**CENTER FOR PERFECTION STUDIES: CONTINUITY•SYMMETRY•HARMONY•** USA•GOALS•August.2019

**HOMEPAGES**: ASSUMPTIONS|DARK|EMERGENCE| INFINITY|Inflation|Letter| REVIEW|Scholars|START

# Are Planck’s base units the first instant?

# Is this the beginning of the universe?

###### by Bruce Camber

Related Homepages: Base-2 Model, **Integrated Structure**, **Lemaître-to-today, **Subjects-Objects, Time

**The nature of Planck Time ( tP) is the root question**. First,

*tP*is directly correlated with length (a Janus-face of the most-basic length) and with light. It works in much the same way Einstein’s well-known equation, e

_{0}=mc

^{2}

*dynamically*relates mass, energy and light.

The four Planck base units are natural units and each is defined by the most fundamental universal constants. Though difficult to envisage, it is hypothesized that each is a Janus-face of the other.

**This simple math works**. Our first and the most basic formula, the one that Max Planck defined in 1899, is: *“Planck Length divided by Planck Time is equal to the speed of light*.” Throughout all 202 notations, the calculation is always within .1% of the speed of light in a vacuum (299,792,458 meters/second). In 1899, the best guess for the speed of light was Leon Foucault 1862 calculation using rotating mirrors. It was 298,000 and the Rosa-Dorsey work in 1907 rendered 299,710,000 m/s. Planck’s base units render 2998,792,422.8 m/s. A closer figure would not be rendered until 1972.

**Could these four base units (and light) be the very first moment of time?** Within this model the answer is, “Yes.” Still quite open are answers to questions about how and when the other dimensionless constants come into play, especially those attributed to the essential natural of the Standard Model of Particle Physics. Given the values of the four Planck units and light, there can be no singularity *per se*. Yet, the dynamics describe a fundamental transformation nexus between what we understand to be finite and that which appears to be infinite (perhaps best understood as continuity, symmetry, and harmony).

**Could this universe start cold?** It appears to have been Lemaître’s position and *de facto* it became our position as well. In 1999 the limitations of the hot big bang were acknowledged by its prime movers at a conference at Cambridge University. “*Come up with alternatives!*” Now, twenty years later, they’ve tried, but failed to determine the first expression, the first facet, and the fundamentals that define our reality. How does it all come to be? What is the first look-and-feel of that manifestation?

**Could it be a sphere?** John Archibald Wheeler imagined *quantum foam*. Others are also suggesting a sphere and these spheres have been called *planckspheres*. Add light to this concrescence of Planck Time, Planck Length, Planck Mass, and Planck Charge and the rate by which these spheres are created might readily be described as an endless string.

**Can cubic close packing of equal spheres (ccp) be applied at this scale?** The thrust within our universe, at least within this model, has been going on right from the start. The concept is of a universe filling within infinitesimal spheres that tile-and-tessellate the universe creating multiple grids that are initially described by *ccp* and the Fourier transform.

**Could this stacking amount to a doubling and then a series of doublings?** If this simple logic and simple math is on the right path, within 202 doublings (base-2 notations), these Planck base units always encapsulate: 1) the age of the universe, 2) the size of the universe, 3) the total mass of the universe, and 4) the total energy of the universe. It is all happening right now. The universe is expanding. Exploring such a simple model has been our effort since December 2011: https://81018.com/home/

**Please explore our little, horizontally-scrolled chart of numbers** to get a sense of this emergence and natural inflation. The first 64 notations are the key. The URL is: https://81018.com/chart/ It is too simple, so simple it seems perhaps a bit of silliness. But if you look at the numbers, there is a sweet logic that prevails. https://81018.com/calculations

I’d be pleased to hear from you. Yes, challenge us, coach us. We need all the help we can get.

**More questions.**

**Origin**: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Problems_and_related_issues_in_physics

- How is big bang cosmology (and base-2 natural inflation) consistent with General Relativity?
- How does big bang cosmology (and base-2) explain the Hubble expansion of the Universe?
- How can big bang cosmology (and base-2 natural inflation) explain the abundances of the light elements?
- How does big bang cosmology (and base-2 natural inflation) explain CMBR, the existence and properties of the cosmic microwave background radiation?
- How does big bang cosmology (and base-2 natural inflation) account for what is called the horizon problem whereby photons are roughly the same temperature — 2.725 degrees Kelvin — wherever you look in the universe?
**How does big bang cosmology (and base-2 natural inflation) account for what is called**? Almost all the evidence collected by cosmologists indicates that the Universe is flat. Like a sheet of paper on a desk, spacetime shows almost no curvature whatsoever.*Flatness Problem*- What about the magnetic monopole? All magnets have two poles, a north and a south. Even when a magnet is snapped in half the two poles remain. But this particle would effectively be a magnet with only one pole: a magnetic monopole!
- Why does the universe have more matter than antimatter?
^{[98]} **Why is the triangular lattice universally optimal?**One needs only to look at the simple ccp dynamic gif, the Fourier transform and the first group of foundational notations as understood within a model that begins with Planck’s base units:

**Personal history**:

**In 2011 we actively began to question the big bang and its cosmology**.

- In 2014 we publicly questioned it.
- By 2016 we were actively advocating against it believing that its conceptual framework is inherently destructive.
- By March 2018, we suggested that it be unplugged.

**Ruminations**:

- Joseph Silk: “Dark matter is here to stay but what is it? Should we change our theory if we fail to detect dark matter within a decade, or two?” (PDF, page 9) Our initial shot at it.
- Eric Lerner: The density predictions made on the basis of the abundance of deuterium, lithium-7 and helium-4 are in contradiction with each other, and these predictions have grown worse with each new observation. The chance that the theory is right is now less than one in one hundred trillion. (1991)
- Paul Halpern (
*The Big Bang’s Identity Crisis*, PBS-TV, Fri, 30 May 2014): The discovery of the CMB was a victory for the Big Bang theory, yet it also presented a puzzle: The radiation was strikingly uniform across the sky. Later studies identified tiny variations of less than one part in 10,000 and the standard Big Bang model couldn’t justify such uniformity. There simply wasn’t enough time in early cosmic history, when the universe was small, for energy to have traveled across space and evened out its temperature. - Enter the concept of inflation, proposed in 1981 by Alan Guth, and later modified by Andrei Linde, Paul Steinhardt, Andreas Albrecht, and others.
- Max Tegmark has made this case in a recent blog post.
- Explore
**SGA7**. In what ways could the Beauville–Laszlo theorem help?