"The 7 Strangest Coincidences in the Laws of Nature" (S. Hossenfelder)

[PhDeezNutz]

Nothing's stopping you. You might think carefully on how best to pose it to get what you're after and not a chaotic scrum.

What did it for me was her insistence that people who disagree with her are dishonest and/or secretly agree with her. The fact that her business model is to take money from crackpots to tell them that the establishment is being mean to them is secondary.

Further, while she is the first to crow about being a theoretical physicist, her publication record is...um...less strong than many others. She would (and has) argued that this is proof that the community is interested in the wrong things. I would say that is not the only possibility.

So basically she’s a grifter and a contrarian.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I did not use those words.

Her statements on others' research are a matter of record. As is here publication and citation list. Her web site advertises her services helping..um...independent researchers develop their theories. Draw your own conclusions.

 

[PhDeezNutz]

Sorry I’ll be more respectful and try to talk about statements she’s made going forward, and dispute them, instead of attacking the person/passing judgement.

In order to keep it civil here at PF.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I'm hoping @arivero will start a thread on "why are atoms neutral?".

 

[arivero]

I am still thinking on it :-D In any case it should be not in "beyond the standard model"

 

[sbrothy]

Upon reading this thread I kinda thought of the the fine structure constant and why it has the value it has (yes I know: weak/strong anthropic principle and what have we. Any other value and we wouldn't be here to wonder about it, but that doesn't really explain that much.

I searched for a newer - or just another discussion - on the subject, but the search more or less lead me back here. You physicists call this (and related incredibly convenient numbers) the "finetuning problem" right?

Change one decimal 44 places after the comma (or the period as the case may be) up/down 1 and fusion (or something equally vital) wouldn't work and we wouldn't be here to wonder about it.

It boggles my mind. I have difficulty understanding why people have to invent metaphysical explanations when they can just look out there. I know it doesn't explain much but neither does some deity or ghost.

At least the cosmos is real, beautiful and full of wonder.

 

[haushofer]

Well, it's like picking a 42 digits number from a bag which happens to be you wifi-code. What are the odds? Beats me if you don't know what else is in the bag.

 

[sbrothy]

Well, it's like picking a 42 digits number from a bag which happens to be you wifi-code. What are the odds? Beats me if you don't know what else is in the bag.

And I’m sure I’m supposed to believe that you picked the number 42 out of thin air, am I right? :)

 

[Bosko]

I remembered a long ago situation when $\pi^2$ was approximated with the gravitational acceleration of the Earth.
$$9.869 = \pi^2 \approx g = 9.807$$
Coincidence ? - of course

 

[sbrothy]

I think the proper term is synchronicity. Or maybe there's a word with less metaphysic connotations....

 

[Vanadium 50]

when was approximated with the gravitational acceleration of the Earth.

Everybody knows that's because there are π×10⁷ seconds in a year.

 

[martinbn]

I remembered a long ago situation when $\pi^2$ was approximated with the gravitational acceleration of the Earth.
$$9.869 = \pi^2 \approx g = 9.807$$
Coincidence ? - of course

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_coincidence

While not constant but varying depending on latitude and altitude, the numerical value of the acceleration caused by Earth's gravity on the surface lies between 9.74 and 9.87 m/s2, which is quite close to 10. This means that as a result of Newton's second law, the weight of a kilogram of mass on Earth's surface corresponds roughly to 10 newtons of force exerted on an object.[41]

This is related to the aforementioned coincidence that the square of pi is close to 10. One of the early definitions of the metre was the length of a pendulum whose half swing had a period equal to one second. Since the period of the full swing of a pendulum is approximated by the equation below, algebra shows that if this definition was maintained, gravitational acceleration measured in metres per second per second would be exactly equal to π2.[42]

𝑇≈2𝜋𝐿𝑔

The upper limit of gravity on Earth's surface (9.87 m/s2) is equal to π2 m/s2 to four significant figures. It is approximately 0.6% greater than standard gravity (9.80665 m/s2).

 

[ohwilleke]

And I’m sure I’m supposed to believe that you picked the number 42 out of thin air, am I right? :)

I actually just went to a birthday party last week for someone who had a 42 digit Wi-Fi code.

 

[Mister T]

$\pi \approx \sqrt{3}+\sqrt{2}$

 

[Vanadium 50]

I want to get in on this racket support of uncredentialed theorists. Send me your numeric coincidences discoveries on the back of a 50 Swiss franc note and I'll tell you "hey, I think you're on to something."

 

[Bosko]

Everybody knows that's because there are π×10⁷ seconds in a year.

Once a friend of mine, who considered math to be some kind of "intellectual martial art",
began an attack with :
"What is bigger, $\pi^2$ or $2^{\pi}$ ?"
$2^{\pi} \lt g \approx \pi^2$
"Prove it ! - no calculator "
Hahaha ... It's useful though

 

[Mister T]

$\pi \approx \sqrt{3}+\sqrt{2}$

The true value of $\pi$ equals the diagonal of a unit cube plus the diagonal of a unit square. The rest of the world has it wrong. The value of $\pi$ in common usage is wrong because it's based on unit circles instead of unit cubes. There's a lot more to it. It was all explained to me but I didn't understand. I just stated that it was the diagonal of a unit cube plus the diagonal of a unit square.

The response was "Well, yeah". As if it were an obvious conclusion to the gibberish I'd just heard.

 

[haushofer]

And I’m sure I’m supposed to believe that you picked the number 42 out of thin air, am I right? :)

Yes. Pure coincidence :P

 

[billtodd]

$\pi \approx \sqrt{3}+\sqrt{2}$

If that was exact, you would bound to say:"WTF?!".

 

[martinbn]

If that was exact, you would bound to say:"WTF?!".

How could it be! One is trancendental and the other is not.

 

[Mister T]

Maybe it is exact and everybody else is using the wrong value!

 

[ohwilleke]

How could it be! One is trancendental and the other is not.

Actually both sides are transcendental numbers.

 

[martinbn]

Actually both sides are transcendental numbers.

$\sqrt3+\sqrt2$ is not.

 

[billtodd]

$\sqrt3+\sqrt2$ is not.

Yes, it's algebraic. $x=\sqrt{2}+\sqrt{3}$ $x^2=5+2\sqrt{6}$, and then again: $(x^2-5)^2-24=p(x)$, this is a polynomial that has this number its one of its roots, thus it's algebraic. $\pi$ can't be a root to a polynomial with rational coefficients.

 

[billtodd]

Actually both sides are transcendental numbers.

No, both are irrational numbers.

 

[billtodd]

How could it be! One is trancendental and the other is not.

I have a question to you.
Can a Transcendental number to the power of algebraic number be a Trascendental number?

For example take $e^{\varphi}$, where $\varphi$ is the golden number solution to $x^2+x+1=0$, how would one prove that it's transcendental?

Can $\pi$ be a Transcendental number raise to the power of an algebraic number?

That would be interesting if it's possible, and if it's not then I would welcome a proof/argument why it's not.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Can π be a Transcendental number raise to the power of an algebraic number?

π = π¹.

 

[jedishrfu]

Looks like its that time again. This thread has run its transcendental course back to itself and so its a good time to close it.

Thank you all for contributing here.

Jedi