Is G's Value Changing? Investigate the Controversy!

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter TheAntiRelative
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Value
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the recent controversy regarding the gravitational constant G, particularly focusing on new measurements that suggest potential variations in its value. Participants explore the implications of these findings on theoretical and empirical frameworks within physics, as well as the historical challenges associated with accurately measuring G.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that recent measurements from various research teams have produced conflicting values for G, with discrepancies of up to 0.7% reported.
  • One participant argues that G, like other empirical constants, is a human attempt to quantify a quantity that may not have intrinsic significance, suggesting that a 1% accuracy is sufficient for macro-scale calculations.
  • Another participant emphasizes that while G is difficult to measure, this does not undermine the validity of existing theories, framing the issue as a well-known challenge rather than a scandal.
  • Concerns are raised about the potential impact of varying values of G on accepted astronomical measurements, despite the formulas remaining unchanged.
  • A later reply introduces cosmological constraints on the variation of G, referencing WMAP data to suggest that variations over time may be more tightly constrained than those observed in solar system experiments.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of the new measurements of G, with some emphasizing the historical difficulty in measuring the constant and others questioning the potential effects on astronomical calculations. No consensus is reached regarding the significance of these variations.

Contextual Notes

Limitations in the discussion include the unresolved nature of the measurements and the dependence on the definitions of G. The implications of the varying values on theoretical frameworks remain uncertain.

TheAntiRelative
Messages
133
Reaction score
0
Problem with G??

This tickled my fancy... anyone else heard anything like this before??

http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/gconst.html

Recently the value of G has been called into question by new measurements from respected research teams in Germany, New Zealand, and Russia. The new values disagree wildly. For example, a team from the German Institute of Standards led by W. Michaelis obtained a value for G that is 0.6% larger than the accepted value; a group from the University of Wuppertal in Germany led by Hinrich Meyer found a value that is 0.06% lower, and Mark Fitzgerald and collaborators at Measurement Standards Laboratory of New Zealand measured a value that is 0.1% lower. The Russian group found a curious space and time variation of G of up to 0.7% The collection of these new results suggests that the uncertainty in G could be much larger than originally thought. This controversy has spurred several efforts to make a more reliable measurement of G.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Is this just really new or just too far out there to comment on?
 
G...

Just like any empirical constant (like 'little' g), G is the attempt of humans to fit a value to a quantity that has no real significance. G is just the empirical constant Newton needed to describe the effects of gravity. On a macro scale, knowing a 'constant' to within 1% is pretty damn good. Since Newton's equation for gravity is a macro scale equation, that's fine for me.

For example, when calculating the gravitational attraction between Sol and Earth, the masses of the bodies is less well known than 1%, so the error added in by G is marginal at best.
 
Most of the constants of nature are known to much better precision than G, it has been notoriously difficult to measure accurately. It's not really a scandal, just a well-known difficulty. It doesn't affect the truth or falsity of any theories.
 
Wouldn't it effect many of our accepted astronomical measurements though? I realize the formulas remain unchanged but the output seems like it might be significantly different.
 
Cosmological constraints on variation of G over time are much tighter than those established based on solar system experiments. Here is an example based on WMAP data:
"WMAP constraints on scalar-tensor cosmology and the variation of the gravitational constant"
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0311274
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
5K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 83 ·
3
Replies
83
Views
16K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
6K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K