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

Next edits: November 2017

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.

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

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 ( 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:  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:

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.

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}.






page 1= Printable PDF of this page only

page2 =   Printable PDF of this page only

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.


Steve Waterman & Michael Anthony Whitehead

Our effort to discern the Top Numbers of Key Importance  within our little universe for The Big Board-little universe Project  began with this work by Steve Waterman and Prof. Michael Anthony (Tony) Whitehead (Chemistry, McGill University, Montreal).

Steve and Tony got together to publish an article, Self-Consistent Field Approach To The Physical Constants: All Physical Constants Are A Function Of Pi (Π) Though poorly received by the academic community, the article will be studied to attempt to understand their rather unique sense of numbers.

The generalized claim is that all the physical constants are derived from four math constants.  They did the work to explain this statement with 142 such constants.  Over time, every calculation and conclusion will be reviewed. Currently, our study look at their four math constants:

  1. Pi (Links go to Wikipedia when within the body of the subject)
  2. The isoperimetric quotient of a sphere
  3. Sphere packing  (CCP and NCCP)
  4. Number density

On its face, these four math constants do not seem to have enough substance to define all the better known physical constants. Yet, the Waterman-Whitehead team may have the kernel of an idea that truly opens the way to define the first 67 notations in ways that inform isotropy, homogeneity, the nature of infinity, the nature of the finite,  and the function of math constants to create the bridges to infinity and the physical constant to build bridges to physicality or space and time

Top Ten Reasons

“Number 10.” Continuity contains everything, everywhere, for all time, then goes beyond.

The first principle of The Big Board-little universe Project is that the infinite is defined by continuity, number, order, symmetry, and relations and that the finite is defined by space and time.  Here the entire universe gets blanketed with simple equations.

Explanation: Help to drag the largest continuity equation out of the closet. It starts at the smallest possible measurements of a unit of length and time. That is the Planck Length and Planck Time; and, it goes out to the Observable Universe and the Age of the Universe respectively. It is all just simple math and logic. These two continuity equations, created by multiplying by 2 (base-2 exponential notation) have just over 201 notations or doublings. It is all very approachable and it goes right to the heart of our commonsense logic, the legacy of  Sir Isaac Newton’s infinite sense of space and time. Within The Big Board-little universe Project, space and time are discrete, quantized, derivative-yet-dynamic; each has a beginning and an end. And, that changes everything.

More... And even more...
Please note: Links within each paragraph go to Wikipedia pages and most often open a new tab or window. Links from “More” at the end of each item, go to some of our earlier discussions within the project.


“Number 9!” Symmetries structure everything, both the seen and the unseen.

Also a first principle of the Big Board-little universe, there are deep and abiding geometries that bind everything, everywhere, for all time, within those 201+ notations.

Explanation: Help to uncover the deepest and most-compelling symmetries throughout the universe by working with just our first continuity equation, from the Planck Length to the Observable Universe. In the first notation we doubled the Planck Length. Still so small, it is thought by most to be meaningless. Yet, when we follow scaling laws and dimensional analysis and assume the Planck Length is a vertex, we multiply by 8 so the numbers of vertices increase, 1, 8, 64, 512, 4096… Complexification occurs rather quickly. By the 20th notation, there are over a quintillion vertices with which to work. There are at least 40 doublings (or notations or groups or sets) before there is an expression of physicality within measurable space and time. A point-free geometry (Whitehead) is assumed (hypothesized, hypostatized and/or instantiated) to give structure and definition to those first 60+ notations. The only evidence of such structure is given within the homogenity and isotropy throughout our little universe (and within the supersymmetries of particle physics). Thereafter, manifestations of symmetry are actually seen throughout the universe.

More...   Even more...  And, even more...


“Number 8.” Harmony creates a fleeting moment of perfection that inspires us and guides us.

Harmony is also a first principle of the Big Board-little universe. All those symmetries that bind everything, now begin their movements across all time (within just over 201 notations) from the first moment to the current time.

Explanation: Empower symmetries to interact with other symmetries within each notation and across notations. The old concepts related to the harmony of the spheres take on new meaning. By adding the continuity equations defined by Planck Time, symmetries have more than a form; they have a function that moves within a notation and throughout the notations, creating a momentary perfection or perfected state within space-time. Also, we begin to understand the very natural antithesis, chaos and indeterminacy, especially by looking at the most basic structures with the first 60 or so notations…

More... More to come... (pages about harmony being developed)


“Number 7.” You can re-engage all those mysteries in Science-Technology-Engineering-Mathematics (STEM) and start to understand it all.

Every aspect of education is touched. Our goal is to use the Big Board-little universe as a STEM resource, first within 10 high schools, then a pilot of 100, then 1000 schools…

Explanation: Everything everywhere starts simply. This new order of things where space and time are derivative of continuities and symmetries (and occasional harmonies) will empower deeper insights into fabric and applications of STEM. One of the initial aims of our attempted Kickstarter program was to engage no less than 100 high schools to use the Big Board-little universe model to re-ignite a love for science and mathematics and all their derivatives. We can see and feel a burst of creativity that begins to address the old questions and opens up a huge boat of new questions.

More to come... (STEM work for schools is being tightened up now)


“Number 6.” Calm your soul within a Quiet Expansion of the universe.

Could the Big Bang theory be deflated by the Big Board-little universe’s Quiet Expansion (QE)? Could a QE become a source of order and inspiration within education… for the general public?

Explanation: We will build upon an article that was written in September 2014; we were thinking about the Big Bang theory while working with the chart of just the Planck Length. It seems that one could easily impute those first 60 doublings to be the foundation of pervasive, unseen structural geometries that finally give rise to the physicality of particle physics. It seemed that the first 67 notations would have been a rather quiet expansion of creation.


#5. You are the center of it all.

Humanity and so many facets of our human population has been marginalized by science, religious beliefs and arrogance. Within this emerging model of the universe, people are key.

Explanation: Within the 201+ notations at 100 is the human sperm cell and at 103 is the human egg. In the middle of the Planck Length doublings is the vibrancy that gives us modestly intelligent life. A molecule of water, the source of continuity within life, is just 280 picometers, within the 80th notation, has a special symmetry with so many other chemical and biological processes within the next 20 notations. If you are the center of it all, we say, “Sit up, and be sure to drink a lot of water.”

More... (new tab or window; a tour of the Planck Length chart)

#4. Your Mind is actually on the grid after all.

The brain-mind debate is centuries old. The mind has had no place to be… no place to rest. Unwelcomed and questioned, here we hypostatize its place on the grid between notations 50 and 60.

Explanation: Nothing can be measured by an instrument that fits into the first 60 notations or doublings of the Planck Length, so by engaging systems philosophy, we begin to construct an ideal (the same challenge that faced Lawrence Krauss with his book, A Universe from Nothing) starting with Plato’s forms. The doublings quickly become complexity. From Forms, to Structures, to Substances, to Relations, and finally to Systems, this is an idealized structure where the Mind seems to naturally reside within Systems.

More to come... (a page about the Mind is being specially developed) 


#3. You are in three places at the same time.

We have obviously been defined in the Human-Scale Universe, yet we live and have our being within the 201st notation where we find the current time. And, just perhaps, our minds exist within a Systems construct of the universe between notation 50 and 60.

Obviously there are huge intellectual challenges ahead!

Explanation: Each of the three major divisions of the Universe — the Small Scale, the Human Scale, and the Large Scale —  has about 67 notations. As we study the chart of the five Planck base units, we can see ourselves in at least three places at the same time. We now need to determine how all three scales work coterminously to create personal identity. As a result, we hypostatize new functionalities for wormholes for the mind and the archetypal definition of human throughout the Human Scale Universe.  Hopefully, along the way we may even begin to grasp the very nature of a blackhole. To that end we now return to Hawkings’s 1975 paper, Particle Creation by Black Holes.

More...  (goes to a page of the Planck Length chart)


#2. You can get your act together.

We have been constrained by worldviews that ignore the larger universe and our role within it. We have been constrained by a science that has difficulty penetrating those notations below the 67th.

Explanation: An Integrated Universe View changes everything. Simplicity is the starting point. Continuity takes its place at the centerfold.  Symmetries within it capture our eye and imagination. There appears to be goodness in the universe and the place of asymmetries, indeterminacy, questions and openness, and the very nature of the self begins to thrive as a creative nexus! If only my Mom were still alive, she might just understand what motivated her to say so often to me, “You’re cruisin’ for a bruisin’.”



#1. Religion & Science can get together again.

Our worldviews can no longer ignore the constants and universals that define and give structure to the universe and our role within it.

Explanation: Our very-young and often naïve UniverseView is a call to all religions of every flavor. We all need a touch of humility to engage the openness of those constants and universals so we can see how each is used within the sciences and how these create bridges with the metaphors and analogies within religious history. My father was an Episcopalian turned Unitarian Universalist. As we were growing up, he would often say, “You can’t legislate morality.” He was right. It is much deeper than legislation and rules. Religion is part of the very fabric of ethics, universals, and constants. Their metaphors can be richer and more robustly textured. The Universe is so simple, so marvelous, so intricate, and extraordinarily complex all at the same time, we all should celebrate every hour of every waking moment.

More...    And more...

You are invited to be involved.


BruceCamber130Hi, my name is Bruce Camber and I would like to take you on a quick tour of our entire universe.

You will see everything, everywhere, throughout all time, in just 202 steps, notations, layers or domains. It is all so very simple, we’ve asked, “How could something this simple be ignored for so long?”

We thought there must be something wrong with our simple logic. Just by dividing an object in half, over and over and over again, we found the smallest possible unit of measurement of a length (the Planck Length) in just over 112 steps.

We multiplied this object by 2. Just 90 times and we were out to the largest measurement of a length (the Observable Universe). That’s a total of just over 202 steps from the smallest to the largest possible measurements in the universe.

We started this exploration back in December 2011.  When we couldn’t find it on the web, I began sending out emails to my smartest friends, “What’s wrong with this picture?”

We quickly learned of Kees Boeke’s 1957 work in a Dutch high school where they toured the Universe in just 40 quick jumps.  They had no geometry. They didn’t use those smallest and largest measurements as their container and they were multiplying by 10, just adding  zeroes.

We started with a geometry. We were multiplying and dividing by 2. Now that’s how cells divide. Our process is more natural, more lifelike, and most importantly, we get to see a much more granular universe.

Plus, those largest and smallest measurements are some of the most important numbers in science today.  They are called the Planck Base Units; they were formulated between  1899 and 1905 by Max Planck, a Nobel laureate in 1918, one of Einstein’s mentors, and the father of quantum theory.

Today, we have two primary charts.  This original from 2011 is based on the Planck Length.  It has been updated many times. And, now there is a comparative chart using all five  Planck Base Units.

Our project is to collect all our thoughts and writings from the past four years, consolidate and refine them for prime time for all the university scholars to come in to either take it apart or to attempt to incorporate it into the fabric of academic research today.

At the very least, the great physicist, Freeman Dyson, agreed with me that it would make an excellent STEM tool for our high school students to learn Science- Technology-Engineering-Mathematics.

If it challenges the Big Bang theory, so be it.  Let’s be intellectually honest and explore the most simple logic and most simple model of our universe. Called, The Big Board-little universe Project, we welcome you to join us.

Back to top