The fine tuning of the universe.

[[serious]]

I know what it describes, you made the claim that it didn't relate to fine tuning which was wrong.

How is Planck mass (not planks constant, different thing alltogether) fine tuned?

Keep in mind that if your entire argument is that Planck mass uses the Planck constant in its definition, then virtually every unit of measure, no matter how arbitrary, would be "fine tuned" to include archaic units like the furlong.

 

[Oncedeceived]

How is Planck mass (not planks constant, different thing alltogether) fine tuned?

Keep in mind that if your entire argument is that Planck mass uses the Planck constant in its definition, then virtually every unit of measure, no matter how arbitrary, would be "fine tuned" to include archaic units like the furlong.

It is not its definition but it is constructed completely out of the three fundamental constants, The Planck Constant, the velocity of light and the gravitational constant all of which have fine tuned values.

 

[[serious]]

It is not its definition but it is constructed completely out of the three fundamental constants, The Planck Constant, the velocity of light and the gravitational constant all of which have fine tuned values.

And the furlong is ultimately defined by the speed of light (it's defined by feet, which are defined in terms of cm, which is in turn defined by the speed of light)

As such, planck mass is exactly as finely tuned as a furlong.

 

[AV1611VET]

And the furlong is ultimately defined by the speed of light (it's defined by feet, which are defined in terms of cm, which is in turn defined by the speed of light.

As I understand it, if you take something eight feet away and halve the distance, it is now four feet away.

Do it again and it's two feet away.

Then one foot, then six inches, then three, then etc.

Eventually you'll come to a point where you can no longer halve the distance.

That point is known as the Planck length.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[[serious]]

As I understand it, if you take something eight feet away and halve the distance, it is now four feet away.

Do it again and it's two feet away.

Then one foot, then six inches, then three, then etc.

Eventually you'll come to a point where you can no longer halve the distance.

That point is known as the Planck length.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Incorrect, but not really relevant. The book discusses masses and injects the planck mass into it for no particular reason. No fine tuning of the planck mass is every argued, it's merely assumed to be fixed to create a reference point for assumed random distribution of values between 0 and it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Incorrect, but not really relevant. The book discusses masses and injects the planck mass into it for no particular reason. No fine tuning of the planck mass is every argued, it's merely assumed to be fixed to create a reference point for assumed random distribution of values between 0 and it.

Okay, thanks.

 

[[serious]]

In physics, the Planck mass, denoted by mP, is the unit of mass in the system of natural units known as Planck units. It is defined so that (Equation is not copying)



where c is the speed of light in a vacuum, G is the gravitational constant, and ħ is the reduced Planck constant.

http://functionspace.com/topic/3341/What-is-Planck-Mass--

Oh, meant to go back to this, but nearly forgot. You might want to find a source that gets the actual value of planck mass right. It's a typo apparently, so i don't hold it against the author, but it is an object lesson in why sites like like that aren't really good sources for this type of discussion.

 

[[serious]]

Okay, thanks.

I just tried to shoot you a PM with a bit more info, but apparently PMs are just gone now? Weird.

Well, since not mucking up the thread doesn't seem to be an option, I'll toss up the full reply here:

There is no known theoretical significance to the planck length, but there are some derived units from it that have minor relevance. The planck area may be the smallest amount a black holes surface area can increase by for example.

Some theories of quantum gravity suggest it may be the shortest meaningful length, so the idea of it as a minimum length isn't really completely wrong, and other factors put it on roughly the scale of the smallest theoretically possible measurement, so it isn't really a big deal with thinking of it in such terms even if it isn't, strictly speaking, accurate.

 

[AV1611VET]

I just tried to shoot you a PM with a bit more info, but apparently PMs are just gone now? Weird.

Well, since not mucking up the thread doesn't seem to be an option, I'll toss up the full reply here:

There is no known theoretical significance to the planck length, but there are some derived units from it that have minor relevance. The planck area may be the smallest amount a black holes surface area can increase by for example.

Some theories of quantum gravity suggest it may be the shortest meaningful length, so the idea of it as a minimum length isn't really completely wrong, and other factors put it on roughly the scale of the smallest theoretically possible measurement, so it isn't really a big deal with thinking of it in such terms even if it isn't, strictly speaking, accurate.

Okay, thanks.

 

[[serious]]

Okay, thanks.

any time!

 

[46AND2]

I just tried to shoot you a PM with a bit more info, but apparently PMs are just gone now? Weird.

Well, since not mucking up the thread doesn't seem to be an option, I'll toss up the full reply here:

There is no known theoretical significance to the planck length, but there are some derived units from it that have minor relevance. The planck area may be the smallest amount a black holes surface area can increase by for example.

Some theories of quantum gravity suggest it may be the shortest meaningful length, so the idea of it as a minimum length isn't really completely wrong, and other factors put it on roughly the scale of the smallest theoretically possible measurement, so it isn't really a big deal with thinking of it in such terms even if it isn't, strictly speaking, accurate.

In order to send a "pm" go to your inbox and "start a new conversation."

 

[KCfromNC]

The numbers are for different things.

Some days they are, other days they are supposedly direct answers to my specific questions.

But if the story today is that they are for different things, why did you post them both as answers to my question?

 

[KCfromNC]

Which should give you pause when denying fine tuning. The majority of scientists in the field agree that fine tuning is real and in need of an explanation.

Yes, I've already mentioned that I agree if things were different they would be different. Not really sure what sort of explanation this requires, though. Seems kinda like common sense to me.

 

[[serious]]

In order to send a "pm" go to your inbox and "start a new conversation."

Maybe it's just shut off for sv then. That's what I tried

 

[Oncedeceived]

And the furlong is ultimately defined by the speed of light (it's defined by feet, which are defined in terms of cm, which is in turn defined by the speed of light)

As such, planck mass is exactly as finely tuned as a furlong.

Anything that uses the values of the fine tuned forces would be ultimately fine tuned, that being said, Smolin's calculation were in determining the fine tuning necessary for stars to form and planck's mass is a necessary element.

 

[Belk]

Anything that uses the values of the fine tuned forces would be ultimately fine tuned, that being said, Smolin's calculation were in determining the fine tuning necessary for stars to form and planck's mass is a necessary element.

Apparently my weight is fine tuned.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Apparently my weight is fine tuned.

All of you is constructed of star dust which needed to be fine tuned for you to exist.

 

[Belk]

All of you is constructed of star dust which needed to be fine tuned for you to exist.

 

[[serious]]

Anything that uses the values of the fine tuned forces would be ultimately fine tuned, that being said, Smolin's calculation were in determining the fine tuning necessary for stars to form and planck's mass is a necessary element.

So the furlong is fine tuned? A quart of milk is fine tuned? When Lincoln said 4 score and 20 years ago, that measure was fine tuned?

By that measure, "fine tuning" loses all meaning because it's so broadly applied.

 

[[serious]]

Apparently my weight is fine tuned.

I poorly hummed a song. Every note was likewise fine tuned, even though I was way out of tune.