Quantcast The Variable G, Gravitational Coupling Constants and Elementary particles Text - Physics Forums Library

PDA

View Full Version : The Variable G, Gravitational Coupling Constants and Elementary particles


exponent137
Oct18-06, 10:12 AM
Abstract

Firstly, the article shows that the gravitational constant G inside of a black hole is rapidly changing. It then shows how this variable quantity allows us to understand why elementary particles are formed by gravity. The analysis of dimensionless constants, formed from gravitational constant, Planck’s constant, the speed of light and the elementary particle masses offers additional arguments for the theory that elementary particles are formed by gravity.


Comment

This manuscript is part of article, published in www.philica.com as number 17 [1a]. This manuscript can be found in article [1a] in sections 1, 2, 3 and in appendix A.

1. Introduction

This article presents the problem of merging general relativity theory (GR) and quantum mechanics (QM) from an alternative point of view.
As first in section 2 there are shown four possible approaches to theory that gravitational constant is rapidly variable. Importance of rapid variability is that it enables possibility that elementary particles are black holes. Because G is variable, Planck's mass is also variable. This means that it can sometimes be smaller than the masses of the elementary particles, so it follows that elementary particles can be formed by gravity.
Dimensionless constants b_i are formed from G, masses of elementary particles, m_i, Planck's constant, h, and speed of light, c. It is shown in section 3 that the existence of the dimensionless constants b_i is an additional argument that elementary particles are formed by gravity. A further argument that elementary particles are formed by gravity is the theory of Mark Hadley [1..6], which explains quantum logic with only four-dimensional time-symmetric geons. The significance of the constants b_i for Hadley’s theory is also shown in section 3.
There are some new (or unnoticed) things in this article, regarding other theories of quantum gravity:
1. Principle of equivalence in quantum regime is changed
2. Gravitational constant is rapidly variable
3. Black holes can be lighter than Planck’s mass
4. Importance of dimensionless gravitational constants of particles is analysed
5. Different view on relativistic mass
My theory persists on importance of equivalence principle and it does not demand change of other basic principles as Lorentz principle, the same G at small distances, etc.. Therefore all measurements, which try to refute these principles, but do not succeeded, are important for me. Planck mass physics can be tested by high energy cosmic particles and this is important for testing of all quantum gravity theories.


2. The rapid variability of the gravitational constant G

Various independent arguments that G is rapidly variable inside of BHs are given below.

2.1 Approach to G variability from Hadley’s equation of quantum gravity

Mark Hadley [1] shows the connection between GR and QM by the example of Einstein's equation of GR.
G_{uv} = C T_{uv} (2.1)
The quantity C is a proportionality constant, and tensor T_uv is the energy-momentum part of the equation, which forms the curvature of space-time described by tensor G_uv. It is known that the energy-momentum part T_uv is quantized. Therefore, Page and Geilker [7] assumed that the quantum version of equation (2.1) equals:
G_{uv} = C \langle \Psi|T_{uv}|\Psi \rangle (2.2)
This equation was obtained by replacing the energy-momentum tensor in (2.1) by the expectation value of the energy-momentum operator with respect to a quantum state PSI. Hadley wrote that the left side of equation is incorrect, because it is in contradiction with QM - some physical quantities can be precisely determined in this way, which is in contradiction to QM. The expectation value can also be equal to a value that does not exist. For example, the mean spin of an electron is zero, but electron spin can only be equal to h/(4pi) or –h/(4pi). He corrected equation (2.2) and obtained:
\langle G_{uv}\rangle = C \langle \Psi|T_{uv}|\Psi\rangle (2.3)
Assuming that equation (2.2) is incorrect and equation (2.3) is correct, G_uv is shown to be rapidly variable . One possible explanation for this is that the gravitational constant G is rapidly variable. Therefore, formula (2.3) is an assumption for preliminary conclusion that G is rapidly variable.

2.2 Approach to G variability from Hawking radiation

Let us consider more precisely how the derivations of Unruh radiation and Hawking BH radiation imply a variable G.
If we are moving under acceleration, we feel Unruh radiation. If we are moving under constant acceleration, a, Unruh radiation is the thermical radiation where the temperature, T, of this radiation equals [8] :
T = \frac {h a}{4\pi^2 c k} (2.4)
where k is Boltzmann's constant.
In other words, when classical acceleration and quantum field are connected, it appears radiation with temperature, T, which is proportional to acceleration, a.
The distribution of the energy of the photons dp/dW equals:
\frac {\mathrm{d}p}{\mathrm{d}W} = \frac {1}{kT (\exp{\frac{W}{kT}}-1)} (2.5)
Let us assume that acceleration of an accelerated body can only be measured by Unruh radiation, and let us consider a single moment in time when a single photon is perceived. The precise temperature of this radiation cannot be derived from the energy of one photon, because the measurement of temperature means to measure the mean of the energies of photons. Constant temperature means only the constant mean of the energy of radiated photons. The energy of a photon is triggered by an acceleration a. Thus, it cannot be assumed that acceleration a can be constant in small time intervals. QM states that if something cannot be noticed in any way, it does not exist. Therefore the uniform acceleration of a body is only an approximation, but in fact acceleration can change thermically, according to the formula:
a = 4 \pi^2 \nu \;c \;k (2.6)
where the energy of the photon, W = hv, is changing thermically and v is the frequency of this photon. Of course the assumption of Unruh radiation as the only possibility of measurement is real only for very small accelerated bodies.
This example can be compared to the radiation of a BH. Acceleration a means gravitational acceleration, g, at the horizon of a BH. The BH emits radiation at temperature, T. But, if this BH is very small (close to Planck's mass), the temperature of the radiation may be the only possibility for measuring gravitational acceleration, g. I cannot imagine another means of measuring this acceleration. So, the constant acceleration at a BH horizon does not exist and the acceleration at BH horizon changes thermically.
If g changes rapidly, then G changes rapidly.
Hawking radiation is only a semi-classical approximation. Therefore, the assumption above is also only a semi-classical approximation. But, this is also useful. Hawking radiation is an assumption without experimental verification. Therefore, there are many possibilities for modification.
The assumption that an acceleration can be measured only by Hawking radiation gives also variable G. Variable G enables BHs that are smaller than m_pl, as will be seen in section 2.5. The acceleration g at the horizon of such BHs can only be measured by Hawking radiation. Therefore, this is an assumption which becomes fulfilling.

2.3 Approach to G variability from different quantum principle of equivalence

A variable G can be obtained in still another way: Constant acceleration cannot be achieved without gravity, because the energy of a body can be entered in “steps” with photons or any other particles. (Gravity must not be used as a source of acceleration, because Unruh acceleration is an analogy for gravitational acceleration.) The principle of equivalence says that it is not possible to differentiate if we are in a homogeneous gravitational field or in an elevator with uniform acceleration. But I would add here: “If an elevator with constant acceleration does not exist, it is not necessary that a homogeneous gravitational field exists.” If homogeneous gravitational field does not exist, G as constant in small time intervals does not exist.
The most uniform acceleration in quantum regime can be achieved by many photons of very small energies. But, equal energies of large number of these photons cannot be achieved. They demand too much information for their creation. Including the second law of thermodynamics, entropy of these photons should be maximal. This means that their energy should be distributed thermically. So the most possible uniform acceleration in quantum regime can be achieved with many low-energy photons, where their energy is thermically distributed and so acceleration is thermically distributed. Due to the equivalence principle, acceleration in gravitational field cannot be uniform, but it is rapidly thermically changing. This can be generalized that G of the black hole is rapidly thermically changing.

2.4 Approach to G variability from discussing gravity of an alone elementary particle

Variable G above was derived theoretically, but it can also be derived semi-empirically. If constant G is supposed, gravitational field of a single elementary particle (for instance neutron) cannot be detected, because change of a momentum (of any body) due to neutron’s gravitational field is smaller than the uncertainty of momentum of measured body. (Alternatively, shift of trajectory is smaller than l_pl.) The inability of existence of black holes, smaller than m_pl also gives inability of measurement of gravitational field of a single elementary particle. If the neutron’s gravitational field cannot be detected, the gravitational field of many particles also cannot be detected; otherwise this is in contradiction with principle of uncertainty. A possible and simple solution is that G is rapidly variable. I suppose possibility that G equals zero sometimes, that gravitational field is not negative (positive energy theorem), and we should suppose that uncertainty of G is maximally possible. This gives the same solution as with Hawking radiation above and with “acceleration with small photons” example. At the same time, this is one sort of test of Hawking radiation.

2.5 Consequences of variable G

The radius r of a BH equals:
r = \frac{2Gm}{c^2} (2.7)
where m represents the mass of a BH. Because G is changing rapidly, it is expected that r is also changing rapidly. But, this is not the case. The radius of a BH, r, approximately represents the distance which must be traversed by a photon to reach the horizon where it returns inside of the horizon. If the BH is not extremely small, the average G in this journey is not very different from the ideal, mean G. This means r is not changing as fast as g and G, therefore G is changing approximately thermically.
Hawking radiation is also a semi-classical approximation, because the radius of a BH cannot be precisely determined and the back-reaction of a gravitational field when a photon flies away is not respected. Nevertheless, it is most likely that higher approximations would also give thermical radiation for a BH, because if a multitude of small BHs can be in thermical equilibrium, the radiation must be thermical. (The third possible instance of a higher approximation is the above example, where G is changing approximately thermically.)
Probably, G is changing thermically, approximately thermically or in some other way that it can sometimes reach arbitrarily high value. However, if G is changing, then Planck's mass is also changing. Planck's mass m_pl equals:
m_{pl} = \left(\frac{hc}{2\pi G}\right)^{1/2} (2.8)
If G can maybe reach an arbitrarily high value, then it follows that m_pl can reach arbitrarily small values. Therefore, the value of this m_pl can sometimes be smaller than the masses of elementary particles. This offers the possibility that elementary particles can be BHs.
A problem of physics that it is not yet explained is how elementary particles can be BHs. One possibility is that G is very large at very small distances. The question is, why it is larger than normal. The possibility of a variable G is better supported by explanation than the possibility of an enlarged G at small distances.
Important elements of quantum gravity (QG) theories are also BHs remnants with mass m_pl. But no one has ever seen one of these objects. I think that objects with this mass do not exist, but elementary particles, as BHs, exist and variable G supports them.
(If elementary particles are BHs, which radiate, then the decay of a particle is a BH radiation. It follows that electrons and protons are BH remnants.)
A variable m_pl also gives a variable Planck’s distance, l_pl, and a variable Planck’s time, t_pl. The quantities l_pl and t_pl are defined as:
l_{pl} = \left (\frac{h G}{2\pi c^3}\right)^{1/2} (2.9)
t_{pl} = \left (\frac{h G}{2\pi c^5}\right)^{1/2} (2.10)
So space-time is not grained, but it can achieve arbitrarily small distances and times. The limitation for perception at very small scales is only the probability of perception, which is very small as distances are very small.

exponent137
Oct18-06, 10:21 AM
3. Dimensionless gravitational constants of elementary particles

3.1 Importance of dimensionless gravitational constants of elementary
particles

Even if the variable G was ignored, there are also other arguments that elementary particles are BHs or in general, objects formed by gravity.
Every elementary particle has its own value of b_i. This is known dimensionless constant, which can be written as:
b_i = \frac{2 \pi m_i^2 G}{h c} (3.1)
where m_i means mass of i-th elementary particle, for instance mass of the electron, the proton etc.. It is not easy to find any other dimensionless constants, where G is included but m_is are excluded. The existence of dimensionless b_i s is an important fact. I believe and it is very likely that the existence of dimensionless b_i s means the existence of interrelations between constants inside of them.
The second important fact appears when constants inside of b_i s are changed. Let us change m_is by one arbitrary factor and let us change the constants h, c and G by three arbitrary factors, but with the limitation that all b_i s remain equal. It is shown below that all physical laws also remain the same. One example is the following variation of constants:
m_{1i} = m_i \gamma (3.2)

G_1 = G \gamma^{-3} (3.3)

h_1 = h (3.4)

c_1 = c \gamma^{-1} (3.5)
The quantity gamma is an arbitrary constant, for instance 10; quantities with index 1 are the same quantities after the change. Index i counts all elementary particles, known and unknown. A calculation shows that constants b_i remain the same as before the change. Therefore, if the world behind a “glass wall” has so changed constants b_i, physical laws behind the wall are the same.
The example in formulae (3.2 to 3.5) is experimentally and theoretically proven. This example can also be obtained in special relativity and in this case gamma equals:
\gamma = \frac {1} {(1-(\frac v c)^2)^{1/2}} (3.6)
Someone measures m_i s, G, h and c in a fast moving rocket with velocity v. Measurements are taken transversal according to direction of the rocket. We can see and know that time for him runs slower than for us. But this can be interpreted so that time runs for him at the same speed as for us, but because of acceleration we gave additional energy to the rocket, (energy is proportional to mass) so everything in the rocket is more massive and it moves slower. For explanation, see appendix A. This can be respected in calculation and gives modified values for m_is G, h and c as seen in formulae (3.2 to 3.5). If he would measure longitudinally according to the direction of the rocket movement, the new relations for changed m_is, G, h and c would be different. This variation of constants shows that the keys of relativity are not only c, distances and time, but also b_is. Or more generalized, if the world behind the “glass wall” has equal values of b_is, but different constants inside b_is, it is logically that this world has the same physical laws as our world.
But, if the numbers b_i define physical properties, this means connection between masses of elementary particles m_i and G (of course, h and c are included in these connections.) So elementary particles are formed by gravity. The constants b_i are also implicit relations between GR and QM, because they connect h and G. Constants b_i are very simple relations, but they are overlooked in QG theories. Majority of QG theories are complicated, but the constants b_i lead to a hint that this is not necessary.
According to special relativity theory, elementary particles are the smallest objects that can be standstill in any inertial system. Photons can never be standstill objects. (Exception is only if they are circulating, but this is another story.) Special relativity theory gives that time only flows inside of objects that can be standstill, not inside of photons. So elementary particles define time and in that way distances too.
Quantities l_pl and t_pl are defined as base for space. But space is also defined by elementary particle masses. For instance, ten times larger masses of elementary particles and ten times larger t_pl give the same numbers b_i and so the same physical laws. However, gravitational constant G hidden in quantities l_pl and t_pl creates space. So it can be strange to imagine that G cannot create elementary particles, especially because elementary particles also create space and time. Each of four quantities inside of the b_is is important as building blocks of space-time, therefore b_is are also important. To sum up, the numbers b_is define and form space and time.
Elementary particles can be imagined as circulations of photons. This is not yet known to be false and this circulation is a very simple model, so it is promising. Circulation of light is possible only in curved space, but space can only be curved by gravity. Improvement of this model is Hadley's theory of four dimensional time symmetric geons [1..6]. So again, elementary particles are objects formed by gravity.
The fine structure constant α, with value 1/(137.03599911(46)) [10], is in principle close to 1 (regarding very small values of b_is, which are by no means close to 1.) Value (46) means uncertainty on last two digits. Coupling constants for strong force are also close to 1. This directs us that quantities inside of these constants are interrelated and that elementary charge is consequence of Planck constant h. Quantities b_i have similar structure of applied physical constants as fine structure constant. This also directs us that constants inside of b_is are interrelated.
Above noted facts about the importance of b_is of particles are very simple and important, but I have not found them in literature.

3.2 Mark Hadley’s connection with b_i

Mark Hadley found that GR with non-orientated time contains the same logic as QM. So, in his opinion, GR forms all QM. There are some unfinished things here and I am trying to explain some of them below.
If GR generates QM, then h can be calculated from G. So h and G must form one dimensionless number. As a possibility for such a number, numbers b_i come in sight. It is not easy to find other dimensionless constants, which contain h and G. But many elementary particles exist, so it can be easier to say that G, h and c create masses of elementary particles and not that G, c and mi create h. It is possible that only one existent or nonexistent particle creates all other elementary particles, but this is not very simple and so it is not very possible. Therefore, it is very likely that h is one free parameter, which with G and c forms masses of elementary particles and laws of QM. It is also possible that it is undetermined which constants are cause and which are consequence.
But, this is approximately the same what Mark Hadley wrote. He also operates with geons and geons are elementary particles or connected with elementary particles. Geons have some masses, what are required parameters for dimensionless numbers b_i.
Hadley suppose that GR creates QM, I suppose that the both creates elementary particles, as b_is show. Hadley did not answer, where jump from symmetrical to asymmetrical time appears. Nevertheless, if the wave function collapse as a free parameter is added to his theory, this can be explained. His symmetrical time gives possibility of explanation of multitude of possible states before the wave function collapse; and asymmetrical time explains state after the wave function collapse.
Hadley's theory does not consider variable G and Hawking radiation, but this is not in opposition with his theory, or it can also be in opposition, because his theory is not yet completed.
But quantum logic obtained from GR is useful, because common points between GR and QM must be found to simplify QG calculations. Hadley also partially explained spin of fermions and charge of elementary particles.

3.3 Motivation for variable G and importance of b_is

I got motivation for variable G and for importance of b_is from empirical formulae for b_is of elementary particles [11, 12, 13 and 14]. For instance:
b_{electron} = \frac 3 4 \exp{\left(\frac{-3}{4\alpha}\right)} \times 1.0088(15) (3.7)

b_{electron} = \frac 1 {\sqrt 2 \alpha} \exp{\left (\frac{-\pi}{4\alpha}\right)}\times \frac 1 {1.0017(15)} (3.8)
where alpha is the fine structure constant.
It is clear that formulae (3.7) and (3.8) are similar. Formula (3.7) and others in [11] are obtained unknowing formula (3.8) [12, 13, 14]. Therefore, this is a relation, which “offers itself”, if we guess. Formula (3.7) indicates one sort of temperature inside of elementary particles, so it indicates entropy, and therefore it indicates time’s arrow inside of elementary particles. Although neither of formulae (3.7) and (3.8) would be right, numbers b_i still keep the importance.

4. Conclusion

There are many theories which try to explain QG. Some begin at QM or GR and try to be valid also at another theory (GR or QM). Let us name these approximations step-by-step. The second possibility is to begin with something completely new and then to approximate to QM and GR. Let us say that example of this is the superstring theory. It is considered as the best approximation to QG. But, it has not given enough results according to work applied to this theory. Calculated numbers are still far away from the possibility of testing. Advocates of this theory are still questioning themselves what these strings mean and how they explain our ordinary world. They do not know anything about consciousness. The same problems are at loop quantum gravity theory.
Step-by-step approximations give better results according to experiences from ordinary life. I admit that this does not mean to make QG theory and to test it, because the possibility of testing in QG is rare. So this means to make assumptions and to observe how they are harmonized among themselves and with known facts. Superstrings theory does not have enough self-harmonized assumptions.
The problem of theory of QG is also testing. Assumptions about consciousness in my article can be tested.
More attention should be given to assumptions of theory of QG, than to theories of QG. The larger number of possible options will give larger possibility for true option and so also for the true theory of QG. This article is full of new assumptions which can be used for construction of a new theory of QG. These assumptions are: variable G, assumptions that constants inside of b_is are interrelated, photons as building blocks for the space, elementary particles as formed by gravity, etc..
The problem despite such a number of assumptions is that they have not given the theory of QG in this article yet. A clear model for elementary particles is still missing in this article and this remains the main problem of this theory of QG.
Maybe this article does not show correct or enough developed theory of QG. But, main approaches to QG theory are still worse. I am solo, but “QG theory personnel” is big. It is very likely that the organization of this research is not good. I think that present-day priority given to superstring theory is the problem of psychology of crowd, when they mutually persuade each other in the correctness of the theory. (Sociology and psychology of superstrings theorist should be better researched.) Advantage of computer age is badly used for clearer explanations of base-theories of QG. (These are QM, quantum electrodynamics, GR, special relativity, problems of uniting QM and GR etc..) Every important formula in these theories can be explained better. (For instance, factor 2 at formula for “starlight deflected by gravity of the sun” is rarely explained clearly enough.) The most likely, better organization of QG theory research would give this theory in the near future. The theory of QG is important, because it will approximate us closer to answer on some ideological questions, closer to answers, what is consciousness, what is life and what are the grounds of everything. It will also appease our curiosity. Larger motivation for QG among people will help sooner to access this theory. (Similarly as power of computer increased also because of peoples, familiar with computers, increased.)

Appendix A: Relativistic mass and time

Time is relativistic also in our common non-relativistic world. Time runs faster for the fly than for the elephant and faster for the a warm lizard than for a cold lizard. Time running can also be explained in such a way that if everything is moving slowly, we feel slower running of time. This means, brain processes are slower and clocks can be slower. Cause for slow running of time are also proportionally larger masses of all particles and this happens in the theory of relativity. This is presented below as additional explanation, which does not change the formulae of special relativity, nor does it change elementary principles of special relativity. However, in special relativity it fails total explanation, why everything in a neighbouring inertial system is moving slower than here. So the far existing, orthodox, explanation is not enough, because time can be additionally relativized, as described above.
If we ignore almost all special relativity rules and only respect the equation
W = m c^2 (A.1)
where m is relativistic mass and W is total energy of accelerating body, then the equation for increasing of energy of an accelerating body is:
c^2 \; \mathrm{d}m = m \; a \; \mathrm{d}x = m \; v \; \mathrm{d} v (A.2)
where a means acceleration, x means distance and v means velocity.
Solution of equation (A.2) is
2 \ln{\left (\frac m {m_0}\right )} = \left (\frac v c \right)^2 (A.3)
where m0 was mass at velocity zero and ln is logarithm with base e. The result is wrong, because real relation is
m = \gamma \;m_0 (A.4)
(Yes, this is correct relation, not only (A.8) and that is explained in the next lines.)
But, additional supposition should be that longitudinal distances x1 in the rocket seen from the rocket are larger than the same distances x seen from a standstill system (Lorentz contraction):
\mathrm{d}x_1 = \gamma \; \mathrm{d}x (A.5)
If this is corrected in equation (A.2), the new equation is:
c^2 \; \mathrm{d}m = m \; (\gamma a) \; \mathrm{d} (\gamma x) = m \; (\gamma v) \; \mathrm{d} (\gamma v) (A.6)
and the result is (A.4), what is correct.
Equation, similar to (A.6) is known from special relativity:
\frac {\mathrm{d}W} {\mathrm{d} t} = \gamma^3 m \; v \;\;a (A.7)
It is interpreted that longitudinal relativistic mass equals
m= \gamma^3 m_0 (A.8)
but the same interpretation as in (A.5) is also possible and it additionally gives the same longitudinal and transversal relativistic mass. It is also important that mathematics here is free - by all means it is not necessary to glue gamma only to m0 or to t.
Let us simplify that we observe movement of an object in the rocket in transversal direction regarding direction of rocket, so Lorentz contraction does not exist. We can see that transversal momentum of an object in rocket, seen from a standstill system equals the momentum of the object, seen from the rocket:
(\gamma m)\frac {\mathrm{d}x} {\mathrm{d} t} = m \frac {\;\mathrm{d}x} {\mathrm{d} (t / \gamma)} (A.9)
t has a time base seen from standstill observer. So the law of conservation of momentum compares values seen from the rocket and from the standstill system. Equality of momenta can be obtained also in longitudinal direction.
The above interpretation says that everything in rocket moves slower because of enlarged relativistic masses. At the same time common explanations are not forbidden. This means we can take moving rocket as standstill system and we use the same calculations. This does not disturb the constancy of light speed in all systems and relativity of simultaneity, because in the model above these two are not important.
Einstein dissuaded from relativistic mass, as did also Lev Okun [21]. But I did not find any argument against my formulae. But, once Einstein said that all solutions should be respect. This is a new solution, which also explains relativity inside of constants b_i.
Evidently mass, energy and geometry are linked and geometry is not everything. And time is so relativistic that we can treat him also as absolute.

exponent137
Oct18-06, 10:24 AM
References

1a. Kokosar J. (2006) The variable Gravitational Constant G, General Relativity Theory, Elementary Particles, Quantum Mechanics, Time’s Arrow and Consciousness, PHILICA.COM Article number 17; http://www.philica.com/display_article.php?article_id=17
1. Hadley M. J. A Gravitational theory of Quantum Mechanics, Doctor thesis, University of Warwick, 61-61, (1997); http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/physics/staff/academic/mhadley/papers/thesis/thesis.pdf
2. Hadley, M. J. The Logic of Quantum Mechanics Derived From Classical General Relativity, Foundations of Physics Letters 10, No.1, 43-60, (1997), arXiv: quant-ph/9706018
3. Hadley, M. J. Topology change and context dependence, International Journal of Theoretical Physics 38 1481-1492 (1997), arXiv: gr-qc/9905061
4. Diemer, T. & Hadley, M. J. Charge and the topology of spacetime, Classical and Quantum Gravity 16 No 11 3567-3577 (1999), arXiv: gr-qc/9905069
5. Hadley, M. Spin half in classical general relativity, Classical and Quantum Gravity 17, No 20, 4187-4194 (2000), arXiv: gr-qc/0004029
6. Hadley, M. The orientability of spacetime, Classical and Quantum Gravity 19, 4565-4571 (2002), arXiv: gr-qc/0202031
7. Page, D. N. & Geilker, C. D. Indirect evidence for quantum gravity, Physical Review Letters. 47(14):979-982, (1981), http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v48/i7/p520_1
8. Alsing, P. M. & Milonni, P. W. Simplified derivation of the Hawking-Unruh temperature for an accelerated observer in vacuum, American Journal of Physics 72 1524-1529 (2004), arXiv: quant-ph/0401170
9. Hawking, S. W. Black hole explosions, Nature 248, 30-31, (March, 1974)
10. Eidelman, S. et al. Physics Letters B 592, 1, 1. Physical constants 1, (2004), http://pdg.lbl.gov/2005/reviews/consrpp.pdf, http://pdg.lbl.gov/2006/tables/contents_tables.html
11. Kokosar, J. Formulae for the masses of the elementary particles, Speculations in Science and Technology 18, 68-74, (1995), http://www2.arnes.si/~kracroni11/prtcls.html
12. Damour, T. The theoretical significance of G, Measurement, Science and Technology, vol. 10, no. 6, 467-469, (1999), arXiv: gr-qc/9901046
13. ‘t. Hooft, G., A physical interpretation of gravitational instantons. Nuclear Physics B 315 2 517-527, (1989), http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/phys/2005-0622-152928/14728.pdf
14. Landau, L. in Niels Bohr and Development of Physics, ed. Pauli W. (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1955), Reference for this book and an important formula also in: http://quarks.inr.ac.ru/2004/proceedings/FT/ritus.pdf
15. Okun, L. B. The concept of mass, Physics Today 42, 31-36, (June, 1989), http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-42/iss-6/vol42no6p31_36.pdf