Why haven’t we seen this model until now?
by Bruce Camber, Summer 2017
Planck Units: The four Planck base units are “…properties of nature and not from any human construct.” Yet, these Planck numbers did not always command basic respect within the entire scientific community. Not until 2001 when Frank Wilczek (MIT, Nobel laureate, 2004) began writing a series of three articles for Physics Today (Scaling Mt. Planck, I, II, III), did these Planck units begin to move beyond Dirac-like numerology into wide-scale acceptability.
By that time, the big bang theory had gained the high ground.
Also, nobody thought the concepts of continuity and symmetry were more fundamental than space and time. Nobody thought to follow simple nested or combinatorial geometries back to the Planck Length. Nobody thought to multiply those Planck units by 2, and every result by 2. It took a huge amount of naïveté and almost no knowledge of cosmological models to bias our exploratory instincts. It also required discounting Isaac Newton who gave us our commonsense view of time that space and time are absolute. In so doing, a more relational model, as suggested in 1715 by Leibniz, was unwittingly engaged and the raw numbers emerged.
Totally predictive, it should be a relatively straight-forward process to affirm or discount this model.
If you can help either way, I thank you. –BEC
• Overview of articles: https://81018.com/toc
• Five Initial Reasons To Believe: https://81018.com/reasons
• Continuity is continuity: https://81018.com/introduction
• Symmetry is symmetry: https://81018.com/symmetry
• Measuring An Expanding Universe Using Planck Units https://81018.com/thrust/
• The Thrust of the Universe: What is it? Resources https://81018.com/2017/06/05/thrust/
• Visualizing the Universe https://81018.com/visualizations/