Newton's gravitational constant was measured using atomic interferometry methods. The new technique is free from the disadvantages of purely mechanical experiments and may soon make it possible to study the effects of general relativity in the laboratory.

Fundamental physical constants such as the speed of light c, gravitational constant G, fine structure constant α, electron mass, and others, play an extremely important role in modern physics. A significant part of experimental physics is devoted to measuring their values ​​as precisely as possible and checking whether they change in time and space. Even the slightest suspicion of the instability of these constants can give rise to a whole stream of new theoretical studies and a revision of generally accepted principles of theoretical physics. (See the popular article by J. Barrow and J. Web, Variable Constants // In the World of Science, September 2005, as well as a selection of scientific articles devoted to the possible variability of interaction constants.)

Most of the fundamental constants are known today with extremely high accuracy. Thus, the electron mass is measured with an accuracy of 10 -7 (that is, a hundred thousandth of a percent), and the fine structure constant α, which characterizes the strength of electromagnetic interaction, is measured with an accuracy of 7 × 10 -10 (see the note The fine structure constant has been refined). In light of this, it may seem surprising that the value of the gravitational constant, which is included in the law of universal gravitation, is known with an accuracy worse than 10 -4, that is, one hundredth of a percent.

This state of affairs reflects the objective difficulties of gravitational experiments. If you try to determine G from the motion of planets and satellites, it is necessary to know the masses of the planets with high accuracy, but they are poorly known. If you conduct a mechanical experiment in a laboratory, for example, measure the force of attraction of two bodies with an accurately known mass, then such a measurement will have large errors due to the extreme weakness of gravitational interaction.

Measurement history

The gravitational constant appears in the modern notation of the law of universal gravitation, but was absent explicitly from Newton and the work of other scientists until the beginning of the 19th century. The gravitational constant in its current form was first introduced into the law of universal gravitation, apparently, only after the transition to a unified metric system of measures. Perhaps this was first done by the French physicist Poisson in his “Treatise on Mechanics” (1809), at least no earlier works in which the gravitational constant would appear have been identified by historians. In 1798, Henry Cavendish conducted an experiment to determine the average density of the Earth using a torsion balance invented by John Michell (Philosophical Transactions 1798). Cavendish compared the pendulum oscillations of a test body under the influence of the gravity of balls of known mass and under the influence of the Earth's gravity. The numerical value of the gravitational constant was calculated later on the basis of the average density of the Earth. Measured value accuracy G since the time of Cavendish, it has increased, but his result was already quite close to the modern one.

see also

Notes

Links

• Gravitational constant- article from the Great Soviet Encyclopedia

Wikimedia Foundation.

• 2010.
• Darwin (space project)

Fast neutron multiplication factor

See what “Gravitational constant” is in other dictionaries: GRAVITATION CONSTANT - (gravity constant) (γ, G) universal physical. constant included in the formula (see) ...

See what “Gravitational constant” is in other dictionaries: Big Polytechnic Encyclopedia - (denoted by G) proportionality coefficient in Newton’s law of gravitation (see Universal law of gravity), G = (6.67259.0.00085).10 11 N.m²/kg² …

See what “Gravitational constant” is in other dictionaries: Big Encyclopedic Dictionary - (designation G), coefficient of Newton's law of GRAVITY. Equal to 6.67259.10 11 N.m2.kg 2 ...

See what “Gravitational constant” is in other dictionaries: Scientific and technical encyclopedic dictionary - fundamental physics constant G, included in Newton's law of gravity F=GmM/r2, where m and M are the masses of attracting bodies (material points), r is the distance between them, F is the force of attraction, G= 6.6720(41)X10 11 N m2 kg 2 (as of 1980). The most accurate value of G. p.... ...

Physical encyclopedia gravitational constant - - Topics oil and gas industry EN gravitational constant ...

Physical encyclopedia- gravitacijos konstanta statusas T sritis fizika atitikmenys: engl. gravity constant; gravity constant vok. Gravitations konstante, f rus. gravitational constant, f; constant of universal gravitation, f pranc. constante de la gravitation, f … Fizikos terminų žodynas

Physical encyclopedia- (denoted by G), the proportionality coefficient in Newton’s law of gravitation (see Law of Universal Gravitation), G = (6.67259 + 0.00085)·10 11 N·m2/kg2. * * * GRAVITATIONAL CONSTANT GRAVITATIONAL CONSTANT (denoted by G), coefficient... ... encyclopedic Dictionary

See what “Gravitational constant” is in other dictionaries:- gravity is constant, universal. physical constant G, included in the flu, expressing Newton’s law of gravity: G = (6.672 59 ± 0.000 85) * 10 11 N * m2 / kg2 ... Big Encyclopedic Polytechnic Dictionary

Gravitational constant- coefficient of proportionality G in the formula expressing Newton’s law of gravitation F = G mM / r2, where F is the force of attraction, M and m are the masses of attracting bodies, r is the distance between the bodies. Other designations for G. p.: γ or f (less often k2). Numeric... ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia

See what “Gravitational constant” is in other dictionaries:- (denoted by G), coefficient. proportionality in Newton's law of gravitation (see Universal gravitation law), G = (6.67259±0.00085) x 10 11 N x m2/kg2 ... Natural science. encyclopedic Dictionary

Books

• The Universe and physics without “dark energy” (discoveries, ideas, hypotheses). In 2 volumes. Volume 1, O. G. Smirnov. The books are devoted to problems of physics and astronomy that have existed in science for tens and hundreds of years from G. Galileo, I. Newton, A. Einstein to the present day. The smallest particles of matter and planets, stars and...

Qing Li et al. /Nature

Physicists from China and Russia reduced the error in the gravitational constant by four times - to 11.6 parts per million, by conducting two series of fundamentally different experiments and minimizing systematic errors that distort the results. Article published in Nature.

For the first time the gravitational constant G, part of Newton's law of universal gravitation, was measured in 1798 by the British experimental physicist Henry Cavendish. To do this, the scientist used a torsion balance built by the priest John Michell. The simplest torsion balance, the design of which was invented in 1777 by Charles Coulomb, consists of a vertical thread on which a light beam with two weights at the ends is suspended. If you bring two massive bodies to the loads, under the influence of gravity the rocker will begin to rotate; By measuring the angle of rotation and relating it to the mass of the bodies, the elastic properties of the thread and the dimensions of the installation, it is possible to calculate the value of the gravitational constant. You can understand the mechanics of torsion balances in more detail by solving the corresponding problem.

The value obtained by Cavendish for the constant was G= 6.754×10 −11 newtons per square meter per kilogram, and the relative error of the experiment did not exceed one percent.

Model of the torsion balance with which Henry Cavendish first measured the gravitational attraction between laboratory bodies

Science Museum/Science & Society Picture Library

Since then, scientists have carried out more than two hundred experiments to measure the gravitational constant, but have not been able to significantly improve their accuracy. Currently, the value of the constant, adopted by the Committee on Data for Science and Technology (CODATA) and calculated from the results of the 14 most accurate experiments of the last 40 years, is G= 6.67408(31)×10 −11 newtons per square meter per kilogram (the error in the last digits of the mantissa is indicated in parentheses). In other words, its relative error is approximately equal to 47 parts per million, which is only a hundred times less than the error of the Cavendish experiment and many orders of magnitude greater than the error of other fundamental constants. For example, the error in measuring Planck's constant does not exceed 13 parts per billion, Boltzmann's constant and elementary charge - 6 parts per billion, and the speed of light - 4 parts per billion. At the same time, it is very important for physicists to know the exact value of the constant G, as it plays a key role in cosmology, astrophysics, geophysics and even particle physics. In addition, the high error of the constant makes it difficult to redefine the values ​​of other physical quantities.

Most likely, low accuracy of the constant G is associated with the weakness of the gravitational attraction forces that arise in ground-based experiments - this makes it difficult to accurately measure the forces and leads to large systematic errors due to the design of the installations. In particular, some of the experiments used to calculate the CODATA value had a reported error of less than 14 ppm, but their results differed by up to 550 ppm. There is currently no theory that could explain such a wide range of results. Most likely, the fact is that in some experiments scientists overlooked some factors that distorted the values ​​of the constant. Therefore, all that remains for experimental physicists is to reduce systematic errors, minimizing external influences, and repeat measurements on installations with fundamentally different designs.

This is exactly the kind of work that was carried out by a group of scientists led by Jun Luo from the University of Science and Technology of Central China with the participation of Vadim Milyukov from the SAI MSU.

To reduce the error, the researchers repeated the experiments on several installations with fundamentally different designs and different parameter values. In installations of the first type, the constant was measured using the TOS (time-of-swing) method, in which the value G determined by the vibration frequency of the torsion balance. To improve accuracy, the frequency is measured for two different configurations: in the “near” configuration, the external masses are located close to the equilibrium position of the balance (this configuration is shown in the figure), and in the “far” configuration, they are perpendicular to the equilibrium position. As a result, the oscillation frequency in the “far” configuration turns out to be slightly lower than in the “near” configuration, and this makes it possible to clarify the value G.

On the other hand, the second type of installation relied on the AAF (angular-acceleration-feedback) method - in this method, the torsion beam and external masses rotate independently, and their angular acceleration is measured using a feedback control system that keeps the thread untwisted. This allows you to get rid of systematic errors associated with the heterogeneity of the thread and the uncertainty of its elastic properties.

Scheme of experimental setups for measuring the gravitational constant: TOS (a) and AAF (b) method

Qing Li et al. /Nature

Photos of experimental installations for measuring the gravitational constant: TOS method (a–c) and AAF (d–f)

Qing Li et al. /Nature

In addition, physicists tried to reduce possible systematic errors to a minimum. Firstly, they checked that the gravitating bodies participating in the experiments are indeed homogeneous and close to a spherical shape - they built the spatial distribution of the density of the bodies using a scanning electron microscope, and also measured the distance between the geometric center and the center of mass by two independent methods. As a result, scientists were convinced that density fluctuations did not exceed 0.5 parts per million, and eccentricity did not exceed one part per million. In addition, the researchers rotated the spheres at a random angle before each experiment to compensate for their imperfections.

Secondly, physicists took into account that a magnetic damper, which is used to suppress zero modes of vibration of the filament, can contribute to the measurement of the constant G, and then redesigned it so that this contribution did not exceed a few parts per million.

Thirdly, the scientists covered the surface of the masses with a thin layer of gold foil to get rid of electrostatic effects, and recalculated the moment of inertia of the torsion balance taking into account the foil. By monitoring the electrostatic potentials of parts of the installation during the experiment, physicists confirmed that electric charges do not affect the measurement results.

Fourth, the researchers took into account that in the AAF method, torsion occurs in the air, and adjusted the movement of the rocker arm to account for air resistance. In the TOS method, all parts of the installation were in a vacuum chamber, so such effects could not be taken into account.

Fifthly, the experimenters kept the temperature of the installation constant throughout the experiment (fluctuations did not exceed 0.1 degrees Celsius), and also continuously measured the temperature of the thread and adjusted the data taking into account subtle changes in its elastic properties.

Finally, scientists took into account that the metal coating of the spheres allows them to interact with the Earth's magnetic field, and assessed the magnitude of this effect. During the experiment, scientists read all the data every second, including the angle of rotation of the filament, temperature, fluctuations in air density and seismic disturbances, and then built a complete picture and calculated the value of the constant based on it. G.

The scientists repeated each of the experiments many times and averaged the results, and then changed the installation parameters and started the cycle all over again. In particular, the researchers conducted experiments using the TOS method for four quartz filaments of different diameters, and in three experiments with the AAF circuit, the scientists changed the frequency of the modulating signal. It took physicists about a year to check each of the values, and in total the experiment lasted more than three years.

(a) Time dependence of the oscillation period of the torsion balance in the TOS method; The lilac points correspond to the “near” configuration, the blue ones to the “far” configuration. (b) Averaged gravitational constant values ​​for different TOS installations

All attempts by experimenters to reduce the error in measuring the Earth's gravitational constant have so far been reduced to zero. As noted earlier, since the time of Cavendish, the accuracy of measuring this constant has practically not increased. For more than two centuries, the accuracy of measurement has not budged. This situation can be called, by analogy with the “ultraviolet catastrophe,” as a “gravitational constant catastrophe.” We got out of the ultraviolet catastrophe with the help of quanta, but how to get out of the catastrophe with the gravitational constant?

Nothing can be squeezed out of the Cavendish torsion balance, so the solution can be found by using the average value of the gravitational acceleration and calculating G from the well-known formula:

Where, g is the acceleration of gravity (g=9.78 m/s2 – at the equator; g=9.832 m/s2 – at the poles).

R– radius of the Earth, m,

M– mass of the Earth, kg.

The standard value of the acceleration of gravity, adopted when constructing systems of units, is equal to: g=9.80665. Hence the average value G will be equal to:

According to the received G, let us clarify the temperature from the proportion:

6.68·10 -11 ~x=1~4.392365689353438·10 12

This temperature corresponds to 20.4 o on the Celsius scale.

Such a compromise, I think, could well satisfy two parties: experimental physics and the committee (CODATA), so as not to periodically revise and change the value of the gravitational constant for the Earth.

It is possible to “legislatively” approve the current value of the gravitational constant for the Earth G=6.67408·10 -11 Nm 2 /kg 2, but adjust the standard value g=9.80665, slightly reducing its value.

In addition, if we use the average temperature of the Earth equal to 14 o C, then the gravitational constant will be equal to G=6.53748·10 -11.

So, we have three values ​​vying for the pedestal of the gravitational constant G for planet Earth: 1) 6.67408 10 -11 m³/(kg s²); 2) 6.68·10 -11 m³/(kg s²); 3) 6.53748 10 -11 m³/(kg s²).

It remains for the CODATA Committee to make the final verdict on which of them to approve as the gravitational constant of the Earth.

It may be objected to me that if the gravitational constant depends on the temperature of interacting bodies, then the forces of attraction day and night, winter and summer should be different. Yes, this is exactly how it should be with small bodies. But the Earth is a huge, rapidly rotating ball, with a huge supply of energy. Hence, the integral number of craphons flying out of the Earth in winter and summer, day and night, is the same. Therefore, the acceleration of gravity at one latitude always remains constant.

If you move to the Moon, where the temperature difference between the day and night hemispheres is very different, then gravimeters should record the difference in the force of gravity.

Related Posts

11 comments

Just one question for you:

Or does energy not spread in your space in a sphere?

And if you have already decided to move on to temperature, then at the points of the centers of mass, which, of course, correctly emit energy, it is unknown (it cannot be confirmed experimentally in any way), accordingly, it still needs to be calculated.

Well, you don’t even have a trace of the most meaningful description of the process of gravitational interaction of bodies, some “red photons (craphons) flew into the body, brought energy, this is understandable, but does not answer the question: “why should it begin to move ( move) exactly in the direction from which they arrived, and not in the opposite direction, that is, according to the applied force (the energy impulse given from these craphons of yours)?”

Just one question for you:
If you have already started talking about energy, then why did you completely forget about 4Pi before R^2?!
Or does energy not spread in your space in a sphere?
And if you have already decided to move on to temperature, then at the points of the centers of mass, which, of course, correctly emit energy, it is unknown (it cannot be confirmed experimentally in any way), accordingly, it still needs to be calculated.
Well, you don’t even have a trace of the most meaningful description of the process of gravitational interaction of bodies, some “red photons (craphons) flew into the body, brought energy, this is understandable, but does not answer the question: “why should it begin to move ( move) exactly in the direction from which they arrived, and not in the opposite direction, that is, according to the applied force (the energy impulse given from these craphons of yours)?”
________________________________________________________
Instead of one stated question, there were three, but that’s not the point.
1. Regarding 4π. In formulas (9) and (10), R2 is the distance from the body (object) to the center of the Earth. It’s not clear where 4π should come from here.
2. Regarding the maximum temperature of a substance in nature. You were obviously too lazy to open the link at the end of the article: “The gravitational constant is a variable.”
3. Now regarding the “meaningful description of the process of gravitational interaction of bodies.” Everything is understood and described. Regarding which direction these same krafons are flying, we read the articles: “”. Solar photons start from the surface of the Sun without recoil, with the acquisition of additional impulses. A photon, in contrast to the material world, has no inertia - its impulse arises at the moment of separation from the source without recoil!
The phenomenon of recoil is observed only in bodies when, under the influence of internal forces, it breaks up into parts, flying in opposite directions. The photon does not break up into parts, it does not part with its acquired momentum before being absorbed, therefore expression (3) will be valid for it.
" ", and part 2.
Quote from part 2: “Craphons from an elementary ball fly out spontaneously, in different directions along the normal of its surface. Moreover, they are directed mainly into the atmosphere, i.e. into a more rarefied electromagnetic ether (EME) compared to the EME of the waters of the World Ocean. In principle, the same picture is observed on the continents.”
Dear readers, on the topic: how gravity arises and who is its carrier, read the entire chapter entitled: “Gravity”. Of course, you can do it selectively; to do this, click on the “Site Map” button in the top menu located above the site header.

Adding to previous comment.

October 12, 2016 My article entitled: “Photon-quantum gravity” was published on the pages of the electronic scientific and practical journal “Modern Scientific Research and Innovation”. The article outlines the essence of gravity. Read the link:

P.S. Alexey You are right, this journal does not contain this article. Read my comment below.

For some reason your article is not in the October issue of “Modern Scientific Research and Innovation” ((

“For some reason your article is not in the October issue of “Modern Scientific Research and Innovation” (("
Article: EARTH GRAVITY PHOTON-QUANTUM GRAVITY moved to another journal: “Scientific-Researches” No. 5(5), 2016, p. 79
http://tsh-journal.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/VOL-1-No-5-5-2016.pdf

01/05/2017. Would it be difficult for you to show in more detail your calculations of the mass and radius of the Earth used in the verification formula G (9) for the Earth. Aren't you afraid of some kind of physical tautology using these values ​​COMPUTED with the same constants? Mikula

“Would it be difficult for you to show in more detail your calculations of the mass and radius of the Earth used in the verification formula G (9) for the Earth. Aren't you afraid of some kind of physical tautology using these values ​​COMPUTED with the same constants? Mikula"
———————————
Yes, much more detailed. Formula 9 calculates two extreme values ​​of G for the acceleration of gravity (g=9.78 m/s2 - at the equator; g=9.832 m/s2 - at the poles). For the standard value, the acceleration of gravity is set to 10. As for the mass and radius of the Earth, they will practically not change. I don’t see what the tautology is.

Yes, much more detailed. Formula 9 calculates two extreme values ​​of G for the acceleration of gravity (g=9.78 m/s2 - at the equator; g=9.832 m/s2 - at the poles). For the standard value, the acceleration of gravity is set to 10. As for the mass and radius of the Earth, they will practically not change. I don’t see what the tautology is.

“All bodies with mass excite gravitational fields in the surrounding space, just as electrically charged particles form an electrostatic field around themselves. It can be assumed that bodies carry a gravitational charge similar to an electric one, or, in other words, have a gravitational mass. It was established with high accuracy that the inertial and gravitational masses coincide.
2
Let there be two point bodies of masses m1 and m2. They are separated from each other by a distance r. Then the force of gravitational attraction between them is equal to: F=C·m1·m2/r², where C is a coefficient that depends only on the selected units of measurement.

3
If there is a small body on the surface of the Earth, its size and mass can be neglected, because The dimensions of the Earth are much greater than them. When determining the distance between a planet and a surface body, only the radius of the Earth is considered, since the height of the body is negligibly small in comparison. It turns out that the Earth attracts a body with a force F=M/R², where M is the mass of the Earth, R is its radius.
4
According to the law of universal gravitation, the acceleration of bodies under the action of gravity on the Earth’s surface is equal to: g=G M/ R². Here G is the gravitational constant, numerically equal to approximately 6.6742 10^(−11).
5
The acceleration of gravity g and the radius of the earth R are found from direct measurements. The constant G was determined with great accuracy in the experiments of Cavendish and Jolly. So, the mass of the Earth is M=5.976 10^27 g ≈ 6 10^27 g.

The fTautology, in my opinion, which is of course erroneous, is that when calculating the mass of the Earth, the same Cavendish Jolly coefficient G is used called the gravitational constant, which is not even constant at all, in which I absolutely agree with you. Therefore, your message “You can’t squeeze anything out of the Cavendish torsion balance, so the solution can be found by using the average value of the acceleration of gravity and calculating G from the well-known formula:” is not entirely correct. Your calculation of the constant G is already used in calculating the mass of the Earth. I don’t want to reproach you in any way, I just really want to understand this gravitational constant, which was not even there at all in Robert Hooke’s law assigned by Newton. With deep respect, Mikula.

Dear Mikula, your desire to understand and deal with the gravitational constant is commendable. Considering that many scientists wanted to understand this constant, but not many managed to do it.
“The constant G was determined with great accuracy in the experiments of Cavendish and Jolly.”
No! C is not big! Otherwise, why would science spend money and time on its regular re-checking and clarification, i.e. averaging the results, which is what KODATA does. And it is needed precisely in order to “weigh the Earth” and find out its density, which is what Cavendish became famous for. But as you can see, G walks from one experience to another. The same thing applies to the acceleration of free fall.
The gravitational constant is a coefficient for one temperature value, and the temperature is what the drawbar is.
What am I proposing? For planet Earth, set one value of G once and for all and make it truly constant, taking g into account.
Don’t be lazy, read all the articles in the G (gravitational constant) section, I think a lot will become clearer for you. Start over:

Our path is in the darkness... And We knock our foreheads not only against the slimy walls of the dungeon in search of glimpses to the exit, but also against the foreheads of the same unfortunate people, swearing and cursing... lame, armless, blind beggars... And we don’t hear each other. We stretch out our hand and receive spit in it... and therefore Our path is endless... And yet... here is my hand. This is my version of understanding the nature of gravity... and the “strong interaction”.
Mezentsev Nikolay Fedorovich.

Your hand, unfortunately, did not help me in any way, but why should it?

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. .

Your comment is being moderated.

(Gravitational constant – size not a constant)

Part 1

Fig.1

In physics, there is only one constant related to gravity - the gravitational constant (G). This constant was obtained experimentally and has no connection with other constants. In physics it is considered fundamental.

Several articles will be devoted to this constant, where I will try to show the inconsistency of its constancy and the lack of a foundation under it. More precisely, there is a foundation under it, but it is somewhat different.

What is the meaning of constant gravity and why is it measured so carefully? To understand, it is necessary to return again to the law of universal gravitation. Why did physicists accept this law, moreover, they began to call it “the greatest generalization achieved by the human mind.” Its formulation is simple: two bodies act on each other with a force that is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them and directly proportional to the product of their masses.

G– gravitational constant

Many very nontrivial conclusions follow from this simple formula, but there is no answer to the fundamental questions: how and due to what does the force of gravity act?

This law says nothing about the mechanism by which the force of attraction arises; however, it is still used today and will obviously continue to be used for centuries to come.

Some scientists deride him, others idolize him. Both of them cannot do without it, because... Nothing better was invented or discovered. Practitioners in space exploration, knowing the imperfection of this law, use correction tables, which are updated with new data after each spacecraft launch.

Theorists are trying to correct this law by introducing corrections, additional coefficients, looking for evidence of the existence of an error in the dimension of the gravitational constant G, but nothing takes root, and Newton’s formula remains in its original form.

Considering the variety of ambiguities and inaccuracies in calculations using this formula, it still needs to be corrected.

Newton’s expression is widely known: “Gravity is Universal,” i.e., gravity is universal. This law describes the gravitational interaction between two bodies, no matter where they are in the Universe; This is considered to be the essence of his universalism. The gravitational constant G, included in the equation, is considered as a universal constant of nature.

The constant G allows for satisfactory calculations under terrestrial conditions; logically, it should be responsible for the energy interaction, but what can we take from the constant?

The opinion of a scientist (Kostyushko V.E.), who carried out real experiments to understand and reveal the laws of nature, is interesting, the phrase: “Nature has neither physical laws, nor physical constants with dimensions invented by man.” “In the case of the gravitational constant, science has established the opinion that this quantity has been found and numerically estimated. However, its specific physical meaning has not yet been established, and this is, first of all, because in fact, as a result of incorrect actions, or rather gross errors, a meaningless and completely meaningless quantity with an absurd dimension was obtained.”

I would not like to put myself in a position of such categoricalness, but we need to finally understand the meaning of this constant.

Currently, the value of the gravitational constant is approved by the Committee on Fundamental Physical Constants: G=6.67408·10 -11 m³/(kg·s²) [CODATA 2014] . Despite the fact that this constant is carefully measured, it does not satisfy the requirements of science. The thing is that there is no exact matching of results between similar measurements carried out in different laboratories around the world.

As Melnikov and Pronin note: “Historically, gravity became the first subject of scientific research. Although more than 300 years have passed since the advent of the law of gravity, which we owe to Newton, the gravitational interaction constant remains the least accurately measured compared to the others."

In addition, the main question about the very nature of gravity and its essence remains open. As is known, Newton’s law of universal gravitation itself has been tested with much greater accuracy than the accuracy of the constant G. The main limitation on the accurate determination of gravitational forces is imposed by the gravitational constant, hence such close attention to it.

It is one thing to pay attention, and quite another thing is the accuracy of the results when measuring G. In the two most accurate measurements, the error can reach about 1/10000. But when measurements were carried out at different points on the planet, the values ​​could exceed the experimental error by an order of magnitude or more!

What kind of constant is this when there is such a huge scatter of readings when measuring it? Or maybe it’s not a constant at all, but a measurement of some abstract parameters. Or are the measurements affected by interference unknown to the researchers? This is where new ground appears for various hypotheses. Some scientists refer to the Earth’s magnetic field: “The mutual influence of the Earth’s gravitational and magnetic fields leads to the fact that the Earth’s gravity will be stronger in those places where the magnetic field is stronger.” Dirac's followers claim that the gravitational constant changes with time, etc.

Some questions are removed due to lack of evidence, while others appear and this is a natural process. But such disgrace cannot continue indefinitely; I hope my research will help establish a direction towards the truth.

The first person credited with pioneering the experiment in measuring constant gravity was the English chemist Henry Cavendish, who in 1798 set out to determine the density of the Earth. For such a delicate experiment, he used torsion balances invented by J. Michell (now an exhibit in the National Museum of Great Britain). Cavendish compared the pendulum oscillations of a test body under the influence of gravity of balls of known mass in the gravitational field of the Earth.

Experimental data, as it turned out later, were useful for determining G. The result obtained by Cavendish was phenomenal, differing by only 1% from what is accepted today. It should be noted what a great achievement this was in his era. For more than two centuries, the science of experiment has advanced by only 1%? It's incredible, but true. Moreover, if we take into account fluctuations and the inability to overcome them, the value of G is assigned artificially, it turns out that we have not advanced at all in the accuracy of measurements since the time of Cavendish!

Yes! We have not advanced anywhere, science is in prostration - not understanding gravity!

Why has science made virtually no progress in accurately measuring this constant over more than three centuries? Maybe it's all about the tool Cavendish used. Torsion balances, an invention of the 16th century, remain in service with scientists to this day. Of course, these are no longer the same torsion scales, look at the photo, fig. 1. Despite the bells and whistles of modern mechanics and electronics, plus vacuum and temperature stabilization, the result has hardly budged. Clearly something is wrong here.

Our ancestors and contemporaries made various attempts to measure G in different geographical latitudes and in the most incredible places: deep mines, ice caves, wells, on television towers. The designs of torsion balances have been improved. New measurements, in order to clarify the gravitational constant, were repeated and verified. The key experiment was carried out at Los Alamos in 1982 by G. Luther and W. Towler. Their setup resembled a Cavendish torsion balance, with tungsten balls. The result of these measurements, 6.6726(50)?10 -11 m 3 kg -1 s -2 (i.e. 6.6726±0.0005), was the basis recommended by the Committee on Data for Science and Technology (CODATA) values ​​in 1986.

Everything was calm until 1995, when a group of physicists at the German PTB laboratory in Braunschweig, using a modified installation (scales floating on the surface of mercury, with balls of large mass), obtained a G value of (0.6 ± 0.008)% more than the generally accepted one. As a result, in 1998 the error in measuring G was increased by almost an order of magnitude.

Experiments to test the law of universal gravitation, based on atomic interferometry, to measure microscopic test masses and further test Newton's law of gravitation in the microcosm, are currently being actively discussed.

Other methods of measuring G have been attempted, but the correlation between measurements remains virtually unchanged. This phenomenon is today called a violation of the inverse square law or the “fifth force.” The fifth force now also includes certain Higgs particles (fields) - particles of God.

It seems that the divine particle was detected, or rather, calculated, as the physicists who participated in the experiment at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) sensationally presented the news to the World.

Rely on the Higgs boson, but don’t make a mistake yourself!

So what is this mysterious constant that walks by itself, and without it you can’t go anywhere?

Read the continuation of the article