Planck Time and Planck Length Charted Together

Is There Order in the Universe?

Space Entrepreneurs and Science Fiction Blockbusters

Might this necessarily be the smallest-biggest-simplest scientific experiment?

In just 202.34 to 205.11 notations (base-2 exponential), you’ve got the entire universe in your hands. It all started with simple geometries. Obviously, this is an ideal universe that is highly-ordered and fully-relational, but what a starting point for more research! And, in the middle of it all, somewhere between the 101st to 103rd notation, there surely appears to be a concrescence of meaning from both directions.

A quick ten-step tour of the Big Board-little universe and the Universe Table

An introduction to ten different sections of both charts from notation 1 to 205+

Introduction / Tour Overview:    (please start here)
Take the first survey! Start here with the consent and disclaimer.

The next tour and survey. More in preparation – Access all right here.

     –   The Universe is Very Small
     –   The Universe is Very Simple
     –   Very Big and Extremely Small Numbers (Make friends).
     –   Survey #2.  Disclaimer comes first, then five simple questions.
A research paper and introduction by Bruce Estes
Reflections on “Walk the Planck” by Bruce Camber, an adviser to Bryce Estes
Title board: 22″ wide 35″ high (total display, 44″ wide and 70″ high)


Notes about Look-Feel and Navigation: If the line just above extends out of the white background, please open your window larger (perhaps full screen). Also, within the tour, if you click on the last sentence in each description, you should go to the next page.

More related pages:

Universe Table, An Ongoing Work

There are over 202.34 and as many as 205.11 notations. This table focuses on the Human Scale and notations 67 to 134-138. The Small Scale (1 to 67-69) and Large Scale (134-138 to 205) will follow after updates, verifications, and the footnotes have been completed for this first table.

Big Board – little universe, An Ongoing Work

This chart is 60″ x 12″ and it was the original depiction of the 202.34-to-205.11 notations.

• 15 Key Ideas May Be the Foundations of all this effort

May 2014:  Where we have been and where we might be going.


An analyze and opinions about the Universe Table and the Big Board – little universe

Concepts & Parameters

The simplest parameters of science and mathematics opened the way for this entire inquiry.

Introduction & Overview

The question was asked on December 19, 2011, “Why isn’t this stuff on the web someplace?” It seemed like somewhere in our midst was a fundamental logic flaw. Very cautiously, this page was put up on the web over on the Small Business School website so family and friends could be asked to read this introduction and caution us or encourage us along the way.

Proposed Wikipedia Article, April 2012.

To invite critical review and collaboration, this article was submitted and then publicly posted within Wikipedia back in April 2012 yet it was deleted in the first week of May. That original iteration was again published within Small Business School.

202.34: the calculations by Joe Kolecki, retired, NASA scientist

Joe Kolecki was the first person outside our little group of students to help. He provided us with this calculation in May 2012. Soon thereafter, the Argonne National Laboratory and Nikon Small World helped a little, too.

Just the numbers

This page provides all the numerations from the first Planck Length through all 202.34 doublings.

A little story

The background story about how this perception emerged and when it was introduced in high school geometry classes on that last day before the Christmas holidays, Monday, December 19, 2011.

What are we to believe?

Universals and constants can be applied to every belief system. If the belief system is unable to accommodate both, then it is incomplete.

First Principles

The conceptual foundations for this work start with the thrust or energy to make things better or more perfect.

May we turn to you for insight? That big chart on the left measures 62″ x 14″ so it can be a bit awkward to use at your desk. We wanted to present the data in a more simple format (to be printed on 8.5×11 inch paper or displayed on a smartphone) so we created the chart on the right. We are calling it, the Universe Table.  This is a long-term project, so we would like to ask a few questions to help us prioritize and focus on important things to do.

The large-scale universe seems so much more approachable. On the Big-Board-little universe chart every notation is listed. Within the Universe Table all the notations within the Human Scale are listed, but those within the small-scale are in groups of ten notations and within the large-scale they are also in groups of ten, each corresponding to one of the images from Andrew Colvin.

Your Views, Worldviews, Universe View. All views are important. Yet, some views are more optimistic, some are more creative, and some more productive. Our hypothesis is that those who balance their views with a strong worldview and a truly integrated universe view will be the most optimistic, creative and productive.

It is going to take us a long time to figure that out, so we need to get started.  We are asking our guests — “Would you please take a very quick, very simple survey, then go on the tour. On the right, you will see a green arrow. Just click on it to begin.

Both charts represent the same thing — the visible universe. The very smallest measurement is the Planck Length. The largest is the Observable Universe. From the smallest to the largest, there are less than 206 notations or steps. Click on each image to see the full-sized rendering.


Tour #2: Summary Review, Speculative Possibilities, Onward and Upward


Welcome back.  Hopefully you have had a week to think about the first tour. We’ll review it, then we’ll go further in depth.  This information is a new frame of reference.  It gives us the simplest possible model of the known universe in an ordered relation. It has surprised many.

This is a new tool to engage the universe and to envision the unexplored.   
Base-2 exponential notation is just a fancy way of saying, multiply by 2.  You learned how to do that very well throughout elementary school.  Yet, for the first time you are applying it to everything in the universe from the smallest to the largest measurements of a length.

It is as simple as simple can be, yet it’s new.  It’s different.  It’s accurate and it is deeply informative.  Yet, from the first tour,  there was push back, “The universe is so vast, so beyond human conception, something must be wrong with your math.”

It begged the question and incredulity, “You mean just by multiplying by 2, we reach the edges of the observable universe in just 205+ doublings?” It becomes even more of a stretch when you see that going from the Planck Length to the human egg takes 103 of those steps. Yes, from the diameter of a human egg, multiplied by 2, and each result by 2 over and over again, just 103 times, puts us out to the Observable Universe. The initial response, “That’s impossible.”

Nobody expected to find just 202.34 to 205.11 notations, or doublings, layers or steps. People stopped right there. They just couldn’t believe it. “Then, there is something wrong with your logic.” Yet, the math is the math and it does compute. The logic is the simple logic and it also computes.

So, we say, “Please live with it for awhile. Let it play with your imagination. See the universe in an ordered relation by size. It is novel and there is something special going on here with numbers and geometries. There so many questions that can be asked about each of the 205+ base-2 exponential notations. Seeing the universe from the smallest to the largest by length is worth exploring further.”

Let us explore a bit more deeply. There are many, many unknowns. You will find mostly guesses from notations 1 to 65. There are many other blanks in the 70s and from 170 to 202. The goal is to have an entry for every notation because each notation builds on the prior notation. Perhaps with some reflections we might emerge with rational explanations to understand the relations and dynamics of each and between each.

Big Board - little universe

Green Arrow

Pink Arrow



Notes about Look-and-Feel and Navigation: Links from the headers below the line go to the Index page. If any of the letters from right column, particularly the words, Archives and Meta, are bleeding through the image of the Universe Table, please open your window larger (possibly to full screen). If the header for this page is in more than two lines, you also need to open your window a little larger. If you came back here after completing the survey, please click on the pink arrow on the right to go on the tour of the Big Board-little universe.

Footnotes: On every page there are references and more notes about the how these charts came to be.
The very-simple, philosophical foundations started with concepts of perfection and perfected states within space-time
The simple conceptual starting points
An article (unpublished) to attempt to analyze this simple model that seems to suggest that time is derivative of numbers and space is derivative of geometries. There are pictures of a tetrahedron and octahedron.
A background story: It started in a high school geometry class on December 19, 2011.
The sequel: Almost two years later, a student stimulates the creation of this little tour.

Wikipedia on the Planck length
Wikipedia on the Observable Universe

This project began when we looked inside a tetrahedron and octahedron (two of the most basic geometric figures).1 Think of the embedded Russian (matryoshka) dolls. Usually there are no more than ten. Yet, here inside each tetrahedron there are four half-size tetrahedrons and an octahedron. Inside the octahedron are six half-sized octahedrons and eight tetrahedrons all sharing a common centerpoint and many common edges. It would seem that one could just kept going forever. Yet eventually you will reach the Planck length and can go no further. To standardize our study, we started at the Planck Length and multiplied it by 2 until we were at the Observable Universe. We were surprised to discover only 202-to-206 notations (or steps or layers or doublings) to go from the smallest to the largest measurements of a length.

1 All tetrahedrons and octahedrons have that interior perfection described just above. It appears that these basic objects transform dynamically in ways that capture basic processes within nature. Over the years we will be doing the work to explore these transformations, however, there is a website to learn more about such transformations today:

The simple math from the Planck Length to the Observable Universe

#1 The smallest-yet-still-meaningful measurement of a length



The Planck Length. Though little known outside of the physics community, the Planck Length was first calculated by Max Planck in 1899 and 1900. Although he received a Nobel Prize in 1918 for his work in quantum theory, the Planck Length remained on the edges of science until much later. In 1959, a chemist at the University of Minnesota, C. Alden Mead, began writing about it. He thought the Planck Length should get more scientific attention. In 2001, Frank Wilczek, a Nobel Laureate (2004) and the director of MIT’s Center for Theoretical Physics, agreed with Mead. Through letters in the magazine, Physics Today, they agreed. Then, Wilczek wrote a series of articles about the Planck Length that opened the doors to a wider discussion.1


In our modest way, we hope that this project can open doors for high school students and our teachers (and the general public). You can take it as a given that the Planck Length is the smallest measurement of a length, or you can read much more about it. On each page there are references below the line just below the two arrows (yes, just below). There is a very good Wikipedia reference, plus Wilczek references, and more. Although most of the physics community agrees with Mead-Wilczek, there is a small percentage who do not. By taking the constants of nature, starting with the speed of light, both the largest and smallest numbers can be calculated. Making sense of them is another story. So, let’s look even deeper.Green Arrow

Pink Arrow


Notes about Look-and-feel and Navigation:  If a little thumbnail of any picture is displayed, simply refresh your browser and the full-size version hopefully will paste in.  Also, if  any of the letters from right column, particularly the Archives and Meta listings,  are bleeding through the image of the Universe Table, please open your window larger (possibly to full screen). Usually if you click on the last sentence in each description you will go to the next page.

More notes about the how these charts came to be:
1Three downloads authored by Prof. Dr. Frank Wilczek: Scaling Mt. Planck (from Columbia University), C. Alden Mead’s letter and Wilczek’s response in Physics Today, and Wilczek’s August 2013 Lecture notes on units and magnitude (If you like this paper, also read this one).

The simple conceptual starting points
An article (unpublished) to attempt to analyze this simple model. There are pictures of a tetrahedron and octahedron.
A background story: It started in a high school geometry class on December 19, 2011.
The sequel: Almost two years later, a student stimulates the creation of this little tour.

Wikipedia on the Planck length
Wikipedia on the Observable Universe

A question released in within ResearchGate on January 25, 2014:

Could cellular automaton apply to the first 65 doublings from the Planck Length using base-2 exponential notation to PRE-STRUCTURE things?

More than things, as in protons and fermions, could the results of cellular automaton be understood as Plato’s forms (perhaps notations 10-to-20) and Aristotle’s ousia (perhaps doublings 20-to-30)? Assuming the Planck Length to be a vertex, and assigning the area over to pure geometries, do we have the basis for form, structure, and the architecture for substances? Then, could it be that this architecture gives rise to an architecture for qualities (notations 30-to-40)? And, as we progress in the evolution of complexity, could it be that in this emergence, there is now an architecture for relations (notations 40-to-50)? If we assume an architecture for relations, could the next be an architecture for systems (notations 50-to-60) and this actually becomes the domain of the Mind? It is certainly a different kind of ontology given it all begins with cellular automaton and base-2 notation provide a coherent architecture (with built in imperfections of the five-tetrahedral cluster also known as a pentastar).