Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

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


Previous Contests

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

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.
read/discusswinners

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

read/discusswinners

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
read/discusswinners

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

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
read/discusswinners

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

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

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

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

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Karoly Kehrer: on 10/5/12 at 13:22pm UTC, wrote Dear Ben Dribus I have get more compliment than I deserve. What I try to...

Benjamin Dribus: on 10/5/12 at 3:52am UTC, wrote Dear Karoly, Nice essay! A few thoughts come to mind. 1. Regarding the...

Karoly Kehrer: on 10/4/12 at 23:10pm UTC, wrote Thanks I did not know this Sincerely Karoly

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/4/12 at 5:58am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

Karoly Kehrer: on 10/3/12 at 14:14pm UTC, wrote Dear Declan Sorry for a typo. Karoly

Karoly Kehrer: on 10/3/12 at 14:12pm UTC, wrote Dear Geoff "We should always be careful about the difference between...

Karoly Kehrer: on 10/3/12 at 14:00pm UTC, wrote Thank you Ceclan

Geoffrey Haselhurst: on 10/3/12 at 9:47am UTC, wrote Hi Karoly, It is a nice simple essay that is important as it makes us...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Jorma Seppaenen: "Dear Georgina, I think you are perfectly right about the estimate of age..." in Why Time Might Not Be an...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Georgina Woodward: "Yes. The estimate of age of the visible universe, and age of stars, other..." in Why Time Might Not Be an...

akash hasan: "Some students have an interest in researching and space exploration. I..." in Announcing Physics of the...

Michael Jordan: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..." in Review of "Foundations of...

Anonymous: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..." in Constructing a Theory of...

Robert McEachern: ""all experiments have pointed towards this and there is no way to avoid..." in Review of "Foundations of...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

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.

Dissolving Quantum Paradoxes
The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.


FQXi FORUM
May 25, 2019

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: Questions About the Constants of Physics and Their Possible Dependency on the Environment by Karoly Kehrer [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Karoly Kehrer wrote on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 12:39 GMT
Essay Abstract

Abstract The realms of the validity of the physical constants are discussed and a hypothesis about the end of the existence of the Black Holes is presented.

Author Bio

Have bachelor degrees in mechanical engineering and master degrees in civil engineering. Provided theoretical analyses and detailed design for electrodynamically levitated vehicles for US Urban Transportation and performed performance test on a full size vehicle. The program was financed by The Federal Transit Authority and private investors. Have several publications on the design and stability issues of Electrodynamic levitation.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Frank Makinson wrote on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 18:21 GMT
Karoly,

"All of these constants were rigorously checked and rechecked several times on the surface of the Earth."

You are one of the few authors that properly qualifies where the "constants" have been measured. I put "constants" in quotes because there is evidence that many so-called constants are not constant. Radioactive decay time variations have been measured which show a dependency upon the distance to the Sun.

I consider it an absurdity that the velocity of electromagnetic (EM) waves everywhere in space (wherever that is) are precisely the same as measured in a vacuum some place on the Earth's surface.

Please read the comments on Topic 1419. I did not realize "dark matter" was created to provide a correction to Newtonian gravity as applied to orbital mechanics for large groupings of stars as compared to a solar system.

Newtonian gravity requires an "instantaneous influence at a distance" for solar system planetary distances. An assumption was made this "influence" has infinite velocity, everywhere.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Gary Simpson wrote on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 02:26 GMT
Glad you could join the party:-)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Karoly Kehrer replied on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 23:14 GMT
Thanks for your help Gery

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 00:51 GMT
Karoly,

As Frank mentioned, there are some interesting experiments with variations of radioactive decay rates. Not only do they seem to vary with the Sun-Earth distance, but they seem to signal coronal mass ejections!

This Physics World article provides background.

The mystery of the varying nuclear decay

This paper provides the latest details.

Additional experimental evidence for a solar influence on nuclear decay rates

And these slides from Recontres de Moriond tell the whole story.

Evidence of Solar Influences on Nuclear Decay Rates

Enjoy,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Karoly Kehrer wrote on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 03:20 GMT
Jonathan J. Dickau

Thanks for your comments, it greatly helps me

Sincerely

Karoly

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Sep. 13, 2012 @ 11:29 GMT
Dear Karoly,

I want add some words that the speed of light in vacuum may be relative and absolute. The relative speed of light in special relativity is the constant c. Such speed is a convention of the theory and is known as postulate of constancy of speed of light. See Extended special theory of relativity. The absolute speed of light may be measured in one-way light experiments, see Metric theory of relativity. In the theory of gravitation the speed of light depends on the position of observer. For local observer it is equal to c (again a convention), and for coordinate observer the speed of light is smaller in strong field.

Sergey Fedosin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Karoly Kehrer wrote on Sep. 15, 2012 @ 13:10 GMT
Dear Sergey

Thanks, I do agree. The question I was thinking about what the effect of the variability of the constants would have on our word view?

Could yo share of your thoughts on this?

Sincerely Karoly

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 14:46 GMT
Dear

Very interesting to see your essay.

Perhaps all of us are convinced that: the choice of yourself is right!That of course is reasonable.

So may be we should work together to let's the consider clearly defined for the basis foundations theoretical as the most challenging with intellectual of all of us.

Why we do not try to start with a real challenge is very close and are the focus of interest of the human science: it is a matter of mass and grain Higg boson of the standard model.

Knowledge and belief reasoning of you will to express an opinion on this matter:

You have think that: the Mass is the expression of the impact force to material - so no impact force, we do not feel the Higg boson - similar to the case of no weight outside the Earth's atmosphere.

Does there need to be a particle with mass for everything have volume? If so, then why the mass of everything change when moving from the Earth to the Moon? Higg boson is lighter by the Moon's gravity is weaker than of Earth?

The LHC particle accelerator used to "Smashed" until "Ejected" Higg boson, but why only when the "Smashed" can see it,and when off then not see it ?

Can be "locked" Higg particles? so when "released" if we do not force to it by any the Force, how to know that it is "out" or not?

You are should be boldly to give a definition of weight that you think is right for us to enjoy, or oppose my opinion.

Because in the process of research, the value of "failure" or "success" is the similar with science. The purpose of a correct theory be must is without any a wrong point ?

Glad to see from you comments soon,because still have too many of the same problems.

Regards !

Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY

August 23, 2012 - 11:51 GMT on this essay contest.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 10:57 GMT
Karoly

Most enjoyable read and pertinent observations. I agree entirely with your analysis. I hope you'll read my essay which follows this to arrive at what seems a major breakthrough. I start with (agreeing) there is no such thing as a non medium 'perfect vacuum', as your;

"When the relativity theory was formulated it had assumed this (MM) negative result as a positive proof, that the interstellar space-vacuum consists of nothing, it is an absolute void."

I also agree that local density has a significant effect and derive space-time curvature including kinetic effects in agreement with; "...it is probable that permeability and permittivity of the free space - μ0 and/or ε0 - may depend on the interstellar energy/mater density."

A concise, clear and logical essay, and earning a good score from me. I do hope you get to read mine, which may take a little longer to assimilate, but I hope you agree worth the effort.

Best of luck

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Karoly Kehrer wrote on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 12:57 GMT
Dear Peter

Thanks for the kind words. I am still working my way trough the submitted papers. Yours will be next.

Keep in touch

Sincerely

Karoly

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 09:05 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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Declan Traill wrote on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 09:38 GMT
Hi Karoly,

Just gave you a high Community rating: best wishes for the Contest...

Regards,

Declan Traill

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Karoly Kehrer replied on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 14:00 GMT
Thank you Ceclan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Karoly Kehrer replied on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 14:14 GMT
Dear Declan Sorry for a typo.

Karoly

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Geoffrey Haselhurst wrote on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 09:47 GMT
Hi Karoly,

It is a nice simple essay that is important as it makes us think more carefully about these so called 'constants'.

Three thoughts;

i) It is also an assumption that the universe is expanding from a big bang, the empirical fact is a red shift with distance (a very different thing). We should always be careful about the difference between empirical facts and theoretical interpretations of these facts. This applies to the velocity of light - it is an empirical fact that it is always measured the same, it is a theoretical interpretation that it is constant (I believe it changes but so does wavelength / dimension such that the velocity is always measured the same, seems Nature is very deceptive but ultimately logical!)

ii) Dark energy (Einstein's cosmological constant), required to explain the accelerated expansion of the universe in big bang theory, seems necessarily (in WSM cosmology) to simply be gravity from matter further distant in infinite space.

iii) Black holes, in the Wave Structure of Matter (WSM), cannot occur, infinite energy densities are impossible in reality (only occur in mathematics!)

Cheers and good luck.

Geoff

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1548

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Karoly Kehrer wrote on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 14:12 GMT
Dear Geoff

"We should always be careful about the difference between empirical facts and theoretical interpretations of these facts"

I do agree along with your other insightful remarks.

"infinite energy densities are impossible in reality (only occur in mathematics!)" What I cannot comprehend why so many physicist believe in absurdities.

Thanks

Sincerely

Karoly

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 05:58 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
and
was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have
of points. After it anyone give you
of points so you have
of points and
is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have
of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be:
or
or
In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points
then the participant`s rating
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Karoly Kehrer wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 23:10 GMT
Thanks I did not know this

Sincerely

Karoly

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Member Benjamin F. Dribus wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 03:52 GMT
Dear Karoly,

Nice essay! A few thoughts come to mind.

1. Regarding the "Higgs Aether" view you mention, I think this is something worth thinking about, in the following sense: suppose the Higgs boson had been discovered in 1900 rather than 2010-2012. Would not the scientific community then have concluded "this is the aether?" It's funny how much the view of "spacetime" as "empty void" has changed since Einstein argued in his SR paper that light requires no supporting medium.

2. I agree with the statement that "all this tells us that understanding the fabric of the vacuum is the most important thing if one want to understand physics." (page 3)

3. Regarding the cosmological "constant," the causal set theorists have some interesting ideas on this. I am working on a similar approach myself.

Thanks for the enjoyable read! Take care,

Ben Dribus

P.S. There has been a lot of "ratings chaos" the last few days, and one hesitates to comment on people's threads for fear that the author will suspect one of giving a low rating. I want to assure you that I admire your contribution and gave it the rating it deserves.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Karoly Kehrer wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 13:22 GMT
Dear Ben Dribus

I have get more compliment than I deserve.

What I try to do is to question (and get rid of) dogmas that always were , and always will be part of natural philosophy.

Thank you for your thoughtful comments.

Sincerely

Karoly

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.