Discovering the Capricious Constants: Uncovering the Non-Fundamental Truths

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Loren Booda
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Constants
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of "fundamental constants" in physics, questioning which constants may not be truly fundamental and exploring the implications of their definitions and measurements. Participants engage in theoretical reasoning and conceptual clarification regarding the nature of these constants, particularly in relation to quantum mechanics and measurement challenges.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that the definition of "fundamental constant" is ambiguous, suggesting that constants like e could be viewed similarly to other specific numbers.
  • There is a claim that the charge on an electron or quark is a fundamental constant, although this is not universally agreed upon.
  • One participant raises concerns about the universal gravitational constant, citing potential discrepancies in satellite measurements and questioning whether these discrepancies indicate a true change in the constant or merely measurement errors.
  • Another participant argues that the notion of unchanging fundamental constants is elusive, noting that even the speed of light requires specific conditions to remain constant.
  • A question is posed regarding whether the definition of a fundamental constant should account for the properties of spacetime, suggesting that in a quantum universe, stable values may be averages rather than fixed constants.
  • Further inquiry is made into how the concept of a vacuum affects measurements of fundamental constants, particularly in relation to particle interactions in accelerators.
  • There is speculation about whether the fine structure constant, being unitless, could be considered "more fundamental" than other constants.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature and definition of fundamental constants, with no consensus reached on which constants may not be fundamental or how they should be defined in light of quantum mechanics and measurement challenges.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in the definitions and measurements of fundamental constants, including the dependence on specific conditions and the potential influence of quantum effects. There are unresolved questions regarding the implications of these factors on the understanding of fundamental constants.

Which of the following will prove not to be a fundamental constant?

  • c

    Votes: 2 28.6%
  • e

    Votes: 2 28.6%
  • G

    Votes: 4 57.1%
  • h

    Votes: 1 14.3%
  • They are all fundamental and constant

    Votes: 1 14.3%

  • Total voters
    7
Loren Booda
Messages
3,108
Reaction score
4
Which of the following will prove not to be a fundamental constant?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Define "fundamental constant". e is simply a specific number. It is a "fundamental constant" in the same sense that 1, -5, or 37.324323 are. The others are all physics constants.
 
HallsofIvy said:
Define "fundamental constant". e is simply a specific number. It is a "fundamental constant" in the same sense that 1, -5, or 37.324323 are. The others are all physics constants.

I expect he means the charge on an electron.
 
Charge on an electron (or quark) it is.
 
Picked the universal gravitational constant, since satellites exiting the solar system have already raised some potential discrepancies that need to be explained (just a problem measuring the satellite's acceleration? or a 'true' discrepancy in acceleration?)

In general, I think the idea of fundamental constants that never change seems like a rather elusive idea. Even for 'c', speed of light, special conditions have to be set (only in a vacuum that doesn't actually exist) in order for the speed of light to remain constant. To be a 'fundamental constant', there should at least exist some unchanging value, even if our measurements of it undergo revision as our ability to measure it improve. Using that frame of reference, I think all of the above probably have some fundamental value, even if our measurement of it constantly undergoes revision.
 
BobG said:
In general, I think the idea of fundamental constants that never change seems like a rather elusive idea. Even for 'c', speed of light, special conditions have to be set (only in a vacuum that doesn't actually exist) in order for the speed of light to remain constant.

When you say that vacuum "doesn't actually exist" are you referring to the difficulties of isolating a bit of space with no matter or force particles in it which could in principle be removed, or are you referring to the fact the space can never really be "empty" due to quantum effects?

Doesn't specification of a fundamental constant require that the properties of the "fabric" of spacetime be taken into account as part of the definition? Or to put it another way, is the idea of a fundamental "constant" as such essentially a classical idea as, in a quantum universe, the quantitatively stable values are averages?

Putting aside quantum issues (if this is possible without rendering the question meaningless), isn't a "vacuum" the stage for reactions between particles? So wouldn't the value of fundamental constants "in a vacuum" be in play in measurements taken for individual interactions such as those recorded in accelerators? (This of course assumes that the degree of transparency afforded by the detector can be determined.)

How are any of these considerations affected by the units of the "fundamental constant" in question? Would the speed of light, which superficially appears to have a more direct relation to the structure of spacetime be more affected by the above considerations than charge, which appears independent? Would the fine structure constant (being unitless) be a somehow "more fundamental" constant than the others mentioned?

My context for these questions is curiosity not challenge. I have no real sense of what the current consensus might be on these issues.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 64 ·
3
Replies
64
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
6K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K