The Speed of Light is NOT Fundamental. But THIS is.

When you learn physics, you very quickly encounter the physical constants of nature, things like the gravitational constant, the speed of light in a vacuum, planck's constant, the elementary charge things like that. These are numbers which we believe are the same everywhere in the universe, for all time. They are baked into our laws of physics and are very special, because if they were even a few percent different, then the Universe wouldn’t exist and neither would we. They are also fundamental because we can’t derive them from any underlying theory, we just have to take them as being true.

So I wanted to go on a quest to find all of the fundamental physical constants and collect them all together so you can see them all in one place, because that’s the kind of thing I do on this channel. So this video is the story of me doing that. But it took some fascinating twists and turns along the way, and the final set was definitely not what I was expecting, because it doesn’t actually include the ones we are familiar with, the ones I just mentioned: speed of light, gravitational constant, planck’s constant. Watch to find out why.

--- Links to source material ----
How many fundamental constants are there? By John Baez
Note that his final set is a little different to mine which is explained in his article. I chose my set to be the easiest to understand.
Here are the actual numbers for all these dimensionless constants from David Black

How fundamental are the fundamental constants?

Dimensionless constants and cosmological measurements

How do neutrinos get their mass?

Helpful wikipedia pages

#physics #quantum #DomainOfScience

--- Posters ----

-- Some Awesome People ---
And many thanks to my $10 supporters on Patreon, you are awesome!
Theodore Chu
Petr Murmak
Sebastian
Eric Epstein
Alex Polo
Kevin Delaney
Reggie Fourmyle

Join the gang and help support me produce free and high quality science content:

--- My Science Books ----
I also write science books for kids called Professor Astro Cat. You can see them all here:

--- Follow me around the internet ---

--- Credits ---
Music, art, and everything else by Dominic Walliman

[sirgermaine]

I'm imagining a show where we start getting signals from aliens, and they send 40 numbers, 26 of which are these, sending everyone on a while chase to figure out what the other 14 mean for the universe

[sergeboisse]

I have been aware for some years of the existence of those 26 parameters of the standard model. But this is the first time i see a clear, concise and however precise explanation about what they really are. I understand why you sponsor is Brilliant (pun intended). Thank you !

[danfg]

Humans: cleverly broadcast the fine structure constant in binary
Highly advanced aliens: ... wtf humans only have two fingers?

[FransJSuper]

As I can only scratch the surface of physics without any impact (as I understand just a tiny bit of all this), I just stick to expressing my respect for your maps, charts and video's, the calm and resolve of your explanation and your pleasant voice and perfect diction.

[Thoreau_up]

that pause at 11:00 was hilarious, perfect comedic timing

[DanielBerke]

Nicely explained. I've actually been working on a PhD in astronomy for the past four years on developing a new method of searching for variation in the fine-structure constant to see if it varies at all throughout the universe. Well, technically I'm adapting a known method to new targets (Sun-like stars within the Milky Way) to yield a hundred-fold improvement in precision on previous astronomical tests, with the long-range goal of measuring the fine-structure constant in stars nearer the Milky Way's center where there's more dark matter to see if it could vary with dark matter background density. That's still at least a few years away, though. :)

[russchadwell]

Once those dimensionless constants add up to equal exactly 42, we'll know that we are finished

[blinkingmanchannel]

I wrote a long-ish note and just at the end, I made an error of some kind and YouTube deleted my note. Too long even for me to rewrite. Suffice it to say, therefore: Keep going dude!

Oh, maybe a summary question:

Surely everybody is tempted to assume dark matter, the "waves-but-no-medium" medium and the asymptote at the center of a black hole are somehow related? Please discuss... What attributes does our missing metaphor need? It needs to be like a fluid, right? It needs to make sense in 2D models and 3D ones. What else? I'm baffled at the idea that Hawking radiation can come out of a black hole, and without a medium, and it's not a medium for light either...but light can't get out?

P.S. Thanks for explaining that Schrodinger's Cat question. Most people just whistle past the graveyard on that one.

[otakarbeinhauer]

Wow, why have I never thought about units and constants this way? Thx for the video, completely changed how i will look at things.

[GMPranav]

11:34 I had a huge smile hearing what he did there

[AndrewDotsonvideos]

Fundamental alpha: *depends on energy scale*
Everyone: That wasn't very cash money of you.

[Dismythed]

You just pieced my theory together for me. What I have been working on for many years is this: A particle that scientists hate to contemplate even the possibility of its existence, but which the fine structure constant screams is: an infinitesimal. This particle is essential to existence. It is indivisible and the only thing indivisible is an infinity.

Now what happens if you have two infinitely small points? They attract each other because they want to cancel each other out. However, because they are separate and distinct and infinitely small, they can only try to merge, but never will, because no matter how small you go, you can still go smaller. Thus, they never touch.

The magic number that scientists are unable to figure out about energy is the interactions between those particles. You see, when you have two particles constantly trying to cancel each other out, but never can, you create a negative space between them equal to 1 minus the fine structure constant, which equals a value that cannot be resolved because 0 is impossible where an infinitesimal exists. So yes, this value must be set by an outside source not governed by the quantum relativistic interactions between infinitesimal particles. (I believe both the existence of the infinitesimal and this static rule setting their boundary requires an intelligence that conjures them in precisely the same way you or I conjure a thought. But maybe scientists can figure out a more plausible explanation in the future than "it just is".)

The infinitesimals are the finest indivisible building blocks of all fields, structures and matter in the universe. The negative space for which a specific, as yet to be identified, value exists, this vacuum conflict between infinitesimals, is the source of all energy, including gravity and the electromagnetic fields. That is why all structures share wave and particle properties. And it is the point at which both relativistic and quantum effects converge, and from which they derive. They create triadic tensors because the maximum number of circles that you can provide a co-equal connection between is three. Why circles and not spheres? Because they interact on a 2-dimensional plain in all directions, thus a 4-point connection is impossible.

This 2D feature creates the rule that makes spin, direction, gravitational plains, time and even waves and larger particles possible. The cause of the third dimension is another large explanation that I won't go into here. Suffice it to say that 3D adds some of the most interesting effects, including connecting to the theorized holographic principle.

[thealphanaut]

Love the Final countdown synth music at the The Final Countdown Slide

[zertilus]

11:00 Him realizing that perhaps there is a way of counting that represents the fine structure constant in a way that makes better sense, and would probably itself be the correct way of counting rather than base 10 style.

[nishatiwari]

He said 11 fingers at the 11th minute.
11:00 perfect.

[IncroyablesExperiences]

Question: if we keep the candela unit that is based on human sensation only (light flux and not EM energy flux), why there are no other human senses based units in the SI? Like sound energy vs sensation based on the sensation at the max "efficiency" point (near 3 kHz)? The 1 of the dB log scale could be defined like the candela? What is different with light?

Thanks a lot for this great vid!

[abhir]

*Veritassium* : No one's measured the speed of light

Recommends video: Speed of light has been measured very accurately

[cubfanmike]

I love when theoretical physicists say, 'probably'

[Alorand]

14:40 "If you would like to rewrite the laws of physics, please leave your scientific paper in the comments below..."

[floydmaseda]

FYI, the matrices you referenced for the last few constants are typically just called the CKM and PMNS matrices for short; no one I know actually says the names.