The discussion centers around the nature of fundamental physical constants and whether they truly remain constant over time. Participants explore the implications of adjustments made to these constants, particularly referencing a potential change in 1986, and question the meaning of "constant" in this context. The conversation touches on theoretical, conceptual, and historical aspects of physical constants.
Participants express a range of views, with no consensus on whether the constants truly remain constant or the implications of their adjustments. Some agree on the arbitrary nature of the constants, while others emphasize the mystery surrounding their specific values.
Limitations include the lack of clarity on the specifics of the 1986 adjustment and its motivations, as well as the dependence on definitions of "constant" and "change." The discussion also reflects uncertainty regarding the relationship between physical constants and the system of units.
The constant are arbitrary values which we can use for our equations and our physics.Serra Nova said:Why are the fundamental physical constants called "constants" when they change over time?
I've read that the constants were adjusted in 1986.
How can there even be something that is constant, when we can't even see the entire universe?
lekh2003 said:The constant are arbitrary values which we can use for our equations and our physics.
They just happen to have these values. We don't know why pi happens to be 3.1415, it just is. These values can help us understand the universe but they could easily be something else.Serra Nova said:But why do they have those exact numerical values?
https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/Table/allascii.txt
lekh2003 said:They just happen to have these values. We don't know why pi happens to be 3.1415, it just is. These values can help us understand the universe but they could easily be something else.
lekh2003 said:They just happen to have these values. We don't know why pi happens to be 3.1415, it just is. These values can help us understand the universe but they could easily be something else.
Yes, that was in his book. He did outline that the specific constant we had were ideal and that it could've been anything.Serra Nova said:Brian Greene said that those exact values might have different values in other universes.
I haven’t read that. What is your source?Serra Nova said:I've read that the constants were adjusted in 1986.
Serra Nova said:Why are the fundamental physical constants called "constants" when they change over time?
I've read that the constants were adjusted in 1986.
Dale said:I haven’t read that. What is your source?
Dale said:I haven’t read that. What is your source?
"The 1986 adjustment of the fundamental constants has implications with respect to the establishment of standards for electrical units".f95toli said:I suspect the OP is referring to some CODATA update (although I can't of any major change in 1986).
Note that a bunch of fundamental constants will change (and some will be assigned exact values) later this year when the SI is redefined. This is not because something has actually changed in nature; it is just because we will will tweak our system of units somewhat to make it a bit more self-consistent.
ISamson said:I think OP is referring to "Since they are constants, the definition of constant itself states that a constant is something that doesn't change, how can they change?". I think that is the OP's question and a question that interests me as well. Thanks.
Yes, that was my thought also. The dimensionful fundamental constants are a reflection of our units, not physics. But I am not aware of any change to SI in 1986.f95toli said:Note that a bunch of fundamental constants will change (and some will be assigned exact values) later this year when the SI is redefined.
That is interesting. I was unaware of this. Unfortunately, I am not so curious that I am willing to purchase the article. Does the article itself not describe the cause of the change?Serra Nova said:"The 1986 adjustment of the fundamental constants has implications with respect to the establishment of standards for electrical units".
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-009-2955-5_5
I don’t know this 1986 revision. However, consider the speed of light. It is 299792458 m/s and it is 6.7E8 mph. Since it is a constant, how can it change?ISamson said:"Since they are constants, the definition of constant itself states that a constant is something that doesn't change, how can they change?". I think that is the OP's question and a question that interests me as well