Hiya'll

Do any of you learnered and web crawling sciency folk know of any derivation of a theoretical value for Newton's gravitational constant G ?

Thank you just so much

Hi,
The calculations are here

http://www.nikhef.nl/~t32/newton.dir/newton.html

G = 6.673(10) x 10^-11 m³ /kg s²

< whoops >
but have a look here
http://www.btinternet.com/~ugah174/gil31.html
(G as Quantum Coupling Constant)

NG ≈ 3.1095 × 10⁴¹.


Though it must be mentioned that the two most accurate measurements of Newton's constant (G) contradict each other.
<b>
Sevres, France 6.67559(±0.00027)
Wuhan, China 6.6699 (± 0.0007)
</b>

Newton's constant, which describes the strength of the gravity, is the most poorly determined constants of nature. The two most accurate measurements have experimental errors of 1 part in 10,000, yet their values differ by 10 times that amount.

So physicists are left with no idea of its absolute value.

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992814

Thank you blobrana, heart felt!!!


so no theoretical value has been determined

G is an empirical value at present ?

So the average of those two values is where we get the 6.673 from... yikes.

G is entirely an empirical value at present. Just like h and the electron charge, and all the particle masses, etc. etc.

There's a lot still left to do in physics.

(Note: these days, c, the speed of light, is defined, not measured.)

Ok, it is an empirical value, but "what" is Gnewton supposed to represent.

And just as an exercise explain why there is one G and not two (2 masses) in

F = G M1 M2 / r^2


just as an exercise

Hum,
<b>G</b> is the curvature of space-time.

It’s supposed that the Higgs boson gives particles their mass.

The reason why G is the number it is, is probably because the universe is here today.
Too big, a value and the universe wouldn’t expand and would collapse immediately after the Supersymmetry breaking process that split off the gravitational force from the other three.
Too little and the matter created may not have formed stars etc. (??)

However, I imagine that the amount of mass is <b>exactly</b> balanced by the expansion of space. So that the curvature of space-time has to be G…

Just as i suppose that Pi <b>has</b> to be that amount; it cannot be anything else (in our type of universe)

Hiya blobrana

>> G is the curvature of space-time. >>>

if this is so, then a theoretical value for G should be easy.

>> However, I imagine that the amount of mass is exactly balanced by the expansion of space. So that the curvature of space-time has to be G? >>>

funny how the empirical value is so suspect.

>> It's supposed that the Higgs boson gives particles their mass. >>

What is the 'Higgs boson' ?

Actually, G is just a constant of proportionality whose value depends on our choice of basic units. G has the value of 6.67 x 10^-11 in SI units, where the masses are measured in kilograms, distance is in metres, and force is in Newton. Choose different units and the value of G changes.

G has nothing to do with curvature of space. Even in general relativity, it is still a constant of proportionality.

>> it is still a constant of proportionality. >>


A constant of proportionality between what and what ?

and why do you say that ?

If you have no theoretical idea what it is, how can you just make up such comments ?

LOL

A constant of proportionality between what and what ?

Between force, the two masses and the distance squared.

and why do you say that ?

Because that's what it is.

If you have no theoretical idea what it is, how can you just make up such comments ?

I told you what my theoretical idea of it is.

@James R
Hum,
Yes, tnx for correction.
In special relativity, the space-time is flat…
what I mean was that G is <b>related</b> to the curvature of space-time created by mass as proposed by General Relativity .

Obviously, the curvature is not static but can have different values, and dependant on mass. (G is always constant)

“<i>In General Relativity, the effect of matter on space (gravity) is taken into account. Gravity is measured as a curvature of spacetime, which is represented in several ways</i>.”
http://physics.syr.edu/courses/PHY312.03Spring/keish-walter/project.htm

As for the Higgs boson -well the Higgs field has yet to be discovered but they are trying to find it right now..
http://www.exploratorium.edu/origins/cern/ideas/higgs.html

>> As for the Higgs boson -well the Higgs field has yet to be discovered but they are trying to find it right now..>>>>

modern religious science

conjecture upon irrational conjecture

I laugh,

LOL

wonder where G comes into the formulae of SR or even GR ?????

LOL

you guys will believe ANYTHING as long as you are told so by the establishment

again

LOL

>>( A constant of proportionality between what and what ?)
Between force, the two masses and the distance squared. >>>

around and around the garden...............

circular arguments are not given points

LOL

another shuffle under the carpet...


What is the nature of this force that it needs an adjustment factor ??

Is it like a permitivity constant in a vacuum ?

but it is measured in air......

This is very poor physics.

nero, aka Zarkov. You were previously banned from sciforums for exactly this kind of trolling. If you insist on proceeding along the same lines again, you will not be warned. You will simply be banned again.

In telling you this, I am giving you a chance, which I hope you will use wisely.

"Zeldovich first suggested
that gravitational interactions could lead to a small
disturbance in the non-zero quantum fluctuations of
the vacuum and thus give rise to a finite value of
Einstein’s cosmological constant.[13] Sakharov later
derived a value for Newton’s gravitational constant
G using frequency w as the only free parameter.[14]


G=c^5/h integral w dw



where c is the speed of light and h is the Plank
constant. The integral is carried out over all
frequencies using the Plank frequency on observable
electromagnetic phenomena ( p w ~ 10-33 cm) as a
cutoff value."

_____________________

There are other derivations of G as opposed to empirical measurements.


PS How many nicknames do you have Mr Zarkov/Stoic/Nero etc?

macx

@nero
Hum,
i suppose people laughed when they tried to find the W and Z particles that describes the Electromagnetic field, and how particles interact with photons.

(or at the wright brothers)


But, is it just because the discovery of a Higgs field would confirm that the symmetry breaking theory is on the right path, that you object to?

The non-discovery of it would put a spanner in the works of most current theories, and certainly worth the effort, to know either way...

<edit >

when the going gets tough the illiterate scream

>> If you insist on proceeding along the same lines again, you will not be warned. You will simply be banned again.
>>

go ahead make my day, troll

>> The non-discovery of it would put a spanner in the works of most current theories, and certainly worth the effort, to know either way... >>>


I don't really object to anything, even discarded theories held merit, and may still do given new information.

I do object to "patch work" science as displayed by powerful posters (gardians) here and basically on all science forum sites.

These people really just use the muscle to ram their 'correctness"
once discussion gets out of their league, they pull the plug

LOL

how's you gonnna find the truth under such sophism..

LOL


I piss on them.

*gone again*

>>> Sakharov later
derived a value for Newton’s gravitational constant
G using frequency w as the only free parameter.[14]


G=c^5/h integral w dw



where c is the speed of light and h is the Plank
constant. The integral is carried out over all
frequencies using the Plank frequency on observable
electromagnetic phenomena ( p w ~ 10-33 cm) as a
cutoff value." >>>

so what was the actual "value" obtained by this 'valid' but confused approach, Mr Macx ???

(by valid I mean, at least he was on a reasonable (even though incorrect) approach, it is at least related to fields, but not as Sakharov envisaged..... LOL )

not a very useful understanding though, and I am afraid Dr Sakjarov has taken his logic with him.

Hang onto coat-tails Macx,,,,, but understanding comes first.... unless you are a high priest (like James R) of religious science then you can write the science bible.....

History is full of such people, they come and fall, and get a BAD name, LOL
and real science tramples upon their grave.

LOL

get real mate

>>Do any of you learnered and web crawling sciency folk know of any derivation of a theoretical value for Newton's gravitational constant G ?

This was the opening post, and the snippet that I posted directly addressed the question in the opening post.

There are many many other theoretical derivations of G, but if you choose to denegrate the response for reasons known only to yourself Mr Nero/Zarkov/Skeptik et al, that is entirely your perogative. If you wish to pursue the dialogue on G further then kindly moderate your responses/behaviour as indicated by James R, and we can continue.

macx

Its easy to get formulas for Newtonian constant of gravitation G by using the new formulas for Planck units. Here are 7 equivalent formulas for calculation of Newtonian constant of gravitation G. These formulas were got by us on base of initial superconstants hu, lu, tu, f1.gif (855 bytes), f2.gif (851 bytes) :

G = c3 lu2 / h f1.gif (855 bytes) Do,

G = lu2 b / meDo,

G = Gu c2 /me2 Do,

G = lu3 / tu2 me Do,

G = lu5 / tu3 hu Do,

G = h f5.gif (84 bytes) / 4f2.gif (851 bytes) tu me2 DoR?,

G = f3.gif (85 bytes) c3 lu2 / h f1.gif (855 bytes) Do,

(perhaps html works?!!?)

here:

http://www.laboratory.ru/articl/hypo/eax062.htm

____________________________________________

and there are many many many more Mr Zarkov.

Even one derived by an Australian over in Perth would you believe!

macx

And in case you can not bring yourself to read the article Mr Nero?Zarkov/Skeptik/Stoic this is what was *calculated*.


"The numerical value for a gravitational constant gives magnitude of 6,67286742(94) • 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2, which is few orders more precise than experimental value."


...as opposed to measured (empirical) value of:

6,673(10) •10-11 Nm2/kg2

macx

Completion of Einstein theory the way he would have wanted is to change his space curvature continuous feild equation to simply G = R/(3axisenergyofR) where R is replacement radius of a spinning volume of spacetime ---such as Earth, the atom and the visble cosmos and every gravity field nesting level in between. Einstein's G an R are the same as newton's, except that Newton's G has a single value pertinent to Earth's R only whereas Einstein's G and R apply to all gravity fields, including a stable, closed and infinite universal gravity field.

The G in Newton's laws for energy and force of gravity as applied to Earth is simply the existing average atom size that forms the spinning outer boundary of solid Earth. The average atom size is as precise as the formula is able to achieve with a given value for the AVERAGE RADIUS OF THE EARTH AS IS SPINS ON AXIS. SImPLY DISMISS THIS BECAUSE THE CURRENT BEST THEORY DOES NOT SUPPORT IT? oR DO YOU ACCEPT I have indeed finished what Einstein started.