On Wednesday, January 9, 2019 at 4:01:46 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 7:53 AM John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 1:58 PM Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com >> <javascript:>> wrote: >> >> >> Is the Fine Structure Constant a rational number? Is it a algebraic >>>> number? Is it a transcendental number? Nobody knows. >>> >>> >>> >>> *> Is it computable at least?* >> >> >> Because the Fine Structure Constant has a physical and not a >> mathematical definition my intuition tells me it must be computable; and >> indeed we've already computed a very good approximation of it and there is >> no reason to think we couldn't do even better if we had faster computers >> that could sum up more of those Feynman diagrams. >> > > Rubbish. The fine structure constant is not computable by Feynman > diagrams. What might be confusing you is that QED calculations of > physically measurable things like the Lamb Shift and g-2 for the electron > depend on the value of the FSC. Comparing the calculations with experiment > gives an accurate value for the FSC. the fine structure constant itself is > an arbitrary constant of nature, and not directly callable. > > Bruce >

Huh? The QED industry of computing Feynman diagrams is to find more accurate charge renormalization. That in turn is what computes a more accurate fine structure constant. LC -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.