"seen"? Where's the preceding "had" ?

I totally agree. He had modesty and talent. Physics moves forward with guys like Sommerfeld in contrast to the egos prevalent in physics today.

Lol you’ll be waiting a long time. No such thing as little green men 😂

@@damiion666 Or if there are, the closest ones could be in a galaxy millions of light years away . . .

Not quite. The Golden Record uses the spin/flip transition of a hydrogen atom for timing, which relates to hyperfine structure - which itself is different than fine structure.

Negative! They used the spin of hydrogen atoms

If it's a diner party, hopefully we're not the meal.

I agree

It is. Simon is too smooth brain to understand its complexity.

They did use a computer that was the size of a planet to get that answer, so it must be true. If they hadn't included humans on the planet, the answer might make more sense...

No, it's 2w2

19+23 =42

So, the dark matter & energy folks took a lesson from Eddington's playbook 😢

@@john-ic5pz Harsh, but needed saying. 🙂

137 looks more beautiful if you view it from base-6 number instead of our usual decimal number.

Just shows ya, science can be funny!

​@@kellycasperhanson4426Funny that you noticed... 😂😂

If you assume a creator, then this conundrum goes away. If you expect me to believe in multiple universes, then please provide evidence of at least one more. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

@harrkev The exact same can be said of a creator. The answer to the conundrum, without invoking anything that has no proof is that the universe exists, and we exist because we are able to. As I said earlier, we are fine-tuned to the universe, not the other way around. There is no evidence of a creator, and invoking one requires a lot more leaps of fancy than the idea that there is another of something we know exists. If I find one thing, it's not terribly difficult to believe there is another of them somewhere. But to assume something we have never found a shred of evidence for exists is quite the leap.

That's EXACTLY what a double from Universe 89 would say. 🧐

It's nothing to do with Simon - he just reads it. The writers are the ones you need to praise...

Appreciate it! On other channels I don't think we really need to simplify things since the topics aren't as complex, but it can definitely be a challenge on here sometimes

Simon is a big brain. He employs the best writers on the interwebs.

@@nightwishlover8913simons charisma and hosting style is what makes these channels though. Yes it’s true he doesn’t write the scripts his delivery of them is essential

Although I'd put a 1/137 chance that this episode didn't take much of its content from the PBS Space Time episode on the same topic.

Totally agree, except that he lost me at variable constants 😭😭😭

@@willowmoon7 Its pretty simple really. A variable can change where as a constant cannot.

@@carl5192 then explain how a constant is also a variable

@@willowmoon7 Depends on how its measure for example speed of light is 200,000km per second. But what is it was measured in miles instead?

@@carl5192 clear as mud, thank you

I barely keep up, and I tend to spend at least an hour puking a day during which I watch whistle boi to keep me company! 😂

What's going on ?

Eventually, you'll catch up and feel like he's not making enough!

That question = quantum physic's 🤤🍻🍻

On average, they're released once every 137 hours. You should be able to keep up with that.

Anton Petrov also did a good video on this

love that show! really digs deep into the technical side of topics, which is a nice compliment to vids like these

He's not a simple Simon.

I believe that's because on BB he's reading it for the first time AND he's blazed (THC).

Emphasis on 'seems' ;-)

Simon carried this out so convincingly that one could believe that he is really familiar with the material he is presenting. Well done!

he just turns off his personality on most channels😅

You're wecome!

Thanks!

It the value of the fsc could be derived by such a simple equation it would have been noticed long ago. Any similarity between the two numbers is purely coincidental although to be fair it is quite a good approximation but not exact.

…but you’re wrong. It’s definitely 42

Simon is certainly not writing these himself. But he certainly comes across like he’s not just reading a script. Maybe what makes him so good is that he tries to understand these topics?

The way he said columns instead of coulombs hints that he possibly doesn't know the subject as well as it appears.

Simon has said multiple times that he retains next to no knowledge from the scripts he reads.

Thanks!

I'm only jumping on you here because I reckon you think you've just found an intelligent point that makes sense. I'm picking on you rather that the writer, because I think the writer was just writing colloqually, with humour in mind. I could be wrong, it doesn't matter. If you took this sentence seriously, the following is to you: Firstly, you can't assess something as a 'random value' without first establishing that it could be another value. Then, "Coincidence" isn't really a way we can describe a singular event within a group of only 1. Then the use of the word "selected", thereby unjustifiably presupposing a 'selecter'. Begging the question. Then "exactly perfect" is yet another assertion you need to define, as well as justify. What are the tolerances either side of this number, how are they affected by any other universal constants, etc? Then, "...for the creation of life", is badly put, too. Life being an emergent property of certain physical laws is VERY different to the physical laws being FOR the creation of this property. This 'fine-tuning' argument is just a lazy, far less thought through offshoot of William Paley's teleological argument. One of the least compelling arguments, in my mind, for a specific god at least. This isn't the channel you want if it's a dive into religious apologetics you're after. Mind you, the fact you actually quoted that sentence there, without noticing ANY of the staggering amount of assertions and bumbling fallacies they managed to squeeze in, suggests you haven't done much of that anyway. From my Satanic lair, here in the Scottish Highlands. I shall use my omni-Baphomet powers to devine just who you are. Here goes: You are, at the very least, a strong deist. However, I reckon you're far more than just a deist. I'm going to guess you're American, Christian, non denominational/pentacostal, loudly evangelical. You're a six day creationist and you've never travelled anywhere or felt an urge to investigate the rest of the world. As a last wee stab in the dark, I'm going to say you get your understanding of physics from the likes of AiG or PragerU. How did I do? If I've gotten this whole thing wrong and you're not the type I think you may be. Then I'm really, really, really, oh so very vey sorry for my hurtful Scottish sarcasm.😏 Hail Satan.

Yeah, I noticed that. 😑

A constant that changes isn't a constant, it's a variable... because it varies. All of these measurements have the same fundamental problems. We have a limited viewpoint to view the Universe: our planet and a small area around it. We only see what it's like now. For maybe 200 years, we've been sat in one spot, taking measurements of things that happened billions of years ago, and have travelled unimaginable distances. It's like determining global weather patterns for the last 10,000 years based solely on the watching the weather outside your house for the last week. 😂

@@another3997 It's not a variable either, because it can't be any value. Technically, it's a "parameter." And actually, these measurements are some of the most precise measurements in all of science. Again, the reason why these parameters change values at high energies (which is called coupling running) is *renormalization,* and the same thing happens with gauge fixing, again because of renormalization. Granted, we generally don't understand renormalization, because so far mathematicians and physicists have only made it a rigorous procedure in 2 and 3 spacetime dimensions (keywords: so far), but that's another issue.

Glad you enjoyed what you understood!

Because people relate to other people..... if enough people around you coincidentally happened to have a bad day, chance are, you yourself are going to start thinking about the bad things that happened during your own day.

Wait. You're saying that this is all about an incorrect model that is still used?

I've actually wondered the same thing long ago. Some have said that 360 is an arbitrary choice for degrees, and thus, the significance is unjustified, but 360 is hardly an arbitrary choice. It's a rather highly composite number.

an extensive video on the fermi paradox

If there is an universe where a change to a constant do not allow for us to exist, is that universe real or imaginairy? What is the point of an universe if nobody is in it to observe it? It is like a dice with endless sides with only one side with an number on it. The other sides are empty, which means you can roll again. Even if there are endless sides, you have endless rolls and the game only ends when you roll the number. It is a game you can only win. So the universe needs an observer to exist and the constants can only have a value that allows an observer to exist.

​@@dirkvandaele4466your logic only applies if multiple rolls are allowed. No evidence of that yet. We have proof of exactly one universe.

@@harrkev That is my point: if you roll a value of the constants that doesn't allow an observer, the roll can not be registered. Even if it exist, there is no recored of it. That is the same as it doesn't exist. It is like the roll did not happen. That is my roll again rule. We have no records of those rolls, so we only have to count the rolls with values that have observers. Let's take an universe where humans can't live, can't visit, can't observe and can't prove it exist, then it doesn't exist for humans. We can imagine suchs universe, but I can also imagine that the worls is flat. If an universe doesn't allow an observer, there is no way to prove it exist. Those universes can be discarted. They are useless. If they had a use, we would be able to observe the use and the universe itself.

They'll be playing whistlerverse videos in the vaults for education at the end

The fine structure constant does not have units. Any alien in our galaxy would get the same number.

There is a similar constant for the strong force which quantifies the strength of that force, and its value is approximately 1. Both of these constants change their values at higher energies due to renormalization and at a certain energy, get extremely close to each other in value. This is one of the principle motivations for grand unified theories, which would explain why these constants have the values that they have, because if the symmetry breaking mechanism must take effect at a certain energy, then the coupling constants must have values that unify at that energy.

@@anthonyhudson2265 yes, i know.