The Speed of Light is NOT Fundamental. But THIS is. 

that pause at 11:00 was hilarious, perfect comedic timing

Humans: cleverly broadcast the fine structure constant in binary Highly advanced aliens: ... wtf humans only have two fingers?

I have been aware for some years of the existence of those 26 parameters of the standard model. But this is the first time i see a clear, concise and however precise explanation about what they really are. I understand why you sponsor is Brilliant (pun intended). Thank you !

Nicely explained. I've actually been working on a PhD in astronomy for the past four years on developing a new method of searching for variation in the fine-structure constant to see if it varies at all throughout the universe. Well, technically I'm adapting a known method to new targets (Sun-like stars within the Milky Way) to yield a hundred-fold improvement in precision on previous astronomical tests, with the long-range goal of measuring the fine-structure constant in stars nearer the Milky Way's center where there's more dark matter to see if it could vary with dark matter background density. That's still at least a few years away, though. :)

I'm imagining a show where we start getting signals from aliens, and they send 40 numbers, 26 of which are these, sending everyone on a while chase to figure out what the other 14 mean for the universe

Once those dimensionless constants add up to equal exactly 42, we'll know that we are finished

As I can only scratch the surface of physics without any impact (as I understand just a tiny bit of all this), I just stick to expressing my respect for your maps, charts and video's, the calm and resolve of your explanation and your pleasant voice and perfect diction.

11:34 I had a huge smile hearing what he did there

He said 11 fingers at the 11th minute. 11:00 perfect.

Love the Final countdown synth music at the The Final Countdown Slide

First time I saw dimensionless constants presented together. I am so pleased. Thank you!

Brilliant! Thank you so much for putting this together! (I remember sensing the first edge of these insights when I first game to Physics in High School, but no one wanted to talk about them.)

Wow, why have I never thought about units and constants this way? Thx for the video, completely changed how i will look at things.

*Veritassium* : No one's measured the speed of light Recommends video: Speed of light has been measured very accurately

11:00 Him realizing that perhaps there is a way of counting that represents the fine structure constant in a way that makes better sense, and would probably itself be the correct way of counting rather than base 10 style.

You just pieced my theory together for me. What I have been working on for many years is this: A particle that scientists hate to contemplate even the possibility of its existence, but which the fine structure constant screams is: an infinitesimal. This particle is essential to existence. It is indivisible and the only thing indivisible is an infinity. Now what happens if you have two infinitely small points? They attract each other because they want to cancel each other out. However, because they are separate and distinct and infinitely small, they can only try to merge, but never will, because no matter how small you go, you can still go smaller. Thus, they never touch. The magic number that scientists are unable to figure out about energy is the interactions between those particles. You see, when you have two particles constantly trying to cancel each other out, but never can, you create a negative space between them equal to 1 minus the fine structure constant, which equals a value that cannot be resolved because 0 is impossible where an infinitesimal exists. So yes, this value must be set by an outside source not governed by the quantum relativistic interactions between infinitesimal particles. (I believe both the existence of the infinitesimal and this static rule setting their boundary requires an intelligence that conjures them in precisely the same way you or I conjure a thought. But maybe scientists can figure out a more plausible explanation in the future than "it just is".) The infinitesimals are the finest indivisible building blocks of all fields, structures and matter in the universe. The negative space for which a specific, as yet to be identified, value exists, this vacuum conflict between infinitesimals, is the source of all energy, including gravity and the electromagnetic fields. That is why all structures share wave and particle properties. And it is the point at which both relativistic and quantum effects converge, and from which they derive. They create triadic tensors because the maximum number of circles that you can provide a co-equal connection between is three. Why circles and not spheres? Because they interact on a 2-dimensional plain in all directions, thus a 4-point connection is impossible. This 2D feature creates the rule that makes spin, direction, gravitational plains, time and even waves and larger particles possible. The cause of the third dimension is another large explanation that I won't go into here. Suffice it to say that 3D adds some of the most interesting effects, including connecting to the theorized holographic principle.

Fundamental alpha: *depends on energy scale* Everyone: That wasn't very cash money of you.

I love when theoretical physicists say, 'probably'

What a fascinating video! Distilling and explaining the ‘art’ that is the universe, in such a succinct and interesting way is an art form in itself. Thank you very much DOS!

Thank you for the videos. I don't always understand everything but I appreciate your way of unpacking information with an orderly and honest dialogue. I think you're a terrific person with a good heart.

The universe exists because α=1/137, or α=1/137 because the universe exists? I mean, there could exist a different universe where α is any other value? Edit: Or are there (finite/infinte?) sets of those 26 fundamental constant that allow the existance of "a" universe?

FYI, the matrices you referenced for the last few constants are typically just called the CKM and PMNS matrices for short; no one I know actually says the names.

I've been interested in this for some time. I've watched many videos, lectures, books and articles about it and yours is the most comprehensible discussion I've seen. I'm going to watch it again. Thanks.

Thank you so much! This was very helpful and explained really well! I would like to see more video's on this subject.

I'm all for the Kobayashi constant. It describes how many simulations per course you need to rig to pass a test ^^

"the cosmo constant and these masses" hmhm makes sense "these coupling constants" huh interesting "aaaand the matrices" wait wut o.O

Just what I was looking for. You basically answered most of my questions about fine structure constant. Thank you so much.

Wow! An amazing video! It's a very intriguing idea: dimensionless constants "defining" our universe. Loved your presentation! Some mild background music would make it even better. Cheers! 👍🏽

imperial is based on barleycorn, which is obviously the most fundamental thing there is

Thanks for this amazing summary of our units and constants. I appreciate the time you took to put this all together.

14:40 "If you would like to rewrite the laws of physics, please leave your scientific paper in the comments below..."

The Fine Structure Constant (α) has multiple definitions/derivations, all precisely equivalent: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant#Definition This group of definitions provides perspectives on how the "dimensional constants" play together. I recommend taking a look at each definition of α and consider its relevance. For example α = c⋅µ₀/2⋅Rᴋ is useful when thinking about magnetic interactions and relationships. In other words, each definition of α illuminates it own "Domain of Science".

Thia video is amazing! I have watched tons of physics videos about those fundamental constants and how different or even non-existent our universe would be without them. But this is the first time someone has talked in (youtube) depth about them. Very interesting and thx for the effort you put into the video!

Perfect explanation! really learned something here. Great work

Started at Veritasium's Why no one has measured the speed of light, ended up hear next, then on to PBS spacetime and The Speed of Light is NOT About Light.

That is... fascinating. Thanks so much for spending all that time to put this video together.

When dealing with natural units, choosing c = ℏ = kB = 1 makes perfect sense, however one cannot simultaneously fix the value of the gravitational constant to 1, as it is inconsistent with the above. Natural units (c = ℏ = 1) are useful in the realm of descriptions relating quantum mechanics and special relativity. Geometrized units (c = G = 1) are useful in the realm of General Relativity. Chosing ℏ = 1 imposes an energy scale different from what is achieved by making G = 1; one cannot impose two different energy scales simultaneously in the framework of a consistent set of parameters (which in both cases aim to relate the various quantities to their energy equivalences).

3:20 "It is only as accurate as our ability to measure the speed of light, which lot of people do and we've measured it to great accuracy" *Veritasium intensifies*

I adored that little bit at the end.. brilliant and heartwarming.

Wow, 4:32 blew my mind right there... I've been watching science communication videos for years now... Those moments tend to become increasingly rare! But they're the reason I still keep watching (actual entertainment trough curiosity) Love your videos! Thanks for your awesome work! I've heard about natural units before, thanks to your explanation I now understand how and why they're even exist!

Loved the video!!! 💕 Derek from veritasium sent me here! P.S Loved the thumbnail 👌

Professor Dominic, I've been watching your channel for quite some time. I absolutely adore the DoS charts you've made; they're phenomenal. This video was a little different and it is also brilliant. Bro, your genius is pretty amazing. Thank you for your work, keep up the good work. I'm appreciate DoS helping me understand our physical world!

I really appreciate the final countdown themed transition music for the section of that name!! The idea of fundamental constants blows my mind so it was nice to have something more familiar to fixate on :D

Thank you for this insightful article. I knew about the non-dimensionality of the fine structure constant and wondered about its significance.

Really exceptional video here!! On one of its subtopics: Honestly, the notion of "why the constants are what they are" and "if they were all a little different.." scenarios never resonated with me - even when I was getting my own quantum mechanics degrees in college. This particular Universe is as it is - and when we backward engineer its nuances with languages/symbols/math/units/dimensions that we all made up filtered through our own subjective consciousness/qualia shaped by our cultural conditioning using a system of inquiry (The Scientific Method) that we crafted, we land on SOME #s. The #s had to be something. I don't see the need for any a priori assumptions of their meaning or intentions. As Tyson, said, The Universe is under no obligation to make sense to us...That said, if you go with the Many Worlds Theories - or even the notion that this particular universe may be one of countless successive universes - then, maybe the other hypothetical universes do and did have different constants - and, thusly, simply did not make it. Or, maybe grew up differently - with different constants and different manifestations of those constants. Maybe all dark energy? Maybe they had their own Big Bangs and all those baby quarks and electrons never came together to form atoms. Or maybe their atoms never made it past H and He. Or, with a nod to QFT, maybe there was never sufficient excitation of all/any/enough of the quantum fields to produce a particle or pass any energy between fields. I guess I just don't feel the exact numbers matter much.

Now a video for math constants! π, e, Feigenbaum constants, ... :D

I love your tthumbnail for this video. The fine structure constant is indeed fascinating!

Love this video. You explained this so very very well!

"If you have any ideas, leave them in the comments below." If anyone in the comments had ideas worth a dime, they'd publish them in Nature or Reviews in Modern Physics.

The fine structure constant is not really a constant. That depends on the energy we are experimenting. For instance, to get the correct predictions at LHC, a different value of alpha should be chosen (alpha is approximatly1/128 if I am not mistaken). Because LHC works in higher energies compared to our daily life. Or in the early universe, this value was different. One should mention the associated energy scale for each value of the "constants" you mentioned.

Great movie. Thank you. Keep it coming. Always great to listen to you.

Excellent presentation, and a fascinating summary of a wide field of topics - thank you for this

It surely is essential for everyone to use the same convention when working on space missions 😁 Great video, enjoyed it thoroughly! 🙂

I love the thumbnail 😄 your humor in this video was on point 😂

awesome. One of the best explained Physics videos I've seen so far.

i had been searching for this kind of explanation since last 3 years and now i have finally got it, great job !!

Here is a fundamental constant of RU-vid: we skip over the "sponsor" parts of the videos.

By looking at what is essentially the connective tissue between our observation and understanding of these values, we can see precisely what we don't know to find out what we don't know 😉

Well explained. Thank you very much! Recently I read an article relating to consistency of constants, called: "Could fundamental physical constants not be constant across space and time?" in BIG THINK. Very interesting article refers back to this fundamental dimensionless constant.

This is the best RU-vid video I have come across on this topic. Well done!!!

We can interpret these as how much something equals something. This means there is a link between these quantities but some unknown boundaries distinguish them.

Could you make a video about an approach to the theory of everything through the e8 lie group? Could you somehow reduce the amount of constants required to even less, we know that the forces that govern our universe can couple to each other and become a singular force, which kinda gives the impression they are always one single force, just under certain conditions they split apart and diverge. Sort of like if you have a homogenous mixture of salt and water and if the conditions are just right, for example if we remove a lot of the water through evaporation, then we can get a decoupling of the two substances. Just that in the case of the forces merging together, it feels like its a smooth and continious transition rather than abrupt one for salt and water. (Though i cant really imagine a halfway point between electroweak and electromagnetism) What is the most fundamental thing in our universe, is it information, energy, a set of random numbers?

Amazing explanation. Thanks for putting out the video!

Well presented, I'll mark this for further consideration when I have the time.

8:35 Despite curiously not making it into the script at all, the circle constant finds its way into the video. I am curious to know just how resilient this famous ratio of two lengths is to the complete reworking of the physical world that is considered by treating these other constants as variable.

I love your videos! My guess is there are many universes with different constants, we just experience ours because these constants allow for it :)

What a great channel! I thought I'd found every good RU-vid channel out there

The epilogue was perfect where you said it is great that we think about these things in our kitchen. I wept for joy and am grateful beyond the ability to put into words. Thank you.

Why are the 26 fine structure constants the numbers that they are? "The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you." - Neil deGrasse Tyson

Hang on, so if I’m getting this correct, the reason why a lot of theories like M theory suggest additional dimensions as an explanation for the constants we see, is that we need to have those dimensions as way of using those dimensions mathematically to collapse some of these constants down to a smaller set of more fundamental, dimensionless constants? As in we’ve got the scent of constants like the fine structure constant, and are assuming that because of its existence and it’s explanatory power, there are deeper levels of math reality, that we can’t measure of perceive, but to do the collapsing of the other constants like the speed of light etc etc, into something more fundamental, we need them to be there? So it’s like unit cancellation but instead of conversion, we’re cancelling the dimensions, down to more and more fundamental and unchanging numbers, Which in the end, we’d hopefully have a bunch of numbers like the fine structure constant, and then the physics we’d construct out of it, are based on the ratios between these constants. This is really reminding me of how music works. Music gains it’s meaning, through the frequency vibration and the ratio to which the musical notes are related. Depending on the ratio / relationship between notes, they take on specific meanings and function within harmony. No note intrinsically on its own, carries meaning, only once in the context of another can the actual sense of consonance and dissonance emerge. So just like the constants like the speed of light, could be considered “notes” (ie meaningless without context) There’s actually a deeper system of relationships between fixed points in the string fabric of the universe. And from that comes the “meaning” of the “harmony”. Ie the universe, and it’s patterns. I’m especially interested if there are parallels between consonance and dissonance and other physical phenomena, like entropy, especially given that the universe seems to get its patterns from a set of fundamental relationships between a set of fundamental numbers. Like the fixing points of a vibrating string, that can then wobble and the fundamental particles of quantum physics appear. So the main goal, is to locate the numbers that we can anchor the “fundamental string” the resulting vibrations and relationships between those vibrations. Interestingly enough, a lot of consonance and dissonance, is to do with whether or not the ratios are simple whole number ratios, (consonance), or complicated ratios that trail of to infinity. (Dissonance). But what is the string made out of???? The fine structure constant and what else, That add up to create the membrane on which the rest of the vibrations and thus harmony, can evolve out of?? (Idk, I’m a layman, who struggles with maths lol.) But yeah, this is a fascinating thing to ponder, especially because we can’t ever get behind perception, I always wonder how this relates to neuroscience, matter, and consciousness as a contributing factor to what we find “outside of our skulls” Edit: It could be possible that the reason our universe is stable at all in the first place, is because of the relationship between the fundamental dimensionless constants, are simple whole number ratios. A “consonant” universe, would be one that could exist with stability in the first place, And a dissonant universe is one that couldn’t exist because of the dimensionless constants never neatly forming whole number ratios and thus the resulting harmony from these ratios is too unstable to produce a universe where the physics neatly produces the higher order constants that have dimensions that don’t clash / cancel each other out. There are also interesting ideas of mirror line symmetry in music called negative harmony, Where 4ths (a specific musical relationship) can exist, but doesn’t exist in the harmonic series. (Anti matter / the mirror world that is super symmetry? ) But yeah, I’m taking the idea further than I probably should with that last idea, Never the less, a fun musing lol

You are amazing, thanks for the video, me and my son both loved it, subscribed.

11:02 This is the face I've had since you started, which tells me that I will need to watch this video over and over again just to get the basic gist.

Note: a conscious being could only measure the range of constants that allows a stable universe with emerging life, and then, consciousness. It's like the question "why are we so lucky to be on Earth, a planet perfect for life?" -> all life could think the same on their own planet, while life on not-so-perfect planets simply doesn't exist (or not long enough so that it can have language and philosophy), so the question isn't even asked there. It is **because** we measure them that these constants allow a stable universe, and because they allow a stable universe that we can measure them :P

Other countries: Uses physical constants to define Units. Americans: This is a foot. And well it's not the length of your foot but use it anyway. It's not complicated at all.

On those last eight constants- the first four are used to describe a slight asymmetry in how quarks decay into other flavors (e.g. strange to down) caused by the fact that the weak force violates CP symmetry. The latter four describe neutrino oscillations, which is a weird thing that neutrinos do where they cyclically change their identity between their three flavors as they travel through space. I don't think it's necessarily accurate to say that it involves the Higgs field because we don't actually know if that's the cause of neutrino mass.

11:00 that was a GREAT dramatic pause

8:23 yes, that number is 42

Dimensional analysis is still very underrated despite being incredibly powerful.

Awesome video, keep the work up !!!!

Fascinating stuff. Thanks!

C = 2πr [length] = π[length] _Well boys, we did it. The 27th dimensional constant, the curvature of space._

They have those values because one day god heard Einstein and he said "Oh yeah, where's my dice."

Thank you very much for these explanations. I especially appreciated the tables accompanying your comments.

Yeah i never understood why exactly the fine-structure constant was so important. But thanks to your video I just did! Thank you very very much :) And I will make the explanation of it in my book very similar to your video using your examples since that worked on me. You got a subscription from me now.

for the fundamental alpha, can't you just multiply each side by 4pi, and still get a dimensionless constant that is invariant but not equal to 1/137 ?

Question: if we keep the candela unit that is based on human sensation only (light flux and not EM energy flux), why there are no other human senses based units in the SI? Like sound energy vs sensation based on the sensation at the max "efficiency" point (near 3 kHz)? The 1 of the dB log scale could be defined like the candela? What is different with light? Thanks a lot for this great vid!

Very nice video and explanation. Thanks.

This one video ... understand this, really understand this, and you are on your way to understand how things really work

9:44 The Fine Structure Constant is defined by the resolution of the system running the simulation which we inhabit...

the more I try to understand physics, the more confused I get

Excellent explanation. Had not seen it that way before.

It's really nice to see a video like this, because it refers to one of our most common problems in this World... What we experience as individuals has very little to do with, what we can agree upon, when it comes to interpretation of those experiences... ANY unit of measurement is a choice, made by ourselves - and the consequences of our choices become the foundation of future definitions... So any "new" definitions will most certainly be an "add-on" to the already existing pattern of choice... You don't come up with a mathematical formular, in-consistent with the prior rules of math - you use the existing pattern to descibe new ideas... And THAT's why math seems to be the "language of the Universe"... However sometimes our prior choices have had consequences, we didn't predict - because we didn't understand our own perspective... So far we've used a linear way of thinking - giving "c squared" a constant value, which doesn't make sense, since THAT offers NO solution to WHAT it is, restricting "Energy" into "mass"... Connecting the dots differently, "c squared" also can be interpreted as a "squared area" with the sidelength of "c" (the reach of our "vision")... THAT would give us, a 2D-map defining a "position" from where the "observation" is made - meaning: a "perspective"... Having a 2D-map rotating around a common point of reference (the "Northpole"), we also share the same "direction" in rotation (CW/CCW), giving us a shared "up/down" for our 3rd "dimension"... Connecting the 4 dots (Cardinalpoints) from THAT map differently, gives us the opportunity to translate our "2D-position" into "3D-volume"... A "tetrahedron" defines the most simple geometric structure we have, around which we can define a "sphere", around which center, we all can rotate, with enough "room" for all our individual "perspectives"... "Time" is a consequence of "rotation", which again requires something to "rotate" in relation to... Any measurement of "time" will have to take the "distance" to the center of rotation into consideration, while "observing"... Our common point of reference for "time" is NOT a "second", but a "day" (the distance between two "noons")... The top of a building is farther from the center of rotation, than it's foundation - thus "time-dilation"... Well, I'd better stop here - since your brains probably already are spinning out of control... ;-) But you can always ask for more... :-)

10:52 :DDD

Everything in universe is constant except my sleeping time range 😴😴😴

i'm from france and i would like to thank you very much for your work, i love you and your channel !

Fascinating and thought provoking. Thank you!

Lol the thumbnail

2:23 Varitasium: well actually.

Great vid! Might be interesting that the two dimensions 'mass' and 'length' are connected a second way as well which is by the COMPTON wave length which is reciprocal to mass.

Thank you! Greatly appreciated!! Blessings!