Hitchhiker's "42" Still Rules: Absurd New Theory Says Absurdly Large Number May Hold the Key to Universal Mysteries

The unimaginably large number 10^122, not the infamous 42 of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, keeps popping up in descriptions of the Universe according to a new theory. The huge difference between Douglas Adams and the author of the new theory, however, is that Adams knew that what he was writing was fiction.

If there was a Numerical Regulation Association, their slogan would be "Numbers don't make nonsense, people make nonsense".  And they'd campaign against things like Professor Funkhouser's cosmonumerology.  The Military College of South Carolina professor claims that the number 10^122 has some kind of vast cosmic significance, and to say that the arguments have a few holes would be to say that the Titanic now has a couple of damp spots.

 

RuFor one thing, two of the five ratios he claims equal 10^122 are 2.5 x 10^122 and 6 x 10^121, which the higher-level MENSA geniuses out there may recognise as different numbers.  Secondly, he states that it's amazing that this ratio pops out of existing physical constants, ignoring the fact that if you work hard enough you can get any number out of anything - and when you're at the point of using the holographic conjecture as applied to seven compact dimensions in a Friedmann universe, as he does in his papers, you're working very hard indeed.

He claims that the numbers are significant in some mysteriously undefined way.  Observations of seemingly odd quantities can indeed lead to breakthroughs - recording the length of time oil drops float in a varying electric field might sound very abstract, but once yielded one of our most important fundamental constants - but there's no such justification here.  The ratios are a pick-and-mix of whatever rammed-together figures worked, and the conclusions are undefined enough to make Nostradamus look like a precision-predicting machine.

While direct and vicious mockery of this numerological nonsense would be deserved, easy, and extremely enjoyable, it doesn't actually contribute much to scientific progress.  Instead I'd like to list five fundamental scientific errors in the presentation of this preposterousness, in the hopes the reader can avoid future flim-flammery.

1.  Assumption of helpful errors
In real science error is an undesired but understood annoyance that must be rigorously analysed and controlled.  In fake science errors are magical gremlins that are just waiting to come out and make everything okay!  Funkhouser answers the non-trivial point that many of his magic 10^122 ratios aren't actually 10^122 by saying they could be due to errors in our understanding of the numbers involved.  Because as we all know, clearing up an error always leads to the desired result - there's no way that the vague resemblance between the values presented is due to the errors, or that the accurate numbers are actually (gasp!) further apart.

2.  Claiming the alternatives are unlikely

Doubtless realising that he'll have to deal with the very valid "but this is just a load of ridiculous rubbish, isn't it?" question, Funkhouser attempts to head off the entire "Ridiculousness" argument by stating "For the same basic set of parameters to produce two large-number coincidence problems is essentially preposterous."  Take that, naysayers!  He's not stupid for stretching all bounds of reason and maths to tie together some nebulous numbers - you are! 

While this certainly buys the cosmological coincidence some time, as the attacker splutters incoherently in the same kind of brainlock you'd get if a serial killer accused his victims of bleeding all over his nice knife, it's no argument.  It's the academic equivalent of name-calling, insinuating that any other alternative is stupid without actually providing any evidence for the assertion.  And while this might be the scientific Godwin, you know who else supports their theories by saying everything else is too unlikely?  Intelligent Designers.

3.  Invalid Approximations
Large approximations are part and parcel of cosmological research - when you're simulating mind-bendingly huge items halfway across the universe based on incomplete, noisy data then getting within a factor of a hundred is a genuine success.  Astronomers have been celebrated for calculating values that were only out by a factor of ten.  That's accepted.  But when your ENTIRE HYPOTHESIS is "These numbers are amazingly the same!", you don't get to claim that being out by an order of magnitude is then negligible.  In most numerical circles (apart from Enron accountancy) when two things differ by a double-digit factor, they're actually different numbers.  And yes, I feel depressed by the fact I have to type that sentence out for a professor.

4.  Flawed assumptions

One of his not-exactly-10^122 figures is the number of possible arrangements of all the particles we think are in the universe - but some of his other arguments are based on dark matter and energy, whose entire point is that we don't know about all the particles in the universe.  People normally choose one opinion or the other, but Professor Funkhouser is unfettered by such limitations, combining both sides of the debate into a Mobius loop of self-falsifying conjecture to amaze and astound!

Oh, and he's previously published papers claiming 10^40 is a magic meganumber.  And papers claiming 10^122 is still the magic number, but for different reasons.  42, or even 10^42, hasn't been selected as a candidate but it can only be a matter of time.

Funkhouser is no classic crackpot - he's a lecturing professor with a PhD in ion fusion, and doubtless does useful work, but it's long past time someone took him aside and said "Listen Scott, we know you enjoy this number game but it's time to hang it up".  He uses heavy-duty physical formulae in his cosmonumerological papers, but using scalpels to cut up a newspaper for a ransom note doesn't make you a surgeon - it makes you a criminal misusing precision instruments for your own demented reasons.  Reading these equations in the Royal Society papers he's submitted is like watching bears riding unicycles in the circus - proud, powerful things forced to prance embarrassingly for someone's idea of amusement.

It's important to have a hobby, but maybe he should try a different one.  If my name was Professor Funkhouser I'd be a DJ.

Posted by Luke McKinney.

Related Galaxy posts:

"42": Hitchhiker's Guide Foreshadows Actual Weight of Universe!

Cosmic coincidence spotted http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080220/full/news.2008.610.html

Comments

[ShadyAcres]

those last two sentences are kind of a low blow, no? I enjoy reading your articles but please let the 'crackpots' work their magic. If I understood half of the equations you and the prof do I would have many outlandish theories as well. is that not half the fun?

Appreciate your hard work, thanks.

[Dave]

i think he's got to you - you might want to check your numbers! - where's #5? was it the 10^40 bit?

[Scott Funkhouser]

Luke, judging from your comments it would do you well to read the actual scientific paper I published in the Proceeding of the Royal Society:
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0611115
You will find that your criticisms are not well founded.

PS
I am a DJ of sorts. Check out my music at myspace.com/funkgrass

[Richard G.]

What an obnoxious and ill-informed essay by Luke McKinney!

Hey Luke, here is a challenge for you: If your criticisms are right then the you are more of an expert in cosmology than the leading scientists who reviewed and approved funkhouser's work for the royal society.

So, how about you publish your criticisms of funkhouser in a real journal. We'll be waiting.

Until then you are the crackpot making a bunch of allegations you can't back up with real science.

What a jerk.

[Rick. G.]

Luke wrote "One of his not-exactly-10^122 figures is the number of possible arrangements of all the particles we think are in the universe - but some of his other arguments are based on dark matter and energy, whose entire point is that we don't know about all the particles in the universe. People normally choose one opinion or the other, but Professor Funkhouser is unfettered by such limitations, combining both sides of the debate into a Mobius loop of self-falsifying conjecture to amaze and astound!"

The above is just one illustration of Luke's ignorance. The maximum number of ways of arranging all the particles in the universe is determined by the size of the universe, specifically the square of the radius.

Luke is a classic internet crackpot.

[Rick G.]

Luke wrote, "In most numerical circles (apart from Enron accountancy) when two things differ by a double-digit factor, they're actually different numbers. And yes, I feel depressed by the fact I have to type that sentence out for a professor."

Luke apparently wrote his idiotic little screed without reading even the abstract of funkhouser's paper. In the paper, funkhouser shows that the numbers (that Luke says are different) are related through real physics.

You should indeed be depressed, Luke, but not for the reasons you think.

[Rick. G.]

Luke wrote (Funkhouser attempts to head off the entire "Ridiculousness" argument by stating "For the same basic set of parameters to produce two large-number coincidence problems is essentially preposterous." ...While this certainly buys the cosmological coincidence some time, as the attacker splutters incoherently in the same kind of brainlock you'd get if a serial killer accused his victims of bleeding all over his nice knife, it's no argument. It's the academic equivalent of name-calling, insinuating that any other alternative is stupid without actually providing any evidence for the assertion. )

What a bunch of crackpot b.s. Luke, the issue of large number coincidences started with Weyl, dirac and eddington. Funkhouser only applied what is called the Large Numbers Hypothesis to the new set of large pure numbers. How is that name calling?

Luke McKinney: insulting, ignorant internet crackpot.

[Richard G.]

More idiocy from Luke MckInney: "[Funkhouser] claims that the numbers are significant in some mysteriously undefined way. "

Again, Luke didn't even read the paper. Funkhouser never made such a claim. However, Funkhouser did show that all of the numbers near 10^122 reduce to a number with real, concrete physical significance: the ratio c^5/(G*h*Lambda)
which is the maximum number of degrees of freedom in a universe with a cosmological constant.

Luke, what is your malfunction? Your essay makes you look like an obnoxious little jerk. Does daily galaxy pay for such unscientific, offensive, irresponsible BS?

[Rick G.]

More obnoxious, asinine BS from Mckinney:

"The huge difference between Douglas Adams and the author of the new theory, however, is that Adams knew that what he was writing was fiction."

DId Luke McKinney not know that funkhouser's work was published in the proceedings of the royal society (where I've read papers by hawking, dirac...)?

If Mckinney insists that funkhouser's work is fiction, then the standard model of cosmology, general relativity and the holographic conjecture must be fiction since funkhouser used only those physics to show the significance of the numbers near 10^122.

I have never read a more irresponsible piece of garbage than luke mckinney's essay here. It is a disgrace to the dailygalaxy that they would have such a schmendrick writing for them.

[Richard G.]

This is just unbelievable. Luke wrote "but there's no such justification here. The ratios are a pick-and-mix of whatever rammed-together figures worked, and the conclusions are undefined enough to make Nostradamus look like a precision-predicting machine."

Luke really should not be given a platform to write this crap. I had a look at funkhouser's paper and most of the numbers near 10^122 are physically meaningful terms taken from **other published papers**. Funkhouser did not come up with the numbers!

Luke Mckinney should go get a new hobby. He does not have the character or integrity to be a science writer.

[K. Cline]

This reminds me of a quote.

"Brilliant ideas always encounter violent opposition from mediocre science writers"

Or something like that.