**CENTER FOR PERFECTION STUDIES**: CONTINUITY•SYMMETRY•HARMONY • AUSTIN, TEXAS • USA • Goals • 2018

**PAGES**: ASSUMPTIONS | DARK | **FORMULAS** | INFINITY | **Map** | KEYS | **RELATIONS** | **Transformation** | **UP**

## An open letter to everyone, including Hawking’s colleagues^{1}

# Redefine Space, Time And Infinity^{2}

###### BY BRUCE CAMBER, **MARCH 2018** (June 201 Edition)

Dear friends:

Among our creatively-aggressive and confident scholars, three physicists, Neil Turok of Perimeter Institute, Nima Arkani-Hamed of the Institute for Advanced Studies, and Max Tegmark of MIT have been calling for a fundamental reorientation to the most basic constituents of reality, all concepts, which will necessarily require a deep redefinition of space, time and infinity. For these three, renormalization doesn’t go far enough. Max wants to throw out the concept of infinity. Nima wants to throw out time! At least Neil is trying to redefine all three.

**They ask, “What could be more fundamental?”** If we throw out all preconceptions, what might be more fundamental? What concepts could abide? How about a circle or sphere? What are we missing with such a simple-but-ubiquitous concept? Does it exist anywhere within our current theories? If not, why not? How might something as fundamental as a circle and sphere be more fundamentally defined? If we look at its never-ending, never-repeating numbers, is there a clue? If we look at its perfections, are there more clues? If we look deep within to its inherent dynamics, do we find even more clues? If I answer, yes, to all three questions, may I propose *general* concepts but with very *specific* meanings could redefine our fundamentals? We know them well: continuity, symmetry and harmony.

**My redefinition imputes fundamentality to these ****concepts**:

1. Continuity begets *order* begets *numbers* which beget *time*.

2. Symmetry begets *relations* which beget *geometries* which beget *space*.

3. Harmony begets *dynamics* which begets *systems* which begets *space-time*.

Continuity-symmetry-harmony, taken as a whole, first redefines how we understand the infinite and then it redefines the finite such that space-and-time are derivative and quantized. If we apply base-2 to the Planck units of Length/Time and Mass/Charge we create a very special chart of the universe. It maps a natural inflation^{3} or a thrust within our universe such that every unit is accounted and related. There are just 202 steps, base-2 notations or doublings to create our first totally mathematical map of the universe from the very first moment to the Age of the Universe today and to the size of the Observable Universe right now.

That chart is here: https://81018.com/chart/ Around the 67th doubling we begin to measure particles in space.^{4} This is a rather small section that is perhaps best described as “the CERN scale.” Not until the 84th doubling, can we finally measure a unit of time. Between the 143rd and 144th doubling comes the first second of our universe, by the 169th doubling comes a light year. Within the 189th doubling we have what happens with one million years of processing. By the 199th doubling an aeon (billion years) shapes our universe. Within the 202nd doubling, we emerge with a rather complete map of a logical and highly-integrated mathematical and geometric universe.

If we review just a small sampling of those 202 doublings, there is a logic and a flow with over 1000 real numbers to examine. An initial analysis — https://81018.com/planck_universe/ — of six sets of numbers, somewhat evenly distributed across the 202 notations, individually and as a whole, support the logic of a *quiet expansion*; plus the numbers support the current definitions of the cosmological epochs better than the guesstimates and estimates from within the *infinitely-hot, infinitely-dense* start proposed by Guth, Hawking and so many other scholars. A rather lengthy analysis is here: https://81018.com/2016/06/01/quiet/

Though idiosyncratic and quite unlike current scholarship, to open a discussion, I have created a page of long-term and short-term goals to analyze: https://81018.com/goals/ The next step is to continue to consult with imaginative-but-scholarly mathematicians to discern if there are mathematical and geometrical processes that build off of the most simple and most-used dimensionless constants that might define the first ten notations.

*Let us begin with pi*. Thank you.

_______________

Your comments are most welcomed on any page, i.e. https://81018.com/why-now/ – BEC

_______________

^{1} Most of our visitors know that Hawking died on Pi Day 2018. The homepage on Pi Day referenced the BBC announcement as well as the place of Pi within our scholarship. There was also a reference to a new page of tweets and links about Hawking’s death.^{2} This header title is the “RE” or “Subject” of this open letter. Then comes a salutation and then the content as given above. This letter is being sent to all of those cited here.^{3} There are two early postings about this thrust and natural inflation: https://81018.com/ni and https://81018.com/thrust *More recently*^{4} The first 67 doublings, 1-to-67, have never been recognized *as such* by our scholarly community. We hypostatize that 1-to-64 is strictly a geometrical, logical, and mathematical domain. Perhaps it is a place for some kind of hypostatic science:

Why now? And even more: https://81018.com/hypostatic