Is G a conversion factor or a fundamental unit?

Abstract

By using fundamental units c,h, G as conversion factors one can easily transform the dimensions of all observables. In particular one can make them all "geometrical", or dimensionless. However this has no impact on the fact that there are three fundamental units, G being one of them. Only experiment can tell us whether G is basically fundamental.It is well known [1] that to each mass M there corresponds a characteristic length r g , the so called gravitational radius (a body with radius r = r g forms a black hole):where G is gravitational constantwhile c is velocity of light. Thus in all physical equations M can be substituted by r g so that mass can be "exorcised" from definitions of all physical observables. As a result everything can be measured in "geometrical" units of length L and time T instead of standard L, T , M units. *

Updated results from the RICE experiment and future prospects for ultra-high energy neutrino detection at the south pole

“…Central to the in-ice detection scheme are favorable radio frequency ice properties and transparency. By now, several measurements have redundantly established bulk ice attenu- [37], BL LAc galaxies [38], GRB's [39], photonuclear production of neutrinos by cosmic-ray interactions with the Cosmic Microwave Background [40], models of neutrinos generated locally to Earth [41][42][43][44] and Active Galactic Nuclei fluence predictions [45]. Other presented experimental limits are those from AMANDA-II [46][47][48][49], the previous RICE result [2], the HiRes experiment [50], based on electron neutrinos only (and extrapolated to three flavors), ANITAII [51] and a result from the Auger experiment [52], based on tau neutrinos only (and extrapolated to three flavors).…”

From Newton to universal Planck natural units – disentangling the constants of nature

“…Kittel et al [32] p.402 call r g 'gravitational length' and also note that its derivation is arrived at via analogy with the classical electron radius expression, which is similar to what can be seen in equation (16), where this analogy emerges because of the commensurability of the RMS mass and charge units. The physical meaning of the appearance of r g (or r me in equation ( 16)) is not immediately clear.…”

“…We have now exposed the classical electron radius expression without any explicit assumption regarding the structural charge volume or surface density, and have found ½ of the SCR for a mass under gravitational attraction without any deliberate manipulation, as in equation (16). The more significant consequences of this occurrence in the integration constant can be found in the complete valid solution presented below.…”

“…We can change the variables in the above equation to the r domain using the well-known relation where e ̅ m is a placeholder for either m e ̅ or e , ̅ depending on the analyzed case, and has the following analytical solution in the implicit form: The integration constant C i can be calculated by setting the boundary condition to r = r 0 for r 0 > 0, where the velocity is set to zero. Substituting r 0 for r and equating v 1 (r 0 ) = 0, or v 2 (r 0 ) = 0 yields two identical sets of expressions for both v 1 and v 2 : ̅ ( ) / p = ½ SCR of the electron mass, as shown in equation (16).…”

“…In his opinion, this was not often appreciated, causing 'unfruitful controversies. ' More recently, in 2002, Fiorentini, Okun, and Vysotski [16] analyzed possible ways to eliminate the base unit of mass. One identified method is to multiply each instance of the mass unit embedded in the dimensions of the physical quantities by Ga transformation that in their opinion results in units with no fundamental character.…”