Fumfer Physics 40: Cosmic Ratios, Large Numbers, and the Information Structure of the Universe

In this exchange, Scott Douglas Jacobsen asks Rick Rosner about striking ratios in physics that appear across vastly different scales. Rosner points to large-number disparities, such as the enormous strength difference between electromagnetism and gravity at the particle level, and contrasts microscopic lengths with the scale of the observable universe. He cautions against misapplied figures, noting that some famous numbers belong to entirely different physical contexts. While no single cosmic object strikes him as anomalous, Rosner emphasizes unresolved questions about cosmic maturity, heavy-element origins, and the nature of time. He ultimately frames time as closely tied to information flow, arguing that our lack of a rigorous definition of information remains one of physics’ deepest gaps.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Are there any unusual symmetries that you notice in ratios among distinct, classified objects in the universe? One example we used previously was the electron–proton mass ratio. Are there other ratios that stand out in a way that is not as straightforward as a simple commutative math statement like one plus one equals two?

Rick Rosner: For instance, consider how vastly stronger electromagnetism is than gravity at the particle scale. For an electron and a proton, the electromagnetic force is roughly 10³⁶ times stronger than the gravitational force. Similar “large-number” magnitudes show up in other comparisons. For example, the proton’s Compton wavelength is about 1.3 × 10⁻¹⁵ meters. Compared to the diameter of the observable universe, on the order of 10²⁷ meters, the ratio is around 10⁴¹–10⁴², not 10⁸⁰. A figure near 10⁸⁰ is more commonly associated with estimates of the number of baryons in the observable universe, not with this length ratio.

When the universe is better understood, those ratios will still exist. Some arise directly from known physics; others may reflect deeper structure we do not yet understand.

Jacobsen: Is there one ratio or one object at cosmic scale that seems especially odd to you? For a long time, before results from the Large Hadron Collider, the Standard Model of particle physics was missing its final predicted particle: the Higgs boson. The Higgs was popularly dubbed the “God particle” in the media, a label aimed at broad public appeal rather than scientific accuracy.

The Higgs boson mattered because its discovery in 2012 confirmed the Higgs mechanism’s role in the Standard Model. The Higgs boson itself is not widely distributed in space; it is a short-lived particle created in high-energy collisions. What is pervasive in the theory is the Higgs field, not the particle.

In a similar way, are there other large-scale structures—superclusters, filaments, or large cosmic voids—that intrigue you? Excluding quantum vacuum energy, are there regions or structures that have held your attention over time?

Rosner: At the moment, nothing comes to mind. I am distracted this evening.

I do not know enough about the universe to confidently identify what might be anomalous. Nothing strikes me as inherently odd based on my current understanding. There are anomalies and open problems that do not fit neatly into the simplest Big Bang–based cosmological models, and we have talked about those extensively.

There may be objects that appear surprisingly mature for their era in cosmic history. There are also open questions about where heavy elements, such as gold, come from in the quantities we observe. We should talk about that article.

I sent you a piece that was poorly titled, suggesting that time might not be real. Time is real, and even those arguments typically concede that. The real issue is that in some formulations of fundamental physics, time does not appear in the usual way in the equations. The authors propose a relationship between time and information. That general direction is not wrong, although some of their conclusions are overstated.

Their general idea—that time is related primarily to an increase in information in the universe—is something I agree with. They propose a fairly elaborate mechanism in which information regulates the scale of space. I agree with the core idea, although I think they probably overcomplicate it.

The basic claim is that space—specifically the curvature of space—is determined by what happens to information as it flows through it. In very simple terms, the irreversibility we associate with the arrow of time has a great deal to do with the fact that almost every photon in the universe is a long-distance photon, traveling for billions of years across billions of light-years.

As those photons lose energy to the curvature of space, space itself relaxes, producing the effect we describe as an expanding universe. In that sense, the article reinforces a point I have made before: we still do not have a good handle on what information actually is.

We have intuitive definitions. Information is often described as the answer to a question, defined within a context. There is a sports game; before it is played, the outcome is unknown. When the game ends, the final score answers the question. The context is clear—it is a game.

When it comes to information in a cosmological or physical sense—what information is, how it behaves, and how it structures the universe—we do not yet have a rigorous definition. That understanding is still missing.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen is the publisher of In-Sight Publishing (ISBN: 978-1-0692343) and Editor-in-Chief of In-Sight: Interviews (ISSN: 2369-6885). He writes for The Good Men Project, International Policy Digest (ISSN: 2332–9416), The Humanist (Print: ISSN 0018-7399; Online: ISSN 2163-3576), Basic Income Earth Network (UK Registered Charity 1177066), A Further Inquiry, and other media. He is a member in good standing of numerous media organizations.