# So the laws of physics change, what would(n't) screw us over? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [August 16, 2009, 10:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-laws-of-physics-change-what-would-nt-screw-us-over/506614 "2009-08-16T10:00:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Jragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19b73/32.png) [@Jragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jragon)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2009, 10:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-laws-of-physics-change-what-would-nt-screw-us-over/506614/1 "2009-08-16T10:00:28Z")
Okay, using my super computer harvesting the vast power of 5 white dwarf stars in a Klemperer Rosette I hacked the universe and found the source code\*, who knew we could do that? Surprisingly, it’s in what appears to be Java and there a big list of fundamental constants at the top (and we were right so far!), all I have to do is recompile it and tomorrow at 0:42 (GMT) it will start running off the new constants. What changes would completely screw us over, what has a chance, what (and what magnitude) likely would have almost no effect at all? Would changing the speed of light by a bit do anything of significance? Would monkeying around with G cause all life to end? What about weakening or strengthening a few fundamental forces? I’m guessing the system is pretty sensitive, it may be easier to list what WOULDN’T have a drastic effect on (at best) life as we know it and (at worst) the whole universe, if so, feel free to start from that part instead of the heftier option. - Scenario shamelessly stolen from [qntm.org](http://qntm.org) ---
**Author:** ![si\_blakely](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d9b06d/32.png) [@si\_blakely](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/si_blakely)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2009, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-laws-of-physics-change-what-would-nt-screw-us-over/506614/2 "2009-08-16T15:05:24Z")
In _Just Six Numbers_, Martin Rees (a science journalist and astronomer) discusses the most important fundamental constants of our universe, and explains why those number are so important. And the consequences of those numbers changing would be such that in a different universe with different numbers, life (or anything) probably would not exist. The ratio of gravitational force to electromagnetic forces is a good starting point - too high, and you only get big stars. Too low, and you have small stars. You need both to form rocky planets with heavy elements, like earth. And the ratio difference is 1:10[sup]40[/sup]. Vary the ratio of nuclear strong force to electromagnetic force by 1:10[sup]16[/sup] and no stars at all will form. So don’t change the numbers, m’kay. Si ---
**Author:** ![Sapo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ec9cab/32.png) [@Sapo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sapo)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2009, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-laws-of-physics-change-what-would-nt-screw-us-over/506614/3 "2009-08-16T17:32:33Z")
Would changing Pi break anything? ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2009, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-laws-of-physics-change-what-would-nt-screw-us-over/506614/4 "2009-08-16T17:41:44Z")
> [@Jragon](#): > > I hacked the universe and found the source code\*, who knew we could do that? Surprisingly, it’s in what appears to be Java Nonsense, everyone knows it was written in Perl. [cite1](http://www.xkcd.com/224/), [cite2](http://www.xkcd.com/312/) ---
**Author:** ![si\_blakely](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d9b06d/32.png) [@si\_blakely](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/si_blakely)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2009, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-laws-of-physics-change-what-would-nt-screw-us-over/506614/5 "2009-08-16T20:35:52Z")
> [@Sapo](#): > > Would changing Pi break anything? Circles :smack: Si ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2009, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-laws-of-physics-change-what-would-nt-screw-us-over/506614/6 "2009-08-16T20:40:16Z")
> [@Sapo](#): > > Would changing Pi break anything? Well, it’s hard to even conceptualize what it would mean to change pi, purely mathematical constant that it is. It’s like asking “Would changing two break anything?”. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2009, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-laws-of-physics-change-what-would-nt-screw-us-over/506614/7 "2009-08-16T20:40:54Z")
> [@Sapo](#): > > Would changing Pi break anything? That might be okay. It just means that space would more curved locally. I imagine there are some locations with high gravity in our own universe where the value of pi differs from the norm … . ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2009, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-laws-of-physics-change-what-would-nt-screw-us-over/506614/8 "2009-08-16T20:46:20Z")
There’s no such thing as the value of pi at some particular location… pi is just a mathematical constant, not an empirically determined value. Even if you want to talk about “half the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its radius” in an empirical sense, this isn’t generally a value of a particular location, either; it could, in a curved universe, vary with the size of the circle you draw (indeed, such variance would be expected from curvature, approaching pi right on as the size got smaller) and not just the position of its center; it could even vary with the circle’s orientation. But, anyway, yeah, sure, it can be the case in a non-Euclidean space that some circles have a different circumference to radius ratio than others, but no one would say “pi for this circle is this, pi for that circle is that”. pi is pi, just as two is two. ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2009, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-laws-of-physics-change-what-would-nt-screw-us-over/506614/9 "2009-08-16T22:34:48Z")
> [@si\_blakely](#): > > The ratio of gravitational force to electromagnetic forces is a good starting point - too high, and you only get big stars. Too low, and you have small stars. You need both to form rocky planets with heavy elements, like earth. And the ratio difference is 1:10[sup]40[/sup]. Vary the ratio of nuclear strong force to electromagnetic force by 1:10[sup]16[/sup] and no stars at all will form. I’ve heard this before, but how would it influence current stars and planets? I ask, because other than the sun and the earth (and possibly the moon), we don’t really _need_ any other celestial body. At least not for the foreseeable future 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2009, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-laws-of-physics-change-what-would-nt-screw-us-over/506614/10 "2009-08-16T22:45:15Z")
> [@](#): > > Well, it’s hard to even conceptualize what it would mean to change pi, purely mathematical constant that it is. It’s like asking “Would changing two break anything?”. Yeah, that’s just ridiculous; the OP said it was Java. Everyone knows you can only change the value of 2 in FORTRAN. Back to the OP, though, I would argue that you inherently can’t change the value of what most people think of as fundamental constants, since it’d just amount to changing the definitions of your units. People sometimes talk about how different the world would be if c were 15 MPH, for instance, but it wouldn’t be different at all: A “change” in the value of c would just result in a corresponding change in the structure of metersticks and clocks such that we’d still measure it to be the same. The only things you can really meaningfully talk about changing are the dimensionless constants. Those are the things like the fine structure constant, which relates the charge of the electron, the electrostatic constant, and the quantum constant, or the mass ratio of the proton to the electron. And even there, many theorists suspect that they’re not all truly independent, that there should be some way of deriving some of those from the others. Off the top of my head, the dimensionless fundamental constants are: The charge of the electron (in terms of the coupling constant of the electrostatic force): This is equivalent to the fine-structure constant Thirteen masses (or rather, the ratios of the masses to the Planck mass) for the six lepton varieties, six quark varieties, and the Z boson The W-Z mixing angle, which can be combined with the mass of the Z to get the mass of the W, and I think can also be combined with the electrostatic coupling constant to get the weak coupling constant Three mixing angles to define the quark weak force mixing Three more mixing angles to define the neutrino mixing And probably some parameter to describe the strength of the color force, but since we don’t know what the functional form of the color force is, we can’t yet say how that parameter should be expressed. EDIT: And I just remembered, you’d also need some sort of parameter for the strength of the dark energy, and possibly for how it changes with time (if at all). ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2009, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-laws-of-physics-change-what-would-nt-screw-us-over/506614/11 "2009-08-17T01:02:41Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Three mixing angles to define the quark weak force mixing In addition to the three mixing angles, I believe the CKM matrix also has one phase angle that can’t be rotated away ([cite (pdf)](http://www.slac.stanford.edu/pubs/slacpubs/4750/slac-pub-4987.pdf)), and likewise for the neutrino mixing matrix. Nice list, though. Just to clarify for those following along, these are the dimensionless constants of the Standard Model of particle physics, including neutrino masses. More constants would presumably be required to describe physics beyond the standard model (e.g., masses of dark matter particles and whatnot), but there’s also the hope (as **Chronos** mentioned), that new relations may be discovered such that some of these fundamental constants aren’t _truly_ independent of each other. ---
**Author:** ![si\_blakely](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d9b06d/32.png) [@si\_blakely](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/si_blakely)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2009, 7:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-laws-of-physics-change-what-would-nt-screw-us-over/506614/12 "2009-08-17T07:30:04Z")
> [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > I’ve heard this before, but how would it influence current stars and planets? I ask, because other than the sun and the earth (and possibly the moon), we don’t really _need_ any other celestial body. At least not for the foreseeable future 🙂 I would expect that if the ratio of gravitational force to electromagnetic forces changed, either stars below some point would expand and maybe evaporate into gas nebula, or large stars would collapse and go nova/supernova/neutron/blackhole depending on mass. Either way, the sun’s habitable zone would shift somewhat, and earth could be in trouble. Although a very small change may not knacker us immediately. Si ---
**Author:** ![groman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/73ab20/32.png) [@groman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/groman)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2009, 11:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-laws-of-physics-change-what-would-nt-screw-us-over/506614/13 "2009-08-17T11:01:44Z")
Could you mess with planck’s constant enough for people to be able to noticeably diffract going through doorways? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![BlinkingDuck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/eada6e/32.png) [@BlinkingDuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlinkingDuck)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2009, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-laws-of-physics-change-what-would-nt-screw-us-over/506614/14 "2009-08-17T16:04:08Z")
At the risk of hijacking… If you could change any of these numbers…could you ‘improve’ the universe? Say make life more likely? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2009, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-laws-of-physics-change-what-would-nt-screw-us-over/506614/15 "2009-08-17T17:01:19Z")
The kicker to that is always “life as we know it”. Maybe it’s possible to construct something that could broadly be called “life” out of a completely different framework than atoms and molecules, and we’d realize that if the fundamental constants were just different enough in just the right way. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2009, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-laws-of-physics-change-what-would-nt-screw-us-over/506614/16 "2009-08-17T17:11:27Z")
Can I change the law of conservation of matter to make it possible for matter to be created out of some smaller mass? Or something to make more energy than was put into creating it? What would happen? Would we be able to travel faster than light? ---
**Author:** ![BlinkingDuck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/eada6e/32.png) [@BlinkingDuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlinkingDuck)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2009, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-laws-of-physics-change-what-would-nt-screw-us-over/506614/17 "2009-08-17T18:00:07Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > The kicker to that is always “life as we know it”. Maybe it’s possible to construct something that could broadly be called “life” out of a completely different framework than atoms and molecules, and we’d realize that if the fundamental constants were just different enough in just the right way. I was thinking more along the lines of stars lasting longer in main sequence…maybe not grow so much hotter as they age…or maybe carbon chains would be able to withstand greater variance in tempature and so could comfortable live in colder/hotter environments (that sort o’ stuff) ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2009, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-laws-of-physics-change-what-would-nt-screw-us-over/506614/18 "2009-08-17T18:41:02Z")
IMO as a mad (okay cranky) scientist… You could only change the gravitional constant overnight by only a tiny weeny tiny practically zero amount. Any significant and short term change would wreck all kinds of hell on the sun, the orbits of the planets and moons, and if nothing else create massive shockwaves in/on the earths crust that would make a massive asteroid impact look like a sneeze. You could probably change the gravitional constant a fair bit, but it would have to be done gradually over a geological time period… And this is just a change that doesnt have dire consequences in the immediate term, long term its still gonna bugger up how the universe runs probably.