Conjurer Posted September 21, 2019 Posted September 21, 2019 I am sure everyone will think I am crazy for saying this, but I doubt it will change everyone's opinion since I am new and have more down-votes. I will just go on and say it. I remembered the Planck Time and Planck Length being 10^-33 sec and 10^-34 cm. Checking the wiki: It says the Planck Time was 10^-44 sec, and the Length is currently 10^-35 m, which is also 10^34 cm. When I was looking at the wiki a couple of weeks ago, the Planck Length was in the mid negative 40 decimal places. Then the Planck Time was only off by only one decimal place. Either someone is screwing around with the wiki here, or the Planck Length and Time doesn't seem to remain constant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time It makes me wonder if this figure could somehow be tied to the number of alternate universes there are, and this number is changing, altering the values of these constants through time...
swansont Posted September 21, 2019 Posted September 21, 2019 24 minutes ago, Conjurer said: I am sure everyone will think I am crazy for saying this, but I doubt it will change everyone's opinion since I am new and have more down-votes. I will just go on and say it. I remembered the Planck Time and Planck Length being 10^-33 sec and 10^-34 cm. Checking the wiki: It says the Planck Time was 10^-44 sec, and the Length is currently 10^-35 m, which is also 10^34 cm. When I was looking at the wiki a couple of weeks ago, the Planck Length was in the mid negative 40 decimal places. Then the Planck Time was only off by only one decimal place. Either someone is screwing around with the wiki here, or the Planck Length and Time doesn't seem to remain constant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time It makes me wonder if this figure could somehow be tied to the number of alternate universes there are, and this number is changing, altering the values of these constants through time... If one had a decent grasp of physics, one could simply derive the values. Unless you are claiming G, h or c have changed, which would indeed be crazy, this is baseless. Not having a decent grasp of physics is why you get the down-votes, and why you will convince nobody.
Strange Posted September 21, 2019 Posted September 21, 2019 30 minutes ago, Conjurer said: Either someone is screwing around with the wiki here, or the Planck Length and Time doesn't seem to remain constant. Well, you could check other sources (such as the sources referenced by Wikipedia). For example, http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/P/Planck+Units seems to be consistent with the values you quote. Maybe someone had the wrong values in Wikipedia for a while (you could check the edit history) or, quite possibly, your memory is incorrect. (Human memory is notoriously unreliable and easy to change.) 30 minutes ago, Conjurer said: It makes me wonder if this figure could somehow be tied to the number of alternate universes there are, and this number is changing, altering the values of these constants through time... If you are thinking of something like the "Mandela effect" then this is, pretty obviously, also down to the plasticity of human memory. (If you want to discuss this further, start a new thread. It is off topic here.)
Conjurer Posted September 21, 2019 Author Posted September 21, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, swansont said: If one had a decent grasp of physics, one could simply derive the values. Unless you are claiming G, h or c have changed, which would indeed be crazy, this is baseless. Right? Wouldn't it be absolutely crazy? Just like I mentioned? If something was changing there, I would vote for the gravitational constant of the universe. It could be possible that dark energy is due to the number of alternate universes, and maybe it could have measurable affect here on Earth counteracting gravity. I admit, science has not advanced far enough to make a real conclusion about it. We could only hypothesis about the cause. The only reason the gravitational constant of the universe is the value that it is comes from what number you would need to multiply two masses together, divided by the radius squared to get the correct amount of force. I believed this was done by Newton, but the wiki now claims it was done by C. V. Boys. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant 1 hour ago, swansont said: Not having a decent grasp of physics is why you get the down-votes, and why you will convince nobody. I already know I will convince nobody of this now. That is not the reason I stated it. 1 hour ago, Strange said: If you are thinking of something like the "Mandela effect" then this is, pretty obviously, also down to the plasticity of human memory. (If you want to discuss this further, start a new thread. It is off topic here.) I have given up on trying to memorize those values to the new values, because anytime I go back to them, everyone always believes they are a different value. I just mentioned it, because I have experienced this problem. Then someone just happened to make a thread wondering what the historic values were. Then they are not what I originally remember them to be, and they are not even what people tried to correct me to believe they were from before even. One day, people might look back on this thread and wonder why you two never corrected me to say that I did not actually post what they currently were in the wiki. Then I will be wrong about being able to do that as well. I actually discovered the Mandela Effect due to this, and the fact that Galileo was no longer killed for his blasphemy against religions doctrine that the Earth, not the sun, was at the center of the solar system. Then he was only imprisoned instead, under house arrest. 1 hour ago, swansont said: If one had a decent grasp of physics, one could simply derive the values. Something just occurred to me. I really have no idea how the gravitational constant of the universe even comes into the calculation, or why you would choose to divide by c^5 in the calculation for the Planck Time and c^3 for the Planck Length. Does that even give you the correct units for length and time? Isn't the gravitational constant of the universe unit-less? Edited September 21, 2019 by Conjurer -1
uncool Posted September 21, 2019 Posted September 21, 2019 1 hour ago, Conjurer said: Does that even give you the correct units for length and time? Isn't the gravitational constant of the universe unit-less? ...no? The gravitational constant is defined by Newton's law of gravitation, F = G*m1*m2/r^2. Therefore, G = F*r^2/(m1*m2), so the units of G must be Force*distance^2/mass^2. Force = mass*acceleration = mass*distance/time^2, so G has units of distance^3/(mass*time^2).
Conjurer Posted September 21, 2019 Author Posted September 21, 2019 (edited) 8 minutes ago, uncool said: ...no? The gravitational constant is defined by Newton's law of gravitation, F = G*m1*m2/r^2. Therefore, G = F*r^2/(m1*m2), so the units of G must be Force*distance^2/mass^2. Force = mass*acceleration = mass*distance/time^2, so G has units of distance^3/(mass*time^2). I guess it has been known that This is a thing that has been established? Have you ever heard about the mystery surrounding G, and how no one knows what it could represent? In other words, is this what it is defined as? Like, on a fundamental basis? Or, all these dumb questions? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant Edited September 21, 2019 by Conjurer
Strange Posted September 21, 2019 Posted September 21, 2019 38 minutes ago, Conjurer said: This is a thing that has been established? Of course it is. You have just been shown the reason. 38 minutes ago, Conjurer said: Have you ever heard about the mystery surrounding G, and how no one knows what it could represent? It represents the constant of proportionality between force and the mass and distance. It has the value it does because we use arbitrary man-made units of measurement. I'm not sure what "mystery" you think there is.
Conjurer Posted September 21, 2019 Author Posted September 21, 2019 1 minute ago, Strange said: I'm not sure what "mystery" you think there is. I was wondering if there were any hidden variables that could describe it, but apparently not. It is just the Planck Length cubed over the Planck Mass times the Planck Time squared. All of which should be constants, so I guess that proves that the gravitational constant should remain constant.
Strange Posted September 21, 2019 Posted September 21, 2019 3 minutes ago, Conjurer said: I was wondering if there were any hidden variables that could describe it, but apparently not. It is just the Planck Length cubed over the Planck Mass times the Planck Time squared. All of which should be constants, so I guess that proves that the gravitational constant should remain constant. And, by definition, if you calculate the value in Planck units it is 1.
Conjurer Posted September 21, 2019 Author Posted September 21, 2019 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Strange said: And, by definition, if you calculate the value in Planck units it is 1. I was wondering if that is the reason why it could be so difficult to show the affects of quantum gravity, because anything multiplied by 1 is itself and everything in quantum mechanics is quantized. How would you even know if a G should show up or not in any of the equations? Edited September 21, 2019 by Conjurer
swansont Posted September 21, 2019 Posted September 21, 2019 2 hours ago, Conjurer said: Right? Wouldn't it be absolutely crazy? Just like I mentioned? It would be, but those values have been the same for a long while. 2 hours ago, Conjurer said: If something was changing there, I would vote for the gravitational constant of the universe. It could be possible that dark energy is due to the number of alternate universes, and maybe it could have measurable affect here on Earth counteracting gravity. I admit, science has not advanced far enough to make a real conclusion about it. We could only hypothesis about the cause. But it’s not changing. 2 hours ago, Conjurer said: The only reason the gravitational constant of the universe is the value that it is comes from what number you would need to multiply two masses together, divided by the radius squared to get the correct amount of force. I believed this was done by Newton, but the wiki now claims it was done by C. V. Boys. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant I already know I will convince nobody of this now. That is not the reason I stated it. I have given up on trying to memorize those values to the new values, because anytime I go back to them, everyone always believes they are a different value. I just mentioned it, because I have experienced this problem. Then someone just happened to make a thread wondering what the historic values were. Then they are not what I originally remember them to be, and they are not even what people tried to correct me to believe they were from before even. You have a faulty memory. That’s the explanation here. 2 hours ago, Conjurer said: Something just occurred to me. I really have no idea how the gravitational constant of the universe even comes into the calculation, or why you would choose to divide by c^5 in the calculation for the Planck Time and c^3 for the Planck Length. To get units of time and length. 2 hours ago, Conjurer said: Does that even give you the correct units for length and time? If you can’t check this for yourself you have no business criticizing physics in any way. 2 hours ago, Conjurer said: Isn't the gravitational constant of the universe unit-less? No. I refer you to my previous remark. Quote Galileo was no longer killed for his blasphemy against religions doctrine that the Earth, not the sun, was at the center of the solar system. Then he was only imprisoned instead, under house arrest. Who the hell is Galileo? Stop making up things.
Strange Posted September 21, 2019 Posted September 21, 2019 13 minutes ago, Conjurer said: I was wondering if that is the reason why it could be so difficult to show the affects of quantum gravity, because anything multiplied by 1 is 1 and everything in quantum mechanics is quantized. No.
Conjurer Posted September 21, 2019 Author Posted September 21, 2019 1 minute ago, Strange said: No. So then you can't make a quantum theory of gravity by just multiplying it by a G_p (gravitational constant in Planck Units)?
uncool Posted September 21, 2019 Posted September 21, 2019 10 minutes ago, Conjurer said: So then you can't make a quantum theory of gravity by just multiplying it by a G_p (gravitational constant in Planck Units)? ...whatever you mean by "it", the answer is no.
Conjurer Posted September 21, 2019 Author Posted September 21, 2019 14 minutes ago, swansont said: Who the hell is Galileo? Stop making up things. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei He was sentenced to formal imprisonment at the pleasure of the Inquisition.[90] On the following day, this was commuted to house arrest, which he remained under for the rest of his life.[91] 1 minute ago, uncool said: ...whatever you mean by "it", the answer is no. Why is that exactly? So is the quantized gravitational constant not ever used in quantum mechanics? If it is, how or where?
uncool Posted September 21, 2019 Posted September 21, 2019 5 minutes ago, Conjurer said: Why is that exactly? Because quantizing isn't as simple as "just multiplying it by G_p". 5 minutes ago, Conjurer said: So is the quantized gravitational constant not ever used in quantum mechanics? If you mean whether it is used in a quantum theory of gravity, then yes, it is.The fact that it can be taken to be 1 is merely for convenience.
Conjurer Posted September 21, 2019 Author Posted September 21, 2019 13 minutes ago, uncool said: Because quantizing isn't as simple as "just multiplying it by G_p". I was assuming that it was already quantized, because it was being described in Planck Units. Then if everything else was quantized; you would use the quantized gravitational constant. Correct?
uncool Posted September 21, 2019 Posted September 21, 2019 2 minutes ago, Conjurer said: I was assuming that it was already quantized, because it was being described in Planck Units. What is "it"?
Strange Posted September 21, 2019 Posted September 21, 2019 1 minute ago, Conjurer said: I was assuming that it was already quantized, because it was being described in Planck Units. Then if everything else was quantized; you would use the quantized gravitational constant. Correct? Planck units are just units; they have nothing to do with quantisation. You can measure your height and weight in Planck units, if you want.
Conjurer Posted September 21, 2019 Author Posted September 21, 2019 6 minutes ago, uncool said: What is "it"? The Gravitational Constant of the Universe
uncool Posted September 21, 2019 Posted September 21, 2019 1 minute ago, Conjurer said: The Gravitational Constant of the Universe Then it doesn't make sense to ask whether it is quantized; quantization happens to operators, or on a more meta level, classical theories.
Conjurer Posted September 21, 2019 Author Posted September 21, 2019 1 minute ago, uncool said: Then it doesn't make sense to ask whether it is quantized; quantization happens to operators, or on a more meta level, classical theories. Do you know if it was Max Planck that created this expression, or was it done by someone else?
uncool Posted September 21, 2019 Posted September 21, 2019 1 minute ago, Conjurer said: Do you know if it was Max Planck that created this expression, or was it done by someone else? "this" expression?
Conjurer Posted September 21, 2019 Author Posted September 21, 2019 Just now, uncool said: "this" expression?
uncool Posted September 21, 2019 Posted September 21, 2019 "In 1898, Max Planck discovered that action is quantized, and published the result in a paper presented to the Prussian Academy of Sciences in May 1899.[24][25] At the end of the paper, Planck introduced, as a consequence of his discovery, the base units later named in his honor. The Planck units are based on the quantum of action, now usually known as Planck's constant. Planck called the constant b in his paper, though h (or ħ) is now common. Planck underlined the universality of the new unit system [...]"
Recommended Posts