Talk:Fine-structure constant

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

You can add this to the quest. One arithmetic approximation is here. I "solved" this by change in 2016. It can be derived by meddled / extended Relativity Equations like this, note though that we don't specify what c is here (if you use like Wolfram Alpha i.e.): We can have E=(sqrt((2*c)+sqrt(1/(2*c))*(2*c)**2))=1/0.0144 then c ≈ 137.252. This is only FYI, I do not know what if anything, anyone should do about this, if it works..Note that the rationale for saying it's derived from gravity potential, is because a nuclear blast is gravity flowing or blasting in an outwards direction, from the epicenter.

It can also be noted that 1/144 here is what the crank / original researchers believed was a "gravity reciprocal" of the speed of light, that is in some measurement. It means that gravity value is the inverse of the speed of light here (1/x). This measurement was according to the book I was looking at the original research, called geodesic grid miles per grid second, so that they found light speed was like 144.000.000 geodesic grid miles per grid second. The author goes at great length to show how normal speed of light is converted to this measure.

I can add some more details, but please understand that even though I have managed to calculate this..this way, I have again little idea about any implications for this in physics (but someone else than me probably, who can see it for what it is or isn't, likely can) other than the obvious that if we can use this meddled or mangled (extended) relativity equation above, that the fine structure constant we can get from that equation involves and has a direct relationship 1/144 the gravity reciprocal of speed of light, the alpha is directly related to gravity or maybe one gravity potential, if that is a term. The original or crank researcher has his Wikipedia page (Bruce Cathie). Christmas1980 (talk) 02:33, 12 August 2023 (UTC)