Prof. John A. Macken

The question is relevant from my humble point of view.

I don't know what is the source of them, but we as theorists, the same as experimentalists use units of measurement & visualization and somehow ignore ħ, c, kB, and G sometimes.

We normalize quantities when T ---> 0 (third law of thermodynamics Nernst Theorem) at very low temperatures for example.

But the units you mention ( Planck units) ħ = c = G = ( I add one more) kB = 1 allow us to treat difficult problems such as scattering in a unified way by using energy in meV for instance.

They are really fundamental, all these natural units systems such be studied in general physics courses.

Best Regards.

Hi Dr John A. Macken . I hope the following article link could answer your question: https://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0975.pdf

Your questions are legitimate and strike a sensitive chord for some, and if we suppose a designer of this universe, the disputed questions will be much less than the questions if we suppose that the universe created itself and that the amoeba is the basis of life and what I see of harmony in every inch of the universe and creation utters to say that there is a designer of this universe and what is in it. My greetings

P. Contreras.

Such an answer could only be given by a mathematician who thinks in abstract concepts without understanding the real physics of the material world.

The rate constant c is formed by the ratio of the wavelengths of the Unified field of the Universe and the period of their oscillation. The constants G and h are due to the energy indicators of this wave.

I try to understand some real experimental physics, Prof. Valentyn Nastasenko and that is now terahertz radiation & superconductors.

Best Regards.

I wish you success in all areas of your life.

P, Contereas,

You remind me of those who sent a CD to space so that others could circulate our site and who we are. I think that when they hold the CD in their hands, if they had hands, they would say with a loud laugh, these people are still in the beginning because the universe has more than this sir, it has the speed of Al-Noor and it is the absolute Speeds in the universe and you can look at my paper

Thank you much for the paper, Prof. Mohamed Said

Best Regards.

My analyses show that so-called natural constants are variable in time

Particularly, the combination of these three constants corresponds to the Planck area A_pl=2 h G/c^3, or say to the Planck length. Adding the Hubble constant H to these three, one gets the expression for the Bekenstein entropy bound for the universe (dimensionless number ~10^122 ). Answering your question in general: the source of such constants are dimensionless ratios. For example h_bar= alpha^(-1) ke^2. Similarly, Dirac's big numbers define the constants G and H.

Some details for G and H

Preprint Explicit Values for Gravitational and Hubble Constants from ...

Hubbles law becomes false (at least) out of a range of 3000 Mpc

Paul Pistea

The constants c, G, h changed noticeably only in the first 1000 seconds after the birth of the Universe. Currently, this change is less than 10^-122.

Of course any answer given will not be mainstream theory because there is no consensus answer to your question. But here are my answers:

What is the source of the ħndamental physical constants, ħ, c and G?

The source of ħ, planks constant relates to the minimum size of the smallest quantum bundle created, discovered by Max Planck. The reason for this is because electrons only can absorb a minimum amount of radiation that enables them to jump shells. for the constant ħ, our instruments cannot detect the energy of EM radiation below that amount because our detection instruments require a minimum amount of energy known as Planks constant to activate the instrument's electron multiplier. So this constant is based upon the size and structure of an electron, and our detection instrumentation.

The speed of light C. Light moves through the Zero Point Field (the vacuum of space) at the speed of light. This speed relates to the density of the ZPF medium and the atoms and molecules within it. For the observable universe, the density of the ZPF is probably very similar, and therefore the speed of light similar across the observable universe. For a slightly greater density of the ZPF, the speed of light is probably a little slower, and for lesser densities the speed could be greater, but there would be a limit to this speed, an ideal density to produce the maximum velocity. In denser substances such a water, the speed of light is much slower.

The gravitational constant G is not the fundamental constant aspect of it. It is the constant force of gravity within the gravitation constant G which is 6.6743015 × 10−11 Newtons. This is also the ZPF force upon all matter which results in the constant G. This force is upon every point in space like atmospheric pressure which relates to the amount of Zero Point Energy within the volume. This is also the same force that creates the mass of an object, not the present belief in the Higgs particle and field. This value could also be different in higher and lower densities and pressure volumes of the ZPF, in other parts of the universe.

Forrest Noble

You turn everything upside down. Primary is the unified field of the Universe, and constants are secondary to it.

The rate constant c is formed by the ratio of the wavelengths of the Unified field of the Universe and the period of their oscillation. The constants G and h are due to the energy indicators of this wave.

Thank you Valentyn, this change means: they are not constant

In theory, yes. Really - no, because after the 12th digit the error is not significant.

Right, but once upon a time it was the 10th digit

In the accuracy of measurements, science has grown by 2 digits. But this is not important, since the real error (natural error, not the one with which they are measured) is 10^-122.

@Forrest Noble All your three definitions refer to the rations. The Plank length can be defined from the ratio of L_Pl to classical electron radius. The gravitational constant can be obtained from the dimensionless ratio of (Gm^2_e)/(ke^2) or from (Gm^2_e)/(hc). Once we put G=h=c=1, all constants become the dimensionless ratios, or simply: numbers.

Alexey Kritov posted an answer on September 27, 2021

"In particular, the combination of these three constants corresponds to the Planck area."

The Planck area is an abstraction, otherwise the squaring of time and the squaring of mass should appear, since the Planck length, time and mass are obtained from identical mathematical relationships. Time squared and mass squared - can exist mathematically, on paper. In reality, this is a physical lapse for which there are no analogues and even real (not abstract) models in the material world. Planck found his units as metrics: meter, second and kilogram, satisfying his curiosity in knowing the material world. I don’t want to belittle the merits of Planck, this curiosity turned out to be useful. However, the use of these units is not always correct.

The gravitational constant is the most fundamental constant there is as I conjectured in my book "Born:A universe III" (Can be downloaded from my profile).

It determines not only the Planck constant, but also the couplings of the standard forces. If you let it vary the other constants will change. But exactly what process determines the value of the gravitational constant itself is still an open question.

Accuracy of Measurements never can point/ match a value like (for instance) square root 2- because of infinite non-periodical (groups) of digits

In the context of currently accepted theories these constants are absolute - assumed to be valid everywhere. As these theories are abstract (ie. in GR space has geometry but no properties), these constants are abstract too - even if they are dimensional, they are not relative to any physical substance.

However, if we assume space has properties (like pressure and density) then these constants become relative and depend on these properties.

This is exactly what I postulate in Complete Relativity - where there is no single Universe, but universes - each with their own fields (and thus different constants relative to the same frame).

If you want to make [the form of] physical laws invariant in all these fields, this will generally be invariance to scale.

If you want to keep any variables invariant this will then be a choice between invariant constants and invariant [energy/distance] metric.

In the former, constants are interpreted as absolute factors of proportion between phenomena, in the latter they are still factors of proportion but relative to scale (or

physical properties of space).

There is no absolutely correct interpretation - it depends on the frame of reference.

Regardless of interpretation, all measurements are relative to observer, even if multiple observers may find relatively equal constants when performing measurements in the same space.

The source of natural constants is the assumed proportionality, which is not valid forever

The source of natural constants c, G, h are the wave parameters of the gravitational field. Since they all have one source, they are interconnected and proportional.

The source of ALL natural constants is law constructing based on proportionality

This is for abstract mathematics. And for real physics - based on the wave parameters of the relict gravitational field.

Valentyn Nastasenko: you have no idea about constructing laws.

Which ones? Of Abstract mathematics?

I am satisfied with the knowledge of the laws of physics.

Physics is primary; in the abundance of digital information, it was the initial reference points for physical constants that made it possible to find your proportions.

Valentyn, All laws: if you write E/m= constant, then it is proportionality. Measures/ observations lead physicists to claim laws like F=ma, G=gMm/R^2, hubble=d/v, planck, boltzman, ohm... all of them. Ones written down a law is about proportionality. But I'm loosing my time... read your... manuals is not enough: interprete them to understand

Proportionality is not always physics. For example, 2 = 2 or 3-1 = 2. It was important for me to show that constants follow from physical laws. For example, the speed of light c - its from length l and frequency v wave oscillations gravitation field: c = lv.

It wasnt you, who said that, Ive told that ALL natural constants derive from proportionality .

2=2 is not proportionality!!

Its useless... did you studio something/ anything

Proportionality of what? It would be necessary to complete your thought. By itself, "proportionality" is an abstraction.

Valentyn, you are telling nonsense...

... what you don't understand could you explain merely for others

Dear John,

Excuse me for I do not agree with your description of 'constants':

' The fundamental physical constants, ħ, c, and G, appear to be the same everywhere in the observable universe. Observers in different gravitational potentials or with different relative velocity, encounter the same values of ħ, c, and G.'

My opinion about these constants is:

The real physical phenomena of nature do not work using constants. We have invented these constants to balance the mathematical equation which we have formulated to describe these natural phenomena..., to understand these natural phenomena, and use these natural phenomena in the development of our technology ...

Our living condition is not can be compared with conditions that exist on the Sun's surface of Sun, Jupiter,, atoms, rocky planets' nucleus in '0' gravity vacuum... In reality, every real condition needs another constant... That is why that every theory only catches only some ideal situations of reality... Every young researcher must be aware of this... That is why needs few years after finishing of study to become an experienced professional... The theory is always important but practice decides whether its applicability...

Regards,

Laszlo

Paul Pistea

My opinion is different. To whom and what should I explain?

I do not owe anything to anyone. This is LINKEDIN, not a courtroom.

Paul Pistea

My opinion is different. To whom and what should I explain?

I do not owe anything to anyone. This is a discussion, not a court session.

Dear Valentyn, I thought you want to argue. The definition of proportionality când be found elsewhere... If something increases n times, the other thing increases too, by the same, n times. 2=2 is not proportionality...

Arguing for the sake of arguing is a pointless business. I have something to do other more useful business.

However, with the constants c, G, h, the ratio of which is determined by the dependence Ghv^2/c^5=1, where v=7.4x10*42 Hz is the oscillation frequency of the waves of the unified field of the Universe, an arbitrary proportional change is impossible, since they are CONSTANTS. Therefore, the law of proportionality is unacceptable to them.

Valentyn Nastasenko

Your work is based on abstract theories - where waves do not require medium for propagation (the same as Special/General Relativity with absolute c).

In such theory Planck's units are fundmental/non-changeable but the ratio of constants determines the units - the value of a fundamental unit is thus the factor of proportionality between constants themselves and constants become factors of proportionality in other equations (such in that for the force of gravity).

They are factors of proportion, even if you consider them non-changeable/fundamental.

As for the physical meaning - as I've stated already:

Such theories are purely mathematical and suggest non-physical vacuum as an absolute (invariant) reference frame.

In such theories constants have no physical meaning, no source and their exact value cannot be explained only measured indirectly.

If one wants a meaning, one will have to associate constants directly with physical phenomena/properties, at which point they become relative.

My theory is not based onabstract theories, but on real quantities - fundamental physical constants. They are the initial characteristics of our Universe and make up its "name", "surname" and "home address".

The assertion that waves do not need a medium to propagate them is controversial. For the waves of the Unified field of the Universe, such a medium is the quanta of its space, which are formed by its gravitational field [1].

[1]. Nastasenko, V. (2021) Quantum of Space of the Universe—Correction of Previous Mistakes. Journal of Applied Mathematics and Physics, 9, 565-576. https://doi.org/10.4236/jamp.2021.94040

Special and general theories of relativity are increasingly being criticized, for example, the theory of gravity [2] based on them.

[2]. 2Nastasenko, 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

Therefore, they require substantial revision, which is still resisted by conservatives from science.

Fundamental physical constants are obtained on the basis of the wave parameters of the relict gravitational field, for example, c = lv, where l is the wavelength of the gravitational field, v is its frequency.

Plank's units are abstract quantities, since the Planck length of 4.05x10^-35 m and the time of 13.5x10^-42 s are disproportionate to the Planck mass of 4.5x10^-8 kg, although they are calculated using identical flomules. Real formations in the Universe do not have such proportions of masses and sizes. For example, the classical radius of an electron is 3.9x10^-13 m, and the rest mass is 0.91x10^-30 kg. Etc. before the Higgs bosons. However, the real constants are the parameters of the gravitational field [3].

[3]. How to cite this paper: Nastasenko, V. (2021) Selection and Justification of a New Initial Level of the Material World. Journal of Applied Mathematics and Physics, 9, 1089-1099. https://doi.org/10.4236/jamp.2021.95075

There is a complete mess with the proportional factors. Fundamental physical constants are immutable and cannot change, either proportionally or in any other way. All of them cannot be units at the same time. They can be factors of proportionality in other dependencies, for example, c2 = E / m, but only if their strict physical connection is laid in the elements making up the proportion, since. For example, 1 J and 1 kg cannot be used.

This rule applies to all other cases, incl. on gravity. The constant G is strictly formed by interrelated quantities - the force of gravity, masses and distances between them: G = Fr^2 / (m1m2). At r=1 m and m=1 kg, the "coefficient of proportionality" becomes the force F.

These constants have a physical meaning. For the speed of light, it is determined by the wavelength and oscillation frequency of the Unified field of the Universe, for G and h - it is additionally determined by the energy parameters of this wave.

My theory makes physical sense (see the beginning of this post).

It should be recognized that the fundamental physical constants c, G, h are secondary with respect to the wave parameters of the gravitational field [1], but from this they do not lose the status of constants, since this initial wave parametersthe are of constants.

They are NOT constant. Using them as constants is an ASSUMPTION. I think better model of the universe can be obtained if these are not taken as constants but can vary throughout the universe depending some condition (one condition).

Thinking - it is good, but it is not enough. It is necessary to arguments for this.

Studies show that these constants are unchanged, but the accuracy of their measurement increases.

John Hodge

I agree completely. Absolute constants are completely non-intuitive.

The fact that "we" didn't notice them changing in a couple of decades is not really a good argument for them being non-changeable. In fact, the oscillation of G, for example, has been measured - it has just been assumed that, rather than G being variable, something is affecting the measurement.

Similar is true for atomic radii. Discrepancies exist between old and new measurements, but old measurements are effectively discarded because it is assumed radii should not change.

It is the assumptions such as these that hurt progress.

I have developed a theory (Complete Relativity) and analyzed the Solar System in the context of the theory - the theory predicts and the analysis confirms/explains oscillation of constants.

Valentyn Nastasenko

If you acknowledge that waves need a medium for propagation then yes - the theory is physical. But then the interpretation of a fundamental constant as "home", or "address" is really not satisfying - what is this "home" or "address" ?

The constant c from Maxwell theory is derived from permittivity and permeability of space (which can be translated to dependence on pressure and density of space). So this constant is the ratio between values of physical properties of space.

It just doesn't make sense that these properties are unchangeable, or that the ratio between them (which is not non-dimensional) is absolutely costant.

In my representation Planck h is the only fundamental constant that does not change in a GR gravitational gradient. G and c do change along with electrical and magnetic parameters. This is the way that curvature propagates from place to place by changing local parameters.

Planck h also changes locally at extremum energy density where GR is not accurate, because of changing quantum state in local space time. The quantum state that changes is the spin angular momentum of oscillators, and the number of axes on which they must spin. Notice h has units of spin angular momentum.

Frequencies and wave lengths of virtual particle pairs and of ZPE oscillators change in a propagation of stress energy. As oscillators they are in resonance in flat space, but not in resonance during the increase and decrease of stress energy, allowing energy to be gained or lost for each oscillator..

The several fundamental constants are consequences of having a 4D universe 3D of space and 1D of time. A simple dimensional analysis shows that they should exist without saying what values they should have.

Values are determined by the amount of energy they must express, and resist in the polarization of space time.

Mario Ljubicic

The link to one your work - is incorrect. You can come up with anything in them. But it is more important that there are no contradictions with previously known reliable laws of physics. Where is such confirmation?

Relative to "home" and "address". These are figurative (abstract) comparisons that, together with your first and last name, emphasize your individuality - there is no other such combination of data. The same individuality is characteristic of constants and our observable Universe.

Jerry Decker.

Within the framework of the ratio Wxv2 / c5 = 1, it cannot be such that one constant (x) is a constant, and the others are not.

Jerry Decker.

Within the framework of the ratio Ghv^2 / c^5 = 1, it cannot be such that one constant (h) is a constant, and the others are not.

Jerry Decker ,

In my third book (Born.. in my profile) I found that the Planck constant depends on the gravitational constant. This means that the latter is the most important one. I also found that the couplings of the forces depends on G.

Both of these constants depend on the energy of the relict gravitational field. Therefore, the connection between them is natural.

John A. Macken

The source of the fundamental constants h, c and G is the quartic law of quantum gravity discussed in following article which proposes that the electromagnetic wave is held together by gravitational forces between two successive photons in the light wave. The theory is extended to a massless boson wave emerging at Planck epoch following the same quartic law and undergoing massive redshift responsible for ejecting all the matter in the universe.

Constant velocity of light is due to simultaneous variation of wavelength and period maintaining constant ratio. This is not possible with linear time and linear distance. I don’t have answers to all your questions but I hope this will do for now.

Periodic relativity: gravitation within electromagnetic wave

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355095851_Periodic_relativity_gravitation_within_electromagnetic_wave

“What is the source of the fundamental physical constants, ħ, c and G?”

- the answer see in the SS post in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Plancks_particle_Plancks_time_Plancks_length

Cheers

Fundamental physical constants were formed at the initial moment of the birth of our Universe, when there was still nothing but the Unified Field. They are the product of its wave parameters. This is the zero (initial) level of the material world, which precedes the level of elementary particles, nuclei of atoms, atoms, molecules, etc. [1].

[1[. Nastasenko, V. (2021) Selection and Justification of a New Initial Level of the Material World. Journal of Applied Mathematics and Physics, 9, 1089-1099. https://doi.org/10.4236/jamp.2021.95075

Valentyn Nastasenko starts a new never heared theory: at universe's beginning, at inflation time, when Hubble's constant could not exist- there were no galaxies, the Hubble constant was equal to todays Hubble constant, because it was born at big bang?!

Hubble constant is secondary compared to constants v, c, h, G.

Hubble constant is none.

All so-called natural constants are variable în time

At present, these changes are insignificant, several orders of magnitude less than the available observation accuracy 10^-13 ...10^-17.

Hubble law becomes invalid at d>3000 Mpc, as it also was at inflation.

Physical laws are invalid at big bang, but natural constants which they include are not. Very strange. More: constants were born în the singularity?! , were no one knows what happens...

Who is this question?

Dear John A. Macken,

What is the source of the fundamental physical constants, ħ, c and G?

Planks constant ħ, is the minimum quantity of EM radiation that electrons can absorb. Absorption increments above this minimum are based upon the energy lever of atomic electron shells of an atom, electrons in outer shells, because of their increased velocities, can absorb more EM energy than closer nuclear shells -- in even increments of Planks constant.

The speed of light 'c' is simply based upon the density of the surrounding background ZPF field which is the determining factor of the velocity of EM radiation.

The constant G is simply based upon the pressure of the ZPF upon itself and upon all matter. The pressure is 6.6743015 × 10−11 Newtons concerning most parts of the observable universe. This force can be seen within Newton's so-called gravitation constant and is the reason for its existence.

All natural constants were built on using proportionality. That's wrong

In my opinion, we have already closed the topic of proportionality of physical constants. In the proportional relation E / m = c^2, where c is the constant of the speed of light, energy and mass cannot change arbitrarily proportionally, but only in multiples. Here the element of proportionality can be either energy or mass, but not the constant c. Similarly, in the proportional relationship G = Fr^2 / (m1m2), the element of proportionality is the force f, and not the constant G.

Nastasenko, you are talking nonsense. E/m is constant. Greater E implies greater m to remain constant. That's elementary school. Leave it :((

Constantly only if you use of REAL proportion and not arbitrary proportion between E and m.

For stubborn idiots visiting schools is hopeless

As President Putin said - YOU himself are that such.

Only an idiot can deny the need for a real proportional connection between E and m to obtain the constant c.

In this case, the element of proportionality is the energy E, and not the constant c.

When the opponent has nothing to say, he goesgoes over on to insult the person. This is weakness, Paul!

You have mastered the school curriculum primitively.

Yes, textbooks say that mass and energy are proportional. But it does not say that in this way it is possible to determine the constant c.

In our discussion we are talking about the constants c, h, G.

After the SS post 5 days ago a too vivid posting with rather strange approaches at definitions of Planck units appeared in the thread;

- so it looks as it is necessary to point here again that the scientific answers in the SS posts in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Plancks_particle_Plancks_time_Plancks_length

- are relevant to this post question.

Cheers

This is a discussion question. Therefore, I am allowed to suggest an answer that furthers the discussion. In 1955, John Wheeler suggested that the quantum vacuum has Planck length lp = (ħG/c3)1/2 vacuum fluctuations, predominantly at Planck frequency ωp=(c5/ħG)1/2. This generates the uncertainty principle and makes it impossible to make distance measurements more accurate than Planck length. The Planck length vacuum fluctuations give the quantum vacuum the physical constants of ħ, G and c. The article linked below explains this connection and tests this assumption.

www.researchgate.net/publication/353049276

Instead of the quantum vacuum, it is necessary to use the gravitational field and quanta of the space of the Universe, which can be identified with gravitons, since they are formed by the gravitational field [1]: Nastasenko, V. (2021) Quantum of Space of the Universe—Correction of Previous Mistakes. Journal of Applied Mathematics and Physics, 9, 565-576. https://doi.org/10.4236/jamp.2021.94040

In my opinion, it is impossible that the fundamental parameters on which are based all physical laws are independent of time, because this would simply mean that time does not exist.

Vice versa the experimental evidence that ENTROPY of an isolated system INCREASES WITH TIME is incontrovertible proof that time exists.

And then each of the parameters on which is based the functioning of reality, i.e. h, c, G must be dependent on time.

Obviously, we have to understand which is the law that expresses this dependence. A HEURISTIC criterion that seems plausible to me is the following.

All physical laws can be expressed using only three quantities INDEPENDENT ONE EACH THE OTHER. For example, we can use FORCE, LENGTH, TIME.

The system that uses these quantities is called FLT.

If a universal physical quantity expressed in this system is INDEPENDENT of TIME then this quantity is CONSTANT.

Are for example constant the quantities :

E1 (hydrogen atom fundamental level energy)

a0 (Bohr radius)

alpha (fine structure constant)

According to this criterion all three constants h,c, G are all variable with time.

I tried to analyze the hypothesis c variable with time and the results of this analysis are exposed in the article:

https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=108887

If you are interested in this topic please contact me at

[email protected]

Thousands of years of astronomical measurements show that the speed of light is practically unchanged. If there are changes (theoretically), then they do not exceed 10^-17 of the value of c.

Dear Valentyn Nastasenko

The hypothesis that I consider in the article

https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=91057

is that the speed of light c varies at a rate LOWER than the rate you mention. That is at the rate

dc/c=-2.3 10^-18

This value results from the relation

(1) dc/dt=-Hc

where H= Hubble constant=2.3 10^-18 sec^-1,

That is H=72 (km/s)/Mpc

From (1) dc/c=-H dt

That is (dc/c)=-H=-2.3 10^-18 (relative change in unit time)

This variation corresponds to delta c=-2.1 (cm/sec) per year.

This variation, being very small, is not detectable with the current laboratory instrumentation which allows the detection of c with an error of 1 meter/sec.

However it is able to explain a countless series of astronomical observations starting from the COSMOLOGICAL REDSHIFT.

The latter in fact could not be due to a single event that would have originated everything that exists in the universe. But it could be a simple consequence of the fact that the speed of light emitted by atoms decreases with the AGE of atoms.

That is, it could be a consequence of the fact that atoms AGE, as unfortunately happens to any object/system in the universe.

The aging of atoms could be a consequence of the second principle of thermodynamics according to which valuable forms of energy (like electricity) are inexorably transformed into less valuable forms like thermal energy.

If this is true atoms (and everything that is made of atoms, like galaxies) would not be ETERNAL AND IMMUTABLE (that is DIVINE) but they would have their own AVERAGE LIFE.

Atoms, and therefore also galaxies, would be born, they would have their own life cycle, and then they would EXTINGUISH, leaving at their place gas of elementary particles from which, for subsequent aggregation, new galaxies would be born.

Try to think if this model is more (or less) convincing than a universe that is born ALL TOGETHER in an instant t=0, from a singularity with infinite pressure and density, in which (without any divine intervention) suddenly the space expands of a factor 10^26 starting from the instant t=10^-36 sec to the instant t=10^-33 sec (see Inflation entry on Wikipedia)

What is the mechanism of this aging? What ensures its processes in such a long period of time?

I am also not a fan of the Big Bang hypothesis, each of us may have our own hypotheses. You have - it very abstract.

Look for real confirmation of your hypothesis based on previously known reliable physical laws, and not the opinions of the authorities in sciense.

Dear Valentyn Nastasenko ,

I am currently searching for a model of the universe that is logically convincing and consistent with physical observations.

The only thing I know with relative certainty is that the speed of light decreases with time according to the relation ac= dc/dt=-Hc=- 2.3 10-18 * 3 108 = -6.9 10-10 m/sec2.

In fact this deceleration value is found countless times in astronomical observations and not only.

It is found, for example in the observations of all the SPACE SHIPS, launched in the past and that have left the solar system (Pioneer 10, Pioneer 11, Galileo, Ulysses...).

These spacecrafts, despite they are decades that have left the solar system, continue to send radio signals to the Earth that give information about their speed. Well, their speed should be CONSTANT, since, due to their distance, the gravitational attraction of the Sun on them is definitely NULL. Vice versa for all of them is measured a deceleration a0 that has always the same value, compatible with ac value indicated before. This deceleration has been called ANOMALOUS by researchers because no convincing explanation has been found for it (some "explanations" given are very laughable). What is the reason of this deceleration? Why is it always the same in spite of the different weight, the different shape and above all the different DISTANCE of the spacecrafts?

The reason is SIMPLE. Because it does not correspond to a deceleration of the spacecrafts, but to a deceleration of the ELECTROMAGNETIC SIGNALS that are sent from the spacecrafts to the terrestrial observatories.

Another observation, made by Vera Rubin, that makes clear the fact that light undergoes a deceleration ac=- 6.9 10-10 m/sec2 is the following.

It has been found that almost all galaxies are constituted by a very massive nucleus (black hole) around which rotate the stars of the galaxy in a motion that (in first approximation) can be considered circular. Equalizing the gravitational force from the nucleus (mass M) on a star (mass m, distance r from the nucleus) with the centrifugal force acting on the star, we have GMm/r2=m v2/r; GM/r= v2.

The speed v of rotation of stars around the nucleus can be measured using the redshift of light from such stars (Doppler effect). The above formula implies that as r increases, the velocity v must tend to ZERO. Vice versa it is observed that this speed NEVER IS ZERO. On the contrary starting from a certain distance rcrit this speed is constant and equal to vcrit. How come?

Astrophysicists at this point have invented the DARK MATTER.

That is they said: galaxy (EVERY galaxy) is surrounded by an ALONE of dark matter (not visible, but with mass) that produces vcrit.

The trouble is that more than forty years have passed since they theorized the existence of dark matter, and the phantom particles (WIMPS) that should constitute this matter, despite in theory should constitute the maximum part of the existing matter, have NEVER been observed.

Moreover there is an experimental relationship (Tully-Fisher's Law) that shows that vcrit (elevated to the fourth power) is proportional to the NORMAL MASS of the galaxy.

So what is the explanation for the presence of vcrit?

Again, the explanation is that when measuring the velocity of stars using the electromagnetic radiation emitted by them, that radiation is subject to the slowdown ac=-6.9 10-10 m/sec2.

This slowdown is measured IN EVERY CASE, that is, even for stars so far from the galactic core that their centrifugal acceleration v2/r has become zero.

If ac is understood as due to centrifugal acceleration it will be associated with a velocity v2=ac r, which has a parabolic trend with distance exactly like the one measured.

You ask me what is the mechanism that leads to aging of atoms and how it is demonstrated that this mechanism leads to an average life of atoms equal or superior to the life of known galaxies.

I believe that this mechanism is related to the second principle of thermodynamics according to which in an isolated system electric energy tends to degrade in thermal energy.

So in a hydrogen atom, modeled according to Bohr's model, electric energy of electron, in its quantum state n, is

En=-K e2/r n2

If it is true that En decreases, then the radius r decreases.

While kinetic energy of electron, depends on its velocity v according to relation

mvr=h/2π, from which v=h/2πmr, increases.

We are in the presence of a proton-electron system, in which electron is getting closer to proton.

So there will be a minimum distance where proton and electron will fuse giving rise to a free neutron. This neutron will decay after a period of 15 minutes, giving place to a proton and an electron no longer bound in an atom, but FREE. It is created a plasma of free charges from which, for subsequent aggregations will create new atoms, new stars and new galaxies.

It remains to demonstrate that the time needed for this process (time needed for electron to pass from a speed equal to about h/ 2πmr =2000 km/sec to a speed equal to 300 000 km/sec, is higher than the life time of galaxies (about ten billion years)

Regards

Giuseppe Pipino

[email protected]

Within the framework of the formation of the speed of light c at the level of quantum mechanics, c = LT, where Lis the wavelength of the Unified field of the Universe, T is the period of oscillation of these waves. Since a quantum is a minimal and indivisible state [1], it cannot be changed, especially in fractions. In addition, these changes require energies, of the order of 10^8 J. Nature is not so wasteful with its energies.

[1] Nastasenko, V. (2021) Energy of the Gravitational Field as an Equivalent of the Dark Energy of the Universe. Journal of Applied Mathematics and Physics, 9, 1541-1548. https://doi.org/10.4236/jamp.2021.97105

Therefore, the decelerations can be explained by the Doppler effects, and not by your hypotheses.

The reference to the "Pioneers" is not correct, since for them all the conclusions are still controversial.

My relationship to Dark Energy and Mass is in work [2] Nastasenko, V. (2021) Quantum of Space of the Universe—Correction of Previous Mistakes. Journal of Applied Mathematics and Physics, 9, 565-576. https://doi.org/10.4236/jamp.2021.94040.

At the quantum level of the material world, there are different laws than at other levels, so the aging process there is associated with random processes, such as symmetry breaking.

I apologize, links 1 and 2 must be reversed.

c = L /T

I have read with some attention the paper of Valentyn Nastasenko "Possibility of Refining The Gravitational Constant..." published in Journal of Astrophysics & Aerospace Technology,

and I would like to expose some observations in the hope of doing useful and welcome work.

First of all, I noticed several typographical errors (formula 14, formula 15, formula 18...) that show little attention to the reader.

Then I noticed what appears to me a logical error. That is the author uses the known values of G, h, c to derive Planck constants lp, tp, mp and then he uses these values to recalculate G.

Is it hoped to get a different value than the starting value?

Another conclusion that I think is not warranted is the following:

Using the value

(1) G=6.67408 10-11 (m3/kg sec2) he obtains

(2) νp=1/tp=7.39994 1042 (sec-1) (value of frequency)

Since this number is very close to 7.4 1042 (sec-1) it is assumed that the TRUE value of νp is precisely

(3) νp=7.4 1042 (sec-1)

And at this point he recalculate G that turns out to be equal to

G=6.6739669698 10-11 (m3/kg sec2)

stating that this is the true value of G expressed with 9 exact digits!

He do not take into account that the value (2) has been obtained in a NOT TRUE hypothesis, that is according to the value:

G=6.67408 10-11 (m3/kg sec2)

This value would be correct only if G was known with 6 exact digits, while according to the data provided by CODATA G is known only with 4 exact digits. In fact the value reported in the site

https://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?bg|search_for=gravitational+constant

is

G= 6.674 30 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2

with an error equal to 0.000 15 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2

Therefore, the uncertainty due to the error acts on the fourth and fifth decimal digit of the previous value.

Taking the error into account, the value of G could be (in the worst case)

G= 6.674 45 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2

With such a value it would result νp=7.3997 1042 sec-1.

As you can see the reasons to believe that the true value of νp is 7.4 1042 sec-1 are far from obvious (the probability that the decimal digit 9 is followed by another digit 9 is 10%. So it is not difficult for it to occur for casuality).

A number of the previous ratios of constants recommended by CODATA (before to the latest values) ​​gave the result 7.40005. Therefore, a conclusion was made about the asymptotic approximation to the value 7.4. The current scatter of measurements of the value G [1] [2] [3]. includes in its range 7.4.

G = 6.67430 (15)⋅10^−11 m^3·s^-2·kg^-1, [CODATA]

G = 6.674184 (78)⋅10^−11 m^3·s^-2·kg^-1,

G = 6.674484 (78)⋅10^−11 m^3·s^-2·kg^-1.

G = 6.67191 (99)⋅10^-11 m^3 s^-2 kg^- 1.

[1]. Quinn Terry, Speake Clive, Parks Harold, Davis Richard. Erratum: Improved Determination of G Using Two Methods (англ.) // Physical Review Letters. – 2014. – 15 July (vol. 113, no. 3). – ISSN 0031-9007. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.039901.

[2]. Qing Li, Chao Xue, Jian-Ping Liu, Jun-Fei Wu, Shan-Qing Yang and other (2018). Measurements of the gravitational constant using two independent methods /Nature volume 560, pages582–588 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0431-5

[3] Rosi G., Sorrentino F., Cacciapuoti L., Prevedelli M., Tino G. M. Precision measurement of the Newtonian gravitational constant using cold atoms (англ.) // Nature. — 2014. — June (vol. 510, no. 7506). — P. 518—521. — ISSN 0028-0836. — doi:10.1038/nature13433.

My article is tentative in nature, and its verification is possible with astronomical observations. We'll have to wait for their results to draw a final conclusion.

Again: Constants appear when constructing laws based on proportionality. De facto there are no constants at all; they are variable. At the more: there are no fundamental and no secondary natural constants

No, real constants are formed by real physical quantities. For example, the rate constant c = L / T, where L is the wavelength of the Unified field of the Universe, T is the period of its oscillation.

The physical meaning of the constants must be correctly conveyed, and then they will acquire "reality".

I think these fundamental constants arise from the more fundamental properties of spacetime. For example the speed of light is approximately constant because the tension in the fabric of spacetime is approximately constant. G is a fundamental property of spacetime. The relationship between Planck constant and spacetime is explained in this presentation:

Data Prerecording of Conference Presentation on the Unification of Physics

Richard

On the 9th Day God said: let there be fundamental constants. On the 10th Day God said: let there be other 45 constants. On the 11th Day God will say: let there be more natural constants, which physicists (and nastasenko) will find.

Fundamental constants are the result of negative feedback loops in physical processes.

There are only 7 fundamental physical constants. The rest are derivatives from them.

Oh yeah, speed of galaxies derive from speed of light especially when it becomes greater than c.

Are you sure that it is getting bigger c? Or is it just another mathematical opus?

100km/s for 1MPc makes 300.000km/s at 9billion lightyears

75km/s for 1MPc makes 300.000km/s for 12,8 billion lj, still < 13-14 billion years for light to travel

If there are no galaxies, or there is no more universe at a distance of more than 13,8 billion Lj, hubble' s law were false anyway

This question is one of a series of questions to which, by definition, there is no answer, at least a clear one. On the other hand, one should not forget that all these universal constants are the fruit of the work of our consciousness in the field of science. (More precisely, the best representatives of our consciousness, but in this case it has nothing to do with the case.) For example, you can ask related questions: "Why do we manage to know the world around us in principle? Why the success of this process is mainly related to our ability to mathematize it and with axiomatic mathematical constructions, which, in particular, are based on universal physical constants? " I think the answers to these questions are closely related to the answer to the question: "How did our brain and our consciousness arise?" The answer here may be: "The brain and consciousness are the highest, and in a sense, the end product of the evolution of the very matter that we are trying to cognize." That is why these attempts turn out to be successful in the end: matter, brain and consciousness are very close "relatives". Through our brain and consciousness, matter "decided to look at itself from the outside". And, generally speaking, it succeeds. Thus, the method of cognition, including through theoretical physics and successful axiomatic mathematical constructions, is not chosen, strictly speaking, by us.

I have demonstrated that the so-called natural constants are not constant indeed

Vladimir Valentinovich Egorov I am going to dispute your statement that there is no clear answer to this question. Even though I asked this discussion question, I can also offer an answer. I have written a technical paper titled: A quantum vacuum model unites an electron's gravitational and electromagnetic forces (link below). I start by adopting John Wheeler's idea that the quantum vacuum is a sea of vacuum fluctuations with Planck frequency and amplitude of Planck length. I derive the impedance and bulk modulus of this medium. Then I proceed to submit this model to various tests. For example it is shown to be capable of generating many of the properties of an electron, including an electron's gravitational and electromagnetic forces.

The reason for mentioning this is that this model of the quantum vacuum fundamentally incorporates the constants ħ, c, and G. The paper discusses the origin of these constants.

www.researchgate.net/publication/353049276

Dear John,

I wish you success on your chosen, and in my opinion, dubious path.

Best regards,

Vladimir

Vladimir Valentinovich Egorov - Thank you for the good wishes. It appears as if you have read at least part of the paper. If you have read Section 12, I am surprised to hear you consider the approach "dubious". Technical papers seldom make falsifiable predictions, and almost never can a new prediction be immediately proven correct. That is what happens in this paper. The electron model generates both an electron’s electric and gravitational fields. The model predicts how these two forces are closely related and this is proven correct by equations (31 to 36). Equation (37) reveals how an electron’s quantum mechanical properties generate an electron’s gravitational curvature. These equations offer strong support for the model that generated them incorporating Planck length and Planck frequency (incorporating constants c, ħ and G). Therefore, I would appreciate hearing your comments on these predictions and equations.

www.researchgate.net/publication/353049276

Paul Pistea.

Your arithmetic exercises are not convincing. Physics of processes should be behind them.

Vladimir Egorov.

Fundamental physical constants are not the product of abstract mathematics or the imagination of consciousness. These are physical quantities. For example, the rate constant is the relationship between the wavelength of the Unified field of the Universe and its period: c = l / t. Similarly for other fundamental physical constants h, G. At the initial level of the Universe, they are always constants, since energy is needed to change the wave parameters. But within the framework of the principle of minimal action, the Universe is not so wasteful as to waste energy on processes and phenomena that it does not need.

John A. Mackenn.

You have chosen the correct level of the material world [1], I support you.

[1]. Selection and Justification of a New Initial Level of the Material World. Journal of Applied Mathematics and Physics, 9, 1089-1099. https://doi.org/10.4236/jamp.2021.95075