Re: A Stringy Nature Needs Just Two Constants
- From: robert bristow-johnson <rbj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 03:15:18 +0000 (UTC)
On Dec 4, 3:08 pm, "ariv...@xxxxxxxxx" <Al.Riv...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In PF, Marcus notes:
"I see that the whole contents of EPL from July thru December 1986 is
free to download until the end of the year. If you (or anyone else)
sees any other paper that might be of special historical interest,
please let us know"
Really this is the situation of some journals, whose free window
closes in December, or in July and December. So it is a good month to
notice it and point our relevant papers not in the ArXiV.
The paper I was intrigued about is
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0295-5075/2/3/006
==================================
A Stringy Nature Needs Just Two Constants
G. Veneziano
CERN - Geneva, Switzerland
Abstract. Dual string theories of everything, being purely
geometrical, contain only two fundamental constants: c, for
relativistic invariance, and a length l, for quantization. Planck's
and Newton's constants appear only through Planck's length, a
"calculable" fraction of l. Only the existence of a light sector
breaks a "reciprocity" principle and unification at l, which is also
the theory's cut-off.
==================================
The paper somehow rejects Planck constant, telling that measured
quantities can be related to Compton lengths instead. So he only needs
Planck lenght and c. Or Planck length and Planck time, as the quotient
produces c.
Pretty strange paper.
i think it is part of this conversation:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0110060
"Trialogue on the number of fundamental constants"
between the author (GV) and Michael Duff and Lev Okun.
in some manner Duff might say i belong to the "4-constant" party
(because i think that electric charge is a unique dimension of
physical stuff alongside time, length, and mass), but actually i agree
with Duff pretty much completely. there are maybe about 26
"fundamental constants" (John Baez has enumerated them here:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/constants.html ) and they are all
dimensionless. i don't see "c" or "G" or "hbar" or "epsilon0" as
being fundamental constants, but are just a reflection of the units of
length, time, mass, and charge that we humans have decided to use.
i do think that the Planck time, Planck length, Planck mass, and
Planck charge *do* represent units of scale that are fundamental and
preferred by Nature (or, at least, the same with a factor of
sqrt(4*pi) tossed in, because i think it's better to normalize 4*pi*G
rather than just G and it's better to normalize epsilon0 rather than
4*pi*epsilon0 so that "flux density" and "field strength" are the same
thing in vacuo and Gauss's Law is the most simplified).
and i don't know diddley about string theory, but i would think that
any physical theory can be scaled in such a way that Planck units are
the units which makes "c", "G", "hbar", and "4*pi*epsilon0" all equal
to one. then they just go away in expressions of physical law, and
any numbers that remain are truly fundamental constants.
r b-j
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: A Stringy Nature Needs Just Two Constants
- From: John C. Polasek
- Re: A Stringy Nature Needs Just Two Constants
- From: Matej Pavsic
- Re: A Stringy Nature Needs Just Two Constants
- References:
- A Stringy Nature Needs Just Two Constants
- From: arivero@xxxxxxxxx
- A Stringy Nature Needs Just Two Constants
- Prev by Date: Re: Origin of \hbar
- Next by Date: Re: Open poll on "What changes for special and general relativity?"
- Previous by thread: A Stringy Nature Needs Just Two Constants
- Next by thread: Re: A Stringy Nature Needs Just Two Constants
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|