Talk:Dirac large numbers hypothesis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ] | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics. | |
|
Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
||
What is meant by "Hence, taking ..., as units"? Does that mean you are assuming that the constant's are 1? Or just that the constants units are the units that are used in G? Also if you do the derivation it seems that mp / me should be mp * me but I am unwilling to make the change without the paper to back me up. Finally if you do take all of those constants to be 1 then G≈4.4 * 10 − 40 not G = 10 − 40 and thus Gα1 / t --157.182.186.101 20:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC) Adam
The mass of the electron an proton are similar? me=9.109*10-31 and mpr=1.672*10-27 which is 4 orders of magnitude difference. --157.182.186.101 19:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC) Adam
It seems very unfair to chalk this idea up to numerology, especially when it has a theoretical basis in Mach's principle.
[edit] Not untested but disproved!
Unfortunately for lovers of funny old theories, this one has been falsified. If G really evolved proportional to time then stars could not form and burn in the early Universe. Observations of light reaching us from the early Universe show that stars were burning in a way consistent with G being unaltered. --Tdent 23:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
