in its earliest and weakest formations.

Of course, this logic is posited for the first time. It has never been part of the academic dialogue. The five-tetrahedral gap has had almost no discussion and the five-octahedral gap was not known. How can there be mainstream support?

It is unaligned with mainstream physics because it is not known.

In summary, the notion of five-tetrahedral and five-octahedral gaps as the basis for quantum fluctuations is a fringe idea from one specific website and is not a recognized scientific theory. 

Google AI characterizes the concept as “fringe” when the word “speculative” or “highly-speculative” would do. Nobody wants to be fringe, yet, everybody knows that to advance, somebody has to be boldly speculative.

The expansion of the universe, approximately 18.5 tredecillion infinitesimal spheres/second, is based upon Planck base units assuming one Plancksphere per unit of Planck Time and Planck Length.

The simple logic for the expansion of the universe should be explored further. GoogleAI is again discouraging speculative thinking by castigating it as “not part of the standard cosmological model.” We know that. We say that.

The figure of “18.5 tredecillion infinitesimal spheres/second” for the expansion of the universe is a concept from a non-mainstream model of physics, not established science. This idea is based on the work of a group operating under the website 81018.com and is not part of the standard cosmological model used by the scientific community. 

Why not encourage speculative thinking until there is an obvious flaw? The group is looking for “peer review, testing and validation.” We know that the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker metric from the 1920s and 1930s is not the final equation.

Here is a breakdown of why this figure is not considered scientifically valid:

What is scientifically valid? Does something that has a geometry, an algebra, infinite data streams, and dimensionless constants qualify?

• The source is unverified. The concept of “planckspheres” and the specific expansion rate of “18.5 tredecillion per second” originates from a group that states their ideas are not yet part of mainstream physics. A claim like this would require rigorous peer review, testing, and validation by the broader scientific community to be accepted.
• Expansion is a description of spacetime. Mainstream cosmology describes the expansion of the universe as an intrinsic growth of spacetime itself, not the creation of discrete, physical spheres. As the universe expands, the space between gravitationally unbound objects (like galaxies) grows, which can be modeled mathematically with the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) metric.
• Planck units define limits, not creation. The Planck base units are fundamental units of measurement derived from physical constants, representing the scale at which classical ideas of gravity and spacetime break down and quantum effects become dominant. While they can be thought of as the smallest meaningful measures of time and length, they do not imply a literal, physical “plancksphere” being created every Planck time.
• The number is not supported by evidence. The rate of cosmic expansion in standard cosmology is described by the Hubble constant. Measurements of the Hubble constant, while subject to some ongoing debate, do not point to a number that would correspond to “18.5 tredecillion infinitesimal spheres/second”. 

How does something that has a geometry, an algebra, infinite data streams, and dimensionless constants manifest? Do these facets describe just a space-time moment and that’s enough or is there a possibility of a sphere? When does it get physical?

Bring it on: Rigorous peer review, testing, and validation is key!

What does “intrinsic growth mean? How is it intrinsic? What are the mechanisms?

Does mainstream physics consider the FLRW the final equation? Is it complete?

The simple answer is, “No.”

Correct, the planck units define limits, not creation.

The never-ending, never-repeating infinite numbers of pi are creating!

Well, we were bold enough to offer a definition of the first moment of spacetime. What is yours?

The Hubble constant. What are its mechanisms? Where does it come from? Does the Hubble suggest any numbers?

In short, the statement is a claim from an unconventional theoretical model, and it is not supported by accepted cosmology or empirical evidence.

The entire scientific community makes unconventional claims like the singularity of everything, from everywhere, for all time.

The statement, “These 202 base-2 notations easily encapsulate the universe,” is based on a concept promoted by the website 81018.com. The idea is that by repeatedly doubling the Planck length and Planck time 202 times, one can scale from the smallest units of measurement to the size and age of the observable universe.

This is more of a mathematical curiosity or analogy than a serious scientific claim.

Here is a breakdown of the concept and its limitations:

The mathematical basis

The argument relies on the powers of 2. For example, if you have a quantity X and multiply it by 2 repeatedly, the sequence is X⋅2¹, X⋅2², X⋅2 ³,…,X⋅2²⁰². The numbers are said to be “encapsulated” within 202 doublings.

Our perspective. We were taught early in our studies of both math and physics to simplify. Simple answers that build on each other were better than a generality that obfuscates.

Throughout these studies that began in December 2011, we have asked for advice from scholars. Though limited to just a few, there are many respected studies of the power of two. It is a fundamental relation in this universe.

• Planck length: This is the smallest possible measurable length, approximately 1.616×10⁻³⁵ meters.
• Planck time: This is the smallest possible measurable time, approximately 5.391×10^-44 seconds.
• 202 doublings: The claim is that 2²⁰² multiplied by the Planck length gives a number close to the diameter of the observable universe, and 2²⁰² multiplied by the Planck time gives a number close to the age of the universe. 

Here Google AI has summarizes very well, but then goes on to get very critical.

This idea is not a valid scientific theory for the following reasons: 

What is scie““““aative thinking?

• It’s a coincidence: The fact that the numbers happen to line up after 202 doublings is a numerological coincidence, not evidence of a profound physical principle. The universe’s structure and evolution are governed by complex physics (like general relativity and quantum mechanics), not a simple scaling-by-two model.
• Scaling is not “encapsulation”: While it is possible to find a scaling factor that relates the smallest units to the largest, this doesn’t mean that the smaller units “encapsulate” the entire universe. For example, knowing the size of an atom and the number of doublings to reach a planet does not mean the atom contains the planet’s information.
• Arbitrary starting point: The argument starts with Planck units, but other starting points could be chosen to produce different numbers. There is no special scientific significance to the number 202.
• Misrepresents scientific understanding: The claim misrepresents how physicists actually model the universe. Models like the Standard Model of particle physics and the Lambda-CDM model of cosmology are based on rigorous mathematical frameworks and experimental evidence, not on simple scaling laws. 

There are no coincidences of this magnitude. Of course, there are little coincidences. But here, there is confirmation at each notation. And, this quickly becomes complex physics because it works right in with general relativity and quantum mechanics. It gives “““““““““““““““““““““““““`those two historic studies a crisp starting point and logic.

This section begins with synonyms of the word, encapsulation. The word is properly used. The sphere brings with it the primary irrational numbers, dimensionless constants, and Planck units. By further defining infinity as the qualitative continuity, symmetry and harmony, this data is hardly arbitrary.

In summary, the statement is a piece of pseudoscience that uses a mathematical curiosity to create the illusion of a profound insight into the nature of reality. It is not supported by mainstream science.

The most damning thing to say to a person is that they are promoting pseudoscience to create an illusion. Google AI could as well have said, "This work is high-speculative.” Freeman Dyson critically told us that it will be interesting to see what develops from this work.