Eddington-Weinberg relation

In 1988, Weinberg used an equivalent relation as an historical starting point for the weak anthropic principle, in his "The cosmological constant problem". I quote, page 7:

An example is provided by what I think is the first use of anthropic arguments in modern physics, by Dicke (1961), in response to a problem posed by Dirac (1937). In effect, Dirac had noted that a combination of fundamental constants with the dimensions of a time turns out to be roughly of the order of the present age of the universe:

$hbar/Gcm_{pi}^3 = 4.5times10^{10}~yr.~~~~~~~~~(5.1)$

[There are various other ways of writing this relation, such as replacing $m_{pi}$ with various combinations of particle masses and introducing powers of $e^2/hbar c$. Dirac's original "large-number" coincidence is equivalent to using Eq. (5.1) as a formula for the age of the universe, with $m_{pi}$ replaced by $(137m_pm_e^2)^{1/3} =183~MeV$. In fact, there are so many different possibilities that one may doubt whether there is any coincidence that needs explaining.] Dirac reasoned that if this connection were a real one, then, since the age of the universe increases (linearly) with time, some of the constants on the left side of (5.1) must change with time. He guessed that it is $G$ that changes, like $1/t$. In response to Dirac, Dicke pointed out that the question of the age of the universe could only arise when the conditions are right for the existence of life. Specifically, the universe must be old enough so that some stars will have completed their time on the main sequence to produce the heavy elements necessary for life, and it must be young enough so that some stars would still be providing energy through nuclear reactions. Both the upper and lower bounds on the ages of the universe at which life can exist turn out to be roughly (very roughly) given by just the quantity (5.1). Hence there is no need to suppose that any of the fundamental constants vary with time to account for the rough agreement of the quantity (5.1) with the present age of the universe

I don't know any other references from Weinberg to that question, but if this is the one, the name of Weinberg seems to be there only to give some additional credibility to the formula, even if

• Weinberg seemed not to be terribly convinced (my emphasis) by the coincidence(s).
• Weinberg made a boo-boo in his counting of the $hbar$s in his equation (5.1).

So, maybe the association of the name of Weinberg with the formula is a bit unjustified, and that's why the link is not so easy to find.

Weinberg Relation /1,2 /

Mass pion ~ (hn^2Ho/Gc)^1/3 .

where hn = h/2π = reduced planck constant. Ho = Hubble constant. G = Newton constant. c = light speed.

It is very surprised. Why pion mass is related to Hubble constant ? /1/

The well known Weinberg Relation for pion mass is calculated and explained /2/.

Mass pion = (243/32π)^1/6 αs(hn^2Ho/Gc)^1/3 Where αs = 2.017188027 for charged pion pairs. αs = 1.950797666 for neutral pion pairs.

From the above Weinberg Relation we can get :

(pion mass)^3 ~ hn^2 Ho/Gc ~ (electron mass*nucleon mass^2)

Or Gcme*mp^2 ~ hn^2 *Ho . This is Eddington Relation.

It seems to me, That is why It is called Eddington Weinberg Relation ?

Refs. /1/S. .Weinberg. Gravitation and Cosmology, Wiley 1972, p.619. /2/ Lê sỹ Hội , December 2016, “The Copernicus Constant K and Mass of Pion” https://www.academia.edu/30562656/The_Constant_Copernicus_K_and_Mass_of_Pion