Physical Constants

[khorto20]

I have a very elementary understanding of physics, but from what I understand there are several physical constants such as the Newtonian constant of gravitation, the Planck constant, and the speed of light in a vacuum.

 

I've also done some reading on quantum physics and string theory and I remember reading an article about the possibility of the universe we live in being a complex simulation of sorts.

 

As I got to thinking, I couldnt not understand why physical constants like the speed of light exist. Why is there a maximum velocity; An exact number where acceleration stops? It seems like something that is hard-coded into nature.

 

I cant seem to fathom why there would be a limit to an intangible concept like speed, when the concept of time is limitless.

 

How plausible is it that we are living in a programmed simulation of a universe, while the 'actual' universe exists without phyical constants and much different laws of physics?

Edited November 8, 2012 by khorto20

[JohnStu]

I have a very elementary understanding of physics, but from what I understand there are several physical constants such as the Newtonian constant of gravitation, the Planck constant, and the speed of light in a vacuum.

 

I've also done some reading on quantum physics and string theory and I remember reading an article about the possibility of the universe we live in being a complex simulation of sorts.

 

As I got to thinking, I couldnt not understand why physical constants like the speed of light exist. Why is there a maximum velocity; An exact number where acceleration stops? It seems like something that is hard-coded into nature.

 

I cant seem to fathom why there would be a limit to an intangible concept like speed, when the concept of time is limitless.

 

How plausible is it that we are living in a programmed simulation of a universe, while the 'actual' universe exists without phyical constants and much different laws of physics?

 

 

Very plausible, so plausible yet so not plausible that it seems inplausible, you know what I mean?

[zapatos]

I know you believe you understand what you think I said about that thing we were going to talk about in order to find agreement but I'm not sure you realize or are even capable of accepting that what you heard about what I said is not really the thing I meant for you to believe but simply to accept as a possibility regarding the types of things I am sometimes known to say.

 

I have a very elementary understanding of physics, but from what I understand there are several physical constants such as the Newtonian constant of gravitation, the Planck constant, and the speed of light in a vacuum.

 

I've also done some reading on quantum physics and string theory and I remember reading an article about the possibility of the universe we live in being a complex simulation of sorts.

 

As I got to thinking, I couldnt not understand why physical constants like the speed of light exist. Why is there a maximum velocity; An exact number where acceleration stops? It seems like something that is hard-coded into nature.

 

I cant seem to fathom why there would be a limit to an intangible concept like speed, when the concept of time is limitless.

 

How plausible is it that we are living in a programmed simulation of a universe, while the 'actual' universe exists without phyical constants and much different laws of physics?

No one knows why the speed of light is c. Physics can describe the properties of the universe but it cannot explain why it has the properties it does. Philosophy or religion may tell you why a physical constant is as we preceive it, but they will not be able to back it up with physical evidence.

 

It is not very plausible that we are living in a programmed simulation of the universe. There is no evidence of it. Until we have evidence we could also ask how plausible it is that everyone is in on a big joke being played on you, and in reality you are king of the solar system, but we don't want you to know yet. At this time, both possibilities seem just as plausible.

Edited November 8, 2012 by zapatos

[John Cuthber]

"It seems like something that is hard-coded into nature"

In a way, it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations#Vacuum_equations.2C_Electromagnetic_waves_and_speed_of_light

 

though, that's a classical theory. I don't know if there's a comparable explanation in QM

[khorto20]

I know you believe you understand what you think I said about that thing we were going to talk about in order to find agreement but I'm not sure you realize or are even capable of accepting that what you heard about what I said is not really the thing I meant for you to believe but simply to accept as a possibility regarding the types of things I am sometimes known to say.

 

 

No one knows why the speed of light is c. Physics can describe the properties of the universe but it cannot explain why it has the properties it does. Philosophy or religion may tell you why a physical constant is as we preceive it, but they will not be able to back it up with physical evidence.

 

It is not very plausible that we are living in a programmed simulation of the universe. There is no evidence of it. Until we have evidence we could also ask how plausible it is that everyone is in on a big joke being played on you, and in reality you are king of the solar system, but we don't want you to know yet. At this time, both possibilities seem just as plausible.

 

I would argue that physical constants could be viewed as evidence of a coded simulation. Also, there's also the notion that if any intelligent beings became capable of creating such a simulation, they would undoubtedly create more than one. Therefore, is it not more probable that we are living in one of the countless possible simulations (of the past or future) rather than the one 'true' universe? Furthermore, if this true universe exists without the physical constraints of the one we live in, they could be a far more widespread and unimaginably more technologically advanced.

 

This is all speculation of course, but physical constants just dont seem that 'natural' to me.

Edited November 8, 2012 by khorto20

[swansont]

I have a very elementary understanding of physics, but from what I understand there are several physical constants such as the Newtonian constant of gravitation, the Planck constant, and the speed of light in a vacuum.

 

I've also done some reading on quantum physics and string theory and I remember reading an article about the possibility of the universe we live in being a complex simulation of sorts.

 

As I got to thinking, I couldnt not understand why physical constants like the speed of light exist. Why is there a maximum velocity; An exact number where acceleration stops? It seems like something that is hard-coded into nature.

 

I cant seem to fathom why there would be a limit to an intangible concept like speed, when the concept of time is limitless.

 

How plausible is it that we are living in a programmed simulation of a universe, while the 'actual' universe exists without phyical constants and much different laws of physics?

Some constants are simply proportionality constants which depend on the system of units in which you are expressing an equation. I don't think there's any deep meaning there — it's the form of the equation that matters.

 

For a limit like c, I think the objection is also meaningless, since it would still be there regardless of the value. Even of the speed were infinite, you could ask why that was the case.

 

In any event, science doesn't address the "why" that is presented here.

[khorto20]

Some constants are simply proportionality constants which depend on the system of units in which you are expressing an equation. I don't think there's any deep meaning there — it's the form of the equation that matters.

 

For a limit like c, I think the objection is also meaningless, since it would still be there regardless of the value. Even of the speed were infinite, you could ask why that was the case.

 

In any event, science doesn't address the "why" that is presented here.

 

 

I just dont see how or why there is an exact maximum velocity. It seems that naturally it should be limitless just as time and mass is. To assign any number to it makes it seem like something (and I hate to use this particular word but..) "designed."

 

could be set in place to keep civilizations from interering with one another... who knows?

[zapatos]

I just dont see how or why there is an exact maximum velocity. It seems that naturally it should be limitless just as time and mass is. To assign any number to it makes it seem like something (and I hate to use this particular word but..) "designed."

 

could be set in place to keep civilizations from interering with one another... who knows?

I don't see how or why there is an exact maximum velocity either. But rather than making up a reason which is pure speculation, with zero evidence to support it, I choose to stop at "I don't see how or why...". Speculate all you want, but try not to believe your speculations unless you have some evidence.

 

Physical constants are not evidence of a coded simulation. They are evidence that there are physical constants.

[khorto20]

I don't see how or why there is an exact maximum velocity either. But rather than making up a reason which is pure speculation, with zero evidence to support it, I choose to stop at "I don't see how or why...". Speculate all you want, but try not to believe your speculations unless you have some evidence.

 

Physical constants are not evidence of a coded simulation. They are evidence that there are physical constants.

 

I do suppose this falls under the catagory of things we will most likely never understand. Thanks for the feedback.

[richardings]

surely the universe would not be able to function as we know it if there were no physical constants such as c, and thus we can cite the anthropic principle.

[michel123456]

I have a very elementary understanding of physics, but from what I understand there are several physical constants such as the Newtonian constant of gravitation, the Planck constant, and the speed of light in a vacuum.

 

I've also done some reading on quantum physics and string theory and I remember reading an article about the possibility of the universe we live in being a complex simulation of sorts.

 

As I got to thinking, I couldnt not understand why physical constants like the speed of light exist. Why is there a maximum velocity; An exact number where acceleration stops? It seems like something that is hard-coded into nature.

 

I cant seem to fathom why there would be a limit to an intangible concept like speed, when the concept of time is limitless.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

How plausible is it that we are living in a programmed simulation of a universe, while the 'actual' universe exists without phyical constants and much different laws of physics?

(hidden line mine)

I agree on all that is written above the line. I don't understand the connection with what is beneath the line.

To me the fact that constants do exist with that specific value is indeed an amazing feature of the universe. But I don't think the solution to the mystery (if any) is "programmed simulation".

 

-------------

edit

On the other hand it would be interesting to discover (or invent) a universe without any physical constant.

Edited November 27, 2012 by michel123456

[Klaynos]

If you use simulation as a way it you quickly fall tp the question of:

 

Why are the physical constants "correct" in the parent universe?

[Delta1212]

I just dont see how or why there is an exact maximum velocity. It seems that naturally it should be limitless just as time and mass is. To assign any number to it makes it seem like something (and I hate to use this particular word but..) "designed."

 

could be set in place to keep civilizations from interering with one another... who knows?

 

It's important to keep in mind that c is not a velocity that you reach at which point acceleration stops. It's more the case that the faster you are going, the more energy it takes to increase your speed by the same amount. Let's say you have a spaceship that runs by burning wood. Throw in a log and you'll accelerate to a faster speed. Still traveling at that speed, if you throw in a log of equal size, you'll wind up increasing your speed by just a little bit less than the first log did.

 

If 100 logs would accelerate you to 90% of the speed of light, that's so fast that adding energy to the rocket will only be one tenth as effective as if you were at rest. That means that the energy in the next 100 logs will only get you an additional 9% of the speed of light, so you're at 99% of c. At that point, you're moving so fast that additional energy is only one hundredth as effective as it is at rest, so an additional 100 logs will only get you 0.% of the speed of light, leaving you at 99.9% of c.

 

c isn't the speed at which acceleration stops so much as it is the speed that you can't reach because the diminishing returns at higher speeds make it impossible to pump in enough energy to reach that speed. You can keep accelerating forever, but it will be by smaller and smaller amount that never quite allow you to reach the speed of light.

[Moontanman]

Is it possible to... I want to say imagine... but maybe model is the right word, but can we model a universe with constants different than ours? In a way that can be understood or better yet illustrated?

[michel123456]

There must have been attempts to derive the physical constants from pure geometry.

[swansont]

There must have been attempts to derive the physical constants from pure geometry.

Possibly, but I think most models are underconstrained. It is possible, for example, to mathematically show that closed planetary orbits are only possible with an inverse-square law. But knowing that form only results in a proportionality, with free parameter(s). It does not tell you what the gravitation constant is.

[michel123456]

Possibly, but I think most models are underconstrained. It is possible, for example, to mathematically show that closed planetary orbits are only possible with an inverse-square law. But knowing that form only results in a proportionality, with free parameter(s). It does not tell you what the gravitation constant is.

(bolded mine)

 

exactly, proportionality.

[Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU]

It does not tell you what the gravitation constant is.

Hi, The thermal radiation from the merger, isn't already proportional to the force of gravity ? (gravitational merger on wiki in Interacting galaxy)

[swansont]

(bolded mine)

 

exactly, proportionality.

Proportionality does not tell you what the constant is. If I know y is directly proportional to x, the equation takes the form of y = ax. But I don't know what a is — that's the constant we're interested in. It is undetermined until we get data from experiment.

[michel123456]

If a is a unitless constant, it can arise from geometry (like number Π ).proportionality is maintained.

[swansont]

If a is a unitless constant, it can arise from geometry (like number Π ).proportionality is maintained.

In general they are not unitless, and even so we don't know until we do an experiment.

[khorto20]

It's important to keep in mind that c is not a velocity that you reach at which point acceleration stops. It's more the case that the faster you are going, the more energy it takes to increase your speed by the same amount. Let's say you have a spaceship that runs by burning wood. Throw in a log and you'll accelerate to a faster speed. Still traveling at that speed, if you throw in a log of equal size, you'll wind up increasing your speed by just a little bit less than the first log did.

 

If 100 logs would accelerate you to 90% of the speed of light, that's so fast that adding energy to the rocket will only be one tenth as effective as if you were at rest. That means that the energy in the next 100 logs will only get you an additional 9% of the speed of light, so you're at 99% of c. At that point, you're moving so fast that additional energy is only one hundredth as effective as it is at rest, so an additional 100 logs will only get you 0.% of the speed of light, leaving you at 99.9% of c.

 

c isn't the speed at which acceleration stops so much as it is the speed that you can't reach because the diminishing returns at higher speeds make it impossible to pump in enough energy to reach that speed. You can keep accelerating forever, but it will be by smaller and smaller amount that never quite allow you to reach the speed of light.

Why is it that photons are incapable of moving faster than c when they have no mass? I understand the concept of diminishing returns in relation to a massive object like a starship (or any item with mass for that matter), but this still doesn't clarify why time slows down the closer you get to c, effectively rendering you incaple of exceeding that velocity.

[swansont]

Why is it that photons are incapable of moving faster than c when they have no mass? I understand the concept of diminishing returns in relation to a massive object like a starship (or any item with mass for that matter), but this still doesn't clarify why time slows down the closer you get to c, effectively rendering you incaple of exceeding that velocity.

 

Because the permittivity and permeability of free space have certain values, and the speed at which massless EM radiation travels must be invariant in order for E&M to work as it is observed to work. That dictates the speed at which photons travel, and further dictates that time and distance not be invariant.

[khorto20]

 

Because the permittivity and permeability of free space have certain values, and the speed at which massless EM radiation travels must be invariant in order for E&M to work as it is observed to work. That dictates the speed at which photons travel, and further dictates that time and distance not be invariant.

Thank you for the thorough explanation.