CENTER FOR PERFECTION STUDIES: CONTINUITY•SYMMETRY•HARMONY • USA • GOALS • SEPTEMBER 2018
Alfonso Cuarón’s 2013 film (starring Sandra Bullock and George Clooney) does not ask, “What is gravity?”
“Gravity, Oh Gravity… Why Such Gravity?”
BY Bruce E. Camber
A DRAFT. Related: ANALYSIS, Chart, Commonsense, CONCEPTS, Continuum, Efficacy, Emergence, Growth
“I don’t know much about gravity.” It just seemed like a logical thing and that Isaac Newton had captured its essence within his 1687 book informally called the Principia.1 Yet, among the professionals, gravity has always been a bit of a problem in the grand design and scheme of things. Even with Newton’s equations, it didn’t seem to have any necessary relation to everything else.
Then came quantum gravity and it’s becoming the next big thing. Now everybody is getting into the gravity game. I believe it could become the new radical chic2 (pronounce chic as “sheek,” or “shiek”). Imagine the in-crowd and hipsters all talking about gravity waves and the current speculations of our leading scholars.3 If the current trend goes that way, perhaps a scholar like Carlo Rovelli or Claus Kiefer will assume the position of Stephen Hawking.
We all need heroes and leaders. Yet, before it happens, perhaps we can push our conceptual frame of reference beyond Hawking’s big bang. It’s blocking our view of Planck’s base units.
A different perspective. As you would anticipate if you have previously visited this site, we would ask that our mathematically-integrated map of the universe be part of the gravity equations. Using base-2 to expand the four Planck units (Length, Time, Mass and Charge), there are just over 202 notations or doublings from the very start to the current age and size of the universe. There are at least 64 notations below the thresholds of current measurement, yet by that 64th notation, there is a substantial mass and charge. Known as dark matter and dark energy, this map accounts it all rather simply. It does the same for the isotropy and homogeneity of the universe. It demonstrates the finite nature of space-and-time. Here, there is a natural inflation and many doubling mechanisms that emerge within all the possible geometries and mathematics of 64 doublings of space, time, mass and charge. It would seem that here are missing keys to integrate gravity within both Standard Models. Although there is no need for a big bang, Newton’s work from 1687, that formula just above, should be validated yet one more time.
There’s no question, Newton was a genius about some things. Yet, he did not have Max Planck’s genius, especially the Planck base units, and the 202 notations from the first moment of time to the current age of the universe. Even today, those first 64 notations of the 202, are not part of the formulations of our scientists and mathematicians. “Too small,” say the physicists who are particle-centric and do not always trust simple mathematics, “Irrelevant!“
Our key question: How do those first 64 notations make up part of the definition of gravity, or perhaps better, “How-where-when-and why-does gravity enter into the definitions of the first 64 notations?” Prior to these base-2 charts, there was no conceptual frame of reference, so they were all overlooked, yet each of the first 64 could well be a new set of keys to unlock even more mysteries of this universe.
Within this model, all 202+ notations are part of the dynamics of any given moment, especially including the edge of the expansion-right-now.
It bears repeating. Those 64 of the 202+ notations are at the current expansion of the universe, at the right now; yet in some special conceptual way, these notations are also the initial start of the entire universe, right now. Perhaps only Neil Turok, director of the Perimeter Institute in Ontario, understands that comment. Most of us do not; I struggled with it and I wrote it!
To grasp such an enigmatic statement will require some new thinking. To that end, I think we all need to be studying those Planck base units and how these doublings define each notation.
In August 2017, we started our first analysis of some of the numbers within the chart. Titled, Measuring an Expanding Universe Using Planck Units, the focus was on just seven of the 202 notations: 0, 31, 67, 101, 137, 167, and 199 (all but 0 are prime numbers). The postulation was that there is an expansion of the mathematics from the most simple to the most complex and every prime represented a unique formulation that added a new dimension of complexity to our universe. Even before this analysis, I had been in search of scholars who might have constructed such a continuum of mathematics, people like Robert Langlands. Apparently our model, applying base-2 to the Planck units, is too just simplistic. Notwithstanding, we push on.
For this second pass through the 202 notations, we’ll engage seven key notations:
0, 64, 67, 134, 143, 197 and 202.
We’ll also try to find experts and scholars to help us with each notation. We’ll specially struggle with Notations 0 & 67 to go more more deeply than we did just over a year ago.
Notation 64 was selected because it is clearly not within the reach of today’s instruments to measure these multiples of Planck Length and Planck Time. The first measurements of a length appears to begin at the 67th notation or doubling. By the 134th doubling, the measurements of length and time are well within our conceptual and perceptual understanding. Yet, the first second of processing within this universe will not begin until up between the 143 and 144th notations. By the 197th notation at about 343 million years, the first galactic structures are emerging. And, by the 202 notation we are into a 10.9+ billion-year notation. Given all notations added together is one unit of Planck Time shy of that first 10.9+ billion years, we are just 2.8 to 3 billion years into notation 202.
We have a long way to go (in more ways than we imagine).
Hypostatic math-and-science. “Substance, essence, underlying reality, that which stands under,” the word, hypostatic, has also been used by religions to connote an essence, so I believe that overlap may help us to capture a deeper understanding of an essence. We’ll need many analogies and metaphors to stretch our thinking in new ways. Eventually we’ll do an in-depth study of each of the 202 notations until the entire chart of 202 notations has had critical reviews by many of the best living scholars today.
Presuppositions. Planck Length and Planck Time are the smallest possible units of space and time. Both are derived using dimensional analysis of the most fundamental universal constants: the speed of light, the Newton gravitational constant and the Planck constant. The speed of light at each notation (line 10) computes to be within 1% of the experimental measurement of the speed of light. It raises fascinating questions about the integration of space, time and light. The three together provide the foundation, the primary ordering-and-continuity equation, that binds our universe as an intimate place of just 202 notations. Mass and charge provide the foundation for dynamics within its emergent geometries and mathematics. And, part of the dynamics includes Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG) and her spin networks. With 64 doublings, there is quite enough notations for mathematics to evolve from the most simple perspective geometries, to Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometries and to every possible manifestation of geometry and mathematics required to lay the foundations of this universe.
At this point in our history, most scholars accept as established science that the Planck Charge and Planck Mass are not the smallest possible measurements of charge and mass.
Review: Our very first analysis of six group of numbers and this analysis needs to be developed further. So again, to that end, we will engage the best possible scholars within each related field to examine a data set that defines a notation (or multiple related notations).
Summary: Within this range of charge and mass between notations 0 and 64, we have the makings of deep gravity, deep energy, deep matter, and deep light. I think, if these figures bear out, the scholarly folks can truly finished up on their long-sought-for Theory of Everything.
Endnotes, Footnotes, and References
1. The Principia. The formal name is Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica and that link goes to a good introduction within Wikipedia. In the equation given, the constant of proportionality, “Big G,” is a physical constant that was also used by Albert Einstein within his formulation of the general theory of relativity.
2. Radical Chic. Although enshrined by composer-conductor-musician-author Leonard Bernstein for his fundraising party for the Black Panthers Defense Fund in 1970 and defined by Tom Wolfe in an essay about it, radical chic today is more about fashion than politics. Though the Bernstein’s party was ultimately perceived as a patronizing event, there is nothing patronizing about attempting to understand who-what-why we are. The new Radical Chic could become a radical integration of cosmology, physics, mathematics, logic, linguistics, philosophy, theology, and every other discipline that studies the first principles of life. What will be “chic” is breaking out of the 1687 Newton absolute space-and-time (perhaps the penultimate way to patronize oneself), including the more recent definitions of big bang cosmology by Stephen Hawking.
3. Leading Scholars: There are key research centers around the world engaging in work about quantum gravity, Loop Quantum Gravity and spin networks. We’ll attempt to identify them all. There are the world-renown such as: Gerard ‘t Hooft, Juan Maldacena, Leonard Susskind, and Edward Witten, yet there are so many others including: Ivan Agullo, Jan Ambjørn, Abhay Ashtekar, Aurélien Barrau, John W. Barrett, M. Blagojević, Eugenio Bianchi, Martin Bojowald, Alejandro Corichi, Louis Crane, Bianca Dittrich, Michael Duff, Laurent Freidel, Rodolfo Gambini, Marc Geiller, Simone Giombi, Steven Gubser, Monica Guică, Thomas Hartman, Gary T. Horowitz, Sabine Hossenfelder, Ingo Kirsch, Igor Klebanov, Jerzy Lewandowski, Alexander Polyakov, Jorge Pullin,Aldo Riello, Đàm Thanh Sơn, Parampreet Sing, Wei Song, Andrei Starinets, Andrew Strominger, Wolfgang Wieland… And, that list goes on and on. Go to our extended list with affiliations and our correspondence to them. More is on the way!
Updated on Friday, September 28, 2018
From the Friday, 21 September homepage: “Let today’s transition to Autumn in the Northern Hemisphere quiet us down for deeper reflections on who and why we are.” – BEC
Editor’s Notes about Navigation and Other Points of Interest:
- 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.
- Homepage. Click on Our Universe in 202+ Doublings to go to the current homepage.
- In that “second header” there are 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.
- Values and ethics: Within our study of universals and constants, there is a sense of value that gives rise to values and ethics. The antithesis is nihilism which eventually opens us all to the various forms of dystopia we are experiencing today.
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 analogies and metaphors, one of the most important activities was trying to grasp key evocative questions. Here are a few of those questions explored within this site:
- What are the fundamental units that define our universe?
- Does each progression represent the “longest possible” continuum?
- Are any big bang theories necessary in light of a natural inflation?
- Is our intellectual depth being constricted by our two Standard Models?
- Shall we revisit our structure for scientific revolutions?
- Can these concepts be tested using rather simple formulas?
- Does measurement qua measurement actually begin with pure math and logic?
- Is “infinitely-hot, infinitely-dense, infinitely-small” the wrong place to start?
- What is the deep nature of growth?
- Are our imaginations working overtime?
- What is an inertial frame of reference in light of 202 notations?
- Are some concepts first principles”?
- Can Turok, Arkani-Hamed or Tegmark open a new frame of reference?
- What is pi that we are mindful of it?
- Ask the penultimate questions: What is finite? What is infinite?
- Are we asking enough “what if” questions?
- Who is on our team? To whom do we turn?
- What has been the driving vision?
- What is the fabric of the universe?
- Are there rules for our roads? What are they?
- Is the universe exponential? Is Euler’s identity spot on?
- Is this model built on something even faster than exascale computing?
- Does the universe go on forever or just as far as the current expansion?
- Is there a better way to keep track of all these writings?
- Who among us is really and truly in a dialogue with the universe?
- Why? Then as a child, ask the question again, Why? And again, ask, “Why?”
- Have there been summaries of these ideas? What have we missed?
- Are the 202 doublings still a virtually unexplored area for research?
- The arrogance of language: How do we know what we know and don’t know?
- What are the most important qualities of infinity?
- 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:
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 September 21, 2018)