🚀 go-pugleaf

sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
> What makes the speed of light any more fundamental than the charge
> of an electron, or the electroweak mixing angle?

Forgive me for jumping into a thread I haven't followed, but the obvious
answer is that the speed of light has *dimensions*, and thus is determined
by (or *defines*) the units you work in.  Once you set up (Planck) units
where c=G=hbar=1, the remaining physical constants (the dimensionless ones)
are the interesting ones.

For example, m(electron)/M(Planck) = 10^-22 might be the product of (a)
a SUSY-or technicolor-breaking scale, which in turn comes from the
logarithmic running of some coupling constant, and (b) some Yukawa
coupling.

> And even if it's more fundamental, what prevents you, in principle,
> from developing a theory which predicts the speed of light?

That theory would have to predict the length of a certain bar in Paris and
the rotational rate of a certain small (but nice) planet.

--
Staccato signals of constant information,  |  David Brahm, physicist
A loose affiliation of millionaires and    |  (brahm@cco.caltech.edu)
  billionaires and Baby ...                |---- Carpe Post Meridiem! --
These are the days of miracle and wonder,  | Disclaimer:  I only speak
And don't cry, Baby, don't cry, don't cry. | for the sensible folks.