Reach Us
+44-1522-440391

Medical, Pharma, Engineering, Science, Technology and Business

**Michael Lawrence ^{*}**

Maldwyn Centre for Theoretical Physics, Cranfield Park, Burstall, Suffolk, UK

- *Corresponding Author:
- Michael Lawrence

Maldwyn Centre for Theoretical Physics

Cranfield Park, Burstall, Suffolk, UK

**Tel:**595982298[email protected]

E-mail:

**Received Date:** October 03, 2015; **Accepted Date:** January 13, 2016; **Published Date:** January 20, 2016

**Citation:** Lawrence M (2016) How SI Units Hide the Equal Strength of Gravitation and Charge Fields. J Phys Math 7:151. doi:10.4172/2090-0902.1000151

**Copyright:** © 2016 Lawrence M. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

**Visit for more related articles at** Journal of Physical Mathematics

This paper shows that there are deeper symmetries within physics than are currently recognised. The use of SI units in their existing form hides that gravity is not the weakest force. The paper shows through symmetry arguments that Planck’s constant h and the Gravitational constant G are both dimensionless ratios when dimensional analysis is used at property levels deeper than mass, length and time. The resultant adjustments shown to be needed for SI units produce much simpler sets of units which also solve the issue of why magnetic field H and magnetic inductance B have not previously had the same units. The result shows that gravitational and charge fields have the same strengths when considered in fractional adjusted-Planck values. By showing that h and G are dimensionless, they can be understood to be unit-dependent ratios which can be eliminated from all equations by merging them within new adjusted SI units. The implications are that mass and charge sizes, and distance, are not the properties which separate quantum and classical gravitational systems. The equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass is also shown. The new type of dimensional analysis shows how to uncover any law of nature or universal constant and that the current set of properties of nature is missing two from the set, whose dimensions and units can be inferred.

Symmetry; Gravitational constant; Planck constant;
Planck units; SI units; Dimensionality; Properties; Parameters; Ratios; **Field strength**

The paper by Mohr et al. [1] explains the current state, where SI units are being bought more into the quantum measurement realm. The paper by Duff et al. [2] includes a broad and varied introduction to the problems of fundamental units and also covers their relationship with SI units. The issue is not new [3], but has missed the deeper implications on the relative strength of gravitational and charge fields.

To paraphrase Okun [4] “The use of fundamental units *h* and *c* in SI has introduced greater accuracy in some of the units, but
some electromagnetic units are based on pre-relativistic classical
electrodynamics and so their measurement is not as accurate as other
units. The use of permeability and **permittivity **spoils the perfection
of the special relativistic spirit and, whilst this is useful for engineers,
it results in the four physical properties D, H and E, B having four
different dimensions”. It is only by starting with the most basic,
symmetrical and simple physical maximal sized set of Planck type
units - and maintaining the integrity of the relationships within that
set by not stretching property space unequally - that it is possible to
see that the electromagnetic and mechanical properties are misaligned
versus each other and that the current value of permeability (and
thus permittivity) results in a further misalignment. A new form of
dimensional analysis underpins this and allows both mechanical
and electromagnetic properties to be treated on an identical basis. It
addresses Okun’s concerns in that the pair magnetic inductance B , and
magnetic field *H* are shown to have the same units, separated only
by the new dimensionless ratio which replaces permeability. For
electric field ξ_ and electric displacement field D the relationship factor
is the permittivity ε_{−}, equal to c^{-2} in DAPU units, as explained below,
meaning that D is an energy. There appears to be no current work in
this field, trying to investigate physics by simplifying the measurement
system and units used. The author has privately experienced the
complete reverse view, that no new physics can be uncovered from
simplifying units. This paper is a riposte. On the foundations of the
changes to SI units, it is possible to show that gravitational and charge
fields have the same strengths when considered in fractional adjusted- **Planck values**.

This paper shows, using very simple manipulation of formulae
based around Planck units, that both *h* and *G* can be eliminated from
all formulae as being dimensionless ratios – numbers set by the choice
of units – and that this implies that gravitational and charge fields
have the same strength. This paper is not directed at simply changing
units, as in the case of the misalignments existing in current SI units,
but shows how clearing up and simplifying those units enables hidden
deeper relationships between properties to be uncovered.

The significance of the paper lies mainly in the reinterpretation of h
and *G* which undermines current notions of where the quantum world
ends and the classical world starts. Without the misguided emphasis
on large/small distances and masses and the differential strength of
charge and gravity fields, it is not clear what properties define where
the quantum world becomes classical and vice versa. The paper sets out
from the premise based on **symmetry **that our physical properties are
built on deeper dimensions, and that identifying those dimensions will
give us better tools to explain what we observe. The first issue that needs
investigation is why SI units do not work consistently together across
mechanical and electromagnetic properties. The solution is to adjust the
SI value of charge and split Planck’s constant *h* and the Gravitational
constant *G* between mass and distance parameters, rather than just
mass alone, plus a small redefinition of the value of **permeability**.
But to do this requires understanding of the dimensionality of all
the properties – meaning how they are related to each other and to a single base property which can be used to define triple-adjusted Planck
units (TAPU) and their new SI values. The splitting of the adjustments
between mass, charge and distance properties is novel because usually *G* is considered only to be mass-specific and *h* has never before been
subject to elimination in this manner. Also the Planck charge is usually
taken to be the electronic charge size, rather than the larger size implied
through symmetry by the Planck mass, but here it is the latter that is
used as the ultimate maximum size, with the two different sizes leading
to two different sets of adjusted-Planck units. The result shows that
only some fundamental constants are really constant, and that those
which are, are actually ratios whose size is set by the choice of units. The
objective is to show that the strength of gravitational and charge fields
are the same for fractional adjusted-Planck values. This implies on the
small scale that within the nucleus the actions of gravity probably are
as important as charge and that possibly the strong force is gravity in
disguise, working with charge. And on the large scale that the universe
may not be as large as currently calculated.

It might be reasonably asked why the simple rearrangements
of Planck mass into triple-adjusted Planck mass and Planck length into tripleadjusted
Planck length as the base cases used
here should need so much explanation. This will become clear below.
Since only the dimensionality, explained later, of each property in these
Planck-size based equations is what matters initially, the use of c rather
than v for velocity is not an issue. Each property in the Planck formulae
takes its appropriate and accepted initial Planck value, apart from
charge Q which here is the larger size, rather than the actual charge size
that is experimentally observed which is smaller. Amongst the
issues are the units of *h* and G, which are not immediately obviously
dimensionless ratios, the deeper dimensionalities of properties which
allow the new maximum value of mass and minimum value of length
to be described in terms of powers of c and the parallel treatments of
two sizes of Planck charge based on either an observational basis or on
a symmetry argument.

The symmetry argument is that the foundation Planck size for
charge is not the electron charge observed, but a TAPU size *Q _{T}* related
to the TAPU massonly by

All the equations in the paper use only Planck values, unless
specifically mentioned otherwise. The Planck, or adjusted-Planck,
values are call ‘maximal’ in that they represent either the largest (eg
velocity, *c*) or smallest (eg distance, *L _{p}*) that is possible for that property.
The Planck unit sets are eventally based in TAPU form on the maximal
values using either

and

The force equation provides the simple relationship that the Planck
mass *M _{p}* and theoretical larger

with , where Q_{*} is the DAPU charge. This is the maximum
charge based on symmetry with the maximum mass and is not the
electron charge, which is considered later.The result is the foundation
of a DAPU property set and units based on

(1)

And

(2)

which excludes G. The dimensionality of *G* will be shown to be zero
later. This is the most basic set of Planck properties that can be devised
using two universal constants *h* and c . However, as shown before, only
c is required in the maximal TAPU set.

The relationship between M_{*} and Q_{*} is simply with the
deeper relationships and .

Considering inertial and gravitational mass, the starting point is the simple DAPU relationship

(3)

Here now there is no need to differentiate between the M of the
gravitational side of the equation and the M of the inertial side because
the treatment of both M’s is identical and the result independent of *G.* The subsuming of *G* within the mass and distance units eliminates the
difference between gravitational and inertial masses, since there is no
longer any purely gravitational mass. This is not equivalent to making
G=1 because the effect of subsuming *G* into M_{*} and L_{*} is to stretch
current property space into the more symmetric DAPU properties
space, which does not occur when simply setting G=1. The result of
eliminating L_{*} is also that the field strength of any fractional charge is equal to the same strength of gravitational field for an equal
fractional mass the actual factor between the two being c.
To maintain the topology and symmetry of the base property space
requires that the two properties M and L are stretched proportionately
together. Provided Q is treated in the same way as M, it will stay
symmetric. Any non-symmetric stretching results in an asymmetric set
of properties and will require the use of factors such as 2π in the
relationships between the stretched properties.

The above two relationships hold in the system in DAPU units, but unfortunately in SI units the first misalignment becomes apparent. To align the charge and mass side of the Planck equation in SI units requires that the base unit size Planck charge is altered by the factor relative to the mass side since in SI units.

To identify this difference, each equation in future may, where it might otherwise confuse, be identified either as being in DAPU or SI units, so that

(4)

It is useful for display purposes, as will be used liberally later, to define a factor

(5)

which represents the ratio , where q_{e*} is the DAPU size of
the electronic charge.

The second SI misalignment appears when comparing
electromagnetic and mechanical SI units that have material content
requiring permeability or permittivity. The use of permeability u_{*} as causes the factor to appear in
some properties when compared with what their DAPU based value
should be. This arises from some properties whose SI units may mix
electromagnetic and mechanical properties within their definition,
such as the Farad. So the second SI re-alignment is to define u_{*} to be
equal to the ratio rather than the usual , which relegates from gravitational to permeability use, so that it represents a
measure of the strength of interactions within materials, not between
masses. It will be shown below that u_{*} and both have the same
units, in that they are both dimensionless. The value of permittivity
also needs to be adjusted to maintain the value of its product with
permeability. The result is that the proposed new adjusted-SI units
(NSI) which should be used are either the same as the normal SI units or
are different to normal SI units by a power of either the ratio , the factor, the 6.501 factor or a combination of these. Wherever
there is a factor *q _{e*}* used, the same power of is used. Where
there is no

The new dimensionality analysis goes deeper than considering
properties in terms of mass, length and time by uncovering a dimension
in which adjusted-Planck sizes of mass, length and time are themselves
only powers of a single underlying property. The subsuming of *G* within the DAPU mass *M _{*}*, and the DAPU length

Mass Velocity *c = Y ^{+2}*

Length Energy

Charge Time *T _{*} = Y^{-5}*

*h = Y ^{0} G = Y^{0}*

The units of G are dimensionality and *h* has units of dimensionality. So the units of both *h* and *G* are actually irrelevant because they represent fundamental
constants with zero dimensionality. Similarly Boltzmann’s constant
has units of dimensionality as well. Thus adjusting the
Planck mass to the DAPU mass, and Planck length to DAPU length,
involves only multiplying or dividing by the ratio and as
dimensionless numbers, and does not affect the dimensionality of the
units of mass, charge or length, other than changing the sizes of the
base Planck mass, charge and distance units. This stretches the current
property space into the more symmetric DAPU property space, which
is different to treating *G* to be equal to one, which does not affect the
current property space topology at all. The same analysis can be done
for permeability to give units of dimensionality which shows that the replacement of *u _{*}* by does
not affect the units used because they are both dimensionless.

This hypothetical dimensionality tool can be used to produce any law of nature by creating equations where the dimensionalities are
equal on both sides.One example from the tables would be F = Ma
, where force is *Y ^{+8}* and is equal to the product of mass

**Table 1** provides a list of the main *Q _{*}* property set and their NSI
values at their maximal Planck sizes. The set is produced by starting
with the base property space

The discovery that the von Klitzing constant [5] the
Josephson constant [6] could be measured directly
has improved the precision of measurement of *h* and some SI
electromagnetic units [7]. It is unfortunate that the misalignment of SI
units between mechanical and electromagnetic properties has not been
addressed before. These two experimentally measured ‘smaller’ Planck
unit constituents can only easily be shown to be members of that set if
the current misalignment of SI units is corrected initially into New SI
units (NSI) and then finally into Brand New SI units (BNSI). This is
shown in both formulaic and numerical comparisons.What emerges
from the *q _{e}* set are values in the new fundamental units for

The maximal value for Resistance *R _{e*}* is equal to the von Klitzing
constant

(6)

and the value of the Magnetic Flux is equal to twice the inverse of the Josephson constant *K _{j}*,

(7)

Supplimetary **Table 3** shows that the NSI values of *R _{k}* and

In DAPU the value of each property in Supplimetary **Table 1** is
one multiplied by the constants factor containing *h* and *c*, except where is needed. To arrive at the maximal real values that can be found
experimentally, the list needs to be adjusted to use *q _{e*}* instead of

All the properties in Supplimetary **Tables 1** and **2** have been
produced using standard relationships and formulae. It is interesting
to observe that some properties on the mechanical side have identical
size and dimension partners on the electromagnetic side, for example
mass *M _{*}* and magnetic flux

(8)

It is also possible to use the same relationships at the *q _{e*}* level,
using the property values from Supplimetary

(9)

Since the values of some electromagnetic properties are identical to the values of some mechanical properties, it suggests that mechanical formulae could be used with electromagnetic properties substituted instead, and vice versa.

One example would be the simple which suggests that in some way electromagnetic inductance is equivalent to a mechanical distance. Were this only done in SI units, the mix of mechanical and electromagnetic properties would not show that the properties were interchangeable because of the misalignment of those two types of property in the SI units system. The Tables show that most electromagnetic properties can be reinterpreted in terms of mechanical properties. It requires a complete reinterpretation of what is understood by the terms magnetic inductance (acceleration), magnetic flux (mass), inductance (distance), current density (mass density) and other electromagnetic properties.

The new law of nature mentioned earlier, producing Planck’s
constant *h* as the product of DAPU volume and viscosity , together
with the equivalence in DAPU units of viscosity and electric field , provide two interesting possibilities, one already experimentally
hinted at. Firstly, that any fundamental physical framework based
on a single fundamental particle of one volume size, which combines
with others in a composite structure and moves against a background
viscosity, would have similar viscosity acting on the motion of every
such component particle. This would be equivalent to the action of
air resistance on a skydiver, providing a terminal velocity for all such
particles. The same type of action on such fundamental particles could be
the underlying reason for the terminal velocity that we describe as light
speed, the irreversible arrow of time as energy is always lost in motion
to overcome viscosity and could also provide an additional redshift
factor to the passage of photons, almost completely directly related to
their distance travelled, reducing the real size and expansion rate of the
universe. Correspondingly, where such viscosity is not present, there
will be no maximum velocity and non-locality could result. It may be
that the presence of viscosity produces a relativistic environment and
an absence of viscosity produces a quantum environment. Secondly,
and having potential experimental justification, is that viscosity and electric field could be the same property in different disguises. A
recent paper [8] mentioned that the ’stickiness’ of spiders’ silk could
be turned on and off through the application of an electric field. If such
stickiness and viscosity are related, then this would show directly how
viscosity is related to electric field and vice versa. This effect would not
the same as the creation of magnetorheological fluids [9] with dual
fluids, but would be describing a deeper level of equivalence.

Having reintroduced *h* earlier in order to show clearly the link
between the set of property maximal values and *R _{k}* and

and to show their simple relationships to all other properties through a new ratio .

The base formulae are now:

(11)

and

(12)

It is now considered here what it means to have those properties,
also described as parameters, as ratios of *ϑ* . The starting point is to
consider how each of the parameters could be most simply described in
terms of the product the normal length, velocity and time parameters
(L *v* T) and respectively *ϑ ^{1}* (mass

It is also worth noting how the current equation relating energy and
time, instead of position and momentum in the original Heisenberg
relationship (11), in DAPU was and now becomes *E _{T}T_{T}* =1
in TAPU.

Supplimetary **Tables 1** and **2** should be compared with Supplimetary **Table 4** for understanding. The *q _{eT}* set is the observable set of TAPU
parameters which can be compared with the maximal Q

Note that the L*v*T groups used may not correspond to the normally
accepted set due to the inclusion of *m *or* q* in every parameter formula.
It is clear from a comparison of **Table 4** columns 1-3 and 4-6 that the
same grouping of L*v*T parameters with mass *m* and with the product *qc* can be described identically. The two sets have the same powers of *ϑ* which should make the properties the same. So, for example, Shear
Viscosity (*η *) and Electric Field (*ξ *) appear to be the same properties,
and Acceleration (a)seems equivalent to Magnetic Inductance (*B*) The
accepted definitions of the electromagnetic properties are therefore
shown to be incorrect. They should all be adjusted by the extra c factor.
One difficulty in considering the alignments across all possible powers
of *ϑ* is that there are gaps where no known properties exist for that
power of *ϑ*, at powers *ϑ*^{15} and *ϑ*^{-8}. These gaps are properties that we
have not yet realised actually exist. Doubtless they will be uncovered
experimentally [10] in due course, although it is not clear what set of
parameters or units would best describe them since there are many
different ways to produce their dimensionalities. The simplest set has
been used in Supplimetary **Table 4**. The best possible descriptions for
these two properties would be: for the *ϑ*^{15} property ‘Kinetic Intensity’
since it can be formed from the product of velocity and intensity and
for the* ϑ*^{-8} property ‘Inverse Force’.

In translating between DAPU units used above in Supplimetary **Tables 1** and **2** and TAPU units used in Supplimetary **Table 5**, it
is helpful to show the adjustments to each of the properties in the
parameter sets. The results are displayed in Supplimetary **Table 5** which
combines the two parameter sets and shows both the BNSI values of the
TAPU parameters and their values in terms of ratios of *c*, or of *c* and or . The changes can be split into six groupings,
where is the relationship between the TAPU units in BNSI and
the DAPU units in NSI when eliminating h content with the description
of the units in Supplimetary **Table 5** given as BNSI units (*h*-adjusted).

The parameters Mass (*m*), Magnetic Flux ϕ, Charge-mass (*qc*),
Momentum (*mv*), Energy (*E*), Temperature (*K*), Charge (*q*), Distance
(*L*), Inductance (*Z*), Capacitance (*C*) and Time (*T*) hange in the form

The parameters Angular Frequency (*w*), Frequency( *f*), Acceleration
(*a*), Magnetic Inductance (*B*), Magnetic Field (*H*), Electric Field (*ξ*) and
Viscosity(*η*) change in the form . The parameters Velocity
(*v*), Resistance (*R*), Current (*i*) Action (m/L) Potential Difference (*∇*)
Force (*F*) Power(*P*), Conductance (*ζ*) and Permittivity (*ε*) remain in the form .

The parameters Moment (*m*L), and Area (*A*) change in the form .

The parameters Mass Density (*ρ* ) , Current Density (*J*), Pressure (*p*)
and Energy Density (*ψ *) change in the form . The parameter
Volume (*V*) changes in the form .

Why is the action of charge so strong compared with gravity? The answer is that the strength of action of both is identical. It is the relative sizes in which each occur that starts the confusion and then the gravitational constant that hides the situation further. The latter is caused by the inconsistencies in SI units and lack of understanding of the underlying deeper dimensions in nature.

On the subject of the TAPU interpretation of properties what,
for example, does it mean that the maximal value of the TAPU of
observable adjusted-Planck unit energy is *ϑ ^{5}* whilst that of mass is

This tells us that regardless of the relative size of the electronic
charge in the *q _{eT}* set to its maximum value in the

It is also possible to infer that the underlying reason for the value
of the fine structure constant must be motional, since it is part of the
ratio . Because the relationship is inverse, it does not
necessarily mean that a is a translational velocity, instead it could be
linked to rotational or spinning motion.The total dimensionality of
any object is based on the observation that there must be at least 16
+ 9 + 1 = 26 dimensions existing to accommodate all the properties
that we currently observe, even if we do not have names for either the
mechanical or electromagnetic properties at some values of powers
of *ϑ*, where they have not yet been recognized to exist. Note that,
other than for *m* and *q* parameters, the formulae used to provide the
appropriate powers of for each parameter in Supplimetary **Table 4** do not use the target parameter in the formula, so velocity *v* does not
have v in its formula, for example .It is now clear that the use of* h, G* and the omission of the and 6.501 factors in SI units serve to
hide the underlying symmetry within the current set of Planck units.
Only in their final TAPU form in BNSI units is it clear that the set of
TAPU units have adjusted-Planck unit property values TAPU=*Y ^{x}* with 14 ≥ x ≥ −9 where for the larger set , with the smaller set having . Whilst the elimination of

So as the mass size of grouping particles increases towards equality
with the field strength of a unit of charge on these masses, the existence
of unitised positive and negative charges allows the net charge effect
to become the easier one to balance. The attractive-only gravitational
field then becomes the stronger overall as mass increases, but has no
ability to balance because there is no negative gravitational effect. So
below a certain size of mass, unitised and balanceable systems will exist,
where gravity plays a subsidiary role – even though its field strength is
the same as that of charge its actual strength is much smaller. Above a
certain size of mass, gravity will dominate because its actual strength
then exceeds that of individual charges. This does not mean that charge
fields do not play a role in gravitational systems, nor that gravity
does not act in charge balanced systems, only that the relative effect
will be small at either end of the scale. There ought to exist at the size
where the two forces balance in actual strength, some systems where
the gravity and charge actions both need to be considered equally in
their dynamics. The final output in Supplimetary **Table 5** is to display
all the *Q _{T}* property set as powers of only and all the

This paper presents new ways of understanding the relationships between properties whilst undermining the current interpretation of where the quantum and classical worlds diverge because the strength of gravitational and charge fields are equivalent. The novel insights and predictions include:

• If our current units are simplified and corrected for two misalignments, the underlying symmetry of the maximal values of all properties can be seen.

• The reinterpretation of *h* and *G* implies that size and distance
are not the properties which separate quantum and classical
gravitational systems.

• The reinterpretation of the gravitational constant *G* as a
dimensionless ratio and its relegation from gravitational to
permeability use as a ratio enables it to represent a measure
of the strength of interactions within materials not between
masses.

• The reinterpretation of *G* eliminates the need to test the
equivalence of gravitational and inertial masses.

• The strength of equal fractional adjusted-Planck sized charge and gravitational fields has been shown to be equal.

• The fundamental constants *h* and *G* have zero values for
dimensionality and can be eliminated from all equations
by appropriate adjustment of SI units because they are only
dimensionless ratios.

• The adjustment of SI units results in the same units for magnetic inductance B and magnetic field H , separated only
by the dimensionless ratio which replaces permeability.
For electric field ξ_{-} and electric displacement field D the
relationship is the permittivity ε_{-} equal to *c ^{-2}* in TAPU units,
meaning D is an energy property.

• To correctly understand the relationships between properties
the fundamental constant *G* needs to be split equally between
both mass and distance properties and *h* equally between both
mass and charge properties on the one hand and distance on
the other.

• There is a self-contained and consistent new Planck unit set of
maximal *Q _{T}* based properties from which all observed values
can be produced and easily combined in equations.

• There is a self-contained and consistent new Planck unit set
of electron charge-size *q _{eT}* based properties can be produced,
some of which are directly observable in experiments.

• All properties can be displayed in terms of only c for the *Q _{T}* property set and in terms of only

• There exists a new hypothetical dimensionality analysis that can be used to describe adjusted-Planck unit property dimensions and to uncover any law of nature or any universal constants.

• All that is required to produce a law of nature is to create an equation where the adjusted-Planck unit dimensionalities are equal on both sides.

• To produce a constant of nature, aside from *c*, the minimum
that is required is that it has *Y ^{0}* dimensionality.

• That most of the *Q _{T}* and

• That the experimentally observed value of *R _{k}* probably implies
that a minimum electron velocity is required sin order to pass
through resistive materials.

• That most electromagnetic properties can be reinterpreted in terms of mechanical properties. It requires a complete reinterpretation of what is understood by the terms magnetic inductance (acceleration), magnetic flux (mass), inductance (distance), current density (mass density) and other electromagnetic properties. One possible experimental verification exists in equating viscosity and electric field.

• That the reinterpretation of *R _{k}* and

• A universal method of discovering laws of nature that applies regardless of any stretching of property space. A unit with would still have the same relationships between adjusted-Planck unit properties although the numerical values of the results would be different.

• Physics can be better understood when stripped to its bare essentials using a better tool set consisting of a repaired system of SI units, which are currently misaligned across the electromagnetic and mechanical properties. By adjusting SI units to be self-consistent and consistent with TAPU units, greater clarity will ensue.

• The adjustments necessary to align and make SI units self consistent and also consistent with the simplicity of TAPU units have been proposed, producing a system of Brand New SI units.

• The new dimensional analysis shows that the current set of properties is missing two from the set, whose dimensions and probable units can be inferred and are suggested be called ‘Kinetic Intensity’ and ‘Inverse Force’.

- Mohr P (2010) Recent progress in fundamental constants and the International System of Units.Third workshop on Precision Physics and Fundamental Physical Constants.
- Duff MJ, Okun LB, Veneziano G (2002)Trialogue on the number of fundamental constants.JHEP
- Fiorentini G,Okun L, Vysotsky M (2001) Is G a conversion factor or a fundamental unit.
- Okun LB (2003) Fundamental units: physics and metrology. "Astrophysics, Clocks and Fundamental Constants.
- Klitzing KV, Dorda G, Pepper M (1980)New method for high-accuracy determination of the fine-structure constant based on quantized Hall resistance.Physical Review Letters 45: 494-497.
- Josephson BD (1974)The discovery of tunnelling supercurrents.Rev Mod Phys46: 251-254.
- Mohr PJ,Taylor BN, David B (2008) CODATA Recommended Values of the Fundamental Physical Constants: 2006. Rev Mod Phys80:633-730
- Tao H (2012) Silk-Based Conformal, Adhesive, Edible Food Sensors. Advanced Materials 24:1067-1072.
- Andrade EN, Dodd C (1946) The Effect of an Electric Field on the Viscosity of Liquid Proceedings of the Royal Society of London.Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences 187
**:**296-337. - Heisenberg W (1930) The Physical Principles of Quantum Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Select your language of interest to view the total content in your interested language

- Algebraic Geometry
- Analytical Geometry
- Axioms
- Behaviometrics
- Big Data Analytics
- Binary and Non-normal Continuous Data
- Binomial Regression
- Biometrics
- Biostatistics methods
- Clinical Trail
- Complex Analysis
- Cross-Covariance and Cross-Correlation
- Differential Equations
- Fourier Analysis
- Genetic Linkage
- Hamilton Mechanics
- Hypothesis Testing
- Integration
- Large-scale Survey Data
- Matrix
- Microarray Studies
- Multivariate-Normal Model
- Noether's theorem
- Non rigid Image Registration
- Physical Mathematics
- Quantum Mechanics
- Quantum electrodynamics
- Regressions
- Relativity
- Riemannian Geometry
- Robust Method
- Soft biometrics
- Spatial Gaussian Markov Random Fields
- Statistical Methods
- Theoretical Physics
- Theory of Mathematical Modeling
- Topology
- mirror symmetry
- vector bundle

- Total views:
**8441** - [From(publication date):

March-2016 - Dec 12, 2018] - Breakdown by view type
- HTML page views :
**8265** - PDF downloads :
**176**

Peer Reviewed Journals

International Conferences 2018-19