Turok Tells Us That Hawking Is Wrong. Yes, The Big Bang Apple Is Falling.

Yellow ArrowRightArrowYellowCENTER FOR PERFECTION STUDIES: CONTINUITY•SYMMETRY•HARMONY GOALS.July.2017
HOMEPAGES: ASSUMPTIONS |DARK|FORMULAS|INFINITY|KEYS|Map|REVIEW|Transformation|UP

Turok on Hawking and the Big Bang

by Bruce Camber
Turok
Neil Turok

June 2017, Perimeter Institute, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada: Neil Turok, a colleague, long-standing friend, and one-time collaborator and co-author[1] with Stephen Hawking, has joined a growing number of scholars, a crescendo that cannot be ignored, who say, “The big bang theory is wrong.”

Reporters throughout the United Kingdom, and the scientific press around the world are reporting on Turok’s comment that the universe is actually in a perpetual state of big bangs.  Job Feldbrugge, his co-author and young colleague at Perimeter, says, “Our research implies that we either should look for another picture to understand the very early universe, or that we have to rethink the most elementary models of quantum gravity.”

JobFedrugger
Job Feldbrugge

Feldbrugge echoes earlier work by Richard Muller, a Berkeley physicist, and Carlo Rovelli, an Italian-French physicist. The growing group of cosmologists, physicists and other scientists who question the theory is formidable.

More and more people from within the general public seem to be questioning it as well. Though relatively new to formal studies in cosmology, this website  has become increasingly critical of the big bang theory, especially the de facto nihilism that it encourages. Turok may be the one who finally fells the tree that contains the big bang apple and its Newtonian commonsense worldview. Perhaps some day we will be able to say that big bang nihilism is fading away, maybe even dying.

We began questioning it in 2014. But, so what? We’re nobody-from-nowhere!

Jean-Luc Lechner.png
Jean-Luc Lehners

In April 2017 Job Feldbrugge, Jean-Luc Lehners, and Neil Turok [2] authored an ArXiv article (Cornell University), that opened the door for today’s critical point of view. It was titled, No smooth beginning for spacetime.

Their article is not light reading. Notwithstanding, in our extreme naïveté we must conclude that these three scholars are on the right path but have reached the wrong conclusions. These scholars still hold to a modified big bang theory. Although our work originates from a high school geometry class, we do not.

The starting point for big bang cosmology is infinitely dense and infinitely hot. We believe the opposite is true. Our very simple, mathematical model of the universe begins with the infinitesimals, Planck Length and Planck Time, and the relatively small unit of Planck Mass and the ever-so-small Planck Charge. Doubling each value over and over again, 67 times before reaching the CERN-scale, creates a very smooth, initially-simple, homogeneous universe that quickly becomes exquisitely complex. Our group holds that these 67 doublings, steps or notations are the foundations that give rise to our physical universe.

Turok claims that the universe is a perpetual state of big bangs. These are the primordial fluctuations that have been below the intellectual radar of all those scholars who hold onto big bang cosmology. Somewhere within the first second, between Notations 143 and 144, is the first fluctuation.  The suspicion is that it happens shortly after Notation 102 to 103 when it becomes too warm for superconductivity, yet the Planck Charge has grown so large, the first fluctuations become probable. Yes, the perfections of superconductivity have stopped.

Though hardly-known among the scholarly community, this skeletal model has well-over 1000 calculations, all simple mathematics to study. Called the Big Board-little universe Project for secondary schools and the Quiet Expansion within cosmology,  spacetime is redefined in terms of light, symmetry and continuity. Its backdoor is a pathway between the finite and infinite. The first moment of creation is still happening now. Each notation of the total of 202 notations is actively defining the universe. So, in that regard, Turok and his group are correct, it is perpetual, but we say that it does not start with a bang and it is not infinitely dense and infinitely hot.

This model has just 202 doublings. The first moment of creation is Notation #1. That notation is of such an infinitesimal duration, it won’t be until 144th notation that the processing can be measured seconds. The present day, current hour, and this very second is within the 202nd notation (the duration is now over 10.9816 billion years. In this model, everything is necessarily related to everything. Continuity-and-symmetry become the penultimate.

Although we have begun to interpret the numbers — it is not easy — there is a long way to go.

***

Endnotes and footnotes:

[1] The big bang theory is so entrenched within popular culture, it will take somebody who is a collaborator and co-author of Stephen Hawking to lift the bane of his theory — nihilism– from within the minds of people. Prof. Dr. Neil Turok held the Chair of Mathematical Physics at the University of Cambridge starting in 1997 and became Director of the Perimeter Institute in 2008.

[2] Following the work of scholars has become so much easier with websites like ArXiv (Cornell University). Each of these authors — Job Feldbrugge, Jean-Luc Lehners, and Neil Turok — have additional work that can be explored. No smooth beginning for spacetime examines key insights for their conclusions that Hawking is wrong.

***

More background by Bruce Camber:

This simple mathematical model is a scripting program to outline the big bang epochs, yet there is no bang per se. It defines a natural inflation that is 100% predictive. It mimics cellular reproduction. It includes everything for all time and in all space. Simple, elegant, comprehensive, it is a basic mathematical platform that appears readily to incorporate and support all other mathematics that define the Standard Model of Cosmology (Lambda-CDM model). It will take some work, but the Standard Model of Particle Physics should be supported as well.

That is enough, but then, it does so much more. It opens up possibilities and probabilities. While still infinitesimal, it creates space for philosophies (even ethics), and the mind (even sleep). It gives homogeneity and isotropy a platform. It also gives dark matter and dark energy a foundation. And, most importantly, it redefines the infinite in ways that might open dialogues about universals and constants, the ultimate and eternal, first within the sciences, then between science and philosophy, then between science and religion, and maybe even between different religions.

Why didn’t the academics and scholars find this simple little model?

Planck Units: In the six years from conception to publishing, 1899-1905, Max Planck worked with five universal physical constants to define an essential reality and base platform for measurement. The result was four Planck base units: Planck Time, Planck Length, Planck Mass and Planck Charge that were “…properties of nature and not from any human construct.” Although engaged by many over time, the Planck numbers did not command basic respect across the entire scientific community. Not until 2001 when Frank Wilczek (MIT, Nobel laureate 2004) wrote a series of three articles for Physics Today, Scaling Mt. Planck, did I, II, III, these Planck units begin to move beyond numerology into wide-scale acceptability.

By that time, the big bang theory had gained the high ground. Nobody thought to follow simple nested or combinatorial geometries back to the Planck Length. Nobody thought to multiply the Planck units by 2. It took a huge amount of naïveté and almost no knowledge of cosmological models to bias one’s point of view. It also required discounting our commonsense view promulgated by Isaac Newton that space and time are absolute. In so doing, a more relational model as suggested in 1715 by Leibniz could be entertained.

Today, there are three simultaneous research projects to define this model more completely:
• Measuring an Expanding Universe Using Planck Units (first draft)
• The Thrust of the Universe: What is it? (first draft)
• Visualizing the Universe (work in progress)
We invite your comments and questions about our simple, highly-integrated, mathematical model of the Universe.
Thank you. – Bruce Camber

Let’s talk and let’s get to work!
• Revisit. June 5, 2017, Burst the Big Bang Bubble
• Contact! June 2, 2017, Email to the Editors of scientific publications
• Contact! 1 June 2017: Email to Max Tegmark (MIT), re. the nature of infinity in light of his article, The Mathematical Universe
• Contact! 4 May 2017: Email to Brandon Brown, author, Planck: Driven by Vision, Broken by War

News / Research
• Open Letter to the editors of Science (magazine) of the American Association for the Advancement of Science
• Simple View of the Universe
• An Integrated Universe View: What is your expertise? There are many blanks within many cells — over 2000 of them in the entire chart — so, we assume it will always be “under construction.”

Recent-and-related:
• Background: Do you have a Worldview? Could it be part of an integrated Universe View?
• NASA SpaceApp Challenge Reports (work in progress)
• Very Small-Scale Universe: What is hypostatic?

Homepages: NASA Report|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|11|12|13|14|15|16|17|18|19|20|21|22|Original
June 12, 2017: We believe the big bang backfired and that it is breaking up.
June 13, 2017: We’ve put the big bang on ice to explore a simple model of the universe
June 20: Put the big bang on ice so we can explore a more simple model of the universe.

Navigation: The boldface entries will keep you within 81018.com. If you happen to find yourself on an unusual URL and want to return to the originating page, please use your “back arrow” button. Thank you.