From John Davidson
It is always satisfying to see a resurgence of the idea that universal
constants are not constant
(This Week, 28 March, p 12). Practically everything
in nature goes in cycles, so why not the so-called constants of nature too?
Ideally, such values should fall naturally out of a complete theory
describing the Universe, rather than being shoehorned in after empirical
measurements made during the rather limited time we’ve been around. Along with
many others, I cannot help feeling that if we understood a great deal more about
the internal dynamics and organisation of vacuum energy, understood as something
of a primary “source”, that many apparent complexities would fall away from
physics, leaving a far simpler and more satisfying mathematical description of
the Universe.
Cambridge
