Close

Frank Wilczek

 The first letterFri, Dec 14, 2012 at 5:40 PM, “Help!”

March 24, 2016Work began at MIT, long ago!

From our LinkedIn blog:

Physics Today (MeadWilczek discussions – Ref.9): Though formulated in 1899 and 1900, the Planck Length received very little attention until 1959 when C. Alden Mead of the University of Minnesota submitted a paper proposing that the Planck Length and Planck Time should “…play a more fundamental role in physics.” Though published in Physical Review in 1964, very little positive feedback was forthcoming. Frank Wilczek in that 2001 Physics Today article comments that “…C. Alden Mead’s discussion is the earliest that I am aware of.” He posited the Planck constants as real realities within experimental constructs whereby these constants became more than mathematical curiosities.  More…

From a posting titled, “Could The Planck Length Be The Next Big Thing? Could Planck Time Be A Gateway To The Universe?”

Theories abound.
Oxford physicist-philosopher, Roger Penrose16 calls it, Conformal Cyclic Cosmology made popular within his book, Cycles of Time. In a September 24, 2008 interview on NBC News (Cosmic Log), Frank Wilczek of MIT simply calls this domain, the Grid,17 and the most complete review of it is within his book, The Lightness of Being. We know with just two years of work on this so-called Big Board – little universe chart and much less time on our compact table, we will be exploring those 60-to-65 initial steps most closely for years to come. This project will be in an early-stage development for a lifetime.  More…

From the web postings within the Big Board-little universe:

Notwithstanding, there is a substantial amount of work that has been done within the academic and scientific  communities with all the Planck numbers and those base numbers that were used to create the five Planck base units.  Perhaps chemistry professor, C. Alden Mead of the University of Minnesota began the process in 1959 when he first tried publishing a paper using the Planck units with serious scientific intent. Physics professor Frank Wilczek of MIT was the first to write popular articles about the Planck units in 2001 in Physics Today (312, 321, 328)From that year, the number of articles began to increase dramatically and experimental work that make use of these numbers has increased as a result.  More…

Advertisements

Within the Quiet Expansion, what is mass and what is charge?

Next edits: November 2017
WORK-IN PROGRESS – NOT A FIRST DRAFT (rough notes)

Notes: Under construction. This post is needed to support our comparison of the big bang theory to our Quiet Expansion model. One of those comparisons is for the general public. The other is for the academic-scientific community. To incorporate this question within those two working posts would make both altogether too long. This posting is also a sequel to these two open, working documents:
·   Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Cosmology and the Large-scale universe (2015)
·   Wrong: There is a possibility (December 2015)

The question
BangerQuestions about the nature of mass and charge have been addressed by the most highly-respected scientists over the centuries. Both mass and charge are manifestations of fundamental faces of reality.  Both have necessarily-related concepts.  Mass has density, weight, force and the mass-energy equivalence . And charge has electric charge (Coulombs, ampere, time and force) and color charge  (generating set of a group, symmetry groups, and Hamiltonian). All these concepts have been reviewed thousands-upon-thousands of times. However, to our knowledge, never have these concepts been reviewed within the framework of the first 65 or so notations of the Quiet Expansion model. Here, within each notation, we are using a most-simple mathematical formulation to ask the question, “What are these numbers saying about the nature of reality?”

A possible answer
It seems that the mathematics, particularly those ratios rendered within each doubling of the Planck base units, defines mass (weight, density, force, mass-energy equivalence) and charge (both electric and color) as a derivative of the other base units and all of the constants such as light, gravity, and the reduced Planck constant that define them.

To research what that means and to prepare to write this document, the very creative work of several  PhD research physicists came to our attention. It is all truly amazing work. These are scholars who are attempting to push through some of the well-known problems with the Standard Model. Some have posited exciting new theories and ideas. We could easily get lost in that sea of ideation. We can’t.  It is all very encouraging to feel their creativity, however, our model is based on simplicity — simple concepts and simple mathematics. So, we won’t stray too-too far from where we are as we attempt to impute meaning to our simple doublings of the five basic Planck units.

To establish a basic platform, we did return to the work of Prof. Dr. Frank Wilczek of MIT and his August 2012 work titled, The Origins of Mass (PDF), MIT Physics Annual, 2003, and the more recent  Origins of Mass,  ArXiv, Cornell University, August 2012.  We also recommend his 2004 lecture video,  The Origin of ^Most Mass and the Feebleness of Gravity. He addresses “regular mass” and readily acknowledges that mysteries remain within dark matter and dark energy. Over the past 20 years Wilczek has written many articles and books about the nature of mass and matter.

Notwithstanding, within the first 60 or so notations, mass, time, space, charge, and temperature take on a very different meaning. These five are so inextricably related, they can not be pulled apart and each truly exists in reality, but prior to the 65th notation can only be known by their ratios .These ratios are real, and a real definition of a very real reality. Each notation builds upon the prior notations. All notations continue their prior notation’s more fine doubling as well as what I’ll call their archetypal doubling; that is the doubling into the next notation. With each doubling our universe is increasingly networked and related. Within the gross doublings, these networks begin systematizing sets and groups, given the definitions within and between each notation, and begin to emerge as cells within the cells notation, as people within the “people” notations, as solar systems within the solar system notations, as galaxies within the galaxy notations, and so on.

Let’s work on some conclusions.
Is that clear?  Yes, I hear, “Clear as mud.”  Well, if it is a little clear, help us to make it more clear! This is just Day 2 for this document! We are in need of mentors! Help. So, we are asking for help from people around the world and throughout the scientific-academic communities. You could become the author or co-author of this page and/or any other page on these related sites.

Perhaps we are not doing any worse than the big bang theory according to Stephen Hawking and his cohort. They completely ignored Planck charge and then give rather bubbly notions as to how the universe went into its supercooling state.  At least our mathematics has a simple logic and rationale.  -Bruce

On building bridges between all things divisive…

Is it possible to extend our first principles for those who harbor hostility?

Taking our very first statement (this link goes to it) used for the first principles of the television series, Small Business School, we attempt to extend it here to engage all things divisive, especially religious language and those who oppose religious language.

Divisiveness in business, family life, culture and ethics,, political life, religion, and even the sciences actually hurts all business. Divisiveness includes lying, stealing and cheating as well as waste, greed, and corruption.

What makes us human? … ethical? What gives us hope, depth, perspective?

Deep within the fabric of life there is an abiding thrust to make things better, more perfect. Though a cornerstone of business (value creation and exchange), there is much more.

There are three forms within functions that define an increasingly perfected state within every experience:

• The first form that defines our humanity is continuity, and its most basic function, a simple perfection, is to create order. In the traditions of the Abrahamic faiths — Judaism, Christianity, and Islam — this is the Creator-Sustainer God. Any order, that creates continuity, is a metaphor as well as a direct expression for the Creator-Sustainer God.

• The second form is symmetry and in its perfection functions to create relations. In the Abrahamic tradition the perfection of that symmetry is the love doctrine, i.e., to love God with all one’s heart, soul, mind and strength, and one’s neighbor as oneself. Any symmetry that creates real relations is a metaphor and a direct expression of the presence of the Love of God.

• The third form is dynamics and its perfection, a complex symmetry extended within time, is harmony. Again, in the Abrahamic tradition, the gift of the Holy Spirit is God transcending a moment in space and time to create a profound joy, deep insight, compelling love… simply a moment of perfection. Any dynamic experienced as a harmony is a metaphor, albeit the real presence, of God’s Holy Spirit within that moment.

Every scientific and religious assertion, both seeking to understand and define the universal, begins with the same first principle and evolves within its own understanding to the second and third. Therefore we have a diversity of faith statements which includes all of the sciences.

This is also the basis of the value chain. The more perfect a moment or an experience is, OR the more perfected a thing or system is, the more valuable it becomes. Thus, we have the beginnings of business. Here is the baseline beginning of value and values.

Any assertion that counters life’s evolving perfections is not religion (at best, it’s a cult*); it is also not business (it’s exploitation or a bad company); certainly it is not good government; and most often, it is not even good science.

There are scientific endeavors that observe, quantify and qualify that which is fundamentally based on discontinuities or chaos, but these studies require the inherent continuities of mathematics and other universal-and-constants to even grasp the nature of that discontinuity.

* Extremism (also, a radical elitism) in any form is not religion; it is a cult. Those groups that condone killing could readily be labeled a cult of death that respects only their own, self-defined principles of continuity that inherently create discontinuities. Although there is a lot of attention being focused on the extremists within all religions, Islamic extremists demand the most attention. These people have not grasped the fullness of Allah, and the distinction between the historic revelations and the universal revelations. They also fail to grasp and integrate the necessary universals that extend from the sciences through Allah. And for those of us who do not know Arabic, Allah is the Arabic word for God, yet without question the many different “takes” on God could be more readily integrated if all religions were to ask, “What is God’s perfection? How can we know anything about it?”

 

***

Even between atheists and believers

Perhaps all it comes down to is an answer to the question, “Whose metaphor is more meaningful?”   You will not find many atheists who deny science.  They do not deny the constants and universals that are always in the back of the science textbooks.

There are three constants within the sciences that remain clear, in spite of quantum mechanics.  The first is that there is order and continuity in the world.  It is the basis of knowing.  In every discipline there are multiple parameter sets where this is true.  Beginning in mathematics, a rather pure form of thought, abstraction and representation, we then move into physics.  It has multiple parameter sets as well.  There is one for Newtonian mechanics, another for General Relativity and Special Relativity and yet another for quantum mechanics.  Then chemistry and biology have their own parameter sets.  All these parameters simply establish the boundary conditions of what is being measured within them.

Each has a formalized language.  And, each has a metaphorical language that pushes into the edges of the unknown.

The sciences all embrace varying definitions of relations yet all of these definitions are understood by a symmetry function.

Specialized disciplines with each of the sciences hypothesize about the nature of the unknown, just beyond their limits of knowledge, and all these hypotheses are a study of the deepest dynamics of their discipline.  The experience of insight, the “ah-ha” of the creative surge, is experienced as a concrescence of symmetries or harmony.

The atheists mostly object to the use of specialized language.  They understand rules, mores, and societal law and order  even though many are nihilistic, others narcissistic, and many both.

Yet, change will come.  Some of  these folks will begin to realize that time is not a fundamental frame of reference and that there are qualities of life that permeate everything in every way, and that these qualities empower order, relations, and dynamics, and that these three scientific functions with the faces of continuity, symmetry and harmony just might also be understood with very personal language.  When and if they do, they are on their way to create a personal bridge to religion and some of the brave among them just may cross it.

Can you discern at least one unique formula within the 201+ notations? There are many to develop.

The challenge:  Come up with a formula based on the array of numbers within  the Big Board – little universe Project.  But, please be aware that all of the charts are now being fine tuned based on our recent work to develop a very large horizontal board with all five Planck base units in the progression from Planck Time to the Age of the Universe in just over 200 notations.

The horizontal board was initiated on April 10 and posted for insiders on April 25th. Those of you among my LinkedIn family are considered “insiders” (and you are most welcomed to join us).

We have been developing what we are increasingly thinking could become an alternative to the Big Bang theory. That’s a ridiculous statement to make, but now with well-over four years of looking at these numbers, it seems that our little model could have a place in the universe of academia. It may go through several versions, even transformations, but that struggle will be well worth the time and effort. There is real information within this “little” nascent model.

My special challenge to PhD students. Take the five basic Planck units at one of the notations between 1 and 201 — and work out new formulas integrating any and all formulas used within the big bang theory. There is a place for every formula within at least one notation along this scale of the universe.

If nothing else, this project should get us thinking about number theory, the finite-infinite relation, the discrete-and-finite nature of space and time,  and the correspondence between the five Planck base units, space-time-mass-energy-temperature.

The very first  formula that I developed on May 1.  It is simple and it will be further developed. The next formula that we receive that is mathematically coherent will be given the designation: Formula #2.  Each subsequent formula will be numbered accordingly.  Each will become that student-or-professor’s formula and we will track the continued development and implications of each formula well-beyond this early-stage development and hopefully well-into an academic-development phase of The Big Board-little universe Project.

Thank you.   – Bruce 

PS.  Send your formula to me at camber (at) bblu.org

Related articles:

formulas.png

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made.  In him was life; and the life was the light of men.  And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.”  John 1:1-5
These words took on new meaning back within the first week of May 2016  — it is a very simple fact that every notation for the entire universe, everything, everywhere, throughout all time, is embedded within light.

The explanation is rather straightforward and, although there may be a few new concepts here, it is actually all very simple.

There are three charts, all based on multiplication by 2, that will help to explain. This first chart (opens in new tab or window), first printed up in December 2011, begins at the Planck Length (the smallest possible length) and goes out to an approximation  of the size of the universe which is called, the Observable Universe. The February 2015 chart begins at the Planck Time and it uses 13.8 billion years as the Age of the Universe, the endpoint of this simple mathematical progression.  Within this chart all five of the Planck base units are tracked to their current expressions.  Again,  there are just over 201 base-2 exponential notations from that first moment of creation to this day. These two charts are vertically-scrolled.

The third chart, developed in April 2016, is  horizontally-scrolled.  It is a very different experience to follow the progressions of the top rows where the Planck Time and Planck Length scale up to the current time (Age of the Universe) and to the Observable Universe. Here is the key:

At any notation along the scale, one can take the number from Planck Length scale and divide it by the corresponding number from the Planck Time scale and result will approximate the speed of light.

Every notation reflects the speed of light.  Yes, let there be light. In every notation let the light shine. And, may it shine in all the dark places on this earth and beyond. -Amen

On getting beyond religious boundaries

Why Religion? Which Religion?

To you who call yourself religious,
you may call yourself by a particular name,
Christian, Jew, or Muslim (Abrahamic faiths), or
Bahá’í, Buddhist, Hindu, Jain, Sikh (Indo-European religions) or
Confucian, Taoist, or one of many different specially-defined, local groups of believers: Though my focus is on the first three groups because the tensions between them are so high and they are influencing the character of our little world, I write to all who have faith in God or many Gods.Here the literal interpretation of your religious texts will be questioned and challenged. Yes, the literal interpretation, whether it is of the Bible, the Qur’an, or the Tanakh or any other Religious Writings (and all the other associated religious documents with each), is limiting our depth of thought.

Fundamentalism and literalism make the same mistake no matter what the belief system. The frameworks for interpretation are limited.

Terrorists and warriors take the historic writings within their holy books and use-and-abuse them to justify the most ungodly behavior. The universal writings of the these books reflect God. The historic writings reflect humanity.

Within the Abrahamic traditions, there is Allah, Jehovah, and Yahweh. For those of us from non-Arab-speaking countries, Allah is the Arabic word for God. To discern which writing is historic (finite) and which is universal (infinite) is the work for scholars. It is hard work, called exegesis, and the discipline is called hermeneutics.

There are many ways to know your God, also known as the Infinite, the Perfect, the One, the Creator, the Sustainer, the Imminent, the Transcendent, the Omnipotent, the Omnipresent, Omnibenevolent

All of the historic documents, especially all those lines-and-paragraphs within your Religious Writings that reflect the tensions of their unique times within which the words were written, need to be set aside as the history of a particular time. The universal writings, all the lines-and-paragraphs within your Religious Writings that are timeless, not in any way time-stamped, must be developed as a basis for a working faith.*

To discern between the historic and the universal is the key to our global future.

There are many groups and movements within Abrahamic faiths that have not done exegetical and hermeneutical work.

Within Christianity there is the KKK, the Christian Identity Movement, the Arayan Nations, and many more. Within Islam that includes movements like Salafism, the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaida, Hezbollah, Taliban, ISIL, Boko Haram, Al-Shabaab and any others who believe, “Allah is our objective… death for the sake of Allah is our wish.” Within Judaism there is the Jewish Underground which includes informal groups like Price Tag, and more formal groups like Kach, Kahane Chai, and the Bat Ayin Underground.

To know about your God, one must read sacred texts. To know the face of God, one must study those elements within the sciences and mathematics that are universal and constant. And, those texts with no time stamp within our Religious Writings truly reveal the very nature of the God who creates and sustains. Here is a guide:

•    The first form that defines our very being, our intelligence and our humanity is continuity, and its most basic function, a simple perfection, is to create order.  In the traditions of the Abrahamic faiths — Judaism, Christianity, and Islam — this is the Creator-Sustainer God. Any order, that creates continuity, is a metaphor as well as a direct expression for the Creator-Sustainer God. Anything that creates order is from God. Anything that creates disorder is not from God, but from man.

•    The second form is symmetry and in its perfection functions to create relations. In the Abrahamic tradition the perfection of that symmetry is the love doctrine, i.e., to love God with all one’s heart, soul, mind and strength, and one’s neighbor as oneself.  Any symmetry that creates real relations is a metaphor and a direct expression of the presence of the Love of God. Anything that breaks relations is from man.

•    The third form is dynamics and its perfection, a complex symmetry extended within time, is harmony. Again, in the Abrahamic tradition, the gift of God’s Spirit transcending a moment in space and time to create a profound joy, deep insight, compelling love… simply a moment of perfection. Any dynamic experienced as a harmony is a metaphor, albeit the real presence, of God’s Spirit within that moment.

Every scientific and religious assertion, both seeking to understand and define the universal, begins with the same first principle and evolves within its own understanding to the second and third. Therefore we have a diversity of faith statements which includes all of the sciences.

This is also the basis of the value chain. The more perfect a moment or an experience is, OR the more perfected a thing or system is, the more valuable it becomes.  Thus, we have the beginnings of business. Here is the baseline beginning of value and values.

Any assertion that counters life’s evolving perfections is not religion (at best, it’s a cult*); it is also not business (it’s exploitation or a bad company); certainly it is not good government; and most often, it is not even good science.

My bottom line conclusion is simple, “Let us open another front within this epic battle with any and all people who cause the death of another.”

Thank you.   – Bruce Camber

For more, please consider these pages:

*Back in 2006, while working on our television series, Small Business School, I proposed a book to the Oxford University Press people, The Synoptic Scriptures of the Christians, Jews and Muslims. They found it interesting, but not compelling enough. It still should be done!

Editor’s note: An early form of this post was a letter, originally written on the 3rd of March 2015 to Barack Hussein Obama, President, USA, and Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister, Israel. It was then updated on Monday, December 28, 2015 to include Ali Khamanei, Ayatollah Seyyed, Iran. It was sent via those links embedded within their names (on that page) on February 10, 2016.

Perhaps the early beginnings of a more-simple, more-integrative model of our Universe

MIT11979The roots of this project go back to 1979 in the main entrance of MIT, Lobby 7, where the works of 77 key, living scholars were placed within either the small-scale, human-scale, or large-scale universe. At that time quarks and strings were the smallest things considered.

  • Could it be that our small scale was not small enough?
  • Are the Planck base units the right place to begin an analysis of the universe?

In March 2012 I initiated an article for Wikipedia about our work within a local high school. A few months earlier we had started to explore a very simple model where the small scale started with the Planck units, used base-2 exponential notation, and went up to the fermion. It then continued on to the Observable Universe for a total of just over 201 notations. Actually published in Wikipedia early in April, that article was deleted on May 2, 2012. In the course of online discussions with an MIT mathematics professor, a major Wikipedia editor, he said it was “original research.” There was no history within scholarship where the universe was defined by 201+ base-2 exponential notations which used the Planck base units and the simplest Platonic geometries to define an infrastructure for the entire universe.

So, what is wrong with that starting point for a model of the universe?

You are here reading this posting for a purpose. I hope it is to think about its veracity and cogency, or to give it a critical review, or to share it with someone else. A simple “Thumbs Up” to encourage us to go forward would be helpful. An insightful comment would be highly appreciated. Sharing this posting with another is encouraged. Becoming associated with this research effort would be most uplifting. You are always invited and most welcomed.

It was with that 1979 project at MIT that I began to see the universe in terms of the small scale, human scale, and large scale (ontology, epistemology, and cosmology). With the Big Board-little universe project that early work has been re-birthed. On December 20, 2012, in response to an email, Frank Wilczek, MIT physics professor and Nobel laureate, said, “I should emphasize that the Planck length is not a substance or law, just a rough concept. So, for example, twice or half the Planck length would be just as good as the Planck length itself, as a concept — it’s basically a matter of convention which you use.”

Yet, within those charts that slowly emerged from our work, there are many, many numbers that should be analyzed and discussed. That has sparked these three conclusions:

1.  We will always need your critical review of the our posts. Take, for example, On Constructing the Universe from Scratch. That post resulted in an extended LinkedIn commentary (https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/constructing-universe-from-scratch-bruce-camber) in part based on series of comments at the end of the original article. Comments are helpful!

2.  At the end of the year, 2015, I  attempted to define our first principles and basic assumptions for this project, Top Ten Reasons to give up those little worldviews for a much bigger and more inclusive UniverseView. That posting is now being revisited to begin to tighten it up: https://bblu.org/ten/  Again,  comments are needed.  Assumptions and first principles are keys to sharing our understanding of the nature of reality.

3.  Your critical review of any posting in the Index is encouraged. Or, you could help with the current work focused on the best guesses of scholars regarding the expansion of the universe within the first seconds, years, millennium, and then million-year cycles.  Please pass along any helpful references you have (such as Wikipedia’s Chronology of the universe and Timeline of the formation of the Universe). Of course, if there is any parity with the notations within the 201+ doublings, a much deeper analysis will commence!

Again, you are always invited and most welcomed to help. Thank you.

Working references

These are the working references for the article, “Constructing the Universe from Scratch.”  A running commentary is being developed within my LinkedIn blogging area.  Besides editing the overall document, the end notes will be using some of these reference materials below.
***************************************************************
Reference materials:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bifurcation_diagram
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Continuity
http://www.academia.edu/748956/The_pythagorean_relationship_between_Pi_Phi_and_e
http://www.maths.surrey.ac.uk/hosted-sites/R.Knott/Fibonacci/propsOfPhi.html

http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/pickover/trans.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clifford_A._Pickover
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mathematical_symbols
Hales: http://arxiv.org/abs/math/9811071v2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hopf_algebra#Cohomology_of_Lie_groups
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_automaton
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_%28mathematical_constant%29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler’s_formula
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search/Hierarchy_of_transfinite_cardinals
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler’s_identity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckingham_%CF%80_theorem
https://www.google.com/search?q=Buckingham+Pi+theorem&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-Penrose-number
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrafinitism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_large_numbers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleph_number
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finitism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wreath_product
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_coordinate_system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_series
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperreal_number
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallpaper_group

Divided Spheres: Geodesics and the Orderly Subdivision of the Sphere by Edward S. Popko

Isoperimetric Quotient for Fullerenes and Other Polyhedral Cages  Tomaž Pisanski , Matjaž Kaufman ,* Drago Bokal , Edward C. Kirby , Ante Graovac § Inštitut za matematiko, fiziko in mehaniko, Univerza v Ljubljani, Jadranska 19, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia, Resource Use Institute, 14 Lower Oakfield, Pitlochry, Perthshire PH16 5DS, Scotland, UK    The Rugjer Bošković Institute, Bijenička c. 54, HR-10001 Zagreb, POB. 1016, Croatia   J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 1997, 37 (6), pp 1028–1032   DOI: 10.1021/ci970228e  Publication Date (Web): November 24, 1997 b Copyright © 1997 American Chemical Society   Abstract:  The notion of Isoperimetric Quotient (IQ) of a polyhedron has been already introduced by Polya. It is a measure that tells us how spherical is a given polyhedron. If we are given a polyhedral graph it can be drawn in a variety of ways in 3D space. As the coordinates of vertices belonging to the same face may not be coplanar the usual definition of IQ fails. Therefore, a method based on a proper triangulation (obtained from omni-capping) is developed that enables one to extend the definition of IQ and compute it for any 3D drawing. The IQs of fullerenes and other polyhedral cages are computed and compared for their NiceGraph and standard Laplacian 3D drawings. It is shown that the drawings with the maximal IQ values reproduce well the molecular mechanics geometries in the case of fullerenes and exact geometries for Platonic and Archimedean polyhedra.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant

In the equations of general relativity, G is often multiplied by 8π. Hence writings in particle physics and physical cosmology often normalize G to 1. This normalization results in the reduced Planck energy, defined as:\sqrt{\frac{\hbar{}c^5}{8\pi G}} \approx 0.390 \times 10^9\ \mathrm{J} \approx 2.43 \times 10^{18} \ \mathrm{GeV}.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_energy

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units#Derived_units

EPP

*************

THEORY OF DYNAMICAL SYSTEMS AND GENERAL TRANSFORMATION. GROUPS WITH INVARIANT MEASURE. A. B. Katok, Ya. G. Sinai, and A. M. Stepin.

 

Printing:

page 1= Printable PDF of this page only

page2 =   Printable PDF of this page only

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth…

As many of you already know, there are a total of 202 notations using base-2 exponentiation (mathematical continuity) and simple nested geometries to most-simply interconnect the entire universe. It would appear that there is  a deep infrastructure that is created and sustained between notations 1 and 144 (1.2023 seconds)  That notation defines the first second of creation. Over two-thirds of the chart are the notations that define the first second of creation.

One might conclude that there is something exquisitely important happening within the very small, seemingly instantaneous, 144-steps of creation. It will take another 17 notations before we get through just the first day of creation.  In this chart it appears that the first day of creation is for all time.  It doesn’t go away.  It is part of the infrastructure of the universe that defines the very nature of the first day. It is still doing the work it was created to do.

One day: 86,400 seconds. Out of the 200+ notations, one day is between the 160th and 161st notations.
One week: 604,800 seconds. One week is within the 163rd notation.
One month: An average of 2,629,746 seconds, it is within the 165th notation.
One year: An average of 31,556,952 seconds, it is between the 168th and 169th notations.
One millennium: 1000 years, an average of 31,556,952,000 seconds, is between the 178th and 179th notations.
One million years: An average of 31,556,952,000,000 seconds, is between the 188th and 189th notations.
The first billion years, an eon, is approximately 31,556,952,000,000,000 seconds; it is between the 199th and 200th notations.

The universe today is approximately 435.48 quintillion seconds old. (Calculation: 31.5 quintillion seconds in a billion years, multiplied by 13.8 is 435.48 quintillion seconds.)

Each notation harbors its unique, constant-and-abiding unfolding.

And, yes, this is our little universe.

How this notational time applies to Genesis is anybody’s guess today, so let’s initiate those seven guesses:

1. The first day separates light from darkness. Though in this model, light is an inherent part of the definition of each notation (see line 10), there is what cosmologists propose as a photon epoch from 10 seconds out to about 380,000 years. Just because one solar day falls within that period, I would suggest a biblical day within Genesis 1 could possibly equal a solar day on earth. That would be perfectly symbolic.  And, it would bring us up in between Notations 160 to 161.

2. The second day creates the firmament, the heavens, and the division of waters. Let us get the counsel of great biblical scholars, yet  it seems, by reading ahead to day 3, that we need to be up to 150 million solar years between Notations 197 and 198.

3. The third day opens galactic formations.  The earth is pegged to be around 4.543 billion years old and that brings us into the 198th notation. Though a multi-billion year notation, it is as if a day.

4. The fourth day must therefore be notation 199-to-200. Now the notations are in billions-of-years groups. Though a multi-billion (measured by solar-years) notation,  the perception of it is as if just one day.

5. The fifth day defaults to notation 200-to-201. Another billions-of-year group, this notation is also but a day in God’s plan.

6. The sixth day bring us into human history which is within the 202 notation. We are blessed and charged. Though another multi-billion, solar-year notation, this “day” is only part of the 202 notation.

7.  The seventh day brings us to the current day all within Notation 202.

The brief history behind uncovering these numbers…

First, in 2011 a few high school geometry classes explored a pervasive geometry and mathematics that encloses all things everywhere throughout all time.

I had been actively studying the foundations of science and religion throughout the years going back into the heydays of the ’70s with professors like David Bohm, Olivier Costa de Beauregard, Jean-Pierre Vigier, John Bell, Victor Weisskopf and others. Yet, it was only in 2011, in that high school geometry class that we discovered the universe inside simple geometric objects. The first, called the tetrahedron, can be discovered by dividing the edges by two and connecting the new vertices. We found a tetrahedron in each of the four corners and an octahedron in the middle. Do the same to the octahedron; you’ll find an octahedron in each of six corners and a tetrahedron in each of the eight faces.

Keep going deeper and deeper within each structure.

Strange thing is that in about 44 steps, you’ll run out of space. Everybody always will. You will find yourself at the edge of the smallest particles within an atom and nothing truly goes inside those spaces. But, we knew we had a long way to go to get to the smallest possible space (called the Planck Length), so on paper we continued to go within. In just 67 more theoretical steps, we were at long last down to the smallest possible size, mathematically determined by one of our great scientists, Max Planck, who first started working to develop these base units in 1899 and first published his results in 1906.

There are a total of 111 notations going within. It didn’t take too much imagination to take our original object and multiply it by two, over and over again. The results were even more surprising.

Within just seven steps that little tetrahedron is bigger than the tallest person and it has a multitude of parts. Within 30 more steps we are out well beyond the International Space Station and the complexity is overwhelming. There are no tricks, no special formulas. It is all just simple math. Each time we just double the length. Within 40 more steps we are out on the edges of the Solar System. And, within less than just 24 more steps, we are at the edges of the universe. In 90+ steps, we have mathematically defined the rest of our little universe.

That process is called base-2 exponential notation and we were most surprised that something so simple had never been discussed within our schools. Of course, Kees Boeke’s 1957 work in Holland used base-10 and it became popular. Yet, his model was never used for scientific formulations. So now we are asking our the best living scholars, “What do we do with our simple mathematical model?” It defines our universe with numbers and geometries within a dynamic tension, all in just over 201 steps or notations.

Yes, from the beginning of creation to this day there are just over 201 doublings. It is just too simple.

We began by calling this project, “The Big Board – little universe project.” It was for high school kids and one class of very special 6th graders.  Later, as we added more Planck base units to the chart, we began to refer to the model as the “Quiet Expansion.”  It seemed that this simple model could become a better model of our universe than the theory given within big bang cosmology. Every step (also called a notation, group, container…) becomes part of the actual definition of a real and never-ending, highly-integrated universe.

It is all based on the Planck base units and at each step, divide the Planck Length multiple by the Planck Time multiple and you’ll approximate the speed of light. Yes, each notation is filled with an essence of light. So, let there be light. Indeed!

Let us all again look at and review each of those seven steps. The first day of creation takes us up to the 160th of those 201+ notations:

One day: At 86,400 seconds, it is between the 160th and 161st notations.
One week: At 604,8000 seconds, it is between 162-165, but within the 163rd notation.
One month: An average of 2,629,746 seconds, it is within the 165th notation.
One year: An average of 31,556,952 seconds, it is between the 168th and 169th notations.
One millennium: 1000 years, an average of 31,556,952,000 seconds, is between the 178th and 179th notations.
One million years: An average of 31,556,952,000,000 seconds, is between the 188th and 189th notations.
The first billion years, an eon is an average of 31,556,952,000,000,000 seconds; it is between the 199th and 200th notations. And, for those of you who use theological language, within this current doubling, the Creator-Sustainer has taken a well-deserved “day of rest.”

This model is vastly different from any model that has ever been proposed and it needs prayers and reflection. The power and presence of your prayers as this work moves forward is requested.

Thank you.

The Shortest Article (perhaps with the longest reach)

Some may say these are my assumptions, others first principles, and then the judging ones, silly, nonsense and the like. My response is simple: You are all right. It is all of the above.

  1. Everything starts simply. Complexity always emerges from something more simple.
  2. Everything is related to everything throughout the universe and throughout all time. The universe is a highly-integrated system.
  3. Continuity-order, symmetry-relations, and dynamics-harmony are fundamentally within everything, everywhere for all time.  It is the basis of all things within space and time and begets space and time.

Thank you.

More…

Back to top