Nothing is a coincidence. I applaud Sabine for making such a video on inexplicable "coincidences", but really she has only scratched the surface on the question of the parameters that make our cosmos possible. There are many other "coincidences", all of which TOGETHER make it possible for atoms to exist, for chemical interactions to occur, for stars to ignite at critical mass, for all of the various elements that are needed for life itself to form within the stars. The presence of elements like carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, etc. all derive from these very essential "coincidental" values governing the material plane, without which there might have been NO COSMOS AT ALL, and no intelligent life to witness it. But none of these fine-tuned values are coincidences. Rather, they are the proof of the Intelligent Design of the universe, and confirmation of a creator God, in the broadest sense. Sabine should do another video examining the many other values that reveal our Fine-Tuned Universe. After all, if a Designer does exist that created the universe, isn't it the goal of science to discover who and what that Designer is?
The vacuum of space is as wild as the space of electrons around the proton with electrostatic forces. As humans we experience friction, but vacuum of space around an atom doesn't experience the same friction. In my mind, that's very weird!
Perhaps another coincidence is that if you calculate the Schwarzschild equation with the estimated mass of the universe, you get a Schwarzschild radius that isn't very far off from 1/2 the estimated diameter of the universe. Do we all live inside a black hole?
@@Toxicpoolofreekingmascul-lj4yd black holes are just Universe's shredders. you can obviously count their insides as "universes" themselves. but those universes have quite horrible conditions to be in.
We apparently have good evidence that is incompatible with the idea that we’re all inside a huge black hole. (That question popped up on an episode of Star Talk with a guest who was an expert on black hole physics.)
The use of approximate values can create the illusion of coincidence. With a large enough set of numbers, some values will inevitably be similar. This is unsurprising. However, a precise match is far more compelling.
We can't measure anything to infinite digits, so an exact match isn't possible. But admit it, if some constant like the speed of light was exactly pi to as many digits as we can measure, that would be interesting and probably true. In general if a math formula like "pi^2" is shorter (3 symbols) than writing out a 7 digit number, it's a pretty strong coincidence. There are 10^7 7 digit numbers. If we have an alphabet of 20 common math symbols, there are only 10^4 numbers that can be represented with 3 or fewer symbols. The chance of a random 6 digit number corresponding to one of these would be well within what is usually considered statistically significant. And if instruments get better and can measure more digits, the new digits continuing to match the formula would count as a successful prediction of the hypothesis.
What a great comment! I would maybe also accept if something was to the PI out in the 1000 digits, not just to 5 digits. Hell, 3 is PI to the first digit... "coincidence?" :-)
The mother of all such coincidences is when James Clerk Maxwell calculated in 1862 the speed of propagation of electric and magnetic waves, based on his own mathematical description of them ("Maxwell's equations"). He observed that the answer was within 10% of the measured value of the speed of light. Just a coincidence? No, Maxwell deduced (correctly) that light was a form of electromagnetic radiation ... and modern physics was born. Genius.
If you sum the alphabet position of your name (S=19)+(A=1)+(B=2)+(I=9)+(N=14)+(E=5) and the add 4x114 (the number of days to your birthday) you get 506.... the number of videos you posted with this video....Coincidence? 🤣🤣🤣🤣 Great video!
if you sum the alphabet position of the name of the person who discovered that SABINE + 4x114 = 506, you get ADRIAN = 47, and Sabine is 47 years old. It was already premeditated by the universe to make you a top comment 🤣🤣
Exactly. There are so many significant numbers out there, there's probably an infinite number of weird morphs you can do to them to make it seem like they're related. This video is garbage. Clickbait. She should know better.
Some bloke caled 'Pratchett' had an idea about this "“Scientists have calculated that the chances of something so patently absurd actually existing are millions to one. But magicians have calculated that million-to-one chances crop up nine times out of ten.”
If you take the Cosmological Constant, divide it by 10 to the 14th, add the weight in grams of all the Cod in the Atlantic and multiply by the number of beams in the Eiffel Tower, you get a figure which is equal to the number of atoms present in the bodies of all the Koalas in Western Australia. Coincidence?
The problem is that these things are commutative: when the Koala population rises, you get some pretty weird effects on the Eiffel Tower. Also the cosmological constant, which is why it's so difficult to measure.
As a retired chemical engineer, I collect science coincidences while studying physics. I can verify your first 2 but the others, I don't have all the info to confirm. i.e. On 3, is the size of the observable universe a mass or a diameter? Dr. Becky detailed her coincidence with the microwave background very well and it was easy to verify. I have found several other parallels between folklore and science as well.
This is why philosophy is in my opinion an integral part of science and math. It seems to be the field that everyone loves to mock, but in the end always has the last laugh.
I am old now and never was that bright to begin with so it is eminently understandable that much of what Sabine says is profoundly opaque to me. What is difficult to understand is why I watch regularly and wonder at the complexity of what seems simple to a simpleton.
Sorry for the opacity, but to be honest when it comes to these coincidences I'm not sure I understand why many physicists think they are relevant. Then again, maybe I am thinking too simple...
@@SabineHossenfelder coincidences that are precise down to x place after the decimalpoint are most likely really not coincidences but some inherent underlying connections that we currently do not understand. ie, we should try to figure out what's going on.
@@SabineHossenfelder pretty sure its what you've said recently - many physicists are just writing papers for grant money. and thats it. so making things up works for them
I think, the reasonable answer is that it's grounds to at least look. How much effort you want to spend looking likely depending on how glaring the coincidence is. If you look long enough and don't place any a-priori restrictions of what you are even looking for, then you are 100% sure to find "something interesting" from random noise. It's *always* possible to fit data to a curve, especially if you allow any equation, no matter how complex. But, then, OTOH there are genuine cases where we have found those "that's odd" things. If you arrange the elements in the order of their atomic mass, why do their properties seem to repeat every eight place? What's so special about the number eight? Well, we did found out the deeper explanation when we investigated that. However, let's never forget that most of the time we do NOT find anything. Heck, the particle physics is a prime example of getting loads of false alarms as the data masses grow gigantic. 3-sigma? Happens every week, it's a random fluke, so go back to sleep. But we *should* still investigate. Particularly if the coincidence seems to not be too complex. If the coincidence requires you to write an equation filling the blackboard, then you're likely overfitting your observations. But if you start seeing a simple fraction appearing between two seemingly unrelated things, then yeah, could be random but then again, it *is* weird, isn't it? Might warrant a look. Just in case.
got another good one for you Sabine 1.28 (Charm mass) /173,1 (Top mass) = 0.00739456961... which looks something like 0.00729927007, or as men of culture say: 1/137 (Fine-structure constant) looking at the errors, it is not far fetched :P
The "coincidence" I find worthy of attention is the Koide rule. A lot of free parameters in SM are particle masses (Higgs couplings): nine out of 19. Koide rule (and a few other curious "coincidences" with other masses) hints that masses are not free parameters. They can be predicted by a better theory.
almost 6pi^5 - if that's considered to be special then literally every relation can be considered special. Eg. I'm almost e^2 as old as my neighbour's dog. Coincidence??
One of the gretest coincidence for me is that, if our moon was slightly smaller or larger, we would never witness a perfect solr Eclipse! This just blows my mind idk why! It's amazing!
Another one that gets brought up is that the fine structure constant α is "almost" 1/137. However, the current accepted value per NIST is α = 7.2973525693 x 10^-3, in which case 1/α = 137.035999 which most decidedly is *not* 137. In fact, α is about 0.026% smaller than 1/137, which is comparable to 22/7 being about 0.04% larger than π , and nobody takes seriously the idea that π is 22/7. Anyhow, I think there are probably a few cases for these and other "coincidences": 1. Humans instinctively wanting to find patterns and order. 2. Indications of deeper physics. 3. Anthropic principle. 4. Brute facts. Whether we will ever figure out which is an interesting science question, and whether we even _can_ is a an interesting epistemological question.
22/7 is the second in a sequence of rational approximations of π using continued fractions. It is possible to show that this sequence of approximations to π is most efficient at minimizing error while simultaneously minimizing the denominator. So 22/7 is not coincidentally approximate to π, but is derived from π.
@@charlesbrowne9590 Sure, but Archimedes came up with the 22/7 upper bound using geometric methods well before anyone was messing about with continued fractions.
1) nearly a number not impressed 2) nearly a number not impressed 3) funny as we do not know the size of the universe. Even about the shape we are not sure. conclusion: interesting but i find it even more interesting to focus on one and discuss ideas why it might be no coincidence and the take/view of a sceptic physicist on those ideas.
I think it's worth noting that (2) isn't nearly a number, it's actually within the margin of error. I think there is an explanation for it, but it probably won't be groundbreaking.
What about base ten? How much of what we know to be true (as a coincidence) changes when we consider a universe that assumes base eight (octal), or base two (binary)? The presumption is that coincidence indicates a divine creator. Maybe we learn how many “fingers” that creator has based on the appearance of most coincidences within a particular radix. Always wondered about that…
I discovered the EXACT equation for the Fine Structure Constant. Then I wrote up what I learned in the process. Please search: John Wsol, Eureka, Richard Feynmann's dream fulfilled
The speed of light is nearly 300,000,000 meters per second. The meter could have been defined in terms of the speed of light, but instead it was defined as 1/10,000,000 of the quadrant of the Earth’s circumference running from the North Pole through Paris to the equator. Coincidence?
@@allenjenkins7947 The speed of light is much, much closer to 300,000,000 meters per second than a yard is to a meter. If the speed of light were EXACTLY 300,000,000 meters per second while the meter is EXACTLY 1/10,000,000 the distance from the north pole to the equator, the game would be over, because God tipped his hand.
Since we can only perceive the observable universe, and have no real idea of what's not observable, how can scientists even estimate the "size of the universe?"
@@thstroyur- that's like standing on your roof and drawing conclusions about the whole planet, based on what you can see from there...and we wonder why there's this "cosmology crisis". The more we discover, the more we find that observations don't relate to the "accepted" theories and formulas.
@@Duke_Romilar_III That's drawing conclusions from what data is available. Alas, I do agree that's a fundamental limitation of cosmology - which prevents it from being a full-fledged science
You make an interesting point here and touch upon something that irks me in all descriptions of the universe. We only see a past light cone of the universe in both space (distance) and time (past). There is no "NOW" universe for us to see. When I here the universe (observable?) is "This Big Now" it is illogical. Either it is the observable universe in terms of m/s or it is a universe that is of unknown size. In the same context I hear about people (scientists) making a 3D map of the universe. This is also illogical as we have no "NOW" 3D awareness of the universe. At best we have a past histogram of shells (Outer layers of the sphere) stretching back in time and out in space. In some sense all we have is multiple 2D representations "In Time". I guess it is a kind of pseudo 2.5/4D.
That was so fast! Really would love to see you making a video about 1-2 of these and really dig into them, theorizing what could it mean and what scientific ideas there are about it.
With just a little effort I found that 1836 = (90 + 2^0.5) * e * e * e. What does this mean. Some kind of expodentially right angle expanding cube??? S. Vik fra Hardanger Fjoren.
Closer to home (as it were), two of my favourite coincidences are: 1. pi seconds is approximately a nanocentury 2. a foot is covered by sound in a millisecond and by light in a nanosecond
@@LarsArt I don't think that's true. A second is based on Earth's rotation, while a century is based on Earth's path around the Sun. There's no reason that those should be related by pi times a power of ten (and ten is just the number of digits on our hands, so we could be using some other base anyway).
Most excellent break down. One a note: in an infinite multi-verse universe there is a non-zero chance all factors will inevitably produce the right circumstances...if you believe in that sort of thing.
we just happen to exist and we only can exist in a universe with these constants. also vacuum degradation from unstable higher energy levels could've been what we call "the big bang". so probably the Universe "evolved" into what we have now. hence all "coincidences" were inevitable to happen.
Sure but there are a range of "right" circumstances if all you mean by "right" is that we exist to observe it. So why did we get this particular set of "right"? Why are we in the top right sliver of meta stable instead of the bottom left sliver of meta stable or just in the stable region? Believing in a multiverse doesn't remove all these questions. There is still stuff to ask
@@derickd6150 particular set of "right" is just random and there's nothing behind that. no hidden meaning. no creator. and multiverse have nothing to do with that. >Why are we in the top right sliver of meta stable if it was any different physics would also be different and we wouldn't exist to ask silly questions))
@@rawdez_ you see you didn't even read what I said. These RUclips physics gurus. There's no reason to think that if we were in a different sliver of META STABLE we wouldn't exist to ask such questions. Maybe you're right that there are no reasons for such things... Or maybe they are indicative of better theories that result in cleaner pictures. I get the feeling you just REALLY want to say everything is random and you have all the answers. Case closed. Well it's not closed and it won't be a for a long time
Most of these are pretty well known facts. The problem is to root out which are coincidences and which are fundamental relations. There have been many others, that started diverging as measuring of constants got more and more accurate.
The experts already know these things, but what's great about her videos is we feel like she's talking to experts and not dumbing anything down...as opposed to the Fermilab guy, for instance.
I love that there are still mysteries in physics. We might still know more. Bend your brains to these problems, physicists! Understand! Calculate! I believe in you!
The problem is that modern physicists don’t get paid or funded to investigate these types of topics which contradict the currently held belief that the world is controlled by a set of constants that can never be explained and have no cohesive story binding them all together. But there are a few individuals out there investigating these things on their own with no help from academia and government science grants. One example is @ThadRoberts77.
Oh c'mon. If you take this charge, multiply it by pi. Then take the square root and substract the energy of the universe, add plancks constant, divide by Einstein birthday in binary. You get almost the mass of a proton! That's gotta be a coincidence right!?
All those “coincidences” are part of the reason why many people believe that we live in a simulation and those “coincidences” are simply the values assigned to variables in the simulation where the programming re-uses the same variables in different contexts to save resources. I hope I explained that clearly enough. 🖥️ 🤷♂️
I'm pretty sure if you have enough resources to model the entire universe, you don't need coincidental values between the couple dozen constants to save space. Also, you wouldn't make it have quantum entanglement working the way it does if you wanted to save computation.
I'm still just mad at statisticians for using the word "correlation," which should be most similar to "interdependent," instead of using "coincidence," which means occupying the same space/time and/or with accidental/incidental agreement.
It's because they want to be paid, and correlation sounds a lot more important than coincidence, hence making statistician a job instead of just fancy numerology. Hence why mopping the floor is "surface engineering designed to minimize obstruction between travelling system (feet) and the traction interface (floor)."
As elegant as what you said sounded the thing is that statistical objects do not occupy space-time, they are abstractions. To see this from a philosophical view point, consider that even mundane objects like marbles are very hard to define strictly ("can it be made of stone?", "does half a sphere suffice?", "is the sun a marble?"), so any potential object of which to derive statistics is already itself hard to define rigorously. Now, consider actions, which in language systems are verbs, and incidentally consider a verb that relates one or more objects (or subjects), and ponder the question of how rigorously you can define said verb in such a way that it describes unequivocally the relation between the aforementioned objects, that are themselves unambiguously defined ("what does it mean for two objects to collide?") Having said this much, it becomes clear that statistical objects described through quantified relations only appear natural because of our familiarity with mathematical abstraction itself, and "incidence" despite its practicality would miss the point, whereas "relation" having a particular meaning in statistics, logic, and algebra points to a clearer notion of abstraction away from the object of study.
2⁴ = 2(4²). Coincidence? If you're not convinced, you can also square both sides and the equation will still hold. And you can repeat this as often as you like. Thirsty for more? Delivered... e⁰ = π⁰ n⁰ = 0ⁿ ∀ n Enjoy!
Finally! The Koide Formula. It would be so amazing if you could make a whole video about this anomaly and additional similar anomalies, for example there is also a remarkable one with respect to quark mixing angles, but I also think others. Those anomalies are highly significant as the formulas were found at a time when the measured precision of the constants that are part of the formula was much lower. But they still hold up. This makes the probability that the are just curve fit less than 1%.
Not really coincidence, but take the string of pairs of the first three odd numbers 113355 and divide the last three by the first, getting pi to 6 decimal places (355/113 = 3.141592 ...)
Another thing that comes to mind is the correlation of the zeros in the Riemann zeta function vs. the function describing the energy levels of the atom.
Also, we are closer to the size of the observable universe (10 to +24 meters ), than we are to the Planck Length (10 to -36 meters), by order of magnitude. I love videos like this. Thank you Miss Sabine for informing the uninformed! 😊
Here's one: the fine structure constant is approximately 1/137. The police code for a riot is 137. Fine structure constant is the inverse of the police code for civil unrest! Coincidence?!
Surprised you don't mention the Dirac Large Numbers Coincidences, which can also be related to the quantum vacuum state, but may also have an anthropic explanation
They (probably) fit because the universe is cyclic and we're an anverage civilization, therefore right in the middle of the cycle. Recent JWST observations of heavy elements in old galaxies support early start for some of them.
Not the laws of nature per se, but I always found it extremely interesting that proportions of the distance and ( to a lesser extent ) the orbit of the moon from the earth and thst of the sun has a “goldilocks” relationship. It is just the right distance away from the Earth to nearly precisely block out the sun at a simple and regular frequency.
The moon is very slowly moving away from earth, and was much closer in the past. In the future, around 600 million years from now, there won’t be full eclipses any more.
Hi MMF. It's only a coincidence. The moon's distance from the Earth varies, as does Earth's from the sun. Sometimes we get a "diamond ring" eclipse with a thin band of sun around the edge. The perfect eclipses we see at present are just a passing phase, because tidal energy losses mean the moon is orbiting ever further out and will one day be lost. As the celestial body also symbolizes romance, this next period will be called "the great divorce". I like your moniker. Are you a chicken farmer? Cheers, P.R.
Size of the universe is very good joke, because many smart scientists are still strugling to determine precisely how much is 2+2. Gold fish would like to jump out of the bowl and try to lear to ride the bicycle.
Can someone explain the units of measure in this "coincidence" to me? How does (mass x volume)^.5 = the cosmological constant? (which is measured in length^-2, according to wikipedia).
Yes, they are all coincidences since a coincidence is _the fact, condition, or state of coinciding._ The question is whether they are random, causally connected, or accidental coincidences.
The phrase is "just a coincidence", implying that there is no deeper relation. The phrase is often shortened in colloquy, given that of there were some causal or dependent relation, that relation would then be the fact to express because the coincident nature would be trivial and moot. For example, the value of τ is defined to be 2π, or τ=C/r as the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its radius. Thus, the fact that τ/2=π may well coincide (it does), but colloquially it would not be referred to as a coincidence if the underlying definition is known.
I’m surprised you didn’t discuss the anthropic principle, survivorship bias, and string landscapes. They explain a lot of this perfectly well. Particularly things like the metastability of our vacuum.
@@frankcl1 Sure, but it’s quite possible there is no such thing as a stable vacuum. Instead, we’re here because it lasts a very long time and is metastable. A certain degree of stability is required in the string landscape for life to emerge.
But if we are to talk about metastability (and anthropic principle), then we have to talk about the multiverse (or metaverse). This is where theoretical physics massively overlaps with philosophy, because anything beyond our observable and measurable universe is untestable by definition.
@@jadusiv Either that, or our measurements are wrong and the vacuum is actually just stable. The thing is, our error intervals for some of these are actually relevant to make the entire calculation wrong. The errors propagate both from measurement, as well as calculation.
@@PhthaloJohnson -+Well assuming you are using the strong anthropic principle which makes us the sole observers (or at least one of us equipped with the tools that we all are needed to invent for (choose your gender pronoun here)) to observe, then none of this is coincidence, it is necessary. A side argument about determinism might require the ratios to be slightly "off" the calculated values to prevent external events (i.e. facts of co-incidence) interfering with the observers’ structural integrity.
I'd love to see a video on each going through the different ways we've tried to reconcile these coincidences but failed. Ideas of why these occur would be a great way to encourage thought and developing/testing hypotheses
Interesting video! My thoughts... 1. Probably just a coincidence. This relation is inexact, but it's worse because it relates an estimate with another estimate. It sounds interesting because π shows up in some of the most unexpected places, but I don't t think it is. 2. Again, inexact, so probably a coincidence. The coincidental number is just too arbitrary to be meaningful. 3. My personal hypothesis is that this is not entirely coincidental. Though inexact, there is some uncertainty in our knowledge of both Λ and the exact size of the universe. I once saw a graph showing how the overall density of a black hole decreases as the mass increases (because the mass is proportional to the surface area, not the volume, of the space enclosed by the black hole); it appears that if the universe were any more dense than we have measured it to be, it would collapse into a black hole. Dark Energy, therefore, is the outward pressure that keeps that from happening. A competing idea is that if the universe was in a black hole, it might look as though the overall density equals that of a black hole this size. I further hypothesize that the passage of time itself, and the building of its quantum history, is what creates the accelerating expansion. 4. The MOND coincidence seems like something that would fall out of the math if the calculations were run through. But again, it's inexact, so it might just be a coincidence. 5. I think that this "coincidence" might be related to the one above. The relationship between vacuum energy density with gravitation at cosmological distances might reveal the nature of MOND (or whatever replaces it). 6. I don't see the "coincidence" here. Just because the universe _might_ have a nonzero curvature doesn't mean that we should expect it to. We know that space is curved around massive objects, so why can't it be curved the other way in the absence of gravity? Perhaps the vacuum energy could cause this to happen, resulting in a universe that is flat overall but with local variations. I don't see anything inconsistent or coincidental about that. 7. It might be a coincidence, but I'm not so sure about released vacuum energy tearing everything apart. There could be more than one metastable ground state, and maybe the next one is only slightly lower than ours. Conversely, it's feasible that a moment of fluctuation could bump it up to the next higher metastable ground state. It's cool to think about, but it seems to me that this coincidence is of our own construction.
The 'coincidence' that recently really blew my mind when I learned about it is that gravity can be derived thermodynamics..... I think the explanation is that the teen simulating us in the basement is lazy and lacks creativity and reuses code.
The fine-structure constant, contrary to what its name suggests, is not constant, it's energy-dependent. Never understood why people think there's something special about it.
@@SabineHossenfelder there is so much media content on 1/137 that it influences the masses. if you can prove that 1/137 is not a constant, please make a video about it. i always loved your insights.
@@PrimordialOracleOfManyWorldsWhat she means is that it's a 'running coupling', according to QED: 1/137 is roughly the value for low-energy experiments - but it increases with said energy. That's renormalization for you...
@@thstroyur what’s sad is I have seen well respected high energy physicists (the likes of Brian Cox) and theorists (other Brians) prevaricate about how interesting it being almost 1/137 when they know better.. we shouldn’t really stand for this. I would welcome a video on this nonsense from Sabine but if you’re in need of immediate satisfaction then @acollierastro has a few choice rants (with worked problems :)
My wife's birthday is 1 May, Mayday, arguably the greatest celebration of Spring in our climate and also a national flag day. Coincidence? If so, a very lucky one since I have never yet forgotten her birthday. Consequently we are still married after 40 years which is pretty close to a parsec divided by the cosmological constant. Another coincidence?
Multiplying, dividing and otherwise manipulating data to get results that are "about", "approximately" and so on does not denote coincidence. If two or more seemingly unrelated raw data points were EXACTLY the same then coincidence.
Someone definitely needs to explain why an integer ratio of one constant to one constant square rooted would be so exciting in the first place, for sure. Who gives a toss if it’s 3 times bigger. What’s the significance of the 3? What’s the significance if it WAS exactly 3?
@@EinsteinsHair no, there isn’t. At times where you have a constant you’re trying to measure and refine and you’re out by the first decimal place and over 50 years you finally get a 5-sigma result, sure - you can look for hidden meanings to attempt to refine the result. These aren’t those numbers they’re VERY well measured. They’re not integer ratios, and they’ll never be integer ratios.
I can't stand unitless numbers. It seems like a great way to accidentally lose track of the meaning/dimensionality of the numbers you're working with, and thereby end up combining them in completely invalid ways... Which is what some of these "coincidences" seem to be, at least at first glance. But I'm a bear of very small brain... I need my metres-per-second and my kg-metres-per-(second)^2 and whatnot, to stop my spherical cows acquiring negative curvature. (Trust me, it's not pretty when that happens! =:o[ )
unitless numbers are harder to discover but they play a fundamental role. I think there could be more unitless numbers still to be discovered that could shine light on these coincidences.
Reminds me of the arguments why the pyramids were made by aliens. Because if take the length of one side to the power of the angle times 4 and divide by the 492th root of the pH level of a virgins blood, then you get the distance to Alpha Centauri, which is clear proof the pyramids where made by aliens from Alpha Centauri and left us this hint by building the pyramids in such a way I just explained.
@@velisvideos6208 I would contend that a Cosmic Intelligence is involved with a sense of humour. In accord with our current understandimg of the formation of the Moon, millions of years ago the Moon was much closer to Earth. That in this present epoch with sentinent beings noting that the angle subtended by the Moon and Sun is identical is an act of Providence. And discovery of the Babel Fish will prove this beyond doubt.
"Islands of Stability" look like coincidences because they last longer than the other possibilities. This makes them look special, when they are probably just showing how different factors interact with each other. This is an important distinction between Causality and Intention.
"Value X is somehwat close to value Y - coincidence?" No. Its not even remarkable if they're merely somewhat close. Wake me up when they are identical with a 5 sigma certainty.
This sounds a lot like the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy 🙂 "Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy were both presidents of the United States, elected 100 years apart. Both were shot and killed by assassins who were known by three names with 15 letters, John Wilkes Booth and Lee Harvey Oswald, and neither killer would make it to trial. Lincoln had a secretary named Kennedy, and Kennedy had a secretary named Lincoln. They were both killed on a Friday while sitting next to their wives, Lincoln in the Ford Theater, Kennedy in a Lincoln made by Ford. Both men were succeeded by a man named Johnson - Andrew for Lincoln and Lyndon for Kennedy. Andrew was born in 1808. Lyndon in 1908. What are the odds...." (Courtesy: You Are Not So Smart)
And Lincoln´s was a very physically strong man that looked like a thin long wimp, while Kennedy was a sick wimp who looked like a strong man. And Lincoln was a faithful honest husband while Kennedy was a pervy debauch philander 1000 times unfaithful.
Is it just coincidence that despite hearing your every word clearly enunciated, 99% of the worlds population are just like me and didn't understand anything you said? 😭😮
Simple answer to the coincidences: those ratios were fed into our simulation at its onset, and we are just now technologically advanced enough to begin to detect that there is an underlying program which produced our universe. People of days gone by called god. Our generation calls it a simulation. Who knows what future humans will call it, but things keep pointing to there being an architect of some type. And if we continue this reasoning, we are tiny creations in a game so vast has to be incomprehensible to us at the stage in our development. Probably the best thing to do then is just accept the coincidences with an open mind and instead of hunting for an architect which we cannot comprehend, just learn to work together to make the most of what we do have, and realize that we are caretakers and would do well to adopt that mindset and its commensurate responsibility.
This is a little disingenuous and you are just implying that OF COURSE these things would be so. But the stuff she mentions really is at the edge of human knowledge and we don't know what the range of "of course" is. You might say, well the vacuum couldn't be unstable or we wouldn't be here, to which I say maybe, but there are a lot of values it could have as shown in the stability plot. Why did we get the exact one we did? Is there even a reason? These are not trivial questions and they are worth asking
Some of the observations clearly have less implications or are "easier coincidences" than others, but IMO many formal relationships in advanced physics started out as (approximately) spurious numerology about repeatable observations, until we gather more hypotheses for the phenomena. It's easy to relate fluid filling its container to an intuitive understanding of fluids, and _of course_ water would do that, but as soon as one tries to formalize _why_ water conforms to the shape of the pond, we have to engage with some very convoluted dynamics. For that matter, we don't even fully understand the motion of viscous fluids in 3 dimensions, and the Clay Math Institute will throw a million dollars at you if you can close that gap.
@@derickd6150 sometimes we don't even know if a question is indeed trivial or not.. For instance, why did I choose to reply to your message now instead of 5 minutes ago? Is there some uniqueness to this exact time I picked?
We know numbers describe what we see, but we do not know if the universe is made of math. There is no black and white answer and it is more of a philosophical debate
I agree absolutely. Schrödinger (following Exner) believed that all physical laws are statistical. The data generate the pattern; the laws do not reach down to generate the data. This is the most under-appreciated idea in science, since it implies, and is implied by () a discrete, finitist universe. Thus solving all the paradoxes of the infinite and making the “hocus pocus” of renormalization unnecessary.
I'm still hung up on the fact that the top of the great pyramid at Giza is 29.97924°N and the speed of light is 299,792.4 km/s, it's exact. Egyptians didn't use degrees or meters, which makes the coincidence even more wild.
Those are just numerology. The size of the universe, as we know it, is a huge variable with time. Some real coincidences are: 1. The "m" in F=ma at low velocities is the same as both of the "m's" in F = G m1 m2 / (r*r), also at low relative velocities and gravitational fields/spins, charges, etc. This is more than a coincidence. It's a huge mystery. 2. The rate of recession of the moon from the Earth is roughly equal to (on the same scale as) the Hubble constant
I thought you were going to be back to talk about the Anthropic principle when I read the title of the video. I am happy you did not. Awesome video S.Hossenfelder!
Why do scientists always say "if one parameter was different, everything would fall apart". Why would just one parameter be different? If one parameter were different, then all parameters would be different and what happens then? How would we know?
@@axle.student It's like saying: "If we remove the number 4 from mathematics, then we have no mathematics". And this comes from people who are supposed to be geniuses.
@@konstantinos777(If the result has to be 4) If we have 2 + 2 = 4 and we change the first parameter so we have 1+ 2 = 3 well I think it is kind of obvious that it will no longer = 4 lol
A more interesting question is... If you take all the mathematical constants in both physics and astronomy and apply any combination of half a dozen different mathematical functions like additions / divisions / square roots to any group of them (be they related or not) and define a simple 'match' (being being any decimal number that looks interesting up to 5 digits like 0.666661 ) then.... what is the probability of there being zero coincidences found?
It's not just RUclips. 99% (rough guess) of video compression is done using motion estimation to track things and record the motion vectors (very little data needed) instead of having to redraw that thing from scratch in every frame. But throw in 2 or more moving things that are translucent, and... which motion is it supposed to follow? The algorithm gets very confused, so the fall-back mechanism just sighs and has to resort to encoding the "instructions" for redrawing the relevant bits of each frame after all... But it has to do that while keeping within a tiny bit-budget, so the instructions end up very imprecise. Result: Messy splurge. =:o/
It's not the "coincidences" that bother me but all the "approximately"-s and "almost"- s scattered about. Seems like any correspondences should be exact. What hitherto unknown force is skewing stuff here and there?
After just watching this a few times, I’m already wondering if it’s coincidence that (No 6) the Universe has stayed essentially flat despite not having an initial curvature = 0, and (No 7) the vacuum of space in the Universe just happens to be metastable. That just kinda jumped out at me straight away. Also, I love everything about Pringles - including their negative curvature! 😂 Brilliant and thought-provoking video, Sabine! 🙂🙌🙌
00:01 Someone taught me that equations and numbers are actually our way to describe/understand the universe, in the way that a painter uses color to describe the subject of his attention. It's pretty pretentious to claim that the universe is ruled by OUR equations and OUR numbers.
I think everyone pretty much agrees. It's just a manner of speaking. All know that these are mathematical models that closely resemble reality but aren't reality itself. But it is odd that they can work so well.
@@TomSkinnerYou're right, it's odd but that might very well be coincidental. Some painters are better than others but even the best painting/piece of art isn't reality. I suppose that 's pretty good analogy. As far as we know our closest theories might be no better than a first grader sticking a random number to his first sum; ie Newton's gravity vs Einstein's spacetime.
By the size of the universe, I assume you mean the observable universe. Any correlation involving such an arbitrary quantity is going to be coincidence.
Not if we actually are at the center of the universe and the end is right beyond where we just can't see it. I bet the CIA knew all about it all along.
If I had the means, I'd make a video series response to this, discussing each coincidence in turn. There's so much interesting fundamental physics involved, and I'd also discuss the explanations that have been proposed over the years, and whether there are any physical arguments for or against pure coincidence in each case.
Also... Why is the age of our Solar system a third of the age of the Universe? Why did the expansion of the Universe begin to accelerate when the Solar system formed?
![[#2024MAMA] ROSÉ (로제), Bruno Mars - APT. | Mnet 241122 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dgGqD28J6aQ/mqdefault.jpg)
This video comes with a quiz that lets you check how much you remember: quizwithit.com/start_thequiz/1714029981265x638941313611119700
Thank you for the quiz.
Nothing is a coincidence. I applaud Sabine for making such a video on inexplicable "coincidences", but really she has only scratched the surface on the question of the parameters that make our cosmos possible.
There are many other "coincidences", all of which TOGETHER make it possible for atoms to exist, for chemical interactions to occur, for stars to ignite at critical mass, for all of the various elements that are needed for life itself to form within the stars. The presence of elements like carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, etc. all derive from these very essential "coincidental" values governing the material plane, without which there might have been NO COSMOS AT ALL, and no intelligent life to witness it.
But none of these fine-tuned values are coincidences. Rather, they are the proof of the Intelligent Design of the universe, and confirmation of a creator God, in the broadest sense. Sabine should do another video examining the many other values that reveal our Fine-Tuned Universe. After all, if a Designer does exist that created the universe, isn't it the goal of science to discover who and what that Designer is?
The vacuum of space is as wild as the space of electrons around the proton with electrostatic forces. As humans we experience friction, but vacuum of space around an atom doesn't experience the same friction. In my mind, that's very weird!
13/16 i'm noob 💀
Number 3 is not a coincidence because G comes from the contributions of all other masses in the universe.
Perhaps another coincidence is that if you calculate the Schwarzschild equation with the estimated mass of the universe, you get a Schwarzschild radius that isn't very far off from 1/2 the estimated diameter of the universe. Do we all live inside a black hole?
Isn't that just telling you that you cannot escape the universe if you travel at or under the speed of light?
@@NottoriousGG That's an interesting thought
@@NottoriousGG this. less fun than "living inside a black hole" though
@@Toxicpoolofreekingmascul-lj4yd black holes are just Universe's shredders. you can obviously count their insides as "universes" themselves. but those universes have quite horrible conditions to be in.
We apparently have good evidence that is incompatible with the idea that we’re all inside a huge black hole. (That question popped up on an episode of Star Talk with a guest who was an expert on black hole physics.)
The use of approximate values can create the illusion of coincidence. With a large enough set of numbers, some values will inevitably be similar. This is unsurprising. However, a precise match is far more compelling.
The formula for computing Rydberg's Constant is one of the most impressive one showing a very deep connection underlying our cosmic reality.
bla bla bla
Hilarious! Spooky! Deep! This foolishness was the ultimate embarrassment of Eddington.
We can't measure anything to infinite digits, so an exact match isn't possible. But admit it, if some constant like the speed of light was exactly pi to as many digits as we can measure, that would be interesting and probably true.
In general if a math formula like "pi^2" is shorter (3 symbols) than writing out a 7 digit number, it's a pretty strong coincidence. There are 10^7 7 digit numbers. If we have an alphabet of 20 common math symbols, there are only 10^4 numbers that can be represented with 3 or fewer symbols. The chance of a random 6 digit number corresponding to one of these would be well within what is usually considered statistically significant.
And if instruments get better and can measure more digits, the new digits continuing to match the formula would count as a successful prediction of the hypothesis.
What a great comment! I would maybe also accept if something was to the PI out in the 1000 digits, not just to 5 digits. Hell, 3 is PI to the first digit... "coincidence?" :-)
The mother of all such coincidences is when James Clerk Maxwell calculated in 1862 the speed of propagation of electric and magnetic waves, based on his own mathematical description of them ("Maxwell's equations"). He observed that the answer was within 10% of the measured value of the speed of light. Just a coincidence? No, Maxwell deduced (correctly) that light was a form of electromagnetic radiation ... and modern physics was born. Genius.
If you sum the alphabet position of your name (S=19)+(A=1)+(B=2)+(I=9)+(N=14)+(E=5) and the add 4x114 (the number of days to your birthday) you get 506.... the number of videos you posted with this video....Coincidence? 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Great video!
Wow - mind blowing…. Jesus ,must be real.
Please don't start a cult; with reasoning like this, you'll be successful.
if you sum the alphabet position of the name of the person who discovered that SABINE + 4x114 = 506, you get ADRIAN = 47, and Sabine is 47 years old. It was already premeditated by the universe to make you a top comment 🤣🤣
@@michaelkohn883 Jesus is real :)
😅
A world without coincidence would be even stranger.
I think if you take some numbers and massage them with math enough, you gain other numbers.
lol
Numerology 😞
Exactly. There are so many significant numbers out there, there's probably an infinite number of weird morphs you can do to them to make it seem like they're related. This video is garbage. Clickbait. She should know better.
The correct answer. At least, once you add in the human ability to find patterns in noise.
@@waveysavey In all fairness I don't think she attached any significance to the numbers. ?
Some bloke caled 'Pratchett' had an idea about this
"“Scientists have calculated that the chances of something so patently absurd actually existing are millions to one.
But magicians have calculated that million-to-one chances crop up nine times out of ten.”
a man of deep intuition, was pratchett
Happy Terry Pratchett day! (Coincidence?)
@@phtamas Whoa.
@@phtamas Uh, huh . . .
@@phtamasOmg... Happy birthday to The Man Himself!
If you take the Cosmological Constant, divide it by 10 to the 14th, add the weight in grams of all the Cod in the Atlantic and multiply by the number of beams in the Eiffel Tower, you get a figure which is equal to the number of atoms present in the bodies of all the Koalas in Western Australia. Coincidence?
An obvious sign of some sort of higher intelligence - or 'God did it' ? 🙂
The problem is that these things are commutative: when the Koala population rises, you get some pretty weird effects on the Eiffel Tower. Also the cosmological constant, which is why it's so difficult to measure.
@@keithsquawkGod fine-tuned the universe for koalas!1!
Very good, I thought I was the only one who noticed this 😂😂
That has always bugged me too!
Seeing the Fibonacci sequence crop up so many times in nature is quite a coincidence.
It's not a coincidence, it comes from logarithmic growth
quite rare actually, the dispersion of seeds in flowers like the sunflower seems to be the only consistent example
Yeah, that Fibonacci guy got his fingers into everything.
And even not in nature. Successive numbers in the sequence tend towards the ratio of kilometres to miles, both of which are artifical creations.
The golden ratio tightly coupled to the Fibon. Series is the best you can do to create randomness. So random things are close to Fibon. in general.
As a retired chemical engineer, I collect science coincidences while studying physics. I can verify your first 2 but the others, I don't have all the info to confirm. i.e. On 3, is the size of the observable universe a mass or a diameter? Dr. Becky detailed her coincidence with the microwave background very well and it was easy to verify. I have found several other parallels between folklore and science as well.
What coincidences between folklore and science?
When you look for coincidences, you will find coincidences
-Umberto Eco, “Foucault’s Pendulum” (paraphrased)
It's a bit like the philosophers web, or as Douglas Adams put it "The interconnectedness of all things".
This is why philosophy is in my opinion an integral part of science and math. It seems to be the field that everyone loves to mock, but in the end always has the last laugh.
Whew thank you, I can stop reading that damn book now!
Spoooooooooiler Alert!
and the square root of 2 is APPROXIMATLY 1.4!!!!!!!
I am old now and never was that bright to begin with so it is eminently understandable that much of what Sabine says is profoundly opaque to me. What is difficult to understand is why I watch regularly and wonder at the complexity of what seems simple to a simpleton.
If you would be a simpleton, you wouldn´t watch this channel and listen to Sabine😊
Sorry for the opacity, but to be honest when it comes to these coincidences I'm not sure I understand why many physicists think they are relevant. Then again, maybe I am thinking too simple...
well i only understand a bit of one of those 7.... i dont know what the rest is all about
@@SabineHossenfelder coincidences that are precise down to x place after the decimalpoint are most likely really not coincidences but some inherent underlying connections that we currently do not understand. ie, we should try to figure out what's going on.
@@SabineHossenfelder pretty sure its what you've said recently - many physicists are just writing papers for grant money. and thats it. so making things up works for them
Every universe that didn't have the coincidences died in a blaze of glory
Nice way to illustrate the anthropic principle.
I think they just faded away :) This is how the world ends; not with a bang, but a whimper.
Or got stuck in a glory hole. LOL!
There are no other universes.
@@joqqy8497 That's no fun.
I think, the reasonable answer is that it's grounds to at least look. How much effort you want to spend looking likely depending on how glaring the coincidence is. If you look long enough and don't place any a-priori restrictions of what you are even looking for, then you are 100% sure to find "something interesting" from random noise. It's *always* possible to fit data to a curve, especially if you allow any equation, no matter how complex. But, then, OTOH there are genuine cases where we have found those "that's odd" things. If you arrange the elements in the order of their atomic mass, why do their properties seem to repeat every eight place? What's so special about the number eight? Well, we did found out the deeper explanation when we investigated that. However, let's never forget that most of the time we do NOT find anything. Heck, the particle physics is a prime example of getting loads of false alarms as the data masses grow gigantic. 3-sigma? Happens every week, it's a random fluke, so go back to sleep.
But we *should* still investigate. Particularly if the coincidence seems to not be too complex. If the coincidence requires you to write an equation filling the blackboard, then you're likely overfitting your observations. But if you start seeing a simple fraction appearing between two seemingly unrelated things, then yeah, could be random but then again, it *is* weird, isn't it? Might warrant a look. Just in case.
THE most fundamental law of physics being that the universe is humorous, carry on smiling with your brain! A most beautiful video!
The chance of all this being a coincidence is not that irrelevant. I just did the math, and it is exactly 1/137. Cheers Sabine!
Haha what a finely structured joke! 🤪
I love this!
Maybe you really wanted to say "Cheers Sabine!" and thought it would look awkward. So you prefaced it. That's what I'd do
got another good one for you Sabine
1.28 (Charm mass) /173,1 (Top mass) = 0.00739456961... which looks something like 0.00729927007, or as men of culture say: 1/137 (Fine-structure constant)
looking at the errors, it is not far fetched :P
@@LuigiHuana Yeah, crazy, huh... It's like we live in a stable and geometrically consistent world... no, wait... that'd be too weird, eh!
The "coincidence" I find worthy of attention is the Koide rule. A lot of free parameters in SM are particle masses (Higgs couplings): nine out of 19. Koide rule (and a few other curious "coincidences" with other masses) hints that masses are not free parameters. They can be predicted by a better theory.
Koide rule=descartes circle theorem
viavca.in2p3.fr/presentations/koide_formula_beyond_charged_leptons.pdf here I did a good collection of bibliography
Multidimensional pi.
almost 6pi^5 - if that's considered to be special then literally every relation can be considered special. Eg. I'm almost e^2 as old as my neighbour's dog. Coincidence??
One of the gretest coincidence for me is that, if our moon was slightly smaller or larger, we would never witness a perfect solr Eclipse! This just blows my mind idk why! It's amazing!
The universe gives us many cherries to pick.
Well said!
Which are good to eat and nourish us. Cherry picking ain't always bad.
Another one that gets brought up is that the fine structure constant α is "almost" 1/137. However, the current accepted value per NIST is α = 7.2973525693 x 10^-3, in which case 1/α = 137.035999 which most decidedly is *not* 137. In fact, α is about 0.026% smaller than 1/137, which is comparable to 22/7 being about 0.04% larger than π , and nobody takes seriously the idea that π is 22/7.
Anyhow, I think there are probably a few cases for these and other "coincidences":
1. Humans instinctively wanting to find patterns and order.
2. Indications of deeper physics.
3. Anthropic principle.
4. Brute facts.
Whether we will ever figure out which is an interesting science question, and whether we even _can_ is a an interesting epistemological question.
regarding 22/7, keep in mind that 7 is a prime, which 22 is not.
youtube.com/@Olivia4eva?si=88movN_uLHmuPKgu
youtube.com/@Olivia4eva?si=lEIaMogAZfPbAfT3
22/7 is the second in a sequence of rational approximations of π using continued fractions. It is possible to show that this sequence of approximations to π is most efficient at minimizing error while simultaneously minimizing the denominator. So 22/7 is not coincidentally approximate to π, but is derived from π.
@@charlesbrowne9590 Sure, but Archimedes came up with the 22/7 upper bound using geometric methods well before anyone was messing about with continued fractions.
This all went over my head. Albert Einstein had a head. Coincidence?😂
Ditto, I can usually hang, but not this time. Maybe you can make us a sacred (special) numbers and formulas for dummies.
@@sMVshortMusicVideossomething is coming up, I don't know where she is leading us. But I'm eager to find out
You have a head? I have a head. Coincidence?
@@sMVshortMusicVideos co-authored by Deepak Chopra.
@@BadManaManXXiI have a head, too! What are the odds of that???
From my brother Rog
Number of seconds in a year is Pi * 10^7 within 1%
Does anything come out to 42? Because that would be significant!
Physicists hate this one simple trick..
...but they can't stop you from using it.
...but they can't stop you from using it.
...but they can't stop you from using it.
...stop from it you can't but they using.
...they stop using you but can't from it.
1) nearly a number not impressed
2) nearly a number not impressed
3) funny as we do not know the size of the universe. Even about the shape we are not sure.
conclusion: interesting but i find it even more interesting to focus on one and discuss ideas why it might be no coincidence and the take/view of a sceptic physicist on those ideas.
I think it's worth noting that (2) isn't nearly a number, it's actually within the margin of error. I think there is an explanation for it, but it probably won't be groundbreaking.
Science channels also need views and interactions to keep them making more, like the ones you mentioned. But I just suppose it.
3) its not unitless! that "coincidence" has a unit attached to it, so certainly nonsense.
Thought exactly thr same thing. A bit disappointed by this video.
One thing I've learned about science is when a politician uses the words "the science says" it has nothing to do with real science.
If you have to believe in science, it's not science.
What about base ten?
How much of what we know to be true (as a coincidence) changes when we consider a universe that assumes base eight (octal), or base two (binary)?
The presumption is that coincidence indicates a divine creator. Maybe we learn how many “fingers” that creator has based on the appearance of most coincidences within a particular radix.
Always wondered about that…
Sabine, did you know that the "fine structure constant" 1/137 equals about .007?
OMG! You found the smoking gun :P
Bond. Chemical bond.
I for whatever reason strongly desire long form videos on each of these, and also on the 1/137
I discovered the EXACT equation for the Fine Structure Constant. Then I wrote up what I learned in the process. Please search: John Wsol, Eureka, Richard Feynmann's dream fulfilled
PBS Spacetime made one on it
The speed of light is nearly 300,000,000 meters per second. The meter could have been defined in terms of the speed of light, but instead it was defined as 1/10,000,000 of the quadrant of the Earth’s circumference running from the North Pole through Paris to the equator. Coincidence?
And, if we're in the approximation game, it's very close to 1.1 yards. Coincidence? 😅
@@allenjenkins7947 The speed of light is much, much closer to 300,000,000 meters per second than a yard is to a meter. If the speed of light were EXACTLY 300,000,000 meters per second while the meter is EXACTLY 1/10,000,000 the distance from the north pole to the equator, the game would be over, because God tipped his hand.
Since we can only perceive the observable universe, and have no real idea of what's not observable, how can scientists even estimate the "size of the universe?"
Size of the _observable_ Universe
@@thstroyur- that's like standing on your roof and drawing conclusions about the whole planet, based on what you can see from there...and we wonder why there's this "cosmology crisis". The more we discover, the more we find that observations don't relate to the "accepted" theories and formulas.
@@Duke_Romilar_III That's drawing conclusions from what data is available. Alas, I do agree that's a fundamental limitation of cosmology - which prevents it from being a full-fledged science
You make an interesting point here and touch upon something that irks me in all descriptions of the universe.
We only see a past light cone of the universe in both space (distance) and time (past). There is no "NOW" universe for us to see.
When I here the universe (observable?) is "This Big Now" it is illogical. Either it is the observable universe in terms of m/s or it is a universe that is of unknown size.
In the same context I hear about people (scientists) making a 3D map of the universe. This is also illogical as we have no "NOW" 3D awareness of the universe. At best we have a past histogram of shells (Outer layers of the sphere) stretching back in time and out in space. In some sense all we have is multiple 2D representations "In Time". I guess it is a kind of pseudo 2.5/4D.
@@axle.student You are correct sir! Now draw a 4th dimensional picture of a black hole with pencil and paper!
That was so fast! Really would love to see you making a video about 1-2 of these and really dig into them, theorizing what could it mean and what scientific ideas there are about it.
With just a little effort I found that 1836 = (90 + 2^0.5) * e * e * e.
What does this mean. Some kind of expodentially right angle expanding cube???
S. Vik fra Hardanger Fjoren.
My calculator says this is equal to 1836.10356.... By the way, 6 * pi ^ 5 = 1836.1181...
Closer to home (as it were), two of my favourite coincidences are:
1. pi seconds is approximately a nanocentury
2. a foot is covered by sound in a millisecond and by light in a nanosecond
Is that light in vacuo and sound in air?
What about both feet?🦶🦶
Mine are covered by socks.
Coinkidink?
@@martifingers Yes :) I mean, it's only a rule of thumb (or foot, in this case), but it's nice.
The first one makes sense because our time is based around circles and rotation, making pi omnipresent
@@LarsArt I don't think that's true. A second is based on Earth's rotation, while a century is based on Earth's path around the Sun. There's no reason that those should be related by pi times a power of ten (and ten is just the number of digits on our hands, so we could be using some other base anyway).
Most excellent break down. One a note: in an infinite multi-verse universe there is a non-zero chance all factors will inevitably produce the right circumstances...if you believe in that sort of thing.
we just happen to exist and we only can exist in a universe with these constants. also vacuum degradation from unstable higher energy levels could've been what we call "the big bang". so probably the Universe "evolved" into what we have now. hence all "coincidences" were inevitable to happen.
Sure but there are a range of "right" circumstances if all you mean by "right" is that we exist to observe it. So why did we get this particular set of "right"? Why are we in the top right sliver of meta stable instead of the bottom left sliver of meta stable or just in the stable region? Believing in a multiverse doesn't remove all these questions. There is still stuff to ask
@@derickd6150 particular set of "right" is just random and there's nothing behind that. no hidden meaning. no creator. and multiverse have nothing to do with that.
>Why are we in the top right sliver of meta stable
if it was any different physics would also be different and we wouldn't exist to ask silly questions))
Maybe like evolution, things evolved into these circumstances.
@@rawdez_ you see you didn't even read what I said. These RUclips physics gurus. There's no reason to think that if we were in a different sliver of META STABLE we wouldn't exist to ask such questions. Maybe you're right that there are no reasons for such things... Or maybe they are indicative of better theories that result in cleaner pictures. I get the feeling you just REALLY want to say everything is random and you have all the answers. Case closed. Well it's not closed and it won't be a for a long time
Is it me, or is Dr. Hossenfelder talking directly to the scientific community, and we're just here with our popcorn?
You figured it out ,join the party .
Most of these are pretty well known facts. The problem is to root out which are coincidences and which are fundamental relations. There have been many others, that started diverging as measuring of constants got more and more accurate.
Yeah, it was all a bit opaque so I wasn't sure where or who that was directed at lol
The experts already know these things, but what's great about her videos is we feel like she's talking to experts and not dumbing anything down...as opposed to the Fermilab guy, for instance.
Don't tell everybody, it's just too fun to watch...
I love that there are still mysteries in physics. We might still know more. Bend your brains to these problems, physicists! Understand! Calculate! I believe in you!
The problem is that modern physicists don’t get paid or funded to investigate these types of topics which contradict the currently held belief that the world is controlled by a set of constants that can never be explained and have no cohesive story binding them all together. But there are a few individuals out there investigating these things on their own with no help from academia and government science grants.
One example is @ThadRoberts77.
Has anyone studied the correlation between sabines music videos and the placements Germany has had in the Eurovision?
OK, OK, OK: I didn’t understand even one of these coincidences… Coincidence? No… Thank you for the videos…
Your mom has the same mass as all of food missing from Africa. Coincidence?
Oh c'mon. If you take this charge, multiply it by pi. Then take the square root and substract the energy of the universe, add plancks constant, divide by Einstein birthday in binary. You get almost the mass of a proton!
That's gotta be a coincidence right!?
😂
No, I didn’t.
Ignorance?
All those “coincidences” are part of the reason why many people believe that we live in a simulation and those “coincidences” are simply the values assigned to variables in the simulation where the programming re-uses the same variables in different contexts to save resources.
I hope I explained that clearly enough. 🖥️ 🤷♂️
Is this related to Don Hoffman's ideas by any chance?
I'm pretty sure if you have enough resources to model the entire universe, you don't need coincidental values between the couple dozen constants to save space. Also, you wouldn't make it have quantum entanglement working the way it does if you wanted to save computation.
@@darrennew8211 Good point. They’re not trying to save resources. They’re just taking shortcuts to make a little less work for themselves.
I'm still just mad at statisticians for using the word "correlation," which should be most similar to "interdependent," instead of using "coincidence," which means occupying the same space/time and/or with accidental/incidental agreement.
It's because they want to be paid, and correlation sounds a lot more important than coincidence, hence making statistician a job instead of just fancy numerology.
Hence why mopping the floor is "surface engineering designed to minimize obstruction between travelling system (feet) and the traction interface (floor)."
Correlation means correlation. It doesn't imply, suggest, or hint at causation. So you're mad at them using correct language.
Ladies and gentlemen, I present not knowing the difference between correlation and causation.
@michaelhorning6014 except it does it speaks to a shared causal factor/s despite the subjects not directly effecting one another.
As elegant as what you said sounded the thing is that statistical objects do not occupy space-time, they are abstractions.
To see this from a philosophical view point, consider that even mundane objects like marbles are very hard to define strictly ("can it be made of stone?", "does half a sphere suffice?", "is the sun a marble?"), so any potential object of which to derive statistics is already itself hard to define rigorously.
Now, consider actions, which in language systems are verbs, and incidentally consider a verb that relates one or more objects (or subjects), and ponder the question of how rigorously you can define said verb in such a way that it describes unequivocally the relation between the aforementioned objects, that are themselves unambiguously defined ("what does it mean for two objects to collide?")
Having said this much, it becomes clear that statistical objects described through quantified relations only appear natural because of our familiarity with mathematical abstraction itself, and "incidence" despite its practicality would miss the point, whereas "relation" having a particular meaning in statistics, logic, and algebra points to a clearer notion of abstraction away from the object of study.
2⁴ = 2(4²). Coincidence? If you're not convinced, you can also square both sides and the equation will still hold. And you can repeat this as often as you like.
Thirsty for more? Delivered...
e⁰ = π⁰
n⁰ = 0ⁿ ∀ n
Enjoy!
Finally! The Koide Formula.
It would be so amazing if you could make a whole video about this anomaly and additional similar anomalies, for example there is also a remarkable one with respect to quark mixing angles, but I also think others.
Those anomalies are highly significant as the formulas were found at a time when the measured precision of the constants that are part of the formula was much lower. But they still hold up. This makes the probability that the are just curve fit less than 1%.
The wikipedia page already mentions most of the known things, for the rest you can visit physicsforums long thread "what is new with Koide formula"
Not really coincidence, but take the string of pairs of the first three odd numbers 113355 and divide the last three by the first, getting pi to 6 decimal places (355/113 = 3.141592 ...)
Another thing that comes to mind is the correlation of the zeros in the Riemann zeta function vs. the function describing the energy levels of the atom.
Also, we are closer to the size of the observable universe (10 to +24 meters ), than we are to the Planck Length (10 to -36 meters), by order of magnitude.
I love videos like this. Thank you Miss Sabine for informing the uninformed! 😊
That Planck guy has a lot to answer for!
There's plenty of room at the bottom!
I hadn't heard of any of these except for the vacuum decay issue. I learned that from Katie Mack's book "The End of Everything"
In case you're interested there's a new podcast with Katie Mack and John Green, a sort of Beginner's Guide to the Universe.
@@guest_informant Interesting! Thanks for the tip, will check it out
PBS SpaceTime also did a good primer on it.
Sabine interviewed Astro-Katie in her book "Lost in Math". Thanks for the hint.
Another explanation is that it’s evidence of design.
Here's one: the fine structure constant is approximately 1/137. The police code for a riot is 137. Fine structure constant is the inverse of the police code for civil unrest! Coincidence?!
“I think not!” Mike Lindell
Another one: Irrational numbers continue on forever, and irrational people never seem to stop talking!
The Polish Pope John Paul 2 died on 21:37 and 2137 is considered now a magical "funny" number in Poland
Absolutely LOVE your videos! I look forward to them daily!
Surprised you don't mention the Dirac Large Numbers Coincidences, which can also be related to the quantum vacuum state, but may also have an anthropic explanation
They (probably) fit because the universe is cyclic and we're an anverage civilization, therefore right in the middle of the cycle. Recent JWST observations of heavy elements in old galaxies support early start for some of them.
Not the laws of nature per se, but I always found it extremely interesting that proportions of the distance and ( to a lesser extent ) the orbit of the moon from the earth and thst of the sun has a “goldilocks” relationship. It is just the right distance away from the Earth to nearly precisely block out the sun at a simple and regular frequency.
Yeah, almost like someone is messing with us...lol.
The moon is very slowly moving away from earth, and was much closer in the past. In the future, around 600 million years from now, there won’t be full eclipses any more.
Hi MMF. It's only a coincidence. The moon's distance from the Earth varies, as does Earth's from the sun. Sometimes we get a "diamond ring" eclipse with a thin band of sun around the edge. The perfect eclipses we see at present are just a passing phase, because tidal energy losses mean the moon is orbiting ever further out and will one day be lost. As the celestial body also symbolizes romance, this next period will be called "the great divorce". I like your moniker. Are you a chicken farmer? Cheers, P.R.
Sabine is pulling our legs with this episode. It should have come out on April 1st.
Exactly my thought!
It's her point.
I am always smiling when somebody is using the size of the universe as a known factor in the equation. It is unbelievable how smart scientists are.
Size of the universe is very good joke, because many smart scientists are still strugling to determine precisely
how much is 2+2. Gold fish would like to jump out of the bowl and try to lear to ride the bicycle.
Can someone explain the units of measure in this "coincidence" to me? How does (mass x volume)^.5 = the cosmological constant? (which is measured in length^-2, according to wikipedia).
Yes, they are all coincidences since a coincidence is _the fact, condition, or state of coinciding._ The question is whether they are random, causally connected, or accidental coincidences.
"Coincidence" has another definition, which is the one that's relevant in Sabine's context.
@@brothermine2292 It always means two things coinciding.
The phrase is "just a coincidence", implying that there is no deeper relation. The phrase is often shortened in colloquy, given that of there were some causal or dependent relation, that relation would then be the fact to express because the coincident nature would be trivial and moot.
For example, the value of τ is defined to be 2π, or τ=C/r as the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its radius. Thus, the fact that τ/2=π may well coincide (it does), but colloquially it would not be referred to as a coincidence if the underlying definition is known.
There is a Physical as well as a Philosophical interpretation. It's the Philosophical interpretation that can become a little ambiguous :)
Or (Jung/Pauli synchronicity) acausally connected.
I’m surprised you didn’t discuss the anthropic principle, survivorship bias, and string landscapes. They explain a lot of this perfectly well. Particularly things like the metastability of our vacuum.
Wouldn't we survive with a stable vacuum?
@@frankcl1 Sure, but it’s quite possible there is no such thing as a stable vacuum. Instead, we’re here because it lasts a very long time and is metastable. A certain degree of stability is required in the string landscape for life to emerge.
But if we are to talk about metastability (and anthropic principle), then we have to talk about the multiverse (or metaverse). This is where theoretical physics massively overlaps with philosophy, because anything beyond our observable and measurable universe is untestable by definition.
@@jadusiv Either that, or our measurements are wrong and the vacuum is actually just stable. The thing is, our error intervals for some of these are actually relevant to make the entire calculation wrong. The errors propagate both from measurement, as well as calculation.
@@PhthaloJohnson -+Well assuming you are using the strong anthropic principle which makes us the sole observers (or at least one of us equipped with the tools that we all are needed to invent for (choose your gender pronoun here)) to observe, then none of this is coincidence, it is necessary. A side argument about determinism might require the ratios to be slightly "off" the calculated values to prevent external events (i.e. facts of co-incidence) interfering with the observers’ structural integrity.
The wobbly line hypothesis. If there's a wobbly line ~ anywhere in the equation then it's a coincidence.
What if it contains something timey whymey? (Apologies / Bygones)
I'd love to see a video on each going through the different ways we've tried to reconcile these coincidences but failed. Ideas of why these occur would be a great way to encourage thought and developing/testing hypotheses
Interesting video! My thoughts...
1. Probably just a coincidence. This relation is inexact, but it's worse because it relates an estimate with another estimate. It sounds interesting because π shows up in some of the most unexpected places, but I don't t think it is.
2. Again, inexact, so probably a coincidence. The coincidental number is just too arbitrary to be meaningful.
3. My personal hypothesis is that this is not entirely coincidental. Though inexact, there is some uncertainty in our knowledge of both Λ and the exact size of the universe. I once saw a graph showing how the overall density of a black hole decreases as the mass increases (because the mass is proportional to the surface area, not the volume, of the space enclosed by the black hole); it appears that if the universe were any more dense than we have measured it to be, it would collapse into a black hole. Dark Energy, therefore, is the outward pressure that keeps that from happening. A competing idea is that if the universe was in a black hole, it might look as though the overall density equals that of a black hole this size. I further hypothesize that the passage of time itself, and the building of its quantum history, is what creates the accelerating expansion.
4. The MOND coincidence seems like something that would fall out of the math if the calculations were run through. But again, it's inexact, so it might just be a coincidence.
5. I think that this "coincidence" might be related to the one above. The relationship between vacuum energy density with gravitation at cosmological distances might reveal the nature of MOND (or whatever replaces it).
6. I don't see the "coincidence" here. Just because the universe _might_ have a nonzero curvature doesn't mean that we should expect it to. We know that space is curved around massive objects, so why can't it be curved the other way in the absence of gravity? Perhaps the vacuum energy could cause this to happen, resulting in a universe that is flat overall but with local variations. I don't see anything inconsistent or coincidental about that.
7. It might be a coincidence, but I'm not so sure about released vacuum energy tearing everything apart. There could be more than one metastable ground state, and maybe the next one is only slightly lower than ours. Conversely, it's feasible that a moment of fluctuation could bump it up to the next higher metastable ground state. It's cool to think about, but it seems to me that this coincidence is of our own construction.
Just last night I was thinking about the Universe...coincidence?
I'm an old white man and last night I thought about ancient Rome - coincidence? Oops, wrong thread here…
The 'coincidence' that recently really blew my mind when I learned about it is that gravity can be derived thermodynamics..... I think the explanation is that the teen simulating us in the basement is lazy and lacks creativity and reuses code.
Sometimes I wonder . . .
great video of the universal constants. you forgot the fine-structure constant, 1/137.
That is what I thought.
The fine-structure constant, contrary to what its name suggests, is not constant, it's energy-dependent. Never understood why people think there's something special about it.
@@SabineHossenfelder there is so much media content on 1/137 that it influences the masses. if you can prove that 1/137 is not a constant, please make a video about it. i always loved your insights.
@@PrimordialOracleOfManyWorldsWhat she means is that it's a 'running coupling', according to QED: 1/137 is roughly the value for low-energy experiments - but it increases with said energy. That's renormalization for you...
@@thstroyur what’s sad is I have seen well respected high energy physicists (the likes of Brian Cox) and theorists (other Brians) prevaricate about how interesting it being almost 1/137 when they know better.. we shouldn’t really stand for this.
I would welcome a video on this nonsense from Sabine but if you’re in need of immediate satisfaction then @acollierastro has a few choice rants (with worked problems :)
the ln(-1) / square root of -1 = pi
There's just a tiny little problem with physical constants: they can't be constants. There can't be any constants in nature.
My wife's birthday is 1 May, Mayday, arguably the greatest celebration of Spring in our climate and also a national flag day. Coincidence? If so, a very lucky one since I have never yet forgotten her birthday. Consequently we are still married after 40 years which is pretty close to a parsec divided by the cosmological constant. Another coincidence?
If you have a Jungian therapist, they will tell you this is a synchronicity. The universe is meaningful.
Multiplying, dividing and otherwise manipulating data to get results that are "about", "approximately" and so on does not denote coincidence. If two or more seemingly unrelated raw data points were EXACTLY the same then coincidence.
I agree. Taking the square root of a number or raising it to the fifth power, then pointing out a similar result, isn't really a coincidence.
But if it were exactly the same to an infinite number of decimal places, then probably NOT a coincidence. There is some hidden reason.
Someone definitely needs to explain why an integer ratio of one constant to one constant square rooted would be so exciting in the first place, for sure. Who gives a toss if it’s 3 times bigger. What’s the significance of the 3? What’s the significance if it WAS exactly 3?
@@EinsteinsHair no, there isn’t. At times where you have a constant you’re trying to measure and refine and you’re out by the first decimal place and over 50 years you finally get a 5-sigma result, sure - you can look for hidden meanings to attempt to refine the result. These aren’t those numbers they’re VERY well measured. They’re not integer ratios, and they’ll never be integer ratios.
Perhaps they could be solved by using the DaVinci code.
Now you are talking about stuff I can understand.
Ouch.. I was hoping to never have to lay eyes on that book title ever again...
Yes…
There are lots of theories and even more numbers… some line up in imaginary ways
Excellent video. Very interesting, informative and worthwhile video.
I thought the game was that you have to drink a shot every time you say Einstein
I'll drink to that!
Einsh-tein. Which is prolly how his mother meant it...
Oh, this makes us sleepless. I like Plank's magic "rule" the most By the way, I also like numbers that have no units.
I can't stand unitless numbers. It seems like a great way to accidentally lose track of the meaning/dimensionality of the numbers you're working with, and thereby end up combining them in completely invalid ways... Which is what some of these "coincidences" seem to be, at least at first glance.
But I'm a bear of very small brain... I need my metres-per-second and my kg-metres-per-(second)^2 and whatnot, to stop my spherical cows acquiring negative curvature. (Trust me, it's not pretty when that happens! =:o[ )
unitless numbers are harder to discover but they play a fundamental role. I think there could be more unitless numbers still to be discovered that could shine light on these coincidences.
Thanks for great teaching..
Clear British Accent is very nice to understand physics. Thanks
Reminds me of the arguments why the pyramids were made by aliens. Because if take the length of one side to the power of the angle times 4 and divide by the 492th root of the pH level of a virgins blood, then you get the distance to Alpha Centauri, which is clear proof the pyramids where made by aliens from Alpha Centauri and left us this hint by building the pyramids in such a way I just explained.
The sun and moon appear to have the same diameter. What is the chance of that?
That is an interesting coincidence. As the Moon is moving away from the Earth total eclipses will be a thing of the past.
Exactly, and we are here now. What does that imply?
@@philsharp758 Aye, i guess that will make the future brigther.
@@velisvideos6208 I would contend that a Cosmic Intelligence is involved with a sense of humour. In accord with our current understandimg of the formation of the Moon, millions of years ago the Moon was much closer to Earth. That in this present epoch with sentinent beings noting that the angle subtended by the Moon and Sun is identical is an act of Providence.
And discovery of the Babel Fish will prove this beyond doubt.
@@velisvideos6208 Coincidence???
My dog's name was Jimmy jazz, coincidence?
"Islands of Stability" look like coincidences because they last longer than the other possibilities. This makes them look special, when they are probably just showing how different factors interact with each other. This is an important distinction between Causality and Intention.
I love when people say "almost" when talking about coincidences or conspiracies. 😎
"Value X is somehwat close to value Y - coincidence?"
No. Its not even remarkable if they're merely somewhat close. Wake me up when they are identical with a 5 sigma certainty.
This sounds a lot like the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy 🙂
"Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy were both presidents of the United States, elected 100 years apart. Both were shot and killed by assassins who were known by three names with 15 letters, John Wilkes Booth and Lee Harvey Oswald, and neither killer would make it to trial.
Lincoln had a secretary named Kennedy, and Kennedy had a secretary named Lincoln.
They were both killed on a Friday while sitting next to their wives, Lincoln in the Ford Theater, Kennedy in a Lincoln made by Ford.
Both men were succeeded by a man named Johnson - Andrew for Lincoln and Lyndon for Kennedy. Andrew was born in 1808. Lyndon in 1908.
What are the odds...."
(Courtesy: You Are Not So Smart)
Praise the Lord! This must be a sign!
It seems Lincoln did not have a secretary called Kennedy. Lincoln did not die on the Friday.
@@martifingers Buzz Killington!
@@martifingers:: But Lincoln was shot in a Friday.
And Lincoln´s was a very physically strong man that looked like a thin long wimp, while Kennedy was a sick wimp who looked like a strong man. And Lincoln was a faithful honest husband while Kennedy was a pervy debauch philander 1000 times unfaithful.
Is it just coincidence that despite hearing your every word clearly enunciated, 99% of the worlds population are just like me and didn't understand anything you said? 😭😮
Simple answer to the coincidences: those ratios were fed into our simulation at its onset, and we are just now technologically advanced enough to begin to detect that there is an underlying program which produced our universe. People of days gone by called god. Our generation calls it a simulation. Who knows what future humans will call it, but things keep pointing to there being an architect of some type. And if we continue this reasoning, we are tiny creations in a game so vast has to be incomprehensible to us at the stage in our development. Probably the best thing to do then is just accept the coincidences with an open mind and instead of hunting for an architect which we cannot comprehend, just learn to work together to make the most of what we do have, and realize that we are caretakers and would do well to adopt that mindset and its commensurate responsibility.
You forgot - Stressed spelt backward is Desserts and Dog is God
This video feels a lot like: "Oh hey, look at this pond. It's wet and circular. It also takes on the exact shape of the hole. Coincidence?"
It depends, Koide´s formulare seems to be more than that, these three particles are different flavors of the same lepton.
This is a little disingenuous and you are just implying that OF COURSE these things would be so. But the stuff she mentions really is at the edge of human knowledge and we don't know what the range of "of course" is. You might say, well the vacuum couldn't be unstable or we wouldn't be here, to which I say maybe, but there are a lot of values it could have as shown in the stability plot. Why did we get the exact one we did? Is there even a reason? These are not trivial questions and they are worth asking
Some of the observations clearly have less implications or are "easier coincidences" than others, but IMO many formal relationships in advanced physics started out as (approximately) spurious numerology about repeatable observations, until we gather more hypotheses for the phenomena. It's easy to relate fluid filling its container to an intuitive understanding of fluids, and _of course_ water would do that, but as soon as one tries to formalize _why_ water conforms to the shape of the pond, we have to engage with some very convoluted dynamics. For that matter, we don't even fully understand the motion of viscous fluids in 3 dimensions, and the Clay Math Institute will throw a million dollars at you if you can close that gap.
@@derickd6150 sometimes we don't even know if a question is indeed trivial or not.. For instance, why did I choose to reply to your message now instead of 5 minutes ago? Is there some uniqueness to this exact time I picked?
I think the reason is more like this: ruclips.net/video/xVLWE_BF5kc/видео.htmlsi=FVaMd_9CySve2Msg
The universe isn't "ruled by equations and numbers". It is described by them.
Not yet
That is a heated philosophical debate
We know numbers describe what we see, but we do not know if the universe is made of math. There is no black and white answer and it is more of a philosophical debate
I agree absolutely. Schrödinger (following Exner) believed that all physical laws are statistical. The data generate the pattern; the laws do not reach down to generate the data. This is the most under-appreciated idea in science, since it implies, and is implied by () a discrete, finitist universe. Thus solving all the paradoxes of the infinite and making the “hocus pocus” of renormalization unnecessary.
I'm still hung up on the fact that the top of the great pyramid at Giza is 29.97924°N and the speed of light is 299,792.4 km/s, it's exact. Egyptians didn't use degrees or meters, which makes the coincidence even more wild.
nothing is exactly measured or calculated
okay that's really wild... (it's m/s tho, not m/km. Light's fast but not THIS fast)
@@maestro3887 Made me double check the speed of light lol. It's 299,792,458 m/s, which is 299,792.458 km/s. It is indeed that fast!
@@jerotoro2021 sorry mb haha but DAMN THAT‘S FAST 😳
@@maestro3887 it is approx 300 000 km/s not m/s
Those are just numerology. The size of the universe, as we know it, is a huge variable with time. Some real coincidences are:
1. The "m" in F=ma at low velocities is the same as both of the "m's" in F = G m1 m2 / (r*r), also at low relative velocities and gravitational fields/spins, charges, etc. This is more than a coincidence. It's a huge mystery.
2. The rate of recession of the moon from the Earth is roughly equal to (on the same scale as) the Hubble constant
I thought you were going to be back to talk about the Anthropic principle when I read the title of the video. I am happy you did not. Awesome video S.Hossenfelder!
Why do scientists always say "if one parameter was different, everything would fall apart". Why would just one parameter be different? If one parameter were different, then all parameters would be different and what happens then? How would we know?
It can't actually fall apart because they would make up a constant to fix it :P
@@axle.student It's like saying: "If we remove the number 4 from mathematics, then we have no mathematics". And this comes from people who are supposed to be geniuses.
@@konstantinos777(If the result has to be 4) If we have 2 + 2 = 4 and we change the first parameter so we have 1+ 2 = 3 well I think it is kind of obvious that it will no longer = 4 lol
A more interesting question is... If you take all the mathematical constants in both physics and astronomy and apply any combination of half a dozen different mathematical functions like additions / divisions / square roots to any group of them (be they related or not) and define a simple 'match' (being being any decimal number that looks interesting up to 5 digits like 0.666661 ) then.... what is the probability of there being zero coincidences found?
Those floating equations really mess with RUclips compression algorithms. Each time they are on the screen you turn into a blob of pixels.
It's not just RUclips. 99% (rough guess) of video compression is done using motion estimation to track things and record the motion vectors (very little data needed) instead of having to redraw that thing from scratch in every frame. But throw in 2 or more moving things that are translucent, and... which motion is it supposed to follow? The algorithm gets very confused, so the fall-back mechanism just sighs and has to resort to encoding the "instructions" for redrawing the relevant bits of each frame after all... But it has to do that while keeping within a tiny bit-budget, so the instructions end up very imprecise. Result: Messy splurge. =:o/
Coincidence???
It's not the "coincidences" that bother me but all the "approximately"-s and "almost"- s scattered about. Seems like any correspondences should be exact.
What hitherto unknown force is skewing stuff here and there?
After just watching this a few times, I’m already wondering if it’s coincidence that (No 6) the Universe has stayed essentially flat despite not having an initial curvature = 0, and (No 7) the vacuum of space in the Universe just happens to be metastable. That just kinda jumped out at me straight away.
Also, I love everything about Pringles - including their negative curvature! 😂
Brilliant and thought-provoking video, Sabine! 🙂🙌🙌
00:01
Someone taught me that equations and numbers are actually our way to describe/understand the universe, in the way that a painter uses color to describe the subject of his attention.
It's pretty pretentious to claim that the universe is ruled by OUR equations and OUR numbers.
I think everyone pretty much agrees. It's just a manner of speaking. All know that these are mathematical models that closely resemble reality but aren't reality itself. But it is odd that they can work so well.
@@TomSkinnerYou're right, it's odd but that might very well be coincidental. Some painters are better than others but even the best painting/piece of art isn't reality. I suppose that 's pretty good analogy.
As far as we know our closest theories might be no better than a first grader sticking a random number to his first sum; ie Newton's gravity vs Einstein's spacetime.
By the size of the universe, I assume you mean the observable universe. Any correlation involving such an arbitrary quantity is going to be coincidence.
And is "size" a length or a volume?
Not if we actually are at the center of the universe and the end is right beyond where we just can't see it.
I bet the CIA knew all about it all along.
Phew - that chart
Add all these coincidences together. Take away the number you first thought of. What you are left with is a research grant proposal.
If I had the means, I'd make a video series response to this, discussing each coincidence in turn. There's so much interesting fundamental physics involved, and I'd also discuss the explanations that have been proposed over the years, and whether there are any physical arguments for or against pure coincidence in each case.
Also...
Why is the age of our Solar system a third of the age of the Universe?
Why did the expansion of the Universe begin to accelerate when the Solar system formed?
CoInCiDeNsE? lmao