Yuri Danoyan

Some kind of exotic repulsive force in the form of vacuum energy is supposed to be responsible for acceleration of expansion of the Universe which started about 7 Gyr. ago. If suppose the expansion of space obey to Fibbonaci Number Law it can explain this acceleration. See picture remembering Big Bang.

Experimental confirmation? http://www.nature.com/news/1998/030324/full/news030324-13.html

Two events occur simultaneously at the same point in space. Is it possible to distinguish one event from another? dG/dt and dc/dt occur simultaneously at the same point in space. Is it possible to distinguish one event from another?

O.K. As you see i am I criticized the 2 from 3 Planck unitsб but also suggest a way out of this situation by varying some constants For example if the Universe have finite life time Vary: Start; Today; Finish. Gravitational ….. G (10^12; 10^-8; 10^-28); G vary span of Dirac large number 10^40 Speed of light in a vacuum….. C (10^30; 10^10; 10^-10)] c vary span of Dirac large number10^40 then Constants: h, Mpl, Mpr, Time of the Cycle of the Universe. h=10^-27 gsm^2/sec; Mpr=10-24g; Mpl=10^-5g ; because Mpl=sqrt(hc/G) c and G can vary synchronously

Merry Christmas What is Vary in the Universe, What Isn’t ? <link removed by moderator>

Does Persy Bridgman clever than Martin tutorial?

Development of the story the Planck units. http://vixra.org/abs/1212.0064 http://vixra.org/abs/1212.0080

If mass is emergent product whole the Universe, question have been rised: "Why major unit of the Universe proton(neutron) have a mass that is?" We must compare for it value mass of proton with other known masses of elementary particles. First of all comparing mass of proton with mass of electron. Why μ = mp/me = 1,836.15267245(75)? Because values of mass connected with curvature of space doing parametrization proceeding with trigonometric functions and convert values to angles by use function of sin x,cos x,tan x. 1)(sin x=1,that signed proton mass as 90 degrees.Which angle correspond to electron mass? 1/1836,1520=0,000544; arc sin 0,000544=0,0346deg for electron mass 2)cos x=1 that mean the same 3)tan x=1 that mean proton mass as 45deg;arc tan 0,000544 the same Because tan 45 deg hold balance; equilibrium between 0 and infinity to exploring this version. The hypothesis: space(L) and time(T) are related to each other from the beginning unfolding of the Universe gradually by Fibonacci numbers to golden ratio.. 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34,55,89,144,233....... That mean lim L/T=phi=1,61803 L is some kind of special progression T is simple arithmetic progression. It can be presented as a golden spiral.The polar equation for a golden spiral is the same as for other logarithmic spirals, but with a special value of the growth factor r=axe^bxtheta lbl=0,005346deg: lbi/10=0,000534; 1/1836=0,00054 Deriving physics from geometry... Conclusion:mass(M) depend from interrelation of space(L) and time(T).

As a conclusion in the Universe (CGS units) Vary: G,c,e,alfa(fine-structure constant),Mpr,Mel. Start;Now;Finish. G(10^12;10^-8;10^-28) c(10^30;10^10;10^-10) e=0,1;e=e;,e=11-12 alfa(0,0001;1/137;1) Mpr(10^-25;10^-24;10^-23) Mel(10^-29;10^-28;10^-27) Constants:h,Mpl,Mpr/Mel,e/m, Cycle of the Universe 144x10^9years. h=10^-27 Mpr/Mel=1836 Mpl=10^-5 e(pr)/e(el)=1 Uc=144x10^9x31,536,000; aprx. 10^18 sec Gstart/Gfin=10^40 Cstart/Cfin=10^40 Paul Dirac was right!

Planck mass is reasonable,but my doubts concerning G and c , their internal link and variations during the evolution of the Universe.

First of all I would like reminding to you quote from famous neurophysiologist Warren McCulloch, known for his work on the foundation for certain brain theories and his contribution to the cybernetics movement . He said: ''As I see what we need first and foremost is not correct theory, but some theory to start from, whereby we may hope to ask a question so that we will get an answer, if only to the effect that our notion was entirely erroneous. Most of the time we never even get around to asking the question in such a form that it can have an answer."(Discussion with John von Neumann John von Neumann Collected works, Volume 5,p.319) http://www.pensamientocomplejo.com.ar/docs/files/Von%20Neuman%20-%20Central%20and%20Logical%20Theory%20of%20Automata.pdf It was about mind - body relationship and brain function My question is the following: I think this is applicable to modern physics? I put forward 3 questions: 1) 4D space-time? 2) Gravity as a fundamental force? 3) 3 fundamental dimensional constants(G, c, h)? My attempts to get answers see my essay http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1413 Extended version http://vixra.org/abs/1208.0059

Returning to Wilczek i want to remind his another idea, namely, careful rehabilitation of Mach's principle. "Total Relativity: Mach 2004" Physics Today April 2004 http://ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_today/phystoday/%28356%29Total%20Relativity.pdf "Total relativity can also be stated as a symmetry principle. It instructs us that in the primary equations (in other words, before their solution reveals the crucial influence of distant bodies!) we should put motions on an equal footing, not just those that correspond to constant relative all velocity. It claims that the choice of coordinates is entirely a matter of convention and requires that we remove all intrinsic structure from spacetime. On that basis any choice of coordinates should be on equal footing, since the labels implementing the coordinates could be undergoing arbitrary motions. But in general relativity, spacetime is not without structure, and it is not true that all coordinate systems are equally good (notwithstanding contrary statements that pervade the literature--starting, as we've seen, with Einstein's original paper). General relativity includes a metric field, which tells us how to assign numerical measures to intervals of time and space. It's convenient to choose frames in which the metric field takes its simplest possible form, because in such frames the laws of physics assume their simplest form. Posing the issue, Einstein versus Mach, as a question of symmetry brings it within a circle of ideas that are central to modern fundamental physics. In the standard electroweak model, we have a Higgs field that breaks local gauge symmetries of the primary equations; in quantum chromodynamics, we have a quark antiquark condensate that breaks both those symmetries and others; and in unification schemes, generalizations of the symmetry breaking idea are used freely. The perspective of symmetry naturally suggests questions that could prove fruitful in the future" of physics. It invites us to contemplate the possibility of primary theories enjoying larger symmetries than are realized in the equivalence principle of general relativity. Mach's principle, from this perspective, is the hypothesis that a larger, primary theory should include total relativity--that is, physical equivalence among all different coordinate systems." If mass is emergent product whole the Universe, riced question: "Why major unit of the Universe proton(neutron) have a mass that is?" We must compare for it value mass of proton with other known masses of elementary particles.

Kepler,Bohr, Heisenberg were numerologists. Nobel laureate Frank Wilczek - numerologist. Frank Wilczek "Mass by numbers" A highly precise calculation of the masses of strongly interacting particles, based on fundamental theory, is testament to the age-old verity that physical reality embodies simple mathematical laws. http://ctp.lns.mit.edu/Wilczek_Nature/MassByNum456.pdf I belong to nonsensical company,but i am happy.

Platonic solid is a regular, convex polyhedron. There are exactly 5 solids which meet those criteria; each is named according to its number of faces. From 5 Platonic solids only two (Dodecahedron,12 faces and Icosahedron,20 faces) have direct connection with golden mean phi=1,6180 Dihedral angle(Da) of dodecahedron 116.57° tanDa/2 =1,6180=phi Dihedral angle(Da) of icosahedrons 138.19° tanDa/2 =(1,6180)^2=(phi)^2 360deg/12=30deg; 360deg/20=18deg Next post we try to show how spectrum of mass of elementary particles connected with Number 12 , 18 degrees and evolution of Universe.

Amazing coincidence with the number 18 as a multiple number Proton-to-electron mass ratio = μ = mp/me = 1,836.15267245(75) 1836:18=102: numerical coagulation is 3, in binary 11 symbolizing parity 1836 is symmetric 1+8=9:3+6=9: Numerical coagulation 1836 is 9; in binary 1001, nice mirror symmetry symbolizing charge conjugation ( +proton; - electron) 1/mu=0,000544 arc tan 0,000544=0,000543, almost the same Fibonacci consequence: 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34,55,89,144 (1-12 obey to structure unfold of space) 2-1=1: 1/1=1: arc tan1=45 deg (start) 144-89=55: 1/55=0.01818: arctan 0.01818=1,04 deg (finish) Mass of Higgs M=126Gev 126:18=7

At first glance it seems that is tautological question.And the first response suggests that it depends on the system of units.It must be remembered that the proton is the main unit of the Universe and the question of why proton has that mass not empty question. Then i have some calculation experiment which posted http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/31744-phenomenon-of-18-degrees-for-pseudoscalar-mesons/ Phenomenon of 18 degrees also fit for charged non-stable leptons: MASS(MeV ) tan^-1 m/Mp mu 105.65; 6.424 = (45-38.576)deg = (45-2x19)deg tau 1777; 62.165 = (45+17.165)deg = (45+17)deg It was posted 30 July 2008 - Shortly results was: Mpi=Mpr x tan(45-2×18) Mk=Mpr x tan(45-18) Md=Mpr x tan(45+18) Mb=Mpr x tan(45+2×18) Mpi (mass of pi-meson). Not confusing with pi=3,14 Mpr (mass of proton) Now after 4 years i guess it connected with Golden ratio phi, Golden spiral, possible ribbed structure of space, obey to Fibonacci numbers law. phi = 1+2\sin(pi/10) = 1 + 2sin18deg phi = 1\2csc(pi/10) = 1/2csc18deg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio In my my next post i try to show lot of examples as number 18 connected with values of mass elementary particles. If somebody have question:”What common between angles,tangents and real numbers?” tan18 deg =0,29, apr.=1/3 pi/10=3,14/10 =0,31, apr.=1/3 My final conclusion: mass of proton have that mass, because it has link with Golden ratio,Golden spiral and Fibonacci numbers.

Frank Wilczek’s 3 articles On Absolute Units, http://ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_today/phystoday/Abs_limits388.pdf http://ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_today/phystoday/Abs_limits393.pdf http://ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_today/phystoday/Abs_limits400.pdf Pay attention 388 pdf An appealing feature of atomic and strong units, in contrast to Planck units, is that the characteristic length, time, and mass can be constructed without taking square roots. It is disconcerting to imagine that we must extract roots in order to express the basic units in terms of fundamental parameters. (Sophisticates will recognize that extracting roots is a nonanalytic procedure, in the technical sense.) The fact that G, \, c can be expressed in terms of mp, \, c without extracting roots, but not vice versa, on the face of it suggests that the strong units are more fundamental than Planck units. (I find it remarkable that a similar conclusion is suggested by string theory, where the closed string gravitational coupling naturally appears as the square of the open-string gauge field coupling.)

Persy Bridgman,American physicist,winner 1946 Nobel Prize in Physics in his book "Dimensional Analysis". was very sceptic and critical about Planck units. I have additional arguments to protect Bridgman's point of view Does all Planck units are sacred or only one? We doesn’t have guarantee G, c, are real constants or not, during the evolution of the Univertse. We doesn’t have guarantee they depend of each other or not,or 2 sides the same coin. Imagine that G and c simultaneously vary….because permitivity of vacuum vary following the evolution. But we believe: 1.Schwarshild black hole R radius G/c^2 2.Planck unit L of length G/c^3 3.Planck unit T of time G/c^5 4.Planck unit M of mass c/G What is correspond to real world? If all,it would be absurd. To my opinion only #4 linear link between G and c is real….and eternal. And #1,2,3 are fake that only teasing physicists Just in case: Max Planck, Scheinprobleme der Wissenschaft (Illusory problems of Science) http://www.quantum-cognition.de/texts/Planck_SCHEINPROBLEM.pdf Even more interesting, he warned about similar situations.

Questioning the Foundations Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong? May 24 - August 31, 2012 FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2012 (153 topics) http://fqxi.org/community/essay http://fqxi.org/community/forum/category/31418 Welcome to discussion.

Hořava’s controversial idea is based on the fact that the description of space and time in the quantum and relativistic worlds are in conflict. http://www.fqxi.org/community/articles/display/129

Strange idea of Dr. Achim Kempf http://www.physorg.com/news180203376.html Spacetime, which consists of three dimensions of space and one time dimension, is such a large, abstract concept that scientists have a very difficult time understanding and defining it. Moreover, different theories offer different, contradictory insights on spacetime’s structure. While general relativity describes spacetime as a continuous manifold, quantum field theories require spacetime to be made of discrete points. Unifying these two theories into one theory of quantum gravity is currently one of the biggest unsolved problems in physics.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=splitting-time-from-space

As we see in Planck-Dirac's constant: h/2pi=1,054x10^-27ergxsec? An other hand: Space/Time 3:1; Dark Energy/Dark Matter of the Universe approximately 3:1; Why numerical coincidence of container and its contents? As we see: Energy correspond to Space. Matter correspond to Time. In Planck-Dirak constant Energy and Time vice versa connected by sign of multiplication. Why?

Space / Time 3:1 Dark Energy / Dark Matter of the invisible Universe 3:1 Hydrogen / Helium, 99% of the visible Universe 3:1. By the way, Hydrogen atoms - Fermions; Helium- 4 atoms - Bosons. Stable particles of the Universe (Fermions) spin 1/2 (Proton, Electrons, Neutrinos) -3 Stable particles of the Universe (Bosons) with spin 1 (photon) -1 Decay of non -stable Neutron (1) to stable: Proton, Electron, Neutrino (3)