# Thread: Calculation of the absolute radius of the Earth by the fundamental physical constants

1. ## Calculation of the absolute radius of the Earth by the fundamental physical constants

Hi all, I have derived a formula that calculates the Earth's radius and a gravitational acceleration by the Planck constant, the electron mass, the speed of light, and the geocentric gravitational constant:

Can this be a coincidence? Or is gravity and quantum mechanics indeed directly related? Thanks.

2. After checking the web on this topic, I have the feeling that this is not just a question for Q&A. Thread moved to ATM.

3. Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov
Hi all, I have derived a formula that calculates the Earth's radius and a gravitational acceleration by the Planck constant, the electron mass, the speed of light, and the geocentric gravitational constant:
Your paper lists the geocentric gravitational parameter as having units "m3c-2", the "c" should be an "s"
Can this be a coincidence? Or is gravity and quantum mechanics indeed directly related? Thanks.
Thus, one should either acknowledge that the formulas obtained are some accidental coincidences for the Earth, or discuss the unusual assumption that at least some of the fundamental physical constants, which we consider universal for the entire universe, have other values in the sphere of action of other planets or other space objects.
Do you acknowledge this? That it is most likely an accidental coincidence (which are very very common), or do you think that the physical constants must have different values on the moon?

4. Why do I get the feeling this "coincidence" is happening because the meter is based on the size of the earth. Of course, this is only partially true. It is somewhat obscured by the fact that the meter was redefined to the distance in which light travels in a tiny part of a second, which was approximately the same distance as the older measure of a meter. The point wasn't to have a standard meter, but to have the meter define lasers and beams of light.

What value do you get by canceling the meter component from all of those numbers?

5. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
4,473
Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov
Can this be a coincidence?
Welcome to the forum Nikolay Sukhorukov.
If your calculations are correct then it is definitely a coincidence because planets exist that do not have the radius of the Earth.
There is also the problem that strictly speaking the Earth does not have a radius because it is not a sphere. The Earth is approximately an oblate spheroid with different equatorial and polar radii.
The Earth's mean radius is 6371.0 km. The value you get is 6,367.0211 km. Thus you do not get the correct value.
Last edited by Reality Check; 2017-Jul-14 at 12:23 AM.

6. Nikolay Sukhorukov

If you decide to participate before your 30 days are up, Report this post and we will consider reopening the thread.

7. reopened

8. Originally Posted by grapes
Do you acknowledge this? That it is most likely an accidental coincidence (which are very very common), or do you think that the physical constants must have different values on the moon?
I'm not sure. So I asked my question.

9. Originally Posted by Solfe
What value do you get by canceling the meter component from all of those numbers?
I think all modern units of measure (meter, second etc.) are tied to fundamental constants. For other units there would be other fundamental constants.

10. Originally Posted by Reality Check
The Earth's mean radius is 6371.0 km. The value you get is 6,367.0211 km. Thus you do not get the correct value.
This is not quite true. The rectifying radius of the Earth is about 6,367.454 km (wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_radius ). It is very close to the value I have got.

11. Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov
I think all modern units of measure (meter, second etc.) are tied to fundamental constants. For other units there would be other fundamental constants.
The meter is different, it is delineated not defined. The definition is in wavelengths and seconds, but the goal in picking this ratio was to not change to change the value away from the artifact previously used to define the meter. It did, but not by much.

(Edit - First sentence was begun "it is", changed to "the meter".)
Last edited by Solfe; 2017-Jul-21 at 10:28 PM.

12. Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov
I think all modern units of measure (meter, second etc.) are tied to fundamental constants. For other units there would be other fundamental constants.
Not really. The second is an arbitrary number of transitions in a caesium atom. The meter is related to this plus a fundamental constant (the speed of light). The kg is just the mass of a lump of platinum-iridium in France. The kelvin is based on the freezing and boiling points of water (at a particular pressure) so not really fundamental.

13. Originally Posted by Strange
The kg is just the mass of a lump of platinum-iridium in France.
For decades, metrologists have strived to retire ‘Le Grand K’ — the platinum and iridium cylinder that for 126 years has defined the kilogram from a high-security vault outside Paris. Now it looks as if they at last have the data needed to replace the cylinder with a definition based on mathematical constants.
14 October 2015
http://www.nature.com/news/kilogram-...t-last-1.18550

14. Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov
I think all modern units of measure (meter, second etc.) are tied to fundamental constants. For other units there would be other fundamental constants.
Nikolay Sukhorukov,

15. I keep getting seconds to the fourth and per meters to the fifth. The units don't even make sense. That isn't terribly surprising give my lack of math skills, but usually I can land in the ballpark. Can you break it down?
Last edited by Solfe; 2017-Jul-21 at 11:07 PM.

16. Originally Posted by Solfe
I keep getting seconds to the fourth and per meters to the fifth. The units don't even make sense. That isn't terribly surprising give my lack of math skills, but usually I can land in the ballpark. Can you break it down?
Do you mean, the units for ?

ETA: is GM, so its units are . Electron mass is in , Planck's constant is , and c is of course.
Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov
Hi all, I have derived a formula that calculates the Earth's radius and a gravitational acceleration by the Planck constant, the electron mass, the speed of light, and the geocentric gravitational constant:

Can this be a coincidence? Or is gravity and quantum mechanics indeed directly related? Thanks.
Yes, it can be a coincidence. These things happen a lot.

17. Where are Google Calculator and/or I going wrong?

(G*m_earth)^2*m_e/(8*h*2*pi*c^3)

(((G * mass of Earth)^2) * m_e) / (8 * h * 2 * pi * (c^3)) =
161.269059 kilometers

18. I don't know. Both of those look better than what I was messing with.

19. Originally Posted by 01101001
Where are Google Calculator and/or I going wrong?

(G*m_earth)^2*m_e/(8*h*2*pi*c^3)

(G*m_earth)^2*m_e/(8*h/(2*pi)*c^3)

(((G * mass of Earth)^2) * m_e) / (((8 * h) / (2 * pi)) * (c^3)) =
6 366.64724 kilometers
Still just a rando in the neighborhood of r_earth

6 378.1 kilometers
Edit: Google Calculator knows . I shouldn't have doubted the mighty Google.

(G*m_earth)^2*m_e/(8*hbar*c^3)

(((G * mass of Earth)^2) * m_e) / (8 * hbar * (c^3)) =
6 366.64724 kilometers
Last edited by 01101001; 2017-Jul-22 at 01:26 PM.

20. So why 8? Why not use another number, say, 7.98563489?

(G*m_earth)^2*m_e/(7.98563489*hbar*c^3)

(((G * mass of Earth)^2) * m_e) / (7.98563489 * hbar * (c^3)) =
6 378.1 kilometers
Fixed it for you.

21. Originally Posted by PetersCreek
Nikolay Sukhorukov,
Yes, I cannot provide it, because I did not analyze canceling the meter component.

22. Originally Posted by grapes
Yes, it can be a coincidence. These things happen a lot.
Thank's. By the way, by using my theory, I also have got the exact radius of a third Van Allen radiation belt. If I am not banned, then maybe I will give the exact formula in a next thread.

23. Note that you got the value of 6,366.64724 km probably because you used G*M = 3.9868e14. But I am sure that the astronomical value \mu = 3.9860e14 is more precise than G*M ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standa...onal_parameter ). So if using the astronomical \mu and the fundamental constants from NIST ( http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constant...e/allascii.txt ), the Earth's radius is just 6,367.0211 km.

Originally Posted by 01101001
So why 8? Why not use another number, say, 7.98563489?
It is because to get the Earth's radius I used my quantum theory of the structure of the hydrogen atom. Quantum physics likes whole numbers - 8 and dislikes irrational ones - 7.98563489. But I cannot talk about this in details, since it is forbidden on this forum.

24. Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov
<snip>
It is because to get the Earth's radius I used my quantum theory of the structure of the hydrogen atom. Quantum physics likes whole numbers - 8 and dislikes irrational ones - 7.98563489. But I cannot talk about this in details, since it is forbidden on this forum.
Nikolay Sukhorukov

That is not a sufficient answer. What do you mean "it is forbidden on this forum"? You need to explain in more detail either what your details are or why it is forbidden. Is your answer political or religious, because I can't imagine what else would be forbidden.

25. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
4,473
Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov
The rectifying radius of the Earth is about 6,367.454 km (wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_radius ). It is very close to the value I have got.
The rectifying radius is a theoretical radius of a theoretical sphere and you even get that wrong because it is 6,367.445 km and you have 6,367.0211 km. The fact remains that the Earth is not a sphere. This is evidence that what you have is either irrelevant numerology, a coincidence or inadvertently included a radius of the Earth in your calculation.
Last edited by Reality Check; 2017-Jul-23 at 10:08 PM.

26. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
4,473
Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov
It is because to get the Earth's radius I used my quantum theory of the structure of the hydrogen atom. Quantum physics likes whole numbers - 8 and dislikes irrational ones - 7.98563489.
The Earth is not made of only hydrogen and so anything about hydrogen is mostly irrelevant to the size of the Earth . You need to model an Earth made up of its actual elements.
Quantum physic does like integers but its results are real numbers, e.g. 7.98563489.

ETA: You wrote that the factor of 8 comes from your quantum theory. Implying that the formula is derived from that theory. That will be incorrect because a quantum theory will not contain gravity (i.e. ).
Last edited by Reality Check; 2017-Jul-24 at 12:46 AM.

27. And now that we have a compact query for Mr Google, now comes the inevitable application of your formula to other bodies. Why are all these ratios not 1.0? All from Google search results for (G*m_planet)^2*m_e/(8*hbar*c^3) / r_planet:

((((G * mass of Mercury)^2) * m_e) / (8 * hbar * (c^3))) / radius of Mercury =
0.00797276022
((((G * mass of Venus)^2) * m_e) / (8 * hbar * (c^3))) / radius of Venus =
0.698777299
((((G * mass of Earth)^2) * m_e) / (8 * hbar * (c^3))) / radius of Earth =
0.998204362
((((G * mass of Mars)^2) * m_e) / (8 * hbar * (c^3))) / radius of Mars =
0.0216372774
((((G * mass of Jupiter)^2) * m_e) / (8 * hbar * (c^3))) / radius of Jupiter =
8 995.76321
((((G * mass of Saturn)^2) * m_e) / (8 * hbar * (c^3))) / radius of Saturn =
956.62368
((((G * mass of Neptune)^2) * m_e) / (8 * hbar * (c^3))) / radius of Neptune =
75.5975102
((((G * mass of Uranus)^2) * m_e) / (8 * hbar * (c^3))) / radius of Uranus =
52.6310715
And, of course, why are the ratios all over the place, from .007973 to 8996?

28. Originally Posted by Swift
Nikolay Sukhorukov

That is not a sufficient answer. What do you mean "it is forbidden on this forum"? You need to explain in more detail either what your details are or why it is forbidden. Is your answer political or religious, because I can't imagine what else would be forbidden.
From the rules of Сosmoquest:
"We insist you keep your Against the Mainstream (ATM) or Conspiracy Theory (CT) topics about space and astronomy. We
will close down any thread which doesn't have anything to do with space and astronomy immediately."

I thought this forum is focused on astronomy and not on quantum physics. But if you allow me then I will. But I need a few hours to prepare my article with a detailed description of obtaining the absolute radius of the Earth.

29. Originally Posted by 01101001
And now that we have a compact query for Mr Google, now comes the inevitable application of your formula to other bodies. Why are all these ratios not 1.0? All from Google search results for (G*m_planet)^2*m_e/(8*hbar*c^3) / r_planet:
What constant would you change for each planet to make these ratios 1.0? Me, I'd change that arbitrary 8, to some arbitrary magic value based on planet; I can calculate those for you.

Do you think you should keep that 8 and make electron mass a function of planet, or hbar, or c -- or all of them? Why?

30. Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov
From the rules of Сosmoquest:
"We insist you keep your Against the Mainstream (ATM) or Conspiracy Theory (CT) topics about space and astronomy. We
will close down any thread which doesn't have anything to do with space and astronomy immediately."

I thought this forum is focused on astronomy and not on quantum physics. But if you allow me then I will. But I need a few hours to prepare my article with a detailed description of obtaining the absolute radius of the Earth.
Thank you for responding.

A discussion of quantum physics, particularly as it relates to the topic of this thread, is completely allowed. Pretty much any topic broadly related to space, astronomy, and physics is allowed, including chemistry, planetary science, and biology. What we don't want are ATM and CT threads completely unrelated to such topics, for example, anything related to politics or geopolitics.

You can always PM a moderator in advance if you are uncertain about a given topic.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•