this is a paper PUBLISHED IN NATURE by Paul Dirac claiming that some kind of relationship must exist between the mass of a proton (very small) and the mass of the universe (very large), among other things.
"[the ratios] are so enormous as to make one think that some entirely different type of explanation is needed for them."
Apparently the strength of gravity was proposed to be inversely proportional to the age of the universe.
I'm losing my mcfreakin mind
"According to current cosmological theories, the universe had a beginning about 2 x 10^9 [2 billion] years ago... If we express this time, 2 x 109 years, in units provided by the atomic constants, say the unit e^2/mc^3, we obtain a number about 10^39. This suggests that the above-mentioned large numbers are to be regarded, not as constants, but as simple functions of our present epoch. [emphasis mine. epoch = age of universe] We may
take it as a general principle that all large numbers of the order 10^39 , 10^78, etc. turning up in general physical theory are... just equal to t, t^2, etc. where t is the
present epoch"
this man won a nobel prize and he was out here 4 years later doing random numerology on the universe in FUCKING NATURE
i should state that i only found out about this because a visiting condensed matter physicist (read: person with a PhD in this field) specifically recommended this paper to me as enlightening information
"We see that the number of protons and neutrons in the universe must be increasing proportionally to t^2. Present-day physics, both theoretically and experimentally, provides no evidence in favour of such an increase"
IF THERE'S NO EVIDENCE THEN HOW DO WE SEE IT, PAUL