In December 2011 a group of high school people went inside the tetrahedron, dividing by 2, and found the half-sized tetras in the four corners and an octahedron in the middle. We went inside that octahedron, dividing by 2, found the half-sized octas in each of the six corners and eight tetras in each face, all sharing a common center point. We kept going within all 19 objects. Within just a few steps we found our nematode friends. In another few steps the prochlorococc greeted us, “Set em up baby…”
In just 45 steps within we were zipping by the fermions and protons and just kept going! In the next 67 steps, you wouldn’t believe what we saw! We were at the door of a singularity that Max Planck gave us and all those secret codes, but it took 100 years and Frank Wilczek to begin to interpret them (2001, Physics Today, Scaling Mt. Planck I-III).
Just over 112 notations. What was that?
It didn’t take too long before we got the bright idea, “Let’s multiply by 2.” What an epiphany! In less than 90 steps we were out to the Age of the Universe and the Observable Universe. Looking at ourselves, we were lost within all this new information, so we decided to turn to the experts. Huh? We found Kees Boeke’s base-10 work from 1957 but he only had 40 quick jumps (Cosmic View) and missed so much of life! We found Stephen Hawking but he was in tight with the bigga-banga-boomba (excuse me Bugs Bunny). Where are our experts?
What? Huh? Our knowledge of the universe is so incomplete, our sense of the universal is so limited, our understanding of the constants is so elementary, we are flying blind.
Now we are amateurs, but we really feel that biology and the search for life must begin with that initial creation, the first moment, when there was a profound integration, and come through it all right to the 200th notation to our present day. Let’s encapsulate the universe so we can truly address the “… transcendent qualities in the human consciousness, and sense of human need” (from your Ted Talk).
Are we crazy? Of course, we are, but hopefully delightfully so!
I was talking with an information guru and friend, and he said,
“Discovery is better than belief.” I agreed. We had been talking
about the base-2 model and numbers and my references to Guth, Lightman, Wilczek and Langlands. He was sure that there would be some openness to look more closely
at the implications of base-2 for the big bang.
I was not so sure. The big bang theory has been king of the road for forty years!
Dark energy and dark matter, now that’s another story.
I seriously believe the Langlands programs will be of some help in the near future.
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?
This note was sent to Prof Dr. Guth via email and it was titled, Inflationary processes:
July 6, 2016
TO: Prof. Dr. Alan Guth, Victor F. Weisskopf Professor of Physics, MIT
Dear Prof. Dr. Alan:
I was born in July 1947, so you are my senior; and, I write
with admiration and respect for what you have accomplished.
There is a special confidence that one gets from affirmations
especially from being published. It seems so very eternal.
My question comes out of work done in a high school geometry
class when we ducked inside a tetrahedron, found half-sized
tetrahedrons in the four corners and an octahedron in the middle.
We then went inside that octahedron, divided each edge by 2, and found
half-sized octas in each of the six corners and the tetras in each
of the eight faces. A perfect tessellation, it was easy to continue.
In about 40 jumps within, we were down among the protons.
In another 67 we were in a singularity with the Planck base units.
Feeling a little uncomfortably tight, we quickly multiplied
those base units by 2 and in 201 notations we were lost,
but looking at ourselves from out in-and-around
the Age of the Universe and the Observable Universe.
Now, this is all happening just up river from New Orleans
Zoo, downriver from the NOLA international airport. We’re
just high school folks and the kids.
That was 2011. We rushed right by Kees Boeke, my old MIT
friend, Phil Morrison’s charge. When we included all
five Planck base units, it got very challenging.
1. Nobody talks about those 67 notations from the
fermion-proton range down to the first Planck base
“Much too small to be meaningful!”
say the kings and queens of physics.
Why? “Off with your head!” (in the spirit of Alice
in Wonderland’s Queen of Hearts).
2. Really now, if Max Planck found a path to such
small numbers (length, time, mass) and to the not
so small charge, and to an absolutely gargantuan temperature,
shouldn’t there be a way to get to them through with
a bit of simple logic and simple math?
Any advice for us literal abstractionists?
New Orleans http://bblu.org
PS. Long ago, in 1976, I was the guest of Victor Weisskopf
at the MIT faculty club where I had arranged for a WSJ writer
to interview him for an ““A-Hed” article. It was to be about
how the chairman of the MIT physics department was involved
with the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in Rome. Though
the article was never published, Weisskopf invited me to
his home to review great artwork, some quite religious,
that challenged our understanding of space and time.
About six months later, on a trip to visit with folks in
Geneva at both CERN and the World Council of Churches,
Weisskopf arranged my first meeting with John Bell to
talk about the EPR paradox and his inequalities.
Then, in 1979, I had a display project under the dome
at 77 Massachusetts Avenue called, “What is life?”
after Schrodinger’s book of the same title. It was
an attempt to examine the first principles and answers
to the question by 77 leading, living scholars from around the world.
Jerome Wiesner buttonholed me at that time, “What’s this?”
thinking it was a right-to-life group! Such memories.
So, I am still wrestling with the same old questions!
These paragraphs from the preface of your book, The Inflationary Universe, I enjoy:
“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
Introduction. The Big Board-little universe Project uses base-2 exponential notation from the singularity of the Planck base units going out to this present time, Right Now, to encapsulate everything, everywhere, throughout all time1. Though seemingly a bit of an overstatement, the simple mathematics and logic appear to corroborate such a conclusion. The implications of this fledgling model seem rather far-reaching so five are presented for the discerning analysis and critical review of scholars and thinkers.
Some of the more far-reaching implications of the Big Board-little universe model:
This model begs the question about the finite-infinite relation. If space and time are derivative, finite, quantized and discrete, then what is infinite? Our working answer is continuity which creates order, symmetries which create relations, and harmonies (multiple symmetries working together) which create dynamics. These are the inherent qualities that define the infinite for science.2
There appears to be an ethical bias to the universe. Continuity-order, symmetry-relations, and harmony-dynamics also begin to define a valuation system whereby every notation at every moment has a perceived and dynamic value.3
Each notation defines an element of the current universe. Even though time is derivative, it still defines a duration within a single notation. Even though space is derivative, it still defines a length within which particular things have their beingness. In this model each notation has its own particular beingness. The entire universe actively appears to share this length (space) – time infrastructure within the small-scale universe.
The structure for homogeneity and isomorphism is defined within the small scale. It is also the bridge between the finite and infinite so renormalization works in quantum electrodynamics and universality works throughout physics on every scale.4
This model appears to trifurcate nature. These three seemingly natural domains of this model of the universe appear to be episodic:
(1) The small scale from notation 1-to-67 could generally be described as ontology and each notation just might manifest again within the human scale and then again within the large scale.
(2) Perhaps the human scale from notations 67 to 134 could be understood as the domain for epistemology. In some manner of speaking all 67 manifest in the notation for the current time.
(3) The large scale from notation 134 to 201 is currently considered the domain for cosmology. It begins when the duration (or speed) is less than one second (see notations 142 to 143). Within notation 200 (possibly 201) is the current time. Its duration is approximately 10.8 billion years. The duration at notation 134 is within a thousandth of a second.
Of course, each duration for each notation gets increasingly short as we approach the Planck Time. The duration at notation 67 is 10-to-the-negative-23 seconds (10-23). Notation 67 is approximately the Planck Length multiple where fermions and protons appear. There will be many adjustments of these numbers as others help to fine-tune the model.5
All people and things appear to be trifurcated.
One might hypothesize or hypostatize that from the small-scale universe we get our being. Systems are imputed between the 50th and 60th notation; and within systems, the human mind has also been imputed have notations within which to be.
From the human-scale we get our knowing. Carl Jung called these archetypes. A special vocabulary will emerge for this part of our self-definition.
Within the Now, this moment, today, there is an integration as a thing, an entity. All human history, all civilization is within the 200th notation. Just as an aside, if time travel were to become possible, it will be as an observer. Interactions would also require trifurcating, i.e. simultaneously entering the space and duration of the being and knowing of any given moment in time.
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)
Physics Today (Mead – Wilczek discussions – Ref.9): Though formulated in 1899 and 1900, the Planck Length received very little attention until 1959 when C. Alden Mead of the University of Minnesota submitted a paper proposing that the Planck Length and Planck Time should “…play a more fundamental role in physics.” Though published in Physical Review in 1964, very little positive feedback was forthcoming. Frank Wilczek in that 2001 Physics Today article comments that “…C. Alden Mead’s discussion is the earliest that I am aware of.” He posited the Planck constants as real realities within experimental constructs whereby these constants became more than mathematical curiosities. More…
Oxford physicist-philosopher, Roger Penrose16 calls it, Conformal Cyclic Cosmology made popular within his book, Cycles of Time. In a September 24, 2008 interview on NBC News (Cosmic Log), Frank Wilczek of MIT simply calls this domain, the Grid,17 and the most complete review of it is within his book, The Lightness of Being. We know with just two years of work on this so-called Big Board – little universe chart and much less time on our compact table, we will be exploring those 60-to-65 initial steps most closely for years to come. This project will be in an early-stage development for a lifetime. More…
Notwithstanding, there is a substantial amount of work that has been done within the academic and scientific communities with all the Planck numbers and those base numbers that were used to create the five Planck base units. Perhaps chemistry professor, C. Alden Mead of the University of Minnesota began the process in 1959 when he first tried publishing a paper using the Planck units with serious scientific intent. Physics professor Frank Wilczek of MIT was the first to write popular articles about the Planck units in 2001 in Physics Today (312, 321, 328). From that year, the number of articles began to increase dramatically and experimental work that make use of these numbers has increased as a result. More…
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…