In the Context of Sir Arthur Eddington

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Richard Saam - 26 Feb 2007 13:51 GMT

To All:
In the context of Sir Arthur Eddington,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Stanley_Eddington
and more definitive universal constants available at this time,
I would like to know why the following energy correlation
between universal constants dimensionally and numerically holds:

h*H = 2*G*m^2/R

h = Planck constant 6.62607E-27 g cm^2 sec^-1
H = Hubble constant 2.31E-18 sec^-1
G = Newton constant 6.6725985E-8 cm^3 sec^-2 g^-1
m = mass (~110*electron mass) or (~.06*proton mass) 1.00E-25 g
R = radius of proton 8E-15 cm

Quantum theory is represented by 'h'
Universe expansion is represented by 'H'
Gravity is represented by 'G'
The proton which represents a substantial part of the universe mass
is represented by the proton radius 'R'
and an intermediate mass between the proton and electron
is represented by its mass 'm'.

The equation's simplicity is assumed to be indicative of reality.
It looks like something Sir Eddington would have done
in his many attempts to link proton mass to universe mass
with the Eddington constant
which he mistakenly believed to be the integer 137
but conceptually may be near the truth.

Richard D. Saam

Reply to this Message

Joerg Dietrich - 26 Feb 2007 14:47 GMT

> I would like to know why the following energy correlation
> between universal constants dimensionally and numerically holds:

> h*H = 2*G*m^2/R

> m = mass (~110*electron mass) or (~.06*proton mass) 1.00E-25 g

Because here put in an arbitrary factor so that the relation
holds. Why 110*electron mass, why not 111*electron mass?

Why is the proton radius divided by the Hubble constant almost
exactly the speed limit on German country roads?

-- Jo:rg

Reply to this Message

Richard Saam - 26 Feb 2007 15:34 GMT

>>I would like to know why the following energy correlation
>>between universal constants dimensionally and numerically holds:
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Because here put in an arbitrary factor so that the relation
> holds. Why 110*electron mass, why not 111*electron mass?

Could be, but would not change the dimensional relationship
that gravitational attraction at the nuclear level
is related to universe expansion.

I would reverse, the question.
What nuclear particles in this range would fulfill this mass condition.
Maybe we should look.

> Why is the proton radius divided by the Hubble constant almost
> exactly the speed limit on German country roads?
>

that would be Proton radius * Hubble constant
8E-15 cm * 2.31E-18 sec^-1 = 1.85E-32 cm/sec
Too slow for German country roads.

Richard D. Saam

Reply to this Message

Joerg Dietrich - 26 Feb 2007 16:37 GMT

> Could be, but would not change the dimensional relationship
> that gravitational attraction at the nuclear level
> is related to universe expansion.

If you take enough constants you'll always find a way to combine
them such that the units match. That's simple combinatorics, not
science.

> I would reverse, the question.
> What nuclear particles in this range would fulfill this mass condition.
> Maybe we should look.

Given the thickness of the PDG booklet I believe you'll find
something close. Tweak the Hubble constant to your favorite value
within its error range and you're done. Still there is no
scientific content, no theory why this combination of constants
is more meaningful than the next one with matching units.

> > Why is the proton radius divided by the Hubble constant almost
> > exactly the speed limit on German country roads?
> >
> that would be Proton radius * Hubble constant
> 8E-15 cm * 2.31E-18 sec^-1 = 1.85E-32 cm/sec
> Too slow for German country roads.

Well, I in fact divided. Then the numbers match but the units
don't. Reading management documents makes me dizzy ...

-- Jo:rg

Reply to this Message

Richard Saam - 27 Feb 2007 09:53 GMT

>>Could be, but would not change the dimensional relationship
>>that gravitational attraction at the nuclear level
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> them such that the units match. That's simple combinatorics, not
> science.

Its called dimensional analysis.
This is not like combinations of math constants
such as pi, Euler number, natural log, etc.
Yes, science with Perhaps a bit of engineering.
We are not taking any constants, but universal constants with definite
dimensions and observed numerical values.
Any dimensionally correct combination of universal constants results in another
universal constant with comparable integrity
in accordance with least component universal constant significant digit.

For example, take the fine structure constant
that Sir Eddington contemplated: e^2 / h c = 1/137.03599976(50)

It is made of charge(e), Planck (h) and speed of light (c)
and is used with integrity in itself although
composed of three universal constants.

>>I would reverse, the question.
>>What nuclear particles in this range would fulfill this mass condition.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> something close. Tweak the Hubble constant to your favorite value
> within its error range and you're done.

I have looked and have not found one that fits.
Something is missing which prompted my original question.

Still there is no

> scientific content, no theory why this combination of constants
> is more meaningful than the next one with matching units.

We have disagreement here.
By definition, universal constants were derived
by fitting observed data to theory
'c' relativity theory
'h' quantum theory
'H' Hubble universe expansion theory
'G' Newton's gravity theory

In the equation:

h*H = 2*G*m^2/R

h*H is quantum theory h*nu with nu replaced by H
and
2*G*m^2/R is gravitational energy equation.

Richard

Reply to this Message

rloldershaw@amherst.edu - 26 Feb 2007 17:51 GMT

On Feb 26, 11:37 am, Joerg Dietrich <trashcan...@gmx.de> wrote:

> > that would be Proton radius * Hubble constant
> > 8E-15 cm * 2.31E-18 sec^-1 = 1.85E-32 cm/sec
> > Too slow for German country roads.

Isn't the proton radius = 8 x 10^-13 cm (not 8 x 10^-15 cm)?

Rob

Reply to this Message

Richard Saam - 27 Feb 2007 10:04 GMT

> On Feb 26, 11:37 am, Joerg Dietrich <trashcan...@gmx.de> wrote:
>
>>>that would be Proton radius * Hubble constant
>>>8E-15 cm * 2.31E-18 sec^-1 = 1.85E-32 cm/sec
>>>Too slow for German country roads.

should be:
8E-14 cm * 2.31E-18 sec^-1 = 1.85E-31 cm/sec

> Isn't the proton radius = 8 x 10^-13 cm (not 8 x 10^-15 cm)?
>
> Rob

You are correct in pointing out proton radius error: see reference
http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?rp|search_for=proton+radius

0.8750E-15 meter = 8.75E-14 centimeters

My numbers were based on 8E-14 cm and not 8E-15 cm.
It was a typo.

h*H = 2*G*m^2/R = 8E-45 erg
(extremely small energy per proton)

h = Planck constant 6.62607E-27 g cm^2 sec^-1
H = Hubble constant 2.31E-18 sec^-1
G = Newton constant 6.6725985E-8 cm^3 sec^-2 g^-1
m = mass (~110*electron mass) or (~.06*proton mass) 1.00E-25 g
R = radius of proton 8E-14 cm

Sir Eddington had logically deduced 1E79 protons in the Universe.
Maybe he was right within a few orders of magnitude
Multiply by 8E-45 gravitational energy erg/proton
provides 8E+34 erg.

Richard

[Mod. note: the s.a.r. etiquette service would like to point out that
when referring to a knight you may write `Sir Firstname Lastname', or
`Sir Firstname', or (since we don't stand on ceremony here) `Firstname
Lastname' or just `Lastname' -- but that `Sir Lastname' is never
correct. -- mjh]

Reply to this Message

rloldershaw@amherst.edu - 27 Feb 2007 09:54 GMT

On Feb 26, 12:51 pm, "rlolders...@amherst.edu"
<rlolders...@amherst.edu> wrote:

Sigh, I cannot seem to get it right either!

The radius of the proton is estimated at 0.8 x 10^-13 cm.

Or ~ 8 x 10^-14 cm, or roughly 1 x 10^-15 m.

Rob

Reply to this Message

Kent Paul Dolan - 28 Feb 2007 08:19 GMT

> I would like to know why the following energy
> correlation between universal constants
> dimensionally and numerically holds:

> h*H = 2*G*m^2/R

> h = Planck constant 6.62607E-27 g cm^2 sec^-1
> H = Hubble constant 2.31E-18 sec^-1
> G = Newton constant 6.6725985E-8 cm^3 sec^-2 g^-1
> m = mass (~110*electron mass) or (~.06*proton mass) 1.00E-25 g
> R = radius of proton 8E-15 cm

For the same reason Genetic Programming can build
any needed constant out of a handful of starting
ones: pure numerology. Rearrange any sufficiently
large group of constants in arbitrary ways, sooner
or later you'll have a good approximation of an
equation. Meaning? Usually: none at all.

This is especially true when your "constants" have a
lot of wriggle room.

For example, the "radius of the proton" can have any
value from the one you give to infinity, and
probably quite a distance the other way as well. It
is, after all, the point at which the probability
density of the proton's mass distribution falls to
some arbitrarily pre-chosen value, maybe "99% of the
time it is in this sphere" or some such, but other
value choices for the percentage limit can make the
radius value arbitrarily larger or smaller.

Looking for "magical" relationships in large sets of
well respected physical constants is like looking
for signs of the future in chicken entrails. You may
well find lots of signs, if you stir the entrails
sufficiently, but their predictive value or
"meaning" is indescribably low.

FWIW

xanthian.

Reply to this Message

Richard Saam - 28 Feb 2007 14:50 GMT

>>I would like to know why the following energy
>>correlation between universal constants
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> or later you'll have a good approximation of an
> equation. Meaning? Usually: none at all.

There is such a thing as pure numerology and this is not it.
One small comment on Genetic Programming by which I assume that you mean
computerizing the human (or other) genome. - The only thing that makes this
endeavor worthwhile is that we know the answer and it is us.

The above is not pure numerology.
Planck and Newton would roll in the grave to hear that
and Sir Eddington viewed it as an honorable effort.
Nobel prizes have been awarded for
h nu
and
2*G*m^2/R
is apart of any scientific learning experience.
That is why the above relationships are expressed not deviating
from the experimental context in which they were/are measured.

At the same time, it is clear that universal constants
can be arranged in any manner
and therebye express some notion of reality.
It may not be clear what that expression of reality is.
Take for example, the notions of Planck length, mass, energy etc
based on arrangements of c, G, h.
I have doubts whether there is
significant expressable physical (reality) meaning there.

> This is especially true when your "constants" have a
> lot of wriggle room.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> value choices for the percentage limit can make the
> radius value arbitrarily larger or smaller.

We have to have a little common sense here.
What is the probability that the proton exists
at the Bohr radius ~10^-8 cm.
perhaps 1E-999.
I will go with established science.
http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?rp|search_for=proton+radius.

That said, there is a theory on how the proton
could be smeared over larger distances
by Permittivity and Permeability of space other than vacuum.

> Looking for "magical" relationships in large sets of
> well respected physical constants is like looking
> for signs of the future in chicken entrails. You may
> well find lots of signs, if you stir the entrails
> sufficiently, but their predictive value or
> "meaning" is indescribably low.

Again 'h nu' and 'G*m^2/R' are not "magical" relationships.
If we throw them out, what do we work with.

The current 'scientific' mode seems to throw out
all of the universal constants
in the quest for physical reality expression.
That is what I call pure numerology.
There surely are some aesthetic qualities
to this pure numerology approach
but perhaps not physical reality expression.

As far as preditive value of the above correlations,
I would look for a particle at 1.00E-25 g or 56 Mev/c^2.
It probably will not be discovered in any particle accelerator
or under ground detector. It may be found in outer space.

http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0506359
Figure 3 EGRET
provides some indication of an unexplained peak
at 56 Mev/c^2 (56,000 kev/c^2).

There may be an indication if this peak is real
with GLAST launch later this year
with its better X-ray detector instrumentation.

Richard

Reply to this Message

Space Forum / Astronomy / February 2007

In the Context of Sir Arthur Eddington