Talk:Fine-structure constant

Physics C‑class High‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives: 1, 2

Arithmetic approximations

I came across this paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/1009.1711 ("The fine structure constant and numerical alchemy") which has several arithmetic formulas as approximations of $\alpha$ , including one I've never seen before: $4\pi ^{3}+\pi ^{2}+\pi =137.036303...$ . I'm wondering if we should include a section on the "quest" for finding a formulaic approximation. The paper also discusses "numerical alchemy" and I think it contains a reasonable discussion of the basis for such a search. If there is consensus to include a section on this, I can take a stab at writing it. Vegard (talk) 19:29, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See Fine-structure constant#Numerological explanations. There's a million ways to get 1/137. There's no reason why those from that preprint are any more notable than any others. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:40, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is indeed the correct section for this topic. And what you are saying is true, but I feel like the article could use more examples to underline this point. As it stands, the article does not include a single example, which seems strange to me. Vegard (talk) 20:10, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vegard -- Physicists are only likely to take seriously an explanation for the value of the constant which is based on some physical theory. If a proposed "explanation" is based on pure abstract arithmetic with no relation to physics, then it will be considered mere numerology by many. AnonMoos (talk) 05:32, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and the section is not intended to provide such an "explanation", but illuminate the efforts that have been made towards it (whether in sound scientific method or not). These sorts of efforts are found all over physics; Planck's black-body radiation formula and in fact the Planck constant itself are the results of attempting to fit a formula to observational data. The early efforts to find formulas for the emission/absorption spectrum of hydrogen and other elements were similarly exercises in what I would call putting together numbers in the right way. The existing section already quotes many famous physicists who argued that the number might be derived in some way from other numbers, so I don't think it's unreasonable to expand the section to include concrete examples of proposals that have been made so far, even if none of them have physical interpretations. Vegard (talk) 07:41, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In my approach to unification, I have a theoretical derivation of the fine structure constant, mass ratios of elementary particles, and the CKM matrix parameters from first principles. You could have a look at this paper of mine: European Physical Journal Plus, 137, 664 (2022). This derivation is not numerology; instead it is hard core physics. The fine structure constant can be derived only after unifying the standard model of particle physics with gravitation.

Tejinder Singh 103.174.140.76 (talk) 17:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean this: https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.06614

I'm sorry, but this reads like crackpot theory to me. Vegard (talk) 12:43, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Calling this crackpot only means that you do not understand the physics involved. This work has been repeatedly presented at professional physics conferences. I am also currently coordinating an international seminar series on 'Octonions, standard model and unification'.

Kindly state your scientific objections, instead of using slurs such as 'crackpot'. Thank you. 103.174.140.76 (talk) 13:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You could also see the paper titled 'Gravitation, and quantum theory, as emergent phenomena' to understand the foundational background which leads to the said derivation of the fine structure constant.

The qualification'crackpot'should be reserved for the meaningless arithmetic approximations you quote. 103.174.140.76 (talk) 15:59, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked again and I apologize, you're right, I don't know enough about the physics involved to make a judgement. Vegard (talk) 21:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Much appreciated. 103.174.140.76 (talk) 10:16, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]