Stephen Hawking

Stephen Hawking has been the world’s leading advocate for the big bang theory. In 2012 we were just starting our rather idiosyncratic studies within this domain. Notwithstanding, if and only if the simplicity of our work begins to resonate, we would hope to receive some acknowledgement from the University of Cambridge, Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics (DAMPT). Here is our most recent email to Prof. Dr. Stephen Hawking through his personal assistant, a graduate student, Jonathan Wood:

June 30, 2016 at 5:18 PM
References: Is is possible that a quiet expansion defuses the big bang?

Dear Jonathan (and Prof. Dr. Stephen Hawking):

On July 4 that article (link above) to which I referred you earlier this month will finally be considered a “first draft.” This model, based on a rather quiet expansion of the Planck base units using base-2 exponential notation, begins to redefine the first four epochs that define the start of the big bang theory. The Planck Epoch has become the Planck Moment; the Grand Unification Epoch has become a process and your Inflationary and Electroweak Epochs have also become processes.

Just below, I will insert our introduction from our quite-large, horizontally-scrolled chart and I will post this email within our “Letters” for our 3000+ scholars with whom we communicate around the globe.

Of course, we will inform you and the people of the DAMPT of our progress or lack of it.

I send you our best wishes for your well-being and that of all the DAMPT people,

Most sincerely,

Bruce Camber
New Orleans

Redefining the big bang theory through this quiet expansion of 201+ notations:
The following three questions need to be addressed by this simple mathematical model of the universe called Quiet Expansion (QE):
1. Can this quiet expansion defuse the big bang theory? The math within the QE model redefines the first four and most-key elements of the big bang theory (bbt). If it is defused and becomes an historic statement, From Lemaître to Hawking, science can move on within well-prescribed boundary conditions and known parameters. The first four “epochs” of the big bang theory can readily be subjected to redefinition. These “epochs” amount to less than a trillionth-of-a-trillionth a second.
2. Are ethics and values built into the fabric of the universe? The QE model establishes a simple continuity equation from the first moment in time through the Age of the Universe to this day and this moment. These simple mathematical constructions quickly evolve as geometrical constructions and symmetry groups. These become dynamic and harmonic. Continuity, symmetry and harmony are the foundations for a natural value equation deep-seated within the universe. Most every flavor of ethics, morals, and values can be appreciated for what they do and don’t do, and for why they are.
3. How can we more fully understand the finite-infinite relation? This finite-infinite relation is perhaps best described as a study of perfection and moments of perfection and that the geometries and mathematics of imperfection are also better defined and understood as a result.

Planck Moment: The finite-infinite relation most intimately defines the first notation and is necessarily within all notations building from the first. An infinitesimally short duration, it is the beginning that creates space and time and then extends within space and time much like the birthing process. The Planck base units are our simplest-deepest-best description of this moment as of today.

Grand Unification and the Electroweak Processes: Based on the fact that entities and things require a necessary amount of space that only becomes available from the 67th notation and above, the first 60 to 66 notations are foundational to all notations. Using the analogy of the birthing process, all the forms-and-functions, then processes-and-procedures, and then relations-and-systems prior to the actual birthing event, are the first 60 or so notations. Here that finite-infinite relation creates the foundational order, the most basic relations, and many dynamical systems prior to the uniqueness of every reasonable analogue to the birthing event.

The Grand Unification processes continue beyond the 67th notation as specific Unification processes. The electroweak processes now begin to manifest and the measurements given by the big bang theorists can be tweaked and integrated within the quiet expansion model.

Inflationary Processes: Just as there are still many many questions about cellular division, there are even more open questions within this model. However, the force, the infinitesimal amount of energy, available to this process are working ratios of the Planck base units whereby order, relations, and dynamics evolve with a perfect continuity, perfect symmetry, and a deep harmony within every sphere and basic structure. This concept was initially put forth as a philosophical orientation to life, and then it was explored in a post about numbers called,  On Constructing the Universe From Scratch (pp.5f).

Lawrence, Hannah

Emails and Letters
College & University scholars
Editors and Writers

§Hannah Lawrence is the Deputy Editor of Branded Content at Romper (

Friday, September 16, 2016

Hi Hannah,
There is a simple model of the universe, and to grasp it requires nothing more than second-and-third grade math and a suspension of any current model (such as the big bang).  This simple model is based on simple logic and simple math.
Please bear with me as I attempt to describe it quickly and easily.
1. The smallest-scale measurements of the universe are called the Planck units. The largest measurements we know are the Observable Universe (space or length) and the Age of the Universe (time).  If you double the Planck Length and Planck Time just 67 times, you are up to the smallest particles like the fermion and proton and the universe is a trillionth of a second old.  In another 67 steps you are just over (218.70 miles) and still less than a second old!  In the next 67 steps, up to just over 200 notations, you are up to the Observable Universe and Age of the Universe (13.81 billion years). You just multiplied those infinitesimally small Planck units by 2 over and over again and you end up with a model of the universe that is highly-ordered and in a  well-defined box.
Hard to believe.  Take a look at the actual numbers.  The biggest discussion is about what it means.
2.  We started this work in a New Orleans high school back in December 2011. We’ve been writing about it:
Now, if you are having trouble with the numbers, please take a look at the checkerboard-wheat story . Multiplying by 2 is called exponential notation.  It is what cells do.  It is what nature does.  We call the earth, Gaia, the ancestral mother, and though science has attempted to marginalize the earth and its people, this model is sensitivity training taken to the highest degree.  It suggests that everything that has ever been done in the universe is registered, noted, and imprinted.  Though we might call it history, in this model it is all living history.  Nothing is past; it is all right now. 
Interesting? Thanks.

Most sincerely, 

* * * * *
Bruce Camber
New Orleans
PS.  Here are two of my current emails, one to editors and the other to scholars.



July 8, 2016

Does this quiet expansion challenge the big bang?

Although our naive answer seems the answer is “Yes,” surely more reflection is required. Here is where we are now (most recent postings first):

  1. How did it all begin? And, what does it mean? (June 2016)
  2. Quiet Expansion of the Universe (June 2016)
  3. Notations 1-204: A most-simple, integrated model of the universe. This project began in 2011. This page uses horizontal scrolling (a test started in April 2016) to provide a quick overview to all the numbers.
  4. Planck base units from 0 at the beginning to today:


Tetrahedron & Octahedron: Simplest Interior Structures

tetrahedronThe simple octahedron is inscribed with the center of every tetrahedron. In the image on the right, the yellow face of octahedron is exposed; the central triangle in the three other faces are part of the octahedron.  The other four faces are internal, facing an abutting tetrahedron.

There are six half-sized octahedrons in each corner of the octahedron and a tetrahedron in each face. There are many two-dimensional internal plates. Outlined in colored tape, the white, red, yellow and blue hexagons are outlined. There are also plates of squares and triangles.

Screen Shot 2016-05-20 at 5.19.17 PM



Flooding the big bang theory

Although the big bang is the dominant theory of our day (and since about 1975), support for the big bang theory is not unanimous. Here we will aggregate articles, most-recent first, by people who raise questions about the theory.

August 2016: How did the universe begin? And, what does it mean? Could a Quiet Expansion impact the Big Bang?” by Bruce Camber

January 2016Are Cosmologists Fooling Themselves About The Big Bang, Dark Matter And More?” by Ethan Siegel, Brian Koberlein, Forbes Magazine, Jan 20, 2016

Feb 10, 2015  Is “Big Bang” a Big Bust? New physics theory says Yes! Lisa Zyga writing about the work of Ahmed Farag Ali and  Saurya Das.

January, 2015 “New origin of universe model pours water on Big Bang theory” Ahmed Farag Ali, a physicist at Zewail City of Science and Technology (Egypt) and Saurya Das (University of Lethbridge, Alberta Canada) reported by Zeeya MeralarXiv:1404.3093 (2014).

May 2015:  The Big Bang’s Identity Crisis, PBS-TV, Paul Halpern (homepage)

June 2004:   Big Bang Theory Busted By 33 Top Scientists, Open letter reported by was signed by:

  • Halton Arp, (died, 2013) Max-Planck-Institute Fur Astrophysik (Germany)
  • Andre Koch Torres Assis, State University of Campinas (Brazil)
  • Yuri Baryshev, Astronomical Institute, St. Petersburg State University
  • Ari Brynjolfsson, (died: 2013) Applied Radiation Industries (USA)
  • Hermann Bondi, (died, 2005) Churchill College, University of Cambridge (UK)
  • Timothy Eastman, Plasmas International (USA)
  • Chuck Gallo, Superconix, Inc.(USA)
  • Thomas Gold, Cornell University (emeritus) (USA)
  • Amitabha Ghosh, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur (India)
  • Walter J. Heikkila, University of Texas at Dallas (USA)
  • Michael Ibison, Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin, Texas
  • Thomas Jarboe, University of Washington (USA)
  • Jerry W. Jensen, ATK Propulsion (USA)
  • Menas Kafatos, George Mason University (USA)
  • Eric J. Lerner, Lawrenceville Plasma Physics (USA)
  • Paul Marmet, Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics (retired) (Canada)
  • Paola Marziani, Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica, Osservatorio, Astronomico di Padova (Italy)
  • Gregory Meholic, The Aerospace Corporation (USA)
  • Jacques Moret-Bailly, Université Dijon (retired) (France)
  • Jayant Narlikar, IUCAA(emeritus) and College de France (India, France)
  • Marcos Cesar Danhoni Neves, State University of Maringá (Brazil)
  • Charles D. Orth, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (USA)
  • R. David Pace, Lyon College (USA)
  • Georges Paturel, Observatoire de Lyon (France)
  • Jean-Claude Pecker, College de France (France)
  • Anthony L. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory (USA)
  • Bill Peter, BAE Systems Advanced Technologies (USA)
  • David Roscoe, Sheffield University (UK)
  • Malabika Roy, George Mason University (USA)
  • Sisir Roy, George Mason University (USA)
  • Konrad Rudnicki, Jagiellonian University (Poland)
  • Domingos S.L. Soares, Federal University of Minas Gerais (Brazil)
  • John L. West, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of
    Technology, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Systems Division, Pasadena, CA 91109-8099
  • James F. Woodward, California State University, Fullerton (USA)

Additional signers:

  • Emre Isik Akdeniz University Turkey
  • Felipe de Oliveira Alves, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Brazil
  • Jean-Marc Bonnet-Bidaud, Service d’Astrophysique, CEA, France
  • Martin John Baker, Loretto School Musselburgh, UK
  • Peter J Carroll, Psychonaut Institute, UK
  • Jonathan Chambers, University of Sheffield, UK
  • Michel A. Duguay, Laval University, Canada
  • Tom van Flandern, Meta Research, USA
  • Kim George, Curtin University of Technology, Australia
  • Roger Y. Gouin, Ecole Superieure d’Electricite, France
  • R.S.Griffiths, CADAS, UK
  • D. W. Harris, L-3 Communications, USA
  • Louis Hissink, Consulting Geologist, Australia
  • Sylvan J. Hotch, The MITRE Corporation (Retired), USA
  • Lassi Hyvärinen, IBM(Ret), France
  • Joseph.B. Krieger, Brooklyn College, CUNY, USA
  • Adolf Muenker, Brane Industries, USA
  • John Murray, Sunyata Composite Ltd, UK
  • Qi Pan, Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge, UK
  • Gerald Pease, The Aerospace Corporation, USA
  • Peter F. Richiuso, NASA, KSC, USA
  • Fred Rost, University of NSW (Emeritus), Australia
  • Roger A. Rydin, University of Virginia (Emeritus), USA
  • Stefan Rydstrom, Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden
  • Hetu Sheth, Earth Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, India
  • Eugene Sittampalam, Engineering consultant, Sri Lanka
  • Pablo Vasquez, New Jersey Institute of Technology, USA
  • Doneley Watson, IBM (ret.), USA
  • Max Whisson, University of Melbourne, Australia
  • Fred Alan Wolf, Have Brains / Will Travel, USA
  • Robert Wood, IEEE, Canada
  • Robert Zubrin, Pioneer Astronautics, USAThomas R. Love, CSU Dominguez Hills, USA
    Andrew Coles, Embedded Systems, USA
    Eit Gaastra, infinite universe researcher, The Netherlands
    Franco Selleri, Università di Bari, Dipartimento di Fisica, ItalyS.N. Arteha, Space Research Institute, Russia
    Miroslaw Kozlowski, Warsaw University (emeritus), Poland
    John Hartnett, School of Physics, University of Western Australia, AustraliaTibor Gasparik, SUNY at Stony Brook, USA
    Alexandre Losev, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Bulgaria
    Henry Hall, University of Manchester, UK
    José da Silva, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brazil
    Markus Rohner, Griesser AG, Switzerland
    William C. Mitchell, Institute for Advanced Cosmological Studies, USA

Also, see John G. Hartnett

July 1995 “Big Bang Bust” Andrei Linde, Stanford, reported in Wired by Rudy Rucker

1991: Is the Big Bang a Bust?  Victor J. Stenger, Colorado

1991: The Big Bang Never Happened: A Startling Refutation of the Dominant Theory of the Origin of the Universe  Eric Lerner

Representation of measurements that demonstrate the contextuality-nonlocality tradeoff.

Since scientists first proposed the big bang theory, many people have questioned and criticized the model. Here’s a rundown on some of the most common criticisms of the big bang theory:

It violates the first law of thermodynamics, which says you can’t create or destroy matter or energy. Critics claim that the big bang theory suggests the universe began out of nothing. Proponents of the big bang theory say that such criticism is unwarranted for two reasons. The first is that the big bang doesn’t address the creation of the universe, but rather the evolution of it. The other reason is that since the laws of science break down as you approach the creation of the universe, there’s no reason to believe the first law of thermodynamics would apply.

Some critics say that the formation of stars and galaxies violates the law of entropy, which suggests systems of change become less organized over time. But if you view the early universe as completely homogeneous and isotropic, then the current universe shows signs of obeying the law of entropy.

Some astrophysicists and cosmologists argue that scientists have misinterpreted evidence like the redshift of celestial bodies and the cosmic microwave background radiation. Some cite the absence of exotic cosmic bodies that should have been the product of the big bang according to the theory.

The early inflationary period of the big bang appears to violate the rule that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Proponents have a few different responses to this criticism. One is that at the start of the big bang, the theory of relativity didn’t apply. As a result, there was no issue with traveling faster than the speed of light. Another related response is that space itself can expand faster than the speed of light, as space falls outside the domain of the theory of gravity.

There are several alternative models that attempt to explain the development of the universe, though none of them have as wide an acceptance as the big bang theory.

Alternative Cosmology Group, Open Letter on Cosmology, New Scientist, May 22, 2004

“The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed — inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.

“But the big bang theory can’t survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation.

“Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe. Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory’s explanation of the origin of the light elements. And without dark energy, the theory predicts that the universe is only about 8 billion years old, which is billions of years younger than the age of many stars in our galaxy.
What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory’s supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centered cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.

“Yet the big bang is not the only framework available for understanding the history of the universe. Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesize an evolving universe without beginning or end. These and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements, the generation of large-scale structure, the cosmic background radiation, and how the redshift of far-away galaxies increases with distance. They have even predicted new phenomena that were subsequently observed, something the big bang has failed to do.

“Supporters of the big bang theory may retort that these theories do not explain every cosmological observation. But that is scarcely surprising, as their development has been severely hampered by a complete lack of funding. Indeed, such questions and alternatives cannot even now be freely discussed and examined. An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences. Whereas Richard Feynman could say that “science is the culture of doubt”, in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.

“Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific inquiry.

“Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.

“Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method — the constant testing of theory against observation. Such a restriction makes unbiased discussion and research impossible. To redress this, we urge those agencies that fund work in cosmology to set aside a significant fraction of their funding for investigations into alternative theories and observational contradictions of the big bang. To avoid bias, the peer review committee that allocates such funds could be composed of astronomers and physicists from outside the field of cosmology.

“Allocating funding to investigations into the big bang’s validity, and its alternatives, would allow the scientific process to determine our most accurate model of the history of the universe.”

Finite time:

How old is the universe?  “13.8± billion years, within .1%”
How many seconds would that be?  435.48 quintillion seconds. Each day adds another 86,400 seconds. Each year adds approximately 31.55 million seconds

An Introductory Chart for Human Values

valueschart3A Focus on Human Will:  This chart has been used in several blogs. The first time was in June 2014 when the question was asked, Is there order in the universe? Click on the chart itself (or here) to go to a related blog, Where is the Good in Science, Business, and Religion?

A natural value in life is freedom, and within freedom comes those unalienable rights, “…of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” (from the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776).

Here is human will and the freedom to be you.

This freedom is deep within the very character of the universe.

See: A Simple View of the Universe

The Big Board-little universe in a horizontally-scroll chart (current work)

Could this fledgling outline of a model become the basis of a working model of the universe?

Initiated: April 16, 2016  Work-In-Progress: July  2016

Abstract: An alternative to the Big Bang theory originates from the studies of a high school geometry class of combinatorial geometries and base-2 exponential notation from the Planck base units, especially Planck Time, to the current time and Age of the Universe. Preliminary studies of five columns and 200+ notations begin to address key questions raised about the relation between the Standard Model of Particle Physics (SMPP) and the Standard Model of Cosmology (SMC). The simple doubling logic echoes bifurcation theory, imputes homogeneity and isotropy, and provides clues about the deeper workings of  renormalization and universality. The first 67 notations, a very different small-scale universe, provides the essential foundations for this model. At the 67th notation the  Planck Time doubling is still a very, very short duration: 1.59126 ×10−23 seconds. At the 134th notation it is just two-one thousandths of a second (from the first moment of creation) and the model already provides a deep infrastructure for life. Each of these notations might be considered an archetypal layer, the foundations for our Human Scale universe which must itself also be archetypal. It will take just another 67 more notations to bring us to this day.  From notation 134 to 201, traditionally referred to as the Large-Scale Universe, all of human life and our earth and solar systems evolved in that last notation, #201.  We hope to explain this model’s voracious appetite for information yet why its simplicity may give rise to the potential veracity as a model.

1. Key Questions

This article is built around five key questions to take us into the rows and columns of numbers within this model.

  • How can this model explain an integrated universe that includes everything, everywhere, and throughout all time?
  • Can such a simple model account for the complexity of the Standard Model of Particle Physics (SMPP)?
  • Could this model build bridges that create continuity from that small-scale universe to the large-scale universe in such a way to account for dark matter, dark energy, and inflation?
  • In what ways could the model account for quantum mechanics (SMPP) and gravitational forces within Condensed Matter Physics (CMP)?
  • Does this infrastructure give rise to homogeneity, isotropy, universality, and renormalization?

Let us take each question, one at a time.

2. How can this model possibly explain an integrated universe that includes everything, everywhere, and throughout all time?

There are now two charts that show the progression of tabulations from the Planck base units.  Our very  first in December 2011 only involved the Planck Length. In February 2015 all five of the Planck base units were tabulated together.  We now study up and down each of the five columns as well as across those columns.  We are also now studying the number of simple vertices and scaling vertices within the small-scale universe.  The simple logic evolves into complexity and a very different view of the universe.

The five Planck base units are time, length (space), mass, charge, and temperature. First, notice that Planck Temperature starts in the current notation and is halved with each successive notation down to the other Planck base units.At the Planck singularity, we assume 0º Kelvin.  On the first notation it jumps to 4.4084867×10-27 Kelvin.

You may notice that the first doubling of the Planck Length is repeated.  There are too few vertices for projective geometry, but there are enough for a pointfree vertex to establish a two-dimensional plane that on the next doubling becomes a three-dimensional sphere.

We impute that  infinity is a perfection and the most simple perfections  are order which is continuity, and relations which is symmetry.  Simple conceptual numbering such that the first sequence is necessarily related to the second and all subsequent sequences is continuity.  To build a universe, sequences interact with sequences forming relations that are best described as symmetries.

The computation of Planck Time…

3.  Could  a more simple model or theory account for the complexity of the SMPP model? Check the number of vertices by the 20th notation.  The September 2012 version of that chart begins with the simple doubling of the Planck Length to the Observable Universe.  The most instructive tabulations only happened after Freeman Dyson said, “Since space has three dimensions, the number of points goes up by a factor eight,* not two, when you double the scale.” As a result, on the horizontally-scrolled chart, there is a row labelled, the Scaling Vertices (×8).  Base-8 is not as fast as base-10, but it certainly is dramatic.  By the sixth notation base-2 has reached 16 pointfree vertices while base-8 is up to 32,768.

Much more to come….

Martin Rees – Astrophysicist, Astronomer, Cosmologist

As part of our effort to discern the Top Numbers of Key Importance within our little universe for The Big Board-little universe Project, we have begun to study the work of Lord Sir Martin Rees of Oxford, particularly his book of the title, Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape the Universe, 1999, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London (173 pages)

His six numbers are:

  1. N, the ratio of the strength of the electrical force to the gravitational force (reviewer, Peter Roberts, Visions.
  2. ε (epsilon)( definition of limits?)
  3. Ω (omega), measures the amount of material in the universe
  4.  λ (lambda) (?)
  5. Q,  the degree of structure in the universe
  6. D, the number of spatial dimensions, 3

Here is what Wikipedia says:

Martin Rees’s Six Numbers:

“Martin Rees, in his book Just Six Numbers, mulls over the following six dimensionless constants, whose values he deems fundamental to present-day physical theory and the known structure of the universe:

“N and ε govern the fundamental interactions of physics. The other constants (D excepted) govern the size, age, and expansion of the universe. These five constants must be estimated empirically. D, on the other hand, is necessarily a nonzero natural number and cannot be measured. Hence most physicists would not deem it a dimensionless physical constant of the sort discussed in this entry.

“Any plausible fundamental physical theory must be consistent with these six constants, and must either derive their values from the mathematics of the theory, or accept their values as empirical.”

“A long-sought goal of theoretical physics is to find first principles from which all of the fundamental dimensionless constants can be calculated and compared to the measured values.”

Ben Duronio & Walter Hickey’s Top Ten

As part of our effort to discern the Top Five Numbers of Key Importance within our little universe for The Big Board-little universe Project, we have begun to study the work of these two writers for Business Insider

Ben and Walter give us their very respectable listing of their Top 10:

  1. Pi: 3.1415  Archimedes’ Constant
  2. Euler’s Number: 2.7182 also known as e
  3. The Golden Ratio: 1.6180
  4. Planck’s Constant: 6.626068×10-34 m2 kg/s
  5. Avogadro’s Constant: 6.0221515 x 1023
  6. Speed of Light: 186,282 miles per second or 299,792,458 meters per second
  7. Gravitational Constant (G): 6.67300 x 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2
  8. Boltzmann’s Constant: 1.380650 x 1023 joule per kelvin
  9. Imaginary Unit: i
  10. Euler’s Identity: e^(i*pi) = -1