Astron. Astrophys. 361, 379-387 (2000)
3. On the nature of the fundamental ratio : a gravitational coupling constant
It may be useful at that step to be more specific about the nature
of the new fundamental constant, even though a more detailed analysis
will be given in a forthcoming work (Nottale in preparation). The
meaning of can be anticipated from a
comparison with the quantum hydrogen atom. Indeed, it is well known
that, on its fundamental level, the average orbital velocity of an
electron is given by , where
is the fine structure constant, i.e.
the coupling constant of electromagnetism.
In the macroscopic case considered here the problem is purely
gravitational, but w still gives the average velocity of the
fundamental level. Let us demonstrate that
plays the role of a gravitational
coupling constant. The fine structure constant appears in the
expression of the Coulomb force when the square of the electric charge
is expressed in terms of quantum units, i.e.:
![[EQUATION]](img43.gif)
Now the correspondence between the standard microscopic quantum
theory and the macroscopic quasi-quantum situation described here is
given by , so that we are lead to
write:
![[EQUATION]](img45.gif)
Now, since and
, the identification of both
expressions of the force implies:
![[EQUATION]](img48.gif)
This establishes as a macroscopic
gravitational coupling constant, in agreement with Agnese & Festa
(1997), and Agop et al. (1999).
In Nottale 1996b, the value of w was determined to be
km/s from several different
quantization effects ranging from the scale of the solar system to
extragalactic scales, in agreement with Tifft & Cocke (1984) own
precise determination (144.9 km/s) from the Tifft effect of redshift
quantization. This value corresponds to an inverse coupling constant
.
The question of a theoretical prediction of the value of this
constant might reveal to be a difficult one, owing to the fact that
there is still no theoretical understanding, in the standard model of
elementary particles, of the value of the electromagnetic coupling
constant itself (however, see Nottale 1996a). A full discussion of
this problem will be considered elsewhere.
However, one can already remark here that its solution is expected
to involve connections between local and global scales, i.e. it might
be related with Mach's principle. Recall that, in other contributions,
new dilation laws having a log-Lorentz form have been introduced
(Nottale 1992), that lead to re-interpret the length-scale of the
cosmological constant and the Planck
length-scale as impassable,
respectively maximal and minimal length-scales, invariant under
dilations of resolutions (see e.g. Nottale 1993 , 1996a): i.e., they
would play for scale transformations of resolutions a role similar to
that of the velocity of light for motion transformations.
Their ratio defines a fundamental pure number,
. The logarithm of this ratio has
been found to have the numerical value
, i.e.
from an analysis of the vacuum
energy density problem (Nottale 1993 , 1996a). This value corresponds
to for a Hubble constant
km/s.Mpc) and it has been
corroborated by recent indirect measurements of the cosmological
constant using SNe I (Garnavich et al. 1998; Perlmutter et al. 1998;
Riess et al. 1998).
Moreover, one is also lead, in the scale-relativistic framework, to
give a new interpretation of gauge invariance as being invariance in
the resolution space. The universal limit on possible scale ratios
thus implies a quantization of coupling constants (this amounts to
defining a wave in scale space). This allows one to set new
fundamental relations between coupling constants and Compton lengths
over Planck length ratios, that typically write (Nottale 1996a):
![[EQUATION]](img58.gif)
When it is applied to the electron structure, which is upper
limited in scale by its Compton length and lower limited by the Planck
length-scale, this method yields a relation between the
electromagnetic coupling as it is defined in the electroweak theory,
, and the electron mass in Planck
mass unit:
![[EQUATION]](img60.gif)
This relation is satisfied within 0.3% by the experimental values
of the fine structure constant and of the electron mass. Recall that
this method also allows one to suggest a solution to the hierarchy
problem between the GUT and electroweak scale (WZ). Indeed we have
suggested, in the minimal standard model reformulated in the special
scale-relativity framework, that bare couplings are given by the
critical value , so that one can
define a fundamental scale given by
![[EQUATION]](img62.gif)
which is nothing but the electroweak scale
( GeV).
We can now apply the same reasoning to gravitation in the new
framework. Indeed, contrarily to what happens in the classical theory,
the equation of motion (Eq. 2) can be shown to be gauge
invariant. If the potential is
replaced by , where the factor
GMm ensures a correct dimensionality, then Eq. (2) remains
invariant provided is replaced by
, with
related to
by:
![[EQUATION]](img69.gif)
which is the previously established relation for
. Therefore, gauge invariance allows
one to demonstrate the form of the coefficient
that we obtained from dimensional
considerations. The advantage of this result is that it will be
generalizable to gravitational potentials different from the Kepler
one.
Finally, similarly to the electromagnetic case, we can interpret
the arbitrary gauge function , up to
some numerical constant, as the logarithm of a scale factor
in resolution space. In the special
scale-relativity framework, such a scale factor is limited by the
ratio of the maximal cosmic scale over the Planck scale, i.e.
. This limitation of
in the phase of the wave function
implies a quantization of its
conjugate quantity , following the
relation:
![[EQUATION]](img73.gif)
The numerical constant k remains to be determined. A
possible suggestion is that , which
yields a predicted value of and
km/s, in good agreement with it
precise observational determinations. Reversely, from such a relation,
if it was confirmed, a precise measurement of w would provide
one with a new way of determining the cosmological constant.
© European Southern Observatory (ESO) 2000
Online publication: September 5, 2000
helpdesk.link@springer.de  |