What is the More Accurate Value for G?

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

The newly measured value for the gravitational constant G is 6.67387(0.00027)×10^–11 m^3 kg^–1 s^–2, which is 5 parts in 10^5 smaller than previously published values. This measurement was achieved by utilizing large masses made of stainless steel and copper, with results showing good agreement between the two materials. The findings further constrain variations in G related to nucleon type, enhancing the precision of gravitational measurements.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of gravitational physics
  • Familiarity with measurement techniques in experimental physics
  • Knowledge of mass composition effects on gravitational measurements
  • Basic grasp of scientific notation and uncertainty in measurements
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of the new value of G on gravitational theories
  • Explore measurement techniques used in determining fundamental constants
  • Investigate the effects of mass composition on gravitational constant measurements
  • Learn about the historical context and evolution of the gravitational constant
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, researchers in gravitational studies, and students interested in experimental physics and fundamental constants will benefit from this discussion.

selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
Messages
6,843
Reaction score
11
They have just measured a better value for G, the granviational constant.

Announcement of New Value

"After combining all of the measurements we get a value of G = 6.673 87(0.000 27)×10^–11 m^3 kg^–1 s^–2. This new value is 5 parts in 10^5 smaller than our previous published values. "
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Thanks SelfAdjoint.
from the same source: The new measurements have used both stainless steel and copper large masses. The values of G for the two sets of masses are in good agreement.
Further constraining differences in G due to nucleon type (etc). :smile:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
4K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K