Deriving G

E

el es

Registered Senior Member
I put this on another forum. Maybe if I get banned there, it can continue here.
The theoretical value of G in a vector theory of gravity might only be 2pi. In order to match the empirical value the quantum of action can be factored in. The value of G may have a quantum basis.

G=( 2pi x h-bar ) + h/137
 
el es:

Your formula doesn't give the correct numerical value for G. It is also dimensionally incorrect (i.e. it doesn't produce a quantity with the correct units).

Therefore, whatever "theory" you have that produced this formula must be wrong.

Back to the drawing board, then. Good luck!
 
el es said:
What value did you get? I got 6.6260 + .0483 = 6.6743. Which one is wrong?
Click to expand...
The correct value of G is:

$$G=6.67\times 10^{-11}$$

with appropriate SI units.

Your formula gets it wrong by 23 orders of magnitude.
 
el es said:
Then there is h=G - G/137 just for the numerical value.
Click to expand...
This doesn't mean anything, for two reasons.

First, the dimensions* of G are M⁻¹L³T⁻², whereas those of h are ML²T⁻¹. As you can see, they are not the same. That means that what you are trying to do is like trying to express the salinity of the ocean in terms of grand pianos! Quite meaningless.

Secondly, the numerical value of both G and h depends on the units you happen to quote them in. So any apparent relationship between their numerical values is purely a consequence of the chosen system of units, and would disappear if you were to choose a diffent system of units. Therefore it cannot indicate a fundamental physical connection between them.

*In case you are not familiar with this, checking the dimensions of physical quantities you are trying to relate in an equation is a useful check that you have not screwed up. They must be the same on both sides.
 
But where do the numbers come from? Mainstream has no theory to tell them what numbers to plug in with their exponents and units. Mainstream has had over 100 years to figure it out. So an old fogey like me plods along taking a shot at it. That and sudoku puzzles exercise my mind.
 
el es said:
But where do the numbers come from? Mainstream has no theory to tell them what numbers to plug in with their exponents and units. Mainstream has had over 100 years to figure it out. So an old fogey like me plods along taking a shot at it. That and sudoku puzzles exercise my mind.
Click to expand...
Where does c, or μ₀ or ε₀ which are related to c, come from? There are numbers in this world that just are. There is no reason why there necessarily has to be anything to "figure out". There could be, but there might not be.

There's nothing to stop you exploring possibilities. Just do your dimensional checks next time;).
 
What is needed is a quantum of action for the graviton.
G/2pi=1.0622
h is not just equal to 2pi x 1.0545
h is 2pi x 1.0545
Then G=2pi x 1.0622
Then no detour thru the maze of units.
 
el es said:
Maybe it is numerology to use the numbers 6.6743, 6.6260 and .0483 to balance Cavendish with Planck and Josephson.
Reading about the Kibble balance.
en.wikipedia.org

Kibble balance - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
www.chemistryworld.com

Kibble’s balance

Watt a way to redefine the kilogram
www.chemistryworld.com www.chemistryworld.com
www.nist.gov

Kilogram: The Kibble Balance

Named after its inventor, Bryan Kibble at the U.K.’s National Physical Laboratory (NPL), who conceptu
www.nist.gov www.nist.gov
Click to expand...
Thanks for posting about the Kibble (or Watt) Balance, a device I was not previously aware of. It's a very elegant way of expressing one particular unit of measure, the kg, in terms of fundamental constants h, c and e (Planck's constant, the speed of light and the charge on the electron). As I understand it, the balance primarily expresses the weight of a mass in terms of the equivalent electromagnetic force generated by a coil in a magnetic field, but then, using the Josephson Effect - which again I did not previously know about - it relates the voltage employed to generate the current back to fundamental constants.

There is, needless to say, no numerology here. It is defining one man-made unit of measure (the kilogram) in terms of physical constants. (Note also the Wiki article mentions the dimensional check in the fundamental formula Vi = mgv: both sides of the equation have the dimensions of power (ML²/T³) - which is why Kibble called it the Watt balance.)

The Josephson effect is quite interesting in its own right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephson_effect

Again as I understand it after a brief read, in this application of the Josephson effect, the microwave frequency irradiating the junction generates a quantised, exact voltage proportional to the frequency. This enables an exact relationship to be defined between voltage and the fundamental constants involved in EM radiation.
 
What if the number 6.6743 isn't just about gravity? What if 6.6743 is a fundamental dimensionless physical constant?
 
Black-body radiation may no longer be used to check the Planck value. Millikan used photo-electrons. Now they just use constants to set other constants.
 
el es said:
What if the number 6.6743 isn't just about gravity? What if 6.6743 is a fundamental dimensionless physical constant?
Click to expand...
You tell us. And if 6.6743 is a fundamental dimensionless physical constant, then what would that have to do with G, which isn't a fundamental dimensionless physical constant?
 
Last edited:
el es said:
But where do the numbers come from? Mainstream has no theory to tell them what numbers to plug in with their exponents and units. Mainstream has had over 100 years to figure it out. So an old fogey like me plods along taking a shot at it. That and sudoku puzzles exercise my mind.
Click to expand...
As has been said, physics is empirical. Newton realised "white" light is a mixture and he split that out.
That very early research gave us what we know today about coloured lights.
 
Fine-Structure Constant:
Newton numbers...6.6743/2pi=1.0622
Planck numbers.......6.6260/2pi=1.0545
................................................................0.0077
Fine Structure....................................0.0073
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top