4 ms·

This so-called fascination and search for meaning or reason behind constants reminds of the anthropic principle [0], which basically goes like this: "things are

by glastra 11y ago

This so-called fascination and search for meaning or reason behind constants reminds of the anthropic principle [0], which basically goes like this: "things are the way they are because we wouldn't be here to observe them otherwise". The last part of the article, however, is still quite intriguing. Nobody would expect any of the 3 components of alpha to change, unless somehow the measurements can be affected by the medium (as the speed of light depends on that). [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
notthegov 11y ago
You are probably right, that it means nothing. And I am happy people think this because nothing is meaningless. I believe there is no grand secret to this number or of life. In other words, things are the way they are because we wouldn't be able to fall in love, dance to the music and enjoy life, if things were otherwise. Thinking too much about why, distracts from the now. Mystery is what makes life worth living. And hiding ourselves from our self is what makes discovery possible. If reality is a computer simulation, then proving that is a bit redundant in my opinion. However, I think it can be proven but once it is, what will there be to know?
- ncallaway 11y ago
  > However, I think it can be proven but once it is, what will there be to know? If reality is a computer simulation I can think of a multitude of other questions about reality: - Can we communicate "outside" of the simulation? - Is the simulation a product of intelligence that is intentionally running the simulation? Or is it a mere by-product of a higher-order universe? - By studying the simulation in great enough detail, is there anything we can learn about the "outside" universe? - Is the "outside" simulation a turing machine? Can it compute a higher class of computational problems? - Are the simulations infinite? Is the "outside" also a simulation? Is it simulations all the way down — or all the way up? Is there a "real" reality? - If its simulations all the way down, how did the first simulation get started? - If there is a "real" reality we get to start all of science over at square one studying this new reality. This is a rough initial list, but I'm sure there's an endless number of questions to be asked and answered about reality even if we prove its a simulation.
  - notthegov 11y ago
    You (and others) misinterpeted my comment and missed the point. I purposely wrote it a bit obtuse as a firewall of sorts. Consider the broader philosophical implications of what I wrote. And proving it was a simulation would explain all those questions you proposed. I have asked some of the smartest people I know about this topic, and no one seems to know. It would be awesome if someone reading this thread knew something unique about it and emailed me. That's my only motivation.
    - ncallaway 11y ago
      I'm not really sure how you come to the conclusion that others misinterpreted your comment or missed the point. There are no other replies! I may well have missed the point, though if I have done so because you purposely wrote obtusely then I have no real interest in attempting to decode your writing. I wish you luck in your ventures, and hope someone with more time and ability than I discovers your writings and sends you the e-mail you desire.
ncallaway 11y ago
(I could be wrong about this, I haven't thought about it in great detail) I think invoking the Anthropic principle only makes sense if we can demonstrate that there are a number of other "places" with varying "conditions". For such a selection bias to occur there needs to be a population to actually select from. For example, the Anthropic principle makes sense regarding the composition of the earth because we know that there are a large number of planets with a distribution of orbits and masses around a distribution of stars. Of course we will be on a planet that supports life as we know it. To invoke the anthropic principle regarding a constant would imply — to me, at least — that there would need to be a number of universes with different constants. Or different regions of this universe where the constant would vary. If there truly is only a single universe, and the constant is not changing in time or space, then it would seem we did actually just happen to get lucky. Edit: of course, at this point we can't say definitely either way about our universe. We don't know if ours is one among many, or if its the solitary universe in existence. We also, clearly, have uncertainty about how constant this constant actually is.
- jessaustin 11y ago
  ISTM the different measured values of α described in TFA constitute evidence of "other places with varying conditions"?
  - ncallaway 11y ago
    Yes, if we were able to consistently measure different values of α over space and/or time it would be significant and help to strengthen the anthropic principle as it could be applied here. There are a couple challenges to these measurements, though. Sean Carrol presents a theoretical challenge in his blog post "The Fine Structure Constant is Probably Constant"[1]. Chad Orzel has a more observational critique of the results in "Why I’m Skeptical About the Changing Fine-Structure Constant" [2]. To be fair, these critiques are from 2010 and Webb, et al. has published several papers since these critiques were made. I haven't seen updated debate or discussion over Webb, et al's findings. Still, I would think we have some potential evidence that the constant may vary, but I don't think this evidence is near conclusive yet. [1] http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/10/18/the-fine-structure-constant-is-probably-constant/ http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/10/18/the-fine... [2] http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2010/09/14/httpksjtrackermitedu20100907e/ http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2010/09/14/httpksjtracker...
DonaldFisk 11y ago
The component constants of α = e^2/4πεħc have dimensions, so depend on what units you use to measure them in. Their combination comprising the electromagnetic fine structure constant is, however, dimensionless, and is satisfactorily explained. The Anthropic Principle is usually invoked to explain why two very large dimensionless numbers, i.e. the inverse gravitational "fine structure constant" (which is assumed to be constant), and the age of the universe measured in atomic units (which increases with time), are both very close to 10^40. It is suggested that, for intelligent life to evolve and measure them, the two numbers must be roughly equal, and other dimensionless numbers, such as the electromagnetic fine structure constant, must similarly have values within a narrow range. And this in turn has led some people to believe it's the deliberate action of a creator, or that there are numerous other universes whose constants have different values, and almost all are devoid of life. Fine-tuned Universe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe However, if we apply this Anthropic Principle to planetary orbits, we could conclude that planetary orbits are roughly circular because, if they were (for example) very long rectangles (or some other random shape), we wouldn't be around to observe their shape. Of course, no one believes that. It is accepted that Celestial Mechanics, based on Newton's Law of Gravity, (which can be derived from the more accurate General Theory of Relativity), adequately explains why planetary orbits are roughly circular. An alternative explanation is that we simply haven't worked out all the physical laws. For example, the force of gravity could become weaker as the universe gets older or less dense (or, expressed in different units, gravity remains constant but elementary particles get lighter). Dirac, and later a few others including myself, modified Einstein's equations in an attempt to explain this coincidence. Dirac large numbers hypothesis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_large_numbers_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_large_numbers_hypothesis Another argument against fine tuning is the Inverse gambler's fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_gambler's_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_gambler's_fallacy

by glastra 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

notthegov 11y ago

You are probably right, that it means nothing. And I am happy people think this because nothing is meaningless. I believe there is no grand secret to this number or of life. In other words, things are the way they are because we wouldn't be able to fall in love, dance to the music and enjoy life, if things were otherwise. Thinking too much about why, distracts from the now. Mystery is what makes life worth living. And hiding ourselves from our self is what makes discovery possible. If reality is a computer simulation, then proving that is a bit redundant in my opinion. However, I think it can be proven but once it is, what will there be to know?

ncallaway 11y ago
> However, I think it can be proven but once it is, what will there be to know? If reality is a computer simulation I can think of a multitude of other questions about reality: - Can we communicate "outside" of the simulation? - Is the simulation a product of intelligence that is intentionally running the simulation? Or is it a mere by-product of a higher-order universe? - By studying the simulation in great enough detail, is there anything we can learn about the "outside" universe? - Is the "outside" simulation a turing machine? Can it compute a higher class of computational problems? - Are the simulations infinite? Is the "outside" also a simulation? Is it simulations all the way down — or all the way up? Is there a "real" reality? - If its simulations all the way down, how did the first simulation get started? - If there is a "real" reality we get to start all of science over at square one studying this new reality. This is a rough initial list, but I'm sure there's an endless number of questions to be asked and answered about reality even if we prove its a simulation.
- notthegov 11y ago
  You (and others) misinterpeted my comment and missed the point. I purposely wrote it a bit obtuse as a firewall of sorts. Consider the broader philosophical implications of what I wrote. And proving it was a simulation would explain all those questions you proposed. I have asked some of the smartest people I know about this topic, and no one seems to know. It would be awesome if someone reading this thread knew something unique about it and emailed me. That's my only motivation.
  - ncallaway 11y ago
    I'm not really sure how you come to the conclusion that others misinterpreted your comment or missed the point. There are no other replies! I may well have missed the point, though if I have done so because you purposely wrote obtusely then I have no real interest in attempting to decode your writing. I wish you luck in your ventures, and hope someone with more time and ability than I discovers your writings and sends you the e-mail you desire.

ncallaway 11y ago

(I could be wrong about this, I haven't thought about it in great detail) I think invoking the Anthropic principle only makes sense if we can demonstrate that there are a number of other "places" with varying "conditions". For such a selection bias to occur there needs to be a population to actually select from. For example, the Anthropic principle makes sense regarding the composition of the earth because we know that there are a large number of planets with a distribution of orbits and masses around a distribution of stars. Of course we will be on a planet that supports life as we know it. To invoke the anthropic principle regarding a constant would imply — to me, at least — that there would need to be a number of universes with different constants. Or different regions of this universe where the constant would vary. If there truly is only a single universe, and the constant is not changing in time or space, then it would seem we did actually just happen to get lucky. Edit: of course, at this point we can't say definitely either way about our universe. We don't know if ours is one among many, or if its the solitary universe in existence. We also, clearly, have uncertainty about how constant this constant actually is.

jessaustin 11y ago
ISTM the different measured values of α described in TFA constitute evidence of "other places with varying conditions"?
- ncallaway 11y ago
  Yes, if we were able to consistently measure different values of α over space and/or time it would be significant and help to strengthen the anthropic principle as it could be applied here. There are a couple challenges to these measurements, though. Sean Carrol presents a theoretical challenge in his blog post "The Fine Structure Constant is Probably Constant"[1]. Chad Orzel has a more observational critique of the results in "Why I’m Skeptical About the Changing Fine-Structure Constant" [2]. To be fair, these critiques are from 2010 and Webb, et al. has published several papers since these critiques were made. I haven't seen updated debate or discussion over Webb, et al's findings. Still, I would think we have some potential evidence that the constant may vary, but I don't think this evidence is near conclusive yet. [1] http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/10/18/the-fine-structure-constant-is-probably-constant/ http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/10/18/the-fine... [2] http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2010/09/14/httpksjtrackermitedu20100907e/ http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2010/09/14/httpksjtracker...

DonaldFisk 11y ago

The component constants of α = e^2/4πεħc have dimensions, so depend on what units you use to measure them in. Their combination comprising the electromagnetic fine structure constant is, however, dimensionless, and is satisfactorily explained. The Anthropic Principle is usually invoked to explain why two very large dimensionless numbers, i.e. the inverse gravitational "fine structure constant" (which is assumed to be constant), and the age of the universe measured in atomic units (which increases with time), are both very close to 10^40. It is suggested that, for intelligent life to evolve and measure them, the two numbers must be roughly equal, and other dimensionless numbers, such as the electromagnetic fine structure constant, must similarly have values within a narrow range. And this in turn has led some people to believe it's the deliberate action of a creator, or that there are numerous other universes whose constants have different values, and almost all are devoid of life. Fine-tuned Universe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe However, if we apply this Anthropic Principle to planetary orbits, we could conclude that planetary orbits are roughly circular because, if they were (for example) very long rectangles (or some other random shape), we wouldn't be around to observe their shape. Of course, no one believes that. It is accepted that Celestial Mechanics, based on Newton's Law of Gravity, (which can be derived from the more accurate General Theory of Relativity), adequately explains why planetary orbits are roughly circular. An alternative explanation is that we simply haven't worked out all the physical laws. For example, the force of gravity could become weaker as the universe gets older or less dense (or, expressed in different units, gravity remains constant but elementary particles get lighter). Dirac, and later a few others including myself, modified Einstein's equations in an attempt to explain this coincidence. Dirac large numbers hypothesis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_large_numbers_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_large_numbers_hypothesis Another argument against fine tuning is the Inverse gambler's fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_gambler's_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_gambler's_fallacy