I About fundamental constants and vacuum

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the validity of deriving two fundamental constants from five parameters, questioning the significance of such relationships. It highlights that the equations presented yield dimensionless numbers that appear arbitrary, suggesting that any connection between these quantities is constructed rather than meaningful. The ability to solve equations with arbitrary parameters is noted, emphasizing that while solutions exist, their uniqueness cannot be guaranteed, which undermines their significance. The conversation concludes with a dismissal of numerological interpretations as lacking depth and insight. Overall, the discussion critiques the reliance on arbitrary relationships in fundamental physics.
IamNobody
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Does it not raise question to be able to build two parameters with the same dimension and order of magnitude of two fundamental constants from five parameters (other fundamental constants and measured properties)?

$$\sqrt{10\frac{\left(\varepsilon_0 e^{-2}\right)^3\left(k_B T\right)^4}{\rho_c}} \sim 3\times 10^8~m.s^{-1}$$
$$21.7\frac{\sqrt{\rho_c}}{\left(\varepsilon_0 e^{-2}\right)^{5/2}\left(k_B T\right)^2} \sim 6.6\times 10^{-34}~kg.m^2.s^{-1}$$
with
Vacuum permittivity: ##\varepsilon_0\sim 8.854\times 10^{-12}~m^{-3}.kg^{-1}.s^4.A^2##
Elementary charge: ##e\sim 1.602\times 10^{-19}~A.s##
Boltzmann constant: ##k_B\sim 1.381\times 10^{-23}~kg.m^2.s^{-2}.K^{-1}##
Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) temperature: ##T\sim 2.73~K##
Critical density: ##\rho_c=\frac{3H^2}{8\pi G}\sim 9.2\times 10^{-27}~kg.m^{-3}##
where ##G\sim 6.674 \times 10^{-11}~m^3.kg^{-1}.s^{-2}## is the gravitational constant and ##H\sim 70~km.s^{-1}.Mpc^{-1}## is the Hubble constant (actually between ##65## and ##75~km.s^{-1}.Mpc^{-1}## according to the measurements).
Of course, the speed of light is ##c\sim 3\times 10^8~m.s^{-1}## and the Planck constant is ##h\sim 6.626\times 10^{-34}~kg.m^2.s^{-1}##.

Besides, one can see both relations as two dimensionless numbers approximately equal to ##\sqrt{10}## and ##21.7## built from assumed independent parameters.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Any connection between quantities which are dependent on arbitrarily defined units is per construction arbitrary, hence numerology which cannot hint to any deeper insights.

Even worse, you can solve any equation system ##f_k(\alpha_1,\ldots) = c_k## with given values ##c_k## and arbitrary parameters ##\alpha_j## where the solutions are any possible arithmetic expressions ##f_i##. Existence of such a solution is trivial, and uniqueness unachievable. This alone indicates the lack of meaning.

I'm afraid we will not debate such kind of conspiracies on PF.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Hello! I am generating electrons from a 3D gaussian source. The electrons all have the same energy, but the direction is isotropic. The electron source is in between 2 plates that act as a capacitor, and one of them acts as a time of flight (tof) detector. I know the voltage on the plates very well, and I want to extract the center of the gaussian distribution (in one direction only), by measuring the tof of many electrons. So the uncertainty on the position is given by the tof uncertainty...
Back
Top