/sci/ - Science & Math

>>4444107

strong force without question

>>4444113
seconded, atoms would shred followed rather quickly by all matter in the universe

I wish the speed of light was 10 m/s

Alternatively:

I wish planck's constant increased by twenty orders of magnitude.

>>4444116

>I wish the speed of light was 10 m/s

This would do nothing at all. C is a dimensionful constant, so all you would do is redifine the meter and the second. That universe would be indistinguishable from ours.

>I wish planck's constant increased by twenty orders of magnitude.

That would be pretty fucking cool

>>4444116
I can imagine what happens when c becomes so low, but what happens when plank's constant doubles in magnitude?
I'm not sure if rule free wish means also breaking c itself, or is the area of effect would just infect the universe at light speed.

>>4444126
Actually, I had not thought about that, so perhaps a better wording is "nothing can travel faster than 10 m/s"

Too high for this shit.

Turn off strong: Protons no longer held together. Instasplosion!

Turn off gravity: Everybody flung off planets by centrifugal force.

Turn off weak: You're fucking with important nuclear processes that keep the sun shining. Survival may be possible for some intelligent species, but probably not for modern humans.

Turn off E&M: You still get an explosion, not as big as the strong nuclear one, this time powered by kinetic energy of electrons in atoms which are now free.

>>4444132

The larger planck's constant is, the larger the scale that quantum effects are important becomes.

>>4444126
Planck's constant isn't really something you can meaningfully change either; the only difference from c is that we're not basing our units on it yet. Although that may change soon.

>>4444143
im sober and it's freaking me out a bit

>>4444154
>>4444116

Scratch what I said about Planck's constant. Changing it would also do nothing, since it would just redefine our other units.

Changing the fine structure constant though...

""[An] important lesson we learn from the way that pure numbers like α define the world is what it really means for worlds to be different. The pure number we call the fine structure constant and denote by α is a combination of the electron charge, e, the speed of light, c, and Planck's constant, h. At first we might be tempted to think that a world in which the speed of light was slower would be a different world. But this would be a mistake. If c, h, and e were all changed so that the values they have in metric (or any other) units were different when we looked them up in our tables of physical constants, but the value of α remained the same, this new world would be observationally indistinguishable from our world. The only thing that counts in the definition of worlds are the values of the dimensionless constants of Nature. If all masses were doubled in value [including the Planck mass mP] you cannot tell because all the pure numbers defined by the ratios of any pair of masses are unchanged."

>>4444157
I'm sorry, but if Planks constant changes, that doesn't change the current scale of energy waves or matter in the universe. So, shouldn't a greater h, but not a larger universe mean quantized are *much* larger?
I only wonder out of scientific curiosity, or course...

>>4444168
you just have to pretend we define our units in terms of the length of a foot and other weird things instead of those, so that you actually can change them.

>gravitational constant is now 100 orders of magnitude higher

what now, bitches?

>>4444173

It doesn't matter though. If the speed of light was lower, your foot would be shorter. Changing dimensionful constants has no effect on the universe. Changing the ratio of dimensionful constants does however (ie the fine structure constant).

>>4444176
>dimensionful constants

>>4444178

what? It's the correct word.

OP never defined "fucked up"

You obviously mean leaving the universe in a chaotic state, but that's too subjective.

inb4people call me an "aspie"

>>4444176
well if the speed of light would be changed, and planck's constant unchanged, or the opposite, wouldn't that fuck it up then?

>>4444168
That adjusts the strength of E&M. Turning it off would be setting alpha=0.

Besides the strengths of the fundamental forces, the known knobs to adjust are the couplings of fermions to the Higgs field, the Higgs mass (okay this one isn't *known* yet) and vacuum expectation value, and the cosmological constant. Then subtract one because Planck's constant and c aren't enough to fix a mass unit, and some of these constants have dimensions. For example, we could pick the Planck mass as our unit, but that means we can't adjust the strength of gravity anymore.

>>4444185
In a state the first and foremost prevents any and all future emergence.
I wish to not limit that to just planets and stars, but all things.

>>4444192
*that

what about instead of turning off gravity we reversed it? (the more closerer you are to a large mass the more you are repulsed)

Related article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weakless_Universe

Remove all forms of pressure, every element would instantly be gas?

Wish for a big bang.

>>4444195
It would immediately reduce complexity, but not in the long run. Things would cluster into their sweet spots (equally far away where the force of repulsion from multiple things is equal.
>>4444199
Again, in the short term, yes, but its only an immediate solution that does not permanently solve emergence.

>>4444199
Also, *most* elements are solid even in *near* the vacuum of space.

>>4444217
Being close to where a lot of other mass had gathered could not possibly be a "sweet spot" under antigravity.

>>4444225
Except that it works both ways. The further objects are from each other, the greater their attraction would be, unless I am mistaken here.

>>4444229
There isn't any attraction, just repulsion.