0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I wonder if the minimum mass
the Hubble constant and the proton radius could be calculated precisely using the observed ratio of the electrostatic force to the gravitational force?
Minimum mass of what?
Electrostatic force of what and the gravitational force of what?
The Hubble constant is pretty close to 1/ the age of the universe.So it changes.The radius of the proton doesn't.
The value of Mmin corresponds to the Wesson’s mass (mE ≈ 2 × 10 68 kg), i.e., the quantum of mass calculated by Pr. Wesson  in 2003 using the constants c, h and Λ (the cosmological constant).
In the last century, Paul Dirac popularized this β ratio in a cosmological context  . It still gets attention because of its high value (β ≈ 2.268 66 × 1039). The gravitational force is tiny compared to other forces.
The decreasing value of the Hubble constant is indeed suggested by the conformal model ΛCDM.
Moreover, how do we know if the proton radius is really constant?Why couldn't it slowly vary with time?
You're giving refereces 8 & 9 which don't correspond to any bibliography. You are obviously copying directly from the works of others without giving credit. This plagiarism violates site rules.
Since I am looking for some feedback on this hypothesis, your comments are welcome.
Quote from: Halc on 18/03/2022 20:15:54You're giving refereces 8 & 9 which don't correspond to any bibliography. You are obviously copying directly from the works of others without giving credit. This plagiarism violates site rules.There must be a misunderstanding. The text you refer to is part of the preprint I submitted in my original post (a 4-page attached PDF, relatively quick to read). The bibliography is included in the document.I am new to this forum, so I thougth I could get some feedback before publishing.Since the text is already available in the original post, I won't repeat it.However, for those who just want to have a quick view, please find attached a chart of the assumed relations between the refered physical constants.
And now what we do is look at how you react to that fact.Do you behave like a scientist and thank us for pointing out the glitch which makes your idea impossible, or do you behave like a schoolkid.
Because that would have an effect on the spectra of atoms.But we see the emission from atoms from a long time ago, and that (hypothetical) effect is not foundSo we know that the radius of the proton has not changed.So we know , from direct experimental observation, that your idea is wrong.And now what we do is look at how you react to that fact.Do you behave like a scientist and thank us for pointing out the glitch which makes your idea impossible, or do you behave like a schoolkid.
Now, if you read the preprint, you will notice that all physical values are referred to as constants, including the proton radius. So, your conclusion about my idea is unjustified.
Now, if you read the preprint, you will notice that all physical values are referred to as constants, including the proton radius.
So, your conclusion about my idea is unjustified.
What conclusion exactly was that? I don't remember making one about your idea.
When I said you were doing numerology and not physics I was referring to things like this from your paper.You wrote: The Hubble constant H (of dimension T-1) would correspond to the minimum frequency: fmin = H....None of that makes any physical sense and that is just the first couple of equations.
Origin is right, you're substituting variables of different units into equations, rendering them meaningless. You're using the energy formula for a photon and applying it to something that isn't a photon.
OK, so you have the relative strength of these two forces down to 5 significant digits, which is strange since the values are in different units. Gravity between two objects is a function of their mass, and EM force between the same two objects is a function of their charge. So this number you've quoted is fairly random. You do the same calculation between say an electron and a positron and you get a different ratio. I got several different answers for the relative strengths of them, and they can't even agree on the order of magnitude, let along a figure to several digits, which again, being in different units, is largely meaningless.