Talk:Dirac large numbers hypothesis

message: 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)
thread_title:  Suggested correction 

message: 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 m_p/m_e should be m_p*m_e 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 G≈4.4*10^{-40} not G=10^{-40} and thus Gα1/t
--157.182.186.101 20:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The ratio is about 1836. 'Similarity' is a relative concept. Sorry for the five-year delay in responding. David Spector (talk) 20:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What units? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Interesting, Tdent, do you have a reference?  I think it would be worthy of including in the article. -LesPaul75talk 08:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

text: If it's a troll claim (one designed to create furor), a reference won't exist. David Spector (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not untested but disproved! 

message: I edited out this claim (in italics):
::The Large-Number Coincidence concerning pure numbers of order near 10^{40}, was solved in 2006 by Scott Funkhouser (Funkhouser 2006).  He found that the coincidence was, as predicted by Weyl, Eddington and Dirac, the result of implicit physical connections, thus validating the Large Numbers Hypothesis.  Funkhouser's resolution obviates the need for Dirac's suggestion concerning time-variation of G.  In 2008 Funkhouser introduced and resolved a new large-number coincidence involving pure numbers of order near 10^{121}.  If the two sets of large numbers are related, as expected from the Large Numbers Hypothesis, then the two coincidences would explain the value of the putative cosmological constant (Funkhouser 2008).
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)
thread_title:  Proof 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Larger article 

message: I think it's time to include some mention of Funkhouser's work, as follows:
:: "Funkhouser S.Funkhouser: A New Large Number  sees a new large numbers coincidence in the fact that a number like 10120 can be represented in a variety of ways and he suggests that mainstream physics might yet find a physical explanation for the LNH coincidences."
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)
thread_title:  Re-instating Funkhouser 

message: 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)
replies: text: Actually it isn't really a fringe view - the large number coincidences turn out to be typical of a universe that resembles a Hawking black hole. However, the cosmology associated with that kind of universe would certainly be different to the standard cosmology - for a start, there would be no big bang because there could be no singularity. Dirac's theory about a varying G isn't a necessary aspect of the coincidences. Dirac and Eddington both assumed that the coincidence must have some profound physical significance and the article does point out that their view is a minority view. But don't be surprised if those two giants turn out to have been more right than wrong. The present edit is mostly my own work, I thought it was an objective presentation of the case for and against. I'd be delighted if others took the article seriously enough to edit it further. Unfortunately the numbers are largely dismissed out of hand as a mere coincidence even by Wiki contributors, so nothing is done.Lucretius (talk) 04:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Probability of coincidence 

message: 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)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a forum for discussing personal theories - it's an encyclopaedia.  There are science forums on the web where people can discuss their theories. Almost nobody reads this talk page and you are wasting your time putting anything here. Lucretius (talk) 21:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promotional edits 

message: 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)
replies: text: Dirac's large-number and Eddington's large-number are 'ratio'; not 'numbers'; so, it should not matter whether they are written as based on 10, or 'e'. What is significant is their recurrence; and explanation for their recurrence.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.170.20.72 (talk) 16:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orders based on 10 dubious 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Why Wikipedia is not trusted  

message: 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)
replies: text: I've done some cleanup, but there are still too much painful listing of individual results in this section. We might get rid of the entire section? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 16:26, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Research papers in external links 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Include the list of numbers in the introduction 

message: 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)
thread_title: Deleted material from lead

message: 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)
thread_title:  Section on Mathematical Large Number Hypothesis 

message: Substituted at 13:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509071941/http://www.fdavidpeat.com/interviews/dirac.htm to http://www.fdavidpeat.com/interviews/dirac.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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. 
18. D. Valev, Evidence of Dirac large numbers hypothesis, Proceedings of the Romanian Academy - series A: Mathematics, Physics, Technical Sciences, Information Science, Vol. 20, Issue 4, 2019, pp. 361-368; https://acad.ro/sectii2002/proceedings/doc2019-4/06-Valev.pdf 
Jim Johnson (talk) 21:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested addition to last pharagraph 

message: 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.  1234qwer1234qwer4 15:37, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Dirac`s large numbers hypothesis" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]