In my experience, academic pedagogy and university research take for granted the implications of using fixed and calculated constants to explain the continuous fluid nature of reality. In today’s discussion, we are going to talk about three such examples; the Planck Constant (kg⋅m2⋅s−1), the Speed of Light (m⋅s−1), and the Gravitational Constant (m3⋅kg−1⋅s−2). The Planck Constant (ℏ) implies our universe is comprised of energetic chucks whose energy value is neatly correlated with individual wavelengths of light which travel at a fixed Speed of Light (c). Two famous equations E=MC2 and E=ℏv suggest that light, as a photon, has no mass yet still has energy. v here is the frequency of radiation. In fact, in the last decade, scientific leaders have decided to determine the exact value of the kilogram by using the Planck Constant and the Speed of Light!
In recent days, following a 10-year study to more accurately measure the Gravitational Constant (G), which mostly added more confusion to the number, the lead scientist was quoted as saying “It is highly unlikely some fundamental physics that we do not understand is causing the discrepancy in results.” So here we are, 2026, frightened by thought of being wrong.
In particular circumstances, these values have shown to be greatly beneficial; however, could our ultimate dependence upon these values be stifling future discoveries in numerous areas of study? In this week’s gathering, let’s enjoy a virtual round table talk about the limitations and ramifications of constantly using constants.
