The Monster Group and Dirac's Large Numbers

... an intriguing coincidence, but who knows...
Apologies for the poor audio in the second part.

Dirac's Large Numbers:

About the Monster group, Numberphile:

3Blue1Brown:

[OMGanger]

Well if we just consider magnitudes and don't expect to come across a number greater than 10^1000 then the odds of seeing 10^53 in a calculation is about 1/1000 which seems pretty high considering all the manipulations one can do.

[alejandrorivera]

I appreciate your effort to bring some truth, some light to the Plato's cave in which we can't realize we live in.

[DJNEWNESS]

Very interesting, thanks for your work, I'm going to look into this further

[johnlord]

In your previous Dirac vids you show these numbers as 10 - 39 and 10 - 78. Are these new 10 - 40 and 10 - 80 general terms or further clarification of the calculation ?

[suokkos]

This made me wonder if faster speed of light in past would have caused measurable differences in cosmological interactions. I would need to refresh my physics knowledge to work out how EM or nuclear reactions might change in that case. (Assuming our current equation would apply)

[Hicks-cwqw]

in 88, Jean-Pierre Petit published a paper in Mod. Phys. Lett. A. on the varying speed of light where all constants of physics varied jointly compared to space and time scale factors changes, making values of physics fundamental equations stay the same. The result is that at the origin of the universe, c and G are infinitely big while the rest goes towards zero. In the model all constants evolve tangentially towards today's values, but maybe they are still evolving and there is no final value? Were you aware of this?

[jeremiwieczorek]

Therefore the monster with all his dimensions represents the fine tuned jewel. It makes a lot of sense.

[PSRPulsar]

In a current Universe the average ratio between average distance between nucleus and size of nuclei (proton) is ~10 ^ 16
(Average number of nucleus in current Universe is around one in 10^2 cm cube and proton's size is ~10^-14 cm).

If Universe is closed (e.g. curvature is positive or density is just slightly more than average - ~10^-29 g/cm^3), one can try to derive the size (volume) of current Universe - probably assuming:
- The age of Universe is ~13 billion years - to the ~ last scattering moment (relict radiation sphere);
- The Universe cannot contract (as it should finally - if it is closed) to infinite small size/density. For closed Universe minimal length is ~size of proton (e.g. there is no space between neighborhood nucleus - protons). The matter state is close to neutron stars (or probably inside "Black Holes").

[douglasstrother]

"The Monster Group" ~ 3blue1brown
It's a beast!

[yawasar]

Universe has E80 particles, 405E51 kg.

[alexdevisscher]

Interesting thoughts. Do you think that fundamental physical constants changing over time could resolve the fine tuning issue?

[kontrolafaktu]

It's not just the Monster group, it's all the 26 sporadic groups together.

[Mumon]

When we see a coincidence such as the ratio of the electric and gravitational force in the hydrogen atom being the same as that between the universe and the proton, mentioned above, it immediately excites our mathematical intuition. The reason may lie in the axioms of the mathematics itself or may represent a real relationship in the described system. You can't do physics without mathematics. In any case, it seems Dr. Unzicker's approach of eliminating mathematical constants is the right course of action.

[Truth_and_Liberty]

Dr Unzicker, I know these are rough estimations however I do not see the reason why universe "likes/prefers" fact that we have 10 digits on both hands... what are the accuracy of estimations of numbers at table published around 6:15 ?

[lashasib]

I certainly have come to a belief which I only came about because of the unnecessary complexity of the standard model, rather I think that we can describe the universe from interactions of numbers ( I.e the structure constants which don’t have any dimensions) like those constants, idk why physicists decide to look for accuracy in experiments than actually understanding why things work

[tomctutor]

We are so used to natural numbers for counting and measuring things, we have lost the whole idea of 'number' as an abstract thing, what do I mean?
Rather than using ordinary numbers 1, 2, 3 (because god endowed us with fingers) and so on to measure scales in nature, we might be better to use the logarithm scales.
Replace 1 with 0, 10, with 1, 100 with 2 and so on. So the present age of the universe Tu ~ 10.14 in these units.
10^53 the monster group size, becomes 53 which is not such a big number after all is it?
The number of particles (nucleons) is estimated to be 10^80, or simply 80.
The number of possible universes (number of ways to shuffle these fermion arrangements) is 10^80 factorial ~ 80^80 = 10^150 in my system, which frankly is the biggest number I can conceive of that has any real significance.
Us humans are so biased when it comes to measuring things and what units we should use.
_Should add we might as well use basic physics units for the fundamental constants, c=1, h=1, e=1 and so on and take it from there._

[yawasar]

Universe Sizes
Copyright 2020 Wardell Lindsay
Scalar Mass=405E51kg
Quaternion Mass=810E51kg
Scalar Energy=3645E67 J
Quaternion Energy=7290E67 J

[minkis]

Seems like an "intriguing coincidence", theories of everything can consist of two parts, the current state (the data), and the equation (the calculation to give a future state of data). It seems most of the constants of nature you describe are more based on the data than the equation, even more so if you consider aether theories where space itself can have variables like tension that other observed constants could evolve from. I don't believe finding relationships between observed constants in "the data" part would be any help to developing an equation. If you figure out the equation part first, then you can just fit the data to what is observed.

[Heracles_FE]

You have a unique ability to see the overt wishful thinking and assumptions, while remaining blind to the surrender of fact to philosophy that happened hundreds of years ago . You have never challenged the earliest assumptions or philosophical choices . You accept the model that was chosen on purely philosophical grounds, by men who had no knowledge of the physics of electromagnetism . You accept mass based gravity, even though there is no one definition of mass . You accept that E = MC2 despite no definition for E . You think that things have been proven, when men make an equation with values that have been assumed .
You need to go back to the beginning, Ptolomy was more correct than copernicus. The universe is electric. Ptolomy's planetary motions made the toroidal pattern of the flower of life .
That which makes the least assumptions...

[hanniffydinn]

String Theory is real ! Deal with it ! There are multiple dimensions and infinite universes! Deal with it! 🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯