Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Published online 20 December 2007 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2007.389
News
Two constants to rule us all
Physicists whittle down the number of truly fundamental constants.
How many physical constants does it take to describe the Universe? The answer, according to a team of physicists in Brazil, is just two.
The two can be chosen, according to taste, from a list of three: the speed of light, the strength of gravity, and Planck’s constant, which relates the energy to the frequency of a particle of light, say George Matsas of the São Paulo State University and his colleagues.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email webadmin@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
How is this different from the common practice of letting c=1, and writing all times in distance units? It seems the authors are setting G=1, and writing all masses in units of m^3/s^2. If one did both, by extension, we'd only need one constant, h^(cG), in which the kg units and time units have both been converted. Start with h, multiply by G to convert the mass units, then divide by c^3 to convert the time units, and our one universal constant is the Planck length squared (to within a factor of 2pi).
I wonder what the Universal Dimensional Units Register UDUR looks like. Is it similar to ISI or MKS or BS or else? Are there much differences? Is the length unit much larger or smaller than the micron? Universe has to translate equations in "theories" to enable right down action all around doesn't it? And the coefficients? Are the coefficients that Universe uses the same that ours? Where does it keep them for quick reference? All this coefficients matter only expresses that Universe works by other laws, boolean laws for exists and does not exist and scientists must find the true mathematic dimensionless answers. I found them. Victor de Botton
The way I understand it that we are made of light. What is then gravitation? Is it just a co-product of light when taking on mass while "slowing down"?
Hi, Personally I feel constants do not exist there use is just an easy way out. The speed of light is certainly not a constant but medium dependent. the strength of gravity is size dependent. Einstein’s cosmological constant is probable not so. Planks constant is at the moment still useful. The ultimate truth is a lie. Regards Dr. Terence Hale
Isn't it truth that we search for? I just made decision in studying physics instead of politics while there's still time to chose. Thank you.
Truth is what you get from religion. Churches are full of it! Physics gives you a logical interpretation of nature while logic is just another way of human thinking. Constants are logical artifacts. If one or two suffice, fine. If not, get another one, or throw away everything, and start from scratch again. The whole business is to make physics work for the human sake. Just like good, logical politics!
c is the speed of light in a vacuum. i.e., the medium is specified, so c is indeed a constant.
Dear Sirs: Mathematical constants bother me as much as constant or dogmatic and rigid thoughts or ways of thinking. We all each have our peculiar ways of thinking that are never exactly the same between any two humans. Whether distant, far, invisible, a universal truth does not have a number attached to it..the distance to a point from the back of ones head is not the same as the distance from the front of the head where the eyes can see. No living thing can see, and hence consider for his immediate living tasks, a whole 360 degrees. To do so could have no more a meaning than to assign a fixed age, or size to all humans. The lending of constant mathematical values in physics in correspondence assigns to space a description other than what ones knows-and has no meaning, less to also add in definition that incoherencies without a knowable definition can exist and also co- exist with normal two dimensional space that is perceived. This might be acceptable as experiment of the intellect, but is not suited as a tool to build heating furnaces, or stock kitchen cupboards anymore than one would elect one single politician to sire all the newborn on the earth. Getting down to earth in such a case one not know one person from the other, and less than the actual projected remains of the low and lecherous battle for the earths resources. Mutual anonominity, in large scale group activities is universally a prerequisite for a victimization of the foreign. The teaching of the existence of such physcial constants, especially in the education of the young, in the absence of an understanding of the actual meaning as no more than pen and paper experiment; the pursuit of anonymous physical constants has no exact corresponding difference in meaning/in psycho lingual meaning, consequential action, than as a victimization of our own living spaces. Some politicians might not balk to be the stant fathers of tomorrow, but with an added enlightenment, might object to be the con-stant fathers of all tomorrow. http://www.marvinekirsh.com http://www.authorsden.com/marvinelikirsh