this post was submitted on 07 Sep 2024
7 points (55.1% liked)

Science

13007 readers
61 users here now

Subscribe to see new publications and popular science coverage of current research on your homepage


founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Edit: The paper is total nonsense. Sorry for wasting people's time.

https://youtu.be/Yk_NjIPaZk4?si=dasxM2Py-s654djW

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 week ago (2 children)

The math here is beyond me, but this statement from the paper seems contradictory:

The obtained equation is covariant in space–time and invariant with respect to any Planck scale. Therefore, the constants of the universe can be reduced to only two quantities: Planck length and Planck time.

Planck time is derived from the speed of light and the gravitational constant. So wouldn't there be at least four universal constants?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago

What they are doing is just nonsense. You can use the four normal constants: gravitational, speed of light, plancks constant, boltzman constant, or the Planck ones, also four (time, mass, length, temperature). What they do is just rewrite the G, c and h-bar, the only ones that appear here, in their equations and it turns out just only two appear in the equations. Which two? Planck length and "energy", where planck energy is a combination of time and mass... so it is still three! All this nonsense to try to say something of no particular interest: if you look at a very small subset of expressions you can probably redefine some constants conviniently to get rid of others.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

If a constant is defined by another constant, without a variable between, wouldn't it be fair to simplify that into a single constant? Additionally, based solely on the article, it almost sounds like they're inverting that, saying that Planck time and Planck length determine the speed of light and gravitational constant(?).