Jeremy:
I do not know your formula for the value of Planck constant, or the theories you talked about that relates G with h/hbar or C.
But from a fundamental point of view, any attempt to derive or calculate the specific value of hbar, C, or attempt to show a physics relationship between G, hbar, C, are by definition WRONG.
My theory never attempted to associate G with hbar and C. And I reject the idea that G is related, or can be calculated from hbar and C. If yu get the wrong impression that I am trying to calculate G using hbar and C, then I am sorry. But I can understand where the misunderstanding came.
hbar and C are both fundamental physics constants. Being fundamental physics constant means they exist by themselves without reliance on any one else. So they should naturally be considered as one in a natural unit set. They take the current none zero fractional decimal value ONLY because of the particular unit set we human race have choosen as our international unit set, for example it depends on that pile of alloy metal some where in Paris which we call 1 kilogram. Silly but true. So the SI unit set is purely incidental.
So any attempt to look for reasons of specific values of hbar and C, beyond the incidental nature of why we choose SI units, are by definition wrong. Asking why hbar = 1.0546x10^-34 J*S is the same as asking why hbar shall be one in the natural unit set.
But G is NOT a fundamental physics constant as hbar and C are. I have shown that G is actual a reciprocal number of the size of the universe. But even putting that association away G is still not fundamental. Because unlike hbar and C, which are microscopic in nature, The G, as well as the equivalence principle that Einstein's General Relativity is based on, are macroscopic only, in microscopic world both G and the equivalence principle breaks down, both necessarily by logic and reasoning, and by experimental evidence.
The Planck Scale gives us a set of very tiny length and time scale but HUGE mass scale, so huge that the Planck mass is 20 orders of magnitude bigger than masses of fundamental particles. Theoretical physicists tell us that time and space breaks down at Planck Scale. Ironically they did not tell us the same thing for Planck Mass, because of fear that all things bad could happen if they dare to say so. But if you look at Planck Mass the same way you look at Planck Length and Planck Time, basicaly what it means is for anything lighter than Planck Mass, you can no longer calculate gravity using G, and General Relativity is no longer correct, nor is the equivalence principle. And that covers all fundamental particle mass scales!!!
But it is true that the equivalence principle has to break down at some small scale, it is just that Planck Scale is where it happens. Equivalence Principle says Inertial Mass and Gravitational Mass are always equivalent and the same. Certainly any form of energy is equivalent to mass (E=MC^2), which is both inertial mass and gravitational mass. Any form of energy, that is including the gravitational field energy.
And that's where the trouble comes, gravitational field energy is an energy and so it generate gravity itself. But the gravity generated from gravity is still a form of energy and it also generate grand son gravity, even very tiny. And so on to great great grandson gravity, etc, etc.
Even worse, All those energies are negative energies, so we would have gravitons that has negative energies. A fundamental particle that has negative energy? That's weird. It means its mass is also negative. You push it one way it actually accelerates the opposite way.
The equivalence principle is in deep trouble!
The way out of this, is considering G not as a fundamental attractive force between masses, but rather, a universal effect that all the masses in the universe COLLECTIVELY encloses and curves the spacetime we are in, and then all masses travel within that curved spacetime.
My formulas show that indeed G is not a force between individual particles, but rather, a collective effect of the whole universe. Because G just happens to be equal to the reciprocal of the size of the universe!
There are good reasonings behind my formulas. But regardless whether my formula reflects some real physics, or just coincidental, the Planck Scale theoretical physicists are using are fundamentaly wrong and they have been unable to face the irony and dilemma why they accept discreteness of space and time at Planck Scale, but not mass at Planck Scale Mass.
I feel that the year 2005 will be another year 1905, the Einstein year.
--Anthony Mai
