Connection of Newtonian Constant of Gravitation G and Plank Constant h

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the connection between the Newtonian constant of gravitation (G) and the Planck constant (h), exploring potential relationships between gravitation and electrodynamics. Participants examine mathematical formulations and definitions related to these constants, as well as the implications of such connections for fundamental physics.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a paper claiming a mathematical relationship between G and other fundamental constants, suggesting that G incorporates the Planck constant and can be derived from a specific set of constants.
  • Another participant mentions the Planck length as a connection, defined as sqrt(G*h/2pi*c), but this is challenged as being merely a definition rather than a true connection.
  • There is a dispute over the definition of the Planck length, with one participant asserting it is derived from fundamental constants, while another insists that it is not a fundamental constant itself.
  • Concerns are raised about the accuracy of references to the Planck length in various texts, including a specific book and Wikipedia, with differing opinions on their correctness.
  • A participant expresses skepticism about the validity of the paper discussed, labeling it as "bunk," prompting questions about the reasoning behind this dismissal.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the validity of the paper or the nature of the connections between G and h. Disagreement exists regarding the definitions and implications of the Planck length and its relationship to fundamental constants.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various sources and definitions, indicating potential limitations in understanding due to differing interpretations of fundamental constants and their derived units. The discussion highlights the complexity and nuance in the relationships between these constants.

Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
8,252
Reaction score
2,664
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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
i only know of one connection (it doesn't mean this is the only one which exists) and it's:
planck length which is sqrt(G*h/2pi*c).
 
Originally posted by loop quantum gravity
i only know of one connection (it doesn't 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 definition of the Planck length (it should be c3), the Planck length is derived from these fundamental constants.
 
Originally posted by jcsd
That's not a connection, that's the definition 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.
 
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).
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by Imagine
Bonjour,
Is Wikipedia wrong?

wikipedia looks perfectly corect to me. I know Wikipedia is open source, but in general it's a very good source of information.
 
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
No nay-sayers to this paper?

I was not sure what to think.
 
  • #11
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
No nay-sayers to this paper?

I was not sure what to think.

No the paper's obviously bunk.
 
  • #12
Originally posted by jcsd
No the paper's obviously bunk.

Why?
 

Similar threads

Graduate What is the approximate pressure at the center of a cool Earth with no gravity?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Introductory Physics - Finding "little g"
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
RIP Carl H Brans (1935 - 2026), general relativity
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
715
Graduate The Calculated Value of the Fine Structure Constant From Gravitational Potential
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
10K
Graduate Calculate Gravitational Effects without Time, Acceleration or Velocity
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Graduate Peebles Equation for fractional electron density
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Graduate Weyl tensor and coordinate acceleration
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
Graduate MOND Theory Primer: Stacy McGaugh's Research Program Explored
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
Graduate The Exceptional Jordan Algebra in physics
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
Graduate Historical clarification of the Planck formula of blackbody radiation
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K