This is an interesting article for the layman about the changing gravitational constant. One part that intrigues me is their hypothesis that maybe the nature of gravity (the form) is changing and that some other force might be changing it. Or maybe gravity is subject to oscillations? Any change could have interesting consequences.

Gyve Bones writes:

A rather weighty and grave subject for this site, eh? I reckon it falls under the category of ever-changing cycles, and perhaps, BBQ.

Gary Rogan writes: 

It's almost funny to see these scientists very concerned about the possibility that G is changing without much concern about what, in our universe (other than some supposed new field), really determines why it has any specific value vs. any other value or why it's at least somewhat constant through the Universe. Why shouldn't it change, if you have no idea how the value comes about in the first place?

Jeff Watson adds: 

But then again, if gravity can change form, can time and space be far behind? And I'm not talking Discovery Channel stuff.

Gary Rogan replies: 

ANYTHING where you don't understand the root cause (and even then if your understanding is wrong or incomplete) can change. All the fundamental physical laws are basically just observations that haven't been contradicted YET, and all the social science/market "laws" are just observations that at some point seemed correct to enough people. 

Jeff Watson writes: 

I suspect that F=MA would stand the rigors of any test in the macro realm. PV=nRT would probably stand up also, as well as V=1/2 AT^2. The fundamental Newtonian physical laws are pretty intact and have been proven in a variety of ways. Had the physical laws been incorrect, man would have not been on the moon, we wouldn't have landed a rover on Mars etc, Ohm's law(among other things) would not have be proven and I would not be able to communicate with you in this venue. And " the social science/market "laws" you make note of are more of an art than a science. I apply science to markets every day, but along with the science, I also use the art taught to me by my mentor to achieve a small degree of success….sometimes.





Speak your mind

2 Comments so far

  1. Anonymous on September 12, 2013 10:32 pm

    I like you started with “I suspect”, as this reflects already a subjective opinion on “objective” laws. E.g. PV=nRT is just an approximation that applies to the conditions we are used to in our daily reality. Sufficiently accurate measurement of pressure, temperature, volume, and amount of any gas will reveal that the ideal gas law is never obeyed exactly; thus exact, not even in our reality.
    Needless to say it does not hold in other parts of the macrocosmos or microcosmos(quantumphysical world, black holes, etc.)

  2. Jeff Watson on September 13, 2013 12:42 pm

    Anonymous, I suspect that you are over thinking this. (I use the phrase “I suspect” a lot.” and it is my verbal and written tic) The Ideal gas law has already been proven, and it’s not an approximation, it’s a law. The ideal gas equation is simply the combination of the three major gas laws Boyle’s law, Charles law, and Avogadro’s principle and has been around for quite some time.

    Boyle stated that volume and pressure are inversely proportional to each other;
    P α 1/V, therefore, PV = constant.

    Charles’ stated that temperature and volume are directly proportional to each other;
    V α T, therefore, (V/T) = constant.

    Avogadro’s principle states that the number of moles(n) and volume are directly proportional to each other;
    V α n, therefore, (V/n) = constant.

    Manipulating these three concepts allows one to have a Eureka moment,
    PV/nT = constant
    P=gas constant which is R;
    therefore, PV/nT = R
    This leads to the equation being written as:
    PV = nRT



Resources & Links