0.0073

[Cypress]

Fine Structure Constant

Why do the constants of nature have the values that they do?

To explain what is meant by this, let’s focus on a specific example. An atom is held together by the electromagnetic force of attraction between the positively charged protons in the nucleus and the negatively charged electrons that orbit around it.

Over the last hundred years, we’ve measured the properties of protons and electrons in great detail. We can write down mathematical equations that predict what kinds of atoms will form, what kinds of light they will emit and absorb, how they will interact chemically with other atoms, and so on.

All of those calculations start with how strongly protons and electrons attract each other. The strength of that attraction can be summed up in one number: the fine structure constant. We can measure the fine structure constant to extremely high precision; it’s about 0.0073 (or 1/137).

But nothing in our physical theories explains why the fine structure constant has that particular value. It seems like an arbitrary dial that got set when our universe came into being.

But it turns out that 0.0073 is not just any number. Calculations have shown that if the force of attraction between protons and electrons were stronger or weaker by just a few percent, stars wouldn’t be able to form the complex atoms like carbon that make life possible. Change the fine structure constant by a little more and stars couldn’t exist at all.

Something (or someone) set the fine structure constant for our universe to this arbitrary-seeming value, and it happens to be exactly the value that we need it to be for complex matter to exist. That seems a bit odd.

When a coincidence gets too improbable, you start to look for an explanation. If your neighbor wins the lottery, you have a lucky neighbor. If your neighbor wins the lottery five times in a row, you start to get suspicious.

Other examples of constants whose precise values are important to life and the universe as we know them are the strength of gravity (if it were slightly stronger, planetary systems wouldn’t form) and the strengths of the weak and strong forces (a slight change in either one could have caused all hydrogen to fuse into helium, leaving the later universe with no water).

Source credit: Gary Felder, PhD, professor of physics

 

[Cypress]

In a multiverse the physical constants can take any value, and we just happen to be in the universe where they all manifested as the values that make matter, life, water possible.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Fine Structure Constant ...

...But it turns out that 0.0073 is not just any number. Calculations have shown that if the force of attraction between protons and electrons were stronger or weaker by just a few percent, stars wouldn’t be able to form the complex atoms like carbon that make life possible. Change the fine structure constant by a little more and stars couldn’t exist at all.

Something (or someone) set the fine structure constant for our universe to this arbitrary-seeming value, and it happens to be exactly the value that we need it to be for complex matter to exist. That seems a bit odd.

When a coincidence gets too improbable, you start to look for an explanation. If your neighbor wins the lottery, you have a lucky neighbor. If your neighbor wins the lottery five times in a row, you start to get suspicious.

Other examples of constants whose precise values are important to life and the universe as we know them are the strength of gravity (if it were slightly stronger, planetary systems wouldn’t form) and the strengths of the weak and strong forces (a slight change in either one could have caused all hydrogen to fuse into helium, leaving the later universe with no water).

Source credit: Gary Felder, PhD, professor of physics

Its human nature to look for reasons things are the way they are.

I disagree with the premise that the Fine Structure Constant was designed as opposed to random luck (as mentioned in your second post). With multiverses anything is possible, including an infinite number of empty universes where the FSC didn't allow the formation of stars.

 

[Cypress]

Its human nature to look for reasons things are the way they are.

I disagree with the premise that the Fine Structure Constant was designed as opposed to random luck (as mentioned in your second post). With multiverses anything is possible, including an infinite number of empty universes where the FSC didn't allow the formation of stars.

The only drawback about the multiverse is that it is just conjecture. There is no tangible evidence for it at this time.

On the other hand the fine tuning of the physical constants of the universe is real and measurable. We can either write off their convergence on values that happen to support matter and life as mere coincidence (not scientifically or philosophically satisfying to me), or assume there is an explanation we might be able to grasp someday.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

The only drawback about the multiverse is that it is just conjecture. There is no tangible evidence for it at this time.

On the other hand the fine tuning of the physical constants of the universe is real and measurable. We can either write off their convergence on values that happen to support matter and life as mere coincidence (not scientifically or philosophically satisfying to me), or assume there is an explanation we might be able to grasp someday.

True, but it's a more logical alternative to an all-powerful entity playing with an oversized dollhouse.

Again, it's natural for human beings to look for patterns. The FSC is a limit that must be so or our universe wouldn't exist.

Consider the Infinite Monkey Theorem. Just because one monkey randomly types Hamlet doesn't mean that monkey is touched by God, destined to reproduce Hamlet or anything else except what it was: a random event.

https://tennessine.co.uk/monkey/

Of course, that requires an infinite number of runs to produce the one that works. i.e. Multiverses.

Related to this is the knowledge that our Universe is a likely to be a one-shot event; a clear beginning and a cold, dark infinite end devoid of everything, just like those universes without the FSC. The fact we're living in the prime of our own Universe is likely to be pure fucking luck.

Should Americans feel superior to those born in the shittiest parts of the world? Or should they just feel lucky? That's the difference between attributing a cause to their being born in the US versus recognizing random chance.

 

[Cypress]

True, but it's a more logical alternative to an all-powerful entity playing with an oversized dollhouse.

Again, it's natural for human beings to look for patterns. The FSC is a limit that must be so or our universe wouldn't exist.

Consider the Infinite Monkey Theorem. Just because one monkey randomly types Hamlet doesn't mean that monkey is touched by God, destined to reproduce Hamlet or anything else except what it was: a random event.

https://tennessine.co.uk/monkey/

Of course, that requires an infinite number of runs to produce the one that works. i.e. Multiverses.

Related to this is the knowledge that our Universe is a likely to be a one-shot event; a clear beginning and a cold, dark infinite end devoid of everything, just like those universes without the FSC. The fact we're living in the prime of our own Universe is likely to be pure fucking luck.

Should Americans feel superior to those born in the shittiest parts of the world? Or should they just feel lucky? That's the difference between attributing a cause to their being born in the US versus recognizing random chance.

There is a school of thought that states, well that's just the way it is. I don't think the mind of the scientist generally finds that satisfactory

Mathematically, the fine structure constant, the universal gravitational constant, the curvature of space could have taken on any value. The fact they all converged on values making matter, water, life possible beggars belief.

I think there is generally a rational explanation for physical phenomenon, rather than mere coincidences. At one time, nobody knew why neutrinos have a mass value. It seemed like they should have been massless. But then we found the Higgs field which explained the mass value neutrinos have.6

 

[Cypress]

On the monkey hypothesis, someone did the math and it would literally take quadrillions of monkeys typing on keyboards longer than the entire age of the universe to replicate a Shakespeare play.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

There is a school of thought that states, well that's just the way it is. I don't think the mind of the scientist generally finds that satisfactory

Mathematically, the fine structure constant, the universal gravitational constant, the curvature of space could have taken on any value. The fact they all converged on values making matter, water, life possible beggars belief.

I think there is generally a rational explanation for physical phenomenon, rather than mere coincidences. At one time, nobody knew why neutrinos have a mass value. It seemed like they should have been massless. But then we found the Higgs field which explained the mass value neutrinos have.6

Let's look at this from a different perspective; I've both known and read about aircraft crash survivors where others died. Survivor's guilt is a common problem. More important to this conversation is the situation where a crewman called in sick or otherwise was removed from a flight that ended in everyone dying.

Here's the question: "Why are they so certain that they'd have died in the crash or that there'd have even been a crash?" I've been in plenty of situations where people said "I'm not comfortable with this". Sometimes it was me, sometimes it was others. Every person involved is part of the solution or part of the problem. Switching out people can easily alter the outcome of the flight.

Do you believe we are destined to a foretold fate? Or do we have some control over our destiny? Those claiming the FSC is by design seem to be siding with foretold destiny.

1994 Fairchild Air Force Base crash. Four dead.

 

[Ross Dolan]

There is a school of thought that states, well that's just the way it is. I don't think the mind of the scientist generally finds that satisfactory

Mathematically, the fine structure constant, the universal gravitational constant, the curvature of space could have taken on any value. The fact they all converged on values making matter, water, life possible beggars belief.

There is nothing wrong with you, or any of those scientists you mention, deciding that "the odds against this happening" are so great that it is close to impossible...other than that it is illogical...in the extreme. The FACT if the matter is that this thing we humans call "the universe" MAY BE infinite. And IF it is...them odds of a gazillion, gazillion to one...are not very great. In fact, in an infinite universe, odds of a gazillion, gazillion to one are equal to "a sure thing." In an infinite universe, not only do "gazillion, gazillion to one shots" come in, they come in an infinite amount of times.

I think there is generally a rational explanation for physical phenomenon, rather than mere coincidences. At one time, nobody knew why neutrinos have a mass value. It seemed like they should have been massless. But then we found the Higgs field which explained the mass value neutrinos have.6

No matter how high the odds are against it just happening, if it just happens, there will be people living in that universe saying, "The odds against it just happening are too great for it to have just happened.

 

[Cypress]

Let's look at this from a different perspective; I've both known and read about aircraft crash survivors where others died. Survivor's guilt is a common problem. More important to this conversation is the situation where a crewman called in sick or otherwise was removed from a flight that ended in everyone dying.

Here's the question: "Why are they so certain that they'd have died in the crash or that there'd have even been a crash?" I've been in plenty of situations where people said "I'm not comfortable with this". Sometimes it was me, sometimes it was others. Every person involved is part of the solution or part of the problem. Switching out people can easily alter the outcome of the flight.

Do you believe we are destined to a foretold fate? Or do we have some control over our destiny? Those claiming the FSC is by design seem to be siding with foretold destiny.

1994 Fairchild Air Force Base crash. Four dead.

I get it. In a multiverse, or in a plane full of people there are numerous different outcomes. Because there is a multitude of people or of universes. It's basic probability theory.

But, as far as we know there is only one single, solitary universe. Everything else is speculation. And it is an observable fact that in this one universe the physical constants all mathematically converged on specific values conducive to the formation of matter, heavy elements, organics, water.

To me, those type of repeated coincidences are just asking for an explanation.

 

[Cypress]

There is nothing wrong with you, or any of those scientists you mention, deciding that "the odds against this happening" are so great that it is close to impossible...other than that it is illogical...in the extreme. The FACT if the matter is that this thing we humans call "the universe" MAY BE infinite. And IF it is...them odds of a gazillion, gazillion to one...are not very great. In fact, in an infinite universe, odds of a gazillion, gazillion to one are equal to "a sure thing." In an infinite universe, not only do "gazillion, gazillion to one shots" come in, they come in an infinite amount of times.



No matter how high the odds are against it just happening, if it just happens, there will be people living in that universe saying, "The odds against it just happening are too great for it to have just happened.

If there are an infinite number of universes, it seems to settle the issue of fine tuning, as I wrote in post 2.

If our own single universe is infinite, maybe physical constants vary across space and time. But everywhere an we have looked in the universe, physical constants seem the same. Absent any other tangible evidence, it seems reasonable to say the constants are indeed universal.

Some have said the universal constants couldn't have taken on any other values than what they are. That is not a convincing argument to me. It's hard to get anywhere in science with the "it just is what it is" argument.

 

[Ross Dolan]

If there are an infinite number of universes, it seems to settle the issue of fine tuning, as I wrote in post 2.

If our own single universe is infinite, maybe physical constants vary across space and time. But everywhere an we have looked in the universe, physical constants seem the same. Absent any other tangible evidence, it seems reasonable to say the constants are indeed universal.

Some have said the universal constants couldn't have taken on any other values than what they are. That is not a convincing argument to me. It's hard to get anywhere in science with the "it just is what it is" argument.

Infinite...is infinite.

If there are an infinite number of universes...then infinity IS.

The idea that our universe could be finite in a REALITY where there are an infinite numbers of finite universes makes less sense than what you are arguing against in your main thrust.

We simply do not know what the REALITY is.

Respectfully as possible, Cypress, our problem seems to be that most humans simply HATE to use the expression, "I do not know."

We do not know the REALITY of existence...and, also respectfully, it is time to get past the "It is more likely that..." aspect.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I get it. In a multiverse, or in a plane full of people there are numerous different outcomes. Because there is a multitude of people or of universes. It's basic probability theory.

But, as far as we know there is only one single, solitary universe. Everything else is speculation. And it is an observable fact that in this one universe the physical constants all mathematically converged on specific values conducive to the formation of matter, heavy elements, organics, water.

To me, those type of repeated coincidences are just asking for an explanation.

Agreed on probability. Agreed, we're the only known Universe and all else, be it gods, supernatural, multiple dimensions, planes of existence and multiverses are just speculations.

Not sure what you mean "repeated coincidences". There's no life found anywhere else in our own Solar System or the Universe. It's speculation (probability theory again) that there is other life, but ZERO evidence of it. Just speculation.

 

[Cypress]

Infinite...is infinite.

If there are an infinite number of universes...then infinity IS.

The idea that our universe could be finite in a REALITY where there are an infinite numbers of finite universes makes less sense than what you are arguing against in your main thrust.

We simply do not know what the REALITY is.

Respectfully as possible, Cypress, our problem seems to be that most humans simply HATE to use the expression, "I do not know."

We do not know the REALITY of existence...and, also respectfully, it is time to get past the "It is more likely that..." aspect.

You are right. I definitely do not know the answer, and no one else does either.

But science and life experience has taught me that asking the right questions is just as important as getting the right answers. That was the lesson of Socrates.

I feel like if we can frame the question in the right way, we can come up with some creative guesses. Guesses which may or may not ever be testable in the future.

I believe that is why issue of fine tuning is an active area of scientific and philosophical interest for many physicists. And I think rightly so.

 

[Cypress]

Thanks for chiming in chaps. I will get back to you Dutch, I have to get sidetracked on something else

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Thanks for chiming in chaps. I will get back to you Dutch, I have to get sidetracked on something else

No worries, Cypress. Good thread and excellent topic.

 

[Cypress]

Agreed on probability. Agreed, we're the only known Universe and all else, be it gods, supernatural, multiple dimensions, planes of existence and multiverses are just speculations.

Not sure what you mean "repeated coincidences". There's no life found anywhere else in our own Solar System or the Universe. It's speculation (probability theory again) that there is other life, but ZERO evidence of it. Just speculation.

Repeated coincidences = the numerous physical and cosmological constants that converged on very specific values allowing matter, planets, and organic life to exist.

Your point of view certainly is valid. Some physicists think the convergence of the universal constants is nothing to worry about. Others think these coincidences are pointing to some deep symmetry we don't understand yet.

Those in the “don't worry about it” camp take a strict statistical view that says we have an after-the-fact probability of unity, so we shouldn’t be surprised.

Furthermore, we can infer nothing about the “before-the-fact” probability. There was a Big Bang, and life-giving parameters were chosen—end of story.

The "let's worry about it" camp is still bothered by the low before-the-fact probability of getting these parameters, and they resolve the dilemma by appealing to a multiverse. If there are many Universes, all with different properties, most will be sterile, but there’ll be some fertile ones, and we’re obviously in one of them. This viewpoint has gained support from two recent developments: Modern Inflation theories can generate a multiverse, and both Inflation and String Theory can generate Universes with different laws of physics.

- Mark Whittle, astronomer