The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Solving for the gravitational constant.............  (Read 13101 times)

Ethos

• Guest
Solving for the gravitational constant.............
« Reply #25 on: 15/03/2009 03:41:48 »
Quoting Wikipedia; 'Dimensional analysis'

"It has been argued by some physicists, e.g., Michael Duff, that the laws of physics are inherently dimensionless. The fact that we have assigned incompatible dimensions to Length, Time and Mass is, according to this point of view, just a matter of convention, borne out of the fact that before the advent of Modern Physics, there was no way to relate Mass, Length and Time to each other. The three independent dimensionful constants: c, h and G, in the fundamental equations of physics must then be seen as mere conversion factors to convert Mass, Time and Length into each other."

...................Ethos

lightarrow

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4586
• Thanked: 7 times
Solving for the gravitational constant.............
« Reply #26 on: 15/03/2009 14:27:33 »
Quoting Wikipedia; 'Dimensional analysis'

"It has been argued by some physicists, e.g., Michael Duff, that the laws of physics are inherently dimensionless. The fact that we have assigned incompatible dimensions to Length, Time and Mass is, according to this point of view, just a matter of convention, borne out of the fact that before the advent of Modern Physics, there was no way to relate Mass, Length and Time to each other. The three independent dimensionful constants: c, h and G, in the fundamental equations of physics must then be seen as mere conversion factors to convert Mass, Time and Length into each other."

...................Ethos
This is interesting, and there is much truth in it; but it can't be completely true. How can one deduce, for example, the physical law

F = -Gm1m2/r2

from such a consideration?

Ethos

• Guest
Solving for the gravitational constant.............
« Reply #27 on: 15/03/2009 16:40:12 »
Quoting Wikipedia; 'Dimensional analysis'

"It has been argued by some physicists, e.g., Michael Duff, that the laws of physics are inherently dimensionless. The fact that we have assigned incompatible dimensions to Length, Time and Mass is, according to this point of view, just a matter of convention, borne out of the fact that before the advent of Modern Physics, there was no way to relate Mass, Length and Time to each other. The three independent dimensionful constants: c, h and G, in the fundamental equations of physics must then be seen as mere conversion factors to convert Mass, Time and Length into each other."

...................Ethos
This is interesting, and there is much truth in it; but it can't be completely true. How can one deduce, for example, the physical law

F = -Gm1m2/r2

from such a consideration?
If you would be willing to think with me out side of the proverbial box, I'll present for you a new way of balancing these formuli. On the otherhand, if you are committed to the prevailing scientific convention, we will have no success in reaching a meeting of the minds.

...................Ethos

lightarrow

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4586
• Thanked: 7 times
Solving for the gravitational constant.............
« Reply #28 on: 15/03/2009 21:46:40 »
If you would be willing to think with me out side of the proverbial box, I'll present for you a new way of balancing these formuli. On the otherhand, if you are committed to the prevailing scientific convention, we will have no success in reaching a meeting of the minds.
Don't have problems in discussing about new ideas. However I don't like to be committed to something different than my own spiritual self, so, if you find something in my reasonings that can be ascribed to other's committment, I'm happy to know it (but of course this is true for everyone's ideas, included yours...)

Now I'm ready to discuss your ideas.

Ethos

• Guest
Solving for the gravitational constant.............
« Reply #29 on: 15/03/2009 23:01:29 »
If you would be willing to think with me out side of the proverbial box, I'll present for you a new way of balancing these formuli. On the otherhand, if you are committed to the prevailing scientific convention, we will have no success in reaching a meeting of the minds.
Don't have problems in discussing about new ideas. However I don't like to be committed to something different than my own spiritual self, so, if you find something in my reasonings that can be ascribed to other's committment, I'm happy to know it (but of course this is true for everyone's ideas, included yours...)

Now I'm ready to discuss your ideas.
As a free thinker myself, I am committed to absolutely nothing but the truth. That's not to say that I alone have access to the truth, quite the contrarty. I have been very mistaken so many times, I've grown rather accustom to it. My soul purpose in life is to find and understand the true nature of this universe. Whether it comes by my own reasoning or by factual instruction from others, it is of no consequence to me. It's not about whether I'm right or wrong, it's about truth. So far in this discussion, I have been shown many times where I was mistaken about one thing or another. For me at least, this is the best and fastest way for me to learn and redirect my thinking. Nevertheless, the basic idea behind my search has not been shattered.

Let us set some groundwork so we can establish a few principals that we can both agree upon.

First: The rules governing the transposition of cgs to SI, and visa-versa, have been instituted to accommodate different practical uses. Therefore, one has trouble sometimes when trying to express conversions between them. In a effort to overcome this technical obsurdity, I choose rather to look at the physical universe from a less complicated perspective. I'll explain what I mean by this later on.

Second: I'm rather sure you,ve heard the expression; "One cannot add apples and oranges." And this is quite true on the surface, an apple and an orange do not make two of either, they are different in many respects. However, if one were to say; "One apple and one orange equals 2 fruits", this would be true and represent a mathematically correct assessment. This is a simple illistration but should serve to explain how I view the question about universal constants.

Third: Before I totally invest all my ideas in this conversation, allow me to make one observation about the universe we may have a chance to agree on. There are many physicists that believe there is no space empty of field. I'm sure you can understand why this view is held by many physicists today. I'll take the notion a step further; The word space is, in itself, not realistically the proper word to be using. The word space suggests a region where objects can move about basically unrestricted because a so-called nothingness lies between them. Nothing is further from the truth.

Fourth: Imagine space more like an ocean, and we inhabitants move thru it by displacing the water which surrounds us all. In essence, space is not a vacuum, it is composed of a field, a network of interconnected overlapping contiguous fields. Nowhere is it empty, even where no particle or energy is observed.

It may appear that I've gone off on a tangent and you may be asking yourself; "What does this have to do with dimensionless constants?" Please allow me, I believe I can make the connection. I would first like to get your take on the points I've already raised. Do you agree that 'There is no space empty of field'. Or at least, is it a likely possibility.

At any rate, critique the information I've thus far offered and get back with me. If you disagree with this view, please don't hesitate to offer your rebuttal. But please, offer it in a way that is patient and suggest your alternative.

.................Ethos
« Last Edit: 16/03/2009 01:08:27 by Ethos »

lightarrow

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4586
• Thanked: 7 times
Solving for the gravitational constant.............
« Reply #30 on: 16/03/2009 17:30:55 »
About the presence of fields in space, as you say, many physicists would agree, for various reasons. Specifically, are you talking about virtual particles, void's intrinsic energy, Higgs' field, gravitational potential energy or else?
However there isn't anything widely accepted about that, isnt'it? Anyway, since we are in a the right forum, we can freely discuss these ideas...

Ethos

• Guest
Solving for the gravitational constant.............
« Reply #31 on: 17/03/2009 01:04:35 »
About the presence of fields in space, as you say, many physicists would agree, for various reasons. Specifically, are you talking about virtual particles, void's intrinsic energy, Higgs' field, gravitational potential energy or else?
However there isn't anything widely accepted about that, isnt'it? Anyway, since we are in a the right forum, we can freely discuss these ideas...
As far as which field I would choose to explain the so-called vacuum, I prefer to step beyond trying to name anyone of the few you have chosen as examples. Let me explain why;

If I'm correct in assuming that you hold to the standard model, The Big Bang and all that has been theorized about it's consequences is where I would like to start this investigation. From that point in time, the very beginning of time and space it'self.

I have found that, in general, the common view of this epoch suggests a time when all four forces were combined into one dominant and all encompassing one. I find this view very compelling and at this point in my understanding I choose to build upon it's context.

Trying to understand a universe in which there is no difference between the four forces may be difficult for some but not for me. Using a very simple example, one that everyone is familiar with, like the difference between steam, water and ice, one can see that even though steam is very different than water, and water much different than ice, they are really just different representations of the same substance changed only by the effects of local stimuli. Consequently, I find it very easy to view the four forces as merely different representations of the same thing changed only by a difference in local stimuli. Having said that, to understand that the difference between the forces is, actually, not a difference at all, just a change induced by local conditions.

You may ask, "Why go back to a time just slightly after the Big Bang to identify the nature of Mass, length, energy ect....?" I am convinced that if we are finally able to unit the forces, we must understand the basic force responsible for the now present four.

If I may be allowed the liberty, I choose to call this force; 'The Basic Stimuli'. Others may refer to it as the Grand Unification or any number of other monikers, I personally have chosen 'The Basic Stimuli' because I wish not to bias the name toward any of the now, well know four. This way, I establish it unto itself, and thus require no dependence upon any other discription for it's personal identity. This field could be associated with the theorized Higgs field I suppose but something tells me that, 'The Basic Stimuli' that I'm imagining rests even closer to the Big Bang than the Higgs Boson.

In our present time, it is assumed that Mass gives rise to Gravity. Before the split occured, I believe that The Basic Stimuli gave rise to Matter and Energy, exactly opposite to what we understand Gravity is doing today. Now that this phase transition has occured, the resulting Mass and Energy give rise to Gravity. With out the presence of Mass or Energy, The Basic Stimuli may be seen for what it really is. A dense field issuing forth from The Big Bang but changing into something unrecognizable from it's birth, cloaked behind the Mass and Energy it produced.

........................Ethos

« Last Edit: 19/03/2009 04:19:42 by Ethos »

Mr. Scientist

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1451
• Thanked: 2 times
Solving for the gravitational constant.............
« Reply #32 on: 11/04/2009 17:33:44 »
I believe the following equation has some merit, what do you folks think?

[(hbar*c/e^2)^3]*[(hbar*c/G^3)^3] = (pi^3 * 10^20)

Since you've asked me to take a look at this, i would like to know a few things first. Firstly, are you using natural units for c and G, and hbar is self-explanatory as a perfect example of equalling 1 in plankian-like equations. However, i take it from the interpretation of your equation, that G is supposed to take on quite a large value, but it also looks as though is is the charge on a particle in some Gravitational Constant view. If your calculations are correct, it uncannily represents the ''huge discrepency'' in the energy of the vacuum, where the cosmological value of the expectancy eigenvalue is a massive 10^20 magnitudes out of order. The geometry of pi^3 is unfamiliar to me... What is it? It's been a while since i have worked on general geometry. :)

Ethos

• Guest
Solving for the gravitational constant.............
« Reply #33 on: 11/04/2009 19:53:18 »
I believe the following equation has some merit, what do you folks think?

[(hbar*c/e^2)^3]*[(hbar*c/G^3)^3] = (pi^3 * 10^20)

Since you've asked me to take a look at this, i would like to know a few things first. Firstly, are you using natural units for c and G, and hbar is self-explanatory as a perfect example of equalling 1 in plankian-like equations. However, i take it from the interpretation of your equation, that G is supposed to take on quite a large value, but it also looks as though is is the charge on a particle in some Gravitational Constant view. If your calculations are correct, it uncannily represents the ''huge discrepency'' in the energy of the vacuum, where the cosmological value of the expectancy eigenvalue is a massive 10^20 magnitudes out of order. The geometry of pi^3 is unfamiliar to me... What is it? It's been a while since i have worked on general geometry. :)
This equation may be a bit better understood if I write as:

(a^-1) * (hbar*c/G^3) = pi * 10^6.6666.........

Solving for G we get:

(a^-1) * (hbar*c/(pi * 10^6.66...)) = G^3

Using these figures, G equals: 6.67275388 * 10^-8 cgs and 6.67275388 *10^-11 SI.......
These figures agree very closely with NIST

Unfortunately, I been instructed by several astute members here that this equation is not dimensionless resulting in an error. But if all universal constants are intrinsically dimensionless, why can't this equation be expressed as such? I can accept my error if I can understand the why and the wherefore. According to my first post on this page, which came from Wikipedia, there are physicists that agree that all universal constants are dimensionless.

I need help and patience to understand where I've gone wrong......Ethos

« Last Edit: 11/04/2009 19:55:55 by Ethos »

Mr. Scientist

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1451
• Thanked: 2 times
Solving for the gravitational constant.............
« Reply #34 on: 11/04/2009 20:55:29 »
I believe the following equation has some merit, what do you folks think?

[(hbar*c/e^2)^3]*[(hbar*c/G^3)^3] = (pi^3 * 10^20)

Since you've asked me to take a look at this, i would like to know a few things first. Firstly, are you using natural units for c and G, and hbar is self-explanatory as a perfect example of equalling 1 in plankian-like equations. However, i take it from the interpretation of your equation, that G is supposed to take on quite a large value, but it also looks as though is is the charge on a particle in some Gravitational Constant view. If your calculations are correct, it uncannily represents the ''huge discrepency'' in the energy of the vacuum, where the cosmological value of the expectancy eigenvalue is a massive 10^20 magnitudes out of order. The geometry of pi^3 is unfamiliar to me... What is it? It's been a while since i have worked on general geometry. :)
This equation may be a bit better understood if I write as:

(a^-1) * (hbar*c/G^3) = pi * 10^6.6666.........

Solving for G we get:

(a^-1) * (hbar*c/(pi * 10^6.66...)) = G^3

Using these figures, G equals: 6.67275388 * 10^-8 cgs and 6.67275388 *10^-11 SI.......
These figures agree very closely with NIST

Unfortunately, I been instructed by several astute members here that this equation is not dimensionless resulting in an error. But if all universal constants are intrinsically dimensionless, why can't this equation be expressed as such? I can accept my error if I can understand the why and the wherefore. According to my first post on this page, which came from Wikipedia, there are physicists that agree that all universal constants are dimensionless.

I need help and patience to understand where I've gone wrong......Ethos

Well, that would depend on whether the value of G changes or not. This would mean by definition that a dimensionless system requires that it be, (in this case) a constant G. But your equation would work if you adopt that the gravitational force differs over time (this wa first postulated by Dirac).

Ethos

• Guest
Solving for the gravitational constant.............
« Reply #35 on: 11/04/2009 21:33:01 »

Well, that would depend on whether the value of G changes or not. This would mean by definition that a dimensionless system requires that it be, (in this case) a constant G. But your equation would work if you adopt that the gravitational force differs over time (this wa first postulated by Dirac).
Yes, I believe I've heard about that proposition. It's also very likely that if G varies over time, then most, if not all constants of nature also follow suit. That being the case, when the ratio; 1/2 changes to 3/6, the absolute relationship hasn't changed. It is quite possible that as G changes, it's fellow constants, and I use the word constant here with hesitation, also change. We may never notice the change because the ratio between them may stay the same.

The only thing that may be constant here is their relationship one to  another.........................Ethos
« Last Edit: 12/04/2009 02:06:49 by Ethos »

Mr. Scientist

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1451
• Thanked: 2 times
Solving for the gravitational constant.............
« Reply #36 on: 12/04/2009 02:35:48 »

Well, that would depend on whether the value of G changes or not. This would mean by definition that a dimensionless system requires that it be, (in this case) a constant G. But your equation would work if you adopt that the gravitational force differs over time (this wa first postulated by Dirac).
Yes, I believe I've heard about that proposition. It's also very likely that if G varies over time, then most, if not all constants of nature also follow suit. That being the case, when the ratio; 1/2 changes to 3/6, the absolute relationship hasn't changed. It is quite possible that as G changes, it's fellow constants, and I use the word constant here with hesitation, also change. We may never notice the change because the ratio between them may stay the same.

The only thing that may be constant here is their relationship one to  another.........................Ethos

It is very possible that with the advent of dicovering a not-so-constant G, then certainly other fundemental factors would need to be taken into consideration, such as Plancks Constant and even the speed of light. Is the speed of light not variable over different energy densities? John Barrow certainly believes that a long time ago, light could have actually been many multiples the speed of light. If my memory serve me correctly, he derived at a speed at superluminal superiority for the photon as being c^50. Then take into consideration Plancks Constant? Surely as space expands, the area which difines the Planck Space ''the very single unit of spacetime'' would also inexorably expand without recourse, so perhaps all the ''so-called'' constants are just very decieving, and yet simultaneously descrete actions we have yet to experimentally varify.

Ethos

• Guest
Solving for the gravitational constant.............
« Reply #37 on: 12/04/2009 02:48:38 »

It is very possible that with the advent of dicovering a not-so-constant G, then certainly other fundemental factors would need to be taken into consideration, such as Plancks Constant and even the speed of light. Is the speed of light not variable over different energy densities? John Barrow certainly believes that a long time ago, light could have actually been many multiples the speed of light. If my memory serve me correctly, he derived at a speed at superluminal superiority for the photon as being c^50. Then take into consideration Plancks Constant? Surely as space expands, the area which difines the Planck Space ''the very single unit of spacetime'' would also inexorably expand without recourse, so perhaps all the ''so-called'' constants are just very decieving, and yet simultaneously descrete actions we have yet to experimentally varify.
This brings up a question about the expansion of the universe and the so-called inflationary period.

I have felt for a long time that the speed of light is dependant upon the expansion itself. Therefore, during the inflationary period, the expansion was not surpassing c, because the expansion itself determines c. I realize this will probably not be accepted by the scientific community because they have too great a stake in current theory. Nevertheless, I see no reason why universal expansion could or should not be responsible. As the expansion changed, likewise the speed of light. This might explain many of the present contradictions that arise surrounding the inflationary theory................Ethos

Mr. Scientist

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1451
• Thanked: 2 times
Solving for the gravitational constant.............
« Reply #38 on: 12/04/2009 05:55:53 »

It is very possible that with the advent of dicovering a not-so-constant G, then certainly other fundemental factors would need to be taken into consideration, such as Plancks Constant and even the speed of light. Is the speed of light not variable over different energy densities? John Barrow certainly believes that a long time ago, light could have actually been many multiples the speed of light. If my memory serve me correctly, he derived at a speed at superluminal superiority for the photon as being c^50. Then take into consideration Plancks Constant? Surely as space expands, the area which difines the Planck Space ''the very single unit of spacetime'' would also inexorably expand without recourse, so perhaps all the ''so-called'' constants are just very decieving, and yet simultaneously descrete actions we have yet to experimentally varify.
This brings up a question about the expansion of the universe and the so-called inflationary period.

I have felt for a long time that the speed of light is dependant upon the expansion itself. Therefore, during the inflationary period, the expansion was not surpassing c, because the expansion itself determines c. I realize this will probably not be accepted by the scientific community because they have too great a stake in current theory. Nevertheless, I see no reason why universal expansion could or should not be responsible. As the expansion changed, likewise the speed of light. This might explain many of the present contradictions that arise surrounding the inflationary theory................Ethos

The speed of light is not so much independant on the expansion of the universe itself. The reason why, and why the constant of c cannot be dependant on expansion, is because even when the vacuum is moving at superluminal speeds (just like we are oberving in the far distant galaxies), to avoid a drastic methodologies that are weak in the breakdown of relativity, we say the particle (photon) i dragged by spacetime, so even if this photon is moving at speeds away from us many time the speed it is normally permitted to have relative to us, it's actually the vacuum which ''drags'' matter along with it, much like the vicosity of water (a subject i like to initialize to describe the universe as being ''fluidlike'').

You could instead say, that the photon and the vacuum are interdependant because one cannot exist without the other. This is true from relativity, because it states that a manifold spacetime cannot exist without the presence of matter and energy.

Ethos

• Guest
Solving for the gravitational constant.............
« Reply #39 on: 12/04/2009 06:20:05 »

You could instead say, that the photon and the vacuum are interdependant because one cannot exist without the other. This is true from relativity, because it states that a manifold spacetime cannot exist without the presence of matter and energy.
OK, I think I understand. It would appear to us that c is moving faster than 186,282 miles/sec but relative to the vacuum in that particular region, it is still only moving at c. An anology would be like a fish swimming downstream in a swiftly moving system. For a bystander, the fish would appear to be moving much faster but relative to the system, the fish would still only be moving at it's own physical limit. Excellent point Mr. Scientist...................Ethos

The Naked Scientists Forum

Solving for the gravitational constant.............
« Reply #39 on: 12/04/2009 06:20:05 »