137 the magic of the fine structure constant

[Airbrush]

Quantum physics is beyond me, so I figured the Science Lounge would be more appropriate than Physics.  Is anyone familiar with the Fine Structure Constant?  I saw a fascinating 15-minute Youtube with Matt O'Dowd explaining how the existence of life, and the universe itself, depends on very exact parameters.  The founders of quantum mechanics obsessed over it, calling it "the most fundamental unsolved problem in physics."

Elon Musk said he thought it is a Billion times more likely that we live in a Matrix-style simulation than in a base reality.  Then Neil deGrasse Tyson said he thought it was about equal 50/50 probability we live in a simulation.  Anyone familiar with that?  So my question is, does this magical number 1/137 suggest we live in a simulation?

 

[iNow]

 

[exchemist]

4 hours ago, Airbrush said:

Quantum physics is beyond me, so I figured the Science Lounge would be more appropriate than Physics.  Is anyone familiar with the Fine Structure Constant?  I saw a fascinating 15-minute Youtube with Matt O'Dowd explaining how the existence of life, and the universe itself, depends on very exact parameters.  The founders of quantum mechanics obsessed over it, calling it "the most fundamental unsolved problem in physics."

Elon Musk said he thought it is a Billion times more likely that we live in a Matrix-style simulation than in a base reality.  Then Neil deGrasse Tyson said he thought it was about equal 50/50 probability we live in a simulation.  Anyone familiar with that?  So my question is, does this magical number 1/137 suggest we live in a simulation?

 

No. It’s just a number. Every physical constant has to have a value.

This “simulation” stuff seems to be just an IT nerd’s version of the  “fine tuning” argument for God, which I have never found persuasive.

[Airbrush]

8 hours ago, exchemist said:

No. It’s just a number. Every physical constant has to have a value.

This “simulation” stuff seems to be just an IT nerd’s version of the  “fine tuning” argument for God, which I have never found persuasive.

Then why would Neil deGrasse Tyson think we are just as likely in a simulation than in base reality?  Is he an IT nerd?  Is Musk delusional?  Matt O'Dowd sounds like he knows what he is talking about.  Did anyone listen to any of this Youtube?  Where did Matt get it wrong?  Is he an IT nerd?

"Ever since the philosopher Nick Bostrom proposed in the Philosophical Quarterly that the universe and everything in it might be a simulation, there has been intense public speculation and debate about the nature of reality. Such public intellectuals as Tesla leader and prolific Twitter gadfly Elon Musk have opined about the statistical inevitability of our world being little more than cascading green code. Recent papers have built on the original hypothesis to further refine the statistical bounds of the hypothesis, arguing that the chance that we live in a simulation may be 50–50.

Confirmed! We Live in a Simulation - Scientific American

However, Wikipedia is a skeptic.

"The hypothesis popularized by Bostrom is very disputed, with, for example, theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder, who called it pseudoscience^[6] and cosmologist George F. R. Ellis, who stated that "[the hypothesis] is totally impracticable from a technical viewpoint" and that "protagonists seem to have confused science fiction with science. Late-night pub discussion is not a viable theory."

Simulation hypothesis - Wikipedia

"The claims have been afforded some credence by repetition by luminaries no less esteemed than Neil deGrasse Tyson, the director of Hayden Planetarium and America’s favorite science popularizer. Yet there have been skeptics. Physicist Frank Wilczek has argued that there’s too much wasted complexity in our universe for it to be simulated. Building complexity requires energy and time. Why would a conscious, intelligent designer of realities waste so many resources into making our world more complex than it needs to be? It's a hypothetical question, but still may be needed.: Others, such as physicist and science communicator Sabine Hossenfelder, have argued that the question is not scientific anyway. Since the simulation hypothesis does not arrive at a falsifiable prediction, we can’t really test or disprove it, and hence it’s not worth seriously investigating."

Edited June 19, 2023 by Airbrush

[swansont]

14 hours ago, Airbrush said:

Quantum physics is beyond me, so I figured the Science Lounge would be more appropriate than Physics

!

Moderator Note

 And you were wrong. Physics discussion belongs in the physics section 

 

14 hours ago, Airbrush said:

does this magical number 1/137 suggest we live in a simulation?

No.

It has to have a value. Why does 1/137 somehow imply we live in a simulation?

If we did, whoever created it has a fine structure constant, or some equivalent. Is it turtles all the way down?

 

Argument from authority is a logical fallacy. Quoting what people believe is meaningless. Why they think what they think might be worth discussing.

[exchemist]

3 hours ago, Airbrush said:

Then why would Neil deGrasse Tyson think we are just as likely in a simulation than in base reality?  Is he an IT nerd?  Is Musk delusional?  Matt O'Dowd sounds like he knows what he is talking about.  Did anyone listen to any of this Youtube?  Where did Matt get it wrong?  Is he an IT nerd?

"Ever since the philosopher Nick Bostrom proposed in the Philosophical Quarterly that the universe and everything in it might be a simulation, there has been intense public speculation and debate about the nature of reality. Such public intellectuals as Tesla leader and prolific Twitter gadfly Elon Musk have opined about the statistical inevitability of our world being little more than cascading green code. Recent papers have built on the original hypothesis to further refine the statistical bounds of the hypothesis, arguing that the chance that we live in a simulation may be 50–50.

Confirmed! We Live in a Simulation - Scientific American

However, Wikipedia is a skeptic.

"The hypothesis popularized by Bostrom is very disputed, with, for example, theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder, who called it pseudoscience^[6] and cosmologist George F. R. Ellis, who stated that "[the hypothesis] is totally impracticable from a technical viewpoint" and that "protagonists seem to have confused science fiction with science. Late-night pub discussion is not a viable theory."

Simulation hypothesis - Wikipedia

"The claims have been afforded some credence by repetition by luminaries no less esteemed than Neil deGrasse Tyson, the director of Hayden Planetarium and America’s favorite science popularizer. Yet there have been skeptics. Physicist Frank Wilczek has argued that there’s too much wasted complexity in our universe for it to be simulated. Building complexity requires energy and time. Why would a conscious, intelligent designer of realities waste so many resources into making our world more complex than it needs to be? It's a hypothetical question, but still may be needed.: Others, such as physicist and science communicator Sabine Hossenfelder, have argued that the question is not scientific anyway. Since the simulation hypothesis does not arrive at a falsifiable prediction, we can’t really test or disprove it, and hence it’s not worth seriously investigating."

Well I think Sabine is spot-on, as far as science goes. The whole notion of simulation is firstly untestable, so it's metaphysics, not science, and secondly it immediately demands the question: " Simulated by who, or what, and to what end?" It's God by another name, basically - just more IT nerdy, and therefore more hip and trendy. 

I'm not impressed by Tyson. For a start he dismisses philosophy as a waste of time, which shows a lack of understanding of the foundations of his own subject, (details here: https://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2014/05/12/neil-degrasse-tyson-and-the-value-of-philosophy/ ) and then, that stated point of view notwithstanding, he starts indulging in metaphysical speculation himself!  

(I have not watched the video, as I find videos a very inefficient way of communicating information.  If you can link a write-up of the ideas, I might read that.)  

 

Edited June 19, 2023 by exchemist

[Genady]

9 hours ago, swansont said:

Why they think what they think might be worth discussing.

It's not even why they think what they think. We don't know what they think. We only might discuss why they said what they said.

[Airbrush]

20 hours ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

 And you were wrong. Physics discussion belongs in the physics section 

 

No.

#1 - It has to have a value. Why does 1/137 somehow imply we live in a simulation?

#2 - If we did, whoever created it has a fine structure constant, or some equivalent. Is it turtles all the way down?

#3 - Argument from authority is a logical fallacy. Quoting what people believe is meaningless. Why they think what they think might be worth discussing.

1  It does not imply we live in a simulation.  I never heard of any connection between 1/137 and living in a simulation.  I am the only one making that connection.  Because of the very exacting parameter required for life to exist, or even for the universe to exist, it looks like a "plan."  Religious people will call it intelligent design.  The other explanation I heard is eternal inflation explains that there could be an infinite number of universes, all with different parameters, and we happen to live in one that has 1/137 that enables life to exist.

2  "Turtles all the way down" is what I think Elon Musk is proposing when he states that he thinks it is a Billion times more likely we live in a simulation.  There are a billion turtles, or simulations, and only one base reality.

3  If anyone could just listen to about the first 2 minutes of Matt O'Dowd, and tell me what he is missing?  He said "The founders of quantum mechanics obsessed over it (1/137), calling it the most fundamental unsolved problem in physics."  Is he lying, or mistaken, or what?

[swansont]

56 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

1  It does not imply we live in a simulation.  I never heard of any connection between 1/137 and living in a simulation.  I am the only one making that connection.  Because of the very exacting parameter required for life to exist, or even for the universe to exist, it looks like a "plan."  Religious people will call it intelligent design.  The other explanation I heard is eternal inflation explains that there could be an infinite number of universes, all with different parameters, and we happen to live in one that has 1/137 that enables life to exist.

It’s allegedly required for life to exist. Meaning that if it had a different value, we wouldn’t be here to discuss the issue. That doesn’t mean there’s a design.

 

56 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

2  "Turtles all the way down" is what I think Elon Musk is proposing when he states that he thinks it is a Billion times more likely we live in a simulation.  There are a billion turtles, or simulations, and only one base reality.

But maybe that base reality is also a simulation. How do you tell?

56 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

3  If anyone could just listen to about the first 2 minutes of Matt O'Dowd, and tell me what he is missing?  He said "The founders of quantum mechanics obsessed over it (1/137), calling it the most fundamental unsolved problem in physics."  Is he lying, or mistaken, or what?

Why does he have to be lying or mistaken? There are a few people who work on foundations of physics who might be obsessed with such issues. Why does this matter?

[Genady]

56 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

  He said "The founders of quantum mechanics obsessed over it (1/137), calling it the most fundamental unsolved problem in physics."  Is he lying, or mistaken, or what?

AFAIK, the fine structure constant is one of about two dozen numbers that need to be measured experimentally and plugged in the SM by hand because there is no known way to derive them from first principles. When the founders of QM called it "the most fundamental unsolved problem in physics," about 100 years ago, there were not that many of such numbers and many other unsolved problems, e.g., quantum gravity, dark energy, etc., were not yet known or formulated. I don't think it is generally considered as such today.

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, Airbrush said:

1  It does not imply we live in a simulation.  I never heard of any connection between 1/137 and living in a simulation.  I am the only one making that connection.  Because of the very exacting parameter required for life to exist, or even for the universe to exist, it looks like a "plan."  Religious people will call it intelligent design.  The other explanation I heard is eternal inflation explains that there could be an infinite number of universes, all with different parameters, and we happen to live in one that has 1/137 that enables life to exist.

2  "Turtles all the way down" is what I think Elon Musk is proposing when he states that he thinks it is a Billion times more likely we live in a simulation.  There are a billion turtles, or simulations, and only one base reality.

3  If anyone could just listen to about the first 2 minutes of Matt O'Dowd, and tell me what he is missing?  He said "The founders of quantum mechanics obsessed over it (1/137), calling it the most fundamental unsolved problem in physics."  Is he lying, or mistaken, or what?

Good, so we are agreed we can forget the “simulation” stuff. 
 

I would not use the term “intelligent design” for what is really just the well-known “fine tuning” argument for God. That argument is older than ID and, unlike ID, is intellectually honest, though I am not convinced by it. Though I wouldn’t be surprised if the ID people have adopted it, now that their own pseudoscience has been so thoroughly discredited.

I suspect the reason the fine structure constant intrigues people more than other apparently arbitrary constants of nature, say the values of magnetic permeability or electric permittivity of the vacuum, or indeed Planck’s constant, is that it is dimensionless, i.e. just a number.

Edited June 20, 2023 by exchemist

[joigus]

It's actually not 137. It's just thereabouts.

IOW, why is the electron's charge in dimensionless units what it is?

The number is probably not 'trying to tell us' anything, for a reason similar to why the distance Earth-Sun is not trying to tell us anything, despite Kepler spending years and years thinking about numbers like those --planetary distances and periods.

We don't have a unified theory, so the number looks quirky. The day we understand interactions as several allowed versions of the same mechanism, we will probably understand these numbers as accidents is some more encompassing/general/ etc. space of states.

[exchemist]

On 6/20/2023 at 5:14 PM, joigus said:

It's actually not 137. It's just thereabouts.

IOW, why is the electron's charge in dimensionless units what it is?

The number is probably not 'trying to tell us' anything, for a reason similar to why the distance Earth-Sun is not trying to tell us anything, despite Kepler spending years and years thinking about numbers like those --planetary distances and periods.

We don't have a unified theory, so the number looks quirky. The day we understand interactions as several allowed versions of the same mechanism, we will probably understand these numbers as accidents is some more encompassing/general/ etc. space of states.

What bothers me is why the unit of charge on the electron is 1/3 or 2/3 that of the electron. Suggests something odd or missing in our theories. But off-topic for this thread, I suppose.

20 minutes ago, Boltzmannbrain said:

You may also be interested in reading about the Boltzmann Brain.  Matt O'Dowd does a good summary of it.

 

What has this to do with the fine structure constant?

[swansont]

3 minutes ago, exchemist said:

What bothers me is why the unit of charge on the electron is 1/3 or 2/3 that of the electron. Suggests something odd or missing in our theories. But off-topic for this thread, I suppose.

Did you mean quark?

[exchemist]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

Did you mean quark?

I did - spot of sunstroke from the fine weather here in Brittany where I am on holiday…..

[TheVat]

I much prefer being a brain floating in a vat.  The vat, really.

It doesn't require such outlandish fluctuations of entropy or a googolplex of years to first come into being and then another googoplex to recur as that same being subjectively feeling a few seconds later.  Even though you don't feel the wait, it still seems tedious.  

For alpha, 1/137.036,  I much prefer the Doug Adams puddle model.  AKA the strong anthropic principle.  

Imagine one of those observerless universes where alpha is not between around 1/180 and 1/85 and so proton decay is not slow enough for life to be possible.  Atoms the size of Dodger Stadium that don't last.  What's interesting are the ones just a little bit off alpha, like 1/134.   Could those be comfortable puddles, too?

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Boltzmann brain discussion has been split

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/131924-boltzmann-brain-split-from-137-the-magic-of-the-fine-structure-constant/