- gravitational coupling constant value?

karnten07
Messages
206
Reaction score
0
URGENT- gravitational coupling constant value?

I urgently need to find a value for the gravitational coupling constant since the only on ei have is from wikipedia. I've looked on the partcicle data group but couldn't find it there. Anyone?

Thanks
Karnten07
 
Physics news on Phys.org


I assume this is homework? (Why else would it be urgent?)

If you mean Newton's constant, the PDG most certainly does have it.
 


Vanadium 50 said:
Why else would it be urgent?
Maybe Karnten07 is falling and trying to calculate her impact time.
 


Gravity is not part of standard model. There's no coupling constant for gravity in the same sense as we have for electroweak and strong interactions.
 


hamster143 said:
Gravity is not part of standard model. There's no coupling constant for gravity in the same sense as we have for electroweak and strong interactions.

I don't mean to be pedantic, but I'm not sure if this is true. One can certainly write down a Lagrangian for gravity, the Einstein-Hilbert action,

\mathcal L = \sqrt{-g}(M_{Pl}^2 R)

Further, one could go ahead and quantize this as a theory for a spin-2 graviton, i.e. by writing the graviton as the perturbation on the flat Minkowski metric:

g_{\mu\nu} = \eta_{\mu\nu} + h(x)_{\mu\nu}

Upon expanding the scalar curvature, one finds (schematically)

\mathcal L = M_{Pl}^2(\partial h\partial h + h\partial h \partial h + h^2 \partial h\partial h + \cdots)

One can then canonically normalize and read off coupling constants. In fact, one can do low-energy (weak-field) calculations of gravitons. A very pedagogical example can be found in Zee, chapter VIII.1 where he calculates the gravitational interaction between two photons. (He also does the corresponding classical GR calculation to show that the answers match.)

The theory is non-renormalizable, but one can still perform calculations with the understanding that it is a low-energy effective theory for some quantum theory of gravity.

Cheers,
Joe
 


JosephButler said:
I don't mean to be pedantic, but I'm not sure if this is true.
I think you are right, I wanted to post something like this, but I'm not a gravitation aficionados.

So I had a question. We can define the (e.g.) strong coupling constant g/T as the amplitude to emit a gluon in a sphere of radius T. Could I somehow cheat and define similarly the gravitational coupling constant, hiding under the carpet the (or showing thus the equivalent problem of) definition of graviton ?
 
Toponium is a hadron which is the bound state of a valance top quark and a valance antitop quark. Oversimplified presentations often state that top quarks don't form hadrons, because they decay to bottom quarks extremely rapidly after they are created, leaving no time to form a hadron. And, the vast majority of the time, this is true. But, the lifetime of a top quark is only an average lifetime. Sometimes it decays faster and sometimes it decays slower. In the highly improbable case that...
I'm following this paper by Kitaev on SL(2,R) representations and I'm having a problem in the normalization of the continuous eigenfunctions (eqs. (67)-(70)), which satisfy \langle f_s | f_{s'} \rangle = \int_{0}^{1} \frac{2}{(1-u)^2} f_s(u)^* f_{s'}(u) \, du. \tag{67} The singular contribution of the integral arises at the endpoint u=1 of the integral, and in the limit u \to 1, the function f_s(u) takes on the form f_s(u) \approx a_s (1-u)^{1/2 + i s} + a_s^* (1-u)^{1/2 - i s}. \tag{70}...

Similar threads

Back
Top