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

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

David Brown: on 2/23/18 at 8:14am UTC, wrote "... astrophysicsts and cosmologists will pile on more dark matter ..." Are...

Steven Andresen: on 2/22/18 at 6:27am UTC, wrote Dear Richard If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the...

Richard Benish: on 2/17/18 at 22:14pm UTC, wrote Georgina, Thanks for your thoughtful comment. Concerning the experiment,...

Georgina Woodward: on 2/16/18 at 2:10am UTC, wrote Hi Richard, I enjoyed reading your skeptical essay and finding out about...

Richard Benish: on 2/14/18 at 21:21pm UTC, wrote Alvarez, Klingman, Walker, Yusuf, Gupta, Sadykov, Many thanks for your...

Robert Sadykov: on 2/14/18 at 7:20am UTC, wrote Dear Richard, Newton did not suggest a mechanism of gravity and did it...

Satyavarapu Gupta: on 2/14/18 at 2:32am UTC, wrote Dear Richard J Benish You are exactly correct about Gravity....."After the...

Colin Walker: on 2/6/18 at 5:24am UTC, wrote Hmm. Going over an old textbook, I can see your objection. My statement...

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: FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017 [back]
TOPIC: The Fundamentality of Gravity by Richard J Benish [refresh]

Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Richard J Benish wrote on Feb. 2, 2018 @ 19:10 GMT
Essay Abstract

After the physicality of existence, gravity's role in the Universe is the most fundamental thing. This role has various manifestations which, it is argued, have been largely misinterpreted by modern physics. An alternative conception of gravity|one that agrees with fi rmly established empirical evidence|is most compactly characterized by its de nition of Newton's constant in terms of other fundamental constants. This ex- pression and supporting arguments largely ful ll the long-standing goal of unifying gravity with the other forces. Phenomena spanning atomic nuclei to the large-scale cosmos and the basic physical elements, mass, space, and time, are thereby seen as comprising an interdependent (unified) whole. Meanwhile, a virtual industry of fanciful, far-from-fundamental mathematical distractions clog up the literature of what is still called fundamental physics. By contrast with this dubious activity|most importantly|the new conception can be empirically tested by probing gravity where it has not yet been probed: inside (through the center) of every body of matter.

Author Bio

I am an independent researcher from Milwaukee, WI. I've been reading, thinking, and writing about gravity for a long time.

Download Essay PDF File

Juan Ramón González Álvarez wrote on Feb. 3, 2018 @ 14:41 GMT
What's Not Fundamental About Modern Physics and Cosmology? I would say a lot of: inflaton fields, Big Bangs, black holes, dark matter, dark energy,... are not fundamental; and ideas as multiverse are pure nonsense.

I have always enjoyed the insistence of some physicsts to pretend that gravity is curved spacetime, when we can formulate gravity without a curved spacetime.

The model of gravitons has the same problems than the model of photons, but adds some new problems exclusive to the gravitational interaction. You are correct on that the model of gravitons "make no physical sense".

About your proposed experiment, I will accept what Nature has to say, of course, but I expect the measured motion will be neither the "Newton & Einstein" nor "Benish", but a combination of both.

report post as inappropriate

Colin Walker wrote on Feb. 4, 2018 @ 01:14 GMT
Hi Richard,

I completely agree that any feasible test of gravitation should be carried out. Experimental techniques have evolved remarkably, but testing the idea of Galileo's cannonball must still present a challenge to experimentalists. It is certainly unexplored territory as you point out, and so all the more tantalizing.

We are in accord on a lot - we both have space in motion, and we both consider a model of constant acceleration. I have a way to overcome Bergmann's criticism of GR, but it leads to a different escape velocity, or speed of space associated with gravity. As my essay points out, the Newtonian/GR speed could be faulty because it has not been derived relativistically to account for gravitational redshift. I would welcome any comment on this point.

I thoroughly enjoyed your essay for its innovation, and not just because it resonated strongly with my own beliefs.

Cheers,

Colin

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 01:21 GMT
Dear Richard J Benish,

I'm glad your essay finally landed. As you note, we both have high regard for Tom Phipps' contributions to physics, despite certain disagreements with his approach. You further point out something I believe often goes unnoticed:

"…understanding a theory about gravity (i.e. GR) is often confused for understanding the physical phenomenon of gravity...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 04:11 GMT
Colin:

Many thanks for your kind comment.

In response, I’ll refer to your essay that I have now read and intend to briefly comment on in your section of this forum.

Happy as it surely is that we agree about some things, our disagreements are not insignificant. Your essay appeals to “three relativities.” Galilean relativity facilitated some primitive (local, low-speed)...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Colin Walker replied on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 04:16 GMT
I wonder if your objection is not to classical gravitational potential, but rather to the Schwarzschild interior solution. Classical gravitational potential is maximum at the center, where time would not be dilated and clocks would tick at their maximum rate. The force is supposed to increase (in the downward direction) linearly from the center (where it is zero) to the surface, and then fall off as the inverse square of the radius. Integrating force gives the potential which is zero at the center, decreases as the negative of the square of the radius until it reaches a minimum at the surface, and then increases to zero at infinity.

There is some thought that the ether is a compressible fluid. Some years ago, I was working on a design for a device that would produce a constant tension using a vacuum, and was toying with syringes. As long as there is a vacuum in the syringe, the force on the plunger is determined by atmospheric air pressure and the force will be the same no matter how far the plunger is drawn out. Going the other way, the plunger can compress air to many times atmospheric. So I thought, if I release the plunger it will pop out of the syringe. After all, there should be a force from air pressure pushing it out all the way. Instead, the plunger went back to its starting point with no overshoot or oscillation. Bring on Galileo's experiment!

Colin

report post as inappropriate

Colin Walker replied on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 05:24 GMT
Hmm. Going over an old textbook, I can see your objection. My statement above is not consistent with the text. Gravitational potential energy is not supposed to be zero at the center according to the text. That really does seem wrong. It is a very interesting problem.

Colin

report post as inappropriate

Bashir Yusuf wrote on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 21:51 GMT
Richard J. Benish

I think your essay is very interesting and important (one of the best I know so far) and therefore rate after reading it with great intention, Since it profoundly attacks most of current problems in physics. It really gives me a good answer about the questions related to prioritizing problems I faced.

To address all problems and to put new forward going Idea are...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 14, 2018 @ 02:32 GMT
Dear Richard J Benish

You are exactly correct about Gravity....."After the physicality of existence, gravity's role in the Universe is the most fundamental thing. This role has various manifestations which, it is argued, have been largely misinterpreted by modern physics. ....."

I hope you will not mind that I am not following main stream physics...

By the way…Here in my...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Robert D. Sadykov wrote on Feb. 14, 2018 @ 07:20 GMT
Dear Richard,

Newton did not suggest a mechanism of gravity and did it correctly, because in any case it would be a mistake. Einstein also did not offer a specific mechanics of the curvature of space-time, and this is probably also correct. Before doing this, we need to make sure that the curvature of space-time takes place, since other approaches to gravity are also possible, for example, as presented in the essay "Double foundation of gravity". In relation to special relativity, Phipps' doubts are fully justified. In my opinion, special relativity can be replaced by a single theory of gravity. When assessing the essay "The Fundamentality of Gravity", I stopped at 9 points. I believe that among all the sections of physics, gravity is the most fundamental.

Best wishes,

Robert

report post as inappropriate

Author Richard J Benish wrote on Feb. 14, 2018 @ 21:21 GMT
Alvarez, Klingman, Walker, Yusuf, Gupta, Sadykov,

Many thanks for your thoughtful remarks.

The most important point of my essay is that the model it proposes comes with a simple, feasible, crucial experiment by which it would be unequivocally shown to be dead wrong or at least partially correct.

If the model did not possess this feature, then I would have abandoned it a long time ago. I'm not really interested in pursuing matters of interpretation that have no testable consequences, or consequences that would be revealed only in some far off decimal point.

Thanks for all your good work.

Richard Benish

Georgina Woodward wrote on Feb. 16, 2018 @ 02:10 GMT
Hi Richard, I enjoyed reading your skeptical essay and finding out about your views on gravity. I do agree with some of your reservations.

About your experiment. I have been thinking that in order for you to test the gravity in the centre , you are proposing making a hole through the centre. That will remove gravitational mass, so the object being tested is not the same as one that is intact. Do you see this as a problem? Or is it irrelevant as your proposal is that the force comes from outward acceleration and not a consequence of the distribution of the mass?

I think the accelerometer that would read zero in free fall is being stopped by the ground and so experiencing an opposing force, interpreted as an acceleration. I don't think it is literal going up but more of a compression. Kind regards Georgina

report post as inappropriate

Author Richard J Benish replied on Feb. 17, 2018 @ 22:14 GMT
Georgina,

Thanks for your thoughtful comment.

Concerning the experiment, the idea is to make the hole narrow compared to the whole body it goes through. Then, when something falls into it, the main effect will be due to the bulk of the surrounding mass. There being no matter at the center itself is clearly required to see how or if a falling body falls past it.

As you've noted...

view entire post

Steven Andresen wrote on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 06:27 GMT
Dear Richard

If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please? I read all essays from those who comment on my page, and if I cant rate an essay highly, then I don’t rate them at all. Infact I haven’t issued a rating lower that ten. So you have nothing to lose by having me read your essay, and everything to...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

David Brown wrote on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 08:14 GMT
"... astrophysicsts and cosmologists will pile on more dark matter ..." Are dark matter particles merely dubious hypotheses?

Kroupa, Pavel. "Galaxies as simple dynamical systems: observational data disfavor dark matter and stochastic star formation." Canadian Journal of Physics 93, no. 2 (2014): 169-202.

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.