
Fine-Tuning Is a Problem in Physics - nyc111
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/04/05/fine-tuning-really-is-a-problem-in-physics/
======
platz
I agree that a fine balancing act of forces desires an explanation, but I
don't get why one parameter being very different order of magnitude is such an
issue.. it's like some silly aesthetic preference that all the
numbers/parmeters should be the same size because that would be 'nice'

~~~
jessriedel
A very large ratio between two parameters and a fine-tuned balancing of forces
are alternative ways of describing the same problem. The fact that you have
very different intuitions depending on how the problem is framed is part of
the reason these questions are so difficult and contentious.

------
sanxiyn
Fine tuning is an imaginary problem that does not exist. See
[http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2017/11/naturalness-is-
dead...](http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2017/11/naturalness-is-dead-long-
live.html) for example.

~~~
otefKISE
Saying something does no make it true, and what you write is likely less than
useful.

The link you give does not support your statement.

~~~
evanb
Naturalness is the criteria by which people criticize fine-tuned theories. I
agree that the comment would be better with a fuller explanation.

------
cromwellian
I think Lawrence Krauss would say the flat universe is evidence it was created
from nothing, as it is exactly what you would expect if the sum of everything
has to be zero.

~~~
DougMerritt
Mmmm... z = 0 = z = sqrt(x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - t^2)

Zero can kind of serve many masters.

~~~
JadeNB
> z = 0 = z = sqrt(x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - t^2)

I'm not sure what this is meant to signify, but surely you don't want the same
`z` on both sides of the last equality?

~~~
DougMerritt
right, typo, the left side is supposed to be a symbol for space-time interval,
not z again.

