Talk:Dirac large numbers hypothesis

Physics Stub‑class Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

What is meant by "Hence, taking ..., as units"? Does that mean you are assuming that the constant's are 1? Or just that the constants units are the units that are used in G? Also if you do the derivation it seems that $m_{p}/m_{e}$ should be $m_{p}*m_{e}$ but I am unwilling to make the change without the paper to back me up. Finally if you do take all of those constants to be 1 then $G$ ≈ $4.4*10^{-40}$ not $G=10^{-40}$ and thus $G$ α $1/t$ --157.182.186.101 20:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC) Adam[reply]

The mass of the electron an proton are similar? m_e=9.109*10^-31 and m_pr=1.672*10^-27 which is 4 orders of magnitude difference. --157.182.186.101 19:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC) Adam[reply]

It seems very unfair to chalk this idea up to numerology, especially when it has a theoretical basis in Mach's principle.

Not untested but disproved!

Unfortunately for lovers of funny old theories, this one has been falsified. If G really evolved proportional to time then stars could not form and burn in the early Universe. Observations of light reaching us from the early Universe show that stars were burning in a way consistent with G being unaltered. --Tdent 23:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proof

I edited out this claim (in italics):

The Large-Number Coincidence concerning pure numbers of order near $10^{40}$ , was solved in 2006 by Scott Funkhouser (Funkhouser 2006). He found that the coincidence was, as predicted by Weyl, Eddington and Dirac, the result of implicit physical connections, thus validating the Large Numbers Hypothesis. Funkhouser's resolution obviates the need for Dirac's suggestion concerning time-variation of $G$ . In 2008 Funkhouser introduced and resolved a new large-number coincidence involving pure numbers of order near $10^{121}$ . If the two sets of large numbers are related, as expected from the Large Numbers Hypothesis, then the two coincidences would explain the value of the putative cosmological constant (Funkhouser 2008).

I removed it because Funkhouser has not proved that the large numbers have any physical significance. He has extended the range of coincidences and (to my mind at least) he has provided additional circumstantial evidence that the numbers might have physical significance, but few people in the scientific mainstream would believe the numbers are anything more than a coincidence even in spite of Funkhouser's work. In other words, it's too soon to be making any claims on behalf of Funkhouser's work, excellent though it is. Whoever wrote this paragraph should write it again but with a more conservative approach. Lucretius (talk) 05:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Larger article

Dirac's hypothesis was his personal interpretation of the large number coincidences that have intrigued many theorists, including Weyl and Eddington. I think this Dirac article should be replaced by a broader article to allow for these other views. Lucretius (talk) 05:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC) However, I will not be available to work on an enlarged section, nor even on this section, as I'm too busy with STUFF already. Lucretius (talk) 22:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lucretius should read Funkhousers papers

Lucretius' claims concerning my work are incorrect, and he should abstain from deleting claims that are taken directly from peer-reviewed, published work in leading journals unless other published work supports his edits. Lucretius claimed, "I removed it because Funkhouser has not proved that the large numbers have any physical significance." Apparently he has not bothered to read my publications, whose references I provided. There are a host of very tangible physical meanings associated with the large numbers of order near 10{sup}40{/sup} power and of the numbers of the order 10{sup}121{/sup}. For instance, there are roughly 10{sup}40{/sup} available bits of information allowed to a nucleon. The maximum number of bits of information allowed to the universe is of the order 10{sup}121{/sup}. I would go on, but my articles in ProcRoySocA speak for themselves. Furthermore, I showed that the numbers of the order 10{sup}40{/sup} are in fact connected through standard physics. The coincidence is thus resolved. I did the same for the pure numbers of the order 10{sup}121{/sup}.