James Webb Space Telescope Results Slam Big Bang. Critical Analyses Encourage More Creativity in the Search for a New Physics.

An Open Letter to our leading Scholars-Scientists-Writers who study the results of the JWST:

There is an alternative that opens new insights.¹ It starts like this…
“In the beginning, there was a simple infinitesimal sphere.” Tredecillions of identical spheres follow every second, creating space and time, and populating the universe exponentially. In so doing, sphere dynamics begin to replicate the epochs of the big bang theory, but as processes that are ongoing and never-ending. This start is not a singularity of an infinitely-small, “everything-from-everywhere in the universe” as was postulated by Lemaître, Hawking and others.² This model generates space-time, mass-energy, gravitation-electromagnetism at the most-infinitesimal scale and “everything-everywhere” is always evolving.

That most simple sphere. I asked Brown University Applied Mathematics professor, Phil Davis, the question, “What is the most simple three-dimensional object?” We debated for about two years, the sphere or tetrahedron. Before he died, I conceded to him, the sphere; I was learning about cubic-close packing and could actually see the generation of tetrahedrons and octahedrons from spheres. I had been slowly learning about our 202-base-2 notations and had observed how the first second of the universe occurs within Notation-143, the first year in Notation-169, the first 1000 years in Notation-179, and the first million years in Notation-189. The first billion years was within Notation-199. Today, we are inside Notation-202 which is 10.98 billion years in duration (about 20% of the 13.8+ billion years has actualized). Exponential notation has been little understood and rarely discussed. The first 64 notations, too infinitesimal to be measured, are pivotal in this model.

Here, the makings of a full-blown cosmological theory begin with just an infinitesimal sphere that is defined by Planck’s base units and their dimensionless constants. Max Planck created a system of natural units; and although not celebrated as such in his lifetime, the foremost equation within that system is also our oldest, most-ubiquitous-and-versatile equation, pi (π).³

Sphere dynamics. At the first moment, the facets of pi, continuity-symmetry-harmony, are inherent in all sphere dynamics. The backbone of this cosmological theory: it defines either a bridge between the finite-and-infinite or infinity itself. Those three facets of pi are not finite: Continuity is the endless numbers of pi, creating a certain kind of order, a sense of time, and the dynamics of flow. Symme t ry is the endless number of spheres creating necessary relations, a sense of space, and the dynamics of sphere-stacking. Harmony is the endless number of dynamics created with Fourier’s insights into interior functions such that it puts a spin on everything and begins the harmonies of the spheres.

Predictive model. An exponential expansion and natural inflation are observed just by following the numbers.⁴ Although simple calculations, the results are hard-to-grasp and interpret. Nevertheless, these equations generate the 202 base-2 notations from the beginning of time to this very day, the Now. Continuity-symmetry-harmony necessitate that all notations are always active and all the epochs of the big bang theory become absorbed by these on-going, never-ending processes. It also suggests that there is a more simple definition of finite-infinite relation and a more scientific sense of infinity.

For this theory to work, it seems those definitions are all keys.

Our prior homepage was based on the Scientific American special report by Jonathan O’Callaghan. The scholar-scientists on the JWST project are having difficulty imagining where they might go and what they might do with all the unexpected results. Many are mystified. I wrote to thank Jonathan, the editors at Scientific American, and those scholar-scientists we quoted — Garth Illingworth, Tommaso Treu, Mark McCaughrean, Michael Boylan-Kolchin, and Charlotte Mason. It seems that everyone is nonplussed with the JWST results, a bit like deer in headlights. My hope is that this discussion begins to illuminate a much larger playing field.

Max Planck was not thinking how his base units might define a Planck Sphere. Although engaging key dimensionless constants (and those dimensionless constants that define them), he did not specifically focus on the mathematical constant, π (pi), within his groundbreaking work. He was working on an understanding of the behavior of electromagnetic radiation at the atomic level. To the best of our knowledge, visualizing simple spheres at an infinitesimal scale was not part of anybody’s work.

Also, I find no references among Planck’s writings to the continuity-symmetry-harmony of pi (π). Beguilingly simple, when we began to realize those big bang epochs could be understood as processes, exponential notation began looking like a good mapping of continuous processes. To characterize it as “after the big bang” was meaningless because there was never a bang per se and all the processes are active equations. Most of those equations are well-known within groups like Loop Quantum Gravity and at least eight other disciplines.

That chart of ours becomes a most simple Theory of Everything because it is dynamic, mathematical, geometric, and projective. All the numbers can be tweaked and eventually tweaked even more until it all begins to work. Everything, everywhere for all time, as a simple theory of everything (TOE), the keys are all within the first 64 notations although some might say the first 143 notations (the universe at about one second). It is ostensibly a grid to bridge the Standard Model for Particle Physics with the Standard Model for Cosmology. It is also a new possibility to define dark matter and energy.

Who? What? Why? When? Where? How? Although one might wonder why nobody thought to assume the Planck base units manifest as infinitesimal spheres, it was obviously quite speculative and the scientific community was having great success discovering new particles. Nobel prizes were abundant. It was easy to become particle centric until there were no more particles to find. Remember the disappointment in 2016 with the diphoton results and ostensibly no new particles in 2022 at CERN.

Also, long ago geometry lost its punch. Students do not know the difference between the geometries of perfection (no gaps) and imperfection (gaps). Gap geometries are not yet associated with quantum fluctuations, indeterminacy, or human will. Either they should be or they should be properly discounted by a scholar who can truly account for the gaps.

Also, at the most infinitesimal scales, attractors and repellers have not been assumed and the relation between gravity and electromagnetism remains a mystery. When the work of Milnor and Smale are engaged within the infinitesimal, a new paradigm for gravity will emerge. Like mass-energy, space-time, a gravity-electromagnetism formula will emerge (beyond our most-simple, base-2 TOE) and we will begin to grasp how the universe grows from that single infinitesimal sphere to tredecillion spheres per second, to the most-recent galaxies we have observed within 300 million years of the start, and then to the entire universe.

Our conclusions for this homepage are the same as for the last homepage. In 2011 we backed into those 202 base-2 notations; and, although encouraged by Freeman Dyson and Frank Wilczek, they knew that our chart would not sit well within the big bang theory. John Baez and others told us that it was idiosyncratic. But, we’ve persevered. Many prior homepages tell more of that story, i.e. A Perfect Start, Simple Logical Concepts, Facts & Guesses about “Planck Scale Physics”, and an analysis of results of the James Webb Space Telescope. There are many, many more.

Thank you. -BEC

P.S. We will continue asking questions of scholars. I will get back to work on the page regarding the correlations between Epochs-Processes and our chart of 202 notations. I will also see if the JWST observational data can be noted within our slowly emerging delineation of each notation, particularly Notations 196–197. Notation-196 covers from 10,829,559,004,640,000 seconds from the start of the universe (about 343.15 million years) and goes on to Notation 198 which is around 686.806 million years or 21,659,118,009,280,000 seconds. We will more actively seek to determine if the chart’s mathematical data for the size of the universe, and the total mass and coulombs at about that time, has any correlation to whatever empirical data is available at the 300 million year mark. -B

###

Footnotes
Still working on it.

JWST’s First Glimpses of Early Galaxies Could Break Cosmology, Scientific American, September 2022
Rajendra Gupta, JWST early Universe observations and ΛCDM cosmology, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Oxford Academic, 2023
The Big Bang: Third Edition, Joseph Silk, W.H. Freeman & Co. , 2001, ISBN13: 9780805072563
John H. Barrow, Pi in the Sky: Counting, Thinking, and Being, Little Brown, Oct. 1993
Unity and Disunity in Mathematics, Bernhelm Booss-Bavnbek, Philip J. Davis, 2013
Max Planck, Theory of Heat Radiation (1912), Translated Morton Masius, P. Blakiston’s Son & CO, 1914 Access online via Gutenberg (EBook #40030, June 18, 2012) or Internet Archive

Endnotes
There are not many because all these points already have many linked pages within this website.

[1] An alternative to the Big Bang. Fred Hoyle came up with the expression, Big Bang, in March 1949 during a BBC-Radio interview; he was trying to contrast Georges Lemaître’s theory with his own steady-state theory. In the 1980s the Big Bang became the dominant theory. By 2001, although there had been many challenges to the theory, disagreeing with it became difficult. The Big Bang Theory had become the “commonsense” view held by the general public as their understanding of the start of the universe. In July 2022, that began to change. Scientific American’s September 2022 article, “JWST’s First Glimpses of Early Galaxies Could Break Cosmology” is an excellent summary of the anxieties about these early results. Although “break cosmology” sounds like hyperbole, what they are really saying is “…Break the Big Bang theory.”

Our infinitesimal theory may well address Rajendra Gupta‘s concerns about the JWST angular galaxy size data and the isotropy of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) observations. We will consult with a redshift expert like Prof. Dr. Michael Boylan-Kolchin to determine if and how well this theory fits a comparative analysis of supernovae-distance modulus versus redshift data.

Back to Scientific American, just their title alone tells us how open we have become and how impatient we are with any arrogance within the sciences. Our review/summary of the article...

In 2011 when we first began discussing our nascent construction in a high school geometry class, we called it, “The Quiet Expansion, just to contrast it with the big bang. We also called it, “Big Board-little universe.” The first board was about 96″ high and it encapsulated the universe, everything, everywhere for all time, within just 202 base-2 notations.

Do you have a better idea for a name? Please, please, let us know.

[2] The entire universe as infinitely small: Stephen Hawking often said, “…everything in existence (our emphasis), expanding exponentially in every direction, from an infinitely small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense point, creating a cosmos filled with energy and matter” (a direct quote from Genius, May 2016, PBS-TV). One can imagine that his thinking comes out of his grasp of entropy and the second law of thermodynamics.

[3] PI (π): The oldest, most-used equation in our history is the focus of this model. The second focus is Max Planck’s calculations of these natural units (known as Planck base units). We also engaged George Johnstone Stoney’s natural units and defer to ISO’s currently-accepted values.

[4] A Predictive Model: You can follow these numbers. These projected numbers can be researched, tested, modified and tweaked, and re-tested. The chart (https://81018.com/chart/) is an exponential expansion that returns a rate of inflation (https://81018.com/tredecillion/) that looks like a natural inflation (https://81018.com/ni/).

_____

References & Resources
As these references are studied, key references and resources will be added.

Spatial variations of fundamental constants, John D. Barrow, Chris O’Toole, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Volume 322, Issue 3, April 2001, Pages 585–588, https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04157.x, 11 April 2001

Cosmic Star-Formation History, Piero Madau and Mark Dickinson, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Vol. 52:415-486 (August 2014) https://arxiv.org/abs/1403.0007 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615 Also, engage other articles that use the words, “cosmic-star formation.”

Bright, early galaxies surprise astronomers, Kelly Kizer Whitt, Earth-Sky, November 18, 2022

Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press, 1962 The images from thge JWST change the rules of the game.

CTMC, continuous Markov chain, retrieved from Wikipedia on. September 3, 2023.

Georges Lemaître:

“The Beginning of the World from the Point of View of Quantum Theory”, Georges Lemaître, Nature. 127 (3210): 706. 9 May 1931. Bibcode:1931Natur.127..706L. doi:10.1038/127706b0. ISSN 1476-4687. S2CID 4089233.
“The Evolution of the Universe: Discussion“. Georges Lemaître, Nature. 128 (3234): 699–701. October 1931. Bibcode:1931Natur.128..704L. doi:10.1038/128704a0. S2CID 4028196.
“Evolution of the Expanding Universe”. Georges Lemaître, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 20 (1): 12–17.1934. Bibcode:1934PNAS…20…12L, doi:10.1073/pnas.20.1.12, ISSN 0027-8424 PMC 1076329. PMID 16587831.

Emails
There will be emails to many of our scholars about key points.

4 September 2023: Ian Robinson, England
3 September 2023 and 23 August 2023: Tommaso Treu, JWST & UCLA
23 August 2023: Laura Helmuth, Scientific American, New York, NY
4 September 2023 & 23 August 2023: Charlotte Mason, JWST & Cosmic Dawn, University of Copenhagen
3 September 2023 & 23 August 2023: Michael Boylan-Kolchin, JWST & University of Texas at Austin
23 August 2023: Garth Illingworth, JWST & University of California at Santa Cruz
22 August 2023: Jonathan O’Callaghan, Freelance writer for Scientific American and many others
4 September 2023& 22 August 2023: Mark McCaughrean, JWST & European Space Agency

_____

IM
There will also be many instant messages to thought leaders about these key points.

Jade Tan-Holmes, Sydney, @UpandAtomDaily I thought your work on the aperiodic tiling was sensational. So from the heart. Now, let’s look at a container universe whereby we find out why it all happens: https://81018.com

5:12 PM · Sep 4, 2023. @elonmusk You need new standards to institute without impinging on freedom of speech. Try continuity, symmetry, harmony right out of pi (π). Not arbitrary but educational while inculcating values: https://81018.com/csh/ https://81018.com/values/

11:59 AM · Aug 24, 2023 @conradwolfram @themathscon John Barrow is missed in these exciting times. Will the big bang be put to rest with Stephen given the JWST results? https://81018.com/jwst/ Let’s get back to the basics like π (pi) (continuity-symmetry-harmony) and Planck’s base units! -Bruce