The Speed of Light is NOT Fundamental. But THIS is.
Vložit
- čas přidán 14. 06. 2024
- This is my journey to find all of the fundamental constants of nature which took some surprising turns. Check out Brilliant who sponsored part of this video: brilliant.org/dos
When you learn physics, you very quickly encounter the physical constants of nature, things like the gravitational constant, the speed of light in a vacuum, planck's constant, the elementary charge things like that. These are numbers which we believe are the same everywhere in the universe, for all time. They are baked into our laws of physics and are very special, because if they were even a few percent different, then the Universe wouldn’t exist and neither would we. They are also fundamental because we can’t derive them from any underlying theory, we just have to take them as being true.
So I wanted to go on a quest to find all of the fundamental physical constants and collect them all together so you can see them all in one place, because that’s the kind of thing I do on this channel. So this video is the story of me doing that. But it took some fascinating twists and turns along the way, and the final set was definitely not what I was expecting, because it doesn’t actually include the ones we are familiar with, the ones I just mentioned: speed of light, gravitational constant, planck’s constant. Watch to find out why.
-- Links to source material ---
How many fundamental constants are there? By John Baez
math.ucr.edu/home/baez/consta...
Note that his final set is a little different to mine which is explained in his article. I chose my set to be the easiest to understand.
Here are the actual numbers for all these dimensionless constants from David Black
math.ucr.edu/home/baez/consta...
How fundamental are the fundamental constants?
arxiv.org/pdf/1412.2040.pdf
Dimensionless constants and cosmological measurements
arxiv.org/pdf/1304.0577.pdf
How do neutrinos get their mass?
www.symmetrymagazine.org/arti...
Helpful wikipedia pages
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physica...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensi...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-st...
#physics #quantum #DomainOfScience
If you’d like to support my free educational content: / domainofscience
-- Posters ---
DFTBA Store: store.dftba.com/collections/d...
RedBubble Store: www.redbubble.com/people/Domi...
I have also made posters available for educational use which you can find here: www.flickr.com/photos/9586967...
- Some Awesome People --
And many thanks to my $10 supporters on Patreon, you are awesome!
Theodore Chu
Petr Murmak
Sebastian
Eric Epstein
Alex Polo
Kevin Delaney
Reggie Fourmyle
Join the gang and help support me produce free and high quality science content:
/ domainofscience
-- My Science Books ---
I also write science books for kids called Professor Astro Cat. You can see them all here:
profastrocat.com
-- Follow me around the internet --
dominicwalliman.com
/ dominicwalliman
/ dominicwalliman
-- Credits --
Music, art, and everything else by Dominic Walliman - Věda a technologie
I'm imagining a show where we start getting signals from aliens, and they send 40 numbers, 26 of which are these, sending everyone on a while chase to figure out what the other 14 mean for the universe
turns out their computer glitched out and it's complete gibberish from the 26th number on
@@heliusuniverse7460 From the 27th number on?
But what if there was no glitch . . . ? It's gonna take probably more than the combined brainpower of Stephen Hawking, Roger Penrose, Richard Feynman, Paul Dirac, and Albert Einstein to figure out what new theories give rise to these extra constants...
Better yet, there *was* a glitch, but before we get told about that, somebody comes up with the new theories required to produce these 14 constants?
. . . . Oh! That's very different! . . . Nevermind!!
Fred
@Tom's Ghost a wild chase
@Tom's Ghost ah, really? English is not my native language so I never heard it before. All I did was try to understand what he said.
@Tom's Ghost A "wild chase" made some sense, but now that I know it is a wild-goose chase it makes even more sense (since I had imagined a chase like those of the savannah's lions). I'm from Brazil, so it's portuguese, btw
Humans: cleverly broadcast the fine structure constant in binary
Highly advanced aliens: ... wtf humans only have two fingers?
Pokers / tentacles.
Haha, not necessarily! We also did a duodecimal system. That's a base 12, not base 10 (like our 10 fingers) or base 2 (binary). You can count on your finger bones/phalanges (4 fingers times 3 bones = 12). If you're interested, watch "Base 12 - Why Counting In Twelves Would Make Life Easier" by "Smart by Design": czcams.com/video/y_QBDrBlbds/video.html
@@daddyleon nice 👍🏼
Todays date in duodecimal: 2/B/18
Two hands?
@@explorateur8159 Maybe they count with mammaries!
I have been aware for some years of the existence of those 26 parameters of the standard model. But this is the first time i see a clear, concise and however precise explanation about what they really are. I understand why you sponsor is Brilliant (pun intended). Thank you !
Nicely explained. I've actually been working on a PhD in astronomy for the past four years on developing a new method of searching for variation in the fine-structure constant to see if it varies at all throughout the universe. Well, technically I'm adapting a known method to new targets (Sun-like stars within the Milky Way) to yield a hundred-fold improvement in precision on previous astronomical tests, with the long-range goal of measuring the fine-structure constant in stars nearer the Milky Way's center where there's more dark matter to see if it could vary with dark matter background density. That's still at least a few years away, though. :)
And what could it mean if it varied in the casre it does? What could this fact uncover?
@@drk5orp-655 It would point towards new physics beyond the Standard Model, but as to what exactly that might mean your guess is as good as mine! :)
Daniel so what if it does ? Will your discovery reduce sports salaries or executive bonuses
@@franklipsky3396 Science is unconcerned about such things. You figure it out.
Good.
that pause at 11:00 was hilarious, perfect comedic timing
Also he says 11 fingers at the 11th minute!
couldn't agree fucking more
He knows that aliens have 11 fingers and thinks about what he has revealed to the public.
That was gold!
@@learnology8356 I thought the "11 fingers" was a sex joke... 😐
Once those dimensionless constants add up to equal exactly 42, we'll know that we are finished
😂
69?
@@FaFairuz8 if you add Hollywood's 27 year old club to the mix, then certainly.
multiply to 42 maybe
@@squibble311 right. Because, you know... humor
14:40 "If you would like to rewrite the laws of physics, please leave your scientific paper in the comments below..."
The Fine Structure Constant (α) has multiple definitions/derivations, all precisely equivalent: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant#Definition This group of definitions provides perspectives on how the "dimensional constants" play together. I recommend taking a look at each definition of α and consider its relevance. For example α = c⋅µ₀/2⋅Rᴋ is useful when thinking about magnetic interactions and relationships. In other words, each definition of α illuminates it own "Domain of Science".
He said 11 fingers at the 11th minute.
11:00 perfect.
Not quite
Illuminati confirmed
inb4 the aliens think we have two fingers
his face trying to remember where he was going with that
@@electricwizard5747 let people enjoy things, hater
Love the Final countdown synth music at the The Final Countdown Slide
Well i don't see no teens around here
Maybe this is beyond their.......
Looking at their profile photos, y'all Look like a serious crowd.
@@aayushchalekar8260 Good observation. I guess the content of Dominick and @DoS channel is attracts a specific crowd. Although I'm here to learn and feed my curiosity.
Teens ain't interested in physics and that's because they can't understand it. I do. Everytime i Watch this I'm just overflowing with questions
As I can only scratch the surface of physics without any impact (as I understand just a tiny bit of all this), I just stick to expressing my respect for your maps, charts and video's, the calm and resolve of your explanation and your pleasant voice and perfect diction.
11:00 Him realizing that perhaps there is a way of counting that represents the fine structure constant in a way that makes better sense, and would probably itself be the correct way of counting rather than base 10 style.
I was thinking that too.
try base 6 and learn how to count.
I love when theoretical physicists say, 'probably'
I wouldn´t mind, if they actually mentioned the degree of probability.
@@STARDRIVE most of the time there isn’t a calculated probability nor would that even be possible to calculate. “Probably” in this context just means “to the best of our knowledge.” It’s simply an admission that our prediction about the subject could be inaccurate, because we haven’t yet actually solved all the mysteries of the universe.
Sheldon Cooper is now hacking you
With what degree of probability do you love it?
Wow, why have I never thought about units and constants this way? Thx for the video, completely changed how i will look at things.
Started at Veritasium's Why no one has measured the speed of light, ended up hear next, then on to PBS spacetime and The Speed of Light is NOT About Light.
First time I saw dimensionless constants presented together. I am so pleased. Thank you!
Fundamental alpha: *depends on energy scale*
Everyone: That wasn't very cash money of you.
Hey Andrew, I'm your big fan.
Please make a video in which u talk about your research please.
absolutely 😂
Hey Andrew you had a video where you just set the constants dimensionless
@@hasanhelal9474 Correct, but in doing so you lose the freedom to "fix" the values of other constants. An example is the electric charge. Letting c = hbar =4pi epsilon_0 = 1 demands that the electric charge^2 be equal to the fine structure constant.
@@AndrewDotsonvideos ahhhhh, thanks for the info sire
So what do you mean by energy scale?
Like the units we measure energy in?
Or an actual instrument, which can change the value of alpha?
*Veritassium* : No one's measured the speed of light
Recommends video: Speed of light has been measured very accurately
omg that's what I am thinking right now.
you didnt understand the point of Veritasiums video then. He was playing with the idea that because we can only ever measure the speed of light in two directions, we couldnt know if the speed changed or not. its just better for math as a constant though lol
I just realized this is the video Veritassium recommend in a community post. I didn't click the link at the time but i clicked the post, and CZcams recommended me this video now.
Well, you could say that the "average" speed of light has been very accurately measured
@@anunderestimate You could measure the speed of light in one direction, but it would require begin and end points in the same frame of reference with synchronized clocks. Push a button at the start point and (taking into account the delay between pushing the button and light being emitted) record the time of the event. Also record when the button is released. At the receiving point, sensors detect the light and record the time (again taking into account delays in the equipment) as well as time when the light stops being received. Then the time values from begin and end points can be compared and c can be calculated from time and distance. Repeat to see if anything changes (taking account of error due to precision and accuracy of equipment). Feynman did suggest that light took all possible paths between source and target, with vectors at right angles to the direct path from source to target cancelling, leaving only the speed along the direct path the one we measure. That would take a very different experiment to test.
Thank you so much! This was very helpful and explained really well! I would like to see more video's on this subject.
Wow! An amazing video! It's a very intriguing idea: dimensionless constants "defining" our universe.
Loved your presentation! Some mild background music would make it even better. Cheers! 👍🏽
The universe exists because α=1/137, or α=1/137 because the universe exists?
I mean, there could exist a different universe where α is any other value?
Edit: Or are there (finite/infinte?) sets of those 26 fundamental constant that allow the existance of "a" universe?
To answer this question we would need to understand the underlying mechanism by which Quantum Mechanics works; as QM is just a very accurate description of what happens or at least how frequently, but not the how nor the why.
It is not even certain a theory of Quantum Gravity would answer such a question, being what we think a deeper theory would need to do to explain gravity at the very small-scale and very massive: from what happens beyond a black hole's event horizon or resolve the mathematical-reality nonsense implied by a black hole's central singularity under General Relativity, or to describe the process in the early universe before 10^-32 seconds. Indeed Quantum Gravity might only be a stepping stone to a Theory Of Everything (TOE) which itself may be just descriptive rather that explaining why this universe happens to have the fundamental values it does.
A wider theory might be impossible to confirm amongst a number of candidate theories if we lack sufficient empirical evidence to discriminate between plausible ideas (either because observation required to be undertaken back some tiny fraction of time after the Big Bang that the evidence is lost after this if no later indirect experiment can draw inference on the past, or possibly that information from some alien in a different multiverse or some past iteration of this universe if it is cyclic over such extended durations that equivalent to time-like-infinity and a lack of information passed through Big Bang events as to the configuration of what came previously. Ants could speculate all they like about their world being cylinder shapes in a food manufacturing warehouse of tinned food, but no matter how well they learn about the value of Pi to calculate diameters and circumferences of their world, they can never formulate a theory why the cans are the size they are and happen to have a contents mass of 400g - to do so they need omnipotent awareness outside of their world-constraints to understand about size of humans, what makes for a reasonable meal portion size, economics of manufacture and transportation of human goods.
So while we can speculate how certain interactions of particles & forces might differ if the fundamental values were different, that does not explain if it is even possible for a different universe to from with different values - perhaps the deepest possible theory would make it self-evident that a universe can only form with one possible specific set of Fundamental values. Otherwise is this the only universe at present (whatever concurrent mean for universes with different timelines) or are we but part of a multiverse where all possible values both are possible and also exist - we then happen to be able to observe because only a very restricted set of values allow for cosmological stability and advance chemistry to permit observers to evolve and then gaze about themselves? Alternatively perhaps a single universe over time-like infinity cycles with evolving values of the fundamental constants and has done so over near infinite numbers of times in past and will do so again in far future.?
We are getting better at asking questions of how and why, and can place some constraints on these, but all I’m reasonably certain is that “"Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so" and the final answer will be more complex than just “42”.
@@bi1iruben thank you so much for the time you spent on this answer, it is greatly appreciated and a very interesting take.
I know that currently we don't have a definitive answer for that, how could we. I was only curious to know if mathematically a universe with a different set of constants is possible, or if it is even possible to set up a calculation to prove that it is mathematically possible
And I guess the answer is no(t yet)
I knew about the dimensionless fine structure constant but I’ve never seen such an incredibly clear and understandable explanation before. This video was absolutely brilliant.
we know physics is all about describing the universe bus some of them feels like they making the universe
@@bi1iruben Yes!! Thank you for that beautifully articulated answer. I've been thinking along the same lines, but never got the words to explain it. Thanks for taking the time to put this on the internet.
FYI, the matrices you referenced for the last few constants are typically just called the CKM and PMNS matrices for short; no one I know actually says the names.
Maybe you don't know the right people?
or maybe they know its easier to use shortcuts?
it's because you never met NEO from the Matrix
Hello from Japan. Hey, there are Four Japanese names in there, my daughter in year 6 must have heard of them. I'll ask here as soon as I can drag her away from the Box/PC/Tablet/iPhone/.....
Brilliant! Thank you so much for putting this together! (I remember sensing the first edge of these insights when I first game to Physics in High School, but no one wanted to talk about them.)
Just what I was looking for. You basically answered most of my questions about fine structure constant. Thank you so much.
"the cosmo constant and these masses"
hmhm makes sense
"these coupling constants"
huh interesting
"aaaand the matrices"
wait wut o.O
Exactly my reaction! 😅
@@antipoti yeah that was just left field lmao
Neutrinos are not just defined by their masses, but also oscillate in a specific way. The information about that oscillating behavior is encoded in the PMNS matrix (the second one).
The CKM matrix (the first one) contains statistical information about how quarks transform to other flavours (that's really what it's called) when interacting with a W-boson.
@@lonestarr1490 ehhhmmmmm but why a matrix? and what kind of information is encoded in there?
the this matrix and the this matrix
I'm all for the Kobayashi constant. It describes how many simulations per course you need to rig to pass a test ^^
I had an experiment in a dark room with an electromagnet and light fringes ... it wasn't going to plan and I figured out that the magnet wasn't working so I changed teh fuse and carried on. When I got my results marked the man said "This is nothing like everybody else got" -- I suspect there were some fake results recorded based on what was meant to happen.
@@PMA65537 When that happens, they generally just ignore the "outlier" result unless there's some reason why it needs to be included, because including it requires a lot of work to find out why it's different and to then balance the final results to correct for the errors made during measurement.
Thank you for the videos. I don't always understand everything but I appreciate your way of unpacking information with an orderly and honest dialogue. I think you're a terrific person with a good heart.
What a fascinating video! Distilling and explaining the ‘art’ that is the universe, in such a succinct and interesting way is an art form in itself. Thank you very much DOS!
imperial is based on barleycorn, which is obviously the most fundamental thing there is
well,the Sumerians thought so
Thanks for this amazing summary of our units and constants. I appreciate the time you took to put this all together.
Thank you for this insightful article. I knew about the non-dimensionality of the fine
structure constant and wondered about its significance.
Question: if we keep the candela unit that is based on human sensation only (light flux and not EM energy flux), why there are no other human senses based units in the SI? Like sound energy vs sensation based on the sensation at the max "efficiency" point (near 3 kHz)? The 1 of the dB log scale could be defined like the candela? What is different with light?
Thanks a lot for this great vid!
I'd suppose that spiciness is defined in units, but it's kind of specific to spicy food. Also, I think there's a unit for smell. When I googled it I found "olf".
The candela is not based only on human sensation. Per Wikipedia: "luminous power per unit solid angle emitted by a point light source in a particular direction". I have no idea what half that means or why it would be useful, but its certainly not based specifically on human sensation in any way.
But really, you can define whatever units you like as long as the dimensions work out. Though the bel is a bit special in that its not a real unit -- its a logarithmic conversion factor for other units. The real unit (again per en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decibel#Acoustics_2) is "dB SPL" (or Lp) -- a logarithmic conversion factor for "sound pressure level". Pressure is measured in Pascals so the real units of sound are mass*length/(time^2) and you can convert that to SI or natural units or whatever else you like.
@@altrag yes it is. the candela is defined for the sole purpose of converting between objective and subjective units. there are three of these "subjective units" for measuring visible light related stuff. essentially, the same amount of light is perceived as a different brightness if it's a different color, so for every color there is a conversion factor that translates from physical units to subjective units.
@@anonjo2630 units exist for all kind of stuff. there are several widely used units for measuring loudness. there is a unit for measuring pain, too. but the question concerns SI units and none of these are SI units.
@@altrag Not convinced, the "luminous" is human based because of the human measured value 683,002 lm/W at 555 nm (where the candela is from and all luminous units as lux).
The same way, in acoustics 1 pW/m2 (or 20 μPa) is the ear sensitivity reference for 1dB SPL. Even if it's a log of a ratio this could be a "soundela" defined with a sensation vs energy. Hum complicated.
Thia video is amazing! I have watched tons of physics videos about those fundamental constants and how different or even non-existent our universe would be without them. But this is the first time someone has talked in (youtube) depth about them. Very interesting and thx for the effort you put into the video!
Perfect explanation! really learned something here. Great work
11:34 I had a huge smile hearing what he did there
Is just me
The fine structure constant is not really a constant. That depends on the energy we are experimenting. For instance, to get the correct predictions at LHC, a different value of alpha should be chosen (alpha is approximatly1/128 if I am not mistaken). Because LHC works in higher energies compared to our daily life. Or in the early universe, this value was different. One should mention the associated energy scale for each value of the "constants" you mentioned.
Wikipedia currently says 1/127 at Z-boson energies (90 GeV). I suspect that all of the current "constants" can take different values under extreme conditions, but given their remarkable stability under normal conditions, I don't mind the term "constant" as long as we remember the context.
@@WilliamDye-willdye Any field theory without conformal symmetry needs an energy scale to be specified. Standard model has not conformal symmetry, so constants related to the standard model couplings vary with energy. We have no evidence for variation of the speed of light and Planck constants, but the electric charge is the electromagnetic force coupling and varies. The idea behind the video is to find a more fundamental constant (which is dimensionless). But the value of alpha is meaningless until you mention the energy scale (which is a dimensionful parameter). Definitely, it is a mystery why alpha=1/137 in hydrogen atoms at room temperature or 1/127 at Z-boson mass energy scale.
See my reply above, the fine structure constant has rock all to do with the LHC
Is this why "high energy physics" is its own field of study? Because of changes in mundanely funamental proportions?
So if the constant is scientifically calculated to be 1/137, and quantum mythology needs it to be 1/127...
Now a video for math constants! π, e, Feigenbaum constants, ... :D
check out Mathologer!
1
Easy - czcams.com/channels/YO_jab_esuFRV4b17AJtAw.html .
@Thijs Van bosch you must be fun at parties
3:20 "It is only as accurate as our ability to measure the speed of light, which lot of people do and we've measured it to great accuracy"
*Veritasium intensifies*
Lol I watched that video
The round trip speed of light is measured accurately, the one way speed of light cannot be measured.
It's splitting hairs.
I really appreciate the final countdown themed transition music for the section of that name!! The idea of fundamental constants blows my mind so it was nice to have something more familiar to fixate on :D
I've been interested in this for some time. I've watched many videos, lectures, books and articles about it and yours is the most comprehensible discussion I've seen. I'm going to watch it again. Thanks.
When dealing with natural units, choosing c = ℏ = kB = 1 makes perfect sense, however one cannot simultaneously fix the value of the gravitational constant to 1, as it is inconsistent with the above. Natural units (c = ℏ = 1) are useful in the realm of descriptions relating quantum mechanics and special relativity. Geometrized units (c = G = 1) are useful in the realm of General Relativity. Chosing ℏ = 1 imposes an energy scale different from what is achieved by making G = 1; one cannot impose two different energy scales simultaneously in the framework of a consistent set of parameters (which in both cases aim to relate the various quantities to their energy equivalences).
I'm confused by this. If you choose the planck mass as your unit of mass, the planck time as your unit of time, and the plank length as your unit of length, don't you get G = hbar = c = 1 ?
@@drdca8263 One can set exact values for c, h (and hence ℏ) and kB, which is what the International System of Units adopted more than a year ago. G is still considered a parameter with non-removable uncertainty not only because it is difficult to measure with ever increasing accuracy, but because the other definitions prevent that. It was also defined an exact value for the elementary electric charge, wich sets an energy scale combined with the fact that (in particle physics) energy is usually measured in electron-volts. So, having exact values for the speed of light in vacuum, Planck's constant, elementary charge, Boltzmann's constant, and even the Avogadro number, why didn't they set an exact value for G? Because the relations between the other physical constants prevent that. A similar case occured with the electromagnetic quantities: formerly, c, ε₀ and μ₀ where defined as exact constants, and the uncertainty was related to the elementary charge. But taking c and the elementary charge as exact constants implied that ε₀ and μ₀ were no longer constants, so now they carry an experimental uncertainty. Planck units allow you to know the ratios of the fundamental constants, not necessarily their individual values. When you set c = 1, it doesn't force ε₀ and μ₀ to be also equal to 1; "they can have any value" as long as ε₀μ₀ = 1.
@@drdca8263 You don't have to take my word, however. It is a non-trivial subject, though it may be a clue to a more complete theory of our universe. Thermodynamics won't barely change if for example right-handed neutrinos are discovered, because it is a statistical theory, which adds up the macroscopic behaviour of physical systems composed by a large quantity of microscopic entities. Being General Relativity a framework concerning macroscopic bodies, maybe it can be revisited in the future as a statistical theory emerging from the "weighted" behaviour of the fundamental building blocks of nature, implying for example that G is not a separated universal constant but a parameter depending on the other fundamental constants, as happened with the Stefan-Boltzmann constant σ, later found to depend on c, h and kB.
@@juanleong837 You can totally set G at 1 and keep c and h and kB at 1 too, entirely consistently.
What you can't do is do that and also base your definition of the second on the energy levels in caesium-133, as they did for SI units.
A bit of research finds that effectively you're setting the electron mass when you do this, since the hyperfine transition is to a large extent based on the Bohr magneton which is based on the electron mass.
@@jjlg97
What adding G does is it sets the unit of energy at a particular value, rather than having to arbitrarily decide it.
Hyperfine splitting is not at all problematic, I'm just explaining the alternative way in which SI units are defined.
Although I think I'll correctly myself in saying that hyperfine spitting also seems to be based on the magnetic field of the nucleus, which when it boils down to it is in a complicated way a product of the up and down quark mass.
So you could say that SI units effectively fix some complicated function of up quark, down quark and electron masses (but the impression I get is that it is more dependant on electron mass than the other two)
Of course, they aren't actually doing this via calculation, they're doing this by experiment, and there are good reasons for this, but that doesn't change the fact that is effectively what's happening.
Professor Dominic, I've been watching your channel for quite some time. I absolutely adore the DoS charts you've made; they're phenomenal. This video was a little different and it is also brilliant. Bro, your genius is pretty amazing. Thank you for your work, keep up the good work. I'm appreciate DoS helping me understand our physical world!
I love your tthumbnail for this video. The fine structure constant is indeed fascinating!
That is... fascinating. Thanks so much for spending all that time to put this video together.
We can interpret these as how much something equals something. This means there is a link between these quantities but some unknown boundaries distinguish them.
Exactly. It's like being in the computer and trying to measure the transistor size :)
@@clarkh3314 interesting point if mentioned together with the simulation hypothesis.
The natural numbers of the universe! Can't wait until we find them & start counting & measuring with them instead, & everything is not only good ratio measurements, but in an intervallic sense too.
Yes. Everything was a single unified “force” at some point, which means go back far enough and the ratios should equal 1: In my mind, I see this, let’s call it “a singularity” breaking apart asymmetrically and we’re looking at the shattered pieces and wonder why the jagged edges have those particular values.
Loved the video!!! 💕
Derek from veritasium sent me here!
P.S Loved the thumbnail 👌
Great movie. Thank you. Keep it coming. Always great to listen to you.
Excellent presentation, and a fascinating summary of a wide field of topics - thank you for this
Really exceptional video here!! On one of its subtopics: Honestly, the notion of "why the constants are what they are" and "if they were all a little different.." scenarios never resonated with me - even when I was getting my own quantum mechanics degrees in college. This particular Universe is as it is - and when we backward engineer its nuances with languages/symbols/math/units/dimensions that we all made up filtered through our own subjective consciousness/qualia shaped by our cultural conditioning using a system of inquiry (The Scientific Method) that we crafted, we land on SOME #s. The #s had to be something. I don't see the need for any a priori assumptions of their meaning or intentions. As Tyson, said, The Universe is under no obligation to make sense to us...That said, if you go with the Many Worlds Theories - or even the notion that this particular universe may be one of countless successive universes - then, maybe the other hypothetical universes do and did have different constants - and, thusly, simply did not make it. Or, maybe grew up differently - with different constants and different manifestations of those constants. Maybe all dark energy? Maybe they had their own Big Bangs and all those baby quarks and electrons never came together to form atoms. Or maybe their atoms never made it past H and He. Or, with a nod to QFT, maybe there was never sufficient excitation of all/any/enough of the quantum fields to produce a particle or pass any energy between fields. I guess I just don't feel the exact numbers matter much.
I agree, it's frankly irritating at this point that people keep inviting others to marvel at their intelligence and curiosity as they 'ponder' "why the constants are [insert particular number]... "we have no idea!" It's idiotic. A number is just a symbol of a relation or relations, to ask "why" is a straight up category mistake. It's like asking why the letter K makes the sound it does. What the people actually mean to ask is "how," ...how a constant APPEARS TO US to be the way it is, in other words, how our interpretation of reality results in this (arbitrary) symbolic enumeration of a relation or ratio. The fine structure constant points to some thing/structure or some process, something that goes beyond numbers/counting, and even quantity itself. To dwell on why it's close to something we call 137 isn't that interesting, though its connection to primes (primeval primes) may be worth exploring.
By looking at what is essentially the connective tissue between our observation and understanding of these values, we can see precisely what we don't know to find out what we don't know 😉
I adored that little bit at the end.. brilliant and heartwarming.
Well explained. Thank you very much!
Recently I read an article relating to consistency of constants, called: "Could fundamental physical constants not be constant across space and time?" in BIG THINK. Very interesting article refers back to this fundamental dimensionless constant.
Here is a fundamental constant of CZcams: we skip over the "sponsor" parts of the videos.
Shhhh, don't tell the sponsors or all our favorite creators will starve
You may skip over them just like how people ignore and skip traditional advertisements... but you will remember the brand names.
Ever noticed how Raid Shadow Legends gained meme status? Majority of people skip over the sponsor yet the internet is memeing the crap out of it and it actually gained popularity. That's because it is repeated enough times that there's an association. People will think about it and some will inevitable try out the product.
This is true in basically most forms of advertisement. A lot of the effects is subconscious.
The only way an ad is entirely ineffective is if it is completely missed entirely where you don't know its existence at all. It is why banner ads online are largely ineffective because most people are paying attention to the actual content of the web page and not the banner ads.
Advertisements can basically repeat its brand name over and over that at some point if you want a particular product or activity, you will think of that brand. Even for someone who have very little interest in fashion, when they decide they need new fancy clothes for a specific occasion, they will suddenly think of particular brands because of advertisements creating that association.
There's a lot more nuance to advertisement and some succeed while others don't, but never underestimate them just because you just "skip" over it.
@@neurofiedyamato8763 Okay, I'll say it again, as you've obviously missed the point: we skip over the "sponsor" bits. (You won't remember a brand that you don't see; and if you see it somewhere else, that's irrelevant to the fact that you've skipped it, here.)
@@gaminawulfsdottir3253 But you'll have to see him say that there's a sponsor before you can actually skip. How else would you know it is the sponsored segment?
@@neurofiedyamato8763 You're missing the point. Sure, we'll be exposed to any name that's out there often enough... but we still skip over them.
I love the thumbnail 😄 your humor in this video was on point 😂
Yes dude. There is no meanings
Love this video. You explained this so very very well!
Thank you! Greatly appreciated!! Blessings!
Could you make a video about an approach to the theory of everything through the e8 lie group?
Could you somehow reduce the amount of constants required to even less, we know that the forces that govern our universe can couple to each other and become a singular force, which kinda gives the impression they are always one single force, just under certain conditions they split apart and diverge. Sort of like if you have a homogenous mixture of salt and water and if the conditions are just right, for example if we remove a lot of the water through evaporation, then we can get a decoupling of the two substances. Just that in the case of the forces merging together, it feels like its a smooth and continious transition rather than abrupt one for salt and water. (Though i cant really imagine a halfway point between electroweak and electromagnetism)
What is the most fundamental thing in our universe, is it information, energy, a set of random numbers?
This.
8:35 Despite curiously not making it into the script at all, the circle constant finds its way into the video. I am curious to know just how resilient this famous ratio of two lengths is to the complete reworking of the physical world that is considered by treating these other constants as variable.
Pi is even more fundamental then these values, as even in a multiverse pi would be the same, meanwhile the other values here could be tweaked and changed from universe to universe in order to produce new laws of physics
Wow, 4:32 blew my mind right there...
I've been watching science communication videos for years now... Those moments tend to become increasingly rare! But they're the reason I still keep watching (actual entertainment trough curiosity)
Love your videos!
Thanks for your awesome work!
I've heard about natural units before, thanks to your explanation I now understand how and why they're even exist!
Well presented, I'll mark this for further consideration when I have the time.
It surely is essential for everyone to use the same convention when working on space missions 😁 Great video, enjoyed it thoroughly! 🙂
So we Americans never will! 🤦♂️
You just pieced my theory together for me. What I have been working on for many years is this: A particle that scientists hate to contemplate even the possibility of its existence, but which the fine structure constant screams is: an infinitesimal. This particle is essential to existence. It is indivisible and the only thing indivisible is an infinity.
Now what happens if you have two infinitely small points? They attract each other because they want to cancel each other out. However, because they are separate and distinct and infinitely small, they can only try to merge, but never will, because no matter how small you go, you can still go smaller. Thus, they never touch.
The magic number that scientists are unable to figure out about energy is the interactions between those particles. You see, when you have two particles constantly trying to cancel each other out, but never can, you create a negative space between them equal to 1 minus the fine structure constant, which equals a value that cannot be resolved because 0 is impossible where an infinitesimal exists. So yes, this value must be set by an outside source not governed by the quantum relativistic interactions between infinitesimal particles. (I believe both the existence of the infinitesimal and this static rule setting their boundary requires an intelligence that conjures them in precisely the same way you or I conjure a thought. But maybe scientists can figure out a more plausible explanation in the future than "it just is".)
The infinitesimals are the finest indivisible building blocks of all fields, structures and matter in the universe. The negative space for which a specific, as yet to be identified, value exists, this vacuum conflict between infinitesimals, is the source of all energy, including gravity and the electromagnetic fields. That is why all structures share wave and particle properties. And it is the point at which both relativistic and quantum effects converge, and from which they derive. They create triadic tensors because the maximum number of circles that you can provide a co-equal connection between is three. Why circles and not spheres? Because they interact on a 2-dimensional plain in all directions, thus a 4-point connection is impossible.
This 2D feature creates the rule that makes spin, direction, gravitational plains, time and even waves and larger particles possible. The cause of the third dimension is another large explanation that I won't go into here. Suffice it to say that 3D adds some of the most interesting effects, including connecting to the theorized holographic principle.
is this just a pure theory, or is there math behind this? This sounds extremely interesting
here are some of my thoughts:
1. If we consider that infinitesimals do exist, even though they clearly contradict quantum field theory as a whole, what would they be? They mustn’t have mass, because that would mean that they interact with the Higgs Boson, and that would mean that the infinitesimal would be a quantum of energy in the Higgs field, which, by definition, it isn’t (the Higgs Boson is). Also, like how the particles of the standard models are also waves, would this apply for the infinitesimal? Does it somehow hold energy within, or is it energy-less?
2. I don’t understand what you mean “negative space”. I’m sure it’s because I’m jus too stupid to understand, so could you rephrase it in a different way? All I understood is that, if two infinitesimals try to collide, they never will since there will always be a gap in between. I don’t understand how this relates to the fine structure constant or negative space.
3. How could this mathematically described? Infinitesimals are easy to define, but the interactions are what I’m worried about. Do we describe their “never touching” as an asymptote, or will it simply be a linear translation. In other words: Do the two infinitesimals go slower and slower as they come closer, or do they maintain a constant pace?
Also, would this infinitesimal be smaller than the Planck length, or do we equal the two and make it so that it’s “infinitesimal-ness” is due to an asymptote? If this infinitesimal is smaller, then this theory would be unprovable, and such, unsolvable.
@@ieatbananaswiththepeel4782 Actually, after I wrote that, I discovered a video where Roger Penrose considered the exact same thing. Then when reading the original Special Theory of Relativity, I got an epiphany that solidified a part of my theory not mentioned here, which I now call Relative Parallax, applying relativity to the relationship between particles and the rate at which they move in relationship to each other and particles and bodies in the background, explaining gravity. As I read on, I discovered that Einstein had an almost identical theory that he never developed.
Since then, I have developed it a bit more. Yes, I have designed a couple of equations for it. Thankfully, much of the math has already been done for me in particle theories, holographic principle and even string theory (Particles are not strings). It is even eminently capable of being tested and falsified and makes testable predictions, so it is already far beyond many popular theories today. I have taken copious notes (enough for a book) and have the bones of a paper written. As I discovered last night when trying to write a reply, I still have details to work out, which is glorious, in that it means I am still in the same phase of discovery. Because of that, I opted for generalizations here. The details would take weeks to relate on a CZcams comment section. But I appreciate your taking it seriously.
@@ieatbananaswiththepeel4782 Also, infinitesimals do not contradict quantum field theory. Understand that not even the brightest minds in physics know what a field is or why it exists. They only know that it is useful for describing spinors, vectors and tensors in relation to each type of subatomic particle (or rather the forces governing them) and that the activity in every point in space can be described by those things. The term "quantum field" merely summarizes all fields. Each type of field is a quantum field.
Also, many people, even many physicists, do not seem to understand that QM is based on and built upon statistical probabilities. The "quantum" in "quantum mechanics" refers to the fuzzy nature of particle clouds and how they interact. Thus, it does not address individual particles and has proven incompatible with Relativity except at points where Relativity and QM share certain mathematical principles based on the actions of the particles themselves.
My theory discusses the relativistic relationship between infintesimal particles and masses of particles, which produces a holographic effect that we observe as a quantum field and gravity. So my theory does not contradict it, but explains it because I explain how it causes all five fundamental forces and, in fact, all aether-like (fluid dynamic) effects. It also explains spin, mass and antimatter (a misnomer).
11:02 This is the face I've had since you started, which tells me that I will need to watch this video over and over again just to get the basic gist.
Amazing explanation. Thanks for putting out the video!
Hang on, so if I’m getting this correct, the reason why a lot of theories like M theory suggest additional dimensions as an explanation for the constants we see, is that we need to have those dimensions as way of using those dimensions mathematically to collapse some of these constants down to a smaller set of more fundamental, dimensionless constants?
As in we’ve got the scent of constants like the fine structure constant, and are assuming that because of its existence and it’s explanatory power, there are deeper levels of math reality, that we can’t measure of perceive, but to do the collapsing of the other constants like the speed of light etc etc, into something more fundamental, we need them to be there?
So it’s like unit cancellation but instead of conversion, we’re cancelling the dimensions, down to more and more fundamental and unchanging numbers,
Which in the end, we’d hopefully have a bunch of numbers like the fine structure constant, and then the physics we’d construct out of it, are based on the ratios between these constants.
This is really reminding me of how music works.
Music gains it’s meaning, through the frequency vibration and the ratio to which the musical notes are related.
Depending on the ratio / relationship between notes, they take on specific meanings and function within harmony.
No note intrinsically on its own, carries meaning, only once in the context of another can the actual sense of consonance and dissonance emerge.
So just like the constants like the speed of light, could be considered “notes” (ie meaningless without context)
There’s actually a deeper system of relationships between fixed points in the string fabric of the universe.
And from that comes the “meaning” of the “harmony”. Ie the universe, and it’s patterns.
I’m especially interested if there are parallels between consonance and dissonance and other physical phenomena, like entropy, especially given that the universe seems to get its patterns from a set of fundamental relationships between a set of fundamental numbers.
Like the fixing points of a vibrating string, that can then wobble and the fundamental particles of quantum physics appear.
So the main goal, is to locate the numbers that we can anchor the “fundamental string” the resulting vibrations and relationships between those vibrations.
Interestingly enough, a lot of consonance and dissonance, is to do with whether or not the ratios are simple whole number ratios, (consonance), or complicated ratios that trail of to infinity. (Dissonance).
But what is the string made out of????
The fine structure constant and what else, That add up to create the membrane on which the rest of the vibrations and thus harmony, can evolve out of??
(Idk, I’m a layman, who struggles with maths lol.)
But yeah, this is a fascinating thing to ponder, especially because we can’t ever get behind perception,
I always wonder how this relates to neuroscience, matter, and consciousness as a contributing factor to what we find “outside of our skulls”
Edit:
It could be possible that the reason our universe is stable at all in the first place, is because of the relationship between the fundamental dimensionless constants, are simple whole number ratios.
A “consonant” universe, would be one that could exist with stability in the first place,
And a dissonant universe is one that couldn’t exist because of the dimensionless constants never neatly forming whole number ratios and thus the resulting harmony from these ratios is too unstable to produce a universe where the physics neatly produces the higher order constants that have dimensions that don’t clash / cancel each other out.
There are also interesting ideas of mirror line symmetry in music called negative harmony,
Where 4ths (a specific musical relationship) can exist, but doesn’t exist in the harmonic series. (Anti matter / the mirror world that is super symmetry? )
But yeah, I’m taking the idea further than I probably should with that last idea,
Never the less, a fun musing lol
8:23 yes, that number is 42
Looked for this comment, wasn't disappointed
i had been searching for this kind of explanation since last 3 years and now i have finally got it, great job !!
This is the best CZcams video I have come across on this topic. Well done!!!
"If you have any ideas, leave them in the comments below."
If anyone in the comments had ideas worth a dime, they'd publish them in Nature or Reviews in Modern Physics.
I can only suggest taking #DMT
Maybe they don't even watch youtube because they're stuck in some stuffy patent office with terrible wifi.
Note: a conscious being could only measure the range of constants that allows a stable universe with emerging life, and then, consciousness.
It's like the question "why are we so lucky to be on Earth, a planet perfect for life?" -> all life could think the same on their own planet, while life on not-so-perfect planets simply doesn't exist (or not long enough so that it can have language and philosophy), so the question isn't even asked there.
It is **because** we measure them that these constants allow a stable universe, and because they allow a stable universe that we can measure them :P
Classic antrhopic principle
Very nice video and explanation. Thanks.
On those last eight constants- the first four are used to describe a slight asymmetry in how quarks decay into other flavors (e.g. strange to down) caused by the fact that the weak force violates CP symmetry. The latter four describe neutrino oscillations, which is a weird thing that neutrinos do where they cyclically change their identity between their three flavors as they travel through space. I don't think it's necessarily accurate to say that it involves the Higgs field because we don't actually know if that's the cause of neutrino mass.
Why are the 26 fine structure constants the numbers that they are?
"The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you." - Neil deGrasse Tyson
there's only one finestructure constant fwiw
"Neil Tyson sure likes his stupid one-liners." - The universe
+[yurica xd]
Perhaps. Perhaps the Universe is under no obligation to make sense to us.
But let's put this in a bit of a Historic perspective. It might be enlightening.
It is only since the early-20th Century that it became seen as a *detriment* to a Scientific Theory if it made sense to us, and that a Theory not making sense came to be seen as a *merit* of that Theory.
Personally, I find that development to be highly suspect. To me, it reeks of Mysticism and Dogmatism. Because, really, what difference is there between "The Universe is under no obligation to make sense to you." and "God moves in mysterious ways"?
The *entire purpose* of Science is to make sense of things in our Universe, including the Universe as a whole. So, in essence, saying "The Universe is under no obligation to make sense to you." is equivalent to saying "The Universe is under no obligation to subject itself to Scientific Questioning."
Implying, of course, that we might as well give up. Well, I for one am not in favour of giving up on questioning the mysteries of the Universe, regardless of whether said Universe has the intention of cooperating with our questioning.
We'll make it buckle by force if we have to.
@@AhsimNreiziev ehhh no you're reading into it the wrong way, theories that appear to make sense often leave question unanswered while theories that don't make sense yet often attempt to answer unanswered questions.
further more which is more "exciting" exploring your own house or exploring a new building your friend just make? or a new phone that does the same things your current phone does or one that does things you didn't imagine possible?
it's the same for scientists, they use theories to make sense of things and predictions, and if it works out just as expected that's that :P
but if doesn't work out as expected they found the point where they can improve the theory and discover new things about the universe.
in the end there is really not a big different between the scientific method and true faith both are the assured expectation of what is hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities that are not seen
@@AhsimNreiziev I have no idea how you make such a leap. When lay people say something about thr universe doesn't make sense, that thing doesn't match their expectations about the universe. I think the phrase actually means to say "The universe is under no obligation to conform to your own beliefs regarding what makes or doesn't make sense."
I love your videos! My guess is there are many universes with different constants, we just experience ours because these constants allow for it :)
I've been searching for a video which explains clearly about this topic for quite time.That was so interesting! Thank you very much!!
I wonder, is the string theory manage to reduce the number of those contacts?
You are amazing, thanks for the video, me and my son both loved it, subscribed.
for the fundamental alpha, can't you just multiply each side by 4pi, and still get a dimensionless constant that is invariant but not equal to 1/137 ?
But it would be a transcendent number then.
A particular consequence of 𝛼 being defined that way is the fact that ℏ has π on its denominator, getting rid of the factor of π appearing right next to it (maybe a hint about h being "the" fundamental constant, not ℏ, but never mind). The factor of 4π has to do with the physical dimensions of our world, as it is the value of the full solid angle covered by a sphere (in fact this is the origin of that factor of 4π, appearing when one integrates the total flux on a closed surface of an electrostatic field via Gauss' law). 𝛼 is also a useful way of packing constants to make some relations look simpler; for example, the (absolute value) of the ground state energy of a hydrogen atom given by the solution to the nonrelativistic Schroedinger equation can be written in terms of the fine structure constant as ½μ(𝛼c)², where μ is the reduced mass of the system, resembling the form of a classical kinetic energy.
Dimensional analysis is still very underrated despite being incredibly powerful.
Ironically, this is a highly underrated comment.
Extraordinary, both, explanation and substance. Thank you. Is it maybe possible to find one number, containig all these numbers as a whole numbers, when divided with any of them, giving no fragments? One divided into it might give us a clock frequency, frames exchange frequency, of the universe.
The epilogue was perfect where you said it is great that we think about these things in our kitchen. I wept for joy and am grateful beyond the ability to put into words. Thank you.
Other countries:
Uses physical constants to define Units.
Americans:
This is a foot. And well it's not the length of your foot but use it anyway. It's not complicated at all.
except it is the length of your foot
All units that we use are arbitrary. The meter started as 1/4 the circumference of the Earth divided into an arbitrary number of units. Later, it was redefined to be an arbitrary number of wavelengths of the light emitted by an arbitrary atom.
The second is the length of an Earth day divided up into an arbitrary number of slices.
Celsius was using the boiling and melting points of an arbitrary substance at an arbitrary pressure. Kelvin temperature just shifts Celsius down so that absolute zero = 0, but the spacing between units still uses the same arbitrary stuff.
The ONLY advantage of the Metric system is that everything is divisible by 10 all the way up and down the scale.
@@harrkev Celsius much less arbitrary than Fahrenheit. Phase change of; arguably the most important molecule for life on the planet vs. Farenheight's self perceived body temperature, and the coldest temperature he could produce experimentally.
Hate to break it to you but your physical constant use is only one year old. The SI was just as illogical when first invented. The only advantage was the use of 10 for moving up and down in scale.
Now moving into reality:
Of the 20 most industrialized countries in the world there are those that use SI and those that have put a man on the Moon. I'm sure most of you have seen that FOOTprint.
@@ajkendro3413 You know that internally NASA used (and uses) SI units, right?
9:44 The Fine Structure Constant is defined by the resolution of the system running the simulation which we inhabit...
What a load of crap
cybernetic
rasterized
access
patch
This one video ... understand this, really understand this, and you are on your way to understand how things really work
Very insightful!
2:23 Varitasium: well actually.
They have those values because one day god heard Einstein and he said "Oh yeah, where's my dice."
do you know why Einstein said that ?
its cause he didnt want to believe Quantum physics .. where you have to describe everything with probability ..... i understand where he is coming from ... but if QM didnt exist, then everything would be predictable ... literally every particles motion could be determined at all times .... the world. no, the universe would have a set path ... that means nothing we do would matter cause everything is pre-determined ... and that would be the saddest thing ever.
did god create man ... or did man create god ? ... only time you will know is after you die ... ironically if god doesnt exist .. you would never be able to acknowledge it
@@jackblack5082
"that means nothing we do would matter cause everything is pre-determined"
How would the randomness of quantum events make anything we do "matter" more?
We'd still have no control over the outcome of these random events
@@natansandle9284 because quantum mechanics fundamentals state that everything is in a superposition state .... the probability of either state (assuming 2 states) could be possible
also you can not define both position and momentum with same accuracy ... the more you know about its position the less you know about its momentum
you fail to see the whole picture ... a person is made of matter ... so a persons action in classical case would all be pre determined ... like where your hand would move etc
do you QM non of that is pre-determined ... your movement of your hand made up of millions of atoms are in superposition.
the beauty of science at its finest :)
ironically we have only scratched the surface
@@jackblack5082 Our actions not being predetermined is not the same as us having control over our actions.
Let's say you have 6 doors in front of you, and you are about to go through one of them.
According to determinism, the door you will go through can be determined beforehand, given enough information.
If we introduce randomness (which quantum mechanics may produce) which door you go through will depend on what's essentially a dice roll.
You have no freedom in either case. You have no influence over the outcome of the dice roll, given that it's completely random.
I do not understand why you'd consider the first case to be "the saddest thing ever" as opposed to the second one
Just to clarify, I understand the basics of quantum mechanics as you just described them. What I disagree with is your opinion that a lack of randomness would make our actions matter less
@@natansandle9284 maybe i am not good at explaining ,, i will try one last time as best i can
will try and use your idea of the 6 doors
you might already understand this but just for completeness sake lol
- people are made of atoms
- atoms put together makes up everything we see on earth (lets ignore dark matter etc)
- according to QM all 6 doors are equally likely to be entered ... while the probability might be higher for lets say door 2 ... you can still enter any other ... only time we know with 100% certainty is if we observe it .. its NOT RANDOMNESS
out actions matter more cause we have a choice in the matter ... if you had no choice why even live ..... QM gives rise to free will ... which in my opinion matters more
to me ... a choice i made weather it was better or worse means a whole lot more then something that no matter what happens was going to happen anyway
i see your point is about the semantics of why actions matter rather then the theory of QM ... that is purely subjective.
Thank you very much for these explanations. I especially appreciated the tables accompanying your comments.
Fascinating stuff. Thanks!
C = 2πr
[length] = π[length]
_Well boys, we did it. The 27th dimensional constant, the curvature of space._
I disagree with your formula. Yes, it's technically correct, the best kind, but it's just way too verbose.
C = τr
@@Phroggster While I do agree with both your point and your formula, I implore you to understand that using 2π has its uses, for example, when describing something being reflected off of a surface at an angle. [insert tau here] is indeed more useful when talking about the entire circle of angles, as tau radians = 0 radians.
Anyways, agree to disagree 👍
the more I try to understand physics, the more confused I get
And it makes it just more fun
If you're not confused then you haven't understood it.
Great vid! Might be interesting that the two dimensions 'mass' and 'length' are connected a second way as well which is by the COMPTON wave length which is reciprocal to mass.
awesome. One of the best explained Physics videos I've seen so far.
10:52 :DDD
Does that mean if we know all the dimensionless quantity variables we can simulate the universe in a powerful computer?
I don't think :
At least i think it would be an unrealistic simulation , given that quantum mechanic is hard to simulate ...
I guess we also needed the exact starting conditions
quantum mechanic says no, but it's an incomplete theory so we're not sure about that... uncertainty :)
powerful computer? Boy, we can't even simulate a simple flow of water to the atomic level in a human viable scale of time
@@AkraiLulerz 2 min paper czcams.com/video/CSQPD3oyvD8/video.html I believe we will soon
Wow. Enlightening? Of course! That was amazing and insightful. Never heard it that way and definitely never thought about it that way.
Fascinating and thought provoking. Thank you!
Everything in universe is constant except my sleeping time range 😴😴😴
Hahaha
Same ✋🏼
I have a slight disagreement - the "fundamental" constants really ARE fundamental; but they *aren't numbers!* Each of them is a product of a number and a unit.
As you point out, the choice of units is arbitrary; changing that choice, changes the number. But the product = the fundamental constant, *remains the same!*
7m22s: Perhaps more fundamentally (pardon the pun!), c converts length to time, or vice versa; Planck's (reduced) constant, ℏ, is the quantum of angular momentum.
When you say that G converts mass to length, it can't do that without help from c. I can't think of any two things G by itself, can convert between.
Also, you're neglecting the electrostatic/magnetic constants, ε₀ and µ₀, which are also fundamental constants. With or without the 4π factor.
[Choose one; the other follows automatically, using ε₀µ₀ = 1/c² .]
Also, I wouldn't include Avogadro's number in any of this; all it is, is the ratio of an arbitrarily chosen unit (the gram) to a more or less fundamental mass - 1/12 the mass of a neutral ¹²C atom.
In closing, I do agree that those 26 dimensionless constants are in a real sense, more fundamental than the handful of dimensioned constants; and thanks for this journey through the nature of physics, the universe, and everything!
Fred
The kilogram isn't defined from carbon-12 anymore, but from the Plancks constant.
@@sumsar01 Thanks for the correction/update - I didn't know that!
The important point is, that it is still an arbitrarily chosen quantity of mass, whether it's defined by a standard physical object (the reference kg), or some multiple of the Planck mass, chosen to closely match that reference kg.
Incidentally, tying the definition of the kg to the Planck mass, makes its definitional (fractional) uncertainty no better than that of G (actually, half that of G, since G occurs as its square-root in m[Planck]), the least precisely-measured of the fundamental constants that compose the Planck mass. While this is probably an improvement over the measurement precision of a physical standard, and eliminates the inevitable drift in that physical object's mass, it can't be the last word on the problem.
Ultimately, we're going to need a more precise measurement of G.
Fred
Fascinating and deep video
i'm from france and i would like to thank you very much for your work, i love you and your channel !