Twelve Open Questions * About Our Universe

Answering “Yes” starts a paradigm shift
by Bruce E. Camber (a working draft)

In 2019 Nobel Laureate James Peebles, Princeton, said that we do not have a theory about the first moments of the universe. He says that we do not know how this universe got its start. So, let’s be asking a few questions:

Is it possible that the very first moment of the universe¹ (much-much smaller than a trillionth-of-a- trillionth of a second) manifests as base units like those defined by Max Planck or George Stoney?
Is it possible that the first manifestation² of those base units is an infinitesimal sphere?
Do the characteristics of pi describe those spheres? (Yes, they do.³)
Does the Fourier Transform impart either electromagnetism or gravitation to each sphere?⁴
Is it possible that one sphere manifests per unit of length and time?
Does that compute to 539 tredecillion spheres per second using Planck units and 4605 tredecillion units per second using Stoney time? Within that range just may be a variable cosmological constant.
Is it possible that the densities within the earliest notations are on the order of a blackhole?
With this generation of infinitesimal spheres, would base-2 notation create a sense of order?
In using base-2 notation, are there 202 base-2 notations from Planck Time to the current time? I believe that simple math is correct.
Are the calculations for Notations 143-and-144 significant? These notations may help to affirm the viability of the model. For example, the simple calculation for time for Notation-143 is .60116 seconds and for Notation-144 it is 1.2023 seconds. At one second the Planck Length multiple is a very close approximation of the distance light travels in that second.
Is it significant that quantum fluctuations are measured within Notation-67? It appears to be the limit of our abilities to measure an actual physical length. Notation-72 appears to be the limit of our abilities to measure a duration of time. A variable domain of perfection is postulated within notations 1-64.
Are notations 1-64 redefinitions of a point, point-particle and a vertex?

Your help is requested. If you can answer “Yes” to any question here, please let us know. If you answer “No” and can tell us why, that response will make a difference (embedded link: https://81018.com/comment/ ) Thanks. -BEC

Those embedded links above (that are not footnotes) open new pages:

_____

Endnotes & Footnotes

* More 12 points: (1) Twelve key concepts (formulas), (2) A twelve-step program (to move beyond big bang addictions), (3) The 2018 Overview (12 points), and, for now, (4) A 12-question survey about the start of the universe. There will be more!

¹The first moment of the universe. One might say, “This is the very start of the universe when space, time, matter and energy are first created.” Yet, there are many in our little world who still affirm Sir Isaac Newton’s absolute space and time; those people might say space and time is forever. That issue has been debated for centuries, the most famous from 1715 to 1716, well-documented within “The Leibniz-Clarke Correspondence” and other papers. It seems, however, that there is a growing consensus that there is an actual starting point for space and time. Even in the Hawking model of the big bang, their postulated start was the beginning of time. -BEC

²The first manifestation. Given that Planck Length and Planck Time are considered the smallest possible units of both, in the base-2 progression, the first measurable length is within Notation-67 and the first measurable unit of time is within Notation-72, the question is, “What is manifest within each notation prior to a possible measurement?” A friend tells me, “Many people believe that spacetime could emerge from pre-geometric concepts.” I ask somewhat rhetorically, “True. So, what is this pre-geometry?” And I answer, “It is the most simple geometries. Don’t make it any more esoteric than it needs to be. Go back to pi. Go back to the dimensionless constants. This domain is hypostatic; it is the foundations of the foundations. Keep it as simple as possible. The simplest thing we know is an infinitesimal sphere. Just two vertices.”

³Of course they do! So many scholars like to make up new words to describe their abstract concepts. Occasionally, some of these concepts get lifted up into the public’s discourse, but it is rare. I believe it is far better to use the words and concepts that are currently available to us. As we go over them just one more time, new insights emerge. I remember the great geometer John Conway asking me, “Why are you so hung up on the octahedron and its tetrahedrons?” My answer, “…because we are missing something. That octahedron has much more to teach us!” He laughed, but knew it was true. We all should know the most simple internal geometries of the octahedron and hardly anybody does. We should all know how the octahedron and tetrahedron emerge from sphere stacking and packing. Hardly anybody does. And, it all starts with most simple-but-utterly-complex pi (π) with its inherent dimensionless constants and continuity-symmetry-harmony.

⁴From Each Sphere. This point will ruffle many feathers. It is a stretch. With electromagnetism and gravity dominating the public discussion for so long, it will be an idiosyncratic leap for sure. I encourage a closer examination of the three commonly-accepted faces of the Fourier Transform. The images on that page come from Wikipedia people. If those faces of the Fourier Transform are the basis for spin, and then the basis for pulling within and pushing out, the paradigm will begin to shift!

______

References & Resources

• Instantons and Four–Manifolds, Daniel S. Freed; Karen K. Uhlenbeck; Mathematical Sciences Research Institute, Springer-Verlag, 1984

• Bell’s Theorem, Non-Computability and Conformal Cyclic Cosmology: A Top-Down Approach to Quantum Gravity, T.N. Palmer, arXiv:2108.10902, August 2021

Every hypothetical particle holds clues. Every formula within Langlands program and string -and-M theory hold clues. They all have to work together and be part of a continuum.

Like the endnotes and footnotes, the references and resources are already within those webpages linked from each question. Notwithstanding, any question coming from our visitors may become a reference or a resource.

_____

Emails

April 21, 2022, Silvia Milana, Nature, London
April 20, 2022, Karen Uhlenbeck, IAS
April 20, 2022, Magdalena Skipper, Editor-in-chief, Nature
April 19, 2022, James Peebles, Princeton
April 15, 2022, Renate Loll, Radboud, Netherlands
April 14, 2022, Jamie Farnes, Oxford
April 13, 2022, Robert Langlands, IAS
Apr 12, 2022, 4:54 PM, David Kaiser, MIT
Apr 12, 2022 @ 10:53 AM, Ulrike Tillmann, Cambridge (Oxford): Redefine the point and vertex.

_____

Apr 18, 2022: @R_Trotta We have a sense of infinity; for most people, it is rather overwhelming. The concept of the universe is, too. Yet, if we engage a mathematically-integrated view, the universe is not so imposing, and infinity is more approachable. Start here: https://81018.com/

@3_takeaways. An integrated view of the universe, especially with pi (π) refocusing the finite-infinite relation, solipsism and narcissism may be replaced by the three basic facets of pi — continuity, symmetry, and harmony. We’ve been duped long enough! https://81018.com/duped/

@blviray @maano The most diverse, equitable mathematics will happen when we have a mathematics for the beginning of the universe, the very beginning or first moment, i.e. Peebles — https://81018.com/peebles/ Everybody will fall in love with math! https://81018.com/question/

@ArnoKeppens @petertallack @sciencefactory Y’all should enjoy a dozen questions about the beginning of the universe. James Peebles (Princeton, Nobel Physics 2019) says we have no theory of the beginning moments. Maybe not …until now. See: https://81018.com/question/

_____

Participate

Worldviews may be comprehensive; but until they include the universe, I believe they are all too small. Our universe view started in 2011. At that time, Kees Boeke’s base-10 was the only one out there. That work was from 1957; and although it has had champions, there has been no thrust by any one group or person to enrich it. Our base-2 view of the universe apparently was a first to be used in a classroom (December 19, 2011) and on then on the web early in 2012. That base-2 model has been championed most every day since that time. Until someone shows us that there is a better, more comprehensive view, we will continue our efforts.

Developing a consensus. This highly-integrated view of the universe is comprehensive. It includes everything, everywhere from all time. It empowers ethical thinking. It begins to demarcate the interface between the finite and infinite. It gives us a foundation to call people to question if they do stupid or sick things.

We invite you critically review this base-2 model of the universe with its 202 notations. Thank you. -BEC

_____

Keys dates for this file, Question

• The URL for this page is https://81018.com/question/
• Initiated: 15 April 2022 (based on an email to Jamie Farnes and Renate Loll)
• It became a homepage on 15 April 2022.
• Last update: Wednesday, 8 June 2022
• Prior Homepage: https://81018.com/checklist/

_____

Worldviews limit perspective

Mathematically-integrated views of the Universe liberate it.

Twelve Open Questions * About Our Universe

Share this:

Like this: