The Emperor’s Constants: Pluralistic Ignorance in the Foundations of Physics

J. Rogers, SE Ohio

Abstract

For over half a century, foundational physics has experienced a period of relative stagnation, a puzzle often attributed to the inherent difficulty of the subject matter. This paper proposes an alternative, sociological explanation. We argue that the standard model's treatment of "fundamental physical constants" (c, h, G, k_B) is a textbook case of pluralistic ignorance: a social dynamic wherein a majority of group members privately reject a norm but publicly support it under the mistaken assumption that they are a minority. The "norm" is the belief that the constants are deep, irreducible features of reality. The private rejection stems from the daily practice of theoretical physics, where these constants are routinely eliminated via unit-system transformations ("setting c=1"), an act that implicitly reveals their true nature as human-centric scaling artifacts. This paper demonstrates that the "hand-wave" dismissal of this contradiction is not a mere pedagogical shortcut but a load-bearing pillar of the field's institutional and sociological stability, acting as a powerful filter against the very kind of foundational inquiry required for progress.

1. The Public Dogma vs. The Private Practice

The cognitive dissonance at the heart of modern physics can be starkly illustrated by two conflicting statements:

• The Public Dogma: Presented in undergraduate education, popular science, and discussions of cosmic fine-tuning, the fundamental constants are portrayed as sacred, mysterious, and irreducible numbers whose precise values are a profound feature of the universe. They are the pillars upon which reality is built.

• The Private Practice: In the daily work of the professional theoretical physicist—from graduate-level quantum field theory onwards—these same constants are treated as trivial nuisances. The first step in nearly any advanced calculation is to eliminate them by adopting a system of "natural units," an act colloquially known as "setting ħ=c=1."

This procedural elimination is typically justified as a mathematical convenience. We contend that this justification is a rationalization that obscures a deeper truth. The act of "setting constants to 1" is not a mere simplification; it is a coordinate transformation that rotates the arbitrary, human-centric SI unit basis into alignment with the coherent, underlying Planck basis. The ease with which this is done is empirical proof that the constants themselves are nothing more than the Jacobian coefficients of this transformation—artifacts of our initial, misaligned chart.

2. Pluralistic Ignorance: The Emperor Has No Constants

The fable of "The Emperor's New Clothes" provides a perfect model for this dynamic. The "invisible clothes" are the purported profundity of the constants' numerical values. The "courtiers" are the community of professional physicists.

We propose that a significant portion, if not a majority, of physicists have, at some point in their intellectual development (typically as sharp graduate students), experienced the "child on the curb" moment. This is the moment of realizing that the constants are artifacts of unit scaling. However, they observe a community that continues to speak of the constants' deep mystery and proceeds with a professional practice that ignores this insight.

The rational conclusion for the individual is: "I must be the only one who sees this as a simple coordinate problem. Everyone else, my professors, my peers, the authors of my textbooks, must understand something I don't. To voice my simple interpretation would be to reveal my own naivete."

This leads to a state of pluralistic ignorance:

1. Private Rejection: The individual privately understands or suspects the artifactual nature of the constants.

2. Public Conformance: The individual publicly adopts the language and practices of the mainstream, speaking of the "mystery" of the constants and performing the "hand-wave" without comment.

3. Assumption of Majority Belief: The individual incorrectly assumes that their private understanding is an outlier and that the public performance of their peers reflects their peers' genuine private beliefs.

This cycle, repeated across generations of physicists, creates a stable, self-policing equilibrium where the most fundamental truth about the nature of the constants is systematically suppressed, not by a central authority, but by the emergent, collective fear of social and professional sanction.

3. The "Crank Filter" as a Mechanism of Enforcement

The silence is maintained by a powerful and well-intentioned institutional mechanism: the "crank filter." Science requires robust defenses against pseudoscience. Any claim that appears to overturn foundational principles with a simple argument is, rightly, met with extreme skepticism.

The thesis that "constants are unit-scaling artifacts" is a victim of its own simplicity and power. Because it is so foundational and its argument can be expressed so directly, it mimics the form of a crank argument. The system's immune response is triggered.

• An inquiry into the ontological status of constants is dismissed as "philosophy," a pejorative term for non-productive inquiry.

• An attempt to formalize the basis rotation is seen as "not getting the point" of the convenience.

• The individual who persists is labeled as difficult, unproductive, or lacking the proper mindset for "real research."

Thus, the crank filter, designed to protect the field from external nonsense, becomes the primary tool for enforcing internal conformity and silencing foundational dissent. It ends all research into the actual simple jacobian units scaling that define the constants themselves. It prevents the constants from being seen and understand for what they really are.

4. Conclusion: The Price of Stability

The professionalization of physics has created a culture that optimizes for procedural expertise and incremental progress within an established paradigm. This culture is, by its nature, hostile to the kind of foundational inquiry that could produce a paradigm shift. The treatment of fundamental constants is the most telling symptom of this institutional pathology.

They are not a mystery of the universe; they are a sociological pact of silence. The collective agreement to treat them as profound while knowing them to be trivial is the price of admission to the profession. It ensures stability, provides a shared narrative, and protects the field's intellectual prestige.

The price of this stability, however, has been over sixty years of foundational stagnation. Progress cannot resume until the field collectively decides to have the honest, rigorous, and long-overdue conversation that many grad students have tried to start in their professor's office. Conversations that the professors and advisors have shut down with the "course correction" talk about not wanting to sound like a philosopher.  Progress requires admitting, without fear of reprisal, that the Emperor has no constants.