Connection of Newtonian Constant of Gravitation G and Plank Constant h

[Ivan Seeking]

I ran across this paper some time ago. I would be interested in any comments that you may have.

The aim of our research is to define a tie of electrodynamics and gravitation and to define a tie of Newtonian constant of gravitation G and electromagnetic constants. Has been discovered a global tie between Newtonian constant of gravitation G and major fundamental physical constants and has been got mathematical equation for calculation of constant G. Has been found out that Newtonian constant of gravitation G includes in oneself Planck constant h. A tie between constants which has been opened by us allows to get all the fundamental physical constants by mathematical calculation on base of special group of constants. As an initial constants for getting Newtonian constant of gravitation G we used only 4 fundamental physical constants: speed of light in vacuum, Planck constant, Rydberg constant, fine-structure constant. We discovered a group of independent primary constants, which allowed to get not only the constant G, but also the other fundamental physical constants with exactness 9 v10 digits by mathematical calculation. Results, which have been got, open the new possibilities in research of problems of microgravity, indicate on single nature of electromagnetism and gravitation and on possibility of management by gravitation with help of electromagnetic technologies.
http://www.laboratory.ru/articl/hypo/eax060.htm

[MathematicalPhysicist]

i only know of one connection (it doesnt mean this is the only one which exists) and it's:
planck length which is sqrt(G*h/2pi*c).

[jcsd]

Originally posted by loop quantum gravity
i only know of one connection (it doesnt mean this is the only one which exists) and it's:
planck length which is sqrt(G*h/2pi*c).

That's not a connection, that's the defintion of the Planck length (it should be c3), the Planck length is derived from these fundamental constants.

[MathematicalPhysicist]

Originally posted by jcsd
That's not a connection, that's the defintion of the Planck length (it should be c3), the Planck length is derived from these fundamental constants.
well then my book (companion to the cosmos) is wrong.

[Sonty]

Isn't it what Garry Denke talks about here?:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4636

[jcsd]

Originally posted by loop quantum gravity
well then my book (companion to the cosmos) is wrong.

The Planck length isn't a fundamnetal constant, it's a unit derived from fundamental constants and if your book listed c instead of the third power of c then it is wrong. When Max Planck invented Planck units it was to eliminate arbitariness from the units of measurement (though he used h, Planck's constant instead of h-bar, Dirac's constant that are used for Planck units today).

[Imagine]

Bonjour,
Is Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length) wrong?

[jcsd]

Originally posted by Imagine
Bonjour,
Is Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length) wrong?

wikipedia looks perfectly corect to me. I know Wikipedia is open source, but in general it's a very good source of information.

[Imagine]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
http://www.laboratory.ru/articl/hypo/eax060.htm

Bonjour,

IMHO and from my personal experience, someone may jungle with already usefull and known constants to aim toward more fundamental constants, the result shall demonstrate that the new constants 1) have fundamental physical meaning(s) and 2) is able to predict colateral phenomena(s).

Posing that you and a friend are extra-terrestrial beings. You are specialized in the earth-european continent and your friend is specialized in earth-american continent. When someone (another extra-terestrial being or not) come and said: "European and american weathers are linked." That's fine. When he come and said: "Polar ice cap area influences the golfstream path which link european and american weathers" That's better.

[Ivan Seeking]

No nay-sayers to this paper?

I was not sure what to think.

[jcsd]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
No nay-sayers to this paper?

I was not sure what to think.

No the paper's obviously bunk.

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by jcsd
No the paper's obviously bunk.

Why?