Constructing a physics theory without experimental constants is challenging, as constants are derived from observations. While some theories aim for more fundamental explanations, the ultimate physics theory, if it exists, is still a subject of speculation. Many theories, like string theory, attempt to unify fundamental forces, but the nature of an ultimate theory remains uncertain.

Yazen Alawaideh,

For me, the results of Planck 2018 and the results concerning muonic hydrogen and deuterium both test the link between the infinitely small and the infinitely large via cosmological parameters and constants.

Yes, it's possible, but it's going to be mathematics, not physics.

Similarly, one cannot build mathematics without numbers.

Len Leonid Mizrah,

It seems to me that the absolute synchronism of the physical world, from its infinitely small to its infinitely large, is governed by simple rules of algebra, a basic geometry, but also by the presence of many cosmological parameters, without forgetting of course the cosmological constants. .

if you accept "laws of nature do exist" - not only in your or my mind - and are independent of space and time as need to be (otherwise now law of nature), the private answer is NO

Example: if you accept: "c=const" is a law of nature.

If you don't believe in laws the answer is what you like to answer.

By the way: The mass of the electron is not stable (const) So this is not a law of nature. So restmass can change its structure (energy) in time.

E(t)=m(t)*c^2=f(t)*h. So Planck-h should be a fundamental const as c is already.

only if you like to see why:

Preprint Conclusions from the Principles of Thermodynamics

Not at the moment. As discussed in previous answers, there are efforts being made to try to construct such a thing, but so far all have ended in failure. Any correct theory will have to include theoretical values that correspond to the known constants, and many lines of inquiry suggest that slight differences in some of the values would make life as we know it impossible. So perhaps the assumption that the constants have to be in a certain range for us to exist might allow us to put some constraints on what the constants must be, in which case (as pointed out above) the mathematical, non-physical effort might be successful. But I doubt that such a thing will happen in the lifetime of anyone now living, and when and if it does happen, there will probably be dozens of mathematical papers that are all at odds with each other. So as far as any practical consideration is concerned, the answer is probably not "not in our lifetime", but "never at all".

Yes, if you are really, really, lucky and pick the right fudge factors to make things work.

It is possible that humans are trying to quantify something that cannot be quantified because it is all in a state of transition which we cannot perceive on our time scale, with our technology. There may also be undiscovered "fields," "effects," or "dimensions" that are beyond our physical ability to detect which, nevertheless, affect our physical universe. Take the example of a goldfish in a bowl. For all practical purposes the bowl is the fish's universe. If a human picks up the bowl and moves it to another room, the fish has no control over what has happened, but is nevertheless affected by the movement in multiple ways that would be unknown to the fish and beyond its control, and perception.

There have been many documented experiences of encounters with a spiritual world beyond our own, and while we cannot perceive or experience it with our five senses and our technology, it does exist for those who believe in it. It is entirely possible that things exist which we cannot prove or disprove, but nevertheless, affect our physical existence.

A shadow is a projection of a 3D object onto two dimensions. Our 3D physical universe, plus time, may be a projection of a higher dimensional existence which we cannot perceive. We simply do not know how much we do not know.

It is from current physics that we could build ultimate physics. Ultimate physics is for me current physics but totally devoid (liberated) of its experimental constants in favor of theoretical constants mainly calculated using cosmological parameters. But it should be noted that it is possible that certain constants of current physics, after certain criteria, do not form parts of an ultimate physics because in fact their classical equations do not make them possible to link to consumological parameters. And in fact cannot be related to other ultimate physical constants. It is likely that the Bohr radius equation is, in my opinion, a candidate because it cannot be closely related to the other constants. In classical physics this equation is related. Following the fact of being able to connect the constants between them through the cosmological parameters it is very probable that the constant of Planck noted h can profit from a theoretical equation according to cosmological parameters and this constant could become theoretical.

It is from my opinion, it depends on fundamental concept. In most cases, arbitrary constants are connected with theories of physics. If constant is required to define, you have find by calculating or experimentally, otherwise constant is some value and you don't need to define it.

The experimental constants are confirmations of theoretical constants even if the latter come from cosmological parameters. On the other hand I think it is very possible that the formulas of Planck's units and the Einstein's formulas in general and special relativity can be related to cosmological parameters. for me,their theories emerge from an ultimate theory based on cosmological parameters. For me, they are based on ultimate theories. For me Planck and Einstein formulas are il link via the cosmological parameters.

Yes you are right

Parth Mevada,

Many thanks, that's encouraging.

Welcome 🙂

I think Einstein "got trapped" by these two own theories and formulas that is why he couldn't connect them. In fact aren't the cosmological parameters what Einstein lacked to ultimately finish his work?. Didn't Einstein, and Planck and many others put their hands on the same ultimate theory unknowingly? Have they already written the "equations of God" for already a century?

I think, god equation is totally different kind of equation like it was made from Euler's identity in complex number and God equation: exp(iπ) + 1 = 0. So, here you talk about Einstein so I am also fan of Albert Einstein and sir Einstein was a genius as you know. He had two theories on that time: general and special relativity theory. In general relativity, there were some circumstances where his theory has been proved wrong so fix errors he had founded a new theory special relativity. So he got trapped on that time. Yes there are cosmological parameters, einstein lacked to ultimate finish his work?

I am talking about equations relating to the various cosmological parameters. In my opinion, the number of God's equations is endless. We have discovered an infinitely small number of them. For my part, I have highlighted a small number of parameters, but really small, I work with to calculate teoretically, for example, the masses of protons and neutrons and many other examples of physical calculations, and I obtain extremely interesting theoretical values which are confirmed by the current CODATA.

After further thought, it occurs to me that the so-called "constants" which we try so hard to measure are really data points observed during the continuous rate of change of the factors which "explain" observed phenomena at this point in time. For example, suppose we have the ability to measure the speed of a falling object, and base our estimate of its time of impact on that speed. Since the force of gravity causes falling objects to accelerate at a known rate, which can be determined by experimentation and observation, a computation based upon speed at some point during the fall would not be accurate.

Isn't it possible that our continuously expanding universe, which is expanding at an accelerating rate according to observations, is possibly a model for the fact that the physical "constants" we measure today are really a result of an accelerating process or processes that will never be constant, but always changing?

Even such things as the half-life of Carbon 14 could be changing, which might cause us to falsely estimate the age of items containing carbon 14 based upon an assumed, constant, rate of decay. Our technology to measure such things has only existed for the blink of an eye in terms of geological time, so we don't really know at this point. There are certain measurements that have been made of distant stars and galaxies which appear to show a change in the force of gravity, so, doesn't that mean it is possible that light which left other galaxies billions of years ago, that we are just now seeing, shows motions of stars and galaxies that were different in the past due to small changes in the force of gravity over that time compared our present-day "local" measurements?

Maybe there are no constants, but only slow rates of change.

Do you think about if a balloon who survives for a long time and it could be expand high. If we expand a balloon by giving internal pressure and balloon's rate of increasing radius is a speed of light. Think for few seconds, what would be result?

My theory might be helpful for my above question?

Parth Mevada,

I think everything starts with an idea and that idea is likely to become the basis of a theory and theory needs experimentation but unfortunately not everything can be subject to experimentation!

Ok

You are shifting into the abstract world, and the fundamental physical constants are the real world and no one has yet been able to refute them.

It looks like this site was created by fantasy kids and for the entertainment of fantasy kids.

"Nothing is stable is the most stable physical law in nature" free from mathematics.

It is already assumed that the initial expansion of the universe was faster than the speed of light.

My theory is that the universe is analogous to an expanding spherical wave of spacetime. Its expansion has been so great that our local "visible universe" looks "flat" in its spherical shape defined by the technology we now possess to look outward and measure the cosmos. We exist in our local region in a "bubble" of space that we can see, but it is only a tiny region within the expanding "wave" of spacetime. The cosmological constants and red shift data we have obtained by observing this tiny region of the entire universe shapes our conception of what is "out there," but in fact, we are like a goldfish in a bowl compared to the entire Earth which surrounds it.

“Is it possible to construct a physics not based on experimental constants and if so is it the ultimate physics?”

It is fundamentally impossible to construct a physics not based on experimental constants, because of that any, and first of all new, information about environment [and about themselves, though] humans can obtain fundamentally only experimentally.

Cheers

But, as I answered in an earlier post, what if there are no constants, but only states of being at a point in time, like the speed of a falling object at a single point, when it is actually accelerating due to the force of gravity? For the first time in history, we have developed technologies that enable us to measure speeds of distant objects, and if our species survives for a few centuries, maybe we can determine those rates of change. Acceleration due to gravity is one of them, but how about the speed of light? The luminosity of stars, including our own? How will we know if we do not make the effort to check?

Think of a flock of birds, taking off all together. Some way, that flock remains loosely together, but the speeds and directions of each bird within the flock vary continuously. How do you measure the speed and acceleration of a flock of birds when the only data you have is the speed and direction of a single bird? The two things are related, and dependent upon each other, but are unpredictable until observed in a moment in time, and even then, the data is incomplete.

A simple example: the “proton radius puzzle” has not been solved for 13 years. So we cannot believe that we know everything perfectly and that everything is under control. Maybe physicists before Einstein said that too. But those of them who lived with Einstein certainly changed their minds. human beings just discover things and they try to explain things well and that's not always guaranteed because there are always a few things missing, that's all. Unfortunately, today we do not find people who can refine earlier theories like those of Einstein, etc. and I don't think that's a good thing.

Howard Tillison

Einstein's theory of gravity is dubious.

It has many contradictions.

Nastasenko, V. (2020) Analysis of the Processes of Gravity in the Framework of Curvature of Space and the Substantiation of the New Model. Journal of Applied Mathematics and Physics, 8, 2732-2743. https://doi.org/10.4236/jamp.2020.812202

It depends on theory, has constant or not.

Parth Mevada

The constants are real, and no one has disproved them. There are no such experimental works, except for your logico-mathematical ones.

And Einstein's theory of gravity is refuted by pictures:

On the first - a deflection from the orbit of the Moon, on the second - from the orbits of the Earth's satellites. This means that according to Eienstein's theory of gravity, you can get what its user wants. It is amorphous and not concrete, in contrast to a theory built on constants.

But the main thing is that gravity is not below (it is under our feet and the users of Einstein's theory of gravity worked within the framework of their psychological inertia). The sun, as a source of gravity and curvature of space, is on the side. Then the value of these pictures is no higher than that of children's comics. Since it has not disappeared from you, continue to believe Einstein. And he says hello to you.

Links to photos..

1. Mathematical models of the curvature of space https://ru.depositphotos.com/stock-photos/%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F.html)

2. The modern model of the curvature of space by the mass of Earth https://www.google.com.ua/search?sxsrf=ALeKk03ryzaU4v5B6FwADTbIDNnfO1EPvA:1605023597379&source=univ&tbm=isch&q=%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F+%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%B8&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjlu4LrqvjsAhXEmIsKHUJ0B1cQ7Al6BAgKEFs&biw=1280&bih=610

Links to photos..

1. Mathematical models of the curvature of space https://ru.depositphotos.com/stock-photos/%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F.html)

2. The modern model of the curvature of space by the mass of Earth https://www.google.com.ua/search?sxsrf=ALeKk03ryzaU4v5B6FwADTbIDNnfO1EPvA:1605023597379&source=univ&tbm=isch&q=%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F+%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%B8&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjlu4LrqvjsAhXEmIsKHUJ0B1cQ7Al6BAgKEFs&biw=1280&bih=610

Second attempt to send a photo.

After further thought on the matter, it makes more sense to me from a theoretical standpoint that any "constant" measured by cosmologists and astrophysicists is likely a single-point estimate of a process which is, in fact, the product of the operation of a differential equation in which multiple physical parameters are continuously changing as a function of time (at least, possibly as a function of "size" of the universe in its current state of expansion).