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 - April 24, 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.

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Yuri Danoyan: on 10/4/12 at 12:51pm UTC, wrote Eray Please don't forget impartially evaluate my essay ...

Steve Dufourny Jedi: on 10/4/12 at 10:05am UTC, wrote are you sure about your results Mr Danoyan, The expansion contraction of...

Armin Nikkhah Shirazi: on 10/4/12 at 10:04am UTC, wrote Dear Eray, I liked your informal style peppered with humorous remarks...

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/4/12 at 4:18am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

Georgina Woodward: on 10/4/12 at 0:28am UTC, wrote Dear Eray Sabancilar, just wanted to say that I have taken a look at your...

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/2/12 at 7:24am UTC, wrote After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I...

Hoang Hai: on 10/1/12 at 2:18am UTC, wrote Dear Eray Sabancilar Very interesting to see your essay. Perhaps all of...

Amanda Gefter: on 9/29/12 at 17:23pm UTC, wrote Hi Eray, Interesting piece. Love the Radiohead analogy. Cheers, Amanda

RECENT FORUM POSTS

Jim Snowdon: "What about the dinosaur bones Steve? They are still here with us in the..." in The Quantum Clock-Maker...

Lorraine Ford: "P.S. Clearly, a situation symbolically representable as: ..." in The Present State of...

Lorraine Ford: "So, in reply to the posts by Stefan Weckbach and Steve Dufourny above,..." in The Present State of...

Georgina Woodward: "If considering existence rather than appearances, the time dimension..." in Anatomy of spacetime and...

Georgina Woodward: "That is about the 'anatomy"" of spacetime." in Anatomy of spacetime and...

Steve Dufourny: "Hello Jim, yes indeed in a sense we have these motions and we have invented..." in The Quantum Clock-Maker...

Georgina Woodward: "Thank you. Good luck." in The Nature of Time

Lorraine Ford: "Rob, As you have not replied, I take it that you now concede that the..." in 16th Marcel Grossmann...

RECENT ARTICLES

The Quantum Clock-Maker Investigating COVID-19, Causality, and the Trouble with AI
Sally Shrapnel, a quantum physicist and medical practitioner, on her experiments into cause-and-effect that could help us understand time’s arrow—and build better healthcare algorithms.

Connect the Quantum Dots for a New Kind of Fuel
'Artificial atoms' allow physicists to manipulate individual electrons—and could help to reduce energy wastage in electronic devices.

Can Choices Curve Spacetime?
Two teams are developing ways to detect quantum-gravitational effects in the lab.

The Quantum Engine That Simultaneously Heats and Cools
Tiny device could help boost quantum electronics.

The Quantum Refrigerator
A tiny cooling device could help rewrite the thermodynamic rule book for quantum machines.

FQXi FORUM
September 17, 2021

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: Universe Runs on G by Eray Sabancilar [refresh]

Author Eray Sabancilar wrote on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 15:22 GMT
Essay Abstract

I argue that the speed of light and Planck's constant are true constants of the Nature and do not change in space and time, whereas Newton's constant can, and in fact that might lead us to a consistent picture of the universe.

Author Bio

I am a postdoctoral research fellow at Arizona State University and my main focus of research is theoretical cosmology. I hold a Ph.D. in Physics from Tufts University.

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 19:39 GMT
Eray

Only Planck constant is constant.Only Planck mass is real unit...

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

report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan replied on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 15:11 GMT
Eray

to bee more radical and agree to change also speed of light like this

Big Bang; Present; Big Crunch

c=10^30; c=10^10; c=10^-10

G=10^12; G=10^-8; G=10^-28

h=10^-28; h=10^-28; h=10^-28

alfa =10^-3; 1/ 137; 1

e=0,1 ; e=e ; e=12

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny Jedi replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 10:05 GMT

The expansion contraction of the universal sphere and its spheres is difficult to perceive and extrapolate. If the constants evolve also and are under the universal spherization, so the oscillation is specific. A maximum volume is so rational. The coàntraction appears at this moment of critical density intrinsi to this universal sphere. The rule...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Member Benjamin F. Dribus wrote on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 15:01 GMT
Eray,

Interesting and succinct. A couple of preliminary questions:

1. Would this imply that black holes may not contain singularities?

2. What does this imply for dark matter and dark energy? Do you think dark matter is actually matter, or a dynamical effect? What does asymptotic safety say about accelerating expansion?

Take care,

Ben Dribus

report post as inappropriate
Author Eray Sabancilar replied on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 02:23 GMT
Ben,

Black holes would still have the same event horizons since gravitational collapse forming the black hole happens in the IR, i.e., at very large length scales where G does not change at all. However, at extremely small distances, the effect of gravity would be weaker, hence singularity may not form in the center of a black hole. I expect that the macroscopic properties of a black hole remains the same, though. There has been some discussion on this subject, see e.g.,

http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.1317

Dark matter is irrelevant in this context, but from the supernova, CMB and LSS observations, we know that the cosmological data can be fit the \LambdaCDM model, i.e., cold dark matter, small cosmological constant, small amount of baryonic matter and radiation. So dark energy is probably the cosmological constant although the equation of state still is awaits for observational data. In the asymptotically safe gravity scenario, the cosmological constant would also run from its large UV value to the small IR value. However, note that the idea of asymptotic safety in gravity is based on the existence of a non-gaussian fixed point in the RG flow and it should be kept in mind that it not a trivial task to prove that.

Best,

Eray

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 16:30 GMT
Dear Eray,

I support the idea that gravitational constant is a running constant. My position is based at the theory of Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter, which described in my essay, and Le Sage theory of gravitation. It is supposed that at the level of atoms there is Strong gravitational constant. And at the level of star the gravitational constant is a result of action of gravitons. For details, see: Fedosin S.G. Model of Gravitational Interaction in the Concept of Gravitons. // Journal of Vectorial Relativity, March 2009, Vol. 4, No. 1, P.1-24. At different parts of Universe may be different local fluxes of gravitons and gravitational constant is changed.

Sergey Fedosin Essay

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 19:50 GMT
For better clarification my approach

I sending to you 3 keen articles

http://ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_today/phystoday/Ab
s_limits393.pdf

http://ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_today/physt
oday/Abs_limits393.pdf

http://ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_toda
y/phystoday/Abs_limits400.pdf

All the best

Yuri danoyan

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 23:21 GMT
Sorry i missed part 1

http://ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_today/phystoday/Abs_limit
s388.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 17:35 GMT
Eray

A very enjoyable read and logical proposition. I wonder at 3rd order and infinite time if ANY constants are really constant, now and forever, but a good approximation is perhaps better than we can expect from most current physics. I do like the way you think, and write. Concise is also good when I'm feeling essayed to death!

As Astronomer and what is these days termed 'observational cosmologist' I'm also interested in your derivations of these conclusions, if any. I've certainly put up a case for non acceleration, and indeed a cyclic universe. Last years essay is more pertinent, or perhaps this if you're interested; http://vixra.org/abs/1102.0016 the precursor to a full paper currently in review. But primarily I hope you'll read and score my own essay this year highly as I intend to do yours. It concerns the underlying REAL physical mechanisms behind classical observations.

Well done, and very best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on Sep. 21, 2012 @ 02:20 GMT
Dear Eray Sabancilar,

In a holarchial and eternal universe, the phase transition of thermodynamics runs the universe against gravitational collapse and thus the gravitational constant is not constant in entirety of universe.

With best wishes,

Jayakar

report post as inappropriate

Member Hector Zenil wrote on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 06:12 GMT
Dear Eray,

A very short, but concise and thought provoking essay. I think the paradoxical idea of changing constants in nature is not completely new and it has investigated in the context of the anthropic principle. I would have liked to see some historical background and state of the art description as a preamble to your interesting ideas. If you can please do drop a few lines in this regard. I think some anthropic principle investigations also consider changes in G, perhaps you can elaborate and contrast with your proposal.

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 20:21 GMT
Eray,

Did you or some guardian angel delete my comment? Constant speed of light or deletion. No third alternative.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate
Author Eray Sabancilar replied on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 21:26 GMT
Dear Pentcho,

I saw your comment and it disappeared the next day or so before I was able to respond. I do not know how it got deleted, though. Please post it again, or remind me what your concern was, so that we can discuss it. Sorry for not responding right away since I was rather busy for the last two weeks and I did not have a chance to check this site regularly. If it gets deleted again, please e mail me. I will copy/paste your comment and post it here.

Best,

Eray

Yuri Danoyan replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 12:51 GMT
Eray

Please don't forget impartially evaluate my essay

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1413

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 14:53 GMT
Eray

Not only G run, but c too. They vary synchronously/

report post as inappropriate

Amanda Gefter wrote on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 17:23 GMT
Hi Eray,

Cheers,

Amanda

report post as inappropriate

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 02:18 GMT
Dear Eray Sabancilar

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 (definition from the ABSOLUTE theory of me) - 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.

Kind Regards !

Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY

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

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 07:24 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

Georgina Woodward wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 00:28 GMT
Dear Eray Sabancilar,

just wanted to say that I have taken a look at your essay but not yet read it thoroughly. I will admit to being a bit intimidated by the small type and very few breaks in it. Love the introduction. I also think G has an immensely important role to play. I will aim to read your essay more thoroughly, probably with coffee but skipping the donut. That's not to do with class but a variable related to G.

Good Luck, Georgina : )

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 04:18 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.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Armin Nikkhah Shirazi wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 10:04 GMT
Dear Eray,

I liked your informal style peppered with humorous remarks which made some very complicated and advanced concepts accessible to a general audience.

While I personally tend to believe that a quantum theory of gravity exists but not at all as envisaged by the current particle physics approach, I try to keep an open mind about any ideas that might refute my bias. In this regard, it would have helped to have a some technical endnotes so that the broad steps of your argument as presented in the paper could be followed in greater detail.

All the best,

Armin

report post as inappropriate