The component constants of α = e^2&#x2F;4πεħc have dimensions, so depend on what units you use to measure them in.   Their combination comprising the electromagnetic fine structure constant is, however, dimensionless, and is satisfactorily explained.<p>The Anthropic Principle is usually invoked to explain why two very large dimensionless numbers, i.e. the inverse gravitational &quot;fine structure constant&quot; (which is assumed to be constant), and the age of the universe measured in atomic units (which increases with time), are both very close to 10^40.   It is suggested that, for intelligent life to evolve and measure them, the two numbers must be roughly equal, and other dimensionless numbers, such as the electromagnetic fine structure constant, must similarly have values within a narrow range.   And this in turn has led some people to believe it&#x27;s the deliberate action of a creator, or that there are numerous other universes whose constants have different values, and almost all are devoid of life.<p>Fine-tuned Universe: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Fine-tuned_Universe" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Fine-tuned_Universe</a><p>However, if we apply this Anthropic Principle to planetary orbits, we could conclude that planetary orbits are roughly circular because, if they were (for example) very long rectangles (or some other random shape), we wouldn&#x27;t be around to observe their shape.<p>Of course, no one believes that.   It is accepted that Celestial Mechanics, based on Newton&#x27;s Law of Gravity, (which can be derived from the more accurate General Theory of Relativity), adequately explains why planetary orbits are roughly circular.<p>An alternative explanation is that we simply haven&#x27;t worked out all the physical laws.   For example, the force of gravity could become weaker as the universe gets older or less dense (or, expressed in different units, gravity remains constant but elementary particles get lighter).   Dirac, and later a few others including myself, modified Einstein&#x27;s equations in an attempt to explain this coincidence.<p>Dirac large numbers hypothesis: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Dirac_large_numbers_hypothesis" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Dirac_large_numbers_hypothesis</a><p>Another argument against fine tuning is the Inverse gambler&#x27;s fallacy: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Inverse_gambler&#x27;s_fallacy" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Inverse_gambler&#x27;s_fallacy</a>