Close Menu
AI News TodayAI News Today

    Subscribe to Updates

    Get the latest creative news from FooBar about art, design and business.

    What's Hot

    Introduction to Approximate Solution Methods for Reinforcement Learning

    360-degree cameras have a new superpower

    Well, this is embarrassing: The Lunar Gateway's primary modules are corroded

    Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
    • About Us
    • Contact Us
    Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram Pinterest Vimeo
    AI News TodayAI News Today
    • Home
    • Shop
    • AI News
    • AI Reviews
    • AI Tools
    • AI Tutorials
    • Chatbots
    • Free AI Tools
    AI News TodayAI News Today
    Home»Chatbots»We still don’t have a more precise value for “Big G”
    Chatbots

    We still don’t have a more precise value for “Big G”

    By No Comments2 Mins Read
    Share Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr Reddit Telegram Email
    NIST scientists Stephan Schlamminger (left) and Vincent Lee examine the torsion balance they used to measure the gravitational constant, big G, a decade-long undertaking.
    Share
    Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Pinterest Email

    The gravitational constant, affectionally known as “Big G,” is one of the most fundamental constants of our universe. Its value describes the strength of the gravitational force acting on two masses separated by a given distance—or if you want to be relativistic about it, the amount a given mass curves space-time. Physicists have a solid ballpark figure for the value of Big G, but they’ve been trying to measure it ever more precisely for more than two centuries, each effort yielding slightly different values. And we do mean slight: The values vary by roughly one part in 10,000.

    Still, other fundamental constants are known much more precisely. So Big G is the black sheep of the family and a point of frustration for physicists keen on precision metrology. The problem is that gravity is so weak, by far the weakest of the four fundamental forces, so there is significant background noise from the gravitational field of the Earth (aka “little g”). That weakness is even more pronounced in a laboratory.

    In the latest effort to resolve the issue, scientists at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) spent the last decade replicating one of the most divergent recent experimental results. The group just announced their results in a paper published in the journal Metrologia. It does not resolve the discrepancy, but it gives physicists one more data point in their ongoing quest to nail down a more precise value for Big G.

    Isaac Newton introduced the concept of a gravitational constant when he published his law of universal gravitation in the late 17th century, although it didn’t get its Big G notation until the 1890s. Newton thought it might be possible to measure the strength of gravity by swinging a pendulum near a large hill and measuring the deflection, but he never attempted the experiment, reasoning that the effect would be too small to measure. By 1774, the Royal Society had established a committee to determine the density of the Earth as an indirect measurement of Big G, using a variation of Newton’s pendulum concept.

    Big Dont precise
    Share. Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr Email
    Previous ArticleGPT-5.5 System Card | OpenAI
    Next Article Working with Codex | OpenAI
    • Website

    Related Posts

    Chatbots

    360-degree cameras have a new superpower

    Chatbots

    Another spyware maker caught distributing fake Android snooping apps

    Chatbots

    Six things I’ll remember when I think about Tim Cook’s version of Apple

    Add A Comment
    Leave A Reply Cancel Reply

    Top Posts

    Introduction to Approximate Solution Methods for Reinforcement Learning

    0 Views

    360-degree cameras have a new superpower

    0 Views

    Well, this is embarrassing: The Lunar Gateway's primary modules are corroded

    0 Views
    Stay In Touch
    • Facebook
    • YouTube
    • TikTok
    • WhatsApp
    • Twitter
    • Instagram
    Latest Reviews
    AI Tutorials

    Quantization from the ground up

    AI Tools

    David Sacks is done as AI czar — here’s what he’s doing instead

    AI Reviews

    Judge sides with Anthropic to temporarily block the Pentagon’s ban

    Subscribe to Updates

    Get the latest tech news from FooBar about tech, design and biz.

    Most Popular

    Introduction to Approximate Solution Methods for Reinforcement Learning

    0 Views

    360-degree cameras have a new superpower

    0 Views

    Well, this is embarrassing: The Lunar Gateway's primary modules are corroded

    0 Views
    Our Picks

    Quantization from the ground up

    David Sacks is done as AI czar — here’s what he’s doing instead

    Judge sides with Anthropic to temporarily block the Pentagon’s ban

    Subscribe to Updates

    Get the latest creative news from FooBar about art, design and business.

    Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram Pinterest
    • About Us
    • Contact Us
    • Terms & Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Disclaimer

    © 2026 ainewstoday.co. All rights reserved. Designed by DD.

    Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.