Take the 2-minute tour ×
Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I see there are different accounts on the number of physical constants. Is there any theory predicting what the number of physical constants is? I agree there should be at least one but I have no justification why there should be more than one constant.

share|improve this question

put on hold as primarily opinion-based by JamalS, Jim, Danu, John Rennie, Brandon Enright 19 hours ago

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

"Should"?!? Really? Seems like philosophy to me. –  dmckee Jan 21 '13 at 0:51
Higgs had a theory in which there was an unobserved particle and which was highly consistent with observations. –  dmckee Jan 21 '13 at 1:04
You can always encode n constants in one constant by eg. interleaving the digits. –  user1708 Jan 21 '13 at 1:14
Generically adding in more parameters allows you to more easily fit the data. Generally this is considered a bad thing because of overfitting en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overfitting. An ideal theory would be one with no free parameters that nevertheless matched all observations. –  Michael Brown Jan 21 '13 at 2:15
@Nick: What do you define as a physical constant? Or what I mean to ask is, how do you define and then count the set of all physical constants? For instance, do you count $h$ and $\hbar$ as separate constants? If you include $c$, $\hbar$, and $G$ as physical constants, then do you also include the Planck length, time, and mass? Without a clear definition of what constitutes an independent physical constant, this question is not really answerable. –  David Z Jan 21 '13 at 3:56