1 A toy model of the universe based on a large numbers hypothesis inspired by Edward Teller – towards a TOE centered on life phenomenon Andrei-Lucian Drăgoi MD Pediatric specialist and independent researcher in theoretical physics and fundamental biology (Bucharest, Romania) E-mail: dr.dragoi@yahoo.com Abstract In the last century, a small minority of physicists considered a hypothetical binary logarithmic connection between the large and the small constants of physics, which also implies a base-2 power law (Fürth, 1929; Eddington, 1938; Teller, 1948; Salam, 1970; Bastin, 1971; Sirag, 1980, 1983; Sanchez, Kotov and Bizouard, 2009, 2011, 2012; Kritov, 2013). In this article, I propose a toy model of the universe (TMU) that can offer a couple of potential valid updates for the Standard model (SM) of particle physics: the Minimum Speed hypothesis (MSH) based on the Special Relativity Theory, the main binary logarithm Teller hypothesis (mbl-TH) on the large numbers in physics, which is an alternative interpretation of the Dirac’s large numbers hypothesis (DLNH); the dimensional relativity hypothesis (DRH); the electrograviton model (EGM) of the hypothetical graviton based on mbl-TH and DRH; a multiple (quantum) G hypothesis (mGH) based on a quantum G series (Gs q ); a unified scalar function (F N ) for all the (running) coupling constants of the four fundamental fields/forces based on a unifying strong- electroweak-gravitational scaling factor (N a ); a cyclic closed universe hypothesis (CCUH); life as a fundamental (biophysical) field hypothesis (LFFH) based on a new generalized concept of fundamental biophysical field/force (FBF). This TMU was motivated and created from the author’s strong conviction that SM cannot evolve and become a “mature” TOE without fully explaining the existence of life forms (LFs). Keywords: Special Relativity Theory; fine structure constant; gravitational coupling constant; Teller’s large numbers hypothesis; Dirac’s large numbers hypothesis; Standard model of particle physics; a toy-model of the universe; life phenomenon I. INTRODUCTION In 1929, the German physicist R. Fürth proposed the adimensional constant 32 128 16 2  as a possible “connector” between the gravitational physics and quantum mechanics constants [1]. Arthur Eddington (1937) and Dirac (1937) have remarked the coincidence of the large adimensional numbers in physics which can be reformulated as: 1/2 40 / / 10 Gv H e a a R r N    ( . 1/ def a   137  is the inverse of the fine structure constant [FSC] at rest   2 . / 1 / 137 / def e e kq c    ; . 41 1/ 3.1 10 def Gv Gv a     is the inverse of a variant of the gravitational coupling constant [GCC]     . 41 / 1/ 3.1 10 / def Gv p e Gm m c     ; . 9 0 14.5 10 / def H R H light years c     is the Hubble radius of the observable universe [OU], which is a function of the Hubble constant   exp. 0 . 67.6 / / estim H km s Mpc  ;   . 2 2 / def e e e e r kq mc  15 2.8 10 m    is the classical radius of the electron at rest; exp. 80 . 10 estim N  is the approximate number of nucleons in OU which can be estimated by astrophysical methods) In 1938, Arthur Eddington proposed that the number of protons in the entire Universe should be exactly equal to: 256 79 136 2 1.57 10 N     ( N was later called the Eddington’s number Edd N ) and Eddington hypothesized that square root of Edd N should be close to Dirac’s big number (which he invoked in his large number hypothesis) such as 256 136 2 Edd N    128 136 2  39 3.97 10   . Later on, Eddington changed 136 to 137 (using the new experimental values of  [re]determined in his life time) and(re) insisted that  had to be precisely 1 / 137 , a fact which attracted irony at that time [2]. However, Eddington’s statement also implied the adimensional constant 128 2 , which wasn’t given proper attention for the next 10 years. (Kritov, 2013) [3] In 1948, Edward Teller proposed a possible logarithmic connection between  and   2 39 / 10 N Gm hc  of the form   1 2 ln / N Gm hc        .[4] In 1970, Abdul Salam also brought in attention a possible logarithmic connection between Gv  and  .[5] In 1971, Edward Bastin invoked the observation   . 2 / / def Gvv p a Gm c  , 38 1.7 10 estim   99% 127 2  and proposed the derivation of 1/ 137 a    from the exponent 127 by summing 127 with its series of digits, such as 127+(1+2+7)=137. [6] In 1980, Saul-Paul Sirag also proposed an alternative interpretation of the binary logarithmic relation between