Re: Remarkable unity

From: Iain Strachan <>
Date: Sun Apr 17 2005 - 05:21:14 EDT


I'm assuming that this is a gentle wind-up ;-)

Surely your figure of 1.0 depends on arbitrarily chosen units as energy
density is not a dimensionless value, like Reynold's number or the Fine
structure constant. So this number could indeed be anything you like
dependent on the units, e.g. if the standard units of mass, length and time
happened to have been ounces, years and furlongs, then I doubt if it would
come to unity. Or if humans had ended up with twelve fingers insteas of ten,
them I'm guessing that the metric system would be based on base 12 and all
the units would have been different as well.

Unless you are claiming that God inspired the SI units system, then the only
"interesting" thing I can see about this is that the three quantities are
approximately equal, but how close are they in reality?

I'd also like to point out that 1 is not by convention nowadays regarded as
a prime number.

What do you think about this "interesting result"?

On 4/17/05, Jim Armstrong <> wrote:
> Vern, in a recent lecture by Dr. Rogier Windhorst, one of the
> astronomers who is involved in the acquisition and analysis of the
> Hubble Space Telescope images, he spoke briefly about a result I thought
> might be of interest to you. This result actually comes out of the
> Cosmic Background Radiation data analysis that ultimately yielded the
> universe age of 13.7 billion years. Three important density parameters
> were derived from the CBR data:
> 1. the total baryon energy density (the energy and material
> equivalents of the stuff we know about) .
> 2. the so-called dark energy that corresponds to stuff whose
> presence is clearly indicated, but about which we know virtually nothing
> as yet.
> 3. the energy associated with the exponential portion of the
> universe's expansion, the one that has to do with Einstein's "blunder"
> that proved to be more right than wrong.
> These three things encompass all we know to exist of have effect in the
> universe. Even though we do not know the nature of two of these, there
> is clear evidence of their reality.
> The surprising result is that when these three entities are summed, they
> add up to 1 0.02.
> This is a remarkable result for there is no analytical reason why this
> should be. The individual numbers could have turned out to be anything,
> but in reality they somehow are similar in magnitude, and somehow do add
> up to unity. They don't sum to decimal fraction, not 2, nor 10^6, but
> simple beautiful unity, the smallest positive integer, and the smallest
> prime, a number which uniquely divides itself and multiplies itself to
> produce itself as the result. Moreover, Dr. Windhorst said, if the
> value deviated from 1 even slightly, or even if the value varied
> slightly from 1 near the beginning, or today, or any time between, the
> universe would not be as we know it now.
> Given that, I would think this sort of astonishing "coincidence" would
> speak strongly to one with your perspectives.
> The "problem" is that it flows directly out of the data and computations
> that yield the 13.7 billion year age of the universe.
> Should this surprising result be viewed as an internal authentication of
> the validity of the earth age?
> Why not?
> Should I view this is possible legerdemain?
> JimA

There are 3 types of people in the world.
Those who can count and those who can't.
Received on Sun Apr 17 05:25:39 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Apr 17 2005 - 05:25:40 EDT