PERFECTION STUDIES: CONTINUITY•SYMMETRY•HARMONY GOALS.January.2025
PAGES:.CHECKLISTS.|.REFERENCES |.READINGS | EMAILS.| IM | CRITIQUE.| Zzzz’s
Five Mistakes In Science Mislead the World
by Bruce E. Camber (page-at-work — early draft)
Abstract.
Our biggest mistake is to think we know when we only partially know. At some point, simple mistakes are coupled with observations and become “our best possible” description of reality. Even though we know that description is incomplete, theory gets presented as fact. It’s not good for science and it confuses everybody.
These, I believe, are our Big Five mistakes that are profoundly misleading the world:
• Hawking’s Big Bang is blocking the view of a new theory. It’s a blind spot.
• Planck-Bohr-Schrödinger-Heisenberg-Dirac-Born made indeterminacy “an absolute.”
• Hilbert and others put infinity in time out and then made it untouchable.
• Newton’s absolutes have staying power because Einstein couldn’t tell time.
• Aristotle’s 1800 year-old mistake still drifts even after another 600 years.
Arrogance: It blinds us from further analysis and reflection. Even the most arrogant can decide not to be arrogant. What happens to the human family when we base our understanding of things on the incompletes, mistakes, and erroneous assumptions? What happens when we lack the integrity to own up to our mistakes and lack of good judgment and discernment?
Key words: Natural geometric gaps, tetrahedral gap, octahedral gap, absolute space, absolute time, space-time, all time is now, infinity, Hilbert, Gödel, Planck, Bohr, Schrödinger, Heisenberg, Dirac and Born, Hawking, Lemaître, NIST, CODATA, and ISO
Introduction. Mistakes are mistakes. But because there is often some element of truth within our errors of discernment and judgment, there is always a way to rationalize and justify awkward beliefs. To that end let us now review all five statements which are believed to be historical, major mistakes that continue to mislead the world. We will be going over these five many more times, for years… perhaps for the rest of our life.
I. Hawking gave Lemaître’s big bang theory the universe and too much authority.
In 2011 when this study began, we were a bit cautious. We’ve been less cautious since 2016. We’ve been wrestling with facts about big bang cosmology. It had no notations, no exponential numbers, and no geometries. It had no Planck base numbers, no semblance of dimensionless or mathematical constants. It did have its unique event, a big bang, that had not been replicated in any form. One might say that it had rather daring mythopoetics that did a marginal job outlining our universe. Either we were missing something obvious with our simple exponential notation and couldn’t quite figure out what that something was, or big bang cosmology was flawed. It had no sense of the first moment of time although Planck, Stoney and the ISO had been giving us numbers for over 100 years. Wouldn’t at least one set of numbers serve as a starting point for testing? Of the theoretical units that have been called the smallest-possible physical units of time and length, we took Planck’s base units as given.
Also, although our start in 2011 was within a progression of encapsulating geometries of tetrahedrons and octahedrons, we quickly learned how those geometries were derived from circles and spheres. The concept of an infinitesimal sphere defined by dimensionless and mathematical constants was rich with logic, numbers and equations. Big bang cosmology ignored those numbers, geometries (especially the spheres) and equations. For us, it was all too rich to ignore. We had to continue asking questions.
Isn’t a particle or a wave an equation? Isn’t pi (π) bundled with other equations most readily? At some time we will know if it is the most easily bundled equation with others. I assume it is.
Also, spheres also give us equations for continuity-symmetry-harmony. Those equations give us order, relations, and dynamics. These became facets of everything finite. These are value equations whereas big bang cosmology discounts the qualitative.
II. Planck-Bohr-Schrödinger-Heisenberg-Dirac-Born made indeterminacy “an absolute.”
To begin to see the foundations of quantum theory as a geometry opens research in many new ways. To pull it out of the “abyss of absolutes” and to give it an actual structure will re-energize the industry. These foundations do not change any results based on measurements and experimentation. This geometry of the gaps gives it numbers and angles and groups to follow it deeper, further, and more accurately.
Again, we defer to those experts who have been studying the foundations of functional dependencies for generations. Although they have been unable to answer questions about the origins of neutrino masses and dark matter-and-energy, when they begin to accept the first 64 notations, those answers will be readily forthcoming.
III. Hilbert (and others) put infinity in time out and then made it untouchable.
Infinity has been problematic throughout time; everybody has an opinion. It is too accessible and too emotional. Science has had little use for it, but renormalization only works well in a small minority of cases. The results of too many equations are infinite, an abyss of unknowns. There has been and continues to be a growing disdain for anything infinite. Within this website all things infinite (and infinity) are redefined by the logic of pi(π). We are looking for other sites where infinity begins to be understood as through the logic of pi(π) and mathematics.
We defer to all our work on continuity-symmetry-harmony of the spheres. More…
The first continuity equation is the endless, never-repeating, enigmatic numbers of pi(π). These are the first continuity conditions that give some definition to space-time.
A second-kind of continuity equation is for those constants defined by the dimensionless and mathematical. That is, the Planck base units begin adding new lines… new connections… new “nerves”… new “ganglia”… infinitesimal “neurons” (composites)… for the universe. There are the 26 from John Baez, the 31 from the Frank Wilczek and his people, over 150 from Wikipedia alone, the 350+ by NIST, and then the millions from Simon Plouffe. Of course, a new vocabulary may well emerge here to define what today can only be metaphorical words and expressions.
To arrive at that new vocabulary will require a lot of consensus building! We say, “Let’s get to work.”
V. Hawking gave Lemaître’s big bang theory the universe and too much authority.
IV. Newton’s absolutes have publicly prevailed within the face of Einstein.
The general public has never quite gotten comfortable with Einsteinian formulations. We are a space and time people. It feels logical. Newton’s absolutes of space and time have long been our common sense worldview. Einstein was too difficult, too much of a stretch, so in spite of the successes of Einstein’s theory, we have de facto held onto our Newtonian logic. Until a more simple alternative is introduced, Newton’s absolutes of space and time will continue to hold their place even though we know Newton doesn’t have it quite right.
An alternative is to recognize that all notations are active and all space-time is Now. Though a paradigm shift, there is a natural logic within it.
V. Aristotle’s gap had not seen for 1800 years and now drifts unresolved over 600 years later.
Aristotle’s gap was so named because he never saw it.[1] He made a mistake that others didn’t think about, never questioned, or repeated for 1800 years. Finally caught in the 1400s, it is still not widely known even in these days. It is even less understood.
This is one of the few places on the web where there is at least a perfunctory study of the geometry of these fundamental geometric gaps. Not a focus of the scientific community, we hypothesize that these gaps will reduce quantum physics to very specific geometries and geomagnetic attractions-repulsions. Here, within this work, it is no longer a key ingredient of our primordial soup and no longer a fundamental theory.
These geometries do not change any results of experimental work; they open up a deeper inquiry and inform further study. The conclusions of work-to-date and ongoing can be more deeply analyzed. Quantum physics will adopt the same basic foundations as all the sciences and we will all see more deeply within the infinitesimal, the first 64 base-2 notations of the 202 that encapsulate our universe.
Yet, it also needs to be emphasized that these 202 notations and the very nature of these basic geometric gaps are largely unexamined and there is currently no consensus within the scientific and intellectual community. More…
Summary and conclusion.
To hypothesize that space-time was forever and eternal no longer seemed valid. Those two experiences of life are profoundly relational, a natural dependence, one cannot be without the other, two equations going on and on and on, sustaining and building. Long, long ago, it was said that we are standing on the shoulders of giants. I have two books of that title on my desk right now. I don’t think any of our scholars throughout time have been giants… just humans doing the best we can. Some do a little better. Some are quite prolific, but none have been fundamentally better; and we all make mistakes. -BEC
_____
References (Currently unordered. Will be alphabetized soon.)
As references are added, other resources will also be added within this website.
[1] Jeffrey C. Lagarias & Chuanming Zong, Mysteries in Packing Regular Tetrahedra (PDF), American Mathematical Society (AMS), December 2012
[2] D. J. Struik, Het Probleem ‘De impletione loci’ (Dutch) (English: Translation by M Senechal), Nieuw Archief voor Wiskunde, Series 2, 15 (1926), no. 3, 121–137
[3] Jonathan Bennett, Exchange of papers between Leibniz and Clarke G. W. Leibniz and Samuel Clarke, 2017 Retrieved 7 July 2024: https://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/leibniz1715_1.pdf
[4] Philosophy of mathematics: Selected readings, edited by Paul Benacerraf and Hilary Putnam, Cambridge University Press, “On the infinite” by David Hilbert, Retrieved 7 July 2024: https://math.dartmouth.edu/~matc/Readers/HowManyAngels/Philosophy/Philosophy.html
[5] Einstein, A; Podolsky, B; Rosen, N; (1935-05-15). “Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete?” (PDF). Physical Review. 47 (10): 777–780. Bibcode:1935PhRv…47..777E. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.47.777
[6] Philosophy of mathematics: Selected readings, edited by Paul Benacerraf and Hilary Putnam, Cambridge University Press, “On the infinite” by David Hilbert, Retrieved 7 July 2024: https://math.dartmouth.edu/~matc/Readers/HowManyAngels/Philosophy/Philosophy.html
[7] Frank Wilczek
• Physics Today, 312. Scaling Mt. Planck I: A View from the Bottom (June 2001)
• Physics Today, 321. Scaling Mt. Planck II: Base Camp (Nov 2001)
• Physics Today, 328. Scaling Mt. Planck III: Is That All There Is? (August 2002)
[8] On the Shoulder of Giants:
(a) Bernard of Chartres (12th century) (retrieved 10 July 2024)
(b) Isaac Newton in correspondence in 1675 to Robert Hooke (retrieved 10 July 2024)
(c) The Great Works of Physics and Astronomy, Stephen Hawking, Running Press, Philadelphia, pp 1266, 2002 (retrieved 10 July 2024)
(d) New approaches to numeracy (PDF), Lynn Arthur Steen, National Research Council, National Academy Press, 1990 (retrieved 10 July 2024)
_____
Reading and re-reading
What is opened on the desk, on the shelves and on the floor.
We will return to this page, additional references will be included.
_____
Afterthoughts
Personal reflections.
Further reflections can become future homepages.
_____
Emails
There will be emails to many of our scholars about key points.
These, too, will be updated.
11 July 2024: Sally Johnson, White Mountains, New Hampshire
09 July 2024: Hirosi Ooguri, Aspen and Caltech, Pasadena, CA
07 July 2024: Jonathan O’Callaghan, London, UK
05 July 2024: Abigail Beall, New Scientist, London, England, UK
_____
IM
There will also be many instant messages to thought leaders about these key points.
12:09 PM · Jul 6, 2024 Video of Einstein talking about the formula: @Wondersofscience Is there a date for that video? Are there more? Of course, that footage is priceless. A possible jump in our understanding of things will happen when we begin to see how the universe can be understood by applying base-2 exponentiation to Max Planck’s natural units (Remember, Max discovered Einstein). There are just 202 notations from the first moment of time till Now. Here are Planck’s numbers expanded: https://81018.com/chart/ Einstein’s most important statement about the scientific method is here: https://81018.com/arrogance/
More and more instant message will be included here as they are sent.
_____
Critique You are always invited.
_____
• This page become a homepage on 5 January 2025. Still editing.
• The last update was 7 January 2025.
• This page was first initiated on 10 June 2024, then repurposed on 5 January 2025.
• The link for this file is https://81018.com/the-five/
• The headline for this article: Five Mistakes In Science Mislead the World
• First teaser* is: Believe it or not, science tells us what to believe and most of us follow!.
The first version of this article — https://81018.com/mistakes/
_____
The first version of this article — https://81018.com/mistakes/ — is as follows:
“Arrogance has given us a Big Bang Cosmology that is considered a fact, not just theory. Yet, it has always been “just a theory.” It is rather strangely interwoven with Newton’s overly confident definition of absolute space and time (quite possibly the all-time, most-damaging, on-going mistake) and Einstein’s special theory of relativity. If Newton had stretched for a higher level of generality but with more meaningful specificity, he may have started a real discussion with Gottfried Leibniz. Is it possible that the concept of time, while being inextricably interwoven with space, could be order-continuity? Could the concept of space, while being inextricably interwoven with time, be relations-symmetries?
“These possibilities are being analyzed. [1]
“Today’s big bang cosmology has put blinders on the the entire theoretical physics community and limits the creativity of people like those at CERN labs in Geneva. It has shut down discussion and openness to other theories and that stunts the growth of science.[2]
“First, there is a growing list of questions[3] that big bang cosmology has not addressed. Wikipedia has a bit more background. There are also many highly-respected scholars, academics, scientists and researchers who object to its dominance.[4] Big bang cosmology has survived only because there has not been a stronger, more compelling alternative theory.
“But, that just may be changing.
“In December 2011 a simple and totally predictive chart of numbers began to emerge.[5] Alongside base-2 exponentiation, this progression has a natural inflation that begins with the original four Planck base units (time/ length and mass/energy) at the first moment of creation and progresses to the current time in just over 202 doublings or notations.[6]
“This progression of numbers is a virtual script that defines each of the big bang epochs more precisely than the epochs of big bang cosmology, yet it requires no “big bang.”[7] Following each of those doublings from Planck Time is pivotal; within this scale of the universe, the first second falls between notations 143 and 144.[8] The first day is between notations 160 and 161. And, the first year is between notations 168 and 169. Large structure formation at 150 million years is within notations 196 to 197.
“What happens in that first second of creation will go a long way to answering key questions about isotropy-and-homogeneity and about dark energy and dark matter. It brings into question the roll of geometry, simple math and simple logic. It also reopens the Leibniz-Newton debate about the nature of space and time and the infinite.
“The particle people will say that notations 2 to 65 have no physical significance. They may be correct. Things within that range are not physical by any standards or conventions that we follow today. This is the domain for systems theory, ontology, Langlands programs, pointfree geometries, scalar field theory, automata theory, and more. Thank you.”
Endnote: This response, an answer to a Quora question on January 24, 2017, will be reviewed and updated as we learn more. More…
Footnotes:
[1] This earliest parts of this quest began in 1972.
[2] Letters to a scientist: Fabiola Gianotti, Directeur Général, CERN
[3] These open, unanswered questions are now mounting up as the failures and contortions of big bang inflation become self-evident to more and more.
[4] Perhaps the protests formally began in 1991 when Eric Lerner first published his book, The Big Bang Never Happened.
[5] This model, initially considered to be just an excellent Science-Technology-Engineering-Mathematics (STEM) tool, requires further study, especially of the first 67 notations. It all still requires out-of-the-box thinking.
[6] The most recent chart with five Planck base units.
[7] Precision ontology can work with Hubble/Planck precision cosmology.
[8] Over two-thirds of the universe is well-defined within the first second.
Objections from around the world
The Big Bang Boom Is Over
1. There is a more simple model that uses base-2 notation that is entirely mathematically-and-geometrically predictive.
2. This simple model captures each of the currently-defined big bang epochs and all that science without the need for a bang.
3. This model uses the same process that drives all biological processes, a natural inflation, that starts at the instant the universe began and proceeds to this very moment.
Open for your comments:
• The Numbers: A horizontally-scrolled chart
• More Numbers: The Universe From Scratch
• Value values, ethics and integrity
• Big Bang Cosmology: #10 Bully #9 False Start #8 Hot head
Letters/emails:
Your Questions/Our Answers: Ask a question about this work, especially about the chart, and we will attempt to answer it!
To the Top Guns of Physics: What’s wrong with picture?
###