Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

The Fundamental Constants Behind our Universe

posted by LaminatorX on Sunday February 08 2015, @03:17PM   Printer-friendly
from the fine-structure dept.

martyb writes:

I found this fascinating story The Fundamental Constants Behind Our Universe at medium.com's "Starts with a Bang" column. Ethan Siegel posits:

But the Universe itself experiences continual growth, constant change, and new experiences all the time, and it does so spontaneously.

And yet, the better we understand our Universe — what the laws are that govern it, what particles inhabit it, and what it looked/behaved like farther and farther back in the distant past — the more inevitable it appears that it would look just as it appears.

[...] We’d like to describe our Universe as simply as possible; one of the goals of science is to describe nature in the simplest terms possible, but no simpler. How many of these does it take, as far as we understand our Universe today, to completely describe the particles, interactions, and laws of our Universe?

The answer? "Quite a few, surprisingly: 26, at the very least." He then goes on to explore what these are and how they are computed.

Sadly, we don't know enough to be able to predict everything. As the article notes, there remain problems with explaining CP violations, matter-antimatter asymmetry in our Universe, cosmic inflation, and what dark matter actually is.

Separately, but related: many years ago I came upon a site that provided interactive exploration of the scale of things in the universe from Planck length on up to the the visible universe. (And, no, it was not powersof10.com) I have a niece who is curious about such things and I would love to share such a site with her. Sadly, I can no longer locate a link. Any suggestions?

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fundamental Constants Behind our Universe | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 41 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 2) by VLM on Sunday February 08 2015, @06:42PM

    by VLM (445) on Sunday February 08 2015, @06:42PM (#142514)

    I cannot prove to others consciousness exists and yet I know for sure it exists.

    Can't overlook self deception as a possible failure mode of the argument.

    As far as memes go your assumption is invalid as it seems to be an epidemic meme, its hard to find an individual self reporting as uninfected, and it mostly seems to be transmitted by speech, so obviously somebody is telling some persuasive stuff about it somewhere...

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   2  

  • (Score: 2) by melikamp on Sunday February 08 2015, @07:54PM

    by melikamp (1886) on Sunday February 08 2015, @07:54PM (#142527) Journal
    Ironically, part of the blame for this nut is borne [wikipedia.org] by our good friend René [wikipedia.org], the big daddy of analytic geometry.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 09 2015, @08:43AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 09 2015, @08:43AM (#142634)
    Self deception? Maybe you're one of those that don't experience consciousness and aren't emulating it as well, which would explain your remark.

    My own consciousness is the only thing I can be 100% sure exists. Can't be as sure of everything else.