- Home
- Supporting Articles
- Physics
- Identifying the Gravitational Constant
Identifying the Gravitational Constant
- By David John Gow
- Published 03/10/2005
- Physics
-
Rating:
David John Gow
My interests in physics stems from a long held and much wider interest in philosophy and the way we interpret our surrounding universe, and as such I am interested in several areas of research, although more recently I have begun to focus upon philosophies of psychology and using philosophical models to solve problems within physics. I am convinced that the problems of being unable to reconcile gravity with the other three fundamental forces is due to a misinterpretation of the nature of space, energy and matter and the relationships that exist between them, and that the reason why mathematics breaks down at the quantum level during the early universe is a result of this misinterpretation. My prime interest is in trying to look at what causes gravity by analysing the use of the Gravitational constant (G) in Newtonian equations.
More recently, I have devised the concept that String Theorists are actually theorising about the human mind, rather than the environments which the mind subjectively observes. String Theory is, therefore, in my opinion just another form of natural philosophy which should be given no scientific creedence until it can be used to give credible predictions in experiments.
View all articles by David John Gow
The question now is, how does a vacuum exert a force on a mass carrying body? What I would like to propose here is that the vacuum of space is a "negative energy plenum", where each cubic meter of space can accommodate a maximum amount of energy of 8.168-06J, termed the Constant of Accommodation (A). This essentially means that the vacuum of space has a vacuum energy density (AV) of -8.168-06J/m3, and that space is inclined to be accommodated with the energy held within the matter in order to cancel out these energies and give a zero value. This inclination manifests itself as a partial force (measured in N(1/2)) determined by the constant of proportionality AF.
The important point to note here is that this approach requires that mass carrying bodies do not occupy space, but rather exist within their own spatially extended dimensions. This is something that Einstein thought significant when he stated in Relativity:
"Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way, the concept of empty space loses its meaning" [1]
In response to this I would say that empty space is the volume of space that was previously occupied by energy but which, due to the propagation of matter, has now been vacated. From this, we should deduce that there is a corresponding amount of energy (A) in the observable universe for every cubic meter of space (or conversely, every cubic meter of space can only accommodate 8.168-06J of energy (A), which in turn suggests a vacuum energy density (AV) of -8.168-06J/m3. If this is true, then we should be able to calculate a rough estimate of the Critical Mass Density (CMD) simply by using the constant A (derived form the gravitational constant), and the approximate volume of the universe.
According to WMAP[2], the radius of the observable universe is 13.7 billion light years, giving an approximate radius of 1.29612007526m. Given that the universe is uniform in all directions, an accurate way to calculate its volume would be to calculate the volume of a sphere with radius Ru:
Vu = (4/3Ï€) x Ru3
Vu = 4.188790205 x Ru3 (where Ru = 1.29612007526 m)
Vu = 4.188790205 x (1.29612007526m)3 = 9.12061914678 m3
From here, two equations are needed to find the mass of the universe. The first shows the equation for finding the energy in the universe (Eu), while the second converts the units of measurement from joules to kilograms, and thus from energy into matter.
Eu = 9.12061914678 m3 x 8.168843247-06J/m3
Eu = 7.45049081273J
Mu = 7.45049081273J / 8.98755178716m/s
Mu = 8.2897890256kg
This calculation assumes that all energy within the universe exists in mass form, which is clearly not the case, but the value 8.2897890256kg does give a good indication of the absolute maximum amount of matter in our 13.7 billion year old observable universe. From this information, it should also be possible to ascertain the critical density of the universe. If we accept that the constant of accommodation, A, sets the energy density of the universe at 8.168843247-06J/m3 then the calculation for the critical density of the universe should be:
A/C2 = 8.168843247-06J/m3 / 8.98755178716m/s = 9.089063897-23kg/m3
or
9.086063897-28g/cm3
This value is slightly lower that the 1 x 10-29g/cm3 that seems to be the general consensus for the value of the critical mass density (CMD) of the universe. The most important point to take from this rudimentary calculation is that G, A, AV and the CMD of the universe are inextricably linked. The value given for the CMD of 9.086063897-28g/cm3 should also be viewed as a maximum value, given the fact that it is based upon the notion of all the energy in the universe existing in matter form.
In practice, the only way to measure the values of A, AF, AV and the critical density is with more accurate measurements of G, but with the knowledge of what G actually is (G is the square of the constant of proportionality of the force of the vacuum, AF), the accommodation constants may provide, within a classical framework, a deeper understanding when it comes to grand unified theories and theories of quantum gravity.
Spread The Word
Attachments
6 Responses to "Identifying the Gravitational Constant"
|
said this on 27 May 2006 11:06:44 AM EST
Hmmm.... interesting article.
|
Author/Admin)|
said this on 04 May 2008 2:54:18 PM EST
Well you did leave out the 1/distance squared factor, but let's ignore that for the moment. Below assume it is included.
I see one issue with your proposal. Let's look at field theory. Let's call fields, Z and forces, F. Also a charge like electric charge would be q while the generic concept of charge is (like mass is gravitational charge) would be Q. Also the generic proportionality constant is K. Let's look at the electric field and forces. The electric field E = kq or Z_electric = K_electric * Q_electric. The force in electromagnetism is simply a force F. There is no separate quantity. Forces from different fields add up using third grade math. I use underscores for subscripts. So the force by electromagnetism is F = Eq = kq_1q_2 or F = Z_e q = K_e q_1q_2 The same thing goes for gravity. The gravity charge is mass. The force of gravity is F = Z_g * Q_g = K_g * m_1 * m_2. The gravity field is Z_g = K_g * m. What you're talking about is akin to a field multiplied with a field. It's not exactly that, so you might be onto something. Normally what it looks like you are suggesting wouldn't work. Fields don't multiply, they add. But what you are talking about is not a field. You could call it the Wake of a charge or the Echo. It's not clear how this thing would behave. It would seem that in some ways it would add up and in some ways it would multiply. Even if it comes to nothing, it would in fact be a great mathematical tool. Also the gravitational constant is the Planck length cubed divided by the quantity of the Planck mass times the Planck time squared. |
|
said this on 27 Aug 2008 9:55:24 AM EST
Dihydrogen Monoxide,
Thanks for you comments. This theory has completely messed with my head, and as such I haven't really made any progress. Coupled with the fact that my mathematical skills are pretty basic, I am thinking about revisiting this now that (at last!) someone seems to understand where I am coming from. If you have an email address I would like to send you the extended article (which is still wrong, but I think gives a better philosophical underpinning to how I am approaching teh problem). Any help with maths and dimensional analysis would be greatly appreciated. |
|
said this on 04 May 2008 2:59:44 PM EST
Incidentally, I love the Accomodation unit. That is something that has occured to me lately.
Excellent. In a sense one could say that forces arise from the fact that space can only contain so much energy after which it gets squeezed out and deflected. I have a cellular automata model of your idea by the way. I just can't get the cellular automata to form circles only rectangular arrangements. I wonder how that could be done. |
|
said this on 04 May 2008 3:25:31 PM EST
You have to find out what the square root of a meter is in order to use the square root of a newton.
It could be something revolutionary but you have to make it make sense. |
|
said this on 27 May 2008 2:52:06 AM EST
I like the way you build your theories, in fact you are on the right track. I've also done the same thing, i have tried to modify general relativity and found out that from it the theory of everything can be build without considering the other strong and weak forces of nature. The gravitational constant as you say ineed varies and so is the speed of light. Therefore there is aneed for a new theory that must explain gravity depending on the strength of the gravitational field but not on it's mass or distance from one object to another. http://jabarule.livejournal.com
|