The Constants of Nature: The Numbers That Encode the Deepest Secrets of the Universe

In order to explain physical reality, physicists measure and determine physical quantities/parameters/information related to the object/subject in question using well defined laws such as; the laws of classical physics (theory relativity), quantum mechanics, and thermodynamics. Physicists do not know the details of all the laws, and their interpretations/explanations often vary, but the physical laws themselves are the same across the universe. Einstein's principle of covariance states that laws of nature should appear the same for all observers in the universe no matter where they are located or how they are moving. The equations and the fundamental constants that write these laws are universal, but as physicists try to explain how the universe works, it is increasingly becoming apparent to a few physicists that some fundamental constants such as the speed of light (c), fine-structure constant, proton-electron mass ratio, and gravity (G) have changed over the last 13.7 billion light years. The author chronicles the historical development in the physics research of universal constant and touches upon the most fundamental part of creation. How do these constants that are a part of an equation could have impacted a functional universe that supports life? Mathematician Ramanujan once said that "An equation has no meaning unless it expresses the thought of God." The dimensionless constant is certainly the thought of God. Time variation of fundamental constants is subjected to theoretical and experimental research by a number of physicists such as; Arthur Eddington, Paul Dirac, George Gamow, Robert Dicke, Brendan Carter and others. The fine-structure constant was originally introduced in 1916 by Arnold Sommerfeld, as a measure of the relativistic deviations in atomic spectral lines of the Bohr's atomic model. This constsnt is interpreted as a measure of electromagnetic force that holds the atoms together or the strength of the interaction between electrons and photons; the ratio of two energies, the energy needed to bring two electrons from infinity to a distance against their electrostatic repulsion, and the energy of a single photon. It is also defined as the ratio of the strengths of the electromagnetic and gravitational interactions. This constant is a dimensionless quantity (1/137.035999679); hence its numerical value is independent of the system of units used. Many physicists have wondered why God would have created such an odd number for this constant (value of Pi is another example.) One explanation is the cosmological evolution of a quintessence-like scalar field coupled to gauge fields and matter would have effectively modified the coupling constants and particle masses over time. However, the anthropic principle states that the value of the fine-structure is what it is because stable matter could not have existed in the universe if that was any other number. In other words, galaxies, stars, planetary systems and life forms would not have

In considering physics, Einstein once asked whether God had any choice in laying out the rules. After discussing the history of human measurements (historically a product of chance), Barrow turns his attention to the so called physical constants of measurement and ultimately asks the question of whether they too are a product of chance (albeit on a different scale). Though admittedly he makes errors along the way (like saying it takes 3 seconds for light to reach Earth from the sun instead of eight minutes), Barrow nonetheless manages to create a physics book that accessible makes cutting edge insights available to the casual reader. And what Barrow has to say about the "constants of the universe" and perhaps their ultimately changeable nature speaks mightily to the boundless enigma that is the universe (perhaps one of many) in which we live.

As one who believes that life is a natural property of the universe, I am intrigued by the concept that the constants of nature seem to have been fine-tuned to make life possible. The conservative Patrick Glynn asserts, in God: The Evidence, that they constitute essentially incontestable evidence for what was once merely a matter of faith: "the existence of soul, afterlife, and God." The notion that the universe is really an infinite multiverse, and that we just happen to inhabit one of the infinitesimal few whose constants make the wildly improbably string of coincidence leading to our existence possible, is dismissed as far-fetched nonsense propagated by atheistic scientists desperate to find some way to justify their materialist dogma. While I once considered the notion of a multiverse to be unlikely, further study has convinced me this is not so. However, even if the multiverse is a fact, the theory offers no more support for materialism than fine-tuned constants constitute evidence for a God whose existence is completely external to the universe. We have no way of examining these other universes, and hence no way of knowing that they have constants incompatible with the evolution of life and intelligence. If consciousness is intrinsic to physical existence, and there is no compelling reason for insisting that it is not, then the constants of nature would necessarily have "fine-tuned" values. It is odd that John Barrow's interest in this possibility arouses such animosity and ridicule in some people. Is the idea that our existence might not be an accident really so distasteful? There are those who argue that the anthropic principle should instead be called the insectoid principle since the constants are also fine-tuned to produce insects. True enough, but insects are unable to discuss the matter. We are. Dr. Barrow's book is an excellent choice for anyone interested in gaining a better understanding of some of the intriguing coincidences of nature, and of the myriad ways in which these coincidences have been interpreted by scientists of different historical eras. There are some minor errors in the book, such as the sun being three light-seconds from Earth instead of eight light-minutes, but these are really important. The one question I have is the claim that human behavior, even if free will is illusory, is unpredictable in principle because if people are aware of the predictions made about their behavior, then they can act to falsify those predictions. But if free will really is illusory, why should the scientist not be able, in principle, to predict that behavior also? (Peter Payne, author of CAPTAIN CALIFORNIA BATTLES THE BEELZEBUBIAN BEASTS OF THE BIBLE)

In his previous book "The Book of Nothing", John Barrow presents a vacuum and uses it to show us its new meaning. Now he finds another interesting topic - constants of Nature in science (mostly "fine structure" constant but not exclusively), and uses them to teach us about unknown history and measurements in modern cosmology. I find his cube of theories and colorful description of many forms of multiverses (including the one having different times dimension) very educative. Extra flavor is added in chapter 9 (about "virtual history"). It brings some humor and relaxes in the middle of not so easy subjects. Especially chapter 11 requires extra effort and figure 11.6 is missing from the hardcover edition. Generally: book represents another great effort in popularizing sophisticated top end of a science. Hopefully I will remember formula: 2(pi)e^2/hc for a long time to come.

We couldn't expect, inhabitants of any other world to know what a meter is. But we could expect them to know pi, or the ratio of the weight of a proton compared to an electron; that's a number, about 1836, without any meters or grams behind it, and it is considered one of the "constants of nature." There are other such constants, and they form the subject of _The Constants of Nature: From Alpha to Omega - The Numbers That Encode the Deepest Secrets of the Universe_ (Pantheon Books) by John D. Barrow. The book, which is the sort to be enjoyed by anyone who liked puzzling through such works as _A Brief History of Time_, paradoxically has a main topic about the constants: What if they are not constant?If, for instance, the proton / electron ratio were all of a sudden a little different, atoms might fly apart instead of maintaining their tiny orbital systems on which matter as we know it depends. There are other important numbers that we think are constant, like Planck's constant, the charge on the electron, and the speed of light. These three are linked within another constant, the fine structure constant. All these constants seem to have turned out just right for humans to have evolved to be investigating their physics. They all seem to be surprisingly bio-friendly. As surely as some insist that a conscious designer made the wonderfully baroque varieties of living things on our planet, others (who may admit that evolution rather than a conscious designer was at work) will say some godly entity picked the constants. But Barrow explains many alternatives, universes with the constants possibly turning out in some other way, and also explains ways that these universes might have come into being. If there are lots of universes out there, with lots of different constant combinations, it is no longer surprising that we are in one of them with the constants tuned just right to produce life, and intelligent life at that.But in our own universe, are the constants constant? There have been some very interesting and comforting confirmations of constancy which are reported here. Barrow himself, however, has been a member of a team using a different technique to spot a shift, over a longer period of time, and, well, a shift seems to be there. There is not much you can count on in this strange universe; whether our strange universe is more strange or less for having produced us is not a question that science can answer. There are plenty of others pending; this engrossing and clearly-written book brings lots of them up. Are our constants linked to an expansive universe? Do they evolve or cycle? Are there plenty of other universes out there already, in a multiverse of possible worlds? The current view of cosmology is clearly presented here, although it is very peculiar; and the answers to these questions will be more peculiar still.