Oh No wrote:

Schwarzschild radius of the proton were considered then it would have a
magnitude given by

2Gm/c^3 =3D 8.28 x 10 e^-63 m

Planck length also has a formal definition

l_p =3D sqrt(hbar*G/c^3) =3D 1.61605e-35 =B1 1.0e-39 m

Neither of these figures is open to revision beyond that allowed by
experimental margins of error. If you are defining other quantities, you
should give them other names.


Perhaps, I did not make myself clear, so I will try again.

The way you have calculated the Schwarschild radius for the proton and
the Planck length *assumes* that it is correct to use the conventional
Newtonian value for G in your calculations. That might not be valid.
In fact the Discrete Fractal paradigm ( www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw )
says that for atomic scale systems you must use G(n-1), which is 10^38
times larger. Note that Sivaram and Sinha also derive a 'strong
gravity' G(f) that is about 10^38 times G.

A much more compact discussion (4 pages vs 76 pages) of the remarkable
self-similarity between elementary particles and Kerr-Newman black
holes by Sivaram and Sinha can be found at Physical Review D, vol.16,
no. 6, pp. 1975-1978, 1977.

In science, virtually anything is open to revsion. Scientists do not
deal in absolute knowledge, which is the province of religion.

Robert L. Oldershaw