Hacker News Reader

How many constants are required by the standard model to make the math work? Doesn't that admit something is unsolved? I think it's probably accurate to say we don't know much about subatomic physics and because of the scale/measurability problem might not ever. The same is true of the expansiveness of the universe.

View on HN

Fewer than thirty, I think. Which is pretty good for a model that accurately encompasses so many phenomena.

Why do you say we don't know much about subatomic physics? In your view, how would things be different if we did know "much"?

There wouldn't be 30 constants. The math is being made to fit something without explaining it.

"Hurr durr, your physics isn't pretty enough and has too many coefficients to fit my childlike model of the universe. Clearly an approximation" - mimixco, 2020

We'd live in the Diamond Age. The molecular nanotechnology vision of the world would be true. Eg. we could create any material with the characteristics we wanted. Uncertainty wouldn't matter because there would be no compound uncertainty / decoherence. If some sub-process step in mnt fabrication failed because of inherent uncertainty, it could simply be repeated until it worked. We'd also understand how to build the tools to do this.

We already live in the diamond age. Maybe you haven't been paying attention.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com