Is big bang cosmology imploding?


We Need A New Theory!

By Bruce Camber


The headline is a result of many unanswered questions asked of  Stephen Hawking and Alan Guth (inflation theory) by highly-respected astrophysicists, theoretical physicists, plasma physicists (virtually physicists of every flavor), philosophers, and thoughtful people. The number of unanswered questions continues to grow and it is reaching a tipping point.

It would be good for our world and for the integrity of scholarship to reopen a deliberate, vigorous analysis and debate of the first seconds of creation, then continue that analysis to the fullness of time. Much has been learned as a result of force-fitting observations to work within big bang cosmology, but that didn’t always work very well. It is obvious to most that there is still so much more to learn.

In 1899 Max Planck first wrote about fundamental or natural units based on the constants within physics and mathematics. Ignored for over a century, it wasn’t until Frank Wilczek wrote a series of articles, Scaling Mt. Planck (Physics Today) did the scholarly community begin to pay attention to Planck’s 1899 work. Today these Planck units are a core starting point for science. In December 2011 a simple-but-highly-integrated model began to emerge. It is yet to be critically reviewed by the scholarly community. In April 2016 it became a horizontal chart so each Planck base unit could be more easily followed. It will be fitting if all the unanswered questions of the big bang are revisited in the light of “the simple model” (also introduced in the box below).

That simple chart, the antithesis of the big bang, is conceptually based on continuity, symmetry, and possibly even a little harmony.

Within LinkedIn, there is a theoretical physics group of about 36,200 members. On Sunday, October 23, 2016, I posted a few questions for discussion (just below). Later that day a similar post was entered within the quantum physics group of about 30,000 members.

First, can we do a thorough analysis of the 81018-chart of the universe in 201 notations?

Is it all just specious thinking? I don’t think so, but I would enjoy your comments and questions. If this  simple base-2 chart of the universe raises reasonable questions, what questions they are!

We know our scientific models and concepts are incomplete. Something is missing. Could simplicity be at the center of an answer?

Go to the post within LinkedIN’s Theoretical Physics group. Join the forum!