In
a recent post entitled “The Universe Itself May Be Unnatural,”
cosmologist Ethan Siegel discusses some issues that he calls
“coincidence problems.” He says, “If
aspects of the Universe that should be very different turn out to be
similar, we call this a "coincidence problem." He
discusses some cosmic coincidences, but neglects to discuss the most
dramatic ones, including the “vacuum catastrophe” issue
discussed here, and the issue I will discuss in this post: the
coincidence of the proton charge being the exact opposite of the
electron charge.
As
many a scientist has admitted in recent decades, the fundamental
constants of the universe are very fine-tuned to allow the existence
of living creatures such as us, in the sense that there are quite a
few “coincidences” required for our existence, lucky breaks that
we needed and just happened to get. Any fully informative listing of
the universe's fundamental
constants should show at least one such coincidence, standing out
very plain for the eye to see. Such a listing would look like this:
Fundamental Constants
Speed of light | 299,792,458 meters per second |
Planck's constant | 6.62607004 × 10-34 m2 kg / s |
Gravitational constant | 6.67408 × 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2 |
Proton mass | 1.6726231 × 10-27 kg |
Electron mass | 9.1093897 × 10-31 kg |
Proton charge | 1.60217733 × 10-19 coulomb |
Electron charge | -1.60217733 × 10-19 coulomb |
As we
can see in this accurate listing, there is a great big coincidence.
Even though each proton has a mass 1836 times greater than each
electron, the charge of the proton is the exact opposite of the
charge of the electron. An absolute magnitude is a number that you
get when you discard the sign in front of the number. Experiments
have actually indicated that the absolute magnitude of the proton
charge and the absolute magnitude of the electron charge differ by
less than 1 part in 1,000,000,000,000,000.
But
if you do a Google search looking for listings of the fundamental
constants of nature, you are not likely to notice this coincidence
involving the proton charge and the electron charge. Why is that?
It's because almost all of the tables of fundamental constants you
will see will have concealed the coincidence.
Imagine
some bank employee named John Wilson who each day is supposed to send
out an email to his superiors entitled “Today's most important
transactions.” On a particular day such an email might honestly
include the following:
Money
we lost overnight in bank robbery: $1,345,239
Today's
biggest deposit (to account of John Wilson): $1,345,239
Of
course, this coincidence is very embarrassing to Mr. Wilson, as it
suggests that the bank robbery was what they call an “inside job.”
So Wilson would no doubt arrange his table of “today's important
transactions” so that it somehow covered up the coincidence.
Similarly, almost always modern scientists creating a table of
fundamental constants of the universe will arrange the table in such
a way so that no one can notice any coincidence involving the charge
of the electron and the proton. For they don't want anyone to think
that the universe is something like “an inside job.”
A
convention is followed as to how this concealment is done. The
convention is to avoid listing both the proton charge and the
electron charge, and to list a single value that is called “the
elementary charge.” So the table of fundamental constants will
look like this:
Fundamental Constants
Speed of light | 299,792,458 meters per second |
Planck's constant | 6.62607004 × 10-34 m2 kg / s |
Gravitational constant | 6.67408 × 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2 |
Proton mass | 1.6726231 × 10-27 kg |
Electron mass | 9.1093897 × 10-31 kg |
Elementary charge | 1.60217733 × 10-19 coulomb |
This
“elementary charge” is supposed to represent both the charge of
the proton and the charge of the electron. Is it honest and accurate
to be using such a term for both the positive charge of the proton
and the negative charge of the electron? No, it isn't. Since the
electron charge is negative and the proton charge is positive, it is
misleading and inaccurate to use a single positive value to represent
both of these things. It is as misleading as representing both a $1000
withdrawal and a $1000 deposit under a single line giving a positive
number. For example, you would be misleading your mortgage lender if
you withdrew $20,000 one day and then re-deposited it the same day,
and then emailed your mortgage lender with a line such as this:
Today's
bank activity: +20,000
The
convention followed in tables of fundamental constants of listing
both the proton charge and the electron charge under a single
“elementary charge” line listing a positive value is therefore a
deceptive concealment. It is a concealment because it hides from us
a fundamentally important fact that we should be informed about, that
there is a huge coincidence in nature involving the proton charge
being the exact opposite of the electron charge. The concealment is
deceptive (in the sense of being literally inaccurate) in the sense
that after looking at tables of fundamental constants that follow
this convention, you will be left with the very inaccurate idea that
the electron charge is positive.
Moreover,
in physics the term “elementary” is used to mean something that
cannot be reduced any further, as in the phrase “elementary
particles” which refers to particles which cannot be subdivided any
further. But we know that the proton charge is not even elementary in
this sense. A proton is believed to consist of two Up quarks which
each has a charge of 2/3 of the proton charge, and one Down quark
which has a negative charge of 1/3 of the proton charge. So as
the proton charge is not at all elementary, it is misleading to be
listing it in a line labeled “elementary charge.”
There
is quite a bit of talk in the news these days about obstruction of
justice. What we have going on in the typical table of fundamental
constants is what we can call an obstruction of learning. The person
who bothered to view such a table should have been informed of
the basic fact that the proton has a charge that is the exact
opposite of the charge of the electron. Such a person is obstructed
from learning this important fact by the typical table of
fundamental constants, just as if the scientist creating the table
was interested in covering up such a fact, and sweeping it under the
rug.
The
“elementary charge” concealment trick is used in many different
physics references, but very rarely a physicist will let down his
guard and “spill the beans.” That's what happens in the
informative and entertaining new book We Have No Idea by
physics professor Daniel Whiteson and Jorge Cham (which has many fun
little cartoons which make it easier to read than a typical book on
science). On page 54 the authors state this:
If
the quarks had any more (or less charge), then the charge of protons
wouldn't precisely balance the negative charge of the electron, and
you couldn't form stable neutral atoms. Without these perfect -1/3
and + 2/3 charges, we wouldn't be here. There would be no chemistry,
no biology and no life.
But
is there any explanation for this? Apparently not, because the
authors next state this:
This
is actually fascinating (or creepy, depending on your level of
paranoia) because, according to our current theory, particles can
have any charges whatsoever; the theory works just as well with any
charge value, and the fact they balance perfectly is, as far as we
know, a huge and lucky coincidence.
It's
not just one coincidence but two coincidences. The first coincidence
is that the absolute magnitude of the charge of the Up quark is
exactly twice the absolute magnitude of the Down quark. The second
coincidence is that when you add up the charges in a proton
(consisting of two Up quarks and one Down quark), you get a charge
that is the exact opposite of the charge of the electron. As far as
we can tell, these are separate coincidences, each with a likelihood
no better than 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000. The chance of both
occurring in nature is like the odds of you correctly guessing the
telephone numbers of two strangers, and then correctly the guessing
the telephone numbers of the next two strangers you met.
The use of the word "creepy" in the quote above is interesting, as if the authors were afraid of learning about some contrivance in nature needed for their own existence. Would not "wondrous" be a more suitable adjective?
Postscript: The universe's fundamental constants are correctly listed at this page, one of the few listings that correctly has separate lines for the proton charge and the electron charge, using a positive sign for the proton charge and a negative sign for the electron charge.
The use of the word "creepy" in the quote above is interesting, as if the authors were afraid of learning about some contrivance in nature needed for their own existence. Would not "wondrous" be a more suitable adjective?
Postscript: The universe's fundamental constants are correctly listed at this page, one of the few listings that correctly has separate lines for the proton charge and the electron charge, using a positive sign for the proton charge and a negative sign for the electron charge.
No comments:
Post a Comment