# We Can All Grasp This Map of Our Universe†

###### by Bruce Camber (a first draft that continues to be updated)
Not So Abstract. We started working on our base-2 chart of the universe back in December 2011 in a New Orleans high school. We then got the 6th grade science students involved. It seemed that most of the students understood that chart/map rather quickly. Yet, since that time this map, which we say is “…202 base-2 notations or doublings from the Planck base units to the current expansion” has challenged our worldviews, particularly our views of space, time and infinity. What we thought was a fascinating, new STEM tool became idiosyncratic and a bit revolutionary. The first 64 notations (out of the 202) were not accessible. Our hypothesis is that these virtually unexplored notations are common grounds of a most fundamental nature that seem to address age-old questions in physics and cosmology in new ways.

1899: Max Planck’s four fundamental natural units. Numbers, calculated using constants, were so unusual, Planck ostensibly ignored them. Only a few scholars1 picked up on his numbers over the next 100 years. In 2001 Frank Wilczek2 authored three articles for Physics Today that began to pull those Plank numbers free from numerology,3 and Planck’s base units began getting more consistent attention. Today, the sciences have begun to recognize the Planck units and their unique potential to become part of (1) an integrative theory about the nature of things, possibly even a starting point for creation, and (2) the beginnings of complexity, a concept that helps us to understand the foundations of the sciences, mathematics, logic, and epistemology.

Geometries. Now, for a little perspective on our work, we were high school geometry people 4 who in 2011 followed a very simple tetrahedral-octahedral complex5 back 45 steps (halving at each step) down among elementary particles and then another 67 steps to the Planck scale.

Naively, we then started with Planck’s base units and multiplied by two. In 112 doublings we were back in the classroom and in just another 90 steps we were out to the current size and age of the universe and today’s current expansion of the universe.6

We asked, “Did we just encapsulate everything, everywhere, for all time? …the entire universe in just 202 base-2 notations or doublings?

The Chart, A Map of the Universe. Although there are still many lines that have just the four numbers, the chart felt like the beginnings of a simple map7 of the universe using base-2 (doublings). We learned that the conceptual foundations of base-2 (exponential functions) were introduced to the world around 1740 by the Swiss mathematician, Leonhard Euler. Hardly known to us, we rather unwittingly took Euler’s base-2 to the 202nd power and have now begun to ask questions about its context in light of the nature of creation, space, and time.

We had been unaware of the 1957 work by Kees Boeke in his private school, De Werkplaats, in Bilthoven, Holland. Boeke did his base-10 chart, Cosmic View: The Universe in 40 Jumps8 and over time it became widely popular. Our chart is a bit different. First, we have our geometries starting with a sphere that generates tetrahedrons and octahedrons. Second, we start with the Planck units and its simple formula that the speed of light is equal to Planck Length divided by Planck Time. Third, we have a scale of the Planck’s units from the smallest units of space and time to the largest. Fourth, we have the current expansion of the universe within the 202nd notation. Fifth, our chart is 3.333+ times more granular than base-10. Sixth, this chart mimics life’s natural doublings. And seventh, our base-2 chart has a built-in, all natural inflation.9

That is quite a lot, but then, it really began to challenge us:

• Mathematical confirmation of the speed of light. We discovered between the 143rd and 144th notation, a simple mathematical confirmation of the speed of light,10 that validates those distance and the time units. That’s a key; it actually completes the simple logic of this chart. It has a mathematical, functional, and conceptual wholeness.

• Dark energy and dark matter defined. We also observed the first 64 notations couldn’t be reached by CERN laboratories in Geneva, Switzerland or by the Max Planck Institute (MPI)11 in Garching Germany. MPI has held the record for the shortest unit of measured time. Those first 64 notations are much too short and much too small to ever be measured by physical tools. So, what is all that aggregating mass and energy? Our ever-so-simple, logical conclusion: it is the “impossible-to-define” dark energy and dark matter.12 As we try to bring it into the light of day, I believe we will discover it is also a long-sought-for common ground.

Retrospective. Granted, that’s rather radical for simple people using simple logic. Yet, once opened for inquiry, this virtually unexplored domain of just over 64 notations looks like it can also give us the footings to create a bridge13 between quantum mechanics and general relativity, and between the Langlands programs and string theory. These are not incompatible concepts but different faces of a common foundation just before those few transformations that precede the 67th notation where particles and waves are finally observed.

In 1999 NATO gathered our most elite astrophysicists and cosmologists14 living at that time. All were scholars of structure formation. At no time did they have a discussion about the Planck base units. Nobody was asking, “What could be the earliest manifestation of the Planck base units?” For us, twelve years later in 2011, it was the only question we wanted to try to answer.

Space-time defined by spheres.15 Looking around the scholarly world, it became obvious that we were unwittingly jumping on a bandwagon with Carlo Rovelli and Robert Muller who found space-and-time to be derivative, discrete and quantized. In our model, each notation builds on the prior notation(s). Each notation is part of the operational whole. Each is active and seemingly forever. Space and time are defined by pi (π), continuity, symmetry, and harmony. A simple circle, then a sphere, becomes a key nexus for transformations, all functions with qualities that describe (1) the infinite, (2) a finite-infinite bridge,15 and (3) the inherent quality and actual quantities that define the finite and our very first instant of time.

This is a very different perspective …and we’ve just begun our analyses!

#

It is refreshing to find people out on the web who are also shining their light in these seldom visited spaces and who are open and joyful in the process. If you, or anybody you know, has such a vision, please let us know! We would enjoy meeting you even if just online. Thank you. –BEC

###

## For more, go to these prior homepages:

Orientation:

# Endnotes and Footnotes:

An introduction to this early work: The map is simple because it is just 202 notations, https://81018.com/home/    It is comprehensive because the current mapping done by the astrophysics and cosmology communities really doesn’t begin much before Notation 196 at about 171 million years. Notation 197 brings us to 343 million, Notation 198 to 686 million, Notation 199 to 1.3 billion, Notation 200 to 2.7 billion….

1 Scholars: In less cynical times, most of us believed that the truth always rises. And, some of us have had great faith that scholars engage that truth most readily:
1a. Aggregating articles and papers about Max Planck’s base units. Note: To date, these are most substantial that I’ve found. If you can add any to it, I would be grateful. –BEC
1b. The most recent scholars to whom I have turned (and a few have disappointed)
1c. 77+ scholars in 1979. The project was called “An Architecture for Integrative Systems.
1d. My early studies. Such work does make a difference.

2 Frank Wilczek: In his Physics Today article, “Scaling Mount Planck II: Base Camp,” Wilczek says: “The strong and weak couplings equalize — at roughly the Planck scale! Planck, of course, knew of neither the strong nor the weak interaction, nor of quantum field theory and running couplings. The reappearance of his scale in this entirely new context confirms his intuition about the fundamental character of the Planck scale(fifth paragraph).

These are not coincidences. Numbers are numbers. Functions are functions. And, as well, our chart of numbers tells an important story of our time. Here is a highly-integrated mathematical scaling of the universe. Academic openness and integrity should subject this new conceptual frame of reference to a rigorous analysis.

3 2004 Nobel Laureate and the Planck numbers: Those three articles by Frank Wilczek about Planck’s base units in Physics Today stirred the pot; yet, when he received his Nobel Prize in 2004, all his writings took on a new vibrancy and importance. Wilczek became part of an elite group of celebrity physicists. His analyses of the Planck scale set those numbers apart in a most-special category even though there are other similar methods to generate fundamental numbers.

4-5 Straying just a bit from the textbook, the teachers were fascinated with the way the octahedron and tetrahedron, two of Plato’s solids, were inextricably woven. Some of the students became equally fascinated. https://81018.com/home/ https://81018.com/tot/

6 Current Expansion, a chart: Starting with Planck Length in December 2011, Planck Time was added three years later, and Mass and Charge were added in February 2015. Today’s working chart emerged in April 2016. It was our first horizontally-scrolled chart whereby any one of the Planck numbers could be readily tracked. Notation 202 has a duration of 10.9816 billion years, and the current expansion defines the Now, this current moment of time which is shared everywhere throughout the entire universe. https://81018.com/chart/

7 Map of the Universe Using Base-2 (or doublings): Euler was a mathematician’s mathematician. He opened the way to infinitesimal calculus and a most-penetrating analysis of the infinite. We believe Euler will be instrumental in helping us interpret our charts. In 1988, 240 years after being published, one of Euler’s most seminal work, Introductio in analysin infinitorum (1748), was finally translated into English by John D. Blanton. Others quickly followed. We will be using an online translation by Ian Bruce. Of our 202 doublings, from the first notation to at least the 67th notation, could readily be considered infinitesimal. Our goal is to begin to understand the relation between the infinite and the infinitesimal, and we invite you on this journey with us. This work originates from within a high school. We have no pretensions about our work. It is rough, raw, idiosyncratic and incomplete, always a work-in-progress.

8 Kees Boeke’s base 10 work. Here is a precedent for our work. In 1957 in a high school in Holland, headmaster Kees Boeke developed a wonderful teaching tool showing the relative sizes of things with his book, Cosmic View: The Universe in 40 Jumps. Within a short time, it had its champions and today it has become well-known throughout the world as an IMAX production and several online iterations. It appears that at no time did any scholar attempt to establish causal efficacy between successive notations.

Using base-2, the challenge becomes apparent.

9 All Natural. With the work of Alan Guth (MIT) and so many others in the astrophysics community, the rapid expansion and continued inflation of the universe had become a major issue and stumbling block. Causal efficacy is stretched and strained. In the 1999 conference on structures, the most-elite inner circle of of cosmology threw up their hands and said, “Let’s come up with a better theory.” They had no essential geometries. They had no simple formulas. They had not defined space, time, mass, charge, or light.

In our simple model a natural inflation is readily observed from the start. Several doubling mechanisms have been identified, however, the most-simple doubling, sphere stacking at the infinitesimal domains, could readily account for most all other doubling phenomenon.

This explanation is sweet because it is so simple.

10 Speed of light. The electromagnetic spectrum in some sense of the word extends from Notation 1 to 202. Let us start a deep search of the literature that explores this bandwidth beyond the first possible visible light (within the 94-and-95th notations). What is the initial very, very small charge? Does each new sphere bring an equal charge and do these aggregate with each doubling? Within the chart of numbers, it is assumed that indeed there is an aggregation because at one second, rather hidden in between the 143rd and 144th notations, there is a mathematical confirmation of the speed of light.

11 Measuring an interval of light. The Max Planck Institute in Garching Germany has held the record for measuring the shortest interval of time. They are down into the attoseconds (10-18 seconds). It is a long way to go to get to Planck Time at 5.39116(13)×10-44 seconds. Our understanding of the current range is limited. It goes from the somewhat familiar nanoseconds (a billionth of a second) to picoseconds, then to femtoseconds, and finally into attoseconds. Beyond the attosecond there are zeptoseconds and the yoctosecond (10−24), but the International System of Units (SI units) recognize nothing smaller.

12 Dark energy-matter. Just look at the chart and observe the line for coulombs and the line for mass. Each notation “fills up” so every notation has a percentage of dark energy and dark mass. This would be the most simple explanation for dark energy and dark matter. A science writer was complaining, “I’m the only one who doesn’t have a dark energy and dark matter theory.” So, I wrote to her and said she would be most welcome to adopt ours as her own. You would be welcomed to do the same! Our first analysis, October 18, 2018, is here.

13 Bridges to build. For over 100 years there has been an insurmountable divide between quantum mechanics and relativity theory. Some of the smartest people on earth have been unable to create that bridge. First, all the big bang talk obscured the primary playing field. They now have 64 notations within which to work. It might also help if these exquisitely smart people would create a bridge between the . All the factors involved with those two bridges will also be involved in building a bridge between the infinitesimal and the infinite (another look). All key bridges, none have been built because the experts and scholars have not had room to think or breath. Most have been unaware of those 64 doublings with 19 prime numbers with which to work. Our scholars’ imaginations have been hamstrung with particles and waves.

14 NATO and Structure Formation. At the Isaac Newton Institute for Mathematical Sciences, Cambridge University, the consensus among the world’s best scholars was that the big bang theory needed to be revised. The net-net: the scholars departed from this conference and many engaged in multiverse speculations, and speculations, and speculations. George Ellis, who authored a seminal work (PDF) with Stephen Hawking in 1974, has an excellent commentary, Physics on Edge (Inference: International Review of Science, VOL. 3, # 2, AUGUST 2017), on the fractured belief systems among scholars who study these issues. His seminal work with Hawking, The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time, was highly influential, but failed to understand the infinitesimal structure of space-time.

15 Bridge Finite-Infinite-Divide: Not often discussed, a Google search in October 2019 with delimiter quotes rendered just 674 results, most referring to a May 24, 2016 article in Quanta Magazine. By using the word, bridge, as a noun, i.e. the “Finite-Infinite Bridge,” Google pulled up just six results of which three are from our work here.

Key words to explore further:

## Addendum: The heart of so many controversies

May the circle be unbroken: Not often within this kind of discussion are the subjects of ethics and aesthetics engaged, however, within our exploration of concepts that can bridge the finite and infinite, continuity, symmetry and harmony were applied to replace absolute space and time. Within those three concepts an understanding of both aesthetics and ethics emerge.

Science & Theology: Too much “positional” time and energy is spent on this topic. Open questions should be clearly and carefully stated without all the positional gestures and maneuvers. We know there is incompleteness. We know that both sides of the equations have “stood their ground.” That is not enough. We need to do better. If we open up the dialogue of first principles in light of the first 64 notations, I predict that ground will be fertile. Not only will the Abrahamic faiths benefit, all religions including atheism, might discover common grounds. The creation story, the old Genesis story, can be opened up for all.

Universals: One of my earlier considerations of the emergence of constants and universals.

NextOne of the next articles for this site will open the discussion about Bridge Finite-Infinite-Divide or the Finite-Infinite Bridge. Comments? Please email me or send through this comments form.

## References, research, and resources:

Initiated in private on Monday, October 14, 2019 (an update of an earlier version)
Publicly Posted: Monday, October 28, 2019
A first draft homepage: Monday, October 28, 2019
Most active editing: October 14 to November 5, 2019

# Could the first 64-notations-out-of-the-202 be our common ground?

###### CENTER FOR PERFECTION STUDIES:CONTINUITY•SYMMETRY•HARMONY.GOALS.October.2019HOMEPAGES: ASSUMPTIONS|DARK|HOME|INFINITYInflation |KEYS|REVIEW|Transformation|Up

Common Grounds Despite Radical Diversity
by Bruce Camber A First draft.

Introduction. One of my quiet goals in life has been to understand how concepts somehow transcend our diverse-and-sometimes-opposing points of view. Yet, nothing  seems to work for groups of people who have been hating each other for centuries; peace-makers are hard-pressed to come up with a concept that heals such deep divisions.

Tensions and divides are everywhere… and yes, even within the sciences.

My first-hand experience, grasped from a rather diverse group of scholars1 goes back into the 1970s. I had been wrestling with first principles, particularly our understanding of the foundations of physics (space, time, infinity) and of our universe. I expected that some of these scholars were working with concepts that just might help us break through old mysteries. Concepts could make a difference in the way we understand ourselves, our histories, our sciences and  even our religions.

Quite a bit later in December 2011, after many fits and starts, we began working on our base-2 chart of the universe. It has become apparent to us that within this chart of 202 notations, there are many concepts that change our worldview and our views of space, time and infinity. Rather quickly, we are aware of how idiosyncratic it is!

The first 64 notations out of 202 are most unusual. These may be common grounds of a most fundamental nature that might address age-old questions in physics and cosmology.

In 1899 Max Planck defined four fundamental natural units.  He defined the numbers, but they were so unusual, he ostensibly ignored them. Only a few scholars1d picked up on his numbers over the next 100 years. In 2001 Frank Wilczek2 began to pull those Plank numbers free from numerology,3 and Planck’s base units began getting more consistent attention. Today, science tends to recognize the Planck units, i.e. their potential to become part of (1) an integrative theory about the nature of things, even a starting point for creation, and (2) the beginnings of complexity, a concept that helps us to understand the foundations of the sciences, mathematics, logic, and epistemology.

Geometries. Now, for a little perspective on our work, we were high school geometry people4 who in 2011 followed a very simple tetrahedral-octahedral complex5 back 45 steps (halving at each step) down among elementary particles and then another 67 steps to the Planck scale.

Being rather naive about it all, we then decided to start with Planck’s base units and multiply by two (2). Sure enough, in 112 steps we were back in the classroom and in another 90 steps we were at the current expansion of the universe.6 We asked, “Did we just encapsulate everything, everywhere, for all time? …the entire universe in just 202 base-2 notations or doublings?

The Chart, A Map of the Universe. Although there are many blanks spaces, the chart seemed to be the beginning of a simple map7 of the universe using base-2 (doublings). We learned that the conceptual foundations of base-2 (exponential functions) were introduced to the world around 1740 by the Swiss mathematician, Leonhard Euler (there’s always so much to learn). Rather unwittingly, we took Euler’s base-2 to the 202nd power and have now begun to ask questions about its context in light of the nature of creation, space, and time.

We had been unaware of the 1957 work by Kees Boeke in his private school, De Werkplaats, in Bilthoven, Holland. Boeke did his base-10 chart, Cosmic View: The Universe in 40 Jumps8 and over time it became sensationally popular. Our chart is a bit different. First, we have our geometries. Second, we start with the Planck units. Third, we have a scale of the Planck’s units from the smallest units of space and time to the largest. Fourth, we have the current expansion of the universe within the 202nd notation. Fifth, our chart is 3.333+ times more granular than base-10. Sixth, this chart mimics life’s natural doublings. And seventh, our base-2 chart has a built-in, all natural inflation.9

That is quite a lot, but then, it really began to challenge us:

• Mathematical confirmation of the speed of light. We discovered between the 143rd and 144th notation, a simple mathematical confirmation of the speed of light,10 that validated both the distance and the time units. That’s a key; it actually completes the simple logic of this chart. It has a mathematical, functional, and conceptual wholeness.

• Dark energy and dark matter defined. Looking further, we observed the first 64 notations couldn’t be reached by CERN laboratories in Geneva, Switzerland or by all the experts at the Max Planck Institute in Garching Germany; they have held the record11 for the shortest unit of measured time. Those first 64 notations are too short and too small to ever be measured by physical tools. So, what is all that aggregating mass and energy? A simple, logical conclusion: it is the “impossible-to-define” dark energy and dark matter.12 As we bring it into the light of day, I believe we will discover it is also our long-sought-for common ground.

Retrospective. Granted, that’s rather radical for simple people using simple logic. Yet, once opened for inquiry, this virtually unexplored domain of just over 64 notations looks like it can also give us the footings to create a bridge13 between quantum mechanics and general relativity, and between the Langlands programs and string theory. These are not incompatible concepts but different faces of a common foundation just before those few transformations that precede the 67th notation where particles and waves are finally observed.

In 1999 NATO gathered our most elite astrophysicists and cosmologists14 living at that time. All were scholars of structure formation. At no time did they have a discussion about the Planck base units. Nobody was asking, “What could be the earliest manifestation of the Planck base units?” For us, twelve years later in 2011, it was the only question we wanted to try to answer.

Space-time defined by spheres.15 Looking around the scholarly world, it became obvious that we were unwittingly jumping on a bandwagon with Carlo Rovelli and Robert Muller who found space-and-time to be derivative, discrete and quantized. In our model, each notation builds on the prior notation(s). Each notation is part of the operational whole. Each is active and seemingly forever. Space and time are defined by pi (π), continuity, symmetry, and harmony. A simple circle, then a sphere, becomes a key nexus for transformations, all functions with qualities that describe (1) the infinite, (2) a finite-infinite bridge,15 and (3) the inherent quality and actual quantities that define the finite and our very first instant of time.

__________

This is such a different perspective.16 In a very rudimentary way we’re coming full circle.

As I explore the common grounds between pi (π), space, time, continuity, symmetry and harmony, there are both quantitative and qualitative shared expressions. Taking a rather speculative leap of faith, I believe these are also the foundations of ethics and aesthetics.16 Of course, altogether too simple for most, I know this will be bit difficult to sell but as a people and global community, what are our options? …continue going on the way we are?

Quantitative science, qualitative living.17 Some time ago, in one of my many statements online, I said it would be wise for science to be critical of theology. Science can inform theology, yet theology can also inform the sciences. There can be mutual respect. So, I asked, “What might we learn from the core insights from within religious beliefs?” To create an example, I went back into my family’s traditions. Given the Abrahamic faiths  have the attention of about 57% of the world’s population (that includes Jews, Christians and Muslims as well as the Druze, Bahá’í and Rastafarians), an example of such respect might be this very different interpretation of the Genesis story shared by all Abrahamic faiths.

The antithesis of disagreements, nastiness, and even violence. In the face of hostility, there is symmetry and harmony as a foundational understanding18 of the very nature of our very beingness. Given all notations are always active, what we consider to be history is the active encoding of our universe.

That is, I would conclude everything you say, do or think; it all impacts the look and feel and quality of our little universe.

You make a difference. And, that difference is greater than one could ever imagine.

#

It is refreshing to find people out on the web who are also shining their light in these seldom visited spaces and who are open and joyful in the process. If you, or anybody you know, has such a vision, please let us know! We would enjoy meeting you online. Thank you. –BEC

###

# Endnotes and Footnotes:

(currently the most heavily edited area of this work)

1 Scholars: In less cynical times, most of us believed that the truth always rises. And, some of us have had great faith that scholars engage that truth most readily:
1a. The most recent scholars to whom I have turned (and yes, a few have disappointed)
1b. 77+ scholars in 1979. The project was called “An Architecture for Integrative Systems.
1c. Influential, today, such work does make a difference.
1d. Aggregating articles and papers about Max Planck’s base units. To date, these are most substantial that I’ve found. If you can add any to it, I would be grateful. –BEC

2 Frank Wilczek: In his Physics Today article, “Scaling Mount Planck II: Base Camp,” Wilczek says: “The strong and weak couplings equalize — at roughly the Planck scale! Planck, of course, knew of neither the strong nor the weak interaction, nor of quantum field theory and running couplings. The reappearance of his scale in this entirely new context confirms his intuition about the fundamental character of the Planck scale.” (fifth paragraph).

These are not coincidences. Numbers are numbers. Functions are functions. And, as well, our chart of numbers tells an important story of our time. Here is a highly-integrated mathematical scaling of the universe. Academic openness and integrity should subject this new conceptual frame of reference to a rigorous analysis.

3 2004 Nobel Laureate and the Planck numbers: Wilczek’s three articles about the Planck base units in Physics Today stirred the pot; yet, when he received his Nobel Prize in 2004, all his writings took on a new vibrancy and importance. Wilczek became part of an elite group of celebrity physicists. His analysis of the Planck scale set these numbers apart in a most-special category even though there are other similar methods to generate fundamental numbers.

4-5 Straying just a bit from the textbook, the teachers were fascinated with the way the octahedron and tetrahedron, two of Plato’s solids, were inextricably woven. Some of the students became equally fascinated. https://81018.com/home/ https://81018.com/tot/

6 Current Expansion, a chart: Starting with Planck Length in December 2011, Planck Time was added three years later, and Mass and Charge were added in February 2015. Today’s working chart emerged in April 2016. It was our first horizontally-scrolled chart whereby any one of the Planck numbers could be readily tracked. Notation 202 has  a duration of 10.9816 billion years, and the current expansion defines the Now, this current moment of time which is shared everywhere throughout the entire universe. https://81018.com/chart/

7 Map of the Universe Using Base-2 (or doublings): Euler was a mathematician’s mathematician. He opened the way to infinitesimal calculus and a most-penetrating analysis of the infinite. We believe Euler will be instrumental in helping us interpret our charts. In 1988, 240 years after being published, one of Euler’s most seminal work, Introductio in analysin infinitorum (1748), was finally translated into English by John D. Blanton. Others quickly followed. We will be using an online translation by Ian Bruce. Of our 202 doublings, from the first notation to at least the 67th notation, could readily be considered infinitesimal. Our goal is to begin to understand the relation between the infinite and the infinitesimal, and we invite you on this journey with us.

8 Kees Boeke’s base 10 work. Here is a precedent for our work. In 1957 in a high school in Holland, headmaster Kees Boeke developed a wonderful teaching tool showing the relative sizes of things with his book, Cosmic View: The Universe in 40 Jumps. Within a short time, it had its champions and today it has become well-known through the world as an IMAX production and several online iterations. It appears that at no time did any scholar attempt to establish causal efficacy between successive notations.

Using base-2, the challenge becomes apparent.

9 All Natural. With the work of Alan Guth (MIT) and so many others in the astrophysics community, the rapid expansion and continued inflation of the universe had become a major issue and stumbling block. Causal efficacy is stretched and strained. In the 1999 conference on structures, the most-elite inner circle of of cosmology threw up their hands and said, “Let’s come up with a better theory.”

In our simple model a natural inflation is readily observed from the start. Several doubling mechanisms have been identified, however, the most-simple doubling, sphere stacking at the infinitesimal domains, could readily account for most all other doubling phenomenon.

This explanation is sweet because it is so simple.

10 Speed of light. The electromagnetic spectrum in some sense of the word extends from Notation 1 to 202. Let us start a deep search of the literature that explores this bandwidth beyond the first possible visible light (within the 94-and-95th notations). What is the initial very, very small charge? Does each new sphere bring and equal charge and do these aggregate with each doubling? Within the chart of numbers, it is assumed that there is an aggregation because at one second, between the 143rd and 144th notations there is a mathematical confirmation of the speed of light.

11 Measuring an interval of light. The Max Planck Institute in Garching Germany has held the record for measuring the shortest interval of time. They are down into the attoseconds (10-18 seconds). It is a long way to go to get to Planck Time at 5.39116(13)×10-44 seconds. Our understanding of the current range is limited. It goes from the somewhat familiar nanoseconds (a billionth of a second) to picoseconds, then to femtoseconds, and finally into attoseconds. Beyond the attosecond there are zeptoseconds and the yoctosecond 10−24, but SI units recognize nothing smaller.

12 Dark energy-matter. Just look at the chart and observe the line for coulombs and the line for mass. Each notation “fills up” so every notation has a percentage of dark energy and dark mass. This would be the most simple explanation for dark energy and dark matter. A science writer was complaining, “I’m the only one who doesn’t have a dark energy and dark matter theory.” So, I wrote to her and said she would be most welcome to adopt ours as her own. You would be welcomed to do the same! Our first analysis, October 18, 2018, is here.

13 Bridges to build. For over 100 years there has been an insurmountable divide between quantum mechanics and relativity theory. Some of the smartest people on earth have been unable to create that bridge. First, all the big bang talk obscured the primary playing field. They now have 64 notations within which to work. It might also help if these exquisitely smart people would create a bridge between the . All the factors involved with those two bridges will also be involved in building a bridge between the infinitesimal and the infinite (another look). All key bridges, none have been built because the experts and scholars have not had room to think or breath. Most have been unaware of those 64 doublings with 19 prime numbers with which to work. Our scholars’ imaginations have been hamstrung with particles and waves.

14 NATO and Structure Formation. At the Isaac Newton Institute for Mathematical Sciences, Cambridge University, the consensus among the world’s best scholars was that the big bang theory needed to be revised. The net-net. These scholars departed from this conference and many engaged in multiverse speculations, and speculations, and speculations. George Ellis, who authored a seminal work (PDF) with Stephen Hawking in 1974, has an excellent commentary, Physics on Edge (Inference: International Review of Science, VOL. 3, # 2, AUGUST 2017), on the fractured belief systems among scholars who study these issues. That seminal work, The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time, was highly influential, but failed to understand the infinitesimal structure of space-time.

15 Bridge Finite-Infinite-Divide: Not often discussed, a Google search in October 2019 with delimiter quotes rendered just 674 results, most referring to a May 24, 2016 article in Quanta Magazine. By using the word, bridge, as a noun, i.e. the “Finite-Infinite Bridge,” Google pulled up just six results of which three are from our work here.

16 May the circle be unbroken: Not often within this kind of discussion are the subjects of ethics and aesthetics engaged, however, within our exploration of concepts that can bridge the finite and infinite, continuity, symmetry and harmony were applied to replace absolute space and time. Within those three concepts an understanding of both aesthetics and ethics emerge.

17 Science & Theology: Too much “positional” time and energy is spent on this topic. Open questions should be clearly and carefully stated without all the positional gestures and maneuvers. We know there is incompleteness. We know that both sides of the equations have “stood their ground.” That is not enough.We need to do better. If we open up the dialogue of first principles in light of the first 64 notations, I predict that ground will be fertile.  Not only will the Abrahamic faiths benefit, all religions including atheism, might discover common grounds. The creation story, the old Genesis story, can be opened up for all.

18 Universals:  One of my earlier considerations of  the emergence of constants and universals

Yes, work continues today, Saturday, October 26, 2019… thank you for your patience.

One of the next articles for this site will use both expressions, Bridge Finite-Infinite-Divide, and  Finite-Infinite Bridge in the title and subtitle. Comments? Please email me (BEC) or complete the form below.

## Please send along your comments or questions.

__________________________

## References, research, and resources:

Initiated in private on Thursday, October 19, 2019
Publicly Posted: Saturday, October 20, 2019
A first draft homepage: Sunday, October 21, 2019
Most active editing: October 19 to October 21, 2019

# Upon following the work of Jeremy Butterfield…

Within this website:
This page:https://81018.com/2019/02/17/butterfield/
FQXi member: https://81018.com/fqxi/#Butterfield
Almost there: https://81018.com/almost/#Butterfield

Most recent email: Monday, December 13, 2021, 10:38 PM

Dear Prof. Dr. Jeremy Nicholas (Nick) Butterfield:

On my bookshelves and sometimes on my desk since 1973, I have had Herbert Butterfield’s The Origins of Modern Science. It’s been in and out of dozens upon dozens of boxes for the many, many moves. He has become like kinfolk. Then I began to  wonder, “Is he Nick’s actual kinfolk?” …uncle, grandfather, father? I wonder, is he?

I continue working that base-2 model from the Planck units. My latest iteration is here: https://81018.com/almost If you might comment, I would be eternally grateful. Thank you.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

Second email: Wed, Jul 31, 2019, 10:18 AM

Primary reference: http://www.qi.damtp.cam.ac.uk/node/1

Dear Prof. Dr. Jeremy Nicholas Butterfield:

Such scholarship. Thank you for all your very substantial work.
As for me, I am barely swimming and often drowning in information overload.

In 2011, with about 90 high school geometry students, we engaged
the Planck scale primarily by unwittingly mapping the universe,
simulating base-2 (versus Boeke’s base-10) by going inside
the tetrahedron by dividing its edges by 2, connecting those new
vertices until in 45 steps we were at about the measurements of
lengths within particle physics. In another 67 steps we were looking
up at Planck’s scale, a wall if you will. Then we multiplied by 2 until
we were out to the approximate age of the universe. We had a total
of just 202.34 notations. References: https://81018.com/home and
https://81018.com/2012/06/14/kolecki/

Not being the brightest lightbulbs to illuminate the spheres, in 2014,
we finally added Planck Time and in 2016 added the other two base units:
Reference: https://81018.com/chart/

Before I make more of a fool of myself than I already have,
would you take a look at this page — https://81018.com/transformation/
which is slated to become the homepage tomorrow.

Might you give me quick advice? Too idiosyncratic for words?
Just silliness? I thank you.

Most sincerely,
-Bruce

First email: Sun, Feb 17, 2019, 9:30 AM

Primary reference: http://www.qi.damtp.cam.ac.uk/node/19

Dear Prof. Dr. Jeremy Butterfield,

My Google Scholar alerts for new citations about George Ellis includes
two references (ArXiv and the PhilSci PDF) to your review of Sabine
Hossenfelder’s Lost in Math.

There are in fact a lot of bad ideas. There is a dearth of simple ideas
that postulate very simple foundations. In 2011 a geometry class in
New Orleans (USA) we went inside the tetrahedron and the octahedrons
within it by dividing the edges by two and connecting those new vertices.
A simple Zeno-like exercise, we also were learning a little about base-2
and then the Planck base units of time, length, mass and charge. It was
surprising to go just 45 steps to the particle physics domain and 67 more steps
into Planck’s scale. When we multiplied by 2, we were out to the size and
age of the universe in just another 90 steps. 202 to encapsulate the universe.

But, so what? Is it just a bunch of numbers? We looked around for a bit and
discovered only Kees Boeke’s base-10. At least some other high school
people had ventured out of the textbook!

The first 64-to-67 notations puzzled us. Well before any possibility of any
measurement by instrumentation, it caused us to look more closely at what
it was defining. The first second comes out between notation 143 and 144.
The first year at notation 169. The large scale universe comes out between
195 and 197. This chart was based on doublings, started at the Planck base
units, and seems to demand that every type of doubling be investigated. We
have gladly learned about bifurcation theory, cubic-close packing, and more.

We always seem to find our way back to DAMTP. But, you are at the most
beautiful, legendary, Trinity College! It seems we’ve got to wrestle with Newton
and Hawking much more than we had ever anticipated. Oh, that question about
renormalization and infinity is ever so present!

What do you make of our simple approach? …simpletons?

We really would appreciate some hard-hitting logic to smack us back into
reality!

Can I politely yell out, “Help! We’re drowning in details!” Thanks.

Warmly,.

-Bruce

_____

# We reach out to many of our finest scholarsin search of a critical review of this work.

##### We recognize that it is difficult for people to take time to rethink the way they see themselves, space and time, our world, and this universe. Those who do not have a mathematically-integrated view of the universe are often quick to discount our nascent model; and as a result, they discount the continuity equation, natural inflation, and symmetry functions that are so self-evident and appear to define it.

Notwithstanding, we simply refuse to give up.

Because big bang cosmology is so central, like a prime mover  in science today, we started at the top of that group: Stephen Hawking, George Ellis, Alan Guth and Andrei Linde. They have all received email and tweets from us, a simple introduction with simple questions. Essentially we ask, “What is wrong with this work?”

Because we started with the Planck base units, we reached out to experts regarding Max Planck and his calculations from 1899. Among these people were Frank Wilczek (MIT), Freeman Dyson (IAS-Princeton), Joe Kolecki (a retired NASA scientist), Jean-Pierre Luminet (a French astrophysicist), and Roger Penrose (Oxford scholar).

Obviously, we have many people to thank. Our list since December 2011 is growing.

We’ll contact anyone.  Many never respond. Yet even they provide a strange kind of validation. These are people who have been quickly introduced to our work. They are very smart and understand the deep problems within physics, yet they have not quickly discounted our work. Perhaps they consider it beneath them or a waste of time. Of all these people, even among the Nobel laureates, the directors of major research labs like CERN in Geneva, and scholars with hundreds of paper and books to their credit, all brilliant people, none had ever considered base-2 notation from the Planck units to the Age of the Universe.

Today, the only articles are those we have written since December 2011 when we began this effort.

So, we are eager to engage anyone, especially those who might encourage our thinking or provide critical insights as to why we are in error.  We will continue to report.  Across the spectrum of people to whom we reach out, it seems that there are many general categories within which people find their identity:

Today, there may not be many people listed within some of these categories. That will change. These lists will now all grow and change most every day.

We have a sense of urgency. We have been actively trying to figure out this model since December 2011. If there is more right than wrong, we will have made our contribution.  If our questions and its simplicity cause us all to get on a better path, that will be good enough.

The work and talent of everybody we reach out to will be linked to their primary websites and overviews. We will only post their responses when encouraged to do so by the writer/scholar. We will also eventually index all of our communications by name and by other key associations.

What drives us? Simple math, simple logic, and faith that continuity, symmetry and harmony are fundamental backbones of rationality, science, and good psychology, and a way to understand the faces of infinity.

# Upon following the work of Ard A. Louis…

ArXiv: Extracting short-ranged interactions from structure factors, 2012
• Generalization bounds for deep learning (PDF), with Guillermo Valle-Pérez, Dec. 2020
CV
Homepage (related)
PNAS: Symmetry and simplicity spontaneously emerge from the algorithmic nature of evolution, Iain G. Johnston, Kamaludin Dingle, Sam F. Greenbury, Chico Q. Camargo, Jonathan P. K. Doye, Sebastian E. Ahnert, Ard A. Louis.  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2022; 119 (11) DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2113883119
Wikipedia
YouTubeGeorge Ellis & Ard Louis, Top-Down Causation (many other videos)
. . . . . . 2020 Physics Colloquium: Why the world is simple

Within this website: https://81018.com/empower/ and https://81018.com/empower/#Louis

Most recent email: Saturday, 18 June 2022 at 3:31 PM

Dear Prof. Dr. Ard Louis:

I don’t believe we’ve fully connected. We’re following your work and have our own page of references plus copies of our emails and tweets since 2017: https://81018.com/2017/01/05/louis/

General science and the public are still largely in step with Newton’s absolutes. Our chart, a base-2 progression from Planck Time to Now (the current time), is more relational and Leibnizian. Its 202 notations logically include everything, everywhere for all time. Worldviews are too limited; this a totally-mathematical view of the universe.

It is worth our time to attempt to disprove it, yet most recently I wrote up:
Concepts That Shift Paradigms:https://81018.com/editors/
The Universe As A Totally-Integrated Systemhttps://81018.com/known/

Might you comment? Thank you.

Warmly,

Bruce

PS. Yes, this model starts with those qualities of pi that seem to define the infinite, (infinity) which then become the basis for ethics and moral judgements. Continuity, symmetry and harmony. Might those qualities work for you? Thanks. -BEC

Fourth email: 21 June 2021

Dear Prof. Dr. Ard Louis:

I am circling back through your work so you’ll see your image along with seven others at the top of the homepage: https://81018.com/ The URL when not a homepage is: https://81018.com/empower/ I am particularly enamored with your December 2020 work with Guillermo Valle-Pérez regarding the Generalization bounds for deep learning.

There is a paragraph about that work under “References.” Yes, it is still being developed and is still an early draft.

Other scholars will be directed to it and to our reference page about your work. If you object, I can easily remove the reference to you. If it needs updating or correction, please advise me. I’ll update it as expeditiously as possible. Thanks so much.

Warmly,

Bruce

PS. My primary reference page to your work is here: https://81018.com/2017/01/05/louis/

Third email: Sunday, December 29, 2019 @ Noon

Dear Prof. Dr. Ard Louis:

You are a real scholar and stand among the greats. To help me understand such scholarship, I have developed a summary page about your work here: https://81018.com/2017/01/05/louis/ (this page)

Then, there are rest of us who just might have an idea in our old age yet must beg the favor of a reply. As you can see, I have been asking for a modicum of advice for over eight years now, and receive very little. Of course, the greats have very little time, especially for those of us who are idiosyncratic. Notwithstanding, I would dearly like to know what my failures of simple logic and simple mathematics have been before I die.

Might you help me? Thank you.

Warmly,
Bruce

Second email: Thursday, June 28, 2018, 10:24 AM

Dear Prof. Dr. Ard Louis:

I have enjoyed your forthright defense of the faith. Potentially another dimension of the debate could be the natural inflation of the universe from the Planck base units using an application of base-2 exponentiation to encapsulate the universe within 202 notations: https://81018.com/emergence

Of course, your comments on this most idiosyncratic construct are most welcomed.

Most sincerely,
Bruce

First email: Thursday, January 5, 2017, 4:16 PM

Dear Prof. Dr. Ard A. Louis:

My brother-in-law introduced me to you through your interview with Eric Metaxas (who talks a lot to get to a question); and while listening to your interview, I went to your home page and to several of your ArXiv articles. You’ve done a lot of very good work in a very short time! Congratulations.

I have only one key question for you; and like Eric, I will probably take too much time to get to it.

I was helping out in our family’s private high school in New Orleans (geometry classes, December 2011). We used tetrahedrons and octahedrons to tile and tessellate the universe (unwittingly re-exploring Aristotle 1800-year old mistake regarding nested and combinatorial geometry).

Out of that work came a surprisingly simple model of the universe. We used base-2 exponentiation starting with the Planck base units and went out to the Age of the Universe, perhaps called, the Now. Of course, it is very similar to the base-10 work of Kees Boeke in 1957 in Holland.

That chart of our numbers was made horizontal in April 2016: https://81018.com/chart

The first 67 notations, we’ve dubbed the Planck scale and the small-scale universe. The next scale, notations 67 to 134, we considered the human scale. It begins at the CERN-scale with the Higgs, fermions, etc. and goes up to chemical scale (80-90) and into the biological scale (90-100) and then into things, people, and city-states. Then, from notations 134 to 201, we entered the large-scale universe. It all seemed like an excellent STEM tool, a secondary school program to encourage  involvement within Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics (STEM).

But something unusual happened when we applied Planck Time to the chart in December 2014. We could  easily follow the first second of the universe, up and between notation 143 and 144. And, then we began thinking about the big bang, natural inflation, and all kinds of topics well over our heads.

It seemed like our chart was simulating the big bang without a bang! Excuse me please that my writing is certainly not ArXiv quality.

Key Question: Do you think it could be worth the time to attempt to get a few of our papers into an ArXiv format or are these concepts just too general and idiosyncratic?

Thank you.

Most sincerely,

Bruce
*************
Bruce Camber
http://81018.com

PS.  We have certainly enjoyed the work of Cambridge/Oxford colleague,  Jonathan P. K. Doye, over the years.

_____

# Big Bang On Ice

## Though this posting began as a cheeky New Year’s Eve Top Ten posting about Big Bang Cosmology, those ten points are slowly being re-worked until the general consensus is that each captures a greater truth.

In that spirit let us focus on #10, then we can work on down to #1.

## #10 It’s a bully.

The big bang theory has been pushing itself around the academic playground since about 1980. It had been just another theory with roots that went back to the 1920s. Then, Stephen Hawking became its spokesperson. George Ellis signed on, Alan Guth and Andrei Linde got involved. Then, it began to take over the sandbox.

There is nothing gentle or introspective about Big Bang Cosmology; today, quite ubiquitous and confident, this theory is always in your face.

Planck Temperature defined this bully’s hot-headed singularity. It elbowed out the four Planck base units, Planck Time-and-Planck Length, and Planck Charge and Planck Mass.

It’s always been counter-intuitive. How is anything infinitely manifest? Is that simple? Does it have an organizing principle? Assume there is a fundamental configuration within thermodynamics that generates the equations of gravity, i.e. an expanded Higgs family or a “true” God-particle, how is quantum information carried?

Big Bang Cosmology is the opposite of simple. It begins with an exquisite complexity of  infinities that have no causal efficacy and it has no analogue in the universe. Regarding just the density issue alone, the densest known thing, a neutron star, doesn’t come close. “Infinitely small” has some folks claiming super-luminal expansion (Sean Carroll takes that on), but even Carroll has problems defining  how temperature, space, time, or particles or quantum fluctuations are established.

Big Bang Cosmology is an aggregation point for problems. It appears to have reached a tipping point. More and more respected academics/scientists are saying, “Get out of the sandbox. Go over and stand in time out.”

There is an unexplored alternative. It rather unwittingly came out of a New Orleans high school geometry class in December 2011 (the back story).  Replicating that classroom exercise is relatively simple.  Use your imagination to go inside a simple tetrahedron. Divide the edges by 2, and discover the four half-sized tetrahedra in each corner and an octahedron in the center (four faces exposed and four faces interior). Continue dividing each object by 2. In about 112 steps you will be very close to the Planck Length. Now, multiply the initial simple tetrahedron by 2. In about 90 steps you are at the Observable Universe. The entire universe in about 200 notations sounds so unlikely  a chart of those notations (all Planck base unit multiples)  opens in a new tab or window. This high school class had been studying embedded geometries to tile and tessellate the universe using the tetrahedron and octahedron.  By dividing by 2,  base-2 exponentiation was employed, perhaps for the first time, to go from the Planck Length to the Observable Universe.

Its natural inflation and the first 67 notations are quite possibly the only logical-simple-deep infrastructure of the universe. It is a systems view, causal sets of basic geometries self assembling in space-time-charge-mass groups, sets, and couplets.

So, let’s argue the key point: Why shouldn’t the universe begin most simply with the basic four Planck base units and proceed, like cellular division, by multiplying by 2?

Notes:  You will notice in the chart that the first second of creation takes us over two-thirds of the way through all the notations, right up between notations 143 and 144. The entire chart is just over 200 notations. We will soon apply the reduced Planck constant and have been told that the number will drop to 200. That is a lot of detail and it defines the first second of the universe predictively, using natural inflation that simulates the big bang epochs better than the big bang theory!

To create a more anthropomorphic sense of the bully, recognize its name:

First name: BigBang   Family name: Cosmology

# We communicate with everybody!

Initiated: Monday, December 19, 2016 Last update: 2 January 2017 Also: Current Alphabetical list Scholars / Specialists Background: The top scientists in the world can not believe that something as simple as base-2 notation could be the initial script that writes the most basic rules for the earliest beginnings of the universe, literally creating each of the known epochs as defined by big bang cosmology (See “LOGIC“).  It would follow that this natural inflation is the current expansion of the universe.  Our challenge is to become scientific enough to begin writing papers that can get through the peer-review process to open the discussion even wider. Our letters to the scholars of the world are an attempt to help sharpen our focus. Our Policy/Procedures:  Our letters that go out to key thinkers throughout the world are published here. Any response to our email-letters-tweets will not be published unless encouraged and authorized by the sender.Herein are links to our communications to scholars-scientists around the world: The initial list and the working list

# On following the work of Andrei Linde

Andrei Linde, Stanford Department of Physics
ArXiv: Inflation, Quantum Cosmology and the Anthropic Principle
Much more to come: TED, YouTube…
Wikipedia

Most recent email: September 14, 2017

Dear Prof. Dr. Andrei Linde:

I was a product of the Boston Colloquium for Philosophy of Science; that’s
the Cohen-Stachel-Wartofsky 1970’s era (Boston University). At that time, 1972,
little had been done with the Planck units. Perhaps Frank Wilczek (MIT) writing
in Physics Today in 2001 helped to move those units beyond a Dirac-like numerology.
Wilczek, both in his office and in a little New Hampshire restaurant, personally
encouraged our investigations.

Of course, over the years, the outside visions of others from other disciplines,
have been welcomed. At other times, those insights have not been so welcomed.
What is space? What is time? What is the finite-infinite relation?
Without better answers to those questions, our derivative disciplines are
like the Whirling Dervishes without proper initiation by the Mevlevi Order.
Most of us simply get dizzy and gain very little insight.

You are so right about studying the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon.
I’ve begun that study.* My self-defined goal for a first paper is due in a month.

Now, this coming week I’ll be in downtown San Francisco for a conference.
I don’t know if you’d ever have the inclination,
but I thought it could be worth asking the question:
Would you have time for a quick meet-and-greet?
Your 70-year old “de facto” student has informally begun his work
on the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon.
A few of my “textbooks” are listed below!

Thanks so much.

Most sincerely,
Bruce
*****************
Bruce E. Camber
Austin, Texas 78701
http://81018.com

PS. Reference articles and books:
• Applications of perturbative QCD (pQCD):  U. AgliettiY SuminoP Skands,
The ubiquitous photon: helicity method for QED and QCD / R. Gastmans, Tai Tsun Wu
The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon: a theoretical introduction, Marc Knecht ( 2003)
E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B223, 422 (1983)
Theory of the Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment
• Wikipedia: Anomalous magnetic dipole moment

First email: Tuesday, November 29, 2016

Dear Prof. Dr. Andrei Linde:

We are nobody from nowhere special. We certainly have no pedigree to justify writing to you.  You have made the origin and the global structure of the universe your life’s work; in 2011, we just started our studies of cosmology and we were literally backing into it through our studies of very simple geometries.

We discovered what we were doing was using base-2 notation to go from the Planck Length to the Observable Universe. It seemed logical. It was part of our high school geometry class focused on tiling and tessellating the universe and on embedded geometries. At first, we posted our results on the web in various blogs. Last summer we finally got our own website: https://81018.com

At first, we declared our studies to be a STEM tool to learn Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics. Then we started adding the other Planck base units and we went out to the Age of the Universe.  At the end of that chart is the Now, today, the current time.

Now, that was puzzling. It seems that scholars are reluctant to criticize or guide us.

Our most recent work is posted here:  http://81018.com  We anticipate that this site will go beyond our high school work.

Are we just idiots?

Thanks.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

Read More »

# Big bang nihilism ails the world. It has become insidious.

###### CENTER FOR PERFECTION STUDIES:CONTINUITY•SYMMETRY•HARMONYGOALS.November.2016HOMEPAGES: ASSUMPTIONS|DARK|FORMULAS|INFINITY|

Big Bang Theory Fails Ethics 101. The history of the big bang theory is substantial. The key epochs of the universe have been defined by big bang scientists since 1931 when the Belgian-born, Georges Lemaître first published his concepts.[1] Though he opened the path to the big bang theory, Stephen Hawking and Alan Guth put the theory on a fast track above all other theories. First, in 1973 Hawking published The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time[2] (written with George Ellis).

In 1979 MIT’s Alan Guth began working on his theories about cosmic inflation. His first lecture about it was in 1980 at Cornell. In 1997 he published The Inflationary Universe: The Quest for a New Theory of Cosmic Origins[3] and became known as the leading advocate for cosmic inflation and his theories became a key part of the big bang cosmology.

Inherent within this leading theory is an extreme skepticism that life has any deep, inherent meaning or intrinsic value (which some have labelled, postmodernity). Profoundly and inherently solipsistic, the Janus-face is narcissism. Over time, narcissism becomes a nihilism. Left unchecked, nihilism becomes dystopian. Notwithstanding, in the defense of Hawking, Guth, Ellis and others, it must be noted that these scientists advocating the big bang (1973 through 2001) did not have the benefit of understanding, or perhaps not even knowing about, the Planck base units.

In 1899 Max Planck began working on these fundamental or natural units based on constants within physics and mathematics. Mostly ignored for over a century, it wasn’t until 2001 when MIT’s Frank Wilczek wrote a series of articles, Scaling Mt. Planck (Physics Today),[4]  did the scholarly community begin to pay attention to Planck’s work. It took the better part of a decade for the rest of the scientific community to catch up with Wilczek. Today these Planck units are a core part of scientific research.

Though a base-10 scale of the universe was introduced by Kees Boeke in 1957 with his book titled, Cosmic View: The Universe in 40 Jumps),[5][6][7] he did not start at Planck Time nor did he go out to the then “best guess” of the Age of the Universe. He missed between 22-to-24 jumps! Nevertheless, this model has been popularized by many. In 2010 the Huang twins introduced their Scale of the Universe.[8] Not until December 2011 had anybody applied a much more granular base-2 to this scale using the Planck length. In December 2014 Planck time was added to that simple model.[9] And then, in 2015 Planck charge, mass and temperature were added.[10]

Perhaps it requires a certain naivete to do this kind of modelling. Using base-2 is 3.333 times more granular than base-10 and it encapsulates the universe within just 202 doublings. The roots for the base-2 model, just like base-10, also go back to a high school. Although base-2 is totally-predictive, as of this writing, it is yet to be critically reviewed by the scholarly community.

In April 2016 all the numbers of this simple model became a horizontal chart so each Planck base unit could be more readily followed. As the primary coordinator for this project, I have said, “All the key numbers associated with big bang cosmology should be examined in light of this simple model.

All theories have an inherent philosophy. The big bang is nihilistic. It has no inherent ordering system. It has no necessary relations. It has no place for values. I think it’s what ails the intelligentsia among the world’s people. Big bang nihilism is insidious. It is destroying civility.

We need to examine all the unanswered questions of the big bang (added link in December 2022) in the light of all the numbers within The Big Board-little universe Project.

These numbers appear to be a simulation of the big bang without the bang. Here is natural inflation from a very small charge to a definition of the total energy of the universe. Base-2 simply means multiplying by 2, over and over again, 202 times. These numbers also fly in the face of Newton and affirm Leibniz by suggesting that space and time are finite, discrete, derivative and relational. If these constants and universals are part of the base of logic, rationality and science, to discern these numbers requires order-and-continuity and relations-and-symmetry. And, these values appear to be inherent within both the finite and the infinite.

References:
[1] Georges Lemaître: Lemaître was a pioneer in applying Albert Einstein’s theory of general relativity to cosmology. We have begun to analyze the key epochs as a whole  and individually: Planck Epoch, Grand Unification Epoch, Inflationary Epoch and Electroweak Epoch.
[2] The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time, Stephen Hawking and George Ellis, 1973
[3] The Inflationary Universe: The Quest for a New Theory of Cosmic Origins, Alan Guth, 1997
[4] Scaling Mt. Planck (Physics Today)
[5] Powers of Ten (1968, re-released 1977) by Charles and Ray Eames
[6] IMAX film Cosmic Voyage (1996) produced for the Smithsonian Institution’s National Air and Space Museum.
[7] Cosmic Eye, short film, Daniel Obreschkow (2012)
[8] Scale of the Universe  (To date, there is no Wikipedia description of the online interactive visualization that uses Flash to go from the smallest to the largest by Cary & Michael Huang.)
[9] A Chart of the Universe with both Planck Time and Planck Length, 2014
[10] A horizontally-scrolled chart of the Universe with the Planck Base Units, 2016

###

For more information:
• Ethics: https://81018.com/ethics/ https://81018.com/solipsism/
• https://81018.com (this website) is the most current site and it is for research and development.
• https://81018.com/chart is the place to find the 202 column chart and an ongoing initial-but-limited analysis.

Note:  Most links within the References open a window within Wikipedia or this website.

2016

# Upon following the work of science writer, Dan Falk

Dan Falk is the author of  In Search of Time and a distinguished science writer from Toronto. His article, A Debate Over the Physics of Time,  was first published in  Quanta Magazine, July 19, 2016 and Atlantic Monthly, July 26, 2016 (just a week later).

Although most of the article is a focus on the June 2016 conference at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Ontario, there are many important concepts and references in this article that need to be part of one’s understanding of the the struggle to understand time.

All of these concepts will be studied in light of our simple model using simple concepts and simple math.