An Alphabet of the Universe? - The Dimensionless Constants

avatar

The English language consists of 26 letters which almost everyone is familiar with. Those 26 letters are the basis for every word and every sentence we can come up with, they govern the way words are formed. If the sound of a letter changes in a word, the whole word can change and most likely won't even make sense anymore.

As this is not about the subject of linguistics, we won't get into where those letters came from, but it's kind of obvious that they come out of the sounds humans are capable of producing.

Similarly, there seems to be a sort of alphabet that governs how our universe operates. And (so far at least) there are 26 constants for that.

If one of those constants' values was or would be different from what it is, we would end up with a completely different universe or even probably a dysfunctional universe (open to our interpretations about functionality). But if we simulate a universe with those same values, speed up the simulation to roughly 13.8 billions years of age, we end up with an indistinguishable universe from the one we currently have.

The origin of those universal constants is not clear, however. And no theory so far can explain their origin or why they hold those specific values which we can measure.


Dimentional vs Dimensionless


Image from Pixabay

First, let's clarify one thing about constants. You might be familiar with some units like c for the speed of light, G for Newton’s gravitational constant, or even h for Planck's constant. However, these constants are considered dimensional. They rely on units you use to measure them, like "meters, kilograms, seconds, etc".

Since the universe doesn't care about our units, we can create what is called dimensionless constants. Those are simply just pure numbers that describe how different parts of our universe relate to one another.

So basically, any ratio between physical constants of the same dimensions results in a dimensionless physical constant.
Any relation between physical quantities can be expressed as a relation between dimensionless ratios via a process known as non-dimensionalisation.

The number of the fundamental dimensionless constants required by the complete standard model is 25. With 1 extra cosmological constant to account for the expansion rate acceleration of the universe which has to do with the dark energy and that might turn out to be more complex than we thought and might require additional constants later on. But so far, those make up a total of 26 constants.[1]




The dimensionless physical constants:


(1)- The fine structure constant;

This is the quantification of the electromagnetic interaction strength between charged elementary particles, denoted by the greek letter (α).

Its numerical value at zero energy is approximately (1/137), even though at higher energies this value changes, as the strength of this interaction increases when the scale of energies of the interacting particles rises.[2]



(2)- the strong coupling constant;

This is a number that defines the strength of force exerted in an interaction, like holding the neutrons and protons together. Similar to the electromagnetic interactions, this force changes in strength with energies.[3]



(3 to 17)- the fifteen masses of the fundamental particles

(relative to the Planck mass), namely:
six quarks
six leptons
the Higgs boson
the W boson
the Z boson

Each constant of those 15 simply represents the mass of the particles we have in the standard model (the ones that have masses) in a dimensionless way derived by their relativity with the gravitational constant G.[4]



(18 to 21)- Four quark mixing parameters;

Or the "CKM matrix", which describes how quarks oscillate between different forms. [5]



(22 to 25)- The four neutrinos mixing parameters;

Or the "Pontecorvo–Maki–Nakagawa–Sakata matrix", which does the same thing the quarks mixing do but for neutrinos.[6]

You can read all about neutrinos, the solar neutrino problem, their oscillation from one type into another, and their small but non-zero masses (which isn't fully confirmed yet) in this wonderfully detailed post by Lemouth.



(26)- The cosmological constant

This constant deals with the acceleration rate at which the expansion of the universe increases due to the dark energy, and can be thought of as the density of that dark energy. Its dimensionless value is approximately 10−122.
[7]


Throwing in those 26 constants in a computer, you can pretty much simulate our universe and get an almost indistinguishable result from what it is right now, from the subatomic scales, all the way up to the cosmic scales.

That said, there still seem to be some puzzles that may require more constants later on, to explain and fully account for some issues that we still don't fully know or understand. Dark matter, dark energy, matter-antimatter asymmetry, and some other issues.

This might not be what we would have hoped for, a complete and unified theory, a theory of everything that can bring down the number of those fundamental constants that we need. But anything simpler to describe what is needed for the universe is just too simple for it to work. Well, for now at least.




• ●

● Thank you for reading ●

● •



List of sources:
1- DimensionlessConstant | 2- Fine structure constant | 3- strong coupling constant | 4- Fundamental particles | 5- CKM matrix | 6- Pontecorvo–Maki–Nakagawa–Sakata matrix | 7- cosmological constant |







All content is courtesy of me, unless stated otherwise.
Header Stock images from Pixabay & Pixabay.

© 2022 @yaziris.


0
0
0.000
24 comments
avatar

Thanks for this nice post. Although it is running quite late here, I wanted to have a look before going to bed... and I end up with a bunch of small remarks, mostly to trigger discussions on points that I think may require some clarifications or extra pieces of information.

Whereas you mentioned 4 parameters for the neutrino sector, we may in fact have 6 of them. If neutrinos are their own antiparticles, then two extra parameters (the so-called Majorana phases) are needed. For now, both this option and the one in which neutrinos and antineutrinos are different are allowed. So we don't know whether we need 4 or 6 parameters.

Moreover, as neutrinos masses are a fact, some neutrinos (but not all) can still be massless. Data indeed forbids having three massless beasts.

As a next item, you choose for the electroweak inputs the mass of the W boson, the mass of the Z boson and the fine structure constant. Often we prefer to rely on the Fermi constant instead of the W boson mass as an input, the W-boson mass being then a derived parameter. The reason is that the Z-boson mass, the Fermi constant and the electromagnetic structure constant consist of the set of inputs with the smallest experimental errors.

Finally, I must say that I disagree with the title of the post (sorry about this ;). All masses that you mentioned are dimensional parameters, and not dimensionless ones.

Cheers!

0
0
0.000
avatar

Wow. Thank you for that information. I'll be honest and say it wasn't easy to find much info about some of them, and in other areas it got complicated for me. 😅

then two extra parameters (the so-called Majorana phases) are needed.

Yep, no clue about this, thank you so much for that info! I only knew that there is 1 CP-Violation phase which has not even been measured yet.

Often we prefer to rely on the Fermi constant instead of the W boson mass as an input, the W-boson mass being then a derived parameter. The reason is that the Z-boson mass, the Fermi constant and the electromagnetic structure constant consist of the set of inputs with the smallest experimental errors.

Noted! I didn't know it was the prefered method, I opted for their inclusion that way as I saw it simpler.

Finally, I must say that I disagree with the title of the post (sorry about this ;). All masses that you mentioned are dimensional parameters, and not dimensionless ones.

I can edit the title if needed :p but care to elaborate on this a bit?

I couldn't find much about this, but I thought they were non-dimensionalized relative to a scale set by Einstein's gravitational constant.
I also read that 15 coupling constants to the higgs field? How would that work for the Higgs boson??

But yeah, you just ruined my whole article. Hahaha ❤


In fact, this whole topic deserves a much better detailed post (Which I'm unable to deliver :p) but it would be really hard to keep it simple, as it would go in all directions.

As always, your valuable input is much appreciated!

Cheers!

0
0
0.000
avatar

Yep, no clue about this, thank you so much for that info! I only knew that there is 1 CP-Violation phase which has not even been measured yet.

That's correct, although recent data excludes some possibilities for the value of this phase. So we know... at least a bit. Measuring the Majorana phases is much harder, as they play basically no role (their impact is very very suppressed). We need to rely on neutrinoless double-beta decays (decays in which two electrons and no missing energy are emitted) to get some insights.

I can edit the title if needed :p but care to elaborate on this a bit?
I couldn't find much about this, but I thought they were non-dimensionalized relative to a scale set by Einstein's gravitational constant.
I also read that 15 coupling constants to the higgs field? How would that work for the Higgs boson??

Masses are dimensionful quantities. They are given in giga-electronvolts (GeV) as mass and energy are equivalent in particle physics. Therefore, we cannot call them dimensionless quantities. They carry units.

As you proposed, we could trade the 15 masses for the associated 15 couplings to the Higgs boson (top-antitop-Higgs, bottom-antibottom-Higgs, etc.) and get something dimensionless. However, experimentally, we only know (in the sense of an experimental measurement) a few of those couplings (see the last figure in this post), so that masses are preferred.

Finally, for the electroweak sector, we need three inputs. The common choice is the fine structure constant (that is dimensionless), the Z-boson mass (dimensionful) and the Fermi constant (dimensionful). Other common possibilities all involve dimensionful quantities too.

Finally, for the Higgs sector we use the Higgs boson mass as a single input, which is again dimensionful.

To summarise, most of the free parameters of the Standard Model are actually dimensionful quantities ^^

PS: I am truly sorry for ruining this post ;)

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

Ouch! A change for the title wouldn't even suffice 😅
So I'll keep it as is and anyone can read the discussion in the comments we had!

The wiki mentiones this;
(mP = 1.22089(6)×1019GeV/c2)

As the masses being relative to Planck mass.

Wouldn't a ratio derived from the relationship between 2 dimensionful quantities give a dimensionless one? This was my understanding about the non-dimensionalisation process. I just don't know now if that applies to the masses of the particles, but from what you explained it seems not..

And don't worry about ruining anything, I'm pretty sure everyone who reads and is interested in knowing would benefit from this! (This issue isn't limited to my post, there are many sources listing the masses as dimensionless including the wikipedia page[Examples > standard model section])

Screenshot_20220212-102910_Chrome.jpg

0
0
0.000
avatar

This table is interesting...

In particle physics, I tend to think that almost no one uses ratios of particle masses over the Planck scale for the Standard Model inputs. If you take for instance all simulation tools for particle colliders, the masses are inputted in GeV (therefore with some units).

Let's assume we really would like to trade masses for something dimensionless. In this case, I would take their ratio with the Higgs field value in the vacuum (the so-called Higgs vacuum expectation value), and not the Planck scale that is the scale at which the Standard Model is known to break down (assuming that it does not break down at lower energy). However, this is not the best thing to do, as the input values should be those quantities for which the experimental errors are the smallest.

0
0
0.000
avatar
and not the Planck scale that is the scale at which the Standard Model is known to break down

You guys need to get us something better than the standard model already. It's giving too much headache :p

I'll quote from your post about the Higgs;

In order to be able to conclude that the Standard Model is the true theory of nature without any doubt (and we have doubts)

I honestly think they are more than simple doubts. 😁

So yeah, new physics pliz! :p

0
0
0.000
avatar

Yes yes, "doubt" is the weak, politically-correct, version of the word ;)

0
0
0.000
avatar

I'll fight this battle too.

What do we want? A replacement for the Standard Model!
When do we want it? t<0! (Referring to discord debate)

0
0
0.000
avatar

I will simply answer this with a "rofl" :D

0
0
0.000
avatar

You know so much about this. You and @lemouth speak the same language. I was thinking as I read, if one letter were changed, if one constant were changed.

That is true for everything, is it not? Even in baking a simple cake, if you forget the baking powder, or you add salt instead of sugar...everything changes.

It's a fascinating blog, well written (of course I notice that).

0
0
0.000
avatar

Thank you so much for your kind words @agmoore, I don't know as much as I'd like to, and certainty far far less than Lemouth.
If anything, I'd say he's trying to speak a simple language that I can understand, because if he starts speaking his language I'd barely understand anything. :p

Some things can change without causing big effect. Other things, the slighgest change can cause massive effects. I'd say it's probably the latter for most of those fundamental constants.

They could be related to the matter-antimatter imbalance at the begining (baryogenesis). In which case, it's a universe vs no universe situation for even the slightest of a change.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I did this with a steak I worked my ass off making last week. And totally ruined it. It was my fault for being lazy and not reading the Chinese label of the black pepper, instead relying on my sight alone. Turns out it was both pepper and salt combined.

So I ended up adding salt, and then adding Salt & Pepper on top.... X-(

Needless to say it was inedibly salty... Thankfully I don't think the Universe made such a stupid mistake. I think...

0
0
0.000
avatar

I don't think the Universe made such a stupid mistake. I think...

😆

0
0
0.000
avatar

Thanks for your contribution to the STEMsocial community. Feel free to join us on discord to get to know the rest of us!

Please consider delegating to the @stemsocial account (85% of the curation rewards are returned).

Thanks for including @stemsocial as a beneficiary, which gives you stronger support. 
 

0
0
0.000
avatar

That said, there still seem to be some puzzles that may require more constants later on

Oh no, we only have 26 letters, what shall we name them?! :P

0
0
0.000
avatar

Exactly what I was trying to say.

Keep the number of the constants down folks, or we would be in trouble! :p

Lol, thank you for stopping by and reading :)

0
0
0.000
avatar

This goes on to show how I dumb I truly am in sci-physics😂
But I do understand how chaotic it will be to change a single letter or constant or sound.
Brilliant article and I can well see your strengths in this subject area.
You and @lemouth make an interesting peer.

(p.s: Publish a physic post for dummies and tag me to it will ya😂)

Much love for you🤗❤️

0
0
0.000
avatar

All of this is indeed going into an interesting discussion. I wish many more blogs on STEMsocial be like this, going on forever and forever into a lively discussion with the authors and others. Maybe in the future. :D

0
0
0.000
avatar

This will surely happen and even sooner than you hope.
Awesome initiative and I admire + salute your brilliant minds. Geniuses🤗💜

0
0
0.000
avatar

Hehe... :)

I am not in a hurry. I can be a very patient person ;)

0
0
0.000
avatar

@queenstarr,

he has the patience of a physicist ;)

(They can spend their whole life researching one thing and then wait 10s of years for it to be proved or disproved... Crazy people :p)

0
0
0.000
avatar

You are right on this one. Patience is my middle name ;)

0
0
0.000