Quantum gravity with constants

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a proposed calculation that attempts to relate quantum effects of gravity to classical gravitational acceleration using constants such as the speed of light, Planck's constant, and the mass of the electron. The scope includes theoretical exploration of quantum gravity and its potential relationship to classical mechanics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a calculation linking quantum effects of gravity to classical gravitational acceleration, using various constants and yielding results that match classical predictions.
  • Another participant humorously suggests that the original poster's work might be at risk of being copied.
  • A different participant proposes that rewriting the calculations with clearer symbols and performing cancellations might provide insight into the results.
  • The original poster responds that such an exercise has been conducted, yielding results that reinforce classical acceleration, raising questions about the significance of this outcome.
  • The original poster questions whether quantum gravity could effectively equate to classical Newtonian gravity multiplied by a factor of one, inviting further discussion on the implications of this idea.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of the calculations presented. While some engage with the technical aspects, others focus on the potential for misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the results. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the significance of the findings and their implications for quantum gravity.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes assumptions about the relationships between quantum mechanics and classical gravity, as well as the interpretation of results that yield classical values. There are unresolved questions about the nature of quantum gravity and its potential equivalence to classical theories.

goodsci
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I would like to hear comments from anyone concerning the below. Honest and critical feedback from qualified individuals is most welcome. Thanks for your reviews!

This simple calculation bases the quantum effects of gravity on the electromagnetic frequency across ½ the Compton wavelength of the electron.

2.998 x 10^8 ms-1
½ (2.4263 x 10^-12 m) = 2.471 x 10^20 s-1

This is multiplied by Planck’s constant to arrive at energy in joules.

(2.471 x 10^20 s-1) (6.626 x 10^-34 kgm2s-1) = 16.373 x 10^-14 kgm2s-2

This value is multiplied by the square of the radius of a planet like Earth and the product divided into Planck mass.

2.1767 x 10^-8 kg
(16.373 x 10^-14 kgm2s-2) (6.378 x 10^6 m)2 = .003268 x 10^-6 m-4s2

In the meantime, the number of Planck lengths along a geometric line across the Schwartzchild radius of the planet is determined. First, the Schwartzchild radius:

2(6.673 x 10^-11 m3kg-1s-2) (5.974 x 10^24 kg)
SRearth = (2.998 x 10^8 ms-1)2 = 8.87 x 10^-3 m

The Schwartzchild radius is divided by Planck length to get the total number of lengths along the planet radius.

8.87 x 10^-3 m
1.616 x 10^-35 m = 5.489 x 10^32

This value is energized in joules by multiplying by the energy equivalent of the electron mass.

(5.489 x 10^32) (8.187 x 10^-14 kgm2s-2) = 44.938 x 10^18 kgm2s-2

This value is multiplied by that arrived at above in the first part.

(.003268 x 10^-6 m-4s2) (44.938 x 10^18 kgm2s-2) = 1.469 x 10^11 kgm-2

This value multiplied by G predicts the standard acceleration of gravity at 6,378,000 radial meters and a mass of 5.974 x 10^24 kg.

(6.673 x 10^-11 m3kg-1s-2) (1.469 x 10^11 kgm-2) = 9.8 ms-2

As an additional for instance, it accurately predicts g on Venus to be
8.8 ms-2 at a radius of 6,052,000 meters and mass of 4.869 x 10^24 kg. Actually, the data of any planet plugged into the formula above yields answers at 100% the accuracy rate of the classical g = Gm/r2.

(this is copyrighted material) © March 2004
 
Physics news on Phys.org
wow, someone might steal it!
 
Perhaps if you wrote out the calculation, using different symbols for things like the speed of light, the mass of the electron, etc and then did some 'cancellation of terms', you might get some insight into why the numbers come out as they do.
 
Thank you for the response! Yes, this has been done and the results are lackluster, at least on the surface. Such an exercise produces classical acceleration times 1 or g = Gm/r2 x 1.
Does this negate any significance to you?
Is a multiplication by 1 to be expected?
In abstract terms, could/should quantum gravity equal or hold a value of 1 or very nearly 1?
If Newtonian gravity “works” in the universe, will quantum gravity, when it is discovered, turn out to be classical Newtonian times the mathematical identifier “1” ?
(Your answers are very important to me and will be carefully considered. Thanks for any additional input.)
 

Similar threads

Undergrad What part of physics describes what happens just outside of an electron?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Graduate The uncertainty principle in quantum gravity
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
High School What is the physical significance of mass-time-length equivalences in physics?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Undergrad How Does the Balloon Analogy Explain the Expansion of the Universe?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Finding r of a Jovian-synchronous orbit and escape velocity
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Gravitational Field Strength at the equator and poles
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
5K
Find the attractive force of gravity between two objects
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Calculate magnetic dipole of other planets relative to the Earth
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Determine the mass of the planet using Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Weight of person on Earth, and on a different planet's surface?
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K