Richard Saam wrote:
Kent Paul Dolan wrote:
Oh No wrote:

No "changed plank scale" or any other voodoo.


J. E. McClintock, et al, in vol. 652 of the Astrophysical Journal,
pages 518-539, 2006, dervive the following relationship for a
Kerr-Newman black hole.

J = aGM^2/c

where J is the angular momentum, a is dimensionless spin, G is the
Newtonian gravitational "constant", M is the mass and c is c.

So here is a little consistency check on the Revised Planck Scale
hypothesis, which is the theme of this thread. Take the proton as a
test case, with J = h(bar), a = 1/2, and, most importantly, with G(n-1)
= 2.18 x 10^31 cgs instead of G. Solve for m(proton) to see if G(n-1)
gives a reasonable result.

When you do the math, you get m(proton) = 1.70 x 10^-24 g.

Unless I have made one of my classic math errors, that agrees with the
empirically measured value of m(proton) at the 98.3% level.

Not bad for "voodoo".

Robert L. Oldershaw