by Bruce Camber, March 2018, “Where’d we go wrong? We ain’t got it right.” Next Homepage Prior Homepage
The generally-accepted model is the Big Bang Theory but it has many problems.
Stephen Hawking of Cambridge University was the world’s leading salesman for the Big Bang theory. Then perhaps Alan Guth of MIT (pictured on the left) follows. In 1979 he was just 32 years old when he started to address major issues within his initial lectures at Cornell about The Inflationary Universe.
Here is how one writer characterizes it: “Once upon a time, about 13.8 billion years ago, our universe sprang from a quantum speck, ballooning to one million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion times its initial volume (by some estimates) in less than a billionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second. It then continued to expand at a mellower rate, in accordance with the known laws of physics.” – Natalie Wolchover (pictured on the right), author, “Physicists Hunt…”, Quanta Magazine (April 19, 2016)
There are alternatives; these are our favorites:
I would say, “Over 13.8 to 14.1 billion years ago, it all started from the Planck base units of space-time and matter-energy. That is Planck Length-Planck Time and Planck Mass-Planck Charge. There are multiple thrusts within life that caused the first doubling, and then another and another. The universe starts at the very first moment of time calculated as the Planck Time and then it all comes up to the current day in just 202 doublings. We follow the simple math.” March 1, 2018, 81018.com.
Cosmic Inflation or Natural Inflation? Alan Guth (MIT) and other leading scholars like Andrei Linde (Stanford) may well be mistaken. In 1979, when Guth introduced his ideas at Cornell, the Planck base units were little known and not held in high regard. It wasn’t until 2001 when Frank Wilczek began writing his three articles, Scaling Mt. Planck, did the scholarly community begin to take notice. My first note to Guth about our charts wasn’t until June 2016. He was 69 years old, his career mostly behind him; and after so much work and abuse to get to the pinnacle, perhaps the only thing left to do was defend his positions. Moreover, the Planck units do not work within big bang cosmology. It is such a fundamental shift, it is just easier to ignore to them. And, since 2001 the scholarly community has selectively engaged them. More: Why now?
A natural inflation of the universe is imposed by this base-2 chart. The thrust of life is a concept largely ignored by scholars. The analysis on this site only began in earnest in June 2017. And, a more granular effort has begun to emerge with a notation-by-notation analysis. It is guessed that the first doubling (A1) is when and where everything is manifest as spheres. The next doubling (A2) is a very simple manifestation of sphere-stacking and it may be the beginning of projective geometries. The third doubling just might initiate Euclidean geometries (A3).
Big Bang Theory Assumes Newton’s Absolute Space and Time. If we were all to look up into a clear night sky, invariably someone says, “It goes on forever.” That is a commonsense worldview and it is straight out of Newton’s 1687 playbook, Principia. He may well be wrong and all our commonsense worldviews may well be, too.
If Newton started us off in the wrong direction with his absolutes, and then Stephen Hawking picked up on it and went further out in the wrong direction with his bang, then Alan Guth so creatively built everything around that bang, did we end up with a rather strained concept of inflation? What can we do? Where do we go from here?
Changing our commonsense worldviews is not easy for any of us. All of our old assumptions about the nature of things become comfortable, even if not profoundly engaged. Those like Hawking and Guth who engage that mindset most seriously become enormously creative and they use their substantial gifts to create theories that do not easily cohere with all the simple mathematics and observations of current science.
Yes, there is nothing easy about changing the basis of our commonsense.
Also, in several earlier posts we observed how difficult the finite-infinite relation has been for science. Within my contemplations about that fact, a very different kind of commonsense tells me that a nexus of transformation between the two is the most important concept that we can possibly address. To the degree our concepts are off between the finite-infinite relation is the degree all the rest of our sciences will be off.
A very rudimentary analysis of the Planck base units, A0, begins to define some aspect of that transformation nexus. Yet, even more foundational may be the sense of thrust. Since 1972, I have been saying, “Deep within the fabric of life there is an energy, an abiding thrust to make things better, more perfect.” It has taken me the better part of fifty years to begin to understand what it means.
If space-time is derivative, then what could be foundational? It’s certainly easy to empathize with Newton and to feel why he lifted space-and-time out of the box. The two seem more foundational than any other facet of our reality. But, what might constitute that thrust? Is there is a fabric within this universe to make things better? Though space-and-time seem more definitive and seem to define continuity and symmetry, in what way does that account for that thrust to make things more perfect? So, I asked, “What is perfection?” That is when I began to see continuity not just as a description of time, but as the manifestation of time. I saw symmetry not just as a description of space, but as the manifestation of space. And, I saw harmony not just as a description of space-time, but as the earliest manifestations of space-time. Continuity, symmetry and harmony may be an adequate description of the expression of the infinite within the finite universe, and the three taken together could account for that thrust toward making things more perfect. We’ll see.
It is here that we shall focus a significant portion of our energies. Thank you. More…