🚀 go-pugleaf

u894793@bruny.cc.utas.edu.au (T. Little) writes:
> sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
> > (Hoyt A. Stearns jr.) writes...
> > > 
> > > G can be calculated from basic Reciprocal System principles to
> > > the minimum accuracy of the three numbers used as a starting point:
> > > c, Avogadro's number, and the Rydberg frequency.
> 
> > Well, now here's something testable.
> 
> > c = 299,792,458 m/s   N = 6.0221367x10^23 /mol   R = 13.6056981 eV
> > Would you please demonstrate a derivation of G from this data?
> 
> I suspect that a few other people would also be interested in such a
> derivation.  All the quantities above are known to higher accuracy than G
> itself (to my knowledge).

G is known to about 4 or 5 places.  And, actually, c is not so much
"known" as defined, and to a number with (I think) two more places.

> Also, if you give any strange numbers, include their derivation also.
> Especially the one relating the mass of a C^12 atom (which is essentially
> what 'N' is) to something fundamental.

Somehow, I'd expect such a derivation to include alpha and the coupling
constants of the strong and weak forces as well.  And the mass of the
top quark should pop out as well, if you manage to derive C^12 from
fundamental principles.

How's Rydberg fitting into this?

	Larry "Puzzled" Hammer
--

                         \   The work is rather too light, and bright,
LNH@physics.arizona.edu   \  and sparkling; it wants ... a long chapter
sometimes a Wombat         \ of solemn specious nonsense. -- Jane Austen