Constants of this Universe

The universal constants are

Gravitational constant, G = 6.6 x 10-11 N (m/kg)2
Planck’s constant, ħ = 10-34 J.s
Speed of light, c = 3 x 108 m/s

A dimensional analysis from these constants (described in the videos above) gives us,

Planck length = 1.6 x 10-35 m
Planck time = 5.4 x 10-44 s
Planck mass = 2.2 x 10-8 kg

These are fundamental units that have significance, which needs to be explored.


Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


  • 2ndxmr  On October 6, 2013 at 9:46 PM

    Another way to look at the constants is as space dimensions:

    For G ~ L^3/T^2 x 1/m

    L^3/T^2 can be viewed as the accelerated creation of a 3D volume of space

    For hbar ~ L^2/T x m^2

    L^2/T can be viewed as a planar expansion of space

    For c ~ L/T

    L/T can be viewed as an expanding line of space

    The conclusion that can be derived from this dimensional analysis is that 6 dimensions of space may combine to contribute to the fabric of the universe. The 6 dimensions would be 3-spherical, 2-planar and 1-linear.

    Perhaps the 6-dimension collapsed Calabi-Yau manifold would contribute to this model.

    Mass may be the expression of the effect of some other space dimension, or the possibility of a contribution from the zero dimension. In that context (the zero dimension), mass would be described as an effect of the non-creation of space, or the ability to not create space. The dimensional structure may also be something like a vortex of space going to a zero point.

    All of these space dimensions are uniquely derived and so are true dimensions. We need to stop thinking of space as the 3-space we walk and live in. There is no reason to limit the quality of space by a 3-D construct.


    • vinaire  On October 7, 2013 at 5:58 AM

      Interesting! I shall meditate over it.



  • vinaire  On December 6, 2014 at 10:49 AM

    I posted the following question on Quora:

    What happens to an electromagnetic wave when its frequency increases indefinitely? Does it condense into mass or matter in some manner?

    We seem to achieve de Broglie’s wave lenghts for material objects that are smaller than Planck’s length. See


    • vinaire  On December 6, 2014 at 10:51 AM

      Response from Tieux Kiocchio

      I remember a physics teachers asking me a similar question.

      His answer (because I had none…) is an old souvenir, but I think it was impossible due to a wave being capped at one point (violation of density of energy), pushing it would always make it break down to lower stable energy states.


      Sadly I have nothing in stock it’s too old for me, I’m not even sure about my teacher’s answer.

      I was a bit harsh with the word violation. It’s not a rule it’s a very strong probability (because of interactions when “building” the high energy photon, and/or after it’s been produced).

      The thing is say one end up with infinite energy (E = hv, h being constant, v can grow as much as you like in theory, even if it means a wavelength smaller than Planck length) for just one photon, meaning it’ll interact like hell when crossing anything else. So probabilistically there is no chance to witness such thing (for instance there is the cosmic microwave background which won’t help).

      So in short, in regards to the original question, nothing happens when frequency increase until there is something else close enough to interact.



    • vinaire  On December 6, 2014 at 10:57 AM

      Response from C. Caner Telimenli


      The problem is even if you have a source which can generate enough power to support infinite frequency (ν) the limitation created by the speed of light (c) restricts the maximum v with wavelength (λ)

      So since



      E=hv (explaining why Planck constant limiting v)

      the v you can reach is limited because the smallest value λ can take is Planck constant (h) . This means you cant stretch the v indefinitely.

      I dont have a degree in physics so this is my interpretation of the established boundaries of physics. So if the explanation is not satisfying I recommended some reading on Planck constant and electromagnetic spectrum. This might fill some possible gaps.



    • vinaire  On December 6, 2014 at 11:02 AM

      Response from Luis Alejandro Masanti


      I do not have an answer, but I think that ‘in the boundaries’ (the zone close to Plank’s constant or other) the physic can change in ways we still do not understand.

      As an example, take Newton’s laws. They work ‘perfectly’ at relative speeds far away from light speed. Close to light speed you must use Einstein’s.

      The second doubt is: Electromagnetic waves ‘condense’ at infinite frequencies or at zero frecuency?



  • vinaire  On December 6, 2014 at 11:06 AM

    If we denote “disturbance levels” as log base 2 of frequency then DL0 (disturbance level 0) will denote a reference point having a frequency of 1. On this DL scale, DL50 shall represent the visible light (approximately), and DL100 (and above) will represent solid objects.

    Einstein assumes his frames of reference to be at DL100 while evaluating the speed of light having the characteristics of DL50. The difference in these disturbance levels is so large that any differences in speed of light due to its frequencies would be practically imperceptible. Thus, speed of light appears constant from the frame of reference at DL100.

    It is my hunch that the speed of light shall depend on frequency or Disturbance Levels.


  • vinaire  On December 6, 2014 at 11:32 AM

    If the wavelength of EMR is a measure of space, then this space condenses with increasing disturbance levels.

    A Newtonian mass point at DL100 is a “very condensed space” operating in a background space of DL0 or thereabouts.


    • vinaire  On December 6, 2014 at 4:14 PM

      The distance at DL0 seems to have been compressed to a mass point at DL100.


%d bloggers like this: