/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14746882
You'd still be asking the same question even if they were

>>14746882
If the constants were any different then history would be different, and the precise series of events that lead to Jesus Christ’s birth in Bethlehem 2022 years ago would not have happened as it did

>>14746913
>>14746890
doesn't answer the question

>>14746882
Perhaps there is no reason.

>>14746951
Are the universal constants what gives the elementary particles their properties, or is it the other way around?

OP, why the constants are what they are is an open question in physics, with no good real answers yet. For that matter, it is still debatable if they are actually constants and have not changed over time; there at least is some active research in that area.

>>14746882
More than one universe. Each universe has different values for the fundamental constants. We are in the universe that allows life to ask the question.

>>14747028
>Are the universal constants what gives the elementary particles their properties, or is it the other way around?
Good question, Id like to know the answer.

Also: can simulations be ran as to what the universes may look like if the constants were slightly different?

The average mass of electron is different , the speed of light is a bit slower, quarks turn out a bit different,

>>14747077
>>14747028
>>14746882
What is the physical reason gravity is square distance law, proportion of mass and distance, intensity of effect?

What would be required for it not to be square distance effect? If something about the density, fabric of the gravity field was different? Or square distance law is stating a range like a ruler states s range, inches and centimeters,

Or there is some special gravitational harmonic sweet spots that line on squares of the distances relation to masses

>>14747098
I think the inverse square law is just math and whatever the values of the constants are it's going to apply.

>>14747098
> What is the physical reason gravity is square distance law
Any point source of some conserved quantity is related to how much of the quantity passes through some area of space. Since this is related to the area of a sphere [math]4 \pi r^2[/math] you obtain the inverse-square relationship. So to have a universe with a different law would require one with fundamentally different geometry.

>>14747111
So it has nothing to possibly do with the nature of the gravity field?

Like spheres traveling through different fields, metal spheres, plastic spheres, rubber spheres, traveling through air and water, they all effect medium inverse square law (if the medium filled 0g and the sphere was tossed through it?

>>14746882
Anthropic principle - if it weren't the way it is, you wouldn't be here to ask about it. (This is also known as the "Science doesn't do 'Why'!" cop out.)

The speed of light (or more accurately, the speed of information), is, however, more or less inevitable given how Lorentz transformations work. Any given universe will either have this speed of light, or no speed limit at all. (Still more how than why, but that's as close as you're going to get without dipping into religion.)

Otherwise, these are just the numbers we came up with that fit both the observations and the models, for now.

>>14747028
Think that varies with which constant you're talking about. In most cases properties are due to the wave/particles interactions with their respective and adjacent QFs and pairing. I suppose this interaction gives rise to most of the constants, though some, like the speed of light, are a bit more mathematically fundamental.

Some of the universal constants don't apply at super high energies (like the very early universe), so I suppose for those the particles came first.

>>14747163
> So it has nothing to possibly do with the nature of the gravity field?
No except for the fact gravity is a field. Same reason the EM field is inverse square.

>>14746882
Because that's how we defined meter, hour and other units.

>>14747484
you did not define the intrinsic velocity of light.

>>14747239
It is to be mentioned that in higher dimensional systems it is not an inverse square law, there are some models that treat the universe as higher dimensional but those other dimensions are “smaller” than the normal 3D ones so their effects are not seen or felt on a macro scale.

part of an answer to OP is the geometry of our universe (which leads us to the question of why our geometry is the way it is)

>>14747028
>Are the universal constants what gives the elementary particles their properties, or is it the other way around?
Since you were talking about the speed of light, that can be expressed as [math]c=1/\sqrt{\varepsilon_0 \mu_0}[/math], so in terms of the vacuum permittivity and vacuum permeability. Why does the vacuum have a permittivity though, that's supposed to hold for dielectrics? The key is (on-shell) vacuum fluctuations. All the junk in the vacuum makes it have a finite permittivity and permeability. And vacuum fluctuations are again related to the fine structure constant, i.e. the coupling of charged particles to photons.
So in a sense, it's all connected and you could say that the finite speed of light is caused by the vacuum fluctuation, which in turn depends on other constants.

>>14747842
> which leads us to the question of why our geometry is the way it is
which is essentially the same as OP's original question. string theory would explain it using the same anthropic principle, there are 10 space dimensions and in each possible universe random ones will be compactified.

>>14746882
>why are the universal constants the way they are? why do they have their specific value?
Because it's a computed virtual reality. The speed of light has to do with refresh rate and processing power. Explanation timestamped for you in this vid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1axh6ki0oc&t=360s

If you stop trying to fit the data into the fake news idea of materialism and an objective reality of observer independent matter and start looking at the physical world as a virtual and informational reality being rendered to your mind via a data stream to be processed and structured by your consciousness, then it makes sense.

>>14748082
>>>/x/

>>14748085

>>14748088

>>14747239
So metal sphere, plastic sphere, rubber spheres, of different masses and volumes, traveling in trials at different velocities through mediums of water, air, oil, other liquids, other gases; always effect the medium inverse square law?

All mediums react to all spheres inverse squarely?

Inverse square is just a type of ruler? It's not some conditioned conditional effect right, it's just establishing a regular coordinate system, to say, if mass X and mass 2X entered this area 100 feet from this sphere they would be influenced by the spheres disruption of the mediums equilibrium by such and such degrees, which would have a regular interval of proportion; X, 2X, 3X, 4X, 5X

All will follow a sensible flow of activity, nothing jarring or out of left field, nice and plumb and square, it's just natural; incremental change produces proportional incremental results

I geuss I was just wondering about different mediums having different properties, possible lag times, or stickiness, or clumping particles, effecting the steady, even, square
proportionality of incremental change in variable

>>14746882
Because they were built off other constants. Its a network with everything dependent on a few critical markers.

>>14747111
I dont know if this is true, but the photon, which is the boson for EM field is massless, which is why it is long range.

The strong and weak nuclear forces have much shorter range because their bosons have mass.

>>14747098
>What is the physical reason gravity is square distance law
it just is

>>14749044
Yea I'm just trying to wrap my head around and wondering like here:>>14748564


If any type of sphere moving in any type of theoretical medium will enact that medium into an intensity of motion that is proportional to inverse square. Or if it is specifically something to do with the nature of the gravity field specifically, that allows it to not act a little less or a little more than the inverse square.

"The inverse-square law generally applies when some force, energy, or other conserved quantity is evenly radiated outward from a point source in three-dimensional space. Since the surface area of a sphere (which is 4πr2) is proportional to the square of the radius, as the emitted radiation gets farther from the source, it is spread out over an area that is increasing in proportion to the square of the distance from the source. Hence, the intensity of radiation passing through any unit area (directly facing the point source) is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the point source. Gauss's law for gravity is similarly applicable, and can be used with any physical quantity that acts in accordance with the inverse-square relationship."

>>14746882
the arbiter of constants sits at a table in the etheria, speaking the constants into crystals. go fucking ask her.

God did it.

>>14749120
If a large mass collided with another; and they got all wobbly, wouldnt their gravity effects be different?

Or I geuss large masses are like billiard balls, and don't wobble much

This.

Cosmic equilibirum

>>14746882
Because the metric systems are arbitrary. The constants are the real world, while what we use to measure them is random

logical and geometrical properties of numbers give rise to correlations between numbers, and certain types of numbers give rise to some certain aspects.
many of the relationships would be true in any universe. it's all connected in a nest of logic.

>>14748564
>>14749120
It has nothing to do with spheres moving in a medium. It is simply due to the fact any property with a source (gravity, electromagnetism or sound etc) will propagate radially and equally in all directions, and guess what, in 3-dimensions that's spherical. So the amount of that property will scale with the surface area of that imaginary sphere hence giving you the [math]1/r^2[/math] relationship.

>>14750980
>any property with a source
So dipoles are not a source?

>>14751030
What makes you think that?

>>14746882
Same reason why 2 comes after 1, √4 = 2 not 3 and pi = 3.14
The universe origins out of mathematical grouping of simpler particles which are the foundation of existence.

>>14747175
>The speed of light (or more accurately, the speed of information), is, however, more or less inevitable given how Lorentz transformations work. Any given universe will either have this speed of light, or no speed limit at all. (Still more how than why, but that's as close as you're going to get without dipping into religion.)
Can you elaborate why? I don't know much about physics, but it would be kind of surprising to me, intuition-wise, that our universe's precise speed of light/information is somehow implied (meta-)universally, or at least that it's either that or nothing.

>>14751043
It's the fact that our laws of physics are invariant under Lorentz transformations. It was first noted by Lorentz about Maxwell's equations for Electromagnetism, hence the name. Having such a symmetry means there must be a finite, maximum speed since a factor of v/c is involved but it does not tell you what that value is.

>>14751093
That makes sense, but that poster (you?) seemed to be claiming that any and all universes will either have our value of the speed of light or no speed of light.

>Any given universe will either have this speed of light, or no speed limit at all.

(And if they meant "will either have a speed of light or will not have a speed of light", then that's kind of an informationless statement.)

>>14751098
I'm not the original poster. Reading what he wrote I can't see him stating other universes must have our speed of light, only that there is one (if they have the same Lorentz symmetry).