One universe from the alpha 1/N

Quantoken,

Suggestion - if you want to be taken seriously with a topic like this, you are going to have to explicitly show units after each occurance of a number. (You can do physics without numbers, but not without units.)


For example, you say "... the accepted value of G [is] 6.674x10-11 ... "

This is not correct. The accepted value of G is 3.44 x 10^-8.

===

And assume that most readers DON'T know about a short cut that you do know about. (IOW, show your work.)

Regards,
LB

It would be nice to always list units each step of the calculation. But physicists rarely do that because the units are obvious and if you always insert units in formulas it make it very hard to read. For example Einstein's
E=MC^2
would become
E Joules = M kg * (C M/sec)^2
Very ugly isn't it?

The unit I used is either the natural unit, which I defined, or the SI units, where kilogram, meter, second are used. I said it clearly that in most steps I used natural units, except in the final steps I need to convert back to SI unit to compare with measured values which are in SI units.

The gravity constant is measured to be 6.674x10^-11 in SI unit. See:
physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/index.html

I do not know where you get 3.44x10^-8, but it does not look like any of the known physics constants, certainly not G.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
<i>Originally posted by Quantoken</i>
<br />
It would be nice to always list units each step of the calculation. But physicists rarely do that because the units are obvious and if you always insert units in formulas it make it very hard to read.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Sometimes the units are obvious. Sometimes not. You are right that physicists often leave them out. When they make mistakes, it often involves such an omission.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
For example Einstein's
E=MC^2
would become
E Joules = M kg * (C M/sec)^2
Very ugly isn't it?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I suppose. It is the price one must sometimes pay to be understood. Especially when first attempting to explain a new theory.

Since that is what you are doing (making a first attempt to sell a new theory), it behooves you to avoid causing confusion and/or doubt in my mind about the exact meaning of each thing you say.

Later, when you have convinced me that your argument has some merit, you can begin taking some shortcuts. To do so at this stage is a waste of YOUR time. (I'll just go sit at the bar and watch you fumble around.)

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
The unit I used is either the natural unit, which I defined, or the SI units, where kilogram, meter, second are used. I said it clearly that in most steps I used natural units, except in the final steps I need to convert back to SI unit to compare with measured values which are in SI units.

The gravity constant is measured to be 6.674x10^-11 in SI unit. See:
physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/index.html
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

"in SI unit" doesn't tell me what I need to know.

6.674 x 10^-11 (meters/second) is "in SI unit". But I'm pretty sure this is not what you mean. (Am I being picky? Some might say yes. Most wouldn't. Please find a way to make me stop.)

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
I do not know where you get 3.44x10^-8, but it does not look like any of the known physics constants, certainly not G.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

It is straight out of Halliday and Resnick. But it is not in SI units. You are missing my point. If you don't explicitly say what units you are using for each number, (not the same as saying what system of units you are using) the number has no meaning IN PHYSICS.

Regards,
LB

You say

"G = 6.674 x 10^-11" (no dimensions given)

FYI, the dimensions for G [in the SI system of units] are (nt * m^2 / kg^2)

Then you say

"G = 1 / (2 * N)" (no dimensions given)

where N = 1.48982536x10^40 (dimensionless)

That makes G (your G, not the real G) dimensionless as well. In physics, a dimensionless number cannot be equal to a dimensioned quantity.

6.674x10^-11 (dimensionless) &lt;&gt; 6.674x10^-11 (nt*m^2/kg^2)

===

On the other hand

6.674x10^-11 (nt*m^2/kg^2) = 3.44x10^-8 (lb*ft^2/slug^2)

is a valid equation.



Regards,
LB

It would be interesting to know what happens if you redo all of your calculations, from the beginning of course, in the engineering system of units.

LB

I found it hard to discuss with you. I said again and again I am using the natural units I defined. and I gave the definition of my natural units. You keep taking my words out of context. For example. I said

Now, IN THE NATURAL UNIT SET...
G = 1/(2N)

Clearly I am talking about G's value when expressed in natural units in the above formula. Later when I talk about measured G = 6.674x10^-11, any one has the basic knowledge of common physics constants should know I mean SI unit. You have to convert from SI units to natural units before plugging it into G = 1/(2N) and get N.

The SI units have names, like mass is kilogram, length is meter, time is second. Unfortunately the natural units I defined do NOT have names yet. Their English names have not been invented. So it is impossible for me to spell out the natural unit names in my formula in plain English. But it is not necessary, all I need to tell you is it';s in natural units, and you should be able to do the same calculation.

If you do not know how to convert numbers from one set of units to another set of units, then too bad, it's impossible for you to under any physics then.

Look, there are important physics here. I have a brand new theory which resolves problems like the cosmological constant problem, the Planck Scale problem, the vacuum energy problem, and ultimately the unification of gravity and quantum mechanics into one unified theory. But if we have to dwindle on small details like the exactly unit names, then it is impossible for me to even start to talk about my theory.

Do you at least accept the fact that All stars do radiate energy like our Sun, and the star radiations give the correct amount of radiation energy that do fills the space of the universe, which is the cosmological microwave background we observed? And it is a fact that we do observe this CMB radiation and we do see that stars shine? Do you accept those things we see day and night as facts, not illusions?

If you do accept and acknowledge that stars shine and their radiation energy do not just go away, then we can continue. Otherwise we are not talking about physics.

QUANTOKEN