4 ms·

That’s not that great analogy for fine tuning. The quantized representative value of Pi is arbitrary based our numerical system, the relationship that derives i

That’s not that great analogy for fine tuning. The quantized representative value of Pi is arbitrary based our numerical system, the relationship that derives it is fixed if the relationship would change circles indeed would not exist. Let’s move the analogy to triangles a triangle has 180 degrees but that only holds true when it’s on a flat surface if you have a curvature it can have more or less than 180 degrees. So this isn’t a fine tuning problem on its own, if you would lived in a universe where triangles have less or more than 180 degrees it would represent a universe with negative or positive curvature. The issue with fine tuning is that the curvature of the universe is directly tied to the mass/energy density and any deviation from an extremely narrow range which our universe seems to sit in out of all possible values would not just produce a universe with triangles with fewer or more degrees than 180 but would either produce a universe that would collapse on itself within a blink of an eye or expand so fast that gravity would never be strong enough to cause even the most basic structures to form. So the issue really is that to produce a universe which will form galaxies and stars and survive long enough to produce life you need a lot of parameters at a certain very specific value even the smallest of deviations would not produce a universe that would ever support life, yet alone an intelligent life. What’s even stranger iirc is that the values have to be really what they are now you can’t simply 2X all of them to maintain the proportions and get the same result. And this is really what people are looking to solve, yes the androcentric is a solution if they were anything than what they are now we wouldn’t be here to discuss why, but the issue is that out of all other possible combinations you don’t seem to find another stable state and that is the true mystery.

hutrdvnj 5y ago
> other possible combinations you don’t seem to find another stable state and that is the true mystery. Is that really the case, I thought in theory there could be a massive amount of other stable universes with different values. The number of unstable universes is of course much larger.
- dogma1138 5y ago
  That would be SUSY which solves issues like the hierarchy problems and other fine tuning constraints.
JackFr 5y ago
> yes the androcentric is a solution Anthropocentric I think you mean. Andro- would refer to the male sex rather than humankind -- which is I claim I doubt many physicists would make.
- dogma1138 5y ago
  Typing Antrocentric auto corrects to androcentric, you are correct of course, good thing this isn’t Twitter or I would be forced to apologize by now.
occamrazor 5y ago
> androcentric I suppose you mean _anthropocentric_ (or the anthropic principle). The prefix andro- refers to men, in the sense of male (adult) humans; anthropo- instead to men in the sense of all humans.
simiones 5y ago
> The issue with fine tuning is that the curvature of the universe is directly tied to the mass/energy density and any deviation from an extremely narrow range which our universe seems to sit in out of all possible values would not just produce a universe with triangles with fewer or more degrees than 180 but would either produce a universe that would collapse on itself within a blink of an eye or expand so fast that gravity would never be strong enough to cause even the most basic structures to form. Well, the notion of "extremely narrow range" is arbitrary. There is no mathematical notion of "large numbers" vs "small numbers". If the constants you speak about were 10^-g64 (Graham's number) times larger or smaller than they are, nothing would really change. If they were 2 times smaller, the universe would be extremely different. But 2 and 10^-g64 are just numbers. Neither of them is inherently large or small. We just happen to understand 1, 2, 3, ... much better than g64. You could say that there is a surprising amount of leg-room in the values of some constants of nature, while others can only vary in a reasonable range. While the fine-structure constant can vary within a reasonable +-1/1000 range without massive changes, other values can vary by massive numbers such as +-2!
- dogma1138 5y ago
  The range doesn’t have anything to do with “numbers” directly because yes you can always say there is an infinity between any two numbers no matter how close they are to each other. The very limited range is actually captured in physical quantities. Back to the original analogy Pi is always exactly Pi not because we count it as 3.14~… but because of the relationship between the various innate properties of a circle. So fine tuning isn’t that oh gosh we got very oddly specific values here is that we have problems such as https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy_problem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy_problem that are only solvable through fine tuning. So back to the circle it’s really a case of use not understanding the relationship between the circumference and the radius and just brute forcing the value of Pi which is really what fine tuning is.
  - tsimionescu 5y ago
    Sure, but none of this must have a fundamental explanation. It could just be the way the universe is, nothing in maths requires this 'problem' to have a solution. Conversely, things like the measurement problem, quantum gravity, dark matter, dark energy, the mass of neutrinos and others must have some answer - they are facts we can see that just don't mesh with current theories. So why study a problem that there is no reason to believe will have an ultimate answer, when you can study problems that must have such an answer?
otabdeveloper4 5y ago
> And this is really what people are looking to solve Why would you want to "solve" a basic fact of life? Smells of ideology.
- SAI_Peregrinus 5y ago
  "explain" might be a better word than "solve" there. People are looking to solve the question "why are the fundamental constants of physics what they are?" which isn't a problem in the sense of something wrong but more something that needs an explanation for a full understanding to be possible.
wruza 5y ago
would either produce a universe that would collapse on itself within a blink of an eye or expand so fast that gravity would never be strong enough to cause even the most basic structures to form It could do so in other chunks of space or time. If “time” and “expansion” have no final end, and these constants can fluctuate for some reason, eventually there would appear a universe like ours. There is no one who could count all the “failed” attempts. And maybe ours is also a failure in a sense, compared to a hypothetical much “better” universe.
- BlueTemplar 5y ago
  Hmm, but isn't this very similar to taking the "multiverse" explanation and moving it into a "timeverse" ?
- dogma1138 5y ago
  That is still fine tuning, in fact one of the more common interpretations of it just have an infinite number of universes one of them has to turn out to be alright…

hutrdvnj 5y ago

> other possible combinations you don’t seem to find another stable state and that is the true mystery. Is that really the case, I thought in theory there could be a massive amount of other stable universes with different values. The number of unstable universes is of course much larger.

dogma1138 5y ago
That would be SUSY which solves issues like the hierarchy problems and other fine tuning constraints.

JackFr 5y ago

> yes the androcentric is a solution Anthropocentric I think you mean. Andro- would refer to the male sex rather than humankind -- which is I claim I doubt many physicists would make.

dogma1138 5y ago
Typing Antrocentric auto corrects to androcentric, you are correct of course, good thing this isn’t Twitter or I would be forced to apologize by now.

occamrazor 5y ago

> androcentric I suppose you mean _anthropocentric_ (or the anthropic principle). The prefix andro- refers to men, in the sense of male (adult) humans; anthropo- instead to men in the sense of all humans.

simiones 5y ago

> The issue with fine tuning is that the curvature of the universe is directly tied to the mass/energy density and any deviation from an extremely narrow range which our universe seems to sit in out of all possible values would not just produce a universe with triangles with fewer or more degrees than 180 but would either produce a universe that would collapse on itself within a blink of an eye or expand so fast that gravity would never be strong enough to cause even the most basic structures to form. Well, the notion of "extremely narrow range" is arbitrary. There is no mathematical notion of "large numbers" vs "small numbers". If the constants you speak about were 10^-g64 (Graham's number) times larger or smaller than they are, nothing would really change. If they were 2 times smaller, the universe would be extremely different. But 2 and 10^-g64 are just numbers. Neither of them is inherently large or small. We just happen to understand 1, 2, 3, ... much better than g64. You could say that there is a surprising amount of leg-room in the values of some constants of nature, while others can only vary in a reasonable range. While the fine-structure constant can vary within a reasonable +-1/1000 range without massive changes, other values can vary by massive numbers such as +-2!

dogma1138 5y ago
The range doesn’t have anything to do with “numbers” directly because yes you can always say there is an infinity between any two numbers no matter how close they are to each other. The very limited range is actually captured in physical quantities. Back to the original analogy Pi is always exactly Pi not because we count it as 3.14~… but because of the relationship between the various innate properties of a circle. So fine tuning isn’t that oh gosh we got very oddly specific values here is that we have problems such as https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy_problem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy_problem that are only solvable through fine tuning. So back to the circle it’s really a case of use not understanding the relationship between the circumference and the radius and just brute forcing the value of Pi which is really what fine tuning is.
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  Sure, but none of this must have a fundamental explanation. It could just be the way the universe is, nothing in maths requires this 'problem' to have a solution. Conversely, things like the measurement problem, quantum gravity, dark matter, dark energy, the mass of neutrinos and others must have some answer - they are facts we can see that just don't mesh with current theories. So why study a problem that there is no reason to believe will have an ultimate answer, when you can study problems that must have such an answer?

otabdeveloper4 5y ago

> And this is really what people are looking to solve Why would you want to "solve" a basic fact of life? Smells of ideology.

SAI_Peregrinus 5y ago
"explain" might be a better word than "solve" there. People are looking to solve the question "why are the fundamental constants of physics what they are?" which isn't a problem in the sense of something wrong but more something that needs an explanation for a full understanding to be possible.

wruza 5y ago

would either produce a universe that would collapse on itself within a blink of an eye or expand so fast that gravity would never be strong enough to cause even the most basic structures to form It could do so in other chunks of space or time. If “time” and “expansion” have no final end, and these constants can fluctuate for some reason, eventually there would appear a universe like ours. There is no one who could count all the “failed” attempts. And maybe ours is also a failure in a sense, compared to a hypothetical much “better” universe.

BlueTemplar 5y ago
Hmm, but isn't this very similar to taking the "multiverse" explanation and moving it into a "timeverse" ?
dogma1138 5y ago
That is still fine tuning, in fact one of the more common interpretations of it just have an infinite number of universes one of them has to turn out to be alright…