Talk:Fine-structure constant/Archive 2

Another physical aspect

The Schwinger effect: there can't be isolated point-like charged particles of more than 1/α (about 137) unit charges because an electric field that strong leads to pair creation of which one particle gets bound in the lowest possible energy state the other one escapes.

This can theoretically occur when shooting heavy nuclei at each other, creating temporary ultra-heavy cores (however, as nuclei aren't point-like but have a volume, it requires about 170 protons for the effect to occur) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.15.69.115 (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Unclear paragraph on non-notable result

I've removed the following paragraph, which was added repeatedly:

It was recently discovered another property of the fine structure constant: arrange special one-dimensional chaotic dynamics. ^[9], ^[10]

9. D.B. Volov, Specific behaviour of one chaotic dynamics near the fine-structure constant // arXiv:1205.6091v1.[http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.6091
10. D.B. Volov, The generalized Verhulst-Ricker-Plank dynamics and its relation to the fine-structure constant // Bulletin of Volga Region Transportation # 4 (28), 67 (2011). [1]

This is not only unclear, but in my opinion also thoroughly nonnotable. People have tried zillions of calculations to "explain" the numerical value of the fine-structure constant, and non-surprisingly some came out somewhere near 137 or its inverse. The result referred to does not stand out in any way among this fringe. No plausible connection grounded in any physics theory is offered for a connection between the dynamic system considered and electromagnetic interaction. The anonymous IP adding this geolocates to the same city in Russia where Mr. Volov's institute is located, so a COI is plausible.  --Lambiam 13:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Yea! I was about to check this out, but hadn't gotten around to it. Thanks Lambian. 70.109.176.173 (talk) 19:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Eddington's Wish...

1/137 is actually quite a special number- expressed in decimal notation it shows palindromic repeats, and in fact the largest length palindromic repeats (6 units) for at least 50,000 whole integer denominators, when both numerator and denominator are whole integers. Thus it is very curious that the FSC is so close to it. Also makes one wonder whether deviation FROM this fraction has other causes, which distort what it *should* be ideally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.117.192 (talk) 13:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Numerology

The best experimentally determined value is 137.035999084(51). The value below lies well within the uncertainty of that.

$137.0359990777649=137+{\frac {ln\,ln\,137^{137^{137}}}{137^{2}-1}}$

Note that

$ln\,ln\,137^{137^{137}}=ln\,(137^{137}\,ln\,137)=ln\,137^{137}\,+\,ln\,ln\,137=137\,ln\,137\,+\,ln\,ln\,137=675.6306915$

--Vibritannia (talk) 11:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Consider also: 4π³+π²+π = 137.036303775878 less accurate but simpler.

The Fine Structure Constant is likely governed by Primitive Pythagorean Triples that form n^2 Multiples by: Brian Nelson

Integer based derivations of Einstein's relativistic mass-energy equation and deBroglie's wave equation suggest the Compton and deBroglie wavelengths are governed by a Pythagorean triple whose multiples provide orbital stability by maximizing the overlap between the interlaced waves. A systematic search across the uncertainty range of the Fine Structure Constant reciprocal (137.035999084(51)) results in a single primitive Pythagorean Triple that forms 9X the number of n^2 multiples above any other primitive triple suggesting it is the exact value of this constant:

      1/∝= 137.035999065849 

see more at www.quantumpulse.com

Brian d nelson (talk) 18:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Note that this article talk page is for discussions about the article, not about the subject. See wp:TPG. - DVdm (talk) 18:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Article needs update

The article needs updating with the latest experimental-QED determination of the fine structure constant:

Aoyama, T., Hayakawa, M., Kinoshita, T. & Nio, M. "Tenth-Order QED Contribution to the Electron g-2 and an Improved Value of the Fine Structure Constant," Physical Review Letters, 109, 111807 (2012) arXiv:1205.5368v2. "This Letter presents the complete QED contribution to the electron g-2 up to the tenth order. With the help of the automatic code generator, we evaluate all 12 672 diagrams of the tenth-order diagrams and obtain ... The improved value of the fine-structure constant 1/α = 137.035 999 173 (35) [0.25 ppb] is also derived from the theory and measurement of ae." Alphatronic (talk) 16:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

FSC as a mass ratio

The ratio of the anti-matter pair electron-positron to the charged pi-meson mass produces a number which is not terribly far off from the fine structure constant: 2m_e/pi^+- = 0.00732247. The electron mass is well determined precisely and accurately by 2010 Codata (it is very good) from the NIST while the charged pion mass determination is from the Particle Data Group (PDG). If the PDG value is not as good as it should be maybe a future determination will bring it in line with the FSC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.29.4.150 (talk) 18:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

New addition

I am somewhat concerned about a [significant addition to the article 2 days ago] by IP 78.54.103.221 . It appears to promote and reference from:

G. Poelz, retired from Hamburg University, Institute of Exp. Physics, Hamburg, Germany

and draws from no other references. The IP is also from Hamburg. I don't have a problem specifically with the content, because I cannot evaluate the quality or veracity of the content. So I am leaving it alone and leaving it to other people do evaluate. 70.109.183.89 (talk) 15:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Can be removed per no secondary sources for it. - DVdm (talk) 17:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

"Unity" formula for the Fine Structure constant reciprocal

With relative discrepancy 6.5×10⁻⁸ in respect to the Fine Structure constant recommended value
next equality is observed

$cos(\alpha ^{-1})=e^{-1}$

Mikhail Vlasov
Korablino (talk) 00:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Oooooooooh, nice one! If only it was a bit closer (gives 137.03600793921456). --Vibritannia (talk) 13:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Anthropic explanation

Checking the article (http://dx.doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1749-6632.2001.tb02133.x), I see :

"If, instead, we consider the allowed variations in the strength of the strong nuclear force, αs, and α then roughly αs < 0.3α^1/2 is required for the stability of biologically useful elements like carbon. If we increase αs by 4 percent, there is disaster because the helium-2 isotope can exist (it just fails to be bound by about 70 KeV in practice) and allows very fast direct proton + proton → helium-2 fusion. Stars would rapidly exhaust their fuel and collapse to degenerate states or black holes. In contrast, if αs were decreased by about 10 percent, then the deuterium nucleus would cease to be bound, and the nuclear astrophysical pathways to the build up of biological elements would be blocked."

in the text I think there is a confusion between alpha and alpha_s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.156.174.225 (talk) 17:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Shape of Spinning Electron: how to extract Fine Structure Constant from Proton-to-Electron Mass Ratio

Geometrical model of spinning electron:
n-sided polygon with rounded corners.
Unit of length corresponds to diameter of proton.

Article describes a contour of spinning electron and derives a value of the Fine Structure constant from Proton-to-Electron mass ratio on basis of the facts that both electron and proton have equal spin angular momentum while proton is heavier than electron more than 1836 times.
It appears from suggested model that the path of rotating electron is shaped as hardware nut (regular polygon) with 137 sides and rounded corners.
Numerical outcome of the model: electron’s spin circumference is 137.035999118… times longer than diameter of spinning proton. It is proven that this ratio is physically the Fine Structure constant. The result is located right on the upper boundary of the CODATA Fine Structure constant reciprocal recommended value range.
Key formula for the number of sides n in polygon formed by electron’s spinning body:

$n=rounduptoprime{(\pi \cdot {\sqrt {\frac {m_{p}}{m_{e}}}})}=137$

where                                       $m_{p}/m_{e}$ - Proton-to-electron mass ratio.

Solution for the Fine Structure constant reciprocal:

$\alpha ^{-1}=n\cdot {\frac {Sin({\frac {\pi }{n}}-\psi )+\psi }{Sin({\frac {\pi }{n}})\cdot Cos({\frac {\pi }{n}}-\psi )}}=137.0359991176...$

where

$n=137$ - number of sides in polygon formed by electron’s spinning body;

$\psi ={\frac {\pi }{(3\cdot 137)^{2}}}$ - angle of polygon corner rounding.

Mikhail Vlasov
Korablino (talk) 19:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Dispute over value of alpha in "Is the fine-structure constant actually constant?"

I edited the value to be 1/137, consistent with the rest of the article and the quoted link but my edit was reversed to 1/128 by Alphatronic.Yehoshua2 (talk) 22:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The source says 1/137 with a marker to the footnote "At Q² = 0. At Q² ≈ m²_W the value is ∼ 1/128". - DVdm (talk) 06:44, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

But 1/137 seems to be more fundamental, as it is the main listed value; anyway it should be 1/137 to maintain consistency throughout the article.Yehoshua2 (talk) 08:28, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Why not follow the source and take both values with footnote and all? - DVdm (talk) 09:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

If someone understands what the footnote refers to, then we could add it; I think in the measurement segment, rather than the constancy section.Yehoshua2 (talk) 07:13, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

re: Anthropic Principle datum

while my request for clarification (or the clarification itself) may not be as intensive as some of the others here, i would still like to know in which direction this "4%" applies. is it an increase of 4% or a decrease? or both? alpha being >.1 is certainly a much larger change than a "measly" 4%. in any case, please differentiate this value, thanks. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke J Pickett (talk • contribs) 23:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Stephen L. Adler's short classic paper on the fine structure constant

Adler's short paper on the fine structure constant should be mentioned as well 'Theories of the Fine Structure Constant a' in any biblography on the subject. FERMILAB-PUB-72/059-T http://lss.fnal.gov/archive/1972/pub/Pub-72-059-T.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.29.4.150 (talk) 19:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Sure, why not? It's not hard to do, 167. Even for a lowly IP editor. 71.169.179.45 (talk) 01:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Theory of fine-structure constant was published already

I would like to note that the use of the term "Numerology" in this article does not correspond to its definition given in the Wikipedia itself. Such a common contradiction (to a lesser extent in the identical German and Russian articles) creates a negative attitude for the fine structure constant in this article. At the same time the "Coupling constant" article gives only neutral information about the fine structure constant (as well as other constants). I may say about each paragraph in «Numerological explanations» the same what Lambian said in «Unclear paragraph on non-notable result». Eventually this article must be combined with the "Coupling constant" article because at least first three of them are: α^(0*0), α^(1*1), α^(2*2) (next are α^(3*3), α^(4*4), α^(5*5), ... but accuracy of calculations must be as twice as more than 64 bits).Алры (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Natural Units

It would be helpful to note that the natural units mentioned are specifically Lorentz–Heaviside units. The term "natural units" needlessly ambiguous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pulu (talk • contribs) 21:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Is the constant constant?

The "Is the fine-structure constant actually constant?" section strikes me as unencyclopedic. It reads like a bunch of inconclusive experimental findings, with no reliable secondary source to reach a conclusion. When you add in the Nobel-bait of discovering a variation in the constant .... I propose deleting the section entirely. It would also improve the article to work the content of the "Numerology" and "Quotes" into the meat of the article—Finell

It seems to be something which a number of reputable physicists have speculated about, and which would be extremely important if true, but which can't be conclusively verified or refuted in the current state of knowledge. Sometimes that's just the way that science in a field is... (Probably [1] would be a secondary source; can't fully view it from here.) AnonMoos (talk) 13:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Physical representation of alpha

I'm aware of a physical representation of $\alpha$ derived from purely classical means. A spherical resonator cavity in free space with radius $\alpha a_{0}$, where $a_{0}$ is the Bohr radius, will have free space inductance $L$ and capacitance $C$ such that its resonant frequency $\omega$ exactly matches, to 8+ significant figures, the frequency of a photon with energy equal to the electron rest mass, $m_{0}$. To see this, note that $\omega ={1 \over {\sqrt {LC}}}={1 \over {\sqrt {\alpha a_{0}\mu _{0}\alpha a_{0}\epsilon _{0}}}}$ = 7.7634408 x 10E20 rad/s. This frequency corresponds to a photon of energy 510998.896 eV, which is also $m_{0}$. Has this ever been described? The implication to particle production is evident. This describes a necessary condition for a photon with energy of the electron rest mass to experience infinite vacuum impedance. 66.87.76.91 (talk) 12:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Fine Structure Constant depends on Proton-to-Electron Mass Ratio

All measurements of the Fine Structure constant are based on a behavior of electrons in atoms. Hence Fine Structure constant should depend on Proton-to-Electron mass ratio. The link can be described by following formulae

$\alpha ^{-1}={\sqrt {137^{2}+(\pi -atan({\frac {4}{3\cdot \mu }}))^{2}}}=137.035999074536255(7)$

where                               $\mu$ - Proton-to-electron mass ratio.

Deviation for produced value for the Fine Structure constant reciprocal is 10^-14.

It is determined exclusively by uncertainty of measurements of the Proton-to-electron mass ratio.

Simplified expression is also practical for the constant's value calculation

$\alpha ^{-1}={{\sqrt {137^{2}+\pi ^{2}}}\cdot (1-{\frac {4\pi }{3}}\cdot {\frac {1}{(137^{2}+\pi ^{2})\cdot \mu }})}=137.035999073...$

Mikhail Vlasov

Korablino (talk) 21:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

You need a source for that. It looks like OR, and hardly that original.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

electromagnetic coupling constant g

In the article it says It is related to the electromagnetic coupling constant g whereas following the link it is then only called gauge coupling parameter, g. In the German article the "fine-structure constant" is equivalent to and just another name for the "electromagnetic coupling constant". I guess it is a mistake in this article. Ra-raisch (talk) 19:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

AFAIK, the term "electromagnetic coupling constant" is often used for α, but this is unfortunately a misnomer. My memory may be failing me, but I think that Feynman used the term to refer to e, the elementary charge. The latter use is in keeping with the use of the term "coupling constant". The use of g as a symbol is probably just a way of changing the units of e. The lead is definitely not satisfactory in this regard at the moment. I'd like to see us not using the term "electromagnetic coupling constant" for α (because it is a bad use), but rather just mention that this is often what it is used to mean, preferably not even in the lead. α is proportional to the square of what I'm here calling Feynman's electromagnetic coupling constant. —Quondum 23:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Removed the 1/128 reference: here's why

There was previously a reference to a sheet of physical constants, provided by NIST. It included a reference to a high value of alpha at high energies, and this was mentioned in the article (~1/128).
Although this is not made clear in the NIST reference, this "alpha" is not the same as the fine-structure constant referred to in this article, which really is a constant that relates precisely to other physical constants in a known and simple way.
The alpha mentioned in the NIST reference is alpha_sub_2 = alpha /(sin theta_w), which is a variable.
Check out A Modern Introduction to Particle Physics by By Fayyazuddin, Riazuddin for more details.
In any case, including this reference will mislead the reader. Under all circumstances, the fine-structure constant is fixed, as defined at the start of this article. Ordinary Person (talk) 12:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Relativistic mass ratios of neutron, proton, and electron give exact value for fine structure constant

The following equation, proposed by Michael John Sarnowski, in "Relativistic Equation for the Fine-Structure Constant Using the Polynested Spinning Spheres Theory of the Cuboctahedron"[2] for the fine structure constant.

Equation 2.1 fine structure constant= ::$\sigma =T\pi ^{3}{\frac {Me}{4Mn}}$

Where ::$T^{2}$ is proposed to be as follows

Equation 2.2 ::$T^{2}=({\frac {1}{{\sqrt {1-({\frac {\pi Me}{3*3Mn}}}})^{2}}}{\frac {Mp-Me}{Mn}})^{2}+({\frac {1}{{\sqrt {1-({\frac {\pi Me}{3*3Mn}}}})^{2}}}Mn/Mn)^{2}+({\frac {1}{{\sqrt {1-({\frac {\pi Me}{3*3Mn}}}})^{2}}}Mn/Mn)^{2}$

Where Me=Mass of the Electron, Mp=Mass of Proton, and Mn=Mass of Neutron, and T is defined above.

From equation 2.1 and using the 2014 Codata values we obtain

$\sigma ^{-1}=137.035999146$ which compares to the 2014 inverse fine structure constant of ::$\sigma ^{-1}=137.035999139(31)$. These values are well within one sigma of each other.[3][4]

Michael Sarnowski (talk) 19:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

1. I am fully unconvinced that there is anything outside of numerology going on here.

2. It's original research anyway. Can't put that in Wikipedia. 70.109.187.202 (talk) 03:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)