CENTER FOR PERFECTION STUDIES: CONTINUITY•SYMMETRY•HARMONY • USA • GOALS • OCTOBER 2018
HOMEPAGES: JUST PRIOR|2|3|4|5| 6|7|8|9|10|11|12|13|14|15|16|17|18|19|20|PI|22|23|ORIGINAL
ARE THERE ANY MORE SECRETS THAT LIGHT MIGHT YET REVEAL TO US? DO WE UNDERSTAND HOW IT PERMEATES ALL 202 NOTATIONS?
202 DOUBLINGS: GRID OF EVERYTHING, EVERYWHERE FOR ALL TIME – NOT A THEORY OR VISION – JUST MATH.
BY BRUCE CAMBER RELATED: ANALYSIS, CHART, COMMONSENSE, CONCEPTS, CONTINUUM, EFFICACY, EMERGENCE, GROWTH & GRAVITY.
Overview: In September 2018, I sent this email to a scholar at the Institute for Advanced Studies (IAS) in Princeton. IAS is a mecca for intellectuals. All their people receive so much email, I am surprised when anyone responds. However, the most simple part of Planck’s definition of Planck Time, in plain sight since 1906, could be revisited. By applying base-2 to the Planck units, especially Planck Time, light is given an expanded role (line 10). I think it is curious and could use some commentary so I have sent this letter along to those who have received emails or tweets but they may not have considered this equation for light. -BEC
RE: Thinking about the relation between light and space-time
Is it reasonable to consider Max Planck’s simple definition of time when we talk about the interior of the space-time?
Rather surprisingly Planck’s more simple formula actually computes well with experimental results. And, if base-2 notation is applied to Planck Time, it computes well within every notation, not just at one second. It is a variable as each quantity is multiplied by 2. Yet, that variable appears to remain within 1% throughout all 202 notations from Planck Time at the start to the current time.
By inserting the other base units along this scale of the universe, the data sets become more challenging, yet the simple correspondence between length and time tells a profound story. The correspondence with mass and charge, though stretching the imagination, still retains a deep logic and continuity.
Might you comment? …just nonsense?
PS. This work started in a New Orleans high school geometry class where we chased Zeno’s paradox to the Planck Wall and then asked, “What else can we do?”
• Related links: (1) https://81018.com/c/ (2) https://81018.com/light-visible/
• Chart of numbers: https://81018.com/chart/ (see line 10)
• A little background story: https://81018.com/home
With modifications for each, the recipients of a recent email in its spirit are as follows:
Russ Holt (CEO, AAAS), Steve Adler (IAS), Niayesh Afshordi (Perimeter/Waterloo), Anthony Aguirre (UC-Santa Cruz), Michael Atiyah (Edinburgh)… there will be more to come.
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.
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?
An excellent resource to translate any of our pages by its URL:
Among today’s challenges:
1. The Tesseract. First tweet: @tesseractband OK, smart folks. How do you live up to your name? You make every performance a teaching event. The Tesseract is somehow involved in these 202 base-2 notations that bind the universe: Let’s figure it out and you all be the evangelists.
2. Extend the simple reference to consciousness. See Witten.
3. More related pages: