Search FQXi

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest

Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American

Previous Contests

Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest
December 24, 2019 - March 16, 2020
Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008

Forum Home
Introduction

Order posts by:
chronological order
most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Nimit Theeraleekul: on 10/5/12 at 7:53am UTC, wrote Dear Serqey Fedosin, Thanks for your information about the rating process....

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/4/12 at 6:05am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/2/12 at 9:11am UTC, wrote After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I...

Sergey Fedosin: on 9/26/12 at 11:29am UTC, wrote Dear Nimit, I think that in the case when both solenoids coincide their...

Nimit Theeraleekul: on 9/20/12 at 1:56am UTC, wrote Dear Serqey Fedosin, I am not quite clear about your explanation for the...

Yuri Danoyan: on 9/20/12 at 1:26am UTC, wrote Is there Lower Limit to Velocity or Velocity Change? Try again....

Nimit Theeraleekul: on 9/20/12 at 1:17am UTC, wrote Dear Yyri Danoyan, I cannot find http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.3765, please...

Yuri Danoyan: on 9/19/12 at 21:49pm UTC, wrote http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.3765

RECENT FORUM POSTS

Robert McEachern: ""At least that's the premise." That's the problem. "the theorems that..." in Alternative Models of...

Malcolm Riddoch: "@Robert: ""This latter, Ψ(U), can't describe a 'drug test' can it?" For..." in Alternative Models of...

John Cox: "Lorraine, I briefly described the relationship of mass to inertia..." in Emergent Reality: Markus...

Lorraine Ford: "John, I would say that you need to think what you mean by “physical..." in Emergent Reality: Markus...

Lorraine Ford: "Re "I tend to speed-read then review before scoring after reading a good..." in Undecidability,...

John Cox: "George, We shouldn't conflate contradiction with inconsistency. QM has a..." in Watching the Watchmen:...

John Cox: "Georgi, by and large I agree. Near the end of the discussion panel,..." in Watching the Watchmen:...

RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

FQXi FORUM
January 24, 2020

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: Go Beyond Einstein’s Constant Light Speed! by Nimit Theeraleekul [refresh]

Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author nimit theeraleekul wrote on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 15:16 GMT
Essay Abstract

Abstract: “Constancy light speed referenced to any initial frame” is one of the basic assumptions in Einstein special theory of relativity; provided with a physical mechanism will change it from just an assumption to a real natural phenomenon. Then what we got from the improving is that we could understand physical mechanism of “relativistic effect” which gives rise to relativistic mechanics. Indeed, improving physics theory by adding an appropriate mechanism is far-reaching; it could extend to Einstein general theory of relativity and quantum mechanical theory, which is then able to answer questions such as dark energy/matter, quantum entanglement, including Higgs. Finally it would pave the way to the theory of everything!

Author Bio

The author is a retired telecommunication engineer from power utility company, who interest in foundation of physics since study in the university until now.

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 20:17 GMT
Nimit

i agree with you: "Two sizes of the black hole (of vacuum medium) electrons and protons are the only two elementary particles created and floating in the sea of vacuum medium universe"

See my essay http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1413

report post as inappropriate

Frank Makinson wrote on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 22:58 GMT
Nimit,

1) "Nowadays mainstream physicists still believe that light wave travels (propagate) without using any medium to be carrier, i.e. it can travel by itself (via mutual creation between electric and magnetic field)!"

It is difficult to understand how such an absurdity was even considered. Every physicist was introduced to the theory of waves early in their education. In every...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

YKLCUYWN replied on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 01:28 GMT
Dear Frank,

If you accept Einstein non existence of the aether, you have to try to solve any problems which followed! This is one of many others problems which people avoid to talk about.

Sincerely,

Nimit

report post as inappropriate

Frank Makinson replied on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 02:42 GMT
Nimit,

Aether or something has to exist to allow the propagation of EM waves in space or in a vacuum.

It is Einstein's failure to insist on the existence of an aether is what has produced substantial confusion. EM waves propagate in something, and the term aether is just as good as anything. The Higgs is nothing more than a reworked aether concept.

It seems not one agency that launches spacecraft will send one of them toward the Sun or the outer planets with an active permittivity instrument. NASA and EU countries are locked into General Relativity. Perhaps someone can convince Japan, India or China to measure permittivity off planet.

report post as inappropriate

Consantinos Ragazas wrote on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 03:33 GMT
Dear Nimit,

“If the speed of light is constant, then light is a wave”.

You may find this proposition interesting and very relevant to your ideas concerning Einstein. You can find a mathematical proof of this in End Note II) of my essay, “The Metaphysics of Physics”.

This result shows that the Photon Hypothesis is contradicted by the CSL Postulate and establishes light as propagating through a medium as a wave. With this realization, it is easy to understand why the speed of light is constant and independent of the speed of the source and the speed of the observer.

Best wishes,

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 13:55 GMT
nimit

I agree with your solid conceptual basis as you'll find in my previous essays here.

Have you yet dealt with the knotty problems which have scuppered this direction previously, i.e.;

A. Stellar Aberration (apparent star positions AHEAD of our orbital path not behind it) while conserving causality.

B. The observed effects of curved space-time.

C. The Copenhagen Interpretation of QM and the measurement problem.

I hope you will like and agree with my own essay this year, which deals with real mechanisms in deriving QM from SR on very much the same lines as yours, and identifies the issues with mathematics which have misguided us, well covered also in Ken Wharton's essay.

I think you may struggle to get good scores as have I due to unfamiliarity and, ironically, assumptions, but you have a good score from me. I hope you agree mine worth the same. Please do comment or question it.

Best of luck in the competition.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Ted Erikson wrote on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 15:21 GMT
Nimit:

You rationalize the constancy of mass independent of it's motion well. I am always bothered by including kinetic energy as "the" explanation.

Yet, somehow the focus on motion always avoids the concomitant problem of growth. There is more to the world than physical energy.

Perhaps you may consider?Point of essay (vote high!, thanks) is based on

(1) Light "energy" seeks surface area of mass that mediates charge motions while

(2) Gravity is a content of mass phenomena that seeks time to exist by growth.

To Seek Unknown Shores

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1409

It seems your essay did not follow rules of FQXi for submission.. Good Luck!!

report post as inappropriate

James Lee Hoover wrote on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 19:45 GMT
Great thoughts, Nimit.

I have such questions I have puzzled over, that relate to my essay:

1) Is a photon of light always without mass?

2) If something is rendered massless, does its mass increase at near light speed?

Jim

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 23:55 GMT
Dear Jim,

1) Actually photon does have mass, but conventionally in physics it was treated as energy! The reason behind is because it is the mass of part of the vibrating medium which acts as the carrier of light wave packet (photon). This is why it was said that light cannot stop, because if it stops, then there is no light (i.e. no vibration part of medium)!

2) There is no such thing which is - massless, because no mass (or energy) means no anything!

By the way, it is very instructive to consider the behavior of sound wave as an analogy, indeed! Please see detail in the paper - Completed Maxwell electromagnetic field theory, in my website.

Sincerely,

Nimit

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Sep. 13, 2012 @ 19:04 GMT
Dear Nimit,

You have a lot of questions.1). For the model of photon as a particle in fluxes of gravitons see the paper: Fedosin S.G. Cosmic Red Shift, Microwave Background, and New Particles. Galilean Electrodynamics, Spring 2012, Vol. 23, Special Issues No. 1, P. 3 - 13. About speed of light in Michelson-Morley interference experiment see Metric theory of relativity. 2). In two-solenoid...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Nimit Theeraleekul replied on Sep. 16, 2012 @ 09:21 GMT
Dear Serqey Fedosin,

1) The crucial problem about the graviton is that it is just a proposed hypothesis which not yet discovered!

2) You said that - In two-solenoid experiment the energy of magnetic field is spent to work against of force repelling the solenoids. Then how could you explain in the case which both the feeding currents have the same polarity (in which the magnetic field is double)?

3) How could you prove that - The vacuum medium may be fluxes of gravitons ?

4) What is the mechanism, such as why and how electron attracts proton in the process of - Origin of matter is the same at all level of matter?

The remain problems will be answer latter.

Sincerely,

Nimit

report post as inappropriate

Nimit Theeraleekul replied on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 05:34 GMT
Dear Serqey Fedosin,

Here are the answers to the remained problems.

6) How could you prove the existence of the privileged reference frame in your theory?

8) You said that - the time dilation is absolute effect which is measured by atomic clocks. What is its physical mechanism?

9) You said that - increasing of mass` is a result of the postulate of constancy of speed of light in inertial systems only. The problem is what is its mechanism?

Sincerely,

Nimit

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan replied on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 21:49 GMT
http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.3765

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Sep. 18, 2012 @ 14:34 GMT
Dear Nimit,

Here are my answers. 1). The gravitons are in accordance with the Le Sages theory of gravitation. The gravitons in the Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter may be particles similar to neutrino, photons and cosmic rays. But these particles are mach more less then usual particles since they are born at low levels of matter. How can we discover such particles? At the moment it...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Nimit Theeraleekul replied on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 01:56 GMT
Dear Serqey Fedosin,

I am not quite clear about your explanation for the two-solenoid experiment in (2)! Anyway let us discuss more detail about it as follow; when a solenoid was feed by direct current it will create magnetic field around plus neglect small amount of acting force between coil turns. Now if two ideal solenoids (with the same polarity of the feeding current) were placed together, then both magnetic field and inter- coils force will double. But if different polarity of the feeding current were applied, then both magnetic field and inter- coils force will vanish! This is what it occur in the experiment, is it right or wrong?

Sincerely,

Nimit

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 11:29 GMT
Dear Nimit,

I think that in the case when both solenoids coincide their common magnetic field may be zero or doubled according to polarity of their currents. It is a superposition principle for fields. Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 09:11 GMT
After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.

Cood luck.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 06:05 GMT
If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is
$R_1$
and
$N_1$
was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have
$S_1=R_1 N_1$
of points. After it anyone give you
$dS$
of points so you have
$S_2=S_1+ dS$
of points and
$N_2=N_1+1$
is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have
$S_2=R_2 N_2$
of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be:
$S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1$
or
$(S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1$
or
$dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1$
In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points
$dS$
then the participant`s rating
$R_1$
was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Nimit Theeraleekul wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 07:53 GMT
Dear Serqey Fedosin,

Thanks for your information about the rating process. Indeed, for me I am not so interest in it (community rating), even it has some effect for the contest. What interests me is the rule which was written, in which I will give the credit to the evaluation committee for their judgment.

Sincerely,

Nimit

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.