In the Big Board-little universe model using base-2 notation from the Planck Time to the Age of the universe, the entire physical universe is contained within just over 200 notations that are highly-integrated and totally-predictive. Notations are also known as clusters, doublings, groups, sets or steps. Within the first second of the universe, there is more than enough “natural inflation” from the Planck Charge to get “things” going. As a result of studying and working with this model since December 2011, there are many-many facets to explore, however one of the most important is that this model logically suggests that time is derivative and that the finite and the infinite are perhaps best understood in terms of continuity, symmetry and harmony.1
Continuity. Though an unusual way to define infinity, even with quantum indeterminacy, continuity throughout the universe is the bedrock of science, logic, and rational thought. Numbers clarify this continuity. Carried out a billion places, the universe and its systems around us replicate day after day with utmost precision. Within this model, continuity is more fundamental than time; it begets time.
The complexity of a single molecule
Symmetry. The second face of the infinite is symmetry. Though so much of life is asymmetrical, the deepest examination of any physical thing begins to reveal deeper symmetries. Numbered relations define those symmetries and the universe appears to be tiled and tessellated deeply within every notation throughout the model. Here symmetry is more fundamental than space; it begets space.
Harmony. Speculating, it is hypostatized that two symmetries begin interacting within a notation and then across notations, and though possibly not quite perfect, the interaction of the symmetries perfects the moment for the observer or for the notations involved. Therefore, we have moments of perfection within our experiences of the universe.2
Our studies. At this point in our studies, there is not much more we can say about how the infinite defines the model and what the model says about the very nature of the infinite. These three insights, although reflective of the model, in part come out of a study of a moment of perfection in 1972,3 then from studies of the book, Finite and Infinite: A Philosophical Essay (Austin Farrer, Oxford, Dacre Press, Westminster, 1943), and from an application to a business model.4
These three qualities became the bedrock for our model of the universe and for discussions about the shared nature of the finite and infinite.
What difference does it make? First, it is a clear contrast to the nihilism of big bang cosmology. Building in strength and popularity over the past 30 years, that nihilism has had a lot to do the fraying of our little world. So much is out of control and spinning apart. Money is not the issue. What we believe and how we believe is. Hope is. Charity is. Integrity is.
The finite and infinite relation has been the focus of humanity for as long as we have been recording our ever-so-short history. In light of 13.8+ billion years, five thousand years of records is, of course, quite short. We’ve just begun to make sense of it all.
Today in history. The finite is usually associated with physical, limited things. The infinite is often capitalized and associated with godly things, the eternal and everlasting. To our knowledge, Max Tegmark is the first theoretical physicist who has suggested that the concept of the infinite be abandoned. His rationale is that it gets in the way. He cannot make it work for the science he wants to create. Within these many articles, we hope to convince him, Hawking, Guth and so many others to re-engage our simple definition of the infinite. It does not require a religion or religious beliefs. Notwithstanding, it also doesn’t fly in the face of those who believe in the Infinite.
We can all begin to tolerate each other.
This is our simple introduction to a very large topic and we will return to this page often to expand its range and its depth.
In none of your speeches has the literal interpretation of the Bible, the Qur’an, and the Tanakh (BQT – alphabetically-listed), and all the other associated religious documents with each, been brought into question and rigorously challenged in light of the universals and constants of science. (And, yes, these three groups of writings, taken as a whole, are abbreviated, BQT.)
Fundamentalism and literalism make the same mistake no matter what the belief system. Their frameworks for interpretation are too 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 (within the Abrahamic traditions, 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 God (abbreviate Allah, Jehovah, Yahweh, AJY), 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 the BQT that reflect the tensions of their unique timeswithin 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 the BQT 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 God (AJY), 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; here AJY reveals the very nature of the One who creates and sustains.
• 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 creates 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.”
Editor’s note: This letter was 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 the links embedded within their names above on February 10, 2016.
In December 2011 two teachers and about 80 high school students rather naïvely began to explore a geometric progression that went down in size to the Planck Length then reversed to go back up all the way to the Observable Universe (most links open a tab or window and go to an in-depth Wikipedia page).
Their chart is pictured on the left. It measures 60×11 inches. It is a view of the entire universe and has just over 200 base-2 exponential notations (dividing or multiplying by 2, over and over again). Thinking that this simple math was already part of academic work, their two-year search could not find any references to base-2 and the Planck Length.* In the first year, asking around locally and then globally, many people were quite puzzled and asked, “Why haven’t we seen a base-2 scale of the universe before now?”
An Integrated Universe View
Dubbed Big Board – little universe, this project started as a curiosity; today, it is an on-going study to analyze and develop the logic and potential links from their simple mathematics to all the current mathematics that define the universe, all its parts, everything from everywhere, and from the beginning of time to this very moment in time. The hope is that there is a simple logic and there are simple links. Their standing invitation is, Open To Everyone, to come and help. This chart follows the progressions from the smallest to the largest possible measurement of a length. Other charts engage the other Planck base units. With more questions than answers, this group is trying to grasp the logic flows in light of current academic-scientific research. They’re making a little progress.
They ask, “Where are the informed critics to tell us where we are going wrong?” One rather brilliant, young physicist told them that the concept for this project is idiosyncratic. They quickly learned how right he was. Nobel laureates and scholars of the highest caliber were asked, “What is wrong with our picture? Where is our fallacy of misplaced concreteness?” Slowly analyzing the logic and developing their thoughts as web postings, the group plods along. At some point somebody should say, “That’s wrong” and be able to tell them in what ways they have failed logically or mathematically.
If they are not wrong, the extension of basic logic could begin to yield unusual results. For example, the Big Bang theory could get a special addendum, the first 67 notations. That would make it simple, symmetric (entirely-related), predictive, and totally other. The entire universe could get an infrastructure of geometries whereby many issues in physics, chemistry and biology could be redressed. The finite-infinite relation is opened for new inquiries. This model of the universe is derivative of quantitative qualities of infinity, continuity and symmetry. Those relations appear to have an inherent qualitative or value structure. If so, ethics and the studies of the Mind (the discernment of qualities) just might, for the first time in history, become part of a scientific-mathematical continuum. A trifurcated definition of the individual may emerge whereby people are simultaneously within the small scale, human scale, and large scale universe. Of course, we’ll have to embrace a different sense of the nature of space and time. Perhaps we might begin to understand what it means that space and time are derivative. Surely, that is enough; yet there will always be more. Along the way, there are the many working postings that have been written since those first classes and each needs constant updating. Many can be found through the top navigation bar option, INDEX.
Notes, lesson plans and posts (and all new posts) are being consolidated and linked from this homepage. Now called, The Big Board – little universe Project, it is a Science-Technology-Engineering-Mathematics (STEM) application. Secondary schools from around the world will be invited to join this exploration.
The earliest postings and blogs were done by Bruce Camber within a section of his website — SmallBusinessSchool.org. That site supports a television series, Small Business School, that he and his wife, Hattie Bryant, started. It aired for 50 seasons on most PBS-TV stations throughout the USA and on thousands around the world via the Voice of America-TV affiliates.
Over the years articles and blogs have been posted on WordPress, LinkedIn, Blogger, and Facebook (often links open in new windows). An April 2012 article, formatted for and displayed within Wikipedia for a few weeks, was deleted on May 2, 2012 as “original research” by highly-specialized Wikipedia editors. Only then did this little group of teachers and students finally begin to believe that base-2 notation had not already been applied to the Planck base units. And, as they have grown in their analyses, it has become increasingly clear that this area of simple math and simple logic is a new area for exploration and that notations 1-to-67 may be a key to unlock a new understanding of the nature of physical reality.
The current biggest challenge is to study the logic flows within their many charts based on the Planck base units, both up and down and across, and to build on current questions, “Is this logic simple and consistent?What does it imply about the nature of the universe?”
There may well be two dates at the top of a posting within this site. If there is a date above the light grey line, that is the earliest date on the web.
Yet, all postings within these two websites — http://bblu.org and hpp://81018.com — are in process.
Some are not yet first drafts. These are documents being worked on in the public view and your feedback is encouraged. If you would like to be an editor of the site, please volunteer. These documents may be be stamped with a “Most Recent Update.”
Some are first drafts. There is always room for improvement and it is anticipated that more work will be done on the document. These documents will also be be stamped with a “Most Recent Update” when there is a change.
How did the universe begin? And, what does it mean? Could a Quiet Expansion impact the Big Bang?
Most recent update: September 2016 WORK-IS-STILL-IN-PROGRESS
FIRST DRAFT is for the GENERAL PUBLIC.
There is a very similar work-in-progress
for the scientific-academic community
by Bruce Camber, New Orleans
Of course, there are. But here we focus on a model that has only been explored by a small group of high school people and others within their extended community.
Couldn’t the question also be asked, “Might it be possible that the universe began with an infinitesimal length, time, mass, and temperature (and a rather small charge), then expanded like the cells of life, doubling each step of the way?” Is our universe, in fact, highly ordered and totally relational? Of course, given the state of world affairs today, the quick answer would be “No.” Yet, if we were able to answer, “Yes,” perhaps there are things we could learn from the universe to solve some of our world’s most vexing problems.
With that goal in mind, let us begin by using the old journalistic framework:
“Who? What? Why? When? Where? And, how?”
Who is who: On one side you have the scholars of the Big Bang theory (hereinafter referred to as bbt) including many Nobel laureates, and on the other side are a few high school math and science teachers and their students. The scholars’ bbt is highly documented. It is an intellectual cornerstone within experimental and theoretical physics, cosmology, astrophysics, and even ontology. The high school work has been primarily driven by this author and it has had virtually no peer review. What: For us to challenge the bbt appears foolhardy at best. Yet, there are many, many reasons to challenge it, but most of all because (1) it is overly complex and confusing, (2) it is not very good philosophy, (3) it is very poor psychology, and (4) possibly, it’s actually wrong about its most-basic assumptions. Why: The first three key parts of the bbt, involving substantially less than a trillionth of a second, are based on hunches and a need to shoehorn data to support the model. If we get a better model, we might be able to beget a better life. When: Now, today. These models are more influential than we know. Where: Everywhere. It seems that we are so intimately connected, a change in our model, changes everything immediately. Perhaps we can impact the various manifestations of insanity within our cultures. How: Our working premise begins with what is known as a space-time singularity, the dynamic transformational nexus between the finite and infinite where there is a complete unification of all the basic forces of nature and the Planck base units (aka Planck scale). We postulate that this unification is extended through dynamic working ratios throughout all 200+ notations from the first moment of creation to the current time and present day. We further postulate that this working premise creates an environment to build a panoply of bridges from the Planck scale to all current well-established physical theories whereby each notation is a domain for unique predictive values.
We call our very simple model the Quiet Expansion (hereinafter we use the abbreviation, QE).
To explain such a position requires a detailed analysis and comparison between the big bang (and its many facets) and all the details created within each notation of the QE (a very large horizontally-scrolled file). We are also writing it up for the academic community. That analysis titled, Quiet Expansion of the Universe, is based on this posting so there is some repetition.
The key to our model is multiplication by 2, starting with the Planck base units. It begins at the nexus of transformation between the finite and the infinite, defined by the crossing lines at “0” in the first image above on the right.
When we began in December 2011, we knew nothing about those pivotal Planck calculations done in 1899 by Max Planck. We hardly knew his name. We asked everybody who seemed to know something about the Planck numbers, “Can we multiply each value by 2?” We sought out experts and quickly found the work of Prof. Dr. Frank Wilczek (at that time at MIT). With very few exceptions, it was not until Wilczek began writing a series of articles in 2001, Scaling Mt. Planck, (Physics Today), did anybody think those Planck numbers amounted to anything more than numerology.
Though it seemed that most everybody was familiar with Kees Boeke’s 1957 work (Cosmic View) using base-10, we were not. Most all our academic contacts made quick reference to it, yet were still surprised to see our base-2 chart from the Planck Length to the Observable Universe. A few suggested that to multiply by 2 was no better than multiplying by 10. Some thought it was a frivolous exercise. But because we had our geometries that went right down to that scale, we proceeded. Our work began in December 2011 by multiplying the Planck Length by 2, and then each result by 2, over and over and over again. It was straightforward, a bit tedious, but relatively simple. When we discovered that there are only 200+ doublings to get to the Age of the Universe and the Observable Universe, we couldn’t believe it. Though hard to believe, it’s true. That simple math, called “base-2 exponential notation,” is what cells do. It’s a bit like chemical bonding. Another way to envision these dynamics may well be bifurcation theory.
By the time one reaches the estimated Age of the Universe, this model has encapsulated every moment of time since the very beginning, all within 200+ “somethings” that have at various points been called: (1) clusters, (2) containers, (3) domains, (4) doublings, (5) groups, (6) layers, (7) notations, (8) ratios, (9) sets or (10) steps. The result is, by definition, an entirely-ordered universe. When we stopped looking at the numbers individually, we began to realize each was in an active relation (a ratio) with the others within each notation. Then, we began to see this multiplicity of ratios as living, dynamic relations struggling to be recognized. As long as we were consistent in using the same value structure to determine each number, these ratios became the penultimate determinants of a given reality within a given notation.
To attempt to come up to speed, to learn more about it all as quickly as possible, we’ve been using Wikipedia’s summaries. Wikipedia’s goal is to represent the best current thinking of the thought leaders within the relevant scientific communities. These scientists have lived within this theory throughout their professional careers. It is part of their intellectual being. Notwithstanding, we believe most all of their work can be absorbed within the QE. Our primary questions are about the first four and most fundamental periods which they call “Epochs.” Taken together, these four epochs represent less than a fraction-of-a-fraction of a second within the QE model. With just little tweaks, we believe most all their work within the subsequent epochs can be readily integrated.
The writers within the Wikipedia community overlap with those within these scientific communities. Wikipedia, constantly in the process of refining their writing, provides several summaries of the History of the Universe. Work based on observations and measurements has a place within the QE and our guess is that the interpretation of those observations and measurements will become richer and more informative when the QE parameters and boundary conditions are engaged.
In 1970 there were competing theories about the beginning of the universe. By 1990 the bbt had become dominant. In 2011 our little group of high school geometry people began to explore the interior structures of the tetrahedron and octahedron and that is when we found within our tilings and tessellations, just over 201 base-2 exponential notations from the Planck base units to the Age of the Universe and to the Observable Universe. That continuum appeared so simple, we first engaged it as an excellent STEM (Science-Technology-Engineering-Mathematics) tool. Yet, with further study and thought, it also seemed to challenge some of our basic commonsense assumptions about nature (the back story). As we studied our new little model, the bbt continued to solidify its dominance within the general culture; nevertheless, we started to question it. We began to believe that the actual physics of the first moments of creation might be better defined by the simple mathematics of a quiet expansion, especially the first 67 notations. Those 67 have never been recognized as such and certainly have not been discussed within academia. The great minds throughout the ages have not been aware of the 201+ base-2 notations, especially those first 67 notations. So mysterious are the 67, we began more actively to think about them and to make some postulations about their place and purpose.
Our first posting about this Quiet Expansion was a result of our naive, informal, and often idiosyncratic studies of the Planck Base Units, base-2 exponential notation, and an inherent geometry assumed to be within every doubling throughout the universe. We have moved slowly. Having backed into the Planck base units from our simple exercises in a high school geometry class, we were not at all sure of ourselves. So, after observing our results for a couple of years, we began asking the question, “Could this be a more-simple, more-inclusive model of the universe than the big bang theory?” Because we only have the beginnings of an outline of a model, we have continued our quest and continue to ask more questions, primary among them, “If space and time are finite, then what is infinite?” Throughout recorded history, the infinite has been described as perfect. So, we began thinking about perfections in mathematics and science. As a result, our first answer to that question: (1) Continuity. Simple continuity creates every manifestation of order (equations). (2) Symmetry. Simple symmetries define simple relations. Complex symmetries define complex relations. (3) Dynamics. Perhaps the best description of a dynamic moment is captured by harmonic analysis. There appears to be layers of perfection based on the interactions of these three faces of perfection.
The QE model holds that things are simple before complex; and “everything is related to everything.” Hypothesized are simple geometries, a deep infrastructure that gives rise to the work within these leading intellectual studies of our time: combinatorics, cellular automaton, cubic close packing, bifurcation theory (and the Feigenbaum’s constants), the Langlands program, mereotopology (point-free geometry), binary operations (80-known), and scalar field theory. Here are people working on theories and constructions of the simple, yet their concepts are anything but simple.
Consider this unusual-yet-very-important concept. Within every notation, the QE model aggregates what is called “base-8 pointfree vertices” using scaling laws and dimensional analysis. That insight came from a most prominent theoretical physicist, Prof. Dr. Freeman Dyson of the Institute for Advanced Studies in Princeton (Einstein’s old hangout). There are single line entries for both the base-2 and base-8 progressions within the horizontally-scrolled chart. At the 41st notation there are 10,633,823,966,279,326,983,230,456,482,242,756,608 pointfree vertices. It takes just four vertices to make a tetrahedron. It takes six to make an octahedron. With a quintillion-quintillion vertices, a huge, possibly-quite complex, infrastructure necessarily evolves. Perhaps the base-2 simple doublings could be aggregating base-8 structures as groups or sets. Further defined by the Planck base units, in the range 41-to-60, we hypothesize that these are the domains for archetypal relations and systems.
There are 549,755,813,888 base-2 pointfree vertices at Notation 41 and 5,070,602,400,912,917,605,986,812,821,504 at Notation 104. That is more than enough groups and sets to create the diversity of atomic, chemical, and biological structures that define our universe and life. Again, there is more detailed analysis within that article for the scientific-academic community (also referenced in the header).
Here it would appear is the deep infrastructure of the universe where the simple mathematics of ratios between space, time, charge, mass and temperature create real realities within every notation. The ratios are called, the really real. Within the continuum of charge here is the so-called dark energy within notations 185 to 200 and with the continuum of mass there is the dark matter. If we ever have a chance, we’ll rename both as the deep energy and deep matter of the universe, the manifestations of really real mathematical ratios.
Within the bbt there is what is called the Quark Epoch. It generalizes 63 of the QE notations, from 41 to 104. These notations within the QE model are so foundational, this comparison to Quark Epoch is a key. Within the bbt this Quark Epoch cannot begin until the temperature is cool enough. Given the bbt’s temperature requirement, within the QE model, the Quark Epoch would not begin until up-and-around Notation 136 where the temperature has finally risen to 1.9201×1012 Kelvin. If that is the right range, as suggested by proponents of the bbt, less than a second has transpired, the universe has a diameter of about 874 square miles and a mass of about 1.896×1032 kilograms. The Sun is estimated to be 1.989×1030 kilograms. Fascinating, isn’t it?
Our naïve-but-playful question, “How can the mass of the universe within just 874 square miles be larger than our sun?”
The simple logic of the QE model causes us to stop and ponder, What is mass? Is it weight in kilograms or is it a working ratio of energy and other dimensionless constants that are expressed as weight, density, and force. This major subject is addressed further and will be a key focus for a long time.
Within the QE model from around Notations 65 to 69 is the transition from the small scale to the human scale. This “human scale” is the middle third of the 201 notations, i.e. 67-to-134. Even though two-thirds of the way through the 201 doublings, less than a second has transpired from the start.
It is all quite fascinating. And it all demands a new logic about the universe, space and time.
— most active edit area—
Let us take stock of where we are. Even though the Quark Epoch of the bbt seems to overlap and begin to become simpatico within the QE, there are fundamental logic and conceptual problems ahead.
A key question within the QE model is, “What is a notation?” All 200+ are also known as an archetype, cluster, doubling, group, layer, set, and/or step. Each word is perspectival. Each notation is dynamic, always in the process of being defined, right up to the current time within our current notation.
Space and time are local per notation and all “past” is an imprint on the universe that literally defines it beingness right now, thus there is no time asymmetry.
What does that mean? Each notation has an active role right now in defining who we are and what this universe is here and now. Each notation has an active role in defining all other notations.
Today, right now, all of these notations are actively defining the now. We are imprinting on the universe right now. The past is not past; it is an imprint on the universe. There is only the Now, only right now, only today.
Humanity or the human scale seems to be defined between notations 67-to-134, but the current notation is 200+. Therefore, these notations must be something like the archetypes of forms and functions (notations 1-to-67) that define our deeper beingness. The notations from 134-to-200 define our planetary and galactic systems and these are the notations where most of the work of the bbt physicists, cosmologists, and astrophysicists work.
In just a few more notations, between 142 and 143, the universe is at the one second mark. This measurement is most often used to determine the speed of light. Yet, as noted in earlier postings, within every notation, the multiple of the Planck length divided by the multiple of the Planck Time renders an approximation of the speed of light. Though commonsense when we see that the speed of light plays prominently in the definitions of Planck Length and Planck Time, it gives each notation a special substantiation.
The question to be answered, “What is the meaning of temperature? …within the bbt? Within the QE model, we impute that it is the total temperature throughout the area defined by the notation (or cluster, container, domain, doubling, group, layer, or step). This measurement within the Hadron Epoch within the bbt is lower than it is within the QE model. There is a natural correlation between all these numbers within the QE simply because they start with the same definitional characteristics (the Planck base units) and the evolution of those numbers using base-2 exponential notation. The ratio of length to temperature renders 7.3322+ ratio. That result is currently being analyzed, space-to-temperature or kelvin per meters.
In 1972 George Ellis and Stephen Hawking began to explore the boundary conditions that define our universe between 10-13 centimeters (elementary particles) and 1028 cm, the assumed radius of the universe. They did not approach the Planck base units which would have expanded their range to 1.616199×10−35 meters (Planck Length) and then it would have tucked them in at about 5.1942×1025 meters according to current best guesses regarding the Age of the Universe.
Earlier it was observed that the big bang is not good philosophy and it is bad psychology. Philosophy is taken as a study of first principles and systems, the universals and constants that create the boundary conditions as well as the continuity equations that bind our universe together. Since 1972, especially with the very key question about the very nature of the first microseconds, the bbt has not progressed very far. Their Planck epoch is still mysterious. It is bad psychology for that very reason. It is so disjointed, so out of touch with anything human, it de facto promotes a certain form of nihilism.
Theories should have elegance, beauty, coherence, and simplicity. Children should be able to begin to understand. And with the QE, children quickly begin to understand 2 times 2. We just have to carry it out a few more places for them.
What are the implications if the Quiet Expansion is true? For us all:
1. The finite-infinite relation is the key and requires more study.
2. The universe is finite, quantized, and derivative. Space and time are also finite, quantized, and derivative.
3. The infinite is continuity, symmetry and harmony giving rise to order, relations and harmony.
4. There are, therefore, natural laws, ethics, and values.
For the big bang theory:
1. All the actual measurements and observational work that have gone into the big bang theory (bbt) are supported by the quiet expansion.
2. All the major theoretical constructs of the bbt including and after the Quark Epoch are supported by the quiet expansion. There are adjustments of the time scale in which things occur, yet these are minor.
3. The definitions of the Grand Unification Epoch, Inflationary Epoch, and Electroweak Epoch will be upgraded substantially.
For the Quiet Expansion (QE):
1. The continued expansion of the universe is fully supported within the quiet expansion.
2. There are just over 200 notations that define the universe.
3. These notations are all active, functional, and necessarily build on each other.
4. These notations will also be defined as: • archetypes • clusters • containers • domains • doublings • groups • layers • ratios • sets • steps
5. As an archetype, each notation serves specific purposes in defining the textures and substance of the universe.
The future, both short-term and long-term: Our “To Do” List.
1. Run the ratios: There is a meaningful ratio between each of the five Planck base units within each of the notations. Volunteers?
2. Double-check the numbers. Just yesterday there was a question about the Coulombs doublings. The simple mathematics of every doubling has to be correct.
3. Study the Mass” progression from 0 to 201 and intuit the meaning of mass given by just the pointfree vertices throughout the twenty notations from 50 to 70. Formulate key critical questions? What are the ratios saying?
Disclaimer: Our charts and discussion are our first time to make a comparative analysis between the big bang theory and our Quiet Expansion. Silly errors are inevitable. We are neophytes, not scholars, within these fields, so please point out any of our failures with logic, math, and physics. We will be most grateful.
This ends the first story about two very different models of the universe. Of course, it is a story that is to be continued.
Footnotes and endnotes:
The first working title of this posting was “Can A Quiet Expansion Challenge the Big Bang?” which was deemed too confrontational. The more important questions were, “How did it all begin and what does it mean?” That change was made on Friday morning, June 17, 2016.
Cf. 1Big bang theory: The world-renown Cambridge University physicist, Stephen Hawking, is the leading spokesperson for the big bang. He has become a rock star among scientists because he has been so successful as its primary advocate. Within his May 2016 PBS-TV series, Genius, he asks rhetorically, “Where did the universe come from? The answer, as most people can tell you, is the big bang. Everything in existence, expanding exponentially in every direction,from an infinitely small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense point, creating a cosmos filled with energy and matter. But what does that really mean and where did it all begin?” His confidence also exudes from his 1988, best-selling book, A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes, and even from his foundational writing in 1973 (co-authored with Cambridge colleague, George F. R. Ellis) the highly-technical book, The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time.
Are space-and-time unbounded or bounded? If bounded, is our universe a container universe? Are the Planck base units and all the dimensionless constants part of the definitions of the boundaries between the finite and the infinite?
“The Planck length is the scale at which classical ideas about gravity and space-time cease to be valid, and quantum effects dominate. This is the quantum of length, the smallest measurement of length with any meaning. And roughly equal to 1.6 x 10-35 m or about 10-20 times the size of a proton.”
“All of the quantities that have “Planck” attached to their name can ultimately be understood from the concept of the “Planck mass.” The Planck mass, roughly speaking, is the mass a point particle would need to have for its classical Schwarzschild radius (the size of its event horizon, if you like) to be the same size as its quantum-mechanical Compton wavelength (or the spread of its wave-function, if you like). That mass is 1019 GeV/c2, or about 10-8 kilograms.”
“The significance of this mass is that it is the energy scale at which the quantum properties of the object (remember, this is a point particle!) are as important as the general relativity properties of the object. Therefore it is likely to be the mass scale at which quantum gravity effects start to matter. Turning this into a mass is as simple as using the formula for the Compton wavelength given in the above link and plugging in the Planck mass. Thus, the Planck length is the typical quantum size of a particle with a mass equal to the Planck mass. As you point out, the Planck time is then just the Planck length divided by the speed of light.”
“Since the Planck length has this special property of being the length scale where we can’t ignore quantum gravity effects, it is typically taken to be the size of a fundamental string, in string theory. Alternatively, if we consider more general theories of quantum gravity, one might speculate that it is the typical size of the “fuzziness” of spacetime. It’s a length scale (or energy scale) we are unlikely to probe in any future experiments so we tend to interpret it as the length scale at which classical general relativity (GR) “breaks down” — i.e. at which classical GR fails to provide an accurate description of nature. This is very similar to the way that the speed of light is considered the velocity scale at which Newtonian mechanics “breaks down” and special relativity is called for.”
Answered by: Brent Nelson, Ph.D., Research Fellow, University of Michigan
This animated illustration is from Wikipedia. It demonstrates how spheres generate lines (lattice), triangles, and then a tetrahedron. With that second layer of green spheres emerges the tetrahedral-octahedral couplet. The discipline, known as cubic close packing (ccp), deserves our attention. “The Kepler conjecture states that this is the highest density that can be achieved by any arrangement of spheres, either regular or irregular. This conjecture was proven by T. C. Hales.” (Wikipedia)
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 7:19 PM, Bruce Camber
Bruce Camber wrote:
Dear Prof. Dr. Glashow:
Just over 34 years ago I contacted you regarding a special project at MIT called, “An architecture for integrative systems.” It was a display project in the main rotunda just off Massachusetts Avenue. It borrowed Erwin Schrodinger’s title from his much earlier work, “What is life?” Seventy-seven leading, living scholars participated and you were one of them.
We are taking that old product and re-purposing it online within a very similar framework — Small Scale, Human Scale, Large Scale — however, we are using base-2 exponential notation from the Planck Length to the edges of the observable universe which gives us over 201 ordered steps in which to context information. By assuming nested geometries at each doubling, it seems that we will have an inherent structure for analogous or metaphorical connection-making.
But before we go to far, I would like to re-engage you and ask for your advice:
1. If the Planck Length is a dimensionful number representing a singularity or a point, can we multiply it by 2 and assume two points? ..multiply it again and assume 4, then 8, 16, 32 and on up to 1024 by the 10th doubling?
2. Can we assume nested geometries throughout?
3. We will use the same infrastructure as used by Wikipedia to build it out, so owner’s of information can readily edit and update content. Is there any particular recent work to which you would want us to take note?
Small Business School, a television series on PBS stations
PS. A few simple web pages provide more background:
Our working model:
Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 3:42 PM Subject: Planck’s Time & Length,
The First Three Minutes, and your
preface in Time in Powers of Ten
Dear Prof. Dr. Weinberg:
Unwittingly we have begun working with Planck Time.
We started with the Planck Length in 2011.
Our high school geometry classes over here in New Orleans
backed into a model of the universe using base-2 exponential
notation. We multiplied the Planck Length and Planck Time
by 2 until we got out to the Observable Universe and the<
Age of the Universe respectively.
Here is a link within our work on a science fair project:
It took just 202+ notations or doublings and it all started
because we went inside a tetrahedron, halving the edges,
connecting those vertices to discover the four half-sized
tetrahedrons in each corner and an octahedron in the middle.
We did the same with the octahedron (finding the six half-
sized octahedrons in the corners in eight tetrahedrons in
each of the faces) and we didn’t stop until we were some-
where around the Planck Length.
The fascinating thing we discovered along the way is what
we are calling “the really-real small-scale universe.” It has
a geometry and a systemic order (numbers and symmetries).
Nobody seems to know much about it although analyzed
throughout human history and called the aether (ether),
vinculum, plenum, matrix, grid, continuum, firmament and
If we divide this little mathematical-geometric
universe into “thirds” as the small-human-large scale,
the small-scale universe finally has some definition but
now it only takes us up to size of the fermions and protons.
What do you think? Just poppycock? Nonsense?
If it is nonsense, please, please tell us why and we can go back to
normal and get on with our life. If not…