Thus spake "
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.


I think in fact that I did not make myself clear. This is not how
Schwarzschild radius and Planck length are *calculated*, it is how they
are *defined*. A definition is a truism and cannot be incorrect unless
it is inconsistent..

This is a matter of semantics, not one of the physical properties of the
universe. One uses, in so far as is possible, accepted definitions for
the simple reason that if one does not do so, one is talking a different
language from other people, and because that tends to make communication
difficult. It will appear to others that one is talking gibberish, even
if one is not. "A rose by any other name, would smell as sweet". But a
horticulturalist would think one an idiot for calling a rose an apple.

Certainly definitions can be changed. It may be that a defined quantity
turns out not to be useful, and that definition falls into disuse. Then
one is free to redefine the quantity. But if a quantity is in general
use, it is unwise to redefine it since no one will understand what you
are talking about.

Sivaram and Sinha, for example, have taken note. They wish to use
another value for the gravitational constant. But they have not called
it G. They have defined a new quantity, clearly related to G, but they
have also given it a new name, G(f).



Regards

--
Charles Francis
substitute charles for NotI to email