Why are the fundamental physics constants the way they are?
- GrayArea
- Posts: 374
- Joined: March 16th, 2021, 12:17 am
Why are the fundamental physics constants the way they are?
One of my so-called "hypotheses" that seems to make sense to me is that those numbers are decided by how much the physical constant affects our reality—as in, decided by the constants' role in the laws of physics. However, I don't think constants that are larger in number would not necessarily mean that those constants play a more significant role in the laws of physics—though the logic behind that specific belief is just from my intuition as of now.
Alternatively, these constants might be decided by how the physical constants subjectively "perceives", or "translates" (= reacting in a specific way to) the objective laws of physics, or vice versa. This is because any existing object or its phenomenon is made existing by the internal / the subjective (the inside of the object and the phenomenon) and the external / the objective (the universe / the entirety of the laws of physics that the object/phenomenon acts upon), as that is how anything sets its own existence apart from the rest of reality.
To be more specific, the specific number of the physical constant can be how the physical constant “translates” the laws of physics in its own subjective language that it runs in, which are numbers. Because numbers are the building blocks of existence. Numbers exist solely for the sake of existence.
One might ask, if [insert whatever phenomenon that possesses a physical constant]’s translation of the laws of physics is what makes the phenomenon and the physical constant exist, then how can it translate the laws of physics to begin with?
My personal answer on this matter would be that its act of translation does not lead to the creation of its existence through causality. Rather, the translation “is” its existence. They are synonymous.
Since what makes the physical constant exist the way they do is both “how the physical constant’s phenomenon reacts to the rest of the laws of physics” and “how the rest of the laws of physics reacts to the physical constant’s phenomenon”, the number of the physical constant may alternatively represent the ratio of the very interaction between those two sides—Instead of just being a one-sided product of the subjective translating the objective, it could be a two-sided product of both translating one another.
Each single digit can be assigned to the constant, determined by matching “what all the digit numbers mean to the number system” with “what the [whatever each of the digits mean/represent within the physical constant] means to that physical constant itself and the laws of physics—to reality itself”.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8265
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Why are the fundamental physics constants the way they are?
As to the topic title, "why?" questions are difficult. If you know the context (environment) within which the question is asked — and I mean to refer to a complete understanding — then the answer is already obvious. But without that knowledge, which we don't have here, a "why?" question cannot be answered.
"Who cares, wins"
- Consul
- Posts: 6036
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Why are the fundamental physics constants the way they are?
- GrayArea
- Posts: 374
- Joined: March 16th, 2021, 12:17 am
Re: Why are the fundamental physics constants the way they are?
I wonder what you mean by the "environment within which the question is asked"? And how could we begin to know about it?Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑December 10th, 2022, 10:11 am As to the topic title, "why?" questions are difficult. If you know the context (environment) within which the question is asked — and I mean to refer to a complete understanding — then the answer is already obvious. But without that knowledge, which we don't have here, a "why?" question cannot be answered.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8265
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Why are the fundamental physics constants the way they are?
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑December 10th, 2022, 10:11 am As to the topic title, "why?" questions are difficult. If you know the context (environment) within which the question is asked — and I mean to refer to a complete understanding — then the answer is already obvious. But without that knowledge, which we don't have here, a "why?" question cannot be answered.
In this case, the context/environment of your question is the whole universe, so I suspect we can't and couldn't achieve a complete understanding, no matter what. Thus, we could never answer your "why?" question.
...
Except by guessing, of course. Or just making an answer up. We humans have a habit of doing both of those things, quite regularly...
"Who cares, wins"
-
- Posts: 219
- Joined: March 27th, 2011, 8:03 am
Re: Why are the fundamental physics constants the way they are?
To ask "why do the constants have the value they do?" is to ask, "is there a higher, or underlying, in some sense hidden reality which determines these values?"
And this is where you have to be really careful where you tread. If you are of a superstitious turn of mind, you will probably take the turn to metaphysics, and appeal to "God's divine plan". On the other hand, if you are scientific by temperament, you might follow the scientific tradition by supposing that there must be a hypothesis, more general, more fundamental than any we have so far devised, which can explain this.
-
- Posts: 219
- Joined: March 27th, 2011, 8:03 am
Re: Why are the fundamental physics constants the way they are?
What is the significance of the "anthropocentric fallacy"? The basic idea is that, when we formulate a hypothesis to explain some aspect of the universe we live in, we naturally frame a hypothesis which is consistent with our own existence and - as far as possible - our current state of scientific knowledge. If it isn't thus consistent, we assume it must be incorrect.
This is liable to lead, if we are not careful, to the notion that the universe must have been specially designed to make our existence possible. But, on the contrary, it may be that the evolution of the universe follows rules according to which our own evolution is an incidental (and maybe even unwelcome) sideshow, just as modern DNA contamination is an unwelcome sideshow in archaeological science.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023