![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
In the section "Dirac's interpretation of the large number coincidences" the article presents the value 10^40, and then says it is of the same order of magnitude as a formula which gives a value of 10^-40. It's basically the formula is the wrong formula and needs replacing (turning upside down). Andrewthomas10 ( talk) 09:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC) I've just made the change. Andrewthomas10 ( talk) 09:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
It seems very unfair to chalk this idea up to numerology, especially when it has a theoretical basis in Mach's principle. 137.78.78.184 ( talk · contribs) 15:42, 22 September 2006
What is meant by "Hence, taking ..., as units"? Does that mean you are assuming that the constant's are 1? Or just that the constants units are the units that are used in G? Also if you do the derivation it seems that should be but I am unwilling to make the change without the paper to back me up. Finally if you do take all of those constants to be 1 then ≈ not and thus α -- 157.182.186.101 20:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC) Adam
The mass of the electron an proton are similar? me=9.109*10-31 and mpr=1.672*10-27 which is 4 orders of magnitude difference. -- 157.182.186.101 19:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC) Adam
Unfortunately for lovers of funny old theories, this one has been falsified. If G really evolved proportional to time then stars could not form and burn in the early Universe. Observations of light reaching us from the early Universe show that stars were burning in a way consistent with G being unaltered. -- Tdent 23:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I edited out this claim (in italics):
I removed it because Funkhouser has not proved that the large numbers have any physical significance. He has extended the range of coincidences and (to my mind at least) he has provided additional circumstantial evidence that the numbers might have physical significance, but few people in the scientific mainstream would believe the numbers are anything more than a coincidence even in spite of Funkhouser's work. In other words, it's too soon to be making any claims on behalf of Funkhouser's work, excellent though it is. Whoever wrote this paragraph should write it again but with a more conservative approach. Lucretius ( talk) 05:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Dirac's hypothesis was his personal interpretation of the large number coincidences that have intrigued many theorists, including Weyl and Eddington. I think this Dirac article should be replaced by a broader article to allow for these other views. Lucretius ( talk) 05:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC) However, I will not be available to work on an enlarged section, nor even on this section, as I'm too busy with STUFF already. Lucretius ( talk) 22:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Lucretius' claims concerning my work are incorrect, and he should abstain from deleting claims that are taken directly from peer-reviewed, published work in leading journals unless other published work supports his edits. Lucretius claimed, "I removed it because Funkhouser has not proved that the large numbers have any physical significance." Apparently he has not bothered to read my publications, whose references I provided. There are a host of very tangible physical meanings associated with the large numbers of order near 1040 and of the numbers of the order 10121. For instance, there are roughly 1040 available bits of information allowed to a nucleon. The maximum number of bits of information allowed to the universe is of the order 10121. I would go on, but my articles in ProcRoySocA speak for themselves. Furthermore, I showed that the numbers of the order 1040 are in fact connected through standard physics. The coincidence is thus resolved. I did the same for the pure numbers of the order 10121. 206.74.147.131 ( talk) 15:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)scottfunkhouser
In private correspondence, I have pointed out to Lucretius that I simply copy-edited recent references to standardise the appearance of existing references. I did not insert these. In addition, I should also like to state that is is unfortunate that Scott has edited this article to the benefit of his own scientific reputation. This is not normally the case on Wikipedia. If Nottale's and Genreith's papers are germane to the ideas expressed, then these external links should be promoted to full references, and the text edited accordingly. I have not read these papers and do not claim to be expert in this scientific area - but I am concerned that the article should faithfully represent the history of this topic. Would the expression: "Funkhouser, building on earlier ideas by Nottale and Genreith, ..." be more appropriate here? Ian Cairns ( talk) 09:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi BenRG - thanks for the input here. You're right - Scott's work belongs more properly in a larger article about large number coincidences, not specifically about Dirac's hypothesis. I mentioned that in the previous section. I think he put it here because the larger article has yet to be created. You are right also in your last paragraph that the relations are very old - they are at least implicit in previous work by others and Scott seems merely to be rephrasing some things. The referees of his papers should not have let him use loaded terms like 'resolved' - because what does it mean? Does it mean Scott has found THE physical explanation or merely A physical explanation for the large numbers? If the former, he would deserve the gratitude of mankind; if the latter, what's new? Others have come up with their own physical explanations, including Dirac himself. Above all, Scott doesn't explain the electromagnetic/gravity ratio, so it's hard to understand why he thinks he deserves any special mention. Still, the publication of his papers by a prestigious journal is noteworthy as it could indicate a growing awareness in the scientific establishment that the large numbers could have real significance. For that reason alone, maybe his papers deserve mention, and that's how I tried to edit the article, but unfortunately he reverted to his own more portentous edit. Lucretius ( talk) 02:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
BenRG deleted claims that appear in two separate publications in the Proc Roy Soc A and called them false. If BenRG had a legitimate point, he would have the basis for a significant scientific publication, since the claims he deleted were reported by Nature. But, chances are that BenRG is really just an illustration of why Wiki is not accepted as a reliable reference since it allows hacks with no demonstrated expertise to delete content added by experts with first-hand knowledge.
It brings to mind a quote: "Great Ideas Often Receive Violent Opposition from Mediocre Minds ..."
Of course, "mediocre" is probably a generous characterization of BenRG —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottfunkhouser ( talk • contribs) 01:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Ben, illustrates well why Wiki is not to be trusted.
1. Ben claims that, since i did not relate the one large-pure number concerning electron, my assertion that I have shown relationships among the large-numbers is wrong. ben really should read my paper since I address that issue. It is simply the result of the fact that the fine structure constant is of the order the ratio of the mass of the electron to the mass of the proton. The pure numbers concerning the electron may be therefore ignored since their connections to the other pure numbers are trivial and non-problematic, as I clearly discuss in my published papers. So, it turns out that Ben does not know more than the reviewers and editors at ProcRoySocA.
2. Nottale and Genreith's did NOT introduce a large-number coincidence, which requires the identification of at least three or four physically significant terms of similar order. They did not do that. I introduced six. That is why I claim correctly that I introduced the LNC concerning numbers near 10^121. So, it turns out that Ben does not know more than the reviewers and editors at ProcRoySocA.
3. I thank Ben, however, for giving me a valuable education in why I or anybody else shouldn't waste time with Wiki. "Open source" really just devolves into "Ignorant source". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottfunkhouser ( talk • contribs) 15:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Scott, you have not yet responded to the observations and questions made by myself and BenRG in the previous section. Meanwhile here are are some more things you need to respond to:
I think it's time to include some mention of Funkhouser's work, as follows:
I think this puts everything in the right perspective. His work doesn't deserve star-billing in the article but it does deserve some mention since it has been published by The Royal Society and by Nature. Lucretius ( talk) 01:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I've also added a link to one of B.G.Sidharth's papers which includes a comprehensive explanation of 10120 in a Planckian LNH setting. I've only just discovered Sidharth's work, even though he has produced many papers on a LNH theme! It's like finding an island in the south Pacific - the island might be big but it's easy to miss in the vasteness of the ocean! Lucretius ( talk) 23:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Is there a method of calculating the probability that the documented coincidences would occur by chance without a deeper physical explanation? Currently the article (after the intro) almost seems to assume that there IS some deeper physical explanation, whereas in reality this is a fringe view. Eebster the Great ( talk) 03:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I deleted an edit by 'Hasmukh Khimjibhai Tank' that recorded the conclusions of a paper by 'Hasmukh Khimjibhai Tank' for the same reason that I previously deleted edits by a 'ScottFunkhouser' that promoted Scott Funkhouser's papers. It's wonderful that there are intelligent people around who take the large numbers seriously but Wikipedia is not an opportunity for promoting the work of any particular individual. Anyhow, if the papers are significant they'll get noticed within the scientific community and there is therefore no need to advertise them here. Lucretius ( talk) 22:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Dear Sir,Sole purpuse of sharing information that The recurrence of 'large number' has been explained in the proceedings of Indian National Science academy, part-A, volume63,No:(1997), pp.469-474, in a paper titled:"explanation for the 'Large Number' in astrophysics; and some insight into the nature of fundamental forces" is that: Indian Journals are not widely circulated, so Wikipedia will be helpful for interested scientists to read it. Science is for exiting discoveries; and their sharing, and mutual feedback is equally exiting by themselves.I have also written a letter to the Swedish Academy of Sciences that the huge sum of money of the Nobel Prize has converted colleagues in to compititors, and so you are looking at everythig in terms of promotional attempts. May I know, what are the other alternatives to bring an interesting development to notice of the interested colleagues? Self-praise is the ultimte frankness, only hipocrates get themselves praised through their companions. 14:45, 19 April 2009. Hasmukh Khimjibhai Tank ( talk) 09:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Read the Wikipedia guidelines on conflicts of Interest (and Conflict of interest while you are at it). Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Since the above paper is already published in a reputed peer-reviewed journal like Proceedings if INSA-A, and since the paper has drawn certain conclusions useful for further research, other readers can not be deprived of knowing about it by deleting it by someone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.99.11 ( talk) 09:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
There are thousands of published papers relevant to LNH and they can't all be cited here. The papers cited here are seminal papers that are are found in references of other papers. Lucretius ( talk) 23:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
THE purpuse of Wikipedia's discussion-page is to discuss science, whether a particular CONCEPT in the article is correct, or needs improvent; and what could be the correct approach...etc. Whereas this page is mostly discussing PERSONS. NEW ideas should be first proposed in the discussion-page, every participant's idea should be available for every one to read; opinions on them can be expressed, mostly pointing out the correct part and suggestig corrections on the in-correct parts; that is if I can not suggest a correct alternative then I should not criticise in-correct parts. And every participant should register first, giving his/her name,address..etc.Hasmukh Tank. If there are one thousand papers on a subject, Wikipedia's participants should sort out good points from them within a month. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.99.60 ( talk) 09:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Wrong, i am from brazil and i am reading this, many years after you start to delete peoples contributions, what is a deleterious behaviour, indeed, you are the vain person who want to get merit for a crap of wikipedia article, worse, an article that you keep impoverishing just because you cant stand before someone brighter than you, you are indeed a sinkhole for light. I will keep an eye on you for the rest of time... rdg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.27.12.81 ( talk) 03:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
The current article uses orders based on 10. However, it is extremely unlikely that any actual connections would have a causal or semi-causal (or correlated through an indirect causality) root based on 10. Instead 2 and e would be likely candidates. If we further add in that a reader with an insufficient background in science may have an equally insufficient awareness of the arbitrariness of 10 as the basis for our number system (and thus have "superstitious" associations with it), neat numbers like 40 * 10^20 can be misleading.
For these reasons, I suggest that the article is reformulated to counter this problem. 188.100.201.34 ( talk) 16:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Although it would be pointless for anybody but a qualified psychotherapist to respond to preceding profligate ravings, the present discourse highlights two salient points:
(1) There is a reason why the Proceedings of the Royal of Society published my papers on the large number coincidences: Their qualified editorial board and expert referees judged it to be appropriate.
(2) The content of Wikipedia, on the other hand, represents not the approval of world experts, but primarily the whim of the most zealous wikipidiots, who generally reek of jealousy and failure.
Dear Funkhouser, I have read your paper published in 2006; and also the papers by:(i)Sidhartha published in 2005,and(ii)Tank published in 1997. I could not find anything new in your paper which was not contained in those earlier papers and in Milgom's 1982 paper. Please read these papers and then re-think of your use of words jelousy and failure. Your paper can be considered as an re-confirmation of earlier authors' works; if you are sure that it is independent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.201.19.251 ( talk) 17:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC) 123.201.19.251 ( talk) 17:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, there are some arxiv research papers in the external links section which I think don't really belong there. It is my opinion that (with the exception of review articles) if any research papers by current authors are relevant enough in the context of improving understanding of the large numbers hypothesis then they should be cited in the "Later developments and interpretations" section. If they are not relevant enough to be cited in this section then I don't think they should be linked to. Thoughts? Polyamorph ( talk) 19:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
As it is, you pretty much have to read the entire article to find out which these numbers/ratios are (the 40 orders of magnitude link only shows the Eddington–Dirac number, which links back to this page). ComaVN ( talk) 12:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
The last couple of sentence in the lead were of very low quality, containing a mixture of incorrect, poorly sourced, and speculative material. There was a reference to a paper in the journal Cognition, which is obviously out of place in a physics article. There was also a claim that the LNH had "gained new impetus from failures in standard cosmology to account for anomalies such as the recent discovery that the universe might be expanding at an accelerated rate." This is total nonsense, and was supported by a reference to a preprint that does not appear to have been actually published. I've deleted this material from the lead.-- 76.169.116.244 ( talk) 12:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I understand virtually nothing in this section, in its present form. Should we keep it? Of course in mathematics there are many "large numbers", but if the coincidences could be derived from mathematics, this would mean that some form of the "Large Number Hypothesis" is actually correct, not wrong! Paolo Lipparini ( talk) 14:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
This entire section was just vague speculation/musing (written in poor English to boot), so I deleted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.116.202 ( talk) 16:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Dirac large numbers hypothesis/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
There is a vast and growing body of scientific literature dedicated to the large number hypothesis. The 'low importance' rating is therefore clearly somebody's POV (probably a string theorist who sees nothing overly mathematical in his own approach to physical issues). Lucretius ( talk) 05:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC) |
Last edited at 05:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 13:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Dirac large numbers hypothesis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Should the page be named "large numbers hypothesis", "large numbers coincidences" or "cosmological coincidences"? If I am recalling well, what the entry says is correct: a set of large number 'coincidences' that had intrigued other theorists of his time, so, while Dirac's contributions are actually fundamental, the page deals with a more general subject. Paolo Lipparini ( talk) 15:04, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Valev (2019) [18] found equation connecting cosmological parameters (for example density of the universe) and Plank units (for example Planck density). This ratio of densities, and other ratios (using four fundamental constants - speed of light in vacuum c, Newtonian constant of gravity G, reduced Planck constant ℏ, and Hubble constant H) computes to an exact number, 32.8 x 10120. This provides evidence of the Dirac large numbers hypothesis by connecting the macro-world and the micro-world. [1]
Jim Johnson ( talk) 21:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
References
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Dirac`s large numbers hypothesis and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 15#Dirac`s large numbers hypothesis until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
1234qwer
1234qwer
4
15:37, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
In the section "Dirac's interpretation of the large number coincidences" the article presents the value 10^40, and then says it is of the same order of magnitude as a formula which gives a value of 10^-40. It's basically the formula is the wrong formula and needs replacing (turning upside down). Andrewthomas10 ( talk) 09:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC) I've just made the change. Andrewthomas10 ( talk) 09:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
It seems very unfair to chalk this idea up to numerology, especially when it has a theoretical basis in Mach's principle. 137.78.78.184 ( talk · contribs) 15:42, 22 September 2006
What is meant by "Hence, taking ..., as units"? Does that mean you are assuming that the constant's are 1? Or just that the constants units are the units that are used in G? Also if you do the derivation it seems that should be but I am unwilling to make the change without the paper to back me up. Finally if you do take all of those constants to be 1 then ≈ not and thus α -- 157.182.186.101 20:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC) Adam
The mass of the electron an proton are similar? me=9.109*10-31 and mpr=1.672*10-27 which is 4 orders of magnitude difference. -- 157.182.186.101 19:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC) Adam
Unfortunately for lovers of funny old theories, this one has been falsified. If G really evolved proportional to time then stars could not form and burn in the early Universe. Observations of light reaching us from the early Universe show that stars were burning in a way consistent with G being unaltered. -- Tdent 23:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I edited out this claim (in italics):
I removed it because Funkhouser has not proved that the large numbers have any physical significance. He has extended the range of coincidences and (to my mind at least) he has provided additional circumstantial evidence that the numbers might have physical significance, but few people in the scientific mainstream would believe the numbers are anything more than a coincidence even in spite of Funkhouser's work. In other words, it's too soon to be making any claims on behalf of Funkhouser's work, excellent though it is. Whoever wrote this paragraph should write it again but with a more conservative approach. Lucretius ( talk) 05:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Dirac's hypothesis was his personal interpretation of the large number coincidences that have intrigued many theorists, including Weyl and Eddington. I think this Dirac article should be replaced by a broader article to allow for these other views. Lucretius ( talk) 05:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC) However, I will not be available to work on an enlarged section, nor even on this section, as I'm too busy with STUFF already. Lucretius ( talk) 22:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Lucretius' claims concerning my work are incorrect, and he should abstain from deleting claims that are taken directly from peer-reviewed, published work in leading journals unless other published work supports his edits. Lucretius claimed, "I removed it because Funkhouser has not proved that the large numbers have any physical significance." Apparently he has not bothered to read my publications, whose references I provided. There are a host of very tangible physical meanings associated with the large numbers of order near 1040 and of the numbers of the order 10121. For instance, there are roughly 1040 available bits of information allowed to a nucleon. The maximum number of bits of information allowed to the universe is of the order 10121. I would go on, but my articles in ProcRoySocA speak for themselves. Furthermore, I showed that the numbers of the order 1040 are in fact connected through standard physics. The coincidence is thus resolved. I did the same for the pure numbers of the order 10121. 206.74.147.131 ( talk) 15:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)scottfunkhouser
In private correspondence, I have pointed out to Lucretius that I simply copy-edited recent references to standardise the appearance of existing references. I did not insert these. In addition, I should also like to state that is is unfortunate that Scott has edited this article to the benefit of his own scientific reputation. This is not normally the case on Wikipedia. If Nottale's and Genreith's papers are germane to the ideas expressed, then these external links should be promoted to full references, and the text edited accordingly. I have not read these papers and do not claim to be expert in this scientific area - but I am concerned that the article should faithfully represent the history of this topic. Would the expression: "Funkhouser, building on earlier ideas by Nottale and Genreith, ..." be more appropriate here? Ian Cairns ( talk) 09:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi BenRG - thanks for the input here. You're right - Scott's work belongs more properly in a larger article about large number coincidences, not specifically about Dirac's hypothesis. I mentioned that in the previous section. I think he put it here because the larger article has yet to be created. You are right also in your last paragraph that the relations are very old - they are at least implicit in previous work by others and Scott seems merely to be rephrasing some things. The referees of his papers should not have let him use loaded terms like 'resolved' - because what does it mean? Does it mean Scott has found THE physical explanation or merely A physical explanation for the large numbers? If the former, he would deserve the gratitude of mankind; if the latter, what's new? Others have come up with their own physical explanations, including Dirac himself. Above all, Scott doesn't explain the electromagnetic/gravity ratio, so it's hard to understand why he thinks he deserves any special mention. Still, the publication of his papers by a prestigious journal is noteworthy as it could indicate a growing awareness in the scientific establishment that the large numbers could have real significance. For that reason alone, maybe his papers deserve mention, and that's how I tried to edit the article, but unfortunately he reverted to his own more portentous edit. Lucretius ( talk) 02:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
BenRG deleted claims that appear in two separate publications in the Proc Roy Soc A and called them false. If BenRG had a legitimate point, he would have the basis for a significant scientific publication, since the claims he deleted were reported by Nature. But, chances are that BenRG is really just an illustration of why Wiki is not accepted as a reliable reference since it allows hacks with no demonstrated expertise to delete content added by experts with first-hand knowledge.
It brings to mind a quote: "Great Ideas Often Receive Violent Opposition from Mediocre Minds ..."
Of course, "mediocre" is probably a generous characterization of BenRG —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottfunkhouser ( talk • contribs) 01:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Ben, illustrates well why Wiki is not to be trusted.
1. Ben claims that, since i did not relate the one large-pure number concerning electron, my assertion that I have shown relationships among the large-numbers is wrong. ben really should read my paper since I address that issue. It is simply the result of the fact that the fine structure constant is of the order the ratio of the mass of the electron to the mass of the proton. The pure numbers concerning the electron may be therefore ignored since their connections to the other pure numbers are trivial and non-problematic, as I clearly discuss in my published papers. So, it turns out that Ben does not know more than the reviewers and editors at ProcRoySocA.
2. Nottale and Genreith's did NOT introduce a large-number coincidence, which requires the identification of at least three or four physically significant terms of similar order. They did not do that. I introduced six. That is why I claim correctly that I introduced the LNC concerning numbers near 10^121. So, it turns out that Ben does not know more than the reviewers and editors at ProcRoySocA.
3. I thank Ben, however, for giving me a valuable education in why I or anybody else shouldn't waste time with Wiki. "Open source" really just devolves into "Ignorant source". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottfunkhouser ( talk • contribs) 15:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Scott, you have not yet responded to the observations and questions made by myself and BenRG in the previous section. Meanwhile here are are some more things you need to respond to:
I think it's time to include some mention of Funkhouser's work, as follows:
I think this puts everything in the right perspective. His work doesn't deserve star-billing in the article but it does deserve some mention since it has been published by The Royal Society and by Nature. Lucretius ( talk) 01:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I've also added a link to one of B.G.Sidharth's papers which includes a comprehensive explanation of 10120 in a Planckian LNH setting. I've only just discovered Sidharth's work, even though he has produced many papers on a LNH theme! It's like finding an island in the south Pacific - the island might be big but it's easy to miss in the vasteness of the ocean! Lucretius ( talk) 23:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Is there a method of calculating the probability that the documented coincidences would occur by chance without a deeper physical explanation? Currently the article (after the intro) almost seems to assume that there IS some deeper physical explanation, whereas in reality this is a fringe view. Eebster the Great ( talk) 03:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I deleted an edit by 'Hasmukh Khimjibhai Tank' that recorded the conclusions of a paper by 'Hasmukh Khimjibhai Tank' for the same reason that I previously deleted edits by a 'ScottFunkhouser' that promoted Scott Funkhouser's papers. It's wonderful that there are intelligent people around who take the large numbers seriously but Wikipedia is not an opportunity for promoting the work of any particular individual. Anyhow, if the papers are significant they'll get noticed within the scientific community and there is therefore no need to advertise them here. Lucretius ( talk) 22:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Dear Sir,Sole purpuse of sharing information that The recurrence of 'large number' has been explained in the proceedings of Indian National Science academy, part-A, volume63,No:(1997), pp.469-474, in a paper titled:"explanation for the 'Large Number' in astrophysics; and some insight into the nature of fundamental forces" is that: Indian Journals are not widely circulated, so Wikipedia will be helpful for interested scientists to read it. Science is for exiting discoveries; and their sharing, and mutual feedback is equally exiting by themselves.I have also written a letter to the Swedish Academy of Sciences that the huge sum of money of the Nobel Prize has converted colleagues in to compititors, and so you are looking at everythig in terms of promotional attempts. May I know, what are the other alternatives to bring an interesting development to notice of the interested colleagues? Self-praise is the ultimte frankness, only hipocrates get themselves praised through their companions. 14:45, 19 April 2009. Hasmukh Khimjibhai Tank ( talk) 09:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Read the Wikipedia guidelines on conflicts of Interest (and Conflict of interest while you are at it). Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Since the above paper is already published in a reputed peer-reviewed journal like Proceedings if INSA-A, and since the paper has drawn certain conclusions useful for further research, other readers can not be deprived of knowing about it by deleting it by someone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.99.11 ( talk) 09:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
There are thousands of published papers relevant to LNH and they can't all be cited here. The papers cited here are seminal papers that are are found in references of other papers. Lucretius ( talk) 23:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
THE purpuse of Wikipedia's discussion-page is to discuss science, whether a particular CONCEPT in the article is correct, or needs improvent; and what could be the correct approach...etc. Whereas this page is mostly discussing PERSONS. NEW ideas should be first proposed in the discussion-page, every participant's idea should be available for every one to read; opinions on them can be expressed, mostly pointing out the correct part and suggestig corrections on the in-correct parts; that is if I can not suggest a correct alternative then I should not criticise in-correct parts. And every participant should register first, giving his/her name,address..etc.Hasmukh Tank. If there are one thousand papers on a subject, Wikipedia's participants should sort out good points from them within a month. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.99.60 ( talk) 09:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Wrong, i am from brazil and i am reading this, many years after you start to delete peoples contributions, what is a deleterious behaviour, indeed, you are the vain person who want to get merit for a crap of wikipedia article, worse, an article that you keep impoverishing just because you cant stand before someone brighter than you, you are indeed a sinkhole for light. I will keep an eye on you for the rest of time... rdg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.27.12.81 ( talk) 03:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
The current article uses orders based on 10. However, it is extremely unlikely that any actual connections would have a causal or semi-causal (or correlated through an indirect causality) root based on 10. Instead 2 and e would be likely candidates. If we further add in that a reader with an insufficient background in science may have an equally insufficient awareness of the arbitrariness of 10 as the basis for our number system (and thus have "superstitious" associations with it), neat numbers like 40 * 10^20 can be misleading.
For these reasons, I suggest that the article is reformulated to counter this problem. 188.100.201.34 ( talk) 16:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Although it would be pointless for anybody but a qualified psychotherapist to respond to preceding profligate ravings, the present discourse highlights two salient points:
(1) There is a reason why the Proceedings of the Royal of Society published my papers on the large number coincidences: Their qualified editorial board and expert referees judged it to be appropriate.
(2) The content of Wikipedia, on the other hand, represents not the approval of world experts, but primarily the whim of the most zealous wikipidiots, who generally reek of jealousy and failure.
Dear Funkhouser, I have read your paper published in 2006; and also the papers by:(i)Sidhartha published in 2005,and(ii)Tank published in 1997. I could not find anything new in your paper which was not contained in those earlier papers and in Milgom's 1982 paper. Please read these papers and then re-think of your use of words jelousy and failure. Your paper can be considered as an re-confirmation of earlier authors' works; if you are sure that it is independent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.201.19.251 ( talk) 17:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC) 123.201.19.251 ( talk) 17:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, there are some arxiv research papers in the external links section which I think don't really belong there. It is my opinion that (with the exception of review articles) if any research papers by current authors are relevant enough in the context of improving understanding of the large numbers hypothesis then they should be cited in the "Later developments and interpretations" section. If they are not relevant enough to be cited in this section then I don't think they should be linked to. Thoughts? Polyamorph ( talk) 19:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
As it is, you pretty much have to read the entire article to find out which these numbers/ratios are (the 40 orders of magnitude link only shows the Eddington–Dirac number, which links back to this page). ComaVN ( talk) 12:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
The last couple of sentence in the lead were of very low quality, containing a mixture of incorrect, poorly sourced, and speculative material. There was a reference to a paper in the journal Cognition, which is obviously out of place in a physics article. There was also a claim that the LNH had "gained new impetus from failures in standard cosmology to account for anomalies such as the recent discovery that the universe might be expanding at an accelerated rate." This is total nonsense, and was supported by a reference to a preprint that does not appear to have been actually published. I've deleted this material from the lead.-- 76.169.116.244 ( talk) 12:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I understand virtually nothing in this section, in its present form. Should we keep it? Of course in mathematics there are many "large numbers", but if the coincidences could be derived from mathematics, this would mean that some form of the "Large Number Hypothesis" is actually correct, not wrong! Paolo Lipparini ( talk) 14:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
This entire section was just vague speculation/musing (written in poor English to boot), so I deleted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.116.202 ( talk) 16:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Dirac large numbers hypothesis/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
There is a vast and growing body of scientific literature dedicated to the large number hypothesis. The 'low importance' rating is therefore clearly somebody's POV (probably a string theorist who sees nothing overly mathematical in his own approach to physical issues). Lucretius ( talk) 05:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC) |
Last edited at 05:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 13:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Dirac large numbers hypothesis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Should the page be named "large numbers hypothesis", "large numbers coincidences" or "cosmological coincidences"? If I am recalling well, what the entry says is correct: a set of large number 'coincidences' that had intrigued other theorists of his time, so, while Dirac's contributions are actually fundamental, the page deals with a more general subject. Paolo Lipparini ( talk) 15:04, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Valev (2019) [18] found equation connecting cosmological parameters (for example density of the universe) and Plank units (for example Planck density). This ratio of densities, and other ratios (using four fundamental constants - speed of light in vacuum c, Newtonian constant of gravity G, reduced Planck constant ℏ, and Hubble constant H) computes to an exact number, 32.8 x 10120. This provides evidence of the Dirac large numbers hypothesis by connecting the macro-world and the micro-world. [1]
Jim Johnson ( talk) 21:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
References
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Dirac`s large numbers hypothesis and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 15#Dirac`s large numbers hypothesis until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
1234qwer
1234qwer
4
15:37, 15 October 2022 (UTC)