Law Ahmed a publié une note il y a 5 mois et 4 semaines
At this time there appears to be an awful lot of coincidences in physics that could be suggestive from design and fine-tuning. Style and fine-tuning is suggestive of a fashionable and tuner. Of course you could put it each and every one down to pure coincidence; genuine chance; the offer of the credit cards that came up Royal Even; the jiggle of the dice which female Luck born. Here are a few illustrations and you can determine between pure coincidence or perhaps pure design*.
# In this famous equation, E = mc-squared, the exponent from c is EXACTLY squared (exponent of 2) when most probably it could have been completely a little bit more or simply a little bit reduced. The exponent and division of m is EXACTLY 1 (1) the moment again 1 presupposes several other values could have been the case. What’s odd is the fact in the majority of00 the fundamental equations that bring up the laws, principles and relationships in physics (such the ideal gas law; Newton’s law from gravity; Maxwell’s equations, and so forth ), the coefficients and exponents are only low worth whole quantities or simple fractions so. Chance? Nature? Design? Our god? Perhaps a computer / application programmer? Acceptable, here’s my own bias – it’s a personal pc / program programmer and our existence, the Universe and all (including physics) are virtual lives in an important virtual Galaxy containing basically everything exclusive.
# Inside delayed double-slit experiment, the detector display screen is a form of observer as well and it observes a fabulous wave-interference routine when both equally slits are open. However that same detector display screen will notice particles when ever both slits are open up if and they only if an additional independent observer (camera, eye, etc . ) is also planning to detect what is actually going on. If Viewer A – the metal detector screen – is the be-all-and-end-all it observes waves. However when the second Observer T butts in, both A and T observe particles. Nuts to this. Something is screwy somewhere.
# The construction on the proton as well as the neutron are generally designed and fine-tuned. Both are made from an important trio in quarks who have one of two feasible, albeit less likely electric fees. One, the up-quark comes with a electric charge of +2/3rds; the additional, the down-quark has an utility charge from -1/3rd. Consequently a wasserstoffion (positiv) (fachsprachlich) is made up of two up-quarks and one down-quark; a ungeladenes nukleon consists of two down-quarks and one up-quark. Those somewhat oddly electrically charged quarks in the development of protons / neutrons, well all this looks very incredibly unnatural, doesn’t this?
# The electric price on the electron is EXACTLY alike but other to that of your proton, the 2 particles normally being due to alike since chalk-and-cheese. Prospect or design?
# This is yet another puzzle. Why does a great electron and an antimatter electron (a positron) wipe out into clean energy rather than merging to create a neutral compound with 2 times the majority of an electron (or positron)? For Ground state electron configuration , why doesn’t an adverse electron eliminate into genuine energy when considering in contact with an optimistic proton? Mess mechanics isn’t very very steady – most likely another sign that it’s almost all a severely put together simulation! Intelligent simulators they might be, but they also can make blunders. I’ve be sure to know the appearance that « bovine fertilizer happens ». You’re wise but now and again you need to do an « oops » that other folks pick up on. Precisely the same principle implements here.
# Why are most electrons (or positrons or perhaps up- and down-quarks, etc . ) indistinguishable? Because all electrons enjoy the exact same laptop / software package programmed binary code, narrow models look great. Let’s understand this as a form of case story.
# Nowadays some people imply that the electron contains « a very limited quantity of bits of information ». That’s plural. So maybe using the plural, I could propose that one sort of electron is actually a 1, a couple of, 3 and another type of electron is a two, 1, 3 or more and one other type is a 3, one particular, 2 etc .. My concern is why is usually each and every electron a 1, 2, 3 electron and only the 1, 2, 4, electron? Well maybe, as outlined by some, a great electron isn’t really many components of information nonetheless just one bit of information.
# Even if a great electron ended up being just one bit, that yet leaves two possibilities, zero (zero) or perhaps 1 (one), unless you desire to imagine an electron is actually zero and your positron the, or maybe ‘spin-up’ is no and ‘spin-down’ is one. In any other case, the bottom line is that the electron is not, cannot, be specified by one little bit of. Now if perhaps all ‘spin-up’ electrons will be defined by means of zero, therefore all ‘spin-up’ electrons happen to be identical mainly because they have been coded by having the high quality, the matrix of zero. That’s actually no unique of my saying all electrons are the exact same because they have been given this as well as that universal code. I have still outlined why all electrons happen to be identical and also explanation may incorporate the Simulation Hypothesis scenario.
# It attacks me because unlikely nevertheless that uncomplicated particles may be confined to one particular bit, since one little bit of can only specify two debris. So let us revisit the electron issue. Say a great electron consists of one octet – which is eight chuncks, a combinations of 1’s and 0’s. A byte therefore can easily have an lousy lot of feasible combinations as well as configurations. Consequently again, the question to be asked is for this reason why are each and every one electrons identical – so why do everyone have an identical sequence from eight 1’s and 0’s (assuming an individual byte every electron)?
# As many will now declare, all spin-up electrons and spin-down electrons (and by means of implication all other fundamental particles) have the same little bit or octet or line of parts and bytes. The question is, exactly where did that precise string, the fact that exacting program, come from? Would it be all by chance or by means of design and fine-tuning? – Just to come back to the original matter here. My point remains, all principles, say up-quarks, have the exact same code. That code could be computer code and that laptop code could be part and parcel of this Simulation Speculation.
# In any event, why so a large number of codes designed for so many contaminants and essentials? On the grounds that there are some things rather than zilch, and deciding on the most common dominator possible, so why wasn’t there just one program, one construction, resulting in only 1 type of point or particle? That’s that, a Nues with a person code and one uncomplicated something. As a result there’s a puzzle. We have a limited number of different kinds of particles in the event that all contaminants could have been precisely the same, or, every particle from the Universe might have been unique without having two contaminants, like snowflakes, ever the identical. Of course acquired that recently been the case afterward we certainly be below, would we?
# As we of course are here, The Simulators decided not to do things that way. They will decided to produce a software bad element for a spin-down electron and a matrix for a great up-quark and a program for a muon and a fabulous code for the gluon and a program for a graviton and an important code for the Higgs Boson and so on etc . and so on. By doing so they could make certain emergent complication arising from their software which would lead to more interesting things – like all of us.
# In the end, when we watch electrons they each appear indistinguishable. That needs telling you. The electric power charge for the electron is exactly equal and opposite of their on the wasserstoffion (positiv) (fachsprachlich). That needs outlining. I’ve granted one such description. Feel free to give another.