Questions-questions-questions: In search of continuity-symmetry-harmony

Left Yellow Arrow
Right Yellow Arrow

Pages: Blackhole.| C.|.Empower | Hope.|.Mistakes.|.PI (π).|.Redefine.|.Singularity | Sphere. |.TOE.|.Up

Let’s go over this one more time.
Are these the smallest calculations and the largest?
Is Planck Temperature within the very first instant?
by Bruce E. Camber

The smallest. The domain from the Planck scale to the Electroweak scale* is filled with mystery and unanswered questions. Although the Planck scale is widely accepted and its base units of length and time are generally considered to be the smallest, meaningful numbers of length and time, the equations that generate these numbers have not become the focus of our scholars. Nor has its ubiquitous pi. I have pressed our older scholars, people like James Peebles and Peter Higgs, “Why not?” I have pressed those who are just starting to move our conceptual boundaries, people like Malcolm Fairbarin and Isabel Garcia Garcia. There are so many movers-and-shakers (more just below) within specialized disciplines. Our list includes people with whom we have contacted over the years. These are the thinkers who constantly come up with new ideas and concepts to test and texture.

The largest. Certainly the current size of our expanding universe and the current age of the universe might be considered the largest possible numbers of length and time. So, it is a dynamic number and not an actual measurement. Yet, one might argue that the never-ending, never-repeating expansion of the numbers of pi could be larger yet. Dimensionless constants precede dimensional numbers. Building on our earlier work, we’ll continue to review the case based on causal sets and her cousins within those other systems within mathematics, geometry, physics, and cosmology that create continuity-symmetry-dynamics. [1]

Background: People like Pythagoras, E.P. Wigner and Max Tegmark (MIT) believe in numbers and geometries. If equations systemically cohere, the numbers are systemically really real.[2*] There are many of us who hold similar beliefs. We actually believe mathematics and geometries order and relate all things within the universe. And, within this site with our chart of the universe, we take it a step further; we believe that our base-2 exponential model defines and encapsulates everything, everywhere for all time, right on down to each hypothesized, infinitesimal sphere within the Planck scale. The mathematics defines a real reality and we need to begin to discern how it all works, and its implications for technology and our understanding of the key questions about life.

In that vein, there are many tetrahedral-octahedral paths through the honeycomb [2*] and each is really real. Dropping down by dividing by two, there are 112 base-2 steps from the desktop into the Planck-scale. Going out by multiplying by two, there are 90 base-2 steps to the age-and-size of the universe. Those 202 base-2 steps from the smallest to the largest are like pi, always changing and never-repeating. Although the numbers of pi, the 3.14159+ continue linearly, it is a most intimate part of our base-2 expansion. It defines every primordial sphere that has been filling this universe since the first instant at a rate perhaps anywhere from around 539 tredecillion (Planck Time) to around 4605 tredecillion (Stoney time) infinitesimal-primordial spheres per second. Possibly more symbolic than actual, those numbers of infinitesimal spheres per second are a challenge. [3]

Questions, questions, questions: Are these insights that could finally open the doors to the begin to grasp the hyper-interconnectivity of all things, everywhere, throughout all time? Who has similar insights? Who can help us understand the strengths and weaknesses of this thinking? [4]

Scholars and their focus

People, people, people: In 1975 a friend, Patricio Letelier, introduced me to the basic concepts within string theory as understood at that time. Today, people like Ed Witten, Nathan Seiberg, Stefan Vandoren and Dean Rickles are at the forefront of current work; and it is entirely obvious, something is missing.

In 2013 I was introduced to Langlands programs. My first contacts were Edward Frenkel and Robert Langlands. I continued my studies with the work of people like Ngô Bảo Châu, Vladimir Drinfeld, Stephen Gelbart, Laurent Lafforgue, Vincent Lafforgue, Gérard Laumon, Michael Rapoport and Andrew Wiles. How do we connect these programs to other dimensions of physics? Something is missing. Might Emil Artin’s work help?

Since 2015 I’ve also engaged people working within causal dynamical triangulation (CDT). Renate LollJan Ambjørn and Jerzy Jurkiewicz started those investigations. Fotini Markopoulou and Lee Smolin have tried to explain that work to the wider public. It has been said that it is an approach to quantum gravity that, like loop quantum gravity, is background independent. Although credited with many successes, physics is still splintered. Even within CDT something is missing.

How about causal set theory (CST)? It is the work of Rafael Sorkin, David Malament, Nick Huggett, James Owen Weatherall and Christian Wüthrich. Nick and Chris have been especially helpful. Yet, there are many others with insights. I’ll continue my studies of the work of colleagues like David P. Rideout, Graham Brightwell, and Ruth Gregory. Going back further, Luca Bombelli, Joohan Lee, and David Meyer contributed to the 1987 landmark article, Space-time as a causal set. It is all very compelling, but not compelling enough. Something is missing.

I continue to search. What about scalar field theory with Michael Peskin and Pierre Ramond? Right alongside is loop quantum gravity (LQG) and her thought leaders, Abhay Ashtekar, Carlo Rovelli, Jorge Pullin, and then, Jerzy Lewandowski, Francesca Vidotto, Israel Gelfand, Mark Naimark** and Irving Segal.

Also, I’ve looked into work on the spectral standard model, and particularly the work of Ali H. Chamseddine, Alain Connes and W.D. van Suijlekom. None have clearly broken through. [Please note: Those listed in gray type are deceased. We’re all dying; our pretensions are silly.]

So often, an article in publications like of Scientific American, Quanta Magazine, or Physics Today throws us a curve ball. In what group would you place those intrigued with the Moonshine Shadow? …mostly string theory? …number theorists? It’s real and it has another group of brilliant people like John McKay (1978), Don Zagier, Richard Borcherds, Shamit Kachru, John Duncan (Case Western Reserve), Miranda Cheng (NL), Jeffrey Harvey, Igor FrenkelJames Lepowsky, Arne Meurman, David Kaplan, Tohru Eguchi, Hirosi OoguriYuji Tachikawa, Sander Zwegers, Ken OnoMichael Griffin, and Terry Gannon. I thought, “Wouldn’t it be fun to have them all in one Zoom session? Martin Bridson could lead it!

Every scholar listed here knows that a radical paradigm shift is in order.

That it might be simple requires a bit of introspection about our essential nature, but that’s good. Let us all become a bit more introspective. [5]

Pi is much too plebeian for our leading thinkers. “Been there; done that.” Yet, I say, “Let’s go over this one more time. We’re missing something:”

  • Is pi the most simple relation?
  • Does it define the most simple thing?
  • Could that simple thing be a bedrock for all other things?

An infinitesimal sphere… I think so. And, I would like to encourage as many people as possible to reconsider pi. Perhaps Edward Burger, former mathematics professor at Williams College and once the president of Southwestern University (Georgetown, Texas), can help. His article begs the question,  Pi: The Most Important Number in the Universe?

Could pi be both the smallest possible number that literally defines the first moment of time that renders the first spheres that began stacking, and continues to stack, and interconnects everything everywhere for all time? Could it be the largest possible number because it continues to go steps beyond the size of the universe and the current time because it defines both!

** In this website if the words are a person and are in light gray, that person has died.


Question: If it is a quiet expansion up to the moment of the first possible physics for sound waves, who hears it?
Answer: We do not, we cannot, and we will never hear anything from these the earliest notations. It appears only possible within Notation-202.


Crisis of Confidence, The Gift of Openness

Confessions. On Monday, November 1, 2021, we started a new month and it was time to review old documents in light of today’s simple grasp of where we are. For some reason, the Planck Temperature was bothering me. So many brilliant people are still so profoundly committed to it.

It started bothering me so much I opened our horizontally-scrolled chart and followed the numbers up and down those 202 notations. Back and forth, back and forth, for some reason, the inverse square law jumped into my simple equation of state and I wondered, “Is that crazy? What is that first moment? Ex nihilo? If the inverse square law applied from Planck Temperature at Notation-0, within 100 notations, it would be within the range of the quark-gluon temperatures. Does that have any logical footing?”

In 2015 when we first began thinking about Planck Temperature, it was too difficult for me. I decided to put if off into the future. “We can deal with it later.” I put it in Notation-203 and divided by 2. By Notation-0 it was as close to absolute zero as it could possibly be.

Five years passed, and later came sooner than I expected. I had begun thinking, “Let’s see what those numbers would look like with Planck Temperature at the beginning (Notation-0). Obviously it would not double with the other numbers. Perhaps there is a justification to divide by 2. Maybe the inverse square law could be applied.”

I took the old chart, made a copy and began taking those numbers down from the hottest possible start.

Question. I asked myself, “Could some kind of extra logic or metalogic might help?”

I wrote a little about those thoughts within the prior homepage. With this paragraph and within the context of continuity equations from the smallest to the largest, we begin a process of peeling back the layers of ideation since about 2013 and 2014 as we wrestled with Planck Time, and then 2015 as we wrestled with Planck Mass and Planck Charge, and 2016 when we rather arbitrarily shelved Planck Temperature. “It will be at least 7 billion years before we need to explain its location.”

That was irrational. I was thinking about the duration of Notation-202 which is 10.98+ billion years. If the universe at Notation-202 is already 10.98 billion years, we’ve only had a small sampling of 3+ billion years that has defined this universe to date.

Within systems theory there has to be a rationale for every decision and this was one of the most important that I could make. Is it hot or is it cold? Of course, that’s extremely hot or extremely cold. The more I thought about it, the more that extremely-hot entry point and an inverse square law began to reveal glimmers of possibility. Where is light in all these equations? What is light? What are photons? If Planck Temperature decreases inversely — because there was so-very-little to hold such a temperature — might that open a path for a new inquiry?

So, let us re-explore the question, “Could that infinitely hot start have any cogency?” [6]

The temperature itself from the calculations of Max Planck would require much more study and reflection. So, yes, let’s continue to look at these numbers and progressions. Thank you. -BEC



* The range, Planck scale to the Electroweak scale. The prior homepage is about the 23rd conference (June 2021) to focus on that range, Planck scale to the Electroweak scale. It was coordinated by the Institute for Particle Physics Phenomenology of Durham University in England. Neither the conference nor IPPP has recognized the 64 base-2 notations from the Planck Scale to the Electroweak Scale. One of my reasons for focusing on this group of scholars is to invite their critical review. The essential question is, “Do we start our exploration of the infinitesimal from known particle-wave phenomenology or do we start with a hypothetical question about the most simple, infinitesimal structure that could define the first dynamic layers of space and time?”

Our focus is on pi and the 64 base-2 notations (out of the 202 that encapsulate everything, everywhere for all time).

[1] Scholars. People like James Peebles, Peter Higgs, Malcolm Fairbarin, Isabel Garcia Garcia, Max Tegmark, and over 60 other scholars who are listed and linked are among our world’s thought leaders living today. They are among the best of the best, the smartest of our smart. As a people, they do not come any better.

Could they all be assuming that they profoundly understand the very nature of pi? Would any of them dare go back and review it all just one more time? I don’t know, yet I will try to find out.

[2] Structure. If we know that the Planck Length and Planck Time are the smallest meaningful numbers of length and time, shouldn’t we ask, “Might a structure manifest within that time and length?” Why not start with the smallest numbers and assume these numbers are describing the smallest structure? Might the structure be a circle and/or a sphere? Isn’t there a lot we can still learn about spheres within the infinitesimal scale? When does the Fourier Transform begin? At what notation does sphere stacking begin? At what notation does infinitesimal cubic-close packing of equal spheres begin to generate the tetrahedron and then the octahedron? At which notation does that the five tetrahedral gap manifest and fluctuations begin? Can any of these ‘pure structures’ be more fundamental than quarks and neutrinos?”

[3] Epistemology. The earliest-known calculation of pi is found within the Rhind Papyrus from about 1650 BC. It appears to be the oldest and most-used equation in the world today. It permeates everything. If we allow pi and the sphere to permeate our thoughts, the first thing we discern is its continuity, then its symmetry, and finally its harmony and the Fourier transform. Are these the qualitative faces of the infinite that become the quantitative faces of the finite? Might we concur that here we begin to grasp the derivative nature of space-time and matter-energy? Are all those infinistirmal spheres, literally tredecillions per second, ostensibly the envisioned aether? Do we need to go over this one more time?

[4] Even More Questions. Why haven’t the folks within string and M-theory found their connection to particle physics? It’s been well over 50 years. Do the first 64 notations between the Planck scale and electroweak scale elude them? Just watch one of Leonard Susskind’s lectures. He is just too close to quarks, gluons, hadrons, protons and atoms, and he does not have any articulation of the length, weight (mass) scales from Planck to electroweak. Those 64 base-2 notations are a new universe of possibility.

We’ll continue this discussion with Susskind, Greene, and many of the other leading theorists. I have been particularly frustrated with the Langlands Program. They know they are in a mathematical, theoretical world. The 64-notations below possible thresholds of measurement provide a sweet entryway without getting into point particles and the limitations of two dimensions. Obviously, I am missing something (not unusual for me). Yet, just maybe they are missing those 64 base-2 steps out of the 202 base-2 doublings from the Planck scale. Yes, just maybe.

[5] Let us become a bit more introspective. My wife often tells me, “People can not be absurd to themselves.” That is, if you have spent your life defending an intellectual position, it is very difficult to change direction. Max Planck said,

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather… science advances one funeral at a time.”

[6] The cogency of an extremely-hot start. Could there be a progression within laser thermodynamics that follows the path of Planck Temperature down into the range of 2.75 Kelvin? To search for an answer, perhaps it is time to re-engage the study of laser thermodynamics? Could there be two tracks, one that is a very stretched analogue of big bang progression but it is limited to a single flash at Notation-0 and it is the Planck Temperature, and then it decreases exponentially following the inverse square law? The other track is as we have intuited, an explosive number of infinitesimal spheres being generated at Notation 1. Then, it approximates our original chart with the temperature increasing exponentially from close to absolute zero. Does that earliest generation of temperature require differential equations between the two?


Editor’s notes: The most dynamic part of this page follows. These are the evolving endnotes/footnotes, references, emails, and instant messages. Your comments are most welcome.


Right Yellow Arrow






@malcfairbairn @FrancesVidotto and others: Pi is too plebeian for our leading thinkers, “Been there. Done that.” I say, “Let’s go over it one more time. We’re missing something.” Is pi the most simple relation? Does it define the most simple thing? Could that simple thing be a bedrock for all other things?

@USProgressives If things are ever to change fundamentally, we need to break free of our little worldviews and begin to engage an integrated view of our universe. We all think too small. We all fall short. We need to see the whole. A simple start is here:

@gary_zukav Just took your WuLi (next to Capra’s Tao) off the shelf. Checked your TOC for infinity, spheres, Planck Time. Studied with Bohm, Aspect, Bell… congrats on all you’ve done. Break though time: by dropping worldviews for integrated UniverseView!


Invitations and Collaborations

With whom do we collaborate? Of the thousands of people who visit this site every month, who among them might say, “May I help?” Our only thrust is that the foundations of this universe and life itself be seen in light of infinity and the continuity-symmetry-harmony that the infinite engenders. Please, talk to us. Thank you. -Bruce


Key dates for this document, questions-questions