Why consider physical constants? - Explained in 2 mins

The Man Who Discovered the Wave Nature of Matter

Mind also my backup channel:

[BloobleBonker]

Two great examples. The Rydberg constant isn't often mentioned in this context but it exactly illustrates your point.

[effectingcause]

Considering the electric and magnetic fundamental constants are the determining factors for why light travels at the speed it does ~ 300km/sec... Why don't we consider that these electric and magnetic constants must also be the determining factor for the speed of gravity waves which are also ~ 300km/sec... Why not reason that gravity must also be an electromagnetic wave, since it does travel at the same speed that would be expected if it were determined by the electric and magnetic resistance values of free space?

[Inception]

There was a ted talk talking about c not being constant anything about that?

[johnrickert]

Mathematical point, which I hope helps and is not already obvious: Ordinarily, when you have n variables but then k equations, you typically have n - k degrees of freedom. That's why, if you're lucky, n equations allow for a unique solution (again, if you're lucky). If k is less than n, you have an _underdetermined_ system, and if k is greater than n, you have an _overdetermined_ system. In general, then, as the video is getting at, it's helpful for a theory to have fewer rather than more "free variables."

[frun]

There is a model, explaining physics with *tangle of strings*(symmetries, constants etc): "From Strand Unification To The Fine Structure Constant–And All Colours".

[phyarth]

The Balmer Formula and numerology that is nice relation and logic behind them. Maxwell numerology for two atomic molecule freedom of movement for air which is two atomics gas, adiabatic constant of isobaric specific heat ratio air with an isochoric specific heat of air is k=cp/cv=7/5=1.4 and is fundamental physics constant. Physics - where memory is not required :)
Finite structure constant 137 can be expressed (16^2-16)/2+16+1=137 as a 4x4=16 Dirac matrix. Dirac proved that Schrodinger's wave equation and Heisenberg matrices are the same equation only expressed in different ways. One as a wave and another as a solid particle with an address in the matrix.

[Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time]

Could the constants represent a geometrical process? We see the Planck constant linked with 2π ~ h/2π and the speed of light and the charge of the electron both squared the speed c² ~ e². The 2π could represent the diameter of the sphere, we would have to square r² the radius if the process is relative to the spherical surface.

[koenraad]

Most constants values depend on the arbitrary choice of the SI units. That is why the fine-structure constant (𝝰 = 1/137.0360) is important: it is dimensionless and it does not depend on the arbitrary SI units. Suppose the fine-structure constant can be expressed in terms of purely mathematical constants (𝝿, Euler number, Feigenbaum constants, etc ....), then we have an important clue how to derive quantum mechanics from classical electrodynamics: h = e² / (2𝝰 𝜺₀ c), where e, 𝜀₀ and c are classical-electrodynamics constants. The fine-structure constant 𝝰 is for instance the ratio of two energies (see the wiki page on 𝝰): the electrostatic energy between two electrons at distance d, and the energy of a photon with wavelength 2𝝿d. There is a forgotten mystery here, which involves longitudinal electrodynamic waves with v>>c (aka Pilot waves), that have velocity with a certain ratio with 'c', and the interaction of TEM waves with matter (transformation of "photons" into near field energy and kinetic energy. This transformation is fundamentally NON linear, so my expectation is that 𝝰 has something to do with constants from Chaos theory, such as Feigenbaum constants. There are 'normalisation' procedures in order to derive a single value from a fractal structure, where the fractal can be understood as a series of values that DO converge to a finite number (in big contrast with the deplorable QED theory and Feynman diagrams, which is a theory based on "absolute" constant 'c' as upper velocity limit). At close range of an electron, linear physical laws don't apply anymore, because for very high electric fields the laws become non-linear. That gives the impression of "virtual particles", but all it really is is non-linearity, and 𝝰 has something to do with that.

[aminomar]

Very likely that what I have wrote before about special relativity (equivalent principle) is correct, it does work because it is a kind of wrapper (the equations correct enough but wrong interpretations) that makes it impossible to make further progress.
That affects GR and what is going on in so-called black holes.
the current understanding of both time and space is incorrect thus gravity.

[nightmisterio]

How are the ways we can calculate the gravity of the Moon and Mars???

[aminomar]

they way they interpret time is incorrect, even what is going on in outer space or on earth to atomic clocks probably due to how gravity affects particles not because time itself is an independent dimension. meanness that equivalence principle is related to how gravity interact with particles independently regardless their location to others in the same object ( that is why all objects fall at the same rate), …. etc time has to do with the calculations process itself and affected by speed because its relationship with space not as independent dimension. time is more complicated than that (quantum action and…..) I think the best solution is to work on connecting both levels (subatomic level and cosmological level) to get deeper understanding of space, time and gravity.

[concinnity]

I like those constants, e_naught, and mu_naught, being an EE. It was only recently that someone described them as the "stiffness" of space-time. Like how "easy" it is for an E-field to make a B-field. My analogy is impacting a big bowl of gelatin. The gelatin wave moves more slowly, because of viscosity and (other stuff). In contrast, striking a sheet of steel makes a wave high in frequency that we can hear. Our space-time is so stiff, that the wave goes quickly (c). Now I wonder about the fine structure constant, (inverse(137)). It describes how easy a photon interacts with an electron. Is that some "stiffness" of something we have not yet elucidated?

[aminomar]

the current way of connecting space, time, velocity, … and how they affect each other is not enough to understand how they are related thus still too far to understand gravity.
still a lot of work to do.
incomplete! still a lot to understand Gravity.

[randymartin]

It's interesting when you read about Hal Putoff and Gary Nolan's work on analyzing the EM properties of metamaterials from the fragments of crashed UFOs. These exotic materials cannot be synthesized on earth. I think they found out that the constants μ0 ϵ0 changed drastically allowing these fragments with waveguide properties to propagate terhertz frequencies which has to do with their propulsion system being able to produce the kind of energy densities for a warp drive.

[aminomar]

Very likely time is not an independent dimension as they think rather a process,
take a look how they ignore the process of time calculation in the equations (they only put the result of the process in the equations similar to……)
I am pretty sure that there is something wrong with the current approach.
I think both mathematics and physics need revision and improvement, I think there is no real progress because of the incorrect interpretations.
equations do work don’t mean the interpretations are correct.
time is strongly connected to space but not an independent dimension.
take a look how they calculate speed, velocity, acceleration and their relationship with space and time.
there’s something essential is missing.

[aminomar]

The current understanding of both space and time is incomplete, even in simple equations (what’s going on at the subatomic level confirms that including Quantum entanglement)
There are actions that have not been taken into account for a deeper understanding, that makes better understanding too far.

[guytech]

I don't think it will be possible to combine gravity with electromagnetism. If you look at the Eddington's1919 experiment and repeated attempts to match the results, the do not match Einstein's predicted value. The effect is more than 100 times greater than Einstein's prediction. gravity (mass) does not bend light, which leads me to gravity & electromagnetism are not related at all. Its likely that all of the observation's are just caused by diffraction from the sun's plasmasphere. The issue I see if light does not interact with gravity, than we've likely been wasting a lot of time on the wrong path. However since gravity cannot be manipulated by any means, trying to come up with a solution is going to be nearly impossible. With electromagnetism there are many ways to manipulate it to run experiments.

I think the plank constant might be eliminated, but it probably would be difficult since I think there are some steps between E0 & U0. for instance some charge is going to be consumed to align atoms and set the state for electrons to emit light. Sort of like you cannot get there from there, as you need to travel to another road or highway before you can start moving to your destination.

There should be any reason not to simply all electromagnetic constants down to a couple or few fundamental constants. I suspect E0 & U0 are probably fundamental constants as they appear to be defined by our universe's structure.

FWIW: I don't think light speed is variable. In the past I thought it could be when I was under the assumption that gravity could alter the speed of light, but since I no longer believe that is true, there is less of a probably that C is variable.

[JuteTwine]

You don't say it when discussing the eq. at 0:30, but the two "fundamental constants", if any, are ε₀ and μ₀. On the other hand, c is only a derived constant, not a fundamental one. Is this not what you mean?

[toymaker]

a wave is not a thing, rather what something does. calling light a em wave makes no sense. a wave of what?
your basic understanding of light of is flawed. It is not a wave or a particle.