Newton's Constant Help: Kainaan's Question

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kainaan
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Constant Newtons
AI Thread Summary
Kainaan, a 14-year-old physics enthusiast, seeks clarification on Newton's constant (G) and its significance in the context of the Schwarzschild radius. G is a measure of gravitational strength, and while it is a constant in our universe, discussions can explore hypothetical scenarios where G has different values in alternate universes. In such imagined universes, a larger G would result in stronger gravity, while a smaller G would lead to weaker gravity. The conversation emphasizes understanding G's role in theoretical physics and its implications for the behavior of matter and energy. Overall, the discussion successfully clarifies Kainaan's initial confusion about the nature of Newton's constant.
Kainaan
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Hello my name is Kainaan i just joined this forum, I am 14 and i love every related to physics, i study quantum hysics and general relativity. I have a question about Newtons constant, i have been reading on the Schwarzschild radius and came across the equation for it, in the eqaution it has the variable G which stands for Newtons constant, i understand all of the other stuff in the equation and i know what Newtons constant is (6.7 x 10 to the -11), but i don't understand what it means like what it is.

if you could please explain it to me that would be awesome, i hope to talk to you all about other physics topics in the near future.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Welcome to Physics Forums!

In some sense, G is a measure of the strength of gravity. If G were larger, gravity would be stronger; if G were smaller, gravity would be weaker.
 
but isn't G a constant and therefor always the same, so i can not be larger or smaller its just always the same thing.
 
Last edited:
Kainaan said:
but isn't G a constant and therefor always the same, so i can not be larger or smaller its just always the same thing.
Yeah, but you can imagine a different universe where the constant takes a different value, and figure out how the behavior of matter and energy would be different in that universe. Although, there are problems with talking about changes to values of non-dimensionless constants like G or the speed of light...see the discussion here, and see here for a list of dimensionless constants (all particle masses can be made dimensionless by dividing by the Planck mass).
 
Kainaan said:
but isn't G a constant and therefor always the same, so i can not be larger or smaller its just always the same thing.

Right. The idea is to imagine universes that have different values of G than the value of G that we measure in reality.

If in an imaginary universe G is larger than what we really measure, gravity in the imagined universe would be stronger that it is in our universe; if in an imaginary universe G is smaller than what we really measure, gravity in the imagined universe would be weaker that it is in our universe.

Edit: JesseM was faster.
 
ok now i understand thanks for the help
 

Thread '1:1 versus 2:1 Mechanical Advantage debate'

The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
View full post »

Thread 'Newton's first law?'

Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
View full post »
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'

Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'

Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
View full post »

Similar threads

Newton's law of cooling - formula for constant k
Replies
4
Views
4K
Is true force just "accepted" if it satisfies Newton law?
Replies
6
Views
2K
Optimization with Newton's method
Replies
3
Views
2K
I Using reference frames for derivation of Lagrangian
Replies
25
Views
2K
Why is a Newton of force .225 pounds?
Replies
4
Views
2K
B General Relativity and Universal Gravitational Constant
Replies
27
Views
2K
My Physics Professor says Newton's laws are wrong?
Replies
27
Views
8K
Is Newton's Equation for Gravity Accurate for All Situations?
Replies
7
Views
2K
Newton's laws and their implications on plain old geometry
Replies
7
Views
2K
Need to find the spring constant to achieve Max Velocity
Replies
6
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top