3 ms·

When I was doing my thesis work I was reading papers which argued that quite a few, and perhaps all, of the "fundamental" constants were free to take on values

When I was doing my thesis work I was reading papers which argued that quite a few, and perhaps all, of the "fundamental" constants were free to take on values during a brief period in the early history of the universe and took on their observed values due to contingency or chance of conditions which obtained in the early universe. This seemed relatively uncontroversial and was often repeated by reputable sources. Certainly nobody seemed to be arguing that the particular values we observe are logically-necessary consequences of physics, and in fact people typically observed that physics as we understand it works just fine with different values; it just gives rise to different behavior. But at any rate you seem not to be a particularly pleasant interlocutor, and like you I'm tired of repeating myself.

DonaldFisk 10y ago
The Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensionless_physical_constant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensionless_physical_constan...) states: "The complete standard model requires 25 fundamental dimensionless constants (Baez, 2011). At present, their numerical values are not understood in terms of any widely accepted theory and are determined only from measurement." Paul Dirac, and a few others argued that the relative strengths of the electromagnetic and gravitational forces between elementary particles (e.g. within the hydrogen atom) is directly related to the age of the universe, i.e. that gravity is still becoming weaker, rather than acquiring its current strength close to the big bang. I'm interested in this subject - in particular the proposed mechanism and dimensionless constants involved, but can't find any papers arguing the conditions in the early universe determine their values.