Are All Fundamental Physical Constants Accurately Known?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the accuracy of fundamental physical constants, specifically the 26 constants identified by John Baez. Participants highlight that these constants are crucial for understanding the universe's structure and behavior. Notably, many of these constants, including the masses of various quarks and leptons, are not precisely known and are not listed on the NIST website. The conversation also touches on the potential for deriving dimensionless constants from these fundamental values, contingent on the validity of general relativity and the Standard Model.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of fundamental physical constants
  • Familiarity with general relativity and the Standard Model of particle physics
  • Knowledge of quark and lepton masses
  • Awareness of the NIST database for physical constants
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the current measurements of quark masses, including the up, down, and top quarks
  • Examine the implications of the Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix on particle physics
  • Investigate the role of the Higgs boson mass in the Standard Model
  • Explore the cosmological constant and its significance in cosmology
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, researchers in theoretical physics, and students studying particle physics and cosmology will benefit from this discussion.

Nereid
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
3,392
Reaction score
3
In a thread in PF's Special and General Relativity ("What if the speed of light was slower") there is a discussion on physical constants, including c.

lethe pointed out that there are only 26* truly fundamental constants, and posted a link to a John Baez page with a discussion of these (Ambitwistor also posted a link to this Baez page, much earlier):
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/constants.html

These constants matter, at least in the sense that if any were different, the universe would be very different.

Baez says: 'All other dimensionless constants (aside from those built into the initial conditions) can in principle be derived from these, if our best theories of physics are correct - by which I mean general relativity, which covers gravity, and the Standard Model, which covers all the other forces. Of course, "in principle" means "not necessarily by any simpler method than by simulating the whole universe"![/color]'

What's the current status of deriving 'all other dimensionless constants' from these 26? Are there any hints of discrepancies?

A quick look at Baez' list and I'm thinking that the values of quite a number of these fundamental constants aren't known. What's the current status on their values (most aren't on the NIST website)?

*from the Baez page:
-> the mass of the up quark
-> the mass of the down quark
-> the mass of the charmed quark
-> the mass of the strange quark
-> the mass of the top quark
-> the mass of the bottom quark
-> 4 numbers for the Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix

-> the mass of the electron
-> the mass of the electron neutrino
-> the mass of the muon
-> the mass of the mu neutrino
-> the mass of the tau
-> the mass of the tau neutrino
-> 4 numbers for the Maki-Nakagawa-Sakata matrix

-> the mass of the Higgs boson
-> the expectation value of the Higgs field

-> the U(1) coupling constant
-> the SU(2) coupling constant
-> the strong coupling constant

-> the cosmological constant [/color]
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Great question! Looking forward to responses.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
6K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
11K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 61 ·
3
Replies
61
Views
9K