VideoWhen we think about our Universe at a fundamental level, we think about all the particles in it and all the forces and interactions that occur between them. If you can describe those forces, interactions and particle properties, you have everything you need to reproduce our Universe, or at least [...]
  • @Rozz@lemmy.sdf.org
    7•11 months ago

    Just where I like to go for my physics: Forbes.

    Also I didn’t read it yet. Does it make sense?

  • @Sentau
    7•6 months ago

    deleted by creator

      • @Sentau
        2•6 months ago

        deleted by creator

        • @btaf45@lemmy.worldOP
          3•11 months ago

          That’s not the kind of article that sounds like a “breakthrough”. Really none of Dr. Siegal’s articles are about new breakthroughs, they are about educating the public. Although he seems to be more current that most cosmologists.

          But I get your point.

  • @hazeebabee@slrpnk.net
    2•11 months ago

    This is super interesting, thanks for sharing!

    I think there is some interesting potential for the clusters of constants (particle and neutrino numbers) to be smaller and simpler once we understand more fully what they are made of and why they form in those specific ways.

    I do wonder why the end of article asserts that the need for universal constants make the universe inelegant. I agree the current solution isnt particularly elegant, but i dont think that reflects on the universe as much as it does on our understanding of the universe. I think the messy spots like that point to the areas of knowledge we need to look at more closely and potentially revise. Theyre like little hints about where our understanding is lacking.

    It does get me excited thinking about us getting to the point that we dont need any constants and can instead use formulas to explain why those constants are what they are.