Comment by vonneumannstan 3 days ago
The real answer is we don't know or otherwise some kind of anthropic argument, i.e. the weak force has the range it does becuase otherwise we wouldn't have this kind of universe with people in it pondering why the weak force is the way it is.
Seems generally unhelpful to say 'the weak force is short range because it's field is stiffer!' When you can then immediately say 'well why is the weak force's field stiffer?'
Not sure I get this because we have no deeper understanding using the example I gave.
I.e. The weak force is short range because it's field is stiffer -> the weak force's field is stiffer because it is more oblong -> the weak force's field is more oblong because it has more sparkles -> it has more sparkles because it ha slower mushiness -> it has more mushiness because ...etc.
We haven't gained anything in that sequence.
I don't think we can answer fundamental questions like this. The fine structure constant is the value it is because without that value we can't have a universe like this. Maybe in some multiverse system the physical laws and constants we know are fluid and can take different values in different universes but in our universe simply because of observation selection effects they can only be what they are.
Thw piano string produces a higer torque because it is shorter does not answer you why it is shorter or how waves travel exactly within it, but it sure as hell would be required knowledge to start researching beyond that first observation.
> The weak force is short range because it's field is stiffer.
May seem like a simple redirection that could go on forever, but we learned that fields can be stiffer, which probably wasn't all that clear. Now we can observe all other forces and look how their fields vary in terms of stiffness — a parameter we might not have thought about before. And by looking in those other places we might find a clue on how to shape an experiment that allows us to vary the stiffness. That could already have useful applications, but also lead to answering the question why some forces have stiffer fields than others.
In reality, little of what we understand in physics was predicted, because there are no underlying reasons to predict the universe works the way it does.
In reality, almost all of our math was retrodicted (the result of taking observation and creating math to fit it).
So, as you said, we're left with anthropic arguments or religious arguments.
For me, I've ended this song and dance by realizing the crazy math works because it was part of a plan.
The more you look at the math, the more you realize that:
1. We can only work from observation back to the math. There is no consistency to the math, except "these are the rules needed to make a stable, habitable universe."
2. Our current mathematical understanding is mostly approximations and idealizations. Every time we look at the universe at a deeper level, we find exceptions that we are fortunate exist, because they allow for a richer universe than our math suggested should exist. (Quantum mechanics is a good example. Things like quantum tunneling were not imagined 150 years ago, but it allows fusion to take place in the sun at far lower densities than should seem possible.)
So, I agree with you. I'm convinced the real answer will never be found in the math of physics, only in the realm of philosophy and religion.
Edit: I love science and I believe we should keep studying and asking how this all works. But, I feel we can make plenty of progress simply asking "how" it works and realize that at this point, "why" it works seems to be fully unanswerable by science.