0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Uh.... I think your units are off to say the least.

I'm assuming e is the electron charge. The constants hbar, c and G don't have units of charge to cancel that out.

Yes, e stands for the electron charge. However, hbar times c divided by e squared is the fine structure constant to the minus 1. (hbar * c/e^2)= approx. 137 (hbar * c/e^2)raised to the third power equals: 2.57338006 E6 [(hbar * c/e^2)]^3 * [(hbar * c/G^3)]^3 = (pi^3 * 10^20) moving (pi^3 * 10^20) to the left denominator and G^9 to the right numerator, we have: [(hbar * c/e^2)]^3 times [(hbar * c * pi-1)^3]/10^20] = G^9 [2.57338006 E+6] X [1.019159191E-71] = 2.6226839407 E-65 taking 2.6226839407E-65 to the ninth root we get: 6.6727538776 E-8 in cgs unitsBecause (hbar * c/e^2) is dimensionless and,because (hbar * c/G^3) is dimensionless,this equation works just as well when done in SI units.6.6727538776 E-8 in cgs units and 6.6727538776 E-11 in SI units agrees very closely with NIST figures.

Remembering that (hbar * c/e^2) is dimensionless, the first part of the equation will remain the same whether figured in cgs or SI units.

Now plug in the values in the second part of the equation with SI values and you'll find the answer for G will also be registered in SI values. This should prove that (hbar * c/G^3) is also dimensionless.

Quote from: Ethos on 11/03/2009 08:20:49Remembering that (hbar * c/e^2) is dimensionless, the first part of the equation will remain the same whether figured in cgs or SI units.No, hc/e^{2} is dimensionless in c.g.s. only. In M.K.S. the dimensionless expression is 4πε_{0}hc/e^{2}.QuoteNow plug in the values in the second part of the equation with SI values and you'll find the answer for G will also be registered in SI values. This should prove that (hbar * c/G^3) is also dimensionless. No, that expression is not dimensionless neither in c.g.s. nor in M.K.S.

Dimensionless is a term equal to a ratio, and when changing from cgs to SI, if the ratio does not change

Quote from: Ethos on 11/03/2009 14:26:10Dimensionless is a term equal to a ratio, and when changing from cgs to SI, if the ratio does not changeWho told you that it doesn't change? hc/e^{2} ≈ 137 in c.g.s. while it's ≈ 1.24*10^{12} J*m*C^{-2} = 1.24*10^{12} kg*m^{3}*A^{-2}*s^{-4} in M.K.S..

Very interesting Ethos; I'm assuming your maths correct; what is the implication? Have you shown a relationship that was not previously known? Are you showing a new relationship between gravity and the electromagnetic field?

Now for those that don't like me using (hbar c/e^2) in this equation, let's use this equation instead: (hbar c/(re me c^2))

Charged particles bend space time because they posess magnetic fields.......and the bending of space time is accomplished by both the electromagnetic and gravitational forces...

I appreciate the feedback jpetruccelli, and I also appreciate the manner in which you handle yourself when faced with someone that needs better understanding about the nature of physics. I confess, there is much I need to learn about this field and you have shown patience with me that others have not. I didn't come here to argue with anyone and find myself rather disturbed when others confront my understanding in an aggressive manner. To that, I again thank you for your patience and ask to further correspond about this issue with you via private message. I wish to no longer stir the pot, as it were, in public forum because I think you can help me with this idea in private. If that would be OK, let me know and I'll get back with you. Thanks for the civil behavior you've demonstrated on my behalf..........Ethos

Now why would you get that idea?

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

Quote from: Ethos on 15/03/2009 03:41:48Quoting 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."...................EthosThis is interesting, and there is much truth in it; but it can't be completely true. How can one deduce, for example, the physical lawF = -Gm_{1}m_{2}/r^{2}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.

Quote from: Ethos on 15/03/2009 16:40:12If 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.

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...

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)

Quote from: Ethos on 10/03/2009 23:46:58I 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.

Quote from: Mr. Scientist on 11/04/2009 17:33:44Quote from: Ethos on 10/03/2009 23:46:58I 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^3Using these figures, G equals: 6.67275388 * 10^-8 cgs and 6.67275388 *10^-11 SI.......These figures agree very closely with NISTUnfortunately, 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).

Quote from: Mr. Scientist on 11/04/2009 20:55:29Well, 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.

Quote from: Mr. Scientist on 12/04/2009 02:35:48It 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

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.