Universal Constants

go to the following link for that info
go to the following link for that info


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_constant

Actually, at a minimum there are 15 Fundamental Physical Constants, though as 8 of those derive from Planck's Constant and 2 from Newton's Constant of Gravitation, I suppose one might say - if somewhat ignorantly and certainly imprecisely - the 6 Fundamental Constants would be:

1. The Characteristic Impedance of vacuum
   
2. The Electric Constant
   
3. The Magnetic Constant
   
4. The Newtonian Constant of Gravitation
   
5. The Planck Constant
   
6. The Speed of Light in Vacuum

The National Institute of Standards and Technology Reference on Constants, Units and Uncertainty: Fundamental Physical Constants

Timberlandko,

You seem to have a good understanding of this; perhaps you could shed some light on a related question of mine.

The form of Coulomb's Law is identical to that of Newton's Law of Gravitation.

Thus, I immediately look for some unity between the Coulomb constant and the Gravitational constant.

But the Coulomb constant (k_e) is just a restatement of the permittivity of free space (e_0),

k_e = 1/ (4 Pi e_0)

and then the permittivity of free space is just a restatement of the permeability of free space (u_0),

e_o = 1/(c^2 u_o)

Due to the inherent mathematical simplicity of forces being macrocosmic realizations of much smaller fundamental interactions, and the similar form between the equations I am curious what relationship the Gravitational constant has to the permittivity / permeability of free space.

I agree that "God does not play dice," and belief in that statement implies that all FUNDAMENTAL constants must be UNIQUE irrational numbers, which makes me curious why there is a relationship to 4 Pi...it implies that there must be something having to do with circular motion, but what?

Both the Coulomb Constant and the Gravitational Constant are inverse square laws, each of infinite range and each dependent upon the product of their respective interacting sources/forces. Their apparent symmetry essentially is nothing more than coincidence, a happenstance of math.

Interestingly, Einstein chased more or less the same conjectural White Rabbit I infer you're after, only to be Aliced through seeking to found his attempt to demonstrate the unification of the Fundamental Forces around the Electromagnetic Force and Gravity; Electroweak Unification, first predicted in the late 1970s then - thanks to high-energy particle accellerator technology - demonstrated in the early 1980s, not only was not to be anticipated by the available theoretical physics of Einstein's time, it would have been counterintuitive. Current thinking is that the seeming commonality of Gravity and the Electromagnetic Force is due to the apparent fact each involves exchange entities (particles) of zero mass, as opposed to any otherwise inherent symmetry.

Indeed the game isn't dice, its Marbles


Oh, and
Thanks, but don't let let appearances fool ya none - look where that got Einstein :wink:

timberlandko,

Well, not really...the graviton is only theorized to exist, and proof of it's existence would actually disprove Einstein's theory of General Relativity, which seems to be the more popular thoery at the moment.

Anyway, it seems you missed my question...the fact is that 4 Pi cannot just be magically put into a denominator for no reason, there has to be a physical phenoma dealing with circles that causes it to be there.

Secondly, we would expect each force to have an apparently unique constant for it's strength, but if the photons that mediate the electromagnetic force are related to the permittivity of free space, then so should any other particle boson-mediated force...

I think mebbe we're going right past one another here - 4 Pi doesn't "magically pop up"; its an inherent property - geometrically so - of the inverse square function as applied to any point-source actor. Also, you appear siezed of the idea that something with the properties of the photon is the only possible exchange particle, whereas there are in fact others with distinct properties and relationships of their own. As to the theoretical status of the gravitron, admittedly it has not been observed, but strong and steadily growing implication for its existence is at hand; the math works, its a very likely supect, one with neither substantive competition nor any observed contraindication.


Oh, and General Relativity remains as unthreatened by the gravitron as it is from any other principal deriving from quantum physics and hyper physics, IMO ... I just don't see the conflict in context of scale and application. Einstien didn't replace Newton, he merely expanded on him, as do today's theoretical physicists expand on Einstein.

Yes, I understand that this must be the case, but I just don't see how this can be derived geometrically...and until I see that derivation, it remains a magical mystery to me.



No, I only referred to the photon as being the gauge boson for the electromagnetic force -- which it is. Each fundamental force has it's own boson which has different properties. The graviton, for example, is a different boson. What bothers me is that all of them must travel/interact through space, so if the permeability of free space effects one type of boson, it should affect all bosons.



For the record, I personally believe the graviton theory. However, at this point, that puts me in the minority. Also, the math does not work currently. There is the renormalization problem. The math for GR does work...but it is a simplified theory, and if the math for the gravitron were able to be verified, all the evidence for GR would instantly be touted as equal evidence for the graviton because it would all fit.



We now refer to Newtonian physics as convenient and useful shortcuts to getting the right answer, based on fundamentally incorrect simplifications. Likewise, if we were able to prove the existence of the graviton, scientists would most likely continue to use the math of general relativity as a shortcut to solving the real math from a particle perspective, but it would change our fundamental perception of space time -- right now, everyone is getting off on thinking about mass as causing curvature of space...if we find the graviton, it is bye-bye to the idea of curved spacetime, except for in the context of expansion.

Tonight I was looking over the equations again and noticed some truly stunning relationships. I have figured out why the coulomb force depends on 4Pi, why gravity does not, and also why both forces follow an inverse square relationship. I wish I could stay up and keep working on this but, alas, I'm going out flying early tommorrow morning

although all sides of this on going debate are truely inquisitive i must state that

einsteins theory is based upon a macroscale of mathematics when the easiest answer is usually best

as well gravity is caused from mass which in turn is matter

we have proven anti matter does exist therefore does it have a gravitational force


and what is your real question again

basics simplify the question and the answer takes a fraction of the time to answer

Correction,

Gravity is the curvature of spacetime and the warping is caused by either matter or energy which are equivalent.

Anti-matter warps spacetime.

correction

matter is the polar opposite of anti matter which keeps the universe in balance